Indeed - I think that Americans most of all should not forget that those in the military services have sworn an oath to, above all else, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Most of them take that seriously.
The US has the same idea with the Senate v the House of Representatives (although the Senate is elected), with the Senate being the more "measured" of the two.
What most people - even Americans - don't know is that in fact the Senate was not originally elected at all. It was filled with the appointees of states legislatures (two from each state), who could fill the appointments however they best saw fit. It wasn't until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, made during an era of populist progressivism in 1913, that the Senate became filled by direct election.
Personally, I think it is an open question whether this particular reform has been a net positive or negative.
A pacifist may ask politely that the Nazis stop roasting Jews, but they would never go so far as to take effectual action.
Not necessarily. Not all pacifists are cowards. For example, in various conflicts there were religious men who, as pacifists, believed that they had no moral authority to kill another man. That didn't stop them, however, from undertaking extremely dangerous assignments as medical corpsmen, and exposing themselves to extreme danger to help save others. Perhaps the best example is Desmond Doss, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor despite being a conscientous objector.
Best as I can parse it, the point seems to be that "any statements that amount to a general repudiation of violence, whether against animals or humans, is absurd due to the fact that violence is part of human existence." In other words, because violence is inherent to the human condition, we shouldn't bother trying to lessen it. For some reason, the poster seems to believe that if somebody can't live by their beliefs 100% of the time, then those beliefs become invalid.
I think his point was more along the lines that it is morally facile to categorically condemn actions without regard to consequences. The argument is that violence can in fact be used for morally good purposes, e.g., the application of justice. The parent seemed fed up with people who adopt a categorical aboslutism not just because it is impractical, but because it is immoral in that it condemns acts of good.
The problem is a lack of a good word that means, roughly "a darkly amusing or farcical set of circumstances, often with tragic consequences." The term "poetic justice" fits sometimes, but only when the outcome is actually something akin to "justice."
The game project, including all source and content assets, must be shared with the receiving user. The receiving user then compiles and deploys the game to their Xbox 360.
Amusing to see Microsoft not just pushing but requiring open-source development!
And yes, as far as I'm aware, you do have the right to say "I'm not testifying against X".
No, you don't. They can actually arrest you and physically bring you to the courtroom if you refuse to show up voluntarily, and refusing to answer questions can get you held in contempt of court.
Apart from anything else, a forced testimony would be about as reliable as a forced confession.
Forcing you to show up to testify doesn't make it "forced" testimony any more than arresting you makes it a "forced" confession. Only if you were forced to testify a specific lie would you have a point.
This is already what happens in competitive markets. Marginal profits approach zero as competing companies try to increase sales by reducing prices. Companies may gain advantages through proprietary product features or cost-saving messages, but these are almost always very temporary conditions and eventually show up in lower prices. Where you don't see this (e.g., Microsoft), it is usually because of a regulated market or lack of competitors (for whatever reason).
No, the problem is *naming*. All those other software names you referenced are either English words ("Excel","Access") or compounds of English words ("PowerPoint","QuickTime"). These are, for English speakers, far superior to foreign or nonsense words like "Sabayan", "Ekiga", or "Xine", which are at best silly and at worst unpronounceable. (Note the success of the English word compound "FireFox".)
Many people confuse nihilism with a set of beliefs that is critical of the status quo.
But that's the thing. I don't think that Stewart would stop criticizing the status quo even if it conformed to whatever beliefs he might have. Suppose anti-war liberals suddenly come to dominate the population. Would the show fold up and stop broadcasting? I don't think that's likely. That's what makes the show, in my mind, nihilist. There is simply nothing that anybody can do that they will not mock.
My problem is it is sarcastic to the point of being nihilistic. Their only function is to destroy through mockery. The Daily Show world is one in which nothing is good and everything is deserving of scorn. After a while, it just stops being funny and starts being sad.
In addition to the California statute, the First and Fifth Amendments give EVERYONE the right to withhold information about a crime.
100% wrong. The Fifth Amendment protects you against self-incrimination only, not from having to incriminate others. You most certainly can be compelled to testify or provide evidence via subpoena or warrant - in fact, it happens probably thousands of times every day.
I notice an unstated premise in your logic that those who are wrong may be corrected by force. As a political minority, you might want to re-think that position.
They need to ask free citizens, and insofar as they were not involved in some way in the crimes, they have the right to refuse.
Sorry, but that is simply incorrect. If the state has probable cause that you have evidence, you can be subpoenaed to produce it, or, in extreme cases, they can issue a search warrant for it - even if you were not involved in the crime at all. Just like if you witnessed something, you can be compelled to testify in court as to what you saw, even if you were just an innocent bystander.
Should an individual ever be forced to testify against themselves or others?
People are forced to testify against others all the time! What, do you think that if your friend is on trial, and you know where he was during the alleged crime, you can just tell the defense or the proesecution, "sorry, I don't feel like testifying"?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - I think that Americans most of all should not forget that those in the military services have sworn an oath to, above all else, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Most of them take that seriously.
I was being charitable to those who would argue in favor of direct democracy - but I agree with you, 100%.
The US has the same idea with the Senate v the House of Representatives (although the Senate is elected), with the Senate being the more "measured" of the two.
What most people - even Americans - don't know is that in fact the Senate was not originally elected at all. It was filled with the appointees of states legislatures (two from each state), who could fill the appointments however they best saw fit. It wasn't until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, made during an era of populist progressivism in 1913, that the Senate became filled by direct election.
