The ninth and tenth amendments state precisely why the DNC or DNS (do not spam) lists are beyond the bounds of the government's power. `Powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution' are the rights the government has to regulate or control the activities of its citizens. The bill of rights lists activities which the government does not have the right to control. The ninth and tenth amendments say that, by default, the government does not have the right to control any activity not specifically mentioned.
They have power over interstate commerce. Most telemarkets call you from outside your home state. From that i think that the nation DNC list is well within their power, and the state DNCs will handle your local scum.
I don't think this distinction is valid. What is a company other than a collection of people working together to make money? How is a collection of people working together to make money any different from a collection of people working together to do something else?
The distinction is that a corperation doesn't have any ethics. All that matters is the bottom line. Corperations also have billions of dollars to buy laws. Personally, i don't think its right that the people with the money make the rules. Finally, individuals would never spend all day calling people to harrass them, but buisness does. Thats another distinction for you to consider.
You have the right to communicate freely, so the government does not have the right to interfere with how you do so. If you have trouble communicating due to technological limitations of the medium (e.g., vulnerability to abuse), that does not mean the government should step in and control the use of the medium.
If i cannot communicate using a medium, have i not been deprived of my right to speech (and to listen)? If everytime i tried to talk to someone within 10 feet of me and someone else kept prohibiting us from talking, isn't that a restriction on speech?
Here's another way of looking at the situation. You don't have an inherent right to use, say, email. If people want to setup some communication system like email, that's fine, but if it doesn't work out (e.g., due to vulnerability to cheap mass advertising), that's just too bad. The government never guaranteed you email to begin (the citizens set this up themselves), so if it isn't worth using, don't use it. Better yet, make a superior system. This idea does not apply as much to the telephone system since the government already regulates that a great deal, but I think it's the right way of looking at communication systems in general.
So i pay for something for a particular purpose, but someone else can abuse it to make it worthless to me? I fail to see your logic here. People can post a No Soliciation sign on thier property to prevent unwanted disturbences. Until these DNC lists, there was no similar method to stop phone soliciations. People that i do not wish to have call me have no right to call me. I'm paying for phone service, i can dictate who may use it to make either outgoing or incoming calls.
They probably can tell that you're ignoring the ad though...which should tell them that this type of advertising has annoyed you to the point of disabling it all together.
In theory, each time you view a page with a popup ad, there should be a request for an ad at about the same time. fi the ad is requested much less then the homepage, its probably a safe bet a number of people have blocked their ads. Now those ads are worthless.
Perhaps if you scrolled down a you would have noticed these two:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
likewise, if you're walking down the street, you have the freedom to holloer to someone else walking on the other side of the street to ask if they know the current time. they don't have to answer you at all, no, but you have the freedom to ask.
This is not the behavior we're talking about, nor is it behavior which a national DNC list seeks to stop. There are some issues that are dangerous to make laws about because they may snowball; this is not one of them. It annoys me that you're trying to link the two together, because it detracts from real issues that may snowball, and cause others to ignore these issues 'because everything snowballs to those nutcases.' Finally, we are talking about regulating a buisness, not an individual. They are not the same, nor do they have the same rights.
Others have suggested that its ok for someone to keep talking to you or asking you questions after you've ignored them or told them to stop. This is harrasment, and you seem to reconize that you can cause harm to others verbally as well as physically. This is what telemarketing companies do; harrass people that don't want to be called. Self-regulation has failed and in most cases being asked to be put on a do not call list doesn't work. Even for the few that do respect it, your number gets passed around to far more buisnesses that will feel free to call you whenever they want then can be possible to keep up with.
The bottom line is that i'm in my house, and people do not have the right to harrass me there. If i can't escape harrassment in my own home, where the hell can i?
again, you don't have a right to be left alone, but the freedom to make yourself inaccessible.
This basically sums up your arguement, so its the only line i'll quote.
Unfortunatly, following your line of reasoning, i don't have the right not to be assulted, just to make it impossible for others to assult me.
That is not freedom to me, and probably not to alot of other people. All of our rights are not enumerated in the Bill of rights, and if you read it, you'd see that there are 2 amendments that say basically that.
People have a right to speech yes, but they do NOT have the right to force others to listen.
As far as email goes, the fact that i don't publish it in a public place means i only want people i know emailing me.
however annoying it might be, a person or company (do companies have rights under the constitution?) calling someone else on the telephone does not infringe on the callee's basic rights.
Yes they are; my right to privacy, and my right to be left alone or contacted only by people I care to have contact me. What you're saying is that basically its ok for anyone to barge into your house and start telling you about their new shiny thing. thats basically what telemarketers and spammers do.
