Not everyone uses commodity PC hardware. One of those x86 SGI boxes were still PCs, but they were completely redesigned, for example. They could've been running on a mainframe, for all you know. GP also didn't mention if it was IPv4 or IPv6, for that matter. We'd have to see what research team and which attempt first.:P
That people could get hurt with the car examples is not what makes you able to sue them, and not the only problem. The injury potential lends a large amount of creedence to the lawsuit, and will amplify damages. There may be criminal charges that go along with a known issue that causes injury.
Remember, this is a civil lawsuit, which means that the lawsuit could be on any grounds, legal or otherwise. If you don't have law to back you up, you will likely lose the case. So, in the regard of him filing the lawsuit, no, "the law" doesn't have any bearing. In the US you can file a civil suit for any reason that comes to your fancy.
In this case you also do have the problem of expectation. Another example would be if you were to go buy a TV, bring it home, and then find out that it doesn't include a tuner. It isn't what you expect of as a TV if it doesn't include a tuner, since you can't view television programming. There are TVs that are sold without tuners, but they disclose this clearly on the packaging. If you buy a deisel car, it is made clear that it runs on deisel fuel and not gasoline. You get the idea, I hope.
Similarly, the XBox 360 does not function as you expect a game console to function. They should have been much more clear about this up front. As I've said before, I don't think this really warrants a lawsuit, but it is rather bad business on MS' part. I expect, not desire, that there are any legal requirements that apply to MS to display a notice. It would just have meant they were being up front and honest with their customers, rather than misleading them to expect that it worked like all other previous game consoles.
Actually, yes, I am a huge proponent of personal freedom. The problem with all of these things that have been mentioned is that they are social problems. Laws do a horrible job of changing things when the problem is a social one.
We tried to attack alcohol for supposedly the same reason that we attack drugs now. It didn't work for alcohol for the same reason that it's a massive failure with drugs. People want to take drugs, and they wanted to drink alcohol. If you want to change it, you need to change people's perception of it, and creating a law banning it does not work.
Personally, I don't want people to take drugs. However, I detest the idea of the government, especially the Federal level, making laws about it. Taking them is a personal choice, and you are risking your own health by doing so. The idea of the government telling me what I'm allowed to do to myself is distateful. Even worse, it does not actually help anyone. We banned drugs, and the best outcome of that is that the people with that mentality find something else. The worst outcome is close to what we ended up with. We have many thousands of people in jail, rampant drug use, and powerful organised crime rings selling drugs. The street price is so high that the risk of being caught selling them isn't enough to deter people from doing so anyway.
Really, I like the idea of saving lives, but save the lives of those that *want* the help. Instead of pushing for more draconian laws, help advertise not doing drugs. Help with clinics to treat those that have decided to be rehabilitated. Try to convince people that do drugs to *not* do them. That is what will help.
It isn't necessarily the seatbelt thing that bothers me; it is the mentality that made it a law. I wear my seatbelt every time I put my car in gear, and I don't go anywhere if all the occupants aren't wearing one. That it is illegal for me or them to not wear the thing doesn't enter into my mind. I make a big deal about it because they do help save lives. I make a big deal about it being illegal to not wear it because it infringes on my personal freedom.
You had to buy it to read the manual. It is a defect that was made known to the purchaser after the fact. It *is* a defect, because it causes the product to not work properly, nor work like any of the other products of the same type, nor work the way most customers would want to use it. The manufacturer knew about the defect, but chose to not disclose it before you made the purchase.
The lawsuit is inappropriate, but this is the clearest way to make manufacturers learn to not make and sell sub-standard products.
The XBox 360 is a piece of consumer entertainment electronics. If you buy a DVD player, VCR, Nintendo, Playstation, TV, etc, you can put them in your entertainment center. People have been able to place all of their game consoles on carpet in the past. It is, in fact, expected that a game console can do this, since most people are not going to want to buy a pedestal for their XBox just so that the controllers reach and so that they can swap games easily.
It *is* a flaw in a piece of consumer entertainment electronics to not be able to do this. The product was poorly designed, and that's the problem here. If I bought a new device for my TV, and *then* found out that the design prevents me from using it the same as all my other devices, I would be quite upset. While I wouldn't sue, I *would* return it and not risk a similar experience with another of that vendor's products.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "the law" and everything to do with common usage. If you put a new car on the market, and neglect to tell people that you have to use this special gasoline that you can only get from the dealer, and if you don't, your car might catch fire, but you print this in the manual, you will very likely be sued in a class-action suit. This is because *your* version of the product works differently than every other product of that type, and requires special consideration, but you did not disclose this up front. These sorts of suits happen quite often. Hell, in the case of the car, you would likely be found liable criminally for that design, and there would very likely be heavy fines and a complete recall involved.
The issue is made much worse, since MS basically hid the flaw from customers until after they'd purchased the product. At least you can return an XBox once you find out the design is poor.
