The GP reminds me of those types that prefer an authoritarian system where they are in the right. I happen like direct democracy because it gives me the right to be an idiot! Living in Switzerland that is how I explain direct democracy.
The right to be an idiot and vote along idiotic lines if I so choose...
I live in Switzerland and it has a direct democracy system, and I do not think it is the worst system. The reality is that you actually get a middle of the road system.
You fear that there would be a tyranny of Joe Average with his church learning, when I really doubt that would happen. The problem right now in the American system is that it is not proportional representation. Look at the senators, 2 from each state. Compare California, and Iowa... A bit of a difference. Yes there is the house of representatives, but with gerry-menadering things have become quite warped.
Look at the New England states. They have quite a bit of direct democracy. Has it hurt them? Or what about California? Annnorld... for a republican looks pretty democratic... I think the real reason why America would not want that is because the entire midwest would loose huge amounts of influence. It would be concentrated in California, New York, and Florida. And what are those states? You guessed it mostly democractic, or at least democratic tendencies.
What I have experienced in a direct democracy like Switzerland is that people don't vote always with the same party. They vote for the issues. So you will have people who vote on the right for many things, but on other things vote for the left. You compromise.
Ok, and what kind of messages do you want to send?
This is what I call adding unneeded extensibility. Sure maybe one day we want to add the message, "hey dude look at that person with fake hair" but do we compromise a system?
I actually tend to prefer the KISS principle because the message regarding somebody's hair is not going to make a difference one way or another.
It seems the techies and in specific software techies are running the Boeing show. This tells me I really don't want to fly with the 787...
Can we safely transport Hydrogen. Yes... Can we safely transport Hydrogen and float? Answer is no...
Using Hydrogen means we need to weigh how much safety to reasonable expect. Unless of course we happen to develop some super tensile spider web type technology that can be used to safely contain hydrogen. Though I would not trust that technology worth a darn. From the periodic table Hydrogen is just too darn unstable... Look at the periodic table and see what it neighbors are...
The reason why we use Hydrogen, or Helium is because they are light and actually make it worthwhile to float. Hydrogen is the lightest because it has a weight of 1. Below that is Li which is slightly heavier than H, but just as unstable as H. Though if you look at the noble gasses below Helium is Neon, which has a weight of 10. In other words 5 times heavier. Actually heavier than air because air is O, and N, which are both lighter than Ne.
In the end this boils down to use H, or He. And if He runs out well then we are buggered because we can't just created another base element.... Or we live with the dangers of H.
Funny I was thinking the same thing. Cargo zeppelins was actually a very promising area. My brother's company that makes custom machinery wanted to use Cargo zeppelins to move their heavy machinery. Right now their machines are assembled, taken apart, and then driven piece by piece via road. The zeppelins were supposed to make this moot by being able to ship the entire machine.
From the article it looks like they want to use those machines to survey... Hmmm... Big brother?
So tell me... You are prepared to pay almost double for Pirates of the Caribbean 3? This is a scam that the big movie theater companies are running to get you to pony up more money for the same darn content...
Think of it as follows. You are buying a digital camera. Regular DVD is your phone camera, and BlueRay is your 10 Megapixel camera. The cost of generating the picture is higher with the 10 Megapixel. The cost of displaying the higher content is also higher, but that is not a function of the movie theater since they are not carrying the costs. So you could argue that highdef DVD would cost more, but to the tune of what you have illustrated?
Yet here is the kicker, all of this would make sense if the movie theaters actually needed to invest in new equipment. They don't they already generate high def and thus whether they move the DIGITAL content to DVD or BlueRay is a question of using the proper encoder. In other words content should cost only a small fraction more.
Yet your examples illustrate a minimum price hike of 80% for more content? Sorry but you are getting duped here on a major scale.
This is a scam that the movie theaters are doing so that you will pay more for movies so that actors can get paid more...
