I'll have to challenge you to select other passages from the bible that contradict or refute the ones quoted above. Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda about loving and forgiving sinners, but I don't recall him saying that it wasn't a sin.
How about Matthew 19:19?
"Love your neighbor."
See? He doesn't just say "it's OK", he commands you to do it!
And don't say that "love" doesn't mean what we all know it means, or that he might be talking about women - men are neighbors too (and whenever the Bible talks about other people, they're assumed to be men unless otherwise specified.)
To recap: Malaika Brooks got a speeding ticket. The officer demanded she sign it, and she refused, saying that she wasn't speeding, and didn't want to incriminate herself. In this jurisdiction, there is no law saying that a ticket must be signed by the accused, and a ticket does not have to be signed to be valid, so the officer's demand was unlawful. The officers then grabbed her keys, tasered her three times, dragged her to the ground and arrested her.
For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it
You can't be prosecuted, but you can be assaulted, repeatedly tasered, and arrested. And the courts will side with the police officers.
You pay: Monthly for a cellular package with unlimited texting You get: 20 baud
Actually, (ignoring the fact that "baud" is the incorrect term) that would be either 160 or 200 baud, depending on whether you include error correction bits in the calculation.:)
It was the Cnet article that made the leap from the report
OK, CNet made the leap - but the article submitter didn't bother to correct it.
Actually, both of these things are true since they never really said to what the information was exposed to (in this case, it's simply the internals of a third party app).
You're saying that the claim is true because an app can expose data to itself!??!?!
Does that not seem just a little bit fucking stupid to you?
Seems like you fail at over-reaching.
No, you fail logic, just like Cnet and the article submitter.
1. So because something has the ability to do something, that means that it DOES do it?
Logic. Submitter fails it.
2. When installing apps that have the ability to expose private data, the OS explicitly tells you beforehand and asks if you're sure.
While unscientific, everybody I know with an Android phone takes these warnings seriously. Yes, you still have the dancing bunnies problem, but in my experience most people don't expect a phone to work like a desktop, and the security awareness is higher as a result.
There is a difference between a physical good and a virtual good. Virtual goods (such as digital music, software, music, etc.) can (and are) copied endlessly with little to no cost. The same cannot be said of food and other physical goods.
That's true, but for virtual goods, there is a non-zero (and sometimes significant) creation cost to create the first copy
And that's not true for real-world goods? So the prototype for the computer you're using right now just created itself out of thin air?
DarkKnightRadick is correct - the difference between virtual and non-virtual goods is that virtual goods have a zero or near-zero marginal cost.
Wrong because "free" speech has nothing to do with copyright or vice versa.
You are provably wrong. In fact, I have already proven it.
Free speech means you can say unpopular things
It also means you can say popular things. If you are not allowed to say something, for any reason then your speech is not free. By definition. Copyright is a reason you are not permitted to say something, and therefore copyright by definition impinges upon free speech.
Just because you don't want to see that copyright contradicts free speech does not mean that it doesn't - it just means that you are impervious to logic.
Copyright is, at it's core, the government-enforced ability for a private entity to say "you're not allowed to say that, because I said it first". This is by definition an impingement on free speech.
No. His argument (and evidence to support it) directly contradicts your argument.
I am talking how government intervention into private health insurance and creation of CHIP during Nixon administration pushed the prices up.
No, you said "Any time a government is involved in giving out money, the costs for any services/products go up". antifoidulus proved that this is utterly incorrect.
You are talking about countries where it is ILLEGAL to run private medical centers in the first place.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In Canada, I visit a private medical practice. Everybody else does too. The doctors are private corporations, just like in the US. The doctors here bill the government for services rendered, and yet health care costs are 1/2 of those in the US, where doctors bill either the patient or a private insurance company.
Please just admit you're wrong, rather than blather on demonstrating how little you know about other places.
And those people end up paying more in the long run? I don't have a problem with that. Unless of course you ask me to foot the bill for their lack of maintenance.
Are you being intentionally dense, or are you really that stupid?
We're talking about insurance. If the only people who ended up paying were the people who were using it, it would be called "savings".
Because it's insurance, then by definition you are one of the people footing the bill (because you are part o, which is pretty much the entire point of this discussion. When insurance only covers emergencies, people who can't afford preventive care end up costing the system (and thus everybody else) more.
interface like that offered by 500px.com [...] just about every design and editorial decision is made to enhance our appreciation of photography as art and craft.
Funny, I wasn't aware that forcing horizontal scrolling enhanced anything.