Another example of requiring this sort of disclosure up front is drug advertising. If you're marketing a new drug that alleviates allergies, for example, you have to disclose the side effects up front. People do not expect to take a drug and have it give them a heart attack. If you tell them that it could do that in a passage tucked inside of a manual, you open yourself up to lawsuits. You can't expect that most of your customers will read the manual.
I would prefer it to simply be good business practice and that's that. However, everyone has the *right* to sue anyone they want for whatever reason they want.
Actually, yes, I do know better than my traction control system at times. Under good driving conditions, the thing will often start screwing around if I accelerate too hard, or corner while accelerating. This takes control away from me, since it is now trying to compensate for something that I intended to have happen. During poor weather, I tend to leave it on because it deals with ice and hydroplaning better than me.
Then I would say that it sucks for the family. I have been in a situation with vehicles that if I hadn't been willing to start a huge fight over someone getting their seatbelt on, they would be dead. I have seen first-hand how they save lives. I still prefer the freedom to make the wrong decision to the government running my life. In your example, the father had the freedom to choose to be selfish and satisfy an immediate desire to not wear the seatbelt, or to think of himself his family and put it on.
The endpoint of *your* method is that nobody has cars. I *might* hit someone if I drive, so obviously I shouldn't be allowed. Also, we should ban everything *bad* because "think of the children". I shouldn't be allowed to smoke, I might die, and then my children wouldn't have a father. I shouldn't be allowed to skydive, bungee jump, go skiing, etc, etc, they're all too dangerous.
Your line of reasoning means that the government controls every aspect of my life, because I am incapable of knowing what's best. I would have zero freedom, because you've taken choice away from me. Moral choices *are* harder than I implied, and that's also why they shouldn't be law. Once you start playing that game, you end up with government making the decision of socially acceptable or not for me. Drinking is bad, so it's illegal; smoking is bad, so it's illegal; TV is good, but Internet is bad if you're under 18. That game gets very old even as it just starts. No thank you, freedom is the freedom to screw up as much as anything else.
It doesn't matter whether it heavily removes freedom of not. It *does* remove freedom, and so it should not be forced upon me. It's another item in a wave of victimless crimes, and it does nothing to actually fix the problem. All it means is that the government has another way to tax people, and another excuse to pull people over. People don't *need* to wear seatbelts, it's simply a very intelligent idea.
Honestly, this whole government knows best mentality is the single largest problem facing the country today, domestically. Get out of my house and stop trying to tell me how to live. I can make my own decisions without your help.
VW/Audi ships with class H tires (130mph) on all their cars. I imagine they do the same with the SUVs. I believe the Porsche SUV does come with class Z tires.
Limiters are almost always to do with regulation and insurance ratings. VW actually dropped the output of my engine when they did the US model. Apparently, it was for the same reason as many limiters; it seems that it kept it in a non-sports car insurance class.
You're thinking at this the wrong way. Wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be mandatory because it is your choice. You would be somewhat stupid for *not* wearing one, but you only endanger yourself by choosing to not wear it. By making it illegal to not wear one, you restrict the freedom of someone to choose not to wear it. It is a crime only because it was decided to use government force to limit the freedom of the vehicle occupant, under the guise of safety. Most people would wear seatbelts because they are more likely to survive a collision if they do.
As far as this system, I would remove such a device if I could. I do not want anything effecting the operation of my vehicle that does not have to. This is the same reason that I usually disable the traction control system in my car; it interferes with my ability to be in complete control of the vehicle.
People just need to learn that you punish people for committing a crime. That means *after* they have committed a crime, and have been convicted. At least they aren't talking about requiring such a device, just certifying it.
Government works better when they aren't playing moral police, social enforcer, and the general mommy and daddy of the populace. People need to be free to make their own decisions, even if those decisions will get them killed. A crime needs to start being simply an act that harms an unwilling person, be it their body or their property.
You could use the IDEALX smbldap-tools for the scripts and all. That would give you UNIX and Samba authentication and user account information, and control over groups, as well as a simple command line tool for passwords.
I agree with you, I would just add that this is exactly why we used to have the Senate to represent States right's. Before the 17th amendment, you had a check against the Federal taking power away from the States. Between the 16th and the 17th, it's nearly impossible for the States to be able to do what they need. We *did* have balance, and then we screwed it all up.
Yes, that's what I said.:) The Commerce clause doesn't stipulate civil rights, but it allowed a law to be passed that did. I don't mind having the exact case references, of course, they end up being very useful!
Seriously, the Federal should not be passing laws that govern individuals or businesses anyway. That should be for the States to decide independantly. Legislating to the individual is how we ended up with the inoperative, unmanagemable, and overbearing Federal that we have today.
Also, remember that the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination, exactly. The wording was such that it allowed programs, such as Affirmative Action, to come into existence. The wording also made it trivial for someone to sue an employer or business until Title VII, with often no evidence of discrimination. The Act is the cause of a great deal of discrimination, and it is used to often mandate discrimination.
