Nonsense. There's nothing special about one amendment which forces it to depend on the others. It's a typical piece of political propaganda to say that someone who opposes gun control opposes all freedom. A moral, rational person has the right to his own beliefs and decisions, even if they contradict the Bible, the Constitution, or any other written law.
Above I present to you the NUMBER ONE reason why totalitarian regimes have been allowed to survive around the world. The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous.
Acutually, people like you are the reason totalitarian regimes survive. You have taken a perfectly decent set of values and perverted them into a partisan screed. If you really believed in your system of government, you would embrace both Liberals and Conservatives as allies against the Communists and Fascists. You believe the propaganda your party throws at you, and the other side believes a competing propaganda, and you then set all your energies to destroying each other. Then when you need someone to defend democracy itself, people say patriotism is just a political slogan. They weren't born that cynical, someone had to make them that way.
I wouldn't get too worked up, it's just another exercise in futility from the DRM people. You think they'd have learned by now that any programmable computer is inherently hackable. Any DRM can be removed or forged, the system would have no way to tell the difference between my home movies and a pirated copy of Pirates of Silicon Valley. Just as an example, what is to stop me from running an emulator or virtual machine, and then playing my DRM free media on such a system? How would it know it was running untrusted code if all it saw was javaw.exe?
"The condemned man received a jeweled dagger from the emperor. He selected as his second a faithful friend, received official witnesses, and plunged the dagger into the left side of his abdomen, drew it across to the right, and made a slight cut upward; his second then beheaded him with one stroke of a sword, and the dagger was returned to the emperor."
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.
I understand. Because I could have done worse, it's OK for me to do wrong. Since I didn't order that you be put on the rack, I don't see why you're complaining.
And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.
I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech. Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them? It's OK to be the thought police as long as the person really pisses you off? Justice is only for polite people? There's a difference between causing your problems and deserving them.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
"Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial"
What you say contradicts my beliefs, so I rule that your post is theory, and you can only preach it as theory. I expect to see your retraction on my desk in the morning. If you don't comply, I will also rule that you may never leave your home. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be quite "comfortable" there.
I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot.
Do you realize you just called someone a nitwit, while complaining about being called an idiot?
The divisiveness between those such as your self, and those of the religious persuasion, is that you dismiss that which you do not understand (evident that you seem to think that our world is 'explained' so well already!), while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions.
You can't use an agnostic argument to prove theism over athiesm. You can only use it to disprove both.
There's another possibility, some sort of accidental eugenics. Think of it this way, the mother had one of the genes, and it helped her become a competitive runner. It's reasonable to assume that there are men out there who are also good runners because of having a similar gene. The high-level track meets would then accidentally select many people with these genes, and while they're hanging around for their next race, they may get to talking.
but you still have your reward: the perspective of a free mind, unbridled by popular whimsy and high school clique-level faddishness
Could you actually give us a reason why our perspective is wrong, or are you just going to pretend that people who disagree with you are only doing it to follow the crowd. Did this crowd rise up out of nowhere, or do you think they had some reason to be suspicious of MS?
In the old days in Amsterdam, there were people who would pay $200 for a tulip bulp. That doesn't mean it was actually worth it. I hope you don't work for purchasing at your company.
Decriminalization has nothing to do with some sort of "drugs are harmless" theory. The Drug War has failed. We lost it way back in 1933, when we repealed Prohibition. Meanwhile, our law enforcement has been distracted from protecting the people, massive amounts of public money have been wasted on fruitless incarceration, and organized crime has ravaged our cities. There are casualties of the Drug War, and yet drug use is still everywhere, with no end in sight. It's time to admit that what we are doing isn't working, and try to find a more sensible solution.
Re:Encryption ain't it all tapped out to be...
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 1
With all due respect, what you have just said is the mathematical equivalent of "They can read my mind with their high-tech laser satellites."
The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.
By that argument, the leak would not be limited to the government. If the information is truy the property of the bank, what is to stop them from selling your financial records it to marketing companies, telemarketers, or anyone else?
This only works with a strong dollar, else they'll want to get paid in rupees. The strength of the dollar is based on how much people want to buy from the US, like manufatured goods, software, etc. Now, how exactly is a "service-based economy" supposed to strengthen the dollar?
Want to know why American culture is so popular? Survival of the fittest.
I bet I can name at least one ethnic group which was forced to adopt American culture, can you?
