So recording personal information in a database by a private corporation (run by civilians), would be allowed to happen in your country? On public land?
We're not talking about personal information. We're talking about license plates. I guarantee you that millions of license plate images have been captured by Google's Street View. Whoops, there goes your argument.
Technology can be used for good or bad purposes. References: The entirety of human history
One man's good is another's bad. Keeping track of where cars are will help reduce car thefts and kidnappings, at the cost of...what, exactly? You're afraid that the fact that you visit an adult film store might show up in a database, as if anyone in the world would care?
Ambiguity helps to prevent exploits. It's impossible to fashion a law that truly considers every possible circumstance. Giving judges the ability to employ some common sense is a good thing. If you force judges to act like computers, you're going to run into a lot of problems.
And that's assuming it's even possible to craft an unambiguous law. Human language isn't particularly well suited to that task.
News for Luddites, Stuff to make you Scared and Angry.
One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone. Cell phones help protestors and activists coordinate, and also help cops do the same. Improved cameras let people capture video of wrong doing, and also help cops track license plates. Unmanned aircraft make aviation safer and more accessible to civilians, and also to cops.
I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.
"Yet" is such a lazy cop-out. You can use it to insinuate absolutely anything, and never be proven wrong.
Lunatic: "Americans eat a dozen new-born babies every Thursday morning!" Sane Person: "What? No they don't! There's no evidence of that, and moreover, it's physically impossible given the length of human pregnancy." Lunatic: "Not yet, but just you wait. I saw a person eat a Big Mac last week; they'll start eating babies any day now."
Or, alternatively, the bodies were never buried by humans in the first place, and were instead partially buried by winds. If people set out through that desert trying to find another oasis, and didn't bring sufficient supplies (bearing in mind that they would have no idea what "sufficient" was), they would likely die too quickly to bury their dead.
This isn't about hurt feelings. Read the article. This is about women -- human beings with all the same thoughts and feelings as men -- getting groped and molested by men who are so broken in the head that they think such behavior is merely "politically incorrect". Such people are a danger, because they either do not or cannot recognize the humanity of other people.
Some of them retreat from society, never hurt anyone, and live in their caves as hermits until they die. It's sad, and it would be good if we could help them, but in those cases we have no justification in forcing help on them.
But for those that actually assault women, yes, we have not only the right but the responsibility to remove them from society.
You are a part of this society. You damn well better care what we think, because if we judge you to be a threat to the rights of others, we can and will lock you away in some dark little concrete room where you can never hurt anyone again.
You are not a god. You are not an island. You are a sack of mostly water. No one cares about your little Slashdot manifesto. Learn to function in this society, or be removed from it.
That's utter bullshit. The government enforces the will of the people. Part of that means collecting taxes and providing for those who didn't get lucky in life. Get rid of the safety nets, the the people will find another way to provide from themselves -- by killing the rich and taking their things. The poor will not lay down in the gutter and starve to death, no matter how much the robber barons may wish it.
Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.
Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%. The rich could still live like kings, but they didn't have billions (or the contemporary equivalent) to buy politicians.
Income disparity is a self-reinforcing problem. If you let the rich have too much of the pie, that gives them the power to take even more.
Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"
Could it be that you're just repeating some lie you heard? And that you're too stupid to even make the mental connection necessary to realize that it is completely impossible for that claim to be factual?
In all honesty, you disgust me. You talk all big and smart, condescending to those "well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe" things, when the truth is you have the mental acuity of a dog, and like all good dogs, you're just doing what your master tells you. You were blessed at birth with the ability to reason. Don't let that gift go to waste.
Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?
Stop listening to right-wing radio. They are poisoning your brain.
Please. If something like this were to catch on (it won't), we'd still have leaders. Only instead of politicians with known checks on their powers, they'd be the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world, convincing hordes of useful idiots to do as they say. At least with a Republic, we have a few layers of insulation between the "ditto-heads" and the government.
Congratulations, in your haste to be OUTRAGED, you missed the fact that the GP was just making a (lame) joke about the definition of the word "decimated".
