I believe that they claim that you are buying neither a license nor a physical product. What they would contest that you are buying is the overlap between the two. Your rights to their product are thus less than you would get from either a license or a physical product.
"Okay, you just bought yourself a 317: Pointing out police stupidity. Or is that a 314? No, no, 314 is a dog, uh, in, no, is that a 315? You're in trouble, pal."
It says that the states get the power to issue drivers licenses in the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It seems that a good deal of your post boils down to the fact that "doctors are fallible" and "patients should be involved in their own health". I certainly agree with you.
Uninterested doctors who got into medicine for the wrong reasons are a big problem with medicine in my opinion. I'm right there with you on researching drugs and medical conditions on your own, too. I don't recommend being uninvolved in your own health.
But TV commercials, as far as I can tell, don't really contribute any helpful information at all to people. They are largely (like all commercials) empty and unrealistic appeals to people's emotions. While I'm not trying to advocate for a law banning them, I do think that they are a negative and counterproductive activity in terms of society as a whole and the medical profession in specific. I feel that besides becoming informed of the existence of available drugs, basing any sort of health opinion on TV commercials is a big mistake.
A better way to become informed of the existence of new drugs is to [continually research the topic yourself|develop a good relation with a well informed doctor (who will tell you when they find out about them)|ditto with a good pharmacist (much more informed than doctors in many ways concerning drugs)]. Unless you have a compelling reason to be seeking drugs, though, you should always ask yourself if you really need to be taking unnecessary medicine. Unless you're having serious health or quality of life issues, you may be getting solutions to problems that you don't really have from the TV. Starting a regiment of drugs is not (or should not) be something to be undertaken lightly. I mention this because unless you are actively seeking a cure for a disabling disease, you unlikely to first hear about a new drug from a TV ad.
For what it's worth, I'm a chemist working in drug research and I'm appalled at how lightly people take putting unnecessary foreign substances into their bodies.
Basically, drugs don't need to be marketed to doctors and shouldn't be marketed to patients. These drugs don't just appear out of thin air ready to be prescribed. There is a very long (very well documented) testing period before doctors can prescribe them and patients can take them. Doctors should find out about them how they always have, through informed discussions in medical journals, not from pharma company marketing departments. Patients, on the other hand, shouldn't be asking for prescriptions, thus completely eliminating the need for TV commercials and pharmaceutical company marketing departments.
If a patient has a condition that concerns him, he should visit a doctor and ask about it (or start following the progress in the journals himself). The doctor would, hopefully, then supply the patient with an informed decision on the best course of action. Basing medical care and well-being on the fluff put out by marketing folk is not the healthiest way to live your life.
And what next? You have to have more to your plan, no? If this happens across the country, National Guard (those who are left in this country) and police with M16s will pour out into the streets and massive beatings and riots will ensue. So what is the goal and what are the consequences of this? If this happens early enough in the election day and few ballots are cast, will the government declare martial law? You're proposing what amounts to a violent uprising. I'm all for the removal of those stupid machines, but you must lay out the rest of your plan.
1. How many other sole-standing-world-power in the history of mankind were not subject to similar attacks? I cant think of any off the top of my head...
How many other "sole-standing-world-power in the history of mankind" (sic) were not invading other countries, throwing their weight around, acting imperialistically, and otherwise generally provoking said similar attacks? I cant think of any off the top of my head...
Actually, I think this was the "poor folks have a different set of priorities" claim. But more precisely, it was just a counter to the GGP's claim that poor people can't afford new TVs. I was making less than $25k when I was in school and I could afford a new TV (I didn't buy one, but I could afford it). The GP was merely pointing out that "hundreds of dollars" is not an insurmountable barrier to keep people making $25k/yr from purchasing a new TV.
You sure were quick to defend those maligned poor folks, though. Got gov't handouts on the brain?
I feel this way mostly because the elimination of their rights has went with mostly a whimper.
Have you spoken with any brit about the state of affairs there? It didn't go that way with a whimper, it went that way with applause. Everybody I've spoken to will rabidly defend the disarmament, surveillance, and police activities to the last bit. The UK is more of an example of how to move into a totalitarian society with the blessings of the citizenry.
