(emphasis mine) My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown.
Your counter-argument is fighting a strawman.
Most pro-lifers will carve out exceptions in their stand for cases where the mother's life is in danger.
The question really is whether the convenience of people who already exist takes priority over the life of the unborn. Since most abortions are voluntary (and not for medical reasons), the pro-abortionists seem to value a woman's convenience over her fetus' life.
The funny thing is, we impeach such "people in power" over a lie (that too, coming from a misunderstanding of terminology)
A lie under oath, of course, which is otherwise known as perjury. And you can't seriously believe that this was an innocent misunderstanding of terminology. Puh-lease. Here was the chief executive of the US extending his middle finger at the judicial branch. In his oath of office, he pledged to respect the constitution, and he broke that oath. Therefore, he was impeached (and rightfully so).
when it comes to their personal business like having "sex" with an intern
Can you imagine what the women's groups would be saying if it was George W. Bush who had sex with an intern? They would be screaming for his head on "sexual harrassment" charges (since he is technically the superior of a White House intern).
but nothing gets done about a President lying to the world and taking a country to war for no reason.
It certainly wasn't for "no reason", it just wasn't for a very good reason. And you're absolutely right that something should be done, but nothing will...
On the subject of Peter Jackson, is there anyone else who feels that, in hindsight, the LOTR trilogy was maybe not quite as great as it could have been?
I completely agree. I'm sure you could've done a much better job than Jackson did.
Does anyone else aside from me feel very disappointed in the casting of Liv Tyler? I had expected a more delicate, nuanced -- hell, elfin look to my elves, especially one who was such an exemplar. I mean, look at Orlando Bloom as Legolas.
Tyler makes me think "heavy," "slow" and, forgive me, "stupid."
Not to mention "butt ugly" and "incompetent actress". Seriously, they could've gotten someone much better to play the part. Why they chose her, I'll never understand. And why the fanboys on Slashdot drool over her is completely beyond my comprehension. I mean, Natalie Portman is understandable (ok, she's not that hot, but she's at least attractive), but Liv Tyler is such a fucking stupid looking bitch...
Why do people always have to drag Google into this sort of thing?
Because it works. Though I suppose it would be more of a challenge to do it with MSN Search... I wonder if "MSNDorks" think they're more 1337 than "Googledorks".
Of course many will argue (correctly IMNSHO) that the music distribution also pushes the boundaries of morality and legality, but the key difference is that their core business is not directly about sex.
So I suppose that Britney sells all those albums because people think she's a good singer? Gimme a break... since at least the 50's (Elvis), and accelerating after MTV became popular (mid-80's), music has been about image (read: sex) more than music. The way they pimp out teens based upon their "sex appeal" is sickening. Now, granted, the pr0n industry does the same thing, but at least they wait until the girls are legally adults.
Good points, however I think you're underestimating the probability that criminals and law enforcement will adapt to the presence of cameras.
When a criminal breaks into a house and grabs a stereo system, there's very little that can be done after the fact if there were no witnesses. The police won't go after a minor property crime unless they have an easy lead.
Okay, so there's a camera, and you get a description of the guy: he's a white guy, about 6' tall, dressed in all black, with long brown hair. Now what? How many white guys are there who are about 6' tall (note: he could've been wearing a wig, and can obviously change clothes)? You're basically no further ahead than you were, and the cops still won't investigate. Of course, it will help solve (some) spontaneous crimes, but any premeditated crime will just need to be planned a wee bit better.
If Buford T. Justice has a penchant for bullying and threatening teenage girls, recording devices would make the pattern easy to confirm, and modern printing technology would make his pink slip easy to produce.
Since Sgt. Justice knows where the cameras are/aren't, he's going to just bully these girls when the cameras aren't on (when he's off-duty, or outside of the camera's view, after he's turned the camera off, etc.). He'd have to be a complete idiot to know he's being filmed and still do it.
The solution to the potential abuses may actually be very straightforward: Watch the watchers. Turn the cameras on the people who are charged with using the cameras to protect us. Make their every observation a matter of public record, and then let the usefully paranoid among us go through that record with a fine-toothed comb, asking the uncomfortable questions that the authorities don't want to have to answer.
