Nope, you still have each and every right outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To nitpick, the rights outlined in the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are not the sum total of our rights as US citizens. The Bill of Rights is merely a top 10 list of the rights the founding fathers felt were really really important. In theory, we the people have all rights not denied us by Constitutionally granted powers. That is, the Constitution is supposed to define exactly what powers the Federal gov't has to intrude on us; in everything else, we the people have the right to be free from Federal inteference. So saying something doesn't deny a right outlined in the Constitution is not quite the same as saying that it doesn't deny any of our rights.
Of course, in practice, we the people have (or will eventually have) only those rights that we insist upon.
Yeah, I was actually thinking more along the lines of "old legend assumed to be a mere story that turns out to have a grain of truth buried in it", but that isn't nearly as pithy as "art imitating life", which is what I was thinking. Damn computers, always doing what I say, when they know damn well it isn't what I really mean.
The general argument is that teaching safe sex is actually encouraging the kids to have sex, b/c by mentioning it, we are giving tacit approval, or possibly ideas they wouldn't have come up with on their own. I'm not sure where the teenagers that won't experiment with sex unless they are encouraged and informed by their elders live, but presumably they are the ones protected. It's kind of like security through obscurity, without any actual obscurity.
Interesting. I have never really considered the morale implications of "winning" the abortion debate by just gradually convincing people to not have them. I can see where that is a much less emotionally charged victory, and thus less rallying for the troops. Of course, you also run into the problem that a lot of the anti-abortion crowd are also pro abstinence as the only form of sex education, so any suggested program that sought to address some of the causes of abortion would, ironically, also be opposed by them. Anyone that tried to rally anti-abortion sentiment into an education program would probably not be very successful.
I'm not saying that luxury taxes are a good idea (they generally aren't), but there does appear to me to be a big difference between the gov't being in the business of defining "luxury" and the gov't being in the business of defining "sin". If a politician wants to tax (and thus define) luxury, I think "Not smart". If a politician wants to tax (and thus define) sin, I think "Evil hypocritical asshole".
People have polarized themselves so much that when an opposing opinion to their viewpoints comes along, they hit it like a wack-a-mole instead of considering it for a moment and trying to understand it.
I agree, that is certainly a pervasive problem in American politics. However, I think the example of abortion highlights another problem: for some issues, there is NO compromise. Ignoring right vs. wrong, the two sides are interested in mutually exclusive outcomes. Even understanding why the other side feels the way they do does not bridge the divide; I either can abort a fetus, or I can not. More understanding might lead to a more civilized discourse on the issue, but I don't see how it could help resolve the issue.
I would have to agree w/ you. I have a BS in CS, and I found it much easier and more enjoyable to write code for assignments than papers. I didn't (generally) have trouble understanding the subject, and putting forth my perspective in a logical, understandable way, but I got bitten everytime b/c my papers were "too short". One professor (for a public policy class) actually commented that I had obviously well-researched the subject, grasped the major points, and provided a clear discussion in my paper. However, he had to give me a B on the paper b/c it was "only 8 pages, and the next shortest one in the class was 20". That was the only time I was so blatantly graded on length alone, but it taught me a lesson. I can remember struggling with several later papers, sticking in research and ideas that (to me) did not really address the core points, simply to meet the minimum length requirements.
Another thing I liked more about coding than papering was that I KNEW when the code worked, and I was done. The paper could always use just a little more editing or a little more research...
If you were discussing something else tha the law, I wasn't, so don't.
My bad, I thought we were discussing how it is hypocritical and downright unConstitutional of me (and others) to say we think the President's actions were illegal, and he ought to be impeached so that we can find out whether they were or not. But since we weren't, I won't.
Are you serious? You do realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to a person's innocence/guilt in the eyes of the law, right? If we as a society were to take the position you pretend to take, then no one would ever be prosecuted for anything. I mean, how DARE the prosecutors "discard the Constitution" by asserting the defendant is guilty before it has been proven!
Calling the wiretaps "illegal" is a determination that you DO NOT get to make
Sure I do. As a matter of fact, I consider it my responsibility as a citizen to judge the actions of the people that represent me in government. Of course, my determination doesn't carry the force of law.
but you know very well you can apply public pressure without making determinations of guilt or innocence.
I suppose I could (well, could try), but why? If I don't think someone has done something wrong, then why exactly should I want the authorities to look into the (non)matter? Alternately, if I think someone might have done something wrong, why should I ignore it?
Stop relying on lazy thinking.
I assure you, my hamster is running in his little wheel as fast as he can. Give the poor guy a break.
