The right to make that call goes to the owner of the system aka: his employer.
Even if he's right, he's still wrong, as far as I can tell. He wasn't in jail until after he refused to give them access. If he'd just handed over the passwords and they'd stuffed the system, he wouldn't have been the "guy in jail who must have booby-trapped the network" or "domestic computer terrorist".
42,642 people died in 2006 in the USA from vehicle crashes. If requiring a GPS in every vehicle would help reduce this number, and also protect citizens from the occasional police harassment, why not?
That this type of question even needs to be answered is probably indicates a serious problem in itself, but you may have heard the expression: "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
There are some of us that don't want to give up our freedom. Even for more safety. Unfortunately, those who do aren't content to sell their own freedom, but insist on selling ours also. Face it, the world has a 100% fatality rate. Sure, that doesn't mean we shouldn't advance medicine or make attempts to be safe, but the idea that X measure is necessarily justified because it will save some lives (temporarily), even a lot of lives, is just not true.
Considerations of safety need to be balanced against other factors and liberty is an important factor. Over a very long period of history, people have proven themselves willing to risk their lives for the hope of obtaining liberty. It is one of the main things by which we measure quality of life and ought not be lightly given up.
That message needs to be put to the AC who self-identified as a pedophile. Sometimes I've felt like killing people, but I'm not a murderer. Maybe I'm a murderer by nature (desire), but not by choice (action). What is really a more reasonable way to eliminate that prejudice, to get the majority of society to change their understanding of the word "pedophile" or to get a few people to identify themselves by their choice rather than their desire? (Hint: the part of your post that I quoted contains the answer.)
We did as I seem to recall. Didn't help much now did it?
Perhaps you need to re-evaluate who you include in "we" when aiming for that next election victory, since those in the current "we" who got the positions of power didn't perform according to your hopes and expectations.
Didn't mean to offend you. I'm just trying to point out that in order for me to have a right that nobody can take away, it may be necessary to prevent me from giving that right away.
I don't think that is a proper understanding of "inalienable rights".
From Leviathan:
Not All Rights Are Alienable
Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right, or Renounceth it;
it is either in consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred
to himselfe; or for some other good he hopeth for thereby.
For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man,
the object is some Good To Himselfe. And therefore there be some Rights,
which no man can be understood by any words, or other signes,
to have abandoned, or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down
the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take
away his life; because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby,
at any Good to himselfe. The same may be sayd of Wounds, and Chayns,
and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to
such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another
to be wounded, or imprisoned: as also because a man cannot tell,
when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether they
intend his death or not. And lastly the motive, and end for which
this renouncing, and transferring or Right is introduced, is nothing else
but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means
of so preserving life, as not to be weary of it. And therefore if a man
by words, or other signes, seem to despoyle himselfe of the End,
for which those signes were intended; he is not to be understood
as if he meant it, or that it was his will; but that he was ignorant
of how such words and actions were to be interpreted.
So selling yourself into permanent slavery, for example, is not something that you have to be prevented from doing, it is something that does not represent a benefit to you and as such cannot be considered an enforcable contract. Having an inalienable right to live doesn't mean that someone can't kill you (for example in self defence, or execution by the state) but that you have no obligation to hand yourself over to be killed, as explained also in Leviathan:
A Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd
A Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.
For (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down
his Right to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment,
(the avoyding whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,)
and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant
transferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may
Covenant thus, "Unlesse I do so, or so, kill me;" he cannot Covenant thus
"Unless I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me."
For man by nature chooseth the lesser evill, which is danger of death
in resisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death
in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men,
in that they lead Criminals to Execution, and Prison, with armed men,
notwithstanding that such Criminals have consented to the Law,
by which they are condemned.
Now the constitution and founders of the USA were directly opposed to the views on monarchy posed in Leviathan, but I am fairly sure they got their understanding of inalienable rights from there or a similar source. It is the only way I can understand an "inalienable right to life" and a state than execute criminals to co-exist.
This reasoning can also be directly interpreted to mean that all people have a right to keep and bear arms for self defence.
If socialism is the horrible evil that most Libertarians will tell you it is, then how is it that the happiest country in the world is a socialist country?
