I apologize for your ignorance. Perhaps you're too young to have actually used POTS. Nowadays most people just have cells (including me), and of course cell phones are never listed.
Your logic escapes me. If the cops choose to manufacture evidence, it can be "gathered" by legal search or not. The only protect against bogus evidence is a fair trial, where the defendant has the right to debunk the evidence against them.
When I said privacy, I was talking about the 4th amendment. The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the constitution, but one's right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure can be seen as a protection of privacy from government (as in Roe v Wade). The court is saying that tracking a radio signal isn't a violation of your fourth amendment rights because emitting the signal isn't a private act.
I did read the ruling. Your analogy to tapping a landline makes no sense — a tap actually intercepts communications. A better analogy would be a cop walking by your house and looking to see if there's a telephone line running out to the street. Or like the cops using your license plate to track your movements, which is an analogy that appears in the ruling.
POTS vendors have always had this policy. It's stupid, but it's easy to circumvent. Since they let you publish the listing under any name you want, you make one up. When I had a landline, it was under "Gigo Hasp" (old IBM mainframe joke).
Because everybody has rights, or nobody has rights. If the police are allowed to use evidence they've gathered illegally, then there's nothing to prevent them from simply spying on everybody.
I agree with you that the ruling seems to make sense. But how is it not news? It places an important market on the boundary between public and private.
And you know, next time I'm smuggling drugs, I certainly will remember to turn off my cell phone.
What companies consider PhDs extraneous? Certainly no company I've ever worked in. The degree has a great deal of snob appeal, even when it doesn't have anything to do with the actual job. There's even a school of thought (dominant at Google in its early years) that says that a Master's is the bare minimum for serious computer work, and you should always prefer a PhD if you have a choice.
Which is not to say that the bare degree is a guarantee of anything. I've met a fair number of people who hold the kind of job spifmastercow is aiming for. Yeah, a lot of them had PhDs, but what they all had in common was a demonstrated ability to do original and creative work.
I stand corrected. But discovering that Paul believes in competing currencies makes me even more dubious of his sanity. We've actually gone through periods when everybody who wanted to could issue currency. The result was a blinking disaster. People would pay their debts in whatever currency cost them the least and hoard currency that was more solid. This was particularly hard on working people, because they lacked the leverage to insist that their wages be paid in something with actual buying power. That's why the "legal tender" law that Paul wants declared unconstitutional was invented in the first place.
Speaking of constitutional issues: I find myself really appalled by his opinions on jury nullification. Juries have always had a defacto power of nullification, because a jury acquittal can't be reversed and juries can't be punished for their decisions. But Paul wants to roll things back 900 years, to when juries could make any decision they wanted, could interpret the law any way they wanted, or even ignore the law altogether. Actually, things were never quite that bad, but under Paul's bogus originalism, they would be.
Oh yeah, and Social Security is just a "Ponzi scheme" and should be done away with. That puts him on the fringe all by itself.
Here's one position that makes me lose any respect for him: he's hyper-libertarian on almost every issue, but he still believes that the government should regulate private sexual behavior. Yeah, he pays lip service to his libertarian principles by talking about "bad sodomy laws", but when it gets to specifics, he thinks the supreme court was wrong to overturn them. Cause, you know, it's not about homophobia, it's about states' rights!
Well, nice to know that he too knows how to waffle!
The deficit, as bad as it is, is not even close to reaching Armageddon proportions. Viewed as a percentage of GDP, our debt isn't even that high. The deficit itself is less of a problem than the inability of anybody to confront the problem honestly. And yes, I include Paul Ryan, who refuses to look at our biggest black hole for fiscal waste, the military. Jeez, even if you're a hawk, doesn't it bother you that we spend more on defense than the rest of the planet combined?
But even if I'm wrong, and the U.S. is on the verge of economic collapse, consider this: if we go down, we're certainly taking everybody with us. We're still the center of the world economy, and everybody trades with us. If the U.S. market disappeared, there'd be a global crash that would make 1929 look like a hiccup
So if you're worried about the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy, I'd suggest going to a remote location and learning to survive as a subsistence farmer. And if you're not willing to go that drastic, you might as well not worry about it.
Gold stored in a bank is the only money you can count on.
So, what, our entire economic system is a mistake? Because there's not enough gold to keep the world economy going.
BTW, it's simply not true that gold never loses value except through increased supplies. Look at the price of gold in the markets — it goes up and down all the time. Fluctuations with respect to fiat currency may not impress you, but these shifts represent real changes in gold's ability to be exchanged for stuff you really need.
Yeah, gold backed currency is more resistant to inflation than fiat currency. But when the economy expands and the money supply doesn't you end up with deflation. Where inflation erodes your savings, deflation erodes your ability to sell stuff, because everybody's waiting for it to get even cheaper. If I have to chose between the two, I'll choose inflation.
