No, it's saying you need a well regulated militia, you can join it and it can be armed. It's pretty obvious, otherwise they would have just said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and skipped the whole militia part.
They didn't get paid by the word, the line about a militia is there for a reason.
If global warming is true and we do something to stop it, yay. If global warming is false and we do something but it turns out to just be a weather pattern, yay, I don't have to drink polluted water and breathe smog.
Corporations are a legal business structure defined by their charter. If everyone in the corporation quit, the corporation would still exist on paper. So, yes, a corporation can exist by itself. It's just not very useful.
Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
I should have addressed this in my other post.
A person in the act of journalism should be protected, not just a member of the press. The news company or lack of one is not relevant to this argument.
So, if a corporation does something illegal, how about we put it in jail? I'm very much for dissolving companies that break the law.
But we're off topic. See, the point you're missing is that corporations exist only at the pleasure of the people via their government. There is no situation where the corporate business structure can be construed as a human right.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to run a business, everyone should be able to run a business if they wish. However, I am saying people do not have a right to run a limited liability business structure. There's a difference, and that difference boils down to who is responsible for the actions of the business.
We can impose restrictions on what corporations can say and do, it's just a matter of properly changing corporate law. The question is, should we do it?
Fine. To claim that privacy while using the restroom is the same as privacy while using the computers and network that company is a logical fallacy.
Using the bathroom is a necessary biological function that most of the world [and I'm betting 100% of the people who work in offices] considers private. In fact, there are numerous laws that protect that privacy with very clear rules spelled out.
Using the network of the company that you work for is an optional perk of being employed by that company. The company may be bound by laws requiring them to monitor communication, SOX is a good example of this. Not using the company network is as simple as using a cell phone, laptop, iPad or one of the dozens of other devices that let you surf, call or play while not using their network and resources. Now, there are rules regarding listening in on phone conversations and web sessions, and they should have been clearly spelled out when you started using the network.
Finally, all businesses have restrooms available in some form, only a small percentage let you make calls or have internet access. It is inane to claim that privately using the phone or web through your employer is a right.
You suggest that they have to leave the building every time they need to manage childcare, health issues and the rest of their lives because...
No, I said if they didn't want to follow the regulations, they need to leave the network.
we're worried about what exactly?
Lawsuits, SEC violations, etc... depends on your business.
And no, I've never spied on HTTPS, and would make horrified-meme-face at anyone who suggested it.
Work for a company that requires SOX compliance, then get back to us. Not only will you monitor every single bit of communication, you will log it for years.
Let's go back in time to 1980, and pretend we're using the company phone to talk to a friend during lunch.
Do you think the company didn't know who you were communicating with? Do you think they didn't have the ability to listen in without you knowing?
Of course they had those abilities, and some people did get fired over making personal calls.
Don't like the policy? There's a pay phone in the lobby.
Now, back to 2012. Calls are replaced with web and email.
Why the fuck should they change? It's their network, they get the ability to see who you are talking to and what you are saying. The pay phone was replaced with your smartphone, don't like their policy, use your own phone.
Stop whining about a perk. You get them on their terms.
Beck is a hack. Actually, all of them are, Maddow, Limbaugh, etc...
The "news" attack style he and his counterparts use are so filled with holes and fallacies you could drive an entire interstate highway worth of trucks through them.
tools given to me is a shotgun, should i shoot my neighbors for the loud music? No? Call the police you say? Ask them to turn it down? Naw, nuke from orbit, i wont say anything just rip them apart.
False equivalence, murder and mass murder are not equal to a website service disruption. Next argument.
Suing is waaaay better. Site stays up, court decides, pay a judgement and you're done. As a website owner I would MUCH rather fight in court than watch the site go down for even a day.
Lawsuit, Step 1, injunction to stop ongoing infringement. Site is now down by court order, restore process now involves court schedule. Next argument.
ripping a business website off the internet is probably the worse thing you can do to a online business, hence nuke from orbit.
A very good point. I suggest we ask GoDaddy why they did that. Next argument.
I'm incredibly shocked the entire internet hasn't turned on this asshole and post every photo he's ever taken all over every website on earth.
Because he was right and his actions were, while a little harsh, justified and correct. GoDaddy was the group that overreacted. Next argument.
Screw this prick.
Your sexual preferences are not relevant to this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
After careful deconstruction of the app, I have discovered the VP candidate's name is "Force Close".
No, it's saying you need a well regulated militia, you can join it and it can be armed. It's pretty obvious, otherwise they would have just said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and skipped the whole militia part.
They didn't get paid by the word, the line about a militia is there for a reason.
Last I checked, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can have all the guns and ammo you want either.
Read it, you have the right to join a well regulated armed militia.
I have a better approach to the whole argument.
If global warming is true and we do something to stop it, yay.
If global warming is false and we do something but it turns out to just be a weather pattern, yay, I don't have to drink polluted water and breathe smog.
Corporations are a legal business structure defined by their charter. If everyone in the corporation quit, the corporation would still exist on paper. So, yes, a corporation can exist by itself. It's just not very useful.
Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
I should have addressed this in my other post.
A person in the act of journalism should be protected, not just a member of the press. The news company or lack of one is not relevant to this argument.
So, if a corporation does something illegal, how about we put it in jail? I'm very much for dissolving companies that break the law.
