We could enter into an argument about the pros and cons of the laissez-faire doctrine, but allow me instead to rephrase my original statement: I'd be very happy if the government passed a law requiring cell phone providers to allow a cap on monthly fees.
Why? So people don't end up with phone bills they can't pay. Allowing customers to set limits on how much they're willing to spend each month is empowering. If I were on a monthly plan rather than prepaid, I'd want to be able to set a strict cap on my monthly bill.
Consider it an additional alternative along with picking "an appropriate cell phone package price", not giving your kids a cell phone, or using a local calling card when you arrive at a foreign country.
The law would enable customers to tell phone companies "I'm not willing to spend anything above this amount."
"If you never look for answers, you won't find them."
I have no problem with looking for answers -- in fact, I encourage it. Even so, the laudable goal of seeking answers to our questions does not relieve scientists and science teachers of the need to follow and teach the scientific method. There is simply no evidence for creationism, and no way to falsify the core of creationists' claims. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in public schools.
The government should require these companies to offer its customers the ability to set a hard cap on monthly fees. Families with teenage kids should not live in fear of huge bills, nor should people who travel have to fear such ridiculously expensive prices.
The claim that God created the universe, the way it's usually presented, is not falsifiable. There's no way to show that God didn't create the universe, which makes the claim that God created the universe a non-scientific claim.
Unless you can come up with a good, falsifiable hypothesis about why the universe was created by god, all you'll ever have is that "the universe was created by God because it's not impossible". That's not science.
"Except when I hear judges directly quote the phrase separation of church and state and use that to say something is unconstitutional. You can't claim something is part of the constitution, when it is not."
Perhaps they've used the phrase "separation of church and state", but that's quite different from quoting it as if it were written that way in the US Constitution. The fact is, the US Constitution does require the separation of church and state, even if those exact words aren't used.
"You suggest your rights are abridged when the two are taught side-by-side, but how are they really abridged here?"
I said "interferes with" not "abridges". The fact is that the government is legally barred from promoting religious beliefs, and creationism is clearly a religious belief.
"I can contend that refusing to allow creationism to be taught side-by-side instead is actually abridging my right to free expression."
Creationism is not a legitimate scientific theory, and therefore has no place in science class. Refusing to teach non-science in science class is no more a violation of your free speech rights than refusing to teach students that invisible pink unicorns cause the planets to move.
"My high school biology class taught that evolution was the firmest scientific knowledge we had, and that the phylogenic tree was just flat-out fact."
To the best of our knowledge, your science teacher is correct.
"I wish everyone else on the planet would understand 'separation of church and state' which actually isn't mentioned in the Constitution, yet everyone quotes as part of the Constitution."
That's a straw man. Nobody who speaks about the separation of church and state actually believes those specific words are contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they are referring to the words "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which has consistently been interpreted by the courts as requiring the separation of church and state. The constitution is worthless without courts to uphold it, and those courts have decided that teaching creationism violates the so-called "establishment clause".
"Teaching of creationism as a theory isn't forcing a specific state religion on the people."
To teach creationism in schools is to legitimize what is in fact a religious world-view, and it is therefore a violation of the first amendment. Your right to practice your religion also guarantees my right to be free of it. Teaching creationism in public schools interferes with my right to not be subject by the government to your religious dogma.
We'll be getting a lot more of this if we elect McCain into office. Nominally we all have the right to free speech, but in practice the government can easily suppress unauthorized speech on technicalities such as "fire codes". If it weren't for the Internet, free speech in the United States would be mostly limited to private spaces between trusted friends -- public criticism being so easily stifled.
I think the only way to get a message across is for people to speak out even in the face of strong government opposition. If they won't let you speak, go ahead and speak. People carrying signs and screaming "blah blah blee blee blah blah bloh... hey hey... ho ho" are bound to be ignored. People who get beat on by police, on the other hand, might actually get some attention from the media.
It depends on whether the judge thinks the EULA is binding. Contracts can override the right to first sale, and some judges will unfortunately uphold such terms in an EULA.
Like I said on GamePolitics, here's one additional "gamer right" that Stardock wouldn't like (their EULA forbids it), but which I think is essential:
"Gamers shall have the right to sell their copy of the game to somebody else, provided they remove any copies of the game from their own systems upon doing so."
