"Various organizations will have to be banned from acting based on any information obtained from them -- perhaps even banned from actively searching them out without legal cause."
I agree that blogs may be legally construed as something betweenn public and private, but in the conext of what you are suggesting, what difference does that make?
Here in the United States, if I find organizations (e.g. the media - and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the word) being banned for actively searching out blogs for "solutions" or anything thing else, I'll be one of the first in line with a big fat check made payable to the ALCU. Any information posted in a blog that is true or not demonstrably false (short of posting state secrets, patents, copyrighted material and the like) is protected by free speech unless curtailed by a prior agreement with the blogger (here in the US anyway). Posting knowingly false information is another matter.
Telling people they "shouldn't" visit certain sites is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions, but actually attempting to punish them for doing so is probably censorship in most circumstances in the U.S. - and it sure seems that way with your decidedly shortsighted suggestion.
This is offtopic, I know, but with regard to your.sig: "If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns government?"
That depends on how much you think business owns the government. If you think it does lock, stock and barrel, you may choose to call it Unfettered Capitalism; the end result of Milton Friedman's "Unseen Hand."
step one: problem(s) is disovered. step two: smarter software and/or patch(es) developed to combat the security problem(s) step three: dumber users are developed to keep problems moving right along with newer/smarter (and in some cases, the same old) exploits.
Sarcasm aside, we can work to make internet useage/traffic/sales/financial exchange etc. as safe as we possible can (and educate more people to the same), but there will always be a more than adequate supply of certain people to make most changes in secrity/safety shortlived or only truly applicable to those who care and are willing to learn. Those certain people share one or more of the following characteristics:
1) gullible (esp the "I read it on the internet so it must be true" types or "I read it in an email from my bank or one of my friends so it must be true" types). These users will open/forward/install things often times without blinking an eye. 2) ignorant: they could know but dont bother to learn for whatever reason, that a problem exists until it is too late and/or or don't think it is serious. Like number 1, these users are much more prone than more capable users to click on the "click here" "yes" or "install" link/button. 3) out-of-touch: closely related to number two, this mostly applied to older people who "dont get" computers and/or internet safety and may never "get it" because they dont want to and/or are afraid to learn. 4) PEBKAC types, or just plain stupid users, differentiated from number 2 in that they cant really learn because computers and/or internet safety just aren't their strong points, even if they wanted to learn. PEBKAC is, of course, in the eye of the beholder (or tech support), but most people can think of someone who fits this category.
I'm not saying better internet security and software systems aren't worth pursuing, but it would be unrealistic to hope we can make IM software, email, on-line banking or whatever, safe for everyone. Safer for more users more often yes, but not for all.
You have posted parts of our patented human genome sequence without our prior authorization. We demand that you cease and decist this post and remove it immediatelty, or you will be hearing from our lawyers in short order.
What you are saying makes good sense. But I think the idea behind the post you are referring to is still a provocative one: in the recent years has the United States adaopted any policies that are identifiable with Facsism in particluar (from a professionals point of view, to address your compaint)?
Now I know what you are saying: the poster used a potentially misleading/unathoritative source. OK, but when you look at an authoritative one, are there any more similarities in any aspects the US government now to Facsism compared to the past? From what I have read the basic answer is "no," mostly because the US has been in similar circumstanmces before as far as wartime and quasi-wartime activities are concerned: Manifest Destiny westward expansion, the Civil War, the Vietnamese Conflict, and WWII are interesting comparisons. What makes this Administartion unique to me is the skill and sophistication with which they have acted and their fairly close partnership with religious persons.
Having said "no" I will say that what my government is doing in my name to "protect" me makes me feel a lot less safe than anything Al Qaeda has ever done, including 9/11. I shake my head almost every day when I read the news.
As an American Voter who has never missed an election side from a primary, I can tell you emphatically that mere voting is not enough; "The system" is deisgned to be able to shrug off people like me (not that this stops me, though).
Merely voting consistently is not enough. You have to do the following as well:
1) join vocal organizations that share your point of view: donate $ and participate in futhering their agenda 2) be willing to listen to other side if for no other reason than to undertand why they do what they do 3) educate your friends and loves ones as to your beliefs and why you believe. By this I do not not mean prosthletize, I do mean one should get them to understand your point of view, even if they do not agree with it.
