You own your body. That is perhaps the single most foundational law of all laws ever written. (Countless laws use it as a base. E.g. all basic rights!)
Yet the debate about whether or not a woman has the right to take chemicals to induce her body to flush a mass of cells that is forming inside her continues unabated.
Absolutely the same story in India. Sometimes I wonder if _any_ place outside of the US really gets it. Anecdotally, even Europe seems similarly third world-ish.
Care to elaborate on that? I've only lived here for a little over 30 years, here being europe, so I'm curious what said anecdote actually is.
It was no disguise socialism and communism are different stages of the same thing. But both require a one-party state.
Ehmm, why? Take the following scenario:
1) country used voting to elect government and has a typical modern capitalist system 2) by popular vote, the entire country switches to a socialist system, with the government controlling and running the means of production.
What's to stop this hypothetical country from maintaining a democratically elected government on any level?
Read the Wikipedia talk page for the Martin Heidegger article and you can see that parts of Wikipedia are infested with Neo-Nazi sympathizers who have the protection of a particular Wikipedia admin.
Really? Because I actually read through the damn thing, and all I see is a debate about the difference between being a Nazi or being a National Socialist. Add a number of people acting like pompous twats, and you get an edit war, not the coming of the third reich.
Hey, this is Slashdot. We're qualified to discuss any subject we damn well please based on our own prejudices and assumptions, while pretending that our high IQ's and common sense qualify us to pretend we're experts on whatever the discussion may or may not be about. What right do wiki admins have to assault our ivory towers when we sprinkle our droplets of distilled wisdom on their pages as well?
We talk to each other. We try to come to an agreement. If that fails a third party might get involved, especially if it's a disagreement between a company and an individual customer.
And once all those options have been exhausted...then we might bring in an actual lawyer.
And where do these rights come from? An invisible man in the sky? Faeries?
We have these rights because we agreed between ourselves that we had them. A while later said "we" included women, people that didn't happen to be white and folks that didn't own a goat. We can take them away with a lot less effort than it originally took to get them.
As for Starship Troopers...I can't help but like the idea. Because not only was a term of public service a prerequisite for voting, it also applied to being eligible to run for public office.
And as other posters mentioned, it wasn't just the army, it was public service. That can be anything from cleaning graffiti off the walls to nursing.
I'm guessing that the blank DVDs are intended to be used to burn your home videos shot with Sony video cameras to disc, not to copy commercial and CSS-protected content.
Because these are the only types of content available. God forbid other people make stuff and they love it when you burn it on a DVD to show it to your friends.
I'm not a fan of stupid copyright arguments, but this argument is disingenuous
Thus giving the landlord a perfectly valid excuse for kicking in the door of what is still his property and sending you the bill?
Wow, am I glad I've got a landlord I can trust...if he wants something he gives me a call and we come to an arrangement, same thing the other way around.
Yes, because god forbid people that use another browser but have their userstring set to IE6 to appease *insert legacy app here* could visit your website...
Ok, it seems I'll have to address your points one by one, and leave no room whatsoever for interpretation, since you seem really inclined to read things I am certain I did not type.
And there's a debating tactic called "strawman argument" which is what you just did. I never said freedom should not have limitations. As Jefferson said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him." A blogger like Alex Jones, although a bit of a nutter, does not physically harm anyone by exercising his right of free speech, so there's no reason to silence his internet website (or give leaders a tool to do so).
You quoted a line from Star Trek, I quoted a line from Terry Pratchett. Both are works of fiction. Rights inevitable intrude on one another, so freedom will always be limited one way or another. As far as I'm concerned Alex Jones can say pretty much anything he damn well pleases, although quite frankly he sounds like a total conspiracy nut to me.
Agreed. You might have pointed that out in your previous post, instead of just leaving me guessing what you meant when you said: "silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others," and that the reporter can just go to a TV station to air his views. You made it sound like you were in FAVOR of the 3-strike law silencing reporters (especially since you apparently think trials by juries are "ridiculous").
