The expression "milestone" is derived from the practice of placing a stone every mile that indicated how many miles it was from the place where the road started. So "stone" in this expression is not referring to a unit of any kind.
I would agree that part of the problem is apathetic voters. However, I don't think everyone should vote, only those who care enough to know what is going on. Part of the problem is the people who start paying attention sometime in October and decide who to vote on based on what they learn between then and election day. Voter registration should be easy, but it should not necessarily be convenient. It should be something that the voter decides to do and then goes and does. Not something that happens when somebody reminds you to do when you get the picture for your driver's license.
...wouldn't intentionally tanking the stock of a company via unsubstantiated rumor be criminal?
It better not be. It's up to the actual traders to verify unsubstantiated statements such as this before taking any action. Restrictions on speech have already gone way too far.
It depends on whether or not the person who initiated the rumor used the drop in prices to buy stock at an artificially low price. There have been several cases where a person started a rumor which caused a significant short term changes in the price of stock (either up or down) and then profited by either buying or selling before the market discovered the rumor was false. In those cases, the individual responsible for the rumor was prosecuted (I forget what the exact charge was).
I've seen the numbers. It doesn't matter if you adjust for number of miles driven, percentage of drivers, pick your "excuse", younger drivers have more and more dangerous accidents than older drivers. I am pretty sure I saw a study that indicated that being under 20 was a more significant factor in accident risk than lack of driving experience.
Check the stats for accidents, as a percentage of drivers on the road, the elderly have far fewer accidents than the young. It doesn't matter how you slice the numbers, those drivers younger than 20 are much more dangerous than those drivers older than (pick a number).
Before we start having driving tests for older people, we need to raise the minimum age at which one can get a driver's license in the first place.
As I posted earlier, the U.S. has an explicit statement of what constitutes a "legal" war: one that is authorized by Congress. Both Houses of Congress passed resolutions supporting military action against Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore under U.S. laws both wars were legal.
Yeah, it's easy to get depressed when you actually care about people and things other than yourself. Depression is one of the most damaging mental illnesses there is.
Especially when you don't actually do anything about the suffering of those other people.
Mental health is probably a lot easier to maintain if you don't care about anyone but yourself. Who needed an experiment to understand that republicans are cowards?
Yeah, that is why every study that has ever looked at it shows that, on average, republicans give a larger percentage of their income to charity than democrats.
Of course the fact that republicans are cowards probably explains why the majority of the Armed Forces are republican.
Let me see if I got this straight, the experienced Republican PRESIDENTIAL nominee chose poorly because he selected as his running mate someone no more qualified to be President than the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate?
Actually, Barclays was in talks with the Treasury Department. When the Treasury Department declined to cover Lehman's liabilities, Barclays decided that Lehman's liabilities exceeded the value of its assets.
There is nothing disgusting about that. That is just business. Lets use a car analogy. Last month you were talking to someone about buying their car. It was worth $5000 but they still owed $6000 on it. They offered to let you have it if you took over the loan payments. You declined. Today the bank has repossessed the car and is offering it for $3000. There is nothing disgusting about you buying the car at that $3000. This just happened faster.
"Citizens of New York who prefer not to carry an identifying RFID chip can still get an old-style license."
Wait a second here.. the RFID licenses are $30 more expensive than regular licenses, yet the residents have the option to get the cheaper RFID-free license? Who's going to choose to willingly pay more to be tracked more effectively?
Aero
I don't know, maybe people who travel to and from Canada on a frequent basis who don't want to have to remember their passport?
This is not suddenoutbreakofcommonsense. The original bill should never have passed in the first place, and common sense would be to remove it again.
While this bill is a step in the right direction it also indirectly legitimates the original bill by not outright removing it. They have no business to search my laptop should I come to the US, not in any way, and not in a limited way either. Period.:)
There was no "original bill". This policy is merely a statement of the DHS of what they believe to be legal behavior on their part based on their understanding of previous court rulings about search and seizure at the border.
There are three important points to be made here.
First, most countries do the same thing, including EU countries, at least when you are coming from outside the EU (not sure what happens if you are traveling from one EU country to another). Those countries just don't get the same level of press on/. for that sort of thing.
