What a dumb article. Email is hear to stay in one form or another for very basic reasons that make it different from IM. Each is suited to a different task. Email isn't well suited to saying things like "how did your day go" just like IM chat isn't well suited towards critiquing a paper. Really what this article is about is how email was being used for quick forms of communication where it really was never very well suited.
Email is a medium best suited to explaining large topics where you need to compose and edit a message. That does tend to be more formal communication. Really it's an inherently different way to communicate because you get to compose a message rather than have a conversation. IM is realtime conversation, whereas email is a form of writing.
I've had chat capability almost as long as email, probbably started somewhere around 1991. I actually do tend to use email to talk to people that are less tech savy, and IRC or IM to those that are more tech savy, so it's not just a Korean thing. The core reason for the tech-gap is because email caught on much quicker than chat because email doesn't require a constant on connection. With people having broadband connections that're always on more and more it's obvious why IM is becoming a more and more popular a form of communication. Most communication people do is the short "can you do blah" rather than "here's a long winded explanation of blah".
Exactly. What other industries have any kind of standards for an abstract a concept as quality? None I can think of. The pharmaceutical industry has standard on safety and efficacy, but those are words you can actually define and measure. Quality is an abstract and widely subjective concept.
The problem here lies in the concept of "quality standards". That's almost a contradiction in terms. In essence Quality is a value judgement and cannot be standardized, only made an opinion. That doesn't mean opinions are worthless. Look at Consumer Reports for example. They present well tested and usually well thought out analysis of different aspects that most consumers find important in a product. But even Consumers Reports emphasizes the individual components that comprise their assessment in their reviews. They de-emphasize their own judgements of Quality and bring you much of the raw data. Online review sites of computer hardware/software take much the same approach. The reader is free to make their own judgements based on what they find important.
It is possible, in a very small number of cases, that people will spontaneously regrow the damaged nerves.
I thought the same thing, but according to the article the injury is from 1985, so spontaneuous regeneration seems unlikely. I'm not a stem cell researcher, but assuming the stem cells did treat her paralysis the questions on my mind are:
1. How often does this treatment work? Has this been tried 100 times before, and this time they just got a lucky biology of the recipient?
2. Immune system attack. Does the woman have to take immune system supression drugs, and how effective will they be over time?
3. How effective is the treatment? How much motor control and feeling does she have?
4. What was the extent of her paralysis before the treatment? Did she have partial feeling or partial motor control?
Cases like these appear in the media and sound incredible, but later the circumstances of the particular case turn out to be quite narrow. Years ago we learned about the cloning of Dolly, but later it came out that the success rate of cloning was something like 1%. Still amazing, but the scope of the breakthrough is much more limited than initially reported.
If you had actually read what I said you might realize that I was referring to the government as a whole. I have about zero confidence in the current administration with regards to foreign policy. Our idiot former education secretary's comments are an indicator of the utter incompetance of the Bush administration.
The problem is the guy was convicted of editing an article about them. Slashdot is a US website and most of us Americans hold free speech as the most important right in maintaining a democracy. For this case it doesn't matter what this group has done. Simply editing a public website with information about them shouldn't be a crime.
As far as the US acknowleding the PKK as a terrorist organization, that doesn't always mean anything. Our outgoing secretary of education called the nations largest teachers group a "terrorist organization". So you'll understand if I'm a little skeptical of what the US government is saying these days.
So you honestly think you can make a judgement that this guy isn't sick (and is just a nut) from two postings from the patient on the internet? Why is it there's this heavy tendency among some doctors to not believe the patient? Perhaps his self diagnosis is in error and his own attempts at doctoring are poor, but from his own descriptions it sounds like there's something wrong with him and his doctors can't figure out what it is.
Possibly, either that or it has the words "poor national healthcare" written all over it. It sounds like there's real evidence that SOMETHING is wrong with him. Why is someone who's concerned about their own health when the doctors around them aren't immediately labled a hypochondriac?
