Well, but how can it force men to give up their lives?
It cannot force men to die. The US government does not have a legal right to kill men or physically force men to surrender their lives.
However, it can legally compel men to do things that might cause them to be at risk of dying; essentially by being shot, also known as: a common type of on the job accident for that particular job.
Not everyone drafted into service is on the front lines either. There are plenty of people in the military who will never see combat, either because they are unfit, or they were deemed to have valuable/rare skills that caused them to be placed elsewhere, possibly in less (or more) risky situations.
The government can draft men to enlist into armies, because it is stated in the constitution that congress has a right to raise armies, and the courts have held that this includes the right to conscript citizens in a time of emergency.
In case you are drafted, you still have an ability to refuse to go which the government cannot legally use force to deprive you of. If you are sufficiently careful in how you do this, and you do so legally, there is not even a penalty for refusing to enlist when drafted.
Even if not... your penalty is you wind up in jail or fined, perhaps.
The bigger penalty is you may seem to people like a 'coward', if you took actions to preserve your own life at the cost of not joining the service; whether your methods were legal or not, e.g. claiming to be a conscientous objector, or be a member of a religion incompatible with service in the armed forces.
Anyways... corporations are required by law to do the most profitable thing, or the board/CEO face prosecution for breach of fiduciary duties.
That would probably mean refusing to participate if it was not profitable to them.
And since we all know you can't put a corporation in jail, and they get away with breaking many laws individuals cannot, due to the corporate veil and limited liability, their officers are even protected -- it is doubtful the gov't would be able to do much without causing civil war.
So, in case of war, citizens can be forced to give their time and life in defense of the country.
The government is required to pay citizens for their service, so that it is profitable... (assuming they survive and don't suffer serious injury, which the government isn't "liable" for).
It won't be long before the consumer product commission deems paperclips and rulers unsafe for adults as well...
Paperclips? They don't carry a proper warning.... someone may put an eye out with that thing.
Our product safety commission apparently can't understand the difference between learning tools for children and toys for physical play.
A toy for physical play is something designed for a young child to throw around or manipulate mechanically.
Tools for learning are things like books, pens, paper, pencils, paperclips, markers, scissors, knives, protracters, compasses, hole punches, staplers, paper cutters, syringes, beakers, test tubes, etc.
Tools for learning are not for physical play. Children need to learn and be able to use them, even though they would be dangerous if misused.
It gives you a few more months to find more ways to delay the runout by a few months.
As long as you are fast enough at finding new ways at extending the runout a few months at a time, you may delay the runout for years, or indefinitely.
As in all major wars, the government can get corporations to help them. Governments do this by borrowing money from bond buyers and using that to fund contracts, where they pay corporations money to manufacture war-related material; guns, vehicles, uniforms, etc.
Corporations are ready to manufacture whatever materials the government needs, as long as they are paid for the resources required and there is good profit to be made.
Corporations already pay taxes. The government cannot force corps. to give up materials without paying just compensation to the corps in the market value of the materials, due to the fifth amendment protections.
Remember all the stories about fake twitter accounts, e.g. David Miliband and fake FB accounts?
With automated systems using these, I wonder if it doesn't make it more likely plain rotten people will create fake accounts under the name and place of people they don't like, as a revenge tactic.
Mining data from social networks is one thing.... actually authenticating that data or verifying the actual identity of the poster reliably, is hard.
The ban itself is not a problem... the enforcement is flawwed, if they can hide that they are texting.
Penalties should be even more severe for looking down while driving than for texting.
We need law enforcement officers recording drivers at random places with hidden cameras, in a way that we can detect someone looking down.
If someone looks down, for more than a 1.2 seconds, while the vehicle is motion, and their vehicle is travelling more than 1 foot per second, then they are busted.
This needs to be enforced more aggressively and at more places than simply looking for someone blatantly texting.
We need advertising campaigns that will convince people that 'trying to hide it' will not only fail to reduce the chance they are caught,
but will actually make things worse for them.
Maybe we need to by law require cell phones emit a detectable signal when buttons on the front are being pushed,
and law enforcement officers will record those signals as proof that the driver was texting; since the signals required to be emitted could be designed to contain information about which letter/number key is being pressed.
