In fact that's part of the PATRIOT act: You're not even allowed to find out if they've been abusing the act. Whistleblowing abuses of the PATRIOT act is a crime under the PATRIOT act.
The first rule of the USA PATRIOT act is that you do not talk about the USA PATRIOT act...
The problem lies in the hearts of people who do not wish to obey the Ten Commandments. If those simple rules are flouted, then why bother to obey all the uncountable laws that all the politicians have passed since?
Are you serious?
Really, are you serious? Because that sure sounds like you're saying that the problem revolves around people not accepting your Judeo-Christian system of morality...which sort of borders on being insulting to most of the world.
OK, assuming that you're serious, the Ten Commandments only apply to religious people who believe that a certain God exists. This excludes everyone but Christians and Jews. Do you really believe that non Judeo-Christians need to follow these? (e.g. 1-4 [I am your god] [I'm the only god] [Don't use my name in vein] [Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy]).
Rule 1 clear doesn't apply to me, as I neither accept nor believe that your God exists. That rules out 2 and 3 for me easily. As I don't believe that your God created the earth in 6 days and rested the 7th, I don't think that I'll be honoring your sabbath (which a committee of Christian men changed from Saturday to Sunday because it suited them). 10 is sort of out, as the materialistic capital-based economy that I live under is based on coveting. That leaves us with: honor your parents, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, and don't lie. These are pretty good rules to live by, but only two of these are reflected in the law (lying is legal unless it's in front of a court of law, or in very specific circumstances). Also note the absence of any commandment forbidding one from doing nonlethal harm to your fellow humans. One could follow the Ten Commandments to the letter and still punch everyone in sight in the nose.
IMO, those who claim to follow the Ten Commandments in the spirit of their spiritual ancestors aren't helped by those spiritual ancestors. After Moses brought the tablets down and found that many of the Israelites were worshiping a golden calf, he separated the calf worshipers from the believers in his God, then smote the calf worshipers. So much for not committing murder. One could say that the first act on behalf of the Ten Commandments wasn't only murder, but genocide. So what would be the most important commandment (IMO) was violated immediately upon being published. How many people have been killed in the mane of your God?
It's funny that a people who so dearly believe in absolutes and are so pious about their beliefs are able to find so gray area to violate their own absolute rules. It seems so common that most of the people who claim to be morally elite have a strong tendency to be horribly morally corrupt by their own standards.
Personally, I believe that the world is more complicated than the Ten Commandments allow for. Furthermore, I do not believe that a system based on fear of retribution from a mythological metaphysical power is necessary for developing a system of ethics. These rules are a good start, but seriously...they haven't worked very well over the last 5000 years. What makes you think that they will start working now? Are you suggesting that I accept your God? What makes your God any better than the tens of thousands of other Gods that others have believed in?
Who cares if we're primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary?
I do.
I simply don't understand all the hoopla about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic. We can all agree that 5 degrees celsius warmer in 100 years would be a catastrophe for every ecosystem on the planet, and for our own viability as a species, yes?
Right, which is exactly why it's important to understand whether or not the global climate change is anthropogenic. We want to know why it's happening rather than jumping to conclusions or just doing something drastic for the sake of doing something. Furthermore, there is quite a bit of evidence that the global climate has varied within 5 degrees within the time period which humans have existed. I think that humans will survive this, but I don't think that's the point. It's not about human extinction, but it's OK if you want to believe that (or continue overstating your case to make others jump on the bandwagon).
And we certainly can agree that our spewing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution is having some sort of effect, yes? Then WTF? Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to try to ward off this impending crisis?
Most current research tends to show that human Co2 has some affect on the climate, but nobody is really sure how. There may be a number of other factors at play. The problem is that nobody really knows, any many people aren't willing to make major sacrifices regarding something that we need more information about. I don't think that we should panic and make irrational changes which will have severe and immediate economic effects on a global scale. Perhaps it would be wiser to make an evolutionary shift in technology and lifestyles, which the global economy can afford...and maybe do it in a manner consistent with our understanding of the phenomena that we're just beginning to understand.
No matter how small the effect of our actions, to continue blindly on the same path we've been on for the past 200 years is signing our own death warrant. Doing nothing is completely unjustifiable in all cases. Am I missing something?
So you suggest a new blind path to avoid a death warrant that you can't prove exists? You're overstating your case, my friend (or really believe everything that you read). Doing something for the sake of doing something is equally unjustifiable, especially when all sides of the issue are confounded with politically charged BS.
