Then problem escaping you is that city dwelling is only as dense as it is because of the trucking of goods in. If you actually had to plan a city to be self sufficient, you would find that it would cover the same if not more area as the rural and city area combined. Last estimate I saw said it took about 40 acres to feed one average family. That's not considering clothing and all too. Of course these esitmates may have dropped down a but with advances in agriculture but it won't be a significant decrease to the scale effecting this.
In other words, no matter how creative you get, a city like Los Angeles or New York City cannot support itself within it's city limits. Saying that the subsidy is allowing rural farmers create goods and services to market to townsfolk is sort of ignoring all the townsfolk who would die without them.
I think the connection to cats the op was attempting to make was where it altered the behavior in rats and they didn't fear cat urine anymore, not necessarily how it was spread. Of course cats eating rats is a source of raw meat so it does sort of control the rats.
You are both right and informative, it just seems that you are both talking about separate aspects pertaining to the same thing..
Well, it does present problems. For example, if the evolution of say man predated the hard time line, then it's probable that man isn't a direct descendant of of the immediate ancestor like what we thing.
Or in other words, if the time line isn't generally sound, then the conclusions made from it can be severely flawed. This can present some problems that need to be worked out. For a humorous take on this, check out the last few episodes of Futurama.
It wouldn't falsify evolution as much as it would point out the problems associated with it. The use concerning it's falsification stems from the age old question of "if a god isn't falsifiable so it can't be scientific, then how could you falsify evolution". The common answer was to find things before they were supposed to be there.
And this wouldn't necessarily falsify all evolutionism theory, just parts of it where age and dating matters. It also leaves a question that needs to be answered as if the age of the earth and fossils is actually what it is claimed to be. Or could some anomaly have interacted with the earth on somewhat of a global scale to give us a different perception then what really happened. Floods, land slides, earthquakes, meteor impacts and a number of other scenarios could have happened to cause displacement of an accurate time line or even the misrepresentation of the time line.
Not saying any of that happened, but we can wait for further discovery concerning this discovery.
They don't have to play the game. Why does the existence of media that "hits home" necessitate a ban on such things?
First, it's not a ban per se, it's a waiting period not un-simular to purchasing a gun or how most state allow a certain amount of time to back out of large purchases. And you are right, you don't have to play the game, but how would you see me making a game about killing your parents in a car accident a couple years after they died in a car accident. Of course you wouldn't have to play the game.
I hope you can see that there is a slight difference between profiting from someone's tragedy before the tragedy is resolved and making something years down the road. The 20 year mark is actually just an arbitrary time span I derived from the fact that we expect people born to take before having established their own independent life. In other words, if a baby brought into this world need that long or less, then anyone already in it has a head start. Once their tragedy is resolves to the point that the loss is not affecting their current life, then it can be open season. I just think that we shouldn't be doing anything to prevent them from moving on. And yes, I do see a difference between taking an event as a whole (operation Iraqi Freedom) and taking specific events within the event. A generalized war isn't personal like a specific battle with specific people in it. In the same example as above, killing pedestrians with a car in a game isn't as personal as killing your parents in a game. I could make your parents look different and still use the same type of car that hit them, the same intersection with the same store surrounding the intersection and so on. I can even call it 3:15 on maple street when your tragedy happened at 1:35 on elm street. However, it would still haunt you, especially if you were still picking up the pieces.
(please note, I don't know if your parents have dies or anything, but for too many children out there, they lost their fathers and to many parents lost their sons).
If it upsets you, don't watch/play it...Or criticize the company making the product, as is happening here. Freedom of expression means being able to freely protest said expression. It doesn't mean any laws are necessary. If enough people are pissed about it and refuse to play the game, it's a self-resolving issue. If enough people want to, then deal with it. Nobody has a right to simply be free from offense of any sort.
