The summary states the petition asks for donations (which to be up front with the Slashdot readers should be there), but the summary itself does not request donations. The summary doesn't even request people to sign the petition - it just lets people know it is there. I'm all for being as up front as possible, but at some point you just have to let (and hope) people do their own research.
So what if the Campaign for Liberty is about more than this issue? If you agree that the TSA needs to be ended, then work with the Campaign for Liberty to end the TSA and refuse to have anything more to do with them.
We need to end this mental concept that people politics are summed up by parties and campaigns rather than individual issues. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you agree with me on an issue, then we can work together on that issue, and bitterly fight over the next one that comes along that we disagree about. That is how the country was suppose to work. It was only with the emergence of political parties that we stopped considering the issues and outsourced our thinking to political parties. George Washington specifically warned against forming parties, but went unheeded. We can fix that, by concentrating on the message, not the messenger. Let us start now, by working to end the TSA together.
While I understand where you are coming from, if a police officer isn't capable of knowing what is and is not against the law, why can a private citizen be branded a criminal for the same reason? The fact is Congress has basically run amok making millions of laws that affect the day-to-day lives of common citizens, followed by the state and local governments doing the same thing, and now no one knows what is and is not against the law. The idea of "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law" no longer holds if it takes five years and multiple courts to determine what is legal.
Yes. This would also be true if an all black jury acquitted a Black Panther of bombing a church and killing 4 young white girls. Why? Because it is far better to let a million guilty people go free than to convict a single innocent person (or, to let stand one bad law).
Yes, I have been. Thanks for displaying how utterly ignorant you are as an example of the public. I repeat: don't read too much into this - this is a high level idea and the devil is in the details, as always.
Apparently, you know nothing about James Madison or the general welfare clause. Let me quote him, so as to leave you with no doubt.
With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
James Madison
The general welfare clause was one of the reasons they gave the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution to the government. Until you can produce a quote by Madison, the man who wrote the Constitution, that states otherwise, you are either living a deluded fantasy, or else outright lying.
Civilisation is measured by how well the worst off have it, not the best off
Right, which is why America has such a problem with its worst off citizens fleeing to other countries... oh, wait, that's right, the worst off of other countries flee to America, not from it. Care to try again?
The next step is to take the power of tax distribution away from Congress and put it in the hands of the people. Let the public decide what they want to fund, and we'll eliminate a rather large amount of pork. (Don't read too much into this - this is a high level idea and the devil is in the details, as always).
Uh, the parent poster is looking for a country with a more freedoms than America, and can't find one. None of those indices measure freedom, do they? Even if they did, the question is what mix of freedoms is best for the parent poster. Personally, I feel the exact same way as he does. If I could find a country that protected the freedoms I care about most better than America, I would be gone in a heartbeat. But I can't, so I stay.
Then perhaps he shouldn't have promised something he might not have been able to deliver. Either he is a liar or a naive fool. Neither is a quality we need in a President.
If a person is swerving all over the road, I don't give a damn why, he needs to be pulled of the road and have his license pulled until he learns to drive. The same for those who follow too close, obstruct traffic, and the like.
Yes. Because these aren't wildly arbitrary standards that would most definitely be selectively and (hopefully, although probably not) arbitrarily enforced.
Yes, arbitrary enforcement of laws is a problem, but it is a problem that exists already in regards to arresting drunk drivers. Friends of police get a pass, while others get arrested for merely having keys in their hands. I agree that problem needs to be addressed (frankly, by simply recording everything a police officer does while on duty), but to claim that as a reason not to arrest people who are breaking the law is ridiculous. Arrest them, ticket them, etc and let the court system handle the rest. That is what it is there for (although it too has its problems, but one thing at a time).
...or the 300 pound guy who can probably drink four beers over the 'average' number of three and still be safe to drive
Since legislation is written in term of BAC and not in terms of "how many beers you had tonight," this is a non-issue. Also, even someone who weights 300 pounds would be close to/over.08 after 7 beers.