(do companies have rights under the constitution?)
If somehow they do, they shouldn't. People have rights.
YOU signed up for an email account which you allow to accept messages from anyone, anywhere.
No, i didn't. I signed up for an email address to accept messages from friends, family, my employer, and companies i'm actively doing buisness with.
Do i have an address so that EVERYONE may contact me, or so that people i know can find me? If you think its everyone, please by all means post your home address here.
. i'm really curious why those legislators are wasting our time with this silly issue. aren't there other things they should be focused on?
We don't put other issues on hold because there are more important things; they can address both at once.
while i would probably benefit slightly from a phone opt-out list, i don't really think it's the job of the federal government to do.
I benefited greatly since my state adopted a DNC list. Maybe you don't care about telemarketers calling during dinner, but i do. If not the federal gov't, who will stop these companies from harassing me?
i prefer a simple and very loud STFU to the AT&T sales represenitives will eventually get the message across.
Funny, it didn't stop the bank offering to mortage my apartment. I yelled, threatened to sue, asked them nicely...no matter what i did they didn't stop calling me. Since i've been on the DNC, not one word, and i've been much happier.
Oh please, seeing a naked girl won't warp a child. (Possibly if she is with a farm animal, perhaps...but not by herself).
I don't see what harm seeing other humans naked could cause.
Re:Critics don't know their ass from a hole...
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 1
the movie going public has become less and less intelligent.
Agreed, this is definatly part of it. But there are some movies i thought intelligent or thoughtful that still pulled bad reviews.
I also think that critics get more cynical as time goes on, adding to their hatred of a lot of movies.
I think this is most of the problem. Even if most of the movies are dumb, well thats what the public wants. This is the same public the critics are reviewing the movies for, so its still kinda odd that anyone listens to them.
I haven't seen Nemesis yet, but I'm holding out hope it'll be better than Insurrection. Can't be too hard, right?
Personally i didn't think Ins. was that bad. Too much of 'must save universe' for me, but that seems to happen when TV shows becomes movies. They seem to think you can't have a good movie without threatening the universe.
Critics don't know their ass from a hole...
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 1
..in the ground.
They constantly have the opposite opinion of what most people think are good movies.
I don't know why anyone bothers listening to them anymore.
None of the programs i've written have been victim of a bug in the CPU instruction set.
As far as the win32 api, goes, its much easier to dectect and work around it.
On the VM, you literally have to test it on each different implementation of the VM. testing on a few versions of windows is far simplier. Plus, it kinda defeats the purpose of the VM. I can say win2k and higher is required, but would it make sense to say this program requires a windows VM and won't run on a linux VM? What would be the point of that? Why not just code for windows then?
A yard or radio waves are different than an object. They are something that is just there. Grabbing them and claiming it doesn't mean you or anyone made them. A car, food, your cat, etc are objects. The first two you can own and as always the cat owns you.
A cat and food are 'just there' too. i fail to see your point, since we don't (have to) manufacter them. My point was that these things are limited resources. Land IS a limited resource. A cat (for intensive purposes) isn't, because its easy to find one and take it home. That said, i think we should endevor to make some things unlimited (again, for intesive purposes) like food, but unless we start becoming a star faring people, land will be limited.
Land is an unlimited resource. At least as far as humans are likely to be concerned. There is more land on this one planet than is actually usable by the number of people the planet can sustain.
There is much land not usable. For one, we need room to grow crops. People can't live in those fields. Then there are swamps, volcanos, deserts, the polar caps, and mountains, rain forrests that can't support any (or much) human life, or we shouldn't just be chopping down. Land is NOT unlimited.
Then there are lots of other planets we have the power to go to if we wanted to bother.
Umm....i'm no so sure of that. This wouldn't solve any population problems; it would probably take several lifetimes to find and get to a suitable planet. If you're talking about mars...i dunno, i wouldn't feel too safe in a manmade bubble. And i'm not sure how easy that would be to setup. This is probably beyond our capabilities right now.
Also we could easily create more 'land' by building large underwater or floating cities.
Again, this is very difficult. Floating cities are probably out....we have enough sinking oil dereks, let alone people actually living on them. Underwater cities? Not within our reach yet. Thtas quite an expense so you can justify kids playing in someones lawn.
Just because something belongs to the public doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means you can't deny others the use of it when your not using it.
So someone pays alot of money to make a nice lawn and house, and they have to maintain it for EVERYONE? Public parks and restrooms are much harder to upkeep then private ones, would you agree? If they are truely public, why doesn't the state take care of all your landscaping and upkeep of the lawn? Seems like one person is putting alot of effort into upkeeping a public property.
