Negative. the fact that it's military is the main one. The thing about the military as it relates to the topic is *the need to survive*. That provides both:
a) The motivation to create ("if we don't make this nuke, then Adolph will nuke us first" is a lot more powerful motivator for a researcher than "i will get published").
b) The motivation to fund (as you correctly noted, science needs funding). The problem is, humans are not a species known for long-term planning, and thus are not as eager to invest in no-immediate-payoff-scientific research as they are when such research is the difference between winning and losing a war. When DARPA created ARPANET, did *anyone* exist who could envisionthe commercial success of Internet andthus would have invested in the project privately? I doubt it.
To be quite honest, I never understood either side of the issue: a) Why would a woman not be intelligent enough and buy the tampons or pads she needs BEFOREHAND in sufficient quality? b) If a need to buy exists, what's the problem for a guy to do so? I know i wouldn't have any issue with having to do this, although in my 1.5 years of being married, my wife has never gotten herself in such "have to send hubby to store RIGHT NOW" situation. Something to be said for marrying an intelligent woman, i guess;)
IANAR (I'm not a Rabbi), but IIRC, most of the "shall kill" laws in the Torah (the "first part") are specifically applicable to jews ONLY. I.e. even assuming that your witch quote is correct - of which i'm not quite certain - you're not supposed to go and kill all witches. ONLY a Jew who turns witchy. same for lots of other prohibitions (punishable by death or not) - other than 7 las given to Noah, all the others in Torah are *required* only of Jews (everyone else is welcome to eat kosher, for example, but you are only sinning if you eat pig if you are Jewish.
One of the main thing which distingushes Islam, Xtianity and Judaism are:
Judaism: proselytizing is explicitly prohibited. Converts to Judaism are welcomed, but a Jews is NOT supposed to try to get someone to convert who did not want to conert in the first place.
Christianity: proselytizing is required, but (if you actually follow your sacred book's rules) has to be peaceful. I.e. you are not supposed to kill heathens (Jesuits were far from being Christians, other than in name, for example), but you are supposed to go and try and convert them by any other emans possible.
Islam: A non-muslim HAS to be converted or killed. At the very least, heavily discriminated against (higher taxes).
Well, in some ways it is true (but not always:) As a particular example, an average CS person educated in Russia would have a LOT better math background than US counterpart, simply because of the way the education was structured.
Also, you have to remember that in order to get a job in the (or immigrate to) US, one has to pass through a selection process (competing aming their countrymen), so when you compare foreign-ediucated workers and US-educated ones, you are comparing average Americans with above-average furriners.
As always, there are angles and more angles when you look at any issue:)
Unfortuntely, it seems like in the exec war TW-ers are winning (if not already won). It was mentioned in some story on/. a while ago. Too bad, as for my own political reasons I regard TW as a major evil[0] whereas AOL as a minor bad thing.
-DVK
[0] As an example, i'm boycotting CNN for the last 3 years 100%, and would switch to aletrnate cable provider in a second had TWC-NYC not been a monopoly where I live (can't have satellite in our building).
Amen! Great games all-around, especially SQ1. Although I have to agree with one of the flamers in that a large portion of goodness of the games is nostalgic value (more so for me than probably most of the posters[1]), it still doesn't detract from the quality of the games and the fact that they were developing verbal skills as opposed to twitching.
[1] SQ1 was: 1) The first graphics-based computer game I ever played on IBM PC. 2) Incredibly difficult for me (and thus very gratifying to play and win) due to the fact that at the time I lived in fUSSR and spoke very poor English. Had to fiddle a lot with the dictionary in a distributed effort with 2 friends to figure a lot of it out. 3) Due to where/when I played it, associated with one of the 6 high points of my life[2].
[2] That was a 1-month international computer camp near Moscow. The other high points (just to compare) were, in no particular order: * Winning Russian National math competition (yep, I still have the diploma on the wall to prove it). * Reciting an oath when i earned my US citizenship. * The look on my wife's face after her first orgasm (coupled with the fact that it was my first orgasm not involving myself;-> - as well as the first sex either of us ever had - yeah, we are The Last Two People In America Who Married While Still Virgins:)))) * The day my Dad brought home my first PC (self-soldered Sinclair Z80, back in USSR) * The day my first full-time paycheck arrived.
Amen. As the lady said, get off the computer. And be yourself.
