The UN has no authority to ban anything, nor do they have the legal authority to pass any type of legislation, of any kind(which such a ban would be). I mean, I do not want any country to threaten my suntan and my mari...my cultivation activities, but the UN has no authority to do any of this.
If the UN actually had any type of legislation(law-making) authority, then it's first focus would be to remove all citizen's access to firearms, then to freedom in general.
...and fuck anyone that supports China, or anyone that is too much of a pussy to speak out against China. I hope that entire government burns in hell for what they have done and what they will do.
"Arms" are generally considered to be any weapons(firearms, bladed weapons, etc) that a person can carry. An Asp Baton, a knife, a rifle, and a handgun are all examples of weapons that a person is able to carry under his or her own strength. This does not mean that, if a particular person cannot lift a weapon that the average person could carry, that it would disqualify that person from carrying said weapon; this is just the general definition of "Arms". A tank, a nuclear weapon, and/or a warship would not be considered arms, though these various properties are capable of having arms attached.
Really, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was meant to give citizens the right to have "arms" ready in case of an invasion of the United States and to given citizens the ability to protect themselves from any entity that meant to do him or her harm. This could be an individual and/or any government(domestic or not) that was attempt to cause said harm.
This does not mean that anyone should plan start a revolution every time the U.S. Government harms someone; there are other options to deal with that(courts, voting, etc). If the current U.S. Government(by current, I mean current at the time of the event) were to start violating the law in a way that was causing actual harm to the point that it threaten to disband the United States, or was activating the U.S. Military to use it against its own people, then the Second Amendment exist for the people to fight back and to take control back for "The People".
I, as well as most people, would hope that such things would never have to happen, but the Second Amendment gives us protections to make sure it can happen, if, God forbid, it has to. Otherwise, we, as citizens of the United States, have the ability to protect ourselves, as well as those around us, from those that wish to do us, and any third-party, harm.
It is only sad that so many other countries fail to understand the importance of such protections(which many courts, as well as the founders of the United States understood to be something that has been the foundation of so many nations/civilizations since the creation of man).
That is the very definition of Inalienable Rights.
Just how does your income depend on PS3s? Do you create games? Well, game companies already make a fucking fortune; next. Do you sell games and/or gaming consoles? Well, your sales are about to increase, next. Do you work for Sony? Well, Sony fucked themselves and they are still making a huge fucking fortune, next...wait, I have run out of ideas.
The fact is that you have no right to complain, but you are simply taking the same side that most people here hate. What I find distasteful is that you believe you have any fucking right to tell me how I can and cannot use the goddamn property I own. Oh wait, you can't.
Go away, if you do not like the stories presented here.
"Known in the industry as the “Alpha Scientist,” Dr. Allen is in the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, including Nanotechnology, NanoMolecules, Quantum Chocolate, Genetic polymorphisms in Dysregulated Arginine Metabolism, Sickle Cell Polymorphisms, Thalassemia, Blind Amino Acid Riders, L-Arginine Isoform Pathways, and Edible Computer Chips."
Feel free to sue me, bitch, as I have no money nor do I have any property of value. Slashdot is covered under Safe Harbor laws.
Usually, people purchase consoles with the specific intent to purchase the games. People(usually) did not purchase an NES or SNES for anything other than to play specific games(hello Mario and Link). Sony, thinking they were "Masters of the Universe" thought they would create a far superior console(and many people will argue they did, and just as many will argue they did not). While Sony might have created a great console, it is their own fault that the game revenue is not higher. Hell, at least 20 of my friends purchased a PS3 Slim because of the fact that is had(at the time, at least) the best Blu-ray player at the price point and it could play games.
First off, the games are expensive for the content provided. You see, games have take a slide backwards. We can argue about inflation and how it has affected the price of games(yes, I know that, in current dollar terms, older games and systems are more expensive), but it is all about perception. You also have to look at how many games can be beaten in very little time and the only thing that game developers could think of was to implement the Trophy/Achievement Points system. Hell, even MMOs, like World of Warcraft(which I still play, albeit casually since early WotLK expansion), though Blizzard did do their Achievement Point system right(in that some achievements give actual, in-game rewards). I am sorry, but rehashing the same game(even when the game is good) does not equate to value for the money.
