People wanted "net neutrality." Well, this is what you get when you hand control of the Internet over to the government.
Net Neutrality and Kill Switches are in no way connected. That's like saying the logical result of a law barring employment discrimination against blacks would be a law allowing the government to kill white people. We've had the relevant Civil Rights Act for 46 years now, and still no sign of the anti-white genocide.
Or we could oppose all attempts by the government to regulate what can be said on the Internet. And I'm sorry, what we will get from a "Net Nuetrality" law will be like haggis made with rotten oats.
Ok. Net neutrality isn't a regulation of what can be said. It's a regulation of what service providers can deny. No problems.
I don't think quoting a Senator who is reviled by just about everyone, regardless of party affiliation, is indicative of the general consensus in this country.
No, but it is indicative of why we hate Lieberman.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
But no actual knowledge of the way government works. The reason that many people oppose government enforced Net Neutrality is because we know that the government won't limit itself to saying that "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination".
Here's some actual knowledge of the way government works: the government won't limit itself to that even if we don't support net neutrality. That is, whether or not we get net neutrality, the government will try to claim as much control over the net as it feels it needs, and probably succeed. Why not get net neutrality out of the deal?
It's a sausage factory, but throwing up our hands and going home isn't going to make it less so; that's just a form of surrender. We can at least work on making the factory make a better sausage, if only very slightly so. And net neutrality is like a tasty bratwurst, compared to the liquid-based flavorless hot dog that will result from not advocating net neutrality.
Well I'm familiar with the segment too, in fact I watched it at the time it aired. And I watched it again just now. I didn't see anger, it seemed like he was dismissive to me, as if to say "you know that's not the issue, so quit being stupid".
Actually, the issue was whether the 9/11 attacks were an act of war or a criminal act, and O'Reilly was dodging the issue by trying to force Napolitano to talk about whether it was a terrorist act, which is REALLY not the issue because "terrorist act" is not a separate legal category but can fall under either, depending on the circumstances. O'Reilly knew he couldn't win the argument unless he bullied the guy into changing the subject, and that's exactly what he did.
That the constitution does not matter was not even close to the thrust of his argument.
And yet you proceed to argue in the following sentence that the Constitution doesn't matter.
They're talking about a foriegn enemy combatant being given the same rights as a US Citizen. The constitution does not apply to him...
Slow down there, con law scholar. Article three, section two of the Constitution (the one Napolitano was referring to here) starts with "Trial of all Crimes..." and there's nothing about that which restricts it to citizens. The rights of a US citizen are things like running for public office, voting, and holding a US passport. The phrase "tried as a US citizen" has been thrown around a lot in the media but it's a misnomer, since there aren't two different types of trials, one for citizens and one for non-citizens, under US law. There are military trials and civilian trials, which was why Judge Napolitano was trying to discuss the difference between war and crime.
Do you honestly believe that trying him as a US Citizen will somehow cause the terrorists to pick up their guitars and start singing kumbiaya?
Do you honestly believe anyone in the world believes or claims this? This is the problem with letting meatheads like you, O'Reilly, and GWB run the country. You think of everything as though it were a UFC fight rather than a historical process with complex relationships between its parts. Anyone who isn't "kill, kill, kill" all the time must want us to just up and surrender, right? Those are clearly the only two alternatives. No, I don't think giving him a civilian trial (your phrase "trying him as a US citizen" is once again flat out wrong here) will make any terrorists stop being terrorists. I think it will guarantee that in the future if I am arrested for some capital offense I will get the fair hearing and chance to prove my innocence that I deserve, and well should it be so. If the rights guaranteed in the Constitution only apply when we as a society don't hate the accused, they are no rights at all, and we might as well have no Constitution at all.
Even if we were to leave Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow these guys would continue to attack us until we're all dead, or they are. Given those options I'm going to come down on the side of self preservation every time.
Good thing that has nothing to do with the argument. Giving people the fair trials defined in the Constitution is in no way contrary to self-preservation.
