The landlord has no claim on "your things" unless you have breached contract somehow, like not paying rent.
I don't think that's true. Even if you haven't paid rent, the landlord can't hold your stuff hostage. What he CAN do is sue you in a court of law, but he doesn't get to take your stuff because you owe him money. AFAIK, only secured loans actually set that up, but its done so by contract. I haven't seen a lease yet that gives a landlord the right to hold your stuff for none payment... and I'm not sure that's legal, since if you're not paying rent you lose your right to be there (including your stuffs right to be there), but the landlord isn't out anything except your back rent (i.e., he still has the building).
Um, ya, that's exactly why I replied to your post... because I disagree with it, and wanted to show the other side of things.
But please, find the time to make comments on what I've posted, especially the parts where you think that healthcare is why the country is in trouble right now, and not the housing / banking industries collapsing.
Only for someone that wishes so hard the world really wasn't the way it is that they live in fantasy land. Like you.
Do you seriously believe that because some Christians are vocal all Christians agree with them?
What is that thundering silence? Oh, its the other Christians that aren't saying "hey, THOSE vocal nuts don't speak for us."
Or that because some black people behave like stereotypes that it's fair to say that all black people are like that?
Stereotypes only evolve when a large enough group of people exhibit behavior, which others then pickup on. For the record, 95% of black people I encounter DO fit the stereo type. Just like 95% of the white trash I see have nothing but empty Bud cans in their recycle bin.
Now, when interacting individually, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and hold nothing against them.. at that point I'll judge the individual.
Well, it gets more interesting then that. In a third of all fatal accidents where there are two or more people in the vehical and some are wearing seatbelts and some are not, the one that dies is the one WEARING the belt. The one ejected is the one that survives. Its not as cut and dry as you are lead to believe, when seatbelts only save lives 66% of the time.
but lots of other people are already accepting monetary risk because YOU don't where your seatbelt.
What cost to others is there? Shall we now deny people the right to rock climb, moutain bike, ride roller coasters, or leave their padded room because they might get hurt which somehow costs everyone money? Are you going for the "we all pay more in insurance" angle?
No, I bash Christains anyway... because they actually DO protest games, and other things they think are offensive and which NOBODY should have, because their make believe should be forced onto everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario I think backs me up... because while blacks likely would get angry, they'd be rather hypocritical too... there are plenty of black people living relatively close to my house, and I have to say, overall, they really aren't acting in such a way that breaks down the normal stereotypes... if anything, its re-enforcing them.
I did read the article. And I have to agree with the OP; who cares if you're offending a bunch of bible bangers? The bottom like is that while they staged a fake christian protest, christians REALLY DO PROTEST GAMES LIKE THAT. So I find their outrage a bit on the hypocritical side.
As far as the woman being offended by a "win a date with a booth babe" promotion... I can't honestly say how that's offensive in the least. She needn't partake in the promo, and quite frankly, a lot of people would like a date with some of them. I wonder if she's also offended by shows like the Bachelor or More to Love (win a marriage with a good looking guy, or win a marriage with a fat guy, respectively).
The check thing is another who cares... they're obviously going for a goof, or the editors would have gotten their checks like normal, without EA alerting the media first.
Oh, there's a difference between ENFORCING the law and INTERPERATING the law. The police do only the former (and very poorly at that), they do NOT do the latter. A cop isn't an expert on law anymore than you or I would be. Laywers and judges are the best ones to tell you how a law is interperated.
No, is says "present in the converstation." A participant. You can't nitpick one word.
If you were being questioned about a murder, would you mind if the police recorded your converstation as "I shot her in the face" instead of "I shot her in the face with my cum?" Cut out words, you cut out the meaning of the sentense.
"Present in the conversation" means "one of the people talking." Therefore person C "present in the conversation," which means its only possible for A or B to be both eavesdropping and present in the conversation, which obviously cannot be. How do you eavesdrop your own conversation?
Well, since you can't eavesdrop on a conversation which you're a part of, the rest of the statute doesn't apply... meaning you don't need to do anything to record a conversation you are having with someone else. Because you're not eavesdropping, you don't need the consent of all parties.
