So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?
Auernheimer should've gone to AT&T to report the problem. I've done that myself several times and they've always been very receptive. They might not fix the problem quickly (they're a big company and move slowly), but I've never had them sic the US Attorneys on me for it.
I partially agree with your last paragraph. Yes, rights must be protected and fought for. The reason I don't call them privileges, though, is because a privilege can only be earned from some authority. No one gave me the right to have my own mind, it was a part of me as soon as I was born.
Don't for one second think that because I think rights are inherent to our nature as human beings means that I'm not willing to stop someone from infringing on those rights. It's just that the rights exist prior to that infringement, and will continue long after the tyrant himself is dead and buried. They're an ideal, and not something that can be destroyed. Every generation will have to fight to make sure they're protected and that people can exercise them, but they'll always exist, even when being suppressed.
You need to educate yourself a bit more on stop and identify statutes, very few of them work the way you seem to think they do. Your example of the man in New York sounds, from what little you provided, like a pretty gross infringement of the man's civil liberties. I wouldn't be surprised if he received a hefty payday after getting out.
As for rights, if someone chokes you to death, they haven't removed the oxygen from the air; they have, however, infringed on your ability to use that oxygen. So yes, you still have the same rights, even if someone is trampling on them. As you said, rights are an ideal, they don't exist in the physical world, so physical action cannot destroy them.
Other than these differences of view, I think you and I are in more agreement than disagreement. And yes, it is monumentally important to keep the government in check and make sure they respect our rights and protect them.
At the moment, you must present your ID to a police officer when requested or you will be arrested. This can be requested without cause.
I didn't even see this comment before I posted earlier, but this is flat-out false. An officer must have reasonable suspicions to perform a Terry stop.
Besides which, you seem to think that rights come from the government. They do not, they are natural because they are inherent in our nature as human beings. As I said before, others may infringe these rights, but they cannot, ever, be taken away.
I stand partially corrected; he also had a 10-round mag in his Sig. My original point still stands: large capacity magazines are a bogeyman.
In further support of this, look at the Aurora shooter: by accounts, he was using a drum magazine that jammed (as they often do). So having an even larger magazine than usual caused him problems and may have resulted in fewer injuries and deaths.
You've either never thought about natural rights like free speech in a meaningful way, or you're over thinking it. I can't decide which it is.
Speech is a natural right because you have your own mind and thoughts which, while they can be influenced by others, by definition are yours alone. You also have an intrinsic ability to give voice to those thoughts and share them with others. It is part of your nature as an individual human being, and is not something that can ever be removed by anyone.
That said, as you pointed out, there can be repercussions to expressing this right. Others may shun you for making an off color joke, or authorities may imprison or even murder you for sharing thoughts that threaten them. But none of that changes the underlying truth that you have the ability to have these thoughts and express them. Others may infringe on your rights, but they cannot be taken away.
Nice strawman. When people talk about guns and Nazi Germany, they're talking about the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, not the German Weapons Act. Or are you somehow claiming that the Nazis didn't take away the guns from the people they later murdered?
One guy died in an accident. Meanwhile, how many stores were not looted? No system is perfect, but preventing people from defending themselves is always worse than the alternative.
You may believe that to be true, and perhaps some local laws might support you, but it's a very imaginative reading of the second amendment to contend unequivocally that by "arms" it gives you the right to possess an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine, but, say, denies you the right to own a grenade launcher or a flamethrower.
If Obama signs an executive trying to take away our weapons you might just see such a spontaneous revolution. That dude is playing with fire with all his threats to trample our natural rights.
The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself. So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.
This about this: there are something like 200 million semiauto weapons in this country, owned by something like 50 million people. Out of that huge number, we have a few mass shootings. Statistically that means mass shootings don't even happen. I'm not making light of the carnage crazy people inflict or the pain people have gone through, far from it. I'm just pointing out that infringing the rights of literally millions of people for the false hope of safety won't work and is a complete waste of time.
Sandy Hook stopped as soon as the police showed up[citation needed]
Seriously, it's pretty common knowledge now that Lanza, like other shooters before him, killed himself long before the police showed up. As usual, they were only good for cataloging the mess, not stopping it.
A clip is a specific kind of holder for rounds that is open and exposed; a magazine is an enclosed holder that can either be detachable or integral. In either case, you use a clip to load a magazine. So no, the words are not interchangeable. No more so than "governor" and "brake". Using them incorrectly is sloppy and shows ignorance on the subject of firearms.