Second, U.S. court rulings have repeatedly stated that the 4th Ammendment doesn't apply to border crossings going back to when the people who wrote the Constitution were still running the country.
Third, while I think the bill mentioned in the article is a very good idea (although, as an earlier poster mentioned, some of its provisions may need to be more carefully spelled out to accomplish the goal it intends), before you go off about how this DHS policy shows that we are on the downward spiral to a fascist state, do you know anyone who had an electronic device seized under this policy?
In the U.S. anyone can register as a member of the party of their choice and then run for office in that party's primary. If the local people who vote in the primary vote for a candidate, it doesn't matter what the National (or State) Party officials want. That said, it can be hard to win in the primary if the party machinery opposes you. It is not however impossible, for example, Sarah Palin ran against the party machinery in Alaska and won the primary and then the governorship. Joe Lieberman lost the Democrat primary but still one the election to the Senate from Connecticut.
It was the ones who voted AGAINST the Nazis that got death threats, not the ones who voted for them. Check out Zimbabwe's last couple of elections if you want to know why voting should be anonymous(I'm not sure if Zimbabwe's elections were anonymous or not, but when you look at what went on there it makes it clear why voting should be anonymous).
Just because 81 percent supported a voice vote on the bill doesn't mean that 67 percent voted for it. All it means is that less than 20 percent felt that there was any reason to call for a recorded vote. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Quorum_and_vote )
Additionally, a veto override needs to be on the record, so then at least we would know exactly which individuals to hold accountable to voting for the law.
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Which is what the OP said: "It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.
There's no party that is inculpable here."
Copyright was EXTENDED in 1978(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright) when Jimmy Carter was President and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
You do know that James Randi backed that challenge up with a substantial sum of cash (sorry, I don't remember the amount and am too lazy to go look it up just now).
Yes, if the bill is as it is reported in the article it would be a very bad law. However, it is not yet a law. There is no mention of a U.S. House bill with similar language. And this bill has only just been passed out of committee, it still needs to be voted on by the full Senate, followed by a conference to reconcile it with whatever bill comes from the House (of which there doesn't yet appear to be one). Then the "compromise" bill must be passed by both Houses, then finally it goes to the President for his signature.
So, while this proposal is a bad law, there is still plenty of time to stop it from becoming law.
Since Apple has removed at least 3 apps from the Apple App Store, it is hard for me to believe that they haven't rejected any additional apps before they made it to the App Store.
Well, from a purely selfish perspective, societies with strong religious influences have higher rates of violent crimes (note: correlation does not imply causation, and there may be other causes of this, such as a corresponding lower amount of education) and as a member of society I have a vested interest in lower rates of violent crime. As a member of a technological society, I have a vested interest in the scientific method being widely accepted, since this is at the core of the economy that pays me and makes all of the shiny toys that I want to play with.
I need to see some sort of documentation to back up that assertion, since the evidence I have seen indicates exactly the opposite. Everything I have seen indicates that as religious belief drops off in a society, crime increases (including, but not limited to violent crime).
So would you care to supply some documentation for your assertion?
Someone is finally doing something about this horrible monopoly! We can only hope Google is put in their place, just like Microsoft and AT&T.
Make up your mind, do you want to compare the Google case to the AT&T antitrust case or the Microsoft antitrust case? Microsoft is still around in essentially the same form as before the suit. AT&T was dismantled and the AT&T that exists today is one of the pieces broken off of the original that bought the name when the original AT&T went under(slight hyperbole on the last part).
Contracts are not always legally binding. A primary reason that a contract is found to not be legally binding is because it is unconscionable(an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power). Another reason that a contract may be found unenforceable is that part of the contract is illegal.
I believe that some people here are arguing that these charges represent an unconscionable provision of the contract that this family signed. You may not agree, but that does not mean that they are claiming that the contract should just be ignored. They are saying that the contract is(or should be) legally faulty.
Slashdot Mirror
The expression "milestone" is derived from the practice of placing a stone every mile that indicated how many miles it was from the place where the road started. So "stone" in this expression is not referring to a unit of any kind.
