"not because they're inept or stupid, but because, theoretically, their minds are still developing, they're succeptible to manipulation and they are not responsible for their actions. " So not because they're inept and stupid but because they're inept,stupid and easily manipulated.Sounds like doddering old people would fit the same description.
And for the elderly their minds are *in a majority of cases* are degrading and are even more susceptible to manipulation than the average teenager. Who said anything about their opinions?
"all citizens have the right to vote, whether they're black, female, immigrants, disabled or just stupid." Unless of course they're young or have ever been convicted of a felony. since they don't count as people or their opinions are automatically invalid.
You can't go to war at 75 either. (have gone to war is another matter)
ya, the drinking laws in the states seem a little absurd. You can get a job, drive a car, vote, volunteer for the army and run for public office.... but not buy alcohol. Seems more than a little silly.
ATM's are fairly hardened, at least in comparison to most voting machines. If anything they should learn more from gaming machines. many states have extremely strict rules for how gaming machines have to be auditable(to make sure the casino is following state regulations), hardened in very specific ways and in general vastly more secure than any voting machine I've ever heard of.
and yet when it comes time to buy voting machines do they think to apply roughly the same regulations? god no. Instead they get a 100 buck POS wraped in a neat but insecure case which the company charges a few grand for.
it should be perfectly possible with proper crypto, hardened terminals and proper security to make electronic voting(in person, not over the net, but on that count you're only contending with mail votes) at least as secure as voting on a piece of dead tree if not slightly better and a lot more efficient/accurate. you decrease the risk of some of the more traditional forms of tampering(like ballot boxes mysteriously appearing in the counting room) and if done properly get only a slightly increased risk of computerized shenanigans.
Well if it literally has zero effect on a particular class of crime where it was harming another person. Lets say the threat of punishment was having no effect. Just for arguments sake, lets pull the subclass of murders where the person is committing the crime is totally insane(and so punishment, consequences or anything like that have zero effect on how often it happens and make no more sense than beating someone for being sick). in that case the "insane people will break the law anyway" would make sense.
hell if you could show with reasonable certainty that a particular law was making no difference and people were doing it anyway in similar numbers in any situation it's still a valid argument. say a law against assassination was making no difference to the number of assassinations and you could prove this reasonably well. what point does it serve other than making people feel better? Worse still if it's both making no difference and also costing a very large amount of money or precipitating other forms of crime then it might be actively making the situation worse. the money could be otherwise spent on childrens hospital burn wards and the crimes caused by the attempts at enforcement could be removed. Now I'm not actually calling for assassination to be made legal (unless anyone can prove that it has no effect on the number of people murdered) but I hope my point got across.
If it's purely down to the money I wonder how a single big corporation doesn't buy every seat. I can think of a few companies that could afford a half billion if it meant almost total control of the house.
"people will break it anyway" does not hold for laws against harming other people but when it comes to crimes against harming yourself it is entirely logical and sensible.
It's like laws against suicide. they made no sense. Punishing people for harming(or potentially harming) themselves was utterly stupid. They were based in catholic morality and the churches fucked up ideas about how people driven to suicide should be treated.
Similarly prohibition did only harm, massively increased crime, cost a hell of a lot, caused people to drink lower quality and higher concentration alcohol and ultimately didn't stop people drinking. It was a law against self harm and it failed to stop people from harming themselves. Threatening them with nastier punishments wasn't going to do much good.
would you believe that in centuries past in some countries coffee was made illegal? And people still sold it. people still bought it.
And strip voting rights at age 75 or so. Not giving 17 year olds the right to vote even if the individual is fully capable is justified on the basis that too many 17 year olds are too inept to vote. Well too many elderly are even more incompetent.
The elderly vote in droves yet nobody falls for FUD like the elderly.
I've know some over 75 individuals with sharp minds who don't fall for FUD but the vast majority, the VAST VAST majority of people seem to get rapidly stupid once in their 70's and become afraid of everything in the universe, particularly anything new or anything involving the young.
It'll suck for the minority of OAP's who are not gone in the head but tough luck, they can join the competent teenagers.
You do know what "Universe" means right? If you can interact with or get information from something in any way shape or form then it is inside the universe, not outside it.
And it should be mentioned that Christianity is no better. Lets just mention the divine right of kings.
and "knowing your place" was very much a part of Christian teachings. It may not be a big part of the holy texts but it certainly is a big part of what the priests preach.
Wasn't intel recently fined in the EU for giving kickbacks to distributors for not using or delaying their competitors chips from getting to market?
