The law the requires a warrant is the Constitution. Congress does not have the authority to usurp judicial oversight anymore than the president does. There are three branches of government, not two.
A 'lawful request' in this case would be nothing short of a warrant signed by a judge. Everything else in your post stems from the false assumption that the executive branch has the authority to make a request for tap a US citizen without judicial oversight.
This argument was faulty when presented by the administration and its faulty today.
The average IQ being 100 is scary enough. Have you ever taken an IQ test? Scoring 100 on a test administered in your native language would require a moron.
The gray panthers no doubt would probably be upset with my comments but... old is a problem for a number of reasons.
1. Health. Old is fragile and fragile is not what we want for a president.
2. Mental Health. As you age your mind works less effectively relative to how well your mind used to work. The elderly have less effective memory, have trouble coping with change, and in many ways become more childlike in their behavior patterns.
3. Closed mindedness. The older you become, the less open you are to new ideas. This is true at any age, you are always more closed minded than when you were younger. At 10 aliens are a great idea and could pop up around any corner. At 20 if you haven't seen any evidence you would take them in stride but wouldn't hold your breath. At 40 if you still don't believe in aliens you would sneer at someone who really believed they existed. At 60 you'd probably support putting that individual in a mental institution. The probability that there is other life doesn't really change with time. What changes is your openness to the idea.
Personally I suspect this is the natural result of our learning algorithms in the brain. The mind raises the bar higher and higher to change an idea the longer you have held it.
'Your point was? Face it, any definition of "complete human" you care to make is purely arbitrary, and therefore based on nothing but your own beliefs as to the nature of reality.'
Yes that was my point. Fortunately this is one debate that isn't needed. There is already a naturally defined point where a line can be drawn. It is called birth.
Here is a hint for your own philosophical compass. Perhaps the reason you and others keep arguing in circles about when something becomes 'human' or an 'individual' is that these are artificial concepts and do not exist innately therefore there is no innate definition.
Contrary to the perfect model creationists envision life is filled with mutated, twisted, corrupted, and entangled fragments. You might be willing to call your tapeworm distinct simply because it is large and beyond some arbitrary standard of complexity. However, what about the viral DNA remnants left within your own genetic code? How about viruses within the body? How about bacteria which generally are not considered life?
I prefer not to argue with nature (or God if you prefer). Modern technology enables us to keep an embryo alive until it matures but God defines a clear point at which a human is made, birth.
I fail to see the need to draw any such lines. Nature provides a very clear line for us, the line is birth. Can an infant survive outside the womb before that? Sure, thanks to modern technology. The fact remains that actual coherent and competent thought comes about long after birth.
Common sense should be used to fill in the blanks, you can't wait for data before making some decisions.
Fortunately in the gun control issue we do not have to rely on common sense. Analysis of locales with gun restrictions shows in increase in violent crime, overall crime, and deaths. Locales that relax restrictions see a decrease in all of the above. True relaxed restrictions result in more gun related incidents but since there is less violence overall that is really beside the point.
Lets not get lost in the tangents. The no child left behind act was directly responsible for the removal of ethics courses from grade and high schools. There was not enough funding for both. It should not have taken a study to realize this was a bad idea.
It could be argued that the no child left behind act is largely responsible for our corrupt, money hungry, and materialistic society today.
Now if we could only convince society that critical thinking and evaluation skills are more important than obedient children we might make real progress.
I don't know about you, but I for one have not chosen to be governed by the UN and really fail to see where the UN has the right to create states or allocate territory that isn't contained within a member state.
Creepy? There isn't a single heterosexual male alive who hasn't found a 17yr old girl attractive. It really wasn't that long ago that a girl who wasn't married by 17 was an oddity.
If the findings rely on the opinions and interpretations of humans then it is perfectly valid to consider the bias of the humans.
