In this case, the church just bought a street thatran between Temple Square, which the church owns, and some of the church's office buildings, and made it beautiful.
Oh, and streets belong ot the public..the church can't 'buy' them. The can certainly put out money to fix it up, but its still public property.
Last time I checked you live in, and benefit from, society. Don't say you don't benefit, because unless you're a hermit living in a shack in Montana that you built yourself (Using stone tools) and your posts to Slashdot are somehow magically beamed here by pure thought, you benefit from the actions of others every single day. In fact, you rely on thousands of other people just to keep you alive.
Yes, I have skills that others find value, and hence they pay me for my time. I then take that money, and pay someone else for doing or building something for me.
My problem is with someone forcably taking money from me to give to someone else because they decided to have children.
In other words, money I earned is being stolen and given to someone else because they can't support themselves. I support myself, why can't other people? I do
Ideally yes, because other passengers would be armed as well. See, you don't need to worry about someone threatening you if you can defend yourself properly. But it seems that people don't see the value in being able to defend themselves, they'd rather let some inept third party do so...then complain when someone slips through 'security.'
Of course if you want to transport explosives there are safer ways to do so.
From it, scientists believe, come judgments and values, long-term goals, the weighing of risks and consequences -- what parents call wisdom or common sense and what science calls "executive functions.
Did you happen to miss that part? Specifically 'judgements and values.' That would seem to me the part of the brain responsible for our values is one of the last places to develop.
As far as understanding death; no, i'm not sure one can FULLY understand it until they've lost someone. Your grandmother might be alive now,and you know someday she will be gone forever...but until she actually is, and you remember what the last things you might have said to her were...its hard to comphend you've lost them forever. I know my memories of my grandmother are even more precious to me now.
I also don't think a 35 should be tried as a child..most of my arguement is that the brain is not fully developed until much later then we thought. Because of this, its not possible for them to understand. Its a physical thing really.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
I said that if they are responsible enough in your eyes to be treated as an adult, then we should treat them as an adult, period. What exactly do you tell someone that you're forcing adult punishment on, yet still say they are a child and are too young to be responsible? It is relevent, in the same way that an 18yr old soldier that can die for his country should be able to have a beer.
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain.
Feds at the top of the pyramid, local government at teh bottom. The 'width' represents how much power they have over your life. So that the group with the most power over your life is also the group you have the most control over. My vote matters much more when I'm one of 10,000 instead of one of 260 million.
The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The fact that we have the death penelty is not what we are discussing. We are discussing punishing a child as an adult, but still claiming they are a child for all other purposes. Either they are responsible enough to accept adult responsiblies (and thier consequences) or they are not.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
I have no problem with the supreme court having that power. Its spelled out in the consitution.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
The federal goverment is taking money from the citizens of a state, and then threatening not use any of that money for the benefit of those citizens. I don't understand why you don't see tha as wrong. I'd rather the state take more then the feds, as I know my tax money will be spent to better my state, no another state across the country.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
So you're saying, that if someone is driving five times over the limit, and doesn't crash or kill anyone, then it should be completely legal?... Do you realise what sort of carnage it would cause
Hmm...they didn't crash or kill anyone and you claim carnage?
how many people would be killed, if drink-driving was legalised? Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
Oh of course. Because if it was legal, suddenly EVERYONE would start driving drunk. They'd ignore all the evidence that they'll likely injury someone (including themselves). People on their own have no interest in their self preservation and of course are total assholes to everyone else, who gives a fuck right? Is that what you really think?
Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
The flip side is that, should you actually kill someone for drunk driving, you'd be locked up for life. Contrast with the current laws, which doesn' really deter the people its meant to deter.
As for the new phishing law, if someone puts up a fake-website to collect people's details for the purpose of defrauding them, stealing their life-savings or getting them into untold debt, how can any sane person have any objection to it being an imprisonable offence?
