What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.
Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.
Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution--article III, section 3.
This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."
I don't know of any cable/broadband company that requires you to buy cable to get cable internet, but my only experience is with Charter and Time Warner.
The Internet is not a public resource, and never has been. Same with broadcast spectra. Both were bought and paid for, first by the government, then by Big Media. Big Media paid for the infrastructure that we now use, either by computer, or by radio and television.
If it gets as bad as you fear it might, then we go back to BBS software and off-line mail readers. That's all private usage--Big Business media can't control what they don't create.
I can only imagine that it has gotten worse. Anyone have some numbers? IIRC, a 30-minute broadcast typically contains 22 minutes of programming, 6 minutes of national advertising, and 2 minutes of local ads.
So they design a system to make it harder for me to watch the television programs I enjoy, and I fight back by not watching them at all?
It's called voting with your wallet. If the TV companies lose money because of the restrictions that they have placed on the medium, they will stop using those restrictions. If it's still profitable for them, they'll make money--but each person who stops watching stops contributing to their profit.
What's next, fighting back against internet censorship by not connecting to the internet?
If you honestly think that you're comparing apples with apples, then there are more fundamental flaws in your grasp of logic than can be corrected in a Slashdot post.
I'm not kidding, nor am I trolling. Until and unless watching television becomes mandatory, if you're not participating in the system, THE SYSTEM CANNOT CONTROL YOU.
Increase the efficiency, but are not bsolutely required.
complex fail-safe triggering mechanisms
A usable one is not terribly complex.
primary ignition chemistry, and high explosives are all very very very difficult nuts to crack.
Dow used to sell the high explosives "off the rack."
We're not talking a high-efficiency bomb here, folks--we don't have to be. A small "Little Boy"-style gun assembly bomb still achieved fission with only 1.7 % efficiency (compared to 17% for Fat Man).
Efficient or no, however, it won't matter: the point of exploding even an inefficient device in a major metropolitan area will be psychologically catastrophic. It can be done. And for a terrorist organization, body-count is not nearly as important as the effect on morale--ours and theirs.
Look, don't get me wrong--the people in Gitmo are not "intelligence assets" that our president can go to and waterboard information from whenever he takes a notion. They're people, deserving of rights--including the right of habeas corpus. And they don't deserve it because SCOTUS said they did--they deserved it when they were first arrested/detained/whatever.
For my part, I want the people at Gitmo who are going to be charged with a crime to be charged, be granted access to their lawyers, and be given a just trial. I want the people who are not going to be charged to be released back to their homes (it would be my preference that they be compensated for the massive wrongs perpetrated upon them, but I just don't see the current administration being willing to do that).
Like many here, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with the majority on this ruling, and like many here, I am horrified at such sentiments as Scalia expressed. My sole argument is that, under US law, the Magna Carta cannot be used as the basis of the argument, because it is not part of the US legal system. Even the particular quotes you cite do not call on the MC as the authoritative precedent, but refer to the MC in a historical context.
It's pedantry, I know--but even here on Slashdot, where the debates really don't matter in the "real world," I don't want the rights of these people being argued for in an ineffective manner.
Actually, I was looking at the protocol for this debate challenge almost as one would look at a duel: make the challenge, allow the person challenged to pick weapons. I don't have a venue.
I personally would opt for something where formal debate could be more easily structured, where the debate and commentary on that debate were in separate threads, where observers could not interfere with the debate, and where debaters could not interfere with the commenters. Perhaps even where debaters could not read the comment thread until the debate was concluded.
There is a dramatic difference--indeed, a wide gulf--between cultural and historical influence and legal bearing, and I'm referring to the latter. Laws in the US cannot be based on the Magna Carta, nor does the MC have any legal authority or binding precedent. As far as US laws, it is a historical footnote.
Please don't take that as disapproval of the MC or the influence it has had on our legal system, but it cannot be used as precedent for "deciding" anything.
Scalia's always been outspoken, but this... it sometimes makes me wonder why Congress has seemingly gorgotten that SCOTUS judges are also subject to impeachment.
