On the flip side, will scientists ever start taking drugs in order to improve their skills? They've been doing it since the dawn of human civilization. Coffee, Cigarettes, and Alcohol are all imbibed by white-collar workers chiefly for the effect they have on the psyche.
That's what happens when you've made up so many lies... Neither a false priest, nor a Nazi, nor a atheist who predicted the elimination of religion is a liar. They all had honest belief in what they said.
Really? You have a "right" to know the Military GO Codes, etc? Yes, by proxy. I have the unalienable right to know the command structure and details of the military that my tax dollars pay for, in the personage of my four federally elected officers. More explicitly, I have an absolute right than when I and my neighbors choose to democratically replace one or more of these officers, that their knowledge is then passed on to their successors.
I would be willing to bet you came down on exactly the opposite side of the issue of people "snooping" into presidential candidate's passport files. I bet you thought that was a gross injustice. I care where the President goes while he's president. Not where he went when he was a boy of four in Indonesia.
If you wish to buy music online in the form of compressed downloadable files what's the best option, this is a serious question, i've no experience of such things, i've heard iTunes is rather popular though and most users do not buy DRM free music. Amazon's MP3 downloads. Cheap, wide selection, no maintenance fee, and no-DRM MP3.
Advertising costs have not declined, so it is easier to recoup publishing investments now than ever You seem to be under the impression that copyright is intended to protect the publisher. It isn't.
In this case, it would be physically impossible for a light of any sort to give off that much energy and only consume the amount of electricity available to even a street light.
*sigh*
If it takes 200 newtons to move 1 kilogram 1 meter in one second, how fast do you think 200 newtons will move gram? (psst -- a heck of a lot closer to a kilometer than a meter.)
Your space heater spreads heat thorugh itself, and all of the air around it. A light bulb builds temperature in an area about the size of your heater's plug.
I don't understand the claim that the iPod is a monopoly. It's certainly the most popular. Its popularity means that it's a force in the marketplace, but it's by no means a monopoly. Apple is able to dictate the price of song sales over the internet. It's a monopoly.
Please give me a list of the really "smart" ones, the ones based on truth and integrity, rather than lies, superstition and greed. Christianity, Bhuddism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Shinto...
Very few religions are based on "lies". Many may be based on "falsehoods", but that's something else entirely.
You'll note that I did not include "atheism" in that list, not because it's not a religion, but because it is based on neither truth nor integrity, but rather arrogance and rebellishness.
Also, the Internet is bringing the Big Brother question to its proper discussion level by actually demonstrating what was previously an abstract conceptual warning. Big Brother was a warning against a real, extant threat -- the Soviet Cult of Personality. It's hardly Orwell's fault that simple selfishness destroyed the idea.
Unfortunately, the secondary aspects of 1984 match the current technology just enough that any reasonable government surveillance is deemed "Orwellian" and thus beyond discussion. Well, at least on the 'net. The real world of lawyers and police officers are able to draw enough similiarties that it's simply not an issue.
Forget going to Mars - you want to develop more technology, just let porn do the job. Porn is secondary to the true driving force of all innovation: sex. Not images of sex, but actual humans actually copulating. Anything that quickens this goal gets adopted quickly, be it furthering communication, allowing generation of wealth, enabling couples to stay together throughout more of the day, or, even, allowing the unfortunate among us to find solace in porn.
I'd wager that VHS beat betamax not because of porn, but because of the ease that a bride could videotape her wedding day.
But that's what the bottom line is, that's what the expression means.
I understand that that's the common usage of the expression, but it can also be used to mean "the deciding factor", which is what I intended. All I'm suggesting is that in an ideal world perhaps money wouldn't be the only thing that corporations considered when making business decisions.
It's not common usage, it's the origin of the term. Just like "comparing apples to oranges" is based on fruit.
Corporations are legally obligated to consider their bottom line before all other considerations. Any corporation you see that is doing something charitable is doing that because they have a plausible theory that it will help their bottom line. There are no exceptions, because if you see exceptions they quickly go away due to a shareholder lawsuit or SEC smackdown.
For example: GM and Wal-Mart engage in lobbying for government-centralized health care. They do not spend those dollars because they think it's a good idea for the country. They do it because they beleive they will save money on medical bills and turnover if they do.
If you look here , it indicats that Italian courts have decided that if the content is availble in Italy, then Italian courts have jurisdiction. So the Italian courts can handle the matter. And, if the Wikipedia foundation goes to Italy, they'll have to pay, assuming they don't successfully defend themselves.
But the Untied States won't impose a fine for something as fundamental to American law as freedom of speech. We don't extradite cartoonists who make fun of Mohammad, we don't let Germany fine American web sites that show Nazi symbols, etc.
They simply destroyed DnD. And no, I don't mean 3rd edition or 3.5. I mean dismantling the settings that had no profitable audience and then pushing harder and harder to make it clear that it's always been a purely minature game. There, fixed that for you.
(There's a reason why AD&D 1st edition had measurements in inches, and everything was described as "rounds" and "turns")
Of course fighting against an army that commits genocide as a matter of policy is morally reprehensible, right ? Well that's how democrats view things. Not even close, asshat.
