Just build a mass driver and fire pieces of asteroid with it, lose some mass but the reaction will move the asteroid. I think it would be safer to put them in a far Earth orbit, perhaps at one of the Lagrange points. Don't want their orbits decaying.
I suggest you talk to Stardock Systems. They are an indy software developer. Because of problems regarding publishing, they self published their last title, Galactic Civilizations 2. You can find it in just about every major game seller (though on the budget rack now because it is like 5 years old now). They are doing so again with their next title, Elemental. For that matter, they've published two titles for other companies, Sins of a Solar Empire by Ironclad and Demigod by Gas Powered Games. If this keeps up, they may not be an indy studio in 20 years.
No big development or advertising budget, no attachment to a major publisher, just some guys from Michigan that can make a good game and get it out there. You can ask them who did the distribution, they'll tell you (they posted it I just forgot who it was).
Uh, Galactic Civilizations 2 is close to 15 years old. Here is the original announcement, http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/download/pub/os2/info/galciv2.zip , and Stardock had a lot of help from IBM in distributing their products. When your game demos come with an operating system, they are much more likely to catch on.
I can't find any references to the 1921 police and firearms act, closest from 1921 is the police pensions act. This is also a problem with parliamentary supremacy, something can be declared a right one day then the next be repealed.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the right of British subjects and permanent residents to bear arms for self defence as long as they weren't Catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The bill 0f rights of 1689 (English) included the right to bear arms for self-defence as long as you're not Catholic. One of the reasons that they fired the King (James II) was because he was abusing the long held right for commoners to bear arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
It was put there to address a practical problem - that of the King of England not allowing the citizens to bear arms, making a people's uprising against the military impossible.
Why do Americans have such a twisted view of history? The King of England hasn't had any practical power since a couple of revolutions, the last of which was in 1688 when Parliament kicked the King out for doing things that weren't in the interests of the people, including restricting firearms ownership and raising an Army in times of peace. It was Parliament, not the King who did everything that the Americans blame on the King. Since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has been Supreme (until very recently) with the elected House of Commons holding more and more of the balance of power.
So you think that congress should be able to pass any law, whether constitutional or not? Why bother with a constitution if there is no way to enforce it?
Are your numbers including all the Native Americans that starved to death due to the American governments policy of genocide by starvation (killing all the buffalo)? Also while we have become nicer in our genocide, it has continued until recently. eg my wife was forcibly removed from her parents at birth to be raised by white people. Her step mother was forcibly removed from her family to be sent to the Catholics to be raped into submission.
Seizing private property for public use is probably unavoidable sometimes, but generally allowing it on a day-to-day basis is equal to real, old-school, hard-core Communism or Fascism.
And no, that's no slippery slope argument: The State removing private property from its rightful owner to give it to The People is what Communism is all about.
And Capitalism is all about removing the People's property to give it to private interests, often killing millions to do it. (The USA as an example had a national policy of genocide for a long time and may have killed more people then Stalin)
When I go camping I tend to bring things much more deadly, such as rifles and knives. But this is Canada we're talking about. A rifle would be completely out of the question so people have to fall back to a less effective means to protect themselves, such as a crossbow.
Why would a rifle be out of the question? If you want to protect yourself from a grizzly, a cross bow is not a very good option. And of course lots of people combine camping and hunting. Owning a rifle is quite legal as long as you also have a firearms acquisition certificate, meaning you took a short course on safely handling a firearm. (Actually I think the law is that it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone unless they can show you the F.A.C.)
WTF are you talking about? The only legal use of DDT is to control malaria, which it is still used for in much of the third world. And there are lots of scientific reasons to limit organo-chlorides, not the least that indiscriminate use causes resistance buildup.
In short could this be used as an end run around the first amendment? Isn''t copyright an end run around the first amendment anyways? I'm not an American, but my understanding is that amendments to your constitution override the original. So before the first amendment was passed the constitution allowed limiting speech for the promotion of the arts and sciences. Then an amendment was passed that said that congress can not make any law limiting free speech. Shouldn't the first amendment trump congress limiting free speech?
Here in our country we get lots of Americans showing up, both to avoid political persecution (traditionally not wanting to be forced to go to war and being able to self-medicate themselves without being sent to be ass fucked in an American prison) and to try to get health care.
