We can certainly agree that there are many levels between our current and no government at all, yes. The problem is where the line gets drawn and who is doing the drawing, as whoever it is will shrink government by killing off opposing political parties' projects but not their own. i.e. republican libertarians would kill off democratic projects and the other way around...so not much different from the way things already are.
If you take what I've heard some libertarians say and shrink government down to what the founding fathers originally envisaged is impractical as they couldn't have begun to foresee all the various issues and needs that come about a couple of hundred years later. Requiring constitutional amendments for every change would be excruciatingly long and no doubt we'd end up with such an impractical constitution it would end up being worse than useless, having shifted 'regulation' into the constitution itself.
So where does the line get drawn and who does the drawing?
"The creatures are expected to wear the collar for about a month. "
This isn't going to tell them anything they couldn't get by putting dosimeters around the various locations where people would normally be as opposed to the local forests.
And the law is so complex that having 1000x the lawyering is an advantage, because...?
Look, if we're going to assume a libertopia hypothetical, assume it all the way.
Actually, the more educated libertarians (not the internet nut/strawmen type) do have better (or at least more developed) solutions to this problem then "take them to court in this system that is completely rigged in favor of the big companies." Mostly involving more highly developed property rights and protections. But it's a bit long to go into in slashdot comment.
It's fairly frustrating. Most of my political conversations, if I want to defend my point at all, risk turning into a lengthy lecture on libertarian theory. Because there *is* more to it than just "government bad", but if you haven't read the economic arguments it doesn't really work...
How can you have property rights and protections if you don't have legislation from the government and a legal infrastructure to enforce them?
You should be writing speeches for Ron Paul. What you say sounds good but doesn't actually mean anything.
Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. It's binary.
The whole point of free speech is that people can say what they want, no matter who it bothers.
I don't like this guy, and I don't like what he did but I like the idea of restrictions on free speech even less.
Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#The_right_to_privacy
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
Thank you for this but I have trouble with the words 'impossible to cheat'.
The machines are bought by the government. The government is run by the very people who are doing the election fraud. It is impossible to have confidence in such machines that could all too easily have back doors built into them.
We're talking ex-KGB here, who no doubt have all the technical know how and the will to pull it off.
I'm sure that if they used electronic voting machines the results would have been much more accurate. At least until Putin's old KGB friends got to them.
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
You make it sound like only liberals expand government.
If Ron Paul and the other politicians pretending not to be 'just another republican' get their way then government will be made smaller, perhaps, but it will only be the 'liberal' (aka democrat) programs that get cut. Republican programs will be untouched or expanded.
So long as politicians are owned by big money, there will be no fundamental change in the way things work in the US.
As all politicians who are in any position to become president are 'owned' I have no faith in any politician's promises.
This will continue to be true so long as big money interests can buy what they want with no anti-corruption legislation in place to stop the politicians from being bought.
And yes Ron Paul fanboys, I do think that the people require legal and regulatory protection from big money interests and yes, I believe that just shrinking the size of government and thus of the quantity of those who can be corrupted does nothing to stop corruption other than making it less expensive for those big money interests to get what they want.
When Cisco ships a replacement part under smartnet (service contract) or via a partner it comes looking for the part that was to be replaced. Normally I believe the limit is 30 days and then Cisco will look to charge the customer for the part.
How this guy could think that no one would come looking for all of this is fairly surprising.
Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.
For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.
Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.
Except that many modern cars use bus based systems integrating all of their built in gadgets together so, in my Volvo for example, I can't replace the head unit of the stereo with anything other than another Volvo provided head unit that was available in my model of car in the year it was made in because it's part of the car's 'brain'.
There is no real need to do this, it's just a way to lock the consumer into buying replacement parts from the manufacturer.
Excellent ideas (that are already being implemented to a degree, see below) but again I'd rather see it on a 3rd party device not something integrated that's under the control of the manufacturer with all the no doubt extremely inflated costs that would come along with it.
People learn gun safety. There's nothing stopping them from learning car gadget safety. Failing that I guess they're removing themselves from the gene pool.
I was charged some stupid amount of money for the GPS integrated into my car. I have never bought updated map disks for it because they cost 350 euros.
