The corporation is a legal entity that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person.
Similar rights. Not same rights. But similar ones. Therefore corporations don't necessarily have the constitutional rights in America. However later on it does say that yes, American corporations do have the constitutional rights. Simply quoting that portion of the article would have been all that was necessary, rather then insulting me.
Laws are a matter of interpretation (unless you can find me a lesgislation that says "corporations are legal humans and are given all constitutional rights").
Didn't you read the article? (I'm sorry, I momentarily forgot where I was). The company's going bust. Their profits soared when they "ignored" rogue installs (by ignore, I mean happily accepted the profits from), they're now going bust after coming down on rogue installs. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's going on.
You do realise pornography websites are aiming to make money, and will only disguise themself as long as it allows them to make more money. It would be very easy to tell if something was a website attempting to sell products, and a website displaying pornography.
Sure, someone who was being sneaky COULD work around it, but it's going to hinder them making money quite a bit. So the only reason someone would do this was for the "fun" value in breaking a rule. A very expensive hobby I might add.
Define porn in objective terms. Do not use the phrase "community standards," but have a definition that will be agreed to be all cultures that use the internet.
A website that depicts people in a sexual manner for the clear purpose of sexual excitement of the viewer.
That way a clothing store catalogue webpage of people in swimmers (I do have my doubts that even Muslims find that to be pornography) or people posing naked for art are excluded.
Once that is done, apply that definition to all existing sites
Not necessary. Simply have anyone signing up for non.xxx domain names be forced to agree to a user agreement that their website isn't hosting, selling or giving away pornography. It'll take a few years, but then the majority of pornography websites will be in the.xxx TLD. That way when someone complains to the domain registrar, they'll be forced to take away the domain name from the customer. If countries want to impose further sanctions for those operating in their own country that's their business.
Note that this doesn't mean all obscene content will be in a.xxx domain. Merely pornography will be there.
I don't know if you're being funny or what. But if you'll take a look at the name of the poster who I replied to (and perhaps some of his prior posts) then I think you'll find my post to make a lot more sense.
I was kidding, just having a bit of fun. BadAnalogyGuy excells at making bad analogies. This post was actually informative and raised some very good points, quite out of character based on his other posts, so I just lightly had fun with him.
You make many points, but I had difficulty grasping them. Perhaps if you could form them in some sort of analogy I could understand your points easier.
My understanding is that "Someone travelling really fast will age 1 year, for 100 years of Earth time. So if they leave Earth in the year 1900 and travel really fast, they will have aquired the experiences and aging of someone who travelled for 1 year. However when they land back on Earth it will be the year 2000." Bad example (no-one had spaceships capable of such speeds in the year 1900;)), but it simply shows the "paradox."
The "discovery" is that the radiation will take away the "1 year" portion of your aging, by making you age 100 years. But that doesn't do away with the paradox anyway, because (assuming the person survived of course, which they wouldn't in the 100 year example) they'll only have aquired the experiences of someone who lived for 1 year, rather then the experiences of someone who lived for 100 years.
I personally agree that this is all bollocks though. I'd like to know how they know that the "body" is aged, rather then just damaged. After all, what's the simplest explanation? That the cosmic radiation somehow causes you to age at an accelerated rate? Or it just damages your body to a large degree, like any other form of radiation?
They had some sort of cryogenic freezing (which is why their female passenger died as hers was (of course) cracked) which I believe would protect them. If they were using a relativistic explanation for their trip (as in, they increased speed close to the speed of light) then I don't know why they needed to be frozen as well. Normally you have one, or the other not both (and I'm fairly certain at the start when Charlton Heston is making his speech he says that the year on Earth has already increased quite a bit compared to his own time).
One small problem: It's impossible to do effectively without getting an absurd number of false positives. So anyone taking advantage of the filter would either be annoyed that it's so ineffective, or unsubscribe because they've infuriated over the number of perfectly fine websites they're blocked from.
