And after they're eighteen, they can pass through the body scanners, look into retinal pattern id readers, submit to body cavity searches, submit to endless background checks, drug checks, be pushed into first amendment zones, get checked on secret "terrorist" watch lists, have their email and IM's read, have their mail opened, packages scanned, DNA data catalogued, car monitored by GPS tracking devices, their phones tracked every second of their lives and by extention their own movements monitored until they die.
Never have I seen it summed up so well. I wish that could fit in to a sig, maybe as a dictionary style entry for the word "Freedom". Amen, friend. I'll see you at Miniluv.
Tokyo metropolitan area has 35 million people and is still growing.
Yea but, in Tokyo a hotel room is a 4' shelf and your feet hang off the end. We're far too fat in this country to ever sardine ourselves together like they do in Japan.
here would need to be a cutoff age, but anyone over a certain age with a large number of underage friends could be flagged. Then their account can be searched for sex related terms, particularly in messages to underage people, and flagged to be looked at.
Holy thought police batman!
I do not need to be red flagged and reviewed based on these criteria. I can think of a variety of reasons why an adult could potentially have many people on their friends list who are underage. Do some of them coincide with people who "could be" sexual predators? Of course they do, but that is because sexual predators are attracted to positions that afford them opportunities -- and not because we should be red flagging every teacher, priest and family member that uses a website!
You know what else? Alot of children turn to these people with sexual concerns during maturity. Not everyone speaks as formally in private as I am right now, people do talk about sex, and sometimes people are just crude. You want to investigate every football coach who gets asked about the birds and the bees, or has some kid moon him via webcam?
Innocent until proven guilty; remember that always. Having people on your buddy list and being crude on the internet isn't anywhere close to probable cause. Not for the commu^H^H^H^Hterrorists, not for witc^H^H^H^Hmuslims, and not to 'think of the children'.
I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here:)
I realize we're getting really offtopic here, but the discussion is what makes the site so please hear me out.
You've presented a valid discussion. Earlier in the thread you asked if your position sounded at all logical; and I completely grant you that it does. It's inductive logic however, which does not guarentee the accuracy of the outcome even if all the premise are correct. I submit to you that a different society may have different circumstance which requires different needs.
Here in the United States, the fact is we have a crime problem. I'm not going to get in to overthrowing the government because while a valid position, I don't personally see it as the most important factor in why pro-gun people want guns. Anyway, back to our crime problem. Yes, we have crimes that are committed with guns. However, these are almost universally committed with illegal weapons; and not by the honest citizens who do it 'by the book'. Thus, they would still exist even if we took the weapons away from the honest citizens -- they weren't affected by the law to begin with, and even yourself you noted that illegal weapons would still exist.
What we do have in our society is a historically proven fact that these crimes are greatly reduced in areas that allow legal gun ownership. The honest citizen is safer in an area where honest citizens have guns. I have lived in two major metropolitan areas in my lifetime. In Chicago, "gun control" legislation is strong, and most of the honest citizens do not own many weapons and they do not have legal options for concealed weapons permits. Mugging, carjackings, shootings -- these things are all daily occurances in Chicago. Maybe not to you, but they're so common that they barely merit attention on the news anymore. More importantly, the victims of these crimes are the honest citizens; it's much safer to attack the honest citizen who is unarmed than for these gang members and thugs to attack each other (though that happens too). In Phoenix, the people out here have a very "wild west" mentality and part of that is reflected in the gun laws. It is not difficult to legally aquire a personal firearm, and with no special training or permit you are allowed to "Open Carry" -- meaning if you want to cowboy up and wear a Colt 45 on your hip that sticks out and everyone can see it, by all means do. We also allow concealed-carry weapons permits which require training and testing but are not all that difficult to do. Many people have this option, women carry small pistols in their purses, my father has carried a 9mm when working in the city, and he was (now retired) a typical businessman (clean, upstanding citizen, didn't drink and drive, paid his taxes, etc). The crimes that are a daily occurance in Chicago are all but unheard of in Phoenix. The honest citizens are armed, and thus they are a less lucrative target. It's not good crime sense to mug a man like my father for maybe 200 dollars and take the risk that him or someone he is with is going to pull a gun right back at you. Since the criminal takes the gun risk in either honest targets or other criminals -- most of them are committing these crimes against each other. The other criminals have bling (lots of gold), drugs, and pimped out cars. This is much more lucrative than my father's 200$.
