> It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
Define "danger to others". People with an infectious disease could infect others, therefore doctors should be compelled to cure them. Or more broadly: desperate people are more likely to engage in actions that are potentially dangerous to themselves and others, therefore people who get in a situation that might be considered desperate, such as being homeless, or without food, water, or education, must be given our help. It seems to me your first rule is a recipe for one of the most socialist countries in the world (not that I would mind, but it seems to me that was not what you intended).
> It turns out that most of the time, you don't have a right to a jury or a fair trial. Go ahead and march into the nearest courthouse right now and demand a fair trial. You'll find that you can't get one, because you aren't currently being prosecuted for anything.
You only run into that problem because you are deliberately misunderstanding the right in question. You don't really have a right to a fair trial, you have the right to a fair trial *when you are being prosecuted for something*. The reason people tend to leave out the last part is because it's so obvious, and rightly so: there is no real chance of misunderstanding because when there is nothing in dispute it doesn't make sense to have a trial in the first place.
> To put it another way, requiring the right to a fair trial, is a concession we make, in order to make it more palatable to grant the government the power to deny us our negative freedom to not be involuntarily summoned to court or punishment. Without recognizing that negative freedom, there is no reason to create the positive right. It all comes down to negative liberty.
But surely all rights boil down to that? I give up my freedom not to stab you in the face in exchange for the right not to be stabbed in the face by you. Every single right in existence limits the freedom of others to violate that right.
Seriously? Let's expose thousands of humans to radiation for several (hundreds, or more likely thousands) generations. Sure, most of them will die horribly of cancer, but perhaps they'll evolve radiation resistance. Those pesky ethics are holding us back!
If the coffee shop has a dress code, they may very well refuse entry to a person wearing such a uniform.
> Remember we're talking about a coffee shop - though I think a solder in his own country should never is turned out for wearing his/her uniform, but that's probably just me
> And you think someone in 2030 won't be able to break 2010 encryption with their pocketknife?
That is exactly what I think. The encryption schemes that get broken all the time are usually DRM schemes which are defective by design, because the client must have access to the key to access to content, and must have access to the unencrypted content to view it. But encryption algorithms in general are quite good, and brute forcing the solution usually takes more time than the lifetime of the universe, or more energy than is available in the visible universe, or some combination thereof. 20 years advancement in hardware is not going to change that. Unless some serious flaw is found in an encryption algorithm, your amazing encryption-breaking pocket knife will be very disappointing.
Cool, we could assign every atom in the observable universe a.com domain name. Too bad the DNS server would collapse in a black hole and eat our galaxy.
> If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.
There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.
Not *that* brilliant. The thought that immunizing mosquitoes might help against malaria has crossed MY mind a couple of years ago, and I'm not even a biologist. I would be extremely surprised if this thing wasn't known for years if not decades amongst people trying to fight malaria. He's probably just the first one who got this thing to work, which is nice, but hardly makes him comparable to Einstein.
Yes, and the categories help people rule out large groups of other people who would never be interested in them, and allow them to focus on the people who might be interested in them, thereby saving energy and time.
If for some reason there is a horrible flaw in my reasoning do let me know.
> Please, could we ultimately drop this boring, pointless and annoying categorizing of sexuality and just accept people as they are, diverse and with different preferences?
Why do you consider it pointless? The vast majority of people will fit in the first three categories you mention (homo, hetero, bisexual). Just because they describe 'only' 9X% of the population rather than 100% doesn't make these categories useless anymore than newtonian physics are useless because they're not perfect.
Or perhaps you were arguing that it is not the imperfection of the categories that makes them pointless, but that the categorization itself has no use? Because that strikes me as a rather strange position, as I reckon the categories would be rather useful when one is selecting a partner, especially the gay/straight seperation.
Slashdot Mirror
> It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
Define "danger to others". People with an infectious disease could infect others, therefore doctors should be compelled to cure them. Or more broadly: desperate people are more likely to engage in actions that are potentially dangerous to themselves and others, therefore people who get in a situation that might be considered desperate, such as being homeless, or without food, water, or education, must be given our help. It seems to me your first rule is a recipe for one of the most socialist countries in the world (not that I would mind, but it seems to me that was not what you intended).
> It turns out that most of the time, you don't have a right to a jury or a fair trial. Go ahead and march into the nearest courthouse right now and demand a fair trial. You'll find that you can't get one, because you aren't currently being prosecuted for anything.