I remember reading about this 20 years ago in (IIRC) Omni.. it was an introduction to circuitry (it used the rules as an example to demonstrate logic gates.) I didn't know it had a name, and while I always thought it would be a cool thing to code (now that I can) I'd never thought someone had actually done it... thanks for the links!:)
Science is not some fucking magic thing that can predict natural disasters.
Would that include such things as AGW?
The thing about AGW is that the A stands for "anthropogenic", which is a fancy word for that means "caused by human beings". So, by definition, "AGW" is not natural.
But considering you're a climate-change denier, I guess we shouldn't really expect you to understand or be supportive of any type of science.
Funny, but I liked the opening scene to "Role Models" better - with the exception of "Congratulations, you're stupid in three languages", it was almost word-for-word my first experience with Starbucks.
No. In order to be a valid point, it must be true, and the idea that "if you don't do it you won't get caught" has been proven false. Specifically, innocence is no guarantee that you won't get sued.
I don't know anybody that's managed to get a "research grant" that provides them with extra money beyond the stipend for being a teaching or research assistant.
You need to get into climatology - according to these guys, climatologists are raking billions of dollars in research money!
Slashdot Mirror
All unattributed writing counts as "plagiarism," even if you are reusing something you wrote.
[citation needed]
Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it.
It affects the people who are offended by it.
Yes, just like desegregation affects racists who are offended by blacks.
I'll have to challenge you to select other passages from the bible that contradict or refute the ones quoted above. Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda about loving and forgiving sinners, but I don't recall him saying that it wasn't a sin.
How about Matthew 19:19?
"Love your neighbor."
See? He doesn't just say "it's OK", he commands you to do it!
And don't say that "love" doesn't mean what we all know it means, or that he might be talking about women - men are neighbors too (and whenever the Bible talks about other people, they're assumed to be men unless otherwise specified.)
A lawful order is directive given by a police officer in the execution of his duties AS DEFINED BY LAW.
While I wish that you were correct, a Federal Court of Appeals disagrees with you.
To recap: Malaika Brooks got a speeding ticket. The officer demanded she sign it, and she refused, saying that she wasn't speeding, and didn't want to incriminate herself. In this jurisdiction, there is no law saying that a ticket must be signed by the accused, and a ticket does not have to be signed to be valid, so the officer's demand was unlawful. The officers then grabbed her keys, tasered her three times, dragged her to the ground and arrested her.
For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it
You can't be prosecuted, but you can be assaulted, repeatedly tasered, and arrested. And the courts will side with the police officers.
You pay: Monthly for a cellular package with unlimited texting
You get: 20 baud
Actually, (ignoring the fact that "baud" is the incorrect term) that would be either 160 or 200 baud, depending on whether you include error correction bits in the calculation. :)
I seem to remember him saying right at the beginning that if he made it big, he would end up giving his money away.
Yup, just like his visionary skill allowed MS to forsee the impact the internet would have, and focus on it before everybody else!
Oh, wait - that didn't happen until he re-wrote "The Road Ahead".
Boy, rewriting history is fun!
It was the Cnet article that made the leap from the report
OK, CNet made the leap - but the article submitter didn't bother to correct it.
Actually, both of these things are true since they never really said to what the information was exposed to (in this case, it's simply the internals of a third party app).
You're saying that the claim is true because an app can expose data to itself!??!?!
Does that not seem just a little bit fucking stupid to you?
Seems like you fail at over-reaching.
No, you fail logic, just like Cnet and the article submitter.
Congratulations, you have redefined the meaning of the word 'expose.'
Bullshit. You're the idiot who's trying to do that.
to expose soldiers to gunfire; to expose one's character to attack.
So you're claiming that it's possible you can expose soldiers to gunfire even when nobody is shooting a gun? You're a fucking moron.
Maybe you should look into reading a book before critiquing a person's writing.
You need to take your own advice. Because you seriously lack reading comprehension.
You remind me of the retards on Slashdot who assume stealing is synonymous with theft.
Wow, an ad-hominem attack and straw man rolled into one. Congrats. you remind me of the article submitter.
1. So because something has the ability to do something, that means that it DOES do it?
Logic. Submitter fails it.
2. When installing apps that have the ability to expose private data, the OS explicitly tells you beforehand and asks if you're sure.
While unscientific, everybody I know with an Android phone takes these warnings seriously. Yes, you still have the dancing bunnies problem, but in my experience most people don't expect a phone to work like a desktop, and the security awareness is higher as a result.
