During times of war, it is normal to suspend the right to trial (among others). Doing so in peacetime is a dangerous trend, and one which should be viewed with suspicion.
Problem is that doing it in wartime lets them say 'well under some conditions we've done this', making it easier to justify in peacetime. Hell, the gov't right now is saying that we are at war, although nothing's been formally declared.
The information in question is already out there, in the hands of corporations, which have less admirable motives than preventing terrorism, and are not under democratic control.
Nor could they arrest me whenever they felt like, or blackmail me because i bought a copy of debbie does dallas. Or just fabricate something worse. Nowadays they don't even have to arrest a person, just accuse them of something and say they found or strongly suspect something bad.
You want evidence? Try looking up macarthyism. It was only about 50 or so years ago. And that was just the data collection techniques they had then; imagine if they could track everything.
Don't say it the power won't be abused, and what i'm talking about can't happen. It did, and it wasn't that long ago at all.
Ahh, so then your already to the point that you aren't the target market - and so commenting on something that doesn't apply to you.
It does apply to me. Unfortunatly, i'm a verizon customer, and this would only serve to make things worse.
Your reply serves to reinforce that this is the reality today already.. why single Verizon out amongst all the others now?
Correct, and i'm hoping we can turn things such that this is no longer the reality.
Why am i singling out Verizon? Three reasons really. For one, they were the ones responsible for 90% of the crap i started receiving. I know this because for some reason, they had some weird capitalization going on with my name on my monthly bills. 90% of junk mail i got also had this oddity. Two, i'm a verizon customer, and they stand to make things worse then they already are. Three, could it be that perhaps the article was about Verizon? Hmm..
You seem to have a 'its too late, why bother attitude.' Fortunatly for everyone else, civil rights leaders and the revolutionaries in 1776 didn't have such an attitude.
If you aren't swayed by advertising or care.. they art the wolves that keep thy herd healthy.
I'm not swayed, and i don't care what they have to say. I do however care that they are wasting my time or calling me during dinner.
So tell me, why are you so against seemingly anything that i could use not to be annoyed? If we had an opt-in system, people such as yourself that truely value the ideas that verizon will create based on your personal data could opt-int, and people like me would be happily left alone.
And how is that bad? Your going to see advertising and product promos for stuff you are interested in, rather than seeing tonnes of ads and junk for shit you would bever be interested in. I wish TV companies would do that same so that I don't have to watch ads for tampons and diapers which are not marketable to me.
I don't want to be called or mailed ads for anything. I'm perfectly capable of finding the things i want on my own. Half the mail i get now i throw out without even openning. What a waste of my time and the earth's resources. I don't see ads for tampons or diapers. Probably b/c i don't watch the shows that would attract those ads. Most ads i don't watch anyway, i use that time to do other things.
You seem to think that this is going to replace your brain or something...
No, it just wastes my time sorting through mail, or really pissing me off whne i'm trying to eat dinner and i get some jackass trying to sell me something i don't want or need.
Imagine that, saving money on the calls to your family in Ohio? what a bunch of bastards they are!
I did the research when i got long distance for the lowest rate. I pay less then 5c per minute. Can't get much cheaper then that. Honestly, even if there was something cheaper, i wouldn't care. The expense is already low enough for me, so why bother switching if i'm happy with my current provider?
And the data they are selling is very generealized.. "this demeographic likes to make calls at this time - so at this time, play the hold music this demographics likes, and during this time, play an ad for something this demographic wants to purchase."
Read the article. Its not demographic info. They already do that! Why would anyone be upset if it was demo information that they've already been selling? I don't think anyone cares if they are rolled up into an aggragate dataset...but thats not the case here.
you no doubt already get small flyers or ads with your utility bills.. which likely get thrown away and never looked at because they are for something you don't want.. imagine if they could put something useful to you in there instead.. how does that hurt you?
