If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   One U.S. Supreme Court justice referred to Netflix as "Netflick." Another seemed not to know that HBO is a cable channel. A third appeared to think most software coding could be tossed off in a mere weekend   (businessinsider.com) divider line 189
    More: Stupid, Supreme Court, Netflix, supreme court justices, HBO, cable channel, programming, Aereo, friend of the courts  
•       •       •

12166 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2014 at 4:14 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-14 12:14:45 AM
i59.tinypic.com
 
2014-05-14 12:15:02 AM
fta If all else fails, they can turn to their twentysomething law clerks.

img.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-14 12:20:20 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Well ... crap.
 
2014-05-14 12:25:57 AM
Meanwhile, back at the series of tubes known as the internet.
 
2014-05-14 12:26:36 AM
I just assume our programmers toss off over the weekend.
 
2014-05-14 12:53:16 AM
Not really surprising they wouldn't understand technology

/hell, the Constitution is hand-written and they have trouble with that, too
 
2014-05-14 01:11:46 AM
Because the role of the Supreme Court is to keep up with contemporary anything.

I bet they don't even know who won best supporting actress in the last Academy Awards

WTF is wrong with you people?
 
2014-05-14 01:21:00 AM
Yeah...old people suck, but somehow we keep electing them or people that appoint them to positions of importance.
 
2014-05-14 01:22:42 AM
Most of the code I'm given could be tossed off in a weekend in Kolkata, and often is.
 
2014-05-14 01:55:45 AM
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was ranked number one, because she appeared to be familiar with such products as Roku Inc's streaming video device and services that store files on the Internet, such as Apple Inc's iCloud - although she was also the justice responsible for the "Netflick" comment.

Ranked last, Justice Antonin Scalia was faulted for the HBO remark. Justice Breyer was somewhere in the middle. He was seen as being out of touch for making several references to "phonograph records."

These are not dumb people. They just arent used to our generational gizmos. AKA, they are old, so they dont know about new things
 
2014-05-14 02:23:42 AM
I'm surprised Scalia didn't mention Victrola.
 
2014-05-14 02:31:48 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-14 02:55:11 AM
It could be worse. It has been worse, see, e.g. "Time-shifting."
 
2014-05-14 03:17:23 AM

Nabb1: It could be worse. It has been worse, see, e.g. "Time-shifting."


Time-shiatting?
 
2014-05-14 04:21:00 AM
Oh, FLICK it!

cdn-www.cracked.com
 
2014-05-14 04:22:32 AM
The same Supreme Court that recently ruled that the separation of church and state explicitly mandated by the Constitution can be freely ignored by state and local governments? And you people are somehow surprised that they are dead wrong about other major issues in the law?
 
2014-05-14 04:23:11 AM
Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.
 
2014-05-14 04:27:05 AM

cman: Justice Sonia Sotomayor was ranked number one, because she appeared to be familiar with such products as Roku Inc's streaming video device and services that store files on the Internet, such as Apple Inc's iCloud - although she was also the justice responsible for the "Netflick" comment.


Or maybe Sotomayor is just an Arrested Development fan.
 
2014-05-14 04:28:58 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Because the role of the Supreme Court is to keep up with contemporary anything.

I bet they don't even know who won best supporting actress in the last Academy Awards

WTF is wrong with you people?


antimensch.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-05-14 04:36:04 AM
I agree the justices can be out of touch with the times.  However, the law in this area extends back centuries.  If it is a question of net neutrality and common carrier, I think they can do a pretty good job.  Copyright law... that's a strange beast.  It is completely open (IMO) to interpretation because the laws written for it are trying to be vague enough to allow common "good" use while prohibiting "bad" use by trying balancing private performance with copyright holder rights.
 
2014-05-14 04:41:27 AM

Notabunny: fta If all else fails, they can turn to their twentysomething law clerks.

[img.photobucket.com image 450x544]


Twentysomething law clerks who are almost certainly liberal arts majors who can barely do basic math much less understand technology. Law school was the first time in my life when I didn't feel like I had to outgeek everybody in the room in order to be taken seriously as a female geek, and it's because other than the people on the patent law track, nobody knows technology and they all know it.
 
2014-05-14 04:44:24 AM
And Rick Romero is reporting that the people who make laws in our country are out of touch with the common people of the country....
 
2014-05-14 04:45:53 AM

Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.


