Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence? if that machine is connected to a network that you have legal physical access to then isnt it up to them to secure it? Unless your sending 25,000 volts down a line (which should be physical damage), digital breaking and entering is not the same as physical breaking and entering. Every door has a bigger hammer that can knock it down, every bolt has a sharper cutter that can slice it. However a properly secured system should be able to take any pattern of 1's and 0's and be able to survive until it gets that "correct" sequence (which can be too long to brute force), unlike a door which just cant be secured like that.
I may be splitting hairs here, but from my perspective as a computer engineer, the information in a computer system has a very real physical presence, whether it's the charge held in one cell of DRAM, or the orientation of some magnetic elements on a disk. While it's true that these physical elements change while the machine is running, they are doing so in a way that is intended by the owner of the machine, much like the pistons, valves, flywheel, and transmission all interoperate in a way that enables your vehicle to work as expected.
To continue the analogy, you may legally borrow someone's car, and use it in an acceptable way. However, if you deliberately take that car out on the highway and suddenly shove the gearshift into reverse, causing the transmission to self destruct, you wouldn't claim that it was the owner's, or even the manufacturer's responsibility to secure the car from letting you do that. Correct? In this case, you are guilty of a form of vandalism, or if you're just incompetent, then you're at least liable for the damage.
Likewise, if someone starts poking around the interfaces of a computer they find on the network, and finds a way to make the machine perform in an unintended way, or causing it to lose data, then that person should be liable for the damages.
Now, certainly we lock our cars to prevent just anyone from taking them, and we should put a reasonable amount of protection on our computers to secure them as well. However, if someone defeats the locking mechanism, or cracks into your computer, both are crimes of unauthorized access.
Is it my fault if someone slides open an unlocked window on my house, comes in, and steals a bunch of my stuff? Most of you would agree that I'm not at fault, though perhaps I should keep my window locked 24 hours a day. Why would you then think that it's ok for someone to damage another person's machine, whether they secure it or not?
Look, I'm all for hacking, but do it on your own system, not mine.
While I'm all for extra-planetary studies, I don't believe it should be funded by taxpayer dollars. I know this won't make me popular with the Slashdot crowd, but I think most NASA missions are overpriced boondoggles. I would much rather see things like this done via the private market. This would free up money for more important things, like fighting terrorism and tax relief to a beleagured public.
I hate to break it to you, but if you leave it to businesses to fund space research, then the entire population of Mars is going to be Chinese. Not that I really mind that, but I figured that, being an American, you might.
The Brits would know the difference. I mean Canada is on better terms with Britan than the US. They still sing God Save the Queen and feature her on their currency. They are commonwealth and a citizenship in other commonwealth nations makes it easy to get a job there. Heck, until 1980 they hadn't even fully become sperate. I don't remember what it was, fairly trivial, but Britan wasn't totally out of Canada until then technically speaking.
Wow, what a troll... where do I begin. Oh yeah, "God save the queen"? I think my father said he used to sing that, back in a one room school house in the 50's.
I'm not sure that Canada is actually on better terms with Britain than the U.S., given the whole Iraq thing, but in general, perhaps that's been true overall.
The commonwealth thing? Not a chance... my South African friend finds it much easier to go to the U.S. than Canada. Canadians and Americans can visit and/or work in each others' country more easily than either can visit anywhere else in the world.
In 1982, Canada signed a new constitution (perhaps that's what you were referring to) which replaced the British North America act as the original "constitution", which was passed into law in Britain in 1867, giving the Dominion of Canada self-government.
Britain is still not "out of Canada", since technically speaking, Elizabeth still holds the title, "Queen of Canada", and is technically our head of state. Certainly that may not last much longer, but it is the case right now. No hard feelings, just time to move on, if we have the time to do all the paperwork, which we don't, thanks to all the hullaballoo with the U.S. these days.
So if it costs $0.20 per watt over 20 years, then we're talking $0.20 for every 20 Watt-Years, which would be one cent per Watt-Year.
If there are approximately 8760 hours in a year, then we're talking $0.00000114 per Watt-Hour, or $0.00114 per KWh. That's preeetty cheap! Or is my math wrong?
Did anyone test to see if the consumption of bean filled meals changed the environment? They blame global warming on bovine flatulence but it could it be the mass consumption of burritos?
I always wondered why it was so hot in Mexico... now I know! Wow, on Slashdot, you learn something new every day.
I already figured out why it's colder in Canada though... you see, people up here in Canada are more likely to wear insulated clothing, and that keeps body heat from escaping into the environment. This effect is most notable in the winter, when almost everyone wears several layers of insulated clothing when going out of their house, and this translates to even colder temperatures than usual. Of course, the interiors of houses still stay warm all year long, because people never wear bulky clothing indoors; that would be rather inconvenient, after all.
