The government has no business regulating genetically modified coffee until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat to public safety.
And maybe pharmaceutical companies should be able to release their drugs into the marketplace without government intervention until said drugs are proven to be harmful?
I want assurances of safety before this product is sold to the public, thank you very much.
No, really, the other guy had a point. One of the best parts of the early Quest for Glory games (the later ones blew) was that you could transfer your character from game to game. It really enhanced the roleplaying aspect of the game. That is, you felt like this character you'd created and molded meant something.
4. Acknowledge this is happening and set up a public information infrastructure . . . This is akin to setting up public streetlamps, wastebaskets, water fountains, etc.
If that would indeed be how it worked I'd be all for it; however, what would probably end up happening is that we'd see the same thing that happened to local phone service. That is, we'd pay our exorbitant monthly fee to Verizon and then have some ridiculous "Universal Service Charge" thrown on top of that.
I said there's no chemical additive. Sure there's probably a chemical reaction in your brain when you have fun playing a game, but there's likely a chemical reaction to most any fun activity (good movie, book, sex, etc). Not sure I see your point.
I sure wouldn't complain, and I doubt many others here would either. See, you're buying into the ridiculous media hype that games are somehow dangerously addictive to the general population. That's just stupid. This isn't cigaettes; there's no chemical additive that makes you come back for more--you come back and play more because it's fun. Yes, as previously seen on slashdot, an occasional loser will play Everquest so much that he ends up dead (sorry, don't feel like digging up the link). That's not the game company's problem.
If you're an adult, you should be responsible for yourself, and if you're a child, well, that's what parents are for--to make sure their children don't turn into human vegetables.
Before you get all over gaming companies, please note that almost anything can be "addictive". Hell, to a compulsive type, handwashing can be a serious addiction. Do you blame Irish Spring for handing out free samples?
Credit unions are the way to go. I'd never go back to a bank, not with all of their ridiculous fees.
As for credit cards, they don't charge you for *your* money they charge you for the use of *their* money. Pay your balance in full every month and the credit card company never gets a dime from you. Of course, this is assuming you don't have an annual fee with your credit card. If you currently pay an annual fee, drop your card immediately and find a new one. It pays to be an informed consumer.
Mr. Anthony, in my high school days I enjoyed a good many of your novels, but the only ones that I still vividly recall are from your Geodyssey series. I found the project very ambitious in its scope, as it essentially told the full story of humanity.
I remember one chapter in the series portrayed a possible future wherein humans had released birth control agents into the very air we breathe. Special inoculations had to be taken to counter these agents. I'm not certain, but I believe a regulatory body had to approve a request for circumventing the airborne birth control.
I was wondering if you sincerely believe humanity will need to partake in a radical solution such as this to control the human population. Is that the only way to avoid the natural controls of war, disease, and famine? Or might a prosperous future, where the majority of the world is highly educated, preclude the need for population control?
I'd be all about slapping the RIAA cartel with a big, fat class action lawsuit. Only problem is, I'd have no idea what we'd sue them for. Inflicting the likes of Christina Aguilera on the world--ie, assualt with an ugly weapon?
Anyway, if we could come up with a legitimate suit I'd be the first in line. The lawyers always end up being the ones winning out in class action suits, but this is one case where the defendants would be even more evil than the lawyers so I don't think I'd mind so much.
Why should he be marked as a troll? I don't necessarily agree with him, but I certainly thought his post was funny. Just b/c you have a VM fetish is no reason penalize the guy.
While it is more likely you'll get good components from a trustworthy local vendor, it can be very hard to find one that is trustworthy.
Agreed. Four or five years back, before I knew anything about computer hardware, I bought a machine from a local shop that had previously built some nice 486 machines for my dad.
So I bought a PII from these guys as my college machine, thinking they were ok. Had problems with the stupid thing from the very first week. Crashed ALL the time (I mean, even for windoze) and it got so bad that I couldn't use the machine for more than 15 mins or so at a time. Swapping out the hd didn't help, and I was really stressing out--I needed this machine for school. Showed a friend of mine my fried IDE cables; he took one look at the inside of the box and told me that the idiots had put the power supply RIGHT NEXT to the hard drive and everything was overheating like mad.
