Her law as written wasn't too bad. Back then a lifetime +50 wasn't that bad; though I do think it is a bit much. I'd say lifetime or n years, where n is the average life span of the time and set n every 20 years, which ever is greater if you don't want to have to establish stricter registrations(to establish start dates).
You do realize that the fact that the US tortures is the PRIMARY recruiting tool for Al Quada, and other anti-US terrorist organizations?
Showing that the US does not condone torture would put a tremendous amount of hurt on their recruiting methods.
Even if every case of US torture caused 1 plot to be uncoverd and stopped, which is not proven to be even close to the case; there is still the fact that those cases lead to hundreds upon hundreds of new recruits ready to help with more plots.
It isn't bullshit to block, as an example, myspace and other http traffic for say a POS computer because that computer is dedicated for a single use and should never be used for those sites.
It isn't bullshit to block pornographic sites in a public school system.
However it quickly becomes bullshit when the system uses a third party's blanket block list without checking at all on the third-parties ability to pick out such sites. Really what should be done in public school systems is that the systems should compile a list of sites to block as they are encountered from MONITORING the student's activities(which is perfectly valid as the computers are not the students and teachers/parents should be looking over their shoulders), and ideally a reason should be given for each site/area blocked and there should be a method to appeal the block.
NOTE: It is a crime in some cases NOT to report things to the police.
IE. If you find a dead body and you don't report it and it is later found they start with good evidence to convict you. This also applies to lesser crimes.
I believe "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" to be a just tenet but it must also have before it that "Absence of the law may be in some cases."
In other words the government must put forward the laws of the land for free and make them available for the public otherwise the public is not being ignorant but instead the law is being absent.
If I make a law and never tell the people whom will be governed by it then it is as just to enforce that law as if the law were never made.
Legislators/Executive gov types will only act on monopolies when they are glaring and they can no longer afford not to act. Being the only chip maker will make things glaring enough that someone might just make a career out of that fact where-as not being the only one that same person would just be shouting hot air as he'd have to overcome the argument that they are a monopoly despite some apparent competition.
That law explicitly applies only to closed systems. However, because there is no possible way to fully close any system that law does not apply in full to approximately%100 of all applications.
In other words it is really useful as a rule of thumb for seeing if one's calculations are correct , but cannot be used as a proof.
Please include the cost of insurance and other legal hoops that have to be bought besides the physical gun and ammunition?
Also the open ocean is NOT your backyard. A more realistic scenario would be firing a few shots at the person approaching your car who you think is a pirate.
How could the FSF or EFF be forcibly nationalized?
They are not a company with that much in physical capital to nationalize.
Destroyed possibly but that means that the destroyers would also have to make things so more people don't go ahead and keep protesting unfair laws and practices. If they make the laws and practices unfair they can still destroy specific institutions but they are also giving more to protest.
"That's exactly what a faith in such a loving God allows one to do."
So you are saying that those without such faith are not allowed to do good deeds? That is demonstrably wrong and goes against all evidence I have seen in my life.
I have seen all too many self-righteous, condemnable people in this world who proclaim their own salvation and that of the flock they lead. They are often the loudest to proclaim that Jesus Christ is all you need and by my own senses they are the falsest profits I have seen.
I have seen many people who supposedly accepted JC and do not do terribly good works and those who haven't who are almost saintly.
The idea that the acceptance will make good works be done does not seem to bear out in practice.
My personal belief is that God, if he truly exists and is worthy of worship, has already forgiven all souls. We may gain a wider understanding of our actions after death and that understanding and our own lack of how we behaved is what will drag us down. In other words the "fires" of Hell are not the creation of a just God but rather of the soul's own guilt.
Indeed, but are you able to accept in this life or the next?
Ie would a skeptic open to the possibility of Jesus Christ be able to accept him once direct evidence was placed before him?
Or is it just a fill out the correct form sort of universe where it deeds besides accepting JC don't matter at all and Hitler could go to heaven if he just accepts on his deathbed and Mahatma Gahndi would be left burning in hell if he does not.
The Bad News that comes with that Good News is that there is little incentive to live a truly good life(if things are exactly as framed by some people), and if you don't hear about the "Good News" you are damned.
I may not know what the creator, if there be a creator, had in mind when he/she/it created, but I strongly suspect it was more than just to have some lackeys to tout how wonderful he/she/it was.
In fact the dismissal of these things and other anti-liberal/leftist views are just as much a dogma to others, though not a full blown religion, at least to most.
Slashdot Mirror
Her law as written wasn't too bad. Back then a lifetime +50 wasn't that bad; though I do think it is a bit much. I'd say lifetime or n years, where n is the average life span of the time and set n every 20 years, which ever is greater if you don't want to have to establish stricter registrations(to establish start dates).
Me sorry. He looked so lonely in there!
Well its that last order that pisses him off.
Seven orders is ok but the eighth and you're off my friends list.
You do realize that the fact that the US tortures is the PRIMARY recruiting tool for Al Quada, and other anti-US terrorist organizations?
Showing that the US does not condone torture would put a tremendous amount of hurt on their recruiting methods.
