Ah, but Freedom of Speech does not imply Lack of Responsibility, it never has.
What does that even mean? Freedom of speech means freedom from punishment should the government not like what you say, basically; if it didn't mean that, it'd be completely useless! After all, if freedom of speech meant what you said, every single country in the world could claim that they're bastions of free speech. Oh, you were tortured in North Korea for expressing disagreement with the government's actions? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility!
Were you serious when you made that comment? Did you even think any of that through? This is about the government, not random people taking offense to someone's speech.
There can be no expectation or privacy in a public place.
I have the expectation that the government isn't immoral enough (by my standards) that they'd install surveillance cameras everywhere in public places. When I'm talking to someone on a public street or making some sort of gesture, and I don't see anyone around or have any reason to think anyone is around, that is at least a bit of privacy; ubiquitous government surveillance ruins that. There are some forms of privacy even in public places.
And 1 is equal to 1. Who cares? The fact that you're in the public doesn't mean that ubiquitous government surveillance is a good thing or that it's intelligent to desire it.
I wonder how many of the people who argue against surveillance cameras would be so principled if they were ever to be the victims of violent crime. It's my bet that they'd be the first ones screaming for the footage.
Even if your bet that that is true about an entire group of people were correct, what exactly is your point? That everyone who isn't a victim of a crime can't have a valid opinion on the subject of surveillance cameras?
"I wonder how many of the people who argue against government surveillance cameras in people's bedrooms would be so principled if they were ever to be the victims of violent crime. It's my bet that they'd be the first ones screaming for the footage."
You might have just been wondering how many of them would be quick to change their tune, but the rest of your comment leads me to believe that that's unlikely.
There really is no use for it other than catching criminals.
Selective harassment is always nice, too. As long as you're not the one affected, who cares?
but I do know that they're not a totalitarian regime.
They do not have to be a totalitarian regime in order for abuse to happen.
As long as the cameras contribute to the crime clearance rates, I'm fine with it./Australian
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people.
I'd rather not have selective harassment, either. How about we just stop being so paranoid and keep cockpit doors secured?
how do I stop people stealing my stuff without DRM?
I'm not sure how DRM would stop people from stealing your physical property. I'm not even sure how DRM would stop people from downloading the games, applying a crack, and then playing the games.
Debates about whether it is stealing or not are also stupid.
Saying that debates about whether it is stealing or not are stupid is stupid. There, done.
The ability to get the government to enforce a monopoly over an idea for you and to try to control what other people do with their own real property and equipment is far different than normal kinds of property.
Which means that it's guarantee is only as strong as the unwillingness of people to apply insane troll logic to or outright ignore it.
We've all seen how well that worked out:
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." -Ignoramuses
The constitution is indeed just a piece of paper when people are so easily manipulated by the government (as was seen after 9/11 and many other events).
Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.
If you use the IQ as a measure of intelligence, then I'd have to say that a grand majority of people have IQs in the double-digit range, not just half.
Just because you don't want something, doesn't mean other people don't.
When did I say otherwise? I just meant that if they're going to give me DRM-ridden garbage, I'd rather not have what they offer to begin with. I don't want DRM-ridden games, either.
Life isn't about principles, it's about results.
Maybe that's true if you're a machine; principles and feelings will most likely get in the way, otherwise.
If the test covers Algebra, then teach Algebra and they'll do fine on the tests.
If your tests are so poorly designed that kids can memorize equations and be able to pass them, then I believe part of the problem lies with your tests.
This is pretty much how some of our rights got ignored after 9/11; most people seemed to become more paranoid, oversensitive, and foolish than usual, and out came the TSA and the Patriot Act. I don't think some kid should be punished or told she made a mistake because she set up an experiment; I think people should stop being oversensitive and idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
you're just a luddite if you don't.
Right, because anyone who dislikes any changes, no matter how they affect quality, is a luddite.
Ah, but Freedom of Speech does not imply Lack of Responsibility, it never has.
What does that even mean? Freedom of speech means freedom from punishment should the government not like what you say, basically; if it didn't mean that, it'd be completely useless! After all, if freedom of speech meant what you said, every single country in the world could claim that they're bastions of free speech. Oh, you were tortured in North Korea for expressing disagreement with the government's actions? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility!
Were you serious when you made that comment? Did you even think any of that through? This is about the government, not random people taking offense to someone's speech.
suggesting that law abiding citizens rights are in jeopardy when anyone attempts to put reasonable restrictions on lethal weapons.
Unless the government amends the constitution, citizens' rights are likely in jeopardy, 'reasonable' or not.
