No, copyright already protects expression, this "hot news" protection must go beyond that.
And your capitalism thing there sounds fairly communist. Only in a communism is does your amount of work matter. In a capitalism you're just as free to sell something for $1 or $1M, if you find it or spend your entire life making it. The price paid, and thus value given for your time, is totally dependent on value you provide to the customer.
Many things of high value fall into our laps every day. If, for instance, you told me that our office building was burning I could escape. But I don't "owe" you anything for this, or have an obligation to keep it secret.
This is what happens when we have judges throwing cases to the side they feel is most worthy, not the side favored by law or maximum societal benefit.
I can see that a guild or professional association (engineers for instance) should have safety rules. A guild actor shouldn't work with a crew who doesn't get their equipment safety inspected, and an engineer shouldn't build a building out of balsa-wood even if a client wants it.
Photography is a perfect example. A pro used to be able to support themselves entirely on stock photography - shooting smiling people using tech, etc, hoping someone would need such a picture for a brochure and be willing to pay the $50 to use it. Now there are a ton of pictures under appropriate CC licenses, or on cheap stock-photo sites at 1/100th the price of a few years ago.
Sure, it sucks for any individual photographer who now has to find something else to do. But it's great for everyone writing brochures. Or making a freeware game, or a school presentation, or one of a million other uses that never would happen if there was a seemingly reasonable minimum cost per transaction.
Good photographers never even noticed though. They're producing actual quality and have people lined up around the block. It's the hacks who've been exploiting that fact that photography was pricey who are now whining for protectionism. The lack of an artificial bottom in the market means there's a wider range of what you can pay get. Not every project required a professional photo.
And I don't see how my doing that is defensibly different from my writing a piece of code (building a robot, if you will) to read it out loud.
Because copyright law restricts you making copies of a work.
Building a robot that read aloud the word under the camera at that moment would only "copy" the work in the most trivial and instantaneous sense, it certainly wouldn't create a lasting work that competes with the author's official release.
You can buy a $2 map book and run a million dollar taxi company with it, as long as only the dispatcher has the book and merely tells the taxi-drivers where to go.
North Korea doesn't have anything worth taking. That's all it was. Nukes might be a threat, but nobody believes NK actually has them in any usable fashion. There's a big difference between a static nuke test and using it to stop invaders.
No, the fact is that Bush Jr. had been planning to invade Iraq from long before 9/11. If Iraq had a test like NK did he'd have used that as an excuse to invade, not been deterred.
Two niggles. One, you'd write a tapping law to require communication, so brain scanning wouldn't count.
Two, coding tells us a lot about how to write complex system like law. You can't duplicate code or pieces get out of date. You'll have one penalty for stabbing someone to death and another for strangling.
So you need to refactor the code. When you've written three 'tapping X tech' sections you need to consider merging them into 'tapping - basics' and a 'specifics for X' containing only the differences of each from the baseline.
If we ever admitted that ignorance is an excuse and that we should make sure we've taught law to someone before we declare them an adult then we'll need a system that can be learned by the average high-school graduate. Our mess of many hundreds of years old spaghetti code is nearly unusable.
Every now and then we do rewrite some law but there needs to be a dedicated effort to clean up and simplify the law.
And we need to figure out metrics; are we going for decisions with the least moral-distance from the 'average' in society, the cheapest to implement, or the simplest law that captures the most nuances? And of course we need a test suite. Sample cases we can give to test judges/juries/etc.
Probably the most important will be forking the law into development versions. Each can be tested in parallel with the live version until we see how it handles problems. Testers filling the roles of all participants (where footage from the main stream trial isn't appropriate) will act out the roles, and then the outcome of the trial will be evaluated according to the above metrics. A law could thus be proven "Would have put 85% of the drug scof-laws in the last five years behind bars, while lowering the false positives from recreational drug users being accidentally targetted." before being voted into the main branch.
I can't imagine it would cost more than the current economic bailout and it could provide a ton of jobs... Maybe I should talk to congress.
Well, I've spent a while saying I wouldn't. Of course it won't be as obvious as you play it so we've got to keep our eyes open.
