Wrong, and doesn't make a lot of sense - he was never saying the our right to privacy was surrendered to the government,
Now you're misreading what I said. Let me try to rephrase -- I don't think you and I are in disagreement over how we read the amendments (except I think you meant 4th instead of 5th).
I was disagreeing with the assertion that the federal government protects an individual's privacy from being invaded by other individuals. (Which is how I read the original statement, "We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it")
The 4th Amendment does explicitly limit the federal government's ability to invade an individuals privacy - it doesn't limit it completely, but certainly limits it to reasonable searches with the proper warrants.
My comment about whether a right was "surrendered" to the government was not a rebuttal to the original statement; rather, I was explaining my underlying logic:
Rights not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states and/or people
The government is not given a right to invade your privacy because that's not granted to the government in the Constitution
The government is explicitly limited from invading your privacy without good cause and due process
However, the Constitution does not provide the framework for preventing individuals from violating each other's privacy; this is left to state and local law
Therefore, it is incorrect to say "the government exists to protect your right to privacy"
And before anyone jumps in to say "the government exists to protect your right to privacy... from government intrusion" let me point out that the original argument was specifically responding to the statement: "The fourth amendment places limits on government activity only. Nothing in the 4th amendment applies to a private party rummaging through your stuff."
We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it
Wrong. That's not what the 4th amendment says. The 4th amendment puts a limit on the government's ability to invade your privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not establish a right to privacy; that right, since it is not expressly surrendered to the government in the Constitution, is reserved to the states and the people via the 10th amendment.
It is up to your state and local government to define the limits of other individuals' ability to encroach on your privacy and property. (Similarly, it is up to those governments to specify how they protect individual's lives from the threat of other individuals.) If they fail to sufficiently protect those rights, well, there's always the 2nd amendment...
I haven't heard anyone suggesting that there's a threat of Mexican nationals crossing our borders to commit terrorist acts. The argument, rather, is that now the US has taken some drastic measures to secure air travel, but ignores what seems to be a gaping security hole: anyone wanting to get to this country could probably do so with no paper trail by crossing our northern or southern border illegally.
The fact that the same "security hole" is blamed for massive illegal immigration is probably the reason it gets so much attention. It offers a seemingly more noble reason for putting more attention on the borders, with a pleasant side effect of also addressing that pesky immigration issue.
Disney can't stop others from using the same public domain stories, even for animated films of the same stories in Disney's. They can, however, take issue with the copying of specific characters added to the stories (such as Dopey, Sneezy, and Doc) and with renditions of the characters that are obvious copies of the Disney interpretation (such as a drawing of Snow White with a very similar hairstyle & dress colors compared to the Disney version).
Haven't you read the comments? Plenty of folks here would be happy to have the (unaltered) piece knowing it was a replica cast from the original and not a hacked artist's rendition. Now, the price point might be questionable, but certainly it would be worth at least a few hundred dollars on a slow day on Ebay. (Remember, it's life-sized!)
A piece like that, you could keep around until you got bored of it, or ran out of space to keep it, and still get some cash out of it. Now once he tires of his craptastic modification, it's worthless.
Oh, come on, everyone knows that she would just have to pull back her hair and wear glasses in order to look like an unattractive nerd. (Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160862/)
...Of course, placing the bid at the last minute makes it slightly less likely that you'll encounter competing bids. (But only slightly, given the prevalence of snipers.)
when it comes to a seller deciding not to sell an item, I think MOST shunned buyers would just be a little disappointed and get on with their lives. When you know you've bid really low for an item, and it looks like you're going to win it anyway - you KNOW the seller wasn't planning on giving it away so inexpensively. You consider it a "steal of a deal" if it really goes through, and if not - you know it seemed "too good to be true" anyway.
If that happened with any regularity, I would think Ebay would crack down on it. After all, isn't that one of the main appeals of the online auction? You've got the chance to get a good bargain, if no one else is bidding against you.
Ebay might not actively police this to make sure the item is sent, but the feedback system works in part to shame or shun those sellers who don't follow through. (Plus I think Ebay has a complaints system for this kind of thing, but I've never needed to use it.)
