The loss of individuality. When a union is certified as the exclusive employee representative in a workplace, employees become members of an overall bargaining unit in which the majority rules. The ruling majority may not be sympathetic with each individual's specific employment needs or aspirations.
The cost to employees. Most collective bargaining agreements require all employees to support the union financially as a condition of their continued employment.
Exclusive representation. This power carries with it a duty of fair representation that requires the union to negotiate fairly on behalf of all employees in the "bargaining unit," whether they are union members or not.
"One last disadvantage to union membership is that members can be fined or otherwise disciplined by their union for engaging in activities, which, in the union's opinion, are 'unbecoming' of union members or which violate the union's constitution and by-laws. . .."
What Microsoft means to say is that it previously introduced a flaw to bolster later excuses for not supporting legacy software, thus pressuring businesses to invest in the next 'buggy' that comes along. Time to ramp up the marketing for 2003.
[C]hances are they already have their operation sorted out 'legally' offshore already.
What you may not realize is that moving offshore won't do any more. Now that the United States is building a precedence for going after evil-doers, spammers will surely be targeted for 'liberation' after Iraq. Being overseas just makes it easier.
I hope you do not mind a couple of nits being picked. First, it was the Justice Department, not the FBI, who "lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database." (From your cited article) I'm sure this is just the Telephone Game at play.
Without a more detailed look into what the new criteria are, exactly, it may be presumptuous to state that any old 'rumor or innuendo' is suitable grounds. Otherwise, I could whisper that Slashdot supports copyright violations and upon that whisper alone surveillance would be made of every member--guilt by rumored association.
Fortunately, in reading the article you cited second, it looks like the Mayor of Denver took charge of the situation, admitting that the Police were overzealous. However, there remains a litmus test of criminality. Just because a peaceful protest is being conducted does not mean criminal acts are not involved--and this does not mean that criminal acts *are* involved, either. Living in DC and knowing a few cops, I hear all sorts of anecdotes of criminal behavior conducted within peaceful demonstrations. I have also witnessed a few first hand.
Furthermore, the ACLU seems to be doing its civil duty to confront such abuses.
Now, see, you list a lot of things the law states. However, these laws do not deprive a resident of the United States of a right, only a Constitutional amendment repealing a right (similar to the 22d that repealled Prohibition) can deprive one of said right.
It is practically a matter of course that various rights organizations, to include the ACLU, will find suitable pretext to elevate these laws to the attention of the Supreme Court. Regardless of how one may feel about the Court personally, or politically, it does its best to ensure one's rights are not trodden upon because of overzealous legislatures or the President himself. Checks and balance at work.
Regards to 'A,' I won't touch that with a ten-meter cattle prod. Not because the point stands on its own merit, but because that sort of debate is really OT.
Regards to 'B,' I am glad that I live in a country where no branch has full control, legislative, judicial or executive (unless I were the executive). However, we all know there are cases where judges do in fact coerce legislation. Again, I'd rather not drag Slashdot into that debate.
Regards to 'C,' conservatism and liberalism depend on where one sits on the spectrum. There are those I know who considered Reagan a liberal--and others who considered Clinton a conservative. Placing a judge on that spectrum, therefore, is subjective due to one's political bias.
If conservative is maintaining the status quo, then I am not a conservative. There are many 'liberal' issues that are conservative--from a strict interpretation of the term. I believe that I am a progressive in general. However, I also believe we may have progressed down a few wrong paths in our society and may need to redirect that path to one that is fundamentally better for a well-ordered society. However, this is also a topic ranging far from the topic at hand.
I appreciate your example of entrapment, but when does offering a fellow money equate to coercion? If one held the fellow's child hostage, or threatened his life, that would be coercion. Otherwise, every case where the police arrested a prostitute by pretending to be a client would be coercion. I've watched enough cop shows to know the difference (grins).
The National Guard, US Army Reserves, and US Army Regular troops all train in the same Basic Training camps. We had a few Guardsmen in my platoon, and we envied them because they were allowed to wear unit patches while the remainder of us didn't. Yes, life in Basic can be that petty.
In Basic Training, there is too much to teach and too little time. The goal of Basic Training is to condition the trainee, so the climate is radically different than daily military life. Amongst the training is engrained willingness to follow orders given by one's chain of command, so I wouldn't doubt the trainees became Bush supporters. However, this effect does not linger--I can assure you of that. Just because I was in the Army does not mean I agreed with President Clinton.
