The program was to commit perjury? Huh, I thought it was to unconstitutionally search the records of everyone with a phone. Where did you hear that the program was to commit perjury?
So, you want to do away with government recognition of marriage, and instead recognize something else which is almost exactly the same as marriage but uses a different word?
Okay. Fine. Call it whatever the hell you want. I've never understood this lexicographical objection to equal rights but fine, okay, whatever, I won't let anyone use the dictionary as an excuse for inequality.
Transferability is essential to the value of a patent. Yeah, nobody likes it when Intellectual Vultures buys up all the ideas in an entire industry then latches to/leaches from that industry, but to take away transferability from patents would be a cure worse than the problem. There are other ways to address the problem and my favorites are:
* Make the "obviousness" standard match the colloquial definition of "obvious" and not the legal definition. Congress can do this with legislation. * Take away the ability to amend a patent. * Take away the ability to extend a patent's term. * Stipulate that patent protection only applies for patents in active use, meaning products in the marketplace.
Seriously, after those disastrous eight years, all Obama had to do was say the word "peace" in a couple speeches. That's a damn low standard for the Peace Prize. In my opinion it is an embarrassment to the Nobel Committee for picking such a bad nominee, and I think Obama should have refused it. He could have given a speech listing a bunch of deserving candidates, pointed out that Presidents wage wars and cause death (which he did in fact point out in his Prize acceptance speech), and in the end he would have looked like a conscientious man for doing so. Instead he took the Prize, gave that odd acceptance speech, and joined the Committee in looking like a bit of a fool.
Better joke: The Pope is being considered for a prize for protecting children from sexual predators.
Ah, ha ha, it's so funny how the Catholic Church is directly responsible for the rapes of untold and countless children for over a thousand years! Ha, ha, ha, oh me oh my those wacky Catholics!
Agreed. That's why I hated Napoleon Dynamite. When the credits appeared on screen at the end I got angry: why the fuck didn't the movie ever start, before it finished? Fuck that movie it was stupid.
"I stated that it's not subject to interpretation. All searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. Yes, there are some exceptions, such as searching a suspect upon arrest, and current law has made it clear what those exceptions are and that they are accepted by the populace."
Okay, so *not* all searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. At least we agree on that although somehow you managed to state the opposite. Hence, in the exceptions, is the interpretation of "reasonable" (shown), and let us also acknowledge that current law has made it clear that this is a lawful search.
Yes, I agree with you, that law is ridiculous and this is obviously unconstitutional in my opinion. Yay! I have an opinion! Well, fuck me, because all three branches of the government disagree with me, and so do a majority of the voters. Oh well, that's democracy!
The amount of works covered in your hypothetical situation is infinitesimal compared to the amount of works lost to history because of long copyright. I accept the theory behind what you said but I just can't imagine that argument carrying the question.
I would like copyright to extend for about "one generation". The Beatles can make their money selling stuff to their generation, and after that then future generations get the works of human history in the public domain. There is no obvious exact definition for the length of one generation, so I set it at about 25 years.
Five, ten, twenty, twenty five years -- whatever. But this unlimited-time/hundreds-of-years bullshit is obvious nonsense and no good person needs to be bothered by those laws.
Wait, it is news to you that disbelief in climate change is endemic to the Republican party? and also skepticism of science in general? No, seriously, you need us to tell you about that? Have you really never heard of those themes, even though you are a member of the party? That seems hard to believe.
It's not a straw man to say that Republicans object to using the might of government to protect children by adequately funding and directing child protective services, child nutrition, and education.
There is a large and deep history of jurisprudence on the meaning of the word 'unreasonable' in that amendment. If a search is not unreasonable, then the rest of the amendment does not prohibit it; no warrant would be needed. That is what I said and I can't quite tell if you responded to that, or if you responded to something else, but your words don't seem to be a reply to my words.
It's weird for you to say that the word 'unreasonable' is inoperative. If it didn't modify the sentence, then why would the founders put it in there? of course it's there to be interpreted.
Slashdot Mirror
Is he wrong about the 'every landing is an auto landing' or the 'don't just push a button' or both?
The program was to commit perjury? Huh, I thought it was to unconstitutionally search the records of everyone with a phone. Where did you hear that the program was to commit perjury?
Yes, and by "ever since Gerald Ford" you mean "ever since always".
I agree. Five years is approximately a proportionate punishment. Ten years would also be okay. More than fifteen would probably be excessive.