Hypothetical libertarian land: I have a lot of money... like/a lot/. I pay every business in the state to not hire you, sell you a car, or sell you a bus/plane ticket ( in case you try to leave the state ). You starve to death. My right to spend my money as I wish impeded your right to not starve to death. Capitalism works!
1 - it would be cheaper to hire someone to kill you, which is illegal now but can still be done.
2 - to implement your idea they would need an easy way to instantly verify your identity before every purchase, almost impossible without a totalitarian state.
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_states_by_population The least populous state is Wyoming with 522,830 people. Assuming they need to pay people only $1000 to let you starve and only half the population needs to be paid (the other half being children and pre-existing enemies of yours) they need to shell out over $250,000,000. If you piss anyone with that amount of resources off enough to spend that amount of money starving you to death, you are screwed under any political system. As mentioned in (1) they could just pay for someone to kill you, or if starvation was particularly important to them, buy a farm and lock you in a cellar.
In short, your objection is irrelevant to politics. Piss of powerful people (in the public or private sectors) enough to kill you and you'll have serious trouble.
the Libertarian Party is against any regulation of the private sector.
Extending this to the point that corporations do not have limited liability or the rights of people should alleviate most problems that arise from that.
And no, denying rights to corporations does not impinge on the rights of individuals in that corporation, they still retain all their individual rights.
Yes, In Australia our "right wing" prime minister considered one of his major accomplishments to be the strict firearms controls he initiated, far stricter than even many of the "left" in America seem to want. His government also initiated some rather large new social security payments.
Australia's Right Wingers - identified for you by the Ministry of Truth.
3. (Dead Last) Canon has been quite hostile to Linux not quite as much as Brother, but both should be avoided.
I've seen this type of comment about Canon a bit, but I have a Canon LBP3000 using vendor supplied drivers (supplied in GPLv2 source, rpm and deb IIRC) I have wondered why these drivers don't seem to have made it into the distros (not that I have seen anyway, maybe they have now).
I found that on wikipedia by searching for the Theodore Roosevelt quote which I knew because I've seen it quoted by people making that same point within the last few years. It may have originated in 1915, but is still being used today and is therefore still current. You said no one ever seems to have a problem with other ethic groups using similar hyphenated identification of themselves, I pointed out that this is not correct, there are people who have a problem with it. It got a wikipedia article, it is hardly obscure or out of date.
Then why don't you also tell that to all the people who say they are Italian-American, Irish-American, and Asian-American. No one ever seems to have a problem with those terms.
You just haven't been listening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
Former President Theodore Roosevelt in speaking to the NY Chapter of the Knights of Columbus at Carnegie Hall on Colubmus day 1915, asserted that,[3]
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
You aim for the sunrise at a certain day, then you make dents into a stone, a bone or whatever else you got, and compare it with the "original" (which you created, by try and error or some other means), where you have the "correct" amount of dents.
The "amount" of dents being a number. What you are proposing is that they could have written numbers without numbers in their vocabulary. You could be right, but a quantity of dents as an abstract representation of the quantity of something else is a number, even if no sound is associated with it.
If they know that "this many" units of food was enough to feed them last time, then "this many" units of food will likely serve that purpose next time.
"this many" units being distinct from a number in what way? In any case, "they" don't have this situation as I understand it, living where there is no season in which food is not available. Correction from experts on the Amazon welcome.
Possibly also for agriculture, counting time for seasons (although seasonal changes are probably enough for simple agricultural systems) and harsher climates, counting stores of food to be sure they will last through the winter.
Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
Somebody gets picked. I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
This is why I fear that a revolution may be the only option left for our country.
I'm not so sure. It looks that way when you sometimes, but a successful revolution would require overwhelming popular support. If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution. As long as people don't even care enough to vote, rally etc, you don't have enough support to win a revolution anyway.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be. If you can't get more than about half voting, you certainly can't get a quarter to support fighting. If people avoid jury duty and so won't give up a few days in court to acquit someone charged with unconstitutional laws, they won't give up their life to fight for the same reason.
Do something about the apathy of the people and you won't need that revolution.
Don't do something about the apathy of the people and you won't win that revolution.
