Ug. The real tragedy is that you still consider DSL to be adequate as a basic service for the nation.
I certainly do. I have 5 Mbit DSL (my company tries to tell me it's really 7, but they're just blowing smoke). It runs me about $42/mo., services all my entertainment and communication needs, and I don't have to worry about peak usage slowing down my connection.
You couldn't pay me to take on cable (and certainly couldn't sell me a 10 Mbit connection for $75/mo. that's actually only 10 Mbit between midnight and 4 am), and while 30 Mbit Fiber is working it's way up here, I just don't need that speed, certainly not at the additional cost ($140/mo.).
I'm kind of curious how you managed to assume that the President is trying to implement the Fairness Doctrine. Yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a definitive source of fact, but still:
In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters", but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible", adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." [34] In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.
Moreover, the Senate has just added the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to a bill allowing the District of Columbia a House Rep. The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 specifically forbids reviving the Fairness Doctrine, or anything like it, and is likely to be supported by the President.
Actually, the Libertarians have a very solid party platform that can be summed as as "minimum government necessary to ensure liberty". Minimal or no business regulations. Minimal or no national or state social programs. No "victimless crimes". No laws on morality. No income taxes (some support a flat tax). Fewer taxes in general. Strong adherence to the literal Constitution. Sunset clauses in legislation. Ending the Federal Reserve (which is neither federally controlled, nor a reserve).
Probably the best thing that could happen to the U.S. would be a majority takeover by the Libertarian party, at least for a while. They'd roll our new national government back up into the federal government it is supposed to be, and get oppressive state laws off our backs. The only thing I really oppose them on is the lack of business regulations - while that's fine for small business and private partnerships, publicly traded megacorps need public (i.e. government) oversight.
Just to point this out again (it was mentioned in a higher thread) the right to a jury in the U.S. is exactly that: a right, not a mandatory condition. If a defendant feels s/he has a better chance with just a judge, s/he can waive the right to a jury.
The real point being made here is about choice
For what it's worth, either situation could be better than the alternative, depending on the circumstances. In a highly technical case, a sole judge may be better (depending on the judge); in a case where an emotional appeal may work for the defendant, a jury is definitely a better option - the converse is also true.
Actually, the decision wasn't based on any right to privacy, but upon the "Due Process" clause combined with the Supremacy Clause. To put it in laymen's terms, the Supreme Court allowed for limited abortion rights because it could, needing no further justification.
The ruling permits abortions up until the fetus "becomes viable" (able to exist outside the mother), with an understood implication that a non-viable fetus was not a separate individual, but rather an extension of the mother's body and therefore had no rights as a person.
Personally, I find this ruling completely reasonable and logical. But then, I'm not a fundamentalist nutjob.
I think you will find that with the aid of Messers Smith and Wesson I could quite easily take away your inalienable right to life, which in doing so would prove it to NOT be inalienable.
No, you would prove that you have no respect for his inalienable right to life, that you had no problem infringing upon it, and - in any just society - you would be rightly branded as a criminal. You didn't take away his right to life, you took away his life. There is a major difference.
Infringing upon a right is not the same thing as taking it away. From my point of view, I can't even see how it would be possible to take away a person's right to do anything, hence the term "inalienable".
I understand that this is not a commonly held belief in other nations - but it is the foundation upon which all American society is based upon. Trying to argue this with us is even more futile than trying to convince a priest that God doesn't exist.
You either misconstrued or misunderstood the quote you you responded to.
Your rights don't come from the judicial system that you happen to live under. They are inalienable rights that all human beings have (or should have).
He wasn't talking about a right to a jury in that instance (the right to a jury is a "given" right by the U.S. Constitution).
It's commonly misunderstood by many people, both inside and outside the U.S., that our Bill of Rights codifies the rights that citizens possess. It doesn't. All humans have all rights - these rights are not guaranteed by the U.S., they are inherit in all human beings, and only when your rights directly interfere with another's should they be at all curtailed.