In that segment, the Judge responded by talking about what the Constitution says,
I am perfectly familiar with the segment. The thrust of O'Reilly's entire argument, not just that one line, was that the Constitution doesn't matter. Judge Napolitano was making the perfectly valid point that the Constitution guarantees people certain rights, and that the Constitution is a higher authority than his own say-so.
and O'Reilly said jocularly, approximately: "I don't care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is not HERE. I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue.
I assume this is where you meant to terminate your quote. But you left out the line "You're here. Don't be a pinhead." which immediately follows "The Constitution isn't here." He also did NOT say "I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue," or anything approximating that. If you're going around correcting people, you might do well to get your facts straight, not to mention your context. Lest any onlookers doubt me, it's all right here. I also think you would have to have an unprecedentedly broad definition of jocular for it to apply to O'Reilly in this context. Most of us don't define "jocularly" to include "angrily".
He was trying to force the judge to stop hiding behind the law.
Yeah, because following the law and insisting people have rights is totally "hiding behind" the law.
We license doctors. This means yes/no. It's a boolean value. All doctors within a specialty are considered equal to each other. They are interchangable.
In the universe I live in, patients try to find out about a doctor's reputation before seeing them, switch doctors if they don't like the job one is doing, et cetera. Those patients who can afford to, at least. I'm fairly certain there's nothing about increasing the doctor pool that would stop people with money from being able to shop around, paying more for a high-quality doc.
We don't assign ratings.
Presumably the market assigns a rating somehow. You seem to have a lot of faith in markets, at least when it comes to rating people's "productivity", so why not let the market do its thing instead of artificially restricting supply?
I can't imagine actually having some system where your healthcare plan specifies a maximum doctor rating for you to use. There would be outrage.
Neither can I. Fortunately, nobody is suggesting that, nor is anyone suggesting something which logically implies that. What is going on in this thread, is that you are defending artificially restricting the number of doctors by saying "unproductive" people don't deserve medical care. Apparently millions have to suffer so that your pet demographic can be guaranteed not to have to deal with the bottom 50% of otherwise qualified would-be doctors, ever.
That's largely a false dilemma. At this point, for millions of Americans, the choice is between the lower 50% and no doctor at all.
To be blunt and cold, it is not economically beneficial to provide luxury care to unproductive people.
We simply can't provide everybody with the very best, in healthcare or anything else.
Yes, because apparently giving someone access to a less-skilled doctor is "luxury care". Did you even bother to read the text you quoted? How about we provide the "unproductive" people with crappy third-rate care? Under the status quo, they're not even getting that.
Ron Paul writes that when he became a doctor (in the fifties), it was standard for doctors to give free healthcare to those who needed it, but couldn't afford it.
Was this before or after they stopped exchanging chickens?
Yeah, and the movie Birth of a Nation supports the case for the KKK, while the movie Terminator 2 supports the case against improving computer technology. Lets all base our political decisions on this.
After all, you can't actually insure health. Only genes
and behavior can do that.
I think you're confusing insure with ensure. The way you seem to define insure, fire insurance would be a payment you make to prevent fires from happening, and flood insurance would somehow prevent floods.
/.tivism? Slashtivism? This is the first time I've seen the editors directly come out on the side of a political issue in the form an article on the main page.
If this is the first time you've seen it on/., why would you name it after/.?
Also, I suggest you look up meme.
It seems the AMA decided that the lower 50% are unfit. OK. Well, would you want one of those doctors instead of one in the top 50%? The top 50% is dangerous enough.
That's largely a false dilemma. At this point, for millions of Americans, the choice is between the lower 50% and no doctor at all.
A lot of mobile phones, including my Samsung phone, use Pinyin as a way of entering Chinese characters.
Right, but that's an IME generating Han characters, and once you finish each character it isn't pinyin anymore. The pinyin never gets sent in your text message or stored in a database, it's just a temporary way of picking the character. Also, most pinyin IMEs don't accept tone number inputs anyway, they just pop up the menu based on the letters. Also, it's non-standard to type out full pinyin anyway, because IMEs tend to accept the first letter of each syllable. I usually type out "Wo hen xihuan zhongguo wenhua" where my Chinese friends would just type "whxhzgwh" and have a good chance that it picks mostly the right characters, and only have to pick one or two from the menus.