Pornography jokes aside, Thomas is actually at least somewhat up on technology. When he was at my law school he talked about how much more convenient it was that he didn't have to drag stacks of briefs home with him anymore because it's all on his Kindle. Now, I'm sure someone else probably sends everything to the kindle, but at least it shows some awareness of technology beyond paper and fax machines.
 
2014-05-14 04:49:07 AM

cman: Justice Sonia Sotomayor was ranked number one, because she appeared to be familiar with such products as Roku Inc's streaming video device and services that store files on the Internet, such as Apple Inc's iButt - although she was also the justice responsible for the "Netflick" comment.

Ranked last, Justice Antonin Scalia was faulted for the HBO remark. Justice Breyer was somewhere in the middle. He was seen as being out of touch for making several references to "phonograph records."

These are not dumb people. They just arent used to our generational gizmos. AKA, they are old, so they dont know about new things


The Cloud-to-Butt plugin often yields odd results.
 
2014-05-14 04:52:19 AM

SpdrJay: And Rick Romero is reporting that the people who make laws in our country are out of touch with the common people of the country....


Common people and their internetwork carry viruses like the AIDS and are not to be touched.
 
2014-05-14 05:04:58 AM
Trouble is, in fifty years the people complaining about how out of touch today's justices are will be sitting on the Supreme Court and ignoring the exact same complaints from the kids then.
 
2014-05-14 05:11:17 AM
My brother uses "Netflick" as a verb.
HIM: That movie was great. You should totally Netflick it.
ME: You mean, "Watch it on Netflix"? Was that too hard to say?

/makes me punch-y
 
2014-05-14 05:12:54 AM

rynthetyn: Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.

Pornography jokes aside, Thomas is actually at least somewhat up on technology. When he was at my law school he talked about how much more convenient it was that he didn't have to drag stacks of briefs home with him anymore because it's all on his Kindle. Now, I'm sure someone else probably sends everything to the kindle, but at least it shows some awareness of technology beyond paper and fax machines.


So that makes him tech savvy?
 
2014-05-14 05:27:35 AM

Hilary T. N. Seuss: My brother uses "Netflick" as a verb.
HIM: That movie was great. You should totally Netflick it.
ME: You mean, "Watch it on Netflix"? Was that too hard to say?

/makes me punch-y


Probably because it's too hard to conjugate a verb ending in "ix" - "Jack doesn't buy DVDs, he Netflixes everything" sounds weird, whereas "... he Netflicks everything" sounds right...

/still wrong, though.
 
2014-05-14 05:28:45 AM
I love how it seems that in most cases, those with the most power over our everyday lives seem the least knowledgeable about them.
/and so it goes.
 
2014-05-14 05:40:47 AM

gfid: rynthetyn: Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.

Pornography jokes aside, Thomas is actually at least somewhat up on technology. When he was at my law school he talked about how much more convenient it was that he didn't have to drag stacks of briefs home with him anymore because it's all on his Kindle. Now, I'm sure someone else probably sends everything to the kindle, but at least it shows some awareness of technology beyond paper and fax machines.

So that makes him tech savvy?


Don't be stupid.  He's saying that Justice Thomas is not so much a cave man and more of a roman soldier when it comes to technology.  He just mounts his trusted steed shirtless, rallying his follow justices to battle with call of his mighty horn.   With his short white fuzzy hair glimmering in the sunlight, he marches his men, shirtless and sweaty, into the courtroom to rage a mighty battle.  With each swing of his mighty pen, he slays every opposing lawyer that stands before him and baths in their blood.  Once the battle is over, mighty Thomas stands over the corpses of his now decapitated enemies and releases a mighty roar across all the courtrooms of the land.  Afterwords, his once again mounts his mighty steed and gathers what remains of his justices.  Now covered in sweat and the blood of his enemies, they march off home knowing that tomorrow will bring another battle and another chance to bring justice to this fallen world.  Look, long story short, they man can use basic modern technology but doesn't grasp the coding/setup side of the thing.  That's all he's saying.
 
2014-05-14 05:45:58 AM

5 star chef of tv dinners: He's saying that Justice Thomas is not so much a cave man and more of a roman soldier when it comes to technology.


ts3.mm.bing.net

"That's righ... Wait, what?"

ts2.explicit.bing.net

"Oh dude, not cool."
 
2014-05-14 05:51:36 AM
FTA:
In another closely watched case, over whether police should be able to search smartphones without warrants, Chief Justice John Roberts alarmed privacy advocates when he sharply questioned a lawyer about her assumption that many people carry more than one cellphone.
"What is your authority for the statement that many people have multiple cellphones on their person?" he asked Judith Mizner, a public defender arguing on behalf of a criminal defendant.
"That was definitely an odd moment," said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington Law School.


