Each nation will not have it's own energy source. The energy is global. It is global due to the way the world economy is. The economy is extremely global and inter-dependant. The idea of "nation" is going to be outdated before too long (20+ years).
That's pretty optimistic.
There will be a few companies that will be in controll of whatever new energy source(s) there is(are). These companies will become the OPEC of tomarrow, except instead of nations being the constituents it will be massive corporations. Each one with sub-companies that speciallize in dealing with the laws of specific countries or regions.
The lion's modus operandi only works as long as the other animals reproduce as fast as they are eaten. That is feature of evolution, but a 'shortcoming' from the lion's point of view - if a population uses all of its required resources, that population will die. Thus, the better balanced populations survive. But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are. If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.
Evolution is great, as long as we aren't the failed experiment.
Kirk also blew up the computers of one side, which broke the treaty and could end up in an actual war. Since war had been so antiseptic for so long, the had more impetus to work for peace. That is the primary difference between the situation in the show and the situation on Earth where there have been centuries-long continual conflicts.
That Constitution would cause smoke to come out of robots' ears. Article 2 is an exception to Article 1, but Article 3 says that Article 1 has no exceptions.
Nobody forces governments to accept internet traffic from foreign sources. If they don't like the data they are getting, they can cut themselves off. (Their citizens might not like that plan, though.) This is not possible with radio waves. Any foreign radio signal will use up, or at least interfere with that part of the radio spectrum in that government's sovereign airspace.
You have to look at it this way, there definitely are games that small children should not be playing.
Parents shouldn't be turning small children loose unsupervised in an arcade with a pocket full of quarters. And violent video games are the least of the reasons why not.
I have to say - in my opinion, violent material has no effect on well-adjusted individuals - however, we don't live in a perfect society so if banning violent video games stops some numbskull bodyslamming his sister to death it is certainly worth considering rather than dismissing out of hand!
Yikes! Do you want to live in a society that prohibits anything that might be the last straw that snaps a maladjusted individual? What would be left?
If you hadn't skipped to the bottom, you would have noticed that he was drawing a parallel between tracking CD-Rs and puting a tracable serial number on every sheet of paper, printer, and printing press. This parallel is not very far fetched, as more and more information is distributed digitally.
The second wave will be a full blown cost analysis comparison case study between Linux and Windows in a variety of usage scenarios (web, file and print, etc.) done independently by the analysts for us. ETA for this tool is in May and it will be a great tool to help you sell the value of Windows solutions over Linux.
So they already know the results of this 'independent' study, huh?
And the publisher is perfectly happy. They get free publicity, and all of those burned books were purchased. And the parents that were involved will probably have to buy a new copy for their kids to stop the whining.:)
Almost anything can be used as an offensive weapon. Guns are "the great equalizer" that can allow anyone to defend themselves. The argument is that you can't stop attacks by banning offensive weapons, but criminals would be more hesitant to attempt an assault in an armed populace. That argument can be debated, but don't misrepresent it.
Why should a Mum and Dad family business be refused the same protections afforded a rich and powerful individual like Kerry Packer, simply because the family business is a corporation and Packer is a flesh-and-blood natural person?
Why should Mum and Dad Inc. have any protections at all when both Mum and Dad have the same protections afforded a rich and powerful individual like Kerry Packer?
You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble.
I know you meant this in terms of a burglar or mugger, but this sentiment has been expressed in many situations in history, and it usually eventually led to a pretty disfunctional society, and was seldom true.
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon.
I've seen purses (and briefcases) that would hold anything but a rifle or shotgun, which ironically are the least regulated firearms. And all handguns have holsters available.
we don't have things like the US's 2nd amendmant, which was a nice idea when it was made, but is kind of pointless in an age when there's a centrally controlled military force.
Um - there was a centrally controlled military force at the time, and it had just been kicked out. The second ammendment was designed to oppose centrally controlled military forces - sort of a less organized Switzerland. In addition, it was designed to oppose a corrupt US government, should the need arise. There may be arguments against the second ammendment, but the existence of a national armed forces is not one.
Slashdot Mirror
I just got the shipment notice this morning for Buffy season 1.
Each nation will not have it's own energy source. The energy is global. It is global due to the way the world economy is. The economy is extremely global and inter-dependant. The idea of "nation" is going to be outdated before too long (20+ years).
That's pretty optimistic.
