Parliament is currently being entangled in the sponsorship scandal, and it is very well possible that the opposition parties will force a general election on the minority government as more dirt is uncovered.
Your "Black's law" dictionnary is only a subset of the english language which is only useful in the purpose of courtroom deliberations. Slashdot not being a courtroom, I would venture to say that it is woefully irrelevant here.
You will also find that other English language dictionaries don't make much of a big deal between "right" and "privilege". I'm happy to not talk about Black's law definitions on Slashdot, however, 'driving is a privilege, not a right" is a legal argument, and, being that you brought it up as the first line of your reply implies that it was terribly important. (It actually isn't. But you insisted on making it.)
Indeed it is important, implying that there is a hierarchy in what one can do, that is, some things (rights) have far more legal protection than others (privileges).
Personally, I find the right/privilege distinction a proper means of distinguishing the two; I just was not aware that it was not that clear-cut. A bit like "freedom" (what one gives you) and "liberty" (what you allways have) which, in my language (perhaps you might have suspected that I am not anglo-saxon), are designated by the same word...
I believe your Black is only relevant in the US
It's a book of definition used and based on anglo-saxon common law. It will have commonalities in all the common law countries.
Which is thankfully not in use throughout the world. And legal types have the unfortunate tendency to use nonstandard language. Perhaps it makes sense, but when it serves to entrap "ordinary" people, it is simply not acceptable.
But what you're doing is laywery pussyfooting, and anglo-saxon law was not ever intended to further the cause of humanity, but rather to protect and allow private despotism. Such arrogance is frowned upon in most of the world.
I disagree. However, that's basically a political discussion. Does your response here imply that you think I'm incorrect in what I said, or you just don't like what I said? With regards to rest of the world, I don't disagree that there are different values.
If it's for the Ohio example, I think it's too narrow an example. But at least, you acknowledge that there are different values in the world. This is good; if only most americans were like you, the would would be a better place. And yes, I seem to disagree with what I feel of the general philosophy that seeps through your comments...
However, I don't hear people in civil law countries arguing about what is a right or a privilege. It's an even smaller difference in a civil law country because civil law is built on the premise that the state grants rights...which is not an assumption of the common law system. If you desire to talk about civil law countries, that's fine, but we were talking about a proposal in Texas.
I would venture to say that with civil law, people will expect that privileges can be revoked, which is good, for they will not assume that they can pretend whatever they want and get away with it...
What would be the common-law legal logic behind a driver's license?
As a citizen, I have the expectation that the State will do the utmost to insure my safety whenever I go out of my house.
But to what point? To the ad absurdum point of locking you permanently in a padded cell?
To the point that I can walk on the sidewalk without fearing death by mishandled private property operated on public thoroughfares. Which is reasonable enough, I believe (and this has been the whole point of my argumentation).
In France, the police will revoke your license on the spot for
Right. Just like breathing air is a privelage. What most people don't realize is that it was MADE a privelage to control the population. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, with so many people doing what they want it would be anarchy.
Not to control the population, but to protect it against irresponsible stupid reckless drivers. Why do regulations and laws occur? To curb abuse. When driving cars became an abuse of public safety, steps were enacted to make sure the public good would not be jeoparized by those few people with automobiles. First, by enacting rules of the road, and then, when seeing that this alone was not sufficient, ensuring that people actually *KNEW* about those rules of the road.
Even then, it is not sufficient, as the large number of innocent people killed daily on roads attest, hence the necessity of automatic enforcement of the rules. Thankfully, technology allows this to happen, so it should be enacted so the State can fulfil it's obligation of protecting the life of the citizens.
Unfortunately i'm still looking for that private island where i can pee anywhere i want, chop any tree down and shoot as many animals as i please. Well so much for the freedom of existance.
But, again, if you relish a caveman lifestyle, you're 200,000 years too late.
All the big ISPs have been after spammers for quite a while now.
Absolutely not. UUNET, the LARGEST ISP is a spamhaus and is considered a cesspool in anti-spamming circles and it is therefore thoroughly blacklisted by many antispam blacklists.
This statement is more or less meaningless. Black's law dictionary's definition for "privilege" is "right." The US Supreme Court did indeed have a case where this question was asked, and they didn't exactly say there was a difference, only that the difference was irrelevant. (Can't find case right now.)
Your "Black's law" dictionnary is only a subset of the english language which is only useful in the purpose of courtroom deliberations. Slashdot not being a courtroom, I would venture to say that it is woefully irrelevant here. And, I believe your Black is only relevant in the US, whereas Slashdot reaches much further than that (even though, on a clear day, when I climb on the top of the building next door I can see the USA, US law does not reach me so I can, in total and absolute impunity, host illegal stuff (in the US) on my web server (follow the link above).
