Orson Scott Card is quite conservative, and his works show it.
This could have been simply a liberal pissed off that a leftist book actually depicting gay interracial anal gang-bangs wasn't read to the class instead.
Policing and war have individual players who are already prosecuted for things they do wrong. Of course it's only the little guy who pays.
This is about policies that kill and hurt. Airbags saved lives, and killed others. They played god and kids and small adults died. They don't care, it's just an equation -- greater lives saved. Maybe they should have been forced to help bury those kids.
But if I go downtown and blow away the local crack dealer, do I get to use the same argument? I saved a greater number of lives, right? Even if I do get acquitted by a grateful citizenry, there was at least an investigation, a trial, to see whether I should be subject to criminal penalties for the death I caused. Those in the government get no such trial. They just get to continue rolling the dice, experimenting with our lives.
Look at Gun Walker. At most there's going to be some political fallout. Those who purposely put guns in the hands of criminals, causing deaths, will not be criminally prosecuted. But you know those same people would have no problem prosecuting us for the same thing.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, although few wish to apply the concept to bureaucrats and politicians.
Their actions have unintended consequences. They need to take personal responsibility for those consequences. Otherwise, they will keep hatching new schemes to further harrass and oppress the people.
On another note, I am surprised so many Slashdotters don't have a problem with this scheme. You know it isn't much time between this thing's implementation and the country's police adding yet another tool to track you with. It will be abused, as your cameras already have been, and of course those abusing it will not suffer serious consequences.
You are among the majority of people who think that the police should have special privileges beyond the minimum needed for the performance of those among their duties which are just.
Correcting someone's abusive behavior is within the minimum. Being abusive like that prevents the cop from doing his job, takes time he could use in police duties.
The fact that there aren't a whole lot more Darwin award recipients among those abusing policemen is a great commendation for the police in general
Gates should consider himself lucky. If he had encountered a cop who was actually racist as he accused this one, he might have been beaten or even shot.
Years ago my organization printed a bunch of bills as a promotion. They were clearly fake at first glance, with our organization's name instead of the US, promotional print on the back instead of a normal bill's backside, etc.
One day very serious guys in suits show up, seems someone tried to pass one of our bills as a real one in a foreign country. They kindly "asked" for our plates and "suggested" we don't do that again.
We weren't in legal trouble since our intent was not fraudulent, but let's just say I wouldn't want to be in that position again. Best to just stay far away from the issue in the first place.
A neighbor called the police over someone breaking into Gates' home. The cop arrived to investigate, and Gates went off on him, accusing him of being a racist and pulling "Do you know who I am?"
Gates deserved a wake-up call that his wrong actions and HIS OWN racism are not acceptable.
The only thing that saved him was politics and the technicality that they were on his own property. Personally, I think being abusive towards a police officer should get you arrested.
Always call the cops in a car accident. Long ago I had an accident where someone backed into me while I was parked and still in the car. She said she'd pay, no insurance need be involved (young girl afraid her rates would go up). Then when presented with the bill the dad tried to back out of it saying that couldn't have happened.
Luckily I won in the end after some frustration, but had the cops shown up there would have been no question.
The first person who loses his job because of a database or connectivity problem keeping him from gassing up on the way to work should be able to sue those who came up with this INDIVIDUALLY.
Not sue the government so the taxpayers make up for up for their mistakes. But these people who think they can tweak our lives any way they want need to learn there can be real consequences.
I still wish some government bureaucrat in the US could be in jail for manslaughter for the first kid who died from a mandated airbag before multi-stage, safer airbags were developed.
Money is used to try to convince the constituency to do something, mainly vote for the politician. But if the constituency already believes some way, then it's wise for the politician to do what they want for risk of losing office. The problems are getting a chunk of the people to believe one way, and then convincing the politician that this like-mindedness exists. And that usually takes money.
I also think killing for sport is wrong. I've never done it, never will, and my kids who hunt know it's wrong too.