Rather, our Bill of Rights lists the rights that, under no circumstances, can the government ever infringe upon - for any reason at all. This is why challenging a law's constitutionality is a solid defense in the U.S.
It's a shame our government has been ignoring the Constitution for so long.
Only people on juries are those too stupid to get out of jury duty (or actually want to do it... as in do gooders anxious to lock you away).
Speak for yourself. Personally, I wish I could get a full-time job as a juror - it's a shame that's not allowed. I'd do my absolute best to make sure no one was convicted on entirely circumstantial evidence.
To clarify, it is illegal for the judge and the defense attorney to inform the jury of this fact. A small difference, I know - but it does leave room to maneuver.
Actually, in the U.S., Circuit courts and the Supreme Court (and perhaps lower courts - IANAL) can strike down laws as unconstitutional (which is why it is now legal to be homosexual in all 50 states in the U.S. since 2003 - the Supreme Court held that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, a reversal to a 1999 decision that it was a state's right to have sodomy laws). The only recourse around a Supreme Court decision is an amendment to the constitution, or a reversal by the court itself.
This is really our only balance against corrupt legislature combined with corrupt administration, and the last bastion of our civil rights. Our federal courts are surprisingly free of corruption by comparison and usually make the right calls - or at least sane decisions.
Unfortunately, it usually takes an insane amount of money and lawyering to make it that far.
Common Law by precedent is really only like giving a court advice in the U.S. - "this is how we did it before, we recommend you do the same" - no court is bound by precedent (actually, lower courts may be bound by higher courts in the same district, not sure), it's just that breaking precedent is a good way to have your decision overturned on appeal.
Again, IANAL, but this appears to me how things work here - just trying illuminate the difference so that the American viewpoint is better understood by others on this board.
Most politicians are not stupid. They're just acutely aware that most of their votes come from people who are.
Being seen as strongly anti-terrorist at a time when America is At War (on terrorism) - believe it or not - actually nets popular support.
Political office is one of the most insecure jobs a person can hold (imagine if you had to campaign around your workplace to keep your job every few years - regardless of how well you actually do your job) - they have to be seen doing something, and actually fixing complex problems would take too many terms, require way too much bipartisan support, and most likely not be understood by most of the population. Even worse, since fixing real problems usually requires some sacrifice (usually financial) on the part of the people, it's practically a guaranteed way to get "fired".
Actually, I've been saying this for a little while now, although I'm actually half-serious.
Think about it - a web campaign can be run for pennies if not completely free. Citizens could hop on the net, go to the candidate's Youtube or Facebook or Blogger page, read up on his/her platform, see some video appeals/ads by the candidate on issues near-and-dear to him/her, and maybe watch a couple of webcast debates. If s/he is an incumbent candidate, citizens could even check out voting history and other actions in office.
But that would never fly - the last thing politicians want is their voters making informed decisions.
That is to say, the average, everyday median MD IQ at ~125 is already halfway to official "genius" level.
That's only because the bar for "genius" has been set at a ridiculously low level. I've got an I.Q. of 157, and I don't feel much like a genius (although from my perspective, most people around me don't seem to think at all).
Frankly, an average I.Q. of 125 for doctors scares me. I'd have thought it'd be higher. I'm a 1-in-1000 statistic - there's no reason any doctor shouldn't be at least in 98th percentile (130 or higher).
The profit pays pack loans, funds development (GSM, 3G, 4G, 5G), buys groceries, yachts, hires maids, and pays taxes.
Taxes enable grants, provide incentive to innovate, and provide for public safety, transportation, education, and curtails obscene profit.
Does profit do any of that?
Re:Symptom treating or problem solving
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
But really, the reason I replied was to ask what it means when you say, "I don't believe in free will?" I hear that all the time when I talk to people about religion (all religions have it to some degree) but what do you mean?
Well, the simple answer is that I'm a determinist - but let me go into the thought process that led me to this conclusion.
Given that the past is immutable, and recognizing that the future will be the past at some point further in the future, it becomes evident that the future is likewise immutable. Our concept of the present is based entirely on our current position in time which is both entirely relative and, observed from a a theoretical objective viewpoint outside of time, completely irrelevant.