But this isn't being free from any offensive speech. This is about people who were ordered to die more or less by their own country with their only offense being a sense of pride in serving their country or a financial situation in which it was the only reasonable escape. Many people join the military because jobs in their area suck or are non-existent, because they can't afford to go to college on their own, or because they need to escape some social economic problem haunting them- much of which might not even be their own fault. Many intercity youths use the military to escape the dead end gang culture and better their lives when alternative either gave up or do not even exist.
So I think that it's not unreasonable to expect a law that more or less says that whenever the government engages in war or battle and people die, a waiting period of some arbitrary time that is long enough for survivors to pick up their lives and move on is expected before you can capitalize off their deaths so personally. And yes, I do think that war is different from losing your family in a car accident as the people killed in war often have not say in the matter or are somewhat forced into the situation because the alternative is worse. I know people who serveed so their children wouldn't have to (cold war erra), I know people who served because they were forced to (Vietnam erra), I know people who served because the school in their area was so abysmal that they could only get a job digging ditches or w
A hypothesis is little more then an educated guess based around assumptions that may not be well supported until it's been disproved. Someone can relate to evens or emotions and hypothesize something but that doesn't mean it's scientific as science doesn't own the word hypothesis.
What makes it scientific is applying the scientific principles of testing on it. If something in the hypothesis can't be tested, it can't be scientific.
I don't know why you were modded insightful, the reason why some Americans think Obama is not a US citizen is because all the records showing that he is or would be have been altered or sealed away from inspection at his direction or by someone doing it on his behalf. It's likely that he is a citizen but you have to ask why he has gone through so many steps to hide that fact. I mean his birth certificate or certificate of live birth had a serial number on it that was blackened out when presented to the public, this single bit right there can prove it's a real birth certificate and the dates are real, but even Hawaii has bared anyone from actually inspecting the thing and placed it under seal.
The major difference here is that positive proof can be given that he is a citizen and he refuses to do so and instead offers closed ended insinuations where the Russian situation is little more then blaming the jews for all the bad in the world happening to you because you can't figure out how they got wealthy.
Memorabilia isn't the same thing as interactive experiences of war or whatever tragedy in which you have the option or ability to being either side. With memorabilia, the merchant is capitalizing on the idea of an event, with a game, it's capitalizing on specific individuals of the event.
In other words, one is generic while the other is specific enough to hit hard to people adversely effected by the event.
Even in states where only a single party needs to know about the wiretapping, all parties need to be aware that party is involved in whatever is being taped or recorded. In other words, I can't plant a bug on you, send you to talk to my ex wife while sitting in the car and recording your conversation, and claim I was part of it so my recording isn't a violation of any law. Now if you knew about the bug and consented, that would be another story, but my understanding is that these laptops were only supposed to be accessed if they were reported stolen which isn't the case and is just like me hiding a bug on you to record your external conversations.
Not all offenses. Some are what you call a strict liability offense in which a violation of it is a violation regardless of any knowing or other mental state.
Speeding is most likely one of these. Driving on expired tags generally is too. If you do either you can get busted whether you knew you are doing it or not.
Well, yes and no. IF the torrent user is not sharing, then it's not going to be considered a server by any stretch of the imagination. Most people don't even consider consumer apps like Bit torrent or P2P as actual servers. But that brings us to another problem, what is the definition of a server, if it's something that users connect to in order to get information or services, then it probably could be argued that the tracker is the server, and the node is no different then a distributed online backup service. And this could backfire with them in that modern email apps that use push services (think Itunes and Iphone or whatever else hand held phone/pda that can receive email and mesaages) would be considered a server if the definition is so broadly defined.
So comcast could only block the traffic that is going from a server, not to a server and that might be true only when the connections are initiated by users and not a tracker which is an online server enabling remote services (gotomypc or logmein).
But this brings us to another point, if Comcast planned on blocking torrent traffic, they would have to clearly advertise it that way when advertising the service. Most users will have an option to use another service provider where one is available and with truth in advertising, Comcast may be forced by market forces to back down from that position.