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)
The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.
In parting:
1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)
2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)
If you're flying to, from, or through the US, don't take a good laptop, and don't put anything confidential or private on it, because the US customs/TSA agents can steal it at will, under threat of force. Any customs agent can do that, in any country. In fact, anyone with a gun or a badge can do that.
why is it that the great majority of murders and fraud cases go unsolved ? What the hell are you smoking?
I'll buy "the great majority of murderers go unconvicted", but not "unsolved." They are two entirely different standards of proof.
Almost every single murder or fraud charge brought past a grand jury is "solved" in the colloquial meaning. The prosecutor has a good idea of who did it, and just needs to prove it beyond all doubt before the criminal can be punished for their crime.
In any case, I think you're just making stuff up. come up with a link or STFU.
no, not really You would never be allowed to steal one of the power connectors themselves, but the design has also been protected, and the design is also just information. Shhh.
"Software is special, and completely like any other form of Intellectual Property. See, it's like a patent, that you have to defend it or it's 'abandonware', but it's like copyright, in that it lasts forever and ever and ever."
So I guess you're saying I, as a 16 year old, have no right to my 47 character password... (yes, I do actually have a 47 character random password for rare use.)
If you're living at home, yes. You're welcome to leave at any time.
Now, you CAN have a password if your parents let you. But they can just take the PC and have the encryption cracked with the full weight of the law behind them if they wanted to.
That word "right" means a hell of a lot more than you might think. Nobody ever died for your ability to have a long password.
Hah, I don't remember a single point in time I hadn't r00t on all boxes in my home, and I always had at least one computer at home since I was three.
Either you're young enough that you're not a parent (i.e., that "computer when you were 3" was a Windows 95 machine) or you're old enough that the computer you had at home had no real user account control.
TODAY, with the internet everywhere, control of a household computer is as important as control of a household medicine cabinet or control of the family car. You might trust a teenager with it, but if you're stupid enough to trust a seven year old with it you should have your children taken away.
It creates two classes of internet user: those that may run servers, and those that may not; a second-rank type of internet citizen, so to speak. I don't know where the hell you've been, but it's been that way since before AOL.
Geez, I hope not. Quick, prove me wrong. Ok. If we were a simulation, and were simulating only the important stuff, that simulation would include the appearance of particles far off in the light-cone. To our PoV, it'd be as if they were actually always simulated.
And the common man will need access to these if there have already been 1.8 million court cases. Hmm...
The US Constitution was enacted in 1787 -- 220 years ago.
There are three levels of federal court, including 94 District Courts. Each Court can have more than one judge -- but even if there wasn't, that only leaves each court about 88 cases per year -- that is, one every four days.
And that's not counting the Appellate courts, or SCOTUS itself.
Consider their failures: -XBox -XBox 360 (May be early to call it a complete failure, but now that HD-DVD is dead, sony will ride them like a reverse cowgirl) Neither the original nor the 360 can be justifiably called "failures." "Unprofitable" maybe, but not "failures."
I wouldn't buy a PS3 over a 360 (I have neither) unless the PS3 has at least a 20% price advantage. In fact, I've recommended the 360 to people who have absolutely no interest in playing games, just because it's the easiest media-center-extender to buy.
MS is burning cash to get market share, and it's working.
OTOH, if you slap on "Zune" to that list you've got something.
then consider this: whether it's a tax write-off or not, charitable foundations depend on the generosity of wealthy patrons to continue their work. That's just how the system is structured. Don't like it? Okay, work to get the tax benefits of charitable contributions eliminated. While you're at it, please explain to those who benefit from the monies donated to medical research, food programs, etc why they don't deserve the help. I worked in "charity" for five years. In all that time, I cannot name one thing other than "not having to fire anyone" that we accomplished.
Cash-based Charities as a whole are one step above outright scams. This is underscored for anything called a "foundation." Yes, they spend money on good things. But i'm not convinced that the donor and the donnee wouldn't be better served by simply handing over money -- or buying goods and selling them at a loss as a better form of charity.
AHHHHHHH!!!
I assume that anyone who can put a satellite into a stable orbit can also kill a foreign satellite. That may or may not be naive, It is. Anyone who can fire a bullet cannot necessarily hit someone else's bullet out of the sky. (And there's no such thing as a "stable" orbit for most satellites, but that's neither here nor there.)
but it doesn't matter: Shooting at a foreign satellite is an act of war. When you do that and thereby start a war, the time of spy satellites is over anyway. The only options are not to shoot, for which you don't need the capability, or to shoot, and then the spy satellite is the least of your worries. Spy satellites are at their most useful in a time of war. As are GPS satellites, which are used in a modern weapon system called a "JDAM", which is largely responsible for the high-precision warfare the US enjoys now.
In the event of a US-China War, expect China to shoot down GPS satellites before they even worry about air supremacy. And expect the US to launch them at a record pace.
Slashdot Mirror
Jackass.
Quite the opposite, actually.