Ok, So here in Switzerland I can get the average DVD for around 14.99 CHF to about 24.99 CHF (MediaMarkt). I saw a blue ray movie and it was 44.99 CHF and could not believe it. Why in the heck would somebody pay nearly double the price so that you can see the butt pimple of an actor? Maybe one or two movies you want to see the butt pimple, but in general no way...
>Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.
Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.
>Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.
>If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).
And with Linux you need it as well, unless you are a Linux expert. And in that case your salary is higher (or should be) than most Windows administrators. Thus your extra salary is the "technical support."
>If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.
With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself. Otherwise you are in the same boat as Microsoft. And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks. Thus you are costing the corporation more by fixing a problem.
>With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.
No, it depends on your administration abilities. These days it is just as easy to bugger up a Windows system as a Linux system. And if we want to go back in history the first worm that literally brought down the entire Internet was a worm that exploited a --UNIX-- hole.
>With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!
No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees.
I was an OSCON once and there was a guy talking about Open Source and comparisons. And he said you know this license argument is BS. Think of it as follows, in the West we have interest on mortgages. In Sharia you have "rent". If you add the payments together "interestingly" enough the two added together make it look like there is interest being charge. His point was that you can call it what you want, you still end up paying one way or another.
For if LINUX was truly cheaper in the overall then Windows would completely collapse. Yet it has not... Sure Linux on the server is making headway, but it is killing Microsoft.
I think Linux has its advantages on the server, but costs is not one of them.
Ah yes... And here comes the question who cracks first, you or the user?
I am betting you will blink because Microsoft does to a large degree control the desktop. Microsoft is actually playing it very clever by supporting OSX, and Firefox on Windows and OSX... So in your disgust what will you be forced to buy at work? Oh yeah an OSX box with Firefox. I am sure that you will not complain...
Interesting, why are you visiting the Microsoft website? It is actually not necessary.
You could argue that you might want to get a driver or such. But you know there are CD's to reinstall the machine, or reset's that can be triggered to reset your machine.
If you want to recover the machine then you can set it to lowest common denominator safety restore at the Windows boot and it will work.
My point is that by using a Linux Live CD you are using your solution, which probably works, but is not necessary.
Thus your solution is not interesting to Linux.
Again don't get me wrong in saying it is good strategy, but from Microsoft's perspective I completely understand.
>> A security vulnerability related to OpenOffice.org documents may allow certain Java applets to break through the "sandbox" and therefore have full access to system resources with current user privileges. The offending Applets may be constructed to destroy/replace files, read or send private data, and/or cause additional security issues.
Cool... Sure this bug is from 2006. BUT, look at the workaround. Disable the software, and in the future?
>> With the updated versions for OpenOffice.org, support for Java applets in OpenOffice.org will be disabled.
I am not saying the OpenOffice is worse than Microsoft Office. What I am saying is that the problems Microsoft has, OpenOffice has as well. The big difference is that people shut their eyes to the problems outside the Microsoft world.
Plane 9 was not open source originally. It is open source NOW...
But the point of Jaron Lanier is very valid. Open Source is good a creating nuts and bolts things, but horrible in creating systems.
Many pointed out Apache as an example. Well its an excellent example of nuts and bolts, not completed systems. Yes Apache can be assembled into a complete system, but it is not from the start a complete system.
To illustrate the failings look at OSX. Apple and Linux both were underdogs and both use UNIX as its base system. Now look where OSX is and Linux is? OSX is eating Linux's lunch. People actually treat OSX as a easy to use operating system. Yet OSX is NOT FREE, and the hardware is more EXPENSIVE.
Thus this should tell you that at the end of the day people don't care about free, but care about getting their work done.
Do you actually know the character of a bullmastiff? I know, and it is not what people think it is. A Bullmastiff is not a dangerous dog. It's working dog meant to track you down, and "sit" on you.