I know there are constraints and limitations, and that it takes constant progress to overcome some(though not all) of these constraints and limitations. The PSP is a prime example of the current issues with limited expansion. Sony continues to re-release the same old, tired portable that is many years behind the times. My damned iPhone 3G S has more computing power, both in a general and in real-world application sense. I know that the "PSP2" is supposedly out there(MK Devs), but it is far past time for us to have this blessed device. I mean, where in the holy land of fuck is our dual analog controllers?
Secondly, Sony(Microsoft, Nintendo, etc) continues to(try to) hold too tight a grip on the consoles themselves. Yeah, yeah, argue about "pirates" all you want, but I do not give a shit. I paid for the console, therefore I own it. Sony cannot come into my home, one day, and take the machine back when, and if, they(Sony) decided my "license" had expired(well, they could try, but they would be shot). As such, it is my right to decide how to use this console. If I decide to "hack" it or "jailbreak" it, or whatever you want to call it, that is my right. I believe that backing up my games is a great concept.
The games are expensive and if, in a year or two(or more) the game breaks or fails, I cannot get a warranty replacement. Sony(or the game developer(s)) will tell me that I will just have to purchase another copy. Why? I still hold ownership for my one copy, so why can Sony and/or the developers deny me access to the software I still hold legal right to? Microsoft has helped this issue a little bit with the ability for Xbox 360 owners to copy games to the console's hard drive. You still need the disc(which is dumb, but whatever), but at least it is a start.
In the end, I do not care about what someone else will do. I am a trustworthy person that will always do the right thing. As game companies start to squeeze their grip tighter around their product, the more that people will turn to either not paying for the games(either avoiding the product or theft) or they will turn to hacking the games the paid for(which is their right, in my opinion). EA is a perfect example of the horror we(gamers) face. Assassin's Creed 2 for PC is up there with having to pay $15(hello Mass Effect 2, and others) for certain portions of second-hand games.
All of this is starting to push me away from gaming in general.
You are simply looking past the fact that I, as an owner of a produced copy of the PS3 console(among many other gaming consoles), I have the right to do with it whatever I wish. If I want to alter the software to make it do something that Sony did not intend for it to do, then I can. If I want to set the goddamn thing on fire, then there is not anything Sony can do to stop me. Just because Sony thinks it can do something, it does not make it so.
I also have switched the operating system software on my iPhone to run a customized version so that I can run the applications I want and also free myself from Apple's customer-unfriendly setup. I do not have software on my iPhone that is not free or already paid for and the same thing will apply when I alter my PS3's operating system(OS) software. Just because the altered software that I will use to "open" my PS3 has the capability to make copies of games and/or movies I do not own, it does not mean that that is what I am going to use this software for. I own firearms and other weapons, yet I do not go out murdering people. I also do not go running people down with my vehicle, but my vehicle is certainly capable of allowing me to run people and/or other objects over.
Just because something is capable of doing something negative, or that is perceived to be negative, it does not mean that it will be used for that purpose. It also does not give you any right to attempt to use bad logic to support your bad position. When this software has been out over the next two years and Sony(and the game developers) continue to make record profits, then feel free to stop posting this nonsense.
Yeah, it is so fucking crazy to expect our government to respect our Constitutional Rights. You are bitching about politicians doing bad things, and in the same breathe you start bitching about how standing up for your rights is a crazy thing to do. You either respect all rights, or you respect none.
You are missing the point completely. With the PS3, customers get to play the multiplayer portion of the games they own(which, incidentally, we paid $60 for the single and multiplayer portion) for free. It does not cost $50 or $60 USD to do that with a PS3.
Microsoft charges customers $60 per game, then forces customer to pay another $50(about to be $60) per year to play a portion of the game that was already paid for. It would be like a customer purchasing a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, then having to pay a yearly fee to watch the extra features...except that multiplayer on most games (that have multiplayer) is one of the main selling points(MW2, Halo, etc).
Microsoft adds all of the functionality, then acts like it is something everyone has been asking for. The fact is that I never asked for it, and I am sure most people did not ask for it either. While Microsoft acts like it is costing them money to provide these features, I am sure Microsoft is generating income through advertisements that these "features" provide.
