Having the right to bear arms does not give you the right to attack with them. The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property with them.
I'm sorry, but often, the line between 'attack' and 'defend' is to blurry for me to tell which is which.
If you're forcing someone to listen to you, then yes you're violating their rights. But if you happen to be yelling your views in the middle of Times Square, no one is being forced to listen to you. They are after all perfectly capable of not walking there, or at least wearing some kind of hearing protection.
Not really. If you're unaware before you enter that I'm yelling stuff, you will be forced to listen to me at least once. That's like saying the victim didn't have to enter the corridor where they were raped.
Which begs the question... what should we use as the ultimate basis for human rights?
I can't see any better solution than a current human authority. I'd much rather have that than some arbitrary text written down in some book by a handful of people (religion).
However, I would argue that this is not a very useful definition for 'right', because then you raise the substantial issue of who defines that which is just, morally good, proper, or fitting.I don't agree. That's an entirely separate question. It may be raised in association with any question of morality and ethics - yet we do not conclude as a result that morality or ethics are unuseful.
But when one is debating morality and ethics, one makes it quite clear in one's language that whatever they are advocating is their opinion. It's not a very useful word if the noun 'right' assumes that whatever it describes is basically defined by the speaker.
and yet disagree on exactly what rights we properly have, and on what justification.
Quite. The law clarifies exactly what legal rights we properly have, and seems by far the best definition as to what a 'right' is. It's unfortunate that that particular word has been used because it's identical to the adjective that isn't necessarily the same thing at all; not all rights are right, and not everything that's right is a right.:-) But it has.
You could make that claim, if you wish. You can make any claim you wish. However, the claim would be false on its face. No one using any recognisable variant of the classical liberal paradigm would consider it valid.
What about something more grey, then, like an individual's right to retain copyright on a work for 50 years after their death? Now nobody agrees, and your definition of a 'right' becomes rather worthless.
This is what we mean when we say that 'rights are negative' - they don't obligate others to do things for you, or to waive their own rights in favour of your own
What about the 'right to bear arms'? That gives people an ability to easily inflict serious physical damage on others. Or are you about to seriously argue that it's a 'negative' right because bearing arms isn't actually the same thing as firing them (which is an obvious common result of the former)?
If I demand that you refrain from raping me, I am in no way intruding on your rights, as they do not extend into my body.
What about my free speech in a public place? Does that 'extend' into your body because you can't avoid hearing me if you walk past, and get offended?
One may claim whatever one wants, but no amount of claiming can alter the fact that rape is wrong and any claim to have a right to rape is self-contradictory and invalid.
According to whom is rape wrong? I doubt most rapists would agree.
With that definition, all you need to do is get a legislature to vote for that proposition and voilá! the right is created, and by that definition it becomes perfectly correct and valid to claim a right to rape children.
Yes, I think I would agree with that definition. I just don't see what is wrong with it, exactly. Just because the state declares a 'right to rape children' doesn't mean you can't say, "that right is utterly wrong and should be repealed."
I don't do that stuff. But I doubt most AdBlock users care. They block all ads anyway. Freeloading! It's the only way to be.
And before you start on the 'I never click on ads anyway' crap, just don't. I've heard it all before, and I still say you shouldn't block ads. Don't like it, don't visit the site.
I'd agree with everything but the last clause. The word 'right' is exactly the proper descriptor of the first class of entity, and of no other. Law does not create rights, it either respects them or it violates them.
Bizarrely, the American Heritage Dictionary seems to agree with you, as the main definition: 1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
However, I would argue that this is not a very useful definition for 'right', because then you raise the substantial issue of who defines that which is just, morally good, proper, or fitting. My definition would be much close to: 2.g. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Why it's down as 2.g. I don't really know; when I've encountered the word, it's generally meant this instead. If you look down the page a bit, 'WordNet' defines this as the #1 meaning.
So basically, it looks like the whole problem with this is a simple one - the definition of the word 'right'. Shame we can't settle on one, but I'd argue that 2.g. is the most useful definition as I've described above.