But from the discussions about it here I have to assume that most people would be okay with it at least as long as they were assured it was legal.
The problem is that like how in the global economy our government can't just print new money and have it accepted, they also can't just write off the guilt of a million deaths even if we all close our eyes to it.
If we were to bet on the time-period in which 85% of the population could go from 'against torture' to operating the torture machine in a Milgram-type experiment I'd guess three days. But only because days one and two would be spent on orientation and classes about the equipment.
Yeah, congress rolled over (all along, even now) and would have declared whatever Bush told them was needed. The specifics of who signed (or didn't) which piece of paper seem unimportant.
As for your earlier point about tracking every presidential actions, it's an issue of trust. If we had a system where we could trust our president, even a little, to mean and do what he says we'd might be willing to look away for a moment.
Your example of the Barbary pirates is a good one. We do authorize the president to deal with these things assuming that he's acting in our names or will stop if he realizes he made a mistake. Even in areas where this means things that would otherwise be crimes if he didn't have the shield of working in our names like killing pirates, tapping phones, etc.
Bush lied though. Repeatedly. Directly, and indirectly by paying people to lie to him. He knowingly and in so many words manufactured a case for war where there wasn't one. If we had the info, the people would all be jointly liable for the errors. But by lying to us Bush took away our oversight ability. Essentially starting an unjustified war and (to use the word the rest of the world would, murdering) hundreds of thousands.
So I'm seeing more of a reason to keep close tabs on the president than not. In fact, if you want to have any claim to the USA being an ethical nation I think you'd acknowledge that we all have a responsibility to ensure that corruption is investigated and harshly punished.
That trust I mentioned though. I know of one way to have a bit of it. If there was a law (not a one-time decree aimed at parting rivals) that would get Bush tried for his crimes then it would also apply to Obama if he did the same.
Bush taught us to watch closely or there'd be another torture camp deporting our and allied citizens for torture. If the only way we can avoid the worst depravity is constant vigil than constant vigil it must be.
Yes, dd, especially with random data, is pretty much as secure as any commercial product. But they all fail to touch the hidden blocks the drive has remapped because of potential failure.
Agreed. And not just SSDs. Regular HDs remap sectors if they think they're failing. But usually they do so without you noticing a failure, which means that an almost perfectly readable copy of that sector has simply been remapped. No amount of overwriting will ever hit that sector because the drive is sure it's doing you a favor.
The info is still there, just a few debug commands away.
The monopoly MS has been abusing for the past 15 years. Yes, it is now going away as Dell and others are finally able to cater to other OSes as the market demands.
But OS/2 is gone now. And Be/OS.
A lot of the competition that would be here now was killed in that time, when MS was using its monopoly power to force Dell for instance, to not carry any competing products.
Personally I'm sort of amazed there's a market for buying Linux pre-installed. I use Debian and the install is just so seamless that I'd never bother getting it done at the factory, except maybe to guarantee compatibility and then wipe it.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not blaming Linux's small "market" share on MS. It's a niche product. But MS has abused its powers to kill any and all competition, rather than simply to promote its own product.
Sure sure. What a loser. I only asked four times. It's pretty obvious you have nothing, after all you avoided ALL of my questions.
I could make up the answers, but nothing I'd make up could make you seem as dumb as you do now and I'm not sure I want to do you the favor.
I was trying to fish for what you do believe... Nobody whose name isn't Kim Yong-il thinks the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is anything but a slave camp.
And I can't imagine that you believe only the ability to perpetrate violence makes a legitimate government because I suppose you'd mind if I came by and 'governmented' your computer, TV, etc.
But you certainly don't seem to have any reasons for anything you believe. Leading me to believe that whatever you do believe you do so because your pappy done believumikated teh same stuffs, likely causa his pappy.
I'm bitching about people interpreting the constitution to serve their own needs, I don't care if it's a religious fundie trying to prove atheists can't hold office or a fundie anti-gun nut. They're still stuck to their fundamental principles above logic or the actual meaning of the constitution.
