Hey Slashdrones... maybe if you'd have stopped popping your zits for two seconds you could've read that HP was only accused of this crime, not guilty. Of course, Slashdrones will believe any story posted, no matter how dumb.
You're naively (usual for Slashdot) assuming that a war against the government would be fought symmetrically. An assymmetric war could easily be fought against government troops, which could sow seeds of chaos and uncertainty amongst the military itself and cause generals to turn on their civilian masters.
Think of a situation where the civilians pick off government troops one by one, in both rural and urban settings. There is no doubt that a popular guerilla war would succeed.
A more evenly fought war, where about 1/2 of the population supports the government and 1/2 doesn't, that is where your argument might start to become credulous. An unpopular guerilla resistance would have even less success.
Nah, in terms of numbers alone the population would win over the military. 1-2 million soldiers vs. maybe 120 million adult males?
Even if you figure that only 80% of that population supports the rebellion and can fight, the military is still outnumbered 100 to 1. If the population fought using guerilla tactics it could win.
You must be fucking joking... slashdot is the biggest joke on the internet. Everyone knows it's filled with a bunch of zit-popping little dorks who don't know jackshit about computers other than "LINUX RULEZ".
Actually railroads still haul quite a bit, although most people don't realize it. Actually, US railroads haul more freight than any other country by weight (by cost trucking does win out). Incidentally, I believe that for non-amtrak rail lines, maintenance is almost completely provided by the private companies that own them (which is actually a problem cause they don't spend enough).
Don't worry, they're not going to pave over America, road building is something like 5% of what it was 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, that aspect is probably causing more pollution.
But I digress. Now that I think about it, I would have no problem with a government funded internet infrastructure as long as it's paid for by user fees. I would add as a warning that the government rarely does things like this right, however, but as long as i'm not paying for it, i'm ok. Yes the government builds roads, but it doesn't really do that right, anyway.
Incidentally your local community or state may subsidize car owners. If that's true, yeah that's wrong, you shouldn't have to pay for it. So go campaign for lower sales or income taxes then.
Sure you can vote. You can choose a competing technology.
Here the cable company has a monopoly but it's kept in check by the wide range of technological choices we can make.
Companies that monopolize a sector that doesn't offer any technological choices are bad and probably should be regulated. But if you can switch technologies then a monopoly is rendered ineffective.
Monopolies may actually push the development of technology in this sense.
I dunno which is more accountable: government or business. The thing is that Walmart is pretty accountable, it's just that those that want "unchristian" products are the minority. Yes, gasp, shrill slashdot geeks are not the majority, imagine that!
The thing about having government building networks is that that usually entails spending tax dollars on the networks, when a substantial portion of the population doesn't even want or use the networks. I mean *everyone* uses roads, but how fair is it to make someone pay for some network that not everyone is going to use?
Get over public transit. Why would anyone want to spend a few hours crammed into a trolley or subway when they could be in their own car? Sure being stuck in traffic sucks, but i'd rather be stuck in traffic in my nice new car, than crammed up against some stinky stranger.
And highways are the best way to accomodate the vast majority of people who'd rather be in their car than some train or bus. Deal with it.
So what are these mystery Windows video files that don't work? I can play every *major* format available on the internet that I've come across, pretty much without fail.
We still use them, there was a video floating around the internet showing an Apache nailing some insurgents with it's chaingun. They aren't tanks, you are right in that respect, but they are an effective way to get a lot of heavy firepower where it's needed in a short amount of time.
They're not completely useless, they're quite effective as fighters, remember that as far as I know we've only lost a few Apaches and scouts. THe big losses were in Blackhawk, whose need is very important (they can put down soldiers whereever they are needed).
Well what is a "right" is up to the courts. In terms of giving the biggie rights in BoR, no I don't disagree we should never give up speech and all that. On the other hand, the majority of people in the US would rather not be under constant attack by terrorists and our government is certainly authorized under the constitution to provide for the common defense. In times of invasion (and on 9/11 we certainly were invaded) a writ of habeas corpus can be suspended and this depends on courts.
