Linux could do with a few less 37337 coders and a few more artists and graphic designers, people who have an understanding of what colors work together, and most importantly what proportions are pleasing to the eye. The thing I like least about linux is how so many little aesthetic things are off. Dialog box fonts are a little too big for the dialog box, the borders between windows are too narrow, nothing matches like it should.
I think noone could come on slashdot and have a reasonable expectation that the poster of a comment giving a legal opinion that they have just read is actually a lawyer.
I don't think so either. However, the courts and state bar associations take it very seriously.
Not true at all. In civil cases you get a state appointed lawyer through the various state legal aid societies (which every state has) in state courts, and through the congressionally chartered Legal Services Corporation at the Federal level.
Anyway, i think this sort of system exists elsewhere in the world, what is the status quo in the US? Does everyone just pay their own legal cost? So even if you win you're screwed?
I am not a lawyer (and to those who get annoyed when they see IANAL lines, you can get into quite a bit of trouble representing or even implying you're one when you're not), but:
It depends. Generally the courts won't award damages, though in certain circumstances they might (in certain circumstances you may have to pay the other sides costs even if you win; those costs are subtracted from your award). I don't think universal paying of the other side's costs is such a great idea anyway, and it's usually promoted by people who just don't know too much about the legal system but work themselves into a lather whenever they read a newspaper article about a high award.
There are several safeguards built into the system. In federal court, for example, there are restrictions placed upon the attorneys (under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if anyone cares) where they have to sign just about everything they submit to the court and can be held accountable if it turns out later to be false. If a complaint is obviously frivolous the judge can just dismiss it before the trial actually begins. And remember if you can't afford your own lawyer you get a state-appointed one, so it's not like you'll ever have no legal protection.
And if you go over there to try to investigate where your money went, you have a good chance of getting your throat cut. These aren't just con-men, they're thugs too. And hard core in Africa, even a (relatively) stable place like Nigeria does not equal to hard core in the US, believe me.
I'm so sick of TV - all the conservatives make me sick -- it's just one after another: Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the CNN crowd, 60 Minutes, 20/20, Barbwa Walters, the morning hosts like Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel...fire breathing conservatives, all of 'em! Where's the balance?!?
Your sarcasm hides a tremendous ignorance. If you think everyone quoted up there is liberal, then you're a fruitcake.
Than 10 years ago. I don't see how you people keep missing the point.
I was responding to the common sentiment here that congress ALWAYS raises taxes when they have a choice, that their lives are spent figuring out ways to tax us. It's not true. They sometimes lower taxes.
And by the way, federal income tax is constitutional.
Irrelevant. My point was that you pay less in taxes now than you did before, so obviously congress isn't completely obsessed with taxing you as people here think. You pay less in total taxes--even with all those non-income taxes--than you did before.
This just goes to show you that Congress has a raging boner to tax you, and it's not one that is going to go down anytime soon.
I've seen this sort of view constantly on slashdot, and I don't understand it. Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before. Personally I think it's an idiotic thing to do, the US tax burden isn't that high, but that's what congress has been doing. Why do you think otherwise, in the face of actual proof? Do you people not read the papers or something?
Alright, this is cool, this I can respect. Trying to con people based on a flimsy pretext like their whole IP argument is a pretty pathetic thing to do.
But this is different--this is pure, unhidden, manly spite. Spite this pure is fun to watch.
Until some local yocal judge from Oklahoma decides that the bill is unconstitutional, just like the do-not-call list.
It would need a federal judge; they tend not to be yokels, and even if they make a mistake you can easily appeal to higher courts.
Basically the idea is that if the courts force someone to do what they contracted to do, they're placing them in a position where they're being forced to work against their will.
Like let's say you contract me to paint your fence. It's a big fence, it'll take a few weeks to paint, and shortly after beginning I decide that I really hate doing it so I stop. If you bring me to court you can get back money that you already paid me, or the amount of extra money it would take to get someone else to finish it. The court will almost never actually order me to paint the fence.
