There is plenty of evidence that the DMCA enjoyed bi-partisan support. Anyone claiming its all the fault of Democrats or all the fault of Republicans is just a partisan party hack.
The U.S. government is basically a one-party system anymore.
Yep. Until this silo mentality is demolished, no amount of federal bailouts will make GM a viable company. This is such a monster change for a company so resistant to change; we'd probably have to put them through bankruptcy to make it happen.
There has to be some truth to this. Otherwise why would doctors spend so much money on malpractice insurance? Wouldn't it be so much cheaper and easier to just make the patient sign a form giving up the right to sue? Same with skydiving or bunge jumping operators: why do they have to carry all that liability insurance if they can get someone to sign a form saying they won't sue? The obvious answer is that people can still sue, even if they supposedly signed away that right. Sure, signing the form can diminish that right, but certainly can't eliminate it in all cases.
For one thing, if the person signing the form is killed in an accident, relatives can sue the responsible party for wrongful death. After all, the relative never signed a form saying they wouldn't sue. You can't sign away someone else's right to sue no matter what the waiver form says.
You are 100% wrong. I have no debt and an excellent credit score. I have numerous active credit card accounts, none of which have revolving balances. Therefore, I pay no interest at all. I even get cash back for using the cards.
Would I really be better off shoving my head up my ass, canceling all credit cards, and bitching some nonsense about having to "be in debt to get good credit"?
That's really too bad. A self-righteous prick like yourself is really deserving of a bullshit ticket. I wish you had gotten it in Chicago where it would not have been dismissed no matter what.
The cost of legal parking in Chicago can be almost $50 in some cases. In New York, probably quite a bit higher. At the very least, it would be $25. A $20 parking ticket in a big city would be no deterrence whatsoever.
The bill of rights does not apply at border crossings. Think of the first few amendments to the constitution. NONE apply at a border crossing. And this is basically how it works in every country in the entire world (and then there are the countries where bribes must be paid). It's just a fact of international travel.
That $16 Billion would probably build a maximum of 30 schools, the way the public school construction process works in the United States. Why does it cost $100 million just to build a 500 student elementary school?
If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs. Any kind of power generation is bound to have some environmental impact. If you truly believe what you just wrote, I assume you are typing from a solar-powered computer and use no electricity at your home at all so as not to be a hypocrite?
This may come as a big surprise to you, but criminals don't turn in their guns just because it's illegal to possess them. I don't know about you but if I were in a dangerous place with gun-toting criminals, I'd like to have some chance of defending myself. Before you say "call the cops" just think of how long it would take the cops to arrive even under the best of circumstances. Why is it so hard for people to understand that gun bans only take guns away from the law-abiding?
The U.K. government might as well just announce that their subjects no longer have any rights at all. They have effectively all been removed in practice. To put things in perspective, this country is on the verge of banning kitchen knives to try to reduce violent crime (now that private possession of firearms has been completely outlawed). The saddest part of all is that the subjects of the U.K. support this nonsense by a large margin.
I've heard of this before, but it seems to be applied very inconsistently. There are plenty of cases where the government is successfully sued, and certainly does not seem to like it one bit. Could some lawyer please enlighten us as to why sovereign immunity of a government agency seems to only apply in some cases?
If sovereign immunity is real, why does any government agency (such as a state university) waste tax money on liability insurance? It's completely unnecessary if they can't be sued.
It sounds like he had way too much time on his hands. Yes, lets make everyone park out in the boonies (consuming extra gasoline) to save some mud puddles in an open parking lot from becoming a functioning parking garage. No graveyard will be threatened by the looming garage nearby.
If we have a true revolution, you should be hoping you'll be lucky enough to live through it. Be careful what you wish for. There really could be worse governments than the U.S. led by Republicans. If you doubt me, just ask anyone who grew up as a subject under Stalin.
The big problem is the common man doesn't care. As long as they can still watch TV all is good. The few who bother to vote just show up and vote for the party their parents voted for, or who their favorite celebrity endorses. If people as a whole start taking democracy seriously, the results will be very different. But until they have reason to (when their lives take a turn for the worse), don't expect much to change.
Slashdot Mirror
There is plenty of evidence that the DMCA enjoyed bi-partisan support. Anyone claiming its all the fault of Democrats or all the fault of Republicans is just a partisan party hack.
The U.S. government is basically a one-party system anymore.
Why the hell was it necessary to have you coding in the quarantined area? Could they not have run a data line to an outside office?
Christianity was once a barbaric and primitive religion, but then went through a renaissance.
