The problem with this argument is that drinking alcohol is not illegal. Taking drugs is. The reason drunk driving is illegal is because it increases the chances that you could injure or kill someone because you were drinking and driving. If drugs and alcohol were both legal, but driving under the influence of either were illegal there would at least be consistency in between the two.
...and I'm finally going to vote it. I have the luxury, at least in the presidential race, of voting for whomever I want...
You have ALWAYS had that luxury. This is an indication of of one of the problems with the US electoral system. People do not vote for someone anymore; they vote agains the other guy. How many posts have we seen here that state "I don't want [Gore|Bush] to be President, so I'm voting for the other guy!" This seems to me to be insane, and simply maintains the status quo. The other problem is the idea of throwing your vote away. If every person who said "I won't vote for @THIRD_PARTY_CANTIDATE because they won't win" would actually vote for one of those people, they might have a chance at winning.
Although I really didn't intend for it to, this post has turned into a rant. Sorry, but you just pushed on of my buttons
IANAC, but I believe there is a Canadian law which does not allow winners to be picked at random. So the orgs wanting to give something away have to include some silly question, then they can choose the winner from among all the contestants who answered the question correctly.
This got moderated as Funny bit this post actually makes some good points.
Go to Library. Use a black marker to "protect" everyone else from printed content that would be blocked by censorware the library uses
Most people blindly, and mistakenly, assume that their censorware of choice is only blocking "pornography." If someone were to walk into the school library and start blacking-out or burning books which the censorware blocks, it might make people start to see idiocy, no hypocracy, of using censorware.
Same thing with #2 above. "Im sorry $TEACHER, but discussion of the Bill of Rights is considered "dangerous" the the children, therefore I shall protect the student body with my trusty air horn." It might help people see the falice and stupidity of censorware.
Actually it is nothing like the judicial branch. If an unjust law is passed, the judicial branch must wait until the law is challenged by an entity with standing to overturn the law. In Heinlein's system it is more like a third house of Congress. Only thse laws which were passed by the first house and not repealed (with a 1/3 minority) would become law. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
No, the Libs just want to remove gov't restrictions on Big Business turning the screws on people
The "Libs" as you call them want to remove the Government from "turning the screws on people." You have choices, for the most part, when dealing with businesses. When dealing with the Federal Government you have no other options. Try to "opt out" of paying Federal Income Tax, or Social Security. Men with guns will come and arrest you should you try to do so. Microsoft, to use the standard Slashdot whipping boy, can not legally send out armed men to make you use Windows or Office. The government CAN legally send armed men to make you pay taxes etc...
Why do you think businesses are more dangerous than an oppressive Government?
Where in the constitution does it state that a person has the right to kill their own children. Please point me to the reference
Nowhere. The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do. Not on what the "Several States" or the People can do. So, no the constitution does NOT say anywhere in it that people have the right to kill their own children. However it also does NOT say that people do not have that right. It is simply silent on the subject. Criminal legislation is better done at the State or local level.
Unfortunately to lawyers, "effective" does not mean effective. It means that it has that intended purpose, not that it actually works. E.g. If I use ROT13 to control access to to my copyrighted work, and you "break" my encryption, you can be taken to court for violation of the DCMA.
From www.dictionary.com
effectively (-fktv-l)
adv.
1. In an effective way.
2. For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.
Notice definition number 2. What this is effectively saying is that, your protection mechanism does NOT have to work, it just has to be there.
Hooptie
P.S. Don't flame me by saying that it is a poorly written law, or that lawyers are evil. I know, and your are preaching to the choir.
In time "the market" will correct this. Either Amazon will lose customers, and therefore lose money, and stop this practice, or nobody will care, and Amazon will continue to do as they please. But, sometimes "the market" does not move swiftly.
You are quite correct when you say "Amazon has the right to raise or lower prices at whim," but I am also free to tell Amazon where to shove their proces if I don't want to pay their proce. You have choices other than Amazon.com, you can check many other online retailers, or you could visit a brick and mortar store near you. However, you don't have any alternative to the government, and that is where the problem lies. Once the government takes controll of something, i.e. regulates it, it never lets it go. We don't need the government to "take care" of us, although, sadly, many people seem to want it to.
who is better suited to determine fair market value than our own democratically-elected leaders?
Me! What makes my Senator Phill Graham "better suited" to determine the prices I pay for items, than I am. Does he know me? Does he know anything about my fiscal situation? Does he? I don't think so either. Can I tell the government where to shove their prices? What happens when the government, rather than Amazon, decides I need to pay $1 more for every book I buy? What can I do then?
Government cannot create prosperity, it can only redistribute it.
Disclaimer: I am a smoker. I don't like the fact that I smoke, but all my quitting attempts have so far been unsuccessful. This is the reason why I don't think tobacco products should be sold. A government-enforced ban on smoking would probably be the best thing to happen to me in my life.
I find this to be a scary position. What you are saying is that I should not be allowed to do something because you, for what ever reason, are unwilling or unable to cease misusing something.
