Not so much the viewing, per se, but rather dealing with the after effects. Some of the folks who witness something that horrible are going to suffer traumatic stress or severe emotional shock. Folks that do will most likely want some form of treatment, which will most likely come from a doctor or psychiatrist. This brings in the insurance companies, which increases premiums for the folks that did see a thing.
I'd be curious to know how much money Lucent has made off the invention thus far - I'd be willing to bet it's a shitload more than a hundred grand. Guess we may never know, though...
There's a lot more to the term "fascism" than any dictionary could ever hope to cover. As a govermental philosophy, Wikipedia comes pretty close to what Mussolini had in mind, but the reality of what Mussolini, did is whole 'nuther ballgame. We toss terms like "fascism" and "communism" about about like epiteths - almost playfully - and their definitive meanings end up being diluted and nearly lost.
The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:
exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.
Apparently, Judge Pauline Newman argued for just such a trial in her dissent. The Wired article though has little to say about why the other judges chose to go this way instead.
I did like this one comment from William Weaver on how the state secrets privilege is used:
"I'm not saying it's always invoked for evil purposes -- it almost certainly is not. But we can't tell when it is, and that's the problem."
Jaywalking is not a victimless crime. It's rather akin to letting people commit suicide by jumping off buildings. Yes, that mostly harms the person doing it, but the people whose car they land on won't be too happy about it either, or even the people who heard someone was going to jump and had to move their cars.
Or the people who witnessed the jumper/jaywalker getting splashed all over the street.
OK, so you admit freely that George Bush knows more about what is in your best interest than you do. You hereby give up all your decision making power to politicians which will make the decisions for you because they are "for your own good".
Where did I admit this? I was talking about seat belt laws. Some laws!=All laws.
I sure hope you don't vote.
Why is that? Should there maybe be a law that prevents people that have an opinion different than yours from voting? Maybe one could say it was for their own good, or maybe in the interest of "national security"?
First off, everyone should go back and pay special attention to the word "some" in my original post. I'm not in any way saying that all laws are good, in fact I feel some are really, really bad. But, Jesus people, get a little perspective. Y'all are getting bent out of shape over a law designed to protect you, while other, more insidious laws, laws like the one under discussion are being passed and enforced?
Laws should prevent someone else from fucking with me, not me fucking with me
Sorry, but that's just being selfish. Like it or not, you are a member of society. As such you have a responsibility to that society to keep yourself, and others healthy to the best of your ability. You are expected to contribute.
If you apply economic logic like the GP, it makes more sense.
As to economics, I would have thought it'd go without saying that the economic logic for something like a seat belt law was self evident - ambulance, EMT, hospital, insurance, lawsuits=taxpayer dollars; lost time spent stuck in traffic looking at the blood and gore=lost income; vehicular redesign due to structural inadequacies=lost revenue for car manufacturer; lost lives=lost customers; end result a minutely weaker economy. Seat belt laws have one purpose and one purpose only: saving lives. They are designed to save not only your life, but the lives of those who may or may not be in the same vehicle as you (passengers, children in the back seat, dogs, cats, the other driver). They are not designed to leech away any civil liberties. They are laws that just make sense.
Now laws that prohibit voicing opinions . . .
P.S. Somebody needs to mod your post back up. If I get the points, I'll do it myself.
Or, could a news organization reporting on, say, an elected official's corruption or fondness for "playing" with small children could be defined as a "political attack".
If you don't follow "silly" laws like buckling your seat belt you might get a ticket.
Worse yet, you might suffer catastrophic brain trauma when your head impacts with the widshield at 60 mph, and you might have to have a steering column surgically removed from your sternum.
For jaywalkers, it's a simple matter of whether or not you might get crushed beneath the wheels of a Cadillac Escalade being driven by someone pre-occupied with a cell-phone conversation, or trying to make it through that yellow traffic light.
Some laws, no matter how stupid they may seem to you, really are for your own good.
