I believe you need to re-read Roe v. Wade...the actual opinion to get an idea of what the seven justices who were part of the majority were talking about...the Courts as you put it do not overturn the Constitution ever, they interpret the Constitution...
more pointedly, the substantive due process reasoning the Court used in Roe was the same reasoning the Court used to overturn bans on interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, and the right for married couples to make intimate decisions such whether or not to use birth control, see Griswold v. Connecticut...the rightly interpreted penumbras in the Bill of Rights that forbid the government from interfering in certain personal and very private decisions...
By your reasoning, the states could limit the number of children a couple or person could have...the states could require a license for a person to have a child...or the states could make laws that forbids all sexual positions besides missionary...or that sodomy between two consenting adults is a crime...under your so called theory of the 10th amendment, states could limit very private activities such as these...but that is far from what the founders notions of state sovereignty was about...Lucky for us and I would say the majority of Americans, our Courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution....
Moreover, do you think under the guise of the 10th Amendment the states should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The tired states' rights argument was made many times during the era of Brown v. Board of Education
Perhaps I am not watching the "correct" news channel or listening to the "correct" right wing demagogue (sorry, Ann Coulter is not an authority on Constitutional law) but did I miss the story about the 10th and 2nd Amendments getting "overturned"? No, the 10th Amendment is alive and well in Constitution Jurisprudence, See Printz v. United States, Reno v. Condon....and last I heard, the 2nd Amendment was live and kicking from the observation that the local gun store is still doing a brisk business....
What judges do you want to impeach? what exactly did they do that rises to the level of impeachment? If you are referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges, read their opinion about the gay marriage issue. Those so called judges that our President is villifying for political reasons to cater to his "base" have done nothing that warrants the repeated character assassination by our President. Their opinion is based on the interpreation of the Mass. Cosntitution. Those judges did what judges were suppose to do...just because they came to a decision that you do not agree with does not mean the judges committed an impeachable act...
furthermore, what exact unjust decisions should our President overturn? What specific decisions did the judicial branch make for the executive and legislative branch? Again, your arguments are the same ones segregationist made in the 1950s...and I am sure, if you have been listening to Fox and our President that you are probably upset with Alabama Ten Commandments case too...again, read the opinion of that case, Glassroth v. Moore, 299 F. Supp 2d 1290...probably one of the most comprehensive and thoughful opinion's written by a federal judge.
Ultimately it is tiresome to hear people like you regurgitating "activist" judge crap that our President and the rest of the majority of the right wing likes to scream. It is an ignorant statement to repeat, (see Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for an example of Scalia's "activistism")...again, it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution and declare laws that violate the Constitution as invalid...it is the State Supreme Court's of most of states, i.e. Mass, to interpret their own state Constitutions and declare laws that violate their state Constitutions as invalid...this power of the Courts is what keeps our government in balance...it is this powe
Uh, perhaps you overlooked the "Commerce Clause"?...and if I recall, your thinking that the federal government cannot regulate business, i.e. OHSA, has been soundly rejected..The Lochner era , Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, economic substantive due process under the guise of "freedom to contract" that was used to limit the government from regulating employers, has been thoroughly rejected.
Therefore, your comment about the Constitution is completely incorrect...perhaps you might need to also see Marbury v. Madison to understand that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution...
Regardless, from your previous comments on some illusion that employers and employees have equal bargaining power is also way off base...do you honestly think employers are going to spend any money that they are not forced to spend to make a workplace safe? to not pollute? to provide certain minimum benefits? Not when profits are at stake...history is littered with instances of employer malfeasance...ever read "The Jungle"? Ever read about the "Alton" documents where the Railroads knew asbestos was getting their employees sick in the earlier 1920s but still did not let the workers know this?
I would go as far and say that the belief that employers and employees are equal is naive and not just delusional...do you think if IBM told all prospective...or even would tell all prospective workers that if they worked in that plant, their risk of cancer doubles that IBM would be able to find any workers? Hell no...IBM just like all employers play down any risks and say "trust us" it is ok...
Your "Let the market decide" mantra should not be the end all be all...there are limits...if there were not any limits, AT&T would be your only phone carrier, I would not be using a Mac but using windows and we would all be filling up our gas tanks at Standard Oil gas stations...
I wonder how geeks survived without slashdot so they can pontificate how linux rules and MS is evil, how they buy more CDs because they can download mp3's for free to "test out" the music, or to argue that vi is better than every other text editor...
