Landmines? I'm really struggling to imagine a legal use of those. Probably some poisons, too, athough I suppose you could posit a researcher needing for legitimate research purposes.
Let's not forget that the NSA has been doing all of this and more, with no consent of _either_ party.
Ha, that gives me an idea. Just start all phone conversations with "this call may be monitored by law enforcement for unknown purposes." That'll probably really cut down on my phone time.
I want to be one of those "helicopter" parents. I see the other parents, nose stuck to a cellphone, or chatting with their friends, while their kids dumpster dive out back of the medical facility. I want to be involved. I want to know what my kids are doing. Who they're with. Where they are going.
That's not "helicopter" parenting, that's basic paying-attention parenting. A "helicopter" parent is one who tries to micromanage their children's lives; using your examples, organize everything your kids do, choose their friends, accompany them everywhere, supervise constantly, yell at teacher for giving them a C grade, remove all potential adversity and risk of injury, etc. The use of "helicopter" is supposed to invoke the image of hovering constantly overhead.
It's actually a quite harmful way to raise children, as they don't learn the critical skills to deal with life - how to deal with failure, overcoming obstacles on their own, the freedom to develop their own interests; in general self-reliance and resilience.
...but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
If you enter into a "legally binding contract" and don't fulfill your obligations under the terms of the contract, you're liable for civil action (but not criminal). The legal system will enforce private contracts, and all auto loans (the ones you get from a dealer that involve signing paper anyway) are accompanied by such a contract; so yes, there are legal consequences for not paying a debt, but indirectly and not because of some law that requires payment of debts.
Notably, there are ways out of the contract that may not require paying the debt: for instance, if you don't pay your car loan and the bank repossesses the car, you haven't broken a law even though you didn't pay the debt - the bank exercised its rights under the contract to take the car back if you don't pay. Normally, the bank won't sue you, unless you make repossession impossible.
(IANAL or creditor or loan-writer so I could be completely wrong)
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
If everyone could understand and internalize those two simple rules, then "all the law and the prophets" would be unnecessary. After all, Jesus just basically said that they are redundant anyway. But people don't understand that, hence we have the rest of the Bible trying to extrapolate those rules to all manner of practical situations, filtered through each author's social and cultural knowledge that actually had nothing to do with God.
The Bible in a nutshell: "'Don't be a dick' throughout the ages."
You must be some paid shill, because that wasn't even REMOTELY the point of the GP post. The point is that the existing cost of the Tesla Model S already hits Anderman's price range, so the Model 3, being smaller and another three years out from now to improve battery manufacturing costs, should easily sell for a lower price point. But you wouldn't understand because you need it explained in one-syllable words, written in crayon.
The new car: it's not as big, has less range, and its charge pack is made in bulk. How could it NOT cost less? (provide your own crayon)
UPDATE: It works now on my Galaxy Tab 4 8". Here's what I did:
-Uninstall the Amazon app I got from the Google Play app store. -Install the Amazon app store by downloading the apk from Amazon.com using a web browser. -Using the Amazon app store, install the Amazon app listed there and the Amazon Instant Video app.
Now, from the Amazon app, I can peruse the Prime Video selections, and watch free items.
A word of caution: after doing this, it enabled 1-click purchasing (it was previously disabled for my Amazon account), which I disabled, but forced on 1-click purchasing for digital items with no way to disable. Be careful what you click.
A successful smartwatch app would need to be one that was most usable in the same way you use a wristwatch - glancing at it occasionally, non-complicated UI interaction, etc.
Aside from the obvious fitness apps, there will be infinity variations on telling time - one that uses the number system from "Predator" would be neat - and calendar/agenda apps would be the most useful. If they support NFC, you could share schedules and contacts with a fist-bump and give new meaning to the phrase "synchronize your watches."
GPS navigation might be useful as a wrist-based app too, especially when on foot, bike, or when driving in jurisdictions that prohibit use of cell phones.
The key is they have to be apps that are better suited to a wristwatch form factor than a phone, although I'm sure there will be tons that aren't, just because devs will want to cash in on the latest new thing.
Check out the context for yourself. The quote is from Starship Troopers.
