They are not supporting these governments, they are trying to do business in a foreign country and to do so they must obey their laws. Just like someone who wants to do business in the United States must obey our laws...the only catch is...an American company doing business in a foreign country must obey American laws and that countries laws...it becomes a problem when the laws are in conflict....For example - many countries require a little bit of bribing to get in a meeting with someone...it is not against the law, and if you want the meeting you better do it....however, in the USA, this is strictly illegal and punishable by law. Now let us say you are an American company trying to get the business of someone in Russia and you are competing with someone from Brazil. The person from Brazil may not have the anti-bribing laws - so before your foot gets in the door you are at a disadvantage.
basically, the gist of my of thing - there are proper ways of fighting injustice and breaking the laws is not one of them. If you want to make the best changes, work within the system. If google gets it's foot in the door of Iran then they can slowly change the system by (gradually) bringing in idea's of capitalism, freedom of speech, etc...but these things take time.
because this was already learned about in Joe Vs the Volcano in the very beginning where he has the flourecent lamp that constantly makes that annoying humming sound.
In the context of software this is simply not true. There is no evidence that is is true and lots of evidence that patents on software are hindering competition.
There is no evidence that companies spend money - and lots of it - in R&D when creating different software products? There is no evidence that MS spends money creating Windows? There is no evidence that Blizzard spent money on WoW?
No, that is wrong - that is 100% wrong. Patents on software is fine - it is the ridiculous patents on software that is not fine...things such as "Clicking on an electronic button to quicken a process" is dumb - patenting say...oh I don't know World of WarCraft is not dumb. To relate it to your drug question....some of these ridiculous patent suits (i.e. "clicking on an electronic button...") could fall into the same as patenting "a process in which a liquid is heated in a clear container and poured into another container"....see dumb patent idea.
Patents are needed and useful. When a company spends millions (if not billions) researching an idea they need a fair opportunity to recoup their costs. They put out the time/work/effort - they should get first cracks... If someone is not happy about it - then they should be the first to come up with the idea (and put out the money).
That is the one I am talking about:) You know I swore it had "crack" in there somewhere and I kept looking it up, but being the movie is so old I got more crap then anything else...even when i typed key words "Crack" "Thermo energy" etc. Thanks:D
You made that word up didn't you? Come on, admit it:D
I agree, the drugs are way too expensive to take them on a regular, pre-emptive basis. If the prices came down sure.....but then, taking a pill for the rest of your life just in case? That is something most people are not willing to do. They need to come up with some kind of vaccination that you have to take once every year, ten years, or just once. But yes, this is better the nothing....and the prices will come down when they sell more. The drugs are expensive because the first pill took millions and millions to produce...as they drugs sell more the prices come down.
Hate to break it to you, that post was a troll. It offered nothing other then to take someone's post and do a search and replace for different words in a failed (not even a valient) attempt at making a point.
I guess they don't remember that movie (I forget the name actually) where the people tried to drop a nuclear bomb down a long tunnel to crack the earth's core to tap the nuclear energy. All hell broke loose, and all that was left was one guy and one girl. I sure hope the girl is hot and I am the one guy.
What? bulimia, silicon injections and air-brushing?
Seeing that you are a a duly designated representative of the "others in the population", I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.
In other words - there are people who look as good if not better then the models in the magazines who are not bulimic, silicon injected or air brushed....and many models in magazines are naturally gorgeous. To claim a group who happens to have good looks couldn't have gotten it without the help of cosmetic surgery or air brushing is generalizing and prejudiced...somewhere along the lines of saying anyone who is fat must eat four cheeseburgers, a whole cake, raw fat, and drink coke every day.
Or would you like to play Gotham Racing with camera view stuck in direction of your front bumper?
GranTurismo 3 for te PS2 (as well as gran turismo 2 and probably 1) has an option, after the race, to see your car and the other cars driving around the track. It is not pre-rendered, it looks exactly the same as the rest of the race...the only difference, since the computer is controlling the cars movements you can change the camera angle to include the front. I do not have this Gotham Racing, but I am sure they have the same tech.
