You'd just have to locate your blog's server outside the U.S. and always post anonymously. Although "nobody controls the internet", they can control things inside the country enough to send the police over to your house and have them throw you in jail.
I guess it's just not too hard to imagine congress responding to "public outcry" and "fixing" the FCC's jurisdiction to extend to the blogger "problem".
The government will use bloggers' desire to be taken seriously as real journalists as an excuse to apply the same kind of censorship the FCC effectively has doled out for some time to the traditional media.
The problem is (like this guy already brought up), often times your're dealing with research that is very expensive and/or impracticle to reproduce in a timely manner. If the organization that funded the original fudged "research" also has a powerful marketing department to promote their result as the "correct" one, it may become generally accepted (especially among the general public) for some time and other incorrect notions will emerge using it as a base. This could potentially waste a lot of time (or worse) on a wild goose chase that might last for decades. Even after bogus research is discovered, the general public will often still just remember what was "hard sold" to them by the media, and never find out about the discrediting information (especially if the one doing the discrediting doesn't have the budget to buy the media like the first organization did). Many disproven ideas persist in the public concscience today for this very reason.
People want to be proven correct. If they set out to prove a hypothesis with a scientific experiment, and then after a few months or years of research, they discover that the evidence points against their hypothesis or that the method which they employed doesn't provide a conclusive solution, it can be tempting to 'throw out' some data. After all, they put in all of that effort, and they want their recognition. Usually, it means more papers, which oftentimes means more notoriety, job security, money, etc.
This is basically the problem with any "good" idea -- religion, science, whatever. It all has to pass throught the polluting filter of human nature. Human beings tend easily toward corruption. They are creatures that act out of a desire for power, pride, and passion. The ideal of the disinterested, dispassionate scientist that acts out of curiosity alone is just that -- an ideal. He doesn't exist. When all is said and done, we're all the same corruptible beings.
This is very important to me as in some
fonts certain things like an f followed by a i grave can be a problem.
You should be using ligatures for this (something InDesign will actually do for you automatically). If you have this problem, it isn't InDesign's fault. You just chose a crappy font.
Actually, if you were to ask me the aforementioned "Mickey Dee's" question, I would "get" that you are making an attempt at sarcasm. I just wouldn't consider it clever sarcasm. It would therefore not be funny. I would simply walk away, mildly disturbed by the fact that people with such an underdeveloped sense of humor are allowed to freely wander about.:-)
Sorry I took so long to respond. I had a busy weekend;-)
If I tell my kids that misbehaving will result in the bogeyman getting them, that is a useful (for me) lie - it'll keep them quiet, dammit. However, this does not in any way mean that the bogeyman is real.
There is a difference. When you lie to your child in this way, you are correct that you will likely receive an immediate positive (keeping them in line), but when they grow up and realize you lied to them, they will be more inclined to openly rebel against all your teachings. Many religionists often find themselves trapped by this, eventually. Don't masturbate -- you'll go blind. The kid grows up, discovers he didn't go blind, then decides maybe his friends that keep telling him that heroin and crack will "expand his mind" have been right all along, too. The point is, even though this appears on the surface to produce a positive, over time, the net result will likely be negative. Constrast this with the protection of rights, which I consider to be a net positive.
if I understand correctly, your view is that rights are built into human nature (can you confirm whether or not I'm correct?).
I don't know if I'd use those words, exactly. To better convey my feelings, I'll treat the "Scientific Method", in much the same way we've been discussing rights:
Just what is this scientific method I keep hearing about? Why can't I find evidence of its' "existance"? I haven't been able to find any instrument capable of detecting its' presence. Obviously the scientific method is nothing more than a "white lie" we tell our kids to get them to invent and discover cool stuff -- useful, but non-existant.
I consider the scientific method and human rights to be in about the same category. From what I gather, the difference in our POV appears to be that you consider these principles to be inventions of humans for our benefit. I consider them discoveries of pre-existing principles that don't change, regardless of our perception (correct or incorrect) of them. In other words, to answer the famous tree question: Yes. I do think the tree makes a sound (or vibrates the air, or some synonym or equivalent to making a sound) when it falls, even when no one is around to hear it. Although this may fall into the category of "something I think, but can't prove", to me it would violate Occam's Razor to think otherwise (If it makes a sound when I'm always around, it seems a pretty big assumption that it wouldn't when I'm not).
