A game costs roughly $60.00. For each act of infringement, Activision wants, at the very least, 50000% of the initial price, or at the most, 250000% of the initial price. How is it even legal to demand that much? I truly don't understand our legal system. If he had stolen the game 5 times, he'd probably be fined $500 - $1000, but for distributing 5 copies, he now has to pay (if activision gets their way) $150k?
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this. The assumption is that someone selling a pirate game/movie/book/CD has sold many of them, and they're doing it to make a personal profit. The only way to stop the crime is to take the profit out of it - if he sold them for $20 each, and the fine was only 500 bucks, he'd only have to sell about 25 to make up for each time he was caught. He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
if he's selling pirated discs on the sidewalk, the same way others have been selling CD's for years, it's a simple matter of the right person walking by and seeing it.
Only minds that exist can observe; only minds that have not been destroyed by the LHC can exist. So, if the LHC really destroys the earth we'll keep observing it not functioning correctly.
But it could be functional if there were outside observers who wouldn't be immediately destroyed by the event. And since the total mass of the earth wouldn't change, anybody in orbit would be perfectly safe from the effect of a possible event - the ISS would keep orbiting like nothing happened (and, actually, it would be a more stable orbit, since all the atmosphere would be sucked into the black hole as well.)
Of course, it's all a moot point anyway, if Hawking is right - any black hole created by two protons would evaporate in less time than they would take to absorb any more matter.
The charity groups that are against war, the death penalty, abortion; and feed the hungry & provide shelter for the homeless... They get to use 'pro-life'.
Not just those who only want to protect the precious fetuses.
So there. She doesn't endorse creationism any more than evolutionary theory. God forbid (if you'll pardon the expression) we let open minds hear both sides of the debate and make up their own minds what they believe, right?
In a science classroom, in a public school, there is no 'debate' to be had about creationism. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear years ago - creationism is religious in nature, and has no place in a public school.
If a politician is unwilling to say "Religious creation stories should not be taught in public schools", I'd say they're either pandering to the creationists or they are one themselves. Either way, not somebody I'd really like to see running the place.
But as far as I'm concerned the republicans and democrats are just different sides of the same coin: Nader/Gonzalez '08.
I don't buy it. I can't see Gore having invaded Iraq in 2003. Continued sanctions, maybe even another bombing campaign... but troops on the ground? No.
Would a number of third-party candidates be preferable? Yes. But that's why I like instant-runoff voting.
Psalm 104(5) : "God who laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
1st Chronicles 16(30): "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Joshua 10(12):"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."
True, you have to take it as literally as possible to think this means 'heliocentrism = evil.' But somebody out there is...
Really? I think the book Romans is in the New Testament (I might have to dig out a bible to check). Romans 1:27 says
It's in the new testament, but it's not in the gospels. The gospels are questionable enough... they're third or fourth-hand accounts of what Christ said. But the rest of the new testament is a bunch of various pieces of correspondence from early Christians... and Paul wasn't included among those whose words 'would be held true in heaven, as on earth...'
Like it or not, Science and faith are mutually exclusive: Even to attempt to deny that automatically disqualifies you from claiming the title of "scientist".
Bullshit. If anything, attempting to stifle scientist's opinion on things outside their area of expertise is a greater threat to science than religion.
The reason I strongly doubt the 'direct election of the President' system is ever going to go away is such an act would require an ammendment to the Constitution. And an ammendment to the Constitution requires a vote of the majority of the states - and what representative from a small state would vote to lessen their 'extra voting power' when it comes to the Presidency?
So nerds can't be creationists or proponents of stronger police powers? Now, they're technical prowess may not be that great (no idea), but those are two funny justifications for the statement.
One of the components of 'classic' nerd culture is the rejection of standard social norms. An acceptance of authority, be it religious or governmental, would be one of those norms. So anyone who takes comments from either a preacher or a cop on faith becomes a bit more suspect as a 'true nerd'.
Think about it this way : how many cyberpunk heroes or antiheroes were either religious or cop-friendly?
Psalm 104(5) : "God who laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
1st Chronicles 16(30): "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Joshua 10(12):"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."
Now, true, you'd have to be taking it really, really, really literally to say "Well, this means that everything must move around the earth, not the earth move around the sun or anything else like that." But there it is.
Distract to a derogatory about Reagan when the point is CARTER, a Democrat, started arming what would become Al Qaeda.
Okay, I guess I have to be more explicit, because you apparently don't understand what I was getting at with the 'turned to 11' comment.
Sometimes, taking an action (giving some weapons to enemy of one's enemies, for instance) can be a good thing. But more of the same action (giving more weapons, training, and financial support, until they're a bigger threat than the original enemy) can be a bad thing.
Unless, of course, we continue with the Al Gore/Dick Cheney model of increasing responsibility and activity from the Vice President's office...
My reason for closely examining the two VP candidates this time around has more to do with the original purpose of the office. For different reasons, I would not be surprised if either major party candidate didn't get to finish out their terms, as sad as that is...
Equating the geocentrists with the biblical literalists is a classic fallacy of composition.
I'm not attempting to equate them as equal in numbers. I'm just making a case against the 'point where religion and science meet' arguement of the OP. There's virtually nothing teachable in science that doesn't intersect with some religious doctrine.
