Or a subsequent court challenge. The previous ruling, from sometime back around the turn of the 20th century if I'm not mistaken (to lazy to look it up) would be overturned 5-4 if it gets challenged.
Uh, according to all the growers up in Oakland and San Francisco, this is completely false. It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot, driving the price down, and forcing the small growers out of business. A month or two ago I read that the price per pound of pot had dropped from $5000 to $2000 due to the large growers ability to produce better pot in larger quantities.
You don't have to grow large quantities of pot in a field. You just need a warehouse with blue lights.
Let's see...smaller government and lower taxes. That's the exact opposite of "puritan like values" if you know anything about history.
The Puritans were very much about telling people what to do and how to worship, which is why they left England. The monarchy had already decided that the "Church of England" was the official church and they did things differently from how the Puritans thought they should be doing things.
If anything, "puritan like values" can be associated with the modern progressive movement, which is all about "you're to stupid to know what's good for you, so we're going to find some experts to tell you how to live your life". That's a throwback to FDR, the 20s, and the Puritans.
One thing I haven't seen anybody touch on yet is that the debate wasn't between those that want it legal and those that don't want it legal, it was between the small growers and the large growers. The small growers are opposed to the large growers simply because the large growers can grow it better and more efficiently and they're causing the price to drop dramatically. That'll mean less tax revenue in the end, but it also means no small growers.
Exactly! but you could attempt to negotiate, in your example. The argument of "if you don't like it, move elsewhere" is incomplete.
The necessary relationship of government and society is that society implicitly supports its government even in the case of deep tyranny.
Wrong! Society supports its government until it becomes tyranical, then it changes its government either by voting or revolting. We revolted once and a lot of blood was shed. Let's pray we don't have to revolt again!
If you like the deal offered to you by your country, you stay. If you don't, you take your business somewhere else.
This is exactly why the Founders wanted the States to have far more power than the Feds and why the Feds were limited to enumerated powers and the States weren't. If you don't like what your State is doing, you can pick up and move to another State. It's far easier to move to another State than it is to move to an entirely different country. Plus, most every other country in the world is far worse than the US.
A State, like California, can fuck up big time and everyone will just start leaving until the politicians wake up and fix what they've broken. It doesn't effect any other state. If the Feds do it, it screws everyone.
I'm glad somebody finally said this. Unfortunately, Slashdot seems to have turned into a "what's the government doing for us" rather than a "what are we doing for ourselves" type of place in the last 5 or 6 years (possibly longer).
And everyone around here was saying how Obama was going to fix it all and that he couldn't do any worse than Bush. Wake the fuck up is right.
HA! So rather than let the free market handle it (and it will handle it quicker than the government will), you want to have to wait until the next election cycle and then hope that the people remember that it was some politician that caused the problem with the airline and not the people running the airline.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work real well.
Politicians got this country into the mess it's in right now. We don't need them doing to the airline industry what they've just done to the banking industry (which will make banking more expensive for everyone, especially the people that really need the services and can't normally afford it).
I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.
Really? You really had over 500 channels when Comcast was $30? And they were all digital with a ton of HD content and all kinds of on-demand content as well? And you had a DVR to pause, rewind, and record live television? I know Comcast has lousy customer service, but something tells me you're full of shit.
I'm pretty sure you can get the really cheap Comcast service if you want it, but you probably don't want to do without all the extras. Or you could get a $20 digital antenna and enjoy free OTA digital and HD content. But I bet you like the DVR. Yeah, I'm sure the $85 service is really equivalent to what was available in 1997.
Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?
So get a business account and have all the untampered access you want. The problem is that you say you're willing to pay more, but the moment someone mentions getting a business account (which is what the pricing will end up being for the increased access if "net neutrality" ever does pass) you flip out and say "I shouldn't have to!"