Congratulations on a flamebait article though.
There is a difference between a physical good and a virtual good. Virtual goods (such as digital music, software, music, etc.) can (and are) copied endlessly with little to no cost. The same cannot be said of food and other physical goods.
That's true, but for virtual goods, there is a non-zero (and sometimes significant) creation cost to create the first copy
And that's not true for real-world goods? So the prototype for the computer you're using right now just created itself out of thin air?
DarkKnightRadick is correct - the difference between virtual and non-virtual goods is that virtual goods have a zero or near-zero marginal cost.
Wrong because "free" speech has nothing to do with copyright or vice versa.
You are provably wrong. In fact, I have already proven it.
Free speech means you can say unpopular things
It also means you can say popular things. If you are not allowed to say something, for any reason then your speech is not free. By definition. Copyright is a reason you are not permitted to say something, and therefore copyright by definition impinges upon free speech.
Just because you don't want to see that copyright contradicts free speech does not mean that it doesn't - it just means that you are impervious to logic.
Copyright is, at it's core, the government-enforced ability for a private entity to say "you're not allowed to say that, because I said it first". This is by definition an impingement on free speech.
Free speech != original speech.
Shadow Minister is just a minister who is not in power.
That's just what they want you to believe!
More educated people know that a Shadow Minister is a title for a member of the Illuminati.
Your entire point is orthogonal to mine.
No. His argument (and evidence to support it) directly contradicts your argument.
I am talking how government intervention into private health insurance and creation of CHIP during Nixon administration pushed the prices up.
No, you said "Any time a government is involved in giving out money, the costs for any services/products go up". antifoidulus proved that this is utterly incorrect.
You are talking about countries where it is ILLEGAL to run private medical centers in the first place.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In Canada, I visit a private medical practice. Everybody else does too. The doctors are private corporations, just like in the US. The doctors here bill the government for services rendered, and yet health care costs are 1/2 of those in the US, where doctors bill either the patient or a private insurance company.
Please just admit you're wrong, rather than blather on demonstrating how little you know about other places.
And those people end up paying more in the long run? I don't have a problem with that. Unless of course you ask me to foot the bill for their lack of maintenance.
Are you being intentionally dense, or are you really that stupid?
We're talking about insurance. If the only people who ended up paying were the people who were using it, it would be called "savings".
Because it's insurance, then by definition you are one of the people footing the bill (because you are part o, which is pretty much the entire point of this discussion. When insurance only covers emergencies, people who can't afford preventive care end up costing the system (and thus everybody else) more.
interface like that offered by 500px.com [...] just about every design and editorial decision is made to enhance our appreciation of photography as art and craft.
Funny, I wasn't aware that forcing horizontal scrolling enhanced anything.
My idea for a compromise: Have a maximum limit of bandwidth, and throttle (not kill) to EDGE speed once a user hits it.
Already done
It doesn't matter.
Why not?
The ECPA does not distinguish between wired and wireless communications.
So, if you were to see me walking down the street, I yell something to my friend and you can't help but overhear it, you're guilty of a felony?
I think I'm gonna need some proof of that. (And not just the law, but a legal opinion.)
The ISP is responsible for this problem, not Google.
Since when is it an ISP's responsibilty to secure their customers' wireless LANs?
Awesome!
I remember reading about this 20 years ago in (IIRC) Omni.. it was an introduction to circuitry (it used the rules as an example to demonstrate logic gates.) I didn't know it had a name, and while I always thought it would be a cool thing to code (now that I can) I'd never thought someone had actually done it... thanks for the links! :)
Science is not some fucking magic thing that can predict natural disasters.
Would that include such things as AGW?
The thing about AGW is that the A stands for "anthropogenic", which is a fancy word for that means "caused by human beings". So, by definition, "AGW" is not natural.
But considering you're a climate-change denier, I guess we shouldn't really expect you to understand or be supportive of any type of science.
Funny, but I liked the opening scene to "Role Models" better - with the exception of "Congratulations, you're stupid in three languages", it was almost word-for-word my first experience with Starbucks.
D'oh!
Corrected link here:
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
On the other hand, it's a valid point.
No. In order to be a valid point, it must be true, and the idea that "if you don't do it you won't get caught" has been proven false. Specifically, innocence is no guarantee that you won't get sued.
I don't know anybody that's managed to get a "research grant" that provides them with extra money beyond the stipend for being a teaching or research assistant.
You need to get into climatology - according to these guys, climatologists are raking billions of dollars in research money!