Because otherwise the government can tap dance over the 4th amendment's grave and nobody can sue them.
From what Im gathering, you CANT sue the "government", but you CAN try to get the courts to strike a law down. IIRC, the recent healthcare thing in the supreme court wasnt a case of the Gov't being sued, but of the law being tested for constitutionality. Unless I am mistaken-- and I might be-- there would have been no penalty for the government if the law had been stricken down other than the political ramifications.
Does anyone seriously think hyperbole like this helps anyone? What are you hoping happens, that people take your nonsense seriously and decide that theres nothing they can do to fix things?
No, but of course you're right, we collectively have it about as bad as anyone has had it in 900 years. Never mind the fact that we along with a few others enjoy privileges that others both current and historical would give their lives for; lets count those as rubbish and bemoan our fate. THAT will accomplish a lot.
Incidentally, I think Ive found a good way of figuring out which posters have a clue: those who say that their product / OS / device is the best option for all scenarios, dont.
Being a sys admin is a joke compared to being a developer (unless maybe you are a code monkey churning junk). Yes, you need to know lots of random information, but it's all "trivia" style information, e.g., Google knows it all. Being a developer often involves knowing a lot more than language syntax (the "trivia" portion of knowledge here).
How do switches work, and how does that impact how you will lay out your storage networks? Do you need a separate switch for each path between SAN and server-- what sort of impact will that make? How do VLANs work, and what path is traffic likely to travel if you use VLANs and trunk ports going through a layer-3 firewall? What will adding STP do to your network setup? How will it react when a single link is lost, and why?
You may be right that it is a different sort of problem solving, but I think you are minimizing how hard sys-adminning can be. Like programming, you need a wide knowledge of protocols, standards, etc; like programming, your skill will be directly related to your depth of knowledge on those topics. Dont understand how ARPs go out, are stored, and how traffic finds its way to its destination? Youll likely architect a bad network.
FWIW I do sysadmin work, though I dabble in "programming" (technically scripting with AutoIt, though much deeper than simple "mouse here click here" stuff), and I think each is difficult in a different way. With each, I have encountered situations where I can see several possible ways to proceed, each with its merits, and all requiring careful thought to implement a solution that is simple, maintainable, and elegant.
Being a sysadmin may be more difficult in practice simply because there are a lot of folks who DONT approach it with the care of a carefully maintained program-- but then I guess the same may be true of many programming projects. But the comparison you make would be as if I said "yea, Ive been a batch script programmer for 10 years, and honestly managing a 1000 server ESX environment is much more difficult".
paying 100 euros for a restrictive license is a bit too much.
So is using software whose goal is to emulate an EOL'd, 12 year old version of Windows, especially when said software has been in alpha for the last decade or so.
Yes, yes, your freedom.. to hate others because they believe something differen
Who, exactly, are you accusing this of? Me?
How many atheist suicide-bombers have there been now? And how many atheists killed doctors last year for performing legal medical procedures? And how many have been killed by atheist-sponsored atrocities in Dafur, Bosnia, and North Ireland?
Same question as above.
Also, RE northern Ireland, its considerably less about religion than is bandied about. Im pretty sure that Catholocism and Protestantism could be removed from the equation and bombings would continue there. You can read through the entire intro section of the IRA on Wikipedia without once encountering words based on "protestant", "catholic", or "religion", because that isnt the primary issue.
He wasnt whining, he was posting what looked to be very constructive criticism.
Or is the new FOSS thing that you are simply not allowed anything other than worship of any project you have not contributed to? Perhaps we should all pretend that Thunderbird is the best mail client ever made, since the majority of us have never contributed it it?
Honestly, with no bugs (complaints!) opened by the users, Im not sure how these projects would improve, but who am I to comment.
I dont believe the reason that you believe what you believe has any relevance whatsoever to your right to believe it; nor should it have any impact on your right to pursue office or anything else.
That's a double edged sword - do we allow virtually anyone to stand for election, or do we bar the religious on the grounds of a mental instability?
People ask why Christians seem to carry around this sneaking paranoia that one day everyone will start persecuting them again.
Im not sure that Id agree with that premise, but this comment-- and many many others like it-- dont do much to reassure anyone. Im not sure I would be super surprised if your apparent wish came true, either.
