You want fathers to participate equally in raising their children, give them equal leave to stay at home and bond with them when they're born. If you think fathers are just there to provide a paycheck, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Wonder what they plan to do with these things in the winter. For that matter, if they want to sell to police or the military, they're going to tell the potential buyers that they can't wear gloves at all? How well does this mechanism handle dirt, mud or blood? None of those things are unusual in combat, nor in the field for LEOs.
I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.
You read wrong. Only a fraction of all weapons seized could be traced back to the US. Of those, some were stolen, some purchased illegally, and some purchased "legally" for resale. The real figure for what can be traced back to the US is probably around 1/3. See http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
And the military weapons (machine guns, full-auto assault rifles, grenades, etc.) being used by the drug gangs certainly didn't come from the US, where automatic weapons are heavily regulated and controlled, and grenades and explosives are banned from civilian possession. The heavy stuff is stolen or bought from the Mexican police and military, or smuggled in from the south where they were bought or stolen from the military and police of other countries.
This is my last post on the subject. After this I give up. I'm tired of arguing with people who try to make it appear that they're blowing holes in arguments that I never made.
The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would
NO ONE has said that the ISPs are not private. NO ONE has claimed that getting government money changes that!
(that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!)
You bet your ass they can! If grants, subsidies, and monopoly protection are given subject to government regulation, you do not get to take the cash and then say "kiss my ass", if you don't like the regulations and controls.
Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers)
This is why I'm giving up. I'm either being trolled for the fun of it, or I'm arguing with an idiot. Are you seriously claiming that the Internet is "intrastate"? Do you seriously believe that a company that sells international communications access is not subject to the Commerce Clause? Tell that to the FCC.
I'll leave that, because even if you do believe that everyone on Slashdot is a resident of your state, it doesn't matter. Call it terms of service, consent decree, contract, whatever. If companies agree to be regulated in return for subsidies, protected monopoly status, etc. THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
It is entirely relevant. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. This is not a free speech issue, but rather the use of public property (airwaves, government-controlled rights-of-way). No one is restricting speech based on content. But if a company wants to restrict the speech, content, or access to information of others, it better not be using public facilities, tax-funded subsidies, or government-granted monopolies to do so. How is this so hard to understand? If you claim to be offering a public service, and take public money to do so, you have to play fair. If you don't want to play fair, no one is forcing you to take public money.
The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government".
Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.
The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it... in or on the land that someone paid for and is responsible for, even protecting someone elses internet connection from being damaged.
The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.
Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.
I never said anything about packets going over "government owned link[s]", I said the lines were on public land and on right-of-ways granted by the government. When telcos run copper and fiber, they don't call up the property owners and ask for permission to run the lines, they use the same government-granted right of ways that they've always used. Yes, the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property, but they also are legally required to allow access to these right of ways so that public utilities and private corporations may run lines, place equipment, and maintain same. Most of these companies and utilities are given exclusive rights to use these strips of land, and are guaranteed by this same government that their competitors will not be given access.
So while my post may not be true in whatever "dimension most of us live in", it is in fact quite true in reality. Your imaginary dimension and its population are not correct.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".
in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.
So if these corporations don't get a big government handout and aren't allowed full control of the public lands and airwaves at the expense of the public that owns them, we're slipping towards dictatorship? Pure BS.
Here is a decent reference of the term "dictatorship". I don't see anything about not giving huge corporate handouts as qualifying.
Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say? The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you. Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to. And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government". The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government". Wireless carriers are granted licenses to use public airwaves, and must provide a public service to do so (not just rake in money). At the local level, most of the carriers are monopolies granted by "the government". These monopolies are free from having to worry about competition because "the government" has agreed to lock out anyone else from access to these same right-of-ways.
THAT'S why it's a First Amendment issue. You want to be free of government rules? Get off the government tit. The government has provided a source of huge income to these companies. If they don't like "the terms of use" associated with being a government-subsidized monopoly, they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land. The wireless carriers can just "build their own" airwaves, I guess.
