So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
This is one of those issues that no amount of back and forth will ever solve. For starters, a private individual does not need to convict someone of a crime being committed directly against them while it is in progress. A private individual merely needs to asses the relative risk involved. That level of appropriate response is codified precisely because people do not see eye to eye on it and never will.
In many parts of the United States, threat to livelihood is considered comparable to threat to life and limb. This allows for full force defense against home invasion, carjacking, and other similiar crimes.
Quite frankly, the British system as it's been described to me is assinine. You should never, EVER be restricted to a fair fight when you are defending yourself. You should be allowed to strike first and with more force than is brought against you. The goal of the law should be to protect the right of the victim to survive, not be fairly matched with his attacker. In a fair fight the attacker might win.
There are clearly though many other options besides this. EverQuest, for example, doesn't even require you to buy the game in stores anymore. They'll let you purchase it at a reduced price and download the whole thing with a fresh key.
It's not quite the same thing, but there is no reason Blizzard (or EQ) in this situation shouldn't be able to generate a brand new key for him if the original key is truly defunct, which is something they can easily enforce on their end.
In/. case, no, it's definitely not worth any money to me. I use/. to kill time while my project is building at work. Occasionally, there are articles that interest me. My contribution is not putting/. in adblock.
Google is entirely different. It provides access to information in a format that is much more agreeable to me than other searches I've used. Unlike what others have claim, I regularly click on the ad links because they are often relevant to the information I'm looking for. I personally feel Google maps kicks the crap out of other tools. If they found a way to make their service significantly more usable, it would certainly be worth it to me.
Hints (2 Things that'd move me closer to being willing to pay):
Integrate Google maps with movie showtimes, as in IMDB's theater database. If possible, read my local paper and correlate showtimes from there, since not all my local theaters keep their times up to date online.
Correlate restaraunt searches in google maps with reviews. I'd like a review aggregate for a total star rating of nearby messages when I get directions via SMS. I'd like to be able to filter places that google believes suck, based on their their review data.
Look where the quotes end. HIS vision at that time was that Google would be able to answer any question, at any time, as fast as you asked it. Think of Google even more than Google is now (staggering). Google that can answer questions like Ask Jeeves tried to. Google that can, perhaps, anticipate your next question. Google that not only references what's available, but makes educated guesses at what isn't available (Your result turned up no matches, perhaps you meant... or Your result turned no matches, your local library has a book...) and is able to provide you with what you probably really meant in a nonobtrusive manner (You searched for Chinese restaraunts near you, look at the bottom of the page for reviews of these restaraunts).
Google has already done amazing things with aggregating data that is useful to the searcher. If they could take it much farther, $20 a month would be a small price to pay.
In 2001, that was still a cutting edge idea. People knew there was a way to make everything accessable, but weren't entirely sure what revenue model could support that.
$20 a month was (and is) a small price to pay for everything, if "everything" is correct and up to date.
I'd certianly pay a subscription for Google now, because their service is of value to me.
The problem with open source rocks is that you have to pretty good with a chisel to do much modding. I haven't seen someone REALLY at rock modding for several hundred years, and I'm pretty sure they worked on commission.
I'm going to guess it's because God told Peter that the resurection made unclean foods clean as a preparation into sharing the gospel with gentiles in Acts 10, but there is no equivalent "sodomy is fun" passage.
I think this is an excellent example of how having two strong parties really can fail the middle. The problem isn't so much the watering down of points to talking points, it's that neither side of the argument has any real need to actually learn what the other side's position is and seriously debate it.
Your pro-life pro-choice examples demonstrates it. NO ONE (credible) even among the religious community is pushing against abortions for the life of the mother. Even before Roe Vs. Wade that was legal. Watering the issue down into that point is intellectually dishonest, just like it's hypocritical for the pro-life people to protest without being willing to pay medical bills and agree to adopt right on the spot.
The debate in that arguement is whether abortion is a valid form of birth control for arbitrary reasons, not a health of the mother issue.
Sure, but look at what I'm responding to. You've got every right to spend your money as you see fit (more or less). What's silly is bolstering that by saying you can't afford charity after that. Of course you can, you just chose to spend the money elsewhere.
If admitting that makes you feel bad about yourself, the correct solution is to reevaluate how you spend your money, not to try to justify it.
people cant always give all their money to a charity
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any money donated over and above your cable bill for them to keep making a television show could safely have been spent on charity.