(I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive)
Now, who are these "many" you are referring to? I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you. Just because you and the rest of those "many" people do not respect nor like copyrights, does not mean that those whose livelihoods depend on their works think copyrights are counterproductive..
Copyrights are far from counterproductive. They do serve a function and serve it well.
And for your information, that garage coverband performing at the local bar is not exactly completely free either. The bar should have already paid for some sort of small performance license through ASCAP or BMI...at least to be legal, they should have done this, so the songwriters who actually created whatever the cover band is playing are getting compensated
Artists that create should be able to control the distribution and profit from their work if they so choose. That is why we have copyrights.
Do you have any cites that support your accusations of the BBC? What information can you point to that the BBC is known to be utterly biased? socialist? Where is your direct proof that the BBC thinks that Palestinian suicide bombers are "freedom fighters"?
Where is your proof that the BBC is an overfunded club of liars?
You do not have any, that is why...you are only regurgitating other conservative pundits that also have no supporting proof of their rhetoric. Just like the one about NPR being some left wing biased news program.
Well, to be fair to Feinstein, do not forget her constituents are those that live in California, including many people both poor and rich, that are employed by the entertainment industry and said industry makes up a good part of the California economy. She is doing what she was elected to do. Her constitutents are worried about the effects of piracy and illicit filesharing on their state. So, they convey their worries to her and ask her to do something about it because she was elected to represent them. Thus, she is not doint anything that is out of the ordinary for someone elected to represent their constitutents...
Well, it could be said almost every job could be done cheaper somewhere else (except Lobbyist, Lawyers, and...Professional Atheletes)...but that does not mean we should export them...
The last thing the world needs is a race to the bottom. That is why we have Federal Labor Laws in the US such as minimum wage and child labor laws, so that the States in the US do not engage in a race to the bottom...
and lets not forget, most those people overseas that make 1/10th of what we do, cannot afford what they make anyhow...The US and other Western nations are the ones that buy most of the stuff...
Well, hell, why don't we get our Congress to subsidize developer jobs at all IT companies? Then the jobs will stay here...if our Congress can subsidize our farmers, who seem to not understand that they are in a money losing business and should change jobs and not to forget, the deteriment of 3rd world countries not being able to compete in the US agriculture market because of this...
Why not subsidize IT workers too?
Let's not forget the 550 billion tax cut that was suppose to create 2 million jobs...which works out to about 275,000 dollars per job...the hell with the tax cut, lets just subsidize 7 million US jobs that pay about 75,000 instead of giving the tax cut away? that will keep lots of developers bringing in a pay check and keep our geeks out of trouble....
You also forgot learning about "One's Bases" not belonging to them anymore, spoken in poor English and more worn out than Christina Aguilera's new "Stripped" look.
On the subject of Harry Potter...I am kinda of excited about the next one with the new director. Alfonso Cuaron. There will be probably be more than 7 Harry Potter movies, as for "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", Chris Columbus is talking about coming back to direct it, but to do it in two films instead of one long one and releasing the two a month or so apart...This probably means that the latest Harry Potter book will also be a split film too...should be interesting who will direct that one.
Actually, if you knew the facts and theory surrounding the hot coffee case you would think differently...or maybe not.
Mickey D's had the temperature of their coffee for years at over 180+ degrees...at least that is what they served it at. At that temperature, a third degree burn occurs in seconds if the coffee is spilled on someone
The million dollars the plaintiff was awarded in that case was the amount McD's made on coffee in one day. The whole issue was that because of the temperature of McD's coffee (which is hotter that Starbucks), there were somewhere in the ballpark of 600 to 800 severe burns.
The theory is, if punishing McD's finacially causes them to either make better spill proof lids or but coffee cups that keep the temperature hot enough for a long time without having to make the temperature so hot, then this would prevent 600 to 800 severe burns a year
And yes, it worked, McD's improved their lids, their cups, and decreased the temperature of the coffee. I don't remember how much this cut down on severe burns a year, but its was over an 80% decrease.
Additionally, because of this case, other fast found joints, i.e. BK lounge, also changed their coffee lids, cups, and temperature....Starbucks and Caribou coffee then implemented the policy of never giving a drink to a patron unless the top is on it...
So, because of the McD's coffee case, which seemed completely ridiculous to me too at the time...actually had a greater impact in saving money in medical cost and other social cost from severe burns by getting those that serve coffee to implement some preventive measures.
