I'd say the money IS the property of the bank for some values of "IS". How truthfully is your house YOUR house while you still owe the bank money on the mortgage?
If the bank can give away the money and still pay what it owes to the customers then essentially the bank is giving away its own money. If the bank can't repay the customers or requires relying on some sort of insurance then they're really giving away somebody else's money and I'd say my original point still stands.
As long as all the money in the safe is the property of the banker then your example seems fine.
However as the money is usually the property of other people, your example is ridiculous, unless all those other people also consent. Good luck with that.
I've thought about a number of different options for saving energy related to heating and cooling.
In a house you could use a diverter to run water from the bathtub drain through a radiator in the basement in winter instead of just sending all that heat into the sewer.
In the summer time you could make use of a radiator on the water supply to dump heat from the house into the water that's been cooled by the ground, then send that heat into the sewer.
When I see an indoor rink with a pile of ice from the zamboni sitting outside in the summer I wonder why they don't use the ice to dump heat from the cooling system that created it in the first place.
I have a dryer in my apartment and divert the hot air inside in the winter. I also use a dehumidifier to get rid of the excess humidity. The heat generated replaces heat that would otherwise come from electric baseboard heating.
They should have trained 3 more soldiers.
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
- USG invests hunderds of thousands or millions of dollars in training for 1334 soldiers and pays them a civil service salary
It would have been so much better if they had trained just 3 more soldiers.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the Pope told reporters aboard his plane to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Their stance does not seem to be logical or consistent. Given the number of people in Africa, including children, infected with HIV it most certainly is not moral.
If nobody is going to be blown up, shot, or poisoned, DHS probably shouldn't be involved
So it seems the problem is easily fixed. Just start shooting, blowing up and poisoning DHS. Now that I think of it, that would likely fix a few other problems as well.
Interesting to hear that astronauts trained in Sudbury, I didn't know that.
The first thing that I though when I read the summary is that there's a lot of mining that goes on around Sudbury, so maybe they know a bit about what's involved in collecting rock and/or soil samples.
Also putting young people in prison is a very effective way to ensure that they hang out with plenty of criminals. It also gives them the chance to learn from the more experienced ones.
One minor correction. People who are locked up likely do still commit crimes, but usually only against other inmates, not against the general public.
I'm not sure if this was the idea you were going for, but suppose that there is a sufficient concentration of methane in the atmosphere. You would fill your vehicle's tank with oxygen and use that to be burn the surrounding atmosphere in the engine. Instead of carrying fuel and getting the oxidiser from the atmosphere you would be doing the reverse, carrying the oxidiser with you.
"it would let companies define the law for themselves, at whim"
The key point being that "at whim" means without paying sufficient amounts of money to legislators. Companies are free to define the law for themselves, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
There's a preview clip on YouTube where he appears to miss a meteor pass through the constellation that he's pointing out to someone. It's at 1:31 in the clip.
I was going to make this exact point if it hadn't already been made.
So first they'll convict you, then they'll take your DNA and then prove that you didn't really do it? I'm sure you would have offered your DNA before.
Or they'll find that the DNA evidence matches someone else's DNA to prove that you didn't do it? If the DNA evidence matches someone else then it doesn't match your DNA. No need to take anyone else's DNA to prove that.
Sound like BS to make a bad idea sound better. Makes about as much sense as adding manure to bad tasting medicine "to make it taste better".
Though rarely discussed, the worst three-strikes law is in North Korea. Somebody downloaded a few songs once and now the whole country is banned from the internet.
I'm not sure about the answer to your question of whether you pirating the music or not. But a significant difference is that in many places (Canada for example) downloading is not considered to be as bad as uploading. That works great with youtube. But if you're using P2P then you're going to be uploading as well.
"If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack."
I don't know the legal definition of derivative work, but I would have thought it involved doing some actual work to create something new - not just leaving out part of the original work. If this really is a derivative work, then isn't any mp3 ripped from a CD a derivative work since the mp3 is just a lossy compressed version of the actual song?
"encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender"
Because of course while engaging in any sort of sexual behavior, you must surely be either a victim or an offender. Of course it is much better to promote "just say no" and pretend that normal human sexual desire does not exist, and certainly not in any one not of legal age.
