So because you had a single class that didn't explore things that would help you out later in life, you think that all public education is bad?
Public education is awful because of the mentalities that rote memorization and teaching to the test are effective forms of learning. They're not, even if there is no other solution (but other solutions have been proposed).
Honestly, it isn't difficult to figure out why so many people don't find "learning" (really, it's "schooling") fun.
for the same cost
How lazy and short-sighted. Not even willing to consider an alternative that might drastically improve the public education system just because it costs more? No wonder no one cares about education.
1) If you create an exemption to searches, those exemptions are EXACTLY where bad people would hide the bombs.
I didn't say anything about creating exemptions (Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me specifically?). I despise the TSA in its entirety and would rather risk a terrorist attack (not like the TSA are at all useful, for reasons already mentioned, anyway) than give up freedom and privacy for security theater.
but the point was that the airport/airlines are commercial entities
We're talking about the TSA, not airports.
And i disagree, the 4th amendment does protect you walking down the street from random searches.
Oh, but it doesn't protect you from being randomly searched by people employed by the government at airports? Where does it say that? That's incredibly dangerous thinking. It could allow the government to do whatever they please just because it happens at an airport (and they pretty much already do). The spirit of the constitution is being violated here.
You voluntarily surrendered your privacy when you decided to fly on a commercial flight and enter the 'privately owned' grounds of the airport.. Your choice. you don't *have* to fly, its not a constitutional right, nor is TWA a government entity anyway so its not bound by the Constitution and its amendments.
This is a government organization. This, without a doubt, violates the spirit of the constitution.
Do you think, "If you don't like it, move out of the country!" would be a valid thing to say someone whose freedoms were violated? No? Why would this be any different?
Everyone knows up-front what to expect, so why do people act surprised when they f-ing agree to terms and conditions when they buy the ticket? Don't like the rules, don't fly,.
Yeah, if they know up-front, it's perfectly acceptable, right? If you don't like it, get out. Go to the back of the bus! You knew what you were getting into when you stepped on the bus!
Although, in this case, since the TSA basically works for the government...
Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.
Please! There's no explicit constitutional right to not be randomly searched whilst walking down the street! You could be a terrorist, after all. Who cares about the spirit of the constitution?
How anyone can seriously defend the TSA is beyond me...
It's called privacy, increased cockpit security, and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings. I'd much rather risk a terrorist attack than allow people to be randomly searched.
Or perhaps it's just wishful thinking. I certainly hope people defending the TSA don't really believe what they're saying (even though I know some do)...
I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane
You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!
but it would be stupid to prevent the police from using force to arrest him if necessary.
But when I'm talking about "force," I mean actually beating them. When they're apprehending them, it's presumably because they committed some sort of crime (even if it's theft). If they try to beat the cop after that, it really is self-defense. And I mean real self-defense against actual harm, not just, "Oh, he was restraining me, so I attacked the cops." Intent (of the cops) matters very much.
What would happen if you forced another adult you disagreed with to maintain a specific location under duress (sent them to their room)?
You wouldn't be able to. Your examples don't even make sense since even a child doesn't have to listen to you. However, if someone is living in your house, and they don't do what you say, you can always remove benefits/kick them out. That's one way to "punish" an adult. You must have some degree of authority over them to begin with (or else they probably won't listen to you).
This is why physical punishment is different. Someone doesn't have to listen to you without it, so they aren't actually hurt, but if someone hits you, you're always going to be damaged in some way.
What if the person is suspected of murdering someone, but he's not murdering anyone at the moment, and you don't think he's going to murder anyone else for a while?
Looks like you're protecting people from a very real potential threat.
So you're saying the police simply shouldn't have the power to arrest him if he refuses to go willingly? That's fucking stupid.
I don't know if you're willfully misinterpreting me or not.
The point is, the police arresting a resisting suspect is not "self defense". The police are picking a fight (with good cause, presumably).
But I already mentioned defending other people. It is not as if self-defense was the only reason I listed for using force. If they're not defending themselves or others, then I don't think they have any business arresting people or using force against them to begin with.
