Re:What if the government is run by another Hitler
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
If you are not constantly in danger, then why do these protections need to be installed in the first place?
Yes, airplanes are a higher risk of being blown up. So might be gov't buildings. Which is why we all for tighter security at these places. But most other places, you are in no danger, EVEN WITHOUT THE 'PROTECTIONS.' I mean, people have been going to football games for years without these protections without getting blown up, so why install these things if you're not in real danger???
And you know what; maybe rights are worth peoples lives. You seem to forget that people died to get these rights worked into a system of gov't, that they had to fight pretty hard to do it. Brush up on your history dude, the colonies didn't just say "We are independant now, and England said 'Oh ok, no problem.'"
You make some other very bad analogies. Locking your door and installing cameras everywhere are two different things. The most important difference is that a lock doesn't invade my privacy at all. So your comparision is meaningless.
I find it amusing that you call us privacy nazis; Nazi Germany and probably modern day China were/are pretty safe, yet i don't think you'd like living under thier rule.
Security requires monitoring; privacy requires you not be monitored. So tell me, how do you NOT lose your privacy when you increase your security?
Re:What if the government is run by another Hitler
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
Can I trust you not to be a bomb wielding maniac at a football game?
Actually ya you can. How many times have you or your friend been blown up by a bomb wielding maniac at a football game? Even come close to it? Have most people???? No? Well then ya, i'd say your chances are pretty low...maybe you should move underground, since you have a better chance of being hit by a meteor.
You think you're constantly in danger from the people around you, and you call privacy rights groups paranoid???? Geez, wake up...
Re:What of right against UNREASONABLE SEARCH&SIEZU
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
I'd have to agree. This (and drug checkpoints on random roads) seems like an unreasonable search; that is, they don't have any proof that someone even MIGHT be up to something.
Actually 2 years ago i was able to play a 3d game on wine. Mortal Kombat 4...of course it may have been using glide, but i was suprised to find it actually ran alot faster then on windows. Thats something i didn't expect.
or in bind? There is as difference. I could just as easily say that a DNS server package (3rd party) for NT was full of holes, but does that mean that NT itself is? Hardly. While they may have some other good points, this is just FUD. Or maybe the MS guy is pretty damn ignorant.
I dunno; since i've been alive these things have been around. But i would there there's a difference between making yourself temporarly infertle and making an exact gentic clone of you. As far as vaccinations go...thats the right way to deal with disease. You're working with nature in that case. you get to learn how to fight off a severely weak form of virus before you get hit with the stronger variant. In any event, your body does learn how to attack and repell disease, the vaccines just give your body more time to adapt.
Cloning is on a whole other level; it gets very close to playing god, and i had hoped we learned that playing god only leads to disaster.
Scientists that throw morals to the wind i think are a problem. I would hope no scientist would want to create something that caused death and destruction, and indeed, if all scientests took this stance, maybe we wouldn't have mustard gas.
I don't think its the gov't; people were fighting long before there was a formal gov't.
I don't think scientists are the ones that should be making the choice. They have in the past, after all, creating things that do no good to anyone (mustard gas comes to mind). This probably isn't something we should be messing with...it has a very bad feeling to it.
Besides, isn't cloning humans outlawed by the world court or something?
Because of budget cutbacks and an increasing number of patents, the average time a person at the USPO spends researching an incomming patent is something around 14 minutes...
They are way too understaffed for the amount of work that needs to be done, but they are still under pressure to work quickly. Hence, many patents are rubber stamped with only a cursory reading.
Actually, they probably would be doing a better job if A) the number of patents filed had not increased sharply and B) the office didn't get its budget cut, forcing the lawoff of many of the researchers there.
Actually since someone already DOES have the patent, the court would probably transfer the patent to the first person that 'invented' something. Of course, if someone else did something before him, they could get the patent, etc.
