In both however, you're ending up with the item without paying the author.
Actually, when steal a book, the author/publisher did get their money. it was the bookstore that was deprived of property. But just because the end result is the same doesn't mean they are both "Stealing" or "Theft". Case-in-point difference between manslaughter and murder - the result is the same, someone is dead but the punishments and terms are different.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I left those words out because they have no bearing on the operational part of the sentence. This is where a firm grasp of the English Language becomes necessary. Again I repeat, it clearly states; "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say the right of the state, or the right of the agents of a state which it could if that's what was meant.
You have your answers, but someone else has theirs, and they're not the same.
On some issues, this is true. You will notice I did not use the "Are nukes considered arms" question to illustrate my point as that has valid interpretation questions. On the other hand, any confusion regarding whether the statement "the Right of the People to..." confers the right to The People, and not some other imaginary construct, is lunacy and a willful attempt to ignore the common understanding of the English Language. Of the two questions posed; One is intellectually honest, the other is not.
I meant lawyers, not exactly judges but since one becomes the other, the point is moot. Also, I used a well known example. Lawyers have done far worse than that.
Should we require permits? Are permits an infringement?
If permits can be denied (for any reason) then: no and yes.
Does people mean "individual private citizens
The People, means the People. Can't be any more direct than that.
My point is people who find a way to interject confusion into obviously direct language usually have an agenda/bias and are not being intellectually honest with themselves or anyone else.
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.
And, rightfully, they should. Acting unethically, even in the best interests of your company.shareholders, at the expense of everyone else, should be illegal. All this indoctrination of "it's just business" or "it's just politics" is ridiculous. Sure that's the way it is now, but the way it is now is not ideal and should be improved upon.
but their interpretation is constantly being argued in courts across the country.
Yeah, by a bunch of purposely obtuse dickwads who would like to argue what the definition of "is", is. Most normal, rational, people have no problems understanding what was written and what was meant by them.
Really what you're saying is just a variation on "Apple fans are all deluded fools who buy everything because it's cool." Of course, that kind of ignores history: Apple wasn't the cool brand by any stretch until the last 12 years or so.
You just proved his point. They weren't very big/relevant until about the same time, when they became cool.
There is nothing stopping anyone from applying for a job on their own time, and none of this is about not hiring the competition.
Actually, from what I heard, this is also part of the agreement. Not to hire competitors employees, that apply for a job, on their own, with the company. Then, on top of that, to report to the competitor, after refusing the employee, that they attempted to apply for a job with them.
Just like laws, Contracts can have misleading titles too.
It also shows a remarkable lack of understanding on your part.
Or maybe you just assume that their analogy is the only correct one. Their (the courts and others on slashdot like you) analogy is to compare a encrypted file and passkey to a safe and a physical key. That is one way of looking at it, but not the only way and certainly not the most technically correct way. Encryption is a system that translates one thing into another. Just like if I have an encoded physical diary, can they force me to provide the means of decoding it or decode it for them? No, they can't, they must do that on their own. The encrypted file is just like the diary, and by forcing me to enter the password, they are forcing me to translate the diary for them.
Additionally, along the same lines, the encrypted file is also just like a diary translated into another language, one only I know. They cannot compel me to translate it back for them. That is exactly what forcing me to enter the password would be, forcing me to translate the data I have translated into a language that only I know back into english for them.
Their problem isn't - I have this box I cannot open, open it for me. Their problem is - I have this data I can't understand, help me make sense of it.
The 5th Amendment doesn't protect us from discovery
Yes, but it does provide the ground work for one's right to remain silent. Which, this judge is ordering someone to waive. Not only that but he is ordering him to waive it in a way that "could" incriminate himself which is in direct violation of the 5th amendment. Not to mention, one can simply say "I don't recall" and it cannot be proven otherwise.
No, "I couldn't care less" means "it's not possible to care even less than I already do, even if I wanted to". It means I care the least possible amount. I have reached the bottom
That is one possible, valid interpretation, but not the only one. It is also possible to interpret it to mean that it is not possible for me to care less than I do now because it is significant and I must care the amount I currently do. The "it's not possible to care less than I already do" is a given with the statement. However, the reason why it's not possible is assumed, and both are grammatically valid assumptions. When said in speech, the tone of voice and context fill in this assumption for you.
"I could care less" (but I don't, meaning that I do care a certain amount) means that there is still a margin between the amount I care and the least possible amount of care. I haven't reached the bottom. Nothing is said about the size of that margin, so this statement really doesn't say anything.
Again you're filling in reasons that aren't provided. "I could care less" means that it is possible for you to care less than you do now. It may even be likely for you to do so. Saying "I could care less" means that it's not very important, it's possible for it to be cared less for. It is also usually said as a response to someone inquiring how important something is, and in that context it is pretty obvious what the person means.