+1: Insightful. But this post is already maxed out, and I have no mod points. The only thing I can add is it can help to have someone with you when you have that first epic fail who has enough sense to laugh with you, not at you.
We need a legal affirmation of privacy as a right here in America. Griswold v. Conneticut provides an explicit statement of the implicit right.
Child pornography, though quite despicable, is NOT a border-control issue.
Now, here I disagree... sort of. Border patrol agents are law enforcement agents: if they have a court order, or a warrant, to search a particular person's laptop, they are then authorized to do so. However, I quite agree that laptop contents should not be searchable without court authority.
Strong encryption is an answer, not the answer. In this particular case, there should have been no need for any encryption: computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause. And no, "I need to see if you're carrying pictures of naked kids" is not probable cause without substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
Actually he is right, slavery was tertiary to to the civil war, freeing slaves was largly a tactical dicission after the fact.
Again, I welcome you to join the debate in an appropriate neutral venue. So far no one's taken me up on the offer, so you may be by yourself, but the offer stands: I will debate any individual or group that wishes to take the affirmative for the statement (quoting drachenstern) "[The Civil War had] nothing to do with Slavery."
Slashdot not being a good place for an offtopic discussion, you must be new here.
Good point!:D Actually, my request to take this to another venue has nothing to do with it being "off topic," and everything to do with the format of debates.
What I am proposing is a formal debate, where both sides may present their cases (complete with the evidence, citations, and documentation for their views), and where the bystanders have a place to comment--separately from the actual debate, but accessible by all. Indeed, to my mind an optimum addition to said debate would be to have a team of knowledgeable experts to judge the debate.
I don't think such a debate would work as well with slashdot's setup. However, if CowboyNeil and company want to set up a separate area for such formal debates, I'll gladly use that as the venue.
I never said I did not want to discuss this topic--indeed, this is an area of great interest to me. I said that this is not the proper venue, and offered to meet you on any neutral venue of your choice to continue the discussion. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth, especially since what you are implying that I said is almost the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.
Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.
Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution--article III, section 3.
This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."
I am a phosphor, you insensitive clod!
Sorry--I couldn't resist. :D
I don't know of any cable/broadband company that requires you to buy cable to get cable internet, but my only experience is with Charter and Time Warner.
The Internet is not a public resource, and never has been. Same with broadcast spectra. Both were bought and paid for, first by the government, then by Big Media. Big Media paid for the infrastructure that we now use, either by computer, or by radio and television.
If it gets as bad as you fear it might, then we go back to BBS software and off-line mail readers. That's all private usage--Big Business media can't control what they don't create.
Fox news is not "government controlled"--they're just stupid enough to believe that the government is right more than it actually is.
It's called voting with your wallet. If the TV companies lose money because of the restrictions that they have placed on the medium, they will stop using those restrictions. If it's still profitable for them, they'll make money--but each person who stops watching stops contributing to their profit.
What's next, fighting back against internet censorship by not connecting to the internet?If you honestly think that you're comparing apples with apples, then there are more fundamental flaws in your grasp of logic than can be corrected in a Slashdot post.
Try turning it off.
I'm not kidding, nor am I trolling. Until and unless watching television becomes mandatory, if you're not participating in the system, THE SYSTEM CANNOT CONTROL YOU.
Increase the efficiency, but are not bsolutely required.
complex fail-safe triggering mechanismsA usable one is not terribly complex.
primary ignition chemistry, and high explosives are all very very very difficult nuts to crack.Dow used to sell the high explosives "off the rack."
We're not talking a high-efficiency bomb here, folks--we don't have to be. A small "Little Boy"-style gun assembly bomb still achieved fission with only 1.7 % efficiency (compared to 17% for Fat Man).
Efficient or no, however, it won't matter: the point of exploding even an inefficient device in a major metropolitan area will be psychologically catastrophic. It can be done. And for a terrorist organization, body-count is not nearly as important as the effect on morale--ours and theirs.