Data transfer caps must be disclosed, but i don't think that's enough. They should also not be allowed to ban users for exceeding this data transfer cap, and should provide users the option of either a) suspending service until the next billing cycle or b) paying for any transfers over the monthly cap. That way they cannot use transfer caps as a bullying tactic against high-bandwidth users.
Here is what McCullagh said: "Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
I think Zimmermann is reading too much into the words above. I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
"Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next."
Surely you're not suggesting that benefits listed on Google's website is proof that their employees couldn't possibly have any legitimate complaints? After all, even if Google does pamper its employees, unless you can point to an actual example of a "laughable" claim of mistreatment all you have is a list of perks that in no way support your statement that "Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable".
"clients can still detect the key as suspicious because the key has recently changed"
That only works if the client has a copy of the proper certificate. If this is the first time the client is connecting to the "secure" server, a man-in-the middle attack that also intercepts communications along the path to the notary will succeed.
Expression on the Internet should be no less free than for other media. This judge's order unfairly targets the Internet while other media are allowed greater freedom in disclosing the details of a criminal case.
I share people's concerns that publishing the names of the accused may lead to an assumption of guilt by employers and individuals, but I don't think it should be the media's responsibility to ensure that these people remain anonymous.
Perhaps it should be the government's own responsibility to anonymize police reports and court documents until guilt has been established?
So Miracle Grow claims trademark rights to the color of grass? For a product that's intended to grow grass? That's just... evil.
Limited trademarks are good, but lawsuits concerning trade dress tend to get on my nerves. Remember when Apple sued Microsoft over the look and feel of Microsoft Windows? That's trade dress in a nutshell.
The images are made by a projector. A laser pointer is used to tell the computer where to draw. I doubt the laser is pointed at the building long enough to cause damage.
Let's keep things in perspective here. The guy isn't spray-painting public property, he's just projecting laser-generated images onto buildings. Used often enough it might become a genuine nuisance, but as a tool for protest it is actually rather interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
We could enter into an argument about the pros and cons of the laissez-faire doctrine, but allow me instead to rephrase my original statement: I'd be very happy if the government passed a law requiring cell phone providers to allow a cap on monthly fees.
Why? So people don't end up with phone bills they can't pay. Allowing customers to set limits on how much they're willing to spend each month is empowering. If I were on a monthly plan rather than prepaid, I'd want to be able to set a strict cap on my monthly bill.
Consider it an additional alternative along with picking "an appropriate cell phone package price", not giving your kids a cell phone, or using a local calling card when you arrive at a foreign country.
The law would enable customers to tell phone companies "I'm not willing to spend anything above this amount."
"If you never look for answers, you won't find them."
I have no problem with looking for answers -- in fact, I encourage it. Even so, the laudable goal of seeking answers to our questions does not relieve scientists and science teachers of the need to follow and teach the scientific method. There is simply no evidence for creationism, and no way to falsify the core of creationists' claims. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in public schools.
The government should require these companies to offer its customers the ability to set a hard cap on monthly fees. Families with teenage kids should not live in fear of huge bills, nor should people who travel have to fear such ridiculously expensive prices.
"You say it isn't science. How isn't it?"
The claim that God created the universe, the way it's usually presented, is not falsifiable. There's no way to show that God didn't create the universe, which makes the claim that God created the universe a non-scientific claim.
Unless you can come up with a good, falsifiable hypothesis about why the universe was created by god, all you'll ever have is that "the universe was created by God because it's not impossible". That's not science.
"Except when I hear judges directly quote the phrase separation of church and state and use that to say something is unconstitutional. You can't claim something is part of the constitution, when it is not."
Perhaps they've used the phrase "separation of church and state", but that's quite different from quoting it as if it were written that way in the US Constitution. The fact is, the US Constitution does require the separation of church and state, even if those exact words aren't used.
"You suggest your rights are abridged when the two are taught side-by-side, but how are they really abridged here?"
I said "interferes with" not "abridges". The fact is that the government is legally barred from promoting religious beliefs, and creationism is clearly a religious belief.
"I can contend that refusing to allow creationism to be taught side-by-side instead is actually abridging my right to free expression."
Creationism is not a legitimate scientific theory, and therefore has no place in science class. Refusing to teach non-science in science class is no more a violation of your free speech rights than refusing to teach students that invisible pink unicorns cause the planets to move.
"My high school biology class taught that evolution was the firmest scientific knowledge we had, and that the phylogenic tree was just flat-out fact."
To the best of our knowledge, your science teacher is correct.