Bingo. I've been manually managing the shifting of files back and forth between my HDD and SSD for a couple years now, and while it's not particularly hard, it's not something I'd want to guide a non-techie through. Getting the OS on one drive and the user folders (my documents, videos, music, etc.) on the other isn't particularly well documented, and moving individual Steam games seems to require console commands, a rarity in Windows.
Even though I can manage it all myself, I would absolutely switch to having software handle it if there were a reliable, free, easy-to-use option.
I really hope the two people who modded this interesting did so as part of the joke, but I suspect that this is yet another case of mods not even bothering to mouse-over links to sources, let alone read them.
I know lots of Chinese, Indian, and Filipino people, among other nationalities, and they're largely unanimous in saying that the US is a great place and they'd prefer to stay here. See? I have anecdotes too.
If you're convinced that life is better somewhere else, move there. Find out for yourself. Don't go on a murder spree to try to turn the US into your idea of utopia.
Admit it... you hate when articles start with "admit it", as if all potential readers are of one mind. I frankly don't love Firefox, or hate it, or even think about it. Browser's are about as valuable to me as a hammer or a chair. One is pretty much like another. I'll use the one that feels most comfortable to me, and waste no further thought on it.
You do get conflict and the need to compromise if people do that but how is that different from what happens anyway?
And we call those compromises "laws". We as a society have gotten together and decided that vigilante justice is bad, so we outlawed it. But that compromise breaks down if people start deciding that their moral compass is more important and they really think that certain people should be killed.
Morality varies by person. If you tell people to always do what they think is right, you can't have any laws at all, because you're never going to get all 300,000,000+ people to agree on anything.
You think you can just start murdering people to fix all your problems. It doesn't work that way. You spill blood, and other people will fight back, and we'll end up in a 3rd world hellhole for a century. You will not live to see a return to peace. None of us will.
Go visit other countries, if you think things here are bad. See hundreds of millions of people living in shantytowns. See the bribery that is required on a daily basis. See people sentenced to years in prison because they spoke out against Putin or Ahmadinejad or some other despot. See life behind the Great Firewall, or in Brazil where it is illegal to be anonymous.
Life in the US is unbelievably wonderful compared to damn near everywhere else in the world. And you want to destroy that, because of some fucking security cameras? Well thank God for those cameras! I hope some are pointed squarely at you. As soon as you seek to end a human life, you deserve to be taken away and locked up in a place where the world can forget you.
Of course not, because what you're saying is just bullshit, in Frankfurt's sense. There's no reason to think that the government would ever go after Politifact, but you don't care about that. You just want to say something outrageous and bask in the adulation that comes with feeding people's victim complex.
In fairness to the Senator, the amendment bans "transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices". It's the reporter who doesn't know a clip from a magazine.
It's actually a pitifully toothless law, as it excludes any extended magazines already in existence in the country. It would take decades to have any effect. Not that it has any chance of passing in the first place.
Bullshit. You immediately jump to the worst incidents in history, and point at them as though they're representative examples. They're not.
Insisting that you'll just follow your own code instead of the law works great as long as you have the "right" morals. Funny thing about that, everyone seems to think their morals are the right ones.
Maybe I think it's immoral for my daughter to have a kid out of wedlock, so I kill her and her boyfriend as an honor killing. After all, it's my morality, and how dare your laws condemn it? Maybe I think abortions are immoral, so I won't let my employees have them, and how dare the law say otherwise? Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive? Maybe I think it's moral to lynch murderers, and whoops, turns out that guy was innocent. How dare you make me follow your "due process"? Maybe I see no problems with dumping toxic waste in your water supply. How dare you fine me for it?
You're a child. Anyone with the slightest idea how the world works would realize that if you tell people to ignore any law they don't like, you get chaos. Sure, if you ever find yourself working as a Nazi death camp guard, disobey those orders. But such disobedience is warranted as the exception, not the rule.
Don't bother applying. I hear any day now they're gonna offshore the position and get a bunch of Chinese people to hand carry the particles back and forth.
Slashdot Mirror
So recording personal information in a database by a private corporation (run by civilians), would be allowed to happen in your country? On public land?
We're not talking about personal information. We're talking about license plates. I guarantee you that millions of license plate images have been captured by Google's Street View. Whoops, there goes your argument.
