Please tell me the novel doesn't wreck the ending in some weird appeasement to religion like the movie did.
Not as I recall. There were other things that the movie ruined too. It's an okay novel, I wouldn't buy a hardcover it's not worth that, but the mass market paperback would certainly be cheap enough to make it worthwhile to read.
This raises the question of why people don't just avoid the pedantic bickering by saying "raises the question".
Because, generally speaking, pedants are tedious and annoying, and no one else cares about the trivial minutiaein which pedants like to get bogged down. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
At least, that's what my wife tells me.;-)
There. FTFY. Pedantry and grammar nazism all in one pretty package. You're welcome.
...Better yet, use Amazon EC2 for your infrastructure so you can spool up as many redundant systems as necessary.
Exactly. Because if Amazon screws up, they won't blame you. That fantasy and a couple bucks will get you a Starbucks latte.
Using someone else's servers is always a bad idea for critical systems. Virtualization is definitely the way to go, but use your own hardware. Yes, that means you need to maintain that hardware, but that's a small (or not so small, in a large environment -- but worth it) price to pay because Murphy was an optimist.
And hook up a TV and big speakers to isolate the signal. Then once we decode it, we can transport a volunteer to the alien planet. Though, we should build two, just in case a religious terrorist blows one up. If we do this carefully, with Small moves, it's possible. Small moves.
If you're going to channel "Contact" at least use the novel instead of the movie. The novel was enormously better. Not that that says much, as the movie was awful.
The age bracket in question is, today, decidedly not non-violent. Opposition to a draft today might not take the form of "flower power" and "sit ins." More likely, it would provoke the militia movement into actual violence.
That's so cute! I bet you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too! You are very naive, friend. Things would not go down that way, at all. Also back in the 1960s and 1970s, not all the protesting was non-violent. And even when it was non-violent, the police often were not. That certainly hasn't changed.
What's more, you'd see quite a bit of this sort of thing. I'm not sure who this "militia movement" might be, but if you think they'll spark firefights with police/military/other government folks over sending other people's kids to war, you're kidding yourself.
I suggest you educate yourself and go back on your meds.
But I think that, while it's politically impossible, a really good pragmatic case could be made for starting to require Selective Service registration for everybody right now.
The only thing that should happen is for the draft to be outright banned via a constitutional amendment. It's disgusting that any country that claims to be free allows such a thing to exist.
Note that the US (unlike many other countries) does most emphatically not have compulsory military service. So, your call for a constitutional amendment seems rather ridiculous.
The Selective Service System had discontinued it during Nixon's administration but during Jimmy Carter's administration the President got the draft registration re-instated as a chest pounding measure to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There. FTFY. As I recall, I had to register with the Selective Service System when I turned 18. There was no draft. However, the law did have some teeth, as those who did not register were deemed ineligible for Federal college financial aid programs.
No, that was not the claim. The claim was simply that "scientists mostly share the same view". And when discussed in context with the article of this thread, the point is that the black and white departmentalization doesn't makes sense. In your case, you are departmentalizing the 97% as all being completely in line with each other. In reality, there is a scale, and within that 97% there are varying degrees of certainty on any of the key aspects as well as interpretation of the data. And, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.
Perhaps you should read my comment again. The claim is (and not my claim, either) that the conclusions (and data) of that 97% actually agree that AGW exists. Agreement about how much impact, potential (if any) action to be taken and the validity of any particular climate model or models is much more fragmentary and is, as it should be, contested, discussed and, most importantly, research along these lines continues.
I never asserted that those 97% are "completely in line with each other." I merely noted that the oft-cited study which makes such a 97% claim, only claims that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW *exists*. I make no claims or assertions at all. I was attempting (and in your case, apparently failing) to clarify that single point.
My apologies if my grasp of English was inadequate to that task.
Do you think scientists are all exactly in line on the rate of GW, the extent to which it is exacerbated by human activities, which of those activities are most impacting, to what extent we can improve the situation, and the expected impacts in the future?
