once married, you are considered a single legal entity. That one person can give consent for both.
Thats obviously wrong...otherwise a husband could go to jail for his wife killing someone (well, they both would). Even if he had no knowledge and couldn't stop it.
Look - we're talking about schools. They're supposed to know where the kids are at all times. If they didn't, and something bad happened, the parents would sue the school.
And if the kid never shows up to school? Is that also the schools responsibility? If not, why is it to make sure that they remain there? I'd say its the parents responsibility, not the schools.
Perhaps you hit upon why many kids hate school; it IS a prison to them, from 8am until 2pm.
The kids have no freedom while they're in school. Their comings and goings are completely dictated by their class schedules. And that's the extent of the "tracking" - it's not "every second of every day," as you assert, but merely while they're on campus. Nothing requires them to carry RFID tags when they're not in school. (And if the school tried to mandate anything like that, I'd be just as infuriated as you are about this.)
So if kids have absolutely no freedom at school, how are they supposed to learn to handle their rights when they are allowed them? How are they supposed to learn to think for themselves?
I guess the answer is that they are not; that we want to raise kids that are just fine w/o freedom, and who always do what they are told, and only what they are told. Maybe thats why a large portion of the population is the way it is right now.
My car is not paid for. If it were, my per month would be alot less. As it is, my current car replaced one that was staring to break down fairly regularly, and not in cheap ways. I find i can handle the loan cost alot better then the expense of a random breakdown.
Also i'm sure insurance plays a big part of the difference here too. Where you live has a huge affect, as does the car you're driving, age, etc.
So to directly compare expenses isn't really worth it without some kind of normalization...I was just stating how much I would save.
That was in the 1980's - it's probably more chaotic today
You just think it is? Do you have any evidence to back up your feeling?
And look at it this way: Taking attendance takes time. 10 minutes a day * 200 school days = an extra 33 hours of class time per year.
In my school we had something called 'assigned seats.' The teacher knew which seats should be filled, and if they weren't it was trival to figure out who was missing. It never took more then a minute...10 is absurd.
As I moved up, less teachers had assigned seating. They actually got to know you and could remember if you were there or not. Giving us the freedom to pick where we sat demonstrated that the teacher believed we could make that decision in a responsible way (sitting close if your eyes were bad for example). Some learning is done by giving a choice to a person...it teaches people to think for themselves. Where you sit may be no big deal to you, but as a kid, it probably means a lot more.
I'm a pretty strong privacy advocate, but I simply can't understand the parents' uproar over this. Teachers take attendance, and hall monitors watch hallways between periods. RFIDs take attendance and watch hallway movements. What's the difference?
Taking attendance is one thing, its quite another to know each and every step someone takes.
Do you really feel this is the best way to teach kids about freedom? They are free yet are tracked every second of every day? (I'm sure at first it would be just the school..then expanded to the city level...b/c after all, those kids that walk home, we need to make sure they make it there.) That everyone in this country has rights...oh, except for them of course, they have no rights.
I think it also sends the message that no one can be trusted, nor can the child be trusted either. Again, is that the kind of message you want to send to children? That everyone is a potental criminal, even themself?
If thats the world people want (or think it is now), then thats truely sad indeed.
I tend to agree. I think a great application of this would be to stop abusive soon to be ex husbands from going near their wives. Some methods of enforcement may require the wife to wear one as well...but it would enable both parties to pretty much go where they please as long as they dont' go near each other.
Actually, I'm hoping that someday i'll live in a larger city where i don't need a car. I figure I'd save about $817/month if I cut out car payments, gas and insurance. Certainly wouldn't mind that!
I think he did read your whole post..but your premise that people with fuel efficient cars drive more then those with larger cars is just silly. Car size has nothing to do with number of miles it gets driven, but DOES have an impact on the amount of damage done to the roads (and pollution..since larger gasoline vehicle invariable produce more pollution than smaller ones).
Do you think that a much lighter, fuel efficant car damages the roads less then a gas guzzling SUV? To date, the only hybrid cars I've seen have been just that..cars. Not a single fuel efficent truck or SUV.
