However, the Texans won't fall for it. They take a moment to add up all the money they get from the "evil" federal government, and suddenly they're not so interested in leaving.
Except Texas is a donor state, so it get less money from the federal government than what it pays in taxes.
The game with the crack is simply a derivative of the original game. The pirates have no copyrights concerning any derivatives of Rockstar's original work, so they have no grounds to sue.
So? You make it a point to emphasize that it is a service that they provide to you. And somehow this makes it ok for them to change their terms of service at any time? Suppose I own a house cleaning business. Each of my customers signs a service agreement that says I will clean their house every week and I will then charge their credit card for a specific amount after each cleaning. The fine print says I can change the agreement at any time. A few weeks into the agreement, I decide to start charging the credit card twice as much as usual. Which is ok because I can change the agreement at any time right? Do you really think that logic would hold up in court?
Everyone has a bias. The idea is to be truthful and open about your bias. That's why news reports say things like (this company's parent company is also the parent company of CNN). Also, just because someone has a bias does not negate the truth of what they are saying.
Looks like the mom, while not having custody, does also live in the same house as the son and the grandmother. She had physical access, which is pretty much the trump card right?
The problem isn't that harassment is actionable, the problem GP is trying to point out is Arkansas' definition of harassment. A person commits an offense if they annoy another person without good cause. Think about the implications of that.
Comcast isn't under FCC jurisdiction because congress did not give FCC the authority to regulate the internet. Congress Does have the authority to regulate the internet but that doesn't mean the FBI or any other government entity can choose to enact that power. If congress had gotten around to clarifying the FCC's power here, then this case would have ended differently.
I don't know where you live where you have your own electric water pump, but everywhere in the U.S. that I've been to, the water will flow just fine if the electricity is cut off. But let us pretend for a moment that you do live somewhere that requires electricity in order to have water. What about the large majority of us that don't? Is electricity a necessity now? Are you possibly just trying to find some way to make your argument work AND be able to have electricity?
The problem here is that you are trying to change the argument. GP said these services were a necessity. YOU are the only one claiming that a biological necessity is the only type of necessity that should be protected.
I'm pretty sure facebook allows quite a bit of information to be made public depending on each user's privacy settings. If that is true, the only way Facebook could require an account is either by the TOS, which you don't agree to unless you have an account (kinda circular there) or by the robots.txt file.
I completely agree. Wikileaks did everything to not just report the truth, but to sway our perception of it. The cover up of this story should be investigated, and props to wikileaks for giving us the video . . but we don't need the spin.
That is a different argument. I'm all for going after whoever is responsible for this cover up in any way, but after watching the video, I can't say the guys on the ground were wrong.
I think these scenarios have more to do with the judge you get than the actual wording of the law. If you are driving and hit a random kid that runs into the road, you are more likely to be found guilty than if you are driving and hit a drunken asshole. Why? Because judges look poorly on people who hit other people with their cars, but judges look even more poorly on drunken assholes who get hit with cars.
The problem is that you are entirely logically correct. Unfortunately, in many areas, you would be entirely legally incorrect. The legal rebuttal to your argument is that if you cannot control your car in time to avoid hitting the kid, then you were driving too fast. It doesn't matter how slow you would actually have to drive in order to be completely safe. The point is, in a lot of places, it is always on the driver to drive slow enough and safe enough to be able to avoid a kid spontaneously running into the street from between two parked vehicles.
Who would have thought that by reducing a driver's visibility, the driver would go slower to give themselves time to react to surprises?
I was always taught to drive so that I can stop within the distance I can see....
And if you were driving in the environment described in the article, you'd be responsible for killing the brat that ran out in front of you from between any of the many parallel parked cars on the side of the road. This crap experiment might make people drive slower, but it makes the overall conditions much more unsafe.
I think this has been a bait and switch all along. There is absolutely no requirement or guarantee that the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill. If it doesn't get passed, we're stuck with the original Senate version, which a lot more people had problems with. Can someone please explain why the health care bill wasn't treated like every other bill? . . . Each house should pass their own version of the bill and then have a joint reconciliation meeting. That reconciled bill then has to be passed by each house again before the president gets a chance to sign anything.
It might have been a false assumption, but it was a logical one to make. What kind of BS summary talks about self claimed accuracy when an independent organization's claims are just as accurate?
It looks like you have a case of selective reading. The GP discussed how one TV station is funded by public money and thus isn't scared of programming like this. That hardly proves that they have "blind faith" in anything. It definitely doesn't mean these people have a blind faith in government! Why? For the same reason your other point is bunk. Government run media outlet? The GP specifically said that this station answers to "nobody not even the government." Maybe if you had taken the time to disprove his assertion that this station is free from government control, your second point would stand. Either way, your first point is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure.
However, the Texans won't fall for it. They take a moment to add up all the money they get from the "evil" federal government, and suddenly they're not so interested in leaving.
Except Texas is a donor state, so it get less money from the federal government than what it pays in taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60.html
The game with the crack is simply a derivative of the original game. The pirates have no copyrights concerning any derivatives of Rockstar's original work, so they have no grounds to sue.