You'd be stupid to use solar cells for large scale energy production. Much simpler to just have a big mirror (actually a bunch of not so big mirrors) to focus the sunlight on a boiler and drive a steam turbine to produce electricity. Mostly all established old tech and as clean as you're going to get while producing large amounts of power.
it's the idea that the government is making value judgments as to who is "rich" and who is "poor."
That's easy. The rich are the ones who need protecting from the poor rising up and taking what they have. The poor are the ones that if they were much poorer would rise up and take what they need from the rich.
Of course you can quit paying taxes, just don't work. This is much like if you don't want to pay for anything else, it means going without the benefits of what you'd otherwise payed for. Civilization costs money.
Around here (BC) the oil companies always go on about how price decreases have to work their way through the pipeline, which they say takes months. And sure enough prices have been steady for months including the May 24th long weekend. Of course when the price goes up it shows up at the pumps that day and all the oil companies always charge the same.
I made that assumption based on experience. While in theory the idea of everyone using a GPL stack (or better LGPL) and pooling all improvements is obviously better. In reality commercial companies do not like sharing their source and this was especially true in the early to mid '90s so they would of stayed away from it. You just have to look at history. I can't think of any GPL libraries that have caught on and been shipped with all the operating systems. Even the file system that this browser is installed on is closed source even though there is a GPL fork of it. Obviously the company that wrote it did not have the confidence in the GPL to add a GPL file system to a closed source operating system. (Though they did eventually add a open source browser, but that was tri-licenced so they could still kinda ignore the GPL and not worry about infections spreading or linking it against something like OpenSSL) Actually that is the biggest advantage to staying away from the GPL, being able to link against other open source projects so you can add encyption to the stack by linking it to OpenSSL without legal worries or worse.
That's the thing. Different situations call for different licences. Generally for programs GPL, for libraries LGPL and for things that we want to be a standard, BSD. I can't think of any defacto standards that were driven by GPLed software. And I'm posting this from a browser with multiple licences.
Probably posting in Slashdot. It was BSD licensed code that encouraged the Internet taking off. Anyone could take the BSD stack, add it to their operating system and allow users to connect to the Internet. When I press submit, it will be a BSD licensed stack that transports this post to the Internet. If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it, an Internet that we can all post to no matter which operating system we're using would of been delayed or perhaps not showed up.
They've been doing that for quite a while in Canada already. Understandable that when the government runs the healthcare they will push exercise and healthy diet. Also medical covers quit smoking programs including I believe the stop smoking drugs.
No, being indicted is not the same as being a felon. Indictment is just the way the Crown presses charges and you can be indicted for things that would usually be summary for reasons like the length of time since the offence. eg impaired driving is usually summary but if the Crown waits for over 6 months to press charges then it has to be by indictment. In practice there is no difference in the sentencing. Also felon is a class of people from the feudal times. A felon was someone (and sometimes their family) who's punishment was unending. This is the way it is in the States. Felons lose many of their inalienable rights for the rest of their life. No voting, no gun ownership, often many other legal restrictions as well as being outcast from society. In Canada when you've done your time, you've finished your sentence with exceptions that may be imposed by a judge, usually at sentencing. eg weapons ban for a firearms offence. Further you can seek a pardon and if you are pardoned it is illegal for your former crime to be held against you. We left the 18th century behind unlike America. The only mention of seeds I can find in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is under schedule II where it is stated that non-viable seeds are not considered Marijuana under the act and stalks that do not include leaves, flowers or seeds are also not Marijuana Schedules VII and VIII differentiate between amounts. 30 grams or less (or 1 gram of resin), 3 KGs or less and 3+ KGs. For 30 grams or less it is still summary with a max if 6 months/$1000 fine. For 3 Kilos or less it is 5 years less a day (the maximum before the right to a jury kicks in) and over 3 Kilos is 25 years. Seeds aren't very heavy so I'd guess it was under 3 Kilos and may have been under 30 grams.
Slashdot Mirror
Just build a mass driver and fire pieces of asteroid with it, lose some mass but the reaction will move the asteroid.
I think it would be safer to put them in a far Earth orbit, perhaps at one of the Lagrange points. Don't want their orbits decaying.
