You can block porn from your own PC with products such as Net Nanny. You can stop your kids looking at porn, finding information on breast cancer or seeing Botticelli's Birth of Venus, without denying other people their freedom.
If anyone in Aus finds one of these Family First people, ask if they believe in higher taxes to help the world's poor. If people have control of their web habits, they will be tempted to look at porn. Likewise if people have control of their money, they will be tempted to sin by spending it selfishly. If the government should remove the temptation of porn, shouldn't it also remove the temptation of money?
Practicing your right to assemble is NOT a security risk.
The fact that your right is constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's not a security risk. It just means that the right is so important that the government is (supposedly) not allowed to deal with the risk by prohibiting peaceful assembly.
Everything you do in a free society is a security risk. I don't have a government camera in my apartment, so as far as the government knows I could be making bombs in there. That's a security risk. But some risks are worth taking! We have to find a balance between security risks from terrorists and risks from oppressive government. Risk-free life is not possible. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced that if something carries risk then it should automatically be banned.
So the government should decide who gets married. Now the question becomes who in government should decide? The issue before us is: what restrictions on marriage provide the optimum social benefits? Sounds like a job for an elected Congress.
OK, no. It's not. Posting documents in a window would be analogous to putting them on a webserver. Having them in an unsecured share drive is like having them sitting on a table in an unlocked room: you still have to enter the room and poke around to see what they say.
Wasn't the share drive used by both parties? If so the analogy is different. The documents are sitting on a table in an unlocked room. The author of the document has left it on the table in this room. You have every right to be in the room, but the author did not intend for you to read his document. The moral action is to respect his privacy. But are you under a legal obligation to do so?
This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.
I'm too busy to check all 59, but Kopel is right on the first "deceit": Fox did not convince the other networks to change their call from Gore to Bush. CBS definitely retracted their Gore call hours before Fox made their call. According to CBS (PDF link) they were "within minutes" of calling Florida for Bush when Fox beat them to it. Fox did not convince all the other networks to change. The CBS report says that errors in their calculations led them to overestimate the Bush lead, and "Had
it not been for these errors, the CBS News call for Bush at 2:17:52 AM would not have
been made." They did not say that Fox made them do it.
The only anouncements that could have affected the voting were those that happened while the polls were open, ie the Gore calls. By the time Fox called for Bush it was too late to convince anyone not to bother voting. Is this evidence of a pro-Gore media conspiracy? I doubt it.
do they select you for jury duty using voter registration records? everyone i have ever talked to who has been selected for jury duty has been registered to vote... is this a coincidence?
In some states they do this. However this often results in a shortage of jurors, so some states (like Washington) pull jurors from the DMV records as well, so unless you don't drive, there's no advantage to not voting.
It's a bit scary to think that the government is actively trying to find people who can't be bothered to vote and stick them on juries, but I guess they got desperate.
What's next, husbands beating women at The sims 3 and getting points for it?
But if it happens in a game, then it's OK according to Slashdot conventional wisdom. We are all smart enough to tell reality from fiction, and playing these games will have no effect on our minds, unless the games are made by the US Army, in which case they are evil brainwashing tools designed to turn us into willing agents of neocon imperialist aggression.
Chances are if you need it, you won't have it, and if you DO have it, you're just as likely to get shot with it as to shoot someone else.
Remember when Florida passed a concealed-carry law in the late 80s / early 90s? Several people were predicting and end to civilization and masses of victims killed with their own guns. It didn't happen.
This discussion is somewhat OT because most burglars target unoccupied places. The security benefit of a gun is small compared to locking your door (and windows if you are anywhere near the ground).
Perhaps you should get off your fucking high horse and realize that there are legitimate reasons for not paying a bill. Fraud happens. Billing errors happen.
I've never been a victim of fraud, but last time I was billed incorrectly, I was quite keen to talk to the company about it. They didn't need to fake caller ID to get me to talk.
No more superstition or religion, ready to move on to other things/better places.
But you can't define things as "better" unless you have some form of belief that defines good things and bad things. There's no provable law that dictates what is good and what is bad.
In a desperate attempt to make this on topic, let's imagine a hamster turning a wheel to generate light. Imagine that somehow the hamsters are conditioned to run on demand. Some people would say this is good, others bad. A Christian would use the Bible to justify using animals to do work for humans. An animal rights activist may view this as a form of slavery, and using his own unprovable belief (that slavery is bad), will argue that hamsters should only run on wheels when they feel like it.