Do you feel guns should be outlawed because someone might misuse one? How about DeCSS or Napster?
Once you start arbitrairally banning certain things because of their possible, but unlikely, harm, where do you draw the line? Or are you just whining that it is not your fault, because the government hasn't banned cigarettes, and therefore the government, and by extension "society," is at fault because you can't quit.
Do you wish to be free men or slaves? Free men do as they please, and accept the consequences of their actions. Slaves do as they are told.
Disclaimer: I am not a smoker. I convinced my mom and wife to stop smoking, and will not allow my daughter to smoke. But, damnit if you want to smoke I have no business trying to make it illegal for you to smoke.
If Hotmail performs the same as it always has, how is Microsoft going to explain this to corporate customers?
If you already have an all, or even mostly UNIX shop, why would you switch to a platform for which you have no coders, admins etc... If you are just starting why would you want to spend the kind of cash MS expects when you can get a system that performs just as well ( I'm being generous to MS for this argument) at a fraction of the cost?
How can they actually sell this argumet to people? How are they going to justify the, not insignificant, cost increase from FreeBSD to Windows 2000, if there is no corresponding performance/reliability increase? The only way I can see is the standard line about "no one to complain to if you have problems" etc...
Of course skateboard manufacturers don't use their skateboards to ship other skateboards. Skateboards are not made for that type of use. The skateboard manufacturers are NOT telling anyone else they should be using skateboards to ship products.
However, Microsoft salesdroids DO tell people to use a Microsoft "solution" for any and everything. Need an "enterprose class" e-commerce system? No problem, just use Windows 2000 Server and IIS and a partridge in a pear tree and everything will work correctly. Need an "enterprose class" messaging system server? No problem, just use Windows 2000 Advanced Server and MS Exchange Server, just make sure you delete any message with the subject "I Love You."
This is hypocracy at its highest level. (Well second highest anyway, the US Federal Government passing laws that do not apply to members of Congress is the highes level of hypocracy, but that is a different thread.)
Microsoft spends <mumble> Million dollars on advertising telling everyone how great the world will be once everyone uses Microsoft products exclusively. If, for what ever reason, Microsoft can't or won't use their own products exclusively, why should I?
Isn't it absolutely obvious that you *can* hurt someone else with a gun?
Of course you can hurt someone with a gun, they wouldn't be as much use if you couldn't. But gun ownership, and the safe use thereof, does *not* hurt anyone else. The criminal misuse of a firearm can and therefore should be illegal and carry stiff penalties. But simply telling good people that they cannot do something because of the actions of others, is simply wrong.
And anything under 56k doesn't count (my ham radio can do 9600:).
How about 1.6Mb then. A German company called Symek makes a TNC they claim can go up to 1.6Mb
Speed: Modem-Baudrate: 0 to 1.2 Mbit/s per Modem, 1.6 Mbit/s total. RS232: 1200 to 115200 Baud http://symek.com/tnc-g/tnc3.htm
That may be an assumption on his part, but it is correct. Check out the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles website. The board members serve 6 year terms. Longest serving board members were appointed 2-1-95 (1-2-95 for our European friends:) Bush was elected to his first term in 1994.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain, in detail, to us how you would patch the Windows NT source code to fix a security hole.
Hooptie
Hooptie
Hooptie
You have ALWAYS had that luxury. This is an indication of of one of the problems with the US electoral system. People do not vote for someone anymore; they vote agains the other guy. How many posts have we seen here that state "I don't want [Gore|Bush] to be President, so I'm voting for the other guy!" This seems to me to be insane, and simply maintains the status quo. The other problem is the idea of throwing your vote away. If every person who said "I won't vote for @THIRD_PARTY_CANTIDATE because they won't win" would actually vote for one of those people, they might have a chance at winning.
Although I really didn't intend for it to, this post has turned into a rant. Sorry, but you just pushed on of my buttons
Hooptie
Hooptie
Go to Library. Use a black marker to "protect" everyone else from printed content that would be blocked by censorware the library uses
Most people blindly, and mistakenly, assume that their censorware of choice is only blocking "pornography." If someone were to walk into the school library and start blacking-out or burning books which the censorware blocks, it might make people start to see idiocy, no hypocracy, of using censorware.
Same thing with #2 above. "Im sorry $TEACHER, but discussion of the Bill of Rights is considered "dangerous" the the children, therefore I shall protect the student body with my trusty air horn." It might help people see the falice and stupidity of censorware.
Hooptie
HTH, HAND.
Hooptie
Hooptie
The "Libs" as you call them want to remove the Government from "turning the screws on people." You have choices, for the most part, when dealing with businesses. When dealing with the Federal Government you have no other options. Try to "opt out" of paying Federal Income Tax, or Social Security. Men with guns will come and arrest you should you try to do so. Microsoft, to use the standard Slashdot whipping boy, can not legally send out armed men to make you use Windows or Office. The government CAN legally send armed men to make you pay taxes etc...
Why do you think businesses are more dangerous than an oppressive Government?
