Rob a country, and the cities fall into ruins, leaving the people with no hope, no education, and driving them to desperate acts such as robbing banks. The cycle is complete.
All of this has happened before, and and all of this will happen again...
> Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
True, but that doesn't mean it's morally wrong. The fine may be unjustly imposed, for example, like the police who steered the protest onto the Brookyln Bridge and then arrested the protesters for protesting on the Brooklyn Bridge.
> That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions.
Not really. Fourth Amendment law has been contracting since the civil rights era, and while people on the court are highly intelligent and want to decide in favor of their points of view (which they believe are right), they go to great lengths to avoid overturning former SCOTUS opinions. Neither liberals or conservatives are more hesitant about doing that.
However, the reasonable expectation of privacy standards stem from an era when most people shared a single telephone line with their neighbors, so the court is concerned with how tech changes privacy--not just the liberal minority. But at least part of the liberal minority has expressed a willingness to revisit some of the extant fourth amendment law, some of which--to be fair--is kind of silly and should be revisited, and some of which merely needs to be changed to reflect a newer world. That doesn't mean the conservative minority doesn't feel the same way, they just haven't expressed it.
But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law, and the court itself is concerned enough with the implications of modern technology that it has actually ruled against GPS-tracking drug dealers for long periods of time.
> Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life and I'm underweight.
That's great for you weight-wise, but it fails to address two issues.
One is the fact that any law reduces freedom to some extent--including, obviously, laws prohibiting harmful substances. The fact that this ban does not help you with a weight problem does not mean that it is not a net gain for society. Like banning cigarettes or smoking is annoying for people who don't get lung cancer.
The other is that soda pretty much *dissolves your bones*. Google it. It's acidic as hell. Even though it tastes so good. Even if you're not overweight, it's still pretty bad for you.
I don't think a ban on selling it is the right answer--it makes too many lawbreakers and criminals and grey market--but changing the conditions of sale may help. By doing things that make it more expensive, like this law.
That being said, I hear Bloomberg is an asshole. But that doesn't make this idea entirely wrong.
IIRC, The United States deliberately did not attempt to assert the right to the Moon on the basis of the Moon landing. The phrase "we came in peace for all mankind" points that out symbolically.
Probably their X-Box people are the ones who developed it, so that was where its use originated. Also, starting w/ X-box starts it as something that is a great new toy which has lots of really useful industrial applications--it's much better marketing than making it a piece of medical or industrial equipment first.
It's not brilliant to make insanely stupid arguments. Among other things, a judge will eventually lose patience with those arguments, and they will cost the client and the reputation of the attorney. It's brilliant to make insanely creative arguments that sound rational and only slightly creative when you only have really bad arguments to make that you know will lose. There's a difference.
Neither one is exactly happening here. The arguments were probably just very stupid, not insanely stupid.
It is worth noting that this new precedent is only for the 9th circuit--contrary to the summary's implication, the Supreme Court refusing the hear it just means that they didn't overturn the 9th Circuit, not that they upheld the 9th circuit. There's a world of difference, because if they had upheld it, it would be law throughout the United States.
In the public grade schools in Hawaii, the class will share about four textbooks on any given subject, and the state mandates and actually teaches toward state tests with state lesson plans and quizzes that are frequently wrong. They mark the kids as wrong when they get things right, and then tell them "you were right but I have to mark it lower because the state's answer is X."
And I don't mean normal smarter-than-the-test wrong, I mean things like singular v. plural.
Parenting is deficient in a lot of places, even abusive, but it's far from only parenting that is fucking up U.S. education.
It is well-established that commercial speech is protected under the first amendment. There are limits to that protection--it is not as protected as core political speech by individuals--but it is protected.
Ironic argument to make for Nukes. It doesn't have to do with arguments the USA doesn't like, it has to do with intellectual honesty. Nukes can kill anything except cockroaches. And if you are really sneaky (institutionally) and have sufficient resources, you can do almost anything, including defeating stronger forces with more resources.
It would take the concerted effort of the majority of the world to "destroy" the USA militarily, leaving aside nukes or really good sneakiness. They have the strongest military in the world and very good logistics, and have adequate food, water, and oil supplies to sustain any war. Although industrial capacity has diminished in recent decades, a combination the military industrial complex and the U.S. auto industry means that it is still capable of the industry necessary for war. In terms of underwear bombs, the United States is so huge that while a proliferation of bombs would of course radically change life in the country, they would not destroy it.
