Lol... yeah, THATS what we need. Another unaccountable worldwide governmental organization. Good thinking! Hey, maybe the Juan Samaranch would be interested in heading it up.
Along those same lines, maybe we need worldwide organizations to do all the other things that we're too busy to take care of ourselves!
Yeah, we had the same experience. We had previously purchased 4 Inspiron 7000 laptops, and they required the cash up front before even building the machines! They also said that if we were willing to give them three years of audited comany statements, they would give us $25k credit. Yeah right! CDW gave us double that, with only references, no audited reports. Maybe if we have ordered 400 laptops they would have changed their minds...
Well, I'll ignore your personal attacks, and focus on the main point. It was debated quite heavily during ratification whether individual rights even had a place being protected in the Constitution by the addition of a Bill of Rights; there were some who didn't see a need for one, as the rights to be protected couldn't *be* abridged by the feds, because there was (then) no way for them to do it! They also felt that a listing of individual rights would necessarily hamper other rights held by individuals, because they were not listed, and therefore not seemed as important. But let's not cloud your argument with the facts, eh?
Hmmm, lets see (browsing my copy of the constitution) Article I, legislative branch, nothing there. Article II, executive branch, nothing there (DOJ lol... maybe they raided on the interstate commerce clause quoted in the USC code from the article. Talk about loophole!) Article III, judicial branch; Atricle 4, states rights. Section II gives all citizens the same rights, nothing new there. Article V, amendments. Here is the only place your argument may hold up, but I can't find any privacy amendments here. (hmmmm funny)
So lets see here, three of five sections devoted ENTIRELY to the creation of the federal government, and you say that it's primary goal was not to create it?
The constitution has little to do with individual rights. It had everything to do with state's rights.
And, if any law is deemed to be unconstitutional, it was NEVER legal to begin with. Like this one.
Next time you want to have a discussion, get your facts straight first. Some suggestions:
'The Federalist Papers', Hamilton, Madison, Jay 'Origin of the Bill of Rights', Levy
Yeah, how DARE they actually get money from the people who USE the service! They should just take it from EVERYONE, whether or not they want to pay for it!
Hey, how's your socialist health care system working out up there? Nice short lines, services always available; a socialist paradise!
Re-reading the constitution, and the quoted USC, I think that the only reason the feds have the ability to have this law is under the 'regulating interstate commerce' clause. So what if someone in NY wants to buy them?
And what difference does it make that it's surrepititious? The fed's use them every day, so why can't an 'ordinary' citizen?
It is NOT a framework for all our other laws. It is the description of the Federal Government and it's powers. It has nothing to do with laws against murder (except as perpetrated by the Federal Government). Murder is covered by the laws of your State (if you live in the U.S.)
Privacy is not protected by a federal law. If you believe it is, please provide (what you think is) the relevant statute.
The government, when it does it's (limited) job, has nothing to do with how people live. If I live in a crime ridden zone, why is my employer responsible? If I don't keep up my own house, or buy my own first aid kit, why is my employer responsible? If I'm a pig at my house, why is my employer responsible? Better yet, who the hell is the government to tell me how to live in my own house?
Face it, most employers don't force their employees to work at home, it's a benefit. All this does is prevent employers from providing the benefit to employees who want it, because of the few whiners who don't want to take any responsibility for their own lives.
It's right there in the 9th and 10th amendments! The Constitution does not enumerate our rights; it's limits are only for the federal government. Anything not explicitly in the document is a right still held by the people. This was the main argument during ratification of the constitution against having a bill of rights; that enumerating some rights would necessarily make the other rights that we still seem invalid, because they were not enumerated.
Why doesn't *who* make it against the law? California? The U.S.? The E.U.? Why is it the first reation people have to something perceived as bad is to 'make a law' against it? Do you really think that the government will help the process?
Isn't this a geek 'zine? Maybe we should write some code to inform users of connectivity being made on their behalf, and allow them to drop it. This could kick those doubleclick banner ads in the *ss too!
Free speech? This is a mall, not a governmental institution. The mall owners can do anything alloted to them in the mall lease. The only way this would be 'illegal' is if the lease prohibited it, which i doubt. More than likely the mall can tell tenants exactly what their signs can and cannot say, how big they are, how many they can have, etc. etc. etc.
