The big problem is that driving is a "privilege not a right," mostly because it was invented after the revolution.
And because the court precedents were set at a time when it was as practical to travel about without a car as with one. I would actually like to see someone force the courts to rule on whether or not requiring a driver's license to drive an motorized vehicle on a highway that you are only allowed to travel on with a motorized vehicle still passes constitutional muster. When the courts first upheld the principle that driving was a privilege not a right there were no such roads. I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers would come down against driver's licenses.
So, you trust people who you are required to interact with more than people you interact with on a voluntary basis because you get to choose who is in charge of the first group?
It reflects that it won't be Republican politicians who will be protected by corrupt law enforcement behavior in Massachesetts, but instead it will be Democratic politicians. What it says about politicians of either (or both) political parties is something that one should decide based on the incidence of political corruption vs party affiliation throughout the entire country.
Who are motivated by political power. Why is an organization that is motivated by political power less suspect than an organization that is motivated by profit?
At least with a private company, if I don't like how they treat me, I can do business with someone else (or no one).
No, this is Massachusetts. It means they won't keep a record of license plates belonging to Democratic politicians ever because it would be too easy to figure out who they are taking bribes from. According to something I read, the last three speakers of the Massachusetts state legislature are in jail for corruption (they are all Democrats). The current speaker is a protege of one of those three.
1. Are you saying that the Koran does not command the killing of "infidels"? That it is merely passages taken out of context?
2. There are more theologians who have interpreted Jesus' teachings as calling for nonviolence then there are theologians who have interpreted Jesus' teachings as calling for the slaughter of nonbelievers. I am quite confident that the same cannot be said of the teachings of Mohammed (although I would be pleasantly surprised to discover that I am mistaken).
You do know that you are taking that completely out of context, right? It is words that were put into the mouth of a character in a parable Jesus told. In the context of the parable, the most likely interpretation is that it represents God speaking on the Day of Judgement, which is at some indefinite time in the future.
Give me a specific example. Define "anticompetitive practices". You have declared that a theoretical group of regulations make it easier to compete. I say that in the real world, it does not work out that way. I know of no monopolies that exist that were not created by government regulation.
Pass laws that any creature with human DNA is human and has the same rights as any other human. Have the law make those who create such creatures be financially responsible for them until such time as they can be demonstrated to be able to care for themselves.
If we in the US isn't careful we'll start blaming our countries problems on the poor/sick/gay, which is only one step away from rounding up groups and shipping them off in rail cars.
It won't be gays. Cisco and the others involved in this fiasco are big supporters of the promotion of homosexual rights. Other than that, there is merit to what you say. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all (or even most?) of those supporting homosexual rights are are supportive of civil liberties. Many of them appear to be using their support for "homosexual rights" as cover for attacking freedom of expression in other areas. Cisco recently fired an outside contractor who was a strong opponent of "gay rights", even though he never talked about it on during the time he was working on the contract. One of the people in the seminar he was conducting googled him and discovered his work in that area. This person complained to human resources and they fired him, even though everyone said that his work on the contract was excellent and no one accused him of discussing his opinion of homosexual rights during his work for Cisco. No matter what you think of his position on homosexual rights, it should not effect his employment if he is not doing it during his time being employed by someone. This is not a civil rights violation (Cisco is a private company), but it indicates that Cisco is concerned about its employees behaviors in areas that do not effect the work environment.
Why would you expect any action to be taken? Someone high up in the Justice Department was an accessory to the murder of a Border Patrol agent and the media has so far shown limited interest in the story (google "Operation Gunrunner" and "Operation Fast & Furious"). The current Administration believes the law does not apply to them.
I am not sure on this. However, I do know that many ARMA practitioners study the training manuals that can be found from the time period and use the training methods described in them (they, also, study other writings from the period that reveal training methods and fighting techniques from the period).
The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list.
It was intended to be. The Constitution was intended to be an exhaustive list of the powers of the Federal government. The Tenth Ammendment was written to emphasize this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Further, James Madison said this: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Other Founding Fathers made similar statements about the limits to the power of the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list of the rights ofthe people
When I searched for the above quote so that I would get it worded correctly, I came across another James Madison quote that I really like, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Always gotta watch for the weasel words that bribed assholes like Thomas slip into the rulings.
