Nice straw man there. No, I would not rather endow the leader with my blind trust and obedience. I believe that the system of checks and balances placed upon those in power already works. I trust the law, which I hold to be higher than that of any leader.
Just imagine the future of New Orleans; a technological marvel, with gigabit ethernet connections to each home, instantly transmitting terrabytes worth of images showing topless coeds partying outside.
Or more likely, lots of video blogs of the next big huricane.
I think the main point is, why are they rebuilding the city where it was before? Why not move the city farther away from the coast and above sea level? It's just asking for another big disaster, possibly even this fall, and all this shiny new equipment will be wiped out. It's not the level of technology, it's the investment in a place just waiting for another wipe-out.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night? I watched All the President's Men on TV last night, and those informants sure knew how to inform. If some reporter is too lazy to get away from their desk and do a bit of legwork for an important story, that's their own fault.
But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail. This is just paranoia for paranoia's sake. That's the job of the ACLU, to keep government bogged down in lawsuits every so often so they're not causing any real trouble. Same thing with the press, they jump on every little meaningless "scandal" so that nobody takes anything any further than that. I can respect them even when they're wrong.
And the more I think about it, the more I think the ACLU is simply wrong. It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed. Sure, there's the intimidation factor that may lead to self-censorship, but that's only if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. And it's not like the government is sneaking into everyone's home to stick microphones under your tables to prevent you from talking about last night's baseball game. All they're doing in this case is monitoring phone calls made on public lines between foreign countries and the US. So long as you're not breaking any laws, what's the big deal?
You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.
I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway. But I'm not ready to declare this thing a violation of free speech, by the strictest of definitions. Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?
There's no amendment that I'm aware of that ensures your right to cheat on your tax returns, so your analogy is flawed.
I totally understand where wiretapping "innocent" people is a Bad Thing, in principle. It definitely violates "privacy" (although we could still debate whether you can actually expect privacy over public lines to foreign countries- I might not be so quick to assume you can). But there is absolutely nothing here stopping you from talking about whatever you want. If you're talking about illegal stuff, then yeah, the government will bust you for it, and should, just as the IRS is within their rights to bust you for income tax evasion, and should.
If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right? And if they're not talking about such things, then you're not going to have the government busting you for anything. I'd be a lot more worried about the government passing laws making more things illegal than the government checking to see that existing laws are being followed. When you see laws showing up that makes things illegal retroactively, or makes additional kinds of speech illegal (political crime), that's a problem. We aren't really there yet, and I expect we won't be in my lifetime.
You may trust Bush, others may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not illegal stuff is going on right now over the telephone under existing laws. This is a country of laws, not leaders. Nixon was proof of that.
Yeah yeah, I understand that whole thing. I'm just being needlessly strict in my use of the words. Which quite frankly, I'd hope judges would be in their rulings. If the judge had said "potentially violates the principles of free speech through intimidation", I never would have posted what I posted.
Yup, that's exactly it. Any time you can distract a person or teach them how to ignore pain, as opposed to medicating it, is better. After all, would you rather be a morphine addict or know how to deal with pain on your own?
I wonder if it would be possible to train someone to consciously ignore the pain centre of the brain in this manner?
I've certainly heard of cancer patients being taught how to meditate/self-hypnosis. It is definitely possible to block out pain if you have the will to do so.
I wouldn't recommend it. You'll end up getting more wet than anything. Plus, having a big bucket of ice water can't be so safe next to a computer anyway, can it?
I really don't get the ice water experiment, and I've actually been subjected to it before. I've kept my arm submerged in ice water for more than five minutes, only taking it out because my shoulder and elbow was getting sore from holding it in a rather awkward position (bucket wasn't all that big). It stung, I guess, but as far as pain goes, I've had much worse. If anything, your arm sort of gets numb and you don't feel it as much. I suppose if I had something to distract me, I probably could have kept it in longer. What I'm getting at is, why ice water to test pain?
The option to appeal does not make you not guilty if you've been convicted. All it means is that you have the opportunity to spend more of your money in an attempt to avoid jailtime for a crime you're legally guilty of.
I've heard of it plenty of times. It's not as rare as you might think. This is high profile case and people who want attention can get it by making up crazy stories. And they can always say later it was all just a mistake, and without evidence a recanted confession means less than you might expect.
Even if it does nothing for their marketshare, I would love to see IE7 be standards-compliant. Whether we like it or not, IE is bundled with windows and a lot of people end up using it by default. It hopefully would go a long way to getting websites to follow actual standards, not just MS standards.
I'm sure they'll be able to get Vista working on BootCamp when Vista comes out. BootCamp is still just beta software, and Vista is still just beta software. Give it time.
Except Ceres isn't a pluton, it's not a Trans-Neptunian Object. Ceres is just a Dwarf Planet.
But seriously, what's wrong with having 53 or more planets? It's not like we have to know them all. Learn the major 12, and the important moons (Io, Europa, Luna, etc.). If you don't know anything else about the solar system, so be it. Classifying 53 objects as planets doesn't really mean anything, except that we actually finally have a definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice straw man there. No, I would not rather endow the leader with my blind trust and obedience. I believe that the system of checks and balances placed upon those in power already works. I trust the law, which I hold to be higher than that of any leader.
