If it's found that an officer has lied to get a warrant, or blatently ignored the requirement to get a warrant, or collected information outside the scope of the warrant, then they should go to prison. Real actual prison with the rest of the criminals, not a minimum security resort.
Politicians say they want to be tough on crime, I'd like to see them back that up when dealing with those we offer the most trust to.
It's a rather big assumption to say "The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans". Plenty of people can be quite happy with reading books, or learning math, or meditating in the middle of nowhere without other people around. To really feel bad doesn't come from lack of friends, it comes from people actively trying to make you feel bad. I think some of the problem is that people who are really interested in psychology tend to be more of the empathetic extrovert types, and quite frankly I haven't seen many extroverted people who really understand that some people just plain don't have the energy or desire to deal with the bullshit of the social game.
Why does the victim have to change because some asshat wants to make other people's lives hell? If someone is shot we don't tell them to invest in a kevlar vest, we find the guy with the gun and segregate them from the rest of society. From my own experience in school though, not one teacher gave a shit when I was bullied. Not one of them told the bully to go sit in the corner with a dunce cap. As for myself, I just wanted to be left alone. Is that so bad? Do we really want to tell every loner to go play the social game so everyone will like you?
Huh? I'm leftist because I don't want a centralized entity regulating my or anyone's lives. Yes, government regulation can be bad, but I fear the limited concentration of power in a small handful of corporations far more. If people don't like it they can elect a new government. If the top 5 ISPs (which is ~50% of the marketshare) in the US got together and said "we're going to do x", who can realistically stop them besides the government?
Sure, you can try to boycott all you want, but is that going to help when most people out there just want to get pictures of cute cats in their email? The government is "the people", and while we should be careful not to abuse the power, we still need to be able to use it to protect ourselves from concentrations of power that might threaten the rights of the rest of us. The real problem right now is that we let the corporations get so big (and people have let themselves get so dumb) that the people now really only rubberstamp the same politicians into office who then go off and listen to big business instead.
The point is that the $750 per infringement is already an absurd amount. Considering that Exxon got off with only a 1:1 punitive to compensitory damage ratio after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill (which devastated Prince William Sound), it boggles the mind that violating copyright is somehow worthy of a minimum of 1000 times the actual price of the song. Yes, we all know that copyright infringement is based off statutory damages, but so what? How do we go from one type of damage being strictly limited on a Constitutional basis to a ratio in the single digits, yet anywhere from 1000:1 to 200000:1 as a law is not prima facie thrown out?
Except that you're forgetting the part where Fox News then investigates/fabricates whatever shreds of evidence they can find in order to try to discount the "liberal elites" (regardless of merit or even whether it's a left-right issue). Then talking head spout their opinions as factual news and shout over anyone who disagrees with them while half of America laps it up and doesn't question what O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck says. Then the Daily Show has a fun time showing us all what a mockery it is, everyone has a nice laugh, and Nixon stays in office while no one does anything.
If there really were hundreds or thousands or even more than a dozen or two intelligent terrorists in the United States right now, do you really think the best they could do is suicide bombing a few lines in airports? What about places with 0 security that would be even more difficult and unlikely to secure? Is there really anything stopping terrorists from blowing up malls all across America? Or schools, bridges, dams, railroads, town halls, hotels, etc? Yet we're scared about one small facet of transportation, despite the fact that there is no chance that passengers would just sit there during a hijacking anymore, and what America itself does makes very little difference when someone can hop a flight from a foreign nation into the US.
Male bodybuilders don't wear shirts during competition, are you saying you're willing to photoshop a picture where Miley Cyrus is topless?! *gasp* What if you're really into the muscular physique? Would it be illegal because it might turn you on? Does suggesting that it's possible make you an accessory to the crime of production of child pornography?
Won't somebody think of the parts of photographs of the children?
