I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.
..or perhaps she felt that gunfire was a possible occurance and was taking reasonable steps to improve her safety.
If you're heading into a potentially dangerous situation, being prepared is not the same as wanting confrontation. Granted I didn't know the person and you did, but there are different ways of interpreting an action.
Have you ever considered that news reporting by nature is a 'liberal' profession. i.e. that ideally they are supposed to report the facts without spin and not concern themselves with national security or actively trying to support a political ideology to 'balance' things.
The fact that liberal views happen to fall in line with the views of reporting in general isn't politics it's the nature of the profession.
I believe that persistent risk of personal harm is necessary to keep some members of society who begrudgingly participate from violating my (and others') freedoms.
You and the poster you replied to have very different expectations of normal social behavior. You seem to perceive the *presence* of another armed individual who is not an employee of the designated governing group as an incursion on your freedom. It is not. He views the disallowance of weapons as stripping him of his protection from crime at his destination (and however remotely possible, on the flight). He is correct, and the current prohibitions don't make much sense. If a significant portion of travelers were armed, then one may suppose that they will be sufficiently interested in the continuance of their lives to take action against criminals bent on taking theirs and others'.
I think you're making a few assumptions about people in general here that are false.
First of all you are making the assumption that you being armed is an affront to my freedom. It isn't, it's an affront to safety. Secondly you make an assumption that if everyone were armed then those who would seek to do harm would be interested in the continuance of thier lives. This is also a falsehood in todays current climate. Those who would seek to do harm in the situation you're likely describing care nothing more than completing a 'mission' with no regards to their own lives.
I know you'll follow up with 'armed people could prohibit said criminals from completing their tasks. I'll save you the trouble of argument on that one and tell you I'm going to disagree and that we're going to have to agree to disagree.
It is also equally likely that since we are both probably US citizens on opposite ends of the political spectrum unwilling to change our positions that we will simply cancel each other out politically speaking.
However that being said, I will agree on one minor point. That current restrictions do border on the ridiculous and common sense is needed as much as increased security. I see too much inflexibility these days regarding overly analyzed rules and regulations.
Ironic, I was saying that only a few years ago! and I was addressing the point of freedom being 'absolute' not about 'social contracts' which would be 'slavery' according to the previous poster.
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
..but by your definition, Freedom = Anarchy (i.e one can do anything he or she wants to whomever they want whenever they want)...which isn't really conducive for a civil society. The kind of freedom you're talking about exists, but you're gonna have to strip naked and head to the jungle.
To be pedantic it was actually a unanimous 7 person decision rather than a single person. However being that as it may, the only way to reverse this is to amend the states constitution which will require enough popular support to push it through.
So perhaps, but Iowa isn't as conservative as it's stereotype. So I'm a bit skeptical on an amendment being passed in 2012.
The sale of music via the internet and mobile phones has increased by 100 percent since the
Swedish anti-file sharing IPRED law entered into force last week, according to digital content provider InProdicon.
I'm sorry, but I'd use any numbers provided by content providers with a grain, or a block, of salt. It would not surprise me in the least if numbers weren't fluffed a little or a lot to provide further leverage for future legislation.
Now... how about providing a link regarding your statement about the record labels deciding what price Apple was going to set for music in iTunes? I mean, if you're going to call someone out, certainly you are prepared to back up your own statements as well...
"In exchange for the ability to set prices, record labels agreed to sell all songs on iTunes without "digital rights management" technology that hampers users' abilities to copy tracks or play them on multiple "
There you have straight from TFA.. The record labels agreed to sell tracks without DRM in exchange for the ability to **SET PRICING**.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. Where you've provided an example of Apple using a higher price for an individual added component.
(if I'm not mistaken Apple RAM uses higher tolerances than normal for their RAM - and you can certainly find comparably priced RAM from PC manufacturers for the same tolerance for PC's. This is an assumption so I'll save you some price hunting).
I was speaking of a past instance where Apple has raised the price of a currently released product or service. Surely you can find one of those, because that was in fact the subject.
No... based on Apple's past pricing structures, I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple is just taking the opportunity to pad their wallets even more.
..and which past pricing structures would those be? I mean if you're going to be a big fan of logic, at least use some numbers.
This is Apple we're talking about, so what would anyone expect? I mean, they add money for adding a white apple to a laptop, so clearly, a few cents here and there on each and every song wouldn't warrant a change.
Actually this is not Apple we're talking about. From what I understand, the labels are the ones behind the price increases. Apple had to basically agree or the labels wouldn't allow Apple to have them on ITMS.
Brand fanboy, brand hater; Opposite sides of the same coin.
Because emailled files get onto your computer magically without you downloading them, right?
