Problem is, not every case is clear cut - and cases that appear clear cut at the beginning can get convoluted pretty quickly. If we are going to allow the state to take the life of a citizen, we absolutely want that option to be the most costly. The Justice system does make mistakes.
He's going to criminal court because he's an American who did a crime on American soil. As much as I think the whole "mass destruction" charge is hysteria-induced bullshit, I'm very thankful he's not being declared an "enemy combatant" to be shipped off to a military prison.
Thanks for saving us some time on this one. Want to cause mass hysteria? Use a gun - you'll kill more people than you would with a bomb, and you'll face lesser charges when you're caught!
Granted, the people I talk about aren't at the far end of social ineptitude, but none of us are anything like a social butterfly. I suppose most of us grew up as the weirdo who programmed their graphic calculator in middle school, played magic cards or D&D with the other weirdos in high school, then went off to college and our weirdoness slowly mellowed into an endearing quirkiness. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Also, no self unrespecting geek wears taped glasses since the god damn hipsters took that away from us in a desperate attempt to be ironic.
Does that mean we turned our backs on being geeks? It's possible, but I don't really want to make this a "geek vs dork vs whatever" debate. Fact is, I still get to play with computers all day at work and get paid for it. There's no way I'd give up the life I have now to have been a bit more accepted by my peers when I was younger.
But, it seems we've digressed from the topic at hand.
being a geek doesn't strongly imply virginity any more.
One step further - most of the geeks I grew up with and went to college with (and a great number of the older geeks here at work) have some sort of active recreation or gym regimen and are now dating or married to intelligent and beautiful women. I'd say that except for the most introverted of the subtype, geeks really do end up on top.
Not saying I disagree with you in principle, but encryption can lead to additional scrutiny and hassle where there wouldn't have been any. My laptop doesn't really have anything that I'd care about the world knowing about. Important files - family photos, journals, your "next big software project", bank and credit card info - encrypt those. Your music library and game saves? We already know you have bad taste in music and suck at Starcraft...
I'm with you on this one... The question is just asking basement dwellers to peek out from under their tinfoil hats out and speculate on how much the NSA wants your Steely Dan collection. To summarize: Nobody at the border really cares about your music collection, especially if it's sitting on the hard drive of your laptop or media device. You're gonna hear a lot of folks here make a big deal about encrypting your drives, doing this that and the other. Don't pay attention to those guys, they don't get out much.
And if I don't have a pentalobe screwdriver, I'm pretty sure I could ham-fist the right sized flathead into there. Apple isn't going to spend a bunch extra on designing a new screw and retooling their assembly lines to keep people from ruining their iDevice. The vast majority of ham fisted users won't know what Torx drivers are (much less use them) - they are perfectly adequate to as a competency test. Put more simply, Apple wants their devices serviced by Apple alone and is taking steps to ensure that happens.
You do realize you're trying to compare deliberate acts of negligence to a happenstance predating modern ownership of that land... So, disregarding that "question" is really a shotgun of questions trying to get whatever response you're after, let's dig in! Yes, yes, not sure if that one's a question, yes, again not sure what the question is, yes but as the new owner I'd have legal recourse to sue you for damages in court, now you're just repeating that one movie with that one chick, you do.
Now, if you happened up on a mammoth tusk and the government demanded you dig it out to give to a museum at your own expense... I think I'd have a different answer.
So... Build a fence in your backyard, pull out an insurance policy on that effort? This is something that can happen on extremely common and rudimentary household tasks. Literally, digging a hole in the backyard. You expect people to take out hole digging insurance policy for that bush they want to plant? There's simply no way unless it's going to be covered as part of the homeowner's insurance plan. You're looking at putting more effort into dealing with the paperwork of digging a hole than the effort you'd put in to shoveling.
The topic has been pretty well covered, but consider both sides of this discussion being quite selfish and childish.
The one side says "Damn, that's a big expense and hassle, let's just keep it buried."
The other side says "Hey, that stuff belongs to all of us. *You* need to pay to dig it up to share with everybody."
