False. Although the Bill of Rights clearly calls weapon-possession a right, it is treated as a mere privilege even in the most Liberal locales: you must have a government's permission to keep and bear. And even where such a permission is reasonably easy to obtain, it can also be withdrawn by the Executive at a drop of a hat — without Judiciary's participation.
And not just guns — various States and cities take an even dimmer view of the Constitutionally-protected arms like knives, swords, and brass-knuckles.
if there is such a broad danger that a crime won't be a crime if there are enough criminals to support removing it from law, then perhaps it shouldn't be a crime.
Lynching niggers was a rather popular concept in some locales — a town, or even an entire State could've voted to decriminalize such a thing. Tax-evasion would be a more modern concern...
The way I see it, is that universal franchise itself is a mistake — it just as much of an extreme to allow everyone to vote, as the other extreme of making a monarch decide everything was.
I'd like to see access to the polls limited to people, who can a) solve a quadratic equation (randomly-generated by computer); b) cite (type into computer) an article from the Bill of Rights — of the would-be voter's choosing.
I also want everybody, who received over $10 worth of public assistance within 3 months prior to the current poll, to be automatically disenfranchised as well. We may or may not agree on whether criminals represent a big enough group to affect the vote, but public dole-recipients surely are, and the danger of these people voting more of other people's monies to themselves is evident.
if criminals can form enough of a voting bloc to where they make for a significant impact on politics, then perhaps we have made crimes of too many behaviors
But I can turn your words around and claim, that, if the felons' numbers are so insignificant anyway, then who cares, whether they vote or not? That said, in my opinion, if the prescribed punishment for a particular crime does not officially include disenfranchisement, it should not be applied...
Healthcare costs increase are mainly due to a lack of universal coverage
If this were the reason, we would've seen sharp increases before WW2 as well. We did not. Fail.
Working with the government is much simpler, which saves time, which saves money
That may be, because the government has unlimited pockets — if they run short, they can always take more money from taxpayers.
I've not only learned this in class
Ah, so you are still under the influence of the Illiberalism — college professors are overwhelmingly Left and getting worse. Themselves overwhelmingly paid by the government, their solutions to most problems are inevitably Statist as well. It will take you years to shake off their influence — until then discussions of such topics with you aren't going to be productive...
Our complicated private insurance healthcare system is extremely wasteful.
Because it is not really "private" — the heavy regulations, mandates, and the government-enforced absence of competition is keeping it inefficient. The health-care market in general — and the insurance market in particular — aren't really free: the barrier to entry is enormous — an Alabama insurer, for example, can not sell policies to Tennessee residents. Instead of using the Commerce-clause to force States to open-up their markets for health-insurance, the Federal government is looking the other way — since 1945... Any corporation will get slow and inefficient in the absence of competition — it may, indeed, become worse than government in that case.
As the consumers of and payers for services became different entities, the prices started to rise. Attempts at finding a government-based solutions to the government-created problem further exacerbated it, as always happens. And continue to.
Jesus how many entries do you allow before you just ban the IP? I allow like 3 and then a 15min ban.
I also allow three (depending on the attempted login, actually — trying to get in as "root" will cause an immediate ban, because I would never attempt that myself), and then ban permanently (until the router is rebooted, rather). However, from the time the log-watching script decides to issue a ban and the time the ban is actually in place, there is a delay, because the router is slow and establishing an ssh-session with it takes time. During the operation, a few more attempts to talk to my sshd some times sneak in.
I'm thinking of writing a daemon, that would maintain a permanent ssh-session to reduce the latency, but that's much hairier, than the current simple implementation.
I denounce you, kamrade, for being sexist and for body-shaming people you don't even know. So shallow... Your derogatory use of the term "gorilla" smacks of anthropocentrism and specieism so disgusting, I can't go to work now and will require days of therapy and counselling to deal with the pain you caused me. Fuck you — you should not be able to sleep at night!