I'm not saying that this is or isn't being caused by humans, but you're taking on a position that I consider irrational. If global climate change is based around cyclical patterns that we can't change, there is little point in making drastic, sweeping changes. In that case, we'd better start thinking of ways to deal with our dynamic and always changing world. Just because a few extremists are predicting the end of the world (remember, most scientists aren't writing about the end of the world, or even human existence) doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. If you believe every prediction of doom that you hear, why not accept 90% of the religions in the world? They all predict your doom if you don't believe, and there's only one way to be safe...start praying.
I know that you've said that you have looked at the back of old computers to see if you can find one of these, but I had another idea. What system vendors sold their new computers with those cards installed? If you can find a bunch of those systems kicking around, I'd bet that you'll eventually find one of the cards that you're looking for.
+1 on the MIT flea market. Here's a link to some information on the flea market. I haven't been since I lived in Boston years ago, but I was able to find all sorts of old, cool stuff for cheap (most of it was stuff that I wasn't looking for -- like 40w lasers, etc).
What do you all think? If you had a chance to vote on a ballot initiative (assuming your state is not one of those still stuck in the stone age and actually has ballot initiatives) mandating filtering for all state employees in your state, would you vote for or against?
This isn't meant as a cut into you, more the way that government works (and why working for a government would drive me absolutely insane). The way that you bring this up reeks of bureaucratic mentality in every way. Given what your IT team is payed compared to what the average government employee is paid, does it really even balance out? How much time and money has your team poured into this solution? What about time and money into net abuse audits? So you're/they're not browsing on our dollar, but you're implementing filters on our dollar and auditing on our dollar...to what end? So that these workers now stare into space rather than 'surf' the internet? Has anyone figured out whether or not these people are still doing a good job regardless of how much time they spend 'surfing'? Does it really have any impact at all?
I understand why you do this -- the state has a really hard time firing employees. But spending all of this time and money because of the principle of it...it just seems silly and is totally counterproductive to how I see the mission of government. However, I'm not surprised one bit. This is just how government works (or rather, doesn't).
Again, not so much a cut into you -- I know that these aren't your policies and you didn't design the workplace. It's more of an anti-government rant - I'm boggled by this stuff.
This looks a lot like blogspam. The only form of "proof" is just a link to some guy's blog. No official T-Mobile link to the policy. Not even a supposed quote from a customer service rep on the phone
Dude, I read it on the Internet -- it must be true!
This is a classic case of casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on a competing product. Lame. How about they spend that time and money making their own products better?
In the first GTA3 you were an unnamed white hoodlum in NY. In the second, you were an italian mobster in Miami. In the third, you're a black gangbanger in LA. The series plays on stereotypes and nothing is sacred. In all of them, all races were equally depicted as villains. It really isn't fair to decry their depiction of African Americans unless you include their depiction of homosexuals, hippies, latinos, bikers, cops, jews, lawyers, etc...
I couldn't agree more -- this is much ado about nothing. It's sad that people have to make far reaches like this by calling race when our society has so many real race issues. I suppose that video games (especially the GTA series) are such easy targets by (what are amounting to) a bunch of thugs wanting a scapegoat to point at.
Speed cameras aren't just put up as a revenue earner, or to piss you off. The pen pushers that make these choices do so do because, and you may find this surprising, they are thinking about preservation of not only your life, but the safety of millions of other people just like you. No fun to have someone you love killed because some retard wants to get home 2 seconds quicker.
LOL - you must still work for a government. While the officials in question may have good intentions, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. Generally, private firms approach government agencies (in the case of American governments, it's municipal and state governments) and show that their speed cameras can reduce speeds and will pay for themselves in 1 year with the revenue generated. The private firm makes large sums of recurring revenue as they take a percentage of the fines. It has more to do with revenue than you suggest.
Unfortunately, their logic is flawed. These cameras don't save lives, rather, they impede the normal flow of traffic, create a dangerous delta in velocity between cars, and catch many drivers by surprise, all contributing to creation of a new road hazard. Further, they violate otherwise normal standards of civil rights/criminal justice by not allowing the accused to face their accuser. It's easy to support things like this by citing safety, but the reality is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Speed cameras equal more government, surveillance, and black-and-white thinking imposed by a machine that involves little to no human intervention or judgment. Furthermore, this creates precedent which will allow further government surveillance and will eventually allow for automated prosecution of more serious crimes. No thank you. They can take their good intentions and ram 'em up their snouts as far as I'm concerned.
Condoning violence is stupid. Being violent is equally as moronic. (Ex military, so I'd like to think I have a clue)
This statement, on the other hand, I entirely agree with.
