While I agree with you regarding the sad state of affairs and government's overreach, the NSA — and its propensity to collect our border-crossing pictures (including those of the impolite body-parts) — has nothing to do with it.
I'm a lot more worried about the IRS being in a position to deny "non-profit" status to an anti-government political group (thus reducing the size of their bullhorn compared to that of pro-government groups) or the FCC's self-proclaimed power to dictate, how ISPs treat content, than I am about NSA, for example.
What actual crimes has Merkel been up to? Eu politicians? UK politicians? Your grandmother?
Neither have been prosecuted for anything either. Yes, NSA has eavesdropped on them. No, as long as no undeserved molestation has resulted from such surveillance, it does not qualify for "Police State".
The NSA analysts in the UK, who have access to the the full-take not limited by US law, that full take is not limited by this 'external border cross' rule.
Snowden does not mention it, but you may be better informed, of course. You are posting anonymously, after all.
I wonder how many of these "parallel construction" cases are real
So far, not only have we seen any evidence of innocents prosecuted, we have not even seen allegations. And for a good reason — NSA is not necessary to fabricate a fake case. Quite the opposite, actually.
You seem unable to grasp how this sounds unremittingly bleak to most people.
Are you referring to those unable to solve a quadratic equation? Or to cite their favorite Amendment?
I didn't think, I'll encounter any such on/.
Or, perhaps, you can do all those things yourself, but are worried about the unwashed masses, whom my plan would disenfranchise? In that case, I'd like to ask you, why is it, that you want people unable to learn how to solve a quadratic equation (and I am open to lowering the standard down to a linear one) or to memorize one of the Amendments to participate in governing the country.
What is bleak is that they currently do. The hypothetical future, where my proposal is accepted, is considerably less bleak on account of this change alone...
No, actually, it has not. The omni-present surveillance itself, though uncomfortable, is neither a required nor sufficient condition for "Police State" term to apply.
As long as the NSA only records (or even forwards to police but only to prosecute actual crimes), it is not a representative of "police state".
(Also note too, that, according to Snowden, for NSA to record your conversation, it has to cross the national border.)
So when you have only rights of custom and religion, and the discussion is about legal rights, then you have "no rights."
I was not aware, our conversation limited itself solely to legal rights.
But even so, customary and religious law is not to be sneezed at — the "Do not kill" injunction, for example, survived far longer, than any secular state in human history.
And Muslim countries do have secular laws — or have elevated Sharia into the law of the land. We, descendants of the people, who thought up the First Amendment, (rightfully) frown upon such mixture of Religion and State, but it does not mean, Sharia is not a law. It is, and women aren't completely without rights under it.
There is no evidence Iran wants the bomb. The theocracy you talk of has even condemned nuclear weapons.
Sure. And when they test their first one, you'll be blaming Cruz or Clinton (or whoever succeeds Obama) for it, the way your fellow Illiberal up in this thread is blaming Bush for North Korea's nukes.
Oh, wait, you must be of the opinion, Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" must be prosecuted as war criminal over his mistreatment of a prisoner? Right?
So in order to vote you must be indoctrinated into the government
No, not at all — there is nothing there about indoctrination.
[...] and there is no concept of loyal opposition
There is nothing about its absence either — how those eligible to vote use their privilege is completely outside the scope of the book.
The bit you, apparently, missed, is that people currently in Federal Service do not get to vote either — Heinlein didn't want the military and the government's civil service to decide the affairs either. Only after one leaves the service does he get to vote...
everyone was required to take a class along the lines of History and Moral practices
Sure, as long as attending school is mandatory for children — a theory 99% of Americans agree with — it will be teaching history. Classes like that one — or like today's "American History" — will always be present. Nothing particularly bleak about it.
"ask the leading fathers of Carthage how war never solves anything" Implying that wiping out your enemies is not only a valid tactic but is the best one.
I did not get that implication at all. What the author meant, I'm sure, is that, faced with an enemy intent to wipe you out, you better fight, rather than do whatever it is, the adherents of the "war is not an answer" theory would like you to do.