Perhaps a limit on baring only servers capable of connecting more then 10 people simultaneously to the one service can be worked into the interfering with communications portions. Maybe an official legal definition of a server or something.
Listen, there is absolutely no reason to find yourself outside of the conservative fiscal policies or on an unfamiliar side of the fence. Free markets can only be free when people actually deliver what was paid for. In the same light, all that needs to happen for net neutrality is that people get what they paid for. If Time Warner has a peering agreement with SBC/ATT, and a customer requests information on another network that passes through SBC's before going to time warner, then SBC needs to honor it's agreement with Time Warner and the other network as well as time Warner needs to honor it's agreements with their customers. If everyone is getting what they paid for *ie you as a consumer is getting the speeds you were advertised, the website is getting the bandwidth they were advertised, then there is no way to degrade someone's offerings as the limiting factor is now who paid for the least amount of service.
So no, there is no reason to feel out of place in this at all. All you are doing is asking companies and people to remain honest in their selling of goods and services to others.
What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation. If you were to be uncomfortable about anything, it should be that.
Here is the problem with net neutrality and politicians.
All the net neutral laws have to say is that no ISP or network operator on the internet can limit or interfere with any internet communications to below what the customer paid for except in cases of physical damage to the network or actual attack and the ISP needs to be obvious in what they are selling with their advertising. Give the FCC power to field complaints with appeals going to a competent court in the jurisdiction of the effected customer and some stiff penalties that surpass any potential profit for violations and it's done.
I have wrote example laws in under three paragraphs that would completely address the problem. This entire concept would prevent SBC from slowing Google down to below the speeds advertised to it's consumers based on some third part payment from google. This would prevent Comcast from screwing with torrent traffic, and it would solve all concerns about net Neutrality while allowing the companies to negotiate deals to give the consumers more then what they paid for which is what they seem to want.
Well, seeing how it's breath being measured, lets not forget mouth alcohol created from decaying protiens (food stuck in teeth or dentures breaking down) or as a side effect of Ketosis.
Note, the article speaks of diet but certain diabetics will have the same problems as the ketones are primarily a response/byproduct to glucose production.
It isn't necessarily having a better life because of war, it's that the war destroyed part of their life and there is a need for time to pick up the pieces and move on. People who were impacted by a war half a century ago will have put their lives back together as best that is possible while people impacted by the current wars are still trying. Give them time to grieve and get back into the game of life before throwing it back into their face.
So you believe that free speech should include the right to capitalize on the misfortunes of others for monetary gain before there is a chance for them to move on from their tragedy?
And you somehow think that my wanting to limit that to more then enough time for them to move on is somehow bad and means I hate free speech?
Here is the thing, just because I dislike what is being said, or when it is being said, or the motivations for the speech, doesn't mean I don't like Free speech. You can call someone who just lost their kid to a stray bullet that entered their front room window from a gang war a wimp (not that you would) but it doesn't mean I have to like it. And my not liking it has nothing to do with me liking or disliking free speech. The fact that I want a law making you wait for a time period before you can be an arrogant ass doesn't stop you from wanting that law to never exist. And with free speech, either of us can make our cases freely.
But isn't them stating that they are offended the same free speech and those who did the offending is practicing?
I mean, is it free speech for some, or all here? It sounds a lot hypocritical of someone to say "you can't say anything about what I said because we have free speech" doesn't it? They freedom to object and gather support to their objection is every bit as critical to free speech and the ability to make an offensive game and market it. what it will boil down to is who has the best argument. In one corner, we have, but I want to make money, in the other, we have you shouldn't be making money off our pain and suffering. In between, we have various accounts attempting to hide those two sides. And before someone say's it's about getting the truth out or something seemingly more chivalrous then making a buck, answer why the game isn't discounted pr free if it's about the story. I'll tell you why, it's because they are out to make a buck.
