"Clean air is a side effect" - No, clean air is clearly the effect aimed at. It's the goal. A side effect is something unintended.
I could make a similar case for the other points, but the key rule is that your freedoms can be taken away from you by other people or entities enjoying their freedom. Only by laws which prevent those freedoms being infringed (which probably do infringe on a theoretical "freedom" of another party) can they be preserved.
If you can't exercise your right then for all intents and purposes you don't have that right. An anarchic society without laws is one where the stong are the only ones with any meaningful rights.
Appropriate laws provide freedoms. Clean air regulations provide you the freedom to breathe. Criminal restrictions provide you freedom from oppression by your neighbors. Regulations regarding food and drug quality provide you freedom from being injured or from being fleeced by unscrupulous companies.
Some laws do take away "freedoms". You have to wear a seatbelt now, you can't smoke indoors in New York, you can't shoot someone just for the heck of it.
To say laws only take freedoms away is naive. Put down the Ayn Rand and think about how laws and the rule of law is what allows civilization and its accompanying freedoms to exist.
No, I was serious. There's a law against cracking passwords and entering computers already on the books. That's what Mitnick was busted for, wasn't it?
As for "we have enough laws" that's like the prince in Amadeus telling Mozart there were "Too Many Notes". I don't care if there's on ly one law or one million on the books, as long as it does the job of creating the type of society we all want to live in.
You only get the agreement click in IE if you've set your security to Medium or above. Otherwise, it just goes right ahead and installs itself on your visit.
Of course, you should have your security on Medium or above. The companies involved would probably say a lower security setting is implied consent. But saying that's implied consent is like saying leaving your gate to your fenced in yard open is an inducement to fill your yard with tarantulas, alligators, and land sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.
Actually the courts have ruled in the past the 9th and 10th Amendment contain a right to privacy
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I sent myself an e-mail from GMail to my hotmail and yahoo accounts (yeah, I have one on each, what's it to you?) and it was delivered no more than thirty seconds later.
Get me Snopes on line 1, I have a new urban legend for them.
You believe in universal free speech? Do you believe in advocating the violent overthrow of the government? Do you believe in publishing half-blown apart heads on newpaper front pages? Do you believe in allowing 50,000 watt stations to set up anywhere on the dial they'd like, trampling on the speech of the stations around them?
Your arguments read like a freshman college student trying out new tricks from his rhetoric class. Think through the practical implications of what you are saying. "Free Speech" is a great idea, but like "free love" it doesn't really exist.
You're joking, right? I haven't abandoned any position. We as a people decide things by electing people who carry out our collective will. That "small group of powerful individuals" are the people who make those laws. Got it?
As for the strawman - see your statements regarding my supposed support for any law just because it's a law or "my opposition to free speech". I don't oppose free speech. Money is not speech and free speech does not mean completely unregulated speech. Yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre for an example of regulated speech that does not harm free speech.
To set up an equivalent strawman - by your reasoning of completley free speech, I should be able to set up a 50,000 watt radio station wherever I damn well please and boradcast "Fuck Tha Police" 24-7. Or better, drive vans around blasting my political message at top volume 24-7 through residential neighborhoods.
We regulate speech such as loud noises in a hospital zone, we regulate speech such as irresponsible statements of slander or libel. We also regulate speech regarding the paid use of the airwaves the public owns.
ANY law is decided by a small group of powerful individuals.
They're called your Congressmen and your President. It's how we make MOST laws in a Republic.
As for the bullcrap strawman you set up, I reject it and wonder that you don't see the flaws in your argument without "anticipating your argument would be thoroughly demolished", fanboy.
The radio station is using public airwaves to do this. As part of the contract between the public and broadcast interests, a company is allowed to use the public airwaves in a manner deemed suitable by the people as expressed by the laws of the land and the rules of the agency regulating those airwaves. We've decided as a country that payola is bad, so it's bad.
No one cares what you broadcast on your home stereo(well, maybe the RIAA), but when you use our airwaves, you play by our rules.
Oh please, I used shorthand. What is the average reader going to think of when you call an RJ-45 "the net connector"? They're going to get the idea, right?
Excessive precision in language when not warranted results in verbosity and pomposity.
Slashdot Mirror
So where exactly does the fuse go?
Oh. Ew.
"Clean air is a side effect" - No, clean air is clearly the effect aimed at. It's the goal. A side effect is something unintended.
I could make a similar case for the other points, but the key rule is that your freedoms can be taken away from you by other people or entities enjoying their freedom. Only by laws which prevent those freedoms being infringed (which probably do infringe on a theoretical "freedom" of another party) can they be preserved.
If you can't exercise your right then for all intents and purposes you don't have that right. An anarchic society without laws is one where the stong are the only ones with any meaningful rights.
