It is good to see continuing attempts to assert our freedoms based on the ever more creative and expanded interpretations of the First Amendment. If the book prohibits cooking a lamb in its mother's milk, then pepperoni pizza is not kosher either — alright...
But why is not the Second treated just as creatively? If the same narrow reading, that is being constantly applied to the Second, was applied to the First Amendment, your right to free speech would've been limited solely to petitioning the government — and only for the redress of grievances.
If, as is often asserted in some (highly moderated)/.-posts and elsewhere, the Second Amendment ought to apply only to muzzle-loading muskets and only if carried by "organized militias", why does the First cover the right to sell pornography?
Nothing against porn, but why is it a right, while keeping and bearing arms wherever I please is deemed a mere privilege — which the Executive branch in the States (and even smaller locales) may or may not grant and, even having once granted, may withdraw at any time without bothering with pesky Judiciary?
May it also be, the "coding error" was not an error at all, but a deliberately introduced bug? Government agencies always wanted to read our — and each other's — communications. Sometimes even for legitimate reasons...
Neither a fortress nor a maiden will hold out long, as soon as they begin to parley. (via Ben Franklin).
A device talking to — and accepting instructions to modify itself from — something foreign over the air is likely to get hacked eventually. With phones that may not be bad enough to warrant the inconvenience of mandating wired updates. Cars are a different story...
Only because we — the people — chose to give them money. Foolishly, I might add.
And, perhaps even more foolishly, we made no requirements about limiting the executive salaries until the monies are paid back.But most of the banks have, actually, paid back years ago (unlike automakers) — so the question is moot.
Similarly, if all the wealth in the country except yours was to be confiscated by a single individual
Wealth confiscation — as well as murder and other crimes — are a valid concern of everyone. Salary is not.
You see, the distribution of wealth in a society has far-reaching effects
Irrelevant.
High levels of wealth concentration can result in things like the French Revolution
French Revolution was caused not by "wealth concentration", but by the government being bankrupt and by its trying to get out of it by high taxes. Nice try, though...
or Zimbabwe
Troubles in Zimbabwe started from the top — the "revolutionary" leader decided to instill "justice" by confiscations. An even nicer try to shout down a right-leaning opponent by offering leftists' misdeeds as examples.
You seem to be suggesting that the gutting of the middle class only affects the middle class, which is hilarious.
All I said was, what non-governmental enterprises pay their employees (from CEOs to janitors) is — ought to be — between the said employers and employees. How do you infer "gutting middle class" from that is beyond me...
Three of the Walmart exec/founders are in the top 10 richest people in the world. Walmart is a blight and an embarrassment for all of America.
That's the most mysterious leap of "logic" I've seen in a while... I'd expect, having even one exec/founder among the top 10 richest people in the world would be a source of (well-justified) pride, rather than embarrassment...
You must be the kind, who measures work in tiredness...
All societies place limits and prohibitions on things for various reasons like fairness and living in peace with one another. We strive to create systems that work well for everyone (for the most part).
Something is very wrong, when a "society" (thank you, BTW, for not using the word "community") sees fit to insert itself into relationships between consenting adults.
Whether these relationships are between investors and the CEOs they pick to run their companies, or between lovers exchanging less common sexual favors with each other — none of it is the society's business.
This results in taxpayers subsidizing the lower worker salaries
Only because the taxpayers choose to do that — help the low-paid — as is our right. But this choosing does not entitle us to control the salaries. Not at all.
Large income inequality has not been shown to be healthy for a society.
It has not. What has been shown to be unhealthy, is the government meddling — with the best intentions (especially with those!) — with the markets. Including the labor market.
Taxpayers are footing the bill. Or did you miss the recent media attention about all the people who work at Wal-Mart, McDonald's etc and have to get food stamps and other government assistance to make ends meet
We — the taxpayers — chose to give those losers their foodstamps (by electing the foodstamp President — twice). It was stupid of us, but it does not give us any right to control, how much people are paid. Nothing to see here, move along — it is not your money.
This isn't the rhetorical lazy bum leeching off welfare or unemployment benefits, there are people being good citizens and actually working.
Working and leeching aren't mutually exclusive. Any recipient of foodstamps (or any other public charity) is leeching. But this is off-topic.
Most people's cameras today are in their phones. Can't confiscate those without cutting the same people from their communications. And that may not be as agreeable as giving up cameras.
Yes, we used to live without portable phones only 20 years ago, but that's not going to convince many guests today — and next time they might pick a different limo-company.
And in a few more years, people's eyewear will have a camera in it too... No, confiscation of the devices is not the way to go.
The other party tries to the be adults in the room
Both of America's major parties would say this about themselves — and the other guys.
But also willing to match crazy statement with crazy statement.
But if you happen to represent the party in power currently, then it must be the "crazy" stage right now — and for the last 6 years at least. America has rapidly slipped in both — economic freedom and in press freedom during the period. The Party — and the President — calling themselves "Liberal" presided over the liberties slipping away. Crazy indeed.
Thankfully, "fields" of IPv4 addresses are reusable. Enterprises (commercial and otherwise), that don't need as much as they once got, sell their allocations. There is enough for those, who really need a globally-reachable server. Others use NAT.
The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction.