The problem with semantic arguments around common expressions is that they are a moot point. It just so happens that both of these sayings mean the same thing even though they are grammatically opposites. Mostly because they sound similar and people interchange them without thinking about what they are actually saying. It is this familiarity with the phrase that causes people to make the assumptions (like you made) about what is meant and the correct message is conveyed.
Morons with no actual understanding of the language say "could care less." It's just that there's a lot of them.
You might want to be a little more careful in what you say about common expressions as I take it you really haven't put much thought into it. To say "you couldn't care less" about something means you care a certain amount (which is left unsaid) about it already and couldn't care any less about it as it is (apparently) important. However, saying you "could care less" about it means you care a certain amount (again left unsaid) about it already but could care even less about it because it is that insignificant to you. In one expression you've reached the bottom and in the other there is no bottom. Picking from the two, I'd say the one that could be cared less about is less important that one that couldn't.
I hope you filter your incoming mail manually as well, just to be consistent.
Emphasis Mine. If it's "his" mail, and he doesn't mind false positives, that's his choice as it's his. You're comparing that to allowing a third-party to do it for you, automated, with false positives, without choice. Apples-to-Oranges my friend, apples-to-oranges.
Indeed. What's more, it is easily demonstrated that those who are least inhibited by their morals get the farthest, the most, the biggest, the best of whatever.
I'm all for a cap on payout - if you were rich when you worked and you want to remain rich in retirement, you'll have to plan that for yourself, Social Security is a saftey net not a retirement plan. Seeing as you were fortunate to be rich, you should have no problem helping those who were less fortunate and be okay with not getting all the dollars you put in back as you shouldn't need them anyway.
Government should take all the money that they can spend more efficiently than the private sector.
Not in America, it shouldn't. It should take only what it needs to provide the services it was Constitutionally granted the authority to provide and no more. The rest of the money belongs to those that earned it and should be spent as they see fit. I don't go to work everyday so that the Government can decide where to spend my money. Nor do I believe they are best to decide, or are even efficient at spending it. Concentration of power (or money) is typically a bad thing as it leads to corruption.
Republican on the committee who was the first (as far as I know) to draw a line in the sand about no new taxes.
You both are saying the same thing. Republicans will not raise taxes before spending is cut. The Democrats have only offered promises to make cuts in the future, promises they have no power to keep. But they want the tax increases now. Any smart person who has payed attention to the workings of governments knows that if you give them a tax increase, they will not decrease spending, no matter what they promise. So how do you compromise with someone who has a long track record of never living up to their end of the deal? You make them live up to it by never giving them another inch until they do. As far as I'm concerned, all the spending cuts we need have already been promised to us in the past in exchange for tax increases. We'd paid the increase, the increase on the increase and even the increase on that, it's time we get our cuts. I, for one, am not willing to give the Government another dime until it actually goes one year spending less than it did the year before.
When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.
When dealing with an alcoholic, you don't give them more booze now on the promise that they will drink less of it per year, over the next 10 years, just trust them
There, fixed that for you. It was a good analogy:).
Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters.
No, it is not the metric that matters. The metrics that matter are:
1) Total amount spent 2) The total amount spent compared to the total amount received.
If the first metric doesn't go down then you have not cut spending. If the second metric is negative (you are spending more than you are taking in), then you need to cut spending. If spending cannot be cut (which this country is no where near approaching) then you look to increase revenues. Remember this is Government we are talking about here. They should be taking as little money out of the economy (taxing) as is necessary - not one penny more.
It is not fair that those who earn more pay a lower rate. Either there should be one rate, or the rate should increase as income increases. No other option is fair.
They do pay a higher rate then you on all income earned in higher brackets - hence the graduated income tax. The tax rates themselves don't need to change, just the deductions that allow someone who makes 200k/year (gross) to get their adjusted gross (the number they pay taxes on) down to 50-80k/year. Tax deductions like these only help those who have extra money and can afford to spend it the right way to have it ease their tax burden. You eliminate all tax deductions and loopholes and instantly all those who make more than you will pay a higher rate at the end of the day. This solves the problem without raising taxes
Please note that I am talking about earned income, paid via a W-2. This is an apples-to-apples comparison and introducing money made through investment changes the game and complicates the conversation. Besides, you weren't counting the tax-deferred earnings in your retirement account when you compared rates anyway, I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
In both however, you're ending up with the item without paying the author.