Voting alone is being sheep to the political machine (admittadly for some people this would be a start). Democracy works best when people actively participate; voting is merely one step amoung many.
One of the board of directors members of our church had the audacity to consider putting one of these devices in the bell tower very close to where service occurs (i.e. right above our heads), citing the revenue it would bring in. I said that while there is no concrete evidence they cause harm (and I think the scientific jury is still out on this one, but prefer to err on the side of reasonable caution), I didn't want any transceiver with that kind of wattage anywhere near me, especially right over my head while Im in the middle of a sermon. I added that if they put one up anywhere on church grounds (ours has less than 3 acres of land) I would leave the church, take my tithes with me and encourage other members to do the same.
A little searching here on/. and Google will remind people how these kinds of issues have come up with Diebold Touch Screen Voting Machines before. I have to wonder why they, in particluar, seem to have more problems than other voting maching manufacturers? (no sarcasm intended).
Most of the articles I have read, including this one, point to the fact that it can only be done by someone who knows how the system works and has the correct tools, lending some politicos (including Diebold reps) to say that they really aren't that vulnerable at all or that the problem is not serious. But stakeholders in elections results are precisely the people who could have someone in-the-know and with the correct tools manipulate the results just enough to tip the scales in one candidates favor or another. California realized this and dumped Diebold. Close elections happen all the time, so possible (even plausible) scenarios are not to hard to imagine. If a Diebold machine can be rerogrammed or altered for voting results, even the "verifiable paper trail" could be made to print out alternative results (for those who don't bother to look at the print-out window).
As an Ohio voter who has used one of these machines, I think I am going to have to vote absentee from now on, since a newly passed Ohio law permits me to do so far any reason at all (e.g. I dont want to vote on a vulnerable touch screen machine).
For me, this is one more poignient example of how proprietary voting technology leaves room for problems and the need for transparency with it by proper (preferably Federal) legislation.
I agree with you that it will always end up being a part of the discussion. While I don't consider myslf to be a particularly religious person, *mandatory* chip implants (and de-facto mandetory implants like illustrated above) while likely inevitable in the long run, have perilous implicatons for human dignity and privacy.
I rank this kind of thing right up there with fsuking around with our DNA and that of other life forms. This is not to say that either RFID implants or genetic manipulation is inherenetly evil, but fundamentally life changing advances in science and technology have a habit of being pushed forward while giving moral/environmental ramifications the short shrift by those looking to reap advantage from it (often unfair advantage).
These things (RFID implants and genetic manipulation) can, will and in some instances should be done, but they should be done with great care and keep in mind the sanctity of life and the environment. It is a big strectch from this argument to use these two quotes, but here goes:
Kobi Yamada - "If you don't take care of your body, where will you live?" (Revalations 7:3) - "Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees."
1) amendments 2) exceptions (gov't, big business, telcos) 3) loopholes 4) unclear/incomplete definitions 5) enforcement (is the FCC the best choice?) 6) insert your scenario here
It sounds good, but the devil (as usual) is in the details.
"This article and the comment above are both about federal prosecution. Your first sentence is a red herring."
Free speech issues pertaining to obscenity are relevant at the state as well as federal levels, so while my comments may not seem applicable to you as they pertain to the article, they are important and relevant to me and may be valued by others as well.
"Your second sentence mearly states that which the article states and that which the poster would change."
Quite true. I think some things bear repeating.
"Your arguement is falacious on it's face. It is nothing more than a "slippery slope" arguement."
There is little "slippery" about citing legal realities and the possible very wide consequences of changing them in as fundamental a way as you appear to be supporting. If you agree with the GP and think my post is not relevant, why not write your congressman and/or get someone to my post offtopic?
"If something is "universally loathed", then there will be no place in the U.S. where it is acceptable. This makes your arguement a non sequitur."
Have you checked the definition of non sequitur against the argument you made above?
"Your entire post is logically as well as semantically null."
Thank you for your opinion.
"For fun, let's apply your logic to islamic terrorism."