The apps that you're suggesting are great ideas but they can be as easily done on a non-integrated device that can be replaced or updated without paying ridiculous amounts to the car dealer or manufacturer.
I'd rather have a spot on the dash made to clamp in a tablet frankly, but this won't make money for the manufacturer so I don't expect to actually see it.
Maybe I'm overly cynical but I would have to see a lot of really hard documentation (like 1,000 videos)
Yeah, if your threshold of evidence is a thousand videos, you're overly cynical.
Okay call it 500 then because 500 would still be substantial but at the end of the day, no, I don't believe anything that this agency says without substantial proof.
Given how they overreact when confronted with printed guns I guess they probably shoot anyone that actually has a real gun on sight anyway.
A lot of the incidents are people forgetting they had a gun, since they carry one every day. Have you heard even one incident of TSA shooting someone for carrying a gun? Do you think if a gun image on a purse makes the news, an actual shooting might as well? Recovering guns at checkpoints has become too common to warrant making the news, but a singular incident of a gun image on a purse is newsworthy.
I was being ironic...
Has recovering guns at TSA checkpoints ever made the news? Can you point me at some references?
Maybe I'm overly cynical but I would have to see a lot of really hard documentation (like 1,000 videos) before I'd actually believe the TSA's claim of stopping so many guns from being brought onto planes.
Given how they overreact when confronted with printed guns I guess they probably shoot anyone that actually has a real gun on sight anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
We can certainly agree that there are many levels between our current and no government at all, yes. The problem is where the line gets drawn and who is doing the drawing, as whoever it is will shrink government by killing off opposing political parties' projects but not their own. i.e. republican libertarians would kill off democratic projects and the other way around...so not much different from the way things already are.
If you take what I've heard some libertarians say and shrink government down to what the founding fathers originally envisaged is impractical as they couldn't have begun to foresee all the various issues and needs that come about a couple of hundred years later. Requiring constitutional amendments for every change would be excruciatingly long and no doubt we'd end up with such an impractical constitution it would end up being worse than useless, having shifted 'regulation' into the constitution itself.
So where does the line get drawn and who does the drawing?
Whether or not the allegations are true I guess we can expect such attacks to happen on any media publicist that isn't friendly to the government..
"The creatures are expected to wear the collar for about a month. "
This isn't going to tell them anything they couldn't get by putting dosimeters around the various locations where people would normally be as opposed to the local forests.
And the law is so complex that having 1000x the lawyering is an advantage, because...?
Look, if we're going to assume a libertopia hypothetical, assume it all the way.
Actually, the more educated libertarians (not the internet nut/strawmen type) do have better (or at least more developed) solutions to this problem then "take them to court in this system that is completely rigged in favor of the big companies." Mostly involving more highly developed property rights and protections. But it's a bit long to go into in slashdot comment.
It's fairly frustrating. Most of my political conversations, if I want to defend my point at all, risk turning into a lengthy lecture on libertarian theory. Because there *is* more to it than just "government bad", but if you haven't read the economic arguments it doesn't really work...
How can you have property rights and protections if you don't have legislation from the government and a legal infrastructure to enforce them?
You should be writing speeches for Ron Paul. What you say sounds good but doesn't actually mean anything.
Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. It's binary.
The whole point of free speech is that people can say what they want, no matter who it bothers.
I don't like this guy, and I don't like what he did but I like the idea of restrictions on free speech even less.
Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#The_right_to_privacy
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire
I support this completely. We can all live 24 hours without Wikipedia but it will do wonders for making people aware of the issue.
Posting a link relevant to your post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
Thank you for this but I have trouble with the words 'impossible to cheat'.
The machines are bought by the government. The government is run by the very people who are doing the election fraud. It is impossible to have confidence in such machines that could all too easily have back doors built into them.
We're talking ex-KGB here, who no doubt have all the technical know how and the will to pull it off.
I'm sure that if they used electronic voting machines the results would have been much more accurate. At least until Putin's old KGB friends got to them.
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
You make it sound like only liberals expand government.
If Ron Paul and the other politicians pretending not to be 'just another republican' get their way then government will be made smaller, perhaps, but it will only be the 'liberal' (aka democrat) programs that get cut. Republican programs will be untouched or expanded.
So long as politicians are owned by big money, there will be no fundamental change in the way things work in the US.