They've broken other laws already. You do realize there is a difference between murder and attempted murder right? Two parts of determining charges are what you intended to do, and what you actually did do.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
My arguement is that its always possible to say some action MAY cause someone else harm. My problem with that is that it leads to just about anyone being able to be punished for almost anything. Ya it sucks for the people losing thier life savings, but they aren't powerless either. Yo act as if the criminals phish that thier victims MUST fall prey to them? Do you purposely walk through a dangerous park at night just because you think you should? A reasonable person wouldn't, and if you're doing banking on the computer, I think it reasonable that you education yourself about the risks so you can mitigate them.
Get a clue dumbass; you can have a few random criminals or you can have an oppressive police state. Either way there's going to be some small group of people making life miserable for the rest of us. I guess the question is do you want to be free or not while thats going on.
Yet there are plenty of laws where there is no "victim"
'Well I've already killed 10 people, so killing another one wouldn't be wrong.' Nice logic.
Laws against activities which are deemed to be against the good of the public
Often without really proving they ARE against the public good.
soliciting a prostitute
How does that harm 'the public'? It wasn't until fairly recently that people didn't acknowlege that having prostitution legal WAS a benefit.
drunk driving
I have no problem adding to a sentence if the driver is drunk. But if they haven't harmed anyone or damaged any property, I find it hard to justify a punishment.
selling drugs
Yes, thats why amsterdamn is falling apart, and Europeans are alcoholics because their drinking ages are lower. And lets ignore prescription drugs too, which can be problem causers too. I forgot, is it ok to sell drugs or not?
insider trading
If said insider trading hamrs another party, I don't see a problem with a law regarding it.
usually have no tangible victim associated with them
And I think they should be rewritten so they are unenforcable until harm is done to someone.
The accuser in those cases is usually the government (or rather "the people") and that is whom the accused faces in the courtroom.
Well I don't like dogs, so I'm going to work to have owning dogs made illegal. Then every dog owner can face 'the people' as their accuser. Why? Because the dog COULD bite someone.
I was going to start by asking you if you have any idea how much it costs to put a child through school for at least eleven years, but you clearly don't so I'll skip that.
I do, I simply don't care that it would cost parents alot. Its not my responsiblity to raise thier kid. Next time don't make assumptions, you just make an ass out of yourself.
There is no way that the majority of people could afford to pay for even one of their childrens education, even if a) There are two parents & b) Both parents worked full time.
Maybe potential parents should think of this BEFORE they have kids. By your logic, I should be able to get help paying for an expensive car. After all, I want it and I can't afford it, but that shouldn't stop me from getting one, right? If two people can't afford to take care of their kid themselves, they shouldn't have a kid.
If you think returning to an Edwardian two teir system where only the wealthy get educated then I guess it all makes sense to you, but it perpetuates a large ignorant underclass within society.
Having an HS diploma doesn't really prove you know anything at all. American primary education has failed. I still see a 'large ignorant underclass' within our society. And i'm forced to pay for them too. If your way worked, there really shouldn't be any ignorant people should there?
The idea that you don't directly benefit from helping to pay for educating someone elses children is laughable.
I incur a huge cost with minimal return. That is, there are still alot of ignorant people around. Please tell me, why should a decision someone else makes negatively affect me?
If i'm going to pay for someone elses kid, I want a say in their decision to have a kid and other aspects of the kids life.
Because on commercial tv, a "30 minute" program is actualy 10 minutes of adverts interspersed with 20 minutes
True, there is less 'show' in 30 minutes with commercials then without. But thats what it takes to get it for free.
low-quality "content"
Not all ad-supported shows are low quality. Nor is all BBC high quality. Do you consider British Idol or Are you being Served high quality?
they turn the volume way up when the ad-breaks come on - that infuriates me to hell!
Some channels do this, yes. Most modern sets have circuitry to normalize the volume. There's also the mute button.
BBC - a 30 minute program is exactly that - 30 minutes of good quality content (well,ok not always!) The BBC is world-renowned for top quality broadcasting.
This is true, but the downside is that the BBC is state run and thus has a much easier time being censored. True ad based TV can be censored to but there seems something antidemocratic about state run media.
