The argument could be made. Or, reversing the politics, it could be argued that senators who wish to tighten the limitations imposed on the NSA or reduce funding or military spending are exposing the country to danger - even if they intend no harm, they place the existance of the country at risk and cannot be allowed to hold office. I imagine many at the NSA would see no problem with, say, monitoring their emails for juicy scandals and leaking them to opponents or the media. After all, they are only doing what they believe is in the national interest.
I've debated many 'True Patriots' before. The type of mindset that the NSA probably attracts. A common mode of thought for them is that the US must be protected from all enemies, forign and domestic - and that 'domestic' includes members of congress who support 'un-American' ideas. Democracy is too important to be entrusted to a democratic process.
Hasn't gotten very far through the process yet, and is less likely to do so now it's clear that all the major ISPs are complying without a law to force them.
You're right about filters being useless. They do nothing about all the non-web sources of pornography - IM programs swapping pics with friends, p2p software, etc. And let us not forget that the prank of posting pornography of an unusual or humorous nature to unrelated forums is a long-established pasttime of internet culture. Plus all those dubious sites hosted in various legally-vacant countries that just want to lure in all the clicks they can get and don't care who sees, and are quite willing to resort to search engine manipulation and spam.
Because any such legislation would probably turn into a self-contradictory paperwork-laden mess of nightmareish complexity asking ISPs to achieve things that aren't possible short of a revolutionary breakthrough in artificial inteligence. The major ISPs objected for a while, but eventually saw common sense: If they do as the government asks voluntarily, they get to define the filtering requirements themselves according to what they can actually achieve. If they don't, then eventually the legislation would probably be forced through in some form. Acting in their own interests, better to cooperate now.
ISPs are commercial entities. Protecting free speech isn't their job: Making money is. I was very surprised to see Virgin fight the order to block the pirate bay for so long, given their close ties to the media industry.
What is really being asked: "Do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? If you answer yes, we'll make sure your partner knows, along with any visiting family, friends or co-workers who may use your connection and have the fleeting curiosity to see if sex.com if blocked."
Whenever privacy issues are discussed, someone will quickly raise the obvious question: 'What are you hideing? The innocent have nothing to fear.' Well, here's your answer. Pornography is still legal, that doesn't mean I want everyone who shares or visits this house to know I look at it.
How is money different than barter? It's just a good which has a generally agreed-upon worth.
There's a natural historical progression: 1. Barter. 2. Barter, but with some goods being recognised as 'standards of value' that everyone agrees upon. Typically precious metals and the like. This just makes trading convenient: If you want to trade your grain for leather, you don't need to worry about finding a tanner who needs grain or determining the fair trade rate for grain against leather. You just go to market, sell your grain for the agreed trade good, and use that to trade for leather. 3. Standardisation of values: The metal gets made into coins. At this point you need a government department to ensure the coins are properly standardised and no-one is making slightly smaller knock-offs. 4. Representative notes: Rather then carry all that metal around, store it in banks. A bank note is just easier. It has value because you can take it to the bank with a promise they'll pay up your metal. 5. Full fiat: Eventually you notice that people aren't actually using those notes to get back the gold they are supposed to be worth, so eliminate the link entirely. Now you have a fully abstract system of currency. It has value because a lot of people, including the government, believe it has value.
CoinYe West, like Dodgecoin, is intended as a joke rather than a serious currency. Something to have bragging rights over. It's like collecting trading cards: Occasionally they may trade hands for money, or even be used as a form of currency within a defined community, but that isn't their purpose
Can't happen. The two payment-accepters are in communication via the distributed blockchain. After a short time they would detect 'this coin has been spent twice' and not recognize the transaction. That's why it takes a couple of hours at times to make a bitcoin transfer - that's how long it takes for the whole network to reach a consensus on the coin's current status.
The cover reason is given at the very end: The church claims contraception is a threat to women's rights.
How do they justify this? Their reasoning is as simple as it is idiotic. The HV argues that if the risk of pregnancy is taken away from sex, men will be rendered incapable of seeing women as anything other than a sexual opportunity.
I'm convinced that somewhere behind the scenes leaders in both parties are working to decide what issues will be the big public debates of each upcoming political season and which are to be considered off the table for discussion. It explains a few things, like how the republicans can constantly talk about the power of free markets and the evils of protectionism and subsidies while completly ignoring the heavy subsidies given to corn production.
There is the first amendment. But there is, as you point out, a continuum of conflicts here and both extremes are obviously ridiculous. As it's really more of a judgement call, court rulings on the matter are often overturned and full of contradictions.
You can look it up, actually. It's all summed out in a document titled 'Humanae Vitae.' It goes into great detail on the thinking behind the policy. There are both theological reasons (Natural Law stuff - God made the human body to work in this way, screwing with it goes against the natural order he established) and practical reasons (Access to contraception will take away the risk from casual sex, leading to a world of rampant promiscuity, cohabitation and the collapse of the instutition of marriage.)
