You mean, their constitutional right to due process? A Hong Kong company being sued in Europe by a Japanese company? Which nation's constitution are you saying protects their "right to due process"?
I quit buying Sony after last year's rootkit fiasco too. And coincidentally, a Sony product that my office purchased a few years ago suddenly failed this morning in a VERY embarrassing way. I have already sworn off Sony music AND consumer electronics equipment.. now I'm going to have to start paying attention to what movies they're distributing..
Fortunately almost all the music I buy, I can buy straight from the artist. Pity about John Mayer, though.
Classic catch-22. Anyone ethical enough to deserve the job isn't qualified to actually get the job.. cause they're too ethical to kiss that much ass--I mean, play corporate politics and win.
> Obviously you forgot the entire Centris and Performa... to upgrade memory in the stupid iMac... the B&W G3 ATA problem... On a 300 MHz G3... SCSI bus on the IIfx...
Nice troll. You're talking about 6- to 15-year old technologies. The IIfx was released in 1990. And you want to say that because they made an error on a computer design back in 1990, all their products are crap now?
For the record, To this day I have a Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997 (which I've since upgraded to a 400MHz G3) that still fires up reliably and does all its work admirably well.
So why have citizenship at all? If we are to treat any living human being on the planet as though they were citizens of the US, why have citizenship in the first place?
Because US citizenship is valuable. It means something. It means our soldiers are fighting to protect you ("you" inspecific). It means our law enforcement works day and night to try to prevent crime and keep you safe. It means you can vote in elections and start a business and participate in our culture and economy as an equal. And you get to enjoy the rights as outlined in our Constitution.
If you are not a citizen of the US, these are things you don't get to just take for granted. If you want them, you have to lawfully become naturalized, just as in every other country. If you are an enemy combatant then don't expect us to coddle you as though you are a citizen who's committed a crime. War is not crime.. the criminal courts are no place to prosecute a war.
Agree. WoW is just a game. It may have qualities that make you want to play it more often. That makes it a successful game. Blizzard has not created anything intrinsically evil. They've created something all game developers strive to create.
Some people like playing this game more than they like doing many other things, like being social (in real life). Or watching TV or playing sports or reading books. None of these activities are fundamentally better or worse than others. It's just that these people let their enjoyment of the game overrule their common sense, and let their families suffer, schoolwork, relationships, and so on. That's not Blizzard's fault. It's not the game's fault either.
I play in an MMO. There've been times I've wanted to call in sick to work and just stay home and grind through quests. It's a great escape. It's a very enjoyable recreational activity that is relatively inexpensive and doesn't require ingesting chemicals or other risky behaviors. But common sense reminds me that it is just a game, and there's a time to game and a time to work. There's also a time to spend with friends and a time to SLEEP. As long as I keep my priorities in order, like a responsible adult, I plan to go right on enjoying my MMO of choice.
Amazing (though not really surprising) that this got modded Insightful. It should have been modded -1 Did Not Read The Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law". The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these rights to be self-evident..."
> how can you possibly subscribe to a system of human rights that you only believe apply to citizens of a certain country
Gosh, in Spain the legal age of consent is 13. According to your logic, all citizens of the world should have the same "right" because hey, if it's that's the law in Spain, why should it only apply to Spaniards?? How hypocritical and selfish of them!
> # Picard won't spend his retirement writing science fiction books or making cameo appearances in Zemeckis & Zemeckis films.
Um, what Zemeckis movie did Shatner cameo in? Maybe you meant "Zucker & Zucker" although if you meant that in reference to Airplane 2 you'd still be wrong, the Zuckers didn't do that one.
> I'd hope he wouldn't take a jocular second-hand insult personally
I'm sure he wouldn't. I just felt the need to assure you that he is not some hack teaching law at a backwater community college.
> parents, being responsible for the well-being of the child, are not bound to recognize those rights, on the belief that children are not prepared for the reponsibilities that come with those rights
Your point is taken. My argument is simply that, because this is so, those "rights" are not rights. They are privileges granted at the leisure of the parent. Once the child turns 18 (or whatever) they can be claimed as rights.
> You may not have meant to say that children don't have inherent (I caught myself that time) rights, but you did.
So I did; I stand corrected.
I'm willing to accept that our disagreement is fundamentally semantic. And I'm willing to acknowledge that we have differing, and perhaps equally legitimate, interpretations of Hazelwood. My graduate law professor is very highly esteemed and is nationally recognized for his work in first amendment law and advocacy--that is his speciality. (He has little to be ashamed about, so please cease your attacks on him.) He made his opinion plain that he does not agree with the decision in that case, and cited several cases since that have challenged it, but the fact remains that it is still used as stare decisis in case law today.
