I'm afraid that fruit stand isn't going to mean much to me, but I can see it meaning a lot to somebody else.
But if that's the rationale used to preserve locations, then nothing can ever be torn down. Pretty much every building on the planet is going to have some meaning for someone, somewhere (or might in the future). The balance is to find something that has significant meaning for a large population of people. And if the population in question is large enough, they can just buy the land themselves and preserve it, without forcing anyone else to do so.
Don't tax me just because I have 10k in gold in WoW... But if I sell that for the $1,600 or so I could get wholesale for it, then it's income and I should give unto ceaser and all that..
That money is already taxed. When you convert the WoW gold into real money, thanks to the magic of eBay or Ubid, it's income, and is required to be disclosed on your income tax statement if you earn more than $500 per year doing so. So I'm a little confused why this is even being discussed or debated?
You should be nominated for the most nonsensical statement of 2007. Go take a basic introductory course on legal motions, and then come back and talk to the adults.
That said we as a species have done some really stupid things, i.e. locating all our major cities along the coasts, rampant overpopulation and the removal of population limiting factors (such as malaria etc) without taking into account what the results of these actions would be : less mortality -> population explosion -> mass starvation.
That explains the five dead bodies I had to step over on my way into the office this morning. I thought they looked a little thin.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen? So we don't actually suffer mass starvation due to "over population" in the Western world, which has the highest population densities outside of Japan (which also isn't known for mass starvation)? Then something else must cause all that starvation in other countries. I wonder if it has anything to do with all those dictators and planned economies in countries that actually do have mass starvation?
Padilla was never denied his habeas rights. He filed his motion for habeas, the government fought it (just like always), and eventually he won in court. If his habeas rights had really been taken away, he never would've been able to file his motion in the first place.
...and if a human has a disability and can't perform at the level of a two year old human child, it's OFF TO THE GLUE FACTORY!
Hehe. No, because if that human can't perform at that level, it's because they're sick in some way and should be cared for. The chimp can't perform at that level because they simply aren't capable of it. When chimps (any chimps) start performing that way, then I'll consider whether they should have human rights at all. Until then, this is just so much naval gazing.
Personally, I was reading at four. My oldest son was reading at three. My daughter was doing basic arithmetic at three. Also, all three of my kids were painting recognizable images at around two with finger paints and crayons. I've seen some of the artwork done by gorillas and chimps, and none of it is even remotely recognizable as the object that supposedly inspired them. So until a chimp can perform at the level of a two year old human child, I'm not willing to remotely entertain the idea of granting them human rights.
Not long ago certain former "leader of the free world" took away its citizens' habeas-corpus provision.
Wait, did I miss something? When did this happen? Have there really been citizens of the US who have been arrested and detained without habeas corpus rights? If so, name one. If not, stop with the hyperbole (and lying).
The one I see complains that they produced energy conservation legislation that doesn't conserve energy.
I want you to remember this rant of yours the next time some hippy says we should implement the Kyoto Protocol since "something has to be done, we might as well try that." Since that's a common argument from environmentalists, I'm sure it won't be too long before someone says something like that.
Oh wait, here's someone making pretty much that very argument right here!
I think I saw that same article. They mentioned one of the possible uses was with SEALs: the device could operate along with scuba gear to give the SEAL a kind of heads-up display underwater, allowing them to navigate more easily at night or in murky conditions.
3,500 billion people??? Three and a half trillion??? Wtf, dude, that's like the number of people Paul Mau'dib killed during his jihad! I had no idea we could approach those numbers already!
You're confusing the American Dream (being your own boss, owning your own home, having a wife that doesn't work and children in private school) with the French dream (lifelong employment at one employer). The two are completely irreconcilable.
I'm neither a evolutionary biologist nor a paleontologist, but hopefully one of the people reading this is (or at least claims to be on Wikipedia) and can answer a question for me:
I was always under the impression that the reason it was presumed small rodents were the only ones to exist with the dinosaurs is because if they were any larger, they would've been wiped out by the K-T extinction event. If there were large mammals that existed with the dinosaurs, and if they were in the same distinct groups that exist today as another poster said, then do we need to go back and question the importance of the K-T event? Especially since dinosaurs didn't so much go extinct as they evolved into birds, maybe having a ginormous hunk of space rock crash into the planet isn't as cataclysmic as we have been assuming all this time (for the planet as a whole, that is, it would certainly do a number on your neighborhood).
Any experts out there who can quash my thinking and point out the flaw in this line of inquiry?
Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."
WalMart wouldn't bother legislating, they'd just do what they do now: dictate the terms of the contract, and if the manufacturer doesn't like it they can crawl down that shithole they crawled up from (to paraphrase Gladiator).
Typically, a company is worth anywhere from three to five times its annual revenue, if you decide to buy it. So if it has a billion dollars in revenue, get ready to pony up up to five billion to buy it. Because no one in their right mind is going to sell the golden goose for a handful of beans.
If those website were spewing http requests at my browser without having been asked to do so, your comment would make sense.
So you think it would be wrong for an ISP to block phishing sites that are designed to look like, say, Bank of America and dupe unsuspecting customers into disclosing account information? I'm not saying ISPs should be saddled with an affirmative duty to block those sites, but if they chose to I can't see any reasonable person complaining about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid that fruit stand isn't going to mean much to me, but I can see it meaning a lot to somebody else.
But if that's the rationale used to preserve locations, then nothing can ever be torn down. Pretty much every building on the planet is going to have some meaning for someone, somewhere (or might in the future). The balance is to find something that has significant meaning for a large population of people. And if the population in question is large enough, they can just buy the land themselves and preserve it, without forcing anyone else to do so.
Don't tax me just because I have 10k in gold in WoW... But if I sell that for the $1,600 or so I could get wholesale for it, then it's income and I should give unto ceaser and all that..
