It was explained in later books of the series that near-relativistic speeds make it impossible to receive communications due to the frequency-shift due to speed.
There's about a page of description of it in Speaker For the Dead and another several pages in Xenocide.
In Xenocide, it is stated that Ender's AI, Jane, can send transmissions to a ship at relativistic speed, but only by using the sustained and combined power of much of humanity's computers at once.
Bengazi was a pretty minor thing on any sort of scale that matters to anyone outside politicos with a bone to pick.
Yes, I even knew one of the guys who was killed and it was pretty damn unfortunate and there may have been some warning about potential risks, but overseas facilities such as foreign embassy facilities, especially in war-torn areas are under threat on a monthly basis and I don't see you advocating a full scale mobilization each time it happens.
You should realize that the guys there in Libya were used to random "emergency" situations. He used to drop off his chats with friends at least once a week and say "security thing, gotta go" and would disappear, saying they were being carted off by security staff.
You must admit that there is a threshold where the damage caused by "preventing bombs by all costs" is outweighed by the damage caused by the prevention.
Perhaps your line is different than others, but there IS a line.
So, in order to have a semi-rational discussion about this topic, you must start from there.
Accusing someone of encouraging the exploding of airplanes because he feels that line is near (or has been crossed) is an asinine and unintelligent straw man.
I don't think the taking off of shoes crosses that line, personally, but I do feel that some other things they do (like no-fly lists that are impossible to appeal) does.
But perhaps you're someone who values safety over freedom to a high degree. If children if Muslims were rounded up and sent to re-education camps in order to prevent "home grown terrorists" from blowing up planes, I suspect you might object. If so, then we found YOUR particular line.
Think now, of where that line lies and how you reconcile that with others' views.
ACA doesn't fix these problems. Instead, it forces people who use medical care and insurance responsibly to subsidize those who don't. Furthermore, it makes it hard for insurance companies to signal the cost of poor choices to people through their rates. That does ensure universal coverage, but those are exactly the things you don't want to do if you want to control costs and improve public health. Americans will get poorer, sicker, and fatter as a result of ACA.
But "responsible people" were already subsidizing those who aren't. It was just done indirectly and very inefficiently, and with huge gaps in coverage for legitimate illness that otherwise "responsible people" found themselves not covered for.
I see what you're saying, and I agree that the ACA is not an ideal solution. It was only adopted because it was almost entirely Republican-drafted and Democrats assumed that would mean they would get at least some support.
The whole concept of "health insurance" is a bit wonky, because you can be dropped from your coverage whenever by an insurance provider. Insurance is designed to spread the risk of single-event large-scale losses, but health is almost never that. Obviously, there is the catastrophic accident scenario, but that's relatively rare in our hyper-safety society, so the bulk of health issues are chronic and/or terminal.
Having an intelligent discussion on how to deal with chronic illness is a serious concern.
Obvious, systemic issues such as obesity need to be addressed, but I'm not sure that "your insurance will cost more when you're 40" is a sufficient, nor really even a very useful signal to "don't eat ice cream for dinner" to some random chubby 23 year old.
So, on that, I reject the idea that "signaling bad behaviour via the future cost of health insurance" is a relevant marker for the value of a health program.
There are some programs in the world (like Japan) where the government offers universal coverage, but only pays something like 80%. You can buy private insurance to cover the remainder, or you can eat it. People under a certain income get 100% regardless and that moves up on a graduated scale. This gives them incentive to avoid unnecessary procedures, but still offers universal coverage for catastrophic injury and the poor.
I don't think any changes to the healthcare or health insurance system will fix things like obesity or smoking, frankly, because most humans are inherently REALLY bad at planning. So I contend that we can virtually dismiss the "changing habits via the threat of future cost increases" as a viable tool to change public behaviour.
Given that, what alternatives are there that don't completely suck, other than a public-payer system? I'm not sure I see the argument outside that.