Straightforward in theory, but difficult to implement in practice. The public would need to control the cameras, and I can't see that going over well with law enforcement. Cops usually don't like the Internal Affairs cops, so imagine what they might do to "citizen IA cops". It also opens up whole new avenues for abuse. Imagine a criminal pretending to be one of these "usefully paranoid" so that he can get a better idea of current police tactics/preparations. It seems that in order to prevent abuse, you'd have to watch the watchers of the watchers, and then watch the people watching them, etc. Everybody-watching-everybody all the time would be the only way it could work. (For the record, I volunteer to watch the hottie who lives next door to me.)
Not really, let's say they're each making 50k. 50 million a year. It stays 50 million a year, no matter how many people become the beneficiaries. Money isn't magical, one euro doesn't magically become two because another business moves into the neighborhood in order to serve the workers.
And what do they do with that 50 million a year? Stuff it under their mattresses? No, they spend it in the local economy, buying food, clothes, etc. for their families... and the local government gets a cut via the sales tax. Further, this increased spending on necessities and luxuries of life spawns the need for new workers, who receive a paycheck... and the government gets a cut via the income tax. And with this money, they spend it in the local economy... and the local government gets a cut via the sales tax. And so forth. So yes, money is magical as far as the government is concerned, since they get a cut out of any transaction.
Now, the above assumes that all new workers have to move to Dresden from other areas. But the same statements are true if the new workers are local residents who are receiving a lower salary (in which case it's less than 50 million, of course) or unemployed, which actually doubles the benefit, as they're no longer receiving public assistance.
Manditory DNA testing is invasive. You own your body cells, so even if its just discarded material found on your tooth brush or fingernail clippings, its invasive.
You're going to claim absolute ownership of all of your discarded skin cells, hair cells, etc. for all of the years of your life? Give me a break... But in any case, manditory DNA testing is no more invasive than manditory fingerprinting.
Fingerprinting requires that you be detained -- in effect under arrest. Without a crime, it is considered in most of the world false imprisonment (if not legally, morally).
Fingerprinting no longer (in the US) requires that you be under arrest. Non-US citizens who enter the country (at least on some flights) will be photographed and fingerprinted... without being arrested or even accused of any crime. It's only a matter of time before this gets applied to all people entering the country, and eventually to everyone (on demand).
I get annoyed when cops follow me -- that is a threatening physical form of intimidation, but cameras?
In my opinion, there are two problems with being followed by cops. First, as you said, it is a threatening physical form of intimidation. However, perhaps even more importantly, you most likely haven't done anything wrong. The cop is simply following you while he performs a license plate check, and/or hoping that you will do something wrong so he can pull you over. And why is he following you? It could be something as simple as having an out-of-state license plate, or weaving a little bit, or being the "wrong"/"right" color/gender. This focused attention for trivial reasons can be abused.
Either you are an idiot or a criminal, or a combination of both if you think this effects you in any way.
You are naive if you think that this can't affect you. You complain about cops following you, but if they have cameras installed everywhere, the cops can be tracking you on a continual basis. And as above, this can be for trivial or circumstantial reasons: perhaps your brother is linked to drug dealers who have just been raided, or your girlfriend's brother's friend gave money to an islamic charity that turned out to be a front for a "terrorist" organization, or you're a woman and some creep who has access to the surveillance cameras decides to stalk you... The main point is that this much power to track people will be abused.
They make an application, then try loading it on progessively lower spec'd machines. When they finally get to a machine that it doesn't work on they back up to the last one and call that the requirements.
That's interesting... it's very similar to the way they measure the load limit on bridges.
Palm 98 is just like Palm 95, except it doesn't crash as much.
Palm 2000 is the first stable palm.
Palm XP is the Palm Experience... something most Slashdotters are already familiar with.
So call your credit card company and have them refuse to pay MS. I believe most credit cards give you 60 days to contest charges, starting from when the charge is received. Most likely, they'll just take the charge off your credit card statement, and you won't have to deal with it again. Either MS will back down, or your credit card will eat the cost (and pass the expense on to all of us through higher interest rates), but either way it won't be your problem...
If you're real anti-MS, you can probably call your Better Business Bureau and get them involved first, since it sounds to me like you have a pretty reasonable case against them.
I've heard so much about the so-called "Rebellion" whenever Linux is mentioned. Sometimes I gotta admit that I dunno what they are talking about.
A lot of Linux users think like you do... many also don't have anything particularly against Windows, they just like Linux better.
However, Microsoft views this as a war, and is acting accordingly. Many Linux users realize this, and are fighting back, because sometimes non-violent resistance isn't the best strategy.
