The alternative is also failing pretty miserably too, just less dramatically and in much slower motion. Perhaps there is a solution that doesn't require existing on either extreme. Somewhere between Marx and Rand (both ideological nutjobs, who had a couple of salvageable points) there might be a proper solution. It will never happen because the rich and powerful like the status quo in either scenario, and normal people never matter.
I personally think unmitigated, and consequence free greed, like that which rules America today, which we somehow conflated with virtue, is just as bad as Communism.
This patent argument highlights this. Having a patent on artificial life would be fine and dandy if it was VERY specific, and only barred advancement on one axis. This patent sounds like it bars artificial life, by whatever method, which hurts the public well-being. Ideally, one could only patent an implication of artificial life, and not the class as a whole. This is like having a patent on the idea of manufacturing, where the real domain for patents should be in the manufactured widgets.
Somehow we forgot that all limited monopolies (copyright, patents) are granted only for the good of the people, and not for the profit of one individual. They compromise between these two areas, offering a carrot on a stick to clever inventors to force them to use their greed to benefit the rest of us.
d he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work. Personally, I'd much rather have a great guy (great "man") as my neighbor than a great writer.
If we take "man" as "mankind", then there is much much more to it than merely the family stuff. Family stuff is very important, if thats your thing, but to some it is completely insignificant, to some the power of their passions drives them beyond the "mere temporal" acts of raising a family or being "pleasant neighbors". Twain or Van Gogh have had a far larger influence on the world than if they would have sat around the house raising a brood of well-adjusted brats. Anyone can raise a family, but very few people had the timeless wit and talent of Mark Twain.
Its like chastising astronauts, or the worlds great explorers, because they should have been home with the "fam". Some people dream much grander dreams, than being home-bodies.
If you mean "man" as in "has a y chromosome", then your still wrong. Men have often fallen far far short of the "family" bar, probably more men have been bad husbands and fathers than there have been ones that you would fine acceptable. The image of a "good husband" is pretty modern, for much of history a father was off killing bears, or corn, or something instead of being a loving whatnot.
Re:So the Robinsons finally made it home?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
And the worst part, Jack is an ass who I never developed even a tiny bit of empathy for.
I spend 3 seasons hoping that they would randomly kill him off (and Kate as well), and turn it into the Hurley show, and later the Desmond show. I spent the last two seasons realizing that the writers have a massive love affair with him, and thus he must be "the most special man alive", and finding little real life things to do while watching the episodes that focus on him ("oh lord, its a Jack show, I'm going to clean the litter box with Lost on in the background, I'm going to clean it for a full hour, too.")
Jack was the weakest, and least enjoyable character. Often jack seemed like the protagonist in a Final Fantasy game.
I hope they make a spin-off show where it is just Desmond and Hurley running around with Locke.
It also annoys me that Lost wasn't about the Island. The Island more of a character than most of the characters.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I kind of like that kind of story, but then again I think Twin Peaks was the best show that was ever on T.V. I like stories that don't wrap up neatly in the end, and give you a precise answer to all the mysteries. I feel that the more surreal things are, the more they mirror life. There is no definite answers in life, there is mostly mystery, ad hoc explanations, and various flavors of hypothesis that exist to be endlessly mulled.
That is how Hollywood killed every movie based on a Philip Dick story; by wrapping it all up, and telling the viewer the proper interpretation of events, where in the story your generally left pondering what exactly was real, and what exactly was in the protagonists head.
The mystery keeps it interesting long after the show or book ends. It makes it a bit more engaging.
I view lost like a television version of the book House of Leaves. Except with more religious overtones.
Though to be honest, I feared it devolving into a religious allegory early in the first season.
ou have the right to do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't harm others. The Government has no right to tell you otherwise without according you due process of law
We agree completely on that.
but I take issue with the Government telling them they can't do business with me.
I see no problem with this, if there was due process, and the methods for compiling the list were as open as possible (keeping in mind valid security concerns).
More influence than most of the current attempts at a psychic understanding of our founders, but still a limited view into a limited amount of the key players motivations. And at some points the Federalist Papers espouse views that go against parts of the actual drafted Constitution.
The main thing I worry about in all the extra-textual analysis, and attempts to read a single founders murky mind and apply it to the Constitution as a whole is that it is a process very prone to bias. People like to pick sources with statements that they agree with, and ignore those that oppose their pet ideologies. In a lot of way Constitutional arguments (especially the ones based on extra-textual analysis) are like Biblical arguments, it is easy to cherry pick data to make the full text say what you want it to say, and equally easy for your opponents to pick text that contradicts your point.
