You're asking me to choose between torture and torture. If I have the choice, I'll choose whatever I regard to be the less painful/permanent torture. But I'm still being tortured. Let me rewrite your post, not for you (because I think you're trolling;-) ) but for those who might entertain the idea that waterboarding is acceptable:
That is a pretty thoughtless comment. If you had to choose between someone slowly roasting you until you die of overheating or organ failure (torture) or someone drilling holes in your knees with an electric drill (enhanced interrogation), I think you would indeed appreciate the difference and choose accordingly.
I can see your world. And in your world torture is legal but each method has a point value. Bureaucrats are allowed to authorise torture of suspects providing the total number of torture points per unit time does not exceed some arbitrarily defined limit (increased for terrorists or in times of perpetual war).
Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition? The Inquisition was not allowed to cause the victim to bleed externally. Because, goodness, that's torture. Everything else, of course, is just enhanced interrogation.
A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public.
Such as those who engaged in the bombing of Dresden. A couple of shock-and-awe questions for you:
(1) Can you name one group in the last century which has declared war but which has restricted itself to military and government targets?
(2) Which residents in a country have nothing to do with the military or government?
But the distinction between civilian and soldier is overrated, an artificial construct to dehumanise soldiers and make war seem somehow civilised.
"Terrorist" is a god-disguising synonym for "infidel", holding a similar status in political language as "patriot" and "security". See also USA PATRIOT Act in the US and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in the UK.
The fact that people so quickly bounce from Blackberry to iPhone to Android in business suggests to me that they use their 'phones for very little real work. I wonder if one day we'll return to, say, 15 years ago, when people had a much better chance to get hard work done (and rest outside hours) without a million devices to interrupt them.
The Crown's jurisdiction does not fully extend to the guy or gal wearing the crown. She is certainly immune from being summoned to give evidence in court (see Regina v Burrell) and she's effectively immune from criminal prosecution - (i) the King (Queen) can traditionally (which is England's version of "constitutionally") do no wrong; (ii) consider the implications of Crown v Crown.
If you're paying attention, you'll answer (ii) with reference to the Crown Proceedings Act. This is probably necessary, but no by means sufficient, in paving any path toward taking judicial action against the ruling monarch (excepting the treason argument which cut Charles I short).
I've been of the view that WW2 was a political power transfer from Europe to Russia and North America. In the long term, the biggest loser was Britain, exiting the superpower stage to give way to the Cold War. Germany was the excuse the USA needed then, as 9/11 was the excuse USA needed a decade ago.
Launched in 1996, technology-related news web site Slashdot has been sloshing around the Intertubes for almost 17 years, attracting a wide share of geeks and their mothers when they walk into the basement and glance at the screen. But, as this paragraph shows, summaries have been rife with trivial factual, spelling and grammatical errors. After a three month consultation with users completed by impartial research group IDG, Slashdot's parent company have decided to take the giant leap of employing a single, full-time proofreader for all article submissions. This proofreader, who will start his work about 10 minutes from now, will be charged with ensuring that every T is dotted and every I crossed. Apostrophe's will be correctly placed, giving a better reader experience then ever before. UNIX and MAC users will be united in common enjoyment of queen's American English. The proofreader will also be responsible for dupe and repetition control. Which begs the question: how can we make Slashdot aeven better?
I contend that, if you were to abolish patents completely tomorrow, people would still want to create and invent and solve problems. The pace of innovation would not slow down but increase, because no firm could ever rest on its laurels.
The arguments that clever people do not work unless paid very highly; that people do not express themselves unless given copyright protection; that people do not invent unless they can win a patent - all these arguments are oft repeated and rarely proven. IME all the cleverest people want is an environment where they can dedicate their time to their art.
Or maybe not every song's sentiment completely reflects the opinions of the writer. Or maybe not everyone's choice of entertainment reveals their underlying beliefs.
scientific understanding of what makes us human; I don't think Lennon had exactly that in mind when he wrote the song.
"Imagine no religion", probably the most loudly repeated line in the song, is to imagine a scientific rather than mystical understanding of what makes us human.
That's a necessary but not sufficient condition for the rest, of course.
You can look at it two ways depending on how sociopathic you are:
(1) If your system may result in people going hungry on the streets, other than because of a lack of food and buildings, then there is automatically a problem. There's your humanitarian angle;
(2) If the world economy stops then there are no enforceable debts, so no justification for pushing anyone out of their home. But when people consider "the economy stopping", it doesn't matter whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife: the melon suffers. There's your capitalist angle.
