The problem is that some people still object to some of Amazon's other policies (they still use DRM for some things) and don't want to give Amazon money, so I'd say there is a reason for some people to not buy MP3s from Amazon.
Yeah, why should we trust judges when they explain the law?
Why should we trust judges to be automatically correct when they interpret a document that was written in plain English in a way that gives the government (which they are part of) more power? The Supreme Court overruled itself in the past. Would you believe everything they say? Do you not have a mind of your own?
Fact is, I read the constitution and I don't see where such ridiculous interpretations make any sense whatsoever.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest.
Authority worship at its finest. In fact, I'd say it's more like anti-intellectualism when you believe everything an authority figure has to say.
As far as I can tell, not a single practicing or academic legal authority has ever endorsed this construction.
Why would that be? Because they are complicit in the crimes against the American people. The correct interpretations of the fourth amendment are ignored because they do not provide as much power to the government. To me, these are blatant violations of the fourth amendment, but I wouldn't expect bootlickers like cold fjord to understand that.
But you don't get to pick your facts and you definitely don't get to reinterpret the law just because you don't like it (hellooo segregationists).
Much like courts' interpretations aren't magically automatically correct. Of course, if you need an authority figure to tell you how to think in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you've already lost.
So, there is no actual freedom being lost then when boarding an airplane since you are still free to travel.
Just like freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon if you force people into a free speech zone; they're still allowed to speak, after all! Let's apply this logic to an entire city: If you live in a certain city, you sign away your fourth amendment rights and give the government permission to search you whenever they please. Don't like it? Move. You still have that freedom, so it's okay!
The searches for boarding an airplane go back about 40-50 years.
That's utterly irrelevant, and the TSA wasn't molesting people 40-50 years ago.
They are completely legal and don't infringe on your 4th amendment rights.
If you need a court to tell you how to think, then you're nothing more than a mindless drone. It's sad how people in a country that was founded on a distrust of government put so much trust in the government and even allow it to control how they think.
One of the central jobs of a state is to protect it people by any means necessary and then some that aren't.
No, it's not. The constitution is the highest law of the land, and any powers not given to the government are not powers the government has. The government can't violate people's rights to give them 'safety'.
If you can't trust your state to spy for your best interests perhapes it is time to move to another state.
Selfish nonsense. I believe they should only spy against explicit enemies. Perhaps you only care about things that benefit you, but I don't want government thugs spying on random people and people in my country.
Being a U.Sian I have not problem what so ever with the NSA.
Intelligence has saved lives. Lives that you will never know about due to the classification.
And yet you're gullible enough to believe these thugs even when they don't provide any evidence of such a thing. How naive. Even if they did save lives, though, it's irrelevant for reasons I've already stated.
It's like when people argue about whether people are killed by murderers, or by their weapons.
I'm saying that the attitude of the people is what matters.
No; altering constitutions requires large majorities, which they can't obtain without spreading propaganda first. We're safe.
People who are planning to commit genocide don't tend to care about constitutions, and since propaganda works so well, brainwashing large majorities would be no problem to begin with. I'm just mocking you at this point, as we'll never agree; I see freedom of speech as an absolutely fundamental right.
Nope, just require people to have been part of the Army/Reserve/National Guard before they're eligible for gun permits.
I don't see how that would be constitutional. It's like saying that free speech zones don't actually infringe upon the right to free speech, which I think is an utterly ridiculous notion. We've seen this sort of logic with the TSA, free speech zones, protest permits, and all sorts of other things, but I don't buy any of it.
The same could be said of just about anything. I'd hate to live in a country where everything that could kill someone was banned merely because those things technically aren't needed.
No, I'm telling you that if you expect me or any rational individual to consider this garbage to be anything other than a waste of money (putting the more important privacy issue aside for a moment), you'd better cough up some proof. Can't do that? Too hard? Too bad for you, fool.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is a very rational reason to oppose a policy that eats up my tax dollars. Here, buy some magical rocks.
I don't know if you think you're being clever by stating the obvious and pretending as if I'm saying something else, but I don't think it's very clever.
You're basically saying increased security doesn't work, and that's nonsense.
No, I'm basically asking for evidence that a specific kind of security is worthwhile. Surely you don't lump all security together in a single category and pretend everything is effective? I doubt it.
Apparently it is to you.