I was about to go on a rant about how not being able to ridicule was simply censorship of my speech also and ask why it was ok to be rude but not to ridicule the rude people. But I think you smacked the nail on the head and driven it into the post in one swing.
I think he was being facetious as offending people seems to be the modern way of grabbing attention to the otherwise unnoticed and probably worth nothing art.
Don't you think that a war that happened over half a century ago is a little different then a war happening today? I mean sure, people are still effected by what happened in WWII, it's not like that has disappeared, but when society thinks that someone who is just born should be able to create their own life by the age of 18 or so, then anyone who was impacted by WWII should be moved on to some degree by now. I mean we are three or more generations apart from WWII, we are in the same generation as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or is giving the people adversely effected by real wars some compassion and ability to cope and move on with their lives a little too much for you to understand?
There should be a law requiring a 20 year waiting period to depict any war or battle in any movie or game. Not because I hate free speech or anything, but because that should be enough time for anyone who lost loved ones to make a new life for themselves and their families.
I was not aware that the superior officers of Mr. Bradley Mannings were arrested and facing court martial or other disciplinary action. Can you provide a link?
You probably won't be completely aware of it either. The US military doesn't generally deal punishment in civilian law as they have their own laws and punishment procedures. You generally will not hear of specific military members being punished unless the crime crosses into the civilian rule of law or someone thinks it's to their advantage and is in a position to know.
However, there is a clear distinct difference between failing to do one's job correctly or efficiently and purposely doing an act that is not only illegal, but deadly to your own countrymen. If you can't see how one deserves an internal review, removal from command, or some sort of punishment while the other is so much more severe it's on another level entirely, then I don't think you should be discussing this.
Under the laws of which country could that happen, and what would be his crime?
US laws for one, but it appears that Australian laws which he claims to be a citizen of and possible other country's laws too. You see, the problem for Assange is that NATO troops are involved which include troops from other countries as well as NATO being key parts of their national defense forces. The entire purpose of NATO is to make sure allied countries are secure in their sovereignty by ensuring support from allies in an effort to avoid the domino effect that allowed WWII to get to the scale of a world war before other countries would step up and do something. So as long as a country is a member of NATO or has troops in Afghanistan, whether just for humanitarian aid or for war/peacekeeping, then any actions that place them in danger whether it's NATO troops or their country's troops, places their national defense in danger. An country that has laws pertaining to this, will have laws applying to Assange whether they decide to prosecute or not.
of course, they wouldn't torture them on US soil, they'd have sent them over to gitmo or some other facility first.
If you don't remember the UK stopped sending prisioners to the us a while back because
And of course you knew all that in 2001 because of what? Nothing indicated that the US would have sent them to some other facility or that they would be subject to torture at all at the time. In fact, all indications were that they would be put on a very public trial. Furthermore, absolutely no one at the time was making the claim even close to torture by the US.
So I have to ask, are you purposely interpreting history through the eyes of future events or is the time line and facts just that difficult?
At this point what should the US do?
1:Just hand over US citizens with no proof that they've committed any crime?(Would this even be constitutional?) 2:Demand proof that they're actually responsible rather than just hand over US citizens on the good word of an unfriendly forgien government? 3:Tell the UAE to fuck off.
I will skip the fact that your scenario is not only a logical fallacy, it doesn't really resemble the actual situation. But yes, the US should hand over all foreign members of the organization involved and any US citizen that an international warrant has been issued for if their criminal justice system is similar enough to the US's that they would receive a fair trial. Another note on that is with the duality clause in the existing UAE treaty which requires the actions to be criminal in both jurisdictions, there is also the jurisdictional clause which allows the citizens of a state to be held for trial in that state if the crime's penalties are simular enough in scope.
And yes, the US does extradict it's own citizens as was the case with John Demjanjuk in recent times.
Now lets say the UAE had a much stronger military than the US.
It doesn't matter.
