Yes it's true that a State Constitution could specifically ban the right to privacy, asserting that the State Legislature has the authority to wiretap everyone's external phone lines. Such a constitution would not be over-ruled by the U.S. Constitution, due to the ninth and tenth amendments. (Hopefully the citizens of that state would be smart enough not to allow such a constitution to be ratified, but you never know.)
As for Comcast, I bet the bill of rights will give them MORE power, not less. "I can't access Itunes!" "Well, the Comcast bill of rights does not specifically say you have a right to get to itunes, therefore we blocked it. For the sake of your children, of course."
- If you own the Brooklyn Bridge, you can sell it as your own personal property. (Same way Trump buys and sells whole freakin' skyscrapers.)
- Some states allow polygamy. Some states allow incest.
- You can buy a slave, as long as the slave is agreeable to the arrangement. Only INvoluntary servitude is illegal. Voluntary servitude is still allowed (think indentured servants).
- You can have sex in an airport. You'll get arrested, but you can still do it. (As a side note, you can also expose your breasts & feed your baby while in line, and nobody can arrest you for that act.) (Many people don't realize that, but breastfeeding is one example of legal nudity (well toplessness).)
If I was the FCC Chairman I'd say something like, "Well technically Congress has granted no power over internet communications, HOWEVER we notice you have been granted monopoly control by your state government, so we've decided to extend our current regulation of your Cable TV monopoly into your Internet monopoly as well, on the basis that you are using portions of the electromagnetic spectrum and per the commerce clause, that gives us power to boss you around."
Although I can imagine some teenager asking that question. The Atari VCS/2600 is older than many people alive today (almost 31 years). As for why Atari did not erase the EPROMS, in 1984 they were on the verge of collapse and probably didn't care. They had more important things to worry about... like not going bankrupt.
Best Atari games? - Space Invaders - Breakout - Defender - Missile Command - Berzerk - Phoenix - Joust - Jr. Pac-man (only VCS version of Pac-man that was arcade-accurate)
And don't forget to ban those safety razors (after all, they might be used by a terrorist to puncture airplane tires & cause an accident). Let's turn Australia into a police state like 1984, where people are not allowed to own anything (for they might be misused by terrorists). Good solution. Bravo.
Yes. "It is difficult to find them" is not reason to burn the Bill of Rights and start searching homes for terrorists, or wire-tapping phones to catch grafters, or outlaw alcohol to stop drunk driving.
Hire more police, monitor the airport terminals for suspicious persons, and take them down when you see the flashing lasers toward airplanes.
As for "why do people need powerful lasers"? Well, I use them in my model-making to quickly & easily slice wood into pieces. If I lived in Australia, I'd probably get arrested for that act.
>>>"Also sounds pointless, since the President isn't bound by Congressional Resolutions."
You know that saying about "assuming" things? Yeah, well you're guilty of it. (wink). John Quincy Adams was a Congressman at the time (not president), and therefore forbidden from introducing legislation to curb or lesson slavery. The Southern "slave power" had effectively taken control of Congress and forbidden free speech.
>>>"They had Free Speech too, and could use it to shout down people they disagree with"
Disagree. In a civil society, you show people the same courtesy you expect to receive. i.e. You shut your mouth and listen, just as they patiently listened to your ideas one hour earlier. To allow yourself freedom to speak, while denying others, is dishonorable.
>>>"Because the government is run by people. Ordinary people."
I disagree. And I'll let one of the Founders explain why: "Government attracts people filled with avarice and ambition. Love of money and love of power." - Benjamin Franklin. The government is not run by ordinary people, but by corrupt people desiring to make themselves richer and/or more powerful.
The only person you can truly trust is yourself, which is why you should have retirement savings and healthcare payouts that are *self-run* in your own personal account, not a bunch of "sick", corrupt strangers in D.C. who don't give a damn about you - only their own avarice/ambition.