However, why am I flying towards galileo? Time goes slow for me because I'm moving from galileo's POV, but from my POV galileo is flying towards me. Yeah I know its the twins paradox, but I never understood the resolving of it
You are basically saying, if you get in a spaceship, and blast off towards Jupiter, is it you moving or Jupiter. It seems obvious, but how do we know??? Well, you were the one who accelerated... you turned some potential energy into kinetic energy with your rocket (increasing your mass by the equation E=mc^2), so you did the accelerating, so time on Jupiter will pass faster than in your spaceship... I think.
Here's a good one for you... the solar system is already moving through the galaxy in some direction, so if I blast off and head backwards from Sol's heading, wouldn't that make time pass faster for me, not slower? Would I be going slower relative to the galaxy's speed? Would that mean my mass would decrease? I really never figured that one out. Perhaps the sun and our solar system only accelerated due to gravity, and that doesn't count... oh, my head hurts...
since when does a mature rating matter when parents buy their kids video games? Most parents don't care what it's rated. They just get junior what he wants so he'll leave them alone. these are the same parents that take their 10 yr old kids and their kids friends to the worst "R" rated movies out there and then go watch a different movie themselves.
Exactly, and if those kids grow up to be criminals, wouldn't it be partly the parents' fault?
Again, it's symbolic. Let's say the US military allowed women into the armed forces, but refused to call them soldiers, because traditionally, soldiers were men. Would you agree that the nomenclature still implies a level of subconscious discrimination?
Ooooh, good one! Seriously, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.
Our system of law is not a "clear victim-only" crime. All sorts of activities, such as drug use or firearms waiting periods or suicide, have no victims but are still crimes. "It doesn't hurt anyone" isn't nearly enough to get a law declared unconstitutional or have the courts recognize a new constitutional right.
Well, in my country, we are starting to relax laws on drug possession, where it's clear that possession or use of the drug is not harming anyone else.
Also, suicide is not a crime, and neither is attempted suicide, anymore. The problem with attempted suicide being a crime was that you couldn't get that person help, and putting them in prison wasn't going to fix the underlying problem (probably depression).
Furthermore, firearms waiting periods has nothing to do with a crime - it's just a regulation. In Canada, for instance, you have to get a special permit to own a handgun, which is admittedly restrictive, but at least that's based on the intent of reducing violence between members of society. There is also statistical evidence to support that people who live in houses with guns are more likely to be shot. At least there's a valid argument - but of course there's a valid argument the other way too... which is why the debate rages on.
Let's look at prostitution: it's not actually illegal, only the activities surrounding the flesh trade are illegal, such as soliciting for sex. The reason being that soliciting someone for sex who doesn't want to be solicited is a form of harrassment, which is harm. However, if you meet a friend of yours in a hotel room for a little action, and give them money, there's nothing the police can charge you with, because no crime was committed.
Given all this, I submit that most laws ARE based on the prevention of harm to person and property. I further claim that any law that is not based on that principle is probably an unnecessary restriction of personal freedom.
For instance, in Afghanistan, the Taliban government forced women to wear Burqas; we considered that repulsive because it restricted the freedom of those women, and a woman not wearing a Burqa is not harming anyone else. However, that law was based on their "culture", so your argument would support this abuse of power. Admittedly, now that women there are free to not wear a Burqa, some still do, because it's their culture, but that's not surprising. In Ontario, for instance, women are allowed to walk around in public with no shirt on, but I've never run across any woman willing to exercise that right. I keep my fingers crossed though. On the other hand, people must still wear some form of covering below the waist, and not only is this based on cultural norms, but at least it's applied consistently across the board: it restricts everybody, which at least means it's consistent with the constitution.
Our European and Colonial forefathers did not approve of polyamory. It wasn't part of their culture, and it isn't part of the culture that they handed down to us.
News Flash: They're dead! They don't get to vote, and they don't give a rats ass anymore. It's up to this generation to decide.
So, we should allow human sacrafice, forced marriage, man-boy love, bestiality, cascade marriages, religious absolution of crimes, honor killings, and witch burning? They're all religous practices that have contradicted American common and criminal law, and the courts come down almost unanimously on the side of the law.
Well, they all involve one person doing physical harm to another. That's why they're against the law, not because the mainstream culture doesn't think it's fun. Having two wives doesn't involve harming anyone, especially if all parties are adults, and wilfully enter into the arrangement. Same-sex marriages are the same deal - it should be alright as long as nobody is harming anyone else.
Of course, the government always has the right to promote one particular lifestyle, especially if they think it's in the interest of building a stronger nation, better economy, etc., but to codify it in law is a step too far. Making same-sex marriage illegal doesn't protect people from each other, but it does restrict one particular group of people's freedom, which by definition makes the law unconstitutional.
I feel that my right to maintain the cultural meaning of "marriage" outweighs the right of others to call their nontraditional (homosexual or polamorous) romantic union a marriage.
