Freshman SCO: Uh, Professor, could I have an extension? I tried to download the assignment, but it said the file wasn't there for some weird reason. Professor Wells: *sigh* Okay, fine. One extension, but don't make a habit of this. Freshman SCO: Sure, sure. Thanks a lot. Oh, by the way, what server is the assignment on?
Your finger is pointing in the wrong place. Drug companies are a benefit to medicine, but there's no reason that public money can't act alongside private money to accomplish a benefit for the public. The biggest thing that prevents people from making use of public money for the pharmaceutical industry isn't the drug companies, though. It's the threat of litigation if the result of public research - sent forth into use by the general populace - has harmful, perhaps deadly, side effects. The uber-rich drug companies can absorb a fair number of lawsuits directed their way, but Doctor Joe Schmoe and friends at the local university have no such buffer available.
Put sweeping tort reforms in place, with special focus on the medical industry, and you'll fix many of the problems preventing research like DCA from going forth.
I thought Crusade had a lot of potential. There just wasn't enough of it made to be able to tell whether the series was actually going somewhere or not.
The "Legend of the Rangers" movie, on the other hand.... *huuurk*
> But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes where their mouths are concerning Iraq, they're not going to take action on this matter, either.
Wait, weren't you just whining about "evidence"? Again, you're not even consistent.
Here, let me counter your ad hominem attacks with some of the evidence you apparently haven't seen:
to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars
Last I checked, juries determined the outcome of cases, and judges determined the outcome of appeals.
Also, changing a legislative loophole is in the purview of the legislature. The consent of US district attorneys is provided for by statute, not by Constitutional mandate, and if the law says that the executive branch can make these nominations without Senate approval, then they can:
and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.--Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2.
Your accusations regarding attempts to try Halliburton execs under courts martial are ridiculous. You have zero evidence that this is the plan, and your logic is flawed, besides. If, as you say, trying civilians in a court martial is unconstitutional, then double jeopardy will not apply, because the accused will never have faced true jeopardy backed by the force of law in the first place.
I agree concerning the FISA court, by the way. Ignoring a facility put in place to accomplish the very things the administration wanted to achieve - namely, obtaining warrants in secret - never made sense to me, and it is likely that their actions violated the law. But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes where their mouths are concerning Iraq, they're not going to take action on this matter, either.
I'm pretty sure that if it's as dense as you say it is, it's going to clog the tubes on the way over here. Kind of like when I eat too much fiber, if you know what I mean.
Aren't police officers usually hourly workers? If this is so, then either the state can't make claim to the source code, or the state owes him a crapload of back overtime pay.
Before I clicked on the link, I wondered whether this was referring to millions of rabbits starving to death in North Korea. After all, if the government can't feed its people, what's it going to feed to its rabbits?
Denethor liked Boromir better - he perceived Faramir as being weak, but what was weakness in Denethor's mind was actually a good heart in reality. Boromir was prideful (which was his undoing), which Denethor perceived as strength. Ultimately, this is why Denethor sent Boromir to Rivendell instead of Faramir. Had Faramir gone instead, then it's quite likely that the entire fellowship would have made it to Mordor.
He held a sword in anger to Frodo's throat, with no possibility of the Ring escaping his grasp, then drew his hand back because the Ring was not his to wield.
Boromir came to the eventual realization that the Ring was not for him to take, either. The difference is supposed to be that Faramir realizes this from the outset, because at his core, he is different from Boromir. This wasn't just hinted at in the book. It was incredibly glaringly obvious. Faramir actually says to Frodo that he would never take the Ring under any circumstances.
Jackson's version of the story is analogous to telling the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree by saying that he lied to his father about it at first, but owned up to it a few days later. Does it extend that section of the plot by inserting conflict? Sure. But it's telling the story wrong.