You can have what you want right now, you're just not willing to pay for it (even though you say you are). Or you're not willing to pay what the ISP is charging. Considering that 10 years ago having much more than a megabit connection to your house would have been unheard of for most people, I think you're all a bunch of whiney brats that want something for nothing.
Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same?
Actually, no. I've never seen this happen in my life (I'm 35 and live in Southern California). Even when I pointed out to a friend that the two gas stations across the street from each other had prices that were several cents apart, the response I got was "Well, the cheaper one will raise their prices soon". That never happened.
I have however noticed that when the price per barrel goes up (or down) significantly (more than a dollar or two) that the price at the pump goes up. I have yet to see two gas stations across the street from each other raise the prices to the same exact price.
And actually, ISPs don't do the same thing. I just talked to a coworker that lives in Tennessee. She simply mentioned switching service from Charter to another company (several have shown up in her area) and they reduced her price and added two channels to her lineup. She gets 15 meg downstream for $30 per month (Time Warner charges me $50 for 10 meg).
The point is that services are becoming faster and cheaper everyday. If Comcast or somebody else wants to start blocking certain services, the local phone company that probably provides FiOS will be more than happy to serve them. It may not be everywhere yet, but services are expanding at a pretty rapid pace. Just look at AT&T with their recent switch to tiered pricing for 3G service. I notice Verizon has not followed suit (they'll have tiered pricing for LTE, but they have unlimited packages for 3G). So don't try to say that when one company does it, their competitor follows suit. Competitors are doing nothing of the sort.
The consequences are that he ends up flooding the network and costing the ISP more to upgrade the network so everyone else can have a good quality of service. If the ISP cuts him off after he's infected, they then have to deal with him calling up and explaining to him that his machine is part of a botnet and is spamming the world. And if they're going to have to increase their costs for all of this, they might as well just offer a service called "Business Service" where he can do whatever the hell he wants as long as he's willing to pay a little extra. Then, his service won't be blocked and the ISP gets extra for network upgrades.
You guys probably bitch about not being able to run servers off your mobile phones too.
It's irrelevant on your resume when the company folds. The only thing that'll matter at that point is your skillset and experience. Since there's no way to validate whether you worked there or not, your title won't mean shit. It could say CEO and it wouldn't matter at all.
Yeah, until he's asked how many people he managed and the answer is "Well, it's really just me". He could lie, but without actual management experience, he'll fall flat quick.
Perhaps they employ fifteen to twenty staff with an IT department of 2 or 3, mostly focused on hardware and user support. Then it would be much more reasonable for the Director of IT to be a coder who is also taking management responsibility.
IT department of 2 or 3 to manage 15-20 staff?! I wish I was that lucky. I've had to fight tooth and nail (and even take some emergency vacation because of my stress level) just to get one extra person added to IT in a company of just over 50 people. And yes, I know my manager's an ass.
I think they finally decided that maybe IT does need another person (total of 2 now) to not only help everyone, but to be able to move forward on all the projects that seem to have completely stalled.
And it's awfully damn difficult to teach your kids what real freedom is when you're just going to roll over and take it any time "the man" so much as asks you to put your camera down. I've got two kids and a mortgage and I wouldn't hesitate to tell a cop "No" if he tried to tell me not to take pictures of a train (actually, I'd probably ask "Why not?"). Then I'd whip out my copy of the Constitution, show him the first amendment, and ask him to produce a copy of the law that prevents me from taking pictures or video.
If he really wants to arrest me in front of my wife and kids, so be it. The State will end up traumatizing the kids and they'll get a good lesson on what it means to be free.
If I wanted to live in a place where the cops could tell me what to do, I'd move to a place like that.
Freedom isn't free and it isn't going to last as long as we have this idea that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they?
Sure they can. It's called "lying". All humans have the capacity, and the last time I looked cops were still human.
So pop out your damn cell phone video camera and offer your wrists while you video the whole thing. Or have someone else with you do just that.