Since you are into stating what you believe are logical fallacies, your above argument is ad-infinitum and therefore invalid.
"They have nearly all the rights as you and I but one. The right to die. Give them that right, and see if things change."
They do, actually, have the right to die. They can be killed in one of three ways:
1) the Corporation can be dissolved by its board of directors. 2) it can be killed, for all practical purposes, in the marketplace for a variety of financial reasons (which is the real problem, only money really matters in almost any situation, in the end). 3) it can be executed in the sense that the Secretary of State, in which their corporate charter was granted, can revoke it.
The problem is the third option has never been excercised in the History of the United States (source: the documentary movie, The Corporation). So while the main thurst of your statement may be true, technically I don't believe this is so.
Many cases involing free speech are not Federal in nature, so your solution would not apply as well, when you consider the fact that politics vary considerably from one section of the country to another, but often less so within a state. Venue shopping, as you allude to, on the Federal level is currently, (usually) a privilage of the plaintiff only.
Getting the same rights for defendants requires a court hearing to show such severe bias that the defendant would not get a fair trail in that particular jurisdiction. Such hearings occur from time to time but are not often successful.
Your idea sounds good on the surface, but if you stop to think about defendant choosing the jurisdiction for *any* crime they are accused of, I can see the same potential for abuses arising as it does now with plaintiffs.
Use your imagination: think of the worst case scario possible for abuse on the part of a defense attorney for something universally loathed like, say rape, murder or child incest and the like; it would just be a matter of time before that worse case scenario happened.
for the SCOTUS to leave this case alone, if there hasn't been enought sifting around of the issue in this regard at the various appellate (or State Supreme Court) levels, since SCOTUS decisions often raise as many questions as they answer.
If an issue/case hasn't gotten enough judicial review before it reaches the top bench, they may make a decision in a relative vacuum that cretaes more problems than it solves.
My system is similar to yours. We may have read similar reviews.
My stuff:
01) I use a similar case: I chose the Antec P150 instead of the P180, because I use a more traditional airflow system, and never could get into the P180 design 02) same motherboard: ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD 03) probably the same memory: CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel 04) I use two Nexus 120 mm case fans, spun down using zalman fanmate 2 variable resistors to 35% normal speed (about 415 rpm) 05) I use an IDE ATA-6 laptop hard drive (with an adaptor for the Mobo); 5400 rpm 80 gig. It's small but it's all I need. 06) I use the stock Antec 440 watt PSU (despite the bad reviews on it, I've never had issues with it: b/c the fan speed is based on temp and power consumption, and my system is so low temp and power consuming, I can never hear the PSU fan, unless I put my ear up to it) 07) fanless GPU: the GIGABYTE GV-NX66T128VP Geforce 6600GT 08) I use a dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ CPU 09) Scythe SCNJ-1000 CPU Cooling Heatsink (this is where the 1st spun down 120mm fan is, the 2nd is at the back vent of the case, replacing the what-I-found-to-be fairly noisy tri-speed fan, even if it was 120mm) 10) I use a simple Soundblaster Live! card (the card is three years old now) with the SPDIF/digital out for sound. 11) LG 16X DVD±R DVD Burner 5X DVD-RAM drive: it supports dual layer and DVD-RAM (my favorite). 12) A Hauppauge 980 ( WinTV-PVR-250 ) to watch and record TV
I can *never* hear this system, since it's about 23 decibels, unless the room is completely quiet with no speakers on; then I can hear a "whoosh" of airflow. It doesnt have massive GPU power, but if I wanted that I would have sprung the $500.00 for a XFX PV-T71F-YDL9 GeForce 7900 GTX (650MHz) 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 card, with it's excellent heatsink and fan system. Since I'm not FPS gamer (never did like those kinds of games much), I passed on that expense.
I didn't put any foam in (thought about it for while, though), since the sound deadening properties of the P150 were good enough, and the system is virtually silent anyway.
I already had a DELL UltraSharp 2405FPW 24-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD Monitor, so that expense was out of the way. I read reviews at silentpcreview.com first, shopped in local retail stores, and then bought most components from Newegg.com (except the fans and fanmates from endpcnoise.com). The whole system cost me about $1,200.00, ($2,000 if you include the monitor) which I found reasonable, especially for an almost completely quiet system.
