Outrage? I don't know, I would call myself outraged.
But I think the issue is that the individual apps have data sharing policies, which would be more restrictive than the warning I stopped at, and those policies were not respected. I have never gotten to that point, though, so I couldn't be outraged about that.
Hey, you can hate the Constitution if you want to, but as a freedom-loving American, I'll defend the Constitution vehemently. What country are you from, anyway?
That is contrary to my prior notion. Can you provide a reference that shows what you said to be true? I'm not the kind of person who runs around demanding perfect cites for every statement, but for instance this news article supports what I said, and does not support what you said.
I looked for more articles including the word "jail" and all I found was that maybe a person could go to jail for refusing to pay their taxes. That's obvious and everyone knows that tax evaders can sometimes go to jail. But that is not at all connected to health care.
If that's what you mean, then you can just let it rest. But if you know of a specific criminal charge stemming directly from health insurance reform, then I'd be happy to know about that.
Have you ever considered the possibility that legislation you oppose is both a bad idea, and also constitutional?
* There are no fines for failing to have health insurance. There are tax implications, not fines. * General Welfare would cover this law * Interstate commerce would also cover this law * Notice how no serious national figure, even those who desperately oppose the law, are suggesting that it is unconstitutional
As for me, I would have preferred a system of socialized health centers, run by the government, with government employees providing the care. The care would be emergency and basic, much less than the services provided under the current health insurance reform. But just because I'm not a big fan of the reform we got, isn't a reason for me to sit around pretending untrue things about the constitution. It's fine to oppose the law; it's even fine to critique it in light of the constitution; but it's not fine to invent legal theories in order to justify a charge that a law is unconstitutional.
Wow those are awesome. Some of them are unremarkable (it's easy to find pictures of any public person with a light behind their head) but many of them are totally creepy! It's wise to watch any President carefully, but so far this one has done most things right. It's too soon to say whether he's done enough to not deserve re-election.
Nah. Obama is above average but below great (so far, he could still achieve greatness); Bush was in the bottom 2 or 3 (McKinley was the absolute worst); Clinton was also a bit above average; Bush Sr was an unmemorable tool; Reagan was above average; Carter was average; Nixon was in the bottom 4 or 5; JFK was great; and before that was before modern politics.
Well, I guess I don't necessarily disagree with you, depending on the threshold for sucking. Maybe all but Lincoln and FDR have sucked.
I laugh when I hear conservatives complain that Obama is an elitist, then turn around and say that he doesn't do things like wear a jacket in the Oval Office. Shouldn't they want him to wear Carharts and flannel or something? If he wore French cuffs the way Bush did, surely Fox News would have a meme about him being an America-hating francophile.
But that's the nature of criticism in politics, almost all of it is just hollow criticism. Some of it is legit, a very small minority. It was the same with criticism of Bush: there was plenty to legitimately criticize, but on top of all that was another order of magnitude of illegitimate criticism.
Like I said, most of the time laws don't list exemptions; most laws rest on specifying the infringing actions, which is done in this law::...or knowing the same to be so printed, reprinted, or imported, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale, or cause to be published, sold or exposed to sale, any copy of such map, chart, book or books...
Anyway, I was referring to the fact that criminal copyright infringement used to required a profit motive, until 1997. Here's a link about the NET Act, and here's a quote:
Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, criminal copyright infringement required that the infringement was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain."
I will stop right there. I make no other claims and I concede any criticisms of my original post, except those defended by those references. I don't wish to argue about what "intent" means or the difference between civil and criminal law. I am done with the issue, and you can have the last word if you want it.
I have a facebook account. It's not so bad. I don't use it very often but it's useful for some things. From time to time in the past I've gotten invitations to start using some app or another, and in rare circumstances it was an app which appealed to me for one reason or another. But, when I click to install it, I'm always confronted by a scary warning message saying that the app was going to steal my identity and rape my grandmother -- or something like that, it's hard to remember after something so scary. So I've never confirmed a facebook app because I've always been scared away by that warning. I guess I was right to be scared, huh? I think I'll keep being careful.