But, then again, one should assume that many of those who enlist during this period of American history are influenced by the effects of 9/11 and would be more inclined to support President Bush.
Well, having served in the Army and having been in situations where one may be inclined to think "the military tries very hard to prevent soldiers from assembling any clear picture of the latest world news," I have to disagree.
The military does not have much of a problem with its soldiers forming their own opinions. I have been in quite a few facilities where CNN and other news feeds are piped in. Post exchange facilities, even those in theatre, have access to Newsweek and Time.
The reason why the military does not care is because it really does not need to. Discipline, integrity and professionalism are typically motivation enough for a soldier to serve in combat. Comradery is another. There are some who do serve because--well, because they're crazy. Those in the latter category consider it the ultimate X-sport, or just like the thought of killing. Regardless of the cause, the Army does not need to misinform its personnel because there are factors other than one's opinion of contemporary events that compels one to serve.
My point that you contend with is that when one is an eye witness, then the source of bias is oneself. To illustrate my point, seeing Auswitz first-hand did a lot to convince those present that they were fighting the Germans for all the right reasons. The fact that Saddam commits attrocities will be aparent most to those who witnessed first hand. The fact that Saddam has weapons he recently said he didn't will be aparent to those who have to react to them.
The only time in my years of service where I was out of touch was when I was in Basic Training--and that was because there's really too much going on to muck with TV. Oddly enouch, that was during the last Gulf War.
Besides, who's to say that those who don't support the war aren't being brainwashed? Afterall, my key point is all news is biased, and if one gets his opinions from what is gleaned from the media, then is that not brainwashing?
To trust journalists for unbiased anything is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. "Fair and Balanced," via Fox News means they just try to present an offsetting viewpoint to the other mainstream networks. They do this because many feel the others present a decidedly left bias--an assessment open to debate depending on which end of the spectrum one finds himself. However, if this bias weren't perceived by a significant number of people, then Fox News would not be as popular as it is.
Just look at the early years of the US to see how journalism is simply an extension of politics. If you want an unbiased viewpoint on the war, the best way to achieve this is to enlist in the military and volunteer. Then you get to see it with your own eyes, just keep your head down.
Of course, even then, the 'media' (eyes, ears, etc.) will be biased.:-)
I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band (sic) doesnt (sic) give you the right to do what you please.
Please sue. Then you can testify in court how you attempted theft and were robbed in the process. Then, after you win your civil case and receive your settlement the District Attorney can arrest you for the crime you committed. It will be an open-and-shut case since you have already given sworn testimony admitting to the crime. The DA can give it to his freshest assistant and chose to prosecute to set an example.
Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.
While it is illegal to make lethal booby traps--the 'nanny state' at work; you are making a false comparison. Sting operations are conducted all the time, and are only called entrapment when the police fail to follow procedure or give due process. What we have here is more equivalent to a police sting operation, which is really a legal confidence game. The case here is criminaly-run, private enterprise sting operation. The victims are brought into this game with intent to commit a crime. Unfortunately, they are caught because of the ploy and consequently have to pay. The fact that the cable company does not press charges is what should be amazing here.
Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its (sic) a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its (sic) still a good idea.
Sorry, recent changes in the law do not mean that due process has been hurled out of the court system. We still have the same judges. We still have the same defense attorneys who thrive on lack of due process. We still have the American Civil Liberties Union to take egregious violations of the Constitution, and laws that support said violations, to the Supreme Court.
However, I am glad that you are incensed when the Constitution is abused by such laws. Perhaps you should be equally incensed when judges chose to legislate from the bench, which belongs to the legislative branch or to loosely interpret the Constitution to suit their needs.
In the interest of progress, there are those who say 'what is the harm?' They do things preemptory and then watch to see the results. Then, when results are unfavorable, they say, 'well, our position is already rooted in society, so we cannot go back now'--a hollow argument. However, this is not to say that all progressive things are harmful.
There are still others who say, 'what is the good?' They are more cautious, less innovative. Yet, they seek to ensure the 'common good' is maintained in ther progressiveness.
Sometimes, in order to progress in the right direction, a few backward steps need be taken. This is especially true when over-progressive zeal takes society down the wrong (i.e, not truly progressive) path.