Use AMANDA to do the back-ups. Use Amazon's S3 to actually store the dumps compressed and encrypted at the source — AMANDA has had the S3 back-end for a while. No, you do not need "Amanda Enterprise".
Having set just such a thing up at my last job, I'd be happy to help you out for a regular consulting fee. Should not take more than a week or two even on a large organization.
So you would prefer a humanity where it is the norm to hack each other with swords to the point of serious injury and even death
Norm? Did I say, it ought to be a norm, you lying piece of shit? Had you read the book I referred to — or the Wikipedia article I linked to — you would've known, that it was not a norm even in Twain's times: students engaging in this sort of thing were a minority, however sizeable.
Internet Tough Guys
Meanwhile, the Internet Sissies let their aggressions out by hacking at strawmen, I see...
promises to bring fight club straight to your smartphone that lets users schedule consensual, recreational fights with local strangers for free
Obviously a fake — if one is already allowing a total stranger into one's comfort zone with all the accompanying risks, exposing himself to the stranger's skin and — quite possible during a fight — bodily fluids, why not have sex instead of kicking each other's teeth out?
Global Warming is the reason brutal dictators exist, and religious extremists try to conquer the world
Real-life scare mongers are ahead of you here. And here.
The warming may be just as non-existent as the "damn cradle", but its effect on public health is already being discussed by people deemed — by themselves and others — to be our betters...
I wonder, what these numbers mean because I — without doing any classified research whatsoever — get log-entries like these every day:
... Nov 7 02:42:15 symbion sshd[96507]: Invalid user admin from 186.64.69.136
Nov 7 02:42:15 symbion sshd[96507]: input_userauth_request: invalid user admin [preauth]
Nov 7 02:42:21 symbion root-ssh-watch: banned 186.64.69.136 (for pretending to be invalid user `admin')
Nov 7 02:54:34 symbion sshd[96528]: Invalid user pos from 47.19.134.118
Nov 7 02:54:34 symbion sshd[96528]: input_userauth_request: invalid user pos [preauth]
Nov 7 02:54:35 symbion sshd[96530]: Invalid user pi from 47.19.134.118
Nov 7 02:54:35 symbion sshd[96530]: input_userauth_request: invalid user pi [preauth]
Nov 7 02:54:35 symbion sshd[96532]: Invalid user manager from 47.19.134.118
Nov 7 02:54:35 symbion sshd[96532]: input_userauth_request: invalid user manager [preauth]
Nov 7 02:54:36 symbion sshd[96534]: Invalid user admin from 47.19.134.118
Nov 7 02:54:36 symbion sshd[96534]: input_userauth_request: invalid user admin [preauth]
Nov 7 02:54:36 symbion sshd[96537]: Invalid user ubnt from 47.19.134.118
Nov 7 02:54:36 symbion sshd[96537]: input_userauth_request: invalid user ubnt [preauth]
Nov 7 02:54:41 symbion root-ssh-watch: banned 47.19.134.118 (for pretending to be invalid user `admin')
Nov 7 04:17:05 symbion sshd[97127]: Invalid user admin from 187.19.101.110
Nov 7 04:17:05 symbion sshd[97127]: input_userauth_request: invalid user admin [preauth]
Nov 7 04:17:05 symbion sshd[97127]: Postponed keyboard-interactive for invalid user admin from 187.19.101.110 port 51224 ssh2 [preauth]
Nov 7 04:17:05 symbion sshd[97127]: error: PAM: authentication error for illegal user admin from 187-19-101-110.users.certto.com.br ...
Do I get to count each entry as a separate attack? Or one "attack" per remote IP?
Like I said before you argue like a lawyer, not a scientist.
And, like before, your saying so is an admission, you've run out of arguments with substance.
You could have — after I called you out — to go on-record with actually falsifiable predictions, but chose instead to complain about my argument-style. A fraud.
