And by now everyone will have lost interest, which illustrates my original point that questions aren't universally appreciated.
I don't know about that. I'm one of those people who find scientific knowledge of all kinds interesting, even if I don't personally have a use for it or even understand it. I once spent an entire evening at a local diner quizzing a friend of mine who has a double major in math and physics about spacetime manifolds, and in the process she wound up having to borrow a stack of napkins and explain to be some basic calculus, by which time we'd both completely forgotten the original topic of conversation. I know she wasn't thrilled at the prospect of teaching me something I should have learned in high school (and then forgotten), and I have no real use for calculus in my life, but I never graduated from high school and she was just grateful to have someone to talk to who she could converse with intellectually. Of course, now I know the difference between vector and scalar quantities, and what that little triangle (delta) in an equation means... but still have no idea what the hell a Rienman manifold is.;)
The scientific method and the legal method don't really mesh well most times. 'Science' very rarely produces black and white results. Shades of grey are tough to get across to lay people.
But on TV, they just push a few buttons and the security camera footage clearly shows the criminal doing the deed. And there's always irrefutable forensic evidence too, like special kinds of mold that are only found in a 3 block radius of the criminal, car tire marks that can be individually matched to a specific make and model of car, and all done with detectives that love their country and spend all their time bringing murderers, rapists, and child abductors to justice, all while tossing off one-liners that make them sound smart, educated, and likeable.
And the really guilty ones ask for a lawyer. You just know when someone asks for a lawyer or invokes their fifth amendment rights they're guilty as fuck, and they'll just sit there smiling like that alone gets them a get out of jail free card. Hero Detective will just lump on ten times more evidence against them before the next commercial break, maybe bending or breaking a few rules or contacting Mystery Person X from Government Agency Y to really dig into said dirtbag.
When you consider how most people are shown how science operates within the criminal justice system, and how little there is to contradict that, why is the result at all surprising? It's not that science is hard to explain to lay people, it's that their expectations have been manipulated by fictional events and popular entertainment; And even on things like the news we see things like "Space shuttle was travelling at 17 times the speed of light before it exploded". And in cases where science runs up against a popular misconception like fluorinated water, vaccinations, homeopathic remedies, etc., the media gives "equal" time to opponents of science. Look at how many media people start by asking the scientist invited to their show "Do you believe in evolution?"
When the nature of the average person's exposure to science is muddied up like this, it's no surprise people fall back to the one thing they do trust: Their own personal biases and emotions regarding the person to form their opinion regarding their credibility.
And gee, who's going to win; the guy in a suit and tie, balding, and still looks like he's in the marines, wearing some wire-rimmed glasses and with 20 years "on the force", or the 27 year old with a clip-on, who talks with an unsure voice and uses words you don't understand, and crumbles under cross-examination by a lawyer who's every question ends with "Are you sure?" and "and remember, you're under oath."
So, Intel, a company with no real competition right now in the market, has produced a product that offers only a very slight performance boost, and relied on tons of marketing to drum up anticipation for this mediocre offering. And then priced it the same as existing offerings as an apology to those who waited. Actually, that sounds about par for the course these days. The only real news in cpus and motherboards has been that they've gone multicore and continue to increase bandwidth. And now that they can't squeeze any more performance out of the designs, they're working on decreasing energy consumption.
I hope it comes with a robot arm that tears the test paper out from under your pen, pats you on the head and give you a first grade replacement problem.
Not needed; The helicopter parent standing next to said child can do that, as well as complain to the teacher about how their child is being left behind. "It's not Little Timmy's fault -- it's his brain!"
'Brain wave data is the nearest thing we have to really know when the students are having problems.
Most people have been raised with the notion that it's more important to appear competent than be competent. There's several college-themed cartoons out there about that express hatred for "The Question Guy"... and most people are acutely aware that asking questions on material is a great way to earn the irritation and ostracism of your peers, who feel they have better things to do than get an education and really just want to go through the motions and get out.
This is another technology that's trying to solve a social problem, and like every attempt in that regard, it will fail, be impractical, and people will try to defeat it -- because they don't see the point and they don't want to appear incompetent. In 20 years, we'll be getting coached on how to have the right brain wave patterns for getting through the airport unmolested, how to cheat on your final and not get detected by the brain wave readers, etc.
