I have an absolute right to remain free of crime and the police have an absolute obligation to protect me from crime.
Uh, no. It has been ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you from crime.
In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
If you want to get into a semantic arguement about rights and from whence they spring that is a different arguement. And saying "I have an absolute right to liberty and freedom" is false in our current society anyway. How much liberty are you willing to give sentenced criminals?
Oh, golly. I guess I am really slow. And to think i had just told all my mechanic friends to not use metal or wood wrenches because of how dangerous they could be around bateries. But now i know they just need to make sure they don't put metal wrenches in their walls.
In my longer post i say, "I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed."
Maybe you aren't well informed? I should have added that one to the tic points.
Who cares about Moore? Even if he is misleading with his _facts_, he doesn't lie like O'reilly and Hannity. Even if he did, who cares? He's not the one hiding under the guise of a newscaster like O'reilly. Did he ever say fair and balanced? Did you feel tricked or something between seeing the trailers to F911 and seeing the movie?
Why would you hate kerry and not hate bush? Did Kerry send your friends and family into a useless war to die? Did Kerry pull strings to stay out of armed conflict and stay drunk off his ass? Did Kerry waste all of the goodwill our country was receiving from the rest of the world after 9/11 so he could grandstand? Did Kerry smear the ever living shit out of his detractors like Bush (even ones trying to correct the situation like richard clark)? Making mistakes is one thing; never admitting them and covering them up is another.
You and all the other uninformed people are the reason the rest of us have to suffer under someone with such a lack of credentials like GW. The only point you could come up with is that you hate kerry? Remember all of Bush's rhetoric about the US should not be in the buisness of nation building? Of course you can't, but for the rest of us, isn't that a GIANT flip-flop from our current situation?
I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed.
For example, if you are in the top 2% of wealth I can understand supporting the current administration, because you will benefit. But I would not expect such a person to really believe that the majority of the population would benefit.
Likewise, if you are a conservative christian, I would expect you to support the current administration, even if it has drifted away from it's republican roots (increased gov't spending, wtf?), because they have done a great job demonizing the left in regards to stem cell research, abortion, and marriage amendments. I also believe these platforms have been pushed hard enough that these same people would fail to criticaly think about the pres' plans for fighting terror, for seeking an exit strategy out of Iraq, or even considering the Spin leading up to the war. Because they would sooner have their conservative agenda pushed then find out their "side" lied and bumbled the war on terror.
And the fox news statement (redundantly repeated by statement 4) is stated because intelligent people are easily lead by such a carefully coordinated propagada machine. I call these people ignorant, not unintelligent.
I find it extremely hard to believe that people who don't fit into any of those categories can vote for Bush with a clear conscious. It's been a mean 4 years of the majority running roughshod over the minority, of spin and a media that failed to question the president or to provoke critical thinking. I don't mind differences of opinions--i mind the silencing of the oppostition by such statements as "why do you hate america?" and "you must be for the terrorists."
I would bitch about Desert Storm because we left the Kurds out to dry when the CIA equiped them (with promises of more assistance) and then left them to die to SH and chemical weapons.
However, I don't think we actually owe the Iraqi people anything. At least anything more than we owe the people of Sudan, Rwanda, and the Congo. 500,000 to 800,000 people have died in genocidal wars in Rwanda alone, let alone all three countries. But we are not inclinded to "police" those conflicts because there is no benefit to our country or economy (haliburton, oil, middle east army base, etc). So trying to couch our intervention as any kind of humanitarianism is fairly hypocritical. On our list of priorities humanitarianism and democracy are tied at dead last except when they can be used as a political token (see how we support democracies in south and central america when they don't do what we say).
the Amish are actually better educated than 99% of americans.
Where exactly are you getting this statistic? (they might know statistics better than you, but I don't think they are better educated than 99% of americans) Are you saying that only 1% of americans go to college? Because I don't think any Amish go to college.
Actually, I'm beginning to think this is a supremely well-crafted troll. Very good.
