Gun control laws -- especially in "Gun Free Zones" implentations -- are the ultimate security theater.
Let's assume for a moment that the "Gun Free Zones" were literally that: places no firearm went. Well, the the post office shootings of the early '80s would never have happened -- government buildings have been weapons-free zones for ages. And the Columbine school schooting -- well, not only was that a Gun Free Zone, but both shooters were not old enough to legally carry or own firearms!
When you look logically at the "more guns mean more killings" argument it falls apart with astonishing speed. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? What about at a gun range? The availability of weapons in either of those places is very high -- but somehow it's the places that the firearms aren't supposed to be that are at risk.
Extend this logic just a half-step further and gun control laws of all stripes start looking stupid. I will accept gun control when the advocates for it can tell me why criminals -- people who by definition break the laws -- will respect gun control laws while they completely ignore laws against drugs, theft, and murder.
YOu give your notice...you get to work normally till your last day. The only thing I can think of is that they know if you do anything stupid...it is a major federal offense..and that that would be a deterrent?
No, it is that the US Government isn't concerned about hostile employees like the private sector is. After all, to get that job you went though a very rigorous screening process (much tougher than the private sector) -- if they thought there was a chance of your being a bad apple, you wouldn't have been hired.
Most companies salivate at the opportunity to abuse a monopoly.
Allow me to chime in with a "ditto" type remark, by noting the following correction:
You are anthropomorphising a legal fictions; companies do not have a unified vision, nor saliva glands, as you present.
Executives do, and with that one correction I would agree with your statement.
It would have been better if they had planned the release date for Darwin Day.
I don't say that because it would mean I would already have the game, but that doesn't hurt either!
Rock Band also consolidated it so only one console was required for four players, rather than one per instrument.
Oh wait, that's not innovation, that's TECHNICAL. </sarcasm>
Because they didn't do anything but take existing ideas/games and put them together in one game.
Sure, they took existing ideas (plural!) and put them together, in a cooperative game.
What other game can you think of where the players co-operate, but have to do different things in the process? The closest thing I can think of in relationship is MMO gameplay, but that's a totally different game type....
My suggestion would be that any national security discussions whose immediate disclosure would compromise an operation must still be recorded, but their release can be delayed by up to 10 (?) years, depending on the situation.
10 years? We're talking about meetings with lobbyists here, not military intelligence. "National security" doesn't come in when you're having discussions outside of the government, and even if it could, 10 years is way too long -- that is longer than any term of office.
Nothing that goes on between lobby organizations and our elected officials should be delayed for more than six months, tops, and I see hardly any reason for delays at all. After all, if the government is "outsourcing" something, I sure as hell want to know about it.
You are correct, and that is (according to statements provided by whistle blowers) what Comcast is doing: to wit, they block any upload greater than a few megs (2MB? 3?) from within Comcast's network to any server outside of it.
The problem, however, is that people with "more legitimate" network connections than P2P -- such as the Lotus Notes mentioned in the summary, VPN connections, or file upload to public services (YouTube et.al.) are NOT going to be remaining in the local Comcast network, and their service is being disrupted as well.
Really, the problem is that for Comcast, upload bandwith is more expensive/scarcer than download bandwith, but they sell their customer base the promise of "unlimited" bandwith, and now people are discovering interesting, new ways to utilize home upload bandwith....
When there is no clear answer to a problem, the correct answer is... to take the most plausible answer and accept that it is most likely the correct one.
This is itself dogma. Instead, when there is no clear answer, the correct response is to state "I do not know; let us formulate a test to obtain futher information".
Sorry, but you cannot just take any flight of fancy thought up by religions and say that because you cannot prove that it does NOT exist that whatever you think about is based on faith or is a dogma. ...
I see no reason whatsoever to believe in fairy tales about an afterlife.
No, you have it backwards: arguing that no evidence for Proposition X will therefore prove it false is an argument ad ignorantiam. Did bacteria somehow not extist before germ theory was proven with the microscope?
Science cannot (yet?) conclusively prove anything about life after death. This does not justify a belief in no afterlife; the only justified belief statement is "I don't know". The evidence we have so far does point to no afterlife, but it is not yet conclusive evidence.
There is exactly as much evidence supporting the existence of an after life as there is evidence supporting the doctrines of Scientology.
Let me repeat the challenge for you with a shifted emphasis:
I would challenge you to present credible evidence for or against any belief...
Okay, I have your position statement [no afterlife]; now finish the challenge by supporting it with evidence. After all, that's what this story is ultimately about, isn't it? [Scientist withdraws paper due to errors and causes great dismay among those who used those errors as evidence to support their religious dogma]
Hell, I haven't told you what *I* believe happens after death and you jump on me for doubting ANY conclusion in the absence of evidence. However, that is exactly the proper position to take for a sceptic: lack of evidence is not the same thing as lack of proof (the fallacy known as argument ad ignorantiam). After all, would you argue that before microscopes were invented and germ theory proven, bacteria didn't exist?