The problem is in our social values and attitudes. It's systemic and institutional. No technology can fix that, however advanced.
isn't likely to yield the secrets of semiconductor fabrication necessary to produce another one.
No, but it provides a blue print for what the finished product should look like, which can accelerate parallel development; If I asked you to design a replica of a Lamborghini, I'm sure your efforts would be a lot more successful if I gave you an actual car as opposed to just pictures of it.
Although I'm sure many will say this is inhumane, I suggest that this survey quietly disappear. Many of the United States' agricultural land is in danger of turning to dust due to several factors. Part of it is the poor use of land; Overuse of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, genetically engineered crops (the crops are not the problem, the business practices of companies like Monsanto are), and the loss of top soil due to erosion are just some of the problems. We have several states that are largely desert right now (the "dust bowl" was a ecological disaster caused by irresponsible farming practices). However, the other part of it is due to lack of access to fresh water. People are living in places that have tapped out their underwater reserves; Especially those in the southeastern United States. Several municipalities are embroiled in fierce legal battled over neighboring cities (and even states!) refusal to share their water. This is a situation that will only get worse over time; Already there is talk about southern states passing legislation or taking overt and aggressive action to divert water from the Great Lakes to areas of the south that soon will be uninhabitable without water relief -- others of course argue that the areas should never have been inhabited in the first place.
If the countries of Africa tap that resource, on one hand they will experience a sudden burst of economic activity and agricultural reform; and with it a corresponding explosion in population. However, there is already too much industrialization of the planet as it is, and with global warming going unaddressed due to a lack of cooperation by sovereign powers, an untempered entry into industry by so many new countries could cause a global ecological disaster that could leave most of the tropical regions of the planet devastated and unfarmable. If an industrialized country with access to state of the art technology, extensive scientific understanding, and sufficient natural resources, cannot solve these problems... I shudder to think what could happen if an entire continent did a history repeat.
"...having his business trashed this way, with 220 jobs lost, and millions left without access to their legitimate data."
Kim, you should be thankful that this attempt to bring democracy to your country ended with so few casualties. The United States is generally far more aggressive regarding its use of military forces to support economic (corporate) policies. You could have been picked up by a bounty hunter, or kidnapped by operatives. I wish I could say I was joking here -- several federal legislators and officials have stated that they consider filesharing and copyright infringement to be supporting terrorism.
On the upside, your sacrifice may bring additional business to New Zealand, as well as prompt a review of disaster recovery with an emphasis on protection against foreign governments. Again, I wish it was a joke -- ten years ago, disaster recovery plans centered around the damage backhoes and hurricanes could do. Today, those risks can be cheaply mitigated thanks to cloud architecture and data centers in almost every major city worldwide. The biggest threat which cannot be managed by a business anymore is the threat posed by a rogue foreign government such as the United States. Though I am hardly singling them out -- the UK, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Iraq, France, Germany and Egypt join them on the list of foreign governments who have attempted to destroy businesses extrajudicially.
Won't work outside the lab. As soon as they release it to market and pump it full of DRM and premium-content-ads, they'll get repressed all over again.
Depression can't be cured. It can be treated, very effectively, and the outcome will last a long time. But once you've had a depressive episode, you are more likely to have another. The longer and more severe the symptoms, the more likely you are to have a recurrance. Whatever it is that triggers depression can be abated, but it weakens the psychological fabric of the person it afflicts, permanently.
I don't know why this is, or the underlying mechanic. There are many studies out that identify variances in neural activity and neurotransmitter levels that are associated with people having a depressive episode; It has a distinct pathology and has definate biological markers, unlike most personality disorders (as a contrast). But there is scant data on what differences persist in the brain post-recovery... only a marked increase in the odds of relapse.
In that respect, it is much like chicken pox. If you've had it, the virus remains in your body, and for 80% of the population, after the acute infection, there are no further symptoms for the rest of their life. But for some, complications arise in the form of shingles. Depression is like that as well, but without the pathogen -- once you've had it, something is changed in you, forever.
Yeah, in the same way used CDs killed the music industry, used cars killed the automotive industry, giving food past its due date to food shelves led to the collapse of agriculture, and used computers destroyed the technology industry.