I agree 100%....I fondly, very fondly, remember the original Transformers series. I loved it and for years I thought it was better then all the modern cartoons...then I found some episodes and I was like "ugh, there goes my childhood memories". We do think those older games were the best because we were younger and more easily impressed...now a days we are so critical. We look at the game and think "Oh man, the anti-aliasing on this game sucks, why did they do this...oh god they made a typo, oh that doesn't make sense...and dammit why is it I need 1 gig of RAM to play WoW correctly."
I have to disagree on this one point. Too many models with those kinds of proportions...and too many girls that I see with those kinds of proportions tomake the above statement true. Is it the majority of women, no (what a shame), but there are plenty of women who fit this body mold. Nothing is wrong with it. It has always been the case - a minority of the population have a certain look that everyone drools over, and others in the population want to degrade that because they do not have it.
I can't write and look at my professor in the face, just not gonna happen because I can't. I also can't write as fast as my professor speaks. I can, however, type without ever looking at the keyboard and I can type at an average speaking rate. For me, it would be better (barring any class that requires non-linear writing, like art or math, or anything else with diagrams).
Now, a real reason why I would not want students to bring their laptops is because they may be playing games, chatting online, etc. Possibly because the sound of fingers striking the keyboard might get distracting (assuming the student does not have a quiet keyboard). But eye contact my ass.
The simplist method is to charge the rules for where the site is based from. This is the Internet, I can access a website from anywhere in the world (assuming no filters) so to make some website in say NY suffer the penalties of another state (or for say another country) is insane. There is no way anything could get done. Not to mention, the Internet is generally accessed in the privacy of someone's home or work. It doesn't matter if the community in an area views porn as wrong, a person is allowed to view porn in the privacy of their own home (at work is subject to office protocal). Or let us say a person was not allowed to view porn, in their own home (assuming Alabama) then that person is responsible for breaking the law, not the website....the website provider did not break the law.
If I had a porn website hosted in Alabama, and Alabama forbade those kinds of sites - then I should be held liable.
There is precedent for this, btw. If you are from Pennsylvania, and someone gets into a car accident with you in NY (fault does not matter) then you have to go to NY court to settle. So I do not know why they are making such a big deal of this case.
The company I work for will not give me a raise to match their offer, and will be forced to hire someone to replace me at what I wanted them to match.
It always happens that the new guy hired in for the position always gets more money than the 10 year vetran employee and usually has only 70=80% of the productivity of the vetran.
This is so true, and I see it all the time. I have a friend who left their job because the company would not give them a substantial raise (they were making under average market wage). The company ended up hiring two people to do the job and both of them together did not have his expertise....they also paid each person about 5k less then my friend...which means they were 10k short of doubling his salary. Imagine if the company just offered that money to my friend...they would have an extremely loyal and happy employee, who is extremely good at what he does.
I don't have (so much) a problem of someone knowing my name and address and income (i don't like it, but eh i can deal with it, i am open about that)...hell i am in the phone book (well i used to be...now i do not own a phone, my company pays for mine). I have a problem with say oh, my social security number being sold, with my drivers license, and my bank account, and my name, and income, and my job, and my this and that....All that information is INSANELY private. If my CPA (who charges me $300/filing) sold my information, there would be hell to pay and he would.
Hopefully this will get shot down. our gov't....selling away our rights one little step at a time.
Then i think the biggest problem would be your music choice not your volume level.
Why is that? From heavy metal, to symphany orchestra - there are a lot of subtle tones that can only be heard at the higher volume settings. I have listened to many CDs where at a low volume I missed a number of different tones. I like high quality sound equipment, and listening to good sound. And those who don't, just have never really paid attention.
Kids still wear them too much, and listen to them too loud and unfortunately some still will have hearing loss.
I resent this statement saying kids listen to loud music and it implies that adults do not. As a 29 year old male, urbanite, I can tell you I enjoy blasting my ears out - in fact my music is so loud, if you were standing 5 feet from me, you could clearly hear Linkin Park blaring!;)
I have seen a number of MP3 players (not sure if iPod has it, but I wouldn't be surprised) with a Normalize feature. I do understand that one song may have been recorded in a louder tone then another...so setting "five" (for simplicity, let's assume this is 5 decibals) on my music player will play one song at 5 decibal, but another song at 6, and another at 3 - but the Normalize mode was created to help keep a song at setting "five" - so every song plays at 5 decibals.