"Gamekeepers then started their search for a dog that was strong, silent, fearless, agile and powerful enough to be able to run down and knock the poacher to the ground. They also required a breed that would not maul the poacher but only hold them until help came from the Gamekeeper."
They look scary, but are actually nice dogs. It's like Olde English Bulldogs, and English Bulldogs, which my wife and I have. People get scared of them because of their looks. But they are not dangerous dogs. All dogs bite including little poodles... Dogs are a product of their surroundings. Yes dogs have certain characters, but with the right environment and right owner there is no danger.
I completely agree with you. I also have learned to completely tune out ads. It really is a bizarre acquired trait. I could watch a show and if somebody asked what commercials were playing I would be pretty much clueless. But like you, you do things during the ads.
You could argue that I am clueless, but I have found when news breaks, or upcoming programs are talked about my brain reacts on a dime. I guess it is like a sleeping dog or cat. They don't ever really sleep, just close their eyes and rest until something of importance happens.
I think if they actually did less ads with a higher quality they would be better off.
At the heart of these cases is the notion that due process expects that a defendant's conduct must have some past, present, or anticipated locus or impact within the United States before he can fairly be held criminal liable for it in an American court. The commentators have greeted this analysis with hesitancy at best,25 and other courts have simply rejected it.26
But it goes on...
Conceding this outer boundary, however, the courts fairly uniformly have held that questions of extraterritoriality are almost exclusively within the discretion of Congress; a determination to grant a statutory provision extraterritorial application - regardless of its policy consequences - introduces no new constitutional infirmities.
So in the end you are right. You are at the whim of getting arrested, at least in America... In other countries well the situation is not so clear. I guess you hit upon a "gray spot" in the law...
>Besides, even when you are in another country, regardless of their less restrictive laws, you still must abide by the laws of where you claim citizenship, or risk be arrested on your return to home soil.
To add on my previous comment. One very simple example of where this shows to be false is Windsor and Detroit.
Underage persons in the US who live in areas that border Canada and Mexico, both of which have lower drinking ages, sometimes cross the border in order to obtain alcoholic beverages. Mexico's legal drinking age is 18, while Canada's legal drinking age is either 18 or 19, depending on the province in question. They may consume it there or upon return home. In Michigan for example, a person drinking in Windsor, ON at age 19 can return to Detroit, MI and will not be legally cited because the consumption was done in Ontario. Being intoxicated under the age of 21 is not illegal (unless the person is also driving). Consuming it in Michigan is.
>Besides, even when you are in another country, regardless of their less restrictive laws, you still must abide by the laws of where you claim citizenship, or risk be arrested on your return to home soil.
ehh... No... Otherwise there would be oodles of people getting arrested for smoking pot legally in Holland. When abroad you are actually subject to the laws of that country, not your country of citizenship.
Yes there are situations where a country will act even if the act is not carried out on in the country of citizenship (eg child prostitution) but that is relatively rare.
A citizen is nothing more than the right to vote and not be persecuted by your own government. With respect to the law everybody in the country regardless if they are a citizen or not has to respect them.
Ahh yes I love when people write revisionist history.
>It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.
What killed Netscape is arrogance! I was in the business world, and my company (which happened to be a very very big bank) was shunned by Netscape. I am not kidding here. The bank wanted to license Netscape Navigator in 1996, and Netscape decided that the bank was not a big enough client (they only wanted to buy 4,000 licenses). Thus we were left hanging in the wind and mighty annoyed.
Next Netscape actually was the first company to support ActiveX in the form of Active Documents. I used it to illustrate how stocks could traded in 1996. Yes it was an undocumented feature, but it worked. I then asked the head honchos on when they would be extending this, and their reply was, "it is not going to be extended because it is Microsoft technology." Notice though how XPCOM is very much like COM?
Standards? I find it ironic that the EFF is going after Microsoft. Netscape in its heyday was notorious for ignoring the standards and creating their own. They would constantly add features and do-dads that would only work in the Netscape browser. I remember when frames and tables were added. It sent browsers like Mosaic into a tailspin.