The Federal can control them under the current arrangement by use of the FDA. The legality of the FDA is certianly questionable, but if the FDA says "no", then the drug isn't legal.
The Federal frequently oversteps it's boundaries by various devious methods. We just have little way of forcing them back in line with all the changes that have been made over the last 100 years. It's possible, but a long and arduous process.
Having a political leaning like yours is difficult. I feel similar, but you have to be consistent. My stance is that my body is my property, and the only say the government has over it is through arrest and trial. By making doing something to my body a crime, they have removed property that is guaranteed to me as an innate right. I don't like these drugs, and I wish people wouldn't use them, but it is their choice.
I feel that the law shouldn't come to bear until you have harm to another involved. If you drive a car into your own house, that should not be illegal. To cross your neighbor's property to do so should be illegal. Going out to the road and punching someone for yelling should be illegal, but someone asking you to hit them and getting such should not be.
In the case of your hospital example, though unfortunate, that's the right way. An injury is an injury even if it is your actions that caused it. If you don't want to wait for the addict with the OD, spend the extra money to get better care. I know that you almost certainly can't afford it, but you probably see what I'm getting at. Your example would get worse the more you turn health care into a government thing, and that seems to be the way people are pushing it.
It's a shame that people are so short-sighted, but we are, as a whole, just that. You can't legislate morality and expect something functional and proper. The only way we're going to get rid of drug addicts is to convince people to not do drugs. Making it illegal doesn't work, and is never going to work. It doesn't fix the actual social problem, but it does make things worse for everyone.
I'd say the biggest reason that drug laws are ridiculous is that they destroy the most important property right of all: your ownership of yourself. As much as people do things that many don't like, we shouldn't be legislating what you can do to yoursel Drugs are a social problem, and the law has always done a horrid job at dealing with such things. We didn't learn from Prohibition, and now we have something much worse.
Exactly why the Federal was never supposed to have the ability to levy direct tax! They took away from the ability of States to levy tax, and because of that, the Federal exerts control over the States. This is the direct result of the 16th amendment. The check that kept the Federal from doing much with it was then removed by the 17th amendment.
They do worse than what you mention by far, too. The Federal ends up with direct control over all aspects of State and local government operation because of the threat of revoking Federal monies. That means that every level of government is forced to operate the way the Federal wants.
It does not really make sense for them to have giving the Federal the ability for such broad powers. They were trying to keep the Federal small, and this is contradictory to doing so.
For other examples of that which we've destroyed in the last hundred years, we used to have State representation in Congress (removed via 17th amendment), and we limited the taxation of the Federal to excise and tariff (removed via 16th amendment).
The intent was to keep the Federal small so that it could not exert more than minimal force over the States and citizens.
Actually, no, it is not why business "can't" discriminate. The Civil Rights Act, passed in the 1960's, says that we *must* discriminate, to give additional privilege to groups that are decided to be disadvantaged. That act might have been possible due to the Commerce clause, but the clause was not what requires it. There was also that whole amendment to the Constitution that guarantees voting to everyone, and makes any form of poll tax illegal.
There is no reason to prevent a business from refusing to hire based on race. They would be shaken down in the market, since they would not be hiring the best people. What we've had since passing the Civil Rights Act is that people use their race to get privilege over others. Look at how ridiculous school aid is, or the quotas for different races and genders. Look at how hard it is to fire something if they are female or black, etc. This is not a good thing.
The people pushing for the Civil Rights Act wanted government to be barred from making any law giving favor to a race over another. Instead, they got a law that required it.
Realistically, you would not have segregation in the US today. People by and large don't care. You may have private individuals exercising their right to freedom of association in some cases, but that's all. It is disadvantageous to business to hire based on race or gender; that includes "giving a change to disadvantaged groups".
Miranda is great, as long as you're not an AIM user, really. It's big weakness is that they refuse to implement the reverse engineered OSCAR protocol. That makes the AIM feature set pale in comparison to every other IM client that does AIM.
In the case of these buy here/sell here places, it is the dealership's car. If you lease a car, it is the dealership's car. If you go to a dealer, choose a car, and secure a loan to pay for the car, it is *your* car.
You can do whatever you'd like to your car, as long as you do not violate the loan terms contract governing the security interest in the car. Most of those stipulate insurance coverages and limits as one of those terms. It is still perfectly legal for me to cut the roof off the car, weld a cage onto it, jack up the suspension, and use it as a dune buggy. I might violate the terms of the civil contract with the financer, but that is different. The State has no say in the matter, becase they aren't involved in my financing. The only thing that matters is the terms of the finance contract.
As has been said umpteen times, a lien says that the financer may take ownership of your property if you violate the terms of the contract. You're using the car's title as security for the loan. The government can place a lien on your real estate if you fail to pay your taxes, but that doesn't mean they now magically own the land. It just means that they're stating that they may take ownership of it if you do not fulfill your legal obligation to them.