Hope this helps anyone looking for a system out there,
Did you see the DVD called "The Animatrix"? It is a series of animated shorts meant act as a segway between the 1st and 2nd Matrix movies.
In particular, the two animated shorts called "The second renaissance" parts one and two, touch a bit on the subject you mentioned above If you haven't seen them I highly reccommend it. You can download these two complete animated shorts here for free: http://www.intothematrix.com/
Although it may be a bit far from the current implimentation, I too, am disturbed at the prospect of having mechanized soldiers do the messy (a.k.a. dirty) work of our Government. If/when such machines become more sophisticated and streamlined in production, the possibilities for misuse are open for consideration. I think of covert operations first here. Also, the idea of smaller conflicts/wars where the foreign media shows, literally, the american war machine doing things that only make the U.S. look worse (whether we were right or wrong in doing so) would not only make us look worse than we already do (hard to belive right now, but I'm sure it's possible) but remove the human account, horrific as it is to endure, experience and tell, from our side of the event. This makes such conflicts easier to swallow especially when portrayed by the media, which has a large focus on deaths and casualties in armed operations (rightly so, but incomplete).
I think this will all come to pass anyway, because the military and quasi military branches of government will support the idea for precisely the reasons I have issues with it: why have our soldiers die in the alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan when robots can do it for them? Why should soldiers die needlessly and their families suffer? Those are all arguments I can understand and agree with on a surface level, but they skim over the arguments that should be seen underneath: Why are we in (insert conflict name here) in the first place? Is continued armed intervention/occupation/peace-keeping in (insert conflict name here) needed? Is it still needed? Are the deaths on any side worth the cost.
Sometimes armed conflict needs to happen, but the use of robots to do this kind of work, especially on a massive and/or secret scale, makes it a lot easier to kill without (for many at least) feeling the need to ask questions.
And when people die, questions are and should be, the order of the day.
when it comes to information that certain people don't want you to know is that there are often many ways to get it, if enough people are interested, or if it is important enough
It's very much a cliche, but information wants to be free. The problem here is the increasing difficulty with which certain kinds of legitimate 'right-to-know' information can be obtained legally.
It's a sad fact that most people pay less attention to state politics than federal, assuming that they pay any attention at all. I am very interested, but media typically gives it less attention, unless there's somebody who was killed or something along those lines that makes us feel even less in control than we alreday are. I have to listen to alternative news often to get any depth at all (NPR, state news channel, etc).
The best I can see us really doing here is paying closer attention to goings ons, and most of have neither the time or inclination for it (present company probably excluded, of course).
And that, for me, would be a potential problem. What if, as an incoming freshman, I already have my own laptop (I'm sure some do, its just a question of how many)? Do I get that portion of my fee/tuition dollar refunded?
I can see then need for security on the University Network to combat Zombies and standardization to deal with PEBCAC, but much of this could be dealt with by requiring those with their own laptops to install a "Network Access/Security Package," which should be (and probably isn't) a requirement in the contract with Lenovo for the few incoming freshmen that do have their own laptops. Statistically speaking, more and more will come with their own with each passing year anyway. Lenovo is probably making a tidy sum with this deal; they may have made a healthy donation to the University as well.
As competition amoung higher ed institutions becomes more fierce, the power of choice could do little else but help here. My guess is that Indiana State just doesnt want to be bothered with it and Lenovo is happy to have the extra (albeit involuntary) sales.
Of course, if such an "opt-out" choice exists, I retract all of the above.
Slashdot Mirror
"Various organizations will have to be banned from acting based on any information obtained from them -- perhaps even banned from actively searching them out without legal cause."
I agree that blogs may be legally construed as something betweenn public and private, but in the conext of what you are suggesting, what difference does that make?
Here in the United States, if I find organizations (e.g. the media - and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the word) being banned for actively searching out blogs for "solutions" or anything thing else, I'll be one of the first in line with a big fat check made payable to the ALCU. Any information posted in a blog that is true or not demonstrably false (short of posting state secrets, patents, copyrighted material and the like) is protected by free speech unless curtailed by a prior agreement with the blogger (here in the US anyway). Posting knowingly false information is another matter.