To put it shortly, the future has already happened; we just haven't caught up to it yet.
As far as free will or independent choice goes, let me expound on how the decision-making process works for humans:
If a human makes a decision at whim, which is to say based on the the current emotional state of the brain (which is in turn based on the current chemical balance and could be affected by something as seemingly unrelated as what they had for breakfast two days ago), perhaps combined with information gleaned from his/her environment, then their decision is predictable knowing the chemical situation of said human's brain as well as all of the information s/he had access to. Not necessarily predictable to us mere mortals, but still completely causal.
Even more predictable is when a human makes a decision based on rational analysis. In this case, the decision is decided entirely by the human's reasoning ability and the presence/veracity of available information.
To sum up, a person's choice is based upon a wide variety of causal elements that, when known in their entirety, lead to a foregone conclusion. Not a choice at all, really.
The "literal translation" isn't necessarily the same as the meaning of the word.
I agree with you there; you're quite right.
Let me try a different approach for you:
The first two definitions of Democracy (according to Webster):
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic. [emphasis mine]
The definition of republic (according to Random House):
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Finally, a note left on republic from the American Heritage Dictionary:
republic
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Your argument up above, that the government mustn't always side with the majority because the popular decision is not always the correct one, is a direct violation to the theory of democracy (which is that the popular decision is always the best one), but is a hallmark of a republic. Since you were using the argument, I figured I should at least correct your terminology.
Re:Are you speaking of immaculate conception?
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Sex != Procreation. Sex is a fun activity, procreation is (or at least should be) an informed choice. And please don't pretend like birth control never fails. I've seen it happen a few times. I have a friend who changed his stance on abortion (pro-life to pro-choice) after getting saddled with kids he didn't want or expect.
If a behavior can be shown to cause harm to others, is said behavior a) wrong b) my choice c)other?
c.
You'll never get me to agree to A: I can't really see things as black & white that way. What's the old moral question? Something like "If you could save 1000 lives by killing an innocent child, would you do it?" Personally, in that situation, I'd probably let the child live in order to reduce the population by the greater amount, which I'd consider the greater good in that particular scenario (of course, it may also depend on the particular people in that group of a 1000 as well). Other people's opinions may differ.
And you'll never get me to agree to B, either: I don't believe in free will.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm one of the most helpful people I know. I am the most honest person I know (I never lie, no matter who gets hurt by the literal truth). I follow a policy of enlightened self-interest, where the goal is to advance in life by raising up those around me, so that they are in a better position to help me up.
But I am emphatically pro-abortion (different from pro-choice in that I just want fewer children being born, and I don't care how), which is a very unpopular position, I'll admit. And rare to find a person who will admit to having it.
Ultimately, a potential child has no rights. Hell, in most places real children have no rights. Is that right? I don't care. I focus on reality as it is, and not how I'd like it to be.
And as for the second point, what is basis for saying life is cheap? b/c abundant? easily reproduced? not unique? easily terminated? or low cost of hitman?
All of the above? Because thousands of people die at each others' hands every day, and the world keeps turning? Because there's no evidence to the contrary?
The previous government tried that (offered free filtering software), a 16yr old teen broke it in 30 minutes
Of course he did. The same teenager would probably have no issue getting around ISP filtration, either. Really, the only difference is where the call to check the blacklist is made.
(Incidentally, I was thinking more of filtration built-in to a browser with no off switch - a browser literally incapable of rendering a page without an official OK from the government servers, which is a bit more secure than a filtration add-on.)
Filtration isn't hard to beat - a simple proxy gets around it just fine. It's not really designed well for stopping people from getting where they really want to go on the internet. It's for people who want to "see no evil". Essentially, filtration is for people who want filtration. Which is why forcing it one everybody is both unethical and ineffective.
The only surefire way to prevent "indecent" material on the internet is to dispatch specialist teams around the world (completely disregarding sovereignty) that show up at the physical servers and eliminate the human element present, and then proceed to blow up/burn down the buildings. Somehow I don't see Australia going that far.
