2. I was thinking of all the millions of people on the internet who *aren't* citizens of the US... even though they aren't taxed directly, this would effectively be a burden on their communication with people in the US.
I love wine. Some of my favorite wines come from Chile and Italy. Because of the high taxes in those countries, the wines I buy from there tend to cost more than the ones I buy from California or Australia. Does that mean I'm being "taxed" by the governments of Italy and Chile, and that I'm somehow not being represented in their government unfairly? Or is this a tax on the producers in those countries, and the cost is being passed on to me?
A more direct example: calling England from the US is considerably more expensive than calling anywhere within the US, even Alaska and Hawaii. At least part of this cost is related to telecommunications taxes in England. Should I call up the minute men and start a revolution over this?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied real estate law. What you're talking about is called an "easement". If there's never been a fence around your front yard, people are free to cut across it. What's more, you can be prevented from even erecting a fence, once the precedent is set that people can do this. Future owners can be prevented from erecting a fence if past owners allowed such usage, as well.
Extending the analogy, if you have an open WiFi connection and do nothing to prevent someone from connecting (even something so simple as a splash screen with TOS on the first Web page lookup), it should be considered an easement with anyone and everyone having free access to use that connection for other lawful purposes (you can't use an easement to peer into a bedroom window or jiggle the door handle, so you shouldn't be able to use an open WiFi connection to snoop on a network). If there are access controls in place, of any kind, then it should be considered a private network, and then, and only then, can this type of prosecution occur.
So you're saying that people shouldn't have opinions?
I think he's saying people shouldn't prevent others from sharing their opinions, just because they disagree with them. And if you're the type of person who does that, don't come crying to me about "censorship" when something you post is modded down or buried.
There are Congressmen who draft laws outlawing "assault rifles" based on the fact that the alleged "assault rifle" has a barrel shroud. Others draft laws telling doctors what procedures they perform to save a patient's life, ignoring the common wisdom of the medical community. And still others draft laws banning people from gambling with their own money in one manner, but not in others. So why should their regulation of the Internet be any less bone-headed or ill informed on the subject matter they wish to regulate than everything else they do?
Communication is one part of it, but you couldn't you extend that analogy and say that the Internet is the collection of all public knowledge to date, as well as the means to share and expand on that knowledge.
But the probablity that you did so is sufficient to issue a warrant to search for additional evidence.
Which makes sense. What's more likely, that some random person downloaded kiddie porn from your open WAP, or that you yourself used it? At the least, it's likely enough that you yourself downloaded it that the police should double check your computer(s) and such.
So it's more like saying that if you buy a gun and someone else uses it to shoot someone, the police are going to get a warrant and come search your house.
I think that's the most accurate analogy I've seen in this thread. Well put.
At one point, the Democrats were the party that was solidly behind states' rights and the Republicans were all about centralized power. There was even a war fought over it, a little over 140 years ago. Since then, the parties have swamped positions on a lot of things, so much so that Abraham Lincoln would probably be a Democrat today and Jefferson Davis would probably be a Republican.
It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.
Libertarianism is classical liberalism, social liberalism sounds like more Socialist hogwash. And while it may seem silly to some, I stand by my assertion that if Socialists are in favor of something, I'm against it (or vice-versa) unless there is compelling evidence in favor of the thing. As I already mentioned, I was on the fence about DRM, but since Socialists are against it, I'm in favor of it. They're just wrong on too many things to assume they'll ever be right.
IMHO it is not an issue of the presence of insane people, which are ubiquitous, but the availability of firearms.
Did you not read the heading of the original post? The Swiss have more firearms per capita in their civilian population than any other country, including the US. But you don't see them going into their engineering colleges and killing 31 other people at a time. So what is different between the US and Switzerland that results in these facts?
How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?
But the drinking age is 21, which means most college kids can't drink alcohol. You aren't suggesting that someone would *gasp* break the law, are you?
Surely they would only break laws about drinking, and not about carrying firearms, though. So we're still safe.