I would agree that part of the problem is apathetic voters. However, I don't think everyone should vote, only those who care enough to know what is going on. Part of the problem is the people who start paying attention sometime in October and decide who to vote on based on what they learn between then and election day. Voter registration should be easy, but it should not necessarily be convenient. It should be something that the voter decides to do and then goes and does. Not something that happens when somebody reminds you to do when you get the picture for your driver's license.
It better not be. It's up to the actual traders to verify unsubstantiated statements such as this before taking any action. Restrictions on speech have already gone way too far.
It depends on whether or not the person who initiated the rumor used the drop in prices to buy stock at an artificially low price. There have been several cases where a person started a rumor which caused a significant short term changes in the price of stock (either up or down) and then profited by either buying or selling before the market discovered the rumor was false. In those cases, the individual responsible for the rumor was prosecuted (I forget what the exact charge was).
I've seen the numbers. It doesn't matter if you adjust for number of miles driven, percentage of drivers, pick your "excuse", younger drivers have more and more dangerous accidents than older drivers. I am pretty sure I saw a study that indicated that being under 20 was a more significant factor in accident risk than lack of driving experience.
Check the stats for accidents, as a percentage of drivers on the road, the elderly have far fewer accidents than the young. It doesn't matter how you slice the numbers, those drivers younger than 20 are much more dangerous than those drivers older than (pick a number).
Before we start having driving tests for older people, we need to raise the minimum age at which one can get a driver's license in the first place.
As I posted earlier, the U.S. has an explicit statement of what constitutes a "legal" war: one that is authorized by Congress. Both Houses of Congress passed resolutions supporting military action against Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore under U.S. laws both wars were legal.
Yeah, it's easy to get depressed when you actually care about people and things other than yourself. Depression is one of the most damaging mental illnesses there is.
Especially when you don't actually do anything about the suffering of those other people.
Mental health is probably a lot easier to maintain if you don't care about anyone but yourself. Who needed an experiment to understand that republicans are cowards?
Yeah, that is why every study that has ever looked at it shows that, on average, republicans give a larger percentage of their income to charity than democrats.
Of course the fact that republicans are cowards probably explains why the majority of the Armed Forces are republican.
Let me see if I got this straight, the experienced Republican PRESIDENTIAL nominee chose poorly because he selected as his running mate someone no more qualified to be President than the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate?
Actually, Barclays was in talks with the Treasury Department. When the Treasury Department declined to cover Lehman's liabilities, Barclays decided that Lehman's liabilities exceeded the value of its assets.
There is nothing disgusting about that. That is just business. Lets use a car analogy. Last month you were talking to someone about buying their car. It was worth $5000 but they still owed $6000 on it. They offered to let you have it if you took over the loan payments. You declined. Today the bank has repossessed the car and is offering it for $3000. There is nothing disgusting about you buying the car at that $3000. This just happened faster.
"Citizens of New York who prefer not to carry an identifying RFID chip can still get an old-style license."
Wait a second here.. the RFID licenses are $30 more expensive than regular licenses, yet the residents have the option to get the cheaper RFID-free license? Who's going to choose to willingly pay more to be tracked more effectively? Aero
I don't know, maybe people who travel to and from Canada on a frequent basis who don't want to have to remember their passport?
If 1 gram of graphene has the surface area of a football field, what's the surface area of a football field of graphene?
That depends if it is American football or what the rest of the world calls football.
This is not suddenoutbreakofcommonsense. The original bill should never have passed in the first place, and common sense would be to remove it again. While this bill is a step in the right direction it also indirectly legitimates the original bill by not outright removing it. They have no business to search my laptop should I come to the US, not in any way, and not in a limited way either. Period. :)
There was no "original bill". This policy is merely a statement of the DHS of what they believe to be legal behavior on their part based on their understanding of previous court rulings about search and seizure at the border. /. for that sort of thing.
There are three important points to be made here.