"The whole transaction only took about one minute," Alburati said in a statement to police. "She seemed suspicious, because she sold me an expensive laptop for such a low price. If the laptop was stolen, I did not know about it. I just took her word for it."
He hasn't been convicted as yet, just charged, which is pretty common. His defense will consist of trying to prove that he had no idea it was stolen and did, in fact, buy it in good faith.
It's not looking too good for him, though. A little more info on this guy's reasoning can be found here as well.
Alburati, who says he was suspicious of someone looking to sell an expensive laptop so cheaply, nonetheless took the woman's word that laptop was not stolen.
Nice to see that, although his instinct is sharp as a tack, he stayed true to his business goals.
One of the articles I read said that a scientist was speculating just that. They got out and probably died not too far from the lab.
What I'm curious to know is, if they died and were subsequently consumed by either a larger animal (dog, cat, etc.) or smaller insects, would the plague be transferable to the consumer? In other words, could a roach eat the remains of the mouse, a rat eat the roach, and the whole plague start over yet again?
By your own admission the costs of living in urban areas where service is abundant and cheap is high. How can someone who's making a small amount of money in Kansas afford to up and move?
What's happened to my country? We rose up after 9-11 but somehow in the past four years, it brought us down so low, I barely even recognize the country anymore.
With apologies to Roosevelt: We have become of afraid of fear itself.
Capitalism encourages us to feel that not having the latest, greatest consumer product cheapens our very existence - thus we become jealous. Once we acquire these products, we want to hold onto them and acquire more, preserving our sense of status and increasing our sense of self worth - thus we become greedy. We are fed a daily doses of horror, terror, and bad human behavior by the media and the folks we put in charge - thus we learn to fear. We fear that the "others" are out to take our stuff and make us less than we were before.
Jealousy, fear, and greed are three primary elements required for control over any individual. Just ask any con man.
When it was founded in 1718, the site was selected because it was one of the few areas of high ground that could be found on the banks of the Mississippi. The parts that are below sea-level got that way because of expansion and subsidence from the increased weight brought to bear because of that expansion - which, in turn, brought about increased national economic expansion.
Take New Orleans out of the picture, and your federal tax burden will increase, with or without any of it going to solely to disaster aid. Food costs will rise, gas prices will stay high, and export revenues will collapse. The city is just too important to write off as a bad investment. Like it or not, it will be rebuilt.
The thing I'm wondering is if all of the improved security in the plug-in would break the IE specific sites? I've got to believe that shutting off huge chunks of ActiveX stuff is going to mess at least a few pages up. Anybody see anything like this?
Slashdot Mirror
Not so much the viewing, per se, but rather dealing with the after effects. Some of the folks who witness something that horrible are going to suffer traumatic stress or severe emotional shock. Folks that do will most likely want some form of treatment, which will most likely come from a doctor or psychiatrist. This brings in the insurance companies, which increases premiums for the folks that did see a thing.
I'd be curious to know how much money Lucent has made off the invention thus far - I'd be willing to bet it's a shitload more than a hundred grand. Guess we may never know, though...
You're right, of course.
There's a lot more to the term "fascism" than any dictionary could ever hope to cover. As a govermental philosophy, Wikipedia comes pretty close to what Mussolini had in mind, but the reality of what Mussolini, did is whole 'nuther ballgame. We toss terms like "fascism" and "communism" about about like epiteths - almost playfully - and their definitive meanings end up being diluted and nearly lost.
I blame the propaganda machines of the 1950's.
Um...pretty much all of them?
Apparently, Judge Pauline Newman argued for just such a trial in her dissent. The Wired article though has little to say about why the other judges chose to go this way instead.
I did like this one comment from William Weaver on how the state secrets privilege is used:
Or the people who witnessed the jumper/jaywalker getting splashed all over the street.
Where did I admit this? I was talking about seat belt laws. Some laws!=All laws.
Why is that? Should there maybe be a law that prevents people that have an opinion different than yours from voting? Maybe one could say it was for their own good, or maybe in the interest of "national security"?
