Someone who doesn't believe the same thing as you is obviously uneducated?
If that isn't a pretentious asshat comment, I don't know what is.
I've taken two courses on evolution. I've read Darwin. I asked a legitimate question on how evolution explains the fork from a common ancestor that became humans. I've received no answer.
That was what you reaction was. Your reaction does not necessarily equate to the masses. People clamored for stronger intelligence, and that is why both parties universally supported the Patriot Act. The media, which normally is very heavy on civil liberties and anti-government, was calling for the government to step up intelligence.
You completely misinterpreted me twice. I honestly don't want to get into this. That is why I made brief points, and explicitly stated that I don't think I'll really jump into the argument.
And I don't think the point of evolution is to create humans. I simply ask the question. Given the two types of evolution we teach, how do they explain the differences in how humans forked from this common ancestor?
And having said debate numerous times over the years, no one has ever come close to answering that question once.
A true scientist would note the differences and try to come up with a hypothesis for these differences, but these differences are overlooked. I don't understand why.
Again, I'm pro-evolution, but I don't see a strong argument for how humans forked off. Where did our traits come from? Why? How?
Everyone accepts this as fact with no reasoning behind it? Why?
Even better, given that the various arms of the intelligence community are restricted from cooperating together, the government firmly believes in keeping secrets from itself as well.
The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the government to do certain types of monitoring. And the cases you quoted weren't about privacy in general. The government was granting us privacy in the bedroom. You'll find that on hot-topic sexual issues, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule one way or another what should occur in our sex lives, so they scream "privacy" and wash their hands. However, when it comes to flat-out universal privacy, the Supreme Court has not made such a ruling.
The long and short is this. Evolution occurs through one of two means. It is either a means of survival where the parent species is forced to adapt or die. Or evolution occurs through random mutations being passed on.
If you look at the traits that are unique to humans, you're hard pressed to make the arguement of how and when these traits developed via evolution, and didn't develop in other primates.
And my next point again is lengthy debate, but I one I still make. Humans have some really unique aspects about us as a species. We have advanced language. We have art. We have complex emotions and psychology.
Take a look at ants. Ants have lived exponentially longer on this planet than us. Their lifespan is shorter, and in the same period of time, they have more generations than us. And they outnumber us.
Ants have complex societies and even war with each other. Yet, despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
We believe that with humans that there is a hierarchy of needs. When basic survival instincts are met, we move on to higher pursuits. Ants have few predators, and yet they can eat most anything, including large animals. I've seen footage of a colony of ants taking down a lion. In many cases, basic survival is taken care of for ants.
So, they have had exponentially more generations than us, and survival wasn't an issue. When I asked a professor point blank why the need for art and culture would develop through the course of evolution, he responded that he doesn't believe those traits would stem from evolution.
He had no answer where they came from and he doesn't buy into creationism, but now we have this unanswered question. Something is very unique about humans and the evolution model does not seem to explain us very well.
Tons of people have brought this up. However, given that the 4th Amendment only restricts unreasonable searches, it is implied there are reasonable searches. And the 9th Amendment only protects rights retained, and only in a vague manner. It does not solidly, completely protect privacy. It just doesn't.
There is however specific laws giving the government the right to various searches and monitoring.
Given a dispute between clear legislation and very vague legislation, the clear legislation is likely going to win out.
If you really want a right to privacy there needs to be clear legislation outlining it.
Read the thread. This is mentioned several times. The 14th Amendment also covers this to an extent. I am a big fan of both of those amendments. However that doesn't stop Congress from passing laws abridging rights they shouldn't. It doesn't stop the government from invading our privacy. In both instances the government argues that nothing directly protects our privacy, and in many cases the Supreme Court agrees with them.
The arguement that the right to privacy is implied is nice, but not particularly solid. It would be much nicer to have a clearly outlined protection in there.
I'll take the third road. I firmly believe that evolution occured. I firmly believe that creatures that possess dicks will stick them where ever they can get away with sticking them.
That being said, I don't think we descended from chimps. I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, but I just don't believe humans came from chimps.
Look, I want a middle ground personally. However, right after 9/11 every person in this country was screaming "why didn't the US have more intelligence? Why didn't they know everything about these guys?"
In return the US passes the Patriot Act, which is supported universally by both parties. The Patriot Act as best as I can tell from reading the summary headlines of each section doesn't really take away any civil rights from me, but right now we're in the backlash stage.
5 years ago we wanted the government to know everything about everything. Today we don't want them looking anywhere.
Which is it? And while it is easy to throw out the tyranny lines, it is hyperbole. Is it really tyranny? Is your quality of line lessened if the NSA is analyzing data from lines that are encrypted to begin with?