We've also been "10 years away from running out of oil" — for the last 30 (if not 40) years...
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see, what's so particularly American about this case of paparazzi-journalism.
They certainly are, as far the Constitution and other law is concerned.
It is good to see continuing attempts to assert our freedoms based on the ever more creative and expanded interpretations of the First Amendment. If the book prohibits cooking a lamb in its mother's milk, then pepperoni pizza is not kosher either — alright...
But why is not the Second treated just as creatively? If the same narrow reading, that is being constantly applied to the Second, was applied to the First Amendment, your right to free speech would've been limited solely to petitioning the government — and only for the redress of grievances.
If, as is often asserted in some (highly moderated) /.-posts and elsewhere, the Second Amendment ought to apply only to muzzle-loading muskets and only if carried by "organized militias", why does the First cover the right to sell pornography?
Nothing against porn, but why is it a right, while keeping and bearing arms wherever I please is deemed a mere privilege — which the Executive branch in the States (and even smaller locales) may or may not grant and, even having once granted, may withdraw at any time without bothering with pesky Judiciary?
May it also be, the "coding error" was not an error at all, but a deliberately introduced bug? Government agencies always wanted to read our — and each other's — communications. Sometimes even for legitimate reasons...
A device talking to — and accepting instructions to modify itself from — something foreign over the air is likely to get hacked eventually. With phones that may not be bad enough to warrant the inconvenience of mandating wired updates. Cars are a different story...
Only because we — the people — chose to give them money. Foolishly, I might add.
And, perhaps even more foolishly, we made no requirements about limiting the executive salaries until the monies are paid back.But most of the banks have, actually, paid back years ago (unlike automakers) — so the question is moot.
Wealth confiscation — as well as murder and other crimes — are a valid concern of everyone. Salary is not.
Irrelevant.
French Revolution was caused not by "wealth concentration", but by the government being bankrupt and by its trying to get out of it by high taxes. Nice try, though...
Troubles in Zimbabwe started from the top — the "revolutionary" leader decided to instill "justice" by confiscations. An even nicer try to shout down a right-leaning opponent by offering leftists' misdeeds as examples.
All I said was, what non-governmental enterprises pay their employees (from CEOs to janitors) is — ought to be — between the said employers and employees. How do you infer "gutting middle class" from that is beyond me...
Can you express yourself in a polite debate without the "emperor's special clothes" kind of argument?
(Please, don't hate.)
That's the most mysterious leap of "logic" I've seen in a while... I'd expect, having even one exec/founder among the top 10 richest people in the world would be a source of (well-justified) pride, rather than embarrassment...
You must be the kind, who measures work in tiredness...
Please, don't hate.
No. We don't get any more power in exchange for such "saving", than is negotiated with the company being "saved".
(And we shouldn't have "saved" anybody to begin with.)
Something is very wrong, when a "society" (thank you, BTW, for not using the word "community") sees fit to insert itself into relationships between consenting adults.
Whether these relationships are between investors and the CEOs they pick to run their companies, or between lovers exchanging less common sexual favors with each other — none of it is the society's business.
Only because the taxpayers choose to do that — help the low-paid — as is our right. But this choosing does not entitle us to control the salaries. Not at all.
It has not. What has been shown to be unhealthy, is the government meddling — with the best intentions (especially with those!) — with the markets. Including the labor market.
We — the taxpayers — chose to give those losers their foodstamps (by electing the foodstamp President — twice). It was stupid of us, but it does not give us any right to control, how much people are paid. Nothing to see here, move along — it is not your money.
Working and leeching aren't mutually exclusive. Any recipient of foodstamps (or any other public charity) is leeching. But this is off-topic.
Then raise your concerns in a shareholders' meeting -- not in newspapers.
The even bigger question is, why is this any of our business? As long as it is not the taxpayers footing the bill, count your own money...
Most people's cameras today are in their phones. Can't confiscate those without cutting the same people from their communications. And that may not be as agreeable as giving up cameras.
Yes, we used to live without portable phones only 20 years ago, but that's not going to convince many guests today — and next time they might pick a different limo-company.
And in a few more years, people's eyewear will have a camera in it too... No, confiscation of the devices is not the way to go.
Oh, well, that's a reassuring statement. Everything is fine then, right? I shall not worry my pretty little head about a thing...
Both of America's major parties would say this about themselves — and the other guys.
But if you happen to represent the party in power currently, then it must be the "crazy" stage right now — and for the last 6 years at least. America has rapidly slipped in both — economic freedom and in press freedom during the period. The Party — and the President — calling themselves "Liberal" presided over the liberties slipping away. Crazy indeed.
When I hear the word "haterz", I call my air force. (Same reaction to the word "community", BTW -- I don't know, why.)
Thankfully, "fields" of IPv4 addresses are reusable. Enterprises (commercial and otherwise), that don't need as much as they once got, sell their allocations. There is enough for those, who really need a globally-reachable server. Others use NAT.
We've also been "10 years away from running out of oil" — for the last 30 (if not 40) years...
What development? Inflation is up, infrastructure ever more decrepit, crime is up — homicides quadrupled over the last 15 years
I don't see, who but an enemy of the people could possibly like a ruler like that. No wonder, you prefer to stay anonymous.
Thankfully, the worst charge can be thrown out...