And if you don't think it is evolution is not being taught as religion you just try and shake your fist at it. You thought the inquisition was bad?
To paraphrase one of Asimov's observations, it's popular to oppose the scientific establishment because it gives you rebellion chic without the sort of nasty side effects (burning at the stake, incarceration a concentration camp, impoverishment, ostracism) that a real Establishment can inflict on its foes. Heroism without risking so much as a hangnail has an obvious appeal. /.
Has there ever been substantial proof of the big bang theory I have always agreed with micro evolution but what about macro evolution?
The whole microevolution/macroevolution distinction is an intellectual three-card-monte shuffle used by creationists to dismiss the evidence. Anything which is established beyond sane doubt (e.g. Eophippus -> Equus in the fossil record, the evolution of poison resistance in bacteria and insects in current observation) is classified as "microevolution" so that "macroevolution" can be denied. Obviously, if all evidence is by definition placed into Box A, there will never be any in Box B. /.
the 2nd amend was written how long ago? how can you claim that the people who wrote it knew what they were talking about? i don't think you have the right to have an m-16, ak47 or anything else.
the 1st amend was written how long ago? how can you claim that the people who wrote it knew what they were talking about? i don't think you have the right to an internet connection, a desktop publishing setup, or anything else.
why are we limiting ourselves to the old constitution? what's the point of that? we could write a NEW one, that applies to todays times...
You want to suggest a new constitution that would protect all existing rights, and then some, with real teeth (Unconstitutional laws are illegal. Why aren't the politicians responsible for them in jail?), then I'm all ears. Otherwise, forget it. /.
It's an issue of recognizing that all government pronoucements must be run through the Newspeak-to-English translator. (Do they have one of those on the babelfish site?)
That goes double for papers issued by an administration led by the man who said that he might or might not be a perjurer depending on what the meaning of "is" is. /.
but would it be too simple for Congress to establish a law that says any site that offers what would be considered adult content (and spell that out)
Your parenthetical comment is reminiscent of the old joke about a football player, an acrobat, and an economist stranded on an island where the only source of food was a stand of coconut trees. The acrobat tried climbing the trees, but couldn't get a grip on their smooth, non-branching trees. The football player tried slamming into the trees to shake coconuts loose, without success. Finally, the economist came up with the solution -- assume the availability of a 100' ladder.
Your assumption of the availability of intelligence in Washington DC is just as unrealistic.
In any case, how is Congress supposed to fine some site with a server on some see-no-evil Carribean island? /.
For example, we have the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999", which would criminalize many discussions of drug policy.... Trying to censor "dirty" bits is bad enough, but to censor political discussion is utterly abhorant. Political censorship is a life-and-death issue - people will fight, kill, and die for free speech. What, short of bullets, is it going to take to stop the cybercensors?
When do the treason trials begin?
I'm not joking. This is an attack on the foundations of the Republic. /.
How many pot smokers are in favor of keeping pot illegal? How many people in favor of keeping pot illegal smoke it?
This is one of the most stupid and offensive comments I've seen on/. (including the "First Post" gibberers in the sample).
The only non-medicinal drug I've ever consumed is caffeine, and I'm in favor of ending the War on Some Drugs before it destroys what's left of the Constitution. /.
No, Katz is right on that point. The movie ratings system is only nominally private and voluntary -- it was, and is, quite clear that the government would harass the industry if it didn't step into line.
The problem with Katz's argument is his failure to distinguish between real censorship (see previous paragraph) on the one hand and legitimate private property rights and parental prerogatives on the other. /.
I'm so glad Katz is rationally thinking through both sides of the issue and not just taking the easy slam on parents/politians who are trying to determine age-appropriate content for kids!
You ruined your argument with one slash and one word. Parents have the right to make those decisions; politicians do not. By equating the two forms of control, you make yourself look as foolish as Katz did. /.
Nonsense. Proof of innocence doesn't prevent corrupt politicians from targeting their enemies -- just ask Billy Dale. "Better information" just makes it possible for corrupt politicians to improve their aim. /.
