Direct democracy doesn't exist currently, and couldn't have in any substantial population until the advent of computers to count large numbers of votes. I don't quite see how anyone would think that representative democracy and a republic would be incompatible, either. It's literally like representative democracy is a subclass of the republic variety.
Well, in all technicality, we have a democratic republic. In our constitution (constitutional) it calls for voting (democratic) to figure out who the representatives are (republic) to the fereral government (federal). Granted, that's not just "democracy". But it doesn't leave the idea out of the equation. If it did, we, as people, would have zero say in choosing our representation. So, it's not quite specific enough to call the US a "federal constitutional republic", leaving out the democracy. You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.
I didn't stop to think how interesting it is the one time i saw it or since, but you know what, now that I think about it, it's really not that interesting at all.
Yeah, but the way you get a major party to be moderate on an issue is by having an extreme viewpoint yourself. At least that way the votes get distributed across the spectrum instead of concentrated at one side.
Lose the attitude, dude. There's a bell curve on knowing raw amounts of any subject, and Slashdot just so happens to be much further up on it, especially in science-related fields, than your average person. Just because we're at and near the top doesn't mean we should ridicule them. It means we should help to educate them, so that by the time we're up further in our absolute level of knowledge, so are they.
What they do have to deal with, though, is the sudden appearance of another UAV doing an effective 800 miles an hour heading the opposite way of the line they're on. They also have to deal with more control surfaces, whereas cars literally have 2: speed and a 2d dimension, translated to one wheel to turn. Planes have to deal with speed, plus a 3d dimension (essentially 2 2d dimensions), which translates to yoke, pitch, and yaw. There's also no discernible landmarks in case there's a cloud during takeoff that blocks GPS navigation, but I'm going to guess fog or maybe clouds would be a problem for a car to drive itself under in many circumstances (depends on how it navigates) too, so it's a wash there. Airplanes have to deal with turbulence, cars have to deal with road conditions, another wash. Also, humans can't extinguish a burning engine midair, but they can overcome loss of a center, tail-mounted engine and all control surfaces by using the engines to keep themselves in the air. Do you really trust many corporations to think of every single scenario (and then implement it even though it takes x more man-hours per situation, leading to x^[number of single things that can go wrong, lots on an airplane]) when designing software for any purpose?
Just pointing one thing out: Military guys train to do that shit. Beyond the experience of the controller, we also have something interesting going on right now: we hardly have working cars that drive themselves. Those are moving in two dimensions. Do you really think it's a good idea to throw up a bunch of UAV's in crowded space so soon?
K, so you're missing a point. There's 2 arguments to be had in this thread: what should qualify someone as a "sex offender" (what you're talking about), and what restrictions should be put on a bonafide rapist. The "sex offender" thing is ludacris as it is, because it's too broad. Having your pants fall down in public (hence nudity) could require you to register as a "sex offender", which is damn absurd. Having someone known to go around beating women into submission to fuck them against their will at gunpoint restricted from social networking sites is not unreasonable.
Well, if it could be proven that he accessed a computer that wasn't his through any sort of method to get this type of information, he could have been if the law doesn't say he needed to commit another crime.
I do realize the point you're making about tack-on laws though. "Wearing body armor while committing a murder" comes to mind.
Nope, not really. He took this information and conducted fraud. It doesn't matter whether they literally told it to him or he found it in their dumpster or whatever. Fraud is fraud, plain and simple. You don't get away with giving a false driver license to a cop even if the driver gave it to you to use.
But, I totally agree on the protected computer part from the practical standpoint. It wasn't protected. However, if the law lets them in based on any loophole, it'll be exploited a massive amount. I don't want someone getting into my files because "Windows was already programmed to let them" or some shit like that, and being stuck with no recourse because of it.
I'm almost definitely a solver, and I know, I don't remember falling very clearly as I tend to block it from my mind at this point. 10 years later, I'm still falling.
Slashdot Mirror
Direct democracy doesn't exist currently, and couldn't have in any substantial population until the advent of computers to count large numbers of votes. I don't quite see how anyone would think that representative democracy and a republic would be incompatible, either. It's literally like representative democracy is a subclass of the republic variety.
Well, in all technicality, we have a democratic republic. In our constitution (constitutional) it calls for voting (democratic) to figure out who the representatives are (republic) to the fereral government (federal). Granted, that's not just "democracy". But it doesn't leave the idea out of the equation. If it did, we, as people, would have zero say in choosing our representation. So, it's not quite specific enough to call the US a "federal constitutional republic", leaving out the democracy. You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.