What I meant was that if you're trying to make a point using what is, to me at least, a fringe risk such as the example of Alex Jones as opposed to something that affects pretty everyone decreases the strength of the argument you're trying to make. People care far less about the free speech rights of some guy they've never heard about as they do about getting their own connection cut off for no good reason whatsoever.
I don't buy that. Leftists like Obama and Pelosi are bending-over backwards to please the Hollywood types and arrest citizens who download a song or movie. Most leftists want to *integrate* business & government such that business is privately-owned, but government is running the board and making decisions. They call it a "third way" halfway between capitalism (free market) and communism (government-run market).
Yes, but we're talking about europe here. Contrary to the US we have a *real* left wing, although I'll be the first to admit there has been a massive shift towards the right lately, fueled by fear of the "evil terrorists" and "muslims coming to subvert our culture". As for government taking active control of corporations, I *want* them to do that. Some matters are too important to allow them to fall under the control of shareholders who don't give a rat's ass about anything but next quarter's profits. Examples include sewage, the water supply, education and the infrastructure for gas and electricity. Government interference can be good so long as the officials aren't on the payroll of a corporation themselves. Corporations have proven time and time again that given the chance they'll bend their customers over a barrel and do whatever they damn well please. Proper regulation can make sure there is a proper balance between hard profits and social responsibility.
As for Beck and the next conservative president, he has said (multiple times) that we haven't had a single good president in the last 100 years except for Reagan, and on that point I agree with him. If it turns-out our next president is non conservative, but Beck praises him anyway, then I'll stop listening to Beck. After all I'm not married to the man - I just find his show informative (such as learning that Obama's communication director thinks Mao is her favorite philosopher).
Fair enough then. I had just finished watching last night's Daily Show and your use of the word progressive was too funny to pass up. As for the whole Mao thing, there have been several US politicans that have quoted him, but apparently it's only interesting when one on the "left" does it.
There's a line from Star Trek, about how even one trampled freedom or right forges the first link in a chain that will eventually bind us all. It is correct. Leaders should not have the ability to simply say, "That guy violated the 3-strike law," and silence them without benefit of trial.
There's also a line in Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay, about how freedom without limitations is really just a word.
My point is that there are consequences that are a lot less far-fetched than the heroic individual blogger who gets disconnected. Arbitrarily disconnecting soccer moms or Joe Sixpacks is just as bad, and a lot more likely to happen without any ruckus.
As for Glenn Beck, let's just see if he spouts the same rhetoric when it's a "leader" pulling the exact same crap while flying the conservative banner. You do realize ACTA is a big business interest right? Something the left traditionally opposes? The real left, that is?
You do realize the UK is about as european as it is american, right? Although I'm ashamed to admit the far right is making serious inroads(*waves at Mr Wilders*) using the UK as an example for europe might not be very representative.
Ehmm, trial by peers? What's that then? This is Europe we're talking about. These days trial by jury is mostly a US/UK phenomenon..
As for your concern...using the 3 strikes law to silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others. What's to stop said reporter/blogger from walking over the nearest newspaper/tv-station and getting his story out that way?
I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader (emphasis mine)
Isn't the FBI investigating the situation? If laws have been broken, punish the wrongdoers the right way, through criminal proceedings. Redistributing what effectively are tax dollars anyway doesn't make any sense, especially when a big chunk ends up with the lawyers anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
That's "NCIS".
*Slaps dunng808 upside the head*
She told him it was NCSI so he wouldn't look it up and find out she secretly has a thing for Gibbs...
You own your body. That is perhaps the single most foundational law of all laws ever written. (Countless laws use it as a base. E.g. all basic rights!)
Yet the debate about whether or not a woman has the right to take chemicals to induce her body to flush a mass of cells that is forming inside her continues unabated.
Absolutely the same story in India. Sometimes I wonder if _any_ place outside of the US really gets it. Anecdotally, even Europe seems similarly third world-ish.
Care to elaborate on that? I've only lived here for a little over 30 years, here being europe, so I'm curious what said anecdote actually is.
