Yeah, I don't get it. Skyrocketing digital sales would seem to imply the law is working, as people get their music legally to avoid running afoul of the law.
You break in at night after the voting and initial count, and change the ballots. Then you ask for a recount.
You can't honestly be telling me that forging a seal on a ballot box is more difficult than hacking into an open secure voting system which is behind an air gap and has been vetted for security by the community.
Paper ballots can be "multiplied" too. They can also be "deleted", and ballot boxes can be stuffed. Paper is in no way a secure system. Being able to physically count it afterwards doesn't prevent fraud between voting day and recount day.
Americans don't fight wars. America's military fights wars. The two are very much disconnected, since the average citizen never feels the effects of the wars, whether that's through paying for them (taxes), sacrificing for them (rationing a la WW2), or actually fighting in them.
I'm aware of all this, but nothing you said seems to justify the statement that universities are strongholds of social liberalism. They are strongholds of Liberalism, and free-thought, sure. That's kind of the whole point of universities in the first place... to advance the ideals of Liberalism and the Enlightenment in general.
To trust a man means to expect him to always try to do the right thing, and since the 70s or so higher education has been almost exclusively the domain of liberalism, a philosophy whose definition of "right" is diametrically opposed to the conservative one.
There's so much wrong with that sentence that I'm not sure how to help you, except to suggest that you start by looking up the definition of liberalism. It will surprise you.
If the population drops enough civil wars will stop on their own and the people that survive will be too busy growing food to fight.
Yeah, because there were no wars in Europe back in the good ol' Dark Ages, when the populations were lower.
You've got it completely backwards. People want to fight MORE when they're unhappy (for instance, starving) than when they are content (for instance, well-fed).
A law banning driving "under the influence of alcohol" is absolutely an infringement of rights. A law banning driving "recklessly" is not. One law refers a specific product, another references a behavior.
Why do you think you have a "right" to drive on public roads under the influence of alcohol, potentially endangering the lives of others? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious political philosopher who would accept that one's rights extend to actions that are extremely dangerous to those around you (such as driving under the influence of alcohol).
Sure, you can claim you have a right to exist under the influence of alcohol, and I would support you. But this claim that you have a "right" to operate a 2 ton piece of steel at high velocities under the influence of alcohol? Please. You might as well claim you have a "right" to fire indiscriminately into crowds, and that it's not your fault they got in the way of your freedom loving bullets.
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
An interesting thought, but one that seems to go against most of modern history, in which the rich have almost all of the power.
Here's a clue. Safety is an illusion. No one is safe, and you can't force nature to make everyone safe. You could sandbag your front door and curl up in a fetal position in your bed, but your heart could still stop any time. A landing gear could fall off a plane and hit you. Lightning could strike you. Tsunamis. Burst aneurisms. Clots. Bear attacks. Bites by rabid animals. Tetanus from a tiny puncture. Brown recluse spider bites. Stepping on a thin layer hiding a sinkhole.
Obviously. That doesn't mean you can't make things LESS dangerous. You can't argue with the fact that laws implemented over the last 50-60 years have made driving MUCH less dangerous.
You know, libertarians do not intrude on others' lives, but self-important nazis do. You are the one who should get out of here.
This is such hogwash. Libertarians intrude on others' lives plenty. Some of us hope and expect government to fill a certain role in our lives. You know, public safety, health care, public transportation, environmental regulation, regulation of industry, maintenance of infrastructure, making sure others don't drive recklessly and murder their fellow citizens. Your libertarian ideals directly conflict with these things which many of us expect the government to do. So yes, if you had your way, you would directly intrude on the lives of many.
I was merely responding to the op's question of whether or not it was the responsibility of government to protect us from other drivers... and clearly it is.
One of the core and essential functions of government is to protect it's citizens from killing eachother.
Your attempts at social engineering are juvenile and demonstrate a complete unfamiliarity with the law of unintended consequences.
Read my post again. I clearly said that I didn't agree with these particular policies... but that it is CLEARLY the role of government to do what it can to stop drivers from killing eachother.
If someone does something reckless while driving their car and kills another driver, is that not murder?
Isn't it the responsibility of government to stop us from killing one another?
I'm not saying that these particular policies are effective, but the op asked whether it was the responsibility of government to stop drivers from killing one another. I was merely saying that it most certainly is.
you could easily make a small fanless computer if you could cote the whole of the outside in a layer of superconductor with a pad touching the top of the CPU
Just remember, whatever you do, for god sakes don't touch that computer!! All of the heat in your hand would be sucked out instantly!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I suppose there's no accounting for taste.
Yeah, I don't get it. Skyrocketing digital sales would seem to imply the law is working, as people get their music legally to avoid running afoul of the law.
Wrong. Check out Phoenix. QED. NEXT!
I assumed it was because of Mapquest.
You can't honestly be telling me that forging a seal on a ballot box is more difficult than hacking into an open secure voting system which is behind an air gap and has been vetted for security by the community.
You do realize they're punishing the medium, rather than (or, more likely, in addition to) the people who wrote the messages, right?
The society has said that Canadianism is wrong. PERIOD. It is not open for debate.
Why ya gotta be harshin on the Canucks so bad, bro? They're generally pretty nice people... and Hockey and Poutine are pretty great too.