Not necessarily. They might see this as a tool for converting people's eternal souls, and could certainly consider that a higher priority than alleviating people's suffering while on Earth. Don't assume that they share your interpretation of "Christianity".
I think you misunderstand the term "executive branch", considering your counter-example is one where power is being asserted by the legislative branch (by passing a law). I would interpret the GP's statement as meaning "he has not voted to transfer power from the legislative or judicial branch to increase the relative power of the executive branch".
It would be simple for companies like Visa, MasterCard, and Discover to take a list of the most common 8-digit prefixes, query for them every day on Google, and de-activate any new credit card numbers that were found that way.
You're suggesting that they cancel cards that show no sign of having been misused, shutting off the customer's ability to purchase immediately.
Between the lost revenue on the cardholder's purchases during the several days it would take for a re-issued card to arrive in the mail, plus the disrupted regularly-scheduled payments (notice MasterCard in particular pushing its customers to use cards for monthly utility payments!), plus the number of calls they have to deal with from ticked-off customers whose cards suddenly don't work, plus the cost of doing this every time a customer or online site is foolish enough to leave a new card number vulnerable -- it probably *is* more cost-effective to just deal with the cases of actual fraud.
Actually, as analogies go, the light from your neighbor's window (or music from their stereo) is a perfect example of why this is NOT the same as accessing someone else's Wi-fi connection.
All right, so it's more like he's dipping a few cups of water from his neighbor's stream (using a cup with a reeeally long handle).
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never watched The Twilight Zone?
Now you're misreading what I said. Let me try to rephrase -- I don't think you and I are in disagreement over how we read the amendments (except I think you meant 4th instead of 5th).
I was disagreeing with the assertion that the federal government protects an individual's privacy from being invaded by other individuals. (Which is how I read the original statement, "We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it")
The 4th Amendment does explicitly limit the federal government's ability to invade an individuals privacy - it doesn't limit it completely, but certainly limits it to reasonable searches with the proper warrants.
My comment about whether a right was "surrendered" to the government was not a rebuttal to the original statement; rather, I was explaining my underlying logic:
And before anyone jumps in to say "the government exists to protect your right to privacy
We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it
Wrong. That's not what the 4th amendment says. The 4th amendment puts a limit on the government's ability to invade your privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not establish a right to privacy; that right, since it is not expressly surrendered to the government in the Constitution, is reserved to the states and the people via the 10th amendment.
It is up to your state and local government to define the limits of other individuals' ability to encroach on your privacy and property. (Similarly, it is up to those governments to specify how they protect individual's lives from the threat of other individuals.) If they fail to sufficiently protect those rights, well, there's always the 2nd amendment...
Michael Bolton, is that you??
Is there really a danger of a Mexican terrorist?
I haven't heard anyone suggesting that there's a threat of Mexican nationals crossing our borders to commit terrorist acts. The argument, rather, is that now the US has taken some drastic measures to secure air travel, but ignores what seems to be a gaping security hole: anyone wanting to get to this country could probably do so with no paper trail by crossing our northern or southern border illegally.
The fact that the same "security hole" is blamed for massive illegal immigration is probably the reason it gets so much attention. It offers a seemingly more noble reason for putting more attention on the borders, with a pleasant side effect of also addressing that pesky immigration issue.
...they never got the millions of dollars they expected after forwarding all those messages about Bill Gates sharing his fortune.
Though I bet that if I made an animated "Jungle Book" that told Kipling's (copyright expired) story, I would get a letter from Disney.
A few counterexamples, in chronological order (all dated after the 1967 Disney film):
1977 (with title "Mowgli's Brothers") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0174937/
1990 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075333/
1995 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910908/
Disney can't stop others from using the same public domain stories, even for animated films of the same stories in Disney's. They can, however, take issue with the copying of specific characters added to the stories (such as Dopey, Sneezy, and Doc) and with renditions of the characters that are obvious copies of the Disney interpretation (such as a drawing of Snow White with a very similar hairstyle & dress colors compared to the Disney version).
FTA: No one's ever worn a digital watch.
