I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.
Hold the gosh darn phone! So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care, you now have to also be a bible thumping, gun toting wacko as well?
Well, to be fair (to me, that is), I only suggested that those who say "ObamaCare" are right-wingers. They might be right-wing only on national health policy, or only on government social programs, or perhaps right-wing in a broader sense. You brought up the other stuff. [sarcasm]I certainly never called anyone a raving, toothless, illiterate, inbred, snake-handling cracker![/sarcasm]
You inferred the wacko part. I am glad to see that you are sensitive about this, though. Not because I've got anything against you. Actually, I appreciate your response. Because there are a lot of loudmouth wacko crackers out there that seem to be venting a great deal of rage which is -- in their words -- "not just about healthcare". People who the talking heads -- especially on one network -- refer to as "regular, hard working, real Americans".
No, I'm happy to read your protest against being lumped together with the "Obama must be stopped at all costs" crowd. I wish more Americans would come out as saying they aren't out just to oppose any change to the status quo, but who would be willing to offer constructive options and ideas for fixing a longstanding national problem.
>>>I'm all for allowing people to self-insure provided...
Fortunately I'm not a slave, and you are neither my master nor my king, so your opinion although welcome, will be ignored. I will follow my own path in life as a freeman (aka liberated person).
Wow. I bet you tied off your own umbilical cord. That's what a real freeman would do.
The Liberty to choose for yourself (instead of having a monopoly) is more important than saving a few dollars. Also you exaggerate the cost. There are only 8 million citizens who do not have either private or government coverage. The other ~290 million are just fine.
Yes your absolutely right. Now show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.
His absolutely right what?
Anyway, good luck with the not paying for what you don't want stuff. Congress can levy taxes, many of which pay for things that individual taxpayers don't want or don't personally need. For instance, I don't need national defense. I'm in Iowa now. When Canada invades, that's Minnesota's problem, not mine. I'd just as soon save that money for my own anti-boom-car system, which is a considerably more important issue to me than keeping frostbacks from slipping across the border and poaching our beaver pelts, eh. But I'm just too lazy to fight that one.
Now that's where you come in. You're all fired up about this. So here's the plan. Tell the government you will no longer be paying for anything you don't want. Unfortunately, money is fungible, so to be sure, stop paying taxes altogether. They're gonna try to seize your assets and attach your income, so get rid of that stuff first: give away your stuff and quit your job, refuse to cash any checks for alimony, child support, lottery payouts, entitlement plans, everything. Now when they come for you, let them toss you in jail. Here's the best part: since you're in jail, you're costing them instead of paying them, making it harder to do this to the next guy. Try to get arrested somewhere the jails have internet access so you can keep us posted on your progress.
How does a Federal special prosecutor give immunity against State charges? I assume you are familiar with the 10th amendment and the concept of separation of powers?
I think you're an imposter! If you were a real retro computer fan on a nostalgia trip, you'd be thinking of it as "8K" or "64K". No-one ever even called it "64KB" in those days, let alone the vile SI-nitpickers-in-cahoots-with-marketers-pandering-vileness that is "64KiB" (spit!)
But there were the rabid anti-IBMers who used the tongue twisting "kilo-octets".
One of the problems with Star Raiders on the 2600 is that it required a keypad to play, and if you didn't have a "Video touch pad" you were screwed. I nearly screwed over my chances to get a NES when I asked for the video touch pad as an alternative. (My parents never could find the device. It was extremely rare, even in 1989.
When I got Star Raiders for 2600, it came packaged with the extra controller. The whole package got resold pretty quickly at a huge loss. It was terrible on that platform. You're right that Starmaster was much better. Like other Activision games of that time, you could send in a screenshot of your score and get a token -- a patch with your rank as I recall.
The 7200 version of Star Raiders was much better, and I wore out two controllers with that game.
Loo[k]s to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you love it when a draconian law come to bite the creators in the ass? (I do.)
As with the Merchant of Venice, if you argue for the strictest interpretation of the law when it's in your favor, then your own words should be used against you when you're on the other side.
Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright.
Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.
No recording company gives away its recording studio time. They would have billed him for it when it came time to calculate his proceeds from the record sales. Part of the "screw the artist" business model.
Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
I think that courts within and without the US would be aware of Sony's argument in a well publicized case. Perhaps you think "precedent" necessarily implies "legally binding", but it does not.
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
This has always been a problem with "free speech". It does tend to favor the loudest. Kind of like "freedom of the press" doesn't guarantee you a press. The quiet, the less wealthy, the less powerful or less popular do have a harder time making themselves understood.