Pass out a free, government-approved "decent" web browser with filtration hard-coded into it. The browser can check any address requested against the government blacklist and censor out the "indecent" websites.
This allows the people who want filtered content to get what they want, relieves the burden from the ISPs, doesn't slow down the internet for anyone, and allows those who want it free access to everything.
Or am I missing the point? Is this not so much about enabling people with moral sensitivity as it is about controlling the free flow of information?
There is no contradiction. That's how a republic is supposed to work. It's a safeguard against democracy, because the popular decision wouldn't always the best one. In essence, the masses are trusted to elect the government, but not to do the governing themselves, otherwise it would just be mob rule.
Fixed that for you. Now, I have no idea if Australia is a real republic or a faux democracy, but I know for sure it's not a real democracy. Most likely, it's a democratic republic like most civilized nations.
The 'D' word gets thrown around a lot, especially by politicians, so I understand the mistake, but you should realize that the literal translation for "democracy" is "mob rule".
I have a good friend who is normally quite liberal about most things, but has a pair of young daughters and thus strongly believes that every ISP should filter all Internet content by default.
I meet people with opinions like this sometimes. They make me slap my forehead.
The solution to prevent your children from accessing adult content that you don't want them to is to install/enable a filter on your own damned web browser. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
Any self-respecting adult webmaster labels his/her pages with RTA ("Restricted To Adults) META tags. Not all do - only the self respecting ones, mind you. No adult webmaster wants children on his/her site - they don't buy anything.
Now, a legislative act forcing sites with adult content to tag their webpages with RTA labels or face stiff fines or takedown notices would only be sensible. After all, movies and video games are already rated (at least in the U.S.); this is just a common-sense extension.
Granted, the above only works on a per-nation basis, but as mentioned in several posts on this page, most of the developed nations are all watching each other for precedents in information policy.
Re:I know its hypothetical, but its probably comin
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely.
I take a stance that abortion has nothing to do with life (either ending or preserving it). It's about preventing unwanted children.
A child forced onto a parent or parents who don't want it is far more likely to be abused and end up either a criminal or a drag on society.
A child forced onto a parent or parents who can't support it is far more likely to end up being taken by the state anyway, run through a series of foster homes, and end up socially maligned.
Now you can come back at this with any number of counter-stories about how this one did well for himself despite being beaten every day of his childhood, or that one who became successful even though she was run through a number of orphanages and foster families: there are always exceptions. But generally, bringing an unwanted child into the world is far more likely to add a burden to society as a whole than otherwise. Better off to kill it early than take the chance.
Besides, there's more than enough people in the world already. Myself, I'm in favor of anything that reduces overall population growth, especially if it's as impact-free as preemptive execution.
Life is cheap. Those that say life is sacred say it (and believe it) because they don't want to face the idea that their own life is cheap. I'm willing to take a far more practical view. And yes, my life is just as cheap as everyone else's.
It's a state-by-state issue here in the U.S. Homosexual acts weren't even legal nationwide until 2003 - up until then, it was illegal in most southern states and some midwestern ones. While I am in no way a bigot, I think it should still be a state issue - or better yet, a county or municipal one.
Twenty states in the U.S. right now have sexual orientation discrimination laws, and that can change either way anytime based on lobbying parties. I live in Maine, where there's a very "mind your own business" attitude about other people's lifestyles. We've got anti-discrimination laws. But we also have the Christian Coalition here constantly lobbying against anti-discrimination laws, and they have a large following. The city I live in has its own anti-discrimination law regardless, and that's not going to change.
Mind you, our anti-discrimination law only applies to employment, public access, housing, credit, and education. It also increases the penalty for "hate crimes" (which I think is a little absurd, but the idea seems popular at the moment).
Hate speech is still protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, you can get a public assembly permit and parade up in down the streets with anti-homosexual signs and slogans in any state in the union (I've seen it happen before - usually it draws out a counter-movement from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance, and then the police have to show up to make sure everyone sticks to using their words).