As much as you can, educate people about jury nullification and its role in government "of the people, by the people, for the people".
I don't tell the gas station how much to charge me for pop, chips, etc. They charge what the market will bear. I don't tell Hollister what to charge me for shorts/shirts, they charge what the market will bear. How is this any different? If you don't like what they charge for text messaging, DON'T USE IT (or switch providers).
I agree. They could even start using a text chat client instead of SMS. I know, perhaps they could even post that idea to popular websites to get people doing it.
Sure, you can try, but good luck complying with every local, state and federal code involved with your business and may $DIETY help you once someone finds a reason to sue you.
And then there's the insurances...
All part of what needs to be undone. 3 levels of government continually making laws which rarely come off the books can hardly be expected to result in a free society. The lasting nature of laws makes increasing government way too easy (given time).
I thought the left was all into helping other people, but then I realized if 1) someone local is losing out 2) it's being helped through getting a job then it's no good.
The left are fine with people having jobs. If you don't have a job, they want you on social security. Anything to stop you doing something for yourself like starting a business and realising you don't need a job.
The left simply wants to control people
Hence the desire for you to have a job. If not a job for the government then one in a market so regulated as to be government controlled anyway. With outsourcing, people in the country are at risk of realising they can't rely on corporations/government and deciding to do something themselves, and the overseas workers aren't necessarily under control of leftists.
It isn't a question of why MS would want to do that, obviously they don't. The issue is that they received copyright protection as an incentive to make a product available. Now they are no longer making it available, there is no longer a reason for society to grant them copyright protection on that product.
They have the option of continuing to make it available for money. The idea of a new version is that it should be more attractive to the purchaser than the old version. MS for example, could have old versions available for download, unsupported, for a fee. People who want updates and support will buy the new versions but the old doesn't become abandonware.
Given the provision for copyright etc in the US constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries" there does not seen reason to think that there is very strong constitutional justification for a legal framework that allows "Authors and Inventors" the right to withdraw their work after receiving those exclusive rights. It is not intended to provide unlimited benefit to the "Authors and Inventors" but a balance of benefits to them as incentive to provide benefits to the nation through the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". The progress, and therefore the benefit to the nation, is being curtailed by the current system far more than necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
What if he is right?
The right to make that call goes to the owner of the system aka: his employer.
Even if he's right, he's still wrong, as far as I can tell. He wasn't in jail until after he refused to give them access. If he'd just handed over the passwords and they'd stuffed the system, he wouldn't have been the "guy in jail who must have booby-trapped the network" or "domestic computer terrorist".
42,642 people died in 2006 in the USA from vehicle crashes. If requiring a GPS in every vehicle would help reduce this number, and also protect citizens from the occasional police harassment, why not?
That this type of question even needs to be answered is probably indicates a serious problem in itself, but you may have heard the expression: "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
There are some of us that don't want to give up our freedom. Even for more safety. Unfortunately, those who do aren't content to sell their own freedom, but insist on selling ours also. Face it, the world has a 100% fatality rate. Sure, that doesn't mean we shouldn't advance medicine or make attempts to be safe, but the idea that X measure is necessarily justified because it will save some lives (temporarily), even a lot of lives, is just not true.
Considerations of safety need to be balanced against other factors and liberty is an important factor. Over a very long period of history, people have proven themselves willing to risk their lives for the hope of obtaining liberty. It is one of the main things by which we measure quality of life and ought not be lightly given up.
You are what you do, not what you think about.
That message needs to be put to the AC who self-identified as a pedophile. Sometimes I've felt like killing people, but I'm not a murderer. Maybe I'm a murderer by nature (desire), but not by choice (action). What is really a more reasonable way to eliminate that prejudice, to get the majority of society to change their understanding of the word "pedophile" or to get a few people to identify themselves by their choice rather than their desire? (Hint: the part of your post that I quoted contains the answer.)
Perhaps you need to re-evaluate who you include in "we" when aiming for that next election victory, since those in the current "we" who got the positions of power didn't perform according to your hopes and expectations.
Didn't mean to offend you. I'm just trying to point out that in order for me to have a right that nobody can take away, it may be necessary to prevent me from giving that right away.
I don't think that is a proper understanding of "inalienable rights".