Exactly how much choice do you think the have when they aren't taught how to manage in the modern world with the "English" as they call modern people (Lancaster, PA Amish anyway)? Are the kids going to be terrified when put out on the street, exiled from their community, or do you think they will readily accept such a strange environment after being shielded from the outside world for 18 years?
How homesick do little kids get when sent to summer camp for the first time? These people are older, but have never been away from home and have never learned to interact with the modern world. Oh, and if they choose to leave, they will be shunned by all of their family and friends.
It really is good they are given a CHOICE and supported by their "loving" family for whatever choice they make.
OK, let's assume your favorite gas station is next door to a crack house or a terrorist cell, and the local prosecutor or police chief doesn't like you. Consider the possibilities.
Alright, I'll try and consider a couple of possiblities.
I buy deoderant and a loaf of bread, both of which have RFID tags, using cash. The store knows that someone bought deoderant with ID 023422334 and bread with ID 832478234.
I stop for gas and get pulled over down the street by the unfriendly police chief or "prosecutor," and get searched for crack or terrorist information. They pull out their RFID reader and find out i have deoderant and bread in the trunk. I cry out: "Damn you, RFID Technology! Damn you to hell!"
Now the only difference with using RFID tags is that the Police could quickly locate my deoderant and bread using a RFID tag reader, where as before they would have had to search my whole car to find them. Lucky for them that I have a modern car that doesn't have a lot of metal shielding the trunk, so they could put the antenna right up against the back of my car and crank the RF power beyond FCC spec so they could get a read on the tags.
I was blind before, but now i really do see the danger. I should have bought tin foil at the store too, and wrapped my goods up in it to block the backscatter radiation from getting back to the reader.
"You should really open your mind and stop being ignorant - FOX News would do you good, as opposed to any of the other heavily biased to the left networks."
OMG. If i didn't hear your other comments, i would think you wrote a damn good troll.
Have you critically watched O'reily and/or Hannity? And I don't mind someone have a certain bias in their show, just don't lie to me about being fair and balanced like i'm a complete idiot! Didn't O'reilly claim to be registered independent, but is actually a republican? Or check this out for more of that asshole's "no-spin zone". Any journalist that has to say they are fair and balanced is definitly not.
"I'm saying that it's likely the guy that owns it, wanted to invoke thoughts of Google."
That's why he has a prominent search field on the front page?
"since froogle would be an obvious for google to go into."
First of all how is this obvious? Second, why does it matter if it was obvious if they lost the race to use it? Companies should be allowed to own everything even remotely related to their names?
"The USA Constitution prohibits the government from forcing one to provide evidence against oneself. I guess the justification here is that nobody is forced to take out a broadcasting license - and that available frequencies are scarce.'
Huh? Do you mean the right against self-incrimidation? Because you are still forced to turn over evidence if they have a warrant or subpoena, but you are not forced to testify against yourself in certain cases. (IIRC, if you take the stand in your own defense you have waived that right). But the tapes are evidence that can be seized with a subpoena without every triggering the 5th amendment.
So you don't think when they testify they use the actual words because then they are indecent?
Do you also think the FCC can't tell people what the "bad words" are or else they have said the "bad words?" That's absurd. The decency standard only applies to Broadcast. They can codify the exact examples if they really wanted. But you are right about he flexibility point. The standard has always been based upon communitiy standards which can change. Including changing for the worse like they have in the past 7 months.
Also, don't think for a moment that they don't want unclear language so they can charge whomever they want; hence the Opera/Stern controversy.
Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM.
Except that it is not true. The creator has a time-limited monopoly. Aren't many of the most famous paintings in the public domain?
Slashdot Mirror
See here. If you want to get into a semantic arguement about rights and from whence they spring that is a different arguement. And saying "I have an absolute right to liberty and freedom" is false in our current society anyway. How much liberty are you willing to give sentenced criminals?
But you don't have a right to stay free of crime just like the police don't have to protect you from crime.
Of, course, who's going to exercise oversight of all those Russian, Chinese, French, Indian and Israeli reconn satellites?
You mean because those Russians want to solve crimes in the US? And those kinky Chinese want to see the nude sunbathers?
