Reversing a terrible act is a good thing, but I think that doing so is greatly diminished when the person or entity undoing the evil is the one that put it there to begin with.
As an experiment, push someone off a cliff, risk your life to save them, and see if you end up getting a medal or put in jail.
I think that, at best, you'd be committed for a psychiatric evaluation, and rightfully so.
They can't recover their costs, and so they're sounding the alarm to let people know that costs will have to come out somewhere... and if Google refuses, it'll probably mean raised rates for the end user.
Their plan would mean raised rates for the end user as well.. the site's that pay SBC's extortion fee will have to raise their prices to help cover that cost. If its an online store, you'll pay more per item because of it. If its just someone's blog.. well its possibly people will just not bother with slow sites, depending how slow they will be made.
Its because of all this infighting and telcos that believe they should be paid for being part of a network that makes me wish the whole delivery system was just socialized. You'd still pay for a connection and it would be just a connection. Anyone that wanted to ideally would be able to sell services over that connection; phone, cable, radio, web sites, etc.
Burlington Telecom is about to launch, and when they do, i'll switch to their highest tier; $40 / month for 5mpbs down AND up. Yay for municipal broadband!
I think there's a hole in your automated datamining; you'd need probable cause to get the warrant to make the tap legal in the first place. What you've just setup is a system where warrants aren't needed at all. The police (using another example) could break into your house, find something that looks suspicious, and then get a warrant.. but at that point, what purpose does the warrant serve?
I agree that it sucks when a criminal gets off on a technicality, but I'm sure the framers thought of that possiblitity and believed it was better to let a guilty man go than allow the violation of an innocent man's rights. I assume they felt this way because those violates were servere in nature, and if they were so severe 200 years ago that the framers felt we needed protection from our own government, I would think that violations of rights would have even more severe consequences today, because of what technology allows for.
To your second point, terrorists killing thousands... well the Crusades had a pretty high body count too, and interestingly enough, the framers themselves were called terrorists as well, as much of the fighting was done using gurella techniques.
I think it boils down to that often stated, but perhaps misunderstood slogan, freedom isn't free. In a free society, you do have a price to pay; eternal vigalence against tyranny, but also that innocent people in that society may become victums of those that would cause harm.
I guess unreasonable depends on your definition; your claim is that it is unreasonable because it could let a party get away with commiting a crime. I claim it is reasonable because it is the law and because that protecting one's rights is of great importance. Not to add another overquoted line to my post... but 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions.'
Finally, regarding something in your previous posting; no, I don't think anyone reads a thread this old, but I happen to like responding to those that took the time to respond to me because they wish to have an intelligent discussion.
I realize that it wasn't the doing of this administration, but previous administrations had put both of those countries into 'the evil clutches of dictators and tyrants.'
So I hardly see the undoing of that as a nobel act, especially because it wasn't done soley because the regimes were evil, it was done for own self interest.. the same self interest that put the Taliban and Saddam into power in the first place..
The automated monitoring allows a person to access the data; it wouldn't be very useful otherwise. I think its enough that a person could access the data; I doubt very much they would need to enter a warrant id or something similar before the program allows them access.
I don't give the only reason as efficiency; I mentioned that individual rights are important because I interpereted your comment on good investigative techique to mean that you believe the ends justified the means. Sorry if I mis-interperated.
So I guess the question is, if there's a question on the legality of the warrantless wiretaps, why doesn't the NSA just get the warrants? Surely it doesn't add an unreasonable burden, and there'd be no contraversy either.
I believe the answer is because the NSA (and Bush administration) know that its illegal, but simply don't care.
It doesn't matter if its an algorthm or a person doing the monitoring; any monitoring (i.e., invasion of privacy, or if you like, warrantless search) is a breach of the consitituion if the monitoring affects someone that the state has not obtained a warrant to investigate.
Its pretty clear that the NSA wiretaps without a warrant violate due process. Getting a warrant for a wiretap (or any other kind of search) is exactly what due process is all about.
You may have emailed a scam artist because you were caught up in the scam, or maybe you were part of it. Good investigation would not be to investigate everyone the scam artist was in contact with.. that would waste alot of time checking dead end leads. A good investigation would be to figure out who appears to be involved.
Also the ability of the state to conduct an investigation must be weighted against a person's right to due process and privacy. You can't look at investigations in a vaccuum, you always have to consider an individuals rights as well; the Constitution was setup to protect exactly those rights (rights of the government have traditionally never needed protection.)