First, most countries do the same thing, including EU countries, at least when you are coming from outside the EU (not sure what happens if you are traveling from one EU country to another). Those countries just don't get the same level of press on
Second, U.S. court rulings have repeatedly stated that the 4th Ammendment doesn't apply to border crossings going back to when the people who wrote the Constitution were still running the country.
Third, while I think the bill mentioned in the article is a very good idea (although, as an earlier poster mentioned, some of its provisions may need to be more carefully spelled out to accomplish the goal it intends), before you go off about how this DHS policy shows that we are on the downward spiral to a fascist state, do you know anyone who had an electronic device seized under this policy?
In the U.S. anyone can register as a member of the party of their choice and then run for office in that party's primary. If the local people who vote in the primary vote for a candidate, it doesn't matter what the National (or State) Party officials want.
That said, it can be hard to win in the primary if the party machinery opposes you. It is not however impossible, for example, Sarah Palin ran against the party machinery in Alaska and won the primary and then the governorship. Joe Lieberman lost the Democrat primary but still one the election to the Senate from Connecticut.
It was the ones who voted AGAINST the Nazis that got death threats, not the ones who voted for them. Check out Zimbabwe's last couple of elections if you want to know why voting should be anonymous(I'm not sure if Zimbabwe's elections were anonymous or not, but when you look at what went on there it makes it clear why voting should be anonymous).
Just because 81 percent supported a voice vote on the bill doesn't mean that 67 percent voted for it. All it means is that less than 20 percent felt that there was any reason to call for a recorded vote. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Quorum_and_vote ) Additionally, a veto override needs to be on the record, so then at least we would know exactly which individuals to hold accountable to voting for the law.
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Which is what the OP said: "It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law. There's no party that is inculpable here."
Copyright was EXTENDED in 1978(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright) when Jimmy Carter was President and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
You do know that James Randi backed that challenge up with a substantial sum of cash (sorry, I don't remember the amount and am too lazy to go look it up just now).
Yes, if the bill is as it is reported in the article it would be a very bad law. However, it is not yet a law. There is no mention of a U.S. House bill with similar language. And this bill has only just been passed out of committee, it still needs to be voted on by the full Senate, followed by a conference to reconcile it with whatever bill comes from the House (of which there doesn't yet appear to be one). Then the "compromise" bill must be passed by both Houses, then finally it goes to the President for his signature.
So, while this proposal is a bad law, there is still plenty of time to stop it from becoming law.
Anybody else notice that one of the members on this committee is Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware and VP nominee of the Democratic Party.
Since Apple has removed at least 3 apps from the Apple App Store, it is hard for me to believe that they haven't rejected any additional apps before they made it to the App Store.
Well, from a purely selfish perspective, societies with strong religious influences have higher rates of violent crimes (note: correlation does not imply causation, and there may be other causes of this, such as a corresponding lower amount of education) and as a member of society I have a vested interest in lower rates of violent crime. As a member of a technological society, I have a vested interest in the scientific method being widely accepted, since this is at the core of the economy that pays me and makes all of the shiny toys that I want to play with.
I need to see some sort of documentation to back up that assertion, since the evidence I have seen indicates exactly the opposite. Everything I have seen indicates that as religious belief drops off in a society, crime increases (including, but not limited to violent crime).
So would you care to supply some documentation for your assertion?
Someone is finally doing something about this horrible monopoly! We can only hope Google is put in their place, just like Microsoft and AT&T.
Make up your mind, do you want to compare the Google case to the AT&T antitrust case or the Microsoft antitrust case? Microsoft is still around in essentially the same form as before the suit. AT&T was dismantled and the AT&T that exists today is one of the pieces broken off of the original that bought the name when the original AT&T went under(slight hyperbole on the last part).
This isn't a "legal ploy". It is called "prior art".
Contracts are not always legally binding. A primary reason that a contract is found to not be legally binding is because it is unconscionable(an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power). Another reason that a contract may be found unenforceable is that part of the contract is illegal.
I believe that some people here are arguing that these charges represent an unconscionable provision of the contract that this family signed. You may not agree, but that does not mean that they are claiming that the contract should just be ignored. They are saying that the contract is(or should be) legally faulty.