No. But that's not the claim that's being made. The claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree (based on their research and the data underpinning that research) that AGW (climate change due to human impact) exists. Questions about severity, impact and potential mitigation/solutions are not included in that claim. Understand now?
The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.
You've done a piss-poor job of saying anything that even vaguely approximates reality. I'm not sure whose talking points you're mangling here, but if I were them, I'd shut up and then sue you for making me look even worse.
Global warming and Centralized Economic planning? Cite please. Look hard, but you won't find anything -- because it doesn't exist.
Threats to national sovereignty? In what fantasy world?
Last I checked, the rich, developed countries were gaming the system in their favor. Show me where that's changed? You can't, because it ain't so.
Atheism SHOULD be the absence of religion, but as a group they go out and try to force other to believe as they do.
They are behaving the same as a religion.
In practice Agnostic has become the true absence of religion.
Bzzt. Wrong. I'm not sure who this "they" and what "group" it is that you're talking about. As an atheist, I do no subscribe to any "theist" (get it? a-theist, as in not theist.) philosophies. That's me. You go and believe whatever you want. If you believe in something I don't, more power to you. Have at it and since I don't share those beliefs, there's more for you!
However, don't expect to me agree with you or not call you out if you espouse demonstrably false ideas and/or concepts.
Just because I disagree with you and don't mind telling you *why* I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm forcing anything on you.
Feel free to ignore me or argue with me. Who knows, if your argument is good enough, maybe I'll be convinced. I'm open minded like that -- if you can make a rational argument and back it up with empirical data to support your argument, I will accept it, even if it contradicts my current beliefs.
Enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be and enjoy your day, friend.
An Ex-Parte petition is filed without the other side being given a chance to answer. This is outrageous act by Microsoft. You ask for an ex-part hearing when there is danger that the other side, if given prior warning of your requested subpoena, will destroy evidence. Since Microsoft is claiming that no-ip are unknowingly hosting malware, this simply wrong.
Before you go to blame the judge, however, please bear in mind that he can only rule based on the petitions before him. Presumably, a two-party hearing will be held soon, and then things can, and should, go differently. Also, the judge should have ordered Microsoft to place some money in escrow, which no-ip will automatically get in case the temporary restraining order is found to be unjustified.
What I'm saying is that we don't have enough information so far to conclude that the judge did anything wrong, but the first link, written by Microsoft, clearly shows MS to be douche bags in this case.
Shachar
According to the Microsoft blog post linked in TFS:
...In a civil case filed on June 19, Microsoft named two foreign nationals, Mohamed Benabdellah and Naser Al Mutairi, and a U.S. company, Vitalwerks Internet Solutions, LLC (doing business as No-IP.com), for their roles in creating, controlling, and assisting in infecting millions of computers with malicious software—harming Microsoft, its customers and the public at large. We’re taking No-IP to task as the owner of infrastructure frequently exploited by cybercriminals to infect innocent victims with the Bladabindi (NJrat) and Jenxcus (NJw0rm) family of malware. In the past, we’ve predominately seen botnets originating in Eastern Europe; however, the authors, owners and distributors of this malware are Kuwaiti and Algerian nationals. The social media-savvy cybercriminals have promoted their wares across the Internet, offering step-by-step instructions to completely control millions of unsuspecting victims’ computers to conduct illicit crimes—demonstrating that cybercrime is indeed a global epidemic.
And:
No-IP domains are used 93 percent of the time for Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections, which are the most prevalent among the 245 different types of malware currently exploiting No-IP domains.
[Emphasis Mine]
So, Microsoft is alleging that No-IP is assisting (presumably knowingly) in the distribution of malware and that 93% of No-IP's domains are vehicles for malware distribution. Is this true? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.
What's next, a RICO prosecution for the owners of No-IP?
I'll ask the same question I did above. If HL paid minimum and provided the drugs in question (which would be perfectly legal), who would be better off and who would be worse off?
