A news organisation cannot hide information, true or otherwise. It either reports it or it doesn't. It's not like there aren't plenty of other news organisations which could have reported this "true information that would have exposed this as a bullshit war". If they didn't, why single out fox?
A more pertinent question here is why does it bother you that they don't want it? Why do they need your permission to do something that you consider silly?
If you're suggesting that people who do nothing wrong should be treated like criminals whether a crime has been committed or not...
Absolutely not. However, when a crime has been committed, and the police are looking for suspect X, all suspect X would have to do is say that they are Non-Suspect-Y. Would it make you feel better if the police had to tell you what crime was committed and what they are investigating? What if they are looking for a rock thrower and find a wanted mass-murderer, do they have to let him go?
No. They simply have to do their job. Cops and their equivalents have been catching people for centuries and more without the use of intrusive measures such as you suggest. Police do not need to be able to bail up random strangers and demand their papers in order to do their job. And let's be serious here, is a wanted mass murderer really going to carry his own id?
For a while, credit card companies were considering putting photo ID on credit cards. They binned the idea when they issued a trial credit card to a woman which had a photo of a dog on the card. She never got questioned.
OK, neither you or the parent poster are Australian so let me (An Australian) Explain it,
In the great southern land we don't need high powered automatic weapons to feel safe, in fact the knowledge that high powered automatic weapons are not in the hands of maniac's is a very comforting thought.
In fact, we don't need two inch long knives to feel safe, in fact, the knowledge that low powered leathermen multitools aren't in the hands of manics is a very comforting thought.
I've never understood why so many Australians think the feeling of safety is so much more important than the ability to respond to an armed criminal in any fashion other than abject obeisance.
There are more gun deaths in the city of New York than in the continent of Australia
Which would be ever so much more impressive if New York city didn't have gun laws near identical to Australia. And what's with the whole "gun deaths" line... I keep seeing statistics which insist that gun deaths are down (but only in line with a trend which was already in play since long before that) since John Howards craven capitulation to the gun control lobby but no one is all that interested in how many actual murders took place in that period.
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmm...
I can't help but wonder just how much deader a corpse killed by a gun is than a corpse killed by a knife.
And yes, the handy dandy leatherman multitool (or any other edged implement) is actually illegal here in nsw. Police are permitted to perform a cursory search of any citizen at any time in search of knives.
As if in other countries, governements don't impose decisions on their citizens ?
So we have to justify walking down the street without our papers now? Where does the government get the authority to command me to carry ID papers in the first place? If it doesn't need explicit authority to do so, what else might they be able to command me to do?
I don't see what's so wrong about having everyone carry them around
We don't want to be bailed up by the cops for no reason other than checking to see that our papers are in order. We want the government to leave us alone until such time as we violate the rights of another individual or entity.
The endless increases in surveillance and government intrusiveness have so far failed spectacularly in their stated aim of reducing crime and terrorism. It is far from unreasonable therefore to conclude that when politicians announce they want more of the same stuff that has already failed time and again that the stated aim is not in fact the actual aim and that it is succeeding in some other aim which they have neglected to inform us of.
What is so wrong with you carrying ID everywhere you go (god knows what you do when you're at the beach) if you find it convenient and letting other people not carry ID everywhere they go without hauling them off to the cop shop simply because a cop wants to know their name?
What idiot criminal is going to take a (valid) ID with them when they're off housebreaking or mugging someone anyway? I fail to see how having a universal, must be carried at all times, ID card will have more of an impact on criminals than on regular citizens. Actually, it seems to me it would make the life of criminals considerably simpler in many different ways. It's certainly not going to inconvenience them any.
Hey, dude, chill. I wasn't taking issue with your actions, but the ACLUs refusal to take this one on. If it happens so often that they can't take your particular case, they really ought to take on a case. If it was reasonable once, it surely isn't now. Even if it's reasonable, I have serious trouble beleiving that it's constitutional. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable things that governments and their lackeys are not allowed to do. The apparent lack of care factor on the part of the ACLU strikes me as really strange given it's use as a tool to harras those who are already on societies fringes.
...this happens far to many times a year for the ACLU to get involved in my particular instance
is it really too much to expect them to get involved in any instance? You've got a constitution which forbids what you describe in several different ways.
And for them to say that being seized and held incommunicado is not be be under arrest kinda evades that actual meaning of the word arrest
Then there's the question: if Freenet is needed, is it right to decide not to run a node because you abhor some of the traffic?