Not only that, but even though in a few countries the spread of AIDS forced them to declare a state of emergency (and thus allow reseach into drugs that would help against it, reguardless of any patents), but the WTO said 'No, you can't ignore patents b/c AIDS is killing your entire nation.' That, and many other 'great' things the WTO has done for us can be found here:
Your washing machine anology isn't quite right. Suppose that you did modify the washing machine as you said. Now say it works differently, but the manufactor comes and destroys it with a sledge hammer. Actually here's a better example; you use your computer to hack someones site. Do they have a right to hack your computer and format your hard drive? Probably not. And i don't think they could say 'Well if you hadn't cracked us your computer would be fine.'
At any rate the point is moot since the chip never left the ownership of DTV. The only question is if they still had to 'buy' it but not really get ownership rights.
Dude, you really need to get a fucking life, ok. Obviously you are way more dim then i am, since you cannot find anything better to do then point out a simple typo. My god...
In that case i would have to point out there is a difference between illegal hardware, and using the hardware for illegal purposes. I wouldn't say that the hardware is illegal, however using it to get free service would be. Just like owning a crowbar would not be a crime in inself, using it to break into a house would be. I would hope the law distinguishes from that as well.
That doesn't fly to well with me. when i get a sub made, the service is someone making the sub. I still pay for the food itself, and when the sub is made, i own it.
Ya, well i don't care what the hell the EULA says, i own the damn thing, and will proceed to do whatever i want with it. I also don't think these have been challenged in court.
DirecTv does deserve kudo's, esp the 'game over'. superb and deserving
Oh i agree. That was very classy, and since the cards still were the property of DTV, there was no wrongdoing on thier part. Who owns the card makes a difference:) I admit i laughed and thought that was damn smooth.
The only problem with that is if you had infact bought the card, it would not be stolen. I mean, that would imply DTV stole the card the sold you, which is ubsurd, since they are the ones that made it to begin with!
I would hope that would not be the case. Its odd that you would buy something yet not own it; i don't think any contract would make that legal either. You probalby therefore only bought the other pieces of equipment, and were not forced to 'purchase' (and if you don't own it, that term doesn't even work) the card.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are not constantly in danger, then why do these protections need to be installed in the first place?
Yes, airplanes are a higher risk of being blown up. So might be gov't buildings. Which is why we all for tighter security at these places. But most other places, you are in no danger, EVEN WITHOUT THE 'PROTECTIONS.' I mean, people have been going to football games for years without these protections without getting blown up, so why install these things if you're not in real danger???
And you know what; maybe rights are worth peoples lives. You seem to forget that people died to get these rights worked into a system of gov't, that they had to fight pretty hard to do it. Brush up on your history dude, the colonies didn't just say "We are independant now, and England said 'Oh ok, no problem.'"
You make some other very bad analogies. Locking your door and installing cameras everywhere are two different things. The most important difference is that a lock doesn't invade my privacy at all. So your comparision is meaningless.
I find it amusing that you call us privacy nazis; Nazi Germany and probably modern day China were/are pretty safe, yet i don't think you'd like living under thier rule.
Security requires monitoring; privacy requires you not be monitored. So tell me, how do you NOT lose your privacy when you increase your security?
Can I trust you not to be a bomb wielding maniac at a football game?
Actually ya you can. How many times have you or your friend been blown up by a bomb wielding maniac at a football game? Even come close to it? Have most people???? No? Well then ya, i'd say your chances are pretty low...maybe you should move underground, since you have a better chance of being hit by a meteor.
You think you're constantly in danger from the people around you, and you call privacy rights groups paranoid???? Geez, wake up...
I'd have to agree. This (and drug checkpoints on random roads) seems like an unreasonable search; that is, they don't have any proof that someone even MIGHT be up to something.
What about people's right to privacy? You have it even if youi go out you know...
Actually 2 years ago i was able to play a 3d game on wine. Mortal Kombat 4...of course it may have been using glide, but i was suprised to find it actually ran alot faster then on windows. Thats something i didn't expect.
or in bind? There is as difference. I could just as easily say that a DNS server package (3rd party) for NT was full of holes, but does that mean that NT itself is? Hardly. While they may have some other good points, this is just FUD. Or maybe the MS guy is pretty damn ignorant.