So to rewrite history and say that IE won because Microsoft was a big bad monopoly is a pile horse hooy... Microsoft was massively behind and they won because Netscape blundered!
Removing accidents and homicides is actually a bad idea and distorts the health care picture.
Take the following scenario, you are in a car accident, or been shot. Would you want to be shot or in a car accident in say Mexico, or say Norway? This is important because the quality of emergency care you get is a result of the quality of health care. So if more people die in America due to accidents or gun shots then you have two reasons; bad drivers and lots of guns killing people, and health care that is not capable of dealing with those situations.
What you are doing by removing accidents and homicides is being selective in your statistics and focusing on those people that don't do dangerous sports, or do anything that might bring harm on them. Not a good idea...
>Maybe none of this matters, because in 10 years Honda will make a baseball playing robot that beats any human in all categories.
I am thinking this as well. We already have video games, why not robots? Oh wait, is there not a TV show or competition called battlebots? And from what I saw the new trend is automated cars driving through obstacles, and playing soccer... It's not far away...
WRT to baseball. I actually would love to see robots play baseball. Perfect vision, perfect pitch, etc going head to head. Baseball will become a battlefield of strategy...
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree with your comment.
The GP reminds me of those types that prefer an authoritarian system where they are in the right. I happen like direct democracy because it gives me the right to be an idiot! Living in Switzerland that is how I explain direct democracy.
The right to be an idiot and vote along idiotic lines if I so choose...
I live in Switzerland and it has a direct democracy system, and I do not think it is the worst system. The reality is that you actually get a middle of the road system.
You fear that there would be a tyranny of Joe Average with his church learning, when I really doubt that would happen. The problem right now in the American system is that it is not proportional representation. Look at the senators, 2 from each state. Compare California, and Iowa... A bit of a difference. Yes there is the house of representatives, but with gerry-menadering things have become quite warped.
Look at the New England states. They have quite a bit of direct democracy. Has it hurt them? Or what about California? Annnorld... for a republican looks pretty democratic... I think the real reason why America would not want that is because the entire midwest would loose huge amounts of influence. It would be concentrated in California, New York, and Florida. And what are those states? You guessed it mostly democractic, or at least democratic tendencies.
What I have experienced in a direct democracy like Switzerland is that people don't vote always with the same party. They vote for the issues. So you will have people who vote on the right for many things, but on other things vote for the left. You compromise.
Ok, and what kind of messages do you want to send?
This is what I call adding unneeded extensibility. Sure maybe one day we want to add the message, "hey dude look at that person with fake hair" but do we compromise a system?
I actually tend to prefer the KISS principle because the message regarding somebody's hair is not going to make a difference one way or another.
It seems the techies and in specific software techies are running the Boeing show. This tells me I really don't want to fly with the 787...
The answer is no...
Can we safely transport Hydrogen. Yes... Can we safely transport Hydrogen and float? Answer is no...
Using Hydrogen means we need to weigh how much safety to reasonable expect. Unless of course we happen to develop some super tensile spider web type technology that can be used to safely contain hydrogen. Though I would not trust that technology worth a darn. From the periodic table Hydrogen is just too darn unstable... Look at the periodic table and see what it neighbors are...
http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/
Li, Na, K, etc... Not exactly the stable sort of chemicals...
Ahhh.... Welll.... If we run out helium we are actually kind of buggered. Look at the periodic table.
http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/
The reason why we use Hydrogen, or Helium is because they are light and actually make it worthwhile to float. Hydrogen is the lightest because it has a weight of 1. Below that is Li which is slightly heavier than H, but just as unstable as H. Though if you look at the noble gasses below Helium is Neon, which has a weight of 10. In other words 5 times heavier. Actually heavier than air because air is O, and N, which are both lighter than Ne.