Thanks though, asshole. You certainly make this whole "we the people" thing nicer with your friendly nature and helpful assumptions. With this kind of teamwork maybe we could actually get somewhere.
Almost. It's time for them to stand up and state the limit on what they will accept.
Would you, all worked up about opposing the feds, back down quietly if they showed you how a single comma, not on your badly photocopied copy of the constitution, allowed whatever unjust behavior you were protesting?
Because I think it's unreasonable for them to demand this logging at all. (What penalties are there for non-compliance? How is this audited? Will a missing router be assumed to be destruction of evidence?)
what makes you think someone with his insider knowledge didn't vote against it as well?
I'd expect someone with actual knowledge of criminal actions by an organization to make these things known and leave the organization if they weren't fixed, not sit quietly by merely voting for someone who might act.
And as for that libertarian craziness you decry, it's only the whole problem. Even if you vote not to spend money killing people, people will come drag that money out of you. We're only lucky they don't drag us off to war anymore (we're not losing badly enough yet).
Let's say everyone got together and voted to kill you. What could someone do to avoid your anger.
Simply vote not to, but go along with the mob killing? Campaign loudly not to, but go along in the end? Abstain from voting claiming moral problems, but let it happen?... Say no, but end up funding killers because tax-avoidance is libertarian?... Say no. Call the police. Threaten to stand against any would-be killers?
Where in there would you say their culpability goes from shared to non-existant? Which of those would you expect from someone who didn't want you to see them as an attempted murderer?
Are you going to be satisfied that they went to a few rallies and voted no?
There are people in Iraq asking themselves this question. And innocent victims of no-knock DEA raids that targeted the wrong people, or hit the wrong house.
Perhaps their answers to the question carry a bit more weight than your dismissive ones.
A TV studio is just giving stuff away, so they don't have much of an obligation.
It seems worse with Yelp because a review site has to know that any value the reviews have is in being honest. By offering a review site and not saying 'A worthless review site' you are implicitly offering an uncensored one.
Certainly a fine is appropriate for this. From $5 - $5000 depending on whose mistake it was and what they had done to prevent it.
And beyond that, yes again. Full-blown conspiracy charges if they can prove this was a result of higher-ups collusion. Fines of 500 * the expected profits from those pieces, etc. Definitely corruption needs to be stopped and we aren't going to stop it at the Enron levels if we don't stop it at the lower levels too.
We value privacy as well, and have laws to protect/assure it. Trespassing, harassment, various peeping and anti-recording laws, etc.
But realistically, it's easy to walk/drive onto private property without noticing the signs, or without knowing where else to go. Both of those are valid reasons, imho, for people to breach 'private property' signs. After all, the sign just warns of the obvious - someone owns everything. But we walk/drive on various semi-public pieces of private property all day, like driveways, sidewalks, front path/steps, etc.
An actual 'No Trespassing' sign means that, but is it trespass for instance (in a lay-meaning, lawyers need not apply) to go knock on your door if I think there's something you need to know urgently enough?
To achieve, in a way that means "no really, I'll be pissed if you set a single foot on here", needs a BIG sign - one you can't miss. A marked fence (colored plastic tape woven through a fence, between trees, etc. So that there's not a single view of the property that doesn't mark it as off-limits.
If you aren't doing that it's silly and a bit rude to expect your land to remain untouched in any way.
It simply seems out of proportion. Private land is, yes, and you have some expectation of privacy, but not half as much as if you put up a gate, an unmissable sign... like curtains for your property.
Even if it is annoying though, what's the threat? Seeing someone on your private property is, I repeat, odd. Also maybe annoying. Seeing them in your house without permission is scary. The police deal with odd and annoying.
But it isn't used that way. Go into a big store and listen for a customer to ask, they never say "MS Windows". And nobody ever corrects them. AFAIK the OS is actually called "NotVista".
And at the time, that legislature was the (British) parliament.
And you assume they're a legitimate government to exercise power over who? Anyone they can through force of arms? Anyone born in the territories they claimed?
You are AGAIN talking about morality. Law is not morality.
I'm talking about legitimate government. Define that however you will. But if all legitimate means is force then you'd find North Korea to be a valid country...