A key message throughout the book is that the ends justify the means
I just dealt with the misconception, that such a message exists in the book at all.
But, regardless, the key message of the book is that it is just as much a folly to extend franchise to everyone as it was to let only the king (or a handful of oligarchs) have it..
Having read the book, I for one formed the opinion, that only the people able to:
Solve a randomly-generated quadratic equation;
Cite one of the Bill of Rights Amendments
on the date of the poll should be allowed to participate in it...
You better grasp the difference, that was well analyzed as long ago as in Roman Republic.
doesn't that mean that "fighting crime" is a blanket statement meaning enforcing any and all laws and regulations?
Why, yes. Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is part — has itself invented, contrary to the "separation of powers" doctrine so dear to Americans, including this, who can't recognize its violation while talking about it.
That is so, but it does not automatically make all stories about it bleak. Which was my point.
And it need not be some trivializing comedy either. Books and movies describing successful opposition to evil, individual valour and collective efficiency and organization can be inspiring and optimistic (Casablanka?) even while describing bleak periods.
Except the monopoly was granted for something BESIDES network connectivity.
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
If so, it must be clearly marked as temporary — andeven then, it would make no sense to implement it, as long as the original evil remains in place.
Well, the author, at least, put forth a respectable argument against universal franchise. But you don't say anything in support of it. Prosecution wins.
Yeah, keep the government's hands off my private contract with a hitman.
Another strawman. Murder is illegal and thus falls squarely into "fighting crime", which I do want the government to do.
And before you ask, murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong (malum in se, pardon my Latin).
It is bad enough for Congress to criminalize various actions — making more things malum prohibitum. For a panel of five appointees (such as FCC) to do that is just unacceptable...
You can't have enforcement of contracts without laws and the power of government behind them.
What were you trying to say by this truism? That in order to be able to force John to pay Peter after Peter has delivered the goods, the government must be able prescribe, exactly what kind of goods John is allowed to buy and Peter to deliver?
Remind me to never sign a contract with you.
Too bad. I think, signing a contract with me would've been quite safe for you or anyone.
It is the folks, who denounce any contract they don't like as "adhesive", that you should be concerned about...
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure.
Sure, which covers the vast majority of existing Internet Service Provision contracts.
best way for the government to enforce valid contracts are to ensure that the ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly to deliver less than the customer was due when the contract was signed.
Even if an ISP put the exact description of what they plan to do — such as "We may throttle your connections to certain content providers down to what we believe is reasonable" — it would still be against the net-neutrality as you, most of/., and the FCC see it. So, the ISPs' freedom to do what they want will be damaged.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
Having traded liberty for a forlorn hope of improved Internet service, you will lose both and deserve neither. Serves you right — except I have to suffer along with you and I don't like it....
Ever think of countries as just large corporations? It's an over-simplification (by far)
It is not just over-simplication — it is simply wrong. Because one does not have to associate with a corporation — not as a customer, not as an employee, not as a shareholder. But a citizen is born with a government and has little choice in the matter.
But hey, all regulation is bad.
Yes, most are.
You people want to toss out everything and leave anarchy behind.
Strawman. We don't want "anarchy" — we want the government to fight crime, enforce contracts, and defend against foreign invaders.
Telling us, what we can and what we can not sell to each other? No, thanks.
And that TFA's author and the/. usership are reading theirs?
Seriously, historians will be struggling with the diagnosis of this novel schizophrenia, that made so many Americans in 1960-2020 distrust the NSA while trusting the FCC (or vice versa).
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm. That incumbents are happy to use it against newcomers underlines his (and mine) point — we don't love Comcast, we just distrust the government.
Some of Heinlein's works were very bleak, have you ever read Starship Troopers?
What's "bleak" about Startship Troopers? Granted, the movie portrays humanity somewhat bleakly, but the book — and you alluded to having read rather than watched it yourself — is not bleak at all.