Say what you want about how crazy or stupid you think religious folks are, but at least we arent trying to outlaw atheism, and I dont believe thats been on the table for a good several hundred years. Apparently progress is switching things around, throwing concepts of freedom of belief out the window, and declaring the religious to be mentally unsound.
For starters, because he labeled it racism, which is a misnomer of the highest order. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and its exhausting to have it brought up at every opportunity.
Missing the point. I assert that there is no experimentation that you could perform that would prove that we exist without making non-testable assumptions.
This sounds like a semantic argument. Possibly what you mean by "dead" is not the same as what others mean by "dead". Certainly you did not reach "brain death", or you would not be posting on slashdot right now.
With the brain, there is no BIG TV TRANSMITTER IN THE SKY that has all matter completely unaffected, except for EXTRA-SPECIAL HUMAN BRAINS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SPECIAL. Things don't work that way.
To be clear, are you here saying "there are no phenomena we have not accounted for, because things dont work that way"?
Im no scientist, but im QUITE sure SCIENCE doesnt work that way.
Lets run with a hypothetical here. Lets say there is such a thing as a "soul", and that it is the source of thought, and that its conduit to the body is the brain. Would that be invalidated as an option by your evidence?
I want to be clear here, I am addressing this:
Consciousness being the emerging process of the brain ? Plenty.
Because I see no evidence, and would be interested to see what you have. I had understood that huge parts of how the brain works are a massive mystery to medical science, but if you can enlighten the world with your findings that would be fantastic.
Likewise you claim that there is not. We might as well degenerate this conversation into "prove you exist" if you want to make "proveability" the god du jour.
The fact is, noone in this thread has any "testable hypothesis". Everything from post one on down is raw speculation by armchair neuroscientists.
But carry on-- it is delicious watching all the hypocrisy, as people go after religion as not being testable (and get modded up for it), and then spout something like this:
That doesn't mean we fully understand it, or that we ever will, but consciousness very obviously arises solely out of the brain.
Oh, I see-- we cant explain it or understand it but we are willing to make dogmatic statements about it.
The prefix "micro-" in "microwave" is not meant to suggest a wavelength in the micrometer range. It indicates that microwaves are "small" compared to waves used in typical radio broadcasting, in that they have shorter wavelengths. The boundaries between far infrared light, terahertz radiation, microwaves, and ultra-high-frequency radio waves are fairly arbitrary and are used variously between different fields of study.
The idea that you can POSSIBLY conduct a war when you must do a trial prior to any killing just in case some of the enemy are citizens is ludicrous.
I dont know what the solution is, but the idea that "killing the bad guys" is an antiquated notion of war leads nowhere successful. We might as well relinquish any claim to whatever it is the bad actor of the day wants, since we wont be winning any wars with that frame of mind.
How then, can you justify withdrawing the trial whatsoever and going straight for capital punishment, when people who actually get trials aren't always even guilty of what they are convicted of?
Because there is a vast difference between a theatre of war with minimal chance of capture, and Main St USA where the police can apprehend the "bad guys". Unless I am mistaken, police are authorized to use lethal force if it is a proportional response-- if the suspect is armed and taking aim. Im not terribly upset if soldiers shoot a US citizen who is aiming an AK47 at their position in a warzone.
It's funny you mention Nazi Germany, because that's precisely WHY we were fighting against them. They were extrajudicially killing their own citizens for "suspected crimes".
No, thats not why we were there, and if you think so its probably because youve bought into the "US was fighting for freedom" rhetoric. We went into WW2 grudgingly and with selfish motives; if "justice" were the goal we would be doing something about the exact same thing happening in North Korea today. We dont, because its not politically expedient and we arent the force of righteousness that some believe us to be.
They didn't just "round up the Jews" per-se. They usually made up some suspected crime to which they accused them of (subversion, agitation, plotting against the government, theft, or whatever) which was more than enough to see their whole family shipped off to a concentration camp and possibly extrajudicially murdered.
Maybe early in the war, I seem to remember a number of stories about what were basically lynch mobs rounding Jews up and breaking shop windows with no justification-- you might start by googling "Kristallnacht". You seem a little misled on what happened, Id recommend you read up on it.
