Garriott: When I was young, I used to say that I would immediately take the opportunity to leave for deep space and never return. I still believe that. I'd want to be sure that my journey would be safe, and that it the journey was to achieve a worthy goal, but I would go in a heartbeat!
But first he has to get that eighth part avatar and find out what the true axiom is.
"There is speculation the Danes will once again send an ice-breaking frigate to the island. But how is Canada prepared to match this show of muscle?" Gordon O'Connor said in a statement.
"There is speculation the Danes will once again send an ice-breaking frigate to the island. But how is Canada prepared to match this show of muscle?" Gordon O'Connor said in a statement.
Pita does have a soft a at the end. Are you from England or something? But I take it you are suggesting to pronounce peta- with a soft e as in pet. You wrote as if your pronunciation is official. Is it? Since it is a made-up prefix, did the SI specify this? I don't trust on-line dictionaries because many of them incorrectly list giga- as having a hard g.
And a study commissioned by ESPN found that men control the dvr.
Question: He is holding the TV remote and a can of beer. She holds the DVR remote. Now, who is really in control when he can just hit the "Source" button and switch the input to cable TV? Answer: She is, of course, if he ever wants another blow job again.
$995 is pretty cheap. How much do you think you have to pay for other server products? Not to mention the "client access license" fees that many companies wring from your pocketbook.
Microsoft has been underpaying in terms of salaries for decades. They always promised stock options or grants would make the prospective employee rich (and that was true once long ago) but if you go look at MSFT price it has been stagnant for about 5 years and is only worth about 40% of it's historical high. And not only that but the SEC told them to change their accounting practices so they can't fudge their numbers by giving stock to employees anymore.
For instance, perhaps they will be highly gifted in doling out sharp pejoratives, such as "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
I suspect their brains might be geared toward monosyllabic language. Therefore an exclamation such as "D'oh!" would be more appropriate.
I have a strange suspicion that free speech would still be permitted but only in a designated area that the public never sees. Kind of like the official protest areas they always set up miles away from the Democratic and Republican national conventions. Of course, this will be a doubleplusgood thing since free speech is just crimethink anyway.
After reading the amendments again closely I see your argument has some relevance. However, as usual the word 'unreasonable' seems to be the problem. SCOTUS would undoubtedly consider seizure for 'public use' to be a good reason. In fact, that is explicitly stated in the fifth amendment stipulating further only that just compensation must be given. But the thing I really like about your point is that the comandeering of the word 'unreasonable' by neo-cons to mean "objectionable" when applied to searches works against them this time since it must be applied equally to seizures. Poetic justice indeed.
The principle that has been established is that you own your land unless the government can think of a purpose for your land that would suit what they identify as the higher economic good. That's called expropriation.
Expropriation is bad, mmmkay?
I think the principle that has been established is that you own your land unless a private developer can think of a purpose for your land that would increase tax revenues in any way. In other words, you don't own your land. Anyone influential in local government who wants your land owns your land.
Expropriation isn't necessarily bad. If not for eminent domain we would not have many things such as: railroads, roads, interstate highways, sewer lines, municipal water supplies, an electrical grid, sidewalks, etc. What seems to offend people about this decision, including me, is that land developers who are already extremely influential with local ciy councils (especially since the recent housing boom) may now build anything anywhere based on a subjective prediction that it will somehow benefit the community. I can say with 100% surety that, now that the precendent has been set, someday this definition will get stretched to the point where even increased property taxes will be justification enough to bulldoze and sieze citizen's property.
Imagine this scenario; A developer sees a dozen summer cottages around a small lake each on five acre lots. By siezing the properties and building 20 million dollar mansions on 3 acre lots the city or township will increase its property tax revenues by about 2000%. Property taxes contribute heavily to the local school district so anyone who fights this expropriation can be portrayed as someone who doesn't care about the children. Not to mention the construction jobs that would be created by building houses. As the years roll on, the only jobs that can't be offshored will be construction jobs so this will also be a strong impetus for siezing and building.
When the housing boom goes bust this will start to happen more and more often. And think about the potential for abuse. The city council will have the power to decide if they themselves or their relatives or friends are offered 1.7 million for $250,000 homes that maybe they wanted to sell anyway.
No. There is nothing anyone can do now. The highest court in the land has issued its ruling. However, the supreme court has a way of doing whatever it finds convenient at the moment so they could still obviate this ruling in the future , though not reverse it, by issuing a new ruling on a different but similar case which would "clarify" this ruling. For background on how this would work you can read up on how they reversed (but technically didn't) Plessy v. Ferguson with the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
80% of you gush over every shitty movie that Hollywood releases and
tell everyone how many times you will pay to see it or how you will wait in a line at midnight to buy the DVD. Then after stuffing the MPAA's pockets with your hard earned cash, you are outraged when they use a tiny fraction of that money to limit your freedoms by bribing congressmen with campaign contributions and junkets. Did you really need to see Spiderman II? Or Star Wars III? Or Weekend at Bernies IV? Boycott their crap and find healthier ways to entertain yourself than vegging out in front of a boob tube. The money you gave to the MPAA lawyers even by buying Ishtar from the bargain bin is more than 99% of you have ever given to the
EFF or ACLU.