I seriously doubt you've never used the fire department or the police department. Has your house burned down? No? Does it conform to local fire codes? Do you think that fire codes are completely unrelated to the fire department?
Is your neighborhood under the constant threat of attack from roving mobs? Do you think, perhaps, the police department may have something to do with that? Do people drive whatever speed they want while throwing litter out of their windows on your street?
Do you honestly believe that the services you do admit to using just magically poof into existance on "Roads [withing] the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family". Do groceries get beamed into your local supermarket? Does the garbage man take your garbage to a half mile away and then launch it into the sun?
Why would you assume that because it's limited to family members purchasing it should be limited in delivery address?
I'd be pretty pissed if I payed $79 a year for "free" shipping and I couldn't have my sister's christmas presents delivered to her in LA as well as my wife's delivered to my home in NC.
45. Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story. 24% Strongly agree 27 Mildly agree 22 Mildly disagree 14 Strongly disagree 13 Don't know
I'd say the problem may be overblown by a bad question. I know how I was in high school, which isn't significantly different from how I am now. I'd have to say I disagree that media should be able to publish "freely" because there are many areas I believe the media can do significant damage by publishing "freely", whether they have the RIGHT or not.
For example, publishing CIA Agent's names, publishing misleading information during the course of a trial, publishing obscene materials, publishing troop movements, and so on. There are always lines that shouldn't be crossed.
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
My TiVo was $70 brand new from amazon (ok 170 with a $100 rebate).. It was a 40 hour, I bought a 160gig weaknees kit, its now a 230hr (basic quality, same as the 40hr rating), total cost:
$70=$170 (ugrade) = $240.. I think the 140 retail box sells for like $260 after rebate
Slashdot Mirror
No, the reason the Constitution limits presidential terms was to avoid another Franklin Roosevelt, and he was a fairly good president, not a dictator.
Roses are red
My desktop's a sphere
If you think we're cute,
You must be new here.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
This is one of those issues that no amount of back and forth will ever solve. For starters, a private individual does not need to convict someone of a crime being committed directly against them while it is in progress. A private individual merely needs to asses the relative risk involved. That level of appropriate response is codified precisely because people do not see eye to eye on it and never will.
In many parts of the United States, threat to livelihood is considered comparable to threat to life and limb. This allows for full force defense against home invasion, carjacking, and other similiar crimes.
Quite frankly, the British system as it's been described to me is assinine. You should never, EVER be restricted to a fair fight when you are defending yourself. You should be allowed to strike first and with more force than is brought against you. The goal of the law should be to protect the right of the victim to survive, not be fairly matched with his attacker. In a fair fight the attacker might win.
There are clearly though many other options besides this. EverQuest, for example, doesn't even require you to buy the game in stores anymore. They'll let you purchase it at a reduced price and download the whole thing with a fresh key.
It's not quite the same thing, but there is no reason Blizzard (or EQ) in this situation shouldn't be able to generate a brand new key for him if the original key is truly defunct, which is something they can easily enforce on their end.
The same way you get other highlighted fields - you'd see a grayscale box around a letter.
Something along the lines of www.pay[p]al.com. Preferably with a tool tip that explains what the color means on hover.
In /. case, no, it's definitely not worth any money to me. I use /. to kill time while my project is building at work. Occasionally, there are articles that interest me. My contribution is not putting /. in adblock.
Google is entirely different. It provides access to information in a format that is much more agreeable to me than other searches I've used. Unlike what others have claim, I regularly click on the ad links because they are often relevant to the information I'm looking for. I personally feel Google maps kicks the crap out of other tools. If they found a way to make their service significantly more usable, it would certainly be worth it to me.
Hints (2 Things that'd move me closer to being willing to pay):
Integrate Google maps with movie showtimes, as in IMDB's theater database. If possible, read my local paper and correlate showtimes from there, since not all my local theaters keep their times up to date online.
Correlate restaraunt searches in google maps with reviews. I'd like a review aggregate for a total star rating of nearby messages when I get directions via SMS. I'd like to be able to filter places that google believes suck, based on their their review data.
Look where the quotes end. HIS vision at that time was that Google would be able to answer any question, at any time, as fast as you asked it. Think of Google even more than Google is now (staggering). Google that can answer questions like Ask Jeeves tried to. Google that can, perhaps, anticipate your next question. Google that not only references what's available, but makes educated guesses at what isn't available (Your result turned up no matches, perhaps you meant... or Your result turned no matches, your local library has a book...) and is able to provide you with what you probably really meant in a nonobtrusive manner (You searched for Chinese restaraunts near you, look at the bottom of the page for reviews of these restaraunts).