For example, the consequence of the widely-accepted (in America) right to own weapons has resulted in America having one of the highest homicide rates in the world.
The perception of the U.S. as an overtly violent place is really exaggerated, thanks in no small part, to Hollywood's stellar portrayal of things. Most of the really high crime rates are often confined to a few square blocks in most major metropolitan areas. Anyone who's been around the U.S. a bit can tell you that the rural zones actually have higher ownership of firearms. In some places it's hard to find a pickup truck that doesn't have a shotgun or two hanging in the rear window. Shockingly, these are frequently places with far less crime. From what I can tell, in other countries where firearms have been outlawed, or restricted heavily to varying degrees, the results are inconclusive at best. Here's a good discussion of the subject. Scroll down for the top 10 worst countries for homicide in 2003. I don't know about the others, but I lived in Mexico for over 2 years, and I happen to know that all private ownership of firearms is forbidden there. Despite this it continues to be a very violent place. Even though firearm deaths aren't as common (they still happen, though), stabbings are an every-day occurance. Most of the numbers
Thank you, too! Even thought we may not agree on every point, it's good to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
They would also be good in the sense that they would foster a stable society.
Here, as well as in previous posts, you have stated that although you consider rights a "white lie", the protection of them is beneficial. To me, this (the positive results) is a certain kind of evidence of their correctness. "Existance" is a very ambiguous word. If what you mean is that someone isn't going to stumble across a block of material that turns out to be a "right", therefore proving their existance, I think we agree. Rights are an idea, but I don't think that makes them any less real or correct. BTW, I guess if you really want to insist on a physical manefestation, you could look at ideas as sparks between neurons, but this begs the question: "How can I know which sparks between the nuerons of whom are correct? Which are delusional? Can we perform a repeatable experiment to show such a thing?" I think such an experiment, as relating to a proof for rights, would be very impractical to perform in a traditional controlled, scientific way. Experiments have been performed, however. Throughout history and even now they are ongoing. Western law and government can in many ways be regarded as an experiment to determine if these concepts are correct. The benefits that we see in societies that even flirt with these concepts -- although they have never been implemented fully anywhere -- are already marked. Personally, I would like to see further experimentation here, and on a broader level.:-)
On a lighter note, regards the ignorant and delusional population: have you taken a good look at the world lately?:P
I understand what you're getting at here. Sadly, I don't think there currently exists a population on the planet that fits the description that I've provided of intelligent freedom-loving individuals, united in the mutual defense of rights (at least not to the extent there should be). The masses (all around the globe, I'm not picking on anyone in particular here) have been molded into remote-control weilding zombies that are largely ignorant of, and ambivalent toward their true power and potential, and will therefore never realize such things. I don't think this is entirely by accident. As I mentioned before, an educated, active free society is a tyrant's nightmare. That's why those that have achieved positions of power [corporations, dictators, take your pick of authority figure here] have good reason to actively promote a lifestyle of ignorance and indolence.
Rights are not experimentally testable. You can't measure the strength of given rights in the way that you can measure the strength of fundamental constants.
What actually are the inalienable rights that everyone keeps talking about? What evidence is there that they exist?
Just because you can't measure the rights, doesn't mean you can't measure their result. If something unmeasureable produces a measureable result, does the unmeasurable thing exist? In the end does it matter? If the result is predictable and reproduceable, the principle is a correct one.
History classes are on the borderline - as with science, the opinion of the academic community can mostly be accepted as being the most accurate assessment based on the available data, but the accuracy of the data has to be questioned.
This is part of the problem with proving rights. The evidence for them largely rests in the study of history, as it was observed through the lens of whoever (almost never a scientist) did the writing.
I will show courtesy to you in the expectation that it'll be reciprocated, yes.
I'll do my best.
That would be broadly accurate and fits in with, for example, the fact that one of the largest nations on earth, China, doesn't give a damn about human rights.
Citing examples where rights are supressed is irrelevant to my main points. I earlier stated that I was well aware of regimes where such rights are not respected. The rights themselves continue to exist.
