"If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences..."
I'm a bit curious on something even more basic that the synopsis mentioned. It seemed to say if an action harmed no one, it could still be judged as immoral. How can that be?
I thought morality ONLY came in to choice of whether or not an action caused harm to someone...usually giving you something good due to or in spite of their pain.
Can someone list an immoral act that causes no harm to anyone else???
Fortunately, not everyone lives in a home that is ruled by these type agreements.
Personally, I'd not buy a house that came with 'rules' and regulations on what I can and cannot do (within reason of city standards) to my own house and property I own.
"The Autobahn isn't as well-constructed as the US Interstate system. Our interstates are probably the best highways in the world."
Actually, I do not believe that is the case. From what I had read and seen on documentaries on the Autobahn, it was constructed almost from the beginning for speed. It has banked turns to help keep you on the road at speed, and I believe the road materials are thicker and more greatly reinforced for strength, and better for tires to grip the road.
From what I'd read...it would cost a great deal more for the US to do their highways like this. That's why they weren't constructed to those specs originally. Unfortunately, with the economic problems we're in now...doubtful we'll ever upgrade or do new construction to specs that will allow for safely using them at significantly higher speeds.
I think the last show I saw on this, was on the History channel...maybe Modern Marvels? Interesting to say the least.
"It is not "unchecked." The legal system still exists."
And I'm talking about USING the legal system as a check. The check being that they need to get a warrant or something similar from a court before pulling any sort of kill switch if by some chance this makes it into reality.
"It's because of the American attitude of entitlement. It causes road rage where we "OWN" the road and you doing the speed limit is taking away my RIGHT to break the law dammit! ARRRGH!!!!"
Well, why not just get out of the way?
I'm talking mostly about multi-lane highways. If someone wants to go faster than you, why not let them by? If nothing else, you now have THEM running as 'runner' for you and will catch the cops attention first and get caught why you cruise on by.
I only get pissed when I'm trying to go at what speed I consider to be safe for the terrain and road...and some idiot will not get out of the passing lane to let me by...they insist on going slow as the car in the right lane and will not attempt to get out of the way.
Actually, in many states, the law actually says to drive the speed that is safest for that area, which in reality makes the posted speed limits a suggested rate of speed.
Shouldn't we just be doing the OPPOSITE...and try to design roads that allow for speedier driving safely?
Why can't we start new roads, and even reconstruction on roads needing repairs to come up to standards like the Autobahn? Why not build a road designed to house heavier and fast traffic? Wouldn't that allow for quicker travel of people and goods?
From what I've seen of the stats of the Autobahn...they allow for many times the speed of highways in the US, yet the accident rate isn't proportionally worse at all.
"The problem with the E-Z Kill Switch is the potential for abuse. If a large swath of infrastructure can be disabled with the simple push of a button, when an emergency occurs and authorities get nervous, someone will "hit the button and ask questions later".
It doesn't really matter what the law "clearly indicates"; it doesn't really matter what the courts will say later. Once the button is pushed, the damage is done and un-pushing the button always takes longer.
Cicero, in ancient Rome, said it best: Silent enim leges inter arma. ("Among arms, the laws fall mute," or "In times of war, the law falls silent.") In an emergency, authorities will tend to do what they feel they need to do to address the issue, especially if it's easy.
Why make it easy?"
Absolutely. Does anyone not remember during Katrina in New Orleans...when the cops went around and illegally seized people's weapons that they had a perfectly legal right to own?? I mean, this was a time when a person that stayed here NEEDED a means to protect themselves, their families and possessions.
The courts ruled against the cops, and they had to return the guns they took...BUT, this was long after the fact when these people needed their weapons to defend themselves.
"Otherwise you could have the recent case in New Hampshire where the police heard no noise whatsoever, but on the basis of the neighbor's report busted into the house, found that nobody was getting hurt, but then arrested the guy & gal for possession of sex toys."
Sex toys are illegal in NH?!?!
Wow..that's interesting. And they are the "live free or die" state aren't they?
Got any links to articles on this?
I know there are some VERY archaic laws on the books in all states, but sex toys are a fairly modern things, no? Did someone pass anti-vibrator laws in the past 3-4 decades?
Law enforcement can get a court warrent to search, do whatever pretty quickly. I imagine the FISA courts can work pretty quickly (both have judges that can be called late at night for emergencies).
I'd think the same thing could be applied for an emergency in case of a cyber attack.