The cops can just leave the suspect alone, and he won't hurt them.
And that's foolish because the suspect would (if the police are catching actual criminals here, and assuming they are a criminal) go on to hurt other people. I hope we're not arresting people for victimless crimes, but I guess it could happen.
At least for me, spanking only taught me that hitting someone you disagree with is okay.
If you tell a random stranger that they'll have to go take a time out (random example) if they don't do what you say, do you think they'd listen? Probably not. What if you were to beat them? They might then, especially if it's difficult for them to take action against you. That is the difference. Force can be a powerful thing: it doesn't make someone respect or agree with you, but it can make them do what you say, even if only temporarily. I don't believe that teaching kids that force is acceptable is a good thing.
Then there's the fact that you can't exactly hit an adult just because you disagree with them. If they're living on your property, though, you can "punish" (sometimes by threatening to kick them out or refusing to aid them any further) them in various ways. It is your property, after all.
Not to mention that there are other forms of punishment besides restraint. Threats of no future rewards, etc.
Well, most of us don't, but the police certainly do.
I hope they're punished if they hit them when it wasn't necessary. I think most people here would agree that self-defense (or using violence to defend others) is alright. After they've restrained them and stopped them from hurting people (assuming they were), I certainly hope they don't hit them.
You say this as if government intervention is always a bad thing. However, the government does intervene at times. Such as in situations of child abuse (and I'm not talking about spanking here). A parent cannot legally do whatever they want to their child. There are limits.
As clearly your child is somehow disabled if it cannot withstand corrective negative stimuli rewards for negative behaviors.
Just like my girlfriend! I slapped her a few times as punishment for disagreeing with me, and she had the audacity to press charges!
Using force will never make your arguments more correct. If you punch everyone who says that 1 + 1 is anything but 3, you're not more correct just because they're scared to say it's anything else, and they don't even necessarily respect you (because you damn well haven't earned that respect).
I also liked your use of the word "it" to describe a child. This is a great attitude if your goal is to pump out children that never question authority and treat children like subhumans.
However, it's done for the good of the pack.
Sounds like awful thinking when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals. Hopefully society is more sane than that.
I really can't see what's so "painful" about that.
You said it yourself: "The only limitation is that you need an account to manage the downloads, and you can't read the books on a platform that can't run their app (so not a PC, Mac, iDevice, Android Device, or processing a decent web browser.)"
Different people have different priorities than you, you know. Therefore, these things (and possibly more) could be painful to them.
Unless you want to put a copy of a book you bought on a device that isn't yours. At which point you're a pirate and the inconvenience is working as intended.
Wow, that's a good one. If the person was a pirate, they'd already have the ebook downloaded and cracked.
But if you're using DRM as an excuse to not pay for the book, you're full of shit. Seriously.
Are they? Consider this: a person doesn't want to support the people who make the product because they utilize DRM, but still wants the product. I'm not saying it's right, but what I am saying is that it's a very possible scenario.
You should buy the book anyway and send an email to the company explaining why their system is counter-productive.
What I'd suggest is: don't buy it at all, and tell them why you didn't. Don't download it, either, as that could provide them with free advertising.
Then get off your lazy ass and write the publisher and remind them that you ALREADY paid for the book and that you'd appreciate it if they considered changing their policy.
If you keep buying their products, there is far less of a chance that they'll learn their lesson. They'll change when their source of income is threatened.
Slashdot Mirror
So because you had a single class that didn't explore things that would help you out later in life, you think that all public education is bad?
Public education is awful because of the mentalities that rote memorization and teaching to the test are effective forms of learning. They're not, even if there is no other solution (but other solutions have been proposed).
Honestly, it isn't difficult to figure out why so many people don't find "learning" (really, it's "schooling") fun.
for the same cost
How lazy and short-sighted. Not even willing to consider an alternative that might drastically improve the public education system just because it costs more? No wonder no one cares about education.