Yes and no. You are right about the pure Constitutional wording, but you ignore the actual writing of many of the founders who were aiming for a pure secular government. Many of our founders wouldn't even be considered Christian by many of the strange-fundamentalists of today (but then again Jesus probably would be rather confused and sickened by them, C'est la vie). You also ignore our legal tradition, and the fact that our government was made to change with the times. SCOTUS pretty much made the current view of the Establishment Clause, which also is completely legal and Constitutional.
Also having the State endorse a single religion, and rule from its principles at the exclusion of others, is pretty much making a de facto state religion, which is unconstitutional in a pretty conservative sense. I find it hard to find common ideological ground with people who think our government should be anything but areligious.
Try reading "George Washington's Sacred Fire" by Peter A. Lillback for a historically correct look at what the founders intended.
By this you of course mean "an interpretation of facts that happens to align with my ideologies". The founding fathers were anything but unified on anything. They had a very diverse range of views that were often contradictory. The Constitution is a political document, meaning it is mainly compromises and concessions. It is the best document we could have, mind, but it is pretty much divorced from the personal philosophy of any single founder. Their individual thoughts on any given topic really doesn't matter one bit from a legalistic stand-point.
Wow, I have a right to Blue Bunny Strawberry ice cream now! If a store refuses to sell it to me, they are infringing on my rights! I also mysteriously aquired the right to buy heroin at 7-11, the Constitution doesn't specifically bar it, so therefore it must be a right!
Which just goes to say I find the very term "rights" to be completely meaningless. They are a useful social construct, useful, but ultimately nothing more than a complete fiction with absolutely no basis in objective fact. A right is only that which you can convince other people that you have. It also goes to explain how we completely misuse the term so often, and often completely forget the actual basis of the term in Western political philosophy.
Your ability to fly freely only applies to the level where it doesn't squash others ability, and is completely limited by what the owner of the conveyance wishes (which to me throws the whole "flying is a right down the tubes", since when do rights affect such trivial things as other people's specific property). If there is a perceived risk that you may harm others, I have no problem with barring you from flight. There is a level of acceptable risk, and that is something open to public debate, and public standards, but past that level you should be barred. This is fine, and is completely in line with our intellectual traditions.
You conflate a minor particular with the set that contains it. Travel can be construed as a right, but not the particulars (this driving isn't a right, nor is flying, or boating, or...). The real problem is the violation of due process, which is a recognized, and enumerated, right.
The government is violating your right to due process, not your so-called "right" to use an airline's property.
Last I checked the US$ was much more stable than the Euro, and we don't have a very nasty crisis on the horizon either, like, say, a significant number of member states who functionally have no economy anymore. Performance and stability wise the Dollar is a surer bet.
One is private data which they voluntarily gave Google by using their service, and the other is public data which they're giving out to the whole world.
I don't see it as my responsibility to protect people for their own, entirely avoidable, ignorance. Yes, people have the right (as such) to be ignorant of their electronic tools, but this does not guarantee protection.
The alternative is putting governmental pressure on everyone to purchase Best Buy "security services" when they purchase a router.
No. The the alternative is doing nothing whatsoever. Even my completely computer illiterate father know that he should secure his connection, he doesn't know how to, but he knows that he should, and he knows that the resources are out there. If he does nothing, armed with this knowledge, then all problems are squarely his fault.
Google is a multibillion dollar corporation and as such, is expected to exercise a modicum of responsibility when it exercises the powers those multi billions of dollars grants them.
So, if I walk by your house while taking a move, and I catch a brief glimpse inside your window on film, am I doing something wrong? Should I be arrested? Should I only be arrested if I'm already rich and powerful? Should you be at fault for keeping your window open? Should the manufacture of your windows be forced to make them black to ensure the privacy of people to ignorant to use shades?
To make this even more analogous, I accidentally film the inside of your house through the window, but never actually publicly release it.
But he is still a Republican, party wise, currently. When he last ran, he ran on the Republican ticket.
A little more off-topic, I never understood the Ron Paul thing. Granted I am not a Libertarian (upper case. I am a "lower case" libertarian, though), but Paul didn't quite fit the bill. He had some wonky social policies which more matched the Republican mold than the Libertarian one, such as his views on the place of religion in Government.
. When the Government deprives you of liberty without due process we have a problem....
I completely agree, but this doesn't mitigate the fact that flying is not a right. Due process is a right (or should be considered as such), flight still isn't.
Ron Paul is a Republican. He runs on the Republican ticket, he sits with the Republicans in Congress. He is on the libertarian spectrum of the Republican party, but is still a Republican.
Not everything in life is a "right". You don't have the "right" to drive a car. You don't have the "right" to junk food. You sure as hell don't have the "right" to air travel. I'm sick of the abuse of the word "right", it has become an egotistic term of mindless entitlement.