In the end this boils down to use H, or He. And if He runs out well then we are buggered because we can't just created another base element.... Or we live with the dangers of H.
Funny I was thinking the same thing. Cargo zeppelins was actually a very promising area. My brother's company that makes custom machinery wanted to use Cargo zeppelins to move their heavy machinery. Right now their machines are assembled, taken apart, and then driven piece by piece via road. The zeppelins were supposed to make this moot by being able to ship the entire machine.
From the article it looks like they want to use those machines to survey... Hmmm... Big brother?
The movie I was looking at was Spiderman 3...
So tell me... You are prepared to pay almost double for Pirates of the Caribbean 3? This is a scam that the big movie theater companies are running to get you to pony up more money for the same darn content...
Think of it as follows. You are buying a digital camera. Regular DVD is your phone camera, and BlueRay is your 10 Megapixel camera. The cost of generating the picture is higher with the 10 Megapixel. The cost of displaying the higher content is also higher, but that is not a function of the movie theater since they are not carrying the costs. So you could argue that highdef DVD would cost more, but to the tune of what you have illustrated?
Yet here is the kicker, all of this would make sense if the movie theaters actually needed to invest in new equipment. They don't they already generate high def and thus whether they move the DIGITAL content to DVD or BlueRay is a question of using the proper encoder. In other words content should cost only a small fraction more.
Yet your examples illustrate a minimum price hike of 80% for more content? Sorry but you are getting duped here on a major scale.
This is a scam that the movie theaters are doing so that you will pay more for movies so that actors can get paid more...
Sorry not with my money!
Ok please answer the following.
> Faith is defined as, because of objective past experience of God's action, trusting his promises of future action.
How do you know it was God? Why not the purple people eater monster?
Ah yes, you take it on faith that it was God and not some purple people eater. In other words...
> Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein.
Ok, So here in Switzerland I can get the average DVD for around 14.99 CHF to about 24.99 CHF (MediaMarkt). I saw a blue ray movie and it was 44.99 CHF and could not believe it. Why in the heck would somebody pay nearly double the price so that you can see the butt pimple of an actor? Maybe one or two movies you want to see the butt pimple, but in general no way...
>Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.
Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.
>Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.
>If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).
And with Linux you need it as well, unless you are a Linux expert. And in that case your salary is higher (or should be) than most Windows administrators. Thus your extra salary is the "technical support."
>If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.
With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself. Otherwise you are in the same boat as Microsoft. And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks. Thus you are costing the corporation more by fixing a problem.
>With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.
No, it depends on your administration abilities. These days it is just as easy to bugger up a Windows system as a Linux system. And if we want to go back in history the first worm that literally brought down the entire Internet was a worm that exploited a --UNIX-- hole.
>With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!
No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees.
I was an OSCON once and there was a guy talking about Open Source and comparisons. And he said you know this license argument is BS. Think of it as follows, in the West we have interest on mortgages. In Sharia you have "rent". If you add the payments together "interestingly" enough the two added together make it look like there is interest being charge. His point was that you can call it what you want, you still end up paying one way or another.
For if LINUX was truly cheaper in the overall then Windows would completely collapse. Yet it has not... Sure Linux on the server is making headway, but it is killing Microsoft.
I think Linux has its advantages on the server, but costs is not one of them.
Ah yes... And here comes the question who cracks first, you or the user?
I am betting you will blink because Microsoft does to a large degree control the desktop. Microsoft is actually playing it very clever by supporting OSX, and Firefox on Windows and OSX... So in your disgust what will you be forced to buy at work? Oh yeah an OSX box with Firefox. I am sure that you will not complain...
Interesting, why are you visiting the Microsoft website? It is actually not necessary.
You could argue that you might want to get a driver or such. But you know there are CD's to reinstall the machine, or reset's that can be triggered to reset your machine.
If you want to recover the machine then you can set it to lowest common denominator safety restore at the Windows boot and it will work.