I do not care about ESPN 3, or Facebook, or any of that other shit; I just want to play the multiplayer portion of the games I own and forget the rest. Hell, a lot of it is just paywall-linked content(purchasing movies, having a subscription of Netflix, and other shit). There is not any added value to Xbox Live Gold when you break it down. This is all just Microsoft fucking over customers and making a killing from it.
As such, I have canceled my Xbox Live Gold account.
You can actually possess most any full-automatic firearm, if you have the proper "permit" and have paid the proper "transfer tax". You can also possess silencers, "sawed-off" shotguns, etc, if you have the proper licensing and paid the taxes required.
Of course, where it will cost government about $1800 USD per weapon, it will cost citizens about $20,000 USD. That is the way our government works; they out-price rights they cannot stop in legislation.
Please do not take this as me being an ass(which I usually am), but there is no such thing as "international law". There are accords and treaties that counties will agree to, but there is no legal bindings set in these agreements. If the treaties are violated, then neither side will accept the agreements setup in the treaties.
If there was an animal that existed(international laws), then a country could require my extradition for violating other country's laws within the borders of my country(the United States). It gets really convoluted, but it is easy to understand the "broad strokes".
When you enter into the United States from another country, either by air, sea, or land, you are on United States soil. Since agents of the United States are handling incoming visitors and returning citizens, these agents are bound by the U.S. Constitution when handling possible violators of the law. This is how agents are trained when handling such situations(of which I have such training). U.S. Ports are handling in similar manners as U.S. Embassies, sort of. There are some exceptions(which are mostly court decided, not explicitly Constitutionally based) to U.S. Constitutional protections, such as search and seizure, but these exception are extremely narrow.
I am not saying that I agree with the exceptions, but these are exceptions that do exist. What I will say is that, in regards to the United States, you are fully protected by the United States Constitution when you are U.S. soil(which all property within 12 miles of the cost of the United States, Hawaii, Alaska, U.S. Embassies, and other various property owned by the U.S. Government).
Actually, you are in the United States and the agents of the United States are required to do their job according to the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and U.S. Federal Law. A U.S. Citizen that is entering the United States and is detained once landing in the U.S. is protected by all laws and the U.S. Constitution.
I know that the U.S. Government tries to tell itself this is not the case, but it is. This guy did the right thing by not talking, which is what I would have done. He is under no obligation to give the U.S. Government any information.
It seems like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is still going strong. It use to be that the FBI worked hard to have U.S. Citizens see "Red" in their soup with communist witch hunts, and now they are changing over to having us(U.S. Citizens) see terrorist in our soup.
People believe that the U.S. Government has gotten bad, or turned into a "police state", but the fact is that this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. This situation will continue until those that are governed decide to change this and demand real change.
To save a lot of discussion...that will never happen. People will continue to keep their head in the sand, until they are targeted. At that point, it will be too late.
While I detest AT&T on multiple levels, this shows that AT&T is thinking clearly(at least at the very moment at time). AT&T was probably advised, from a legal standpoint, that they(AT&T) had no legal basis to use to stop this demonstration. It is the same reason why we can learn how to build a multitude of bombs, learn how to make various drugs, and learn a plethora of various knowledge on the internet and out in the "real world". The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution cannot and will not be put on hold to make any group happy. Aside from threats of violence, "free speech" cannot be withheld from the citizenry.
Even though people, today, tend to believe to contrary, the U.S. Constitution is still very much alive(in that is still protects us the same way it has since its inception). While AT&T might have won a temporary injunction to stop this(if they properly sopped for a judge), it would have been quickly squashed on appeal and the information would have been disseminated rather quickly. The fact is that AT&T does not want negative press.
Of course, that could change. I mean, in the interest of being consistent, AT&T might just try to kill this at the last minute.
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Well, perhaps that boy should quit playing with his new lightsa...err, ambiguous, bar-shaped laser "toy".
Yes, bacteria and a virus can change something as big as a man, but a man's body has the defenses to counter those changes and go on unaffected. Though, a human's body is weak and more prone to the effects of localized problems. When death occurs from bacterial or viral infections, it is from events similar to the moon crashing into the fucking earth. There is no escape or defense from such a complete and systemic failure in either event.
