Agreed. That's why I hated Napoleon Dynamite. When the credits appeared on screen at the end I got angry: why the fuck didn't the movie ever start, before it finished? Fuck that movie it was stupid.
That doesn't make sense because Slashdot doesn't have ads. I've never seen any, at least.
I don't really get how those two things are related. Can you expound a little more?
"I stated that it's not subject to interpretation. All searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. Yes, there are some exceptions, such as searching a suspect upon arrest, and current law has made it clear what those exceptions are and that they are accepted by the populace."
Okay, so *not* all searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. At least we agree on that although somehow you managed to state the opposite. Hence, in the exceptions, is the interpretation of "reasonable" (shown), and let us also acknowledge that current law has made it clear that this is a lawful search.
Yes, I agree with you, that law is ridiculous and this is obviously unconstitutional in my opinion. Yay! I have an opinion! Well, fuck me, because all three branches of the government disagree with me, and so do a majority of the voters. Oh well, that's democracy!
The amount of works covered in your hypothetical situation is infinitesimal compared to the amount of works lost to history because of long copyright. I accept the theory behind what you said but I just can't imagine that argument carrying the question.
I would like copyright to extend for about "one generation". The Beatles can make their money selling stuff to their generation, and after that then future generations get the works of human history in the public domain. There is no obvious exact definition for the length of one generation, so I set it at about 25 years.
Five, ten, twenty, twenty five years -- whatever. But this unlimited-time/hundreds-of-years bullshit is obvious nonsense and no good person needs to be bothered by those laws.
Wait, it is news to you that disbelief in climate change is endemic to the Republican party? and also skepticism of science in general? No, seriously, you need us to tell you about that? Have you really never heard of those themes, even though you are a member of the party? That seems hard to believe.
Srsly there are the Log Cabin Republicans after all.
It's not a straw man to say that Republicans object to using the might of government to protect children by adequately funding and directing child protective services, child nutrition, and education.
Your insightful comment is probably a little too subtle for a Republican to understand.
There is a large and deep history of jurisprudence on the meaning of the word 'unreasonable' in that amendment. If a search is not unreasonable, then the rest of the amendment does not prohibit it; no warrant would be needed. That is what I said and I can't quite tell if you responded to that, or if you responded to something else, but your words don't seem to be a reply to my words.
It's weird for you to say that the word 'unreasonable' is inoperative. If it didn't modify the sentence, then why would the founders put it in there? of course it's there to be interpreted.
I am certainly not defending this program as Constitutional. In my opinion, it is not. Nevertheless Congress can go beyond Constitutional requirements and have a (secret, unaccountable) court review programs when that is not strictly Constitutionally required. That is one way to interpret the program which would not violate the Constitution, and we already know (sadly) that it doesn't violate federal statutes.
In the end, your opinion and mine don't matter very much. If the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government approve of this program, as do a majority of American voters, then sure I'll get all pissy about it and try to change an opinion or two if I can, but if I believe in Democracy then eventually I have to let the country proceed when I'm in the minority.
Usually the decision hinges on 'unreasonable'. Read it carefully: a reasonable search or seizure needs no warrant at all, much less one based on probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation, nor one particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Agreed. I switched to Feedly a few hours after Google told me they didn't want me to get news from them anymore. I think it's pretty good. The thing I miss from GR is using 'n' and 'p' to read the next and previous news stories. Feedly's documentation swears that it supports keyboard shortcuts, but it doesn't work for me on any of my machines. The layout is usually pretty nice. I'd like more features, but the basic implementation is a satisfactory replacement for Reader.