People who deliberately wage war against civilian populations typically aren't afforded protections in civilized societies.
Bullshit. Any civilized society will give such people the same protections as any other criminal. Look at the lone 9/11 hijacker who was captured. He wasn't tortured, or torn limb-from-limb, or thrown in jail without a trial. No, he was put on trial and convicted in a court of law just like any other criminal.
Criminals lose several rights as well (felons can't vote in the US).
The Constitution never says that the right to vote is to be universal. It lists many conditions which cannot be used to determine eligibility to vote, such as race, sex, age if at least 18 years old, failure to pay poll tax, etc. Nowhere does it say that criminals must be allowed to vote, and so this is allowed.
Conversely, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say that any of those rights are to be removed from criminals, so they still apply.
FISA just sets up a special court to obtain warrants for surveillance. Warrants are the accepted way to ensure that a search is "reasonable" under the 4th amendment.
So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
What tool? It's not like FISA would have been disbanded without this bill. Only the criminal bypassing of FISA would have been prevented, and that is a good thing.
Your own Wikipedia link completely contradicts you. It states that the "agents of foreign powers" that are targeted by surveillance "may include American citizens and permanent residents".
We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter).
This is so wrong-headed I find it hard to believe that you actually think this way. Where in the Constitution does it say that these rights no longer apply if you're a terrorist or a criminal?
Indeed, our lifespans have already been doubled in the last couple of hundred years.
This is not true; what you're thinking of is that life expectancy has doubled in the first world that period.
I make this distinction because, by and large, people who didn't die as a child or contract some disease that's easily cured today lived about as long as people do today. Certainly the maximum lifespan has not really changed for a very long time. More people approach it today than before, of course, and people are living longer on average, but the limits are still defined by basic biology.
This also matters because child mortality is probably one of the big factors behind how many children a couple has. When child mortality is high you need to have a lot of them to be sure of at least one surviving into adulthood. When child mortality is extremely low, as it is in western countries today, you need very few. And thus the population adjusts to this decreased mortality rate and ceases to explode. But there's no particular reason to think that the same thing would happen with an increased lifespan, although there is equally no particular reason to think that it wouldn't happen.
Overall I do agree with your position. I think that the grandparent's position is, ultimately, monstrous. If the means is there to prevent it, why should I be forced to die of old age just because other people are having too many kids? But if and when this sort of life extension technology becomes available, the question of how to make sure that people have correspondingly fewer children will need to be addressed.
My point was not that Obama would clearly vote for this bill, but merely that, as a viable candidate, Obama is a politician like any politician and isn't worth your vote.
By getting him into flying complex jet aircraft. You can't be a dummy to survive that experience.
Lord knows I'm no defender of Bush, but it seems pretty clear that, despite his obvious un-smoothness with words (a trait many intelligent Slashdot posters certainly share), he clearly has a lot more of the Evil than of the Stupid.
If you don't believe in either one, why not vote third party? That's what I'm going to do. It doesn't count as "throwing your vote away" if you have no strong feelings about which major candidate is superior. If everybody who was disillusioned with politics as usual voted third party you can bet that there would be some major upheaval.
Well that does indeed remove any bias toward people who want power. Unfortunately it also removes any bias toward competence, skill, intelligence, etc. There must be a better way!
There was no good faith. These companies knew that these activities required a warrant, as was written explicitly into the law. They knew this because they had participated in legal wiretaps many times before. Despite this certain knowledge that they needed a warrant to be legal, they went ahead and started wiretapping without a warrant. This is clearly not a move made in good faith, and it should be punished to the full extent of the law.
They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well these guys didn't even have that.
I doubt it has much to do with Islam, aside from Muslims also knowing this very obvious fact. Anyone who wants power shouldn't have it, as should be clear to anyone who understands how these things work. I'm sure that the idea predates Islam, and Christianity for that matter.
The trouble is that this sentiment doesn't point to a solution. Just how do you choose a good leader without having a huge bias toward those people who want the position? I personally have no idea.
If you think the PSP is open, then obviously we have no common ground upon which to continue the conversation.
If you care to respond one more time, I'm very curious to know; what exactly is an example of a closed platform in your eyes? Seems like the very concept does not exist with your extremely liberal definition, since you can always get into a device with enough work.
As far O'Reilly, I couldn't possibly care less what they think on this subject. They write some good technical books, that's as far as their expertise goes.
That really is strange. I think that the next time it happens, you should ask them why they apologized, and then find out what meaning they thought the word had.
You said that any platform owner can stop you from developing on their platform, and thus the iPhone is no different. This is not true! There is nothing like the iPhone's requirement for Apple-signed code on Mac OS X, Windows, or many other proprietary OSes.