I frankly don't want law enforcement nor politicians getting MORE unchecked power. I'd at least love to have a semi-rubber stamp court in the middle. Better than nothing.
If nothing else, it would better allow for examination of need after the fact to help ensure there isn't abuse of power for the wrong reasons.
"While US did create ARPA in the 50's for military use, most of how Internet is used now a day has been actually created in Europe. US got the ball rolling, Europe polished and finished it."
I'm not quite sure about that, remember Internet != World Wide Web.
"As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing."
One of the MAIN problems of this bill is just that...that it is vague and not well defined as to just what exactly the president can and cannot do with regard to internet control/access...nor when he is authorized to do so. In fact, according to the article, they are going to be making up the rules, and these rules themselves can be secret.
If this were strictly and narrowly defined, I'd feel at least a little more at ease that this was solely for national security...
"back in your day
- when someone committed suicide, it was swept under the rug so they could get a church burial
- news about a suicide was local news, at best. this never would have made national news
so yay, there were kids' suicides, back in your days. you just never heard of them.
actually, there's a lot less violence today than in your day. it just gets reported and advertised a lot more. dead kids sell."
Hmm...trust me, in my highschool, if some kid offed themselves, we'd all know...it would have gone around the school quite quickly. I knew lots of kids at the other schools..never hear of it there either.
I kinda doubt the violence was more....sure, we had fights but you NEVER had anyone bringing guns to school...once or twice a knife did get brought in..and it was IMMEDIATE news in school. It was a rare thing...so rare that news of it spread like wildfire...and I was at a large highschool. No....when there was a fight, it was a fist fight.
Not sure what a suicide has to do with a church funeral? I don't know of my religion I grew up in saying you couldn't get a church funeral if you killed yourself?!?! What religion does that?
But, your right..it would be local news, not national news. Then again, when I grew up, we didn't have 24/7 news channels. Hell, we didn't get cable in our neighborhoods will I was like a senior in highschool.
Hell, back in my day...if an adult saw you pulling shit like this (teacher or one of the other parents in the neighborhood, they'd likely whack you themselves, then call your parents...and they'd whack you when you got home again.
Sure, we had some bullying back in my day, but it never got further than name calling, etc...no one was heard to commit suicide over being teased or bullied...?
"Tampering with it deliberately would certainly be evidence against you."
That begs the question, am I obligated to collect evidence against myself....on/with hardware I own in a car that I own? Is it law I oblige this collection of data?
"As an example, someone I know always drinks and drives. "
You only know one?!?!
Damn, most everyone I know drinks and drives, I mean...you gotta get your car home so you can work or do whatever the next day. Of course, if you're smashed, sure, you bite the bullet and leave the car there and catch a cab, but that's honestly NOT the norm.
Some night, drive past a bar, and observer its full parking lot.
Now, go by after closing time...and count how many cars are there still? Not many I'd dare say. The only way you'd stop this, is to ban establishments (restaurants, casinos, taverns) from selling alcohol, and make it where you can only have booze if you are at home. Other than that, you gotta accept the fact that most people that go to bars...drink, and they do not stop at 1 drink per hour and they do not catch a cab or have a designated driver.
"- Maybe you're in a caravan (which usually has multiple people in multiple cars). You want a line of communication available in case something comes up (traffic, getting lost, flat tire, etc)."
I prefer the CB radio for this...that way, all can hear the same thing..and you can talk to truckers to get 'smokey' reports.
I've found in the past few years..I've known where the cops were LONG before I ever got in range of my radar detector.
"It's a standard feature of OBD-II, and they not only record the 30 seconds before (and if possible, after) a wreck, but also after any event which the PCM believes is indicative of an equipment failure. The most severe error is stored, erasing any previously stored, lower-priority fault data. This is called the "snapshot" information and it has been used repeatedly to attempt to find the cause of accidents. Almost no pre-1996 cars do this, but there are some exceptions -- as far as I know, all of them are automakers who moved to OBD-II ahead of schedule, e.g. Nissan."
Yeah...I'd like to find a way, if possible, to 'remove' this feature. I'm guessing it will likely need some kind of small charge or something attached to the chips..and use that to obliterate them somehow?
"Driving a car is a privilage, and to be licensed you are agreeing to stay in full control of an exceptionally deadly object. It makes sense that if you are willfully ignoring your duty to stay vigilant behind the wheel, you should take more responsibility if something goes wrong. "
Absolutely!!