From Leviathan:
Not All Rights Are Alienable
Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right, or Renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe; or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good To Himselfe. And therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be understood by any words, or other signes, to have abandoned, or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take away his life; because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby, at any Good to himselfe. The same may be sayd of Wounds, and Chayns, and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as also because a man cannot tell, when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether they intend his death or not. And lastly the motive, and end for which this renouncing, and transferring or Right is introduced, is nothing else but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving life, as not to be weary of it. And therefore if a man by words, or other signes, seem to despoyle himselfe of the End, for which those signes were intended; he is not to be understood as if he meant it, or that it was his will; but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted.
So selling yourself into permanent slavery, for example, is not something that you have to be prevented from doing, it is something that does not represent a benefit to you and as such cannot be considered an enforcable contract. Having an inalienable right to live doesn't mean that someone can't kill you (for example in self defence, or execution by the state) but that you have no obligation to hand yourself over to be killed, as explained also in Leviathan:
A Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd
A Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd. For (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down his Right to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment, (the avoyding whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,) and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant transferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may Covenant thus, "Unlesse I do so, or so, kill me;" he cannot Covenant thus "Unless I do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me." For man by nature chooseth the lesser evill, which is danger of death in resisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in that they lead Criminals to Execution, and Prison, with armed men, notwithstanding that such Criminals have consented to the Law, by which they are condemned.
Now the constitution and founders of the USA were directly opposed to the views on monarchy posed in Leviathan, but I am fairly sure they got their understanding of inalienable rights from there or a similar source. It is the only way I can understand an "inalienable right to life" and a state than execute criminals to co-exist.
This reasoning can also be directly interpreted to mean that all people have a right to keep and bear arms for self defence.
If socialism is the horrible evil that most Libertarians will tell you it is, then how is it that the happiest country in the world is a socialist country?
Soma. I'm claiming the right to be unhappy.
Hypothetical libertarian land: I have a lot of money... like /a lot/. I pay every business in the state to not hire you, sell you a car, or sell you a bus/plane ticket ( in case you try to leave the state ). You starve to death. My right to spend my money as I wish impeded your right to not starve to death. Capitalism works!
1 - it would be cheaper to hire someone to kill you, which is illegal now but can still be done.
2 - to implement your idea they would need an easy way to instantly verify your identity before every purchase, almost impossible without a totalitarian state.
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_states_by_population The least populous state is Wyoming with 522,830 people. Assuming they need to pay people only $1000 to let you starve and only half the population needs to be paid (the other half being children and pre-existing enemies of yours) they need to shell out over $250,000,000. If you piss anyone with that amount of resources off enough to spend that amount of money starving you to death, you are screwed under any political system. As mentioned in (1) they could just pay for someone to kill you, or if starvation was particularly important to them, buy a farm and lock you in a cellar.
In short, your objection is irrelevant to politics. Piss of powerful people (in the public or private sectors) enough to kill you and you'll have serious trouble.
the Libertarian Party is against any regulation of the private sector.
Extending this to the point that corporations do not have limited liability or the rights of people should alleviate most problems that arise from that.
And no, denying rights to corporations does not impinge on the rights of individuals in that corporation, they still retain all their individual rights.
Yes, In Australia our "right wing" prime minister considered one of his major accomplishments to be the strict firearms controls he initiated, far stricter than even many of the "left" in America seem to want. His government also initiated some rather large new social security payments.
Australia's Right Wingers - identified for you by the Ministry of Truth.
3. (Dead Last) Canon has been quite hostile to Linux not quite as much as Brother, but both should be avoided.
I've seen this type of comment about Canon a bit, but I have a Canon LBP3000 using vendor supplied drivers (supplied in GPLv2 source, rpm and deb IIRC) I have wondered why these drivers don't seem to have made it into the distros (not that I have seen anyway, maybe they have now).
I found that on wikipedia by searching for the Theodore Roosevelt quote which I knew because I've seen it quoted by people making that same point within the last few years. It may have originated in 1915, but is still being used today and is therefore still current. You said no one ever seems to have a problem with other ethic groups using similar hyphenated identification of themselves, I pointed out that this is not correct, there are people who have a problem with it. It got a wikipedia article, it is hardly obscure or out of date.