Besides US gov't can take care of the foreign satellites.
maybe they are just losers (like this election for instance)
This election is a loser? Next you'll be saying you eat pieces of shit for breakfast.
Or Dubya: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Oh, golly. I guess I am really slow. And to think i had just told all my mechanic friends to not use metal or wood wrenches because of how dangerous they could be around bateries. But now i know they just need to make sure they don't put metal wrenches in their walls.
Nothing?
I don't think a battery has enough current to melt wood! Try your experiment with a wood wrench.
So that is why everyone on slashdot says something like: "you know they are going to loose."
Difrent people spel stuff defrently. Its all ok as long as we all gets ignorant togeather.
Yeah, because everyone knows that open source software never has bugs.
How will they ever gain back their reputation now that they have a BUG?? Maybe there is some way they can rationize it away?
In my longer post i say, "I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed."
Maybe you aren't well informed? I should have added that one to the tic points.
Who cares about Moore? Even if he is misleading with his _facts_, he doesn't lie like O'reilly and Hannity. Even if he did, who cares? He's not the one hiding under the guise of a newscaster like O'reilly. Did he ever say fair and balanced? Did you feel tricked or something between seeing the trailers to F911 and seeing the movie?
Why would you hate kerry and not hate bush? Did Kerry send your friends and family into a useless war to die? Did Kerry pull strings to stay out of armed conflict and stay drunk off his ass? Did Kerry waste all of the goodwill our country was receiving from the rest of the world after 9/11 so he could grandstand? Did Kerry smear the ever living shit out of his detractors like Bush (even ones trying to correct the situation like richard clark)? Making mistakes is one thing; never admitting them and covering them up is another.
You and all the other uninformed people are the reason the rest of us have to suffer under someone with such a lack of credentials like GW. The only point you could come up with is that you hate kerry? Remember all of Bush's rhetoric about the US should not be in the buisness of nation building? Of course you can't, but for the rest of us, isn't that a GIANT flip-flop from our current situation?
I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed.
For example, if you are in the top 2% of wealth I can understand supporting the current administration, because you will benefit. But I would not expect such a person to really believe that the majority of the population would benefit.
Likewise, if you are a conservative christian, I would expect you to support the current administration, even if it has drifted away from it's republican roots (increased gov't spending, wtf?), because they have done a great job demonizing the left in regards to stem cell research, abortion, and marriage amendments. I also believe these platforms have been pushed hard enough that these same people would fail to criticaly think about the pres' plans for fighting terror, for seeking an exit strategy out of Iraq, or even considering the Spin leading up to the war. Because they would sooner have their conservative agenda pushed then find out their "side" lied and bumbled the war on terror.
And the fox news statement (redundantly repeated by statement 4) is stated because intelligent people are easily lead by such a carefully coordinated propagada machine. I call these people ignorant, not unintelligent.
I find it extremely hard to believe that people who don't fit into any of those categories can vote for Bush with a clear conscious. It's been a mean 4 years of the majority running roughshod over the minority, of spin and a media that failed to question the president or to provoke critical thinking. I don't mind differences of opinions--i mind the silencing of the oppostition by such statements as "why do you hate america?" and "you must be for the terrorists."
I would bitch about Desert Storm because we left the Kurds out to dry when the CIA equiped them (with promises of more assistance) and then left them to die to SH and chemical weapons.
However, I don't think we actually owe the Iraqi people anything. At least anything more than we owe the people of Sudan, Rwanda, and the Congo. 500,000 to 800,000 people have died in genocidal wars in Rwanda alone, let alone all three countries. But we are not inclinded to "police" those conflicts because there is no benefit to our country or economy (haliburton, oil, middle east army base, etc). So trying to couch our intervention as any kind of humanitarianism is fairly hypocritical. On our list of priorities humanitarianism and democracy are tied at dead last except when they can be used as a political token (see how we support democracies in south and central america when they don't do what we say).
So most people at your work (pick 1 or more):
- Are Fundamental Christians
- Think they are Upper class
- Watch Fox News
- Believe the media
Actually, I'm beginning to think this is a supremely well-crafted troll. Very good.
