If you are a true engineer/software guy, these are the kinds of applications you dream of doing and the reason you get into the field.
There is no comparing something like this, that directly affects people's lives in a good way, with some hack to decode DVDs or run Linux on some device, etc.
I guess you could look at it two ways: first the statement was simply referring to time travel within the context that you mentioned it and therefore you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Or, if I was actually trying to say time travel was impossible, then I did the exact thing I raised in my point, which was not to not restrict the assertion adequately.
So I could rephrase: Until it is possible to travel back in time and extinguish someone in your direct lineage, your example is simple speculation because there can never be any observed results.
I would submit to you that there is a clear and distinct difference between the scientific method of "proving" something and that of the school of logic and philosophy (proving this or that about God for instance).
In Science, proving a theory is a practical tool upon which you can build other theories. It is by necessity very specific and rigorous. If I do this and that in this manner, under these conditions you will see these results.
If you can't specify these things, then your "proof" is not in the realm of practical science, but in the realm of logic and philosophy.
Until time travel is possible, your example is useless speculation because there can never be any observed results.
Proving that there are no lions in your fridge is a badly formed question.
The valid question, and scientifically provable question, is does your fridge currently contain a lion?
The difference is subtle but important. "does your fridge currently contain a lion?" is a positive statement that can be verified through observation and to which the answer is a positive assertion that is valid within the context of the question, "there is not currently a lion in my fridge."
Drive down the Vegas strip. Do you see ads for strip clubs? Are they nude? No. Because a city ordinance prevents it. If you think that hasn't been litigated then you're smoking something.
This stupid, sanctimonious bitch wouldn't let her kids sit next to someone viewing porn, but she's perfectly willing to let someone other person's kid sit there.
Odds are that if anyone asked them to explain it back then, they'd look at you as if you had three eye and proclaimed "even the weakest moron knows what commerce is".
"Verisign further admitted in an SEC filing that its security team informed management about the attacks immediately while at the same time moving to address the hacks, but that management ignored it because they didn't understand the implications until the lawyers took away their drinks and shrimp cocktails and made them understand"
I don't think the argument that corporations threaten free speech holds water.
I have an iPhone. It comes with a user agreement that specifics how I can use the phone. If I don't like it, I can get another phone and/or another provider.
I don't have to have an iPhone. I don't have to use AT&T.
Using tools to get around restrictions set up by the government (as in China, etc) is NOT the same thing as getting around restrictions placed on a device by the manufacture.
While not minimizing the possibility that the Federal government will go full throttle and do for the internet what it has done for most everything else (fuck it up beyond belief), I sincerely doubt that Paul Venezia and the like are actually very concerned with the concept of freedom and liberty as most of us understand it.
Rather, they are more concerned with the ability to download music, movies, programs, etc. for free.
But it seems to me that an "Executive agreement" as it is defined in that reference is pretty much unconstitutional.
I think your average reasonable man would say that a Treaty, duly ratified, has the force of law and is applicable to all citizens.
An Agreement, on the other hand, would have the parties conduct themselves in a certain manner (follows certain protocols or procedures) with respect o the subject matter. but do so within the framework of the law.
So, while an "Agreement" would have the Feds use the existing U.S. laws to enforce the goals, they would still have to follow the law (i.e. get a court order to shut down a site).
A Treaty, on the other hand, would have the force of law and presumably not require the government to get a court order.
That's my guess anyway. But only a fool relies on internet posts for their information eh?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the Democrats that are trying to raise SOPA from the dead.
But don't let that spoil your primitive tribal reaction.
If you are a true engineer/software guy, these are the kinds of applications you dream of doing and the reason you get into the field.
There is no comparing something like this, that directly affects people's lives in a good way, with some hack to decode DVDs or run Linux on some device, etc.
I guess you could look at it two ways: first the statement was simply referring to time travel within the context that you mentioned it and therefore you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Or, if I was actually trying to say time travel was impossible, then I did the exact thing I raised in my point, which was not to not restrict the assertion adequately.
