Mostly good points, but you have mischaracterized the driving force completely.
Even before history, men have always had the itch to migrate and tame the great wilderness. In the 19th Century, it was called Manifest Destiny. Today, it's denigrated as mere science fiction. The itch is still there. It hasn't changed. Our eyes have simply refocused on the next great wilderness.
Also, wasn't there a possible-but-unlikely major-impact event a few years back? My memory of the thing is hazy. Just because we can see it coming, doesn't mean we can do anything about it at this stage. All we could do was sit back and pretend it wasn't coming.
H1-B is a good thing for the US, but is sometimes abused by firms who wish to pay very low salaries with no benefits (sometimes practically holding the employee hostage). This behavior is bad for both the visa holder, and for the job market as a whole (supply and demand get skewed).
I apologize for those who cannot follow simple logic. (We'll just need to keep working on them.) The Xenophobes can apologize for themselves.
The officer in question actually performed admirably and didn't do anything wrong.
A plain clothes cop jumps out of a car, wields a gun, demands the rider relinquish his property, and delays identifying himself. Didn't do anything wrong? You're kidding, right?
Mind you, I don't endorse nor practice asshattery like that, but at the same time I realize that despite what some people shriek, it isn't particularly dangerous to anybody other than yourself.
Not true. In the event of an accident, he was far more likely to injure himself, but that does not excuse the risk he imposed on others.
What if he caused another driver to swerve? He didn't even need to wreck himself to cause fatalities.
You bring up more good points, but do note that recording laws are state-by-state and vary wildly. There is no "current set of US laws", as such.
Many news videos these days come from the public.
So do the tabloids. They too claim freedom of the press, but give nothing of value to society.
So, what do you want? Only government-licensed "members of the press" are permitted to record? Again, bad idea.
No. That's directly contrary to my interpretation of freedom of the press. Anybody who could financially afford to publish was the press then, and should be now. When I said there would need to be reasonable exceptions for the press, this is the context I was working from. Sorry for the confusion.
So if I record my kids at Disneyland and you walk into my frame while chatting with your girlfriend, I have committed an illegal act? Sorry, that's very bad.
That would be a bad idea (and presumably is somewhere). On the other hand, if I'm sitting at an outdoor restaurant at Disneyland, and you zoom the camera in on us and pull out the parabolic mic, I'd say you crossed the line. Intent, obviousness, any forewarning, and the seriousness of a situation should all be taken into consideration. Unfortunately that makes crafting a good law difficult, and may make it ambiguous or hard to remember.
An interesting argument. I'd just as soon make recording with zero consent illegal. It acts as an additional deterrence and sometimes prevents the exploitation. There do need to be reasonable exceptions for the press, etc (in public at least).
A good question. I live in California (a two-party-consent state). I heard a presentation about a decade and a half ago by an officer who said that his favorite tool of the trade was his tape recorder. It made sense then, but I didn't know about the consent law at the time.
You've forgotten about the law of unintended consequences. Do you really think it aught to be legal for anybody you've invited into your home to plant bugs or cameras? They're there lawfully, and you're proposing giving them the right to record without being party to the conversation. What about bed/bath rooms? What about corporate espionage? Messy divorces? Foreign agents?
One party consent seems to be a sane minimum without a warrant. I understand the desire/need for two party consent laws, but they too have unintended consequences, and needs to be fine tuned (as this incident shows).
Most of the video is boring. Skip to 2:55. He did deserve to be pulled over, but not like that.
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
I agree, but it's more than that. They're authority to use force derives from our rights. We have every right to ensure that they are properly executing their duties (without interfering with said duties). The first amendment was specifically intended to allow for dissemination of information regarding improper use of authority. He has an affirmative right to post that video. At best the officer can claim the inferred right to privacy, which shouldn't be granted in this context.
I agreed with the bit that I quoted, but the part I disagreed with was more in the immediately preceding statement:
No, he means falisfy, as in you can't disprove the opposite.
Then why didn't you quote that part? If you want people to understand what you're saying, it seems to me that you ought to quote the relevant bits, and omit the irrelevant ones. Whatever.
Failing to disprove an opposing theory does not necessarily falsify your theory. It does probably show that your theory is at least incomplete,...
You misunderstand him. Nowhere did he suggest that. He did suggest that you must have falsifiable theories to test to call it science (which is one well-regarded school of thought).
The closest you could come to his words would be: "[If you can't] disprov[e] enough alternative hypothesis [then] you can['t] be fairly sure you're close to the truth." Note the vast difference between (paraphrasing) "can't be sure you're close" and "can be sure you're not close".
