but again, like i said above...how is that (our) problem?
i am still not clear on how emulators work but people all over the world are played Mame and every other emulator playing the real thing on their computer. how is it that this is allowed?
if people want to buy the older games instead of the newer games perhaps they should put those games back on the market or make the newer games that much more attractive to where people will by the new games.
ok thats 3 games out of 75. what about the rest of the games? maybe he should just pay for the games that are no longer being sold instead of the whole kaboodle?
"But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo."
except that we haven't made mosquitos anything with equal rights as a human so it's really no comparison. If every human is equal and thus every human has their own rights then we have some tough questions to answer.
just a few things..in week 4 of a pregnancy the brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. in week 5 the heart actually starts to beat. just by the end of week 4 or week 5 i would be very reluctant to say that we are not talking about a human being.
I want you all to know that i am going to file a patent on thinking. if you as much as think of a wish list i will sue. if you think about a counter suit i will just sue you for thinking that.
i am sure there is not a patent on thinking so i should be gold!
thanks for that. forget to covert to hours before multiplying by 24. thats crazy. is there nothing, not even a small satellite that we are capable of sending at 1/4th the speed of light??
everyone i set up a computer for i install trillian or some other similar multi-client IM. these have no ads.
does MSN monitor these since the something like trillian is only on the client side or are they able to tell that this person is using MSN exclusively?
anyway everyone that i have installed a milti-client for and removed either yahoo, msn or AIM have loved it touting how they hated all the junk they had to constantly close or minimize.
i would think this trend would be growing.
what i meant to say was 200MB per day and didn't mean per month - just to clarify. i dont know why this person i am thinking has to worry about that but it does happen.
most satellite providers though have a hard cap. lets say 200MB i think for Dish Network. Once you hit that cap you are lowered to turtle slow connections and gradually you get faster and faster. satellite internet sucks.
"Unless you have a time machine or can raise the dead, we can't ask the founding fathers what they meant when they wrote this stuff on parchment over 200 years ago."
sure we can. for example i just quoted and explained only a few of Jefferson's texts which can deduce that he was not against having religious expression in the public square. If the supreme court wanted to interpret what Jefferson meant then surely they would have come to a decidingly convincing conclusion that religion expression in the public square is ok and that there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
if you also look beyond just the constitution(since SCOTUS wants to pry out one sentence from a letter that they mis-interpreted) you would be able deduce that the founding father saw fit and saw it good for religious expression and religion to be involved in the public square in including schools.
SCOTUS and judges are to interpret EXISTING LAW. It is not their job to re-interpret it, add to it, take away from or dilute from it. It is not their job to second-guess what they thought Jefferson meant or what the 1st amendment was supposed to mean when coinciding with Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter. Instead, in this particular case, we know how Jefferson felt because of how he acted and legislated as president and as governor. Like i said it's right there in black and white but SCOTUS seems to be not concerned with that and want to rule based on what they think. This is dangerous for everyone.
SCOTUS and judges are not there to be the thought police. It is up to the legislative representatives and the people that they represent(you and i) to make the laws that we see fit, thus giving power to the people and their statehood, rather than a few blackrobed judges.
Sensible people always think and rule and err on the side of caution. Usually judges that sit on a bench are rarely sensible and this includes SCOTUS.
As a lawyer, i am tired of hearing from the ACLU about separation of church & state. there is no such thing. the supreme court re-defined the 1st amendment which they are not supposed to do or any other judge. the 1st amendment means that the government not be partial. ready to learn some history you won't be taught in public schools?
The supreme court took one passage from Jefferson's Danbury Baptist speech and inserted it into the 1st amendment. whats funny is that Jefferson was not talking about taking religion out of public life. All of what i am about to tell you isn't fake, it's in black and white in your public library and in the library of Congress.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." In the words of Jefferson, the justices famously declared, the First Amendment "was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State" "[that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Since then, the "wall of separation" has changed meaning...the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity.