I spent 5 years searching for dates on various dating sites. Negative amount of luck (and results). Then I get an email adress of this girl from my Grandmother (yup, you heard me:)
After a long period of emailing, we decided it might be a good idea to meet. 4 months and 8 dates after, I popped the question. 3 months later, we were married.
Oh, and while she's somewhat geeky (lot less than me however), that was not at all the reason she likes me. Acording to her, it was a) How i treated her b) Humour c) being very mature in serious issues and capable of acting like a kid in everyday life. d) Sharing a lot of ideas/thoughts/interests. e) looks. OK, the (e) part, I tend to be somewhat skeptical about (being very objective about my far-from-sexy exterior), but what the hell, if she loves me and I love her, that is all that matters.
I'm not sure if that is true or not (haven't read him recently), but *if* it's true, the explanation might be rooted in the seemingly widespread (at least in this thread;) theory that he writes "for the movies". In which case, having the book not end conclusively is a great thing if you care about making sequels.
I tried to see where it'd be playing around here (NYC)... entered my ZIP... the only one it came up with was some little dinky place on 12th St in Manhattan. Either it hasn't really opened yet, or the 1000 theaters mentioned in the write-up are stretched really thin. Not like i care much - unlike lots of people on/., if I don't like Disney, I don't like Disney. As in, won't spend my money on their profit instead of ranting and raving about how bad they are (at least while I can avoid it, being a child at heart but childless in life for the moment:)
The model you seem to like also introduces major political instability and corruption.
I can't give examples from west europe, not being very interested in the area, but a great example of how the system doesn't work very well is Israel. They have a pure multi-party system, 1000 political parties, and governments that tend not to survive internal problems more often than they do. This has done more damage to the country than I care to list.
As for Green issue - it always amuses me how left-leaning people bitch and moan about their lack of choice etc... Here in NYC, in the last election, we have had 5 or 6 columns for left-wing parties (some of which actually had different candidates), whereas a right wing nut like me had to choose between the following combinations: Republican: X Conservaive: same guy Republican: X Conservaive: empty Republican: empty Conservaive: empty Republican: same guy as Democrat.
Given that opyions #3 and 4 were the most common, it was pretty hard to find any election (other than Governor) worth even looking at, as I was basically given a choice "bend over" vs. "bend over more".
> At what exact point does human endeavour become "playing god"?
Not being an ethicist/philosopher, my opinion may not count for much, but i'd say the "Playing G-d" thing might have 2 independent stages:
1) Creating something that is self-sustainable and self-replicating.
2) Creating something self-aware (i.e. able to figure out it was created by you).
BTW, "Create" means both design and manufature, since without the design part, they are both covered by any woman who gave birth to a child.
From ethical standpoint, both of the above stages have to be treated VERY carefully as both can be cause of MAJOR harm to human race - as opposed to any arbitrary research which by itself (i.e. without some schmuck wising to do harm) aren't necessarily dangerous.
#1: if you created self-replicating something/someone, it can replicate beyond your control, and unless it's a benigh kind intelligent thing, it'll likely compete with us (humans) for resources and might win.
#2: If you create self-aware someone/something, it may evolve, and thus become intelligent enough to either decide to create it's own #1 (for SG1 fans: remember how replicators started? from an artifical robot who built them), or better yet make itself into #1 even if it wasn't self-replicating before (Neuromancer sequel probably could be a decent example, if I wrote it - i'm not sure if Gibson ever did write a sequel and if so then what happened).
A very good sci-fi example of the problems with #1
was in an old Soviet sci-fi book "Burning Island", about some guy who invented a catalyst which caused oxygen in the air to burn itself out. (sorry, nothing good from English-spoeaking Sci-Fi comes to my poor tired mind at the moment, any input welcome;)
I will not go into theological issues - I try not to touch them with a 10^27 foot pole (both because as someone moderately observant I'd be modded to negative infinity, and because unlike some religious people, I don't fancy myself to be an expert on religion/theology just because I hold particular views/beliefs).
As the old joke goes... "One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
I have seen comments about how the story wasn't covered anywhere but one Reuter's article and Moscow Times. And decided to check what's going on with main russian-language news sites.
