Half of me says these guys need a reality check, the other half wants to go there.
Why bother going to Dubai anyhow? It is too hot, they only have sand and some fake islands that no-one wants to buy and no culture (unless you are into modern, megalomaniac architecture).
Just to play devils advocate here, It all depends on where you got the marijuana from.... Of course if they would just legalize it and have the government sell it at cost plus ten percent, it would put all these guys out of business
You're really not a very good devil's advocate, are you?
I really can't fault you, though. It's pretty tough to argue for a side that's supported only by ideology and opposed by all the facts.
Real journalists have integrity. Real journalists present data in an unbiased fashion, without spin. Real journalist check their sources, don't manufacture news, and don't commit plagiarism, all of which is rampant on blogs.
And can you provide an example? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one.
Right, Americans didn't suffer during World War II, either. Pull your head out. The entire world felt that war and that's why we've tried so hard to avoid any major conflicts.
Right now the news is all about attacks from people that the current administration would like to demonize. That makes the believability of these reports a little less than zero IMO.
Your logic is weak. You're saying "this evidence supports what the Bush Administration has been saying all along, therefor it is false." How can you honestly come to that conclusion?
You then go on to remind us of past Soviet/Russian-American encounters. We could also discuss the mock bombing runs of the cold war, RB-47s and RB-50s, spies, and everything else we've been doing to each other for all this time. None of these are valid arguments against the truthiness of this article.
What are you going to do now, attack my use of the word "truthiness"?
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Its average speed (140 km/h) is too slow to compete with air travel.
I once flew from Tokyo -> LAX -> San Diego. At LAX I had to go through customs then back through security, check my bag again, and wait for my flight. We were delayed for over 45m and I'm willing to bet it was because the winds were out of limits. When I finally got to San Diego and picked up my bag it had been over 4 hours since I cleared customs at LAX. Please note that a normal speed train with frequent stops would have taken about 2 hours.
I forgot to add that, as an added bonus, it's a great excuse for mutual oral sex prior to intercourse. "No, babe, I didn't just do a tattoo check! I wanted to put my head here!"
Which is why I propose a small tattoo in a standard location near the genitals that is just a "+". Nobody will ever be able to see it unless they have to. It could be small enough to be unnoticeable from more than a few feet away.
(Yes, I know this is in some ways unethical and would go against the religious beliefs of some. I'm not sure I'd actually vote for such a measure, but I do think it's a better option than a technological solution that will likely turn into a major privacy liability.)
Don't want HIV? Enter into a monogamous and long-lasting and committed relationship like marriage with proper testing. Oh, wait - I'm writing to the/* crowd - er, hook up in WoW and keep your real zipper zipped.
Why a monogamous, committed relationship? What if I have my entire harem tested for HIV and then forbid them contact with the outside world? Or I could have sex exclusively with virgins, or my own offspring. Or I could enter a polygamous or polyandrous relationship. What about bestiality? That sounds much safer considering adultery rates.
Ooh ooh ooh! I have a bright idea! I could practice safe sex and properly utilize a prophylactic, taking care not to exchange bodily fluids. Then I could sleep with a ton of different people without a high probability of contracting HIV. That would work unless I got stoned to death by the self-righteous missionaries invading my country, right?
This appears to be a large miscommunication/misunderstanding. As a lawyer with this specialty, you are most likely to concern yourself with "what the law is", whereas Chrisje and AC are random internet bobbleheads who are arguing "what the law ought to be". Frankly, I agree with both of you.
This patent appears obvious and I'm willing to bet that plenty of prior art exists here. The equivalent would be a Pep Boys patent on checking tire pressure, examining treads, elevating the car, removing the tires, etc. It's simply the logical process required to perform that task, and McDonald's doesn't appear to have anything new to add aside from a few special tools that are likely somebody else's IP.
It is, however, quite clear that the laws currently provide quite a bit of protection for patents like this and they have been standing up in court. Most reasonable people seem to feel that these patents should not be allowed.
You are correct, though. People need to better understand the law so they can do what they're supposed to do as informed voters: convince legislators to change the laws and make them more beneficial for the public.
IP Law, as currently implemented, is ridiculous. If we seem hostile to the very concept, I apologize, but I'm sure you will understand the anger over some of the patents that have been granted lately. Hopefully legislators will work to fix this problem soon without throwing IP out with the bath water.