I did historical research on this...the Ohio driving license was created in 1936. Remember, that's quite some time into the automotive revolution...millions of Ohioans had driven without licenses till that point. To them, it was plainly obvious that driving was a right--all they had to do was meet certain criteria (age, physical characteristics, et cetera) and get into a car and go. The driving license did not change that...it only served as a mechanism for tracking violations. The word "privilege" did not appear in Ohio law, with regards to driving, until the late 1950s. I have hypothesized that motor vehicle safety proponents, in order to convince the public to accept auto safety laws, reinvented the concept of the driving license as a permission based concept (as opposed to one of contract and registration) and in doing so, invented a connotation for the word "privilege" which did not previously exist. "Privilege" is a word of power...you will note that a company will say things like "we retain the right to X" and never "we retain the privilege to X." (Regardless if they truly have that "right" or not.)
This is because rights are inherent, and privileges are granted. The businessman, in his own arrogance, believes he has the right to do whatever is necessary to fetch the juiciest profit, so for him, he naturally has the "right" to do all he does, until a court puts him back in his place.
But what you're doing is laywery pussyfooting, and anglo-saxon law was not ever intended to further the cause of humanity, but rather to protect and allow private despotism. Such arrogance is frowned upon in most of the world.
Clearly a driving license is not a pure "privilege"--the state could not restrict licenses to people of a certain race, for instance, as that would interfere with quite a lot of established rights. (I think that's the thinking the Supreme Court was going with when they argued that there difference is irrelevant.)
The State does indeed restrict licenses from certain races, namely the race of stupid, dangerous drivers.:)
In order to promote the public welfare, the State has the RIGHT to grant and revoke the privilege of driving a car on public roads, and being a privilege, the procedure for revocation should not be as stringent as the procedure to revoke a right (since you like legal analogies, it's like the not-so-stringent preponderance of evidence of a civil trial -vs- the absence of a reasonable doubt of a criminal trial).
As a citizen, I have the expectation that the State will do the utmost to insure my safety whenever I go out of my house.
In France, the police will revoke your license on the spot for reckless driving, which includes running a red light. Yet, despite that, France is **THE** beacon of human rights.
I like to say that the state has the ability to dictate reasonable restricti
While there isn't such a thing as a right to drive, there are property rights. You have the right to use your own property in what ever way you want to. This includes driving your car. Also since roads are public property, they belong to the public and as such the public have the right to use them. Of course you don't have the right to hurt people or put them in danger, even if you are using your own property.
Property rights means "the guy who owns the land makes the rules how his land is to be used". When you drive your property onto **PUBLIC ROADS** the public authority has the right and the duty to make rules on how you drive your junkheap on wheels.
So, if you can't read between the lines, it means "NO, DOMEHEAD, YOU CAN'T USE THAT THING THE WAY YOU WANT IT WHILE YOU'RE ON MY PROPERTY".
Why does using public roads mean you have no privacy?
Because they are (drum roll) PUBLIC!!!
You pay for the roads, why does them being public mean your rights don't apply anymore? If you are in a courthouse, can some of your rights be ignored because you are on public property?
What rights are being ignored? Your privacy rights? YOU CAN'T HAVE PRIVACY WHILE IN PUBLIC!!! So, people will expect that, while in public, you behave properly, which means that you don't run red lights, fuck your mother or give a blowjob to your boyfriend.
Speeding isn't bad. It is a collision that is dangerous.
Speeding make collisions more likely and dangerous. Human reaction time means that less time will be available to avoid a collision, and energy being proportional to the square of the speed means that more energy will be available to wreak havoc during a collision.
So, yes, speeding is *** DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD *** because it makes more damage.
No one has ever died from speeding; it is just hitting things with a car that kills. While speeding can be dangerous, it isn't always. There are times it is perfectly safe to speed, yet the police seem to think it is the perfect time to pull you over. If you think the police don't like giving out speeding tickets, you have never driven though Racine, WI (especially with Illinois plates). It is a bad idea to give up privacy rights in exchange for pulling over a few more of those evil speeders.
So? The police are just darwinizing-out stupid drivers.
It is pretty unethical for the government to force control over someone else's property.
It's perfectly reasonable and legal and should be expected.
License plates, this RFID thing, and black boxes are a complete violation of property rights.
"Property rights" means that you cannot be deprived of it, nor of it's enjoyment.
You wouldn't like it if you neighbor went around putting bumper stickers on your vehicles. In fact you could probably have him arrested if he did that.
This is vandalism, and as such, it is a **TOTAL** violation of property rights.
However when the government does it we seem to look away.
You mean "licence plates"? The government can very well decide what to expect of people who are using **HIS** property, say, public roads.
You run a swanky restaurant or a bar, and you have every right to force patrons to wear a coat and tie, just as the government has the right to say that you have to be licensed to drive on it's roads.
Now, go to bed, you're just a little pup troll who's way pas his bed-wetting time.
(Reposted, account being moderated as "flamebait". Moderators, take notice: there is much more karma than mod points. If you use them unwisely, it's like if you never had any in the first place).
* Driving, per say, isn't a right; however, freedom to travel without producing papers is.
