What if you object to the existence of the checkpoints themselves? DUI checkpoints are the only scenario I can think of where a refusal to be searched absent any probable cause constitutes the probable cause required to search you.
I don't even drink and I'd like to know where the checkpoints are just so I don't have my 4th amendment rights violated on the way home from work.
Just to be clear, what is your recommendation? Government action to ban it? A protest outside Gamestops everywhere? What?
Because by the definition you just gave, no censorship is out of bounds so long as someone out there wants to "teach right and wrong" to someone else (especially the children! Won't somebody think of them??)
no smacking women in videogames: i fully support that.
Simple solution: Don't buy it.
If enough people agree with you, it won't do well and game developers will get the message.
If enough people disagree with you, well, you've been outvoted.
Yep, this is yet another fine example of Capitalism the free market cheerleaders don't want you to know about.
Actually, the entire ridiculous concept of "lending" an electronic copy of an infinitely copyable good wouldn't exist except for the monopolies currently granted by the government (copyright law). In an actual free market, you wouldn't need to worry about Amazon pulling their lending API, because you could just grab an actual copy from anywhere you wanted to.
How can you be so in love with nuclear that even when four reactors are in various states of melting down and leaking dangerous amounts of radiation into the environment that you find it necessary to attack any doubts on the supposed safety and environmental goodness of nuclear power?
Because people who don't form knee-jerk opinions based only on what they hear on cable television might know that even with disasters (this, Chernobyl, TMI, etc.), nuclear still remains the safest technology per amount of energy produced. All other forms of energy production (except perhaps geothermal), if scaled up to the amount of energy produced for us by nuclear power, would harm many more people.
The corporate liability shield does not (in theory) protect you if you knowingly perform illegal actions. If you, for example, catch a CEO on tape telling his subordinate to dump toxic waste in a nature preserve, you can prosecute him as an individual. Likewise, if what BoA is doing is against the law, and they can prove in court which BoA employee was telling people to do it, that person can prosecuted.
while security though obscurity is not security it can be used as one pick of a larger puzzle to make it harder for possible infectors of your computer. i use 4 web browsers each with different security settings and plugins enabled to limit possible attack vectors.
Indeed. I determined that my front door was the weakest point in my home's security, so I put two doors in every wall to foil any would-be attacker.
That'll show 'em.
Not true. Price is only one item in a list of variables that consumers use to make decisions. To quote Mike Masnick, "Saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete".
No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)!
No court has said that. You will probably cite Citizens United, but that decision didn't allow corporations to donate as much money to a campaign as they wanted (as some less-than-honest members of the media have portrayed it). It simply said that the government cannot stop a group of citizens (or a corporation) from publishing actual speech under the guise of campaign finance reform.
So Microsoft is still not free to give $$$$ to a political candidate, but they are free to use their money to make a political video about a candidate and publish it. This is, unquestionably, a free speech issue.
Checked out. Nerdy kid with some rebellious ideas, enjoys attention, no intention to carry out any of it. No threatening links to weapons, training, or connections who do. A SWAT team with an itchy trigger finger will arrive to kick down his door in 5.
"Yeah, f*** those corporations! Right on! Tax those greedy assholes right into the ground! Also, do you have any jobs? I can't seem to find anyone hiring . .."
Because you may finish in loosing everything you worked for because the alternative currency is abused by a corporate you cannot even vote out every 4 years.
You're right, it's even easier than voting every four years and crossing your fingers that a politician gives a damn (they don't). Here's what you do: Simply don't accept pay in that form.
Tada! You are not required to accept payment in anything other than legal tender, which a dollar is but virtual currency is not.
I find it funny that to prevent hypothetical virtual money shenanigans, you want to call in the US government to fix things up. Because, you know, those guys have such a great track record when it comes to finances. I swear, the "Bring in the government!" crowd are like battered housewives; "This time will be different! Government really loves me! Government says it's changed!"
Everyone is missing the real point --- in actuality, he only did it to be able to collect the insurance money on his (over-insured) shed without raising the suspicions of the investigators.
Great. Now, in addition to "Do you own any vicious, killer dogs?" and "Are there any trampolines on the property?", my homeowner's insurance questionnaire is going to include "Do you keep any solar death rays on the premises?"
Our education budget goes up and up, but we aren't getting anything to show for it. I think the answer is more difficult than "lob money at them and cross your fingers".
depends on whether you did anything crossing state lines...the federal government often uses seemingly trivial things like "you bought a car in another state" or something to make it a federal case.