All that aside, if there are people that are willing to put up with these devices, then whatever. There's nothing illegal about them, nor should there be. When you buy a car from these places, it simply isn't your car. You didn't buy the car, you bought a contract that says that after you pay a certain amount, the dealer will transfer the title to you. Because of that (and as long as this contract doesn't state otherwise), the dealer can place any conditions they want, at any time they want, on your use of the car, since it is the dealerships property. I wouldn't accept these terms, but if someone desperate enough may, and obviously does.
Taiwan was *not* a province of China at the time. Carters decision made sure it became one, as far as the world was concerned.
Around 1900 Taiwan was actually ruled by Japan, after China lost a war with them. After WWII, Japan was forced to relinquish control of it to the Republic of China. The ROC is different from the PRC (People's Republic of China) that rules China today. Around 1950, the ROC government lost a civil war with the what became the PRC for control of mainland China, and retreated to Taiwan. At this point, the PRC simply decided that they ruled Taiwan, even though the ROC was in control of Taiwan and Mongolia. Now, the ROC government was *also* dealing with possible rebellion and much unrest of the people that actually *lived* in Taiwan, but they were officially in charge.
During the Korean war, the US actually sent troops to help maintain Taiwan's independance from the mainland China communist PRC. The view of Taiwan as independant continued until Pres. Carter changed everything, by making actions and statements that also led many other governments to view the PRC as the governemnt of Taiwan.
Pres. Carter made legitimate the unsupported claim that the RPC made, rather than supporting the government that was actually in control of Taiwan.
I might have argued with you all through this tread, but the moderations on posts like yours are bullshit. You got slammed for linking a bunch of google queries that you were using as facts, and I got slammed for reiterating things printing in textbooks, encyclopedias, newpapers, and press releases. We both got slammed for fighting for our opinions. The only negative moderation that was appropriate on these really was Offtopic.
I'd say it's pretty equally Democrat asshats *and* Republican asshats doing most of the moderation on this one.
You did say that. It's just that putting morals in with government is a bad choice. The Federal collects more tax money so it can exercise more force. It does this by passing more legislation, creating new agencies, and expanding it's influence. Remember, anything governement does is a form of force, even if it is a good thing.
One of the problems with the Federal in the US is that while they collect most of the tax monies, they do not apportion it out in a way to properly provide for the force and services that it mandates. State and local governments are forced to collect additional revenue to pay for these Federal mandates.
It can be a real burden! I'm involved in the government for a large town (>16000 people) and let me tell you, trying to comply with just the State code is not easy to do with the revenue we can collect. Once you set aside the money to provide essentials, like police, fire, and roads, most of the rest go to schools. We fully depend on money coming in from the State and Federal to operate. It's no different anywhere else, unfortunately.
I'd agree that *morally* the Federal should assume the financial responsiblity. In reality, they simply do not.
My problem is that the things you call facts don't have any concrete backing. I could believe that it was all a set up purpetrated by the likes of Reagan or Bush, same as I can believe that it was just how things happened. It's much easier to believe that it was the flow of things without having data to the contrary to work off of. If you have any definitive source to back your claims, then provide it.
I don't trust the CIA worth a damn, and they've certainly done things of that ilk before and after. I also don't trust the RNC, DNS, or mass media, which are where your facts seem to come from. As you said, they've been wholly bought by corporations. It's one of the many reasons that I'm not a member of either party, and why I don't waste my life on TV. If you didn't get it from a primary source, there's a good chance that it isn't true, and you have no way to verify it.
The reason I was saying that Carter is a nice guy is because of a combination of the post-presidency work he's done and that he's never been slammed with criminal accustation. I still don't like him. He's very gullible, lacks the follow-through to finish situations, and doesn't know when to shut his mouth. The "Carter's decent" image you think I have is about him personally; he was incompetent in the presidency and should never have been elected. If the only two I had to choose from were Reagan and Carter, I wouldn't vote, but if I was forced to, it would be Reagan. I don't play the lesser of two evils game, though; everyone loses in that.
I'm actually in agreement with you. We're just talking about different parts of it, that's all.
I hadn't said that it was worse in Iraq now than before, just that it's bad there now. I have friends over there too, though most of them are over in/around Kuwait right now. I know that most of what gets put up on US news tends to be total BS; I don't need to ask anyone in Iraq to confirm that for me. In some regards, we might not know if terrorism has cut down because of how bad our news coverage tends to be. Now, I tend to agree with you that most of it *was* coming from the Middle East, and that they're focusing on the troops in Iraq right now, as targets.
The last thing I wanted to mention is that you don't need everyone to be pissed that you're there. There was a group in power in Iraq, and the US went over there and ripped it all apart. That's the sort of thing that creates terrorists that try to come over here and blow our stuff up. Sure, they were *already* likely terrorist types, but now they're targetting us instead of each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone uses commodity PC hardware. One of those x86 SGI boxes were still PCs, but they were completely redesigned, for example. They could've been running on a mainframe, for all you know. GP also didn't mention if it was IPv4 or IPv6, for that matter. We'd have to see what research team and which attempt first. :P
That people could get hurt with the car examples is not what makes you able to sue them, and not the only problem. The injury potential lends a large amount of creedence to the lawsuit, and will amplify damages. There may be criminal charges that go along with a known issue that causes injury.