Yes i do, and i throw them away. If it were something i liked...hmm i'd still throw it away. 90% of ads are things that everyone already knows about. Coke, pepsi, toyota. Sales don't make me go out and buy things, neither does showing me something i already know existed. None of the things that i find interesting do i find via ads. Its word of mouth, or i'll see it when i'm in the store.
You will still have your small brain to make your own decisions yourself, they aren't forcing anything on you.
Ah, i see now that you are probably a troll, having to resort to insults because you don't really have any point. As for my 'small brain', i've been through college, and have my degree in computer science. I already do make my own decisions, which is why i'm not swayed by advertising. as far as forcing things on me goes, they're disturbing my dinners, and forcing me to sort through their crap before i find the mail i really want.
Evolve, this will be the future of business and already exists in many industries now... This peasant argument of yours should have been brought forth to the lords about 20 years ago.
I'll be working hard to make sure this isn't the future of buisness. It would be hard for me to bring it up 20 years ago; i wasn't even 5 years old yet.
They didn't have a monopoly because the government enforced it, they had it because they then owned all the lines. Until the 80s, the telcos had largely been left alone by the government. I think you need to spend some time reading history books or watching the history channel, i'm not sure where you get your ideas.
And as i was trying to point out, they do specifically care about me. I'm sure they've already been tracking demographic and aggragate data. Obviously this is something different, which is why people are now upset.
Most likely, the service (phone companies provide a service, not product..) will stay the same, or perhaps get worse. And it won't have anything to do with this data.
What will happen is that my phone number (and possibly the numbers of people i call) will be sold, and will have even more people calling me with products and services i really don't care about. My personal favorite is the bank that wants to help me refinance my mortgage, although i've told them repeatedly i live in an apartment.
there really isn't anything else phone companies can provide that i'd want / need. As it is, i can find at most 2 that i find useful, and they already have dozens.
I assume you're refering to survival of the fittest?
I guess it depends on your view of man. Is man just another animal, governed by Darwins theories? Or is man special, because we have logic, and logical beings will conclude that they have certain rights.
Obviously we'll disgree if we start off with differing opinions of what man is.
Your taking it out of context, a more realistic likening would be google ranking pages based on the number of clickthroughs on their own search results. This ranking helps you and I locate useful information rapidly, it doesn't tell anyone about your personal web activity.
Out of context? From the article: "had plans to begin a data-sharing system that allowed the company and its affiliates to collect information on when, where and how often customers make telephone calls. It would use that data to sell new products and services to customers."
Sounds pretty specific to me. It seems that if i call my grandparents once a week and other family in OH 2 times a month, i'm likely to start getting phone calls on how i can 'reduce' my monthly bills.
Now, i don't think any buisness has a right to know everything about me so they can make money. Maybe they should be paying the people who have not opted out for the privledge of selling thier information. After all, if what i do is so valuable that companies fight tooth and nail to use it however they want, making it as difficult for me to optout as possible, i should be paid for the value i'm providing them.
I guess it depends. Did i open the door just enough to get the pizza and pay you, or did i invite you through the door while i went to get the money?
In the end though, i'd think you wouldn't have a right to say what you say what you saw in someones house. What if you did speak of what you saw, including a really nice tv, and then a few days later i get robbed? Didn't you play some role in that since its likely that if you hadn't said anything, i wouldn't have been robbed.
At any rate, you have to look at things on a case by case basis. We can play what if all day, but in the case this thread is about (Verizon), they clearly don't have the right to sell your phone habits without your express permission.
details the United States Federal Government's actions in creating the AT&T telephone monopoly, for various political and nonmarket purposes.
Actually, thats wrong. Bell invented the phone, which required a line between 2 phones. If you wanted to call someone, you ran a wire to thier house. For everyone you wanted to call, you ran another line to thier house. This lead to obvious problems (the web, eheh).