Good lord! 'People' will complain until things are changed, eh? Worked pretty good for the jews in 1939, didn't it. This its the kind of thinking that makes it necessary for the US to keep bailing Europe out. Power to the government, indeed. Maybe, instead of just relying on someone else to do it, you should try taking care of yourself for awhile. What's gonna happen when you graduate an mom and dad ask you to move out?
How do you propose a system like this, and in the same breath remove the federal agency that would implement your regulations? Sounds like you want to have it both ways.
Your idea of restricting donations by organizations strikes me as being non-democratic. Organizations are the way that equal citizens band together to get their point across. Restricting them from donating as a group is a serious restriction of their rights.
Oh yeah, it's as hokey as hell and my kids will probably never see it. But what about the warning not to talk to strangers on the internet? What about alerting an adult if you get a suspicious email? Those aren't good ideas? Does the "reviewer" have kids? Is the "reviewer" old enough to have kids?
This one paragraph makes both my points. Settle down, it wasn't a personal attack, just an observation.
-cw
ps. I couldn't care less how your post was moderated.
I think the reviewer was trying to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy displayed by the DOJ, not question the text of their WWW page. And you have to admit, they are very hypocritical. "Don't share your password with anyone... you wouldn't just give anyone your house key!" Sound familiar? Governmental Key Escrow, asked for by JR herself...
I have two children of my own, and I do not appreciate the government using my tax dollars to try and brainwash them. I am a much better teacher to my kids than they can ever be. This is NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is (theoretically, anyway) restricted to very few things outside of interstate commerce and providing for the common defense. I see nothing in the Constitution that says they should be a nursemaid to my children. Just another example of the Feds overstepping their bounds with MY MONEY.
Also, in the future, people might take you more seriously if you left the personal attacks out of your messages. Especially if they are not based in fact.
Respect is EARNED, not given. I do *not* have complete respect for the people who enforce these laws, unless they earn it. And they haven't. Why don't you ask Abner Louima how much *he* respects NYC's finest, I'm sure he *loved* having that plunger shoved up his *ss...
Do you have complete respect for the German SS of the 1930's/1940's? They were _only_ enforcing the laws, just doin their jobs...
Go with the flow or risk being flattened in its wake.
This is a scary comment. Go with whose flow? Who do you think comes up with this stuff? Some ethereal 'them'? If you always leave the decisions to someone else, than what you say is true. This is not how sentient humans should want to live.
Once you move out of mom and dads house, you may have a different opinion about who has the right to make decisions about you.
Why would someone not want an implant? Other than the possibility of my eyes being hacked or something like that, I see no real problems.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. You cannot be this naive.
I ask you this: You run buggy software. You have workarounds for your hardware. You complain night and day about the companies that don't do what you want. Would you have it any other way?
Welcome to (the govt. required) WinChip 2010... please wait... uploading location please wait... checking citizen status bus error please wait... you have been found in our RBL 'troublemakers' database. Please wait for remote termination. Thank you for choosing U.S. Citizenship. Goodbye.
Why is it that everytime someone disagrees with another's religion, they call it a cult? And this is the first time that I've heard Christianity referred to as a 'crazed religious cult'. And they didn't get the quote right; the Bible says that the mark will have to be on *all* people, "both free and slave, rich and poor". Kinda lika a SSN in the US!;-) Anyway, I love technology as much as the next geek, and while this does sound cool, my problem with it is the fact that this technology can be easily used by nice and not-so-nice governments the same, and I don't trust that one bit. I am not willing to give up my freedom for convenience. And it sounds to me like this device would be much more convenient to a controlling governmental agency (ie. the DMV) than to me. But I'm sure that there are alot of people that *never* do *anything* wrong, or that they'd rather not share with the population at large, that will disagree with me.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol ... yeah, THATS what we need. Another unaccountable worldwide governmental organization. Good thinking! Hey, maybe the Juan Samaranch would be interested in heading it up.
Along those same lines, maybe we need worldwide organizations to do all the other things that we're too busy to take care of ourselves!
