What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?
Let me ask you this. You read NC-17 and you say, doesnt sound so bad... but what about when you read "X-Rated". how does that make you feel? Why do I ask? Because NC-17 was a rating that replaced X-Rated. it sounds nicer and non-pornographic. Because, well, X-Rated filmes were not pornoraphic (thats XXX) and the association was getting out of hand. Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.
Now, why is it bad for Theaters to show x-rated films? Well, besides the obvious, since teenagers and kids are the largest demographic for the theater going audience it is probably inappropriate to show x-rateds.
that wasn't the point. The point is this: 7000 years ago, who would have thought that their lives would be regarded as something that never happen by their descendands only 7000 years later. But here we go. There are people who don't believe that people existed 7000 years ago.
Hmmm, no, that is not the point. I, for one, would have thought that. And anyone who has spent any time around humans would believe it too. Never forget what trusty Albert said around the turn of the century: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein.
There is a big difference between the two. Although both are prepared to kill for their beliefs, typically only one group is also prepared to die for their beliefs. Of course, they are both still evil. I just wanted to point out that overlooked difference there.;)
I know you are trying to be nice. But you are trying to point out something that you think the Christians have on the Muslims. And you are wrong.
No group is more willing to die for their beliefs than the other, but rather one group is more willing to die RIGHT NOW, because they are in a position where they feel they have to do so. Turn the situation right now, and there would be a lot of similar action on the Christian side as well.
Anyways, if you ask me, it is a lot more admirable to give up your own life for something than to take someone elses. A LOT more. Combine the two? I dont know what you get.... desperation?
Dont forget that the Western world has become a lot less religious in a lot of ways, and while Westerners in general are a lot less willing to kill and die for religious beliefs (because they arent religious anymore) they ARE willing to kill and die for other things, like, for instance "freedom".
(IRONIC SIDE NOTE: They are also very willing to kill for freedom in the justification that killing 30% of the population will be better for the remaining 60%. I beg to differ though: personally I would rather have my friends and family alive than have a deformed version of "freedom")
I dont think I have to explain the added security benefits of a constantly changing password. That is obvious. Your point, I take it, is that the fact that the password is written down reduces its security to a threshold that is either the same or below that of a password that never changes. This wrong for the following reasons: 1) Someone will have to commit a physical break and entry in order to obtain the written down password. This is obviously quite difficult and risky. 2) Even if someone does committ a break and entry into your office to obtain the password, it can still be secured by encoding it in some way or putting it in a place that is hard to find, like a safe (if there is THAT large a fear of corporate espionage, such as say the forumla for CocaCola, this might be reasonable) 3) EVEN IF someone breaks into your office and steals the password, it has a MAXIMUM lifetime of three months only, and it could even have a lifetime of a single day.
LEGAL STANDPOINT:
Informed by the technical reason, it becomes clear that there are two sources from which the password's lack of security could come from. One is the inability of an employee to keep their written down password secure. If they paste it to their computer screen, you cant blame the company, especially if they sent out a warning not to do this. The company could even sue the employee later if it was shown that this was the source of the insecurity, or it could sue whatever security company they hired to physically protect the premises.
The second source is the company's security policy - if the password is never changing, this could be seen as unreasonable, unintelligent and therefore blameworthy. Whoever was responsible for overseeing the matter could be sued, and if the issue ever arose at a meeting and nothing was done, everyone could be sued.
So, with high computer security through a constantly changing password and high physical security by making sure written down passwords dont get stolen, the company is displaying very reasonable efforts to protect its information. If the burgler goes to great lengths to steal a written down password, the blame will therefore not lie with the company. So in that sense, it provides the company with more security from litigation.
Its about hedging your bets. When you are using other people's money to make those bets, you hedge as much as possible because when it comes to money, people can get very nasty.
But if I have a company, and the only thing on my computers is my company's design information, my company should be able to choose the appropriate level of security for our business.
Why is a password that a user has committed to memory that never changes worse than a password that changes every three months that a user has to write down?
On the first point: First, I am not sure what "design information" means. But sure, you can choose whatever security you want for the company, however the point of Sarbanes Oxley is that if your company doesnt use proper procedure and best practices for the good of the company in doing so, you will be liable to anyone with a stake in the company. Why? Because its their money you are playing with. And yes you may be a shareholder, even the majority shareholder, even the 99% majority shareholder, but that doesnt relieve from doing whats best for ALL shareholders, i.e. whats best for the company.
Whats the difference between a password thats written down and a password in your head that never changes? Well, practically, a written down password will have a little more security. But in the eyes of the law, a lot. A password that changes every 3 months shows the court that you are using best and reasonable efforts to try and protect your security. A password that never changes? What does that show me? That you are lazy? That you are ignorant to the dangers of a never changing password (no excuse)?
