The thing is that Slashdot does not have a single "group think" position on any particular topic. On the issue of copyright I have noticed three distinct groups: those that think illegally copying electronic data (e-books, movies, music) is a right which should not be infringed (slightly overstated, but elements of the group go that far), those that think that many times those that produce creative works (books, movies, music) benefit from illegally copying of their work far more than they suffer (although anyone doing so for profit should be punished to the fullest extent of the law), and those who believe that anyone who copies creative works illegally deserves whatever punishment comes their way to the fullest extent of the law (and sometimes beyond). Which group controls the mods on a particular discussion depends on who has mod points at any particular time when such a subject comes up.
Actually, she did know what was in the Constitution. "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It is a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson. She specifically asked her opponent where that phrase appeared in the Constitution. She then followed up by asking him what five freedoms are in the First Amendment, he was unable to answer her question, but most of the press never bothered to report that.
While it may be true that users of different browsers tend to have varying levels of credit worthiness that tracks to what browser they use, this creditworthiness will be more clearly (and accurately) reflected by other criteria. As an example, while people with a particualar credit score range may be more likely to select a particular browser, it seems improbable to me that people who select a particular browser are more or less likely to default on debt than people with the same credit score who select a different browser.
Laws are not based on morals, they are based around protecting an individual's rights from being infringed by another.
You appear to be saying that you believe that infringing on someone else's rights is morally neutral. However, what you are really saying is that infringing on other people's rights is immoral. Not all cultures agree that infringing on someone else's rights should be illegal.
What does that have to do with whether a budget that with increasing debt is balanced or not? I would not call a budget that results in increased debt "balanced".
You are right, the Democrats either did too much, or not enough. Basically, Obamacare is everything that is wrong with the state based solution to the healthcare problem and none of what is (theoretically) right with it. That last statement is a bit of hyperbole, but it sums up the problem. The Democrats passed lots of things that are why people are afraid of more government involvement in healthcare (lots of bureaucratic interference in healthcare delivery), but very little of the supposed benefits (government picks up the tab) or cost control (tort reform, among other things).
What exactly was distorted by saying that the plan called for panels of beauracrats who would decide who got treatment and who would not (and therefore die)?
No one seems to notice that they are taking home a few MORE dollars in there check do to change implemented by Obama and the democrats.
Dollars that I will either have to pay back come April 15, or will come out of my tax refund. All the Dems did was change the way withholding was calculated, not actually cut taxes.
Then why did the Federal deficit increase every year under clinton (and every other President in my lifetime)? If the budget was balanced, shouldn't the Federal deficit have remained stable or decreased? Or does a balanced budget mean something different to you than that income equals outlay?
The Republicans offered a whole slew of health care reform proposals, all of which were either ignored by the Democrats or diluted and stuck in a bil that contained items that were complete non-starters for Republicans.
I feel the same way. Except, Hollywood doesn't make anything worth the effort to pirate. The last movie I went to see in the theaters was LOTR: Return of the King. I may go to the theater for the Hobbit (but unless my wife makes a big deal about going to the theater, I will wait for it to come out on DVD)
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
No, laws are about protecting people's rights. If someone is murdered or stolen from, their rights have clearly been violated. If a minor murders an imaginary person in a game, or sees a nipple on TV, no rights have been violated.
So, you are saying that it is perfectly moral to violate other people's rights, it's just that we don't like it, so we made it illegal?
Actually, what you are saying is that what you consider to be immoral is important and those things that you don't consider to be immoral, but others do, aren't.
I do the same (ignore the ad results in my search). My reason is quite simple, before I started this policy of not clicking on the ads that lead off my search results, I discovered that those results only rarely had more than a peripheral relation to what I was searching for, even when I was looking for where to buy something.
Writing for PCMag, Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands: "If I have real concerns, it's up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks." If you're already buying the game for your kid, then a prohibition on sale directly to minors would be irrelevant. If anything, this law supports Ulanoff's point - that the decision should rest in parents' hands, and that they can freely buy the game if they want.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
Too many moving parts to do it's functional job effectively.
