The one that is synonymous with factually incorrect,...
Ah. That must then mean that I choose the wrong "it" and "him" as well. That's the problem with pronouns. The don't always redirect where they're intended to.
... but nice non sequitur.
Oh, not at all. I was making a statement out of context, not drawing a conclusion through faulty logic. It is still germane to the conversation and thus not a literary non sequitur. At worst, you might call it an unwelcome segue.
One of the major problems we're facing with the extra-litigious society we're evolving into is a confusion of "legal" with "right". Something can be legal, but also be wrong. On rare occasion, something can be illegal but also be right (morally or ethically).
We can't allow lawyers and politicians to put blinders on us. The further down this rabbit hole we allow them to take us, the fewer freedoms we will have in the long run.
It doesn't set a strong precedent outside of Maryland.
Foreign cases are occasionally cited for precedence, so citing a case from another state isn't entirely out of the question. It is unlikely to be given much sway, but it might still be used.
In MOST US states, recording conversations only requires the consent of ONE person. In this case, that would be the caller.
"MOST US states" doesn't seem to include New Hampshire this time. A quick Google search shows that it is a two-party-consent state.
Of course would could also argue the cop was ON A PUBLIC STREET and therefore has "no expectation of privacy" to quote the US Supreme Court. It sounds like this case is destined to be over-turned.
One would hope, but federal courts (including SCOTUS) are not always reasonable. Recording actions of active duty law enforcement personnel are strong deterrents to brutality, some corruption, and tyranny.
And secret ballots let the government fix the elections. There have been times and places that this has been a major problem.
Touché
I'm not arguing that it's prefect. I'm stating that no one here can show open balloting in a mature democracy to be worse than secret ballots. And so far, no one has been able to rise to the occasion and prove me wrong.
No, that might have been what you intended to argue. What you did state was "I take assertions that it would happen... to be proof that the speaker hasn't actually paid attention... and knows not of what they speak". You didn't argue that one was worse than the other, but that one wasn't a problem at all.
People seem programmed to seek an us-versus-them mentality. You see it everywhere: High school cross town rivalry, political partisanship, nationality (vital, but frequently overdone), preferred sports team, even the sport itself!
It is only natural for racial stereotypes to persist for this reason alone. Ugly, evil, pernicious, worth fighting against at every turn, but natural.
Interesting... Have you ever heard of a small business invoking such penalties? Can they be extracted from the megacorp without a great deal of effort? Are those penalties greater than a few months difference in business/home rates?
I could be wrong, but I think you've bought the bridge they're been selling. Maybe you know details that I don't?
The above AC is clearly racist. That said, it wasn't "racist shit" that he posted. He just took what the social sciences are finally starting to admit and regurgitated it in a racist manner. (Very rude of him.)
There's nothing about skin color that is causing this problem (besides the racial identity feedback loop). It's entirely a cultural issue, and it's hurting a lot of people. Labeling it racism doesn't make it go away. It only allows it to persist and fester. That would be the racist thing to do, I think.
How long before the truth is flagged as flamebait?
It's flamebait because of how it's phrased and where it's posted. Yes, it must have been intentional. Off topic is an appropriate mod, I think. Even stanch racists should agree that this doesn't go here.
(Granted, there is anthropological truth in it. Those who need it will never listen without a much greater degree of respect. Some of it was totally uncalled for.)
Most of those "restrictions" are artificial, hence "bullies and extortionists". Some of them can be quite punitive. Not paying our business rate? We're going to go out of our way to make it hurt.
And if who you are defines how much you're willing to cough up every month, yeah it really is about who you are.
Just because it isn't happening now doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the past and won't happen in the future. There are absolutely employers who would fire someone for voting contrary to how they're told. There have been times and places that this has been a major problem.
repair: restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken
set or place definitely
influence an event or its outcome by illegal means
(note that no illegal activity is required to "fix" a 2 party system. It is a natural consequence of plurality voting.)
I don't know, but I always assumed it was to respect people who zealously guard their respective sabbaths, and might not vote otherwise. These vary and range between sundown Friday till Monday morning. Yeah, it seems irrational, but they do exist.