Are you immune to questions?
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
Anyways, whatever you think makes a legitimate government is irrelevant to the original thread. At issue is the motivations of the founding fathers, who one can safely assume did not respect the king's claimed divine right to rule even if you do.
Hence my addition to the "game". They had "rejected representation" in a form they felt disenfranchising, under a foreign government whose legitimacy they didn't recognize. The piece I replied to implied their decision to opt out of the British empire was one made purely on the tax issue. If you understand their view of Britain their decision seems more understandable.
Not unless you rule out reasonable motives first. It's legal to sit and shoot pictures of the bird on your roof, all day long.
My point is that unreasonable suspicion (assuming the person photoing your house is hostile, despite their lack of attempt to hide) does not justify stopping the photographer. It's not a matter of what the homeowner feels comfortable with. Nobody asked. That's what curtains and fences are for.
Oh yes, I was very clear to state that Bill Clinton is Squirtle, Bush is... whichever one sounds the funniest. The equivalence is EXACT. Did I call you an idiot yet?
My point is that you don't have any good reasons for your actions. Like all other deletionists you're just a jerk kicking over other people's sandcastles because you can. If you actually wanted to be helpful you'd participate in the discussion, which is largely interrupted if the page is simply deleted. You've all convinced yourselves that you're doing more for Wikipedia by deleteing articles than writing them.
Oh my god, a case of trespassing. Someone needs killin'
I understood all along, I just don't give a shit about your private property or your little ape-like routine in defense of it. Seeing someone uninvited in your house would be a threat, seeing them on a private street outside your house would be... Odd.
Slashdot Mirror
No, copyright already protects expression, this "hot news" protection must go beyond that.
And your capitalism thing there sounds fairly communist. Only in a communism is does your amount of work matter. In a capitalism you're just as free to sell something for $1 or $1M, if you find it or spend your entire life making it. The price paid, and thus value given for your time, is totally dependent on value you provide to the customer.
Many things of high value fall into our laps every day. If, for instance, you told me that our office building was burning I could escape. But I don't "owe" you anything for this, or have an obligation to keep it secret.
This is what happens when we have judges throwing cases to the side they feel is most worthy, not the side favored by law or maximum societal benefit.
Roughly where they go from just your kids and your family/friend's kids and becomes a business.
If you had 30 kids, and they each had 30 kids, you could still legally read to your entire flock.
Why is it reasonable to make wage caps?
I can see that a guild or professional association (engineers for instance) should have safety rules. A guild actor shouldn't work with a crew who doesn't get their equipment safety inspected, and an engineer shouldn't build a building out of balsa-wood even if a client wants it.
Photography is a perfect example. A pro used to be able to support themselves entirely on stock photography - shooting smiling people using tech, etc, hoping someone would need such a picture for a brochure and be willing to pay the $50 to use it. Now there are a ton of pictures under appropriate CC licenses, or on cheap stock-photo sites at 1/100th the price of a few years ago.
Sure, it sucks for any individual photographer who now has to find something else to do. But it's great for everyone writing brochures. Or making a freeware game, or a school presentation, or one of a million other uses that never would happen if there was a seemingly reasonable minimum cost per transaction.
Good photographers never even noticed though. They're producing actual quality and have people lined up around the block. It's the hacks who've been exploiting that fact that photography was pricey who are now whining for protectionism. The lack of an artificial bottom in the market means there's a wider range of what you can pay get. Not every project required a professional photo.
And I don't see how my doing that is defensibly different from my writing a piece of code (building a robot, if you will) to read it out loud.
Because copyright law restricts you making copies of a work.
Building a robot that read aloud the word under the camera at that moment would only "copy" the work in the most trivial and instantaneous sense, it certainly wouldn't create a lasting work that competes with the author's official release.
You can buy a $2 map book and run a million dollar taxi company with it, as long as only the dispatcher has the book and merely tells the taxi-drivers where to go.
North Korea doesn't have anything worth taking. That's all it was. Nukes might be a threat, but nobody believes NK actually has them in any usable fashion. There's a big difference between a static nuke test and using it to stop invaders.