Actually if you had paid a little attention he said he went to the Mayo Clinic, which is a world renowned treatment center. It doesn't sound like he's sick enough to be admitted to a hospital. Maybe he has been offered hospitalization, but given that you didn't even notice he mentioned the Mayo perhaps you should defer judgement.
Maybe you've never been through the medical industry before, but stories like these are all too common. Doctors don't like to admit when they don't know something, so the default answer becomes "there's nothing wrong with you". Has he overstepped his bounds and tried to self-diagnose? Well yes, obviously. But then again it sounds like that's his only option at this point. The health industry hasn't been able to help him, so he has to force them to help him by continued pestering.
Seriously, if they don't have any concrete leads, what are they supposed to do? Just stop investigating?
Uh.. yes? I know on TV the super-cop never stops investigating because everyone gets caught, but in real life I doubt it's that simple. It's not as if there aren't other cases out their that COULD actually be solved that aren't being worked on because you're chasing your own tail. If you're not making any progress on a case and all the leads have dried up.. take another case and hope something turns up later. It took 20 some years to catch the Unabomber.. were the agents assigned to the case constantly chasing down blind alleys every day during that entire 20 some years? Somehow I doubt it.
Hmm.. the linked page in the parent does make the chemical look like it's more dangerous than say gasoline. Starting on fire when exposed to water is concerning.
Your comparisons to mercury thermometers are interesting, but it's the amount of the substance that can be a problem. If there was some product that contained a pound of mercury, I'd be a little concerned about its safety. This substance may be safe at lab quantites, but how much of it would you need to power a golf cart? If you're transporting mass quantities of the stuff around and storing it in filling stations is that a concern? How do you deal with a fire when water only makes it react more?
I guess what I'm getting at is concern for this chemical don't really sound all that unwarranted. We're not used to dealing with chemicals that start on fire when exposed to water.
You can't reasonably argue with it one way or the other. You're just affronted by it, because it assumes that you are less than what God is, which is essentially true.
I think I just _did_ argue with it. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it stands up to examination. It doesn't have anything to do with "being less than yahweh" (I resent the implication that this yahweh character is the only possible god). It has to do with religious beliefs not standing up to examination. Oh, but that would be blasphemy I suppose. How convenient. And no. There is no secret code.
How do you know? Because it's not in your book? Oh but then you ignore the things you don't like that are in your book, not to mention all the chapters of your book that were taken out of the bible a couple thousand years ago. Maybe the secret code is only revealed to a select few who have proven themselves, so yahweh isn't innudated with all these requests from millions. Or maybe the church higher ups keep the secret code from the masses as a means of controlling them. Could be the secret code was lost thousands of years ago in when a sacred book was accidentally destroyed. You really don't know, and without any kind of testing (as done in science) it's just as plausible as any other religious belief. God is also not evil, because being evil is defined in God's eyes as denying God.
Yahweh isn't evil because yahweh defines yahweh as not evil. Huh.. kind of a self definition.
That's not entirely true. What's the process for proving a theorem?
The parent and grandparent were referring to simple mathematical operations like addition and subtraction. You don't require any understanding of the underlying concept to perform the operation. That's why it's so easy for something as incredibly stupid as a computer to do simple mathematical operations.
I don't think you've thought very much about "useful" or "genius".
I think I know what the word genius is intended to mean, especially since I'm the one using the word. You can quote however many dictionary definitions you like, but that doesn't change the fact that most useage of the word genius is using definition 5. Here's the 10 definitions of the word dog for instance:
1 a : CANID; especially : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the common wolf (Canis lupus) b : a male dog; also : a male usually carnivorous mammal 2 a : a worthless person b : FELLOW, CHAP 3 a : any of various usually simple mechanical devices for holding, gripping, or fastening that consist of a spike, bar, or hook b : ANDIRON 4 : uncharacteristic or affected stylishness or dignity 5 capitalized : either of the constellations Canis Major or Canis Minor 6 plural : FEET 7 plural : RUIN 8 : one inferior of its kind: as a : an investment not worth its price b : an undesirable piece of merchandise 9 : an unattractive person and especially a girl or woman 10 : HOT DOG 1 - doglike/'dog-"lIk/ adjective
Do you pull that out every time someone uses the word dog? I don't think you've thought very much about word definitions taken from dictionaries.