That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.
I didn't say it had to be ignore, but that it couldn't be outlawed or advance by acts of government. (Since we're talking public schools, here, we're talking government.)
What "Biblical literalists" would that be? I don't think that means what you think it means.
No, they're just being more literal than most. Specifically, that the passage in Joshua 10 about the sun 'standing still' for several hours means that it's the sun moving, not us. And these people are still out here.
Slashdot Mirror
Boot camp & AIT are for scrubbing those cerebellums till they shine like a drill sergeant's boots. Then they join the real Army.
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this. The assumption is that someone selling a pirate game/movie/book/CD has sold many of them, and they're doing it to make a personal profit. The only way to stop the crime is to take the profit out of it - if he sold them for $20 each, and the fine was only 500 bucks, he'd only have to sell about 25 to make up for each time he was caught. He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
if he's selling pirated discs on the sidewalk, the same way others have been selling CD's for years, it's a simple matter of the right person walking by and seeing it.
But it could be functional if there were outside observers who wouldn't be immediately destroyed by the event. And since the total mass of the earth wouldn't change, anybody in orbit would be perfectly safe from the effect of a possible event - the ISS would keep orbiting like nothing happened (and, actually, it would be a more stable orbit, since all the atmosphere would be sucked into the black hole as well.)
Of course, it's all a moot point anyway, if Hawking is right - any black hole created by two protons would evaporate in less time than they would take to absorb any more matter.
You're just playing the part of Dogmeat.
the Vice Presidency is nothing, but it may be everything.
The charity groups that are against war, the death penalty, abortion; and feed the hungry & provide shelter for the homeless... They get to use 'pro-life'.
Not just those who only want to protect the precious fetuses.
More like hundreds.
In a science classroom, in a public school, there is no 'debate' to be had about creationism. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear years ago - creationism is religious in nature, and has no place in a public school.
(And Intelligent Design is just creationism in a lab coat.)
If a politician is unwilling to say "Religious creation stories should not be taught in public schools", I'd say they're either pandering to the creationists or they are one themselves. Either way, not somebody I'd really like to see running the place.
I don't buy it. I can't see Gore having invaded Iraq in 2003. Continued sanctions, maybe even another bombing campaign... but troops on the ground? No.
Would a number of third-party candidates be preferable? Yes. But that's why I like instant-runoff voting.
Psalm 104(5) : "God who laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
1st Chronicles 16(30): "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Joshua 10(12) :"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."
True, you have to take it as literally as possible to think this means 'heliocentrism = evil.' But somebody out there is...
It's in the new testament, but it's not in the gospels. The gospels are questionable enough... they're third or fourth-hand accounts of what Christ said. But the rest of the new testament is a bunch of various pieces of correspondence from early Christians... and Paul wasn't included among those whose words 'would be held true in heaven, as on earth...'
And, yes, the 'pork=evil' thing is facetious.
Bullshit. If anything, attempting to stifle scientist's opinion on things outside their area of expertise is a greater threat to science than religion.
ever going to come about, not ever going to go away. Bleah, I'm tired.
The reason I strongly doubt the 'direct election of the President' system is ever going to go away is such an act would require an ammendment to the Constitution. And an ammendment to the Constitution requires a vote of the majority of the states - and what representative from a small state would vote to lessen their 'extra voting power' when it comes to the Presidency?
True. And I suppose there is some limit on the number of possible definitions, probably in the range of several thousand.
One of the components of 'classic' nerd culture is the rejection of standard social norms. An acceptance of authority, be it religious or governmental, would be one of those norms. So anyone who takes comments from either a preacher or a cop on faith becomes a bit more suspect as a 'true nerd'.
Think about it this way : how many cyberpunk heroes or antiheroes were either religious or cop-friendly?
Psalm 104(5) : "God who laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
1st Chronicles 16(30): "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Joshua 10(12) :"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."
Now, true, you'd have to be taking it really, really, really literally to say "Well, this means that everything must move around the earth, not the earth move around the sun or anything else like that." But there it is.
Okay, I guess I have to be more explicit, because you apparently don't understand what I was getting at with the 'turned to 11' comment.
Sometimes, taking an action (giving some weapons to enemy of one's enemies, for instance) can be a good thing. But more of the same action (giving more weapons, training, and financial support, until they're a bigger threat than the original enemy) can be a bad thing.
I will treasure it for minutes. But then I need to go back to flaming the trolls.
This is a palindrome:
A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!
The letters, not the words, are the same back-to-front.
I haven't seen any comments from Governor Palin about her feelings on the war. Admittedly, though, I haven't been looking very hard.
My reason for closely examining the two VP candidates this time around has more to do with the original purpose of the office. For different reasons, I would not be surprised if either major party candidate didn't get to finish out their terms, as sad as that is...
I'm not attempting to equate them as equal in numbers. I'm just making a case against the 'point where religion and science meet' arguement of the OP. There's virtually nothing teachable in science that doesn't intersect with some religious doctrine.
I didn't say it had to be ignore, but that it couldn't be outlawed or advance by acts of government. (Since we're talking public schools, here, we're talking government.)
No, they're just being more literal than most. Specifically, that the passage in Joshua 10 about the sun 'standing still' for several hours means that it's the sun moving, not us. And these people are still out here.