There is one problem with this comment...Justice Thomas did NOT write the majority opinion, therefore, he didn't put any weasel words into it. Just because you are a racist who thinks that any black who is not a liberal must be corrupt, does not make Justice Thomas the source of evil.
There have been other tests that indicate that when people can try media products for free, they buy more of them. The example I think of is Baen Books. When Baen Books started offering free downloads of some of the books they publish, they saw a marked increase in sales of books by those authors. My recollection is that they started it with a limited number of authors and once they saw the effect on those authors sales, they extended it to most/all of their authors.
As a sidenote, the simplest explanation to the fact that the first armor to be eliminated was the armor of the legs may be just that there are no vital organs in the leg, so an injury there is less likely to be lethal.
The problem there is that it is very difficult to avoid a lethal injury once your leg is injured. However, I am going to guess that improved maneuverability offset the loss of protection. The introduction of gunpowder to the battlefield changed the balance between maneuverability and physical force in combat.
Make a school that practices this, just like a dojo that practices karate, and ten years from now analyse the results from those fighters.
There are such schools...and they have been around for longer than ten years. Since these schools have been around in England longer than in the U.S., and are more widely known there, it is probable that one (or more) of them is where they got the "reenactors" for this study.
A knight trained to fight in armour would probably be quite a bit stronger and tougher than your average reenactor.
There is actually quite a bit of debate about this. The question is actually quite complicated (involving diet, modern athletic training techniques, medical science and a few other factors). The conclusion generally reached is that you are correct. Most knights were stronger and tougher than your average reenactor. However, it is unlikely that they used average reenactors for this study. More likely they used guys from ARMA (Association of Rennasiance Martial Arts). There are a significant number of guys in ARMA who are equivalent to the highest level practitioners of eastern martial arts. Some of them even do it professionally. Those guys are probably comparable to your average medieval knight.
The reason his title is relevant is that it suggests that he has applied his studies of medieval armor to actual practice (the OP probably also listed it so that people would know how to contact this guy, if they were interested in obtaining info about his research). Since being "king" of an SCA kingdom only lasts for six months, it is not nearly as pretentious as it sounds.
What you propose is a bandaid on the problem that stems from the fact that copyright lasts too long. Rather than put a bandaid on a broken system, why don't we try to fix the system?
While I don't have a problem with going back to making copyright require registration and donation of a copy of the work to the Library of Congress, the current problem results from copyright lasting too long.
Well, since I think a reasonable copyright term is less than 30 years (and more like somewhere around 10 years), if copyright was only for a reasonable length of time, even if an "orphan" work had essentially its entire copyright term remaining, it would be not be that odious to wait until the copyright expired in order to archive it.
Just because the copyright holder cannot be found does not mean that no one has standing to sue. It only means that they cannot be found. There are two possible ways that I can imagine that it would be unreasonably hard for Google to locate the copyright holder. The first is that the person may have intentionally dropped off of the grid for a period of time. This one is fairly safe for Google to publish, since if they have intentionally dropped off of the grid, they probably will never discover that Google has done this. The second is that the original copyright holder has died and the person who has inherited the copyright is unclear from the public record. The new copyright holder may be unaware of (or forgotten about) the work in question until they stumble across it after Google has violated the copyright.
I agree that, for the time being, those who desire to see copyright reformed to something like its constitutional intent should lobby for a fixed term for copyright. Once the length of copyright has been made a fixed length of time, we can start the discussion about how long that should be. I looked up how long copyright lasts and it says that for anonymous works (and several other types), copyright lasts for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The first reform we should work for is for that to be extended to all copyrighted works. I cannot imagine any scenario under which extending copyright longer than that makes sense, and why should someone's copyright expire sooner just because they die within 20 years of creating it?
You are correct. I really should use the term "servile" and "dominant" to describe the two groups that compose the Democratic Party. "Serviles" are those who have no real power who want the government to tell everyone how they can live their lives (what types of lightbulbs you can use, what types of vehicles you can drive, etc). "Dominants" are those who are already wealthy who want the government to tell everyone else how to live their lives and limit the ability of others to accumulate wealth (like Warren Buffet, and most of the people on Wall Street, who consistently vote for Democrats and increased government regulation).
Usually, I use the U.S. definiton that defines liberals as those who are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, and narrowminded (you know, people like Bill Maher).
Slashdot Mirror
The big problem is that driving is a "privilege not a right," mostly because it was invented after the revolution.