... let them logically debate and come to a mutually acceptable solution, like scientists would about any other topic.
Not necessarily. That's the view often taken by non-scientists about the scientific community. Those more familiar with the process have other points of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Science doesn't really work on proving a hypothesis, but on disproving enough alternative hypothesis that you can be fairly sure you're close to the truth.
That is how a hypothesis becomes a theory, but it is not how falsification works.
According to a great many (followers of Karl Popper), it is how falsification works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.
The GPP was clearer; wikipedia is more accurate. This is according to only ONE frequently quoted philosopher of science, but a popular one.
(disclaimer: The one thing I really learned from my Philosophy of Science class is that there is no single agreed upon definition of science, and it is extremely unlikely that there will be one in the future.)
It is a fixation on a lack of Deity with religious zeal. It serves to separate people into "believers" of the philosophy (atheists), and "non-believers" ("religious nut-jobs"). It has caused many arguments. It has even helped start armed conflict.
It looks like a duck; it quacks like a duck; that it isn't a duck is largely irrelevant.
On a more serious note, it would be really nice to make lobbying illegal for non-US legal entities. If your headquarters really are a small suite in an office building on a Caribbean island, and you feel like you ought not pay US taxes because of it, you shouldn't be allowed access to our lawmakers.
Indeed. Violating military airspace will not involve the FAA to get you out. Fighters will intercept you, and if you do not willingly land with them, they will simply shoot you down.
Unless your aircraft is equipped with countermeasures, and you shoot back.
Fair enough. They would, however, proceed to shoot you down in a complicated fashion.
That always bothered me, particularly among the aging population. I also think the test should be a bit longer. That's not to say stricter, necessarily, but to give the tester a better feel for the driver's ability. My tester didn't even require I go on the freeway. It certainly didn't evaluate the full scope of my driving ability.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly good points, but you have mischaracterized the driving force completely.
Even before history, men have always had the itch to migrate and tame the great wilderness. In the 19th Century, it was called Manifest Destiny. Today, it's denigrated as mere science fiction. The itch is still there. It hasn't changed. Our eyes have simply refocused on the next great wilderness.
Exactly.
Also, wasn't there a possible-but-unlikely major-impact event a few years back? My memory of the thing is hazy. Just because we can see it coming, doesn't mean we can do anything about it at this stage. All we could do was sit back and pretend it wasn't coming.
A quick google search brings up this recent event: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503164,00.html
Nice troll. Despite being blatantly obvious, you're bound to get a few bites.
Misplaced hatred. (yes, this is off topic)
H1-B is a good thing for the US, but is sometimes abused by firms who wish to pay very low salaries with no benefits (sometimes practically holding the employee hostage). This behavior is bad for both the visa holder, and for the job market as a whole (supply and demand get skewed).
I apologize for those who cannot follow simple logic. (We'll just need to keep working on them.) The Xenophobes can apologize for themselves.
Uh... Whoosh?
You do realize you're responding to AC?
Fair enough, but no need to rant. Short and sweet, please.
I mostly agree with you.
The officer in question actually performed admirably and didn't do anything wrong.
A plain clothes cop jumps out of a car, wields a gun, demands the rider relinquish his property, and delays identifying himself. Didn't do anything wrong? You're kidding, right?
Mind you, I don't endorse nor practice asshattery like that, but at the same time I realize that despite what some people shriek, it isn't particularly dangerous to anybody other than yourself.
Not true. In the event of an accident, he was far more likely to injure himself, but that does not excuse the risk he imposed on others.
What if he caused another driver to swerve? He didn't even need to wreck himself to cause fatalities.
Many news videos these days come from the public.
So do the tabloids. They too claim freedom of the press, but give nothing of value to society.
So, what do you want? Only government-licensed "members of the press" are permitted to record? Again, bad idea.
No. That's directly contrary to my interpretation of freedom of the press. Anybody who could financially afford to publish was the press then, and should be now. When I said there would need to be reasonable exceptions for the press, this is the context I was working from. Sorry for the confusion.
So if I record my kids at Disneyland and you walk into my frame while chatting with your girlfriend, I have committed an illegal act? Sorry, that's very bad.
That would be a bad idea (and presumably is somewhere). On the other hand, if I'm sitting at an outdoor restaurant at Disneyland, and you zoom the camera in on us and pull out the parabolic mic, I'd say you crossed the line. Intent, obviousness, any forewarning, and the seriousness of a situation should all be taken into consideration. Unfortunately that makes crafting a good law difficult, and may make it ambiguous or hard to remember.