They can lie all they want, but the more witnesses you get and the more video you have the more difficult it's going to be. The point is that cops generally will not charge you with resisting arrest if you stop resisting and peacefully go into custody. If you haven't done anything wrong, let them arrest you and let the judge take care of it. The system isn't so corrupt (depending on where you live) that you're going to go down for taking some stupid pictures.
Just ask politely if you're under arrest. If not, carry right on doing whatever it is you were doing..
IANAL. Having said that... Be careful about that. You can be detained without actually being under arrest. An example is when you are pulled over for a traffic ticket. You are not free to leave until the officer is done with you, yet you are usually not actually arrested. Yet if you tried to leave while still being detained, you're guaranteed to get arrested.
Actually, when you sign the ticket, you have been arrested and released on your own recognizance with the knowledge that you'll go to court and either fight the ticket or pay it. So you are getting arrested, but you're also being released just after that. I think it's the one area where they don't read you your rights simply because they aren't taking you in. There's really no reason to read you your rights since they are letting you go right away.
Flashing his gun? You mean the same way cops "flash" their guns by wearing them in a holster? That's what the guy was doing. If the guy had actually brandished the firearm (meaning holding it in his hand) the cops attitude would have been completely different. Instead, he asked the guy to back away (which he did) and then proceeded to follow him after the stop. That copy didn't like being on video, it's that simple.
He's not an agitator. He's not a dick. He's a citizen standing up for his rights.
It's not one thing to be minding your own business and another to be looking for police cars. He didn't make a nuisance of himself. Reporters driving around looking for stories all the time. That's what this guy was doing. The first amendment applies to everyone, not just reporters working for news organizations.
At the end, it's very telling that neither officer even attempts to follow him. They both know he's right and that he's done nothing wrong. To detain him now would just bring more trouble down on them both.
When the government fears the People you have freedom. When the People fear the government, you have tyranny. It's about time we all stand up and show the government that we do not fear them.
The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.
Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".
If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook privacy settings, etc, etc) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
We read complaints here all the time about how stupid our legislators are for making these pedophile laws that end up jailing horny teenagers and then you want to tell me that that Congress should be moving full speed ahead on everything! I don't think so!
Bullshit. She's an academic. Which means she's been sitting at a University writing papers about how the world should be instead of how it really is. Clarence Thomas went to Yale law school and John Roberts went to Harvard. Fortunately, they didn't stay at their schools and keep writing papers. They got out into the real world and practiced law.
Let's see what she thinks about the Constitution. If she sees it as a "living, breathing document" we'll know how she's going to rule on anything. If she's a constructionist, which I seriously doubt, then I'll be amazed if Liberals/Progressives don't tear her apart. Obama has already stated she'd have "empathy" and "understanding" from many different points of view. That's not what I want to see in a judge. I want someone who's going to follow the law equally, no matter what the circumstances of the individual. If I wanted an empathic judge, I'd move somewhere where the people in power don't even have to bother going to court.
If your boss or anybody at work freaks out at that image, they seriously need to have their head examined. That would be like calling Michelangelo's David NSFW.
The huge mistake you make is in assuming that all forms of calamity can be warded off with proper planning. It's true that there's a heck of a lot that can be avoided with foresight and preparation. But a well-placed hurricane, bullet, love affair, or metastatic tumor can annihilate every one of those plans.
That is the price we pay to live in a free society.
My God the lack of knowledge of history around Slashdot these days is astounding. If the people that settled the west had been like most slashdotters, this country would've never grown past the original 13 States. "Oh no, we can't go out into the wilderness! Something might happen that we can't predict and might kill one of us!" Stop being so afraid of your own damn shadow. Do the best you can with what you're given in life. Yeah, something might happen to make it all go to shit. Do you expect the government to bail you out if it does?
Slashdot Mirror
Or a subsequent court challenge. The previous ruling, from sometime back around the turn of the 20th century if I'm not mistaken (to lazy to look it up) would be overturned 5-4 if it gets challenged.