Blomberg is working on an invention to give users more control over the volume output of their portable devices
You mean like the volume knob that has been installed on every single portable music device that I have ever seen in my entire 29 years of existance? And if someone want's more precise sound control, many (if not most) high end (or MP3) devices have an equalizer built in. Why do we need an external device for something that has already been in place for many many years. Hell, even some headphones come with a volume control knob...so between the headphones and the knob on my iPod, why do I need the gov't restricting this? Why do I need someone to create a piece of software and sell it to me, when I can already control the volume.
So, you are saying, that if someone creates a theory that is so sound proof, so accurate, so factual that it cannot be falsified it ceases to become science? I am sorry, I am not buying that. We have theories, in science, that are not disprovable. The moment something has been disproved it no longer qualifies to be a theory.
No, he can't. He can show you an overwhelming amount of evidence that is consistent with the H2O theory, but that is not the same thing as proof. It is, however, as close to proof as anything in science ever gets.
Why can't he? He can take the components, separate them and then show you with instruments that can read such materials. "See we were in a vacuum that had pure H2O. Now after applying the electrical process, we have some gas in there. My instruments are able to tell me that it is Hydrogen and Oxygen...in a 2-1 ratio.
Where does it say that in science something can't be proven. Get a scientist and tell him to prove that water is made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen...he can prove it...He doesn't need to disprove anything else. Disproving is fine and dandy, but due to the nature of existance - pretty much every answer, except a select few, is the wrong answer. Given that dispproving something will help you eliminate issues, but you need to actually prove something to get a "hey look, 2+2 = 4"
Slashdot Mirror
They are not supporting these governments, they are trying to do business in a foreign country and to do so they must obey their laws. Just like someone who wants to do business in the United States must obey our laws...the only catch is...an American company doing business in a foreign country must obey American laws and that countries laws...it becomes a problem when the laws are in conflict....For example - many countries require a little bit of bribing to get in a meeting with someone...it is not against the law, and if you want the meeting you better do it....however, in the USA, this is strictly illegal and punishable by law. Now let us say you are an American company trying to get the business of someone in Russia and you are competing with someone from Brazil. The person from Brazil may not have the anti-bribing laws - so before your foot gets in the door you are at a disadvantage.
basically, the gist of my of thing - there are proper ways of fighting injustice and breaking the laws is not one of them. If you want to make the best changes, work within the system. If google gets it's foot in the door of Iran then they can slowly change the system by (gradually) bringing in idea's of capitalism, freedom of speech, etc...but these things take time.
because this was already learned about in Joe Vs the Volcano in the very beginning where he has the flourecent lamp that constantly makes that annoying humming sound.
In the context of software this is simply not true. There is no evidence that is is true and lots of evidence that patents on software are hindering competition.
There is no evidence that companies spend money - and lots of it - in R&D when creating different software products? There is no evidence that MS spends money creating Windows? There is no evidence that Blizzard spent money on WoW?
No, that is wrong - that is 100% wrong. Patents on software is fine - it is the ridiculous patents on software that is not fine...things such as "Clicking on an electronic button to quicken a process" is dumb - patenting say...oh I don't know World of WarCraft is not dumb. To relate it to your drug question....some of these ridiculous patent suits (i.e. "clicking on an electronic button...") could fall into the same as patenting "a process in which a liquid is heated in a clear container and poured into another container"....see dumb patent idea.
Patents are needed and useful. When a company spends millions (if not billions) researching an idea they need a fair opportunity to recoup their costs. They put out the time/work/effort - they should get first cracks... If someone is not happy about it - then they should be the first to come up with the idea (and put out the money).
Roe v Wade being the "Law of the Land" is a misnomer
Well yea, especially since the law of the land is the Constitution.
