I agree with most of what you just said... in principle.
There are politicians who would like to push for greater "International Unity" (and such) at the cost of sovereignty. As long as they remain a minority, things will keep working as they should. Never underestimate the ability of a bunch of politicians to ignore something inconvenient (ex: The Constitution).
Oh, and I thought that treaties only required approval by the Senate... (and doesn't define the word "Treaty".)
Well written instructions (preferably with images, if it's an app) that are kept up to date with the current version are crucial to attracting new users. I think this is the number 1 most overlooked part of any software project. (there are others as well: unit testing, upgrade planning, etc.)
... unless you honestly believe that if all the pharmaceutical companies in the world closed their doors, the NIH and other analogous organizations would have no change in funding or purpose...
I think you have an unintentional straw man.
... the NIH and other analogous organizations would have insufficient change in funding or purpose...
It's a minor change, but a very important one. This is also ignoring corresponding arguments about public and private efficiency.
... it would still be seen as a treaty under international law...
And other countries don't have access to the US constitution? If he doesn't have the authority to make a binding agreement, then he doesn't have the authority, and they know it.
I don't mean to belittle. You seem to know more about the subject than I do. I just can't quite wrap my head around this. Is there a congressional mandate involved somehow? How would this become binding under International Law?
As an aside, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
unity100 mentions Parliament and you mention Congress and Constitution. I think you and I are in the US, and he is not. US constitutional law (treaty law, etc) might not have the same checks and balances in the country that he lives in. Your post applies to a great many here on Slashdot, but hardly everyone. (There's strong international participation here.)
Very interesting. Granted, I won't take the word of AC for it. I'll file that away as something to eventually check. The rest of my post stands, though. Besides, what one person gets away with doesn't necessarily tell you what someone else might. If someone replies with a credible link, I'll read it. (I'm not going out of my way to find it at the moment.)
They don't care even if you own more than a few shares of Best Buy when you walk in that door. Even if you own $1 million in BB stock, it won't make a difference how they treat you.
... That's 1/37.65 of their outstanding shares...
I can tell you from personal experience...
You mean to tell me that at some point you owned either $1 million in Best Buy stock or more than 1% of their outstanding shares? (or personally know someone who did) If yes, then I'm awestruck and very interested in some of your financial opinions.
... Even if you own $1 million in BB stock, it won't make a difference how they treat you.
I know I'm being pedantic, but it would make a huge difference. That's 1/37.65 of their outstanding shares. People with that much stock become important during hostile take-overs. Granted, it would be very difficult to execute a takeover of Best Buy (apx 48% owned by one person). Besides, you don't buy that much stock in one company unless you have a major interest in it and are probably on first name basis with several C level officials. The stock ownership aside, the local store will definitely respond differently. (at least the second time around...)
I dunno, I've had people try to take things from me in passing (namely an mp3 player attached to my hip while I had headphones on) -- if you're paying attention, you can read the intent from some distance away. I agree it's possible that he encountered the rare thief who is so adept that his body language betrays nothing... but I'm voting for "he didn't see the bloke until right under his nose" as it's the more likely explanation...
Ok, that's somewhere to start, at least. I think your points have merit, but still don't invalidate the post you first responded to.
... try to take things from me...
You seem to imply multiple occasions. You do imply having experience reading this particular body language. I don't know about trentblase, but perhaps he (like me) don't walk crowded places as frequently as yourself. Perhaps there's less crime where he lives. For whatever reason, he might not be familiar with the body language you speak of. Alternatively, you may have a streak of really crummy thieves where you live.
... but I'm voting for "he didn't see the bloke until right under his nose"
Oh, he probably did see him. It would have been through his peripheral vision. He could easily avoid him and stay out of his way (if he has sufficient read-walking skill), but reading body language would be very difficult.