No, the fact is that Bush Jr. had been planning to invade Iraq from long before 9/11. If Iraq had a test like NK did he'd have used that as an excuse to invade, not been deterred.
Two niggles. One, you'd write a tapping law to require communication, so brain scanning wouldn't count.
Two, coding tells us a lot about how to write complex system like law. You can't duplicate code or pieces get out of date. You'll have one penalty for stabbing someone to death and another for strangling.
So you need to refactor the code. When you've written three 'tapping X tech' sections you need to consider merging them into 'tapping - basics' and a 'specifics for X' containing only the differences of each from the baseline.
If we ever admitted that ignorance is an excuse and that we should make sure we've taught law to someone before we declare them an adult then we'll need a system that can be learned by the average high-school graduate. Our mess of many hundreds of years old spaghetti code is nearly unusable.
Every now and then we do rewrite some law but there needs to be a dedicated effort to clean up and simplify the law.
And we need to figure out metrics; are we going for decisions with the least moral-distance from the 'average' in society, the cheapest to implement, or the simplest law that captures the most nuances? And of course we need a test suite. Sample cases we can give to test judges/juries/etc.
Probably the most important will be forking the law into development versions. Each can be tested in parallel with the live version until we see how it handles problems. Testers filling the roles of all participants (where footage from the main stream trial isn't appropriate) will act out the roles, and then the outcome of the trial will be evaluated according to the above metrics. A law could thus be proven "Would have put 85% of the drug scof-laws in the last five years behind bars, while lowering the false positives from recreational drug users being accidentally targetted." before being voted into the main branch.
I can't imagine it would cost more than the current economic bailout and it could provide a ton of jobs... Maybe I should talk to congress.
I would NOT DO IT.
Good.
neither would you.
Well, I've spent a while saying I wouldn't. Of course it won't be as obvious as you play it so we've got to keep our eyes open.
But from the discussions about it here I have to assume that most people would be okay with it at least as long as they were assured it was legal.
The problem is that like how in the global economy our government can't just print new money and have it accepted, they also can't just write off the guilt of a million deaths even if we all close our eyes to it.
If we were to bet on the time-period in which 85% of the population could go from 'against torture' to operating the torture machine in a Milgram-type experiment I'd guess three days. But only because days one and two would be spent on orientation and classes about the equipment.
Yeah, congress rolled over (all along, even now) and would have declared whatever Bush told them was needed. The specifics of who signed (or didn't) which piece of paper seem unimportant.
As for your earlier point about tracking every presidential actions, it's an issue of trust. If we had a system where we could trust our president, even a little, to mean and do what he says we'd might be willing to look away for a moment.
Your example of the Barbary pirates is a good one. We do authorize the president to deal with these things assuming that he's acting in our names or will stop if he realizes he made a mistake. Even in areas where this means things that would otherwise be crimes if he didn't have the shield of working in our names like killing pirates, tapping phones, etc.
Bush lied though. Repeatedly. Directly, and indirectly by paying people to lie to him. He knowingly and in so many words manufactured a case for war where there wasn't one. If we had the info, the people would all be jointly liable for the errors. But by lying to us Bush took away our oversight ability. Essentially starting an unjustified war and (to use the word the rest of the world would, murdering) hundreds of thousands.
So I'm seeing more of a reason to keep close tabs on the president than not. In fact, if you want to have any claim to the USA being an ethical nation I think you'd acknowledge that we all have a responsibility to ensure that corruption is investigated and harshly punished.
That trust I mentioned though. I know of one way to have a bit of it. If there was a law (not a one-time decree aimed at parting rivals) that would get Bush tried for his crimes then it would also apply to Obama if he did the same.
Bush taught us to watch closely or there'd be another torture camp deporting our and allied citizens for torture. If the only way we can avoid the worst depravity is constant vigil than constant vigil it must be.
Yes, dd, especially with random data, is pretty much as secure as any commercial product. But they all fail to touch the hidden blocks the drive has remapped because of potential failure.