Actually, when steal a book, the author/publisher did get their money. it was the bookstore that was deprived of property. But just because the end result is the same doesn't mean they are both "Stealing" or "Theft". Case-in-point difference between manslaughter and murder - the result is the same, someone is dead but the punishments and terms are different.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I left those words out because they have no bearing on the operational part of the sentence. This is where a firm grasp of the English Language becomes necessary. Again I repeat, it clearly states; "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say the right of the state, or the right of the agents of a state which it could if that's what was meant.
You have your answers, but someone else has theirs, and they're not the same.
On some issues, this is true. You will notice I did not use the "Are nukes considered arms" question to illustrate my point as that has valid interpretation questions. On the other hand, any confusion regarding whether the statement "the Right of the People to..." confers the right to The People, and not some other imaginary construct, is lunacy and a willful attempt to ignore the common understanding of the English Language. Of the two questions posed; One is intellectually honest, the other is not.
That was Bill Clinton, not the SCOTUS.
I meant lawyers, not exactly judges but since one becomes the other, the point is moot. Also, I used a well known example. Lawyers have done far worse than that.
Should we require permits? Are permits an infringement?
If permits can be denied (for any reason) then: no and yes.
Does people mean "individual private citizens
The People, means the People. Can't be any more direct than that.
My point is people who find a way to interject confusion into obviously direct language usually have an agenda/bias and are not being intellectually honest with themselves or anyone else.
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.
And, rightfully, they should. Acting unethically, even in the best interests of your company.shareholders, at the expense of everyone else, should be illegal. All this indoctrination of "it's just business" or "it's just politics" is ridiculous. Sure that's the way it is now, but the way it is now is not ideal and should be improved upon.
but their interpretation is constantly being argued in courts across the country.
Yeah, by a bunch of purposely obtuse dickwads who would like to argue what the definition of "is", is. Most normal, rational, people have no problems understanding what was written and what was meant by them.
Really what you're saying is just a variation on "Apple fans are all deluded fools who buy everything because it's cool." Of course, that kind of ignores history: Apple wasn't the cool brand by any stretch until the last 12 years or so.
You just proved his point. They weren't very big/relevant until about the same time, when they became cool.
There is nothing stopping anyone from applying for a job on their own time, and none of this is about not hiring the competition.
Actually, from what I heard, this is also part of the agreement. Not to hire competitors employees, that apply for a job, on their own, with the company. Then, on top of that, to report to the competitor, after refusing the employee, that they attempted to apply for a job with them.
Just like laws, Contracts can have misleading titles too.
It also shows a remarkable lack of understanding on your part.
Or maybe you just assume that their analogy is the only correct one. Their (the courts and others on slashdot like you) analogy is to compare a encrypted file and passkey to a safe and a physical key. That is one way of looking at it, but not the only way and certainly not the most technically correct way. Encryption is a system that translates one thing into another. Just like if I have an encoded physical diary, can they force me to provide the means of decoding it or decode it for them? No, they can't, they must do that on their own. The encrypted file is just like the diary, and by forcing me to enter the password, they are forcing me to translate the diary for them.
Additionally, along the same lines, the encrypted file is also just like a diary translated into another language, one only I know. They cannot compel me to translate it back for them. That is exactly what forcing me to enter the password would be, forcing me to translate the data I have translated into a language that only I know back into english for them.
Their problem isn't - I have this box I cannot open, open it for me. Their problem is - I have this data I can't understand, help me make sense of it.
The 5th Amendment doesn't protect us from discovery
Yes, but it does provide the ground work for one's right to remain silent. Which, this judge is ordering someone to waive. Not only that but he is ordering him to waive it in a way that "could" incriminate himself which is in direct violation of the 5th amendment. Not to mention, one can simply say "I don't recall" and it cannot be proven otherwise.
And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.
Hey! I thought your name was Ren :)
No, "I couldn't care less" means "it's not possible to care even less than I already do, even if I wanted to". It means I care the least possible amount. I have reached the bottom
That is one possible, valid interpretation, but not the only one. It is also possible to interpret it to mean that it is not possible for me to care less than I do now because it is significant and I must care the amount I currently do. The "it's not possible to care less than I already do" is a given with the statement. However, the reason why it's not possible is assumed, and both are grammatically valid assumptions. When said in speech, the tone of voice and context fill in this assumption for you.
"I could care less" (but I don't, meaning that I do care a certain amount) means that there is still a margin between the amount I care and the least possible amount of care. I haven't reached the bottom. Nothing is said about the size of that margin, so this statement really doesn't say anything.
Again you're filling in reasons that aren't provided. "I could care less" means that it is possible for you to care less than you do now. It may even be likely for you to do so. Saying "I could care less" means that it's not very important, it's possible for it to be cared less for. It is also usually said as a response to someone inquiring how important something is, and in that context it is pretty obvious what the person means.