It's not that Heinlein doesn't understand or is deliberately obfuscating, he's simply using a perspective different from your own, IMHO. The way I interpret Heinlein here is that rhetoric and flowery prose doesn't *give* us freedom, and that freedom is something that needs to be fought for, to get, and to retain. Read (or re-read) the novel -- I think you might learn something.
I read it during my formative years, and it was influential in the shaping of my political views; but that was so long ago I couldn't tell you what it said or what I liked about it (the politics part - what's not to like about powered armor?). In the given context, it's not a different perspective from my own - it's what I was saying here and elsewhere: that simply recognizing rights doesn't secure them. Out of context, that quote sounds like Heinlein doesn't even believe in the concept of rights inherent to a person, or that it's irrelevant.
What the Declaration states, and what I believe as well, is that these rights are real and exist; whether respected, trodden upon, forgotten, or codified into law; and the moral corollary that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of others; disagreeing with the assertion that rights are arbitrary, not transcendental, and can be revoked by a society. Ultimately it's a philosophical question: what's a "right", how do we get them, and how do they relate to morality in the context of society?
Heh, some mod doesn't like the 2560x1440 options, apparently.
Sadly all (or almost all) 2560*1440 monitors are 27". That's too big for my tastes; I find I have to move my head (and my neck) to look around the screen, and that is NOT good.
24" would be MUCH better.
That's a good point - I was considering one of those when I got my 24", and the dpi on the 24 is about as high as I'd like for a desktop monitor (using standard scaling levels). I currently have two displays connected, both at home and work, so I'm used to having to move my head to look around. I consider 2560x1440 a single-monitor upgrade from two 19" 1280x1024 displays, and at 27" should be less head & neck movement than the dual-monitor setup, but for that dpi to be legible might require you to sit too close. You'd need 30+" to match the dpi of the dual-19 setup, and that might require too much vertical craning.
when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????
What do you consider a decent price? I got a 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitor (HP zr2440w) this year for $300 - it's fantastic. Newegg has several 2560x1440 screens for less than $400. 20 years ago a decent 17" CRT cost $1000. That's only 786 pixels/$. My current screen is almost 10 times that. 15, counting for inflation. And they're much better pixels.
If you're only looking at the sub-$200 budget monitor market, you're going to have to accept compromises.
Corporations with deep pockets can write it off as the "cost of doing business", but an unstable individual who was depending on that money being available later to survive may not take it in stride.
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
--Robert A. Heinlein
I love Robert Heinlein, but that quote makes it look like he either doesn't understand the concept of human rights, or he's deliberately obfuscating the topic. I'll have to assume the latter.
Although the current regulations allow Formula 1 engines to rev up to 15,000 RPM, they don't because that would exceed the maximum fuel flow requirements. I believe the practical limit is around 11,000. F1 introduced a new hybrid powertrain this year that ironically has caused some uproar because it's perceived as too quiet, compared to the screaming V8s and V10s that ran at 18-19,000 RPM. Audi's diesel LMP cars are also quiet compared to other ICE race cars - you don't need earplugs around them - but they're not silent.
I'd love to check out a Formula E race if I have a chance, and I hope the series does well. I think there's the potential for an all-electric racing series to contribute toward the technological development of powertrains in electric road-going cars, just as traditional gas-powered auto racing has with ICE road cars.
Rights are created by the government / the governed.
You could say (as I do) that morality transcends human institution, but the concept of a right as something transcendental makes no sense; rights are revoked by society in the case of a crime, so theyre clearly not absolute, and they dont really exist outside of a society (what meaning is a "right" to be free in the absence of a threat to that right?).
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This isn't a statement about religious faith; rather that rights are inherent in the human person and not granted by any civil authority (it is a statement of belief, since you can't prove it). It's the duty of society to recognize the rights of all men and the job of government to protect them. Obviously they wouldn't matter much to one living in total isolation who never encounters another person, but that's not really a common scenario.
The downside to this model is that it doesn't create an easy way to resolve what is or is not a right, which has been the cause of much strife since the founding. Like Sentrion says, anyone can claim a right, but you have to fight for recognition. And not all claims are necessarily valid.
In practical terms, the government effectively grants rights, since we've conceptually moved from the attitude "the Constitution doesn't say the government can do that" to "the Constitution doesn't say you can do that", thus effectively limiting our freedoms to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
As for criminals, we curtail their freedom because they've violated the social contract by not respecting the rights of others or as a form of group self-defense, but we do still acknowledge that they have rights. For example, prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment are based on the concept of their right to justice.