Another way of looking at it. Suppose a struggling mom has two job offers: Whole Foods starting at $10/hr (and they pat themselves on the back for it BTW), or HL starting at $14. Assuming WF subsidizes the drugs that HL doesn't, which job would you recommend she take? If you said HL, then you need to start protesting Whole Foods for not caring about their employees as much as HL.
I'd recommend that person take a software developer job at $25/hour.
Hey man, at least you're not under the impression that any of this is more than the impulse of men with a bit less intellect than those reading this forum... I'm not operating under assumptions, no matter what you say.:P
I guess I'm just much more easily amused than you are. Or maybe it's that perspective thing again.
Who ever told you liberal ghouls that you entitled to take the lives of millions of children, and force those with a conscience pay for it? Keep your perversions to yourself.
Hobby Lobby pays a minimum of $14/hr for full time employees. This is $6.75/hr over the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Plan B costs about $50 out of pocket at Walgreens. In this situation, an otherwise minimum wage employee could afford about one Plan B dose per workday on the EXTRA money that Hobby Lobby voluntarily pays them.
Right. Because minimum wage ($7.25/hour*(40 hours/week*52 weeks a year = 2080 hours) = $15,080/year, assuming you take no time off and that you actually get 40 hours a week) on an annual basis, less 15% federal withholding and 6.25% SSI/Medicare withholding is $11,875.50 per year. That, of course, assumes that no state or local taxes and no other deductions (hmm..like for health insurance) apply . Let's see. $11,875.50 per year is $989.63 per month. How many of you are able to live on that much?
A better question is, if you take the same calculation WRT Hobby Lobby employees, how much extra would you have left over on $14/hour? That's a net (again, excluding state and local taxes and other deductions) of $1911. If you live someplace really inexpensive, you could get by and even be able to afford your Plan B, etc. Unless you have a couple of kids who need to eat and wear clothes and stuff. Sigh.
When you look at it, my position makes the most sense out of what is being said around this issue. There is a minority (the cable providers) effecting decisoins for the majority (everyone else, from Google to Netflix). The majority should simply protest this and the government won't be left with a choice.
You actually think the people have any say in our government? That's so adorable!
It's actually not a bad idea, but you're operating under the misconception that our politicians aren't honest (see my previous post). They will stay bought and will ride that gravy train as long as they can. Which means that unless you're willing to buy out our elected "representatives" in the federal, state and local governments as well as the corporate lackeys running the regulatory agencies, we're out of luck.
Wow. That sounds really cynical doesn't it? Perhaps I've lost perspective. I hope I have, because the alternative is that we're all penned up waiting to be sucked dry by our corporate overlords. I, for one, do not welcome our corporate overlords.
Since you thought it was easier to ignore what I said after my first sentence (maybe that's all you bothered to read or maybe something ideologically different from what you believed caused some type of mental blockage) I thought I'd provide a quick excerpt from Justice Alito today who essentially made the exact same argument I did. "A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends," he wrote. "And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."
The discussion on this thread is not about religious expression or free speech. You're making a career out of non-sequiturs, eh? Remember, this was a thread about businesses spying on their employees. Please explain where "Free Speech" or "Free exercise of religion" comes in to this?
Regardless of any ideas about what the government should or should not do WRT to corporations *or* individuals, such activity is *not* currently regulated, nor am I aware of any pending legislation to regulate such activity.
What is more, even if such legislation were to be proposed, any challenge to such proposed legislation would (and this was the part of what you originally said that I took issue with) not have anything to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the US Constitution has exactly zero to say about the rights or ability of private entities to spy on folks. That was it. You asserted that the First Amendment applied. I contend that it is irrelevant to any discussion about private companies spying on their employees.
I understand that you are suspicious of government (and, in many respects, rightly so). However, your initial argument was specious, IMHO. I have no axe to grind over this. Let's just let this die, okay?
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.
Let me qualify that -- It's not clear to me that *anyone* who actually gets elected (especially in national elections) isn't bought and paid for by the monied interests. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, sadly, I don't think so.
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.
Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.