As for this irrelevant assault, "of those who are more educated than yourself", I would think that you would know better. First you don't know the education level of the person you are replying to. Second, increased education does not equate to correctness or validity of opinion.
You found a study to back your opinion. Congratulations. But that doesn't entitle you to an ego and the study isn't nearly as impressive as you seem to want to make it.
'But when it comes to sexual images of children and or the exposure of minors to porn then it crosses the line from freedom of choice into immoral enough to be illegal.'
Images of humans that have not reached sexual maturity are not porn at all. No amount of looking at porn will make them such. Images of humans that have reached sexual maturity are harmless. Unfortunately the law uses a different definition for 'child' in the cases of pornography and statutory rape.
Unlike sexually mature individuals who have no reached the age of consent, a normal healthy individual is not attracted by sexually immature humans. Turning people into criminals for finding young sexually mature people under the age of consent attractive is a far greater crime than anything else mentioned in this discussion.
As for the exposure of minors, I fail to see anything harmful in that. The human mind learns from exposure and experience. In the victorian era, exposure to a pornographic image might have made an adult female faint because they had no exposure and could not cope with these things.
When we are talking about a perfectly natural action for which there probably shouldn't be sensitivity then the desensitization caused by exposure is probably a good thing.
Of course you can, you simply release that application under an abusive license. After all the rights provided by the GPL are fundamental rights that everyone should have with all software.
'To be fair, a proprietary licenser is also free to fix the bugs ASAP and well, provide such fixes for free, also to provide new features for free if they like. I do this all the time with a commercial application. A PD author also retains such freedom. These are not benefits that exclusively arrive via the GPL.'
That is a bit of a strawman don't you think? The parent said the GPL enables the licensee to fix these things without having to count on the goodwill and/or charity of the licensor. That is a benefit exclusive to free (as in freedom) licenses like the GPL.
'You see? This is why the term "freedom" has always seemed to go so poorly with the coercive requirements that the GPL applies to the various recipients in the chain of "gifts."'
Coercive in what manner? The GPL does not add restrictions, the GPL relaxes restrictions that exist by default. Are those relaxations conditional? Yup. But that hardly makes it 'coercive'.
You have the choice to not use the GPL software, or not use it in a way that requires you to adhere to the conditions, nobody is coercing you to take advantage of this resource someone has kindly made available to you. Thats like complaining because I've offered you use of my Ferrari with the condition you don't wreck it. Am I coercing you by allowing you every freedom but the right to wreck my car?
In my experience those who complain about the GPL are either pushing an agenda (their own pet license) or want 'freedom' to abuse users down the line in ways that conflict with the principles of the GPL in the first place. I love nothing more than to listen to people sputter about how they are being 'coerced' because they are not allowed to build the tower of london on a GPL foundation but those mean GPL foundation builders are making them build their own foundation for their prison.
While costing nothing to maintain may not be accurate they likely cost ALMOST nothing to maintain when they are idle. After all, the wearable and moving parts aren't being used. Since the plants are only used about half the time, their expected lifespan has now doubled.
Since the power company will be making the payments on schedule and not only when the plant is fired they will still pay the same amount of interest. If the plant was slated for 10yrs of usage and due to idle time that 10yrs will still occur but be spread out over 50yrs only a moron insists the burners be fired during the first 10yrs just because that happens to be when the checks are being written.
In other words cut off the power when you need it the most. It might not be such a big thing to cut off AC at the hottest hours of the day in the midwest but try it in Arizona or here in Florida and you have a serious problem.
Sorry, but I pay the power company for my usage and to provide unlimited access. I have no problem with programs like this existing but they should be opt-in. Some of us would prefer to control our own usage rather than having the control taken from us.
In truth, Florida Power and Light already has such a program in place but it is opt-out and it took months to get myself off the program. They gave us a tiny $5 credit each month and in exchange we sweat on the hottest days and suffered through the worst of Florida summers. Luckily we survived.
'End-users like this arrangement for cellphone service.'