It wasn't a straw man because it appears to be what he was actually arguing. He said "your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights." I provided a scenario where this was clearly a bad position and asked him again what his opinion would be on this particular scenario.
It's also not a straw man because this is precisely the kind of scenario that inspired the right to self-defense with lethal force. Please note that (in most places) it is ONLY legal to kill someone in self-defense if doing so appears to be the only option to prevent the loss of life or serious bodily harm.
I'm curious about this fine print myself. I purchased a Dell Inspiron E1505 with a "Vista Capable" sticker on it. It has no such fine print and I know for a fact that it wasn't on the website when I ordered it.
That's the point, the stupid(criminal) still has a right to live. And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
That means your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights.
You're ignoring the point: one can legally take another's life in self-defense if such a measure can be rationally seen as necessary to save their life.
Scenario: John starts dating Mary. Mary's psychotic ex-boyfriend, Crazy, learns of this and begins stalking John. Crazy makes threatening phone calls and mails death threats to John. John is granted a restraining order against Crazy. John is walking down the street when he sees Crazy 15 feet ahead of him on the sidewalk. Crazy screams, "I'm going to fucking kill you!" and aims a pistol at John, placing his finger on the trigger. John believes Crazy is telling the truth, and draws his own weapon, shooting once and striking Crazy in the chest. John remains on the scene and immediately calls emergency services from his cell phone, but Crazy is pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.
In this example, John reasonably believed that Crazy had both the immediately intent and capability of killing him. As such, his right to self defense would likely protect him from any criminal prosecution, assuming he was legally carrying the weapon and that he did not violate any other laws.
Would you argue that John should be punished for taking Crazy's life in this scenario?
Fulcrum is quite correct. You can't use lethal force to stop someone from stealing a car, but you can use lethal force if you rationally believe that doing so will save your life.
Exactly. I've seen those crosswalks in Japan, Southern California, and Germany and I'm sure they're fairly common. Standing at the crosswalk you can tell from the direction of the sound which way to cross to and how much time is remaining (tempo increases until it becomes a solid "STOP" beep) and the sound isn't particularly annoying.
It's true that in many places, in the East Coast and in California, advocates for the blind have lobbied for requirements for noise generators (not just study of the issue), but that's very different from any particular state passing (or even "trying to pass") a law requiring that.
This reminds me of one of the first things that my mom taught me whenever I went into the front yard. Stay in the yard, don't go into the street, and if you ever need to actually cross the street look both ways first. Well, obviously blind people should never cross the street.
No, obviously blind people should not cross the street unless they are using a crosswalk designed for use by the blind. All cross walks should be, but I'm sure that some are not.
To flip this around. Why not make a law that requires blind people to hire a min wage worker to look both ways for them whenever they need to cross the street? Obviously that's a silly idea, but it would create lots of new jobs and it helps the disabled from killing themselves due to their disadvantages so it must be a somewhat decent idea.
It's not a decent idea, but seeing eye dogs can perform this function better than one minimum wage worker.
I hate sitting in the back half of the cabin to the rear of the jet engines.
Look on the bright side, planes hardly ever crash tail first.
Actually, the tail section is one of the more lethal places to sit. Tail sections tend to fall off in collisions. Further, turbulence will be worse as you get further aft of the wings.
The US has laws about sex tourism... If you travel overseas in order to have sex with minor children, for example, you can be charged in the US even if it was legal where you did it. I'm sure there are more laws like this.
The bible doesn't read like it was transcribed by 3 year olds, it reads like it was WRITTEN by 3 year olds.
If I wanted to get a small child to transcribe the history of the universe, I would explain the big bang in simplistic terms, then I would go on about the forces that caused matter to ball up and form stars and galaxies and everything. Then I would talk about the inherent natural forces involved that lead to them being hot and giving off so much light and energy. I would explain it in terms a small child could write down but not fully understand. As the child got older, he'd slowly be able to understand more of the text. In other words, the text would be above, not at, his level of understanding.
If the bible was anything other than a book written by Iron Age men, this would be apparent. Truths that we could not understand at the time would be slowly revealing themselves as our science and understanding caught up. Instead, we're constantly discovering more falsehoods in Genesis. For example, light could not have been created on a different day than the stars. Eve could not have been formed out of a rib.
These creation stories are woefully inadequate compared to what a modern scientist would have a modern child transcribe.
I propose that the bible was in fact written solely by Iron Age humans. Would you please present one thing written in the bible that could not have been known by mere mortals without the help of a prophet/deity combo? IF you can't, you must admit that there is absolutely no evidence that the bible was anything other than a book written by men.