Bell came up with the solution; running all the wires to a central place, and from there connecting the caller with the callee. Thats when you had the switchboard operator to connect your call; literally plug your wire into the righ place for the person you were calling.
Um, i don't think this is the same as otehr buisnesses everywhere. If i buy a car, the dealer doesn't know where or how often i drive it. There are many things i buy that the manufacter doesn't know how i use it.
Personally, what i do in my house is none of anyone else's buisness. I do have the right to privacy, unlike verizon which does not have the right to free speech, since the company is not a person. Even if they did, a right to free speech does not grant someone a right to violate my right to privacy.
Now, when you're in prison, you don't have the same rights as everybody else.
Be careful with that, it can be a very dangerous thing to believe.
When you go to prison, you have demonstrated that you are not capable of handling the freedoms society has given you.
Society does not grant freedom; people inherently have it. However...
Thus, society has the right to take those freedoms away for a period of time....I agree that a person that infringes on anothers rights should be punished. Currently we imprision those that do, but we do have to be careful here. Those wrongfully imprisioned have had thier rights unjustly infringed upon and we cannot ignore that.
By your logic, if you came into my home and started using racial slurs to my family or me I would not have the right to ask you to leave because free speech is a human right. How many Jehovah's witnessed knocked on your door? Did you know that when you turned them away you were violating their basic human rights?
Not at all. People also have the right to property and privacy. If you don't want someone on your property that is your right. If you tell someone you're not interested in hearing what they are saying that is your right as well, and the Jehovah's witnesses should respect it. People have the right to free speech; but they don't have the right to force others to listen.
It's naive to think that laws are enforced according to the spirit of the law as opposed to the wording of the law. Ever hear of "loopholes"?
It's also naive to go with the exact letter of the law. This is a problem discribed in a philosophy of law class. You can make laws broad, which leave loops holes because you can argue the intent. Or you can make laws specific and go by the letter of the law. The problem with this approach is that you need lots of laws, because law A doesn't cover something very similar, but slightly different then A. So as you can see, both approaches have thier disadvantages.
You consider "free speech" a basic human right because you live in democracy.
I believe i would think that dispite the government i have. After all, the Framers lived in a monarchy, and still thought people has rights.
Have you visited any other countries that inhibit speech? Is their country violating a human right? Why hasn't the U.N. stepped in to help the suffering people?
No i haven't, but i believe countries that restrict speech are violating rights. Just like political imprisionment violates rights. As to why the UN hasn't addressed it, i can't answer that. I am not involved directly in thier decision making process. I believe they do claim that countries inhibiting speech are violating rights (china, for example), but i'm not 100% sure. They may not be getting involved because sometimes, no matter how good your intentions, interference may do more harm then good. US involvement in Somolia is a good example of this.
I suggest you read the constitution. It clearly limits congress' power, but it does not guarantee you anything. The Bill of Rights is more than a tool, it's a legal document.
I have, and i've also read the Declaration of Independance. Why do you think they bothered writing the Bill of Rights and creating the government in the way they did? It was percisly to protect the rights of people. I never said the Bill of Rights wasn't a legal document either, i said it was more then that.
I agree with you. We have no rights. The only rights we have are called Miranda.
Your statement is pretty confusing. First off, i didn't say that we had no rights. I said that we had rights, even lacking a document that says we do. The wording of the Bill of Rights is such that it doesn't list rights we have, it instead lists limits on Congress to ensure certain rights are not infringed upon. I think it was worded that way so that others could not say 'that right isn't listed in the Bill, so you don't have that right.' Secondly, you say we have no rights, but then say we have rights known as Miranda. So are Miranda rights not rights at all, or do we infact have rights? You seem a bit confused.
Thats for picking up on that, as a few others seem to have missed it. My arguement that it does apply to private entities stems from knowing the philosphy around the Constitution.
People seem to claim that we can't know what the Framers meant, or try to interperate the Consitution and the Bill of Rights outside of the philosophy it is founded on.