Yes, humanity has encountered a formidable adversary, whose ideology is totally at odds with ours — but that's not any more bleak, than any WW2 or James Bond story. Heinlein compares "the bugs" with Communists a number of times.
And humans seem to be winning that war too, with the book portraying our efficiency and valour making the reader rather optimistic.
The author does mention past troubles in the book — those having to do with the universal franchise, which, in his not so humble opinion is a mistake — but those are all in the past by the time the events actually described in the book take place (though, yes, they are in our future).
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with you regarding the sad state of affairs and government's overreach, the NSA — and its propensity to collect our border-crossing pictures (including those of the impolite body-parts) — has nothing to do with it.
I'm a lot more worried about the IRS being in a position to deny "non-profit" status to an anti-government political group (thus reducing the size of their bullhorn compared to that of pro-government groups) or the FCC's self-proclaimed power to dictate, how ISPs treat content, than I am about NSA, for example.
Neither have been prosecuted for anything either. Yes, NSA has eavesdropped on them. No, as long as no undeserved molestation has resulted from such surveillance, it does not qualify for "Police State".
Snowden does not mention it, but you may be better informed, of course. You are posting anonymously, after all.
So far, not only have we seen any evidence of innocents prosecuted, we have not even seen allegations. And for a good reason — NSA is not necessary to fabricate a fake case. Quite the opposite, actually.
Are you referring to those unable to solve a quadratic equation? Or to cite their favorite Amendment?
I didn't think, I'll encounter any such on /.
Or, perhaps, you can do all those things yourself, but are worried about the unwashed masses, whom my plan would disenfranchise? In that case, I'd like to ask you, why is it, that you want people unable to learn how to solve a quadratic equation (and I am open to lowering the standard down to a linear one) or to memorize one of the Amendments to participate in governing the country.
What is bleak is that they currently do. The hypothetical future, where my proposal is accepted, is considerably less bleak on account of this change alone...
No, actually, it has not. The omni-present surveillance itself, though uncomfortable, is neither a required nor sufficient condition for "Police State" term to apply.
As long as the NSA only records (or even forwards to police but only to prosecute actual crimes), it is not a representative of "police state".
(Also note too, that, according to Snowden, for NSA to record your conversation, it has to cross the national border.)
I was not aware, our conversation limited itself solely to legal rights.
But even so, customary and religious law is not to be sneezed at — the "Do not kill" injunction, for example, survived far longer, than any secular state in human history.
And Muslim countries do have secular laws — or have elevated Sharia into the law of the land. We, descendants of the people, who thought up the First Amendment, (rightfully) frown upon such mixture of Religion and State, but it does not mean, Sharia is not a law. It is, and women aren't completely without rights under it.
Sure. And when they test their first one, you'll be blaming Cruz or Clinton (or whoever succeeds Obama) for it, the way your fellow Illiberal up in this thread is blaming Bush for North Korea's nukes.
Yes. In other words, it is even better, than it appears at the first glance.
She does have rights, actually, though they are prescribed by custom and religion, rather than secular law.
As opposite to?..
Citations?
Oh, wait, you must be of the opinion, Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" must be prosecuted as war criminal over his mistreatment of a prisoner? Right?
No, not at all — there is nothing there about indoctrination.
There is nothing about its absence either — how those eligible to vote use their privilege is completely outside the scope of the book.
The bit you, apparently, missed, is that people currently in Federal Service do not get to vote either — Heinlein didn't want the military and the government's civil service to decide the affairs either. Only after one leaves the service does he get to vote...
Sure, as long as attending school is mandatory for children — a theory 99% of Americans agree with — it will be teaching history. Classes like that one — or like today's "American History" — will always be present. Nothing particularly bleak about it.
I did not get that implication at all. What the author meant, I'm sure, is that, faced with an enemy intent to wipe you out, you better fight, rather than do whatever it is, the adherents of the "war is not an answer" theory would like you to do.
I just dealt with the misconception, that such a message exists in the book at all.
But, regardless, the key message of the book is that it is just as much a folly to extend franchise to everyone as it was to let only the king (or a handful of oligarchs) have it..
