No, Ventura felt that no politician should ever seek re-election. They should serve a single term then move on to let somebody else take the reigns. I'm not sure if he had that attitude going into the election, but that's the opinion he formed while he was governor of Minnesota.
That's not exactly uncommon in the entertainment industry. Most of the time a movie isn't considered to "break even" until it's gotten double the cost of production, which implies that the marketing budget is given the same size as the production budget.
The Bill of Rights applies to the government. It exists to protect the rights of the individual. If somebody comes into your house to preach about how awesome Jesus is, you can kick their ass out without violating the first amendment. Are you abridging that person's right to freedom of speech and religion? Yes. But your house is your house, and their unwelcomed presence in your house is a violation of your rights.
The Nazis did a pretty good job of building up Germany's economy when they were in power, too. Gearing up for war is a quick way to build up your economy quickly. Of course, when the war is over the bubble usually bursts and a recession or depression hits, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
No. Theists are people who believe in at least one god. If you want to qualify it, you would say "monotheist" for people who believe in one and only one god. Polytheists believe in more than one god.
That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.
Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.
Name a single precept or belief or moral that you can say with absolute certainty that all atheists have, non-atheists do not have, that doesn't involve the disbelief in a deity.
Atheism is simply a response to the position of theism. Is "theism" a religion? No. It's an adjective with regard to belief.
There's no such thing as an "ad homid(sic)" attack. It's a logical fallacy to discredit a person's stance on an issue because of the person, which is an ad hominem argument. But telling somebody to read up on something before responding again isn't an ad hominem. It's not a logical fallacy to call somebody an asshole, unless you're also using their asshole-ism as a refutation of their argument.
Jury nullification was used as recently as the early 20th century, when the crazies outlawed alcohol. People would be tried for bootlegging or whatever, and the jury would invalidate the law.
It's not common anymore simply because the judge doesn't want the jury to exercise their rights, the judges want the jury to determine guilt, and in some situations, punishment. If judges recognized the jury's right to nullification, then the judges would be reducing a little bit of their power because right now they're the only ones who have the de facto ability to nullify a law.
The taxpayers in the UK are funding a personal homeopathic "doctor" for the royal family. I think when it comes to science, you should look at anything BUT the government in England.
Yeah, I don't understand people using this argument. The Chinese government is already as close to absolute control over information as is possible for a country with more than a billion people living in it. They don't need to act like the western democracies where we get censorship of unpopular ideas from a backdoor clause to protect us from ourselves.
Name a Disney movie that wasn't based on a fable or story from long ago.
Disney has been making derivative works for almost a century now, and people loved them. Imagine what the landscape would be like if people could base their works on the original stuff that Disney has made.
"But when the law says that e.g. copyright infringement has statutory damages of $1 mln per count then the court has no choice but to lay down such fines. "
In the United States, laws, as well as the accused, are on trial in a courtroom. If the people find a law to be unjust, the jury can strike it down with nullification. If a judge deems a law contrary to higher law, such as state/federal constitutions, the judge is able to throw the law out. It's one of the ideas passed down from the common law that forms the basis of the legal system in the United States.
GTA: San Andreas would never have been banned by our government. The ESRB is a private organization, and getting a game rated by them is optional. All three console makers require a game to be rated by the ESRB before they'll let you publish it on their console, and if it's rated at AO, they won't allow publication at all. But PC games, since nobody owns exclusivity over the hardware, have no such constraints. Retailers might refuse to stock games without an ESRB rating, but that's all volunteer, the government isn't a factor in this at all, and that's the way it should stay.
The US government has no power to regulate video games, because they're a matter of free speech.
Bin Laden had absolutely no interest in the rights infringed upon it by the US federal government, nor did he really concern himself with trying to get our military overextended. He wants the United States to stop throwing money and guns at Israel. That's all he wants. Canada hasn't been hit by Bin Laden. Why not? Because they don't send money to Israel. Not to mention that the US military was more than capable of being in Afghanistan without being considered "overextended". Bin Laden wasn't relying on a US invasion of Afghanistan followed by an occupation of Iraq when he concocted his plan for September 11.
Why not move it aside by blowing it up? Detonate a nuke next to the asteroid while it's still quite a ways out, and the tiny change that occurs should knock it to a totally different course by the time it should collide with Earth.
Didn't Japan launch a probe to the moon a few years ago? You don't need a Saturn V to get to the moon, unless you want to bring three people, a lander, and a rover. Hell, NASA launched a probe en route to Pluto that'll make the trip in a few years. You've been watching too many movies, we don't need to send PEOPLE to the asteroid to destroy it or deflect it, an unmanned ship would suffice.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Ventura felt that no politician should ever seek re-election. They should serve a single term then move on to let somebody else take the reigns. I'm not sure if he had that attitude going into the election, but that's the opinion he formed while he was governor of Minnesota.
Ventura wasn't re-elected because he didn't want to be governor again. He didn't for re-election, so he obviously would not have won.
