Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"? Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide? Only once the decision to prosecute has been made, and when the defendant is not willing to capitulate to the charges. Otherwise choices are made every step of the way, even if they default to a certain path.
If it was clear from the early questioning that it was not her intention to 'copy' the movie, but to capture some small part of her experience, she shouldn't have been arrested, thrown out, perhaps even 'banned' as she is, but not arrested. She may have violated company policy by recording even one second of film, but if due to 'fair-use' she wasn't in violation of the law, having her arrested would be false-arrest. What's next? Arresting someone for bringing in a snickers bar? No shirt, no shoes, go to jail?
Now Verizon has you and future occupants of your house.
And I say this seriously for once, I for one welcome our new fiber installing overlords. Copper lines might have meant something 10 years ago, maybe even 5, but between cellphone and VOIP services, I think the competitive market for voice communication has expanded well. Eventually fiber will be the only backbone into the house, and at that point they would need to open it up to competition. If I were a copper line service competitor of Verizon, I would be pushing for 'fair access' today of the new line rather than bitching about losing the copper base.
We shouldn't need to manually wrap our lines - why can't the IDE intelligently wrap it for us Generally, we don't need to wrap our lines, however those of us who only occasionally need to 'telnet to a box' often find ourselves needing man pages. They are the perfect example as it is standard (afaik) to write them to an 80 column display.
Wait til we rely on biotech to live past 150 years and we're colonizing space. There Gates will be, deciding who lives and who dies and charging everybody 50 cents to breathe So, you think that Bill Gates will invent/buy cheaply technology which would extend the average human lifespan to over 150 years! If so, then I for one welcome our college dropout, weird hair, quintessentially nerdy overlord.
But as long as that value (the dependence of the input value, the living wage, on the output value, the minimum wage) is non-zero, you're going to have a positive-feedback condition. You sound all scientific, but you ain't. If you were at all right the recent surge of oil prices should have caused rampant inflation. It didn't and the price of gasoline is in 'everything'. Also, to make any kind of sense at all, you will need to provide an example of a western nation experiencing uncontrolled inflation upon simply raising the minimum wage. Most (if not all) of our directly competitive nations have been able to give a living wage to their lowest paid workers without such consequences.
I don't think this is propaganda; it's caution...I'm not saying that case doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it yet, and and my default reaction is to be somewhat skeptical There is nothing wrong with caution, but pundits much like yourself have given such 'warnings' with every single minimum wage increase, no matter how small. Our own history of minimum wage legislation has never even brought uncontrolled inflation. The real remaining question is: "Why are you pressing this conversation?".
What the people promoting the 'living wage' are after is not a bad thing, but it seems like it could also be pretty dangerous, because it doesn't to me look like it's self-stabilizing. You continue to ignore the basic crux of my argument: The cost of a living wage is already built into our social welfare programs, and we already pay the price for it. The self-stabilization is the reduction of the false-economy built to help the working poor (including farm workers).
; despite that, though, I'm really trying to keep an open mind on this. When your only opposition is the equivalent of "The sky will fall"?, in particular when it just doesn't work that way. "Scary inflation", "Job loss", "business collapse", and "Cats and Dogs living together", have never been the consequences of minimum wage increases.
Well, entrapement is a criminal defense, not a civil one, besides "Entrapment situations alter the risks and benefits to increase the likelihood the crime will occur.", which I don't believe they are.
How is it tha I pirate music all the time and nobody comes after me, but the RIAA seems to go after From what I understand, they insert themselves into the P2P network, then gather the IP addresses which connect to them. After that, it's a matter of getting the IP address to match to a person's home, which isn't always easy. So to get hit by them, you need to unlucky enough to attempt to download from their honeypot, and to have an ISP which is willing to share your addressing info with the RIAA (or not to fight a court order). Basically, they need to spend a lot of money on lawyers just to get that address, and then more money to sue, and they would never be able to collect enough money to make the lawyer process self-sustaining. What they are really hoping is not to 'catch' everyone, but to scare enough people so make the P2P networks ineffectual.
What evidence do you have that you can just jack up the minimum wage to the levels you're talking about, and not drive inflation and the cost of basic goods up proportionately? Because those costs are already there, but instead as taxes, health care costs, even private charity.
I'm really honestly interested. I've talked to a lot of "living wage" proponents and the schemes always seem to have some gaps in them I submit that that expression is just rhetoric of a mind just clouded by water carriers. An idea of providing a decent wage is not a 'scheme', it's an honest, caring proposition, rooted in true economic valuation.