My point is that by using a Linux Live CD you are using your solution, which probably works, but is not necessary.
Thus your solution is not interesting to Linux.
Again don't get me wrong in saying it is good strategy, but from Microsoft's perspective I completely understand.
Hmmm... Ok so tell me how often are you going to be visiting the Microsoft website if you happen to be a Linux and Firefox user?
Probably 0....
So in other words they don't care about your situation because most likely you are not going to visit it. Makes completely logical sense actually.
Not that I think their strategy is great...
>> http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2006-2199.html
>> A security vulnerability related to OpenOffice.org documents may allow certain Java applets to break through the "sandbox" and therefore have full access to system resources with current user privileges. The offending Applets may be constructed to destroy/replace files, read or send private data, and/or cause additional security issues.
Cool... Sure this bug is from 2006. BUT, look at the workaround. Disable the software, and in the future?
>> With the updated versions for OpenOffice.org, support for Java applets in OpenOffice.org will be disabled.
I am not saying the OpenOffice is worse than Microsoft Office. What I am saying is that the problems Microsoft has, OpenOffice has as well. The big difference is that people shut their eyes to the problems outside the Microsoft world.
Plane 9 was not open source originally. It is open source NOW...
But the point of Jaron Lanier is very valid. Open Source is good a creating nuts and bolts things, but horrible in creating systems.
Many pointed out Apache as an example. Well its an excellent example of nuts and bolts, not completed systems. Yes Apache can be assembled into a complete system, but it is not from the start a complete system.
To illustrate the failings look at OSX. Apple and Linux both were underdogs and both use UNIX as its base system. Now look where OSX is and Linux is? OSX is eating Linux's lunch. People actually treat OSX as a easy to use operating system. Yet OSX is NOT FREE, and the hardware is more EXPENSIVE.
Thus this should tell you that at the end of the day people don't care about free, but care about getting their work done.
Is that not being a bit stereotypical?
Do you actually know the character of a bullmastiff? I know, and it is not what people think it is. A Bullmastiff is not a dangerous dog. It's working dog meant to track you down, and "sit" on you.
http://www.bullmastiffsonline.com/history.html
"Gamekeepers then started their search for a dog that was strong, silent, fearless, agile and powerful enough to be able to run down and knock the poacher to the ground. They also required a breed that would not maul the poacher but only hold them until help came from the Gamekeeper."
They look scary, but are actually nice dogs. It's like Olde English Bulldogs, and English Bulldogs, which my wife and I have. People get scared of them because of their looks. But they are not dangerous dogs. All dogs bite including little poodles... Dogs are a product of their surroundings. Yes dogs have certain characters, but with the right environment and right owner there is no danger.
I completely agree with you. I also have learned to completely tune out ads. It really is a bizarre acquired trait. I could watch a show and if somebody asked what commercials were playing I would be pretty much clueless. But like you, you do things during the ads.
You could argue that I am clueless, but I have found when news breaks, or upcoming programs are talked about my brain reacts on a dime. I guess it is like a sleeping dog or cat. They don't ever really sleep, just close their eyes and rest until something of importance happens.
I think if they actually did less ads with a higher quality they would be better off.
Ok, I agree this is a fuzzy area. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf
At the heart of these cases is the notion that due process expects that a defendant's conduct must have some past,
present, or anticipated locus or impact within the United States before he can fairly be held criminal liable for it in an American court. The commentators have greeted this analysis with hesitancy at best,25 and other courts have simply rejected it.26
But it goes on...
Conceding this outer boundary, however, the courts fairly uniformly have held
that questions of extraterritoriality are almost exclusively within the discretion of
Congress; a determination to grant a statutory provision extraterritorial application
- regardless of its policy consequences - introduces no new constitutional infirmities.
So in the end you are right. You are at the whim of getting arrested, at least in America... In other countries well the situation is not so clear. I guess you hit upon a "gray spot" in the law...