The fact is, both sides are selfish and lacking respect for others - but the fault doesn't lie with either. The fault lies in a law that places a burden on people for simply finding artifacts like these. If your family's sacred gaps are lost out there in the countryside - you shouldn't expect the guy who bought that land and stumbled across it while digging a hole to foot the bill to extract or preserve it. If society wants it preserved, then the government should foot the bill and let society pay for its preservation. If it's just you that wants it preserved, well you should probably get out your pocketbook. As it is now, we do have developers and putting up tremendous amounts of money to investigate them without seeing any benefit from their efforts besides a ton of negative press.
It's also worthwhile to consider that this happened in the Canadias, the Fifth Amendment doesn't specifically apply.
Not saying the point isn't relevant to the conversation, since we're pretty aware that the same practice exists in the states... Really I just wanted to be a pedantic ass.
Wait a tick, did you budget for an archeological survey the last time you dug a hole to plant a tree in your backyard? It's fine for the law to require a survey of finds of historical value, but the law must recognize that it can be a tremendous burden on the people that find it and provide support for those tasks. If you're offended at the idea of people covering up potentially significant finds, you should probably work to incentivise reporting these finds. At the moment, it sounds like you're saying "Oh, that belongs to all of humanity, but you need to pay to dig it up. Reality bites, doesn't it?"
potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement
Here's the thing - if that important history belongs to all of us, why would the burden for extracting and preserving it fall solely on the homeowner or developer that found it? It's easy for us to say "yeah, that should be preserved" - it's entirely another thing for us to demand somebody else pay for it.
Spoken like somebody who's never left L.A. There's a wide gap between San Francisco and Bumfucksville, Kansas where you do have plenty of educated people, great restaurants, and entertaining things to do both in town and out in the wilderness. You really can get a decent size house, negligible commute, and low cost of living without giving anything up.
The problem has never been with people that don't know this, the problem is with people who are apathetic toward it. We can do a whole hell of a lot with minimal additional effort to improve our waste situation...
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, not every case is clear cut - and cases that appear clear cut at the beginning can get convoluted pretty quickly. If we are going to allow the state to take the life of a citizen, we absolutely want that option to be the most costly. The Justice system does make mistakes.
He's going to criminal court because he's an American who did a crime on American soil. As much as I think the whole "mass destruction" charge is hysteria-induced bullshit, I'm very thankful he's not being declared an "enemy combatant" to be shipped off to a military prison.
Thanks for saving us some time on this one. Want to cause mass hysteria? Use a gun - you'll kill more people than you would with a bomb, and you'll face lesser charges when you're caught!
Granted, the people I talk about aren't at the far end of social ineptitude, but none of us are anything like a social butterfly. I suppose most of us grew up as the weirdo who programmed their graphic calculator in middle school, played magic cards or D&D with the other weirdos in high school, then went off to college and our weirdoness slowly mellowed into an endearing quirkiness. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Also, no self unrespecting geek wears taped glasses since the god damn hipsters took that away from us in a desperate attempt to be ironic.
Does that mean we turned our backs on being geeks? It's possible, but I don't really want to make this a "geek vs dork vs whatever" debate. Fact is, I still get to play with computers all day at work and get paid for it. There's no way I'd give up the life I have now to have been a bit more accepted by my peers when I was younger.
But, it seems we've digressed from the topic at hand.
Oh now I *have* to click it!
+1 good troll, would read again!
being a geek doesn't strongly imply virginity any more.
One step further - most of the geeks I grew up with and went to college with (and a great number of the older geeks here at work) have some sort of active recreation or gym regimen and are now dating or married to intelligent and beautiful women. I'd say that except for the most introverted of the subtype, geeks really do end up on top.
Not saying I disagree with you in principle, but encryption can lead to additional scrutiny and hassle where there wouldn't have been any. My laptop doesn't really have anything that I'd care about the world knowing about. Important files - family photos, journals, your "next big software project", bank and credit card info - encrypt those. Your music library and game saves? We already know you have bad taste in music and suck at Starcraft...
But enough about Steely Dan - tell us more about your car. Is it teal green like I'm picturing it?
I have no mod points, but well done sir.
MP3 rips are legal in the US too, y'know. As are digital video files...
I'm with you on this one... The question is just asking basement dwellers to peek out from under their tinfoil hats out and speculate on how much the NSA wants your Steely Dan collection. To summarize: Nobody at the border really cares about your music collection, especially if it's sitting on the hard drive of your laptop or media device. You're gonna hear a lot of folks here make a big deal about encrypting your drives, doing this that and the other. Don't pay attention to those guys, they don't get out much.