...but we can't get people to just not drive SUVs, or even go so low as to take the bus, or even walk to the store which is only a block away. I've never owned a car...
I don't mean to pick on you, but I've gotta sound off on this one. So having never owned a car, and most likely living in an area where one isn't necessary, you're saying that everyone should be more like you? From the sound of it, you live in NYC, where delivery and public transportation are totally ubiquitous. I've lived there, and miss it. However, NYC is unique, even among other large American cities. What you're asking for just isn't viable for most Americans.
Most Americans don't live in areas where public transportation is available, or is even feasible (most don't even live in an area with city blocks). Secondly, people with families need big vehicles to haul their kids around. Vehicles with lots of mass eat lots of fuel. Station wagons, minivans, and SUV's all tend to get pretty similar fuel economy because they're all tanks. SUV's are popular today -- tomorrow, it will be wagons, minivans, or something else big and heavy. Many people can't afford a big family vehicle and a small grocery-getter/commuter, so they must use their family car to commute/shop/whatever. I have more of a problem with how judgmental people tend to be, without giving the slightest hint of the benefit of doubt to ther fellow humans. SUV's aren't the problem, they're just a lightning rod for environmentalist rage. This way, everyone else contributes to a problem, but gets to point their fingers at everyone else (because they drive an SUV). To complicate things, SUV's are popular among the affluent, and this is the easiest argument that environmental activists get to make (that the rich are eating your lunch). Maybe rather than trying to tell everyone else how to live, we should forget about everyone else, and honestly take an inward look at how we live and try to make a change there. Let everyone else worry about themselves.
FWIW, I don't own an SUV and am not in any hurry to get one. I'm also not particularly affluent. If I had my way, people would finally see hybrid cars as an overpriced fad and buy diesels, which get better fuel economy in the real world (they're not designed to do well on EPA tests and poorly in day-to-day fuel economy) and have a proven track record for longevity and reliability. In my idealized world, Americans would also look at motorcycles as a viable alternative to cars, as they cause less traffic congestion and use less fuel. Furthermore, motorcycles are crazy fun:)
I think that it's sad that we're such freaks about sex. I really hope that these kids somehow get this thrown out. Maybe this girl made a bad decision, but this is just dumb.
Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment. Until then, stick to your own damn job. You don't see me coming down to the bus station and telling you how to suck dicks, do you?
Oh man, that's funny! I've gotta give you props for the funny bit. In any case, I don't know what you're so worked up over. The gpp is upset because he doesn't like the way that the situation was handled. He's entitled to his opinion and you are to yours. The fact is that a major transit artery in Boston was closed (the bridge as well as river/harbor traffic). The closures created more than just a minor annoyance commuters. A significant amount of port and mass transit traffic was affected, shutting down part of the city and stopping commerce on a massive level. Something broke in the system, and few people are willing to ask about it. I understand your point that the bomb squad puts their lives on the line for the general populous, but this does not exclude them from any and all criticism. By that standard, any police officer, soldier, EMT, or firefighter should be considered above criticism - and I don't agree with that. One can criticize individual actions without damning the whole. I'm not suggesting that the bomb squad is at fault for this, but they're not beyond questioning.
Frankly, while I understand the reasoning for the city's actions, I do believe that the city overreacted and continues to overreact. I've lived in many places, including spending nearly a decade in MA, some of that time was spent in Boston. As fond as I am of my years in Massachusetts and the friends I made there, it's a strange place, and this kind of thing seems typical of the region (notice that other municipalities did not make nearly the stink that Boston did). Further, the city and state are continuing with their victim mentality, and trying to reign down on the people responsible for the signs. While I agree that those responsible for the spectacle share some responsibility for the mess, they're not nearly as responsible as the municipality for this. At some point, I'd like for someone to stop with the victim mentality and realize that the reaction may have been a bit overzealous. I've heard all kinds of officials suggest that 'if they actually were bombs...' and 'corporate greed', which is (again, IMO) a bullshit smokescreen designed to keep the officials from looking dumb for a massive disruption and waste of taxpayer resources.
To get back to the point, I don't know much about bombs. However, I do know that the GPP is silly to think that one couldn't fit enough explosive into one of the devices to do serious damage to a bridge. Surely, if a device of that size is a credible threat, it should be approached with caution. The bomb squad probably isn't the right place to point the finger, but I think that the finger should (at some point) be directed toward public officials for some of this. I think that the GPP's compass is pointing in the right general direction.