Crack in the World
:) You know I swore it had "crack" in there somewhere and I kept looking it up, but being the movie is so old I got more crap then anything else...even when i typed key words "Crack" "Thermo energy" etc. Thanks :D
That is the one I am talking about
Oh and The Core did suck ass.
prophylactically
:D
You made that word up didn't you? Come on, admit it
I agree, the drugs are way too expensive to take them on a regular, pre-emptive basis. If the prices came down sure.....but then, taking a pill for the rest of your life just in case? That is something most people are not willing to do. They need to come up with some kind of vaccination that you have to take once every year, ten years, or just once. But yes, this is better the nothing....and the prices will come down when they sell more. The drugs are expensive because the first pill took millions and millions to produce...as they drugs sell more the prices come down.
Hate to break it to you, that post was a troll. It offered nothing other then to take someone's post and do a search and replace for different words in a failed (not even a valient) attempt at making a point.
I guess they don't remember that movie (I forget the name actually) where the people tried to drop a nuclear bomb down a long tunnel to crack the earth's core to tap the nuclear energy. All hell broke loose, and all that was left was one guy and one girl. I sure hope the girl is hot and I am the one guy.
You know, I should know better then to click on links where I know what the image will be like and the image will not be a good one ;)
What? bulimia, silicon injections and air-brushing?
Seeing that you are a a duly designated representative of the "others in the population", I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.
In other words - there are people who look as good if not better then the models in the magazines who are not bulimic, silicon injected or air brushed....and many models in magazines are naturally gorgeous. To claim a group who happens to have good looks couldn't have gotten it without the help of cosmetic surgery or air brushing is generalizing and prejudiced...somewhere along the lines of saying anyone who is fat must eat four cheeseburgers, a whole cake, raw fat, and drink coke every day.
Or would you like to play Gotham Racing with camera view stuck in direction of your front bumper?
GranTurismo 3 for te PS2 (as well as gran turismo 2 and probably 1) has an option, after the race, to see your car and the other cars driving around the track. It is not pre-rendered, it looks exactly the same as the rest of the race...the only difference, since the computer is controlling the cars movements you can change the camera angle to include the front. I do not have this Gotham Racing, but I am sure they have the same tech.
I agree 100%....I fondly, very fondly, remember the original Transformers series. I loved it and for years I thought it was better then all the modern cartoons...then I found some episodes and I was like "ugh, there goes my childhood memories". We do think those older games were the best because we were younger and more easily impressed...now a days we are so critical. We look at the game and think "Oh man, the anti-aliasing on this game sucks, why did they do this...oh god they made a typo, oh that doesn't make sense...and dammit why is it I need 1 gig of RAM to play WoW correctly."
picture of an anatomically improbable young woman
I have to disagree on this one point. Too many models with those kinds of proportions...and too many girls that I see with those kinds of proportions tomake the above statement true. Is it the majority of women, no (what a shame), but there are plenty of women who fit this body mold. Nothing is wrong with it. It has always been the case - a minority of the population have a certain look that everyone drools over, and others in the population want to degrade that because they do not have it.
I can't write and look at my professor in the face, just not gonna happen because I can't. I also can't write as fast as my professor speaks. I can, however, type without ever looking at the keyboard and I can type at an average speaking rate. For me, it would be better (barring any class that requires non-linear writing, like art or math, or anything else with diagrams).
Now, a real reason why I would not want students to bring their laptops is because they may be playing games, chatting online, etc. Possibly because the sound of fingers striking the keyboard might get distracting (assuming the student does not have a quiet keyboard). But eye contact my ass.
The simplist method is to charge the rules for where the site is based from. This is the Internet, I can access a website from anywhere in the world (assuming no filters) so to make some website in say NY suffer the penalties of another state (or for say another country) is insane. There is no way anything could get done. Not to mention, the Internet is generally accessed in the privacy of someone's home or work. It doesn't matter if the community in an area views porn as wrong, a person is allowed to view porn in the privacy of their own home (at work is subject to office protocal). Or let us say a person was not allowed to view porn, in their own home (assuming Alabama) then that person is responsible for breaking the law, not the website....the website provider did not break the law.
