It also increases the cost of doing the legitimate business of selling pre paid cellphones by requiring more paperwork and data storage. How much unproductive time spent complying with government red tape instead of creating wealth is too much in the end?
The primary use of handguns is to punch small holes in pieces of paper and the primary use of rifles is to hunt non human prey, also, for both, to plink beer cans.
choosing to define the primary function of an object on the basis of some usage other than the how it is primarily used because that purpose suits ones political agenda is less than entirely honest
"they will be removed once they confirm there is no outstanding warrants or anything against you, that you have no criminal record and you were in fact acquitted"
What if you are arrested, but never charged? Does no acquittal mean the fingerprints stay on file?
Agreed. I call it social vampirism, the bully builds himself or herself up by tearing other people down; metaphorically sucking the lifeblood out of their victim. Sadly, a person can accomplish the same end by building other people up as they can by tearing them down.
The one who wound up in legal trouble (and out of a job) for armed assault and battery? Don't care, that's what happens when you commit armed assault and battery
The one who wound up on the wrong end of armed assault and battery for harassing someone over a bodily characteristic that they have no control over? Don't care, that's what happens when you do that
There are no good guys here and there are no victims. There's an asshole and the asshole who beat the crap out of him for being an asshole.
Yes. Make peoples choices for them and they tend to bitch about it. As is entirely right and proper. Let them make their own choices and provide them with good information with which to make those choices and they get to live with the outcome of their own choices and they can't blame you for it. Simple.
OK, I get that I'm not actually disagreeing with you here, but...
"...billions of dollars of potential revenue were lost..."
It's not just potential income that was lost, Government regulations regarding the rights of passengers required airlines to spend money on providing accomodation for stranded passengers, incurring costs greatly exceeding what they had been paid by those passengers at the same time as their income has dried up.
now, granted, it is right and proper that passengers who are stranded should have some provision made for them under these circumstances, but should the airlines be required to pay the entire cost of an expense that is outside their control and within the control of the government which requires it and which ordered the flights grounded? I think that's a reasonable question. certainly the airlines should not be compensated for potential revenue which was lost but direct costs resulting from government regulation and a government decision to ground air traffic might reasonably be considered a government liability.
So? Government responds by stating that the decision was not theirs and that they issued air traffic advisories against flying which both airlines and passengers chose to disregard. The End.
Is there any particular reason that passenger airliners must fly at heights in excess of 18000 feet? If flights to destinations which can reasonably be reached by other means are canceled, congestion can be reduced and a few flights could have been authorized to intercontinental destinations. So does a good chunk of air travel fly at 20k to 36k feet purely for reasons of efficiency and air traffic separation or would it have been unsafe to fly below the cloud as well as within?
This is a serious question, I make no statement here, I'm just looking for information
"This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent"
There is nothing wrong with refusing to identify oneself unless doing so is illegal. In this case, refusing to identify oneself is not illegal. The job of the police is not to combat random truculence, but to prevent crime/arrest those people who commit crimes.
"short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?"
You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.
Not only is there nothing the police legally could have done, there is nothing the police legally should have done. Apart, that is, from nothing. Which is what they should have done.
A really honest cop would tickethimself for a traffic infringement. That's two cops that do honor to the badge and uniform that they wear. Now we just have to find two more.
Breaking the law is not the cops job. If the cop did not know that citizens are not required to state their name or provide ID on demand, he should have since knowing that IS in fact the cops job. The end result is that one incompetent cop is marginally more competent than he was prior to the "stunt".
For the record, standing on ones rights is not a "stunt". Standing on ones rights is the duty and privilege of citizens of free nations.
When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained.
Followed immediately by....
And no I am not a racist.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
So what race does the post claim is inferior? Does the post in fact claim that any race is inferior? Does the post imply that the poster believes that any race is inferior? The (honest) answer to all these questions is no. Permitting expression of racist ideas is not itself racist.
There is no cognitive dissonance here, only a recognition that freedom requires that racist ideas must be permitted expression for freedom to survive. Freedom is not racist.
This was your quick introduction into the topic of the social contract, whereby you give up some of your rights to live among others.