And because the court precedents were set at a time when it was as practical to travel about without a car as with one. I would actually like to see someone force the courts to rule on whether or not requiring a driver's license to drive an motorized vehicle on a highway that you are only allowed to travel on with a motorized vehicle still passes constitutional muster. When the courts first upheld the principle that driving was a privilege not a right there were no such roads. I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers would come down against driver's licenses.
So, you trust people who you are required to interact with more than people you interact with on a voluntary basis because you get to choose who is in charge of the first group?
It reflects that it won't be Republican politicians who will be protected by corrupt law enforcement behavior in Massachesetts, but instead it will be Democratic politicians. What it says about politicians of either (or both) political parties is something that one should decide based on the incidence of political corruption vs party affiliation throughout the entire country.
Agencies are directed by political appointees,...
Who are motivated by political power. Why is an organization that is motivated by political power less suspect than an organization that is motivated by profit?
At least with a private company, if I don't like how they treat me, I can do business with someone else (or no one).
George W. Bush at least got Congressional authorization before he went to war.
No, this is Massachusetts. It means they won't keep a record of license plates belonging to Democratic politicians ever because it would be too easy to figure out who they are taking bribes from. According to something I read, the last three speakers of the Massachusetts state legislature are in jail for corruption (they are all Democrats). The current speaker is a protege of one of those three.
1. Are you saying that the Koran does not command the killing of "infidels"? That it is merely passages taken out of context?
2. There are more theologians who have interpreted Jesus' teachings as calling for nonviolence then there are theologians who have interpreted Jesus' teachings as calling for the slaughter of nonbelievers. I am quite confident that the same cannot be said of the teachings of Mohammed (although I would be pleasantly surprised to discover that I am mistaken).
You do know that you are taking that completely out of context, right? It is words that were put into the mouth of a character in a parable Jesus told. In the context of the parable, the most likely interpretation is that it represents God speaking on the Day of Judgement, which is at some indefinite time in the future.
Give me a specific example. Define "anticompetitive practices". You have declared that a theoretical group of regulations make it easier to compete. I say that in the real world, it does not work out that way. I know of no monopolies that exist that were not created by government regulation.
Pass laws that any creature with human DNA is human and has the same rights as any other human. Have the law make those who create such creatures be financially responsible for them until such time as they can be demonstrated to be able to care for themselves.
If we in the US isn't careful we'll start blaming our countries problems on the poor/sick/gay, which is only one step away from rounding up groups and shipping them off in rail cars.
It won't be gays. Cisco and the others involved in this fiasco are big supporters of the promotion of homosexual rights. Other than that, there is merit to what you say. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all (or even most?) of those supporting homosexual rights are are supportive of civil liberties. Many of them appear to be using their support for "homosexual rights" as cover for attacking freedom of expression in other areas. Cisco recently fired an outside contractor who was a strong opponent of "gay rights", even though he never talked about it on during the time he was working on the contract. One of the people in the seminar he was conducting googled him and discovered his work in that area. This person complained to human resources and they fired him, even though everyone said that his work on the contract was excellent and no one accused him of discussing his opinion of homosexual rights during his work for Cisco. No matter what you think of his position on homosexual rights, it should not effect his employment if he is not doing it during his time being employed by someone. This is not a civil rights violation (Cisco is a private company), but it indicates that Cisco is concerned about its employees behaviors in areas that do not effect the work environment.
Why would you expect any action to be taken? Someone high up in the Justice Department was an accessory to the murder of a Border Patrol agent and the media has so far shown limited interest in the story (google "Operation Gunrunner" and "Operation Fast & Furious"). The current Administration believes the law does not apply to them.
I am not sure on this. However, I do know that many ARMA practitioners study the training manuals that can be found from the time period and use the training methods described in them (they, also, study other writings from the period that reveal training methods and fighting techniques from the period).
The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list.
It was intended to be. The Constitution was intended to be an exhaustive list of the powers of the Federal government. The Tenth Ammendment was written to emphasize this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Further, James Madison said this: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Other Founding Fathers made similar statements about the limits to the power of the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list of the rights ofthe people
When I searched for the above quote so that I would get it worded correctly, I came across another James Madison quote that I really like, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Always gotta watch for the weasel words that bribed assholes like Thomas slip into the rulings.
