"You realize that "liberty" is synonymous with "freedom""
Yes.
" and being annoyed hinders me from pursuing happiness, right?"
No. What if your breathing annoys me? Should I be able to engage the force of law to stop you?
"or instance, not being killed, physically harmed, or physically endangered is an important freedom, moreso than the freedom of other people to throw knives in public or drive drunk."
Duh.
" Anti-harassment statutes and restraining orders suggest so. "
Restraining orders are one thing. When a judge decides that, in this particular situation, a restraining order is appropriate, that seems pretty reasonable to me. Anti-harassment statutes are appropriate IFF they prevent harm. Being annoyed is not harmful. Note that I consider many anti-harassment laws to be over-broad, and detrimental to liberty.
"I agree with you that cell phones are awesome"
I never made that assertion. I find mine to be a useful tool, but it doesn't make my "awesome" list.
"and we should be free to use them in public, at least in most circumstances."
Amend that to say "In all circumstances that do not result in harm to another", and we agree.
You are free to do as you wish, as long as you don't harm anybody else. Other people are free to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't directly anybody else.
Oh, I agree. IFF there are aviation safety issues, they should be banned and remain banned. However, that's far from clear. I would be much happier if the FCC came out and said "Here's our testing methodology, here's what we found, they're not safe, they're banned."
Most folks (and I mistakenly included you in the set) were arguing that they should be banned because it's possible that somebody might be annoyed by them.
Skip the Bose stuff and get something that physically isolates you from impending soundwaves. With my Etymotic Isolators, ambient noise (up to and including pretty loud people pretty near me) are simply not a factor.
Noise cancellation and noise isolation aren't the same thing.
Is there some sort of Jack Bauer edition of the Constitution that says that the rights protected by said Constitution only apply to citizens? Because the one I read only mentions citizenship in context of voting.
If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, well, they're wrong too. Sorry.
Maybe I'm just dumb. Also, way to dodge the extraordinary rendition issue. Gold star for you!
Your failure to understand subordinate clauses leaves room for tyrants to justify removing your essential liberties just because they have a tummy ache...which is exactly what's happened in the US today.
If I were in charge of such a project, the first thing I'd do is buy everybody a two time zone watch and say "Absolutely all schedules will be communicated in Zulu time."
I was thinking particularly in the realm of living-room style TV screens. Large plasmas were readily available long before large LCDs, and now that the LCD fabrication technology is improving yields, plasmas are no longer an attractive option (for a lot of applications).
I don't know which one is "better", but plasmas were well established in the market before being supplanted by LCDs.
Sounds like a terrific opportunity for you to start your own contest! That way, you can act according to the values that are important to you, and other people can act according to the values that are important to them! What a great idea! Let's call it..."Liberty"!
I didn't say I'd never ever buy one. I just said that I have no interest in backing one or the other of these horses right now. This pissing match between the manufacturers has absolutely no interest for me.
It's been an awful long time since I have bought a CD. It's not difficult for me to imagine the same thing happening with DVDs or SuperDVDs.
There is a BIG difference between "Hey, we've optimized this ink to work best on our own paper. Use whatever you want, but this is the configuration that we recommend." and "You're not allowed to use somebody else's paper, regardless of whether you happen to be satisfied with the results or not."
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing tricky about it. You don't get to decide that annoying things harm you arbitrarily. Sorry, that's just not cricket.
Of course the problem is, I'm an idealist, and people like you outnumber me. So I need a new body politic. But that's an issue for another day.
"You realize that "liberty" is synonymous with "freedom""
Yes.
" and being annoyed hinders me from pursuing happiness, right?"
No. What if your breathing annoys me? Should I be able to engage the force of law to stop you?
"or instance, not being killed, physically harmed, or physically endangered is an important freedom, moreso than the freedom of other people to throw knives in public or drive drunk."
Duh.
" Anti-harassment statutes and restraining orders suggest so. "
Restraining orders are one thing. When a judge decides that, in this particular situation, a restraining order is appropriate, that seems pretty reasonable to me. Anti-harassment statutes are appropriate IFF they prevent harm. Being annoyed is not harmful. Note that I consider many anti-harassment laws to be over-broad, and detrimental to liberty.
"I agree with you that cell phones are awesome"
I never made that assertion. I find mine to be a useful tool, but it doesn't make my "awesome" list.
"and we should be free to use them in public, at least in most circumstances."
Amend that to say "In all circumstances that do not result in harm to another", and we agree.