It was no disguise socialism and communism are different stages of the same thing. But both require a one-party state.
Ehmm, why? Take the following scenario:
1) country used voting to elect government and has a typical modern capitalist system
2) by popular vote, the entire country switches to a socialist system, with the government controlling and running the means of production.
What's to stop this hypothetical country from maintaining a democratically elected government on any level?
So they didn't use a shuffle that would pass muster for a licensed video poker system
Now that you mention it...why didn't they just use the shuffle code from bloody solitaire?
Read the Wikipedia talk page for the Martin Heidegger article and you can see that parts of Wikipedia are infested with Neo-Nazi sympathizers who have the protection of a particular Wikipedia admin.
Really? Because I actually read through the damn thing, and all I see is a debate about the difference between being a Nazi or being a National Socialist. Add a number of people acting like pompous twats, and you get an edit war, not the coming of the third reich.
Hey, this is Slashdot. We're qualified to discuss any subject we damn well please based on our own prejudices and assumptions, while pretending that our high IQ's and common sense qualify us to pretend we're experts on whatever the discussion may or may not be about. What right do wiki admins have to assault our ivory towers when we sprinkle our droplets of distilled wisdom on their pages as well?
We talk to each other. We try to come to an agreement. If that fails a third party might get involved, especially if it's a disagreement between a company and an individual customer.
And once all those options have been exhausted...then we might bring in an actual lawyer.
And where do these rights come from? An invisible man in the sky? Faeries?
We have these rights because we agreed between ourselves that we had them. A while later said "we" included women, people that didn't happen to be white and folks that didn't own a goat. We can take them away with a lot less effort than it originally took to get them.
As for Starship Troopers...I can't help but like the idea. Because not only was a term of public service a prerequisite for voting, it also applied to being eligible to run for public office.
And as other posters mentioned, it wasn't just the army, it was public service. That can be anything from cleaning graffiti off the walls to nursing.
Ehmm, spending money you don't have isn't particularly greedy, just stupid.
The trick is to take it away from other people and *then* spend it.
I'm guessing that the blank DVDs are intended to be used to burn your home videos shot with Sony video cameras to disc, not to copy commercial and CSS-protected content.
Because these are the only types of content available. God forbid other people make stuff and they love it when you burn it on a DVD to show it to your friends.
I'm not a fan of stupid copyright arguments, but this argument is disingenuous
Your honor, the defence rests.
Thus giving the landlord a perfectly valid excuse for kicking in the door of what is still his property and sending you the bill?
Wow, am I glad I've got a landlord I can trust...if he wants something he gives me a call and we come to an arrangement, same thing the other way around.
Any tips for the rest of us on how you get away with sleeping at work? I'd love to get 8 more hours a day to spend for myself...
And 66%...you work 7*8?
Most wars in history have been motivated at least in part by 'my god is better than your god'.
Motivated or excused?
Yes, because god forbid people that use another browser but have their userstring set to IE6 to appease *insert legacy app here* could visit your website...
There's 2 steps missing in there...the part where you put on your sunglasses and the YEEEAAAAHHHH at the end.
CSI: Skimmers, coming to a network near you this summer!
Actually...that would be the voters who turn their brains off. Said politician is just doing what'll get the people to reelect him.
No one gives a shit about your opinions, no matter how often you present them on Slashdot as facts.
Well, except for the 3 people that modded you insightful, that is.
Ok, it seems I'll have to address your points one by one, and leave no room whatsoever for interpretation, since you seem really inclined to read things I am certain I did not type.
And there's a debating tactic called "strawman argument" which is what you just did. I never said freedom should not have limitations. As Jefferson said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him." A blogger like Alex Jones, although a bit of a nutter, does not physically harm anyone by exercising his right of free speech, so there's no reason to silence his internet website (or give leaders a tool to do so).
You quoted a line from Star Trek, I quoted a line from Terry Pratchett. Both are works of fiction. Rights inevitable intrude on one another, so freedom will always be limited one way or another. As far as I'm concerned Alex Jones can say pretty much anything he damn well pleases, although quite frankly he sounds like a total conspiracy nut to me.