And if you set the minimum wage to a dynamic value, rather than a static one -- a "basket" of goods, or some formula that's supposed to represent what's necessary to "live" -- and it causes that value itself to increase, then you've just created a positive feedback loop. The result, as far as I can tell, would be runaway inflation. We already track that value, it's called the poverty line, and minimum wage comes nowhere near it. The "hyperinflation" or more properly 'race condition inflation', you speak of would only occur if the lives of minimum wage workers depended 100% on other minimum wage workers, and without any material costs (a closed loop considering only labor costs). Fantasy at best, but your opinion is most likely a scare tactic by those who should know better. Sure a cheeseburger may cost more, and some commodity prices would go up, but it would only reflect the true labor costs which are largely already paid for by society.
I'm no stranger to minimum wage jobs myself I've done low wage jobs myself, but thank god, I've always had family support to help me with the rough spots. Generally supporting myself at wages even somewhat near the minimum wage was technically impossible, I could only imagine the difficult task of raising a family on those earnings.
I realized that a college diploma is probably the best thing you can ever spend money on, in terms of ROI So who's money did you spend, the money you 'saved', unlikely, very unlikely, and did you try to support a family at the same time, also very unlikely. Almost certainly you depended either family support, charity, or government programs to pay for your education. Of course education is a net gain for society, so I believe that these programs should exist even if the minimum wage was raised to a proper level. Of course, those new 'living wage' workers would find higher education a much easier to afford. However, the truth is that our society hasn't advanced to the point of not needing unskilled labor. Sure 'go to college' might be an individual solution, but even if everyone had a college degree, some people would still be needed to do manual labor.
The idea of a living wage seems pretty nice My position is not that it's 'nice', but that if you give working people a chance, that they can care for themselves much better than the programs they depend on. Many 'conservatives' bitch and whine about programs which help the working poor, but thanks to a wage scale set below the poverty line, even people [both legal and illegal] who work full time (and longer) need those programs to live in a decent society.
Is it more than about $3 an hour, including maintenance? Those Employers would now be responsible for maintenance, rather than passing it on to society at large. The problem is that a decent social welfare system combined with a free market economy is a minimum wage set well below a person's ability to economically care for themselves. Illegal or not a man (or woman) who works 40 hours (or more) a week should be able to care for their family without government or private assistance. The only alternative to fixing the minimum wage and the removing illegally paid employees, is to allow some people to starve in the streets. However that would have the nasty side effect of increasing street crime exponentially, as hungry people would kill for a loaf of bread.
No cops should be allowed to go unchecked. Why Stop there? I started keeping my digital camera in my car and ready for the crazy drivers I see every day. I've tried everything to get people to stop tailgating me, but it's almost surprising what happens when people realize that their bad driving is being recorded. Three times already I've had tailgaters back off when they saw a flash pointed at them; One trucker and 2 SUVs. People just act better when they know they are being recorded.
More effective would probably be "Thank you for calling, I'm Anonymous Coward, how can I help you?"
Not really, I answer nearly ever call with a very simple "Hello, [my First and Last Name] here." Most of the time, the next thing I hear is "is [my Name] there?". Sometimes I feel like saying "no, I am not here". People just don't pay attention, does that surprise you? interesting.
whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)
The French, the 'liberal media', 'environmental wackos', and 'holly politics', have been very common 'straw men' for Republican pundits for a number of years now. It seems to get the base fired up fairly well, however any relationship to real political thought is only incidental.
Re:Traditional Chinese Medicine Recognizes This
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
his has been long known by traditional chinese medical practitioners, who recognized that occidental materialist medicine was doing it wrong.
They might have been right on this one, but when it comes my time for an ED treatment, I'm not going to be poaching parts from tigers or rhinos.
Will the person who picked HD-DVD in April 2007 for the next gen DVD format pool, please step forward to collect their winnings. I don't think that there is any chance that Sony and friends could over come this.
The real buzz over second life is the ability to create wealth playing the game. Seems to me that they will always be the 'Federal Reserve' for their creation, and their intention is to make money by creating it. If anything kills second life, it will be a widely distributed unlimited money hack.
According to my carefully made-up research, this all started around the same time as "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. So, indirectly, Global Warming is the cause of this.
I noticed that too, but I'm working under the assumption that Al Gore is the cause of our bee problems. Well, at least my idea would pay me better, as lots of scientists believe in global warming, but only a precious few of us believe that liberalism is the root cause of any problem.
Then why are airphones allowed on airplanes? Perhaps because they charge and arm and a leg to use it. That alone keeps it's use to a minimum, also as it doesn't take 'random' calls, it is even less likely to be bothersome.