The temptation of the ring was so blatant it led to Boromir's demise. By making Faramir resist the temptation to take it back to Gondor from the get-go, Tolkien sharply contrasted the two brothers, something that was largely missing from the movie. Jackson could have played up that contrast even more with some dialogue that showed that while Faramir desired it as much as everyone else, he was willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good because he was a truly honorable person.
I think he's directed some good movies, the LotR trilogy included, but I don't think he was "spot on" in his adaptation. If anything, there were very significant plot elements for which he opted to "adapt" them as being completely opposite to what Tolkien wrote.
I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy or removing Tom Bombadil. Some things just don't play well on the screen, and it's understandable that changes were made (even if I'm not a big fan of those changes).
I'm talking about, among other things, completely reinterpreting a character such as Faramir, who was at his core good and uncorrupted by a desire for power, unlike his brother Boromir. Rewriting Faramir to attempt to deliver the ring to Gondor, instead of seeing it for what it truly was, demonstrated Jackson's (and Walsh's and Boyens's) ignorance of, or refusal to appreciate, Faramir's significance in the story. There was (supposed to be) no conflict in Faramir's mind between helping to save his homeland by destroying the ring and bringing home a prize to please his unappreciative father. He had long ago resigned himself to being considered weak by his father in comparison to Boromir, because his weakness in the eyes of his father - acting for the good of all rather than the glory of Gondor - was actually a strength worthy of his Numenorean lineage.
Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?
Asking unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks....;)
The content cabal's interest in getting the FCC to adopt particular standards isn't because of a desire to force interoperability. Interoperability is good, and once an open standard begins to emerge, most manufacturers will design for that standard (or design for compatibility with multiple standards, in the case of things like DVD-R and DVD+R). No, the content cabal wants FCC-mandated standards because it forces manufacturers to implement DRM that conforms to the content cabal's wishes. Compliance with such DRM would be optional without the technology mandate, and manufacturers would swiftly drop the unnecessary parts of the standard, including DRM, to produce a product that was both less expensive and more valuable to the consumer.
We see the converse happening in cases where standards are protected by patent. Support of UOP and region codes in DVD players is mandated by the DVD-CCA, which controls licensing of the standards for DVD players. Direct support for CableCARD in HTPCs won't happen because the implementation of CableCARD readers is protected by patent (much to my consternation - I'd fork over for digital cable today if I could get my custom PVR to receive the signals directly). There would be UOP-free and region-code-free DVD players as well as CableCARD-reading PCI cards all over the US if it weren't for these licensing issues.
Now, such patents won't work in the case of the broadcast flag, because a non-protected and DRM-free standard (ATSC) is already in use. Therefore, the content cabal needs the FCC to do its dirty work, and this legislation is intended to prevent that from happening without the focused review that Congress can provide and that the FCC will not.
There's really no good reason to oppose this legislation (caveat: we still haven't seen the legislation, so it may be too early to have this debate). If a governmentally-mandated technology standard is necessary, Congress can specifically instruct the FCC to develop such a standard by narrowly construing the scope of the FCC's power in developing that standard.
The problem is when the FCC attempts to essentially create law on its own without the involvement of our duly elected legislators, and this legislation would prevent that.
There's one other possibility you didn't mention. The file is real, the folks uploading it hold the copyright, and the copyright holder ultimately makes the claim that they did not give permission for the downloader to download the file. This amounts to an admission that sharing a file is not the same as distributing it, which shoots an awful lot of ??AA lawsuits squarely in the foot.
This is academic, though, because (as you say) it's highly unlikely that they would ever try this with a real file.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a permanent link to the bill in question.
Freshman SCO: Uh, Professor, could I have an extension? I tried to download the assignment, but it said the file wasn't there for some weird reason.
Professor Wells: *sigh* Okay, fine. One extension, but don't make a habit of this.
Freshman SCO: Sure, sure. Thanks a lot. Oh, by the way, what server is the assignment on?
Who the hell snipes at night?
Always bet on black.