Actually, corporations are generally on the side of the angels on this one. Of course, their main motive is that the government restrictions make it harder for them to make $$$, but if they help get rid of an abuse of government power then they've more than earned it.
Perhaps the conflict between State and Corporation will ultimately do for economic liberty what the conflict between Crown and Church in the High Middle Ages did for intellectual liberty -- stir up the pot enough so that there is more room for maneuver than would be possible if either side could always get its way. /.
In this so called democracy of ours, we, the minority, have to bend to the will of the majority. That works ok in many cases, but shouldn't there be a limit on what the majority can impose on the minority?
That's why the Founders of the American Republic (they specifically and firmly rejected the notion of "democracy", which they understood to mean three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner) wrote specific limitations on government power into the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the government violates these limits left and right, and more often than not gets away with it.
As P. J. O'Rourke once put it: "Term limits aren't enough. We need jail." /.
Nope; you hear outraged citizens protesting yet another U.S. Government violation of the Constitution.
The Gvmnt right to a digital feed of phone info is emminent domain.
The doctine of eminent domain has nothing to do with communications. The Government not only has no "right" to conduct fishing-expedition broad surveillance, but in fact is specifically prohibited from doing so by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Believe it or not, they don't have time to track ordinary law abiding citizens, just the criminals.
You reveal a breathtaking ignorance of recent history -- have you really never heard of Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover?
Would you have a terrorist/drug trafficker in the US able to coordinate activities without any way for law enforcement to track his communications?
Shall I set up another one for you to knock down, and would you like it stuffed with polyfoam, rags, or the traditional straw?
Law enforcement has the authority to track the whereabouts and communications of specific individuals within a specific time period once a warrant for that purpose is issued. They will retain the ability to do so even if satellite feeds, strong encryption, etc. come into routine use -- all they have to do is plant old-fashioned bugs in the right places.
The main disadvantage with old-fashioned bugs is that planting them is labor-intensive. This is a minor PITA if the FBI only wants to monitor the relatively small number of targets (a few thousand per year) for which they have legitimate warrants. However, it is a show-stopper if the FBI wants to conduct wide-ranging fishing expeditions -- sooner or later, they'd be caught red-handed breaking the law and leaving physical evidence thereof.
The fact that the FBI treats new communications technologies as a harbinger of TEOTWAWKI thus raises grave suspicions as to their real agenda.
Think about it, you're opening Pandora's box; and folks like don't care who gets hurt.
Number of people murdered by their own governments in this century: 10^8, give or take a factor of two.
And you say the people who oppose dangerous expansions of government power are "opening Pandora's box"??
Riiiiggghhhttt.
True you take the risk that the law may be abused at some time
If you hire a convicted embezzler as your accountant, you "take the risk" that he may steal from you. This is more or less what the "trust the Feds" side of this debate is asking of us.
but then if you don't have such a law.. you can be certain that the loophole will be exploited by terrorists or criminals
The Constitution is not a loophole.
unfortunately our Founding Fathers had no idea of nukes, germ warfare, car bombs, etc.
This is the same braindead argument advanced by the people who pushed through the CDA -- our Founding Fathers had no idea of the Internet, so the First Amendment can't be applied to it. The Supreme Court correctly rejected this notion.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. If you have nothing to hide, you really have nothing to fear.
No matter how many times you have said it before or will say it again, this slogan remains as inane as ever. As long as governments abuse their powers, anyone who opposes government policy has something to fear.
But I personally support the right for the Law to fight back. You fight the Law...the Law will win.
I certainly hope so. The FBI is fighting the Law (specifically, the Fourth Amendment), and deserves to lose. /.
wow! imagine the business for green card lawyers!! interstellar immigration!! What a legal headache!!!
"INS, Division Six. I'm afraid we'll have to confiscate all these interstellar immigration visas; those all have to go through our department. Now, if you'll just look over here for a moment...." /.
Fix the system so that anyone in the country on an H1-B visa has to keep some H1-B-qualifying job, without any new paperwork for transferring from one to another.
Attach it to the next H1-B ceiling increase. If Silicon Valley businesses don't much care, then they're sincere about needing more tech workers. If they whine, then they've been lying, and all current H1-Bs should be converted to unrestricted long-term visas with an option of citizenship. It's that simple. /.
