With all of the labor saving devices that have been added to the economy, the whole world should have been on a standard 4 day 32 hour work week decades ago. It would encourage leisure related consumption, create more jobs, help redistribute wealth toward the poor, expand the economy and improve the quality of life. So why don't we do that? We must compete with places whose labor laws are rooted firmly in the 19th century.
From the Desk of George W. Bush:
In light of this information, I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would stipulate that marriage be defined as the union of a human man and a human woman. Thank You,
God Bless America GWB
The professor from Gilligan's Island. When I was a kid, that's what a scientist was like. He knew nearly everything except how to get them off the island. He was a social misfit, still everyone respected him because of his high intelligence.
I wonder if any of the agents working to oversee the internet ever fancy themselves to be a "Winston Smith". I also wonder if the text of 1984 is available on the internet in China.
"Americans think that democracy is something God given which holds some kind of magical power, and that it means that you have an American style election circus."
Do you want to debate with real Americans or merely the strawman effigy that you create with these sorts of statements?
Thank you ever so much for attempting to educate us. We're just a bunch of ignorant cowboys and if it weren't for worldly sophisticates like you, we'd just plunder along wreaking havoc.
What's important here isn't whether or not this technology would really work. What's important is how much money we can get from the DOD to research its feasibility.
The court decided the case rightly. If it had been decided otherwise, the implications could extend beyond copyright law. Say you put a picture of Mohammad on your website. Because the site can be seen in Saudi Arabia, you've violated the laws of the Kingdom. Or say you publish a website in which you deny that the holocaust happened. Because your site can be viewed in Canada, the Canadian government could demand that the U.S. enforce their law on the matter. (It's illegal in Canada to state that the holocaust didn't happen.)
I've advocated that discussion of I.D. in science class is appropriate because:
1. Contrary to the view of many, discussion of I.D. doesn't constitute endorsement of any particular religious view. 2. Science classes should, above all, establish an appreciation for, and mastery of, the scientific method.
(Merely teaching facts which have been uncovered by others using such methods doesn't accomplish this.) 3. Open discussion of whether or not I.D. meets the criteria of a proposition which can be examined by the methods of science will lead students to an appreciation of the scientific method.
The end game here isn't whether or not the student believes I.D. or Evolution, but whether or not he has learned how to learn. The essence of the Scopes Trial was that creationists had decided that they knew what the truth was. They didn't want their "truth" to compete for mind space with contrary ideas. Today's opposition to introducing I.D. into the realm of discussion in a science class seems similarly guided.
"genius MENSA member"
I don't watch the Apprentice so I don't about this Tarek, but one out of 50 people can get into Mensa.
Seldom are geniuses interested in joining. But Mensa members are often underacheivers. I speculate that's because they don't have to work as hard to get an acceptible grade in school, and tend to get lazy as a result.
"How would the lives of anyone be affected? If you're talking about pure economic damage then, no, that's not a good enough reason for you to take my property."
Legally, no its not a good enough reason. But morally I feel justified. To answer your question, I once worked for a company for several years that was pretty decent to work for as long as its founder was around. He died unexpectedly and left the company to his worthless kids who ran it into the ground within two years. Everyone was laid off. Careers were ruined, homes lost, etc. The worthless kids I spoke of are still millionaires in spite of themselves. So if faced with similar circumstances today I'd feel morally justified doing whatever necessary to stop an incompetent heir from taking over a company that I was depending on for employment.
"Should you be able to annex my lawn simply because you'd do a far better job of maintaining it?"
Maybe. The lives of the stockholders, customers, and employees might outweigh the right of the heirs to participate in the running of the company. Imagine you were working for Hilton, Corp. when Paris inherits controlling interest of it.
The screenshots I see are mostly for linux/unix desktops. Now, I'm minimalistic in my own system, black screen with an xterm or two is adequate to get started. But when I look at screenshots, I want to see features that would appeal to a 13 year old. I see the screenshot as tool to get young people to try out the software. Linux power users may like the command line, but it looks scary and painful to the uninitiated. Rightly or not, they equate the eye candy with a more advanced system. Fvwm may be sufficient for my real work, but if a kid is looking over my shoulder, then I want the screen to look like it belongs to James Bond, not Professor Thinkstoomuch. The Enlightenment Window Manager used to have some themes that fit this purpose pretty well. At the risk of advocating glitter over substance, design the software like you wanted it to be featured on an episode of CSI.
