Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
That page is based around an utterly appalling misreading of that definition. He's parsed the words, but he's failed to understand the codicile.
As the distinction clarifies, the "whole" simply means, "without any qualification such as bloodline or land ownership". The rest of the article is equal claptrap :
"The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic."
Uh-huh. So that whole US Constitution / Bill Of Rights is what, exactly? The God given right to bear arms? Which bit of the Bible is that in?
The simple fact that he brings God into it shows the author is talking out of his arse. That's just a libertarian making shit up.
You haven't "proved" something until you have written it down in a form in which it convinces at least other specialists in your field.
That assertion is simply untrue.
Suppose (and this a deliberately perverse example), Fermat had secretly developed all the machinery for Wiles' proof of his Last Theorem, and gone on to prove it. None of his contemporaries could possibly understand it. But the theorem would've been proved, even if no-one knew it.
I can't see why Perelman would share the credit. If his results are right, he proved it first. A second proof is impressive (moreso if it contains anything particularly new), but until shown otherwise, Perelman was the first, so he gets all the marbles.
An actor's public image is determined mainly by what role(s) he plays and what he says and does in public outside of movies, and not primarily by how much money his movies make
Movies aren't made to make money for actors. They're made to make money for film producers and financiers.
But do you believe that others have the right to monitor your cellphone conversations as long as you are in public
Ignoring the fact that that's a total non-sequitor....
Again, the rule of thumb is "does this technology enable gather any information that an undetected, law-abiding, but extremely nosy member of the public couldn't". So, my phone call could not be electronically tapped, but it could be overheard if I'm simply speaking too loudly.
But whether the viewer is a person or a camera makes no difference to that. If you're carrying porn in a closed bag, you're not carrying it publicly. Being in a closed tent is private like wearing thick clothing protects the privacy of your naked form. No-one has the right to take your clothes off, or to bust into your tent. But someone in a tent isn't visible to a camera either.
Your distinctions are purely semantic because you claim "in a tent in a public place", qualifies as "in public". Well I don't. When I say in "public", I mean "in the open" or "where one can be seen." i.e. where a passer-by might legitimately see you.
Also, situations like placing cameras in the floor, recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?
Those bits aren't out in public, they're covered by clothing. Hence the phrase "private parts". But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.
There's a reasonable expectation that the bits you cover with clothes are of limits, so you get to decide which bits of your person are on public display. Similarly, you don't have the right to remove the burkha of a devout Muslim. Hell, that's the main purpose of clothing.
But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.
I'm always absolutely baffled by people who use words like "Privacy" to discuss people watching things that are done in public. You have no privacy in public. When you're in public, passers-by, cameras, the police, CIA satellites, nosy neighbours and anyone with a telescope can all see you.
That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".
If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.
(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as..... is to "Public").
Slashdot Mirror
As the distinction clarifies, the "whole" simply means, "without any qualification such as bloodline or land ownership". The rest of the article is equal claptrap :
"The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic."
Uh-huh. So that whole US Constitution / Bill Of Rights is what, exactly?
The God given right to bear arms? Which bit of the Bible is that in?
The simple fact that he brings God into it shows the author is talking out of his arse. That's just a libertarian making shit up.
It prevents unjustified duplication.
It prevents unjustified duplication.
Suppose (and this a deliberately perverse example), Fermat had secretly developed all the machinery for Wiles' proof of his Last Theorem, and gone on to prove it. None of his contemporaries could possibly understand it. But the theorem would've been proved, even if no-one knew it.
I can't see why Perelman would share the credit. If his results are right, he proved it first. A second proof is impressive (moreso if it contains anything particularly new), but until shown otherwise, Perelman was the first, so he gets all the marbles.
He's right, you know. Art can't exist without advertising revenue.
That's why no great art was created prior to the invention of television.
Again, the rule of thumb is "does this technology enable gather any information that an undetected, law-abiding, but extremely nosy member of the public couldn't". So, my phone call could not be electronically tapped, but it could be overheard if I'm simply speaking too loudly.
Isn't that a good thing?
Your distinctions are purely semantic because you claim "in a tent in a public place", qualifies as "in public". Well I don't. When I say in "public", I mean "in the open" or "where one can be seen." i.e. where a passer-by might legitimately see you.
If you're out in public, people can see you.
Deal with it.
Next.
There's a reasonable expectation that the bits you cover with clothes are of limits, so you get to decide which bits of your person are on public display. Similarly, you don't have the right to remove the burkha of a devout Muslim. Hell, that's the main purpose of clothing.
But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.
"Imminent death of the Net predicted. Film at 11."
I'm always absolutely baffled by people who use words like "Privacy" to discuss people watching things that are done in public. You have no privacy in public. When you're in public, passers-by, cameras, the police, CIA satellites, nosy neighbours and anyone with a telescope can all see you.
..... is to "Public").
That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".
If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.
(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as
Some things restore my faith in slashdot.
The fact that there are DK fans hiding round every corner is one of them.
Any chance you could answer the question I asked?
Fair play to you. That's a nice comeback.
Why is it a big deal that people can see you when you're out in public?
We have now found the perfect slashdot headline.
All the key memes are there.
We need continue no longer.