NOTHING. Not a single mention whatsoever. Checked 5 of the most popular newsfeeds. No mention. Simple search (Yandex.ru for the unduly curious:) turned up several articles on lesser sites. Among the interesting tidbits: * Another book is also missing, a 1913 edition of some book called "Le Futur" by Bolshakov * The book is unique (other than being the first edition) because it has marks/stamps from many other libraries. I wasn't quite sure what that meant - only one article mentioned it - but probably the history of book's ownership is quite interesting. -DVK
According to the interview, he is "certain" to sign on, if he does, will also be SG1 member. How they plan to expand SG1 to 5 people, i'm not sure. But watchng the interplay between him and Jackson, if written as well as other interaction between team members, would be fun. -DVK
Uh,... slightly off topic, but NOBODY I know ever called the car "Lada" in USSR. It was called "Zhiguli". Lada was the brand name they invented later to be able to sell the cars outside USSR. (I believe the story went that the term "Zhiguli" sounded really improper in Hungarian). And the cars in Bond movies were all old models (newer ones are now called "Lada" even in Russia, but the ones you refer to are old models, predating that).
On-topic. Eye candy in web design wins over content. 100% proven by my own sad example at work. And not for Joe Schmoe, but for high level managers. -DVK
All that your post shows is that: 1) You don't appreciate books. I wonder if there's anything on your bookshelf other than "Das Kapital" and "Little Red Book" - after all, what is the point of the book unless it pushes YOUR ideology? Most of us like Sci-Fi (or any other creative work) for its worth, not for the ideology. I equally well enjoy Eric Flint (despite being nearly 180% opposite him in political views - which are VERY srongly present in his books, especially "1632"), "Harry Potter" with its... err... "paganist witchcraft", and RAH's "Stranger in a strange land". None of these makes me worse as far as it concerns my being politically conservative, or Jewish (both RAH and Potter are equally bad ideologically, from "proper" religious POV for me).
2) You are immature. the "pro-killing" (what, don't like to be labeled derisively?) camp does not benefit from proponents who call their opposition's ideas "crap".
Also, i'd love to hear an explanation of "obvious creationist agenda" in OSC... i'm on Book 4 of Ender's series, and aside from immortal soul, can't find any religious agenda in any of the books.
As for SF with 7 day creation in it, i believe the original one was called "Torah". It was pretty scientific for its day, and according to your views definintely "fiction". A very old book. Quite popular too, i've been told:)
Uhm... he probably lives in the same country as ACLU, you and me. Except, he understands the politics on an intelligent (not touchy-feely) level. However, hist country of origin is irrelevant.
A system of 100% liberty to do anything one wants is not called Democracy, or Republic. It's called "Anarchy" and is pretty far from US political system.
Most of the laws in the US restrict what someone can do. Some of them restrict what Joe Average can do - for example, you can't refuse to pay taxes, or drive over speed limit, etc...; some restrict what Law enforcement can do (i.e. they can't search your house without a warrant), some restrict what a particular part of government can do (i.e. congress can not pass a law establishing state religion).
As for ACLU, I refuse to support it because instead of Civil Liberties, it supports left wing causes. Which sometimes are the same, and sometimes (NAMBLA being the best example) are not. The moment they stop helping NAMBLA and such, and start being less partisan, is the moment I'll support them. Basically, I agree with their charter but not their implementation of it.
Funny, from my point of view, it was (and still are) the Democrats that screw both the nation and me in particular. Then again, for the Left, anyone disagreeing with them is not really "part of the nation", but "enemies of the proletariat". Too bad most left ideologists never had to have my experience of living under socialism. They might change their minds in a hurry. -DVK
Uhm... while the "don't stick out" mentality might account for near 100% of the pledge issue, compared to, say, 80% or 90%, the BULK of them probably actually meant the support they showed, for one reason or another. -DVK
That has the same effect as finding crime scenes, and trying to screw them up before the police get there so they'd have harder time to catch criminals. Or calling police tips hotline with bogus crap. If that isn't against the law now, it should be. Just like what you are proposing. -DVK (who thinks that watching a plane hit WTC2 *directly* above your head after being inside WTC1 during the first hit might have changed your mind about who the bad guys are. Too bad it had to be me, who already knew that it's terrorists we need to direct the energy against, not the US govt).
Slashdot Mirror
Negative. the fact that it's military is the main one.
The thing about the military as it relates to the topic is *the need to survive*.