I totally understand your argument about personal responsibility. It's the cornerstone of conservatism (not that that this is a bad, necessarily).
But... Something like 20% of diabetes is not environmental, but genetic and/or random.
So are most cancers (like 30-80% are genetic and/or random).
Same goes for random accidents. Broken ankles from stepping on a crack, for example. Herniated discs in the back due to... lifting heavy objects.
It is not the lifestyle choices that represent that hardest choice, for intervention, but what of... Random lukemia, or... random "hit in the head with a falling rock" cases?
Do those people also "live with the consequences" and die, destitute?
seems a curious claim.
Or are you contending that most unexpected hospitalizations are due to lifestyle choices?
I notice that you point out the issue is in human nature. A lifetime of poor lifestyle choices.
So are you advocating for big brother mandating compulsory exercise and veggies?
Obviously, that would be the cheapest way to do it, but probably not the "freeist" in the American sense.
FYI, I don't live in the US, but I have in the past.
But in the scenario where you don't find it socially acceptable to force people to eat well at age 35 so they don't get diabetes at age 55, what is the alternative?
Sure, you could increase premiums on people who drink more than 5 drinks per week. How would you determine when they do that?
I'ts not an easy solution, but given what we regard as "freedom", we have to accept that people make bad choices. And then decide what to do with them when they are sick.
I'll point out that you suggested problems with all modern health systems and i don't know of any that don't suffer from these problems, so I encourage you to suggest alternatives.:-)
There is absolutely no scientific reason that the "Big Bang" couldn't have been created by a higher power who then set the laws of physics and motion and energy, etc.
Or it could have happened out of some sort of mathematical singularity.
I think it's pretty clear that this "god" doesn't get involved in the outcome of sporting events, or the determination of which individuals of a certain species live and die (or get a passing grade on their paper, or anything else that people pray for), and it seems pretty implausible that he would take certain individuals who were especially naughty and burn them forever in some sort of fire lake under the ground.
In fact, it strikes me that some deity capable and interested in setting up the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't give two shits about who is "forgiven" and who is repentant and whether or not you love your brother.
If he indeed created a universe 13.8 billion years ago, and we suddenly started believing in him approximately 3500 years ago, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
As Tim Minchim said.... "I don't go in for ancient wisdom. Just because ideas are tenacious, doesn't mean they are worthy."
Also, people "dying on the sidewalk" is a bit polemic, but it illustrates the point. Someone with a simple mild case of diabetes will die of gangrene in their feet in a matter of a year or two. Sure, you can provide them hospice while they die of something that was treatable almost 100 years ago, or you can get them insulin and antibiotics and you will notice that they'll then continue to live for 5-10 (or more years).
Of course, you could kick them out of "hospice" and then they would be back on the sidewalk dying in a few months.
Do you also drive to work with a blind fold on because other drivers make you nervous?
That's a pretty silly analogy.
I choose to drive every day DESPITE it being fundamentally the riskiest thing I do in my life, because it does not benefit me to sit at home and worry about my potential fate.
While the issue of people staying healthy is an important one (and should not be ignored), Alzheimers is a great example of a non-preventable condition.
So the ACTUAL conundrum here is this:
1) Do alzheimers/cancer sufferers (including/especially the poor and uninsured) deserve treatment? Is it a human rights issue? Or even one of ethics?
2) If so, who pays for it?
This is the issue. You either decide that some people won't be covered and will simply starve to death on the sidewalk, or you cover them, which implies some level of social welfare payment.
Now, if you don't like some fraction of people dying on the sidewalk, the question is simply to decide how to pay for the service.
Right now, in the US, the rule is simply that a hospital cannot turn away someone who is within 24 hours of death. So minor and preventable conditions like a skin tumor, or pre-diabetes go untreated and result in a dozen or two dozen ER visits shortly before the person dies.