Devices can't eavesdrop; thats something only a person can do. The device can't be doing anything on its own secretly, nor could the device possibly get consent.
#1. Most of the worlds wealthy countries get by just fine with an actual socialized medicine structure, not the (finally) regulated capitalistic one currently being proposed in the US.
If by "just fine" you mean they work more than half a year to pay for the needs of others intead of their own, I guess you're right.
#2. We already spend more on healthcare than most of those countries, we just don't do it well.
No, the higher cost is because the care is better. That's why people from Canada and Europe COME HERE for treatment. My wife works doing insurance pre-certification at a hosipital not far from the Canadian border, and she has about 15% of her work dealing with people from other countries that came here SPECIFICALLY because the care is better.
#3 Our economy is currently crippled because people are afraid to change jobs, afraid to start businesses, and afraid to hire employees because of health care. (BTW: If you're anti-universal healthcare, you're anti-small business)
Um, no, its because we're in the middle of a recession after the housing bubble burst. Being anti-universal care isn't anti-small business... because small business doesn't need to offer healthcare at all. You act as if small business has a shortage of people; they don't, they're laying off MORE than big buisness, again because of the recession, not because of healthcare.
#4. PLENTY of services are performed by the government quite well, as is appropriate. For example, water, sewer, sanitation and roadwork - while outsourced in most cases, are managed by local and state governments. I cite these first because they're more similar to the way health care will likely end up than are my next examples, which are decided more socialist in nature. Firefighting, Police, EMS, Schools, Medicare, Social Security, Flood Insurance, Banking Insurance, the National Parks service. All of these are best run by governments, even when the tasks are themselves subcontracted to bid.
You conveintly ignore everything else they do poorly; SSA, medicare, medicaid, welfare, uninsurance. Oh, and they don't do "roadwork" well, unless your definition of well is "its still kinda drivable." I prefer safe, well maintained roads, not unsafe (speed limits used to generate revenue, which DRIVES DOWN safety of roads), poorly maintained roads.
Here's a reality check: The job of a corporation is to maximize profit. The larger a corporation gets, the more effective it can be at controlling market conditions in a way that favors it. That's why some regulation is required in order to prevent a cycle that leads to the monopolization or stagnation through collusion of a few top earning corporations.
And you're proposing universally run care by the government? How is this better.. at least with companies I don't have to spend my money on them, but taxes are taken from me at gun point with threat of jail.
#1 - Any health coverage plan which is offered, must be available to anyone who wishes to buy it. That is to say, if GlobalInsurance Corp. wants to sell an HMO for $xxx / month with a specific set of coverages, then they should be allowed to -- provided anyone can purchase it. Failing to do so, means that anyone who is above average in cost to insure, is uninsured and thus gets foisted on the taxpayer to have medical care provided at maximum expense in the least efficient manner possible.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Why should healthy people have to pay for unhealthy people? I think that's the problem right now... your group rate is averaged, so while I'm healthy, there are alot of people employed here which aren't and they drive up my rate. My only recourse is to find another employer? WTF? I'd rather individual plans (no employer sponsered options) where my health history dicates my premiums, because i do have some control over my own health and the health of my family.
After all, if I drive unsafely and get in alot of accidents, my insurance goes up
Er, no, its because there's plenty of supply, and its rather low risk to obtain a CC number. This is why coke or pot is so expensive, the supply is not up with demand, and its fairly high risk to produce and sell the drugs.
As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too:)
That, and there was an article yesterday how MS sold some patents to a company to sell them to OSI, or something like that.
Oh, you think the printing press was cheap or easy to build and that it quickly became ubiqutious, all 600 years before the factory method of building? Again, I think you need to read and learn more. The world didn't get a printing press, and then the next year books were everywhere and easily copied.
Heh... they still wrote books and created music because they were paid to do so. Please go do some research, and then realize copyright only came about when it became cheap and easy to reproduce books and music.
I've replied to some other people on this thread as to why it won't work like you think it will. Please go read my replies, and then tell me what you think.