I should add that name calling ("petty little dweeb") doesn't help the conversation at all.
Or imagine if people didn't glom onto old characters constantly and instead looked for new and interesting characters and ideas. There's no reason a comic character from the 1930s should be relevant or profitable in the 2010s.
I understand the emotional aspect of wanting the death penalty for rape; I'm a father and husband, and if someone treated either of my girls or my wife the way these guys did, I might have to stand for murder, myself.
But the cold hard truth is that, if you make the punishment for rape the same as murder, there is literally no reason not to murder the rape victim once you're done. If you're gonna fry either way, might as well not leave any witnesses.
So no, we can't have the death penalty for rape. Not if we don't want something even worse to happen to our loved ones/selves.
Seriously, this is the only real option. Anything else and they'll just have to monkey with the system again in ten years as cars become even more fuel efficient.
Did you miss the part where the submitter said his coworker has been programming longer than he's been alive? If some little snot-nosed brat gave me a book on how to be a better programmer, I'd toss it in the trash and use my years at the company to make his life very unpleasant until he finally quit.
In case, like me, you had never heard of this project:
Project Glass is a research and development program by Google to develop an augmented reality head-mounted display (HMD).[2] Project Glass products would display information in smartphone-like format[3] hands-free and could interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands.[4] The prototype's functionality and minimalist appearance (aluminium strip with 2 nose pads) has been compared to Steve Mann's EyeTap.[5][6]
This, this, a thousand times this. The article is extraordinarily poorly written; there is zero evidence presented that the subject of the article is anything but a brilliant, hard-working, and devoted doctor. The author does not say anything about what plans, if any, he brought to the table on how to expand the practice (why does he keep calling it in a "business" when it's obviously a medical practice, a specific type of business with its own specific needs?), nor does he list what the so-called jerk's complaints were.
Shoddy writing from someone who apparently just wants to take a last, parting shot at someone he butted heads with years ago. The whole thing seems highly unprofessional to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?
Auernheimer should've gone to AT&T to report the problem. I've done that myself several times and they've always been very receptive. They might not fix the problem quickly (they're a big company and move slowly), but I've never had them sic the US Attorneys on me for it.
A tree older than the world? That must be the one Eve picked the fruit from!
I partially agree with your last paragraph. Yes, rights must be protected and fought for. The reason I don't call them privileges, though, is because a privilege can only be earned from some authority. No one gave me the right to have my own mind, it was a part of me as soon as I was born.
Don't for one second think that because I think rights are inherent to our nature as human beings means that I'm not willing to stop someone from infringing on those rights. It's just that the rights exist prior to that infringement, and will continue long after the tyrant himself is dead and buried. They're an ideal, and not something that can be destroyed. Every generation will have to fight to make sure they're protected and that people can exercise them, but they'll always exist, even when being suppressed.
You need to educate yourself a bit more on stop and identify statutes, very few of them work the way you seem to think they do. Your example of the man in New York sounds, from what little you provided, like a pretty gross infringement of the man's civil liberties. I wouldn't be surprised if he received a hefty payday after getting out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
As for rights, if someone chokes you to death, they haven't removed the oxygen from the air; they have, however, infringed on your ability to use that oxygen. So yes, you still have the same rights, even if someone is trampling on them. As you said, rights are an ideal, they don't exist in the physical world, so physical action cannot destroy them.
Other than these differences of view, I think you and I are in more agreement than disagreement. And yes, it is monumentally important to keep the government in check and make sure they respect our rights and protect them.
At the moment, you must present your ID to a police officer when requested or you will be arrested. This can be requested without cause.
I didn't even see this comment before I posted earlier, but this is flat-out false. An officer must have reasonable suspicions to perform a Terry stop.
Besides which, you seem to think that rights come from the government. They do not, they are natural because they are inherent in our nature as human beings. As I said before, others may infringe these rights, but they cannot, ever, be taken away.
I stand partially corrected; he also had a 10-round mag in his Sig. My original point still stands: large capacity magazines are a bogeyman.
In further support of this, look at the Aurora shooter: by accounts, he was using a drum magazine that jammed (as they often do). So having an even larger magazine than usual caused him problems and may have resulted in fewer injuries and deaths.
You've either never thought about natural rights like free speech in a meaningful way, or you're over thinking it. I can't decide which it is.
Speech is a natural right because you have your own mind and thoughts which, while they can be influenced by others, by definition are yours alone. You also have an intrinsic ability to give voice to those thoughts and share them with others. It is part of your nature as an individual human being, and is not something that can ever be removed by anyone.