As a Brit, and thus a subject of a monarchy with a long and bloody past, I'm aware that pretty much the only thing that stops the government oppressing me is the fact that it would be more trouble than it's worth.
Without providing an answer, I'd just like to invite you to think about why it is currently more trouble than it's worth. What would make it "worth it"? Are things heading in that direction?
I never said inalienable rights weren't a damn useful illusion to maintain. The fact that it's a good idea to act like they exist doesn't mean that they do.
If inalienable rights are a lie, then they would not be a good thing -- at least in the sense that they would incourage an ignorant and delusional population. If I can ascribe to one illusion, what else can I accept as truth that is false? Where does it stop?
You can cut out his tongue or kill him
I actually considered that you might mention mutilation in response to what I had said, but hoped that you would understand the larger concept I was driving at. If you cut out my toungue, you still don't have my willful obedience. I still have a free nature. You have failed to take that away.
I'd also note that any argument that applies to the ability to speak freely also applies to the ability to hit your neighbour over the head with a mallet
Allow me then, to clarify. My freedom to act stops when such action violates the freedoms of others to do likewise.
It's called the IRA and, as far as I can tell, the part of man's true nature that it expresses is his enjoyment of blowing up other men. And women and, for the hat trick, children and puppies. Again, if these rights you speak of are so inalienable, how come they're not easily differentiable
Actually, they're very easily differentiable. See my paragraph above about stepping on the rights of others. The IRA blowing up puppies would probably fall into such a category.
I'd suggest that, if what the master intended was for you to be an example pour encourager les autres, he has in fact succeeded.
In a fearful population that is used to thinking of themselves as slaves, you're probably right. Among a population that understands its' true strength and the nature of freedom -- one that is willing to whatever is necessary to defend it -- things might not be so clear-cut. I would suggest that the aforementioned torture and death could create a martyr-figure -- just what might be needed to convince an informed population to respond decisively to such tyrrany, at which point, I have, in fact, succeeded, to the extent that the tyrant is defeated.
On a side note: it's trivial to show that there are no inalienable rights - show me a right and I'll give you an example of when and where it's been alienated. What I think you mean is "rights that shouldn't be alienated".
We're fighting over semantics. My working definition of inalienable is still incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred, but to that I think I would add "without dire consequences" to the party that's trying to do the alienation. You can try to alienate the rig
I respect your right to opine as you do, and I hope you will find it in you to respect mine to disagree.
The word "right" in this context is frequently misused. For instance, no one has a "right to employment," other than self-employment (forcing me to employ someone steps on a real right -- that of my basic freedom to enter into agreements only with those I choose). Rights are not privileges. Looking at a right as a privilege that has been wrested from "the authorities" (whatever that is) leads to a dangerous and inaccurate sense of impotence. What authority gives, authority can take away. Nothing is inalienable according to this way of thinking. We are all powerless slaves that have to go begging for privileges from the master. Authoritarianism depends on this kind of thinking.
Whoever, or whatever the Creator is, government it is not. Government did not create man. Man created government. The creation cannot be greater than the creator. Government, in a primordial form, arises when groups of people with common interest band together for their common good. Authoritarian rule only emerges later when opportunists take advantage of this, manipulating the masses (typically with generous doses of fear) into surrendering their innate power to these artificial authority figures. Again, this top-down order of things is not natural. You can outlaw something like speaking freely, but you cannot take away man's natural ability to do so. Even within the most repressive of regimes there has typically existed a very active underground where the true nature of man is able to continue despite terrible opposition.
I will end by quoting Ghandi -- not because I think you or anyone should give unquestioning heed to the words of a popular historical figure, but because his feelings on this matter seem to be much in line with my own, and he was able to express himself better than I ever could:
How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done.
When it comes right down to it, the "master" needs the slave. The slave does not need the master. The "master" is the one who effectively has to come begging to the "slaves" for privileges. Not the other way around. Without the support of the masses (direct or through cunning), the tyrant is powerless. This is why killing all the "slaves" is ultimately not an option. Any authority held by "the authorities" has its' end the moment the masses refuse to recognise it. It is illusory.