Further, he's probably using a different definition of "keep track" than you are. You've stated that watching body language is part of your definition of "keep track". That's a street-smart attribute that must be developed with time and experience. Not everyone does it. Not everyone can.
if not, he would not have been able to get within yoinking in range without you being aware in the first place.
Excuse me? When you see someone walking the other way down a sidewalk do you dodge evasively to keep them out of reach at all times? It sounds like the event was immaculately routine until the stranger tried to swipe his phone. You do realize that it could be done very quickly and effectively by someone walking past him?
Not all speech is protected, and just because it's in paper form doesn't mean the 1st amendment will be applied by the courts. Protected speech is primarily political in nature. (like it or not)
Our government has decided that certain algorithms are weapons, and thus claims control on exporting them. Within the States, it seems to be a fuzzy combination of 1st and 2nd amendments that protect us. (from my layman's understanding)
Personally, I think such laws are outdated. The enemies of the US surely use proxy servers here to download whatever public code they wish. If proxy servers didn't exist, they'd find another way to smuggle the information across the Internet. I don't know who they think they're fooling.
The supreme court only 'answers' questions exactly as asked. The question asked was not, 'Should Corporations have human rights?', but more akin to, 'Since Corporations seem to have human rights, shouldn't freedom of political speech be one of them?'
You mean the question asked this time. It was a SCOTUS ruling that created the "corporations as people" problem.
Maybe if we had a major, concerted, write in campaign in a strategic region, we can get Google* elected to Congress. (I'm wondering what it would look like trying to get Google to raise it's right hand to be sworn in!) That would then give others the ability to challenge the election in the courts.
We do need someway to break this "corporations as people" mentality.
*(Recognizable, electable, and less likely than others to abuse the power during time in office. Still carries a huge risk, I know.)
Why do you draw a distinction between "free speech" and "political speech"? Surely our founding fathers wanted to talk freely about politics. That's the whole point. (I'm sure there's a reason you said that, I just don't see it.)
The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter (3 feet) tall, weighing about 20 kilograms (44 lb), living on fruit and nesting on the ground.
...
The first known descriptions of the bird were made by the Dutch. They called the Mauritius bird the walghvogel ("wallow bird" or "loathsome bird") in reference to its taste. Although many later writings say that the meat tasted bad, the early journals only say that the meat was tough but good, though not as good as the abundantly available pigeons.
It would be interesting to see, but I don't think any good would come out of it. Doubly so in New York...
Was Mickey mentioned in the first sentence fragment or the second? Checking... yup - the first. What did I admit to misunderstanding? Oh, yeah, that's right... the second sentence fragment.
Each mistake that you think I made can be found in your post. Do us both a favor. Relax. Breath. Reevaluate the conversation from scratch. Don't come at it with a preconception. Now that you've had a fresh look, decide if you have anything to add.
(And please don't come at me as AC. I usually don't respond at all to AC. If you're going to call someone out, have the dignity to use your account.)
But for a skill check that causes an unknown problem, the DM should roll instead. Otherwise he might know that he rolled a 1 and needs to watch for such a thing. (unless the DM is feeling lenient...)
The part where you weren't speaking in complete sentences*. You don't always have to speak in complete sentences to be understood, but sometimes people will misunderstand you. It's a simple fact.
(*Technically, neither of your statements was a complete sentence. It was the second that I misinterpreted, though, and not the first.)
He wasn't referring to the Great Mouse Detective. He didn't need to to be on topic. From the article:
But Mr. Lellenberg said the group pays careful attention to the management of other venerable pop-cultural properties: the Walt Disney Company, which is preparing to celebrate the 82nd birthday of Mickey Mouse, has “always been at the leading edge” of intellectual property law, he said.
(Yeah, I don't expect anybody to read them. Most of the time I don't either.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of what you just said... in principle.
There are politicians who would like to push for greater "International Unity" (and such) at the cost of sovereignty. As long as they remain a minority, things will keep working as they should. Never underestimate the ability of a bunch of politicians to ignore something inconvenient (ex: The Constitution).