Exactly how much choice do you think the have when they aren't taught how to manage in the modern world with the "English" as they call modern people (Lancaster, PA Amish anyway)? Are the kids going to be terrified when put out on the street, exiled from their community, or do you think they will readily accept such a strange environment after being shielded from the outside world for 18 years?
How homesick do little kids get when sent to summer camp for the first time? These people are older, but have never been away from home and have never learned to interact with the modern world. Oh, and if they choose to leave, they will be shunned by all of their family and friends.
It really is good they are given a CHOICE and supported by their "loving" family for whatever choice they make.
Enter the cult of the Amish.
HIRE ME!!!!
7. application
6. presentation
5. session
4. transport
3. network
2. data link
1. physical
RFLMAO. Thanks for the funny post.
OK, let's assume your favorite gas station is next door to a crack house or a terrorist cell, and the local prosecutor or police chief doesn't like you. Consider the possibilities.
Alright, I'll try and consider a couple of possiblities.
I buy deoderant and a loaf of bread, both of which have RFID tags, using cash. The store knows that someone bought deoderant with ID 023422334 and bread with ID 832478234.
I stop for gas and get pulled over down the street by the unfriendly police chief or "prosecutor," and get searched for crack or terrorist information. They pull out their RFID reader and find out i have deoderant and bread in the trunk. I cry out: "Damn you, RFID Technology! Damn you to hell!"
Now the only difference with using RFID tags is that the Police could quickly locate my deoderant and bread using a RFID tag reader, where as before they would have had to search my whole car to find them. Lucky for them that I have a modern car that doesn't have a lot of metal shielding the trunk, so they could put the antenna right up against the back of my car and crank the RF power beyond FCC spec so they could get a read on the tags.
I was blind before, but now i really do see the danger. I should have bought tin foil at the store too, and wrapped my goods up in it to block the backscatter radiation from getting back to the reader.
"You should really open your mind and stop being ignorant - FOX News would do you good, as opposed to any of the other heavily biased to the left networks."
OMG. If i didn't hear your other comments, i would think you wrote a damn good troll.
Have you critically watched O'reily and/or Hannity? And I don't mind someone have a certain bias in their show, just don't lie to me about being fair and balanced like i'm a complete idiot! Didn't O'reilly claim to be registered independent, but is actually a republican? Or check this out for more of that asshole's "no-spin zone". Any journalist that has to say they are fair and balanced is definitly not.
"I'm saying that it's likely the guy that owns it, wanted to invoke thoughts of Google."
That's why he has a prominent search field on the front page?
"since froogle would be an obvious for google to go into."
First of all how is this obvious? Second, why does it matter if it was obvious if they lost the race to use it? Companies should be allowed to own everything even remotely related to their names?
i think it has to do with arrogance and blatent hypocracy.
So you don't think when they testify they use the actual words because then they are indecent?
Do you also think the FCC can't tell people what the "bad words" are or else they have said the "bad words?" That's absurd. The decency standard only applies to Broadcast. They can codify the exact examples if they really wanted. But you are right about he flexibility point. The standard has always been based upon communitiy standards which can change. Including changing for the worse like they have in the past 7 months.
Also, don't think for a moment that they don't want unclear language so they can charge whomever they want; hence the Opera/Stern controversy.
Wrap it up really tightly in tinfoil too, so cosmic rays don't flip a bit. It can happen!! I'm serious. Lots of things have a non-zero probability.
But they aren't putting it in the public domain.
Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM.
Except that it is not true. The creator has a time-limited monopoly. Aren't many of the most famous paintings in the public domain?
you've made it the issue by saying "You almost sound as if those people that downloaded music on the internet are saints."
Sainthood is orthogonal to "breaking the law." Why wouldn't people support "lawbreakers" against unfair, draconian laws?
they deserve some punishment.
Sure, but why 3k when they are already paying a CDR tax?
"the fact that you don't think law XYZ is relevant/just/valid is totally irrelevant if you break it."
I don't see why what you think becomes irrelevant the second you break the law.