The problem with semantic arguments around common expressions is that they are a moot point. It just so happens that both of these sayings mean the same thing even though they are grammatically opposites. Mostly because they sound similar and people interchange them without thinking about what they are actually saying. It is this familiarity with the phrase that causes people to make the assumptions (like you made) about what is meant and the correct message is conveyed.
Morons with no actual understanding of the language say "could care less." It's just that there's a lot of them.
You might want to be a little more careful in what you say about common expressions as I take it you really haven't put much thought into it. To say "you couldn't care less" about something means you care a certain amount (which is left unsaid) about it already and couldn't care any less about it as it is (apparently) important. However, saying you "could care less" about it means you care a certain amount (again left unsaid) about it already but could care even less about it because it is that insignificant to you. In one expression you've reached the bottom and in the other there is no bottom. Picking from the two, I'd say the one that could be cared less about is less important that one that couldn't.
I still think that plaintiffs should be able to feed CEOs of malignant companies to the salt water crocodiles.
They are perfectly capable of doing so. Just not without consequence.
Sure it didnt do everything
Only it was, and still is, advertised as "it only does everything". I'm waiting for the suits for false advertisement to come along.
I hope you filter your incoming mail manually as well, just to be consistent.
Emphasis Mine. If it's "his" mail, and he doesn't mind false positives, that's his choice as it's his. You're comparing that to allowing a third-party to do it for you, automated, with false positives, without choice. Apples-to-Oranges my friend, apples-to-oranges.
Indeed. What's more, it is easily demonstrated that those who are least inhibited by their morals get the farthest, the most, the biggest, the best of whatever.
or, they go to jail...
Social Security Numbers were never really meant to be used for identification
There, fixed that for ya. It even says so, right on the card.
I guess if you completely ignore the title of a post, you can get confused.
I'm all for a cap on payout - if you were rich when you worked and you want to remain rich in retirement, you'll have to plan that for yourself, Social Security is a saftey net not a retirement plan. Seeing as you were fortunate to be rich, you should have no problem helping those who were less fortunate and be okay with not getting all the dollars you put in back as you shouldn't need them anyway.
Government should take all the money that they can spend more efficiently than the private sector.
Not in America, it shouldn't. It should take only what it needs to provide the services it was Constitutionally granted the authority to provide and no more. The rest of the money belongs to those that earned it and should be spent as they see fit. I don't go to work everyday so that the Government can decide where to spend my money. Nor do I believe they are best to decide, or are even efficient at spending it. Concentration of power (or money) is typically a bad thing as it leads to corruption.
Republican on the committee who was the first (as far as I know) to draw a line in the sand about no new taxes.
You both are saying the same thing. Republicans will not raise taxes before spending is cut. The Democrats have only offered promises to make cuts in the future, promises they have no power to keep. But they want the tax increases now. Any smart person who has payed attention to the workings of governments knows that if you give them a tax increase, they will not decrease spending, no matter what they promise. So how do you compromise with someone who has a long track record of never living up to their end of the deal? You make them live up to it by never giving them another inch until they do. As far as I'm concerned, all the spending cuts we need have already been promised to us in the past in exchange for tax increases. We'd paid the increase, the increase on the increase and even the increase on that, it's time we get our cuts. I, for one, am not willing to give the Government another dime until it actually goes one year spending less than it did the year before.
When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.
When dealing with an alcoholic, you don't give them more booze now on the promise that they will drink less of it per year, over the next 10 years, just trust them
There, fixed that for you. It was a good analogy :).
Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters.
No, it is not the metric that matters. The metrics that matter are:
1) Total amount spent
2) The total amount spent compared to the total amount received.
If the first metric doesn't go down then you have not cut spending. If the second metric is negative (you are spending more than you are taking in), then you need to cut spending. If spending cannot be cut (which this country is no where near approaching) then you look to increase revenues. Remember this is Government we are talking about here. They should be taking as little money out of the economy (taxing) as is necessary - not one penny more.
It is not fair that those who earn more pay a lower rate. Either there should be one rate, or the rate should increase as income increases. No other option is fair.
They do pay a higher rate then you on all income earned in higher brackets - hence the graduated income tax. The tax rates themselves don't need to change, just the deductions that allow someone who makes 200k/year (gross) to get their adjusted gross (the number they pay taxes on) down to 50-80k/year. Tax deductions like these only help those who have extra money and can afford to spend it the right way to have it ease their tax burden. You eliminate all tax deductions and loopholes and instantly all those who make more than you will pay a higher rate at the end of the day. This solves the problem without raising taxes
Please note that I am talking about earned income, paid via a W-2. This is an apples-to-apples comparison and introducing money made through investment changes the game and complicates the conversation. Besides, you weren't counting the tax-deferred earnings in your retirement account when you compared rates anyway, I'm sure.