>There are plenty of places where boxing, cage fighting, etc... happens.
These are licensed sports, generally heavily regulated - not just anybody can go, and if you go there are legal parts to the rules that are fairly well enforced.
This is why deaths in fighting sports are quite rare events.
Without those they would be a lot more common. Killing or maiming somebody with a punch is a lot easier than you think if you don't know what not to aim for. There are even regulations about the fitness and health level of the participants - sorry no entry if you're a serious alcoholic because a blow to the liver will probably be fatal.
Doing this outside the purview of the law would definitely be assault (if nothing goes wrong - if anything does you can expect manslaughter or murder as well). In almost every jurisdiction I know off (and definitely in the USA) assault is a crime - not just a civil offense - and that means you cannot consent to it. The state charges you - not the victim, and the state has every right to do so even if the victim expressly does not wish them to (this is, in part, to prevent criminals getting away with it by scaring the victims). Of course in practice they will rarely press charges without a willing victim since the victim's testimony is very important to a conviction but they don't actually need it and in this case both parties will be getting charged anyway so that aspect falls away entirely.
The pipeline won't make any difference either way even if it was built. It doesn't go to the US, it goes THROUGH the US to the gulf of Mexico and would sell oil on the international market.
Any oil in the US from the pipeline would actually be coming in via oil tankers anyway.
I worked extensively on Solaris admin for a few years... and had to learn SMF. The worst POS init system I ever had to deal with (and I was also adminning a half dozen different version of HPUX and even 2 DEC Alpha's running Tru64 at the time).
Going and copying that hellhole in linux is not a plus in my book.
I honestly think upstart or openRC were better alternatives to SysV but something inspired by SMF ? No thank you.
Not to mention if the fix would violate one of their cardinal rules. For example if it breaks userspace for somebody else. The fix you desperately want on your server could be delayed for years because the best available implementation right now can break pulse-audio one some obscure sound card and affect a tiny percentage of desktop users in a negative way.
There is no reason you can't have it as a local patch but no way in hell will that go into the mainline kernel until somebody finds a way of resolving that conflict.
Heck even on something as simple as licensing it can happen. Way back in the 1990s when SGI open-sourced OpenGL there was one tiny bit of code they didn't own and couldn't replace. They managed to get an agreement with the owners that would allow them to *include* it with the LGPL'd release, but not under the same license. They contacted the FSF and discussed the problem - promising to continue to negotiate to ultimately gain the LGPL licensing or ownership of that crucial piece. The FSF basically told them to go ahead and release and "keep it an in-house secret" - which luckily the unknown third-party also agreed to.
For more than 10 years there was a piece of non-free code in the middle of the openGL code-base with a third-party owner who still had the potential rights to assert any copyright wishes they wanted to over it, like an aligator in a swamp and only a few people in the world knew about it, and they kept quiet (directX was doing well and a free alternative was desperately needed - so it was tactically the best way forward).
Eventually the third party relented and LGPL'd their code and only then was it made public (along with a request to everybody to please install the latest update right away as technically the license on any previous openGL imlementations were invalid).
>They don't talk about free speech either, so what's your point? How about the right for women to vote, that isn't in there either.
My point is that you are stating rights from a creator, who probably doesn't exist, with no reference that even your fellow believers in him acknowledge the existence of this right. There are many good and solid philosophical starting points for discerning a basis of human rights. All with their benefits and downsides. John Locke's labour theory of value on which all modern legal property rights are based is a good example of a very logical one - the downside being that it utterly disenfranchised various native people's of the rights to the land they had lived on for thousands of years (though one could argue that this was a racist misapplication rather than something Locke's theory actually sanctified). But belief in a deity is probably the worst possible basis for a system of rights, historically such beliefs have been much more likely to be used as a basis of oppression than liberation.
>But I'm not talking about a book written by men a long time ago. So it's some creator belief without a book ? Who then decides what this creator endowed you with ? What is, or is not, a right he granted you ? Where is the reference we can consult when somebody claims a "right" which prejudices us ? Where is the reference we can cite when somebody takes a right away from us ?