The ISPs know full well what the public thinks they are getting when they advertise their service as "unlimited," thus, if that is not actually what they intend to deliver they are, in the technical language that applies to such legal matters, "Lying Bastards" and should be treated as such.
I propose that we all send our monthly bills to them payable in Canadian dollars. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Lastly, and I usually hate when people say this sort of thing, anyone bumping into that limit EVERY month is a warez monkey (not that I even disapprove or care about that).
Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.
From the article:
A few other cameras pop up, but nothing exciting -- until the financial district, where on the same block as the office cam, MWD's receiver picks up the very freeway camera that marked the start of the expedition. The camera is more than two miles away, while most wireless video cameras have trouble reaching the curb. The appearance of the signal so far from its source energizes the team. "That's definitely the catch of the night there," says MWD.
So the "catch of the night" is a freeway camera. Woo-hoo! Oh well, at least now I know there are bigger dorks than myself.
Slashdot Mirror
My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown.
Your counter-argument is fighting a strawman. Most pro-lifers will carve out exceptions in their stand for cases where the mother's life is in danger.
The question really is whether the convenience of people who already exist takes priority over the life of the unborn. Since most abortions are voluntary (and not for medical reasons), the pro-abortionists seem to value a woman's convenience over her fetus' life.
Sure I can. What I'm having trouble imagining is the family values Republicans attacking George over that as viciously as they went after Clinton.
Good point. There's boatloads of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. That's why the only good choice is to vote independent/3rd party.
A lie under oath, of course, which is otherwise known as perjury. And you can't seriously believe that this was an innocent misunderstanding of terminology. Puh-lease. Here was the chief executive of the US extending his middle finger at the judicial branch. In his oath of office, he pledged to respect the constitution, and he broke that oath. Therefore, he was impeached (and rightfully so).
when it comes to their personal business like having "sex" with an intern
Can you imagine what the women's groups would be saying if it was George W. Bush who had sex with an intern? They would be screaming for his head on "sexual harrassment" charges (since he is technically the superior of a White House intern).
but nothing gets done about a President lying to the world and taking a country to war for no reason.
It certainly wasn't for "no reason", it just wasn't for a very good reason. And you're absolutely right that something should be done, but nothing will...
Yup... the British non-union equivalent of Bill Nye.
Got any proof of that or are you just talking out of your ass? Yeah, I thought so.
I completely agree. I'm sure you could've done a much better job than Jackson did.
Tyler makes me think "heavy," "slow" and, forgive me, "stupid."
Not to mention "butt ugly" and "incompetent actress". Seriously, they could've gotten someone much better to play the part. Why they chose her, I'll never understand. And why the fanboys on Slashdot drool over her is completely beyond my comprehension. I mean, Natalie Portman is understandable (ok, she's not that hot, but she's at least attractive), but Liv Tyler is such a fucking stupid looking bitch...
Competent ones?
Because it works. Though I suppose it would be more of a challenge to do it with MSN Search... I wonder if "MSNDorks" think they're more 1337 than "Googledorks".
So I suppose that Britney sells all those albums because people think she's a good singer? Gimme a break... since at least the 50's (Elvis), and accelerating after MTV became popular (mid-80's), music has been about image (read: sex) more than music. The way they pimp out teens based upon their "sex appeal" is sickening. Now, granted, the pr0n industry does the same thing, but at least they wait until the girls are legally adults.
When a criminal breaks into a house and grabs a stereo system, there's very little that can be done after the fact if there were no witnesses. The police won't go after a minor property crime unless they have an easy lead.
Okay, so there's a camera, and you get a description of the guy: he's a white guy, about 6' tall, dressed in all black, with long brown hair. Now what? How many white guys are there who are about 6' tall (note: he could've been wearing a wig, and can obviously change clothes)? You're basically no further ahead than you were, and the cops still won't investigate. Of course, it will help solve (some) spontaneous crimes, but any premeditated crime will just need to be planned a wee bit better.
If Buford T. Justice has a penchant for bullying and threatening teenage girls, recording devices would make the pattern easy to confirm, and modern printing technology would make his pink slip easy to produce.
Since Sgt. Justice knows where the cameras are/aren't, he's going to just bully these girls when the cameras aren't on (when he's off-duty, or outside of the camera's view, after he's turned the camera off, etc.). He'd have to be a complete idiot to know he's being filmed and still do it.