And if I don't have a pentalobe screwdriver, I'm pretty sure I could ham-fist the right sized flathead into there. Apple isn't going to spend a bunch extra on designing a new screw and retooling their assembly lines to keep people from ruining their iDevice. The vast majority of ham fisted users won't know what Torx drivers are (much less use them) - they are perfectly adequate to as a competency test. Put more simply, Apple wants their devices serviced by Apple alone and is taking steps to ensure that happens.
...wouldn't the free market "as defined by the constitutian" say it's OK to just let the sleeping bones lie and build the damn fence right over them?
:(
O crap, I think I just got tricked into feeding the trolls. Sorry everybody
You do realize you're trying to compare deliberate acts of negligence to a happenstance predating modern ownership of that land... So, disregarding that "question" is really a shotgun of questions trying to get whatever response you're after, let's dig in! Yes, yes, not sure if that one's a question, yes, again not sure what the question is, yes but as the new owner I'd have legal recourse to sue you for damages in court, now you're just repeating that one movie with that one chick, you do.
Now, if you happened up on a mammoth tusk and the government demanded you dig it out to give to a museum at your own expense... I think I'd have a different answer.
Any further questions?
So... Build a fence in your backyard, pull out an insurance policy on that effort? This is something that can happen on extremely common and rudimentary household tasks. Literally, digging a hole in the backyard. You expect people to take out hole digging insurance policy for that bush they want to plant? There's simply no way unless it's going to be covered as part of the homeowner's insurance plan. You're looking at putting more effort into dealing with the paperwork of digging a hole than the effort you'd put in to shoveling.
The topic has been pretty well covered, but consider both sides of this discussion being quite selfish and childish.
The one side says "Damn, that's a big expense and hassle, let's just keep it buried."
The other side says "Hey, that stuff belongs to all of us. *You* need to pay to dig it up to share with everybody."
The fact is, both sides are selfish and lacking respect for others - but the fault doesn't lie with either. The fault lies in a law that places a burden on people for simply finding artifacts like these. If your family's sacred gaps are lost out there in the countryside - you shouldn't expect the guy who bought that land and stumbled across it while digging a hole to foot the bill to extract or preserve it. If society wants it preserved, then the government should foot the bill and let society pay for its preservation. If it's just you that wants it preserved, well you should probably get out your pocketbook. As it is now, we do have developers and putting up tremendous amounts of money to investigate them without seeing any benefit from their efforts besides a ton of negative press.
It's also worthwhile to consider that this happened in the Canadias, the Fifth Amendment doesn't specifically apply.
Not saying the point isn't relevant to the conversation, since we're pretty aware that the same practice exists in the states... Really I just wanted to be a pedantic ass.
Wait a tick, did you budget for an archeological survey the last time you dug a hole to plant a tree in your backyard? It's fine for the law to require a survey of finds of historical value, but the law must recognize that it can be a tremendous burden on the people that find it and provide support for those tasks. If you're offended at the idea of people covering up potentially significant finds, you should probably work to incentivise reporting these finds. At the moment, it sounds like you're saying "Oh, that belongs to all of humanity, but you need to pay to dig it up. Reality bites, doesn't it?"
potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement
Here's the thing - if that important history belongs to all of us, why would the burden for extracting and preserving it fall solely on the homeowner or developer that found it? It's easy for us to say "yeah, that should be preserved" - it's entirely another thing for us to demand somebody else pay for it.
Not that hard to make 100K in Austin, the only issue is that is surrounded by Texas.
Having seen the sort of people that surround the metropolitan areas in California, I don't think this argument carries much weight...
Spoken like somebody who's never left L.A. There's a wide gap between San Francisco and Bumfucksville, Kansas where you do have plenty of educated people, great restaurants, and entertaining things to do both in town and out in the wilderness. You really can get a decent size house, negligible commute, and low cost of living without giving anything up.
The problem has never been with people that don't know this, the problem is with people who are apathetic toward it. We can do a whole hell of a lot with minimal additional effort to improve our waste situation...
Which one is fighting them?
...unless we cook them at home.