No matter what steps are taken, my free will cannot be taken from me. Freedom is inherent in my very nature. It is inalienable. It is a right.
Remember, rights are not universal; they're granted at the discretion of the country in question,
I understand whaty you're trying to say here, but real rights are universal. They are not granted by any government. They are granted by the Creator (whether you believe that creator is an evolutionary process, God, extraterrestrials, or whatever). You would be more correct to say that they are not defended universally. A government can try to ignore or supress a natural right, but the right itself does not go away.
Are you the same "Dan" that I hear on TLLTS? Keep up the good work. I actually like The Linux Link Tech Show even more than Lug Radio, since you guys don't all talk at the same time.
That's awesome! Too bad these guys don't seem to want to release the source code. The problem with having to go to their site is that it would raise suspicion to be connecting to such a website from within an oppressive regime.
I would suspect that a totalitarian regime could make running a freenet node illegal and then, regardless of whether they found out what you were doing with it, mistreat you (torture, execute, etc.) for that alone.
Slashdot Mirror
This should be modded insightful ;-)
I know he's the guy behind ffmpeg (used by most *nix media players) and the excellent qemu emulator that I use every day.
You'd just have to locate your blog's server outside the U.S. and always post anonymously. Although "nobody controls the internet", they can control things inside the country enough to send the police over to your house and have them throw you in jail.
I guess it's just not too hard to imagine congress responding to "public outcry" and "fixing" the FCC's jurisdiction to extend to the blogger "problem".
The government will use bloggers' desire to be taken seriously as real journalists as an excuse to apply the same kind of censorship the FCC effectively has doled out for some time to the traditional media.
The problem is (like this guy already brought up), often times your're dealing with research that is very expensive and/or impracticle to reproduce in a timely manner. If the organization that funded the original fudged "research" also has a powerful marketing department to promote their result as the "correct" one, it may become generally accepted (especially among the general public) for some time and other incorrect notions will emerge using it as a base. This could potentially waste a lot of time (or worse) on a wild goose chase that might last for decades. Even after bogus research is discovered, the general public will often still just remember what was "hard sold" to them by the media, and never find out about the discrediting information (especially if the one doing the discrediting doesn't have the budget to buy the media like the first organization did). Many disproven ideas persist in the public concscience today for this very reason.
This is basically the problem with any "good" idea -- religion, science, whatever. It all has to pass throught the polluting filter of human nature. Human beings tend easily toward corruption. They are creatures that act out of a desire for power, pride, and passion. The ideal of the disinterested, dispassionate scientist that acts out of curiosity alone is just that -- an ideal. He doesn't exist. When all is said and done, we're all the same corruptible beings.
You should be using ligatures for this (something InDesign will actually do for you automatically). If you have this problem, it isn't InDesign's fault. You just chose a crappy font.
Here's one thing that makes me think he won't need to change the law.
Unfortunately, these are the Americans that reported that they weren't getting enough food.
Actually, if you were to ask me the aforementioned "Mickey Dee's" question, I would "get" that you are making an attempt at sarcasm. I just wouldn't consider it clever sarcasm. It would therefore not be funny. I would simply walk away, mildly disturbed by the fact that people with such an underdeveloped sense of humor are allowed to freely wander about. :-)
Sorry, I just realized that the link to statistics on UK crime in my first post takes you to a 404. Here's the correct link.
Sorry I took so long to respond. I had a busy weekend ;-)
There is a difference. When you lie to your child in this way, you are correct that you will likely receive an immediate positive (keeping them in line), but when they grow up and realize you lied to them, they will be more inclined to openly rebel against all your teachings. Many religionists often find themselves trapped by this, eventually. Don't masturbate -- you'll go blind. The kid grows up, discovers he didn't go blind, then decides maybe his friends that keep telling him that heroin and crack will "expand his mind" have been right all along, too. The point is, even though this appears on the surface to produce a positive, over time, the net result will likely be negative. Constrast this with the protection of rights, which I consider to be a net positive.
I don't know if I'd use those words, exactly. To better convey my feelings, I'll treat the "Scientific Method", in much the same way we've been discussing rights:
Just what is this scientific method I keep hearing about? Why can't I find evidence of its' "existance"? I haven't been able to find any instrument capable of detecting its' presence. Obviously the scientific method is nothing more than a "white lie" we tell our kids to get them to invent and discover cool stuff -- useful, but non-existant.