Let's say that you say on the phone you want to blow up the world. The NSA manages to catch this. It isn't admissable in court. However, do we want people to look into these things?
I'm not making that distinction where the line should be drawn yet, because I'm not totally sold on exactly where it should be. However I believe there should be some serious debate on the issue rather than polar stances on absolute privacy, or security at the sake of zero privacy.
And the 14th Amendment. However, sadly the government sees it the opposite way. If the Amendment doesn't strictly prohibit them from doing something (like what the NSA is doing) then the government will continue until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
One could argue all day long about various victim-less crimes and the 9th and 14th Amendments, for instance all these "protection of marriage acts". The Supreme Court ruled the 9th and 14th Amendments protect your right to sleep with whom you want privately, and marry whom you want. So why can we now pass laws restricting who you can marry?
Read the 4th and 5th Amendments back to back, and pay special attention to how they are worded.
"unreasonable searches" sticks out.
You can't be forced to self incriminate. One could argue that there are "reasonable searches" then. If these searches were without a warrant, then it would likely be inadmissable in court, but the NSA could argue in a court of law that their analysis of encrypted data falls under "reasonable searches".
Even websites in other counties will try to obtain.com addresses anyway. And quite frankly, Congress will get a feather up their ass and try to combat porn every few years regardless. Of all the things they could do, I don't think the.xxx idea is really bad. The purpose of a domain extension is to easily classify it, right?
Doesn't a.xxx extension easily classify it?
And I'm all for Net Neutrality. I imagine the vast majority of people here are, so I'm not sure we need to argue the merits.
I don't think it is recent memory either. I think there should be two types of politicians. Those who make law, and those who serve in a more public relations-type of fashion. Let the politicians hold all the PR positions and lets get us some damned nerds to start writing laws.
The first case had absolutely nothing to do with privacy. The other rulings mention privacy, but aren't about privacy. In several instances when the Supreme Court wanted to hold up rights in regards to sexual choices, they upheld them in the right of "privacy" rather than make specific stands on sexual activites. However, it should be noted the Constitution does not directly protect privacy.
I think there should be clear legislation on where our rights lie there. Because why the Supreme Court gives us privacy in the bed room, do you think they'll take the same stance on NSA listening on our phone conversations when the NSA will scream national security?
For better or worse, there really isn't a real "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. The fifth amendment means you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, and we have laws about the collection of evidence.
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
No doubt the hardware companies have a vested interest in this and speak from a biased perspective. However, while most/. readers are well informed on such issues, most members of Congress aren't.
There are the same folks who seem to believe a.xxx domain will increase porn on the internet and make it easier for kids to view porn. They can't grasp the simple concept that currently there is plenty of porn that is easy to access, and a.xxx domain will actually help filter that content away from kids.
Do we expect these guys to understand and make a good decision regarding the future of the internet? With that it mind, I echo this message. Don't rush into a decision. Perhaps if they take their time one of two favorable outcomes will emerge.
1 - Logic and reason will win out and good legislation will emerge. 2 - Congress will release they have no fucking clue and just leave it all alone.
Sad but true. Here many people are upset at the journalist not checking facts, but neither are any of the people who repeated the story. That is a major problem with journalism today in general.
I long for fact-based reporting, but it is rare these days.
From what I understand the reason that grammar checkers aren't included was a license issue. There were grammar checkers that they wanted to include directly in OOO, but they couldn't just use the code, or bundle the program internally.
There are external grammar checker programs and there is work to better integrate these external programs in OOO so they work seemlessly.
http://lingucomponent.openoffice.org/grammar.html
I actually work for Harrahs and Horseshoe in Council Bluffs. The machines are called NRT machines. With the tickets, we don't have to keep cash in every slot machine which is advantageous. The player can also get bills from the NRT machine as opposed to a bucket of quarters. There is better tracking of money, and better security with the paper tickets.
Certainly some customers preferred the sound of coins "clinking" out, but our customer service scores are through the roof. People enjoy not waiting for a cashier for change. They can get their money from a machine.
Of all the properties we own (including all the Vegas and Atlantic City properties) we have the highest usage of NRT machines here in Iowa for some odd reason. But we're the beta-test sites for most of the new technology (which is fun for me being in IT).
Slashdot Mirror
Someone who doesn't believe the same thing as you is obviously uneducated? If that isn't a pretentious asshat comment, I don't know what is. I've taken two courses on evolution. I've read Darwin. I asked a legitimate question on how evolution explains the fork from a common ancestor that became humans. I've received no answer.
That was what you reaction was. Your reaction does not necessarily equate to the masses. People clamored for stronger intelligence, and that is why both parties universally supported the Patriot Act. The media, which normally is very heavy on civil liberties and anti-government, was calling for the government to step up intelligence.
