However, unlike Europe, the US has the "first amendment" which would seem to me to be applicable in this case, and to trump the application of any statutory prohibitions on google's homage to the artist.
Also, charitable deductions are limited to 50% of Adjusted Gross Income, and an effort to reduce his tax burden by claiming too many deductions would likely trigger the alternative minimum tax.
Wow. I can procrastinate on slashdot and study for my tax exam.
Every time a new transportation technology gains widespread adoption the legal regime has to incorporate the fact that people are injuring one another in novel, previously unforeseen ways.
Much of US tort law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law was developed from litigation regarding railroads. Early railroads were always either injuring people directly, or sparking off and causing fires here and there.
We've got a massive compulsory insurance scheme for cars but that doesn't prevent all the litigation as anyone who's seen a lawyer commercial can attest.
I'd bet that there'll initially be some higher legal standard of care one would need to exercise since flying is inherently more dangerous than driving. If the tech improves so that it's mostly autopilot, then that might not be the case.
Check out http://www.perseus.tufts.edu for an excellent online resource for classical texts. They've also got the texts hyperlinked, so when you click on a particular word you can get a dictionary entry (case, etymology, parsing the verb.
A lot of activity can be classified as terrorist or innocent depending on the context? So what?
If the case against you solely consisted of some computer equipment and the picture of a building, it wouldn't get very far. They haven't thrown out the criminal justice system.
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for
I'm really tired of this rampant anti-government paranoia. You haven't lost your freedoms. How have you lost your freedoms? In what concrete way have you been able to do something before 9/11 that you now cannot do because the evil, evil government prevents you?
Are you not allowed to practice religion? or print a publication? or vote? travel freely? engage in commerce?
We have to balance freedom and security, but let's keep some perspective here.
You definitely need to read up on what a real police is, because the USA isn't even close. Searches and long lines at the airport don't make the US a police state.
As far as terrorist activity in the US since 9-11. There definitely has been some. There hasn't been a major attack on US soil, but I sure as hell don't think it's for lack of trying on Al Qaeda's part. Moreover, I'm not so naive as to believe that extra intelligence and police powers (and maybe the deprivation of rights of a couple thousand muslim immigrants) had nothing to do with it.
In defense of Stephenson's endings
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
While Stephenson's endings may seem to come rather abruptly, atleast they involve substantive changes in the world of the book. Something happens. The reader is meant to think about what exactly that entails, to imagine the possibilities of that change on human experience.
I'd argue that that's what science fiction is all about.
On the other hand, Crichton's books always seems to involve a restoration of the status quo at the beginning of the book. Think sphere, jurassic park. It's a cop out. It's a pansy way of ducking the big questions. It's like a bad tv show, where you know the ending, because there's no continuity. All the characters' relationships are going to stay the same. Everything has to unfold back to square one.
Apparently, you don't have to make a coherent argument if you just string together a set of newsclips. Maybe this is why these people have resorted cutting and pasting footage.
There was a lot of footage of explosions, weapons going off, but where was the one clip that really mattered about 9-11? They didn't show any planes crashing into buildings because then you'd have realized that maybe all this rhetoric about good and evil actually had some substance and that there is no peaceful solution to someone who wants to kill you and your family and your fellow citizens.
This video attempted to portray the war on terrorism as a war against Islam, when in fact, our leadership has gone out of its way to repudiate that exact contention. Warring against a group of radical militant Islamists is not the same as warring against Islam the religion.
The United States isn't an empire that goes around the world "kicking ass" indiscriminately. We are primarily a financial/commercial/cultural power, and there are legitimate mechanisms by which people with grievances can get there message out.
You seem to imply some kind of moral equality in your post...
Let me give it to you straight. There is no moral justification for what occurred on tuesday.
Moreover, American's don't hate Arabs--- that's not a general rule... we do hate terrorists...
There are two sides here. The terrorists and the good guys, and yes, one side must be totally annihilated. Or preferably imprisoned, and then annihilated.
The US can't rely on the UN and ICJ to bring these pigs to justice. The UN is a heavily corrupt, nonfunctional bureaucracy... for which we already pay a disproportionate amount money...