You could try and present a good reason why written down passwords are worse than never changing passwords, but I'll tell you right now you'll have a very tough time defending it against a lawyer, let a alone a team of them that has community support like this to back them up on why everyone ELSE agrees you are wrong (meaning you are not being reasonable).
We are not just talking about Enron and Worldcom, we are talking about family businesses and closely-held corporations as well.
When trustees were replaced by a computer, the oxytocin effect was no longer seen on the investors.
I find this fact to be of most interest.
But the question is, how was the computer being operated? was there a human typing things to the investors through a computer, or was it an AI asking various preprogrammed lines of questions and taking various approaches? The difference being, if its a human operating the computer (one of the same humans that were getting higher trust responses when in the flesh) that means a lot of what has to with trusting depends on appearances and the expressiveness of the human body, and we generally agree when rationally approaching a trust situation. On some level this holds true even if its an AI.
I am a lawyer and I believe you reasoning is wrong.
First of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years. There is absolutely no possibility of Apple suing TigerDirect because they can show prior rights. This is not a case of "pre-emptive law suit" as the original poster said. That does not make sense.
TigerDirect is suing based on its prior trademark of the word Tiger. They are not claiming ownership over the search engine results, they are asserting that the search engine is evidence of the damage caused to them by the copyright infringement. Again, the search engine results are evidence, not property.
The case definately adds up because TigerDirect has a financial interest in its branding of the word Tiger and Apple's infringement of the word Tiger - for a profit - is causing them a loss of noteriety and thus damages their business.
This is important because mere copyright infringement will not result in a large award of damages without extensive proof of the damage incured. The search engine results offer an excellent way of doing so.
Which is the weakest link in the entire concept of a law-based society. And it is one of the major contributing factors to the inequality among citizens based on level of income and wealth. A rich football player can get away with murder and mayhem, but a public forum can't discuss an obviously phildickian "religious" organization without being threatened with eternal litigation, which is a lot worse on a practical level than eternal damnation...
I assume you are refering to the O.J. Simpson trial. It is a common misconception of lay people that O.J. won the case by having a ton of money and being able to afford the best lawyers. As a member of the legal community, I have to tell you that the prosecutors did a terrible job of the case and even a mediocre lawyer could have taken it apart. Not only that but the investigation was botched. But the dominant view says otherwise, and it is a dominant view that cant be bothered to read a 200 page case. Its also a view that presents an easy opportunity for jokes and maligning the one institution that keeps the government in check - the law.
>>Slashdot caved; that doesn't mean that the Scientologists were on the right side of the law.
>You're right, but that's even worse. There's no real question that the scientologists weren't on the right side of the law, and they won anyway. In giving them the victory, the editors showed that contrary to their disclaimer, they do exercise full editorial discretion over the content of the site. That makes them fully liable for any illegal solicitation which they allow to remain visible.
What you said is patently false. Settlements are certainly not an admission of guilt. Far from it, settlements have ABSOLUTELY no bearing in court. If they did, people would be reluctant to settle. People are encouraged to settle out of court rather than bog the courts down, therefore the reasons for settling have no bearing on future litigation.
Furthermore, those reasons can only be found in the minds of those that settle and therefore any speculation on what those reasons are is hearsay and inadmissible in court. The fact that there is "no real question" about what side of the law the scientologists were on in YOUR mind is therefore irrelevant and whether or not they would have won was never decided.
Contrary to what people might think, lawyers have long ago decided that the purpose of law is not for the greater good. That is properly the realm of politics. The head counters in office create the laws, and lawyers interpret and apply them.
It falls to the legal community to maintain the rights of all and determine when conduct falls outside the sphere of protected liberty and causes harm to someone else. The boy committed an offense, and to give him any less of a punishment than any other person in a similar case recieved would not only be an offence to all those people, but would fly in the face of the fundemental principles of liberal democracy, namely EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.
Actually, the judge directs the jury as to the posible defences that one might have with regard to the charge. A defence might be consent - NASA consented to the intrusion. There is the defense of lawful authority, however unfortunately for the original poster, the legal system DOES require proof. If you presented this as the only reason for your actions without proof, the jury would be instructed to ignore it and you would be left with no defense at all. An automatic finding of "guilty" would ensue.
I'm sure you've already gotten enough flack for your message but I have to put my 2 cents.
People often profer lists such as this in order to prove that scientists are not always right. What you have forgotten, and what people need to remember, is that scientists are HUMAN BEINGS. They are not demigods that are even remotely expected to be infallible.