Something in the system broke, and I think that it needs fixing. I don't know how, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm upset that my country has allowed itself to become this way.
Are you just arguing with the gpp or are you agreeing that these teenagers should be prosecuted for violating child-porn laws? These were two consenting teens who would otherwise be legally allowed to engage in sexual acts under Florida law (where they are being prosecuted). After some quick research, the age of consent in Florida is 16 as long as both partners are under the age of 24.
The story seems to indicate that the images were not created for the purpose of sale or distribution. The images were privately emailed, and the two mutual sender/recipients were both arrested for producing/directing/promoting child porn and the boyfriend for possession.
You've clearly outlined how the teenage sex can be risky behavior. However, I do not believe that this is reason for laws preventing consenting teenagers for having sex. Furthermore, in this case, there is no such law. These kids broke a law designed to keep kids safe from adult predators. There was no adult involved in this, they were not coerced, and story indicates that the images themselves were not of the kids doing anything illegal (e.g. sex between adults and minors, or images intended for distribution). The fact that both of these teenagers being prosecuted on a BS technicality which is (IMO) far outside of the spirit of the law is disturbing to me. To me, this amounts to overzealous prosecutors attacking children for creating and possessing forbidden data. It is shameful to me that our government would do this.
Every one of the features you mention falls into the "avoiding negative publicity" category.
I think that "avoiding negative publicity" could be easily be substituted with "giving customers what they wanted" and be just as accurate. I guess it depends on how cynical you are. I suppose that Vista wasn't exactly what I wanted (DRM), but nobody asked me anyway.
Yeah, and it was true, then, too. Windows 2000 was a great release. Windows XP offered practically no improvement, but at least most Windows 2000 software ran on XP.
Terminal services on the desktop is huge, from a business IT standpoint. I felt the same way as you until I found out how much time and money TS and Remote Assistance saves an IT group. For a desktop user, it's no big deal - but for businesses, it's big.
Are you going to say that to doctors who want to use leeches as therapy? Or arsenic solutions? Or any multitude of medical techniques now known to be dangerous?
Doctors should be able to say what they want and research what they want. There is an established methodology for safe and responsible research that they must follow, but this methodology in no way inhibits the free speech (and freedom of thought) that you're taking a stand against.
You're view is not share by the vast majority of climatology experts. Who are you? You are a nobody.
I see what you're trying to do, and if you were responding to a research paper, you'd have a point. However, you're not...this is a Slashdot post. Neither of you have posted any references, and you're both nobody. You're relying on your understanding of what 'a vast majority of climate scientists' believe. Do you have any data to support this? You sure didn't offer it, Mr. Nobody. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Science is not about proving anything, it is about supporting a theory with the preponderance of evidence. Proof is for lawyers and mathematicians, not for scientists. If this is what you believe, you will never be a scientists as the lack of proof will undoubtedly drive in you insane.
your definition sounds more like ideology that has a hint of truth than any definition of science I've ever heard. You may want to consult a dictionary. In any case, anyone with any college-level science knows that science needs to be questioned and peer reviewed before there is any level of acceptance.
This is not "the system", this is a professional organization of scientists who establish standards in their field. Did you even read the article? Or are you just an idiot?
So you're suggesting that the proposed new 'standard' is not politically or dogmatically motivated? I have to disagree -- it sounds like people with one idea feel threatened by those who challenge their ideas. Further, they wish to penalize anyone who disagrees with them by stripping credentials. Similarly, it appears that you're threatened by the gpp who disagrees with your assertion. Rather than having a reasonable dialog with someone who can articulately write their opinions in a respectful manner, you've decided to call that person an idiot. Smart.
My roommate and I had an argument which resulted in him asking me to leave our apartment of which I was a co-signer on the lease. I told him he had zero authority to get me to leave and the next day two police show up at the door and tell me I'm forced to leave because he got a restraining order against me.
LMAO! OK, blatant abuse of the legal system isn't that funny, but I'm not surprised about that kind of thing occuring in MA. It's the unquestioning victim mentality in MA that allows for abuse like you experienced. I had a friend who was hosed by MA laws like that which err a bit too much on the side of the accuser (in my friend's case, tenant protection laws).
I don't think that renting a movie/car and keeping it is the same as what the ggpp was talking about. He's talking about buying a copy of a movie, then downloading it because he doesn't want to buy the necessary hardware to watch the copy he bought. It seems pretty reasonable to me. The copyright holder is getting their fair money for the product. How is the ggpp acting in bad faith?
I understand your analogy, and it may be appropriate for other kinds of IP theft, but I don't think that it applies here.
