German POWs in WWII were treated very well by us as we followed the Geneva Convention almost to an extreme. They lived in large camps and weren't locked up in prison cells so long as they behaved.
On top of all that, they got trials and relatively quickly. The Nurenberg trials were held less than a year after VE day, which is roughly when the head Nazis were captured (well, except the ones who managed to escape). Hell, even Hitler would have gotten a friggin' trial if he hadn't blown his brains out. And now Bush (along with Scalia and Alito) thinks we can't even grant Habeas Corpus to people who have been locked up for over six years???
You don't understand. These are Ronulans! You run away from them and you guarantee war! They'll be back, not with just one candidate, but with everything they've got! You know this, Mr. Science Officer, you're the expert on these people, but you've always left out that one fact. Why? I've very interested in why!
Ah yes, our fine tradition of having decisions by people who were pre-vetted by those in power and selected to run in a sham of a democracy overturned by a bunch of unelected lords.
There, fixed that one for you! Basically, one set of lizards would be overturning the decision of another set of lizards.
Do you actually believe that, or are you just willing to say anything, no matter how obviously nonfactual, in order to support your opinions?
The wikipedia link you provided to the Lancet study actually shows other independent analyses which supports the Lancet study. You only call the study rubbish because it goes against your preconceived notions and hurts your pathetic ego.
Now, would you care to show an analysis which *actually* debunks the Lancet study? I notice that GP gave you that opportunity, but all you came back with is your above "do you really believe that?" non-comment. The only thing I have read comes from ignorant right-wing journalists who either don't understand the first thing about how statistical mathematics works (and I mean really basic things like mean and standard deviation, one writer refers to it as a "dart board") or are relying on their readers ignorance, or they simply revert to typical ad hominem attacks on the researchers.
Suppose the terrorist was either a master lock pick or had some inside information about how to open the door. BAM! Pilot is dead, and now nobody can get into the cockpit.
No, while the terrorist is busy picking or otherwise trying to open the lock, one or more of the passengers will be bludgeoning him to death. Look what happened to Richard Reid. All he had to do was light a match and put it to his shoe bomb. As soon as someone saw the match go up, they knocked his ass down.
As someone else pointed out, what gave the 9/11 hijackers an advantage was that SOP was to give in to hijacker demands and everyone would be okay. The authorities could try to catch them later. Now, if anyone tries a hijacking, everyone will try to kill them. The passengers will figure they have nothing to lose since, if they don't try to kill the hijackers, they will all die anyway.
with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person,
how are they gonna tell what is which ?
No kidding. This much ambiguity will make most everyone on slashdot a criminal. Of course, with the way US laws are now, pretty much everyone is *some* kind of criminal anyway.
I find it odd that you claim the poster doesn't know how long patents last, yet you give no correction.
That's because it is incredibly easy to find out (20 years from filing date (or from the priority date if it is a continuation or divisional application) since you apparently don't know yourself).
On the topic of what is *actually* wrong with the patent system, I don't think it is the issues people on/. would lead you to believe.
Well, that wins you a promotion to Brigadier General Obvious. You would get better information by discussing sex and dating on slashdot, rather than patents.
1) This is only an application. Any dumbass can file an application so long as he pays the fees.
2) The poster doesn't even know how long patents last, let alone anything relating to what is *actually* wrong with the patent system.
Just my two eurocents (since they hold their value better).
You DID learn enough elementary thought in school to understand that ALL of those statements could be true, right? All it would take is that Clinton by more leftist than annyone who had gone before him (hard to do with FDR in the list, but possible), then for Gore to be MORE leftist than Clinton, then for Kerry to be MORE leftist than Gore, then for Obama to be MORE leftist than Kerry.
Yes, obviously it is possible that such a statement could be true, but such a statement requires that you actually examine the evidence. You see, the Repugs keep bringing out this tired meme every election, without respect to who is running. If Attila the Hun somehow became the Democratic candidate (the Dems foolishly trying to be "bipartisan" and all that), the Repugs would *still* brand him "the most leftist presidential candidate ever."
I also find myself wondering if Hillary hasn't conceded yet because she's hoping Obama gets assassinated before the Convention.
My tinfoil hat thinking leads me to believe that this is why she is now asking to be his VP. So, it is possible that in four years we will have had both the first black president and the first woman president. Not that I believe it will really happen, but then I don't think the Clintons would be above a little assassination if it suited them and they thought they could get away with it.
The only type of conservatism that currently exists in the republican party is social conservatism
Well, that is what is proclaimed by the Repubs anyway. In reality, the Repub party is more like a cocaine-fueled gay-sex fest (*). Imagine having a minister who preaches against scantily-clad dancing women on television and other salacious content all the while paying a prostitute to go back to a hotel room with him and describe lesbian sex while he masturbates (for those who don't remember the 80's, this is a reference to Jimmy Swaggart). That's the Repubs.