You're attacking straw men.
The question is how well it works/doesn't work and whether the results are worth the costs.
That's exactly what I'm asking.
Of course, you would say all security fails all the time for everything everywhere.
It looks to me like you misinterpreted what I meant. I see no reason why the 2nd amendment would forbid such a thing. If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
What if having government surveillance equipment in everyone's homes saved some people from domestic abuse or other crimes? To some victims and the families of said victims, it might be worth it.
The problem with such stupid questions is that they don't take into account the fact that everything seems big when you're negatively impacted by something, and you're going to be emotional about it. Even assuming I would suddenly change my opinion in such a scenario, what does that mean? Nothing at all.
Typical simple-minded American. People that decide not to do something don't call in and tell the police why they decided not to do something.
Typical gullible idiot. I go with an evidence-based approach. Show me the evidence. I looked through your post and saw none. Until I see good evidence, I have no reason to believe it is effective, and no amount of excuses such as "But it's hard to get evidence!" will change that. Would you like to buy this magical anti-tiger rock I have? There aren't any tigers around here, so you can be sure it works!
Rule #1 should be....keep armed law enforcement in schools at all times.
I'd honestly rather not make schools more like prisons than they already are.
School shootings are rare, even if the media makes it seem like they occur often and are the cause of an untold number of deaths. Other than perhaps improving mental health care, I don't think much else should be done. Keeping armed law enforcement in schools would just be a waste of money, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason to not buy MP3s from Amazon
The problem is that some people still object to some of Amazon's other policies (they still use DRM for some things) and don't want to give Amazon money, so I'd say there is a reason for some people to not buy MP3s from Amazon.
It's sad that some people living in a country founded on a distrust of government need authority figures to tell them how to think.
Yeah, why should we trust judges when they explain the law?
Why should we trust judges to be automatically correct when they interpret a document that was written in plain English in a way that gives the government (which they are part of) more power? The Supreme Court overruled itself in the past. Would you believe everything they say? Do you not have a mind of your own?
Fact is, I read the constitution and I don't see where such ridiculous interpretations make any sense whatsoever.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest.
Authority worship at its finest. In fact, I'd say it's more like anti-intellectualism when you believe everything an authority figure has to say.
Well, that seems like a pretty disgusting practice to me.
And if history has taught us anything
Bootlickers don't learn from history or even care about it, though.
As far as I can tell, not a single practicing or academic legal authority has ever endorsed this construction.
Why would that be? Because they are complicit in the crimes against the American people. The correct interpretations of the fourth amendment are ignored because they do not provide as much power to the government. To me, these are blatant violations of the fourth amendment, but I wouldn't expect bootlickers like cold fjord to understand that.
But you don't get to pick your facts and you definitely don't get to reinterpret the law just because you don't like it (hellooo segregationists).
Much like courts' interpretations aren't magically automatically correct. Of course, if you need an authority figure to tell you how to think in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you've already lost.
So, there is no actual freedom being lost then when boarding an airplane since you are still free to travel.
Just like freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon if you force people into a free speech zone; they're still allowed to speak, after all! Let's apply this logic to an entire city: If you live in a certain city, you sign away your fourth amendment rights and give the government permission to search you whenever they please. Don't like it? Move. You still have that freedom, so it's okay!
The searches for boarding an airplane go back about 40-50 years.
That's utterly irrelevant, and the TSA wasn't molesting people 40-50 years ago.
They are completely legal and don't infringe on your 4th amendment rights.
If you need a court to tell you how to think, then you're nothing more than a mindless drone. It's sad how people in a country that was founded on a distrust of government put so much trust in the government and even allow it to control how they think.
One of the central jobs of a state is to protect it people by any means necessary and then some that aren't.
No, it's not. The constitution is the highest law of the land, and any powers not given to the government are not powers the government has. The government can't violate people's rights to give them 'safety'.
If you can't trust your state to spy for your best interests perhapes it is time to move to another state.
Selfish nonsense. I believe they should only spy against explicit enemies. Perhaps you only care about things that benefit you, but I don't want government thugs spying on random people and people in my country.
Being a U.Sian I have not problem what so ever with the NSA.
Not going to say it again.
Intelligence has saved lives. Lives that you will never know about due to the classification.
And yet you're gullible enough to believe these thugs even when they don't provide any evidence of such a thing. How naive. Even if they did save lives, though, it's irrelevant for reasons I've already stated.
