|P is for Practical|
Re^4: The Web is Set Up All Wrongby InfiniteSilence (Curate)
|on Apr 21, 2011 at 19:38 UTC||Need Help??|
"..."reality" is in the eye of the beholder..."
Hahaha. Go stand in front of a bus and tell me how long that theory holds up.
"...I know it when I see it..."
People often misunderstand this quote and misuse it which is the main reason for my response. The judicial system oftentimes eludes to its own function, use, and purpose in its rulings. In the quote you cite from a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justice was simply eluding to the Court's function -- to resolve questions of morality, etc. as they apply to statuatory and case law presented to them. You see, what was once lewd and disgusting in the year 1900 (case law dates back further than this) could actually be written into the laws by local governments as exactly that, 'behavior unspeakable by moral gentlemen.' There are cases with exactly that kind of wording. Over time as people became more sophisticated and wordly these standards weakened and rulings followed suit. What the judge was saying could be better interpreted like this: 'in cases that come before this court we will decide, according to relevant Constitutional law, case law, jurisprudence, and international legal standards, what is or is not to be considered lewd in the United States of America and lands which it governs.'
Most people are very ignorant of the law's workings. They foolishly think that judges just sit up there and make pronouncements. In fact, there is a large body of case law and legal theory going on before and after a ruling. It is very doubtful that the justice you mention 'threw up his hands,' as you say. It was more like took a deep look at existing case law, considered the overall effects of a ruling (the jurisprudence part), and considered the U.S. Constitution (cases brought before the highest court must have some relevance to this beloved document to be heard) before ruling thus. There's always the court system to handle variances in the future, so a ruling like this makes complete sense if you understand how the courts make rulings and review legal standards.
But your point helps make my point -- unless there is a way to differentiate the main content of a web page from irrelevant, but included, advertisements we can get search results that foolishly return them as one and the same. In newspapers the word 'advertisement' is provided at the top of a look-alike news story for convenience. In television, radio, and other mediums there is something that tells us we are about to hear a commercial. I reject the idea that the search engine cannot do something similar. They can immediately raise the search engine ranking of any site that adheres to a policy that differentiates the two, in which case SEO consultants and developers will scamper to conform. The question is how to convince the search engines to do such a thing? My guess is by providing them with things that they want -- things that will improve their ability to identify and provide information to others. Something like new protocols and tools...
Celebrate Intellectual Diversity