If the court tried to enforce specific performance of the contract, the court is basically forcing you into labor that you don't want to do. The courts sometimes do, but usually in a commercial setting where it's hard to put a dollar value on the breach of the contract; it's never done for personal services because of the above situation.
Contract law forms a perfectly reasonable basis for privacy
Only problem is modern legal theory holds that there's nothing morally wrong with breaking a contract, as long as you're willing to compensate the other side for the breach. Contract law really isn't strong enough to protect our privacy, that's why laws like this are necessary.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
You're making the same mistake that a lot of the no-corporal-punishment-ever crowd does; all kids aren't the same. Just because one kid doesn't react to a certain punishment doesn't mean none of them will.
I don't have kids, but if I did I could easily see myself using "time outs" as a preventative measure. If the kids are working themselves up the crazy meter, running around, shouting, etc., the a time out simply forces them to calm down. If they've actually willfully done something bad, then it's pretty pointless.
The facts the scientific community relies on are available to everyone. I studied a fair amount of evolutionary theory in college, I assure you it's what really happens.
They've:
Shown the mechanism by which variation occurs (through mutations, diversity in traits).
Demonstrated how selective pressures work over time in populations.
Found fossils that show the traits of a species changing over millions of years.
I know you really don't want to believe it, but it really is scientific truth.
In an education environment, it's quite reasonable to expect that both theories be taught.
No, it's completely and utterly unreasonable.
The purpose of education isn't to present every possible theory and let the students sort them out; otherwise people would never leave biology class.
The creationist theories have absolutely ZERO scientific facts backing them. The evolutionary theories have TREMENDOUS scientific facts backing them. Therefore, it's only logical that only the second one is taught.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you said it better than I did. Consistency is important.
Wish I could, but I'm not an artist or designer. I can tell when it's ugly, but I can't fix it...
How about they make it not ugly?
Linux could do with a few less 37337 coders and a few more artists and graphic designers, people who have an understanding of what colors work together, and most importantly what proportions are pleasing to the eye. The thing I like least about linux is how so many little aesthetic things are off. Dialog box fonts are a little too big for the dialog box, the borders between windows are too narrow, nothing matches like it should.
Law student. The bar association has already let us know how strict they will be.
I think noone could come on slashdot and have a reasonable expectation that the poster of a comment giving a legal opinion that they have just read is actually a lawyer.
I don't think so either. However, the courts and state bar associations take it very seriously.
Not true at all. In civil cases you get a state appointed lawyer through the various state legal aid societies (which every state has) in state courts, and through the congressionally chartered Legal Services Corporation at the Federal level.
Anyway, i think this sort of system exists elsewhere in the world, what is the status quo in the US? Does everyone just pay their own legal cost? So even if you win you're screwed?
I am not a lawyer (and to those who get annoyed when they see IANAL lines, you can get into quite a bit of trouble representing or even implying you're one when you're not), but:
It depends. Generally the courts won't award damages, though in certain circumstances they might (in certain circumstances you may have to pay the other sides costs even if you win; those costs are subtracted from your award). I don't think universal paying of the other side's costs is such a great idea anyway, and it's usually promoted by people who just don't know too much about the legal system but work themselves into a lather whenever they read a newspaper article about a high award.
There are several safeguards built into the system. In federal court, for example, there are restrictions placed upon the attorneys (under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if anyone cares) where they have to sign just about everything they submit to the court and can be held accountable if it turns out later to be false. If a complaint is obviously frivolous the judge can just dismiss it before the trial actually begins. And remember if you can't afford your own lawyer you get a state-appointed one, so it's not like you'll ever have no legal protection.
And if you go over there to try to investigate where your money went, you have a good chance of getting your throat cut. These aren't just con-men, they're thugs too. And hard core in Africa, even a (relatively) stable place like Nigeria does not equal to hard core in the US, believe me.
I'm so sick of TV - all the conservatives make me sick -- it's just one after another: Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the CNN crowd, 60 Minutes, 20/20, Barbwa Walters, the morning hosts like Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel...fire breathing conservatives, all of 'em! Where's the balance?!?