But we're off topic. See, the point you're missing is that corporations exist only at the pleasure of the people via their government. There is no situation where the corporate business structure can be construed as a human right.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to run a business, everyone should be able to run a business if they wish. However, I am saying people do not have a right to run a limited liability business structure. There's a difference, and that difference boils down to who is responsible for the actions of the business.
We can impose restrictions on what corporations can say and do, it's just a matter of properly changing corporate law. The question is, should we do it?
From what I hear, most newspaper editors are jerks. Assange is just a modern editor.
Fine.
To claim that privacy while using the restroom is the same as privacy while using the computers and network that company is a logical fallacy.
Using the bathroom is a necessary biological function that most of the world [and I'm betting 100% of the people who work in offices] considers private. In fact, there are numerous laws that protect that privacy with very clear rules spelled out.
Using the network of the company that you work for is an optional perk of being employed by that company. The company may be bound by laws requiring them to monitor communication, SOX is a good example of this. Not using the company network is as simple as using a cell phone, laptop, iPad or one of the dozens of other devices that let you surf, call or play while not using their network and resources. Now, there are rules regarding listening in on phone conversations and web sessions, and they should have been clearly spelled out when you started using the network.
Finally, all businesses have restrooms available in some form, only a small percentage let you make calls or have internet access. It is inane to claim that privately using the phone or web through your employer is a right.
Do you believe your company has the right to put cameras in ther bathrooms? If not, why not? You're using their facilities, after all!
Besides the laws against it?
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.
Go compare things that are alike and don't venture into fallacy land.
we have fundamental rights that shouldn't be lost merely because we're employed
Communication and speech are fundamental rights. Using someone's phone system for free is not.
In 1980, in NYC at least, all business calls were per minute. Local calls at a flat rate were for residential lines only.
Why should any of that be so?
Assume you're working for an investment company and someone is calling out with insider trading information.
How about I decide to start bittorrenting movies on the corporate network? I'm only doing it during lunch though.
Why should anyone lose any right to privacy merely because they work for a living?
Only while using their resources. Buy your own phone and do what you want on it.
How many companies, in 1980, had their own phone monitoring systems?
It's called the phone bill . You get it will all sorts of details, what call went to what number, and for how long.
No, the perk is letting you use their network for your life outside of work, as long as you follow their rules.
You suggest that they have to leave the building every time they need to manage childcare, health issues and the rest of their lives because...
No, I said if they didn't want to follow the regulations, they need to leave the network.
we're worried about what exactly?
Lawsuits, SEC violations, etc... depends on your business.
And no, I've never spied on HTTPS, and would make horrified-meme-face at anyone who suggested it.
Work for a company that requires SOX compliance, then get back to us. Not only will you monitor every single bit of communication, you will log it for years.
They can handle it.
Let's go back in time to 1980, and pretend we're using the company phone to talk to a friend during lunch.
Do you think the company didn't know who you were communicating with?
Do you think they didn't have the ability to listen in without you knowing?
Of course they had those abilities, and some people did get fired over making personal calls.
Don't like the policy? There's a pay phone in the lobby.
Now, back to 2012. Calls are replaced with web and email.
Why the fuck should they change? It's their network, they get the ability to see who you are talking to and what you are saying. The pay phone was replaced with your smartphone, don't like their policy, use your own phone.
Stop whining about a perk. You get them on their terms.
You forgot Rush and O'Reilly.
Beck is a hack. Actually, all of them are, Maddow, Limbaugh, etc...
The "news" attack style he and his counterparts use are so filled with holes and fallacies you could drive an entire interstate highway worth of trucks through them.
Now I'm not saying there are moles at Microsoft and Apple, but neither of them have reported back to me either way.
So, what are they hiding?
Please,
Tell us more about your opinions regarding a disabled 4 year old. Make sure to be as abusive as possible, after all, she's 4.
Sorry, I couldn't read that properly, could you perhaps use layers and the blink tag?
OMFSM! HOW DID YOU GET THAT KEY!?!?
oh, right http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/iso
'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do."
Honestly, and speaking as a New Yorker, I think the public wants the mayor to go fuck off. So, would Hizzoner please resign and move to Boston?
tl;dr: better than 50% of web development time is spent fixing the brokenness of Microsoft.
tl;dr: Joke chart from about 7 years ago.
Herp derp, old jokes R teh fun when yous peat dem 4 six yrs.
tools given to me is a shotgun, should i shoot my neighbors for the loud music? No? Call the police you say? Ask them to turn it down? Naw, nuke from orbit, i wont say anything just rip them apart.
False equivalence, murder and mass murder are not equal to a website service disruption. Next argument.
Suing is waaaay better. Site stays up, court decides, pay a judgement and you're done. As a website owner I would MUCH rather fight in court than watch the site go down for even a day.
Lawsuit, Step 1, injunction to stop ongoing infringement. Site is now down by court order, restore process now involves court schedule. Next argument.
ripping a business website off the internet is probably the worse thing you can do to a online business, hence nuke from orbit.
A very good point. I suggest we ask GoDaddy why they did that. Next argument.
I'm incredibly shocked the entire internet hasn't turned on this asshole and post every photo he's ever taken all over every website on earth.
Because he was right and his actions were, while a little harsh, justified and correct. GoDaddy was the group that overreacted. Next argument.
Screw this prick.
Your sexual preferences are not relevant to this discussion.
How about :
Some nobody wrote a really useful GPL program and a software company put it in their premier program without distributing source.