It's like asking, "Do you have roller skates in your house?"
It has nothing to do with health. It's purported value is in preventing accidents, but that is not what health care is for.
I've posted elsewhere in this thread already about the portion of the PPAHCA that had to do with guns. That is exactly where the NRA's objection to such questions came from. The fear is that trumped up diagnoses of possible mental health issues coupled with the gun related questions would result in innocent people getting guns confiscated.
Again, a complex issue, but not one revealing idiocy on the part of the NRA.
And that's what's wrong with the way things are. People are keen to defend the status quo because they, too, hope to be rich some day. They have a hard time identifying with someone whose goals are so foreign to them, so they seek excuses for why the exceptionally decent are in fact deficient in some way.
They aren't legally banned from mentioning guns..... There was a part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that asked after guns in the home, and it has been demonstrated that some questionable banning of guns happens when people exhibit anything that vaguely resembles a mental health issue, so efforts were made to not let that expand into the PPACA.
I am concerned about the inherent conflict between trying to keep mentally ill people away from guns, and trying to protect people who are not mentally ill and yet labelled so from having their second amendment rights curtailed, but the bottom line is that the second amendment is not about personal safety, hunting, health care, or any of the other issues that constantly fly in eccentric orbits around the discussion. It is about the right of citizens of a free state to take up arms against an oppressive government.
On a site that so regularly points out how oppressive our government is getting, I would expect so see more concern over the necessity of preserving our right to defend ourselves from totalitarianism.
I'm not real keen to discuss gun control issues on here after having railed against this place being used as a gun control forum. But yeah, I have thought of those things. I have mixed and complex thoughts on both subjects, though I remain pro death penalty and anti mass-incarceration, whatever that tells you about me.
No, I consider it to be blocking ACCESS for the specific hardware, not authorization for the person using it.
And this has been addressed ad nauseum. If JSTOR wanted to push the issue, they could have. They didn't. What's your big motive behind prosecuting someone for violating a ToS agreement?
Your arguments about what he did being "wrong" in any sense whatsoever fail to address the fact that it is both the policy of using IP to hide information needed to keep the public informed, and the egregious abuse of the prosecutorial power in regularly one sided ways in favor of the powerful and the rich, that is what is truly wrong here.
While I appreciate you taking offense, and realize that you may feel yourself to be someone who is trying to be rational, I beg to differ - and vehemently so - with your logic. You and others have chosen to ignore my previous post, so allow me to put it right where you can see it.
"medical device company decided to bypass FDA clinical trials and use bone cement in the spines of humans. Given that the cement wasn't properly tested, it should come as no big surprise that a number of people died as a result."
"Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, "
"Lay those two cases down beside that of a 26-year old kid who did the online equivalent of checking out too many books out of the library. For doing that, Aaron Swartz was initially charged with four felonies. The prosecutors in the Synthes case agreed to charge the executives only with one misdemeanor each. In the instance of HSBC, they used their discretion to avoid pursuing criminal charges altogether."
If you are defending the prosecution on the Swartz case.... at all..
Please just go away now.
===========
Your arguments about what he did being "wrong" in any sense whatsoever fail to address the fact that it is both the policy of IP to hide information needed to keep the public informed, and that the egregious abuse of the prosecutorial power is regularly one sided in favor of the powerful and the rich.
If you want me to think more kindly of you, you will stop making excuses for high crimes and misdemeanors.
"Everyone who snuck in" is obvious hyperbole. The Obama administration has refused to cooperate with much of anything regarding investigating "Fast and Furious" despite its claims to want more transparency.
Video games, movies, and other cultural works both feed and are fed from the societal culture in which they exist. There is nothing unintelligent about making the point that the guns do not kill, but that in a culture that is saturated with irresponsible and maniacal behavior, people may well be less likely to behave in a socially acceptable manner.
The Aztecs used to like to play a game, and the winner used to get to be a human sacrifice.
"Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming."
You are now officially an anti gun nutcase. Your entire article is off topic for this site and obviously slanted, not to mention ... some word meaning unintelligent that would get me censured for its use in polite company.