Operating a motorcar is a licensed activity, so the authorities have every right and expectation that you produce your license in order to prove that you are qualified to operate the motor vehicle.
Read up on the actual law for a "driver's license"...it's not as bad as the conspiracy nuts make it out to be, but it's not what you think it is either. Much like the "opt-out Social Security System" that seems to be pretty darn mandatory.
Read above.
* Driving on public roads doesn't automagically negate your rights...especially when "We the People" are "The Public" and paid for those roads.
"You the people" have elected governments that mandated that everyone that operates a motor vehicle on a paid-for public road needs to be properly qualified, and the qualification is proved upon the production of a driver's licence.
* We apparently have different definitions of "public safety". Preserving such safety does not warranty *ANY ONE* to violate said rights. Hence, the cops not being able to roust you on the road just because you're on it ("Sir, we pulled you over because we don't like your face."). Personally, I'm all for such things as "Kill someone while DUI, get a bullet on the spot", but I'm a capricious bastard that way.
This is a question of police abusing their authority. It need not be done with a motor car present so it is irrelevent to the current conversation.
* Rules of the road are implemented as any other civil rule of law: by whomever is in power at the time for whatever gain they may get from it (including, but not limited to, personal sexual gratification from knowing they can make others do what they want.) We had 55MPH held over from the '70s to appease the MADD loonies instead of something based on actual science and current socio-political circumstances.
The 55 mile per hour limit was based on the actual verifiable science that cars will not guzzle as much gas whilst doing 55 as they do whilst going at 70. And in an age of decreasing oil reserves, this is more than a reasonable proposition. It is only the power-mad loonies who want to sell more oil and the jerks who like to hurl 3 tons of scrap wrapped around them at 70 miles per hour to compensate for erectile dysfunction that have decided otherwise.
* Some police find it a demeaning task; others fall into the above catagory of power-trippers.
Stupid drivers need to be put back in their place.
* So basically you'll be all for writing automatic tickets when you pass a given 1/4 mile stretch randomly chosen by the state? No appeal, no ability to explain that you were going 8MPH over the posted limit to get around a dangerous driver?
That's what the camera is for. If you don't drive like an asshole, what are you worrying about?
These days Big Brother gets just as much of a whacking as Nazis, but it really does push to a very scary future, don't you think?
What is scary is going out and being flattened by a jerk who's chatting on his cellphone.
* Under no legal standard that I'm aware of is anyone required to be a mobile snitch for the law.
Yes, by law, airlines are required to fit event recorders in aircraft. And you could very well be required to have a snitch in your car. And there is fuck-all you can do about it.
For other victims of American Education who didn't bother to get better informed later: our system of law is *POSTSCRIPTIVE* not *PRESCRIPTIVE*."Innocent until proven guilty" means "do whatever you like, but if we catch you, your ass is grass".
* Driving, per say, isn't a right; however, freedom to travel without producing papers is.
Operating a motorcar is a licensed activity, so the authorities have every right and expectation that you produce your license in order to prove that you are qualified to operate the motor vehicle.
Read up on the actual law for a "driver's license"...it's not as bad as the conspiracy nuts make it out to be, but it's not what you think it is either. Much like the "opt-out Social Security System" that seems to be pretty darn mandatory.
Read above.
* Driving on public roads doesn't automagically negate your rights...especially when "We the People" are "The Public" and paid for those roads.
"You the people" have elected governments that mandated that everyone that operates a motor vehicle on a paid-for public road needs to be properly qualified, and the qualification is proved upon the production of a driver's licence.
* We apparently have different definitions of "public safety". Preserving such safety does not warranty *ANY ONE* to violate said rights. Hence, the cops not being able to roust you on the road just because you're on it ("Sir, we pulled you over because we don't like your face."). Personally, I'm all for such things as "Kill someone while DUI, get a bullet on the spot", but I'm a capricious bastard that way.
This is a question of police abusing their authority. It need not be done with a motor car present so it is irrelevent to the current conversation.
* Rules of the road are implemented as any other civil rule of law: by whomever is in power at the time for whatever gain they may get from it (including, but not limited to, personal sexual gratification from knowing they can make others do what they want.) We had 55MPH held over from the '70s to appease the MADD loonies instead of something based on actual science and current socio-political circumstances.
The 55 mile per hour limit was based on the actual verifiable science that cars will not guzzle as much gas whilst doing 55 as they do whilst going at 70. And in an age of decreasing oil reserves, this is more than a reasonable proposition. It is only the power-mad loonies who want to sell more oil and the jerks who like to hurl 3 tons of scrap wrapped around them at 70 miles per hour to compensate for erectile dysfunction that have decided otherwise.
* Some police find it a demeaning task; others fall into the above catagory of power-trippers.
Stupid drivers need to be put back in their place.
* So basically you'll be all for writing automatic tickets when you pass a given 1/4 mile stretch randomly chosen by the state? No appeal, no ability to explain that you were going 8MPH over the posted limit to get around a dangerous driver?
That's what the camera is for. If you don't drive like an asshole, what are you worrying about?