I'm against banning the tools if they don't have them, but not against safety interlocks themselves.
Not really. All it requires is a creative interpretation by the Supreme Court.
That wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court just made something up. True.
It's like when people argue about whether people are killed by murderers, or by their weapons.
I'm saying that the attitude of the people is what matters.
No; altering constitutions requires large majorities, which they can't obtain without spreading propaganda first. We're safe.
People who are planning to commit genocide don't tend to care about constitutions, and since propaganda works so well, brainwashing large majorities would be no problem to begin with. I'm just mocking you at this point, as we'll never agree; I see freedom of speech as an absolutely fundamental right.
Nope, just require people to have been part of the Army/Reserve/National Guard before they're eligible for gun permits.
I don't see how that would be constitutional. It's like saying that free speech zones don't actually infringe upon the right to free speech, which I think is an utterly ridiculous notion. We've seen this sort of logic with the TSA, free speech zones, protest permits, and all sorts of other things, but I don't buy any of it.
The same could be said of just about anything. I'd hate to live in a country where everything that could kill someone was banned merely because those things technically aren't needed.
You're asking me to prove a negative.
No, I'm telling you that if you expect me or any rational individual to consider this garbage to be anything other than a waste of money (putting the more important privacy issue aside for a moment), you'd better cough up some proof. Can't do that? Too hard? Too bad for you, fool.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is a very rational reason to oppose a policy that eats up my tax dollars. Here, buy some magical rocks.
I don't know if you think you're being clever by stating the obvious and pretending as if I'm saying something else, but I don't think it's very clever.
You're basically saying increased security doesn't work, and that's nonsense.
No, I'm basically asking for evidence that a specific kind of security is worthwhile. Surely you don't lump all security together in a single category and pretend everything is effective? I doubt it.
Apparently it is to you.
You're attacking straw men.
The question is how well it works/doesn't work and whether the results are worth the costs.
That's exactly what I'm asking.
Of course, you would say all security fails all the time for everything everywhere.
Another straw man.
Security isn't a simple as you make it be.
Attacking straw men is pretty simple, though.
I'd rather take the chance of mass surveillance being misused
This sort of attitude is why we're rapidly losing freedom and privacy in some areas.
It looks to me like you misinterpreted what I meant. I see no reason why the 2nd amendment would forbid such a thing. If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
What if having government surveillance equipment in everyone's homes saved some people from domestic abuse or other crimes? To some victims and the families of said victims, it might be worth it.
The problem with such stupid questions is that they don't take into account the fact that everything seems big when you're negatively impacted by something, and you're going to be emotional about it. Even assuming I would suddenly change my opinion in such a scenario, what does that mean? Nothing at all.
Typical simple-minded American. People that decide not to do something don't call in and tell the police why they decided not to do something.
Typical gullible idiot. I go with an evidence-based approach. Show me the evidence. I looked through your post and saw none. Until I see good evidence, I have no reason to believe it is effective, and no amount of excuses such as "But it's hard to get evidence!" will change that. Would you like to buy this magical anti-tiger rock I have? There aren't any tigers around here, so you can be sure it works!
"School shootings are rare, even if the media makes it seem like they occur often and are the cause of an untold number of deaths."
Waste of money for something that happens rarely, even if I don't mention the other issues that I have with it.
Not happy, but I will tolerate it.
plenty of towns have an officer patrol the schools.
And to me, it's an absolute eyesore.
Do tell me about all the shootings these intrusive things stopped.
So, around 10,000 homicides by gun EVERY YEAR, plus around 20,000 suicides by gun EVERY YEAR.
Yeah, that doesn't qualify to me.
Just under 3,000 deaths on 9/11 justified gutting the bill of rights, invading a country or two
Which I disagree with, by the way.
we suck at putting things in perspective.
It's not my fault that you assumed I agreed with my government's actions.
Being alive is a sign that you have a mental illness.
Rule #1 should be....keep armed law enforcement in schools at all times.
I'd honestly rather not make schools more like prisons than they already are.
School shootings are rare, even if the media makes it seem like they occur often and are the cause of an untold number of deaths. Other than perhaps improving mental health care, I don't think much else should be done. Keeping armed law enforcement in schools would just be a waste of money, in my opinion.