Sorry, it was Communist Russia, my mistake. It's still a silly comparison.
Here in the US we have appeals court in which you can have your case heard before a judge. In every single stable government, there is a need to keep law and order. Our government also happens to recognize due process, which means among other things that you can appeal any court decision, provided a higher court will hear it.
The Congress could pass a law forbidding criticism of the government tomorrow (or the next working day). There really is no reason why they couldn't and because of Marbury vs. Madison the Supreme Court is there to judge the constitutionality of given laws. So any sort of law can be passed, but in the end a judge has to decide whether or not it's constitutional or not.
So the US is not "Communist Russia" or "Nazi Germany". There's a gray area that exists in regards to rights and we have a state and federal judiciary to decide what rights you do and don't have.
Sure your rights are protected. Are you in jail for speaking out against the government? Can you still buy a firearm?
The right in question seems to be the 4th amendment, the right to protect against unwarranted search and seizures. Hate to tell you but the Supreme Court ruled that police can search vehicles if they have a reasonable suspicion. If this guy was out of his car, that's something to consider, but he has recourse to bring his case before the courts of the land, which he has. That does not make the US Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany or whatever ridiculous comparison the poster made.
Common defense protects no rights, I don't think I ever said that. Basically the federal government is authorized for both providing for the common defense and at the same time protecting those rights outlined in the BoR and the body of the constitution (habeas corpus is in the body). This is often a very difficult and delicate balancing act.
Thank you for you lucid and insightful critique of the Bill of Rights.
See this just shows how silly you are, there is no mention of the bill of rights in my post.
First off, 9/11 was an invasion. It was an invasion of terrorist infiltrators, even if there weren't a lot of them. That's not an excuse to start locking people up for no reason, Padilla was one such person who fell through the cracks unfortunately.
The history of habeas corpus has shown that it's a tricky one. All the constitution says is that it can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, and this is what Lincoln and Roosevelt used, and I think that other presidents have used it from time to time. Of course, leaving the president in power to suspend habeas corpus is a little worrisome but that's the way it's been done for a while. Most other countries have martial law provisions in their constiutions for times of total chaos.
I think that the FBI needs a warrant to investigate groups (I'm not sure) but the fact is that if some of these groups might be conspiring to destroy the constitution itself and/or kill americans, then certainly that falls under "provide for the common defense". It's a slippery slope, but Ashcroft is not the monster you guys paint him to be, people demonized rarely are.
Wipe the drool from your keyboard, slashdrone, you've still got some more zits to pop. You're rights are well protected, I assure you. The US government is authorized under the Constitution to provide for the common defense as well as protect certain rights. It's a delicate balancing act.
You think MS cares about Slashdot? For 5 years the open-source mullet-haired slashdrones have been sitting in their parent's basement, posting unfunny comments, trying to go BOOYAH to Microsoft, and generally making asses of themselves. Guess what? It still hasn't worked.
Oh gee, I can think of one case where a citizen was detained without a trial... guess what, under the Constitution habeas corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion. Is Jose Padilla a political prisoner? Maybe to a Slashdrone whose balls haven't dropped yet.
Oh what? You never read the Constitution? Poor thing.
Oh yes those poor prisoners at Guantanamo. Boo hoo.
In terms of infiltrating lawful political opposition groups, hate to tell you but it's constitutional. FBI agents have a right to join political parties just like all of us do, even if they're joining for the purposes of infiltrating. Hate to tell you but if a political group were to commit an act of terrorism everyone would be screaming about the FBI not doing what it is currently doing.
The rest of your comment is so silly, so over-the-top, and so juvenile it's not even funny. Well it is, at least a little.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Slashdrones... maybe if you'd have stopped popping your zits for two seconds you could've read that HP was only accused of this crime, not guilty. Of course, Slashdrones will believe any story posted, no matter how dumb.
Yeah, because we all know that HP is automatically guilty right?
Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot, plebe.