Now lets say the US has demanded proof, would the correct course of action for the UAE now be to
1: Give proof? 2: Bomb the shit out of some US cities to show that they really mean buisness?
I'm not sure what your point is. Every conflict or war in the world is started by demands of some sort that the other side doesn't think is reasonable or doesn't comply with. So the correct course of action is to weight your options and respond to anything that happens. The US thought that getting a hold of Bin Laden and his organization to which we already had an international indictment out which more then serves as proof was important enough in the effort to stop future attacks that removing the government's protecting him and his organization from power and attempting to capture them directly was worth a war.
Most certainly, if the UAE bombed the US, there would be a war, a serious war. If the UAE didn't have a legit enough reason, that war would involve our allies coming to our aid which negates your entire stronger army scenario. And No, the US did not just state we want Al Qeada with no proof and then start bombing after we were refused. That line of absent thinking does a discredit to history, any resemblance of facts, and the men and women on both sides of the fight that have laid down their lives,
You act as if there wasn't any existing warrants out for Bin Laden or members of Al Qeada, This is where your hypothetical fails miserable in any comparison to the start of the Afghanistan war as international warrants were already in play at the time the US demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. Do you remember Bush's statement of "you are either with us or against us, if you aid or protect terrorists, you are against us"? Do you even know what that was about? It was about existing warrants being issued for most of the major players in organizing 9/11 and those
Slashdot Mirror
Then problem escaping you is that city dwelling is only as dense as it is because of the trucking of goods in. If you actually had to plan a city to be self sufficient, you would find that it would cover the same if not more area as the rural and city area combined. Last estimate I saw said it took about 40 acres to feed one average family. That's not considering clothing and all too. Of course these esitmates may have dropped down a but with advances in agriculture but it won't be a significant decrease to the scale effecting this.
In other words, no matter how creative you get, a city like Los Angeles or New York City cannot support itself within it's city limits. Saying that the subsidy is allowing rural farmers create goods and services to market to townsfolk is sort of ignoring all the townsfolk who would die without them.
I think the connection to cats the op was attempting to make was where it altered the behavior in rats and they didn't fear cat urine anymore, not necessarily how it was spread. Of course cats eating rats is a source of raw meat so it does sort of control the rats.
You are both right and informative, it just seems that you are both talking about separate aspects pertaining to the same thing..
Well, it does present problems. For example, if the evolution of say man predated the hard time line, then it's probable that man isn't a direct descendant of of the immediate ancestor like what we thing.
Or in other words, if the time line isn't generally sound, then the conclusions made from it can be severely flawed. This can present some problems that need to be worked out. For a humorous take on this, check out the last few episodes of Futurama.
It wouldn't falsify evolution as much as it would point out the problems associated with it. The use concerning it's falsification stems from the age old question of "if a god isn't falsifiable so it can't be scientific, then how could you falsify evolution". The common answer was to find things before they were supposed to be there.
And this wouldn't necessarily falsify all evolutionism theory, just parts of it where age and dating matters. It also leaves a question that needs to be answered as if the age of the earth and fossils is actually what it is claimed to be. Or could some anomaly have interacted with the earth on somewhat of a global scale to give us a different perception then what really happened. Floods, land slides, earthquakes, meteor impacts and a number of other scenarios could have happened to cause displacement of an accurate time line or even the misrepresentation of the time line.
Not saying any of that happened, but we can wait for further discovery concerning this discovery.
550*12 =?m
6,600m = 6,600,000,000 or six billion, six hundred million.
I'm not paying it either.
Try Match.com, it seems to be somewhat accurate in it's selections.
First, it's not a ban per se, it's a waiting period not un-simular to purchasing a gun or how most state allow a certain amount of time to back out of large purchases. And you are right, you don't have to play the game, but how would you see me making a game about killing your parents in a car accident a couple years after they died in a car accident. Of course you wouldn't have to play the game.