How is flying not a right? It is a minor surface phenomena. Travel might be a right, but HOW you travel isn't. If I, as an owner of an plane, tell you your not allowed on my plane, for whatever reason, am I violating your rights? No.
I agree the no-fly list is bad, and very dubious, but conflating it to a violation of your "right to fly in a privately owned airplane" is silly.
All escalation schemes can be said to do the same thing. Linux asking for SU password, or requiring SUDO just trains people to mash their password, same for OS X's password prompts. The only difference (on the surface) between the security of OS X/Linux and Win7 is the amount of work required to confirm administrative actions.
There really isn't much of a difference between clicking "Allow", and typing your SU password and hitting "Okay".
What rights escalation scheme could be summed up as doing more than "training end users to click okay"?
You do not have a constitutional right to deliberately provoke religious (or racial) intolerance - if you believe you have that right, that makes you a bigot. So if the cap fits, wear it.
First Amendment. You even have the right to believe that the White Race is awesome, and everyone else is basically a monkey deserving death, and that Hitler guy was awesome!. You have the right to say as much, out loud, in public. I find this belief odious, but it is a right, and worth defending.
Also... as for deliberately provoking religious intolerance... That doesn't make much sense. Our Constitution doesn't say that we only have the limited range of rights proscribed by the least tolerant us. And you can't provoke intolerance, they were intolerant BEFORE the action that provoked them happened. These cartoons did not make these extremists intolerant, they are only a target for preexisting intolerance.
Its like saying all Gays should move out of communities that are predominantly intolerant Christian extremists. Or blacks should be forced to leave areas known for having large KKK membership.
No. the intolerant should be uncomfortable, and should NEVER be listened to. They should not have ANY power over anyone, it only encourages them. People should make fun of them at the drop of a hat. Do you have a problem with making fun of those nutjobs who claim Katrina (or 9/11, or tsunamis, or earthquakes) are caused by cleavage, or the existence of gay people?
Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
I'd find it distasteful, but I wouldn't threaten to kill them, or put a large bounty on their heads, or anything even close to what the radical Muslim community is doing. Actually, I would probably shake my head, go "tsk-tsk-tsk", and go on living my life. If it was a television channel, I would simply turn it off. If a magazine or paper, I would close it, and walk away. I would AVOID it, not try to brutally murder anyone who offended me. I think offence is largely the problem of the offended, they chose to be offended, they chose to react violently. People have free will, and personal responsibility, thats why "she was asking for rape", or "his cartoon of my personal subjective religious icon made me try to hurt him" aren't valid defenses. If I make fun of you, or your dog, or your God, are you justified in hurting me? Is your response my fault?
If this was a response to a group of normal Muslims who just went "ugh. tsk-tsk-tsk", then this would be a VERY silly gesture. This isn't a response to this. This isn't even aimed at normal sane and civilized Muslims, this is aimed straight at a group of crazy people who want to tell you how to act.
I suppose, in a sense, it is aimed at normal Muslims... Not disrespectfully, but it is saying "look at the people who are giving you a bad name, you realize how silly this is, right?".
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
As a very vocal atheist, who LOVES a good argument, I have yet to be shot by one of these gun toting Christians. The least Christian of them have said some rather nasty words, and implied some nasty things for my mythical immortal soul, but it has never gotten down to violence. Most of them just shrug and move on with their lives, knowing damn well my opinion doesn't matter to them (I think that Jesus guy liked this approach best), some of them get into a lively debate with me, and we end the encounter on a friendly note. The nasty ones are a minority. they always are. It just seems the Muslims have a nastier minority than most right now, and somehow this nasty minority has ceased power (I suppose being willing to kill anyone for any reason has its perks) and is basically holding the majority of Muslims hostage.
Very nice troll. I'm not sure if it was inadvertent, but well played!
This fits very well for both groups, the irreverent blasphemers, and the stuffy fundamentalists, it also works for those whose PC sympathies have gotten to the point where no one should be allowed to say anything that might even mildly offend some random slob somewhere in the world.
This Facebook group is not doing this for "artistic" reasons, they're doing it just to try to piss someone off.
I see it more as a bit of commentary, or satire. A statement highlighting the absurdity of certain groups of fundamentalist nutjobs. Its just like the silly "boobquake" idea, it draws attention to a bit of nonsense that some people hold holy, but which is really complete and total idiocy. It also tells these extremist morons; "we're not afraid of you. Indeed, we think you are a bunch of very silly people." Something that more people need to do to all extremists, regardless of faith, culture, or dogma.
