Again, the parents should be in the best position to decide when their own children are adult enough
So I should be disallowed from buying games, going to movies, reading books my parents disagree with, signing contracts, at age 20/30/40/90, just because my parents don't think I'm "mature" enough?
And just to clarify, I'm not saying that people should have the same rights and privileges at age 0 as at age 17.999, then suddenly have everything thrust upon them at 18. I'm only saying that there are some things which should only be allowed once you cross the threshold into adulthood (which again, I am not naming what I think those things are because that is not what this is about).
There are certainly flaws with the arbitrarily chosen age of 18. But it's a hell of a lot better than your proposed "whenever the fuck your parents wish to let you" system.
I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy.
You don't.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the core problem with any discussion regarding what "children" should or should not be allowed to do. The term encompasses everyone 0 to 18, and the people arguing for lax restrictions are thinking about people who are almost adults, while the people who want stricter restrictions are thinking pre-school age.
Do I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy? Maybe, but not the point. People are not born into adulthood, and until someone reaches adulthood, should not have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges* as adults. But how do you determine if someone is an adult? At least in the US, the dividing line between between childhood and adulthood is that magic age of 18. You might argue that that arbitrarily chosen age should be lowered (and there are some who would argue that it is too low), but surely you recognize the need to have some firm, not subject to interpretation method of distinguishing a child from an adult?
*No I'm not going to talk about what those rights, responsibilities, and privileges should be.
While in a way you are right, that is an incorrect example. James Blunt gave Weird Al permission, but James Blunt's label said "no", so Al's label pulled it. And because it was the label and not the artist who said "no", Weird Al had no problem releasing it anyway.
As for why you are right, Michael Jackson requested that Weird Al not parody "Black or White", and while it's never found its way to a CD or otherwise officially released, Weird Al has performed "Snack All Night" live at concerts.
Is it? If I don't consider it a diss, have you really dissed me by calling me a "geek"? Why?
A long time ago in grade school, someone walked up to me and called me a "gay faggot". Y'know what I did? I asked the dude why he was calling me a happy bundle of sticks. Dude then walked off confused and perhaps a little upset that his attempt to hurt me backfired.
And we're not talking about banishing fossil fuel cars here, and replacing them with electricity, which would be the first thing to do. No, just tax them
It's not like a tax is inherently wrong. For example, if it went to funding R&D into devices which would then pull said CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I don't know if that is the intent, nor am I saying it would fix things if it were. I'm simply arguing against what appears to me to be an argument consisting of "it's a tax, and taxes are bad."
Being backwards compatible doesn't always mean with every single game. I mean, the 3DS is backwards compatible with the DS, except for any game that utilized the GBA slot.
While it is true that people go through with it, few problems.
-Lack of details of how one keeps from being driven out by the irritants in the exhaust.
-May not have access to a car and a garage.
-Risk of discovery before the deed is done.
And if you don't get it right the first time, you might not be allowed a second chance.
but there definitely is a real noticable difference between the old 1GHz processor i bought around a decade ago, the 1GHz processor in my iPad and the 1.42GHz on my relatively old desktop.
Considering that the topic at hand is GBC emulation, I'm doubtful that there would be any noticeable difference.
Mayhaps you are right that I was confused, thought it definitely wasn't about the public defendant statute. When I wrote my previous post, I was actually remembering this ballot measure from 2010, but as it turns out, it's for civil and not criminal trials.
Even then, some (all?) states have certain stipulations on that, like you have to be facing jail time of > 90 days and/or fines in excess of $15,000 in order to get the court to grant you a jury trial.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
And that's not what's happening here.
DUI checkpoints must be different where you live. Around here, that is exactly what is happening, since they have to stop everyone in order to catch the few drunks.
The Tenth specifically states that the gov can't do stuff like this if it's not in the constitution.
The Tenth specifically states that the federal government can't do stuff like this if it's not in the constitution. It also specifically states that as long as the constitution does not specifically prohibit a state from doing it, then a state most certainly can. Yes, it does say "or to the people", but without a clear indication of which of these "unmentioned powers" should go to who, the state taking them all is just as correct as the people taking them all.
The Fourteenth (like it or hate it) extended these restrictions to the States as well.
And this is where it gets tricky. The 21st amendment was pretty clear in saying that the 18th is repealed, gone, kaput. The 14th... not so clear that it is supposed to turn the 10th from this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Into something like this:
The powers not delegated to the United States or the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the people, are reserved to the people.
I'm not arguing that employers should not be allowed to monitor equipment usage. I'm simply stating that it is perfectly reasonable to expect some modicum of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, the parents should be in the best position to decide when their own children are adult enough
So I should be disallowed from buying games, going to movies, reading books my parents disagree with, signing contracts, at age 20/30/40/90, just because my parents don't think I'm "mature" enough?
And just to clarify, I'm not saying that people should have the same rights and privileges at age 0 as at age 17.999, then suddenly have everything thrust upon them at 18. I'm only saying that there are some things which should only be allowed once you cross the threshold into adulthood (which again, I am not naming what I think those things are because that is not what this is about).
There are certainly flaws with the arbitrarily chosen age of 18. But it's a hell of a lot better than your proposed "whenever the fuck your parents wish to let you" system.
