If you want an example of how to do protest right, channeling minority anger into political power, look at the Tea Party.
Ah, so all we need to do is get coopeted by the Koch brothers. Great idea! The Tea Party was "successful" only because their entire goal was to further enrich the rich, and so it was supported by Koch, the Heritage Foundation, and Fox News from the start.
Snowden leaked shit that he really really really should not have
Such as? I haven't heard of one revelation that the world isn't better off now that we know. The same goes for Bradley Manning and Wikileaks. No harm has come to anyone from any of these leaks, and The People know better now what their government is up to. That's a great thing all around.
Your stand encourages human smuggling and trafficking. The less we know about espionage, the more of it will happen. The more espionage that happens, the less international cooperation there will be. The less international cooperation there is, the more human smuggling and trafficking there will be.
No, it's clearly the new of the leaks that did it. Last week there wasn't a diplomatic crisis, then the leaks came, and now there is a diplomatic crisis.
Yes, and when your wife finds out that you're cheating on her, it's not your fault for cheating but her fault for finding out. Do you really not see anything wrong with that reasoning?
Quiet diplomacy is only possible when confidentiality is possible.
Trust, but verify.
There will probably be more human smuggling and trafficking due to Snowden.
No, blame falls entirely on the bad behavior of the Australian Signals Directorate and their lack of trustworthyness.
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles.
Because a standing army would not have had assault rifles, a citizen milita would not need assault rifles to secure the freedom of their state.
Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
This is why they used a generic term "arms" instead of something specific like "muskets". It's really not that hard to understand if you're not being deliberately obtuse.
First point is anti-gun. It bans the import of some guns. Nothing to do with who owns them or how responsible they will be with them.
The second point is anti-second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure we are able to end this country the same way it began. How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
While I have no doubt that Cheney instigated all of this, Obama has had 5 years to bring the NSA back into its constitutional limits, and has not. When the revelations were made, he didn't take the opportunity to spearhead reform. He circled the wagons and defended his policies. He continues to employ a known perjurer as head of the NSA. It was clear from the start that Obama has no respect for the 4th amendment, as he was in favor of retroactive immunity for telcos complicit in illegal surveillance as far back as 2006 when he was senator.
You have to realize that both D and R are on the same team, opposing the people, and they're winning. As long as you think that you're making anything better by voting Democrat, they'll continue to win.
In the perfect world, there would be no piracy because there would be no copyright. Copyright is an infringement on both our rights to free speech, and our property rights. It is an utterly stupid hack, to try to force something that is in infinite supply (copies) to be scarce, but that cannot be done without destroying general purpose computing(which is what DRM and trusted computing is all about). Proper economic models will have people charge for what is scarce and therefore of real value, their time and talents.
It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."
I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.
The way it works is that the press, and the president are both controlled by the same group of people, the ultra rich. Both Democrats and Republicans exist to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and the media exists to support that mission by propaganda.
Incorrect. Judges say they determine the law and undisputed facts, but nowhere is that power exclusively granted to them. Judges go outside of the law when they issue jury instructions that prohibit juries from judging the law. Judges can and do lie about what juries are supposed to do, in order to get an acceptable verdict. The jury has to act as a check on this kind of judicial abuse.
I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt.
No, the role of the jury is to judge both the facts and law. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision⦠you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence
That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.
It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.
The only way this would be punishment for the jury is if they didn't think the punishment actually fit the crime. If that's the case, they damn well should be discouraged. That's a very positive result.
The US injustice system is draconian enough. We are a "free country" that imprisons more people than than any other country in the world. We still use the death penalty despite the lack of any evidence that it makes our country safer. We are in dire need of reigning in the vindictive and authoritarian nature of our injustice system.
Car accidents is one of the main causes of death in US, 1 in 108 (and maybe other causes in that report should be grouped in that category as are caused directly or indirectly by cars), while bicycles are 1 in 5000 (and a lot of them could be caused by cars).
A lot more people ride a lot more miles in cars than on bikes.
Good question. Maybe we should abolish corporations and hold people personally accountable for their crimes. If you invest in a criminal organization, you are a criminal.
No, this is bad and wrong. Network access is a resource unlike electricity and water. If you don't use water today, the water will be there tomorrow. If you don't use electricity today, they can run power plants at lower capacity and save fuel for later.
Network access is different. Bits transferred today have absolutely no effect on your ability to transfer bits tomorrow. Any bandwidth that goes unused is wasted. Charging for bits discourages people from using bandwith, and encourages waste. Bad and wrong.
What's wrong with property and income taxes? Even if you don't use the roads, you benefit from living in a community where other people use the roads. Everyone should pay for the roads.
Tying road taxes to road use is as stupid as tying school taxes to parenting.
This would mostly cause the price of shipping by truck to increase, increasing the costs of consumer goods, which we will all pay for. Why risk damaging the economy by increaing consumer prices when you can just raise the gas tax? Remember, when I buy a good that has been shipped by truck, I am benefiting from the damage that truck caused to the highway. It's not actually fair to make truckers pay the majority of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want an example of how to do protest right, channeling minority anger into political power, look at the Tea Party.
Ah, so all we need to do is get coopeted by the Koch brothers. Great idea! The Tea Party was "successful" only because their entire goal was to further enrich the rich, and so it was supported by Koch, the Heritage Foundation, and Fox News from the start.
Personal Liberty?
How much is personal liberty worth when you can't make a living wage with a full time job?
Lower taxes?
Meaning fewer services for those who need them most.
Less intrusive Government?
And more intrusive corporate power, which is totalitarian in nature.