You completely misinterpreted me twice. I honestly don't want to get into this. That is why I made brief points, and explicitly stated that I don't think I'll really jump into the argument.
And I don't think the point of evolution is to create humans. I simply ask the question. Given the two types of evolution we teach, how do they explain the differences in how humans forked from this common ancestor?
And having said debate numerous times over the years, no one has ever come close to answering that question once.
But knowing how to paint was needed for us?
A true scientist would note the differences and try to come up with a hypothesis for these differences, but these differences are overlooked. I don't understand why.
Again, I'm pro-evolution, but I don't see a strong argument for how humans forked off. Where did our traits come from? Why? How?
Everyone accepts this as fact with no reasoning behind it? Why?
Even better, given that the various arms of the intelligence community are restricted from cooperating together, the government firmly believes in keeping secrets from itself as well.
The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the government to do certain types of monitoring. And the cases you quoted weren't about privacy in general. The government was granting us privacy in the bedroom. You'll find that on hot-topic sexual issues, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule one way or another what should occur in our sex lives, so they scream "privacy" and wash their hands. However, when it comes to flat-out universal privacy, the Supreme Court has not made such a ruling.
I don't think the common ancestor exists either.
The long and short is this. Evolution occurs through one of two means. It is either a means of survival where the parent species is forced to adapt or die. Or evolution occurs through random mutations being passed on.
If you look at the traits that are unique to humans, you're hard pressed to make the arguement of how and when these traits developed via evolution, and didn't develop in other primates.
And my next point again is lengthy debate, but I one I still make. Humans have some really unique aspects about us as a species. We have advanced language. We have art. We have complex emotions and psychology.
Take a look at ants. Ants have lived exponentially longer on this planet than us. Their lifespan is shorter, and in the same period of time, they have more generations than us. And they outnumber us.
Ants have complex societies and even war with each other. Yet, despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
We believe that with humans that there is a hierarchy of needs. When basic survival instincts are met, we move on to higher pursuits. Ants have few predators, and yet they can eat most anything, including large animals. I've seen footage of a colony of ants taking down a lion. In many cases, basic survival is taken care of for ants.
So, they have had exponentially more generations than us, and survival wasn't an issue. When I asked a professor point blank why the need for art and culture would develop through the course of evolution, he responded that he doesn't believe those traits would stem from evolution.
He had no answer where they came from and he doesn't buy into creationism, but now we have this unanswered question. Something is very unique about humans and the evolution model does not seem to explain us very well.
Tons of people have brought this up. However, given that the 4th Amendment only restricts unreasonable searches, it is implied there are reasonable searches. And the 9th Amendment only protects rights retained, and only in a vague manner. It does not solidly, completely protect privacy. It just doesn't.
There is however specific laws giving the government the right to various searches and monitoring.
Given a dispute between clear legislation and very vague legislation, the clear legislation is likely going to win out.
If you really want a right to privacy there needs to be clear legislation outlining it.
Read the thread. This is mentioned several times. The 14th Amendment also covers this to an extent. I am a big fan of both of those amendments. However that doesn't stop Congress from passing laws abridging rights they shouldn't. It doesn't stop the government from invading our privacy. In both instances the government argues that nothing directly protects our privacy, and in many cases the Supreme Court agrees with them.
The arguement that the right to privacy is implied is nice, but not particularly solid. It would be much nicer to have a clearly outlined protection in there.
I'll take the third road. I firmly believe that evolution occured. I firmly believe that creatures that possess dicks will stick them where ever they can get away with sticking them.
That being said, I don't think we descended from chimps. I've made a rather lengthy arguement about this before and I'm not sure I totally want to get into again, but I just don't believe humans came from chimps.
Look, I want a middle ground personally. However, right after 9/11 every person in this country was screaming "why didn't the US have more intelligence? Why didn't they know everything about these guys?"
In return the US passes the Patriot Act, which is supported universally by both parties. The Patriot Act as best as I can tell from reading the summary headlines of each section doesn't really take away any civil rights from me, but right now we're in the backlash stage.
5 years ago we wanted the government to know everything about everything. Today we don't want them looking anywhere.
Which is it? And while it is easy to throw out the tyranny lines, it is hyperbole. Is it really tyranny? Is your quality of line lessened if the NSA is analyzing data from lines that are encrypted to begin with?
Let's say that you say on the phone you want to blow up the world. The NSA manages to catch this. It isn't admissable in court. However, do we want people to look into these things?
