I have never had them balk at giving me a replacement either but I didn't go to the store to buy the opportunity to make a second trip to that store later in the evening. Is it so much to ask that the product work right the first time? I rented the movie because I wanted to spend the evening watching the movie not driving back and forth to blockbuster.
Keep up the good work. If you realize already that your education is your own responsibility and that school and college can't and won't do it for you, then you have a great future. Take advantage of the resources before you. Your teachers can answer questions and tutor you through problems but don't depend on them to educate you.
"I wonder if consumers will be happy waiting for hours while their movie is delivered?... Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me."
What I don't understand is why people put up with going to the store to rent a movie that turns out to be unusable so much of the time. I simply cannot stand regularly loosing at least one scene to a scratch and having to rerent at least 1/4 of my movies because of multiple scratches or they won't run at all. I don't even bother renting DVDs anymore, we either buy the DVD or rent a tape or do with out. I am very much looking forward to downloading my movies. Picking a movie the night before doesn't sound any worse than picking a program to record on Tivo several days ahead of time. Now, talking my wife into letting me buy more "electronic stuff" will be more of a challenge.
Well I don't like the idea of silencing a free discussion and I do think a healthy political debate over the subject will be a good thing, but I dothink the political maneuvering from both sides within minutes of the report is callous and shameful.
I really don't think a bunch of people pissin and fumin over who was right is going to do Londoners a damn bit of good. I have a strong opinion on what I think our leaders should be doing about it but this isn't the time for it. I do however, believe that prayers will have an effect and hopefully sympathy will lead to some action, even if it is only a donation to the Red Cross of something similar.
People are dead. Others are injured. Families are grieving. and your using this to make a political point. Perhaps our sympathy and prayers would be more appropriate right now.
"unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony"
If the network was left wide open then no user was being authenticated, or rather all users were being treated as a public user. There was no restriction on the public user's use of the network therefore I would reason that it was in fact authorized use. At least in as far as was implied by the setup.
Now if I find someone in my house but there was no forced entry because I left the door wide open and they left as soon as I asked, I don't believe I can even get them for trespass. At least in Texas the trespasser has to have notice that the entry is forbidden, thus all the little signs and fences and purple paint.
My question is this, was the trespasser sufficiently warned that this was unauthorized access? Given all the free hotspots out there, can it be reasonably assumed that just because you don't know if a particular hot spot is free, you should treat it as off limits?
I think that if a network does not at least have a password then it can be reasonably assumed that someone is offering it to the public for free. How long before we start getting busted for logging into anonymous ftp sites? How do we know that some idiot admin didn't turn it on by accident? How long before the police start setting up wide open hot spots around a city and start busting everyone who connects? Would it be legal for them to buy a small house, leave the front door open and then bust everyone that walks inside to check it out?
Or at least it shouldn't be if the justices keep screwing up. I for one think one or two justices getting impeached might do the court a hell of a lot of good.
"what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman?"
Because every one of the twelve put their lives on the line for what they had witnessed. Of them only John was not directly put to death for this belief but banished to an island. Now, they might have been able to fool others into dying for Jesus in the hopes of getting rich or powerful. This happened then and still happens today, but when it finally came down to the lions or the cross for them personally, they would have bailed.
Some thing incredible happened between the Gospels and Acts. The disciples were stupid. Jesus told parables that they still were not understanding after three years with him. They were greedy. They argued over who would be the greatest in the kingdom. When it hit the fan they were afraid. They hid. They didn't even have guts enough to go check on the body. The women did that. Even after being told, they were skeptical. Thomas had to touch the wounds before he changed his mind.
Then something happened and they were out there preaching. They were unafraid of the Roman authorities and their own religious leaders. They were mostly uneducated but converted thousands in an age when you had to spread the message face to face. They saw something and it changed them. Not just a few of them either, but all of them. If it had been a sham that they were all in on, someone would have cracked at some point. This is the strongest evidence, in my opinion, for the resurrection. It's not what people say, but what they do that speaks to whether or not they really believe.
So are you saying that Microsoft's current formats are cutting edge, 21st century technology. I don't know if changing you format every couple of years to screw with your competitors should count as staying on the edge of technical innovation.
The checks on an unconstitutional ruling from the court are twofold. As the parent of your post pointed out, impeachment of the justices from the legislature is one. The other is that the court cannot directly enforce its will. It must depend on the executive to carry out the ruling. We think that the executive is bound always by the court's ruling but this is not true. (and not often realized.) The executive is bound by oath to uphold the constitution. If the court's ruling is unconstitutional in the considered opinion of the executive, then he (she some day?) does not simply have the option to, but rather the duty to prefer the direction of the constitution over the ruling of the court. This may sounds like too much power now given to the executive, but remember that if the legislature agrees with the court and thereby reasons that the executive's orders are contrary to the constitution, then they have the authority and duty to impeach the executive, with the help of the chief justice of course. The point is that each branch needs at least the passive support of one other branch to do its job. It is now up to us, the people, the ultimate political authority of the land, to put enough pressure on the Congress and the President that they will do the hard part of there job. That is, grow a political spine and hold the court to its oath before the constitution.
