Bullshit. It's a direct response to GP's stated claims.
Well, it wasn't a claim that *I* made. I see where the other guy said something like that, though.
Yeah, that's a common hallmark of just simply being wrong, and unwilling to accept it...
You're bordering on the bandwagon fallacy.
You're clearly arguing out of gross ignorance of the subject, asserting how things work in your fantasy world is the way things are supposed to work elsewhere. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.
Yes, freedom is a waste of time. You'd waste less time if you just moved to North Korea.
The government wrote the constitution, and has unlimited power to amend it.
And the people also have the power to try to stop them. Amending the constitution is not easy.
Besides, it's ridiculous to claim a piece of paper grants anyone any power.
A piece of paper that's part of an overall social contract, something that is unethical to break. You clearly have little idea how the US constitution works, but that seems to be a common problem.
Yes you did. You extremely narrowly construed your incorrect statement. Widening the scope of your claim just makes it patently obvious how ridiculous it really is.
No, since I was talking about how our specific government works, it makes complete sense. Do you lack the cognitive ability to understand that different governments can function differently, and have different powers?
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists?
I think he's under the delusion that the government is full of perfect and benevolent angels who could never make a mistake or do anything immoral. That seems to be a common problem for people who are utterly ignorant of history.
The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.
Similar arguments were used to justify the TSA and free speech zones, if I remember right. Why not just suspend people's rights in the entire country? They can go elsewhere if they don't like it! This logic makes sense to authoritarians...
Common Core aims to have students value evidence, to reflect on how they reach their conculsions = think critically.
That's what our current education system utterly fails at, and what common core fails to fix. It's just more of the same, except with differently worded questions. Understanding still takes a back seat to rote memorization, like with our previous standards.
Claiming this particular violation is going to spell the end of the Union (while all previous ones did not) is utter nonsense.
Straw man. There are many evil things that don't mean the end of the world, but that doesn't mean they're less evil.
Damn near everyone disagrees with you.... Including the founders, who offered tools to amend it as needed for changing times.
Yes, and if you want to change the constitution, then you have to fucking amend it! That's the proper process, and one the government has ignored numerous times.
The 'land of the free' cares about ideals above all else. Anyone who says the constitution - the very document that grants the government *any* power to begin with, and one it is not allowed to violate - is not a suicide pact only pretends they want to live in a free country, but would be better off in a police state. I do not care if the entire world disagrees with me; that would just make them authoritarian scumbags.
Also notice that fundamental rights like freedom of speech are not limitless, despite those limits not being enumerated in the constitution.
Then that's a violation of the constitution. Period. It matters not how many judges or people (including the founders) agree with the violations, this is just how the constitution works; it's how it was written. Don't like it? Amend it, cowards.
It's a framework, not a how-to.
Once again, and this should be apparent to anyone who understands the US constitution: The government only has the powers that the constitution grants it. It is not merely a "framework"; it is the document that allows the government to have any legitimacy at all. When the government ignores it, it loses any legitimacy it had and becomes a mere tyrant.
There are plenty of governments around the world, which do not have a constitution to speak of.
Idiot. When I said "the government," I obviously meant the US government. You need to learn a thing or two about social contracts, one which the government violates whenever it violates the constitution.
If the government ordered you under yhe threat of impriisonment to put a uniform on, pick up a gun, kill whoever they decided was an enemy or be killed by the enemy while others killed the enemy, are you more or less free?
Less free, of course. But I'm pointing out how ridiculous the situation is. We're at so low a point that 'defending our freedoms' is equivalent to 'fighting in pointless wars to stop the government from unjustly drafting people.' A better solution would be to take hold of the government to begin with, something we failed to do during Vietnam. In fact, they'd be defending our freedoms to a greater degree if they just overthrew the government, since the real enemy is domestic.
We're not truly 'the land of the free' until drafts are completely unconstitutional.
The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:
The constitution lists no limitations. Since the government only has the powers the constitution says it does, what the government is doing is unconstitutional. A number of judges are/were simply complicit in the crimes against the American people. This is nothing new. The end.
The violation of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties is indeed nothing new, but that doesn't mean it's justified.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
The constitution is a suicide pact. It's the very document that grants the government any power or legitimacy to begin with, and by breaking it, the government becomes illegitimate.
So wait, they're keeping us free by going into pointless wars we have no business being in to begin with? And they do this by removing the imaginary need for the government to order a draft? When I hear 'They're defending your freedoms!', I always took that to mean 'They're fighting wars with countries that threaten the very existence of the US.' I didn't take that to mean, 'They're fighting pointless wars so you don't have to!' Kind of makes it sound like a little less heroic and dramatic, in my opinion.
The draft should be unconstitutional to begin with. It's nothing but an egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties.
Regardless, it is only because of the american fighting man that you are free
It has been a long time since we've been in a real war where the army had a chance to defend anyone's freedoms. Iraq? Afghanistan? Any war we've fought in the past few decades? Nope. Not any real threats to our national security. And by "real," I mean capable of crushing the US and all it's supposed to stand for.
I take from your assertion that you're one of those people with an IQ under a hundred.