Destruction is more likely to be wrought from poor incentive structures in U.S. government, which makes effective and necessary change very difficult.
And there's the rub. Someone intelligent and capable is more likely to make a CEO than someone with a degree. (There are other character traits one needs, of course, and a good team is as important). But the evidence strongly suggests that this person lied about his degree to the shareholders, which is not okay. He will take a while to live this down. But that's okay, because he's filthy, filthy rich.
If you surround yourself with people who are honest, understand Greek, and can speak in English, you can run a Greek company. Presidents don't know everything the government does, Deans don't know everything a university does, CEOs don't know everything a large company does. If you don't understand something about one proposed direction for the company, and you're smart, you learn as much as you can even though it's a different field, but more importantly you surround yourself with good people who DO understand it.
Lying to the shareholders should get him fired. But just not having a CS degree should not.
IIRC, there was a policy limit per event, so there was a big fight over whether it was one event or two. It ought to have been treated as one-and-a-half, they should have decided that the first day, and Gov. should have covered the rest.
We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."
Yes, because that sort of thing tends to work so well against those who want to be martyrs in the first place...
It's not the martyrs, it's that that would be what the leaders wanted. You can't nuke Mecca with a U.S. ICBM and then blame terrorists who made us do it. You'd wind up in World War III.
That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).
But leave out the things that cast the U.S. to unfavorably, unless it is politically correct to do so (as with slavery). For example, the British burned the White House, but you'll rarely see a word in U.S. history books about the U.S. burning the houses of parliament in Canada first.
I don't think I ever met anyone who believed that Iraq was in retaliation for 9/11. Iraq was about the threat of Iraq having WMDs, at least at the time. There may have been some shoddy dialogue among idiots, but most people in the US--and certainly most educated people in the US--see the link between 9/11 and Iraq only in the more tenuous "9/11 put the country on a war footing" light.
Slashdot Mirror
Rob a country, and the cities fall into ruins, leaving the people with no hope, no education, and driving them to desperate acts such as robbing banks. The cycle is complete.
All of this has happened before, and and all of this will happen again...
There's actually a whole lot of this. A lot of police vehicles have cameras in them, and some states require video of all arrests.
> Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
True, but that doesn't mean it's morally wrong. The fine may be unjustly imposed, for example, like the police who steered the protest onto the Brookyln Bridge and then arrested the protesters for protesting on the Brooklyn Bridge.
> That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions.
Not really. Fourth Amendment law has been contracting since the civil rights era, and while people on the court are highly intelligent and want to decide in favor of their points of view (which they believe are right), they go to great lengths to avoid overturning former SCOTUS opinions. Neither liberals or conservatives are more hesitant about doing that.
However, the reasonable expectation of privacy standards stem from an era when most people shared a single telephone line with their neighbors, so the court is concerned with how tech changes privacy--not just the liberal minority. But at least part of the liberal minority has expressed a willingness to revisit some of the extant fourth amendment law, some of which--to be fair--is kind of silly and should be revisited, and some of which merely needs to be changed to reflect a newer world. That doesn't mean the conservative minority doesn't feel the same way, they just haven't expressed it.
But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law, and the court itself is concerned enough with the implications of modern technology that it has actually ruled against GPS-tracking drug dealers for long periods of time.
> Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life and I'm underweight.
That's great for you weight-wise, but it fails to address two issues.
One is the fact that any law reduces freedom to some extent--including, obviously, laws prohibiting harmful substances. The fact that this ban does not help you with a weight problem does not mean that it is not a net gain for society. Like banning cigarettes or smoking is annoying for people who don't get lung cancer.
The other is that soda pretty much *dissolves your bones*. Google it. It's acidic as hell. Even though it tastes so good. Even if you're not overweight, it's still pretty bad for you.
I don't think a ban on selling it is the right answer--it makes too many lawbreakers and criminals and grey market--but changing the conditions of sale may help. By doing things that make it more expensive, like this law.
That being said, I hear Bloomberg is an asshole. But that doesn't make this idea entirely wrong.
IIRC, The United States deliberately did not attempt to assert the right to the Moon on the basis of the Moon landing. The phrase "we came in peace for all mankind" points that out symbolically.
> Nuking from orbit, isn't that a bit extreme?
It's the only way to be sure.