You're naively (usual for Slashdot) assuming that a war against the government would be fought symmetrically. An assymmetric war could easily be fought against government troops, which could sow seeds of chaos and uncertainty amongst the military itself and cause generals to turn on their civilian masters.
Think of a situation where the civilians pick off government troops one by one, in both rural and urban settings. There is no doubt that a popular guerilla war would succeed.
A more evenly fought war, where about 1/2 of the population supports the government and 1/2 doesn't, that is where your argument might start to become credulous. An unpopular guerilla resistance would have even less success.
Yes but that still introduces the possibility of human error, which is what these machines are trying to avoid (albeit unsuccessfully).
Nah, in terms of numbers alone the population would win over the military. 1-2 million soldiers vs. maybe 120 million adult males?
Even if you figure that only 80% of that population supports the rebellion and can fight, the military is still outnumbered 100 to 1. If the population fought using guerilla tactics it could win.
You must be fucking joking... slashdot is the biggest joke on the internet. Everyone knows it's filled with a bunch of zit-popping little dorks who don't know jackshit about computers other than "LINUX RULEZ".
Nonsense.
About 90% of road fees are paid for by direct user fees.The remaining 10% is local roads as the article says.
Actually railroads still haul quite a bit, although most people don't realize it. Actually, US railroads haul more freight than any other country by weight (by cost trucking does win out). Incidentally, I believe that for non-amtrak rail lines, maintenance is almost completely provided by the private companies that own them (which is actually a problem cause they don't spend enough).
Don't worry, they're not going to pave over America, road building is something like 5% of what it was 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, that aspect is probably causing more pollution.
But I digress. Now that I think about it, I would have no problem with a government funded internet infrastructure as long as it's paid for by user fees. I would add as a warning that the government rarely does things like this right, however, but as long as i'm not paying for it, i'm ok. Yes the government builds roads, but it doesn't really do that right, anyway.
Incidentally your local community or state may subsidize car owners. If that's true, yeah that's wrong, you shouldn't have to pay for it. So go campaign for lower sales or income taxes then.
Well ok, although highways are different because they're mostly paid for by user fees, which I don't have a problem with.
Just don't make me pay for some welfare scumbag to get free internet.
Sure you can vote. You can choose a competing technology.
Here the cable company has a monopoly but it's kept in check by the wide range of technological choices we can make.
Companies that monopolize a sector that doesn't offer any technological choices are bad and probably should be regulated. But if you can switch technologies then a monopoly is rendered ineffective.
Monopolies may actually push the development of technology in this sense.
I dunno which is more accountable: government or business. The thing is that Walmart is pretty accountable, it's just that those that want "unchristian" products are the minority. Yes, gasp, shrill slashdot geeks are not the majority, imagine that!
The thing about having government building networks is that that usually entails spending tax dollars on the networks, when a substantial portion of the population doesn't even want or use the networks. I mean *everyone* uses roads, but how fair is it to make someone pay for some network that not everyone is going to use?
Get over public transit. Why would anyone want to spend a few hours crammed into a trolley or subway when they could be in their own car? Sure being stuck in traffic sucks, but i'd rather be stuck in traffic in my nice new car, than crammed up against some stinky stranger.
And highways are the best way to accomodate the vast majority of people who'd rather be in their car than some train or bus. Deal with it.
The problem is that Windows assumes that a "network" printer is a microsoft network printer and not a IP network printer.
So what are these mystery Windows video files that don't work? I can play every *major* format available on the internet that I've come across, pretty much without fail.
You might wanna read up on the Constitution yourself there, jerky. "Providing for the common defense" is in the body as well as the preamble.
Then why is "providing for the common defense" in the constitution?
We still use them, there was a video floating around the internet showing an Apache nailing some insurgents with it's chaingun. They aren't tanks, you are right in that respect, but they are an effective way to get a lot of heavy firepower where it's needed in a short amount of time.
Were Apaches actually brought down by Ak's? If so, that is indeed a big failure for an attack helicopter.
They're not completely useless, they're quite effective as fighters, remember that as far as I know we've only lost a few Apaches and scouts. THe big losses were in Blackhawk, whose need is very important (they can put down soldiers whereever they are needed).