> However, as in most cases, the protection of children's rights is subject to balancing with the rights and obligations of others involved. If that excludes a child from being considered a "fully vested citizen," then no one can qualify
I just can't agree with that. I am 34 years old. I realize that my first amendment rights do not protect me from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One has to understand what limits their rights have, what they protect and what they do not. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were revolutionary in that they asserted that all human beings have certain rights, that these rights were theirs naturally, not granted by or gifted from the state. Freedom is the most quintessential human right as asserted by our founding documents. Children are not free. They are wards of their parents until they are of legal age, when, we hope, they have been educated to the point where they can exercise their own judgement in civil matters, as well as things such as situations where their rights do and don't apply. This is for their own protection. It also means they do not have the right to own deadly weapons, talk back to their parents or go to any party of their choosing. If they want to sue their parents for infringing these "rights" they will only win the judge's amusement and maybe a little notoriety in the local newspaper.
Inherent. I'm not usually one to finger people's typos but you've used (and misspelled) the word too many times for it to be a typo.
I never once said children have no rights. I stand by my assertion that any first amendment rights that children may think they have are subordinate to their parents' rights and responsibilities to discipline, monitor and protect them. Which basically says they don't have first amendment rights at all, because when their parents have full veto power over them, they cease to be "rights". What Hazelwood shows is that they are not fully vested citizens outside the home, either. I don't know what state you live in, but here in Missouri you must be 18 to own a firearm. You must be 18 to marry. You must be 18 to vote. You must be 18 to be tried as an adult in a criminal court room (usually). You must be 21 to sit on a jury. You must be 18 to sign a contract (including a lease). You must be 18 to consent to (or refuse) your own medical treatment (with a few exceptions). You must be 16 to drive a motor vehicle by yourself, and that's conditional as well. These are all direct refutations of any assertion that children are entitled to the same civil rights of grown adult citizens.
Someone passed his graduate-level law class this past summer, which dealt specifically with first amendment issues including Tinker and Hazelwood (where he himself was a student at the time btw), with flying colors and continues to maintain a 4.0 cum average.
Instead of basing your argument on Tinker (1969) why don't you go freshen up a little on Hazelwood (1988) which ruled that no, high school kids' first amendment "rights" do not trump those of school management?
I'm talking outside the home. I personally believe kids do not (and should not) get to enjoy all the rights of a citizen until they are of voting age, but there are some laws that disagree with me. At home, though, sorry. They do have rights (shelter, food, etc) but not first amendment rights. You ever see a kid try to claim "first amendment rights" to speech to their own parent? If the parent has half an ounce of brains they'd laugh in the kid's face. Freedom to assemble? "You're grounded. Tough." Freedom to bear arms and form militias? LOL! Uh, no.
Children are not property, true. But they are not fully-vested citizens either. The concept is just silly. I hope you're not a parent.
Oh, and drawing an analogy between the child/parent relationship and the citizen/government relationship may seem logical on the surface but isn't at all. The government's role is not to raise healthy citizens. It is to keep them safe from foreign invasion (which includes terrorist attacks), safeguard law and order and provide a functioning system in which the economy can thrive.. basically, to allow the citizenry to live their lives in reasonable safety and with the maximum of freedom consistent with order. A parent's job is wholly different.
I should add that those people who are pissing their rent money away at online gambling web sites will just find another irresponsible behavior to partake in once their e-casinos are shuttered. I'd venture to say that no society in the history of the planet has ever been able to legislate responsible behavior. Either you're responsible with your money or you're not.
> Much like worker vs. management, the parent/child relationship is, by its very nature, adversarial.
One major difference: children are not adult workers entering into a consensual employee/employer relationship. Children are born into their families with no inherent rights except that to food, shelter, education and a decent upbringing to the best of their parents' ability. They do not have "rights" to privacy, speech, freedom of association or any of the basic civil rights adults enjoy. They live under the protection of their parents and therefore if the parents want to read their IM logs, that's their prerogative.
> When the people are cheering because the state can't use the mechanics of society to
> effectively enforce the law, that means there's something very fundimentally wrong.
Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the law. Then it's a reason to cheer.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, their constitutional right to due process? A Hong Kong company being sued in Europe by a Japanese company? Which nation's constitution are you saying protects their "right to due process"?
That ad is the devil. I had no intention of buying a PS3 before I saw this .. now I am twice as adamant about not.
I have many electronic components in my home. The last thing I need is to pay money for a demonic one.
I'm personally very glad to hear Sony's profits are down 94%. I hope that's a result of people refusing to buy Sony products on principle.