Wait, so if the police, the people who have the sworn duty to uphold the law, think that what they're doing is legal, but it turns out to be illegal, they can get off scott free (hell, in those cases they're coming out ahead since they can convict the guy)? Yet if I, an ordinary citizen, break any of the tens of thousands of federal, state, and local laws that I couldn't possibly know about without spending decades of my life doing nothing but read them, I could get the book thrown at me if I'm caught? What kind of bullshit is that? I'd much rather have some people who are the scum of the earth go free from police making honest mistakes than have to worry about police ignore the law without penalty.
Use relatively nonintrusive text ads, or even pictures if they're low key and not some seizure inducing GIF , let alone obnoxious flash ads. Give ads that might actually interest people reading the story. Don't *ever* post an ad for a malware/crapware service. Basically avoid all the crap that made people want/need ad-block in the first place.
Copyright is not a natural right. In a world without government, you do not have an intrinsic right to control your work as soon as you release it to the public. Even in a world with government, copyright is a fairly recent invention. We as a society are the ones who grant copyright in the hopes that it will encourage and enable works that otherwise might never exist, but if we never put those works back into the public domain then we are also missing out on many creative works that might have been so we tried to limit copyrights. Over time, however, copyright length increased to the point where something created on the day you were born might not become public domain until after your children have died, and that's assuming that those copyrights aren't extended again arbitrarily. For that matter, in some places works that were public domain at the time of your birth might have been reentered copyright since then, completely retroactively. Should Casablanca still be under copyright? If I go out and pirate Casablanca, am I really ripping off Warner Brothers? At some point there's a level of absurdity in the system that doesn't mesh with reality, and I think that it discourages the recognition of the valid reasons for copyright. If terms were reasonable and the law didn't let copyright holders club the average person over the head at will, then I'd have more sympathy, but until then I'm not going to shed a tear over piracy.
How about this statement: "If anything happens while you're a client of LifeLock we will cover all losses and all expenses up to one million dollars."
It's right in their commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXANhTH_oSo
If they're not lying when they say that, they're certainly not telling the whole truth.
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are privileges. You have no "right" to a monopoly on an idea outside of the government saying you do. Contrast this with speech, which you have no limitations on in nature. IP is specifically a restriction on the right of others done in the hope that it brings a net benefit to society. Because of that, I'm not going to shed a tear if large corporations find themselves paying out the nose for patenting and asserting copyright over every idea they have and every scribble they put on a piece of paper. That said, I don't trust myy government to put forth a decent piece of legislation on any matter, let alone one that would require a enough nuance to not crush copyleft.
If a cup of coffee gets one person through their morning, a shot of whiskey gets someone else through theirs, and a joint gets yet another person through theirs, and you can't tell the difference in their output, why should you care who does what? Why is one mind altering substance (caffeine) acceptable, yet the other two are verboten for work even if the work done is the same? If someone is having a quality/quantity problem, does it make a difference to you if it's because of drugs, poor sleep habits, or outright laziness? All three of those can cause the same problems, so yes, it's prudent to be careful if you see signs of them, but don't automatically judge someone as being a deadbeat just because they don't conform to your ideas of what the "real world" is.
(note: the author does not do any illegal drugs, but is tired of this "in the real world you must not do $activity to be taken seriously")
There already are artificial processes which make synthetic diamonds that are nearly indistinguishable from natural diamonds (basically the synthetic ones are "too perfect"). If they ever approach mainstream be prepared for ads marketing natural diamonds as somehow "better" just because they were dug up, rather than any distinguishable features of the stone itself. You can read more about it in these articles:
What Bush & Co have been doing is legal, at least according to the letter of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the President to suspend civil liberties (even habeas corpus) in cases of warfare, or for national defense. And the interesting thing is that the determination of national defense purposes lies with the executive branch. Uhh, no. You're wrong. Read up on Ex Parte Merryman, which specifically says that the president "cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it."