That said, as you pointed out, there can be repercussions to expressing this right. Others may shun you for making an off color joke, or authorities may imprison or even murder you for sharing thoughts that threaten them. But none of that changes the underlying truth that you have the ability to have these thoughts and express them. Others may infringe on your rights, but they cannot be taken away.
I would say I'm coming from a relatively reasonable position of allowing firearms, but putting in place common sense restrictions.
And I would agree with niko9 and say you're being disingenuous and using weasel words to back up an immoral position.
Nice strawman. When people talk about guns and Nazi Germany, they're talking about the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, not the German Weapons Act. Or are you somehow claiming that the Nazis didn't take away the guns from the people they later murdered?
One guy died in an accident. Meanwhile, how many stores were not looted? No system is perfect, but preventing people from defending themselves is always worse than the alternative.
Your comment says more about your lack of understanding of the concept of natural rights than it does anything else.
You may believe that to be true, and perhaps some local laws might support you, but it's a very imaginative reading of the second amendment to contend unequivocally that by "arms" it gives you the right to possess an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine, but, say, denies you the right to own a grenade launcher or a flamethrower.
Nice strawman.
If Obama signs an executive trying to take away our weapons you might just see such a spontaneous revolution. That dude is playing with fire with all his threats to trample our natural rights.
Excellent point, I'm going to use that in conversations going forward.
The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself. So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.
This about this: there are something like 200 million semiauto weapons in this country, owned by something like 50 million people. Out of that huge number, we have a few mass shootings. Statistically that means mass shootings don't even happen. I'm not making light of the carnage crazy people inflict or the pain people have gone through, far from it. I'm just pointing out that infringing the rights of literally millions of people for the false hope of safety won't work and is a complete waste of time.
Sandy Hook stopped as soon as the police showed up[citation needed]
Seriously, it's pretty common knowledge now that Lanza, like other shooters before him, killed himself long before the police showed up. As usual, they were only good for cataloging the mess, not stopping it.
A clip is a specific kind of holder for rounds that is open and exposed; a magazine is an enclosed holder that can either be detachable or integral. In either case, you use a clip to load a magazine. So no, the words are not interchangeable. No more so than "governor" and "brake". Using them incorrectly is sloppy and shows ignorance on the subject of firearms.
I should add that name calling ("petty little dweeb") doesn't help the conversation at all.
Or imagine if people didn't glom onto old characters constantly and instead looked for new and interesting characters and ideas. There's no reason a comic character from the 1930s should be relevant or profitable in the 2010s.
I understand the emotional aspect of wanting the death penalty for rape; I'm a father and husband, and if someone treated either of my girls or my wife the way these guys did, I might have to stand for murder, myself.
But the cold hard truth is that, if you make the punishment for rape the same as murder, there is literally no reason not to murder the rape victim once you're done. If you're gonna fry either way, might as well not leave any witnesses.
So no, we can't have the death penalty for rape. Not if we don't want something even worse to happen to our loved ones/selves.
Frederic Bastiat called, he said to tell you there's a problem with your idea.
Seriously, this is the only real option. Anything else and they'll just have to monkey with the system again in ten years as cars become even more fuel efficient.
Did you miss the part where the submitter said his coworker has been programming longer than he's been alive? If some little snot-nosed brat gave me a book on how to be a better programmer, I'd toss it in the trash and use my years at the company to make his life very unpleasant until he finally quit.
crazyjj hit the nail on the head: STFU and GBTW.
In case, like me, you had never heard of this project:
Project Glass is a research and development program by Google to develop an augmented reality head-mounted display (HMD).[2] Project Glass products would display information in smartphone-like format[3] hands-free and could interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands.[4] The prototype's functionality and minimalist appearance (aluminium strip with 2 nose pads) has been compared to Steve Mann's EyeTap.[5][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass
This, this, a thousand times this. The article is extraordinarily poorly written; there is zero evidence presented that the subject of the article is anything but a brilliant, hard-working, and devoted doctor. The author does not say anything about what plans, if any, he brought to the table on how to expand the practice (why does he keep calling it in a "business" when it's obviously a medical practice, a specific type of business with its own specific needs?), nor does he list what the so-called jerk's complaints were.
Shoddy writing from someone who apparently just wants to take a last, parting shot at someone he butted heads with years ago. The whole thing seems highly unprofessional to me.
Mohammad raped little girls (and probably boys, too). Does my saying that give a lunatic license to murder others?