Hmm. Also from Wikipedia, later in that same article:
This issue did come before the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court, "reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states."
As for your assertion that there is no right to overthrow the government, that is not strictly true. Note that the Second specifies not just any "state", but a "free state". A lawful government should have nothing to fear from the Second. An unlawful government, on the other hand, one would hope not so much.
Really? What if that database field is CUSTOMER_NAME? Do you think it won't "shape the business" if the chosen field length turns out to be too short for 20% of the intended customer base?
But if I am to support that system with my tax dollars, the people who use it have to do their part to try to live healthy lives. Drug addicts and alcoholics get treatment then go into rehab, overweight people are put on a healthy diet and exercise regimen, and so on. But since that would violate people's rights, and I can't force my beliefs onto others, even when they are using my tax dollars, I don't support a public health system.
I don't get it. How would that violate rights? When society assumes an obligation to offer help to its members, members who seek out that help to correct their personal failings assume the reciprocal obligation of not "crying wolf" (not quite the phrase I want to use, but I hope it's close enough that you get what I'm trying to convey). "Society, I'm addicted / obese, please treat me." "Our obligation is that we will treat you, but your obligation is that you'll accept our help in avoiding this situation in the future." "Okay." The whole basis of society is the social contract - we help you, you help us!
The technicalities of deciding when any given person is not meeting that reciprocal obligation should only impinge on the general availability of a public health system to the extent that the statistical occurrence of recalcitrant individuals would make the system a net burden or benefit to society. And even then, that is not necessarily an argument to completely reject a public health system instead of the less drastic response of narrowing its scope.
Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?
Hypothetical: let's say geneticists somehow manage to quantify that race X averages 5% "smarter" in some way than race Y once you remove all the other factors. Despite the fact that this still means the vast majority of race X _aren't_ smarter than race Y? Despite the fact that the geneticists acknowledge race is only one of multiple factors involved in determining the intellectual capability of a random individual? A lot of X - led by the already racist contingent - are going to falsely believe that science has "proven" they are superior and a lot of Y - led by their own racist contingent - are suddenly going to feel the need to "prove" they aren't "inferior". That's not going to end well.
Basically, you don't give an arrogant idiot ammo for their gun when you're trapped in the room with them. Not even if you're the same race, because you're still trapped in the same room as an arrogant idiot with a loaded gun.
So not only do we have to worry about incompetence indistinguishable from malice, we also have to worry about righteousness indistinguishable from malice.
"What's the point?" Ironically, your question holds the answer - in pedophilia, the brain's sex drive is missing the point. An error in the genetic code, a bad evolutionary adaptation to population overpressure, excess or deficiency of required chemicals, damage due to stressful environment... whatever the actual cause, the end result is a human being placed in the nightmarish position of having a sex drive that finds children attractive.
The trouble with biology is that it doesn't care, not about us having self-awareness nor our desire for a just world. After all, ask yourself: why do we find that "normal legal smut" so appealing? What's the point? Our "normal" sex drive is no more capable of recognizing that a photo can't reproduce any more than a pedophile's sex drive can.
The catch with your #2 is that the ultimate boss and owner of any data held by the US government is the US public. The constitutional foundation of their entire system of government is not "We the Government", but "We the People of the United States", no matter how much winking, nudging and outright fraud goes on in the corridors of power.
So if you found your company (government) was up to no good, and upon going up the chain got told to stick your head in the sand if you know what's good for you, I'd hope you'd strongly consider going to the police (public). And as a human being, I'd be less than impressed if someone chose their own very comfortable life over the endangered liberty of the people they'd sworn to protect.
... are you seriously suggesting that companies should adopt the moral outlook of cowards?
Let's RTFA, here: Google scans its mail servers against hashes provided to it of CP known to law enforcement, an account got flagged, the police were called, they found the account holder had a felony record for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old child, a warrant was obtained, and additional incriminating evidence was found amongst the account owner's possessions; the owner was arrested and will be tried in a court of law. Due process, so far as two press articles can tell us, appears to have been followed.
And the case itself aside, quite frankly companies are too sociopathic already without people encouraging them to ignore the evils of the world because of the possibility that somebody, somewhere, might be a Scary Pedophile-Terrorist Bent On Revenge (TM).
General quality of the rest of the straw in this thread aside, did you read what you typed? Being forbidden by the government from marrying someone is not the same as being hampered by quadriplegia from practicing karate.
I worked that argument out with a simple question: "Self, if you were a random peasant with a vocal opinion on how things should be run differently, would you last longer in the West or in Saudi Arabia?"