They can also rescind your voting rights, so by your logic voting is a privilege as well
Actually, if you're a convicted felon, you lose the right to vote, or own a firearm, amongst other things. But that's neither here nor there... you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The Constitution states that no right can be deprived without due process of law; which basically means, until you break a law, you have that right. A priviledge is something you don't have to break a law to be denied; in the case of a driver's license, if you are legally blind, that priviledge will not be extended to you. However, even if you are deaf, blind, retarded, and so disabled that your only voluntary muscle control is by blinking... you are still allowed to vote, unless you somehow manage to commit a felony... somehow... using only the power of blinking...
Too many people these days think 'rights' are some kind of absolute and they aren't. All it means is you have to be charged and convicted of something to lose it, and generally... even then you don't unless the case can be made that doing so is in the public's best interest.
You clearly don't know what 'appeal to authority' means. Go ahead, google that too... I can wait. -_-
So, you've given up on your original argument that
This is not an argument, or a discussion. It is you attempting to sound intelligent about a topic you obviously know nothing about, and rather than admit this, you're trying to change the topic under discussion to something else in a rather pathetic attempt at ego preservation.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Yes, that is an excerb from Thompson v. Smith, which is generally taken out of context by armchair lawyers who live in basements. If you had read the full text of it, rather than just quickly googling for whatever supported the idiot statement you made 3 posts ago, you'd know that this case only affirms the 4th amendment as it pertains to the transport of goods and materials. The justices never said you can drive on public roads without a license, or that the state could not deprive you of the priviledge of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. The right to travel means you can leave the country, or move between states, cities, etc., freely. It does not grant you any rights to a particular mode of transportation.
The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles is another case commonly cited by the illiterati... it centers around a case where the government attempted to prevent a person from travelling abroad because they were a communist. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not restrict a person's travel on the basis of their political beliefs. Again, it has nothing to do with the requirement that you have a valid driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
It's the same subject matter as Kent v. Dulles -- the government again attempts to prevent someone from obtaining a passport based on their political beliefs. They fail, rather like your attempts to sound intelligent on a topic you apparently have now spent a total of five minutes aquainting yourself with.
we are back to applying critical thinking skills.
I never left. You on the other hand apparently believe 30 seconds on google is enough to carry the day, serving up crackpot interpretations of law that no legal scholar would give the time of day.
Is that really the justification for your belief that "driving is a privilege?"
It's not a belief. It is a matter of law. My belief is that you're incapable of admitting you're wrong and were probably neglected by your father. One is firmly established in many textbooks and independently verifiable, the other is speculation.
Faster, slower - just depends on where the heat is being emitted - either towards where the craft is going (mainly the case here) or back towards where it came from.
In space, speed is a meaningless attribute without a point of reference. As well, space is non-euclidean in nature -- you can travel in a straight line and wind up in the same place you started. It's better to speak in terms of vectors and delta...
C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens.
Well it's Australia not some backwater podunk country like the United States. Everything on that slab of rock is trying to kill you, so a few lawyers don't really scare anyone.
Driving is a right that derives directly from the right to freedom of movement.
Try not paying your license renewal fee on the basis that driving is a "right". I'm sure the officer that pulls you over for your expired license will be so impressed by your understanding of Constitutional law he will tear up the ticket and send you on your way, completely ignoring the smell of liquor on your breath and the Toyota Corolla crushed up under your wheel well.
Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues.
Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.
But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.
This oft-repeated lie needs to be taken out and shot (along with the people who repeat it)
Threatening violence on the internet? You must be very brave, good sir.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I welcome you to offer your legal services to someone having their license revoked for vehicular homicide and driving while under the influence. I am certain the judge, jury, and families of the victims will all be impressed with your arguments.
There is no enumerated right to have children. Using the same logic,
Comparing something done between two consenting adults in private which mostly affects only themselves with something done in public having potentially life-ending consequences for both the involved and uninvolved is not using the same logic.
Would the founding fathers have said that riding a horse a privilege? Or a bicycle?
No. However, I am certain that if they were alive today they would certainly regret writing the Constitution and it's first ten amendments with such brevity and prose as to give certain citizens the notion that the Constitution gave them the rights to act however they please in public.
You would rather that only governments could participate in big science stunts?
No, you blithering half-wit, I want more people to participate in science, not less. It's the closest thing we have to a democratic institution in this country.
It is not an inflated sense of self-worth that is the loci of his statements, but rather a sense of social responsibility that is so rare in this consumer-based society that it is in danger of becoming extinct.