Yeah, the wiretaps were probably illegal. But you don't get to circumvent the court any more than Bush does.
And that would be why I haven't gone and thrown Bush in jail, or forcibly removed him from office. That would be circumventing the courts. Saying I think this guy did something illegal, and I wish somebody with the power would look into it, not so much circumventing the courts.
You said you think the wiretaps are probably illegal, what would you suggest we can do about it, if not apply public pressure to those in power? Press charges?
What makes the media call those who injure the Presidency whistleblowers, while those who help the Presidency are called leakers?
The distinction is not "help" vs. "hurt" the President. Leakers are referred to as such b/c the actions they report on are not illegal, but the reporting is. Whistleblowers are referred to as such b/c the actions they report on are illegal, which (generally) offers the person some protection under the law for reporting on these actions (often called Whistleblower protections).
BTW, I am very curious as to how leaking Valerie Plame's name (I assume that is the "leakers" to which you refer) helped the Presidency?
Yeah, but if the Japanese (or anyone else) start producing gold in enough bulk to really be worth their while, how long will gold prices stay at $500/oz? I suppose they could do it by very gradually introducing their product into the world gold supply, but I doubt they will be able to make a significant profit without pretty much destroying the gold trade.
I disagree, TV news is not completely useless. It is, unfortunately, where a lot of people get their ideas about the world and what is going on in it. Watching just a few minutes/week of various programs (local, Fox News, CNN, BBC America for me personally) can give you a (depressingly) accurate gauge of public opinion.
But yeah, as far as actually educating yourself on current events goes, stick to the Internet.
In every situation where government is given a power to use force, we see massive corruption and abuse. You can't name one government force that isn't abused today.
I agree that this is true (well, I think it is a bit exaggerated to say that every gov't power suffers from massive abuse, but I certainly agree with your basic point). However, I think this is inevitably the case with ANY power based on force. It is even more likely to be the case when power is seized by a group (by force), rather than force being granted as the prerogative of those granted power. And if there is no one with a clear monopoly on force, then we will have several groups competing for power, based on who can muster and wield the most force.
I guess I'm basically saying that I see your point about gov't force, but you seem to be advocating that we revoke the right of gov't to use force; or maybe advocating that we allow others to also legitimately use force, I'm not sure which. In either of these situations, I think we will eventually wind up with what we have now -- a single entity that jealously guards its monopoly on force by bringing overwhelming force against any who threaten that monopoly. It will just be an entity that a) we the people didn't necessarily choose, and b) we the people can not peacefully get rid of. Not to mention the initial upheaval as various groups compete to become the monopoly. Look to Shogun era Japan for a historical example of what I imagine society will be without a central authority that monopolizes force.
Feel free to email me if you are interested in discussing this in a more appropriate venue.
So we should provide a financial incentive for the court system to process more cases through it?
I don't know where you live, but here in the U.S., it would be great if the courts processed more cases through. Its not like they would worry about running out, and then go out at night trying to drum up more business. Hopefully, it would simply mean that the average court case would take less time from indictment to verdict.
/Perhaps we should pay the cops a bounty on each arrest too. Or a percentage of each speeding ticket/
Not that this has anything at all to do with the original proposal, but a) most local jurisdictions DO receive the proceeds from speeding tickets -- it would be naive to assume that none have ever, or ever will provide an incentive for cops to hand out as many as possible
b)I doubt it is straight cash, but I would be surprised if there were NOT some sort of reward system in place for cops that have lots of arrests that lead to convictions. That seems to me a good metric for measuring "effective cop"
I think the point here is that if the article is longer, it could
a) go into the main topic in more detail
b) cover more related topics
Very true. It could. I believe aborcher's point (with which I agree) is that longer doesn't necessarily mean it does, so this particular metric is useless.
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that Aslan, the Lion, was to carry Excalibur! That is why Aslan was King!
Nonsense. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at you.
I once upon a time worked in a public university library. I don't really remember if it had anything to do with state law, but I do know we also provided free Internet access to the public, and did not require any sort of login to use it.
Oh, and without logs, how would they know or not if someone else hacked one of their own machines, and laid a keylogger on it.
Uhm, b/c we DID keep logs? How would that help us identify the user, tho? We also completely locked down the computers. Users couldn't access the start menu, there weren't any ROMs attached to the computers, the only application was a shortcut on the desktop to a browser. I suppose it is still possible that some bright hacker could still have figured out a way to get up to mischief, I wouldn't exactly call our behavior irresponsible...