This planet has endured many different trials/catastrophes, yet it is still here and thriving. Now, people believe they have some "new, fresh, and exciting" intelligence and information and all they can come up with is that CO2 is the cause of environmental "problems". The same molecule that all manner of mammal(and many non-mammal) produce and that all manner of plant life consumes is causing this problem. The same fucking molecule that has existed on this plant for almost as long as the planet has existed, yet it is only a problem now. Even though we humans do not produce five percent of the CO2 that exist on this planet, we are affecting natural functions of a huge fucking planet?
This boils down to one thing: Control. There is some group of assholes that want to force their unfounded views on society and they want to control what people do in their everyday lives. What other way will effect this better than to preach that the "every-day" person is murdering the environment by traveling to their only means to survive(job) with a dull spoon(their vehicle), or using that dull spoon to travel to see my Council of Satanic Earth Murders(family). The other motivation is that there are people and groups that stand to make a great damned fortune from promoting "clean" initiatives, or "green" initiatives.
This is not some great conspiracy or something difficult to figure out. It is also not difficult why so many are unwilling to open their eyes to their own stupidity: Egos. It's ok, one day all of this horseshit will be shown to be horseshit and some new idiot, or new group of idiots, will be working to fool people into believing some new horseshit.
When did scientist start extracting sound waves from the Opium Poppy? Narcotics are, by definition, only chemicals that are derived from the Opium Poppy(Codine, Morphine, Hydrocodone, Oxycondone, Hydromorphone, Oxymorphone, Fentanyl, Heroin etc.). When people use the wrong term to describe something, it gets really irritating and show inane tendencies.
I can tell you that this suggestion is horseshit. How do I know? I live in an area that has horrible(read: no coverage) AT&T service coverage and my phone is perpetually stuck at either one bar(sometimes) and no bars. Prior to updating the phone to iOS 4.0, I could put the phone into engineering mode and the db level was correct, in regards to db level to bars displayed.
I am not sure what Apple is aiming for, but the public cannot be dumb enough to believe this. While software can have a great effect on hardware, it cannot do anything about mechanical flaws. At least not at this magnitude.
It is like Apple is saying, "Our product is great, damn it! Now, shut the fuck up and enjoy it!" Sorry, Mr. Jobs, but I am just not going to buy the bullshit you are trying to peddle.
So, what? Are they going to assign more bars to higher db levels? You cannot fix such a major hardware snafu with a simple software change. You, sure as shit, can cover one up, but not fix it.
I uploaded the President's Book of Secrets to Wikileaks three weeks ago. Does this mean that the NSA has it now, along with my IP address and Chat Roulette screen-grabs?
Simply connecting to a friend's wireless router is not a crime. If I attempt to connect without the permission of the router's owner, then it is wrong of me. What is a crime, without any room for argument with your bad analogies, is that accessing data without permission is a crime. Since you are obviously not a lawyer, nor would ever be intellectually capable of being one, I see no reason to try and discuss this with you further.
Just accept that the legislature of each state has set laws, based on the interest of the citizenry and various interest group, and that Google must conform to all the laws within a given state where they are operating these cars. I do not know what other state laws cover, but Georgia law makes what Google did illegal(more so the data collection, than the accessing of wireless routers, but they are both crimes).
Mail in a mailbox is unsecured, but if you open a letter that is not addressed to you, you are committing a crime. While I secure my wireless router(security which can be beat by a kid with a few internet searches), the law does not require me to secure my wireless connection to provide me protection from unlawful data access(at least not in my State).
Perhaps Google should map out the firearm owners in the United States, or perhaps they should map out where thieves can find the best places to loot. The fact is that Google has no right to map out where all the WiFi routers in the world are, nor do they have the right to obtain any information from my wireless router. Secured or not, Google has no right to collect this data.
Give me a break. This is just like Google going around, opening people's mail that is sitting in mailboxes. That is a crime and so is skimming data from networks that they are attached to. The law does not require a person to secure their data to turn unauthorized access into a crime; it is always a crime.
I also want to know why Google believes it has the right to map WiFi networks. Who are they to think they(Google) has the right to locate and map out the locations of WiFi routers around the world? Google is wrong in this and I want to see them pay(legally and civilly).
You could not be more wrong. Seeing as you do not understand how all state laws work, in regards to accessing computers and networks, I suggest that you keep such blanket comments out of this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
The UN has no authority to ban anything, nor do they have the legal authority to pass any type of legislation, of any kind(which such a ban would be). I mean, I do not want any country to threaten my suntan and my mari...my cultivation activities, but the UN has no authority to do any of this.
