I just checked the two BoingBoing links. Interesting, but I don't see how they relate to the issue of copyright. Do you have any examples of what you are talking about, or are we all supposed to just believe what you are saying?
I decided to look up information about all those ACORN "volunteers" getting arrested for voter registration fraud. I found a nice blog post claiming how this proved how evil ACORN was. Silly blogger linked to the article and, lo and behold, I found this quote,
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle praised ACORN.
``We've been very aggressive about a lot of these cases,'' she said. ``But we would not have known about these workers unless ACORN brought it to us.
ACORN reported voter registration fraud to the police, how corrupt of them!
Of course the US health care system is better that some other countries. Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq are three examples. Not that it matters, because he never made any statements about the quality of the US health care system
Now say a police officer walks up to your house and knocks on the door. He could be there for any reason. "Have you seen anything suspicious lately?" When you open the door, he sees several kilos of what appears to be drugs, and an uzi sitting on the coffee table, can he raid the house? Yes.
From this
If the warrant states that stolen TV's will be found in the back room, they can only (ONLY) search the back room for stolen TV's. If they see a darkened room full of people smoking hash, which is NOT the back room, they can't touch them. Not without a probable cause affidavit and a new warrant. They can't touch, arrest, etc, etc, those people, unless there is a direct threat to the officer(s).
I'm pretty sure that in both cases the officer is viewing illegal activity and can arrest the people.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a Criminology student at the University of Toronto, studying under one of the more prominent defence lawyers in the country (one of Maher Arar's lawyers) on legal procedure. Of course, if you're Bennett Hasleton though, that doesn't mean anything.
Why should it mean anything? It seems to me you inaccurately summarized what he said and used an appeal to authority to dismiss any need to engage with what he said. Unfortunately I've never studied under anyone famous, so what do I know?
So, when a company builds a school somewhere, sponsors a race, hires a speaker who climbed mt everest, invests in some wild technology, or any of the other things that corporations do, they do it because they think it is cool, and then they cover their rears to the shareholders and directors by inventing some elliptical story about profitability.
In fact, to many of the world's top business leaders, the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders. I mean, come on, do you really think if IBM funds something like a big art exhibit, they really sincerely think that doing so will yield a return? No, they do it because the board of IBM likes art, and that's that.
Are you saying that you believe every time a company does something that, in your opinion, doesn't add to the bottom line, they are just doing it for fun or because it is cool? Seems like a bit of an oversimplification to me.
The FCC has left it up to the stations to inform their viewers of the switch. They are allowed to still broadcast for up to 30 days over analog, strictly with emergency information and information related to DTV transition. Their is no requirement for stations to do this(at least in general, there may be more specific cases where stations are required to do this)
This action is designed to aid consumers who are not able to receive digital signals after the DTV
transition on February 17, 2009, to provide them with access to emergency information. This
action is also intended to help consumers understand the steps they need to take in order to
restore their television service.
The FCC Order lists 826 stations that are eligible to broadcast emergency and transition
information in analog after the statutory digital transition on February 17, 2009. Stationsâ(TM)
participation is voluntary, but the Order encourages stations to participate by adopting
streamlined procedures and maximum flexibility for participating broadcasters.
Do you have anymore information about this, for example location or station call signs? I am interested in what is predicted as far as coverage and interference in the area you are talking about.
where insurance must pay for all possible treatment or be sued.
1) You obviously have never been seriously ill.
2) You do not understand how the health insurance business operates.
Our system without a doubt provides the most care of any system in the world,
Please define what "most care of any system in the world" means and then please provide data showing your statement to be true.
Their main argument was that, "none of the detractors served on John Kerry's boat." Well, one of them did, but the bigger point is: BFD. They still served together in a close working relationship. They knew each other. They interacted. At the end of the day, all important events on all the boats would have been reported, sworn about, laughed at, etc. through several rounds of beers.