In the case here, I say that regulation--self or societal (via government); is the better option. While the opposing sides argue the cons of the issue, our children hang in the balance. As our children are our future, then our future is in the balance.
I, for one, like the little logo that helps me as a parent weed out the wheat from the chaff. I like that self-imposed regulatory efforts help me by urging shops not to sell something to my minor that I may deem inappropriate. If, as a parent, I want my son to see that (PG-13|R)-rated film, or listen to Eminem, or play Unreal, that is my perogative. The regulations help me be that gatekeeper. I like being that gatekeeper, because myself and his mother are the ones with a vested interest in how our child turns out.
Ask this, what harm do the labels create? More PG-13 films are made because of the restrictiveness of R (although PG-13 is the same as R ratings of fifteen years ago, it seems). If the gaming software industry feels encumbered by the restrictions because of sales, perhaps they should tone down what causes the more restrictive rating.
Finally, I think what many refer to as free speech is not what free speech was intended. Just as it is not free speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. Vandalism is not free speech. If I thought a musician plays terribly, I cannot urinate on him (History of the World, Pt 1) to express my free speech of his poor performance.
I see Free speech as the right to speak out against the injustices of our government. Sometimes, to have freedom in society, individuals have to restrict their freedoms.
Hey, that's it! I know understand why American youths today are so much more obese than of 30 years ago. It's not the sugar in our diet, the super-sized fries (always countered by the giant Diet Coke(R)), lack of self-control or self-esteem, or video games that cause it.
Global warming is why we Americans are becoming fat-asses. This also probably explains why the rate of teen pregancy is on the rise, and the increasing use of heroine.
Yeah but . . . Isn't the copyright on the Mona Lisa expried? I mean, at least until the next Disney upgrade to the US Copyright laws extends the 'limited period' to cover an epoch?
You know, I got to see this movie on Christmas Day with a free movie pass. I left at the end wanting my money back. As it was, the original up-front cost (that is, free) was the only motivation I had for attending.
Perhaps they should have given Wesley Crusher the role of Captain of the Enterprise, and picked another worn out plot that ST has abused before. Maybe with the Feringi as something other than the Kobolds of ST.
Now see, I had to go and say something controversial. I thought it would be anything but the (right|duty|privilege) thing.
If you're considering the US Presidential Election, then I say the popular vote is indeed a privilege since the Electoral college actually does the voting for us. We get our say because of USC 3. But, I'm playing with words. [More to the point, I'm hoping that in 2008 I can recruit 270 like-minded individuals to elect me President on an 'enlightened' ticket.]
One problem I see in democracies is the tendency to take for granted certain rights. I say privilege because we should view it as such. I mean, we could be in a certain Middle Eastern nation where the vote always comes out 100 percent for the guy holding the sarin. Others say it is our Duty to vote, and as responsible citizens I would hope that we all see it as a privilege and a duty--although it is for all intents and purposes a right.
However, I should think that a right cannot be revoked just because of whom you are. A felon loses his right to own a firearm, and in most states the right to vote (Florida, I believe, is among those who allow felon voters). Yet, he never loses the right to protection from double jeopardy, or illegal search and seizure, or the right to pay taxes (or is tax paying a privilege?). So, it appears in the US that there are rights and there are Rights.
I'm glad to have had a privilege to stir the/. pot a bit today.
Actually, I did. Odd story, actually. In the morning I had practice and had to walk to my brother's school--which was two miles away and uphill. Then I was bussed to my school. Again, I had practice after school and it was faster to walk to it than to wait for the bus. So, I walked the mile uphill from my school to the other practice.
At the time I lived in Upstate NY, and practice was in wintertime. So, I had to walk through two feet of snow. So, I am one of the few people who can hold the claim to have walked uphill, both ways, for three miles, through two feet of snow . . . JUST to get to school.:-)
I'm sorry, maybe I'm a little too old school. Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience. When I vote I should accept the duty to chose the better qualified candidate and make the march to the voter booth as if a pilgrimage to Mecca. I shouldn't be able to click a few keys on the keyboard while lying in bed to decide who the next President of the US will be--then be able to roll back over and go back to sleep for two more years.
Distancing the voter from the booth serves those criminals who use absenteeism as an opportunity to stuff your ballots. There are cemetaries across the US that vote in record numbers. Forget that the voters have been dead for years--they vote in absentia. Now all I need to is set up a reasonably sophisticated script and *bang* 60k more votes for the good guys.