Telling people they "shouldn't" visit certain sites is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions, but actually attempting to punish them for doing so is probably censorship in most circumstances in the U.S. - and it sure seems that way with your decidedly shortsighted suggestion.
This is offtopic, I know, but with regard to your .sig: "If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns government?"
.sig seems to allude to. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you check it out.
That depends on how much you think business owns the government. If you think it does lock, stock and barrel, you may choose to call it Unfettered Capitalism; the end result of Milton Friedman's "Unseen Hand."
The idea of complete pwnage by business is not always pretty. The movie "The Corporation" explores this idea further in ways your
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
step one: problem(s) is disovered.
step two: smarter software and/or patch(es) developed to combat the security problem(s)
step three: dumber users are developed to keep problems moving right along with newer/smarter (and in some cases, the same old) exploits.
Sarcasm aside, we can work to make internet useage/traffic/sales/financial exchange etc. as safe as we possible can (and educate more people to the same), but there will always be a more than adequate supply of certain people to make most changes in secrity/safety shortlived or only truly applicable to those who care and are willing to learn. Those certain people share one or more of the following characteristics:
1) gullible (esp the "I read it on the internet so it must be true" types or "I read it in an email from my bank or one of my friends so it must be true" types). These users will open/forward/install things often times without blinking an eye.
2) ignorant: they could know but dont bother to learn for whatever reason, that a problem exists until it is too late and/or or don't think it is serious. Like number 1, these users are much more prone than more capable users to click on the "click here" "yes" or "install" link/button.
3) out-of-touch: closely related to number two, this mostly applied to older people who "dont get" computers and/or internet safety and may never "get it" because they dont want to and/or are afraid to learn.
4) PEBKAC types, or just plain stupid users, differentiated from number 2 in that they cant really learn because computers and/or internet safety just aren't their strong points, even if they wanted to learn. PEBKAC is, of course, in the eye of the beholder (or tech support), but most people can think of someone who fits this category.
I'm not saying better internet security and software systems aren't worth pursuing, but it would be unrealistic to hope we can make IM software, email, on-line banking or whatever, safe for everyone. Safer for more users more often yes, but not for all.
Dear sir(s)
You have posted parts of our patented human genome sequence without our prior authorization. We demand that you cease and decist this post and remove it immediatelty, or you will be hearing from our lawyers in short order.
Sincerely,
Genectics Mega Corp.
What you are saying makes good sense. But I think the idea behind the post you are referring to is still a provocative one: in the recent years has the United States adaopted any policies that are identifiable with Facsism in particluar (from a professionals point of view, to address your compaint)?
Now I know what you are saying: the poster used a potentially misleading/unathoritative source. OK, but when you look at an authoritative one, are there any more similarities in any aspects the US government now to Facsism compared to the past? From what I have read the basic answer is "no," mostly because the US has been in similar circumstanmces before as far as wartime and quasi-wartime activities are concerned: Manifest Destiny westward expansion, the Civil War, the Vietnamese Conflict, and WWII are interesting comparisons. What makes this Administartion unique to me is the skill and sophistication with which they have acted and their fairly close partnership with religious persons.
Having said "no" I will say that what my government is doing in my name to "protect" me makes me feel a lot less safe than anything Al Qaeda has ever done, including 9/11. I shake my head almost every day when I read the news.
As an American Voter who has never missed an election side from a primary, I can tell you emphatically that mere voting is not enough; "The system" is deisgned to be able to shrug off people like me (not that this stops me, though).
Merely voting consistently is not enough. You have to do the following as well:
1) join vocal organizations that share your point of view: donate $ and participate in futhering their agenda
2) be willing to listen to other side if for no other reason than to undertand why they do what they do
3) educate your friends and loves ones as to your beliefs and why you believe. By this I do not not mean prosthletize, I do mean one should get them to understand your point of view, even if they do not agree with it.
Voting alone is being sheep to the political machine (admittadly for some people this would be a start). Democracy works best when people actively participate; voting is merely one step amoung many.