Agreed. And not just SSDs. Regular HDs remap sectors if they think they're failing. But usually they do so without you noticing a failure, which means that an almost perfectly readable copy of that sector has simply been remapped. No amount of overwriting will ever hit that sector because the drive is sure it's doing you a favor.
The info is still there, just a few debug commands away.
The monopoly MS has been abusing for the past 15 years. Yes, it is now going away as Dell and others are finally able to cater to other OSes as the market demands.
But OS/2 is gone now. And Be/OS.
A lot of the competition that would be here now was killed in that time, when MS was using its monopoly power to force Dell for instance, to not carry any competing products.
Personally I'm sort of amazed there's a market for buying Linux pre-installed. I use Debian and the install is just so seamless that I'd never bother getting it done at the factory, except maybe to guarantee compatibility and then wipe it.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not blaming Linux's small "market" share on MS. It's a niche product. But MS has abused its powers to kill any and all competition, rather than simply to promote its own product.
Sure sure. What a loser. I only asked four times. It's pretty obvious you have nothing, after all you avoided ALL of my questions.
I could make up the answers, but nothing I'd make up could make you seem as dumb as you do now and I'm not sure I want to do you the favor.
I was trying to fish for what you do believe... Nobody whose name isn't Kim Yong-il thinks the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is anything but a slave camp.
And I can't imagine that you believe only the ability to perpetrate violence makes a legitimate government because I suppose you'd mind if I came by and 'governmented' your computer, TV, etc.
But you certainly don't seem to have any reasons for anything you believe. Leading me to believe that whatever you do believe you do so because your pappy done believumikated teh same stuffs, likely causa his pappy.
I'm bitching about people interpreting the constitution to serve their own needs, I don't care if it's a religious fundie trying to prove atheists can't hold office or a fundie anti-gun nut. They're still stuck to their fundamental principles above logic or the actual meaning of the constitution.
Thanks though, asshole. You certainly make this whole "we the people" thing nicer with your friendly nature and helpful assumptions. With this kind of teamwork maybe we could actually get somewhere.
Almost. It's time for them to stand up and state the limit on what they will accept.
Would you, all worked up about opposing the feds, back down quietly if they showed you how a single comma, not on your badly photocopied copy of the constitution, allowed whatever unjust behavior you were protesting?
Because I think it's unreasonable for them to demand this logging at all. (What penalties are there for non-compliance? How is this audited? Will a missing router be assumed to be destruction of evidence?)
Who knows what a fundie can read into a document?
Exactly. What he should have done is leave out unconstitutional.
At "rather than submit to tyranny." it's reasonable. And presumably expresses exactly the same sentiment.
Because really, would it be okay just because it was constitutional?
what makes you think someone with his insider knowledge didn't vote against it as well?
I'd expect someone with actual knowledge of criminal actions by an organization to make these things known and leave the organization if they weren't fixed, not sit quietly by merely voting for someone who might act.
And as for that libertarian craziness you decry, it's only the whole problem. Even if you vote not to spend money killing people, people will come drag that money out of you. We're only lucky they don't drag us off to war anymore (we're not losing badly enough yet).
Let's say everyone got together and voted to kill you. What could someone do to avoid your anger.
Simply vote not to, but go along with the mob killing? ... ...
Campaign loudly not to, but go along in the end?
Abstain from voting claiming moral problems, but let it happen?
Say no, but end up funding killers because tax-avoidance is libertarian?
Say no. Call the police. Threaten to stand against any would-be killers?
Where in there would you say their culpability goes from shared to non-existant? Which of those would you expect from someone who didn't want you to see them as an attempted murderer?
Are you going to be satisfied that they went to a few rallies and voted no?
There are people in Iraq asking themselves this question. And innocent victims of no-knock DEA raids that targeted the wrong people, or hit the wrong house.
Perhaps their answers to the question carry a bit more weight than your dismissive ones.
A TV studio is just giving stuff away, so they don't have much of an obligation.
It seems worse with Yelp because a review site has to know that any value the reviews have is in being honest. By offering a review site and not saying 'A worthless review site' you are implicitly offering an uncensored one.