Amen, brother. The big problem with effecting such a solution is the outsized influence of money in political campaigns. Unfortunately, until we get the slurry of filthy lucre out of our political system, it's just a pipe dream IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me the novel doesn't wreck the ending in some weird appeasement to religion like the movie did.
The novel was written by Carl Sagan, so religion isn't treated gently, and rightly so.
Please tell me the novel doesn't wreck the ending in some weird appeasement to religion like the movie did.
Not as I recall. There were other things that the movie ruined too. It's an okay novel, I wouldn't buy a hardcover it's not worth that, but the mass market paperback would certainly be cheap enough to make it worthwhile to read.
Because, generally speaking, pedants are tedious and annoying, and no one else cares about the trivial minutiae in which pedants like to get bogged down. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
At least, that's what my wife tells me. ;-)
There. FTFY. Pedantry and grammar nazism all in one pretty package. You're welcome.
...Better yet, use Amazon EC2 for your infrastructure so you can spool up as many redundant systems as necessary.
Exactly. Because if Amazon screws up, they won't blame you. That fantasy and a couple bucks will get you a Starbucks latte.
Using someone else's servers is always a bad idea for critical systems. Virtualization is definitely the way to go, but use your own hardware. Yes, that means you need to maintain that hardware, but that's a small (or not so small, in a large environment -- but worth it) price to pay because Murphy was an optimist.
And hook up a TV and big speakers to isolate the signal. Then once we decode it, we can transport a volunteer to the alien planet. Though, we should build two, just in case a religious terrorist blows one up. If we do this carefully, with Small moves, it's possible. Small moves.
If you're going to channel "Contact" at least use the novel instead of the movie. The novel was enormously better. Not that that says much, as the movie was awful.
The age bracket in question is, today, decidedly not non-violent. Opposition to a draft today might not take the form of "flower power" and "sit ins." More likely, it would provoke the militia movement into actual violence.
That's so cute! I bet you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too! You are very naive, friend. Things would not go down that way, at all. Also back in the 1960s and 1970s, not all the protesting was non-violent. And even when it was non-violent, the police often were not. That certainly hasn't changed.
What's more, you'd see quite a bit of this sort of thing. I'm not sure who this "militia movement" might be, but if you think they'll spark firefights with police/military/other government folks over sending other people's kids to war, you're kidding yourself.
I suggest you educate yourself and go back on your meds.
But I think that, while it's politically impossible, a really good pragmatic case could be made for starting to require Selective Service registration for everybody right now.
The only thing that should happen is for the draft to be outright banned via a constitutional amendment. It's disgusting that any country that claims to be free allows such a thing to exist.
You might want to take that up with Austria, Finland, Israel, Norway and Greece, amongst others.
Note that the US (unlike many other countries) does most emphatically not have compulsory military service. So, your call for a constitutional amendment seems rather ridiculous.
The Selective Service System had discontinued it during Nixon's administration but during Jimmy Carter's administration the President got the draft registration re-instated as a chest pounding measure to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There. FTFY. As I recall, I had to register with the Selective Service System when I turned 18. There was no draft. However, the law did have some teeth, as those who did not register were deemed ineligible for Federal college financial aid programs.
Since my post that you first responded to was a reply to a different member's post and not yours, I can see why you were confused.
I'm not at all confused.
No, that was not the claim. The claim was simply that "scientists mostly share the same view". And when discussed in context with the article of this thread, the point is that the black and white departmentalization doesn't makes sense. In your case, you are departmentalizing the 97% as all being completely in line with each other. In reality, there is a scale, and within that 97% there are varying degrees of certainty on any of the key aspects as well as interpretation of the data. And, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.
Perhaps you should read my comment again. The claim is (and not my claim, either) that the conclusions (and data) of that 97% actually agree that AGW exists. Agreement about how much impact, potential (if any) action to be taken and the validity of any particular climate model or models is much more fragmentary and is, as it should be, contested, discussed and, most importantly, research along these lines continues.