American courts have decided that its not ok for police to use similar technology to determine something they could only determine previously by actually entering the house.
In other words, whether or not I own a TV is really no one elses business, just like its no one elses business if I own a model train or a copy of Catcher in the Rye.
No, I don't pay for satellite. I do pay for cable however.
I can receive over the air broadcasts if I want. I pay for cable to get better receiption on channels that are further away, and to get more channels than I could possibly get over the airwaves.
There was no way you could fit 100 channels at once within the standard UHF and VHF bands. So cable (and satillite) let you get more channels that would be possible with current broadcast technology.
However, since satillite does always broadcast into my house, I feel I should be able to receive the signal without consequence should I not sign up for satillite.
Would you put a poem you wrote on the outside of your house where anyone could see, and then demand that anyone that reads it pay you? I think thats absurd, just like criminalizing descrabling of signals of the air is.
Maybe my question wasn't clear though: why are the British willing to give up the right to receive a signal that is being broadcast into thier house and a bit of privacy just to see less advertising?
maybe you missed the last part of my post as well.
I don't see why thats a problem really. Would you want to be dragged into court (and prision) because the state said you hurt someone, but could not produce said person? The need to have someone hurt is there because the accused has the right to face their accuser in open court.
Wow...I think this is the first time every someone on slashdot got what being 'conservative' means. And did so without trying to slander conservatives or liberals!
I couldn't say whether the fuzziness is due to the film or the transfer method since our old projector is in poor shape and might eat anything it played.
Just as you should be forced to fund the state education system
I feel I shouldn't have to; let the parents pay for their kids education.
old people's homes
People should be saving for retirement and be paying for themselves. Or, alternately, realize that clinging to life in body that needs so much hospital visits and drugs to keep it alive is foolish. You might be alive, but your QoL is low.
subsidised railway
There are otehr ways to encourage railways without subsidies.
unemployment benefit
Maybe people would be more able to cope with unemployment if taxes were lower.
children's homes
I'm not sure what you mean; orphangies? I'm not sure we even have those anymore..
The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.
There are better ways to fund this as well; and I'd rather not have someone being able to look and see what I have in my house for the privledge of watching tv..
American TV shows what you get if you don't - 50 channels of dreck.
Ok, I'm really tired of hearing this. While I do agree that there's alot of crap on, the fact is that people like it. If so many people weren't watching things like American Idol (which, IIRC, was copied from British TV) it wouldn't be on the air much longer.
What I really want to know is why do people in GB think its ok to have to pay to receive a signal out of the air..and why is it ok to pay yearly for it?
Having someone spy on you, even from outside your house, its pretty unnerving to me. I'll take advertising over someone using EM to look inside my house to see things that in the past they'd have to enter (with a warrant) to see.
My reading comprehension doesn't need work, maybe my writing wasn't clear because I asumed you'd know where I was going with your comment.
I'd say your writing definatly needs work, and I stand by my original assertion that your reading comprehension needs work also.
That isn't a denial that it's lazy, and cliqueish, it's an admission.
I had already addressed your bigotry, I didn't feel the need to do so again. My points were not mutually exclusive, I was simply using 'more of the same' from you to ask another question.
t's another debate as to whether that is ok or not, since maybe it's the next evolution of english to reduce the number of adjectives available to us. But it's a loss of clarity, for the sake of brevity, and exclusion of those they know their language will offend.
English was already one of the most ambigious languges. If thats whats bothering you, I suggest you learn another language all together.
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
Having been fortunate enough not to lose anyone close to me until I was 22, I couldn't say at 18 I knew what it meant to have someone die. Once I did, yes, I think I had a much clearer understanding of it. Besides, whether I personally understood it or not is irrelevent; 18 is an average, some people mature faster or slower then others.