You can only use "cultural" in that sense to mean "religion", because some religions allow a person to have multiple spouses, and other religions allow same-sex marriages (it was a church in Toronto that challenged the law and married two gay men). Since your country claims to have freedom of religion, then having the government pass a law that makes the practices of several religions illegal, only on the grounds of maintaining the "cultural meaning" of a word is a violation of your country's constitution. Not to mention, an unnecessary restriction of freedoms.
And, as we don't live in an anarchy, I don't mind the concept of the government restricting freedoms--just as long as they're not basic freedoms* and the citizens have a right to attempt to modify the government.
You're talking about a society or constitution that basically says:
"You have no rights, except these..."
I'm talking about a society based on this law:
"You have the right to do anything you want, except the following because these things cause harm to others and/or their property..."
I definitely prefer the latter, and I was under the impression that U.S. "ideology" was similar. I might have been mistaken.
Drive? Toll roads should let you pay for the convenience of nice paved surfaces to drive on.
I agree, but until you commies with your socialist road system down there in the U.S. wisens up and puts in some real toll roads like we have up here, then your toll road system will never be efficient enough to actually use on a daily basis.
Actually, I'm being sarcastic. I think it's absurd to try and track how far everyone drives and charge them for each mile or kilometre. Not to mention, it's a little too invasive for me. I'm quite happy with a gas tax to pay for the roads, honestly.
As for the larger issue--while I'm all for homosexuals being able to have a legally sanctioned relationship of some kind with benfits and duties comparable to marriage, I can't marry a second woman, or a cat, so why should I be able to marry a man?
Even though I wouldn't take advantage of it, I think that not allowing you to have multiple spouses is also an unnecessary restriction of your freedom. Unless you can prove that having two or more spouses is harming someone, I'd say we should repeal the law restricting that too. After all, we all know there are people in Utah who do it, even if they have to play games with the legal system to get away with it.
Allowing something doesn't mean the entire country is going to go out and do it tomorrow. When Ontario's court ruled to allow same-sex marriages, only 10% of the gays in the Toronto area went out to get marriage licenses. Also, to my knowledge, no straight people have applied for a same sex marriage license either.
I don't know if a country with as many banned books and thought crime laws as Canada can fairly be called 'socially libertarian'
Hmmm, but how can a country like the U.S., whose president is considering changing the constitution to specifically remove equality for gays, really be considered free?
Look, I'm neither for or against the idea of gay marriage, but I do know this: in a society based on freedom, any act that doesn't harm others or their property should be legal. That's the essence of social libertarianism, and that's also why the U.S. has forgotten what freedom means. Just because the majority doesn't like to do X, doesn't mean X should be illegal.
As far as Canada's situation goes, I've read section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it's quite clear that the law restricting the right of "marriage" to only straights is a clear violation of section 15, subsection 1 (given past precendents set by the supreme court of Canada). The law will be struck down. Either the courts will do it, or the government can amend the law first. I prefer that an elected government create the laws, rather than the courts. The only other option is for the government to change the definition of Canadian Citizen to not include homosexuals. I can see something like that happening in the U.S., but not in Canada.
I don't want to pay $0.77 extra for every CDR that I buy.
As another Canadian, I wholeheartedly agree. It's not quite, but almost as stupid as that espresso tax they're talking about in Seattle. How can you say that espresso drinkers are by-and-large also parents who use pre-Kindergarten? It's the same with CDR's - if 99% of CDRs were used to copy copyrighted music, then I'd say it's pretty fair, but that's simply not the case.
I understand taxing gas to pay for the roads, and even taxing cigarettes to fund cancer research, but this tax is wrong. Also, the money from the tax doesn't necessarily go to the artist whose song I'm copying - it's a bad system all around.
My feeling is this: until the music industry provides a reasonable service for downloading music over the internet, and allows me to use that copy anywhere (my home stereo, car, computer, etc.), then there should be no restrictions on this new technology. The recording industry shouldn't be allowed to sue you unless you made a profit off of selling copyrighted music.
Medical marijuana is still under review although allowed --you need to show the doctors prescription to the cops.
IANAMMU (I am not a medicinal marijuana user), but I think you need the prescription and a specific letter from your doctor to then get a permit from Health Canada. You have to show the permit to the cops, not just the prescription.
I'm still waiting for Star Wars Galaxies to finish their beta testing and release a stable version. Especially since I'm paying a monthly fee already!;-)
Heck, the system administrator is yelling their head off at me already because I have a switch in my room... for just my two computers. I can just imagine all of the sysadmins everywhere screaming bloody murder if someone wanted to get a hub and run cables from room to room every time they just wanted to play Counterstrike.
