So your argument is that if AT&T builds in an app that checks with AT&T for updates, and can't be disabled, AT&T should be able to bill customers for the privilege of having that update checker? Because the phone in question was running no applications whatsoever.
The obligatory car analogy: Do you think it would be ok for automakers to charge customers for the privilege of replacing recalled parts? (especially considering the Fight Club math of cost of recall >= probability of failure * units sold * average court settlement)
From what I gather, we're stuck somewhere in the middle-ish of the universe.
Also, Earth was the middle of the Solar System. And the Solar System was in the middle-ish of the Milky Way. In other words, we've been spectacularly wrong about that sort of thing several times already, and it's safe to say we're probably not middle-ish of anything.
[citation needed] Specifically, I'd be looking for a citation not sponsored by a company who stands to profit from GM crops.
A perfectly reasonable argument for our gastronomical conservatism: Humans, like all other animals, evolved in a way that they're healthiest when they eat certain kinds of food and nothing else. While we know a great deal about what that food's components are, we don't know everything, and so while we can manage kinda sorta on food that is kinda sorta similar to what we evolved to eat, we'd do better eating exactly what we evolved to eat.
It's the same concept as zoos feeding their koalas eucalyptus leaves rather than some other similar food - koalas are healthiest eating eucalyptus leaves.
I'm going to slice it differently. And I'm even a mostly-vegetarian.
The reason that humans have been domesticating animals for food for millenia has a lot to do with animals being able to take advantage of food sources that humans couldn't or wouldn't eat. For instance, pigs were raised in large part on table scraps. Cattle, sheep, and goats were raised on grasses, typically in places where growing plants wasn't viable. Chickens and ducks were expected to forage quite a bit. All this made perfect sense, and can increase overall food supply.
What doesn't make sense (in terms of increasing the food supply) is using perfectly good arable land to grow feed corn that humans really don't want to eat, then turn around and feed that corn to animals who aren't built to eat corn, and then pump those animals full of drugs to ensure that they don't get sick eating the corn that they aren't really supposed to be eating. From a purely engineering standpoint, feedlot beef is probably the least efficient food on the planet, and the only reason that it's economically viable at all is because of artificially low prices for feed corn created by a combination of US government policy and massive overproduction.
You're free to choose where your sex monitoring chip is installed. And if you don't pay your taxes, you're free to spend the weekend with the pain monster.
Law & Order should not be lumped in with 24 in that regard: When the cops or DAs broke their ethical rules, they got caught fairly regularly, and when they got caught there were sometimes serious consequences for doing so. And rarely if ever were you sympathetic to their breaking the rules. The original series at least was also smart enough to portray the cops, DAs, and sometimes judges as flat wrong a lot of the time, but constructing remarkably strong cases against the wrong defendant.
Except that in this case, the violations were that clear-cut. And the best argument is that all 3 are potentially guilty of a serious crime.
If I go to a lawyer and say "Is it legal to rob a bank?" and the lawyer says "Yes, go right ahead", I'm still in trouble if I go to rob a bank. The lawyer may also be considered a co-conspirator, and at the very least should have his bar membership in question. And anyone I work with as part of the plan is also a co-conspirator. Why would the crime of a FISA violation be any different?
Theoretically Amendment IV would take care of that situation. The massive tracking of Internet traffic started under the Clinton administration and slowly but surely building up since then is completely illegal, but that hasn't stopped them, because they've been able to avoid any judicial review of the program by claiming "state secrets privilege".
There are 2 reasons Mubarak tried to block Internet access: 1. It was being used by protesters to coordinate - reporting on where police were concentrated, where people were gathering, etc. 2. It had this video of a civilian getting shot by police while he was backing away. Mubarak probably thought that by blocking access to the video the Egyptian people wouldn't figure out that the cops had crossed that line.
It hasn't worked. As a longtime/. sig once put it: The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
Unfortunately, a lot of the home-schoolers out there are in fact doing so from what they perceive to be the opposite problem: By home schooling, they don't need to worry about those secular ultra-liberals poisoning education with their inane 'facts' and 'scientific method'. They want to make darn sure that their kids never have any reason to question the Biblical Truth (TM), and their way of doing so is to limit what information their kids see.
By comparison, my public school biology teacher introduced the section on evolution with a little speech that went something like this: "I know there are probably some people in this class who disagree with evolution. However, it is my job to teach you the science of biology as it is currently understood, and that means that you need to know what evolution is. I'm not demanding you believe in or agree with evolution, but I am demanding you understand it."
It's worth noting that many terrorist groups using suicide bombings as basically a way of getting rid of those low-level members that show signs of being stupid enough to endanger the rest of the organization. Or, for that matter, those who join up and are suspected of being spies.
Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process.
Here's the thing - if we're serious about cutting carbon emissions and oil dependency, a lot of the trucking industry needs to be on the long-term chopping block. If you want to transport goods in a way that minimizes the use of fuel, you'd do something like: 1. Put everything in standard shipping containers so you can easily shift it between different transport methods. 2. If it's coming from a foreign country or island territory, ship it to a convenient port. 3. Take it from the port via rail to the rail yard nearest its destination, unless its destination is near enough to the port that that's closer than any rail yard. 4. Truck it from the rail yard or port to its destination.