Actually, the current interpretation of the commerce clause is that it depends on whether or not what you did affects interstate commerce in any fashion, real or imagined. Theoretically, they could tell you how many times you can legally hit the snooze button in the morning, since being late for work could conceivably affect interstate commerce.
This is a downside to hiring only really smart overachiever type employees.
Yeah, they get so caught up in creating something new, useful, or revolutionary that they often forget to pay their bribes, purchase a thought license, or even beg for permission from their masters. For shame.
How will our society ever continue on if people are allowed to just create things willy-nilly? There have to be strict legal limits, dammit! Creating new products should be like navigating a booby trapped maze blind-folded, where the slightest slip up means an excruciatingly painful death, and where the only guidance you are allowed to accept is the guidance of your already-established competitors.
The interstate commerce clause was created to allow the federal government to break down trade barriers between states (a problem that had come up previously), not to give the federal government the power to stick their hands into anything and everything that might conceivably affect interstate commerce, ever.
That fact that this clause has been twisted for decades to allow the government to regulate everything from wheat production for personal use ("if he raises his own wheat, he isn't buying it on the market; interstate commerce clause!") to where you can carry a firearm doesn't mean that the government was granted this power by the consitution; it just means that our statist court system has a hard-on for increasing the power of the government and tends to turn a blind eye to these types of abuses.
Furthermore, even if you don't agree with my little constitutional lesson, he asked "what law congress passed". The commerce clause applies to the legislative powers of congress, not the executive branch. The FCC only has the power that congress gives it. Just because the government has the power to regulate something by law does not give the executive branch the authority to do whatever it wants by decree.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you object to the existence of the checkpoints themselves? DUI checkpoints are the only scenario I can think of where a refusal to be searched absent any probable cause constitutes the probable cause required to search you.
I don't even drink and I'd like to know where the checkpoints are just so I don't have my 4th amendment rights violated on the way home from work.
1. Set up a paywall to block all traffic to my site.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Just to be clear, what is your recommendation? Government action to ban it? A protest outside Gamestops everywhere? What?
Because by the definition you just gave, no censorship is out of bounds so long as someone out there wants to "teach right and wrong" to someone else (especially the children! Won't somebody think of them??)
no smacking women in videogames: i fully support that.
Simple solution: Don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, it won't do well and game developers will get the message. If enough people disagree with you, well, you've been outvoted.
Yep, this is yet another fine example of Capitalism the free market cheerleaders don't want you to know about.
Actually, the entire ridiculous concept of "lending" an electronic copy of an infinitely copyable good wouldn't exist except for the monopolies currently granted by the government (copyright law). In an actual free market, you wouldn't need to worry about Amazon pulling their lending API, because you could just grab an actual copy from anywhere you wanted to.
How can you be so in love with nuclear that even when four reactors are in various states of melting down and leaking dangerous amounts of radiation into the environment that you find it necessary to attack any doubts on the supposed safety and environmental goodness of nuclear power?
Because people who don't form knee-jerk opinions based only on what they hear on cable television might know that even with disasters (this, Chernobyl, TMI, etc.), nuclear still remains the safest technology per amount of energy produced. All other forms of energy production (except perhaps geothermal), if scaled up to the amount of energy produced for us by nuclear power, would harm many more people.
The corporate liability shield does not (in theory) protect you if you knowingly perform illegal actions. If you, for example, catch a CEO on tape telling his subordinate to dump toxic waste in a nature preserve, you can prosecute him as an individual. Likewise, if what BoA is doing is against the law, and they can prove in court which BoA employee was telling people to do it, that person can prosecuted.
while security though obscurity is not security it can be used as one pick of a larger puzzle to make it harder for possible infectors of your computer. i use 4 web browsers each with different security settings and plugins enabled to limit possible attack vectors.
Indeed. I determined that my front door was the weakest point in my home's security, so I put two doors in every wall to foil any would-be attacker. That'll show 'em.
1v3 b33n typ1ng l1k3 th15 4 n0 r34s0n??? d4mn1t!! My pl4n5 r f01l3d 4g41n!
...nothing will ever beat the price of FREE.
Not true. Price is only one item in a list of variables that consumers use to make decisions. To quote Mike Masnick, "Saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete".
They want it white and cool looking.
Leave Vanilla Ice out of this!
But if they are starting in D.C. . . . well, that's one easter egg hunt I'll pass on . . .