Just put yourself in the system administrator's shoes for a minute. This dorm network isn't just for the pimply geeks, it's for everyone, including the arts students. When some idiots playing Counterstrike (it was Warcraft and Doom in my day) overload the bandwidth on the dorm network, how many people are going to be yelling at the system administrator that their connection to the internet is disrupted? The admin has to treat everyone fairly, and guarantee everyone's ability to access the internet. This means restricting what you can do.
Heck, at my Uni we students already complain to death that we can't access our dorm shares from the computer labs in upper campus. Why? Not everyone has a CD burner or ZIP drive. Right now the 'workaround' is to email yourself the files.
E-mail is one option. However, if you want to transfer a 400 meg file to your computer account on campus, why don't you just FTP from your dorm computer to your server, and upload it that way? I understand if you're stuck in the lab and want to grab something from your PC... well, there are solutions for that too. It's not hard to setup a p2p client on your dorm computer that will tunnel out from behind the firewall, and you could connect to that and grab your files.
Besides, a CD burner is almost as necessary now as a floppy drive was in my day. For crying out loud, spend the $50 and buy a burner. Plus, I'm pretty sure that anyone transferring 400 meg CS projects around already has one.
Anyway, I don't hear any viable suggestions from you about how to solve this poor chap's problems. What would you do in his shoes? Leave it as a free-for-all and it can quickly deteriorate into a virus infested mess?
What about LAN parties though!! Potentially, knowing people are going to be playing multiplayer games, a problem could arise where they'll use the WAN (no LAN access), which will take bandwidth from other non-geek-gamers who want to access the net from their dorms.
I understand, but...
I would actually block most ports to the internet too, even quake and the like. I think that if the students in the dorm want to have a lan party, they should do what we had to do: get a hub and run network cables from room to room. The dorm's network isn't there for LAN parties. I know it sucks, but that's the honest truth.
I hadn't thought of this implication. Unfortunately, it's not feasible to force the users to do anything in this kind of situation - that would be an administrator's nightmare.
I'm assuming you have each computer connected to a central switch, right? What I would do is block all communication between the PCs on the network. Allow each one to get out to the internet through the firewall, but block them from connecting to each other. That would give them the ability to browse the web, check email, instant message, etc., without needing to worry about them setting up servers, file sharing, and trading viruses, etc., between each other. It's heavy handed, but at least you're still providing the service you're supposed to (internet connectivity).
Just a thought. I'm not completely sure this is even feasible with a switch, but I would think so.
Out of the goodness of my heart, I feel I need to inform you that my post was more of a troll than anything, feeding off the mass hysteria that is Slashdot and privacy matters.
Sorry. Sarcasm doesn't transmit well through slashdot posts. Still you were modded up...
There's a much more serious issue in the automotive industry; the VIN.
The VIN is a problem for you? You must be joking. The VIN is absolutely necessary, or you couldn't have automobile insurance, or even recalls for that matter. Almost everything that's produced has some kind of serial number so that when you send it back to the manufacturer for warranty work, they can keep a record per unit, and track problems by lot.
Let's say there's a safety recall on airbags. The manufacturer (by law) must maintain a database of each airbag's serial number, and the VIN of the vehicle it was installed in. When there's a recall on a particular lot of airbags (defined by a range of serial numbers) the manufacturer must provide the list of VINs that those airbags went into, and each VIN is registered to a person through a state database. That means they can contact all of the affected people and have them bring their vehicles in for a replacement airbag.
Please note that license plates will not allow this safety data to be tracked because it's not installed until after the vehicle was manufactured, and a licence plate stays with the owner, not the vehicle.
Also, insurance companies need to have the VIN for every vehicle on the policy. That's to stop the following fraud: I insure my 1988 Blue Buick Lesabre, then go to the local wrecking yard, find one of the million blue 1988 Buick Lesabres there, buy it for $50, drive it down the road and run it into another car, file a police report, and get the insurance company to pay me $2000 (the write-off price of the original car). Without VIN numbers to identify that it isn't the same car, the insurance company gets defrauded, because otherwise the cars are identical.
Almost every manufactured item has some unique identifier on it. So do people. Mostly it's to prevent fraud, but it's also to make database administrators' jobs much easier (it eliminates the possibility of duplicate records). Get over it.
From it, they'll know what manufacturer produced your car, the car's series, its body style, engine type, emissions, what model year it is, what factory it was produced in, and on top of that, A SIX-DIGIT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER!
Hmmm, my Dad could tell you most of that just by looking at the car, never seeing the VIN. Does it bother you that a car says "Chevrolet" on the back? Does that invade your privacy?
Take a look at your phone. It has a serial number on it. So does every component in your computer, for warranty purposes. Your microwave? A serial number. Your fridge? A serial number. CDs? A serial number. Oh my God! They're everywhere! Run for the hills! No, really... run.
Slashdot Mirror
Voting machines are also pretty effective, but not perfect. We use them here in Connecticut and we haven't had too many incidents.