Admittedly, killing your own does come with some thrill, but the main reason is to get a lot of inexpensive food that hasn't been packed full of hormones, force-fed stuff it's not supposed to eat, or had all of the flavor bred out of it.
In the middle of it, I sometimes get deer from hunters who do kill for sport, but make sure someone eats what they kill. I still have a bit of a problem with their motive, but I'm not going to complain about free food for my family.
"It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,"
Watch the video. Well-travelled highway? It's the standard remote two-lane, no-shoulder backroad you find in the area even if it technically has the name "highway." Not one car goes by during the entire video. If I have the right highway, it runs through the huge plantation, their property on both sides.
I see the setup at the end here, claiming the local cops are corrupt and protecting the hunters. This way when the police refuse to investigate those on the ranch defending against an illegal trespass and protecting against interference with a lawful (although distasteful IMHO) activity, they can claim conspiracy.
The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it. I don't think there are very many countries on that list.
Iran would gladly host that information. However, WikiLeaks would have to stick to anti-Western information. If anything embarrassing to the Iranian government gets posted, then anybody in Iran associated with WikiLeaks would be strung up after a quick show trial.
I know, dual WikiLeaks. WikiLeaksEast, WikiLeaksWest. The one in the West only publishes info about the East, and vice versa. The US would likely claim "First Amendment" if dirt on Iran were dished within our jurisdiction and Iran demanded it be taken down. Iran would claim interference by the Great Satan if the US claimed likewise.
For example, a talk show radio host. He plays various intro and exit music, definitely covered under payments.
But what if he picks a song as his theme song and plays it constantly? I wouldn't think that would be covered under ASCAP any more than someone wanting to use a song in a movie.
At the time, the Democrats were the party of racism, trying to keep the blacks in their place. The Republicans were the party fighting racism, in large part originally founded on the abolitionist platform.
This whole supposed flip-flop on who's racist only happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Until then, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Remember Robert Byrd saying you couldn't be in Democratic politics down South unless you were KKK?
In reality it's an interview with a security officer who has done this hundreds or thousands of times and knows how to manipulate people. You've done this zero to a few times. You're not likely to win in hiding dishonest intent when he's trying to pry it out of you.
The machine is just a tool he has, it's not the arbiter of truth.
NO one! is disputing here that killing people is wrong, that forcing women to wear and do stuff they as individuals dont want is WRONG!
Slashdot has no Muslims?
labling people and their views not on an individual case but collectively.
In case you haven't heard, adherents to a religion by definition have a collective set of views. Sure, if the religion is fragmented then there will be several collective views that differ from the original in various ways, but they still are collective views.
Just think of a payoff: They'll pay you a million dollars for X information. You get caught, go to prison for 20 years at least. That's only $50,000 a year. You could have made a lot more than that as a cleared admin, and avoided a romantic relationship with Bubba.
In reality, they don't usually pay that much for a run-of-the-mill information passer. Jonathan Pollard got $1,500 a month from the Israelis, and got life in prison. Robert Hanssen was a very high level spy, not just an admin, so he got $1.4 million over 22 years, and the rest of his life in prison (where he will die).
And if you think you're so smart that you have a very low chance of getting caught, then you're an idiot. Hanssen himself was a counterintelligence agent, and that helped him go for as long as he did, but he still got caught.
BTW, one of the things they check is unaccounted indicators of wealth, and they do ask friends and neighbors, and check your financials. I remember a new soldier was investigated back in the 80s because he showed up one day with a new BMW 7-series. This wasn't even caught during a reinvestigation, they just noticed. Turns out dad was rich and gave him the car as a reward for joining the Army. With such a clear reason he was okay, but had he not been able to show a solid source for the money he would have been in a whole heap of trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card is quite conservative, and his works show it.
This could have been simply a liberal pissed off that a leftist book actually depicting gay interracial anal gang-bangs wasn't read to the class instead.