I realize my story is empirical, and correlation does not guarentee causation -- but correlation does affect public opinion and in this particular case I think we should consider causation because of the "market factor" that an armed mark is a more dangerous mark. Across the country, history has borne out the truth of the statement "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."
You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."
In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw. I can't even count how many games can be played in a much less violent way if so desired (like not using fatalites in Mortal Combat, or not doing head shots in TFC, etc). Entire areas of the map could also be avoided (like fighting inside of shcools).
This case involves Jack Thompson and a judge that thus far has demonstrated his ability to act fairly. Despite Jack's reputation himself as an annoyance, the Judge agreed to actually look at the game before making a decision. Then, upon seeing it, he drew parallels to existing societal norms. So far these are the actions of a rational man; and they're just what we know from a news article.
I know what happens when you assume, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Judge Friedman felt he was being decieved, he would have stated so. If I may as well, I'll take the leap that if Jack felt Judge Friedman was being decieved, he would have no problems fufilling his obligation to the court to say so. In short, with lack of evidence to the contrary, and no history of foolish behavior in this case on the part of Judge Friedman -- I am going say that Judge Friedman did his job, and its judicial armchair quarterbacking on your part to think otherwise because a news article did not detail every step of the trial to your satisfaction.
~Rebecca (IANAL, but damn this is my second law related post today)
Imagine the cost to the court systems. [WRT Zerg-Lawsuit Strategy]
It is not uncommon for an individual-vs-corporate lawsuit to ask for damages to include the court fees associated with the case. It's usually a good sympathy move if you are representing yourself, as you look good to the court to say "The Defendant cost me $X with his illegal actions; I am requesting $X plus $110 to cover the case fee of appearing here today and nothing else."
In states or situations where the court fees themselves do not cover the cost of the trial; it would be a simple matter for the judge to add punative fine to make up for the difference. It's unlikely they would defend themselves against all 50k cases however; so the court fees are likely to well exceed the 10 minutes of time for the default judgement. These cases would be held in a civil court and so would not affect the timetable of any accused criminal recieving their speedy trial. Thus, time is not a factor because it will be accomodated by fees or fine.
In short, court fees awarded or not -- they get paid, the plaintiff has to pay them. Barring wide-scale incompetence on the part of the judiciary; any financial stress on the court system itself would be easily levied against the defendant. Being that taking the case to an incompetent tribunal is in itself a pointless endeavor; that we are (in theory) doing this to begin with suggests that we must at least assume said tribunal is capable rendering a verdict without becoming bankrupt because a particular defendant happened to actually commit 50k civil crimes.
More choice isn't always a great idea. 1,880 extensions is waaaay to much for any computer n00blet to wade through.
Even if you assume that 75% are dupes, 470 is still a lot of discreet options to wade through.
I agree with you completely. There really should be a top ten extensions list or some other similar method for a 'n00blet' to get started easily. After that perhaps they could we could get a keyword search; in case someone was looking for a feature not found in the top ten.
You're a troll, and my reply right now is likely to be the most attention you've gotten from a female today. I'm a nerd, hey I post to slashdot right? Yea, I have personal ads. So what. Show me where it says that is my exclusive method and I'll eat my shoe closet. (Sorry, I don't wear hats)
You fail at life for presuming exclusivity in activities you don't approve of.
How about depicting a lesbian as straight or by so she gets hit on by a bunch of men she isn't interested in?