This costs the hospitals an ENORMOUS amount (some hospitals, it accounts for almost 50% of budgets), which is paid by insurance (mostly) and is reflected in premiums, albiet in a highly inefficient way that also has terrible health outcomes and is strongly weighted to hurt hospitals in less affluent areas.
Also, once you have a few minor issues, like skin tumors that are removed, you will have a VERY hard time getting insurance, because you're a cancer risk, even if you ARE a highly productive member of society or a small business owner.
A middle-ground might be to mandate insurance companies to not turn away people for pre-existing conditions and to provide a basic safety net for elderly and poor (this is what the US currently does with "Obamacare"). I don't think it goes far enough to promote preventative health measures (which decrease long-term costs).
Strikes me that after half a decade in place in the state of Mass in exactly the same form, Insurance companies are doing better, health outcomes are better and more people are covered, with only marginally higher expense.
I think you're cherry picking anecdotes.
In fact, A July 2013 Gallup poll shows the number of uninsured in the US is down substantially over the last few years.
Can you cite any non-partisan surveys that show otherwise? Or are you relying on some CEO moaning and complaining for your "everyone is losing their insurance" quote?
It's worth pointing out (as was said below), that most Democrats would support a single-payer government healthcare system, either on a federal level (like the NHS in Britain), or through federal mandates for states to create their own single player (as in Canada).
For a bit of context, lets look at the history
The RomneyCare-lite package that was passed was a huge compromise of ideals for most left-leaning politicians. This plan as it was passed was about 90% Republican/Conservative and was drafted originally by the conservative partisan think-tank The Heritage Foundation. It enjoyed prominent and vocal support throughout the 1990s from folks like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. In fact, Republicans in the senate proposed a nearly identical version of this law in 1993 as an alternative to Bill Clinton's proposed health care reforms (including an "individual mandate" and "health exchanges" and Medicaid Expansion).
In fact, the most controversial portion, the "individual mandate" was the brainchild of Republican senators Orin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond in 1993 and was agreed to by Republican president George HW Bush, as well as by 43 Republican senators in preliminary voting.
In 2006, Republican Mitt Romney implemented a nearly identical plan, with broad Republican support in his home state. It was accepted as an alternative to the single-payer system proposed by Democrats in the state senate and passed with broad bipartisan support, though there was more support from Republicans than Democrats (some of whom saw it as to corporate-focused).
In 2007, Republican US Senator Bob Bennett introduced the bill to a senate subcommitte for adoption as US Federal law and the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
In 2008, when it had been revised down to most of what was in the current bill, Democrats pushed strongly for a "public option", which was basically a government-run insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies, which Republicans at the time claimed to be their primary disagreement with the bill. In a show of compromise, Democrats agreed to remove the "public option" from the bill.
But by then, Republicans had made it a rallying cry of their party and were going to stick with opposition to the bill, often in defiance of their previous position, as a matter of principle.
The rest is history.
Yes, there are legit reasons to be annoyed or disappointed with it, but the rhetoric "the communist, authoritarian" claims and frequent citations of the bill as "the worst law in American history" are completely absurd. I mean... beyond absurd to such an extreme level that it defies reality that people believe it.
Seriously, I asked a question. Where do you draw the line?
Because this is the fundamental question. Obvious, you can ALWAYS cite the extreme case and hold it up as "see look".
But you KNOW how laws distort over time.
We know shooting folks is bad, so is stabbing. But remember how 7 year olds are being suspended for making gun shapes with their fingers while playing tag (and how tag is banned at some schools), and 6 year olds are suspended for bringing a plastic knife to school to spread their cream cheese, and you will realize how quickly well intentioned things that reasonable people support, become gross and corrupted once they are in place.
The idea that saying something mean to someone falls into the same category as physically harming them is challenging. I'm not saying it can't be illegal, but it's EXTREMELY challenging and to deny that is asinine.
