Seriously though, I think we'd have a lot less meat eaters with such a system implemented, and that WOULD reduce environmental damage under other current systems.
Homo Sapiens existed for a couple hundred thousand years before animal domestication, in which time our ancestors at a LOT of meat that they had to kill and butcher themselves. While some present-day humans might have some initial squeamishness about killing what they eat, I think they'd get over it quickly. Our ancestors had to do it, why couldn't we?
Everyone spies on everyone. It doesn't make it right, but it's an unwritten rule of global politics. Now if you want to be real transparent about it, make spying a non-international crime. Any nation who gets caught can't have it used against them in diplomacy.
I'm sure there's probably plenty of spying between allied countries where the spy gets caught, and they just get sent home for "unrelated" reasons. No need to cause a huge embarrassing international incident between friends. Now something like US vs Soviet cold war era spying, that was usually taken much more seriously.
Oh, do you really think they haven't? Think the economic disasters of the bad lettuce, the bad peanuts, all the other recent disasters, were just unusual accidents?
I think those just go down to good old fashioned American corner-cutting for the sake of profit.
Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police.
An interesting note here is that only certain sobriety tests are legally required. If the cop asks you to touch your nose, walk in a straight line, say the alphabet backwards, etc., those are unofficial tests meant to establish probable cause. You're not legally required to take those tests. They also have portable breathalizer tests that you're generally not legally required to take, as they're usually not approved as official toxicology tests.
However, you are generally required to take the official toxicology scan that usually takes place at the police station, so if they think you've been drinking and driving (or using other drugs) they can take you to the station for a test.
You can still refuse that, but you'll lose your license in most states.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't really legal advice, etc.
The question of whether a dog is smarter than a cat or vice versa is largely irrelevant. The human definitions of intelligence (and more specifically, our culture's definitions of intelligence) might match up closer with one animal or the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Dogs are much more in tune with human behavior than cats are. They're better at reading body language, better at communicating with us, etc. Their social structure isn't exactly like that of humans, but it's closer to ours than a cat's is.
Cats are better at being cats, dogs are better at being dogs. Dogs are probably slightly better at being humans, so we declare them to be smarter.
All that aside, I actually did attend a KKK rally once (as a protester, because fuck those hateful assholes.) To get anywhere near the rally, you had to be searched by police, couldn't bring anything remotely resembling a weapon, and then the pro-Klan and anti-Klan attendees were separated from each other. The whole place was surrounded by local and state police, and national guard members, snipers on the rooftops, etc. It was pretty crazy.
Without that much security, I have no doubt that multiple people would have wound up dead, with the level of anger both sides were spewing towards each other. Any time someone causes that much of a disruption to normal law enforcement activity, they're going to need a permit.
The fourth amendment says the government can't force you to submit to a search. They're not forcing you. You don't HAVE to get on that plane. They're not going to send you jail if you don't submit to the search, they're not letting you get on the plane.
Actually, if you refuse to submit to the search, you're subjected to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. You can't just say "no" and then leave the security area.
Not quite the same as sending you to prison, no... but enough of a threat nonetheless.
That's REAL education. The proper reaction is to become bitter, irate, and determined to change the system.
Or more likely, decide that it's not worth getting kicked out of school for a little bit of p2p traffic, and meekly accept whatever anyone in authority decides is best.
Yeah, I use my network connection in my lab to seed a few dozen different Linux distributions, uploading 10's of GB/day.
If you're using that much bandwidth, I doubt they'd care if it was legal or illegal p2p usage. A lot of networks would use any excuse they could find to cut you off or throttle your bandwidth so you're not hogging it all.
No, my argument was that your theory that the reason "people" (not one single person) don't like Obama is because of his race exposes you for an idiot.
So out of a country of approximately 300 million people, there aren't "people" who don't like Obama because of his race. Not members of the KKK, not members of a Nazi group, no one.
The fact that I (and others) believe that racism exists and might be a motivating factor in how those people feel about Obama somehow puts us on the same level as some conspiracy theorists exposes you for a fucking idiot AND a troll.
Hasty generalization much? Or, do you have a large enough sample to come to that conclusion? Maybe you have a dog in this fight?
Your argument was that no one hates Obama because of his race. A sample size of one person who hates Obama because of his race is large enough to discredit that theory.
And let us not forget there are plenty of people out there who have lost jobs (or not gotten them) due to background checks that can look inside people's accounts...
Wait... what? Got more info on this? I've never heard of it happening.
There's also a lot of pro-lifers who are libertarians, based on the belief that the fetus deserves the full rights of an adult human and it's not within the mother's rights to infringe on the rights of the fetus.
Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian nor a pro-lifer.
We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.
About 60%+ of Americans are overweight. Apparently they do need someone telling them what they should and shouldn't be eating, because they sure can't figure it out on their own.