You may travel the same number of miles as someone else, but maybe your car pollutes less and causes less damage than say an SUV or semi. Do you think you should have to pay the same taxes as they do?
Its not just that alternatives exist, its that MS can lock them out totally by 'leaveraging' their monopoly. Which many would argue is exactly whats happening.
Right, and what I'm saying, is that once the info's out there, and as long as it's got a important enough value to the people, it's likely to get to them one way or another.
For instance, don't you think they realize on some level whats REALLY going on, i.e. they're being censored. Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from? And lo, the ball and started rolling...
Except that they will be labeled as wacho nut jobs, with consipricy abound. The gov't may even actively discredit said person, by planting drugs or child porn or something else, and then making a very public arrest.
"if you even look at this web site, you must agree to the EULA, click HERE to view it."
If they are allowed to do so, then I should be allowed to post a sign outside my house that says 'by looking or walking within 50ft of my house you agree to pay me $100.00'
Sorry, but thats where you are going. I think your understanding of civilization is a bit off too. Remember, just a hundred years ago we had child labor common place in the country, we were helping the blacks because they weren't smart enough to make their own decisions...so slavery was better for them! Those were the arguements made...go research ifyou don't believe me.
If someone is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and accepting the responsibility for those choices, then why does the state have to protect a person from themselves?
I never said i wanted to live in anarchy, but I sure as hell don't want someone telling me 'your brain is not developed, so you have no rights.'
Thanks by the way for showing what a bigot you really are. You try to paint me in with Hilter (with, BTW, also ends this thread), and then you want to take people's God given free will away from them, based on science.
Reading your post, you seem to be trying to paint me with every negative label you can think of. Maybe you should go back and re-read your bible, because it does support free will and hopefully you'll abandon your attempts to take away people's free will using science. My worldview doesn't support using race to divide mankind, nor does it use age or 'stages of brain development' to do so either. You seem to have no problem discriminated based on brainscans.
Bullshit. Gonzales noted that certain practises are not legally termed torture. That's all: whether or not to utilise them is a different thing entirely, and he did not touch that.
Just a matter of semantics. Just because its not illegal to push someone down the steps, does not make it right.
That said, just about everyone would advocate the use of torture under certain circumstances. If cutting the finger off of one known-guilty man would get one full details about a plan to set off nukes in London, New York, Washington, Stockholm, Paris and Moscow, I believe that most of us would reach for the pruning shears and feel bad about it later.
That said, just about everyone is discusting with no respect for human life. Just because most people support something doesn't make it right either.
Oh, and this 'known guilty' man you're talking about. He never even had charges filed against him, let alone a trial. I really wish people like you, and their utter contempt for the Constitution (and the law really) would leave. What you describe is not rule of law, but rule of the mob.
Yes, VT does have alot of things that make sense...but then there are some that don't. They might be lowering the drinking age, but you still can't drink on New Year's Eve! http://www.firstnightburlington.com/
Well you can, but they make it REALLY hard to. You have to make reservations at ONE bar, and stay there the whole night..'bar hopping' is illegal, because people want to be able to take thier kids out until 12am for some ungodly reason.
So..there are definatly alot of good things here, but some other ideas just seem really backwards.
You're basically using science to justify discrimination based on age. Lets take away someone's rights because science says they can't handle them!
While your at it, lets also study and see if whites, blacks, or hispanics have lower intelligence, and then setup a nanny state for them, and say they can't have as many rights because science tells us one of those groups is less developed.
Yay! I can't wait to legalize discrimation because we have science telling us its ok.
Point taken, however, this isn't a constitutional amendment.
That said, I don't think the framers intended for the checks and balances to be dismantled. After all, that would destory everything they worked to create.
Um, if my taxes are paying for the wifi, how am i getting a luxury for free?
We could go the opposite route and say roads are a luxury too. I guess you don't think a good communications infrastructure is within the public interest. Compared to other countries, it is pretty bad.
You don't have to introduce yourself, we know who you are.
Hmm, looking at your other posts in this thread, and your posting history (which has quite a few flamebaits and trolls), I think everyone is aware that its you who are the troll. As such, this will be my last reply to you.