You can go all the way back to the Constitution and you will find no mention of this notion that copyright were only to keep other people from profitting
I've been thinking about it and I think you have made an error by ignoring the important fact that the law made "no mention of this notion that copyright were only to keep other people from profitting", but the law did actually only "mention the notion that copyright was to prevent other people from profitting." I mean, sure, it never said "hey, it's okay to copy if you don't do it for profit", but it did say "hey, we are only making it illegal to copy for profit". Laws typically don't (but sometimes do) list the things that are ALLOWED, they typically only list things that AREN'T ALLOWED, and it was for-profit copying that was not allowed (until the 1990s).
So, I'm going to have to keep disagreeing with everything you have said, except for the narrow point that "intent" is a squishy thing and might not be the perfect diction for what I'm trying to describe.
Hmmm, that's a good point. I could have phrased my post better. Yes, the "intent" is to promote the arts (in theory, anyway). What word describes the essence of a law, its direction, its target? American law, for hundreds of years, specifically and purposely applied only to for-profit copying; and it was that which I described as "intent", but I think you are right, that's close to "intent" but it's something slightly different.
Oh, hey, I can answer that. The OP was using a rhetorical device called synecdoche. This is extremely common in natural language. In the case of IP law, the original intent of the law was to stop for-profit copying of 'intellectual property'. Then, the OP used 'high-school students and grandmas' synecdochally to stand in for non-profit-seeking copiers.
But, the OP is somewhat mistaken, because in the late 1990s a federal law criminalized not-for-profit copying.
If you didn't see the problems with the libertarian ideology the first time you heard it, how would I be able to reach into your brain and turn on the clue circuit? But here, this is the incorrect statement:
individuals pursuing their own goals will do a better job of allocating resources than a pack of bureaucrats trying to manage the economy
Sometimes this is true; often it is not true. This statement is accepted like religious faith by people who share your ideology, but it is rejected by people who pay attention to historical and contemporary facts. The market-is-always-best ideology is wrong for the same reason all other ideologies are wrong: because it rejects the validity and truth of other ways of seeing things. You seem to be a true believer, a religious faithful, a person who accepts the tenets unquestioned, and then has no problem accepting the conclusions which come from those tenets. The conclusions are fine, it's the tenets which are wrong. But the tenets are so obviously wrong that a person who accepts them is obviously not applying critical thought to them, and I couldn't possibly convince that person to do so. Instead of asking what is wrong with that statement, a much better question is what is RIGHT about that statement?
You can have the last word if you want it. I only engage religious people (religion in the general sense) in order to persuade third parties reading the thread, and it's long since anyone else read you and I biatching at eachother.
That's easy! Just get rid of the algorithms. Hire humans to do the trading. This should the be law in every country. Actually I don't really think that would be the best law, I bet there are better ways to craft markets where incentives are against short trades, in order to make sure markets are for average investors instead of pro investors. Maybe, the law should take 98% of profits made on stocks held for less than a day; 90% less than a week; 75% less than a month; 50% less than a year; and 2% more than a year. Something like that. I bet others could come up with something better.
Is that a valid proof? Two numbers are equal if there are no numbers in between them? Obviously that doesn't hold outside the real numbers, but does it even hold for real numbers?/not a mathematician
Insofar as the grand lesson of science is that we live in a natural universe, not a supernatural (magical) universe, science has explained free will perfectly: it doesn't exist. It can't, if by free will you mean "an uncaused causer". I do, however, quite enjoy the illusion of free will.
You make some good points, but lots and lots of professions require testing and certification
engineering definitely requires post-school testing and certification
hairdressing and tattooing both require certification, but I'm not sure about testing
public-school teaching definitely requires testing and certification, and mandatory ongoing education
mechanics must go to school, pass tests, become certified, and take ongoing education
I bet I could think of many more if I tried
Shit, being a lawyer doesn't even require ongoing education, does it? So by that measure, that means lawyers should earn a little bit less than public school teachers and mechanics, and a little bit more than hairdressers.
Slashdot Mirror
Outrage? I don't know, I would call myself outraged.
But I think the issue is that the individual apps have data sharing policies, which would be more restrictive than the warning I stopped at, and those policies were not respected. I have never gotten to that point, though, so I couldn't be outraged about that.