There is one problem with this comment...Justice Thomas did NOT write the majority opinion, therefore, he didn't put any weasel words into it. Just because you are a racist who thinks that any black who is not a liberal must be corrupt, does not make Justice Thomas the source of evil.
There have been other tests that indicate that when people can try media products for free, they buy more of them. The example I think of is Baen Books. When Baen Books started offering free downloads of some of the books they publish, they saw a marked increase in sales of books by those authors. My recollection is that they started it with a limited number of authors and once they saw the effect on those authors sales, they extended it to most/all of their authors.
The saying is "If you can't get laid at Pennsic, you can't get laid." (Pennsic is an annual gathering of SCA members from all around the world).
As a sidenote, the simplest explanation to the fact that the first armor to be eliminated was the armor of the legs may be just that there are no vital organs in the leg, so an injury there is less likely to be lethal.
The problem there is that it is very difficult to avoid a lethal injury once your leg is injured. However, I am going to guess that improved maneuverability offset the loss of protection. The introduction of gunpowder to the battlefield changed the balance between maneuverability and physical force in combat.
Make a school that practices this, just like a dojo that practices karate, and ten years from now analyse the results from those fighters.
There are such schools...and they have been around for longer than ten years. Since these schools have been around in England longer than in the U.S., and are more widely known there, it is probable that one (or more) of them is where they got the "reenactors" for this study.
A knight trained to fight in armour would probably be quite a bit stronger and tougher than your average reenactor.
There is actually quite a bit of debate about this. The question is actually quite complicated (involving diet, modern athletic training techniques, medical science and a few other factors). The conclusion generally reached is that you are correct. Most knights were stronger and tougher than your average reenactor. However, it is unlikely that they used average reenactors for this study. More likely they used guys from ARMA (Association of Rennasiance Martial Arts). There are a significant number of guys in ARMA who are equivalent to the highest level practitioners of eastern martial arts. Some of them even do it professionally. Those guys are probably comparable to your average medieval knight.
The reason his title is relevant is that it suggests that he has applied his studies of medieval armor to actual practice (the OP probably also listed it so that people would know how to contact this guy, if they were interested in obtaining info about his research). Since being "king" of an SCA kingdom only lasts for six months, it is not nearly as pretentious as it sounds.
What you propose is a bandaid on the problem that stems from the fact that copyright lasts too long. Rather than put a bandaid on a broken system, why don't we try to fix the system?
While I don't have a problem with going back to making copyright require registration and donation of a copy of the work to the Library of Congress, the current problem results from copyright lasting too long.
Well, since I think a reasonable copyright term is less than 30 years (and more like somewhere around 10 years), if copyright was only for a reasonable length of time, even if an "orphan" work had essentially its entire copyright term remaining, it would be not be that odious to wait until the copyright expired in order to archive it.
Just because the copyright holder cannot be found does not mean that no one has standing to sue. It only means that they cannot be found. There are two possible ways that I can imagine that it would be unreasonably hard for Google to locate the copyright holder. The first is that the person may have intentionally dropped off of the grid for a period of time. This one is fairly safe for Google to publish, since if they have intentionally dropped off of the grid, they probably will never discover that Google has done this. The second is that the original copyright holder has died and the person who has inherited the copyright is unclear from the public record. The new copyright holder may be unaware of (or forgotten about) the work in question until they stumble across it after Google has violated the copyright.
I agree that, for the time being, those who desire to see copyright reformed to something like its constitutional intent should lobby for a fixed term for copyright. Once the length of copyright has been made a fixed length of time, we can start the discussion about how long that should be. I looked up how long copyright lasts and it says that for anonymous works (and several other types), copyright lasts for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The first reform we should work for is for that to be extended to all copyrighted works. I cannot imagine any scenario under which extending copyright longer than that makes sense, and why should someone's copyright expire sooner just because they die within 20 years of creating it?
You are correct. I really should use the term "servile" and "dominant" to describe the two groups that compose the Democratic Party. "Serviles" are those who have no real power who want the government to tell everyone how they can live their lives (what types of lightbulbs you can use, what types of vehicles you can drive, etc). "Dominants" are those who are already wealthy who want the government to tell everyone else how to live their lives and limit the ability of others to accumulate wealth (like Warren Buffet, and most of the people on Wall Street, who consistently vote for Democrats and increased government regulation).
Usually, I use the U.S. definiton that defines liberals as those who are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, and narrowminded (you know, people like Bill Maher).