Even if what you say were true, the massive difference would be that by and large the jews werent on a battlefield, they werent declaring their opposition to the country or their intention to tear it apart, and they werent in a position to do so.
They are targeting people away from battlefields in their homes
When the city contains insurgents, id imagine it becomes difficult to pin down exactly what the "battlefield" is.
and they are often unarmed and not engaged in combat (which is a war crime, according to the rules of war, I believe).
Unless im mistaken, a lot of those rules cease to apply when the opposition wears no uniform nor has a flag, in an attempt to blend into the civilian population. And "innocent" loses a lot of its weight when those around are enabling the opposition and sheltering them. This is a tricky question that has been dealt with before, but whatever the answer is it certainly isnt "anyone who hasnt actually shot a gun is innocent", or else we could never go after enemy officers.
This is fodder for some good discussion right here, and Id like to get something cleared up.
I understand the importance of jury trial and the dangers of an unchecked government. I understand that the last thing you want is an executive that can freely ignore the judicial branch.
But if a US citizen in 1942 were to go and fight for the Nazi's, and lets say he became a high-up officer-- would we not be justified in going after his life "extrajudicially"? What if a US citizen went to Mexico and became a higher up in the militarized drug cartels (lets not turn this into a discussion on drug politics)-- would we be justified in assisting in his death if capture were not an easy option? What if in those situations the choice was between his death, and him going free?
It seems to me there IS some line for when someone takes up arms in a foreign theatre against US forces; I might be wrong here, which is why Im hoping for constructive responses which could demonstrate my error if there is one.
Slashdot Mirror
Because otherwise the government can tap dance over the 4th amendment's grave and nobody can sue them.
From what Im gathering, you CANT sue the "government", but you CAN try to get the courts to strike a law down. IIRC, the recent healthcare thing in the supreme court wasnt a case of the Gov't being sued, but of the law being tested for constitutionality. Unless I am mistaken-- and I might be-- there would have been no penalty for the government if the law had been stricken down other than the political ramifications.
Just in case you missed it:
It is Congress' job to fix bad laws that are not unconstitutional
Where Im from, we count the 4th amendment as part of the constitution. If a law violates it, we already have a clear remedy in the court system.
Does anyone seriously think hyperbole like this helps anyone? What are you hoping happens, that people take your nonsense seriously and decide that theres nothing they can do to fix things?
No, but of course you're right, we collectively have it about as bad as anyone has had it in 900 years. Never mind the fact that we along with a few others enjoy privileges that others both current and historical would give their lives for; lets count those as rubbish and bemoan our fate. THAT will accomplish a lot.
There are reasons to choose Windows over linux.
Reason the first: Exchange.
Incidentally, I think Ive found a good way of figuring out which posters have a clue: those who say that their product / OS / device is the best option for all scenarios, dont.
Being a sys admin is a joke compared to being a developer (unless maybe you are a code monkey churning junk). Yes, you need to know lots of random information, but it's all "trivia" style information, e.g., Google knows it all. Being a developer often involves knowing a lot more than language syntax (the "trivia" portion of knowledge here).
How do switches work, and how does that impact how you will lay out your storage networks? Do you need a separate switch for each path between SAN and server-- what sort of impact will that make? How do VLANs work, and what path is traffic likely to travel if you use VLANs and trunk ports going through a layer-3 firewall? What will adding STP do to your network setup? How will it react when a single link is lost, and why?
You may be right that it is a different sort of problem solving, but I think you are minimizing how hard sys-adminning can be. Like programming, you need a wide knowledge of protocols, standards, etc; like programming, your skill will be directly related to your depth of knowledge on those topics. Dont understand how ARPs go out, are stored, and how traffic finds its way to its destination? Youll likely architect a bad network.
FWIW I do sysadmin work, though I dabble in "programming" (technically scripting with AutoIt, though much deeper than simple "mouse here click here" stuff), and I think each is difficult in a different way. With each, I have encountered situations where I can see several possible ways to proceed, each with its merits, and all requiring careful thought to implement a solution that is simple, maintainable, and elegant.
