You mean like those free speach cages that they put people in at presidential campaign appearances, 100's of yards away and out of site of attendees, or the Republicans only Campaing events?
Try writing a screen play or directing or producing a movie about The U.S. starting a nuclear war today and see what happens.
I bet I can find you a link like this most days of the week:
Most changes in a society happen one small increment at a time.
If I remember my constitutional law from 8th grade correctly, prior to the constitution we had freedom of speech according to the British goverment.
But the constitution protected one from any retroactive action by the governement on the grounds that the publication was damaging to sommeone or, by coincidence, the government. Maybe half the population at the time found that perfectly acceptable, what right does someone have to say something without being held legally responsible any repercussions?
Of courese the patriots (rebels) said that the contemplation future arrest did remove the freedom to speak by making it risky. Therefore it was censorship.
What is scary is that such a cornerstone of our society is still debated 230 year later.
Not to mention computer science and science related industry. The latter of which, along with the rejection of Intelligent Design by science, likely influenced the legislature.
That is how it works, 90% find themselve in in the bracket that fist my needs. Then, when the market has defined itself wall to wall, prices start creeping up.
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
Fair enough.
And just as cable companies provide for local broadcasting under town square legislation--also under attack--so must Internet companies respect the venue for the exercise of free speech that the Internet has irreversibly become.
Did any of these CEO's pay attention in history class during the part about freedom of speech in the central square of corporate owned towns, do they just not care about a basic tenant of their own society, or are they laboring under some illusion that the system is sure to resolve any conflicts?
Niven also wrote a short story early in his career about an astronaut who lands on Pluto and has equipment problems or something. At the last minute I believe he steps outside and turns off his suite heater in a last ditch gamble to be instantly frozen and preserved for discovery by the next mission to Pluto.
My recall is sketchy.
The story is told in the first person narrative in n-year intervals. As Pluto closes on the Sun enough to warm up the astronaut enough for trace activity in the brain, which Niven proposes as consciousness, the astronaut thinks the story narrative.
Correct. Regardless of what the cryonaut dies of, society would need a cure for death to have an opportunity to cure the original illness.
One should get frozen while alive despite the possible discomfort of the experience.
Even better, while one still has some youth. Why arrive in a more idealistically healthy society as aged person with blurry vision, bad hearing and week muscles etc.? Why hope for a cure when, for the lesser barrier of being thawed out uninjured, one could arrive healthy in a society that can keep one that way indefinitely?
So what if freezing alive is illegal? What are they going to do, unfreeze the cryonaut? That would be capital punishment without a trial. The cryonaut sets up the accounts and has anonymous assistants administer the process and deposit him at one of the cryogenic organizations.
So I would have no problem with this being the default for people whose chance of surviving without it is sufficiently low.
Perfect logic that I would likely concede to were I bleeding to death.
But it remains a person's right to be stupid. Actually, stupid people get a lot of protection in the law and from government agencies--sometimes protection from their worst decisions, but usually protection of the right to make bad decisions in the gray areas.
At least as far as medical techniques deemed experimental, I think personal freedoms in this country still require consent. Maybe there is an emergency room precedent that allows the doctor to decide when there is no other viable option.
The purpose of their proposed clinical trials is to give patients who will almost surely die with conventional methods some limited hope with this "experiment". Yes, perhaps it only has a 90% success rate, but modern medicine has no effective techniques to handle catastrophic blood loss, such as in car accidents and other traumas.
I'm curious as to how they plan to administer the technique as an experiment. Are designated doctors going to hand a detailed release form to incoming ER patients who are bleeding to death? I wounder if it would even be realistic to seek permission of relatives in the short and urgent time periods involved.
The only way would seem to designate the treatment as the default for a massive hemorrhage (or whatever) at ER X, or at least during Dr. X's shift.
That seems a lot to ask of Joe Shmoe living in the ER's neighborhood. Some might want to know which Ers those are.
Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?
It may wax and wane but I wonder how much "actual journalism" ever existed.
When I was studying journalism and writing for the college paper in the 80's, I used to delight in correcting stories in the local papers. After all, the facts had been wrongly reported--things like chronology, technical or legal process, impacts or consequences--and I felt a responsibility to correct those wrong facts in my story if it were going to press at a later date.:)
It wasn't just the facts. Sometimes the fairy tales my role models wrote simply stunned me and left me gapping like guppy.
Interestingly, it is the generation of journalists who were predominantly college educated, starting in the '70s, that have generated the reputation of the hour for American journalism. I don't know that to be cause and effect. It just seems noteworthy.:)
Claiming a standard isn't in itself anything more than a voiced expectation. To expect Wikipedia to be the final authority might be a mistake. Maybe as much of a mistake as expecting there to be a final authority at all.