First off, everyone should go back and pay special attention to the word "some" in my original post. I'm not in any way saying that all laws are good, in fact I feel some are really, really bad. But, Jesus people, get a little perspective. Y'all are getting bent out of shape over a law designed to protect you, while other, more insidious laws, laws like the one under discussion are being passed and enforced?
Sorry, but that's just being selfish. Like it or not, you are a member of society. As such you have a responsibility to that society to keep yourself, and others healthy to the best of your ability. You are expected to contribute.
As to economics, I would have thought it'd go without saying that the economic logic for something like a seat belt law was self evident - ambulance, EMT, hospital, insurance, lawsuits=taxpayer dollars; lost time spent stuck in traffic looking at the blood and gore=lost income; vehicular redesign due to structural inadequacies=lost revenue for car manufacturer; lost lives=lost customers; end result a minutely weaker economy. Seat belt laws have one purpose and one purpose only: saving lives. They are designed to save not only your life, but the lives of those who may or may not be in the same vehicle as you (passengers, children in the back seat, dogs, cats, the other driver). They are not designed to leech away any civil liberties. They are laws that just make sense.
Now laws that prohibit voicing opinions . . .
P.S. Somebody needs to mod your post back up. If I get the points, I'll do it myself.
And yet, the law that was passed was written by a Republican and a Democrat. And passed by a Senate with a Republican majority in both houses...
Or, could a news organization reporting on, say, an elected official's corruption or fondness for "playing" with small children could be defined as a "political attack".
Mercury News says the laptop was sold to a South Carolina man who apparently called IBM's tech support line.
He hasn't been convicted as yet, just charged, which is pretty common. His defense will consist of trying to prove that he had no idea it was stolen and did, in fact, buy it in good faith.
It's not looking too good for him, though. A little more info on this guy's reasoning can be found here as well.
Nice to see that, although his instinct is sharp as a tack, he stayed true to his business goals.
Thanks, Steve. It's nice to see you're still paying attention to things over here.
Well then, let's hope those gas huffing hillbillies in Arkansas don't get their hands on a bad batch... ;-)
One of the articles I read said that a scientist was speculating just that. They got out and probably died not too far from the lab.
What I'm curious to know is, if they died and were subsequently consumed by either a larger animal (dog, cat, etc.) or smaller insects, would the plague be transferable to the consumer? In other words, could a roach eat the remains of the mouse, a rat eat the roach, and the whole plague start over yet again?
How?
By your own admission the costs of living in urban areas where service is abundant and cheap is high. How can someone who's making a small amount of money in Kansas afford to up and move?
With apologies to Roosevelt: We have become of afraid of fear itself.
Capitalism encourages us to feel that not having the latest, greatest consumer product cheapens our very existence - thus we become jealous. Once we acquire these products, we want to hold onto them and acquire more, preserving our sense of status and increasing our sense of self worth - thus we become greedy. We are fed a daily doses of horror, terror, and bad human behavior by the media and the folks we put in charge - thus we learn to fear. We fear that the "others" are out to take our stuff and make us less than we were before.
Jealousy, fear, and greed are three primary elements required for control over any individual. Just ask any con man.
That this was a joke someone at Microsoft was playing on the "new guy". I'd hate to think there's actually someone there that could be that clueless.
When it was founded in 1718, the site was selected because it was one of the few areas of high ground that could be found on the banks of the Mississippi. The parts that are below sea-level got that way because of expansion and subsidence from the increased weight brought to bear because of that expansion - which, in turn, brought about increased national economic expansion.
Take New Orleans out of the picture, and your federal tax burden will increase, with or without any of it going to solely to disaster aid. Food costs will rise, gas prices will stay high, and export revenues will collapse. The city is just too important to write off as a bad investment. Like it or not, it will be rebuilt.
The thing I'm wondering is if all of the improved security in the plug-in would break the IE specific sites? I've got to believe that shutting off huge chunks of ActiveX stuff is going to mess at least a few pages up. Anybody see anything like this?