I know it is a selected part of a larger oral argument, but I don't see anything "odd" about asking for a source for the data.  I carry two phones, one for work and my personal phone because I don't want to cross the streams. But anecdotes aren't data.

What's more important is to get the court to understand that we don't carry phones, we carry compact, fairly powerful computers and a LOT of our personal, private information is kept and accessed with them, and that they have become the equivalent of "papers" envisioned by the framers in the Fourth Amendment.
 
2014-05-14 05:53:32 AM

jaylectricity: Yeah...old people suck, but somehow we keep electing them or people that appoint them to positions of importance.


Apparently you suck worse, or at least more vigorously
 
mjl
2014-05-14 06:09:41 AM

AcademGreen: I agree the justices can be out of touch with the times.  However, the law in this area extends back centuries.  If it is a question of net neutrality and common carrier, I think they can do a pretty good job.  Copyright law... that's a strange beast.  It is completely open (IMO) to interpretation because the laws written for it are trying to be vague enough to allow common "good" use while prohibiting "bad" use by trying balancing private performance with copyright holder rights.


This is sometimes/often the reason that Judges will ask 'stupid' questions when the know the answer. In 200 years time terms like Net neutrality and Common carrier may be totally obscure or have changed their meaning entirtly (and several times over) by asking the dumb question the definition is entered into the court record and the legal meaning is preserved for prosteraty.
 
2014-05-14 06:21:18 AM

Hilary T. N. Seuss: My brother uses "Netflick" as a verb.
HIM: That movie was great. You should totally Netflick it.
ME: You mean, "Watch it on Netflix"? Was that too hard to say?

/makes me punch-y


It's probably something everybody in his age group says and you are just hopelessly old.
 
2014-05-14 06:24:02 AM

Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.


Explain to Thomas anything? Why waste your time. He won't ask any questions during arguements and since he acts like Scalia's lapdog, Thomas will agree with whatever Scalia decides.
 
2014-05-14 06:31:59 AM
I guess , and this is just an idea, that maybe the attorneys presenting cases could explain some of this technology to those that are not 'in the know'.
This is not just an old person problem.
 
2014-05-14 06:56:42 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: I guess , and this is just an idea, that maybe the attorneys presenting cases could explain some of this technology to those that are not 'in the know'.
This is not just an old person problem.


Well, I still think those young whippersnappers ought to be put in their place!

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-14 06:58:36 AM
TFA: Justice Breyer was somewhere in the middle. He was seen as being out of touch for making several references to "phonograph records."

I'm going to give him a pass on this one. In copyright law, "phonorecord" is the term for any reproduction of a sound recording regardless of format; a wax cylinder, a cassette, and a FLAC file are all phonorecords. And Breyer's pretty good on copyright (he's the justice most concerned about orphan works, for example), so if he's falling back on the technical terminology of Title 17, I don't really mind.
 
2014-05-14 07:00:14 AM

skinink: Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.

Explain to Thomas anything? Why waste your time. He won't ask any questions during arguements and since he acts like Scalia's lapdog, Thomas will agree with whatever Scalia decides.


You know, Thomas actually votes before Scalia, so it could be argued that Scalia is Thomas' lapdog.
 
2014-05-14 07:10:23 AM
To those who relieve the SCOTUS of having to understand 'technology' because it isn't their job.

IT IS THEIR JOB. It is their job to understand what they are voting on and its relation to the law.

I'm 41 and if you could just forgive me and allow me to not be up on what *I* do for a living, I'd be fired. Noting that I work in VoIP, which some would argue is cutting edge technology. When will I be too old to have to keep up with this line of work?

It is their job to understand what they are voting on and its relation to the law. They need to be doing their farking homework, ya'll.
 
2014-05-14 07:13:49 AM

Unobtanium: FTA:
In another closely watched case, over whether police should be able to search smartphones without warrants, Chief Justice John Roberts alarmed privacy advocates when he sharply questioned a lawyer about her assumption that many people carry more than one cellphone.
"What is your authority for the statement that many people have multiple cellphones on their person?" he asked Judith Mizner, a public defender arguing on behalf of a criminal defendant.
"That was definitely an odd moment," said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington Law School.

I know it is a selected part of a larger oral argument, but I don't see anything "odd" about asking for a source for the data.  I carry two phones, one for work and my personal phone because I don't want to cross the streams. But anecdotes aren't data.