Yeah, Ron Paul is consistent. The problem is that he's consistently nuts. His fanboys may think he's got the answers, but it doesn't take a lot of history to see how dumb he is. Just for example: he wants to do away with fiat currency. That's one of those fringe ideas that sounds really cool, but whose main merit is that it's totally impossible to implement
You can accuse Obama and other mainstream politicians of hypocrisy and double talk all you want. I wouldn't even disagree with you, at least not completely. The fact remains that Paul's ideas exist in a kind of alternate reality that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. That's why he fails to garner any significant support, even as public confidence in mainstream politicians is at an all-time low.
Equal treatment? Who do you know that likes being stared at and barraged with sexual suggestions by strangers?
The point of the exercise is to demonstrate what it's like to be the object of unwanted sexual attention Maybe straight women would make the point, but it's guys, gay or straight, who know how to be testosterone-driven assholes
You forgot the foremost requirement of any feature phone: it has to be really, really cheap. With low margins, nobody's going to spend a lot of money coming up with new designs. The only way to profit is to pick a tried-and-true design and run with it.
And of course in Asia, your female employees can't sue you. Judging from your previously expressed complaints about "political correctness", that must have been an issue.
As a tech writer, I've collaborated with developers in China, Japan, South America, India, and Russia. And yes, they all were driven by a desire to create and innovate. But so have most of the hackers I've worked with in Silicon Valley. If you couldn't find anybody with that ethic in the U.S., I think you probably have issues that go beyond geography.
Nobody expects you to enjoy it. But it would be very helpful if you could stand around leering and whistling so the subject of our experiment could learn what it's like to treated like a piece of meat. The purpose of the exercise is not punishment, it's education.
The point of the exercise is not to punish anybody, it's to educate them as to what it's like to be treated like a piece of meat.
I know gay guys wouldn't enjoy seeing some geek parade around almost naked — who would? But I hope they'd be helpful enough to offer a few leers and catcalls for purely educational purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes rights are associated. That doesn't make them identical. Are hamburgers and french fries the same thing?
I apologize for your ignorance. Perhaps you're too young to have actually used POTS. Nowadays most people just have cells (including me), and of course cell phones are never listed.
What idiot talk show did you get that from? Have you even read the constitution? I suggest you do so now,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
I chose a plain text version so you could search for the word "liberty". I think you'll find that nowhere is the word used the way you describe.
Your logic escapes me. If the cops choose to manufacture evidence, it can be "gathered" by legal search or not. The only protect against bogus evidence is a fair trial, where the defendant has the right to debunk the evidence against them.
When I said privacy, I was talking about the 4th amendment. The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the constitution, but one's right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure can be seen as a protection of privacy from government (as in Roe v Wade). The court is saying that tracking a radio signal isn't a violation of your fourth amendment rights because emitting the signal isn't a private act.
I did read the ruling. Your analogy to tapping a landline makes no sense — a tap actually intercepts communications. A better analogy would be a cop walking by your house and looking to see if there's a telephone line running out to the street. Or like the cops using your license plate to track your movements, which is an analogy that appears in the ruling.
Forgive me, I didn't mean to interfere with your constitutional right to be melodramatic.
POTS vendors have always had this policy. It's stupid, but it's easy to circumvent. Since they let you publish the listing under any name you want, you make one up. When I had a landline, it was under "Gigo Hasp" (old IBM mainframe joke).
Really, how could the editor overlook such a cute headline?
Because everybody has rights, or nobody has rights. If the police are allowed to use evidence they've gathered illegally, then there's nothing to prevent them from simply spying on everybody.
Yum. Dog. Drool. We liberals love dog meat!
I agree with you that the ruling seems to make sense. But how is it not news? It places an important market on the boundary between public and private.
And you know, next time I'm smuggling drugs, I certainly will remember to turn off my cell phone.
None of which is at risk here. This case is purely about privacy.
What companies consider PhDs extraneous? Certainly no company I've ever worked in. The degree has a great deal of snob appeal, even when it doesn't have anything to do with the actual job. There's even a school of thought (dominant at Google in its early years) that says that a Master's is the bare minimum for serious computer work, and you should always prefer a PhD if you have a choice.
Which is not to say that the bare degree is a guarantee of anything. I've met a fair number of people who hold the kind of job spifmastercow is aiming for. Yeah, a lot of them had PhDs, but what they all had in common was a demonstrated ability to do original and creative work.
You forgot the obligatory Futurama reference:
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/a6o404/futurama-smelloscope
I stand corrected. But discovering that Paul believes in competing currencies makes me even more dubious of his sanity. We've actually gone through periods when everybody who wanted to could issue currency. The result was a blinking disaster. People would pay their debts in whatever currency cost them the least and hoard currency that was more solid. This was particularly hard on working people, because they lacked the leverage to insist that their wages be paid in something with actual buying power. That's why the "legal tender" law that Paul wants declared unconstitutional was invented in the first place.
