They have just thrown the name Microsoft to distract everyone from Real Networks slipping into the scene. Lets not forget to mention the crappiness and anonnying nature of their software and their love of inventing their own proprietary file formats.
I wouldn't blame the ills of society on differential sententencing. I'd also have to disagree that equal penalty for a legal violation is a legal fundamental, otherwise we wouldn't have a sentencing phase after a conviction. There are a lot of factors that go into determining the scale of a penalty (criminal past, potential danger to society, severity of the crime committed, etc).
Instead, I think the essence of law is justice and reason. When a legal system places literal interpretation of laws over reason and justice, then it has broken down.
I would say that giving preferencial treatment to the president's son would be a case of letting personal relationships influence sentencing which would be an action derserving censure of the judge.
However, I see the error in the above analogy. Here's one that might be a better match: A known Mafia Boss is charged with tax evasion for not paying use tax for his out-of-state retail purchases on amazon.com- A tax that millions don't pay (or even realize they owe). The mafia boss is sentenced to jail time for tax evasion. This would be a case where exceptionalism is more just than uniform penalization. Furthermore, the public option over the charge is likely to be more or less positive.
The federal government finds mistakes on tax returns from a mafia boss and puts him in jail for a number of years. Later, the same mistakes are found on Mother Theresa's tax returns. Understandably the public would have different opinions of the penalties they should receive.
I'm not sure about road rage, but I think a lot of reckless drivers (lane changers, tailgaters, etc) do so because they don't, as you said, acknowledge the fact that there are other human beings driving the cars that are cutting off and endangering the safety of.
I remember experimenting with my cat growing up to see how short a height it could recover in over a sofa cushion.
I remember being pretty amazed at how short a distance it could twist around in. I think it was definitely under a foot in height that it could land on its feet in. Anything less it could still manage to land on its side ad least.
I don't think that a fall of about 8 inches could be considered life threating for a cat.
If you take a dump in a public bathroom you don't lose your privacy rights just because its a public place. If two cops decide to stand in the same stall with you as you do your business, without any probable cause, they are violating your rights. Its harassment, and I can't think of a judge who would disagree.
Obviously public bathrooms are not the same and a public street. Nothing in the parent post or article is suggesting puting cameras in bathrooms.
This system effectively puts cops with notepads looking over everybody's shoulder. What next, speakers on the cameras so the cops can bark orders at you when you do something wrong? This system is as Orwellian as it gets.
Actaully if you are concerned you can no longer commit petty crimes, it is probably better, because its not like they are going to dispatch an officer if they see you jaywalking. Whereas if they had dozens of polices officers on patrol instead, they would probably not hestitate to walk up to you and give you a ticket. Also, where do you get the idea that they are going to start using the cameras to shout orders at you when you do something 'wrong' anyway besides the movies? Since when do police officers go around and tell you to "stand up straight" and "eat your veggies"? Maybe something like that could be approved by the city council in some small town, but I don't voters would ever go for that in the first place.
It was my understanding that the idea behind a large camera network is that there is to much data for anyone to seriously monitor. Its more for having evidence on hand to catch a criminal if they do decide to commit a crime.
I think parents have to have some level of trust in their kids.. You can't monitor everything they do every moment. Its just like the government deciding that unless it monitors your every action it is responsible if you commit a crime.
I don't think that a parent's lack of responsibility can always be to blame for illegal actions taken by a kid. It can also be a misjudgement of the trust they can place in their kids, which isn't quite the same.
They should have ordered his sentence to be as long as it takes him to receive 100 million spam emails over a 2600 baud modem and delete them one at a time.
Theoretically the cost per hour of console gaming is quite low. Especially if you buy your games used and resell them someplace like half.com. Considering the cost of other forms of entertainment like watching movies and computer gaming it is relatively cheap.
Of course in practice this is often not the case:-)
Comparing the prequels to the original series is comparing apples to oranges. The original films had the same epic quality then as LOTRs or Harry Potter does today. Whereas the prequels are more comparable to some lame Sci-Fi channel production.
I'd have to totally disagree with the statement that the first three movies were not stunning pieces of filmmaking. Most of the special effects are still better than much of the computer generated stuff passed off today and the story is timeless.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about spaghetti code
Your stomach is a place, but you don't capitalize the word Stomach (I assume).
They have just thrown the name Microsoft to distract everyone from Real Networks slipping into the scene. Lets not forget to mention the crappiness and anonnying nature of their software and their love of inventing their own proprietary file formats.
I wouldn't blame the ills of society on differential sententencing. I'd also have to disagree that equal penalty for a legal violation is a legal fundamental, otherwise we wouldn't have a sentencing phase after a conviction. There are a lot of factors that go into determining the scale of a penalty (criminal past, potential danger to society, severity of the crime committed, etc).