What's more important is to get the court to understand that we don't carry phones, we carry compact, fairly powerful computers and a LOT of our personal, private information is kept and accessed with them, and that they have become the equivalent of "papers" envisioned by the framers in the Fourth Amendment.


I had the same reaction. Most of my company that have smart phones carry only one. The alternative is to lug around a black berry too. No one wants a blackberry.
 
2014-05-14 07:20:29 AM
My grandfather, at 80, is more tech savvy than some of my late-20s friends. He even installed Ubuntu on his netbook all by himself. And there's your anomaly.
 
2014-05-14 07:36:13 AM

cman: Justice Sonia Sotomayor was ranked number one, because she appeared to be familiar with such products as Roku Inc's streaming video device and services that store files on the Internet, such as Apple Inc's iCloud - although she was also the justice responsible for the "Netflick" comment.

Ranked last, Justice Antonin Scalia was faulted for the HBO remark. Justice Breyer was somewhere in the middle. He was seen as being out of touch for making several references to "phonograph records."

These are not dumb people. They just arent used to our generational gizmos. AKA, they are old, so they dont know about new things


I construe this ignorance as a problem only when they are expected to make rulings based on that position of ignorance.
 
2014-05-14 07:45:08 AM

HotWingAgenda: The same Supreme Court that recently ruled that the separation of church and state explicitly mandated by the Constitution can be freely ignored by state and local governments? And you people are somehow surprised that they are dead wrong about other major issues in the law?


You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
 
2014-05-14 07:45:56 AM

BeesNuts: cman: Justice Sonia Sotomayor was ranked number one, because she appeared to be familiar with such products as Roku Inc's streaming video device and services that store files on the Internet, such as Apple Inc's iCloud - although she was also the justice responsible for the "Netflick" comment.

Ranked last, Justice Antonin Scalia was faulted for the HBO remark. Justice Breyer was somewhere in the middle. He was seen as being out of touch for making several references to "phonograph records."

These are not dumb people. They just arent used to our generational gizmos. AKA, they are old, so they dont know about new things

I construe this ignorance as a problem only when they are expected to make rulings based on that position of ignorance.


They'll have a mountain of resources to review in the briefs, particularly the amicus briefs on both sides from various groups in the tech industry and consumer advocates. Oral argument is a bit of a song and dance routine, and the questions may just be an attempt to get a lawyer to elaborate on some issue that was raised in the briefs. As for Roberts and the issue of people carrying more than one cell phone, that could have been as much auld chastising of an attorney improperly arguing something that was not in evidence and therefore not part of the record as a challenge to the substance of the assertion.
 
2014-05-14 07:51:02 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Because the role of the Supreme Court is to keep up with contemporary anything.

I bet they don't even know who won best supporting actress in the last Academy Awards

WTF is wrong with you people?


For those who slept through their high school civics class, the judiciary's role is to "interpret" the law.  In other words, they examine decades- or centuries-old law and precedent to determine how it applies to the situation at hand.  (That's not to say that the branches actually adhere to their roles these days... the Executive does just as much legislating as executing, and the Legislative is a bunch of whiners who don't do anything unless it fattens their own wallets.)

So yeah, if for some reason they had to make a ruling regarding the Academy Awards, I don't think it's too much to ask that they do some research to gain at least a basic understanding of the core concepts and history, perhaps including recent winners.
 
2014-05-14 07:51:30 AM

skinink: Snapper Carr: Just explain to Justice Thomas how one can use these various technologies to access pornography - 1 down, 8 to go.

Explain to Thomas anything? Why waste your time. He won't ask any questions during arguements and since he acts like Scalia's lapdog, Thomas will agree with whatever Scalia decides.


You do realize that on a very recent 5-4 decision, Thomas wrote for the majority and Scalia wrote the dissent? They agree fairly often because they have similar ideologies, but there are areas of stark disagreement, too. But don't let facts get in the way of your racism.
 
2014-05-14 07:51:51 AM

IwasKloot: My grandfather, at 80, is more tech savvy than some of my late-20s friends. He even installed Ubuntu on his netbook all by himself. And there's your anomaly.


Given Ubuntu's over a decade old and it's really a variant of a tool from the '90s from an end-user perspective that hasn't been changed that much, I don't know that it makes him all  that cutting-edge.

I mean, I can replace a transmission and use a slide-rule, but that doesn't mean that I'd exactly be a shoo-in for a job as a modern auto engineer.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report