In fact, when both sides get behind something it is usually not a good thing.
Policing and war have individual players who are already prosecuted for things they do wrong. Of course it's only the little guy who pays.
This is about policies that kill and hurt. Airbags saved lives, and killed others. They played god and kids and small adults died. They don't care, it's just an equation -- greater lives saved. Maybe they should have been forced to help bury those kids.
But if I go downtown and blow away the local crack dealer, do I get to use the same argument? I saved a greater number of lives, right? Even if I do get acquitted by a grateful citizenry, there was at least an investigation, a trial, to see whether I should be subject to criminal penalties for the death I caused. Those in the government get no such trial. They just get to continue rolling the dice, experimenting with our lives.
Look at Gun Walker. At most there's going to be some political fallout. Those who purposely put guns in the hands of criminals, causing deaths, will not be criminally prosecuted. But you know those same people would have no problem prosecuting us for the same thing.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, although few wish to apply the concept to bureaucrats and politicians.
Their actions have unintended consequences. They need to take personal responsibility for those consequences. Otherwise, they will keep hatching new schemes to further harrass and oppress the people.
On another note, I am surprised so many Slashdotters don't have a problem with this scheme. You know it isn't much time between this thing's implementation and the country's police adding yet another tool to track you with. It will be abused, as your cameras already have been, and of course those abusing it will not suffer serious consequences.
Correcting someone's abusive behavior is within the minimum. Being abusive like that prevents the cop from doing his job, takes time he could use in police duties.
Gates should consider himself lucky. If he had encountered a cop who was actually racist as he accused this one, he might have been beaten or even shot.
Years ago my organization printed a bunch of bills as a promotion. They were clearly fake at first glance, with our organization's name instead of the US, promotional print on the back instead of a normal bill's backside, etc.
One day very serious guys in suits show up, seems someone tried to pass one of our bills as a real one in a foreign country. They kindly "asked" for our plates and "suggested" we don't do that again.
We weren't in legal trouble since our intent was not fraudulent, but let's just say I wouldn't want to be in that position again. Best to just stay far away from the issue in the first place.
Time to get new cops.
Or at least fire the police chief.
A neighbor called the police over someone breaking into Gates' home. The cop arrived to investigate, and Gates went off on him, accusing him of being a racist and pulling "Do you know who I am?"
Gates deserved a wake-up call that his wrong actions and HIS OWN racism are not acceptable.
The only thing that saved him was politics and the technicality that they were on his own property. Personally, I think being abusive towards a police officer should get you arrested.
Always call the cops in a car accident. Long ago I had an accident where someone backed into me while I was parked and still in the car. She said she'd pay, no insurance need be involved (young girl afraid her rates would go up). Then when presented with the bill the dad tried to back out of it saying that couldn't have happened.
Luckily I won in the end after some frustration, but had the cops shown up there would have been no question.
The first person who loses his job because of a database or connectivity problem keeping him from gassing up on the way to work should be able to sue those who came up with this INDIVIDUALLY.
Not sue the government so the taxpayers make up for up for their mistakes. But these people who think they can tweak our lives any way they want need to learn there can be real consequences.
I still wish some government bureaucrat in the US could be in jail for manslaughter for the first kid who died from a mandated airbag before multi-stage, safer airbags were developed.
Then as a government agency, the public deserves to see all correspondence.
Money is used to try to convince the constituency to do something, mainly vote for the politician. But if the constituency already believes some way, then it's wise for the politician to do what they want for risk of losing office. The problems are getting a chunk of the people to believe one way, and then convincing the politician that this like-mindedness exists. And that usually takes money.
I also think killing for sport is wrong. I've never done it, never will, and my kids who hunt know it's wrong too.
Admittedly, killing your own does come with some thrill, but the main reason is to get a lot of inexpensive food that hasn't been packed full of hormones, force-fed stuff it's not supposed to eat, or had all of the flavor bred out of it.