I also see no need to respect destructive cultures. This subset of Muslims are dangerous, and totally unworthy of any respect. Its like saying we shouldn't poke fun of neo-Nazis or White Supremacists, we should respect their differing views. There is a line there, I respect your honest day to day x, who keeps their cultural quirks out of everyone else's business, and doesn't try to inflict their arbitrary cultural rules on others. Once you cross that line, I have nothing but contempt for you. I am not a Muslim, there is no reason that I should be forced to live by their rules, their book holds nothing on me. Their threat of violence deserves more contempt than respect. Trying to coerce people into acting by the tenets of a religion that is not your own is distasteful.
Also no one is saying "fuck you, here's what I think of your religion". they are more saying "wow, your dumb" to a very small, vocal, somewhat insane subset of a religion. Is making fun of young earth creationists making fun of all Christians? Is making fun of the strange fundamentalist nutjobs who blame major (and tragic) natural disasters on cleavage or "the gay" making fun of everyone of faith? No, its highlighting dangerous elements within the larger group of mostly-benign believers.
Also, no religion, creed, or culture is worth giving up humor. If something becomes humorless, it becomes very dangerous, and probably should be market for extinction before it hurts someone.
Some sects of Buddhism are practically not religions (in the metaphysical explanation sense). Some sects of Buddhism are like Christianity will all the metaphysical trappings stripped away. The core would be, there was this really smart guy named Jesus, I like him, and want to live like him. Buddhism in-itself is more of a modifier than a religion in-itself. You can be a Christian Buddhist, or a Hindu Buddhist, or a Taoist Buddhist, or a Muslim Buddhist. Most of the more religious forms of Buddhism is pretty much Buddhism layered over a preexisting religious background (much like how Christianity gobbled up all, and incorporated (like Megaman) all the competing religions around it).
First off, I'm not jumping on the "Muslim = Terrorist" bandwagon, or throwing more intolerance at Muslim's than I am willing to throw at any other religion.
Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.
Two problems; if I, in the US, deny the Holocaust the German authorities will not try to arrest me. Second, if someone in Germany (or elsewhere) publicly denies the Holocaust, no one will attempt to murder them, or their families. This is a pretty large difference between approaches.
I personally am a big fan of self-censorship, if you don't like what I'm saying or drawing, ignore me, change the channel, cancel your subscription. No one is forcing you to look at these cartoons and drawings. This is a far more tasteful solution than banning everything (under threat of death in some cases) that someone, somewhere, in the world might find offensive. I personally find all religion somewhat distasteful, so can we ban it too? (I don't mean that in complete seriousness, religion is fine, until it starts hurting others).
These cartoons serve a VERY valuable service, outside of pure "incitement", they, like all political cartoons, serve to highlight the absurdities in something. Sadly some sects of radical (and I would call them evil) Muslims lack the humor and introspection to realize that they are acting out the very thing that the cartoons are highlighting. They, with their reaction, are proving the cartoonists point.
Muslims have a very bad image right now, and I think they deserve it. They need to reign in the creepy, totalitarian, rights abusing, and violent bits of their religion. They need to forcibly overthrow the corrupt bits of their culture. To expect others to live by their rules is silly, and plain wrong. I really don't care one bit what religion or culture you belong to, but who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?
This isn't a Muslim verus the mythical "West" issue. If most Muslims followed their faith without enforcing their beliefs on others, or hurting people for not giving a crap about their pet religion, then no one would care. Well... I still would, since parts of the Muslim faith go completely against the ideas of freedom, and the ability of people to choose their own lives (the role of women, ect...) I have no expectation of you following my beliefs and world view, why would you expect me to do otherwise for you?
...but they read all unencrypted email. Data-mining is just that cheap.
For some (very small) versions of read. There isn't some guy sitting in Google Headquarters whose job is to personally read all of your email. No one at Google has probably ever ACTUALLY read a single email of yours. There is though a mindless computer crunching through all the words in your email forming associations. I'm not going to worry about this until computers are sentient, and even at that point I won't worry too much because I perfectly realize that 99% (I'm being generous) of my email is banal to the point of tears.
Sure, if your using your email for internal, important and confidential, corporate email, or for super-serious military hanky-panky, or something seriously dubious (like terrorism dubious. not "d00d teh p1rate b4y r0x!"), then eschew gMail, and all other mail services like it (Yahoo, Hotmail, etc..). Otherwise, there is no real security problem.
No, I don't really trust Google, I trust them more than most corporation, but that doesn't amount to much. I just don't really care if some mindless robot sniffs me talking to my girlfriend about where to eat this weekend, or if a program gets wind of my uber-secret nefarious lol-cat trading ring.