So long as you are right about the current government. And maybe we in the U.S. will resolve the issue by political debate!:) I don't know much about the Austrian government though.
P.S. Sorry you got spell-flamed. What a small nothing, heh?
That is scary. We have as much to fear from vigilante groups of hackers as we do from overzelous goverments. I know I'll get the typical responses pertianing to the failure of democroacy and the lack of properly educated voters in the system, but on sheer principle its still scary. I also suppose that I could throw in a terrible potential if acts of this nature continue, but I think thats obvious and my example would be either too far fetched or too plausible, giving other people with a lower moral standard another idea.
Of course, the early American Tories made very similar arguments about safety and vigilantes. The Patriots, or rebels, started as a radical minority. Neither were 100% wrong or right.
The question remains, is privacy an unalienable Right? Otherwise this issue is very academic, and the hackers, vandals.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence does not pretend to list all unalienable Rights:
" . . . 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."
However, The Declaration does clearly deem the right of the people to extensive action against a government denying unalienable Rights:
" . . . --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . .."
It also claims these unalienable Rights for all people, not just Americans.
I believe that sets the precedent for a pretty active debate. Clean and orderly would be nice but when has it ever been?
They better get there in a hurry. The dust is falling at 1.6 m/s^2.
Ya see, there's no air to keep it wafting about.
Well, GoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOlly, you're right smart, teach! No air, imagine that!
They did a lot of shit we call by the technical term, "walking." Bit driving too. Not to mention the fact that the moon gets wacked by space rocks at a pretty good rate. Ever see a meteor shower? Remember what I said about there being no air on the moon?
Sorry, can't referece the article more specifically in response to angst.
The bogyman that you see, although not as scary as the bogyman that you imagine, is always more frightening, albeit less of a risk, than the bogyman you don't see.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the customers driving to the store in CARS.
You mean like those free speach cages that they put people in at presidential campaign appearances, 100's of yards away and out of site of attendees, or the Republicans only Campaing events?
c le/2006/07/20/AR2006072001816.html?nav=rss_email/c omponents?nav=slate
Try writing a screen play or directing or producing a movie about The U.S. starting a nuclear war today and see what happens.
I bet I can find you a link like this most days of the week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Most changes in a society happen one small increment at a time.
If I remember my constitutional law from 8th grade correctly, prior to the constitution we had freedom of speech according to the British goverment.
But the constitution protected one from any retroactive action by the governement on the grounds that the publication was damaging to sommeone or, by coincidence, the government. Maybe half the population at the time found that perfectly acceptable, what right does someone have to say something without being held legally responsible any repercussions?
Of courese the patriots (rebels) said that the contemplation future arrest did remove the freedom to speak by making it risky. Therefore it was censorship.
What is scary is that such a cornerstone of our society is still debated 230 year later.
My water contains arsenic.
big on education, and the sciences in general?
Not to mention computer science and science related industry. The latter of which, along with the rejection of Intelligent Design by science, likely influenced the legislature.
The issue is the amount of politics involved in acknowledging daylight. The actual place of the incident is Utah. The previous incident was Kansas.
I don't see where he comments on any more or less.
So what happens to astronauts and cosmonauts during prolonged stays at the space station.
That is how it works, 90% find themselve in in the bracket that fist my needs. Then, when the market has defined itself wall to wall, prices start creeping up.
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
Fair enough.
And just as cable companies provide for local broadcasting under town square legislation--also under attack--so must Internet companies respect the venue for the exercise of free speech that the Internet has irreversibly become.
Did any of these CEO's pay attention in history class during the part about freedom of speech in the central square of corporate owned towns, do they just not care about a basic tenant of their own society, or are they laboring under some illusion that the system is sure to resolve any conflicts?
Could be worse than a Russian company taking their evidence to FBI. At least Cory Doctorow doesn't have to worry about a Fatwa. :q
LOL That should be the first outside test of the system!
It is not claimed to be foolproof. It is estimated at 90% accurate.
Niven also wrote a short story early in his career about an astronaut who lands on Pluto and has equipment problems or something. At the last minute I believe he steps outside and turns off his suite heater in a last ditch gamble to be instantly frozen and preserved for discovery by the next mission to Pluto.
My recall is sketchy.
The story is told in the first person narrative in n-year intervals. As Pluto closes on the Sun enough to warm up the astronaut enough for trace activity in the brain, which Niven proposes as consciousness, the astronaut thinks the story narrative.
Correct. Regardless of what the cryonaut dies of, society would need a cure for death to have an opportunity to cure the original illness.
One should get frozen while alive despite the possible discomfort of the experience.