In the case of a parliamentary assembly, however, it is vital for proper functioning that all present agree to forgo unlimited right to make themselves heard. This could be a government legislature, a board meeting of a business or charity, or even a "town hall" meeting. The assembly has the right to expel members who do not comport themselves within the standards of the organization. The loudmouths can then exercise their rights to scream like banshee outside the meeting hall/room/whatever. We've seen a lot of video lately of the failure of the process at US town hall meetings lately, and that's a shame.
The people who do this sort of thing (shouting down different points of view) are a significantly greater enemy to civilization and freedom than anyone who clocks them upside the head for being an asshole. People like that are just bourgeois brownshirts.
The latest (and coolest) term I heard for these folks you describe is: "Townshirts".
If I remember correctly, a woman got away from hitting one of them with her car in a fit of rage about a year ago. And, if it were your kid, I'll bet the jury would be pretty sympathetic with you if you went spider-monkey on them. (Not going to weigh in on whether that's human compassion or a perversion of justice).
AC 'cuz I've been modding in here.
-gnick
This happened in the early nineties in Topeka. A woman tried to run over the Phelpsies, In fact, she had to swerve onto the sidewalk to get at them. "Phred" and his gang are not well liked in their home town. The judge reduced the charges from assault/battery/attempted vehicular homicide to "inattentive driving".
What about the people in the audience who wanted to hear the speaker and whom couldn't because of their classmates that can't stand an opposing point of view?
Would this be the same case outside a school setting? What if people came to meet their representative to hear his/her views and civilly discuss a potential new government program, and their neighbors can't stand a new government program being discussed so they shout down the speaker and anyone voicing views they oppose? Would that fall into the same category as students loudly protesting/interrupting/heckling a speaker?
Perhaps it was legal, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Perhaps the "society" of the time didn't know what they did to him was wrong -- trying to force him to be what he physiologically was not. But we know that now. It is acceptable to apologize when one realizes that one was wrong. I will not take your pedophilia bait. I do not view it as a "danger" that I will be ultimately proved wrong about something I believe to be correct today. I do not find it a "risk" to have to apologize (or be apologized for) on some future date if I did wrong through ignorance. If this should happen, I hope my descendants do apologize for whatever harm I caused.
If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!! You want to get angry, you want to get fired up, you want to actually do some good and maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years ago.
No, I will not do it your way. When I'm fired up, I get fired up for my beliefs, not to be your surrogate. I assume from your reply that you're a conservative Christian. You go knock yourself changing the Islamic world to suit your desires. I'm pretty sure Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves now) is hiring. Leave me out, OK? I think I'll focus my efforts at "do[ing] some good" in my own culture right here in the Western world. I have no desire to go be "greeted as a liberator" somewhere else.
And while I am posting this message, here are some more stats to consider:
UK HEALTHCARE WAITING TIMES
8 months - cataract surgery,
11 months- hip replacement,
12 months- knee replacement,
5 months - slipped disc,
5 months - hernia repair
Whereas here in the US, we've solved that problem by not tracking those statistics.
However according to RIAA world view, this person should probably be in jail for not only singing songs that weren't "his" but actually trying to earn a living from it. And I should be in jail for supporting his illegal activities and singing along. In fact, this probably constituted a "public performance". You know, the world according to the RIAA would kind of suck.
Since it's written music in this case and not recordings, it would be ASCAP or it's local equivalent.
No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?
OK, this is a definition problem. Inalienable is not the same thing as inviolable. Inalienable means they cannot be given away or surrendered. They cannot be separated from the person. E.g., One cannot sell one's self into slavery. It does not imply that they are self-enforcing. One's rights, whether natural or social or whatever can be violated without ceasing to exist. When fact violates law we have crime.
The concept of natural or inalienable rights is not uniquely American or religious or spiritual.
From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, they are in fact provided by nature: "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."
They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.
Natural rights exist whether or not they are enshrined in law or protected by force. The US Constitution is not written to enumerate the rights of the people. The constitution was written to establish the form and scope of the US Government. Furthermore, nature has provided you with your fists and your wits with which to protect your rights. These may not be entirely sufficient at all times, thus further protection is warranted.
Slashdot Mirror
Me fail logic?
!possible
God, I hate the term "fail" as it's used by the teeny set -- now tits or get off my lawn!
Hold the gosh darn phone! So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care, you now have to also be a bible thumping, gun toting wacko as well?