The GP was your quick introduction into how the social contract is not an excuse for statists to enact all of their big brother fantasies while still claiming that the subjects of their regulation and surveillance are still "free"
Which weapons? If the supreme law gives the right to own weapons manufactured at the time it was passed, so be it
No. The 2nd amendment protects those weapons "in common use at the time" U.S. v. Miller (1939) and those weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" U.S. v. Miller (1939)
If your implication is that that supreme law gives people the right to hoard nuclear or biological weapons
No. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are not in common use at this time, are not part of ordinary military equipment and it would be difficult to argue that its posession by an individual could conceivably contribute to the common defense.
Foreign intelligence agencies already do it as a matter of course. There's no point getting upset about it, the only thing governments in free countries can do is ensure that their own side of the story gets out as well as the version hostile to them.
And if the person with a vitamin D deficiency or higher skin cancer risk actually wants to change that? How much more important is diversity than peoples ability to choose these things for themselves?
When I applied (unsuccessfully on physical fitness grounds) to join the Australian Armed forces, a colorblindness test determined that I was colorblind. When I asked what the consequences of that would be I was informed that I would be excluded from being employed in certain areas (electronics was the only one specifically mentioned). As this was one of my particular interests, I questioned their "diagnosis" and was subjected to a lamp test instead which showed that I was not colorblind.
The point is, colorblindness is not a value neutral difference, it is a real handicap with real consequences for real people who might prefer not to have their options limited by a birth condition. Are you really saying that 1. Colorblind (or deaf) people should not be offered the opportunity to have their condition corrected and that 2. It is the people who want to offer them that option, not the people who want to withhold it, who are behaving unethically?
So now you're telling us not only are the Canadian courts smarter than the US courts, but they're smarter than the Australian courts too? fucking show offs!
If we had to rely on charities, there wouldn't be enough money because people like you wouldn't give anything
Looks like not only do you understand getting hateful over health care, you're feeling pretty superior too.
Sometimes when a person is in need, it is due to ill fortune. Other times, it is due to irresponsible and/or profligate behavior. If a person is in need due to ill fortune, I am happy to assist, because I care about other people. If a person is in need due to irresponsible or profligate behavior, I am unwilling to assist them because I care about other people. I care about the people harmed by their irresponsible behavior, I care about the people who will have to do without so that those irresponsible people can be assisted. But mostly, because I care about irresponsible people who will be lured into making disastrous life choices by the unquestioning availability of assistance without any accountability for how they found themselves in difficulty in the first place.
Do you really not care about the people who people who will be harmed by your uncharitable (being charitable with other peoples money is not actually charitable) largess? Do you really not care about the people who have trouble making ends meet because you're so busy being charitable with the proceeds of their labor?
Re:"Entitlement Generation"
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Yeah, stealing my money and giving it it indolent layabouts unwilling to put in the hours of labor that I do and take the risks that I take makes you a good and caring person. At least in the eyes of the people you give my money to. Why not just donate to a fucking charity if you're so goddamn superior?
In order to understand this portion of the ruling, one must assume that the judge is not referring to persons making the file available, but to persons downloading the file. Which makes sense, because otherwise you end up double counting many times over: Once you start counting uploads, you multiply the total number of violations without increasing the number of copies being made.
Suppose you have 1 file, 10 persons making copies and one person seeding the file (A highly simplified example for the sake of argument). if you count only downloads, you have 10 infringements: equal to the number of copies being made of the file. I assume that the recording companies would like to count uploads as well, including partial uploads. In which case, each person downloading the file would also be uploading portions of the file to up to 9 other people for a potential maximum of 110 infringements (the seeding user uploads to 10 people, each downloader downloads 1 time and uploads to as many as 9 people) where only 10 copies of the file were actually made. A fairly bizarre outcome IMO.
Yet punishing both the victim and the aggressor remains a bad solution to this problem. It rewards the bully by punishing his (or her) victim twice: once at the hands of the bully, once at the hands of the authorities. The fact that meting out actual justice is difficult is not an excuse to discard the notion in favor of simple and brutal solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
It also increases the cost of doing the legitimate business of selling pre paid cellphones by requiring more paperwork and data storage. How much unproductive time spent complying with government red tape instead of creating wealth is too much in the end?