No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)!
No court has said that. You will probably cite Citizens United, but that decision didn't allow corporations to donate as much money to a campaign as they wanted (as some less-than-honest members of the media have portrayed it). It simply said that the government cannot stop a group of citizens (or a corporation) from publishing actual speech under the guise of campaign finance reform.
So Microsoft is still not free to give $$$$ to a political candidate, but they are free to use their money to make a political video about a candidate and publish it. This is, unquestionably, a free speech issue.
Checked out. Nerdy kid with some rebellious ideas, enjoys attention, no intention to carry out any of it. No threatening links to weapons, training, or connections who do. A SWAT team with an itchy trigger finger will arrive to kick down his door in 5.
FTFY
"Yeah, f*** those corporations! Right on! Tax those greedy assholes right into the ground! Also, do you have any jobs? I can't seem to find anyone hiring . . ."
Linden controls the money supply of Second Life, and Monopoly money can be printed by anyone. Bitcoins don't follow that model.
Given that, you might say that US dollars are closer to Second Life cash than Bitcoins are . . .
Solar death ray defeated only by its arch nemeses, "Cloudy Day", and "Shed".
I dunno, I think it was a draw as far as the shed was concerned . . .
Because you may finish in loosing everything you worked for because the alternative currency is abused by a corporate you cannot even vote out every 4 years.
You're right, it's even easier than voting every four years and crossing your fingers that a politician gives a damn (they don't). Here's what you do: Simply don't accept pay in that form.
Tada! You are not required to accept payment in anything other than legal tender, which a dollar is but virtual currency is not.
I find it funny that to prevent hypothetical virtual money shenanigans, you want to call in the US government to fix things up. Because, you know, those guys have such a great track record when it comes to finances. I swear, the "Bring in the government!" crowd are like battered housewives; "This time will be different! Government really loves me! Government says it's changed!"
Everyone is missing the real point --- in actuality, he only did it to be able to collect the insurance money on his (over-insured) shed without raising the suspicions of the investigators.
Great. Now, in addition to "Do you own any vicious, killer dogs?" and "Are there any trampolines on the property?", my homeowner's insurance questionnaire is going to include "Do you keep any solar death rays on the premises?"
Ah yes, the free market solution. But won't the poor get crap schools and the rich get a real education?
School vouchers promote competition while not leaving anyone out.
they spend money on them
Our education budget goes up and up, but we aren't getting anything to show for it. I think the answer is more difficult than "lob money at them and cross your fingers".
depends on whether you did anything crossing state lines...the federal government often uses seemingly trivial things like "you bought a car in another state" or something to make it a federal case.
Actually, the current interpretation of the commerce clause is that it depends on whether or not what you did affects interstate commerce in any fashion, real or imagined. Theoretically, they could tell you how many times you can legally hit the snooze button in the morning, since being late for work could conceivably affect interstate commerce.
This is a downside to hiring only really smart overachiever type employees.
Yeah, they get so caught up in creating something new, useful, or revolutionary that they often forget to pay their bribes, purchase a thought license, or even beg for permission from their masters. For shame.
How will our society ever continue on if people are allowed to just create things willy-nilly? There have to be strict legal limits, dammit! Creating new products should be like navigating a booby trapped maze blind-folded, where the slightest slip up means an excruciatingly painful death, and where the only guidance you are allowed to accept is the guidance of your already-established competitors.
We have to "promote the progress", after all.
The interstate commerce clause was created to allow the federal government to break down trade barriers between states (a problem that had come up previously), not to give the federal government the power to stick their hands into anything and everything that might conceivably affect interstate commerce, ever.
That fact that this clause has been twisted for decades to allow the government to regulate everything from wheat production for personal use ("if he raises his own wheat, he isn't buying it on the market; interstate commerce clause!") to where you can carry a firearm doesn't mean that the government was granted this power by the consitution; it just means that our statist court system has a hard-on for increasing the power of the government and tends to turn a blind eye to these types of abuses.
Furthermore, even if you don't agree with my little constitutional lesson, he asked "what law congress passed". The commerce clause applies to the legislative powers of congress, not the executive branch. The FCC only has the power that congress gives it. Just because the government has the power to regulate something by law does not give the executive branch the authority to do whatever it wants by decree.
. . . douche bag.
The market is deciding. Google is part of the market, as is Microsoft and the rest.
Google and Mozilla are taking a stand, and in the end, the market will either choose for them or against them.