That's no answer. By the time spam hits your filter, the bandwidth costs have already been incurred (and, thus, your ISP rates are already forced 20% or so higher than they would be if the parasites were purged). /.
"It's bad for me, therefore it should be banned" is a corrupt argument: it's the same one that Janet Reno is using to get governments to ban cryptography.
You knocked that one down real good. Shall I set up another? Would you like it filled with polyfoam, old rags, or the traditional straw?
Of course, the argument for banning spam is not that it is in some vague sense "bad for me". The argument for banning spam is that it constitutes theft of the recipients' bandwidth.
If you want to control spam, find a way of passing the cost on to the originator.
Additional requirements: 1) No added burden on legitimate users of e-mail, 2) The spammer shells out the cash to his victims, not to some cookie jar accessible to politicians and other lower life forms. Extending the junk fax laws to cover e-mail would work, provided that the definition of the prohibited activity is properly crafter. /.
The key is tax neutrality. If it's taxed, then it shouldnt matter how you buy it - over the counter, through a catalog, through the phone, over the net, it should all get taxed the same.
Nonsense. If I physically visit a store, I am benefiting from the presence of police who make sure that I can bring my money in and take my goods out unmolested, firefighters who make sure the store doesn't burn down around me, etc. Thus, it is not unreasonable for me to pay taxes to support these services.
If I order remotely from somebody in Podunk, I am not receiving any of these benefits. (The store is, and should pay for them out of its own profit margin, but that's a different issue.) /.
the only rights people have in the US are expresly written into the Bill of Right and the constitution.
***BZZZZZTTT!!!*** Thank you for playing, and don't forget to pick up your consolation prize.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-- Article IX
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Article IX
The policy allows Canadians to develop, import and use whatever cryptography products they wish and does not impose mandatory key recovery requirements or a licensing regime.
Just add "export" to that list and they'll become world leaders in e-commerce and other fields requiring easy-to-use security in no time, eh?
Perhaps the US will then adopt import restrictions... in order to maintain some sliver of "American content".;-) /.
This is news? It's fairly obvious that the real target is not criminals (who will obtain and use illegal tools anyway -- they're criminals, duh) but average citizens who get on the government's bad side or are randomly targeted in order to give the bureaucrats something to do.
Interestingly, this seems to be a non-partisan issue, so I can't fall back on my traditional response of complaining about the Democrats.
That is also not surprising. Personally, I suggest that the Democrats and Republicans ditch their donkey and elephant symbols in favor of green and purple neck cloths. /.
Tell them you're a Balkan refugee who speaks no English
"I tell the guard that I've taken a vow of silence." -- Knights of the Dinner Table
Is this article supposed to be as stupid as it reads, or is it all intended sarcastically?
In responding to the first part, I made the point that, inasmuch as some of the theater policies are nominally "private" but fact government-imposed, opposition could legitimately be considered civil disobedience rather than contempt for private property rights. However, some of the suggestions here (piracy, helping kids sneak into movies without necessarily getting parental approval) are just over the line. /.
Slashdot Mirror
To paraphrase one of Asimov's observations, it's popular to oppose the scientific establishment because it gives you rebellion chic without the sort of nasty side effects (burning at the stake, incarceration a concentration camp, impoverishment, ostracism) that a real Establishment can inflict on its foes. Heroism without risking so much as a hangnail has an obvious appeal.
/.
The whole microevolution/macroevolution distinction is an intellectual three-card-monte shuffle used by creationists to dismiss the evidence. Anything which is established beyond sane doubt (e.g. Eophippus -> Equus in the fossil record, the evolution of poison resistance in bacteria and insects in current observation) is classified as "microevolution" so that "macroevolution" can be denied. Obviously, if all evidence is by definition placed into Box A, there will never be any in Box B.
/.
the 1st amend was written how long ago? how can you claim that the people who wrote it knew what they were talking about? i don't think you have the right to an internet connection, a desktop publishing setup, or anything else.
why are we limiting ourselves to the old constitution? what's the point of that? we could write a NEW one, that applies to todays times...