It's obvious what I meant: neither of them give a shit about your freedom.
... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.
There is no difference. Sometimes they just support/oppose different things. You're looking at a single bill and drawing a strange conclusion from it.
1) If you create an exemption to searches, those exemptions are EXACTLY where bad people would hide the bombs.
I didn't say anything about creating exemptions (Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me specifically?). I despise the TSA in its entirety and would rather risk a terrorist attack (not like the TSA are at all useful, for reasons already mentioned, anyway) than give up freedom and privacy for security theater.
but the point was that the airport/airlines are commercial entities
We're talking about the TSA, not airports.
And i disagree, the 4th amendment does protect you walking down the street from random searches.
Oh, but it doesn't protect you from being randomly searched by people employed by the government at airports? Where does it say that? That's incredibly dangerous thinking. It could allow the government to do whatever they please just because it happens at an airport (and they pretty much already do). The spirit of the constitution is being violated here.
You voluntarily surrendered your privacy when you decided to fly on a commercial flight and enter the 'privately owned' grounds of the airport.. Your choice. you don't *have* to fly, its not a constitutional right, nor is TWA a government entity anyway so its not bound by the Constitution and its amendments.
This is a government organization. This, without a doubt, violates the spirit of the constitution.
Do you think, "If you don't like it, move out of the country!" would be a valid thing to say someone whose freedoms were violated? No? Why would this be any different?
Everyone knows up-front what to expect, so why do people act surprised when they f-ing agree to terms and conditions when they buy the ticket? Don't like the rules, don't fly,.
Yeah, if they know up-front, it's perfectly acceptable, right? If you don't like it, get out. Go to the back of the bus! You knew what you were getting into when you stepped on the bus!
Although, in this case, since the TSA basically works for the government...
Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.
Please! There's no explicit constitutional right to not be randomly searched whilst walking down the street! You could be a terrorist, after all. Who cares about the spirit of the constitution?
How anyone can seriously defend the TSA is beyond me...
It's called random search.
It's called privacy, increased cockpit security, and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings. I'd much rather risk a terrorist attack than allow people to be randomly searched.
Or perhaps it's just wishful thinking. I certainly hope people defending the TSA don't really believe what they're saying (even though I know some do)...
I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane
You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!
but it would be stupid to prevent the police from using force to arrest him if necessary.
But when I'm talking about "force," I mean actually beating them. When they're apprehending them, it's presumably because they committed some sort of crime (even if it's theft). If they try to beat the cop after that, it really is self-defense. And I mean real self-defense against actual harm, not just, "Oh, he was restraining me, so I attacked the cops." Intent (of the cops) matters very much.
This is a silly argument.
And "They're children!" isn't a silly argument?
What would happen if you forced another adult you disagreed with to maintain a specific location under duress (sent them to their room)?
You wouldn't be able to. Your examples don't even make sense since even a child doesn't have to listen to you. However, if someone is living in your house, and they don't do what you say, you can always remove benefits/kick them out. That's one way to "punish" an adult. You must have some degree of authority over them to begin with (or else they probably won't listen to you).
This is why physical punishment is different. Someone doesn't have to listen to you without it, so they aren't actually hurt, but if someone hits you, you're always going to be damaged in some way.
What if the person is suspected of murdering someone, but he's not murdering anyone at the moment, and you don't think he's going to murder anyone else for a while?
Looks like you're protecting people from a very real potential threat.
So you're saying the police simply shouldn't have the power to arrest him if he refuses to go willingly? That's fucking stupid.
I don't know if you're willfully misinterpreting me or not.
The point is, the police arresting a resisting suspect is not "self defense". The police are picking a fight (with good cause, presumably).
But I already mentioned defending other people. It is not as if self-defense was the only reason I listed for using force. If they're not defending themselves or others, then I don't think they have any business arresting people or using force against them to begin with.
The cops can just leave the suspect alone, and he won't hurt them.
And that's foolish because the suspect would (if the police are catching actual criminals here, and assuming they are a criminal) go on to hurt other people. I hope we're not arresting people for victimless crimes, but I guess it could happen.