The fact is that scientists are never going to agree, and I'm sure there is a group of them out there that think a completely missle-proof sheild around the USA is indeed possible. However, there is a difference between believing that a project can work - which is not a fundemental PROOF that human beings can benefit from - and the QUEST FOR TRUTH, to be found in such things as gallileo's telescope or the modern equivilant, particle accelerators (i.e. billion dollar projects that are generally not publically funded and result in the ENTIRE WORLD benefiting from)
Now that said, you raise a point that really irks me. In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat. In the 1500s the West was undergoing the scientific revolution. That means science was being born. The people that practiced what we now call science generally believed that the things religious people said were false. One of those things that RELIGIOUS people said was that the world is flat, not scientists.
Oh ok, one more thing, Scientists said that we could never be able to eradicate Smallpox. Eradicate is a strong word - it means smallpox has completely disappeared. But lets just say thats your interpretation and that the scientists said the smallpox would not even be close to eliminated. Well then they still be right, because smallpox is a virus, and viruses MUTATE, and new strains of smallpox ARE CURRENTLY emerging.
Sorry to nitpick, but you are just way off there. Plus you are attacking scientists, a group of people which Slashdot is highly populated by. I dont expect your post to garner many points.
they should have thought about it in the first place, and brought back unneeded stuff during each trip at the time, rather than letting junk build up.
This is indicative of the general situation about space travel. As the populous of nations that make journeys to space, we should be embarrassed and distraught. The last 40 years of space travel have been stale and unproductive, despite huge rises in government expenditure and GNP.
The failure of the International Space Station is an embarressment for humankind in general. Not only does it show that we cant work together as a species in one of the most important areas with one of the highest productive scientific potentials ever, but it shows that people in general (Especially politicians) care only about themselves. Knowledge and progress mean nothing to politicians and the general population. Instead we spend trillions incarcerating each other, giving corporations tax breaks and polluting the environment. It is perhaps ironic that the fruits of space travel would solve many of our problems, most importantly THE ENVIRONMENT (the single most important thing that ANYONE should care about) and creation of jobs (of almost equal important)
Space travel used to be a matter of national pride. As self esteem and pride goes down the toilet, and as politicians fight wars against drugs and "terror" (Is anyone REALLY terrified?) no one seems to care anymore.
Well as consumers our only option would be to try and return the product to both the retailer and manufacturer, and if this doesnt work I would sue them. This would be more difficult for you though since you are not a lawyer and it would be very expensive.
I have never seen (retail) software where the full contents of the EULA were accessible without running the installer (or at least opening the package). There's a small sticker with something to the effect of "there's an EULA for this somewhere".
This is all that is needed. I am a lawyer and I hate to tell you but this is all that is required for them to make the terms of the EULA enforcable upon purchase. There was a case that went to the supreme court concerning this, and the judge found that by simply making people aware that there are terms to be adhered to, the sale of a product bound by those terms is legal. If the purchaser doesnt like this then they can later return the product. It is simply a matter of convinience and motivation of the economy : it would be obviously unreasonable for the manufacturer to put the eula on the box of the product, as this would not tell anything about the product and would make it difficult to sell it and differentiate it from competition.
Remember, law is geared towards enabling the economy, and in cases like this it is a necessity even though it may be abused.
You can think about this in normal contract making situations as well. A person may agree to sell a house to another person, and on agreeing with that person to the sale he is liable for his promise. But it is clear to both parties that there are other terms that will have to be agreed to later because it is simply unreasonable to think that they would expound all of these terms verbally. Verbal contracts are often predicated on the fact that there will be other terms that will have to adhered to.
The thing is, I'm not convinced that these ratings will provide a 'natural' indication of what people are watching.
In other words, if there is a device that is monitering my internet comsumption for a week, I will not be consuming my regular diet of pornography for that week. Mind you, I dont look at porn. I dont. Shut up, I dont. Ok I do. No just kidding I dont.
The idea is that the internet is that its kind of a make your-own-media entertainment. Whereas T.V. is all programmed and time slotted, and is thus passive, on the internet you have to actively seek out and find stuff. You have to decide where to start, where to go, when to leave. Essentially at every turn, on every page, you have to decide what to do. Its like a choose your own adventure story. And since the pathways are so chaotic and turmultuous (the opposite of TV), I'm not sure that there is a whole lot to measure. It might be a window into personal psychology, but mass psychology? I dont know.
Does anyone actually say this? I mean really, this isnt 1952. Who actually feels happy enough to shout out this out when they walk in the door from work. Furthermore.
Wife: Great, lets go out to dinner. Just make sure you take that stupid...
Uhhhh, go out for dinner? Isnt this 1952? Dinner is supposed to be on the table. Bitch. *SMACK*
Yeah, seven years ago it was salmon recovery, recently is has been global warming....