I defy you or anyone else to prove that statement. Go back and recount the votes, just to make sure.
Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence? if that machine is connected to a network that you have legal physical access to then isnt it up to them to secure it? Unless your sending 25,000 volts down a line (which should be physical damage), digital breaking and entering is not the same as physical breaking and entering. Every door has a bigger hammer that can knock it down, every bolt has a sharper cutter that can slice it. However a properly secured system should be able to take any pattern of 1's and 0's and be able to survive until it gets that "correct" sequence (which can be too long to brute force), unlike a door which just cant be secured like that.
I may be splitting hairs here, but from my perspective as a computer engineer, the information in a computer system has a very real physical presence, whether it's the charge held in one cell of DRAM, or the orientation of some magnetic elements on a disk. While it's true that these physical elements change while the machine is running, they are doing so in a way that is intended by the owner of the machine, much like the pistons, valves, flywheel, and transmission all interoperate in a way that enables your vehicle to work as expected.
To continue the analogy, you may legally borrow someone's car, and use it in an acceptable way. However, if you deliberately take that car out on the highway and suddenly shove the gearshift into reverse, causing the transmission to self destruct, you wouldn't claim that it was the owner's, or even the manufacturer's responsibility to secure the car from letting you do that. Correct? In this case, you are guilty of a form of vandalism, or if you're just incompetent, then you're at least liable for the damage.
Likewise, if someone starts poking around the interfaces of a computer they find on the network, and finds a way to make the machine perform in an unintended way, or causing it to lose data, then that person should be liable for the damages.
Now, certainly we lock our cars to prevent just anyone from taking them, and we should put a reasonable amount of protection on our computers to secure them as well. However, if someone defeats the locking mechanism, or cracks into your computer, both are crimes of unauthorized access.
Is it my fault if someone slides open an unlocked window on my house, comes in, and steals a bunch of my stuff? Most of you would agree that I'm not at fault, though perhaps I should keep my window locked 24 hours a day. Why would you then think that it's ok for someone to damage another person's machine, whether they secure it or not?
Look, I'm all for hacking, but do it on your own system, not mine.
... I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy?
The first country that springs to mind is Canada.
While I'm all for extra-planetary studies, I don't believe it should be funded by taxpayer dollars. I know this won't make me popular with the Slashdot crowd, but I think most NASA missions are overpriced boondoggles. I would much rather see things like this done via the private market. This would free up money for more important things, like fighting terrorism and tax relief to a beleagured public.
I hate to break it to you, but if you leave it to businesses to fund space research, then the entire population of Mars is going to be Chinese. Not that I really mind that, but I figured that, being an American, you might.
The Brits would know the difference. I mean Canada is on better terms with Britan than the US. They still sing God Save the Queen and feature her on their currency. They are commonwealth and a citizenship in other commonwealth nations makes it easy to get a job there. Heck, until 1980 they hadn't even fully become sperate. I don't remember what it was, fairly trivial, but Britan wasn't totally out of Canada until then technically speaking.
Wow, what a troll... where do I begin. Oh yeah, "God save the queen"? I think my father said he used to sing that, back in a one room school house in the 50's.
I'm not sure that Canada is actually on better terms with Britain than the U.S., given the whole Iraq thing, but in general, perhaps that's been true overall.
The commonwealth thing? Not a chance... my South African friend finds it much easier to go to the U.S. than Canada. Canadians and Americans can visit and/or work in each others' country more easily than either can visit anywhere else in the world.
In 1982, Canada signed a new constitution (perhaps that's what you were referring to) which replaced the British North America act as the original "constitution", which was passed into law in Britain in 1867, giving the Dominion of Canada self-government.
Britain is still not "out of Canada", since technically speaking, Elizabeth still holds the title, "Queen of Canada", and is technically our head of state. Certainly that may not last much longer, but it is the case right now. No hard feelings, just time to move on, if we have the time to do all the paperwork, which we don't, thanks to all the hullaballoo with the U.S. these days.
So if it costs $0.20 per watt over 20 years, then we're talking $0.20 for every 20 Watt-Years, which would be one cent per Watt-Year.
If there are approximately 8760 hours in a year, then we're talking $0.00000114 per Watt-Hour, or $0.00114 per KWh. That's preeetty cheap! Or is my math wrong?
Did anyone test to see if the consumption of bean filled meals changed the environment? They blame global warming on bovine flatulence but it could it be the mass consumption of burritos?
I always wondered why it was so hot in Mexico... now I know! Wow, on Slashdot, you learn something new every day.
I already figured out why it's colder in Canada though... you see, people up here in Canada are more likely to wear insulated clothing, and that keeps body heat from escaping into the environment. This effect is most notable in the winter, when almost everyone wears several layers of insulated clothing when going out of their house, and this translates to even colder temperatures than usual. Of course, the interiors of houses still stay warm all year long, because people never wear bulky clothing indoors; that would be rather inconvenient, after all.