He has a valid point; most scifi today portrays a dystopian world, but that is not commentary on the future, but rather the present. The fictional writings of an era have always been heavily influenced by the emotions which surround the writers. Artists have long been the canary down the mine shaft... an early warning of impending social malaise.
Also, what data? Yeah, some Chinese hacker want's to know some anonymous person drives to work at 5:30 am and stopped for 3 lights.
No, some chinese hacker wants to know how many of your aggregate group, the 18-25, male, basement dweller, residing in Portland, OH, passes billboard 1849, 2934, and 186, owned by Clear communications. Since Clear Communications has no way to directly request this data domestically, it will have to approach a reseller overseas who can provide such data. Said chinese hacker infiltrated OnStar's systems about 4 months ago and downloaded the tracking data on 18 million of its customers, of which 16,439 were located in Portland, OH.
Thus, by selling this data to Clear Communications after removing the personally-identifiable information, the chinese hacker can make a profit on his ill-gotten goods and Clear Communications now has better metrics to provide to anyone who wishes to purchase its ad space. You, sir, need to think outside the box. Just because you can't see any value in your personal data doesn't mean someone else can't find value in it. Facebook has become enormously popular and made some people very, very, rich precisely because it sells your detailed demographic data to such resellers. And even more amusingly -- Facebook isn't built into your computer like OnStar is... People willingly and intentionally allow a company to sell that data for billions of dollars because they think it's worthless.
How, exactly, does this advance science, the public interest, or be anything but a publicity stunt that only the wealthy can participate in? If you're going to 'crowd source' (I despise that phrase), then shouldn't your project be carried out in phases, and as each phase is accomplished a reward is granted to the winning team?
It would be a lot more successful and have more entrants (read: ideas), if the cost of entry wasn't in the tens of millions. Who wants to blow 10 million dollars (or more) to get a 1 in N chance of getting any return on the investment? Poor planning, Google.
Slashdot Mirror
And by now everyone will have lost interest, which illustrates my original point that questions aren't universally appreciated.
I don't know about that. I'm one of those people who find scientific knowledge of all kinds interesting, even if I don't personally have a use for it or even understand it. I once spent an entire evening at a local diner quizzing a friend of mine who has a double major in math and physics about spacetime manifolds, and in the process she wound up having to borrow a stack of napkins and explain to be some basic calculus, by which time we'd both completely forgotten the original topic of conversation. I know she wasn't thrilled at the prospect of teaching me something I should have learned in high school (and then forgotten), and I have no real use for calculus in my life, but I never graduated from high school and she was just grateful to have someone to talk to who she could converse with intellectually. Of course, now I know the difference between vector and scalar quantities, and what that little triangle (delta) in an equation means... but still have no idea what the hell a Rienman manifold is. ;)
The scientific method and the legal method don't really mesh well most times. 'Science' very rarely produces black and white results. Shades of grey are tough to get across to lay people.
But on TV, they just push a few buttons and the security camera footage clearly shows the criminal doing the deed. And there's always irrefutable forensic evidence too, like special kinds of mold that are only found in a 3 block radius of the criminal, car tire marks that can be individually matched to a specific make and model of car, and all done with detectives that love their country and spend all their time bringing murderers, rapists, and child abductors to justice, all while tossing off one-liners that make them sound smart, educated, and likeable.
And the really guilty ones ask for a lawyer. You just know when someone asks for a lawyer or invokes their fifth amendment rights they're guilty as fuck, and they'll just sit there smiling like that alone gets them a get out of jail free card. Hero Detective will just lump on ten times more evidence against them before the next commercial break, maybe bending or breaking a few rules or contacting Mystery Person X from Government Agency Y to really dig into said dirtbag.
When you consider how most people are shown how science operates within the criminal justice system, and how little there is to contradict that, why is the result at all surprising? It's not that science is hard to explain to lay people, it's that their expectations have been manipulated by fictional events and popular entertainment; And even on things like the news we see things like "Space shuttle was travelling at 17 times the speed of light before it exploded". And in cases where science runs up against a popular misconception like fluorinated water, vaccinations, homeopathic remedies, etc., the media gives "equal" time to opponents of science. Look at how many media people start by asking the scientist invited to their show "Do you believe in evolution?"