I am not sure what world you live in, but I don't know many people who are happy with the pricing schemes of cell phones.
All the same problems would be shared with the scheme you propose. First, you would be charged for incoming bandwidth. Second, the rates are never lower than unlimited service people pay the higher rates because cell phones are more convenient. Third, you have to constantly track your usage and would have refrain from using your connections at times.
The only people who like the cell phone schemes and would like this scheme are those who do not fully utilize their connection.
Everyone has the right to comment. But unless they have some sort of special knowledge on the topic at hand their comment deserves no more weight than that of an AC on Slashdot.
I welcome comments from RMS on topics where he is an expert and will happily grant them weight. On other issues he is just another individual with a pulpit who somehow thinks I need him to tell me what to think.
The multi-flow problem is already solved with the level of management he has proposed. It equates the total bandwidth coming from one IP, not just a specific flow.
'Your websurfing, he's got 6 torrents downloading. He is going to have at least 24 active flows, running full bore, and you will have 1 or 2 (which are bursty even). Thanks to how TCP works, without traffic shaping, you will receive 1 packet for every 24 he gets.'
As things stand now, yes. But under the scheme he is suggesting my flows would be slowed down while yours would not.
This slows the rate at which the P2P user transmits packets from a given IP (regardless of how many flows are used) so that whether I am using one or 200 connections, you and I will receive packets at the same rate while we are both requesting them.
At the end of the day the P2P user used more bandwidth, and received more data. But that is well and good, there is nothing wrong with utilizing your connection. The surfer (or any other type of user) never had to wait longer because of how the P2P user used their connection.
Too many people want to punish the people who use their connection regularly because light users experience congestion. Network admins in particular begin seeing high bandwidth users as evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The law the requires a warrant is the Constitution. Congress does not have the authority to usurp judicial oversight anymore than the president does. There are three branches of government, not two.
A 'lawful request' in this case would be nothing short of a warrant signed by a judge. Everything else in your post stems from the false assumption that the executive branch has the authority to make a request for tap a US citizen without judicial oversight.
This argument was faulty when presented by the administration and its faulty today.
The average IQ being 100 is scary enough. Have you ever taken an IQ test? Scoring 100 on a test administered in your native language would require a moron.
The gray panthers no doubt would probably be upset with my comments but... old is a problem for a number of reasons.
1. Health. Old is fragile and fragile is not what we want for a president.
2. Mental Health. As you age your mind works less effectively relative to how well your mind used to work. The elderly have less effective memory, have trouble coping with change, and in many ways become more childlike in their behavior patterns.
3. Closed mindedness. The older you become, the less open you are to new ideas. This is true at any age, you are always more closed minded than when you were younger. At 10 aliens are a great idea and could pop up around any corner. At 20 if you haven't seen any evidence you would take them in stride but wouldn't hold your breath. At 40 if you still don't believe in aliens you would sneer at someone who really believed they existed. At 60 you'd probably support putting that individual in a mental institution. The probability that there is other life doesn't really change with time. What changes is your openness to the idea.
Personally I suspect this is the natural result of our learning algorithms in the brain. The mind raises the bar higher and higher to change an idea the longer you have held it.
'Your point was? Face it, any definition of "complete human" you care to make is purely arbitrary, and therefore based on nothing but your own beliefs as to the nature of reality.'
Yes that was my point. Fortunately this is one debate that isn't needed. There is already a naturally defined point where a line can be drawn. It is called birth.
'A human embryo is in one of many stages in the development of an independent human being.'
A human embryo is in one the many stages that may potentially lead to the development of an independent human being.
A potential human is not a human.
Historical evidence suggests that this is not necessary but a mere preference of our society.
Here is a hint for your own philosophical compass. Perhaps the reason you and others keep arguing in circles about when something becomes 'human' or an 'individual' is that these are artificial concepts and do not exist innately therefore there is no innate definition.
