The problem is that filtering out the relevant information is incredibly hard. You probably need 10% of a nation's population if you want to spy on the other 90%. Which means that you need to have a big authoritarian state. Something I don't see happening very soon.
How is this usefull? This is a public list. If this list is correct you only need to check this one if you're looking for child porn. Simply use tor and OpenDNS. Censorship is useless if you indicate what you censor. And at the same time it's abusable if you don't indicate what you censor. Sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.
Tell me about it. I'm fucking PISSED OFF at the legislators! How in the fuck did they manage to pass a bill that is so blatantly against the constitution? I know more about that fragment of law than you apparently. The Netherlands and Finland are the only two countries in the world where judges aren't able to rule on the constitutionality of laws(strict trias politica). So yes, they can pass a bill that violates your constitution.
This post may or may not be a way to tell you that may or may not is a totally ambigious statement. Some people may or may not notice this. I may or may not be modded Offtopic but I can also be modded +1 Funny or +1 Insightfull. However, this may or may not be the case.
It's rare(it take considerable effort to take it from the ground) It is limited(it's not possible to produce new gold so it's rarity does not fluctuate) It is durable(gold decays extremely slow, if you leave it lying around it won't change one bit) You can use it for a few things(it's a good conductor and makes shiny jewelry)
All these points combined make a pretty decent holder of value.
Euros, dollars and seashells don't have all these properties so their inherent value is different. And yes, silver has pretty much the same properties as gold making it a good holder of value.
Also useless. It's like cutting off a leg when you have a scratch. Those laws did not come into being by accident. They were and are part of a natural process that simply happens. It's pretty much standard.
Incident happens or a trend is happening. People or politicians deem is at as a bad thing. A law is written to fix the issue. Now, this may sound straightforward but the problem is that if you enter in this loop a couple of thousand times, law bloat and fragmentation start to happen. Pretty soon you are doing something illegal because it is in violation of some law. This can be a direct effect of the law(thus the intention of law) but it can also be a side-effect of the law. The huge pile of laws becomes a sort of cancer. Cancer is a bunch cells not doing what they are supposed to do. A lawcancer is a bunch of laws that aren't doing what they are supposed to do. Sure, you can cut all the laws and begin again but that simply does not solve the problem. You simply enter the loop at stage 1.
Goverments and lawbooks always start out when a state is formed. However, they all experience bloat and then *boom*, you're in an uncomfortable situation. As a small conclusion I would like to ask you, how many laws have you broken today?
You probably do not understand "circumstantial" evidence. The case you discribed indicates that there was a murder in a building(which can be pinpointed to a certain date) and a person being present at exactly that same time. Furthermore, the person who leaves the building has probably seen the victim since you say "You enter the building to find the other man lying dead in a bloody heap on the ground". Therefore there is a very good case against that man. Especially if they find blood on the suspect.
Circumstantial is something that can be reasonably contructed as being completely independant of the murder. For example cutting you nails(murderers do this to remove DNA), showering(removing DNA), cleaning your car(someone could be killed in it) or shaving your head because you want to look bald(trying to fool people by altering appearance). Al these thing could be things that you do when you have killed someone. The fact is that you can refute this by saying it is circumstantial. Otherwise you have people that reason that you "act" or "look" guilty, something that has caused countless false convictions.
You would probably beg to differ if you were the victim in one of those 90% cases. Furthermore, it reduces the faith in the justice system, which is a highly dangerous thing(think vigilante and mob justice).
Slashdot Mirror
You think they are exactly the same, but they are always slighly different.
Modded +ln(e^1) Funny.
If you have to hide your identity to say what you want, the terrorists have won.
Humor is an obsolete skill :-|
The problem is that filtering out the relevant information is incredibly hard. You probably need 10% of a nation's population if you want to spy on the other 90%. Which means that you need to have a big authoritarian state. Something I don't see happening very soon.