Depends on your browswer. I remember quite distinctly using browswers that downloaded email content automatically and if you were smart you scanned the file manually if you wanted to open it, if it was not from a known friendly source.
Because we're in the middle of 300 millions people speaking English.
It's not only a language, it's a culture.
And I can assure you that we have not many points in common with the rest of the north america.
If you wan't to provide an equivalent example to English speaking Americans. Just ask how they feel about protecting the English language from Spanish influence rising from growing Mexican population in the south.
"Posession of an over the counter medication is NOT by any means probably cause for a strip search"
it was prescription strength ibuprofen.. not condoning the actions of the school in any way, but just saying it wasn't technically 'over the counter'..
...third party candidates are hardly ever a viable option in the U.S. (or were you trying to pass off McCain/Palin as better?)
To be honest there should be an abolition of parties in general.. if there could be a way to do it. At least then we might actually be voting on candidates based on platform rather than by simplified colors and symbols.
Investors, having heard that Obama has the successful in his cross hairs and intends to seize the fruits of their labor and give it to the unsuccessful in the name of fairness, are panicking.
Don't you mean the fruits of other people's labor. Last time I checked investors don't actually produce anything.
What makes people think that we even have anywhere near the technology to receive a signal that can travel across an entire galaxy and be received by another entity.
Would you expect some tribe in the Amazon to be able to receive radio signals?
"Hello? Hello?... I don't understand. I keep transmitting but there's no reply!??"
Now, maybe if we were transmitting in drumbeats or some such we'd get better results. Granted this example is the inverse of what tfa is written about, but the point is the same.
You know why Congress is broken and ineffective? It's because the American people themselves are broken and ineffective, more concerned about getting theirs than looking to a higher goal. They elect representatives who share their views and like a disease it affects the functioning of congress. Once people start getting past their bitter partisan bickering Americas strength will return.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.
..or perhaps she felt that gunfire was a possible occurance and was taking reasonable steps to improve her safety.
If you're heading into a potentially dangerous situation, being prepared is not the same as wanting confrontation. Granted I didn't know the person and you did, but there are different ways of interpreting an action.
Have you ever considered that news reporting by nature is a 'liberal' profession. i.e. that ideally they are supposed to report the facts without spin and not concern themselves with national security or actively trying to support a political ideology to 'balance' things. The fact that liberal views happen to fall in line with the views of reporting in general isn't politics it's the nature of the profession.
Inflation means that the currency has been devalued, thus we have too much money. I realise it's a joke, but even jokes need to make sense.
I'll bet you're a blast at parties.
Perhaps all our money really WAS disappearing through a black hole!
I believe that persistent risk of personal harm is necessary to keep some members of society who begrudgingly participate from violating my (and others') freedoms.
You and the poster you replied to have very different expectations of normal social behavior. You seem to perceive the *presence* of another armed individual who is not an employee of the designated governing group as an incursion on your freedom. It is not. He views the disallowance of weapons as stripping him of his protection from crime at his destination (and however remotely possible, on the flight). He is correct, and the current prohibitions don't make much sense. If a significant portion of travelers were armed, then one may suppose that they will be sufficiently interested in the continuance of their lives to take action against criminals bent on taking theirs and others'.
I think you're making a few assumptions about people in general here that are false. First of all you are making the assumption that you being armed is an affront to my freedom. It isn't, it's an affront to safety. Secondly you make an assumption that if everyone were armed then those who would seek to do harm would be interested in the continuance of thier lives. This is also a falsehood in todays current climate. Those who would seek to do harm in the situation you're likely describing care nothing more than completing a 'mission' with no regards to their own lives. I know you'll follow up with 'armed people could prohibit said criminals from completing their tasks. I'll save you the trouble of argument on that one and tell you I'm going to disagree and that we're going to have to agree to disagree. It is also equally likely that since we are both probably US citizens on opposite ends of the political spectrum unwilling to change our positions that we will simply cancel each other out politically speaking. However that being said, I will agree on one minor point. That current restrictions do border on the ridiculous and common sense is needed as much as increased security. I see too much inflexibility these days regarding overly analyzed rules and regulations.
Orwell was only off by a couple of decades.
Ironic, I was saying that only a few years ago! and I was addressing the point of freedom being 'absolute' not about 'social contracts' which would be 'slavery' according to the previous poster.
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
..but by your definition, Freedom = Anarchy (i.e one can do anything he or she wants to whomever they want whenever they want) ...which isn't really conducive for a civil society. The kind of freedom you're talking about exists, but you're gonna have to strip naked and head to the jungle.
No one will care... until it makes money, THEN someone will speak up.. guaranteed.