As far as "usefull" I suppose anything can be usefull to an individual if they find it usefull. If you enjoy woodworking then it's "usefull". If you enjoy stuffing peanuts up your nose it's "usefull". At that point we've diluted down the meaning of usefull to the point where it means almost nothing.
Your analogy is flawed anyway. Woodworking and machines that accomplish the same goal don't produce the same output. Mathematical problems, by definition have to. If they didn't there's a flaw in the methodolgy, or the computer.
As for spelling, I might be concerned if this were my disertation or a letter to the editor of a newspaper. This is slashdot though and minor spelling errors are quite acceptable here. It's only nitpickers that seem to point them out.
It sounds impressive, but how usefull is doing something a machine can already do more quickly and efficiently? John Henry learned this the hard way. As others have pointed out there's tricks and shortcuts that people use to doing these calculations, so most of it just amounts to mathematical parlor tricks.
The implicaton is this guy is a genius. Maybe he is, but calculating roots quickly doesn't make you a genius, it just means you know some math tricks. Isn't this just the mathematical equivalent of how many peanuts can you stuff up your nose?
I find the "Yahweh is complex" argument to be a cop out. You start with the premise that you want to believe in yahweh, then come up with beliefs about your god to justify it (without modifying any of your original premise). Prayer doesn't seem to effect much, so people come up with "god isn't understandable" argument. I guess.. but you ignore other equally plausible explanations. Maybe this yahweh person doesn't exist, or he's an evil god who just likes seeing people ask for things they won't get. Maybe yahweh does exist, but there's some secret code you need to put at the beginning for your prayer to get through. Ah, but that would be science. Religion doesn't like to modify its beliefs based on evidence.
Prayer may or may not be effective. There's no way to empiracally prove it one way or the other. Spending all of this time arguing about it, whether because you want to support your own belief in no God, or because you're scared of it, or for whatever other reason is pointless.
Pointless? How is a determining if your methods of curing disease actually help or not pointless? If it were we would have a great tool against curing disease. If all you're doing is helping people get through a tough time, hey that's great.. but wouldn't you rather know that?
It all seems far to convienent. Faith seems to boil down to "I want to believe, and will justify it by whatever means necessary". That's fine I guess, but stop trying to argue it's truth.
If they want to credit their belief in pink unicorns for her daughter's recovery, more power to 'em.
I guess I really think people should credit things they know to be of actual help rather than things that have been never been show to be of help other than to the prayers.
If praying helps you deal with the situation, hey whatever gets you through the night. But when you start advocating it as a means to solve medical problems, I've got a problem with that. The christian scientists do it, and I'll deride them for it every time.
While I don't blame them for doing whatever they think they have to to help their kid, I really think you should be looking towards modern medical science for the credit. If you look toward thing praying thing, well I guess all the other people prayed for that had the same disease were just dickweeds.
If the case had jeopardy attached (and it probably did) and the Feds lose (it looks like they lost), they can't just go drag up another law and try, try again.
Double jeopardy applies to a single law, not a single act. The Rodney King trial is a case in point. The officers were first tried in state court and aquitted. There were later tried in federal court and convicted of violating Kings civil rights.
See.. you've mistaken saying something that isn't totally crazy with saying it's actually true. Yes, if a huge number of people believe something it's not relegated to the nutso tinfoil hat crowd. That doesn't mean it's true or even more likely to be true, but only that it's not dissmissable out of hand like the wacko consispiracy theories.
The original intent of the wiretap law was to prevent people from eavesdropping on conversations between two parties without appropriate judicial oversight. So is using a keylogger wiretapping? It depends.
That's true, but the reason the feds are allowed such a law is because only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce. That's why the scope of this federal wiretapping law is only within the bounds of interstate communications. In this case the content of the communication is irrelevant (letters to mom not withstanding).