But I do agree with your sentiment.
One of the board of directors members of our church had the audacity to consider putting one of these devices in the bell tower very close to where service occurs (i.e. right above our heads), citing the revenue it would bring in. I said that while there is no concrete evidence they cause harm (and I think the scientific jury is still out on this one, but prefer to err on the side of reasonable caution), I didn't want any transceiver with that kind of wattage anywhere near me, especially right over my head while Im in the middle of a sermon. I added that if they put one up anywhere on church grounds (ours has less than 3 acres of land) I would leave the church, take my tithes with me and encourage other members to do the same.
A little searching here on /. and Google will remind people how these kinds of issues have come up with Diebold Touch Screen Voting Machines before. I have to wonder why they, in particluar, seem to have more problems than other voting maching manufacturers? (no sarcasm intended).
Most of the articles I have read, including this one, point to the fact that it can only be done by someone who knows how the system works and has the correct tools, lending some politicos (including Diebold reps) to say that they really aren't that vulnerable at all or that the problem is not serious. But stakeholders in elections results are precisely the people who could have someone in-the-know and with the correct tools manipulate the results just enough to tip the scales in one candidates favor or another. California realized this and dumped Diebold. Close elections happen all the time, so possible (even plausible) scenarios are not to hard to imagine. If a Diebold machine can be rerogrammed or altered for voting results, even the "verifiable paper trail" could be made to print out alternative results (for those who don't bother to look at the print-out window).
As an Ohio voter who has used one of these machines, I think I am going to have to vote absentee from now on, since a newly passed Ohio law permits me to do so far any reason at all (e.g. I dont want to vote on a vulnerable touch screen machine).
For me, this is one more poignient example of how proprietary voting technology leaves room for problems and the need for transparency with it by proper (preferably Federal) legislation.
covering the most awesome truth-is-stranger-than-fiction stuff where every geek looks and says in a Keanu Reeves voice: "Whoa..."
What a great article!
I was waiting for someone to bring this up.
I agree with you that it will always end up being a part of the discussion. While I don't consider myslf to be a particularly religious person, *mandatory* chip implants (and de-facto mandetory implants like illustrated above) while likely inevitable in the long run, have perilous implicatons for human dignity and privacy.
I rank this kind of thing right up there with fsuking around with our DNA and that of other life forms. This is not to say that either RFID implants or genetic manipulation is inherenetly evil, but fundamentally life changing advances in science and technology have a habit of being pushed forward while giving moral/environmental ramifications the short shrift by those looking to reap advantage from it (often unfair advantage).
These things (RFID implants and genetic manipulation) can, will and in some instances should be done, but they should be done with great care and keep in mind the sanctity of life and the environment. It is a big strectch from this argument to use these two quotes, but here goes:
Kobi Yamada - "If you don't take care of your body, where will you live?"
(Revalations 7:3) - "Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees."
"It is also designed to be more secure than the current version, with built-in protection against malicious software and online phishing scams."
(sarcasm)
So, then, how did they manage to stop people (esp PEBKAC) from using it?
(/sarcasm)
Very impressive that you were able to pull up that quote. It summs things up rather nicely.
;-)
"If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention."
and it looks like you have been
Let us count the ways:
1) amendments
2) exceptions (gov't, big business, telcos)
3) loopholes
4) unclear/incomplete definitions
5) enforcement (is the FCC the best choice?)
6) insert your scenario here
It sounds good, but the devil (as usual) is in the details.
"This article and the comment above are both about federal prosecution. Your first sentence is a red herring."
Free speech issues pertaining to obscenity are relevant at the state as well as federal levels, so while my comments may not seem applicable to you as they pertain to the article, they are important and relevant to me and may be valued by others as well.
"Your second sentence mearly states that which the article states and that which the poster would change."
Quite true. I think some things bear repeating.
"Your arguement is falacious on it's face. It is nothing more than a "slippery slope" arguement."
There is little "slippery" about citing legal realities and the possible very wide consequences of changing them in as fundamental a way as you appear to be supporting. If you agree with the GP and think my post is not relevant, why not write your congressman and/or get someone to my post offtopic?