Suffice to say, there's a big difference between sending a possibly abusive/criminal e-mail, a bunch of spam, browsing the web, editing (possibly vandalising) Wikis, or hacking into computers, downloading/uploading MP3s, versus say browsing the stacks and looking at books.
And we actually had a situation once where a person contacted the police to say they were receiving harassing emails. This was back in the day of Netscape Navigator 3 something or other, I forget which, but it still had the "feature" where you could spoof your email return address through one of the toolbar menus. Well, the police managed to track the emails back to one of our public terminals, but we had no idea who had used it. They did set up a camera watching that terminal, but I don't think the person was ever caught. Just like they never caught the person who was breaking into people's lockers there in the library, or several of the thieves that would steal your stuff when left it lying out while you went to the bathroom, etc.
letting people browse the stacks is one thing, what would happen if you caught a patron standing in an isle, tearing the covers off books though, or reshelving things in a totally ridiculous order? Would they be required to identify themselves? One can only hope... (Now what's the difference between that and vandalising a Wiki? Not ours...?)
Pretty much, yeah, that is the difference. The library can protect the stuff there in the library. It can not protect YOUR stuff somewhere else, that's your job (or the Wiki admins'). Do you also feel people shouldn't be allowed to purchase goods with cash? I mean, I could go to a Walmart, buy a knife with cash, use it to kill someone, and the Walmart would never be able to identify me.
The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm. I personally think they are right.
then why don't they take cases to court when people share passwords, spread files via p2p, etc?
Because, oddly enough, the porn industry has always been on the cutting edge of media technology. In the past, they have time and again embraced business models that utilized emergent technologies, being the first to see the profit potential in these new technologies. I think this is simply more of the same: the porn industry realizes that it is ultimately useless to fight these practices, and instead incorporates business models that admit to the inevitability of such practices.
Of course, having said all that, I will point out that there is not really a single entity that one can refer to as representing the porn industry, merely large players in the industry that have a lot of influence on how it moves. Make a home movie, upload it, charge $1 to view it, you are now in the porn industry. I think this decentralization plays a large part in why the porn industry is so much more flexible and amenable to technological change than other industries. Porn is a potent expression of Darwinism in the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, you still have each and every right outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To nitpick, the rights outlined in the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are not the sum total of our rights as US citizens. The Bill of Rights is merely a top 10 list of the rights the founding fathers felt were really really important. In theory, we the people have all rights not denied us by Constitutionally granted powers. That is, the Constitution is supposed to define exactly what powers the Federal gov't has to intrude on us; in everything else, we the people have the right to be free from Federal inteference. So saying something doesn't deny a right outlined in the Constitution is not quite the same as saying that it doesn't deny any of our rights.
Of course, in practice, we the people have (or will eventually have) only those rights that we insist upon.
Yeah, I was actually thinking more along the lines of "old legend assumed to be a mere story that turns out to have a grain of truth buried in it", but that isn't nearly as pithy as "art imitating life", which is what I was thinking. Damn computers, always doing what I say, when they know damn well it isn't what I really mean.
I seem to recall a similar story about a turtle and some birds from Aesop's Fables. Life imitating art?
The general argument is that teaching safe sex is actually encouraging the kids to have sex, b/c by mentioning it, we are giving tacit approval, or possibly ideas they wouldn't have come up with on their own. I'm not sure where the teenagers that won't experiment with sex unless they are encouraged and informed by their elders live, but presumably they are the ones protected. It's kind of like security through obscurity, without any actual obscurity.
Interesting. I have never really considered the morale implications of "winning" the abortion debate by just gradually convincing people to not have them. I can see where that is a much less emotionally charged victory, and thus less rallying for the troops. Of course, you also run into the problem that a lot of the anti-abortion crowd are also pro abstinence as the only form of sex education, so any suggested program that sought to address some of the causes of abortion would, ironically, also be opposed by them. Anyone that tried to rally anti-abortion sentiment into an education program would probably not be very successful.
I'm not saying that luxury taxes are a good idea (they generally aren't), but there does appear to me to be a big difference between the gov't being in the business of defining "luxury" and the gov't being in the business of defining "sin". If a politician wants to tax (and thus define) luxury, I think "Not smart". If a politician wants to tax (and thus define) sin, I think "Evil hypocritical asshole".
People have polarized themselves so much that when an opposing opinion to their viewpoints comes along, they hit it like a wack-a-mole instead of considering it for a moment and trying to understand it.
I agree, that is certainly a pervasive problem in American politics. However, I think the example of abortion highlights another problem: for some issues, there is NO compromise. Ignoring right vs. wrong, the two sides are interested in mutually exclusive outcomes. Even understanding why the other side feels the way they do does not bridge the divide; I either can abort a fetus, or I can not. More understanding might lead to a more civilized discourse on the issue, but I don't see how it could help resolve the issue.