Its ridiculous to suggest that the United States not use all of its resources to bring the pigs to justice... instead handing the job over to some defunct, near powerless bureaucracy...
"Such a thing could never exist in the U.S. for longer than it took to load up the tear gas grenade launchers. "
The reason why this situation wouldn't exist in the U.S. is not because the US is some fasci-mili-totalitarian state as the above quote implies.
The quote has it partially right, it does have something to do with "rule of law" as opposed to mob rule.
You won't see american hi-tech workers in shanty-towns because in america, if you have valuable job skills you can get a job. really far out there, huh?
In spain, evidently, good job skills don't guarante a job, because the free market has been socialized, manipulated, and otherwised f-ed with.
is your job so important to you that you'd go to these extremes to protect it and get it back? probably not, because in america we have mobility of capital and persons...you can get a new one...
in spain, the fact that these highly skilled workers aren't capable of just getting new ones... should tell us that they are far different economic environment, one with, as this article suggests serious inefficiencies
Russia isn't an equal partner in the International Space station. The United States bears the brunt of the cost of building the station. Also, the russians have been behind schedule on their modules the entire time. NASA guys had to prepare contingency plans because the early russian FGB power module almost didn't launch. Furthermore, the primary reason the russians are in this is political. Its really a symbol of post-cold war cooperation. We have the engineers and tech to do this ourselves, but we want to make it an international effort.
I'm sure there's a waiting list a mile long to get onto that station, and we shouldn't bump up a rich tourist to the top of the list simply because he paid off the russians.
1. the NASA mentality is that there is no margin for error. my dad works for NASA, and i can attest to atleast his crazy triple-backup contingency plan ways.
2. sending people up in the space shuttle is different than the ISS, they've flown over a hundred shuttle flights... the ISS is a newer technology and initially we've got to prioritize science and engineering goals over tourism, if even just for the safety concerns... (that's why sending up john glenn is different from this guy)
Slashdot Mirror
However, unlike Europe, the US has the "first amendment" which would seem to me to be applicable in this case, and to trump the application of any statutory prohibitions on google's homage to the artist.
Also, charitable deductions are limited to 50% of Adjusted Gross Income, and an effort to reduce his tax burden by claiming too many deductions would likely trigger the alternative minimum tax.
Wow. I can procrastinate on slashdot and study for my tax exam.
That's actually so they can hack into alien motherships and upload viruses if necessary.
I think this is a pretty astute observation.
Every time a new transportation technology gains widespread adoption the legal regime has to incorporate the fact that people are injuring one another in novel, previously unforeseen ways.
Much of US tort law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law was developed from litigation regarding railroads. Early railroads were always either injuring people directly, or sparking off and causing fires here and there.
We've got a massive compulsory insurance scheme for cars but that doesn't prevent all the litigation as anyone who's seen a lawyer commercial can attest.
I'd bet that there'll initially be some higher legal standard of care one would need to exercise since flying is inherently more dangerous than driving. If the tech improves so that it's mostly autopilot, then that might not be the case.
Check out http://www.perseus.tufts.edu for an excellent online resource for classical texts. They've also got the texts hyperlinked, so when you click on a particular word you can get a dictionary entry (case, etymology, parsing the verb.
It's a great tool for learning.
This got modded insightful?
A lot of activity can be classified as terrorist or innocent depending on the context? So what?
If the case against you solely consisted of some computer equipment and the picture of a building, it wouldn't get very far. They haven't thrown out the criminal justice system.
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for
I'm really tired of this rampant anti-government paranoia. You haven't lost your freedoms. How have you lost your freedoms? In what concrete way have you been able to do something before 9/11 that you now cannot do because the evil, evil government prevents you?
Are you not allowed to practice religion? or print a publication? or vote? travel freely? engage in commerce?
We have to balance freedom and security, but let's keep some perspective here.
You definitely need to read up on what a real police is, because the USA isn't even close. Searches and long lines at the airport don't make the US a police state.
As far as terrorist activity in the US since 9-11. There definitely has been some. There hasn't been a major attack on US soil, but I sure as hell don't think it's for lack of trying on Al Qaeda's part. Moreover, I'm not so naive as to believe that extra intelligence and police powers (and maybe the deprivation of rights of a couple thousand muslim immigrants) had nothing to do with it.