Yes, and since NK ADMITTED to having nukes, they were right. What does the fact that they were wrong someplace else have to do with anything? Oh right, you're trying to change the subject YET AGAIN because you were proven wrong.
Its called credibility. The past indicates they have little. Because NK admitted only a few days ago to having nukes does not mean the community was correct when they were saying it YEARS ago. They've been saying something, which until very recently, hasn't been true. I'm not trying to defect anything...YOU were the one that brought the intelligence community into this discussion.
Never said that so stop lying. I said they were DEVELOPING them, which is not the same. If lying and putting words in people's mouths is the best you can do, I understand now why you're so inept when it comes to international relations. It's all true, even though you don't like it.
Its kind of hard to develop a nuclear weapon without enriched uranium, isn't it? Hence the reason they restarted their reactors, to produce said uranium.
So, instead of shooting the messenger for fucking up your simplistic anti-US world view, how about you improve your reading comprehension and educate yourself more.... I should have known better than to expect civilized behavior from you.
Have you read your own posts? Obviously not...you're the one spouting off with insults to anyone that challenges you.
I've refuted your claims, and you refuse to see that. I've given you the relevant time line, and all you've done is claim 'hey, somebody else said they were researching before bushs speech.' Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001? If you do, I'd like to see it, because otherwise, the events I've pointed out back up my claim.
How can they even make a law stating no judicial review? It doesn't seem like it would be constitutional to even do so..since the SC has the sole ability to rule on whether the law is constitutional or not.
Well, my theory of course is that the states will want to grab power for themselves, which would thus dismantle much of the current federal gov't.
I think 'checks & balances' really means that we setup a power struggle that no one i supposed to win. It operations on the premise that those with power always want more, and thus will fight to keep it (and attempt to stop other from gaining it too).
Which leads to my opinion on gov't; the best gov't is one that doesn't really do much of anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
once married, you are considered a single legal entity. That one person can give consent for both.
Thats obviously wrong...otherwise a husband could go to jail for his wife killing someone (well, they both would). Even if he had no knowledge and couldn't stop it.
Look - we're talking about schools. They're supposed to know where the kids are at all times. If they didn't, and something bad happened, the parents would sue the school.
And if the kid never shows up to school? Is that also the schools responsibility? If not, why is it to make sure that they remain there? I'd say its the parents responsibility, not the schools.
Perhaps you hit upon why many kids hate school; it IS a prison to them, from 8am until 2pm.
The kids have no freedom while they're in school. Their comings and goings are completely dictated by their class schedules. And that's the extent of the "tracking" - it's not "every second of every day," as you assert, but merely while they're on campus. Nothing requires them to carry RFID tags when they're not in school. (And if the school tried to mandate anything like that, I'd be just as infuriated as you are about this.)
So if kids have absolutely no freedom at school, how are they supposed to learn to handle their rights when they are allowed them? How are they supposed to learn to think for themselves?
I guess the answer is that they are not; that we want to raise kids that are just fine w/o freedom, and who always do what they are told, and only what they are told. Maybe thats why a large portion of the population is the way it is right now.
My car is not paid for. If it were, my per month would be alot less. As it is, my current car replaced one that was staring to break down fairly regularly, and not in cheap ways. I find i can handle the loan cost alot better then the expense of a random breakdown.
Also i'm sure insurance plays a big part of the difference here too. Where you live has a huge affect, as does the car you're driving, age, etc.
So to directly compare expenses isn't really worth it without some kind of normalization...I was just stating how much I would save.
That was in the 1980's - it's probably more chaotic today
You just think it is? Do you have any evidence to back up your feeling?
And look at it this way: Taking attendance takes time. 10 minutes a day * 200 school days = an extra 33 hours of class time per year.
In my school we had something called 'assigned seats.' The teacher knew which seats should be filled, and if they weren't it was trival to figure out who was missing. It never took more then a minute...10 is absurd.
As I moved up, less teachers had assigned seating. They actually got to know you and could remember if you were there or not. Giving us the freedom to pick where we sat demonstrated that the teacher believed we could make that decision in a responsible way (sitting close if your eyes were bad for example). Some learning is done by giving a choice to a person...it teaches people to think for themselves. Where you sit may be no big deal to you, but as a kid, it probably means a lot more.