>>>"We don't trust them... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice."
Yes you do:
- You could buy healthcare using your OWN money, rather than raiding your neighbors' wallets (universal healthcare) to pay the bill for you. I pay my own healthcare with my own money; it works great.
- You could educate yourself the way people educated themselves circa 1900: Buy books; read them. (Attend a *privately-run* college if you are planning a higher-level career, as did people like Jefferson, Madison, Edison, Clinton.)
- You could create your OWN retirement plan by saving money in the bank (or dig a hole in your backyard if you don't trust the bank), rather than support the SS Pyramid Scheme. At the end, you'd have far more money and far more independence (it's your money, not somebody else's).
You DO have choices. You just don't want to exercise them, prefering to trust a bunch of strangers in D.C. to take care of you.
I made my comment in jest, because I find it funny to hear people say on one hand, "We can't trust the government to scan our bodies & erase the images," and yet a few hours later wax eloquently about how "I trust the government to provide my healthcare and retirement and education, and will vote for politicians who agree with me."
It's contradictory.
Either you trust the government, or you don't. (I'm one of those who does not, and would like government to remove itself from the education and healthcare system, and instead let us handle our own money.)
Yet. Who knows what some future Congress may decide to pass as law. And besides, it is MY body and I have an inalienable right to decide when and where to display a naked image of same.
Forcing me to submit to scans that can "strip" off my clothes is a violation of that right. (Just as surely as forcing someone to carry a fetus to birth is a violation of their bodily rights.)
My college advisor was a Cosmologist, and although he supported the theory of the Big Bang and published many peer-reviewed papers in journals, still believed in God as the architect of it all. After all, the matter that makes-up the universe had to come from somewhere.
Scientists don't know where it came from. But religious people do (based upon their faith).
Bzzz. You might want to take a moment to read Thomas S Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which describes how some scientists WILL try to suppress contrary theories, as a way to protect their own career.
As example, scientists once thought the planets moved in perfectly-circular orbits, but when observations showed that was not true, these same scientists refused to believe the data. It took several years (and the death of the stubborn scientists) for a new generation to propose ellipitical orbits. The refusal to accept new data is called "protecting your paradigm" aka your belief system, even in the face of facts that challenge it.
Scientists often do this to protect their lifelong work and/or career, rather than admit they are wrong.
I will illustrate your point, with an example I saw on CNN:
(1) A BBC reporter wrote a fair, non-biased article on global warming. In one paragraph he stated, "Not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by man-made actions," which is an accurate statement. Not "all" scientists think man caused the problem. Some don't even think it's a problem, saying it's just part of a natural cycle that's been happening for the last 10,000 years.
(2) The reporter published the article on the website, and immediately an email rolled-in from an environmentalist demanding that phrase be expunged.
(3) The reporter and activist went back-and-forth several times, with the activist saying, "There is no doubt," and "We may be uncertain of the cause, but we must not let the common people know that we are uncertain."
(4) The reporter refused to rewrite his article until the activist told him, "If you do not comply, I will rally my group and you will receive thousands of emails demanding the change."
(5) The reporter, obviously concerned about this prospect (and possibly losing his job), immediately deleted the offending paragraph.
And thus:
An activist, acting somewhat akin to a religious zealot, took a balanced BBC article & turned it into a one-sided piece using the tactics of threats and coercion to silence any contrarian views about global warming. It does not surprise me to learn that similar tactics are being used to silence researchers and/or scientists.
I bought a Commodore 64 for $100. Of course that didn't include a disk drive or display or modem, which are essential in today's modern laptops. It would be difficult to assemble all of those extras for only $100.
My Penn State lab experience was like my high school lab experience, just more frequent (every week instead of once-in-a-while).
The same old crap; different setting.
If you were expecting something like the TV show CSI with dark rooms, dramatic lighting, and the latest gadgets... think again. It's more like glaring, buzzing fluorescent lights, 20-year-old oscilloscopes, and mind-numbingly easy "do step 1; now do step 2; then step 3" Radio Shack-style kits.