Speaking of constitutional issues: I find myself really appalled by his opinions on jury nullification. Juries have always had a defacto power of nullification, because a jury acquittal can't be reversed and juries can't be punished for their decisions. But Paul wants to roll things back 900 years, to when juries could make any decision they wanted, could interpret the law any way they wanted, or even ignore the law altogether. Actually, things were never quite that bad, but under Paul's bogus originalism, they would be.
Oh yeah, and Social Security is just a "Ponzi scheme" and should be done away with. That puts him on the fringe all by itself.
Here's one position that makes me lose any respect for him: he's hyper-libertarian on almost every issue, but he still believes that the government should regulate private sexual behavior. Yeah, he pays lip service to his libertarian principles by talking about "bad sodomy laws", but when it gets to specifics, he thinks the supreme court was wrong to overturn them. Cause, you know, it's not about homophobia, it's about states' rights!
Well, nice to know that he too knows how to waffle!
The deficit, as bad as it is, is not even close to reaching Armageddon proportions. Viewed as a percentage of GDP, our debt isn't even that high. The deficit itself is less of a problem than the inability of anybody to confront the problem honestly. And yes, I include Paul Ryan, who refuses to look at our biggest black hole for fiscal waste, the military. Jeez, even if you're a hawk, doesn't it bother you that we spend more on defense than the rest of the planet combined?
But even if I'm wrong, and the U.S. is on the verge of economic collapse, consider this: if we go down, we're certainly taking everybody with us. We're still the center of the world economy, and everybody trades with us. If the U.S. market disappeared, there'd be a global crash that would make 1929 look like a hiccup
So if you're worried about the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy, I'd suggest going to a remote location and learning to survive as a subsistence farmer. And if you're not willing to go that drastic, you might as well not worry about it.
Does this mean that we all have to dress up?
You had parents who would lay out $100K just so you can do an attention-getting stunt?
Gold stored in a bank is the only money you can count on.
So, what, our entire economic system is a mistake? Because there's not enough gold to keep the world economy going.
BTW, it's simply not true that gold never loses value except through increased supplies. Look at the price of gold in the markets — it goes up and down all the time. Fluctuations with respect to fiat currency may not impress you, but these shifts represent real changes in gold's ability to be exchanged for stuff you really need.
Yeah, gold backed currency is more resistant to inflation than fiat currency. But when the economy expands and the money supply doesn't you end up with deflation. Where inflation erodes your savings, deflation erodes your ability to sell stuff, because everybody's waiting for it to get even cheaper. If I have to chose between the two, I'll choose inflation.
Yeah, Ron Paul is consistent. The problem is that he's consistently nuts. His fanboys may think he's got the answers, but it doesn't take a lot of history to see how dumb he is. Just for example: he wants to do away with fiat currency. That's one of those fringe ideas that sounds really cool, but whose main merit is that it's totally impossible to implement
You can accuse Obama and other mainstream politicians of hypocrisy and double talk all you want. I wouldn't even disagree with you, at least not completely. The fact remains that Paul's ideas exist in a kind of alternate reality that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. That's why he fails to garner any significant support, even as public confidence in mainstream politicians is at an all-time low.
Equal treatment? Who do you know that likes being stared at and barraged with sexual suggestions by strangers?
The point of the exercise is to demonstrate what it's like to be the object of unwanted sexual attention Maybe straight women would make the point, but it's guys, gay or straight, who know how to be testosterone-driven assholes
You forgot the foremost requirement of any feature phone: it has to be really, really cheap. With low margins, nobody's going to spend a lot of money coming up with new designs. The only way to profit is to pick a tried-and-true design and run with it.
And of course in Asia, your female employees can't sue you. Judging from your previously expressed complaints about "political correctness", that must have been an issue.
As a tech writer, I've collaborated with developers in China, Japan, South America, India, and Russia. And yes, they all were driven by a desire to create and innovate. But so have most of the hackers I've worked with in Silicon Valley. If you couldn't find anybody with that ethic in the U.S., I think you probably have issues that go beyond geography.
Nobody expects you to enjoy it. But it would be very helpful if you could stand around leering and whistling so the subject of our experiment could learn what it's like to treated like a piece of meat. The purpose of the exercise is not punishment, it's education.
The point of the exercise is not to punish anybody, it's to educate them as to what it's like to be treated like a piece of meat.
I know gay guys wouldn't enjoy seeing some geek parade around almost naked — who would? But I hope they'd be helpful enough to offer a few leers and catcalls for purely educational purposes.
"Easily run Android apps"? You clearly know jack about Android development.