That provides both:
a) The motivation to create ("if we don't make this nuke, then Adolph will nuke us first" is a lot more powerful motivator for a researcher than "i will get published").
b) The motivation to fund (as you correctly noted, science needs funding). The problem is, humans are not a species known for long-term planning, and thus are not as eager to invest in no-immediate-payoff-scientific research as they are when such research is the difference between winning and losing a war.
When DARPA created ARPANET, did *anyone* exist who could envisionthe commercial success of Internet andthus would have invested in the project privately? I doubt it.
-DVK
To be quite honest, I never understood either side of the issue: ;)
a) Why would a woman not be intelligent enough and buy the tampons or pads she needs BEFOREHAND in sufficient quality?
b) If a need to buy exists, what's the problem for a guy to do so? I know i wouldn't have any issue with having to do this, although in my 1.5 years of being married, my wife has never gotten herself in such "have to send hubby to store RIGHT NOW" situation. Something to be said for marrying an intelligent woman, i guess
-DVK
One of the main thing which distingushes Islam, Xtianity and Judaism are:
Judaism: proselytizing is explicitly prohibited. Converts to Judaism are welcomed, but a Jews is NOT supposed to try to get someone to convert who did not want to conert in the first place.
Christianity: proselytizing is required, but (if you actually follow your sacred book's rules) has to be peaceful. I.e. you are not supposed to kill heathens (Jesuits were far from being Christians, other than in name, for example), but you are supposed to go and try and convert them by any other emans possible.
Islam: A non-muslim HAS to be converted or killed. At the very least, heavily discriminated against (higher taxes).
Just FYI. -DVK
Well, in some ways it is true (but not always :)
:)
As a particular example, an average CS person educated in Russia would have a LOT better math background than US counterpart, simply because of the way the education was structured.
Also, you have to remember that in order to get a job in the (or immigrate to) US, one has to pass through a selection process (competing aming their countrymen), so when you compare foreign-ediucated workers and US-educated ones, you are comparing average Americans with above-average furriners.
As always, there are angles and more angles when you look at any issue
-DVK
I prefer to give my eyeballs/ad money to competing channels ;)
-DVK
Unfortuntely, it seems like in the exec war TW-ers are winning (if not already won). It was mentioned in some story on /. a while ago. Too bad, as for my own political reasons I regard TW as a major evil[0] whereas AOL as a minor bad thing.
-DVK
[0] As an example, i'm boycotting CNN for the last 3 years 100%, and would switch to aletrnate cable provider in a second had TWC-NYC not been a monopoly where I live (can't have satellite in our building).
Amen! Great games all-around, especially SQ1.
;-> - as well as the first sex either of us ever had - yeah, we are The Last Two People In America Who Married While Still Virgins :))))
Although I have to agree with one of the flamers in that a large portion of goodness of the games is nostalgic value (more so for me than probably most of the posters[1]), it still doesn't detract from the quality of the games and the fact that they were developing verbal skills as opposed to twitching.
[1] SQ1 was:
1) The first graphics-based computer game I ever played on IBM PC.
2) Incredibly difficult for me (and thus very gratifying to play and win) due to the fact that at the time I lived in fUSSR and spoke very poor English. Had to fiddle a lot with the dictionary in a distributed effort with 2 friends to figure a lot of it out.
3) Due to where/when I played it, associated with one of the 6 high points of my life[2].
[2] That was a 1-month international computer camp near Moscow. The other high points (just to compare) were, in no particular order:
* Winning Russian National math competition (yep, I still have the diploma on the wall to prove it).
* Reciting an oath when i earned my US citizenship.
* The look on my wife's face after her first orgasm (coupled with the fact that it was my first orgasm not involving myself
* The day my Dad brought home my first PC (self-soldered Sinclair Z80, back in USSR)
* The day my first full-time paycheck arrived.
-DVK
Amen. As the lady said, get off the computer. And be yourself.
:)
;)
I spent 5 years searching for dates on various dating sites. Negative amount of luck (and results). Then I get an email adress of this girl from my Grandmother (yup, you heard me
After a long period of emailing, we decided it might be a good idea to meet. 4 months and 8 dates after, I popped the question. 3 months later, we were married.
Oh, and while she's somewhat geeky (lot less than me however), that was not at all the reason she likes me. Acording to her, it was
a) How i treated her
b) Humour
c) being very mature in serious issues and capable of acting like a kid in everyday life.
d) Sharing a lot of ideas/thoughts/interests.
e) looks.