The real reasons for banning phones are:...[FFA approved answers] TFA did mention one reason you didn't debunk, passenger anger over the calls themselves. Many passengers are particularly fearful of flying, and may transfer that fear into anger directed at those who their 'social rules'. Personally, I've always found it odd that people get pissed about phone calls in places where conversations are allowed, but they do. My guess is that it is too hard for them to eaves-drop when you can only hear one side of the conversation.
You know, I really did hope/expect the Republicans would remember their conservative roots
Truth is Lincoln headed a very liberal party, and the 'pro-business agenda' adopted by the Republican party at the beginning of the last century, is rightfully described as 'economic liberalism'.
Until 1964 both parties had wings which would be considered 'liberal' or 'conservative', passage of the civil rights act that year, flushed most of the southern conservative Democrats to the Republicans.
The party line opposed it as a 'big-governement' act (well, at least publicly).
That was the start of your party's 'conservative roots'.
I know, it's a bit of a shock, I actually used that damn dirty word 'liberal', not once, but twice when mentioning some of the history of the GOP. Thanks to 20 years of 'water-carrying' 'conservatives', many seem to believe that it's a dirty word, which one can use to describe people you are suppose to hate.
If WJC could admittedly perjure himself (about a personal interaction, that should never have been prosecuted) and get away scott-free than there's no chance that GWB can be held liable for acting in what he perceives as the Nation's best interest.
Please, don't try your tired old 'blame Clinton act', it's been 10 years (and he was acquitted). "w" has lied and his staff to the American people on countless occasions over the last 6, and for bigger effect than trying to hide a consensual physical indiscretion.
Sure he and (most) of bush's people have avoided oaths like the plague, but at the very least he took an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution". Just the wire tapping scandal should be enough to remove him, as he blatantly violated even lenient rules. Also one should keep in mind that lying to Congress is a crime even if you don't put your hand on a bible before you do it (including the SOTU address).
Whether or not he is impeached bush will go down as the worst President in American history.
I actually suspect that if he is impeached, with an eye toward conviction, that he will attempt a coup d'état.
You know, 'for the good of the American people' and all that, after all, 'how can Congress subvert the 'will of God''?. Admittedly it's a long shot, but I wouldn't put it past him.
Your solutions are both wrong and unlikely to succeed in any useful way. (Well meant, I'm sure, but wrong nonetheless.) The only effective (and Constitutional) way (for Congress) to get our troops out is to stop paying for the war.
First of all, that's not my solution, it's the political solution currently being worked on by Congress.
If we cut of spending for the troops outright, Bush will almost certainly leave them there until they run out of bullets.
Do you want to see that happen? I don't.
because they would be making it plain that they care more about $Getting_Out than about $Supporting_The_Troops. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and instead they're making a dog's breakfast of the whole thing.
Still trying to get some political capital at the expense of American lives (and for that matter Iraqi lives)?
Shame.
We should be working out a real solution to the Iraq crisis, instead fools such as yourself seem to be Snidely Whiplash wringing your hands in anticipation of the carnage you set into motion coming to fruition.
Perhaps you do want to leave the troops abandoned in Iraq, maybe you are with the president in hoping that somehow you can continue to misdirect blame at your political enemies. Maybe, just maybe the American people will start to believe you again, if Rove is right and you can throw some more of the mud you are mired in upon those 'evil' liberals.
So what is 'your solution'? More of the same? Or are just still stuck on an old copy of your talking points?
I'm hoping for sweeping change in the next Administration, though in my case I
Slashdot Mirror
If it was clear from the early questioning that it was not her intention to 'copy' the movie, but to capture some small part of her experience, she shouldn't have been arrested, thrown out, perhaps even 'banned' as she is, but not arrested. She may have violated company policy by recording even one second of film, but if due to 'fair-use' she wasn't in violation of the law, having her arrested would be false-arrest. What's next? Arresting someone for bringing in a snickers bar? No shirt, no shoes, go to jail?
Looks great, but you forgot the xml config file (and it's related loader) for variables you wouldn't dare change without refactoring the code.
And I say this seriously for once, I for one welcome our new fiber installing overlords. Copper lines might have meant something 10 years ago, maybe even 5, but between cellphone and VOIP services, I think the competitive market for voice communication has expanded well. Eventually fiber will be the only backbone into the house, and at that point they would need to open it up to competition. If I were a copper line service competitor of Verizon, I would be pushing for 'fair access' today of the new line rather than bitching about losing the copper base.
Well, entrapement is a criminal defense, not a civil one, besides "Entrapment situations alter the risks and benefits to increase the likelihood the crime will occur.", which I don't believe they are.
What is even more surprising is that they allege that these law firms took those troll seriously.