You want to suggest a new constitution that would protect all existing rights, and then some, with real teeth (Unconstitutional laws are illegal. Why aren't the politicians responsible for them in jail?), then I'm all ears. Otherwise, forget it.
/.
It's not an issue of how well we speak English.
It's an issue of recognizing that all government pronoucements must be run through the Newspeak-to-English translator. (Do they have one of those on the babelfish site?)
That goes double for papers issued by an administration led by the man who said that he might or might not be a perjurer depending on what the meaning of "is" is.
/.
Your parenthetical comment is reminiscent of the old joke about a football player, an acrobat, and an economist stranded on an island where the only source of food was a stand of coconut trees.
The acrobat tried climbing the trees, but couldn't get a grip on their smooth, non-branching trees.
The football player tried slamming into the trees to shake coconuts loose, without success.
Finally, the economist came up with the solution -- assume the availability of a 100' ladder.
Your assumption of the availability of intelligence in Washington DC is just as unrealistic.
In any case, how is Congress supposed to fine some site with a server on some see-no-evil Carribean island?
/.
When do the treason trials begin?
I'm not joking. This is an attack on the foundations of the Republic.
/.
This is one of the most stupid and offensive comments I've seen on /. (including the "First Post" gibberers in the sample).
The only non-medicinal drug I've ever consumed is caffeine, and I'm in favor of ending the War on Some Drugs before it destroys what's left of the Constitution.
/.
The problem with Katz's argument is his failure to distinguish between real censorship (see previous paragraph) on the one hand and legitimate private property rights and parental prerogatives on the other.
/.
You ruined your argument with one slash and one word. Parents have the right to make those decisions; politicians do not. By equating the two forms of control, you make yourself look as foolish as Katz did.
/.
Nonsense. Proof of innocence doesn't prevent corrupt politicians from targeting their enemies -- just ask Billy Dale. "Better information" just makes it possible for corrupt politicians to improve their aim.
/.
Perhaps the conflict between State and Corporation will ultimately do for economic liberty what the conflict between Crown and Church in the High Middle Ages did for intellectual liberty -- stir up the pot enough so that there is more room for maneuver than would be possible if either side could always get its way.
/.
That's why the Founders of the American Republic (they specifically and firmly rejected the notion of "democracy", which they understood to mean three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner) wrote specific limitations on government power into the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the government violates these limits left and right, and more often than not gets away with it.
As P. J. O'Rourke once put it: "Term limits aren't enough. We need jail."
/.
Nope; you hear outraged citizens protesting yet another U.S. Government violation of the Constitution.
The Gvmnt right to a digital feed of phone info is emminent domain.
The doctine of eminent domain has nothing to do with communications. The Government not only has no "right" to conduct fishing-expedition broad surveillance, but in fact is specifically prohibited from doing so by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Believe it or not, they don't have time to track ordinary law abiding citizens, just the criminals.
You reveal a breathtaking ignorance of recent history -- have you really never heard of Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover?
Would you have a terrorist/drug trafficker in the US able to coordinate activities without any way for law enforcement to track his communications?
Shall I set up another one for you to knock down, and would you like it stuffed with polyfoam, rags, or the traditional straw?
Law enforcement has the authority to track the whereabouts and communications of specific individuals within a specific time period once a warrant for that purpose is issued. They will retain the ability to do so even if satellite feeds, strong encryption, etc. come into routine use -- all they have to do is plant old-fashioned bugs in the right places.
The main disadvantage with old-fashioned bugs is that planting them is labor-intensive. This is a minor PITA if the FBI only wants to monitor the relatively small number of targets (a few thousand per year) for which they have legitimate warrants. However, it is a show-stopper if the FBI wants to conduct wide-ranging fishing expeditions -- sooner or later, they'd be caught red-handed breaking the law and leaving physical evidence thereof.
The fact that the FBI treats new communications technologies as a harbinger of TEOTWAWKI thus raises grave suspicions as to their real agenda.
Think about it, you're opening Pandora's box; and folks like don't care who gets hurt.