Agreed. You might have pointed that out in your previous post, instead of just leaving me guessing what you meant when you said: "silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others," and that the reporter can just go to a TV station to air his views. You made it sound like you were in FAVOR of the 3-strike law silencing reporters (especially since you apparently think trials by juries are "ridiculous").
What I meant was that if you're trying to make a point using what is, to me at least, a fringe risk such as the example of Alex Jones as opposed to something that affects pretty everyone decreases the strength of the argument you're trying to make. People care far less about the free speech rights of some guy they've never heard about as they do about getting their own connection cut off for no good reason whatsoever.
I don't buy that. Leftists like Obama and Pelosi are bending-over backwards to please the Hollywood types and arrest citizens who download a song or movie. Most leftists want to *integrate* business & government such that business is privately-owned, but government is running the board and making decisions. They call it a "third way" halfway between capitalism (free market) and communism (government-run market).
Yes, but we're talking about europe here. Contrary to the US we have a *real* left wing, although I'll be the first to admit there has been a massive shift towards the right lately, fueled by fear of the "evil terrorists" and "muslims coming to subvert our culture". As for government taking active control of corporations, I *want* them to do that. Some matters are too important to allow them to fall under the control of shareholders who don't give a rat's ass about anything but next quarter's profits. Examples include sewage, the water supply, education and the infrastructure for gas and electricity. Government interference can be good so long as the officials aren't on the payroll of a corporation themselves. Corporations have proven time and time again that given the chance they'll bend their customers over a barrel and do whatever they damn well please. Proper regulation can make sure there is a proper balance between hard profits and social responsibility.
As for Beck and the next conservative president, he has said (multiple times) that we haven't had a single good president in the last 100 years except for Reagan, and on that point I agree with him. If it turns-out our next president is non conservative, but Beck praises him anyway, then I'll stop listening to Beck. After all I'm not married to the man - I just find his show informative (such as learning that Obama's communication director thinks Mao is her favorite philosopher).
Fair enough then. I had just finished watching last night's Daily Show and your use of the word progressive was too funny to pass up. As for the whole Mao thing, there have been several US politicans that have quoted him, but apparently it's only interesting when one on the "left" does it.
There's a line from Star Trek, about how even one trampled freedom or right forges the first link in a chain that will eventually bind us all. It is correct. Leaders should not have the ability to simply say, "That guy violated the 3-strike law," and silence them without benefit of trial.
There's also a line in Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay, about how freedom without limitations is really just a word.
My point is that there are consequences that are a lot less far-fetched than the heroic individual blogger who gets disconnected. Arbitrarily disconnecting soccer moms or Joe Sixpacks is just as bad, and a lot more likely to happen without any ruckus.
As for Glenn Beck, let's just see if he spouts the same rhetoric when it's a "leader" pulling the exact same crap while flying the conservative banner. You do realize ACTA is a big business interest right? Something the left traditionally opposes? The real left, that is?
You do realize the UK is about as european as it is american, right? Although I'm ashamed to admit the far right is making serious inroads(*waves at Mr Wilders*) using the UK as an example for europe might not be very representative.
Ehmm, trial by peers? What's that then? This is Europe we're talking about. These days trial by jury is mostly a US/UK phenomenon..
As for your concern...using the 3 strikes law to silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others. What's to stop said reporter/blogger from walking over the nearest newspaper/tv-station and getting his story out that way?
I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader (emphasis mine)
Ah, I see you're a fan of Glenn Beck.
Isn't the FBI investigating the situation? If laws have been broken, punish the wrongdoers the right way, through criminal proceedings. Redistributing what effectively are tax dollars anyway doesn't make any sense, especially when a big chunk ends up with the lawyers anyway.
So if he was among the guys showing their wang...he was doing that, and playing the accordeon at the same time?
I bet you also still push the elevator buttons with your finger instead of your knuckles...
Knuckles? Come now, there's far more creative ways to think of for pushing elevator buttons, they really aren't all that high up...