Being a sysadmin may be more difficult in practice simply because there are a lot of folks who DONT approach it with the care of a carefully maintained program-- but then I guess the same may be true of many programming projects. But the comparison you make would be as if I said "yea, Ive been a batch script programmer for 10 years, and honestly managing a 1000 server ESX environment is much more difficult".
paying 100 euros for a restrictive license is a bit too much.
So is using software whose goal is to emulate an EOL'd, 12 year old version of Windows, especially when said software has been in alpha for the last decade or so.
Yes, yes, your freedom.. to hate others because they believe something differen
Who, exactly, are you accusing this of? Me?
How many atheist suicide-bombers have there been now? And how many atheists killed doctors last year for performing legal medical procedures? And how many have been killed by atheist-sponsored atrocities in Dafur, Bosnia, and North Ireland?
Same question as above.
Also, RE northern Ireland, its considerably less about religion than is bandied about. Im pretty sure that Catholocism and Protestantism could be removed from the equation and bombings would continue there. You can read through the entire intro section of the IRA on Wikipedia without once encountering words based on "protestant", "catholic", or "religion", because that isnt the primary issue.
Well, except for some very uneducated areas
Does that include the guys who put this thing up there?
He wasnt whining, he was posting what looked to be very constructive criticism.
Or is the new FOSS thing that you are simply not allowed anything other than worship of any project you have not contributed to? Perhaps we should all pretend that Thunderbird is the best mail client ever made, since the majority of us have never contributed it it?
Honestly, with no bugs (complaints!) opened by the users, Im not sure how these projects would improve, but who am I to comment.
I dont believe the reason that you believe what you believe has any relevance whatsoever to your right to believe it; nor should it have any impact on your right to pursue office or anything else.
That's a double edged sword - do we allow virtually anyone to stand for election, or do we bar the religious on the grounds of a mental instability?
People ask why Christians seem to carry around this sneaking paranoia that one day everyone will start persecuting them again.
Im not sure that Id agree with that premise, but this comment-- and many many others like it-- dont do much to reassure anyone. Im not sure I would be super surprised if your apparent wish came true, either.
Say what you want about how crazy or stupid you think religious folks are, but at least we arent trying to outlaw atheism, and I dont believe thats been on the table for a good several hundred years. Apparently progress is switching things around, throwing concepts of freedom of belief out the window, and declaring the religious to be mentally unsound.
Maybe you should check your rhetoric at the door?
Because they dont understand common sense solutions to simple problems, and would rather throw money at the problem?
For starters, because he labeled it racism, which is a misnomer of the highest order. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and its exhausting to have it brought up at every opportunity.
Missing the point. I assert that there is no experimentation that you could perform that would prove that we exist without making non-testable assumptions.
This sounds like a semantic argument. Possibly what you mean by "dead" is not the same as what others mean by "dead". Certainly you did not reach "brain death", or you would not be posting on slashdot right now.
With the brain, there is no BIG TV TRANSMITTER IN THE SKY that has all matter completely unaffected, except for EXTRA-SPECIAL HUMAN BRAINS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SPECIAL. Things don't work that way.
To be clear, are you here saying "there are no phenomena we have not accounted for, because things dont work that way"?
Im no scientist, but im QUITE sure SCIENCE doesnt work that way.
Lets run with a hypothetical here. Lets say there is such a thing as a "soul", and that it is the source of thought, and that its conduit to the body is the brain. Would that be invalidated as an option by your evidence?
I want to be clear here, I am addressing this:
Consciousness being the emerging process of the brain ? Plenty.
Because I see no evidence, and would be interested to see what you have. I had understood that huge parts of how the brain works are a massive mystery to medical science, but if you can enlighten the world with your findings that would be fantastic.
Only if you are willing to acknowledge that those theories remain theories, and are based on a mountain of assumptions.
The idea that you can prove things all the way down with no assumptions is laughable and crumbles under the first shred of inspection.
Likewise you claim that there is not. We might as well degenerate this conversation into "prove you exist" if you want to make "proveability" the god du jour.
The fact is, noone in this thread has any "testable hypothesis". Everything from post one on down is raw speculation by armchair neuroscientists.