Y'know like a King that would punish peasents for killing a deer in his forest despite the fact he wasn't using the deer or the forest.
Slight differences. The king isn't keeping the forrest 'nice' and maintained. The king didn't also pay anything to own the land, he just kinda took it.
You and I are certainly not responsible for what our ancestors did but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for whatever actions we take that support what our ancestors did.
So what do you suggest? do we all uproot and move back to europe? I don't have any right to live here?
Of course we have to have a place to live but you don't hafta put brick walls around your yard and curse the damn kids for their frisbees that float inside the fence.;)
Why not? I'm not allowed the right to privacy? If anyone can use my lawn, that goes right up to my house. Some people prefer more privacy then that.
Try not paying your taxes and see how public your land is
I havent heard of anyone's land being confiscated for not paying taxes. What do they take if you don't own land?
Your purchase price is little more than a rent deposit.
Common law and history seems to disagree with you. Thats how we have the same property in control of one family for generations.
Of course the only reason you have to pay for land is because people don't realize that if they felt like it they could just take what they needed from all that empty land not being used.
Sorry, i'm not going to let someone build right next to my house. there are other things to consider besides how much 'unused' land there is. Water table concerns, noise, running more power and phone lines, sewer perhaps. Overcrowding also can lower your property value, so you can negitivally effect others by 'taking unused proeprty'
A large enough group can take anything. No surprise about that. Forty big bikers with semiautomatic weapons can camp in my living room any damn time they want.:)
Well i assume from your smily that you know the drawbacks of that already:-)
What are you not yet using your yard for that it'd be damaged by a child running across your grass?
If they mess up my flower bed, or the constant running in one area wears away the grass in that area. I'm sure there are other examples. I can't think of them, b/c i actually don't have my own lawn, i live in an apartment. So my 'lawn' is shared, but by all the people in the complex.
Sure kids can play in their yard, a public park, etc. It doesn't mean I'm gonna get pissed off if they walk across my yard. I guess it's a reasonable use thing. If they aren't hurting me or damaging anything I'm using then I don't care if they use it.
You're like that; others aren't. my dad for example has a house in the country to be away from everyone, so he would probably not be pleased with kids cutting a path through his lawn frequently.
You must have grown up somewhere nice. Where I grew up everyone played in the street. It was the only space big enough for most games and close enough to home that our parents didn't have to worry about gang fights, drug pushers, etc.
In the woods, more or less. No kids played in the street, b/c i didn't really have any kids around:-) As far as drug pushers (which i assume you imply will be working in parks), i don't see why a few parents can't watch a group of kids in the park.
Anyway I think the original point was that it'd be silly to blame someone for not fencing their yard against criminal/terrorist activity. In the same way it's silly to blame someone for not fencing off their wireless network against criminal/terrorist activity. You shouldn't have to fence off either if it pleases you to leave them open
What is our problem them? B/c i agree with you here. The key for me is if it pleases you. If i want to fence myself in, i should be allowed to as well, just as well as if i dont' want to, i shouldn't be forced to. At any rate, this whole wireless thing is pointless for the gov't to be concerned about. They can't easily launch an untracable attack from outside the us?
And all girls that are raped were 'asking for it', right?
Glad to see you like pulling things right out of your ass. Starting off like you did, it will be hard to take the rest of your post seriously, since you equate one statement i made with another that has no real connection. Check your logic circuits.
For the record, no, i don't think that girls that are raped asked for it. They were victim's of another persons twisted desires, and something which they had no control over.
Playing games on the other hand, is a choice the player makes. No outside influences, he makes his own choice. Other addictions, i can understand. But a game, come on.
I really fucking loathe people like you.
I pity you; you seem to lack any semblance of intelligence. Jumping to conclusions, always angry because you misunderstand the simpliest thing.
You've had the luck (and it is luck), apparently, of never making an ill- or mis-informed choice
Not true at all. I've made plenty of mistakes, and i've learned from them. I didn't always have sympathy either, its just a fact of life. Now i've never expected anyone to feel sorry for me because i made a really foolish mistake, and nor have i gotten any. And rightfully so.
(warning labels on cigarettes? there are warning labels on fucking toothpicks, man)
Whats your point that they are on both? We should ignore them because lots of things have warnings? Should i ignore the warnings in my car's ownership manual that say i could die if i'm in an accident and i don't have my seatbelt on? All of those warnings are quite clear. Ignore them at your peril; they're there for a reason.
and therefore think that anyone who does is below you and undeserving of sympathy or help.