Certainly a fine is appropriate for this. From $5 - $5000 depending on whose mistake it was and what they had done to prevent it.
And beyond that, yes again. Full-blown conspiracy charges if they can prove this was a result of higher-ups collusion. Fines of 500 * the expected profits from those pieces, etc. Definitely corruption needs to be stopped and we aren't going to stop it at the Enron levels if we don't stop it at the lower levels too.
We value privacy as well, and have laws to protect/assure it. Trespassing, harassment, various peeping and anti-recording laws, etc.
But realistically, it's easy to walk/drive onto private property without noticing the signs, or without knowing where else to go. Both of those are valid reasons, imho, for people to breach 'private property' signs. After all, the sign just warns of the obvious - someone owns everything. But we walk/drive on various semi-public pieces of private property all day, like driveways, sidewalks, front path/steps, etc.
An actual 'No Trespassing' sign means that, but is it trespass for instance (in a lay-meaning, lawyers need not apply) to go knock on your door if I think there's something you need to know urgently enough?
To achieve, in a way that means "no really, I'll be pissed if you set a single foot on here", needs a BIG sign - one you can't miss. A marked fence (colored plastic tape woven through a fence, between trees, etc. So that there's not a single view of the property that doesn't mark it as off-limits.
If you aren't doing that it's silly and a bit rude to expect your land to remain untouched in any way.
It simply seems out of proportion. Private land is, yes, and you have some expectation of privacy, but not half as much as if you put up a gate, an unmissable sign... like curtains for your property.
Even if it is annoying though, what's the threat? Seeing someone on your private property is, I repeat, odd. Also maybe annoying. Seeing them in your house without permission is scary. The police deal with odd and annoying.
But it isn't used that way. Go into a big store and listen for a customer to ask, they never say "MS Windows". And nobody ever corrects them. AFAIK the OS is actually called "NotVista".
I NEVER SAID THAT.
Then how about you actually try ANSWERING? HUH?
What would make a government legit? You keep saying some are.
And at the time, that legislature was the (British) parliament.
And you assume they're a legitimate government to exercise power over who? Anyone they can through force of arms? Anyone born in the territories they claimed?
You are AGAIN talking about morality. Law is not morality.
I'm talking about legitimate government. Define that however you will. But if all legitimate means is force then you'd find North Korea to be a valid country...
Are you immune to questions?
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
Anyways, whatever you think makes a legitimate government is irrelevant to the original thread. At issue is the motivations of the founding fathers, who one can safely assume did not respect the king's claimed divine right to rule even if you do.
Hence my addition to the "game". They had "rejected representation" in a form they felt disenfranchising, under a foreign government whose legitimacy they didn't recognize. The piece I replied to implied their decision to opt out of the British empire was one made purely on the tax issue. If you understand their view of Britain their decision seems more understandable.
Not unless you rule out reasonable motives first. It's legal to sit and shoot pictures of the bird on your roof, all day long.
My point is that unreasonable suspicion (assuming the person photoing your house is hostile, despite their lack of attempt to hide) does not justify stopping the photographer. It's not a matter of what the homeowner feels comfortable with. Nobody asked. That's what curtains and fences are for.
Oh yes, I was very clear to state that Bill Clinton is Squirtle, Bush is ... whichever one sounds the funniest. The equivalence is EXACT. Did I call you an idiot yet?
My point is that you don't have any good reasons for your actions. Like all other deletionists you're just a jerk kicking over other people's sandcastles because you can. If you actually wanted to be helpful you'd participate in the discussion, which is largely interrupted if the page is simply deleted. You've all convinced yourselves that you're doing more for Wikipedia by deleteing articles than writing them.
Oh my god, a case of trespassing. Someone needs killin'
I understood all along, I just don't give a shit about your private property or your little ape-like routine in defense of it. Seeing someone uninvited in your house would be a threat, seeing them on a private street outside your house would be... Odd.
Ugh, Ugh, Monkey Man.
Wow, powerful rebuttal. Next time, don't. There's simply nothing left for anyone else to say now that you've wrapped it up so masterfully.