The difference remains. Books are documents; the web is applications, some of which are very simple info-only applications.
If you don't want to use basic web tech, then don't use the web. Go read a book.
protip: rusty ones are scarier
So, you want to do away with government recognition of marriage, and instead recognize something else which is almost exactly the same as marriage but uses a different word?
Okay. Fine. Call it whatever the hell you want. I've never understood this lexicographical objection to equal rights but fine, okay, whatever, I won't let anyone use the dictionary as an excuse for inequality.
Transferability is essential to the value of a patent. Yeah, nobody likes it when Intellectual Vultures buys up all the ideas in an entire industry then latches to/leaches from that industry, but to take away transferability from patents would be a cure worse than the problem. There are other ways to address the problem and my favorites are:
* Make the "obviousness" standard match the colloquial definition of "obvious" and not the legal definition. Congress can do this with legislation.
* Take away the ability to amend a patent.
* Take away the ability to extend a patent's term.
* Stipulate that patent protection only applies for patents in active use, meaning products in the marketplace.
I don't think the bit you quoted means what you said.
It's easier than that. They should simply thank California for its letter and state that they have ceased and desisted as requested. Done.
Seriously, after those disastrous eight years, all Obama had to do was say the word "peace" in a couple speeches. That's a damn low standard for the Peace Prize. In my opinion it is an embarrassment to the Nobel Committee for picking such a bad nominee, and I think Obama should have refused it. He could have given a speech listing a bunch of deserving candidates, pointed out that Presidents wage wars and cause death (which he did in fact point out in his Prize acceptance speech), and in the end he would have looked like a conscientious man for doing so. Instead he took the Prize, gave that odd acceptance speech, and joined the Committee in looking like a bit of a fool.
Better joke: The Pope is being considered for a prize for protecting children from sexual predators.
Ah, ha ha, it's so funny how the Catholic Church is directly responsible for the rapes of untold and countless children for over a thousand years! Ha, ha, ha, oh me oh my those wacky Catholics!
Agreed. That's why I hated Napoleon Dynamite. When the credits appeared on screen at the end I got angry: why the fuck didn't the movie ever start, before it finished? Fuck that movie it was stupid.
That doesn't make sense because Slashdot doesn't have ads. I've never seen any, at least.
I don't really get how those two things are related. Can you expound a little more?
"I stated that it's not subject to interpretation. All searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. Yes, there are some exceptions, such as searching a suspect upon arrest, and current law has made it clear what those exceptions are and that they are accepted by the populace."
Okay, so *not* all searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. At least we agree on that although somehow you managed to state the opposite. Hence, in the exceptions, is the interpretation of "reasonable" (shown), and let us also acknowledge that current law has made it clear that this is a lawful search.
Yes, I agree with you, that law is ridiculous and this is obviously unconstitutional in my opinion. Yay! I have an opinion! Well, fuck me, because all three branches of the government disagree with me, and so do a majority of the voters. Oh well, that's democracy!
The amount of works covered in your hypothetical situation is infinitesimal compared to the amount of works lost to history because of long copyright. I accept the theory behind what you said but I just can't imagine that argument carrying the question.
I would like copyright to extend for about "one generation". The Beatles can make their money selling stuff to their generation, and after that then future generations get the works of human history in the public domain. There is no obvious exact definition for the length of one generation, so I set it at about 25 years.
Five, ten, twenty, twenty five years -- whatever. But this unlimited-time/hundreds-of-years bullshit is obvious nonsense and no good person needs to be bothered by those laws.
Wait, it is news to you that disbelief in climate change is endemic to the Republican party? and also skepticism of science in general? No, seriously, you need us to tell you about that? Have you really never heard of those themes, even though you are a member of the party? That seems hard to believe.
Srsly there are the Log Cabin Republicans after all.
It's not a straw man to say that Republicans object to using the might of government to protect children by adequately funding and directing child protective services, child nutrition, and education.
Your insightful comment is probably a little too subtle for a Republican to understand.
There is a large and deep history of jurisprudence on the meaning of the word 'unreasonable' in that amendment. If a search is not unreasonable, then the rest of the amendment does not prohibit it; no warrant would be needed. That is what I said and I can't quite tell if you responded to that, or if you responded to something else, but your words don't seem to be a reply to my words.
It's weird for you to say that the word 'unreasonable' is inoperative. If it didn't modify the sentence, then why would the founders put it in there? of course it's there to be interpreted.