Yes. One node, more or less, isn't going to kill freenet if it's truly needed. The OP is right to refuse to participate in freenet if that is what his conscience tells him to do. He is right to advocate that people not run nodes if he feels the association of freenet with kiddie porn destroys any positive associations it might have. If he wants to compel me not to run a freenet node however, I'll start one up just to piss him off.
I have absolutely no problem with paying representatives well, as that is the only way to ensure that the most talented people seek the job.
Kindly explain how that follows? Is the goal of being a representative to serve yourself (make money) or serve the people?
People being what they are, the most talented people typically wind up in the most highly remunerated professions. Face it, a person faced with a choice of being a politician who is paid bugger all or being a lawyer who is paid what amounts to the GDP of a small nation will, in the vast majority of cases, become lying gutter scum.
oops. That example didn't quite work out how I expected!
Metal standards tie international currency exchange and therefore to the most desirable country's interest rates.M ...
If the economy is doing poorly in England then to make capital more affordable interest rates CANNOT be lowered by the Bank of England
so, the US should not adopt a metal standard because it would not be in another nations interest? Doesn't that mean that only the most desirable economy should be restricted from having a metal standard? and if so, how, exactly, could the international community compel the nation with the most desirable economy to adopt an economic policy that is in everyone elses interest but not necessarily their own?
At the risk of being politically incorrect, the book did mention that women tended to take interest in useful applications of technology rather than burrowing into it for its own sake. Where a man might write a thesis about register allocation in compilers, a woman would more likely want to invent something like Logo.
That's why they don't wind up in tech fields. The best people in any field are in it because it fascinates them for its own sake. Why learn to cut code if all you want to do is use a couple of techie tools? Isn't making the techie tools what techies are for? They actually enjoy making the tools.
Seeking equality of outcomes can only be accomplished through gross and unforgivable levels of discrimination. It's the opportunities that are important. If a given individual doesn't want to pay the same price that others are willing to pay, whose fault is it when they don't get the same result?
Yes fucktard, I did read the fucking article. Exactly what is so suspicious looking about John Gilmore? I guess if you're a bigot who thinks that anyone who doesn't wear a suit and look like George W. Bush is suspicious then he is by definition suspicious looking. The rest of us are smarter than that.
Well, I'll say this much for you, it takes real chutzpah for someone who beleives that "white people don't have a problem with having suspicious looking brown people refused passage on a flight" to call someone else a bigot.
If the amount was inflated, as many here plainly beleive, then justice has not only been tainted, it has been seen to be tainted. I have not seen anyone actually claim that what he did is not wrong or should not have been prosecuted: people are finding it difficult to understand how his action could cost the company 20K and if the amount has been inflated as you say then doing so has done serious damage to public confidence in the justice system.
Depends on whether you talk to an Australian Aborigine or a professional victim. Anywhere you get kudo$ for being a victim, you'll find the professional whingers. They're not the best people to talk to if you want a view of the world which has any basis in reality.
How much freedom is there in a lie, or in half the truth?
How much freedom is there in hate?
Who decides what is or is not a lie?
Who decides what is or is not hatred?
If your answer is anything other than "me", you are a hateful liar. This is why freedom of speech must include those things which an individual might consider hateful or a lie. Otherwise freedom of speech is nothing but a hateful slogan chanted by liars.
Slashdot Mirror
wtf is first poster doing in the heroes list?
A news organisation cannot hide information, true or otherwise. It either reports it or it doesn't. It's not like there aren't plenty of other news organisations which could have reported this "true information that would have exposed this as a bullshit war". If they didn't, why single out fox?
Maybe the guy who shot him was in a gun club and was just a really good shot.
A more pertinent question here is why does it bother you that they don't want it? Why do they need your permission to do something that you consider silly?
The problem here is that it isn't his freedom that he doesn't care about. It's yours
For a while, credit card companies were considering putting photo ID on credit cards. They binned the idea when they issued a trial credit card to a woman which had a photo of a dog on the card. She never got questioned.
I'll be in mah bunk.
In fact, we don't need two inch long knives to feel safe, in fact, the knowledge that low powered leathermen multitools aren't in the hands of manics is a very comforting thought.
I've never understood why so many Australians think the feeling of safety is so much more important than the ability to respond to an armed criminal in any fashion other than abject obeisance.
