Free from threat and use of physical violence used to force them to do work for others. I completely agree with your next statement (anything that doesn't cause harm to others), and I think you'll find that that builds up a certain set of rights which would be great for us all to respect universally, and indeed, much of the world would be more pleasant if such a right were universally respected. I think law and law enforcement is essentially our collective effort to translate the fragile absolute rights into practical exercisable rights.
Proving the existence of rights is much easier than proving the existance of god, because it is much easier to make the necessary foundation. See one of my other posts regarding a constructionist viewpoint for the necessity of rights necessary to make arguing about rights possible. If there are no rights, then your arguing with me is meaningless and pointless. On the other hand, if there are rights, then my arguing with you might convince you.
To me, the most obvious right in contradiction of law is the right to freedom. Slaves everywhere have a right to be free, but in many cases, and not so long ago in the US, the law did not support that right.
If we give up the exercise of rights to participate in society in a specific way, that's all we do. We don't surrender rights, merely the choice to exercise them. Remember, rights cannot be taken away or given up, but you can of course choose not to exercise them, and you may be prevented from exercising them, but that is not the same as saying they do not exist.
In all fairness to the Jews, what they actually believe is that they are worse than others, and that God specifically challenges them to behave well, and that when they can all do that for a year, then we all get the benefit of god making everything right on earth.
That's exactly what makes some rights fundamental: they cannot be removed, they exist independently of the laws which enforce them, or whether or not you are in fact able to exercise them.
Rights aren't powerful at all, just fundamental. Rights violations go on all the time, but that's just what they are: violations. Law enforcement is designed to prevent as many rights violations as possible, precisely because rights are widely accepted to be important and worthy of protection, but fragile and easily violated.
Most of these flights won't be flying as high as many of the satellites we use to carry a lot of our voice traffic. Why should the latency need to be worse?
It's hard to say. There isn't a ton of humor in his other writing. I think more likely is the theory that he had a wrong proof, which he later discovered the flaw in and therefore never published (there is a reasonable candidate wrong proof which mathematicians think it likely he might have been considering given his background and experience up to that point).
Humorously enough, it seems more than half the country would disagree with you, you don't have the right to die, and they're working to enact legislation to stop you!
More seriously, perhaps you're right: perhaps we cannot think beyond the boundaries of the cultures in which we were raised. That would explain why nothing new has ever been thought of.
On the other hand, if it were possible to think beyond the confines of our cultures, then perhaps rights can exist, and we are merely attempting to discover them. That would explain the bill of rights in the U.S. constitution, and why it varies from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
My favorite argument in favor of fundamental rights is that they are the rights necessary to have an argument about fundamental rights. That at least gets you to a right to freedom, and a right to free speech of some sort, and you can derive a number of other necessary rights, it's an interesting process.
Ok, so you believe that when slavery is the law, the right to freedom ends? I suspect not, and that you are trolling AC, but perhaps you do. However, your own argument undermines itself: the law has defined a right which is not enforced. Do you have the right? If so, laws != rights. If not, laws != rights.
That remains an unsolved puzzle. The existing proof is nothing like one which Fermat might reasonably have thought would nearly fit in the margin of his notebook.
Existing paper ballots tend to fail in this regard because they are static: they cannot by adapted dynamically to the needs of users too far out of the mainstream of capability.
As an example, large print ballots might be provided for those with poor eyesight, but what if they aren't large print enough for you?
So that covers 1.
For 2:
Electronic voting machines can scale up the text as large as you want. They can also read to you over private earphones if you are blind. They can make use of various input technologies for those who can't easily use their hands. These technologies are well developed for electronic systems, but are for the most part not compatible with paper balloting systems.
Well, this ruling says that they didn't do anything illegal just by sharing it, and your claim seems to indicate that they didn't illegally distribute it by sending it to someone who had the right to have it.
This is a fairly trivial program to implement given the technology already available in most libraries. Most libraries have cards, associated with accounts, which have a balance due on overdue books. Most if not all of the books in the libraries system have a known (and encoded) price.
So now all you have to do is make sure that your system allows for a positive balance, and train the checkout desk personnel to subtract book value at checkout time for anonymous accounts, and to make sure balances stay positive on such accounts.