The interesting thing is, your entire comment — like most other utterances by Climate Scientists — has no falsifiable statements in it. Good job staying safe.
Why do you think that editors are going to work for free?
The statement in the write-up, claiming, the new publication will be accessible for free. Maybe, they'll sell advertising or, as Uecker suggests, they all have day-jobs at colleges anyway and this editing is only a hobby for them.
Considering that Elsevier charges HEFTY fees to both, authors are readers, being free online still doen't follow that is a publication run by non-eating editors.
Elsevier may be charging whatever, but that's no longer relevant, because the people being discussed have quit it.
Maximizing biodiversity is a decent goal to have high on your list.
Well, it may be a decent goal, but rwa2's statement was, it ought to be the topmost goal, and that I do not understand...
The more organisms there are, the more resistant a given system is likely to be.
I doubt, that's true actually — even if the aim is to preserve life of any kind, rather than humanity in particular. Because, in your quest for greater and greater variety of organisms, you are as likely as not to give way to some obscure diseases, that can suddenly wipe out various species (including our own), thus collapsing the system.
Some diversity may be desirable, but, I'm quite certain, the curve peaks somewhere...
The best way to maintain longterm comfort/longevity of humans is [...]
Well, we seem to agree, that comfort and longevity of humans is (or ought to be) the goal. Whether or not biodiversity is means to that end is less obvious.
What happens to the sick when they are unable to get treatment? Should they be abandoned?
The same thing, that happens to the hungry — they go and buy food — giving something of value in exchange of something of value.
Those, who have nothing to offer (how come?) — neither money, nor goods, nor labor — may ask (politely) others for charity. Taxes aren't it — they are collected at gun-point (either implicit, as in the West, or explicit as in Somalia) and thus should only be spent on guarding against things threatening the very system itself.
If that is your opinion about 'government' and hence 'society', why don't you emmigrate to true third world country, like Somalia, Sudan or Nigeria?
Weren't you among those, "threatening" to emigrate to Canada, when Bush got elected? Or was it North Korea — the platonic ideal of government "taking care" of the citizenry's every need? WTF are you still doing here?
The 'governments' there certainly don't feed the poor, house the homeless and treat the sick.
Nice of you to have included Somalia — this whole meme about how Libertarians are supposed to move there is as stupid as it is infamous — the country's current troubles are due to its previous government being Socialist. Venezuela is unravelling into the same direction in front of our eyes — just ask Bernie Sanders, when you next meet him, what he would differently from Hugo Chavez...
And you likely proclaim yourself a Christian even...
Tell me, where in the Christian (or Jewish) dogma is there anything about it being the government's (Cæsar's) responsibility to help the "less fortunate"? It is not — good people are supposed to do it themselves, government spending tax-monies on it is not benevolence.
Slashdot Mirror
But they — convicted felons — obviously do lose the freedom of movement and the pursuit of happiness. For a judge-specified period of time.
The right to privacy is gone for them too. Except for the attorney-client communications — that ought to remain sacred, and that's what TFA is about.
Yep, if events in academia is any guide, the First Amendment rights — including the reporters' right to observe and record the newsworthy events — is done for.
False. Although the Bill of Rights clearly calls weapon-possession a right, it is treated as a mere privilege even in the most Liberal locales: you must have a government's permission to keep and bear. And even where such a permission is reasonably easy to obtain, it can also be withdrawn by the Executive at a drop of a hat — without Judiciary's participation.
And not just guns — various States and cities take an even dimmer view of the Constitutionally-protected arms like knives, swords, and brass-knuckles.
Lynching niggers was a rather popular concept in some locales — a town, or even an entire State could've voted to decriminalize such a thing. Tax-evasion would be a more modern concern...
The way I see it, is that universal franchise itself is a mistake — it just as much of an extreme to allow everyone to vote, as the other extreme of making a monarch decide everything was.