Actually,
about 7 years ago they found that the salmon were no longer spawnng because of fishing in Greenland where the most hearty and mature of the salmon go for the winter. Over fishing of these stock left only weaklings for the fems to mate with. You may make fun of it as alarmist, but the numbers dont lie. The drop from 1.5 million to half a million migrating salmon was enough to convince Greenland to stop salmon fishing altogether. at that time only 100,000 salmon were actually laying eggs. Very funny eh?
Now they have found that the salmon spawns are now increasing in level and things may stabilize. That is, if Global Warming doesnt stop them.
Your comment about warming indicates your age, your lack of historical knowledge, and lack of general education on the environment. Warming has been a public concern since the 50s when the first effects were felt, and when people started realizing the huge effects humans and their chemicals can have on the environment through books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which concerns the pesticide DDT.
But it has been on people's minds since the 1800s when entire cities would be choking to death on the thick black clouds of smoke that hung in the air, the temperature up several degrees due to the insulation of sunlight. You think L.A. is bad? You should read about the factory towns of the Industrial Revolution. but I have a feeling you dont do much reading anyway..
I used to run the default litestep shell but eventually i stopped using it. I really enjoyed having multiple desktops and one or two other features, but i really just used it for the speed enhancement.
Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks tho.. eventually I just got annoyed with the inability to do certain things and the changed locations of other important things. So I switched back. (litestep makes switching very easy to do)
For the average user, installing and completely customizing their shell is not only beyond their skills with computers but also too time consuming. I dont have the time to work with litestep let alone linux.
Programs like these allow users to easily increase the pleasure of using a computer, and after all, thats what most users want out of it - pleasure.
You have posted these figures over and over and over again as if they actually prove something.
The argument concerns whether gun control will be effective, not whether physicians are dangerous.
Physicians are in the BUSINESS of saving lives. Its not a huge wonder that they cant do it all the time. Guns are in the BUSINESS of ending lives and THEREIN lies the problem.
What makes your figures even more KOOKY is that physicians will try to SAVE the lives that GUN OWNERS will try to END.
The fact that you repeatedly justify yourself by these figures shows how little you understand the argument, and how undeveloped and naive your logical capacity is.
You are either an absolute idiot or someone who doesn't have a clue about history, even incredibly RECENT history.
I'm not suprised that a gun supporter starts off his post by calling me an idiot. By the way I just graduated from University : History with Honors. Thanks.
I think you are way off on this one. Computers have made the world very different from the way it was 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago, from whence you puled those Jefferson quotes.
There werent satellites, GPS and complicated tracking technology. Spy technology had not yet been fueled by the cold war. Oh, and there wasnt even an A Bomb yet, let alone smart bombs, drones and biochem weaponery. If you think small firearms still have a place you are sadly and sorely mistaken.
Think about it : the government has a giant AIRPLANE that can stay aloft for a very long time and replicate the essential elements of a government. Your small firearms are irrelevant to this government.
I am shocked and surprised that on a computer related website someone would ignore the impact computers have had on society, yet that same person claims to understand history.
You lost the power to take up arms against the government when the Cold War started, and the government was allowed to go on its spying binge.
Now as for your propaganda comparing Physicians to Gun Owners there are many problems: - Physicians must make life and death decisions as a matter of course. Gun owners may go a year without touching their gun - The ONLY deaths physicians can cause are accidental. Thats a lot better than guns, which, according to your stats, rarely causes accidental death but often causes intentional. - Accidental deaths by guns are a minor part of the problem. The goal is far more geared to stop the intentional deaths as well. - However many people die by the hand of physicians has absolutely no bearing on whether or not less people will die by gunfire if we implement gun control.
Sorry, I didnt mean to shoot down ALL your arguments... but it was too easy.
I think you are way off on this one. Computers have made the world very different from the way it was 50 years ago. There werent satellites, GPS and complicated tracking technology. Spy technology had not yet been fueled by the cold war. Oh, and there wasnt even an A Bomb yet, let alone smart bombs, drones and biochem weaponery. If you think small firearms still have a place you are sadly and sorely mistaken.
Think about it : the government has a giant AIRPLANE that can stay aloft for a very long time and replicate the essential elements of a government. Your small firearms are irrelevant to this government.
I am shocked and surprised that on a computer related website someone would ignore the impact computers have had on society, yet that same person claims to understand history.
Slashdot Mirror
What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?
Let me ask you this. You read NC-17 and you say, doesnt sound so bad... but what about when you read "X-Rated". how does that make you feel? Why do I ask? Because NC-17 was a rating that replaced X-Rated. it sounds nicer and non-pornographic. Because, well, X-Rated filmes were not pornoraphic (thats XXX) and the association was getting out of hand. Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.