I'm not making that distinction where the line should be drawn yet, because I'm not totally sold on exactly where it should be. However I believe there should be some serious debate on the issue rather than polar stances on absolute privacy, or security at the sake of zero privacy.
And the 14th Amendment. However, sadly the government sees it the opposite way. If the Amendment doesn't strictly prohibit them from doing something (like what the NSA is doing) then the government will continue until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
One could argue all day long about various victim-less crimes and the 9th and 14th Amendments, for instance all these "protection of marriage acts". The Supreme Court ruled the 9th and 14th Amendments protect your right to sleep with whom you want privately, and marry whom you want. So why can we now pass laws restricting who you can marry?
Both Toyota and Honda have made fully-functional fuel cell cars. They said 5 years ago they might have a limited production model in 10 years.
y /fuelcell_hybrid.html
http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technolog
I wouldn't be shocked if others have made similiar prototypes.
The electricity in my house comes from a power plant using fuel cells. So it exists and is used in practice today.
Duke Nukem Forever however is still vaporware.
Read the 4th and 5th Amendments back to back, and pay special attention to how they are worded.
"unreasonable searches" sticks out.
You can't be forced to self incriminate. One could argue that there are "reasonable searches" then. If these searches were without a warrant, then it would likely be inadmissable in court, but the NSA could argue in a court of law that their analysis of encrypted data falls under "reasonable searches".
Even websites in other counties will try to obtain .com addresses anyway. And quite frankly, Congress will get a feather up their ass and try to combat porn every few years regardless. Of all the things they could do, I don't think the .xxx idea is really bad. The purpose of a domain extension is to easily classify it, right?
.xxx extension easily classify it?
Doesn't a
And I'm all for Net Neutrality. I imagine the vast majority of people here are, so I'm not sure we need to argue the merits.
No one takes the UN seriously. China is on the security council and violates almost every precept of the security council and no one cares.
Iran last month flat-out said the UN was a joke and the UN has no response.
I'd like to see a good, solid world government. It doesn't exist. UN laws mean nothing, especially here.
I don't think it is recent memory either. I think there should be two types of politicians. Those who make law, and those who serve in a more public relations-type of fashion. Let the politicians hold all the PR positions and lets get us some damned nerds to start writing laws.
The first case had absolutely nothing to do with privacy. The other rulings mention privacy, but aren't about privacy. In several instances when the Supreme Court wanted to hold up rights in regards to sexual choices, they upheld them in the right of "privacy" rather than make specific stands on sexual activites. However, it should be noted the Constitution does not directly protect privacy.
I think there should be clear legislation on where our rights lie there. Because why the Supreme Court gives us privacy in the bed room, do you think they'll take the same stance on NSA listening on our phone conversations when the NSA will scream national security?
I don't see why people would be opposed.
For better or worse, there really isn't a real "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. The fifth amendment means you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, and we have laws about the collection of evidence.
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
No doubt the hardware companies have a vested interest in this and speak from a biased perspective. However, while most /. readers are well informed on such issues, most members of Congress aren't.
.xxx domain will increase porn on the internet and make it easier for kids to view porn. They can't grasp the simple concept that currently there is plenty of porn that is easy to access, and a .xxx domain will actually help filter that content away from kids.
There are the same folks who seem to believe a
Do we expect these guys to understand and make a good decision regarding the future of the internet? With that it mind, I echo this message. Don't rush into a decision. Perhaps if they take their time one of two favorable outcomes will emerge.
1 - Logic and reason will win out and good legislation will emerge.
2 - Congress will release they have no fucking clue and just leave it all alone.
I'm hoping for the latter over the former.
Sad but true. Here many people are upset at the journalist not checking facts, but neither are any of the people who repeated the story. That is a major problem with journalism today in general.
I long for fact-based reporting, but it is rare these days.
From what I understand the reason that grammar checkers aren't included was a license issue. There were grammar checkers that they wanted to include directly in OOO, but they couldn't just use the code, or bundle the program internally. There are external grammar checker programs and there is work to better integrate these external programs in OOO so they work seemlessly. http://lingucomponent.openoffice.org/grammar.html
I actually work for Harrahs and Horseshoe in Council Bluffs. The machines are called NRT machines. With the tickets, we don't have to keep cash in every slot machine which is advantageous. The player can also get bills from the NRT machine as opposed to a bucket of quarters. There is better tracking of money, and better security with the paper tickets. Certainly some customers preferred the sound of coins "clinking" out, but our customer service scores are through the roof. People enjoy not waiting for a cashier for change. They can get their money from a machine. Of all the properties we own (including all the Vegas and Atlantic City properties) we have the highest usage of NRT machines here in Iowa for some odd reason. But we're the beta-test sites for most of the new technology (which is fun for me being in IT).