I think the point was that to date we have spent millions of years evolving to maximize our face to face social interactions. The relatively instant replacement of that with "social networks" is not something that we have evolved to cope with, and so has a disruptive effect on our lives and social interactions.
If those social networks persist for an extended period of time than we may certainly evolve to maximize them. However, evolution happens by selection through successful reproduction. As this is most certainly a face to face activity, in person social skills will likely remain paramount.
Because our right to bear arms comes with the implied responsibility to be knowledgeable in their use and in our duty as citizens to take up arms when needed (well regulated militias being necessary for the security of a free state and all).
My.12 gauge is certainly no great threat to the American military. But how many American soldiers do you think are really going to want to storm into my house and take it from me? How willing will those soldiers be to storm through my neighborhood house by house disarming patriotic citizens? How willing do you think our Military would be to sweep through every state in the Union clearing out armed and motivated rebels?
That right is just as much figurative as it is literal. It represents the responsibility that Americans took upon themselves back in the day to obtain independence, and the continuing responsibility we have to monitor and protect it.
What the fuck are you smoking that makes you think this should be legal?
Um. Whoosh! I think? I'm not sure that post was entirely sincere. Or maybe I'm assuming sarcasm where there isn't any. Either way, maybe you should get ahold of some just to curb some of that hostility brah.
That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?
I seem to remember that they were close to backing off of Scientologists, mainly because of Isaac Hayes (voice of Chef) is one. But then they went ahead and did it anyway, so he quit, and they made a big deal about Chef leaving town to join some evil cultish adventure club.
IMO, nothing is sacred to them. They ridicule pretty much everything, which is one of the reasons I love the show. Like you, I don't really agree with all of the offensive things they have portrayed, but at the same time I did laugh at a lot of things that many people would find offensive. I think that a show like that has some cultural value, at the very least to let us see how ridiculous some of our prejudices and sensitivities are.
It's not truly suing, there would be no civil action or damages. It would merely be obtaining an injunction, which is basically a way for the courts to say that they are aware that you are about to do something they consider illegal and they think you should stop.
IANAL but I feel like a possible example would be for a company to file an injunction as soon as they see a torrent tracker appear for their IP. It would allow them to stop the spread of their IP without having to wait for the infringement to happen first. To me, this seems less ridiculous than forcing rightsholders to wait for years while their case is being built, argued, and considered before they can seek help from the law.
Of course, the question becomes what is the burden of proof that infringement is imminent, and what legal recourse does the alleged infringer have to continue their activities if they consider them to be lawful. Does the MPAA have the authority to file an injunction against me knowing that I possess 1) DVD movies 2) a DVD burner 3) access vie internet to DRM cracking software.
You assume that everyone...doesn't give a fuck about his country or the justice system, and not just you.
Though I'm a little riled by the hostility, I should comment back on a couple of points.
The jury selection system in most if not all states is set up to exclude the majority of people. California pays Jurors $15 per day of service with no guarantee that the employer will continue to pay salary (though employers are free to do so). This makes serving on a Grand Jury or Trial Jury longer than a few days a difficult situation for many people. Lawyers on both sides of the table have the freedom and motivation to exclude Jurors that might have some relevant pre-existing knowledge of the events or education in the relevant area. That is not truly selecting peers, that is selecting 12 people that can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Frankly, you obviously have no concept of what a jury actually does, or who a "peer" is. A "peer" isn't related, in any way, to your job.
I do indeed understand who a peer is. I also understand that the way peers are defined in the context of Jury selection is not the same as the way that peers are defined elsewhere. Have you ever read an academic publication? In most fields these are "peer reviewed". As in, reviewed by a panel of people knowledgeable in the given field and qualified to pass judgement on the publication. If I were ever in the position of having to defend myself on Trial, I would most definitely not want to be arguing my case to a panel of laymen. I wouldn't want the arguments on either side to be distilled into simplicity so that they could be understood by the layman. I want 12 people that are knowledgeable enough to know what the hell Childs is talking about when he says that his immediate superiors were not qualified to be given access.