Remember, this is a civil lawsuit, which means that the lawsuit could be on any grounds, legal or otherwise. If you don't have law to back you up, you will likely lose the case. So, in the regard of him filing the lawsuit, no, "the law" doesn't have any bearing. In the US you can file a civil suit for any reason that comes to your fancy.
In this case you also do have the problem of expectation. Another example would be if you were to go buy a TV, bring it home, and then find out that it doesn't include a tuner. It isn't what you expect of as a TV if it doesn't include a tuner, since you can't view television programming. There are TVs that are sold without tuners, but they disclose this clearly on the packaging. If you buy a deisel car, it is made clear that it runs on deisel fuel and not gasoline. You get the idea, I hope.
Similarly, the XBox 360 does not function as you expect a game console to function. They should have been much more clear about this up front. As I've said before, I don't think this really warrants a lawsuit, but it is rather bad business on MS' part. I expect, not desire, that there are any legal requirements that apply to MS to display a notice. It would just have meant they were being up front and honest with their customers, rather than misleading them to expect that it worked like all other previous game consoles.
Actually, yes, I am a huge proponent of personal freedom. The problem with all of these things that have been mentioned is that they are social problems. Laws do a horrible job of changing things when the problem is a social one.
We tried to attack alcohol for supposedly the same reason that we attack drugs now. It didn't work for alcohol for the same reason that it's a massive failure with drugs. People want to take drugs, and they wanted to drink alcohol. If you want to change it, you need to change people's perception of it, and creating a law banning it does not work.
Personally, I don't want people to take drugs. However, I detest the idea of the government, especially the Federal level, making laws about it. Taking them is a personal choice, and you are risking your own health by doing so. The idea of the government telling me what I'm allowed to do to myself is distateful. Even worse, it does not actually help anyone. We banned drugs, and the best outcome of that is that the people with that mentality find something else. The worst outcome is close to what we ended up with. We have many thousands of people in jail, rampant drug use, and powerful organised crime rings selling drugs. The street price is so high that the risk of being caught selling them isn't enough to deter people from doing so anyway.
Really, I like the idea of saving lives, but save the lives of those that *want* the help. Instead of pushing for more draconian laws, help advertise not doing drugs. Help with clinics to treat those that have decided to be rehabilitated. Try to convince people that do drugs to *not* do them. That is what will help.
It isn't necessarily the seatbelt thing that bothers me; it is the mentality that made it a law. I wear my seatbelt every time I put my car in gear, and I don't go anywhere if all the occupants aren't wearing one. That it is illegal for me or them to not wear the thing doesn't enter into my mind. I make a big deal about it because they do help save lives. I make a big deal about it being illegal to not wear it because it infringes on my personal freedom.
You had to buy it to read the manual. It is a defect that was made known to the purchaser after the fact. It *is* a defect, because it causes the product to not work properly, nor work like any of the other products of the same type, nor work the way most customers would want to use it. The manufacturer knew about the defect, but chose to not disclose it before you made the purchase.
The lawsuit is inappropriate, but this is the clearest way to make manufacturers learn to not make and sell sub-standard products.
The XBox 360 is a piece of consumer entertainment electronics. If you buy a DVD player, VCR, Nintendo, Playstation, TV, etc, you can put them in your entertainment center. People have been able to place all of their game consoles on carpet in the past. It is, in fact, expected that a game console can do this, since most people are not going to want to buy a pedestal for their XBox just so that the controllers reach and so that they can swap games easily.
It *is* a flaw in a piece of consumer entertainment electronics to not be able to do this. The product was poorly designed, and that's the problem here. If I bought a new device for my TV, and *then* found out that the design prevents me from using it the same as all my other devices, I would be quite upset. While I wouldn't sue, I *would* return it and not risk a similar experience with another of that vendor's products.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "the law" and everything to do with common usage. If you put a new car on the market, and neglect to tell people that you have to use this special gasoline that you can only get from the dealer, and if you don't, your car might catch fire, but you print this in the manual, you will very likely be sued in a class-action suit. This is because *your* version of the product works differently than every other product of that type, and requires special consideration, but you did not disclose this up front. These sorts of suits happen quite often. Hell, in the case of the car, you would likely be found liable criminally for that design, and there would very likely be heavy fines and a complete recall involved.
The issue is made much worse, since MS basically hid the flaw from customers until after they'd purchased the product. At least you can return an XBox once you find out the design is poor.
Another example of requiring this sort of disclosure up front is drug advertising. If you're marketing a new drug that alleviates allergies, for example, you have to disclose the side effects up front. People do not expect to take a drug and have it give them a heart attack. If you tell them that it could do that in a passage tucked inside of a manual, you open yourself up to lawsuits. You can't expect that most of your customers will read the manual.