I would have to agree w/ you. I have a BS in CS, and I found it much easier and more enjoyable to write code for assignments than papers. I didn't (generally) have trouble understanding the subject, and putting forth my perspective in a logical, understandable way, but I got bitten everytime b/c my papers were "too short". One professor (for a public policy class) actually commented that I had obviously well-researched the subject, grasped the major points, and provided a clear discussion in my paper. However, he had to give me a B on the paper b/c it was "only 8 pages, and the next shortest one in the class was 20". That was the only time I was so blatantly graded on length alone, but it taught me a lesson. I can remember struggling with several later papers, sticking in research and ideas that (to me) did not really address the core points, simply to meet the minimum length requirements.
Another thing I liked more about coding than papering was that I KNEW when the code worked, and I was done. The paper could always use just a little more editing or a little more research...
If you were discussing something else tha the law, I wasn't, so don't.
My bad, I thought we were discussing how it is hypocritical and downright unConstitutional of me (and others) to say we think the President's actions were illegal, and he ought to be impeached so that we can find out whether they were or not. But since we weren't, I won't.
Are you serious? You do realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to a person's innocence/guilt in the eyes of the law, right? If we as a society were to take the position you pretend to take, then no one would ever be prosecuted for anything. I mean, how DARE the prosecutors "discard the Constitution" by asserting the defendant is guilty before it has been proven!
Calling the wiretaps "illegal" is a determination that you DO NOT get to make
Sure I do. As a matter of fact, I consider it my responsibility as a citizen to judge the actions of the people that represent me in government. Of course, my determination doesn't carry the force of law.
but you know very well you can apply public pressure without making determinations of guilt or innocence.
I suppose I could (well, could try), but why? If I don't think someone has done something wrong, then why exactly should I want the authorities to look into the (non)matter? Alternately, if I think someone might have done something wrong, why should I ignore it?
Stop relying on lazy thinking.
I assure you, my hamster is running in his little wheel as fast as he can. Give the poor guy a break.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Exactly. That's why I need to eat mine so fast; once I am done, if you haven't finished, I can take yours...
Yeah, the wiretaps were probably illegal. But you don't get to circumvent the court any more than Bush does.
And that would be why I haven't gone and thrown Bush in jail, or forcibly removed him from office. That would be circumventing the courts. Saying I think this guy did something illegal, and I wish somebody with the power would look into it, not so much circumventing the courts.
You said you think the wiretaps are probably illegal, what would you suggest we can do about it, if not apply public pressure to those in power? Press charges?
What makes the media call those who injure the Presidency whistleblowers, while those who help the Presidency are called leakers?
The distinction is not "help" vs. "hurt" the President. Leakers are referred to as such b/c the actions they report on are not illegal, but the reporting is. Whistleblowers are referred to as such b/c the actions they report on are illegal, which (generally) offers the person some protection under the law for reporting on these actions (often called Whistleblower protections).
BTW, I am very curious as to how leaking Valerie Plame's name (I assume that is the "leakers" to which you refer) helped the Presidency?
It just depends on who you wanna believe
At $500/Oz that's be $17642 per kg.
Yeah, but if the Japanese (or anyone else) start producing gold in enough bulk to really be worth their while, how long will gold prices stay at $500/oz? I suppose they could do it by very gradually introducing their product into the world gold supply, but I doubt they will be able to make a significant profit without pretty much destroying the gold trade.
I disagree, TV news is not completely useless. It is, unfortunately, where a lot of people get their ideas about the world and what is going on in it. Watching just a few minutes/week of various programs (local, Fox News, CNN, BBC America for me personally) can give you a (depressingly) accurate gauge of public opinion.
But yeah, as far as actually educating yourself on current events goes, stick to the Internet.
In every situation where government is given a power to use force, we see massive corruption and abuse. You can't name one government force that isn't abused today.
I agree that this is true (well, I think it is a bit exaggerated to say that every gov't power suffers from massive abuse, but I certainly agree with your basic point). However, I think this is inevitably the case with ANY power based on force. It is even more likely to be the case when power is seized by a group (by force), rather than force being granted as the prerogative of those granted power. And if there is no one with a clear monopoly on force, then we will have several groups competing for power, based on who can muster and wield the most force.