If someone doesn't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, and they crash and crack thier skull open, no, i wouldn't feel sorry for them, nor would i help them. Obviously they didn't care about their own safety, or they would have worn a helmet. Please don't tell me some people might not know...if you are that stupid, you shouldn't be driving a motorcycle in the first place.
If I ever come across you, stranded in a well or something, I'm going to tell you that you should have looked where you were going and walk right on by.
Good, i won't become trapped in a well that i can plainly see, so i wouldn't require your help.
Oh, and just so you know, asshat, there are no warnings on cigarette packs that they are addictive. Merely that they are dangerous.
Funny, i seem to remember some packs having a warning that they are addictive. Each pack has one warning, but i believe across many packs the warning is randomized. I guess i'll ask a smoker at work if he recalls a warning they are addictive. Reguardless, kids are taught they are addictive in school, you hear in the news all the time, and from countless other places. Ever see those Truth ads on tv?
This is analogous to the way I feel about drugs, but there are some who can't handle it, and they cost our society, so we have anti-drug laws. (well that's not the only reason but bear with me)
Except the cost of enforcing those anti drug laws is outweighing the cost of the drug addicts in the first place. i'm not sure we had the shootouts between dealers before drugs were illegal. Something i shall have to research, i guess.
I'm not saying we should have anti-gaming laws
Good...it seems today that we make laws because a few people ruin things for the rest of the country. I'm not sure why we use such logic.
If you don't put up a fence, sign, or shout at them out your window then they have the right to play in your yard.
Bull. Can anyone that wants to use my car do so without my express consent? How about anything else i own? Can they eat my food without asking me? If you own something, consent must be given by the owner before using it. People don't buy property for everyone in the neighborhood to play in.
Besides it's not YOUR property.
I think most people would disagree with you. Land is a limited resource; limited resources are divided up and limited to use by the owner. Something that is infiniatly available (or for all intesive purposes is) is freely available to all. However, land (and food) are not, so must be purchased.
It was there long before your birth and it'll be there long after your dead.
Doesn't change the fact that land is a limited resource. I'm here now, and i need a place to live.
Just because some folks a long time ago stole the property and sold it to someone that sold it to someone that eventually sold it to you doesn't make it any less stolen. If anyone owns it then (in the US) the native americans own it.
Its a point in history i'm not proud of. However, i'm here now, and i can do nothing to change the past. Its illogical to hold one responsible for something they could not have possibly prevented.
For the most part it's just being loaned to you by the public for the time you are using it.
Again, many would disagree. If it truely was public, there'd be no need to purchase it, and a large enough group could take your home at will.
If you're not using it then there is no reason someone else can't.
Just because someone is not doing something in thier lawn everyday doesn't mean they aren't using it. I'm not using the loaf of bread in my freezer right now, but i will eventually.
So let the damn kids play in your yard.
Why can't they play in their own yard, or in a public park?
At least it keeps them out of the street.:)
They don't belong in a street anymore then they belong in someone else's yard (without that person's permission, of course).
Without compassion, these people may never come out of their addiction. It's easy to have zero tolerance for others' mistakes, but remember that someday you may need help. Maybe you already do and you just don't know it. Maybe we all need a little help sometimes... let's be there for each other.
I agree, we do need compasion, but there are some things that are really inexcusable. Not going to work so you can play a game? For me, thats beyond making a mistake, its pures stupidity.
Its like people that start smoking; everyone knows that smoking is bad for you and addictive, but people do it anyway. There are warnings clearly printed on the pack. I'm sorry, i don't have much compasion for such a stupid choice. All these class action suits against tabacco companies should be dropped, except for those that got hooked before the facts were known.
If you're extraordinarly weak willed, yes they could screw up real lives. But you know what, if your mind is that weak, maybe you deserve what you get. Millions of others can handle it.
The phone system and the postal system are also both open, but we don't hold the USPS or Verizon responsible if someone uses the network for illegal activities.
Speed in itself isn't a problem; careless driving while speeding is. That said, careless drivers following speed limits still cause lots of accidents.
And before you say 'if they were speeding it'd be even worse', let me say this. The same can be said of driving a smaller car instead of an SUV. A semi going 55 mph will do ALOT more damage then my sedan.
Slashdot Mirror
The ninth and tenth amendments state precisely why the DNC or DNS (do not spam) lists are beyond the bounds of the government's power. `Powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution' are the rights the government has to regulate or control the activities of its citizens. The bill of rights lists activities which the government does not have the right to control. The ninth and tenth amendments say that, by default, the government does not have the right to control any activity not specifically mentioned.
They have power over interstate commerce. Most telemarkets call you from outside your home state. From that i think that the nation DNC list is well within their power, and the state DNCs will handle your local scum.