If the UN actually had any type of legislation(law-making) authority, then it's first focus would be to remove all citizen's access to firearms, then to freedom in general.
...and fuck anyone that supports China, or anyone that is too much of a pussy to speak out against China. I hope that entire government burns in hell for what they have done and what they will do.
"Arms" are generally considered to be any weapons(firearms, bladed weapons, etc) that a person can carry. An Asp Baton, a knife, a rifle, and a handgun are all examples of weapons that a person is able to carry under his or her own strength. This does not mean that, if a particular person cannot lift a weapon that the average person could carry, that it would disqualify that person from carrying said weapon; this is just the general definition of "Arms". A tank, a nuclear weapon, and/or a warship would not be considered arms, though these various properties are capable of having arms attached.
Really, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was meant to give citizens the right to have "arms" ready in case of an invasion of the United States and to given citizens the ability to protect themselves from any entity that meant to do him or her harm. This could be an individual and/or any government(domestic or not) that was attempt to cause said harm.
This does not mean that anyone should plan start a revolution every time the U.S. Government harms someone; there are other options to deal with that(courts, voting, etc). If the current U.S. Government(by current, I mean current at the time of the event) were to start violating the law in a way that was causing actual harm to the point that it threaten to disband the United States, or was activating the U.S. Military to use it against its own people, then the Second Amendment exist for the people to fight back and to take control back for "The People".
I, as well as most people, would hope that such things would never have to happen, but the Second Amendment gives us protections to make sure it can happen, if, God forbid, it has to. Otherwise, we, as citizens of the United States, have the ability to protect ourselves, as well as those around us, from those that wish to do us, and any third-party, harm.
It is only sad that so many other countries fail to understand the importance of such protections(which many courts, as well as the founders of the United States understood to be something that has been the foundation of so many nations/civilizations since the creation of man).
That is the very definition of Inalienable Rights.
Just how does your income depend on PS3s? Do you create games? Well, game companies already make a fucking fortune; next. Do you sell games and/or gaming consoles? Well, your sales are about to increase, next. Do you work for Sony? Well, Sony fucked themselves and they are still making a huge fucking fortune, next...wait, I have run out of ideas.
The fact is that you have no right to complain, but you are simply taking the same side that most people here hate. What I find distasteful is that you believe you have any fucking right to tell me how I can and cannot use the goddamn property I own. Oh wait, you can't.
Go away, if you do not like the stories presented here.
You can do that as well, but I am too lazy to take my hand of my mouse.
Taken from www.anndeweesallen.com :
"Known in the industry as the “Alpha Scientist,” Dr. Allen is in the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, including Nanotechnology, NanoMolecules, Quantum Chocolate, Genetic polymorphisms in Dysregulated Arginine Metabolism, Sickle Cell Polymorphisms, Thalassemia, Blind Amino Acid Riders, L-Arginine Isoform Pathways, and Edible Computer Chips."
Feel free to sue me, bitch, as I have no money nor do I have any property of value. Slashdot is covered under Safe Harbor laws.
Usually, people purchase consoles with the specific intent to purchase the games. People(usually) did not purchase an NES or SNES for anything other than to play specific games(hello Mario and Link). Sony, thinking they were "Masters of the Universe" thought they would create a far superior console(and many people will argue they did, and just as many will argue they did not). While Sony might have created a great console, it is their own fault that the game revenue is not higher. Hell, at least 20 of my friends purchased a PS3 Slim because of the fact that is had(at the time, at least) the best Blu-ray player at the price point and it could play games.
First off, the games are expensive for the content provided. You see, games have take a slide backwards. We can argue about inflation and how it has affected the price of games(yes, I know that, in current dollar terms, older games and systems are more expensive), but it is all about perception. You also have to look at how many games can be beaten in very little time and the only thing that game developers could think of was to implement the Trophy/Achievement Points system. Hell, even MMOs, like World of Warcraft(which I still play, albeit casually since early WotLK expansion), though Blizzard did do their Achievement Point system right(in that some achievements give actual, in-game rewards). I am sorry, but rehashing the same game(even when the game is good) does not equate to value for the money.