"The purpose of the weapon is to injure"
The primary use of handguns is to punch small holes in pieces of paper and the primary use of rifles is to hunt non human prey, also, for both, to plink beer cans.
choosing to define the primary function of an object on the basis of some usage other than the how it is primarily used because that purpose suits ones political agenda is less than entirely honest
What if you are arrested, but never charged? Does no acquittal mean the fingerprints stay on file?
Agreed. I call it social vampirism, the bully builds himself or herself up by tearing other people down; metaphorically sucking the lifeblood out of their victim. Sadly, a person can accomplish the same end by building other people up as they can by tearing them down.
The one who wound up in legal trouble (and out of a job) for armed assault and battery? Don't care, that's what happens when you commit armed assault and battery
The one who wound up on the wrong end of armed assault and battery for harassing someone over a bodily characteristic that they have no control over? Don't care, that's what happens when you do that
There are no good guys here and there are no victims. There's an asshole and the asshole who beat the crap out of him for being an asshole.
Yes. Make peoples choices for them and they tend to bitch about it. As is entirely right and proper. Let them make their own choices and provide them with good information with which to make those choices and they get to live with the outcome of their own choices and they can't blame you for it. Simple.
OK, I get that I'm not actually disagreeing with you here, but...
"...billions of dollars of potential revenue were lost..."
It's not just potential income that was lost, Government regulations regarding the rights of passengers required airlines to spend money on providing accomodation for stranded passengers, incurring costs greatly exceeding what they had been paid by those passengers at the same time as their income has dried up.
now, granted, it is right and proper that passengers who are stranded should have some provision made for them under these circumstances, but should the airlines be required to pay the entire cost of an expense that is outside their control and within the control of the government which requires it and which ordered the flights grounded? I think that's a reasonable question. certainly the airlines should not be compensated for potential revenue which was lost but direct costs resulting from government regulation and a government decision to ground air traffic might reasonably be considered a government liability.
So? Government responds by stating that the decision was not theirs and that they issued air traffic advisories against flying which both airlines and passengers chose to disregard. The End.
Is there any particular reason that passenger airliners must fly at heights in excess of 18000 feet? If flights to destinations which can reasonably be reached by other means are canceled, congestion can be reduced and a few flights could have been authorized to intercontinental destinations. So does a good chunk of air travel fly at 20k to 36k feet purely for reasons of efficiency and air traffic separation or would it have been unsafe to fly below the cloud as well as within?
This is a serious question, I make no statement here, I'm just looking for information
"This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent"
There is nothing wrong with refusing to identify oneself unless doing so is illegal. In this case, refusing to identify oneself is not illegal. The job of the police is not to combat random truculence, but to prevent crime/arrest those people who commit crimes.
"short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?"
You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.
Not only is there nothing the police legally could have done, there is nothing the police legally should have done. Apart, that is, from nothing. Which is what they should have done.
A really honest cop would ticket himself for a traffic infringement. That's two cops that do honor to the badge and uniform that they wear. Now we just have to find two more.
Breaking the law is not the cops job. If the cop did not know that citizens are not required to state their name or provide ID on demand, he should have since knowing that IS in fact the cops job. The end result is that one incompetent cop is marginally more competent than he was prior to the "stunt".
For the record, standing on ones rights is not a "stunt". Standing on ones rights is the duty and privilege of citizens of free nations.
When you can not, by rule of law, call a person a name or state they are inferior just because of their race, or sex, or ethnicity, then freedom is lost, and probably will never be regained.
Followed immediately by....
And no I am not a racist.
Yikes. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? You do realize that sentence one is the definition of racist?
So what race does the post claim is inferior? Does the post in fact claim that any race is inferior? Does the post imply that the poster believes that any race is inferior? The (honest) answer to all these questions is no. Permitting expression of racist ideas is not itself racist.
There is no cognitive dissonance here, only a recognition that freedom requires that racist ideas must be permitted expression for freedom to survive. Freedom is not racist.
This was your quick introduction into the topic of the social contract, whereby you give up some of your rights to live among others.