My point is that the constitution isn't some magic document, it's just a piece of paper that has no power beyond what one enforces. Unless you are willing to go up against the government and enforce the constitution with violence if necessary the constitution is irrelevant since the government can do as it pleases. If you are willing to take up arms against the government and have the resources to succeed then the constitution is still irrelevant since you then can enforce whatever rules you seem fit, constitutional or not.
So yes, it might be unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a word.
Nothing has meaning until we give it meaning. Our entire society is just a bunch of agreements and customs. There is no God that will enforce the Constitution from on high. But the Constitution is understood to express our values as a society. It is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a stable, just and equitable civilization.
So yeah, unconstitutional is just a word. But it has meaning. That's actually inherent to words; they have meaning. It means that something is contrary to our values. But it also has the power of law. So saying that unconstitutional is just a word and has no meaning is to invalidate the concept of law. Of course it only has as much power as we enforce. Congratulations, you just described every law in the world.
GP is misunderstood, and is mostly correct. He's not saying the Constitution is meaningless; he's saying it can't in and of itself restrict the power of government. TFS lays it out: unconstitutional surveillance has been approved by all branches of government. So was slavery. Condemning a government action as "unconstitutional" doesn't have any direct effect unless someone enforces it. The one method of enforcement he doesn't cover is the ballot box. If the voters of the country cared about the government being restricted by the Constitution, we could choose representatives that made that a priority.
Slashdot Mirror
Landmines? I'm really struggling to imagine a legal use of those. Probably some poisons, too, athough I suppose you could posit a researcher needing for legitimate research purposes.
Let's not forget that the NSA has been doing all of this and more, with no consent of _either_ party.
Ha, that gives me an idea. Just start all phone conversations with "this call may be monitored by law enforcement for unknown purposes." That'll probably really cut down on my phone time.
I want to be one of those "helicopter" parents. I see the other parents, nose stuck to a cellphone, or chatting with their friends, while their kids dumpster dive out back of the medical facility. I want to be involved. I want to know what my kids are doing. Who they're with. Where they are going.
That's not "helicopter" parenting, that's basic paying-attention parenting. A "helicopter" parent is one who tries to micromanage their children's lives; using your examples, organize everything your kids do, choose their friends, accompany them everywhere, supervise constantly, yell at teacher for giving them a C grade, remove all potential adversity and risk of injury, etc. The use of "helicopter" is supposed to invoke the image of hovering constantly overhead.
It's actually a quite harmful way to raise children, as they don't learn the critical skills to deal with life - how to deal with failure, overcoming obstacles on their own, the freedom to develop their own interests; in general self-reliance and resilience.
...but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
If you enter into a "legally binding contract" and don't fulfill your obligations under the terms of the contract, you're liable for civil action (but not criminal). The legal system will enforce private contracts, and all auto loans (the ones you get from a dealer that involve signing paper anyway) are accompanied by such a contract; so yes, there are legal consequences for not paying a debt, but indirectly and not because of some law that requires payment of debts.
Notably, there are ways out of the contract that may not require paying the debt: for instance, if you don't pay your car loan and the bank repossesses the car, you haven't broken a law even though you didn't pay the debt - the bank exercised its rights under the contract to take the car back if you don't pay. Normally, the bank won't sue you, unless you make repossession impossible.
(IANAL or creditor or loan-writer so I could be completely wrong)
There are also requirements that every so often they roads remain straight long enough to be used emergency runways.
Your other points are valid, but this is a common misconception.
If everyone could understand and internalize those two simple rules, then "all the law and the prophets" would be unnecessary. After all, Jesus just basically said that they are redundant anyway. But people don't understand that, hence we have the rest of the Bible trying to extrapolate those rules to all manner of practical situations, filtered through each author's social and cultural knowledge that actually had nothing to do with God.
The Bible in a nutshell: "'Don't be a dick' throughout the ages."
You must be some paid shill, because that wasn't even REMOTELY the point of the GP post. The point is that the existing cost of the Tesla Model S already hits Anderman's price range, so the Model 3, being smaller and another three years out from now to improve battery manufacturing costs, should easily sell for a lower price point. But you wouldn't understand because you need it explained in one-syllable words, written in crayon.