I dunno; since i've been alive these things have been around. But i would there there's a difference between making yourself temporarly infertle and making an exact gentic clone of you. As far as vaccinations go...thats the right way to deal with disease. You're working with nature in that case. you get to learn how to fight off a severely weak form of virus before you get hit with the stronger variant. In any event, your body does learn how to attack and repell disease, the vaccines just give your body more time to adapt.
Cloning is on a whole other level; it gets very close to playing god, and i had hoped we learned that playing god only leads to disaster.
Scientists that throw morals to the wind i think are a problem. I would hope no scientist would want to create something that caused death and destruction, and indeed, if all scientests took this stance, maybe we wouldn't have mustard gas.
I don't think its the gov't; people were fighting long before there was a formal gov't.
I don't think scientists are the ones that should be making the choice. They have in the past, after all, creating things that do no good to anyone (mustard gas comes to mind). This probably isn't something we should be messing with...it has a very bad feeling to it.
Besides, isn't cloning humans outlawed by the world court or something?
Opps, you're right...i did mean layoff :)
Except that the USPO has been forcably downsized as of late...
Actually if that third world country is part of the WTO, they are screwed.
Because of budget cutbacks and an increasing number of patents, the average time a person at the USPO spends researching an incomming patent is something around 14 minutes...
They are way too understaffed for the amount of work that needs to be done, but they are still under pressure to work quickly. Hence, many patents are rubber stamped with only a cursory reading.
Actually, they probably would be doing a better job if A) the number of patents filed had not increased sharply and B) the office didn't get its budget cut, forcing the lawoff of many of the researchers there.
Actually since someone already DOES have the patent, the court would probably transfer the patent to the first person that 'invented' something. Of course, if someone else did something before him, they could get the patent, etc.
Not only that, but even though in a few countries the spread of AIDS forced them to declare a state of emergency (and thus allow reseach into drugs that would help against it, reguardless of any patents), but the WTO said 'No, you can't ignore patents b/c AIDS is killing your entire nation.' That, and many other 'great' things the WTO has done for us can be found here:
http://www.ifg.org/aboutwto.html
http://www.ifg.org/forestreport.html
http://www.ifg.org/bgsummary.html
Your washing machine anology isn't quite right. Suppose that you did modify the washing machine as you said. Now say it works differently, but the manufactor comes and destroys it with a sledge hammer. Actually here's a better example; you use your computer to hack someones site. Do they have a right to hack your computer and format your hard drive? Probably not. And i don't think they could say 'Well if you hadn't cracked us your computer would be fine.'
At any rate the point is moot since the chip never left the ownership of DTV. The only question is if they still had to 'buy' it but not really get ownership rights.
Heh..if i'm not gonna own it, i should not pay for it.
And i'd have to agree w/you on the brand name thing, people need a clue.
Dude, you really need to get a fucking life, ok. Obviously you are way more dim then i am, since you cannot find anything better to do then point out a simple typo. My god...
In that case i would have to point out there is a difference between illegal hardware, and using the hardware for illegal purposes. I wouldn't say that the hardware is illegal, however using it to get free service would be. Just like owning a crowbar would not be a crime in inself, using it to break into a house would be. I would hope the law distinguishes from that as well.
That doesn't fly to well with me. when i get a sub made, the service is someone making the sub. I still pay for the food itself, and when the sub is made, i own it.
Ya, well i don't care what the hell the EULA says, i own the damn thing, and will proceed to do whatever i want with it. I also don't think these have been challenged in court.
DirecTv does deserve kudo's, esp the 'game over'. superb and deserving
:) I admit i laughed and thought that was damn smooth.
Oh i agree. That was very classy, and since the cards still were the property of DTV, there was no wrongdoing on thier part. Who owns the card makes a difference
The only problem with that is if you had infact bought the card, it would not be stolen. I mean, that would imply DTV stole the card the sold you, which is ubsurd, since they are the ones that made it to begin with!
Even though you bought it, you don't own it.
I would hope that would not be the case. Its odd that you would buy something yet not own it; i don't think any contract would make that legal either. You probalby therefore only bought the other pieces of equipment, and were not forced to 'purchase' (and if you don't own it, that term doesn't even work) the card.