I consider the scientific method and human rights to be in about the same category. From what I gather, the difference in our POV appears to be that you consider these principles to be inventions of humans for our benefit. I consider them discoveries of pre-existing principles that don't change, regardless of our perception (correct or incorrect) of them. In other words, to answer the famous tree question: Yes. I do think the tree makes a sound (or vibrates the air, or some synonym or equivalent to making a sound) when it falls, even when no one is around to hear it. Although this may fall into the category of "something I think, but can't prove", to me it would violate Occam's Razor to think otherwise (If it makes a sound when I'm always around, it seems a pretty big assumption that it wouldn't when I'm not).
The perception of the U.S. as an overtly violent place is really exaggerated, thanks in no small part, to Hollywood's stellar portrayal of things. Most of the really high crime rates are often confined to a few square blocks in most major metropolitan areas. Anyone who's been around the U.S. a bit can tell you that the rural zones actually have higher ownership of firearms. In some places it's hard to find a pickup truck that doesn't have a shotgun or two hanging in the rear window. Shockingly, these are frequently places with far less crime. From what I can tell, in other countries where firearms have been outlawed, or restricted heavily to varying degrees, the results are inconclusive at best. Here's a good discussion of the subject. Scroll down for the top 10 worst countries for homicide in 2003. I don't know about the others, but I lived in Mexico for over 2 years, and I happen to know that all private ownership of firearms is forbidden there. Despite this it continues to be a very violent place. Even though firearm deaths aren't as common (they still happen, though), stabbings are an every-day occurance. Most of the numbers
Thank you, too! Even thought we may not agree on every point, it's good to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
Here, as well as in previous posts, you have stated that although you consider rights a "white lie", the protection of them is beneficial. To me, this (the positive results) is a certain kind of evidence of their correctness. "Existance" is a very ambiguous word. If what you mean is that someone isn't going to stumble across a block of material that turns out to be a "right", therefore proving their existance, I think we agree. Rights are an idea, but I don't think that makes them any less real or correct. BTW, I guess if you really want to insist on a physical manefestation, you could look at ideas as sparks between neurons, but this begs the question: "How can I know which sparks between the nuerons of whom are correct? Which are delusional? Can we perform a repeatable experiment to show such a thing?" I think such an experiment, as relating to a proof for rights, would be very impractical to perform in a traditional controlled, scientific way. Experiments have been performed, however. Throughout history and even now they are ongoing. Western law and government can in many ways be regarded as an experiment to determine if these concepts are correct. The benefits that we see in societies that even flirt with these concepts -- although they have never been implemented fully anywhere -- are already marked. Personally, I would like to see further experimentation here, and on a broader level. :-)
I understand what you're getting at here. Sadly, I don't think there currently exists a population on the planet that fits the description that I've provided of intelligent freedom-loving individuals, united in the mutual defense of rights (at least not to the extent there should be). The masses (all around the globe, I'm not picking on anyone in particular here) have been molded into remote-control weilding zombies that are largely ignorant of, and ambivalent toward their true power and potential, and will therefore never realize such things. I don't think this is entirely by accident. As I mentioned before, an educated, active free society is a tyrant's nightmare. That's why those that have achieved positions of power [corporations, dictators, take your pick of authority figure here] have good reason to actively promote a lifestyle of ignorance and indolence.
Just because you can't measure the rights, doesn't mean you can't measure their result. If something unmeasureable produces a measureable result, does the unmeasurable thing exist? In the end does it matter? If the result is predictable and reproduceable, the principle is a correct one.
This is part of the problem with proving rights. The evidence for them largely rests in the study of history, as it was observed through the lens of whoever (almost never a scientist) did the writing.
I'll do my best.
Citing examples where rights are supressed is irrelevant to my main points. I earlier stated that I was well aware of regimes where such rights are not respected. The rights themselves continue to exist.
Without providing an answer, I'd just like to invite you to think about why it is currently more trouble than it's worth. What would make it "worth it"? Are things heading in that direction?