Terroristic threatening is a common statutory criminal offense.
Just like getting molested at the airport is common now. Something being common doesn't necessarily mean it's good or just.
In other words you don't actually believe in free speech.
I believe in freedom of speech; I just don't think that the first amendment protects speech that I disagree with!
There can be no expectation or privacy in a public place.
I have the expectation that the government isn't immoral enough (by my standards) that they'd install surveillance cameras everywhere in public places. When I'm talking to someone on a public street or making some sort of gesture, and I don't see anyone around or have any reason to think anyone is around, that is at least a bit of privacy; ubiquitous government surveillance ruins that. There are some forms of privacy even in public places.
Wrong, public is public
And 1 is equal to 1. Who cares? The fact that you're in the public doesn't mean that ubiquitous government surveillance is a good thing or that it's intelligent to desire it.
I wonder how many of the people who argue against surveillance cameras would be so principled if they were ever to be the victims of violent crime. It's my bet that they'd be the first ones screaming for the footage.
Even if your bet that that is true about an entire group of people were correct, what exactly is your point? That everyone who isn't a victim of a crime can't have a valid opinion on the subject of surveillance cameras?
"I wonder how many of the people who argue against government surveillance cameras in people's bedrooms would be so principled if they were ever to be the victims of violent crime. It's my bet that they'd be the first ones screaming for the footage."
You might have just been wondering how many of them would be quick to change their tune, but the rest of your comment leads me to believe that that's unlikely.
There really is no use for it other than catching criminals.
Selective harassment is always nice, too. As long as you're not the one affected, who cares?
but I do know that they're not a totalitarian regime.
They do not have to be a totalitarian regime in order for abuse to happen.
As long as the cameras contribute to the crime clearance rates, I'm fine with it. /Australian
Is safety your only concern?
But the second amendment isn't the entirety of the constitution, and some people seem to have forgotten that.
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people.
I'd rather not have selective harassment, either. How about we just stop being so paranoid and keep cockpit doors secured?
They give you a solid grounding in a subject and give you the skills to teach yourself about the subject.
No they don't; they're paper. As for giving you the skills to teach yourself about a subject? You could have done that from the very beginning.
Certifications are simply a way to prove to a prospective employer that you know the subject.
But they don't do that. Certifications test for rote memorization and not much else.
how do I stop people stealing my stuff without DRM?
I'm not sure how DRM would stop people from stealing your physical property. I'm not even sure how DRM would stop people from downloading the games, applying a crack, and then playing the games.
Debates about whether it is stealing or not are also stupid.
Saying that debates about whether it is stealing or not are stupid is stupid. There, done.
Not everyone can agree with that, but I certainly do.
As an author, any work I create is MY PROPERTY.
The ability to get the government to enforce a monopoly over an idea for you and to try to control what other people do with their own real property and equipment is far different than normal kinds of property.
Even if DRM did stop copyright infringers, it would still likely harm actual customers.
Maybe, but I do know that it's too creepy for me.
Surveillance can be justified by safety concerns
What? What sort of surveillance? Warrantless?
Look, it's going to be hard enough for my kids to get into college.
I'm not sure you'd want your kids in any college that accepts such trash, anyway.
Which means that it's guarantee is only as strong as the unwillingness of people to apply insane troll logic to or outright ignore it.
We've all seen how well that worked out:
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." -Ignoramuses
The constitution is indeed just a piece of paper when people are so easily manipulated by the government (as was seen after 9/11 and many other events).
Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.
If you use the IQ as a measure of intelligence, then I'd have to say that a grand majority of people have IQs in the double-digit range, not just half.
Just because you don't want something, doesn't mean other people don't.
When did I say otherwise? I just meant that if they're going to give me DRM-ridden garbage, I'd rather not have what they offer to begin with. I don't want DRM-ridden games, either.
Life isn't about principles, it's about results.
Maybe that's true if you're a machine; principles and feelings will most likely get in the way, otherwise.
DRM is required to get them fully on board.
Even assuming that were true, I'd rather have no content.
If the test covers Algebra, then teach Algebra and they'll do fine on the tests.
If your tests are so poorly designed that kids can memorize equations and be able to pass them, then I believe part of the problem lies with your tests.
NCLB has ruined education
NCLB only made an existing problem worse.
This is pretty much how some of our rights got ignored after 9/11; most people seemed to become more paranoid, oversensitive, and foolish than usual, and out came the TSA and the Patriot Act. I don't think some kid should be punished or told she made a mistake because she set up an experiment; I think people should stop being oversensitive and idiotic.