The so called "moderate" religious people exist in a state of mind called "cognitive dissonance" whereby all knowledge is derived from evidence and logic EXCEPT knowledge pertaining to topics they have been indoctrinated from birth to accept due to faith. This is your textbook dogma.
I would challenge you to present credible evidence for or against any belief in what occurs after death (including, but clearly *NOT* limited to, the belief that death ends conciousness).
This is IME the clearest, simplest example of an area where there are no facts (yet?) to guide our knowledge; as a result, dogma (even the dogma that death ends conciousness) is the only means by which we form belief in this area.
Here's a question I'd love to ask the music industry:
How many times must I buy the same music in order to "legally" hear it on any music-playing device I own? (No, I will not tell you what devices they are, nor what formats they can play.)
I don't see any problem with this ruling; TorrentSpy should take the RAM sticks out of their servers, place them into a static free bag and bubble wrap, then mail them to the MPAA's lawyers.
What, there wasn't any data on them? Oh, guess you don't know what "volatile storage" means.
Well, when the record companies are retrenching to protect their "core business" of selling overpriced CDs against illegal file trading...
Of course the mainstream music is going downhill faster and faster. The big record companies only want to "gamble" on the tried and true sure winners. Without new blood, the whole edifice is going to collapse.
This sort of thing is the reason why I have retained a patent lawyer who, the day the "first to file" change is passed into law, will put in an application for a business method patent. The brief, non-legalese version basically covers the business model of suing over patents which the owning company does not themselves utilize. (That way, I can sue into oblivion any business attempting craziness like this.)
Naturally, anyone attempting to argue whether I practice my own patent may find themselves falling into a logical paradox, as my patent itself implies I cannot practice my patent.
you become "a legal owner of a copy of software" only if you agree to the license.
No, I become a "legal owner of a copy of software" the instant I put cash down for it at the local Circuit City/Best Buy/Wal*Mart/EB Games/Et al. I don't know about where you live, but at that point I have neither read, nor agreed to, any software license.
Actually, despite what so many other people may think, I for one say Microsoft is 100% right in their reasoning: this list might be just too hard to administer.
After all, how many hours do you think it would take for the open source software to re-write their code to work around a patent after it was added? The effort of removing patent after patent is just more than Microsoft could ever bear.</sarcasm>
Funny, Lord of the Flies would be better than most schools.
It's even got 100% more science content (as they light a fire with eyeglasses), even if it is of the same accuracy (wrong prescription to do so as described).
There are, IMO, only two main reasons the average guy doesn't care about Linux:
People are too lazy to do it themselves. Since it wasn't what was installed on the machine when they got it — and what their gear-head family members will service for free — they won't do anything to convert. Get the free support market to install Linux instead, and you'll get the average guy.
Linux isn't what they use at work. Since the business desktop (still) belongs to Windows, that is what people have to use at work; and since the familiar is easier (still lazy - see above point), that's what they'll use at home. Capture the business desktop and you'll get the average guy.
They destroy families, lives, health, and general peace and good order.
Alcohol also has a massive effect in destroying families, lives, health — I speak as the family member of a (now deceased) "recovering" alcoholic — and based on DUI statistics, general peace and good order.
However, Prohibition also taught us that banning alcohol made it into a worse menace, as organized crime took up the mantle of providing people with what they wanted. Then, not only did you have the innate dangers of drinking, but you also added in the new crimes being commited circumventing the laws prohibiting it. Alcohol, in its' illegal state, was Public Enemy #1, and this changed only when the Constitution was re-written to allow legal sale and consumption again.
IMO, the laws reguarding drugs should be simple and twofold:
Any drug being perscribed must have been shown in clinical trials to have the benefit claimed (e.g. FDA approval as today); and
crimes commited while under the influence of any mind altering, non-perscription drug carry a triple penalty as per DUI laws in many states.
Slashdot Mirror
Gun control laws -- especially in "Gun Free Zones" implentations -- are the ultimate security theater.
Let's assume for a moment that the "Gun Free Zones" were literally that: places no firearm went. Well, the the post office shootings of the early '80s would never have happened -- government buildings have been weapons-free zones for ages. And the Columbine school schooting -- well, not only was that a Gun Free Zone, but both shooters were not old enough to legally carry or own firearms!
When you look logically at the "more guns mean more killings" argument it falls apart with astonishing speed. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? What about at a gun range? The availability of weapons in either of those places is very high -- but somehow it's the places that the firearms aren't supposed to be that are at risk.