I'm so tired of people taking queries about the edge cases and asking the question (which YOU JUST ASKED) of "why do you think kids should be encouraged to harass people?" Which I clearly didn't imply. But nice straw man.
It is a fundamental component of modern social life, and in the future, I suspect it will be THE fundamental component of social life.
In a few years, it would be roughly akin to preventing someone from visiting the courthouse, public square and the market. Sometimes this is known as "arrest".
I have relatively limited issues with properly obtained search warrants, provided they adhere to a level of requiring material proof of reasonable suspicion (physical evidence is mandatory here).
Even if I might disagree with the sometimes extreme tenacity of the government prosecutors to obtain a guilty plea at all cost, I don't totally believe that law enforcement and things like proper warrants, are inherently evil.
That said, a search of an otherwise secure service should be able to search the service.
It should not allow the creation of special mandates that require the company to drastically alter its service and/or lie to users in order to build some dragnet style collection of private information on the off-chance that some of it falls under jurisdiction. That's over the line.
Slashdot Mirror
It was explained in later books of the series that near-relativistic speeds make it impossible to receive communications due to the frequency-shift due to speed.
There's about a page of description of it in Speaker For the Dead and another several pages in Xenocide.
In Xenocide, it is stated that Ender's AI, Jane, can send transmissions to a ship at relativistic speed, but only by using the sustained and combined power of much of humanity's computers at once.
Apple developed their own mapping app and data over the course of the last 3-5 years....
But... not really.
In an area of open conflict, there were skirmishes at least once a week and the embassy was staffed with armed guards.
I doubt the president got on the phone and said "no, no marines".
As far as I am aware, the guys were happily chatting online and were dead within 5 minutes.
Do you think Barak Obama gets on the phone within 2 minutes of every skirmish anywhere in the world?
It seems like a red herring...
Bengazi was a pretty minor thing on any sort of scale that matters to anyone outside politicos with a bone to pick.
Yes, I even knew one of the guys who was killed and it was pretty damn unfortunate and there may have been some warning about potential risks, but overseas facilities such as foreign embassy facilities, especially in war-torn areas are under threat on a monthly basis and I don't see you advocating a full scale mobilization each time it happens.
You should realize that the guys there in Libya were used to random "emergency" situations. He used to drop off his chats with friends at least once a week and say "security thing, gotta go" and would disappear, saying they were being carted off by security staff.
It's more focused on the gullibility of the target.
"you're so gullible, you would buy the Brooklyn bridge if someone offered to sell it to you"
To be fair, even with a strong ND filter, it's pretty apparent that you're looking into a reflective prism.
meh...
I've never had that issue in Munich... (for what it's worth).
You must admit that there is a threshold where the damage caused by "preventing bombs by all costs" is outweighed by the damage caused by the prevention.
Perhaps your line is different than others, but there IS a line.
So, in order to have a semi-rational discussion about this topic, you must start from there.
Accusing someone of encouraging the exploding of airplanes because he feels that line is near (or has been crossed) is an asinine and unintelligent straw man.
I don't think the taking off of shoes crosses that line, personally, but I do feel that some other things they do (like no-fly lists that are impossible to appeal) does.
But perhaps you're someone who values safety over freedom to a high degree. If children if Muslims were rounded up and sent to re-education camps in order to prevent "home grown terrorists" from blowing up planes, I suspect you might object. If so, then we found YOUR particular line.
Think now, of where that line lies and how you reconcile that with others' views.
ACA doesn't fix these problems. Instead, it forces people who use medical care and insurance responsibly to subsidize those who don't. Furthermore, it makes it hard for insurance companies to signal the cost of poor choices to people through their rates. That does ensure universal coverage, but those are exactly the things you don't want to do if you want to control costs and improve public health. Americans will get poorer, sicker, and fatter as a result of ACA.
But "responsible people" were already subsidizing those who aren't. It was just done indirectly and very inefficiently, and with huge gaps in coverage for legitimate illness that otherwise "responsible people" found themselves not covered for.