Number of people murdered by their own governments in this century: 10^8, give or take a factor of two.
And you say the people who oppose dangerous expansions of government power are "opening Pandora's box"??
Riiiiggghhhttt.
True you take the risk that the law may be abused at some time
If you hire a convicted embezzler as your accountant, you "take the risk" that he may steal from you. This is more or less what the "trust the Feds" side of this debate is asking of us.
but then if you don't have such a law.. you can be certain that the loophole will be exploited by terrorists or criminals
The Constitution is not a loophole.
unfortunately our Founding Fathers had no idea of nukes, germ warfare, car bombs, etc.
This is the same braindead argument advanced by the people who pushed through the CDA -- our Founding Fathers had no idea of the Internet, so the First Amendment can't be applied to it. The Supreme Court correctly rejected this notion.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. If you have nothing to hide, you really have nothing to fear.
No matter how many times you have said it before or will say it again, this slogan remains as inane as ever. As long as governments abuse their powers, anyone who opposes government policy has something to fear.
But I personally support the right for the Law to fight back. You fight the Law...the Law will win.
I certainly hope so. The FBI is fighting the Law (specifically, the Fourth Amendment), and deserves to lose.
/.
Do you mean the word "temporarily" or the word "is"?
/.
"INS, Division Six. I'm afraid we'll have to confiscate all these interstellar immigration visas; those all have to go through our department. Now, if you'll just look over here for a moment...."
/.
Attach it to the next H1-B ceiling increase. If Silicon Valley businesses don't much care, then they're sincere about needing more tech workers. If they whine, then they've been lying, and all current H1-Bs should be converted to unrestricted long-term visas with an option of citizenship. It's that simple.
/.
That's no answer. By the time spam hits your filter, the bandwidth costs have already been incurred (and, thus, your ISP rates are already forced 20% or so higher than they would be if the parasites were purged).
/.
You knocked that one down real good. Shall I set up another? Would you like it filled with polyfoam, old rags, or the traditional straw?
Of course, the argument for banning spam is not that it is in some vague sense "bad for me". The argument for banning spam is that it constitutes theft of the recipients' bandwidth.
If you want to control spam, find a way of passing the cost on to the originator.
Additional requirements: 1) No added burden on legitimate users of e-mail, 2) The spammer shells out the cash to his victims, not to some cookie jar accessible to politicians and other lower life forms. Extending the junk fax laws to cover e-mail would work, provided that the definition of the prohibited activity is properly crafter.
/.
Add the fact that it is un-Constitutional for a tax bill to originate in the Senate.
/.
Nonsense. If I physically visit a store, I am benefiting from the presence of police who make sure that I can bring my money in and take my goods out unmolested, firefighters who make sure the store doesn't burn down around me, etc. Thus, it is not unreasonable for me to pay taxes to support these services.
If I order remotely from somebody in Podunk, I am not receiving any of these benefits. (The store is, and should pay for them out of its own profit margin, but that's a different issue.)
/.
***BZZZZZTTT!!!*** Thank you for playing, and don't forget to pick up your consolation prize.
/.
Just add "export" to that list and they'll become world leaders in e-commerce and other fields requiring easy-to-use security in no time, eh?
Perhaps the US will then adopt import restrictions... in order to maintain some sliver of "American content". ;-)
/.
For the Saudi release, perhaps -- they've got plenty of time until 2000 Ante Hegira....
/.
Interestingly, this seems to be a non-partisan issue, so I can't fall back on my traditional response of complaining about the Democrats.
That is also not surprising. Personally, I suggest that the Democrats and Republicans ditch their donkey and elephant symbols in favor of green and purple neck cloths.
/.
"I tell the guard that I've taken a vow of silence." -- Knights of the Dinner Table
Is this article supposed to be as stupid as it reads, or is it all intended sarcastically?
In responding to the first part, I made the point that, inasmuch as some of the theater policies are nominally "private" but fact government-imposed, opposition could legitimately be considered civil disobedience rather than contempt for private property rights. However, some of the suggestions here (piracy, helping kids sneak into movies without necessarily getting parental approval) are just over the line.
/.