The real answer is an updated law to reflect the updated technology. Relying on Judges to protect our rights is the sign of a lazy legislature.
The real answer is to get your state legislature to pass easedropping laws (though I'm almost positive they already exist). I'd bet he could be still prosecuted at a state level for violating some kind of anti-bugging law. As far as relying on judges to protect our rights, you do that every single day. Lest you forget our form of government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The judges interpret the law and the legislature makes them. Really the primary defendent of your rights is the judges.
Sorry, but the JFK assasination isn't just a tinfoil hat conspiracy akin to the people who think Elvis faked his own death, or the moon landing was faked. It's widely believed by a large percentage of the populace, and there's decent evidence that it at least could have happened. Oh, and lest you forgot Oswald did NOT die in prison, he was shot shortly after Kennedy by Jack Ruby.
You don't think violence is natural? I guess you've never seen Wild Kingdom before. The lion taking down the elk is violence, though obviously not violence against humans. Humans have been killing each other for millions of years, and really that's no different from any other animal. (Yes other animals commit murder against their own species, mostly the more intelligent ones).
The whole porn debate aside I'm just really tired of this compulsion people have to trout out "natural vs un-natural" to justify whatever they want. Nature is just everything around you that exists in the universe. Un-natural things are things that don't actually exist. You can debate whether porn or violence is good or bad.. but it doesn't have anything to do with natural vs un-natural.
Protecting children from porn is no different in my eyes than protecting them from cigarettes.
Right, because we've conclusively shown that porn is harmfull to health just like cigarettes. I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh.. we should protect children from this man and his dangerous ideas.
Pornography is something that should be relegated to adults. It's just not the same thing as cigarettes. If you want to make a comparision, compare it to violence. Some people believe it to be harmfull, other don't. There's been no conclusive evidence either way, but most people seem to think it's prudent to not allow minors under a certain age to view it.
Slashdot Mirror
What a dumb article. Email is hear to stay in one form or another for very basic reasons that make it different from IM. Each is suited to a different task. Email isn't well suited to saying things like "how did your day go" just like IM chat isn't well suited towards critiquing a paper. Really what this article is about is how email was being used for quick forms of communication where it really was never very well suited.
Email is a medium best suited to explaining large topics where you need to compose and edit a message. That does tend to be more formal communication. Really it's an inherently different way to communicate because you get to compose a message rather than have a conversation. IM is realtime conversation, whereas email is a form of writing.
I've had chat capability almost as long as email, probbably started somewhere around 1991. I actually do tend to use email to talk to people that are less tech savy, and IRC or IM to those that are more tech savy, so it's not just a Korean thing. The core reason for the tech-gap is because email caught on much quicker than chat because email doesn't require a constant on connection. With people having broadband connections that're always on more and more it's obvious why IM is becoming a more and more popular a form of communication. Most communication people do is the short "can you do blah" rather than "here's a long winded explanation of blah".
Exactly. What other industries have any kind of standards for an abstract a concept as quality? None I can think of. The pharmaceutical industry has standard on safety and efficacy, but those are words you can actually define and measure. Quality is an abstract and widely subjective concept.
The problem here lies in the concept of "quality standards". That's almost a contradiction in terms. In essence Quality is a value judgement and cannot be standardized, only made an opinion. That doesn't mean opinions are worthless. Look at Consumer Reports for example. They present well tested and usually well thought out analysis of different aspects that most consumers find important in a product. But even Consumers Reports emphasizes the individual components that comprise their assessment in their reviews. They de-emphasize their own judgements of Quality and bring you much of the raw data. Online review sites of computer hardware/software take much the same approach. The reader is free to make their own judgements based on what they find important.
It is possible, in a very small number of cases, that people will spontaneously regrow the damaged nerves.
I thought the same thing, but according to the article the injury is from 1985, so spontaneuous regeneration seems unlikely. I'm not a stem cell researcher, but assuming the stem cells did treat her paralysis the questions on my mind are:
1. How often does this treatment work? Has this been tried 100 times before, and this time they just got a lucky biology of the recipient?