There's absolutely no good reason for trucks to have to transport things long distances. The reason it's common now has a lot to do with the highway system externalizing the cost of building and maintaining long-distance trucking's transport network. To fix that, you'd need to go for higher diesel taxes.
Well, last I checked Islam is the second-largest world religion, after Christianity (about 1.5 billion Muslims versus 2.1 billion Christians). Not that that makes your point invalid by any means.
And a real-life example of how unreasonable this all is: What if we had judged all Christians by the behavior of the IRA?
Of course, by that standard the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. But for some reason, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush family being longtime friends of both the Saudi royal family and co-investers of the Saudi-based bin Laden Group, Bush decided to pick on somebody else.
There's one major problem with your argument: Banking panics existed before 150 years ago, and have existed in places other than the US with varying degrees of regulation. The US had panics in 1797, 1819, 1837, and 1857 (which was one of the contributing factors of the Civil War). Britain had panics in 1772, 1797 (related to the US one), 1825, 1847, and 1866. Dutch Tulip Mania was back in 1637. So to claim that it was relatively recent government regulation of business that causes panics is not justified by the evidence.
What do you mean? Of course Cats can speak human language: All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.
We do like some of them, such as the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega. In fact, during the Cold War we liked those guys a lot more than democratically elected leaders who were showing liberal tendencies due to a perceived fear that they might support the Commies.
And by "we" I mostly mean the CIA, who typically did this stuff without the knowledge of We The People.
It's worth pointing out: 1. The US did precisely that during the S&L crisis a mere 20 years ago. The FDIC has had the authority since at least the 1940's to nationalize banks, and they use it when a bank is going to fail. The basic approach is that the banks assets are promptly sold off, and the proceeds along with a fund set up specifically for this purpose that all banks are required to pay into are used to pay off the depositors.
2. Iceland did much the same thing in the wake of the 2008 crash, and has been doing at the very least no worse than the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecutor's rebuttal: "I know from personal experience that that condition doesn't hinder running in the least."
So your argument is that if AT&T builds in an app that checks with AT&T for updates, and can't be disabled, AT&T should be able to bill customers for the privilege of having that update checker? Because the phone in question was running no applications whatsoever.
The obligatory car analogy: Do you think it would be ok for automakers to charge customers for the privilege of replacing recalled parts? (especially considering the Fight Club math of cost of recall >= probability of failure * units sold * average court settlement)
From what I gather, we're stuck somewhere in the middle-ish of the universe.
Also, Earth was the middle of the Solar System. And the Solar System was in the middle-ish of the Milky Way. In other words, we've been spectacularly wrong about that sort of thing several times already, and it's safe to say we're probably not middle-ish of anything.
Both Greek fire and Roman ballistas have been recreated with something approaching historical accuracy, primarily for academic purposes
GM crops are of course, utterly harmless
[citation needed] Specifically, I'd be looking for a citation not sponsored by a company who stands to profit from GM crops.
A perfectly reasonable argument for our gastronomical conservatism: Humans, like all other animals, evolved in a way that they're healthiest when they eat certain kinds of food and nothing else. While we know a great deal about what that food's components are, we don't know everything, and so while we can manage kinda sorta on food that is kinda sorta similar to what we evolved to eat, we'd do better eating exactly what we evolved to eat.
It's the same concept as zoos feeding their koalas eucalyptus leaves rather than some other similar food - koalas are healthiest eating eucalyptus leaves.
I'm going to slice it differently. And I'm even a mostly-vegetarian.
The reason that humans have been domesticating animals for food for millenia has a lot to do with animals being able to take advantage of food sources that humans couldn't or wouldn't eat. For instance, pigs were raised in large part on table scraps. Cattle, sheep, and goats were raised on grasses, typically in places where growing plants wasn't viable. Chickens and ducks were expected to forage quite a bit. All this made perfect sense, and can increase overall food supply.
What doesn't make sense (in terms of increasing the food supply) is using perfectly good arable land to grow feed corn that humans really don't want to eat, then turn around and feed that corn to animals who aren't built to eat corn, and then pump those animals full of drugs to ensure that they don't get sick eating the corn that they aren't really supposed to be eating. From a purely engineering standpoint, feedlot beef is probably the least efficient food on the planet, and the only reason that it's economically viable at all is because of artificially low prices for feed corn created by a combination of US government policy and massive overproduction.
The difference between astrology and economics is that astrologers have accurate measurements on which to build their BS theories.
Maverick Gooses You during a 2008 presidential bid.
(Maybe that's why McCain chose her as his running mate)
You're free to choose where your sex monitoring chip is installed. And if you don't pay your taxes, you're free to spend the weekend with the pain monster.