Our legal system is deeply flawed on many levels, in my opinion Jury selection is one aspect of that. To imply that I am an ignorant, selfish boob simply because I am critical of our current system is more than a little insulting, and serves only to retard any reform of the system. Service on a Jury is one of the most solemn responsibilities that Americans hold. It should offend all of us that the system is set up in such a way that discourages people from lending their expertise.
Wait, you mean his fate is in the hands of 12 clueless "average" citizens?
He is truly fucked.
These people are hardly average. Juries consist of 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of Jury Duty. Realistically they tend to be less educated, less employed, and more receptive to instructions than the average American. This is intentional so that courts and attorneys know that they will be able to control and direct a Jury.
In front of a Jury of admins this guy might stand a chance. But it is entirely plausible that anyone with any knowledge of computers was selected out of this Jury (to avoid any preconceptions). Given that this trial is related to Child's professional conduct, the logical course would be to select a Jury of fellow techies (his true peers). Unfortunately, our legal system just does work that way.
Yes, TFA is a bit of scare-mongering. Quite honestly, most businesses are not in jeopardy if their old printed/scanned documents get out of their hands; by the time anyone else has access to the device, the documents aren't timely.
Yeah, 90% of the time your probably right. Its probably usually nothing more than old memo's, meeting notes, invoices, etc.
The scary thing for employees is that mixed in with all of that is likely images of drivers licenses, birth certificates, and tax documents. And a lot of that information doesn't expire. I'm sure the business is fine if some Elbonian data miner collects my personal information, but that doesn't comfort me very much.
It's kinda sad that the evolving thought on Rules of Engagement is migrating back toward "Leave no witnesses" after a couple of decades of "kill the bad guys, don't even scratch the paint".
That kind of civilian friendly conflict is great in international opinion and in the minds of those of us fortunate enough to play armchair general. But the simple nature of war is that it is brutal, and people die. At this point, civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have had ample notice that there is a war on. Anyone that is still electing to stick around and provide support (either direct or indirect) to our opponents have clearly chosen their sides. Of course that is not an excuse to be recklessly indiscriminate or to hunt down civilians. But in wars that are characterized by non-uniformed militants there has to be some tolerance for collateral damage to people that are refusing to get themselves out of the way.
Honestly, when we are fighting a war against people that hide among civilians and are being tacitly supported by those civilians, we are not going to be able to send boots in there to win hearts and minds. Overwhelming displays of force will serve to save American lives in the now, and will save lives overall by ending conflicts sooner. This philosophy of matching force levels only serves to prolong these wars.
And it may simply be the case that the NC government is just fishing for individuals/business that might be profitable to go after. They may have no intention of hounding after each individual that violates their usage tax law, but if they uncover a small number of individuals with a huge number of violations then they might be able to build a case that is worth pursuing.
specific xbox games that Cleetus T. Carolina purchased
I think Cleetus the gamer is probably safe. But any Cleetus that has deeper pockets and purchases more and differently taxed goods might have something to worry about.
I think you'll find that many Tea Partiers are just as angry about the Bush era as the liberals are. Some certainly would like to revert back to Bush era government, but as with any political group the membership represents a spectrum of beliefs.
The real tea party movement lacks strong consolidated leadership by design, its one of the things that the movement pushes for in government. The problem is that allows many of the fringe members and rallies to be co-opted by traditional conservatives who like to think of themselves as leading a patriotic charge in the name of the people. People like Sarah Palin and other fox-news bobbleheads can easily step in because there is no single charismatic figure there to keep them out. This is unfortunate, because in the minds of outsiders it paints tea partiers as gun nut ultra conservatives that want to send another Republican to the white house. To many of us, this is the opposite of true.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, the flip side is that Apple ought not have to support the device short of hardware failures.
Face it... people buy Apple because it works out of the box without having to configure anything. People who buy Apple products are generally okay with being limited on capabilities.
I would argue that Apple would no longer need to support hardware failures. If the device comes with a Warranty/EULA/TOS agreement that clearly and explicitly says "jailbreaking not ok" and the user does it anyway, Apple clearly has a leg to stand on that they no longer owe the user that service.