Oh, and I thought that treaties only required approval by the Senate... (and doesn't define the word "Treaty".)
No problem. Same here, from time to time.
I second.
Well written instructions (preferably with images, if it's an app) that are kept up to date with the current version are crucial to attracting new users. I think this is the number 1 most overlooked part of any software project. (there are others as well: unit testing, upgrade planning, etc.)
[citation needed]
(Yes, I mean that. It's an interesting point, but AC has no credibility.)
... unless you honestly believe that if all the pharmaceutical companies in the world closed their doors, the NIH and other analogous organizations would have no change in funding or purpose...
I think you have an unintentional straw man.
... the NIH and other analogous organizations would have insufficient change in funding or purpose...
It's a minor change, but a very important one. This is also ignoring corresponding arguments about public and private efficiency.
... it would still be seen as a treaty under international law...
And other countries don't have access to the US constitution? If he doesn't have the authority to make a binding agreement, then he doesn't have the authority, and they know it.
I don't mean to belittle. You seem to know more about the subject than I do. I just can't quite wrap my head around this. Is there a congressional mandate involved somehow? How would this become binding under International Law?
As an aside, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
I hate to tell you this, but those two are actually the same thing in practice.
unity100 mentions Parliament and you mention Congress and Constitution. I think you and I are in the US, and he is not. US constitutional law (treaty law, etc) might not have the same checks and balances in the country that he lives in. Your post applies to a great many here on Slashdot, but hardly everyone. (There's strong international participation here.)
Very interesting. Granted, I won't take the word of AC for it. I'll file that away as something to eventually check. The rest of my post stands, though. Besides, what one person gets away with doesn't necessarily tell you what someone else might. If someone replies with a credible link, I'll read it. (I'm not going out of my way to find it at the moment.)
They don't care even if you own more than a few shares of Best Buy when you walk in that door. Even if you own $1 million in BB stock, it won't make a difference how they treat you.
... That's 1/37.65 of their outstanding shares...
I can tell you from personal experience...
You mean to tell me that at some point you owned either $1 million in Best Buy stock or more than 1% of their outstanding shares? (or personally know someone who did) If yes, then I'm awestruck and very interested in some of your financial opinions.
... Even if you own $1 million in BB stock, it won't make a difference how they treat you.
I know I'm being pedantic, but it would make a huge difference. That's 1/37.65 of their outstanding shares. People with that much stock become important during hostile take-overs. Granted, it would be very difficult to execute a takeover of Best Buy (apx 48% owned by one person). Besides, you don't buy that much stock in one company unless you have a major interest in it and are probably on first name basis with several C level officials. The stock ownership aside, the local store will definitely respond differently. (at least the second time around...)
I dunno, I've had people try to take things from me in passing (namely an mp3 player attached to my hip while I had headphones on) -- if you're paying attention, you can read the intent from some distance away. I agree it's possible that he encountered the rare thief who is so adept that his body language betrays nothing... but I'm voting for "he didn't see the bloke until right under his nose" as it's the more likely explanation...
Ok, that's somewhere to start, at least. I think your points have merit, but still don't invalidate the post you first responded to.
... try to take things from me...
You seem to imply multiple occasions. You do imply having experience reading this particular body language. I don't know about trentblase, but perhaps he (like me) don't walk crowded places as frequently as yourself. Perhaps there's less crime where he lives. For whatever reason, he might not be familiar with the body language you speak of. Alternatively, you may have a streak of really crummy thieves where you live.
... but I'm voting for "he didn't see the bloke until right under his nose"
Oh, he probably did see him. It would have been through his peripheral vision. He could easily avoid him and stay out of his way (if he has sufficient read-walking skill), but reading body language would be very difficult.
Further, he's probably using a different definition of "keep track" than you are. You've stated that watching body language is part of your definition of "keep track". That's a street-smart attribute that must be developed with time and experience. Not everyone does it. Not everyone can.
if not, he would not have been able to get within yoinking in range without you being aware in the first place.