To be pedantic it was actually a unanimous 7 person decision rather than a single person. However being that as it may, the only way to reverse this is to amend the states constitution which will require enough popular support to push it through. So perhaps, but Iowa isn't as conservative as it's stereotype. So I'm a bit skeptical on an amendment being passed in 2012.
California, of all places, couldn't agree on gay marriage. Imagine then the rest of the country.
Iowa, of all places, could agree on gay marriage. Imagine then the rest of the country.
Swedish anti-file sharing IPRED law entered into force last week, according to digital content provider InProdicon.
I'm sorry, but I'd use any numbers provided by content providers with a grain, or a block, of salt. It would not surprise me in the least if numbers weren't fluffed a little or a lot to provide further leverage for future legislation.
Now... how about providing a link regarding your statement about the record labels deciding what price Apple was going to set for music in iTunes? I mean, if you're going to call someone out, certainly you are prepared to back up your own statements as well...
Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_en_mu/tec_apple_itunes_prices
"In exchange for the ability to set prices, record labels agreed to sell all songs on iTunes without "digital rights management" technology that hampers users' abilities to copy tracks or play them on multiple "
There you have straight from TFA.. The record labels agreed to sell tracks without DRM in exchange for the ability to **SET PRICING**.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. Where you've provided an example of Apple using a higher price for an individual added component.
(if I'm not mistaken Apple RAM uses higher tolerances than normal for their RAM - and you can certainly find comparably priced RAM from PC manufacturers for the same tolerance for PC's. This is an assumption so I'll save you some price hunting).
I was speaking of a past instance where Apple has raised the price of a currently released product or service. Surely you can find one of those, because that was in fact the subject.
No... based on Apple's past pricing structures, I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple is just taking the opportunity to pad their wallets even more.
..and which past pricing structures would those be? I mean if you're going to be a big fan of logic, at least use some numbers.
This is Apple we're talking about, so what would anyone expect? I mean, they add money for adding a white apple to a laptop, so clearly, a few cents here and there on each and every song wouldn't warrant a change.
Actually this is not Apple we're talking about. From what I understand, the labels are the ones behind the price increases. Apple had to basically agree or the labels wouldn't allow Apple to have them on ITMS.
Brand fanboy, brand hater; Opposite sides of the same coin.
Because emailled files get onto your computer magically without you downloading them, right?
Depends on your browswer. I remember quite distinctly using browswers that downloaded email content automatically and if you were smart you scanned the file manually if you wanted to open it, if it was not from a known friendly source.
Because we're in the middle of 300 millions people speaking English.
It's not only a language, it's a culture.
And I can assure you that we have not many points in common with the rest of the north america.
If you wan't to provide an equivalent example to English speaking Americans. Just ask how they feel about protecting the English language from Spanish influence rising from growing Mexican population in the south.
"Posession of an over the counter medication is NOT by any means probably cause for a strip search"
it was prescription strength ibuprofen.. not condoning the actions of the school in any way, but just saying it wasn't technically 'over the counter'..
Identical is worse when better was an option.
...third party candidates are hardly ever a viable option in the U.S. (or were you trying to pass off McCain/Palin as better?)
To be honest there should be an abolition of parties in general.. if there could be a way to do it. At least then we might actually be voting on candidates based on platform rather than by simplified colors and symbols.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
And if your goal is the opposite, what is the order in which one removes these boxes from use?
I think our corporations/government are doing a fine job of just removing them all about the same time.
Government hates video games, but it loves money!
Give enough money and a government will love whatever you hand to it.
-OR-
Investors, having heard that Obama has the successful in his cross hairs and intends to seize the fruits of their labor and give it to the unsuccessful in the name of fairness, are panicking.
Don't you mean the fruits of other people's labor. Last time I checked investors don't actually produce anything.
What makes people think that we even have anywhere near the technology to receive a signal that can travel across an entire galaxy and be received by another entity.
Would you expect some tribe in the Amazon to be able to receive radio signals?
"Hello? Hello?... I don't understand. I keep transmitting but there's no reply!??"
Now, maybe if we were transmitting in drumbeats or some such we'd get better results. Granted this example is the inverse of what tfa is written about, but the point is the same.
You know why Congress is broken and ineffective? It's because the American people themselves are broken and ineffective, more concerned about getting theirs than looking to a higher goal. They elect representatives who share their views and like a disease it affects the functioning of congress. Once people start getting past their bitter partisan bickering Americas strength will return.
The father, a minister, had a 9mm handgun that the son, who played video games, used as the tool for his action.
So lets see.
Religion.
Guns.
Video Games.
Which one is not enshrined in U.S. culture and will therefore be blamed.