Honestly:
I think my electrical engineering lab experience was a huge waste of time. I'd have prefered to spent less time assembling blinking LEDs, and more time "catching up" on homework (and actually learning something), rather than hurriedly copying the answers from the resident genius in class (and thus learning nothing). I learned more in one week on the job, watching an experienced engineer testing a system, than the four years worth of labs.
>>>"where can we go to find out which standards to really use?"
We could do it the old-fashioned way: Let the market decide. And then let the ISO arrive 2-3 years late and announce, "Well this is the clear winner with 80% dominance; that will be our official standard."
I know a lot of people say that method won't work, but it worked just fine for the selections of the 33 rpm LP, the Compact Cassette for audio recordings, and the VHS-based videocassette. It also worked in the case of then-new 9600 and 14.4k modems (wherein many companies competed, and ISO selected the winner as the "standard").
There are many, many other examples I could list. You don't "have" to use ISO to push-forward a new technology.
This Norway Meeting Summary does not surprise me. Having observed my share of local and state-level government meetings, the politician often knows the answer he wants, and it's merely a matter of twisting the vote to make it say "yes". It happens often.
I suspect the FCC Chairman used similar tactics in order to push-thru HDTV and HD Radio even though most engineers/technicians objected that the system had serious flaws (especially in the latter case of HD Radio).
Napolitano works for FOX News as a commentator. FOX News is a right-wing puppet news organization. Therefore Napolitano's book is also part of the right-wing conspiracy. I will not read it.
(I say with sarcasm, what many people would say with all seriousness. They display prejudice rather than open-mindedness.)
>>>"the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune"
And therefore state-owned universities are immune from being sued for infrigement? That seems a stretch. Here's what the Amendment actually says: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
If I'm an author who wrote a book in Maryland, and the Penn State University decides to copy my book without my permission, I don't see why the university should be immune from proper prosecution when it has clearly committed a crime (theft of my labor as a book author).
I suppose I could move from Maryland to Pennsylvania, register as a citizen, and THEN file a court case against PSU - but that seems excessively laborious.
Beauracracy (and the inherent corruption therein) is what brought-down the Roman Empire in the 300s and 400s A.D. Too many employees, gobbling-up too much money, and not enough taxes to support the weight.
Our modern European and American states are heading down the same path.
Ironically, that is the tactic the Southern "slave power" used to silence Abolitionists in the 1840s-60s. They even passed a resolution in the U.S. Congress forbidding the introduction of anti-slavery laws, much to the chagrin of John Quincy Adams who insisted he has a right to free speech. Mr. Adams kept trying to introduce new laws, but the Southern Congressmen would shout him down, and accuse him of violating Congressional rules.
What better way to maintain slavery than to silence the critics.
The issue was ultimately resolved with a war. The Abolitionists may have lost their right to free speech, but they won the final battle. Are we repeating the same mistakes as our ancestors by forbidding people from expressing their views?
Whenever I encounter these drivers, I do a quick Lo-Hi-Lo switch with my headlights to say, "Hey bud; turn down your headlights." Most get the message and drop their lights from Hi to Lo. Some are idiots and continue blinding everybody.
Idiots should be banned from driving.
The other day I was literally run-off I-295 by an idiot (he tried to squeeze between me and the car in front; but there was no room; so I ended-up in the gutter). I called the Maryland Police and they claimed there's nothing they can do. Makes me wonder why I'm paying taxes if my gov't employees refuse to do anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it's true that a State Constitution could specifically ban the right to privacy, asserting that the State Legislature has the authority to wiretap everyone's external phone lines. Such a constitution would not be over-ruled by the U.S. Constitution, due to the ninth and tenth amendments. (Hopefully the citizens of that state would be smart enough not to allow such a constitution to be ratified, but you never know.)