- Richard M Nixon's head
Law & Order should not be lumped in with 24 in that regard: When the cops or DAs broke their ethical rules, they got caught fairly regularly, and when they got caught there were sometimes serious consequences for doing so. And rarely if ever were you sympathetic to their breaking the rules. The original series at least was also smart enough to portray the cops, DAs, and sometimes judges as flat wrong a lot of the time, but constructing remarkably strong cases against the wrong defendant.
Except that in this case, the violations were that clear-cut. And the best argument is that all 3 are potentially guilty of a serious crime.
If I go to a lawyer and say "Is it legal to rob a bank?" and the lawyer says "Yes, go right ahead", I'm still in trouble if I go to rob a bank. The lawyer may also be considered a co-conspirator, and at the very least should have his bar membership in question. And anyone I work with as part of the plan is also a co-conspirator. Why would the crime of a FISA violation be any different?
They will ignore an email but a respectful single page letter gets a lot of attention.
It gets a lot less attention than a single page letter with a campaign check enclosed.
Theoretically Amendment IV would take care of that situation. The massive tracking of Internet traffic started under the Clinton administration and slowly but surely building up since then is completely illegal, but that hasn't stopped them, because they've been able to avoid any judicial review of the program by claiming "state secrets privilege".
There are 2 reasons Mubarak tried to block Internet access:
1. It was being used by protesters to coordinate - reporting on where police were concentrated, where people were gathering, etc.
2. It had this video of a civilian getting shot by police while he was backing away. Mubarak probably thought that by blocking access to the video the Egyptian people wouldn't figure out that the cops had crossed that line.
It hasn't worked. As a longtime /. sig once put it: The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
"Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb" - Dark Helmet
Unfortunately, a lot of the home-schoolers out there are in fact doing so from what they perceive to be the opposite problem: By home schooling, they don't need to worry about those secular ultra-liberals poisoning education with their inane 'facts' and 'scientific method'. They want to make darn sure that their kids never have any reason to question the Biblical Truth (TM), and their way of doing so is to limit what information their kids see.
By comparison, my public school biology teacher introduced the section on evolution with a little speech that went something like this:
"I know there are probably some people in this class who disagree with evolution. However, it is my job to teach you the science of biology as it is currently understood, and that means that you need to know what evolution is. I'm not demanding you believe in or agree with evolution, but I am demanding you understand it."
It's worth noting that many terrorist groups using suicide bombings as basically a way of getting rid of those low-level members that show signs of being stupid enough to endanger the rest of the organization. Or, for that matter, those who join up and are suspected of being spies.
Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process.
Here's the thing - if we're serious about cutting carbon emissions and oil dependency, a lot of the trucking industry needs to be on the long-term chopping block. If you want to transport goods in a way that minimizes the use of fuel, you'd do something like:
1. Put everything in standard shipping containers so you can easily shift it between different transport methods.
2. If it's coming from a foreign country or island territory, ship it to a convenient port.
3. Take it from the port via rail to the rail yard nearest its destination, unless its destination is near enough to the port that that's closer than any rail yard.
4. Truck it from the rail yard or port to its destination.
There's absolutely no good reason for trucks to have to transport things long distances. The reason it's common now has a lot to do with the highway system externalizing the cost of building and maintaining long-distance trucking's transport network. To fix that, you'd need to go for higher diesel taxes.
Well, last I checked Islam is the second-largest world religion, after Christianity (about 1.5 billion Muslims versus 2.1 billion Christians). Not that that makes your point invalid by any means.
And a real-life example of how unreasonable this all is: What if we had judged all Christians by the behavior of the IRA?
Aye, word of His Great Noodlyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets the attention he deserves!
Of course, by that standard the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. But for some reason, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush family being longtime friends of both the Saudi royal family and co-investers of the Saudi-based bin Laden Group, Bush decided to pick on somebody else.
There's one major problem with your argument: Banking panics existed before 150 years ago, and have existed in places other than the US with varying degrees of regulation. The US had panics in 1797, 1819, 1837, and 1857 (which was one of the contributing factors of the Civil War). Britain had panics in 1772, 1797 (related to the US one), 1825, 1847, and 1866. Dutch Tulip Mania was back in 1637. So to claim that it was relatively recent government regulation of business that causes panics is not justified by the evidence.
What do you mean? Of course Cats can speak human language:
All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.
We do like some of them, such as the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega. In fact, during the Cold War we liked those guys a lot more than democratically elected leaders who were showing liberal tendencies due to a perceived fear that they might support the Commies.
And by "we" I mostly mean the CIA, who typically did this stuff without the knowledge of We The People.
It's worth pointing out:
1. The US did precisely that during the S&L crisis a mere 20 years ago. The FDIC has had the authority since at least the 1940's to nationalize banks, and they use it when a bank is going to fail. The basic approach is that the banks assets are promptly sold off, and the proceeds along with a fund set up specifically for this purpose that all banks are required to pay into are used to pay off the depositors.
2. Iceland did much the same thing in the wake of the 2008 crash, and has been doing at the very least no worse than the US.