Technology can be used for good or bad purposes. References: The entirety of human history
One man's good is another's bad. Keeping track of where cars are will help reduce car thefts and kidnappings, at the cost of ...what, exactly? You're afraid that the fact that you visit an adult film store might show up in a database, as if anyone in the world would care?
Ambiguity helps to prevent exploits. It's impossible to fashion a law that truly considers every possible circumstance. Giving judges the ability to employ some common sense is a good thing. If you force judges to act like computers, you're going to run into a lot of problems.
And that's assuming it's even possible to craft an unambiguous law. Human language isn't particularly well suited to that task.
News for Luddites, Stuff to make you Scared and Angry.
One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone. Cell phones help protestors and activists coordinate, and also help cops do the same. Improved cameras let people capture video of wrong doing, and also help cops track license plates. Unmanned aircraft make aviation safer and more accessible to civilians, and also to cops.
I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.
The source linked by the parent is misleading. The events are being live-tweeted by one James Albury. He has since clarified that:
I wouldnt describe it as a raid. The police entered side door peaceably. I dont think area they are in is sovereign Ecuadorian.
Just regular, everyday police. Not armed or anything and were apparently allowed in by Ecuadorian officials.
"Yet" is such a lazy cop-out. You can use it to insinuate absolutely anything, and never be proven wrong.
Lunatic: "Americans eat a dozen new-born babies every Thursday morning!"
Sane Person: "What? No they don't! There's no evidence of that, and moreover, it's physically impossible given the length of human pregnancy."
Lunatic: "Not yet, but just you wait. I saw a person eat a Big Mac last week; they'll start eating babies any day now."
Or, alternatively, the bodies were never buried by humans in the first place, and were instead partially buried by winds. If people set out through that desert trying to find another oasis, and didn't bring sufficient supplies (bearing in mind that they would have no idea what "sufficient" was), they would likely die too quickly to bury their dead.
This isn't about hurt feelings. Read the article. This is about women -- human beings with all the same thoughts and feelings as men -- getting groped and molested by men who are so broken in the head that they think such behavior is merely "politically incorrect". Such people are a danger, because they either do not or cannot recognize the humanity of other people.
Some of them retreat from society, never hurt anyone, and live in their caves as hermits until they die. It's sad, and it would be good if we could help them, but in those cases we have no justification in forcing help on them.
But for those that actually assault women, yes, we have not only the right but the responsibility to remove them from society.
You are a part of this society. You damn well better care what we think, because if we judge you to be a threat to the rights of others, we can and will lock you away in some dark little concrete room where you can never hurt anyone again.
You are not a god. You are not an island. You are a sack of mostly water. No one cares about your little Slashdot manifesto. Learn to function in this society, or be removed from it.
That's utter bullshit. The government enforces the will of the people. Part of that means collecting taxes and providing for those who didn't get lucky in life. Get rid of the safety nets, the the people will find another way to provide from themselves -- by killing the rich and taking their things. The poor will not lay down in the gutter and starve to death, no matter how much the robber barons may wish it.
Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.
Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%. The rich could still live like kings, but they didn't have billions (or the contemporary equivalent) to buy politicians.
Income disparity is a self-reinforcing problem. If you let the rich have too much of the pie, that gives them the power to take even more.
Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"
Could it be that you're just repeating some lie you heard? And that you're too stupid to even make the mental connection necessary to realize that it is completely impossible for that claim to be factual?
In all honesty, you disgust me. You talk all big and smart, condescending to those "well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe" things, when the truth is you have the mental acuity of a dog, and like all good dogs, you're just doing what your master tells you. You were blessed at birth with the ability to reason. Don't let that gift go to waste.
Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?
Stop listening to right-wing radio. They are poisoning your brain.
Please. If something like this were to catch on (it won't), we'd still have leaders. Only instead of politicians with known checks on their powers, they'd be the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world, convincing hordes of useful idiots to do as they say. At least with a Republic, we have a few layers of insulation between the "ditto-heads" and the government.
Congratulations, in your haste to be OUTRAGED, you missed the fact that the GP was just making a (lame) joke about the definition of the word "decimated".