When the nature of the average person's exposure to science is muddied up like this, it's no surprise people fall back to the one thing they do trust: Their own personal biases and emotions regarding the person to form their opinion regarding their credibility.
And gee, who's going to win; the guy in a suit and tie, balding, and still looks like he's in the marines, wearing some wire-rimmed glasses and with 20 years "on the force", or the 27 year old with a clip-on, who talks with an unsure voice and uses words you don't understand, and crumbles under cross-examination by a lawyer who's every question ends with "Are you sure?" and "and remember, you're under oath."
So, Intel, a company with no real competition right now in the market, has produced a product that offers only a very slight performance boost, and relied on tons of marketing to drum up anticipation for this mediocre offering. And then priced it the same as existing offerings as an apology to those who waited. Actually, that sounds about par for the course these days. The only real news in cpus and motherboards has been that they've gone multicore and continue to increase bandwidth. And now that they can't squeeze any more performance out of the designs, they're working on decreasing energy consumption.
I hope it comes with a robot arm that tears the test paper out from under your pen, pats you on the head and give you a first grade replacement problem.
Not needed; The helicopter parent standing next to said child can do that, as well as complain to the teacher about how their child is being left behind. "It's not Little Timmy's fault -- it's his brain!"
'Brain wave data is the nearest thing we have to really know when the students are having problems.
Most people have been raised with the notion that it's more important to appear competent than be competent. There's several college-themed cartoons out there about that express hatred for "The Question Guy"... and most people are acutely aware that asking questions on material is a great way to earn the irritation and ostracism of your peers, who feel they have better things to do than get an education and really just want to go through the motions and get out.
This is another technology that's trying to solve a social problem, and like every attempt in that regard, it will fail, be impractical, and people will try to defeat it -- because they don't see the point and they don't want to appear incompetent. In 20 years, we'll be getting coached on how to have the right brain wave patterns for getting through the airport unmolested, how to cheat on your final and not get detected by the brain wave readers, etc.
The problem is in our social values and attitudes. It's systemic and institutional. No technology can fix that, however advanced.
isn't likely to yield the secrets of semiconductor fabrication necessary to produce another one.
No, but it provides a blue print for what the finished product should look like, which can accelerate parallel development; If I asked you to design a replica of a Lamborghini, I'm sure your efforts would be a lot more successful if I gave you an actual car as opposed to just pictures of it.
Although I'm sure many will say this is inhumane, I suggest that this survey quietly disappear. Many of the United States' agricultural land is in danger of turning to dust due to several factors. Part of it is the poor use of land; Overuse of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, genetically engineered crops (the crops are not the problem, the business practices of companies like Monsanto are), and the loss of top soil due to erosion are just some of the problems. We have several states that are largely desert right now (the "dust bowl" was a ecological disaster caused by irresponsible farming practices). However, the other part of it is due to lack of access to fresh water. People are living in places that have tapped out their underwater reserves; Especially those in the southeastern United States. Several municipalities are embroiled in fierce legal battled over neighboring cities (and even states!) refusal to share their water. This is a situation that will only get worse over time; Already there is talk about southern states passing legislation or taking overt and aggressive action to divert water from the Great Lakes to areas of the south that soon will be uninhabitable without water relief -- others of course argue that the areas should never have been inhabited in the first place.
If the countries of Africa tap that resource, on one hand they will experience a sudden burst of economic activity and agricultural reform; and with it a corresponding explosion in population. However, there is already too much industrialization of the planet as it is, and with global warming going unaddressed due to a lack of cooperation by sovereign powers, an untempered entry into industry by so many new countries could cause a global ecological disaster that could leave most of the tropical regions of the planet devastated and unfarmable. If an industrialized country with access to state of the art technology, extensive scientific understanding, and sufficient natural resources, cannot solve these problems... I shudder to think what could happen if an entire continent did a history repeat.
"...having his business trashed this way, with 220 jobs lost, and millions left without access to their legitimate data."
Kim, you should be thankful that this attempt to bring democracy to your country ended with so few casualties. The United States is generally far more aggressive regarding its use of military forces to support economic (corporate) policies. You could have been picked up by a bounty hunter, or kidnapped by operatives. I wish I could say I was joking here -- several federal legislators and officials have stated that they consider filesharing and copyright infringement to be supporting terrorism.