Depends if your audience are extremists who want to read that no-one was killed in the iraq war today, and that the marines are all happy and love it there.
This is why we need a Ministry of Truth. Then we can be sure that our media is properly fair and balanced.
Nuclear power will never work in the US for that very reason. Power is a private enterprise. Don't ask me why that is just the way this country thinks. Private industry will never put safty as number one priority. It's number one priority is profit. Companies will skimp on safety to maximize profit.
Right on. The only safe way to generate nuclear power is to have the government do it. Like in Soviet...oh yeah.
Yes I know that we do have nuclear reactors in this country now. They are extremly regulated. They are being deregulated every day. When they are de-regulated enough for the companies, a disaster will soon follow. (5-10 years)
Strong regulation is essential for nuclear power. I don't see that private or public ownership automatically provides a better system. Public ownership works well in France, but was a disaster in the USSR. Britain's nuclear industry was state owned until quite recently and is hardly a convincing example of state superiority.
If the RIAA is actually selecting poorer than avarage plantiffs (as some here have alledged), this will show quickly in proper statistical analysis (plot the location of the plantiff on a map, look in the government's poverty index to see what the average inocome in that location is, assign points to an appropriate scale, i.e. 1 point/1,000 $ US).
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The geographical distribution of the plaintiffs may not be random. Even if the distribution of plaintiffs agrees with the local income stats, they might still be targeting poor people by choosing poor locations to sue.
There are several other assumptions to consider. Does income correlate with willingness or ability to commit copyright infringement? Is there a connection between income and the ISP people choose? If so, that's another relevant factor, because ISPs that resist legal pressure to reveal user info might be less often targeted. There are probably other factors.
a proper statistical analysis would be interesting to see, but it's not going to be simple.
Iraq was the only solidly secular state in the region.
It's arguable that the Iraq war made the jihad problem worse, but I don't think Saddam's regime could be described as "solidly secular" in 2003. Saddam tried to kick off a jihad by lobbing missiles at Israel in 1991. Since then he gave refuge to Islamist terrorists. He paid money to Hamas. Saddam might have been a secular leader, certainly his interests were in secular things, namely his own power and wealth. But Saddam used jihad when it suited him, and I don't think that he would have thought twice about endangering his secular credentials if he thought it convenient to give aid to Al Qaeda. The state controlled media openly praised Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Seems to me that Saddam was keeping his options open on that front.
I don't agree with the parent, but how is it flamebait? I think we should have a "-1 against/. convention" button, just to make us honest.
Note to author of parent: Next time, end with something like "go ahead, mod me down", or some such. There is no "-1 reverse psychology" button (how I wish there was) so you'll be +5 insightful in no time at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone in Aus finds one of these Family First people, ask if they believe in higher taxes to help the world's poor. If people have control of their web habits, they will be tempted to look at porn. Likewise if people have control of their money, they will be tempted to sin by spending it selfishly. If the government should remove the temptation of porn, shouldn't it also remove the temptation of money?
Typical...the only guy I'd trust to tell me how to vote is missing.
The fact that your right is constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's not a security risk. It just means that the right is so important that the government is (supposedly) not allowed to deal with the risk by prohibiting peaceful assembly.
Everything you do in a free society is a security risk. I don't have a government camera in my apartment, so as far as the government knows I could be making bombs in there. That's a security risk. But some risks are worth taking! We have to find a balance between security risks from terrorists and risks from oppressive government. Risk-free life is not possible. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced that if something carries risk then it should automatically be banned.
With a futuristic power source, a 30 degree change can't be that much to ask.
So the government should decide who gets married. Now the question becomes who in government should decide? The issue before us is: what restrictions on marriage provide the optimum social benefits? Sounds like a job for an elected Congress.
Both of my wives agree that the government shouldn't decide!
Wasn't the share drive used by both parties? If so the analogy is different. The documents are sitting on a table in an unlocked room. The author of the document has left it on the table in this room. You have every right to be in the room, but the author did not intend for you to read his document. The moral action is to respect his privacy. But are you under a legal obligation to do so?
I'm too busy to check all 59, but Kopel is right on the first "deceit": Fox did not convince the other networks to change their call from Gore to Bush. CBS definitely retracted their Gore call hours before Fox made their call. According to CBS (PDF link) they were "within minutes" of calling Florida for Bush when Fox beat them to it. Fox did not convince all the other networks to change. The CBS report says that errors in their calculations led them to overestimate the Bush lead, and "Had it not been for these errors, the CBS News call for Bush at 2:17:52 AM would not have been made." They did not say that Fox made them do it.