The only problem is that this already is an amendment. The court doesn't seem to be too terribly bothered by what the constitution say when making their decisions. What are we to do? Pass an amendment to the 5th amendment that says "No, this is what we really meant. Get it right this time."
No, I believe that the fundemental problem is that so many of us believe that the rulings of the court are, by definition, what is constitutional. What is or isn't constitutional is determined by the constitution not the court. The court is obligated to render its decisions in accordance with the constitution just as much as the legislature is obligated to pass laws in accordence with the constitution and the executive is obligated to enforce those laws in accordance with the constitution.
I believe that this ruling is unconstitutional. 5 of 9 justices disagree with me but I think they are wrong. It is now my duty to petition my Representative and Senators to hold those Justices accountable for their mistake through impeachment. I must let the President know that I expect him to replace those Justices with judges that believe that the constitution defines how they should rule not the other way around. If they will not, then it is my obligation to work through the political process to get representation in congress and an executive that will do this or to run for those offices myself. It is also my duty to encourage my fellow citizens to do the same. Ultimate political authority rests with "We the People". We need to stop watching and start demanding and doing.
So should the Supreme Court also have to power to allow the states to limit due process?
"Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I must say that I am very encouraged to see how many of us agreeing, and from the various sides of the spectrum, that this is ruling is a bad thing. Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would have been such an agent for bringing us together.
"Limiting the several States' eminent domain power is a different question."
While I am a big fan of states rights, I don't believe the concept applies here. If eminent domain only applies to the federal goverment then what of other parts of this same amendment such as "nor shall any person be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
"The meaning of the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court judges interpret it to mean. By definition they can't be wrong."
Not necessarily, though that is what the courts and lawyers would have us believe. The courts have assumed this role ever since Marbury vs Madison but several parts of the Federalist Papers imply otherwise. Simply put, if the Judiciary can enforce its interpretation of the constitution on the other two branches then those branches are not really separate branches of government. Take a look at this essay by Alan Keys. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=434 72 While you might not agree with the specific position he takes in this case, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. He makes a very good point about the separation of powers.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
I know. It's just that I was too young to remember or appreciate the last moon landings and I just hope that I won't be too old to remember or appreciate them when it finally happens again.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"Today the moon, tomorrow the universe"
Or
Today the Moon, 45 years from now the Moon again...
Slashdot Mirror
I knew the hardware companies were installing windows for a reason, repeat sales.
I have never had them balk at giving me a replacement either but I didn't go to the store to buy the opportunity to make a second trip to that store later in the evening. Is it so much to ask that the product work right the first time? I rented the movie because I wanted to spend the evening watching the movie not driving back and forth to blockbuster.
Keep up the good work. If you realize already that your education is your own responsibility and that school and college can't and won't do it for you, then you have a great future. Take advantage of the resources before you. Your teachers can answer questions and tutor you through problems but don't depend on them to educate you.
"I wonder if consumers will be happy waiting for hours while their movie is delivered? ... Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me."
What I don't understand is why people put up with going to the store to rent a movie that turns out to be unusable so much of the time. I simply cannot stand regularly loosing at least one scene to a scratch and having to rerent at least 1/4 of my movies because of multiple scratches or they won't run at all. I don't even bother renting DVDs anymore, we either buy the DVD or rent a tape or do with out. I am very much looking forward to downloading my movies. Picking a movie the night before doesn't sound any worse than picking a program to record on Tivo several days ahead of time. Now, talking my wife into letting me buy more "electronic stuff" will be more of a challenge.
Well I don't like the idea of silencing a free discussion and I do think a healthy political debate over the subject will be a good thing, but I dothink the political maneuvering from both sides within minutes of the report is callous and shameful.
I really don't think a bunch of people pissin and fumin over who was right is going to do Londoners a damn bit of good. I have a strong opinion on what I think our leaders should be doing about it but this isn't the time for it. I do however, believe that prayers will have an effect and hopefully sympathy will lead to some action, even if it is only a donation to the Red Cross of something similar.
People are dead. Others are injured. Families are grieving. and your using this to make a political point. Perhaps our sympathy and prayers would be more appropriate right now.
"unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony"
If the network was left wide open then no user was being authenticated, or rather all users were being treated as a public user. There was no restriction on the public user's use of the network therefore I would reason that it was in fact authorized use. At least in as far as was implied by the setup.
Now if I find someone in my house but there was no forced entry because I left the door wide open and they left as soon as I asked, I don't believe I can even get them for trespass. At least in Texas the trespasser has to have notice that the entry is forbidden, thus all the little signs and fences and purple paint.
My question is this, was the trespasser sufficiently warned that this was unauthorized access? Given all the free hotspots out there, can it be reasonably assumed that just because you don't know if a particular hot spot is free, you should treat it as off limits?
I think that if a network does not at least have a password then it can be reasonably assumed that someone is offering it to the public for free. How long before we start getting busted for logging into anonymous ftp sites? How do we know that some idiot admin didn't turn it on by accident? How long before the police start setting up wide open hot spots around a city and start busting everyone who connects? Would it be legal for them to buy a small house, leave the front door open and then bust everyone that walks inside to check it out?
"shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"
Or at least it shouldn't be if the justices keep screwing up. I for one think one or two justices getting impeached might do the court a hell of a lot of good.
The checks and balances are between the branches not between the parties. How do you think the Libertarians and independents feel?
"what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman?"
Because every one of the twelve put their lives on the line for what they had witnessed. Of them only John was not directly put to death for this belief but banished to an island. Now, they might have been able to fool others into dying for Jesus in the hopes of getting rich or powerful. This happened then and still happens today, but when it finally came down to the lions or the cross for them personally, they would have bailed.
Some thing incredible happened between the Gospels and Acts. The disciples were stupid. Jesus told parables that they still were not understanding after three years with him. They were greedy. They argued over who would be the greatest in the kingdom. When it hit the fan they were afraid. They hid. They didn't even have guts enough to go check on the body. The women did that. Even after being told, they were skeptical. Thomas had to touch the wounds before he changed his mind.
Then something happened and they were out there preaching. They were unafraid of the Roman authorities and their own religious leaders. They were mostly uneducated but converted thousands in an age when you had to spread the message face to face. They saw something and it changed them. Not just a few of them either, but all of them. If it had been a sham that they were all in on, someone would have cracked at some point. This is the strongest evidence, in my opinion, for the resurrection. It's not what people say, but what they do that speaks to whether or not they really believe.
I take exception to that subject line.
So are you saying that Microsoft's current formats are cutting edge, 21st century technology. I don't know if changing you format every couple of years to screw with your competitors should count as staying on the edge of technical innovation.
The checks on an unconstitutional ruling from the court are twofold. As the parent of your post pointed out, impeachment of the justices from the legislature is one. The other is that the court cannot directly enforce its will. It must depend on the executive to carry out the ruling. We think that the executive is bound always by the court's ruling but this is not true. (and not often realized.) The executive is bound by oath to uphold the constitution. If the court's ruling is unconstitutional in the considered opinion of the executive, then he (she some day?) does not simply have the option to, but rather the duty to prefer the direction of the constitution over the ruling of the court. This may sounds like too much power now given to the executive, but remember that if the legislature agrees with the court and thereby reasons that the executive's orders are contrary to the constitution, then they have the authority and duty to impeach the executive, with the help of the chief justice of course. The point is that each branch needs at least the passive support of one other branch to do its job. It is now up to us, the people, the ultimate political authority of the land, to put enough pressure on the Congress and the President that they will do the hard part of there job. That is, grow a political spine and hold the court to its oath before the constitution.
"One other option, get an amendment made."
The only problem is that this already is an amendment. The court doesn't seem to be too terribly bothered by what the constitution say when making their decisions. What are we to do? Pass an amendment to the 5th amendment that says "No, this is what we really meant. Get it right this time."
No, I believe that the fundemental problem is that so many of us believe that the rulings of the court are, by definition, what is constitutional. What is or isn't constitutional is determined by the constitution not the court. The court is obligated to render its decisions in accordance with the constitution just as much as the legislature is obligated to pass laws in accordence with the constitution and the executive is obligated to enforce those laws in accordance with the constitution.
I believe that this ruling is unconstitutional. 5 of 9 justices disagree with me but I think they are wrong. It is now my duty to petition my Representative and Senators to hold those Justices accountable for their mistake through impeachment. I must let the President know that I expect him to replace those Justices with judges that believe that the constitution defines how they should rule not the other way around. If they will not, then it is my obligation to work through the political process to get representation in congress and an executive that will do this or to run for those offices myself. It is also my duty to encourage my fellow citizens to do the same. Ultimate political authority rests with "We the People". We need to stop watching and start demanding and doing.
So should the Supreme Court also have to power to allow the states to limit due process?
... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person shall be
I must say that I am very encouraged to see how many of us agreeing, and from the various sides of the spectrum, that this is ruling is a bad thing. Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would have been such an agent for bringing us together.
"Limiting the several States' eminent domain power is a different question."
... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
While I am a big fan of states rights, I don't believe the concept applies here. If eminent domain only applies to the federal goverment then what of other parts of this same amendment such as "nor shall any person be
"The meaning of the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court judges interpret it to mean. By definition they can't be wrong."
4 72 While you might not agree with the specific position he takes in this case, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. He makes a very good point about the separation of powers.
Not necessarily, though that is what the courts and lawyers would have us believe. The courts have assumed this role ever since Marbury vs Madison but several parts of the Federalist Papers imply otherwise. Simply put, if the Judiciary can enforce its interpretation of the constitution on the other two branches then those branches are not really separate branches of government. Take a look at this essay by Alan Keys. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43
along a long line of vanishing freedoms.
I know. It's just that I was too young to remember or appreciate the last moon landings and I just hope that I won't be too old to remember or appreciate them when it finally happens again.
"Today the moon, tomorrow the universe"
Or
Today the Moon, 45 years from now the Moon again...
"I'd rather go to hell than texas."
It's just a bit further down the road, just keep goin'.
It doesn't have to leave the ground to explode. :)
I really wouldn't mind my public library making intrest off my $20. I am sure I pay more than that to them in taxes each year.