I'd like to see access to the polls limited to people, who can a) solve a quadratic equation (randomly-generated by computer); b) cite (type into computer) an article from the Bill of Rights — of the would-be voter's choosing.
I also want everybody, who received over $10 worth of public assistance within 3 months prior to the current poll, to be automatically disenfranchised as well. We may or may not agree on whether criminals represent a big enough group to affect the vote, but public dole-recipients surely are, and the danger of these people voting more of other people's monies to themselves is evident.
First of all, some elections really do come down to only a few people: Al Franken's win, for example, was due to only 312 votes. This example is important, because it cites voting by at least 341 felons...
But I can turn your words around and claim, that, if the felons' numbers are so insignificant anyway, then who cares, whether they vote or not? That said, in my opinion, if the prescribed punishment for a particular crime does not officially include disenfranchisement, it should not be applied...
If this were the reason, we would've seen sharp increases before WW2 as well. We did not. Fail.
That may be, because the government has unlimited pockets — if they run short, they can always take more money from taxpayers.
Ah, so you are still under the influence of the Illiberalism — college professors are overwhelmingly Left and getting worse. Themselves overwhelmingly paid by the government, their solutions to most problems are inevitably Statist as well. It will take you years to shake off their influence — until then discussions of such topics with you aren't going to be productive...
Because it is not really "private" — the heavy regulations, mandates, and the government-enforced absence of competition is keeping it inefficient. The health-care market in general — and the insurance market in particular — aren't really free: the barrier to entry is enormous — an Alabama insurer, for example, can not sell policies to Tennessee residents. Instead of using the Commerce-clause to force States to open-up their markets for health-insurance, the Federal government is looking the other way — since 1945... Any corporation will get slow and inefficient in the absence of competition — it may, indeed, become worse than government in that case.
And they were — until the US government imposed limits on salaries during the Second World War. Employers wanting to attract employees invented the "benefits packages" of various kind, that circumvented the government-imposed maximum wage limits.
As the consumers of and payers for services became different entities, the prices started to rise. Attempts at finding a government-based solutions to the government-created problem further exacerbated it, as always happens. And continue to.
I also allow three (depending on the attempted login, actually — trying to get in as "root" will cause an immediate ban, because I would never attempt that myself), and then ban permanently (until the router is rebooted, rather). However, from the time the log-watching script decides to issue a ban and the time the ban is actually in place, there is a delay, because the router is slow and establishing an ssh-session with it takes time. During the operation, a few more attempts to talk to my sshd some times sneak in.
I'm thinking of writing a daemon, that would maintain a permanent ssh-session to reduce the latency, but that's much hairier, than the current simple implementation.
I denounce you, kamrade, for being sexist and for body-shaming people you don't even know. So shallow... Your derogatory use of the term "gorilla" smacks of anthropocentrism and specieism so disgusting, I can't go to work now and will require days of therapy and counselling to deal with the pain you caused me. Fuck you — you should not be able to sleep at night!
Use AMANDA to do the back-ups. Use Amazon's S3 to actually store the dumps compressed and encrypted at the source — AMANDA has had the S3 back-end for a while. No, you do not need "Amanda Enterprise".
Having set just such a thing up at my last job, I'd be happy to help you out for a regular consulting fee. Should not take more than a week or two even on a large organization.
Norm? Did I say, it ought to be a norm, you lying piece of shit? Had you read the book I referred to — or the Wikipedia article I linked to — you would've known, that it was not a norm even in Twain's times: students engaging in this sort of thing were a minority, however sizeable.
Meanwhile, the Internet Sissies let their aggressions out by hacking at strawmen, I see...
Dewy, who wrote the above milquetoast nonsense, may find the fighting traditions of 18th- and 19th-century German students , as described, for example, in Mark Twain's "Tramp Abroad", most illuminating...
Obviously a fake — if one is already allowing a total stranger into one's comfort zone with all the accompanying risks, exposing himself to the stranger's skin and — quite possible during a fight — bodily fluids, why not have sex instead of kicking each other's teeth out?
