The reason we're calling for revolution is that those of us that are active have already tried (and failed) to break that veil of indifference, but being unable to do so, still feel we need action to change the course of events.
What is your moral justification, then, for imposing your minority views on a majority that doesn't want them?
If he says there's no criminal evidence on the tape, that's that. If there was evidence, he would have revealed it by now; otherwise, he would be complicit in the alleged act of destruction, should it ever be revealed that he had evidence.
That is quite possibly this most naive thing I have ever read on slashdot. Are you seriously arguing, mere days after a major scandal involving fabricated news photos, that we can absolutely, unquestioningly believe that every "journalist" is telling the truth?
Errr right, but if they've already outed themselves - why do the police need his footage?
Because they're trying to prosecute a specific crime of arson that occurred. Only the guy who made the tape believes that the police give a shit about identifying anybody else there.
So what it comes down to is simply, who is more likely to abuse a system? The state or its people. And I for one do rather trust the people than the state.
It's pointless to even have a state if we won't give it the power to prosecute criminals, one of its few legitimate functions. Might as well scrap the whole thing and stock up on ammo.
The reason journalists get that privelege is to maintain a free press.
But we live in an era in which anybody can publish. I don't think there is a sturdy basis for assigning "extra" rights to some people but not others. If this guy gets to ignore subpoenas, then I get to ignore subpoenas.
Assuming you're not Brazilian, the system works well.
I don't dispute that at all. But I question whether you fully understand what it is that the system is attempting to accomplish. The fact that you feel that there is a difference between the balance of power between the citizens and English police and American police, despite the fact that both governments are (per capita) about equally well-armed, demonstrates that the "system" has been quite successful at creating a perception of reality that is far less true than you believe it to be.
And incidentally, where do you think that wisdom actually came from in the first place? As another commenter obliquely noted, the first part of the Declaration of Independence is a virtual recitation of the conclusions of John Locke, who was British.
Good point. I forgot that it's only installed by default in XP Professional and derivatives.
If you have your XP home CD, you should be able to install it, howerer. Run X:\VALUEADD\MSFT\NTBACKUP.msi where X:\ refers to your CD-ROM drive-letter.
Do you mean the draft text? I consider the original text to be the text as it was adopted and signed. Or are you obliquely referring to Locke as being the "original text?"
I'd never seen a gun before except for in the army cadets, certainly never in a non-military setting
I find this incredible. Just what are these London bobbies holding? Walkie-talkies?
In any case, If you're concerned about the incidents of citizens with arms, I humbly suggest that this is a signal of less tyranny, not more. Surely you realize that the British government has a goodly supply of deadly arms. To the extent that you and your fellow subjects shun a knowledge and familiarity of arms, you further tip the balance of power in the government's favor.
Indeed, why spend the effort to destroy when you can much much more easily disable?
For the same reason that V didn't simply disable the House of Parliament: the act of destroying - particularly by means of a well-aimed bullet - is intended to send a precise message to the authorities about the relative balance of power between the government and the people.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Of course - the freedom to impose Sharia law, the freedom to oppress non-Muslims, the freedom to oppress their own people, and the freedom to exterminate the Jews. Basically your four fundamental freedoms.
yes, this photo is clearly a fake. But unless you realize that they are ALL fakes (or at least not "real" in the sense that too many people think they are) then you are already duped, so there is no reason to be upset about this one in particular.
That's where you are losing people. There most certainly is a very good reason to be upset about this one in particular - it was (apparently) done with malicious intent to deceive - to create the impression of something that did not in reality exist. The fact of the matter is that unless you are willing to run about the world and witness everything with your own eyes, you must simply learn who you can trust to be reasonably truthful with you. When that trust is betrayed, you have a good reason to be upset.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we're calling for revolution is that those of us that are active have already tried (and failed) to break that veil of indifference, but being unable to do so, still feel we need action to change the course of events.
What is your moral justification, then, for imposing your minority views on a majority that doesn't want them?
If he says there's no criminal evidence on the tape, that's that. If there was evidence, he would have revealed it by now; otherwise, he would be complicit in the alleged act of destruction, should it ever be revealed that he had evidence.
That is quite possibly this most naive thing I have ever read on slashdot. Are you seriously arguing, mere days after a major scandal involving fabricated news photos, that we can absolutely, unquestioningly believe that every "journalist" is telling the truth?
Errr right, but if they've already outed themselves - why do the police need his footage?