Gotcha. Sorry for jumping on you like that. With such a bizarre definition of cloning (in practice, in vitro cloning is still rightfully referred to as "cloning"), perhaps they meant to redefine "uterus" as "any and everything that could be used to allow the development of a blastocyte.";)
A minor correction, though, is that the implantation need not go to full term according to their definition, it need only be "a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." Any implantation could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being, so any implantation would be out.
So I would say that their definition rules out implantation in any uterus (even a chimpanzee). You'll notice that they didn't specify that the uterus had to be human to fit their definition of "cloning".
So apparently you'd still be allowed to clone or attempt to clone a human in a test tube, so to say. What an obfuscated bit of legalese.
That's interesting. I don't personally have a problem with cloning humans, but I appreciate this discussion with you. Again, sorry for flying off the handle.
That's why the Missouri measure to legalize human cloning is called the "Stem Cell Research Amendment".
What are you talking about? Even the five sentence blurb on the ballot specifically says the the "Stem Cell Research Amendment" explicitly bans human cloning. Did you even read it or are you just basing that on the billboards?
What are you smoking? As a past owner of a Palm computer and an iPod (among other nifty devices), I'd have to say that is one of the least accurate predictions I've heard. It will reliably sync on Linux about two years after it's obsolete and nobody uses it anymore.
You make is sound like those who profess a certain belief aren't entitled to support by the state.
No he doesn't. He says, "The school has offered to either stop funding all the religious groups in the school, or continue to fund the Knights of Columbus if it admits non-believers. The group has refused this."
So they are already funding other religious groups, who apparently aren't restricting membership to believers. If the local Muslim group has the best field trips and you don't mind all the Koran quoting, you should be able to join the club if it's being funded by the state. If they don't want non believers, they can stop accepting state money. It's that easy.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you had better keep an eye on your own government as well. The US gov't is not even close to the only one getting out of control.
They could live closer to their place of employment and walk or bike or find a job near their residence. They could design and build or pay someone to design and build a better car. They could plan an extra hour or two to walk a longer distance to work. The fact that they're not willing to make changes in their lifestyle does not make them less hypocritical. They're violating their 'principles' (the ones they're suing on account of) for convenience. The GP was right: they're hypocrites.
So why does a Customs agent on his way to training need to carry a knife on board? It's a good thing he intimidated the TSA into bending the rules for him, otherwise he'd have had to check the knife like everybody else.
It's been a little bit since I saw the movie, but weren't the movie and the series somewhat parallel anyway? They seemed obviously not contiguous to me, so I would think they could (if it was possible) just restart the series where it left off and "pretend the movie never happened."
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
But the Declaration of Independence isn't in the body of Law, it's just a pretty sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that they claim that you are buying neither a license nor a physical product. What they would contest that you are buying is the overlap between the two. Your rights to their product are thus less than you would get from either a license or a physical product.
Are we allowed to imagine a Beowulf cluster of chips that obviate the need for a Beowulf cluster?
"Okay, you just bought yourself a 317: Pointing out police stupidity. Or is that a 314? No, no, 314 is a dog, uh, in, no, is that a 315? You're in trouble, pal."
It says that the states get the power to issue drivers licenses in the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Uninterested doctors who got into medicine for the wrong reasons are a big problem with medicine in my opinion. I'm right there with you on researching drugs and medical conditions on your own, too. I don't recommend being uninvolved in your own health.
But TV commercials, as far as I can tell, don't really contribute any helpful information at all to people. They are largely (like all commercials) empty and unrealistic appeals to people's emotions. While I'm not trying to advocate for a law banning them, I do think that they are a negative and counterproductive activity in terms of society as a whole and the medical profession in specific. I feel that besides becoming informed of the existence of available drugs, basing any sort of health opinion on TV commercials is a big mistake.
A better way to become informed of the existence of new drugs is to [continually research the topic yourself|develop a good relation with a well informed doctor (who will tell you when they find out about them)|ditto with a good pharmacist (much more informed than doctors in many ways concerning drugs)]. Unless you have a compelling reason to be seeking drugs, though, you should always ask yourself if you really need to be taking unnecessary medicine. Unless you're having serious health or quality of life issues, you may be getting solutions to problems that you don't really have from the TV. Starting a regiment of drugs is not (or should not) be something to be undertaken lightly. I mention this because unless you are actively seeking a cure for a disabling disease, you unlikely to first hear about a new drug from a TV ad.