The most basic mechanism for redress is also a fundamental right - the right to defend oneself. Any legitimate law enforcement function consists of acting as an agent of the victim.
You could define it that way, but the trouble is that then you have to agree with the sentence (as far as I can tell), "It's a paedophile's right to rape any child they want." This right is enforced by their own self-defence. Of course, that sounds nonsensical and it is, because we commonly think of rights as things that are morally acceptable to 'most people', but that's such a grey definition that it's pretty useless. More useful to say that a right is a government-enforced guarantee, and that if it's not but you think it should be, just say, "I think they should have the right..."
Yeah, right. It's impossible to get a browser plugin that scans a page for URLs and turns them into links.
I conclude that, within the meaning of s 101(1A)(a), Mr Cooper had power to prevent the copying in Australia of copyright sound recordings via his website.
That is, I think, where I take issue to the judge. That is an idiotic sentence. He had no power to prevent people downloading copyrighted sound recordings from where they got them because he hosted none of them on his website. 'via', in this context, strongly implies that his website directly supplied the copyrighted material, which of course it didn't.
He wasn't linking to just pages, he was linking directly to the MP3's themselves.
Irrelevant, IMNSHO. A webpage is a resource, so is an MP3. Different nodes of the same category.
Using your analogy, it's like putting a special button embedded in the book that will magically create a "copy" of that reference on your desk for you.
No, that would be hosting the MP3 on your own website. The web just makes following a reference a little easier.
Isn't this like preventing a news reporter from referring to a book, because someone might go out and photocopy it illegally? If this layman's analogy was given, how many common people would think this ruling to be idiocy?
Think Skylab - how easy it was to put 283 cubic metres of habitable space up there after Moon landings.
Think Space:1999. There's a serious risk that any moon colony could be separated from the Earth, leaving the poor inhabitants to drift depressingly through space for years and age simultaneously to grey-haired 60-somethings.
Because Windows (and all the software that runs on Windows*) only supports AMD's chips!
Wha??? It's more like AMD 'supports' Windows' platform. They emulate Intel's x86 architecture. If IBM/Motorola did so too, Windows would 'support' them.
What about calls to 1-800 numbers? This has been most useful to me (my hosting provider doesn't offer live web chat but does have a 1-800 number). I can call this for free from Skype, but on my phone it costs me because it's an international call.
Indeed. Historians are still trying to figure out how parents raised their children before the advent of dedicated children's TV channels. Some actually claim that they had to spend some time with their kids, or limit their TV viewing to certain times.
Books, Books, Books, Books, Books. Is there any reason you don't point the reader to some of the very large amount of high quality information available on the web nowadays? Books were invented before there was a vastly superior mechanism for transfer of information.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if it takes 20 seconds to wake up from sleep, why not just shut the thing down and boot it from scratch? That sounds like an irritatingly long time.
To paraphrase the whole thing: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of a well regulated Militia, as long as it's necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
It's more like, "We made a mistake here and didn't proofread, leading to a highly ambiguous amendment". Unfortunately. The sentence just doesn't parse, and could mean either of these possibilities. In addition, 'arms' isn't a very well-defined word and could mean anything from limbs to a nuclear bomb. In short, the amendment is weak because it's pretty damn ambiguous. Apparently the writers of the constitution weren't lawyers, but it's a shame they didn't write this amendment more clearly.
national philosophy [...] "We're going to say what we want and we're going to stand up for ourselves."
Can you explain to me the difference between a nation with such a philosophy, and an anarchy?
Democracy does, to an extent, rely on the government being more powerful than the people. Otherwise, surely, the government is powerless to legislate and you might as well not have a government.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody just got a brand new phantom in their driveway
Did they bribe Infinium to actually build one then?
Having the right to bear arms does not give you the right to attack with them. The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property with them.
I'm sorry, but often, the line between 'attack' and 'defend' is to blurry for me to tell which is which.