Damn, you sound like a libertarian. What are you doing on Slashdot?
Uh, according to all the growers up in Oakland and San Francisco, this is completely false. It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot, driving the price down, and forcing the small growers out of business. A month or two ago I read that the price per pound of pot had dropped from $5000 to $2000 due to the large growers ability to produce better pot in larger quantities.
You don't have to grow large quantities of pot in a field. You just need a warehouse with blue lights.
puritan like values are on the rise
Let's see...smaller government and lower taxes. That's the exact opposite of "puritan like values" if you know anything about history.
The Puritans were very much about telling people what to do and how to worship, which is why they left England. The monarchy had already decided that the "Church of England" was the official church and they did things differently from how the Puritans thought they should be doing things.
If anything, "puritan like values" can be associated with the modern progressive movement, which is all about "you're to stupid to know what's good for you, so we're going to find some experts to tell you how to live your life". That's a throwback to FDR, the 20s, and the Puritans.
One thing I haven't seen anybody touch on yet is that the debate wasn't between those that want it legal and those that don't want it legal, it was between the small growers and the large growers. The small growers are opposed to the large growers simply because the large growers can grow it better and more efficiently and they're causing the price to drop dramatically. That'll mean less tax revenue in the end, but it also means no small growers.
Exactly! but you could attempt to negotiate, in your example. The argument of "if you don't like it, move elsewhere" is incomplete.
The necessary relationship of government and society is that society implicitly supports its government even in the case of deep tyranny.
Wrong! Society supports its government until it becomes tyranical, then it changes its government either by voting or revolting. We revolted once and a lot of blood was shed. Let's pray we don't have to revolt again!
If you like the deal offered to you by your country, you stay. If you don't, you take your business somewhere else.
This is exactly why the Founders wanted the States to have far more power than the Feds and why the Feds were limited to enumerated powers and the States weren't. If you don't like what your State is doing, you can pick up and move to another State. It's far easier to move to another State than it is to move to an entirely different country. Plus, most every other country in the world is far worse than the US.
A State, like California, can fuck up big time and everyone will just start leaving until the politicians wake up and fix what they've broken. It doesn't effect any other state. If the Feds do it, it screws everyone.
I'm glad somebody finally said this. Unfortunately, Slashdot seems to have turned into a "what's the government doing for us" rather than a "what are we doing for ourselves" type of place in the last 5 or 6 years (possibly longer).
And everyone around here was saying how Obama was going to fix it all and that he couldn't do any worse than Bush. Wake the fuck up is right.
HA! So rather than let the free market handle it (and it will handle it quicker than the government will), you want to have to wait until the next election cycle and then hope that the people remember that it was some politician that caused the problem with the airline and not the people running the airline.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work real well.
Politicians got this country into the mess it's in right now. We don't need them doing to the airline industry what they've just done to the banking industry (which will make banking more expensive for everyone, especially the people that really need the services and can't normally afford it).
I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.
Really? You really had over 500 channels when Comcast was $30? And they were all digital with a ton of HD content and all kinds of on-demand content as well? And you had a DVR to pause, rewind, and record live television? I know Comcast has lousy customer service, but something tells me you're full of shit.
I'm pretty sure you can get the really cheap Comcast service if you want it, but you probably don't want to do without all the extras. Or you could get a $20 digital antenna and enjoy free OTA digital and HD content. But I bet you like the DVR. Yeah, I'm sure the $85 service is really equivalent to what was available in 1997.
Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?
So get a business account and have all the untampered access you want. The problem is that you say you're willing to pay more, but the moment someone mentions getting a business account (which is what the pricing will end up being for the increased access if "net neutrality" ever does pass) you flip out and say "I shouldn't have to!"
You can have what you want right now, you're just not willing to pay for it (even though you say you are). Or you're not willing to pay what the ISP is charging. Considering that 10 years ago having much more than a megabit connection to your house would have been unheard of for most people, I think you're all a bunch of whiney brats that want something for nothing.
Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same?
Actually, no. I've never seen this happen in my life (I'm 35 and live in Southern California). Even when I pointed out to a friend that the two gas stations across the street from each other had prices that were several cents apart, the response I got was "Well, the cheaper one will raise their prices soon". That never happened.
I have however noticed that when the price per barrel goes up (or down) significantly (more than a dollar or two) that the price at the pump goes up. I have yet to see two gas stations across the street from each other raise the prices to the same exact price.
And actually, ISPs don't do the same thing. I just talked to a coworker that lives in Tennessee. She simply mentioned switching service from Charter to another company (several have shown up in her area) and they reduced her price and added two channels to her lineup. She gets 15 meg downstream for $30 per month (Time Warner charges me $50 for 10 meg).
The point is that services are becoming faster and cheaper everyday. If Comcast or somebody else wants to start blocking certain services, the local phone company that probably provides FiOS will be more than happy to serve them. It may not be everywhere yet, but services are expanding at a pretty rapid pace. Just look at AT&T with their recent switch to tiered pricing for 3G service. I notice Verizon has not followed suit (they'll have tiered pricing for LTE, but they have unlimited packages for 3G). So don't try to say that when one company does it, their competitor follows suit. Competitors are doing nothing of the sort.
The consequences are that he ends up flooding the network and costing the ISP more to upgrade the network so everyone else can have a good quality of service. If the ISP cuts him off after he's infected, they then have to deal with him calling up and explaining to him that his machine is part of a botnet and is spamming the world. And if they're going to have to increase their costs for all of this, they might as well just offer a service called "Business Service" where he can do whatever the hell he wants as long as he's willing to pay a little extra. Then, his service won't be blocked and the ISP gets extra for network upgrades.
You guys probably bitch about not being able to run servers off your mobile phones too.
It's irrelevant on your resume when the company folds. The only thing that'll matter at that point is your skillset and experience. Since there's no way to validate whether you worked there or not, your title won't mean shit. It could say CEO and it wouldn't matter at all.
Yeah, until he's asked how many people he managed and the answer is "Well, it's really just me". He could lie, but without actual management experience, he'll fall flat quick.
Perhaps they employ fifteen to twenty staff with an IT department of 2 or 3, mostly focused on hardware and user support. Then it would be much more reasonable for the Director of IT to be a coder who is also taking management responsibility.
IT department of 2 or 3 to manage 15-20 staff?! I wish I was that lucky. I've had to fight tooth and nail (and even take some emergency vacation because of my stress level) just to get one extra person added to IT in a company of just over 50 people. And yes, I know my manager's an ass.
I think they finally decided that maybe IT does need another person (total of 2 now) to not only help everyone, but to be able to move forward on all the projects that seem to have completely stalled.
And it's awfully damn difficult to teach your kids what real freedom is when you're just going to roll over and take it any time "the man" so much as asks you to put your camera down. I've got two kids and a mortgage and I wouldn't hesitate to tell a cop "No" if he tried to tell me not to take pictures of a train (actually, I'd probably ask "Why not?"). Then I'd whip out my copy of the Constitution, show him the first amendment, and ask him to produce a copy of the law that prevents me from taking pictures or video.
If he really wants to arrest me in front of my wife and kids, so be it. The State will end up traumatizing the kids and they'll get a good lesson on what it means to be free.
If I wanted to live in a place where the cops could tell me what to do, I'd move to a place like that.
Freedom isn't free and it isn't going to last as long as we have this idea that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
If you voluntarily hold out your arms and say, "Here you may cuff me," the police can't claim you resisted can they?
Sure they can. It's called "lying". All humans have the capacity, and the last time I looked cops were still human.
So pop out your damn cell phone video camera and offer your wrists while you video the whole thing. Or have someone else with you do just that.