Contrary to the perfect model creationists envision life is filled with mutated, twisted, corrupted, and entangled fragments. You might be willing to call your tapeworm distinct simply because it is large and beyond some arbitrary standard of complexity. However, what about the viral DNA remnants left within your own genetic code? How about viruses within the body? How about bacteria which generally are not considered life?
I prefer not to argue with nature (or God if you prefer). Modern technology enables us to keep an embryo alive until it matures but God defines a clear point at which a human is made, birth.
I fail to see the need to draw any such lines. Nature provides a very clear line for us, the line is birth. Can an infant survive outside the womb before that? Sure, thanks to modern technology. The fact remains that actual coherent and competent thought comes about long after birth.
An embryo is not a complete human, remove it like the tumor and it will die, just like the tumor.
'IMHO, if a DNA test says its human'
That definition would make it illegal to throw away your toenail clippings or to spit.
Common sense should be used to fill in the blanks, you can't wait for data before making some decisions.
Fortunately in the gun control issue we do not have to rely on common sense. Analysis of locales with gun restrictions shows in increase in violent crime, overall crime, and deaths. Locales that relax restrictions see a decrease in all of the above. True relaxed restrictions result in more gun related incidents but since there is less violence overall that is really beside the point.
Lets not get lost in the tangents. The no child left behind act was directly responsible for the removal of ethics courses from grade and high schools. There was not enough funding for both. It should not have taken a study to realize this was a bad idea.
It could be argued that the no child left behind act is largely responsible for our corrupt, money hungry, and materialistic society today.
Now if we could only convince society that critical thinking and evaluation skills are more important than obedient children we might make real progress.
I don't know about you, but I for one have not chosen to be governed by the UN and really fail to see where the UN has the right to create states or allocate territory that isn't contained within a member state.
Creepy? There isn't a single heterosexual male alive who hasn't found a 17yr old girl attractive. It really wasn't that long ago that a girl who wasn't married by 17 was an oddity.
There is nothing wrong with creating a market for CG porn.
If the findings rely on the opinions and interpretations of humans then it is perfectly valid to consider the bias of the humans.
As for this irrelevant assault, "of those who are more educated than yourself", I would think that you would know better. First you don't know the education level of the person you are replying to. Second, increased education does not equate to correctness or validity of opinion.
You found a study to back your opinion. Congratulations. But that doesn't entitle you to an ego and the study isn't nearly as impressive as you seem to want to make it.
'But when it comes to sexual images of children and or the exposure of minors to porn then it crosses the line from freedom of choice into immoral enough to be illegal.'
Images of humans that have not reached sexual maturity are not porn at all. No amount of looking at porn will make them such. Images of humans that have reached sexual maturity are harmless. Unfortunately the law uses a different definition for 'child' in the cases of pornography and statutory rape.
Unlike sexually mature individuals who have no reached the age of consent, a normal healthy individual is not attracted by sexually immature humans. Turning people into criminals for finding young sexually mature people under the age of consent attractive is a far greater crime than anything else mentioned in this discussion.
As for the exposure of minors, I fail to see anything harmful in that. The human mind learns from exposure and experience. In the victorian era, exposure to a pornographic image might have made an adult female faint because they had no exposure and could not cope with these things.
When we are talking about a perfectly natural action for which there probably shouldn't be sensitivity then the desensitization caused by exposure is probably a good thing.
Of course you can, you simply release that application under an abusive license. After all the rights provided by the GPL are fundamental rights that everyone should have with all software.
'To be fair, a proprietary licenser is also free to fix the bugs ASAP and well, provide such fixes for free, also to provide new features for free if they like. I do this all the time with a commercial application. A PD author also retains such freedom. These are not benefits that exclusively arrive via the GPL.'
That is a bit of a strawman don't you think? The parent said the GPL enables the licensee to fix these things without having to count on the goodwill and/or charity of the licensor. That is a benefit exclusive to free (as in freedom) licenses like the GPL.