As all politicians who are in any position to become president are 'owned' I have no faith in any politician's promises.
This will continue to be true so long as big money interests can buy what they want with no anti-corruption legislation in place to stop the politicians from being bought.
And yes Ron Paul fanboys, I do think that the people require legal and regulatory protection from big money interests and yes, I believe that just shrinking the size of government and thus of the quantity of those who can be corrupted does nothing to stop corruption other than making it less expensive for those big money interests to get what they want.
It's the same middle manager working at 18 different town halls who recommended methods and what time and date to evict the Occupy protestors.
The people are being treated as the enemy of the state.
When Cisco ships a replacement part under smartnet (service contract) or via a partner it comes looking for the part that was to be replaced. Normally I believe the limit is 30 days and then Cisco will look to charge the customer for the part.
How this guy could think that no one would come looking for all of this is fairly surprising.
Wonder if they've asked to put google advertising on the sides of the airships....
No martial arts or helicopter flying downloads yet?
Compare and contrast with Voyager 1. Made 35 years ago, and the technology is so reliable it's still sending data back home from outside of the solar system.
For cars I can imagine something similar to car audio. You get something up-to date with a new car, and you put up with the fact that it ages. Eventually someone purchases it as a used car and decides the audio isn't good enough, and fits an updated one.
Between those two points, the actual music (the apps) change with the times, even if the hardware doesn't.
Except that many modern cars use bus based systems integrating all of their built in gadgets together so, in my Volvo for example, I can't replace the head unit of the stereo with anything other than another Volvo provided head unit that was available in my model of car in the year it was made in because it's part of the car's 'brain'.
There is no real need to do this, it's just a way to lock the consumer into buying replacement parts from the manufacturer.
Excellent ideas (that are already being implemented to a degree, see below) but again I'd rather see it on a 3rd party device not something integrated that's under the control of the manufacturer with all the no doubt extremely inflated costs that would come along with it.
http://www.devtoaster.com/products/rev/
http://www.amazon.com/goPoint-Technology-OBD-II-Accessory-iPhone/dp/B00336S7KS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323603011&sr=8-2
People learn gun safety. There's nothing stopping them from learning car gadget safety. Failing that I guess they're removing themselves from the gene pool.
I was charged some stupid amount of money for the GPS integrated into my car. I have never bought updated map disks for it because they cost 350 euros.
The apps that you're suggesting are great ideas but they can be as easily done on a non-integrated device that can be replaced or updated without paying ridiculous amounts to the car dealer or manufacturer.
I'd rather have a spot on the dash made to clamp in a tablet frankly, but this won't make money for the manufacturer so I don't expect to actually see it.
As if slashdot has anything to do with real life lol what a moron you are :-D
Well, line and a half now that I think about it, as you've demonstrated a fifth grader's ability to capitalize to show emotion.
At any rate, thanks for the intelligent line and a half. For the rest, well...best left unsaid.
You could have had my respect, given your first two lines...but instead you have shown yourself to be an ass given your third line.
Okay thank you for the references -
Maybe I'm overly cynical but I would have to see a lot of really hard documentation (like 1,000 videos)
Yeah, if your threshold of evidence is a thousand videos, you're overly cynical.
Okay call it 500 then because 500 would still be substantial but at the end of the day, no, I don't believe anything that this agency says without substantial proof.
Given how they overreact when confronted with printed guns I guess they probably shoot anyone that actually has a real gun on sight anyway.
A lot of the incidents are people forgetting they had a gun, since they carry one every day. Have you heard even one incident of TSA shooting someone for carrying a gun? Do you think if a gun image on a purse makes the news, an actual shooting might as well? Recovering guns at checkpoints has become too common to warrant making the news, but a singular incident of a gun image on a purse is newsworthy.
I was being ironic...
Has recovering guns at TSA checkpoints ever made the news? Can you point me at some references?
According to standard NRA bullshit the TSA is reducing safety by not allowing good Americans to bring their guns on board with them...
Maybe I'm overly cynical but I would have to see a lot of really hard documentation (like 1,000 videos) before I'd actually believe the TSA's claim of stopping so many guns from being brought onto planes.
Given how they overreact when confronted with printed guns I guess they probably shoot anyone that actually has a real gun on sight anyway.