Your finger is pointing in the wrong place. Drug companies are a benefit to medicine, but there's no reason that public money can't act alongside private money to accomplish a benefit for the public. The biggest thing that prevents people from making use of public money for the pharmaceutical industry isn't the drug companies, though. It's the threat of litigation if the result of public research - sent forth into use by the general populace - has harmful, perhaps deadly, side effects. The uber-rich drug companies can absorb a fair number of lawsuits directed their way, but Doctor Joe Schmoe and friends at the local university have no such buffer available.
Put sweeping tort reforms in place, with special focus on the medical industry, and you'll fix many of the problems preventing research like DCA from going forth.
I thought Crusade had a lot of potential. There just wasn't enough of it made to be able to tell whether the series was actually going somewhere or not.
The "Legend of the Rangers" movie, on the other hand.... *huuurk*
> But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes where their mouths are concerning Iraq, they're not going to take action on this matter, either.
s /main2368411.shtml
Wait, weren't you just whining about "evidence"? Again, you're not even consistent.
Here, let me counter your ad hominem attacks with some of the evidence you apparently haven't seen:
Pelosi stating that impeachment is "off the table": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA
Dems will do a non-binding resolution on Iraq instead of taking meaningful action: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politic
Fox News is not broadcast media.
That is all.
Last I checked, juries determined the outcome of cases, and judges determined the outcome of appeals.
Also, changing a legislative loophole is in the purview of the legislature. The consent of US district attorneys is provided for by statute, not by Constitutional mandate, and if the law says that the executive branch can make these nominations without Senate approval, then they can:
Your accusations regarding attempts to try Halliburton execs under courts martial are ridiculous. You have zero evidence that this is the plan, and your logic is flawed, besides. If, as you say, trying civilians in a court martial is unconstitutional, then double jeopardy will not apply, because the accused will never have faced true jeopardy backed by the force of law in the first place.
I agree concerning the FISA court, by the way. Ignoring a facility put in place to accomplish the very things the administration wanted to achieve - namely, obtaining warrants in secret - never made sense to me, and it is likely that their actions violated the law. But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes where their mouths are concerning Iraq, they're not going to take action on this matter, either.
Actually, I can think of someone else who might knock down your door and put a gun to your head after checking your credit report.
The difference is that they'll also break your kneecaps.
I'm pretty sure that if it's as dense as you say it is, it's going to clog the tubes on the way over here. Kind of like when I eat too much fiber, if you know what I mean.
Grape Nuts: Cereal for nerds. Shit that matters.
Aren't police officers usually hourly workers? If this is so, then either the state can't make claim to the source code, or the state owes him a crapload of back overtime pay.
You could also cut off the supply of your two greatest exports to the US: comedians and hockey players. We'd cave in about one season.
Before I clicked on the link, I wondered whether this was referring to millions of rabbits starving to death in North Korea. After all, if the government can't feed its people, what's it going to feed to its rabbits?
Denethor liked Boromir better - he perceived Faramir as being weak, but what was weakness in Denethor's mind was actually a good heart in reality. Boromir was prideful (which was his undoing), which Denethor perceived as strength. Ultimately, this is why Denethor sent Boromir to Rivendell instead of Faramir. Had Faramir gone instead, then it's quite likely that the entire fellowship would have made it to Mordor.
Hey, I think I played one of those things in Rifts.
He held a sword in anger to Frodo's throat, with no possibility of the Ring escaping his grasp, then drew his hand back because the Ring was not his to wield.
Boromir came to the eventual realization that the Ring was not for him to take, either. The difference is supposed to be that Faramir realizes this from the outset, because at his core, he is different from Boromir. This wasn't just hinted at in the book. It was incredibly glaringly obvious. Faramir actually says to Frodo that he would never take the Ring under any circumstances.
Jackson's version of the story is analogous to telling the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree by saying that he lied to his father about it at first, but owned up to it a few days later. Does it extend that section of the plot by inserting conflict? Sure. But it's telling the story wrong.
and despite the sincere regret of the problems caused, there is nothing they can do at this point.