Of course you would prefer the accounts of men who may have had beers with Kerry, as opposed to people on the boat(or the man he saved). You might want to zip up your jacket, your bias is showing.
The thing is, the major billions are being spent by the 'humans cause global warming' crowd, not the reverse.
What?
In fact, companies like Enron lobbied FOR things like Kyoto because they stood to make money.
Your point? One company did one thing, and that is your proof? To repeat from earlier...oil companies are against acknowledging global climate change, does that mean we should acknowledge it? Enron was for energy deregulation...are you for energy deregulation?
How can you trust any studies that purport to show that more arable land will be made available and all that when it is impossible to say whether global climate change is coming or not? You don't want to trust the majority of scientists, but if those scientists are right, you want to believe things will be better. What about the areas that lose arable land? The weather systems that change and completely disrupt the ecosystem. Is it easier to change things now, or just cross our fingers and hope things get better?
I'm not saying that last is true either, but it's quite clear when we are hammered with polemics about how the debate is over, there's nothing left to study, all is doom and gloom, and if we don't do something *right now*, something with potentially bad downsides on the *chance* that it might have some small effect, that it is more a political issue than one of science.
No. I see most people saying that we need to look at things and start changing. Then anti-environmentalists come in and say, "You're trying to destroy our way of life and take over the world." People look at each other and go "What are you talking about? How will changing our energy policy destroy the economy and enslave us all?" There is never an answer for that.
Just because I do not like guns does not mean you cannot own a gun. Sheesh if that thought wasn't true then you could apply it to anything. I do not like RAP music therefore you cannot listen to it either, just as an example.
So many people play rap music into the air to celebrate, they never think where the music will land...
Try harder next time.
If motive is meaningless then you must believe that there shouldn't be a difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. Also, I suppose you are against anti-terrorism laws.
If you are not, I'd be interested in why you consider certain motives are permissable as worth extra/lesser punishment, and why others are not. And while I believe you could probably come up with a case of misuse of hate crime law, just using a derogatory term is not enough to be charged with one.
What laws include a specific race? Hate crime laws apply to any hate crime. Maybe there are some laws that favor some group that you are thinking of, but it is not hate crime legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked the two BoingBoing links. Interesting, but I don't see how they relate to the issue of copyright. Do you have any examples of what you are talking about, or are we all supposed to just believe what you are saying?
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle praised ACORN. ``We've been very aggressive about a lot of these cases,'' she said. ``But we would not have known about these workers unless ACORN brought it to us.
ACORN reported voter registration fraud to the police, how corrupt of them!
Of course the US health care system is better that some other countries. Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq are three examples. Not that it matters, because he never made any statements about the quality of the US health care system
Analog television.
How do you separate this
Now say a police officer walks up to your house and knocks on the door. He could be there for any reason. "Have you seen anything suspicious lately?" When you open the door, he sees several kilos of what appears to be drugs, and an uzi sitting on the coffee table, can he raid the house? Yes.
From this
If the warrant states that stolen TV's will be found in the back room, they can only (ONLY) search the back room for stolen TV's. If they see a darkened room full of people smoking hash, which is NOT the back room, they can't touch them. Not without a probable cause affidavit and a new warrant. They can't touch, arrest, etc, etc, those people, unless there is a direct threat to the officer(s).
I'm pretty sure that in both cases the officer is viewing illegal activity and can arrest the people.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a Criminology student at the University of Toronto, studying under one of the more prominent defence lawyers in the country (one of Maher Arar's lawyers) on legal procedure. Of course, if you're Bennett Hasleton though, that doesn't mean anything.
Why should it mean anything? It seems to me you inaccurately summarized what he said and used an appeal to authority to dismiss any need to engage with what he said. Unfortunately I've never studied under anyone famous, so what do I know?
So, when a company builds a school somewhere, sponsors a race, hires a speaker who climbed mt everest, invests in some wild technology, or any of the other things that corporations do, they do it because they think it is cool, and then they cover their rears to the shareholders and directors by inventing some elliptical story about profitability.