If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with the Constitution. Maybe the Constitution needs to be changed to support civil liberties even in times of war; maybe the American people believe terrorism warrants this erosion of civil liberties. Regardless, in a democracy, people get the government they ultimately deserve - you, and every other voter, chooses the President and members of Congress. If you feel your liberties are being unfairly compromised, rather than blaming Bush & Co (or Congress, who despite having a Democratic majority, continues to support the President), blame your fellow Americans. They elected Bush not once, but twice. If their civil liberties have been eroded, they have no one to blame but themselves. The point of a constitutional government is that no matter how stupid the majority is, they still can't trample on the essential rights of the minority. And as far as electing Bush twice, many would disagree that that's the case (though at this point it's purely an academic debate).
Rather than whine about how our liberties have been eroded, we need to take the issue to the public, and present it in terms the average American can understand. And if you can't make it relevant to the average American, maybe the issue is not that important. Considering that the administration seems to insist that questioning it's policies could lead to another terrorist attack, many people get swept up by irrational fear, though I think at this point it's being replaced by a feeling that no matter what happens the government is just going to ignore popular demand no matter what it is. Look at the Democratic congress, which apparently doesn't understand that the people that elected them wanted to have a branch of government to stand up to the executive branch. Heck, even if Congress did nothing at all, it would be preferable to what they're doing now. (Hey Congress, if you want to get us out of Iraq, stop sending money. Wars can't be fought without cash.)
Either that or Comcast is overselling their lines and hoping no one notices and calls them on it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure which scenario would be sleazier, having the power and not delivering until needed or not having the power and saying you do just to try screwing the competition.
There are several important differences between your credit score and the no fly list. Credit scores are generated by private companies and you can check them once a year and dispute anything you find that's in error. The no fly list is generated by the government and you have no way of knowing why you are on the list and no way to get off the list. Much of the problem could be alleviated by keeping records like age, height, a picture, and other ways that an airport could easily say that a given person isn't the person., but that still leaves the issue of not being able to determine why a given person is on the list. Heck, look at the case of Walter Murphy. The only plausible explanation for why he was hassled is that he gave a talk against Bush. If you trust the government to deliver a fair, impartial, and accurate list that only targets people that they suspect as terrorists, you're in for a sore let down.
a presumption that a person is a "good citizen" unless proven otherwise
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "innocent until proven guilty", which is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems. Or, to quote from the decision of Coffin v. United States:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law....
While it may not be convenient for law enforcement and security to follow this, ignoring basic rights chips away at the very democracy that the law enforcement is sworn to protect.
Slashdot Mirror
One more thing:
If it's found that an officer has lied to get a warrant, or blatently ignored the requirement to get a warrant, or collected information outside the scope of the warrant, then they should go to prison. Real actual prison with the rest of the criminals, not a minimum security resort.
Politicians say they want to be tough on crime, I'd like to see them back that up when dealing with those we offer the most trust to.
It's a rather big assumption to say "The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans". Plenty of people can be quite happy with reading books, or learning math, or meditating in the middle of nowhere without other people around. To really feel bad doesn't come from lack of friends, it comes from people actively trying to make you feel bad. I think some of the problem is that people who are really interested in psychology tend to be more of the empathetic extrovert types, and quite frankly I haven't seen many extroverted people who really understand that some people just plain don't have the energy or desire to deal with the bullshit of the social game.
Why does the victim have to change because some asshat wants to make other people's lives hell? If someone is shot we don't tell them to invest in a kevlar vest, we find the guy with the gun and segregate them from the rest of society. From my own experience in school though, not one teacher gave a shit when I was bullied. Not one of them told the bully to go sit in the corner with a dunce cap. As for myself, I just wanted to be left alone. Is that so bad? Do we really want to tell every loner to go play the social game so everyone will like you?
Huh? I'm leftist because I don't want a centralized entity regulating my or anyone's lives. Yes, government regulation can be bad, but I fear the limited concentration of power in a small handful of corporations far more. If people don't like it they can elect a new government. If the top 5 ISPs (which is ~50% of the marketshare) in the US got together and said "we're going to do x", who can realistically stop them besides the government?