Perhaps you missed the word "Imagine" in the song's title. It's an ideal to look to. At no point does the song say, "These are our targets by date X. If we don't achieve all of them globally then we have failed."
and completely invalid
Every sentiment in the song is invalid? So we shouldn't strive for less "necessary" death, less religion, less hunger, more peace?
Now, imagine there is no need for greed. Imagine we have reached the point where technology can keep every man comfortable and fed without the oft-claimed organisational "necessity" that is financial incentive to innovate/invest. The "economy" is alleged to be necessary to manage scarcity - today especially including artificially created scarcities. Imagine there's no scarcity of essentials.
Now, imagine our management of resources is so bountiful that we no longer feel the need to hoard - instead, we can share.
Imagine can be read two ways: (1) Imagine we're communist; (2) Imagine capitalism's fulfilled the promised role of technological advancement to the point that we're all educated, rational, comfortable and want for nothing.
I'm sure a Slashdot AC has a more interesting and engaging set of goals and ideals. Proceed.
I'm not sure whether Parker and Stone are pro-libertarianism or just trolling libertarians by giving them a warped sense of legitimacy while everyone else regards them as political neonates. Every "message" in South Park is cringingly simplistic and formulaic.
Won't somebody take some of this money off me to ease the burden?
If it bothers you that much, Larry, you could always start up another company. Without Moritz, Schmidt et al. It wasn't just luck, was it? You're smart enough?
Slashdot Mirror
Not all societies have the notion that the purpose of education is to make you a useful cog.
You're asking me to choose between torture and torture. If I have the choice, I'll choose whatever I regard to be the less painful/permanent torture. But I'm still being tortured. Let me rewrite your post, not for you (because I think you're trolling ;-) ) but for those who might entertain the idea that waterboarding is acceptable:
That is a pretty thoughtless comment. If you had to choose between someone slowly roasting you until you die of overheating or organ failure (torture) or someone drilling holes in your knees with an electric drill (enhanced interrogation), I think you would indeed appreciate the difference and choose accordingly.
I can see your world. And in your world torture is legal but each method has a point value. Bureaucrats are allowed to authorise torture of suspects providing the total number of torture points per unit time does not exceed some arbitrarily defined limit (increased for terrorists or in times of perpetual war).
Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition? The Inquisition was not allowed to cause the victim to bleed externally. Because, goodness, that's torture. Everything else, of course, is just enhanced interrogation.
A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public.
Such as those who engaged in the bombing of Dresden. A couple of shock-and-awe questions for you:
(1) Can you name one group in the last century which has declared war but which has restricted itself to military and government targets?
(2) Which residents in a country have nothing to do with the military or government?
But the distinction between civilian and soldier is overrated, an artificial construct to dehumanise soldiers and make war seem somehow civilised.
"Terrorist" is a god-disguising synonym for "infidel", holding a similar status in political language as "patriot" and "security". See also USA PATRIOT Act in the US and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in the UK.
Government interprets freedom fighters as terrorists and shoots into them.
The missing ingredients are technology and jurisdiction.
Slashdotters and the like are providing the former; lawyers and politicians the latter.
You've clearly never read an economics journal.
In summary, what this article seems to be saying is, "The lobbyists are not doing a good enough job of pushing for pan-governmental Internet control."
You should also check out just how free the states were 150 years ago from Federal control.
But this is Internet speed.
Give it 15 years.
The fact that people so quickly bounce from Blackberry to iPhone to Android in business suggests to me that they use their 'phones for very little real work. I wonder if one day we'll return to, say, 15 years ago, when people had a much better chance to get hard work done (and rest outside hours) without a million devices to interrupt them.
The Crown's jurisdiction does not fully extend to the guy or gal wearing the crown. She is certainly immune from being summoned to give evidence in court (see Regina v Burrell) and she's effectively immune from criminal prosecution - (i) the King (Queen) can traditionally (which is England's version of "constitutionally") do no wrong; (ii) consider the implications of Crown v Crown.
If you're paying attention, you'll answer (ii) with reference to the Crown Proceedings Act. This is probably necessary, but no by means sufficient, in paving any path toward taking judicial action against the ruling monarch (excepting the treason argument which cut Charles I short).
I've been of the view that WW2 was a political power transfer from Europe to Russia and North America. In the long term, the biggest loser was Britain, exiting the superpower stage to give way to the Cold War. Germany was the excuse the USA needed then, as 9/11 was the excuse USA needed a decade ago.
