It is not. Unlike Christianity, which leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar", Islam prescribes in detail, how the State must operate. And whereas Judaism discourages proselytizing, Islam compels followers to spread the religion world-wide — at the point of a weapon, if need be.
The reasonably peaceful Muslim societies are the ones, where the native language is far from the original Arabic and the faithful thus get their dose of scripture through clergy. Those able to read it themselves can easily become radicalized...
You are an Idiot!
Wow, what an insightful way to end any argument...
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
Why didn't you link the huge number of bombs that have been found and attacks prevented?
Every terrorist bombing outside of an airplane — including the two in TFA — would've been an airplane bombing without airport security. Simply because airplanes offer a very high "reward" — a small bomb going off at high altitude will kill everyone aboard. The security goons balance that high reward with high risk for would-be attackers.
I do call them goons, because in their zeal they confiscate innocuous items like pocket knives, and make disrespectful demands (like removals of shoes) without even an attempt to apologize. For many of them the power goes to their heads leading to condescension and contempt towards passengers — the problem made worse in 2001, when they all became federal employees and unionized.
But they are not useless, and any attempt to say that they are should be contested...
I do not like TSA, their groping and their confiscations of pocket-knives, etc, and I think it was an utter folly for Congress and Bush to nationalize airport security in 2001, but the GP made it sound like security is useless and that was just wrong.
If you want to strawman
What are you talking about? The "insightful" Joce640k did say, there is no need for airport security, because these explosions happened outside of the "sterile area"...
It is not merely legal — it is a very good outcome indeed.
As a result of the "partnership", CMU is now down 40 top staff members
As a result of the partnership, Uber is now up 40 researchers. And those 40 people are happy having a (much) better job.
in their ability continue providing quality education to current students
Quality education requires a chalk, a blackboard, and some notebooks (the paper kind). You don't need researchers for education — you need professors. Researchers you get for free — they are called "grad students". And as soon as they can find gainful employment, you replace them with new ones.
The purpose of a university is to teach — any research done is coincidental to that primary purpose.
I'd doubt that $5 million even begins to cover the damage.
So long as nobody is forced into doing something they don't want to, there is no damage whatsoever. People change jobs all the time and we congratulate them, when they move up.
'compensated' the poaching of 40 of the University's best talent with a $5.5 million grant
Why did they even have to compensate for people? Was it a slave-purchasing transaction?
The entire write-up (and, likely, TFA as well) can be rewritten with the opposite spin: about Uber offering wonderful opportunities to the researchers allowing the school to concentrate on what universities do best — educate.
The problem is you have no control where the money is spent.
That's the problem with all taxes, is not it? By asking for your taxes to be increased — as the heroes of TFA, supposedly, do — you do not solve this problem.
However, the link I gave allows one to specify, which Federal agency you wish your donation to go to.
we should simply get rid of taxes and fund the government on a donation system
As a matter of fact, that's not such a bad idea — we certain can (and should) get rid of the Federal Income Tax, for one.
But that was not my point — I was addressing only the "asking to have their taxes raised" part. Whoever feels, he is not taxed enough, has a very easy way to correct the problem without having a news article written about him...
More than 40 millionaires, including members of the Rockefeller and Disney families, are asking to have their taxes raised to help address poverty and rebuild failing infrastructure.
What's preventing them from sending more money to the government now? A trivial Internet-search immediately returns a link to the government site, which explains, how donations of cash or securities can be made to any Federal government agency...
Anybody, actually wishing to pay more taxes himself, can already do that. The only reason to make noise about it is to force someone else to pay more.
There is no possible other way! The utopian future cannot happen unless we, the have-not and have-few, disappear!
This is even more stupid, than the "no-one left but the One Percenters" part.
The sort of thing the serfs toiling in the fields a thousand years ago would say against combines and other agricultural machinery. Yes, nothing but graves awaited them — while we, the "one percenters" (by the standards of those times), live in the post-scarcity society with food so abundant, we throw out billions of dollars worth of it into trash.
Unless the nerd gets to alter the robot's firmware.
Years ago somebody dreamed of being able to reprogram mosquitoes — turning our CO2 and sweat into a repellent rather than an attractant for them would require changing only one bit somewhere.