Now, why is it bad for Theaters to show x-rated films? Well, besides the obvious, since teenagers and kids are the largest demographic for the theater going audience it is probably inappropriate to show x-rateds.
that wasn't the point. The point is this: 7000 years ago, who would have thought that their lives would be regarded as something that never happen by their descendands only 7000 years later. But here we go. There are people who don't believe that people existed 7000 years ago.
Hmmm, no, that is not the point. I, for one, would have thought that.
And anyone who has spent any time around humans would believe it too.
Never forget what trusty Albert said around the turn of the century:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein.
There is a big difference between the two. Although both are prepared to kill for their beliefs, typically only one group is also prepared to die for their beliefs. Of course, they are both still evil. I just wanted to point out that overlooked difference there. ;)
I know you are trying to be nice. But you are trying to point out something that you think the Christians have on the Muslims. And you are wrong.
No group is more willing to die for their beliefs than the other, but rather one group is more willing to die RIGHT NOW, because they are in a position where they feel they have to do so. Turn the situation right now, and there would be a lot of similar action on the Christian side as well.
Anyways, if you ask me, it is a lot more admirable to give up your own life for something than to take someone elses. A LOT more. Combine the two? I dont know what you get.... desperation?
Dont forget that the Western world has become a lot less religious in a lot of ways, and while Westerners in general are a lot less willing to kill and die for religious beliefs (because they arent religious anymore) they ARE willing to kill and die for other things, like, for instance "freedom".
(IRONIC SIDE NOTE: They are also very willing to kill for freedom in the justification that killing 30% of the population will be better for the remaining 60%. I beg to differ though: personally I would rather have my friends and family alive than have a deformed version of "freedom")
Oh, thats easy.
TECHNICAL STANDPOINT:
I dont think I have to explain the added security benefits of a constantly changing password. That is obvious. Your point, I take it, is that the fact that the password is written down reduces its security to a threshold that is either the same or below that of a password that never changes. This wrong for the following reasons:
1) Someone will have to commit a physical break and entry in order to obtain the written down password. This is obviously quite difficult and risky.
2) Even if someone does committ a break and entry into your office to obtain the password, it can still be secured by encoding it in some way or putting it in a place that is hard to find, like a safe (if there is THAT large a fear of corporate espionage, such as say the forumla for CocaCola, this might be reasonable)
3) EVEN IF someone breaks into your office and steals the password, it has a MAXIMUM lifetime of three months only, and it could even have a lifetime of a single day.
LEGAL STANDPOINT:
Informed by the technical reason, it becomes clear that there are two sources from which the password's lack of security could come from. One is the inability of an employee to keep their written down password secure. If they paste it to their computer screen, you cant blame the company, especially if they sent out a warning not to do this. The company could even sue the employee later if it was shown that this was the source of the insecurity, or it could sue whatever security company they hired to physically protect the premises.
The second source is the company's security policy - if the password is never changing, this could be seen as unreasonable, unintelligent and therefore blameworthy. Whoever was responsible for overseeing the matter could be sued, and if the issue ever arose at a meeting and nothing was done, everyone could be sued.
So, with high computer security through a constantly changing password and high physical security by making sure written down passwords dont get stolen, the company is displaying very reasonable efforts to protect its information.
If the burgler goes to great lengths to steal a written down password, the blame will therefore not lie with the company. So in that sense, it provides the company with more security from litigation.
Its about hedging your bets. When you are using other people's money to make those bets, you hedge as much as possible because when it comes to money, people can get very nasty.
But if I have a company, and the only thing on my computers is my company's design information, my company should be able to choose the appropriate level of security for our business.
Why is a password that a user has committed to memory that never changes worse than a password that changes every three months that a user has to write down?
On the first point: First, I am not sure what "design information" means. But sure, you can choose whatever security you want for the company, however the point of Sarbanes Oxley is that if your company doesnt use proper procedure and best practices for the good of the company in doing so, you will be liable to anyone with a stake in the company. Why? Because its their money you are playing with. And yes you may be a shareholder, even the majority shareholder, even the 99% majority shareholder, but that doesnt relieve from doing whats best for ALL shareholders, i.e. whats best for the company.
Whats the difference between a password thats written down and a password in your head that never changes? Well, practically, a written down password will have a little more security. But in the eyes of the law, a lot. A password that changes every 3 months shows the court that you are using best and reasonable efforts to try and protect your security. A password that never changes? What does that show me? That you are lazy? That you are ignorant to the dangers of a never changing password (no excuse)?
You could try and present a good reason why written down passwords are worse than never changing passwords, but I'll tell you right now you'll have a very tough time defending it against a lawyer, let a alone a team of them that has community support like this to back them up on why everyone ELSE agrees you are wrong (meaning you are not being reasonable).