You have every right to believe whatever the hell you want. The moment your beliefs impact MY life however, you need more justification than just the belief or you are stepping on my rights.
>The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense, it used to be with sticks, now it is with guns.
When you desire to have a dangerous device in a public sphere we share, you need to justify that with more than mere belief. Other people have rights too. There are always points of contention where some rights intrude on others, generally we can say the right ends where the intrusion happens but there are legitimate exceptions - and in those cases pragmatism ought to rule to ensure that the right sacrificed is the one with the least harm. It is perfectly true that protestors have a right to protest. It is also true that if they protest in front of a government building (for example) they may impede traffic or access to the building - which impedes your rights. But if the source of protest is legitimate it's quite likely that the harm they are protesting far exceeds the minor inconvenience this one time intrusion on your freedom of movement may entail - and so courts will side with them. In the case of guns - I think one could reasonably argued that the right to self defence is secondary to the right to live in a safe society as achieving more of the latter ensures there will be less need for the former. Notice how even in countries with strict gun laws those with a legitimate need for them can still acquire them. Farmers who need a weapon to defend their stock from predators have no difficulty getting a license. Sport shooters and enthusiasts who belong to gun clubs have no trouble getting a gun. If the price for a license was simply to join a gun club, which operated under some regulations to ensure your membership was contingent on proper safety training (and accuracy training to reduce the risk of you shooting the wrong person) - would that really be an impediment to your right to self defence ? Nobody has a problem with people who really do know how to handle a gun having one. Many people who do (myself included) nevertheless prefer not to own one, but most people have no problem if you truly do follow proper safety protocols (and know what those are). Is it really such a terrible oppression to make the right contingent on that ? We make the right to drive contingent on proving you can at least do so at a certain minimum standard, you think cars kill a lot of people now ? Imagine a world where there was no drivers licences and anybody could drive ! When your actions threaten th
I would advise against dial-up as the baseline for a completely different reason. Dial-up is expensive infrastructure for ISP's to maintain (they need to pay for a phone-line for each person who wants to be online at any given moment), it ties up the telephone network, it's unreliable...
Dedicated internet infrastructure taking off was not simply a result of the benefits outweighing the cost - it was also technologically a far superior solution than piggybacking on the phone network and this made providing the service much cheaper as well.
> they are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution any time there is not an active declared war.
Actually the current one would be (and everyone since world war 2) - but for a completely different reason. The US has no right to have a standing army - in fact the constitution explicitly prohibits this. An army may only be raised in times of war. After world war 2 though, the military became such a crucial part of the economy in the US that dismantling it would be a disaster. The easiest work around is to be pretty much permanently in a state of war with somebody (Orwellian as that may be).
One could (not entirely unreasonably) argue that, that clause is not possible to honour today because a military that can compete today requires a large number of career soldiers, lots of tranining, lots of expensive equipment that must be bought, stored and maintained etc. It's not just a case of rounding up a bunch of men and sticking guns in their hands anymore. But then the correct way to fix it would be an amendment to make having a standing military allowed - NOT to ensure you are permanently at war.
No holy book ever written included a right to bear arms (or any mention of the topic at all). So which creator did you have in mind and what is your reference that this is one of the rights he granted you ? I haven't even asked for actual evidence he exists yet - just that there is one whose believers actually have a scripture supporting your claim.
>Without a creator, a higher being, then we're just brutish cavemen and it just becomes survival of the fittest. If the only thing keeping you from being brutish is your faith in a higher being then I have news for you: you are brutish. Anything you are only refraining from doing because of your belief - is something you must own as being who you really are.
>The right to be armed is the right to self-defense. It is the right to be reasonably secure in ones own safety.
Well the holy books don't even agree that you HAVE a right to self defense. The most popular one, Jesus, specifically said the exact opposite: according to him if somebody hits you you are supposed to turn the other cheek and let them hit you again. You are supposed to love your enemies.
> Since the police don't have the job of keeping people safe, that is your own personal responsibility. That is exactly the job the police have. What the hell do you think they are FOR ? I'm not saying they DO their job or do it well, but that job is the sole reason we have them.