Except settle in a class-action lawsuit.
The temptation of the ring was so blatant it led to Boromir's demise. By making Faramir resist the temptation to take it back to Gondor from the get-go, Tolkien sharply contrasted the two brothers, something that was largely missing from the movie. Jackson could have played up that contrast even more with some dialogue that showed that while Faramir desired it as much as everyone else, he was willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good because he was a truly honorable person.
I think he's directed some good movies, the LotR trilogy included, but I don't think he was "spot on" in his adaptation. If anything, there were very significant plot elements for which he opted to "adapt" them as being completely opposite to what Tolkien wrote.
I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy or removing Tom Bombadil. Some things just don't play well on the screen, and it's understandable that changes were made (even if I'm not a big fan of those changes).
I'm talking about, among other things, completely reinterpreting a character such as Faramir, who was at his core good and uncorrupted by a desire for power, unlike his brother Boromir. Rewriting Faramir to attempt to deliver the ring to Gondor, instead of seeing it for what it truly was, demonstrated Jackson's (and Walsh's and Boyens's) ignorance of, or refusal to appreciate, Faramir's significance in the story. There was (supposed to be) no conflict in Faramir's mind between helping to save his homeland by destroying the ring and bringing home a prize to please his unappreciative father. He had long ago resigned himself to being considered weak by his father in comparison to Boromir, because his weakness in the eyes of his father - acting for the good of all rather than the glory of Gondor - was actually a strength worthy of his Numenorean lineage.
Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?
Asking unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.... ;)
The content cabal's interest in getting the FCC to adopt particular standards isn't because of a desire to force interoperability. Interoperability is good, and once an open standard begins to emerge, most manufacturers will design for that standard (or design for compatibility with multiple standards, in the case of things like DVD-R and DVD+R). No, the content cabal wants FCC-mandated standards because it forces manufacturers to implement DRM that conforms to the content cabal's wishes. Compliance with such DRM would be optional without the technology mandate, and manufacturers would swiftly drop the unnecessary parts of the standard, including DRM, to produce a product that was both less expensive and more valuable to the consumer.
We see the converse happening in cases where standards are protected by patent. Support of UOP and region codes in DVD players is mandated by the DVD-CCA, which controls licensing of the standards for DVD players. Direct support for CableCARD in HTPCs won't happen because the implementation of CableCARD readers is protected by patent (much to my consternation - I'd fork over for digital cable today if I could get my custom PVR to receive the signals directly). There would be UOP-free and region-code-free DVD players as well as CableCARD-reading PCI cards all over the US if it weren't for these licensing issues.
Now, such patents won't work in the case of the broadcast flag, because a non-protected and DRM-free standard (ATSC) is already in use. Therefore, the content cabal needs the FCC to do its dirty work, and this legislation is intended to prevent that from happening without the focused review that Congress can provide and that the FCC will not.
There's really no good reason to oppose this legislation (caveat: we still haven't seen the legislation, so it may be too early to have this debate). If a governmentally-mandated technology standard is necessary, Congress can specifically instruct the FCC to develop such a standard by narrowly construing the scope of the FCC's power in developing that standard.
The problem is when the FCC attempts to essentially create law on its own without the involvement of our duly elected legislators, and this legislation would prevent that.
how on earth can the average "poor" person "able to obtain medical care".
By abusing the emergency medicine system.
Why pay millions when we could pay..... billions?
I think Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery explains it pretty well:
Alotta Fagina: In Japan, men come first and women come second.
Austin Powers: Or sometimes not at all! (sly chuckle)
There's one other possibility you didn't mention. The file is real, the folks uploading it hold the copyright, and the copyright holder ultimately makes the claim that they did not give permission for the downloader to download the file. This amounts to an admission that sharing a file is not the same as distributing it, which shoots an awful lot of ??AA lawsuits squarely in the foot.
This is academic, though, because (as you say) it's highly unlikely that they would ever try this with a real file.