Most states have an exception in their child abuse laws that specifically states that withholding vital medical care due to sincere religious belief is not a criminal act, even though withholding vital medical care for any other reason would be considered abuse and grounds for prosecution. 37 states, currently.
It all gets very complicated. It can work the other way too - there are plenty of companies which are clearly commercial entities, but happen to be owned and run by people of very strong faith. Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby have made headlines last year over just such a scenario. A broad religious exemption can quickly turn into a situation where believers are 'above the law' - able to simply declare that it doesn't apply to them when convenient.
I imagine the big fuss isn't actually about the nuns and priests themselves, but the support staff they need to hire. Someone has to do the accounts, handle the legal issues, secure permits, maintain the building, etc. And they run nursing homes, so depending how the administration works they may also be hireing the staff to run them - that means care assistants, medical personell, and a lot more administrators. All those people aren't going to be the most devout catholics - even if the nuns have a 'catholics only' hiring policy, much of the church membership simply ignores the teaching on contraception.
They have the right. They have exercised that right. The government has responded through the appropriate democratic process, as expressed by the representatives who (after much political debate) voted to pass the act.
Brave New World ran into the problem of trying to write a dystopia which, upon further consideration, actually looks like a very nice world to live in. Sure, it may be a bit oppressive to some... but the standard of living is ridiculously luxurious, crime is all but unheard of, unemployment is barely even imaginable and overall the people are very happy there.
It wasn't widely reported. Snowden leaked records of a few events.
I also imagine it might be hard to prosecute someone for abusing a surveillance system that doesn't officially exist outside highly classified circles. That might explain why they were allowed to resign.
That's because they are. Try keeping a class focused on their lesson when half of them have a phone hidden under the desk to check their facebook page.
Politics, probably. There's a lot of backlash against political correctness - some people would see reading such a book in schools as 'liberal indoctrination' intended to make white people feel guilty about being white.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument could be made. Or, reversing the politics, it could be argued that senators who wish to tighten the limitations imposed on the NSA or reduce funding or military spending are exposing the country to danger - even if they intend no harm, they place the existance of the country at risk and cannot be allowed to hold office. I imagine many at the NSA would see no problem with, say, monitoring their emails for juicy scandals and leaking them to opponents or the media. After all, they are only doing what they believe is in the national interest.
I've debated many 'True Patriots' before. The type of mindset that the NSA probably attracts. A common mode of thought for them is that the US must be protected from all enemies, forign and domestic - and that 'domestic' includes members of congress who support 'un-American' ideas. Democracy is too important to be entrusted to a democratic process.
Hasn't gotten very far through the process yet, and is less likely to do so now it's clear that all the major ISPs are complying without a law to force them.
You're right about filters being useless. They do nothing about all the non-web sources of pornography - IM programs swapping pics with friends, p2p software, etc. And let us not forget that the prank of posting pornography of an unusual or humorous nature to unrelated forums is a long-established pasttime of internet culture. Plus all those dubious sites hosted in various legally-vacant countries that just want to lure in all the clicks they can get and don't care who sees, and are quite willing to resort to search engine manipulation and spam.
Because any such legislation would probably turn into a self-contradictory paperwork-laden mess of nightmareish complexity asking ISPs to achieve things that aren't possible short of a revolutionary breakthrough in artificial inteligence. The major ISPs objected for a while, but eventually saw common sense: If they do as the government asks voluntarily, they get to define the filtering requirements themselves according to what they can actually achieve. If they don't, then eventually the legislation would probably be forced through in some form. Acting in their own interests, better to cooperate now.
ISPs are commercial entities. Protecting free speech isn't their job: Making money is. I was very surprised to see Virgin fight the order to block the pirate bay for so long, given their close ties to the media industry.
What is really being asked:
"Do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? If you answer yes, we'll make sure your partner knows, along with any visiting family, friends or co-workers who may use your connection and have the fleeting curiosity to see if sex.com if blocked."
Whenever privacy issues are discussed, someone will quickly raise the obvious question: 'What are you hideing? The innocent have nothing to fear.' Well, here's your answer. Pornography is still legal, that doesn't mean I want everyone who shares or visits this house to know I look at it.
How is money different than barter? It's just a good which has a generally agreed-upon worth.
There's a natural historical progression:
1. Barter.
2. Barter, but with some goods being recognised as 'standards of value' that everyone agrees upon. Typically precious metals and the like. This just makes trading convenient: If you want to trade your grain for leather, you don't need to worry about finding a tanner who needs grain or determining the fair trade rate for grain against leather. You just go to market, sell your grain for the agreed trade good, and use that to trade for leather.
