People who enjoy others' pain and can't or won't follow the laws regarding torture and abuse need serious mental and/or spiritual help.
Considering the role of religion in major conflicts over millenia, I see little reason to recommend spiritual help for people prone to that sort of thing.
Privacy is, to me, the most basic right. Without it, all the rest means nothing. I believe it was so obvious that it was not even included in the amendments in the USofA.
What?
Amendment IV
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.
Pulling up every tweet which uses the words "Obama" and "assassinate" takes mere seconds (...) The difficulty is trying to figure out which ones should be taken seriously.
I'm going to hazard the guess that it's not the ones on Twitter.
Well, if they're staking out the ugliest corners of the Internet, then you're surely on a list now!
First, let's be clear: I don't like the new law. I think it goes too far by requiring the consent of all present rather than just the landowner, which would be entirely reasonable. But you need to work on your argument.
Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
Technology moves. You say that today, but tomorrow, there probably will be zoom. The technical problems are well understood. This isn't a useful argument to make, because it isn't likely to remain true over any useful length of time (if it even is true; I didn't bother seeing if someone has already done it).
So, why do they need the consent of everyone present? If a store can have CCTV without the consent of everyone present (only the owners), then why couldn't a landowner give consent for someone to fly a drone over their property, regardless of whether or not they invited other people?
A drill press puts a hole in the target. What's wrong with that? Why is putting holes in a piece of paper at a distance a bad thing?
Hint: it's not the firearm that's bad. It's the people abusing them. Guns don't have the sole purpose of killing animate things. For the record, I don't hunt. Once upon a long time ago, I enjoyed target shooting, but it's been probably close to two decades since I've been to a range.
So, you don't need to carry an oxidizer. If you wanted to run a turbopump to do the same in order to generate thrust, you'd need to react it with something. Neat idea, nice Isp, no idea if it's actually practical.
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
This is an excellent point. Anyone advocating censorship needs to set in place some method by which the censorship is achieved. That generally means picking a group of people and telling them to apply some sort of standard (of whatever looseness). What I think the parent poster was getting at (before they were downvoted) is that it's arrogant to think that you, yourself, know best what content is Good and what is Bad
I would add that it's also foolish to think that you can predict the long-term consequences of your choices better than anyone else. The law of unintended consequences likes to show up with its buddy Murphy.
Slashdot Mirror
If Slashdot wants more money replace them with ethical ads and VIOLA.
I prefer violin.
People who enjoy others' pain and can't or won't follow the laws regarding torture and abuse need serious mental and/or spiritual help.
Considering the role of religion in major conflicts over millenia, I see little reason to recommend spiritual help for people prone to that sort of thing.
Is that a political party in Finland?
We should try this. For Science!
"We do what we must, because we can, for the good of all of us; except the ones who are dead."
Something approximating a useful feature!
Privacy is, to me, the most basic right. Without it, all the rest means nothing. I believe it was so obvious that it was not even included in the amendments in the USofA.
What?
Amendment IV
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.
I feel like they must be more common (densely packed) in cities. I never see any where I live (a moderately rural farm town).
Papers please, comrade!
Well, now you've done it. You've attracted attention from the Secretive Service by using the words "Obama" and "assassinate".
Wait, I used them . . . !
I don't think you should have done that.
Pulling up every tweet which uses the words "Obama" and "assassinate" takes mere seconds (...) The difficulty is trying to figure out which ones should be taken seriously.
I'm going to hazard the guess that it's not the ones on Twitter.
Well, if they're staking out the ugliest corners of the Internet, then you're surely on a list now!
I think it's perfectly reasonable to require the permission of a landowner. I think it's unreasonable to require the consent of all present.
First, let's be clear: I don't like the new law. I think it goes too far by requiring the consent of all present rather than just the landowner, which would be entirely reasonable. But you need to work on your argument.
Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
Technology moves. You say that today, but tomorrow, there probably will be zoom. The technical problems are well understood. This isn't a useful argument to make, because it isn't likely to remain true over any useful length of time (if it even is true; I didn't bother seeing if someone has already done it).
And fuck those flip-flops! One of those things could fly off your feet and hit me!
You know what, no more shoes. I feel safer already.
They couldn't get real dragons, so they got draconian legislation? Sounds positively Napoleonic to me.
So, why do they need the consent of everyone present? If a store can have CCTV without the consent of everyone present (only the owners), then why couldn't a landowner give consent for someone to fly a drone over their property, regardless of whether or not they invited other people?
There is such a thing as balance.
along with due process laws.
Please continue...
You guys are fucked. Enjoy your draconian regulations.
A drill press puts a hole in the target. What's wrong with that? Why is putting holes in a piece of paper at a distance a bad thing?
Hint: it's not the firearm that's bad. It's the people abusing them. Guns don't have the sole purpose of killing animate things. For the record, I don't hunt. Once upon a long time ago, I enjoyed target shooting, but it's been probably close to two decades since I've been to a range.
There are 8.5 Billion of us.
I think that you must see dead people. There are ~7.257 billion people, not 8.5 billion.
GP said calories (implying kilocalories) and did the conversion right. It's 96.9 watts according to Wolfram Alpha.
Or a very efficient "computer", considering the things humans are capable of on 2000 calories.
I didn't make it past TFH.
So, you don't need to carry an oxidizer. If you wanted to run a turbopump to do the same in order to generate thrust, you'd need to react it with something. Neat idea, nice Isp, no idea if it's actually practical.
IANARS (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist).
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
-- RAH
This is an excellent point. Anyone advocating censorship needs to set in place some method by which the censorship is achieved. That generally means picking a group of people and telling them to apply some sort of standard (of whatever looseness). What I think the parent poster was getting at (before they were downvoted) is that it's arrogant to think that you, yourself, know best what content is Good and what is Bad
I would add that it's also foolish to think that you can predict the long-term consequences of your choices better than anyone else. The law of unintended consequences likes to show up with its buddy Murphy.