I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy.
You don't.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the core problem with any discussion regarding what "children" should or should not be allowed to do. The term encompasses everyone 0 to 18, and the people arguing for lax restrictions are thinking about people who are almost adults, while the people who want stricter restrictions are thinking pre-school age.
Do I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy? Maybe, but not the point. People are not born into adulthood, and until someone reaches adulthood, should not have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges* as adults. But how do you determine if someone is an adult? At least in the US, the dividing line between between childhood and adulthood is that magic age of 18. You might argue that that arbitrarily chosen age should be lowered (and there are some who would argue that it is too low), but surely you recognize the need to have some firm, not subject to interpretation method of distinguishing a child from an adult?
*No I'm not going to talk about what those rights, responsibilities, and privileges should be.
Or any country for that matter *wink wink nudge nudge*
What you forget that this is only about the court costs and not about the penalty.
While not apparent to me the first time I read it, upon re-reading Toonol's post, I suppose that could be what they meant with their suggestion.
I can imagine people hiring the cheapest lawyer possible because, hey, even if I lose, I'm only paying a couple grand.
And what about people who choose to represent themselves?
While in a way you are right, that is an incorrect example. James Blunt gave Weird Al permission, but James Blunt's label said "no", so Al's label pulled it. And because it was the label and not the artist who said "no", Weird Al had no problem releasing it anyway.
As for why you are right, Michael Jackson requested that Weird Al not parody "Black or White", and while it's never found its way to a CD or otherwise officially released, Weird Al has performed "Snack All Night" live at concerts.
Is it? If I don't consider it a diss, have you really dissed me by calling me a "geek"? Why?
A long time ago in grade school, someone walked up to me and called me a "gay faggot". Y'know what I did? I asked the dude why he was calling me a happy bundle of sticks. Dude then walked off confused and perhaps a little upset that his attempt to hurt me backfired.
And we're not talking about banishing fossil fuel cars here, and replacing them with electricity, which would be the first thing to do. No, just tax them
It's not like a tax is inherently wrong. For example, if it went to funding R&D into devices which would then pull said CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I don't know if that is the intent, nor am I saying it would fix things if it were. I'm simply arguing against what appears to me to be an argument consisting of "it's a tax, and taxes are bad."
Ammunition. ;)
My favorite is the piano stairs in Stockholm.
Well that at least makes sense for how it influences people into taking the stairs. Step on a step, instant positive feedback.
I RTFA, and I still don't get how those colored balls could influence people to take the stairs.
Being backwards compatible doesn't always mean with every single game. I mean, the 3DS is backwards compatible with the DS, except for any game that utilized the GBA slot.
1) Ask legislator what would keep their opponent from using the law in an unjust way.
2) ???
3) Profit?
So that really is supposed to be Steve Jobs? Given how in the very next panel he has a full head of hair, I wasn't certain.
While it is true that people go through with it, few problems.
-Lack of details of how one keeps from being driven out by the irritants in the exhaust.
-May not have access to a car and a garage.
-Risk of discovery before the deed is done.
And if you don't get it right the first time, you might not be allowed a second chance.
I hear nitrogen asphyxiation is painless.
but there definitely is a real noticable difference between the old 1GHz processor i bought around a decade ago, the 1GHz processor in my iPad and the 1.42GHz on my relatively old desktop.
Considering that the topic at hand is GBC emulation, I'm doubtful that there would be any noticeable difference.
Because you need a 3GHz machine to emulate a GBC, right?
Other than it being the same as on my luggage? Nope, no comment.
Mayhaps you are right that I was confused, thought it definitely wasn't about the public defendant statute. When I wrote my previous post, I was actually remembering this ballot measure from 2010, but as it turns out, it's for civil and not criminal trials.
Even then, some (all?) states have certain stipulations on that, like you have to be facing jail time of > 90 days and/or fines in excess of $15,000 in order to get the court to grant you a jury trial.
A blizzard scene? Is that like the "picture" of the back of a polar bear in a snow storm? Or is this a reference to the game developer?
half-cow-half-jesus
I'm curious how exactly you were envisioning that part. Centuar, minotuar, or something else entirely?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
And that's not what's happening here.
DUI checkpoints must be different where you live. Around here, that is exactly what is happening, since they have to stop everyone in order to catch the few drunks.
The Tenth specifically states that the gov can't do stuff like this if it's not in the constitution.
The Tenth specifically states that the federal government can't do stuff like this if it's not in the constitution. It also specifically states that as long as the constitution does not specifically prohibit a state from doing it, then a state most certainly can. Yes, it does say "or to the people", but without a clear indication of which of these "unmentioned powers" should go to who, the state taking them all is just as correct as the people taking them all.
The Fourteenth (like it or hate it) extended these restrictions to the States as well.
And this is where it gets tricky. The 21st amendment was pretty clear in saying that the 18th is repealed, gone, kaput. The 14th... not so clear that it is supposed to turn the 10th from this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Into something like this:
The powers not delegated to the United States or the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the people, are reserved to the people.
I'm not arguing that employers should not be allowed to monitor equipment usage. I'm simply stating that it is perfectly reasonable to expect some modicum of privacy.