3. Standardisation of values: The metal gets made into coins. At this point you need a government department to ensure the coins are properly standardised and no-one is making slightly smaller knock-offs.
4. Representative notes: Rather then carry all that metal around, store it in banks. A bank note is just easier. It has value because you can take it to the bank with a promise they'll pay up your metal.
5. Full fiat: Eventually you notice that people aren't actually using those notes to get back the gold they are supposed to be worth, so eliminate the link entirely. Now you have a fully abstract system of currency. It has value because a lot of people, including the government, believe it has value.
Put it up on ebay. A fair amount of BC changes hands there, and seems to fetch a fair price.
CoinYe West, like Dodgecoin, is intended as a joke rather than a serious currency. Something to have bragging rights over. It's like collecting trading cards: Occasionally they may trade hands for money, or even be used as a form of currency within a defined community, but that isn't their purpose
Can't happen. The two payment-accepters are in communication via the distributed blockchain. After a short time they would detect 'this coin has been spent twice' and not recognize the transaction. That's why it takes a couple of hours at times to make a bitcoin transfer - that's how long it takes for the whole network to reach a consensus on the coin's current status.
The cover reason is given at the very end: The church claims contraception is a threat to women's rights.
How do they justify this? Their reasoning is as simple as it is idiotic. The HV argues that if the risk of pregnancy is taken away from sex, men will be rendered incapable of seeing women as anything other than a sexual opportunity.
I'm convinced that somewhere behind the scenes leaders in both parties are working to decide what issues will be the big public debates of each upcoming political season and which are to be considered off the table for discussion. It explains a few things, like how the republicans can constantly talk about the power of free markets and the evils of protectionism and subsidies while completly ignoring the heavy subsidies given to corn production.
I'm hopeing some more people will try to pull a Hovind on their taxes, just so I can watch them lose.
There is the first amendment. But there is, as you point out, a continuum of conflicts here and both extremes are obviously ridiculous. As it's really more of a judgement call, court rulings on the matter are often overturned and full of contradictions.
You can look it up, actually. It's all summed out in a document titled 'Humanae Vitae.' It goes into great detail on the thinking behind the policy. There are both theological reasons (Natural Law stuff - God made the human body to work in this way, screwing with it goes against the natural order he established) and practical reasons (Access to contraception will take away the risk from casual sex, leading to a world of rampant promiscuity, cohabitation and the collapse of the instutition of marriage.)
Most states have an exception in their child abuse laws that specifically states that withholding vital medical care due to sincere religious belief is not a criminal act, even though withholding vital medical care for any other reason would be considered abuse and grounds for prosecution. 37 states, currently.
Source: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Religious%20Exemptions%20to%20Child%20Neglect%202013.pdf
The MA pill usually acts as a contraceptive, but it can prevent implantation as an alternate method of action less commonly. Depends on timing.
It all gets very complicated. It can work the other way too - there are plenty of companies which are clearly commercial entities, but happen to be owned and run by people of very strong faith. Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby have made headlines last year over just such a scenario. A broad religious exemption can quickly turn into a situation where believers are 'above the law' - able to simply declare that it doesn't apply to them when convenient.
I imagine the big fuss isn't actually about the nuns and priests themselves, but the support staff they need to hire. Someone has to do the accounts, handle the legal issues, secure permits, maintain the building, etc. And they run nursing homes, so depending how the administration works they may also be hireing the staff to run them - that means care assistants, medical personell, and a lot more administrators. All those people aren't going to be the most devout catholics - even if the nuns have a 'catholics only' hiring policy, much of the church membership simply ignores the teaching on contraception.
They have the right. They have exercised that right. The government has responded through the appropriate democratic process, as expressed by the representatives who (after much political debate) voted to pass the act.
Brave New World ran into the problem of trying to write a dystopia which, upon further consideration, actually looks like a very nice world to live in. Sure, it may be a bit oppressive to some... but the standard of living is ridiculously luxurious, crime is all but unheard of, unemployment is barely even imaginable and overall the people are very happy there.
It's scheduled for widespread deployment some time between the domestic service rollout of IPv6 and the year of linux on the desktop.
It wasn't widely reported. Snowden leaked records of a few events.
I also imagine it might be hard to prosecute someone for abusing a surveillance system that doesn't officially exist outside highly classified circles. That might explain why they were allowed to resign.
"If the student wants to continue to fuck off and play around, then the failure will eventually catch up to them."
You overestimate teenagers. Even the smart ones are quite stupid, and few have gotten the hang of that 'delayed gratification' thing.
That's because they are. Try keeping a class focused on their lesson when half of them have a phone hidden under the desk to check their facebook page.
Politics, probably. There's a lot of backlash against political correctness - some people would see reading such a book in schools as 'liberal indoctrination' intended to make white people feel guilty about being white.