As a woman who has a personal ad on a homosexual site; I can tell you I get more replies from men to my lesbian ad than I do to the one on a larger, hetero site -- and the content of both profiles is the same. Same pictures, same text block.
You're not the only one who said something like that, and I expected it. So consider this my catch-all reply.
I've got the karma and posting history to afford the right to just say how I feel once in a while. This thread was/is disgusting; and I don't need to perform an investigation to be able to say so.
Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.
Academic curiosity: In the history of megacorporations, with particular emphasis on copyright-owning media corporations; have any of them ever chosen option number 2?
If yes, who? What were their results? If no, what indicators do we have that they would do so now?
Well then, let us reverse that example, shall we? Take something you believe you own - like, say, a piece of meat - with you and head out into the jungle. Then find the tiger, and try to convince him to respect your inherent right of property to the aforementioned piece of meat.
This is the same as the theft and thuggery situation I already answered. The roles are reversed, but again, the existance of theft and thuggery does not negate the existance of property rights.
Many animals (incidentially, including tigers!) mark their territory; many of them lay claim to nests and dens. Animals generally respect each other in this regard too. Tigers hunt their own prey, and don't usually try and steal it from other tigers unless there is a severe shortage of food in the area.
Your extreme example of the meat fails to account for the fact that to the Tiger, I too am prey, and in that situation would make me an easy mark. The tiger doesn't typically go wandering in to tribal human towns however, even though they could easily win the battle.
It's ultra late at this point; and the replies are starting to duplicate themselves, so this will be my last reply. I hope you've enjoyed the thread as much as I have.
And, of course, the Romans didn't have movable type, either. Advancements in technology usually drive the creation of new laws. This may not be where you were going,
You're right, it isn't. Nothing I'm saying should be read to say that copyright isn't something important in our modern world. The reference to Plato is just to show that its a rather recent human creation, something that comes after the government in the rights->government->privilege chain. We can point to societies that have existed without copyright just fine; but property rights are always present in some form.
I may be reading too much into your post, but please correct me if I'm wrong: is your thesis that I don't have the natural right to control how my work is copied, yet you do have the natural right to copy my work?
You asked to be corrected, so here I am. You are reading too much in to it -- The discussion is about the difference between right and privilege. Copyright in its 'limited time' form is a human creation; and as such is a privilege and does not reach the pinnacle of something that would be considered a right.
It's a topic for another time; but it would definately be an interesting discussion about whether copying in itself could qualify as a natural right.
Say he does bring a weapon, and shoots the tiger right dead.
Then he has stolen it, no different than if he had carried those weapons in to the Quik-E-Mart and pointed them at Apu. The existance of theft and thuggery do not negate the existance of property rights. The suggestion was rhetorical; part of me demonstrating the existance of property rights without a government.
I'm sure you'd agree that 'something that applies to everyone' isn't an adequate definition of a right.
Oh, I certainly agree; and cogruent with that agreement I neve claimed that it was. 'Applies to everyone' is one of many qualities necessary to escalate from privilege to right; and not having it is enough to make something not a right. A similar statement would be, having chocolate chips does not make something a chocolate-chip cookie (it could be a cake); but something without the chips cannot be a chocolate-chip cookie.
You're claiming that there's a substantive difference between different legally protected rights -- that some are 'true' rights and others are 'merely' privileges.
Forgive me for going out of order, but your first and third thoughts were basically the same and I wanted to get them together. You have a view that has basically challanged Locke's philosophy since before Locke himself laid claim to it. Unfortunately, we could argue for the rest of our lives and likely never agree on this point. Your claim defines 'a right' as something granted by the government; and Locke's philosophy defines 'a right' as something that supercedes the government.
Personally, I tend to agree with Locke by virtue of a human-absence test. If something (such as property rights do) exists without requiring human-or-better intelligence to create them; then they fall as natural rights. As animals in the wild tend to engage in (primitive) property rights; then property rights qualify. Constitutional rights, like free speech, are not in and of themselves natural rights; but have been escalated to that level by the defining foundation of our society.