Yeah, we had the same experience. We had previously purchased 4 Inspiron 7000 laptops, and they required the cash up front before even building the machines! They also said that if we were willing to give them three years of audited comany statements, they would give us $25k credit. Yeah right! CDW gave us double that, with only references, no audited reports. Maybe if we have ordered 400 laptops they would have changed their minds ...
Well, I'll ignore your personal attacks, and focus on the main point. It was debated quite heavily during ratification whether individual rights even had a place being protected in the Constitution by the addition of a Bill of Rights; there were some who didn't see a need for one, as the rights to be protected couldn't *be* abridged by the feds, because there was (then) no way for them to do it! They also felt that a listing of individual rights would necessarily hamper other rights held by individuals, because they were not listed, and therefore not seemed as important. But let's not cloud your argument with the facts, eh?
... maybe they raided on the interstate commerce clause quoted in the USC code from the article. Talk about loophole!) Article III, judicial branch; Atricle 4, states rights. Section II gives all citizens the same rights, nothing new there. Article V, amendments. Here is the only place your argument may hold up, but I can't find any privacy amendments here. (hmmmm funny)
Hmmm, lets see (browsing my copy of the constitution) Article I, legislative branch, nothing there. Article II, executive branch, nothing there (DOJ lol
So lets see here, three of five sections devoted ENTIRELY to the creation of the federal government, and you say that it's primary goal was not to create it?
The constitution has little to do with individual rights. It had everything to do with state's rights.
And, if any law is deemed to be unconstitutional, it was NEVER legal to begin with. Like this one.
Next time you want to have a discussion, get your facts straight first. Some suggestions:
'The Federalist Papers', Hamilton, Madison, Jay
'Origin of the Bill of Rights', Levy
Yeah, how DARE they actually get money from the people who USE the service! They should just take it from EVERYONE, whether or not they want to pay for it!
Hey, how's your socialist health care system working out up there? Nice short lines, services always available; a socialist paradise!
Yes, but as a restriction to the federal government, not to the states, or you and me.
Re-reading the constitution, and the quoted USC, I think that the only reason the feds have the ability to have this law is under the 'regulating interstate commerce' clause. So what if someone in NY wants to buy them?
And what difference does it make that it's surrepititious? The fed's use them every day, so why can't an 'ordinary' citizen?
It is NOT a framework for all our other laws. It is the description of the Federal Government and it's powers. It has nothing to do with laws against murder (except as perpetrated by the Federal Government). Murder is covered by the laws of your State (if you live in the U.S.)
Privacy is not protected by a federal law. If you believe it is, please provide (what you think is) the relevant statute.
Devices do not break laws. PEOPLE break laws.
The government, when it does it's (limited) job, has nothing to do with how people live. If I live in a crime ridden zone, why is my employer responsible? If I don't keep up my own house, or buy my own first aid kit, why is my employer responsible? If I'm a pig at my house, why is my employer responsible? Better yet, who the hell is the government to tell me how to live in my own house?
Face it, most employers don't force their employees to work at home, it's a benefit. All this does is prevent employers from providing the benefit to employees who want it, because of the few whiners who don't want to take any responsibility for their own lives.
It's right there in the 9th and 10th amendments! The Constitution does not enumerate our rights; it's limits are only for the federal government. Anything not explicitly in the document is a right still held by the people.
This was the main argument during ratification of the constitution against having a bill of rights; that enumerating some rights would necessarily make the other rights that we still seem invalid, because they were not enumerated.
Whoopty-shit. Like the rest of us give a rats-ass when you got it.
Why doesn't *who* make it against the law? California? The U.S.? The E.U.? Why is it the first reation people have to something perceived as bad is to 'make a law' against it? Do you really think that the government will help the process?
Isn't this a geek 'zine? Maybe we should write some code to inform users of connectivity being made on their behalf, and allow them to drop it. This could kick those doubleclick banner ads in the *ss too!
Free speech? This is a mall, not a governmental institution. The mall owners can do anything alloted to them in the mall lease. The only way this would be 'illegal' is if the lease prohibited it, which i doubt. More than likely the mall can tell tenants exactly what their signs can and cannot say, how big they are, how many they can have, etc. etc. etc.
Duh. 29 is an odd number. All the digits that comprise the number are not odd, but 29 is odd.
Beautiful. You think he'd know that, having invented the Internet and everything. Or is it a subtle joke?
