True. The phrase "right to privacy" does not occur in the Constitution (which includes the amendments.) Neither does "freedom of the press". Furthermore, there is NO phrasing to suggest freedom of broadcasting, or freedom of film, or of videotape, or DVD. ANY of these could be censored by the government without falling afoul of a literal reading of the Constitution.
Come on, do you honestly believe that the Constitution is intended to permit the Government to take part in or interfere with the private lives of citizens? NO! The Supreme Court rightly interpreted a "right to privacy" into the Constitution, along with freedom of the press, radio antenna, CD-burner, etc.
Arguing against a right to privacy is right up there with arguing against freedom of the press. The fundamental rights EVERYONE wants protected are to think what you want, express what you want, and be left alone by the government.
You see what most German cities looked like in May of 1945? "On the map" was pretty much the only place they were. Maybe they rebuilt in the last 50 years, ya think? Granted, radiation is bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad. "Bombed off the map" is worse. If your vocabulary for destruction ends with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" then may I suggest you invest some mental capital in a study of the current arsenal?
Last time I checked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both still on the map. I believe what the previous poster was referring to was a blast so deadly it renders the area uninhabitable.
Yeah, I thought that, too. Then I noticed the name of the section: Linux. Then I looked at the other stories linked on the page: Linux, Linux, Linux. Then I looked at the article above and below that paragraph: Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux. As another poster indicated, the writer had just gotten an earful from Stallman about "GNU/Linux." Nowhere else on the page, except in the context of Stallman, does "GNU/Linux" appear.
Conclusion: The writer believes that Stallman has created Yet Another Linux Distro called GNU/Linux. I gotta give him props, though, for putting the focus of that paragraph, at least, squarely where Stallman wants it: freedom.
I don't think he's saying that rights don't exist. He's saying that they come from the end of a gun. Or from the mouth of a man who can command a man with a gun (the latter being the civilized version). Note the comment he responded to - "Pointing to a bright light in the sky and saying 'mine' doesn't make it so." That post suggests that saying "It's mine" means nothing. He was implying that it means something if you can defend your claim, and if you can't defend your claim, anything you do to stake your claim means nothing.
The researcher, frightened, moved to hit the power switch. A bolt of lightning pierced the ceiling, killing the researcher and fusing the relay shut...
What exactly is the difference? 1. Humans have free speech 2. Corporations are legally human 3. ??? 4. PROFIT! (Seriously. If you can declare a personal income of several billion a year, YOU TOO can engage in free speech.)
people's first reaction is to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS
First, isn't the SCIENTISTS' first reaction supposed to be to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS? Or have I been misled all these years by lectures on skepticism and empiricism and the "scientific method"?
Second, entirely apart from doubting the scientists, I do doubt reports from journalists who ask stupid questions until scientists dumb down their answers enough to be understood by someone who needed 16 years to learn how to write.
Just like Star Wars (NOT originally marketed as franchise episode "A New Hope") was specifically made to be a standalone movie. ESB clearly needed a sequel, and neither ESB nor ROTJ make much sense if you haven't seen what came before.
True, that. Of course, by your reasoning, we all may as well well jump off a tall building, since, after all, we could die just as easily from a concussion after stumbling over a pebble.
(That is sarcasm. I am trying to point out that you have demonstrated utter cluelessness in comparing risks. Some activities are high-risk. Some are low-risk. None are no-risk. Society's goal should be to MINIMIZE risk. We cannot eliminate it, and we should not recoil from lowering risk simply because we cannot eliminate it. Perfect is the enemy of good enough; good enough is the enemy of better. Find a happy medium.)
Yup. A single drop of pure nicotine will kill you in seconds. It is a deadly nerve agent, but is organic and would break down quickly into (relatively) harmless components in the environment. It could be cheaply and easily refined from tobacco plants. I suspect the reason why the military has not followed through on this is because the cigarette industry would cut off their supply of smokes...
Are you quoting something in your sig? If so, you ought to say so. It looks to me like you are badly misremembering a Descartes joke whose punchline is "'I think not,' he replied, and promptly vanished."
Slashdot Mirror
...there is no "right to privacy".
True. The phrase "right to privacy" does not occur in the Constitution (which includes the amendments.) Neither does "freedom of the press". Furthermore, there is NO phrasing to suggest freedom of broadcasting, or freedom of film, or of videotape, or DVD. ANY of these could be censored by the government without falling afoul of a literal reading of the Constitution.
Come on, do you honestly believe that the Constitution is intended to permit the Government to take part in or interfere with the private lives of citizens? NO! The Supreme Court rightly interpreted a "right to privacy" into the Constitution, along with freedom of the press, radio antenna, CD-burner, etc.
Arguing against a right to privacy is right up there with arguing against freedom of the press. The fundamental rights EVERYONE wants protected are to think what you want, express what you want, and be left alone by the government.
?????
Kazaa functions as intended. This saves their users money.
Microsoft software does not. This costs their users money.
See the difference?
To put it another way...