After reading TFA I was going to post something similar to what I saw in your first post. Unless canada has useless anti-trust laws I can't see how this could be legal. If you're the biggest seller of some product it's pretty straightforward abuse of your market position to require your customers not buy from a particular competitor.
Something obvious you simply avoid doing for (probably)good reason is still obvious. How many of those same programmers who I assume were at least moderately skilled in the art would have had the slightest problem creating code to let a book get bought and shipped by one click? Where is the invention? Where is the non-obvious bit?
If every gun manufacturer included a safety but is quite capable of building one without but don't that doesn't make it an "invention" when one of them does even if it turns out that people like guns with no safetys.
Bets that in order to be issued a 'health certificate' your operating system would also have to have been certified somehow. In order to get certified there would of course be a small fee payable by the OS vendor, hardly anything really, just for admin costs you understand. No problem at all for any highly profitable OS vendor.
You might be also interested in why it's good that people have a right to remain silent even though obviously (in your world) if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from telling the truth freely.
The newspapers were gagged from even reporting that a report about toxic waste dumping existed at all, they were aslo gagged from talking about the gag order. It's not all conspiracy theory crap.
And when ballot boxes appear in the counting room what then? Or the dead rise to vote with pen in hand. Or people vote early and often. Or some of the counters are sure that the mark was on the other side of the ballot. etc etc etc
paper voting is exceptionally far from secure.
I'd not be too happy about voting over the net since the botnet herders would win every election but electronic voting in person? It should be possible to make a system far more secure than the current pen and paper one.
No it's like saying that there's something wrong with a particular banks security because it's the 5th most robbed bank in the country with robbers choosing it again and again and again.
Slashdot Mirror
"not because they're inept or stupid, but because, theoretically, their minds are still developing, they're succeptible to manipulation and they are not responsible for their actions. "
So not because they're inept and stupid but because they're inept,stupid and easily manipulated.Sounds like doddering old people would fit the same description.
And for the elderly their minds are *in a majority of cases* are degrading and are even more susceptible to manipulation than the average teenager.
Who said anything about their opinions?
"all citizens have the right to vote, whether they're black, female, immigrants, disabled or just stupid."
Unless of course they're young or have ever been convicted of a felony.
since they don't count as people or their opinions are automatically invalid.
You can't go to war at 75 either. (have gone to war is another matter)
ya, the drinking laws in the states seem a little absurd.
You can get a job, drive a car, vote, volunteer for the army and run for public office.... but not buy alcohol.
Seems more than a little silly.
ATM's are fairly hardened, at least in comparison to most voting machines.
If anything they should learn more from gaming machines. many states have extremely strict rules for how gaming machines have to be auditable(to make sure the casino is following state regulations), hardened in very specific ways and in general vastly more secure than any voting machine I've ever heard of.
and yet when it comes time to buy voting machines do they think to apply roughly the same regulations?
god no.
Instead they get a 100 buck POS wraped in a neat but insecure case which the company charges a few grand for.
it should be perfectly possible with proper crypto, hardened terminals and proper security to make electronic voting(in person, not over the net, but on that count you're only contending with mail votes) at least as secure as voting on a piece of dead tree if not slightly better and a lot more efficient/accurate.
you decrease the risk of some of the more traditional forms of tampering(like ballot boxes mysteriously appearing in the counting room) and if done properly get only a slightly increased risk of computerized shenanigans.
"This is as idiotic as not allowing 17 year olds"
that's partly the point.
"Not all people over 75 are idiots or don't know what they're talking about. "
And I made the point that there are some people over 75 who are sharp as a tack. but most are not.
So what was the justification for not giving 17 year olds the vote again?
I was paying taxes at 17 but I didn't have a vote for some reason.
Well if it literally has zero effect on a particular class of crime where it was harming another person.
Lets say the threat of punishment was having no effect.
Just for arguments sake, lets pull the subclass of murders where the person is committing the crime is totally insane(and so punishment, consequences or anything like that have zero effect on how often it happens and make no more sense than beating someone for being sick).
in that case the "insane people will break the law anyway" would make sense.
hell if you could show with reasonable certainty that a particular law was making no difference and people were doing it anyway in similar numbers in any situation it's still a valid argument.
say a law against assassination was making no difference to the number of assassinations and you could prove this reasonably well.
what point does it serve other than making people feel better?
Worse still if it's both making no difference and also costing a very large amount of money or precipitating other forms of crime then it might be actively making the situation worse.
the money could be otherwise spent on childrens hospital burn wards and the crimes caused by the attempts at enforcement could be removed.