(*) Not trying to bash gays, only pointing out hypocrisy.
I know. If the price of gas gets any more expensive, rappers are going to start drinking it!
You know, that's probably the best argument FOR rising gas prices I've ever seen. Now, if we can just get the country music scene on board. I'd like to see Billy Ray Cyrus chugging a fifth of 100 octane gas (the kind used in NASCAR that gets sold all around the Charlotte, NC metro area during the Holy Days of NASCAR).
to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?
Wait a minute, I thought it was John Kerry who was the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party ever. Oh, wait a minute, that was Al Gore. No, wait a minute, it was Bill Clinton. Seriously, why do you Repugs always bring out such asinine and demonstrably false crap *every* *single* *election* and somehow think no one will notice?
The Democrats in congress have a lower approval rating than president Bush. That statement alone speaks volumes. How bad do you have to be to be WORSE then Bush?
The reason for this is because they were elected to stop all the bullshit that has been going on, but instead have been eating out of Bush's hand. They were supposed to end the war, impeach Bush et al., overturn the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, but they have instead gone along with Bush on most everything. They are hated more than Bush because they are supposed to be against Bush, but simply wind up working for him anyway.
You may not realize this, but a great many of us abandoned Bush a while back (somewhere around 2006)
Why did you wait until 2006? Those of us who actually pay attention and have more than two brain cells to rub together predicted that Bush was going to be doing all the kinds of shit he has been up to before he was even elected. What took you dumb-asses so long?
Hmm. A strawman, a non-sequitor and an ad hominem all in one post. Amazing.
get a grip kid, before copyright, did you have multimillion pound movies employing 500 people?
And let me guess, you will whine about "all hollywood movies being crap anyway" whilst still downloading all of them and watching them, like 99% of slashdotters.
Apparently, you don't even know how to read (but then UK schools are filled with stupid yobs anyway, so what else could be expected). No, I don't download Hollywood movies. I actually do think copyright is a good thing, just not the ridiculous life + 90 years (effectively perpetual) that we have now. If copyright were only 25 years, you would still have "multimillion pound movies employing 500 people" since there is plenty of money to be made early on. You would just not have people expecting to get paid for the rest of their lives (and their children's lives) for something they made decades ago.
And BTW, you DO realise that music and movie companies pay corporation tax on every cent earned by their 'imaginary' property right? or is that tax just imaginary too? in which case, owners of IP should be tax exempt right?
It's called income tax. People get taxed on income all the time. That has nothing to do with the fact that copyright is copyright, it is not "intellectual property."
if I spend that 3 years working and saving up to buy land. that land is MINE. it is mine next year. it is mine in TEN years. or FIFTY years. Even when I DIE, it is still my families. In FIVE HUNDRED years it will still be kept in the family. We OWN it, FOREVER.
You still have to pay property taxes. Your heirs have to pay estate taxes upon your death. Also, land is real and tangible. Music, movies and so on are not. They are not property, despite the fact that some people refer to them as "intellectual property." In exchange for releasing your ideas to the public, you are granted for a limited time control over how those ideas are disseminated. Again, it is a creative work, not property.
o given the difference in what you and your friends have decided should be the way the world works, why the fuck would anyone, ever work on anything that was going to be worth NOTHING past the day they finish making it?
Well done, you just found a way to wipe out the music, movie, book, play, software and games industries.
Nice strawman. He was not advocating the complete abolition of copyrights, and neither am I. I am simply saying that making copyright extend beyond the creators' lifetimes is absurd and very bad public policy. Plus, people do create for hire. You realize that the music and play industries were alive and well long before copyright existed, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, would you care to show an analysis which *actually* debunks the Lancet study? I notice that GP gave you that opportunity, but all you came back with is your above "do you really believe that?" non-comment. The only thing I have read comes from ignorant right-wing journalists who either don't understand the first thing about how statistical mathematics works (and I mean really basic things like mean and standard deviation, one writer refers to it as a "dart board") or are relying on their readers ignorance, or they simply revert to typical ad hominem attacks on the researchers.
As someone else pointed out, what gave the 9/11 hijackers an advantage was that SOP was to give in to hijacker demands and everyone would be okay. The authorities could try to catch them later. Now, if anyone tries a hijacking, everyone will try to kill them. The passengers will figure they have nothing to lose since, if they don't try to kill the hijackers, they will all die anyway.
1) This is only an application. Any dumbass can file an application so long as he pays the fees.
2) The poster doesn't even know how long patents last, let alone anything relating to what is *actually* wrong with the patent system.
Just my two eurocents (since they hold their value better).
(*) Not trying to bash gays, only pointing out hypocrisy.
[presses remote button and explosion rips through ISO headquarters in Geneva]
Todd Davis, CEO of Life Lock, proclaims the end of identity theft.