If people truely wish to know what they meant, or determine if private entities are not allowed to violate rights or not, one only needs to study the writings of the Framers, and the philosophy they based thier work on, namely Jon Locke and Keyes (forget his first name). Studying Greek history will also shed some light on the subject. Not Atheans however, but Sparta. The notion of seperation of powers comes from Spartan culture.
Thanks for being intelligent in your post, unlike some others that i didn't reply to.
Write this on the back of your hand so you don't lose it... the Constitution ONLY restricts the power of the US Government and the governments of the several States... it haqs NO power over private entities
Ok, except that my point wasn't being argued from a Constitutional standpoint, it was being argued from a human rights standpoint. Basically what i was getting at is that certain right exist reguardless of what any law or group of people say.
This is in line with what the Framers believed. Read the Declaration of Independence and other writings. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of rights; there are other rights people have not mentioned. However, those listed were believed by the Framers to be necessary to ensure that a government cannot infringe on peoples rights. The Bill of Rights is simply a tool to protect people from goverment abuses of their rights. The rights themselves do not come from the document, which is why it is worded the way it is.
I don't see a problem banned a modded xbox, but if they turn it off, shouldn't they be allowed to play online then? It seems that if you're banned, your banned even if you deactivate or remove the mod. Seems a bit too harsh to me.
Since free speech is usually considered a basic human right, it doesn't really matter who is inhibiting it. Just because the first amedment says the gov't can't do it, doesn't mean that anyone else can.
Yes. The free market would not give most of the spectrum to UHF TV, educational broadcasting, and the Catholic Church (not joking).
Fact of the matter is that the spectrum belongs to the public, not whatever companies can pay the most. Thats the reason that educational channels are allowed to have frequencies, even if they are unused. They are available should someone decide to use them. The airwaves don't belong to anyone.
The free market would see to it that services that are actually IN DEMAND would get spectrum.
And there goes the minorities and your average joes voice. Right now anyone can put a show on or put out their message should they choose too. Yes, its underutililzed but i think if more people knew about it that wouldn't be the case.
Don't worry about emergency systems - the military already has more spectrum than it can use.
What crack are you smoking? they have already run out! Either you're a troll or you're a typical uninformed american.
I called verizon wireless with a list of about 10 complaints. One was poor reception in an area they said was covered.
Apparently 'covered' meant that i could use my plans minutes in that area, not that i could actually get a signal.
At any rate, they were sued a few months later by the state; 4 of my 8 complaints were part of the lawsuit.
Unfortunatly, the settlement that came from the class action was that when i bought a new phone, i could get $10 off. But i HAD to get a service contract. Whoopee...
At any rate, that bad experience has caused me never to get a cell phone again. The small conviences are far outweighted by the many annoyances, and in my opinion its still way too expensive and restrictive.
I used one of these self check out lines before. I hated it. I had to hit 4 buttons just to start the scan, and then another number of buttons to check out. It was a pain in the ass. Probably just a sucky interface, but i'd rather give my stuff to a cashier and let them do all the work. Especially if i'm paying the same price as going thru the normal lines.
I suppose, you could be handed a wad of bags as you walk in and just stuff as you go
I'd rather keep the hassel of paying then gain the task of bagging my own groceries. Having worked in a grocery store, i've done more then my fair share of that already.
but that involves planning and rework -- if you pick up bread or eggs first, now you have to shuffle to get those to end up on top.
Usually you do this anyway. I assume most people but the easily smashed stuff at the end of the belt. Not only will it ensure that the cashier doesn't smash your stuff, they can probably bag quicker too. At least, that was my experience.
Slashdot Mirror
During times of war, it is normal to suspend the right to trial (among others). Doing so in peacetime is a dangerous trend, and one which should be viewed with suspicion.
Problem is that doing it in wartime lets them say 'well under some conditions we've done this', making it easier to justify in peacetime. Hell, the gov't right now is saying that we are at war, although nothing's been formally declared.
