They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
"Conservative or Free Market in Name Only"
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid. And in this case it's a matter of harming a potential competitor, much like the Big 3 wanted when the Japanese were busy selling innovative little cars put together by highly efficient assembly methods.
Ooh, evil government! Liberals interfering with businesses! Such a lot of horse hockey.
Better competition should make you raise your game and improve on your product and services, but beg for government interference.
Liberals, Conservatives or Centrists can all be wonderful or rotten, just depends upon what their actual priorities are. Some are more of the other side of the aisle they'll even admit anyway.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
If only we hadn't sent off the Telephone Sanitizers I would have been in better health this past weekend. Well, never mind. Have to keep in top shape to do battle with that Star Goat...
I just upgraded to a smart phone and hated how every app I wanted to download wanted everything. Why should Pac Man need my contacts list and GPS information?...
Exactly why I haven't installed any new apps on my Galaxy S4 since buying it. I figured I'll download the SDK and build what little I need. For all you know some of the simplest free* apps may be written by NSA fronts.
The Edsel was a pretty good running car, which was just plain ugly and completely oversold to the press - while innovative in many areas it wasn't what the public wanted.
My car, on the other hand, had great styling and the early prototypes were wowing the press with its performance and features. When production began, though the love affair ended with a lot of unhappy customers, particularly those who had expected something much better (which had initially been promised.)
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
Which brings up the point of a soldier is bound to carry out orders, not question them.
I thought soldiers weren't required to follow illegal orders?
Were not required != Forbidden. Are you certain they are forbidden or simply not required? There's the matter of North's feeling he was doing the right thing, even it he was doing some wrong things to achieve the ends he was required to.
Clearly there were many above him who should have done hard time on the rock pile and Reagan should have taken responsibility, which he would not do (likely to preserve his reputation.)
no thanks. I'm more interested in moveing devices from mechanical to solid state, not the other way around.
Absolutely.
My old iPod I treat with utmost care because the little booger has a spinning disc in it. I've seen enough head crashes in my day I don't want one in something without a Field Service Tech a phone call away to handle. Also, I'm rather clumsy with some of my more delicate electronics (hence ordering an Otterbox Defender for my mobile phone) and have been known to damage things with shock.
Why not an SSD at this stage?!? Sure, it's a few extra bucks, but I wouldn't consider anything mechanical storage memory except in a RAID config in a static system.
I'm not addressing whether a third-party witness should be fired or shunned for refusing to answer questions.
My question is, what is a logical argument, from first principles about the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the state, for why we should allow defendants to answer questions, but not third-party witnesses?
Yes, I know that's what courts have interpreted the Fifth Amendment to mean. My question is whether there is a good logical argument for giving defendants the right to remain silent, but not witnesses.
I believe you are the (n-1)th in a long line of people who have felt that way, but until there's a further amending of the Constitution or the Supreme Court sides with your view (establishing a precedent) you are covering ground which many before you have already done.
Except BluRay and plasma tv's did not exist when SW came out.
I managed to get a copy of SW on laserdisc, it was mindblowing quality for the day.
Not only that, but George Lucas held off on DVD issue of Star Wars for a very long time. In the case of your Laserdisc you did have something with value others could buy, but not easily after Laserdiscs waned from the market.
I'm familiar with the First Year Collector thing, but I doubt there are any collectors items among iPhones, which tend to sell quite a lot of the exact same model on the first day, before the hue and cry over defects or such result in an adjustment in production.
Cars may or may not sell a lot on first issue and generally going out and buying will result in some unhappy experiences, though your experience may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, some being much better at rolling out a truly finished product and others rushing out a model which will have a laundry list of recalls.
My car was such a dud it wasn't made for many years and resulted in one of the greatest financial setbacks for the manufacturer. The engineers did a fine job designing it, the assembly line did a terrific job of putting it together, but the bean-counters who sourced the parts and figured ways to shave costs doomed it. If they had gone with the original engineers plans it would have been a hit and my car would have been worth a small fortune for being very early off the production line.
It's a much better position to be in to watch how a new car rolls out and is met by the market. A successful launch of a quality car may mean you have to pay a little of a premium to get one of the early batch, but you avoid getting burned.
Regarding antenna issues, battery heating up issues, other shortcomings of Apples rather trendsetting iPhones should by now curb some enthusiasm for the wary. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me sorta fing.
In my line of work we take a dim view of being on the bleeding edge of technology. These people are not simply embracing it, but doing so for their own personal reasons i.e. Be first on the block to have one (which is a damn silly thing to do with a considerable investment, which most iPhones are.)