Back in the 30's the US Government used to sterilize people for being poor. The thinking was that being poor was hereditary, so by preventing the poor from breeding we could eliminate the poor gene. Some claim that we used to do it to people like minorities or the handicapped without ever even informing them, usually during hospitalizations.
In fact, the US was one of the first nations in the world to actively implement Eugenics programs intended to "tidy up" the gene pool. Then we got all righteous calling the Nazi's evil.
and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.
Except that the suit would likely not be intended to force Sony to re-enable Linux. Rather the suit (filed by the retailers) would be to shift the financial responsibility back to Sony for all the refunds the retailers have to issue.
The end result being, as always, the customers get shafted and the lawyers win.
I know Israel security is very tight, but I'm thinking incoming residents don't face much more scrutiny of luggage than in any other country I've been in - where you say you have nothing to declare, possibly get sniffed by a dog, and you are on your way.
That is how US customs works, but Israel takes airport security to an entirely different level. You could probably get lucky and get a small device like that through an x-ray, but Israeli security officers make a point to question every person that passes in and out of their facility. These guys are some of the best trained and most experienced in the world in deception detection. My assumption is that the people that are smuggling iPads are not the kind of people that are experienced with masking their deception. Plus, the Israeli's have absolutely no problem with randomly grabbing people out of the crowd and rifling through their luggage.
Israel is just about the last place in the world I would try to smuggle anything through an airport.
But there is still a big difference between me buying a list of e-mails to spam and advertising to people that don't ask for it. I don't ask for the TV ad's I'm exposed to (though I am aware that they are part of the TV watching experience). Same goes for ads on webpages, magazines, newspapers, etc. If someone stops me on the street and tries to sell a product or get me to give to charity thats not truly spam, even though it is frustrating and at times unwanted.
What about businesses that buy qualified sales leads? What about my friends that stand to receive a referral bonus from organizations they refer me too? What about when my Bank sends me promotional material for services they offer that they think might appropriate for me based on my current accounts? These are all advertisements that I didn't ask for, but not truly spam.
before lawenforcement et al had to reason "if I shoot, I have to make certain I'm in a situation where I have no other choice because I can kill this person". With tasering, the bounderies shifted "oh it can't harm, s/he is being annoying, lets buzz them like cattle into complying to the authority I impose."
That's exactly why less lethal options like Tasers are attractive. It gives the police an option that falls somewhere between billy clubs and bullets. It means that even if someone is out of arms reach, they still have an option to take them down without killing them. And it drastically reduces the number of lethal force encounters.
Your point though about shifting boundaries is spot on. All less lethal options need to come with proper training and accountability for those that abuse them.
While making some of the work put into past efforts a waste, I don't think that, given all the other issues facing the country, putting together a space station or another manned mission are really priorities.
I think your point is absolutely true, I can think of a lot of things that we could better spend our tax dollars on than simply running an LEO taxi service. However, I expect that there are some wonderful but intangible benefits to retaining our status as a world leader in spaceflight and related technologies. Its just hard to put a dollar value on that image, so it is difficult to justify the cost.
Speaking as a Libertarian, I am constantly worried that my party will explode with popularity and begin to siphon votes from the Conservatives. It is not so much that I like to see traditional conservatives in power, but I'm terrified of the possibility that during this shift the far leaning left will have no real opposition. I am not attempting to get into a left v. right debate, but anytime you have political power consolidated with one party, the people suffer (discourse, debate, and balance is good).
What we need is a party to split the right.
IMO what we really need is a right that actually attempts drag itself out of the 19th century and begins to actually represent its constituents.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point was that to date we have spent millions of years evolving to maximize our face to face social interactions. The relatively instant replacement of that with "social networks" is not something that we have evolved to cope with, and so has a disruptive effect on our lives and social interactions.
If those social networks persist for an extended period of time than we may certainly evolve to maximize them. However, evolution happens by selection through successful reproduction. As this is most certainly a face to face activity, in person social skills will likely remain paramount.