I hope you can see that there is a slight difference between profiting from someone's tragedy before the tragedy is resolved and making something years down the road. The 20 year mark is actually just an arbitrary time span I derived from the fact that we expect people born to take before having established their own independent life. In other words, if a baby brought into this world need that long or less, then anyone already in it has a head start. Once their tragedy is resolves to the point that the loss is not affecting their current life, then it can be open season. I just think that we shouldn't be doing anything to prevent them from moving on. And yes, I do see a difference between taking an event as a whole (operation Iraqi Freedom) and taking specific events within the event. A generalized war isn't personal like a specific battle with specific people in it. In the same example as above, killing pedestrians with a car in a game isn't as personal as killing your parents in a game. I could make your parents look different and still use the same type of car that hit them, the same intersection with the same store surrounding the intersection and so on. I can even call it 3:15 on maple street when your tragedy happened at 1:35 on elm street. However, it would still haunt you, especially if you were still picking up the pieces.
(please note, I don't know if your parents have dies or anything, but for too many children out there, they lost their fathers and to many parents lost their sons).
But this isn't being free from any offensive speech. This is about people who were ordered to die more or less by their own country with their only offense being a sense of pride in serving their country or a financial situation in which it was the only reasonable escape. Many people join the military because jobs in their area suck or are non-existent, because they can't afford to go to college on their own, or because they need to escape some social economic problem haunting them- much of which might not even be their own fault. Many intercity youths use the military to escape the dead end gang culture and better their lives when alternative either gave up or do not even exist.
So I think that it's not unreasonable to expect a law that more or less says that whenever the government engages in war or battle and people die, a waiting period of some arbitrary time that is long enough for survivors to pick up their lives and move on is expected before you can capitalize off their deaths so personally. And yes, I do think that war is different from losing your family in a car accident as the people killed in war often have not say in the matter or are somewhat forced into the situation because the alternative is worse. I know people who serveed so their children wouldn't have to (cold war erra), I know people who served because they were forced to (Vietnam erra), I know people who served because the school in their area was so abysmal that they could only get a job digging ditches or w
And I think you are missing the point too.
A hypothesis is little more then an educated guess based around assumptions that may not be well supported until it's been disproved. Someone can relate to evens or emotions and hypothesize something but that doesn't mean it's scientific as science doesn't own the word hypothesis.
What makes it scientific is applying the scientific principles of testing on it. If something in the hypothesis can't be tested, it can't be scientific.
I don't know why you were modded insightful, the reason why some Americans think Obama is not a US citizen is because all the records showing that he is or would be have been altered or sealed away from inspection at his direction or by someone doing it on his behalf. It's likely that he is a citizen but you have to ask why he has gone through so many steps to hide that fact. I mean his birth certificate or certificate of live birth had a serial number on it that was blackened out when presented to the public, this single bit right there can prove it's a real birth certificate and the dates are real, but even Hawaii has bared anyone from actually inspecting the thing and placed it under seal.
The major difference here is that positive proof can be given that he is a citizen and he refuses to do so and instead offers closed ended insinuations where the Russian situation is little more then blaming the jews for all the bad in the world happening to you because you can't figure out how they got wealthy.
Memorabilia isn't the same thing as interactive experiences of war or whatever tragedy in which you have the option or ability to being either side. With memorabilia, the merchant is capitalizing on the idea of an event, with a game, it's capitalizing on specific individuals of the event.
In other words, one is generic while the other is specific enough to hit hard to people adversely effected by the event.
Sometimes I think I wouldn't have got it even with the "" tag.
But your comment makes a lot more sense now.
Even in states where only a single party needs to know about the wiretapping, all parties need to be aware that party is involved in whatever is being taped or recorded. In other words, I can't plant a bug on you, send you to talk to my ex wife while sitting in the car and recording your conversation, and claim I was part of it so my recording isn't a violation of any law. Now if you knew about the bug and consented, that would be another story, but my understanding is that these laptops were only supposed to be accessed if they were reported stolen which isn't the case and is just like me hiding a bug on you to record your external conversations.