It wouldn't be revolutionaries with guns vs an army with guns any more. It'd be revolutionaries with assault rifles vs an army with carpet bombing aircraft.
Which is why Vietnam, Iraq II and Afghanistan were all such easy victories.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
That's not quite the way it happened. "We considered 287 amendments. 161 of those...accepted were Republican amendments. You can vote against the bill if you want, but don't suggest to me that this process denied people a chance to be heard, to be involved, and to be engaged. " - Chris Dodd
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
Your opinion is not as valid; you provide absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Locke's reasoning was weak, but he at least had some. Fair enough. Honestly, since this is Slashdot, I didn't really feel like typing out a giant treatise about my take on property rights, only to hear the same old arguments for and against it. I've heard them all before. We've all heard them all before. I'm not going to change anyone's mind here.
So you do actually recognize property rights, you just don't happen to have any? I recognize that someone's claim on property is backed by a threat of either direct force, or of the law. That doesn't mean I recognize their claim as legitimate. Whether or not I have any is irrelevant.
(And your definition of civilization is mistakenly broad.) This is an unusual claim, since I never made any mention of a definition of "civilization."
And who should we believe instead, you? Sure, if you want. My opinion is just as valid:)
If you're against the idea of private property, join a commune. No one is stopping you. Actually, if I wanted to withdraw from civilization, either by myself or with a group of people, I'd have to find some unowned land to live on. Good luck with that.
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out. This seems to be a major stumbling block for non-libertarian types
Locke claimed property rights as a natural right. This is simply incorrect, which might be why non-libertarian types have a problem with it. Just because Locke said it doesn't mean we have to believe it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, I think we'd have a lot less meat eaters with such a system implemented, and that WOULD reduce environmental damage under other current systems.
Homo Sapiens existed for a couple hundred thousand years before animal domestication, in which time our ancestors at a LOT of meat that they had to kill and butcher themselves. While some present-day humans might have some initial squeamishness about killing what they eat, I think they'd get over it quickly. Our ancestors had to do it, why couldn't we?
While you're sitting there hoping and waiting I'll be out campaigning for and voting for Libertarian candidates
If Libertarians are that third party, I believe I'll wait for a fourth party.
You have every right to track my activities and I have every right to purchase back my own privacy.
Why should you have to purchase back something that rightfully belongs to you?
Its interesting that there never seem to be any internal Russian or Chinese revelations.
Actually, it seems there are some Russian secrets:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11208_moscowsbidtoblowupwikileaksrussiansplaybydifferentrules
Everyone spies on everyone. It doesn't make it right, but it's an unwritten rule of global politics. Now if you want to be real transparent about it, make spying a non-international crime. Any nation who gets caught can't have it used against them in diplomacy.
I'm sure there's probably plenty of spying between allied countries where the spy gets caught, and they just get sent home for "unrelated" reasons. No need to cause a huge embarrassing international incident between friends.
Now something like US vs Soviet cold war era spying, that was usually taken much more seriously.
Oh, do you really think they haven't? Think the economic disasters of the bad lettuce, the bad peanuts, all the other recent disasters, were just unusual accidents?
I think those just go down to good old fashioned American corner-cutting for the sake of profit.
Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police.
An interesting note here is that only certain sobriety tests are legally required. If the cop asks you to touch your nose, walk in a straight line, say the alphabet backwards, etc., those are unofficial tests meant to establish probable cause. You're not legally required to take those tests. They also have portable breathalizer tests that you're generally not legally required to take, as they're usually not approved as official toxicology tests.
However, you are generally required to take the official toxicology scan that usually takes place at the police station, so if they think you've been drinking and driving (or using other drugs) they can take you to the station for a test.
You can still refuse that, but you'll lose your license in most states.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't really legal advice, etc.
The question of whether a dog is smarter than a cat or vice versa is largely irrelevant. The human definitions of intelligence (and more specifically, our culture's definitions of intelligence) might match up closer with one animal or the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Dogs are much more in tune with human behavior than cats are. They're better at reading body language, better at communicating with us, etc. Their social structure isn't exactly like that of humans, but it's closer to ours than a cat's is.
Cats are better at being cats, dogs are better at being dogs. Dogs are probably slightly better at being humans, so we declare them to be smarter.
such as what got the Klansmen in question in the parent post put in prison...
in China, you'd be the government. In the US, you're arrested.
Don't forget, the KKK *did* have a lot of influence in government in the early part of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
US Senators, Supreme Court justices, Presidents...
All that aside, I actually did attend a KKK rally once (as a protester, because fuck those hateful assholes.)