Slashdot Mirror
The alternative is also failing pretty miserably too, just less dramatically and in much slower motion. Perhaps there is a solution that doesn't require existing on either extreme. Somewhere between Marx and Rand (both ideological nutjobs, who had a couple of salvageable points) there might be a proper solution. It will never happen because the rich and powerful like the status quo in either scenario, and normal people never matter.
I personally think unmitigated, and consequence free greed, like that which rules America today, which we somehow conflated with virtue, is just as bad as Communism.
This patent argument highlights this. Having a patent on artificial life would be fine and dandy if it was VERY specific, and only barred advancement on one axis. This patent sounds like it bars artificial life, by whatever method, which hurts the public well-being. Ideally, one could only patent an implication of artificial life, and not the class as a whole. This is like having a patent on the idea of manufacturing, where the real domain for patents should be in the manufactured widgets.
Somehow we forgot that all limited monopolies (copyright, patents) are granted only for the good of the people, and not for the profit of one individual. They compromise between these two areas, offering a carrot on a stick to clever inventors to force them to use their greed to benefit the rest of us.
d he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work. Personally, I'd much rather have a great guy (great "man") as my neighbor than a great writer.
If we take "man" as "mankind", then there is much much more to it than merely the family stuff. Family stuff is very important, if thats your thing, but to some it is completely insignificant, to some the power of their passions drives them beyond the "mere temporal" acts of raising a family or being "pleasant neighbors". Twain or Van Gogh have had a far larger influence on the world than if they would have sat around the house raising a brood of well-adjusted brats. Anyone can raise a family, but very few people had the timeless wit and talent of Mark Twain.
Its like chastising astronauts, or the worlds great explorers, because they should have been home with the "fam". Some people dream much grander dreams, than being home-bodies.
If you mean "man" as in "has a y chromosome", then your still wrong. Men have often fallen far far short of the "family" bar, probably more men have been bad husbands and fathers than there have been ones that you would fine acceptable. The image of a "good husband" is pretty modern, for much of history a father was off killing bears, or corn, or something instead of being a loving whatnot.
And the worst part, Jack is an ass who I never developed even a tiny bit of empathy for.
I spend 3 seasons hoping that they would randomly kill him off (and Kate as well), and turn it into the Hurley show, and later the Desmond show. I spent the last two seasons realizing that the writers have a massive love affair with him, and thus he must be "the most special man alive", and finding little real life things to do while watching the episodes that focus on him ("oh lord, its a Jack show, I'm going to clean the litter box with Lost on in the background, I'm going to clean it for a full hour, too.")
Jack was the weakest, and least enjoyable character. Often jack seemed like the protagonist in a Final Fantasy game.
I hope they make a spin-off show where it is just Desmond and Hurley running around with Locke.
It also annoys me that Lost wasn't about the Island. The Island more of a character than most of the characters.
I kind of like that kind of story, but then again I think Twin Peaks was the best show that was ever on T.V. I like stories that don't wrap up neatly in the end, and give you a precise answer to all the mysteries. I feel that the more surreal things are, the more they mirror life. There is no definite answers in life, there is mostly mystery, ad hoc explanations, and various flavors of hypothesis that exist to be endlessly mulled.
That is how Hollywood killed every movie based on a Philip Dick story; by wrapping it all up, and telling the viewer the proper interpretation of events, where in the story your generally left pondering what exactly was real, and what exactly was in the protagonists head.
The mystery keeps it interesting long after the show or book ends. It makes it a bit more engaging.
I view lost like a television version of the book House of Leaves. Except with more religious overtones.
Though to be honest, I feared it devolving into a religious allegory early in the first season.
ou have the right to do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't harm others. The Government has no right to tell you otherwise without according you due process of law
We agree completely on that.
but I take issue with the Government telling them they can't do business with me.
I see no problem with this, if there was due process, and the methods for compiling the list were as open as possible (keeping in mind valid security concerns).
More influence than most of the current attempts at a psychic understanding of our founders, but still a limited view into a limited amount of the key players motivations. And at some points the Federalist Papers espouse views that go against parts of the actual drafted Constitution.
The main thing I worry about in all the extra-textual analysis, and attempts to read a single founders murky mind and apply it to the Constitution as a whole is that it is a process very prone to bias. People like to pick sources with statements that they agree with, and ignore those that oppose their pet ideologies. In a lot of way Constitutional arguments (especially the ones based on extra-textual analysis) are like Biblical arguments, it is easy to cherry pick data to make the full text say what you want it to say, and equally easy for your opponents to pick text that contradicts your point.