As an observation: Even paper ballot systems can be gamed by "a couple clever guys" thanks to electronic tabulation. Sure it can't be done from a basement, but a corrupt elections official will still use electronic means of subterfuge. Just saying...
... If you are using a personal (home) account and running one however, it shouldn't surprise you if you were blocked (I know the article says a business account but it's relevant to the discussion). Both stated that was against the TOS to run servers on 'home' accounts.
It shouldn't surprise anyone, but I still take exception to it. They are selling Internet access. Why should businesses have a fundamentally different Internet than hobbyists?
They're just being bullies and extortionists.
(Yes, you can sometimes convince them to give you an exception on port 25. It still does not excuse their institutional prejudice against home servers.)
I don't think you understand what I wrote. I bet if you gave me an example, I would be able to refute it by showing that those "good intentions" were nothing more than rationalizations.
The road to disaster and chaos may be sprinkled with good intentions, but I just can't see how any road to hell is paved with them. (Un-enacted good intentions? Perhaps. It's still a form of rationalization.)
I've thought about this recently. I don't think it's true. The road to heaven is also paved with good intentions. So what is it about the road to hell that is different? Rationalization. That is the key, I think.
The road to hell is paved with rationalization.
The only problem with it, that I see: people traveling down that road rationalize that they aren't rationalizing! That's why the unmodified statement is much more effective. It hits those that need it by hitting everyone.
In order to have a coherent, sane definition of "us" or "our people" there must be a minimum of shared culture, values, and ethos. That happens gradually. It is happening on a global scale, but much, much slower than globalization of economy.
Most (not all) people "turn[ing] the corner" are deluded. They feel guilt for some of the bad things done on their behalf by their government and by corporations. This leads them to believe that other societies and peoples are, on average, equal or superior. They feel no need to push back against overreaching economic globalization.
What they forget is that other governments are often just as bad, or worse (especially in the "developing" world), and the worst of those evil corporations are international corporations. They'll do their evil regardless of whether it's here or abroad.
The trick is to prop them up as reasonably as we can without tearing ourselves down. The world isn't going to be a better place by weakening the economies of developed nations. The world isn't going to be a better place if local economies are over-homogenized. The world isn't a better place filled with planed obsolescence, disposability, and cut-cut-cut. I think our current path is good for foreign economies on the short scale, but not for the long haul. I know it isn't good for us over the long term.
... your government bullies the world and supports brutal dictatorships that slaughter their own people...
Nice strawman argument.
It's not as if we didn't already know that (and revile against it). It's not as if it changed our governments policies, nor started the Egyptian conflict.
Some things might have needed to get out, sure. Most of the things leaked, though, serve no purpose but to give targets to violent radical islamists, to destroy legitimate means of diplomacy, or serve no purpose at all. Even if the leak was well intentioned (debatable), it was very, very sloppy.
Hence my point about self policing media. They're good at many things, that isn't one of them.
You just ignored what I said, and repeated much the same thing. The Tea Party Express has money and power only because they were annexed by the Republican party. It is borrowed power. They have media attention because it "makes a better story". (Neither Republicans nor Democrats want real change; due to political cronies in the media, that idea is DOA.)
Many (most?) of the local rallies have not been co-opted, but the image of the tea party movement certainly has been.
Do you know how easy it is for reporters to track individual deaths in a war zone? Not easy at all. I'm sure the Pentagon is trying to keep track of how many of those people are dead. They would have a hard decision to make: release that information to further prejudice people against wikileaks, or keep it to themselves and hope their informants start to feel a false sense of security.
The former doesn't help win the war, the latter is a calculated risk that might. I'm sure if a trial results (probably a matter of time) those details will be discussed in closed court.
She won't be elected 2012. I fear that she might become the Republican nominee, though.
You bring up some good points, but do remember: the media LOVES the Palin controversy. It would have gone away if they had dropped it. It thrived because they constantly revived it. I wonder if they're merely following what they perceive to be a good story, or if some more devious political manipulation is going on. (insert conspiracy theory here)
Slashdot Mirror
The one that is synonymous with factually incorrect,...
Ah. That must then mean that I choose the wrong "it" and "him" as well. That's the problem with pronouns. The don't always redirect where they're intended to.
... but nice non sequitur.