The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct. Okay, but please don't call the cops when someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet, because I am sure that it was a perfectly acceptable action to the perpetrator.
You make a good argument, and I've heard it before. However, black and white interpretation of the law tends to fail (especially when you equate morality and law). I'll fall back on an analogy here: If you drive, do you ever speed? The law says that you cannot drive at a rate higher than the posted speed limit. However, on most major US highways, traffic tends to move at around 5% higher than the posted speed limit. Driving at the posted speed limit would cause a dangerous situation, whereas operating your vehicle in a manner consistent with the flow of traffic is a safer way to travel. Is speeding immoral? If so, should we just not drive until everyone else slows down?
Many people make informed decisions to break the law. Whether or not this is a conscious act of civil disobedience, it is (in many cases) still a form of civil disobedience. Putting this into the context of the American alcohol prohibition, a large scale amount of civil disobedience fueled organized crime to fulfill the demand for alcohol, and the law was eventually shown to be unreasonable. A freedom limiting law was abolished because sufficient numbers of people chose to break that law. This did not cause any crumble of society, and did not turn morality upside down.
In any case, I respect your position, but disagree with your absolute reasoning. IP license violation isn't the same as DUI, and it's not punching someone in the nose and running off their wallet. Laws like the American DMCA have unjust provisions. The grandparent poster is acting in good faith, and harming nobody. Perhaps the gpp is partaking in a phenomena of culture redefining law.
Slashdot Mirror
The first rule of the USA PATRIOT act is that you do not talk about the USA PATRIOT act...
+1 to that. This all seems more about using the public's fear to grab more power than a move to make the country a safer place.
Are you serious?
Really, are you serious? Because that sure sounds like you're saying that the problem revolves around people not accepting your Judeo-Christian system of morality...which sort of borders on being insulting to most of the world.
OK, assuming that you're serious, the Ten Commandments only apply to religious people who believe that a certain God exists. This excludes everyone but Christians and Jews. Do you really believe that non Judeo-Christians need to follow these? (e.g. 1-4 [I am your god] [I'm the only god] [Don't use my name in vein] [Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy]).
Rule 1 clear doesn't apply to me, as I neither accept nor believe that your God exists. That rules out 2 and 3 for me easily. As I don't believe that your God created the earth in 6 days and rested the 7th, I don't think that I'll be honoring your sabbath (which a committee of Christian men changed from Saturday to Sunday because it suited them). 10 is sort of out, as the materialistic capital-based economy that I live under is based on coveting. That leaves us with: honor your parents, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, and don't lie. These are pretty good rules to live by, but only two of these are reflected in the law (lying is legal unless it's in front of a court of law, or in very specific circumstances). Also note the absence of any commandment forbidding one from doing nonlethal harm to your fellow humans. One could follow the Ten Commandments to the letter and still punch everyone in sight in the nose.
IMO, those who claim to follow the Ten Commandments in the spirit of their spiritual ancestors aren't helped by those spiritual ancestors. After Moses brought the tablets down and found that many of the Israelites were worshiping a golden calf, he separated the calf worshipers from the believers in his God, then smote the calf worshipers. So much for not committing murder. One could say that the first act on behalf of the Ten Commandments wasn't only murder, but genocide. So what would be the most important commandment (IMO) was violated immediately upon being published. How many people have been killed in the mane of your God?
It's funny that a people who so dearly believe in absolutes and are so pious about their beliefs are able to find so gray area to violate their own absolute rules. It seems so common that most of the people who claim to be morally elite have a strong tendency to be horribly morally corrupt by their own standards.
Personally, I believe that the world is more complicated than the Ten Commandments allow for. Furthermore, I do not believe that a system based on fear of retribution from a mythological metaphysical power is necessary for developing a system of ethics. These rules are a good start, but seriously...they haven't worked very well over the last 5000 years. What makes you think that they will start working now? Are you suggesting that I accept your God? What makes your God any better than the tens of thousands of other Gods that others have believed in?
I do.
Right, which is exactly why it's important to understand whether or not the global climate change is anthropogenic. We want to know why it's happening rather than jumping to conclusions or just doing something drastic for the sake of doing something. Furthermore, there is quite a bit of evidence that the global climate has varied within 5 degrees within the time period which humans have existed. I think that humans will survive this, but I don't think that's the point. It's not about human extinction, but it's OK if you want to believe that (or continue overstating your case to make others jump on the bandwagon).