I don't think this distinction is valid. What is a company other than a collection of people working together to make money? How is a collection of people working together to make money any different from a collection of people working together to do something else?
The distinction is that a corperation doesn't have any ethics. All that matters is the bottom line. Corperations also have billions of dollars to buy laws. Personally, i don't think its right that the people with the money make the rules. Finally, individuals would never spend all day calling people to harrass them, but buisness does. Thats another distinction for you to consider.
You have the right to communicate freely, so the government does not have the right to interfere with how you do so. If you have trouble communicating due to technological limitations of the medium (e.g., vulnerability to abuse), that does not mean the government should step in and control the use of the medium.
If i cannot communicate using a medium, have i not been deprived of my right to speech (and to listen)? If everytime i tried to talk to someone within 10 feet of me and someone else kept prohibiting us from talking, isn't that a restriction on speech?
Here's another way of looking at the situation. You don't have an inherent right to use, say, email. If people want to setup some communication system like email, that's fine, but if it doesn't work out (e.g., due to vulnerability to cheap mass advertising), that's just too bad. The government never guaranteed you email to begin (the citizens set this up themselves), so if it isn't worth using, don't use it. Better yet, make a superior system. This idea does not apply as much to the telephone system since the government already regulates that a great deal, but I think it's the right way of looking at communication systems in general.
So i pay for something for a particular purpose, but someone else can abuse it to make it worthless to me? I fail to see your logic here. People can post a No Soliciation sign on thier property to prevent unwanted disturbences. Until these DNC lists, there was no similar method to stop phone soliciations. People that i do not wish to have call me have no right to call me. I'm paying for phone service, i can dictate who may use it to make either outgoing or incoming calls.
They probably can tell that you're ignoring the ad though...which should tell them that this type of advertising has annoyed you to the point of disabling it all together.
In theory, each time you view a page with a popup ad, there should be a request for an ad at about the same time. fi the ad is requested much less then the homepage, its probably a safe bet a number of people have blocked their ads. Now those ads are worthless.
ammendment 4 reads
Perhaps if you scrolled down a you would have noticed these two:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
likewise, if you're walking down the street, you have the freedom to holloer to someone else walking on the other side of the street to ask if they know the current time. they don't have to answer you at all, no, but you have the freedom to ask.
This is not the behavior we're talking about, nor is it behavior which a national DNC list seeks to stop. There are some issues that are dangerous to make laws about because they may snowball; this is not one of them. It annoys me that you're trying to link the two together, because it detracts from real issues that may snowball, and cause others to ignore these issues 'because everything snowballs to those nutcases.' Finally, we are talking about regulating a buisness, not an individual. They are not the same, nor do they have the same rights.
Others have suggested that its ok for someone to keep talking to you or asking you questions after you've ignored them or told them to stop. This is harrasment, and you seem to reconize that you can cause harm to others verbally as well as physically. This is what telemarketing companies do; harrass people that don't want to be called. Self-regulation has failed and in most cases being asked to be put on a do not call list doesn't work. Even for the few that do respect it, your number gets passed around to far more buisnesses that will feel free to call you whenever they want then can be possible to keep up with.
The bottom line is that i'm in my house, and people do not have the right to harrass me there. If i can't escape harrassment in my own home, where the hell can i?
again, you don't have a right to be left alone, but the freedom to make yourself inaccessible.
This basically sums up your arguement, so its the only line i'll quote.
Unfortunatly, following your line of reasoning, i don't have the right not to be assulted, just to make it impossible for others to assult me.
That is not freedom to me, and probably not to alot of other people. All of our rights are not enumerated in the Bill of rights, and if you read it, you'd see that there are 2 amendments that say basically that.
People have a right to speech yes, but they do NOT have the right to force others to listen.
As far as email goes, the fact that i don't publish it in a public place means i only want people i know emailing me.
however annoying it might be, a person or company (do companies have rights under the constitution?) calling someone else on the telephone does not infringe on the callee's basic rights.
Yes they are; my right to privacy, and my right to be left alone or contacted only by people I care to have contact me. What you're saying is that basically its ok for anyone to barge into your house and start telling you about their new shiny thing. thats basically what telemarketers and spammers do.
(do companies have rights under the constitution?)
If somehow they do, they shouldn't. People have rights.
YOU signed up for an email account which you allow to accept messages from anyone, anywhere.
No, i didn't. I signed up for an email address to accept messages from friends, family, my employer, and companies i'm actively doing buisness with.
Do i have an address so that EVERYONE may contact me, or so that people i know can find me? If you think its everyone, please by all means post your home address here.