We are not just talking about Enron and Worldcom, we are talking about family businesses and closely-held corporations as well.
From the article:
When trustees were replaced by a computer, the oxytocin effect was no longer seen on the investors.
I find this fact to be of most interest.
But the question is, how was the computer being operated? was there a human typing things to the investors through a computer, or was it an AI asking various preprogrammed lines of questions and taking various approaches? The difference being, if its a human operating the computer (one of the same humans that were getting higher trust responses when in the flesh) that means a lot of what has to with trusting depends on appearances and the expressiveness of the human body, and we generally agree when rationally approaching a trust situation. On some level this holds true even if its an AI.
I am a lawyer and I believe you reasoning is wrong.
First of all, the article posted says TigerDirect owns the trademark on the word "Tiger" and has so for many years. There is absolutely no possibility of Apple suing TigerDirect because they can show prior rights. This is not a case of "pre-emptive law suit" as the original poster said. That does not make sense.
TigerDirect is suing based on its prior trademark of the word Tiger. They are not claiming ownership over the search engine results, they are asserting that the search engine is evidence of the damage caused to them by the copyright infringement. Again, the search engine results are evidence, not property.
The case definately adds up because TigerDirect has a financial interest in its branding of the word Tiger and Apple's infringement of the word Tiger - for a profit - is causing them a loss of noteriety and thus damages their business.
This is important because mere copyright infringement will not result in a large award of damages without extensive proof of the damage incured. The search engine results offer an excellent way of doing so.
Good day to you.
Which is the weakest link in the entire concept of a law-based society. And it is one of the major contributing factors to the inequality among citizens based on level of income and wealth. A rich football player can get away with murder and mayhem, but a public forum can't discuss an obviously phildickian "religious" organization without being threatened with eternal litigation, which is a lot worse on a practical level than eternal damnation...
I assume you are refering to the O.J. Simpson trial. It is a common misconception of lay people that O.J. won the case by having a ton of money and being able to afford the best lawyers. As a member of the legal community, I have to tell you that the prosecutors did a terrible job of the case and even a mediocre lawyer could have taken it apart. Not only that but the investigation was botched. But the dominant view says otherwise, and it is a dominant view that cant be bothered to read a 200 page case. Its also a view that presents an easy opportunity for jokes and maligning the one institution that keeps the government in check - the law.
>>Slashdot caved; that doesn't mean that the Scientologists were on the right side of the law.
>You're right, but that's even worse. There's no real question that the scientologists weren't on the right side of the law, and they won anyway. In giving them the victory, the editors showed that contrary to their disclaimer, they do exercise full editorial discretion over the content of the site. That makes them fully liable for any illegal solicitation which they allow to remain visible.
What you said is patently false. Settlements are certainly not an admission of guilt. Far from it, settlements have ABSOLUTELY no bearing in court. If they did, people would be reluctant to settle. People are encouraged to settle out of court rather than bog the courts down, therefore the reasons for settling have no bearing on future litigation.
Furthermore, those reasons can only be found in the minds of those that settle and therefore any speculation on what those reasons are is hearsay and inadmissible in court. The fact that there is "no real question" about what side of the law the scientologists were on in YOUR mind is therefore irrelevant and whether or not they would have won was never decided.
This is not to the greater good, in my opinion.
Contrary to what people might think, lawyers have long ago decided that the purpose of law is not for the greater good. That is properly the realm of politics. The head counters in office create the laws, and lawyers interpret and apply them.
It falls to the legal community to maintain the rights of all and determine when conduct falls outside the sphere of protected liberty and causes harm to someone else. The boy committed an offense, and to give him any less of a punishment than any other person in a similar case recieved would not only be an offence to all those people, but would fly in the face of the fundemental principles of liberal democracy, namely EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.
Actually, the judge directs the jury as to the posible defences that one might have with regard to the charge. A defence might be consent - NASA consented to the intrusion. There is the defense of lawful authority, however unfortunately for the original poster, the legal system DOES require proof. If you presented this as the only reason for your actions without proof, the jury would be instructed to ignore it and you would be left with no defense at all. An automatic finding of "guilty" would ensue.
I'm sure you've already gotten enough flack for your message but I have to put my 2 cents .
People often profer lists such as this in order to prove that scientists are not always right. What you have forgotten, and what people need to remember, is that scientists are HUMAN BEINGS. They are not demigods that are even remotely expected to be infallible.
The fact is that scientists are never going to agree, and I'm sure there is a group of them out there that think a completely missle-proof sheild around the USA is indeed possible. However, there is a difference between believing that a project can work - which is not a fundemental PROOF that human beings can benefit from - and the QUEST FOR TRUTH, to be found in such things as gallileo's telescope or the modern equivilant, particle accelerators (i.e. billion dollar projects that are generally not publically funded and result in the ENTIRE WORLD benefiting from)
Now that said, you raise a point that really irks me.