Well, you see this behavior for other things too.
I mean, I've never understood people siting and waiting in line to see a movie (Harry Potter, SW, LOTR, Hobbit, etc). I mean, frankly, I would rather wait to see it later without all the fscking crowd and hassle, that is...if I even bother to see it in a movie theater at all.
I generally wait till out on BluRay and watch it on my large plasma tv, with a great soundsystem and fully stocked bar nearby.
Well film is a considerably different matter, and other than impatience and a high degree of tolerance to standing in line (to get ticket), standing in line (to get popcorn) and standing in line (to be seated) followed by trying to get a seat which doesn't suck or isn't close to some noisy or obnoxious clod there seems little argument for being there on opening night. Unless it's a real stinker it will play for at least a week and there's going to be times without the great density of hoi polloi which offer a better experience.
Although, like with the fanboi sort of experience, there are people who love to be part of the herd. After opening night or the first day of sale you can rush home and share your experience on YouToob or fazebook with your initial impressions, unboxing, and so on. That has some value to people.
If, by answering questions about some other crime, I were to move from "known not to be an accomplice" to "known to be an accomplice", having been forced to answer those questions would fail the fifth amendment. By forcing Risen to answer these questions, we may find out he was actually a co-conspirator or an accomplice (or perhaps even the source of the leak itself). And thus forcing him to answer now has trampled his fifth amendment rights.
While it would be very dangerous, a very principled person (more principled than I) might think about using the opportunity to claim some illegal association with the crime, and then mounting a constitutional challenge over it.
You speak in generalizations, but I get the idea... please read the 5th Amendment and consider the technical wording, as it is written and how it may apply and then consider how it may have more than one meaning, so what is the spirit or the amendment? What were the authors of the amendment trying to prevent, which was common practice under the Crown of England, colonial courts or East India Company of the time? I think a constitutional challenge on these grounds isn't very likely to sway the SCOTUS to side with an uncooperative witness, regardless how they may view (or choose not to) his motives.
I'm not condemning Risen, nor am I stating he's blameless. I'm trying to state how things are and why they are this way.
At this point, the only reason to line up for an iDevice is to get on TV. This is not different to survivor or Big Brother.
In my line of work we take a dim view of being on the bleeding edge of technology. These people are not simply embracing it, but doing so for their own personal reasons i.e. Be first on the block to have one (which is a damn silly thing to do with a considerable investment, which most iPhones are.)
I was burned on a new car model years ago so I sit back and wait to see how things turn out before committing my own hard won dollars (and even then, as I'm a pre-paid customer, I buy the handset outright.)
And my point is: There are at least two views of the Fifth Amendment, the technical wording and the spirit of the meaning.
The technical interpretation of the first few words here "No person shall be held to answer for..." addresses the defendant an no other. The witness is not on trial, so to speak. However, in the spirit of the amendment, it could (and you appear to be doing so) argued the witness may appear complicit in a criminal or socially unacceptable act in given testimony which damns the witness. I.e. Charges may be brought against the reporter or the reporter may be fired for professional ethics violations, neighbors may shun the reporter, etc.
You make a fairly sound rational argument, but present view within the courts has been defined by precedent. Many reporters have found themselves cooling their heels in a cell while standing up for their 1st Amendment rights. Were this not acceptable by the Supreme Court of the United States, I think we would have seen an end to it by now. But we have not.
Why do you think when people get in political trouble, they will use their 5th amendment rights. Because if they are found innocent of the crime they will, then find some inconsistency with their story and get them jailed for perjury. Normally this tends to happen to Middle managers working for the government. If they get caught doing something, they were often the last ones to execute the order, after getting orders from many layers down.
You may be thinking of Col. Oliver North, who was quite the willing accomplice in the Iran-Contra affair. Which brings up the point of a soldier is bound to carry out orders, not question them. While many would feel he went about his task with a clear conscience, which few could fathom, his ultimate superior, Ronald Reagan had all sorts of convenient memory lapses, which left North hung out to dry.
Slashdot Mirror
SteggoCare didn't save the dinos, will ObamaCare save us?
and like avian bird flu can take down humans, as well.
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
"Conservative or Free Market in Name Only"
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid. And in this case it's a matter of harming a potential competitor, much like the Big 3 wanted when the Japanese were busy selling innovative little cars put together by highly efficient assembly methods.
Ooh, evil government! Liberals interfering with businesses! Such a lot of horse hockey.
Better competition should make you raise your game and improve on your product and services, but beg for government interference.