Assuming they have a patent, what does it protect from? Does it protect from people who manufacture and sell an item that is essentially the same as what they have patented? Does it protect from someone who manufactures and gives the item away? Does it protect from someone writing a description of how to create the item for yourself from raw materials and giving away or selling the description?
IANAL so I don't know the answer. Is there anyone reading this who isn't ANAL, er I mean, is a lawyer who could answer these?
The site returns nonsensical results now. (Maybe as a consequence of the Slashdot effect?) But the number of sites returned for China and the U.S. for the phrase "tiananmen square massacre" is dramatically different.
"Various antitrust legislation and government reform helped to bring things a little more into balance, but now those things have been largely abandoned, and we're headed back to a state where a very few people control the vast majority of the wealth."
Antitrust legislation was relevant, however, I think the role of organized labor in the latter part of the twentieth century had more impact on the distribution of wealth than any actions that were taken by government. In an international economy, a more equitable equilibrium will be created by homogenizing labor laws and the enforcement of such laws, in the countries involved, the right to organize being foremost in importance.
Someday we will have a law holding jurors criminally responsible for their verdicts. Sometimes their verdicts are so outrageous. We can call it the "Protect America from Treasonous Juries Act". Any Congressman who votes against this should go to prison.:-)
"Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos."
So you equate advocacy of the fourth amendment with "hate of our own country"? Does that extend to the rest of the Bill of Rights or just the 4th? How shall we protect the country from those who love it as you do?
Slashdot Mirror
With all of the labor saving devices that have been added to the economy, the whole world should have been on a standard 4 day 32 hour work week decades ago. It would encourage leisure related consumption, create more jobs, help redistribute wealth toward the poor, expand the economy and improve the quality of life. So why don't we do that? We must compete with places whose labor laws are rooted firmly in the 19th century.
From the Desk of George W. Bush:
In light of this information, I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would stipulate that marriage be defined as the union of a human man and a human woman.
Thank You,
God Bless America
GWB
that their published work has upon the conversations that I have to have with my Aunt Tilly.
The professor from Gilligan's Island. When I was a kid, that's what a scientist was like.
He knew nearly everything except how to get them off the island. He was a social misfit, still everyone respected him because of his high intelligence.
Hmm... Isolate children from harmful influences...
How quickly can you construct one of these compounds?
Redundant? Unfair!
I was the first one to say it in this thread.
For God's sake won't somebody please think of the children!
I wonder if any of the agents working to oversee the internet ever fancy themselves to be a "Winston Smith". I also wonder if the text of 1984 is available on the internet in China.
"Americans think that democracy is something God given which holds some kind of magical power, and that it means that you have an American style election circus."
Do you want to debate with real Americans or merely the strawman effigy that you create with these sorts of statements?
Thank you ever so much for attempting to educate us. We're just a bunch of ignorant cowboys and if it weren't for worldly sophisticates like you, we'd just plunder along wreaking havoc.
What's important here isn't whether or not this technology would really work. What's important is how much money we can get from the DOD to research its feasibility.
The court decided the case rightly. If it had been decided otherwise, the implications could extend beyond copyright law. Say you put a picture of Mohammad on your website. Because the site can be seen in Saudi Arabia, you've violated the laws of the Kingdom. Or say you publish a website in which you deny that the holocaust happened. Because your site can be viewed in Canada, the Canadian government could demand that the U.S. enforce their law on the matter. (It's illegal in Canada to state that the holocaust didn't happen.)
I've advocated that discussion of I.D. in science class is appropriate because:
1. Contrary to the view of many, discussion of I.D. doesn't constitute endorsement of any particular religious view.
2. Science classes should, above all, establish an appreciation for, and mastery of, the scientific method.
(Merely teaching facts which have been uncovered by others using such methods doesn't accomplish this.)
3. Open discussion of whether or not I.D. meets the criteria of a proposition which can be examined by the methods of science will lead students to an appreciation of the scientific method.