That money is already taxed. When you convert the WoW gold into real money, thanks to the magic of eBay or Ubid, it's income, and is required to be disclosed on your income tax statement if you earn more than $500 per year doing so. So I'm a little confused why this is even being discussed or debated?
HE did not file. His lawyer filed
You should be nominated for the most nonsensical statement of 2007. Go take a basic introductory course on legal motions, and then come back and talk to the adults.
A few months ago you told me not to respond to anymore of your posts, Marty. Does that rule not apply to you?
Good point, but they're still a step below children and not deserving of the same level of rights.
That said we as a species have done some really stupid things, i.e. locating all our major cities along the coasts, rampant overpopulation and the removal of population limiting factors (such as malaria etc) without taking into account what the results of these actions would be : less mortality -> population explosion -> mass starvation.
That explains the five dead bodies I had to step over on my way into the office this morning. I thought they looked a little thin.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen? So we don't actually suffer mass starvation due to "over population" in the Western world, which has the highest population densities outside of Japan (which also isn't known for mass starvation)? Then something else must cause all that starvation in other countries. I wonder if it has anything to do with all those dictators and planned economies in countries that actually do have mass starvation?
None of that is absolutely conclusive
Then why are you drawing conclusions from it?
Padilla was never denied his habeas rights. He filed his motion for habeas, the government fought it (just like always), and eventually he won in court. If his habeas rights had really been taken away, he never would've been able to file his motion in the first place.
...and if a human has a disability and can't perform at the level of a two year old human child, it's OFF TO THE GLUE FACTORY!
Hehe. No, because if that human can't perform at that level, it's because they're sick in some way and should be cared for. The chimp can't perform at that level because they simply aren't capable of it. When chimps (any chimps) start performing that way, then I'll consider whether they should have human rights at all. Until then, this is just so much naval gazing.
You 'own' a chimp just like you 'own' your children.
No, you 'own' a chimp just like you 'own' a table, or a car, or a goldfish. They're animals and property, not human beings who possess rights.
Personally, I was reading at four. My oldest son was reading at three. My daughter was doing basic arithmetic at three. Also, all three of my kids were painting recognizable images at around two with finger paints and crayons. I've seen some of the artwork done by gorillas and chimps, and none of it is even remotely recognizable as the object that supposedly inspired them. So until a chimp can perform at the level of a two year old human child, I'm not willing to remotely entertain the idea of granting them human rights.
Not long ago certain former "leader of the free world" took away its citizens' habeas-corpus provision.
Wait, did I miss something? When did this happen? Have there really been citizens of the US who have been arrested and detained without habeas corpus rights? If so, name one. If not, stop with the hyperbole (and lying).
Except chimps don't earn money, their owners do. It's their owners who pay taxes on that income.
The one I see complains that they produced energy conservation legislation that doesn't conserve energy.
I want you to remember this rant of yours the next time some hippy says we should implement the Kyoto Protocol since "something has to be done, we might as well try that." Since that's a common argument from environmentalists, I'm sure it won't be too long before someone says something like that.
Oh wait, here's someone making pretty much that very argument right here!
I think I saw that same article. They mentioned one of the possible uses was with SEALs: the device could operate along with scuba gear to give the SEAL a kind of heads-up display underwater, allowing them to navigate more easily at night or in murky conditions.
Who modded this post flamebait?
Typically lefty, you agree with the sentiment, therefore it can't possibly flamebait. After all, only wingnuts can be hate-mongering racists, right?
3 500 billion people
3,500 billion people??? Three and a half trillion??? Wtf, dude, that's like the number of people Paul Mau'dib killed during his jihad! I had no idea we could approach those numbers already!
You're confusing the American Dream (being your own boss, owning your own home, having a wife that doesn't work and children in private school) with the French dream (lifelong employment at one employer). The two are completely irreconcilable.
I'm neither a evolutionary biologist nor a paleontologist, but hopefully one of the people reading this is (or at least claims to be on Wikipedia) and can answer a question for me:
I was always under the impression that the reason it was presumed small rodents were the only ones to exist with the dinosaurs is because if they were any larger, they would've been wiped out by the K-T extinction event. If there were large mammals that existed with the dinosaurs, and if they were in the same distinct groups that exist today as another poster said, then do we need to go back and question the importance of the K-T event? Especially since dinosaurs didn't so much go extinct as they evolved into birds, maybe having a ginormous hunk of space rock crash into the planet isn't as cataclysmic as we have been assuming all this time (for the planet as a whole, that is, it would certainly do a number on your neighborhood).
Any experts out there who can quash my thinking and point out the flaw in this line of inquiry?
Two words: Randall Schwartz.
Yes, I know his conviction was eventually overturned, but only after he spent ungodly sums of money defending his good name.
Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."
WalMart wouldn't bother legislating, they'd just do what they do now: dictate the terms of the contract, and if the manufacturer doesn't like it they can crawl down that shithole they crawled up from (to paraphrase Gladiator).
Go back and read my original comment, you're basically saying the same thing I already did.
I swear, Slashdot would be a lot more interesting if the reading comprehension of most of its users was just a tad higher than it is.
Typically, a company is worth anywhere from three to five times its annual revenue, if you decide to buy it. So if it has a billion dollars in revenue, get ready to pony up up to five billion to buy it. Because no one in their right mind is going to sell the golden goose for a handful of beans.
If those website were spewing http requests at my browser without having been asked to do so, your comment would make sense.
So you think it would be wrong for an ISP to block phishing sites that are designed to look like, say, Bank of America and dupe unsuspecting customers into disclosing account information? I'm not saying ISPs should be saddled with an affirmative duty to block those sites, but if they chose to I can't see any reasonable person complaining about it.