That the NSA is knowingly supplying the torturer doesn't make the torturer less evil, any more than someone else doing the torturing makes the NSA less culpable for their knowing supply.
As an Australian, I point out (a) the lack of oversight in both situations, (b) the lack of checks and balances in both situations, (c) the lack of transparency in both situations, and (d) that the phrase "51st state" is not a compliment over here.
NSW Police, Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police all declined to comment.
“It’s another example where [agencies] are collecting the entire haystack in order to find the needle,” Senator Ludlam said in an interview with Fairfax. “What we've seen with other techniques like this is there is no requirement to destroy the material that is collected incidentally after an investigation is complete,” Senator Ludlam said.
The primary thing in common isn't just the outrage they spark, it's the exact same reason it's sparked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards themselves).
"1) If you think a job is a right, you're wrong." - I don't. "2) If you think any one company has to create jobs, you're wrong." - I don't. "3) I, certainly, am not obliged to create a job for you either." - You're not.
"And the guys throwing rocks, they'll be wondering why no employer will touch them in a year's time."
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about just a few people. I was talking about what happens if national economies based on labour scarcity, already under strain from severe income disparity, run headfirst into automation advancements that make jobs obsolete faster than society can create and fill (because training takes time) new ones. Because what are the odds that governments, being governments, will decide to throw band-aids at the problem for far too long and put their nations at risk of economic collapse before/as they transition to a labour-surplus economy?
"The Luddites may have had cause to be upset, but they were pretty much gone shortly after - because there's only so long you can protest about not having a job before you have to go find another, or before the law steps on you."
Yes, and "the law" didn't bother to check who it stepped on. The original Luddites were "pretty much gone shortly after" because the British government of the day responded with indiscriminate show trials of the guilty and innocent alike, and heavy-handed sentencing including executions and penal transportation. I've noticed that when people make Luddite jokes, they leave out that bit. For some reason it kills the mood.
The only consistent, ongoing factor in automation is that it does more, faster, more reliably, cheaper at the expense of staff who did less, slower and less reliably but cost more. Sure, people need jobs - but nobody but the government is obligated to create them.
"Your poverty isn't my problem" is usually where it all goes to hell, yes. Right up until the poor collectively discover that they can still throw rocks.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Also from Wikipedia, later in that same article:
As for your assertion that there is no right to overthrow the government, that is not strictly true. Note that the Second specifies not just any "state", but a "free state". A lawful government should have nothing to fear from the Second. An unlawful government, on the other hand, one would hope not so much.
Actually, per the official download page, MSE is free for "small businesses with up to 10 PCs".
Really? What if that database field is CUSTOMER_NAME? Do you think it won't "shape the business" if the chosen field length turns out to be too short for 20% of the intended customer base?
I don't get it. How would that violate rights? When society assumes an obligation to offer help to its members, members who seek out that help to correct their personal failings assume the reciprocal obligation of not "crying wolf" (not quite the phrase I want to use, but I hope it's close enough that you get what I'm trying to convey). "Society, I'm addicted / obese, please treat me." "Our obligation is that we will treat you, but your obligation is that you'll accept our help in avoiding this situation in the future." "Okay." The whole basis of society is the social contract - we help you, you help us!
The technicalities of deciding when any given person is not meeting that reciprocal obligation should only impinge on the general availability of a public health system to the extent that the statistical occurrence of recalcitrant individuals would make the system a net burden or benefit to society. And even then, that is not necessarily an argument to completely reject a public health system instead of the less drastic response of narrowing its scope.
You seem to be implying that when a company suffers harm, the rest of the country is unaffected.
Not only is that not how it works, some of those private companies are also the ones whose lobbying brought the USPTO to its current state.
That and just as more people believe they are far better at driving a car than they actually are, more racists believe they are better than {insert other race} than they actually are.
Hypothetical: let's say geneticists somehow manage to quantify that race X averages 5% "smarter" in some way than race Y once you remove all the other factors. Despite the fact that this still means the vast majority of race X _aren't_ smarter than race Y? Despite the fact that the geneticists acknowledge race is only one of multiple factors involved in determining the intellectual capability of a random individual? A lot of X - led by the already racist contingent - are going to falsely believe that science has "proven" they are superior and a lot of Y - led by their own racist contingent - are suddenly going to feel the need to "prove" they aren't "inferior". That's not going to end well.
Basically, you don't give an arrogant idiot ammo for their gun when you're trapped in the room with them. Not even if you're the same race, because you're still trapped in the same room as an arrogant idiot with a loaded gun.
So not only do we have to worry about incompetence indistinguishable from malice, we also have to worry about righteousness indistinguishable from malice.
