All good points. I just want to add that the 9/11 commission (sorry for the reference, but it really is relevant) determined that the FBI/CIA/etc. had enough information to stop the terrorist attacks. Moreover, they had too much information. And they were only collecting information about a small subset of the population. If they were to start collecting information about everyone, they'd be swamped.
But this is not to say that an Orwellian nightmare couldn't happen right now. In fact, it's quite easy to set one up. And it would be far more arbitrary than the "standard," centralized model. Easy peasy: just set up a network of informants. Have atleast one per block. Make it a law that everyone must snitch on a neighbor if they're planning anything subversive. If a person doesn't snitch on a neighbor, the informant should arrange for the person to be interrogated. Deal with them with severity if they do not satisfy you. Now, this sort of arrangement works at the local level. Set up a hierarchy of such informants, each keeping any eye on those immediately below. This is precisely what the Nazis and Soviets did. The Cubans are still doing it.
omg... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on freedom of speech. Not that there is any in England anyway.
Besides, suppose some city in the US were to implement a plan like this. But contrary to what the English are (apparently) doing, we end up using highly sensitive microphones. Our constitution already gives us freedom of speech. This implies that the city government can't legally do anything to us because of what we say (modulo a million first amendment details) -- even if it's recorded. In short, microphones or not, the city is in the same position with regards to our freedom of speech. This is a privacy issue, not a freedom of speech issue. And you're a goddamned fool if you think you have any privacy in public. Now, let me rephrase my retort:
omg... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on privacy.
This is actually a really good idea. I've had the neighbors call the cops on me for noise violations several times. Nevermind the facts that I had a noise meter monitoring my speakers from a meter away the whole time and I not once broke the law. A little bit of objectivity could keep people from being screwed by prudish neighbors. As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.
>>The lowest common denominator would be just fine with me. After all, morality and ethics are >>designed to to help people live togehter, not bring them closer to some phantom god.
>That would probabally be phedophilles, glad to know youre ok with that.
Good use of rhetoric. Too bad that's all it is.
>Also notice he did not have a one night stand with these women, he knew them and then was >wed to them, with all the things that go along with that. He did not bed them then never see > tham again.
I suggest you read your Bible before lecturing me on it. Rape, incest, prostitution, the keeping of concubines, etc, are all very common in the old testament.
>>Morally permissible.
>By whos morals? people complain about others being morality >police only to set themselves up as the same. My morals do >not say its ok, and that carries no wieght whatsoever, just as >youre statment based on your morals does.
The lowest common denominator would be just fine with me. After all, morality and ethics are designed to to help people live togehter, not bring them closer to some phantom god.
>That being said how many people today have sex within >knowing someone fifteen minutes with teh intention of >marrage? If they do than no its not a sin sorry for not being >clear.
This is really dumb. Please read about Jacob and his multple marriages. There are plenty of examples of Old Testament men "marrying" and "knowing" and finally abandoning women.
>Ahh the wonderful misinterpritation of that passage, it never >gets old. Im not judging him, im judging his actions...
You are obviously judging the content of his character. You called him trash several times. You didn't say that what he did was "trashy." You said that the man was trash. Don't give me that "judging his actions" bullshit.
Define 'OK', is it a crime? no. Is it wise to have sex with someone you knew an hour *NO*, is it a sin, yes. Does the fact its a sin prevent you from doing it (or should it legally) no.
Morally permissible.
I do not agree that having consentual sex with an adult an hour after meeting them in a sin. If you really do, please find scriptual evidence. (Hint: people "married" and "knew" each other within minutes minutes of meeting each other all the time in the Old Testament.)
This all stated when someone complained about a guy who hooked up with a girl he met in a bar and it turned out the girl was only 17. poor guy, how was he supposed to know? If the guy was not trash and had taken time to know someone before bedding them down he might have found out.
There you go again talking shit about people you don't know for doing things you don't "approve of." Why is this guy trash? On what basis do you judge him that way? Doesn't the Bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"
You've completely misinterpreted what has occurred here. People are reacting negatively to your prudish, Puritan attitude. Hint: sex between consenting adults is OK. Whether they've been together for an hour or a decade. There's nothing wrong with either.
A quote regarding the late philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser:
n example: in the 1950's, the British philosopher J. L. Austin came to
Columbia to present a paper about the close analysis of language. He pointed
out that although two negatives make a positive, nowhere is it the case that
two positives make a negative. "Yeah, yeah," Dr. Morgenbesser said.
If your data is extremely important, make sure you encrypt it. One time my friend thought he dropped a tape in a parking lot. I was conserned for weeks until he found the tape under the seat of his car. I learned my lesson and now encrypt everything that is important to me.
How is encryption going to keep a tape from melting?
No. In the context you seem to be describing, urban is synonymous with "cosmopolitan." Big cities have historically been the fountainhead of refined culture. This is no different now.
It probably will be, before long. The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. And people have gotten used to getting movies for free now.
The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.
Slashdot Mirror
1) You should try RTFA. If you read the article carefully, they're describing sound level meters.
2) This isn't in America.
3) Even in America, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
All good points. I just want to add that the 9/11 commission (sorry for the reference, but it really is relevant) determined that the FBI/CIA/etc. had enough information to stop the terrorist attacks. Moreover, they had too much information. And they were only collecting information about a small subset of the population. If they were to start collecting information about everyone, they'd be swamped.