Funny how this election was solely about race. Specifically anti-white sentiment.
Maybe for you. Admittedly race was an issue on both sides... some voted for Obama because they wanted to see a black man become president. Some voted for McCain because they didn't want to see a black man become president. Some people have been voting Republican for 40 years because the Democrats forced racial integration on them!
The rest of us voted for the candidate that we felt would be the best for America. Personally, I wish Obama wasn't black. If he wasn't black, we could be talking about the issues instead of race, but I would never ask the man to bleach his skin. If his race inspires young black or latin Americans, and helps them realize they can have a bright future in America, then that's wonderful.
If race means this much to you, I'm sorry for you because you're pathetic.
One may wonder how did Nazi Germany come about? That was a disturbingly racist society, wasn't it? But for many it wasn't a conscious choice, it was just popular opinion at the time and people just went with the flow.
Popular opinion today is that attacking Caucasian people is okay. But no one would dare attack a person of any other race. The western world is sliding into a morally treacherous place.
Are you so insecure in white supremacy that you think the next holocaust will be ethnic cleansing of white Americans? Really? If so, get help. If not, why did you bring it up?
I find it comical anyone could deny bias occored, and when proven wrong its then justified by claiming Obama was more positive.
The point is being missed here: when the press is in the tank for a candidate and is not fair and balanced, everyone loses.
anyone claiming it didn't happen are shooting yourselves in the foot by justifying what happened with the press, because at the end of the day the press will turn on Obama, it always does to the standing president, and when they do its going to be comical watching everyone freak out at the "unfairness". i'll be the guy with the popcorn laughing...
"Fair and Balanced". Sounds familiar. You're still missing the point here. In this election, ti could be said that facts had a liberal bias. Any news network reporting the facts carried that liberal bias. Any network that decided to remain "Fair and Balanced" actively ignored or misrepresented the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Astute observation. Imagine if someone seized on the cult of "man's use of iron is hastening the magnetic field reversal!"
My friend, I think you just solved the mystery of the Baigong Pipes.
Who cares if Karl Rove did it? They're all getting pardons anyways.
Why bother going to Dubai anyhow? It is too hot, they only have sand and some fake islands that no-one wants to buy and no culture (unless you are into modern, megalomaniac architecture).
And refrigerated beaches...
Just to play devils advocate here, It all depends on where you got the marijuana from. ... Of course if they would just legalize it and have the government sell it at cost plus ten percent, it would put all these guys out of business
You're really not a very good devil's advocate, are you?
I really can't fault you, though. It's pretty tough to argue for a side that's supported only by ideology and opposed by all the facts.
And can you provide an example? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one.
Bill Moyers.
Right, Americans didn't suffer during World War II, either. Pull your head out. The entire world felt that war and that's why we've tried so hard to avoid any major conflicts.
Right now the news is all about attacks from people that the current administration would like to demonize. That makes the believability of these reports a little less than zero IMO.
Your logic is weak. You're saying "this evidence supports what the Bush Administration has been saying all along, therefor it is false." How can you honestly come to that conclusion?
You then go on to remind us of past Soviet/Russian-American encounters. We could also discuss the mock bombing runs of the cold war, RB-47s and RB-50s, spies, and everything else we've been doing to each other for all this time. None of these are valid arguments against the truthiness of this article.
What are you going to do now, attack my use of the word "truthiness"?
Neither did I. What book are you talking about? We were discussing the Christian Bible.
As I understand it the traffic problems in the USA are primarily on a few high traffic routes like New York to Washington. If they invested in high speed rail on those links the congestion problem in the air might not be such an issue.
Er, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express ?
Its average speed (140 km/h) is too slow to compete with air travel.
I once flew from Tokyo -> LAX -> San Diego. At LAX I had to go through customs then back through security, check my bag again, and wait for my flight. We were delayed for over 45m and I'm willing to bet it was because the winds were out of limits. When I finally got to San Diego and picked up my bag it had been over 4 hours since I cleared customs at LAX. Please note that a normal speed train with frequent stops would have taken about 2 hours.
I forgot to add that, as an added bonus, it's a great excuse for mutual oral sex prior to intercourse. "No, babe, I didn't just do a tattoo check! I wanted to put my head here!"