A privilege, like copyright, is something completely different. These are just bonuses -- no different than when I get a Pell Grant to help pay for my education. Pell Grants exist because we say they do; they don't exist in the wild, and they don't supercede other laws and definately don't challange anything in the 'rights' category.
On a personal note however, I'm really enjoying this thread. It's really not often you get past even a single reply in a philosophical thread like this without it exploding in to a flamewar. Feel free to email me on gmail if you want to continue, username is the same.
Free speech is not one of those things either. You and I agree that there should be free speech, but there are many countries where it is illegal to express certain opinions, including our dear neighbor Canada. There are many, many people who defend these policies, so it's not something "we accept exists regardless of what the government wants to do about it."
This really adds no value to your arguement as I already said rkcallaghan wrote:
Free speech is a constitutional right, and as such falls between the two areas. It took the constitution to grant this creation, but as we hold it higher than the government or anyone else, its still a right.
It took the constitution to create that right; but now that we have it, it is above the law. You're arguing in a circle, stating the same point I did in an attempt to refute it.
O'Laochdha wrote:
Property rights would certainly not exist without a government.
I disagree, and if you doubt this, please by all means head out in to the jungle and attempt to tell the first tiger you see that he has no claim on his prey or his den; as there is no tiger-government to grant him those rights. You might want to bring some weapons though, because he's not going to agree with you either.
You seem to be forgetting Article I, Section VIII: [snip]
I didn't forget it, in fact by bringing it up you make my point. The GP was claiming that all rights are actually privileges; I defeated that argument. Again, although the word 'right' is used in the description of Copyright -- it remains a privilege; as it is only granted exclusively to the author or inventor. All of the true rights, constitutional or otherwise, apply to everyone.
Privilege, privilege, it's all privilege. The privilege of free speech, the privilege of property ownership, etc...there are those against both. The government protects your right to the proceeds of your creations - that makes it as much a right as anything.
Another incorrect assertion. Rights are things that we accept exist regardless of anything the government or anyone else wants to say about it. Copyright is not one of these things. Free speech is a constitutional right, and as such falls between the two areas. It took the constitution to grant this creation, but as we hold it higher than the government or anyone else, its still a right. Property ownership is as a natural right -- almost all creatures, not just humans, have this sense of what is 'theirs' and what isn't. Locke would say that the forest belongs to no one, but once he has felled a tree, the log is his.
Privileges are things that exist only when the government or another higher power says you can have it. Copyright falls under this category, despite the presence of 'right' in the compound. You'll note that before copyright existed, many forms of art and publication still existed -- but Plato never enjoyed the privilege of copyright.
In short, rights define the rules around which a government may exist. The government defines the rules around which privileges may exist. There is a definite chain of command here, and rights are most certainly at the top of the list.
I'm not really sure what "Nemesis Denial" has to do with any confusion around "fifth last". It's a confusing method of describing a series of movies; I just misread the GP as talking about movies 3-5 which is only one off from using you know, their actual titles.
Enterprise failed because its just not that interesting to watch the "old" again. I don't want to see young Kirk.
Bring back any of the TNG/DS9/VOY actors that want a job; seed the environment with a couple familiar faces. Everybody loves Worf and Michael Dorn basically never turns down a chance to come back, get him. Get some new blood and tell a new tale. How about the crew of the Titan; heading up that task force near the neutral zone, that has some options and I'm sure Frakes needs a job. How about a period of recovery for the Alpha Quadrant post Dominion War; paralleling the WW2 Europe -> European Union evolution?
Maybe you like my ideas, maybe you don't. All I'm saying is seek out new life, and new civilizations; and don't try and cowardly go where we've already been a billion times. Unless you're trying to duplicate the success of Enterprise
The EU is looking more and more impressive. It's amazing that Europe has gone from the chaos and destruction of WW2 to the peace and prosperity of the EU.