I see what you're saying, and I agree that the ACA is not an ideal solution. It was only adopted because it was almost entirely Republican-drafted and Democrats assumed that would mean they would get at least some support.
The whole concept of "health insurance" is a bit wonky, because you can be dropped from your coverage whenever by an insurance provider. Insurance is designed to spread the risk of single-event large-scale losses, but health is almost never that. Obviously, there is the catastrophic accident scenario, but that's relatively rare in our hyper-safety society, so the bulk of health issues are chronic and/or terminal.
Having an intelligent discussion on how to deal with chronic illness is a serious concern.
Obvious, systemic issues such as obesity need to be addressed, but I'm not sure that "your insurance will cost more when you're 40" is a sufficient, nor really even a very useful signal to "don't eat ice cream for dinner" to some random chubby 23 year old.
So, on that, I reject the idea that "signaling bad behaviour via the future cost of health insurance" is a relevant marker for the value of a health program.
There are some programs in the world (like Japan) where the government offers universal coverage, but only pays something like 80%. You can buy private insurance to cover the remainder, or you can eat it. People under a certain income get 100% regardless and that moves up on a graduated scale. This gives them incentive to avoid unnecessary procedures, but still offers universal coverage for catastrophic injury and the poor.
I don't think any changes to the healthcare or health insurance system will fix things like obesity or smoking, frankly, because most humans are inherently REALLY bad at planning. So I contend that we can virtually dismiss the "changing habits via the threat of future cost increases" as a viable tool to change public behaviour.
Given that, what alternatives are there that don't completely suck, other than a public-payer system? I'm not sure I see the argument outside that.
LOL, you think that riding a bicycle in a big city is safer than driving? hahahahahaha :-D
You're a comedian!
Old thread, but it's worth asking...
I totally understand your argument about personal responsibility. It's the cornerstone of conservatism (not that that this is a bad, necessarily).
But... Something like 20% of diabetes is not environmental, but genetic and/or random.
So are most cancers (like 30-80% are genetic and/or random).
Same goes for random accidents. Broken ankles from stepping on a crack, for example. Herniated discs in the back due to... lifting heavy objects.
It is not the lifestyle choices that represent that hardest choice, for intervention, but what of... Random lukemia, or... random "hit in the head with a falling rock" cases?
Do those people also "live with the consequences" and die, destitute?
seems a curious claim.
Or are you contending that most unexpected hospitalizations are due to lifestyle choices?
Have an alternative?
I notice that you point out the issue is in human nature. A lifetime of poor lifestyle choices.
So are you advocating for big brother mandating compulsory exercise and veggies?
Obviously, that would be the cheapest way to do it, but probably not the "freeist" in the American sense.
FYI, I don't live in the US, but I have in the past.
But in the scenario where you don't find it socially acceptable to force people to eat well at age 35 so they don't get diabetes at age 55, what is the alternative?
Sure, you could increase premiums on people who drink more than 5 drinks per week. How would you determine when they do that?
I'ts not an easy solution, but given what we regard as "freedom", we have to accept that people make bad choices. And then decide what to do with them when they are sick.
I'll point out that you suggested problems with all modern health systems and i don't know of any that don't suffer from these problems, so I encourage you to suggest alternatives. :-)
There is absolutely no scientific reason that the "Big Bang" couldn't have been created by a higher power who then set the laws of physics and motion and energy, etc.
Or it could have happened out of some sort of mathematical singularity.
I think it's pretty clear that this "god" doesn't get involved in the outcome of sporting events, or the determination of which individuals of a certain species live and die (or get a passing grade on their paper, or anything else that people pray for), and it seems pretty implausible that he would take certain individuals who were especially naughty and burn them forever in some sort of fire lake under the ground.
In fact, it strikes me that some deity capable and interested in setting up the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't give two shits about who is "forgiven" and who is repentant and whether or not you love your brother.