I thought you may have (somehow) caught sight of Australia's version of Big Brother, where they do in fact where swimsuits in the shower (well, except for the slutty ones). But that's only because not everyone wants to flash their genitals on television, some of us are funny like that.
Perhaps the Libs will oppose it because the Democrats (sorry, I mean Labour, it's just when they start spouting off rubbish like this, they sound like the American Democratic party, which can at best be described as conservative-central) are proposing it? Eh? I can dream?
Yes I imagine all druggies would support the Greens.
Or so I thought with a read of Wikipedia. I did some research instead (because my #1 political party has just ensured they won't get my vote this election, perhaps the following one they won't try to implement draconian laws) and found they actually propose something I can support. The problem of taking drugs and having the responsibility (and isn't that what this whole article is about) to decide for yourself, with the terrible effects it has on yourself and others. Some things I'm not too fond of, other things I support wholeheartedly and am surprised to find a political party say them.
Yup, I'll judge your definition of free as I judge your definition on human being. You might find America to be more in line with your beliefs then you think. Just don't look up the Constitution or anything, that was done by them crazies. If you look up New Century America I'm sure you'll find America is everything you would hope for.
Slashdot Mirror
The corporation is a legal entity that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person.
Similar rights. Not same rights. But similar ones. Therefore corporations don't necessarily have the constitutional rights in America. However later on it does say that yes, American corporations do have the constitutional rights. Simply quoting that portion of the article would have been all that was necessary, rather then insulting me.
Laws are a matter of interpretation (unless you can find me a lesgislation that says "corporations are legal humans and are given all constitutional rights").
a corporation is legally just as much a person as you or I, and accordingly enjoy the same constitutional protections as a real person
Only if the judge chooses to recognize corporations as people who have constitutional rights.
I think you have a slightly erroneous definition of -Average- Joe Sixpack.
I was dissapointed to hear that Britannica's headquarters hadn't been demolished by a sudden volcano eruption.
Didn't you read the article? (I'm sorry, I momentarily forgot where I was). The company's going bust. Their profits soared when they "ignored" rogue installs (by ignore, I mean happily accepted the profits from), they're now going bust after coming down on rogue installs. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's going on.
Yes, as far as I know .xxx isn't the "sex domain" but the pornography domain.
I get sexually excited at the turn of well turned ankle so are you going to ban every site depicting women's feet?
.xxx domain.
If the purpose of the website is to get you sexually excited over an ankle, then yes, it would get moved to the
Who's army is going to enforce this?
The same army that enforces all rules with the internet.
You do realise pornography websites are aiming to make money, and will only disguise themself as long as it allows them to make more money. It would be very easy to tell if something was a website attempting to sell products, and a website displaying pornography.
Sure, someone who was being sneaky COULD work around it, but it's going to hinder them making money quite a bit. So the only reason someone would do this was for the "fun" value in breaking a rule. A very expensive hobby I might add.
Define porn in objective terms. Do not use the phrase "community standards," but have a definition that will be agreed to be all cultures that use the internet.
.xxx domain names be forced to agree to a user agreement that their website isn't hosting, selling or giving away pornography. It'll take a few years, but then the majority of pornography websites will be in the .xxx TLD. That way when someone complains to the domain registrar, they'll be forced to take away the domain name from the customer. If countries want to impose further sanctions for those operating in their own country that's their business.
.xxx domain. Merely pornography will be there.
A website that depicts people in a sexual manner for the clear purpose of sexual excitement of the viewer.
That way a clothing store catalogue webpage of people in swimmers (I do have my doubts that even Muslims find that to be pornography) or people posing naked for art are excluded.
Once that is done, apply that definition to all existing sites
Not necessary. Simply have anyone signing up for non
Note that this doesn't mean all obscene content will be in a
I don't know if you're being funny or what. But if you'll take a look at the name of the poster who I replied to (and perhaps some of his prior posts) then I think you'll find my post to make a lot more sense.