Oh, not at all. I was making a statement out of context, not drawing a conclusion through faulty logic. It is still germane to the conversation and thus not a literary non sequitur. At worst, you might call it an unwelcome segue.
For what definition of "wrong"?
One of the major problems we're facing with the extra-litigious society we're evolving into is a confusion of "legal" with "right". Something can be legal, but also be wrong. On rare occasion, something can be illegal but also be right (morally or ethically).
We can't allow lawyers and politicians to put blinders on us. The further down this rabbit hole we allow them to take us, the fewer freedoms we will have in the long run.
Please don't feed the trolls. (AC, wild claims, avoids specifics, declines to specify which "our local state"...)
It doesn't set a strong precedent outside of Maryland.
Foreign cases are occasionally cited for precedence, so citing a case from another state isn't entirely out of the question. It is unlikely to be given much sway, but it might still be used.
In MOST US states, recording conversations only requires the consent of ONE person. In this case, that would be the caller.
"MOST US states" doesn't seem to include New Hampshire this time. A quick Google search shows that it is a two-party-consent state.
Of course would could also argue the cop was ON A PUBLIC STREET and therefore has "no expectation of privacy" to quote the US Supreme Court. It sounds like this case is destined to be over-turned.
One would hope, but federal courts (including SCOTUS) are not always reasonable. Recording actions of active duty law enforcement personnel are strong deterrents to brutality, some corruption, and tyranny.
Spray paint? Really? There are easier paints to use for this illicit endeavor.
If you're going for a Rube Goldberg effect, you could at least include an umbrella and a live squirrel!
And secret ballots let the government fix the elections. There have been times and places that this has been a major problem.
Touché
I'm not arguing that it's prefect. I'm stating that no one here can show open balloting in a mature democracy to be worse than secret ballots. And so far, no one has been able to rise to the occasion and prove me wrong.
No, that might have been what you intended to argue. What you did state was "I take assertions that it would happen ... to be proof that the speaker hasn't actually paid attention ... and knows not of what they speak". You didn't argue that one was worse than the other, but that one wasn't a problem at all.
People seem programmed to seek an us-versus-them mentality. You see it everywhere: High school cross town rivalry, political partisanship, nationality (vital, but frequently overdone), preferred sports team, even the sport itself!
It is only natural for racial stereotypes to persist for this reason alone. Ugly, evil, pernicious, worth fighting against at every turn, but natural.
Interesting... Have you ever heard of a small business invoking such penalties? Can they be extracted from the megacorp without a great deal of effort? Are those penalties greater than a few months difference in business/home rates?
I could be wrong, but I think you've bought the bridge they're been selling. Maybe you know details that I don't?
The above AC is clearly racist. That said, it wasn't "racist shit" that he posted. He just took what the social sciences are finally starting to admit and regurgitated it in a racist manner. (Very rude of him.)
There's nothing about skin color that is causing this problem (besides the racial identity feedback loop). It's entirely a cultural issue, and it's hurting a lot of people. Labeling it racism doesn't make it go away. It only allows it to persist and fester. That would be the racist thing to do, I think.
How long before the truth is flagged as flamebait?
It's flamebait because of how it's phrased and where it's posted. Yes, it must have been intentional. Off topic is an appropriate mod, I think. Even stanch racists should agree that this doesn't go here.
(Granted, there is anthropological truth in it. Those who need it will never listen without a much greater degree of respect. Some of it was totally uncalled for.)
Most of those "restrictions" are artificial, hence "bullies and extortionists". Some of them can be quite punitive. Not paying our business rate? We're going to go out of our way to make it hurt.
And if who you are defines how much you're willing to cough up every month, yeah it really is about who you are.
Just because it isn't happening now doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the past and won't happen in the future. There are absolutely employers who would fire someone for voting contrary to how they're told. There have been times and places that this has been a major problem.
For those who missed the joke - Fix:
repair: restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken
set or place definitely
influence an event or its outcome by illegal means
(note that no illegal activity is required to "fix" a 2 party system. It is a natural consequence of plurality voting.)
I don't know, but I always assumed it was to respect people who zealously guard their respective sabbaths, and might not vote otherwise. These vary and range between sundown Friday till Monday morning. Yeah, it seems irrational, but they do exist.