By the time this was discovered, I was off my 90 day warranty, and the place I bought it from wouldn't talk to me anymore. Anyway, it turns out this local shop had recently been bought out by a bigger company. So even if you think you know a local shop it's still possible to get screwed.
Well thought out, but there's still a section or two I have to question. Though, you're probably tired of listening to me by now:)
Long standing precedent . . . makes clear that military law is the proper jurisdiction for trying cases of an individual entering the US in the service of a hostile power in order to commit acts of law.
I repeat my previous objection: Yes, it's fine to put men under military law if they are, in fact, "in the service of a hostile power" but how do we know they are? Wouldn't you have to have a trial first to determine this? If not, then you're presupposing guilt. It's backwards logic to say that we consider you a terrorist, we'll hold you indefinitely, and somewhere along the line we'll give you a fair trial. After all, we've already considered him guilty enough of the charge to suspend his rights--why bother having a trial at all?
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the government and not the defendant. Instead, as I understand it, all the president has to say is "enemy combatant" and the suspect falls under military law. Held up by the Supreme Court or not, that doesn't strike me as due process.
I agree with you that it is an involved process, that the defendant has the ability to appeal his status as an enemy combatant, as well he should, but it's the ease with which "enemy combatant" is assigned in the first place that I find disturbing. What if (and I doubt this, but it's possible) there's no evidence against him at all? How would we know about any evidence if he was held for an indefinite time and then later had a secret military trial? Yes, some facts will be brought to light by dint of his pending appeal but it's backwards for a suspect to have to file an appeal for his own rights. This brings me to my next point: secrecy.
From Newsday: "Although Justice Department officials wouldn't confirm it, Padilla likely was arrested on a material witness warrant."
From USA Today: "It was unclear late Monday whether Al Muhajir had a lawyer."
Why wouldn't the DOJ confirm? Why don't we know if he had a lawyer during his one month internment before Bush declared him an enemy combatant? What is the government trying to hide? I don't need to hear all the evidence against the man, as it would probably violate national security, but why can we not know for certain of the charges against him or whether he had a lawyer?
I appreciate your sources--they were most informative.
Ok, if I'm wrong about this I'd seriously like to be corrected, but everything I'd read had indicated that there were no formal charges brought up on the man and that he had simply been thrown in a military prison. You're saying that he was "picked up on other charges". Do you have a reference for that?
"Officials said the plot had not advanced beyond the discussion stage, and he has not been charged with any crime."source
"Our interest is not in trying him and punishing him," Rumsfeld said. "Our interest is in finding out what he knows." [same source]
I had also heard that he was without a lawyer during initial interrogations whereas you say he's had one along. Again, if you had a source for this, I'd be very interested.
As for the Supreme Court precedence, I'll have to concede you're obviously more well-versed in the law than I am. However, I would most humbly suggest that the Supreme Court has had a history of supporting wrong-headed decisions and the simple fact that it supported the suspension of constitutional rights in the past does not make this suspension morally right.
In addition, the problem with the ruling you cite is that it presupposes the guilt of the defendant. Hell, if the guy's guilty, I'd be the first to shoot him--just pass me the revolver. The problem is that you don't know he's guilty. What if they put you on trial tomorrow and said, "You're under military juridstiction b/c we know you colluded with an enemy government regarding an act of war against the United States."
Sure, you'd be free to appeal to a court to try and get a standard federal trial, but you and I both know that a judge who looks like he's soft on terrorism is not going to be a very popular judge.
That, my friend, that is the real danger. What's to stop the government from drumming up phony "enemy of the state" charges against law-abiding (but dissenting) US citizens and then throwing them in military tribunals? The fact that Bush says Padilla is "a bad guy", that just isn't enough for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Or he could embezzle a few billion from HP, and only have to spend 5 years in a white-collar resort prison.
As opposed to federal "pound you in the ass" prison?
YOU vote for someone else if you don't like it.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
The government has no business regulating genetically modified coffee until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat to public safety.
And maybe pharmaceutical companies should be able to release their drugs into the marketplace without government intervention until said drugs are proven to be harmful?
I want assurances of safety before this product is sold to the public, thank you very much.
I'm glad you're here to clear things up for me: If, through a given action, you get money then that action is automatically OK.