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
Yes, and if you suddenly say that this person can be tried as an adult, don't you agree then he should immediately have the benefits adulthood? Society is telling them all along they are not adults and can't even be responsible for themselves, but now you want to just throw all that away? Its illegal and I believe its unusual as well.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
Understood; unfortunatlly not all amendments make our gov't better. I see no reason why the pyramid should have been inverted, it seems to have been working fine to me.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
Unless the Supreme court says said state laws are unconstitutional. Which is what the court did.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
The states were supposed to be the 'litle' guy. The help shouldn't come at a cost because it distorts our system of government and leads to corruption...which is where we are at today.
I've heard of it, but for people who "convey their message" with F'in this F'in that, I see you acknowledge that the cover is what's in their book.
Huh? I think you're reading comprehension needs some work. I pointed out the exact opposite to you, and you say I acknowledge what you said?
Why do I care? Because I don't like lazy, rude, and cliquey people.
I know alot of people that swear in day to day language, and they are not rude, lazy or cliquey.
You totally missed my point; you're making assumptions based soley on the words one uses to express themselves. I guess you rule anything thats not strict English is just plain wrong, and couldn't possibly be a regional dialect.
If the person is acting, it may not. However, most people who talk like they live on the street, have the education to go along with their vocabulary.
Guess you never heard of 'you can't judge a book by its cover' huh?
Intelligence isn't only about knowing how to do things, or solve problems, it's also about social graces and acting appropriately for your company.
Intelligence has nothing to do with social graces; many intelligent people lack social graces and common sense, but that doesn't mean they can't calculate the average airspeed of a swallow and the gravitational force of a distant black hole.
F'in this F'in that is extremely lazy, and limiting clique-talk.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, the church just bought a street thatran between Temple Square, which the church owns, and some of the church's office buildings, and made it beautiful.
Oh, and streets belong ot the public..the church can't 'buy' them. The can certainly put out money to fix it up, but its still public property.
Many people, including myself, believe that it is barbaric and disgusting. It's not like a surgery to remove a tumor, it's a person.
Its not a person, at least not until almost the end.
In the beginning it shares more features of a parasite then anything else.
I doubt even that would work; Utah would be deciding what sites to block, not some third party.
Last time I checked you live in, and benefit from, society. Don't say you don't benefit, because unless you're a hermit living in a shack in Montana that you built yourself (Using stone tools) and your posts to Slashdot are somehow magically beamed here by pure thought, you benefit from the actions of others every single day. In fact, you rely on thousands of other people just to keep you alive.
Yes, I have skills that others find value, and hence they pay me for my time. I then take that money, and pay someone else for doing or building something for me.
My problem is with someone forcably taking money from me to give to someone else because they decided to have children.
In other words, money I earned is being stolen and given to someone else because they can't support themselves. I support myself, why can't other people? I do
Ideally yes, because other passengers would be armed as well. See, you don't need to worry about someone threatening you if you can defend yourself properly. But it seems that people don't see the value in being able to defend themselves, they'd rather let some inept third party do so...then complain when someone slips through 'security.'
Of course if you want to transport explosives there are safer ways to do so.
From it, scientists believe, come judgments and values, long-term goals, the weighing of risks and consequences -- what parents call wisdom or common sense and what science calls "executive functions.
Did you happen to miss that part? Specifically 'judgements and values.' That would seem to me the part of the brain responsible for our values is one of the last places to develop.
As far as understanding death; no, i'm not sure one can FULLY understand it until they've lost someone. Your grandmother might be alive now,and you know someday she will be gone forever...but until she actually is, and you remember what the last things you might have said to her were...its hard to comphend you've lost them forever. I know my memories of my grandmother are even more precious to me now.
I also don't think a 35 should be tried as a child..most of my arguement is that the brain is not fully developed until much later then we thought. Because of this, its not possible for them to understand. Its a physical thing really.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
I said that if they are responsible enough in your eyes to be treated as an adult, then we should treat them as an adult, period. What exactly do you tell someone that you're forcing adult punishment on, yet still say they are a child and are too young to be responsible? It is relevent, in the same way that an 18yr old soldier that can die for his country should be able to have a beer.
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain.