But this is not to say that an Orwellian nightmare couldn't happen right now. In fact, it's quite easy to set one up. And it would be far more arbitrary than the "standard," centralized model. Easy peasy: just set up a network of informants. Have atleast one per block. Make it a law that everyone must snitch on a neighbor if they're planning anything subversive. If a person doesn't snitch on a neighbor, the informant should arrange for the person to be interrogated. Deal with them with severity if they do not satisfy you. Now, this sort of arrangement works at the local level. Set up a hierarchy of such informants, each keeping any eye on those immediately below. This is precisely what the Nazis and Soviets did. The Cubans are still doing it.
omg ... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on freedom of speech. Not that there is any in England anyway.
... can anyone be that illiterate, or - is it troll ? dont you realize what I wrote regarding the functioning of the microphones? If these are more along the lines of noise level meters (which is how they're being described), then there is NO impact on privacy.
Besides, suppose some city in the US were to implement a plan like this. But contrary to what the English are (apparently) doing, we end up using highly sensitive microphones. Our constitution already gives us freedom of speech. This implies that the city government can't legally do anything to us because of what we say (modulo a million first amendment details) -- even if it's recorded. In short, microphones or not, the city is in the same position with regards to our freedom of speech. This is a privacy issue, not a freedom of speech issue. And you're a goddamned fool if you think you have any privacy in public. Now, let me rephrase my retort:
omg
This is actually a really good idea. I've had the neighbors call the cops on me for noise violations several times. Nevermind the facts that I had a noise meter monitoring my speakers from a meter away the whole time and I not once broke the law. A little bit of objectivity could keep people from being screwed by prudish neighbors. As long as these microphones are technologically unsuitable to record conversations, this is a great thing.
Oh shit, I forgot to post anonymously!
Mod parent up. That was among the most inciteful things I've ever read.
Maybe the designer wasn't so intelligent after all, seeing as how he kept changing his mind.
Point-by-point reply:
;-)
1) Never thought otherwise.
2) Presumably, the aircraft are the reason you want to visit this location. It's certainly not the sand and water. In short, I stand by my assessment.
3) I didn't say it, but somebody else did in reply to my post.
What an awful beach.
Lowest COMMON denominator.
>>The lowest common denominator would be just fine with me. After all, morality and ethics are
>>designed to to help people live togehter, not bring them closer to some phantom god.
>That would probabally be phedophilles, glad to know youre ok with that.
Good use of rhetoric. Too bad that's all it is.
>Also notice he did not have a one night stand with these women, he knew them and then was
>wed to them, with all the things that go along with that. He did not bed them then never see
> tham again.
I suggest you read your Bible before lecturing me on it. Rape, incest, prostitution, the keeping of concubines, etc, are all very common in the old testament.
>>Morally permissible. >By whos morals? people complain about others being morality
>police only to set themselves up as the same. My morals do
>not say its ok, and that carries no wieght whatsoever, just as
>youre statment based on your morals does.
The lowest common denominator would be just fine with me. After all, morality and ethics are designed to to help people live togehter, not bring them closer to some phantom god.
>That being said how many people today have sex within >knowing someone fifteen minutes with teh intention of >marrage? If they do than no its not a sin sorry for not being >clear.
This is really dumb. Please read about Jacob and his multple marriages. There are plenty of examples of Old Testament men "marrying" and "knowing" and finally abandoning women.
>Ahh the wonderful misinterpritation of that passage, it never
>gets old. Im not judging him, im judging his actions...
You are obviously judging the content of his character. You called him trash several times. You didn't say that what he did was "trashy." You said that the man was trash. Don't give me that "judging his actions" bullshit.
Define 'OK', is it a crime? no. Is it wise to have sex with someone you knew an hour *NO*, is it a sin, yes. Does the fact its a sin prevent you from doing it (or should it legally) no.
Morally permissible.
I do not agree that having consentual sex with an adult an hour after meeting them in a sin. If you really do, please find scriptual evidence. (Hint: people "married" and "knew" each other within minutes minutes of meeting each other all the time in the Old Testament.)
This all stated when someone complained about a guy who hooked up with a girl he met in a bar and it turned out the girl was only 17. poor guy, how was he supposed to know? If the guy was not trash and had taken time to know someone before bedding them down he might have found out.
There you go again talking shit about people you don't know for doing things you don't "approve of." Why is this guy trash? On what basis do you judge him that way? Doesn't the Bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"
You've completely misinterpreted what has occurred here. People are reacting negatively to your prudish, Puritan attitude. Hint: sex between consenting adults is OK. Whether they've been together for an hour or a decade. There's nothing wrong with either.
This "signing," or "allowing a proposed bill to become a law," is also referred to as "passing."
A quote regarding the late philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser:
n example: in the 1950's, the British philosopher J. L. Austin came to Columbia to present a paper about the close analysis of language. He pointed out that although two negatives make a positive, nowhere is it the case that two positives make a negative. "Yeah, yeah," Dr. Morgenbesser said.
What biting wit.
Wow. You're an incredible douche bag.
OPEC wouldn't be too happy about that though. And they have the capital and means to make sure this doesn't see the light of day.
If your data is extremely important, make sure you encrypt it. One time my friend thought he dropped a tape in a parking lot. I was conserned for weeks until he found the tape under the seat of his car. I learned my lesson and now encrypt everything that is important to me.
How is encryption going to keep a tape from melting?
No. In the context you seem to be describing, urban is synonymous with "cosmopolitan." Big cities have historically been the fountainhead of refined culture. This is no different now.
It probably will be, before long. The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. And people have gotten used to getting movies for free now.
The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. However, unless you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught while shoplifting are much higher than the odds of getting downloading a file.
What's ISP? Is it good or is it whack?
What's a slashback? Is it good or is it whack?
He could have one too. Only my Speak'n'Say would trivially break this.