I suggest you talk to Stardock Systems. They are an indy software developer. Because of problems regarding publishing, they self published their last title, Galactic Civilizations 2. You can find it in just about every major game seller (though on the budget rack now because it is like 5 years old now). They are doing so again with their next title, Elemental. For that matter, they've published two titles for other companies, Sins of a Solar Empire by Ironclad and Demigod by Gas Powered Games. If this keeps up, they may not be an indy studio in 20 years.
No big development or advertising budget, no attachment to a major publisher, just some guys from Michigan that can make a good game and get it out there. You can ask them who did the distribution, they'll tell you (they posted it I just forgot who it was).
Uh, Galactic Civilizations 2 is close to 15 years old. Here is the original announcement, http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/download/pub/os2/info/galciv2.zip , and Stardock had a lot of help from IBM in distributing their products. When your game demos come with an operating system, they are much more likely to catch on.
Actually most of North America has a holiday this weekend (including taking Friday off) as July 1st is Canada day.
I can't find any references to the 1921 police and firearms act, closest from 1921 is the police pensions act.
This is also a problem with parliamentary supremacy, something can be declared a right one day then the next be repealed.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the right of British subjects and permanent residents to bear arms for self defence as long as they weren't Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The bill 0f rights of 1689 (English) included the right to bear arms for self-defence as long as you're not Catholic.
One of the reasons that they fired the King (James II) was because he was abusing the long held right for commoners to bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
It was put there to address a practical problem - that of the King of England not allowing the citizens to bear arms, making a people's uprising against the military impossible.
Why do Americans have such a twisted view of history? The King of England hasn't had any practical power since a couple of revolutions, the last of which was in 1688 when Parliament kicked the King out for doing things that weren't in the interests of the people, including restricting firearms ownership and raising an Army in times of peace.
It was Parliament, not the King who did everything that the Americans blame on the King.
Since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has been Supreme (until very recently) with the elected House of Commons holding more and more of the balance of power.
So you think that congress should be able to pass any law, whether constitutional or not?
Why bother with a constitution if there is no way to enforce it?
Are your numbers including all the Native Americans that starved to death due to the American governments policy of genocide by starvation (killing all the buffalo)?
Also while we have become nicer in our genocide, it has continued until recently. eg my wife was forcibly removed from her parents at birth to be raised by white people. Her step mother was forcibly removed from her family to be sent to the Catholics to be raped into submission.
Seizing private property for public use is probably unavoidable sometimes, but generally allowing it on a day-to-day basis is equal to real, old-school, hard-core Communism or Fascism.
And no, that's no slippery slope argument: The State removing private property from its rightful owner to give it to The People is what Communism is all about.
And Capitalism is all about removing the People's property to give it to private interests, often killing millions to do it. (The USA as an example had a national policy of genocide for a long time and may have killed more people then Stalin)
When I go camping I tend to bring things much more deadly, such as rifles and knives. But this is Canada we're talking about. A rifle would be completely out of the question so people have to fall back to a less effective means to protect themselves, such as a crossbow.
Why would a rifle be out of the question? If you want to protect yourself from a grizzly, a cross bow is not a very good option. And of course lots of people combine camping and hunting.
Owning a rifle is quite legal as long as you also have a firearms acquisition certificate, meaning you took a short course on safely handling a firearm. (Actually I think the law is that it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone unless they can show you the F.A.C.)
WTF are you talking about? The only legal use of DDT is to control malaria, which it is still used for in much of the third world.
And there are lots of scientific reasons to limit organo-chlorides, not the least that indiscriminate use causes resistance buildup.
Peter Pan is another work under perpetual copyright in the UK. (All proceeds go to a childrens hospital)
In short could this be used as an end run around the first amendment?
Isn''t copyright an end run around the first amendment anyways?
I'm not an American, but my understanding is that amendments to your constitution override the original. So before the first amendment was passed the constitution allowed limiting speech for the promotion of the arts and sciences. Then an amendment was passed that said that congress can not make any law limiting free speech. Shouldn't the first amendment trump congress limiting free speech?