In the 1500's scientists said the world was flat.
In the 1500s the West was undergoing the scientific revolution. That means science was being born. The people that practiced what we now call science generally believed that the things religious people said were false. One of those things that RELIGIOUS people said was that the world is flat, not scientists.
Oh ok, one more thing,
Scientists said that we could never be able to eradicate Smallpox.
Eradicate is a strong word - it means smallpox has completely disappeared. But lets just say thats your interpretation and that the scientists said the smallpox would not even be close to eliminated. Well then they still be right, because smallpox is a virus, and viruses MUTATE, and new strains of smallpox ARE CURRENTLY emerging.
Sorry to nitpick, but you are just way off there. Plus you are attacking scientists, a group of people which Slashdot is highly populated by. I dont expect your post to garner many points.
me too!
they should have thought about it in the first place, and brought back unneeded stuff during each trip at the time, rather than letting junk build up.
This is indicative of the general situation about space travel. As the populous of nations that make journeys to space, we should be embarrassed and distraught. The last 40 years of space travel have been stale and unproductive, despite huge rises in government expenditure and GNP.
The failure of the International Space Station is an embarressment for humankind in general. Not only does it show that we cant work together as a species in one of the most important areas with one of the highest productive scientific potentials ever, but it shows that people in general (Especially politicians) care only about themselves. Knowledge and progress mean nothing to politicians and the general population. Instead we spend trillions incarcerating each other, giving corporations tax breaks and polluting the environment. It is perhaps ironic that the fruits of space travel would solve many of our problems, most importantly THE ENVIRONMENT (the single most important thing that ANYONE should care about) and creation of jobs (of almost equal important)
Space travel used to be a matter of national pride. As self esteem and pride goes down the toilet, and as politicians fight wars against drugs and "terror" (Is anyone REALLY terrified?) no one seems to care anymore.
Well as consumers our only option would be to try and return the product to both the retailer and manufacturer, and if this doesnt work I would sue them. This would be more difficult for you though since you are not a lawyer and it would be very expensive.
I have never seen (retail) software where the full contents of the EULA were accessible without running the installer (or at least opening the package). There's a small sticker with something to the effect of "there's an EULA for this somewhere".
This is all that is needed. I am a lawyer and I hate to tell you but this is all that is required for them to make the terms of the EULA enforcable upon purchase. There was a case that went to the supreme court concerning this, and the judge found that by simply making people aware that there are terms to be adhered to, the sale of a product bound by those terms is legal. If the purchaser doesnt like this then they can later return the product. It is simply a matter of convinience and motivation of the economy : it would be obviously unreasonable for the manufacturer to put the eula on the box of the product, as this would not tell anything about the product and would make it difficult to sell it and differentiate it from competition.
Remember, law is geared towards enabling the economy, and in cases like this it is a necessity even though it may be abused.
You can think about this in normal contract making situations as well. A person may agree to sell a house to another person, and on agreeing with that person to the sale he is liable for his promise. But it is clear to both parties that there are other terms that will have to be agreed to later because it is simply unreasonable to think that they would expound all of these terms verbally. Verbal contracts are often predicated on the fact that there will be other terms that will have to adhered to.
The thing is, I'm not convinced that these ratings will provide a 'natural' indication of what people are watching.
In other words, if there is a device that is monitering my internet comsumption for a week, I will not be consuming my regular diet of pornography for that week. Mind you, I dont look at porn. I dont. Shut up, I dont. Ok I do. No just kidding I dont.
The idea is that the internet is that its kind of a make your-own-media entertainment. Whereas T.V. is all programmed and time slotted, and is thus passive, on the internet you have to actively seek out and find stuff. You have to decide where to start, where to go, when to leave. Essentially at every turn, on every page, you have to decide what to do. Its like a choose your own adventure story. And since the pathways are so chaotic and turmultuous (the opposite of TV), I'm not sure that there is a whole lot to measure. It might be a window into personal psychology, but mass psychology? I dont know.
You think THATS funny?
:
From the article
Newham will be using Internet Explorer. Steel explained that this is because Microsoft is very serious about addressing security concerns.
Never mind the constant crashes and lack of features like notepad and tabbing, they need IE because of the HIGH SECURITY.
Husand: Honey I'm home!
Does anyone actually say this? I mean really, this isnt 1952. Who actually feels happy enough to shout out this out when they walk in the door from work. Furthermore.
Wife: Great, lets go out to dinner. Just make sure you take that stupid...
Uhhhh, go out for dinner? Isnt this 1952? Dinner is supposed to be on the table. Bitch.