>Being armed is one way to do that. And now we enter the world of reality where we can actually measure some facts. No. It doesn't. In fact. Statistically - being armed increases your risk, it does not decrease it. Not to mention by far (as in a massive margin) the biggest threat to your safety is yourself, and nothing increases that threat as much as being armed. Unarmed people who try to commit suicide mostly fail.
And it's interesting that while perceptions of violent crime keep going up... actual violent crime keeps going down. It's been on a downward spiral for decades and barring a few countries which are active war zones right now is the safest time to be alive in human history everywhere. So your risk of being attacked is at an all time low. Your biggest risk in that regard if you're American is actually a mass shooting, and your best defence against THAT is to disarm the citizens.
When people without guns try mass-killings you may get one person badly injured, not dozens of dead people. Here in my country we had a typical school-shooting scenario a few years ago... except the kid couldn't get a gun, so he took a japanese sword to school. He managed to kill one kid and injure another before he was taken down. If he had, had a machine gun the body count would have been much, much higher. Sandy-Hook higher.
Bearing arms is not, you will find, in the international bill of human rights. Considering that document is almost identical to the US bill of rights - this should be food for thought. Now consider that it was written in the aftermath of the holocaust and took several years to reach sufficient consensus to actually be signed it's probably the best reference we have for what is natural human rights that governments aren't supposed to be allowed to tread on.
Of course it's imperfect, but it's the best we have - and the ONLY thing we have that if you ask the rest of the world to help your people out because of what your government is doing there is a chance they may listen.
You cited a law about private insurance. Gp spoke of private healthcare. Does everybody in North America struggle under the delusion that these two radically different things are the same thing ?
There was no "binary" thinking there - on the contrary the very idea of "trade-offs" suggests thinking on a sliding scale. "This security patch we should add because it gives a high degree of coverage with little negative impact" but "that one we should skip because it gives only a small bit more while hugely impacting performance" and "this one over here we should never contemplate regardless of it's coverage because it seriously breaks user-space".
With roughly 5000 gods worshipped on earth currently - it's not much of a monopoly though the christ one does seem to have the largest market share. If Microsoft was able to acquire that though - then I am not sure what still separates it from the Satan one ?
On the other hand - the most secure you can make a computer is to pull out the power cord and dump it in a smelter.
Unfortunately trade-offs do have to be made because generally all that security is absolutely *useless* if you cannot subsequently actually USE the thing for it's intended purpose.
Trouble is getting there in the first place won't be. It is far more difficult (and costs a LOT more energy) to send a rocket to the inner planets than to an outer planet. The reasons are a bit complicated for a slashdot post (it's about how much orbital velocity you need around the sun in a smaller orbit and then to get into planetary orbit you have to slow down by a lot more).
It's possible and we've sent probes to venus but they used a lot more fuel than the same size probe would need to Mars despite Mars being further away (actual distance is not the biggest concern with orbital mechanics). For something with enough mass to contain humans - that difference goes up at a near exponential rate. Now there is probably a point where the difference in terraforming costs will outweigh the difference in travel cost. If you're going whole-hog "build a colony" it may well be true - but we're a while away from that yet, and for early stage experiments Mars is almost certainly the cheaper option.
it's an interesting coincidence that the backward compatibility is set for release just one day after the Steam Machines (and the steam link mind you) ?
Filling in a census form is not a loss of freedom. Yes I know king Herod held a census and then he killed babies but the two events did not have a causal relationship and census takers are not babykillers (ps. neither are abortion doctors).
Im sure the canadian form doesn't include a page signing over your power of attorney, first born, immortal soul and first option on all future offers of sexual congress to Trump Holdings however.
Slashdot Mirror
>There are plenty of places where boxing, cage fighting, etc... happens.
These are licensed sports, generally heavily regulated - not just anybody can go, and if you go there are legal parts to the rules that are fairly well enforced.
This is why deaths in fighting sports are quite rare events.
Without those they would be a lot more common. Killing or maiming somebody with a punch is a lot easier than you think if you don't know what not to aim for. There are even regulations about the fitness and health level of the participants - sorry no entry if you're a serious alcoholic because a blow to the liver will probably be fatal.
