So holding a gun to someones head, taking the fruit of their labor, taking a generous cut for yourself then distributing the remaining proceeds to the "deserving" (More so than the person who actually earned it I suppose) is the "right thing". Strange how the "right thing" has so much in common with a protection racket. "Nice life you have there, be a shame if something were to happen to it"
With an election coming up, the Labor party is likely to win a second term, but is unlikely to win by a large margin. Since Labor is directing preferences to the greens (who will oppose the suggested legislation), Labor can safely curry favor with the sort of people who support censorship without the risk of having to follow through. All they have to do after the election is blame the Greens when they are unable to keep their promise.
What's even better is that since most opponents of censorship are more likely to vote green that conservative, most of the votes which they lose because of the policy will flow right back to labor via green preferences.
At peak hour. They still have to run outside peak times even if there are few if any passengers, which a car does not have to do.
Cherry picking the most efficient portion of rail use and comparing it to the cherry picked least efficient portion of motor vehicle use because you want to feel superior or whatever doesn't work.
It's not remotely the same thing. You're creating a dangerous moral equivalence between the freedom to defend oneself and tyranny. I reject that equivalence, measures that require the initiation of the use of force are automatically morally inferior to ones that do not. I can carry the means to protect myself, whether it be a firearm, mace or billy club, without ever initiating the use of force. You cannot filter the internet, require video surveillance in private property or implant tracking chips in peoples asses without initiating the use of force at some point.
Sometimes the only evidence that someone is doing their job is negative evidence; they are preventing something from happening rather than causing something to happen. For example, if arrest rates are way down but crime reports are also way down, 1 of 2 things could be happening, the police are doing an awesome job and should be getting free blowjobs as a reward, or the police are slacking off, refusing to record reports of crime and probably getting free blowjobs as a reward. The only way to tell is closer monitoring of the situation to determine if access to free blowjobs should be increased or restricted.
Because they want your taxes. If your local government is too restrictive, you can simply cross your nearest state border, without having to actually leave the country as you do if you find federal laws too onerous.
I've seen one case in which the cameraman filmed his friend being harassed by police and got arrested because it was a one party state and his friends consent to being recorded after the fact wasn't relevant. If you're going to film your friends if they are being accosted by police, make sure you have consent in advance.
If someone discovers the police doing something bad in some footage they took of an event and reports it (providing a copy of the footage to the authorities)
When the authorities and the police are the same thing, reporting bad conduct by the authorities is a little redundant... they already know they're a bunch of uniformed criminals, and don't care
"Most cop cars have dash mounted cameras. It's not the idea that a cop does not want to be recorded, they want a system that the end user does not have the ability to alter. The individual cop can't get to the video, I am sure only internal affairs and their superiors have access."
Even the most rigorous set of controls over access to video recordings cannot prevent the camera from being deliberately obscured when the officer does not want his activities recorded for posterity. The wide availability of video recording devices is useful not just for catching criminals at work, but for catching corrupt police (aka criminals) at their nefarious business.
There are any number of reasons that water becomes abundant or scarce, Americans stealing Chinese water is not one of them. It's about how water is managed.
Intel has the money that they can afford to delsalinate water.
But their stockholders have heard that that would lower the profits. Guess what happens next.
What happens next is that labor in some other, wealthier, nation (which has plenty of water) is suddenly competitive with chinese labor and the advantage to Intel of doing its manufacturing in China goes away. So does the work that Chinese laborers were doing for intel. But hey, at least the unemployed laborers will have plenty of water, eh?
Australia has an excellent welfare system. In fact, it is so excellent that being a member of the working poor is stupid when you can have an only slightly less salubrious standard of living while lazing about all day with no obligation to provide anything of value to the rest of the community.
Yes, the words welfare state taken on their own have a negative meaning and yes, it's true that it's a sad thing. It means that I do not get to keep what I earn. That's negative. And it's a sad thing.
I'm sure the Chinese laborers working for intel would rather starve and freeze to death rather than have less water than the average American and be able to earn enough money to pay for food and a roof over their heads. If nothing else, they could use all that extra water to drown themselves out of the sheer joy of their utter destitution.
"I am opposed to this proposed law, even though I recognize that the general population doesn't care or think about anonymity in their day to day lives"
You have already acknowledged however, that it is what they want. No, I'm not putting words in your mouth:
"if explicitly asked which they'd want to do, most would probably choose anonymity"
So if we go back to the disagreement which originated this discussion:
"they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either"
So if you want to say that "I think that your idea of an ordinary shmoe is not so ordinary" you should keep in mind that my original statement is entirely compatible with what we have already agreed with what they would choose if given the choice. That being the case, I don't think that they are so utterly irrelevant as to be outweighed by the vanishingly few users of pre paid phones who use them to communicate in recreational drug commerce.
uh huh. So how many do you suppose would surrender the information the government wants if they were offered the choice of either an anonymous prepaid or the prepaid where the government can associate the phone with mr or mrs shmoe?
I'm thinking if offered the choice explicitly, most will choose anonymity.
actually, they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either
So long as it's not the government doing it, yes. If a private company wont sell me an anonymous pre paid account, I can go to another company, no big deal, freedom in action. Once the government starts doing it, big deal, freedom has been diminished.
Slashdot Mirror
So holding a gun to someones head, taking the fruit of their labor, taking a generous cut for yourself then distributing the remaining proceeds to the "deserving" (More so than the person who actually earned it I suppose) is the "right thing". Strange how the "right thing" has so much in common with a protection racket. "Nice life you have there, be a shame if something were to happen to it"
With an election coming up, the Labor party is likely to win a second term, but is unlikely to win by a large margin. Since Labor is directing preferences to the greens (who will oppose the suggested legislation), Labor can safely curry favor with the sort of people who support censorship without the risk of having to follow through. All they have to do after the election is blame the Greens when they are unable to keep their promise.
