Why don't we just burn the Bill of Rights? That PATRIOT act has just about taken away all the rights we used to enjoy.
From the article: The auction service operator said a letter received Friday from the attorney's office claims PayPal violated a part of the law that prohibits transmission of funds known to have been derived from a criminal offense or intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.
Now how am I supposed to go about transmitting funds that are known to be derived from a criminal offense or are intended to promote or support an unlawful activity??? The Founders must be rolling over in their graves!
Is anyone aware of any regulations allowing you to transfer your home phone number to your cell phone if you were to disconnect your home phone number? I think I remember reading about rules stating you could keep your home phone number if you switched land carriers, and now you'll be able to keep your cell phone number when you switch cell carriers, but what about if you are ditching your land line altogether?
Well, its the sort of movie you HAD to grow up with- I saw it tons of times as a kid... it just sticks with you.
I credit this movie with getting me interested in technology. I think you had to be just the right age when it came out to be able to watch it today and love it. I snagged the special edition DVD also and I didn't realize there were toys. I don't own any toys at all, but I probably would buy some TRON toys though.:-)
I wanted to chime in with the rest. This is truly a great film. It is quite sad it didn't do better in the theaters because I loved it. I only saw it after being prodded by a friend several times who kept telling me to see it.
When it comes to fruit there are a lot of choices to be made. Choosing the right fruit for you can be difficult, but a good decision has tremendous rewards. A bad one can doom you to Boring and Uncool Fruity Hell until your stomach recharges. Today I will help you decide whether your next piece of fruit should be an apple or an orange. Since I'm a scientist, I will make this review as objective as possible. Where subjective judgements are required I will make note so that you can evaluate the evidence for yourself.
I *do* like Windows, but support is definitely not Microsoft's forte.
Maybe not for the individual user, but big corporations who run Microsoft software on an enterprise level can purchase fantastic support from Microsoft. The kind where people come out to your business and fix things for you. Where you can get patches and fixes in a few days. Sure, it's expensive, but support from Microsoft is not all that bad if you have the cash.:-)
Don't be a liar/drama queen that doesn't even happen.. Red Hat does not have nor will they ever have a monopoly on linux.
I'm sure he will respond for himself, but I'd like to point out that he said the "server" business, not all Linux business. I have no idea what the numbers are on enterprises running Linux at the server level and who their vendor is though.
I'm not talking about helping them retain their power. I'm talking about doing things we know are strongly against the will of their people. How can we even talk about spreading democracy in the Middle East if we don't respect their people's will anymore than their own oppressive governments do? The US is strutting around being the dictator of dictators.
I agree with you to a point on this. Obviously we have not been in the business of fostering democracies in some nations. However, you point the finger at Bush as if he is the cause of this. I'm guessing I wouldn't have heard this same criticism while we had other presidents, like Clinton.
Besides, this proposed war with Iraq is not about democracy, or oil, and it is sure not about any threat a defeated Iraq might possibly pose to the world's greatest superpower. It is about domination of the Middle East, and the neo-conservatives' new crusades to save Israel. Go do some research into the background of Bush's appointees.
How do you know this for fact? That is a pretty ridiculous charge if you ask me. Personally, I'll take the man at his word that this is about compliance with the conditions of surrender Saddam made with us back in 91. The man is a danger to the entire Middle East, period. Even Clinton recognized this danger and said in his final years as President that we were going to have to deal with him sometime soon.
So far:
Withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Coming soon to a war in Iraq: The UN Charter (if the UNSC resolution does not pass or is vetoed), the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the Geneva Convention, and all the same international laws Hitler broke invading Poland (the same preemptive strike excuse was used in the trials of his Nazi war criminals).
The ABM treaty was with a country that no longer exists. We never ratified the Kyoto treaty. As for war with Iraq, Saddam has failed to comply with the conditions of his surrender, so we are in our perfect legal right to continue the war that started in 92. Do you actually know how many wars the U.N. has actually "authorized" in all of it's history? I'll give you a hint: it's less than 3 and it sure doesn't include Kosovo.
As for the economy and civil liberties charge, you'll have to point out specifics in the Patriot act that take away rights given to us in the Bill of Rights. I hear the charge constantly, but have yet to hear a specific. And the comment about the economy failing because of the fiasco with the election is definately the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Look at the data, it was failing long before he was even elected. Obviously you are so highly partisan and such a Bush hater, you are incapable of having a real conversation on these issues.
Look at the current situation. Bush is getting what he wants out of Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan. But the reason he is getting his way is that he bribes or threatens their leaders, and since they are not democracies, they have jack booted security forces to quell their people's massive dissent.
