I doubt that was the point. First, GGP mentioned The Matrix, which none of the films in that series were directed by Cameron. Second, Avatar 2 would obviously be directed by Cameron.
Wait, the parents appealed but were rejected? Then this isn't any good as "proof" of lack of minors rights, because the court is infringing upon the parents' rights here.
Generally speaking, if it's a small operation producing a low volume game, it just isn't worth the trouble.
Yes, but we're talking about a DSi here. Now I'm not saying they should have been required to do this, but I cannot imagine it would be any more complicated to say "if buttonPressed == Up or buttonPressed == X then..." than it was to leave it as "if buttonPressed == Up then...".
Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.
Actually, you didn't. Not in the parent post (I do see the post where you mentioned specific rights though).
Parents can't be everywhere so it's logical for government to forbid certain activities to young citizens. Like [...] driving.
That's something I've always had a problem with. Driving is a skill that you must prove you have before you're allowed on the roads anyway, so why additionally restrict it based on age? Hell, I'd prolly be ok if all they changed was "learners permit can be obtained at any age" and left the age restriction on an actual license alone.
If I don't vote for Republicans (as I did in 2000), then that leaves Libertarians which is a wasted vote
Out of the last 25 presidential elections, MD has voted Republican 9 times. That's 36%, so maybe you'd be right to say that voting for a third party in MD is a waste of a vote (in that there is a chance for the republican to win), but I'm sure there are some states out there where voting republican (or democrat) is a waste of a vote because the state never swings that way. In which case voting for a third party most certainly would not be a waste of a vote.
Indeed. And maybe I just don't pay enough attention to the words politicians say, but now we have in near plain English a quote which says as much.
We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies.
The only way it could be any clearer is if he'd said "I don't give a fuck about the average person. I'm giving this corporation personal information about them. Now scurry on home before you miss American Idle".
So you don't even believe in the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" (incorrectly) exception?
I am not C64, but no, I do not.
HOWEVER
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility of uttering those words. And at present I do not believe that the government should be involved in such a scenario except as mediator between the theater, its patrons, and the idiot who incorrectly yelled fire.
They went on to say that sometimes in the heat of a protest, somebody might say things he/she would not normally say, but it is not grounds to arrest them. It's First Amendment protected.
Citation please. The only thing I am familiar with in this regard is "fighting words", which are not constitutionally protected*.
*Whether or not I agree with that is another story, and not something I'm here to discuss.
The day that you can prove that my view on the existence of God is true/false is the day that you can say Atheism does not qualify as a "religion". Until then, please stop trying to deny me my first amendment rights.
And therein lies one of the many problems with the system. As C64 has pointed out, it is simply impossible for them to have lost a sale in that scenario, yet according to you, the law says they did.
OP posts in plaintext the phrase "hunter2".
Next post quotes OP, but replaces hunter2 with *******, demonstrating that they are aware of the famous (infamous?) bash quote.
You then reply with a link to the bash quote with a comment that basically states "here, let me clue you in".
I guess/. has a disproportionate share of Ayn Rand worshippers, and somebody's feelings were hurt.
First off, I don't deny that there are people legitimately disabled who are pulling from SSI. I have nothing against them doing so.
What I do have a problem with are the people who, while legally disabled, honestly could handle a real job but instead choose to suck on the teat of society. And yes, I actually know people like that. I suspect that perhaps the mods do too, and after taking one look at GP's post where they say "this also means he is disabled you asshole", they recognized it for the flamebait that it is and modded accordingly (because although one could be disabled, simply being on SSI does not mean one actually is disabled. The "you asshole" simply sealed the flamebait probably, otherwise I at least would have simply viewed it as a flat out wrong remark).
someone already in a hurry will not appreciate buying a permit and then having to show it when stopped for going over the posted limit
Sounds like they've already thought of that.
First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder
I think it's ridiculous to claim that speed has nothing to do with the severity of accidents.
While you made a good point in the beginning of your post (which is probably what got you modded up), you're being delusional if you think anyone is denying that speed plays a role in the severity of an accident. No one is saying it doesn't. What they mean when they say "speed kills is BS" is that the simple act of going above the posted limit isn't what causes accidents, it's drivers driving in conditions beyond their capability that do it (which may or may not happen to coincide with the posted limit).
If a married couple earning $40k/yr individually (for an $80k/yr household income) is really currently paying more in taxes than a married couple with only one working spouse earning $80k/yr, I'm sure the government could adjust the tax laws such that they still rake in the same amount.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't block 911.
I doubt that was the point. First, GGP mentioned The Matrix, which none of the films in that series were directed by Cameron. Second, Avatar 2 would obviously be directed by Cameron.
Wait, the parents appealed but were rejected? Then this isn't any good as "proof" of lack of minors rights, because the court is infringing upon the parents' rights here.
He wouldn't need to jump. His stare alone would do the job.