Funny. Ford is to blame for gasoline explosions, but screwdrivers, et. al. aren't the problem when it comes to hotwiring.
Cheap and nasty Xeons! We hates them! We hates them forever!
They don't have to win to cost HP money. All they have to do is file suit against an HP customer. HP pays for the defense.
Nice troll! No, I mean that sincerely. It's so rare to see the art practiced anymore.
You see what most German cities looked like in May of 1945? "On the map" was pretty much the only place they were. Maybe they rebuilt in the last 50 years, ya think? Granted, radiation is bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad. "Bombed off the map" is worse. If your vocabulary for destruction ends with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" then may I suggest you invest some mental capital in a study of the current arsenal?
Last time I checked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both still on the map. I believe what the previous poster was referring to was a blast so deadly it renders the area uninhabitable.
Yeah, I thought that, too. Then I noticed the name of the section: Linux. Then I looked at the other stories linked on the page: Linux, Linux, Linux. Then I looked at the article above and below that paragraph: Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux. As another poster indicated, the writer had just gotten an earful from Stallman about "GNU/Linux." Nowhere else on the page, except in the context of Stallman, does "GNU/Linux" appear.
Conclusion: The writer believes that Stallman has created Yet Another Linux Distro called GNU/Linux. I gotta give him props, though, for putting the focus of that paragraph, at least, squarely where Stallman wants it: freedom.
No, but it will make it more likely that he will lose the next election.
Last time I checked, government can do anything they want. Good? Bad? They're the guys with the guns!
I don't think he's saying that rights don't exist. He's saying that they come from the end of a gun. Or from the mouth of a man who can command a man with a gun (the latter being the civilized version). Note the comment he responded to - "Pointing to a bright light in the sky and saying 'mine' doesn't make it so." That post suggests that saying "It's mine" means nothing. He was implying that it means something if you can defend your claim, and if you can't defend your claim, anything you do to stake your claim means nothing.
It's Clarke's Third Law. Look here. The page includes the book it was published in. Google for "clarke's law" for more.
I prefer the the contrapositive form of his third law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
The researcher, frightened, moved to hit the power switch. A bolt of lightning pierced the ceiling, killing the researcher and fusing the relay shut...
...allows for COBOL code to be integrated and manged...
.NET for ALL your COBOL needs! Want your COBOL code to be hairless, oozy, and irritated? Then .NET is for YOU!
That's right, folks!
What exactly is the difference?
1. Humans have free speech
2. Corporations are legally human
3. ???
4. PROFIT! (Seriously. If you can declare a personal income of several billion a year, YOU TOO can engage in free speech.)
people's first reaction is to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS
First, isn't the SCIENTISTS' first reaction supposed to be to DOUBT THE SCIENTISTS? Or have I been misled all these years by lectures on skepticism and empiricism and the "scientific method"?
Second, entirely apart from doubting the scientists, I do doubt reports from journalists who ask stupid questions until scientists dumb down their answers enough to be understood by someone who needed 16 years to learn how to write.
Just like Star Wars (NOT originally marketed as franchise episode "A New Hope") was specifically made to be a standalone movie. ESB clearly needed a sequel, and neither ESB nor ROTJ make much sense if you haven't seen what came before.
True, that. Of course, by your reasoning, we all may as well well jump off a tall building, since, after all, we could die just as easily from a concussion after stumbling over a pebble.
(That is sarcasm. I am trying to point out that you have demonstrated utter cluelessness in comparing risks. Some activities are high-risk. Some are low-risk. None are no-risk. Society's goal should be to MINIMIZE risk. We cannot eliminate it, and we should not recoil from lowering risk simply because we cannot eliminate it. Perfect is the enemy of good enough; good enough is the enemy of better. Find a happy medium.)
Yup. A single drop of pure nicotine will kill you in seconds. It is a deadly nerve agent, but is organic and would break down quickly into (relatively) harmless components in the environment. It could be cheaply and easily refined from tobacco plants. I suspect the reason why the military has not followed through on this is because the cigarette industry would cut off their supply of smokes...
install Bill Gates as our new overlord.
I for one...oh, forget it.
The WHOLE POINT of "Enterprise" is that they're flying the first starship capable of Warp 5.
My only experience with poverty is those Christian Children's Fund commercials on TV.
Either I'm exceedingly lucky, or those types of poor environs aren't as widespread as the guy in the commercial would have you believe.
Or maybe I'm so inept that I think that my personal experiences can be generalized to a world of tens - nay, hundreds of millions of people.
What is a standard english voice[s] without accents?
Peter Jennings
Dan Rather
Tom Brokaw
It's pretty obvious from the post's non-capitalization of "english" that what's meant is American English.
BTW - YHBT.YHL.HAND.
Are you quoting something in your sig? If so, you ought to say so. It looks to me like you are badly misremembering a Descartes joke whose punchline is "'I think not,' he replied, and promptly vanished."
Funny: +1
Troll: -1 (good one!)
Insightful: +1
Redundant: -1 (you only had to ask once...)
Making me choke on my apple cider when I tried to laugh while swallowing: priceless