A protective case would seem to be only common sense. Unfortunately, Apple bizarrely decided to make the BACK out of glass as well. There are a lot of reports of small bits of dirt or other abrasives getting caught between the case and the glass back, and the subsequent scratches causing the back to break as well. What would just be minor scratches on any other phone can cause serious damage to the integrity of the iPhone 4 casing. That's not sloppy handling, that's piss-poor design (IMHO).
The same way when you are pulled over without a license now you prove that you do have a license. You tell the officer your number, or you give him your name and address and he pulls it up on his snazzy little car computer. Same with social security number. The fact is this law parrots federal law, so if you don't like it change the federal law.
No, it does NOT parrot federal law. Federal law does not say that suspicion of being in the country illegally is sufficient probable cause to stop and detain someone and compel identification. This is NOT the same as forcing people to provide ID when they're pulled over for speeding or arrested for another crime, and I really wish people would stop trying to pretend it is.
-You CAN'T be stopped without a legally justifiable reason. WITH a legally justifiable reason, ANYBODY can be stopped. There are White people who commit crimes, as well as Blacks, Italians, Finns, Swedes, Brits, and any other race or ethnicity.
-No, they are probably confident that they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because their Valid Driver's License/State Identification/Passport/Military Identification will be sufficient enough. I don't know about the cops where you live, but I've never been pulled over by a cop who didn't ask to see my ID (and registration and proof of insurance). Cops are taught to ask for identification in any circumstance where a crime has been committed, or a suspicious circumstance arises (such as someone looking for a lost pet in someone's backyard that a neighbor thought was suspicious). It's called Proper Police Procedure. And yes, there is room for discretion, as a kids cannot be expected to have such identification at all times, or a Hispanic couple who is OBVIOUSLY just out for a walk, and not scoping out burglary targets. It's called common sense. If it looks reasonably suspicious, stop and ask them what they are doing. If it is obvious that someone is out for a walk, move on. If they are peering in windows, looking over their shoulders, walking along houselines, looking over fences, and carrying an empty bag, then the reasonable thing to do is stop them and ask them what they are doing. Proper Procedure also requires that you identify who, exactly, you are dealing with.
Only now, suspicion of being in the country illegally is justification enough to stop someone and ask for identification. The Supreme Court has upheld that you can't just go around and randomly stop people and compel them to produce identification. You had to be able to show cause, although even that was pretty flexible. Now, "looking illegal" is considered cause enough to stop someone and ask them to produce their papers. Don't try to pass this off as verifying the ID of people who have already been detained. This is stopping and detaining people SOLEY to force them to produce their documentation.
"Ignorance is the root of all evil."
-Kind of an ironic sig to append to such a post.
Not at all. Trying to perpetuate ignorance by misrepresenting the facts, then implying others are ignorant, now THAT'S ironic.
Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.
But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not the "no-fly" lists serve a legitimate purpose (they don't), what should they have done? If information indicating a particular person may be dangerous comes in while someone is already in transit, should they have just said "Damn, if we had been a little quicker we wouldn't let you in, but you beat the buzzer. We suspect you're a terrorist, but since you had already left you can come in this time. But next time, forget it!"
If there is life on any moon of Saturn, what makes you think they'd be reliant on solar power? For all we know this life could be decades behind us technologically, and still burning wood and coal. Or they could be more advanced, and using fusion. After all, if they have liquid water they have the necessary materials to put out fires AND cool reactors!
I don't remember if it was covered in the original movie or not, but it was (IIRC) covered in the book. The "distress signal" that the Nostromo picked up had been discovered by the company and found to actually be a warning. Ripley realized it was really a warning to stay away, and that's when Ash tried to kill her to cover up what the company was trying to do.
How about we try it out here first? We have plenty of extra CO2 floating around that won't be missed, and I don't think anyone on Mars would complain if we do ours first.
Yeah, you're probably one of those people that insist on spending a fortune on glass syringes with exotic wood plungers and gold-plated needles, because they feel healthier.
Slashdot Mirror
You want fathers to participate equally in raising their children, give them equal leave to stay at home and bond with them when they're born. If you think fathers are just there to provide a paycheck, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Wonder what they plan to do with these things in the winter. For that matter, if they want to sell to police or the military, they're going to tell the potential buyers that they can't wear gloves at all? How well does this mechanism handle dirt, mud or blood? None of those things are unusual in combat, nor in the field for LEOs.
