Exactly the same thing that his predecessor is doing on the Supreme Court even after she argued before the Supreme Court that the government actually does have the right to prevent a corporation from publishing a book if the government does not like the political statement that the book makes. And yet, the majority on Slashdot have no problem with her being there and feel that the Supreme Court was wrong for ruling against her in that case.
Except Greenland did have a whole lot of pastureland back in the day (before the multi-century cold snap we've been in and that seems to be ending now).
It is only revisionist history by the AGW crowd that claims the Greenland name was a ruse to mislead people. Kind of interesting really. Tell a lie about how others told lies to hide the fact that you are being less than honest about some aspects of your story.
I think what node 3 is trying to point out is that you still retain the ultimate control of not playing DVDs that you don't want to play.
You are never required to play a DVD as a result of owning a computer.
This notion of being able to do anything you want with someone else's content is a problem you have, not that the content producer has. Every content producer has the right to offer to sell you a DVD on the condition that you only play it on a player that prevents you from skipping warnings and ads for other content. However, you also have the right to not purchase content from such providers.
I wonder why so many on Slashdot get upset that a politician or government agency or company was dishonest or unethical but then turn around and openly violate all manner of agreements they themselves freely entered into. It is actually quite simple: Dishonesty is dishonesty.
I'm 100% certain that more lefty-liberals are opposed to WiFi or cell towers or other EM radiators than are conservatives. Look at that telescope out in Arizona. I'm sure some conservatives were against it because they thought the money could be be better spent elsewhere but a bunch of liberals actually filed lawsuits to stop it from being built simply because building it required cutting down a few trees.
Point is... both sides of the political spectrum oppose scientific endeavors for what appear to the other side equally ridiculous reasons.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm? Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home so you should assume that someone breaking in to an occupied home will do harm to the inhabitants.
Of course, we can always just wait for the police to "protect and serve" us.
So, is this a good development or a bad development? If the finding better ways to identify people leads to better ways to remove that information then it is better?
Or is it better because it will help us not remain anonymous when we donate to our favorite cause and that organization is in some way involved in US politics?
usually means that it sometimes is that bad. Articles from various sources, US and UK. Also from some US citizens living in the UK. Like signs discouraging people from entering certain corridors in hospitals saying stuff like "High crime area - enter at own risk.
We have areas like that in the US (usually whole sections of cities) but we tend not to advertise the fact that we have just given up. Everybody just assumes we have but we don't advertise it that openly.
From some of the articles I've read the cops in the UK don't seem to have the time to much of anything because all crimes seem to be fairly petty including armed robbery and mugging, etc. Although, they do seem to have time to arrest those defending themselves from such as serious criminals. The UK view of "Crime and Punishment" is as ridiculous as anywhere else; just for different reasons.
What I don't understand is that the government claims to have the authority via the CPSC to ban these kits and all kinds of other stuff but they say they cannot find the authority anywhere to ban tobacco? Personally, I'm one of those "small government" whackos that thinks all of this is nonsense but why can't they at least be consistent in their overstepping?
This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.
So, *nix users generally only get their apps from an app-store except we say that we are getting executables from a repository. Who acts as the gatekeeper for the repository? If it is fully open so that anybody can put anything in, then what prevents malware from getting in it. If only a blessed few are allowed to put something in, then how is this really different than Apples app store?
Just askin'.
Correct, I haven't used a *nix variant since college nearly 20 years ago.
Wrong, I use Windows at home and work but my wife and daughter own a couple of older iPods.
Take all that same stuff on a marginally existing road (commonly referred to as a trail) or taking the boat with you as well. My SUV can do that quite well.
And add in oceans and forests and grasslands with lots of plants feeding on the CO2 and have the CO2 concentration differ from one container to the other by a very small percentage
Oh wait... you weren't really talking about an experiment to replicate reality but were instead talking about an experiment to prove what exactly? That if we can somehow manage to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 concentration in the 90% range, that we won't like the climate? Personally, I don't care what the climate will be like when very few life forms will have enough oxygen available to live anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the same thing that his predecessor is doing on the Supreme Court even after she argued before the Supreme Court that the government actually does have the right to prevent a corporation from publishing a book if the government does not like the political statement that the book makes. And yet, the majority on Slashdot have no problem with her being there and feel that the Supreme Court was wrong for ruling against her in that case.
the corrupt politics of Chicago
You're not actually suggesting that Chicago has improved over the years, are you?
To borrow from Dragnet... the names have been changed...