A lot of severe burns caused by accidents have been prevented because of that one case....Don't always think a case that sounds absurd doesn't have some other positive impact...
Not precisely. The economic value of the song is diminished. That is what was taken away. Even if you wouldn't have purchased it, the economic value is diminised, precisely because a copy was made. So supply is increased, holding demand constant, drops the value. Simple economics. Your simple illegal copy diminishing their value, makes you liable for a lawsuite. Simple legal analysis.
Your argument is specious. Perhaps you are thinking more along the lines of the Wickard v. Filburn holding of the Supreme Court that applied an Aggregate theory for a Commerce Clause law that invovled the regulation of grain. In that case, a small farmer was found in violation of a Federal law that regulated the quota of grain farmers could grow. The Farmer in question there grew grain not for sale, but just for private use that exceed the quota set. He lost under the theory that if he did not exceed the quota, he would of had to buy more grain for his personal use, i.e. to feed his cows.
The theory goes, if everybody grew grain for their personal use, not for the market, but they exceeded their production quota, this in the aggregrate would have an adverse effect on the grain market...i.e. by dampening prices.
Now your argument says if I illegally download a song, this harms the supply. This has nothing to do with the supply. Even if 100,000 people downloaded the same song, this still would have no effect on the supply. The supply is the same. Even applying this to demand, since I never had the intent to ever buy the song, and if most of the other 100k people never had any intent to buy the song, then this does not affect the demand.
So, as in the Aggregate case, those growing for personal use would of needed to buy the grain if they could not grow it...compared to the majority of those that illegally download songs, that do not need the songs nor had any intent to purchase the songs, the aggregate affect on Music sales is minimal.
Thus your supply and demand argument is full of holes.
Now let us talk about John Locke's Principles. One must first ask if his "Treatise" can be applied to copyrighted materials. Property as it applies to Land is far different than as it applies to copyrights. Land is unique, one of a kind. Granted, some Principles of ownership might bleed over to the concept of copyrights, but Title and Rights in Land present far different issues than copyrights, as for one, Land never goes into the Public Domain after some period of time. (and no, Eminent domain is not the same thing).
Anyway, I am tired and beginning to ramble....but there is a big difference.
Your hypothetical makes zero (0) sense and is not evenly closely related to the difference between say apartheid and illegal drugs. Apartheid has to do with the denigration and subjugation of a person based on race. A complete abrogation of one's inherent human rights. Illegal drugs don't even belong on the same planet, much less in the same ballpark with any discussion of apartheid.
Hmm, A few years back I remember a project to get the Airport at Dakar connected to the Sita network. (More precisely, there was a redoing of the worldwide network topology).
Which, too bad they, the Senagalese(sp?), couldn't somehow tap into that network...matter fact, The whole Sita network that connected all the world's major airports was sort of a "secret" access to the Internet. In theory, at say Bejing's airport, or even Riyahd (or pick any country that controls internet access), one could get unrestricted, i.e. no government monitoring or censoring of internet surfing, internet access. hmmm .
of course, this is only theory, as I never actually went to those places to test it out, but as for as I knew, anything on the 54.x.x.x network could get to the internet. hmmm
Is There research or prototypes of Force Fields? As such in Science Fiction? Are Force Fields possible..and if so, how/what they work? If they were feasible, would this not be able to protect against debris?
what are some of the common protections/ideas used in sci fi against interstellar/orbital debris.
I think trying to locate every nut and bolt leftover in space is not feasible...and those small items are probably the most dangerous as they are difficult, if not impossible to detect...right?
Let's look back to the Committees on Anti-American Activities.
Yes, many lives were ruined, but we, the US people learned from that incident. Since you didn't live back then, you really didn't know the atmosphere that was going on. People were truely frightened over Nuclear war and Communism. Although, those fears were misplaced and stoked by those with ulterior motives. Regardless, we as a nation have learned from that time period, and that fact seems to elude you.
His speeches scare more people I am no fan of Bush, but exactly what speeches do you speak of? I don't recall any preaching brimstone and hellfire....perhaps you refer to the ramblings, I mean warnings from Ashcroft et al, who by the way, Bush's administration is beginning to question the effectiveness of Ashcroft's and others constant verbal warnings that have no "hard" evidence (or even "connect the dot" type evidence)
Geez, come on, let's instead of roasting NPR, perhaps try some constuctive dialog concerning their linking policy. It seems like there is a knee jerk reaction to what seems a hypocritical policy on NPR's part might actually have some valid points. Furthermore, NPR just might alter their policy if they hear sound and reasonable reasons, instead of angry and malice remarks.
worrying about Anonymous surfing is probably pointless, since the Chinese government could just watch who enters and exits cafes, or place agents working at the cafes.