The information in question is already out there, in the hands of corporations, which have less admirable motives than preventing terrorism, and are not under democratic control.
Nor could they arrest me whenever they felt like, or blackmail me because i bought a copy of debbie does dallas. Or just fabricate something worse. Nowadays they don't even have to arrest a person, just accuse them of something and say they found or strongly suspect something bad.
You want evidence? Try looking up macarthyism. It was only about 50 or so years ago. And that was just the data collection techniques they had then; imagine if they could track everything.
Don't say it the power won't be abused, and what i'm talking about can't happen. It did, and it wasn't that long ago at all.
Ahh, so then your already to the point that you aren't the target market - and so commenting on something that doesn't apply to you.
It does apply to me. Unfortunatly, i'm a verizon customer, and this would only serve to make things worse.
Your reply serves to reinforce that this is the reality today already.. why single Verizon out amongst all the others now?
Correct, and i'm hoping we can turn things such that this is no longer the reality.
Why am i singling out Verizon? Three reasons really. For one, they were the ones responsible for 90% of the crap i started receiving. I know this because for some reason, they had some weird capitalization going on with my name on my monthly bills. 90% of junk mail i got also had this oddity. Two, i'm a verizon customer, and they stand to make things worse then they already are. Three, could it be that perhaps the article was about Verizon? Hmm..
You seem to have a 'its too late, why bother attitude.' Fortunatly for everyone else, civil rights leaders and the revolutionaries in 1776 didn't have such an attitude.
If you aren't swayed by advertising or care.. they art the wolves that keep thy herd healthy.
I'm not swayed, and i don't care what they have to say. I do however care that they are wasting my time or calling me during dinner.
So tell me, why are you so against seemingly anything that i could use not to be annoyed? If we had an opt-in system, people such as yourself that truely value the ideas that verizon will create based on your personal data could opt-int, and people like me would be happily left alone.
And how is that bad? Your going to see advertising and product promos for stuff you are interested in, rather than seeing tonnes of ads and junk for shit you would bever be interested in. I wish TV companies would do that same so that I don't have to watch ads for tampons and diapers which are not marketable to me.
I don't want to be called or mailed ads for anything. I'm perfectly capable of finding the things i want on my own. Half the mail i get now i throw out without even openning. What a waste of my time and the earth's resources. I don't see ads for tampons or diapers. Probably b/c i don't watch the shows that would attract those ads. Most ads i don't watch anyway, i use that time to do other things.
You seem to think that this is going to replace your brain or something...
No, it just wastes my time sorting through mail, or really pissing me off whne i'm trying to eat dinner and i get some jackass trying to sell me something i don't want or need.
Imagine that, saving money on the calls to your family in Ohio? what a bunch of bastards they are!
I did the research when i got long distance for the lowest rate. I pay less then 5c per minute. Can't get much cheaper then that. Honestly, even if there was something cheaper, i wouldn't care. The expense is already low enough for me, so why bother switching if i'm happy with my current provider?
And the data they are selling is very generealized.. "this demeographic likes to make calls at this time - so at this time, play the hold music this demographics likes, and during this time, play an ad for something this demographic wants to purchase."
Read the article. Its not demographic info. They already do that! Why would anyone be upset if it was demo information that they've already been selling? I don't think anyone cares if they are rolled up into an aggragate dataset...but thats not the case here.
you no doubt already get small flyers or ads with your utility bills.. which likely get thrown away and never looked at because they are for something you don't want.. imagine if they could put something useful to you in there instead.. how does that hurt you?
Yes i do, and i throw them away. If it were something i liked...hmm i'd still throw it away. 90% of ads are things that everyone already knows about. Coke, pepsi, toyota. Sales don't make me go out and buy things, neither does showing me something i already know existed. None of the things that i find interesting do i find via ads. Its word of mouth, or i'll see it when i'm in the store.