There will be a few companies that will be in controll of whatever new energy source(s) there is(are). These companies will become the OPEC of tomarrow, except instead of nations being the constituents it will be massive corporations. Each one with sub-companies that speciallize in dealing with the laws of specific countries or regions.
That's pretty pessimistic.
The lion's modus operandi only works as long as the other animals reproduce as fast as they are eaten. That is feature of evolution, but a 'shortcoming' from the lion's point of view - if a population uses all of its required resources, that population will die. Thus, the better balanced populations survive. But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are. If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.
Evolution is great, as long as we aren't the failed experiment.
They even made it much easier to navigate by left clicking!
Mmmmmmmm. Steak Jello!
Kirk also blew up the computers of one side, which broke the treaty and could end up in an actual war. Since war had been so antiseptic for so long, the had more impetus to work for peace. That is the primary difference between the situation in the show and the situation on Earth where there have been centuries-long continual conflicts.
That Constitution would cause smoke to come out of robots' ears. Article 2 is an exception to Article 1, but Article 3 says that Article 1 has no exceptions.
it's not the broadcaster's fault that the laws of physics don't allow radio waves to stop cleanly at the border.
That's the answer! Farraday cages around each country.
Nobody forces governments to accept internet traffic from foreign sources. If they don't like the data they are getting, they can cut themselves off. (Their citizens might not like that plan, though.) This is not possible with radio waves. Any foreign radio signal will use up, or at least interfere with that part of the radio spectrum in that government's sovereign airspace.
You then need to add one bit of data to tell whether you've compressed it or not.
You'll be waiting more than seven years for that.
I've always been a big fan of the extended "Hey Diddle Diddle" song, but the scene it appears in would probably come off too goofy on screen.
No one has the right not to be offended.
Indeed - You don't have the right not to be offended; you have the ability.
You have to look at it this way, there definitely are games that small children should not be playing.
Parents shouldn't be turning small children loose unsupervised in an arcade with a pocket full of quarters. And violent video games are the least of the reasons why not.
I have to say - in my opinion, violent material has no effect on well-adjusted individuals - however, we don't live in a perfect society so if banning violent video games stops some numbskull bodyslamming his sister to death it is certainly worth considering rather than dismissing out of hand!
Yikes! Do you want to live in a society that prohibits anything that might be the last straw that snaps a maladjusted individual? What would be left?
Case in point.
If you hadn't skipped to the bottom, you would have noticed that he was drawing a parallel between tracking CD-Rs and puting a tracable serial number on every sheet of paper, printer, and printing press. This parallel is not very far fetched, as more and more information is distributed digitally.
The second wave will be a full blown cost analysis comparison case study between Linux and Windows in a variety of usage scenarios (web, file and print, etc.) done independently by the analysts for us. ETA for this tool is in May and it will be a great tool to help you sell the value of Windows solutions over Linux.
So they already know the results of this 'independent' study, huh?
And the publisher is perfectly happy. They get free publicity, and all of those burned books were purchased. And the parents that were involved will probably have to buy a new copy for their kids to stop the whining. :)
if criminals were not able to obtain guns they would not be able to use them in violent crime.
Criminals will always be able to get guns. When has a ban ever stopped the black market from providing anything?
Almost anything can be used as an offensive weapon. Guns are "the great equalizer" that can allow anyone to defend themselves. The argument is that you can't stop attacks by banning offensive weapons, but criminals would be more hesitant to attempt an assault in an armed populace. That argument can be debated, but don't misrepresent it.
Why should a Mum and Dad family business be refused the same protections afforded a rich and powerful individual like Kerry Packer, simply because the family business is a corporation and Packer is a flesh-and-blood natural person?
Why should Mum and Dad Inc. have any protections at all when both Mum and Dad have the same protections afforded a rich and powerful individual like Kerry Packer?
You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble.
I know you meant this in terms of a burglar or mugger, but this sentiment has been expressed in many situations in history, and it usually eventually led to a pretty disfunctional society, and was seldom true.
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon.
I've seen purses (and briefcases) that would hold anything but a rifle or shotgun, which ironically are the least regulated firearms. And all handguns have holsters available.
we don't have things like the US's 2nd amendmant, which was a nice idea when it was made, but is kind of pointless in an age when there's a centrally controlled military force.
Um - there was a centrally controlled military force at the time, and it had just been kicked out. The second ammendment was designed to oppose centrally controlled military forces - sort of a less organized Switzerland. In addition, it was designed to oppose a corrupt US government, should the need arise. There may be arguments against the second ammendment, but the existence of a national armed forces is not one.