These days Big Brother gets just as much of a whacking as Nazis, but it really does push to a very scary future, don't you think?
What is scary is going out and being flattened by a jerk who's chatting on his cellphone.
* Under no legal standard that I'm aware of is anyone required to be a mobile snitch for the law.
Yes, by law, airlines are required to fit event recorders in aircraft. And you could very well be required to have a snitch in your car. And there is fuck-all you can do about it.
For other victims of American Education who didn't bother to get better informed later: our system of law is *POSTSCRIPTIVE* not *PRESCRIPTIVE*."Innocent until proven guilty" means "do whatever you like, but if we catch you, your ass is grass".
People driving on PUBLIC roads have absolutely, positively NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
So if you were doing something legal that was supposed to be private, would you like to be looked into by people, or cameras being watched by people then?
Driving a car, unless done on **YOUR OWN** private property is *NOT* private. So you have zero expectation of privacy there.
You say we have no expectation of privacy. I think this false. We expect under most circumstances yes this is true, but there are exceptions that should be taken into account.
You have no expectation of privacy while driving a car on a public road, no, not at all. Everyone can (and should) look at you, if only to make sure you're not going to smash into them.
With all the above said, there is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral and unethical to have the black boxes used to automatically ticket bad drivers. Aircraft have been thusly monitored for generations; if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
There is BIG (no size puns intended) between a 65 - 100 ton aircraft that moves on the ground at 16 - 22mph, speeds down a runway at 175mph, and in the air at between 340 and 500/600mph. The aircraft "Black Box" is used to track data while in operation, but I thought the contents were used heavily in emergency situations
What is wrong with using automobile black boxes to gather data about unsafe drivers so they can be prohibited from driving? After all, the government who owns the roads has the **DUTY** towards the public to make sure that they will not get killed by unsafe drivers while using the roads.
(plane crashes, mostly) as well, whereas this proposed addition to a car would be used to not only find the source of a car crash, but also try to find/punish people who commit crimes, which trouble me because there
What is the difference of the police, in order to track criminals, look into a car location database, posting cops on every street corner noting which cars go by, or simply ask bystanders if they have seen a car go by?
No difference whatsoever.
While there isn't such a thing as a right to drive, there are property rights. You have the right to use your own property in what ever way you want to. This includes driving your car. Also since roads are public property, they belong to the public and as such the public have the right to use them. Of course you don't have the right to hurt people or put them in danger, even if you are using your own property.
Property rights means "the guy who owns the land makes the rules how his land is to be used". When you drive your property onto **PUBLIC ROADS** the public authority has the right and the duty to make rules on how you drive your junkheap on wheels.
So, if you can't read between the lines, it means "NO, DOMEHEAD, YOU CAN'T USE THAT THING THE WAY YOU WANT IT WHILE YOU'RE ON MY PROPERTY".
Why does using public roads mean you have no privacy?
Because they are (drum roll) PUBLIC!!!
You pay for the roads, why does them being public mean your rights don't apply anymore? If you are in a courthouse, can some of your rights be ignored because you are on public property?
What rights are being ignored? Your privacy rights? YOU CAN'T HAVE PRIVACY WHILE IN PUBLIC!!! So, people will expect that, while in public, you behave properly, which means that you don't run red lights, fuck your mother or give a blowjob to your boyfriend.
Speeding isn't bad. It is a collision that is dangerous.
Speeding make collisions more likely and dangerous. Human reaction time means that less time will be available to avoid a collision, and energy being proportional to the square of the speed means that more energy will be available to wreak havoc during a collision.
So, yes, speeding is *** DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD *** because it makes more damage.
No one has ever died from speeding; it is just hitting things with a car that kills. While speeding can be dangerous, it isn't always. There are times it is perfectly safe to speed, yet the police seem to think it is the perfect time to pull you over. If you think the police don't like giving out speeding tickets, you have never driven though Racine, WI (especially with Illinois plates). It is a bad idea to give up privacy rights in exchange for pulling over a few more of those evil speeders.
So? The police are just darwinizing-out stupid drivers.
It is pretty unethical for the government to force control over someone else's property.
It's perfectly reasonable and legal and should be expected.
License plates, this RFID thing, and black boxes are a complete violation of property rights.
"Property rights" means that you cannot be deprived of it, nor of it's enjoyment.
You wouldn't like it if you neighbor went around putting bumper stickers on your vehicles. In fact you could probably have him arrested if he did that.
This is vandalism, and as such, it is a **TOTAL** violation of property rights.
However when the government does it we seem to look away.
You mean "licence plates"? The government can very well decide what to expect of people who are using **HIS** property, say, public roads.
You run a swanky restaurant or a bar, and you have every right to force patrons to wear a coat and tie, just as the government has the right to say that you have to be licensed to drive on it's roads.
Now, go to bed, you're just a little pup troll who's way pas his bed-wetting time.
"The black box says you crossed the solid yellow line in a residential area. $150 fine"
"But I was avoiding a little kid chasing a ball!"
"Too bad. Prove it."
People driving on PUBLIC roads have absolutely, positively NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
The thousand of lifes lost to careless and/or stupid drivers most definitely warrant that public authorities to the utmost to increase road safety.
Rules of the road are implemented to maximize road safety. Including a 50 km/h speed limit on a 10 lane-wide ultrastraight strip mall at two in the morning on a clear night with no other traffic.
Police find ticketing drivers a demeaning task, so they will only do it when pushed or shoved.
Therefore, it is only logical that the State implements automatic means of enforcing road rules, such as red-light cameras, radar cameras; tracking vehicle position can also be used to punish speeding.
That black box can be used to exactly determine the blame for road accidents, thus darwinizing bad drivers out of the roads.
With all the above said, there is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral and unethical to have the black boxes used to automatically ticket bad drivers. Aircraft have been thusly monitored for generations; if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
My trick is to always report the state of my work as several days (ideally weeks) later than it really is, so in case shit hits the fan (boss gets angry, unforeseen problems, etc.), I can "recover" quickly.
You're either terminally clueless, a spammer, or a sockpuppet. Come back when you'll have been a network admin who have connected dozens of companies on the Internet.
Censoring and controlling one kind of speach is (technologically and politically) not that different from blocking other types of content.
*** BZZZT!!! *** CLUE ALERT !!! *** BZZZT!!! *** CLUE ALERT !!!
WARNING OF INCOMING CLUE - I REPEAT, WARNING OF INCOMING CLUE!!!!
Spam is **NOT** **FREA** **SPEACH**.
Spam is **THEFT** **OF** **COMPUTER** **RESSOURCES**, that is, bandwidth, CPU time, disk storage.
It's also a theft of human time. Since time is money, well, you do the math.
Spam is spammers STEALING my bandwidth, my servers, my storage to deliver their advertisements.
I AM THE ONE WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL THOSE WASTED RESSOUCES. Spammers are NOT paying for my bandwidth!!!. Spammers are NOT paying for the disk space their crap uses on my servers. Spammers do not compensate me for the lost time used to tweak my block lists.
SPAMMERS ARE THIEVES, pure and simple.
Here is a recap of
THE RULES OF SPAM:
Rule #0: Spam is theft
Rule #1: Spammers lie
Russel's Admonition: Always assume that there is a measurable chance that the entity you are dealing with is a spammer. Lexical Contradiction: Spammers will redefine any term in order to disguise their abuse of Internet resources. Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do. Finnell's Corollary: Spammers define "remove" as "validate."
Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth,
see Rule #1
Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.
Moore's Corollary: Spammers' lies are seldom questioned by
mainstream media.
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid
Angel's Commentary: Spammers think it's okay to steal a little bit from a lot of people. Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid. Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring. Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers. Spinosa's Corollary: Spammers assume everybody is more stupid than themselves. Spammer's Standard of Discourse: Threats and intimidation trump facts and logic.
Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt
Rules-Keeper's Refrain: Spammers routinely prove the Rules of Spam are valid.
This country had a long long tradition of anonymous speach (check out how Ben Franklin and other founding fathers got support for their ideas). Cracking down on spammers is just a politically correct way of cracking down on anonymous speach at large.
This (actually, your, not mine) country has a long tradition of protecting PROPERTY RIGHTS against swindlers, thieves and con men. A spammer flooding crap on someone else's server, stealing his bandwidth, his CPU time, his disk storage is NOTHING ELSE THAN A BLATANT THIEF.
C'mon guys. Spam is not a problem if you don't give your email addresses to spammers - and better, have a few email addresses to use when you don't trust someone.
Spammers will go to great lengths to harvest existing e-mail addresses, and will not hesitate to perform dictionnary attacks by trying out all sorts of wonky letter combinations of user names on hapless mail servers, thus further stealing more bandwidth, CPU cycles, disk space and customer aggravation and time.
* SPAM IS THEFT * SPAMMERS LIE * SPAMMERS ARE STUPID *
And you actually, deliberately and willfully connected to the internet this morning and by doing so, you fully accept all consequences that may occur to you by doing so, namely the loss of bandwidth, computer memory and time.
I run my *OWN* mail server (as I have been doing for more than 8 years). It is for sending and receiving my own mail. It is my own property, about which I can decide how it is used for.
It I do not want it to be used as a conduit for spam, it is my sole and only business, most importantly because the spammers are eating up the bandwidth I pay for out of my own pocket. If they would pay me the cost for the bandwidth they eat, I would not have as much a problem.
But they don't pay for the bandwidth that they are STEALING from me. It's MY bandwidth, not theirs.
Hmm, you mean i have to authorize people to send me email? IMs? What you don't get is that I do fully understand that anything I do on the internet is at my sole expense. I don't associate value with a FREE SERVICE (email, Ims, any other form of communication on the internet). I pay for the connection, that does not give me the right to file for damages every time I don't like something that i receive.