The only anouncements that could have affected the voting were those that happened while the polls were open, ie the Gore calls. By the time Fox called for Bush it was too late to convince anyone not to bother voting. Is this evidence of a pro-Gore media conspiracy? I doubt it.
In some states they do this. However this often results in a shortage of jurors, so some states (like Washington) pull jurors from the DMV records as well, so unless you don't drive, there's no advantage to not voting.
It's a bit scary to think that the government is actively trying to find people who can't be bothered to vote and stick them on juries, but I guess they got desperate.
I thought they were called Kenny.
But if it happens in a game, then it's OK according to Slashdot conventional wisdom. We are all smart enough to tell reality from fiction, and playing these games will have no effect on our minds, unless the games are made by the US Army, in which case they are evil brainwashing tools designed to turn us into willing agents of neocon imperialist aggression.
iTMS does that, too. It's quite irritating.
It's not only old news, it's also a dupe.
Remember when Florida passed a concealed-carry law in the late 80s / early 90s? Several people were predicting and end to civilization and masses of victims killed with their own guns. It didn't happen.
This discussion is somewhat OT because most burglars target unoccupied places. The security benefit of a gun is small compared to locking your door (and windows if you are anywhere near the ground).
I've never been a victim of fraud, but last time I was billed incorrectly, I was quite keen to talk to the company about it. They didn't need to fake caller ID to get me to talk.
But you can't define things as "better" unless you have some form of belief that defines good things and bad things. There's no provable law that dictates what is good and what is bad.
In a desperate attempt to make this on topic, let's imagine a hamster turning a wheel to generate light. Imagine that somehow the hamsters are conditioned to run on demand. Some people would say this is good, others bad. A Christian would use the Bible to justify using animals to do work for humans. An animal rights activist may view this as a form of slavery, and using his own unprovable belief (that slavery is bad), will argue that hamsters should only run on wheels when they feel like it.
He is the light of the world, after all (John 8:12). And he doesn't even need a hamster.
This is why we need a Ministry of Truth. Then we can be sure that our media is properly fair and balanced.
Tonight on Fox: when being a smartass goes wrong.
I know, it's really George Lucas' fault.
Right on. The only safe way to generate nuclear power is to have the government do it. Like in Soviet...oh yeah.
Yes I know that we do have nuclear reactors in this country now. They are extremly regulated. They are being deregulated every day. When they are de-regulated enough for the companies, a disaster will soon follow. (5-10 years)
Strong regulation is essential for nuclear power. I don't see that private or public ownership automatically provides a better system. Public ownership works well in France, but was a disaster in the USSR. Britain's nuclear industry was state owned until quite recently and is hardly a convincing example of state superiority.
All those popcorn munchers reduce the cost of my ticket, so I think X is rather good, in this instance.
Now fans cant even choose what food they eat, unless its a 'sponsored' product?
You can't take your own popcorn into a movie theatre, why is it such an outrage that you can't take your own food into the Olympics?
What's the policy at sports events in the US? Can you take your own beer and hotdogs to a ball game?
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The geographical distribution of the plaintiffs may not be random. Even if the distribution of plaintiffs agrees with the local income stats, they might still be targeting poor people by choosing poor locations to sue.
There are several other assumptions to consider. Does income correlate with willingness or ability to commit copyright infringement? Is there a connection between income and the ISP people choose? If so, that's another relevant factor, because ISPs that resist legal pressure to reveal user info might be less often targeted. There are probably other factors.
a proper statistical analysis would be interesting to see, but it's not going to be simple.
It's arguable that the Iraq war made the jihad problem worse, but I don't think Saddam's regime could be described as "solidly secular" in 2003. Saddam tried to kick off a jihad by lobbing missiles at Israel in 1991. Since then he gave refuge to Islamist terrorists. He paid money to Hamas. Saddam might have been a secular leader, certainly his interests were in secular things, namely his own power and wealth. But Saddam used jihad when it suited him, and I don't think that he would have thought twice about endangering his secular credentials if he thought it convenient to give aid to Al Qaeda. The state controlled media openly praised Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Seems to me that Saddam was keeping his options open on that front.
Note to author of parent: Next time, end with something like "go ahead, mod me down", or some such. There is no "-1 reverse psychology" button (how I wish there was) so you'll be +5 insightful in no time at all.