I am guilty of some ambiguous wording. I meant to say that there is no jurisdiction in which the ownership of every type of firearm is illegal. That is to say, at least some type of firearm, if only shotguns and "normal" rifles, is legal to own in every state. In other words, no state bans all firearms, and such a ban would clearly be unconstitutional. Sorry for the sloppy construction. (I do not agree with you that illogical restrictions on weapons somehow do not violate the second amendment.)
Jesus was a nice man who had a lot of good things to say - among them that greed was bad, taking care of the poor and infirm is good
Unless they are members of your own family. Jesus advised people to abandon their families and responsibilities and just follow him, because God's kingdom was just around the corner. Guess how that worked out for them? Jesus was a "nice man" in the sense that David Koresh was a "nice man".
Is your jurisdiction in the US? There is no jurisdiction within the US in which the ownership of any type of firearm is illegal. This was never true even in DC before they lost the recent Supreme Court case. Our constitution does not permit such laws. As I said, they are prohibiting the advertising of legal products.
I agree with this. He's far from a cookie-cutter conservative. I'm only familiar with his ideas from his speeches, which contain lots of insight and good ideas, until he starts talking about god - then I tune out.
Cybersquatting, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, are completely separate issues. The only relevant issue here is trademark infringement
Why? All three issues were brought up in the suit dismissed by the Utah court. Try reading the article before commenting on it.
You failed to provide the precedent that would justify your fatuous comment that there is "Nothing new there are all." A link to a Google search doesn't cut it. I even clicked on a few of the links on the page returned, and they were not links to court decisions of any kind, nor reports on them. If you are trying to say that the Utah decision is substantially identical to "many" previous decisions, you should be able to show us one. But, frankly, it's not very clear what you are trying to say.
Why would your employer want to keep track of you at home?
In the U.S. your employer probably pays most of your health insurance premium. Maybe he can get a better deal with the insurance company if he fires people whose personal habits match a profile that leads to higher health insurance claims.
OK, please cite a precedent where a court decided that claims of trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could not form the basis of a lawsuit against a group using a corporation's trademark as part of political speech.
Please don't blame our hard-working editors. The summary appears exactly as I wrote it. And you are simply wrong and confused. I don't equate satire and parody, although, as pointed out in a comment below, they overlap. And this case has nothing to do with the concept of "fair use" from copyright law; it concerns attempts by corporations to stifle criticism by spuriously invoking trademark protections.
The summary contains two links. The first is to an article that plagiarises the second, padding the lifted paragraphs with barely intelligible proto-English. What a disgrace.
Allow me to rise in defense of my summary. The press article that I summarized described the transistors as "3D", as did the people from Intel that they used as sources. Your quarrel, which is valid, is with them, not with the summary. Also, Intel's use of the term "3D" can be justified; even though the array of transistors might be planar, each transistor employs a 3D geometry in a nontrivial way. And, who or what is mendoza?
Are you a paid publicist for some police organization? This is the fourth or fifth comment I've seen from you and they are all almost identical. In any thread where someone mentions that they would prefer if their public servants hesitated before blowing away old ladies whose addresses were given to them by some sleazy informant trying to stay out of jail, there you are, saying that the police have to behave like stormtroopers because of all the meth-heads out there. I accept that this might be a big part of the explanation for why the police behave so brutally. But I don't accept it as an excuse. To answer your question, "How would you expect them to deal with a public that wants to kill them?", I would say by wearing a flack jacket and hoping for the best while treating suspects the way they would want their mothers treated. And if that's not good enough, by getting a different job.
So you found it mentioned somewhere as SF?
That's interesting; I've never seen it described that way.
Do you remember where? When you read it, did it work for you
as SF, or strike you as belonging to a different genre?
Receiving openly broadcast radio signals is one of our rights in the United States. While driving is a privilege, combining these does not make it a criminal activity.
You seem to be arguing that a science fiction story that is sufficiently well done ceases to be a science fiction story, which to me is a ridiculous notion.
I agree with this notion. If you want to argue against it, you must answer one question: why is Kafka's Metamorphosis never considered to be a science fiction (or "horror" or "fantasy") story, but simply literature?
It's not influential as literature. Orwell's aspirations had more to do with political commentary than art, and it shows.
So, it's a good example indeed: genre fiction, by definition, is limited in its artistic aspirations, and need not be taken seriously as literature. I say that as someone who has been entertained by both SF and detective fiction, mainly before my 15th birthday.
I agree - it's not the same thing at all. I think it's much better (that was my point). I am describing a totally different and far superior way of using the web to have (public) conversations. It can be much cooler than Facebook can possibly be, because the conversations can extend seamlessly from personal websites, or sites on blogging platforms, to institutional sites or the sites of widely read publications. But it helps if you have something to say, so you're doubtlessly right: it "isn't for most Facebook/Twitter users."
From what I can see Facebook is ideal for people who want to maintain false friendships with people with whom it was not worth the effort to keep up before Facebook became popular.
Slashdot Mirror
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110516_8175.php
(I'm so advanced that I combined information from two sources to produce my summary.)