But carry on-- it is delicious watching all the hypocrisy, as people go after religion as not being testable (and get modded up for it), and then spout something like this:
That doesn't mean we fully understand it, or that we ever will, but consciousness very obviously arises solely out of the brain.
Oh, I see-- we cant explain it or understand it but we are willing to make dogmatic statements about it.
Im glad you can prove that by experimentation. Now if you'll just direct me to your submission on Arxiv?
Multiply the number by 30 and we're in business. 0-45= easy, 45-75=medium, 75+=hard. The aforementioned "Platinum Blond" would be a 108, but whatever.
The prefix "micro-" in "microwave" is not meant to suggest a wavelength in the micrometer range. It indicates that microwaves are "small" compared to waves used in typical radio broadcasting, in that they have shorter wavelengths. The boundaries between far infrared light, terahertz radiation, microwaves, and ultra-high-frequency radio waves are fairly arbitrary and are used variously between different fields of study.
--From Wikipedia
The idea that you can POSSIBLY conduct a war when you must do a trial prior to any killing just in case some of the enemy are citizens is ludicrous.
I dont know what the solution is, but the idea that "killing the bad guys" is an antiquated notion of war leads nowhere successful. We might as well relinquish any claim to whatever it is the bad actor of the day wants, since we wont be winning any wars with that frame of mind.
How then, can you justify withdrawing the trial whatsoever and going straight for capital punishment, when people who actually get trials aren't always even guilty of what they are convicted of?
Because there is a vast difference between a theatre of war with minimal chance of capture, and Main St USA where the police can apprehend the "bad guys". Unless I am mistaken, police are authorized to use lethal force if it is a proportional response-- if the suspect is armed and taking aim. Im not terribly upset if soldiers shoot a US citizen who is aiming an AK47 at their position in a warzone.
It's funny you mention Nazi Germany, because that's precisely WHY we were fighting against them. They were extrajudicially killing their own citizens for "suspected crimes".
No, thats not why we were there, and if you think so its probably because youve bought into the "US was fighting for freedom" rhetoric. We went into WW2 grudgingly and with selfish motives; if "justice" were the goal we would be doing something about the exact same thing happening in North Korea today. We dont, because its not politically expedient and we arent the force of righteousness that some believe us to be.
They didn't just "round up the Jews" per-se. They usually made up some suspected crime to which they accused them of (subversion, agitation, plotting against the government, theft, or whatever) which was more than enough to see their whole family shipped off to a concentration camp and possibly extrajudicially murdered.
Maybe early in the war, I seem to remember a number of stories about what were basically lynch mobs rounding Jews up and breaking shop windows with no justification-- you might start by googling "Kristallnacht". You seem a little misled on what happened, Id recommend you read up on it.
Even if what you say were true, the massive difference would be that by and large the jews werent on a battlefield, they werent declaring their opposition to the country or their intention to tear it apart, and they werent in a position to do so.
They are targeting people away from battlefields in their homes
When the city contains insurgents, id imagine it becomes difficult to pin down exactly what the "battlefield" is.
and they are often unarmed and not engaged in combat (which is a war crime, according to the rules of war, I believe).
Unless im mistaken, a lot of those rules cease to apply when the opposition wears no uniform nor has a flag, in an attempt to blend into the civilian population. And "innocent" loses a lot of its weight when those around are enabling the opposition and sheltering them. This is a tricky question that has been dealt with before, but whatever the answer is it certainly isnt "anyone who hasnt actually shot a gun is innocent", or else we could never go after enemy officers.
2. Use of drones against US citizens
This is fodder for some good discussion right here, and Id like to get something cleared up.
I understand the importance of jury trial and the dangers of an unchecked government. I understand that the last thing you want is an executive that can freely ignore the judicial branch.
But if a US citizen in 1942 were to go and fight for the Nazi's, and lets say he became a high-up officer-- would we not be justified in going after his life "extrajudicially"? What if a US citizen went to Mexico and became a higher up in the militarized drug cartels (lets not turn this into a discussion on drug politics)-- would we be justified in assisting in his death if capture were not an easy option? What if in those situations the choice was between his death, and him going free?
It seems to me there IS some line for when someone takes up arms in a foreign theatre against US forces; I might be wrong here, which is why Im hoping for constructive responses which could demonstrate my error if there is one.