And of course the local definition of drunk, which varies state by state and may not match the individuals definition of drunk.
Because our right to bear arms comes with the implied responsibility to be knowledgeable in their use and in our duty as citizens to take up arms when needed (well regulated militias being necessary for the security of a free state and all).
My .12 gauge is certainly no great threat to the American military. But how many American soldiers do you think are really going to want to storm into my house and take it from me? How willing will those soldiers be to storm through my neighborhood house by house disarming patriotic citizens? How willing do you think our Military would be to sweep through every state in the Union clearing out armed and motivated rebels?
That right is just as much figurative as it is literal. It represents the responsibility that Americans took upon themselves back in the day to obtain independence, and the continuing responsibility we have to monitor and protect it.
Clearly it ought to be legal though.
What the fuck are you smoking that makes you think this should be legal?
Um. Whoosh! I think? I'm not sure that post was entirely sincere. Or maybe I'm assuming sarcasm where there isn't any. Either way, maybe you should get ahold of some just to curb some of that hostility brah.
That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?
I seem to remember that they were close to backing off of Scientologists, mainly because of Isaac Hayes (voice of Chef) is one. But then they went ahead and did it anyway, so he quit, and they made a big deal about Chef leaving town to join some evil cultish adventure club.
IMO, nothing is sacred to them. They ridicule pretty much everything, which is one of the reasons I love the show. Like you, I don't really agree with all of the offensive things they have portrayed, but at the same time I did laugh at a lot of things that many people would find offensive. I think that a show like that has some cultural value, at the very least to let us see how ridiculous some of our prejudices and sensitivities are.
It's not truly suing, there would be no civil action or damages. It would merely be obtaining an injunction, which is basically a way for the courts to say that they are aware that you are about to do something they consider illegal and they think you should stop.
IANAL but I feel like a possible example would be for a company to file an injunction as soon as they see a torrent tracker appear for their IP. It would allow them to stop the spread of their IP without having to wait for the infringement to happen first. To me, this seems less ridiculous than forcing rightsholders to wait for years while their case is being built, argued, and considered before they can seek help from the law.
Of course, the question becomes what is the burden of proof that infringement is imminent, and what legal recourse does the alleged infringer have to continue their activities if they consider them to be lawful. Does the MPAA have the authority to file an injunction against me knowing that I possess 1) DVD movies 2) a DVD burner 3) access vie internet to DRM cracking software.
You assume that everyone...doesn't give a fuck about his country or the justice system, and not just you.
Though I'm a little riled by the hostility, I should comment back on a couple of points.
The jury selection system in most if not all states is set up to exclude the majority of people. California pays Jurors $15 per day of service with no guarantee that the employer will continue to pay salary (though employers are free to do so). This makes serving on a Grand Jury or Trial Jury longer than a few days a difficult situation for many people. Lawyers on both sides of the table have the freedom and motivation to exclude Jurors that might have some relevant pre-existing knowledge of the events or education in the relevant area. That is not truly selecting peers, that is selecting 12 people that can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Frankly, you obviously have no concept of what a jury actually does, or who a "peer" is. A "peer" isn't related, in any way, to your job.
I do indeed understand who a peer is. I also understand that the way peers are defined in the context of Jury selection is not the same as the way that peers are defined elsewhere. Have you ever read an academic publication? In most fields these are "peer reviewed". As in, reviewed by a panel of people knowledgeable in the given field and qualified to pass judgement on the publication. If I were ever in the position of having to defend myself on Trial, I would most definitely not want to be arguing my case to a panel of laymen. I wouldn't want the arguments on either side to be distilled into simplicity so that they could be understood by the layman. I want 12 people that are knowledgeable enough to know what the hell Childs is talking about when he says that his immediate superiors were not qualified to be given access.
Our legal system is deeply flawed on many levels, in my opinion Jury selection is one aspect of that. To imply that I am an ignorant, selfish boob simply because I am critical of our current system is more than a little insulting, and serves only to retard any reform of the system. Service on a Jury is one of the most solemn responsibilities that Americans hold. It should offend all of us that the system is set up in such a way that discourages people from lending their expertise.
