Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?
That's a personal decision. I say you'd be dumb not too 99% of the time, though.
But this has nothing to do with fundamental liberties.
I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.
So, in other words, you completely disregarded the context this was said in. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.
It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument
No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety. The people who are focused on the question of whether or not these programs stop terrorists are missing the point entirely.
That's because it is. You could do the same thing with just about any kind of speech to avoid recognizing that you're infringing upon people's free speech rights.
you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
That makes absolutely no sense. I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us... they just suffer severe consequences if they do absolutely anything that the government doesn't like. If the government punishes you for doing something, you're not free to do it. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you. Otherwise, it's not a right at all.
What about the government's responsibility to uphold the constitution? They explicitly agree to do so.
It is still all the state taxes that about 10 of my co-workers pay each and every year that really don't have any benefit. And this world is greatly overpopulated too. Nothing of value was lost today.
Hopefully your precious government thugs will murder you, too. Nothing of value would be lost.
We should be working on reducing the number of state funded appeals if there is clear evidence that they were the ones that committed the crime.
A great way to murder yet more innocent people. Lots of things were "clear" once, but then we found out the people were innocent.
He will have a ready excuse for why a human in fetus form doesnt deserve rights: he will claim that the human in fetus form is less than human
It's not less than human, but it is an unwanted human that started growing in someone else's body. The right to control one's own body is what's at issue, here. I don't see how abortion relates to the death penalty in the least, except in the sense that someone dies. If these prisoners somehow attached themselves to someone's body and the only way to remove them was to kill them... you may have a case there, or so I believe. But really, it's only related if you pick the dumbest argument you've seen on the pro-choice side and pretend that everyone on that side agrees with it.
And what's this nonsense about liberals and conservatives? There are conservatives who are pro-choice and object to the death penalty, and liberals who are pro-life and are for the death penalty.
Anything the victim's family says is automatically 100% correct, so yes. If something like this didn't happen to you, then by way of bullshit logic, your arguments are incorrect.
Yeah, only bad guys are worried about this sort of thing. The government can never and has never done anything wrong, so people have nothing to fear... if they're not doing anything the government doesn't like.
The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment.
Hopefully they had strong evidence to back up that idea to begin with.
That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying"
And yet a lot of people are claiming that cellphones should stay banned because they find it annoying.
Where did I say you did? I said, "If you don't have a problem with it (maybe you do), then I do wonder what you think education is."
Winners don't usually gripe that the rules of the game are unfair.
Those sorts of "winners" only care for themselves. You could have the worst education system in the world and still have a few "winners" who do well according to that system. Would anyone who complains about that not be a "winner"? It's just nonsense. I complain about it because I think it's absolute garbage. I complain about things even if they don't affect me (I never fly on planes, but I still despise the TSA.) or they benefit me.
And again, my (nonexistent, by the way) score on the SAT is 100% irrelevant.
If the data that you are collecting does not in fact achieve the purported aims (apparently, despite the misleading cheer-leading by the NSA director, all the NSA data collected under FISA warrants has not actually provided any information that has been key/required in helping prevent any terrorist acts), then the "probable cause" justification process is broken and those justifications and those types of data gathering activities should no longer be allowed.
What? Effectiveness is irrelevant. They shouldn't gathering the data even if doing so is effective.
Just because you say something is unconstitutional or illegal does not make it so.
Just because you say something isn't unconstitutional or illegal does not make it so. That goes for your little judge friends, too.
Just because a court issues a decision you don't like does not mean it is illegal.
The mass collection of private data on citizens is unconstitutional, and no matter what some judges say, outsourcing spying to corporations is also unconstitutional, so the defense of "But someone else is holding your data!" doesn't apply.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The constitution is my suicide pact, and since we're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," it damn well better be yours, too. Otherwise, I suggest moving to North Korea.
Look, if you're dumb enough to believe that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never hurt a fly, just... leave. You people are an absolute eyesore.
Look, if you want to memorize what are essentially random facts because it's possible you'll use them in the future, do that on your own time; don't force that on kids or students. I have better things to do.
While you're figuring out what 7*8 is, the people who have memorized the multiplication tables have that (usually intermediate) answer and have gone on to more interesting stuff.
I can figure it out in a split second. These people aren't saving themselves much time at all. Math is not about speed.
Memorizing facts gives one a fund of knowledge from which to deduce patterns and gain deeper insights.
Sometimes. Often, that's simply not true. Example: Jeopardy geniuses. Memorizing random facts does no one any real good, and you only serve to waste your own time.
99% of the time, rote memorization is useless and detrimental, especially if you're forcing it on people. Now, vanish.
I can't imagine how allowing the collection of metadata on just about everyone means that someone is "unnaturally focused on citizens rights." It's just the opposite, and you're a naive fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?
That's a personal decision. I say you'd be dumb not too 99% of the time, though.
But this has nothing to do with fundamental liberties.
I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.
So, in other words, you completely disregarded the context this was said in. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.
It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument
No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety. The people who are focused on the question of whether or not these programs stop terrorists are missing the point entirely.
Please, tell me more, Internet psychologist!
I know that seems like an excuse
That's because it is. You could do the same thing with just about any kind of speech to avoid recognizing that you're infringing upon people's free speech rights.
you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
That makes absolutely no sense. I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us... they just suffer severe consequences if they do absolutely anything that the government doesn't like. If the government punishes you for doing something, you're not free to do it. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you. Otherwise, it's not a right at all.