While Stephenson's endings may seem to come rather abruptly, atleast they involve substantive changes in the world of the book. Something happens. The reader is meant to think about what exactly that entails, to imagine the possibilities of that change on human experience.
I'd argue that that's what science fiction is all about.
On the other hand, Crichton's books always seems to involve a restoration of the status quo at the beginning of the book. Think sphere, jurassic park. It's a cop out. It's a pansy way of ducking the big questions. It's like a bad tv show, where you know the ending, because there's no continuity. All the characters' relationships are going to stay the same. Everything has to unfold back to square one.
Apparently, you don't have to make a coherent argument if you just string together a set of newsclips. Maybe this is why these people have resorted cutting and pasting footage.
There was a lot of footage of explosions, weapons going off, but where was the one clip that really mattered about 9-11? They didn't show any planes crashing into buildings because then you'd have realized that maybe all this rhetoric about good and evil actually had some substance and that there is no peaceful solution to someone who wants to kill you and your family and your fellow citizens.
This video attempted to portray the war on terrorism as a war against Islam, when in fact, our leadership has gone out of its way to repudiate that exact contention. Warring against a group of radical militant Islamists is not the same as warring against Islam the religion.
that's fine and good, but what have they invented lately?
"Killing more people is not going to make the world a better place."
actually, killing those people who plan the murder of thousands of civilians does make my world a better place.
Wait a sec buddy....
The United States isn't an empire that goes around the world "kicking ass" indiscriminately. We are primarily a financial/commercial/cultural power, and there are legitimate mechanisms by which people with grievances can get there message out.
You seem to imply some kind of moral equality in your post...
Let me give it to you straight. There is no moral justification for what occurred on tuesday.
Moreover, American's don't hate Arabs--- that's not a general rule... we do hate terrorists...
There are two sides here. The terrorists and the good guys, and yes, one side must be totally annihilated. Or preferably imprisoned, and then annihilated.
The US can't rely on the UN and ICJ to bring these pigs to justice. The UN is a heavily corrupt, nonfunctional bureaucracy... for which we already pay a disproportionate amount money...
Its ridiculous to suggest that the United States not use all of its resources to bring the pigs to justice... instead handing the job over to some defunct, near powerless bureaucracy...
"Such a thing could never exist in the U.S. for longer than it took to load up the tear gas grenade launchers. " The reason why this situation wouldn't exist in the U.S. is not because the US is some fasci-mili-totalitarian state as the above quote implies. The quote has it partially right, it does have something to do with "rule of law" as opposed to mob rule. You won't see american hi-tech workers in shanty-towns because in america, if you have valuable job skills you can get a job. really far out there, huh? In spain, evidently, good job skills don't guarante a job, because the free market has been socialized, manipulated, and otherwised f-ed with. is your job so important to you that you'd go to these extremes to protect it and get it back? probably not, because in america we have mobility of capital and persons...you can get a new one... in spain, the fact that these highly skilled workers aren't capable of just getting new ones... should tell us that they are far different economic environment, one with, as this article suggests serious inefficiencies
Russia isn't an equal partner in the International Space station. The United States bears the brunt of the cost of building the station. Also, the russians have been behind schedule on their modules the entire time. NASA guys had to prepare contingency plans because the early russian FGB power module almost didn't launch. Furthermore, the primary reason the russians are in this is political. Its really a symbol of post-cold war cooperation. We have the engineers and tech to do this ourselves, but we want to make it an international effort.
I'm sure there's a waiting list a mile long to get onto that station, and we shouldn't bump up a rich tourist to the top of the list simply because he paid off the russians.
1. the NASA mentality is that there is no margin for error. my dad works for NASA, and i can attest to atleast his crazy triple-backup contingency plan ways.
2. sending people up in the space shuttle is different than the ISS, they've flown over a hundred shuttle flights... the ISS is a newer technology and initially we've got to prioritize science and engineering goals over tourism, if even just for the safety concerns... (that's why sending up john glenn is different from this guy)