Then why don't you also tell that to all the people who say they are Italian-American, Irish-American, and Asian-American. No one ever seems to have a problem with those terms.
You just haven't been listening:
... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. ... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
Former President Theodore Roosevelt in speaking to the NY Chapter of the Knights of Columbus at Carnegie Hall on Colubmus day 1915, asserted that,[3]
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
You aim for the sunrise at a certain day, then you make dents into a stone, a bone or whatever else you got, and compare it with the "original" (which you created, by try and error or some other means), where you have the "correct" amount of dents.
The "amount" of dents being a number. What you are proposing is that they could have written numbers without numbers in their vocabulary. You could be right, but a quantity of dents as an abstract representation of the quantity of something else is a number, even if no sound is associated with it.
If they know that "this many" units of food was enough to feed them last time, then "this many" units of food will likely serve that purpose next time.
"this many" units being distinct from a number in what way? In any case, "they" don't have this situation as I understand it, living where there is no season in which food is not available. Correction from experts on the Amazon welcome.
Yes. That is why I mentioned that in reference to "in harsher climates".
Possibly also for agriculture, counting time for seasons (although seasonal changes are probably enough for simple agricultural systems) and harsher climates, counting stores of food to be sure they will last through the winter.
Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
Somebody gets picked. I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
This is why I fear that a revolution may be the only option left for our country.
I'm not so sure. It looks that way when you sometimes, but a successful revolution would require overwhelming popular support. If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution. As long as people don't even care enough to vote, rally etc, you don't have enough support to win a revolution anyway.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be. If you can't get more than about half voting, you certainly can't get a quarter to support fighting. If people avoid jury duty and so won't give up a few days in court to acquit someone charged with unconstitutional laws, they won't give up their life to fight for the same reason.
Do something about the apathy of the people and you won't need that revolution.
Don't do something about the apathy of the people and you won't win that revolution.
As much as you can, educate people about jury nullification and its role in government "of the people, by the people, for the people".
I don't tell the gas station how much to charge me for pop, chips, etc. They charge what the market will bear. I don't tell Hollister what to charge me for shorts/shirts, they charge what the market will bear. How is this any different? If you don't like what they charge for text messaging, DON'T USE IT (or switch providers).
I agree. They could even start using a text chat client instead of SMS. I know, perhaps they could even post that idea to popular websites to get people doing it.
All part of what needs to be undone. 3 levels of government continually making laws which rarely come off the books can hardly be expected to result in a free society. The lasting nature of laws makes increasing government way too easy (given time).
Now you've got me thinking what I could hire 5 Indian workers to do at a profit. Hmmm.
I thought the left was all into helping other people, but then I realized if 1) someone local is losing out 2) it's being helped through getting a job then it's no good.
The left are fine with people having jobs. If you don't have a job, they want you on social security. Anything to stop you doing something for yourself like starting a business and realising you don't need a job.
The left simply wants to control people
Hence the desire for you to have a job. If not a job for the government then one in a market so regulated as to be government controlled anyway. With outsourcing, people in the country are at risk of realising they can't rely on corporations/government and deciding to do something themselves, and the overseas workers aren't necessarily under control of leftists.
I read that, but what package manager _updates_ from foo-1.1 to foo-1.0?
It isn't a question of why MS would want to do that, obviously they don't. The issue is that they received copyright protection as an incentive to make a product available. Now they are no longer making it available, there is no longer a reason for society to grant them copyright protection on that product.
They have the option of continuing to make it available for money. The idea of a new version is that it should be more attractive to the purchaser than the old version. MS for example, could have old versions available for download, unsupported, for a fee. People who want updates and support will buy the new versions but the old doesn't become abandonware.
Given the provision for copyright etc in the US constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" there does not seen reason to think that there is very strong constitutional justification for a legal framework that allows "Authors and Inventors" the right to withdraw their work after receiving those exclusive rights. It is not intended to provide unlimited benefit to the "Authors and Inventors" but a balance of benefits to them as incentive to provide benefits to the nation through the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". The progress, and therefore the benefit to the nation, is being curtailed by the current system far more than necessary.