They can lie all they want, but the more witnesses you get and the more video you have the more difficult it's going to be. The point is that cops generally will not charge you with resisting arrest if you stop resisting and peacefully go into custody. If you haven't done anything wrong, let them arrest you and let the judge take care of it. The system isn't so corrupt (depending on where you live) that you're going to go down for taking some stupid pictures.
IANAL. Having said that ... Be careful about that. You can be detained without actually being under arrest. An example is when you are pulled over for a traffic ticket. You are not free to leave until the officer is done with you, yet you are usually not actually arrested. Yet if you tried to leave while still being detained, you're guaranteed to get arrested.
Actually, when you sign the ticket, you have been arrested and released on your own recognizance with the knowledge that you'll go to court and either fight the ticket or pay it. So you are getting arrested, but you're also being released just after that. I think it's the one area where they don't read you your rights simply because they aren't taking you in. There's really no reason to read you your rights since they are letting you go right away.
Flashing his gun? You mean the same way cops "flash" their guns by wearing them in a holster? That's what the guy was doing. If the guy had actually brandished the firearm (meaning holding it in his hand) the cops attitude would have been completely different. Instead, he asked the guy to back away (which he did) and then proceeded to follow him after the stop. That copy didn't like being on video, it's that simple.
He's not an agitator. He's not a dick. He's a citizen standing up for his rights.
It's not one thing to be minding your own business and another to be looking for police cars. He didn't make a nuisance of himself. Reporters driving around looking for stories all the time. That's what this guy was doing. The first amendment applies to everyone, not just reporters working for news organizations.
At the end, it's very telling that neither officer even attempts to follow him. They both know he's right and that he's done nothing wrong. To detain him now would just bring more trouble down on them both.
When the government fears the People you have freedom. When the People fear the government, you have tyranny. It's about time we all stand up and show the government that we do not fear them.
That was the post office. If it were a real business, they would've either gone bankrupt by now or done what's needed to remain profitable.
The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.
Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".
If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook privacy settings, etc, etc) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
We read complaints here all the time about how stupid our legislators are for making these pedophile laws that end up jailing horny teenagers and then you want to tell me that that Congress should be moving full speed ahead on everything! I don't think so!
Bullshit. She's an academic. Which means she's been sitting at a University writing papers about how the world should be instead of how it really is. Clarence Thomas went to Yale law school and John Roberts went to Harvard. Fortunately, they didn't stay at their schools and keep writing papers. They got out into the real world and practiced law.
Let's see what she thinks about the Constitution. If she sees it as a "living, breathing document" we'll know how she's going to rule on anything. If she's a constructionist, which I seriously doubt, then I'll be amazed if Liberals/Progressives don't tear her apart. Obama has already stated she'd have "empathy" and "understanding" from many different points of view. That's not what I want to see in a judge. I want someone who's going to follow the law equally, no matter what the circumstances of the individual. If I wanted an empathic judge, I'd move somewhere where the people in power don't even have to bother going to court.
If your boss or anybody at work freaks out at that image, they seriously need to have their head examined. That would be like calling Michelangelo's David NSFW.
I love this answer and I only wish I could mod you up. Whoever rated it as flamebait is a moron.
The huge mistake you make is in assuming that all forms of calamity can be warded off with proper planning. It's true that there's a heck of a lot that can be avoided with foresight and preparation. But a well-placed hurricane, bullet, love affair, or metastatic tumor can annihilate every one of those plans.
That is the price we pay to live in a free society.
My God the lack of knowledge of history around Slashdot these days is astounding. If the people that settled the west had been like most slashdotters, this country would've never grown past the original 13 States. "Oh no, we can't go out into the wilderness! Something might happen that we can't predict and might kill one of us!" Stop being so afraid of your own damn shadow. Do the best you can with what you're given in life. Yeah, something might happen to make it all go to shit. Do you expect the government to bail you out if it does?