Well what is a "right" is up to the courts. In terms of giving the biggie rights in BoR, no I don't disagree we should never give up speech and all that. On the other hand, the majority of people in the US would rather not be under constant attack by terrorists and our government is certainly authorized under the constitution to provide for the common defense. In times of invasion (and on 9/11 we certainly were invaded) a writ of habeas corpus can be suspended and this depends on courts.
Sorry, it was Communist Russia, my mistake. It's still a silly comparison.
Here in the US we have appeals court in which you can have your case heard before a judge. In every single stable government, there is a need to keep law and order. Our government also happens to recognize due process, which means among other things that you can appeal any court decision, provided a higher court will hear it.
The Congress could pass a law forbidding criticism of the government tomorrow (or the next working day). There really is no reason why they couldn't and because of Marbury vs. Madison the Supreme Court is there to judge the constitutionality of given laws. So any sort of law can be passed, but in the end a judge has to decide whether or not it's constitutional or not.
So the US is not "Communist Russia" or "Nazi Germany". There's a gray area that exists in regards to rights and we have a state and federal judiciary to decide what rights you do and don't have.
Sure your rights are protected. Are you in jail for speaking out against the government? Can you still buy a firearm?
The right in question seems to be the 4th amendment, the right to protect against unwarranted search and seizures. Hate to tell you but the Supreme Court ruled that police can search vehicles if they have a reasonable suspicion. If this guy was out of his car, that's something to consider, but he has recourse to bring his case before the courts of the land, which he has. That does not make the US Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany or whatever ridiculous comparison the poster made.
Common defense protects no rights, I don't think I ever said that. Basically the federal government is authorized for both providing for the common defense and at the same time protecting those rights outlined in the BoR and the body of the constitution (habeas corpus is in the body). This is often a very difficult and delicate balancing act.
See this just shows how silly you are, there is no mention of the bill of rights in my post.
First off, 9/11 was an invasion. It was an invasion of terrorist infiltrators, even if there weren't a lot of them. That's not an excuse to start locking people up for no reason, Padilla was one such person who fell through the cracks unfortunately.
The history of habeas corpus has shown that it's a tricky one. All the constitution says is that it can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, and this is what Lincoln and Roosevelt used, and I think that other presidents have used it from time to time. Of course, leaving the president in power to suspend habeas corpus is a little worrisome but that's the way it's been done for a while. Most other countries have martial law provisions in their constiutions for times of total chaos.
I think that the FBI needs a warrant to investigate groups (I'm not sure) but the fact is that if some of these groups might be conspiring to destroy the constitution itself and/or kill americans, then certainly that falls under "provide for the common defense". It's a slippery slope, but Ashcroft is not the monster you guys paint him to be, people demonized rarely are.
Wipe the drool from your keyboard, slashdrone, you've still got some more zits to pop. You're rights are well protected, I assure you. The US government is authorized under the Constitution to provide for the common defense as well as protect certain rights. It's a delicate balancing act.
You think MS cares about Slashdot? For 5 years the open-source mullet-haired slashdrones have been sitting in their parent's basement, posting unfunny comments, trying to go BOOYAH to Microsoft, and generally making asses of themselves. Guess what? It still hasn't worked.
Oh gee, I can think of one case where a citizen was detained without a trial... guess what, under the Constitution habeas corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion. Is Jose Padilla a political prisoner? Maybe to a Slashdrone whose balls haven't dropped yet.
Oh what? You never read the Constitution? Poor thing.
Oh yes those poor prisoners at Guantanamo. Boo hoo.
In terms of infiltrating lawful political opposition groups, hate to tell you but it's constitutional. FBI agents have a right to join political parties just like all of us do, even if they're joining for the purposes of infiltrating. Hate to tell you but if a political group were to commit an act of terrorism everyone would be screaming about the FBI not doing what it is currently doing.
The rest of your comment is so silly, so over-the-top, and so juvenile it's not even funny. Well it is, at least a little.