However, why am I flying towards galileo? Time goes slow for me because I'm moving from galileo's POV, but from my POV galileo is flying towards me. Yeah I know its the twins paradox, but I never understood the resolving of it
You are basically saying, if you get in a spaceship, and blast off towards Jupiter, is it you moving or Jupiter. It seems obvious, but how do we know??? Well, you were the one who accelerated... you turned some potential energy into kinetic energy with your rocket (increasing your mass by the equation E=mc^2), so you did the accelerating, so time on Jupiter will pass faster than in your spaceship... I think.
Here's a good one for you... the solar system is already moving through the galaxy in some direction, so if I blast off and head backwards from Sol's heading, wouldn't that make time pass faster for me, not slower? Would I be going slower relative to the galaxy's speed? Would that mean my mass would decrease? I really never figured that one out. Perhaps the sun and our solar system only accelerated due to gravity, and that doesn't count... oh, my head hurts...
since when does a mature rating matter when parents buy their kids video games? Most parents don't care what it's rated. They just get junior what he wants so he'll leave them alone. these are the same parents that take their 10 yr old kids and their kids friends to the worst "R" rated movies out there and then go watch a different movie themselves.
Exactly, and if those kids grow up to be criminals, wouldn't it be partly the parents' fault?
Again, it's symbolic. Let's say the US military allowed women into the armed forces, but refused to call them soldiers, because traditionally, soldiers were men. Would you agree that the nomenclature still implies a level of subconscious discrimination?
Ooooh, good one! Seriously, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.
Our system of law is not a "clear victim-only" crime. All sorts of activities, such as drug use or firearms waiting periods or suicide, have no victims but are still crimes. "It doesn't hurt anyone" isn't nearly enough to get a law declared unconstitutional or have the courts recognize a new constitutional right.
Well, in my country, we are starting to relax laws on drug possession, where it's clear that possession or use of the drug is not harming anyone else.
Also, suicide is not a crime, and neither is attempted suicide, anymore. The problem with attempted suicide being a crime was that you couldn't get that person help, and putting them in prison wasn't going to fix the underlying problem (probably depression).
Furthermore, firearms waiting periods has nothing to do with a crime - it's just a regulation. In Canada, for instance, you have to get a special permit to own a handgun, which is admittedly restrictive, but at least that's based on the intent of reducing violence between members of society. There is also statistical evidence to support that people who live in houses with guns are more likely to be shot. At least there's a valid argument - but of course there's a valid argument the other way too... which is why the debate rages on.
Let's look at prostitution: it's not actually illegal, only the activities surrounding the flesh trade are illegal, such as soliciting for sex. The reason being that soliciting someone for sex who doesn't want to be solicited is a form of harrassment, which is harm. However, if you meet a friend of yours in a hotel room for a little action, and give them money, there's nothing the police can charge you with, because no crime was committed.
Given all this, I submit that most laws ARE based on the prevention of harm to person and property. I further claim that any law that is not based on that principle is probably an unnecessary restriction of personal freedom.
For instance, in Afghanistan, the Taliban government forced women to wear Burqas; we considered that repulsive because it restricted the freedom of those women, and a woman not wearing a Burqa is not harming anyone else. However, that law was based on their "culture", so your argument would support this abuse of power. Admittedly, now that women there are free to not wear a Burqa, some still do, because it's their culture, but that's not surprising. In Ontario, for instance, women are allowed to walk around in public with no shirt on, but I've never run across any woman willing to exercise that right. I keep my fingers crossed though. On the other hand, people must still wear some form of covering below the waist, and not only is this based on cultural norms, but at least it's applied consistently across the board: it restricts everybody, which at least means it's consistent with the constitution.
Our European and Colonial forefathers did not approve of polyamory. It wasn't part of their culture, and it isn't part of the culture that they handed down to us.
News Flash: They're dead! They don't get to vote, and they don't give a rats ass anymore. It's up to this generation to decide.
So, we should allow human sacrafice, forced marriage, man-boy love, bestiality, cascade marriages, religious absolution of crimes, honor killings, and witch burning? They're all religous practices that have contradicted American common and criminal law, and the courts come down almost unanimously on the side of the law.
Well, they all involve one person doing physical harm to another. That's why they're against the law, not because the mainstream culture doesn't think it's fun. Having two wives doesn't involve harming anyone, especially if all parties are adults, and wilfully enter into the arrangement. Same-sex marriages are the same deal - it should be alright as long as nobody is harming anyone else.
Of course, the government always has the right to promote one particular lifestyle, especially if they think it's in the interest of building a stronger nation, better economy, etc., but to codify it in law is a step too far. Making same-sex marriage illegal doesn't protect people from each other, but it does restrict one particular group of people's freedom, which by definition makes the law unconstitutional.