Thank you for playing.
I despise your inconsiderate introduction of your petty personal politics into this site.
It's opening paragraph was insipid. I will read it momentarily, but you do not try to pass yourself off as gun control neutral and then whine that the NRA objects to the government polling about guns in conjunction with something to do with health care.
The difference, very obviously, is whether or not you were using the MAC to deny access at all (authorization), or if you were using it on the fly to attempt to mitigate a perceived misuse of your service(ToS agreement).
I think it is sad that the issue ends up being made racial more or less because no other remedy exists. Only very limited groups of people qualify for special protection as a minority, whereas what is really needed is reform that protects ALL poor people.
Indeed, justice being best when it is blind to social status, it really should be applied to all people. The solution is ridiculously simple. Both the prosecution and defense should be public services.
Watch how fast the wealthy move to make sure the defense half of the equation gets its pay once they can't opt out of the public option.
The ultimate solution, though, is to do away with "welfare for the rich", and IP is a huge part of that. Communal systems do not work well. There is no motivation to try. You have one option, and they know it. Likewise, private systems with protections such as IP allow people to be lax, since the IP law means you have nowhere else to go.
It all boils down to tearing down the concept that there need to be artificially created benefits for excellence in order to promote excellence.
It seems to me you ignored one of the most prominent points in my post. The new party needs to be populist, centrist - something, anything other than composed of the most ludicrous parts of the existing parties (greens, libertarians).
In the past, what has happened is that the major parties have usurped the pet policies of these sorts of parties once they get to a point where they are viable.
What is needed is a party very specifically engineered to give voice to the majority.
There are those who argue that such a party cannot have a base and therefore is not viable, but I think it is becoming very clear that, if such a party does NOT materialize, we will indeed end up in the bloody revolution you seem to be calling for. Whereas I believe it is possible for such a party to thrive, and the benefit of it for those who fund its activities would be to be seen as someone who cares about the broader community and about general human welfare.
That cannot help but be a profitable perception to have attached to your business.
The power of the site for dissent is to then take the response and out it.
If they were to then eventually shut it down, that would be all the better. Then you could discuss the duplicity of the administration and the Democratic party for putting the thing out there as a publicity stunt, then turning its back on its core constituency when they succeed in getting petitions on the site.
If you wanted to educate yourself about the issue of prosecutorial discretion, you would run into many, many links such as the one above.
These sorts of artciles - scholarly articles with research to back them - are hidden from public view by the government through IP law. The scholars themselves are often at odds with the institutions they work with and the government. Most of them WANT their research to be used to educate the public, but the legacy industries FORBID IT.
THAT is why what he did was a moral imperative, and in NO WAY WRONG. We need to step up and stop the purposeful obfuscation of facts we need in order to be informed citizens.
All this blither about Aaron knowing he did something wrong and needing to be willing to pay the consequences is HOGWASH. What is wrong is that our government is working hand in hand with thieves and liars to destroy our self sufficiency.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
It has nothing to do with health. It's purported value is in preventing accidents, but that is not what health care is for.
I've posted elsewhere in this thread already about the portion of the PPAHCA that had to do with guns. That is exactly where the NRA's objection to such questions came from. The fear is that trumped up diagnoses of possible mental health issues coupled with the gun related questions would result in innocent people getting guns confiscated.
Again, a complex issue, but not one revealing idiocy on the part of the NRA.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Exactly
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Gun Control
I am concerned about the inherent conflict between trying to keep mentally ill people away from guns, and trying to protect people who are not mentally ill and yet labelled so from having their second amendment rights curtailed, but the bottom line is that the second amendment is not about personal safety, hunting, health care, or any of the other issues that constantly fly in eccentric orbits around the discussion. It is about the right of citizens of a free state to take up arms against an oppressive government.
On a site that so regularly points out how oppressive our government is getting, I would expect so see more concern over the necessity of preserving our right to defend ourselves from totalitarianism.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this has been addressed ad nauseum. If JSTOR wanted to push the issue, they could have. They didn't. What's your big motive behind prosecuting someone for violating a ToS agreement?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
grrr
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
======
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html
"medical device company decided to bypass FDA clinical trials and use bone cement in the spines of humans. Given that the cement wasn't properly tested, it should come as no big surprise that a number of people died as a result."
"Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, "
"Lay those two cases down beside that of a 26-year old kid who did the online equivalent of checking out too many books out of the library. For doing that, Aaron Swartz was initially charged with four felonies. The prosecutors in the Synthes case agreed to charge the executives only with one misdemeanor each. In the instance of HSBC, they used their discretion to avoid pursuing criminal charges altogether."
If you are defending the prosecution on the Swartz case.... at all..
Please just go away now.
===========
Your arguments about what he did being "wrong" in any sense whatsoever fail to address the fact that it is both the policy of IP to hide information needed to keep the public informed, and that the egregious abuse of the prosecutorial power is regularly one sided in favor of the powerful and the rich.
If you want me to think more kindly of you, you will stop making excuses for high crimes and misdemeanors.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Twisted
Obama is no useful change.
Yeah, I'll play with you.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re:
The Aztecs used to like to play a game, and the winner used to get to be a human sacrifice.
Culture sffects behavior.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Because people are animals too....
You are now officially an anti gun nutcase. Your entire article is off topic for this site and obviously slanted, not to mention ... some word meaning unintelligent that would get me censured for its use in polite company.
Thank you for playing.
I despise your inconsiderate introduction of your petty personal politics into this site.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: This blog amazes me
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Gun Control
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: Twisted
The vitriol is quite factual.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that you care.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Security
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Re: Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
Indeed, justice being best when it is blind to social status, it really should be applied to all people. The solution is ridiculously simple. Both the prosecution and defense should be public services.
Watch how fast the wealthy move to make sure the defense half of the equation gets its pay once they can't opt out of the public option.
The ultimate solution, though, is to do away with "welfare for the rich", and IP is a huge part of that. Communal systems do not work well. There is no motivation to try. You have one option, and they know it. Likewise, private systems with protections such as IP allow people to be lax, since the IP law means you have nowhere else to go.
It all boils down to tearing down the concept that there need to be artificially created benefits for excellence in order to promote excellence.
Excellence is its own reward.
On the post: White House, Tiring of Death Stars And Deportation Requests, Ups 'We The People' Signature Threshold From 25,000 To 100,000
Re: Re: The Next Step
In the past, what has happened is that the major parties have usurped the pet policies of these sorts of parties once they get to a point where they are viable.
What is needed is a party very specifically engineered to give voice to the majority.
There are those who argue that such a party cannot have a base and therefore is not viable, but I think it is becoming very clear that, if such a party does NOT materialize, we will indeed end up in the bloody revolution you seem to be calling for. Whereas I believe it is possible for such a party to thrive, and the benefit of it for those who fund its activities would be to be seen as someone who cares about the broader community and about general human welfare.
That cannot help but be a profitable perception to have attached to your business.
On the post: White House, Tiring of Death Stars And Deportation Requests, Ups 'We The People' Signature Threshold From 25,000 To 100,000
I agree
If they were to then eventually shut it down, that would be all the better. Then you could discuss the duplicity of the administration and the Democratic party for putting the thing out there as a publicity stunt, then turning its back on its core constituency when they succeed in getting petitions on the site.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Why Aaron Did what he Did
If you wanted to educate yourself about the issue of prosecutorial discretion, you would run into many, many links such as the one above.
These sorts of artciles - scholarly articles with research to back them - are hidden from public view by the government through IP law. The scholars themselves are often at odds with the institutions they work with and the government. Most of them WANT their research to be used to educate the public, but the legacy industries FORBID IT.
THAT is why what he did was a moral imperative, and in NO WAY WRONG. We need to step up and stop the purposeful obfuscation of facts we need in order to be informed citizens.
All this blither about Aaron knowing he did something wrong and needing to be willing to pay the consequences is HOGWASH. What is wrong is that our government is working hand in hand with thieves and liars to destroy our self sufficiency.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Get real
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html
Big Banks? Big Medicine? No worries....
Angering Big IP. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect....
Next >>