3. I didn't say we are. You said privacy is not a freedom, but it is. Whether we actually have that freedom is in doubt. The problem with torture (or at least a problem with it) is the slippery slope. Would you be willing to accept being tortured (I mean you yourself getting tortured) if the feds were 65% sure you had information that had a 90% chance of saving 10,000 people? How do we decide who to torture and who not?
As for the surveillence, I'm more concerned with the fact that the President considers himself above the law than with the specifics fo what he did. Obviously that doesn't concern you since you think he's above the law as well.
If there was an outbreak of disease and the best thing for the country is to blow up a city (as in the movie Outbreak) then that's what must be done, and guess who's job it is to order it? Yep, that's right, the PRESIDENT! Go get educated on U.S. Politics, the genius of the system will make sense to you eventually.
Well, you seem pretty sure of yourself. So what statute or article of or amendment to the Constitution gives the President the authority to violate any law at any time? And if all you have is "executive authority" or some such hand-waving, you needn't bother. I'm interested in exactly what law authorizes this. So educate me!
1) Do you really think what you replied to was "insane" or thoughtless? Seems like a pretty extreme characarization. 2) You're quite correct in saying that some rights (and rights violations) are different than others. 3) Privacy is the freedom from government surveillance.
Last I checked they won't be finding my contact info in some AQ member's phone, nor do I call anyone internationally, let alone one that would be listed.
So you're going with the "looks like it hasn't been abused so far, must be A-OK" approach. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that, and I hope a lot of Congressional members aren't either.
The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency.
By "like this" you mean "that are illegal"? What law gives him that authority? Who decides when there's a state of emergency? If it's the President, doesn't that mean he has executive authority to do whatever he wants at any time? Don't you think that's a problem?
Wikipedia's founders are the ones who should be responsible for libel, since they're hosting it, and they created the system in the first place
So presumably you think that/. should also be responsible for the comments you make here, right? And people who host newsgroup archives should be responsible for all that content, and forums, and blog sites, and on and on and on? Do you want to discourage or encourage people to make information freely available?
Note the tagline at the top of the page: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
Obviously, there's no advantage to burning oil in power plants instead of ICEs,
Are you sure? My understanding is that oil- and natural gas-burning power plants are more efficient than ICEs. Though in fine/. tradition I don't have numbers to back that up. Anybody else?
"...the cable companies are exmepted from opening up their networks through government regulations." What "regulations" exempt them from sharing their resources with competitors? Are you claiming that in a pure free market, that Verizon would permit some other company to use its infrastructure for free? It is the lack of regulation that allows them to keep their networks closed, so if you want the government to force them to open up the networks, you're advocating more socialism, not less.
It's clear that he was slammed by a security hole in a third-party application he was running on his system as an Administrator. (Not to mention, a third party application with a history of known defects...) If the OS were designed properly, no defect in an application would allow a malicious user access to something like the registry. But since applications have to have write access to everything on Windows...
Slashdot Mirror
3. I didn't say we are. You said privacy is not a freedom, but it is. Whether we actually have that freedom is in doubt. The problem with torture (or at least a problem with it) is the slippery slope. Would you be willing to accept being tortured (I mean you yourself getting tortured) if the feds were 65% sure you had information that had a 90% chance of saving 10,000 people? How do we decide who to torture and who not? As for the surveillence, I'm more concerned with the fact that the President considers himself above the law than with the specifics fo what he did. Obviously that doesn't concern you since you think he's above the law as well.
Well, you seem pretty sure of yourself. So what statute or article of or amendment to the Constitution gives the President the authority to violate any law at any time? And if all you have is "executive authority" or some such hand-waving, you needn't bother. I'm interested in exactly what law authorizes this. So educate me!
1) Do you really think what you replied to was "insane" or thoughtless? Seems like a pretty extreme characarization.
2) You're quite correct in saying that some rights (and rights violations) are different than others.
3) Privacy is the freedom from government surveillance.
So you're going with the "looks like it hasn't been abused so far, must be A-OK" approach. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that, and I hope a lot of Congressional members aren't either.
By "like this" you mean "that are illegal"? What law gives him that authority? Who decides when there's a state of emergency? If it's the President, doesn't that mean he has executive authority to do whatever he wants at any time? Don't you think that's a problem?
All of them? There aren't any sensible people of those faiths?
So presumably you think that /. should also be responsible for the comments you make here, right? And people who host newsgroup archives should be responsible for all that content, and forums, and blog sites, and on and on and on? Do you want to discourage or encourage people to make information freely available?
Note the tagline at the top of the page: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
I just did a Google search to check this, and I saw no graphical ads at all. So what are you talking about?
Obviously, there's no advantage to burning oil in power plants instead of ICEs, /. tradition I don't have numbers to back that up. Anybody else?
Are you sure? My understanding is that oil- and natural gas-burning power plants are more efficient than ICEs. Though in fine
"...the cable companies are exmepted from opening up their networks through government regulations."
What "regulations" exempt them from sharing their resources with competitors? Are you claiming that in a pure free market, that Verizon would permit some other company to use its infrastructure for free? It is the lack of regulation that allows them to keep their networks closed, so if you want the government to force them to open up the networks, you're advocating more socialism, not less.
Not false, just hyperbole.
It's clear that he was slammed by a security hole in a third-party application he was running on his system as an Administrator. (Not to mention, a third party application with a history of known defects...)
If the OS were designed properly, no defect in an application would allow a malicious user access to something like the registry. But since applications have to have write access to everything on Windows...
The opposite of "certain" isn't "irrational" it's "uncertain". And yes, there was an uncertain number of both.