"there is a self-repair mechanism, that if allowed to work, will fix this problem faster than any regulatory option would."
Only if one looks at reactive regulation. Proactively, it could have prevented the damage to ordinary investers which occurs during events such as that of 6 May 2010. The market should be about investment, not another legalized form of gambling. A market order should be a reasonably safe trade, and there should be no need for "despikers," except possibly for very low volume securities.
From the OP: "...a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone."
That's a lockout for any opportunity to straighten out the paperwork. It shouldn't be fair for the borrower, and it shouldn't be fair for the lender. Both should be made to hold up their obligations.
If you don't want your mortgage paper sold, don't deal with a lender which does. I'm not aware of any which will guarantee that, but there are a few where it's very unusual.
You're arguing that borrowers should be able to get out of their obligations. I don't see how that is any different ethically than a lender abusing the system.
Whoosh. Really, it was only a couple of sentences. I can accept not reading the linked article, which is/. norm, but not reading the comment you're replying to?
"On the other hand that's part of living in a civilized society."
I tend toward libertarianism, and think the free market should decide. If there's a market willing to pay for captioned content, it will be met. If not, sorry about your luck, maybe you should start a business which caters to that want.
Having said that, if the government (representing the people as a whole) wants to require this, then the cost should also be born by the taxpayer. It's always easy to vote for something which other people have to pay for.
The thing is, each seems to be watched by people who only want reinforcement of their own worldviews. That's no way to develop an intelligent, informed opinion.
I like Netflix, it's good for entertainment content. But, something I haven't found for any media box, is CNN. Live news. On some, you can access the video files CNN puts on their website, but not CNN/HLN live feeds. My wife's addicted, so cable it is.
"Well, I haven't read Calvin, but I have read the others, many of their books are sitting less than two feet to my left. It still doesn't really answer the question, or at least it still points all at rights being merely a social construct"
Locke spends much time working up rights from (what he considers) first principles. But, I suppose much depends on how one defines "rights," which risks descent into circular logic. The Declaration of Independence declares some rights. The Constitution enumerates some rights, and mentions that others exist (and warns the government about infringing them), so those are a reasonable starting point for US citizens.
How quaint. You have the timeline wrong. The Declaration of the Rights of Man... followed the Declaration of Independence by 13 years. Both were influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, itself preceded by the Magna Carta.
Of course, there were numerous political philosophers which the American founders looked to, including Locke, Hobbes, J.S. Mill, Rosseau and Montesquieu.
If there's an American conceit, it would be that it made the first, and boldest, move toward modern democracy. (Although one could argue with that, too, since universal sufferage came much later, in which case, New Zealand might come to the top)
I tend toward libertarianism (classical liberalism). I don't disagree with many (most?) of the areas where I see the ACLU get involved. But, I'll typically view that from seeing an item of interest to me, and then seeing them associated. If I went about it the other way, looking more closely at all the things they're involved in, it might be different.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
So, which term don't you understand? "Militia," or "explanatory clause?"
Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify GUNS or even FIREarms. The gov't could restrict you to only clubs, crossbows and slingshots - or muskets without "infringing your rights"
By the same (disingenuous) logic, free speech and press only apply to person-to-person verbal speech and the printed word. How does that sit with you?
Beyond that, you're ignoring the plain fact that these rights exist fully independent of the specific guarantees provided in the Constitution, which defines the powers of government, not the rights of the people. You're apparently unawares of the contemporaneous arguments against the Bill of Rights, which were that people like you would misinterpret them as proscriptive of rights, and not restrictive of government.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
1. It wasn't an "assault rifle," although it may have been called that by some too ignorant to know better, or with an agenda to alarm.
2. If it wasn't covered by "the law," (again, what law?), then you admit that it wasn't illegal.
3. Define "gun nut." Do you call the EFF "free speech nuts?" Are lawyers "due process nuts?" Or do you just call anyone who doesn't abide by your world view a "nut?"
First, what "open carry law?" He was charged with "disturbing the peace," precisely because he was violating no law, and that is so broad a charge it can be made to cover anything. Second, open carry is legal, so in what possible way was he "disobeying" it? He was peacefully carrying an unloaded weapon, exercising his right to bear arms. That's no different than someone carrying a "Stop Global Warming" sign to exercise their right to free speech. If someone feels threatened by either, that's their problem.
Probably written by an ACLU member. You know, that organization which defends civil liberties, except for the right to self defense. You'd think an organization which claims to support civil liberties would welcome more liberty for citizens. For a long time, they said the 2nd A wasn't an individual right. Now that that has been decided, they've just gone deeper into denial. It's clear they're not about liberty at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! There's another MS-NBC viewer, with mod points!
"there is a self-repair mechanism, that if allowed to work, will fix this problem faster than any regulatory option would."
Only if one looks at reactive regulation. Proactively, it could have prevented the damage to ordinary investers which occurs during events such as that of 6 May 2010. The market should be about investment, not another legalized form of gambling. A market order should be a reasonably safe trade, and there should be no need for "despikers," except possibly for very low volume securities.