What you mean it has too many moving parts to get you to watch the ad?
I think that you, like several other people posting here, missed the point here. This is not a captcha that serves the traditional purpose of captcha: verifying that the user is an actual person, not a bot. This "video captcha" is intended to force you to watch the ads to get to the site you wish to see. I think it will likely do that very well. Of course, I, also, think that it will cause most people to decide that they didn't really want to see that site.
This has nothing to do with captchas. It is not intended to replace (or augment) the way that captchas are used. The sole purpose of this new technique is to force you to watch the ad in order to procedd to the website (as opposed to what I do now which is click on another tab until the ad is done).
This story has no context. Without knowing what the decision was that they cited this on, there is no way for me to judge how appropriate this was or wasn't.
That is almost exactly what I came here to post. Until we identify a second body in the universe that supports life (whether in this solar system, or not and whether that life is there because we put it there or it came from some other source), it is premature to estimate how many planets in the galaxy are habitable.
The country that those arms control treaties were with no longer existed at the time. The arms control treaties that George W. Bush ignored were signed with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
The advantage of an Executive Agreement (from the perspective of those who want to see the particular agreement put into force) is that it does not need to go through the messy process of Senate confirmation. The disadvantage of an Executive Agreement is that the next Presient can choose not to go along with it. From a legal standpoint in the U.S. and Executive Agreement has no more (and no less) force of law than an Executive Order.
There is what appears to be a device in her hand for most of the scene, then she reaches a couple of fingers up towards her hat and at that point her hand appears to be empty (although I won't entirely rule out the one hearing aid device that someone else in this thread suggested).
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that Slashdot does not have a single "group think" position on any particular topic. On the issue of copyright I have noticed three distinct groups: those that think illegally copying electronic data (e-books, movies, music) is a right which should not be infringed (slightly overstated, but elements of the group go that far), those that think that many times those that produce creative works (books, movies, music) benefit from illegally copying of their work far more than they suffer (although anyone doing so for profit should be punished to the fullest extent of the law), and those who believe that anyone who copies creative works illegally deserves whatever punishment comes their way to the fullest extent of the law (and sometimes beyond). Which group controls the mods on a particular discussion depends on who has mod points at any particular time when such a subject comes up.
Actually, she did know what was in the Constitution. "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It is a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson. She specifically asked her opponent where that phrase appeared in the Constitution. She then followed up by asking him what five freedoms are in the First Amendment, he was unable to answer her question, but most of the press never bothered to report that.
You misunderstand. The plus is from Hulu's perspective. From the perspective of Hulu the plus is that they make additional money from this version.
While it may be true that users of different browsers tend to have varying levels of credit worthiness that tracks to what browser they use, this creditworthiness will be more clearly (and accurately) reflected by other criteria. As an example, while people with a particualar credit score range may be more likely to select a particular browser, it seems improbable to me that people who select a particular browser are more or less likely to default on debt than people with the same credit score who select a different browser.
Laws are not based on morals, they are based around protecting an individual's rights from being infringed by another.
You appear to be saying that you believe that infringing on someone else's rights is morally neutral. However, what you are really saying is that infringing on other people's rights is immoral. Not all cultures agree that infringing on someone else's rights should be illegal.
What does that have to do with whether a budget that with increasing debt is balanced or not? I would not call a budget that results in increased debt "balanced".
You are right, the Democrats either did too much, or not enough. Basically, Obamacare is everything that is wrong with the state based solution to the healthcare problem and none of what is (theoretically) right with it. That last statement is a bit of hyperbole, but it sums up the problem. The Democrats passed lots of things that are why people are afraid of more government involvement in healthcare (lots of bureaucratic interference in healthcare delivery), but very little of the supposed benefits (government picks up the tab) or cost control (tort reform, among other things).