Slashdot Mirror
Ug. The real tragedy is that you still consider DSL to be adequate as a basic service for the nation.
I certainly do. I have 5 Mbit DSL (my company tries to tell me it's really 7, but they're just blowing smoke). It runs me about $42/mo., services all my entertainment and communication needs, and I don't have to worry about peak usage slowing down my connection.
You couldn't pay me to take on cable (and certainly couldn't sell me a 10 Mbit connection for $75/mo. that's actually only 10 Mbit between midnight and 4 am), and while 30 Mbit Fiber is working it's way up here, I just don't need that speed, certainly not at the additional cost ($140/mo.).
Oh, how beautiful a No Party system would be...
We can only dream.
I'm kind of curious how you managed to assume that the President is trying to implement the Fairness Doctrine. Yeah, I know Wikipedia is not a definitive source of fact, but still:
In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters", but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible", adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." [34] In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.
Moreover, the Senate has just added the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to a bill allowing the District of Columbia a House Rep. The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 specifically forbids reviving the Fairness Doctrine, or anything like it, and is likely to be supported by the President.
Actually, the Libertarians have a very solid party platform that can be summed as as "minimum government necessary to ensure liberty". Minimal or no business regulations. Minimal or no national or state social programs. No "victimless crimes". No laws on morality. No income taxes (some support a flat tax). Fewer taxes in general. Strong adherence to the literal Constitution. Sunset clauses in legislation. Ending the Federal Reserve (which is neither federally controlled, nor a reserve).
Probably the best thing that could happen to the U.S. would be a majority takeover by the Libertarian party, at least for a while. They'd roll our new national government back up into the federal government it is supposed to be, and get oppressive state laws off our backs. The only thing I really oppose them on is the lack of business regulations - while that's fine for small business and private partnerships, publicly traded megacorps need public (i.e. government) oversight.
Just to point this out again (it was mentioned in a higher thread) the right to a jury in the U.S. is exactly that: a right, not a mandatory condition. If a defendant feels s/he has a better chance with just a judge, s/he can waive the right to a jury.
The real point being made here is about choice
For what it's worth, either situation could be better than the alternative, depending on the circumstances. In a highly technical case, a sole judge may be better (depending on the judge); in a case where an emotional appeal may work for the defendant, a jury is definitely a better option - the converse is also true.
Actually, the decision wasn't based on any right to privacy, but upon the "Due Process" clause combined with the Supremacy Clause. To put it in laymen's terms, the Supreme Court allowed for limited abortion rights because it could, needing no further justification.
The ruling permits abortions up until the fetus "becomes viable" (able to exist outside the mother), with an understood implication that a non-viable fetus was not a separate individual, but rather an extension of the mother's body and therefore had no rights as a person.
Personally, I find this ruling completely reasonable and logical. But then, I'm not a fundamentalist nutjob.
I think you will find that with the aid of Messers Smith and Wesson I could quite easily take away your inalienable right to life, which in doing so would prove it to NOT be inalienable.
No, you would prove that you have no respect for his inalienable right to life, that you had no problem infringing upon it, and - in any just society - you would be rightly branded as a criminal. You didn't take away his right to life, you took away his life. There is a major difference.
Infringing upon a right is not the same thing as taking it away. From my point of view, I can't even see how it would be possible to take away a person's right to do anything, hence the term "inalienable".
I understand that this is not a commonly held belief in other nations - but it is the foundation upon which all American society is based upon. Trying to argue this with us is even more futile than trying to convince a priest that God doesn't exist.
You either misconstrued or misunderstood the quote you you responded to.
Your rights don't come from the judicial system that you happen to live under. They are inalienable rights that all human beings have (or should have).
He wasn't talking about a right to a jury in that instance (the right to a jury is a "given" right by the U.S. Constitution).
It's commonly misunderstood by many people, both inside and outside the U.S., that our Bill of Rights codifies the rights that citizens possess. It doesn't. All humans have all rights - these rights are not guaranteed by the U.S., they are inherit in all human beings, and only when your rights directly interfere with another's should they be at all curtailed.