In addition, such a program pays for itself if even a relatively small number of people use it: you get to keep their cash balance in an interest bearing account.
Just like it did for the past 4 generations of consoles.
There are 2 key reasons PC gaming still won't die:
1) controllers on the platforms are inferior. And they'll stay inferior for a large class of games until consoles ship with a keyboard and mouse.
2) consoles have static graphics technology for ~3-4 years at a time. PC graphics technology takes a jump ahead approximately every 6 months. Graphics on the PC will already be superior to the consoles the day the consoles finally ship.
The extra ~120 pounds of a good 22" CRT / 35" TV just isn't that much for your legs. I can lift about 500 extra pounds with my legs and move around pretty easily. It's the bending over and picking up the 120 extra pounds that runs a real risk of doing something bad to your back muscles. Once you're upright, your legs will have nothing to worry about.
It's a ripoff when the advertising misleads you into paying to see a movie that turns out to be nothing like the clips, and in some cases not even to contain the clips. When you're dissatisfied with the product, there is usually no recourse, you can't get any of your money back.
XBOX360 will sell for $349 or less. They'll lose money on every unit, and make it up roughtly $5 per unit sold of every game from the license fee. On average, figure that they need to sell something like 20-30 games per console to make money.
Not until the AI qualifies for personhood under the law. Then it acquires all the same legal protections of any other person. This occurs when the AI becomes clearly sentient enough to convince judges all the way to the supreme court (assuming you're in the US).
I bought a canister of oxygen last year. Unfortunately for me, a criminal broke into my house and released all the oxygen. By now my oxygen is all over the world. Now as I'm sure you know, receiving stolen property is a crime. So please stop receiving my stolen oxygen!
Much as I can't ask you to stop breathing by this argument, you don't gain ownership of a person by feeding them.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't do it, you'll play right into the canned foods' plan to take over all of our basements!
Free from threat and use of physical violence used to force them to do work for others. I completely agree with your next statement (anything that doesn't cause harm to others), and I think you'll find that that builds up a certain set of rights which would be great for us all to respect universally, and indeed, much of the world would be more pleasant if such a right were universally respected. I think law and law enforcement is essentially our collective effort to translate the fragile absolute rights into practical exercisable rights.
Proving the existence of rights is much easier than proving the existance of god, because it is much easier to make the necessary foundation. See one of my other posts regarding a constructionist viewpoint for the necessity of rights necessary to make arguing about rights possible. If there are no rights, then your arguing with me is meaningless and pointless. On the other hand, if there are rights, then my arguing with you might convince you.
To me, the most obvious right in contradiction of law is the right to freedom. Slaves everywhere have a right to be free, but in many cases, and not so long ago in the US, the law did not support that right.
If we give up the exercise of rights to participate in society in a specific way, that's all we do. We don't surrender rights, merely the choice to exercise them. Remember, rights cannot be taken away or given up, but you can of course choose not to exercise them, and you may be prevented from exercising them, but that is not the same as saying they do not exist.
In all fairness to the Jews, what they actually believe is that they are worse than others, and that God specifically challenges them to behave well, and that when they can all do that for a year, then we all get the benefit of god making everything right on earth.
That's exactly what makes some rights fundamental: they cannot be removed, they exist independently of the laws which enforce them, or whether or not you are in fact able to exercise them.
Rights aren't powerful at all, just fundamental. Rights violations go on all the time, but that's just what they are: violations. Law enforcement is designed to prevent as many rights violations as possible, precisely because rights are widely accepted to be important and worthy of protection, but fragile and easily violated.
Most of these flights won't be flying as high as many of the satellites we use to carry a lot of our voice traffic. Why should the latency need to be worse?
It's hard to say. There isn't a ton of humor in his other writing. I think more likely is the theory that he had a wrong proof, which he later discovered the flaw in and therefore never published (there is a reasonable candidate wrong proof which mathematicians think it likely he might have been considering given his background and experience up to that point).
Humorously enough, it seems more than half the country would disagree with you, you don't have the right to die, and they're working to enact legislation to stop you!