Launched in 1996, technology-related news web site Slashdot has been sloshing around the Intertubes for almost 17 years, attracting a wide share of geeks and their mothers when they walk into the basement and glance at the screen. But, as this paragraph shows, summaries have been rife with trivial factual, spelling and grammatical errors. After a three month consultation with users completed by impartial research group IDG, Slashdot's parent company have decided to take the giant leap of employing a single, full-time proofreader for all article submissions. This proofreader, who will start his work about 10 minutes from now, will be charged with ensuring that every T is dotted and every I crossed. Apostrophe's will be correctly placed, giving a better reader experience then ever before. UNIX and MAC users will be united in common enjoyment of queen's American English. The proofreader will also be responsible for dupe and repetition control. Which begs the question: how can we make Slashdot aeven better?
I haven't giggled at /. in ages, but "Dyson Bison" did it for me. I love you.
Also, QOTD:
We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing them. -- Thucydides
I guess doing them is one way.
Though I applaud the collaborative edit = Fool notion.
/. so amusing.
Frobnitz! Frobnosia! Prob Fset Cond! Zmemqb Intbl Foo!
I contend that, if you were to abolish patents completely tomorrow, people would still want to create and invent and solve problems. The pace of innovation would not slow down but increase, because no firm could ever rest on its laurels.
The arguments that clever people do not work unless paid very highly; that people do not express themselves unless given copyright protection; that people do not invent unless they can win a patent - all these arguments are oft repeated and rarely proven. IME all the cleverest people want is an environment where they can dedicate their time to their art.
I propose an official back-up song. 'cause my daddy taught me good.
Or maybe not every song's sentiment completely reflects the opinions of the writer. Or maybe not everyone's choice of entertainment reveals their underlying beliefs.
scientific understanding of what makes us human; I don't think Lennon had exactly that in mind when he wrote the song.
"Imagine no religion", probably the most loudly repeated line in the song, is to imagine a scientific rather than mystical understanding of what makes us human.
That's a necessary but not sufficient condition for the rest, of course.
You can look at it two ways depending on how sociopathic you are:
(1) If your system may result in people going hungry on the streets, other than because of a lack of food and buildings, then there is automatically a problem. There's your humanitarian angle;
(2) If the world economy stops then there are no enforceable debts, so no justification for pushing anyone out of their home. But when people consider "the economy stopping", it doesn't matter whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife: the melon suffers. There's your capitalist angle.
HTH.
'Imagine' was just as idealistic
Perhaps you missed the word "Imagine" in the song's title. It's an ideal to look to. At no point does the song say, "These are our targets by date X. If we don't achieve all of them globally then we have failed."
and completely invalid
Every sentiment in the song is invalid? So we shouldn't strive for less "necessary" death, less religion, less hunger, more peace?
Now, imagine there is no need for greed. Imagine we have reached the point where technology can keep every man comfortable and fed without the oft-claimed organisational "necessity" that is financial incentive to innovate/invest. The "economy" is alleged to be necessary to manage scarcity - today especially including artificially created scarcities. Imagine there's no scarcity of essentials.
Now, imagine our management of resources is so bountiful that we no longer feel the need to hoard - instead, we can share.
Imagine can be read two ways:
(1) Imagine we're communist;
(2) Imagine capitalism's fulfilled the promised role of technological advancement to the point that we're all educated, rational, comfortable and want for nothing.
I'm sure a Slashdot AC has a more interesting and engaging set of goals and ideals. Proceed.
Everything you say is currently true. But you're merely rewording the problem.
Companies still need to keep selling their stuff, the world economy needs to keep moving.
You speak as if "the world economy" were some sort of religion with rituals which must be adhered to for the good of the Invisible Hand.
Sadly, entirely appropriate.
I've watched every episode.
The trashy humour relaxes me.
And the primitive political messages humour me.
I'm not sure whether Parker and Stone are pro-libertarianism or just trolling libertarians by giving them a warped sense of legitimacy while everyone else regards them as political neonates. Every "message" in South Park is cringingly simplistic and formulaic.
Nope. Google's still playing catchup with Apple and it's barely entered the race with Microsoft.
Of course, it's beaten Altavista and Yahoo. In other news, Jesus has more followers than Hubbard.
Won't somebody take some of this money off me to ease the burden?
If it bothers you that much, Larry, you could always start up another company. Without Moritz, Schmidt et al. It wasn't just luck, was it? You're smart enough?