Anyway, Darwinism just implies "fitness", it doesn't say what fitness is. Boy bands have "fitness" for their market, that doesn't mean they have any other redeeming qualities. Communism and fascism have "fitness" in certain situations, that doesn't make them something I look forward to.
I suspect over the next hundred years some of the more verbose letter-based written languages will start condensing down to be more like English, which is one of the more compact letter-based languages.
Nah. It's an infinite universe, and astronomical odds mean nothing. The sun will suddenly spring back into life.:-)
No, it means in a sufficiently large universe, you won't be surprised if this happens *sometimes*, not all the time. You shouldn't make fun of mathematics when you don't even understand it.
Actually, if you think about the degree of abuse we constantly take, it is pretty astounding. We're constantly being bombarded with UV and higher frequency rays that chew up our genetic material and cause uncontrolled growth.
Actually, we don't handle it that well. That's why we keep getting skin cancer the moment the ozone layer weakens even a little. We live in a pressurized, temperature-regulated, magnetically shielded biosphere. We're not particularly hardy.
We're constantly being attacked by zillions of parasites and bacteria.
They are living things, and have weaknesses just like us. No surprise we can defend ourselves against other cells. Not to mention sometimes the bacteria win.
We can lose chunks of almost anything and regrow it, and in many cases other, less damaged parts are capable of compensating.
Actually, the human body is pretty bad at this. Many organisms can regrow limbs, or just have so many limbs regrowth is never necesary.
We have multiple central processing components, for God's sake -- separating the two halves of the brain produces a person that can continue functioning.
Get your brain hemispheres separated and then come back and tell me you're "functioning." It's not fun, and causes very strange disorders.
We can lose a lung or a kidney, pretty fundamental components.
We do have a spare kidney, but not a spare heart. How come when we have redundant parts, it proves ID, but when we lack them, it doesn't disprove it? You can't walk up to a glass, say it's half full, and then use that as proof of your pet theory about supernatural glass-fillers.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. There's nothing special about one amendment which forces it to depend on the others. It's a typical piece of political propaganda to say that someone who opposes gun control opposes all freedom. A moral, rational person has the right to his own beliefs and decisions, even if they contradict the Bible, the Constitution, or any other written law.
That's one small step for a virus, one giant leap for viruskind.
The US is *less of* a police state. Some parts of our government monitor your phone calls and hold foreigners without trial, some don't.
Not quite. If a law is rule unconstitutional, it is null and void. In the eyes of our Constitution, the law never existed to begin with.
>What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.
The Constitution also forbids a lot of things, like Jim Crow laws and laws removing habeas corpus. Somehow they still make it onto the books.
If only he had a series of tubes he could use to escape and warp to World 6.
You sir, are a visionary. Please send me your pamphlet.
Above I present to you the NUMBER ONE reason why totalitarian regimes have been allowed to survive around the world. The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous.
Acutually, people like you are the reason totalitarian regimes survive. You have taken a perfectly decent set of values and perverted them into a partisan screed. If you really believed in your system of government, you would embrace both Liberals and Conservatives as allies against the Communists and Fascists. You believe the propaganda your party throws at you, and the other side believes a competing propaganda, and you then set all your energies to destroying each other. Then when you need someone to defend democracy itself, people say patriotism is just a political slogan. They weren't born that cynical, someone had to make them that way.
I wouldn't get too worked up, it's just another exercise in futility from the DRM people. You think they'd have learned by now that any programmable computer is inherently hackable. Any DRM can be removed or forged, the system would have no way to tell the difference between my home movies and a pirated copy of Pirates of Silicon Valley. Just as an example, what is to stop me from running an emulator or virtual machine, and then playing my DRM free media on such a system? How would it know it was running untrusted code if all it saw was javaw.exe?
"Shhhhhh! The commercials are on! If we don't watch these, it's like we're stealing TV!"
"The condemned man received a jeweled dagger from the emperor. He selected as his second a faithful friend, received official witnesses, and plunged the dagger into the left side of his abdomen, drew it across to the right, and made a slight cut upward; his second then beheaded him with one stroke of a sword, and the dagger was returned to the emperor."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/harakiri.html
Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.
I understand. Because I could have done worse, it's OK for me to do wrong. Since I didn't order that you be put on the rack, I don't see why you're complaining.
And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.
I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech. Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them? It's OK to be the thought police as long as the person really pisses you off? Justice is only for polite people? There's a difference between causing your problems and deserving them.
"Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial"
What you say contradicts my beliefs, so I rule that your post is theory, and you can only preach it as theory. I expect to see your retraction on my desk in the morning. If you don't comply, I will also rule that you may never leave your home. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be quite "comfortable" there.