Excuse me? When you see someone walking the other way down a sidewalk do you dodge evasively to keep them out of reach at all times? It sounds like the event was immaculately routine until the stranger tried to swipe his phone. You do realize that it could be done very quickly and effectively by someone walking past him?
Not all speech is protected, and just because it's in paper form doesn't mean the 1st amendment will be applied by the courts. Protected speech is primarily political in nature. (like it or not)
Our government has decided that certain algorithms are weapons, and thus claims control on exporting them. Within the States, it seems to be a fuzzy combination of 1st and 2nd amendments that protect us. (from my layman's understanding)
Personally, I think such laws are outdated. The enemies of the US surely use proxy servers here to download whatever public code they wish. If proxy servers didn't exist, they'd find another way to smuggle the information across the Internet. I don't know who they think they're fooling.
The supreme court only 'answers' questions exactly as asked. The question asked was not, 'Should Corporations have human rights?', but more akin to, 'Since Corporations seem to have human rights, shouldn't freedom of political speech be one of them?'
You mean the question asked this time. It was a SCOTUS ruling that created the "corporations as people" problem.
Congress did this, not the courts.
I disagree, though you have a good point. SCOTUS did this, but congress should have tried to fix it.
Maybe if we had a major, concerted, write in campaign in a strategic region, we can get Google* elected to Congress. (I'm wondering what it would look like trying to get Google to raise it's right hand to be sworn in!) That would then give others the ability to challenge the election in the courts.
We do need someway to break this "corporations as people" mentality.
*(Recognizable, electable, and less likely than others to abuse the power during time in office. Still carries a huge risk, I know.)
Why do you draw a distinction between "free speech" and "political speech"? Surely our founding fathers wanted to talk freely about politics. That's the whole point. (I'm sure there's a reason you said that, I just don't see it.)
Sorry. That was a Wikipedia quote. (Source of all things that can't quite be trusted, but very handy regardless...)
Not quite...
The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter (3 feet) tall, weighing about 20 kilograms (44 lb), living on fruit and nesting on the ground.
...
The first known descriptions of the bird were made by the Dutch. They called the Mauritius bird the walghvogel ("wallow bird" or "loathsome bird") in reference to its taste. Although many later writings say that the meat tasted bad, the early journals only say that the meat was tough but good, though not as good as the abundantly available pigeons.
It would be interesting to see, but I don't think any good would come out of it. Doubly so in New York...
Beef actually, but thanks for playing!
Was Mickey mentioned in the first sentence fragment or the second? Checking... yup - the first. What did I admit to misunderstanding? Oh, yeah, that's right... the second sentence fragment.
Each mistake that you think I made can be found in your post. Do us both a favor. Relax. Breath. Reevaluate the conversation from scratch. Don't come at it with a preconception. Now that you've had a fresh look, decide if you have anything to add.
(And please don't come at me as AC. I usually don't respond at all to AC. If you're going to call someone out, have the dignity to use your account.)
But for a skill check that causes an unknown problem, the DM should roll instead. Otherwise he might know that he rolled a 1 and needs to watch for such a thing. (unless the DM is feeling lenient...)
The part where you weren't speaking in complete sentences*. You don't always have to speak in complete sentences to be understood, but sometimes people will misunderstand you. It's a simple fact.
(*Technically, neither of your statements was a complete sentence. It was the second that I misinterpreted, though, and not the first.)
He wasn't referring to the Great Mouse Detective. He didn't need to to be on topic. From the article:
But Mr. Lellenberg said the group pays careful attention to the management of other venerable pop-cultural properties: the Walt Disney Company, which is preparing to celebrate the 82nd birthday of Mickey Mouse, has “always been at the leading edge” of intellectual property law, he said.
(Yeah, I don't expect anybody to read them. Most of the time I don't either.)