Doing this outside the purview of the law would definitely be assault (if nothing goes wrong - if anything does you can expect manslaughter or murder as well). In almost every jurisdiction I know off (and definitely in the USA) assault is a crime - not just a civil offense - and that means you cannot consent to it. The state charges you - not the victim, and the state has every right to do so even if the victim expressly does not wish them to (this is, in part, to prevent criminals getting away with it by scaring the victims). Of course in practice they will rarely press charges without a willing victim since the victim's testimony is very important to a conviction but they don't actually need it and in this case both parties will be getting charged anyway so that aspect falls away entirely.
The pipeline won't make any difference either way even if it was built. It doesn't go to the US, it goes THROUGH the US to the gulf of Mexico and would sell oil on the international market.
Any oil in the US from the pipeline would actually be coming in via oil tankers anyway.
So you're the one...
I worked extensively on Solaris admin for a few years... and had to learn SMF. The worst POS init system I ever had to deal with (and I was also adminning a half dozen different version of HPUX and even 2 DEC Alpha's running Tru64 at the time).
Going and copying that hellhole in linux is not a plus in my book.
I honestly think upstart or openRC were better alternatives to SysV but something inspired by SMF ? No thank you.
Not to mention if the fix would violate one of their cardinal rules. For example if it breaks userspace for somebody else.
The fix you desperately want on your server could be delayed for years because the best available implementation right now can break pulse-audio one some obscure sound card and affect a tiny percentage of desktop users in a negative way.
There is no reason you can't have it as a local patch but no way in hell will that go into the mainline kernel until somebody finds a way of resolving that conflict.
Heck even on something as simple as licensing it can happen. Way back in the 1990s when SGI open-sourced OpenGL there was one tiny bit of code they didn't own and couldn't replace. They managed to get an agreement with the owners that would allow them to *include* it with the LGPL'd release, but not under the same license.
They contacted the FSF and discussed the problem - promising to continue to negotiate to ultimately gain the LGPL licensing or ownership of that crucial piece. The FSF basically told them to go ahead and release and "keep it an in-house secret" - which luckily the unknown third-party also agreed to.
For more than 10 years there was a piece of non-free code in the middle of the openGL code-base with a third-party owner who still had the potential rights to assert any copyright wishes they wanted to over it, like an aligator in a swamp and only a few people in the world knew about it, and they kept quiet (directX was doing well and a free alternative was desperately needed - so it was tactically the best way forward).
Eventually the third party relented and LGPL'd their code and only then was it made public (along with a request to everybody to please install the latest update right away as technically the license on any previous openGL imlementations were invalid).
>They don't talk about free speech either, so what's your point? How about the right for women to vote, that isn't in there either.
My point is that you are stating rights from a creator, who probably doesn't exist, with no reference that even your fellow believers in him acknowledge the existence of this right. There are many good and solid philosophical starting points for discerning a basis of human rights. All with their benefits and downsides. John Locke's labour theory of value on which all modern legal property rights are based is a good example of a very logical one - the downside being that it utterly disenfranchised various native people's of the rights to the land they had lived on for thousands of years (though one could argue that this was a racist misapplication rather than something Locke's theory actually sanctified).
But belief in a deity is probably the worst possible basis for a system of rights, historically such beliefs have been much more likely to be used as a basis of oppression than liberation.
>But I'm not talking about a book written by men a long time ago.
So it's some creator belief without a book ? Who then decides what this creator endowed you with ? What is, or is not, a right he granted you ? Where is the reference we can consult when somebody claims a "right" which prejudices us ? Where is the reference we can cite when somebody takes a right away from us ?
You have every right to believe whatever the hell you want. The moment your beliefs impact MY life however, you need more justification than just the belief or you are stepping on my rights.
>The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense, it used to be with sticks, now it is with guns.
When you desire to have a dangerous device in a public sphere we share, you need to justify that with more than mere belief. Other people have rights too. There are always points of contention where some rights intrude on others, generally we can say the right ends where the intrusion happens but there are legitimate exceptions - and in those cases pragmatism ought to rule to ensure that the right sacrificed is the one with the least harm.