That is NOT "just what he said."
From the OP: "...a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone."
That's a lockout for any opportunity to straighten out the paperwork. It shouldn't be fair for the borrower, and it shouldn't be fair for the lender. Both should be made to hold up their obligations.
If you don't want your mortgage paper sold, don't deal with a lender which does. I'm not aware of any which will guarantee that, but there are a few where it's very unusual.
I think 30 days is far too long. One should be able to react to current news, so something over a minute, but less than a day seems reasonable.
Tried it. No live 24 hour (live, streaming) news, from what I could find. Certainly not CNN or any other major.
You're arguing that borrowers should be able to get out of their obligations. I don't see how that is any different ethically than a lender abusing the system.
Whoosh. Really, it was only a couple of sentences. I can accept not reading the linked article, which is /. norm, but not reading the comment you're replying to?
Oh noes! An MS-NBC watcher having his worldview threatened!
All trading should be required to be at the hand of a human. No trade should be able to be reversed (buy/sell) in under a minute (if not more).
"On the other hand that's part of living in a civilized society."
I tend toward libertarianism, and think the free market should decide. If there's a market willing to pay for captioned content, it will be met. If not, sorry about your luck, maybe you should start a business which caters to that want.
Having said that, if the government (representing the people as a whole) wants to require this, then the cost should also be born by the taxpayer. It's always easy to vote for something which other people have to pay for.
Sure, it's the counterpoint to MS-NBC.
The thing is, each seems to be watched by people who only want reinforcement of their own worldviews. That's no way to develop an intelligent, informed opinion.
You mean the one with a 1.8 (out of 5) user rating, and with numerous complaints about crashing?
I like Netflix, it's good for entertainment content. But, something I haven't found for any media box, is CNN. Live news. On some, you can access the video files CNN puts on their website, but not CNN/HLN live feeds. My wife's addicted, so cable it is.
"Well, I haven't read Calvin, but I have read the others, many of their books are sitting less than two feet to my left. It still doesn't really answer the question, or at least it still points all at rights being merely a social construct"
Locke spends much time working up rights from (what he considers) first principles. But, I suppose much depends on how one defines "rights," which risks descent into circular logic. The Declaration of Independence declares some rights. The Constitution enumerates some rights, and mentions that others exist (and warns the government about infringing them), so those are a reasonable starting point for US citizens.
How quaint. You have the timeline wrong. The Declaration of the Rights of Man... followed the Declaration of Independence by 13 years. Both were influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, itself preceded by the Magna Carta.
Of course, there were numerous political philosophers which the American founders looked to, including Locke, Hobbes, J.S. Mill, Rosseau and Montesquieu.
If there's an American conceit, it would be that it made the first, and boldest, move toward modern democracy. (Although one could argue with that, too, since universal sufferage came much later, in which case, New Zealand might come to the top)
"Why do I get "rights", a philosophical construct, as a human? "
As a starting point, you could read any/all of Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Decartes, Calvin, Rousseau, Kant, or numerous others.
Where do you think government (an artificial construct) gets legitimacy for it's power?
It's OK. Not even the editor read the article, or they would have seen it was from 9 months ago.
I tend toward libertarianism (classical liberalism). I don't disagree with many (most?) of the areas where I see the ACLU get involved. But, I'll typically view that from seeing an item of interest to me, and then seeing them associated. If I went about it the other way, looking more closely at all the things they're involved in, it might be different.
- ACLU
By the same (disingenuous) logic, free speech and press only apply to person-to-person verbal speech and the printed word. How does that sit with you?
Beyond that, you're ignoring the plain fact that these rights exist fully independent of the specific guarantees provided in the Constitution, which defines the powers of government, not the rights of the people. You're apparently unawares of the contemporaneous arguments against the Bill of Rights, which were that people like you would misinterpret them as proscriptive of rights, and not restrictive of government.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
1. It wasn't an "assault rifle," although it may have been called that by some too ignorant to know better, or with an agenda to alarm.
2. If it wasn't covered by "the law," (again, what law?), then you admit that it wasn't illegal.
3. Define "gun nut." Do you call the EFF "free speech nuts?" Are lawyers "due process nuts?" Or do you just call anyone who doesn't abide by your world view a "nut?"
So, how exactly does one measure "true positives" in the future?
First, what "open carry law?" He was charged with "disturbing the peace," precisely because he was violating no law, and that is so broad a charge it can be made to cover anything. Second, open carry is legal, so in what possible way was he "disobeying" it? He was peacefully carrying an unloaded weapon, exercising his right to bear arms. That's no different than someone carrying a "Stop Global Warming" sign to exercise their right to free speech. If someone feels threatened by either, that's their problem.
Probably written by an ACLU member. You know, that organization which defends civil liberties, except for the right to self defense. You'd think an organization which claims to support civil liberties would welcome more liberty for citizens. For a long time, they said the 2nd A wasn't an individual right. Now that that has been decided, they've just gone deeper into denial. It's clear they're not about liberty at all.