Feds at the top of the pyramid, local government at teh bottom. The 'width' represents how much power they have over your life. So that the group with the most power over your life is also the group you have the most control over. My vote matters much more when I'm one of 10,000 instead of one of 260 million.
The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The fact that we have the death penelty is not what we are discussing. We are discussing punishing a child as an adult, but still claiming they are a child for all other purposes. Either they are responsible enough to accept adult responsiblies (and thier consequences) or they are not.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
I have no problem with the supreme court having that power. Its spelled out in the consitution.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
The federal goverment is taking money from the citizens of a state, and then threatening not use any of that money for the benefit of those citizens. I don't understand why you don't see tha as wrong. I'd rather the state take more then the feds, as I know my tax money will be spent to better my state, no another state across the country.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
I await your proof.
So you're saying, that if someone is driving five times over the limit, and doesn't crash or kill anyone, then it should be completely legal?... Do you realise what sort of carnage it would cause
Hmm...they didn't crash or kill anyone and you claim carnage?
how many people would be killed, if drink-driving was legalised? Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
Oh of course. Because if it was legal, suddenly EVERYONE would start driving drunk. They'd ignore all the evidence that they'll likely injury someone (including themselves). People on their own have no interest in their self preservation and of course are total assholes to everyone else, who gives a fuck right? Is that what you really think?
Are you saying we should let countless people be killed just so people have the right to drive drunk?
The flip side is that, should you actually kill someone for drunk driving, you'd be locked up for life. Contrast with the current laws, which doesn' really deter the people its meant to deter.
As for the new phishing law, if someone puts up a fake-website to collect people's details for the purpose of defrauding them, stealing their life-savings or getting them into untold debt, how can any sane person have any objection to it being an imprisonable offence?
They've broken other laws already. You do realize there is a difference between murder and attempted murder right? Two parts of determining charges are what you intended to do, and what you actually did do.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
My arguement is that its always possible to say some action MAY cause someone else harm. My problem with that is that it leads to just about anyone being able to be punished for almost anything. Ya it sucks for the people losing thier life savings, but they aren't powerless either. Yo act as if the criminals phish that thier victims MUST fall prey to them? Do you purposely walk through a dangerous park at night just because you think you should? A reasonable person wouldn't, and if you're doing banking on the computer, I think it reasonable that you education yourself about the risks so you can mitigate them.
Get a clue dumbass; you can have a few random criminals or you can have an oppressive police state. Either way there's going to be some small group of people making life miserable for the rest of us. I guess the question is do you want to be free or not while thats going on.
Really? Are you sure?
t ive
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conserva
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Oh yes, because you must be anti-social if you don't work hard to support everyone else but yourself.
Then I'd rather pay.
:)
Well in the US you do get a choice at least.
No, but then that would be because it's shown on commercial tv (ITV1)
Ok, I thought the BBC was license funded, and it was the only game in town (basically, that every channel was really BBC). Is this not the case?
But I shouldn't have to scrabble around for the remote to adjust the volume every few minutes!
True, which is why its good most TVs have the tech to lower it for you.
Yet there are plenty of laws where there is no "victim"
'Well I've already killed 10 people, so killing another one wouldn't be wrong.' Nice logic.
Laws against activities which are deemed to be against the good of the public
Often without really proving they ARE against the public good.
soliciting a prostitute
How does that harm 'the public'? It wasn't until fairly recently that people didn't acknowlege that having prostitution legal WAS a benefit.
drunk driving
I have no problem adding to a sentence if the driver is drunk. But if they haven't harmed anyone or damaged any property, I find it hard to justify a punishment.
selling drugs
Yes, thats why amsterdamn is falling apart, and Europeans are alcoholics because their drinking ages are lower. And lets ignore prescription drugs too, which can be problem causers too. I forgot, is it ok to sell drugs or not?
insider trading
If said insider trading hamrs another party, I don't see a problem with a law regarding it.
usually have no tangible victim associated with them
And I think they should be rewritten so they are unenforcable until harm is done to someone.