Sadly, they'll never really appreciate Douglas Adams' style of humour.
Haven't you read the comments? Plenty of folks here would be happy to have the (unaltered) piece knowing it was a replica cast from the original and not a hacked artist's rendition. Now, the price point might be questionable, but certainly it would be worth at least a few hundred dollars on a slow day on Ebay. (Remember, it's life-sized!)
A piece like that, you could keep around until you got bored of it, or ran out of space to keep it, and still get some cash out of it. Now once he tires of his craptastic modification, it's worthless.
Are you suggesting there are anatomical prerequisites for IT jobs? (If so, I'd hate to see how you troubleshoot a hardware issue... *shudder*)
Oh, come on, everyone knows that she would just have to pull back her hair and wear glasses in order to look like an unattractive nerd. (Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160862/)
...Of course, placing the bid at the last minute makes it slightly less likely that you'll encounter competing bids. (But only slightly, given the prevalence of snipers.)
Or perhaps he place a maximum bid over the reserve, but wasn't charged any more than the reserve because there was no other bid.
Starting bid: $1.00, with $150,000.00 reserve
Buyer enters maximum bid: $200,000.00
Ebay automatically enters current bid as: $150,000.00, reserve met
Until there is another bidder, the upper limit of the first bid isn't tested.
when it comes to a seller deciding not to sell an item, I think MOST shunned buyers would just be a little disappointed and get on with their lives. When you know you've bid really low for an item, and it looks like you're going to win it anyway - you KNOW the seller wasn't planning on giving it away so inexpensively. You consider it a "steal of a deal" if it really goes through, and if not - you know it seemed "too good to be true" anyway.
If that happened with any regularity, I would think Ebay would crack down on it. After all, isn't that one of the main appeals of the online auction? You've got the chance to get a good bargain, if no one else is bidding against you.
Ebay might not actively police this to make sure the item is sent, but the feedback system works in part to shame or shun those sellers who don't follow through. (Plus I think Ebay has a complaints system for this kind of thing, but I've never needed to use it.)
Do they form the shape of a large robot and fight evil?
the robot ... might turn out to be the right motivator.
Unless it's a used R2 unit you bought from the back of a Jawa's truck. They're notorious for having bad motivators.
VH1 needed to fill another half hour of air time.
It's spelled "fries". (But otherwise, not bad - cleaner shot than several of the others I viewed.)
Well, no, that would probably do extremely well. It's just that viral video doesn't work well for regular ketchup.
Not necessarily. They might see this as a tool for converting people's eternal souls, and could certainly consider that a higher priority than alleviating people's suffering while on Earth. Don't assume that they share your interpretation of "Christianity".
I think you misunderstand the term "executive branch", considering your counter-example is one where power is being asserted by the legislative branch (by passing a law). I would interpret the GP's statement as meaning "he has not voted to transfer power from the legislative or judicial branch to increase the relative power of the executive branch".
Could they sue if you put it on the internet? Yeah...but only for deformation of character
They shouldn't get all bent out of shape about it...
It would be simple for companies like Visa, MasterCard, and Discover to take a list of the most common 8-digit prefixes, query for them every day on Google, and de-activate any new credit card numbers that were found that way.
You're suggesting that they cancel cards that show no sign of having been misused, shutting off the customer's ability to purchase immediately.
Between the lost revenue on the cardholder's purchases during the several days it would take for a re-issued card to arrive in the mail, plus the disrupted regularly-scheduled payments (notice MasterCard in particular pushing its customers to use cards for monthly utility payments!), plus the number of calls they have to deal with from ticked-off customers whose cards suddenly don't work, plus the cost of doing this every time a customer or online site is foolish enough to leave a new card number vulnerable -- it probably *is* more cost-effective to just deal with the cases of actual fraud.
Actually, as analogies go, the light from your neighbor's window (or music from their stereo) is a perfect example of why this is NOT the same as accessing someone else's Wi-fi connection.
All right, so it's more like he's dipping a few cups of water from his neighbor's stream (using a cup with a reeeally long handle).
Just so long as you don't employ any devices for avoiding commercials - they might be in violation of the DMCA!