Distancing the voter also distances him from the importance of his decision. If you don't think it's important enough to take time off of work, freeze for an hour in a line with two feet of snow, buy a suitable magnifying glass so you can read the candidates' names and pay attention when selecting a candidate--then maybe your vote should not count. Making the effort to vote connotes seriousness to me. There are some people who sacrificed their lives so you could do all of the above.
As an aside, I recall an incident where I saw a 20-something young woman vote using an optical ballot--you know, fill in the bubble. You'd think that after x number of years seeing that sort of form that filling the bubble would be natural. The instructions were clear on the ballot, and there was a very large example displayed whilst in line. Yet, she managed to use checks instead.
Having served in the military, I can say I've never heard of anything of the sort. Even if the Federal government would allow military personnel to participate in an Internet vote, you'll still have to get all those States to agree as well, since each is entitled to deterimine voting laws for their own state (Title 3 USC, I believe).
As for costing millions to support few, that is the norm in government programs.
You'd think that if Bill was actually down with Wheaton, he'd take care to spell his name right
Well, you've got to understand that Bil went to McGill, and consequently his spelling has been influenced by French. If you noticed in a post further up, there are many endings in French that have the same pronunciation. Here are some other spellings for Wil Wheaton's first name:
Whil
Wiles
Wile
Willez
Whilent
Smart Ass Kid
All of the above are valid French spellings of his name and yet, all are pronounced the same! It's not that Bill's not down with Wil, but that he is a true cosmopolitan, and a magnificent actor.
My interest in this topic is because I converted my Compaq^H^H^H^H^H^H HP Ipaq handheld from PocketPC to Linux Familiar (Opie). I'd like to cram as many eBooks as I can and like the data compression available with Palm Doc and Tomeraider formats. Does PDF have compression enough to compete with those formats? If so, are the readers small enough to not overwhelm my handheld's 64 Mb total memory?
Okay, if it's a superfluid, then is there an adult swim? Seriously, is ther a star smaller than a quark star but bigger than a black hole? Call me dense, but I've not been more than a casual observer of astronomy.
Why not have the passengers do a little pedalling? They could then generate a portion the electricity from the sweat of their brow--helping to "Slim Up America." Or, rather than make it a high-speed system, we could make it a little lower speed and have them bike their way.
Slashdot Mirror
In brief, the disadvantages of unions are:
"One last disadvantage to union membership is that members can be fined or otherwise disciplined by their union for engaging in activities, which, in the union's opinion, are 'unbecoming' of union members or which violate the union's constitution and by-laws. . . ."
Sounds like we need to create a distribution called 'OpenLinux' . . .
What Microsoft means to say is that it previously introduced a flaw to bolster later excuses for not supporting legacy software, thus pressuring businesses to invest in the next 'buggy' that comes along. Time to ramp up the marketing for 2003.
[C]hances are they already have their operation sorted out 'legally' offshore already.
What you may not realize is that moving offshore won't do any more. Now that the United States is building a precedence for going after evil-doers, spammers will surely be targeted for 'liberation' after Iraq. Being overseas just makes it easier.
I created an account and set the email address as 'webmaster@nytimes.com' No spam here!
I hope you do not mind a couple of nits being picked. First, it was the Justice Department, not the FBI, who "lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database." (From your cited article) I'm sure this is just the Telephone Game at play.
Without a more detailed look into what the new criteria are, exactly, it may be presumptuous to state that any old 'rumor or innuendo' is suitable grounds. Otherwise, I could whisper that Slashdot supports copyright violations and upon that whisper alone surveillance would be made of every member--guilt by rumored association.
Fortunately, in reading the article you cited second, it looks like the Mayor of Denver took charge of the situation, admitting that the Police were overzealous. However, there remains a litmus test of criminality. Just because a peaceful protest is being conducted does not mean criminal acts are not involved--and this does not mean that criminal acts *are* involved, either. Living in DC and knowing a few cops, I hear all sorts of anecdotes of criminal behavior conducted within peaceful demonstrations. I have also witnessed a few first hand.
Furthermore, the ACLU seems to be doing its civil duty to confront such abuses.
Now, see, you list a lot of things the law states. However, these laws do not deprive a resident of the United States of a right, only a Constitutional amendment repealing a right (similar to the 22d that repealled Prohibition) can deprive one of said right.