. i'm really curious why those legislators are wasting our time with this silly issue. aren't there other things they should be focused on?
We don't put other issues on hold because there are more important things; they can address both at once.
while i would probably benefit slightly from a phone opt-out list, i don't really think it's the job of the federal government to do.
I benefited greatly since my state adopted a DNC list. Maybe you don't care about telemarketers calling during dinner, but i do. If not the federal gov't, who will stop these companies from harassing me?
i prefer a simple and very loud STFU to the AT&T sales represenitives will eventually get the message across.
Funny, it didn't stop the bank offering to mortage my apartment. I yelled, threatened to sue, asked them nicely...no matter what i did they didn't stop calling me. Since i've been on the DNC, not one word, and i've been much happier.
Oh please, seeing a naked girl won't warp a child. (Possibly if she is with a farm animal, perhaps...but not by herself).
I don't see what harm seeing other humans naked could cause.
the movie going public has become less and less intelligent.
Agreed, this is definatly part of it. But there are some movies i thought intelligent or thoughtful that still pulled bad reviews.
I also think that critics get more cynical as time goes on, adding to their hatred of a lot of movies.
I think this is most of the problem. Even if most of the movies are dumb, well thats what the public wants. This is the same public the critics are reviewing the movies for, so its still kinda odd that anyone listens to them.
I haven't seen Nemesis yet, but I'm holding out hope it'll be better than Insurrection. Can't be too hard, right?
Personally i didn't think Ins. was that bad. Too much of 'must save universe' for me, but that seems to happen when TV shows becomes movies. They seem to think you can't have a good movie without threatening the universe.
..in the ground.
They constantly have the opposite opinion of what most people think are good movies.
I don't know why anyone bothers listening to them anymore.
None of the programs i've written have been victim of a bug in the CPU instruction set.
As far as the win32 api, goes, its much easier to dectect and work around it.
On the VM, you literally have to test it on each different implementation of the VM. testing on a few versions of windows is far simplier. Plus, it kinda defeats the purpose of the VM. I can say win2k and higher is required, but would it make sense to say this program requires a windows VM and won't run on a linux VM? What would be the point of that? Why not just code for windows then?
The ECMA CLR/CLI is also an open standard as opposed to SUN's control over Java.
My major problem with the CLR (and Javas VM) is that there still can be bugs in the CLR (or VM) itself.
He's an idiot with alot of guns at his command. Dont mistake bullying for intelligence.
A yard or radio waves are different than an object. They are something that is just there. Grabbing them and claiming it doesn't mean you or anyone made them. A car, food, your cat, etc are objects. The first two you can own and as always the cat owns you.
;)
:)
:-)
:-) As far as drug pushers (which i assume you imply will be working in parks), i don't see why a few parents can't watch a group of kids in the park.
A cat and food are 'just there' too. i fail to see your point, since we don't (have to) manufacter them. My point was that these things are limited resources. Land IS a limited resource. A cat (for intensive purposes) isn't, because its easy to find one and take it home. That said, i think we should endevor to make some things unlimited (again, for intesive purposes) like food, but unless we start becoming a star faring people, land will be limited.
Land is an unlimited resource. At least as far as humans are likely to be concerned. There is more land on this one planet than is actually usable by the number of people the planet can sustain.
There is much land not usable. For one, we need room to grow crops. People can't live in those fields. Then there are swamps, volcanos, deserts, the polar caps, and mountains, rain forrests that can't support any (or much) human life, or we shouldn't just be chopping down. Land is NOT unlimited.
Then there are lots of other planets we have the power to go to if we wanted to bother.
Umm....i'm no so sure of that. This wouldn't solve any population problems; it would probably take several lifetimes to find and get to a suitable planet. If you're talking about mars...i dunno, i wouldn't feel too safe in a manmade bubble. And i'm not sure how easy that would be to setup. This is probably beyond our capabilities right now.
Also we could easily create more 'land' by building large underwater or floating cities.
Again, this is very difficult. Floating cities are probably out....we have enough sinking oil dereks, let alone people actually living on them. Underwater cities? Not within our reach yet. Thtas quite an expense so you can justify kids playing in someones lawn.
Just because something belongs to the public doesn't mean you can't use it. It just means you can't deny others the use of it when your not using it.
So someone pays alot of money to make a nice lawn and house, and they have to maintain it for EVERYONE? Public parks and restrooms are much harder to upkeep then private ones, would you agree? If they are truely public, why doesn't the state take care of all your landscaping and upkeep of the lawn? Seems like one person is putting alot of effort into upkeeping a public property.
Y'know like a King that would punish peasents for killing a deer in his forest despite the fact he wasn't using the deer or the forest.