Trying to poison the well with unfounded nonsense, are we?
IQ is a measure of fluid intelligence as in how easily a person learns new facts.
Actually, IQ tries to measure how well one fits into the formal education environment. We don't even understand what intelligence is, and yet you seem to think that we can just measure someone's "fluid intelligence" in the form of a simple number, using some poorly-designed tests? The very notion is ridiculous. They only test how well you can take IQ tests.
IQ is also a very narrow measure of intellect that doesn't necessarily include everything that's relevant.
Or anything that's provably relevant, as the case may be.
Truly a terrifying article. I'm reminded once again that the US government is full of authoritarian scumbags who despise the very notion of us being "the land of the free."
Numerous politicians have taken actions or voted for policies that violate the constitution. That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional just because they weren't punished.
What was your point? Lincoln the tyrant did it, so it's okay?
I would say - if that person has a degree and you are testing him, you are insulting him by placing yourself above the university.
Universities need to be insulted, because they pump out too many losers.
Which makes you arrogant bastard.
I'd say it's more arrogant to say that, because you have a piece of paper, you're automatically above being tested to see if you actually know what you're doing.
Heck yeckerty yes. The last thing you want working for you is unlucky people.
I consider having to spend tens of thousands of dollars getting a piece of paper so you can get past HR drones both stupid and, since you were born in a culture that promotes this sort of stupidity, unlucky. The whole point is that we need to stop this nonsense.
Indeed, recording people with legal authority who have the ability to easily ruin people's lives is a whole different case. Especially when the recording is happening in public.
So while I bet you think you have the gift... you may find out that in that short class, there are others, those not as l33t, that are subjectively a better programmer than you are.
"subjectively" in the sense that they got a 'better' grade, which is meaningless. Also, do people take IQ tests seriously? Really?
A student doing well in AP calculus really will do better when they take "real" calculus.
Yes, when they take calculus... as a course. What is ignored is that most don't even understand why any of the math works; they can use the formulas and recognize patterns, but all they did was memorize facts. Doing *real* calculus and solving *real* problems is far, far different.
This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company.
Then their decision was incorrect and ignores the spirit of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. It's a direct response to GP's stated claims.
Well, it wasn't a claim that *I* made. I see where the other guy said something like that, though.
Yeah, that's a common hallmark of just simply being wrong, and unwilling to accept it...
You're bordering on the bandwagon fallacy.
You're clearly arguing out of gross ignorance of the subject, asserting how things work in your fantasy world is the way things are supposed to work elsewhere. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.
Yes, freedom is a waste of time. You'd waste less time if you just moved to North Korea.
The government wrote the constitution, and has unlimited power to amend it.
And the people also have the power to try to stop them. Amending the constitution is not easy.
Besides, it's ridiculous to claim a piece of paper grants anyone any power.
A piece of paper that's part of an overall social contract, something that is unethical to break. You clearly have little idea how the US constitution works, but that seems to be a common problem.
Yes you did. You extremely narrowly construed your incorrect statement. Widening the scope of your claim just makes it patently obvious how ridiculous it really is.
No, since I was talking about how our specific government works, it makes complete sense. Do you lack the cognitive ability to understand that different governments can function differently, and have different powers?
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists?
I think he's under the delusion that the government is full of perfect and benevolent angels who could never make a mistake or do anything immoral. That seems to be a common problem for people who are utterly ignorant of history.
The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.
Similar arguments were used to justify the TSA and free speech zones, if I remember right. Why not just suspend people's rights in the entire country? They can go elsewhere if they don't like it! This logic makes sense to authoritarians...
I really don't see how that's being a devil's advocate, how it justifies anything, or even how it's relevant.
Common Core aims to have students value evidence, to reflect on how they reach their conculsions = think critically.
That's what our current education system utterly fails at, and what common core fails to fix. It's just more of the same, except with differently worded questions. Understanding still takes a back seat to rote memorization, like with our previous standards.
Claiming this particular violation is going to spell the end of the Union (while all previous ones did not) is utter nonsense.
Straw man. There are many evil things that don't mean the end of the world, but that doesn't mean they're less evil.
Damn near everyone disagrees with you.... Including the founders, who offered tools to amend it as needed for changing times.
Yes, and if you want to change the constitution, then you have to fucking amend it! That's the proper process, and one the government has ignored numerous times.
The 'land of the free' cares about ideals above all else. Anyone who says the constitution - the very document that grants the government *any* power to begin with, and one it is not allowed to violate - is not a suicide pact only pretends they want to live in a free country, but would be better off in a police state. I do not care if the entire world disagrees with me; that would just make them authoritarian scumbags.
Also notice that fundamental rights like freedom of speech are not limitless, despite those limits not being enumerated in the constitution.
Then that's a violation of the constitution. Period. It matters not how many judges or people (including the founders) agree with the violations, this is just how the constitution works; it's how it was written. Don't like it? Amend it, cowards.
It's a framework, not a how-to.
Once again, and this should be apparent to anyone who understands the US constitution: The government only has the powers that the constitution grants it. It is not merely a "framework"; it is the document that allows the government to have any legitimacy at all. When the government ignores it, it loses any legitimacy it had and becomes a mere tyrant.