It is practically a matter of course that various rights organizations, to include the ACLU, will find suitable pretext to elevate these laws to the attention of the Supreme Court. Regardless of how one may feel about the Court personally, or politically, it does its best to ensure one's rights are not trodden upon because of overzealous legislatures or the President himself. Checks and balance at work.
Regards to 'A,' I won't touch that with a ten-meter cattle prod. Not because the point stands on its own merit, but because that sort of debate is really OT.
Regards to 'B,' I am glad that I live in a country where no branch has full control, legislative, judicial or executive (unless I were the executive). However, we all know there are cases where judges do in fact coerce legislation. Again, I'd rather not drag Slashdot into that debate.
Regards to 'C,' conservatism and liberalism depend on where one sits on the spectrum. There are those I know who considered Reagan a liberal--and others who considered Clinton a conservative. Placing a judge on that spectrum, therefore, is subjective due to one's political bias.
If conservative is maintaining the status quo, then I am not a conservative. There are many 'liberal' issues that are conservative--from a strict interpretation of the term. I believe that I am a progressive in general. However, I also believe we may have progressed down a few wrong paths in our society and may need to redirect that path to one that is fundamentally better for a well-ordered society. However, this is also a topic ranging far from the topic at hand.
I appreciate your example of entrapment, but when does offering a fellow money equate to coercion? If one held the fellow's child hostage, or threatened his life, that would be coercion. Otherwise, every case where the police arrested a prostitute by pretending to be a client would be coercion. I've watched enough cop shows to know the difference (grins).
Are you a lawyer?
The National Guard, US Army Reserves, and US Army Regular troops all train in the same Basic Training camps. We had a few Guardsmen in my platoon, and we envied them because they were allowed to wear unit patches while the remainder of us didn't. Yes, life in Basic can be that petty.
In Basic Training, there is too much to teach and too little time. The goal of Basic Training is to condition the trainee, so the climate is radically different than daily military life. Amongst the training is engrained willingness to follow orders given by one's chain of command, so I wouldn't doubt the trainees became Bush supporters. However, this effect does not linger--I can assure you of that. Just because I was in the Army does not mean I agreed with President Clinton.
But, then again, one should assume that many of those who enlist during this period of American history are influenced by the effects of 9/11 and would be more inclined to support President Bush.
Well, having served in the Army and having been in situations where one may be inclined to think "the military tries very hard to prevent soldiers from assembling any clear picture of the latest world news," I have to disagree.
The military does not have much of a problem with its soldiers forming their own opinions. I have been in quite a few facilities where CNN and other news feeds are piped in. Post exchange facilities, even those in theatre, have access to Newsweek and Time.
The reason why the military does not care is because it really does not need to. Discipline, integrity and professionalism are typically motivation enough for a soldier to serve in combat. Comradery is another. There are some who do serve because--well, because they're crazy. Those in the latter category consider it the ultimate X-sport, or just like the thought of killing. Regardless of the cause, the Army does not need to misinform its personnel because there are factors other than one's opinion of contemporary events that compels one to serve.
My point that you contend with is that when one is an eye witness, then the source of bias is oneself. To illustrate my point, seeing Auswitz first-hand did a lot to convince those present that they were fighting the Germans for all the right reasons. The fact that Saddam commits attrocities will be aparent most to those who witnessed first hand. The fact that Saddam has weapons he recently said he didn't will be aparent to those who have to react to them.
The only time in my years of service where I was out of touch was when I was in Basic Training--and that was because there's really too much going on to muck with TV. Oddly enouch, that was during the last Gulf War.
Besides, who's to say that those who don't support the war aren't being brainwashed? Afterall, my key point is all news is biased, and if one gets his opinions from what is gleaned from the media, then is that not brainwashing?
"Journalism is politics by other means."
:-)
To trust journalists for unbiased anything is to misunderstand the nature of the beast. "Fair and Balanced," via Fox News means they just try to present an offsetting viewpoint to the other mainstream networks. They do this because many feel the others present a decidedly left bias--an assessment open to debate depending on which end of the spectrum one finds himself. However, if this bias weren't perceived by a significant number of people, then Fox News would not be as popular as it is.
Just look at the early years of the US to see how journalism is simply an extension of politics. If you want an unbiased viewpoint on the war, the best way to achieve this is to enlist in the military and volunteer. Then you get to see it with your own eyes, just keep your head down.