Rather, our Bill of Rights lists the rights that, under no circumstances, can the government ever infringe upon - for any reason at all. This is why challenging a law's constitutionality is a solid defense in the U.S.
It's a shame our government has been ignoring the Constitution for so long.
Only people on juries are those too stupid to get out of jury duty (or actually want to do it ... as in do gooders anxious to lock you away).
Speak for yourself. Personally, I wish I could get a full-time job as a juror - it's a shame that's not allowed. I'd do my absolute best to make sure no one was convicted on entirely circumstantial evidence.
To clarify, it is illegal for the judge and the defense attorney to inform the jury of this fact. A small difference, I know - but it does leave room to maneuver.
Actually, in the U.S., Circuit courts and the Supreme Court (and perhaps lower courts - IANAL) can strike down laws as unconstitutional (which is why it is now legal to be homosexual in all 50 states in the U.S. since 2003 - the Supreme Court held that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, a reversal to a 1999 decision that it was a state's right to have sodomy laws). The only recourse around a Supreme Court decision is an amendment to the constitution, or a reversal by the court itself.
This is really our only balance against corrupt legislature combined with corrupt administration, and the last bastion of our civil rights. Our federal courts are surprisingly free of corruption by comparison and usually make the right calls - or at least sane decisions.
Unfortunately, it usually takes an insane amount of money and lawyering to make it that far.
Common Law by precedent is really only like giving a court advice in the U.S. - "this is how we did it before, we recommend you do the same" - no court is bound by precedent (actually, lower courts may be bound by higher courts in the same district, not sure), it's just that breaking precedent is a good way to have your decision overturned on appeal.
Again, IANAL, but this appears to me how things work here - just trying illuminate the difference so that the American viewpoint is better understood by others on this board.
Oh, they're quite aware of proportion.
Most politicians are not stupid. They're just acutely aware that most of their votes come from people who are.
Being seen as strongly anti-terrorist at a time when America is At War (on terrorism) - believe it or not - actually nets popular support.
Political office is one of the most insecure jobs a person can hold (imagine if you had to campaign around your workplace to keep your job every few years - regardless of how well you actually do your job) - they have to be seen doing something, and actually fixing complex problems would take too many terms, require way too much bipartisan support, and most likely not be understood by most of the population. Even worse, since fixing real problems usually requires some sacrifice (usually financial) on the part of the people, it's practically a guaranteed way to get "fired".
Actually, I've been saying this for a little while now, although I'm actually half-serious.
Think about it - a web campaign can be run for pennies if not completely free. Citizens could hop on the net, go to the candidate's Youtube or Facebook or Blogger page, read up on his/her platform, see some video appeals/ads by the candidate on issues near-and-dear to him/her, and maybe watch a couple of webcast debates. If s/he is an incumbent candidate, citizens could even check out voting history and other actions in office.
But that would never fly - the last thing politicians want is their voters making informed decisions.
That is to say, the average, everyday median MD IQ at ~125 is already halfway to official "genius" level.
That's only because the bar for "genius" has been set at a ridiculously low level. I've got an I.Q. of 157, and I don't feel much like a genius (although from my perspective, most people around me don't seem to think at all).
Frankly, an average I.Q. of 125 for doctors scares me. I'd have thought it'd be higher. I'm a 1-in-1000 statistic - there's no reason any doctor shouldn't be at least in 98th percentile (130 or higher).
he's also the first man on this planet to see a virus under a microsoft
What an apt typo.
The profit pays pack loans, funds development (GSM, 3G, 4G, 5G), buys groceries, yachts, hires maids, and pays taxes.
Taxes enable grants, provide incentive to innovate, and provide for public safety, transportation, education, and curtails obscene profit.
Does profit do any of that?
But really, the reason I replied was to ask what it means when you say, "I don't believe in free will?" I hear that all the time when I talk to people about religion (all religions have it to some degree) but what do you mean?
Well, the simple answer is that I'm a determinist - but let me go into the thought process that led me to this conclusion.