Personally, I think it is an open question whether this particular reform has been a net positive or negative.
Personally, I think Microsoft have made a big mistake.
Care to be specific? I, for one, would be interested to hear what has made developing for Vista so burdensome as compared to say, XP.
A pacifist may ask politely that the Nazis stop roasting Jews, but they would never go so far as to take effectual action.
Not necessarily. Not all pacifists are cowards. For example, in various conflicts there were religious men who, as pacifists, believed that they had no moral authority to kill another man. That didn't stop them, however, from undertaking extremely dangerous assignments as medical corpsmen, and exposing themselves to extreme danger to help save others. Perhaps the best example is Desmond Doss, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor despite being a conscientous objector.
Best as I can parse it, the point seems to be that "any statements that amount to a general repudiation of violence, whether against animals or humans, is absurd due to the fact that violence is part of human existence." In other words, because violence is inherent to the human condition, we shouldn't bother trying to lessen it. For some reason, the poster seems to believe that if somebody can't live by their beliefs 100% of the time, then those beliefs become invalid.
I think his point was more along the lines that it is morally facile to categorically condemn actions without regard to consequences. The argument is that violence can in fact be used for morally good purposes, e.g., the application of justice. The parent seemed fed up with people who adopt a categorical aboslutism not just because it is impractical, but because it is immoral in that it condemns acts of good.
They wouldn't be required to, unless dropping the entire computer inside of a JDAM counts as "code distribution".
Aha, but the GPL itself is still a copyrighted text, and they can't simply create a derivative work without permission to do so.
Yes. "Open Source" != "Public Domain." You would still retain the copyright.
The problem is a lack of a good word that means, roughly "a darkly amusing or farcical set of circumstances, often with tragic consequences." The term "poetic justice" fits sometimes, but only when the outcome is actually something akin to "justice."
The game project, including all source and content assets, must be shared with the receiving user. The receiving user then compiles and deploys the game to their Xbox 360.
Amusing to see Microsoft not just pushing but requiring open-source development!
Even more impressive is its automatic units conversion. 100 volts / 200 milliamps
This has actually been done, using the fluctuations of lava lamps as a photon seed. http://www.lavarnd.org/
Whatever happened to just mashing your fists on the keyboard?
And yes, as far as I'm aware, you do have the right to say "I'm not testifying against X".
No, you don't. They can actually arrest you and physically bring you to the courtroom if you refuse to show up voluntarily, and refusing to answer questions can get you held in contempt of court.
Apart from anything else, a forced testimony would be about as reliable as a forced confession.
Forcing you to show up to testify doesn't make it "forced" testimony any more than arresting you makes it a "forced" confession. Only if you were forced to testify a specific lie would you have a point.
This is already what happens in competitive markets. Marginal profits approach zero as competing companies try to increase sales by reducing prices. Companies may gain advantages through proprietary product features or cost-saving messages, but these are almost always very temporary conditions and eventually show up in lower prices. Where you don't see this (e.g., Microsoft), it is usually because of a regulated market or lack of competitors (for whatever reason).
The problem is not *naming*, it is *branding*.
No, the problem is *naming*. All those other software names you referenced are either English words ("Excel","Access") or compounds of English words ("PowerPoint","QuickTime"). These are, for English speakers, far superior to foreign or nonsense words like "Sabayan", "Ekiga", or "Xine", which are at best silly and at worst unpronounceable. (Note the success of the English word compound "FireFox".)
As opposed to Steve Jobs, who always sounds like a whiny little brat.
Many people confuse nihilism with a set of beliefs that is critical of the status quo.
But that's the thing. I don't think that Stewart would stop criticizing the status quo even if it conformed to whatever beliefs he might have. Suppose anti-war liberals suddenly come to dominate the population. Would the show fold up and stop broadcasting? I don't think that's likely. That's what makes the show, in my mind, nihilist. There is simply nothing that anybody can do that they will not mock.
My problem is it is sarcastic to the point of being nihilistic. Their only function is to destroy through mockery. The Daily Show world is one in which nothing is good and everything is deserving of scorn. After a while, it just stops being funny and starts being sad.
Because that's the tradeoff you're going for if you lift the anonymity of informants.
That's not the subject under discussion. There is no allegation that anonymous informants would be revealed by this tape.
In addition to the California statute, the First and Fifth Amendments give EVERYONE the right to withhold information about a crime.
100% wrong. The Fifth Amendment protects you against self-incrimination only, not from having to incriminate others. You most certainly can be compelled to testify or provide evidence via subpoena or warrant - in fact, it happens probably thousands of times every day.
I notice an unstated premise in your logic that those who are wrong may be corrected by force. As a political minority, you might want to re-think that position.
They need to ask free citizens, and insofar as they were not involved in some way in the crimes, they have the right to refuse.
Sorry, but that is simply incorrect. If the state has probable cause that you have evidence, you can be subpoenaed to produce it, or, in extreme cases, they can issue a search warrant for it - even if you were not involved in the crime at all. Just like if you witnessed something, you can be compelled to testify in court as to what you saw, even if you were just an innocent bystander.
Should an individual ever be forced to testify against themselves or others?
People are forced to testify against others all the time! What, do you think that if your friend is on trial, and you know where he was during the alleged crime, you can just tell the defense or the proesecution, "sorry, I don't feel like testifying"?