Every checked out a breathalyser machine? They do not take sex, heritage, weight, liver function, and any of a dozen contributing factors into consideration when determining BAC. Yet that is all the American court system needs to convict a person, so it is very much an issue. Additionally, regarding your claim that a 300 pound person would be at a.08 after 7 beers, I am going to have to say that a citation is needed. Over how many hours? What if food is eaten? What if he chases each beer with a bottle of water? What if he has an extremely well-functioning liver? All scientific articles making any across-the-boards claims in regards to BAC levels have been thoroughly discredited during peer review. On top of that, the number of.08 itself is bullshit. There is no research to support that number has any correlation to impaired driving ability.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Those fundamental rights have been taken away
I understand why people who don't really care about the bill of rights evoke it in every single discussion -- it's a cheap rhetorical device that appeals to American populism, so that rational discourse becomes unequivocally associated with intellectual/authoritarian/nazi/commie attacks on fundamental rights.* But if you really are concerned with the right to due process, it's not a good call to insinuate that industry regulation is a dire threat to due process. You're just contributing to misinformation and confusion.
*ie, person X: "And the nth amendment..."; person Y: "That's no what the nth amendment says, it has never said that, and none of the founding fathers ever had that intention. Also, the courts would find that laughable"; person X: See! Person Y is purposefully limiting what the nth amendment says and revising history! They be nazis!"
That's an extremely pathetic attempt at a strawman argument. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, are the foundation for everything in regards to American law. It has relevance everywhere. If 'rational discourse' demands a change in the rights outlined in those documents, you have to get amendments passed as outlined in the Constitution. This is basic American civics. Also, nothing being discussed here is 'industry regulation', we are discussing laws governing the rights and responsibilities of the American citizens. Finally, you almost Godwin'ed your whole 'refutation'. None of what you claim applies to me or what I said. You just made a bunch of false insinuations in the hope that people won't notice. I hate to break it to you, but Slashdotters are pretty good at spotting logical fallacies. Care to try again, maybe addressing what I actually said rather than your fantasy?
After reading all the comments, I still wonder why people don't actually fix the problem, rather than worry about potential causes. People die because people drive poorly. It doesn't matter if it is caused by alcohol, or cold medicine, or texting while driving, or anything else.
I saw we get rid of all drunk driving laws. And all texting laws. And every other random, 'special case' driving law on the books. What we need is for people who drive poorly to be seriously punished. If a person is swerving all over the road, I don't give a damn why, he needs to be pulled of the road and have his license pulled until he learns to drive. The same for those who follow too close, obstruct traffic, and the like. We wouldn't have to worry about problematic measurement methods, equipment failures, and so on. It also has the benefit that those who truly can text or take a phone call while driving (or the 300 pound guy who can probably drink four beers over the 'average' number of three and still be safe to drive) are not punished for the deficiencies of others.
Aren't we suppose to be the land of the free? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Those fundamental rights have been taken away, all because some group of people thinks they know what is best for everyone.
Actually, that is due to you not understanding the point of 3D movies. Movies are not there to allow you to explore a world - they tell a story. The filmmakers focus on what they want you to pay attention to - it is good storytelling. If you want a 3D world to explore, that is more the realm of games rather than movies, which I expect will benefit even more than movies from the availability of 3D televisions.
I can't believe that was modded insightful. Whether you are joking or not, two channels can not provide 3D sound. To get true 3D sound (without bouncing sound off of walls or other such tricks) you would need at least eight speakers at the corners of a room plus a microphone to set up your location (or else there is a "sweet spot"). Setups such as 5.1 and 7.1 are not true 3D sound; instead, they simply mimic it better.
Don't feel bad, I liked both the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequel trilogy, too. Personally, I seem to find something new every time I watch the Matrix sequels. I tend to find that people who call it a "mish-mash" of religions and philosophies have missed some very interesting subtext. I know I did until I read part of "Simulacra and Simulation" and actually sat pondering some of the movie.
Really, at the end of it, I think the Matrix trilogy is more about what the viewer gets out of it rather than what the Wachowski's put into it.
Yeah, I've never heard any engineers talking about how Facebook is the place to be to do cool things. Facebook is a businessman's dream, not an engineer's.
All of which were backed by governments. Without the governments, corporations don't have that kind of power. If we rein in the governments, by extension, the corporations are reined in. If we rein in corporations by granting more power to government, we merely trade one tyrant for another.
Apparently you didn't actually bother to learn what SGU was about then. They billed it from day one as focusing more on the characters and less on the "planet of the week" of SG-1 and SGA.
Honestly, I don't think has to do with piracy at all (or at least very little). What the RIAA and associated organizations are worried about is a single identifier that can be used to find, promote, and distribute legal music that isn't under their complete control. As more and more artists are moving away from pursuing a record label contract, the RIAA has less power. If they have basically the right to knock any website off the domain they choose (in an effort to "protect the consumers from pirates" or whatever bullshit they claim), they maintain their power and business model.