Slight differences. The king isn't keeping the forrest 'nice' and maintained. The king didn't also pay anything to own the land, he just kinda took it.
You and I are certainly not responsible for what our ancestors did but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for whatever actions we take that support what our ancestors did.
So what do you suggest? do we all uproot and move back to europe? I don't have any right to live here?
Of course we have to have a place to live but you don't hafta put brick walls around your yard and curse the damn kids for their frisbees that float inside the fence.
Why not? I'm not allowed the right to privacy? If anyone can use my lawn, that goes right up to my house. Some people prefer more privacy then that.
Try not paying your taxes and see how public your land is
I havent heard of anyone's land being confiscated for not paying taxes. What do they take if you don't own land?
Your purchase price is little more than a rent deposit.
Common law and history seems to disagree with you. Thats how we have the same property in control of one family for generations.
Of course the only reason you have to pay for land is because people don't realize that if they felt like it they could just take what they needed from all that empty land not being used.
Sorry, i'm not going to let someone build right next to my house. there are other things to consider besides how much 'unused' land there is. Water table concerns, noise, running more power and phone lines, sewer perhaps. Overcrowding also can lower your property value, so you can negitivally effect others by 'taking unused proeprty'
A large enough group can take anything. No surprise about that. Forty big bikers with semiautomatic weapons can camp in my living room any damn time they want.
Well i assume from your smily that you know the drawbacks of that already
What are you not yet using your yard for that it'd be damaged by a child running across your grass?
If they mess up my flower bed, or the constant running in one area wears away the grass in that area. I'm sure there are other examples. I can't think of them, b/c i actually don't have my own lawn, i live in an apartment. So my 'lawn' is shared, but by all the people in the complex.
Sure kids can play in their yard, a public park, etc. It doesn't mean I'm gonna get pissed off if they walk across my yard. I guess it's a reasonable use thing. If they aren't hurting me or damaging anything I'm using then I don't care if they use it.
You're like that; others aren't. my dad for example has a house in the country to be away from everyone, so he would probably not be pleased with kids cutting a path through his lawn frequently.
You must have grown up somewhere nice. Where I grew up everyone played in the street. It was the only space big enough for most games and close enough to home that our parents didn't have to worry about gang fights, drug pushers, etc.
In the woods, more or less. No kids played in the street, b/c i didn't really have any kids around
Anyway I think the original point was that it'd be silly to blame someone for not fencing their yard against criminal/terrorist activity. In the same way it's silly to blame someone for not fencing off their wireless network against criminal/terrorist activity. You shouldn't have to fence off either if it pleases you to leave them open
What is our problem them? B/c i agree with you here. The key for me is if it pleases you. If i want to fence myself in, i should be allowed to as well, just as well as if i dont' want to, i shouldn't be forced to. At any rate, this whole wireless thing is pointless for the gov't to be concerned about. They can't easily launch an untracable attack from outside the us?
And all girls that are raped were 'asking for it', right?
Glad to see you like pulling things right out of your ass. Starting off like you did, it will be hard to take the rest of your post seriously, since you equate one statement i made with another that has no real connection. Check your logic circuits.
For the record, no, i don't think that girls that are raped asked for it. They were victim's of another persons twisted desires, and something which they had no control over.
Playing games on the other hand, is a choice the player makes. No outside influences, he makes his own choice. Other addictions, i can understand. But a game, come on.
I really fucking loathe people like you.
I pity you; you seem to lack any semblance of intelligence. Jumping to conclusions, always angry because you misunderstand the simpliest thing.
You've had the luck (and it is luck), apparently, of never making an ill- or mis-informed choice
Not true at all. I've made plenty of mistakes, and i've learned from them. I didn't always have sympathy either, its just a fact of life. Now i've never expected anyone to feel sorry for me because i made a really foolish mistake, and nor have i gotten any. And rightfully so.
(warning labels on cigarettes? there are warning labels on fucking toothpicks, man)
Whats your point that they are on both? We should ignore them because lots of things have warnings? Should i ignore the warnings in my car's ownership manual that say i could die if i'm in an accident and i don't have my seatbelt on? All of those warnings are quite clear. Ignore them at your peril; they're there for a reason.
and therefore think that anyone who does is below you and undeserving of sympathy or help.
If someone doesn't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, and they crash and crack thier skull open, no, i wouldn't feel sorry for them, nor would i help them. Obviously they didn't care about their own safety, or they would have worn a helmet. Please don't tell me some people might not know...if you are that stupid, you shouldn't be driving a motorcycle in the first place.