Yes. The most important freedoms are included in the documents that are important to the foundation of the legal system I happen to be subject to.
"Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness." Making other people more polite does not appear in that list.
I agree: Rude people suck. Rude people should be less rude. They should NOT, however, be subject to laws that serve only to not annoy you.
Your freedom to do as you wish is more important than my freedom from annoyance.
You are free to do as you wish, as long as you don't harm anybody else. Other people are free to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't directly anybody else.
Being annoyed does not constitute harm. Deal.
Frankly, no. It's not important. You do not have a right to not be annoyed. You DO have a right to wear earphones, like I do.
You don't get to legislate against annoying things. That's not what laws are for.
Oh, I agree. IFF there are aviation safety issues, they should be banned and remain banned. However, that's far from clear. I would be much happier if the FCC came out and said "Here's our testing methodology, here's what we found, they're not safe, they're banned."
Most folks (and I mistakenly included you in the set) were arguing that they should be banned because it's possible that somebody might be annoyed by them.
So, yes, we basically agree. : )
It's not absurd at all. Do you think freedom is important, or not?
That's the point about freedom. If you have it, and other people have it, they're very likely to do things that bother you (and vice versa).
Which is more arrogant? Being rude in public, or using the force of law to make people not do something that annoys you?
Skip the Bose stuff and get something that physically isolates you from impending soundwaves. With my Etymotic Isolators, ambient noise (up to and including pretty loud people pretty near me) are simply not a factor.
Noise cancellation and noise isolation aren't the same thing.
Is there some sort of Jack Bauer edition of the Constitution that says that the rights protected by said Constitution only apply to citizens? Because the one I read only mentions citizenship in context of voting.
If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, well, they're wrong too. Sorry.
Maybe I'm just dumb. Also, way to dodge the extraordinary rendition issue. Gold star for you!
Says you. The people in Gitmo and under extraordinary rendition might also disagree.
But they're not human...they're just terrorists. All of them. God told us so.
Your failure to understand subordinate clauses leaves room for tyrants to justify removing your essential liberties just because they have a tummy ache...which is exactly what's happened in the US today.
"success in the real world probably has nothing to do with whether you copied your papers or not"
True. But integrity is orthogonal to success, and (in my opinion) far more important.
"Bullshit. That's exactly what a paper is full of, bullshit; 90% of the papers I wrote in college were bullshit. "
So, YOU wrote a bunch of bullshit, therefore term papers are useless? You're bad at logic.
"in cases of rebellion or invasion or if the public safety may require it."
WRONG.
It says that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if rebellion or invasion CAUSE public safety concerns. Read it again.
"You purchase your right to liberty (and in some jusrisdictions, life too) by obeying the law."
Your social contract sucks ass.
If I were in charge of such a project, the first thing I'd do is buy everybody a two time zone watch and say "Absolutely all schedules will be communicated in Zulu time."
I was thinking particularly in the realm of living-room style TV screens. Large plasmas were readily available long before large LCDs, and now that the LCD fabrication technology is improving yields, plasmas are no longer an attractive option (for a lot of applications).
I don't know which one is "better", but plasmas were well established in the market before being supplanted by LCDs.
Anyhow...more grist for the mill, I suppose.
Sounds like a terrific opportunity for you to start your own contest! That way, you can act according to the values that are important to you, and other people can act according to the values that are important to them! What a great idea! Let's call it..."Liberty"!
Counterexample: LCD flat panels are overtaking Plasma on almost every performance criterion.
Dude. You made all that shit up. All of it. The numbers. The assumptions. Every word...your imagination.
I didn't say I'd never ever buy one. I just said that I have no interest in backing one or the other of these horses right now. This pissing match between the manufacturers has absolutely no interest for me.
It's been an awful long time since I have bought a CD. It's not difficult for me to imagine the same thing happening with DVDs or SuperDVDs.
There is a BIG difference between "Hey, we've optimized this ink to work best on our own paper. Use whatever you want, but this is the configuration that we recommend." and "You're not allowed to use somebody else's paper, regardless of whether you happen to be satisfied with the results or not."
You're absolutely right, I couldn't for the life of me spell much of ANYTHING in Norwegian. Do you guys have the cool slashy-o's like the Swedes?
Only reason I posted is because the spelling made me chuckle a bit.
I never understood why some people think that there's some sort of consensus that ALL the people on /. agree with.
Me? I don't care if HD or BluRay wins. I won't buy either of them.