Sure, you can try to boycott all you want, but is that going to help when most people out there just want to get pictures of cute cats in their email? The government is "the people", and while we should be careful not to abuse the power, we still need to be able to use it to protect ourselves from concentrations of power that might threaten the rights of the rest of us. The real problem right now is that we let the corporations get so big (and people have let themselves get so dumb) that the people now really only rubberstamp the same politicians into office who then go off and listen to big business instead.
The point is that the $750 per infringement is already an absurd amount. Considering that Exxon got off with only a 1:1 punitive to compensitory damage ratio after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill (which devastated Prince William Sound), it boggles the mind that violating copyright is somehow worthy of a minimum of 1000 times the actual price of the song. Yes, we all know that copyright infringement is based off statutory damages, but so what? How do we go from one type of damage being strictly limited on a Constitutional basis to a ratio in the single digits, yet anywhere from 1000:1 to 200000:1 as a law is not prima facie thrown out?
Except that you're forgetting the part where Fox News then investigates/fabricates whatever shreds of evidence they can find in order to try to discount the "liberal elites" (regardless of merit or even whether it's a left-right issue). Then talking head spout their opinions as factual news and shout over anyone who disagrees with them while half of America laps it up and doesn't question what O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck says. Then the Daily Show has a fun time showing us all what a mockery it is, everyone has a nice laugh, and Nixon stays in office while no one does anything.
If there really were hundreds or thousands or even more than a dozen or two intelligent terrorists in the United States right now, do you really think the best they could do is suicide bombing a few lines in airports? What about places with 0 security that would be even more difficult and unlikely to secure? Is there really anything stopping terrorists from blowing up malls all across America? Or schools, bridges, dams, railroads, town halls, hotels, etc? Yet we're scared about one small facet of transportation, despite the fact that there is no chance that passengers would just sit there during a hijacking anymore, and what America itself does makes very little difference when someone can hop a flight from a foreign nation into the US.
Steakhouses?
If you're forced to choose between a kick to the crotch or a bullet to the head, do you really not get to complain when your balls are aching?
Male bodybuilders don't wear shirts during competition, are you saying you're willing to photoshop a picture where Miley Cyrus is topless?! *gasp* What if you're really into the muscular physique? Would it be illegal because it might turn you on? Does suggesting that it's possible make you an accessory to the crime of production of child pornography?
Won't somebody think of the parts of photographs of the children?
The results are so blatently fraudulent as to be laughable. According to the Guardian UK, the turnout rates in 26 provinces are scientifically impossible, with 30 towns having over 100% turnout. This isn't the kind of fraud that you get from a few corrupt poll workers here and there, this is the kind of fraud that you get when one of the people running for office is also counting the votes. What's the point in going through a legal protest of that kind of result? There's no chance of fairness or openness.
Wait, so if the police, the people who have the sworn duty to uphold the law, think that what they're doing is legal, but it turns out to be illegal, they can get off scott free (hell, in those cases they're coming out ahead since they can convict the guy)? Yet if I, an ordinary citizen, break any of the tens of thousands of federal, state, and local laws that I couldn't possibly know about without spending decades of my life doing nothing but read them, I could get the book thrown at me if I'm caught? What kind of bullshit is that? I'd much rather have some people who are the scum of the earth go free from police making honest mistakes than have to worry about police ignore the law without penalty.
Use relatively nonintrusive text ads, or even pictures if they're low key and not some seizure inducing GIF , let alone obnoxious flash ads. Give ads that might actually interest people reading the story. Don't *ever* post an ad for a malware/crapware service. Basically avoid all the crap that made people want/need ad-block in the first place.
Scientific notation? For DNF we need Knuth's Up Arrow notation!