You're right about street signs though, I have seen pinyin there.
A database MUST treat all of these names the same: McClean, MacClean, MCLean, Mc Clean, Mac Clean. McCleen,...
I assume you left out a "not" in that sentence? I think there are quite a few people that will kindly (or maybe not-so-kindly) explain why "Mc" and "Mac" are not the same.
Yeah, one goes in front of 'Donald's' and the other goes in front of 'beth'.
Apparently some guy with the number 85, renamed himself 85.
No, he didn't, he renamed himself Chad Ochocinco, which any standard name field would handle just fine.
Legally, he changed his name to Ochocinco. In a larger sense, I think he changed it to 85. From his wikipedia page:
"Ochocinco announced on his live USTREAM broadcast that he will be legally changing his last name to “Hachi Go” next season. He also held up a Customized Cincinnati Bengals Jersey with the last name "Hachi Go" on the back. Just as the words Ocho Cinco translate to 8 and 5 in Spanish, the words Hachi Go ([characters suppressed, fuck you slashcode]) translate to 8 and 5 in Japanese."
I would say rotating through various languages' ways of pronouncing 8 5, making annual or biennial legal name changes to achieve this, might represent a personal commitment of sorts to one's name actually being a number.
Slashdot Mirror
You live below your mother's basement???
Sure. In his mother's sub-basement.
Gun Knowledge Fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug
And yet, despite all your replies to correct me, the original is still modded "Insightful". Suck it, knowledgeable people!
People wanted "net neutrality." Well, this is what you get when you hand control of the Internet over to the government.
Net Neutrality and Kill Switches are in no way connected. That's like saying the logical result of a law barring employment discrimination against blacks would be a law allowing the government to kill white people. We've had the relevant Civil Rights Act for 46 years now, and still no sign of the anti-white genocide.
Oh how cute, you think that the name of laws actually reflects what is in them.
Net neutrality isn't the name of a law. It's a general principle. Nice try.
Or we could oppose all attempts by the government to regulate what can be said on the Internet. And I'm sorry, what we will get from a "Net Nuetrality" law will be like haggis made with rotten oats.
Ok. Net neutrality isn't a regulation of what can be said. It's a regulation of what service providers can deny. No problems.
Maybe we need a switch to turn off the government?
Good idea, but don't call it a "kill switch" unless you want the Secret Service showing up at your door.
I don't think quoting a Senator who is reviled by just about everyone, regardless of party affiliation, is indicative of the general consensus in this country.
No, but it is indicative of why we hate Lieberman.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
But no actual knowledge of the way government works. The reason that many people oppose government enforced Net Neutrality is because we know that the government won't limit itself to saying that "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination".
Here's some actual knowledge of the way government works: the government won't limit itself to that even if we don't support net neutrality. That is, whether or not we get net neutrality, the government will try to claim as much control over the net as it feels it needs, and probably succeed. Why not get net neutrality out of the deal?
It's a sausage factory, but throwing up our hands and going home isn't going to make it less so; that's just a form of surrender. We can at least work on making the factory make a better sausage, if only very slightly so. And net neutrality is like a tasty bratwurst, compared to the liquid-based flavorless hot dog that will result from not advocating net neutrality.
Well I'm familiar with the segment too, in fact I watched it at the time it aired. And I watched it again just now. I didn't see anger, it seemed like he was dismissive to me, as if to say "you know that's not the issue, so quit being stupid".
Actually, the issue was whether the 9/11 attacks were an act of war or a criminal act, and O'Reilly was dodging the issue by trying to force Napolitano to talk about whether it was a terrorist act, which is REALLY not the issue because "terrorist act" is not a separate legal category but can fall under either, depending on the circumstances. O'Reilly knew he couldn't win the argument unless he bullied the guy into changing the subject, and that's exactly what he did.
That the constitution does not matter was not even close to the thrust of his argument.
And yet you proceed to argue in the following sentence that the Constitution doesn't matter.