I never asserted that those 97% are "completely in line with each other." I merely noted that the oft-cited study which makes such a 97% claim, only claims that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW *exists*. I make no claims or assertions at all. I was attempting (and in your case, apparently failing) to clarify that single point.
My apologies if my grasp of English was inadequate to that task.
Do you think scientists are all exactly in line on the rate of GW, the extent to which it is exacerbated by human activities, which of those activities are most impacting, to what extent we can improve the situation, and the expected impacts in the future?
No. But that's not the claim that's being made. The claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree (based on their research and the data underpinning that research) that AGW (climate change due to human impact) exists. Questions about severity, impact and potential mitigation/solutions are not included in that claim. Understand now?
The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.
You've done a piss-poor job of saying anything that even vaguely approximates reality. I'm not sure whose talking points you're mangling here, but if I were them, I'd shut up and then sue you for making me look even worse.
Global warming and Centralized Economic planning? Cite please. Look hard, but you won't find anything -- because it doesn't exist.
Threats to national sovereignty? In what fantasy world?
Last I checked, the rich, developed countries were gaming the system in their favor. Show me where that's changed? You can't, because it ain't so.
Sigh.
Classic piece of Completely Wrong.
Atheism SHOULD be the absence of religion, but as a group they go out and try to force other to believe as they do. They are behaving the same as a religion.
In practice Agnostic has become the true absence of religion.
Bzzt. Wrong. I'm not sure who this "they" and what "group" it is that you're talking about. As an atheist, I do no subscribe to any "theist" (get it? a-theist, as in not theist.) philosophies. That's me. You go and believe whatever you want. If you believe in something I don't, more power to you. Have at it and since I don't share those beliefs, there's more for you!
However, don't expect to me agree with you or not call you out if you espouse demonstrably false ideas and/or concepts.
Just because I disagree with you and don't mind telling you *why* I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm forcing anything on you.
Feel free to ignore me or argue with me. Who knows, if your argument is good enough, maybe I'll be convinced. I'm open minded like that -- if you can make a rational argument and back it up with empirical data to support your argument, I will accept it, even if it contradicts my current beliefs.
Enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be and enjoy your day, friend.
Emphasis mine.
An Ex-Parte petition is filed without the other side being given a chance to answer. This is outrageous act by Microsoft. You ask for an ex-part hearing when there is danger that the other side, if given prior warning of your requested subpoena, will destroy evidence. Since Microsoft is claiming that no-ip are unknowingly hosting malware, this simply wrong.
Before you go to blame the judge, however, please bear in mind that he can only rule based on the petitions before him. Presumably, a two-party hearing will be held soon, and then things can, and should, go differently. Also, the judge should have ordered Microsoft to place some money in escrow, which no-ip will automatically get in case the temporary restraining order is found to be unjustified.
What I'm saying is that we don't have enough information so far to conclude that the judge did anything wrong, but the first link, written by Microsoft, clearly shows MS to be douche bags in this case.
Shachar
According to the Microsoft blog post linked in TFS:
And:
[Emphasis Mine]
So, Microsoft is alleging that No-IP is assisting (presumably knowingly) in the distribution of malware and that 93% of No-IP's domains are vehicles for malware distribution. Is this true? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.
What's next, a RICO prosecution for the owners of No-IP?
I'll ask the same question I did above. If HL paid minimum and provided the drugs in question (which would be perfectly legal), who would be better off and who would be worse off? Another way of looking at it. Suppose a struggling mom has two job offers: Whole Foods starting at $10/hr (and they pat themselves on the back for it BTW), or HL starting at $14. Assuming WF subsidizes the drugs that HL doesn't, which job would you recommend she take? If you said HL, then you need to start protesting Whole Foods for not caring about their employees as much as HL.
I'd recommend that person take a software developer job at $25/hour.
Hey man, at least you're not under the impression that any of this is more than the impulse of men with a bit less intellect than those reading this forum... I'm not operating under assumptions, no matter what you say. :P
I guess I'm just much more easily amused than you are. Or maybe it's that perspective thing again.