Your sarcasm hides a tremendous ignorance. If you think everyone quoted up there is liberal, then you're a fruitcake.
If I wanted to read the grammatically challenged ramblings of a bunch of pompous wannabe hackers, I'll just go to slashdot thank you very much...
I don't think they meant non-stop.
Than 10 years ago. I don't see how you people keep missing the point.
I was responding to the common sentiment here that congress ALWAYS raises taxes when they have a choice, that their lives are spent figuring out ways to tax us. It's not true. They sometimes lower taxes.
And by the way, federal income tax is constitutional.
Irrelevant. My point was that you pay less in taxes now than you did before, so obviously congress isn't completely obsessed with taxing you as people here think. You pay less in total taxes--even with all those non-income taxes--than you did before.
This just goes to show you that Congress has a raging boner to tax you, and it's not one that is going to go down anytime soon.
I've seen this sort of view constantly on slashdot, and I don't understand it. Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before. Personally I think it's an idiotic thing to do, the US tax burden isn't that high, but that's what congress has been doing. Why do you think otherwise, in the face of actual proof? Do you people not read the papers or something?
Alright, this is cool, this I can respect. Trying to con people based on a flimsy pretext like their whole IP argument is a pretty pathetic thing to do.
But this is different--this is pure, unhidden, manly spite. Spite this pure is fun to watch.
I wish /.ers would check their facts before screaming how the sky is going to fall on our heads every time the USPTO grants a patent.
/.ers.
It's a catch-22--if they did that, then they wouldn't be
Until some local yocal judge from Oklahoma decides that the bill is unconstitutional, just like the do-not-call list.
It would need a federal judge; they tend not to be yokels, and even if they make a mistake you can easily appeal to higher courts.
Basically the idea is that if the courts force someone to do what they contracted to do, they're placing them in a position where they're being forced to work against their will.
Like let's say you contract me to paint your fence. It's a big fence, it'll take a few weeks to paint, and shortly after beginning I decide that I really hate doing it so I stop. If you bring me to court you can get back money that you already paid me, or the amount of extra money it would take to get someone else to finish it. The court will almost never actually order me to paint the fence.
If the court tried to enforce specific performance of the contract, the court is basically forcing you into labor that you don't want to do. The courts sometimes do, but usually in a commercial setting where it's hard to put a dollar value on the breach of the contract; it's never done for personal services because of the above situation.
That would be a bad idea on many levels. It would also in a lot of cases be unconstitutional under the prohibition against slavery.
Contract law forms a perfectly reasonable basis for privacy
Only problem is modern legal theory holds that there's nothing morally wrong with breaking a contract, as long as you're willing to compensate the other side for the breach. Contract law really isn't strong enough to protect our privacy, that's why laws like this are necessary.
Yeah, disappointing to get almost free music. 99 cents Canadian is like what, 2 cents American?
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
You're making the same mistake that a lot of the no-corporal-punishment-ever crowd does; all kids aren't the same. Just because one kid doesn't react to a certain punishment doesn't mean none of them will.
I don't have kids, but if I did I could easily see myself using "time outs" as a preventative measure. If the kids are working themselves up the crazy meter, running around, shouting, etc., the a time out simply forces them to calm down. If they've actually willfully done something bad, then it's pretty pointless.
Yeah, I agree. I never understood the "release" some people get about fantasizing about slaughtering innocent people.
The facts the scientific community relies on are available to everyone. I studied a fair amount of evolutionary theory in college, I assure you it's what really happens.
They've:
Shown the mechanism by which variation occurs (through mutations, diversity in traits).
Demonstrated how selective pressures work over time in populations.
Found fossils that show the traits of a species changing over millions of years.
I know you really don't want to believe it, but it really is scientific truth.
In an education environment, it's quite reasonable to expect that both theories be taught.
No, it's completely and utterly unreasonable.
The purpose of education isn't to present every possible theory and let the students sort them out; otherwise people would never leave biology class.
The creationist theories have absolutely ZERO scientific facts backing them. The evolutionary theories have TREMENDOUS scientific facts backing them. Therefore, it's only logical that only the second one is taught.