That is why I never txt or use my cell phone in the car.....it might cause me to lose control, and spill my beer.
Hmm...I can see myself doing a bit of hacking to disable all of these nifty new 'safety measures' then, pretty much like I have to do with On-Star if you get a Chevy these days.
I'd just as soon not have anything in there that could be gathering more data on me...to give out to law enforcment, or more importantly, the insurance companies.
I don't need the Nanny State in the car with me at all times...
"I hate government oversight as much as the next citizen, but this is a good idea. So long as law enforcement doesn't have a line into my car's logs or the warning mechanism."
To some extent, they already do. There are 'black boxes' of a sort in many cars already that record the last seconds of a car before a wreck, there's been stories on Slashdot already regarding these being used in court cases for evidence as to what was going on when and how...
And rest assured, if need be....more data as it is gathered will be later deemed necessary to "help law enforcement officials in their jobs". Scope creep always happens like this. That's why I am against most any thing like this which can help gather more data on me and my actions.
"You trust the US government with nukes more than another country? I think you need your head examined."
Oh c'mon....we've ONLY used them twice, and that was a LONG time ago for a good reason, and they were new then...we really didn't know what exactly these new shiny weapons would do!!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit curious on something even more basic that the synopsis mentioned. It seemed to say if an action harmed no one, it could still be judged as immoral. How can that be?
I thought morality ONLY came in to choice of whether or not an action caused harm to someone...usually giving you something good due to or in spite of their pain.
Can someone list an immoral act that causes no harm to anyone else???
Fortunately, not everyone lives in a home that is ruled by these type agreements.
Personally, I'd not buy a house that came with 'rules' and regulations on what I can and cannot do (within reason of city standards) to my own house and property I own.
Actually, I do not believe that is the case. From what I had read and seen on documentaries on the Autobahn, it was constructed almost from the beginning for speed. It has banked turns to help keep you on the road at speed, and I believe the road materials are thicker and more greatly reinforced for strength, and better for tires to grip the road.
From what I'd read...it would cost a great deal more for the US to do their highways like this. That's why they weren't constructed to those specs originally. Unfortunately, with the economic problems we're in now...doubtful we'll ever upgrade or do new construction to specs that will allow for safely using them at significantly higher speeds.
I think the last show I saw on this, was on the History channel...maybe Modern Marvels? Interesting to say the least.
And I'm talking about USING the legal system as a check. The check being that they need to get a warrant or something similar from a court before pulling any sort of kill switch if by some chance this makes it into reality.
Well, why not just get out of the way?
I'm talking mostly about multi-lane highways. If someone wants to go faster than you, why not let them by? If nothing else, you now have THEM running as 'runner' for you and will catch the cops attention first and get caught why you cruise on by.
I only get pissed when I'm trying to go at what speed I consider to be safe for the terrain and road...and some idiot will not get out of the passing lane to let me by...they insist on going slow as the car in the right lane and will not attempt to get out of the way.
Actually, in many states, the law actually says to drive the speed that is safest for that area, which in reality makes the posted speed limits a suggested rate of speed.
Why can't we start new roads, and even reconstruction on roads needing repairs to come up to standards like the Autobahn? Why not build a road designed to house heavier and fast traffic? Wouldn't that allow for quicker travel of people and goods?
From what I've seen of the stats of the Autobahn...they allow for many times the speed of highways in the US, yet the accident rate isn't proportionally worse at all.
It doesn't really matter what the law "clearly indicates"; it doesn't really matter what the courts will say later. Once the button is pushed, the damage is done and un-pushing the button always takes longer.
Cicero, in ancient Rome, said it best: Silent enim leges inter arma. ("Among arms, the laws fall mute," or "In times of war, the law falls silent.") In an emergency, authorities will tend to do what they feel they need to do to address the issue, especially if it's easy.
Why make it easy?"
Absolutely. Does anyone not remember during Katrina in New Orleans...when the cops went around and illegally seized people's weapons that they had a perfectly legal right to own?? I mean, this was a time when a person that stayed here NEEDED a means to protect themselves, their families and possessions.
The courts ruled against the cops, and they had to return the guns they took...BUT, this was long after the fact when these people needed their weapons to defend themselves.
Sex toys are illegal in NH?!?!
Wow..that's interesting. And they are the "live free or die" state aren't they?
Got any links to articles on this?