Of course, even then, the 'media' (eyes, ears, etc.) will be biased.
I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band (sic) doesnt (sic) give you the right to do what you please.
Please sue. Then you can testify in court how you attempted theft and were robbed in the process. Then, after you win your civil case and receive your settlement the District Attorney can arrest you for the crime you committed. It will be an open-and-shut case since you have already given sworn testimony admitting to the crime. The DA can give it to his freshest assistant and chose to prosecute to set an example.
Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.
While it is illegal to make lethal booby traps--the 'nanny state' at work; you are making a false comparison. Sting operations are conducted all the time, and are only called entrapment when the police fail to follow procedure or give due process. What we have here is more equivalent to a police sting operation, which is really a legal confidence game. The case here is criminaly-run, private enterprise sting operation. The victims are brought into this game with intent to commit a crime. Unfortunately, they are caught because of the ploy and consequently have to pay. The fact that the cable company does not press charges is what should be amazing here.
Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its (sic) a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its (sic) still a good idea.
Sorry, recent changes in the law do not mean that due process has been hurled out of the court system. We still have the same judges. We still have the same defense attorneys who thrive on lack of due process. We still have the American Civil Liberties Union to take egregious violations of the Constitution, and laws that support said violations, to the Supreme Court.
However, I am glad that you are incensed when the Constitution is abused by such laws. Perhaps you should be equally incensed when judges chose to legislate from the bench, which belongs to the legislative branch or to loosely interpret the Constitution to suit their needs.
In the interest of progress, there are those who say 'what is the harm?' They do things preemptory and then watch to see the results. Then, when results are unfavorable, they say, 'well, our position is already rooted in society, so we cannot go back now'--a hollow argument. However, this is not to say that all progressive things are harmful.
There are still others who say, 'what is the good?' They are more cautious, less innovative. Yet, they seek to ensure the 'common good' is maintained in ther progressiveness.
Sometimes, in order to progress in the right direction, a few backward steps need be taken. This is especially true when over-progressive zeal takes society down the wrong (i.e, not truly progressive) path.
In the case here, I say that regulation--self or societal (via government); is the better option. While the opposing sides argue the cons of the issue, our children hang in the balance. As our children are our future, then our future is in the balance.
I, for one, like the little logo that helps me as a parent weed out the wheat from the chaff. I like that self-imposed regulatory efforts help me by urging shops not to sell something to my minor that I may deem inappropriate. If, as a parent, I want my son to see that (PG-13|R)-rated film, or listen to Eminem, or play Unreal, that is my perogative. The regulations help me be that gatekeeper. I like being that gatekeeper, because myself and his mother are the ones with a vested interest in how our child turns out.
Ask this, what harm do the labels create? More PG-13 films are made because of the restrictiveness of R (although PG-13 is the same as R ratings of fifteen years ago, it seems). If the gaming software industry feels encumbered by the restrictions because of sales, perhaps they should tone down what causes the more restrictive rating.
Finally, I think what many refer to as free speech is not what free speech was intended. Just as it is not free speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. Vandalism is not free speech. If I thought a musician plays terribly, I cannot urinate on him (History of the World, Pt 1) to express my free speech of his poor performance.
I see Free speech as the right to speak out against the injustices of our government. Sometimes, to have freedom in society, individuals have to restrict their freedoms.
Hey, that's it! I know understand why American youths today are so much more obese than of 30 years ago. It's not the sugar in our diet, the super-sized fries (always countered by the giant Diet Coke(R)), lack of self-control or self-esteem, or video games that cause it.
Global warming is why we Americans are becoming fat-asses. This also probably explains why the rate of teen pregancy is on the rise, and the increasing use of heroine.
Amazon has this:
"The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source"
So, are we doubling our effort?
Yeah but . . . Isn't the copyright on the Mona Lisa expried? I mean, at least until the next Disney upgrade to the US Copyright laws extends the 'limited period' to cover an epoch?
You know, I got to see this movie on Christmas Day with a free movie pass. I left at the end wanting my money back. As it was, the original up-front cost (that is, free) was the only motivation I had for attending.
Perhaps they should have given Wesley Crusher the role of Captain of the Enterprise, and picked another worn out plot that ST has abused before. Maybe with the Feringi as something other than the Kobolds of ST.
Now see, I had to go and say something controversial. I thought it would be anything but the (right|duty|privilege) thing.