I am guilty of some ambiguous wording. I meant to say that there is no jurisdiction in which the ownership of every type of firearm is illegal. That is to say, at least some type of firearm, if only shotguns and "normal" rifles, is legal to own in every state. In other words, no state bans all firearms, and such a ban would clearly be unconstitutional. Sorry for the sloppy construction. (I do not agree with you that illogical restrictions on weapons somehow do not violate the second amendment.)
Unless they are members of your own family. Jesus advised people to abandon their families and responsibilities and just follow him, because God's kingdom was just around the corner. Guess how that worked out for them? Jesus was a "nice man" in the sense that David Koresh was a "nice man".
Is your jurisdiction in the US? There is no jurisdiction within the US in which the ownership of any type of firearm is illegal. This was never true even in DC before they lost the recent Supreme Court case. Our constitution does not permit such laws. As I said, they are prohibiting the advertising of legal products.
They still prohibit ads for legal products that they don't like:
http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/static.py?hl=en&topic=28436&guide=28435&page=guide.cs&answer=176077
"Google AdWords prohibits the promotion of certain weapons such as firearms, firearm components, ammunition, balisongs (switchblades), butterfly knives, and brass knuckles. This policy applies to the content of your ad and your website.
(Emphasis added.)
Dude .... Feynman!
I agree with this. He's far from a cookie-cutter conservative. I'm only familiar with his ideas from his speeches, which contain lots of insight and good ideas, until he starts talking about god - then I tune out.
Why? All three issues were brought up in the suit dismissed by the Utah court. Try reading the article before commenting on it. You failed to provide the precedent that would justify your fatuous comment that there is "Nothing new there are all." A link to a Google search doesn't cut it. I even clicked on a few of the links on the page returned, and they were not links to court decisions of any kind, nor reports on them. If you are trying to say that the Utah decision is substantially identical to "many" previous decisions, you should be able to show us one. But, frankly, it's not very clear what you are trying to say.
In the U.S. your employer probably pays most of your health insurance premium. Maybe he can get a better deal with the insurance company if he fires people whose personal habits match a profile that leads to higher health insurance claims.
OK, please cite a precedent where a court decided that claims of trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could not form the basis of a lawsuit against a group using a corporation's trademark as part of political speech.
What on earth do you think this ruling about public figures and intentional infliction of emotional distress has to do with trademark infringement?
Please don't blame our hard-working editors. The summary appears exactly as I wrote it. And you are simply wrong and confused. I don't equate satire and parody, although, as pointed out in a comment below, they overlap. And this case has nothing to do with the concept of "fair use" from copyright law; it concerns attempts by corporations to stifle criticism by spuriously invoking trademark protections.
The summary contains two links. The first is to an article that plagiarises the second, padding the lifted paragraphs with barely intelligible proto-English. What a disgrace.
Allow me to rise in defense of my summary. The press article that I summarized described the transistors as "3D", as did the people from Intel that they used as sources. Your quarrel, which is valid, is with them, not with the summary. Also, Intel's use of the term "3D" can be justified; even though the array of transistors might be planar, each transistor employs a 3D geometry in a nontrivial way. And, who or what is mendoza?
"Our products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine, senior vice-president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development.
What, it wasn't obvious?
Are you a paid publicist for some police organization? This is the fourth or fifth comment I've seen from you and they are all almost identical. In any thread where someone mentions that they would prefer if their public servants hesitated before blowing away old ladies whose addresses were given to them by some sleazy informant trying to stay out of jail, there you are, saying that the police have to behave like stormtroopers because of all the meth-heads out there. I accept that this might be a big part of the explanation for why the police behave so brutally. But I don't accept it as an excuse. To answer your question, "How would you expect them to deal with a public that wants to kill them?", I would say by wearing a flack jacket and hoping for the best while treating suspects the way they would want their mothers treated. And if that's not good enough, by getting a different job.
Business as usual: no reason to change from dwm.
So you found it mentioned somewhere as SF? That's interesting; I've never seen it described that way. Do you remember where? When you read it, did it work for you as SF, or strike you as belonging to a different genre?
Then how can states make radar detectors illegal?
I agree with this notion. If you want to argue against it, you must answer one question: why is Kafka's Metamorphosis never considered to be a science fiction (or "horror" or "fantasy") story, but simply literature?
It's not influential as literature. Orwell's aspirations had more to do with political commentary than art, and it shows. So, it's a good example indeed: genre fiction, by definition, is limited in its artistic aspirations, and need not be taken seriously as literature. I say that as someone who has been entertained by both SF and detective fiction, mainly before my 15th birthday.
That is beautifully done. Thanks for sharing.
I agree - it's not the same thing at all. I think it's much better (that was my point). I am describing a totally different and far superior way of using the web to have (public) conversations. It can be much cooler than Facebook can possibly be, because the conversations can extend seamlessly from personal websites, or sites on blogging platforms, to institutional sites or the sites of widely read publications. But it helps if you have something to say, so you're doubtlessly right: it "isn't for most Facebook/Twitter users."
From what I can see Facebook is ideal for people who want to maintain false friendships with people with whom it was not worth the effort to keep up before Facebook became popular.