The end game here isn't whether or not the student believes I.D. or Evolution, but whether or not he has learned how to learn.
The essence of the Scopes Trial was that creationists had decided that they knew what the truth was. They didn't want their "truth" to compete for mind space with contrary ideas. Today's opposition to introducing I.D. into the realm of discussion in a science class seems similarly guided.
"genius MENSA member"
I don't watch the Apprentice so I don't about this Tarek, but one out of 50 people can get into Mensa.
Seldom are geniuses interested in joining. But Mensa members are often underacheivers. I speculate that's because they don't have to work as hard to get an acceptible grade in school, and tend to get lazy as a result.
"How would the lives of anyone be affected? If you're talking about pure economic damage then, no, that's not a good enough reason for you to take my property."
Legally, no its not a good enough reason. But morally I feel justified. To answer your question, I once worked for a company for several years that was pretty decent to work for as long as its founder was around. He died unexpectedly and left the company to his worthless kids who ran it into the ground within two years. Everyone was laid off. Careers were ruined, homes lost, etc. The worthless kids I spoke of are still millionaires in spite of themselves. So if faced with similar circumstances today I'd feel morally justified doing whatever necessary to stop an incompetent heir from taking over a company that I was depending on for employment.
I look for an open IRC window in which the person recording the snapshot tells all the channel participants to "Say Cheese". :)
"Should you be able to annex my lawn simply because you'd do a far better job of maintaining it?"
Maybe. The lives of the stockholders, customers, and employees might outweigh the right of the heirs to participate in the running of the company. Imagine you were working for Hilton, Corp. when Paris inherits controlling interest of it.
The screenshots I see are mostly for linux/unix desktops. Now, I'm minimalistic in my own system, black screen with an xterm or two is adequate to get started. But when I look at screenshots, I want to see features that would appeal to a 13 year old. I see the screenshot as tool to get young people to try out the software. Linux power users may like the command line, but it looks scary and painful to the uninitiated. Rightly or not, they equate the eye candy with a more advanced system. Fvwm may be sufficient for my real work, but if a kid is looking over my shoulder, then I want the screen to look like it belongs to James Bond, not Professor Thinkstoomuch. The Enlightenment Window Manager used to have some themes that fit this purpose pretty well. At the risk of advocating glitter over substance, design the software like you wanted it to be featured on an episode of CSI.
I think the AC was making a joke. Internets.
Assuming they have a patent, what does it protect from? Does it protect from people who manufacture and sell an item that is essentially the same as what they have patented? Does it protect from someone who manufactures and gives the item away? Does it protect from someone writing a description of how to create the item for yourself from raw materials and giving away or selling the description?
IANAL so I don't know the answer. Is there anyone reading this who isn't ANAL, er I mean, is a lawyer who could answer these?
The site returns nonsensical results now. (Maybe as a consequence of the Slashdot effect?)
But the number of sites returned for China and the U.S. for the phrase "tiananmen square massacre" is dramatically different.
"Do we want anything that hot on our planet?"
I like mine well done.
"Various antitrust legislation and government reform helped to bring things a little more into balance, but now those things have been largely abandoned, and we're headed back to a state where a very few people control the vast majority of the wealth."
Antitrust legislation was relevant, however, I think the role of organized labor in the latter part of the twentieth century had more impact on the distribution of wealth than any actions that were taken by government. In an international economy, a more equitable equilibrium will be created by homogenizing labor laws and the enforcement of such laws, in the countries involved, the right to organize being foremost in importance.
Someday we will have a law holding jurors criminally responsible for their verdicts. Sometimes their verdicts are so outrageous. We can call it the "Protect America from Treasonous Juries Act". Any Congressman who votes against this should go to prison. :-)
"Part of me wishes he left publicly complaining about what a terrible company Microsoft is."
You only do that when you've hit a jackpot or won the lottery and don't need to work anymore.
In my opinion, you are correct.
"Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos."
So you equate advocacy of the fourth amendment with "hate of our own country"?
Does that extend to the rest of the Bill of Rights or just the 4th?
How shall we protect the country from those who love it as you do?