Lindelof is a professed fan of BSG which is where he stole the ending to Lost. Why you would want to plagiarize such a pathetic cop out series finale is beyond me. It makes the ending to Dexter seem fucking brilliant.
Having nukes didn't protect Pakistan from SEAL team six.
SEAL team six didn't attack a Pakistani resident under diplomatic protection. And despite Snowden's high value, it's nowhere near what bin Laden's was. It's more the range Assange and we can all see what's happened there.
You know all of the 6 Android users who will dump their platform due to this? Your uber vigilante security circle didn't check this before? It seems your circle has bigger problems than just using potentially compromisable settings.
But, briefly: Of course the law might be unjust, but how are you going to create a rule that protects people who violated unjust laws, without also protecting people who violated the good ones?
That is an entirely different question than the legitimacy of the 5th amendment. It's also a question that is much more worthy of philosophical debate. The fifth amendment(self-incrimination) debate can conceivably be easily resolved by most people by asking "what happens if we remove it?".
They may interpret "client's best interest" to be limited to the outcome of legal cases.
That isn't fiduciary responsibility. While I'm sure occasions have happened that a cavalier lawyer focused only on the outcome of the case, an attorney is required by law to have a client's short and long term considerations figured into the situation.
If the client thinks he can make his neighborhood safer by turning in a criminal, a lawyer might plausibly claim he wasn't obligated to consider that when calculating his "client's best interest".
The scenario you've offered here is speculative at best. In your initial point, you argue as if the client is the offender. Here now the offender wants to turn someone else in to "make the neighborhood safer" which sounds suspiciously like "think of the children"..
And I doubt you'll find many in the legal profession dispensing medical advice on anything other than enormously evident causes like treating substance abuse or food addiction. If a client is observably on a negative path concern food intake, it is their responsibility to inform them of it and failing action by the client to trigger some kind of treatment if possible.
Why do you avoid questions like "Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?"
However those benefits don't accrue to the lawyer, so they may not take it into account when telling you never to talk to the cops.
You ignore the fiduciary responsibility of the lawyer. If it's in the clients best interest to speak to the police, they are bound to advise such a course on the pain of disbarment.
Consider the case where you're guilty but if you answer all the cop's questions, they'll ask the judge for leniency. If you refuse to talk until you get a lawyer, and then "cooperate" through your lawyer, are the cops just as likely to recommend leniency?
Remember in general police don't ask for or against leniency, they just testify. About the only "asking for leniency" a typical judge would give serious weight too(in part because it's a case of having CYA) would be if it came from the prosecutor. Prosecutors and police are generally on the same side, but any deal made by one isn't binding on the other and the only one who really matters is what the prosecutor agrees too. So as in any other field, don't give away leverage until you get something for it. Remember the prosecutor isn't after "justice" as one would normally think of it, but rather punitive convictions that will allow for re-elections and advancement. On that topic I recommend the book "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice" or at least the short review of it here:
One possibility is that if you talk to the police, for example, to help them catch a criminal, that may benefit you (insofar as it makes your neighborhood safer) and perhaps you might sincerely care about making your society safer as well. However, that doesn't benefit the lawyer, so they don't care.
I don't know what kind of answer this is, but it isn't an answer to the question I asked. It seems you took the opportunity to construct a response that would make your position tenable on maybe some kind of righteous quest. Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?
I don't care about the minutiae of either side of this argument. What I care about it the truth of a position. The central tenant to wisdom is the ability to rigorously critique and defend any position you might hold eg Socratic thought. When I read your discourse on the morality of the the Fifth Amendment, I see text that was written to support a judgement already made. I don't think you have wrestled with the ramifications of your position enough. A good sit down with some Kafka might cure you of this.
> Do you think Officer Bruch was lying or was Professor Duane wrong?
First take my point on philosophy. You've just committed a false dichotomy. I think the people who "helped themselves" could have done so without risking talking to the police. Considering the number of police questions in the course of history, I'm sure there are at least a small number of cases where a person was able to manipulate outcomes in their favor by talking to police especially if it helped the police nail someone else.
I'll offer a question in return. Lawyers have a fiduciary relationship with their clients and almost universally recommend to not speak to police. In light of your position, why you suppose this is?
Please quit. You're initial analysis was weak, and this rebuttal makes you seem like a much less intelligent person than I think you are. Your rationals remind me of the unrigorous positions of a call-in partisan radio show. If you're going to stick with philosophy, try to understand the fundamentals of forming an argument prior to publicizing this amateur manifesto stuff. Reading more from you is a waste of everyone's time until then.
Perhaps you could quote it to be unambitious. I realize this contrary to Libertarian nature, but you seek this discussion.