I know there are constraints and limitations, and that it takes constant progress to overcome some(though not all) of these constraints and limitations. The PSP is a prime example of the current issues with limited expansion. Sony continues to re-release the same old, tired portable that is many years behind the times. My damned iPhone 3G S has more computing power, both in a general and in real-world application sense. I know that the "PSP2" is supposedly out there(MK Devs), but it is far past time for us to have this blessed device. I mean, where in the holy land of fuck is our dual analog controllers?
Secondly, Sony(Microsoft, Nintendo, etc) continues to(try to) hold too tight a grip on the consoles themselves. Yeah, yeah, argue about "pirates" all you want, but I do not give a shit. I paid for the console, therefore I own it. Sony cannot come into my home, one day, and take the machine back when, and if, they(Sony) decided my "license" had expired(well, they could try, but they would be shot). As such, it is my right to decide how to use this console. If I decide to "hack" it or "jailbreak" it, or whatever you want to call it, that is my right. I believe that backing up my games is a great concept.
The games are expensive and if, in a year or two(or more) the game breaks or fails, I cannot get a warranty replacement. Sony(or the game developer(s)) will tell me that I will just have to purchase another copy. Why? I still hold ownership for my one copy, so why can Sony and/or the developers deny me access to the software I still hold legal right to? Microsoft has helped this issue a little bit with the ability for Xbox 360 owners to copy games to the console's hard drive. You still need the disc(which is dumb, but whatever), but at least it is a start.
In the end, I do not care about what someone else will do. I am a trustworthy person that will always do the right thing. As game companies start to squeeze their grip tighter around their product, the more that people will turn to either not paying for the games(either avoiding the product or theft) or they will turn to hacking the games the paid for(which is their right, in my opinion). EA is a perfect example of the horror we(gamers) face. Assassin's Creed 2 for PC is up there with having to pay $15(hello Mass Effect 2, and others) for certain portions of second-hand games.
All of this is starting to push me away from gaming in general.
You are simply looking past the fact that I, as an owner of a produced copy of the PS3 console(among many other gaming consoles), I have the right to do with it whatever I wish. If I want to alter the software to make it do something that Sony did not intend for it to do, then I can. If I want to set the goddamn thing on fire, then there is not anything Sony can do to stop me. Just because Sony thinks it can do something, it does not make it so.
I also have switched the operating system software on my iPhone to run a customized version so that I can run the applications I want and also free myself from Apple's customer-unfriendly setup. I do not have software on my iPhone that is not free or already paid for and the same thing will apply when I alter my PS3's operating system(OS) software. Just because the altered software that I will use to "open" my PS3 has the capability to make copies of games and/or movies I do not own, it does not mean that that is what I am going to use this software for. I own firearms and other weapons, yet I do not go out murdering people. I also do not go running people down with my vehicle, but my vehicle is certainly capable of allowing me to run people and/or other objects over.
Just because something is capable of doing something negative, or that is perceived to be negative, it does not mean that it will be used for that purpose. It also does not give you any right to attempt to use bad logic to support your bad position. When this software has been out over the next two years and Sony(and the game developers) continue to make record profits, then feel free to stop posting this nonsense.
Yeah, it is so fucking crazy to expect our government to respect our Constitutional Rights. You are bitching about politicians doing bad things, and in the same breathe you start bitching about how standing up for your rights is a crazy thing to do. You either respect all rights, or you respect none.
You are missing the point completely. With the PS3, customers get to play the multiplayer portion of the games they own(which, incidentally, we paid $60 for the single and multiplayer portion) for free. It does not cost $50 or $60 USD to do that with a PS3.
Microsoft charges customers $60 per game, then forces customer to pay another $50(about to be $60) per year to play a portion of the game that was already paid for. It would be like a customer purchasing a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, then having to pay a yearly fee to watch the extra features...except that multiplayer on most games (that have multiplayer) is one of the main selling points(MW2, Halo, etc).
Microsoft adds all of the functionality, then acts like it is something everyone has been asking for. The fact is that I never asked for it, and I am sure most people did not ask for it either. While Microsoft acts like it is costing them money to provide these features, I am sure Microsoft is generating income through advertisements that these "features" provide.
I do not care about ESPN 3, or Facebook, or any of that other shit; I just want to play the multiplayer portion of the games I own and forget the rest. Hell, a lot of it is just paywall-linked content(purchasing movies, having a subscription of Netflix, and other shit). There is not any added value to Xbox Live Gold when you break it down. This is all just Microsoft fucking over customers and making a killing from it.