For what it's worth, I'm a chemist working in drug research and I'm appalled at how lightly people take putting unnecessary foreign substances into their bodies.
If a patient has a condition that concerns him, he should visit a doctor and ask about it (or start following the progress in the journals himself). The doctor would, hopefully, then supply the patient with an informed decision on the best course of action. Basing medical care and well-being on the fluff put out by marketing folk is not the healthiest way to live your life.
The bank would love to get in the middle of a disagreement as a third party. That's what escrow is for. They charge a fee for it.
Life produces localized order and produces overall higher entropy as exhaust.
And what next? You have to have more to your plan, no? If this happens across the country, National Guard (those who are left in this country) and police with M16s will pour out into the streets and massive beatings and riots will ensue. So what is the goal and what are the consequences of this? If this happens early enough in the election day and few ballots are cast, will the government declare martial law? You're proposing what amounts to a violent uprising. I'm all for the removal of those stupid machines, but you must lay out the rest of your plan.
How many other "sole-standing-world-power in the history of mankind" (sic) were not invading other countries, throwing their weight around, acting imperialistically, and otherwise generally provoking said similar attacks? I cant think of any off the top of my head...
You sure were quick to defend those maligned poor folks, though. Got gov't handouts on the brain?
Have you spoken with any brit about the state of affairs there? It didn't go that way with a whimper, it went that way with applause. Everybody I've spoken to will rabidly defend the disarmament, surveillance, and police activities to the last bit. The UK is more of an example of how to move into a totalitarian society with the blessings of the citizenry.
A minor correction, though, is that the implantation need not go to full term according to their definition, it need only be "a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." Any implantation could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being, so any implantation would be out.
So I would say that their definition rules out implantation in any uterus (even a chimpanzee). You'll notice that they didn't specify that the uterus had to be human to fit their definition of "cloning".
So apparently you'd still be allowed to clone or attempt to clone a human in a test tube, so to say. What an obfuscated bit of legalese.
That's interesting. I don't personally have a problem with cloning humans, but I appreciate this discussion with you. Again, sorry for flying off the handle.
What are you talking about? Even the five sentence blurb on the ballot specifically says the the "Stem Cell Research Amendment" explicitly bans human cloning. Did you even read it or are you just basing that on the billboards?
The very first subclause is "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
Why do people feel they need to lie about things?
You sure seem to trust the hotel staff a whole lot. Why would you part with your passport in a foreign country?
What are you smoking? As a past owner of a Palm computer and an iPod (among other nifty devices), I'd have to say that is one of the least accurate predictions I've heard. It will reliably sync on Linux about two years after it's obsolete and nobody uses it anymore.
No he doesn't. He says, "The school has offered to either stop funding all the religious groups in the school, or continue to fund the Knights of Columbus if it admits non-believers. The group has refused this."
So they are already funding other religious groups, who apparently aren't restricting membership to believers. If the local Muslim group has the best field trips and you don't mind all the Koran quoting, you should be able to join the club if it's being funded by the state. If they don't want non believers, they can stop accepting state money. It's that easy.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you had better keep an eye on your own government as well. The US gov't is not even close to the only one getting out of control.
They could live closer to their place of employment and walk or bike or find a job near their residence. They could design and build or pay someone to design and build a better car. They could plan an extra hour or two to walk a longer distance to work. The fact that they're not willing to make changes in their lifestyle does not make them less hypocritical. They're violating their 'principles' (the ones they're suing on account of) for convenience. The GP was right: they're hypocrites.
So why does a Customs agent on his way to training need to carry a knife on board? It's a good thing he intimidated the TSA into bending the rules for him, otherwise he'd have had to check the knife like everybody else.
It's been a little bit since I saw the movie, but weren't the movie and the series somewhat parallel anyway? They seemed obviously not contiguous to me, so I would think they could (if it was possible) just restart the series where it left off and "pretend the movie never happened."
Where's the problem?
He's the commander in chief of the US armed forces, not the civilian population.
It's turtles all the way down.
But the Declaration of Independence isn't in the body of Law, it's just a pretty sentiment.