Real-life scare mongers are ahead of you here. And here.
The warming may be just as non-existent as the "damn cradle", but its effect on public health is already being discussed by people deemed — by themselves and others — to be our betters...
Sort of like average temperature in a hospital. If you include the bodies in the morgue, the overall number is good.
I wonder, what these numbers mean because I — without doing any classified research whatsoever — get log-entries like these every day:
Do I get to count each entry as a separate attack? Or one "attack" per remote IP?
And, like before, your saying so is an admission, you've run out of arguments with substance.
You could have — after I called you out — to go on-record with actually falsifiable predictions, but chose instead to complain about my argument-style. A fraud.
It would've been, if you said "will". But you said "may".
Again, it would've been, had you not used the evasive "chances are" qualifier.
Maybe, you should quit "science" and go into advertising? That's where crafting impressive yet non-committal statements is made into an art: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance!"
But then, your job is already about advertising — for "green energy" and the like...
The interesting thing is, your entire comment — like most other utterances by Climate Scientists — has no falsifiable statements in it. Good job staying safe.
Great. So he'll be overrun by the survivors from among the hordes drowning on beaches, as predicted by Opportunist above.
Fortunately, these opportunists have been making such predictions for several decades now, and, as we both know already, they were full of shit.
Do you realize, we aren't talking about Elsevier, but about a free alternative to it?
The statement in the write-up, claiming, the new publication will be accessible for free. Maybe, they'll sell advertising or, as Uecker suggests, they all have day-jobs at colleges anyway and this editing is only a hobby for them.
Elsevier may be charging whatever, but that's no longer relevant, because the people being discussed have quit it.
There is an ancient tale about a poor gypsy, who was training his horse to not eat. And he almost succeeded too, but the animal suddenly died...
I wonder, if a publication run by non-eating editors will do better.
Well, it may be a decent goal, but rwa2's statement was, it ought to be the topmost goal, and that I do not understand...
I doubt, that's true actually — even if the aim is to preserve life of any kind, rather than humanity in particular. Because, in your quest for greater and greater variety of organisms, you are as likely as not to give way to some obscure diseases, that can suddenly wipe out various species (including our own), thus collapsing the system.
Some diversity may be desirable, but, I'm quite certain, the curve peaks somewhere...
Well, we seem to agree, that comfort and longevity of humans is (or ought to be) the goal. Whether or not biodiversity is means to that end is less obvious.
The same thing, that happens to the hungry — they go and buy food — giving something of value in exchange of something of value.
Those, who have nothing to offer (how come?) — neither money, nor goods, nor labor — may ask (politely) others for charity. Taxes aren't it — they are collected at gun-point (either implicit, as in the West, or explicit as in Somalia) and thus should only be spent on guarding against things threatening the very system itself.
Weren't you among those, "threatening" to emigrate to Canada, when Bush got elected? Or was it North Korea — the platonic ideal of government "taking care" of the citizenry's every need? WTF are you still doing here?
Nice of you to have included Somalia — this whole meme about how Libertarians are supposed to move there is as stupid as it is infamous — the country's current troubles are due to its previous government being Socialist. Venezuela is unravelling into the same direction in front of our eyes — just ask Bernie Sanders, when you next meet him, what he would differently from Hugo Chavez...
Oh, but what about Sudan? Well, they have an ambitious social protection program called the Social Initiative Program. Nigeria does too. Time to update your talking-points card.
Tell me, where in the Christian (or Jewish) dogma is there anything about it being the government's (Cæsar's) responsibility to help the "less fortunate"? It is not — good people are supposed to do it themselves, government spending tax-monies on it is not benevolence.
Al Gore, of all people, undercut this particular aspect of his own scare-mongering, when he bought an ocean-front villa for himself. A real nice one too, I hear...
But then, the "recovering politician" was never much about practicing, what he preaches.