So? You make it a point to emphasize that it is a service that they provide to you. And somehow this makes it ok for them to change their terms of service at any time? Suppose I own a house cleaning business. Each of my customers signs a service agreement that says I will clean their house every week and I will then charge their credit card for a specific amount after each cleaning. The fine print says I can change the agreement at any time. A few weeks into the agreement, I decide to start charging the credit card twice as much as usual. Which is ok because I can change the agreement at any time right? Do you really think that logic would hold up in court?
I thought classes were on the heap and structs were on the stack . . .or is that just in c#?
Everyone has a bias. The idea is to be truthful and open about your bias. That's why news reports say things like (this company's parent company is also the parent company of CNN). Also, just because someone has a bias does not negate the truth of what they are saying.
Looks like the mom, while not having custody, does also live in the same house as the son and the grandmother. She had physical access, which is pretty much the trump card right?
The problem isn't that harassment is actionable, the problem GP is trying to point out is Arkansas' definition of harassment. A person commits an offense if they annoy another person without good cause. Think about the implications of that.
there welcome to there new life
Really? That's just sad.
You think someone's slashdot UID and age are correlated, huh?
NIC, SATA, and RAID are also pronounced as words . .
Comcast isn't under FCC jurisdiction because congress did not give FCC the authority to regulate the internet. Congress Does have the authority to regulate the internet but that doesn't mean the FBI or any other government entity can choose to enact that power. If congress had gotten around to clarifying the FCC's power here, then this case would have ended differently.
I don't know where you live where you have your own electric water pump, but everywhere in the U.S. that I've been to, the water will flow just fine if the electricity is cut off. But let us pretend for a moment that you do live somewhere that requires electricity in order to have water. What about the large majority of us that don't? Is electricity a necessity now? Are you possibly just trying to find some way to make your argument work AND be able to have electricity?
The problem here is that you are trying to change the argument. GP said these services were a necessity. YOU are the only one claiming that a biological necessity is the only type of necessity that should be protected.
I'm pretty sure facebook allows quite a bit of information to be made public depending on each user's privacy settings. If that is true, the only way Facebook could require an account is either by the TOS, which you don't agree to unless you have an account (kinda circular there) or by the robots.txt file.
I completely agree. Wikileaks did everything to not just report the truth, but to sway our perception of it. The cover up of this story should be investigated, and props to wikileaks for giving us the video . . but we don't need the spin.
That is a different argument. I'm all for going after whoever is responsible for this cover up in any way, but after watching the video, I can't say the guys on the ground were wrong.
You can examine, for example: skill and technique, fulfillment of author's intent, uniqueness, meaning, and beauty.
Citizen Kane fulfills all of these criteria (except for beauty) and it's still a crappy movie.
. . which is why it is still considered a classic, despite it's crappiness.
I think these scenarios have more to do with the judge you get than the actual wording of the law. If you are driving and hit a random kid that runs into the road, you are more likely to be found guilty than if you are driving and hit a drunken asshole. Why? Because judges look poorly on people who hit other people with their cars, but judges look even more poorly on drunken assholes who get hit with cars.
The problem is that you are entirely logically correct. Unfortunately, in many areas, you would be entirely legally incorrect. The legal rebuttal to your argument is that if you cannot control your car in time to avoid hitting the kid, then you were driving too fast. It doesn't matter how slow you would actually have to drive in order to be completely safe. The point is, in a lot of places, it is always on the driver to drive slow enough and safe enough to be able to avoid a kid spontaneously running into the street from between two parked vehicles.
I was always taught to drive so that I can stop within the distance I can see ... .
And if you were driving in the environment described in the article, you'd be responsible for killing the brat that ran out in front of you from between any of the many parallel parked cars on the side of the road. This crap experiment might make people drive slower, but it makes the overall conditions much more unsafe.
I believe the town hall meetings were after the suicide.
Try that now and you're more likely to get arrested for assault or child abuse... or shot.
Yeah, but are they . . muliplyin?
I think this has been a bait and switch all along. There is absolutely no requirement or guarantee that the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill. If it doesn't get passed, we're stuck with the original Senate version, which a lot more people had problems with. Can someone please explain why the health care bill wasn't treated like every other bill? . . . Each house should pass their own version of the bill and then have a joint reconciliation meeting. That reconciled bill then has to be passed by each house again before the president gets a chance to sign anything.
It might have been a false assumption, but it was a logical one to make. What kind of BS summary talks about self claimed accuracy when an independent organization's claims are just as accurate?
It looks like you have a case of selective reading. The GP discussed how one TV station is funded by public money and thus isn't scared of programming like this. That hardly proves that they have "blind faith" in anything. It definitely doesn't mean these people have a blind faith in government! Why? For the same reason your other point is bunk. Government run media outlet? The GP specifically said that this station answers to "nobody not even the government." Maybe if you had taken the time to disprove his assertion that this station is free from government control, your second point would stand. Either way, your first point is just stupid.