1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
...dissenting, and concurring. By American terminology you are correct. It once again demonstrates that there is not a whit of difference between left/right/conservative/liberal/Republican/Democrat in America.
Bravo! All attempts to limit political contributions are doomed to fail, as the incentives to bypass such limits are too enormous. The only solution is to reduce the power of the government as a whole. This entirely opposite to the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans.
Al Gore himself is a fine example, having incentivized thousands of lobbyists around the world, while stomping around with the carbon footprint of a mastodon.
You can't sue unless you can prove they did it, to you, personally, and that you suffered some harm. If you ask them if they did it, they will say it is a secret and they cannot tell you. If you somehow find out, you are not allowed to say so, because it is a secret. So if you sue, you get in trouble for revealing secrets.
It is astonishing that most Americans are ok with this.
“...an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the federal government.” - 1932 Democratic platform
“A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” - Ronald Reagan
You are describing the difference between a scientist and an engineer.
Nowadays, people who write computer programs call themselves engineers, but then I see optometrists calling themselves "doctor". Who knows where it will end.
Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.
Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.
Yup, and the Chinese will have airbases in the US. They will fly drones to take out any Chinese citizens in the US that are siding with the enemy. If the US can do that, why not others?
Pollution only occurs when it crosses the polluter's property boundary, so I am ok with the law. However, I not ok with the government having an exemption, without having to get a warrant.
Also, am I the only one who feels the government is continuously shifting the definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" to the point where it is basically nonexistent?
1. Someone will step forward to say that he predicted this would happen, but nobody would listen to him. 2. Some low-level functionary will have his life ruined. 3. Some high-level functionary will get a lobbying job or be appointed to a government regulation agency.
and the government's inability to tax such businesses, because they are either considered "illegal", or a monopoly reserved for the state. That is what this is about.
Slashdot Mirror
...for washing your dick after you had carnal knowledge in the car park behind the bar. A case of crabs is bad enough without.
Why doesn't Google just buy some copyright repealing legislation? That seems the most cost-effective strategy.
You mean the Occupy people?
... and it always will be." - old saying.
As a counterbalance: Clarke's Three Laws:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
DigitalRev must have first bought the GoPros in order to sell them. By the First Sale doctrine they can do what they want.
I think (too lazy to confirm) that the counternotice is filed under penalty of perjury, but the original DCMA takedown is not.
Just another device to protect incumbents. This capitalism is starting to give free enterprise a bad name.
The first oil well in the US was in PA, next to Oil Creek. It was called Oil Creek before the first well was drilled, I wonder why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well
Take this quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz to help you understand. It's actually quite simple.
So a righty, a lefty and a centrist.
...dissenting, and concurring. By American terminology you are correct. It once again demonstrates that there is not a whit of difference between left/right/conservative/liberal/Republican/Democrat in America.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
Bravo! All attempts to limit political contributions are doomed to fail, as the incentives to bypass such limits are too enormous. The only solution is to reduce the power of the government as a whole. This entirely opposite to the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans.
Al Gore himself is a fine example, having incentivized thousands of lobbyists around the world, while stomping around with the carbon footprint of a mastodon.
You can't sue unless you can prove they did it, to you, personally, and that you suffered some harm. If you ask them if they did it, they will say it is a secret and they cannot tell you. If you somehow find out, you are not allowed to say so, because it is a secret. So if you sue, you get in trouble for revealing secrets.
It is astonishing that most Americans are ok with this.
“...an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the federal government.” - 1932 Democratic platform
“A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” - Ronald Reagan
You are describing the difference between a scientist and an engineer.
Nowadays, people who write computer programs call themselves engineers, but then I see optometrists calling themselves "doctor". Who knows where it will end.
Then not on my property any more, and I am liable, under common law.
Yes.
Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.
Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.
Fixed that for you.
Yup, and the Chinese will have airbases in the US. They will fly drones to take out any Chinese citizens in the US that are siding with the enemy. If the US can do that, why not others?
Pollution only occurs when it crosses the polluter's property boundary, so I am ok with the law. However, I not ok with the government having an exemption, without having to get a warrant.
Also, am I the only one who feels the government is continuously shifting the definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" to the point where it is basically nonexistent?
I have observed this, too.
I have the same policy, so at least there are two of us.
If someone mentions that I am slowing down the line by opting out, I point out that it is not me holding people up, it is the TSA.
A Møøse once bit my sister ...
Three things will happen:
1. Someone will step forward to say that he predicted this would happen, but nobody would listen to him.
2. Some low-level functionary will have his life ruined.
3. Some high-level functionary will get a lobbying job or be appointed to a government regulation agency.
and the government's inability to tax such businesses, because they are either considered "illegal", or a monopoly reserved for the state. That is what this is about.