All of that would make sense except for the tiny fact that this was a modification of Starcraft (hence, naming it anything with Starcraft in the title is hardly diluting the trademark, and needs no defending). It was also being made with Starcraft editing tools, and could only be used within the Starcraft game, on the Starcraft multi-player service Battle.net, owned by Blizzard. The only one of your statements that might have any weight is "World of", but many things have "World of" in the title (Worlds of Ultima, anyone?), and given that Blizzard owns the trademarks under question, arguing that this is diluting the trademark is insane.
While, like you, I generally agree with the reasonable defense of trademarks, this goes beyond reasonable. It isn't benefiting another company, and it isn't associating any of the trademarks with anything really beyond what it is already associated with. This is just another example of a legal department run amok.
All of which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. We are not talking about top-drawer leader or a hotshot solo programmer. This article is talking about a programmer with knowledge in an extremely rare field versus what appear to be a run-of-the-mill team lead. Which one is more valuable? Given that the project is dead in the water without technical talent, what would you do? Tell all talent their salary is dependent on someone who can't do the job? You know how many people will take that position? Zero.
It is a simple fact that companies live and die by their ability to gain talent in the area that is going to be the next big thing. Engineers take the risk that the area(s) they learn might be that next big thing. Team leads do not take those risks. In return, team leads get a marginally higher guaranteed income. Engineers gamble and have the potential for a very high income, or they might have picked the wrong horse and end up at a low-paying sweatshop.
Yes, a top-drawer leader might help this employee, but that would require a leader with experience in that new field. That isn't the case here, so the leader in this case will not know the difference between bullshit and innovation. This engineer is essentially hired to handle all that himself (or herself). If all the pieces work except that of the new technology, the engineer is the one who will take the fall, not the team lead. That alone is worth some extra compensation of pay.
That is complete bullshit. Recent graduates are just that, recent graduates. Had you said an individual should be paid based on his experience in the field, fine, I'm all for that. However, running down recent graduates just shows how narrow-minded you are, and how much life must be hell for any recent graduate with the misfortune to work with you.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary states the petition asks for donations (which to be up front with the Slashdot readers should be there), but the summary itself does not request donations. The summary doesn't even request people to sign the petition - it just lets people know it is there. I'm all for being as up front as possible, but at some point you just have to let (and hope) people do their own research.
So what if the Campaign for Liberty is about more than this issue? If you agree that the TSA needs to be ended, then work with the Campaign for Liberty to end the TSA and refuse to have anything more to do with them.
We need to end this mental concept that people politics are summed up by parties and campaigns rather than individual issues. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you agree with me on an issue, then we can work together on that issue, and bitterly fight over the next one that comes along that we disagree about. That is how the country was suppose to work. It was only with the emergence of political parties that we stopped considering the issues and outsourced our thinking to political parties. George Washington specifically warned against forming parties, but went unheeded. We can fix that, by concentrating on the message, not the messenger. Let us start now, by working to end the TSA together.
Uh, it seems you forgot about a little revolution that took place near the end of the 1700s...
While I understand where you are coming from, if a police officer isn't capable of knowing what is and is not against the law, why can a private citizen be branded a criminal for the same reason? The fact is Congress has basically run amok making millions of laws that affect the day-to-day lives of common citizens, followed by the state and local governments doing the same thing, and now no one knows what is and is not against the law. The idea of "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law" no longer holds if it takes five years and multiple courts to determine what is legal.
Yes. This would also be true if an all black jury acquitted a Black Panther of bombing a church and killing 4 young white girls. Why? Because it is far better to let a million guilty people go free than to convict a single innocent person (or, to let stand one bad law).
Yes, I have been. Thanks for displaying how utterly ignorant you are as an example of the public. I repeat: don't read too much into this - this is a high level idea and the devil is in the details, as always.
Apparently, you know nothing about James Madison or the general welfare clause. Let me quote him, so as to leave you with no doubt.
With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
James Madison
The general welfare clause was one of the reasons they gave the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution to the government. Until you can produce a quote by Madison, the man who wrote the Constitution, that states otherwise, you are either living a deluded fantasy, or else outright lying.
Civilisation is measured by how well the worst off have it, not the best off
Right, which is why America has such a problem with its worst off citizens fleeing to other countries... oh, wait, that's right, the worst off of other countries flee to America, not from it. Care to try again?