Never, ever depend on morality as a safeguard. Count on the fact that 'they' don't have it and you'll be more carefull.
How is this usefull? This is a public list. If this list is correct you only need to check this one if you're looking for child porn. Simply use tor and OpenDNS. Censorship is useless if you indicate what you censor. And at the same time it's abusable if you don't indicate what you censor. Sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.
The Netherlands and Finland are the only two countries in the world where judges aren't able to rule on the constitutionality of laws(strict trias politica). So yes, they can pass a bill that violates your constitution.
Misquoting Steve Ballmer:
Education! Education! Education!
Teach people that this is possible. You taught me and I till teach someone else. Spread the knowledge so we don't get fucked by greedy ISPs
This post may or may not be a way to tell you that may or may not is a totally ambigious statement. Some people may or may not notice this. I may or may not be modded Offtopic but I can also be modded +1 Funny or +1 Insightfull. However, this may or may not be the case.
It's rare(it take considerable effort to take it from the ground)
It is limited(it's not possible to produce new gold so it's rarity does not fluctuate)
It is durable(gold decays extremely slow, if you leave it lying around it won't change one bit)
You can use it for a few things(it's a good conductor and makes shiny jewelry)
All these points combined make a pretty decent holder of value.
Euros, dollars and seashells don't have all these properties so their inherent value is different. And yes, silver has pretty much the same properties as gold making it a good holder of value.
Let me guess, you're canadian(from the log thing)?
Are you going to bake a pi now, e?
Also useless. It's like cutting off a leg when you have a scratch. Those laws did not come into being by accident. They were and are part of a natural process that simply happens. It's pretty much standard.
Incident happens or a trend is happening. People or politicians deem is at as a bad thing. A law is written to fix the issue. Now, this may sound straightforward but the problem is that if you enter in this loop a couple of thousand times, law bloat and fragmentation start to happen. Pretty soon you are doing something illegal because it is in violation of some law. This can be a direct effect of the law(thus the intention of law) but it can also be a side-effect of the law. The huge pile of laws becomes a sort of cancer. Cancer is a bunch cells not doing what they are supposed to do. A lawcancer is a bunch of laws that aren't doing what they are supposed to do. Sure, you can cut all the laws and begin again but that simply does not solve the problem. You simply enter the loop at stage 1.
Goverments and lawbooks always start out when a state is formed. However, they all experience bloat and then *boom*, you're in an uncomfortable situation. As a small conclusion I would like to ask you, how many laws have you broken today?
It's a time machine!
Well, they are talking about Imperial turquoise. We, on the other hand, use metric turqoise.
The moon is dying!
Bad
Do I get +1 Insightful too now?
Warning, shock site. And a very nasty one at that.
Unforunately Alice and Bob are unable to screw in the lightbulb and call in the help of the technician, Eve.
You dare to criticise Slashdot?! For that, your account will be deleted.
You probably do not understand "circumstantial" evidence. The case you discribed indicates that there was a murder in a building(which can be pinpointed to a certain date) and a person being present at exactly that same time. Furthermore, the person who leaves the building has probably seen the victim since you say "You enter the building to find the other man lying dead in a bloody heap on the ground". Therefore there is a very good case against that man. Especially if they find blood on the suspect.
Circumstantial is something that can be reasonably contructed as being completely independant of the murder. For example cutting you nails(murderers do this to remove DNA), showering(removing DNA), cleaning your car(someone could be killed in it) or shaving your head because you want to look bald(trying to fool people by altering appearance). Al these thing could be things that you do when you have killed someone. The fact is that you can refute this by saying it is circumstantial. Otherwise you have people that reason that you "act" or "look" guilty, something that has caused countless false convictions.
The thing I learned was "If it compiles, ship it"
You would probably beg to differ if you were the victim in one of those 90% cases. Furthermore, it reduces the faith in the justice system, which is a highly dangerous thing(think vigilante and mob justice).