The EU is now what 'these united States of America' (note the lower-case u in united and 'these' instead of the) was before the civil war. States used to be as distinct and seperate here as the EU countries are now; and the federal government had much less influence, concerning itself primarily with matters like the treasury and common defense.
Slashdot Mirror
See, you do understand.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Yea but, in Tokyo a hotel room is a 4' shelf and your feet hang off the end. We're far too fat in this country to ever sardine ourselves together like they do in Japan.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
I do not need to be red flagged and reviewed based on these criteria. I can think of a variety of reasons why an adult could potentially have many people on their friends list who are underage. Do some of them coincide with people who "could be" sexual predators? Of course they do, but that is because sexual predators are attracted to positions that afford them opportunities -- and not because we should be red flagging every teacher, priest and family member that uses a website!
You know what else? Alot of children turn to these people with sexual concerns during maturity. Not everyone speaks as formally in private as I am right now, people do talk about sex, and sometimes people are just crude. You want to investigate every football coach who gets asked about the birds and the bees, or has some kid moon him via webcam?
Innocent until proven guilty; remember that always. Having people on your buddy list and being crude on the internet isn't anywhere close to probable cause. Not for the commu^H^H^H^Hterrorists, not for witc^H^H^H^Hmuslims, and not to 'think of the children'.
~Rebecca
You've presented a valid discussion. Earlier in the thread you asked if your position sounded at all logical; and I completely grant you that it does. It's inductive logic however, which does not guarentee the accuracy of the outcome even if all the premise are correct. I submit to you that a different society may have different circumstance which requires different needs.
Here in the United States, the fact is we have a crime problem. I'm not going to get in to overthrowing the government because while a valid position, I don't personally see it as the most important factor in why pro-gun people want guns. Anyway, back to our crime problem. Yes, we have crimes that are committed with guns. However, these are almost universally committed with illegal weapons; and not by the honest citizens who do it 'by the book'. Thus, they would still exist even if we took the weapons away from the honest citizens -- they weren't affected by the law to begin with, and even yourself you noted that illegal weapons would still exist.
What we do have in our society is a historically proven fact that these crimes are greatly reduced in areas that allow legal gun ownership. The honest citizen is safer in an area where honest citizens have guns. I have lived in two major metropolitan areas in my lifetime. In Chicago, "gun control" legislation is strong, and most of the honest citizens do not own many weapons and they do not have legal options for concealed weapons permits. Mugging, carjackings, shootings -- these things are all daily occurances in Chicago. Maybe not to you, but they're so common that they barely merit attention on the news anymore. More importantly, the victims of these crimes are the honest citizens; it's much safer to attack the honest citizen who is unarmed than for these gang members and thugs to attack each other (though that happens too). In Phoenix, the people out here have a very "wild west" mentality and part of that is reflected in the gun laws. It is not difficult to legally aquire a personal firearm, and with no special training or permit you are allowed to "Open Carry" -- meaning if you want to cowboy up and wear a Colt 45 on your hip that sticks out and everyone can see it, by all means do. We also allow concealed-carry weapons permits which require training and testing but are not all that difficult to do. Many people have this option, women carry small pistols in their purses, my father has carried a 9mm when working in the city, and he was (now retired) a typical businessman (clean, upstanding citizen, didn't drink and drive, paid his taxes, etc). The crimes that are a daily occurance in Chicago are all but unheard of in Phoenix. The honest citizens are armed, and thus they are a less lucrative target. It's not good crime sense to mug a man like my father for maybe 200 dollars and take the risk that him or someone he is with is going to pull a gun right back at you. Since the criminal takes the gun risk in either honest targets or other criminals -- most of them are committing these crimes against each other. The other criminals have bling (lots of gold), drugs, and pimped out cars. This is much more lucrative than my father's 200$.
I realize my story is empirical, and correlation does not guarentee causation -- but correlation does affect public opinion and in this particular case I think we should consider causation because of the "market factor" that an armed mark is a more dangerous mark. Across the country, history has borne out the truth of the statement "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."