Appropriate laws provide freedoms. Clean air regulations provide you the freedom to breathe. Criminal restrictions provide you freedom from oppression by your neighbors. Regulations regarding food and drug quality provide you freedom from being injured or from being fleeced by unscrupulous companies.
Some laws do take away "freedoms". You have to wear a seatbelt now, you can't smoke indoors in New York, you can't shoot someone just for the heck of it.
To say laws only take freedoms away is naive. Put down the Ayn Rand and think about how laws and the rule of law is what allows civilization and its accompanying freedoms to exist.
I'm sure the wireless signal was then immediately hustled into a rug and kaftan shop.
I don't know if you should Google bomb the villianous scum.
The villianous scum may indeed be villianous scum, but will tagging them as villianous scum really accomplish what you want to see happen to the villianous scum?
No, I was serious. There's a law against cracking passwords and entering computers already on the books. That's what Mitnick was busted for, wasn't it?
As for "we have enough laws" that's like the prince in Amadeus telling Mozart there were "Too Many Notes". I don't care if there's on ly one law or one million on the books, as long as it does the job of creating the type of society we all want to live in.
I wish the answer to your first question was "nobody", but IE's got what - 80-90% market share? Sigh.
The U.S. signed it in 1977, but its never been ratified.
Sometimes I really hate Congress.
You only get the agreement click in IE if you've set your security to Medium or above. Otherwise, it just goes right ahead and installs itself on your visit.
Of course, you should have your security on Medium or above. The companies involved would probably say a lower security setting is implied consent. But saying that's implied consent is like saying leaving your gate to your fenced in yard open is an inducement to fill your yard with tarantulas, alligators, and land sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.
Actually the courts have ruled in the past the 9th and 10th Amendment contain a right to privacy
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Isn't there an electronic no-tresspassing law? If not, shouldn't there be?
I sent myself an e-mail from GMail to my hotmail and yahoo accounts (yeah, I have one on each, what's it to you?) and it was delivered no more than thirty seconds later.
Get me Snopes on line 1, I have a new urban legend for them.
So whales cause pollution?
James Watt, is that you?!
This is the Montessori method of teaching Linux. Brilliant. Maybe I can get some questions I've had answered, finally.
You believe in universal free speech? Do you believe in advocating the violent overthrow of the government? Do you believe in publishing half-blown apart heads on newpaper front pages? Do you believe in allowing 50,000 watt stations to set up anywhere on the dial they'd like, trampling on the speech of the stations around them?
Your arguments read like a freshman college student trying out new tricks from his rhetoric class. Think through the practical implications of what you are saying. "Free Speech" is a great idea, but like "free love" it doesn't really exist.
You're joking, right? I haven't abandoned any position. We as a people decide things by electing people who carry out our collective will. That "small group of powerful individuals" are the people who make those laws. Got it?
As for the strawman - see your statements regarding my supposed support for any law just because it's a law or "my opposition to free speech". I don't oppose free speech. Money is not speech and free speech does not mean completely unregulated speech. Yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre for an example of regulated speech that does not harm free speech.
To set up an equivalent strawman - by your reasoning of completley free speech, I should be able to set up a 50,000 watt radio station wherever I damn well please and boradcast "Fuck Tha Police" 24-7. Or better, drive vans around blasting my political message at top volume 24-7 through residential neighborhoods.
We regulate speech such as loud noises in a hospital zone, we regulate speech such as irresponsible statements of slander or libel. We also regulate speech regarding the paid use of the airwaves the public owns.
ANY law is decided by a small group of powerful individuals. They're called your Congressmen and your President. It's how we make MOST laws in a Republic.
As for the bullcrap strawman you set up, I reject it and wonder that you don't see the flaws in your argument without "anticipating your argument would be thoroughly demolished", fanboy.
No. They belong to the public. They are granted the license to use them in the interest of the public. Look it up.
The radio station is using public airwaves to do this. As part of the contract between the public and broadcast interests, a company is allowed to use the public airwaves in a manner deemed suitable by the people as expressed by the laws of the land and the rules of the agency regulating those airwaves. We've decided as a country that payola is bad, so it's bad.
No one cares what you broadcast on your home stereo(well, maybe the RIAA), but when you use our airwaves, you play by our rules.
It's so sad that something as wonderful and pure as music has spawned such a corrupt industry.
Next thing you know they'll be doing the same thing to love and sex.
OK, maybe I'm being too cynical. That'll never happen.
Hell - for that kind of bandwidth, find a guy at Case Western so you can leech his connection.
do you love your S.O.? Do you love the game? Which one is more important to you?
Limit the other one to whatever fits in with the primary priority.
Oh please, I used shorthand. What is the average reader going to think of when you call an RJ-45 "the net connector"? They're going to get the idea, right?
Excessive precision in language when not warranted results in verbosity and pomposity.
RJ-11 Jacks, you mean. RJ-45 are the net connectors. Kropla.