I was kidding, just having a bit of fun. BadAnalogyGuy excells at making bad analogies. This post was actually informative and raised some very good points, quite out of character based on his other posts, so I just lightly had fun with him.
You make many points, but I had difficulty grasping them. Perhaps if you could form them in some sort of analogy I could understand your points easier.
My understanding is that "Someone travelling really fast will age 1 year, for 100 years of Earth time. So if they leave Earth in the year 1900 and travel really fast, they will have aquired the experiences and aging of someone who travelled for 1 year. However when they land back on Earth it will be the year 2000." Bad example (no-one had spaceships capable of such speeds in the year 1900 ;)), but it simply shows the "paradox."
The "discovery" is that the radiation will take away the "1 year" portion of your aging, by making you age 100 years. But that doesn't do away with the paradox anyway, because (assuming the person survived of course, which they wouldn't in the 100 year example) they'll only have aquired the experiences of someone who lived for 1 year, rather then the experiences of someone who lived for 100 years.
I personally agree that this is all bollocks though. I'd like to know how they know that the "body" is aged, rather then just damaged. After all, what's the simplest explanation? That the cosmic radiation somehow causes you to age at an accelerated rate? Or it just damages your body to a large degree, like any other form of radiation?
They had some sort of cryogenic freezing (which is why their female passenger died as hers was (of course) cracked) which I believe would protect them. If they were using a relativistic explanation for their trip (as in, they increased speed close to the speed of light) then I don't know why they needed to be frozen as well. Normally you have one, or the other not both (and I'm fairly certain at the start when Charlton Heston is making his speech he says that the year on Earth has already increased quite a bit compared to his own time).
Wow. Guess us Australians aren't as puritanical as I thought.
One small problem: It's impossible to do effectively without getting an absurd number of false positives. So anyone taking advantage of the filter would either be annoyed that it's so ineffective, or unsubscribe because they've infuriated over the number of perfectly fine websites they're blocked from.
I thought you may have (somehow) caught sight of Australia's version of Big Brother, where they do in fact where swimsuits in the shower (well, except for the slutty ones). But that's only because not everyone wants to flash their genitals on television, some of us are funny like that.
Perhaps the Libs will oppose it because the Democrats (sorry, I mean Labour, it's just when they start spouting off rubbish like this, they sound like the American Democratic party, which can at best be described as conservative-central) are proposing it? Eh? I can dream?
Yes I imagine all druggies would support the Greens.
Or so I thought with a read of Wikipedia. I did some research instead (because my #1 political party has just ensured they won't get my vote this election, perhaps the following one they won't try to implement draconian laws) and found they actually propose something I can support. The problem of taking drugs and having the responsibility (and isn't that what this whole article is about) to decide for yourself, with the terrible effects it has on yourself and others. Some things I'm not too fond of, other things I support wholeheartedly and am surprised to find a political party say them.
Now if only they too weren't unelectable.
Licensing Fees for a brothel? Just what country are you talking about? Cause I doubt it's America or Australia.
;)
Yes I know, it was a joke. I just wanted to see if the poster actually WAS talking about a particular country, or if he were just making a joke
From what I've heard New Zealand seems to be the only sane country left.
Yup, I'll judge your definition of free as I judge your definition on human being. You might find America to be more in line with your beliefs then you think. Just don't look up the Constitution or anything, that was done by them crazies. If you look up New Century America I'm sure you'll find America is everything you would hope for.
You're right, it is a bad resume^H^H^H^H^H summary, but if you're interested, perhaps you should read the article itself.
I can imagine it now "The Six Dollar Man", he gets a wheelchair, that's it.
Hey! They could get Steven Hawking to play the role of the Six Dollar Man.
when you've grown up on Marvel comics, then any mention of superhuman strength makes me wonder about the potential problems.
Yeah, but if we pay any attention to Marvel comics then everyone would be exposing themselves to radiation in order to get super powers.