It seems like this is not so much of an anti-theft device, but more like a convenience device to negate the requirements of the traditional anti-theft devices.
It costs a lot more to make a movie than it costs to buy 3 movie tickets and 3 DVDs. Unless you have several million friends I'm reasonably certain that it isn't enough to make a move turn a profit.
/. never deleted your post. It's right here:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2585724&cid=38455774 It is my understanding that/. never deletes posts unless they are required to by law (DMCA notices etc.)
Free speech doesn't mean you get to say what you think and not have anyone argue with you. Free speech means that you say what you think, then I say what I think, and everyone is free to make up their own minds on the basis of the facts presented.
How come everyone who brings up the Laffer curve seems to bring in the assumption that we're on the right side of the curve. Isn't it possible that we're actually on the left side so to increase revenue we'd need to increase tax rates?
Take a look at the tax rates over the last 70 years, and the governments revenue over the same period. In general taxes have been reduces and revenue has been reduced (spending hasn't but that's a topic for another day.) That seems to me to be a fairly good argument that taxes should be a little higher.
Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.
Could you please elaborate on this? Nintendo has always struck me as being quite a respectable company, what have they done that makes you think of them as evil?
Because of course, without the USA valiantly killing brown people, every country in the world would simultaneously invade every other country in the world. Thanks for protecting us Uncle Sam!
There are channels where political speech can be made, you don't need to "occupy" a park to get your point across.
Wait, do you believe the same thing about money? There are "channels" where political speech can be made, you don't have to spend money to do it. So you're OK with limitations on campaign finance, corporate donations and political action committees? "There are channels where political speech can be made, you don't have to be able to buy television ads". Would you support a constitutional amendment stating that Money is not Speech and corporations are not people?
I would completely support that. Letting big corporations run political ads seemed stupid to me from the get go.
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of what happened, but I'd imagine that a lot of those people were arrested at the time.
I don't think any of the actual participants were arrested, but England reacted by putting in place a series of laws called the "Coercive Acts". So, you see the ridiculousness of a group of white middle class Republicans funded and organized by corporate lobbyists identifying themselves with the Boston Tea Party? I just want to make sure.
I'm not sure about the Tea Party being funded or organized by corporate lobbyists. I'm also not familiar with the coercive acts, so I'm not sure how that relates to the modern tea party. I do think it's quite ironic that the majority of Tea Partiers are older and middle-lower class, so they will be getting the full benefit of Social Security and Medic(aid/are I'm not sure which is which.) I don't see how the colour of their skin affects the situation.
What you must consider about the Boston Tea Party, was that it was the first part of a violent revolution.
I'm not sure they thought of themselves that way. "Violent revolution" is not a decision that is made one day, it is something that slowly occurs when calls for reform, calls for change go unheeded again and again. The temperature goes up. One sides pushes and the other side pushes back. There is a whole range of possibilities leading up to violent revolution where the violence, the revolution can be headed off by reasonable reform. It happened here in the '30s. One of the reasons the New Deal happened is because there was a distinct possibility of violent revolution thanks to the hardships of the Depression. There were already anarchists blowing up buildings in major US cities. There were a lot of American Socialists and Communists. The New Deal not only calmed the unrest, it ushered in half a century of progress and prosperity for a wider segment of the population than had previously been possible. The policies of the New Deal are at the very top of the list of the most popular government policies in American history, even today with all the ersatz "anti-government" sentiment coming from the Right.
That is a very good point to bring up. To affect real change, you need to make the government really fear the people. You need to be willing to suffer as riot-police pepper spray you or taze you, you need to send the message that you are really serious. Camping in a park doesn't inspire fear.
We're now living in the results of their revolution, some people feel like they've been unfairly treated, some feel like it's going fine.
Just for the record, who in America feels like "it's going fine"? I assumed there must be at least one person who believes that. Maybe it's you.
Well, America is treating me fairly well on the whole, but I have the option of going back home if things start to look shifty. I can understand why you guys who have to stay here aren't happy.
Interstates don't have traffic lights, but the feeder roads do. If the feeder roads are considered to be part of the interstate and controlled federally, that would mean that there are federally controlled traffic lights.
Well, maybe if they started making more money from things like that they could reduce my taxes. Get your revenue from people who don't know how to drive.
What you must consider about the Boston Tea Party, was that it was the first part of a violent revolution. Those people believed that the way things were going was too messed up and they were prepared to take drastic action. I'm not intimately familiar with the details of what happened, but I'd imagine that a lot of those people were arrested at the time.
We're now living in the results of their revolution, some people feel like they've been unfairly treated, some feel like it's going fine. There are channels where political speech can be made, you don't need to "occupy" a park to get your point across.
If the protesters feel that the situation has reached the point where it's time for another revolution, then they need to step up and be willing to suffer the consequences of that. The current leaders aren't just going to lie down and let someone else take over. England didn't decide that the Americans should be allowed their independence, many people died to achieve that. If enough people think that it's justified then it will happen, but don't expect them to make their laws accommodate those desires.
Slashdot Mirror
From the GP:
...and then upgrade our powerplants.
But Santa is magic, duh!
I think the Chameleon chip uses the flying reindeer as camouflage..
I'm almost inclined to buy myself a horse head mask, just to keep that link up there.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
It seems like this is not so much of an anti-theft device, but more like a convenience device to negate the requirements of the traditional anti-theft devices.