It is perfectly true that protestors have a right to protest. It is also true that if they protest in front of a government building (for example) they may impede traffic or access to the building - which impedes your rights. But if the source of protest is legitimate it's quite likely that the harm they are protesting far exceeds the minor inconvenience this one time intrusion on your freedom of movement may entail - and so courts will side with them.
In the case of guns - I think one could reasonably argued that the right to self defence is secondary to the right to live in a safe society as achieving more of the latter ensures there will be less need for the former.
Notice how even in countries with strict gun laws those with a legitimate need for them can still acquire them. Farmers who need a weapon to defend their stock from predators have no difficulty getting a license. Sport shooters and enthusiasts who belong to gun clubs have no trouble getting a gun.
If the price for a license was simply to join a gun club, which operated under some regulations to ensure your membership was contingent on proper safety training (and accuracy training to reduce the risk of you shooting the wrong person) - would that really be an impediment to your right to self defence ? Nobody has a problem with people who really do know how to handle a gun having one. Many people who do (myself included) nevertheless prefer not to own one, but most people have no problem if you truly do follow proper safety protocols (and know what those are). Is it really such a terrible oppression to make the right contingent on that ?
We make the right to drive contingent on proving you can at least do so at a certain minimum standard, you think cars kill a lot of people now ? Imagine a world where there was no drivers licences and anybody could drive !
When your actions threaten th
Where in the article or the summary did you read anything about not having to pay for the internet ?
The "right" being granted is only the right to *have* the choice. The right to get a connection *if* you are willing to pay for it.
Many countries *do* consider it a right.
I would advise against dial-up as the baseline for a completely different reason. Dial-up is expensive infrastructure for ISP's to maintain (they need to pay for a phone-line for each person who wants to be online at any given moment), it ties up the telephone network, it's unreliable...
Dedicated internet infrastructure taking off was not simply a result of the benefits outweighing the cost - it was also technologically a far superior solution than piggybacking on the phone network and this made providing the service much cheaper as well.
> they are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution any time there is not an active declared war.
Actually the current one would be (and everyone since world war 2) - but for a completely different reason. The US has no right to have a standing army - in fact the constitution explicitly prohibits this. An army may only be raised in times of war.
After world war 2 though, the military became such a crucial part of the economy in the US that dismantling it would be a disaster. The easiest work around is to be pretty much permanently in a state of war with somebody (Orwellian as that may be).
One could (not entirely unreasonably) argue that, that clause is not possible to honour today because a military that can compete today requires a large number of career soldiers, lots of tranining, lots of expensive equipment that must be bought, stored and maintained etc. It's not just a case of rounding up a bunch of men and sticking guns in their hands anymore.
But then the correct way to fix it would be an amendment to make having a standing military allowed - NOT to ensure you are permanently at war.
>Our creator...
No holy book ever written included a right to bear arms (or any mention of the topic at all).
So which creator did you have in mind and what is your reference that this is one of the rights he granted you ?
I haven't even asked for actual evidence he exists yet - just that there is one whose believers actually have a scripture supporting your claim.
>Without a creator, a higher being, then we're just brutish cavemen and it just becomes survival of the fittest.
If the only thing keeping you from being brutish is your faith in a higher being then I have news for you: you are brutish. Anything you are only refraining from doing because of your belief - is something you must own as being who you really are.
>The right to be armed is the right to self-defense. It is the right to be reasonably secure in ones own safety.
Well the holy books don't even agree that you HAVE a right to self defense. The most popular one, Jesus, specifically said the exact opposite: according to him if somebody hits you you are supposed to turn the other cheek and let them hit you again. You are supposed to love your enemies.
> Since the police don't have the job of keeping people safe, that is your own personal responsibility.
That is exactly the job the police have. What the hell do you think they are FOR ? I'm not saying they DO their job or do it well, but that job is the sole reason we have them.
>Being armed is one way to do that.
And now we enter the world of reality where we can actually measure some facts. No. It doesn't. In fact. Statistically - being armed increases your risk, it does not decrease it.