Having read the book, I for one formed the opinion, that only the people able to:
on the date of the poll should be allowed to participate in it...
Islamic countries have allowed men to divorce their wives over SMS since, at least, 2003.
The US is so backwards...
Please, don't hate.
(Lrf, guvf vf n gebyy.)
Some things (like running an unlicensed business) are unjust because they are illegal. Other things (like murder) are illegal because they are unjust.
You better grasp the difference, that was well analyzed as long ago as in Roman Republic.
Why, yes. Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is part — has itself invented, contrary to the "separation of powers" doctrine so dear to Americans, including this, who can't recognize its violation while talking about it.
That is so, but it does not automatically make all stories about it bleak. Which was my point.
And it need not be some trivializing comedy either. Books and movies describing successful opposition to evil, individual valour and collective efficiency and organization can be inspiring and optimistic (Casablanka?) even while describing bleak periods.
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
If so, it must be clearly marked as temporary — andeven then, it would make no sense to implement it, as long as the original evil remains in place.
Well, the author, at least, put forth a respectable argument against universal franchise. But you don't say anything in support of it. Prosecution wins.
Another strawman. Murder is illegal and thus falls squarely into "fighting crime", which I do want the government to do.
And before you ask, murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong (malum in se, pardon my Latin).
It is bad enough for Congress to criminalize various actions — making more things malum prohibitum. For a panel of five appointees (such as FCC) to do that is just unacceptable...
What were you trying to say by this truism? That in order to be able to force John to pay Peter after Peter has delivered the goods, the government must be able prescribe, exactly what kind of goods John is allowed to buy and Peter to deliver?
Too bad. I think, signing a contract with me would've been quite safe for you or anyone.
It is the folks, who denounce any contract they don't like as "adhesive", that you should be concerned about...
Sure, which covers the vast majority of existing Internet Service Provision contracts.
Even if an ISP put the exact description of what they plan to do — such as "We may throttle your connections to certain content providers down to what we believe is reasonable" — it would still be against the net-neutrality as you, most of /., and the FCC see it. So, the ISPs' freedom to do what they want will be damaged.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
Having traded liberty for a forlorn hope of improved Internet service, you will lose both and deserve neither. Serves you right — except I have to suffer along with you and I don't like it....
Are you going to claim, US policy regarding AT&T's government-backed monopoly was a success?
It is not just over-simplication — it is simply wrong. Because one does not have to associate with a corporation — not as a customer, not as an employee, not as a shareholder. But a citizen is born with a government and has little choice in the matter.
Yes, most are.
Strawman. We don't want "anarchy" — we want the government to fight crime, enforce contracts, and defend against foreign invaders.
Telling us, what we can and what we can not sell to each other? No, thanks.
Most of the time. Including this time.
And that TFA's author and the /. usership are reading theirs?
Seriously, historians will be struggling with the diagnosis of this novel schizophrenia, that made so many Americans in 1960-2020 distrust the NSA while trusting the FCC (or vice versa).
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm. That incumbents are happy to use it against newcomers underlines his (and mine) point — we don't love Comcast, we just distrust the government.
Such opposition to the government's attempts to force ISPs to do certain things alone makes one a freedom-fighter in my book.
What's "bleak" about Startship Troopers? Granted, the movie portrays humanity somewhat bleakly, but the book — and you alluded to having read rather than watched it yourself — is not bleak at all.
Yes, humanity has encountered a formidable adversary, whose ideology is totally at odds with ours — but that's not any more bleak, than any WW2 or James Bond story. Heinlein compares "the bugs" with Communists a number of times.
And humans seem to be winning that war too, with the book portraying our efficiency and valour making the reader rather optimistic.
The author does mention past troubles in the book — those having to do with the universal franchise, which, in his not so humble opinion is a mistake — but those are all in the past by the time the events actually described in the book take place (though, yes, they are in our future).
I can see some mistakes in your statements with a naked eye and you don't offer any citations. Junk.