Copyright is not a natural right. In a world without government, you do not have an intrinsic right to control your work as soon as you release it to the public. Even in a world with government, copyright is a fairly recent invention. We as a society are the ones who grant copyright in the hopes that it will encourage and enable works that otherwise might never exist, but if we never put those works back into the public domain then we are also missing out on many creative works that might have been so we tried to limit copyrights. Over time, however, copyright length increased to the point where something created on the day you were born might not become public domain until after your children have died, and that's assuming that those copyrights aren't extended again arbitrarily. For that matter, in some places works that were public domain at the time of your birth might have been reentered copyright since then, completely retroactively. Should Casablanca still be under copyright? If I go out and pirate Casablanca, am I really ripping off Warner Brothers? At some point there's a level of absurdity in the system that doesn't mesh with reality, and I think that it discourages the recognition of the valid reasons for copyright. If terms were reasonable and the law didn't let copyright holders club the average person over the head at will, then I'd have more sympathy, but until then I'm not going to shed a tear over piracy.
Hell, when I first saw the publicity photo of Matt Smith I thought "Why does he look so much like Charles II of Spain?"
How about this statement: "If anything happens while you're a client of LifeLock we will cover all losses and all expenses up to one million dollars." It's right in their commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXANhTH_oSo If they're not lying when they say that, they're certainly not telling the whole truth.
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are privileges. You have no "right" to a monopoly on an idea outside of the government saying you do. Contrast this with speech, which you have no limitations on in nature. IP is specifically a restriction on the right of others done in the hope that it brings a net benefit to society. Because of that, I'm not going to shed a tear if large corporations find themselves paying out the nose for patenting and asserting copyright over every idea they have and every scribble they put on a piece of paper. That said, I don't trust myy government to put forth a decent piece of legislation on any matter, let alone one that would require a enough nuance to not crush copyleft.
If a cup of coffee gets one person through their morning, a shot of whiskey gets someone else through theirs, and a joint gets yet another person through theirs, and you can't tell the difference in their output, why should you care who does what? Why is one mind altering substance (caffeine) acceptable, yet the other two are verboten for work even if the work done is the same? If someone is having a quality/quantity problem, does it make a difference to you if it's because of drugs, poor sleep habits, or outright laziness? All three of those can cause the same problems, so yes, it's prudent to be careful if you see signs of them, but don't automatically judge someone as being a deadbeat just because they don't conform to your ideas of what the "real world" is.
(note: the author does not do any illegal drugs, but is tired of this "in the real world you must not do $activity to be taken seriously")
There already are artificial processes which make synthetic diamonds that are nearly indistinguishable from natural diamonds (basically the synthetic ones are "too perfect"). If they ever approach mainstream be prepared for ads marketing natural diamonds as somehow "better" just because they were dug up, rather than any distinguishable features of the stone itself. You can read more about it in these articles:
http://www.news.com/2100-11395_3-6159542.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
The broken machine can't possibly work against you.
Either that or Comcast is overselling their lines and hoping no one notices and calls them on it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure which scenario would be sleazier, having the power and not delivering until needed or not having the power and saying you do just to try screwing the competition.
There are several important differences between your credit score and the no fly list. Credit scores are generated by private companies and you can check them once a year and dispute anything you find that's in error. The no fly list is generated by the government and you have no way of knowing why you are on the list and no way to get off the list. Much of the problem could be alleviated by keeping records like age, height, a picture, and other ways that an airport could easily say that a given person isn't the person., but that still leaves the issue of not being able to determine why a given person is on the list. Heck, look at the case of Walter Murphy. The only plausible explanation for why he was hassled is that he gave a talk against Bush. If you trust the government to deliver a fair, impartial, and accurate list that only targets people that they suspect as terrorists, you're in for a sore let down.
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "innocent until proven guilty", which is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems. Or, to quote from the decision of Coffin v. United States:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law....
While it may not be convenient for law enforcement and security to follow this, ignoring basic rights chips away at the very democracy that the law enforcement is sworn to protect.