So who's paying the legal fees right now? I'm thinking of a group that's mostly likely: white, christian and has a general intolerance for anyone or thing different
I'm thinking the first two objections identify the poster as suffering from the third.
The point here is not that the law is justified, but that the state, in stripping the parents of authority has assumed the responsibility that goes with that authority. If we strip parents of authority, regardless of how good the reasons might be, we must assume the responsibility rather than expecting parents to be responsible for that which they no longer control.
If you don't want the responsibility, you shouldn't be seizing the authority.
How does it define "signatory"? If al quaeda isn't eligible to become a signatory (and I seriously doubt that it is), then your suggestion that the US is not bound might well be inaccurate.
Read my comment again. It begins: "Signatories to the geneva conventions are bound by the geneva conventions even when engaged in conflict with a non signatory...".
Finally, I might point out - that the US erroneously decide (via it's commander-in-chief) that it is above the Geneva Convention, and pass all manner of laws to codify it - the fact is that with respect to the Geneva Convention, the US is a participant in an international theatre - As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it may still decide that the US is bound - local laws notwithstanding.
Since the Geneva conventions specifically excludes from it's protections those who flout its provisions, The US is merely applying the provisions of the Geneva conventions more rigorously than you are apparently willing to apply them. If the rest of the world feels that America should be bound by some unwritten provisions then perhaps it is time for the rest of the world to codify the provision which states:
"In a conflict between a high contracting party and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention unless the party is the United States in which case the party is bound under all circumstances."
Signatories to the geneva conventions are bound by the geneva conventions even when engaged in conflict with a non signatory until the non signatory violates the conventionssee third geneva convention wiki (article 2)
I submit that the following acts constitute violations of the geneva conventions:
cutting off the heads of prisoners
not bearing arms openly
the failure of combatants to wear a mark, identifiable at a distance identifying them as such
not having a chain of command in which officers are responsible for the actions of subordinates
Insisting that the US remains bound by the Geneva conventions in its conflict with Al-Quaeda and its allies not only is not supported by the Geneva conventions but actively undermines the provisions of the Geneva conventions by removing the incentives created within the conventions for adhering to them.
I hardly think that using frequent flyer miles to paddle around in near earth orbit is cause to lose all sense of wonder at the vastness of space and the endless possibilities that it represents.
The remarkable thing is that we are arguing over the national identity of people who pose a negligable threat to us, while doing nothing about things that kill far more people every year, like falling down, and getting struck by lightning.
falling, lightning and even motor vehicle crashes are all risks which people can manage for themselves. Individuals can manage their risk of death by falling by:
holding the handrail in stairways
doing some form sporting exercise so as to become more physically adept
being particularly careful in situations that pose a falling hazard
Individuals can manage their risk of lightning strike by
remaining indoors during electrical storms
avoiding trees during electrical storms
avoiding tall metallic objects during electrical storms
not using umbrellas during electrical storms
Individuals can manage their risk of motor vehicle accidents by
abiding strictly by the law when driving
taking defensive driving courses
being more observant while driving
In stark contrast, people can only manage their risk of being blown up in airplanes only by not getting onto airplanes in the first place. The governments only legitimate purpose is to do for people those things that they cannot reasonably do for themselves: I don't need my government protecting me from risks which I can manage (no, I did not say eliminate) for myself. When I get onto a commercial airliner, I want my government to take reasonable steps to manage the risks involved. Otherwise, what is a government good for aside from stealing my money and giving it to crack whores and junkies?
If so, either the ECU in the recovered vehicle ought to be hacked, thus demonstrating that the owner wasn't complicit or the ECU ought to be either missing or in the car but not installed again demonstrating the owners noncomplicity. I can see the theives removing the hacked ECU (for use in their next heist), but don't really think they'd bother reinstalling the original.
Alternatively, perhaps it's possible to hack the original ECU in situ
If people are so horrible opposed they can vote by not using any of the products of this research
I'd rather vote by electing someone who wont use my money to fund it. If you see no problem with it, donate your own money to embryonic stem cell research. (And good luck to you, I say... That's how liberty is supposed to work).
No. This would indeed be disproportionate to the objective being pursued (and therefore, a war crime). Note, it may indeed be disproportionate to the level of force used by ones opponent, but that's neither here nor there. Your enemy doesn't get to choose the terms of the conflict unless you permit them to do so.
Why isn't the/. crowd applauding end users for not only caring about their networks but actually taking pro-active steps to prevent break ins?
Because the moment someone tries to compel you to do something "for your own good" you really ought to be wondering just who's interests are actually being protected. I don't need anyone compelling me to do anything in my own interest, my own survival skills are perfectly well developed for the task. The fact that this is a condominium covenant and not a law does not change the fact that someone, or a group of someones is using their authority for purposes for which that authority was not created. That makes it, in my opinion, an abuse of that authority.
They're not taking steps to protect their own networks here, they're taking steps to protect someone elses network who happens to live in the same building as they do.