"What's the point?" Ironically, your question holds the answer - in pedophilia, the brain's sex drive is missing the point. An error in the genetic code, a bad evolutionary adaptation to population overpressure, excess or deficiency of required chemicals, damage due to stressful environment... whatever the actual cause, the end result is a human being placed in the nightmarish position of having a sex drive that finds children attractive.
The trouble with biology is that it doesn't care, not about us having self-awareness nor our desire for a just world. After all, ask yourself: why do we find that "normal legal smut" so appealing? What's the point? Our "normal" sex drive is no more capable of recognizing that a photo can't reproduce any more than a pedophile's sex drive can.
The catch with your #2 is that the ultimate boss and owner of any data held by the US government is the US public. The constitutional foundation of their entire system of government is not "We the Government", but "We the People of the United States", no matter how much winking, nudging and outright fraud goes on in the corridors of power.
So if you found your company (government) was up to no good, and upon going up the chain got told to stick your head in the sand if you know what's good for you, I'd hope you'd strongly consider going to the police (public). And as a human being, I'd be less than impressed if someone chose their own very comfortable life over the endangered liberty of the people they'd sworn to protect.
Dear AC, your argument is analogous to suggesting a person should be jailed for jaywalking if they run across the street to stop a kidnapping.
... now I'm wondering what the various companies would look like on a graph that mapped their salary distributions.
Hmm. I'm not in Europe - would it be illegal there to filter SPAM based on hashes?
So it's okay if they automatically scan for spam based on heuristics, but it's not okay if they automatically scan for CP based on hashes?
... are you seriously suggesting that companies should adopt the moral outlook of cowards?
Let's RTFA, here: Google scans its mail servers against hashes provided to it of CP known to law enforcement, an account got flagged, the police were called, they found the account holder had a felony record for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old child, a warrant was obtained, and additional incriminating evidence was found amongst the account owner's possessions; the owner was arrested and will be tried in a court of law. Due process, so far as two press articles can tell us, appears to have been followed.
And the case itself aside, quite frankly companies are too sociopathic already without people encouraging them to ignore the evils of the world because of the possibility that somebody, somewhere, might be a Scary Pedophile-Terrorist Bent On Revenge (TM).
Although, thinking about it, somebody sold those helicopters to the American military, and I doubt it was a 501(c)3.
I see what you did there. And what you did was rude.
General quality of the rest of the straw in this thread aside, did you read what you typed? Being forbidden by the government from marrying someone is not the same as being hampered by quadriplegia from practicing karate.
I worked that argument out with a simple question: "Self, if you were a random peasant with a vocal opinion on how things should be run differently, would you last longer in the West or in Saudi Arabia?"
That the NSA is knowingly supplying the torturer doesn't make the torturer less evil, any more than someone else doing the torturing makes the NSA less culpable for their knowing supply.
Video of it on the Top Gear channel: http://youtu.be/cDoRmT0iRic
Dear Zombie Santa...
Good luck with that.
As an Australian, I point out (a) the lack of oversight in both situations, (b) the lack of checks and balances in both situations, (c) the lack of transparency in both situations, and (d) that the phrase "51st state" is not a compliment over here.
The primary thing in common isn't just the outrage they spark, it's the exact same reason it's sparked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards themselves).
"1) If you think a job is a right, you're wrong." - I don't.
"2) If you think any one company has to create jobs, you're wrong." - I don't.
"3) I, certainly, am not obliged to create a job for you either." - You're not.
"And the guys throwing rocks, they'll be wondering why no employer will touch them in a year's time."
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about just a few people. I was talking about what happens if national economies based on labour scarcity, already under strain from severe income disparity, run headfirst into automation advancements that make jobs obsolete faster than society can create and fill (because training takes time) new ones. Because what are the odds that governments, being governments, will decide to throw band-aids at the problem for far too long and put their nations at risk of economic collapse before/as they transition to a labour-surplus economy?
"The Luddites may have had cause to be upset, but they were pretty much gone shortly after - because there's only so long you can protest about not having a job before you have to go find another, or before the law steps on you."
Yes, and "the law" didn't bother to check who it stepped on. The original Luddites were "pretty much gone shortly after" because the British government of the day responded with indiscriminate show trials of the guilty and innocent alike, and heavy-handed sentencing including executions and penal transportation. I've noticed that when people make Luddite jokes, they leave out that bit. For some reason it kills the mood.
Do you truly believe you would be one of the "successful people" in a society that thinks the solution to poor people is to run them over with tanks?
"Your poverty isn't my problem" is usually where it all goes to hell, yes. Right up until the poor collectively discover that they can still throw rocks.