As for Comcast, I bet the bill of rights will give them MORE power, not less. "I can't access Itunes!" "Well, the Comcast bill of rights does not specifically say you have a right to get to itunes, therefore we blocked it. For the sake of your children, of course."
Yes you can, yes you can, and yes you can.
- If you own the Brooklyn Bridge, you can sell it as your own personal property. (Same way Trump buys and sells whole freakin' skyscrapers.)
- Some states allow polygamy. Some states allow incest.
- You can buy a slave, as long as the slave is agreeable to the arrangement. Only INvoluntary servitude is illegal. Voluntary servitude is still allowed (think indentured servants).
- You can have sex in an airport. You'll get arrested, but you can still do it. (As a side note, you can also expose your breasts & feed your baby while in line, and nobody can arrest you for that act.) (Many people don't realize that, but breastfeeding is one example of legal nudity (well toplessness).)
If I was the FCC Chairman I'd say something like, "Well technically Congress has granted no power over internet communications, HOWEVER we notice you have been granted monopoly control by your state government, so we've decided to extend our current regulation of your Cable TV monopoly into your Internet monopoly as well, on the basis that you are using portions of the electromagnetic spectrum and per the commerce clause, that gives us power to boss you around."
And then laugh maniacally as Comcast cries.
What's an Atari 2600?
(just joking)
Although I can imagine some teenager asking that question. The Atari VCS/2600 is older than many people alive today (almost 31 years). As for why Atari did not erase the EPROMS, in 1984 they were on the verge of collapse and probably didn't care. They had more important things to worry about... like not going bankrupt.
Best Atari games?
- Space Invaders
- Breakout
- Defender
- Missile Command
- Berzerk
- Phoenix
- Joust
- Jr. Pac-man (only VCS version of Pac-man that was arcade-accurate)
Good point.
And don't forget to ban those safety razors (after all, they might be used by a terrorist to puncture airplane tires & cause an accident). Let's turn Australia into a police state like 1984, where people are not allowed to own anything (for they might be misused by terrorists). Good solution. Bravo.
Yes. "It is difficult to find them" is not reason to burn the Bill of Rights and start searching homes for terrorists, or wire-tapping phones to catch grafters, or outlaw alcohol to stop drunk driving.
Hire more police, monitor the airport terminals for suspicious persons, and take them down when you see the flashing lasers toward airplanes.
As for "why do people need powerful lasers"? Well, I use them in my model-making to quickly & easily slice wood into pieces. If I lived in Australia, I'd probably get arrested for that act.
>>>"Also sounds pointless, since the President isn't bound by Congressional Resolutions."
You know that saying about "assuming" things? Yeah, well you're guilty of it. (wink). John Quincy Adams was a Congressman at the time (not president), and therefore forbidden from introducing legislation to curb or lesson slavery. The Southern "slave power" had effectively taken control of Congress and forbidden free speech.
>>>"They had Free Speech too, and could use it to shout down people they disagree with"
Disagree. In a civil society, you show people the same courtesy you expect to receive. i.e. You shut your mouth and listen, just as they patiently listened to your ideas one hour earlier. To allow yourself freedom to speak, while denying others, is dishonorable.
They could have issued a warning, which has no legal effect, but would at least make the driver aware that such behavior is unacceptable.
>>>"Because the government is run by people. Ordinary people."
I disagree. And I'll let one of the Founders explain why: "Government attracts people filled with avarice and ambition. Love of money and love of power." - Benjamin Franklin. The government is not run by ordinary people, but by corrupt people desiring to make themselves richer and/or more powerful.
The only person you can truly trust is yourself, which is why you should have retirement savings and healthcare payouts that are *self-run* in your own personal account, not a bunch of "sick", corrupt strangers in D.C. who don't give a damn about you - only their own avarice/ambition.
>>>"We don't trust them ... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice."