I do not need to authorize anyone who whish to send me an e-mail to do so, because I do business with them.
I do not do business with spammers, and I do not want to pay for their bandwidth like I do now. And you too, you are paying for spammers' bandwidth, even if your ISP does a good job of filtering, because your ISP passes the extra-cost of the bandwidth the spammers steal from them to YOU anyways. And if they use a blocklist that's good enough to prevent needing to tweak filters (and running the same filters - they are very heavy in terms of ressources; last filter I used used to have a 200 megabyte database, which means that every single goddammed fucking e-mail that came my way had to be compared about 200 megabytes of crud), they still have to pay the abuse manager to tweak the block list.
You need a refresher for the rules of spam:
Rule #0: Spam is theft Rule #1: Spammers lie
Russel's Admonition: Always assume that there is a measurable chance that the entity you are dealing with is a spammer. Lexical Contradiction: Spammers will redefine any term in order to disguise their abuse of Internet resources. Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do. Finnell's Corollary: Spammers define "remove" as "validate."
Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth,
see Rule #1
Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.
Moore's Corollary: Spammers' lies are seldom questioned by
mainstream media.
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid
Angel's Commentary: Spammers think it's okay to steal a little bit from a lot of people. Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid. Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring. Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers. Spinosa's Corollary: Spammers assume everybody is more stupid than themselves. Spammer's Standard of Discourse: Threats and intimidation trump facts and logic.
Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt
Rules-Keeper's Refrain: Spammers routinely prove the Rules of Spam are valid.
If Spam is a matter of theft of services and resources, then i make the claim that you're post is in fact waste of my time, my computer's time and the cost of power it takes to create such message on my monitor. I demand that you return to me in full the costs associated with the above resources and expenses i have incured.
Unlike like the last 4039 spam which were shoved into your inbox, you actually, deliberately and willfully loaded the relevant Slashdot page into your browser. And by doing so, you fully accept all consequences that may occur to you by doing so, namely the loss of bandwidth, computer memory and time.
Yeah, so that was a joke. Maybe i had to make that joke so that you can understand. Making spam or any other form of communication illegal is a violation of free speech. By allowing these laws to be approved because of the popularity allows other laws to regulate a resource that is not supposed to be regulated.
What is illegal (or should be) with spam is not the fact that it is a communication, but the fact that it is done WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE RECEIVING PARTY, AND AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF THE RECEIVING PARTY.
And i wouldn't use your example that most spam is illegally send through breached and trojaned computers as a reason why it should be outlawed. That same logic can be applied (and is currently) to just about anything. P2P is the perfect example.
Just like Al Capone was nailed by tax laws, nailing spammer for using trojans would be THE good thing to do. Gives a much easier legal target. And once this is done and no one spams via trojans, you can then peacefully blocklist the "legitimate" spammers that go through their own (as opposed to p0wn3d) mail servers.
I'm sorry but the Internet shouldn't be limited in speech and this is exactly what could happen if some "governing body" takes over enforcement of Spam laws. Yeah, it would start as Spam but it would quickly move to other communications that aren't as negatively viewed by the public.
WHOAAA!!! spam is not a matter of frea speach, but a matter of THEFT OF SERVICES AND RESSOURCES.
Most spam is illegally sent through breached and trojaned computers.
In short, spamming regulation and penalties are nothing more than enforcement of existing property laws. It has nothing to do whatsoever with censorship nor frea speach.
Slashdot Mirror
Parliament is currently being entangled in the sponsorship scandal, and it is very well possible that the opposition parties will force a general election on the minority government as more dirt is uncovered.
MAPS and SPEWS happen to quite nicely block a lot of spam.
I don't give a shit about the collateral damage; let those sucker complain to their own ISP who is the problem by not booting the spammers.
Suckers who pay spam-harbouring ISPs are guilty by association so there is no reason why they should not suffer.
The more innocents who squeal thanks to blocklist, the more pressure on the rogue ISPs.
Indeed it is important, implying that there is a hierarchy in what one can do, that is, some things (rights) have far more legal protection than others (privileges).
Personally, I find the right/privilege distinction a proper means of distinguishing the two; I just was not aware that it was not that clear-cut. A bit like "freedom" (what one gives you) and "liberty" (what you allways have) which, in my language (perhaps you might have suspected that I am not anglo-saxon), are designated by the same word...
Which is thankfully not in use throughout the world. And legal types have the unfortunate tendency to use nonstandard language. Perhaps it makes sense, but when it serves to entrap "ordinary" people, it is simply not acceptable.
If it's for the Ohio example, I think it's too narrow an example. But at least, you acknowledge that there are different values in the world. This is good; if only most americans were like you, the would would be a better place. And yes, I seem to disagree with what I feel of the general philosophy that seeps through your comments...
I would venture to say that with civil law, people will expect that privileges can be revoked, which is good, for they will not assume that they can pretend whatever they want and get away with it...
What would be the common-law legal logic behind a driver's license?