Most current research tends to show that human Co2 has some affect on the climate, but nobody is really sure how. There may be a number of other factors at play. The problem is that nobody really knows, any many people aren't willing to make major sacrifices regarding something that we need more information about. I don't think that we should panic and make irrational changes which will have severe and immediate economic effects on a global scale. Perhaps it would be wiser to make an evolutionary shift in technology and lifestyles, which the global economy can afford...and maybe do it in a manner consistent with our understanding of the phenomena that we're just beginning to understand.
So you suggest a new blind path to avoid a death warrant that you can't prove exists? You're overstating your case, my friend (or really believe everything that you read). Doing something for the sake of doing something is equally unjustifiable, especially when all sides of the issue are confounded with politically charged BS.
I'm not saying that this is or isn't being caused by humans, but you're taking on a position that I consider irrational. If global climate change is based around cyclical patterns that we can't change, there is little point in making drastic, sweeping changes. In that case, we'd better start thinking of ways to deal with our dynamic and always changing world. Just because a few extremists are predicting the end of the world (remember, most scientists aren't writing about the end of the world, or even human existence) doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. If you believe every prediction of doom that you hear, why not accept 90% of the religions in the world? They all predict your doom if you don't believe, and there's only one way to be safe...start praying.
I know that you've said that you have looked at the back of old computers to see if you can find one of these, but I had another idea. What system vendors sold their new computers with those cards installed? If you can find a bunch of those systems kicking around, I'd bet that you'll eventually find one of the cards that you're looking for.
...just an idea
+1 on the MIT flea market. Here's a link to some information on the flea market. I haven't been since I lived in Boston years ago, but I was able to find all sorts of old, cool stuff for cheap (most of it was stuff that I wasn't looking for -- like 40w lasers, etc).
You can look backwards and fire to accelerate. As long as you keep firing, the recoil will ensure that you outrun any land-based police vehicle.
This isn't meant as a cut into you, more the way that government works (and why working for a government would drive me absolutely insane). The way that you bring this up reeks of bureaucratic mentality in every way. Given what your IT team is payed compared to what the average government employee is paid, does it really even balance out? How much time and money has your team poured into this solution? What about time and money into net abuse audits? So you're/they're not browsing on our dollar, but you're implementing filters on our dollar and auditing on our dollar...to what end? So that these workers now stare into space rather than 'surf' the internet? Has anyone figured out whether or not these people are still doing a good job regardless of how much time they spend 'surfing'? Does it really have any impact at all?
I understand why you do this -- the state has a really hard time firing employees. But spending all of this time and money because of the principle of it...it just seems silly and is totally counterproductive to how I see the mission of government. However, I'm not surprised one bit. This is just how government works (or rather, doesn't).
Again, not so much a cut into you -- I know that these aren't your policies and you didn't design the workplace. It's more of an anti-government rant - I'm boggled by this stuff.
I'd strip about two hundred bucks from the iPhone.
Dude, I read it on the Internet -- it must be true!
How's the FUD coming?
This is a classic case of casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on a competing product. Lame. How about they spend that time and money making their own products better?
I couldn't agree more -- this is much ado about nothing. It's sad that people have to make far reaches like this by calling race when our society has so many real race issues. I suppose that video games (especially the GTA series) are such easy targets by (what are amounting to) a bunch of thugs wanting a scapegoat to point at.
LOL - you must still work for a government. While the officials in question may have good intentions, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. Generally, private firms approach government agencies (in the case of American governments, it's municipal and state governments) and show that their speed cameras can reduce speeds and will pay for themselves in 1 year with the revenue generated. The private firm makes large sums of recurring revenue as they take a percentage of the fines. It has more to do with revenue than you suggest.
Unfortunately, their logic is flawed. These cameras don't save lives, rather, they impede the normal flow of traffic, create a dangerous delta in velocity between cars, and catch many drivers by surprise, all contributing to creation of a new road hazard. Further, they violate otherwise normal standards of civil rights/criminal justice by not allowing the accused to face their accuser. It's easy to support things like this by citing safety, but the reality is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Speed cameras equal more government, surveillance, and black-and-white thinking imposed by a machine that involves little to no human intervention or judgment. Furthermore, this creates precedent which will allow further government surveillance and will eventually allow for automated prosecution of more serious crimes. No thank you. They can take their good intentions and ram 'em up their snouts as far as I'm concerned.
This statement, on the other hand, I entirely agree with.
I don't mean to pick on you, but I've gotta sound off on this one. So having never owned a car, and most likely living in an area where one isn't necessary, you're saying that everyone should be more like you? From the sound of it, you live in NYC, where delivery and public transportation are totally ubiquitous. I've lived there, and miss it. However, NYC is unique, even among other large American cities. What you're asking for just isn't viable for most Americans.