So although the author may whine about a change, probably a network stack change, he has his colleagues in the industry to thank for it
Incorrect. He has Microsoft to thank for implementing antipiracy measures which generate false positives. If it's that easy to genuinely generate a false positive and it's that easy to fool Microsoft into issuing a new licence, then these antipiracy measures are hurting only those people that Microsoft should least want to hurt. paying customers
Perhaps because the teacher wasn't the recipient. It was sent to his classmates, most of whom laughed it off (as did the local police, which ought to tell you something right there). Moreover, the school has authority over a child because the government requires children to go to school. An employer on the other hand has authority over an employee because the employee voluntarily entered into an agreement with the employer. Whole different ball of wax.
There's nothing particularly civil about regulating snarky remarks and disrespect in conversations out of school and in private conversation.
A free market for DSL shouldn't be difficult to achieve; unless a monopoly has already been established.
So for most in the USA, this is a moot point.
What can be done is that you separate the infrastructure and retail portions of the market. Since the wires and cables can only reasonably be done once, either the government provides them or, better yet, a private entity with strict regulations as to what it is supposed to provide (i.e. it is not permitted to enter the retail sector of the market). The infrastructure provider then sells access to the wires and cables to whoever wishes to operate a retail DSL business.
It works for the Australian (east coast mainland) energy market in any case. Unfortunately, the Howard government was so eager to sell Telstra (a once government owned telecommunications company) that they didn't bother to separate out the infrastructure element before selling it. Probably because doing so would reduce the share price and thus the budget windfall from the sale. So now we have a 50% private (so far, Howard wants to sell the rest but the share price is in the toilet, apparently because they are required to maintain payphones in country towns) telecommunications company busily using it's infrastructure advantage to maintain its position in the retail market.
I would be in favor of tort reform if the monetary damages were limited but if found guilty the doctor or the CEO went to jail. You know hold people personally responsible for their actions and decisions.
I'd really rather not be jailing people based on civil court standards of evidence.
You give people an opportunity, and they will shine.
Everything that can unity us more is a good thing. You can be sure that whatever idea you have, if it will bring everybody more together, it is a good one.
I have this idea where everyone gets the same opportunity to shine, without regard to race, gender or age. Affirmative action gives more opportunity to particular individuals because other individuals share irrelevant characteristics with them. It is ugly, nasty and not an idea that creates unity. It creates suspicion and drives people apart.
Are women really so pathetic and helpless that they are incapable of doing exactly what you did? Really, it's feminists who are contemptuous of womens capabilities, the rest of us think they can succeed without being coddled.
You have to remember that they are hiring women-only because everyone else is male. If there were 180 (or however many) women here and they tried to bring in some men, I think almost everyone would find it acceptable.
As demonstrated by the lack of outcry every time someone suggests hiring more male teachers to redress the imbalance in the teaching profession. Oh, wait...
I think it's generally better to maintain some sort of gender balance than not to do so, just like I think it's better to support some sort of income/economic equality rather than having landed gentry with inherited fortunes and serfs. Of course, taking away some priveleges from the lords in my theoretical situation would be "classist," in a sense, but it would also be "good."
I have to say that there's a large difference between seizing the unearned priveliges of a lordly class than discriminating against male programmers whose standing in the employment market is based entirely upon their own merit. Which is not to say that I think private institutions ought to be prevented from doing so, merely that I think badly of those which do.
No law, regardless of how "accurate and good" can guarantee that it will not be broken. This is why the only way to prevent misuse of DNA information is to prevent its collection. This is why the "slashdot fanboys" don't want their DNA or personal information collected: it is the collection of the information that makes misuse possible. If it is not collected, it cannot be misused. A law can be broken, information that has not been collected cannot be misused.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want the responsibility, you shouldn't be seizing the authority.
Since the Geneva conventions specifically excludes from it's protections those who flout its provisions, The US is merely applying the provisions of the Geneva conventions more rigorously than you are apparently willing to apply them. If the rest of the world feels that America should be bound by some unwritten provisions then perhaps it is time for the rest of the world to codify the provision which states:
"In a conflict between a high contracting party and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention unless the party is the United States in which case the party is bound under all circumstances."
I submit that the following acts constitute violations of the geneva conventions:
Insisting that the US remains bound by the Geneva conventions in its conflict with Al-Quaeda and its allies not only is not supported by the Geneva conventions but actively undermines the provisions of the Geneva conventions by removing the incentives created within the conventions for adhering to them.
I hardly think that using frequent flyer miles to paddle around in near earth orbit is cause to lose all sense of wonder at the vastness of space and the endless possibilities that it represents.
Sure it is... Peace of the grave. Infidel corpses are plenty peaceful.
Because the French are such massive buttinskis!