1) no pre-existing conditions for children
And most insurance companies stopped writing new child only policies.
What exactly was distorted by saying that the plan called for panels of beauracrats who would decide who got treatment and who would not (and therefore die)?
Andy Revkin, Democratic Party shill on science, sees a threat to science in the election results. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/the-real-threat-to-science-in-the-new-political-climate/
There fixed that for ya.
No one seems to notice that they are taking home a few MORE dollars in there check do to change implemented by Obama and the democrats.
Dollars that I will either have to pay back come April 15, or will come out of my tax refund. All the Dems did was change the way withholding was calculated, not actually cut taxes.
clinton left with a balanced budget
Then why did the Federal deficit increase every year under clinton (and every other President in my lifetime)? If the budget was balanced, shouldn't the Federal deficit have remained stable or decreased? Or does a balanced budget mean something different to you than that income equals outlay?
The Republicans offered a whole slew of health care reform proposals, all of which were either ignored by the Democrats or diluted and stuck in a bil that contained items that were complete non-starters for Republicans.
I feel the same way. Except, Hollywood doesn't make anything worth the effort to pirate. The last movie I went to see in the theaters was LOTR: Return of the King. I may go to the theater for the Hobbit (but unless my wife makes a big deal about going to the theater, I will wait for it to come out on DVD)
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
No, laws are about protecting people's rights. If someone is murdered or stolen from, their rights have clearly been violated. If a minor murders an imaginary person in a game, or sees a nipple on TV, no rights have been violated.
So, you are saying that it is perfectly moral to violate other people's rights, it's just that we don't like it, so we made it illegal?
Actually, what you are saying is that what you consider to be immoral is important and those things that you don't consider to be immoral, but others do, aren't.
I do the same (ignore the ad results in my search). My reason is quite simple, before I started this policy of not clicking on the ads that lead off my search results, I discovered that those results only rarely had more than a peripheral relation to what I was searching for, even when I was looking for where to buy something.
Writing for PCMag, Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands: "If I have real concerns, it's up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks." If you're already buying the game for your kid, then a prohibition on sale directly to minors would be irrelevant. If anything, this law supports Ulanoff's point - that the decision should rest in parents' hands, and that they can freely buy the game if they want.
Pay attention.
Perhaps you should pay attention.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
Too many moving parts to do it's functional job effectively.
What you mean it has too many moving parts to get you to watch the ad?
I think that you, like several other people posting here, missed the point here. This is not a captcha that serves the traditional purpose of captcha: verifying that the user is an actual person, not a bot. This "video captcha" is intended to force you to watch the ads to get to the site you wish to see. I think it will likely do that very well. Of course, I, also, think that it will cause most people to decide that they didn't really want to see that site.
This has nothing to do with captchas. It is not intended to replace (or augment) the way that captchas are used. The sole purpose of this new technique is to force you to watch the ad in order to procedd to the website (as opposed to what I do now which is click on another tab until the ad is done).
This story has no context. Without knowing what the decision was that they cited this on, there is no way for me to judge how appropriate this was or wasn't.
That is almost exactly what I came here to post. Until we identify a second body in the universe that supports life (whether in this solar system, or not and whether that life is there because we put it there or it came from some other source), it is premature to estimate how many planets in the galaxy are habitable.
The country that those arms control treaties were with no longer existed at the time. The arms control treaties that George W. Bush ignored were signed with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
The advantage of an Executive Agreement (from the perspective of those who want to see the particular agreement put into force) is that it does not need to go through the messy process of Senate confirmation. The disadvantage of an Executive Agreement is that the next Presient can choose not to go along with it. From a legal standpoint in the U.S. and Executive Agreement has no more (and no less) force of law than an Executive Order.
There is what appears to be a device in her hand for most of the scene, then she reaches a couple of fingers up towards her hat and at that point her hand appears to be empty (although I won't entirely rule out the one hearing aid device that someone else in this thread suggested).