You will still have your small brain to make your own decisions yourself, they aren't forcing anything on you.
Ah, i see now that you are probably a troll, having to resort to insults because you don't really have any point. As for my 'small brain', i've been through college, and have my degree in computer science. I already do make my own decisions, which is why i'm not swayed by advertising. as far as forcing things on me goes, they're disturbing my dinners, and forcing me to sort through their crap before i find the mail i really want.
Evolve, this will be the future of business and already exists in many industries now... This peasant argument of yours should have been brought forth to the lords about 20 years ago.
I'll be working hard to make sure this isn't the future of buisness. It would be hard for me to bring it up 20 years ago; i wasn't even 5 years old yet.
They didn't have a monopoly because the government enforced it, they had it because they then owned all the lines. Until the 80s, the telcos had largely been left alone by the government. I think you need to spend some time reading history books or watching the history channel, i'm not sure where you get your ideas.
And as i was trying to point out, they do specifically care about me. I'm sure they've already been tracking demographic and aggragate data. Obviously this is something different, which is why people are now upset.
Most likely, the service (phone companies provide a service, not product..) will stay the same, or perhaps get worse. And it won't have anything to do with this data.
What will happen is that my phone number (and possibly the numbers of people i call) will be sold, and will have even more people calling me with products and services i really don't care about. My personal favorite is the bank that wants to help me refinance my mortgage, although i've told them repeatedly i live in an apartment.
there really isn't anything else phone companies can provide that i'd want / need. As it is, i can find at most 2 that i find useful, and they already have dozens.
I assume you're refering to survival of the fittest?
I guess it depends on your view of man. Is man just another animal, governed by Darwins theories? Or is man special, because we have logic, and logical beings will conclude that they have certain rights.
Obviously we'll disgree if we start off with differing opinions of what man is.
Your taking it out of context, a more realistic likening would be google ranking pages based on the number of clickthroughs on their own search results. This ranking helps you and I locate useful information rapidly, it doesn't tell anyone about your personal web activity.
Out of context? From the article: "had plans to begin a data-sharing system that allowed the company and its affiliates to collect information on when, where and how often customers make telephone calls. It would use that data to sell new products and services to customers."
Sounds pretty specific to me. It seems that if i call my grandparents once a week and other family in OH 2 times a month, i'm likely to start getting phone calls on how i can 'reduce' my monthly bills.
Now, i don't think any buisness has a right to know everything about me so they can make money. Maybe they should be paying the people who have not opted out for the privledge of selling thier information. After all, if what i do is so valuable that companies fight tooth and nail to use it however they want, making it as difficult for me to optout as possible, i should be paid for the value i'm providing them.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because they didn't list it, doesn't mean its any less important or applicable then the right to free speech.
Verizon does not have this right or any other rights, in my opnion, because Verizon is not a person.
I guess it depends. Did i open the door just enough to get the pizza and pay you, or did i invite you through the door while i went to get the money?
In the end though, i'd think you wouldn't have a right to say what you say what you saw in someones house. What if you did speak of what you saw, including a really nice tv, and then a few days later i get robbed? Didn't you play some role in that since its likely that if you hadn't said anything, i wouldn't have been robbed.
At any rate, you have to look at things on a case by case basis. We can play what if all day, but in the case this thread is about (Verizon), they clearly don't have the right to sell your phone habits without your express permission.
details the United States Federal Government's actions in creating the AT&T telephone monopoly, for various political and nonmarket purposes.
Actually, thats wrong. Bell invented the phone, which required a line between 2 phones. If you wanted to call someone, you ran a wire to thier house. For everyone you wanted to call, you ran another line to thier house. This lead to obvious problems (the web, eheh).
Bell came up with the solution; running all the wires to a central place, and from there connecting the caller with the callee. Thats when you had the switchboard operator to connect your call; literally plug your wire into the righ place for the person you were calling.