'You see? This is why the term "freedom" has always seemed to go so poorly with the coercive requirements that the GPL applies to the various recipients in the chain of "gifts."'
Coercive in what manner? The GPL does not add restrictions, the GPL relaxes restrictions that exist by default. Are those relaxations conditional? Yup. But that hardly makes it 'coercive'.
You have the choice to not use the GPL software, or not use it in a way that requires you to adhere to the conditions, nobody is coercing you to take advantage of this resource someone has kindly made available to you. Thats like complaining because I've offered you use of my Ferrari with the condition you don't wreck it. Am I coercing you by allowing you every freedom but the right to wreck my car?
In my experience those who complain about the GPL are either pushing an agenda (their own pet license) or want 'freedom' to abuse users down the line in ways that conflict with the principles of the GPL in the first place. I love nothing more than to listen to people sputter about how they are being 'coerced' because they are not allowed to build the tower of london on a GPL foundation but those mean GPL foundation builders are making them build their own foundation for their prison.
While costing nothing to maintain may not be accurate they likely cost ALMOST nothing to maintain when they are idle. After all, the wearable and moving parts aren't being used. Since the plants are only used about half the time, their expected lifespan has now doubled.
Since the power company will be making the payments on schedule and not only when the plant is fired they will still pay the same amount of interest. If the plant was slated for 10yrs of usage and due to idle time that 10yrs will still occur but be spread out over 50yrs only a moron insists the burners be fired during the first 10yrs just because that happens to be when the checks are being written.
In other words cut off the power when you need it the most. It might not be such a big thing to cut off AC at the hottest hours of the day in the midwest but try it in Arizona or here in Florida and you have a serious problem.
Sorry, but I pay the power company for my usage and to provide unlimited access. I have no problem with programs like this existing but they should be opt-in. Some of us would prefer to control our own usage rather than having the control taken from us.
In truth, Florida Power and Light already has such a program in place but it is opt-out and it took months to get myself off the program. They gave us a tiny $5 credit each month and in exchange we sweat on the hottest days and suffered through the worst of Florida summers. Luckily we survived.
'End-users like this arrangement for cellphone service.'
I am not sure what world you live in, but I don't know many people who are happy with the pricing schemes of cell phones.
All the same problems would be shared with the scheme you propose. First, you would be charged for incoming bandwidth. Second, the rates are never lower than unlimited service people pay the higher rates because cell phones are more convenient. Third, you have to constantly track your usage and would have refrain from using your connections at times.
The only people who like the cell phone schemes and would like this scheme are those who do not fully utilize their connection.
Everyone has the right to comment. But unless they have some sort of special knowledge on the topic at hand their comment deserves no more weight than that of an AC on Slashdot.
I welcome comments from RMS on topics where he is an expert and will happily grant them weight. On other issues he is just another individual with a pulpit who somehow thinks I need him to tell me what to think.
The multi-flow problem is already solved with the level of management he has proposed. It equates the total bandwidth coming from one IP, not just a specific flow.
'Your websurfing, he's got 6 torrents downloading. He is going to have at least 24 active flows, running full bore, and you will have 1 or 2 (which are bursty even). Thanks to how TCP works, without traffic shaping, you will receive 1 packet for every 24 he gets.'
As things stand now, yes. But under the scheme he is suggesting my flows would be slowed down while yours would not.
This slows the rate at which the P2P user transmits packets from a given IP (regardless of how many flows are used) so that whether I am using one or 200 connections, you and I will receive packets at the same rate while we are both requesting them.
At the end of the day the P2P user used more bandwidth, and received more data. But that is well and good, there is nothing wrong with utilizing your connection. The surfer (or any other type of user) never had to wait longer because of how the P2P user used their connection.
Too many people want to punish the people who use their connection regularly because light users experience congestion. Network admins in particular begin seeing high bandwidth users as evil.