Who ever told you liberal ghouls that you entitled to take the lives of millions of children, and force those with a conscience pay for it? Keep your perversions to yourself.
That's right! You tell 'em buddy! God said so!
Hobby Lobby pays a minimum of $14/hr for full time employees. This is $6.75/hr over the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Plan B costs about $50 out of pocket at Walgreens. In this situation, an otherwise minimum wage employee could afford about one Plan B dose per workday on the EXTRA money that Hobby Lobby voluntarily pays them.
Right. Because minimum wage ($7.25/hour*(40 hours/week*52 weeks a year = 2080 hours) = $15,080/year, assuming you take no time off and that you actually get 40 hours a week) on an annual basis, less 15% federal withholding and 6.25% SSI/Medicare withholding is $11,875.50 per year. That, of course, assumes that no state or local taxes and no other deductions (hmm..like for health insurance) apply . Let's see. $11,875.50 per year is $989.63 per month. How many of you are able to live on that much?
A better question is, if you take the same calculation WRT Hobby Lobby employees, how much extra would you have left over on $14/hour? That's a net (again, excluding state and local taxes and other deductions) of $1911. If you live someplace really inexpensive, you could get by and even be able to afford your Plan B, etc. Unless you have a couple of kids who need to eat and wear clothes and stuff. Sigh.
being gay is not a civil right
Being straight isn't a civil right either. Both are just characteristics of people which have no bearing on the quality of an individual.
tl;dr: there are assholes of every stripe. You sound like one.
When you look at it, my position makes the most sense out of what is being said around this issue. There is a minority (the cable providers) effecting decisoins for the majority (everyone else, from Google to Netflix). The majority should simply protest this and the government won't be left with a choice.
You actually think the people have any say in our government? That's so adorable!
It's actually not a bad idea, but you're operating under the misconception that our politicians aren't honest (see my previous post). They will stay bought and will ride that gravy train as long as they can. Which means that unless you're willing to buy out our elected "representatives" in the federal, state and local governments as well as the corporate lackeys running the regulatory agencies, we're out of luck.
Wow. That sounds really cynical doesn't it? Perhaps I've lost perspective. I hope I have, because the alternative is that we're all penned up waiting to be sucked dry by our corporate overlords. I, for one, do not welcome our corporate overlords.
Since you thought it was easier to ignore what I said after my first sentence (maybe that's all you bothered to read or maybe something ideologically different from what you believed caused some type of mental blockage) I thought I'd provide a quick excerpt from Justice Alito today who essentially made the exact same argument I did. "A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends," he wrote. "And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."
The discussion on this thread is not about religious expression or free speech. You're making a career out of non-sequiturs, eh? Remember, this was a thread about businesses spying on their employees. Please explain where "Free Speech" or "Free exercise of religion" comes in to this?
Regardless of any ideas about what the government should or should not do WRT to corporations *or* individuals, such activity is *not* currently regulated, nor am I aware of any pending legislation to regulate such activity.
What is more, even if such legislation were to be proposed, any challenge to such proposed legislation would (and this was the part of what you originally said that I took issue with) not have anything to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the US Constitution has exactly zero to say about the rights or ability of private entities to spy on folks. That was it. You asserted that the First Amendment applied. I contend that it is irrelevant to any discussion about private companies spying on their employees.
I understand that you are suspicious of government (and, in many respects, rightly so). However, your initial argument was specious, IMHO. I have no axe to grind over this. Let's just let this die, okay?
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.
Let me qualify that -- It's not clear to me that *anyone* who actually gets elected (especially in national elections) isn't bought and paid for by the monied interests. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, sadly, I don't think so.
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.
Why do you think that one politician is any more honest than the next? Politicians represent the PARTY not you.
--Simon Cameron
Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.
Amen, brother. The big problem with effecting such a solution is the outsized influence of money in political campaigns. Unfortunately, until we get the slurry of filthy lucre out of our political system, it's just a pipe dream IMHO.