2. Immune system attack. Does the woman have to take immune system supression drugs, and how effective will they be over time?
3. How effective is the treatment? How much motor control and feeling does she have?
4. What was the extent of her paralysis before the treatment? Did she have partial feeling or partial motor control?
Cases like these appear in the media and sound incredible, but later the circumstances of the particular case turn out to be quite narrow. Years ago we learned about the cloning of Dolly, but later it came out that the success rate of cloning was something like 1%. Still amazing, but the scope of the breakthrough is much more limited than initially reported.
If you had actually read what I said you might realize that I was referring to the government as a whole. I have about zero confidence in the current administration with regards to foreign policy. Our idiot former education secretary's comments are an indicator of the utter incompetance of the Bush administration.
The problem is the guy was convicted of editing an article about them. Slashdot is a US website and most of us Americans hold free speech as the most important right in maintaining a democracy. For this case it doesn't matter what this group has done. Simply editing a public website with information about them shouldn't be a crime.
As far as the US acknowleding the PKK as a terrorist organization, that doesn't always mean anything. Our outgoing secretary of education called the nations largest teachers group a "terrorist organization". So you'll understand if I'm a little skeptical of what the US government is saying these days.
So you honestly think you can make a judgement that this guy isn't sick (and is just a nut) from two postings from the patient on the internet? Why is it there's this heavy tendency among some doctors to not believe the patient? Perhaps his self diagnosis is in error and his own attempts at doctoring are poor, but from his own descriptions it sounds like there's something wrong with him and his doctors can't figure out what it is.
Possibly, either that or it has the words "poor national healthcare" written all over it. It sounds like there's real evidence that SOMETHING is wrong with him. Why is someone who's concerned about their own health when the doctors around them aren't immediately labled a hypochondriac?
Right, because childrens lives are worth more than someone in their 20s or 30s. What a sad attitude to take.
Actually if you had paid a little attention he said he went to the Mayo Clinic, which is a world renowned treatment center. It doesn't sound like he's sick enough to be admitted to a hospital. Maybe he has been offered hospitalization, but given that you didn't even notice he mentioned the Mayo perhaps you should defer judgement.
Maybe you've never been through the medical industry before, but stories like these are all too common. Doctors don't like to admit when they don't know something, so the default answer becomes "there's nothing wrong with you". Has he overstepped his bounds and tried to self-diagnose? Well yes, obviously. But then again it sounds like that's his only option at this point. The health industry hasn't been able to help him, so he has to force them to help him by continued pestering.
Seriously, if they don't have any concrete leads, what are they supposed to do? Just stop investigating?
Uh.. yes? I know on TV the super-cop never stops investigating because everyone gets caught, but in real life I doubt it's that simple. It's not as if there aren't other cases out their that COULD actually be solved that aren't being worked on because you're chasing your own tail. If you're not making any progress on a case and all the leads have dried up.. take another case and hope something turns up later. It took 20 some years to catch the Unabomber.. were the agents assigned to the case constantly chasing down blind alleys every day during that entire 20 some years? Somehow I doubt it.
Hmm.. the linked page in the parent does make the chemical look like it's more dangerous than say gasoline. Starting on fire when exposed to water is concerning.
Your comparisons to mercury thermometers are interesting, but it's the amount of the substance that can be a problem. If there was some product that contained a pound of mercury, I'd be a little concerned about its safety. This substance may be safe at lab quantites, but how much of it would you need to power a golf cart? If you're transporting mass quantities of the stuff around and storing it in filling stations is that a concern? How do you deal with a fire when water only makes it react more?
I guess what I'm getting at is concern for this chemical don't really sound all that unwarranted. We're not used to dealing with chemicals that start on fire when exposed to water.
You can't reasonably argue with it one way or the other. You're just affronted by it, because it assumes that you are less than what God is, which is essentially true.