Yes, and Bush is the only one who has ever helped these governments in the Middle East retain their power. Give me a break. If you want democracy in the Middle East, why not start with Iraq?
Sorry, but our President is busy trying to get the World Record on making as many terrorists, breaking as many international laws and treaties, and alienating as many allies as he can, while destroying the liberties, economy and environment of the good ol' US of A.
What international laws and treaties is Bush breaking? What liberties, specifically, have been taken away from us? How did Bush single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy? What has he done to destroy the environment?
I appreciate you pointing that out to me. What I meant by "objective standard" was that it was a standard that could be objectively met. But I see how they could have read it differently.
I think it is interesting to note that there is a reaction here on Slashdot, and in society in general to the use of the words "moral" and "objective" in the same sentence. It's almost as reflexive as being tapped on the knee. Obviously, the choice of morality would be subjective, but is it so hard to see that the accountability of such morality can be objective?
For instance, if I say "Lying is immoral". You can make the argument that saying that is "subjective". That's fine. But if I say "I am the President of the United States", can you objectively determine whether or not I have broken the stated morality of "lying is immoral"? Yes, that is something you can objectively determine.
So do you see know why your comment is incorrect? You can, in fact, use the idea of morality and objectivity together. Not in the way you were thinking, but in the way I described above.
I'm not saying that the initial definition or acceptance of their morality isn't influenced by emotions or personal predjudices, I'm saying that whatever standard they have chosen can be treated objectively at that point, regardless of how they feel from then on.
Or I could just be blowing lots of hot smoke....:-)
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic
These people have picked a standard. In this case, it is "Viewing pornography is not moral." They are now holding themselves to that standard regardless of the emotions or desires they may have from time to time.
Just because Christians *claim* it's objective doesn't mean it is.
I didn't claim anything of the sort. I'm talking about people who have picked some sort of standard, whatever that may be, and are trying to stick to it. It is an objective standard for them to live by because it doesn't, or at least shouldn't, depend on how they feel from moment to moment.
Big difference between self-censorship and attempted big-brother censorship.
I was just about to post this same thought, and I noticed you beat me to it. There is a huge difference between people who are trying to monitor and clean up their own online surfing habits (for whatever reasons) and what the headline and story description said.
This is just a way for people to keep them accountable in a way described in the Bible. Of course, knowing Slashdot, this will be made fun of to no end. People attempting to live their lives according to an external and somewhat objective standard is just so medieval.
I wasn't holding it up as one. But for some people, it might be.
That is true, especially around here it seems. I didn't mean to imply you weren't making a good point, I just was questioning why the same ol' tired examples are used around here.
By the way try as I might I could not determine if America's Army is open source. Shouldn't it be since it was funded by taxpayers?
They are licensing the engine for the game from the makers of Unreal 2. I guess they could release the code around the engine as open source, but not the engine itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you lay down right here and I'll give it a try? *pulling out a scapel*
No kidding. I would think that FireWire would be more appropriate for a grill.
groan...
I think it might.... be? Ah crap...
BUZZ!!!
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!
Why don't we just burn the Bill of Rights? That PATRIOT act has just about taken away all the rights we used to enjoy.
From the article: The auction service operator said a letter received Friday from the attorney's office claims PayPal violated a part of the law that prohibits transmission of funds known to have been derived from a criminal offense or intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.
Now how am I supposed to go about transmitting funds that are known to be derived from a criminal offense or are intended to promote or support an unlawful activity??? The Founders must be rolling over in their graves!
Is anyone aware of any regulations allowing you to transfer your home phone number to your cell phone if you were to disconnect your home phone number? I think I remember reading about rules stating you could keep your home phone number if you switched land carriers, and now you'll be able to keep your cell phone number when you switch cell carriers, but what about if you are ditching your land line altogether?
I credit this movie with getting me interested in technology. I think you had to be just the right age when it came out to be able to watch it today and love it. I snagged the special edition DVD also and I didn't realize there were toys. I don't own any toys at all, but I probably would buy some TRON toys though. :-)
Ha... ha. ... hahahaaha... hahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I'm in a weird mood. That was just the reaction I had when thinking about that movie. It is so classically 80's.
I wanted to chime in with the rest. This is truly a great film. It is quite sad it didn't do better in the theaters because I loved it. I only saw it after being prodded by a friend several times who kept telling me to see it.
When it comes to fruit there are a lot of choices to be made. Choosing the right fruit for you can be difficult, but a good decision has tremendous rewards. A bad one can doom you to Boring and Uncool Fruity Hell until your stomach recharges. Today I will help you decide whether your next piece of fruit should be an apple or an orange. Since I'm a scientist, I will make this review as objective as possible. Where subjective judgements are required I will make note so that you can evaluate the evidence for yourself.