It is apparent the Chinese government knows where the "illegal" cafes are located and who operates them...so why haven't the Chinese government been concerned with them before this? How come they have not been inspecting them for building codes and license violations? Have there been extortion payments by government officials of the cafes that kept them open and now because of this incident, are extortion payments going to cost more?
come on, it seems like the Chinese government is up to something fishy here. In the US, no municipal government would allow such a widespread violation of building codes if it knows about it.
Re:I live in Alberta
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Air and water quality in most first-world nations is far cleaner today than it was 30 years ago,
Obviously you are ignorant to the southeastern US. In Atl, the air and water quality is far worse that it has ever been. This week alone the air quality is so bad that asthmatics are warned to not spend much time outside...and i could imagine what other effects this has....most people I know don't drink the water out of the facet either...
furthermore, how do you account for the increase in asthma in children?
Cars burn less fuel, and the fuel they do burn is burned much more efficiently, than older cars
ever wonder why there are emission standards differences b/w the US and Europe? cause of legislation. Ever wonder why US car manufacturers install catalytic converters? not because they want too...ever wonder why there is no more lead gasoline? cause the government said so...and even if cars do burn better than 30 years ago, there are 10 times as many cars on the road to day...do you think that the fuel efficiency in cars is proportional to the the number of cars b/w 30 years ago and today?
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
again, do you think if Big Business is given the choice between profits and policing itself it is going to police itself? hell no...only the threat of lawsuits or government legislature spurs Corps into action....hell, most of the time it is after the fact anyway, i.e. Love Canal.
Ideas like the Kyoto treaty are not easy nor painless. Making a concerted effort towards addressing pollution will have economic consequences in the short term, that much is true. But better deal with it now, than later...hell, what does Bush care anyway, he is going to be dead and gone by the time everything goes to hell in a hand basked on account of his half-baked policies.
Sorry for not being more precise. I too do not believe in any collective guilt by the present Germans for the atrocities of the Nazis. I did not mean that the Germans should atone for those sins. I only meant one of the reasonings behind Germany's policies against any form of Nazi expressing does stem from some "collective" guilt some Germans perceive they have...
and far as your comment about worrying about "myself" what is that suppose to mean? is that suppose to be some sort of slight or condescension? I don't see how any statements I have ever made even come close to "right-wing extremism"
There are sites on the web displaying children having sex. I do work for a webhosting company, I have had to on rare occasions, shut down customer sites, zip up the files, and hand them over to law enforcement that had subpeonaed them for the content. So, yes it does exist (also, what do you think the FBI et al have as evidence when they do bust a child pr0n ring???)...
How much more wrong and morally indefensible is having sex with a 17 years old, compared to having sex with an 18 years old person?
There probably is not much difference, some 18 year olds are less mature than 17 year olds (and probably a few 16 year olds too) and vice versa, but there is a cutoff age for a reason. This is so say law enforcement and such is not making the decision on whether or not the teen in question is being exploited or not. 18 is the cutoff, anything under that is up to the discretion of law enforcement. Just as, This is so you can have "teen" sites as well without someone deciding that a 20 year looks too young to strip and thus denied the right to do what she pleases...let's not forget too there is a huge difference between prepubescent and pubescent children (14 and under) and Teens.
.....there is a huge difference between sites that actually have nude children in sexual situations and the nude children depicted in European Churches and Palaces, any person with common sense can discern that
and, the supreme court wisely, struck down a law that would of possibly made movies and other artistic endeavors such as "Pretty Baby" illegal. Again, a prudent individual can discern the difference between child nudity in Lolita and other like movies and a 11 year old child getting fucked by an adult in a pr0n movie
and to repeat, just like slavery, no matter if it is "legal" supposely in another country, it is still morally indefensible, just like racism, sexism, etc....just as some adult fucking a 9 year old, no matter what country you live in is morally indefensible...
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you need to re-read Roe v. Wade...the actual opinion to get an idea of what the seven justices who were part of the majority were talking about...the Courts as you put it do not overturn the Constitution ever, they interpret the Constitution...