Let me give a you a clue here, no one in the world gives a fuck about who you call and how often you do.
If you read the article, you would have noticed thats exactly what they care about, so they can 'talior service to each customer's needs.'
Personally, i do care who knows about the calls i make. Its called privacy, its nothing thats very difficult to understand.
Um, i don't think this is the same as otehr buisnesses everywhere. If i buy a car, the dealer doesn't know where or how often i drive it. There are many things i buy that the manufacter doesn't know how i use it.
Personally, what i do in my house is none of anyone else's buisness. I do have the right to privacy, unlike verizon which does not have the right to free speech, since the company is not a person. Even if they did, a right to free speech does not grant someone a right to violate my right to privacy.
Now, when you're in prison, you don't have the same rights as everybody else.
...I agree that a person that infringes on anothers rights should be punished. Currently we imprision those that do, but we do have to be careful here. Those wrongfully imprisioned have had thier rights unjustly infringed upon and we cannot ignore that.
Be careful with that, it can be a very dangerous thing to believe.
When you go to prison, you have demonstrated that you are not capable of handling the freedoms society has given you.
Society does not grant freedom; people inherently have it. However...
Thus, society has the right to take those freedoms away for a period of time.
A service contract isn't a law though, and i don't see why the police are getting involved in this.
By your logic, if you came into my home and started using racial slurs to my family or me I would not have the right to ask you to leave because free speech is a human right. How many Jehovah's witnessed knocked on your door? Did you know that when you turned them away you were violating their basic human rights?
Not at all. People also have the right to property and privacy. If you don't want someone on your property that is your right. If you tell someone you're not interested in hearing what they are saying that is your right as well, and the Jehovah's witnesses should respect it. People have the right to free speech; but they don't have the right to force others to listen.
It's naive to think that laws are enforced according to the spirit of the law as opposed to the wording of the law. Ever hear of "loopholes"?
It's also naive to go with the exact letter of the law. This is a problem discribed in a philosophy of law class. You can make laws broad, which leave loops holes because you can argue the intent. Or you can make laws specific and go by the letter of the law. The problem with this approach is that you need lots of laws, because law A doesn't cover something very similar, but slightly different then A. So as you can see, both approaches have thier disadvantages.
You consider "free speech" a basic human right because you live in democracy.
I believe i would think that dispite the government i have. After all, the Framers lived in a monarchy, and still thought people has rights.
Have you visited any other countries that inhibit speech? Is their country violating a human right? Why hasn't the U.N. stepped in to help the suffering people?
No i haven't, but i believe countries that restrict speech are violating rights. Just like political imprisionment violates rights. As to why the UN hasn't addressed it, i can't answer that. I am not involved directly in thier decision making process. I believe they do claim that countries inhibiting speech are violating rights (china, for example), but i'm not 100% sure. They may not be getting involved because sometimes, no matter how good your intentions, interference may do more harm then good. US involvement in Somolia is a good example of this.
I suggest you read the constitution. It clearly limits congress' power, but it does not guarantee you anything. The Bill of Rights is more than a tool, it's a legal document.
I have, and i've also read the Declaration of Independance. Why do you think they bothered writing the Bill of Rights and creating the government in the way they did? It was percisly to protect the rights of people. I never said the Bill of Rights wasn't a legal document either, i said it was more then that.
I agree with you. We have no rights. The only rights we have are called Miranda.
Your statement is pretty confusing. First off, i didn't say that we had no rights. I said that we had rights, even lacking a document that says we do. The wording of the Bill of Rights is such that it doesn't list rights we have, it instead lists limits on Congress to ensure certain rights are not infringed upon. I think it was worded that way so that others could not say 'that right isn't listed in the Bill, so you don't have that right.' Secondly, you say we have no rights, but then say we have rights known as Miranda. So are Miranda rights not rights at all, or do we infact have rights? You seem a bit confused.