If he indeed created a universe 13.8 billion years ago, and we suddenly started believing in him approximately 3500 years ago, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
As Tim Minchim said.... "I don't go in for ancient wisdom. Just because ideas are tenacious, doesn't mean they are worthy."
Also, people "dying on the sidewalk" is a bit polemic, but it illustrates the point. Someone with a simple mild case of diabetes will die of gangrene in their feet in a matter of a year or two. Sure, you can provide them hospice while they die of something that was treatable almost 100 years ago, or you can get them insulin and antibiotics and you will notice that they'll then continue to live for 5-10 (or more years).
Of course, you could kick them out of "hospice" and then they would be back on the sidewalk dying in a few months.
Rinse, repeat.
Hence, the problem.
Name those countries with better health outcomes. What fraction have a single-payer system?
I would wager it is almost all. But I'm curious, I'm not actually certain.
Do you also drive to work with a blind fold on because other drivers make you nervous?
That's a pretty silly analogy.
I choose to drive every day DESPITE it being fundamentally the riskiest thing I do in my life, because it does not benefit me to sit at home and worry about my potential fate.
While the issue of people staying healthy is an important one (and should not be ignored), Alzheimers is a great example of a non-preventable condition.
So the ACTUAL conundrum here is this:
1) Do alzheimers/cancer sufferers (including/especially the poor and uninsured) deserve treatment? Is it a human rights issue? Or even one of ethics?
2) If so, who pays for it?
This is the issue. You either decide that some people won't be covered and will simply starve to death on the sidewalk, or you cover them, which implies some level of social welfare payment.
Now, if you don't like some fraction of people dying on the sidewalk, the question is simply to decide how to pay for the service.
Right now, in the US, the rule is simply that a hospital cannot turn away someone who is within 24 hours of death. So minor and preventable conditions like a skin tumor, or pre-diabetes go untreated and result in a dozen or two dozen ER visits shortly before the person dies.
This costs the hospitals an ENORMOUS amount (some hospitals, it accounts for almost 50% of budgets), which is paid by insurance (mostly) and is reflected in premiums, albiet in a highly inefficient way that also has terrible health outcomes and is strongly weighted to hurt hospitals in less affluent areas.
Also, once you have a few minor issues, like skin tumors that are removed, you will have a VERY hard time getting insurance, because you're a cancer risk, even if you ARE a highly productive member of society or a small business owner.
A middle-ground might be to mandate insurance companies to not turn away people for pre-existing conditions and to provide a basic safety net for elderly and poor (this is what the US currently does with "Obamacare"). I don't think it goes far enough to promote preventative health measures (which decrease long-term costs).
Meh... problems problems.
This is one of the fundamental questions of genetic screening.
So what if you find out you have some future likelihood of ending up with a serious illness that you cannot prevent?
I don't think I would want to know.
Strikes me that after half a decade in place in the state of Mass in exactly the same form, Insurance companies are doing better, health outcomes are better and more people are covered, with only marginally higher expense.
I think you're cherry picking anecdotes.
In fact, A July 2013 Gallup poll shows the number of uninsured in the US is down substantially over the last few years.
Can you cite any non-partisan surveys that show otherwise? Or are you relying on some CEO moaning and complaining for your "everyone is losing their insurance" quote?
Progressive taxation is (by your inane definition) "confiscation of wealth" already.
There is no change, only a change in progressiveness.
Mitt Romney wasn't wrong when he said 47% of Americans pay little or no tax (at least on the surface). That's the way a modern social democracy works.
It's been very successful for a very long time. The US has very nearly the *least* progressive system in the world.
It's worth pointing out (as was said below), that most Democrats would support a single-payer government healthcare system, either on a federal level (like the NHS in Britain), or through federal mandates for states to create their own single player (as in Canada).
