I don't maneuver 1500 kg of metal around in public while under the influence of any controlled substance, ever. To imply that I do, and force me to shell out $600 to prove my innocence (In America, that used to be frowned on, although the presumption of innocence isn't what it used to be), is an infringement of my civil liberties.
Well gee, since I didn't read any of the hype about GTA: SA, I was able to enjoy the game thoroughly (up until the last mission. You know, the three hour long one with no save point in the middle). Looks like that strategy worked well for me.
A game developer overpromised and underdelivered? For heaven's sake, stop the presses! That's never happened before!
But you forgot the most important part. The final ledge will be just beyond the range they can actually jump. It'll be ALMOST achievable, so they can feel sure they'll get it the next time they try it, but it will always be just a bit too far.
HP's big laser printers are good hardware, with completely shit drivers. Their drivers have been shit for years, and they're not getting better.
Every actor is responsible for their own actions. Just because the Congresscritters and the administration are taking away my liberties doesn't absolve HP from their responsibility for facilitating.
Seems to me like the Fourth Amendment pretty well handles right to privacy. Seems to me like the Supreme Court agrees with me, according to the decisions linked elsewhere in this thread.
The government has zero legitimate powers that are not specified in the Constitution. Of course, that does exclude just about every law passed in the last 100 years (with a few conspicuous exceptions), but in terms of Constitutional legitimacy, this policy blows.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
That's a right to privacy. Amendment IV. Yes, trawling through data about me is an unreasonable search.
She social security number is the single most abused piece of personal information ever. You need to come up with a better example.
Do you, or do you not, work for the company that is profiting from this program? I want to get that right out in the open here.
Please explain to me what makes you think that HP is not a bad company.
Hell, I think they're bad just for getting involved with this debacle. I used to just think they were mismanaged and incompetent. Now they're out to take away my liberties, and that makes me not happy.
Yes, because letting your choices being restricted by the actions and desires of a group of people is SOOO rebellious.
Use what works for you. Don't believe the hype. Letting the "cultists" (your word, not mine) dictate your actions is just as silly as joining a cult.
Just like all those jackasses who had to conform to the "alternative" aesthetic..."We're so alternative, we all dress the same. We're cooler than you, because we are different from you, but the same as each other."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"..."Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
(that's off the top of my head)
If you want to re-write the philosophy that underlies the social contract I have with my nation, go found your own country. (I would like to re-write said contract with even MORE iron-clad liberties, which is why I'd like to move to Mars.)
Talking about the families of the victims is nothing more than waving a bloody shirt. That tactic is as old as politics, and no more valid. It is unconscionable to me that we allow fear to curtail liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument boils down to "Think of the CHILDREN!" and is, therefore, invalid.
I don't maneuver 1500 kg of metal around in public while under the influence of any controlled substance, ever. To imply that I do, and force me to shell out $600 to prove my innocence (In America, that used to be frowned on, although the presumption of innocence isn't what it used to be), is an infringement of my civil liberties.
Any other questions?
I've got no issue with that strategy. I do have an issue with requiring them on all vehicles.
No. He's not serious. That moist sound was the joke hitting you in the forehead.
Tricking myself? I DID get my money's worth. I had a great time with the game. You didn't, which is your prerogative.
I just think that basing ANYTHING on the hype about ANYTHING is a pretty bad idea.
I didn't see any glitches. Your mileage obviously varies, but I had a blast. Sorry you didn't.
I've got three, and everybody I know has one.
So my anecdote totally invalidates yours.
Well gee, since I didn't read any of the hype about GTA: SA, I was able to enjoy the game thoroughly (up until the last mission. You know, the three hour long one with no save point in the middle). Looks like that strategy worked well for me.
A game developer overpromised and underdelivered? For heaven's sake, stop the presses! That's never happened before!
So, all those infractions on my civil liberties, and they still haven't solved the problem.
Guess what: The solution is not more infractions on my civil liberties.
But you forgot the most important part. The final ledge will be just beyond the range they can actually jump. It'll be ALMOST achievable, so they can feel sure they'll get it the next time they try it, but it will always be just a bit too far.
Oh yeah, and no save points.
If that weren't absolutely true, it'd be damn funny.
You're totally right, because at age 18, $deity imparts Driving Knowledge to everybody.
You're kinda silly.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't own a car alarm that I didn't know how to bypass.
I don't wish to be held financially responsible (by having to pay for this system) to keep other people from driving drunk.
HP's big laser printers are good hardware, with completely shit drivers. Their drivers have been shit for years, and they're not getting better.
Every actor is responsible for their own actions. Just because the Congresscritters and the administration are taking away my liberties doesn't absolve HP from their responsibility for facilitating.
Seems to me like the Fourth Amendment pretty well handles right to privacy. Seems to me like the Supreme Court agrees with me, according to the decisions linked elsewhere in this thread.
The government has zero legitimate powers that are not specified in the Constitution. Of course, that does exclude just about every law passed in the last 100 years (with a few conspicuous exceptions), but in terms of Constitutional legitimacy, this policy blows.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
That's a right to privacy. Amendment IV. Yes, trawling through data about me is an unreasonable search.
She social security number is the single most abused piece of personal information ever. You need to come up with a better example.
Do you, or do you not, work for the company that is profiting from this program? I want to get that right out in the open here.
Er, because the hackers have more than two brain cells to knock together, and aren't saying anything?
Go read about the bombing of Coventry in World War II for a lesson on this type of shenanigan.
Nowhere near as bad? You mean, it won't work, it will cost billions, and it infringes my Fourth Amendment rights, it's not so bad?
Fuck it. I'll just take my soma and surrender.
What makes you think that anybody who's paying for this debacle, or being paid for this debacle, wants it to be secure?
They say OH MY GOD PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM TERRORISTS!
The public has been whipped into submission. They'll take this, and they'll like it.
Please explain to me what makes you think that HP is not a bad company.
Hell, I think they're bad just for getting involved with this debacle. I used to just think they were mismanaged and incompetent. Now they're out to take away my liberties, and that makes me not happy.
Er, founderS. My bad.
My views are more in keeping with those of the founder of our nation.
Your views are more in keeping with the general populace of this country now, who I think are poor stewards of the freedom we should enjoy.
I make the judgement that my views are preferable (which is why they're my views).
Yes, because letting your choices being restricted by the actions and desires of a group of people is SOOO rebellious.
Use what works for you. Don't believe the hype. Letting the "cultists" (your word, not mine) dictate your actions is just as silly as joining a cult.
Just like all those jackasses who had to conform to the "alternative" aesthetic..."We're so alternative, we all dress the same. We're cooler than you, because we are different from you, but the same as each other."
Whatever.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"..."Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
(that's off the top of my head)
If you want to re-write the philosophy that underlies the social contract I have with my nation, go found your own country. (I would like to re-write said contract with even MORE iron-clad liberties, which is why I'd like to move to Mars.)
Talking about the families of the victims is nothing more than waving a bloody shirt. That tactic is as old as politics, and no more valid. It is unconscionable to me that we allow fear to curtail liberty.
Yes.
Marginal increases in safety (and they're VERY marginal) are not worth erosions in liberty.