I think I just _did_ argue with it. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it stands up to examination. It doesn't have anything to do with "being less than yahweh" (I resent the implication that this yahweh character is the only possible god). It has to do with religious beliefs not standing up to examination. Oh, but that would be blasphemy I suppose. How convenient.
And no. There is no secret code.
How do you know? Because it's not in your book? Oh but then you ignore the things you don't like that are in your book, not to mention all the chapters of your book that were taken out of the bible a couple thousand years ago. Maybe the secret code is only revealed to a select few who have proven themselves, so yahweh isn't innudated with all these requests from millions. Or maybe the church higher ups keep the secret code from the masses as a means of controlling them. Could be the secret code was lost thousands of years ago in when a sacred book was accidentally destroyed. You really don't know, and without any kind of testing (as done in science) it's just as plausible as any other religious belief.
God is also not evil, because being evil is defined in God's eyes as denying God.
Yahweh isn't evil because yahweh defines yahweh as not evil. Huh.. kind of a self definition.
That's not entirely true. What's the process for proving a theorem?
The parent and grandparent were referring to simple mathematical operations like addition and subtraction. You don't require any understanding of the underlying concept to perform the operation. That's why it's so easy for something as incredibly stupid as a computer to do simple mathematical operations.
Sorry, this one (the steel driving man). It's one of the original man vs machine competitions (if only folklore).
I don't think you've thought very much about "useful" or "genius".
I think I know what the word genius is intended to mean, especially since I'm the one using the word. You can quote however many dictionary definitions you like, but that doesn't change the fact that most useage of the word genius is using definition 5. Here's the 10 definitions of the word dog for instance:
1 a : CANID; especially : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the common wolf (Canis lupus) b : a male dog; also : a male usually carnivorous mammal
2 a : a worthless person b : FELLOW, CHAP
3 a : any of various usually simple mechanical devices for holding, gripping, or fastening that consist of a spike, bar, or hook b : ANDIRON
4 : uncharacteristic or affected stylishness or dignity
5 capitalized : either of the constellations Canis Major or Canis Minor
6 plural : FEET
7 plural : RUIN
8 : one inferior of its kind: as a : an investment not worth its price b : an undesirable piece of merchandise
9 : an unattractive person and especially a girl or woman
10 : HOT DOG 1
- doglike
Do you pull that out every time someone uses the word dog? I don't think you've thought very much about word definitions taken from dictionaries.
As far as "usefull" I suppose anything can be usefull to an individual if they find it usefull. If you enjoy woodworking then it's "usefull". If you enjoy stuffing peanuts up your nose it's "usefull". At that point we've diluted down the meaning of usefull to the point where it means almost nothing.
Your analogy is flawed anyway. Woodworking and machines that accomplish the same goal don't produce the same output. Mathematical problems, by definition have to. If they didn't there's a flaw in the methodolgy, or the computer.
As for spelling, I might be concerned if this were my disertation or a letter to the editor of a newspaper. This is slashdot though and minor spelling errors are quite acceptable here. It's only nitpickers that seem to point them out.
It sounds impressive, but how usefull is doing something a machine can already do more quickly and efficiently? John Henry learned this the hard way. As others have pointed out there's tricks and shortcuts that people use to doing these calculations, so most of it just amounts to mathematical parlor tricks.
The implicaton is this guy is a genius. Maybe he is, but calculating roots quickly doesn't make you a genius, it just means you know some math tricks. Isn't this just the mathematical equivalent of how many peanuts can you stuff up your nose?
I find the "Yahweh is complex" argument to be a cop out. You start with the premise that you want to believe in yahweh, then come up with beliefs about your god to justify it (without modifying any of your original premise). Prayer doesn't seem to effect much, so people come up with "god isn't understandable" argument. I guess.. but you ignore other equally plausible explanations. Maybe this yahweh person doesn't exist, or he's an evil god who just likes seeing people ask for things they won't get. Maybe yahweh does exist, but there's some secret code you need to put at the beginning for your prayer to get through. Ah, but that would be science. Religion doesn't like to modify its beliefs based on evidence.