If I had a porn website hosted in Alabama, and Alabama forbade those kinds of sites - then I should be held liable.
There is precedent for this, btw. If you are from Pennsylvania, and someone gets into a car accident with you in NY (fault does not matter) then you have to go to NY court to settle. So I do not know why they are making such a big deal of this case.
The company I work for will not give me a raise to match their offer, and will be forced to hire someone to replace me at what I wanted them to match. It always happens that the new guy hired in for the position always gets more money than the 10 year vetran employee and usually has only 70=80% of the productivity of the vetran.
This is so true, and I see it all the time. I have a friend who left their job because the company would not give them a substantial raise (they were making under average market wage). The company ended up hiring two people to do the job and both of them together did not have his expertise....they also paid each person about 5k less then my friend...which means they were 10k short of doubling his salary. Imagine if the company just offered that money to my friend...they would have an extremely loyal and happy employee, who is extremely good at what he does.
I don't have (so much) a problem of someone knowing my name and address and income (i don't like it, but eh i can deal with it, i am open about that)...hell i am in the phone book (well i used to be...now i do not own a phone, my company pays for mine). I have a problem with say oh, my social security number being sold, with my drivers license, and my bank account, and my name, and income, and my job, and my this and that....All that information is INSANELY private. If my CPA (who charges me $300/filing) sold my information, there would be hell to pay and he would. Hopefully this will get shot down. our gov't....selling away our rights one little step at a time.
Then i think the biggest problem would be your music choice not your volume level.
Why is that? From heavy metal, to symphany orchestra - there are a lot of subtle tones that can only be heard at the higher volume settings. I have listened to many CDs where at a low volume I missed a number of different tones. I like high quality sound equipment, and listening to good sound. And those who don't, just have never really paid attention.
Kids still wear them too much, and listen to them too loud and unfortunately some still will have hearing loss.
;)
I resent this statement saying kids listen to loud music and it implies that adults do not. As a 29 year old male, urbanite, I can tell you I enjoy blasting my ears out - in fact my music is so loud, if you were standing 5 feet from me, you could clearly hear Linkin Park blaring!
I have seen a number of MP3 players (not sure if iPod has it, but I wouldn't be surprised) with a Normalize feature. I do understand that one song may have been recorded in a louder tone then another...so setting "five" (for simplicity, let's assume this is 5 decibals) on my music player will play one song at 5 decibal, but another song at 6, and another at 3 - but the Normalize mode was created to help keep a song at setting "five" - so every song plays at 5 decibals.
Blomberg is working on an invention to give users more control over the volume output of their portable devices
You mean like the volume knob that has been installed on every single portable music device that I have ever seen in my entire 29 years of existance? And if someone want's more precise sound control, many (if not most) high end (or MP3) devices have an equalizer built in. Why do we need an external device for something that has already been in place for many many years. Hell, even some headphones come with a volume control knob...so between the headphones and the knob on my iPod, why do I need the gov't restricting this? Why do I need someone to create a piece of software and sell it to me, when I can already control the volume.
So, you are saying, that if someone creates a theory that is so sound proof, so accurate, so factual that it cannot be falsified it ceases to become science? I am sorry, I am not buying that. We have theories, in science, that are not disprovable. The moment something has been disproved it no longer qualifies to be a theory.
No, he can't. He can show you an overwhelming amount of evidence that is consistent with the H2O theory, but that is not the same thing as proof. It is, however, as close to proof as anything in science ever gets.
Why can't he? He can take the components, separate them and then show you with instruments that can read such materials. "See we were in a vacuum that had pure H2O. Now after applying the electrical process, we have some gas in there. My instruments are able to tell me that it is Hydrogen and Oxygen...in a 2-1 ratio.
Where does it say that in science something can't be proven. Get a scientist and tell him to prove that water is made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen...he can prove it...He doesn't need to disprove anything else. Disproving is fine and dandy, but due to the nature of existance - pretty much every answer, except a select few, is the wrong answer. Given that dispproving something will help you eliminate issues, but you need to actually prove something to get a "hey look, 2+2 = 4"