Liberals, Conservatives or Centrists can all be wonderful or rotten, just depends upon what their actual priorities are. Some are more of the other side of the aisle they'll even admit anyway.
I have read the third dimension is 15mm.
Gonna take an awful lot of these to reach the cookie jar. Perhaps they could come out with an e-reader with some nice thick books on it.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
I understand there will be a need for telephone sanitizers on mars...
If only we hadn't sent off the Telephone Sanitizers I would have been in better health this past weekend. Well, never mind. Have to keep in top shape to do battle with that Star Goat ...
will I also be able to convert starches into alcohol and C02?
Most likely you will continue to produce CH4.
Is this thing still around? I thought it had gone the way of the Zune.
Hey Sony, you could sell more of these if you just hid the ads online in your customer database and waited for someone to hack you again.
Maybe you could hack it and install Ubuntu on it. (c:
I just upgraded to a smart phone and hated how every app I wanted to download wanted everything. Why should Pac Man need my contacts list and GPS information? ...
Exactly why I haven't installed any new apps on my Galaxy S4 since buying it. I figured I'll download the SDK and build what little I need. For all you know some of the simplest free* apps may be written by NSA fronts.
* as in beer.
This thread has a lot of nerdy topics: 3D printing, Star Trek references, arduino, electronics, open source, real-world science.
My question is: where the hell are the comments?
Too many readers are writhing in ecstasy. As soon as they recover they will be with us.
So, by doing new research, I won't age as fast?
Perhaps you may not age as fast, but if you enjoy living less (somewhat how I hear marriage goes) what's the point?
A lawsuit from Paramount in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..
It would be interesting to empress the engrams of the average trekkie upon a computer, the resulting torrent of illogic would be most entertaining.
How long do you have that Edsel?
The Edsel was a pretty good running car, which was just plain ugly and completely oversold to the press - while innovative in many areas it wasn't what the public wanted.
My car, on the other hand, had great styling and the early prototypes were wowing the press with its performance and features. When production began, though the love affair ended with a lot of unhappy customers, particularly those who had expected something much better (which had initially been promised.)
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
all of them are mothers-in-law.
And quite suspiciously the applications are signed in handwriting resembling that of their sons-in-law.
But there's no beer on Mars.
Which brings up the point of a soldier is bound to carry out orders, not question them.
I thought soldiers weren't required to follow illegal orders?
Were not required != Forbidden. Are you certain they are forbidden or simply not required? There's the matter of North's feeling he was doing the right thing, even it he was doing some wrong things to achieve the ends he was required to.
Clearly there were many above him who should have done hard time on the rock pile and Reagan should have taken responsibility, which he would not do (likely to preserve his reputation.)
no thanks. I'm more interested in moveing devices from mechanical to solid state, not the other way around.
Absolutely.
My old iPod I treat with utmost care because the little booger has a spinning disc in it. I've seen enough head crashes in my day I don't want one in something without a Field Service Tech a phone call away to handle. Also, I'm rather clumsy with some of my more delicate electronics (hence ordering an Otterbox Defender for my mobile phone) and have been known to damage things with shock.
Why not an SSD at this stage?!? Sure, it's a few extra bucks, but I wouldn't consider anything mechanical storage memory except in a RAID config in a static system.
I'm not addressing whether a third-party witness should be fired or shunned for refusing to answer questions.
My question is, what is a logical argument, from first principles about the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the state, for why we should allow defendants to answer questions, but not third-party witnesses?
Yes, I know that's what courts have interpreted the Fifth Amendment to mean. My question is whether there is a good logical argument for giving defendants the right to remain silent, but not witnesses.
I believe you are the (n-1)th in a long line of people who have felt that way, but until there's a further amending of the Constitution or the Supreme Court sides with your view (establishing a precedent) you are covering ground which many before you have already done.
Except BluRay and plasma tv's did not exist when SW came out.
I managed to get a copy of SW on laserdisc, it was mindblowing quality for the day.
Not only that, but George Lucas held off on DVD issue of Star Wars for a very long time. In the case of your Laserdisc you did have something with value others could buy, but not easily after Laserdiscs waned from the market.
I'm familiar with the First Year Collector thing, but I doubt there are any collectors items among iPhones, which tend to sell quite a lot of the exact same model on the first day, before the hue and cry over defects or such result in an adjustment in production.
Cars may or may not sell a lot on first issue and generally going out and buying will result in some unhappy experiences, though your experience may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, some being much better at rolling out a truly finished product and others rushing out a model which will have a laundry list of recalls.