Yes you do:
- You could buy healthcare using your OWN money, rather than raiding your neighbors' wallets (universal healthcare) to pay the bill for you. I pay my own healthcare with my own money; it works great.
- You could educate yourself the way people educated themselves circa 1900: Buy books; read them. (Attend a *privately-run* college if you are planning a higher-level career, as did people like Jefferson, Madison, Edison, Clinton.)
- You could create your OWN retirement plan by saving money in the bank (or dig a hole in your backyard if you don't trust the bank), rather than support the SS Pyramid Scheme. At the end, you'd have far more money and far more independence (it's your money, not somebody else's).
You DO have choices.
You just don't want to exercise them,
prefering to trust a bunch of strangers in D.C. to take care of you.
I agree.
I made my comment in jest, because I find it funny to hear people say on one hand, "We can't trust the government to scan our bodies & erase the images," and yet a few hours later wax eloquently about how "I trust the government to provide my healthcare and retirement and education, and will vote for politicians who agree with me."
It's contradictory.
Either you trust the government, or you don't. (I'm one of those who does not, and would like government to remove itself from the education and healthcare system, and instead let us handle our own money.)
Yet. Who knows what some future Congress may decide to pass as law. And besides, it is MY body and I have an inalienable right to decide when and where to display a naked image of same.
Forcing me to submit to scans that can "strip" off my clothes is a violation of that right. (Just as surely as forcing someone to carry a fetus to birth is a violation of their bodily rights.)
You act as if they are incompatible.
My college advisor was a Cosmologist, and although he supported the theory of the Big Bang and published many peer-reviewed papers in journals, still believed in God as the architect of it all. After all, the matter that makes-up the universe had to come from somewhere.
Scientists don't know where it came from. But religious people do (based upon their faith).
Bzzz. You might want to take a moment to read Thomas S Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which describes how some scientists WILL try to suppress contrary theories, as a way to protect their own career.
As example, scientists once thought the planets moved in perfectly-circular orbits, but when observations showed that was not true, these same scientists refused to believe the data. It took several years (and the death of the stubborn scientists) for a new generation to propose ellipitical orbits. The refusal to accept new data is called "protecting your paradigm" aka your belief system, even in the face of facts that challenge it.
Scientists often do this to protect their lifelong work and/or career, rather than admit they are wrong.
I will illustrate your point, with an example I saw on CNN:
(1) A BBC reporter wrote a fair, non-biased article on global warming. In one paragraph he stated, "Not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by man-made actions," which is an accurate statement. Not "all" scientists think man caused the problem. Some don't even think it's a problem, saying it's just part of a natural cycle that's been happening for the last 10,000 years.
(2) The reporter published the article on the website, and immediately an email rolled-in from an environmentalist demanding that phrase be expunged.
(3) The reporter and activist went back-and-forth several times, with the activist saying, "There is no doubt," and "We may be uncertain of the cause, but we must not let the common people know that we are uncertain."
(4) The reporter refused to rewrite his article until the activist told him, "If you do not comply, I will rally my group and you will receive thousands of emails demanding the change."
(5) The reporter, obviously concerned about this prospect (and possibly losing his job), immediately deleted the offending paragraph.
And thus:
An activist, acting somewhat akin to a religious zealot, took a balanced BBC article & turned it into a one-sided piece using the tactics of threats and coercion to silence any contrarian views about global warming. It does not surprise me to learn that similar tactics are being used to silence researchers and/or scientists.
Well...
I bought a Commodore 64 for $100. Of course that didn't include a disk drive or display or modem, which are essential in today's modern laptops. It would be difficult to assemble all of those extras for only $100.
My Penn State lab experience was like my high school lab experience, just more frequent (every week instead of once-in-a-while).
The same old crap; different setting.
If you were expecting something like the TV show CSI with dark rooms, dramatic lighting, and the latest gadgets... think again. It's more like glaring, buzzing fluorescent lights, 20-year-old oscilloscopes, and mind-numbingly easy "do step 1; now do step 2; then step 3" Radio Shack-style kits.