In fact, to many of the world's top business leaders, the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders. I mean, come on, do you really think if IBM funds something like a big art exhibit, they really sincerely think that doing so will yield a return? No, they do it because the board of IBM likes art, and that's that.
Are you saying that you believe every time a company does something that, in your opinion, doesn't add to the bottom line, they are just doing it for fun or because it is cool? Seems like a bit of an oversimplification to me.
I live in the city of Pittsburgh, and I loose three channels (including my only ABC and CBS options) as soon as the transition happens.
Why are you losing three channels?
The FCC has left it up to the stations to inform their viewers of the switch. They are allowed to still broadcast for up to 30 days over analog, strictly with emergency information and information related to DTV transition. Their is no requirement for stations to do this(at least in general, there may be more specific cases where stations are required to do this)
From January 15 FCC release
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287915A1.pdf
Do you have anymore information about this, for example location or station call signs? I am interested in what is predicted as far as coverage and interference in the area you are talking about.
where insurance must pay for all possible treatment or be sued. 1) You obviously have never been seriously ill. 2) You do not understand how the health insurance business operates. Our system without a doubt provides the most care of any system in the world, Please define what "most care of any system in the world" means and then please provide data showing your statement to be true.
You're right. It is WELL understood that they were not very political.
Their main argument was that, "none of the detractors served on John Kerry's boat." Well, one of them did, but the bigger point is: BFD. They still served together in a close working relationship. They knew each other. They interacted. At the end of the day, all important events on all the boats would have been reported, sworn about, laughed at, etc. through several rounds of beers. Of course you would prefer the accounts of men who may have had beers with Kerry, as opposed to people on the boat(or the man he saved). You might want to zip up your jacket, your bias is showing.
The thing is, the major billions are being spent by the 'humans cause global warming' crowd, not the reverse. What? In fact, companies like Enron lobbied FOR things like Kyoto because they stood to make money. Your point? One company did one thing, and that is your proof? To repeat from earlier...oil companies are against acknowledging global climate change, does that mean we should acknowledge it? Enron was for energy deregulation...are you for energy deregulation? How can you trust any studies that purport to show that more arable land will be made available and all that when it is impossible to say whether global climate change is coming or not? You don't want to trust the majority of scientists, but if those scientists are right, you want to believe things will be better. What about the areas that lose arable land? The weather systems that change and completely disrupt the ecosystem. Is it easier to change things now, or just cross our fingers and hope things get better? I'm not saying that last is true either, but it's quite clear when we are hammered with polemics about how the debate is over, there's nothing left to study, all is doom and gloom, and if we don't do something *right now*, something with potentially bad downsides on the *chance* that it might have some small effect, that it is more a political issue than one of science. No. I see most people saying that we need to look at things and start changing. Then anti-environmentalists come in and say, "You're trying to destroy our way of life and take over the world." People look at each other and go "What are you talking about? How will changing our energy policy destroy the economy and enslave us all?" There is never an answer for that.
Everyone gets to claim Social Security. Either you terminology is off or you just don't know what you are talking about.
Just because I do not like guns does not mean you cannot own a gun. Sheesh if that thought wasn't true then you could apply it to anything. I do not like RAP music therefore you cannot listen to it either, just as an example. So many people play rap music into the air to celebrate, they never think where the music will land... Try harder next time.
If motive is meaningless then you must believe that there shouldn't be a difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. Also, I suppose you are against anti-terrorism laws. If you are not, I'd be interested in why you consider certain motives are permissable as worth extra/lesser punishment, and why others are not. And while I believe you could probably come up with a case of misuse of hate crime law, just using a derogatory term is not enough to be charged with one. What laws include a specific race? Hate crime laws apply to any hate crime. Maybe there are some laws that favor some group that you are thinking of, but it is not hate crime legislation.