Time to learn some history. the Danbury Baptist letter was a response to John Adams and other Federalist foes who saw him as an outright atheist and once he was elected people vilified him and started worrying that they would be burned at the stake for carrying their Bible or preaching. People saw him as an enemy to religion.
In his letter, Jefferson said. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Although this letter is thought to a statement of a constitutional relationship between church and state it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist Congregationalist establishment in Danbury, Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign.
Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that the ACLU, judicial courts and the media would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own wall of separation??? Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government.In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other.
Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed a bill for appointing days of public fasting and Thanksgiving and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.
The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government.
Why this concerns me is because the wall is all too often used to separate religion from public life, thereby
yeah but how will people all of a sudden watch ads on tv shows online if they dont watch them on TV?
when you watch tv, when commercials come on you either switch channels, put it on mute or go to the bathroom. when watching online you either browse another site, put the sound on mute or go to the bathroom or get something to eat.
so really what difference does it make?
or maybe just like its taken them forever to figure out that people are starting to watch things on the web, they still have yet to figure out that people dont watch or click on ads anymore nor do they watch commercials.
well then shouldn't we be getting some money back? since, we the people, paid for those tax breaks but haven't received anything for it?
seems like to me since they haven't delivered we should be refunded since they didn't complete the job.
come on now.. i loved me some good A-ha.:) for some reason i cant figure out why 80s music is being played on the radio(not satellite) everywhere i go.
i'm gonna have to sort of disagree with you there. put as many planes in the air per day as many cars on the road and then and only then would you have anything close to compare to. the sheer volume of cars on the road will lend to more accidents than anytime in the history of flying.
Slashdot Mirror
most of these games are more likely to be around 20 years old..some a bit older. even if you go back to 1990 thats still 18 years.
but again, like i said above...how is that (our) problem?
i am still not clear on how emulators work but people all over the world are played Mame and every other emulator playing the real thing on their computer. how is it that this is allowed?
and how is that society's problem?
if people want to buy the older games instead of the newer games perhaps they should put those games back on the market or make the newer games that much more attractive to where people will by the new games.
ok thats 3 games out of 75. what about the rest of the games? maybe he should just pay for the games that are no longer being sold instead of the whole kaboodle?
"But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo." except that we haven't made mosquitos anything with equal rights as a human so it's really no comparison. If every human is equal and thus every human has their own rights then we have some tough questions to answer.
just a few things..in week 4 of a pregnancy the brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. in week 5 the heart actually starts to beat. just by the end of week 4 or week 5 i would be very reluctant to say that we are not talking about a human being.
thinking. if you so much as think of putting together a patent i will sue you or demand royalties.
don't think about patents, think about lawyers, ideas, money, food or sleep. i will issue promptly cease and desists emails and letters.
I want you all to know that i am going to file a patent on thinking. if you as much as think of a wish list i will sue. if you think about a counter suit i will just sue you for thinking that. i am sure there is not a patent on thinking so i should be gold!
thanks for that. forget to covert to hours before multiplying by 24. thats crazy. is there nothing, not even a small satellite that we are capable of sending at 1/4th the speed of light??
20.5 light years according to my calculations =
186,000 * 60 * 24 * 365 * 20.5 =
2,004,112,800,000
that's 2 trillion+ miles to you and me.
everyone i set up a computer for i install trillian or some other similar multi-client IM. these have no ads. does MSN monitor these since the something like trillian is only on the client side or are they able to tell that this person is using MSN exclusively? anyway everyone that i have installed a milti-client for and removed either yahoo, msn or AIM have loved it touting how they hated all the junk they had to constantly close or minimize. i would think this trend would be growing.
trillian 3 has a free version unless you want to pay for the version that supports webcam and other stuff many people dont use today.
what data? how many people actually click on ads while chatting on msn and aim? i would think no one notices or cares.
what about trillian?? i know a lot of people that use that
what i meant to say was 200MB per day and didn't mean per month - just to clarify. i dont know why this person i am thinking has to worry about that but it does happen.
most satellite providers though have a hard cap. lets say 200MB i think for Dish Network. Once you hit that cap you are lowered to turtle slow connections and gradually you get faster and faster. satellite internet sucks.