More seriously, perhaps you're right: perhaps we cannot think beyond the boundaries of the cultures in which we were raised. That would explain why nothing new has ever been thought of.
On the other hand, if it were possible to think beyond the confines of our cultures, then perhaps rights can exist, and we are merely attempting to discover them. That would explain the bill of rights in the U.S. constitution, and why it varies from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
My favorite argument in favor of fundamental rights is that they are the rights necessary to have an argument about fundamental rights. That at least gets you to a right to freedom, and a right to free speech of some sort, and you can derive a number of other necessary rights, it's an interesting process.
Ok, so you believe that when slavery is the law, the right to freedom ends? I suspect not, and that you are trolling AC, but perhaps you do. However, your own argument undermines itself: the law has defined a right which is not enforced. Do you have the right? If so, laws != rights. If not, laws != rights.
That remains an unsolved puzzle. The existing proof is nothing like one which Fermat might reasonably have thought would nearly fit in the margin of his notebook.
Even worse, as long as we're admitting stuff, the boxes weren't all that shiny!
Works well == easy to use by the target group.
Existing paper ballots tend to fail in this regard because they are static: they cannot by adapted dynamically to the needs of users too far out of the mainstream of capability.
As an example, large print ballots might be provided for those with poor eyesight, but what if they aren't large print enough for you?
So that covers 1.
For 2:
Electronic voting machines can scale up the text as large as you want. They can also read to you over private earphones if you are blind. They can make use of various input technologies for those who can't easily use their hands. These technologies are well developed for electronic systems, but are for the most part not compatible with paper balloting systems.
Thankfully, the law does not determine your rights. Rights exist above the law, and are sometimes supported by the law.
Because they don't work well for the elderly or handicapped.
Well, this ruling says that they didn't do anything illegal just by sharing it, and your claim seems to indicate that they didn't illegally distribute it by sending it to someone who had the right to have it.
This is a fairly trivial program to implement given the technology already available in most libraries. Most libraries have cards, associated with accounts, which have a balance due on overdue books. Most if not all of the books in the libraries system have a known (and encoded) price.
So now all you have to do is make sure that your system allows for a positive balance, and train the checkout desk personnel to subtract book value at checkout time for anonymous accounts, and to make sure balances stay positive on such accounts.
In addition, such a program pays for itself if even a relatively small number of people use it: you get to keep their cash balance in an interest bearing account.
Just like it did for the past 4 generations of consoles.
There are 2 key reasons PC gaming still won't die:
1) controllers on the platforms are inferior. And they'll stay inferior for a large class of games until consoles ship with a keyboard and mouse.
2) consoles have static graphics technology for ~3-4 years at a time. PC graphics technology takes a jump ahead approximately every 6 months. Graphics on the PC will already be superior to the consoles the day the consoles finally ship.
The extra ~120 pounds of a good 22" CRT / 35" TV just isn't that much for your legs. I can lift about 500 extra pounds with my legs and move around pretty easily. It's the bending over and picking up the 120 extra pounds that runs a real risk of doing something bad to your back muscles. Once you're upright, your legs will have nothing to worry about.
It's a ripoff when the advertising misleads you into paying to see a movie that turns out to be nothing like the clips, and in some cases not even to contain the clips. When you're dissatisfied with the product, there is usually no recourse, you can't get any of your money back.
Actually, it's something none of us can relate to, because its an inert gas.
So do all existing platter based hard drives, it's a matter of numbers, can they guarantee you enough writes to make it 'good enough' for you to use.
XBOX360 will sell for $349 or less. They'll lose money on every unit, and make it up roughtly $5 per unit sold of every game from the license fee. On average, figure that they need to sell something like 20-30 games per console to make money.
Not until the AI qualifies for personhood under the law. Then it acquires all the same legal protections of any other person. This occurs when the AI becomes clearly sentient enough to convince judges all the way to the supreme court (assuming you're in the US).
I bought a canister of oxygen last year. Unfortunately for me, a criminal broke into my house and released all the oxygen. By now my oxygen is all over the world. Now as I'm sure you know, receiving stolen property is a crime. So please stop receiving my stolen oxygen!
Much as I can't ask you to stop breathing by this argument, you don't gain ownership of a person by feeding them.