It costs a lot more to make a movie than it costs to buy 3 movie tickets and 3 DVDs. Unless you have several million friends I'm reasonably certain that it isn't enough to make a move turn a profit.
/. never deleted your post. It's right here:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2585724&cid=38455774 /. never deletes posts unless they are required to by law (DMCA notices etc.)
It is my understanding that
Free speech doesn't mean you get to say what you think and not have anyone argue with you. Free speech means that you say what you think, then I say what I think, and everyone is free to make up their own minds on the basis of the facts presented.
Mr. Gingrich has a sorted political past
Unless you're implying that his political past is neatly labeled and/or colour coded, I think the word for which you are searching is "sordid."
How come everyone who brings up the Laffer curve seems to bring in the assumption that we're on the right side of the curve. Isn't it possible that we're actually on the left side so to increase revenue we'd need to increase tax rates?
Take a look at the tax rates over the last 70 years, and the governments revenue over the same period. In general taxes have been reduces and revenue has been reduced (spending hasn't but that's a topic for another day.) That seems to me to be a fairly good argument that taxes should be a little higher.
Meter I can kinda accept, but liter just looks weird every time I look at it. It can't be a real word...
If you want to try to correct someone, at least make sure you're right. It's spelled metres everywhere I've been (except the USA).
Information is quite easy to come by these days. Not informing yourself is pretty stupid...
You just need to design it such that it requires special proprietary strings.
And you'll both say "Sorry, can't talk now, I'm driving!" Sorry, that part's just in my dreams.
Ahh, screw the whole thing.
Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.
Could you please elaborate on this? Nintendo has always struck me as being quite a respectable company, what have they done that makes you think of them as evil?
Because of course, without the USA valiantly killing brown people, every country in the world would simultaneously invade every other country in the world. Thanks for protecting us Uncle Sam!
Well they'd either drop taxes or spend it somewhere, making my city a little nicer...
Wait, do you believe the same thing about money? There are "channels" where political speech can be made, you don't have to spend money to do it. So you're OK with limitations on campaign finance, corporate donations and political action committees? "There are channels where political speech can be made, you don't have to be able to buy television ads". Would you support a constitutional amendment stating that Money is not Speech and corporations are not people?
I would completely support that. Letting big corporations run political ads seemed stupid to me from the get go.
I don't think any of the actual participants were arrested, but England reacted by putting in place a series of laws called the "Coercive Acts". So, you see the ridiculousness of a group of white middle class Republicans funded and organized by corporate lobbyists identifying themselves with the Boston Tea Party? I just want to make sure.
I'm not sure about the Tea Party being funded or organized by corporate lobbyists. I'm also not familiar with the coercive acts, so I'm not sure how that relates to the modern tea party. I do think it's quite ironic that the majority of Tea Partiers are older and middle-lower class, so they will be getting the full benefit of Social Security and Medic(aid/are I'm not sure which is which.) I don't see how the colour of their skin affects the situation.
I'm not sure they thought of themselves that way. "Violent revolution" is not a decision that is made one day, it is something that slowly occurs when calls for reform, calls for change go unheeded again and again. The temperature goes up. One sides pushes and the other side pushes back. There is a whole range of possibilities leading up to violent revolution where the violence, the revolution can be headed off by reasonable reform. It happened here in the '30s. One of the reasons the New Deal happened is because there was a distinct possibility of violent revolution thanks to the hardships of the Depression. There were already anarchists blowing up buildings in major US cities. There were a lot of American Socialists and Communists. The New Deal not only calmed the unrest, it ushered in half a century of progress and prosperity for a wider segment of the population than had previously been possible. The policies of the New Deal are at the very top of the list of the most popular government policies in American history, even today with all the ersatz "anti-government" sentiment coming from the Right.
That is a very good point to bring up. To affect real change, you need to make the government really fear the people. You need to be willing to suffer as riot-police pepper spray you or taze you, you need to send the message that you are really serious. Camping in a park doesn't inspire fear.
Just for the record, who in America feels like "it's going fine"? I assumed there must be at least one person who believes that. Maybe it's you.
Well, America is treating me fairly well on the whole, but I have the option of going back home if things start to look shifty. I can understand why you guys who have to stay here aren't happy.
Interstates don't have traffic lights, but the feeder roads do. If the feeder roads are considered to be part of the interstate and controlled federally, that would mean that there are federally controlled traffic lights.
Well, maybe if they started making more money from things like that they could reduce my taxes. Get your revenue from people who don't know how to drive.
Do the feeder roads still fall under federal administration, or are they controlled by the city?
For the record, it was said by philosopher and civil libertarian Zechariah Chafree Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_Chafee
What you must consider about the Boston Tea Party, was that it was the first part of a violent revolution. Those people believed that the way things were going was too messed up and they were prepared to take drastic action. I'm not intimately familiar with the details of what happened, but I'd imagine that a lot of those people were arrested at the time.
We're now living in the results of their revolution, some people feel like they've been unfairly treated, some feel like it's going fine. There are channels where political speech can be made, you don't need to "occupy" a park to get your point across.
If the protesters feel that the situation has reached the point where it's time for another revolution, then they need to step up and be willing to suffer the consequences of that. The current leaders aren't just going to lie down and let someone else take over. England didn't decide that the Americans should be allowed their independence, many people died to achieve that. If enough people think that it's justified then it will happen, but don't expect them to make their laws accommodate those desires.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/322/