Now I'm not actually calling for assassination to be made legal (unless anyone can prove that it has no effect on the number of people murdered) but I hope my point got across.
If it's purely down to the money I wonder how a single big corporation doesn't buy every seat.
I can think of a few companies that could afford a half billion if it meant almost total control of the house.
"people will break it anyway" does not hold for laws against harming other people but when it comes to crimes against harming yourself it is entirely logical and sensible.
It's like laws against suicide.
they made no sense.
Punishing people for harming(or potentially harming) themselves was utterly stupid.
They were based in catholic morality and the churches fucked up ideas about how people driven to suicide should be treated.
Similarly prohibition did only harm, massively increased crime, cost a hell of a lot, caused people to drink lower quality and higher concentration alcohol and ultimately didn't stop people drinking.
It was a law against self harm and it failed to stop people from harming themselves.
Threatening them with nastier punishments wasn't going to do much good.
would you believe that in centuries past in some countries coffee was made illegal?
And people still sold it. people still bought it.
And strip voting rights at age 75 or so.
Not giving 17 year olds the right to vote even if the individual is fully capable is justified on the basis that too many 17 year olds are too inept to vote.
Well too many elderly are even more incompetent.
The elderly vote in droves yet nobody falls for FUD like the elderly.
I've know some over 75 individuals with sharp minds who don't fall for FUD but the vast majority, the VAST VAST majority of people seem to get rapidly stupid once in their 70's and become afraid of everything in the universe, particularly anything new or anything involving the young.
It'll suck for the minority of OAP's who are not gone in the head but tough luck, they can join the competent teenagers.
I'm getting that same error.
At least it's not just me.
Bravo good sir!
well played!
Think about the inapplicability of anything in anything.
think about the inapplicability of applying the inapplicability of anything in anything in anything.
etc
it's a silly game.
You do know what "Universe" means right?
If you can interact with or get information from something in any way shape or form then it is inside the universe, not outside it.
And it should be mentioned that Christianity is no better.
Lets just mention the divine right of kings.
and "knowing your place" was very much a part of Christian teachings.
It may not be a big part of the holy texts but it certainly is a big part of what the priests preach.
Wasn't intel recently fined in the EU for giving kickbacks to distributors for not using or delaying their competitors chips from getting to market?
After reading TFA I was going to post something similar to what I saw in your first post.
Unless canada has useless anti-trust laws I can't see how this could be legal.
If you're the biggest seller of some product it's pretty straightforward abuse of your market position to require your customers not buy from a particular competitor.
Something obvious you simply avoid doing for (probably)good reason is still obvious.
How many of those same programmers who I assume were at least moderately skilled in the art would have had the slightest problem creating code to let a book get bought and shipped by one click?
Where is the invention?
Where is the non-obvious bit?
If every gun manufacturer included a safety but is quite capable of building one without but don't that doesn't make it an "invention" when one of them does even if it turns out that people like guns with no safetys.
It's an ideal poster child for bad patents.
Bets that in order to be issued a 'health certificate' your operating system would also have to have been certified somehow.
In order to get certified there would of course be a small fee payable by the OS vendor, hardly anything really, just for admin costs you understand.
No problem at all for any highly profitable OS vendor.
The word "irony" does not mean what you think it does.
What?
there's never any shortage of good counter arguments.
educate yourself.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
You might be also interested in why it's good that people have a right to remain silent even though obviously (in your world) if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from telling the truth freely.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
I think I know what he was refering to when he was talking about secret gag orders.
Google the "Minton report"
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Guardian_still_under_secret_toxic_waste_gag/
The newspapers were gagged from even reporting that a report about toxic waste dumping existed at all, they were aslo gagged from talking about the gag order.
It's not all conspiracy theory crap.
And when ballot boxes appear in the counting room what then?
Or the dead rise to vote with pen in hand.
Or people vote early and often.
Or some of the counters are sure that the mark was on the other side of the ballot.
etc
etc
etc
paper voting is exceptionally far from secure.
I'd not be too happy about voting over the net since the botnet herders would win every election but electronic voting in person? It should be possible to make a system far more secure than the current pen and paper one.
No it's like saying that there's something wrong with a particular banks security because it's the 5th most robbed bank in the country with robbers choosing it again and again and again.
What have drug dealers to do with anything?
Just an uneducated guess: you might be charged with destroying evidence.
What's so dumb about it?
That you don't like that texas is the best place in the US for patent trolls?
so essentially "Those features? bah! I don't think you really need those so they don't count!"