Wait, you mean his fate is in the hands of 12 clueless "average" citizens? He is truly fucked.
These people are hardly average. Juries consist of 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of Jury Duty. Realistically they tend to be less educated, less employed, and more receptive to instructions than the average American. This is intentional so that courts and attorneys know that they will be able to control and direct a Jury.
In front of a Jury of admins this guy might stand a chance. But it is entirely plausible that anyone with any knowledge of computers was selected out of this Jury (to avoid any preconceptions). Given that this trial is related to Child's professional conduct, the logical course would be to select a Jury of fellow techies (his true peers). Unfortunately, our legal system just does work that way.
Yes, TFA is a bit of scare-mongering. Quite honestly, most businesses are not in jeopardy if their old printed/scanned documents get out of their hands; by the time anyone else has access to the device, the documents aren't timely.
Yeah, 90% of the time your probably right. Its probably usually nothing more than old memo's, meeting notes, invoices, etc.
The scary thing for employees is that mixed in with all of that is likely images of drivers licenses, birth certificates, and tax documents. And a lot of that information doesn't expire. I'm sure the business is fine if some Elbonian data miner collects my personal information, but that doesn't comfort me very much.
It's kinda sad that the evolving thought on Rules of Engagement is migrating back toward "Leave no witnesses" after a couple of decades of "kill the bad guys, don't even scratch the paint".
That kind of civilian friendly conflict is great in international opinion and in the minds of those of us fortunate enough to play armchair general. But the simple nature of war is that it is brutal, and people die. At this point, civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have had ample notice that there is a war on. Anyone that is still electing to stick around and provide support (either direct or indirect) to our opponents have clearly chosen their sides. Of course that is not an excuse to be recklessly indiscriminate or to hunt down civilians. But in wars that are characterized by non-uniformed militants there has to be some tolerance for collateral damage to people that are refusing to get themselves out of the way.
Honestly, when we are fighting a war against people that hide among civilians and are being tacitly supported by those civilians, we are not going to be able to send boots in there to win hearts and minds. Overwhelming displays of force will serve to save American lives in the now, and will save lives overall by ending conflicts sooner. This philosophy of matching force levels only serves to prolong these wars.
And it may simply be the case that the NC government is just fishing for individuals/business that might be profitable to go after. They may have no intention of hounding after each individual that violates their usage tax law, but if they uncover a small number of individuals with a huge number of violations then they might be able to build a case that is worth pursuing.
specific xbox games that Cleetus T. Carolina purchased
I think Cleetus the gamer is probably safe. But any Cleetus that has deeper pockets and purchases more and differently taxed goods might have something to worry about.
I think you'll find that many Tea Partiers are just as angry about the Bush era as the liberals are. Some certainly would like to revert back to Bush era government, but as with any political group the membership represents a spectrum of beliefs.
The real tea party movement lacks strong consolidated leadership by design, its one of the things that the movement pushes for in government. The problem is that allows many of the fringe members and rallies to be co-opted by traditional conservatives who like to think of themselves as leading a patriotic charge in the name of the people. People like Sarah Palin and other fox-news bobbleheads can easily step in because there is no single charismatic figure there to keep them out. This is unfortunate, because in the minds of outsiders it paints tea partiers as gun nut ultra conservatives that want to send another Republican to the white house. To many of us, this is the opposite of true.
Disclaimer: I grew up in NH.
And Tax-achusetts is doing soooo well with it's superior roads and schools.
Some of us here like potholes and unmarked one-way roads. Makes driving here a challenge, and by nature makes us all better drivers.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, the flip side is that Apple ought not have to support the device short of hardware failures.
Face it... people buy Apple because it works out of the box without having to configure anything. People who buy Apple products are generally okay with being limited on capabilities.
I would argue that Apple would no longer need to support hardware failures. If the device comes with a Warranty/EULA/TOS agreement that clearly and explicitly says "jailbreaking not ok" and the user does it anyway, Apple clearly has a leg to stand on that they no longer owe the user that service.