OK, the (e) part, I tend to be somewhat skeptical about (being very objective about my far-from-sexy exterior), but what the hell, if she loves me and I love her, that is all that matters.
Cheers,
and good luck
-DVK
Speaking of repfixes... have anyone ever used "e-cyber-" or "cyber-nano-"? ;)
*duck*
I'm not sure if that is true or not (haven't read him recently), but *if* it's true, the explanation might be rooted in the seemingly widespread (at least in this thread ;) theory that he writes "for the movies". In which case, having the book not end conclusively is a great thing if you care about making sequels.
Just my 2 kopeks.
-DVK
Guess it's already been /.-ted :(
"We're sorry, but we can't find the HomePage you've requested."
Any kind sole made a cached copy (Google has none either *sniff*)?
I tried to see where it'd be playing around here (NYC)... entered my ZIP... the only one it came up with was some little dinky place on 12th St in Manhattan. Either it hasn't really opened yet, or the 1000 theaters mentioned in the write-up are stretched really thin. /., if I don't like Disney, I don't like Disney. As in, won't spend my money on their profit instead of ranting and raving about how bad they are (at least while I can avoid it, being a child at heart but childless in life for the moment :)
Not like i care much - unlike lots of people on
-DVK
The model you seem to like also introduces major political instability and corruption.
I can't give examples from west europe, not being very interested in the area, but a great example of how the system doesn't work very well is Israel. They have a pure multi-party system, 1000 political parties, and governments that tend not to survive internal problems more often than they do. This has done more damage to the country than I care to list.
As for Green issue - it always amuses me how left-leaning people bitch and moan about their lack of choice etc... Here in NYC, in the last election, we have had 5 or 6 columns for left-wing parties (some of which actually had different candidates),
whereas a right wing nut like me had to choose between the following combinations:
Republican: X Conservaive: same guy
Republican: X Conservaive: empty
Republican: empty Conservaive: empty
Republican: same guy as Democrat.
Given that opyions #3 and 4 were the most common, it was pretty hard to find any election (other than Governor) worth even looking at, as I was basically given a choice "bend over" vs. "bend over more".
-DVK
You know, your little anti-Bush rant would have had more impact if you actually knew what the hell you're talking about.
***Senate*** - part of the legistaltive branch of governebt - and is still controlled by your friends the Democrats - voted to raise their salary.
What the fsck does that have to do with President Bush?
-DVK
Answer to your question: Sid!!!!
/. ;)
(if I have to explain that the reference is from User Friendly, you don't deserve to be on
-DVK
Not being an ethicist/philosopher, my opinion may not count for much, but i'd say the "Playing G-d" thing might have 2 independent stages:
1) Creating something that is self-sustainable and self-replicating.
2) Creating something self-aware (i.e. able to figure out it was created by you).
BTW, "Create" means both design and manufature, since without the design part, they are both covered by any woman who gave birth to a child.
From ethical standpoint, both of the above stages have to be treated VERY carefully as both can be cause of MAJOR harm to human race - as opposed to any arbitrary research which by itself (i.e. without some schmuck wising to do harm) aren't necessarily dangerous.
#1: if you created self-replicating something/someone, it can replicate beyond your control, and unless it's a benigh kind intelligent thing, it'll likely compete with us (humans) for resources and might win.
#2: If you create self-aware someone/something, it may evolve, and thus become intelligent enough to either decide to create it's own #1 (for SG1 fans: remember how replicators started? from an artifical robot who built them), or better yet make itself into #1 even if it wasn't self-replicating before (Neuromancer sequel probably could be a decent example, if I wrote it - i'm not sure if Gibson ever did write a sequel and if so then what happened).
A very good sci-fi example of the problems with #1 was in an old Soviet sci-fi book "Burning Island", about some guy who invented a catalyst which caused oxygen in the air to burn itself out. (sorry, nothing good from English-spoeaking Sci-Fi comes to my poor tired mind at the moment, any input welcome ;)
I will not go into theological issues - I try not to touch them with a 10^27 foot pole (both because as someone moderately observant I'd be modded to negative infinity, and because unlike some religious people, I don't fancy myself to be an expert on religion/theology just because I hold particular views/beliefs).
-DVK
As the old joke goes...
"One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and
do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
-Cheers,
DVK
I have seen comments about how the story wasn't covered anywhere but one Reuter's article and Moscow Times. And decided to check what's going on with main russian-language news sites.