Well, to be fair (to me, that is), I only suggested that those who say "ObamaCare" are right-wingers. They might be right-wing only on national health policy, or only on government social programs, or perhaps right-wing in a broader sense. You brought up the other stuff. [sarcasm]I certainly never called anyone a raving, toothless, illiterate, inbred, snake-handling cracker![/sarcasm]
You inferred the wacko part. I am glad to see that you are sensitive about this, though. Not because I've got anything against you. Actually, I appreciate your response. Because there are a lot of loudmouth wacko crackers out there that seem to be venting a great deal of rage which is -- in their words -- "not just about healthcare". People who the talking heads -- especially on one network -- refer to as "regular, hard working, real Americans".
No, I'm happy to read your protest against being lumped together with the "Obama must be stopped at all costs" crowd. I wish more Americans would come out as saying they aren't out just to oppose any change to the status quo, but who would be willing to offer constructive options and ideas for fixing a longstanding national problem.
>>>I'm all for allowing people to self-insure provided...
Fortunately I'm not a slave, and you are neither my master nor my king, so your opinion although welcome, will be ignored. I will follow my own path in life as a freeman (aka liberated person).
Wow. I bet you tied off your own umbilical cord. That's what a real freeman would do.
The Liberty to choose for yourself (instead of having a monopoly) is more important than saving a few dollars. Also you exaggerate the cost. There are only 8 million citizens who do not have either private or government coverage. The other ~290 million are just fine.
Only for very small values of "just fine".
Yes your absolutely right. Now show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.
His absolutely right what?
Anyway, good luck with the not paying for what you don't want stuff. Congress can levy taxes, many of which pay for things that individual taxpayers don't want or don't personally need. For instance, I don't need national defense. I'm in Iowa now. When Canada invades, that's Minnesota's problem, not mine. I'd just as soon save that money for my own anti-boom-car system, which is a considerably more important issue to me than keeping frostbacks from slipping across the border and poaching our beaver pelts, eh. But I'm just too lazy to fight that one.
Now that's where you come in. You're all fired up about this. So here's the plan. Tell the government you will no longer be paying for anything you don't want. Unfortunately, money is fungible, so to be sure, stop paying taxes altogether. They're gonna try to seize your assets and attach your income, so get rid of that stuff first: give away your stuff and quit your job, refuse to cash any checks for alimony, child support, lottery payouts, entitlement plans, everything. Now when they come for you, let them toss you in jail. Here's the best part: since you're in jail, you're costing them instead of paying them, making it harder to do this to the next guy. Try to get arrested somewhere the jails have internet access so you can keep us posted on your progress.
I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.
I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.
How does a Federal special prosecutor give immunity against State charges? I assume you are familiar with the 10th amendment and the concept of separation of powers?
Your beef is with Wikipedia. Better go fix it.
We really need a -1 I want to kick you in the throat
Please refrain from reckless use of analogies.
Or a -1 Stop Requesting New Negative Mods.
I think you're an imposter! If you were a real retro computer fan on a nostalgia trip, you'd be thinking of it as "8K" or "64K". No-one ever even called it "64KB" in those days, let alone the vile SI-nitpickers-in-cahoots-with-marketers-pandering-vileness that is "64KiB" (spit!)
But there were the rabid anti-IBMers who used the tongue twisting "kilo-octets".
One of the problems with Star Raiders on the 2600 is that it required a keypad to play, and if you didn't have a "Video touch pad" you were screwed. I nearly screwed over my chances to get a NES when I asked for the video touch pad as an alternative. (My parents never could find the device. It was extremely rare, even in 1989.
When I got Star Raiders for 2600, it came packaged with the extra controller. The whole package got resold pretty quickly at a huge loss. It was terrible on that platform. You're right that Starmaster was much better. Like other Activision games of that time, you could send in a screenshot of your score and get a token -- a patch with your rank as I recall. The 7200 version of Star Raiders was much better, and I wore out two controllers with that game.
Loo[k]s to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you love it when a draconian law come to bite the creators in the ass? (I do.)
As with the Merchant of Venice, if you argue for the strictest interpretation of the law when it's in your favor, then your own words should be used against you when you're on the other side.
Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright. Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.
No recording company gives away its recording studio time. They would have billed him for it when it came time to calculate his proceeds from the record sales. Part of the "screw the artist" business model.
Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
I think that courts within and without the US would be aware of Sony's argument in a well publicized case. Perhaps you think "precedent" necessarily implies "legally binding", but it does not.
Well if that's the case, then whats the point of free speech? I'd argue they go hand in hand, and while no one should be forced to listen that doesn't want to, thats quite different than actively trying to drown out someone else's speech.