Paper ballots can be "multiplied" too. They can also be "deleted", and ballot boxes can be stuffed. Paper is in no way a secure system. Being able to physically count it afterwards doesn't prevent fraud between voting day and recount day.
So now not only do they have to police for content, they have to police for truth?? Yikes.
Americans don't fight wars. America's military fights wars. The two are very much disconnected, since the average citizen never feels the effects of the wars, whether that's through paying for them (taxes), sacrificing for them (rationing a la WW2), or actually fighting in them.
I'm aware of all this, but nothing you said seems to justify the statement that universities are strongholds of social liberalism. They are strongholds of Liberalism, and free-thought, sure. That's kind of the whole point of universities in the first place... to advance the ideals of Liberalism and the Enlightenment in general.
To trust a man means to expect him to always try to do the right thing, and since the 70s or so higher education has been almost exclusively the domain of liberalism, a philosophy whose definition of "right" is diametrically opposed to the conservative one.
There's so much wrong with that sentence that I'm not sure how to help you, except to suggest that you start by looking up the definition of liberalism. It will surprise you.
If the population drops enough civil wars will stop on their own and the people that survive will be too busy growing food to fight.
Yeah, because there were no wars in Europe back in the good ol' Dark Ages, when the populations were lower.
You've got it completely backwards. People want to fight MORE when they're unhappy (for instance, starving) than when they are content (for instance, well-fed).
I like the idea, but in practice you would be punishing thousands (tens of thousands?) of people who had nothing to do with this.
Wouldn't that be (300Mb/s / 8b/B )*.8?, ie 30MB/s?
A law banning driving "under the influence of alcohol" is absolutely an infringement of rights. A law banning driving "recklessly" is not. One law refers a specific product, another references a behavior.
Why do you think you have a "right" to drive on public roads under the influence of alcohol, potentially endangering the lives of others? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious political philosopher who would accept that one's rights extend to actions that are extremely dangerous to those around you (such as driving under the influence of alcohol).
Sure, you can claim you have a right to exist under the influence of alcohol, and I would support you. But this claim that you have a "right" to operate a 2 ton piece of steel at high velocities under the influence of alcohol? Please. You might as well claim you have a "right" to fire indiscriminately into crowds, and that it's not your fault they got in the way of your freedom loving bullets.
I do my best to protect myself from getting mugged or shot. I also expect the government to protect me from getting mugged or shot as well.
This is exactly what I was thinking... just because it is software it is somehow different? Aren't all medical patents just as bad?
We think there are cigar smoking villains in back rooms writing our laws when in fact the real authors are nitwit staffers transcribing the rantings of mobs of emotional idiots. We think that rich villains buy politicians, when, by the numbers, it's almost entirely a case of politicians purchasing voters.
An interesting thought, but one that seems to go against most of modern history, in which the rich have almost all of the power.
Here's a clue. Safety is an illusion. No one is safe, and you can't force nature to make everyone safe. You could sandbag your front door and curl up in a fetal position in your bed, but your heart could still stop any time. A landing gear could fall off a plane and hit you. Lightning could strike you. Tsunamis. Burst aneurisms. Clots. Bear attacks. Bites by rabid animals. Tetanus from a tiny puncture. Brown recluse spider bites. Stepping on a thin layer hiding a sinkhole.
Obviously. That doesn't mean you can't make things LESS dangerous. You can't argue with the fact that laws implemented over the last 50-60 years have made driving MUCH less dangerous.
You know, libertarians do not intrude on others' lives, but self-important nazis do. You are the one who should get out of here.
This is such hogwash. Libertarians intrude on others' lives plenty. Some of us hope and expect government to fill a certain role in our lives. You know, public safety, health care, public transportation, environmental regulation, regulation of industry, maintenance of infrastructure, making sure others don't drive recklessly and murder their fellow citizens. Your libertarian ideals directly conflict with these things which many of us expect the government to do. So yes, if you had your way, you would directly intrude on the lives of many.
I was merely responding to the op's question of whether or not it was the responsibility of government to protect us from other drivers... and clearly it is.
One of the core and essential functions of government is to protect it's citizens from killing eachother.
Your attempts at social engineering are juvenile and demonstrate a complete unfamiliarity with the law of unintended consequences.
Read my post again. I clearly said that I didn't agree with these particular policies... but that it is CLEARLY the role of government to do what it can to stop drivers from killing eachother.
Isn't it the responsibility of government to stop us from killing one another?
I'm not saying that these particular policies are effective, but the op asked whether it was the responsibility of government to stop drivers from killing one another. I was merely saying that it most certainly is.
you could easily make a small fanless computer if you could cote the whole of the outside in a layer of superconductor with a pad touching the top of the CPU
Just remember, whatever you do, for god sakes don't touch that computer!! All of the heat in your hand would be sucked out instantly!!!
I believe the main advantage of superconductors in a car scenario would be highly efficient regenerative braking.
Now whether or not these laws actually DO make the roads safer is something else... but get out of here with your ultra-libertarian nonsense.
is the presumption that it is the job of nanny/father government to take care of every little thing in life
It is NOT a presumption to expect the government to protect me from reckless drivers.