Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:But not the constitution (Score 4, Insightful) 597

It's more complicated than that. The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. This includes controlling what goes through the border. And in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to inspect anything. And in order to do that... well, you have to be able to do it without something exactly straddling an imaginary line. And now you're down into implementation details that have nothing to do with the constitution, SCOTUS or anyone else at that level.

Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law. But that's the only way you're going to change that.

Comment Re:Marginalization. (Score 1) 270

Ah.... I see what's going on. You're part of that group of people who feel that because they can no longer tell people what is right and what is wrong, they are now marginalized and persecuted. Let me guess - you are white and male, yes?

The point is that many of us don't want to live in a society where deviancy is the accepted norm. Legalizing animal porn takes that away from us.

Now it all falls nicely into place. Using animal porn (I assume you're actually referring to bestiality, instead of just images of horses fucking each other) as a fulcrum, you're arguing for deviancy to be forcefully removed from society. Except that you don't want to stop just with bestiality, as you clearly have issues with fat people, BDSM and quite a few other things. And not only do you have issues with quite a few things, your goal is to have a world without any content you object to. Now what would be necessary to achieve that? You having total control over everyone's life. In other words, a totalitarian state. I know, I know. It's all for the greater good - how could anyone object? And those who do object are deviants anyway who want to oppress you, so they can be expelled to some far off land. I hear Siberia is great for that. It's not like you're actually killing them. I mean, except for the truly dangerous deviants. Those deserve to be killed.

Yeah, I know your type. Thank god you don't have the charisma necessary to actually rally enough like-minded people around you and enough political skills to implement your ideas, because otherwise Europe might have to repay its WW2 debt to the US sooner rather than later.

Comment Re:Science time. (Score 2) 270

Do you have some science for that?

No, but enough anecdotes to be confident of the outcome of any study that would look into this. The exception would be homosexuality, which has been widely studied and found to be very normal - both in external behavior, as well as frequency across time, religions, social structures, genders and even species.

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

No, the decision here is that behavior which has no visible impact on society at large should be accepted, and not be subject to random moral and religious whims.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

Define healthy. Now compare and contrast that definition with the one from 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Considering we're still around, I'm pretty sure that your definition of "healthy" is irrelevant to the advancement of mankind and society. Finally, you want your kid to grow up surrounded by only healthy behavior? I suggest you kill off every other human being, because that's the only way your vision is going to come to pass.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.

Sweet! That's what we all want. Oh, you mean that "elsewhere" does not include the privacy of ones bedroom? Or consensual acts between adults?

Wow, so you're actually not at all saying that you're ok with people experimenting elsewhere. You actually want to control what people do. Here's a thought (and keep in mind you're a significant minority regarding your particular definition of "healthy"): move to an island somewhere, and be a control group there. Leave the rest of us to live our lives, and stop butting into consensual acts taking place between adults in a place you have no access to.

Comment Re:Almost right..... (Score 1) 172

n the article at the top of this discussion, the least restrictive (that is, the most permissive) license choice given was CC-BY. It - and indeed, all three licenses listed - require that attribution be preserved as a condition of reuse.

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that point.

For the purposes of disseminating and reusing scientific knowledge, it is far more constructive for papers to be gratis than libre.

Very nice summary. I think I'll re-use that under CC-BY-NC-ND. ;)

Comment Almost right..... (Score 5, Insightful) 172

Science researchers live and die by their publications. Their papers are their currency. To let someone completely modify it and not even attribute it back to them is near professional suicide, unless you're already so famous that you don't need additional papers. As a result, you're right, they don't care that much whether journals are open access or not. They really care about whether publishing their paper somewhere is going to help their career, or hurt it. The first license is at best not going to help, at worst going to hurt it. That leaves the other two, with the final one being the one that guarantees that your name will stay attached to it, and that it will stay as they wrote it.

Note that even the final license let's anyone view it, download it and pass it around. That's pretty damn good open access, and exactly what is needed. The rest is just what the scientists want to see happen to their paper.

Comment Re:s/open democracy/participatory republic/ (Score 4, Informative) 45

Nonsense. Read up on what a republic is, what a democracy is, the Federalist Papers (and read all of them, not just the 2 lines your favorite site fed you) and something about the context of when the constitution was written.

The US is a constitutional republic. Congratulations, so is France, Germany, China, Russia, the ex-USSR, Egypt, and a whole host of others. There is nothing more common than a constitutional republic in the world of national governments. What is also true is that the US is a representative democracy, a smaller subset of the super set of republics. This can be distinguished from direct democracies (which are also republics, and can be constitutional), or binding representation, (which are also republics).

Again, there is absolutely NOTHING special about the US being a republic.

The Founders explicitly shied away from establishing a democracy for the simple reason that democracies do not scale beyond a small collection of city states.

And if you'd read the Federalist Papers instead of just parroting someone else, they are EXPRESSLY referring to a direct democracy not scaling. After the initial definition, they just refer to democracies, while implying "direct democracies".

Open government? Democracy? That's a recipe for totalitarianism -- because only the strongest consensus builder can assert control to get anything done and few, if any, checks and balances can be imposed or enforced.

Congratulations. You discovered the principal flaw of democracy. You're only about 300 years late to the party. Voltaire has a nice discussion around what makes a ruler legitimate. You might want to look into it. Once you do, you'll also realize that the US was subject to the same risk from the day it became a nation, because it operates on exactly the principles you decry: openness in operation, democratic election of legislators and executives, and a requirement for consensus-building to operate.

Yes, it's just semantics. But it bothers me because the trend seems to be define things in such a way until only a very small and very vocal minority is allowed to participate in government. Of course, they do it because they are the only ones who truly understand how the founding fathers wanted to run things, and they are the only ones who can save the nation. Now where have I heard that before....

Comment Re:If there is no oversight.... (Score 1) 800

Al-Qaeda isn't an army, it's a terrorist organization. They conduct terror, not warfare.

Then why are we at war with them? (Yes , it is a rhetorical question).

But you don't have to prove anything, right? I mean you just known once you see their Al-Qaeda membership card :)

Of course! It shows up on the drone video display. That's why we don't have any accidents bombing weddings and similar things. (Yes, it is sarcasm).

Comment Re:Commons (Score 1) 240

In his defense, there are plenty of instances across the world where while land was practically owned - i .e., it was obviously used by someone, and their use made anyone else's use of it difficult if not impossible - there was no legal documentation of ownership. Mexico explicitly ran into this issue in the mid 19th century, Germany had plenty of this in the middle ages, and Russia was the poster child of "you only own what you can defend". In short, the middle ages had plenty of declarations of ownership, but the only time those declarations actually mattered is when someone could defend their claim via arms.

Now, as for actual "commons" - that again was more a result of commonly agreed-upon practices than any legal documentation that a tract of land was explicitly not owned by anyone. The only place that I can think of where that is actually the case is Antarctica - and I expect that to stop as soon as anyone finds oil and gas there, or the place becomes inhabitable.

Comment Re:clear and present danger (Score 2) 800

I think it's worse than that... they actually think that these killings are the proper way to deal with terrorists.Quite frankly, at this point, the American public deserves the authoritarian government, because they're actually clamoring for it. The Fox News crowd is just disappointed that the wrong guy is being authoritarian, and the anti-war crowd is so tiny to be pretty much irrelevant.

Slashdot Top Deals