Snowden leaked shit that he really really really should not have
Such as? I haven't heard of one revelation that the world isn't better off now that we know. The same goes for Bradley Manning and Wikileaks. No harm has come to anyone from any of these leaks, and The People know better now what their government is up to. That's a great thing all around.
Your stand encourages human smuggling and trafficking. The less we know about espionage, the more of it will happen. The more espionage that happens, the less international cooperation there will be. The less international cooperation there is, the more human smuggling and trafficking there will be.
No, it's clearly the new of the leaks that did it. Last week there wasn't a diplomatic crisis, then the leaks came, and now there is a diplomatic crisis.
Yes, and when your wife finds out that you're cheating on her, it's not your fault for cheating but her fault for finding out. Do you really not see anything wrong with that reasoning?
Quiet diplomacy is only possible when confidentiality is possible.
Trust, but verify.
There will probably be more human smuggling and trafficking due to Snowden.
No, blame falls entirely on the bad behavior of the Australian Signals Directorate and their lack of trustworthyness.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles.
Because a standing army would not have had assault rifles, a citizen milita would not need assault rifles to secure the freedom of their state.
Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
This is why they used a generic term "arms" instead of something specific like "muskets". It's really not that hard to understand if you're not being deliberately obtuse.
What made you think I thought that? Arms are arms, we have the right to keep and bear them for the defence of a free state.
Yes, and why would you not want to have a standing army? So you could defeat the federal government if it ever usurped too much power.
First point is anti-gun. It bans the import of some guns. Nothing to do with who owns them or how responsible they will be with them.
The second point is anti-second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure we are able to end this country the same way it began. How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
While I have no doubt that Cheney instigated all of this, Obama has had 5 years to bring the NSA back into its constitutional limits, and has not. When the revelations were made, he didn't take the opportunity to spearhead reform. He circled the wagons and defended his policies. He continues to employ a known perjurer as head of the NSA. It was clear from the start that Obama has no respect for the 4th amendment, as he was in favor of retroactive immunity for telcos complicit in illegal surveillance as far back as 2006 when he was senator.
You have to realize that both D and R are on the same team, opposing the people, and they're winning. As long as you think that you're making anything better by voting Democrat, they'll continue to win.
In the perfect world, there would be no piracy because there would be no copyright. Copyright is an infringement on both our rights to free speech, and our property rights. It is an utterly stupid hack, to try to force something that is in infinite supply (copies) to be scarce, but that cannot be done without destroying general purpose computing(which is what DRM and trusted computing is all about). Proper economic models will have people charge for what is scarce and therefore of real value, their time and talents.
It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."
I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.
The way it works is that the press, and the president are both controlled by the same group of people, the ultra rich. Both Democrats and Republicans exist to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and the media exists to support that mission by propaganda.
Incorrect. Judges say they determine the law and undisputed facts, but nowhere is that power exclusively granted to them. Judges go outside of the law when they issue jury instructions that prohibit juries from judging the law. Judges can and do lie about what juries are supposed to do, in order to get an acceptable verdict. The jury has to act as a check on this kind of judicial abuse.
I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt.
No, the role of the jury is to judge both the facts and law. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision⦠you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence
That is exactly the purpose a jury is supposed to serve. If the community, as represented by a jury of peers deems a punishment unconscionable, they not only have the right but the moral obligation to acquit. If the government wants the people to sign off on its punishments, the government must levy punishments that the community can accept. The jury is supposed to be a check on the legal system.
It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.
The only way this would be punishment for the jury is if they didn't think the punishment actually fit the crime. If that's the case, they damn well should be discouraged. That's a very positive result.
The US injustice system is draconian enough. We are a "free country" that imprisons more people than than any other country in the world. We still use the death penalty despite the lack of any evidence that it makes our country safer. We are in dire need of reigning in the vindictive and authoritarian nature of our injustice system.
5. Intersections are death traps (if you use pedestrian crosswalks).
If you cycle on pedestrian crosswalks, you deserve whatever happens to you. You are a vehicle, use the road, it's safer for everyone.
Car accidents is one of the main causes of death in US, 1 in 108 (and maybe other causes in that report should be grouped in that category as are caused directly or indirectly by cars), while bicycles are 1 in 5000 (and a lot of them could be caused by cars).
A lot more people ride a lot more miles in cars than on bikes.
Bikes aren't just for exercise - try commuting on one.
I'm sure your office mates love spending all day near you after you've biked an hour with no shower.
Good question. Maybe we should abolish corporations and hold people personally accountable for their crimes. If you invest in a criminal organization, you are a criminal.
Thanks for noticing. The last line was bitching about /.'s broken javascript, and someone told me to check again, and it has actually improved a lot.
No, this is bad and wrong. Network access is a resource unlike electricity and water. If you don't use water today, the water will be there tomorrow. If you don't use electricity today, they can run power plants at lower capacity and save fuel for later.
Network access is different. Bits transferred today have absolutely no effect on your ability to transfer bits tomorrow. Any bandwidth that goes unused is wasted. Charging for bits discourages people from using bandwith, and encourages waste. Bad and wrong.
He never would have gotten into office without playing ball with the elites.
And a much better game at that.
What's wrong with property and income taxes? Even if you don't use the roads, you benefit from living in a community where other people use the roads. Everyone should pay for the roads.
Tying road taxes to road use is as stupid as tying school taxes to parenting.
This would mostly cause the price of shipping by truck to increase, increasing the costs of consumer goods, which we will all pay for. Why risk damaging the economy by increaing consumer prices when you can just raise the gas tax? Remember, when I buy a good that has been shipped by truck, I am benefiting from the damage that truck caused to the highway. It's not actually fair to make truckers pay the majority of the cost.