On the upside, your sacrifice may bring additional business to New Zealand, as well as prompt a review of disaster recovery with an emphasis on protection against foreign governments. Again, I wish it was a joke -- ten years ago, disaster recovery plans centered around the damage backhoes and hurricanes could do. Today, those risks can be cheaply mitigated thanks to cloud architecture and data centers in almost every major city worldwide. The biggest threat which cannot be managed by a business anymore is the threat posed by a rogue foreign government such as the United States. Though I am hardly singling them out -- the UK, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Iraq, France, Germany and Egypt join them on the list of foreign governments who have attempted to destroy businesses extrajudicially.
Won't work outside the lab. As soon as they release it to market and pump it full of DRM and premium-content-ads, they'll get repressed all over again.
FTFY.
Depression can't be cured. It can be treated, very effectively, and the outcome will last a long time. But once you've had a depressive episode, you are more likely to have another. The longer and more severe the symptoms, the more likely you are to have a recurrance. Whatever it is that triggers depression can be abated, but it weakens the psychological fabric of the person it afflicts, permanently.
I don't know why this is, or the underlying mechanic. There are many studies out that identify variances in neural activity and neurotransmitter levels that are associated with people having a depressive episode; It has a distinct pathology and has definate biological markers, unlike most personality disorders (as a contrast). But there is scant data on what differences persist in the brain post-recovery... only a marked increase in the odds of relapse.
In that respect, it is much like chicken pox. If you've had it, the virus remains in your body, and for 80% of the population, after the acute infection, there are no further symptoms for the rest of their life. But for some, complications arise in the form of shingles. Depression is like that as well, but without the pathogen -- once you've had it, something is changed in you, forever.
I'm not surprised that a request...was met with a bureaucratic response.
FTFY
'...pre-owned has really killed core games.
Yeah, in the same way used CDs killed the music industry, used cars killed the automotive industry, giving food past its due date to food shelves led to the collapse of agriculture, and used computers destroyed the technology industry.
Bitch please.
You are so hung up on absolute rights being the only kind of right that you went down that rabbit hole all on your own.
You're talking about yourself in the third person again.
They can also rescind your voting rights, so by your logic voting is a privilege as well
Actually, if you're a convicted felon, you lose the right to vote, or own a firearm, amongst other things. But that's neither here nor there... you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The Constitution states that no right can be deprived without due process of law; which basically means, until you break a law, you have that right. A priviledge is something you don't have to break a law to be denied; in the case of a driver's license, if you are legally blind, that priviledge will not be extended to you. However, even if you are deaf, blind, retarded, and so disabled that your only voluntary muscle control is by blinking... you are still allowed to vote, unless you somehow manage to commit a felony... somehow... using only the power of blinking...
Too many people these days think 'rights' are some kind of absolute and they aren't. All it means is you have to be charged and convicted of something to lose it, and generally... even then you don't unless the case can be made that doing so is in the public's best interest.
Ah, false appeal to authority, textbooks even.
You clearly don't know what 'appeal to authority' means. Go ahead, google that too... I can wait. -_-
So, you've given up on your original argument that
This is not an argument, or a discussion. It is you attempting to sound intelligent about a topic you obviously know nothing about, and rather than admit this, you're trying to change the topic under discussion to something else in a rather pathetic attempt at ego preservation.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Yes, that is an excerb from Thompson v. Smith, which is generally taken out of context by armchair lawyers who live in basements. If you had read the full text of it, rather than just quickly googling for whatever supported the idiot statement you made 3 posts ago, you'd know that this case only affirms the 4th amendment as it pertains to the transport of goods and materials. The justices never said you can drive on public roads without a license, or that the state could not deprive you of the priviledge of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. The right to travel means you can leave the country, or move between states, cities, etc., freely. It does not grant you any rights to a particular mode of transportation.
The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles is another case commonly cited by the illiterati... it centers around a case where the government attempted to prevent a person from travelling abroad because they were a communist. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not restrict a person's travel on the basis of their political beliefs. Again, it has nothing to do with the requirement that you have a valid driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
It's the same subject matter as Kent v. Dulles -- the government again attempts to prevent someone from obtaining a passport based on their political beliefs. They fail, rather like your attempts to sound intelligent on a topic you apparently have now spent a total of five minutes aquainting yourself with.
we are back to applying critical thinking skills.