I would prefer it to simply be good business practice and that's that. However, everyone has the *right* to sue anyone they want for whatever reason they want.
Actually, yes, I do know better than my traction control system at times. Under good driving conditions, the thing will often start screwing around if I accelerate too hard, or corner while accelerating. This takes control away from me, since it is now trying to compensate for something that I intended to have happen. During poor weather, I tend to leave it on because it deals with ice and hydroplaning better than me.
Then I would say that it sucks for the family. I have been in a situation with vehicles that if I hadn't been willing to start a huge fight over someone getting their seatbelt on, they would be dead. I have seen first-hand how they save lives. I still prefer the freedom to make the wrong decision to the government running my life. In your example, the father had the freedom to choose to be selfish and satisfy an immediate desire to not wear the seatbelt, or to think of himself his family and put it on.
The endpoint of *your* method is that nobody has cars. I *might* hit someone if I drive, so obviously I shouldn't be allowed. Also, we should ban everything *bad* because "think of the children". I shouldn't be allowed to smoke, I might die, and then my children wouldn't have a father. I shouldn't be allowed to skydive, bungee jump, go skiing, etc, etc, they're all too dangerous.
Your line of reasoning means that the government controls every aspect of my life, because I am incapable of knowing what's best. I would have zero freedom, because you've taken choice away from me. Moral choices *are* harder than I implied, and that's also why they shouldn't be law. Once you start playing that game, you end up with government making the decision of socially acceptable or not for me. Drinking is bad, so it's illegal; smoking is bad, so it's illegal; TV is good, but Internet is bad if you're under 18. That game gets very old even as it just starts. No thank you, freedom is the freedom to screw up as much as anything else.
It doesn't matter whether it heavily removes freedom of not. It *does* remove freedom, and so it should not be forced upon me. It's another item in a wave of victimless crimes, and it does nothing to actually fix the problem. All it means is that the government has another way to tax people, and another excuse to pull people over. People don't *need* to wear seatbelts, it's simply a very intelligent idea.
Honestly, this whole government knows best mentality is the single largest problem facing the country today, domestically. Get out of my house and stop trying to tell me how to live. I can make my own decisions without your help.
VW/Audi ships with class H tires (130mph) on all their cars. I imagine they do the same with the SUVs. I believe the Porsche SUV does come with class Z tires.
Limiters are almost always to do with regulation and insurance ratings. VW actually dropped the output of my engine when they did the US model. Apparently, it was for the same reason as many limiters; it seems that it kept it in a non-sports car insurance class.
You're thinking at this the wrong way. Wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be mandatory because it is your choice. You would be somewhat stupid for *not* wearing one, but you only endanger yourself by choosing to not wear it. By making it illegal to not wear one, you restrict the freedom of someone to choose not to wear it. It is a crime only because it was decided to use government force to limit the freedom of the vehicle occupant, under the guise of safety. Most people would wear seatbelts because they are more likely to survive a collision if they do.
As far as this system, I would remove such a device if I could. I do not want anything effecting the operation of my vehicle that does not have to. This is the same reason that I usually disable the traction control system in my car; it interferes with my ability to be in complete control of the vehicle.
People just need to learn that you punish people for committing a crime. That means *after* they have committed a crime, and have been convicted. At least they aren't talking about requiring such a device, just certifying it.
Government works better when they aren't playing moral police, social enforcer, and the general mommy and daddy of the populace. People need to be free to make their own decisions, even if those decisions will get them killed. A crime needs to start being simply an act that harms an unwilling person, be it their body or their property.
You could use the IDEALX smbldap-tools for the scripts and all. That would give you UNIX and Samba authentication and user account information, and control over groups, as well as a simple command line tool for passwords.
I agree with you, I would just add that this is exactly why we used to have the Senate to represent States right's. Before the 17th amendment, you had a check against the Federal taking power away from the States. Between the 16th and the 17th, it's nearly impossible for the States to be able to do what they need. We *did* have balance, and then we screwed it all up.
Yes, that's what I said. :) The Commerce clause doesn't stipulate civil rights, but it allowed a law to be passed that did. I don't mind having the exact case references, of course, they end up being very useful!
Seriously, the Federal should not be passing laws that govern individuals or businesses anyway. That should be for the States to decide independantly. Legislating to the individual is how we ended up with the inoperative, unmanagemable, and overbearing Federal that we have today.
Also, remember that the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination, exactly. The wording was such that it allowed programs, such as Affirmative Action, to come into existence. The wording also made it trivial for someone to sue an employer or business until Title VII, with often no evidence of discrimination. The Act is the cause of a great deal of discrimination, and it is used to often mandate discrimination.
The Federal can control them under the current arrangement by use of the FDA. The legality of the FDA is certianly questionable, but if the FDA says "no", then the drug isn't legal.