I've been on the fence for some time now about DRM and copyright. There are some good arguments on both sides of the aisle for the issue. But if a Socialist party is coming out against DRM and copyright, then it must be a good idea. Considering that Socialists don't believe in or respect private property rights, and always seem to be in favor of destroying property to further the power of the state, if they're against DRM and copyright then those must be a net boon to society.
Well, you got marked Flamebait when you simply asked a question and didn't use any inflammatory language, so it looks like the consensus is they're bad. Which is lame, since all they did was expand on the truth of Kerry's military service and talk about their recollections of what kind of officer and sailor he had been. Still odd how much the Left in this world hates people who tell the truth.
You misspelled "civil rights case in front of a Federal judge".
the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud" cases
You misspelled "US Attorneys who wouldn't do their jobs in prosecuting illegal aliens or investigating allegations of voter fraud when levied against Democrats".
U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country
You misspelled "more loyal to the President than they are to local Democratic party officials".
And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war
You misspelled "piss poor intelligence which was agreed upon by every permanent member of the Security Council, proving that after eight years of a Democrat President our intelligence apparatus was so damaged it couldn't determine what the actual truth of the situation was".
Wow, dude, you need to switch to Firefox, it's got a spell checker built-in. That should help a lot in the future.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Went to a Super Walmart today. Loved it. It reminded me of Itoyokado in Japan.
...
Coolness, where else but in America and in a Walmart?
I dunno, Japan in an Itoyokado?
2. I was thinking of all the millions of people on the internet who *aren't* citizens of the US... even though they aren't taxed directly, this would effectively be a burden on their communication with people in the US.
I love wine. Some of my favorite wines come from Chile and Italy. Because of the high taxes in those countries, the wines I buy from there tend to cost more than the ones I buy from California or Australia. Does that mean I'm being "taxed" by the governments of Italy and Chile, and that I'm somehow not being represented in their government unfairly? Or is this a tax on the producers in those countries, and the cost is being passed on to me?
A more direct example: calling England from the US is considerably more expensive than calling anywhere within the US, even Alaska and Hawaii. At least part of this cost is related to telecommunications taxes in England. Should I call up the minute men and start a revolution over this?
Disgusting if true, but the Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent of Fox News...
So what, is this holocaust-denial denial? Let me guess, you're just "asking questions", right?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied real estate law. What you're talking about is called an "easement". If there's never been a fence around your front yard, people are free to cut across it. What's more, you can be prevented from even erecting a fence, once the precedent is set that people can do this. Future owners can be prevented from erecting a fence if past owners allowed such usage, as well.
Extending the analogy, if you have an open WiFi connection and do nothing to prevent someone from connecting (even something so simple as a splash screen with TOS on the first Web page lookup), it should be considered an easement with anyone and everyone having free access to use that connection for other lawful purposes (you can't use an easement to peer into a bedroom window or jiggle the door handle, so you shouldn't be able to use an open WiFi connection to snoop on a network). If there are access controls in place, of any kind, then it should be considered a private network, and then, and only then, can this type of prosecution occur.
"My ex-girlfriend used to go either way. Man, was she ever a good time!"
So you're saying that people shouldn't have opinions?
I think he's saying people shouldn't prevent others from sharing their opinions, just because they disagree with them. And if you're the type of person who does that, don't come crying to me about "censorship" when something you post is modded down or buried.
There are Congressmen who draft laws outlawing "assault rifles" based on the fact that the alleged "assault rifle" has a barrel shroud. Others draft laws telling doctors what procedures they perform to save a patient's life, ignoring the common wisdom of the medical community. And still others draft laws banning people from gambling with their own money in one manner, but not in others. So why should their regulation of the Internet be any less bone-headed or ill informed on the subject matter they wish to regulate than everything else they do?
Communication is one part of it, but you couldn't you extend that analogy and say that the Internet is the collection of all public knowledge to date, as well as the means to share and expand on that knowledge.
Then is MySpace a model train wreck?
But the probablity that you did so is sufficient to issue a warrant to search for additional evidence.