Hooptie
Nowhere. The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do. Not on what the "Several States" or the People can do. So, no the constitution does NOT say anywhere in it that people have the right to kill their own children. However it also does NOT say that people do not have that right. It is simply silent on the subject. Criminal legislation is better done at the State or local level.
Hooptie
Sheesh
Hooptie
From www.dictionary.com Notice definition number 2. What this is effectively saying is that, your protection mechanism does NOT have to work, it just has to be there.
Hooptie
P.S. Don't flame me by saying that it is a poorly written law, or that lawyers are evil. I know, and your are preaching to the choir.
NO!
In time "the market" will correct this. Either Amazon will lose customers, and therefore lose money, and stop this practice, or nobody will care, and Amazon will continue to do as they please. But, sometimes "the market" does not move swiftly.
You are quite correct when you say "Amazon has the right to raise or lower prices at whim," but I am also free to tell Amazon where to shove their proces if I don't want to pay their proce. You have choices other than Amazon.com, you can check many other online retailers, or you could visit a brick and mortar store near you. However, you don't have any alternative to the government, and that is where the problem lies. Once the government takes controll of something, i.e. regulates it, it never lets it go. We don't need the government to "take care" of us, although, sadly, many people seem to want it to.
who is better suited to determine fair market value than our own democratically-elected leaders?
Me! What makes my Senator Phill Graham "better suited" to determine the prices I pay for items, than I am. Does he know me? Does he know anything about my fiscal situation? Does he? I don't think so either. Can I tell the government where to shove their prices? What happens when the government, rather than Amazon, decides I need to pay $1 more for every book I buy? What can I do then?
Government cannot create prosperity, it can only redistribute it.
Hooptie
HTH, HAND
Hooptie
"Bend over and enjoy it!"
But then again, I am not a lawyer...
Hooptie
Hooptie
Do you feel guns should be outlawed because someone might misuse one? How about DeCSS or Napster?
Once you start arbitrairally banning certain things because of their possible, but unlikely, harm, where do you draw the line? Or are you just whining that it is not your fault, because the government hasn't banned cigarettes, and therefore the government, and by extension "society," is at fault because you can't quit.
Do you wish to be free men or slaves? Free men do as they please, and accept the consequences of their actions. Slaves do as they are told.
Disclaimer: I am not a smoker. I convinced my mom and wife to stop smoking, and will not allow my daughter to smoke. But, damnit if you want to smoke I have no business trying to make it illegal for you to smoke.
Hooptie
Hooptie
If Hotmail performs the same as it always has, how is Microsoft going to explain this to corporate customers?
If you already have an all, or even mostly UNIX shop, why would you switch to a platform for which you have no coders, admins etc... If you are just starting why would you want to spend the kind of cash MS expects when you can get a system that performs just as well ( I'm being generous to MS for this argument) at a fraction of the cost?
How can they actually sell this argumet to people? How are they going to justify the, not insignificant, cost increase from FreeBSD to Windows 2000, if there is no corresponding performance/reliability increase? The only way I can see is the standard line about "no one to complain to if you have problems" etc...
I see a new slogan in MS's future
Microsoft - Who do you want to sue today!
Hooptie
However, Microsoft salesdroids DO tell people to use a Microsoft "solution" for any and everything.
Need an "enterprose class" e-commerce system? No problem, just use Windows 2000 Server and IIS and a partridge in a pear tree and everything will work correctly.
Need an "enterprose class" messaging system server? No problem, just use Windows 2000 Advanced Server and MS Exchange Server, just make sure you delete any message with the subject "I Love You."
This is hypocracy at its highest level. (Well second highest anyway, the US Federal Government passing laws that do not apply to members of Congress is the highes level of hypocracy, but that is a different thread.)
Microsoft spends <mumble> Million dollars on advertising telling everyone how great the world will be once everyone uses Microsoft products exclusively. If, for what ever reason, Microsoft can't or won't use their own products exclusively, why should I?
Hooptie
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch
This is the actual name of a village in Wales. They have their own website. http:// www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantys iliogogogoch.co.uk
English looks relatively tame comparatively...
Hooptie
Isn't it absolutely obvious that you *can* hurt someone else with a gun?
Of course you can hurt someone with a gun, they wouldn't be as much use if you couldn't. But gun ownership, and the safe use thereof, does *not* hurt anyone else. The criminal misuse of a firearm can and therefore should be illegal and carry stiff penalties. But simply telling good people that they cannot do something because of the actions of others, is simply wrong.
Hooptie
How about 1.6Mb then. A German company called Symek makes a TNC they claim can go up to 1.6Mb
Speed: Modem-Baudrate: 0 to 1.2 Mbit/s per Modem, 1.6 Mbit/s total. RS232: 1200 to 115200 Baud
http://symek.com/tnc-g/tnc3.htm
Hooptie
http://www.smartfoot.com/patien ts/tarsaltunnel.html
and...
http://www.podiatrychannel.com
Hooptie
Hooptie