Honestly:
I think my electrical engineering lab experience was a huge waste of time. I'd have prefered to spent less time assembling blinking LEDs, and more time "catching up" on homework (and actually learning something), rather than hurriedly copying the answers from the resident genius in class (and thus learning nothing). I learned more in one week on the job, watching an experienced engineer testing a system, than the four years worth of labs.
>>>"where can we go to find out which standards to really use?"
We could do it the old-fashioned way: Let the market decide. And then let the ISO arrive 2-3 years late and announce, "Well this is the clear winner with 80% dominance; that will be our official standard."
I know a lot of people say that method won't work, but it worked just fine for the selections of the 33 rpm LP, the Compact Cassette for audio recordings, and the VHS-based videocassette. It also worked in the case of then-new 9600 and 14.4k modems (wherein many companies competed, and ISO selected the winner as the "standard").
There are many, many other examples I could list.
You don't "have" to use ISO to push-forward a new technology.
This Norway Meeting Summary does not surprise me. Having observed my share of local and state-level government meetings, the politician often knows the answer he wants, and it's merely a matter of twisting the vote to make it say "yes". It happens often.
I suspect the FCC Chairman used similar tactics in order to push-thru HDTV and HD Radio even though most engineers/technicians objected that the system had serious flaws (especially in the latter case of HD Radio).
Napolitano works for FOX News as a commentator. FOX News is a right-wing puppet news organization. Therefore Napolitano's book is also part of the right-wing conspiracy. I will not read it.
(I say with sarcasm, what many people would say with all seriousness. They display prejudice rather than open-mindedness.)
>>>"the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune"
And therefore state-owned universities are immune from being sued for infrigement? That seems a stretch. Here's what the Amendment actually says: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
If I'm an author who wrote a book in Maryland, and the Penn State University decides to copy my book without my permission, I don't see why the university should be immune from proper prosecution when it has clearly committed a crime (theft of my labor as a book author).
I suppose I could move from Maryland to Pennsylvania, register as a citizen, and THEN file a court case against PSU - but that seems excessively laborious.
Beauracracy (and the inherent corruption therein) is what brought-down the Roman Empire in the 300s and 400s A.D. Too many employees, gobbling-up too much money, and not enough taxes to support the weight.
Our modern European and American states are heading down the same path.
But is it necessary to BAN the pointers? Punish 99.99% of the population, because of the misbehavior of a few? That seems out-of-bounds.
The more logical course would be to locate the criminal with a pointer in his hand, and then shoot him dead. Punish that ONE person, not everybody.
Ironically, that is the tactic the Southern "slave power" used to silence Abolitionists in the 1840s-60s. They even passed a resolution in the U.S. Congress forbidding the introduction of anti-slavery laws, much to the chagrin of John Quincy Adams who insisted he has a right to free speech. Mr. Adams kept trying to introduce new laws, but the Southern Congressmen would shout him down, and accuse him of violating Congressional rules.
What better way to maintain slavery than to silence the critics.
The issue was ultimately resolved with a war. The Abolitionists may have lost their right to free speech, but they won the final battle. Are we repeating the same mistakes as our ancestors by forbidding people from expressing their views?
Whenever I encounter these drivers, I do a quick Lo-Hi-Lo switch with my headlights to say, "Hey bud; turn down your headlights." Most get the message and drop their lights from Hi to Lo. Some are idiots and continue blinding everybody.
Idiots should be banned from driving.
The other day I was literally run-off I-295 by an idiot (he tried to squeeze between me and the car in front; but there was no room; so I ended-up in the gutter). I called the Maryland Police and they claimed there's nothing they can do. Makes me wonder why I'm paying taxes if my gov't employees refuse to do anything.
Laws have no meaning if you don't enforce them.