I don't think you have a case about formatting for different locales. Taco's first story about the story selection process states that the site is aimed mainly at American readers, so it would seem to follow that American style rules would apply.
I don't think it'd be appropriate for a reader to say that Slashdot should post its storied in Chinese, because the reader happens to be Chinese. So I think its totally appropriate to 'Americanize' a submitter's story.
I do think its important, although i can usually figure out what is meant.
I think the problem is that if you ignore grammar and spelling, at some point you'll have a break down in communication. The fact that we all agree what baseball is has been rather helpful; if i just started using b-ball instead, who would you know for sure if i meant baseball or basketball? It would be impossible to decide which item I meant out of context. You could possibly ask me which item I meant, but that approach is less effective then if I had simply been clearer to start.
you're right.. but your own argument is really what this is about. They can't be abbridged WITHOUTH DUE PROCESS. And that is exactly whats going on here.
Also, I believe you'll find that rights cannot be abbridged at a societal level, they can only be abbridged on an individual, case by case basis.
Also, right of association is there to save us from a logical fallacy. As I said, just because you've had contact with a criminal does NOT mean that you're a criminal. Its a trap that many police and law enforment agencies fall into, because they are too driven by emotion. Emotion clouds truth and reason, and I don't think its a 'rosy image' to think that this country was a product of the age of reason...
I know my car has more than just ABS, it actually does help prevent lateral slippage as well. It can help stop itself from fishtailing, which has been very useful in the snow.
But on the otherhand, i realize its the price one pays to get a reasonable mortgage rate, credit cards on favorable terms, low insurance premiums, and a wide range of services at acceptable prices.
I call bull.
Mortgages don't need your credit rating, they have a recourse if you don't pay. They can take your house. They are not going to lend you more than the house is worth. They may not make money, but they haven't lost any either because they have the house.
Credit cards are risky, i'll give you that one.
Everything else (insurance, utilities, optional services) have a similar recourse. After missing the first payment date, service is shut off. They lose a month and refuse to do business with you anymore.
You don't need outside companies to store credit info, companies can do it themselves.
You also never even mention that once a credit company gets something wrong, its nearly imposible to fix (prove that its not you, when they have not proof of who you are to begin with?), you open the door to identity theft, and thats on top of gov't snooping...
The costs to you of having someone being able to sell your info are much higher than any benifits.
I will bet that eventually we'll see some very thin looking clients in the near future, thanks to Ajax.
Sorry, I don't see it. I've been doing web development for 7 years now, and Ajax doesn't fix some of the bigger problems that come with web development. Javascript objects are still limited by the fact that JS is scripting, which is inherently harder to debug / mantain..Net, with No touch deployment and the upcoming clickonce install removes many of the deployment and installation problems that traditional thick clients pose. Ajax doesn't compare given the rich controls of a traditional application.
Internally I think we'll see a return of thick clients with a proper n-tier architechture. That same architechture will allow outside companies to communicate using SOA.
SOA gives your clients / suppliers the option of using a dumb client with limited features or developing a traditional application that communicates with a SOA.
I think (and hope) that the browsers day's are numbered for providing applications. Applications will come again, they will be more of a distributed nature.
You count them as convient because you're against it.
Those that want to postpone may be postponing because they aren't old enough to care for the child properly.
Not being able to afford the child is definatly a good reason. You really think we need more kids growing up in ghettos? Is THAT how we get useful members of society? Lets not forget the welfare, that we ALL pay for, further draining resources from people that may not be in poverty but are also on tight incomes.
A child really should have a mother and father, or are you saying that being without one has no effect on the child at all?
Being too young is perfectly good as well; if you can't take care of yourself, how can you possible take care of a child?
Disrupting education or career; again.. you'd rather an uneducated mother attempting to raise a child, at times when even a college degree doesn't garentee decent earnings?
Those sound like more then simple convience issues to me... but you'll never admit otherwise, you'll just say 'suck it up.'
A final question for you. What gives you the right to decide if someone else has a baby? How does an abortion harm you in any conceivable way? Indeed, forcing someone to have the baby can cause and undue (indirect) burden on you. But who said you had any right to tell another what to do with thier life?
The major fallacy in your arguement though is that someone else wouldn't have come up with something similar to windows (or perhaps, better, but had the same effects).