What about the government's responsibility to uphold the constitution? They explicitly agree to do so.
It is still all the state taxes that about 10 of my co-workers pay each and every year that really don't have any benefit. And this world is greatly overpopulated too. Nothing of value was lost today.
Hopefully your precious government thugs will murder you, too. Nothing of value would be lost.
We should be working on reducing the number of state funded appeals if there is clear evidence that they were the ones that committed the crime.
A great way to murder yet more innocent people. Lots of things were "clear" once, but then we found out the people were innocent.
He will have a ready excuse for why a human in fetus form doesnt deserve rights: he will claim that the human in fetus form is less than human
It's not less than human, but it is an unwanted human that started growing in someone else's body. The right to control one's own body is what's at issue, here. I don't see how abortion relates to the death penalty in the least, except in the sense that someone dies. If these prisoners somehow attached themselves to someone's body and the only way to remove them was to kill them... you may have a case there, or so I believe. But really, it's only related if you pick the dumbest argument you've seen on the pro-choice side and pretend that everyone on that side agrees with it.
And what's this nonsense about liberals and conservatives? There are conservatives who are pro-choice and object to the death penalty, and liberals who are pro-life and are for the death penalty.
If you fail to abide to the basic obligations as far as I'm concerned you are not longer human and deserve to be put down.
Look, if you want government thugs to be able to murder people so badly, just move to North Korea. You'll have the government you deserve.
but certain people
Including you, obviously.
Also, you failed to notice that there is no such thing as rights.
You obviously don't understand what rights are.
Then move to North Korea, where government thugs are all too happy to murder people.
Anything the victim's family says is automatically 100% correct, so yes. If something like this didn't happen to you, then by way of bullshit logic, your arguments are incorrect.
Oh yes, it's much better to put the vicious murderer in prison for 60 years or so, at $75,000+ a year.
Yes.
1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.
The fact that anyone will store the data is in itself an egregious abuse of power. Don't collect it and don't store it.
2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data.
Which will be rubberstamped, as we've seen.
3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it
Something to give the appearance of doing something important.
This is not everything I would hope for
It shouldn't even be close.
Yeah, only bad guys are worried about this sort of thing. The government can never and has never done anything wrong, so people have nothing to fear... if they're not doing anything the government doesn't like.
The FCC has a duty to invite public comment on proposed regulations.
I don't have a problem with that part of it. Just the stupid comments.
The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment.
Hopefully they had strong evidence to back up that idea to begin with.
That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying"
And yet a lot of people are claiming that cellphones should stay banned because they find it annoying.
Why do you think I have a problem with it?
Where did I say you did? I said, "If you don't have a problem with it (maybe you do), then I do wonder what you think education is."
Winners don't usually gripe that the rules of the game are unfair.
Those sorts of "winners" only care for themselves. You could have the worst education system in the world and still have a few "winners" who do well according to that system. Would anyone who complains about that not be a "winner"? It's just nonsense. I complain about it because I think it's absolute garbage. I complain about things even if they don't affect me (I never fly on planes, but I still despise the TSA.) or they benefit me.
And again, my (nonexistent, by the way) score on the SAT is 100% irrelevant.
In the copyright/patent cartel's universe.
If the data that you are collecting does not in fact achieve the purported aims (apparently, despite the misleading cheer-leading by the NSA director, all the NSA data collected under FISA warrants has not actually provided any information that has been key/required in helping prevent any terrorist acts), then the "probable cause" justification process is broken and those justifications and those types of data gathering activities should no longer be allowed.
What? Effectiveness is irrelevant. They shouldn't gathering the data even if doing so is effective.
Just because you say something is unconstitutional or illegal does not make it so.
Just because you say something isn't unconstitutional or illegal does not make it so. That goes for your little judge friends, too.
Just because a court issues a decision you don't like does not mean it is illegal.
The mass collection of private data on citizens is unconstitutional, and no matter what some judges say, outsourcing spying to corporations is also unconstitutional, so the defense of "But someone else is holding your data!" doesn't apply.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The constitution is my suicide pact, and since we're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," it damn well better be yours, too. Otherwise, I suggest moving to North Korea.
Look, if you're dumb enough to believe that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never hurt a fly, just... leave. You people are an absolute eyesore.
Like post on Slashdot. Well, it's more entertaining, at least.
Look, if you want to memorize what are essentially random facts because it's possible you'll use them in the future, do that on your own time; don't force that on kids or students. I have better things to do.
While you're figuring out what 7*8 is, the people who have memorized the multiplication tables have that (usually intermediate) answer and have gone on to more interesting stuff.
I can figure it out in a split second. These people aren't saving themselves much time at all. Math is not about speed.
Memorizing facts gives one a fund of knowledge from which to deduce patterns and gain deeper insights.
Sometimes. Often, that's simply not true. Example: Jeopardy geniuses. Memorizing random facts does no one any real good, and you only serve to waste your own time.
99% of the time, rote memorization is useless and detrimental, especially if you're forcing it on people. Now, vanish.
I can't imagine how allowing the collection of metadata on just about everyone means that someone is "unnaturally focused on citizens rights." It's just the opposite, and you're a naive fool.
These countries are doing the same to the US.
Wow! That's a great excuse.
I thank Snowden for letting us know what the government that we pay to 'represent' us is doing, or at least filling us in on the specifics.
What? There is no way I can make my position more clear. If you don't understand, then I don't know what to say.