I quit buying Sony after last year's rootkit fiasco too. And coincidentally, a Sony product that my office purchased a few years ago suddenly failed this morning in a VERY embarrassing way. I have already sworn off Sony music AND consumer electronics equipment .. now I'm going to have to start paying attention to what movies they're distributing ..
Fortunately almost all the music I buy, I can buy straight from the artist. Pity about John Mayer, though.
Yes indeed, we live in a country where you're modded +5 Insightful for being moonbat-paranoid. Wewt.
Classic catch-22. Anyone ethical enough to deserve the job isn't qualified to actually get the job .. cause they're too ethical to kiss that much ass--I mean, play corporate politics and win.
Or were you referring to Fiorina and Dunn?
If so, I'm not sure it will be borne out that Dunn was a "monumentally bad" CEO.
Wow. And I thought common sense had flown the coop years ago. Mod parent +1 Has A Clue.
> Obviously you forgot the entire Centris and Performa ... to upgrade memory in the stupid iMac ... the B&W G3 ATA problem ... On a 300 MHz G3 ... SCSI bus on the IIfx ...
Nice troll. You're talking about 6- to 15-year old technologies. The IIfx was released in 1990. And you want to say that because they made an error on a computer design back in 1990, all their products are crap now?
For the record, To this day I have a Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997 (which I've since upgraded to a 400MHz G3) that still fires up reliably and does all its work admirably well.
So why have citizenship at all? If we are to treat any living human being on the planet as though they were citizens of the US, why have citizenship in the first place?
Because US citizenship is valuable. It means something. It means our soldiers are fighting to protect you ("you" inspecific). It means our law enforcement works day and night to try to prevent crime and keep you safe. It means you can vote in elections and start a business and participate in our culture and economy as an equal. And you get to enjoy the rights as outlined in our Constitution.
If you are not a citizen of the US, these are things you don't get to just take for granted. If you want them, you have to lawfully become naturalized, just as in every other country. If you are an enemy combatant then don't expect us to coddle you as though you are a citizen who's committed a crime. War is not crime .. the criminal courts are no place to prosecute a war.
Agree. WoW is just a game. It may have qualities that make you want to play it more often. That makes it a successful game. Blizzard has not created anything intrinsically evil. They've created something all game developers strive to create.
Some people like playing this game more than they like doing many other things, like being social (in real life). Or watching TV or playing sports or reading books. None of these activities are fundamentally better or worse than others. It's just that these people let their enjoyment of the game overrule their common sense, and let their families suffer, schoolwork, relationships, and so on. That's not Blizzard's fault. It's not the game's fault either.
I play in an MMO. There've been times I've wanted to call in sick to work and just stay home and grind through quests. It's a great escape. It's a very enjoyable recreational activity that is relatively inexpensive and doesn't require ingesting chemicals or other risky behaviors. But common sense reminds me that it is just a game, and there's a time to game and a time to work. There's also a time to spend with friends and a time to SLEEP. As long as I keep my priorities in order, like a responsible adult, I plan to go right on enjoying my MMO of choice.
Sometimes it's more appropriate to direct them here.
Pun intended.
Amazing (though not really surprising) that this got modded Insightful. It should have been modded -1 Did Not Read The Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law". The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these rights to be self-evident..."
> how can you possibly subscribe to a system of human rights that you only believe apply to citizens of a certain country
Gosh, in Spain the legal age of consent is 13. According to your logic, all citizens of the world should have the same "right" because hey, if it's that's the law in Spain, why should it only apply to Spaniards?? How hypocritical and selfish of them!You're describing the Spelling Bee Question From Hell. Now I'm even more impressed.
> # Picard won't spend his retirement writing science fiction books or making cameo appearances in Zemeckis & Zemeckis films.
Um, what Zemeckis movie did Shatner cameo in? Maybe you meant "Zucker & Zucker" although if you meant that in reference to Airplane 2 you'd still be wrong, the Zuckers didn't do that one.
> I'd hope he wouldn't take a jocular second-hand insult personally
I'm sure he wouldn't. I just felt the need to assure you that he is not some hack teaching law at a backwater community college.
> parents, being responsible for the well-being of the child, are not bound to recognize those rights, on the belief that children are not prepared for the reponsibilities that come with those rights
Your point is taken. My argument is simply that, because this is so, those "rights" are not rights. They are privileges granted at the leisure of the parent. Once the child turns 18 (or whatever) they can be claimed as rights.
> You may not have meant to say that children don't have inherent (I caught myself that time) rights, but you did.
So I did; I stand corrected.