Not all offenses. Some are what you call a strict liability offense in which a violation of it is a violation regardless of any knowing or other mental state.
Speeding is most likely one of these. Driving on expired tags generally is too. If you do either you can get busted whether you knew you are doing it or not.
Well, yes and no. IF the torrent user is not sharing, then it's not going to be considered a server by any stretch of the imagination. Most people don't even consider consumer apps like Bit torrent or P2P as actual servers. But that brings us to another problem, what is the definition of a server, if it's something that users connect to in order to get information or services, then it probably could be argued that the tracker is the server, and the node is no different then a distributed online backup service. And this could backfire with them in that modern email apps that use push services (think Itunes and Iphone or whatever else hand held phone/pda that can receive email and mesaages) would be considered a server if the definition is so broadly defined.
So comcast could only block the traffic that is going from a server, not to a server and that might be true only when the connections are initiated by users and not a tracker which is an online server enabling remote services (gotomypc or logmein).
But this brings us to another point, if Comcast planned on blocking torrent traffic, they would have to clearly advertise it that way when advertising the service. Most users will have an option to use another service provider where one is available and with truth in advertising, Comcast may be forced by market forces to back down from that position.
Perhaps a limit on baring only servers capable of connecting more then 10 people simultaneously to the one service can be worked into the interfering with communications portions. Maybe an official legal definition of a server or something.
Listen, there is absolutely no reason to find yourself outside of the conservative fiscal policies or on an unfamiliar side of the fence. Free markets can only be free when people actually deliver what was paid for. In the same light, all that needs to happen for net neutrality is that people get what they paid for. If Time Warner has a peering agreement with SBC/ATT, and a customer requests information on another network that passes through SBC's before going to time warner, then SBC needs to honor it's agreement with Time Warner and the other network as well as time Warner needs to honor it's agreements with their customers. If everyone is getting what they paid for *ie you as a consumer is getting the speeds you were advertised, the website is getting the bandwidth they were advertised, then there is no way to degrade someone's offerings as the limiting factor is now who paid for the least amount of service.
So no, there is no reason to feel out of place in this at all. All you are doing is asking companies and people to remain honest in their selling of goods and services to others.
What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation. If you were to be uncomfortable about anything, it should be that.
Here is the problem with net neutrality and politicians.
All the net neutral laws have to say is that no ISP or network operator on the internet can limit or interfere with any internet communications to below what the customer paid for except in cases of physical damage to the network or actual attack and the ISP needs to be obvious in what they are selling with their advertising. Give the FCC power to field complaints with appeals going to a competent court in the jurisdiction of the effected customer and some stiff penalties that surpass any potential profit for violations and it's done.
I have wrote example laws in under three paragraphs that would completely address the problem. This entire concept would prevent SBC from slowing Google down to below the speeds advertised to it's consumers based on some third part payment from google. This would prevent Comcast from screwing with torrent traffic, and it would solve all concerns about net Neutrality while allowing the companies to negotiate deals to give the consumers more then what they paid for which is what they seem to want.
Well, seeing how it's breath being measured, lets not forget mouth alcohol created from decaying protiens (food stuck in teeth or dentures breaking down) or as a side effect of Ketosis.
Note, the article speaks of diet but certain diabetics will have the same problems as the ketones are primarily a response/byproduct to glucose production.
It isn't necessarily having a better life because of war, it's that the war destroyed part of their life and there is a need for time to pick up the pieces and move on. People who were impacted by a war half a century ago will have put their lives back together as best that is possible while people impacted by the current wars are still trying. Give them time to grieve and get back into the game of life before throwing it back into their face.
So you believe that free speech should include the right to capitalize on the misfortunes of others for monetary gain before there is a chance for them to move on from their tragedy?