There are plenty of governments around the world, which do not have a constitution to speak of.
Idiot. When I said "the government," I obviously meant the US government. You need to learn a thing or two about social contracts, one which the government violates whenever it violates the constitution.
If the government ordered you under yhe threat of impriisonment to put a uniform on, pick up a gun, kill whoever they decided was an enemy or be killed by the enemy while others killed the enemy, are you more or less free?
Less free, of course. But I'm pointing out how ridiculous the situation is. We're at so low a point that 'defending our freedoms' is equivalent to 'fighting in pointless wars to stop the government from unjustly drafting people.' A better solution would be to take hold of the government to begin with, something we failed to do during Vietnam. In fact, they'd be defending our freedoms to a greater degree if they just overthrew the government, since the real enemy is domestic.
We're not truly 'the land of the free' until drafts are completely unconstitutional.
The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:
The constitution lists no limitations. Since the government only has the powers the constitution says it does, what the government is doing is unconstitutional. A number of judges are/were simply complicit in the crimes against the American people. This is nothing new. The end.
Don't act like this is anything new.
The violation of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties is indeed nothing new, but that doesn't mean it's justified.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
The constitution is a suicide pact. It's the very document that grants the government any power or legitimacy to begin with, and by breaking it, the government becomes illegitimate.
So wait, they're keeping us free by going into pointless wars we have no business being in to begin with? And they do this by removing the imaginary need for the government to order a draft? When I hear 'They're defending your freedoms!', I always took that to mean 'They're fighting wars with countries that threaten the very existence of the US.' I didn't take that to mean, 'They're fighting pointless wars so you don't have to!' Kind of makes it sound like a little less heroic and dramatic, in my opinion.
The draft should be unconstitutional to begin with. It's nothing but an egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties.
Regardless, it is only because of the american fighting man that you are free
It has been a long time since we've been in a real war where the army had a chance to defend anyone's freedoms. Iraq? Afghanistan? Any war we've fought in the past few decades? Nope. Not any real threats to our national security. And by "real," I mean capable of crushing the US and all it's supposed to stand for.
So why are we not allowed to swear on tv? Why are we not allowed to see female nipples?
Because the government shreds the constitution at every opportunity?
I take from your assertion that you're one of those people with an IQ under a hundred.
Trying to poison the well with unfounded nonsense, are we?
IQ is a measure of fluid intelligence as in how easily a person learns new facts.
Actually, IQ tries to measure how well one fits into the formal education environment. We don't even understand what intelligence is, and yet you seem to think that we can just measure someone's "fluid intelligence" in the form of a simple number, using some poorly-designed tests? The very notion is ridiculous. They only test how well you can take IQ tests.
IQ is also a very narrow measure of intellect that doesn't necessarily include everything that's relevant.
Or anything that's provably relevant, as the case may be.
I would really encourage you to take an introduction to marketing class at your local community college.
I would really encourage you to stay away from nonsense.
You are trying to target not just the conscious part of people's mind, but also the SUBconscious part of people's mind when it comes to purchasing.
Again, just check your buying habits. And it won't work the same on everyone.
Truly a terrifying article. I'm reminded once again that the US government is full of authoritarian scumbags who despise the very notion of us being "the land of the free."
Numerous politicians have taken actions or voted for policies that violate the constitution. That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional just because they weren't punished.
What was your point? Lincoln the tyrant did it, so it's okay?
I would say - if that person has a degree and you are testing him, you are insulting him by placing yourself above the university.
Universities need to be insulted, because they pump out too many losers.
Which makes you arrogant bastard.
I'd say it's more arrogant to say that, because you have a piece of paper, you're automatically above being tested to see if you actually know what you're doing.
Heck yeckerty yes. The last thing you want working for you is unlucky people.
I consider having to spend tens of thousands of dollars getting a piece of paper so you can get past HR drones both stupid and, since you were born in a culture that promotes this sort of stupidity, unlucky. The whole point is that we need to stop this nonsense.
Laugh all you want at the Ronco Rotisserie Chicken machines or Ginzu knives, but we *all* know them.
We do? I certainly didn't.
I find myself preferring name brands simply because I've just seen their logos and heard their names before.
That seems rather silly, if that's your only reason.
Indeed, recording people with legal authority who have the ability to easily ruin people's lives is a whole different case. Especially when the recording is happening in public.
Sharing wifi is moral, but it's not an obligation.
So while I bet you think you have the gift... you may find out that in that short class, there are others, those not as l33t, that are subjectively a better programmer than you are.
"subjectively" in the sense that they got a 'better' grade, which is meaningless. Also, do people take IQ tests seriously? Really?
A student doing well in AP calculus really will do better when they take "real" calculus.
Yes, when they take calculus... as a course. What is ignored is that most don't even understand why any of the math works; they can use the formulas and recognize patterns, but all they did was memorize facts. Doing *real* calculus and solving *real* problems is far, far different.
it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals.
Well, that just completely ignores history. Why not brush up on it?
This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company.
Then their decision was incorrect and ignores the spirit of the constitution.