What's even better is that since most opponents of censorship are more likely to vote green that conservative, most of the votes which they lose because of the policy will flow right back to labor via green preferences.
The articles right there, but it's not like I can make you drink or anything. If you don't want to know, that's your lookout.
and the trains here are *full*.
At peak hour. They still have to run outside peak times even if there are few if any passengers, which a car does not have to do.
Cherry picking the most efficient portion of rail use and comparing it to the cherry picked least efficient portion of motor vehicle use because you want to feel superior or whatever doesn't work.
Dunno, does your host have a harbor to pour it into?
It's not remotely the same thing. You're creating a dangerous moral equivalence between the freedom to defend oneself and tyranny. I reject that equivalence, measures that require the initiation of the use of force are automatically morally inferior to ones that do not. I can carry the means to protect myself, whether it be a firearm, mace or billy club, without ever initiating the use of force. You cannot filter the internet, require video surveillance in private property or implant tracking chips in peoples asses without initiating the use of force at some point.
Sometimes the only evidence that someone is doing their job is negative evidence; they are preventing something from happening rather than causing something to happen. For example, if arrest rates are way down but crime reports are also way down, 1 of 2 things could be happening, the police are doing an awesome job and should be getting free blowjobs as a reward, or the police are slacking off, refusing to record reports of crime and probably getting free blowjobs as a reward. The only way to tell is closer monitoring of the situation to determine if access to free blowjobs should be increased or restricted.
Because they want your taxes. If your local government is too restrictive, you can simply cross your nearest state border, without having to actually leave the country as you do if you find federal laws too onerous.
I've seen one case in which the cameraman filmed his friend being harassed by police and got arrested because it was a one party state and his friends consent to being recorded after the fact wasn't relevant. If you're going to film your friends if they are being accosted by police, make sure you have consent in advance.
If someone discovers the police doing something bad in some footage they took of an event and reports it (providing a copy of the footage to the authorities)
When the authorities and the police are the same thing, reporting bad conduct by the authorities is a little redundant... they already know they're a bunch of uniformed criminals, and don't care
"Most cop cars have dash mounted cameras. It's not the idea that a cop does not want to be recorded, they want a system that the end user does not have the ability to alter. The individual cop can't get to the video, I am sure only internal affairs and their superiors have access."
Even the most rigorous set of controls over access to video recordings cannot prevent the camera from being deliberately obscured when the officer does not want his activities recorded for posterity. The wide availability of video recording devices is useful not just for catching criminals at work, but for catching corrupt police (aka criminals) at their nefarious business.
Buying someones manufactured goods is typically not regarded as intrusive.
Mostly, the Chinese and Indians aren't Catholic.
Chinese water management is an entirely internal affair which the Chinese would take deep umbrage at the US for intruding.
That would be a matter for the countries exporting that water. Apparently China considers having Intel plants in China to be a good deal.
There are any number of reasons that water becomes abundant or scarce, Americans stealing Chinese water is not one of them. It's about how water is managed.
Intel has the money that they can afford to delsalinate water.
But their stockholders have heard that that would lower the profits. Guess what happens next.
What happens next is that labor in some other, wealthier, nation (which has plenty of water) is suddenly competitive with chinese labor and the advantage to Intel of doing its manufacturing in China goes away. So does the work that Chinese laborers were doing for intel. But hey, at least the unemployed laborers will have plenty of water, eh?
Australia has an excellent welfare system. In fact, it is so excellent that being a member of the working poor is stupid when you can have an only slightly less salubrious standard of living while lazing about all day with no obligation to provide anything of value to the rest of the community.
Yes, the words welfare state taken on their own have a negative meaning and yes, it's true that it's a sad thing. It means that I do not get to keep what I earn. That's negative. And it's a sad thing.
I'm sure the Chinese laborers working for intel would rather starve and freeze to death rather than have less water than the average American and be able to earn enough money to pay for food and a roof over their heads. If nothing else, they could use all that extra water to drown themselves out of the sheer joy of their utter destitution.
"I am opposed to this proposed law, even though I recognize that the general population doesn't care or think about anonymity in their day to day lives"
You have already acknowledged however, that it is what they want. No, I'm not putting words in your mouth:
"if explicitly asked which they'd want to do, most would probably choose anonymity"
So if we go back to the disagreement which originated this discussion:
"they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either"
So if you want to say that "I think that your idea of an ordinary shmoe is not so ordinary" you should keep in mind that my original statement is entirely compatible with what we have already agreed with what they would choose if given the choice. That being the case, I don't think that they are so utterly irrelevant as to be outweighed by the vanishingly few users of pre paid phones who use them to communicate in recreational drug commerce.
So your plan is to keep the choice quiet so that they don't realize that it is being taken from them. Charming.
uh huh. So how many do you suppose would surrender the information the government wants if they were offered the choice of either an anonymous prepaid or the prepaid where the government can associate the phone with mr or mrs shmoe?
I'm thinking if offered the choice explicitly, most will choose anonymity.
Or perhaps for both. Or, as I already stated, the ordinary shmoe neither needs nor wants to surrender that information, so why should (s)he?
"Realistically however, most are used for drugs."
actually, they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either
That word balancing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "flush down the toilet"
So long as it's not the government doing it, yes. If a private company wont sell me an anonymous pre paid account, I can go to another company, no big deal, freedom in action. Once the government starts doing it, big deal, freedom has been diminished.