Generally speaking, if it's a small operation producing a low volume game, it just isn't worth the trouble.
Yes, but we're talking about a DSi here. Now I'm not saying they should have been required to do this, but I cannot imagine it would be any more complicated to say "if buttonPressed == Up or buttonPressed == X then ..." than it was to leave it as "if buttonPressed == Up then...".
Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.
Actually, you didn't. Not in the parent post (I do see the post where you mentioned specific rights though).
Parents can't be everywhere so it's logical for government to forbid certain activities to young citizens. Like [...] driving.
That's something I've always had a problem with. Driving is a skill that you must prove you have before you're allowed on the roads anyway, so why additionally restrict it based on age? Hell, I'd prolly be ok if all they changed was "learners permit can be obtained at any age" and left the age restriction on an actual license alone.
If I don't vote for Republicans (as I did in 2000), then that leaves Libertarians which is a wasted vote
Out of the last 25 presidential elections, MD has voted Republican 9 times. That's 36%, so maybe you'd be right to say that voting for a third party in MD is a waste of a vote (in that there is a chance for the republican to win), but I'm sure there are some states out there where voting republican (or democrat) is a waste of a vote because the state never swings that way. In which case voting for a third party most certainly would not be a waste of a vote.
We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies.
The only way it could be any clearer is if he'd said "I don't give a fuck about the average person. I'm giving this corporation personal information about them. Now scurry on home before you miss American Idle".
So you don't even believe in the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" (incorrectly) exception?
I am not C64, but no, I do not.
HOWEVER
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility of uttering those words. And at present I do not believe that the government should be involved in such a scenario except as mediator between the theater, its patrons, and the idiot who incorrectly yelled fire.
They went on to say that sometimes in the heat of a protest, somebody might say things he/she would not normally say, but it is not grounds to arrest them. It's First Amendment protected.
Citation please. The only thing I am familiar with in this regard is "fighting words", which are not constitutionally protected*.
*Whether or not I agree with that is another story, and not something I'm here to discuss.
No, not really. You must contain yourself within the confines of reality and the law.
Which I am doing by saying that the law is stupid in this case.
I wasn't trying to say that you are wrong in my post, just that I don't know enough to say if you are right.
The day that you can prove that my view on the existence of God is true/false is the day that you can say Atheism does not qualify as a "religion". Until then, please stop trying to deny me my first amendment rights.
And therein lies one of the many problems with the system. As C64 has pointed out, it is simply impossible for them to have lost a sale in that scenario, yet according to you, the law says they did.
If the money that I wish to part with is not going to the party that I wish it to, that is a problem with paying money.
Let me get this straight...
OP posts in plaintext the phrase "hunter2".
Next post quotes OP, but replaces hunter2 with *******, demonstrating that they are aware of the famous (infamous?) bash quote.
You then reply with a link to the bash quote with a comment that basically states "here, let me clue you in".
*baffled*
I guess /. has a disproportionate share of Ayn Rand worshippers, and somebody's feelings were hurt.
First off, I don't deny that there are people legitimately disabled who are pulling from SSI. I have nothing against them doing so.
What I do have a problem with are the people who, while legally disabled, honestly could handle a real job but instead choose to suck on the teat of society. And yes, I actually know people like that. I suspect that perhaps the mods do too, and after taking one look at GP's post where they say "this also means he is disabled you asshole", they recognized it for the flamebait that it is and modded accordingly (because although one could be disabled, simply being on SSI does not mean one actually is disabled. The "you asshole" simply sealed the flamebait probably, otherwise I at least would have simply viewed it as a flat out wrong remark).
and even robotic wheelchairs to help you get around.
Am I the only person who thought of Roujin Z upon reading that?
That would imply that it is possible for them to opt-out of the health insurance that the government provides for them.
Is it? Because I honestly do not know.
someone already in a hurry will not appreciate buying a permit and then having to show it when stopped for going over the posted limit
Sounds like they've already thought of that.
First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder
Politics today is nothing short of organized crime.
Actually it's pro wrestling for grownups.
I think it's ridiculous to claim that speed has nothing to do with the severity of accidents.
While you made a good point in the beginning of your post (which is probably what got you modded up), you're being delusional if you think anyone is denying that speed plays a role in the severity of an accident. No one is saying it doesn't. What they mean when they say "speed kills is BS" is that the simple act of going above the posted limit isn't what causes accidents, it's drivers driving in conditions beyond their capability that do it (which may or may not happen to coincide with the posted limit).
Probably about 67F as of this post.
(Weather.com wouldn't give a result for Hell, MI, but it's only 3 miles from Pinckney, MI.)
If a married couple earning $40k/yr individually (for an $80k/yr household income) is really currently paying more in taxes than a married couple with only one working spouse earning $80k/yr, I'm sure the government could adjust the tax laws such that they still rake in the same amount.
Yes, so that if I buy something labeled Coca-Cola, I know what the fuck I'm getting.