That's not exactly uncommon in the entertainment industry. Most of the time a movie isn't considered to "break even" until it's gotten double the cost of production, which implies that the marketing budget is given the same size as the production budget.
No.
The Bill of Rights applies to the government. It exists to protect the rights of the individual. If somebody comes into your house to preach about how awesome Jesus is, you can kick their ass out without violating the first amendment. Are you abridging that person's right to freedom of speech and religion? Yes. But your house is your house, and their unwelcomed presence in your house is a violation of your rights.
I wasn't aware of bombings on Scotland or Wales, just England, so I apologize if I offended any limeys.
I don't suppose you also snub beggar children on the street with the phrase "humbug" as well?
The Nazis did a pretty good job of building up Germany's economy when they were in power, too. Gearing up for war is a quick way to build up your economy quickly. Of course, when the war is over the bubble usually bursts and a recession or depression hits, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
They never defeated the UK. They bombed the ever loving shit out of England, but they never invaded, let alone conquered it.
No. Theists are people who believe in at least one god. If you want to qualify it, you would say "monotheist" for people who believe in one and only one god. Polytheists believe in more than one god.
That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.
Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.
Name a single precept or belief or moral that you can say with absolute certainty that all atheists have, non-atheists do not have, that doesn't involve the disbelief in a deity.
Atheism is simply a response to the position of theism. Is "theism" a religion? No. It's an adjective with regard to belief.
There's no such thing as an "ad homid(sic)" attack. It's a logical fallacy to discredit a person's stance on an issue because of the person, which is an ad hominem argument. But telling somebody to read up on something before responding again isn't an ad hominem. It's not a logical fallacy to call somebody an asshole, unless you're also using their asshole-ism as a refutation of their argument.
Jury nullification was used as recently as the early 20th century, when the crazies outlawed alcohol. People would be tried for bootlegging or whatever, and the jury would invalidate the law.
It's not common anymore simply because the judge doesn't want the jury to exercise their rights, the judges want the jury to determine guilt, and in some situations, punishment. If judges recognized the jury's right to nullification, then the judges would be reducing a little bit of their power because right now they're the only ones who have the de facto ability to nullify a law.
Last I checked, Chrysler and Ford were still around.
The taxpayers in the UK are funding a personal homeopathic "doctor" for the royal family. I think when it comes to science, you should look at anything BUT the government in England.
Common sense tells me that the Earth is flat, and the immovable center of the universe.
Oh, that's right, in the modern age we reject common sense for evidence!
Yeah, I don't understand people using this argument. The Chinese government is already as close to absolute control over information as is possible for a country with more than a billion people living in it. They don't need to act like the western democracies where we get censorship of unpopular ideas from a backdoor clause to protect us from ourselves.
By that definition of porn, amateur porn isn't porn at all.
The article is about Buddhism. Isn't religion a taboo in China?
Name a Disney movie that wasn't based on a fable or story from long ago.
Disney has been making derivative works for almost a century now, and people loved them. Imagine what the landscape would be like if people could base their works on the original stuff that Disney has made.
"But when the law says that e.g. copyright infringement has statutory damages of $1 mln per count then the court has no choice but to lay down such fines. "
In the United States, laws, as well as the accused, are on trial in a courtroom. If the people find a law to be unjust, the jury can strike it down with nullification. If a judge deems a law contrary to higher law, such as state/federal constitutions, the judge is able to throw the law out. It's one of the ideas passed down from the common law that forms the basis of the legal system in the United States.
GTA: San Andreas would never have been banned by our government. The ESRB is a private organization, and getting a game rated by them is optional. All three console makers require a game to be rated by the ESRB before they'll let you publish it on their console, and if it's rated at AO, they won't allow publication at all. But PC games, since nobody owns exclusivity over the hardware, have no such constraints. Retailers might refuse to stock games without an ESRB rating, but that's all volunteer, the government isn't a factor in this at all, and that's the way it should stay.
The US government has no power to regulate video games, because they're a matter of free speech.
Bin Laden had absolutely no interest in the rights infringed upon it by the US federal government, nor did he really concern himself with trying to get our military overextended. He wants the United States to stop throwing money and guns at Israel. That's all he wants. Canada hasn't been hit by Bin Laden. Why not? Because they don't send money to Israel. Not to mention that the US military was more than capable of being in Afghanistan without being considered "overextended". Bin Laden wasn't relying on a US invasion of Afghanistan followed by an occupation of Iraq when he concocted his plan for September 11.
Why not move it aside by blowing it up? Detonate a nuke next to the asteroid while it's still quite a ways out, and the tiny change that occurs should knock it to a totally different course by the time it should collide with Earth.
Didn't Japan launch a probe to the moon a few years ago? You don't need a Saturn V to get to the moon, unless you want to bring three people, a lander, and a rover. Hell, NASA launched a probe en route to Pluto that'll make the trip in a few years. You've been watching too many movies, we don't need to send PEOPLE to the asteroid to destroy it or deflect it, an unmanned ship would suffice.