:)
NOTHING. Not a single mention whatsoever. Checked 5 of the most popular newsfeeds. No mention.
Simple search (Yandex.ru for the unduly curious
turned up several articles on lesser sites. Among the interesting tidbits:
* Another book is also missing, a 1913 edition of some book called "Le Futur" by Bolshakov
* The book is unique (other than being the first edition) because it has marks/stamps from many other libraries. I wasn't quite sure what that meant - only one article mentioned it - but probably the history of book's ownership is quite interesting.
-DVK
According to the interview, he is "certain" to sign on, if he does, will also be SG1 member. How they plan to expand SG1 to 5 people, i'm not sure. But watchng the interplay between him and Jackson, if written as well as other interaction between team members, would be fun.
-DVK
Uh,... slightly off topic, but NOBODY I know ever called the car "Lada" in USSR. It was called "Zhiguli".
Lada was the brand name they invented later to be able to sell the cars outside USSR. (I believe the story went that the term "Zhiguli" sounded really improper in Hungarian). And the cars in Bond movies were all old models (newer ones are now called "Lada" even in Russia, but the ones you refer to are old models, predating that).
On-topic. Eye candy in web design wins over content. 100% proven by my own sad example at work. And not for Joe Schmoe, but for high level managers.
-DVK
-DVK
All that your post shows is that:
:)
1) You don't appreciate books. I wonder if there's anything on your bookshelf other than "Das Kapital" and "Little Red Book" - after all, what is the point of the book unless it pushes YOUR ideology?
Most of us like Sci-Fi (or any other creative work) for its worth, not for the ideology.
I equally well enjoy Eric Flint (despite being nearly 180% opposite him in political views - which are VERY srongly present in his books, especially "1632"), "Harry Potter" with its... err... "paganist witchcraft", and RAH's "Stranger in a strange land".
None of these makes me worse as far as it concerns my being politically conservative, or Jewish (both RAH and Potter are equally bad ideologically, from "proper" religious POV for me).
2) You are immature. the "pro-killing" (what, don't like to be labeled derisively?) camp does not benefit from proponents who call their opposition's ideas "crap".
Also, i'd love to hear an explanation of "obvious creationist agenda" in OSC... i'm on Book 4 of Ender's series, and aside from immortal soul, can't find any religious agenda in any of the books.
As for SF with 7 day creation in it, i believe the original one was called "Torah". It was pretty scientific for its day, and according to your views definintely "fiction". A very old book. Quite popular too, i've been told
-DVK
Uhm... he probably lives in the same country as ACLU, you and me. Except, he understands the politics on an intelligent (not touchy-feely) level. However, hist country of origin is irrelevant.
A system of 100% liberty to do anything one wants is not called Democracy, or Republic.
It's called "Anarchy" and is pretty far from US political system.
Most of the laws in the US restrict what someone can do. Some of them restrict what Joe Average can do - for example, you can't refuse to pay taxes, or drive over speed limit, etc...; some restrict what Law enforcement can do (i.e. they can't search your house without a warrant), some restrict what a particular part of government can do (i.e. congress can not pass a law establishing state religion).
As for ACLU, I refuse to support it because instead of Civil Liberties, it supports left wing causes. Which sometimes are the same, and sometimes (NAMBLA being the best example) are not.
The moment they stop helping NAMBLA and such, and start being less partisan, is the moment I'll support them. Basically, I agree with their charter but not their implementation of it.
-DVK
Funny, from my point of view, it was (and still are) the Democrats that screw both the nation and me in particular. Then again, for the Left, anyone disagreeing with them is not really "part of the nation", but "enemies of the proletariat".
Too bad most left ideologists never had to have my experience of living under socialism. They might change their minds in a hurry.
-DVK
Uhm... while the "don't stick out" mentality might account for near 100% of the pledge issue, compared to, say, 80% or 90%, the BULK of them probably actually meant the support they showed, for one reason or another.
-DVK
That has the same effect as finding crime scenes, and trying to screw them up before the police get there so they'd have harder time to catch criminals. Or calling police tips hotline with bogus crap. If that isn't against the law now, it should be. Just like what you are proposing.
-DVK (who thinks that watching a plane hit WTC2 *directly* above your head after being inside WTC1 during the first hit might have changed your mind about who the bad guys are. Too bad it had to be me, who already knew that it's terrorists we need to direct the energy against, not the US govt).