I dont' know how old you are, but the problem you are encountering may be that Libertarianism doesn't seem to be as popular among the newer Facebook generation.
Is this an age slur? If so, it's entirely misplaced. I've never participated in it, nor have any intentions of it.
Nevertheless Agnosticism has a very specific meaning.
Sorry for you. You've just attempted answer a question with a paradox. ERR_DIV_BY_ZERO
The supernatural entity that you claim exists cannot be detected in any way.
Sorry, you're "supernatural entity" makes empirical claims. We can quite easily determine if they are valid claims.
The important distinction is that an Agnostic does not make any hard claim that this or that deity does not or cannot exist.
First why to capitalize "Agnostic"? Second the agnostic only says "I don't know". Well...what: "I don't know that I haven't taken a group of female astronauts and imprisoned them on Mars" or "Monkeys have destroyed a phone system". Any deity that makes empirical claims we can rule out no prob. Sorry X-Files fans.
Certain people use the term Libertarian to mean "I'm a Republican, but I smoke pot and it should be legalized". For others, it means "I'm really an anarchist but feel uncomfortable with word". Pretty much anyone I've ever met who has used the term to describe themselves does so in an evasive way. It's mostly just a wishy washy nudge nudge way of saying "Hey look, I'm different". The problem with such labels(and agnostic is other of this ilk) is that when a label can mean anything, it means nothing. Just white noise.
This the is American system. Your words can and will be manipulated against you. This isn't about what is fair. It's about protecting yourself from those who would treat you unfairly. So shut your mouth.
Equating "Appeal to authority" with "Appeal to popularity" is no way to win a logical argument. One has at least bare credentials of evidence, one doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
you forgot to read the summary or the article
Anti-Ebola Drug ZMapp Makes Clean Sweep: 18 of 18 Monkeys Survive Infection
Lindelof is a professed fan of BSG which is where he stole the ending to Lost. Why you would want to plagiarize such a pathetic cop out series finale is beyond me. It makes the ending to Dexter seem fucking brilliant.
Mediocre? You give far too much credit. Lost was perhaps the worst series ever made.
Exactly. Versus a properly configured host, It's a "difference" drummed up out of thin air so they can sell you "security".
pkg IS the default package management utility
pkgng is the project which spawned pkg * replacing the previous pkg_* tools
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pkg&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+10.0-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html
God refuses to give us the data from before he invented us
Before we invented him/it/the deity. Just one among humanities endless parade of gods.
but also cause and effect are relative to the spectator
Well I suppose facts and science are relative to a spectator...at least until they try to replicate them.
Having nukes didn't protect Pakistan from SEAL team six.
SEAL team six didn't attack a Pakistani resident under diplomatic protection. And despite Snowden's high value, it's nowhere near what bin Laden's was. It's more the range Assange and we can all see what's happened there.
That's actually a really interesting astroturf. I could see it working.
You know all of the 6 Android users who will dump their platform due to this? Your uber vigilante security circle didn't check this before? It seems your circle has bigger problems than just using potentially compromisable settings.
But, briefly: Of course the law might be unjust, but how are you going to create a rule that protects people who violated unjust laws, without also protecting people who violated the good ones?
That is an entirely different question than the legitimacy of the 5th amendment. It's also a question that is much more worthy of philosophical debate. The fifth amendment(self-incrimination) debate can conceivably be easily resolved by most people by asking "what happens if we remove it?".
They may interpret "client's best interest" to be limited to the outcome of legal cases.
That isn't fiduciary responsibility. While I'm sure occasions have happened that a cavalier lawyer focused only on the outcome of the case, an attorney is required by law to have a client's short and long term considerations figured into the situation.
If the client thinks he can make his neighborhood safer by turning in a criminal, a lawyer might plausibly claim he wasn't obligated to consider that when calculating his "client's best interest".
The scenario you've offered here is speculative at best. In your initial point, you argue as if the client is the offender. Here now the offender wants to turn someone else in to "make the neighborhood safer" which sounds suspiciously like "think of the children"..
And I doubt you'll find many in the legal profession dispensing medical advice on anything other than enormously evident causes like treating substance abuse or food addiction. If a client is observably on a negative path concern food intake, it is their responsibility to inform them of it and failing action by the client to trigger some kind of treatment if possible.
Why do you avoid questions like "Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?"
However those benefits don't accrue to the lawyer, so they may not take it into account when telling you never to talk to the cops.
You ignore the fiduciary responsibility of the lawyer. If it's in the clients best interest to speak to the police, they are bound to advise such a course on the pain of disbarment.
Consider the case where you're guilty but if you answer all the cop's questions, they'll ask the judge for leniency. If you refuse to talk until you get a lawyer, and then "cooperate" through your lawyer, are the cops just as likely to recommend leniency?