....and last I heard, the 2nd Amendment was live and kicking from the observation that the local gun store is still doing a brisk business....
more pointedly, the substantive due process reasoning the Court used in Roe was the same reasoning the Court used to overturn bans on interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, and the right for married couples to make intimate decisions such whether or not to use birth control, see Griswold v. Connecticut...the rightly interpreted penumbras in the Bill of Rights that forbid the government from interfering in certain personal and very private decisions...
By your reasoning, the states could limit the number of children a couple or person could have...the states could require a license for a person to have a child...or the states could make laws that forbids all sexual positions besides missionary...or that sodomy between two consenting adults is a crime...under your so called theory of the 10th amendment, states could limit very private activities such as these...but that is far from what the founders notions of state sovereignty was about...Lucky for us and I would say the majority of Americans, our Courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution....
Moreover, do you think under the guise of the 10th Amendment the states should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The tired states' rights argument was made many times during the era of Brown v. Board of Education
Perhaps I am not watching the "correct" news channel or listening to the "correct" right wing demagogue (sorry, Ann Coulter is not an authority on Constitutional law) but did I miss the story about the 10th and 2nd Amendments getting "overturned"? No, the 10th Amendment is alive and well in Constitution Jurisprudence, See Printz v. United States, Reno v. Condon
What judges do you want to impeach? what exactly did they do that rises to the level of impeachment? If you are referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges, read their opinion about the gay marriage issue. Those so called judges that our President is villifying for political reasons to cater to his "base" have done nothing that warrants the repeated character assassination by our President. Their opinion is based on the interpreation of the Mass. Cosntitution. Those judges did what judges were suppose to do...just because they came to a decision that you do not agree with does not mean the judges committed an impeachable act...
furthermore, what exact unjust decisions should our President overturn? What specific decisions did the judicial branch make for the executive and legislative branch? Again, your arguments are the same ones segregationist made in the 1950s...and I am sure, if you have been listening to Fox and our President that you are probably upset with Alabama Ten Commandments case too...again, read the opinion of that case, Glassroth v. Moore, 299 F. Supp 2d 1290...probably one of the most comprehensive and thoughful opinion's written by a federal judge.
Ultimately it is tiresome to hear people like you regurgitating "activist" judge crap that our President and the rest of the majority of the right wing likes to scream. It is an ignorant statement to repeat, (see Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for an example of Scalia's "activistism")...again, it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution and declare laws that violate the Constitution as invalid...it is the State Supreme Court's of most of states, i.e. Mass, to interpret their own state Constitutions and declare laws that violate their state Constitutions as invalid...this power of the Courts is what keeps our government in balance...it is this powe
Uh, perhaps you overlooked the "Commerce Clause"?...and if I recall, your thinking that the federal government cannot regulate business, i.e. OHSA, has been soundly rejected..The Lochner era , Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, economic substantive due process under the guise of "freedom to contract" that was used to limit the government from regulating employers, has been thoroughly rejected.
Therefore, your comment about the Constitution is completely incorrect...perhaps you might need to also see Marbury v. Madison to understand that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution...
Regardless, from your previous comments on some illusion that employers and employees have equal bargaining power is also way off base...do you honestly think employers are going to spend any money that they are not forced to spend to make a workplace safe? to not pollute? to provide certain minimum benefits? Not when profits are at stake...history is littered with instances of employer malfeasance...ever read "The Jungle"? Ever read about the "Alton" documents where the Railroads knew asbestos was getting their employees sick in the earlier 1920s but still did not let the workers know this?
I would go as far and say that the belief that employers and employees are equal is naive and not just delusional...do you think if IBM told all prospective...or even would tell all prospective workers that if they worked in that plant, their risk of cancer doubles that IBM would be able to find any workers? Hell no...IBM just like all employers play down any risks and say "trust us" it is ok...
Your "Let the market decide" mantra should not be the end all be all...there are limits...if there were not any limits, AT&T would be your only phone carrier, I would not be using a Mac but using windows and we would all be filling up our gas tanks at Standard Oil gas stations...
Not another "mis-informed" individual regurgitating the "Al Gore invented the internet" myth...again, here is what really was said.
stop spreading ignorance
I wonder how geeks survived without slashdot so they can pontificate how linux rules and MS is evil, how they buy more CDs because they can download mp3's for free to "test out" the music, or to argue that vi is better than every other text editor...
(I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive)
Now, who are these "many" you are referring to? I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you. Just because you and the rest of those "many" people do not respect nor like copyrights, does not mean that those whose livelihoods depend on their works think copyrights are counterproductive..
Copyrights are far from counterproductive. They do serve a function and serve it well.
And for your information, that garage coverband performing at the local bar is not exactly completely free either. The bar should have already paid for some sort of small performance license through ASCAP or BMI...at least to be legal, they should have done this, so the songwriters who actually created whatever the cover band is playing are getting compensated
Artists that create should be able to control the distribution and profit from their work if they so choose. That is why we have copyrights.
Do you have any cites that support your accusations of the BBC?
What information can you point to that the BBC is known to be utterly biased? socialist?
Where is your direct proof that the BBC thinks that Palestinian suicide bombers are "freedom fighters"?
Where is your proof that the BBC is an overfunded club of liars?
You do not have any, that is why...you are only regurgitating other conservative pundits that also have no supporting proof of their rhetoric. Just like the one about NPR being some left wing biased news program.
Well, to be fair to Feinstein, do not forget her constituents are those that live in California, including many people both poor and rich, that are employed by the entertainment industry and said industry makes up a good part of the California economy. She is doing what she was elected to do. Her constitutents are worried about the effects of piracy and illicit filesharing on their state. So, they convey their worries to her and ask her to do something about it because she was elected to represent them. Thus, she is not doint anything that is out of the ordinary for someone elected to represent their constitutents...
Well, it could be said almost every job could be done cheaper somewhere else (except Lobbyist, Lawyers, and...Professional Atheletes)...but that does not mean we should export them...
The last thing the world needs is a race to the bottom. That is why we have Federal Labor Laws in the US such as minimum wage and child labor laws, so that the States in the US do not engage in a race to the bottom...
and lets not forget, most those people overseas that make 1/10th of what we do, cannot afford what they make anyhow...The US and other Western nations are the ones that buy most of the stuff...
Well, hell, why don't we get our Congress to subsidize developer jobs at all IT companies? Then the jobs will stay here...if our Congress can subsidize our farmers, who seem to not understand that they are in a money losing business and should change jobs and not to forget, the deteriment of 3rd world countries not being able to compete in the US agriculture market because of this...
Why not subsidize IT workers too?
Let's not forget the 550 billion tax cut that was suppose to create 2 million jobs...which works out to about 275,000 dollars per job...the hell with the tax cut, lets just subsidize 7 million US jobs that pay about 75,000 instead of giving the tax cut away? that will keep lots of developers bringing in a pay check and keep our geeks out of trouble....
just a thought
You also forgot learning about "One's Bases" not belonging to them anymore, spoken in poor English and more worn out than Christina Aguilera's new "Stripped" look.
Funny you mention Preperation H...I sit so much reading through slashdot that I swear I have a 'roid...Oh, the pain!
On the subject of Harry Potter...I am kinda of excited about the next one with the new director. Alfonso Cuaron. There will be probably be more than 7 Harry Potter movies, as for "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", Chris Columbus is talking about coming back to direct it, but to do it in two films instead of one long one and releasing the two a month or so apart...This probably means that the latest Harry Potter book will also be a split film too...should be interesting who will direct that one.
Actually, if you knew the facts and theory surrounding the hot coffee case you would think differently...or maybe not.
Mickey D's had the temperature of their coffee for years at over 180+ degrees...at least that is what they served it at. At that temperature, a third degree burn occurs in seconds if the coffee is spilled on someone
The million dollars the plaintiff was awarded in that case was the amount McD's made on coffee in one day. The whole issue was that because of the temperature of McD's coffee (which is hotter that Starbucks), there were somewhere in the ballpark of 600 to 800 severe burns.
The theory is, if punishing McD's finacially causes them to either make better spill proof lids or but coffee cups that keep the temperature hot enough for a long time without having to make the temperature so hot, then this would prevent 600 to 800 severe burns a year
And yes, it worked, McD's improved their lids, their cups, and decreased the temperature of the coffee. I don't remember how much this cut down on severe burns a year, but its was over an 80% decrease.
Additionally, because of this case, other fast found joints, i.e. BK lounge, also changed their coffee lids, cups, and temperature....Starbucks and Caribou coffee then implemented the policy of never giving a drink to a patron unless the top is on it...
So, because of the McD's coffee case, which seemed completely ridiculous to me too at the time...actually had a greater impact in saving money in medical cost and other social cost from severe burns by getting those that serve coffee to implement some preventive measures.
A lot of severe burns caused by accidents have been prevented because of that one case....Don't always think a case that sounds absurd doesn't have some other positive impact...
Not precisely. The economic value of the song is diminished. That is what was taken away. Even if you wouldn't have purchased it, the economic value is diminised, precisely because a copy was made. So supply is increased, holding demand constant, drops the value. Simple economics. Your simple illegal copy diminishing their value, makes you liable for a lawsuite. Simple legal analysis.
Your argument is specious. Perhaps you are thinking more along the lines of the Wickard v. Filburn holding of the Supreme Court that applied an Aggregate theory for a Commerce Clause law that invovled the regulation of grain. In that case, a small farmer was found in violation of a Federal law that regulated the quota of grain farmers could grow. The Farmer in question there grew grain not for sale, but just for private use that exceed the quota set. He lost under the theory that if he did not exceed the quota, he would of had to buy more grain for his personal use, i.e. to feed his cows.
The theory goes, if everybody grew grain for their personal use, not for the market, but they exceeded their production quota, this in the aggregrate would have an adverse effect on the grain market...i.e. by dampening prices.
Now your argument says if I illegally download a song, this harms the supply. This has nothing to do with the supply. Even if 100,000 people downloaded the same song, this still would have no effect on the supply. The supply is the same. Even applying this to demand, since I never had the intent to ever buy the song, and if most of the other 100k people never had any intent to buy the song, then this does not affect the demand.
So, as in the Aggregate case, those growing for personal use would of needed to buy the grain if they could not grow it...compared to the majority of those that illegally download songs, that do not need the songs nor had any intent to purchase the songs, the aggregate affect on Music sales is minimal.
Thus your supply and demand argument is full of holes.
Now let us talk about John Locke's Principles. One must first ask if his "Treatise" can be applied to copyrighted materials. Property as it applies to Land is far different than as it applies to copyrights. Land is unique, one of a kind. Granted, some Principles of ownership might bleed over to the concept of copyrights, but Title and Rights in Land present far different issues than copyrights, as for one, Land never goes into the Public Domain after some period of time. (and no, Eminent domain is not the same thing).
Anyway, I am tired and beginning to ramble....but there is a big difference.
Your hypothetical makes zero (0) sense and is not evenly closely related to the difference between say apartheid and illegal drugs. Apartheid has to do with the denigration and subjugation of a person based on race. A complete abrogation of one's inherent human rights. Illegal drugs don't even belong on the same planet, much less in the same ballpark with any discussion of apartheid.
Hmm, A few years back I remember a project to get the Airport at Dakar connected to the Sita network. (More precisely, there was a redoing of the worldwide network topology).
Which, too bad they, the Senagalese(sp?), couldn't somehow tap into that network...matter fact, The whole Sita network that connected all the world's major airports was sort of a "secret" access to the Internet. In theory, at say Bejing's airport, or even Riyahd (or pick any country that controls internet access), one could get unrestricted, i.e. no government monitoring or censoring of internet surfing, internet access. hmmm
.
of course, this is only theory, as I never actually went to those places to test it out, but as for as I knew, anything on the 54.x.x.x network could get to the internet. hmmm
I don't need to hear Justine Timberlake and Britney Spears anybetter, they suck just fine with current technology
Is There research or prototypes of Force Fields? As such in Science Fiction? Are Force Fields possible..and if so, how/what they work? If they were feasible, would this not be able to protect against debris?
what are some of the common protections/ideas used in sci fi against interstellar/orbital debris.
I think trying to locate every nut and bolt leftover in space is not feasible...and those small items are probably the most dangerous as they are difficult, if not impossible to detect...right?
Windows XP is the reason I am buying a Powerbook for school..... thanks MS....
Let's look back to the Committees on Anti-American Activities.
Yes, many lives were ruined, but we, the US people learned from that incident. Since you didn't live back then, you really didn't know the atmosphere that was going on. People were truely frightened over Nuclear war and Communism. Although, those fears were misplaced and stoked by those with ulterior motives. Regardless, we as a nation have learned from that time period, and that fact seems to elude you.