The new car: it's not as big, has less range, and its charge pack is made in bulk. How could it NOT cost less? (provide your own crayon)
UPDATE: It works now on my Galaxy Tab 4 8". Here's what I did:
-Uninstall the Amazon app I got from the Google Play app store.
-Install the Amazon app store by downloading the apk from Amazon.com using a web browser.
-Using the Amazon app store, install the Amazon app listed there and the Amazon Instant Video app.
Now, from the Amazon app, I can peruse the Prime Video selections, and watch free items.
A word of caution: after doing this, it enabled 1-click purchasing (it was previously disabled for my Amazon account), which I disabled, but forced on 1-click purchasing for digital items with no way to disable. Be careful what you click.
Here's the Play Store link: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod&hl=en. That page says it's not compatible with my Galaxy Tab 4 8". :(
A successful smartwatch app would need to be one that was most usable in the same way you use a wristwatch - glancing at it occasionally, non-complicated UI interaction, etc.
Aside from the obvious fitness apps, there will be infinity variations on telling time - one that uses the number system from "Predator" would be neat - and calendar/agenda apps would be the most useful. If they support NFC, you could share schedules and contacts with a fist-bump and give new meaning to the phrase "synchronize your watches."
GPS navigation might be useful as a wrist-based app too, especially when on foot, bike, or when driving in jurisdictions that prohibit use of cell phones.
The key is they have to be apps that are better suited to a wristwatch form factor than a phone, although I'm sure there will be tons that aren't, just because devs will want to cash in on the latest new thing.
Also number of Twitter followers and Facebook friends.
Check out the context for yourself. The quote is from Starship Troopers.
It's not that Heinlein doesn't understand or is deliberately obfuscating, he's simply using a perspective different from your own, IMHO. The way I interpret Heinlein here is that rhetoric and flowery prose doesn't *give* us freedom, and that freedom is something that needs to be fought for, to get, and to retain. Read (or re-read) the novel -- I think you might learn something.
I read it during my formative years, and it was influential in the shaping of my political views; but that was so long ago I couldn't tell you what it said or what I liked about it (the politics part - what's not to like about powered armor?). In the given context, it's not a different perspective from my own - it's what I was saying here and elsewhere: that simply recognizing rights doesn't secure them. Out of context, that quote sounds like Heinlein doesn't even believe in the concept of rights inherent to a person, or that it's irrelevant.
What the Declaration states, and what I believe as well, is that these rights are real and exist; whether respected, trodden upon, forgotten, or codified into law; and the moral corollary that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of others; disagreeing with the assertion that rights are arbitrary, not transcendental, and can be revoked by a society. Ultimately it's a philosophical question: what's a "right", how do we get them, and how do they relate to morality in the context of society?
Heh, some mod doesn't like the 2560x1440 options, apparently.
Sadly all (or almost all) 2560*1440 monitors are 27". That's too big for my tastes; I find I have to move my head (and my neck) to look around the screen, and that is NOT good.
24" would be MUCH better.
That's a good point - I was considering one of those when I got my 24", and the dpi on the 24 is about as high as I'd like for a desktop monitor (using standard scaling levels). I currently have two displays connected, both at home and work, so I'm used to having to move my head to look around. I consider 2560x1440 a single-monitor upgrade from two 19" 1280x1024 displays, and at 27" should be less head & neck movement than the dual-monitor setup, but for that dpi to be legible might require you to sit too close. You'd need 30+" to match the dpi of the dual-19 setup, and that might require too much vertical craning.
when will we finally get hihger than 1920*1080 resolution monitors at a decent price ????
What do you consider a decent price? I got a 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitor (HP zr2440w) this year for $300 - it's fantastic. Newegg has several 2560x1440 screens for less than $400. 20 years ago a decent 17" CRT cost $1000. That's only 786 pixels/$. My current screen is almost 10 times that. 15, counting for inflation. And they're much better pixels.
If you're only looking at the sub-$200 budget monitor market, you're going to have to accept compromises.
(all prices USD)
Huh. "Illiquid" has been a word for more than 300 years. The more you know!
Well, I work at Morningstar, and I haven't heard anyone talk about the risk of government seizing retirement accounts, so GP is wrong.