If I ever come across you, stranded in a well or something, I'm going to tell you that you should have looked where you were going and walk right on by.
Good, i won't become trapped in a well that i can plainly see, so i wouldn't require your help.
Oh, and just so you know, asshat, there are no warnings on cigarette packs that they are addictive. Merely that they are dangerous.
Funny, i seem to remember some packs having a warning that they are addictive. Each pack has one warning, but i believe across many packs the warning is randomized. I guess i'll ask a smoker at work if he recalls a warning they are addictive. Reguardless, kids are taught they are addictive in school, you hear in the news all the time, and from countless other places. Ever see those Truth ads on tv?
Seems like you're the asshat to me.
This is analogous to the way I feel about drugs, but there are some who can't handle it, and they cost our society, so we have anti-drug laws. (well that's not the only reason but bear with me)
Except the cost of enforcing those anti drug laws is outweighing the cost of the drug addicts in the first place. i'm not sure we had the shootouts between dealers before drugs were illegal. Something i shall have to research, i guess.
I'm not saying we should have anti-gaming laws
Good...it seems today that we make laws because a few people ruin things for the rest of the country. I'm not sure why we use such logic.
If you don't put up a fence, sign, or shout at them out your window then they have the right to play in your yard.
:)
Bull. Can anyone that wants to use my car do so without my express consent? How about anything else i own? Can they eat my food without asking me? If you own something, consent must be given by the owner before using it. People don't buy property for everyone in the neighborhood to play in.
Besides it's not YOUR property.
I think most people would disagree with you. Land is a limited resource; limited resources are divided up and limited to use by the owner. Something that is infiniatly available (or for all intesive purposes is) is freely available to all. However, land (and food) are not, so must be purchased.
It was there long before your birth and it'll be there long after your dead.
Doesn't change the fact that land is a limited resource. I'm here now, and i need a place to live.
Just because some folks a long time ago stole the property and sold it to someone that sold it to someone that eventually sold it to you doesn't make it any less stolen. If anyone owns it then (in the US) the native americans own it.
Its a point in history i'm not proud of. However, i'm here now, and i can do nothing to change the past. Its illogical to hold one responsible for something they could not have possibly prevented.
For the most part it's just being loaned to you by the public for the time you are using it.
Again, many would disagree. If it truely was public, there'd be no need to purchase it, and a large enough group could take your home at will.
If you're not using it then there is no reason someone else can't.
Just because someone is not doing something in thier lawn everyday doesn't mean they aren't using it. I'm not using the loaf of bread in my freezer right now, but i will eventually.
So let the damn kids play in your yard.
Why can't they play in their own yard, or in a public park?
At least it keeps them out of the street.
They don't belong in a street anymore then they belong in someone else's yard (without that person's permission, of course).
Without compassion, these people may never come out of their addiction. It's easy to have zero tolerance for others' mistakes, but remember that someday you may need help. Maybe you already do and you just don't know it. Maybe we all need a little help sometimes... let's be there for each other.
I agree, we do need compasion, but there are some things that are really inexcusable. Not going to work so you can play a game? For me, thats beyond making a mistake, its pures stupidity.
Its like people that start smoking; everyone knows that smoking is bad for you and addictive, but people do it anyway. There are warnings clearly printed on the pack. I'm sorry, i don't have much compasion for such a stupid choice. All these class action suits against tabacco companies should be dropped, except for those that got hooked before the facts were known.
What does porn have to do with addications? More likely, the link in his sig is an advertisement.
in which Jeffrey Stark talks about how a video game ruined his young life.
He ruined his life, not the game. Blame the person, not some inanimate object.
If you're extraordinarly weak willed, yes they could screw up real lives. But you know what, if your mind is that weak, maybe you deserve what you get. Millions of others can handle it.
A college prof once told me that there were actually printers that would catch on fire. Not sure if they really used that status code though ;-)
You sick person for allowing neighborhood kids to play across your yard.
Maybe kids should be taught to respect other peoples property, and that they can't go on it without the owners permission.
Then if somebody DOES use your network to cause havoc, you get to pay part of the price for their actions.
So if someone steals my car and uses in a bank robbery, i'm responsible?
What ever happened to punishing the people that actually commited the crime?
The phone system and the postal system are also both open, but we don't hold the USPS or Verizon responsible if someone uses the network for illegal activities.
Speed in itself isn't a problem; careless driving while speeding is. That said, careless drivers following speed limits still cause lots of accidents.
And before you say 'if they were speeding it'd be even worse', let me say this. The same can be said of driving a smaller car instead of an SUV. A semi going 55 mph will do ALOT more damage then my sedan.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Isn't that from The Jackel?