I think that the real source of the problem here is someone who likely has a completely screwed up attitude towards any sort of sexual behavior.
And for any comments about "statutory rape", I don't think that applies (at least it shouldn't) in the case of two minors.
You're at +5 Insightful and still deserve to be modded up, you make the point so well.
Yes mistakes are made. Lying about them is another mistake, and in this case very likely a deliberate one, made when not under fire. One which only serves to undermine the credibility of everyone involved.
Admitting that a mistake had been made would be much better.
So if while driving my car completely correctly, doing nothing illegal, I accidentally run over and kill someone then covering it up doesn't make it worse. What would make it worse is someone going out of their way to turn me in to the police, because then that would cause additional needless suffering for me. Because even if the police do end up deciding that I was not at fault and I'm not charged, you know that they're going to be some pretty unpleasant moments before that. And people may blame me, be mad at me and hate me.
How's that for a Slashdot car analogy?
I really wish that I could say that I'm glad that I don't live in the same screwed up world that you do...
To really have a noticeable effect on the problem, I think that we need to provide a better deterrent to other botnet operators by making a sufficiently good example of these ones.
Maybe installing well publicized web cams that that provide a full time live feed of their "pound me in the ass" prison cells for all to see would help. We could also have special "guest pounders" from time to time. Maybe charge a small fee to watch that, to raise money to pay for better investigations of remaining active botnets.
I think a big part of the reason for Google's 20% time rule is to allow creative people to do what they want to keep them happy. Where else would they have such freedom?
From the point of view of the benefit of those projects, sure most of them won't come up with anything significant. But once in a while someone will and it may end up being very successful. Isn't that basically how all research works?
All it would take is catching on child changing or masturbating. Then you're guilty of creating child pornography maybe even distributing it. I think that sounds much better than just a "sex offender".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the money IS the property of the bank for some values of "IS". How truthfully is your house YOUR house while you still owe the bank money on the mortgage?
If the bank can give away the money and still pay what it owes to the customers then essentially the bank is giving away its own money. If the bank can't repay the customers or requires relying on some sort of insurance then they're really giving away somebody else's money and I'd say my original point still stands.
As long as all the money in the safe is the property of the banker then your example seems fine.
However as the money is usually the property of other people, your example is ridiculous, unless all those other people also consent. Good luck with that.
I went to the family farm, and while there helped my uncle ack off a horse.
Yes, grammar does matter. So does saying what you actually mean to say. Like change the "J" to lower case.
I've thought about a number of different options for saving energy related to heating and cooling.
In a house you could use a diverter to run water from the bathtub drain through a radiator in the basement in winter instead of just sending all that heat into the sewer.
In the summer time you could make use of a radiator on the water supply to dump heat from the house into the water that's been cooled by the ground, then send that heat into the sewer.
When I see an indoor rink with a pile of ice from the zamboni sitting outside in the summer I wonder why they don't use the ice to dump heat from the cooling system that created it in the first place.
I have a dryer in my apartment and divert the hot air inside in the winter. I also use a dehumidifier to get rid of the excess humidity. The heat generated replaces heat that would otherwise come from electric baseboard heating.
It would have been so much better if they had trained just 3 more soldiers.
On the question of using condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, the pope says they don't work.
Their stance does not seem to be logical or consistent. Given the number of people in Africa, including children, infected with HIV it most certainly is not moral.
So it seems the problem is easily fixed. Just start shooting, blowing up and poisoning DHS. Now that I think of it, that would likely fix a few other problems as well.
Interesting to hear that astronauts trained in Sudbury, I didn't know that.
The first thing that I though when I read the summary is that there's a lot of mining that goes on around Sudbury, so maybe they know a bit about what's involved in collecting rock and/or soil samples.
Also putting young people in prison is a very effective way to ensure that they hang out with plenty of criminals. It also gives them the chance to learn from the more experienced ones.
One minor correction. People who are locked up likely do still commit crimes, but usually only against other inmates, not against the general public.