/. pot a bit today.
If you're considering the US Presidential Election, then I say the popular vote is indeed a privilege since the Electoral college actually does the voting for us. We get our say because of USC 3. But, I'm playing with words. [More to the point, I'm hoping that in 2008 I can recruit 270 like-minded individuals to elect me President on an 'enlightened' ticket.]
One problem I see in democracies is the tendency to take for granted certain rights. I say privilege because we should view it as such. I mean, we could be in a certain Middle Eastern nation where the vote always comes out 100 percent for the guy holding the sarin. Others say it is our Duty to vote, and as responsible citizens I would hope that we all see it as a privilege and a duty--although it is for all intents and purposes a right.
However, I should think that a right cannot be revoked just because of whom you are. A felon loses his right to own a firearm, and in most states the right to vote (Florida, I believe, is among those who allow felon voters). Yet, he never loses the right to protection from double jeopardy, or illegal search and seizure, or the right to pay taxes (or is tax paying a privilege?). So, it appears in the US that there are rights and there are Rights.
I'm glad to have had a privilege to stir the
Actually, I did. Odd story, actually. In the morning I had practice and had to walk to my brother's school--which was two miles away and uphill. Then I was bussed to my school. Again, I had practice after school and it was faster to walk to it than to wait for the bus. So, I walked the mile uphill from my school to the other practice.
:-)
At the time I lived in Upstate NY, and practice was in wintertime. So, I had to walk through two feet of snow. So, I am one of the few people who can hold the claim to have walked uphill, both ways, for three miles, through two feet of snow . . . JUST to get to school.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm a little too old school. Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience. When I vote I should accept the duty to chose the better qualified candidate and make the march to the voter booth as if a pilgrimage to Mecca. I shouldn't be able to click a few keys on the keyboard while lying in bed to decide who the next President of the US will be--then be able to roll back over and go back to sleep for two more years.
Distancing the voter from the booth serves those criminals who use absenteeism as an opportunity to stuff your ballots. There are cemetaries across the US that vote in record numbers. Forget that the voters have been dead for years--they vote in absentia. Now all I need to is set up a reasonably sophisticated script and *bang* 60k more votes for the good guys.
Distancing the voter also distances him from the importance of his decision. If you don't think it's important enough to take time off of work, freeze for an hour in a line with two feet of snow, buy a suitable magnifying glass so you can read the candidates' names and pay attention when selecting a candidate--then maybe your vote should not count. Making the effort to vote connotes seriousness to me. There are some people who sacrificed their lives so you could do all of the above.
As an aside, I recall an incident where I saw a 20-something young woman vote using an optical ballot--you know, fill in the bubble. You'd think that after x number of years seeing that sort of form that filling the bubble would be natural. The instructions were clear on the ballot, and there was a very large example displayed whilst in line. Yet, she managed to use checks instead.
Having served in the military, I can say I've never heard of anything of the sort. Even if the Federal government would allow military personnel to participate in an Internet vote, you'll still have to get all those States to agree as well, since each is entitled to deterimine voting laws for their own state (Title 3 USC, I believe).
As for costing millions to support few, that is the norm in government programs.
You'd think that if Bill was actually down with Wheaton, he'd take care to spell his name right
Well, you've got to understand that Bil went to McGill, and consequently his spelling has been influenced by French. If you noticed in a post further up, there are many endings in French that have the same pronunciation. Here are some other spellings for Wil Wheaton's first name:
All of the above are valid French spellings of his name and yet, all are pronounced the same! It's not that Bill's not down with Wil, but that he is a true cosmopolitan, and a magnificent actor.
My interest in this topic is because I converted my Compaq^H^H^H^H^H^H HP Ipaq handheld from PocketPC to Linux Familiar (Opie). I'd like to cram as many eBooks as I can and like the data compression available with Palm Doc and Tomeraider formats. Does PDF have compression enough to compete with those formats? If so, are the readers small enough to not overwhelm my handheld's 64 Mb total memory?
Okay, if it's a superfluid, then is there an adult swim?
Seriously, is ther a star smaller than a quark star but bigger than a black hole? Call me dense, but I've not been more than a casual observer of astronomy.
Why not have the passengers do a little pedalling? They could then generate a portion the electricity from the sweat of their brow--helping to "Slim Up America." Or, rather than make it a high-speed system, we could make it a little lower speed and have them bike their way.