My car was such a dud it wasn't made for many years and resulted in one of the greatest financial setbacks for the manufacturer. The engineers did a fine job designing it, the assembly line did a terrific job of putting it together, but the bean-counters who sourced the parts and figured ways to shave costs doomed it. If they had gone with the original engineers plans it would have been a hit and my car would have been worth a small fortune for being very early off the production line.
It's a much better position to be in to watch how a new car rolls out and is met by the market. A successful launch of a quality car may mean you have to pay a little of a premium to get one of the early batch, but you avoid getting burned.
Regarding antenna issues, battery heating up issues, other shortcomings of Apples rather trendsetting iPhones should by now curb some enthusiasm for the wary. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me sorta fing.
Well, you see this behavior for other things too.
I mean, I've never understood people siting and waiting in line to see a movie (Harry Potter, SW, LOTR, Hobbit, etc). I mean, frankly, I would rather wait to see it later without all the fscking crowd and hassle, that is...if I even bother to see it in a movie theater at all.
I generally wait till out on BluRay and watch it on my large plasma tv, with a great soundsystem and fully stocked bar nearby.
Well film is a considerably different matter, and other than impatience and a high degree of tolerance to standing in line (to get ticket), standing in line (to get popcorn) and standing in line (to be seated) followed by trying to get a seat which doesn't suck or isn't close to some noisy or obnoxious clod there seems little argument for being there on opening night. Unless it's a real stinker it will play for at least a week and there's going to be times without the great density of hoi polloi which offer a better experience.
Although, like with the fanboi sort of experience, there are people who love to be part of the herd. After opening night or the first day of sale you can rush home and share your experience on YouToob or fazebook with your initial impressions, unboxing, and so on. That has some value to people.
If, by answering questions about some other crime, I were to move from "known not to be an accomplice" to "known to be an accomplice", having been forced to answer those questions would fail the fifth amendment. By forcing Risen to answer these questions, we may find out he was actually a co-conspirator or an accomplice (or perhaps even the source of the leak itself). And thus forcing him to answer now has trampled his fifth amendment rights.
While it would be very dangerous, a very principled person (more principled than I) might think about using the opportunity to claim some illegal association with the crime, and then mounting a constitutional challenge over it.
You speak in generalizations, but I get the idea ... please read the 5th Amendment and consider the technical wording, as it is written and how it may apply and then consider how it may have more than one meaning, so what is the spirit or the amendment? What were the authors of the amendment trying to prevent, which was common practice under the Crown of England, colonial courts or East India Company of the time? I think a constitutional challenge on these grounds isn't very likely to sway the SCOTUS to side with an uncooperative witness, regardless how they may view (or choose not to) his motives.
I'm not condemning Risen, nor am I stating he's blameless. I'm trying to state how things are and why they are this way.
At this point, the only reason to line up for an iDevice is to get on TV. This is not different to survivor or Big Brother.
In my line of work we take a dim view of being on the bleeding edge of technology. These people are not simply embracing it, but doing so for their own personal reasons i.e. Be first on the block to have one (which is a damn silly thing to do with a considerable investment, which most iPhones are.)
I was burned on a new car model years ago so I sit back and wait to see how things turn out before committing my own hard won dollars (and even then, as I'm a pre-paid customer, I buy the handset outright.)
And my point is: There are at least two views of the Fifth Amendment, the technical wording and the spirit of the meaning.
The technical interpretation of the first few words here "No person shall be held to answer for ..." addresses the defendant an no other. The witness is not on trial, so to speak. However, in the spirit of the amendment, it could (and you appear to be doing so) argued the witness may appear complicit in a criminal or socially unacceptable act in given testimony which damns the witness. I.e. Charges may be brought against the reporter or the reporter may be fired for professional ethics violations, neighbors may shun the reporter, etc.
You make a fairly sound rational argument, but present view within the courts has been defined by precedent. Many reporters have found themselves cooling their heels in a cell while standing up for their 1st Amendment rights. Were this not acceptable by the Supreme Court of the United States, I think we would have seen an end to it by now. But we have not.
Why do you think when people get in political trouble, they will use their 5th amendment rights. Because if they are found innocent of the crime they will, then find some inconsistency with their story and get them jailed for perjury. Normally this tends to happen to Middle managers working for the government. If they get caught doing something, they were often the last ones to execute the order, after getting orders from many layers down.
You may be thinking of Col. Oliver North, who was quite the willing accomplice in the Iran-Contra affair. Which brings up the point of a soldier is bound to carry out orders, not question them. While many would feel he went about his task with a clear conscience, which few could fathom, his ultimate superior, Ronald Reagan had all sorts of convenient memory lapses, which left North hung out to dry.