... not to protect the innocent but simply because one family eventually becomes stronger and power shifts
Except Greenland did have a whole lot of pastureland back in the day (before the multi-century cold snap we've been in and that seems to be ending now). It is only revisionist history by the AGW crowd that claims the Greenland name was a ruse to mislead people. Kind of interesting really. Tell a lie about how others told lies to hide the fact that you are being less than honest about some aspects of your story.
You are never required to play a DVD as a result of owning a computer.
This notion of being able to do anything you want with someone else's content is a problem you have, not that the content producer has. Every content producer has the right to offer to sell you a DVD on the condition that you only play it on a player that prevents you from skipping warnings and ads for other content. However, you also have the right to not purchase content from such providers. I wonder why so many on Slashdot get upset that a politician or government agency or company was dishonest or unethical but then turn around and openly violate all manner of agreements they themselves freely entered into. It is actually quite simple: Dishonesty is dishonesty.
High-value? Is silica really that hard to find on Earth?
Hey Sheldon, you've never mentioned reading Slashdot on your TV show!
I'm 100% certain that more lefty-liberals are opposed to WiFi or cell towers or other EM radiators than are conservatives. Look at that telescope out in Arizona. I'm sure some conservatives were against it because they thought the money could be be better spent elsewhere but a bunch of liberals actually filed lawsuits to stop it from being built simply because building it required cutting down a few trees.
Point is... both sides of the political spectrum oppose scientific endeavors for what appear to the other side equally ridiculous reasons.
Sweden and Switzerland are two separate, non-bordering countries.
Exactly how did you get younger?
Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.
Isn't that the classic feminist definition of rape? It doesn't matter when it became unwanted contact only that it is unwanted.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm? Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home so you should assume that someone breaking in to an occupied home will do harm to the inhabitants.
Of course, we can always just wait for the police to "protect and serve" us.
So, is this a good development or a bad development? If the finding better ways to identify people leads to better ways to remove that information then it is better?
Or is it better because it will help us not remain anonymous when we donate to our favorite cause and that organization is in some way involved in US politics?
not really as bad
usually means that it sometimes is that bad. Articles from various sources, US and UK. Also from some US citizens living in the UK. Like signs discouraging people from entering certain corridors in hospitals saying stuff like "High crime area - enter at own risk.
We have areas like that in the US (usually whole sections of cities) but we tend not to advertise the fact that we have just given up. Everybody just assumes we have but we don't advertise it that openly.
From some of the articles I've read the cops in the UK don't seem to have the time to much of anything because all crimes seem to be fairly petty including armed robbery and mugging, etc. Although, they do seem to have time to arrest those defending themselves from such as serious criminals. The UK view of "Crime and Punishment" is as ridiculous as anywhere else; just for different reasons.
only ~60% of all income taxes paid to the feds, but, sure, if more than half is barely anything in your world...
What I don't understand is that the government claims to have the authority via the CPSC to ban these kits and all kinds of other stuff but they say they cannot find the authority anywhere to ban tobacco? Personally, I'm one of those "small government" whackos that thinks all of this is nonsense but why can't they at least be consistent in their overstepping?
Easy there. Are you sure you aren't Steven Seagal?
This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.
Nice progress they are making over there. /sarcasm
Which, I have to admit, is pretty good foresight on their part.
Why? You planning to become a terrorist?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
So, *nix users generally only get their apps from an app-store except we say that we are getting executables from a repository. Who acts as the gatekeeper for the repository? If it is fully open so that anybody can put anything in, then what prevents malware from getting in it. If only a blessed few are allowed to put something in, then how is this really different than Apples app store?
Just askin'.
Correct, I haven't used a *nix variant since college nearly 20 years ago.
Wrong, I use Windows at home and work but my wife and daughter own a couple of older iPods.
Take all that same stuff on a marginally existing road (commonly referred to as a trail) or taking the boat with you as well. My SUV can do that quite well.
Probably the same thing because most people can't afford a car for the commute, a car for the family, a car for the Scout troop, etc.
And you really believe that Greenpeace will protest the destruction of an asteroid any less than the destruction of a square mile of Earth?
And add in oceans and forests and grasslands with lots of plants feeding on the CO2 and have the CO2 concentration differ from one container to the other by a very small percentage
Oh wait... you weren't really talking about an experiment to replicate reality but were instead talking about an experiment to prove what exactly? That if we can somehow manage to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 concentration in the 90% range, that we won't like the climate? Personally, I don't care what the climate will be like when very few life forms will have enough oxygen available to live anyway.
To whatever extent we can steer this, we must.
A truly scientific debate wouldn't need any "steering". The way I see it, steering is no different than spinning.