No, they're still working within the law to achieve their goals.
Maybe have the law state that the moment it's sold for money and shipped, it's out and under copyright.
The actual man burning will be much more popular there,
I didn't stop to think how interesting it is the one time i saw it or since, but you know what, now that I think about it, it's really not that interesting at all.
...and they both end up in the same place: fucking people over.
It Burns when I Pee, man.
So, how do you pay more than something costs again? Pay then donate?
Yeah, but the way you get a major party to be moderate on an issue is by having an extreme viewpoint yourself. At least that way the votes get distributed across the spectrum instead of concentrated at one side.
If you don't work towards change, you may as well accelerate the speed with which you go into a nasty future
Just don't hint them in on it. We need a place for all the unwanteds to go.
And that's why kids ask annoying numbers of questions.
Especially since kid's questions get deeper as you go, and you started with a simplification to begin with.
Lose the attitude, dude. There's a bell curve on knowing raw amounts of any subject, and Slashdot just so happens to be much further up on it, especially in science-related fields, than your average person. Just because we're at and near the top doesn't mean we should ridicule them. It means we should help to educate them, so that by the time we're up further in our absolute level of knowledge, so are they.
What they do have to deal with, though, is the sudden appearance of another UAV doing an effective 800 miles an hour heading the opposite way of the line they're on. They also have to deal with more control surfaces, whereas cars literally have 2: speed and a 2d dimension, translated to one wheel to turn. Planes have to deal with speed, plus a 3d dimension (essentially 2 2d dimensions), which translates to yoke, pitch, and yaw. There's also no discernible landmarks in case there's a cloud during takeoff that blocks GPS navigation, but I'm going to guess fog or maybe clouds would be a problem for a car to drive itself under in many circumstances (depends on how it navigates) too, so it's a wash there. Airplanes have to deal with turbulence, cars have to deal with road conditions, another wash. Also, humans can't extinguish a burning engine midair, but they can overcome loss of a center, tail-mounted engine and all control surfaces by using the engines to keep themselves in the air. Do you really trust many corporations to think of every single scenario (and then implement it even though it takes x more man-hours per situation, leading to x^[number of single things that can go wrong, lots on an airplane]) when designing software for any purpose?
Just pointing one thing out: Military guys train to do that shit. Beyond the experience of the controller, we also have something interesting going on right now: we hardly have working cars that drive themselves. Those are moving in two dimensions. Do you really think it's a good idea to throw up a bunch of UAV's in crowded space so soon?
Can anyone even imagine creating a serious document on any cellphone? That would be hellish.
K, so you're missing a point. There's 2 arguments to be had in this thread: what should qualify someone as a "sex offender" (what you're talking about), and what restrictions should be put on a bonafide rapist. The "sex offender" thing is ludacris as it is, because it's too broad. Having your pants fall down in public (hence nudity) could require you to register as a "sex offender", which is damn absurd. Having someone known to go around beating women into submission to fuck them against their will at gunpoint restricted from social networking sites is not unreasonable.
Well, if it could be proven that he accessed a computer that wasn't his through any sort of method to get this type of information, he could have been if the law doesn't say he needed to commit another crime. I do realize the point you're making about tack-on laws though. "Wearing body armor while committing a murder" comes to mind.
There's also no reason for them to include the switches for each light in hardware when they can do it in firmware.
Nope, not really. He took this information and conducted fraud. It doesn't matter whether they literally told it to him or he found it in their dumpster or whatever. Fraud is fraud, plain and simple. You don't get away with giving a false driver license to a cop even if the driver gave it to you to use.
But, I totally agree on the protected computer part from the practical standpoint. It wasn't protected. However, if the law lets them in based on any loophole, it'll be exploited a massive amount. I don't want someone getting into my files because "Windows was already programmed to let them" or some shit like that, and being stuck with no recourse because of it.
Nah, we can just keep a list of those who don't do something to invade privacy or fuck us over on one of our other rights.
I'm almost definitely a solver, and I know, I don't remember falling very clearly as I tend to block it from my mind at this point. 10 years later, I'm still falling.
Natal can be turned off and moved. Throw one of these in your cable box, and it's on and looking for every moment the box is powered up.