Which makes sense. What's more likely, that some random person downloaded kiddie porn from your open WAP, or that you yourself used it? At the least, it's likely enough that you yourself downloaded it that the police should double check your computer(s) and such.
So it's more like saying that if you buy a gun and someone else uses it to shoot someone, the police are going to get a warrant and come search your house.
I think that's the most accurate analogy I've seen in this thread. Well put.
Something tells me it'll be more like Caracas: 911.
Venezuela *is* in America
;)
Not yet it's not, but we're a little busy with Iraq right now. Just give us some time.
And now the obligatory response to people who spout this nonsense: when people chant "death to America", do you think they're talking about you?
Funny, I ran the technical operations for an ISP until last November and I never heard of that list.
Of course, you have to say that, or they'll come take you away.
At one point, the Democrats were the party that was solidly behind states' rights and the Republicans were all about centralized power. There was even a war fought over it, a little over 140 years ago. Since then, the parties have swamped positions on a lot of things, so much so that Abraham Lincoln would probably be a Democrat today and Jefferson Davis would probably be a Republican.
Yippee!
From the Wikipedia entry on social liberalism:
It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.
Libertarianism is classical liberalism, social liberalism sounds like more Socialist hogwash. And while it may seem silly to some, I stand by my assertion that if Socialists are in favor of something, I'm against it (or vice-versa) unless there is compelling evidence in favor of the thing. As I already mentioned, I was on the fence about DRM, but since Socialists are against it, I'm in favor of it. They're just wrong on too many things to assume they'll ever be right.
Besides, have you been to Switzerland? There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.
Sounds like you haven't been to any small towns in Texas or Virginia.
IMHO it is not an issue of the presence of insane people, which are ubiquitous, but the availability of firearms.
Did you not read the heading of the original post? The Swiss have more firearms per capita in their civilian population than any other country, including the US. But you don't see them going into their engineering colleges and killing 31 other people at a time. So what is different between the US and Switzerland that results in these facts?
How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?
But the drinking age is 21, which means most college kids can't drink alcohol. You aren't suggesting that someone would *gasp* break the law, are you?
Surely they would only break laws about drinking, and not about carrying firearms, though. So we're still safe.
how the hell could be so easy for anybody to get such arsenal?!
.22 caliber pistols be considered an "arsenal"?!
My point is, how the hell could two 9mm and one
I've been on the fence for some time now about DRM and copyright. There are some good arguments on both sides of the aisle for the issue. But if a Socialist party is coming out against DRM and copyright, then it must be a good idea. Considering that Socialists don't believe in or respect private property rights, and always seem to be in favor of destroying property to further the power of the state, if they're against DRM and copyright then those must be a net boon to society.
A big part of the Swedish movie industry is funded by the government.
That explains why the Swedish movie industry, instead of the evil capitalist studio system in Hollywood, USA, dominates the global market for movies.
Well, you got marked Flamebait when you simply asked a question and didn't use any inflammatory language, so it looks like the consensus is they're bad. Which is lame, since all they did was expand on the truth of Kerry's military service and talk about their recollections of what kind of officer and sailor he had been. Still odd how much the Left in this world hates people who tell the truth.
Wow, that was probably the most cogent and well thought out comment in this entire article. I'm shocked you have been modded down as a troll by now.
Ah yes, except instead of "blowjob,"
;)
You misspelled "civil rights case in front of a Federal judge".
the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud" cases
You misspelled "US Attorneys who wouldn't do their jobs in prosecuting illegal aliens or investigating allegations of voter fraud when levied against Democrats".
U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country
You misspelled "more loyal to the President than they are to local Democratic party officials".
And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war
You misspelled "piss poor intelligence which was agreed upon by every permanent member of the Security Council, proving that after eight years of a Democrat President our intelligence apparatus was so damaged it couldn't determine what the actual truth of the situation was".
Wow, dude, you need to switch to Firefox, it's got a spell checker built-in. That should help a lot in the future.