"Unless you have a time machine or can raise the dead, we can't ask the founding fathers what they meant when they wrote this stuff on parchment over 200 years ago."
sure we can. for example i just quoted and explained only a few of Jefferson's texts which can deduce that he was not against having religious expression in the public square. If the supreme court wanted to interpret what Jefferson meant then surely they would have come to a decidingly convincing conclusion that religion expression in the public square is ok and that there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
if you also look beyond just the constitution(since SCOTUS wants to pry out one sentence from a letter that they mis-interpreted) you would be able deduce that the founding father saw fit and saw it good for religious expression and religion to be involved in the public square in including schools.
SCOTUS and judges are to interpret EXISTING LAW. It is not their job to re-interpret it, add to it, take away from or dilute from it. It is not their job to second-guess what they thought Jefferson meant or what the 1st amendment was supposed to mean when coinciding with Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter. Instead, in this particular case, we know how Jefferson felt because of how he acted and legislated as president and as governor. Like i said it's right there in black and white but SCOTUS seems to be not concerned with that and want to rule based on what they think. This is dangerous for everyone.
SCOTUS and judges are not there to be the thought police. It is up to the legislative representatives and the people that they represent(you and i) to make the laws that we see fit, thus giving power to the people and their statehood, rather than a few blackrobed judges.
Sensible people always think and rule and err on the side of caution. Usually judges that sit on a bench are rarely sensible and this includes SCOTUS.
As a lawyer, i am tired of hearing from the ACLU about separation of church & state. there is no such thing. the supreme court re-defined the 1st amendment which they are not supposed to do or any other judge. the 1st amendment means that the government not be partial. ready to learn some history you won't be taught in public schools?
The supreme court took one passage from Jefferson's Danbury Baptist speech and inserted it into the 1st amendment. whats funny is that Jefferson was not talking about taking religion out of public life. All of what i am about to tell you isn't fake, it's in black and white in your public library and in the library of Congress.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." In the words of Jefferson, the justices famously declared, the First Amendment "was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State" "[that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Since then, the "wall of separation" has changed meaning...the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity.
Time to learn some history. the Danbury Baptist letter was a response to John Adams and other Federalist foes who saw him as an outright atheist and once he was elected people vilified him and started worrying that they would be burned at the stake for carrying their Bible or preaching. People saw him as an enemy to religion. In his letter, Jefferson said. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Although this letter is thought to a statement of a constitutional relationship between church and state it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist Congregationalist establishment in Danbury, Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that the ACLU, judicial courts and the media would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own wall of separation??? Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government.In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other.
Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed a bill for appointing days of public fasting and Thanksgiving and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.
The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government.
Why this concerns me is because the wall is all too often used to separate religion from public life, thereby
i dont use myspace, block popups and am spam-free and i dont get anywhere near 40Mbps. more like around 5.
yeah but how will people all of a sudden watch ads on tv shows online if they dont watch them on TV? when you watch tv, when commercials come on you either switch channels, put it on mute or go to the bathroom. when watching online you either browse another site, put the sound on mute or go to the bathroom or get something to eat. so really what difference does it make? or maybe just like its taken them forever to figure out that people are starting to watch things on the web, they still have yet to figure out that people dont watch or click on ads anymore nor do they watch commercials.
how are they keeping the advertising revenue by bandwidth caps?
well then shouldn't we be getting some money back? since, we the people, paid for those tax breaks but haven't received anything for it? seems like to me since they haven't delivered we should be refunded since they didn't complete the job.
come on now.. i loved me some good A-ha. :) for some reason i cant figure out why 80s music is being played on the radio(not satellite) everywhere i go.
how do they know it was from a moon? a ball of cheese? or star trek? give me a break that could be anything.
awww CRAP i had FISH!. looks like i picked the wrong day to quit sniffin glue.
i'm gonna have to sort of disagree with you there. put as many planes in the air per day as many cars on the road and then and only then would you have anything close to compare to. the sheer volume of cars on the road will lend to more accidents than anytime in the history of flying.