Which would be ever so much more impressive if New York city didn't have gun laws near identical to Australia. And what's with the whole "gun deaths" line... I keep seeing statistics which insist that gun deaths are down (but only in line with a trend which was already in play since long before that) since John Howards craven capitulation to the gun control lobby but no one is all that interested in how many actual murders took place in that period.
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmm...
I can't help but wonder just how much deader a corpse killed by a gun is than a corpse killed by a knife.
And yes, the handy dandy leatherman multitool (or any other edged implement) is actually illegal here in nsw. Police are permitted to perform a cursory search of any citizen at any time in search of knives.
So we have to justify walking down the street without our papers now? Where does the government get the authority to command me to carry ID papers in the first place? If it doesn't need explicit authority to do so, what else might they be able to command me to do?
We don't want to be bailed up by the cops for no reason other than checking to see that our papers are in order. We want the government to leave us alone until such time as we violate the rights of another individual or entity.The endless increases in surveillance and government intrusiveness have so far failed spectacularly in their stated aim of reducing crime and terrorism. It is far from unreasonable therefore to conclude that when politicians announce they want more of the same stuff that has already failed time and again that the stated aim is not in fact the actual aim and that it is succeeding in some other aim which they have neglected to inform us of.
What is so wrong with you carrying ID everywhere you go (god knows what you do when you're at the beach) if you find it convenient and letting other people not carry ID everywhere they go without hauling them off to the cop shop simply because a cop wants to know their name?
What idiot criminal is going to take a (valid) ID with them when they're off housebreaking or mugging someone anyway? I fail to see how having a universal, must be carried at all times, ID card will have more of an impact on criminals than on regular citizens. Actually, it seems to me it would make the life of criminals considerably simpler in many different ways. It's certainly not going to inconvenience them any.
Hey, dude, chill. I wasn't taking issue with your actions, but the ACLUs refusal to take this one on. If it happens so often that they can't take your particular case, they really ought to take on a case. If it was reasonable once, it surely isn't now. Even if it's reasonable, I have serious trouble beleiving that it's constitutional. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable things that governments and their lackeys are not allowed to do. The apparent lack of care factor on the part of the ACLU strikes me as really strange given it's use as a tool to harras those who are already on societies fringes.
is it really too much to expect them to get involved in any instance? You've got a constitution which forbids what you describe in several different ways.
And for them to say that being seized and held incommunicado is not be be under arrest kinda evades that actual meaning of the word arrest
"Theres nothing more permanent than temporary measures"
Yes. One node, more or less, isn't going to kill freenet if it's truly needed. The OP is right to refuse to participate in freenet if that is what his conscience tells him to do. He is right to advocate that people not run nodes if he feels the association of freenet with kiddie porn destroys any positive associations it might have. If he wants to compel me not to run a freenet node however, I'll start one up just to piss him off.
well, that's undemocratic!
oops. That example didn't quite work out how I expected!
so, the US should not adopt a metal standard because it would not be in another nations interest? Doesn't that mean that only the most desirable economy should be restricted from having a metal standard? and if so, how, exactly, could the international community compel the nation with the most desirable economy to adopt an economic policy that is in everyone elses interest but not necessarily their own?
I'm not getting down on the astonishing accomplishment described here, but there has to be a downside, surely?
Seeking equality of outcomes can only be accomplished through gross and unforgivable levels of discrimination. It's the opportunities that are important. If a given individual doesn't want to pay the same price that others are willing to pay, whose fault is it when they don't get the same result?
Well, I'll say this much for you, it takes real chutzpah for someone who beleives that "white people don't have a problem with having suspicious looking brown people refused passage on a flight" to call someone else a bigot.
If the amount was inflated, as many here plainly beleive, then justice has not only been tainted, it has been seen to be tainted. I have not seen anyone actually claim that what he did is not wrong or should not have been prosecuted: people are finding it difficult to understand how his action could cost the company 20K and if the amount has been inflated as you say then doing so has done serious damage to public confidence in the justice system.
Depends on whether you talk to an Australian Aborigine or a professional victim. Anywhere you get kudo$ for being a victim, you'll find the professional whingers. They're not the best people to talk to if you want a view of the world which has any basis in reality.
that's nothing. You should see our snakes and spiders! The funnel web spider puts a brand new definition on the word lethal.
Who decides what is or is not a lie?
Who decides what is or is not hatred?
If your answer is anything other than "me", you are a hateful liar. This is why freedom of speech must include those things which an individual might consider hateful or a lie. Otherwise freedom of speech is nothing but a hateful slogan chanted by liars.