The GP was your quick introduction into how the social contract is not an excuse for statists to enact all of their big brother fantasies while still claiming that the subjects of their regulation and surveillance are still "free"
Which weapons? If the supreme law gives the right to own weapons manufactured at the time it was passed, so be it
No. The 2nd amendment protects those weapons "in common use at the time" U.S. v. Miller (1939) and those weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" U.S. v. Miller (1939)
If your implication is that that supreme law gives people the right to hoard nuclear or biological weapons
No. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are not in common use at this time, are not part of ordinary military equipment and it would be difficult to argue that its posession by an individual could conceivably contribute to the common defense.
Also, why would you say that a Warhammer tournament with entrance fees and a big prize should be less regulated than a poker tournament?
Why should either be regulated more than is required to prevent cheating or fraud?
Foreign intelligence agencies already do it as a matter of course. There's no point getting upset about it, the only thing governments in free countries can do is ensure that their own side of the story gets out as well as the version hostile to them.
Helping people fulfil ambitions to work in electrical engineering or aviation is a fools errand? Kinda harsh, yes?
And if the person with a vitamin D deficiency or higher skin cancer risk actually wants to change that? How much more important is diversity than peoples ability to choose these things for themselves?
When I applied (unsuccessfully on physical fitness grounds) to join the Australian Armed forces, a colorblindness test determined that I was colorblind. When I asked what the consequences of that would be I was informed that I would be excluded from being employed in certain areas (electronics was the only one specifically mentioned). As this was one of my particular interests, I questioned their "diagnosis" and was subjected to a lamp test instead which showed that I was not colorblind.
The point is, colorblindness is not a value neutral difference, it is a real handicap with real consequences for real people who might prefer not to have their options limited by a birth condition. Are you really saying that 1. Colorblind (or deaf) people should not be offered the opportunity to have their condition corrected and that 2. It is the people who want to offer them that option, not the people who want to withhold it, who are behaving unethically?
So now you're telling us not only are the Canadian courts smarter than the US courts, but they're smarter than the Australian courts too? fucking show offs!
If we had to rely on charities, there wouldn't be enough money because people like you wouldn't give anything
Looks like not only do you understand getting hateful over health care, you're feeling pretty superior too.
Sometimes when a person is in need, it is due to ill fortune. Other times, it is due to irresponsible and/or profligate behavior. If a person is in need due to ill fortune, I am happy to assist, because I care about other people. If a person is in need due to irresponsible or profligate behavior, I am unwilling to assist them because I care about other people. I care about the people harmed by their irresponsible behavior, I care about the people who will have to do without so that those irresponsible people can be assisted. But mostly, because I care about irresponsible people who will be lured into making disastrous life choices by the unquestioning availability of assistance without any accountability for how they found themselves in difficulty in the first place.
Do you really not care about the people who people who will be harmed by your uncharitable (being charitable with other peoples money is not actually charitable) largess? Do you really not care about the people who have trouble making ends meet because you're so busy being charitable with the proceeds of their labor?
Yeah, stealing my money and giving it it indolent layabouts unwilling to put in the hours of labor that I do and take the risks that I take makes you a good and caring person. At least in the eyes of the people you give my money to. Why not just donate to a fucking charity if you're so goddamn superior?
If it was done on the basis of blood tests, which can only exclude paternity, not confirm, then the reality is certainly higher.
In order to understand this portion of the ruling, one must assume that the judge is not referring to persons making the file available, but to persons downloading the file. Which makes sense, because otherwise you end up double counting many times over: Once you start counting uploads, you multiply the total number of violations without increasing the number of copies being made.
Suppose you have 1 file, 10 persons making copies and one person seeding the file (A highly simplified example for the sake of argument). if you count only downloads, you have 10 infringements: equal to the number of copies being made of the file. I assume that the recording companies would like to count uploads as well, including partial uploads. In which case, each person downloading the file would also be uploading portions of the file to up to 9 other people for a potential maximum of 110 infringements (the seeding user uploads to 10 people, each downloader downloads 1 time and uploads to as many as 9 people) where only 10 copies of the file were actually made. A fairly bizarre outcome IMO.
Yet punishing both the victim and the aggressor remains a bad solution to this problem. It rewards the bully by punishing his (or her) victim twice: once at the hands of the bully, once at the hands of the authorities. The fact that meting out actual justice is difficult is not an excuse to discard the notion in favor of simple and brutal solutions.