Oh, so they are a threat? You said it wasn't self-defense.
Suspects don't have to be threatening anyone at all for police to legally beat them senseless.
If they're not threatening anyone, then by your own words they're also not threatening the police. They simply need to be restrained.
And what is your proposal for avoiding beating them senseless if they're actively resisting arrest?
I just said that it likely isn't necessary in most cases. If there's a physically strong murderer running around and resisting arrest, maybe.
That isn't "self defense"
I also mentioned defending other people from some sort of harm. But beating them senseless is likely not necessary.
At least for me, spanking only taught me that hitting someone you disagree with is okay.
If you tell a random stranger that they'll have to go take a time out (random example) if they don't do what you say, do you think they'd listen? Probably not. What if you were to beat them? They might then, especially if it's difficult for them to take action against you. That is the difference. Force can be a powerful thing: it doesn't make someone respect or agree with you, but it can make them do what you say, even if only temporarily. I don't believe that teaching kids that force is acceptable is a good thing.
Then there's the fact that you can't exactly hit an adult just because you disagree with them. If they're living on your property, though, you can "punish" (sometimes by threatening to kick them out or refusing to aid them any further) them in various ways. It is your property, after all.
Not to mention that there are other forms of punishment besides restraint. Threats of no future rewards, etc.
Well, most of us don't, but the police certainly do.
I hope they're punished if they hit them when it wasn't necessary. I think most people here would agree that self-defense (or using violence to defend others) is alright. After they've restrained them and stopped them from hurting people (assuming they were), I certainly hope they don't hit them.
Only if the words really do hurt you. Some people are more sensitive than others, after all.
(as defined by the PARENT, not the GOVERNMENT)
You say this as if government intervention is always a bad thing. However, the government does intervene at times. Such as in situations of child abuse (and I'm not talking about spanking here). A parent cannot legally do whatever they want to their child. There are limits.
As clearly your child is somehow disabled if it cannot withstand corrective negative stimuli rewards for negative behaviors.
Just like my girlfriend! I slapped her a few times as punishment for disagreeing with me, and she had the audacity to press charges!
Using force will never make your arguments more correct. If you punch everyone who says that 1 + 1 is anything but 3, you're not more correct just because they're scared to say it's anything else, and they don't even necessarily respect you (because you damn well haven't earned that respect).
I also liked your use of the word "it" to describe a child. This is a great attitude if your goal is to pump out children that never question authority and treat children like subhumans.
However, it's done for the good of the pack.
Sounds like awful thinking when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals. Hopefully society is more sane than that.
I really can't see what's so "painful" about that.
You said it yourself: "The only limitation is that you need an account to manage the downloads, and you can't read the books on a platform that can't run their app (so not a PC, Mac, iDevice, Android Device, or processing a decent web browser.)"
Different people have different priorities than you, you know. Therefore, these things (and possibly more) could be painful to them.
Unless you want to put a copy of a book you bought on a device that isn't yours. At which point you're a pirate and the inconvenience is working as intended.
Wow, that's a good one. If the person was a pirate, they'd already have the ebook downloaded and cracked.
But if you're using DRM as an excuse to not pay for the book, you're full of shit. Seriously.
Are they? Consider this: a person doesn't want to support the people who make the product because they utilize DRM, but still wants the product. I'm not saying it's right, but what I am saying is that it's a very possible scenario.
You should buy the book anyway and send an email to the company explaining why their system is counter-productive.
What I'd suggest is: don't buy it at all, and tell them why you didn't. Don't download it, either, as that could provide them with free advertising.
Then get off your lazy ass and write the publisher and remind them that you ALREADY paid for the book and that you'd appreciate it if they considered changing their policy.
If you keep buying their products, there is far less of a chance that they'll learn their lesson. They'll change when their source of income is threatened.
Oh that's right, its a pro-piracy story
Being anti-DRM and being pro-piracy are not equivalent things.