As such, I have canceled my Xbox Live Gold account.
You can actually possess most any full-automatic firearm, if you have the proper "permit" and have paid the proper "transfer tax". You can also possess silencers, "sawed-off" shotguns, etc, if you have the proper licensing and paid the taxes required.
Of course, where it will cost government about $1800 USD per weapon, it will cost citizens about $20,000 USD. That is the way our government works; they out-price rights they cannot stop in legislation.
Please do not take this as me being an ass(which I usually am), but there is no such thing as "international law". There are accords and treaties that counties will agree to, but there is no legal bindings set in these agreements. If the treaties are violated, then neither side will accept the agreements setup in the treaties.
If there was an animal that existed(international laws), then a country could require my extradition for violating other country's laws within the borders of my country(the United States). It gets really convoluted, but it is easy to understand the "broad strokes".
When you enter into the United States from another country, either by air, sea, or land, you are on United States soil. Since agents of the United States are handling incoming visitors and returning citizens, these agents are bound by the U.S. Constitution when handling possible violators of the law. This is how agents are trained when handling such situations(of which I have such training). U.S. Ports are handling in similar manners as U.S. Embassies, sort of. There are some exceptions(which are mostly court decided, not explicitly Constitutionally based) to U.S. Constitutional protections, such as search and seizure, but these exception are extremely narrow.
I am not saying that I agree with the exceptions, but these are exceptions that do exist. What I will say is that, in regards to the United States, you are fully protected by the United States Constitution when you are U.S. soil(which all property within 12 miles of the cost of the United States, Hawaii, Alaska, U.S. Embassies, and other various property owned by the U.S. Government).
Actually, you are in the United States and the agents of the United States are required to do their job according to the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and U.S. Federal Law. A U.S. Citizen that is entering the United States and is detained once landing in the U.S. is protected by all laws and the U.S. Constitution.
I know that the U.S. Government tries to tell itself this is not the case, but it is. This guy did the right thing by not talking, which is what I would have done. He is under no obligation to give the U.S. Government any information.
It seems like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is still going strong. It use to be that the FBI worked hard to have U.S. Citizens see "Red" in their soup with communist witch hunts, and now they are changing over to having us(U.S. Citizens) see terrorist in our soup.
People believe that the U.S. Government has gotten bad, or turned into a "police state", but the fact is that this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. This situation will continue until those that are governed decide to change this and demand real change.
To save a lot of discussion...that will never happen. People will continue to keep their head in the sand, until they are targeted. At that point, it will be too late.
While I detest AT&T on multiple levels, this shows that AT&T is thinking clearly(at least at the very moment at time). AT&T was probably advised, from a legal standpoint, that they(AT&T) had no legal basis to use to stop this demonstration. It is the same reason why we can learn how to build a multitude of bombs, learn how to make various drugs, and learn a plethora of various knowledge on the internet and out in the "real world". The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution cannot and will not be put on hold to make any group happy. Aside from threats of violence, "free speech" cannot be withheld from the citizenry.
Even though people, today, tend to believe to contrary, the U.S. Constitution is still very much alive(in that is still protects us the same way it has since its inception). While AT&T might have won a temporary injunction to stop this(if they properly sopped for a judge), it would have been quickly squashed on appeal and the information would have been disseminated rather quickly. The fact is that AT&T does not want negative press.
Of course, that could change. I mean, in the interest of being consistent, AT&T might just try to kill this at the last minute.
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Well, perhaps that boy should quit playing with his new lightsa...err, ambiguous, bar-shaped laser "toy".
Oh wait, I see what you did there.
Yes, bacteria and a virus can change something as big as a man, but a man's body has the defenses to counter those changes and go on unaffected. Though, a human's body is weak and more prone to the effects of localized problems. When death occurs from bacterial or viral infections, it is from events similar to the moon crashing into the fucking earth. There is no escape or defense from such a complete and systemic failure in either event.