I feel that my right to maintain the cultural meaning of "marriage" outweighs the right of others to call their nontraditional (homosexual or polamorous) romantic union a marriage.
You can only use "cultural" in that sense to mean "religion", because some religions allow a person to have multiple spouses, and other religions allow same-sex marriages (it was a church in Toronto that challenged the law and married two gay men). Since your country claims to have freedom of religion, then having the government pass a law that makes the practices of several religions illegal, only on the grounds of maintaining the "cultural meaning" of a word is a violation of your country's constitution. Not to mention, an unnecessary restriction of freedoms.
And, as we don't live in an anarchy, I don't mind the concept of the government restricting freedoms--just as long as they're not basic freedoms* and the citizens have a right to attempt to modify the government.
You're talking about a society or constitution that basically says:
"You have no rights, except these..."
I'm talking about a society based on this law:
"You have the right to do anything you want, except the following because these things cause harm to others and/or their property..."
I definitely prefer the latter, and I was under the impression that U.S. "ideology" was similar. I might have been mistaken.
Drive? Toll roads should let you pay for the convenience of nice paved surfaces to drive on.
I agree, but until you commies with your socialist road system down there in the U.S. wisens up and puts in some real toll roads like we have up here, then your toll road system will never be efficient enough to actually use on a daily basis.
Actually, I'm being sarcastic. I think it's absurd to try and track how far everyone drives and charge them for each mile or kilometre. Not to mention, it's a little too invasive for me. I'm quite happy with a gas tax to pay for the roads, honestly.
As for the larger issue--while I'm all for homosexuals being able to have a legally sanctioned relationship of some kind with benfits and duties comparable to marriage, I can't marry a second woman, or a cat, so why should I be able to marry a man?
Even though I wouldn't take advantage of it, I think that not allowing you to have multiple spouses is also an unnecessary restriction of your freedom. Unless you can prove that having two or more spouses is harming someone, I'd say we should repeal the law restricting that too. After all, we all know there are people in Utah who do it, even if they have to play games with the legal system to get away with it.
Allowing something doesn't mean the entire country is going to go out and do it tomorrow. When Ontario's court ruled to allow same-sex marriages, only 10% of the gays in the Toronto area went out to get marriage licenses. Also, to my knowledge, no straight people have applied for a same sex marriage license either.
I don't know if a country with as many banned books and thought crime laws as Canada can fairly be called 'socially libertarian'
Hmmm, but how can a country like the U.S., whose president is considering changing the constitution to specifically remove equality for gays, really be considered free?
Look, I'm neither for or against the idea of gay marriage, but I do know this: in a society based on freedom, any act that doesn't harm others or their property should be legal. That's the essence of social libertarianism, and that's also why the U.S. has forgotten what freedom means. Just because the majority doesn't like to do X, doesn't mean X should be illegal.
As far as Canada's situation goes, I've read section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it's quite clear that the law restricting the right of "marriage" to only straights is a clear violation of section 15, subsection 1 (given past precendents set by the supreme court of Canada). The law will be struck down. Either the courts will do it, or the government can amend the law first. I prefer that an elected government create the laws, rather than the courts. The only other option is for the government to change the definition of Canadian Citizen to not include homosexuals. I can see something like that happening in the U.S., but not in Canada.
I don't want to pay $0.77 extra for every CDR that I buy.
As another Canadian, I wholeheartedly agree. It's not quite, but almost as stupid as that espresso tax they're talking about in Seattle. How can you say that espresso drinkers are by-and-large also parents who use pre-Kindergarten? It's the same with CDR's - if 99% of CDRs were used to copy copyrighted music, then I'd say it's pretty fair, but that's simply not the case.
I understand taxing gas to pay for the roads, and even taxing cigarettes to fund cancer research, but this tax is wrong. Also, the money from the tax doesn't necessarily go to the artist whose song I'm copying - it's a bad system all around.
My feeling is this: until the music industry provides a reasonable service for downloading music over the internet, and allows me to use that copy anywhere (my home stereo, car, computer, etc.), then there should be no restrictions on this new technology. The recording industry shouldn't be allowed to sue you unless you made a profit off of selling copyrighted music.
Medical marijuana is still under review although allowed --you need to show the doctors prescription to the cops.
IANAMMU (I am not a medicinal marijuana user), but I think you need the prescription and a specific letter from your doctor to then get a permit from Health Canada. You have to show the permit to the cops, not just the prescription.
I'm still waiting for Star Wars Galaxies to finish their beta testing and release a stable version. Especially since I'm paying a monthly fee already! ;-)
Heck, the system administrator is yelling their head off at me already because I have a switch in my room... for just my two computers. I can just imagine all of the sysadmins everywhere screaming bloody murder if someone wanted to get a hub and run cables from room to room every time they just wanted to play Counterstrike.