For those unfamiliar with the reference, the "North American house hippo" was the subject of a Canadian television public service announcement encouraging kids to question the reality of what they saw on tv.
I'm not sure if this was the idea you were going for, but suppose that there is a sufficient concentration of methane in the atmosphere. You would fill your vehicle's tank with oxygen and use that to be burn the surrounding atmosphere in the engine. Instead of carrying fuel and getting the oxidiser from the atmosphere you would be doing the reverse, carrying the oxidiser with you.
"it would let companies define the law for themselves, at whim"
The key point being that "at whim" means without paying sufficient amounts of money to legislators. Companies are free to define the law for themselves, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
There's a preview clip on YouTube where he appears to miss a meteor pass through the constellation that he's pointing out to someone. It's at 1:31 in the clip.
Not saying I'd recommend it, but if that's the measure that you want to use then I'd say a cheap clunker could probably beat the both of them*.
*Take the rest of the cash your would have spent buying either one and spend that on blowjobs.
I'd bet no one does it because no one one understands when someone says that.
I was going to make this exact point if it hadn't already been made.
So first they'll convict you, then they'll take your DNA and then prove that you didn't really do it? I'm sure you would have offered your DNA before.
Or they'll find that the DNA evidence matches someone else's DNA to prove that you didn't do it? If the DNA evidence matches someone else then it doesn't match your DNA. No need to take anyone else's DNA to prove that.
Sound like BS to make a bad idea sound better. Makes about as much sense as adding manure to bad tasting medicine "to make it taste better".
Though rarely discussed, the worst three-strikes law is in North Korea. Somebody downloaded a few songs once and now the whole country is banned from the internet.
I'm not sure about the answer to your question of whether you pirating the music or not. But a significant difference is that in many places (Canada for example) downloading is not considered to be as bad as uploading. That works great with youtube. But if you're using P2P then you're going to be uploading as well.
"If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack."
I don't know the legal definition of derivative work, but I would have thought it involved doing some actual work to create something new - not just leaving out part of the original work. If this really is a derivative work, then isn't any mp3 ripped from a CD a derivative work since the mp3 is just a lossy compressed version of the actual song?
"encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender"
Because of course while engaging in any sort of sexual behavior, you must surely be either a victim or an offender.
Of course it is much better to promote "just say no" and pretend that normal human sexual desire does not exist, and certainly not in any one not of legal age.
I think that the real source of the problem here is someone who likely has a completely screwed up attitude towards any sort of sexual behavior.
And for any comments about "statutory rape", I don't think that applies (at least it shouldn't) in the case of two minors.
You're at +5 Insightful and still deserve to be modded up, you make the point so well.
Yes mistakes are made. Lying about them is another mistake, and in this case very likely a deliberate one, made when not under fire. One which only serves to undermine the credibility of everyone involved.
Admitting that a mistake had been made would be much better.
So if while driving my car completely correctly, doing nothing illegal, I accidentally run over and kill someone then covering it up doesn't make it worse. What would make it worse is someone going out of their way to turn me in to the police, because then that would cause additional needless suffering for me. Because even if the police do end up deciding that I was not at fault and I'm not charged, you know that they're going to be some pretty unpleasant moments before that. And people may blame me, be mad at me and hate me.
How's that for a Slashdot car analogy?
I really wish that I could say that I'm glad that I don't live in the same screwed up world that you do...
To really have a noticeable effect on the problem, I think that we need to provide a better deterrent to other botnet operators by making a sufficiently good example of these ones.
Maybe installing well publicized web cams that that provide a full time live feed of their "pound me in the ass" prison cells for all to see would help.
We could also have special "guest pounders" from time to time. Maybe charge a small fee to watch that, to raise money to pay for better investigations of remaining active botnets.
I think a big part of the reason for Google's 20% time rule is to allow creative people to do what they want to keep them happy. Where else would they have such freedom?
From the point of view of the benefit of those projects, sure most of them won't come up with anything significant. But once in a while someone will and it may end up being very successful. Isn't that basically how all research works?
All it would take is catching on child changing or masturbating. Then you're guilty of creating child pornography maybe even distributing it. I think that sounds much better than just a "sex offender".