Not really, I answer nearly ever call with a very simple "Hello, [my First and Last Name] here." Most of the time, the next thing I hear is "is [my Name] there?". Sometimes I feel like saying "no, I am not here". People just don't pay attention, does that surprise you? interesting.
If you think that the price of gas is expensive at the boat dock, you should see the bill for delivering a tankful 200 miles in the sky.
The French, the 'liberal media', 'environmental wackos', and 'holly politics', have been very common 'straw men' for Republican pundits for a number of years now. It seems to get the base fired up fairly well, however any relationship to real political thought is only incidental.
They might have been right on this one, but when it comes my time for an ED treatment, I'm not going to be poaching parts from tigers or rhinos.
Agreed, with one caveat, they should lose their 'common carrier' protection and be responsible for all content which flows through their network.
Will the person who picked HD-DVD in April 2007 for the next gen DVD format pool, please step forward to collect their winnings. I don't think that there is any chance that Sony and friends could over come this.
The real buzz over second life is the ability to create wealth playing the game. Seems to me that they will always be the 'Federal Reserve' for their creation, and their intention is to make money by creating it. If anything kills second life, it will be a widely distributed unlimited money hack.
I noticed that too, but I'm working under the assumption that Al Gore is the cause of our bee problems. Well, at least my idea would pay me better, as lots of scientists believe in global warming, but only a precious few of us believe that liberalism is the root cause of any problem.
To satisfy the Canadian content requirement, all one needs to do is add a couple minutes of the 'Great White North' to each of the YouTube clips.
You know, I really did hope/expect the Republicans would remember their conservative roots
Truth is Lincoln headed a very liberal party, and the 'pro-business agenda' adopted by the Republican party at the beginning of the last century, is rightfully described as 'economic liberalism'. Until 1964 both parties had wings which would be considered 'liberal' or 'conservative', passage of the civil rights act that year, flushed most of the southern conservative Democrats to the Republicans. The party line opposed it as a 'big-governement' act (well, at least publicly). That was the start of your party's 'conservative roots'.
I know, it's a bit of a shock, I actually used that damn dirty word 'liberal', not once, but twice when mentioning some of the history of the GOP. Thanks to 20 years of 'water-carrying' 'conservatives', many seem to believe that it's a dirty word, which one can use to describe people you are suppose to hate.
If WJC could admittedly perjure himself (about a personal interaction, that should never have been prosecuted) and get away scott-free than there's no chance that GWB can be held liable for acting in what he perceives as the Nation's best interest.
Please, don't try your tired old 'blame Clinton act', it's been 10 years (and he was acquitted). "w" has lied and his staff to the American people on countless occasions over the last 6, and for bigger effect than trying to hide a consensual physical indiscretion. Sure he and (most) of bush's people have avoided oaths like the plague, but at the very least he took an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution". Just the wire tapping scandal should be enough to remove him, as he blatantly violated even lenient rules. Also one should keep in mind that lying to Congress is a crime even if you don't put your hand on a bible before you do it (including the SOTU address). Whether or not he is impeached bush will go down as the worst President in American history. I actually suspect that if he is impeached, with an eye toward conviction, that he will attempt a coup d'état. You know, 'for the good of the American people' and all that, after all, 'how can Congress subvert the 'will of God''?. Admittedly it's a long shot, but I wouldn't put it past him.
Your solutions are both wrong and unlikely to succeed in any useful way. (Well meant, I'm sure, but wrong nonetheless.) The only effective (and Constitutional) way (for Congress) to get our troops out is to stop paying for the war.
First of all, that's not my solution, it's the political solution currently being worked on by Congress. If we cut of spending for the troops outright, Bush will almost certainly leave them there until they run out of bullets. Do you want to see that happen? I don't.
because they would be making it plain that they care more about $Getting_Out than about $Supporting_The_Troops. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and instead they're making a dog's breakfast of the whole thing.
Still trying to get some political capital at the expense of American lives (and for that matter Iraqi lives)? Shame. We should be working out a real solution to the Iraq crisis, instead fools such as yourself seem to be Snidely Whiplash wringing your hands in anticipation of the carnage you set into motion coming to fruition. Perhaps you do want to leave the troops abandoned in Iraq, maybe you are with the president in hoping that somehow you can continue to misdirect blame at your political enemies. Maybe, just maybe the American people will start to believe you again, if Rove is right and you can throw some more of the mud you are mired in upon those 'evil' liberals.
So what is 'your solution'? More of the same? Or are just still stuck on an old copy of your talking points?
I'm hoping for sweeping change in the next Administration, though in my case I