No, really, the other guy had a point. One of the best parts of the early Quest for Glory games (the later ones blew) was that you could transfer your character from game to game. It really enhanced the roleplaying aspect of the game. That is, you felt like this character you'd created and molded meant something.
serious big-budget Hollywood superheronie movie
You obviously have way too much faith in Hollywood.
4. Acknowledge this is happening and set up a public information infrastructure . . . This is akin to setting up public streetlamps, wastebaskets, water fountains, etc.
If that would indeed be how it worked I'd be all for it; however, what would probably end up happening is that we'd see the same thing that happened to local phone service. That is, we'd pay our exorbitant monthly fee to Verizon and then have some ridiculous "Universal Service Charge" thrown on top of that.
Hobbits are nice, but they don't have anything on David The Gnome :)
I said there's no chemical additive. Sure there's probably a chemical reaction in your brain when you have fun playing a game, but there's likely a chemical reaction to most any fun activity (good movie, book, sex, etc). Not sure I see your point.
Whats next offering the first game free?
I sure wouldn't complain, and I doubt many others here would either. See, you're buying into the ridiculous media hype that games are somehow dangerously addictive to the general population. That's just stupid. This isn't cigaettes; there's no chemical additive that makes you come back for more--you come back and play more because it's fun. Yes, as previously seen on slashdot, an occasional loser will play Everquest so much that he ends up dead (sorry, don't feel like digging up the link). That's not the game company's problem.
If you're an adult, you should be responsible for yourself, and if you're a child, well, that's what parents are for--to make sure their children don't turn into human vegetables.
Before you get all over gaming companies, please note that almost anything can be "addictive". Hell, to a compulsive type, handwashing can be a serious addiction. Do you blame Irish Spring for handing out free samples?
The uniform is part Super Mario, part Teletubbies.
How long 'till Falwell denounces all of this?
Ok, I'll admit my ignorance. Anyone care to explain what X nines of reliability means?
Credit unions are the way to go. I'd never go back to a bank, not with all of their ridiculous fees.
As for credit cards, they don't charge you for *your* money they charge you for the use of *their* money. Pay your balance in full every month and the credit card company never gets a dime from you. Of course, this is assuming you don't have an annual fee with your credit card. If you currently pay an annual fee, drop your card immediately and find a new one. It pays to be an informed consumer.
In the same vein, this could be the only time that "and they don't take American Express" could actually be a selling point for AmEx.
But the vast majority of college students are just too selfish to realise that.
The vast majority of college students have no fscking money.
Mr. Anthony, in my high school days I enjoyed a good many of your novels, but the only ones that I still vividly recall are from your Geodyssey series. I found the project very ambitious in its scope, as it essentially told the full story of humanity.
I remember one chapter in the series portrayed a possible future wherein humans had released birth control agents into the very air we breathe. Special inoculations had to be taken to counter these agents. I'm not certain, but I believe a regulatory body had to approve a request for circumventing the airborne birth control.
I was wondering if you sincerely believe humanity will need to partake in a radical solution such as this to control the human population. Is that the only way to avoid the natural controls of war, disease, and famine? Or might a prosperous future, where the majority of the world is highly educated, preclude the need for population control?
Now Mod me down now because I flamed LInux like you always do.
I don't always flame linux. What are you talking about?
*rimshot*
I'd be all about slapping the RIAA cartel with a big, fat class action lawsuit. Only problem is, I'd have no idea what we'd sue them for. Inflicting the likes of Christina Aguilera on the world--ie, assualt with an ugly weapon?
Anyway, if we could come up with a legitimate suit I'd be the first in line. The lawyers always end up being the ones winning out in class action suits, but this is one case where the defendants would be even more evil than the lawyers so I don't think I'd mind so much.
Why should he be marked as a troll? I don't necessarily agree with him, but I certainly thought his post was funny. Just b/c you have a VM fetish is no reason penalize the guy.
While it is more likely you'll get good components from a trustworthy local vendor, it can be very hard to find one that is trustworthy.
Agreed. Four or five years back, before I knew anything about computer hardware, I bought a machine from a local shop that had previously built some nice 486 machines for my dad.