As an observation: Even paper ballot systems can be gamed by "a couple clever guys" thanks to electronic tabulation. Sure it can't be done from a basement, but a corrupt elections official will still use electronic means of subterfuge. Just saying...
... If you are using a personal (home) account and running one however, it shouldn't surprise you if you were blocked (I know the article says a business account but it's relevant to the discussion). Both stated that was against the TOS to run servers on 'home' accounts.
It shouldn't surprise anyone, but I still take exception to it. They are selling Internet access. Why should businesses have a fundamentally different Internet than hobbyists?
They're just being bullies and extortionists.
(Yes, you can sometimes convince them to give you an exception on port 25. It still does not excuse their institutional prejudice against home servers.)
I don't think you understand what I wrote. I bet if you gave me an example, I would be able to refute it by showing that those "good intentions" were nothing more than rationalizations.
The road to disaster and chaos may be sprinkled with good intentions, but I just can't see how any road to hell is paved with them. (Un-enacted good intentions? Perhaps. It's still a form of rationalization.)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've thought about this recently. I don't think it's true. The road to heaven is also paved with good intentions. So what is it about the road to hell that is different? Rationalization. That is the key, I think.
The road to hell is paved with rationalization.
The only problem with it, that I see: people traveling down that road rationalize that they aren't rationalizing! That's why the unmodified statement is much more effective. It hits those that need it by hitting everyone.
In order to have a coherent, sane definition of "us" or "our people" there must be a minimum of shared culture, values, and ethos. That happens gradually. It is happening on a global scale, but much, much slower than globalization of economy.
Most (not all) people "turn[ing] the corner" are deluded. They feel guilt for some of the bad things done on their behalf by their government and by corporations. This leads them to believe that other societies and peoples are, on average, equal or superior. They feel no need to push back against overreaching economic globalization.
What they forget is that other governments are often just as bad, or worse (especially in the "developing" world), and the worst of those evil corporations are international corporations. They'll do their evil regardless of whether it's here or abroad.
The trick is to prop them up as reasonably as we can without tearing ourselves down. The world isn't going to be a better place by weakening the economies of developed nations. The world isn't going to be a better place if local economies are over-homogenized. The world isn't a better place filled with planed obsolescence, disposability, and cut-cut-cut. I think our current path is good for foreign economies on the short scale, but not for the long haul. I know it isn't good for us over the long term.
... your government bullies the world and supports brutal dictatorships that slaughter their own people...
Nice strawman argument.
It's not as if we didn't already know that (and revile against it). It's not as if it changed our governments policies, nor started the Egyptian conflict.
Some things might have needed to get out, sure. Most of the things leaked, though, serve no purpose but to give targets to violent radical islamists, to destroy legitimate means of diplomacy, or serve no purpose at all. Even if the leak was well intentioned (debatable), it was very, very sloppy.
Hence my point about self policing media. They're good at many things, that isn't one of them.
You just ignored what I said, and repeated much the same thing. The Tea Party Express has money and power only because they were annexed by the Republican party. It is borrowed power. They have media attention because it "makes a better story". (Neither Republicans nor Democrats want real change; due to political cronies in the media, that idea is DOA.)
Many (most?) of the local rallies have not been co-opted, but the image of the tea party movement certainly has been.
Do you know how easy it is for reporters to track individual deaths in a war zone? Not easy at all. I'm sure the Pentagon is trying to keep track of how many of those people are dead. They would have a hard decision to make: release that information to further prejudice people against wikileaks, or keep it to themselves and hope their informants start to feel a false sense of security.
The former doesn't help win the war, the latter is a calculated risk that might. I'm sure if a trial results (probably a matter of time) those details will be discussed in closed court.
You realize you're asking AC to cite references?
To get a general feel for the GP's point, start here.
(If you're in CA, you really should be listening anyways. If you're puritanical, be prepared to skip some hours. I do.)
She won't be elected 2012. I fear that she might become the Republican nominee, though.
You bring up some good points, but do remember: the media LOVES the Palin controversy. It would have gone away if they had dropped it. It thrived because they constantly revived it. I wonder if they're merely following what they perceive to be a good story, or if some more devious political manipulation is going on. (insert conspiracy theory here)