They're talking about a foriegn enemy combatant being given the same rights as a US Citizen. The constitution does not apply to him...
Slow down there, con law scholar. Article three, section two of the Constitution (the one Napolitano was referring to here) starts with "Trial of all Crimes..." and there's nothing about that which restricts it to citizens. The rights of a US citizen are things like running for public office, voting, and holding a US passport. The phrase "tried as a US citizen" has been thrown around a lot in the media but it's a misnomer, since there aren't two different types of trials, one for citizens and one for non-citizens, under US law. There are military trials and civilian trials, which was why Judge Napolitano was trying to discuss the difference between war and crime.
Do you honestly believe that trying him as a US Citizen will somehow cause the terrorists to pick up their guitars and start singing kumbiaya?
Do you honestly believe anyone in the world believes or claims this? This is the problem with letting meatheads like you, O'Reilly, and GWB run the country. You think of everything as though it were a UFC fight rather than a historical process with complex relationships between its parts. Anyone who isn't "kill, kill, kill" all the time must want us to just up and surrender, right? Those are clearly the only two alternatives. No, I don't think giving him a civilian trial (your phrase "trying him as a US citizen" is once again flat out wrong here) will make any terrorists stop being terrorists. I think it will guarantee that in the future if I am arrested for some capital offense I will get the fair hearing and chance to prove my innocence that I deserve, and well should it be so. If the rights guaranteed in the Constitution only apply when we as a society don't hate the accused, they are no rights at all, and we might as well have no Constitution at all.
Even if we were to leave Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow these guys would continue to attack us until we're all dead, or they are. Given those options I'm going to come down on the side of self preservation every time.
Good thing that has nothing to do with the argument. Giving people the fair trials defined in the Constitution is in no way contrary to self-preservation.
You might want to rethink your sig.
No, thanks. I like it fine.
In that segment, the Judge responded by talking about what the Constitution says,
I am perfectly familiar with the segment. The thrust of O'Reilly's entire argument, not just that one line, was that the Constitution doesn't matter. Judge Napolitano was making the perfectly valid point that the Constitution guarantees people certain rights, and that the Constitution is a higher authority than his own say-so.
and O'Reilly said jocularly, approximately: "I don't care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is not HERE. I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue.
I assume this is where you meant to terminate your quote. But you left out the line "You're here. Don't be a pinhead." which immediately follows "The Constitution isn't here." He also did NOT say "I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue," or anything approximating that. If you're going around correcting people, you might do well to get your facts straight, not to mention your context. Lest any onlookers doubt me, it's all right here. I also think you would have to have an unprecedentedly broad definition of jocular for it to apply to O'Reilly in this context. Most of us don't define "jocularly" to include "angrily".
He was trying to force the judge to stop hiding behind the law.
Yeah, because following the law and insisting people have rights is totally "hiding behind" the law.
If you read the rest of the first sentence from your reference you would notice...
Oh yeah. Heh. Good thing there's no reading test to post on /.
We license doctors. This means yes/no. It's a boolean value. All doctors within a specialty are considered equal to each other. They are interchangable.
In the universe I live in, patients try to find out about a doctor's reputation before seeing them, switch doctors if they don't like the job one is doing, et cetera. Those patients who can afford to, at least. I'm fairly certain there's nothing about increasing the doctor pool that would stop people with money from being able to shop around, paying more for a high-quality doc.
We don't assign ratings.
Presumably the market assigns a rating somehow. You seem to have a lot of faith in markets, at least when it comes to rating people's "productivity", so why not let the market do its thing instead of artificially restricting supply?
I can't imagine actually having some system where your healthcare plan specifies a maximum doctor rating for you to use. There would be outrage.
Neither can I. Fortunately, nobody is suggesting that, nor is anyone suggesting something which logically implies that. What is going on in this thread, is that you are defending artificially restricting the number of doctors by saying "unproductive" people don't deserve medical care. Apparently millions have to suffer so that your pet demographic can be guaranteed not to have to deal with the bottom 50% of otherwise qualified would-be doctors, ever.
That's largely a false dilemma. At this point, for millions of Americans, the choice is between the lower 50% and no doctor at all.