Maybe not for the individual user, but big corporations who run Microsoft software on an enterprise level can purchase fantastic support from Microsoft. The kind where people come out to your business and fix things for you. Where you can get patches and fixes in a few days. Sure, it's expensive, but support from Microsoft is not all that bad if you have the cash. :-)
I'm sure he will respond for himself, but I'd like to point out that he said the "server" business, not all Linux business. I have no idea what the numbers are on enterprises running Linux at the server level and who their vendor is though.
I agree with you to a point on this. Obviously we have not been in the business of fostering democracies in some nations. However, you point the finger at Bush as if he is the cause of this. I'm guessing I wouldn't have heard this same criticism while we had other presidents, like Clinton.
How do you know this for fact? That is a pretty ridiculous charge if you ask me. Personally, I'll take the man at his word that this is about compliance with the conditions of surrender Saddam made with us back in 91. The man is a danger to the entire Middle East, period. Even Clinton recognized this danger and said in his final years as President that we were going to have to deal with him sometime soon.
The ABM treaty was with a country that no longer exists. We never ratified the Kyoto treaty. As for war with Iraq, Saddam has failed to comply with the conditions of his surrender, so we are in our perfect legal right to continue the war that started in 92. Do you actually know how many wars the U.N. has actually "authorized" in all of it's history? I'll give you a hint: it's less than 3 and it sure doesn't include Kosovo.
As for the economy and civil liberties charge, you'll have to point out specifics in the Patriot act that take away rights given to us in the Bill of Rights. I hear the charge constantly, but have yet to hear a specific. And the comment about the economy failing because of the fiasco with the election is definately the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Look at the data, it was failing long before he was even elected. Obviously you are so highly partisan and such a Bush hater, you are incapable of having a real conversation on these issues.
Yes, and Bush is the only one who has ever helped these governments in the Middle East retain their power. Give me a break. If you want democracy in the Middle East, why not start with Iraq?
What international laws and treaties is Bush breaking? What liberties, specifically, have been taken away from us? How did Bush single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy? What has he done to destroy the environment?
It seems like it would be difficult to carry around little canisters of hydrogen to pay for everything.
I don't get it.
I appreciate you pointing that out to me. What I meant by "objective standard" was that it was a standard that could be objectively met. But I see how they could have read it differently.
Thanks.
I think it is interesting to note that there is a reaction here on Slashdot, and in society in general to the use of the words "moral" and "objective" in the same sentence. It's almost as reflexive as being tapped on the knee. Obviously, the choice of morality would be subjective, but is it so hard to see that the accountability of such morality can be objective?
For instance, if I say "Lying is immoral". You can make the argument that saying that is "subjective". That's fine. But if I say "I am the President of the United States", can you objectively determine whether or not I have broken the stated morality of "lying is immoral"? Yes, that is something you can objectively determine.
So do you see know why your comment is incorrect? You can, in fact, use the idea of morality and objectivity together. Not in the way you were thinking, but in the way I described above.
I'm not saying that the initial definition or acceptance of their morality isn't influenced by emotions or personal predjudices, I'm saying that whatever standard they have chosen can be treated objectively at that point, regardless of how they feel from then on.
Or I could just be blowing lots of hot smoke.... :-)
So to defeat the terrorists, you just change foreign policy to their suiting! Now I get it. Then we win!
This is so brilliant, I wonder why our President hasn't though of it yet.
Ok, I'll bite. See definition 3a here. It reads:
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic
These people have picked a standard. In this case, it is "Viewing pornography is not moral." They are now holding themselves to that standard regardless of the emotions or desires they may have from time to time.
I think my usage of the word works just fine.
I didn't claim anything of the sort. I'm talking about people who have picked some sort of standard, whatever that may be, and are trying to stick to it. It is an objective standard for them to live by because it doesn't, or at least shouldn't, depend on how they feel from moment to moment.
I was just about to post this same thought, and I noticed you beat me to it. There is a huge difference between people who are trying to monitor and clean up their own online surfing habits (for whatever reasons) and what the headline and story description said.
This is just a way for people to keep them accountable in a way described in the Bible. Of course, knowing Slashdot, this will be made fun of to no end. People attempting to live their lives according to an external and somewhat objective standard is just so medieval.
Sorry, I don't really take pure pacifism seriously. I will try to keep up though.
That is true, especially around here it seems. I didn't mean to imply you weren't making a good point, I just was questioning why the same ol' tired examples are used around here.
Was your use of the word pinnacle intentional when describing DOA Extreme Volleyball? ;-)
They are licensing the engine for the game from the makers of Unreal 2. I guess they could release the code around the engine as open source, but not the engine itself.