For a bit of context, lets look at the history
The RomneyCare-lite package that was passed was a huge compromise of ideals for most left-leaning politicians. This plan as it was passed was about 90% Republican/Conservative and was drafted originally by the conservative partisan think-tank The Heritage Foundation. It enjoyed prominent and vocal support throughout the 1990s from folks like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. In fact, Republicans in the senate proposed a nearly identical version of this law in 1993 as an alternative to Bill Clinton's proposed health care reforms (including an "individual mandate" and "health exchanges" and Medicaid Expansion).
In fact, the most controversial portion, the "individual mandate" was the brainchild of Republican senators Orin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond in 1993 and was agreed to by Republican president George HW Bush, as well as by 43 Republican senators in preliminary voting.
In 2006, Republican Mitt Romney implemented a nearly identical plan, with broad Republican support in his home state. It was accepted as an alternative to the single-payer system proposed by Democrats in the state senate and passed with broad bipartisan support, though there was more support from Republicans than Democrats (some of whom saw it as to corporate-focused).
In 2007, Republican US Senator Bob Bennett introduced the bill to a senate subcommitte for adoption as US Federal law and the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
In 2008, when it had been revised down to most of what was in the current bill, Democrats pushed strongly for a "public option", which was basically a government-run insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies, which Republicans at the time claimed to be their primary disagreement with the bill. In a show of compromise, Democrats agreed to remove the "public option" from the bill.
But by then, Republicans had made it a rallying cry of their party and were going to stick with opposition to the bill, often in defiance of their previous position, as a matter of principle.
The rest is history.
Yes, there are legit reasons to be annoyed or disappointed with it, but the rhetoric "the communist, authoritarian" claims and frequent citations of the bill as "the worst law in American history" are completely absurd. I mean... beyond absurd to such an extreme level that it defies reality that people believe it.
Seriously, I asked a question. Where do you draw the line?
Because this is the fundamental question. Obvious, you can ALWAYS cite the extreme case and hold it up as "see look".
But you KNOW how laws distort over time.
We know shooting folks is bad, so is stabbing. But remember how 7 year olds are being suspended for making gun shapes with their fingers while playing tag (and how tag is banned at some schools), and 6 year olds are suspended for bringing a plastic knife to school to spread their cream cheese, and you will realize how quickly well intentioned things that reasonable people support, become gross and corrupted once they are in place.
The idea that saying something mean to someone falls into the same category as physically harming them is challenging. I'm not saying it can't be illegal, but it's EXTREMELY challenging and to deny that is asinine.
I'm so tired of people taking queries about the edge cases and asking the question (which YOU JUST ASKED) of "why do you think kids should be encouraged to harass people?" Which I clearly didn't imply. But nice straw man.
LOL.
I'm having fun watching the moderation on this one.
There are a number of +1 insightful and +1 interesting, followed by -1 Overrated and -1 Troll.
I think it's been moderated around 30 times now. It's like a tug of war.
I do remind anyone who stumbles upon this in the future, that -1 Disagree is not a rating. :-)
It is a fundamental component of modern social life, and in the future, I suspect it will be THE fundamental component of social life.
In a few years, it would be roughly akin to preventing someone from visiting the courthouse, public square and the market. Sometimes this is known as "arrest".
I have relatively limited issues with properly obtained search warrants, provided they adhere to a level of requiring material proof of reasonable suspicion (physical evidence is mandatory here).
Even if I might disagree with the sometimes extreme tenacity of the government prosecutors to obtain a guilty plea at all cost, I don't totally believe that law enforcement and things like proper warrants, are inherently evil.
That said, a search of an otherwise secure service should be able to search the service.
It should not allow the creation of special mandates that require the company to drastically alter its service and/or lie to users in order to build some dragnet style collection of private information on the off-chance that some of it falls under jurisdiction. That's over the line.
To be short...
Proper warrant (with evidence) = reasonable
Dragnet style snooping on everyone = unreasonable
Simple.
Are you threatening yourself? :-D