This planet has endured many different trials/catastrophes, yet it is still here and thriving. Now, people believe they have some "new, fresh, and exciting" intelligence and information and all they can come up with is that CO2 is the cause of environmental "problems". The same molecule that all manner of mammal(and many non-mammal) produce and that all manner of plant life consumes is causing this problem. The same fucking molecule that has existed on this plant for almost as long as the planet has existed, yet it is only a problem now. Even though we humans do not produce five percent of the CO2 that exist on this planet, we are affecting natural functions of a huge fucking planet?
This boils down to one thing: Control. There is some group of assholes that want to force their unfounded views on society and they want to control what people do in their everyday lives. What other way will effect this better than to preach that the "every-day" person is murdering the environment by traveling to their only means to survive(job) with a dull spoon(their vehicle), or using that dull spoon to travel to see my Council of Satanic Earth Murders(family). The other motivation is that there are people and groups that stand to make a great damned fortune from promoting "clean" initiatives, or "green" initiatives.
This is not some great conspiracy or something difficult to figure out. It is also not difficult why so many are unwilling to open their eyes to their own stupidity: Egos. It's ok, one day all of this horseshit will be shown to be horseshit and some new idiot, or new group of idiots, will be working to fool people into believing some new horseshit.
Wow, that is a lot of horseshit.
When did scientist start extracting sound waves from the Opium Poppy? Narcotics are, by definition, only chemicals that are derived from the Opium Poppy(Codine, Morphine, Hydrocodone, Oxycondone, Hydromorphone, Oxymorphone, Fentanyl, Heroin etc.). When people use the wrong term to describe something, it gets really irritating and show inane tendencies.
I believe Lawrence Taylor will tell you that that argument will not work in certain(New York) courts.
I can tell you that this suggestion is horseshit. How do I know? I live in an area that has horrible(read: no coverage) AT&T service coverage and my phone is perpetually stuck at either one bar(sometimes) and no bars. Prior to updating the phone to iOS 4.0, I could put the phone into engineering mode and the db level was correct, in regards to db level to bars displayed.
I am not sure what Apple is aiming for, but the public cannot be dumb enough to believe this. While software can have a great effect on hardware, it cannot do anything about mechanical flaws. At least not at this magnitude.
It is like Apple is saying, "Our product is great, damn it! Now, shut the fuck up and enjoy it!" Sorry, Mr. Jobs, but I am just not going to buy the bullshit you are trying to peddle.
So, what? Are they going to assign more bars to higher db levels? You cannot fix such a major hardware snafu with a simple software change. You, sure as shit, can cover one up, but not fix it.
I uploaded the President's Book of Secrets to Wikileaks three weeks ago. Does this mean that the NSA has it now, along with my IP address and Chat Roulette screen-grabs?
Simply connecting to a friend's wireless router is not a crime. If I attempt to connect without the permission of the router's owner, then it is wrong of me. What is a crime, without any room for argument with your bad analogies, is that accessing data without permission is a crime. Since you are obviously not a lawyer, nor would ever be intellectually capable of being one, I see no reason to try and discuss this with you further.
Just accept that the legislature of each state has set laws, based on the interest of the citizenry and various interest group, and that Google must conform to all the laws within a given state where they are operating these cars. I do not know what other state laws cover, but Georgia law makes what Google did illegal(more so the data collection, than the accessing of wireless routers, but they are both crimes).
Mail in a mailbox is unsecured, but if you open a letter that is not addressed to you, you are committing a crime. While I secure my wireless router(security which can be beat by a kid with a few internet searches), the law does not require me to secure my wireless connection to provide me protection from unlawful data access(at least not in my State).
Perhaps Google should map out the firearm owners in the United States, or perhaps they should map out where thieves can find the best places to loot. The fact is that Google has no right to map out where all the WiFi routers in the world are, nor do they have the right to obtain any information from my wireless router. Secured or not, Google has no right to collect this data.
Give me a break. This is just like Google going around, opening people's mail that is sitting in mailboxes. That is a crime and so is skimming data from networks that they are attached to. The law does not require a person to secure their data to turn unauthorized access into a crime; it is always a crime.
I also want to know why Google believes it has the right to map WiFi networks. Who are they to think they(Google) has the right to locate and map out the locations of WiFi routers around the world? Google is wrong in this and I want to see them pay(legally and civilly).
You could not be more wrong. Seeing as you do not understand how all state laws work, in regards to accessing computers and networks, I suggest that you keep such blanket comments out of this discussion.