The accuser in those cases is usually the government (or rather "the people") and that is whom the accused faces in the courtroom.
Well I don't like dogs, so I'm going to work to have owning dogs made illegal. Then every dog owner can face 'the people' as their accuser. Why? Because the dog COULD bite someone.
I was going to start by asking you if you have any idea how much it costs to put a child through school for at least eleven years, but you clearly don't so I'll skip that.
I do, I simply don't care that it would cost parents alot. Its not my responsiblity to raise thier kid. Next time don't make assumptions, you just make an ass out of yourself.
There is no way that the majority of people could afford to pay for even one of their childrens education, even if a) There are two parents & b) Both parents worked full time.
Maybe potential parents should think of this BEFORE they have kids. By your logic, I should be able to get help paying for an expensive car. After all, I want it and I can't afford it, but that shouldn't stop me from getting one, right? If two people can't afford to take care of their kid themselves, they shouldn't have a kid.
If you think returning to an Edwardian two teir system where only the wealthy get educated then I guess it all makes sense to you, but it perpetuates a large ignorant underclass within society.
Having an HS diploma doesn't really prove you know anything at all. American primary education has failed. I still see a 'large ignorant underclass' within our society. And i'm forced to pay for them too. If your way worked, there really shouldn't be any ignorant people should there?
The idea that you don't directly benefit from helping to pay for educating someone elses children is laughable.
I incur a huge cost with minimal return. That is, there are still alot of ignorant people around. Please tell me, why should a decision someone else makes negatively affect me?
If i'm going to pay for someone elses kid, I want a say in their decision to have a kid and other aspects of the kids life.
Because on commercial tv, a "30 minute" program is actualy 10 minutes of adverts interspersed with 20 minutes
True, there is less 'show' in 30 minutes with commercials then without. But thats what it takes to get it for free.
low-quality "content"
Not all ad-supported shows are low quality. Nor is all BBC high quality. Do you consider British Idol or Are you being Served high quality?
they turn the volume way up when the ad-breaks come on - that infuriates me to hell!
Some channels do this, yes. Most modern sets have circuitry to normalize the volume. There's also the mute button.
BBC - a 30 minute program is exactly that - 30 minutes of good quality content (well,ok not always!) The BBC is world-renowned for top quality broadcasting.
This is true, but the downside is that the BBC is state run and thus has a much easier time being censored. True ad based TV can be censored to but there seems something antidemocratic about state run media.
American courts have decided that its not ok for police to use similar technology to determine something they could only determine previously by actually entering the house.
In other words, whether or not I own a TV is really no one elses business, just like its no one elses business if I own a model train or a copy of Catcher in the Rye.
No, I don't pay for satellite. I do pay for cable however.
I can receive over the air broadcasts if I want. I pay for cable to get better receiption on channels that are further away, and to get more channels than I could possibly get over the airwaves.
There was no way you could fit 100 channels at once within the standard UHF and VHF bands. So cable (and satillite) let you get more channels that would be possible with current broadcast technology.
However, since satillite does always broadcast into my house, I feel I should be able to receive the signal without consequence should I not sign up for satillite.
Would you put a poem you wrote on the outside of your house where anyone could see, and then demand that anyone that reads it pay you? I think thats absurd, just like criminalizing descrabling of signals of the air is.
I did read the entire post, thanks.
Maybe my question wasn't clear though: why are the British willing to give up the right to receive a signal that is being broadcast into thier house and a bit of privacy just to see less advertising?
maybe you missed the last part of my post as well.
I don't see why thats a problem really. Would you want to be dragged into court (and prision) because the state said you hurt someone, but could not produce said person? The need to have someone hurt is there because the accused has the right to face their accuser in open court.
Wow...I think this is the first time every someone on slashdot got what being 'conservative' means. And did so without trying to slander conservatives or liberals!
I couldn't say whether the fuzziness is due to the film or the transfer method since our old projector is in poor shape and might eat anything it played.
Could be dust particles in the air too.