Also consider the people on welfare, that are just fine and dandy letting others supply their needs. I unfortunately think there's ALOT of people that would just sit around doing nothing if suddenly there was no reason to do for themselves.
And finally, remember that nothing is free; matter and energy are finite, so the replicator needs some kind of input to do what it does, thus we're back to square one... limited resources.
Reconizing that we have limited resources and that economy is how we decide how to use them does not make one greedy.. it makes on a realist.
But thats the point... not everything would cost nothing... services would still carry a price. Sometimes its nice (or necessary) to have someone else cook your meal, fix your house, make your food for you, etc etc.
Remember, our economy is MOSTLY driven by the service sector now... not making physical things. Replicating physical things only eliminates a small part of the economy..
If the original designer could copy anything, why would he need to be paid?
Because there's the dominant sector of society know as "services," which I assume people would still have an interest in purchasing. Its all well and fine that the designer could replicate a new door if his broke, but perhaps he needs others to install said door for him... especially when you consider all the other maintence that need be done in the modern world, maybe a new roof, the car needs work, etc etc. It gets to a point where you simply can't do everything yourself.
Even if you could do all the maintence yourself.. how would you do things like go out to a movie or restraunt, enjoy a massage, use a cell phone, etc? Ya, great, you've got the phone... but you still need the SERVICE to make it worth anything.
I see the opposite... designers going out of their way so other people could use their designs for free... would not that be the biggest dream of an artist? For his works to be enjoyed by as many people as possible?
Only if EVERY other need is fulfilled. Otherwise, they'd probably want both, or a mix of "people know and enjoy my art" and "I can make a living at it."
Personally I'd rather only 1 million people pay $1 for my art, than have 300 million people see it for free.
Slashdot Mirror
The landlord has no claim on "your things" unless you have breached contract somehow, like not paying rent.
I don't think that's true. Even if you haven't paid rent, the landlord can't hold your stuff hostage. What he CAN do is sue you in a court of law, but he doesn't get to take your stuff because you owe him money. AFAIK, only secured loans actually set that up, but its done so by contract. I haven't seen a lease yet that gives a landlord the right to hold your stuff for none payment... and I'm not sure that's legal, since if you're not paying rent you lose your right to be there (including your stuffs right to be there), but the landlord isn't out anything except your back rent (i.e., he still has the building).
Damn, just one bad day and no one ever lets you forget.
Um, ya, that's exactly why I replied to your post... because I disagree with it, and wanted to show the other side of things.
But please, find the time to make comments on what I've posted, especially the parts where you think that healthcare is why the country is in trouble right now, and not the housing / banking industries collapsing.
The mind boggles.
Only for someone that wishes so hard the world really wasn't the way it is that they live in fantasy land. Like you.
Do you seriously believe that because some Christians are vocal all Christians agree with them?
What is that thundering silence? Oh, its the other Christians that aren't saying "hey, THOSE vocal nuts don't speak for us."
Or that because some black people behave like stereotypes that it's fair to say that all black people are like that?
Stereotypes only evolve when a large enough group of people exhibit behavior, which others then pickup on. For the record, 95% of black people I encounter DO fit the stereo type. Just like 95% of the white trash I see have nothing but empty Bud cans in their recycle bin.
Now, when interacting individually, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and hold nothing against them.. at that point I'll judge the individual.
Because, all things being equal in a fatal accident, they actually kill you 1/3 of the time?
http://www.motorists.org/seatbelts/home/for-your-own-good/
Well, it gets more interesting then that. In a third of all fatal accidents where there are two or more people in the vehical and some are wearing seatbelts and some are not, the one that dies is the one WEARING the belt. The one ejected is the one that survives. Its not as cut and dry as you are lead to believe, when seatbelts only save lives 66% of the time.
but lots of other people are already accepting monetary risk because YOU don't where your seatbelt.
What cost to others is there? Shall we now deny people the right to rock climb, moutain bike, ride roller coasters, or leave their padded room because they might get hurt which somehow costs everyone money? Are you going for the "we all pay more in insurance" angle?
