True, but in a democracy there's an even better and more readily available method of control. Voting. And I don't think you can argue that Bush & Co. aren't doing things vastly differently than they were before the '04 elections.
Yes, but nobody (even Nintendo) expected the Wii to take off like it has. So they didn't start things early enough and now see there's money to be made. What's the fastest way to that money? Pushing out crap.
Indeed, if you don't have a 360 and want one with a HD AND want the bigger one its stupid not to buy the elite. If you've already got a premium, things are a little muddier. Personally, I'd wait until the HDMI port comes standard on all 3.
Just off the top of my head, from 'The Beautiful People':
Capitalism has made it this way, Old-fashioned fascism will take it away
It presumably taking about the eponymous beautiful people and society's desire to be like them.
Well, as I recall, Service merchandise was exactly like that. There was a showroom with the actual items, and the then you had to order. They had a warehouse on site, but most of the stuff, you just placed your order there and it was delivered to you.
Only if NASA didn't want it and it was done independently from his work for NASA (e.g. he stayed after hours) I believe. It would depend on the individual's employment agreement. Steve Wozniak developed the Apple I while working for HP, and they had first rights to it because of his employment.
Because in the USSR there wasn't any private research going on, it was all under the state. So it doesn't stifle of itself, just by the fact that there wasn't anything else going on.
Yes, the existence of a natural right is separate from the ability to (or to not) express it. I would argue that natural rights are those rights that are an integral part of being human. It is possible to frame that in the context between God and man, but where they originate is tangental to their existance/expression.
The short argument for natural rights is that in a state of nature, these rights would define the interactions between people. E.g. within the state of nature, one has the right to do what they want to preserve their own liberty. Your example of sewing my mouth shut is then valid only to the extent that my words impeded on your liberty and more so on my ability to stop you.
I'm going to link Wikipedia now , because I'm lazy and these explain things about as well as I could. Well, that and its been a while since I read Locke.
Practically, there is very little between creating a new right and discovering one. That's where the arguments on right to privacy originate. In other words I don't have a good answer. A fair bit of this is perspective. But if our rights are not granted by the government ( as I would say), they would have to be "discovered", as the Supreme Court cannot create what is already there. If rights do come from the government (as you would), they are created (that gets into a whole other matter of who can create those rights, the judiciary or the legislature)
Oh, and thanks for showing me that slashdot hasn't completely gone to shit.
What it means to be human has been debated for centuries. I doubt that will be settled anytime soon.
I would argue the opposite, that in the state of nature, rights exist. Again, just because the ability to express a right does not exist (e.g. freedom of the press, which is really just a superset of freedom of speech), does not mean it does not exist.
Either way, the rights that we as people have are not bound by the words that are written in the constitution. EIther they are discovered in the course of human interaction, as I would say or society changes to the extent that the right is needed, as I would gather you would. With all that being said, the original post to which I replied is still wrong:)
Yes you could argue that, but then you'd be wrong.;)
The existence of a right is separate from the ability to express it. The constitution prevents the government from preventing us from expressing those rights. The problem with this is that no one (other than God, if you so believe) knows the full extent of our natural rights. One can argue that anything is in that realm of rights beyond those easily agreed upon, that doesn't mean that just because a right can be argued for, it is a natural right.
The closest allegory I can think of is Plato's idea of the forms. Just as the form of something exists separate from our perception of that thing, so do our natural rights exist separate from our ability to perceive and therefore express them. We can argue until we're blue that any given right is "natural", a convincing argument won't make it so.
One could argue that privacy is like property, you have no right to intrude upon mine without good reason. Implict in your argument that one is "ashamed of your actions" is that others have a right to know what I am doing. Right to privacy isn't necessarily a right to anonymity, but a right to keep others out.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a large number of people haven't liked Bush from the start and he's an easy focal point whenever things go wrong.
And impeachment with what other punishment would be effective?
True, but in a democracy there's an even better and more readily available method of control. Voting. And I don't think you can argue that Bush & Co. aren't doing things vastly differently than they were before the '04 elections.
Right, because who's next in line is so much better.
Giving the roaring success of the PS3, I'm not sure they've succeeded.
Seems MS was right to put the new xbox at $480 then. Keeps the $100 premium for the PS3 intact.
yes, they exist. I have one. It is all sorts of teh awesome. If the demand wasn't there there would be more on the shelves.