And you somehow think that my wanting to limit that to more then enough time for them to move on is somehow bad and means I hate free speech?
Here is the thing, just because I dislike what is being said, or when it is being said, or the motivations for the speech, doesn't mean I don't like Free speech. You can call someone who just lost their kid to a stray bullet that entered their front room window from a gang war a wimp (not that you would) but it doesn't mean I have to like it. And my not liking it has nothing to do with me liking or disliking free speech. The fact that I want a law making you wait for a time period before you can be an arrogant ass doesn't stop you from wanting that law to never exist. And with free speech, either of us can make our cases freely.
But isn't them stating that they are offended the same free speech and those who did the offending is practicing?
I mean, is it free speech for some, or all here? It sounds a lot hypocritical of someone to say "you can't say anything about what I said because we have free speech" doesn't it? They freedom to object and gather support to their objection is every bit as critical to free speech and the ability to make an offensive game and market it. what it will boil down to is who has the best argument. In one corner, we have, but I want to make money, in the other, we have you shouldn't be making money off our pain and suffering. In between, we have various accounts attempting to hide those two sides. And before someone say's it's about getting the truth out or something seemingly more chivalrous then making a buck, answer why the game isn't discounted pr free if it's about the story. I'll tell you why, it's because they are out to make a buck.
I was about to go on a rant about how not being able to ridicule was simply censorship of my speech also and ask why it was ok to be rude but not to ridicule the rude people. But I think you smacked the nail on the head and driven it into the post in one swing.
Good post.
I think he was being facetious as offending people seems to be the modern way of grabbing attention to the otherwise unnoticed and probably worth nothing art.
Don't you think that a war that happened over half a century ago is a little different then a war happening today? I mean sure, people are still effected by what happened in WWII, it's not like that has disappeared, but when society thinks that someone who is just born should be able to create their own life by the age of 18 or so, then anyone who was impacted by WWII should be moved on to some degree by now. I mean we are three or more generations apart from WWII, we are in the same generation as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or is giving the people adversely effected by real wars some compassion and ability to cope and move on with their lives a little too much for you to understand?
There should be a law requiring a 20 year waiting period to depict any war or battle in any movie or game. Not because I hate free speech or anything, but because that should be enough time for anyone who lost loved ones to make a new life for themselves and their families.
You probably won't be completely aware of it either. The US military doesn't generally deal punishment in civilian law as they have their own laws and punishment procedures. You generally will not hear of specific military members being punished unless the crime crosses into the civilian rule of law or someone thinks it's to their advantage and is in a position to know.
However, there is a clear distinct difference between failing to do one's job correctly or efficiently and purposely doing an act that is not only illegal, but deadly to your own countrymen. If you can't see how one deserves an internal review, removal from command, or some sort of punishment while the other is so much more severe it's on another level entirely, then I don't think you should be discussing this.
US laws for one, but it appears that Australian laws which he claims to be a citizen of and possible other country's laws too. You see, the problem for Assange is that NATO troops are involved which include troops from other countries as well as NATO being key parts of their national defense forces. The entire purpose of NATO is to make sure allied countries are secure in their sovereignty by ensuring support from allies in an effort to avoid the domino effect that allowed WWII to get to the scale of a world war before other countries would step up and do something. So as long as a country is a member of NATO or has troops in Afghanistan, whether just for humanitarian aid or for war/peacekeeping, then any actions that place them in danger whether it's NATO troops or their country's troops, places their national defense in danger. An country that has laws pertaining to this, will have laws applying to Assange whether they decide to prosecute or not.
And of course you knew all that in 2001 because of what? Nothing indicated that the US would have sent them to some other facility or that they would be subject to torture at all at the time. In fact, all indications were that they would be put on a very public trial. Furthermore, absolutely no one at the time was making the claim even close to torture by the US.
So I have to ask, are you purposely interpreting history through the eyes of future events or is the time line and facts just that difficult?