I'm convienced if not Gate's company (remember, he's basically just a ripoff artist himself), someone else's company. Computers are just too useful not to have taken the direct they have.
we should not be denying anyone the chance of life, even if they have downs syndrome, or some other genetic abnormality, that is not a reason to kill them and deny them life.
You're presuming that life is always worth living, regardless of circumstance.
Of course, you're not the one living with constant pain, outcast from most of society, and knowing that you'll die at a very young age.
So before you go spouting off again how life is always worth living, consider some worse cases, and at least consider that maybe, just maybe, some people would be better off not having been born.
Nevermind that 1) your neighbors probably aren't looking to sell your house right now 2) a lower proprty value translates to a lower property tax and 3) people should stop being so self centered that they think they shouldn't even have to SEE something they dislike.
The fact is the value of your home should be a function of lot size, condition of the house, and the amenities nearby (grocery store, gas stations, etc.). The fact that someone nearby has a pink house shouldn't matter... its not like you're going to be going into it anyway, right? So why do you care?
But I'd like to apply your line of reasoning; I don't like fat girls in belly shirts, so lets ban that.
EVERYONE has rights, not just the 'majority' of the people.
I should be allowed to live in any community I choose, and still not be forced into their beliefs or way of doing things.
So no, a community cannot enact whatever codes they please. Or would you argue that a majority of Christains can decide its ok to kill a minority of Musliums? Or a majority of men saying its ok to rape the women minority in their community?
You'll just blow those off an say they are extreme examples, but who gets to decide where that line where its ok for the majority to dictate to the minority?
Slashdot Mirror
Reversing a terrible act is a good thing, but I think that doing so is greatly diminished when the person or entity undoing the evil is the one that put it there to begin with.
As an experiment, push someone off a cliff, risk your life to save them, and see if you end up getting a medal or put in jail.
I think that, at best, you'd be committed for a psychiatric evaluation, and rightfully so.
They can't recover their costs, and so they're sounding the alarm to let people know that costs will have to come out somewhere... and if Google refuses, it'll probably mean raised rates for the end user.
Their plan would mean raised rates for the end user as well.. the site's that pay SBC's extortion fee will have to raise their prices to help cover that cost. If its an online store, you'll pay more per item because of it. If its just someone's blog.. well its possibly people will just not bother with slow sites, depending how slow they will be made.
Its because of all this infighting and telcos that believe they should be paid for being part of a network that makes me wish the whole delivery system was just socialized. You'd still pay for a connection and it would be just a connection. Anyone that wanted to ideally would be able to sell services over that connection; phone, cable, radio, web sites, etc.
Burlington Telecom is about to launch, and when they do, i'll switch to their highest tier; $40 / month for 5mpbs down AND up. Yay for municipal broadband!
Sorry for the typo; it happens to everyone..
Please explain how an act which is selfish in nature can possibly be noble. Please also explain how the undoing of a terrible act can be noble.
I'm not sure a person who seeks medical attention for a woman he just beat is doing anything noble.. and in this case, the US did something far worse.
I think there's a hole in your automated datamining; you'd need probable cause to get the warrant to make the tap legal in the first place. What you've just setup is a system where warrants aren't needed at all. The police (using another example) could break into your house, find something that looks suspicious, and then get a warrant.. but at that point, what purpose does the warrant serve?
I agree that it sucks when a criminal gets off on a technicality, but I'm sure the framers thought of that possiblitity and believed it was better to let a guilty man go than allow the violation of an innocent man's rights. I assume they felt this way because those violates were servere in nature, and if they were so severe 200 years ago that the framers felt we needed protection from our own government, I would think that violations of rights would have even more severe consequences today, because of what technology allows for.
To your second point, terrorists killing thousands... well the Crusades had a pretty high body count too, and interestingly enough, the framers themselves were called terrorists as well, as much of the fighting was done using gurella techniques.
I think it boils down to that often stated, but perhaps misunderstood slogan, freedom isn't free. In a free society, you do have a price to pay; eternal vigalence against tyranny, but also that innocent people in that society may become victums of those that would cause harm.
I guess unreasonable depends on your definition; your claim is that it is unreasonable because it could let a party get away with commiting a crime. I claim it is reasonable because it is the law and because that protecting one's rights is of great importance. Not to add another overquoted line to my post... but 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions.'