Given that the past is immutable, and recognizing that the future will be the past at some point further in the future, it becomes evident that the future is likewise immutable. Our concept of the present is based entirely on our current position in time which is both entirely relative and, observed from a a theoretical objective viewpoint outside of time, completely irrelevant.
To put it shortly, the future has already happened; we just haven't caught up to it yet.
As far as free will or independent choice goes, let me expound on how the decision-making process works for humans:
If a human makes a decision at whim, which is to say based on the the current emotional state of the brain (which is in turn based on the current chemical balance and could be affected by something as seemingly unrelated as what they had for breakfast two days ago), perhaps combined with information gleaned from his/her environment, then their decision is predictable knowing the chemical situation of said human's brain as well as all of the information s/he had access to. Not necessarily predictable to us mere mortals, but still completely causal.
Even more predictable is when a human makes a decision based on rational analysis. In this case, the decision is decided entirely by the human's reasoning ability and the presence/veracity of available information.
To sum up, a person's choice is based upon a wide variety of causal elements that, when known in their entirety, lead to a foregone conclusion. Not a choice at all, really.
The "literal translation" isn't necessarily the same as the meaning of the word.
I agree with you there; you're quite right.
Let me try a different approach for you:
The first two definitions of Democracy (according to Webster):
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic. [emphasis mine]
The definition of republic (according to Random House):
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Finally, a note left on republic from the American Heritage Dictionary:
republic
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Your argument up above, that the government mustn't always side with the majority because the popular decision is not always the correct one, is a direct violation to the theory of democracy (which is that the popular decision is always the best one), but is a hallmark of a republic. Since you were using the argument, I figured I should at least correct your terminology.
Sex != Procreation. Sex is a fun activity, procreation is (or at least should be) an informed choice. And please don't pretend like birth control never fails. I've seen it happen a few times. I have a friend who changed his stance on abortion (pro-life to pro-choice) after getting saddled with kids he didn't want or expect.
If a behavior can be shown to cause harm to others, is said behavior a) wrong b) my choice c)other?
c.
You'll never get me to agree to A: I can't really see things as black & white that way. What's the old moral question? Something like "If you could save 1000 lives by killing an innocent child, would you do it?" Personally, in that situation, I'd probably let the child live in order to reduce the population by the greater amount, which I'd consider the greater good in that particular scenario (of course, it may also depend on the particular people in that group of a 1000 as well). Other people's opinions may differ.
And you'll never get me to agree to B, either: I don't believe in free will.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm one of the most helpful people I know. I am the most honest person I know (I never lie, no matter who gets hurt by the literal truth). I follow a policy of enlightened self-interest, where the goal is to advance in life by raising up those around me, so that they are in a better position to help me up.
But I am emphatically pro-abortion (different from pro-choice in that I just want fewer children being born, and I don't care how), which is a very unpopular position, I'll admit. And rare to find a person who will admit to having it.
Ultimately, a potential child has no rights. Hell, in most places real children have no rights. Is that right? I don't care. I focus on reality as it is, and not how I'd like it to be.
And as for the second point, what is basis for saying life is cheap? b/c abundant? easily reproduced? not unique? easily terminated? or low cost of hitman?
All of the above? Because thousands of people die at each others' hands every day, and the world keeps turning? Because there's no evidence to the contrary?
The previous government tried that (offered free filtering software), a 16yr old teen broke it in 30 minutes
Of course he did. The same teenager would probably have no issue getting around ISP filtration, either. Really, the only difference is where the call to check the blacklist is made.
(Incidentally, I was thinking more of filtration built-in to a browser with no off switch - a browser literally incapable of rendering a page without an official OK from the government servers, which is a bit more secure than a filtration add-on.)
Filtration isn't hard to beat - a simple proxy gets around it just fine. It's not really designed well for stopping people from getting where they really want to go on the internet. It's for people who want to "see no evil". Essentially, filtration is for people who want filtration. Which is why forcing it one everybody is both unethical and ineffective.
The only surefire way to prevent "indecent" material on the internet is to dispatch specialist teams around the world (completely disregarding sovereignty) that show up at the physical servers and eliminate the human element present, and then proceed to blow up/burn down the buildings. Somehow I don't see Australia going that far.