Do you think cams @ banks and stores are admissible? They're not in a black box either.
No, I bash Christains anyway... because they actually DO protest games, and other things they think are offensive and which NOBODY should have, because their make believe should be forced onto everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario I think backs me up... because while blacks likely would get angry, they'd be rather hypocritical too... there are plenty of black people living relatively close to my house, and I have to say, overall, they really aren't acting in such a way that breaks down the normal stereotypes... if anything, its re-enforcing them.
Because they weren't going to protest that particular game, most likely.
I did read the article. And I have to agree with the OP; who cares if you're offending a bunch of bible bangers? The bottom like is that while they staged a fake christian protest, christians REALLY DO PROTEST GAMES LIKE THAT. So I find their outrage a bit on the hypocritical side.
As far as the woman being offended by a "win a date with a booth babe" promotion... I can't honestly say how that's offensive in the least. She needn't partake in the promo, and quite frankly, a lot of people would like a date with some of them. I wonder if she's also offended by shows like the Bachelor or More to Love (win a marriage with a good looking guy, or win a marriage with a fat guy, respectively).
The check thing is another who cares... they're obviously going for a goof, or the editors would have gotten their checks like normal, without EA alerting the media first.
Indeed... are they checks that COULD actually be cashed though, or are they "similar" to checks?
Ok, they're liars. maybe not in this case.
Oh, there's a difference between ENFORCING the law and INTERPERATING the law. The police do only the former (and very poorly at that), they do NOT do the latter. A cop isn't an expert on law anymore than you or I would be. Laywers and judges are the best ones to tell you how a law is interperated.
No, is says "present in the converstation." A participant. You can't nitpick one word.
If you were being questioned about a murder, would you mind if the police recorded your converstation as "I shot her in the face" instead of "I shot her in the face with my cum?" Cut out words, you cut out the meaning of the sentense.
"Present in the conversation" means "one of the people talking." Therefore person C "present in the conversation," which means its only possible for A or B to be both eavesdropping and present in the conversation, which obviously cannot be. How do you eavesdrop your own conversation?
Well, since you can't eavesdrop on a conversation which you're a part of, the rest of the statute doesn't apply... meaning you don't need to do anything to record a conversation you are having with someone else. Because you're not eavesdropping, you don't need the consent of all parties.
Devices can't eavesdrop; thats something only a person can do. The device can't be doing anything on its own secretly, nor could the device possibly get consent.
The alternative for Apple was to close down its own doors.
#1. Most of the worlds wealthy countries get by just fine with an actual socialized medicine structure, not the (finally) regulated capitalistic one currently being proposed in the US.
If by "just fine" you mean they work more than half a year to pay for the needs of others intead of their own, I guess you're right.
#2. We already spend more on healthcare than most of those countries, we just don't do it well.
No, the higher cost is because the care is better. That's why people from Canada and Europe COME HERE for treatment. My wife works doing insurance pre-certification at a hosipital not far from the Canadian border, and she has about 15% of her work dealing with people from other countries that came here SPECIFICALLY because the care is better.
#3 Our economy is currently crippled because people are afraid to change jobs, afraid to start businesses, and afraid to hire employees because of health care. (BTW: If you're anti-universal healthcare, you're anti-small business)
Um, no, its because we're in the middle of a recession after the housing bubble burst. Being anti-universal care isn't anti-small business... because small business doesn't need to offer healthcare at all. You act as if small business has a shortage of people; they don't, they're laying off MORE than big buisness, again because of the recession, not because of healthcare.
#4. PLENTY of services are performed by the government quite well, as is appropriate. For example, water, sewer, sanitation and roadwork - while outsourced in most cases, are managed by local and state governments. I cite these first because they're more similar to the way health care will likely end up than are my next examples, which are decided more socialist in nature. Firefighting, Police, EMS, Schools, Medicare, Social Security, Flood Insurance, Banking Insurance, the National Parks service. All of these are best run by governments, even when the tasks are themselves subcontracted to bid.