Good lord! 'People' will complain until things are changed, eh? Worked pretty good for the jews in 1939, didn't it. This its the kind of thinking that makes it necessary for the US to keep bailing Europe out. Power to the government, indeed. Maybe, instead of just relying on someone else to do it, you should try taking care of yourself for awhile. What's gonna happen when you graduate an mom and dad ask you to move out?
How do you propose a system like this, and in the same breath remove the federal agency that would implement your regulations? Sounds like you want to have it both ways.
Your idea of restricting donations by organizations strikes me as being non-democratic. Organizations are the way that equal citizens band together to get their point across. Restricting them from donating as a group is a serious restriction of their rights.
This is what you said:
Oh yeah, it's as hokey as hell and my kids will probably never see it. But what about the warning not to talk to strangers on the internet? What about alerting an adult if you get a suspicious email? Those aren't good ideas? Does the "reviewer" have kids? Is the "reviewer" old enough to have kids?
This one paragraph makes both my points. Settle down, it wasn't a personal attack, just an observation.
-cw
ps. I couldn't care less how your post was moderated.
I think the reviewer was trying to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy displayed by the DOJ, not question the text of their WWW page. And you have to admit, they are very hypocritical. "Don't share your password with anyone ... you wouldn't just give anyone your house key!" ...
Sound familiar? Governmental Key Escrow, asked for by JR herself
I have two children of my own, and I do not appreciate the government using my tax dollars to try and brainwash them. I am a much better teacher to my kids than they can ever be. This is NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is (theoretically, anyway) restricted to very few things outside of interstate commerce and providing for the common defense. I see nothing in the Constitution that says they should be a nursemaid to my children. Just another example of the Feds overstepping their bounds with MY MONEY.
Also, in the future, people might take you more seriously if you left the personal attacks out of your messages. Especially if they are not based in fact.
Respect is EARNED, not given. I do *not* have complete respect for the people who enforce these laws, unless they earn it. And they haven't. Why don't you ask Abner Louima how much *he* respects NYC's finest, I'm sure he *loved* having that plunger shoved up his *ss ...
...
Do you have complete respect for the German SS of the 1930's/1940's? They were _only_ enforcing the laws, just doin their jobs
Sheeple.
Not that I'm against banner ads, but let's not get crazy. They do plan on adding advertising. Read this little piece of doublespeak ...
http://www.google.com/advertisement.html
Yes, but doesn't Lego sue anyone who manufactures pieces that interconnect with theirs? Not very open source, is it?
It's not 'too late'. It is never 'too late'.
Go with the flow or risk being flattened in its wake.
This is a scary comment. Go with whose flow? Who do you think comes up with this stuff? Some ethereal 'them'? If you always leave the decisions to someone else, than what you say is true. This is not how sentient humans should want to live.
Once you move out of mom and dads house, you may have a different opinion about who has the right to make decisions about you.
Why would someone not want an implant? Other than the possibility of my eyes being hacked or something like that, I see no real problems.
... ... uploading location ... checking citizen status bus error ... you have been found in our RBL 'troublemakers' database. Please wait for remote termination. Thank you for choosing U.S. Citizenship. Goodbye.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. You cannot be this naive.
I ask you this: You run buggy software. You have workarounds for your hardware. You complain night and day about the companies that don't do what you want. Would you have it any other way?
Welcome to (the govt. required) WinChip 2010
please wait
please wait
please wait
Why is it that everytime someone disagrees with another's religion, they call it a cult? And this is the first time that I've heard Christianity referred to as a 'crazed religious cult'. And they didn't get the quote right; the Bible says that the mark will have to be on *all* people, "both free and slave, rich and poor". Kinda lika a SSN in the US! ;-)
Anyway, I love technology as much as the next geek, and while this does sound cool, my problem with it is the fact that this technology can be easily used by nice and not-so-nice governments the same, and I don't trust that one bit. I am not willing to give up my freedom for convenience. And it sounds to me like this device would be much more convenient to a controlling governmental agency (ie. the DMV) than to me. But I'm sure that there are alot of people that *never* do *anything* wrong, or that they'd rather not share with the population at large, that will disagree with me.
He didn't seem to like it all that much.