The solution to the potential abuses may actually be very straightforward: Watch the watchers. Turn the cameras on the people who are charged with using the cameras to protect us. Make their every observation a matter of public record, and then let the usefully paranoid among us go through that record with a fine-toothed comb, asking the uncomfortable questions that the authorities don't want to have to answer.
Straightforward in theory, but difficult to implement in practice. The public would need to control the cameras, and I can't see that going over well with law enforcement. Cops usually don't like the Internal Affairs cops, so imagine what they might do to "citizen IA cops". It also opens up whole new avenues for abuse. Imagine a criminal pretending to be one of these "usefully paranoid" so that he can get a better idea of current police tactics/preparations. It seems that in order to prevent abuse, you'd have to watch the watchers of the watchers, and then watch the people watching them, etc. Everybody-watching-everybody all the time would be the only way it could work. (For the record, I volunteer to watch the hottie who lives next door to me.)
And what do they do with that 50 million a year? Stuff it under their mattresses? No, they spend it in the local economy, buying food, clothes, etc. for their families... and the local government gets a cut via the sales tax. Further, this increased spending on necessities and luxuries of life spawns the need for new workers, who receive a paycheck... and the government gets a cut via the income tax. And with this money, they spend it in the local economy... and the local government gets a cut via the sales tax. And so forth. So yes, money is magical as far as the government is concerned, since they get a cut out of any transaction.
Now, the above assumes that all new workers have to move to Dresden from other areas. But the same statements are true if the new workers are local residents who are receiving a lower salary (in which case it's less than 50 million, of course) or unemployed, which actually doubles the benefit, as they're no longer receiving public assistance.
You're going to claim absolute ownership of all of your discarded skin cells, hair cells, etc. for all of the years of your life? Give me a break... But in any case, manditory DNA testing is no more invasive than manditory fingerprinting.
Fingerprinting requires that you be detained -- in effect under arrest. Without a crime, it is considered in most of the world false imprisonment (if not legally, morally).
Fingerprinting no longer (in the US) requires that you be under arrest. Non-US citizens who enter the country (at least on some flights) will be photographed and fingerprinted... without being arrested or even accused of any crime. It's only a matter of time before this gets applied to all people entering the country, and eventually to everyone (on demand).
I get annoyed when cops follow me -- that is a threatening physical form of intimidation, but cameras?
In my opinion, there are two problems with being followed by cops. First, as you said, it is a threatening physical form of intimidation. However, perhaps even more importantly, you most likely haven't done anything wrong. The cop is simply following you while he performs a license plate check, and/or hoping that you will do something wrong so he can pull you over. And why is he following you? It could be something as simple as having an out-of-state license plate, or weaving a little bit, or being the "wrong"/"right" color/gender. This focused attention for trivial reasons can be abused.
Either you are an idiot or a criminal, or a combination of both if you think this effects you in any way.
You are naive if you think that this can't affect you. You complain about cops following you, but if they have cameras installed everywhere, the cops can be tracking you on a continual basis. And as above, this can be for trivial or circumstantial reasons: perhaps your brother is linked to drug dealers who have just been raided, or your girlfriend's brother's friend gave money to an islamic charity that turned out to be a front for a "terrorist" organization, or you're a woman and some creep who has access to the surveillance cameras decides to stalk you... The main point is that this much power to track people will be abused.
That's interesting... it's very similar to the way they measure the load limit on bridges.
Hmmm...
Palm 98 is just like Palm 95, except it doesn't crash as much.
Palm 2000 is the first stable palm.
Palm XP is the Palm Experience... something most Slashdotters are already familiar with.
If you're real anti-MS, you can probably call your Better Business Bureau and get them involved first, since it sounds to me like you have a pretty reasonable case against them.
A lot of Linux users think like you do... many also don't have anything particularly against Windows, they just like Linux better.
However, Microsoft views this as a war, and is acting accordingly. Many Linux users realize this, and are fighting back, because sometimes non-violent resistance isn't the best strategy.
Presumably, more pr0n == more whacking off == less sex with an actual female. Or at least, I suppose that's the theory.
Ah yes, a true classic of East Asian cinema. Oh well, it's still more watchable than 99% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood, I suppose.
Believe me, if this was your experience, you had a very atypical Windows install.
I propose that we all send our monthly bills to them payable in Canadian dollars. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Or really, really, really addicted to pr0n.
From the article:
So the "catch of the night" is a freeway camera. Woo-hoo! Oh well, at least now I know there are bigger dorks than myself.
Man, if you can't "get lucky" with internet pr0n, you've got serious problems.