You conveintly ignore everything else they do poorly; SSA, medicare, medicaid, welfare, uninsurance. Oh, and they don't do "roadwork" well, unless your definition of well is "its still kinda drivable." I prefer safe, well maintained roads, not unsafe (speed limits used to generate revenue, which DRIVES DOWN safety of roads), poorly maintained roads.
Here's a reality check: The job of a corporation is to maximize profit. The larger a corporation gets, the more effective it can be at controlling market conditions in a way that favors it. That's why some regulation is required in order to prevent a cycle that leads to the monopolization or stagnation through collusion of a few top earning corporations.
And you're proposing universally run care by the government? How is this better.. at least with companies I don't have to spend my money on them, but taxes are taken from me at gun point with threat of jail.
#1 - Any health coverage plan which is offered, must be available to anyone who wishes to buy it. That is to say, if GlobalInsurance Corp. wants to sell an HMO for $xxx / month with a specific set of coverages, then they should be allowed to -- provided anyone can purchase it. Failing to do so, means that anyone who is above average in cost to insure, is uninsured and thus gets foisted on the taxpayer to have medical care provided at maximum expense in the least efficient manner possible.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Why should healthy people have to pay for unhealthy people? I think that's the problem right now... your group rate is averaged, so while I'm healthy, there are alot of people employed here which aren't and they drive up my rate. My only recourse is to find another employer? WTF? I'd rather individual plans (no employer sponsered options) where my health history dicates my premiums, because i do have some control over my own health and the health of my family.
After all, if I drive unsafely and get in alot of accidents, my insurance goes up
Er, no, its because there's plenty of supply, and its rather low risk to obtain a CC number. This is why coke or pot is so expensive, the supply is not up with demand, and its fairly high risk to produce and sell the drugs.
As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too :)
That, and there was an article yesterday how MS sold some patents to a company to sell them to OSI, or something like that.
Oh, you think the printing press was cheap or easy to build and that it quickly became ubiqutious, all 600 years before the factory method of building? Again, I think you need to read and learn more. The world didn't get a printing press, and then the next year books were everywhere and easily copied.
http://communication.ucsd.edu/bjones/Books/printech.html
Indeed. A scene in Final Destination 3D shows there might be some promise to this.
Heh... they still wrote books and created music because they were paid to do so. Please go do some research, and then realize copyright only came about when it became cheap and easy to reproduce books and music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press
I've replied to some other people on this thread as to why it won't work like you think it will. Please go read my replies, and then tell me what you think.
Also consider the people on welfare, that are just fine and dandy letting others supply their needs. I unfortunately think there's ALOT of people that would just sit around doing nothing if suddenly there was no reason to do for themselves.
And finally, remember that nothing is free; matter and energy are finite, so the replicator needs some kind of input to do what it does, thus we're back to square one... limited resources.
Reconizing that we have limited resources and that economy is how we decide how to use them does not make one greedy.. it makes on a realist.
But thats the point... not everything would cost nothing... services would still carry a price. Sometimes its nice (or necessary) to have someone else cook your meal, fix your house, make your food for you, etc etc.
Remember, our economy is MOSTLY driven by the service sector now... not making physical things. Replicating physical things only eliminates a small part of the economy..
If the original designer could copy anything, why would he need to be paid?
Because there's the dominant sector of society know as "services," which I assume people would still have an interest in purchasing. Its all well and fine that the designer could replicate a new door if his broke, but perhaps he needs others to install said door for him... especially when you consider all the other maintence that need be done in the modern world, maybe a new roof, the car needs work, etc etc. It gets to a point where you simply can't do everything yourself.
Even if you could do all the maintence yourself.. how would you do things like go out to a movie or restraunt, enjoy a massage, use a cell phone, etc? Ya, great, you've got the phone... but you still need the SERVICE to make it worth anything.
I see the opposite... designers going out of their way so other people could use their designs for free... would not that be the biggest dream of an artist? For his works to be enjoyed by as many people as possible?
Only if EVERY other need is fulfilled. Otherwise, they'd probably want both, or a mix of "people know and enjoy my art" and "I can make a living at it."
Personally I'd rather only 1 million people pay $1 for my art, than have 300 million people see it for free.