You don't need an export license, but you are still prohibited from exporting to countries or individuals on the prohibited countries / prohibited persons list, that Iran happens to be on.
That is, Iran is still both an ITAR prohibited country, and an OFAC Embargoed country.
The revisions to the crypto regulation in the US allowed you to export, you are still required to make sure you never export to anyone that is on the list or that you have cause to believe is on that list,
otherwise the person(s) responsible can be criminally liable.
Yes... I wonder specifically how they are following this part though...
Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
I don't know in what world having a third party posting personal data to a web site yourself counts as appropriate technical and organizational measures.
Also, as ACS:Law is a UK-based organization themselves, they also have to obey the act, even though they don't have any contract or agreement at all with the people whose information they have obtained.
It's not a list of words banks don't like... it's a list of words someone at the bank you were writing software came up with,
when some manager decided 'we need to filter the chat content'.
Just like Google's "list" is probably something one or two people came up with,
and that various managers [or other people] at time to time decide certain words need to be added to,
and just send someone an email "hey add this word to the list", and it gets added after the proper approvals are signed.
In such situations, the list does not necessarily represent something the industry collaborated on and decided was offensive,
just ad-hoc lists exist, you know.
Um.. you just said 'needs an internet connection' and then 'LAN would work as well'.
So which is it?
Obviously it's possible to have no internet connection and still have a LAN.
Usually this situation can easily be created by logging into the local router and shutting down power to the WAN port, or physically unplugging the cable.
If this is your premise, then government has a "right" (I'd love to see where that right is enshrined in Common Law) to monitor your caloric intake (eating too much is harmful)
Eating 'too much' on one particular day is harmful in somebody's opinion.
It has yet to be proven to be immediately harmful.
Although the government certainly has a legitimate right to prohibit you from eating until your stomach explodes.
Note I said 'fatal' as in immediately harmful, not harmful if repeated in excess over long periods of time.
The government does not have a right to monitor or collect information about your caloric intake. Although your health insurance company might have that right.
This is protected due to an expectation of privacy, and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
It should be noted that banning an intrinsically hazardous substance is an entirely different kind of thing.
It is beneficial for the government to ban attractive menaces such as drugs.
Much in the same manner as it is for them to ban your neighbor storing highly radioactive material in their yard that can pose a radiation exposure hazard to anyone who comes within 50 feet of it.
Don't worry... now they have an excuse to make proprietary "ez bake oven bulbs" with reduced or minimized light output.
New models of EZ Bake can be designed to not accept standard incandescents.
Some people are still using that crud in DOS mode on 10 year old hardware, to run ancient applications on the desktop.
Mostly niche computers / small businesses who have a single use for their computer system whose idea of networking (if any) is a Netware 2.x file server w/ computers connected using 10Base2 coax technology.
Probably the single best way to prevent that from happening would be to make the robot physically incapable of applying enough pressure to hurt someone, no matter what the program says.
Then as long as the fingers can't pinch skin or grab a bundle of hair and pull hard...
Now that Apple has an internet web-related / social networking product named 'Ping'.....
I wonder how long before they start going after software such as fping,
and Smokeping, or World Wide Web / Web2.0 / Blogging products such as Ping-O-Matic, or Pingler
And some OSes even include a command called ping. Think of all the settle to get $$$ and licensing / additional stream of revenue opportunities.....
Slashdot Mirror
Well, but how can it force men to give up their lives?
It cannot force men to die. The US government does not have a legal right to kill men or physically force men to surrender their lives.
However, it can legally compel men to do things that might cause them to be at risk of dying; essentially by being shot, also known as: a common type of on the job accident for that particular job.
Not everyone drafted into service is on the front lines either. There are plenty of people in the military who will never see combat, either because they are unfit, or they were deemed to have valuable/rare skills that caused them to be placed elsewhere, possibly in less (or more) risky situations.
The government can draft men to enlist into armies, because it is stated in the constitution that congress has a right to raise armies, and the courts have held that this includes the right to conscript citizens in a time of emergency.
In case you are drafted, you still have an ability to refuse to go which the government cannot legally use force to deprive you of. If you are sufficiently careful in how you do this, and you do so legally, there is not even a penalty for refusing to enlist when drafted.