This has always been a problem with "free speech". It does tend to favor the loudest. Kind of like "freedom of the press" doesn't guarantee you a press. The quiet, the less wealthy, the less powerful or less popular do have a harder time making themselves understood.
In the case of a parliamentary assembly, however, it is vital for proper functioning that all present agree to forgo unlimited right to make themselves heard. This could be a government legislature, a board meeting of a business or charity, or even a "town hall" meeting. The assembly has the right to expel members who do not comport themselves within the standards of the organization. The loudmouths can then exercise their rights to scream like banshee outside the meeting hall/room/whatever. We've seen a lot of video lately of the failure of the process at US town hall meetings lately, and that's a shame.
The people who do this sort of thing (shouting down different points of view) are a significantly greater enemy to civilization and freedom than anyone who clocks them upside the head for being an asshole. People like that are just bourgeois brownshirts.
The latest (and coolest) term I heard for these folks you describe is: "Townshirts".
If I remember correctly, a woman got away from hitting one of them with her car in a fit of rage about a year ago. And, if it were your kid, I'll bet the jury would be pretty sympathetic with you if you went spider-monkey on them. (Not going to weigh in on whether that's human compassion or a perversion of justice).
AC 'cuz I've been modding in here.
-gnick
This happened in the early nineties in Topeka. A woman tried to run over the Phelpsies, In fact, she had to swerve onto the sidewalk to get at them. "Phred" and his gang are not well liked in their home town. The judge reduced the charges from assault/battery/attempted vehicular homicide to "inattentive driving".
What about the people in the audience who wanted to hear the speaker and whom couldn't because of their classmates that can't stand an opposing point of view?
Would this be the same case outside a school setting? What if people came to meet their representative to hear his/her views and civilly discuss a potential new government program, and their neighbors can't stand a new government program being discussed so they shout down the speaker and anyone voicing views they oppose? Would that fall into the same category as students loudly protesting/interrupting/heckling a speaker?
How was that prosecution wrong?
Perhaps it was legal, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Perhaps the "society" of the time didn't know what they did to him was wrong -- trying to force him to be what he physiologically was not. But we know that now. It is acceptable to apologize when one realizes that one was wrong. I will not take your pedophilia bait. I do not view it as a "danger" that I will be ultimately proved wrong about something I believe to be correct today. I do not find it a "risk" to have to apologize (or be apologized for) on some future date if I did wrong through ignorance. If this should happen, I hope my descendants do apologize for whatever harm I caused.
If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!! You want to get angry, you want to get fired up, you want to actually do some good and maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years ago.
No, I will not do it your way. When I'm fired up, I get fired up for my beliefs, not to be your surrogate. I assume from your reply that you're a conservative Christian. You go knock yourself changing the Islamic world to suit your desires. I'm pretty sure Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves now) is hiring. Leave me out, OK? I think I'll focus my efforts at "do[ing] some good" in my own culture right here in the Western world. I have no desire to go be "greeted as a liberator" somewhere else.
And while I am posting this message, here are some more stats to consider: UK HEALTHCARE WAITING TIMES 8 months - cataract surgery, 11 months- hip replacement, 12 months- knee replacement, 5 months - slipped disc, 5 months - hernia repair
Whereas here in the US, we've solved that problem by not tracking those statistics.
>>>you don't bother to list your sources
And the Democrats do?
I'm betting that in fourth grade you won the all-school "I know you are but what am I?" competition.
However according to RIAA world view, this person should probably be in jail for not only singing songs that weren't "his" but actually trying to earn a living from it. And I should be in jail for supporting his illegal activities and singing along. In fact, this probably constituted a "public performance". You know, the world according to the RIAA would kind of suck.
Since it's written music in this case and not recordings, it would be ASCAP or it's local equivalent.
"I stand on my record. Fifteen crashes and not a single fatality."
No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?
OK, this is a definition problem. Inalienable is not the same thing as inviolable. Inalienable means they cannot be given away or surrendered. They cannot be separated from the person. E.g., One cannot sell one's self into slavery. It does not imply that they are self-enforcing. One's rights, whether natural or social or whatever can be violated without ceasing to exist. When fact violates law we have crime.
The concept of natural or inalienable rights is not uniquely American or religious or spiritual.
From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, they are in fact provided by nature: "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."
They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.
Natural rights exist whether or not they are enshrined in law or protected by force. The US Constitution is not written to enumerate the rights of the people. The constitution was written to establish the form and scope of the US Government. Furthermore, nature has provided you with your fists and your wits with which to protect your rights. These may not be entirely sufficient at all times, thus further protection is warranted.