"I wish everyone else on the planet would understand 'separation of church and state' which actually isn't mentioned in the Constitution, yet everyone quotes as part of the Constitution."
That's a straw man. Nobody who speaks about the separation of church and state actually believes those specific words are contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they are referring to the words "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which has consistently been interpreted by the courts as requiring the separation of church and state. The constitution is worthless without courts to uphold it, and those courts have decided that teaching creationism violates the so-called "establishment clause".
"Teaching of creationism as a theory isn't forcing a specific state religion on the people."
To teach creationism in schools is to legitimize what is in fact a religious world-view, and it is therefore a violation of the first amendment. Your right to practice your religion also guarantees my right to be free of it. Teaching creationism in public schools interferes with my right to not be subject by the government to your religious dogma.
"If I buy a car and immediately replace the tires with better ones, I can't take the stock tires back to the dealership and expect a refund."
No, but you can sell those tires on the open market. You can't do the same with an OEM copy of Windows.
We'll be getting a lot more of this if we elect McCain into office. Nominally we all have the right to free speech, but in practice the government can easily suppress unauthorized speech on technicalities such as "fire codes". If it weren't for the Internet, free speech in the United States would be mostly limited to private spaces between trusted friends -- public criticism being so easily stifled.
I think the only way to get a message across is for people to speak out even in the face of strong government opposition. If they won't let you speak, go ahead and speak. People carrying signs and screaming "blah blah blee blee blah blah bloh... hey hey... ho ho" are bound to be ignored. People who get beat on by police, on the other hand, might actually get some attention from the media.
For some reason this kind of politically-motivated editing reminds me of the words "he who controls the past, controls the future".
Did I say the "right to first sale". Yes I did. That's wrong. I meant to say "the first sale doctrine".
It depends on whether the judge thinks the EULA is binding. Contracts can override the right to first sale, and some judges will unfortunately uphold such terms in an EULA.
Like I said on GamePolitics, here's one additional "gamer right" that Stardock wouldn't like (their EULA forbids it), but which I think is essential:
"Gamers shall have the right to sell their copy of the game to somebody else, provided they remove any copies of the game from their own systems upon doing so."
Data transfer caps must be disclosed, but i don't think that's enough. They should also not be allowed to ban users for exceeding this data transfer cap, and should provide users the option of either a) suspending service until the next billing cycle or b) paying for any transfers over the monthly cap. That way they cannot use transfer caps as a bullying tactic against high-bandwidth users.
Here is what McCullagh said: "Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
I think Zimmermann is reading too much into the words above. I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
I wonder how the website might respond if you spoof the browser's user agent string. Would it function well enough, or is their notice legitimate?
"Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next."
Surely you're not suggesting that benefits listed on Google's website is proof that their employees couldn't possibly have any legitimate complaints? After all, even if Google does pamper its employees, unless you can point to an actual example of a "laughable" claim of mistreatment all you have is a list of perks that in no way support your statement that "Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable".
"clients can still detect the key as suspicious because the key has recently changed"
That only works if the client has a copy of the proper certificate. If this is the first time the client is connecting to the "secure" server, a man-in-the middle attack that also intercepts communications along the path to the notary will succeed.
Expression on the Internet should be no less free than for other media. This judge's order unfairly targets the Internet while other media are allowed greater freedom in disclosing the details of a criminal case.
I share people's concerns that publishing the names of the accused may lead to an assumption of guilt by employers and individuals, but I don't think it should be the media's responsibility to ensure that these people remain anonymous.
Perhaps it should be the government's own responsibility to anonymize police reports and court documents until guilt has been established?
So, basically, this guy advocates the proliferation of hardware-based DRM.
Oh, id... how far you have fallen.
"Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming."
Which would be a real problem if scientists' theories concerning global warming were based on claims of "durn it it sure is warm today."
So Miracle Grow claims trademark rights to the color of grass? For a product that's intended to grow grass? That's just... evil.
Limited trademarks are good, but lawsuits concerning trade dress tend to get on my nerves. Remember when Apple sued Microsoft over the look and feel of Microsoft Windows? That's trade dress in a nutshell.
The images are made by a projector. A laser pointer is used to tell the computer where to draw. I doubt the laser is pointed at the building long enough to cause damage.
Let's keep things in perspective here. The guy isn't spray-painting public property, he's just projecting laser-generated images onto buildings. Used often enough it might become a genuine nuisance, but as a tool for protest it is actually rather interesting.
Oh... brilliant comeback!