~Rebecca
This case involves Jack Thompson and a judge that thus far has demonstrated his ability to act fairly. Despite Jack's reputation himself as an annoyance, the Judge agreed to actually look at the game before making a decision. Then, upon seeing it, he drew parallels to existing societal norms. So far these are the actions of a rational man; and they're just what we know from a news article.
I know what happens when you assume, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Judge Friedman felt he was being decieved, he would have stated so. If I may as well, I'll take the leap that if Jack felt Judge Friedman was being decieved, he would have no problems fufilling his obligation to the court to say so. In short, with lack of evidence to the contrary, and no history of foolish behavior in this case on the part of Judge Friedman -- I am going say that Judge Friedman did his job, and its judicial armchair quarterbacking on your part to think otherwise because a news article did not detail every step of the trial to your satisfaction.
~Rebecca (IANAL, but damn this is my second law related post today)
It is not uncommon for an individual-vs-corporate lawsuit to ask for damages to include the court fees associated with the case. It's usually a good sympathy move if you are representing yourself, as you look good to the court to say "The Defendant cost me $X with his illegal actions; I am requesting $X plus $110 to cover the case fee of appearing here today and nothing else."
In states or situations where the court fees themselves do not cover the cost of the trial; it would be a simple matter for the judge to add punative fine to make up for the difference. It's unlikely they would defend themselves against all 50k cases however; so the court fees are likely to well exceed the 10 minutes of time for the default judgement. These cases would be held in a civil court and so would not affect the timetable of any accused criminal recieving their speedy trial. Thus, time is not a factor because it will be accomodated by fees or fine.
In short, court fees awarded or not -- they get paid, the plaintiff has to pay them. Barring wide-scale incompetence on the part of the judiciary; any financial stress on the court system itself would be easily levied against the defendant. Being that taking the case to an incompetent tribunal is in itself a pointless endeavor; that we are (in theory) doing this to begin with suggests that we must at least assume said tribunal is capable rendering a verdict without becoming bankrupt because a particular defendant happened to actually commit 50k civil crimes.
~Rebecca (IANAL)
~Rebecca
You're a troll, and my reply right now is likely to be the most attention you've gotten from a female today. I'm a nerd, hey I post to slashdot right? Yea, I have personal ads. So what. Show me where it says that is my exclusive method and I'll eat my shoe closet. (Sorry, I don't wear hats)
You fail at life for presuming exclusivity in activities you don't approve of.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
You're not the only one who said something like that, and I expected it. So consider this my catch-all reply.
I've got the karma and posting history to afford the right to just say how I feel once in a while. This thread was/is disgusting; and I don't need to perform an investigation to be able to say so.
~Reecca
and not one has any substance or material about the case. That's sad. Just lame jokes.
Anyone have something of value? Is there any truth to these claims?
Slashdot, you suck. And to the mod who mods me down for saying so; that means you, personally.
~Rebecca
If yes, who? What were their results? If no, what indicators do we have that they would do so now?
~Rebecca
Many animals (incidentially, including tigers!) mark their territory; many of them lay claim to nests and dens. Animals generally respect each other in this regard too. Tigers hunt their own prey, and don't usually try and steal it from other tigers unless there is a severe shortage of food in the area.
Your extreme example of the meat fails to account for the fact that to the Tiger, I too am prey, and in that situation would make me an easy mark. The tiger doesn't typically go wandering in to tribal human towns however, even though they could easily win the battle.
It's ultra late at this point; and the replies are starting to duplicate themselves, so this will be my last reply. I hope you've enjoyed the thread as much as I have.
~Rebecca
You asked to be corrected, so here I am. You are reading too much in to it -- The discussion is about the difference between right and privilege. Copyright in its 'limited time' form is a human creation; and as such is a privilege and does not reach the pinnacle of something that would be considered a right.