The next step is to take the power of tax distribution away from Congress and put it in the hands of the people. Let the public decide what they want to fund, and we'll eliminate a rather large amount of pork. (Don't read too much into this - this is a high level idea and the devil is in the details, as always).
Uh, the parent poster is looking for a country with a more freedoms than America, and can't find one. None of those indices measure freedom, do they? Even if they did, the question is what mix of freedoms is best for the parent poster. Personally, I feel the exact same way as he does. If I could find a country that protected the freedoms I care about most better than America, I would be gone in a heartbeat. But I can't, so I stay.
Then perhaps he shouldn't have promised something he might not have been able to deliver. Either he is a liar or a naive fool. Neither is a quality we need in a President.
If a person is swerving all over the road, I don't give a damn why, he needs to be pulled of the road and have his license pulled until he learns to drive. The same for those who follow too close, obstruct traffic, and the like.
Yes. Because these aren't wildly arbitrary standards that would most definitely be selectively and (hopefully, although probably not) arbitrarily enforced.
Yes, arbitrary enforcement of laws is a problem, but it is a problem that exists already in regards to arresting drunk drivers. Friends of police get a pass, while others get arrested for merely having keys in their hands. I agree that problem needs to be addressed (frankly, by simply recording everything a police officer does while on duty), but to claim that as a reason not to arrest people who are breaking the law is ridiculous. Arrest them, ticket them, etc and let the court system handle the rest. That is what it is there for (although it too has its problems, but one thing at a time).
...or the 300 pound guy who can probably drink four beers over the 'average' number of three and still be safe to drive
Since legislation is written in term of BAC and not in terms of "how many beers you had tonight," this is a non-issue. Also, even someone who weights 300 pounds would be close to/over .08 after 7 beers.
Every checked out a breathalyser machine? They do not take sex, heritage, weight, liver function, and any of a dozen contributing factors into consideration when determining BAC. Yet that is all the American court system needs to convict a person, so it is very much an issue. Additionally, regarding your claim that a 300 pound person would be at a .08 after 7 beers, I am going to have to say that a citation is needed. Over how many hours? What if food is eaten? What if he chases each beer with a bottle of water? What if he has an extremely well-functioning liver? All scientific articles making any across-the-boards claims in regards to BAC levels have been thoroughly discredited during peer review. On top of that, the number of .08 itself is bullshit. There is no research to support that number has any correlation to impaired driving ability.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Those fundamental rights have been taken away
I understand why people who don't really care about the bill of rights evoke it in every single discussion -- it's a cheap rhetorical device that appeals to American populism, so that rational discourse becomes unequivocally associated with intellectual/authoritarian/nazi/commie attacks on fundamental rights.* But if you really are concerned with the right to due process, it's not a good call to insinuate that industry regulation is a dire threat to due process. You're just contributing to misinformation and confusion. *ie, person X: "And the nth amendment..."; person Y: "That's no what the nth amendment says, it has never said that, and none of the founding fathers ever had that intention. Also, the courts would find that laughable"; person X: See! Person Y is purposefully limiting what the nth amendment says and revising history! They be nazis!"
That's an extremely pathetic attempt at a strawman argument. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, are the foundation for everything in regards to American law. It has relevance everywhere. If 'rational discourse' demands a change in the rights outlined in those documents, you have to get amendments passed as outlined in the Constitution. This is basic American civics. Also, nothing being discussed here is 'industry regulation', we are discussing laws governing the rights and responsibilities of the American citizens. Finally, you almost Godwin'ed your whole 'refutation'. None of what you claim applies to me or what I said. You just made a bunch of false insinuations in the hope that people won't notice. I hate to break it to you, but Slashdotters are pretty good at spotting logical fallacies. Care to try again, maybe addressing what I actually said rather than your fantasy?
After reading all the comments, I still wonder why people don't actually fix the problem, rather than worry about potential causes. People die because people drive poorly. It doesn't matter if it is caused by alcohol, or cold medicine, or texting while driving, or anything else.
I saw we get rid of all drunk driving laws. And all texting laws. And every other random, 'special case' driving law on the books. What we need is for people who drive poorly to be seriously punished. If a person is swerving all over the road, I don't give a damn why, he needs to be pulled of the road and have his license pulled until he learns to drive. The same for those who follow too close, obstruct traffic, and the like. We wouldn't have to worry about problematic measurement methods, equipment failures, and so on. It also has the benefit that those who truly can text or take a phone call while driving (or the 300 pound guy who can probably drink four beers over the 'average' number of three and still be safe to drive) are not punished for the deficiencies of others.