Prayer may or may not be effective. There's no way to empiracally prove it one way or the other. Spending all of this time arguing about it, whether because you want to support your own belief in no God, or because you're scared of it, or for whatever other reason is pointless.
Pointless? How is a determining if your methods of curing disease actually help or not pointless? If it were we would have a great tool against curing disease. If all you're doing is helping people get through a tough time, hey that's great.. but wouldn't you rather know that?
It all seems far to convienent. Faith seems to boil down to "I want to believe, and will justify it by whatever means necessary". That's fine I guess, but stop trying to argue it's truth.
If they want to credit their belief in pink unicorns for her daughter's recovery, more power to 'em.
I guess I really think people should credit things they know to be of actual help rather than things that have been never been show to be of help other than to the prayers.
If praying helps you deal with the situation, hey whatever gets you through the night. But when you start advocating it as a means to solve medical problems, I've got a problem with that. The christian scientists do it, and I'll deride them for it every time.
While I don't blame them for doing whatever they think they have to to help their kid, I really think you should be looking towards modern medical science for the credit. If you look toward thing praying thing, well I guess all the other people prayed for that had the same disease were just dickweeds.
If the case had jeopardy attached (and it probably did) and the Feds lose (it looks like they lost), they can't just go drag up another law and try, try again.
Double jeopardy applies to a single law, not a single act. The Rodney King trial is a case in point. The officers were first tried in state court and aquitted. There were later tried in federal court and convicted of violating Kings civil rights.
See.. you've mistaken saying something that isn't totally crazy with saying it's actually true. Yes, if a huge number of people believe something it's not relegated to the nutso tinfoil hat crowd. That doesn't mean it's true or even more likely to be true, but only that it's not dissmissable out of hand like the wacko consispiracy theories.
The original intent of the wiretap law was to prevent people from eavesdropping on conversations between two parties without appropriate judicial oversight. So is using a keylogger wiretapping? It depends.
That's true, but the reason the feds are allowed such a law is because only the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce. That's why the scope of this federal wiretapping law is only within the bounds of interstate communications. In this case the content of the communication is irrelevant (letters to mom not withstanding).
The real answer is an updated law to reflect the updated technology. Relying on Judges to protect our rights is the sign of a lazy legislature.
The real answer is to get your state legislature to pass easedropping laws (though I'm almost positive they already exist). I'd bet he could be still prosecuted at a state level for violating some kind of anti-bugging law. As far as relying on judges to protect our rights, you do that every single day. Lest you forget our form of government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The judges interpret the law and the legislature makes them. Really the primary defendent of your rights is the judges.
Sorry, but the JFK assasination isn't just a tinfoil hat conspiracy akin to the people who think Elvis faked his own death, or the moon landing was faked. It's widely believed by a large percentage of the populace, and there's decent evidence that it at least could have happened. Oh, and lest you forgot Oswald did NOT die in prison, he was shot shortly after Kennedy by Jack Ruby.
And what is more natural?
You don't think violence is natural? I guess you've never seen Wild Kingdom before. The lion taking down the elk is violence, though obviously not violence against humans. Humans have been killing each other for millions of years, and really that's no different from any other animal. (Yes other animals commit murder against their own species, mostly the more intelligent ones).
The whole porn debate aside I'm just really tired of this compulsion people have to trout out "natural vs un-natural" to justify whatever they want. Nature is just everything around you that exists in the universe. Un-natural things are things that don't actually exist. You can debate whether porn or violence is good or bad.. but it doesn't have anything to do with natural vs un-natural.
Protecting children from porn is no different in my eyes than protecting them from cigarettes.
Right, because we've conclusively shown that porn is harmfull to health just like cigarettes. I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh.. we should protect children from this man and his dangerous ideas.
Pornography is something that should be relegated to adults. It's just not the same thing as cigarettes. If you want to make a comparision, compare it to violence. Some people believe it to be harmfull, other don't. There's been no conclusive evidence either way, but most people seem to think it's prudent to not allow minors under a certain age to view it.