It's a topic for another time; but it would definately be an interesting discussion about whether copying in itself could qualify as a natural right.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Forgive me for going out of order, but your first and third thoughts were basically the same and I wanted to get them together. You have a view that has basically challanged Locke's philosophy since before Locke himself laid claim to it. Unfortunately, we could argue for the rest of our lives and likely never agree on this point. Your claim defines 'a right' as something granted by the government; and Locke's philosophy defines 'a right' as something that supercedes the government.
Personally, I tend to agree with Locke by virtue of a human-absence test. If something (such as property rights do) exists without requiring human-or-better intelligence to create them; then they fall as natural rights. As animals in the wild tend to engage in (primitive) property rights; then property rights qualify. Constitutional rights, like free speech, are not in and of themselves natural rights; but have been escalated to that level by the defining foundation of our society.
A privilege, like copyright, is something completely different. These are just bonuses -- no different than when I get a Pell Grant to help pay for my education. Pell Grants exist because we say they do; they don't exist in the wild, and they don't supercede other laws and definately don't challange anything in the 'rights' category.
On a personal note however, I'm really enjoying this thread. It's really not often you get past even a single reply in a philosophical thread like this without it exploding in to a flamewar. Feel free to email me on gmail if you want to continue, username is the same.
~Rebecca
This really adds no value to your arguement as I already said
rkcallaghan wrote: It took the constitution to create that right; but now that we have it, it is above the law. You're arguing in a circle, stating the same point I did in an attempt to refute it.
O'Laochdha wrote: I disagree, and if you doubt this, please by all means head out in to the jungle and attempt to tell the first tiger you see that he has no claim on his prey or his den; as there is no tiger-government to grant him those rights. You might want to bring some weapons though, because he's not going to agree with you either.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Another incorrect assertion. Rights are things that we accept exist regardless of anything the government or anyone else wants to say about it. Copyright is not one of these things. Free speech is a constitutional right, and as such falls between the two areas. It took the constitution to grant this creation, but as we hold it higher than the government or anyone else, its still a right. Property ownership is as a natural right -- almost all creatures, not just humans, have this sense of what is 'theirs' and what isn't. Locke would say that the forest belongs to no one, but once he has felled a tree, the log is his.
Privileges are things that exist only when the government or another higher power says you can have it. Copyright falls under this category, despite the presence of 'right' in the compound. You'll note that before copyright existed, many forms of art and publication still existed -- but Plato never enjoyed the privilege of copyright.
In short, rights define the rules around which a government may exist. The government defines the rules around which privileges may exist. There is a definite chain of command here, and rights are most certainly at the top of the list.
~Rebecca
I'm not really sure what "Nemesis Denial" has to do with any confusion around "fifth last". It's a confusing method of describing a series of movies; I just misread the GP as talking about movies 3-5 which is only one off from using you know, their actual titles.
~Rebecca
Enterprise failed because its just not that interesting to watch the "old" again. I don't want to see young Kirk.
Bring back any of the TNG/DS9/VOY actors that want a job; seed the environment with a couple familiar faces. Everybody loves Worf and Michael Dorn basically never turns down a chance to come back, get him. Get some new blood and tell a new tale. How about the crew of the Titan; heading up that task force near the neutral zone, that has some options and I'm sure Frakes needs a job. How about a period of recovery for the Alpha Quadrant post Dominion War; paralleling the WW2 Europe -> European Union evolution?
Maybe you like my ideas, maybe you don't. All I'm saying is seek out new life, and new civilizations; and don't try and cowardly go where we've already been a billion times. Unless you're trying to duplicate the success of Enterprise
~Rebecca
Actually, the fifth movie sucks donkey. You are right however that The Undiscovered Country was pretty good, but its the sixth.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Cheers!
~Rebecca
The EU is now what 'these united States of America' (note the lower-case u in united and 'these' instead of the) was before the civil war. States used to be as distinct and seperate here as the EU countries are now; and the federal government had much less influence, concerning itself primarily with matters like the treasury and common defense.
~Rebecca