Which is why I propose a small tattoo in a standard location near the genitals that is just a "+". Nobody will ever be able to see it unless they have to. It could be small enough to be unnoticeable from more than a few feet away.
(Yes, I know this is in some ways unethical and would go against the religious beliefs of some. I'm not sure I'd actually vote for such a measure, but I do think it's a better option than a technological solution that will likely turn into a major privacy liability.)
Don't want HIV? Enter into a monogamous and long-lasting and committed relationship like marriage with proper testing. Oh, wait - I'm writing to the /* crowd - er, hook up in WoW and keep your real zipper zipped.
Why a monogamous, committed relationship? What if I have my entire harem tested for HIV and then forbid them contact with the outside world? Or I could have sex exclusively with virgins, or my own offspring. Or I could enter a polygamous or polyandrous relationship. What about bestiality? That sounds much safer considering adultery rates.
Ooh ooh ooh! I have a bright idea! I could practice safe sex and properly utilize a prophylactic, taking care not to exchange bodily fluids. Then I could sleep with a ton of different people without a high probability of contracting HIV. That would work unless I got stoned to death by the self-righteous missionaries invading my country, right?
This appears to be a large miscommunication/misunderstanding. As a lawyer with this specialty, you are most likely to concern yourself with "what the law is", whereas Chrisje and AC are random internet bobbleheads who are arguing "what the law ought to be". Frankly, I agree with both of you.
This patent appears obvious and I'm willing to bet that plenty of prior art exists here. The equivalent would be a Pep Boys patent on checking tire pressure, examining treads, elevating the car, removing the tires, etc. It's simply the logical process required to perform that task, and McDonald's doesn't appear to have anything new to add aside from a few special tools that are likely somebody else's IP.
It is, however, quite clear that the laws currently provide quite a bit of protection for patents like this and they have been standing up in court. Most reasonable people seem to feel that these patents should not be allowed.
You are correct, though. People need to better understand the law so they can do what they're supposed to do as informed voters: convince legislators to change the laws and make them more beneficial for the public.
IP Law, as currently implemented, is ridiculous. If we seem hostile to the very concept, I apologize, but I'm sure you will understand the anger over some of the patents that have been granted lately. Hopefully legislators will work to fix this problem soon without throwing IP out with the bath water.
It wasn't a straw man because it appears to be what he was actually arguing. He said "your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights." I provided a scenario where this was clearly a bad position and asked him again what his opinion would be on this particular scenario.
It's also not a straw man because this is precisely the kind of scenario that inspired the right to self-defense with lethal force. Please note that (in most places) it is ONLY legal to kill someone in self-defense if doing so appears to be the only option to prevent the loss of life or serious bodily harm.
Nice troll.
I'm curious about this fine print myself. I purchased a Dell Inspiron E1505 with a "Vista Capable" sticker on it. It has no such fine print and I know for a fact that it wasn't on the website when I ordered it.
That's the point, the stupid(criminal) still has a right to live. And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
That means your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights.
You're ignoring the point: one can legally take another's life in self-defense if such a measure can be rationally seen as necessary to save their life.
Scenario:
John starts dating Mary. Mary's psychotic ex-boyfriend, Crazy, learns of this and begins stalking John. Crazy makes threatening phone calls and mails death threats to John. John is granted a restraining order against Crazy. John is walking down the street when he sees Crazy 15 feet ahead of him on the sidewalk. Crazy screams, "I'm going to fucking kill you!" and aims a pistol at John, placing his finger on the trigger. John believes Crazy is telling the truth, and draws his own weapon, shooting once and striking Crazy in the chest. John remains on the scene and immediately calls emergency services from his cell phone, but Crazy is pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital.
In this example, John reasonably believed that Crazy had both the immediately intent and capability of killing him. As such, his right to self defense would likely protect him from any criminal prosecution, assuming he was legally carrying the weapon and that he did not violate any other laws.
Would you argue that John should be punished for taking Crazy's life in this scenario?
Fulcrum is quite correct. You can't use lethal force to stop someone from stealing a car, but you can use lethal force if you rationally believe that doing so will save your life.
Exactly. I've seen those crosswalks in Japan, Southern California, and Germany and I'm sure they're fairly common. Standing at the crosswalk you can tell from the direction of the sound which way to cross to and how much time is remaining (tempo increases until it becomes a solid "STOP" beep) and the sound isn't particularly annoying.