"If something is "universally loathed", then there will be no place in the U.S. where it is acceptable. This makes your arguement a non sequitur."
Have you checked the definition of non sequitur against the argument you made above?
"Your entire post is logically as well as semantically null."
Thank you for your opinion.
"For fun, let's apply your logic to islamic terrorism."
Since you are into stating what you believe are logical fallacies, your above argument is ad-infinitum and therefore invalid.
"They have nearly all the rights as you and I but one. The right to die. Give them that right, and see if things change."
They do, actually, have the right to die. They can be killed in one of three ways:
1) the Corporation can be dissolved by its board of directors.
2) it can be killed, for all practical purposes, in the marketplace for a variety of financial reasons (which is the real problem, only money really matters in almost any situation, in the end).
3) it can be executed in the sense that the Secretary of State, in which their corporate charter was granted, can revoke it.
The problem is the third option has never been excercised in the History of the United States (source: the documentary movie, The Corporation). So while the main thurst of your statement may be true, technically I don't believe this is so.
Many cases involing free speech are not Federal in nature, so your solution would not apply as well, when you consider the fact that politics vary considerably from one section of the country to another, but often less so within a state. Venue shopping, as you allude to, on the Federal level is currently, (usually) a privilage of the plaintiff only.
Getting the same rights for defendants requires a court hearing to show such severe bias that the defendant would not get a fair trail in that particular jurisdiction. Such hearings occur from time to time but are not often successful.
Your idea sounds good on the surface, but if you stop to think about defendant choosing the jurisdiction for *any* crime they are accused of, I can see the same potential for abuses arising as it does now with plaintiffs.
Use your imagination: think of the worst case scario possible for abuse on the part of a defense attorney for something universally loathed like, say rape, murder or child incest and the like; it would just be a matter of time before that worse case scenario happened.
for the SCOTUS to leave this case alone, if there hasn't been enought sifting around of the issue in this regard at the various appellate (or State Supreme Court) levels, since SCOTUS decisions often raise as many questions as they answer.
If an issue/case hasn't gotten enough judicial review before it reaches the top bench, they may make a decision in a relative vacuum that cretaes more problems than it solves.
Think of the Children! Our Children Need Protection!
(We now return to our re-run special of Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
How long will it be before someone like DVD Jon finds a workaround for the DRM?
My system is similar to yours. We may have read similar reviews.
My stuff:
01) I use a similar case: I chose the Antec P150 instead of the P180, because I use a more traditional airflow system, and never could get into the P180 design
02) same motherboard: ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD
03) probably the same memory: CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel
04) I use two Nexus 120 mm case fans, spun down using zalman fanmate 2 variable resistors to 35% normal speed (about 415 rpm)
05) I use an IDE ATA-6 laptop hard drive (with an adaptor for the Mobo); 5400 rpm 80 gig. It's small but it's all I need.
06) I use the stock Antec 440 watt PSU (despite the bad reviews on it, I've never had issues with it: b/c the fan speed is based on temp and power consumption, and my system is so low temp and power consuming, I can never hear the PSU fan, unless I put my ear up to it)
07) fanless GPU: the GIGABYTE GV-NX66T128VP Geforce 6600GT
08) I use a dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ CPU
09) Scythe SCNJ-1000 CPU Cooling Heatsink (this is where the 1st spun down 120mm fan is, the 2nd is at the back vent of the case, replacing the what-I-found-to-be fairly noisy tri-speed fan, even if it was 120mm)
10) I use a simple Soundblaster Live! card (the card is three years old now) with the SPDIF/digital out for sound.
11) LG 16X DVD±R DVD Burner 5X DVD-RAM drive: it supports dual layer and DVD-RAM (my favorite).
12) A Hauppauge 980 ( WinTV-PVR-250 ) to watch and record TV
I can *never* hear this system, since it's about 23 decibels, unless the room is completely quiet with no speakers on; then I can hear a "whoosh" of airflow. It doesnt have massive GPU power, but if I wanted that I would have sprung the $500.00 for a XFX PV-T71F-YDL9 GeForce 7900 GTX (650MHz) 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 card, with it's excellent heatsink and fan system. Since I'm not FPS gamer (never did like those kinds of games much), I passed on that expense.