Yes, by stopping sales of phones they can stop you. In all other regards they have just as much effect on your ability to develop software if you want to.
And again, that "stopping sales" tactic is a doomsday device which doesn't apply. Apple, on the other hand, can stop you and only you from selling on the iPhone for any reason they choose. If they want to stop you from selling on the Mac there's jack-all they can do about it.
This is pure speculation on your part. You don't really know how Apple is going to manage the program in the future, you're just guessing.
Based on what Apple has said they are going to do, not speculation.
I prefer to go by what they have done (not let people into their program, not given a reason for it, not given a projected timeframe for acceptance, not given any mechanism for appeals) than by what they say they will do.
On a standard Mac I can turn the thing on, connect to the internet, download, and install new software from any web site without Apple ever getting involved.
And a jailbroken iPhone/Touch does exactly that.
Not without jailbreaking it first it doesn't. You may not consider that difference to be significant but it is there.
It's just that there's ALSO an additional channel for software, from Apple. Is the PC less open because it has Steam? I think not.
Would the PC be less open if the only legit mechanism for obtaining software was through Steam? You bet your sweet ass it would.
Answer me this: is the PSP an open platform or a closed platform? It looks pretty much like the iPhone to me. The device as shipped only runs software approved by the manufacturer. To develop for it, you have to apply with the manufacturer and get approved into their developer program. To sell a product for the platform, you have to get it approved by the manufacturer. You can bypass these mechanisms by hacking the device and loading custom firmware, although the manufacturer routinely breaks these hacks when they release firmware updates.
Sounds like the same situation as the iPhone to me, and I don't know any programmer who would dream of calling the PSP an "open platform" just because homebrew firmware hacks exist.
Slashdot Mirror
People who deliberately wage war against civilian populations typically aren't afforded protections in civilized societies.
Bullshit. Any civilized society will give such people the same protections as any other criminal. Look at the lone 9/11 hijacker who was captured. He wasn't tortured, or torn limb-from-limb, or thrown in jail without a trial. No, he was put on trial and convicted in a court of law just like any other criminal.
Criminals lose several rights as well (felons can't vote in the US).
The Constitution never says that the right to vote is to be universal. It lists many conditions which cannot be used to determine eligibility to vote, such as race, sex, age if at least 18 years old, failure to pay poll tax, etc. Nowhere does it say that criminals must be allowed to vote, and so this is allowed.
Conversely, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say that any of those rights are to be removed from criminals, so they still apply.
FISA just sets up a special court to obtain warrants for surveillance. Warrants are the accepted way to ensure that a search is "reasonable" under the 4th amendment.
So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
What tool? It's not like FISA would have been disbanded without this bill. Only the criminal bypassing of FISA would have been prevented, and that is a good thing.
Your own Wikipedia link completely contradicts you. It states that the "agents of foreign powers" that are targeted by surveillance "may include American citizens and permanent residents".
Try again?
We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter).
This is so wrong-headed I find it hard to believe that you actually think this way. Where in the Constitution does it say that these rights no longer apply if you're a terrorist or a criminal?
Any candidate who bases his vote entirely on what he can "afford" is a candidate who will not be getting my vote in November.
I voted for Obama in the primary. I was planning to vote for him in November. Not anymore! As far as I'm concerned they can both go screw themselves.
If you're not going to name names, why do you even bother to post?
It all started going downhill with Led Zeppelin, man.
Even harder to grapple with philosophy when you're deep in the cold, cold ground.
Indeed, our lifespans have already been doubled in the last couple of hundred years.
This is not true; what you're thinking of is that life expectancy has doubled in the first world that period.
I make this distinction because, by and large, people who didn't die as a child or contract some disease that's easily cured today lived about as long as people do today. Certainly the maximum lifespan has not really changed for a very long time. More people approach it today than before, of course, and people are living longer on average, but the limits are still defined by basic biology.
This also matters because child mortality is probably one of the big factors behind how many children a couple has. When child mortality is high you need to have a lot of them to be sure of at least one surviving into adulthood. When child mortality is extremely low, as it is in western countries today, you need very few. And thus the population adjusts to this decreased mortality rate and ceases to explode. But there's no particular reason to think that the same thing would happen with an increased lifespan, although there is equally no particular reason to think that it wouldn't happen.
Overall I do agree with your position. I think that the grandparent's position is, ultimately, monstrous. If the means is there to prevent it, why should I be forced to die of old age just because other people are having too many kids? But if and when this sort of life extension technology becomes available, the question of how to make sure that people have correspondingly fewer children will need to be addressed.
My point was not that Obama would clearly vote for this bill, but merely that, as a viable candidate, Obama is a politician like any politician and isn't worth your vote.