If you're forcing someone to listen to you, then yes you're violating their rights. But if you happen to be yelling your views in the middle of Times Square, no one is being forced to listen to you. They are after all perfectly capable of not walking there, or at least wearing some kind of hearing protection.
Not really. If you're unaware before you enter that I'm yelling stuff, you will be forced to listen to me at least once. That's like saying the victim didn't have to enter the corridor where they were raped.
Which begs the question... what should we use as the ultimate basis for human rights?
I can't see any better solution than a current human authority. I'd much rather have that than some arbitrary text written down in some book by a handful of people (religion).
But when one is debating morality and ethics, one makes it quite clear in one's language that whatever they are advocating is their opinion. It's not a very useful word if the noun 'right' assumes that whatever it describes is basically defined by the speaker.
and yet disagree on exactly what rights we properly have, and on what justification.
Quite. The law clarifies exactly what legal rights we properly have, and seems by far the best definition as to what a 'right' is. It's unfortunate that that particular word has been used because it's identical to the adjective that isn't necessarily the same thing at all; not all rights are right, and not everything that's right is a right.
You could make that claim, if you wish. You can make any claim you wish. However, the claim would be false on its face. No one using any recognisable variant of the classical liberal paradigm would consider it valid.
What about something more grey, then, like an individual's right to retain copyright on a work for 50 years after their death? Now nobody agrees, and your definition of a 'right' becomes rather worthless.
This is what we mean when we say that 'rights are negative' - they don't obligate others to do things for you, or to waive their own rights in favour of your own
What about the 'right to bear arms'? That gives people an ability to easily inflict serious physical damage on others. Or are you about to seriously argue that it's a 'negative' right because bearing arms isn't actually the same thing as firing them (which is an obvious common result of the former)?
If I demand that you refrain from raping me, I am in no way intruding on your rights, as they do not extend into my body.
What about my free speech in a public place? Does that 'extend' into your body because you can't avoid hearing me if you walk past, and get offended?
One may claim whatever one wants, but no amount of claiming can alter the fact that rape is wrong and any claim to have a right to rape is self-contradictory and invalid.
According to whom is rape wrong? I doubt most rapists would agree.
With that definition, all you need to do is get a legislature to vote for that proposition and voilá! the right is created, and by that definition it becomes perfectly correct and valid to claim a right to rape children.
Yes, I think I would agree with that definition. I just don't see what is wrong with it, exactly. Just because the state declares a 'right to rape children' doesn't mean you can't say, "that right is utterly wrong and should be repealed."
I don't do that stuff. But I doubt most AdBlock users care. They block all ads anyway. Freeloading! It's the only way to be.
And before you start on the 'I never click on ads anyway' crap, just don't. I've heard it all before, and I still say you shouldn't block ads. Don't like it, don't visit the site.
Oh, and John McCain must spend 4 hours a day browsing YouTube for inappropriate material.
I think he does that already.
I'd agree with everything but the last clause. The word 'right' is exactly the proper descriptor of the first class of entity, and of no other. Law does not create rights, it either respects them or it violates them.
Bizarrely, the American Heritage Dictionary seems to agree with you, as the main definition:
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
However, I would argue that this is not a very useful definition for 'right', because then you raise the substantial issue of who defines that which is just, morally good, proper, or fitting. My definition would be much close to:
2.g. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Why it's down as 2.g. I don't really know; when I've encountered the word, it's generally meant this instead. If you look down the page a bit, 'WordNet' defines this as the #1 meaning.
So basically, it looks like the whole problem with this is a simple one - the definition of the word 'right'. Shame we can't settle on one, but I'd argue that 2.g. is the most useful definition as I've described above.
The most basic mechanism for redress is also a fundamental right - the right to defend oneself. Any legitimate law enforcement function consists of acting as an agent of the victim.