*SMACK*
Yeah, seven years ago it was salmon recovery, recently is has been global warming....
Actually,
about 7 years ago they found that the salmon were no longer spawnng because of fishing in Greenland where the most hearty and mature of the salmon go for the winter. Over fishing of these stock left only weaklings for the fems to mate with. You may make fun of it as alarmist, but the numbers dont lie. The drop from 1.5 million to half a million migrating salmon was enough to convince Greenland to stop salmon fishing altogether. at that time only 100,000 salmon were actually laying eggs. Very funny eh?
Now they have found that the salmon spawns are now increasing in level and things may stabilize. That is, if Global Warming doesnt stop them.
Your comment about warming indicates your age, your lack of historical knowledge, and lack of general education on the environment. Warming has been a public concern since the 50s when the first effects were felt, and when people started realizing the huge effects humans and their chemicals can have on the environment through books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which concerns the pesticide DDT.
But it has been on people's minds since the 1800s when entire cities would be choking to death on the thick black clouds of smoke that hung in the air, the temperature up several degrees due to the insulation of sunlight. You think L.A. is bad? You should read about the factory towns of the Industrial Revolution. but I have a feeling you dont do much reading anyway..
I used to run the default litestep shell but eventually i stopped using it. I really enjoyed having multiple desktops and one or two other features, but i really just used it for the speed enhancement.
Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks tho.. eventually I just got annoyed with the inability to do certain things and the changed locations of other important things. So I switched back. (litestep makes switching very easy to do)
For the average user, installing and completely customizing their shell is not only beyond their skills with computers but also too time consuming. I dont have the time to work with litestep let alone linux.
Programs like these allow users to easily increase the pleasure of using a computer, and after all, thats what most users want out of it - pleasure.
If spams are anything like ads, maybe it's time someone looks into doing something similar (live monitoring) for spams.
Yeah, we really need live monitering stations were people sit and watch/read every email.
Oh wait we already have that. They just call it Echelon.
You have posted these figures over and over and over again as if they actually prove something.
The argument concerns whether gun control will be effective, not whether physicians are dangerous.
Physicians are in the BUSINESS of saving lives. Its not a huge wonder that they cant do it all the time. Guns are in the BUSINESS of ending lives and THEREIN lies the problem.
What makes your figures even more KOOKY is that physicians will try to SAVE the lives that GUN OWNERS will try to END.
The fact that you repeatedly justify yourself by these figures shows how little you understand the argument, and how undeveloped and naive your logical capacity is.
Stats like that have a name : PROPAGANDA.
You are either an absolute idiot or someone who doesn't have a clue about history, even incredibly RECENT history.
:
I'm not suprised that a gun supporter starts off his post by calling me an idiot. By the way I just graduated from University : History with Honors. Thanks.
I think you are way off on this one. Computers have made the world very different from the way it was 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago, from whence you puled those Jefferson quotes.
There werent satellites, GPS and complicated tracking technology. Spy technology had not yet been fueled by the cold war. Oh, and there wasnt even an A Bomb yet, let alone smart bombs, drones and biochem weaponery. If you think small firearms still have a place you are sadly and sorely mistaken.
Think about it : the government has a giant AIRPLANE that can stay aloft for a very long time and replicate the essential elements of a government. Your small firearms are irrelevant to this government.
I am shocked and surprised that on a computer related website someone would ignore the impact computers have had on society, yet that same person claims to understand history.
You lost the power to take up arms against the government when the Cold War started, and the government was allowed to go on its spying binge.
Now as for your propaganda comparing Physicians to Gun Owners there are many problems
- Physicians must make life and death decisions as a matter of course. Gun owners may go a year without touching their gun
- The ONLY deaths physicians can cause are accidental. Thats a lot better than guns, which, according to your stats, rarely causes accidental death but often causes intentional.
- Accidental deaths by guns are a minor part of the problem. The goal is far more geared to stop the intentional deaths as well.
- However many people die by the hand of physicians has absolutely no bearing on whether or not less people will die by gunfire if we implement gun control.
Sorry, I didnt mean to shoot down ALL your arguments... but it was too easy.
I think you are way off on this one. Computers have made the world very different from the way it was 50 years ago. There werent satellites, GPS and complicated tracking technology. Spy technology had not yet been fueled by the cold war. Oh, and there wasnt even an A Bomb yet, let alone smart bombs, drones and biochem weaponery. If you think small firearms still have a place you are sadly and sorely mistaken.
Think about it : the government has a giant AIRPLANE that can stay aloft for a very long time and replicate the essential elements of a government. Your small firearms are irrelevant to this government.
I am shocked and surprised that on a computer related website someone would ignore the impact computers have had on society, yet that same person claims to understand history.