Go right ahead--if you set up a website like that, let me know. I'll do my best to earn some frequent flier miles there. :D
Even common law is a category, not a precedent.
Look, don't get me wrong--the people in Gitmo are not "intelligence assets" that our president can go to and waterboard information from whenever he takes a notion. They're people, deserving of rights--including the right of habeas corpus. And they don't deserve it because SCOTUS said they did--they deserved it when they were first arrested/detained/whatever.
For my part, I want the people at Gitmo who are going to be charged with a crime to be charged, be granted access to their lawyers, and be given a just trial. I want the people who are not going to be charged to be released back to their homes (it would be my preference that they be compensated for the massive wrongs perpetrated upon them, but I just don't see the current administration being willing to do that).
Like many here, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with the majority on this ruling, and like many here, I am horrified at such sentiments as Scalia expressed. My sole argument is that, under US law, the Magna Carta cannot be used as the basis of the argument, because it is not part of the US legal system. Even the particular quotes you cite do not call on the MC as the authoritative precedent, but refer to the MC in a historical context.
It's pedantry, I know--but even here on Slashdot, where the debates really don't matter in the "real world," I don't want the rights of these people being argued for in an ineffective manner.
Actually, I was looking at the protocol for this debate challenge almost as one would look at a duel: make the challenge, allow the person challenged to pick weapons. I don't have a venue.
I personally would opt for something where formal debate could be more easily structured, where the debate and commentary on that debate were in separate threads, where observers could not interfere with the debate, and where debaters could not interfere with the commenters. Perhaps even where debaters could not read the comment thread until the debate was concluded.
There is a dramatic difference--indeed, a wide gulf--between cultural and historical influence and legal bearing, and I'm referring to the latter. Laws in the US cannot be based on the Magna Carta, nor does the MC have any legal authority or binding precedent. As far as US laws, it is a historical footnote.
Please don't take that as disapproval of the MC or the influence it has had on our legal system, but it cannot be used as precedent for "deciding" anything.
Wrong end of the horse.
Scalia's always been outspoken, but this ... it sometimes makes me wonder why Congress has seemingly gorgotten that SCOTUS judges are also subject to impeachment.
Hello! This is US law we're speaking of. The Magna Carta has no legal bearing on US law, save as a historical footnote.
+1: Insightful. But this post is already maxed out, and I have no mod points. The only thing I can add is it can help to have someone with you when you have that first epic fail who has enough sense to laugh with you, not at you.
The sat was launched, but it'll be ba... [NO CARRIER]
Now, here I disagree ... sort of. Border patrol agents are law enforcement agents: if they have a court order, or a warrant, to search a particular person's laptop, they are then authorized to do so. However, I quite agree that laptop contents should not be searchable without court authority.
Strong encryption is an answer, not the answer. In this particular case, there should have been no need for any encryption: computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause. And no, "I need to see if you're carrying pictures of naked kids" is not probable cause without substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
Again, I welcome you to join the debate in an appropriate neutral venue. So far no one's taken me up on the offer, so you may be by yourself, but the offer stands: I will debate any individual or group that wishes to take the affirmative for the statement (quoting drachenstern) "[The Civil War had] nothing to do with Slavery."
Slashdot not being a good place for an offtopic discussion, you must be new here.Good point! :D Actually, my request to take this to another venue has nothing to do with it being "off topic," and everything to do with the format of debates.
What I am proposing is a formal debate, where both sides may present their cases (complete with the evidence, citations, and documentation for their views), and where the bystanders have a place to comment--separately from the actual debate, but accessible by all. Indeed, to my mind an optimum addition to said debate would be to have a team of knowledgeable experts to judge the debate.
I don't think such a debate would work as well with slashdot's setup. However, if CowboyNeil and company want to set up a separate area for such formal debates, I'll gladly use that as the venue.
The offer stands--any takers?
I never said I did not want to discuss this topic--indeed, this is an area of great interest to me. I said that this is not the proper venue, and offered to meet you on any neutral venue of your choice to continue the discussion. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth, especially since what you are implying that I said is almost the exact opposite of what I actually said.