I'm a pretty strong privacy advocate, but I simply can't understand the parents' uproar over this. Teachers take attendance, and hall monitors watch hallways between periods. RFIDs take attendance and watch hallway movements. What's the difference?
Taking attendance is one thing, its quite another to know each and every step someone takes.
Do you really feel this is the best way to teach kids about freedom? They are free yet are tracked every second of every day? (I'm sure at first it would be just the school..then expanded to the city level...b/c after all, those kids that walk home, we need to make sure they make it there.) That everyone in this country has rights...oh, except for them of course, they have no rights.
I think it also sends the message that no one can be trusted, nor can the child be trusted either. Again, is that the kind of message you want to send to children? That everyone is a potental criminal, even themself?
If thats the world people want (or think it is now), then thats truely sad indeed.
I tend to agree. I think a great application of this would be to stop abusive soon to be ex husbands from going near their wives. Some methods of enforcement may require the wife to wear one as well...but it would enable both parties to pretty much go where they please as long as they dont' go near each other.
What you present is exactly why I'm in favor forcing all mail to have electonic signatures.
The PO has standards, why shouldn't email?
Um, unless there's alot of wachy-ness out west, you can't register your car in a state you don't live in. So no, that's not an alternative.
Actually, I'm hoping that someday i'll live in a larger city where i don't need a car. I figure I'd save about $817/month if I cut out car payments, gas and insurance. Certainly wouldn't mind that!
I think he did read your whole post..but your premise that people with fuel efficient cars drive more then those with larger cars is just silly. Car size has nothing to do with number of miles it gets driven, but DOES have an impact on the amount of damage done to the roads (and pollution..since larger gasoline vehicle invariable produce more pollution than smaller ones).
Do you think that a much lighter, fuel efficant car damages the roads less then a gas guzzling SUV? To date, the only hybrid cars I've seen have been just that..cars. Not a single fuel efficent truck or SUV.
You may travel the same number of miles as someone else, but maybe your car pollutes less and causes less damage than say an SUV or semi. Do you think you should have to pay the same taxes as they do?
Its not just that alternatives exist, its that MS can lock them out totally by 'leaveraging' their monopoly. Which many would argue is exactly whats happening.
Right, and what I'm saying, is that once the info's out there, and as long as it's got a important enough value to the people, it's likely to get to them one way or another.
For instance, don't you think they realize on some level whats REALLY going on, i.e. they're being censored. Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from? And lo, the ball and started rolling...
Except that they will be labeled as wacho nut jobs, with consipricy abound. The gov't may even actively discredit said person, by planting drugs or child porn or something else, and then making a very public arrest.
"if you even look at this web site, you must agree to the EULA, click HERE to view it."
If they are allowed to do so, then I should be allowed to post a sign outside my house that says 'by looking or walking within 50ft of my house you agree to pay me $100.00'
Why shouldn't that fly, if Obitiz logic does?
Sorry, but thats where you are going. I think your understanding of civilization is a bit off too. Remember, just a hundred years ago we had child labor common place in the country, we were helping the blacks because they weren't smart enough to make their own decisions...so slavery was better for them! Those were the arguements made...go research ifyou don't believe me.
If someone is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and accepting the responsibility for those choices, then why does the state have to protect a person from themselves?
I never said i wanted to live in anarchy, but I sure as hell don't want someone telling me 'your brain is not developed, so you have no rights.'
Thanks by the way for showing what a bigot you really are. You try to paint me in with Hilter (with, BTW, also ends this thread), and then you want to take people's God given free will away from them, based on science.
Reading your post, you seem to be trying to paint me with every negative label you can think of. Maybe you should go back and re-read your bible, because it does support free will and hopefully you'll abandon your attempts to take away people's free will using science. My worldview doesn't support using race to divide mankind, nor does it use age or 'stages of brain development' to do so either. You seem to have no problem discriminated based on brainscans.
Bullshit. Gonzales noted that certain practises are not legally termed torture. That's all: whether or not to utilise them is a different thing entirely, and he did not touch that.
Just a matter of semantics. Just because its not illegal to push someone down the steps, does not make it right.