Finally, regarding something in your previous posting; no, I don't think anyone reads a thread this old, but I happen to like responding to those that took the time to respond to me because they wish to have an intelligent discussion.
As a software author, I think you could just say 'this software is licensed under the GPLv3, but section X does not apply.'
Its easy to find, but hard to stumble across. If a kid found porn, he probably was explicitly looking for it.
I realize that it wasn't the doing of this administration, but previous administrations had put both of those countries into 'the evil clutches of dictators and tyrants.'
So I hardly see the undoing of that as a nobel act, especially because it wasn't done soley because the regimes were evil, it was done for own self interest.. the same self interest that put the Taliban and Saddam into power in the first place..
The automated monitoring allows a person to access the data; it wouldn't be very useful otherwise. I think its enough that a person could access the data; I doubt very much they would need to enter a warrant id or something similar before the program allows them access.
I don't give the only reason as efficiency; I mentioned that individual rights are important because I interpereted your comment on good investigative techique to mean that you believe the ends justified the means. Sorry if I mis-interperated.
So I guess the question is, if there's a question on the legality of the warrantless wiretaps, why doesn't the NSA just get the warrants? Surely it doesn't add an unreasonable burden, and there'd be no contraversy either.
I believe the answer is because the NSA (and Bush administration) know that its illegal, but simply don't care.
It doesn't matter if its an algorthm or a person doing the monitoring; any monitoring (i.e., invasion of privacy, or if you like, warrantless search) is a breach of the consitituion if the monitoring affects someone that the state has not obtained a warrant to investigate.
Its pretty clear that the NSA wiretaps without a warrant violate due process. Getting a warrant for a wiretap (or any other kind of search) is exactly what due process is all about.
You may have emailed a scam artist because you were caught up in the scam, or maybe you were part of it. Good investigation would not be to investigate everyone the scam artist was in contact with.. that would waste alot of time checking dead end leads. A good investigation would be to figure out who appears to be involved.
Also the ability of the state to conduct an investigation must be weighted against a person's right to due process and privacy. You can't look at investigations in a vaccuum, you always have to consider an individuals rights as well; the Constitution was setup to protect exactly those rights (rights of the government have traditionally never needed protection.)
I don't think you have a case about formatting for different locales. Taco's first story about the story selection process states that the site is aimed mainly at American readers, so it would seem to follow that American style rules would apply.
I don't think it'd be appropriate for a reader to say that Slashdot should post its storied in Chinese, because the reader happens to be Chinese. So I think its totally appropriate to 'Americanize' a submitter's story.
I do think its important, although i can usually figure out what is meant.
I think the problem is that if you ignore grammar and spelling, at some point you'll have a break down in communication. The fact that we all agree what baseball is has been rather helpful; if i just started using b-ball instead, who would you know for sure if i meant baseball or basketball? It would be impossible to decide which item I meant out of context. You could possibly ask me which item I meant, but that approach is less effective then if I had simply been clearer to start.
Add a salt to the hash, and the problem becomes much more time consuming.
you're right.. but your own argument is really what this is about. They can't be abbridged WITHOUTH DUE PROCESS. And that is exactly whats going on here.
Also, I believe you'll find that rights cannot be abbridged at a societal level, they can only be abbridged on an individual, case by case basis.
Also, right of association is there to save us from a logical fallacy. As I said, just because you've had contact with a criminal does NOT mean that you're a criminal. Its a trap that many police and law enforment agencies fall into, because they are too driven by emotion. Emotion clouds truth and reason, and I don't think its a 'rosy image' to think that this country was a product of the age of reason...
Funny, I thought the first amendment protected freedom of association; that just because you talked to a criminal doesn't mean that you are one.
Thanks for quoting a study thats 12 years old.
I know my car has more than just ABS, it actually does help prevent lateral slippage as well. It can help stop itself from fishtailing, which has been very useful in the snow.
But on the otherhand, i realize its the price one pays to get a reasonable mortgage rate, credit cards on favorable terms, low insurance premiums, and a wide range of services at acceptable prices.
I call bull.
Mortgages don't need your credit rating, they have a recourse if you don't pay. They can take your house. They are not going to lend you more than the house is worth. They may not make money, but they haven't lost any either because they have the house.
Credit cards are risky, i'll give you that one.
Everything else (insurance, utilities, optional services) have a similar recourse. After missing the first payment date, service is shut off. They lose a month and refuse to do business with you anymore.