Hey, you can hate the Constitution if you want to, but as a freedom-loving American, I'll defend the Constitution vehemently. What country are you from, anyway?
That is contrary to my prior notion. Can you provide a reference that shows what you said to be true? I'm not the kind of person who runs around demanding perfect cites for every statement, but for instance this news article supports what I said, and does not support what you said.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/health/health.care.penalties_1_health-insurance-insurance-pool-tax-filers?_s=PM:HEALTH
I looked for more articles including the word "jail" and all I found was that maybe a person could go to jail for refusing to pay their taxes. That's obvious and everyone knows that tax evaders can sometimes go to jail. But that is not at all connected to health care.
If that's what you mean, then you can just let it rest. But if you know of a specific criminal charge stemming directly from health insurance reform, then I'd be happy to know about that.
That would be one way to do it. Another would be to just link to the motherfucking birth certificate itself.
"No! no! We demand the version which is illegal to release! Demanding an impossible standard is the only way we can persist in our imaginings!"
Unfortunately, people who still believe that myth use the internet all too much.
Have you ever considered the possibility that legislation you oppose is both a bad idea, and also constitutional?
* There are no fines for failing to have health insurance. There are tax implications, not fines.
* General Welfare would cover this law
* Interstate commerce would also cover this law
* Notice how no serious national figure, even those who desperately oppose the law, are suggesting that it is unconstitutional
As for me, I would have preferred a system of socialized health centers, run by the government, with government employees providing the care. The care would be emergency and basic, much less than the services provided under the current health insurance reform. But just because I'm not a big fan of the reform we got, isn't a reason for me to sit around pretending untrue things about the constitution. It's fine to oppose the law; it's even fine to critique it in light of the constitution; but it's not fine to invent legal theories in order to justify a charge that a law is unconstitutional.
Wow those are awesome. Some of them are unremarkable (it's easy to find pictures of any public person with a light behind their head) but many of them are totally creepy! It's wise to watch any President carefully, but so far this one has done most things right. It's too soon to say whether he's done enough to not deserve re-election.
Nah. Obama is above average but below great (so far, he could still achieve greatness); Bush was in the bottom 2 or 3 (McKinley was the absolute worst); Clinton was also a bit above average; Bush Sr was an unmemorable tool; Reagan was above average; Carter was average; Nixon was in the bottom 4 or 5; JFK was great; and before that was before modern politics.
Well, I guess I don't necessarily disagree with you, depending on the threshold for sucking. Maybe all but Lincoln and FDR have sucked.
I laugh when I hear conservatives complain that Obama is an elitist, then turn around and say that he doesn't do things like wear a jacket in the Oval Office. Shouldn't they want him to wear Carharts and flannel or something? If he wore French cuffs the way Bush did, surely Fox News would have a meme about him being an America-hating francophile.
But that's the nature of criticism in politics, almost all of it is just hollow criticism. Some of it is legit, a very small minority. It was the same with criticism of Bush: there was plenty to legitimately criticize, but on top of all that was another order of magnitude of illegitimate criticism.
Like I said, most of the time laws don't list exemptions; most laws rest on specifying the infringing actions, which is done in this law:: ...or knowing the same to be so printed, reprinted, or imported, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale,
or cause to be published, sold or exposed to sale, any copy of such map, chart, book or books...
Anyway, I was referring to the fact that criminal copyright infringement used to required a profit motive, until 1997. Here's a link about the NET Act, and here's a quote:
Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, criminal copyright infringement required that the infringement was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain."
I will stop right there. I make no other claims and I concede any criticisms of my original post, except those defended by those references. I don't wish to argue about what "intent" means or the difference between civil and criminal law. I am done with the issue, and you can have the last word if you want it.
I have a facebook account. It's not so bad. I don't use it very often but it's useful for some things. From time to time in the past I've gotten invitations to start using some app or another, and in rare circumstances it was an app which appealed to me for one reason or another. But, when I click to install it, I'm always confronted by a scary warning message saying that the app was going to steal my identity and rape my grandmother -- or something like that, it's hard to remember after something so scary. So I've never confirmed a facebook app because I've always been scared away by that warning. I guess I was right to be scared, huh? I think I'll keep being careful.