Extend this logic just a half-step further and gun control laws of all stripes start looking stupid. I will accept gun control when the advocates for it can tell me why criminals -- people who by definition break the laws -- will respect gun control laws while they completely ignore laws against drugs, theft, and murder.It would have been better if they had planned the release date for Darwin Day. I don't say that because it would mean I would already have the game, but that doesn't hurt either!
Rock Band also consolidated it so only one console was required for four players, rather than one per instrument. Oh wait, that's not innovation, that's TECHNICAL. </sarcasm>
10 years? We're talking about meetings with lobbyists here, not military intelligence. "National security" doesn't come in when you're having discussions outside of the government, and even if it could, 10 years is way too long -- that is longer than any term of office.
Nothing that goes on between lobby organizations and our elected officials should be delayed for more than six months, tops, and I see hardly any reason for delays at all. After all, if the government is "outsourcing" something, I sure as hell want to know about it.You are correct, and that is (according to statements provided by whistle blowers) what Comcast is doing: to wit, they block any upload greater than a few megs (2MB? 3?) from within Comcast's network to any server outside of it.
The problem, however, is that people with "more legitimate" network connections than P2P -- such as the Lotus Notes mentioned in the summary, VPN connections, or file upload to public services (YouTube et.al.) are NOT going to be remaining in the local Comcast network, and their service is being disrupted as well.
Really, the problem is that for Comcast, upload bandwith is more expensive/scarcer than download bandwith, but they sell their customer base the promise of "unlimited" bandwith, and now people are discovering interesting, new ways to utilize home upload bandwith....Actually, the correct link is http://www.ifpi.org/ -- did you not see the dozen or so stories about The Pirate Bay receving ifpi.com as a donation?
Science cannot (yet?) conclusively prove anything about life after death. This does not justify a belief in no afterlife; the only justified belief statement is "I don't know". The evidence we have so far does point to no afterlife, but it is not yet conclusive evidence.
I would challenge you to present credible evidence for or against any belief...
Okay, I have your position statement [no afterlife]; now finish the challenge by supporting it with evidence. After all, that's what this story is ultimately about, isn't it? [Scientist withdraws paper due to errors and causes great dismay among those who used those errors as evidence to support their religious dogma]
Hell, I haven't told you what *I* believe happens after death and you jump on me for doubting ANY conclusion in the absence of evidence. However, that is exactly the proper position to take for a sceptic: lack of evidence is not the same thing as lack of proof (the fallacy known as argument ad ignorantiam). After all, would you argue that before microscopes were invented and germ theory proven, bacteria didn't exist?
This is IME the clearest, simplest example of an area where there are no facts (yet?) to guide our knowledge; as a result, dogma (even the dogma that death ends conciousness) is the only means by which we form belief in this area.
Pringles: Once you pop you can't stop!
Here's a question I'd love to ask the music industry:
How many times must I buy the same music in order to "legally" hear it on any music-playing device I own? (No, I will not tell you what devices they are, nor what formats they can play.)
File a lawsuit against them, and see how much you can milk them for.
Get a lawyer, but at a minimum you can claim wrongful harrassment, slander of title, and copyright infringement.What, there wasn't any data on them? Oh, guess you don't know what "volatile storage" means.
Well, when the record companies are retrenching to protect their "core business" of selling overpriced CDs against illegal file trading...
Of course the mainstream music is going downhill faster and faster. The big record companies only want to "gamble" on the tried and true sure winners. Without new blood, the whole edifice is going to collapse.
This sort of thing is the reason why I have retained a patent lawyer who, the day the "first to file" change is passed into law, will put in an application for a business method patent. The brief, non-legalese version basically covers the business model of suing over patents which the owning company does not themselves utilize. (That way, I can sue into oblivion any business attempting craziness like this.)
Naturally, anyone attempting to argue whether I practice my own patent may find themselves falling into a logical paradox, as my patent itself implies I cannot practice my patent.
Actually, despite what so many other people may think, I for one say Microsoft is 100% right in their reasoning: this list might be just too hard to administer.
After all, how many hours do you think it would take for the open source software to re-write their code to work around a patent after it was added? The effort of removing patent after patent is just more than Microsoft could ever bear.</sarcasm>
It's even got 100% more science content (as they light a fire with eyeglasses), even if it is of the same accuracy (wrong prescription to do so as described).
Alcohol also has a massive effect in destroying families, lives, health — I speak as the family member of a (now deceased) "recovering" alcoholic — and based on DUI statistics, general peace and good order.
However, Prohibition also taught us that banning alcohol made it into a worse menace, as organized crime took up the mantle of providing people with what they wanted. Then, not only did you have the innate dangers of drinking, but you also added in the new crimes being commited circumventing the laws prohibiting it. Alcohol, in its' illegal state, was Public Enemy #1, and this changed only when the Constitution was re-written to allow legal sale and consumption again.
IMO, the laws reguarding drugs should be simple and twofold: