Jobs was a well educated, intelligent man sounded by well educated, intelligent people with a vested financial interest in keeping him alive. I seriously doubt he based his entire treatment off Joe Bob's Snake Oil Voodoo and Cancer Treatment Center of the Internet and Wishful Thinking. Rather, I'm sure he looked at his options and made a personal decision based on his personal wishes and situation. His treatment was his own personal choice. The decision was not pushed on him nor was he ill-informed. I'm sure that many people close to him probably even advised him against it. There is no guarantee that traditional treatment would have saved him and probably would have lowered his quality of life. Conventional cancer treatments come with a price and individuals should be able to chose if it is worth paying.
What criteria should we use to create our laws? How do we know that murder and theft should be illegal? Why is rape a crime? We as a society have to decide that certain activities are unacceptable. It was not that long ago that a man could not rape his wife. We believed as a society that men had certain rights over women. We have since decided that that behavior was immoral and wrong so we updated the laws to make it illegal. There are still people who believe those new laws infringe upon their rights and other countries have vastly different laws.
Does it matter why I believe that something should be a crime? Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral? The OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM! attitude is kind of silly. Non-religious groups come up with inane laws and ideas all the time. Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired? Ultimately our society will decide if a law is good and just. It may take a while, be we outlawed slavery and we outlawed beating your wife and kids. Prohibition was passed and then repealed. All those legal movements had religious arguments for and against them.
Haven't they been doing this for years? Path Intelligence's patent application for the system that tracks cell phones in shopping centers cites this kind of thing as prior art...
Or maybe you have some groundhogs out back you are trying to get rid of? I watched a very interesting piece on the discovery channel where farmers rigged an entire tree line with explosives and blew it up in an effort to kill a flock of birds that were threatening the crops. There are many perfectly valid and legal reasons I would want to blow something up.
You are forgetting one big important factor: the mother. A lot of the wedding hype gets driven by the mother. My father offered me a significant amount of cash to elope. My mother found out about the arrangement, learned that I was planning on taking the cash, and rather quickly changed the arrangement so that I would get the cash in return for having a nice formal wedding. She was going to see her baby girl get married God damn it. She has a masters in chemistry so doesn't exactly qualify as bimbo.
There is nothing wrong with having a party. Go sit at the bar and let the women have their gaudy celebration and accept the fact that you don't understand them and it isn't for you. The wedding is for the bride and the reception is for her mother.
I generally agree. I would rather get a new car than have to clean blood splatters out of the upholstery, etc. The idea behind the new law was removing the obligation of retreating. Previously you had an obligation to retreat and deadly force was only permissible if retreating was not an option. You also had the problem of if you shot a burglar in your home you needed to make sure he didn't fall out the window cause if he wasn't in the house you weren't protected.
I do however think it is important that we have the right to defend ourselves and others. It will be interesting to see if the new law gets abused the way you suggest.
But who says who is more critical? We all accept that ambulances and emergency services are critical and thus take precedence. They have big flashing lights that tell you so. How do you know that the guy in the normal car speeding down the road is trying to get to the hospital because his mother is dieing or he is just being a jerk? I can make the claim that my file is vitally important and screw your phone call. You can have a call with choppy audio but I need that file now. I don't know what your phone call is about and you don't know what my file is.
The fair way to adjudicate it is to say we each get X bandwidth to do whatever we want with. If we cannot both simultaneously have X bandwidth, then we have purchased a service that does not exist. If you went to a store and paid for a dozen eggs but when you got home there were only 8 eggs in the carton because someone else also bought a dozen eggs and the store split the carton, everyone would be pissed.
In order to throttle back one type of traffic you have to make assumptions about how important it is. You assume that delaying my traffic for your convenience is ok and I should live with it. If someone decided that their packets were more important than your audio quality and that you should just live with it, you would be pissed. Why do you expect me to live with it?
I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out... You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.
You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.
Recently (within the past year) they passed an update to the Castle Defense in PA. The updated law states that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself when in any location you are legally allowed to be. I'm not sure how long ago your example happened, but we had a case where a man shot and killed his wife's boyfriend with a bow and arrow and wasn't charged because of the new law. All you need to do is feel threatened and I don't know about you, but I find someone trying to steal my car very threatening. The new law puts the burden on the prosecutors to prove that you were not acting in self-defense.
Oddly they specified that shooting law enforcement personal is not protected, at least according to the mailing I got from my state representative explaining the changes.
Because the way we have always done things is the way we should continue to do things. And things should never change! Now get off my lawn! Damn kids and their skateboards...
So doctors that get woken up in the middle of night to deal with a crisis are slaves? Utility workers that get called in at 2AM to respond to a crisis are slaves? When a MMORPG has a critical bug and they call their developers in in the middle of the night, that is slavery? If you data center crashes and you call your IT team in after hours, that is slavery? There are plenty of jobs in America where we don't think twice about calling someone in the middle of the night. Are all those workers slaves? What about workers out on oil rigs and fishing ships? Is that also slavery?
I'm fine with the government taking no action. If government intervention is artificially propping up a flawed industry, they should stop. It's the people clamoring to make X illegal because it's bad for me that I object to.
You don't have to drink pop. There are plenty of beverage choices that do not involve any form of sugar. We as people decided that we like pop so we drink it and companies cater to our whims. If YOU don't want to drink HFCS, then don't. Don't ask the government to force me to conform to what works for you. If there was one lifestyle and diet that worked for everyone, there would not be thousands of "lose weight fast and stay healthy on this brand sparkly new diet/pill/workout!" products.
My mother-in-law does not eat any carbohydrates and minimizes sugar intake to the point where she knows which vegetables have high sugar. That works for her. My mother tried the no-carb diet for a while and it made her violently ill. There are people capable of eating all day and not gaining an ounce of weight. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, rather general guidelines that appear to work for large sets of people. Each individual has to find a lifestyle that works for them. This is not a place the government needs to intervene by passing sweeping bans of harmless but commonly misused products.
I think in the above example it might fall under harassment. You can tell all your friends that "Jews Suck" or whatever and you can stand on a street corner and shout it at the top of your lungs, but if you went and stood in front of your Jewish neighbor's house and held up signs touting your hatred for them, eventually you will most likely step over that thin line between free speech and harassment.
I think you just proved my point... There is more crime in the geographic area of NYC than in other geographic areas that are less populated. I think it has something to do with population density... The crime/person may be low, but if 78 people are raped in a 28 day period in NYC and 0 people are raped in a 28 day period in Small Town America, I think my chances of being raped in NYC are a tad higher. There is a reason NYC doesn't really seriously compare their crime stats to Small Town America, but compares them to other cities of similar sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs was a well educated, intelligent man sounded by well educated, intelligent people with a vested financial interest in keeping him alive. I seriously doubt he based his entire treatment off Joe Bob's Snake Oil Voodoo and Cancer Treatment Center of the Internet and Wishful Thinking. Rather, I'm sure he looked at his options and made a personal decision based on his personal wishes and situation. His treatment was his own personal choice. The decision was not pushed on him nor was he ill-informed. I'm sure that many people close to him probably even advised him against it. There is no guarantee that traditional treatment would have saved him and probably would have lowered his quality of life. Conventional cancer treatments come with a price and individuals should be able to chose if it is worth paying.
What criteria should we use to create our laws? How do we know that murder and theft should be illegal? Why is rape a crime? We as a society have to decide that certain activities are unacceptable. It was not that long ago that a man could not rape his wife. We believed as a society that men had certain rights over women. We have since decided that that behavior was immoral and wrong so we updated the laws to make it illegal. There are still people who believe those new laws infringe upon their rights and other countries have vastly different laws.
Does it matter why I believe that something should be a crime? Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral? The OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM! attitude is kind of silly. Non-religious groups come up with inane laws and ideas all the time. Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired? Ultimately our society will decide if a law is good and just. It may take a while, be we outlawed slavery and we outlawed beating your wife and kids. Prohibition was passed and then repealed. All those legal movements had religious arguments for and against them.
You can reuse boats. They don't disappear after moving one batch of servers.
Haven't they been doing this for years? Path Intelligence's patent application for the system that tracks cell phones in shopping centers cites this kind of thing as prior art...
We can still win without getting to Alpha Centari... All we have to do is eliminate all our competitors.
For the same reason that everyone should know what happens when you mix bleach and ammonia: Women in Walmart throw bleach and ammonia at each other. Or that you shouldn't throw certain chemicals in a bowl of water...
Or maybe you have some groundhogs out back you are trying to get rid of? I watched a very interesting piece on the discovery channel where farmers rigged an entire tree line with explosives and blew it up in an effort to kill a flock of birds that were threatening the crops. There are many perfectly valid and legal reasons I would want to blow something up.
You are forgetting one big important factor: the mother. A lot of the wedding hype gets driven by the mother. My father offered me a significant amount of cash to elope. My mother found out about the arrangement, learned that I was planning on taking the cash, and rather quickly changed the arrangement so that I would get the cash in return for having a nice formal wedding. She was going to see her baby girl get married God damn it. She has a masters in chemistry so doesn't exactly qualify as bimbo.
There is nothing wrong with having a party. Go sit at the bar and let the women have their gaudy celebration and accept the fact that you don't understand them and it isn't for you. The wedding is for the bride and the reception is for her mother.
Depends on the state you live in.
Not all of the US is Common Law. Louisiana uses a system based off Napoleonic Law.
Wouldn't it be better to just unplug it?
I generally agree. I would rather get a new car than have to clean blood splatters out of the upholstery, etc. The idea behind the new law was removing the obligation of retreating. Previously you had an obligation to retreat and deadly force was only permissible if retreating was not an option. You also had the problem of if you shot a burglar in your home you needed to make sure he didn't fall out the window cause if he wasn't in the house you weren't protected.
I do however think it is important that we have the right to defend ourselves and others. It will be interesting to see if the new law gets abused the way you suggest.
But who says who is more critical? We all accept that ambulances and emergency services are critical and thus take precedence. They have big flashing lights that tell you so. How do you know that the guy in the normal car speeding down the road is trying to get to the hospital because his mother is dieing or he is just being a jerk? I can make the claim that my file is vitally important and screw your phone call. You can have a call with choppy audio but I need that file now. I don't know what your phone call is about and you don't know what my file is.
The fair way to adjudicate it is to say we each get X bandwidth to do whatever we want with. If we cannot both simultaneously have X bandwidth, then we have purchased a service that does not exist. If you went to a store and paid for a dozen eggs but when you got home there were only 8 eggs in the carton because someone else also bought a dozen eggs and the store split the carton, everyone would be pissed.
In order to throttle back one type of traffic you have to make assumptions about how important it is. You assume that delaying my traffic for your convenience is ok and I should live with it. If someone decided that their packets were more important than your audio quality and that you should just live with it, you would be pissed. Why do you expect me to live with it?
I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out... You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.
You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.
Doesn't count as unauthorized access to a computer network and is thus a crime?
Recently (within the past year) they passed an update to the Castle Defense in PA. The updated law states that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself when in any location you are legally allowed to be. I'm not sure how long ago your example happened, but we had a case where a man shot and killed his wife's boyfriend with a bow and arrow and wasn't charged because of the new law. All you need to do is feel threatened and I don't know about you, but I find someone trying to steal my car very threatening. The new law puts the burden on the prosecutors to prove that you were not acting in self-defense.
Oddly they specified that shooting law enforcement personal is not protected, at least according to the mailing I got from my state representative explaining the changes.
In PA you can. You are also protected from civil liability.
Because the way we have always done things is the way we should continue to do things. And things should never change! Now get off my lawn! Damn kids and their skateboards...
So doctors that get woken up in the middle of night to deal with a crisis are slaves? Utility workers that get called in at 2AM to respond to a crisis are slaves? When a MMORPG has a critical bug and they call their developers in in the middle of the night, that is slavery? If you data center crashes and you call your IT team in after hours, that is slavery? There are plenty of jobs in America where we don't think twice about calling someone in the middle of the night. Are all those workers slaves? What about workers out on oil rigs and fishing ships? Is that also slavery?
I'm fine with the government taking no action. If government intervention is artificially propping up a flawed industry, they should stop. It's the people clamoring to make X illegal because it's bad for me that I object to.
You don't have to drink pop. There are plenty of beverage choices that do not involve any form of sugar. We as people decided that we like pop so we drink it and companies cater to our whims. If YOU don't want to drink HFCS, then don't. Don't ask the government to force me to conform to what works for you. If there was one lifestyle and diet that worked for everyone, there would not be thousands of "lose weight fast and stay healthy on this brand sparkly new diet/pill/workout!" products.
My mother-in-law does not eat any carbohydrates and minimizes sugar intake to the point where she knows which vegetables have high sugar. That works for her. My mother tried the no-carb diet for a while and it made her violently ill. There are people capable of eating all day and not gaining an ounce of weight. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, rather general guidelines that appear to work for large sets of people. Each individual has to find a lifestyle that works for them. This is not a place the government needs to intervene by passing sweeping bans of harmless but commonly misused products.
I think in the above example it might fall under harassment. You can tell all your friends that "Jews Suck" or whatever and you can stand on a street corner and shout it at the top of your lungs, but if you went and stood in front of your Jewish neighbor's house and held up signs touting your hatred for them, eventually you will most likely step over that thin line between free speech and harassment.
It has to be a male whitey though...
Rand != Ron. They are two different senators.
So the .45 won't work in NYC why exactly?
I think you just proved my point... There is more crime in the geographic area of NYC than in other geographic areas that are less populated. I think it has something to do with population density... The crime/person may be low, but if 78 people are raped in a 28 day period in NYC and 0 people are raped in a 28 day period in Small Town America, I think my chances of being raped in NYC are a tad higher. There is a reason NYC doesn't really seriously compare their crime stats to Small Town America, but compares them to other cities of similar sizes.
So Wall Street *isn't* in NYC? Where is it then? Could you please go update wikipedia?