Not to mention by far (as in a massive margin) the biggest threat to your safety is yourself, and nothing increases that threat as much as being armed. Unarmed people who try to commit suicide mostly fail.
And it's interesting that while perceptions of violent crime keep going up... actual violent crime keeps going down. It's been on a downward spiral for decades and barring a few countries which are active war zones right now is the safest time to be alive in human history everywhere. So your risk of being attacked is at an all time low.
Your biggest risk in that regard if you're American is actually a mass shooting, and your best defence against THAT is to disarm the citizens.
When people without guns try mass-killings you may get one person badly injured, not dozens of dead people.
Here in my country we had a typical school-shooting scenario a few years ago... except the kid couldn't get a gun, so he took a japanese sword to school. He managed to kill one kid and injure another before he was taken down. If he had, had a machine gun the body count would have been much, much higher. Sandy-Hook higher.
Bearing arms is not, you will find, in the international bill of human rights. Considering that document is almost identical to the US bill of rights - this should be food for thought. Now consider that it was written in the aftermath of the holocaust and took several years to reach sufficient consensus to actually be signed it's probably the best reference we have for what is natural human rights that governments aren't supposed to be allowed to tread on.
Of course it's imperfect, but it's the best we have - and the ONLY thing we have that if you ask the rest of the world to help your people out because of what your government is doing there is a chance they may listen.
So... important safety tip everyone: do not use a 3D-printed dildo while pregnant until further notice ?
Okay,I genuinely can't figure out if you're serious or satirical ?
Poe's Law in action.
But getting to low orbit for landing Mars needs 2.1 km/s while venus needs 3.3 km/s.
You looked at the transfer alone but a trip is more than one burn. You have to add them all up.
One thing I havent factored in is the increased possibility of aerobreaking around venus. Not sure how that changes the final scores.
Possibly. I dont live in the US your holidays are not universal you know.
You cited a law about private insurance. Gp spoke of private healthcare.
Does everybody in North America struggle under the delusion that these two radically different things are the same thing ?
There was no "binary" thinking there - on the contrary the very idea of "trade-offs" suggests thinking on a sliding scale.
"This security patch we should add because it gives a high degree of coverage with little negative impact" but "that one we should skip because it gives only a small bit more while hugely impacting performance" and "this one over here we should never contemplate regardless of it's coverage because it seriously breaks user-space".
With roughly 5000 gods worshipped on earth currently - it's not much of a monopoly though the christ one does seem to have the largest market share. If Microsoft was able to acquire that though - then I am not sure what still separates it from the Satan one ?
On the other hand - the most secure you can make a computer is to pull out the power cord and dump it in a smelter.
Unfortunately trade-offs do have to be made because generally all that security is absolutely *useless* if you cannot subsequently actually USE the thing for it's intended purpose.
Trouble is getting there in the first place won't be.
It is far more difficult (and costs a LOT more energy) to send a rocket to the inner planets than to an outer planet. The reasons are a bit complicated for a slashdot post (it's about how much orbital velocity you need around the sun in a smaller orbit and then to get into planetary orbit you have to slow down by a lot more).
It's possible and we've sent probes to venus but they used a lot more fuel than the same size probe would need to Mars despite Mars being further away (actual distance is not the biggest concern with orbital mechanics). For something with enough mass to contain humans - that difference goes up at a near exponential rate.
Now there is probably a point where the difference in terraforming costs will outweigh the difference in travel cost. If you're going whole-hog "build a colony" it may well be true - but we're a while away from that yet, and for early stage experiments Mars is almost certainly the cheaper option.
If you consider the AVERAGE lifespan of a species - we're already almost there.
it's an interesting coincidence that the backward compatibility is set for release just one day after the Steam Machines (and the steam link mind you) ?
Filling in a census form is not a loss of freedom. Yes I know king Herod held a census and then he killed babies but the two events did not have a causal relationship and census takers are not babykillers (ps. neither are abortion doctors).
Im sure the canadian form doesn't include a page signing over your power of attorney, first born, immortal soul and first option on all future offers of sexual congress to Trump Holdings however.