To be blunt and cold, it is not economically beneficial to provide luxury care to unproductive people.
We simply can't provide everybody with the very best, in healthcare or anything else.
Yes, because apparently giving someone access to a less-skilled doctor is "luxury care". Did you even bother to read the text you quoted? How about we provide the "unproductive" people with crappy third-rate care? Under the status quo, they're not even getting that.
Ron Paul writes that when he became a doctor (in the fifties), it was standard for doctors to give free healthcare to those who needed it, but couldn't afford it.
Was this before or after they stopped exchanging chickens?
The Iraq/Afghanistan war has only cost a little over a trillion dollars over the last decade, and that amount presumably will drop in the future.
Which is why we'll have to go find a couple more wars to start. Don't you just love the military-industrial complex?
Yeah, and the movie Birth of a Nation supports the case for the KKK, while the movie Terminator 2 supports the case against improving computer technology. Lets all base our political decisions on this.
Here's how you fix it...There, fixed it for you. I'll throw in a bonus: I'll fix Social Security too....Fixed that for you too.
I'm sorry, but until you come up for a plan for how to get all your fixes through the congressional sausage-factory, you've fixed exactly nothing.
After all, you can't actually insure health. Only genes and behavior can do that.
I think you're confusing insure with ensure. The way you seem to define insure, fire insurance would be a payment you make to prevent fires from happening, and flood insurance would somehow prevent floods.
/.tivism? Slashtivism? This is the first time I've seen the editors directly come out on the side of a political issue in the form an article on the main page.
If this is the first time you've seen it on /., why would you name it after /.?
Also, I suggest you look up meme.
Cuba has a dog and pony show. Shit for the vast majority of the population, and high quality care for VIPs and foreigners.
Do you have any data or empirical evidence to back this up?
It seems the AMA decided that the lower 50% are unfit. OK. Well, would you want one of those doctors instead of one in the top 50%? The top 50% is dangerous enough.
That's largely a false dilemma. At this point, for millions of Americans, the choice is between the lower 50% and no doctor at all.
No. That isn't until 2012.
In other words, the year that every first post will be informative. It's a sign of the end times.
A lot of mobile phones, including my Samsung phone, use Pinyin as a way of entering Chinese characters.
Right, but that's an IME generating Han characters, and once you finish each character it isn't pinyin anymore. The pinyin never gets sent in your text message or stored in a database, it's just a temporary way of picking the character. Also, most pinyin IMEs don't accept tone number inputs anyway, they just pop up the menu based on the letters. Also, it's non-standard to type out full pinyin anyway, because IMEs tend to accept the first letter of each syllable. I usually type out "Wo hen xihuan zhongguo wenhua" where my Chinese friends would just type "whxhzgwh" and have a good chance that it picks mostly the right characters, and only have to pick one or two from the menus.
You're right about street signs though, I have seen pinyin there.
A database MUST treat all of these names the same: McClean, MacClean, MCLean, Mc Clean, Mac Clean. McCleen, ...
I assume you left out a "not" in that sentence? I think there are quite a few people that will kindly (or maybe not-so-kindly) explain why "Mc" and "Mac" are not the same.
Yeah, one goes in front of 'Donald's' and the other goes in front of 'beth'.
Apparently some guy with the number 85, renamed himself 85.
No, he didn't, he renamed himself Chad Ochocinco, which any standard name field would handle just fine.
Legally, he changed his name to Ochocinco. In a larger sense, I think he changed it to 85. From his wikipedia page: "Ochocinco announced on his live USTREAM broadcast that he will be legally changing his last name to “Hachi Go” next season. He also held up a Customized Cincinnati Bengals Jersey with the last name "Hachi Go" on the back. Just as the words Ocho Cinco translate to 8 and 5 in Spanish, the words Hachi Go ([characters suppressed, fuck you slashcode]) translate to 8 and 5 in Japanese."
I would say rotating through various languages' ways of pronouncing 8 5, making annual or biennial legal name changes to achieve this, might represent a personal commitment of sorts to one's name actually being a number.