Making oneself attractive to a programmable computer is only easier... And then comes the idea of replacing the manufacturer's firmware completely (think OpenWRT) — adding implementations for the kind of loving stuff, that the corporate meeting room has never discussed...
I can suggest some other mandatory certifications to allay consumers' fears and help them make political statements:
"Grown in Vermont" — replace by your state or an even lesser locale as needed.
"Fair Paid" — all of the workers involved were paid at least double the national minimum wage.
"Minority Grown" — no Whites among the workers involved. Optional sub-certifications can be added to specify, which racial minority in particular was involved.
"Grown by Whites" — no, scratch that, that's like sooo racist...
"LGBT Farmed" — to help all those LGBT farmers in their struggle for acceptance.
If you identify as some other Foo-American, I sincerely apologize for failing to mention Foo — it was outrageously exclusionary and harmful of me. As soon as the hurt from my unwittingly virtually punching you in the face subsides, feel free to add the "Foo Raised" or "Proudly made by Foo" at the top of this list and we shall all cheer.
The compliance with each label's statute shall be monitored and enforced by the Attorney General and penalties for violations shall be up to $1000 per day per person.
Now, of course, if we interpreted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as broadly as we do the First Amendment, none of this would be possible... But, hey, what good is a Democracy, if the majority can not impose its will on an (unpopular) minority?
Yes, so it seemed to me from the beginning. But then you started stating opinions, on what is and is not legal and Constitutional — as if you do care, after all, about such things. Make up your mind, and do not argue laws of men, if you don't believe, their "dictatorship by consensus" ought to apply to you.
The only relevant 'argument' is how to best accomplish that, not whether I should.
"Relevant" or not, that's not, what is discussed here... But, yes, by all means, do work on impenetrable phone — I'll buy one for myself, when it hits the market. You do not even need to "expand" the existing Bill of Rights to make such a thing. But iPhone is not it, so let's not deviate off-topic.
With the way you stand up for authority, it seems you brought a little of the old USSR with you
Criminals exist in all countries, and it is perfectly legitimate, useful, and even desirable for the police to hunt them. No Libertarian would contest this — even if they may object to harm done to the privacy (or property, or health) of the innocent in the process.
My assertion stands:
Unless you are prepared to claim, that the government can never search a citizen and/or his property/effects, you can not seriously argue, that they are wrong in this case.
Growing up in the USSR, I studied details of Kalashnikov in high school. "Patriotism" has nothing to do with it — I was and remain quite anti-Soviet, actually, but a weapon is a weapon...
No, they are not.
Well, if a valid court order issued by a duly appointed judge does not make something a legal requirement, what would?
Just don't try to convince people that your government is better than any other tin pot dictatorship on the planet
Of course, it is better — dictators do not bother obtaining warrants from sceptical judges at all. And, if they do, they do it at gun-point...
Unless you are prepared to claim, that the government can never search a citizen and/or his property/effects, you can not seriously argue, that they are wrong in this case.
DOJ are violating the First Amendment by attempting to force Apple to write malicious code
Ah, yes, a very novel legal strategy, I'll give you that. It would've been better, had you not misrepresented parts of it, but I shan't quibble. Most of the arguments so far have been around the 4th Amendment — protection against unreasonable searches....
Consider, for the sake of argument, government (backed by the Judiciary) wanting to search an otherwise impenetrable vault behind a coded lock. The vault-manufacturer can reveal the code. Do you believe, 1st Amendment is in any way applicable?
Before you say "yes", try to come up with a meaningful difference between a physical key, which the Amendment certainly does not protect, and a coded password...
The government has no more right to do this than it does to force political dissidents to write apologies to them.
You (and Apple) are on a shaky ground — in 2012, for example, a Federal judge has ordered a defendant to reveal her password. Maybe, she should've claimed the 1st, rather than the 5th Amendment — but that case remained inconclusive.
But in other cases, where people have succeeded resisting government's demand for passwords, they relied on the 5th Amendment, not the 1st.
Why wouldn't they use the 1st, if the password (or, indeed, computer code required to break it) were as obviously protected by it, as you and Apple imply?
First, $200 is not going to affect them. Second, while I fully support all measures reducing the taxes, I fail to see, why this particular activity needs special encouragement.