In my posting I did say there was an exception. Child prostitution... This rape clause is actually part of that.
>Besides, even when you are in another country, regardless of their less restrictive laws, you still must abide by the laws of where you claim citizenship, or risk be arrested on your return to home soil.
To add on my previous comment. One very simple example of where this shows to be false is Windsor and Detroit.
http://www.answers.com/topic/underage-drinking-in-america
Underage persons in the US who live in areas that border Canada and Mexico, both of which have lower drinking ages, sometimes cross the border in order to obtain alcoholic beverages. Mexico's legal drinking age is 18, while Canada's legal drinking age is either 18 or 19, depending on the province in question. They may consume it there or upon return home. In Michigan for example, a person drinking in Windsor, ON at age 19 can return to Detroit, MI and will not be legally cited because the consumption was done in Ontario. Being intoxicated under the age of 21 is not illegal (unless the person is also driving). Consuming it in Michigan is.
>Besides, even when you are in another country, regardless of their less restrictive laws, you still must abide by the laws of where you claim citizenship, or risk be arrested on your return to home soil.
ehh... No... Otherwise there would be oodles of people getting arrested for smoking pot legally in Holland. When abroad you are actually subject to the laws of that country, not your country of citizenship.
Yes there are situations where a country will act even if the act is not carried out on in the country of citizenship (eg child prostitution) but that is relatively rare.
A citizen is nothing more than the right to vote and not be persecuted by your own government. With respect to the law everybody in the country regardless if they are a citizen or not has to respect them.
Ahh yes I love when people write revisionist history.
>It's not "free", because it's tied to an OS -- but it is bundled with that OS. That basically killed any chance Netscape had of selling a browser, because Microsoft uses their OS monopoly to effectively make IE "free", even though it isn't.
What killed Netscape is arrogance! I was in the business world, and my company (which happened to be a very very big bank) was shunned by Netscape. I am not kidding here. The bank wanted to license Netscape Navigator in 1996, and Netscape decided that the bank was not a big enough client (they only wanted to buy 4,000 licenses). Thus we were left hanging in the wind and mighty annoyed.
Next Netscape actually was the first company to support ActiveX in the form of Active Documents. I used it to illustrate how stocks could traded in 1996. Yes it was an undocumented feature, but it worked. I then asked the head honchos on when they would be extending this, and their reply was, "it is not going to be extended because it is Microsoft technology." Notice though how XPCOM is very much like COM?
Standards? I find it ironic that the EFF is going after Microsoft. Netscape in its heyday was notorious for ignoring the standards and creating their own. They would constantly add features and do-dads that would only work in the Netscape browser. I remember when frames and tables were added. It sent browsers like Mosaic into a tailspin.
So to rewrite history and say that IE won because Microsoft was a big bad monopoly is a pile horse hooy... Microsoft was massively behind and they won because Netscape blundered!
Removing accidents and homicides is actually a bad idea and distorts the health care picture.
Take the following scenario, you are in a car accident, or been shot. Would you want to be shot or in a car accident in say Mexico, or say Norway? This is important because the quality of emergency care you get is a result of the quality of health care. So if more people die in America due to accidents or gun shots then you have two reasons; bad drivers and lots of guns killing people, and health care that is not capable of dealing with those situations.
What you are doing by removing accidents and homicides is being selective in your statistics and focusing on those people that don't do dangerous sports, or do anything that might bring harm on them. Not a good idea...
That is really funny... I wish I had points to give you...
>Maybe none of this matters, because in 10 years Honda will make a baseball playing robot that beats any human in all categories.
I am thinking this as well. We already have video games, why not robots? Oh wait, is there not a TV show or competition called battlebots? And from what I saw the new trend is automated cars driving through obstacles, and playing soccer... It's not far away...
WRT to baseball. I actually would love to see robots play baseball. Perfect vision, perfect pitch, etc going head to head. Baseball will become a battlefield of strategy...