Probably their X-Box people are the ones who developed it, so that was where its use originated. Also, starting w/ X-box starts it as something that is a great new toy which has lots of really useful industrial applications--it's much better marketing than making it a piece of medical or industrial equipment first.
It's not brilliant to make insanely stupid arguments. Among other things, a judge will eventually lose patience with those arguments, and they will cost the client and the reputation of the attorney. It's brilliant to make insanely creative arguments that sound rational and only slightly creative when you only have really bad arguments to make that you know will lose. There's a difference.
Neither one is exactly happening here. The arguments were probably just very stupid, not insanely stupid.
It is worth noting that this new precedent is only for the 9th circuit--contrary to the summary's implication, the Supreme Court refusing the hear it just means that they didn't overturn the 9th Circuit, not that they upheld the 9th circuit. There's a world of difference, because if they had upheld it, it would be law throughout the United States.
In the public grade schools in Hawaii, the class will share about four textbooks on any given subject, and the state mandates and actually teaches toward state tests with state lesson plans and quizzes that are frequently wrong. They mark the kids as wrong when they get things right, and then tell them "you were right but I have to mark it lower because the state's answer is X."
And I don't mean normal smarter-than-the-test wrong, I mean things like singular v. plural.
Parenting is deficient in a lot of places, even abusive, but it's far from only parenting that is fucking up U.S. education.
It is well-established that commercial speech is protected under the first amendment. There are limits to that protection--it is not as protected as core political speech by individuals--but it is protected.
Look up the Virginia Pharmacy Board case.
If you don't have some level of rudimentary education for everyone, that costs you and your kids more in the long run.
So where does it come from?
Ironic argument to make for Nukes. It doesn't have to do with arguments the USA doesn't like, it has to do with intellectual honesty. Nukes can kill anything except cockroaches. And if you are really sneaky (institutionally) and have sufficient resources, you can do almost anything, including defeating stronger forces with more resources.
It would take the concerted effort of the majority of the world to "destroy" the USA militarily, leaving aside nukes or really good sneakiness. They have the strongest military in the world and very good logistics, and have adequate food, water, and oil supplies to sustain any war. Although industrial capacity has diminished in recent decades, a combination the military industrial complex and the U.S. auto industry means that it is still capable of the industry necessary for war. In terms of underwear bombs, the United States is so huge that while a proliferation of bombs would of course radically change life in the country, they would not destroy it.
Destruction is more likely to be wrought from poor incentive structures in U.S. government, which makes effective and necessary change very difficult.
And there's the rub. Someone intelligent and capable is more likely to make a CEO than someone with a degree. (There are other character traits one needs, of course, and a good team is as important). But the evidence strongly suggests that this person lied about his degree to the shareholders, which is not okay. He will take a while to live this down. But that's okay, because he's filthy, filthy rich.
If you surround yourself with people who are honest, understand Greek, and can speak in English, you can run a Greek company. Presidents don't know everything the government does, Deans don't know everything a university does, CEOs don't know everything a large company does. If you don't understand something about one proposed direction for the company, and you're smart, you learn as much as you can even though it's a different field, but more importantly you surround yourself with good people who DO understand it.
Lying to the shareholders should get him fired. But just not having a CS degree should not.
Plus the use of more and more foreign armies, which meant you no longer had the majority of the Roman Army loyal to Rome.
IIRC, there was a policy limit per event, so there was a big fight over whether it was one event or two. It ought to have been treated as one-and-a-half, they should have decided that the first day, and Gov. should have covered the rest.
We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."
Yes, because that sort of thing tends to work so well against those who want to be martyrs in the first place...
It's not the martyrs, it's that that would be what the leaders wanted. You can't nuke Mecca with a U.S. ICBM and then blame terrorists who made us do it. You'd wind up in World War III.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
--George Santayana
That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).
But leave out the things that cast the U.S. to unfavorably, unless it is politically correct to do so (as with slavery). For example, the British burned the White House, but you'll rarely see a word in U.S. history books about the U.S. burning the houses of parliament in Canada first.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
so that would be a good thing for you?
Well, if it's informative, then he gets Karma.
I don't think I ever met anyone who believed that Iraq was in retaliation for 9/11. Iraq was about the threat of Iraq having WMDs, at least at the time. There may have been some shoddy dialogue among idiots, but most people in the US--and certainly most educated people in the US--see the link between 9/11 and Iraq only in the more tenuous "9/11 put the country on a war footing" light.