In the middle of it, I sometimes get deer from hunters who do kill for sport, but make sure someone eats what they kill. I still have a bit of a problem with their motive, but I'm not going to complain about free food for my family.
"It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,"
Watch the video. Well-travelled highway? It's the standard remote two-lane, no-shoulder backroad you find in the area even if it technically has the name "highway." Not one car goes by during the entire video. If I have the right highway, it runs through the huge plantation, their property on both sides.
As you say, shotgun with birdshot.
I see the setup at the end here, claiming the local cops are corrupt and protecting the hunters. This way when the police refuse to investigate those on the ranch defending against an illegal trespass and protecting against interference with a lawful (although distasteful IMHO) activity, they can claim conspiracy.
With that enabled, every 8-megapixel photo you take with a 4S is immediately uploaded over the cell network.
Taking a dozen photos with PhotoStream on would far surpass the about 20 MB per month for Siri that Ars Technica estimated.
Iran would gladly host that information. However, WikiLeaks would have to stick to anti-Western information. If anything embarrassing to the Iranian government gets posted, then anybody in Iran associated with WikiLeaks would be strung up after a quick show trial.
I know, dual WikiLeaks. WikiLeaksEast, WikiLeaksWest. The one in the West only publishes info about the East, and vice versa. The US would likely claim "First Amendment" if dirt on Iran were dished within our jurisdiction and Iran demanded it be taken down. Iran would claim interference by the Great Satan if the US claimed likewise.
For example, a talk show radio host. He plays various intro and exit music, definitely covered under payments.
But what if he picks a song as his theme song and plays it constantly? I wouldn't think that would be covered under ASCAP any more than someone wanting to use a song in a movie.
Sounds like Newt's using it as his theme.
At the time, the Democrats were the party of racism, trying to keep the blacks in their place. The Republicans were the party fighting racism, in large part originally founded on the abolitionist platform.
This whole supposed flip-flop on who's racist only happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Until then, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Remember Robert Byrd saying you couldn't be in Democratic politics down South unless you were KKK?
He'll have no problem signing bills that destroy fair use.
In reality it's an interview with a security officer who has done this hundreds or thousands of times and knows how to manipulate people. You've done this zero to a few times. You're not likely to win in hiding dishonest intent when he's trying to pry it out of you.
The machine is just a tool he has, it's not the arbiter of truth.
I just hope that anybody who has read this isn't dumb as a box of rocks and still tries. We are talking server admins here, not some dumb street punk.
Slashdot has no Muslims?
In case you haven't heard, adherents to a religion by definition have a collective set of views. Sure, if the religion is fragmented then there will be several collective views that differ from the original in various ways, but they still are collective views.
Every organization has its people who just run things.
Even the CIA needs admins, desktop jockeys, janitors and window washers who have nothing to do with spying.
Just think of a payoff: They'll pay you a million dollars for X information. You get caught, go to prison for 20 years at least. That's only $50,000 a year. You could have made a lot more than that as a cleared admin, and avoided a romantic relationship with Bubba.
In reality, they don't usually pay that much for a run-of-the-mill information passer. Jonathan Pollard got $1,500 a month from the Israelis, and got life in prison. Robert Hanssen was a very high level spy, not just an admin, so he got $1.4 million over 22 years, and the rest of his life in prison (where he will die).
And if you think you're so smart that you have a very low chance of getting caught, then you're an idiot. Hanssen himself was a counterintelligence agent, and that helped him go for as long as he did, but he still got caught.
BTW, one of the things they check is unaccounted indicators of wealth, and they do ask friends and neighbors, and check your financials. I remember a new soldier was investigated back in the 80s because he showed up one day with a new BMW 7-series. This wasn't even caught during a reinvestigation, they just noticed. Turns out dad was rich and gave him the car as a reward for joining the Army. With such a clear reason he was okay, but had he not been able to show a solid source for the money he would have been in a whole heap of trouble.