His speeches scare more people
I am no fan of Bush, but exactly what speeches do you speak of? I don't recall any preaching brimstone and hellfire....perhaps you refer to the ramblings, I mean warnings from Ashcroft et al, who by the way, Bush's administration is beginning to question the effectiveness of Ashcroft's and others constant verbal warnings that have no "hard" evidence (or even "connect the dot" type evidence)
Geez, come on, let's instead of roasting NPR, perhaps try some constuctive dialog concerning their linking policy. It seems like there is a knee jerk reaction to what seems a hypocritical policy on NPR's part might actually have some valid points. Furthermore, NPR just might alter their policy if they hear sound and reasonable reasons, instead of angry and malice remarks.
worrying about Anonymous surfing is probably pointless, since the Chinese government could just watch who enters and exits cafes, or place agents working at the cafes.
It is apparent the Chinese government knows where the "illegal" cafes are located and who operates them...so why haven't the Chinese government been concerned with them before this? How come they have not been inspecting them for building codes and license violations? Have there been extortion payments by government officials of the cafes that kept them open and now because of this incident, are extortion payments going to cost more?
come on, it seems like the Chinese government is up to something fishy here. In the US, no municipal government would allow such a widespread violation of building codes if it knows about it.
Air and water quality in most first-world nations is far cleaner today than it was 30 years ago,
Obviously you are ignorant to the southeastern US. In Atl, the air and water quality is far worse that it has ever been. This week alone the air quality is so bad that asthmatics are warned to not spend much time outside...and i could imagine what other effects this has....most people I know don't drink the water out of the facet either...
furthermore, how do you account for the increase in asthma in children?
Cars burn less fuel, and the fuel they do burn is burned much more efficiently, than older cars
ever wonder why there are emission standards differences b/w the US and Europe? cause of legislation. Ever wonder why US car manufacturers install catalytic converters? not because they want too...ever wonder why there is no more lead gasoline? cause the government said so...and even if cars do burn better than 30 years ago, there are 10 times as many cars on the road to day...do you think that the fuel efficiency in cars is proportional to the the number of cars b/w 30 years ago and today?
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
again, do you think if Big Business is given the choice between profits and policing itself it is going to police itself? hell no...only the threat of lawsuits or government legislature spurs Corps into action....hell, most of the time it is after the fact anyway, i.e. Love Canal.
Ideas like the Kyoto treaty are not easy nor painless. Making a concerted effort towards addressing pollution will have economic consequences in the short term, that much is true. But better deal with it now, than later...hell, what does Bush care anyway, he is going to be dead and gone by the time everything goes to hell in a hand basked on account of his half-baked policies.
Sorry for not being more precise. I too do not believe in any collective guilt by the present Germans for the atrocities of the Nazis. I did not mean that the Germans should atone for those sins. I only meant one of the reasonings behind Germany's policies against any form of Nazi expressing does stem from some "collective" guilt some Germans perceive they have...
and far as your comment about worrying about "myself" what is that suppose to mean? is that suppose to be some sort of slight or condescension? I don't see how any statements I have ever made even come close to "right-wing extremism"
To go off topic....
There are sites on the web displaying children having sex. I do work for a webhosting company, I have had to on rare occasions, shut down customer sites, zip up the files, and hand them over to law enforcement that had subpeonaed them for the content. So, yes it does exist (also, what do you think the FBI et al have as evidence when they do bust a child pr0n ring???)...
How much more wrong and morally indefensible is having sex with a 17 years old, compared to having sex with an 18 years old person?
There probably is not much difference, some 18 year olds are less mature than 17 year olds (and probably a few 16 year olds too) and vice versa, but there is a cutoff age for a reason. This is so say law enforcement and such is not making the decision on whether or not the teen in question is being exploited or not. 18 is the cutoff, anything under that is up to the discretion of law enforcement. Just as, This is so you can have "teen" sites as well without someone deciding that a 20 year looks too young to strip and thus denied the right to do what she pleases...let's not forget too there is a huge difference between prepubescent and pubescent children (14 and under) and Teens.
.....there is a huge difference between sites that actually have nude children in sexual situations and the nude children depicted in European Churches and Palaces, any person with common sense can discern that
and, the supreme court wisely, struck down a law that would of possibly made movies and other artistic endeavors such as "Pretty Baby" illegal. Again, a prudent individual can discern the difference between child nudity in Lolita and other like movies and a 11 year old child getting fucked by an adult in a pr0n movie
and to repeat, just like slavery, no matter if it is "legal" supposely in another country, it is still morally indefensible, just like racism, sexism, etc....just as some adult fucking a 9 year old, no matter what country you live in is morally indefensible...