You only run into that problem because you are deliberately misunderstanding the right in question. You don't really have a right to a fair trial, you have the right to a fair trial *when you are being prosecuted for something*. The reason people tend to leave out the last part is because it's so obvious, and rightly so: there is no real chance of misunderstanding because when there is nothing in dispute it doesn't make sense to have a trial in the first place.
> To put it another way, requiring the right to a fair trial, is a concession we make, in order to make it more palatable to grant the government the power to deny us our negative freedom to not be involuntarily summoned to court or punishment. Without recognizing that negative freedom, there is no reason to create the positive right. It all comes down to negative liberty.
But surely all rights boil down to that? I give up my freedom not to stab you in the face in exchange for the right not to be stabbed in the face by you. Every single right in existence limits the freedom of others to violate that right.
Seriously? Let's expose thousands of humans to radiation for several (hundreds, or more likely thousands) generations. Sure, most of them will die horribly of cancer, but perhaps they'll evolve radiation resistance. Those pesky ethics are holding us back!
You sir are a horrible person.
Verin kills Dumbledore!
> The United States already incarcerates a higher percentage of it's population than some "evil" countries do
"Some"? The word you are looking for is "all". The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
> lets say 105 which IIRC is about average.
Actually 100 is, by definition, 'about average'.
> Or wearing a US military uniform?
If the coffee shop has a dress code, they may very well refuse entry to a person wearing such a uniform.
> Remember we're talking about a coffee shop - though I think a solder in his own country should never is turned out for wearing his/her uniform, but that's probably just me
Yeah it's just you.
> And you think someone in 2030 won't be able to break 2010 encryption with their pocketknife?
That is exactly what I think. The encryption schemes that get broken all the time are usually DRM schemes which are defective by design, because the client must have access to the key to access to content, and must have access to the unencrypted content to view it. But encryption algorithms in general are quite good, and brute forcing the solution usually takes more time than the lifetime of the universe, or more energy than is available in the visible universe, or some combination thereof. 20 years advancement in hardware is not going to change that. Unless some serious flaw is found in an encryption algorithm, your amazing encryption-breaking pocket knife will be very disappointing.
You may find this http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html an interesting read.
There's always PageDown and End...
If you're really *that* paranoid, run those browsers in a VM and shred its image once you're done. For bonus points disable your page file.
Cool, we could assign every atom in the observable universe a .com domain name. Too bad the DNS server would collapse in a black hole and eat our galaxy.
It doesn't help that the class files have been obscured.
> If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.
There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.
Like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCoHT_cHPzY this?
Which is why only a Sith would use that line.
Not *that* brilliant. The thought that immunizing mosquitoes might help against malaria has crossed MY mind a couple of years ago, and I'm not even a biologist. I would be extremely surprised if this thing wasn't known for years if not decades amongst people trying to fight malaria. He's probably just the first one who got this thing to work, which is nice, but hardly makes him comparable to Einstein.
Yes, I suppose one could make a case that Linus is stuck in the 90s :p
That, good sir, is fucking awesome.
Yes, and the categories help people rule out large groups of other people who would never be interested in them, and allow them to focus on the people who might be interested in them, thereby saving energy and time.
If for some reason there is a horrible flaw in my reasoning do let me know.
> Please, could we ultimately drop this boring, pointless and annoying categorizing of sexuality and just accept people as they are, diverse and with different preferences?
Why do you consider it pointless? The vast majority of people will fit in the first three categories you mention (homo, hetero, bisexual). Just because they describe 'only' 9X% of the population rather than 100% doesn't make these categories useless anymore than newtonian physics are useless because they're not perfect.
Or perhaps you were arguing that it is not the imperfection of the categories that makes them pointless, but that the categorization itself has no use? Because that strikes me as a rather strange position, as I reckon the categories would be rather useful when one is selecting a partner, especially the gay/straight seperation.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing...
I think not!
I think the odds of Venezuela starting a nuclear war with the USA are pretty slim. For a million dollars I'd call it an acceptable risk.
> Imagine if they had harmed our nation as a whole rather than as a somewhat confined attack.
'They'? I'm quite sure most of the people suffering (or dying) had nothing to do with the particular attack that I assume you are referring to.
At that age, 'life in prison' probably isn't much of a deterrent. The potential reward may well outweigh a decade of imprisonment.