If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
But first he has to get that eighth part avatar and find out what the true axiom is.
It's not really the lawyers fault. Just look at this guy. Are you familiar with the expression 'beaten like a red headed stepchild'?
In response, Canada sends its most powerful warship...
What! Canada has a warship?
In response, Canada sends its most powerful warship...
What! Canada has a warship?
Pita does have a soft a at the end. Are you from England or something? But I take it you are suggesting to pronounce peta- with a soft e as in pet. You wrote as if your pronunciation is official. Is it? Since it is a made-up prefix, did the SI specify this? I don't trust on-line dictionaries because many of them incorrectly list giga- as having a hard g.
so should it still rhyme with beta, zeta, eta, and theta? Or should it be pronounced like pita bread?
In the Large Magellanic Cloud, of course!
They wouldn't even listen to my question unless I gave them a credit card number they could charge $150 to.
Meanwhile, some dubious theory from the Internet will be swallowed hook, line and sinker nine times out of 10.
Meanwhile, some dubya's theory on the Tv set will be swallowed hook, line and sinker nine times out of 10.
Question: He is holding the TV remote and a can of beer. She holds the DVR remote. Now, who is really in control when he can just hit the "Source" button and switch the input to cable TV? Answer: She is, of course, if he ever wants another blow job again.
I have my own theory on why Apple fell.
Gravity.
I won't say his name, but he is fat, stupid-looking, evil, and works as George Busch's closest advisor.
I hope so. I can't count the number of times I've need to press the "any" key to continue.
I didn't believe it until I did some research. But this is just disturbing.
$995 is pretty cheap. How much do you think you have to pay for other server products? Not to mention the "client access license" fees that many companies wring from your pocketbook.
Microsoft has been underpaying in terms of salaries for decades. They always promised stock options or grants would make the prospective employee rich (and that was true once long ago) but if you go look at MSFT price it has been stagnant for about 5 years and is only worth about 40% of it's historical high. And not only that but the SEC told them to change their accounting practices so they can't fudge their numbers by giving stock to employees anymore.
It's easy when Microsoft offers them exorbitant wages of 40 Rupees an hour!
I suspect their brains might be geared toward monosyllabic language. Therefore an exclamation such as "D'oh!" would be more appropriate.
I have a strange suspicion that free speech would still be permitted but only in a designated area that the public never sees. Kind of like the official protest areas they always set up miles away from the Democratic and Republican national conventions. Of course, this will be a doubleplusgood thing since free speech is just crimethink anyway.
Because only one man in the world is rich enough to build a disk that large.
And he will only do it if we give him one hundred... billion... dollars.
Yes but the real picture was just too disturbing.
After reading the amendments again closely I see your argument has some relevance. However, as usual the word 'unreasonable' seems to be the problem. SCOTUS would undoubtedly consider seizure for 'public use' to be a good reason. In fact, that is explicitly stated in the fifth amendment stipulating further only that just compensation must be given. But the thing I really like about your point is that the comandeering of the word 'unreasonable' by neo-cons to mean "objectionable" when applied to searches works against them this time since it must be applied equally to seizures. Poetic justice indeed.
Expropriation is bad, mmmkay?
I think the principle that has been established is that you own your land unless a private developer can think of a purpose for your land that would increase tax revenues in any way. In other words, you don't own your land. Anyone influential in local government who wants your land owns your land.
Expropriation isn't necessarily bad. If not for eminent domain we would not have many things such as: railroads, roads, interstate highways, sewer lines, municipal water supplies, an electrical grid, sidewalks, etc. What seems to offend people about this decision, including me, is that land developers who are already extremely influential with local ciy councils (especially since the recent housing boom) may now build anything anywhere based on a subjective prediction that it will somehow benefit the community. I can say with 100% surety that, now that the precendent has been set, someday this definition will get stretched to the point where even increased property taxes will be justification enough to bulldoze and sieze citizen's property.
Imagine this scenario; A developer sees a dozen summer cottages around a small lake each on five acre lots. By siezing the properties and building 20 million dollar mansions on 3 acre lots the city or township will increase its property tax revenues by about 2000%. Property taxes contribute heavily to the local school district so anyone who fights this expropriation can be portrayed as someone who doesn't care about the children. Not to mention the construction jobs that would be created by building houses. As the years roll on, the only jobs that can't be offshored will be construction jobs so this will also be a strong impetus for siezing and building.
When the housing boom goes bust this will start to happen more and more often. And think about the potential for abuse. The city council will have the power to decide if they themselves or their relatives or friends are offered 1.7 million for $250,000 homes that maybe they wanted to sell anyway.
No. There is nothing anyone can do now. The highest court in the land has issued its ruling. However, the supreme court has a way of doing whatever it finds convenient at the moment so they could still obviate this ruling in the future , though not reverse it, by issuing a new ruling on a different but similar case which would "clarify" this ruling. For background on how this would work you can read up on how they reversed (but technically didn't) Plessy v. Ferguson with the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.