Remember in general police don't ask for or against leniency, they just testify. About the only "asking for leniency" a typical judge would give serious weight too(in part because it's a case of having CYA) would be if it came from the prosecutor. Prosecutors and police are generally on the same side, but any deal made by one isn't binding on the other and the only one who really matters is what the prosecutor agrees too. So as in any other field, don't give away leverage until you get something for it. Remember the prosecutor isn't after "justice" as one would normally think of it, but rather punitive convictions that will allow for re-elections and advancement. On that topic I recommend the book "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice" or at least the short review of it here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/our-broken-system-criminal-justice/?pagination=false
One possibility is that if you talk to the police, for example, to help them catch a criminal, that may benefit you (insofar as it makes your neighborhood safer) and perhaps you might sincerely care about making your society safer as well. However, that doesn't benefit the lawyer, so they don't care.
I don't know what kind of answer this is, but it isn't an answer to the question I asked. It seems you took the opportunity to construct a response that would make your position tenable on maybe some kind of righteous quest. Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?
I don't care about the minutiae of either side of this argument. What I care about it the truth of a position. The central tenant to wisdom is the ability to rigorously critique and defend any position you might hold eg Socratic thought. When I read your discourse on the morality of the the Fifth Amendment, I see text that was written to support a judgement already made. I don't think you have wrestled with the ramifications of your position enough. A good sit down with some Kafka might cure you of this.
> Do you think Officer Bruch was lying or was Professor Duane wrong?
First take my point on philosophy. You've just committed a false dichotomy. I think the people who "helped themselves" could have done so without risking talking to the police. Considering the number of police questions in the course of history, I'm sure there are at least a small number of cases where a person was able to manipulate outcomes in their favor by talking to police especially if it helped the police nail someone else.
I'll offer a question in return. Lawyers have a fiduciary relationship with their clients and almost universally recommend to not speak to police. In light of your position, why you suppose this is?
Please quit. You're initial analysis was weak, and this rebuttal makes you seem like a much less intelligent person than I think you are. Your rationals remind me of the unrigorous positions of a call-in partisan radio show. If you're going to stick with philosophy, try to understand the fundamentals of forming an argument prior to publicizing this amateur manifesto stuff. Reading more from you is a waste of everyone's time until then.
A lot of devices become incredibly annoying with Jim Beam hand.
Crichton does not merit inclusion in this list. While I did not' wish death on him, I'm glad I won't have to hear about new material from him.
In many respects, it is the most successful and widely deployed open-source technology today.
Not even close. OpenSSH owns Apache here and that's not even considering things like BSD sockets.
wikipedia entry is fairly accurate IIRC.
Perhaps you could quote it to be unambitious. I realize this contrary to Libertarian nature, but you seek this discussion.
I dont' know how old you are, but the problem you are encountering may be that Libertarianism doesn't seem to be as popular among the newer Facebook generation.
Is this an age slur? If so, it's entirely misplaced. I've never participated in it, nor have any intentions of it.
Nevertheless Agnosticism has a very specific meaning.
Pray tell, what is it? http://www.thehappyheretic.com/previous/06-01.htm
The existence of that entity is truly unknowable.
Sorry for you. You've just attempted answer a question with a paradox. ERR_DIV_BY_ZERO
The supernatural entity that you claim exists cannot be detected in any way.
Sorry, you're "supernatural entity" makes empirical claims. We can quite easily determine if they are valid claims.
The important distinction is that an Agnostic does not make any hard claim that this or that deity does not or cannot exist.
First why to capitalize "Agnostic"? Second the agnostic only says "I don't know". Well...what: "I don't know that I haven't taken a group of female astronauts and imprisoned them on Mars" or "Monkeys have destroyed a phone system". Any deity that makes empirical claims we can rule out no prob. Sorry X-Files fans.
Certain people use the term Libertarian to mean "I'm a Republican, but I smoke pot and it should be legalized". For others, it means "I'm really an anarchist but feel uncomfortable with word". Pretty much anyone I've ever met who has used the term to describe themselves does so in an evasive way. It's mostly just a wishy washy nudge nudge way of saying "Hey look, I'm different". The problem with such labels(and agnostic is other of this ilk) is that when a label can mean anything, it means nothing. Just white noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
IMO, that is the end of the discussion if "censorship is warranted".
This the is American system. Your words can and will be manipulated against you. This isn't about what is fair. It's about protecting yourself from those who would treat you unfairly. So shut your mouth.
Equating "Appeal to authority" with "Appeal to popularity" is no way to win a logical argument. One has at least bare credentials of evidence, one doesn't.
Yes, I am a 3 percenter!
You are a climatologist who doesn't believe in man made global warming? Or you just think of yourself as "special"?