Because that worked so well last time.
Back in the 30's the US Government used to sterilize people for being poor. The thinking was that being poor was hereditary, so by preventing the poor from breeding we could eliminate the poor gene. Some claim that we used to do it to people like minorities or the handicapped without ever even informing them, usually during hospitalizations.
In fact, the US was one of the first nations in the world to actively implement Eugenics programs intended to "tidy up" the gene pool. Then we got all righteous calling the Nazi's evil.
and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.
Except that the suit would likely not be intended to force Sony to re-enable Linux. Rather the suit (filed by the retailers) would be to shift the financial responsibility back to Sony for all the refunds the retailers have to issue.
The end result being, as always, the customers get shafted and the lawyers win.
Yes. Think of the children!
I know Israel security is very tight, but I'm thinking incoming residents don't face much more scrutiny of luggage than in any other country I've been in - where you say you have nothing to declare, possibly get sniffed by a dog, and you are on your way.
That is how US customs works, but Israel takes airport security to an entirely different level. You could probably get lucky and get a small device like that through an x-ray, but Israeli security officers make a point to question every person that passes in and out of their facility. These guys are some of the best trained and most experienced in the world in deception detection. My assumption is that the people that are smuggling iPads are not the kind of people that are experienced with masking their deception. Plus, the Israeli's have absolutely no problem with randomly grabbing people out of the crowd and rifling through their luggage.
Israel is just about the last place in the world I would try to smuggle anything through an airport.
But there is still a big difference between me buying a list of e-mails to spam and advertising to people that don't ask for it. I don't ask for the TV ad's I'm exposed to (though I am aware that they are part of the TV watching experience). Same goes for ads on webpages, magazines, newspapers, etc. If someone stops me on the street and tries to sell a product or get me to give to charity thats not truly spam, even though it is frustrating and at times unwanted.
What about businesses that buy qualified sales leads? What about my friends that stand to receive a referral bonus from organizations they refer me too? What about when my Bank sends me promotional material for services they offer that they think might appropriate for me based on my current accounts? These are all advertisements that I didn't ask for, but not truly spam.
How could I go about networking my colonoscopy-cam?
before lawenforcement et al had to reason "if I shoot, I have to make certain I'm in a situation where I have no other choice because I can kill this person". With tasering, the bounderies shifted "oh it can't harm, s/he is being annoying, lets buzz them like cattle into complying to the authority I impose."
That's exactly why less lethal options like Tasers are attractive. It gives the police an option that falls somewhere between billy clubs and bullets. It means that even if someone is out of arms reach, they still have an option to take them down without killing them. And it drastically reduces the number of lethal force encounters.
Your point though about shifting boundaries is spot on. All less lethal options need to come with proper training and accountability for those that abuse them.
While making some of the work put into past efforts a waste, I don't think that, given all the other issues facing the country, putting together a space station or another manned mission are really priorities.
I think your point is absolutely true, I can think of a lot of things that we could better spend our tax dollars on than simply running an LEO taxi service. However, I expect that there are some wonderful but intangible benefits to retaining our status as a world leader in spaceflight and related technologies. Its just hard to put a dollar value on that image, so it is difficult to justify the cost.
Speaking as a Libertarian, I am constantly worried that my party will explode with popularity and begin to siphon votes from the Conservatives. It is not so much that I like to see traditional conservatives in power, but I'm terrified of the possibility that during this shift the far leaning left will have no real opposition. I am not attempting to get into a left v. right debate, but anytime you have political power consolidated with one party, the people suffer (discourse, debate, and balance is good).
What we need is a party to split the right.
IMO what we really need is a right that actually attempts drag itself out of the 19th century and begins to actually represent its constituents.
Please, Bad Analogy Guy, explain to us how differences in physical geography cause different needs for digital freedom.
And, if possible, please use an analogy to illustrate your explanation.
And if you don't mind, an ASCII illustration would also help us visualize your position.