Only if that key opens up EVERY customer's safe deposit box.
Not sure about safe-deposit boxes, but many landlords do use master-keys, which can open all apartments in their building. Their cooperation in opening up a particular apartment may still be legally demanded by the police (and backed by a court order) — nothing outrageous here.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody in Flint has symptoms. And there being no symptoms is what led the submitter to acquit the hackers as well.
Banks compete with each other and have to please me to keep my business. The real danger is the government. It already forces banks to snitch on customers, will gleefully confiscate "suspiciously large" amounts of cash, and are already talking about eliminating large bills to further discourage you from using cash.
While folks are up in arms about the FBI, the real threat to privacy is the taxman... Can never buy yourself enough civilization, can you?
These two objectives, whichever one you subjectively favor, are objectively at odds with each other. Fail.
How do we know, what the mid- and long-term effects will be? There is no one obviously poisoned by tap water in Flint, Michigan either.
Should we apply the same spin to people responsible for that, as the submitter applied to hackers because he sympathizes with them?
Those Irishmen aren't driven by their religion, but rather by their nationalism. A rather different sentiment...
It is not. Unlike Christianity, which leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar", Islam prescribes in detail, how the State must operate. And whereas Judaism discourages proselytizing, Islam compels followers to spread the religion world-wide — at the point of a weapon, if need be.
The reasonably peaceful Muslim societies are the ones, where the native language is far from the original Arabic and the faithful thus get their dose of scripture through clergy. Those able to read it themselves can easily become radicalized...
Wow, what an insightful way to end any argument...
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
We were never safe from terrorism on an airplane.
Yes, planes are much safer from other dangers (such as traffic accidents), but they are, nonetheless, a terrorist magnet.
Every terrorist bombing outside of an airplane — including the two in TFA — would've been an airplane bombing without airport security. Simply because airplanes offer a very high "reward" — a small bomb going off at high altitude will kill everyone aboard. The security goons balance that high reward with high risk for would-be attackers.
I do call them goons, because in their zeal they confiscate innocuous items like pocket knives, and make disrespectful demands (like removals of shoes) without even an attempt to apologize. For many of them the power goes to their heads leading to condescension and contempt towards passengers — the problem made worse in 2001, when they all became federal employees and unionized.
But they are not useless, and any attempt to say that they are should be contested...
We never did — passenger airplanes have always been a very attractive target for terrorists, because even a small explosion inside one would kill everyone aboard. Horrible death too, I might add — for the majority aboard, who survive the initial explosion without any injuries...
I do not like TSA, their groping and their confiscations of pocket-knives, etc, and I think it was an utter folly for Congress and Bush to nationalize airport security in 2001, but the GP made it sound like security is useless and that was just wrong.
What are you talking about? The "insightful" Joce640k did say, there is no need for airport security, because these explosions happened outside of the "sterile area"...
Let's define terms, shall we? My dictionary says:
Like I said, any research efforts and facilities are merely there to facilitate the education — means, not purpose...
And that may be why the two explosions only killed 34 people, rather than twenty times as many on two typical passenger flights.
Indeed.
It is not merely legal — it is a very good outcome indeed.
As a result of the partnership, Uber is now up 40 researchers. And those 40 people are happy having a (much) better job.
Quality education requires a chalk, a blackboard, and some notebooks (the paper kind). You don't need researchers for education — you need professors. Researchers you get for free — they are called "grad students". And as soon as they can find gainful employment, you replace them with new ones.
The purpose of a university is to teach — any research done is coincidental to that primary purpose.
So long as nobody is forced into doing something they don't want to, there is no damage whatsoever. People change jobs all the time and we congratulate them, when they move up.
Why did they even have to compensate for people? Was it a slave-purchasing transaction?
The entire write-up (and, likely, TFA as well) can be rewritten with the opposite spin: about Uber offering wonderful opportunities to the researchers allowing the school to concentrate on what universities do best — educate.
That's the problem with all taxes, is not it? By asking for your taxes to be increased — as the heroes of TFA, supposedly, do — you do not solve this problem.
However, the link I gave allows one to specify, which Federal agency you wish your donation to go to.
As a matter of fact, that's not such a bad idea — we certain can (and should) get rid of the Federal Income Tax, for one.