Aren't we suppose to be the land of the free? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Those fundamental rights have been taken away, all because some group of people thinks they know what is best for everyone.
Actually, that is due to you not understanding the point of 3D movies. Movies are not there to allow you to explore a world - they tell a story. The filmmakers focus on what they want you to pay attention to - it is good storytelling. If you want a 3D world to explore, that is more the realm of games rather than movies, which I expect will benefit even more than movies from the availability of 3D televisions.
Uh, I believe Avatar had sections of the movie that had closed captions tranlations of the Navi language.
I can't believe that was modded insightful. Whether you are joking or not, two channels can not provide 3D sound. To get true 3D sound (without bouncing sound off of walls or other such tricks) you would need at least eight speakers at the corners of a room plus a microphone to set up your location (or else there is a "sweet spot"). Setups such as 5.1 and 7.1 are not true 3D sound; instead, they simply mimic it better.
Don't feel bad, I liked both the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequel trilogy, too. Personally, I seem to find something new every time I watch the Matrix sequels. I tend to find that people who call it a "mish-mash" of religions and philosophies have missed some very interesting subtext. I know I did until I read part of "Simulacra and Simulation" and actually sat pondering some of the movie.
Really, at the end of it, I think the Matrix trilogy is more about what the viewer gets out of it rather than what the Wachowski's put into it.
Yeah, I've never heard any engineers talking about how Facebook is the place to be to do cool things. Facebook is a businessman's dream, not an engineer's.
All of which were backed by governments. Without the governments, corporations don't have that kind of power. If we rein in the governments, by extension, the corporations are reined in. If we rein in corporations by granting more power to government, we merely trade one tyrant for another.
Apparently you didn't actually bother to learn what SGU was about then. They billed it from day one as focusing more on the characters and less on the "planet of the week" of SG-1 and SGA.
Honestly, I don't think has to do with piracy at all (or at least very little). What the RIAA and associated organizations are worried about is a single identifier that can be used to find, promote, and distribute legal music that isn't under their complete control. As more and more artists are moving away from pursuing a record label contract, the RIAA has less power. If they have basically the right to knock any website off the domain they choose (in an effort to "protect the consumers from pirates" or whatever bullshit they claim), they maintain their power and business model.
I noticed they didn't mention or apologize for the cease and desist letter.
All of that would make sense except for the tiny fact that this was a modification of Starcraft (hence, naming it anything with Starcraft in the title is hardly diluting the trademark, and needs no defending). It was also being made with Starcraft editing tools, and could only be used within the Starcraft game, on the Starcraft multi-player service Battle.net, owned by Blizzard. The only one of your statements that might have any weight is "World of", but many things have "World of" in the title (Worlds of Ultima, anyone?), and given that Blizzard owns the trademarks under question, arguing that this is diluting the trademark is insane.
While, like you, I generally agree with the reasonable defense of trademarks, this goes beyond reasonable. It isn't benefiting another company, and it isn't associating any of the trademarks with anything really beyond what it is already associated with. This is just another example of a legal department run amok.
All of which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. We are not talking about top-drawer leader or a hotshot solo programmer. This article is talking about a programmer with knowledge in an extremely rare field versus what appear to be a run-of-the-mill team lead. Which one is more valuable? Given that the project is dead in the water without technical talent, what would you do? Tell all talent their salary is dependent on someone who can't do the job? You know how many people will take that position? Zero.
It is a simple fact that companies live and die by their ability to gain talent in the area that is going to be the next big thing. Engineers take the risk that the area(s) they learn might be that next big thing. Team leads do not take those risks. In return, team leads get a marginally higher guaranteed income. Engineers gamble and have the potential for a very high income, or they might have picked the wrong horse and end up at a low-paying sweatshop.
Yes, a top-drawer leader might help this employee, but that would require a leader with experience in that new field. That isn't the case here, so the leader in this case will not know the difference between bullshit and innovation. This engineer is essentially hired to handle all that himself (or herself). If all the pieces work except that of the new technology, the engineer is the one who will take the fall, not the team lead. That alone is worth some extra compensation of pay.
That is complete bullshit. Recent graduates are just that, recent graduates. Had you said an individual should be paid based on his experience in the field, fine, I'm all for that. However, running down recent graduates just shows how narrow-minded you are, and how much life must be hell for any recent graduate with the misfortune to work with you.