Here in our country we get lots of Americans showing up, both to avoid political persecution (traditionally not wanting to be forced to go to war and being able to self-medicate themselves without being sent to be ass fucked in an American prison) and to try to get health care.
You'd be stupid to use solar cells for large scale energy production.
Much simpler to just have a big mirror (actually a bunch of not so big mirrors) to focus the sunlight on a boiler and drive a steam turbine to produce electricity.
Mostly all established old tech and as clean as you're going to get while producing large amounts of power.
it's the idea that the government is making value judgments as to who is "rich" and who is "poor."
That's easy. The rich are the ones who need protecting from the poor rising up and taking what they have.
The poor are the ones that if they were much poorer would rise up and take what they need from the rich.
Of course you can quit paying taxes, just don't work.
This is much like if you don't want to pay for anything else, it means going without the benefits of what you'd otherwise payed for.
Civilization costs money.
You're lucky, here in Canada (BC) they usually jack up the prices for long weekends and any other reason they can.
Around here (BC) the oil companies always go on about how price decreases have to work their way through the pipeline, which they say takes months. And sure enough prices have been steady for months including the May 24th long weekend.
Of course when the price goes up it shows up at the pumps that day and all the oil companies always charge the same.
I made that assumption based on experience.
While in theory the idea of everyone using a GPL stack (or better LGPL) and pooling all improvements is obviously better. In reality commercial companies do not like sharing their source and this was especially true in the early to mid '90s so they would of stayed away from it.
You just have to look at history. I can't think of any GPL libraries that have caught on and been shipped with all the operating systems.
Even the file system that this browser is installed on is closed source even though there is a GPL fork of it. Obviously the company that wrote it did not have the confidence in the GPL to add a GPL file system to a closed source operating system. (Though they did eventually add a open source browser, but that was tri-licenced so they could still kinda ignore the GPL and not worry about infections spreading or linking it against something like OpenSSL)
Actually that is the biggest advantage to staying away from the GPL, being able to link against other open source projects so you can add encyption to the stack by linking it to OpenSSL without legal worries or worse.
That's the thing. Different situations call for different licences.
Generally for programs GPL, for libraries LGPL and for things that we want to be a standard, BSD.
I can't think of any defacto standards that were driven by GPLed software.
And I'm posting this from a browser with multiple licences.
Were we would be?
Probably posting in Slashdot. It was BSD licensed code that encouraged the Internet taking off. Anyone could take the BSD stack, add it to their operating system and allow users to connect to the Internet. When I press submit, it will be a BSD licensed stack that transports this post to the Internet.
If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it, an Internet that we can all post to no matter which operating system we're using would of been delayed or perhaps not showed up.
They've been doing that for quite a while in Canada already. Understandable that when the government runs the healthcare they will push exercise and healthy diet. Also medical covers quit smoking programs including I believe the stop smoking drugs.
No, being indicted is not the same as being a felon. Indictment is just the way the Crown presses charges and you can be indicted for things that would usually be summary for reasons like the length of time since the offence. eg impaired driving is usually summary but if the Crown waits for over 6 months to press charges then it has to be by indictment. In practice there is no difference in the sentencing.
Also felon is a class of people from the feudal times. A felon was someone (and sometimes their family) who's punishment was unending. This is the way it is in the States. Felons lose many of their inalienable rights for the rest of their life. No voting, no gun ownership, often many other legal restrictions as well as being outcast from society.
In Canada when you've done your time, you've finished your sentence with exceptions that may be imposed by a judge, usually at sentencing. eg weapons ban for a firearms offence.
Further you can seek a pardon and if you are pardoned it is illegal for your former crime to be held against you.
We left the 18th century behind unlike America.
The only mention of seeds I can find in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is under schedule II where it is stated that non-viable seeds are not considered Marijuana under the act and stalks that do not include leaves, flowers or seeds are also not Marijuana
Schedules VII and VIII differentiate between amounts. 30 grams or less (or 1 gram of resin), 3 KGs or less and 3+ KGs.
For 30 grams or less it is still summary with a max if 6 months/$1000 fine. For 3 Kilos or less it is 5 years less a day (the maximum before the right to a jury kicks in) and over 3 Kilos is 25 years.
Seeds aren't very heavy so I'd guess it was under 3 Kilos and may have been under 30 grams.