Instead, I think the essence of law is justice and reason. When a legal system places literal interpretation of laws over reason and justice, then it has broken down.
I would say that giving preferencial treatment to the president's son would be a case of letting personal relationships influence sentencing which would be an action derserving censure of the judge.
However, I see the error in the above analogy. Here's one that might be a better match: A known Mafia Boss is charged with tax evasion for not paying use tax for his out-of-state retail purchases on amazon.com- A tax that millions don't pay (or even realize they owe). The mafia boss is sentenced to jail time for tax evasion. This would be a case where exceptionalism is more just than uniform penalization. Furthermore, the public option over the charge is likely to be more or less positive.
An explanation through extreme analogy:
The federal government finds mistakes on tax returns from a mafia boss and puts him in jail for a number of years. Later, the same mistakes are found on Mother Theresa's tax returns. Understandably the public would have different opinions of the penalties they should receive.
Plus an excellent superhero to citizen ratio!
Damn that evil satellite!!
I'm not sure about road rage, but I think a lot of reckless drivers (lane changers, tailgaters, etc) do so because they don't, as you said, acknowledge the fact that there are other human beings driving the cars that are cutting off and endangering the safety of.
At least I didn't test how high they could recover from a fall and land on their feet.
I'd have to disagree...
I remember experimenting with my cat growing up to see how short a height it could recover in over a sofa cushion.
I remember being pretty amazed at how short a distance it could twist around in. I think it was definitely under a foot in height that it could land on its feet in. Anything less it could still manage to land on its side ad least.
I don't think that a fall of about 8 inches could be considered life threating for a cat.
If you take a dump in a public bathroom you don't lose your privacy rights just because its a public place. If two cops decide to stand in the same stall with you as you do your business, without any probable cause, they are violating your rights. Its harassment, and I can't think of a judge who would disagree.
Obviously public bathrooms are not the same and a public street. Nothing in the parent post or article is suggesting puting cameras in bathrooms.
This system effectively puts cops with notepads looking over everybody's shoulder. What next, speakers on the cameras so the cops can bark orders at you when you do something wrong? This system is as Orwellian as it gets.
Actaully if you are concerned you can no longer commit petty crimes, it is probably better, because its not like they are going to dispatch an officer if they see you jaywalking. Whereas if they had dozens of polices officers on patrol instead, they would probably not hestitate to walk up to you and give you a ticket. Also, where do you get the idea that they are going to start using the cameras to shout orders at you when you do something 'wrong' anyway besides the movies? Since when do police officers go around and tell you to "stand up straight" and "eat your veggies"? Maybe something like that could be approved by the city council in some small town, but I don't voters would ever go for that in the first place.
It was my understanding that the idea behind a large camera network is that there is to much data for anyone to seriously monitor. Its more for having evidence on hand to catch a criminal if they do decide to commit a crime.
I think parents have to have some level of trust in their kids.. You can't monitor everything they do every moment. Its just like the government deciding that unless it monitors your every action it is responsible if you commit a crime.
I don't think that a parent's lack of responsibility can always be to blame for illegal actions taken by a kid. It can also be a misjudgement of the trust they can place in their kids, which isn't quite the same.
Yeah but if you have a whole room full of lights, its easier just to shoot them all out with a bb gun.
They should have ordered his sentence to be as long as it takes him to receive 100 million spam emails over a 2600 baud modem and delete them one at a time.
Theoretically the cost per hour of console gaming is quite low. Especially if you buy your games used and resell them someplace like half.com. Considering the cost of other forms of entertainment like watching movies and computer gaming it is relatively cheap.
:-)
Of course in practice this is often not the case
..sends adds for dsl, which isn't available within my zip or and of the neighboring zips.
You obviously haven't allowed their marketing department to access enough of your personal information.
But if we don't watch them we can't properly criticize them on Slashdot!
Comparing the prequels to the original series is comparing apples to oranges. The original films had the same epic quality then as LOTRs or Harry Potter does today. Whereas the prequels are more comparable to some lame Sci-Fi channel production.
I'd have to totally disagree with the statement that the first three movies were not stunning pieces of filmmaking. Most of the special effects are still better than much of the computer generated stuff passed off today and the story is timeless.
Don't forget about your twenty dollar bills.
By analyzing the tread pattern
I think it might have to do with a probable lack of high speed internet access in people's homes to download the distros with.
I dunno.. You can walk into Walmart looking pretty big without standing out too bad.
A.K.A The GPL?
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
But don't a lot of 'Open Source' license agreements forbid use in commercial or properitary software development?
Hey, that article was completely Fair and Balanced