Pass out a free, government-approved "decent" web browser with filtration hard-coded into it. The browser can check any address requested against the government blacklist and censor out the "indecent" websites.
This allows the people who want filtered content to get what they want, relieves the burden from the ISPs, doesn't slow down the internet for anyone, and allows those who want it free access to everything.
Or am I missing the point? Is this not so much about enabling people with moral sensitivity as it is about controlling the free flow of information?
There is no contradiction. That's how a republic is supposed to work. It's a safeguard against democracy, because the popular decision wouldn't always the best one. In essence, the masses are trusted to elect the government, but not to do the governing themselves, otherwise it would just be mob rule.
Fixed that for you. Now, I have no idea if Australia is a real republic or a faux democracy, but I know for sure it's not a real democracy. Most likely, it's a democratic republic like most civilized nations.
The 'D' word gets thrown around a lot, especially by politicians, so I understand the mistake, but you should realize that the literal translation for "democracy" is "mob rule".
I have a good friend who is normally quite liberal about most things, but has a pair of young daughters and thus strongly believes that every ISP should filter all Internet content by default.
I meet people with opinions like this sometimes. They make me slap my forehead.
The solution to prevent your children from accessing adult content that you don't want them to is to install/enable a filter on your own damned web browser. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
Any self-respecting adult webmaster labels his/her pages with RTA ("Restricted To Adults) META tags. Not all do - only the self respecting ones, mind you. No adult webmaster wants children on his/her site - they don't buy anything.
Now, a legislative act forcing sites with adult content to tag their webpages with RTA labels or face stiff fines or takedown notices would only be sensible. After all, movies and video games are already rated (at least in the U.S.); this is just a common-sense extension.
Granted, the above only works on a per-nation basis, but as mentioned in several posts on this page, most of the developed nations are all watching each other for precedents in information policy.
Absolutely.
I take a stance that abortion has nothing to do with life (either ending or preserving it). It's about preventing unwanted children.
A child forced onto a parent or parents who don't want it is far more likely to be abused and end up either a criminal or a drag on society.
A child forced onto a parent or parents who can't support it is far more likely to end up being taken by the state anyway, run through a series of foster homes, and end up socially maligned.
Now you can come back at this with any number of counter-stories about how this one did well for himself despite being beaten every day of his childhood, or that one who became successful even though she was run through a number of orphanages and foster families: there are always exceptions. But generally, bringing an unwanted child into the world is far more likely to add a burden to society as a whole than otherwise. Better off to kill it early than take the chance.
Besides, there's more than enough people in the world already. Myself, I'm in favor of anything that reduces overall population growth, especially if it's as impact-free as preemptive execution.
Life is cheap. Those that say life is sacred say it (and believe it) because they don't want to face the idea that their own life is cheap. I'm willing to take a far more practical view. And yes, my life is just as cheap as everyone else's.
It's a state-by-state issue here in the U.S. Homosexual acts weren't even legal nationwide until 2003 - up until then, it was illegal in most southern states and some midwestern ones. While I am in no way a bigot, I think it should still be a state issue - or better yet, a county or municipal one.
Twenty states in the U.S. right now have sexual orientation discrimination laws, and that can change either way anytime based on lobbying parties. I live in Maine, where there's a very "mind your own business" attitude about other people's lifestyles. We've got anti-discrimination laws. But we also have the Christian Coalition here constantly lobbying against anti-discrimination laws, and they have a large following. The city I live in has its own anti-discrimination law regardless, and that's not going to change.
Mind you, our anti-discrimination law only applies to employment, public access, housing, credit, and education. It also increases the penalty for "hate crimes" (which I think is a little absurd, but the idea seems popular at the moment).
Hate speech is still protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, you can get a public assembly permit and parade up in down the streets with anti-homosexual signs and slogans in any state in the union (I've seen it happen before - usually it draws out a counter-movement from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance, and then the police have to show up to make sure everyone sticks to using their words).