Thats for picking up on that, as a few others seem to have missed it. My arguement that it does apply to private entities stems from knowing the philosphy around the Constitution.
People seem to claim that we can't know what the Framers meant, or try to interperate the Consitution and the Bill of Rights outside of the philosophy it is founded on.
If people truely wish to know what they meant, or determine if private entities are not allowed to violate rights or not, one only needs to study the writings of the Framers, and the philosophy they based thier work on, namely Jon Locke and Keyes (forget his first name). Studying Greek history will also shed some light on the subject. Not Atheans however, but Sparta. The notion of seperation of powers comes from Spartan culture.
Thanks for being intelligent in your post, unlike some others that i didn't reply to.
Write this on the back of your hand so you don't lose it ... the Constitution ONLY restricts the power of the US Government and the governments of the several States ... it haqs NO power over private entities
Ok, except that my point wasn't being argued from a Constitutional standpoint, it was being argued from a human rights standpoint. Basically what i was getting at is that certain right exist reguardless of what any law or group of people say.
This is in line with what the Framers believed. Read the Declaration of Independence and other writings. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of rights; there are other rights people have not mentioned. However, those listed were believed by the Framers to be necessary to ensure that a government cannot infringe on peoples rights. The Bill of Rights is simply a tool to protect people from goverment abuses of their rights. The rights themselves do not come from the document, which is why it is worded the way it is.
I don't see a problem banned a modded xbox, but if they turn it off, shouldn't they be allowed to play online then? It seems that if you're banned, your banned even if you deactivate or remove the mod. Seems a bit too harsh to me.
Since free speech is usually considered a basic human right, it doesn't really matter who is inhibiting it. Just because the first amedment says the gov't can't do it, doesn't mean that anyone else can.
Yes. The free market would not give most of the spectrum to UHF TV, educational broadcasting, and the Catholic Church (not joking).
Fact of the matter is that the spectrum belongs to the public, not whatever companies can pay the most. Thats the reason that educational channels are allowed to have frequencies, even if they are unused. They are available should someone decide to use them. The airwaves don't belong to anyone.
The free market would see to it that services that are actually IN DEMAND would get spectrum.
And there goes the minorities and your average joes voice. Right now anyone can put a show on or put out their message should they choose too. Yes, its underutililzed but i think if more people knew about it that wouldn't be the case.
Don't worry about emergency systems - the military already has more spectrum than it can use.
What crack are you smoking? they have already run out! Either you're a troll or you're a typical uninformed american.
I called verizon wireless with a list of about 10 complaints. One was poor reception in an area they said was covered.
Apparently 'covered' meant that i could use my plans minutes in that area, not that i could actually get a signal.
At any rate, they were sued a few months later by the state; 4 of my 8 complaints were part of the lawsuit.
Unfortunatly, the settlement that came from the class action was that when i bought a new phone, i could get $10 off. But i HAD to get a service contract. Whoopee...
At any rate, that bad experience has caused me never to get a cell phone again. The small conviences are far outweighted by the many annoyances, and in my opinion its still way too expensive and restrictive.
I used one of these self check out lines before. I hated it. I had to hit 4 buttons just to start the scan, and then another number of buttons to check out. It was a pain in the ass. Probably just a sucky interface, but i'd rather give my stuff to a cashier and let them do all the work. Especially if i'm paying the same price as going thru the normal lines.
I suppose, you could be handed a wad of bags as you walk in and just stuff as you go
I'd rather keep the hassel of paying then gain the task of bagging my own groceries. Having worked in a grocery store, i've done more then my fair share of that already.
but that involves planning and rework -- if you pick up bread or eggs first, now you have to shuffle to get those to end up on top.
Usually you do this anyway. I assume most people but the easily smashed stuff at the end of the belt. Not only will it ensure that the cashier doesn't smash your stuff, they can probably bag quicker too. At least, that was my experience.
As long as they have a machine that accepts cash, no problem!