You don't need outside companies to store credit info, companies can do it themselves.
You also never even mention that once a credit company gets something wrong, its nearly imposible to fix (prove that its not you, when they have not proof of who you are to begin with?), you open the door to identity theft, and thats on top of gov't snooping...
The costs to you of having someone being able to sell your info are much higher than any benifits.
I will bet that eventually we'll see some very thin looking clients in the near future, thanks to Ajax.
.Net, with No touch deployment and the upcoming clickonce install removes many of the deployment and installation problems that traditional thick clients pose. Ajax doesn't compare given the rich controls of a traditional application.
Sorry, I don't see it. I've been doing web development for 7 years now, and Ajax doesn't fix some of the bigger problems that come with web development. Javascript objects are still limited by the fact that JS is scripting, which is inherently harder to debug / mantain.
Internally I think we'll see a return of thick clients with a proper n-tier architechture. That same architechture will allow outside companies to communicate using SOA.
SOA gives your clients / suppliers the option of using a dumb client with limited features or developing a traditional application that communicates with a SOA.
I think (and hope) that the browsers day's are numbered for providing applications. Applications will come again, they will be more of a distributed nature.
You count them as convient because you're against it.
Those that want to postpone may be postponing because they aren't old enough to care for the child properly.
Not being able to afford the child is definatly a good reason. You really think we need more kids growing up in ghettos? Is THAT how we get useful members of society? Lets not forget the welfare, that we ALL pay for, further draining resources from people that may not be in poverty but are also on tight incomes.
A child really should have a mother and father, or are you saying that being without one has no effect on the child at all?
Being too young is perfectly good as well; if you can't take care of yourself, how can you possible take care of a child?
Disrupting education or career; again.. you'd rather an uneducated mother attempting to raise a child, at times when even a college degree doesn't garentee decent earnings?
Those sound like more then simple convience issues to me... but you'll never admit otherwise, you'll just say 'suck it up.'
A final question for you. What gives you the right to decide if someone else has a baby? How does an abortion harm you in any conceivable way? Indeed, forcing someone to have the baby can cause and undue (indirect) burden on you. But who said you had any right to tell another what to do with thier life?
The major fallacy in your arguement though is that someone else wouldn't have come up with something similar to windows (or perhaps, better, but had the same effects).
I'm convienced if not Gate's company (remember, he's basically just a ripoff artist himself), someone else's company. Computers are just too useful not to have taken the direct they have.
we should not be denying anyone the chance of life, even if they have downs syndrome, or some other genetic abnormality, that is not a reason to kill them and deny them life.
You're presuming that life is always worth living, regardless of circumstance.
Of course, you're not the one living with constant pain, outcast from most of society, and knowing that you'll die at a very young age.
So before you go spouting off again how life is always worth living, consider some worse cases, and at least consider that maybe, just maybe, some people would be better off not having been born.
Its simple. Stupid people are also always lazy, self centered, inconsiderate and rude. More often than not, also poor.
So now the expection of rational behavior is facism?
If the behavior is irrational, but not causing harm, than so what?
Who are assholes like you who think any behavior is acceptable at any time?
Any behavior that doesn't harm others is acceptable, whether you define it as normal or not.
If its not harming someone, why do you waste your time worrying about what others are doing? Don't have a life of your own to worry about?
Oh, the "Lowering of property values" arguement.
Nevermind that 1) your neighbors probably aren't looking to sell your house right now 2) a lower proprty value translates to a lower property tax and 3) people should stop being so self centered that they think they shouldn't even have to SEE something they dislike.
The fact is the value of your home should be a function of lot size, condition of the house, and the amenities nearby (grocery store, gas stations, etc.). The fact that someone nearby has a pink house shouldn't matter... its not like you're going to be going into it anyway, right? So why do you care?
But I'd like to apply your line of reasoning; I don't like fat girls in belly shirts, so lets ban that.
Majority rule = mob rule.
EVERYONE has rights, not just the 'majority' of the people.
I should be allowed to live in any community I choose, and still not be forced into their beliefs or way of doing things.
So no, a community cannot enact whatever codes they please. Or would you argue that a majority of Christains can decide its ok to kill a minority of Musliums? Or a majority of men saying its ok to rape the women minority in their community?
You'll just blow those off an say they are extreme examples, but who gets to decide where that line where its ok for the majority to dictate to the minority?