Even better, while one still has some youth. Why arrive in a more idealistically healthy society as aged person with blurry vision, bad hearing and week muscles etc.? Why hope for a cure when, for the lesser barrier of being thawed out uninjured, one could arrive healthy in a society that can keep one that way indefinitely?
So what if freezing alive is illegal? What are they going to do, unfreeze the cryonaut? That would be capital punishment without a trial. The cryonaut sets up the accounts and has anonymous assistants administer the process and deposit him at one of the cryogenic organizations.
So I would have no problem with this being the default for people whose chance of surviving without it is sufficiently low.
Perfect logic that I would likely concede to were I bleeding to death.
But it remains a person's right to be stupid. Actually, stupid people get a lot of protection in the law and from government agencies--sometimes protection from their worst decisions, but usually protection of the right to make bad decisions in the gray areas.
At least as far as medical techniques deemed experimental, I think personal freedoms in this country still require consent. Maybe there is an emergency room precedent that allows the doctor to decide when there is no other viable option.
The purpose of their proposed clinical trials is to give patients who will almost surely die with conventional methods some limited hope with this "experiment". Yes, perhaps it only has a 90% success rate, but modern medicine has no effective techniques to handle catastrophic blood loss, such as in car accidents and other traumas.
I'm curious as to how they plan to administer the technique as an experiment. Are designated doctors going to hand a detailed release form to incoming ER patients who are bleeding to death? I wounder if it would even be realistic to seek permission of relatives in the short and urgent time periods involved.
The only way would seem to designate the treatment as the default for a massive hemorrhage (or whatever) at ER X, or at least during Dr. X's shift.
That seems a lot to ask of Joe Shmoe living in the ER's neighborhood. Some might want to know which Ers those are.
. . . you're undoubtedly David Pogue posting under a fake name, and that moron Zonk just posted something that was on Digg over 20 minutes ago.
And everyone on /. is obviously just the Google AI talking to itself in its infancy.
So does this mean that flushing all the toilets concurrently in a large building is a felony?
It may wax and wane but I wonder how much "actual journalism" ever existed.
When I was studying journalism and writing for the college paper in the 80's, I used to delight in correcting stories in the local papers. After all, the facts had been wrongly reported--things like chronology, technical or legal process, impacts or consequences--and I felt a responsibility to correct those wrong facts in my story if it were going to press at a later date. :)
It wasn't just the facts. Sometimes the fairy tales my role models wrote simply stunned me and left me gapping like guppy.
Interestingly, it is the generation of journalists who were predominantly college educated, starting in the '70s, that have generated the reputation of the hour for American journalism. I don't know that to be cause and effect. It just seems noteworthy. :)
Claiming a standard isn't in itself anything more than a voiced expectation. To expect Wikipedia to be the final authority might be a mistake. Maybe as much of a mistake as expecting there to be a final authority at all.
So long as you are right about the current government. And maybe we in the U.S. will resolve the issue by political debate! :) I don't know much about the Austrian government though.
P.S. Sorry you got spell-flamed. What a small nothing, heh?
That is scary. We have as much to fear from vigilante groups of hackers as we do from overzelous goverments. I know I'll get the typical responses pertianing to the failure of democroacy and the lack of properly educated voters in the system, but on sheer principle its still scary. I also suppose that I could throw in a terrible potential if acts of this nature continue, but I think thats obvious and my example would be either too far fetched or too plausible, giving other people with a lower moral standard another idea.
."
Of course, the early American Tories made very similar arguments about safety and vigilantes. The Patriots, or rebels, started as a radical minority. Neither were 100% wrong or right.
The question remains, is privacy an unalienable Right? Otherwise this issue is very academic, and the hackers, vandals.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence does not pretend to list all unalienable Rights:
" . . . 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."
However, The Declaration does clearly deem the right of the people to extensive action against a government denying unalienable Rights:
" . . . --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . .
It also claims these unalienable Rights for all people, not just Americans.
I believe that sets the precedent for a pretty active debate. Clean and orderly would be nice but when has it ever been?
I used to use RSS Bandit until Firefox came out with "live bookmarks."
Now I do all my RSS browsing in conjunction with my regular browsing.
There are no summaries with live bookmarks, however I find that intuition works enough of the time.
Well, GoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOlly, you're right smart, teach! No air, imagine that!
They did a lot of shit we call by the technical term, "walking." Bit driving too. Not to mention the fact that the moon gets wacked by space rocks at a pretty good rate. Ever see a meteor shower? Remember what I said about there being no air on the moon?
Sorry, can't referece the article more specifically in response to angst.
The bogyman that you see, although not as scary as the bogyman that you imagine, is always more frightening, albeit less of a risk, than the bogyman you don't see. :)
Danger to whom exactly?
Future astronauts. Past astronauts did not have to deal with a corrosive dust cloud floating around.
Maybe it's feature news.