Google has already done amazing things with aggregating data that is useful to the searcher. If they could take it much farther, $20 a month would be a small price to pay.
In 2001, that was still a cutting edge idea. People knew there was a way to make everything accessable, but weren't entirely sure what revenue model could support that.
$20 a month was (and is) a small price to pay for everything, if "everything" is correct and up to date.
I'd certianly pay a subscription for Google now, because their service is of value to me.
The problem with open source rocks is that you have to pretty good with a chisel to do much modding. I haven't seen someone REALLY at rock modding for several hundred years, and I'm pretty sure they worked on commission.
I'm going to guess it's because God told Peter that the resurection made unclean foods clean as a preparation into sharing the gospel with gentiles in Acts 10, but there is no equivalent "sodomy is fun" passage.
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -i any -p hammer --state BLOW -j DROP
With options like "--state BLOW" and "-A INPUT -i any" I just know there's a dirty joke to be made. Perhaps about bukkake.
I think this is an excellent example of how having two strong parties really can fail the middle. The problem isn't so much the watering down of points to talking points, it's that neither side of the argument has any real need to actually learn what the other side's position is and seriously debate it.
Your pro-life pro-choice examples demonstrates it. NO ONE (credible) even among the religious community is pushing against abortions for the life of the mother. Even before Roe Vs. Wade that was legal. Watering the issue down into that point is intellectually dishonest, just like it's hypocritical for the pro-life people to protest without being willing to pay medical bills and agree to adopt right on the spot.
The debate in that arguement is whether abortion is a valid form of birth control for arbitrary reasons, not a health of the mother issue.
Are you a pro, knob washer?
That just doesn't seem polite.
Sure, but look at what I'm responding to. You've got every right to spend your money as you see fit (more or less). What's silly is bolstering that by saying you can't afford charity after that. Of course you can, you just chose to spend the money elsewhere.
If admitting that makes you feel bad about yourself, the correct solution is to reevaluate how you spend your money, not to try to justify it.
people cant always give all their money to a charity
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any money donated over and above your cable bill for them to keep making a television show could safely have been spent on charity.
I seriously doubt you've never used the fire department or the police department. Has your house burned down? No? Does it conform to local fire codes? Do you think that fire codes are completely unrelated to the fire department?
Is your neighborhood under the constant threat of attack from roving mobs? Do you think, perhaps, the police department may have something to do with that? Do people drive whatever speed they want while throwing litter out of their windows on your street?
Do you honestly believe that the services you do admit to using just magically poof into existance on "Roads [withing] the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family". Do groceries get beamed into your local supermarket? Does the garbage man take your garbage to a half mile away and then launch it into the sun?
If you have to do that much searching in your underwear, perhaps you should look into some of that stuff the spammers are pushing.
I can't stand heron them either.
Damn, that's a bird.
No, because you'd have to tell them all your birthday! See? It's FOOLPROOF.
Erm... Yeah... Nevermind.
Why would you assume that because it's limited to family members purchasing it should be limited in delivery address?
I'd be pretty pissed if I payed $79 a year for "free" shipping and I couldn't have my sister's christmas presents delivered to her in LA as well as my wife's delivered to my home in NC.
No, but it makes the winner the "First Annual Google Genius of Technology".
You're very correct and I was very wrong.
From: http://firstamendment.jideas.org/survey/highschool student/highschoolstudent44-53.shtml
45. Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story.
24% Strongly agree
27 Mildly agree
22 Mildly disagree
14 Strongly disagree
13 Don't know
I'd say the problem may be overblown by a bad question. I know how I was in high school, which isn't significantly different from how I am now. I'd have to say I disagree that media should be able to publish "freely" because there are many areas I believe the media can do significant damage by publishing "freely", whether they have the RIGHT or not.
For example, publishing CIA Agent's names, publishing misleading information during the course of a trial, publishing obscene materials, publishing troop movements, and so on. There are always lines that shouldn't be crossed.
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
My TiVo was $70 brand new from amazon (ok 170 with a $100 rebate).. It was a 40 hour, I bought a 160gig weaknees kit, its now a 230hr (basic quality, same as the 40hr rating), total cost:
$70=$170 (ugrade) = $240.. I think the 140 retail box sells for like $260 after rebate
And your service cost?