The moral of the story is: never underestimate the importance of a good marketing department.
Good grief.
The Wright Brothers were just as consciencious about documenting their attempts at flight as they were at documenting their other flight research. This is how science works. Or would you prefer assurances and anectdotal evidence that cold fusion really works over documention with reproducible experiments?
The DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) is a Federal agency with jurisdiction on any land under control of the Federal Government.
When it comes to issues over who's law superscedes, then state laws are soveriegn unless they conflict with federal laws. States can enact measures more stringent than federal regulations, but cannot enact measures that weaken federal laws.
I think the question was where does the federal government get the actual authority, in law, to regulate activities that occur soley and entirely inside a state's borders. Where does the DEA get its ultimate authority to regulate the production, selling, and usage of drugs? The Fed is not supposed to be able to just decree that it now has authority where it once did not. Its authority must come from the powers given to it in the Constitution. That is one reason why we have an ammendment process.
So, one huge source for this authority has been from a broad reading of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gives the Feds the right to regulate interstate commerce. Remember, powers not explicitly given to the federal government are supposed to be reserved to the states. In the scenario described, it does look like it is hard to make a case that interstate commerce is involved at all since the crops are grown within the state and are distributed soley inside the state's borders.
Here's a nice, informative post that does a nosedive at the end by needlessly descending into a condescending attitude. Totally uncalled for. I suppose his opening line was a clue that we have someone a bit on the defensive here.
So now German courts have made it a requirement that ISPs be responsible for the content loaded by users of their systems. The likely outcome of this is that the cost to operate an ISP in Germany will increase and/or the level of service will descrease substantially.
Congratulations, Germany, for saddling yourselves with substandard ISP services. Way to drive the customers elsewhere.
If I told you that you could sell PC's with Mandrake on them but if you signed up to do so were then legally inable to sell naked PC's or PC's with Windows on them you'd be pissed too.
If it pissed me off enough, I wouldn't sign your contract. Guess I would have to weigh the pros and cons...
I hate to say it, but this sounds like it's largely the parents fault. It doesn't sound like they did enough to prevent him playing and get him better integrated.* Why was that computer even available? If he's having seizures from playing
that machine should not even be available to play on!
* - I say sounds like it. I could be wrong... a parent cannot always prevent such actions of their children. The best they can do is try.
In this case, the guy was 21 -- a legal adult. This does not look to me like a case of a parent not adequately supervising their children. This is a case of a parent who could not exert enough influence on their adult child to get him to stop his self-destructive behaviour. The parent is wrong to try to blame a computer game for this suicide. But we would be wrong to blame the parent for not taking his computer away -- unless the parent had legal guardian rights over their adult child.
Regarding statistics and paranoia: This reminds me of how it is often said that you stand a better chance of getting struck by lightening than by getting attacked by sharks, dying in an airplane crash, or any other of a huge variety of feared events. Funny thing about lightening storms though. When they come, we tend not to run under trees. In fact, given the choice, we go inside. Statistically, we have little chance of being struck. But given the opportunity, we like to improve that statistical chance to as near 0 as we can, particularly when lives hang in the balance.
It is cold comfort to those who have actually suffered the loss of a child through abduction (or suffered the loss of any loved one through some "rare" tragic event) that they were statistically at extremely low risk of that happening to them.
Well, most people with encyclopedias only look up 0.01% of the topics in the encyclopedia. But would you rather have the Encyclopedia Britannica or would you rather have a lightweight brochure containing the top 100 topics?
What? I thought they were asking about optimization and maintaining code that no one used?!?! Perhaps he answered a different question for Reader's Digest and was confused.
Wow. When reading the article, I thought he was addressing this issue when he gave that answer:
SMS: Another interesting point was raised in reference to bloatware.
Lots of folks here rightfully point out that Sony broke the rules and that Microsoft is not wrong to ask that they be applied fairly to all.
But, why does MS have to stick their foot in it even when they are right by denying they were the ones that complained? Is honesty really that hard for them?
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief.
The Wright Brothers were just as consciencious about documenting their attempts at flight as they were at documenting their other flight research. This is how science works. Or would you prefer assurances and anectdotal evidence that cold fusion really works over documention with reproducible experiments?
Here's a nice, informative post that does a nosedive at the end by needlessly descending into a condescending attitude. Totally uncalled for. I suppose his opening line was a clue that we have someone a bit on the defensive here.
Track 3 on the Mind Games album. 3 seconds long, 3 seconds of silence. The album was released November 1973.
Congratulations, Germany, for saddling yourselves with substandard ISP services. Way to drive the customers elsewhere.
If it pissed me off enough, I wouldn't sign your contract. Guess I would have to weigh the pros and cons...
In this case, the guy was 21 -- a legal adult. This does not look to me like a case of a parent not adequately supervising their children. This is a case of a parent who could not exert enough influence on their adult child to get him to stop his self-destructive behaviour. The parent is wrong to try to blame a computer game for this suicide. But we would be wrong to blame the parent for not taking his computer away -- unless the parent had legal guardian rights over their adult child.
Regarding statistics and paranoia: This reminds me of how it is often said that you stand a better chance of getting struck by lightening than by getting attacked by sharks, dying in an airplane crash, or any other of a huge variety of feared events. Funny thing about lightening storms though. When they come, we tend not to run under trees. In fact, given the choice, we go inside. Statistically, we have little chance of being struck. But given the opportunity, we like to improve that statistical chance to as near 0 as we can, particularly when lives hang in the balance. It is cold comfort to those who have actually suffered the loss of a child through abduction (or suffered the loss of any loved one through some "rare" tragic event) that they were statistically at extremely low risk of that happening to them.
What? I thought they were asking about optimization and maintaining code that no one used?!?! Perhaps he answered a different question for Reader's Digest and was confused.
Wow. When reading the article, I thought he was addressing this issue when he gave that answer:
SMS: Another interesting point was raised in reference to bloatware.
Silly me.
Lots of folks here rightfully point out that Sony broke the rules and that Microsoft is not wrong to ask that they be applied fairly to all. But, why does MS have to stick their foot in it even when they are right by denying they were the ones that complained? Is honesty really that hard for them?