Just put yourself in the system administrator's shoes for a minute. This dorm network isn't just for the pimply geeks, it's for everyone, including the arts students. When some idiots playing Counterstrike (it was Warcraft and Doom in my day) overload the bandwidth on the dorm network, how many people are going to be yelling at the system administrator that their connection to the internet is disrupted? The admin has to treat everyone fairly, and guarantee everyone's ability to access the internet. This means restricting what you can do.
Heck, at my Uni we students already complain to death that we can't access our dorm shares from the computer labs in upper campus. Why? Not everyone has a CD burner or ZIP drive. Right now the 'workaround' is to email yourself the files.
E-mail is one option. However, if you want to transfer a 400 meg file to your computer account on campus, why don't you just FTP from your dorm computer to your server, and upload it that way? I understand if you're stuck in the lab and want to grab something from your PC... well, there are solutions for that too. It's not hard to setup a p2p client on your dorm computer that will tunnel out from behind the firewall, and you could connect to that and grab your files.
Besides, a CD burner is almost as necessary now as a floppy drive was in my day. For crying out loud, spend the $50 and buy a burner. Plus, I'm pretty sure that anyone transferring 400 meg CS projects around already has one.
Anyway, I don't hear any viable suggestions from you about how to solve this poor chap's problems. What would you do in his shoes? Leave it as a free-for-all and it can quickly deteriorate into a virus infested mess?
What about LAN parties though!! Potentially, knowing people are going to be playing multiplayer games, a problem could arise where they'll use the WAN (no LAN access), which will take bandwidth from other non-geek-gamers who want to access the net from their dorms.
I understand, but...
I would actually block most ports to the internet too, even quake and the like. I think that if the students in the dorm want to have a lan party, they should do what we had to do: get a hub and run network cables from room to room. The dorm's network isn't there for LAN parties. I know it sucks, but that's the honest truth.
I hadn't thought of this implication. Unfortunately, it's not feasible to force the users to do anything in this kind of situation - that would be an administrator's nightmare.
I'm assuming you have each computer connected to a central switch, right? What I would do is block all communication between the PCs on the network. Allow each one to get out to the internet through the firewall, but block them from connecting to each other. That would give them the ability to browse the web, check email, instant message, etc., without needing to worry about them setting up servers, file sharing, and trading viruses, etc., between each other. It's heavy handed, but at least you're still providing the service you're supposed to (internet connectivity).
Just a thought. I'm not completely sure this is even feasible with a switch, but I would think so.
Out of the goodness of my heart, I feel I need to inform you that my post was more of a troll than anything, feeding off the mass hysteria that is Slashdot and privacy matters.
Sorry. Sarcasm doesn't transmit well through slashdot posts. Still you were modded up...
There's a much more serious issue in the automotive industry; the VIN.
The VIN is a problem for you? You must be joking. The VIN is absolutely necessary, or you couldn't have automobile insurance, or even recalls for that matter. Almost everything that's produced has some kind of serial number so that when you send it back to the manufacturer for warranty work, they can keep a record per unit, and track problems by lot.
Let's say there's a safety recall on airbags. The manufacturer (by law) must maintain a database of each airbag's serial number, and the VIN of the vehicle it was installed in. When there's a recall on a particular lot of airbags (defined by a range of serial numbers) the manufacturer must provide the list of VINs that those airbags went into, and each VIN is registered to a person through a state database. That means they can contact all of the affected people and have them bring their vehicles in for a replacement airbag.
Please note that license plates will not allow this safety data to be tracked because it's not installed until after the vehicle was manufactured, and a licence plate stays with the owner, not the vehicle.
Also, insurance companies need to have the VIN for every vehicle on the policy. That's to stop the following fraud: I insure my 1988 Blue Buick Lesabre, then go to the local wrecking yard, find one of the million blue 1988 Buick Lesabres there, buy it for $50, drive it down the road and run it into another car, file a police report, and get the insurance company to pay me $2000 (the write-off price of the original car). Without VIN numbers to identify that it isn't the same car, the insurance company gets defrauded, because otherwise the cars are identical.
Almost every manufactured item has some unique identifier on it. So do people. Mostly it's to prevent fraud, but it's also to make database administrators' jobs much easier (it eliminates the possibility of duplicate records). Get over it.
From it, they'll know what manufacturer produced your car, the car's series, its body style, engine type, emissions, what model year it is, what factory it was produced in, and on top of that, A SIX-DIGIT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER!
Hmmm, my Dad could tell you most of that just by looking at the car, never seeing the VIN. Does it bother you that a car says "Chevrolet" on the back? Does that invade your privacy?
Take a look at your phone. It has a serial number on it. So does every component in your computer, for warranty purposes. Your microwave? A serial number. Your fridge? A serial number. CDs? A serial number. Oh my God! They're everywhere! Run for the hills! No, really... run.