Because they're trying to prosecute a specific crime of arson that occurred. Only the guy who made the tape believes that the police give a shit about identifying anybody else there.
So what it comes down to is simply, who is more likely to abuse a system? The state or its people. And I for one do rather trust the people than the state.
It's pointless to even have a state if we won't give it the power to prosecute criminals, one of its few legitimate functions. Might as well scrap the whole thing and stock up on ammo.
The reason journalists get that privelege is to maintain a free press.
But we live in an era in which anybody can publish. I don't think there is a sturdy basis for assigning "extra" rights to some people but not others. If this guy gets to ignore subpoenas, then I get to ignore subpoenas.
Actually, the single biggest reason to have XP Pro is to join a domain.
Assuming you're not Brazilian, the system works well.
I don't dispute that at all. But I question whether you fully understand what it is that the system is attempting to accomplish. The fact that you feel that there is a difference between the balance of power between the citizens and English police and American police, despite the fact that both governments are (per capita) about equally well-armed, demonstrates that the "system" has been quite successful at creating a perception of reality that is far less true than you believe it to be.
And incidentally, where do you think that wisdom actually came from in the first place? As another commenter obliquely noted, the first part of the Declaration of Independence is a virtual recitation of the conclusions of John Locke, who was British.
But what good has it done for you?
After exhausting the usefulness of the soap, ballot, and jury boxes, we will still have one left.
There are no highbrow video games because there are none that are expensive enough.
If you have your XP home CD, you should be able to install it, howerer. Run X:\VALUEADD\MSFT\NTBACKUP.msi where X:\ refers to your CD-ROM drive-letter.
Fine. Go ahead and trade away your rights and your power in exchange for a feeling of security. It's not my country.
Do you mean the draft text? I consider the original text to be the text as it was adopted and signed. Or are you obliquely referring to Locke as being the "original text?"
Imagine a normal user performing backups on Windows.
It's not hard to imagine at all! Accessories-->System Tools-->Backup has run an idiot-friendly wizard to perform backups for years now on Windows.
I'd never seen a gun before except for in the army cadets, certainly never in a non-military setting
I find this incredible. Just what are these London bobbies holding? Walkie-talkies?
In any case, If you're concerned about the incidents of citizens with arms, I humbly suggest that this is a signal of less tyranny, not more. Surely you realize that the British government has a goodly supply of deadly arms. To the extent that you and your fellow subjects shun a knowledge and familiarity of arms, you further tip the balance of power in the government's favor.
Goes to show us that TR (Teddy Roosevelt) was right, when he said "We have more to fear from fear itself".
Did he? I thought he said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Maybe he said both, but I can't find a citation for yours.
Indeed, why spend the effort to destroy when you can much much more easily disable?
For the same reason that V didn't simply disable the House of Parliament: the act of destroying - particularly by means of a well-aimed bullet - is intended to send a precise message to the authorities about the relative balance of power between the government and the people.
So what happens when your government is out of control ? Do we as citizens have a moral responsibility to stop this/them ?
Find ye your answers in the wisest of texts:
What does the Middle East want? Freedom
Of course - the freedom to impose Sharia law, the freedom to oppress non-Muslims, the freedom to oppress their own people, and the freedom to exterminate the Jews. Basically your four fundamental freedoms.
yes, this photo is clearly a fake. But unless you realize that they are ALL fakes (or at least not "real" in the sense that too many people think they are) then you are already duped, so there is no reason to be upset about this one in particular.
That's where you are losing people. There most certainly is a very good reason to be upset about this one in particular - it was (apparently) done with malicious intent to deceive - to create the impression of something that did not in reality exist. The fact of the matter is that unless you are willing to run about the world and witness everything with your own eyes, you must simply learn who you can trust to be reasonably truthful with you. When that trust is betrayed, you have a good reason to be upset.
unless you watch BBC, which is an extra-national third party
Would this be the same BBC whose reporters denied any American presence in Baghdad, even as CNN ran live footage of tanks rolling through the streets?
Apple's network stack in OS X is certainly based on a BSD network stack. How does it reproduce the copyright?
Throwing out the license? The BSD license doesn't require the opening of source code, you know.
So when Apple includes the BSD utilities, it's "insightful", but when Microsoft includes a BSD networking stack, it's "stolen"?
It's not much of a time machine if it can't go into the future and retrieve the documents I haven't written yet.