Most Americans don't live in areas where public transportation is available, or is even feasible (most don't even live in an area with city blocks). Secondly, people with families need big vehicles to haul their kids around. Vehicles with lots of mass eat lots of fuel. Station wagons, minivans, and SUV's all tend to get pretty similar fuel economy because they're all tanks. SUV's are popular today -- tomorrow, it will be wagons, minivans, or something else big and heavy. Many people can't afford a big family vehicle and a small grocery-getter/commuter, so they must use their family car to commute/shop/whatever. I have more of a problem with how judgmental people tend to be, without giving the slightest hint of the benefit of doubt to ther fellow humans. SUV's aren't the problem, they're just a lightning rod for environmentalist rage. This way, everyone else contributes to a problem, but gets to point their fingers at everyone else (because they drive an SUV). To complicate things, SUV's are popular among the affluent, and this is the easiest argument that environmental activists get to make (that the rich are eating your lunch). Maybe rather than trying to tell everyone else how to live, we should forget about everyone else, and honestly take an inward look at how we live and try to make a change there. Let everyone else worry about themselves.
FWIW, I don't own an SUV and am not in any hurry to get one. I'm also not particularly affluent. If I had my way, people would finally see hybrid cars as an overpriced fad and buy diesels, which get better fuel economy in the real world (they're not designed to do well on EPA tests and poorly in day-to-day fuel economy) and have a proven track record for longevity and reliability. In my idealized world, Americans would also look at motorcycles as a viable alternative to cars, as they cause less traffic congestion and use less fuel. Furthermore, motorcycles are crazy fun :)
I think that it's sad that we're such freaks about sex. I really hope that these kids somehow get this thrown out. Maybe this girl made a bad decision, but this is just dumb.
Oh man, that's funny! I've gotta give you props for the funny bit. In any case, I don't know what you're so worked up over. The gpp is upset because he doesn't like the way that the situation was handled. He's entitled to his opinion and you are to yours. The fact is that a major transit artery in Boston was closed (the bridge as well as river/harbor traffic). The closures created more than just a minor annoyance commuters. A significant amount of port and mass transit traffic was affected, shutting down part of the city and stopping commerce on a massive level. Something broke in the system, and few people are willing to ask about it. I understand your point that the bomb squad puts their lives on the line for the general populous, but this does not exclude them from any and all criticism. By that standard, any police officer, soldier, EMT, or firefighter should be considered above criticism - and I don't agree with that. One can criticize individual actions without damning the whole. I'm not suggesting that the bomb squad is at fault for this, but they're not beyond questioning.
Frankly, while I understand the reasoning for the city's actions, I do believe that the city overreacted and continues to overreact. I've lived in many places, including spending nearly a decade in MA, some of that time was spent in Boston. As fond as I am of my years in Massachusetts and the friends I made there, it's a strange place, and this kind of thing seems typical of the region (notice that other municipalities did not make nearly the stink that Boston did). Further, the city and state are continuing with their victim mentality, and trying to reign down on the people responsible for the signs. While I agree that those responsible for the spectacle share some responsibility for the mess, they're not nearly as responsible as the municipality for this. At some point, I'd like for someone to stop with the victim mentality and realize that the reaction may have been a bit overzealous. I've heard all kinds of officials suggest that 'if they actually were bombs...' and 'corporate greed', which is (again, IMO) a bullshit smokescreen designed to keep the officials from looking dumb for a massive disruption and waste of taxpayer resources.
To get back to the point, I don't know much about bombs. However, I do know that the GPP is silly to think that one couldn't fit enough explosive into one of the devices to do serious damage to a bridge. Surely, if a device of that size is a credible threat, it should be approached with caution. The bomb squad probably isn't the right place to point the finger, but I think that the finger should (at some point) be directed toward public officials for some of this. I think that the GPP's compass is pointing in the right general direction.
Something in the system broke, and I think that it needs fixing. I don't know how, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm upset that my country has allowed itself to become this way.
Are you just arguing with the gpp or are you agreeing that these teenagers should be prosecuted for violating child-porn laws? These were two consenting teens who would otherwise be legally allowed to engage in sexual acts under Florida law (where they are being prosecuted). After some quick research, the age of consent in Florida is 16 as long as both partners are under the age of 24.
The story seems to indicate that the images were not created for the purpose of sale or distribution. The images were privately emailed, and the two mutual sender/recipients were both arrested for producing/directing/promoting child porn and the boyfriend for possession.