So I bought a PII from these guys as my college machine, thinking they were ok. Had problems with the stupid thing from the very first week. Crashed ALL the time (I mean, even for windoze) and it got so bad that I couldn't use the machine for more than 15 mins or so at a time. Swapping out the hd didn't help, and I was really stressing out--I needed this machine for school. Showed a friend of mine my fried IDE cables; he took one look at the inside of the box and told me that the idiots had put the power supply RIGHT NEXT to the hard drive and everything was overheating like mad.
By the time this was discovered, I was off my 90 day warranty, and the place I bought it from wouldn't talk to me anymore. Anyway, it turns out this local shop had recently been bought out by a bigger company. So even if you think you know a local shop it's still possible to get screwed.
Well thought out, but there's still a section or two I have to question. Though, you're probably tired of listening to me by now :)
Long standing precedent . . . makes clear that military law is the proper jurisdiction for trying cases of an individual entering the US in the service of a hostile power in order to commit acts of law.
I repeat my previous objection: Yes, it's fine to put men under military law if they are, in fact, "in the service of a hostile power" but how do we know they are? Wouldn't you have to have a trial first to determine this? If not, then you're presupposing guilt. It's backwards logic to say that we consider you a terrorist, we'll hold you indefinitely, and somewhere along the line we'll give you a fair trial. After all, we've already considered him guilty enough of the charge to suspend his rights--why bother having a trial at all?
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the government and not the defendant. Instead, as I understand it, all the president has to say is "enemy combatant" and the suspect falls under military law. Held up by the Supreme Court or not, that doesn't strike me as due process.
I agree with you that it is an involved process, that the defendant has the ability to appeal his status as an enemy combatant, as well he should, but it's the ease with which "enemy combatant" is assigned in the first place that I find disturbing. What if (and I doubt this, but it's possible) there's no evidence against him at all? How would we know about any evidence if he was held for an indefinite time and then later had a secret military trial? Yes, some facts will be brought to light by dint of his pending appeal but it's backwards for a suspect to have to file an appeal for his own rights. This brings me to my next point: secrecy.
From Newsday: "Although Justice Department officials wouldn't confirm it, Padilla likely was arrested on a material witness warrant."
From USA Today: "It was unclear late Monday whether Al Muhajir had a lawyer."
Why wouldn't the DOJ confirm? Why don't we know if he had a lawyer during his one month internment before Bush declared him an enemy combatant? What is the government trying to hide? I don't need to hear all the evidence against the man, as it would probably violate national security, but why can we not know for certain of the charges against him or whether he had a lawyer?
I appreciate your sources--they were most informative.
Ok, this has to be a troll. I mean, a homepage on geocities?
;)
On any sort of large scale, direct democracy is subject to domination by regional cliques, overrepresentation of those with the most free time . . .
That happens in the US too. AARP anyone?
Ok, if I'm wrong about this I'd seriously like to be corrected, but everything I'd read had indicated that there were no formal charges brought up on the man and that he had simply been thrown in a military prison. You're saying that he was "picked up on other charges". Do you have a reference for that?
"Officials said the plot had not advanced beyond the discussion stage, and he has not been charged with any crime."source
"Our interest is not in trying him and punishing him," Rumsfeld said. "Our interest is in finding out what he knows." [same source]
I had also heard that he was without a lawyer during initial interrogations whereas you say he's had one along. Again, if you had a source for this, I'd be very interested.
As for the Supreme Court precedence, I'll have to concede you're obviously more well-versed in the law than I am. However, I would most humbly suggest that the Supreme Court has had a history of supporting wrong-headed decisions and the simple fact that it supported the suspension of constitutional rights in the past does not make this suspension morally right.
In addition, the problem with the ruling you cite is that it presupposes the guilt of the defendant. Hell, if the guy's guilty, I'd be the first to shoot him--just pass me the revolver. The problem is that you don't know he's guilty. What if they put you on trial tomorrow and said, "You're under military juridstiction b/c we know you colluded with an enemy government regarding an act of war against the United States."
Sure, you'd be free to appeal to a court to try and get a standard federal trial, but you and I both know that a judge who looks like he's soft on terrorism is not going to be a very popular judge.
That, my friend, that is the real danger. What's to stop the government from drumming up phony "enemy of the state" charges against law-abiding (but dissenting) US citizens and then throwing them in military tribunals? The fact that Bush says Padilla is "a bad guy", that just isn't enough for me.
I guess linux on the laptop is no longer part of the triangle offense?