The Federal frequently oversteps it's boundaries by various devious methods. We just have little way of forcing them back in line with all the changes that have been made over the last 100 years. It's possible, but a long and arduous process.
Having a political leaning like yours is difficult. I feel similar, but you have to be consistent. My stance is that my body is my property, and the only say the government has over it is through arrest and trial. By making doing something to my body a crime, they have removed property that is guaranteed to me as an innate right. I don't like these drugs, and I wish people wouldn't use them, but it is their choice.
I feel that the law shouldn't come to bear until you have harm to another involved. If you drive a car into your own house, that should not be illegal. To cross your neighbor's property to do so should be illegal. Going out to the road and punching someone for yelling should be illegal, but someone asking you to hit them and getting such should not be.
In the case of your hospital example, though unfortunate, that's the right way. An injury is an injury even if it is your actions that caused it. If you don't want to wait for the addict with the OD, spend the extra money to get better care. I know that you almost certainly can't afford it, but you probably see what I'm getting at. Your example would get worse the more you turn health care into a government thing, and that seems to be the way people are pushing it.
It's a shame that people are so short-sighted, but we are, as a whole, just that. You can't legislate morality and expect something functional and proper. The only way we're going to get rid of drug addicts is to convince people to not do drugs. Making it illegal doesn't work, and is never going to work. It doesn't fix the actual social problem, but it does make things worse for everyone.
I'd say the biggest reason that drug laws are ridiculous is that they destroy the most important property right of all: your ownership of yourself. As much as people do things that many don't like, we shouldn't be legislating what you can do to yoursel Drugs are a social problem, and the law has always done a horrid job at dealing with such things. We didn't learn from Prohibition, and now we have something much worse.
Exactly why the Federal was never supposed to have the ability to levy direct tax! They took away from the ability of States to levy tax, and because of that, the Federal exerts control over the States. This is the direct result of the 16th amendment. The check that kept the Federal from doing much with it was then removed by the 17th amendment.
They do worse than what you mention by far, too. The Federal ends up with direct control over all aspects of State and local government operation because of the threat of revoking Federal monies. That means that every level of government is forced to operate the way the Federal wants.
It does not really make sense for them to have giving the Federal the ability for such broad powers. They were trying to keep the Federal small, and this is contradictory to doing so.
For other examples of that which we've destroyed in the last hundred years, we used to have State representation in Congress (removed via 17th amendment), and we limited the taxation of the Federal to excise and tariff (removed via 16th amendment).
The intent was to keep the Federal small so that it could not exert more than minimal force over the States and citizens.
Actually, no, it is not why business "can't" discriminate. The Civil Rights Act, passed in the 1960's, says that we *must* discriminate, to give additional privilege to groups that are decided to be disadvantaged. That act might have been possible due to the Commerce clause, but the clause was not what requires it. There was also that whole amendment to the Constitution that guarantees voting to everyone, and makes any form of poll tax illegal.
There is no reason to prevent a business from refusing to hire based on race. They would be shaken down in the market, since they would not be hiring the best people. What we've had since passing the Civil Rights Act is that people use their race to get privilege over others. Look at how ridiculous school aid is, or the quotas for different races and genders. Look at how hard it is to fire something if they are female or black, etc. This is not a good thing.
The people pushing for the Civil Rights Act wanted government to be barred from making any law giving favor to a race over another. Instead, they got a law that required it.
Realistically, you would not have segregation in the US today. People by and large don't care. You may have private individuals exercising their right to freedom of association in some cases, but that's all. It is disadvantageous to business to hire based on race or gender; that includes "giving a change to disadvantaged groups".
Miranda is great, as long as you're not an AIM user, really. It's big weakness is that they refuse to implement the reverse engineered OSCAR protocol. That makes the AIM feature set pale in comparison to every other IM client that does AIM.
In the case of these buy here/sell here places, it is the dealership's car. If you lease a car, it is the dealership's car. If you go to a dealer, choose a car, and secure a loan to pay for the car, it is *your* car.
You can do whatever you'd like to your car, as long as you do not violate the loan terms contract governing the security interest in the car. Most of those stipulate insurance coverages and limits as one of those terms. It is still perfectly legal for me to cut the roof off the car, weld a cage onto it, jack up the suspension, and use it as a dune buggy. I might violate the terms of the civil contract with the financer, but that is different. The State has no say in the matter, becase they aren't involved in my financing. The only thing that matters is the terms of the finance contract.
As has been said umpteen times, a lien says that the financer may take ownership of your property if you violate the terms of the contract. You're using the car's title as security for the loan. The government can place a lien on your real estate if you fail to pay your taxes, but that doesn't mean they now magically own the land. It just means that they're stating that they may take ownership of it if you do not fulfill your legal obligation to them.