Somehow I doubt he reached terminal velocity in the what.. 100 feet from the launch pad?
If you fall 100 feet, odds are it's going to be terminal.
I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.
You read wrong. Only a fraction of all weapons seized could be traced back to the US. Of those, some were stolen, some purchased illegally, and some purchased "legally" for resale. The real figure for what can be traced back to the US is probably around 1/3. See http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
And the military weapons (machine guns, full-auto assault rifles, grenades, etc.) being used by the drug gangs certainly didn't come from the US, where automatic weapons are heavily regulated and controlled, and grenades and explosives are banned from civilian possession. The heavy stuff is stolen or bought from the Mexican police and military, or smuggled in from the south where they were bought or stolen from the military and police of other countries.
This is my last post on the subject. After this I give up. I'm tired of arguing with people who try to make it appear that they're blowing holes in arguments that I never made.
The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would
NO ONE has said that the ISPs are not private. NO ONE has claimed that getting government money changes that!
(that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!)
You bet your ass they can! If grants, subsidies, and monopoly protection are given subject to government regulation, you do not get to take the cash and then say "kiss my ass", if you don't like the regulations and controls.
Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers)
This is why I'm giving up. I'm either being trolled for the fun of it, or I'm arguing with an idiot. Are you seriously claiming that the Internet is "intrastate"? Do you seriously believe that a company that sells international communications access is not subject to the Commerce Clause? Tell that to the FCC.
I'll leave that, because even if you do believe that everyone on Slashdot is a resident of your state, it doesn't matter. Call it terms of service, consent decree, contract, whatever. If companies agree to be regulated in return for subsidies, protected monopoly status, etc. THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
It is entirely relevant. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. This is not a free speech issue, but rather the use of public property (airwaves, government-controlled rights-of-way). No one is restricting speech based on content. But if a company wants to restrict the speech, content, or access to information of others, it better not be using public facilities, tax-funded subsidies, or government-granted monopolies to do so. How is this so hard to understand? If you claim to be offering a public service, and take public money to do so, you have to play fair. If you don't want to play fair, no one is forcing you to take public money.
Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.
The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it ... in or on the land that someone paid for and is responsible for, even protecting someone elses internet connection from being damaged.
The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.
Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.
I never said anything about packets going over "government owned link[s]", I said the lines were on public land and on right-of-ways granted by the government. When telcos run copper and fiber, they don't call up the property owners and ask for permission to run the lines, they use the same government-granted right of ways that they've always used. Yes, the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property, but they also are legally required to allow access to these right of ways so that public utilities and private corporations may run lines, place equipment, and maintain same. Most of these companies and utilities are given exclusive rights to use these strips of land, and are guaranteed by this same government that their competitors will not be given access.
So while my post may not be true in whatever "dimension most of us live in", it is in fact quite true in reality. Your imaginary dimension and its population are not correct.
in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.
So if these corporations don't get a big government handout and aren't allowed full control of the public lands and airwaves at the expense of the public that owns them, we're slipping towards dictatorship? Pure BS.
Here is a decent reference of the term "dictatorship". I don't see anything about not giving huge corporate handouts as qualifying.
Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say? The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you. Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to. And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government". The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government". Wireless carriers are granted licenses to use public airwaves, and must provide a public service to do so (not just rake in money). At the local level, most of the carriers are monopolies granted by "the government". These monopolies are free from having to worry about competition because "the government" has agreed to lock out anyone else from access to these same right-of-ways.
THAT'S why it's a First Amendment issue. You want to be free of government rules? Get off the government tit. The government has provided a source of huge income to these companies. If they don't like "the terms of use" associated with being a government-subsidized monopoly, they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land. The wireless carriers can just "build their own" airwaves, I guess.
A protective case would seem to be only common sense. Unfortunately, Apple bizarrely decided to make the BACK out of glass as well. There are a lot of reports of small bits of dirt or other abrasives getting caught between the case and the glass back, and the subsequent scratches causing the back to break as well. What would just be minor scratches on any other phone can cause serious damage to the integrity of the iPhone 4 casing. That's not sloppy handling, that's piss-poor design (IMHO).