Umm, unless you're 18 (which I have no way of telling), you don't have the rights of adults to begin with.
Indeed. Now if my TV wasn't broken...
Yes, but nobody (even Nintendo) expected the Wii to take off like it has. So they didn't start things early enough and now see there's money to be made. What's the fastest way to that money? Pushing out crap.
I think its better to just never speak of that abomination again.
So, in the end, there no /down/ side for anyone, but the only ones with an up side are the adult industries.
And that's a problem because?
Indeed, if you don't have a 360 and want one with a HD AND want the bigger one its stupid not to buy the elite. If you've already got a premium, things are a little muddier. Personally, I'd wait until the HDMI port comes standard on all 3.
Just off the top of my head, from 'The Beautiful People': Capitalism has made it this way, Old-fashioned fascism will take it away It presumably taking about the eponymous beautiful people and society's desire to be like them.
Well, as I recall, Service merchandise was exactly like that. There was a showroom with the actual items, and the then you had to order. They had a warehouse on site, but most of the stuff, you just placed your order there and it was delivered to you.
You mean like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalog_showroom Those have worked out really well. ;)
Ask and ye shall recieve: http://www.gadgets-reviews.com/index.php?page=post &id=166
ok, its not really a heatsink, but it is active.
Only if NASA didn't want it and it was done independently from his work for NASA (e.g. he stayed after hours) I believe. It would depend on the individual's employment agreement. Steve Wozniak developed the Apple I while working for HP, and they had first rights to it because of his employment.
Because in the USSR there wasn't any private research going on, it was all under the state. So it doesn't stifle of itself, just by the fact that there wasn't anything else going on.
Yes, the existence of a natural right is separate from the ability to (or to not) express it. I would argue that natural rights are those rights that are an integral part of being human. It is possible to frame that in the context between God and man, but where they originate is tangental to their existance/expression.
The short argument for natural rights is that in a state of nature, these rights would define the interactions between people. E.g. within the state of nature, one has the right to do what they want to preserve their own liberty. Your example of sewing my mouth shut is then valid only to the extent that my words impeded on your liberty and more so on my ability to stop you.
I'm going to link Wikipedia now , because I'm lazy and these explain things about as well as I could. Well, that and its been a while since I read Locke.
State of Nature
Natural Rights
Practically, there is very little between creating a new right and discovering one. That's where the arguments on right to privacy originate. In other words I don't have a good answer. A fair bit of this is perspective. But if our rights are not granted by the government ( as I would say), they would have to be "discovered", as the Supreme Court cannot create what is already there. If rights do come from the government (as you would), they are created (that gets into a whole other matter of who can create those rights, the judiciary or the legislature)
Oh, and thanks for showing me that slashdot hasn't completely gone to shit.
What it means to be human has been debated for centuries. I doubt that will be settled anytime soon.
:)
I would argue the opposite, that in the state of nature, rights exist. Again, just because the ability to express a right does not exist (e.g. freedom of the press, which is really just a superset of freedom of speech), does not mean it does not exist.
Either way, the rights that we as people have are not bound by the words that are written in the constitution. EIther they are discovered in the course of human interaction, as I would say or society changes to the extent that the right is needed, as I would gather you would. With all that being said, the original post to which I replied is still wrong
Yes you could argue that, but then you'd be wrong.;)
The existence of a right is separate from the ability to express it. The constitution prevents the government from preventing us from expressing those rights. The problem with this is that no one (other than God, if you so believe) knows the full extent of our natural rights. One can argue that anything is in that realm of rights beyond those easily agreed upon, that doesn't mean that just because a right can be argued for, it is a natural right.
The closest allegory I can think of is Plato's idea of the forms. Just as the form of something exists separate from our perception of that thing, so do our natural rights exist separate from our ability to perceive and therefore express them. We can argue until we're blue that any given right is "natural", a convincing argument won't make it so.
No, before laws there weren't institutional protections for my rights of expression. Just because you can sew my mouth shut doesn't make it a right.
What does it mean to be human? I would argue that our natural rights to expression are an integral part of being human.
One could argue that privacy is like property, you have no right to intrude upon mine without good reason. Implict in your argument that one is "ashamed of your actions" is that others have a right to know what I am doing. Right to privacy isn't necessarily a right to anonymity, but a right to keep others out.