Even if not... your penalty is you wind up in jail or fined, perhaps.
The bigger penalty is you may seem to people like a 'coward', if you took actions to preserve your own life at the cost of not joining the service; whether your methods were legal or not, e.g. claiming to be a conscientous objector, or be a member of a religion incompatible with service in the armed forces.
Anyways... corporations are required by law to do the most profitable thing, or the board/CEO face prosecution for breach of fiduciary duties.
That would probably mean refusing to participate if it was not profitable to them.
And since we all know you can't put a corporation in jail, and they get away with breaking many laws individuals cannot, due to the corporate veil and limited liability, their officers are even protected -- it is doubtful the gov't would be able to do much without causing civil war.
So, in case of war, citizens can be forced to give their time and life in defense of the country.
The government is required to pay citizens for their service, so that it is profitable... (assuming they survive and don't suffer serious injury, which the government isn't "liable" for).
It won't be long before the consumer product commission deems paperclips and rulers unsafe for adults as well... Paperclips? They don't carry a proper warning.... someone may put an eye out with that thing.
Our product safety commission apparently can't understand the difference between learning tools for children and toys for physical play.
A toy for physical play is something designed for a young child to throw around or manipulate mechanically.
Tools for learning are things like books, pens, paper, pencils, paperclips, markers, scissors, knives, protracters, compasses, hole punches, staplers, paper cutters, syringes, beakers, test tubes, etc.
Tools for learning are not for physical play. Children need to learn and be able to use them, even though they would be dangerous if misused.
Just wait 'til you get to the chapter on Darwin and Natural Selection?
It gives you a few more months to find more ways to delay the runout by a few months.
As long as you are fast enough at finding new ways at extending the runout a few months at a time, you may delay the runout for years, or indefinitely.
As in all major wars, the government can get corporations to help them. Governments do this by borrowing money from bond buyers and using that to fund contracts, where they pay corporations money to manufacture war-related material; guns, vehicles, uniforms, etc.
Corporations are ready to manufacture whatever materials the government needs, as long as they are paid for the resources required and there is good profit to be made.
Corporations already pay taxes. The government cannot force corps. to give up materials without paying just compensation to the corps in the market value of the materials, due to the fifth amendment protections.
So, when do corporations enlist and/or get drafted into the military?
When they become eligible? Currently, only men are required or allowed to register with the SS.
And the military allows Men or Women to enlist; however, does not allow corporate persons to enlist.
I suppose in the future there could be some sort of discrimination lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against a person for being 'corporate'.
Although i've yet to see a corporation want to join the military, and am not quite sure how that would even work.
enough to fiscally isolate an entire corp from society in the same way jail would isolate a flesh and blood human.
fiscally isolate an entire corp from society? Sounds like an anti-trust violation, or... what do corps call it tortious interference?
The idea that corporations have a right to their business and anyone 'isolating' them or 'getting in the way' does something illegal
You can think of it as the corporate version of the right to the 'pursuit of happiness'
, but every gram you send up--solid, liquid, or gas--has to be paid for in rocket fuel, and rocket fuel's expensive.
This is why we need a way to hang a pressurized straw from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere where the shuttle is.
And once it's in place, pump CO2 or Oxygen up to the shuttle through the gigantic straw, as needed.
Remember all the stories about fake twitter accounts, e.g. David Miliband and fake FB accounts?
With automated systems using these, I wonder if it doesn't make it more likely plain rotten people will create fake accounts under the name and place of people they don't like, as a revenge tactic.
Mining data from social networks is one thing.... actually authenticating that data or verifying the actual identity of the poster reliably, is hard.
The ban itself is not a problem... the enforcement is flawwed, if they can hide that they are texting.
Penalties should be even more severe for looking down while driving than for texting. We need law enforcement officers recording drivers at random places with hidden cameras, in a way that we can detect someone looking down.
If someone looks down, for more than a 1.2 seconds, while the vehicle is motion, and their vehicle is travelling more than 1 foot per second, then they are busted. This needs to be enforced more aggressively and at more places than simply looking for someone blatantly texting.