When will Islam move out of the stone age and have a Renaissance of its own?
We need a new mod choice: (-1 Overly Pedantic).
Quebec would be a nice place if only they'd get rid of the super-annoying Frenchies.
Yep. Until this silo mentality is demolished, no amount of federal bailouts will make GM a viable company. This is such a monster change for a company so resistant to change; we'd probably have to put them through bankruptcy to make it happen.
The subjects of the UK are perfectly willing to give away rights in the name of security. What's one more going to matter?
There has to be some truth to this. Otherwise why would doctors spend so much money on malpractice insurance? Wouldn't it be so much cheaper and easier to just make the patient sign a form giving up the right to sue? Same with skydiving or bunge jumping operators: why do they have to carry all that liability insurance if they can get someone to sign a form saying they won't sue? The obvious answer is that people can still sue, even if they supposedly signed away that right. Sure, signing the form can diminish that right, but certainly can't eliminate it in all cases.
For one thing, if the person signing the form is killed in an accident, relatives can sue the responsible party for wrongful death. After all, the relative never signed a form saying they wouldn't sue. You can't sign away someone else's right to sue no matter what the waiver form says.
Well, nobody ever said that freedom is free of cost.
You are 100% wrong. I have no debt and an excellent credit score. I have numerous active credit card accounts, none of which have revolving balances. Therefore, I pay no interest at all. I even get cash back for using the cards.
Would I really be better off shoving my head up my ass, canceling all credit cards, and bitching some nonsense about having to "be in debt to get good credit"?
That's really too bad. A self-righteous prick like yourself is really deserving of a bullshit ticket. I wish you had gotten it in Chicago where it would not have been dismissed no matter what.
The cost of legal parking in Chicago can be almost $50 in some cases. In New York, probably quite a bit higher. At the very least, it would be $25. A $20 parking ticket in a big city would be no deterrence whatsoever.
The bill of rights does not apply at border crossings. Think of the first few amendments to the constitution. NONE apply at a border crossing. And this is basically how it works in every country in the entire world (and then there are the countries where bribes must be paid). It's just a fact of international travel.
That $16 Billion would probably build a maximum of 30 schools, the way the public school construction process works in the United States. Why does it cost $100 million just to build a 500 student elementary school?
If there's anything the government does not need to be subsidizing, it is TV watching for American fatasses.
If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs. Any kind of power generation is bound to have some environmental impact. If you truly believe what you just wrote, I assume you are typing from a solar-powered computer and use no electricity at your home at all so as not to be a hypocrite?
This may come as a big surprise to you, but criminals don't turn in their guns just because it's illegal to possess them. I don't know about you but if I were in a dangerous place with gun-toting criminals, I'd like to have some chance of defending myself. Before you say "call the cops" just think of how long it would take the cops to arrive even under the best of circumstances. Why is it so hard for people to understand that gun bans only take guns away from the law-abiding?
Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause. It basically means "we're curious".
The U.K. government might as well just announce that their subjects no longer have any rights at all. They have effectively all been removed in practice. To put things in perspective, this country is on the verge of banning kitchen knives to try to reduce violent crime (now that private possession of firearms has been completely outlawed). The saddest part of all is that the subjects of the U.K. support this nonsense by a large margin.
In other words, now that you've had your fun you're going to go criticizing the young whippersnappers having theirs.
I've heard of this before, but it seems to be applied very inconsistently. There are plenty of cases where the government is successfully sued, and certainly does not seem to like it one bit. Could some lawyer please enlighten us as to why sovereign immunity of a government agency seems to only apply in some cases?
If sovereign immunity is real, why does any government agency (such as a state university) waste tax money on liability insurance? It's completely unnecessary if they can't be sued.
It sounds like he had way too much time on his hands. Yes, lets make everyone park out in the boonies (consuming extra gasoline) to save some mud puddles in an open parking lot from becoming a functioning parking garage. No graveyard will be threatened by the looming garage nearby.
If we have a true revolution, you should be hoping you'll be lucky enough to live through it. Be careful what you wish for. There really could be worse governments than the U.S. led by Republicans. If you doubt me, just ask anyone who grew up as a subject under Stalin.
The more I learn about Stallman, the more of a kook I realize he is. Maybe he could be Dennis Kucinich's running mate.
The big problem is the common man doesn't care. As long as they can still watch TV all is good. The few who bother to vote just show up and vote for the party their parents voted for, or who their favorite celebrity endorses. If people as a whole start taking democracy seriously, the results will be very different. But until they have reason to (when their lives take a turn for the worse), don't expect much to change.