I guess I'm basically saying that I see your point about gov't force, but you seem to be advocating that we revoke the right of gov't to use force; or maybe advocating that we allow others to also legitimately use force, I'm not sure which. In either of these situations, I think we will eventually wind up with what we have now -- a single entity that jealously guards its monopoly on force by bringing overwhelming force against any who threaten that monopoly. It will just be an entity that a) we the people didn't necessarily choose, and b) we the people can not peacefully get rid of. Not to mention the initial upheaval as various groups compete to become the monopoly. Look to Shogun era Japan for a historical example of what I imagine society will be without a central authority that monopolizes force.
Feel free to email me if you are interested in discussing this in a more appropriate venue.
Well, YMMV, but the movie Happiness had one, uhm, interesting use...
So we should provide a financial incentive for the court system to process more cases through it?
/Perhaps we should pay the cops a bounty on each arrest too. Or a percentage of each speeding ticket/
I don't know where you live, but here in the U.S., it would be great if the courts processed more cases through. Its not like they would worry about running out, and then go out at night trying to drum up more business. Hopefully, it would simply mean that the average court case would take less time from indictment to verdict.
Not that this has anything at all to do with the original proposal, but
a) most local jurisdictions DO receive the proceeds from speeding tickets -- it would be naive to assume that none have ever, or ever will provide an incentive for cops to hand out as many as possible
b)I doubt it is straight cash, but I would be surprised if there were NOT some sort of reward system in place for cops that have lots of arrests that lead to convictions. That seems to me a good metric for measuring "effective cop"
I think the point here is that if the article is longer, it could
a) go into the main topic in more detail
b) cover more related topics
Very true. It could. I believe aborcher's point (with which I agree) is that longer doesn't necessarily mean it does, so this particular metric is useless.
Probably my cousin; I'm pretty sure he made it up :-)
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that Aslan, the Lion, was to carry Excalibur! That is why Aslan was King!
Nonsense. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at you.
I once upon a time worked in a public university library. I don't really remember if it had anything to do with state law, but I do know we also provided free Internet access to the public, and did not require any sort of login to use it.
Oh, and without logs, how would they know or not if someone else hacked one of their own machines, and laid a keylogger on it.
Uhm, b/c we DID keep logs? How would that help us identify the user, tho? We also completely locked down the computers. Users couldn't access the start menu, there weren't any ROMs attached to the computers, the only application was a shortcut on the desktop to a browser. I suppose it is still possible that some bright hacker could still have figured out a way to get up to mischief, I wouldn't exactly call our behavior irresponsible...
Suffice to say, there's a big difference between sending a possibly abusive/criminal e-mail, a bunch of spam, browsing the web, editing (possibly vandalising) Wikis, or hacking into computers, downloading/uploading MP3s, versus say browsing the stacks and looking at books.
And we actually had a situation once where a person contacted the police to say they were receiving harassing emails. This was back in the day of Netscape Navigator 3 something or other, I forget which, but it still had the "feature" where you could spoof your email return address through one of the toolbar menus. Well, the police managed to track the emails back to one of our public terminals, but we had no idea who had used it. They did set up a camera watching that terminal, but I don't think the person was ever caught. Just like they never caught the person who was breaking into people's lockers there in the library, or several of the thieves that would steal your stuff when left it lying out while you went to the bathroom, etc.
letting people browse the stacks is one thing, what would happen if you caught a patron standing in an isle, tearing the covers off books though, or reshelving things in a totally ridiculous order? Would they be required to identify themselves? One can only hope... (Now what's the difference between that and vandalising a Wiki? Not ours...?)
Pretty much, yeah, that is the difference. The library can protect the stuff there in the library. It can not protect YOUR stuff somewhere else, that's your job (or the Wiki admins'). Do you also feel people shouldn't be allowed to purchase goods with cash? I mean, I could go to a Walmart, buy a knife with cash, use it to kill someone, and the Walmart would never be able to identify me.
The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm. I personally think they are right.
then why don't they take cases to court when people share passwords, spread files via p2p, etc?
Because, oddly enough, the porn industry has always been on the cutting edge of media technology. In the past, they have time and again embraced business models that utilized emergent technologies, being the first to see the profit potential in these new technologies. I think this is simply more of the same: the porn industry realizes that it is ultimately useless to fight these practices, and instead incorporates business models that admit to the inevitability of such practices.
Of course, having said all that, I will point out that there is not really a single entity that one can refer to as representing the porn industry, merely large players in the industry that have a lot of influence on how it moves. Make a home movie, upload it, charge $1 to view it, you are now in the porn industry. I think this decentralization plays a large part in why the porn industry is so much more flexible and amenable to technological change than other industries. Porn is a potent expression of Darwinism in the free market.
And your mother smells of eldeberries!