An interesting argument. I'd just as soon make recording with zero consent illegal. It acts as an additional deterrence and sometimes prevents the exploitation. There do need to be reasonable exceptions for the press, etc (in public at least).
QuantumG proposed a zero-consent law and said "anything". If you're addressing something specific in my post, it's not obvious.
A good question. I live in California (a two-party-consent state). I heard a presentation about a decade and a half ago by an officer who said that his favorite tool of the trade was his tape recorder. It made sense then, but I didn't know about the consent law at the time.
Yep. You're crazy.
You've forgotten about the law of unintended consequences. Do you really think it aught to be legal for anybody you've invited into your home to plant bugs or cameras? They're there lawfully, and you're proposing giving them the right to record without being party to the conversation. What about bed/bath rooms? What about corporate espionage? Messy divorces? Foreign agents?
One party consent seems to be a sane minimum without a warrant. I understand the desire/need for two party consent laws, but they too have unintended consequences, and needs to be fine tuned (as this incident shows).
Most of the video is boring. Skip to 2:55. He did deserve to be pulled over, but not like that.
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
I agree, but it's more than that. They're authority to use force derives from our rights. We have every right to ensure that they are properly executing their duties (without interfering with said duties). The first amendment was specifically intended to allow for dissemination of information regarding improper use of authority. He has an affirmative right to post that video. At best the officer can claim the inferred right to privacy, which shouldn't be granted in this context.
I agreed with the bit that I quoted, but the part I disagreed with was more in the immediately preceding statement:
No, he means falisfy, as in you can't disprove the opposite.
Then why didn't you quote that part? If you want people to understand what you're saying, it seems to me that you ought to quote the relevant bits, and omit the irrelevant ones. Whatever.
Failing to disprove an opposing theory does not necessarily falsify your theory. It does probably show that your theory is at least incomplete, ...
You misunderstand him. Nowhere did he suggest that. He did suggest that you must have falsifiable theories to test to call it science (which is one well-regarded school of thought).
The closest you could come to his words would be: "[If you can't] disprov[e] enough alternative hypothesis [then] you can['t] be fairly sure you're close to the truth." Note the vast difference between (paraphrasing) "can't be sure you're close" and "can be sure you're not close".
You, sir, are the mirror image of most believers. They too "just get up in the morning".
(The analogy holds. There are some who are truly "on the fence", but not many. There are, however, many on both sides who don't really care.)
... let them logically debate and come to a mutually acceptable solution, like scientists would about any other topic.
Not necessarily. That's the view often taken by non-scientists about the scientific community. Those more familiar with the process have other points of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Science doesn't really work on proving a hypothesis, but on disproving enough alternative hypothesis that you can be fairly sure you're close to the truth.
That is how a hypothesis becomes a theory, but it is not how falsification works.
According to a great many (followers of Karl Popper), it is how falsification works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.
The GPP was clearer; wikipedia is more accurate. This is according to only ONE frequently quoted philosopher of science, but a popular one.
(disclaimer: The one thing I really learned from my Philosophy of Science class is that there is no single agreed upon definition of science, and it is extremely unlikely that there will be one in the future.)
Parent is trolling. Please move along. He wants you to respond angrily. Please don't give him what he wants.
It is a fixation on a lack of Deity with religious zeal. It serves to separate people into "believers" of the philosophy (atheists), and "non-believers" ("religious nut-jobs"). It has caused many arguments. It has even helped start armed conflict.
It looks like a duck; it quacks like a duck; that it isn't a duck is largely irrelevant.
Partially true, but only because the US has acted as the world police. (with both justice and abuse)
Just wait until the left finally manages to gut our military to a critical low. I hope you're ready to defend yourselves without our help.
On a more serious note, it would be really nice to make lobbying illegal for non-US legal entities. If your headquarters really are a small suite in an office building on a Caribbean island, and you feel like you ought not pay US taxes because of it, you shouldn't be allowed access to our lawmakers.
Alkaline, lead, lithium, or citrus? It is kinda hard to get the form factor down on a shoe string budget, though.
(jk)
Indeed. Violating military airspace will not involve the FAA to get you out. Fighters will intercept you, and if you do not willingly land with them, they will simply shoot you down.
Unless your aircraft is equipped with countermeasures, and you shoot back.
Fair enough. They would, however, proceed to shoot you down in a complicated fashion.
That always bothered me, particularly among the aging population. I also think the test should be a bit longer. That's not to say stricter, necessarily, but to give the tester a better feel for the driver's ability. My tester didn't even require I go on the freeway. It certainly didn't evaluate the full scope of my driving ability.