I'm willing to accept that our disagreement is fundamentally semantic. And I'm willing to acknowledge that we have differing, and perhaps equally legitimate, interpretations of Hazelwood. My graduate law professor is very highly esteemed and is nationally recognized for his work in first amendment law and advocacy--that is his speciality. (He has little to be ashamed about, so please cease your attacks on him.) He made his opinion plain that he does not agree with the decision in that case, and cited several cases since that have challenged it, but the fact remains that it is still used as stare decisis in case law today.
> However, as in most cases, the protection of children's rights is subject to balancing with the rights and obligations of others involved. If that excludes a child from being considered a "fully vested citizen," then no one can qualify
I just can't agree with that. I am 34 years old. I realize that my first amendment rights do not protect me from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One has to understand what limits their rights have, what they protect and what they do not. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were revolutionary in that they asserted that all human beings have certain rights, that these rights were theirs naturally, not granted by or gifted from the state. Freedom is the most quintessential human right as asserted by our founding documents. Children are not free. They are wards of their parents until they are of legal age, when, we hope, they have been educated to the point where they can exercise their own judgement in civil matters, as well as things such as situations where their rights do and don't apply. This is for their own protection. It also means they do not have the right to own deadly weapons, talk back to their parents or go to any party of their choosing. If they want to sue their parents for infringing these "rights" they will only win the judge's amusement and maybe a little notoriety in the local newspaper.
Inherent. I'm not usually one to finger people's typos but you've used (and misspelled) the word too many times for it to be a typo.
I never once said children have no rights. I stand by my assertion that any first amendment rights that children may think they have are subordinate to their parents' rights and responsibilities to discipline, monitor and protect them. Which basically says they don't have first amendment rights at all, because when their parents have full veto power over them, they cease to be "rights". What Hazelwood shows is that they are not fully vested citizens outside the home, either. I don't know what state you live in, but here in Missouri you must be 18 to own a firearm. You must be 18 to marry. You must be 18 to vote. You must be 18 to be tried as an adult in a criminal court room (usually). You must be 21 to sit on a jury. You must be 18 to sign a contract (including a lease). You must be 18 to consent to (or refuse) your own medical treatment (with a few exceptions). You must be 16 to drive a motor vehicle by yourself, and that's conditional as well. These are all direct refutations of any assertion that children are entitled to the same civil rights of grown adult citizens.
Face it. You are wrong.
Someone passed his graduate-level law class this past summer, which dealt specifically with first amendment issues including Tinker and Hazelwood (where he himself was a student at the time btw), with flying colors and continues to maintain a 4.0 cum average.
Instead of basing your argument on Tinker (1969) why don't you go freshen up a little on Hazelwood (1988) which ruled that no, high school kids' first amendment "rights" do not trump those of school management?
And shove your patronizing attitude.
Patronize much?
I'm talking outside the home. I personally believe kids do not (and should not) get to enjoy all the rights of a citizen until they are of voting age, but there are some laws that disagree with me. At home, though, sorry. They do have rights (shelter, food, etc) but not first amendment rights. You ever see a kid try to claim "first amendment rights" to speech to their own parent? If the parent has half an ounce of brains they'd laugh in the kid's face. Freedom to assemble? "You're grounded. Tough." Freedom to bear arms and form militias? LOL! Uh, no.
Children are not property, true. But they are not fully-vested citizens either. The concept is just silly. I hope you're not a parent.
Oh, and drawing an analogy between the child/parent relationship and the citizen/government relationship may seem logical on the surface but isn't at all. The government's role is not to raise healthy citizens. It is to keep them safe from foreign invasion (which includes terrorist attacks), safeguard law and order and provide a functioning system in which the economy can thrive .. basically, to allow the citizenry to live their lives in reasonable safety and with the maximum of freedom consistent with order. A parent's job is wholly different.
Excellent post.
I should add that those people who are pissing their rent money away at online gambling web sites will just find another irresponsible behavior to partake in once their e-casinos are shuttered. I'd venture to say that no society in the history of the planet has ever been able to legislate responsible behavior. Either you're responsible with your money or you're not.
> Much like worker vs. management, the parent/child relationship is, by its very nature, adversarial.
One major difference: children are not adult workers entering into a consensual employee/employer relationship. Children are born into their families with no inherent rights except that to food, shelter, education and a decent upbringing to the best of their parents' ability. They do not have "rights" to privacy, speech, freedom of association or any of the basic civil rights adults enjoy. They live under the protection of their parents and therefore if the parents want to read their IM logs, that's their prerogative.
> f the law is fundamentally wrong, then the law should be thrown out on its own merits, or lack thereof.
And it would be so nice if that actually happened.
> When the people are cheering because the state can't use the mechanics of society to
> effectively enforce the law, that means there's something very fundimentally wrong.
Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the law. Then it's a reason to cheer.
You're right. I realized after I posted that it was not the day to partake of a hot dog. But I shall do so today.