You can go all the way back to the Constitution and you will find no mention of this notion that copyright were only to keep other people from profitting
I've been thinking about it and I think you have made an error by ignoring the important fact that the law made "no mention of this notion that copyright were only to keep other people from profitting", but the law did actually only "mention the notion that copyright was to prevent other people from profitting." I mean, sure, it never said "hey, it's okay to copy if you don't do it for profit", but it did say "hey, we are only making it illegal to copy for profit". Laws typically don't (but sometimes do) list the things that are ALLOWED, they typically only list things that AREN'T ALLOWED, and it was for-profit copying that was not allowed (until the 1990s).
So, I'm going to have to keep disagreeing with everything you have said, except for the narrow point that "intent" is a squishy thing and might not be the perfect diction for what I'm trying to describe.
Hmmm, that's a good point. I could have phrased my post better. Yes, the "intent" is to promote the arts (in theory, anyway). What word describes the essence of a law, its direction, its target? American law, for hundreds of years, specifically and purposely applied only to for-profit copying; and it was that which I described as "intent", but I think you are right, that's close to "intent" but it's something slightly different.
Oh, hey, I can answer that. The OP was using a rhetorical device called synecdoche. This is extremely common in natural language. In the case of IP law, the original intent of the law was to stop for-profit copying of 'intellectual property'. Then, the OP used 'high-school students and grandmas' synecdochally to stand in for non-profit-seeking copiers.
But, the OP is somewhat mistaken, because in the late 1990s a federal law criminalized not-for-profit copying.
If you didn't see the problems with the libertarian ideology the first time you heard it, how would I be able to reach into your brain and turn on the clue circuit? But here, this is the incorrect statement:
individuals pursuing their own goals will do a better job of allocating resources than a pack of bureaucrats trying to manage the economy
Sometimes this is true; often it is not true. This statement is accepted like religious faith by people who share your ideology, but it is rejected by people who pay attention to historical and contemporary facts. The market-is-always-best ideology is wrong for the same reason all other ideologies are wrong: because it rejects the validity and truth of other ways of seeing things. You seem to be a true believer, a religious faithful, a person who accepts the tenets unquestioned, and then has no problem accepting the conclusions which come from those tenets. The conclusions are fine, it's the tenets which are wrong. But the tenets are so obviously wrong that a person who accepts them is obviously not applying critical thought to them, and I couldn't possibly convince that person to do so. Instead of asking what is wrong with that statement, a much better question is what is RIGHT about that statement?
You can have the last word if you want it. I only engage religious people (religion in the general sense) in order to persuade third parties reading the thread, and it's long since anyone else read you and I biatching at eachother.
You are wrong about everything you have said, mostly so wrong that it would make me laugh if I didn't know you were serious.
That's easy! Just get rid of the algorithms. Hire humans to do the trading. This should the be law in every country. Actually I don't really think that would be the best law, I bet there are better ways to craft markets where incentives are against short trades, in order to make sure markets are for average investors instead of pro investors. Maybe, the law should take 98% of profits made on stocks held for less than a day; 90% less than a week; 75% less than a month; 50% less than a year; and 2% more than a year. Something like that. I bet others could come up with something better.
Actually, it's not like that at all.
lest
Is that a valid proof? Two numbers are equal if there are no numbers in between them? Obviously that doesn't hold outside the real numbers, but does it even hold for real numbers? /not a mathematician
So after all these years, has Intel been vindicated?
Insofar as the grand lesson of science is that we live in a natural universe, not a supernatural (magical) universe, science has explained free will perfectly: it doesn't exist. It can't, if by free will you mean "an uncaused causer". I do, however, quite enjoy the illusion of free will.
You make some good points, but lots and lots of professions require testing and certification
Shit, being a lawyer doesn't even require ongoing education, does it? So by that measure, that means lawyers should earn a little bit less than public school teachers and mechanics, and a little bit more than hairdressers.
"Have you tried turning it off and on?"
"Are you sure it's plugged in?"
No dude, it's not that simple.
Lawyers are still overpaid, tho.
Wow, that's quite an "if".