In this case, it would be physically impossible for a light of any sort to give off that much energy and only consume the amount of electricity available to even a street light.
*sigh*
If it takes 200 newtons to move 1 kilogram 1 meter in one second, how fast do you think 200 newtons will move gram? (psst -- a heck of a lot closer to a kilometer than a meter.)
Your space heater spreads heat thorugh itself, and all of the air around it. A light bulb builds temperature in an area about the size of your heater's plug.
Very few religions are based on "lies". Many may be based on "falsehoods", but that's something else entirely.
You'll note that I did not include "atheism" in that list, not because it's not a religion, but because it is based on neither truth nor integrity, but rather arrogance and rebellishness.
Unfortunately, the secondary aspects of 1984 match the current technology just enough that any reasonable government surveillance is deemed "Orwellian" and thus beyond discussion. Well, at least on the 'net. The real world of lawyers and police officers are able to draw enough similiarties that it's simply not an issue.
I'd wager that VHS beat betamax not because of porn, but because of the ease that a bride could videotape her wedding day.
But that's what the bottom line is, that's what the expression means.
I understand that that's the common usage of the expression, but it can also be used to mean "the deciding factor", which is what I intended. All I'm suggesting is that in an ideal world perhaps money wouldn't be the only thing that corporations considered when making business decisions.
It's not common usage, it's the origin of the term. Just like "comparing apples to oranges" is based on fruit.Corporations are legally obligated to consider their bottom line before all other considerations. Any corporation you see that is doing something charitable is doing that because they have a plausible theory that it will help their bottom line. There are no exceptions, because if you see exceptions they quickly go away due to a shareholder lawsuit or SEC smackdown.
For example: GM and Wal-Mart engage in lobbying for government-centralized health care. They do not spend those dollars because they think it's a good idea for the country. They do it because they beleive they will save money on medical bills and turnover if they do.
But the Untied States won't impose a fine for something as fundamental to American law as freedom of speech. We don't extradite cartoonists who make fun of Mohammad, we don't let Germany fine American web sites that show Nazi symbols, etc.
(There's a reason why AD&D 1st edition had measurements in inches, and everything was described as "rounds" and "turns")
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)
The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.
In parting:
1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)
2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)
You're thinking "threat of law."
I'll buy "the great majority of murderers go unconvicted", but not "unsolved." They are two entirely different standards of proof.
Almost every single murder or fraud charge brought past a grand jury is "solved" in the colloquial meaning. The prosecutor has a good idea of who did it, and just needs to prove it beyond all doubt before the criminal can be punished for their crime.
In any case, I think you're just making stuff up. come up with a link or STFU.
You would never be allowed to steal one of the power connectors themselves, but the design has also been protected, and the design is also just information. Shhh.
"Software is special, and completely like any other form of Intellectual Property. See, it's like a patent, that you have to defend it or it's 'abandonware', but it's like copyright, in that it lasts forever and ever and ever."
No, really. I mean it. Stop laughing.
So I guess you're saying I, as a 16 year old, have no right to my 47 character password... (yes, I do actually have a 47 character random password for rare use.)
If you're living at home, yes. You're welcome to leave at any time.
Now, you CAN have a password if your parents let you. But they can just take the PC and have the encryption cracked with the full weight of the law behind them if they wanted to.
That word "right" means a hell of a lot more than you might think. Nobody ever died for your ability to have a long password.
Hah, I don't remember a single point in time I hadn't r00t on all boxes in my home, and I always had at least one computer at home since I was three.
Either you're young enough that you're not a parent (i.e., that "computer when you were 3" was a Windows 95 machine) or you're old enough that the computer you had at home had no real user account control.
TODAY, with the internet everywhere, control of a household computer is as important as control of a household medicine cabinet or control of the family car. You might trust a teenager with it, but if you're stupid enough to trust a seven year old with it you should have your children taken away.
The US Constitution was enacted in 1787 -- 220 years ago.
There are three levels of federal court, including 94 District Courts. Each Court can have more than one judge -- but even if there wasn't, that only leaves each court about 88 cases per year -- that is, one every four days.
And that's not counting the Appellate courts, or SCOTUS itself.
-XBox
-XBox 360 (May be early to call it a complete failure, but now that HD-DVD is dead, sony will ride them like a reverse cowgirl) Neither the original nor the 360 can be justifiably called "failures." "Unprofitable" maybe, but not "failures."
I wouldn't buy a PS3 over a 360 (I have neither) unless the PS3 has at least a 20% price advantage. In fact, I've recommended the 360 to people who have absolutely no interest in playing games, just because it's the easiest media-center-extender to buy.
MS is burning cash to get market share, and it's working.
OTOH, if you slap on "Zune" to that list you've got something.
Cash-based Charities as a whole are one step above outright scams. This is underscored for anything called a "foundation." Yes, they spend money on good things. But i'm not convinced that the donor and the donnee wouldn't be better served by simply handing over money -- or buying goods and selling them at a loss as a better form of charity.
In the event of a US-China War, expect China to shoot down GPS satellites before they even worry about air supremacy. And expect the US to launch them at a record pace.