The problem with doing it through RIM is that it allows the courts to keep secrets from the very people who are being investigated, thus denying them their due process right to challenge that subpoena. And that's exactly what India wants.
They can already subpoena the people in their jurisdiction for their email records if they want to.
Since Sam Bulte's political career was destroyed due to her support for Bill C-60, only MPs in very safe ridings have been willing to take on the issue, and no government has risked letting a bill actually make its way to a vote.
The bills keep getting proposed to appease the Americans, but no government is going to have the balls to try to get them passed in the current minority climate.
I'm just concerned that the donating infrastructure won't seek their consent when once their old enough to make the decision for themselves.
As I said above, I respect and honour your decision to be an organ donor. I don't want to be one myself because the high pressure campaign to get people on the doner rolls calls into question (in my opinion) their commitment not to harvest my organs until there is absolutely no chance, however remote, of survival.
I am on the bone marrow list, though, and I do hope I match someone someday.
Sorry, if you feel that there's nothing wrong with using a cell phone, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel that god doesn't hate fags, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel that womyn should not make all decisions in the world, you're morals are wrong.
It's subjective. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
Reasonable people recognize this and go through life without calling people names.
You may feel piracy is wrong, and that's fine. We can agree to disagree. The Amish feel cell phones are wrong. We can agree to disagree. Tom Cruise feels psychiatry is wrong. Ok, he can go fuck himself.
Think about it: to donate, they have to harvest your organs at a point before you've died. You just have to trust that they won't jump the gun because someone really needs a heart. It would be extraordinarily tempting for a doctor to say, well, that guy only has a 25% chance of survival, but my patient has a 75% chance with his heart, so let's take it.
If the system pulls dirty tricks to get people on the donor list, how could they possibly trust it not to jump the gun?
Don't you think that's a decision they should make themselves, when they're old enough to understand the implications?
I respect and honour your choice, but I find it very disturbing that you would make it for someone else without their informed consent. It's this sort of casual disregard for the wishes of potential donors that ensures I will never be one.
But if you're in your mid-fourties now, you'll be in your mid-sixties in twenty years. That's just shy of your sell-by date. I wasn't trying to be mean, but it's well accepted that social change happens to a large degree through older generations passing on.
I'm happy to pay musicians for music, but I can't in good conscience fund terrorist organizations like the RIAA.
Good luck with the colostomy bag, but I don't imagine you could afford me.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch out for the Libyan terrorists.
The problem with doing it through RIM is that it allows the courts to keep secrets from the very people who are being investigated, thus denying them their due process right to challenge that subpoena. And that's exactly what India wants.
They can already subpoena the people in their jurisdiction for their email records if they want to.
You bastards leave my data ghosts in peace.
Since Sam Bulte's political career was destroyed due to her support for Bill C-60, only MPs in very safe ridings have been willing to take on the issue, and no government has risked letting a bill actually make its way to a vote.
The bills keep getting proposed to appease the Americans, but no government is going to have the balls to try to get them passed in the current minority climate.
I don't know about elsewhere, but they've been trying to pass copyright expansion legislation here in Canada for nearly a decade without any success.
To decode your own Bluray disks.
In the free world, anyway, even if not America.
So they don't care.
Thanks :)
They may feel hurt, but there is no actual damage. They'd have to do some rather intrusive investigation to even know it was happening.
And how much are they paid? Not much, if anything, above minimum wage I imagine.
And I imagine Dell pays it's Indian call centre staff significantly less than a western minimum wage.
Blame Dell if you like, but it's not as if this woman did not know she was talking to someone Dell was taking advantage of.
I'm just concerned that the donating infrastructure won't seek their consent when once their old enough to make the decision for themselves.
As I said above, I respect and honour your decision to be an organ donor. I don't want to be one myself because the high pressure campaign to get people on the doner rolls calls into question (in my opinion) their commitment not to harvest my organs until there is absolutely no chance, however remote, of survival.
I am on the bone marrow list, though, and I do hope I match someone someday.
Captain Obvious ran thataway ;)
Yes, I know Amish are allowed to use phones outside the house.
We can agree to disagree about copyright. We can't agree to disagree about actually hurting each other.
Hope that helps.
And no one is entitled to prevent me from helping my neighbour just because it interferes with their business model.
Sorry, if you feel that there's nothing wrong with using a cell phone, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel that god doesn't hate fags, your morals are wrong. Sorry, if you feel that womyn should not make all decisions in the world, you're morals are wrong.
It's subjective. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
I think it's worth losing some potentially transplantable organs to make absolutely sure consent was given properly.
Do they get taken off the list, or do they have to actively take themselves off the list? What if they don't even know?
I find the idea of harvesting someone's organs without their express consent very disturbing.
Parents can't choose to withhold medical care, for example.
Somehow I doubt it, and that's very troubling.
Reasonable people recognize this and go through life without calling people names.
You may feel piracy is wrong, and that's fine. We can agree to disagree. The Amish feel cell phones are wrong. We can agree to disagree. Tom Cruise feels psychiatry is wrong. Ok, he can go fuck himself.
You could put off the decision until it must be made.
Think about it: to donate, they have to harvest your organs at a point before you've died. You just have to trust that they won't jump the gun because someone really needs a heart. It would be extraordinarily tempting for a doctor to say, well, that guy only has a 25% chance of survival, but my patient has a 75% chance with his heart, so let's take it.
If the system pulls dirty tricks to get people on the donor list, how could they possibly trust it not to jump the gun?
Don't you think that's a decision they should make themselves, when they're old enough to understand the implications?
I respect and honour your choice, but I find it very disturbing that you would make it for someone else without their informed consent. It's this sort of casual disregard for the wishes of potential donors that ensures I will never be one.
But if you're in your mid-fourties now, you'll be in your mid-sixties in twenty years. That's just shy of your sell-by date. I wasn't trying to be mean, but it's well accepted that social change happens to a large degree through older generations passing on.
I'm happy to pay musicians for music, but I can't in good conscience fund terrorist organizations like the RIAA.
Good luck with the colostomy bag, but I don't imagine you could afford me.