To the point that I can walk on the sidewalk without fearing death by mishandled private property operated on public thoroughfares. Which is reasonable enough, I believe (and this has been the whole point of my argumentation).
Your "Black's law" dictionnary is only a subset of the english language which is only useful in the purpose of courtroom deliberations. Slashdot not being a courtroom, I would venture to say that it is woefully irrelevant here. And, I believe your Black is only relevant in the US, whereas Slashdot reaches much further than that (even though, on a clear day, when I climb on the top of the building next door I can see the USA, US law does not reach me so I can, in total and absolute impunity, host illegal stuff (in the US) on my web server (follow the link above).
This is because rights are inherent, and privileges are granted. The businessman, in his own arrogance, believes he has the right to do whatever is necessary to fetch the juiciest profit, so for him, he naturally has the "right" to do all he does, until a court puts him back in his place.
But what you're doing is laywery pussyfooting, and anglo-saxon law was not ever intended to further the cause of humanity, but rather to protect and allow private despotism. Such arrogance is frowned upon in most of the world.
The State does indeed restrict licenses from certain races, namely the race of stupid, dangerous drivers. :)
In order to promote the public welfare, the State has the RIGHT to grant and revoke the privilege of driving a car on public roads, and being a privilege, the procedure for revocation should not be as stringent as the procedure to revoke a right (since you like legal analogies, it's like the not-so-stringent preponderance of evidence of a civil trial -vs- the absence of a reasonable doubt of a criminal trial).
As a citizen, I have the expectation that the State will do the utmost to insure my safety whenever I go out of my house.
In France, the police will revoke your license on the spot for reckless driving, which includes running a red light. Yet, despite that, France is **THE** beacon of human rights.
So, if you can't read between the lines, it means "NO, DOMEHEAD, YOU CAN'T USE THAT THING THE WAY YOU WANT IT WHILE YOU'RE ON MY PROPERTY". Because they are (drum roll) PUBLIC!!! What rights are being ignored? Your privacy rights? YOU CAN'T HAVE PRIVACY WHILE IN PUBLIC!!! So, people will expect that, while in public, you behave properly, which means that you don't run red lights, fuck your mother or give a blowjob to your boyfriend. Speeding make collisions more likely and dangerous. Human reaction time means that less time will be available to avoid a collision, and energy being proportional to the square of the speed means that more energy will be available to wreak havoc during a collision.
So, yes, speeding is *** DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD *** because it makes more damage. So? The police are just darwinizing-out stupid drivers. It's perfectly reasonable and legal and should be expected. "Property rights" means that you cannot be deprived of it, nor of it's enjoyment. This is vandalism, and as such, it is a **TOTAL** violation of property rights. You mean "licence plates"? The government can very well decide what to expect of people who are using **HIS** property, say, public roads.
You run a swanky restaurant or a bar, and you have every right to force patrons to wear a coat and tie, just as the government has the right to say that you have to be licensed to drive on it's roads.
Now, go to bed, you're just a little pup troll who's way pas his bed-wetting time.
(Reposted, account being moderated as "flamebait". Moderators, take notice: there is much more karma than mod points. If you use them unwisely, it's like if you never had any in the first place).
Operating a motorcar is a licensed activity, so the authorities have every right and expectation that you produce your license in order to prove that you are qualified to operate the motor vehicle.
Read above.
"You the people" have elected governments that mandated that everyone that operates a motor vehicle on a paid-for public road needs to be properly qualified, and the qualification is proved upon the production of a driver's licence.
This is a question of police abusing their authority. It need not be done with a motor car present so it is irrelevent to the current conversation.
The 55 mile per hour limit was based on the actual verifiable science that cars will not guzzle as much gas whilst doing 55 as they do whilst going at 70. And in an age of decreasing oil reserves, this is more than a reasonable proposition. It is only the power-mad loonies who want to sell more oil and the jerks who like to hurl 3 tons of scrap wrapped around them at 70 miles per hour to compensate for erectile dysfunction that have decided otherwise.
Stupid drivers need to be put back in their place.
That's what the camera is for. If you don't drive like an asshole, what are you worrying about?
What is scary is going out and being flattened by a jerk who's chatting on his cellphone.
Yes, by law, airlines are required to fit event recorders in aircraft. And you could very well be required to have a snitch in your car. And there is fuck-all you can do about it.
Exactly. This however only applies to
Operating a motorcar is a licensed activity, so the authorities have every right and expectation that you produce your license in order to prove that you are qualified to operate the motor vehicle.
Read above.
"You the people" have elected governments that mandated that everyone that operates a motor vehicle on a paid-for public road needs to be properly qualified, and the qualification is proved upon the production of a driver's licence.
This is a question of police abusing their authority. It need not be done with a motor car present so it is irrelevent to the current conversation.
The 55 mile per hour limit was based on the actual verifiable science that cars will not guzzle as much gas whilst doing 55 as they do whilst going at 70. And in an age of decreasing oil reserves, this is more than a reasonable proposition. It is only the power-mad loonies who want to sell more oil and the jerks who like to hurl 3 tons of scrap wrapped around them at 70 miles per hour to compensate for erectile dysfunction that have decided otherwise.
