I'm generally not one to support Feinstein, but opposition to the Fairness Doctrine on free speech grounds strikes me as being silly,
since the broadcast spectrum is regarded as public property, and the right to broadcast over a particular frequency in a particular area
is a monopoly granted by the government. I generally don't see people protesting that monopoly on free speech grounds.
I have heard from an astounding two people who have tried this game, and the reaction among 100% of those people can be summed up as "Meh, I'll keep playing World of Warcraft".
Casino gambling is a zero sum game if you consider the house to be a player.
Of course, then you could add the government as a player when you consider taxes.
Your comment suggests to me that you are unaware of the meaning of a zero sum game.
Also, I find that your response to be mostly irrelevent. Government tax policy has no bearing on whether something is a zero sum game, and the fact that government taxes something is not a compelling argument for why government should tax that thing. And you fail to address the question of whether anything is put into the economy with anything other than mere assertion that it does.
It seems that a lot of people here have really awful critical thinking skills, or at least pretend to.
The bill exempts those who attempt to influence less than 500 members of the general public.
This means that the readership of 500 is a necessary condition for registration.
Yet some people, be they trolls, self-interested liars, ignorant, or lacking in critical thinking skills,
have presented this as if it were a sufficient condition,
i.e. claiming that anyone with 500 or more readers was subject to registration requirements.
There is a difference between the two types of conditions.
See wikipedia for more on this.
Does your desire for competition in open markets in radio
extend to the idea that I should be able to set up nearby transmitters
on the same frequencies as other broadcasters?
Or do you think that the FCC should prevent that,
assigning a unique broadcaster to each frequency in each area?
That sounds like government interference (and grant of monopoly) to me.
I think a lot of Dems have realized that gun control is a losing issue.
I don't hear them talking about it much anymore.
But that may be a consequence of who I'm paying attention to.
(I live in the western US.)
Nowadays it seems common for legislation that regulates an industry
to be written by lobbyists for that industry.
That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Perhaps the companies that write games aren't making enough campaign contributions.
Or maybe cultural artifacts are too valuable as scapegoats
for whipping one's base (followers of authoritarian religions, fearful soccer moms, etc) into a frenzy.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
Humans are apes.
Were the members of the jury men? Were they angry? Were there twelve of them?
Prestige is mostly (though not entirely) bullshit.
I'm generally not one to support Feinstein, but opposition to the Fairness Doctrine on free speech grounds strikes me as being silly, since the broadcast spectrum is regarded as public property, and the right to broadcast over a particular frequency in a particular area is a monopoly granted by the government. I generally don't see people protesting that monopoly on free speech grounds.
Scalia is only willing to go with Constitutional limitations on government power if doing so promotes his moral views. See Gonzales v Raich.
It's more informative than insightful. Scalia really is insane.
I assume the Protoss game will be about Zeratul. Maybe there will be some Xel'Naga backstory.
The soul arrives when the man gets an erection. At which point any failure to impregnate a nearby woman is murder.
It's supposed to be real purty though.
You are a member of the slashdot community, therefore you hold those views yourself.
I hope that one day you will be able to accept criticism with more grace.
Casino gambling is a zero sum game if you consider the house to be a player. Of course, then you could add the government as a player when you consider taxes.
Your comment suggests to me that you are unaware of the meaning of a zero sum game. Also, I find that your response to be mostly irrelevent. Government tax policy has no bearing on whether something is a zero sum game, and the fact that government taxes something is not a compelling argument for why government should tax that thing. And you fail to address the question of whether anything is put into the economy with anything other than mere assertion that it does.
And apparently you can get some cheap points for talking about the alleged groupthink on Slashdot.
Yet some people, be they trolls, self-interested liars, ignorant, or lacking in critical thinking skills, have presented this as if it were a sufficient condition, i.e. claiming that anyone with 500 or more readers was subject to registration requirements.
There is a difference between the two types of conditions. See wikipedia for more on this.
Or do you think that the FCC should prevent that, assigning a unique broadcaster to each frequency in each area? That sounds like government interference (and grant of monopoly) to me.
I think a lot of Dems have realized that gun control is a losing issue. I don't hear them talking about it much anymore. But that may be a consequence of who I'm paying attention to. (I live in the western US.)
If my device receives a broadcast flag, but ignores it, would you say that would cause radio interference with other devices?
This appears to be incorrect.
Why are you wasting time on Slashdot when you could be working to solve those problems?
Nowadays it seems common for legislation that regulates an industry to be written by lobbyists for that industry. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Perhaps the companies that write games aren't making enough campaign contributions. Or maybe cultural artifacts are too valuable as scapegoats for whipping one's base (followers of authoritarian religions, fearful soccer moms, etc) into a frenzy.