All that aside, if there are people that are willing to put up with these devices, then whatever. There's nothing illegal about them, nor should there be. When you buy a car from these places, it simply isn't your car. You didn't buy the car, you bought a contract that says that after you pay a certain amount, the dealer will transfer the title to you. Because of that (and as long as this contract doesn't state otherwise), the dealer can place any conditions they want, at any time they want, on your use of the car, since it is the dealerships property. I wouldn't accept these terms, but if someone desperate enough may, and obviously does.
In these cases, it is often amusing to turn to Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dicitonary".
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.
"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."
"Then why do you not become an atheist?"
"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."
"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."
Yeah, it was cool debating/typing with you. It's nice having intelligent conversation on here every now and then. ;-)
Hope you enjoy your time with family/friends this season, too!
Taiwan was *not* a province of China at the time. Carters decision made sure it became one, as far as the world was concerned.
Around 1900 Taiwan was actually ruled by Japan, after China lost a war with them. After WWII, Japan was forced to relinquish control of it to the Republic of China. The ROC is different from the PRC (People's Republic of China) that rules China today. Around 1950, the ROC government lost a civil war with the what became the PRC for control of mainland China, and retreated to Taiwan. At this point, the PRC simply decided that they ruled Taiwan, even though the ROC was in control of Taiwan and Mongolia. Now, the ROC government was *also* dealing with possible rebellion and much unrest of the people that actually *lived* in Taiwan, but they were officially in charge.
During the Korean war, the US actually sent troops to help maintain Taiwan's independance from the mainland China communist PRC. The view of Taiwan as independant continued until Pres. Carter changed everything, by making actions and statements that also led many other governments to view the PRC as the governemnt of Taiwan.
Pres. Carter made legitimate the unsupported claim that the RPC made, rather than supporting the government that was actually in control of Taiwan.
I might have argued with you all through this tread, but the moderations on posts like yours are bullshit. You got slammed for linking a bunch of google queries that you were using as facts, and I got slammed for reiterating things printing in textbooks, encyclopedias, newpapers, and press releases. We both got slammed for fighting for our opinions. The only negative moderation that was appropriate on these really was Offtopic.
I'd say it's pretty equally Democrat asshats *and* Republican asshats doing most of the moderation on this one.
You did say that. It's just that putting morals in with government is a bad choice. The Federal collects more tax money so it can exercise more force. It does this by passing more legislation, creating new agencies, and expanding it's influence. Remember, anything governement does is a form of force, even if it is a good thing.
One of the problems with the Federal in the US is that while they collect most of the tax monies, they do not apportion it out in a way to properly provide for the force and services that it mandates. State and local governments are forced to collect additional revenue to pay for these Federal mandates.
It can be a real burden! I'm involved in the government for a large town (>16000 people) and let me tell you, trying to comply with just the State code is not easy to do with the revenue we can collect. Once you set aside the money to provide essentials, like police, fire, and roads, most of the rest go to schools. We fully depend on money coming in from the State and Federal to operate. It's no different anywhere else, unfortunately.
I'd agree that *morally* the Federal should assume the financial responsiblity. In reality, they simply do not.
My problem is that the things you call facts don't have any concrete backing. I could believe that it was all a set up purpetrated by the likes of Reagan or Bush, same as I can believe that it was just how things happened. It's much easier to believe that it was the flow of things without having data to the contrary to work off of. If you have any definitive source to back your claims, then provide it.
I don't trust the CIA worth a damn, and they've certainly done things of that ilk before and after. I also don't trust the RNC, DNS, or mass media, which are where your facts seem to come from. As you said, they've been wholly bought by corporations. It's one of the many reasons that I'm not a member of either party, and why I don't waste my life on TV. If you didn't get it from a primary source, there's a good chance that it isn't true, and you have no way to verify it.
The reason I was saying that Carter is a nice guy is because of a combination of the post-presidency work he's done and that he's never been slammed with criminal accustation. I still don't like him. He's very gullible, lacks the follow-through to finish situations, and doesn't know when to shut his mouth. The "Carter's decent" image you think I have is about him personally; he was incompetent in the presidency and should never have been elected. If the only two I had to choose from were Reagan and Carter, I wouldn't vote, but if I was forced to, it would be Reagan. I don't play the lesser of two evils game, though; everyone loses in that.
I'm actually in agreement with you. We're just talking about different parts of it, that's all.
I hadn't said that it was worse in Iraq now than before, just that it's bad there now. I have friends over there too, though most of them are over in/around Kuwait right now. I know that most of what gets put up on US news tends to be total BS; I don't need to ask anyone in Iraq to confirm that for me. In some regards, we might not know if terrorism has cut down because of how bad our news coverage tends to be. Now, I tend to agree with you that most of it *was* coming from the Middle East, and that they're focusing on the troops in Iraq right now, as targets.
The last thing I wanted to mention is that you don't need everyone to be pissed that you're there. There was a group in power in Iraq, and the US went over there and ripped it all apart. That's the sort of thing that creates terrorists that try to come over here and blow our stuff up. Sure, they were *already* likely terrorist types, but now they're targetting us instead of each other.