Oh, and I checked. Just another politician if slightly better than most it seems. But the original poster, who obviously cares so much about this guy, couldn't even be arsed to spell his name right (Zoran Djindjic)
No, should or should not isn't the point. Either we do or don't. Currently it isn't guaranteed in the USA but that doesn't mean that it isn't a right.
Just as equally, the constitution regcognises the right to keep and bear arms. If I go to the U.K., even though owning a gun is illegal, I still have the right because it is part of being human.
Before the revolution, those revolting believed they had the right not to be taxed without representation. It was not recognised by law but it was a right nonetheless. After the revolution, they codified the right into law but rights are orthogonal to laws.
How about a huge balloon with one-half of it mirrored? Any punctures would be catastrophic of course but make it small and light enough and you could carry a few replacements with you.
You can feel that way if you want. And I would agree that for practical purposes, there's not much point to rights but they are there nonetheless. I mean, just look at the word we use to describe them, "right"s. I.e. what is "right". It is "right" that you be able to speak your mind therefore, free speech is a "right". Is it right that you should be able to eat for free from someone elses food? I wouldn't agree. Is it "right" that we not be treated as cattle to be tagged and tracked? That is where the argument lays.
It is important to get these concepts right. We should base the law on our morals. If we take our morals from the law (as the original assertion that the law defines our rights) then we are in moral and legislative freefall.
Privacy? In the Constitution? No, sir. The Constitution says that you can expect to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, but that's as far as it goes
You are right. I was thinking of something else that for some reason I thought was in there. Though the fifth could also be construed to protect privacy in some measure but not really directly I'd grant.
But with a man in a van with a camera, you need to have a target picked out. With this kind of technology, it would be possible to store the movements of *everybody* and then go fishing later, asking your mega database such questions as "who has been attending subversive meetings". That's called unlawful search and seizure.
No, rights are rights and come from the human condition (or from God if that is your belief). The U.S. constitution simply enumerates and guarantees protection from the infringement for some of the rights you have. Your rights are not created by law.
Whether there is a right to privacy is debatable. Certainly, I think most of us would agree that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Certain aspects of it are even guaranteed by the constitution.
The part where you have to go through the line-up for your content provider flagging which channels you do and don't receive. Though admitedly, this isn't an issue for me anymore as I have dumped my satellite cause Tivo has made it possible to suck enough watchable content out of the standard network channels to satisfy my T.V. needs (The only thing I really miss is "The Daily Show")
That is a poor analogy because the infrastructure to provide the bandwidth is always there and always on. It is not like if you download 1GB today, that is one less GB available for tomorrow. The simple fact is that it makes most sense for ISPs to charge what maximises their revenue. In a perfect world, this would also utilise close to 100% of their available bandwidth.
Not true. If farming were not a lucrative business then people should get out of it and prices should rise to compensate, leaving soil to its own devices. If farmers overfarm the soil, production goes down, prices go up and therefore demand drops, leading to less overfarming.
In the U.K., farmers are being harmed by the subsidies given to farmers in france.
Again, it's not my soil so why should I care for it as long as I get to buy my food. You won't convince me that the government taking my taxes and paying farmers to do nothing so that the price of my food is artificially inflated is good for me. Let the market decide.
That would be fair enough if the reasons for paying the farmers were because the soil needed preserving and not just for political reasons. THat land is often left unused for year after year, meanwhile, larger concerns are making good use of the soil they have to produce food from it year after year.
Stop the subsidies and if farmers abuse the soil so they can't grow food on it then they will pay the consequences. There is no good reason to use my tax money to artificially inflate food prices.
But surely once it falls towards earth (a lower orbit), its angular velocity will increase, causing it to get ahead of the earth. The cable will become taut and the earth will slow its angular velocity, causing it to return to the higher orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
Rich
Rich
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That is to say that just because soemthing is not guaranteed by the bill of rights does not mean that it is not a right.
Rich
Just as equally, the constitution regcognises the right to keep and bear arms. If I go to the U.K., even though owning a gun is illegal, I still have the right because it is part of being human.
Before the revolution, those revolting believed they had the right not to be taxed without representation. It was not recognised by law but it was a right nonetheless. After the revolution, they codified the right into law but rights are orthogonal to laws.
Rich
Rich
Rich
It is important to get these concepts right. We should base the law on our morals. If we take our morals from the law (as the original assertion that the law defines our rights) then we are in moral and legislative freefall.
Privacy? In the Constitution? No, sir. The Constitution says that you can expect to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, but that's as far as it goes
You are right. I was thinking of something else that for some reason I thought was in there. Though the fifth could also be construed to protect privacy in some measure but not really directly I'd grant.
Rich
Rich
No, rights are rights and come from the human condition (or from God if that is your belief). The U.S. constitution simply enumerates and guarantees protection from the infringement for some of the rights you have. Your rights are not created by law.
Whether there is a right to privacy is debatable. Certainly, I think most of us would agree that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Certain aspects of it are even guaranteed by the constitution.
Rich
Rich
Rich
I wasn't commenting on the validity of charging schemes, just on the appropriateness of the analogy. Hope this helps.
Rich
Rich
Rich
In the U.K., farmers are being harmed by the subsidies given to farmers in france.
Again, it's not my soil so why should I care for it as long as I get to buy my food. You won't convince me that the government taking my taxes and paying farmers to do nothing so that the price of my food is artificially inflated is good for me. Let the market decide.
Rich
Rich
Rich
Rich
Stop the subsidies and if farmers abuse the soil so they can't grow food on it then they will pay the consequences. There is no good reason to use my tax money to artificially inflate food prices.
Rich
I think I need to do some calculations.
Rich
I think most of the gain is actually supposed to come from not needing reactive mass though.
Rich
Err, geostationary. If you don't understand it, go look it up.
Rich
It jsut goes over their head. Like a Martian and the Mars Climate Observer.
Rich
Rich
According to my "Nasa's big book of imperial/metric conversions", these are actually the same length.
Rich