We need advertising campaigns that will convince people that 'trying to hide it' will not only fail to reduce the chance they are caught, but will actually make things worse for them.
Maybe we need to by law require cell phones emit a detectable signal when buttons on the front are being pushed, and law enforcement officers will record those signals as proof that the driver was texting; since the signals required to be emitted could be designed to contain information about which letter/number key is being pressed.
You don't need an export license, but you are still prohibited from exporting to countries or individuals on the prohibited countries / prohibited persons list, that Iran happens to be on. That is, Iran is still both an ITAR prohibited country, and an OFAC Embargoed country.
The revisions to the crypto regulation in the US allowed you to export, you are still required to make sure you never export to anyone that is on the list or that you have cause to believe is on that list, otherwise the person(s) responsible can be criminally liable.
Yes... I wonder specifically how they are following this part though...
Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
I don't know in what world having a third party posting personal data to a web site yourself counts as appropriate technical and organizational measures.
Also, as ACS:Law is a UK-based organization themselves, they also have to obey the act, even though they don't have any contract or agreement at all with the people whose information they have obtained.
It's not a list of words banks don't like... it's a list of words someone at the bank you were writing software came up with, when some manager decided 'we need to filter the chat content'.
Just like Google's "list" is probably something one or two people came up with, and that various managers [or other people] at time to time decide certain words need to be added to, and just send someone an email "hey add this word to the list", and it gets added after the proper approvals are signed.
In such situations, the list does not necessarily represent something the industry collaborated on and decided was offensive, just ad-hoc lists exist, you know.
You know... the UK has this thing called the Data Protection Act
I'm very concerned about Sky Broadband's actions, and I wonder how they could possibly be legal under the act.
Um.. you just said 'needs an internet connection' and then 'LAN would work as well'.
So which is it?
Obviously it's possible to have no internet connection and still have a LAN.
Usually this situation can easily be created by logging into the local router and shutting down power to the WAN port, or physically unplugging the cable.
Unless they intend to break it, I think it should still work fine; since it works without an internet connection and all, right...?
If this is your premise, then government has a "right" (I'd love to see where that right is enshrined in Common Law) to monitor your caloric intake (eating too much is harmful)
Eating 'too much' on one particular day is harmful in somebody's opinion. It has yet to be proven to be immediately harmful. Although the government certainly has a legitimate right to prohibit you from eating until your stomach explodes. Note I said 'fatal' as in immediately harmful, not harmful if repeated in excess over long periods of time.
The government does not have a right to monitor or collect information about your caloric intake. Although your health insurance company might have that right. This is protected due to an expectation of privacy, and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
It should be noted that banning an intrinsically hazardous substance is an entirely different kind of thing.
It is beneficial for the government to ban attractive menaces such as drugs. Much in the same manner as it is for them to ban your neighbor storing highly radioactive material in their yard that can pose a radiation exposure hazard to anyone who comes within 50 feet of it.
Clearly you know nothing about me, or what I know about drugs, and you should refrain from writing about the subject. In other words: STFU!
Don't worry... now they have an excuse to make proprietary "ez bake oven bulbs" with reduced or minimized light output. New models of EZ Bake can be designed to not accept standard incandescents.
MS DOS 8.0 from Windows ME?
Some people are still using that crud in DOS mode on 10 year old hardware, to run ancient applications on the desktop.
Mostly niche computers / small businesses who have a single use for their computer system whose idea of networking (if any) is a Netware 2.x file server w/ computers connected using 10Base2 coax technology.
Probably the single best way to prevent that from happening would be to make the robot physically incapable of applying enough pressure to hurt someone, no matter what the program says.
Then as long as the fingers can't pinch skin or grab a bundle of hair and pull hard...
They can re-use the chatroulette genitalia detection algorithms, with some touch sensors added, to prevent that dangerous use, perhaps?
Now that Apple has an internet web-related / social networking product named 'Ping'..... I wonder how long before they start going after software such as fping, and Smokeping, or World Wide Web / Web2.0 / Blogging products such as Ping-O-Matic, or Pingler
And some OSes even include a command called ping. Think of all the settle to get $$$ and licensing / additional stream of revenue opportunities.....