It's true that in many places, in the East Coast and in California, advocates for the blind have lobbied for requirements for noise generators (not just study of the issue), but that's very different from any particular state passing (or even "trying to pass") a law requiring that.
This reminds me of one of the first things that my mom taught me whenever I went into the front yard. Stay in the yard, don't go into the street, and if you ever need to actually cross the street look both ways first. Well, obviously blind people should never cross the street.
No, obviously blind people should not cross the street unless they are using a crosswalk designed for use by the blind. All cross walks should be, but I'm sure that some are not.
To flip this around. Why not make a law that requires blind people to hire a min wage worker to look both ways for them whenever they need to cross the street? Obviously that's a silly idea, but it would create lots of new jobs and it helps the disabled from killing themselves due to their disadvantages so it must be a somewhat decent idea.
It's not a decent idea, but seeing eye dogs can perform this function better than one minimum wage worker.
I hate sitting in the back half of the cabin to the rear of the jet engines.
Look on the bright side, planes hardly ever crash tail first.
Actually, the tail section is one of the more lethal places to sit. Tail sections tend to fall off in collisions. Further, turbulence will be worse as you get further aft of the wings.
The US has laws about sex tourism... If you travel overseas in order to have sex with minor children, for example, you can be charged in the US even if it was legal where you did it. I'm sure there are more laws like this.
By definition, belief without evidence is faith. Belief with strong evidence is called theory. Belief despite evidence to the contrary is insanity.
Please consider being more honest in the future.
The bible doesn't read like it was transcribed by 3 year olds, it reads like it was WRITTEN by 3 year olds.
If I wanted to get a small child to transcribe the history of the universe, I would explain the big bang in simplistic terms, then I would go on about the forces that caused matter to ball up and form stars and galaxies and everything. Then I would talk about the inherent natural forces involved that lead to them being hot and giving off so much light and energy. I would explain it in terms a small child could write down but not fully understand. As the child got older, he'd slowly be able to understand more of the text. In other words, the text would be above, not at, his level of understanding.
If the bible was anything other than a book written by Iron Age men, this would be apparent. Truths that we could not understand at the time would be slowly revealing themselves as our science and understanding caught up. Instead, we're constantly discovering more falsehoods in Genesis. For example, light could not have been created on a different day than the stars. Eve could not have been formed out of a rib.
These creation stories are woefully inadequate compared to what a modern scientist would have a modern child transcribe.
I propose that the bible was in fact written solely by Iron Age humans. Would you please present one thing written in the bible that could not have been known by mere mortals without the help of a prophet/deity combo? IF you can't, you must admit that there is absolutely no evidence that the bible was anything other than a book written by men.
Funny how this election was solely about race. Specifically anti-white sentiment.
Maybe for you. Admittedly race was an issue on both sides... some voted for Obama because they wanted to see a black man become president. Some voted for McCain because they didn't want to see a black man become president. Some people have been voting Republican for 40 years because the Democrats forced racial integration on them!
The rest of us voted for the candidate that we felt would be the best for America. Personally, I wish Obama wasn't black. If he wasn't black, we could be talking about the issues instead of race, but I would never ask the man to bleach his skin. If his race inspires young black or latin Americans, and helps them realize they can have a bright future in America, then that's wonderful.
If race means this much to you, I'm sorry for you because you're pathetic.
One may wonder how did Nazi Germany come about? That was a disturbingly racist society, wasn't it? But for many it wasn't a conscious choice, it was just popular opinion at the time and people just went with the flow.
Popular opinion today is that attacking Caucasian people is okay. But no one would dare attack a person of any other race. The western world is sliding into a morally treacherous place.
Are you so insecure in white supremacy that you think the next holocaust will be ethnic cleansing of white Americans? Really? If so, get help. If not, why did you bring it up?
I find it comical anyone could deny bias occored, and when proven wrong its then justified by claiming Obama was more positive.
The point is being missed here: when the press is in the tank for a candidate and is not fair and balanced, everyone loses.
anyone claiming it didn't happen are shooting yourselves in the foot by justifying what happened with the press, because at the end of the day the press will turn on Obama, it always does to the standing president, and when they do its going to be comical watching everyone freak out at the "unfairness". i'll be the guy with the popcorn laughing...
"Fair and Balanced". Sounds familiar. You're still missing the point here. In this election, ti could be said that facts had a liberal bias. Any news network reporting the facts carried that liberal bias. Any network that decided to remain "Fair and Balanced" actively ignored or misrepresented the facts.