To get anywhere near the rally, you had to be searched by police, couldn't bring anything remotely resembling a weapon, and then the pro-Klan and anti-Klan attendees were separated from each other. The whole place was surrounded by local and state police, and national guard members, snipers on the rooftops, etc. It was pretty crazy.
Without that much security, I have no doubt that multiple people would have wound up dead, with the level of anger both sides were spewing towards each other.
Any time someone causes that much of a disruption to normal law enforcement activity, they're going to need a permit.
The fourth amendment says the government can't force you to submit to a search. They're not forcing you. You don't HAVE to get on that plane. They're not going to send you jail if you don't submit to the search, they're not letting you get on the plane.
Actually, if you refuse to submit to the search, you're subjected to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. You can't just say "no" and then leave the security area.
Not quite the same as sending you to prison, no... but enough of a threat nonetheless.
That's REAL education. The proper reaction is to become bitter, irate, and determined to change the system.
Or more likely, decide that it's not worth getting kicked out of school for a little bit of p2p traffic, and meekly accept whatever anyone in authority decides is best.
Yeah, I use my network connection in my lab to seed a few dozen different Linux distributions, uploading 10's of GB/day.
If you're using that much bandwidth, I doubt they'd care if it was legal or illegal p2p usage. A lot of networks would use any excuse they could find to cut you off or throttle your bandwidth so you're not hogging it all.
No, my argument was that your theory that the reason "people" (not one single person) don't like Obama is because of his race exposes you for an idiot.
So out of a country of approximately 300 million people, there aren't "people" who don't like Obama because of his race.
Not members of the KKK, not members of a Nazi group, no one.
The fact that I (and others) believe that racism exists and might be a motivating factor in how those people feel about Obama somehow puts us on the same level as some conspiracy theorists exposes you for a fucking idiot AND a troll.
Hasty generalization much?
Or, do you have a large enough sample to come to that conclusion? Maybe you have a dog in this fight?
Your argument was that no one hates Obama because of his race.
A sample size of one person who hates Obama because of his race is large enough to discredit that theory.
And let us not forget there are plenty of people out there who have lost jobs (or not gotten them) due to background checks that can look inside people's accounts...
Wait... what? Got more info on this? I've never heard of it happening.
People who think Obama is hated because of his race are just as clueless as people who think he doesn't have a birth certificate. You're all morons.
True of false: there's a non-zero percentage of Americans who hate Obama based on his race.
It might not be a majority of Obama-haters, but I know for a fact that it has been a motivating factor for some.
On abortion..
There's also a lot of pro-lifers who are libertarians, based on the belief that the fetus deserves the full rights of an adult human and it's not within the mother's rights to infringe on the rights of the fetus.
Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian nor a pro-lifer.
We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.
About 60%+ of Americans are overweight.
Apparently they do need someone telling them what they should and shouldn't be eating, because they sure can't figure it out on their own.
I think he was being facetious.
It's hard to tell. So many libertarians are on the cusp of self-parody.
It wouldn't be revolutionaries with guns vs an army with guns any more. It'd be revolutionaries with assault rifles vs an army with carpet bombing aircraft.
Which is why Vietnam, Iraq II and Afghanistan were all such easy victories.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
That's not quite the way it happened.
"We considered 287 amendments. 161 of those...accepted were Republican amendments. You can vote against the bill if you want, but don't suggest to me that this process denied people a chance to be heard, to be involved, and to be engaged. " - Chris Dodd
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
Your opinion is not as valid; you provide absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Locke's reasoning was weak, but he at least had some.
Fair enough. Honestly, since this is Slashdot, I didn't really feel like typing out a giant treatise about my take on property rights, only to hear the same old arguments for and against it. I've heard them all before. We've all heard them all before. I'm not going to change anyone's mind here.
So you do actually recognize property rights, you just don't happen to have any?
I recognize that someone's claim on property is backed by a threat of either direct force, or of the law. That doesn't mean I recognize their claim as legitimate. Whether or not I have any is irrelevant.
(And your definition of civilization is mistakenly broad.)
This is an unusual claim, since I never made any mention of a definition of "civilization."
I do know what it means, thank-you-very-much.
Oh, how I hate to reply to ACs, but here goes:
And who should we believe instead, you? :)
Sure, if you want. My opinion is just as valid
If you're against the idea of private property, join a commune. No one is stopping you.
Actually, if I wanted to withdraw from civilization, either by myself or with a group of people, I'd have to find some unowned land to live on. Good luck with that.
My mistake. I'll submit the following as a correction:
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out.
Locke claimed property rights as a natural right. This is simply incorrect. Just because Locke said it doesn't mean we have to believe it.
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out.
This seems to be a major stumbling block for non-libertarian types
Locke claimed property rights as a natural right. This is simply incorrect, which might be why non-libertarian types have a problem with it. Just because Locke said it doesn't mean we have to believe it.