Yes and no. You are right about the pure Constitutional wording, but you ignore the actual writing of many of the founders who were aiming for a pure secular government. Many of our founders wouldn't even be considered Christian by many of the strange-fundamentalists of today (but then again Jesus probably would be rather confused and sickened by them, C'est la vie). You also ignore our legal tradition, and the fact that our government was made to change with the times. SCOTUS pretty much made the current view of the Establishment Clause, which also is completely legal and Constitutional.
Also having the State endorse a single religion, and rule from its principles at the exclusion of others, is pretty much making a de facto state religion, which is unconstitutional in a pretty conservative sense. I find it hard to find common ideological ground with people who think our government should be anything but areligious.
Try reading "George Washington's Sacred Fire" by Peter A. Lillback for a historically correct look at what the founders intended.
By this you of course mean "an interpretation of facts that happens to align with my ideologies". The founding fathers were anything but unified on anything. They had a very diverse range of views that were often contradictory. The Constitution is a political document, meaning it is mainly compromises and concessions. It is the best document we could have, mind, but it is pretty much divorced from the personal philosophy of any single founder. Their individual thoughts on any given topic really doesn't matter one bit from a legalistic stand-point.
Wow, I have a right to Blue Bunny Strawberry ice cream now! If a store refuses to sell it to me, they are infringing on my rights! I also mysteriously aquired the right to buy heroin at 7-11, the Constitution doesn't specifically bar it, so therefore it must be a right!
Which just goes to say I find the very term "rights" to be completely meaningless. They are a useful social construct, useful, but ultimately nothing more than a complete fiction with absolutely no basis in objective fact. A right is only that which you can convince other people that you have. It also goes to explain how we completely misuse the term so often, and often completely forget the actual basis of the term in Western political philosophy.
Your ability to fly freely only applies to the level where it doesn't squash others ability, and is completely limited by what the owner of the conveyance wishes (which to me throws the whole "flying is a right down the tubes", since when do rights affect such trivial things as other people's specific property). If there is a perceived risk that you may harm others, I have no problem with barring you from flight. There is a level of acceptable risk, and that is something open to public debate, and public standards, but past that level you should be barred. This is fine, and is completely in line with our intellectual traditions.
You conflate a minor particular with the set that contains it. Travel can be construed as a right, but not the particulars (this driving isn't a right, nor is flying, or boating, or...). The real problem is the violation of due process, which is a recognized, and enumerated, right.
The government is violating your right to due process, not your so-called "right" to use an airline's property.
I agree. The real problem is the violation of due process, but why muddy the waters by making up rights?
Last I checked the US$ was much more stable than the Euro, and we don't have a very nasty crisis on the horizon either, like, say, a significant number of member states who functionally have no economy anymore. Performance and stability wise the Dollar is a surer bet.
One is private data which they voluntarily gave Google by using their service, and the other is public data which they're giving out to the whole world.
Except, they aren"t giving it out to anyone!
I don't see it as my responsibility to protect people for their own, entirely avoidable, ignorance. Yes, people have the right (as such) to be ignorant of their electronic tools, but this does not guarantee protection.
The alternative is putting governmental pressure on everyone to purchase Best Buy "security services" when they purchase a router.
No. The the alternative is doing nothing whatsoever. Even my completely computer illiterate father know that he should secure his connection, he doesn't know how to, but he knows that he should, and he knows that the resources are out there. If he does nothing, armed with this knowledge, then all problems are squarely his fault.
Google is a multibillion dollar corporation and as such, is expected to exercise a modicum of responsibility when it exercises the powers those multi billions of dollars grants them.
So, if I walk by your house while taking a move, and I catch a brief glimpse inside your window on film, am I doing something wrong? Should I be arrested? Should I only be arrested if I'm already rich and powerful? Should you be at fault for keeping your window open? Should the manufacture of your windows be forced to make them black to ensure the privacy of people to ignorant to use shades?
To make this even more analogous, I accidentally film the inside of your house through the window, but never actually publicly release it.
But he is still a Republican, party wise, currently. When he last ran, he ran on the Republican ticket.
A little more off-topic, I never understood the Ron Paul thing. Granted I am not a Libertarian (upper case. I am a "lower case" libertarian, though), but Paul didn't quite fit the bill. He had some wonky social policies which more matched the Republican mold than the Libertarian one, such as his views on the place of religion in Government.
. When the Government deprives you of liberty without due process we have a problem....
I completely agree, but this doesn't mitigate the fact that flying is not a right. Due process is a right (or should be considered as such), flight still isn't.
Ron Paul is a Republican. He runs on the Republican ticket, he sits with the Republicans in Congress. He is on the libertarian spectrum of the Republican party, but is still a Republican.