Until someone steals the dog.
the mess they make in doing so is not worth the negligible benefit for the cause of animal welfare they're trying to serve.
That's never stopped them before.
The same way when you are pulled over without a license now you prove that you do have a license. You tell the officer your number, or you give him your name and address and he pulls it up on his snazzy little car computer. Same with social security number. The fact is this law parrots federal law, so if you don't like it change the federal law.
No, it does NOT parrot federal law. Federal law does not say that suspicion of being in the country illegally is sufficient probable cause to stop and detain someone and compel identification. This is NOT the same as forcing people to provide ID when they're pulled over for speeding or arrested for another crime, and I really wish people would stop trying to pretend it is.
-You CAN'T be stopped without a legally justifiable reason. WITH a legally justifiable reason, ANYBODY can be stopped. There are White people who commit crimes, as well as Blacks, Italians, Finns, Swedes, Brits, and any other race or ethnicity.
-No, they are probably confident that they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because their Valid Driver's License/State Identification/Passport/Military Identification will be sufficient enough. I don't know about the cops where you live, but I've never been pulled over by a cop who didn't ask to see my ID (and registration and proof of insurance). Cops are taught to ask for identification in any circumstance where a crime has been committed, or a suspicious circumstance arises (such as someone looking for a lost pet in someone's backyard that a neighbor thought was suspicious). It's called Proper Police Procedure. And yes, there is room for discretion, as a kids cannot be expected to have such identification at all times, or a Hispanic couple who is OBVIOUSLY just out for a walk, and not scoping out burglary targets. It's called common sense. If it looks reasonably suspicious, stop and ask them what they are doing. If it is obvious that someone is out for a walk, move on. If they are peering in windows, looking over their shoulders, walking along houselines, looking over fences, and carrying an empty bag, then the reasonable thing to do is stop them and ask them what they are doing. Proper Procedure also requires that you identify who, exactly, you are dealing with.
Only now, suspicion of being in the country illegally is justification enough to stop someone and ask for identification. The Supreme Court has upheld that you can't just go around and randomly stop people and compel them to produce identification. You had to be able to show cause, although even that was pretty flexible. Now, "looking illegal" is considered cause enough to stop someone and ask them to produce their papers. Don't try to pass this off as verifying the ID of people who have already been detained. This is stopping and detaining people SOLEY to force them to produce their documentation.
"Ignorance is the root of all evil."
-Kind of an ironic sig to append to such a post.
Not at all. Trying to perpetuate ignorance by misrepresenting the facts, then implying others are ignorant, now THAT'S ironic.
Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.
But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not the "no-fly" lists serve a legitimate purpose (they don't), what should they have done? If information indicating a particular person may be dangerous comes in while someone is already in transit, should they have just said "Damn, if we had been a little quicker we wouldn't let you in, but you beat the buzzer. We suspect you're a terrorist, but since you had already left you can come in this time. But next time, forget it!"
How much matter is in space?
Strictly speaking, all of it.
If there is life on any moon of Saturn, what makes you think they'd be reliant on solar power? For all we know this life could be decades behind us technologically, and still burning wood and coal. Or they could be more advanced, and using fusion. After all, if they have liquid water they have the necessary materials to put out fires AND cool reactors!
Looks like I'll have to buy the White Album again.
I don't remember if it was covered in the original movie or not, but it was (IIRC) covered in the book. The "distress signal" that the Nostromo picked up had been discovered by the company and found to actually be a warning. Ripley realized it was really a warning to stay away, and that's when Ash tried to kill her to cover up what the company was trying to do.
In software versions, all the numbers are awful.
How about we try it out here first? We have plenty of extra CO2 floating around that won't be missed, and I don't think anyone on Mars would complain if we do ours first.
You just have to modify the deflector array to rotate the shield harmonics. Problem solved, but you'll have to do it again every few episodes.
Yeah, you're probably one of those people that insist on spending a fortune on glass syringes with exotic wood plungers and gold-plated needles, because they feel healthier.
In just a few years we'll be forced to upgrade to Monkey HIV Digital, which will make Monkey HIV Analog look like crap anyway.