The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.
Or perhaps it was attached as a rider to a bill called the "safe harbor act" that otherwise had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was virtually guaranteed to pass no matter what?
I don't know about you, but I've never accrued any debt in a casino. They always made me bring in my own money, and exchange that for their own chips (be they clay chips I hold in my hand or virtual chips I look at on-screen) to be used as playing medium. Do casinos give out loans? I was not aware they did.
I'm sure you can use your credit card to get a cash advance to use in a casino, but that's money you owe mastercard, not the mgm grand.
Even under the grounds specified in that article, the press release is getting dangerously close to libel on some grounds, although I agree that to prove "actual malice" would be difficult.
It is sad though that the press release needs to resort to such base attacks. We all know that when you have to resort to name calling directed at your opponents, it really implies that your arguement can't stand on it's own. The sad part however isn't that they're doing the name calling, but that such attacks actually probably do resonate with the public.
That's got to be one of the most unintentionally ammusing press releases ever.
I love "(rumored to be close to the mob)". Libel anyone? Now, IANAL, but apparently neither is anybody in that organization's public relations department either.
Oh absolutely a huge mistake, yes. I haven't looked recently, but I think the 2nd is the last major amendment from the BoR that hasn't been incorporated.
Even a cursory beginner's intro to the history of the United States would show that the 2nd amendment was never about hunting ducks or deer, and was always about protecting the people from tyrannical government using firearms as their last resort.
Why that should only extend to federal government, and not state or local government has always been a mystery to me.
No, actually, he's right. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights).
The 2nd amendment has not yet been incorporated to include the states, and even then that does not mean it includes private enterprise (which is what the discussion over the 4th amendment here is about).
So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...
No, I don't believe he said that at all. What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA. I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the/. crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.
Most people, even intelligent people, seem think that the US bill of rights is an invisible coat they wear everywhere they go in the real world or in cyberspace, and that it applies to them however they want it to apply to them.
I've heard of this many times, but I'm quite curious. What are these companies planning on doing in the very near future where they can no longer get IE6?
So far as I was aware, there are only a handful of manufacturers still shipping windows XP and you've got to call them up and specifically ask for it, and even then it's only on a handful of models.
Are these companies planning on ordering new windows 7 machines and having the IT team pop in old XP install discs (don't even want to touch legal problems with THAT with a 10 foot pole) so the systems can dual boot up XP so they can use IE6?
Is there some way to install IE6 on newer OSes? I've never tried, but in general microsoft doesn't seem too keen on letting you install older versions of programs. I know that windows pitched a bitch at my team when we tried to install MSTSC 5.2 on a vista system (MSTSC 6.0 native) for testing purposes.
Do not taunt happy fun ball... er I mean do not taunt the exploiters. Remember when apple did that? The last thing I need is them turning their head in my direction (ubuntu 9.04 & firefox 3.5), thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.
Or perhaps it was attached as a rider to a bill called the "safe harbor act" that otherwise had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was virtually guaranteed to pass no matter what?
I'm just saying...
I don't know about you, but I've never accrued any debt in a casino. They always made me bring in my own money, and exchange that for their own chips (be they clay chips I hold in my hand or virtual chips I look at on-screen) to be used as playing medium. Do casinos give out loans? I was not aware they did.
I'm sure you can use your credit card to get a cash advance to use in a casino, but that's money you owe mastercard, not the mgm grand.
Even under the grounds specified in that article, the press release is getting dangerously close to libel on some grounds, although I agree that to prove "actual malice" would be difficult.
It is sad though that the press release needs to resort to such base attacks. We all know that when you have to resort to name calling directed at your opponents, it really implies that your arguement can't stand on it's own. The sad part however isn't that they're doing the name calling, but that such attacks actually probably do resonate with the public.
That's got to be one of the most unintentionally ammusing press releases ever.
I love "(rumored to be close to the mob)". Libel anyone? Now, IANAL, but apparently neither is anybody in that organization's public relations department either.
Oh absolutely a huge mistake, yes. I haven't looked recently, but I think the 2nd is the last major amendment from the BoR that hasn't been incorporated.
Even a cursory beginner's intro to the history of the United States would show that the 2nd amendment was never about hunting ducks or deer, and was always about protecting the people from tyrannical government using firearms as their last resort.
Why that should only extend to federal government, and not state or local government has always been a mystery to me.
No, actually, he's right. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights). The 2nd amendment has not yet been incorporated to include the states, and even then that does not mean it includes private enterprise (which is what the discussion over the 4th amendment here is about).
So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...
No, I don't believe he said that at all. What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA. I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the /. crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.
Most people, even intelligent people, seem think that the US bill of rights is an invisible coat they wear everywhere they go in the real world or in cyberspace, and that it applies to them however they want it to apply to them.
I've heard of this many times, but I'm quite curious. What are these companies planning on doing in the very near future where they can no longer get IE6?
So far as I was aware, there are only a handful of manufacturers still shipping windows XP and you've got to call them up and specifically ask for it, and even then it's only on a handful of models.
Are these companies planning on ordering new windows 7 machines and having the IT team pop in old XP install discs (don't even want to touch legal problems with THAT with a 10 foot pole) so the systems can dual boot up XP so they can use IE6?
Is there some way to install IE6 on newer OSes? I've never tried, but in general microsoft doesn't seem too keen on letting you install older versions of programs. I know that windows pitched a bitch at my team when we tried to install MSTSC 5.2 on a vista system (MSTSC 6.0 native) for testing purposes.
Do not taunt happy fun ball... er I mean do not taunt the exploiters. Remember when apple did that? The last thing I need is them turning their head in my direction (ubuntu 9.04 & firefox 3.5), thank you.