Not everything in life is a "right". You don't have the "right" to drive a car. You don't have the "right" to junk food. You sure as hell don't have the "right" to air travel. I'm sick of the abuse of the word "right", it has become an egotistic term of mindless entitlement.
How is flying not a right? It is a minor surface phenomena. Travel might be a right, but HOW you travel isn't. If I, as an owner of an plane, tell you your not allowed on my plane, for whatever reason, am I violating your rights? No.
I agree the no-fly list is bad, and very dubious, but conflating it to a violation of your "right to fly in a privately owned airplane" is silly.
All escalation schemes can be said to do the same thing. Linux asking for SU password, or requiring SUDO just trains people to mash their password, same for OS X's password prompts. The only difference (on the surface) between the security of OS X/Linux and Win7 is the amount of work required to confirm administrative actions.
There really isn't much of a difference between clicking "Allow", and typing your SU password and hitting "Okay".
What rights escalation scheme could be summed up as doing more than "training end users to click okay"?
Touche!
You do not have a constitutional right to deliberately provoke religious (or racial) intolerance - if you believe you have that right, that makes you a bigot. So if the cap fits, wear it.
First Amendment. You even have the right to believe that the White Race is awesome, and everyone else is basically a monkey deserving death, and that Hitler guy was awesome!. You have the right to say as much, out loud, in public. I find this belief odious, but it is a right, and worth defending.
Also... as for deliberately provoking religious intolerance... That doesn't make much sense. Our Constitution doesn't say that we only have the limited range of rights proscribed by the least tolerant us. And you can't provoke intolerance, they were intolerant BEFORE the action that provoked them happened. These cartoons did not make these extremists intolerant, they are only a target for preexisting intolerance.
Its like saying all Gays should move out of communities that are predominantly intolerant Christian extremists. Or blacks should be forced to leave areas known for having large KKK membership.
No. the intolerant should be uncomfortable, and should NEVER be listened to. They should not have ANY power over anyone, it only encourages them. People should make fun of them at the drop of a hat. Do you have a problem with making fun of those nutjobs who claim Katrina (or 9/11, or tsunamis, or earthquakes) are caused by cleavage, or the existence of gay people?
Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
I'd find it distasteful, but I wouldn't threaten to kill them, or put a large bounty on their heads, or anything even close to what the radical Muslim community is doing. Actually, I would probably shake my head, go "tsk-tsk-tsk", and go on living my life. If it was a television channel, I would simply turn it off. If a magazine or paper, I would close it, and walk away. I would AVOID it, not try to brutally murder anyone who offended me. I think offence is largely the problem of the offended, they chose to be offended, they chose to react violently. People have free will, and personal responsibility, thats why "she was asking for rape", or "his cartoon of my personal subjective religious icon made me try to hurt him" aren't valid defenses. If I make fun of you, or your dog, or your God, are you justified in hurting me? Is your response my fault?
If this was a response to a group of normal Muslims who just went "ugh. tsk-tsk-tsk", then this would be a VERY silly gesture. This isn't a response to this. This isn't even aimed at normal sane and civilized Muslims, this is aimed straight at a group of crazy people who want to tell you how to act.
I suppose, in a sense, it is aimed at normal Muslims... Not disrespectfully, but it is saying "look at the people who are giving you a bad name, you realize how silly this is, right?".
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
As a very vocal atheist, who LOVES a good argument, I have yet to be shot by one of these gun toting Christians. The least Christian of them have said some rather nasty words, and implied some nasty things for my mythical immortal soul, but it has never gotten down to violence. Most of them just shrug and move on with their lives, knowing damn well my opinion doesn't matter to them (I think that Jesus guy liked this approach best), some of them get into a lively debate with me, and we end the encounter on a friendly note. The nasty ones are a minority. they always are. It just seems the Muslims have a nastier minority than most right now, and somehow this nasty minority has ceased power (I suppose being willing to kill anyone for any reason has its perks) and is basically holding the majority of Muslims hostage.
Very nice troll. I'm not sure if it was inadvertent, but well played!
This fits very well for both groups, the irreverent blasphemers, and the stuffy fundamentalists, it also works for those whose PC sympathies have gotten to the point where no one should be allowed to say anything that might even mildly offend some random slob somewhere in the world.
This Facebook group is not doing this for "artistic" reasons, they're doing it just to try to piss someone off.
I see it more as a bit of commentary, or satire. A statement highlighting the absurdity of certain groups of fundamentalist nutjobs. Its just like the silly "boobquake" idea, it draws attention to a bit of nonsense that some people hold holy, but which is really complete and total idiocy. It also tells these extremist morons; "we're not afraid of you. Indeed, we think you are a bunch of very silly people." Something that more people need to do to all extremists, regardless of faith, culture, or dogma.