(I'm going for the ultimate logical fallacy hat trick here: appeal to authority of the anecdotal strawman).
Corporations with deep pockets can write it off as the "cost of doing business", but an unstable individual who was depending on that money being available later to survive may not take it in stride.
They make MySpace look brilliant for using actual words in an accurately descriptive way.
Also, Bing!
There should really be a tag in HTML5. Is it too late to propose it?
<meme img="troll" caption="u mad bro?"/>
<meme img="therocksurprised" caption="twitpic isn't owned by twitter??"/>
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
--Robert A. Heinlein
I love Robert Heinlein, but that quote makes it look like he either doesn't understand the concept of human rights, or he's deliberately obfuscating the topic. I'll have to assume the latter.
Although the current regulations allow Formula 1 engines to rev up to 15,000 RPM, they don't because that would exceed the maximum fuel flow requirements. I believe the practical limit is around 11,000. F1 introduced a new hybrid powertrain this year that ironically has caused some uproar because it's perceived as too quiet, compared to the screaming V8s and V10s that ran at 18-19,000 RPM. Audi's diesel LMP cars are also quiet compared to other ICE race cars - you don't need earplugs around them - but they're not silent.
I'd love to check out a Formula E race if I have a chance, and I hope the series does well. I think there's the potential for an all-electric racing series to contribute toward the technological development of powertrains in electric road-going cars, just as traditional gas-powered auto racing has with ICE road cars.
"using the fabric of spacetime as your communications medium, it becomes rather quite difficult to prevent interception"
I've heard that if you use plaid for your space-time fabric that interception is much more difficult.
It's ludicrously more difficult.
Rights are created by the government / the governed.
You could say (as I do) that morality transcends human institution, but the concept of a right as something transcendental makes no sense; rights are revoked by society in the case of a crime, so theyre clearly not absolute, and they dont really exist outside of a society (what meaning is a "right" to be free in the absence of a threat to that right?).
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This isn't a statement about religious faith; rather that rights are inherent in the human person and not granted by any civil authority (it is a statement of belief, since you can't prove it). It's the duty of society to recognize the rights of all men and the job of government to protect them. Obviously they wouldn't matter much to one living in total isolation who never encounters another person, but that's not really a common scenario.
The downside to this model is that it doesn't create an easy way to resolve what is or is not a right, which has been the cause of much strife since the founding. Like Sentrion says, anyone can claim a right, but you have to fight for recognition. And not all claims are necessarily valid.
In practical terms, the government effectively grants rights, since we've conceptually moved from the attitude "the Constitution doesn't say the government can do that" to "the Constitution doesn't say you can do that", thus effectively limiting our freedoms to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
As for criminals, we curtail their freedom because they've violated the social contract by not respecting the rights of others or as a form of group self-defense, but we do still acknowledge that they have rights. For example, prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment are based on the concept of their right to justice.
Sure they can. What is murder but an infringement of one's right to life by a private individual?
My point is that the constitution isn't some magic document, it's just a piece of paper that has no power beyond what one enforces.
Unless you are willing to go up against the government and enforce the constitution with violence if necessary the constitution is irrelevant since the government can do as it pleases.
If you are willing to take up arms against the government and have the resources to succeed then the constitution is still irrelevant since you then can enforce whatever rules you seem fit, constitutional or not.
So yes, it might be unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a word.
Nothing has meaning until we give it meaning. Our entire society is just a bunch of agreements and customs. There is no God that will enforce the Constitution from on high. But the Constitution is understood to express our values as a society. It is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a stable, just and equitable civilization.
So yeah, unconstitutional is just a word. But it has meaning. That's actually inherent to words; they have meaning. It means that something is contrary to our values. But it also has the power of law. So saying that unconstitutional is just a word and has no meaning is to invalidate the concept of law. Of course it only has as much power as we enforce. Congratulations, you just described every law in the world.
GP is misunderstood, and is mostly correct. He's not saying the Constitution is meaningless; he's saying it can't in and of itself restrict the power of government. TFS lays it out: unconstitutional surveillance has been approved by all branches of government. So was slavery. Condemning a government action as "unconstitutional" doesn't have any direct effect unless someone enforces it. The one method of enforcement he doesn't cover is the ballot box. If the voters of the country cared about the government being restricted by the Constitution, we could choose representatives that made that a priority.