Just as you should be forced to fund the state education system
I feel I shouldn't have to; let the parents pay for their kids education.
old people's homes
People should be saving for retirement and be paying for themselves. Or, alternately, realize that clinging to life in body that needs so much hospital visits and drugs to keep it alive is foolish. You might be alive, but your QoL is low.
subsidised railway
There are otehr ways to encourage railways without subsidies.
unemployment benefit
Maybe people would be more able to cope with unemployment if taxes were lower.
children's homes
I'm not sure what you mean; orphangies? I'm not sure we even have those anymore..
The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.
There are better ways to fund this as well; and I'd rather not have someone being able to look and see what I have in my house for the privledge of watching tv..
American TV shows what you get if you don't - 50 channels of dreck.
Ok, I'm really tired of hearing this. While I do agree that there's alot of crap on, the fact is that people like it. If so many people weren't watching things like American Idol (which, IIRC, was copied from British TV) it wouldn't be on the air much longer.
What I really want to know is why do people in GB think its ok to have to pay to receive a signal out of the air..and why is it ok to pay yearly for it?
Having someone spy on you, even from outside your house, its pretty unnerving to me. I'll take advertising over someone using EM to look inside my house to see things that in the past they'd have to enter (with a warrant) to see.
My reading comprehension doesn't need work, maybe my writing wasn't clear because I asumed you'd know where I was going with your comment.
I'd say your writing definatly needs work, and I stand by my original assertion that your reading comprehension needs work also.
That isn't a denial that it's lazy, and cliqueish, it's an admission.
I had already addressed your bigotry, I didn't feel the need to do so again. My points were not mutually exclusive, I was simply using 'more of the same' from you to ask another question.
t's another debate as to whether that is ok or not, since maybe it's the next evolution of english to reduce the number of adjectives available to us. But it's a loss of clarity, for the sake of brevity, and exclusion of those they know their language will offend.
English was already one of the most ambigious languges. If thats whats bothering you, I suggest you learn another language all together.
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
6 87-2005Jan31.html
See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52
Having been fortunate enough not to lose anyone close to me until I was 22, I couldn't say at 18 I knew what it meant to have someone die. Once I did, yes, I think I had a much clearer understanding of it. Besides, whether I personally understood it or not is irrelevent; 18 is an average, some people mature faster or slower then others.
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
Yes, and if you suddenly say that this person can be tried as an adult, don't you agree then he should immediately have the benefits adulthood? Society is telling them all along they are not adults and can't even be responsible for themselves, but now you want to just throw all that away? Its illegal and I believe its unusual as well.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
Understood; unfortunatlly not all amendments make our gov't better. I see no reason why the pyramid should have been inverted, it seems to have been working fine to me.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
Unless the Supreme court says said state laws are unconstitutional. Which is what the court did.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
The states were supposed to be the 'litle' guy. The help shouldn't come at a cost because it distorts our system of government and leads to corruption...which is where we are at today.
I've heard of it, but for people who "convey their message" with F'in this F'in that, I see you acknowledge that the cover is what's in their book.
Huh? I think you're reading comprehension needs some work. I pointed out the exact opposite to you, and you say I acknowledge what you said?
Why do I care? Because I don't like lazy, rude, and cliquey people.
I know alot of people that swear in day to day language, and they are not rude, lazy or cliquey.
You totally missed my point; you're making assumptions based soley on the words one uses to express themselves. I guess you rule anything thats not strict English is just plain wrong, and couldn't possibly be a regional dialect.
If the person is acting, it may not. However, most people who talk like they live on the street, have the education to go along with their vocabulary.
Guess you never heard of 'you can't judge a book by its cover' huh?
Intelligence isn't only about knowing how to do things, or solve problems, it's also about social graces and acting appropriately for your company.
Intelligence has nothing to do with social graces; many intelligent people lack social graces and common sense, but that doesn't mean they can't calculate the average airspeed of a swallow and the gravitational force of a distant black hole.
F'in this F'in that is extremely lazy, and limiting clique-talk.
If it conveys the message, why do you care?