You could define it that way, but the trouble is that then you have to agree with the sentence (as far as I can tell), "It's a paedophile's right to rape any child they want." This right is enforced by their own self-defence. Of course, that sounds nonsensical and it is, because we commonly think of rights as things that are morally acceptable to 'most people', but that's such a grey definition that it's pretty useless. More useful to say that a right is a government-enforced guarantee, and that if it's not but you think it should be, just say, "I think they should have the right..."
It's more than a 'right'. Corporations have special needs.
Fuck you.
-- Website developer
I think you have the right idea there
Yeah, right. It's impossible to get a browser plugin that scans a page for URLs and turns them into links.
I conclude that, within the meaning of s 101(1A)(a), Mr Cooper had power to prevent the copying in Australia of copyright sound recordings via his website.
That is, I think, where I take issue to the judge. That is an idiotic sentence. He had no power to prevent people downloading copyrighted sound recordings from where they got them because he hosted none of them on his website. 'via', in this context, strongly implies that his website directly supplied the copyrighted material, which of course it didn't.
He wasn't linking to just pages, he was linking directly to the MP3's themselves.
Irrelevant, IMNSHO. A webpage is a resource, so is an MP3. Different nodes of the same category.
Using your analogy, it's like putting a special button embedded in the book that will magically create a "copy" of that reference on your desk for you.
No, that would be hosting the MP3 on your own website. The web just makes following a reference a little easier.
Yeah, well that's on attitude.
Mine is that telling someone how to commit a crime is not the same as committing a crime.
Isn't this like preventing a news reporter from referring to a book, because someone might go out and photocopy it illegally? If this layman's analogy was given, how many common people would think this ruling to be idiocy?
Think Skylab - how easy it was to put 283 cubic metres of habitable space up there after Moon landings.
Think Space:1999. There's a serious risk that any moon colony could be separated from the Earth, leaving the poor inhabitants to drift depressingly through space for years and age simultaneously to grey-haired 60-somethings.
And if the environmental costs of the best solution rise, the more widely that solution is deployed...?
Because Windows (and all the software that runs on Windows*) only supports AMD's chips!
Wha??? It's more like AMD 'supports' Windows' platform. They emulate Intel's x86 architecture. If IBM/Motorola did so too, Windows would 'support' them.
What about calls to 1-800 numbers? This has been most useful to me (my hosting provider doesn't offer live web chat but does have a 1-800 number). I can call this for free from Skype, but on my phone it costs me because it's an international call.
use Perl;
Indeed. Historians are still trying to figure out how parents raised their children before the advent of dedicated children's TV channels. Some actually claim that they had to spend some time with their kids, or limit their TV viewing to certain times.
Books, Books, Books, Books, Books. Is there any reason you don't point the reader to some of the very large amount of high quality information available on the web nowadays? Books were invented before there was a vastly superior mechanism for transfer of information.
I also remind anyone that's learning UML not to get confused / misled by the name. It's not unified, and it's not a language. It is for modeling.
A more appropriate name would be SDS; 'Standard Diagram Set'.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if it takes 20 seconds to wake up from sleep, why not just shut the thing down and boot it from scratch? That sounds like an irritatingly long time.
To paraphrase the whole thing: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of a well regulated Militia, as long as it's necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
It's more like, "We made a mistake here and didn't proofread, leading to a highly ambiguous amendment". Unfortunately. The sentence just doesn't parse, and could mean either of these possibilities. In addition, 'arms' isn't a very well-defined word and could mean anything from limbs to a nuclear bomb. In short, the amendment is weak because it's pretty damn ambiguous. Apparently the writers of the constitution weren't lawyers, but it's a shame they didn't write this amendment more clearly.
Flamebait NOT intended.
national philosophy [...] "We're going to say what we want and we're going to stand up for ourselves."
Can you explain to me the difference between a nation with such a philosophy, and an anarchy?
Democracy does, to an extent, rely on the government being more powerful than the people. Otherwise, surely, the government is powerless to legislate and you might as well not have a government.
Would this have been able to happen so easily if Switzerland wasn't so gun-totin'?
Slashdot doesn't accept the €uro Symbol?
Try the HTML entity.