But that was not my point — I was addressing only the "asking to have their taxes raised" part. Whoever feels, he is not taxed enough, has a very easy way to correct the problem without having a news article written about him...
What's preventing them from sending more money to the government now? A trivial Internet-search immediately returns a link to the government site, which explains, how donations of cash or securities can be made to any Federal government agency...
Anybody, actually wishing to pay more taxes himself, can already do that. The only reason to make noise about it is to force someone else to pay more.
This is even more stupid, than the "no-one left but the One Percenters" part.
The sort of thing the serfs toiling in the fields a thousand years ago would say against combines and other agricultural machinery. Yes, nothing but graves awaited them — while we, the "one percenters" (by the standards of those times), live in the post-scarcity society with food so abundant, we throw out billions of dollars worth of it into trash.
Unless the nerd gets to alter the robot's firmware.
Years ago somebody dreamed of being able to reprogram mosquitoes — turning our CO2 and sweat into a repellent rather than an attractant for them would require changing only one bit somewhere.
Making oneself attractive to a programmable computer is only easier... And then comes the idea of replacing the manufacturer's firmware completely (think OpenWRT) — adding implementations for the kind of loving stuff, that the corporate meeting room has never discussed...
I can suggest some other mandatory certifications to allay consumers' fears and help them make political statements:
The compliance with each label's statute shall be monitored and enforced by the Attorney General and penalties for violations shall be up to $1000 per day per person.
Now, of course, if we interpreted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as broadly as we do the First Amendment, none of this would be possible... But, hey, what good is a Democracy, if the majority can not impose its will on an (unpopular) minority?
Yes, so it seemed to me from the beginning. But then you started stating opinions, on what is and is not legal and Constitutional — as if you do care, after all, about such things. Make up your mind, and do not argue laws of men, if you don't believe, their "dictatorship by consensus" ought to apply to you.
"Relevant" or not, that's not, what is discussed here... But, yes, by all means, do work on impenetrable phone — I'll buy one for myself, when it hits the market. You do not even need to "expand" the existing Bill of Rights to make such a thing. But iPhone is not it, so let's not deviate off-topic.
Criminals exist in all countries, and it is perfectly legitimate, useful, and even desirable for the police to hunt them. No Libertarian would contest this — even if they may object to harm done to the privacy (or property, or health) of the innocent in the process.
My assertion stands:
Growing up in the USSR, I studied details of Kalashnikov in high school. "Patriotism" has nothing to do with it — I was and remain quite anti-Soviet, actually, but a weapon is a weapon...
Well, if a valid court order issued by a duly appointed judge does not make something a legal requirement, what would?
Of course, it is better — dictators do not bother obtaining warrants from sceptical judges at all. And, if they do, they do it at gun-point...
Unless you are prepared to claim, that the government can never search a citizen and/or his property/effects, you can not seriously argue, that they are wrong in this case.
Ah, yes, a very novel legal strategy, I'll give you that. It would've been better, had you not misrepresented parts of it, but I shan't quibble. Most of the arguments so far have been around the 4th Amendment — protection against unreasonable searches....
Consider, for the sake of argument, government (backed by the Judiciary) wanting to search an otherwise impenetrable vault behind a coded lock. The vault-manufacturer can reveal the code. Do you believe, 1st Amendment is in any way applicable?
Before you say "yes", try to come up with a meaningful difference between a physical key, which the Amendment certainly does not protect, and a coded password...
You (and Apple) are on a shaky ground — in 2012, for example, a Federal judge has ordered a defendant to reveal her password. Maybe, she should've claimed the 1st, rather than the 5th Amendment — but that case remained inconclusive.
But in other cases, where people have succeeded resisting government's demand for passwords, they relied on the 5th Amendment, not the 1st.
Why wouldn't they use the 1st, if the password (or, indeed, computer code required to break it) were as obviously protected by it, as you and Apple imply?
First, $200 is not going to affect them. Second, while I fully support all measures reducing the taxes, I fail to see, why this particular activity needs special encouragement.
Not sure about safe-deposit boxes, but many landlords do use master-keys, which can open all apartments in their building. Their cooperation in opening up a particular apartment may still be legally demanded by the police (and backed by a court order) — nothing outrageous here.