Even if every case of US torture caused 1 plot to be uncoverd and stopped, which is not proven to be even close to the case; there is still the fact that those cases lead to hundreds upon hundreds of new recruits ready to help with more plots.
Stop 1 start 2 or more. Great plan.
Except it isn't free.
Most Journalists don't work for free.
Editors don't work for free.
Bandwidth be it electronic or dead tree isn't free.
The cost simply hasn't been pushed directly onto the consumer, and instead people have gotten used to a strictly indirect approach(ie ads).
"timidly put forth" uhm...I don't think that first word means what you think it means both sides foam at the mouth.
Depends on the context.
It isn't bullshit to block, as an example, myspace and other http traffic for say a POS computer because that computer is dedicated for a single use and should never be used for those sites.
It isn't bullshit to block pornographic sites in a public school system.
However it quickly becomes bullshit when the system uses a third party's blanket block list without checking at all on the third-parties ability to pick out such sites. Really what should be done in public school systems is that the systems should compile a list of sites to block as they are encountered from MONITORING the student's activities(which is perfectly valid as the computers are not the students and teachers/parents should be looking over their shoulders), and ideally a reason should be given for each site/area blocked and there should be a method to appeal the block.
And rightly so, for the most part. After all the people doing the filtering are the people paying for it.
NOTE: It is a crime in some cases NOT to report things to the police.
IE. If you find a dead body and you don't report it and it is later found they start with good evidence to convict you. This also applies to lesser crimes.
Fake evidence.
Make an activity which those men engage in illegal and they will not be innocent.
Or just go the traditional "Do it or we'll stomp you!" route.
I believe "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" to be a just tenet but it must also have before it that "Absence of the law may be in some cases."
In other words the government must put forward the laws of the land for free and make them available for the public otherwise the public is not being ignorant but instead the law is being absent.
If I make a law and never tell the people whom will be governed by it then it is as just to enforce that law as if the law were never made.
I disagree.
Legislators/Executive gov types will only act on monopolies when they are glaring and they can no longer afford not to act. Being the only chip maker will make things glaring enough that someone might just make a career out of that fact where-as not being the only one that same person would just be shouting hot air as he'd have to overcome the argument that they are a monopoly despite some apparent competition.
No you don't. Your household is not a closed system, therefor not all the laws apply.
That law explicitly applies only to closed systems. However, because there is no possible way to fully close any system that law does not apply in full to approximately%100 of all applications.
In other words it is really useful as a rule of thumb for seeing if one's calculations are correct , but cannot be used as a proof.
And how much would you pay for that gun?
1 million dollars?
2 million dollars?
Please include the cost of insurance and other legal hoops that have to be bought besides the physical gun and ammunition?
Also the open ocean is NOT your backyard. A more realistic scenario would be firing a few shots at the person approaching your car who you think is a pirate.
How could the FSF or EFF be forcibly nationalized?
They are not a company with that much in physical capital to nationalize.
Destroyed possibly but that means that the destroyers would also have to make things so more people don't go ahead and keep protesting unfair laws and practices. If they make the laws and practices unfair they can still destroy specific institutions but they are also giving more to protest.
"That's exactly what a faith in such a loving God allows one to do."
So you are saying that those without such faith are not allowed to do good deeds? That is demonstrably wrong and goes against all evidence I have seen in my life.
I have seen all too many self-righteous, condemnable people in this world who proclaim their own salvation and that of the flock they lead. They are often the loudest to proclaim that Jesus Christ is all you need and by my own senses they are the falsest profits I have seen.
I have seen many people who supposedly accepted JC and do not do terribly good works and those who haven't who are almost saintly.
The idea that the acceptance will make good works be done does not seem to bear out in practice.
My personal belief is that God, if he truly exists and is worthy of worship, has already forgiven all souls. We may gain a wider understanding of our actions after death and that understanding and our own lack of how we behaved is what will drag us down. In other words the "fires" of Hell are not the creation of a just God but rather of the soul's own guilt.
Indeed, but are you able to accept in this life or the next?
Ie would a skeptic open to the possibility of Jesus Christ be able to accept him once direct evidence was placed before him?
Or is it just a fill out the correct form sort of universe where it deeds besides accepting JC don't matter at all and Hitler could go to heaven if he just accepts on his deathbed and Mahatma Gahndi would be left burning in hell if he does not.
You can but then why be good?
The Bad News that comes with that Good News is that there is little incentive to live a truly good life(if things are exactly as framed by some people), and if you don't hear about the "Good News" you are damned.
I may not know what the creator, if there be a creator, had in mind when he/she/it created, but I strongly suspect it was more than just to have some lackeys to tout how wonderful he/she/it was.
Indeed. It does not matter how the man lived his life.
How many people he helped.
How far he helped advanced human society.
How many he inspired.
How selfless he was or was not.
What matters is if he asked forgiveness of the correct God in the right way. All that matters is the paperwork!
If the above were true then the rest would be burning on the side of Right.
Indeed. He is a credit to scientific thought.
Both sides have their dogma.
Curse /. lack of an edit feature!
By some yes, by others no.
In fact the dismissal of these things and other anti-liberal/leftist views are just as much a dogma to others, though not a full blown religion, at least to most.
Just like yourself, and me!