I didn't put any foam in (thought about it for while, though), since the sound deadening properties of the P150 were good enough, and the system is virtually silent anyway.
I already had a DELL UltraSharp 2405FPW 24-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD Monitor, so that expense was out of the way. I read reviews at silentpcreview.com first, shopped in local retail stores, and then bought most components from Newegg.com (except the fans and fanmates from endpcnoise.com). The whole system cost me about $1,200.00, ($2,000 if you include the monitor) which I found reasonable, especially for an almost completely quiet system.
Hope this helps anyone looking for a system out there,
Did you see the DVD called "The Animatrix"? It is a series of animated shorts meant act as a segway between the 1st and 2nd Matrix movies.
In particular, the two animated shorts called "The second renaissance" parts one and two, touch a bit on the subject you mentioned above If you haven't seen them I highly reccommend it. You can download these two complete animated shorts here for free: http://www.intothematrix.com/
Although it may be a bit far from the current implimentation, I too, am disturbed at the prospect of having mechanized soldiers do the messy (a.k.a. dirty) work of our Government. If/when such machines become more sophisticated and streamlined in production, the possibilities for misuse are open for consideration. I think of covert operations first here. Also, the idea of smaller conflicts/wars where the foreign media shows, literally, the american war machine doing things that only make the U.S. look worse (whether we were right or wrong in doing so) would not only make us look worse than we already do (hard to belive right now, but I'm sure it's possible) but remove the human account, horrific as it is to endure, experience and tell, from our side of the event. This makes such conflicts easier to swallow especially when portrayed by the media, which has a large focus on deaths and casualties in armed operations (rightly so, but incomplete).
I think this will all come to pass anyway, because the military and quasi military branches of government will support the idea for precisely the reasons I have issues with it: why have our soldiers die in the alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan when robots can do it for them? Why should soldiers die needlessly and their families suffer? Those are all arguments I can understand and agree with on a surface level, but they skim over the arguments that should be seen underneath: Why are we in (insert conflict name here) in the first place? Is continued armed intervention/occupation/peace-keeping in (insert conflict name here) needed? Is it still needed? Are the deaths on any side worth the cost.
Sometimes armed conflict needs to happen, but the use of robots to do this kind of work, especially on a massive and/or secret scale, makes it a lot easier to kill without (for many at least) feeling the need to ask questions.
And when people die, questions are and should be, the order of the day.
when it comes to information that certain people don't want you to know is that there are often many ways to get it, if enough people are interested, or if it is important enough
It's very much a cliche, but information wants to be free. The problem here is the increasing difficulty with which certain kinds of legitimate 'right-to-know' information can be obtained legally.
It's a sad fact that most people pay less attention to state politics than federal, assuming that they pay any attention at all. I am very interested, but media typically gives it less attention, unless there's somebody who was killed or something along those lines that makes us feel even less in control than we alreday are. I have to listen to alternative news often to get any depth at all (NPR, state news channel, etc).
The best I can see us really doing here is paying closer attention to goings ons, and most of have neither the time or inclination for it (present company probably excluded, of course).
I like your .sig
Someone saw mine and wrote, "are you a modem?" I had never thought of it that way, but now mine can be read two ways, I suppose.
And that, for me, would be a potential problem. What if, as an incoming freshman, I already have my own laptop (I'm sure some do, its just a question of how many)? Do I get that portion of my fee/tuition dollar refunded?
I can see then need for security on the University Network to combat Zombies and standardization to deal with PEBCAC, but much of this could be dealt with by requiring those with their own laptops to install a "Network Access/Security Package," which should be (and probably isn't) a requirement in the contract with Lenovo for the few incoming freshmen that do have their own laptops. Statistically speaking, more and more will come with their own with each passing year anyway. Lenovo is probably making a tidy sum with this deal; they may have made a healthy donation to the University as well.
As competition amoung higher ed institutions becomes more fierce, the power of choice could do little else but help here. My guess is that Indiana State just doesnt want to be bothered with it and Lenovo is happy to have the extra (albeit involuntary) sales.
Of course, if such an "opt-out" choice exists, I retract all of the above.