I know there are some VERY archaic laws on the books in all states, but sex toys are a fairly modern things, no? Did someone pass anti-vibrator laws in the past 3-4 decades?
I'd think the same thing could be applied for an emergency in case of a cyber attack.
I frankly don't want law enforcement nor politicians getting MORE unchecked power. I'd at least love to have a semi-rubber stamp court in the middle. Better than nothing.
If nothing else, it would better allow for examination of need after the fact to help ensure there isn't abuse of power for the wrong reasons.
I'm not quite sure about that, remember Internet != World Wide Web.
The web is a subsection of the internet.
One of the MAIN problems of this bill is just that...that it is vague and not well defined as to just what exactly the president can and cannot do with regard to internet control/access...nor when he is authorized to do so. In fact, according to the article, they are going to be making up the rules, and these rules themselves can be secret.
If this were strictly and narrowly defined, I'd feel at least a little more at ease that this was solely for national security...
- news about a suicide was local news, at best. this never would have made national news
so yay, there were kids' suicides, back in your days. you just never heard of them.
actually, there's a lot less violence today than in your day. it just gets reported and advertised a lot more. dead kids sell."
Hmm...trust me, in my highschool, if some kid offed themselves, we'd all know...it would have gone around the school quite quickly. I knew lots of kids at the other schools..never hear of it there either.
I kinda doubt the violence was more....sure, we had fights but you NEVER had anyone bringing guns to school...once or twice a knife did get brought in..and it was IMMEDIATE news in school. It was a rare thing...so rare that news of it spread like wildfire...and I was at a large highschool. No....when there was a fight, it was a fist fight.
Not sure what a suicide has to do with a church funeral? I don't know of my religion I grew up in saying you couldn't get a church funeral if you killed yourself?!?! What religion does that?
But, your right..it would be local news, not national news. Then again, when I grew up, we didn't have 24/7 news channels. Hell, we didn't get cable in our neighborhoods will I was like a senior in highschool.
Sure, we had some bullying back in my day, but it never got further than name calling, etc...no one was heard to commit suicide over being teased or bullied...?
Well, at least THIS time, they used real charges, and didn't try to make up and stretch other non-applicable laws to indict the culprits.
That begs the question, am I obligated to collect evidence against myself....on/with hardware I own in a car that I own? Is it law I oblige this collection of data?
You only know one?!?!
Damn, most everyone I know drinks and drives, I mean...you gotta get your car home so you can work or do whatever the next day. Of course, if you're smashed, sure, you bite the bullet and leave the car there and catch a cab, but that's honestly NOT the norm.
Some night, drive past a bar, and observer its full parking lot.
Now, go by after closing time...and count how many cars are there still? Not many I'd dare say. The only way you'd stop this, is to ban establishments (restaurants, casinos, taverns) from selling alcohol, and make it where you can only have booze if you are at home. Other than that, you gotta accept the fact that most people that go to bars...drink, and they do not stop at 1 drink per hour and they do not catch a cab or have a designated driver.
I prefer the CB radio for this...that way, all can hear the same thing..and you can talk to truckers to get 'smokey' reports.
I've found in the past few years..I've known where the cops were LONG before I ever got in range of my radar detector.
Yeah...I'd like to find a way, if possible, to 'remove' this feature. I'm guessing it will likely need some kind of small charge or something attached to the chips..and use that to obliterate them somehow?
Absolutely!!
That is why I never txt or use my cell phone in the car.....it might cause me to lose control, and spill my beer.
I'd just as soon not have anything in there that could be gathering more data on me...to give out to law enforcment, or more importantly, the insurance companies.
I don't need the Nanny State in the car with me at all times...
What's an "ez-pass"?
To some extent, they already do. There are 'black boxes' of a sort in many cars already that record the last seconds of a car before a wreck, there's been stories on Slashdot already regarding these being used in court cases for evidence as to what was going on when and how...
And rest assured, if need be....more data as it is gathered will be later deemed necessary to "help law enforcement officials in their jobs". Scope creep always happens like this. That's why I am against most any thing like this which can help gather more data on me and my actions.
Yep, keep it up and pretty soon WE won't be a superpower any longer either...er, that is what you were cheering for, right?
Oh c'mon....we've ONLY used them twice, and that was a LONG time ago for a good reason, and they were new then...we really didn't know what exactly these new shiny weapons would do!!
Oh...I thought I read on another post that they didn't have a property tax up there in that state.
My bad..I didn't research if they did or didn't.