I never left. You on the other hand apparently believe 30 seconds on google is enough to carry the day, serving up crackpot interpretations of law that no legal scholar would give the time of day.
A driver's license is a priviledge, not a right.
Is that really the justification for your belief that "driving is a privilege?"
It's not a belief. It is a matter of law. My belief is that you're incapable of admitting you're wrong and were probably neglected by your father. One is firmly established in many textbooks and independently verifiable, the other is speculation.
Faster, slower - just depends on where the heat is being emitted - either towards where the craft is going (mainly the case here) or back towards where it came from.
In space, speed is a meaningless attribute without a point of reference. As well, space is non-euclidean in nature -- you can travel in a straight line and wind up in the same place you started. It's better to speak in terms of vectors and delta...
C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens.
Well it's Australia not some backwater podunk country like the United States. Everything on that slab of rock is trying to kill you, so a few lawyers don't really scare anyone.
Driving is a right that derives directly from the right to freedom of movement.
Try not paying your license renewal fee on the basis that driving is a "right". I'm sure the officer that pulls you over for your expired license will be so impressed by your understanding of Constitutional law he will tear up the ticket and send you on your way, completely ignoring the smell of liquor on your breath and the Toyota Corolla crushed up under your wheel well.
Woo, I'm not sure whether I want to talk to you, you seem to have issues.
Personality is who I am. Attitude is my reaction to you. Don't confuse the two.
But please explain to me who is going to do a moon shot, who is not independently wealthy, a government, or a major corporation.
By dividing the project up into smaller, discrete parts which have a sufficiently low entry cost that private individuals and groups can participate in a meaningful capacity.
This oft-repeated lie needs to be taken out and shot (along with the people who repeat it)
Threatening violence on the internet? You must be very brave, good sir.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I welcome you to offer your legal services to someone having their license revoked for vehicular homicide and driving while under the influence. I am certain the judge, jury, and families of the victims will all be impressed with your arguments.
There is no enumerated right to have children. Using the same logic,
Comparing something done between two consenting adults in private which mostly affects only themselves with something done in public having potentially life-ending consequences for both the involved and uninvolved is not using the same logic.
Would the founding fathers have said that riding a horse a privilege? Or a bicycle?
No. However, I am certain that if they were alive today they would certainly regret writing the Constitution and it's first ten amendments with such brevity and prose as to give certain citizens the notion that the Constitution gave them the rights to act however they please in public.
You would rather that only governments could participate in big science stunts?
No, you blithering half-wit, I want more people to participate in science, not less. It's the closest thing we have to a democratic institution in this country.
It is not an inflated sense of self-worth that is the loci of his statements, but rather a sense of social responsibility that is so rare in this consumer-based society that it is in danger of becoming extinct.
He has a valid point; most scifi today portrays a dystopian world, but that is not commentary on the future, but rather the present. The fictional writings of an era have always been heavily influenced by the emotions which surround the writers. Artists have long been the canary down the mine shaft... an early warning of impending social malaise.
Also, what data? Yeah, some Chinese hacker want's to know some anonymous person drives to work at 5:30 am and stopped for 3 lights.
No, some chinese hacker wants to know how many of your aggregate group, the 18-25, male, basement dweller, residing in Portland, OH, passes billboard 1849, 2934, and 186, owned by Clear communications. Since Clear Communications has no way to directly request this data domestically, it will have to approach a reseller overseas who can provide such data. Said chinese hacker infiltrated OnStar's systems about 4 months ago and downloaded the tracking data on 18 million of its customers, of which 16,439 were located in Portland, OH.
Thus, by selling this data to Clear Communications after removing the personally-identifiable information, the chinese hacker can make a profit on his ill-gotten goods and Clear Communications now has better metrics to provide to anyone who wishes to purchase its ad space. You, sir, need to think outside the box. Just because you can't see any value in your personal data doesn't mean someone else can't find value in it. Facebook has become enormously popular and made some people very, very, rich precisely because it sells your detailed demographic data to such resellers. And even more amusingly -- Facebook isn't built into your computer like OnStar is... People willingly and intentionally allow a company to sell that data for billions of dollars because they think it's worthless.
It would be a lot more successful and have more entrants (read: ideas), if the cost of entry wasn't in the tens of millions. Who wants to blow 10 million dollars (or more) to get a 1 in N chance of getting any return on the investment? Poor planning, Google.