So I could rephrase: Until it is possible to travel back in time and extinguish someone in your direct lineage, your example is simple speculation because there can never be any observed results.
I would submit to you that there is a clear and distinct difference between the scientific method of "proving" something and that of the school of logic and philosophy (proving this or that about God for instance).
In Science, proving a theory is a practical tool upon which you can build other theories. It is by necessity very specific and rigorous. If I do this and that in this manner, under these conditions you will see these results.
If you can't specify these things, then your "proof" is not in the realm of practical science, but in the realm of logic and philosophy.
Until time travel is possible, your example is useless speculation because there can never be any observed results.
Proving that there are no lions in your fridge is a badly formed question.
The valid question, and scientifically provable question, is does your fridge currently contain a lion?
The difference is subtle but important. "does your fridge currently contain a lion?" is a positive statement that can be verified through observation and to which the answer is a positive assertion that is valid within the context of the question, "there is not currently a lion in my fridge."
Bullshit.
Drive down the Vegas strip. Do you see ads for strip clubs? Are they nude? No. Because a city ordinance prevents it. If you think that hasn't been litigated then you're smoking something.
This stupid, sanctimonious bitch wouldn't let her kids sit next to someone viewing porn, but she's perfectly willing to let someone other person's kid sit there.
Well, that typo worked out well then I guess.
And I don't think Anonymous is as smart as they and their fans believe they are.
...as some idiot climbs the fence to the bear exhibit so they can cuddle with the huge teddy tear. You just know it's not going to end well.
Anon can't stay one step ahead forever.
FAIL.
If it were read as you would like, Congress could do anything. Of course there are those who would prefer that.
Point is that he threatened to.
Odds are that if anyone asked them to explain it back then, they'd look at you as if you had three eye and proclaimed "even the weakest moron knows what commerce is".
I think they are poised to dial that back quite a bit when they ditch the individual mandate and likely then entire Obama Care Act.
Forgot the FTFY, or whatever the hell the acronym is.
"Verisign further admitted in an SEC filing that its security team informed management about the attacks immediately while at the same time moving to address the hacks, but that management ignored it because they didn't understand the implications until the lawyers took away their drinks and shrimp cocktails and made them understand"
They taste like Bald Eagles, which taste quite a bit like the Spotted Owls.
This whole deal is starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.
Indeed, Most of Slashdot will suffer the same fate as Norman
Just a guess, but probably the equivalent of your kid directing you as you back the boat into the garage.
Then his mother would have to convert the basement back into a bedroom.
I don't think the argument that corporations threaten free speech holds water.
I have an iPhone. It comes with a user agreement that specifics how I can use the phone. If I don't like it, I can get another phone and/or another provider.
I don't have to have an iPhone. I don't have to use AT&T.
Using tools to get around restrictions set up by the government (as in China, etc) is NOT the same thing as getting around restrictions placed on a device by the manufacture.
While not minimizing the possibility that the Federal government will go full throttle and do for the internet what it has done for most everything else (fuck it up beyond belief), I sincerely doubt that Paul Venezia and the like are actually very concerned with the concept of freedom and liberty as most of us understand it.
Rather, they are more concerned with the ability to download music, movies, programs, etc. for free.
I am wondering if it is considered by whatever groups to be binding at that point.
Here is what the Feds say
But it seems to me that an "Executive agreement" as it is defined in that reference is pretty much unconstitutional.
I think your average reasonable man would say that a Treaty, duly ratified, has the force of law and is applicable to all citizens.
An Agreement, on the other hand, would have the parties conduct themselves in a certain manner (follows certain protocols or procedures) with respect o the subject matter. but do so within the framework of the law.
So, while an "Agreement" would have the Feds use the existing U.S. laws to enforce the goals, they would still have to follow the law (i.e. get a court order to shut down a site).
A Treaty, on the other hand, would have the force of law and presumably not require the government to get a court order.
That's my guess anyway. But only a fool relies on internet posts for their information eh?
he signed it a few months ago.