He doesn't play stupid, he plays poorly spoken.
Pick out any Slashdot poster with a 125+ IQ and put them on TV and see how smart they sound. You can bet that they'll look even dumber than Bush.
Hell, his parents got him out of the draft.
By getting him into flying complex jet aircraft. You can't be a dummy to survive that experience.
Lord knows I'm no defender of Bush, but it seems pretty clear that, despite his obvious un-smoothness with words (a trait many intelligent Slashdot posters certainly share), he clearly has a lot more of the Evil than of the Stupid.
In other news, the sky is blue.
No point in noting things which are blindingly obvious anyway.
If you don't believe in either one, why not vote third party? That's what I'm going to do. It doesn't count as "throwing your vote away" if you have no strong feelings about which major candidate is superior. If everybody who was disillusioned with politics as usual voted third party you can bet that there would be some major upheaval.
Well that does indeed remove any bias toward people who want power. Unfortunately it also removes any bias toward competence, skill, intelligence, etc. There must be a better way!
Still wouldn't have voted for her. But now I'm not going to vote for Obama either.
There was no good faith. These companies knew that these activities required a warrant, as was written explicitly into the law. They knew this because they had participated in legal wiretaps many times before. Despite this certain knowledge that they needed a warrant to be legal, they went ahead and started wiretapping without a warrant. This is clearly not a move made in good faith, and it should be punished to the full extent of the law.
They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well these guys didn't even have that.
I doubt it has much to do with Islam, aside from Muslims also knowing this very obvious fact. Anyone who wants power shouldn't have it, as should be clear to anyone who understands how these things work. I'm sure that the idea predates Islam, and Christianity for that matter.
The trouble is that this sentiment doesn't point to a solution. Just how do you choose a good leader without having a huge bias toward those people who want the position? I personally have no idea.
It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.
If you think the PSP is open, then obviously we have no common ground upon which to continue the conversation.
If you care to respond one more time, I'm very curious to know; what exactly is an example of a closed platform in your eyes? Seems like the very concept does not exist with your extremely liberal definition, since you can always get into a device with enough work.
As far O'Reilly, I couldn't possibly care less what they think on this subject. They write some good technical books, that's as far as their expertise goes.
That really is strange. I think that the next time it happens, you should ask them why they apologized, and then find out what meaning they thought the word had.
Um, what? I never said it was easy. I said it was very different from your typical run of math and programming.
You commented on the licensing. It was positive commentary. How is this not positive commentary on the licensing?
Sorry, must have forgot to paste link:
What "this"? In any case, nothing worked.
http://www.ipodtouchhacks.com/ipod-touch/detailed-instructions-on-how-to-jailbreak-114/
Worked for me...
Yep, I tried that, it failed.
You said that any platform owner can stop you from developing on their platform, and thus the iPhone is no different. This is not true! There is nothing like the iPhone's requirement for Apple-signed code on Mac OS X, Windows, or many other proprietary OSes.
Yes, by stopping sales of phones they can stop you. In all other regards they have just as much effect on your ability to develop software if you want to.
And again, that "stopping sales" tactic is a doomsday device which doesn't apply. Apple, on the other hand, can stop you and only you from selling on the iPhone for any reason they choose. If they want to stop you from selling on the Mac there's jack-all they can do about it.
This is pure speculation on your part. You don't really know how Apple is going to manage the program in the future, you're just guessing.
Based on what Apple has said they are going to do, not speculation.
I prefer to go by what they have done (not let people into their program, not given a reason for it, not given a projected timeframe for acceptance, not given any mechanism for appeals) than by what they say they will do.
On a standard Mac I can turn the thing on, connect to the internet, download, and install new software from any web site without Apple ever getting involved.
And a jailbroken iPhone/Touch does exactly that.
Not without jailbreaking it first it doesn't. You may not consider that difference to be significant but it is there.
It's just that there's ALSO an additional channel for software, from Apple. Is the PC less open because it has Steam? I think not.
Would the PC be less open if the only legit mechanism for obtaining software was through Steam? You bet your sweet ass it would.
Answer me this: is the PSP an open platform or a closed platform? It looks pretty much like the iPhone to me. The device as shipped only runs software approved by the manufacturer. To develop for it, you have to apply with the manufacturer and get approved into their developer program. To sell a product for the platform, you have to get it approved by the manufacturer. You can bypass these mechanisms by hacking the device and loading custom firmware, although the manufacturer routinely breaks these hacks when they release firmware updates.
Sounds like the same situation as the iPhone to me, and I don't know any programmer who would dream of calling the PSP an "open platform" just because homebrew firmware hacks exist.