Stupid drivers need to be put back in their place.
That's what the camera is for. If you don't drive like an asshole, what are you worrying about?
What is scary is going out and being flattened by a jerk who's chatting on his cellphone.
Yes, by law, airlines are required to fit event recorders in aircraft. And you could very well be required to have a snitch in your car. And there is fuck-all you can do about it.
Exactly. This however only applies to
No difference whatsoever.
So, if you can't read between the lines, it means "NO, DOMEHEAD, YOU CAN'T USE THAT THING THE WAY YOU WANT IT WHILE YOU'RE ON MY PROPERTY". Because they are (drum roll) PUBLIC!!! What rights are being ignored? Your privacy rights? YOU CAN'T HAVE PRIVACY WHILE IN PUBLIC!!! So, people will expect that, while in public, you behave properly, which means that you don't run red lights, fuck your mother or give a blowjob to your boyfriend. Speeding make collisions more likely and dangerous. Human reaction time means that less time will be available to avoid a collision, and energy being proportional to the square of the speed means that more energy will be available to wreak havoc during a collision.
So, yes, speeding is *** DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD *** because it makes more damage. So? The police are just darwinizing-out stupid drivers. It's perfectly reasonable and legal and should be expected. "Property rights" means that you cannot be deprived of it, nor of it's enjoyment. This is vandalism, and as such, it is a **TOTAL** violation of property rights. You mean "licence plates"? The government can very well decide what to expect of people who are using **HIS** property, say, public roads.
You run a swanky restaurant or a bar, and you have every right to force patrons to wear a coat and tie, just as the government has the right to say that you have to be licensed to drive on it's roads.
Now, go to bed, you're just a little pup troll who's way pas his bed-wetting time.
It also gives me time to check on Slashdot.
You're either terminally clueless, a spammer, or a sockpuppet. Come back when you'll have been a network admin who have connected dozens of companies on the Internet.
WARNING OF INCOMING CLUE - I REPEAT, WARNING OF INCOMING CLUE!!!!
Spam is **NOT** **FREA** **SPEACH**.
Spam is **THEFT** **OF** **COMPUTER** **RESSOURCES**, that is, bandwidth, CPU time, disk storage.
It's also a theft of human time. Since time is money, well, you do the math.
Spam is spammers STEALING my bandwidth, my servers, my storage to deliver their advertisements.
I AM THE ONE WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL THOSE WASTED RESSOUCES. Spammers are NOT paying for my bandwidth!!!. Spammers are NOT paying for the disk space their crap uses on my servers. Spammers do not compensate me for the lost time used to tweak my block lists.
SPAMMERS ARE THIEVES, pure and simple.
Here is a recap of
This (actually, your, not mine) country has a long tradition of protecting PROPERTY RIGHTS against swindlers, thieves and con men. A spammer flooding crap on someone else's server, stealing his bandwidth, his CPU time, his disk storage is NOTHING ELSE THAN A BLATANT THIEF. Spammers will go to great lengths to harvest existing e-mail addresses, and will not hesitate to perform dictionnary attacks by trying out all sorts of wonky letter combinations of user names on hapless mail servers, thus further stealing more bandwidth, CPU cycles, disk space and customer aggravation and time.* SPAM IS THEFT * SPAMMERS LIE * SPAMMERS ARE STUPID *
It I do not want it to be used as a conduit for spam, it is my sole and only business, most importantly because the spammers are eating up the bandwidth I pay for out of my own pocket. If they would pay me the cost for the bandwidth they eat, I would not have as much a problem.
But they don't pay for the bandwidth that they are STEALING from me. It's MY bandwidth, not theirs.
I do not need to authorize anyone who whish to send me an e-mail to do so, because I do business with them.I do not do business with spammers, and I do not want to pay for their bandwidth like I do now. And you too, you are paying for spammers' bandwidth, even if your ISP does a good job of filtering, because your ISP passes the extra-cost of the bandwidth the spammers steal from them to YOU anyways. And if they use a blocklist that's good enough to prevent needing to tweak filters (and running the same filters - they are very heavy in terms of ressources; last filter I used used to have a 200 megabyte database, which means that every single goddammed fucking e-mail that came my way had to be compared about 200 megabytes of crud), they still have to pay the abuse manager to tweak the block list.
You need a refresher for the rules of spam:
Rule #0: Spam is theft Rule #1: Spammers lie
Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1 Rule #3: Spammers are stupid Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankruptRules-Keeper's Refrain: Spammers routinely prove the Rules of Spam are valid.
Most spam is illegally sent through breached and trojaned computers.
In short, spamming regulation and penalties are nothing more than enforcement of existing property laws. It has nothing to do whatsoever with censorship nor frea speach.
Reposted, account brain-dead moderation.
For one thing, Apple could very well re-imagine itself by not suing students into oblivion...