That said, just about everyone would advocate the use of torture under certain circumstances. If cutting the finger off of one known-guilty man would get one full details about a plan to set off nukes in London, New York, Washington, Stockholm, Paris and Moscow, I believe that most of us would reach for the pruning shears and feel bad about it later.
That said, just about everyone is discusting with no respect for human life. Just because most people support something doesn't make it right either.
Oh, and this 'known guilty' man you're talking about. He never even had charges filed against him, let alone a trial. I really wish people like you, and their utter contempt for the Constitution (and the law really) would leave. What you describe is not rule of law, but rule of the mob.
Yes, VT does have alot of things that make sense...but then there are some that don't. They might be lowering the drinking age, but you still can't drink on New Year's Eve! http://www.firstnightburlington.com/
Well you can, but they make it REALLY hard to. You have to make reservations at ONE bar, and stay there the whole night..'bar hopping' is illegal, because people want to be able to take thier kids out until 12am for some ungodly reason.
So..there are definatly alot of good things here, but some other ideas just seem really backwards.
Ahh, I thought this would come up.
You're basically using science to justify discrimination based on age. Lets take away someone's rights because science says they can't handle them!
While your at it, lets also study and see if whites, blacks, or hispanics have lower intelligence, and then setup a nanny state for them, and say they can't have as many rights because science tells us one of those groups is less developed.
Yay! I can't wait to legalize discrimation because we have science telling us its ok.
Point taken, however, this isn't a constitutional amendment.
That said, I don't think the framers intended for the checks and balances to be dismantled. After all, that would destory everything they worked to create.
You MISS the turnpike? Did you ever drive on the blue route during rush hour? I don't miss that commute at all.
4 5565
Your point does still stand though; PA has dropped from its long stand as the state with the nations worst roads.
Doh..after googling, looks like PA is #1 again http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=
Um, if my taxes are paying for the wifi, how am i getting a luxury for free?
We could go the opposite route and say roads are a luxury too. I guess you don't think a good communications infrastructure is within the public interest. Compared to other countries, it is pretty bad.
"Ahh, a troll"
... I should have known better than to expect civilized behavior from you.
You don't have to introduce yourself, we know who you are.
Hmm, looking at your other posts in this thread, and your posting history (which has quite a few flamebaits and trolls), I think everyone is aware that its you who are the troll. As such, this will be my last reply to you.
Yes, and since NK ADMITTED to having nukes, they were right. What does the fact that they were wrong someplace else have to do with anything? Oh right, you're trying to change the subject YET AGAIN because you were proven wrong.
Its called credibility. The past indicates they have little. Because NK admitted only a few days ago to having nukes does not mean the community was correct when they were saying it YEARS ago. They've been saying something, which until very recently, hasn't been true. I'm not trying to defect anything...YOU were the one that brought the intelligence community into this discussion.
Never said that so stop lying. I said they were DEVELOPING them, which is not the same. If lying and putting words in people's mouths is the best you can do, I understand now why you're so inept when it comes to international relations. It's all true, even though you don't like it.
Its kind of hard to develop a nuclear weapon without enriched uranium, isn't it? Hence the reason they restarted their reactors, to produce said uranium.
So, instead of shooting the messenger for fucking up your simplistic anti-US world view, how about you improve your reading comprehension and educate yourself more.
Have you read your own posts? Obviously not...you're the one spouting off with insults to anyone that challenges you.
I've refuted your claims, and you refuse to see that. I've given you the relevant time line, and all you've done is claim 'hey, somebody else said they were researching before bushs speech.' Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001? If you do, I'd like to see it, because otherwise, the events I've pointed out back up my claim.
How can they even make a law stating no judicial review? It doesn't seem like it would be constitutional to even do so..since the SC has the sole ability to rule on whether the law is constitutional or not.
Well, my theory of course is that the states will want to grab power for themselves, which would thus dismantle much of the current federal gov't.
I think 'checks & balances' really means that we setup a power struggle that no one i supposed to win. It operations on the premise that those with power always want more, and thus will fight to keep it (and attempt to stop other from gaining it too).
Which leads to my opinion on gov't; the best gov't is one that doesn't really do much of anything at all.