I also see no need to respect destructive cultures. This subset of Muslims are dangerous, and totally unworthy of any respect. Its like saying we shouldn't poke fun of neo-Nazis or White Supremacists, we should respect their differing views. There is a line there, I respect your honest day to day x, who keeps their cultural quirks out of everyone else's business, and doesn't try to inflict their arbitrary cultural rules on others. Once you cross that line, I have nothing but contempt for you. I am not a Muslim, there is no reason that I should be forced to live by their rules, their book holds nothing on me. Their threat of violence deserves more contempt than respect. Trying to coerce people into acting by the tenets of a religion that is not your own is distasteful.
Also no one is saying "fuck you, here's what I think of your religion". they are more saying "wow, your dumb" to a very small, vocal, somewhat insane subset of a religion. Is making fun of young earth creationists making fun of all Christians? Is making fun of the strange fundamentalist nutjobs who blame major (and tragic) natural disasters on cleavage or "the gay" making fun of everyone of faith? No, its highlighting dangerous elements within the larger group of mostly-benign believers.
Also, no religion, creed, or culture is worth giving up humor. If something becomes humorless, it becomes very dangerous, and probably should be market for extinction before it hurts someone.
Some sects of Buddhism are practically not religions (in the metaphysical explanation sense). Some sects of Buddhism are like Christianity will all the metaphysical trappings stripped away. The core would be, there was this really smart guy named Jesus, I like him, and want to live like him. Buddhism in-itself is more of a modifier than a religion in-itself. You can be a Christian Buddhist, or a Hindu Buddhist, or a Taoist Buddhist, or a Muslim Buddhist. Most of the more religious forms of Buddhism is pretty much Buddhism layered over a preexisting religious background (much like how Christianity gobbled up all, and incorporated (like Megaman) all the competing religions around it).
First off, I'm not jumping on the "Muslim = Terrorist" bandwagon, or throwing more intolerance at Muslim's than I am willing to throw at any other religion.
Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.
Two problems; if I, in the US, deny the Holocaust the German authorities will not try to arrest me. Second, if someone in Germany (or elsewhere) publicly denies the Holocaust, no one will attempt to murder them, or their families. This is a pretty large difference between approaches.
I personally am a big fan of self-censorship, if you don't like what I'm saying or drawing, ignore me, change the channel, cancel your subscription. No one is forcing you to look at these cartoons and drawings. This is a far more tasteful solution than banning everything (under threat of death in some cases) that someone, somewhere, in the world might find offensive. I personally find all religion somewhat distasteful, so can we ban it too? (I don't mean that in complete seriousness, religion is fine, until it starts hurting others).
These cartoons serve a VERY valuable service, outside of pure "incitement", they, like all political cartoons, serve to highlight the absurdities in something. Sadly some sects of radical (and I would call them evil) Muslims lack the humor and introspection to realize that they are acting out the very thing that the cartoons are highlighting. They, with their reaction, are proving the cartoonists point.
Muslims have a very bad image right now, and I think they deserve it. They need to reign in the creepy, totalitarian, rights abusing, and violent bits of their religion. They need to forcibly overthrow the corrupt bits of their culture. To expect others to live by their rules is silly, and plain wrong. I really don't care one bit what religion or culture you belong to, but who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?
This isn't a Muslim verus the mythical "West" issue. If most Muslims followed their faith without enforcing their beliefs on others, or hurting people for not giving a crap about their pet religion, then no one would care. Well... I still would, since parts of the Muslim faith go completely against the ideas of freedom, and the ability of people to choose their own lives (the role of women, ect...) I have no expectation of you following my beliefs and world view, why would you expect me to do otherwise for you?
...but they read all unencrypted email. Data-mining is just that cheap.
For some (very small) versions of read. There isn't some guy sitting in Google Headquarters whose job is to personally read all of your email. No one at Google has probably ever ACTUALLY read a single email of yours. There is though a mindless computer crunching through all the words in your email forming associations. I'm not going to worry about this until computers are sentient, and even at that point I won't worry too much because I perfectly realize that 99% (I'm being generous) of my email is banal to the point of tears.
Sure, if your using your email for internal, important and confidential, corporate email, or for super-serious military hanky-panky, or something seriously dubious (like terrorism dubious. not "d00d teh p1rate b4y r0x!"), then eschew gMail, and all other mail services like it (Yahoo, Hotmail, etc..). Otherwise, there is no real security problem.
No, I don't really trust Google, I trust them more than most corporation, but that doesn't amount to much. I just don't really care if some mindless robot sniffs me talking to my girlfriend about where to eat this weekend, or if a program gets wind of my uber-secret nefarious lol-cat trading ring.