It shouldn't be. Flashing your lights for the benefit of oncoming cars is considered protected free speech, and IANAL but this seems to me like the same idea.
I disagree. You only need to look at how the three presidential candidates voted in the Senate on the Dodd amendment to remove retroactive telecom immunity for warrentless wiretapping from the FISA bill.
Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the Dodd amendment. I construe this as a vote in favor of the constitution.
Senator Hillary Clinton was absent for the vote, which I construe as a don't-care.
Senator John McCain voted against the Dodd amendment, which I construe as a vote against the constitution.
Right, the Bush administration's twisted theory is that the president's constitutional commander-in-chief power trumps the Bill of Rights. Now IANAL but it seems to me that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution AFTER the commander-in-chief clause was ratified, and so therefore the Bill of Rights modifies and limits those commander-in-chief powers. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the government's powers.
After World War II Germany had a large number of war criminals who helped perpetrate the Holocaust and who needed privacy to hide from the survivors of the many families that they murdered. Therefore, privacy laws were and are a priority to Germans.
In 11 months the US may find the need for similar laws when the truth emerges about what went on in Iraq.
It would be old news but there's this presidential candidate still in the running who proclaims that the Earth is 6000 years old, evolution never happened, and cells are people too.
What problem does religion (and belief in general) solve?
Bonus: Can you formulate an answer that does not make you inherently superior to religions people? See this as a challenge befitting your superior intellect. (Then once seen, unsee.)
Ok, I'll answer and go for the bonus.
You see, not everybody in the world has the blazing logical clarity that Slashdotters typically have which enables them to see that mass murder is inherently illogical. When this happens, it is the function of the religious people to assert that there is a powerful (almighty) deity who does not approve of mass murder. If the illogical would-be mass murderers pay attention to the religious people, then they refrain from commiting mass-murder.
That's the way it's supposed to work. The system isn't perfect. Sometimes religious people forget that the deity is against mass-murder and when that happens you get abberations such as crusades, jihads, the Spanish Inquisition, and so forth. Sometimes the illogical would-be mass murderers reject the religious people and then you have mass-murdering athiests such as Stalin and Pol Pot.
As I said, the system isn't perfect, but it is one layer of protection for society. Think of computer security: your system is more secure with multiple layers (anti-virus plus firewall) because each layer is itself somewhat permeable. In this case, religion serves as a kind of firewall.
AOL's market relevance is as a warning to other ISPs: This is what happens when you replace net neutrality with a walled-off garden of preferred content.
I disagree. The discernable benefit is that proton beam therapy is available to those who truly need it. If the cost couldn't be recouped then there would be exactly zero of these facilities.
It's also unknown how many of those hypothetical other users who committed further acts of copyright infringement were already sued for it by the RIAA for big bucks. So why should JT be accountable for them too? Somebody in the DOJ took a stupid pill today.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Putin, tear down this firewall!
It shouldn't be. Flashing your lights for the benefit of oncoming cars is considered protected free speech, and IANAL but this seems to me like the same idea.
I disagree. You only need to look at how the three presidential candidates voted in the Senate on the Dodd amendment to remove retroactive telecom immunity for warrentless wiretapping from the FISA bill.
Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the Dodd amendment. I construe this as a vote in favor of the constitution.
Senator Hillary Clinton was absent for the vote, which I construe as a don't-care.
Senator John McCain voted against the Dodd amendment, which I construe as a vote against the constitution.
Right, the Bush administration's twisted theory is that the president's constitutional commander-in-chief power trumps the Bill of Rights. Now IANAL but it seems to me that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution AFTER the commander-in-chief clause was ratified, and so therefore the Bill of Rights modifies and limits those commander-in-chief powers. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the government's powers.
They made a movie about it.
To me blue lights say, "Attention K-mart shoppers!"
I agree with this, sort of.
After World War II Germany had a large number of war criminals who helped perpetrate the Holocaust and who needed privacy to hide from the survivors of the many families that they murdered. Therefore, privacy laws were and are a priority to Germans.
In 11 months the US may find the need for similar laws when the truth emerges about what went on in Iraq.
This was not a vote on an amendment. This was a vote on cloture. Obama voted nay, same as did Dodd and Feingold.
It would be old news but there's this presidential candidate still in the running who proclaims that the Earth is 6000 years old, evolution never happened, and cells are people too.
Son of a famous politician, turned business executive, turned one-term republican governor, turned presidential candidate.
Of course I'm talking about George W. Bush. And Mitt Romney.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Your money or your life.
There's no technology that detects whether a file that's being shared contains material that's in the public domain.
This proves that AT&T is run by a bunch of assholes.
Ok, I'll answer and go for the bonus.
You see, not everybody in the world has the blazing logical clarity that Slashdotters typically have which enables them to see that mass murder is inherently illogical. When this happens, it is the function of the religious people to assert that there is a powerful (almighty) deity who does not approve of mass murder. If the illogical would-be mass murderers pay attention to the religious people, then they refrain from commiting mass-murder.
That's the way it's supposed to work. The system isn't perfect. Sometimes religious people forget that the deity is against mass-murder and when that happens you get abberations such as crusades, jihads, the Spanish Inquisition, and so forth. Sometimes the illogical would-be mass murderers reject the religious people and then you have mass-murdering athiests such as Stalin and Pol Pot.
As I said, the system isn't perfect, but it is one layer of protection for society. Think of computer security: your system is more secure with multiple layers (anti-virus plus firewall) because each layer is itself somewhat permeable. In this case, religion serves as a kind of firewall.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Linux: for teaching programming and computing.
Windows: for Solitaire.
AOL's market relevance is as a warning to other ISPs: This is what happens when you replace net neutrality with a walled-off garden of preferred content.
I disagree. The discernable benefit is that proton beam therapy is available to those who truly need it. If the cost couldn't be recouped then there would be exactly zero of these facilities.
It's also unknown how many of those hypothetical other users who committed further acts of copyright infringement were already sued for it by the RIAA for big bucks. So why should JT be accountable for them too? Somebody in the DOJ took a stupid pill today.
Here is a link to the original Hebrew, with audio, transliteration, and English translation ("fragrant cane").