Bingo. I've been manually managing the shifting of files back and forth between my HDD and SSD for a couple years now, and while it's not particularly hard, it's not something I'd want to guide a non-techie through. Getting the OS on one drive and the user folders (my documents, videos, music, etc.) on the other isn't particularly well documented, and moving individual Steam games seems to require console commands, a rarity in Windows.
Even though I can manage it all myself, I would absolutely switch to having software handle it if there were a reliable, free, easy-to-use option.
I really hope the two people who modded this interesting did so as part of the joke, but I suspect that this is yet another case of mods not even bothering to mouse-over links to sources, let alone read them.
I know lots of Chinese, Indian, and Filipino people, among other nationalities, and they're largely unanimous in saying that the US is a great place and they'd prefer to stay here. See? I have anecdotes too.
If you're convinced that life is better somewhere else, move there. Find out for yourself. Don't go on a murder spree to try to turn the US into your idea of utopia.
Admit it... you hate when articles start with "admit it", as if all potential readers are of one mind. I frankly don't love Firefox, or hate it, or even think about it. Browser's are about as valuable to me as a hammer or a chair. One is pretty much like another. I'll use the one that feels most comfortable to me, and waste no further thought on it.
You do get conflict and the need to compromise if people do that but how is that different from what happens anyway?
And we call those compromises "laws". We as a society have gotten together and decided that vigilante justice is bad, so we outlawed it. But that compromise breaks down if people start deciding that their moral compass is more important and they really think that certain people should be killed.
Morality varies by person. If you tell people to always do what they think is right, you can't have any laws at all, because you're never going to get all 300,000,000+ people to agree on anything.
Fuck you.
You think you can just start murdering people to fix all your problems. It doesn't work that way. You spill blood, and other people will fight back, and we'll end up in a 3rd world hellhole for a century. You will not live to see a return to peace. None of us will.
Go visit other countries, if you think things here are bad. See hundreds of millions of people living in shantytowns. See the bribery that is required on a daily basis. See people sentenced to years in prison because they spoke out against Putin or Ahmadinejad or some other despot. See life behind the Great Firewall, or in Brazil where it is illegal to be anonymous.
Life in the US is unbelievably wonderful compared to damn near everywhere else in the world. And you want to destroy that, because of some fucking security cameras? Well thank God for those cameras! I hope some are pointed squarely at you. As soon as you seek to end a human life, you deserve to be taken away and locked up in a place where the world can forget you.
Will you come back and admit when you are wrong?
Of course not, because what you're saying is just bullshit, in Frankfurt's sense. There's no reason to think that the government would ever go after Politifact, but you don't care about that. You just want to say something outrageous and bask in the adulation that comes with feeding people's victim complex.
You mean to tell me that an almost-entirely text site with no unicode support is slow to adopt new standards?!
In fairness to the Senator, the amendment bans "transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices". It's the reporter who doesn't know a clip from a magazine.
It's actually a pitifully toothless law, as it excludes any extended magazines already in existence in the country. It would take decades to have any effect. Not that it has any chance of passing in the first place.
Bullshit. You immediately jump to the worst incidents in history, and point at them as though they're representative examples. They're not.
Insisting that you'll just follow your own code instead of the law works great as long as you have the "right" morals. Funny thing about that, everyone seems to think their morals are the right ones.
Maybe I think it's immoral for my daughter to have a kid out of wedlock, so I kill her and her boyfriend as an honor killing. After all, it's my morality, and how dare your laws condemn it? Maybe I think abortions are immoral, so I won't let my employees have them, and how dare the law say otherwise? Maybe I think it's moral to drive drunk so long as I'm super-duper careful. How dare you take away my right to drive? Maybe I think it's moral to lynch murderers, and whoops, turns out that guy was innocent. How dare you make me follow your "due process"? Maybe I see no problems with dumping toxic waste in your water supply. How dare you fine me for it?
You're a child. Anyone with the slightest idea how the world works would realize that if you tell people to ignore any law they don't like, you get chaos. Sure, if you ever find yourself working as a Nazi death camp guard, disobey those orders. But such disobedience is warranted as the exception, not the rule.
Don't bother applying. I hear any day now they're gonna offshore the position and get a bunch of Chinese people to hand carry the particles back and forth.