Don't be a nitwit.
I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot.
Do you realize you just called someone a nitwit, while complaining about being called an idiot?
The divisiveness between those such as your self, and those of the religious persuasion, is that you dismiss that which you do not understand (evident that you seem to think that our world is 'explained' so well already!), while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions.
You can't use an agnostic argument to prove theism over athiesm. You can only use it to disprove both.
There's another possibility, some sort of accidental eugenics. Think of it this way, the mother had one of the genes, and it helped her become a competitive runner. It's reasonable to assume that there are men out there who are also good runners because of having a similar gene. The high-level track meets would then accidentally select many people with these genes, and while they're hanging around for their next race, they may get to talking.
If you're so truly incensed about the partisan politicts in America, why did you just spend several paragraphs complaining about Democrats?
Are you ever going to get around to making a point, or are you just going to keep pretending everyone else is prejudiced against your views?
Could you actually give us a reason why our perspective is wrong, or are you just going to pretend that people who disagree with you are only doing it to follow the crowd. Did this crowd rise up out of nowhere, or do you think they had some reason to be suspicious of MS?
In the old days in Amsterdam, there were people who would pay $200 for a tulip bulp. That doesn't mean it was actually worth it. I hope you don't work for purchasing at your company.
Decriminalization has nothing to do with some sort of "drugs are harmless" theory. The Drug War has failed. We lost it way back in 1933, when we repealed Prohibition. Meanwhile, our law enforcement has been distracted from protecting the people, massive amounts of public money have been wasted on fruitless incarceration, and organized crime has ravaged our cities. There are casualties of the Drug War, and yet drug use is still everywhere, with no end in sight. It's time to admit that what we are doing isn't working, and try to find a more sensible solution.
With all due respect, what you have just said is the mathematical equivalent of "They can read my mind with their high-tech laser satellites."
By that argument, the leak would not be limited to the government. If the information is truy the property of the bank, what is to stop them from selling your financial records it to marketing companies, telemarketers, or anyone else?
This only works with a strong dollar, else they'll want to get paid in rupees. The strength of the dollar is based on how much people want to buy from the US, like manufatured goods, software, etc. Now, how exactly is a "service-based economy" supposed to strengthen the dollar?
Want to know why American culture is so popular? Survival of the fittest.
I bet I can name at least one ethnic group which was forced to adopt American culture, can you?
Anyway, Darwinism just implies "fitness", it doesn't say what fitness is. Boy bands have "fitness" for their market, that doesn't mean they have any other redeeming qualities. Communism and fascism have "fitness" in certain situations, that doesn't make them something I look forward to.
I suspect over the next hundred years some of the more verbose letter-based written languages will start condensing down to be more like English, which is one of the more compact letter-based languages.
No wA! ppl wl nvr tlk lk dat! w@ r U, %-)?
Nah. It's an infinite universe, and astronomical odds mean nothing. The sun will suddenly spring back into life. :-)
No, it means in a sufficiently large universe, you won't be surprised if this happens *sometimes*, not all the time. You shouldn't make fun of mathematics when you don't even understand it.
Actually, if you think about the degree of abuse we constantly take, it is pretty astounding. We're constantly being bombarded with UV and higher frequency rays that chew up our genetic material and cause uncontrolled growth.
Actually, we don't handle it that well. That's why we keep getting skin cancer the moment the ozone layer weakens even a little. We live in a pressurized, temperature-regulated, magnetically shielded biosphere. We're not particularly hardy.
We're constantly being attacked by zillions of parasites and bacteria.
They are living things, and have weaknesses just like us. No surprise we can defend ourselves against other cells. Not to mention sometimes the bacteria win.
We can lose chunks of almost anything and regrow it, and in many cases other, less damaged parts are capable of compensating.
Actually, the human body is pretty bad at this. Many organisms can regrow limbs, or just have so many limbs regrowth is never necesary.
We have multiple central processing components, for God's sake -- separating the two halves of the brain produces a person that can continue functioning.
Get your brain hemispheres separated and then come back and tell me you're "functioning." It's not fun, and causes very strange disorders.
We can lose a lung or a kidney, pretty fundamental components.
We do have a spare kidney, but not a spare heart. How come when we have redundant parts, it proves ID, but when we lack them, it doesn't disprove it? You can't walk up to a glass, say it's half full, and then use that as proof of your pet theory about supernatural glass-fillers.