You've clearly outlined how the teenage sex can be risky behavior. However, I do not believe that this is reason for laws preventing consenting teenagers for having sex. Furthermore, in this case, there is no such law. These kids broke a law designed to keep kids safe from adult predators. There was no adult involved in this, they were not coerced, and story indicates that the images themselves were not of the kids doing anything illegal (e.g. sex between adults and minors, or images intended for distribution). The fact that both of these teenagers being prosecuted on a BS technicality which is (IMO) far outside of the spirit of the law is disturbing to me. To me, this amounts to overzealous prosecutors attacking children for creating and possessing forbidden data. It is shameful to me that our government would do this.
I demand satisfaction! (slap with the gauntlet) I challenge you to a dual.
I think that "avoiding negative publicity" could be easily be substituted with "giving customers what they wanted" and be just as accurate. I guess it depends on how cynical you are. I suppose that Vista wasn't exactly what I wanted (DRM), but nobody asked me anyway.
Terminal services on the desktop is huge, from a business IT standpoint. I felt the same way as you until I found out how much time and money TS and Remote Assistance saves an IT group. For a desktop user, it's no big deal - but for businesses, it's big.
Doctors should be able to say what they want and research what they want. There is an established methodology for safe and responsible research that they must follow, but this methodology in no way inhibits the free speech (and freedom of thought) that you're taking a stand against.
I see what you're trying to do, and if you were responding to a research paper, you'd have a point. However, you're not...this is a Slashdot post. Neither of you have posted any references, and you're both nobody. You're relying on your understanding of what 'a vast majority of climate scientists' believe. Do you have any data to support this? You sure didn't offer it, Mr. Nobody. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
your definition sounds more like ideology that has a hint of truth than any definition of science I've ever heard. You may want to consult a dictionary. In any case, anyone with any college-level science knows that science needs to be questioned and peer reviewed before there is any level of acceptance.
So you're suggesting that the proposed new 'standard' is not politically or dogmatically motivated? I have to disagree -- it sounds like people with one idea feel threatened by those who challenge their ideas. Further, they wish to penalize anyone who disagrees with them by stripping credentials. Similarly, it appears that you're threatened by the gpp who disagrees with your assertion. Rather than having a reasonable dialog with someone who can articulately write their opinions in a respectful manner, you've decided to call that person an idiot. Smart.
Wow, that was the first thing that came to mind. Good FP. The next thing that I'd like to see is another Elite game. Elite IV - MMO :)
LMAO! OK, blatant abuse of the legal system isn't that funny, but I'm not surprised about that kind of thing occuring in MA. It's the unquestioning victim mentality in MA that allows for abuse like you experienced. I had a friend who was hosed by MA laws like that which err a bit too much on the side of the accuser (in my friend's case, tenant protection laws).
I don't think that renting a movie/car and keeping it is the same as what the ggpp was talking about. He's talking about buying a copy of a movie, then downloading it because he doesn't want to buy the necessary hardware to watch the copy he bought. It seems pretty reasonable to me. The copyright holder is getting their fair money for the product. How is the ggpp acting in bad faith?
I understand your analogy, and it may be appropriate for other kinds of IP theft, but I don't think that it applies here.
You make a good argument, and I've heard it before. However, black and white interpretation of the law tends to fail (especially when you equate morality and law). I'll fall back on an analogy here: If you drive, do you ever speed? The law says that you cannot drive at a rate higher than the posted speed limit. However, on most major US highways, traffic tends to move at around 5% higher than the posted speed limit. Driving at the posted speed limit would cause a dangerous situation, whereas operating your vehicle in a manner consistent with the flow of traffic is a safer way to travel. Is speeding immoral? If so, should we just not drive until everyone else slows down?
Many people make informed decisions to break the law. Whether or not this is a conscious act of civil disobedience, it is (in many cases) still a form of civil disobedience. Putting this into the context of the American alcohol prohibition, a large scale amount of civil disobedience fueled organized crime to fulfill the demand for alcohol, and the law was eventually shown to be unreasonable. A freedom limiting law was abolished because sufficient numbers of people chose to break that law. This did not cause any crumble of society, and did not turn morality upside down.
In any case, I respect your position, but disagree with your absolute reasoning. IP license violation isn't the same as DUI, and it's not punching someone in the nose and running off their wallet. Laws like the American DMCA have unjust provisions. The grandparent poster is acting in good faith, and harming nobody. Perhaps the gpp is partaking in a phenomena of culture redefining law.