So, when hunting a serial killer, profiles should be avoided?
falling, lightning and even motor vehicle crashes are all risks which people can manage for themselves. Individuals can manage their risk of death by falling by:
- holding the handrail in stairways
- doing some form sporting exercise so as to become more physically adept
- being particularly careful in situations that pose a falling hazard
Individuals can manage their risk of lightning strike by- remaining indoors during electrical storms
- avoiding trees during electrical storms
- avoiding tall metallic objects during electrical storms
- not using umbrellas during electrical storms
Individuals can manage their risk of motor vehicle accidents byIn stark contrast, people can only manage their risk of being blown up in airplanes only by not getting onto airplanes in the first place. The governments only legitimate purpose is to do for people those things that they cannot reasonably do for themselves: I don't need my government protecting me from risks which I can manage (no, I did not say eliminate) for myself. When I get onto a commercial airliner, I want my government to take reasonable steps to manage the risks involved. Otherwise, what is a government good for aside from stealing my money and giving it to crack whores and junkies?
I, for one, welcome our new cellphone tracking overlords
If so, either the ECU in the recovered vehicle ought to be hacked, thus demonstrating that the owner wasn't complicit or the ECU ought to be either missing or in the car but not installed again demonstrating the owners noncomplicity. I can see the theives removing the hacked ECU (for use in their next heist), but don't really think they'd bother reinstalling the original. Alternatively, perhaps it's possible to hack the original ECU in situ
I'd rather vote by electing someone who wont use my money to fund it. If you see no problem with it, donate your own money to embryonic stem cell research. (And good luck to you, I say... That's how liberty is supposed to work).
No. This would indeed be disproportionate to the objective being pursued (and therefore, a war crime). Note, it may indeed be disproportionate to the level of force used by ones opponent, but that's neither here nor there. Your enemy doesn't get to choose the terms of the conflict unless you permit them to do so.
Because the moment someone tries to compel you to do something "for your own good" you really ought to be wondering just who's interests are actually being protected. I don't need anyone compelling me to do anything in my own interest, my own survival skills are perfectly well developed for the task. The fact that this is a condominium covenant and not a law does not change the fact that someone, or a group of someones is using their authority for purposes for which that authority was not created. That makes it, in my opinion, an abuse of that authority.
They're not taking steps to protect their own networks here, they're taking steps to protect someone elses network who happens to live in the same building as they do.
Incorrect. He has Microsoft to thank for implementing antipiracy measures which generate false positives. If it's that easy to genuinely generate a false positive and it's that easy to fool Microsoft into issuing a new licence, then these antipiracy measures are hurting only those people that Microsoft should least want to hurt. paying customers
There's nothing particularly civil about regulating snarky remarks and disrespect in conversations out of school and in private conversation.
A free market for DSL shouldn't be difficult to achieve; unless a monopoly has already been established. So for most in the USA, this is a moot point. What can be done is that you separate the infrastructure and retail portions of the market. Since the wires and cables can only reasonably be done once, either the government provides them or, better yet, a private entity with strict regulations as to what it is supposed to provide (i.e. it is not permitted to enter the retail sector of the market). The infrastructure provider then sells access to the wires and cables to whoever wishes to operate a retail DSL business. It works for the Australian (east coast mainland) energy market in any case. Unfortunately, the Howard government was so eager to sell Telstra (a once government owned telecommunications company) that they didn't bother to separate out the infrastructure element before selling it. Probably because doing so would reduce the share price and thus the budget windfall from the sale. So now we have a 50% private (so far, Howard wants to sell the rest but the share price is in the toilet, apparently because they are required to maintain payphones in country towns) telecommunications company busily using it's infrastructure advantage to maintain its position in the retail market.
Ok, I see now. Because we're on a slippery slope, it logically follows that we must slide down it.
So, You're saying this is a good thing that we need more of?
I'd really rather not be jailing people based on civil court standards of evidence.
I have this idea where everyone gets the same opportunity to shine, without regard to race, gender or age. Affirmative action gives more opportunity to particular individuals because other individuals share irrelevant characteristics with them. It is ugly, nasty and not an idea that creates unity. It creates suspicion and drives people apart.
Are women really so pathetic and helpless that they are incapable of doing exactly what you did? Really, it's feminists who are contemptuous of womens capabilities, the rest of us think they can succeed without being coddled.
As demonstrated by the lack of outcry every time someone suggests hiring more male teachers to redress the imbalance in the teaching profession. Oh, wait...
I have to say that there's a large difference between seizing the unearned priveliges of a lordly class than discriminating against male programmers whose standing in the employment market is based entirely upon their own merit. Which is not to say that I think private institutions ought to be prevented from doing so, merely that I think badly of those which do.
Wouldn't that make reading the cover of the CD a violation of the DMCA
No law, regardless of how "accurate and good" can guarantee that it will not be broken. This is why the only way to prevent misuse of DNA information is to prevent its collection. This is why the "slashdot fanboys" don't want their DNA or personal information collected: it is the collection of the information that makes misuse possible. If it is not collected, it cannot be misused. A law can be broken, information that has not been collected cannot be misused.