Why not mild electric shock? After all, these same parents put those special collars on their pets, right?
What I want to know is, how did a pro-Sony article get put up here by Zonk?
I think the main point is, why are they rebuilding the city where it was before? Why not move the city farther away from the coast and above sea level? It's just asking for another big disaster, possibly even this fall, and all this shiny new equipment will be wiped out. It's not the level of technology, it's the investment in a place just waiting for another wipe-out.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night? I watched All the President's Men on TV last night, and those informants sure knew how to inform. If some reporter is too lazy to get away from their desk and do a bit of legwork for an important story, that's their own fault.
But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail. This is just paranoia for paranoia's sake. That's the job of the ACLU, to keep government bogged down in lawsuits every so often so they're not causing any real trouble. Same thing with the press, they jump on every little meaningless "scandal" so that nobody takes anything any further than that. I can respect them even when they're wrong.
And the more I think about it, the more I think the ACLU is simply wrong. It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed. Sure, there's the intimidation factor that may lead to self-censorship, but that's only if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. And it's not like the government is sneaking into everyone's home to stick microphones under your tables to prevent you from talking about last night's baseball game. All they're doing in this case is monitoring phone calls made on public lines between foreign countries and the US. So long as you're not breaking any laws, what's the big deal?
You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.
I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway. But I'm not ready to declare this thing a violation of free speech, by the strictest of definitions. Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?
If the laws of the future are retroactive, that's a far bigger problem then the data collected today.
There's no amendment that I'm aware of that ensures your right to cheat on your tax returns, so your analogy is flawed.
I totally understand where wiretapping "innocent" people is a Bad Thing, in principle. It definitely violates "privacy" (although we could still debate whether you can actually expect privacy over public lines to foreign countries- I might not be so quick to assume you can). But there is absolutely nothing here stopping you from talking about whatever you want. If you're talking about illegal stuff, then yeah, the government will bust you for it, and should, just as the IRS is within their rights to bust you for income tax evasion, and should.
If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right? And if they're not talking about such things, then you're not going to have the government busting you for anything. I'd be a lot more worried about the government passing laws making more things illegal than the government checking to see that existing laws are being followed. When you see laws showing up that makes things illegal retroactively, or makes additional kinds of speech illegal (political crime), that's a problem. We aren't really there yet, and I expect we won't be in my lifetime.
You may trust Bush, others may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not illegal stuff is going on right now over the telephone under existing laws. This is a country of laws, not leaders. Nixon was proof of that.
Yeah yeah, I understand that whole thing. I'm just being needlessly strict in my use of the words. Which quite frankly, I'd hope judges would be in their rulings. If the judge had said "potentially violates the principles of free speech through intimidation", I never would have posted what I posted.
We'll be beaming people up any day now.
Yup, that's exactly it. Any time you can distract a person or teach them how to ignore pain, as opposed to medicating it, is better. After all, would you rather be a morphine addict or know how to deal with pain on your own?
I wouldn't recommend it. You'll end up getting more wet than anything. Plus, having a big bucket of ice water can't be so safe next to a computer anyway, can it?
I really don't get the ice water experiment, and I've actually been subjected to it before. I've kept my arm submerged in ice water for more than five minutes, only taking it out because my shoulder and elbow was getting sore from holding it in a rather awkward position (bucket wasn't all that big). It stung, I guess, but as far as pain goes, I've had much worse. If anything, your arm sort of gets numb and you don't feel it as much. I suppose if I had something to distract me, I probably could have kept it in longer. What I'm getting at is, why ice water to test pain?
The option to appeal does not make you not guilty if you've been convicted. All it means is that you have the opportunity to spend more of your money in an attempt to avoid jailtime for a crime you're legally guilty of.
I've heard of it plenty of times. It's not as rare as you might think. This is high profile case and people who want attention can get it by making up crazy stories. And they can always say later it was all just a mistake, and without evidence a recanted confession means less than you might expect.
Even if it does nothing for their marketshare, I would love to see IE7 be standards-compliant. Whether we like it or not, IE is bundled with windows and a lot of people end up using it by default. It hopefully would go a long way to getting websites to follow actual standards, not just MS standards.
How is it all that better for security? Don't all the viruses and spyware just run natively in that situation?
At this rate, we'll have the holiday season starting July 5th.
We're talking about the holiday season already? Isn't it August?
I'm sure they'll be able to get Vista working on BootCamp when Vista comes out. BootCamp is still just beta software, and Vista is still just beta software. Give it time.
Except Ceres isn't a pluton, it's not a Trans-Neptunian Object. Ceres is just a Dwarf Planet.
But seriously, what's wrong with having 53 or more planets? It's not like we have to know them all. Learn the major 12, and the important moons (Io, Europa, Luna, etc.). If you don't know anything else about the solar system, so be it. Classifying 53 objects as planets doesn't really mean anything, except that we actually finally have a definition.
I think we should stop calling the Moon the Moon, and call it Luna. But it's still just a moon.