If inalienable rights are a lie, then they would not be a good thing -- at least in the sense that they would incourage an ignorant and delusional population. If I can ascribe to one illusion, what else can I accept as truth that is false? Where does it stop?
I actually considered that you might mention mutilation in response to what I had said, but hoped that you would understand the larger concept I was driving at. If you cut out my toungue, you still don't have my willful obedience. I still have a free nature. You have failed to take that away.
Allow me then, to clarify. My freedom to act stops when such action violates the freedoms of others to do likewise.
Actually, they're very easily differentiable. See my paragraph above about stepping on the rights of others. The IRA blowing up puppies would probably fall into such a category.
In a fearful population that is used to thinking of themselves as slaves, you're probably right. Among a population that understands its' true strength and the nature of freedom -- one that is willing to whatever is necessary to defend it -- things might not be so clear-cut. I would suggest that the aforementioned torture and death could create a martyr-figure -- just what might be needed to convince an informed population to respond decisively to such tyrrany, at which point, I have, in fact, succeeded, to the extent that the tyrant is defeated.
We're fighting over semantics. My working definition of inalienable is still incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred, but to that I think I would add "without dire consequences" to the party that's trying to do the alienation. You can try to alienate the rig
I respect your right to opine as you do, and I hope you will find it in you to respect mine to disagree.
The word "right" in this context is frequently misused. For instance, no one has a "right to employment," other than self-employment (forcing me to employ someone steps on a real right -- that of my basic freedom to enter into agreements only with those I choose). Rights are not privileges. Looking at a right as a privilege that has been wrested from "the authorities" (whatever that is) leads to a dangerous and inaccurate sense of impotence. What authority gives, authority can take away. Nothing is inalienable according to this way of thinking. We are all powerless slaves that have to go begging for privileges from the master. Authoritarianism depends on this kind of thinking.
Whoever, or whatever the Creator is, government it is not. Government did not create man. Man created government. The creation cannot be greater than the creator. Government, in a primordial form, arises when groups of people with common interest band together for their common good. Authoritarian rule only emerges later when opportunists take advantage of this, manipulating the masses (typically with generous doses of fear) into surrendering their innate power to these artificial authority figures. Again, this top-down order of things is not natural. You can outlaw something like speaking freely, but you cannot take away man's natural ability to do so. Even within the most repressive of regimes there has typically existed a very active underground where the true nature of man is able to continue despite terrible opposition.
I will end by quoting Ghandi -- not because I think you or anyone should give unquestioning heed to the words of a popular historical figure, but because his feelings on this matter seem to be much in line with my own, and he was able to express himself better than I ever could:
When it comes right down to it, the "master" needs the slave. The slave does not need the master. The "master" is the one who effectively has to come begging to the "slaves" for privileges. Not the other way around. Without the support of the masses (direct or through cunning), the tyrant is powerless. This is why killing all the "slaves" is ultimately not an option. Any authority held by "the authorities" has its' end the moment the masses refuse to recognise it. It is illusory.
No matter what steps are taken, my free will cannot be taken from me. Freedom is inherent in my very nature. It is inalienable. It is a right.
I understand whaty you're trying to say here, but real rights are universal. They are not granted by any government. They are granted by the Creator (whether you believe that creator is an evolutionary process, God, extraterrestrials, or whatever). You would be more correct to say that they are not defended universally. A government can try to ignore or supress a natural right, but the right itself does not go away.
I think I know why you posted this anonymously.
...so I guess you have to cut off the old noggin?
Background checks will not catch first-time offenders. If they're really good, the first time will be all they need.
Are you the same "Dan" that I hear on TLLTS? Keep up the good work. I actually like The Linux Link Tech Show even more than Lug Radio, since you guys don't all talk at the same time.
They could have a screenshot logger. That's why you need to boot your own media, not use M$ stuff.
That's awesome! Too bad these guys don't seem to want to release the source code. The problem with having to go to their site is that it would raise suspicion to be connecting to such a website from within an oppressive regime.
I would suspect that a totalitarian regime could make running a freenet node illegal and then, regardless of whether they found out what you were doing with it, mistreat you (torture, execute, etc.) for that alone.
Funny, I immediately thought of Michael Jackson.