I was in Boston at the time, and from what I could tell the stupid cop fired indiscriminately into crowd at face-level and, big surprise, he shot some poor kid straight in the face. His reason for doing so? Someone in the general direction of the college student kicked a bottle. Not even her.
So the cop gets a Rambo complex and starts shooting everyone; he hit several people, but killed her. I'm pretty sure he got off with a slap on the wrist. At least, if I were in charge, I would want to let the public know that the cop was being punished, but I have no read anything about a punishment. The asshat police commissioner of course placed the blame on those "punk kids."
While I did not personally attend the "riot," all reports I've heard say it was a celebration, only a few idiots started turning over things. most people just wanted to have a good time and celebrate our city's victory).
If it were up to me I'd have the cops badge. If he's not responsible enough to use a bean-bag gun, there's no way he should have a real gun. Now I just can't WAIT until these clowns get frickin' laser guns.
Oops, meant to hit that guy but I accidently missed and hit you in the eye while you were on the other side of the street and now you're blind. The PC says the cop was just doing his job and blames it on those damn punk kids.
I don't think we should give law enforcement or soldiers (or government officials for that matter) better toys until they learn how to play responsibly with the ones they have.
a) Legislation can alost always been too broadly interpreted or loopholes in the wording can have unintended consequences
and b) It's really NOT the place of the state to dictate what is and is not the appropriate way for a parent to raise his/her child. I'm sure that legislation would prevent kids from playing a lot of games that I think they shouldn't be playing, but that is not my choice or anyone else's choice to make. Only the parent should be making that choice.
There are already good anti-spyware solutions available for home-users (ie Ad-aware, etc.), and I can't imagine home users shelling out a lot of money when they can get a personal version of Ad-aware for free. I suppose Microsoft is going to be targetting corporate users, but if their solutions aren't much better than companies like Ad-Aware (hopefully) corporations will go with competitors. But then again, they might just choose Microsoft because it seems like the "right thing to do" (that is, MS makes the OS, so OBVIOUSLY they should go with MS because it'll "work better" together).
Then again, if the MS anti-spyware is moderately priced and a lot of home-users do buy it, it may serve to drive the gap between richer vs poorer computer users (home users who shell out big bucks for a loaded Windows box vs users who pay a couple hundred for one of those Linux PCs that Walmart and others are selling).
But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said. At Polygram (which became Universal), Kennedy had stopped the practice of chart-fixing, he said, "because we were so bad at it. Songs that were supposed to chart at No.6 were coming in at No.34".
Don't you love it when the people who run the music industry don't actually care about the people who MAKE music? And he said they stopped chart-fixing because they were bad at it?! He does think that it's WRONG to outright lie to the public to try to shove shitty music down their throats, he's just disappointed it didn't work as well as they thought it would. What a joke.
In October 2003, when Reynolds first announced plans for the bill, Andrew Wise, a Texas-based Microsoft lobbyist, flew up to Oklahoma to try to convince him that his bill was misguided. Reynolds was surprised that Microsoft, which doesn't make custom software, was interested. He says Wise told him that Microsoft might one day enter the custom software market.
Wow... Does Microsoft plan on entering EVERY market some day? Can't you just see them lobby for or against some legislation for cloning because they may "one day enter the cloning market?"
Slashdot Mirror
How about 'Digital Restriction Mechanism'?
I was in Boston at the time, and from what I could tell the stupid cop fired indiscriminately into crowd at face-level and, big surprise, he shot some poor kid straight in the face. His reason for doing so? Someone in the general direction of the college student kicked a bottle. Not even her.
So the cop gets a Rambo complex and starts shooting everyone; he hit several people, but killed her. I'm pretty sure he got off with a slap on the wrist. At least, if I were in charge, I would want to let the public know that the cop was being punished, but I have no read anything about a punishment. The asshat police commissioner of course placed the blame on those "punk kids."
While I did not personally attend the "riot," all reports I've heard say it was a celebration, only a few idiots started turning over things. most people just wanted to have a good time and celebrate our city's victory).
If it were up to me I'd have the cops badge. If he's not responsible enough to use a bean-bag gun, there's no way he should have a real gun. Now I just can't WAIT until these clowns get frickin' laser guns.
Oops, meant to hit that guy but I accidently missed and hit you in the eye while you were on the other side of the street and now you're blind. The PC says the cop was just doing his job and blames it on those damn punk kids.
I don't think we should give law enforcement or soldiers (or government officials for that matter) better toys until they learn how to play responsibly with the ones they have.
When debating about this issue, I like to compare it to chemistry:
If it's all right to teach Creationism alongside Evolutionism, then would it be all right to teach Alchemy alongside Chemistry?
However, the problem with legislation is that
a) Legislation can alost always been too broadly interpreted or loopholes in the wording can have unintended consequences
and b) It's really NOT the place of the state to dictate what is and is not the appropriate way for a parent to raise his/her child. I'm sure that legislation would prevent kids from playing a lot of games that I think they shouldn't be playing, but that is not my choice or anyone else's choice to make. Only the parent should be making that choice.
There are already good anti-spyware solutions available for home-users (ie Ad-aware, etc.), and I can't imagine home users shelling out a lot of money when they can get a personal version of Ad-aware for free. I suppose Microsoft is going to be targetting corporate users, but if their solutions aren't much better than companies like Ad-Aware (hopefully) corporations will go with competitors. But then again, they might just choose Microsoft because it seems like the "right thing to do" (that is, MS makes the OS, so OBVIOUSLY they should go with MS because it'll "work better" together).
Then again, if the MS anti-spyware is moderately priced and a lot of home-users do buy it, it may serve to drive the gap between richer vs poorer computer users (home users who shell out big bucks for a loaded Windows box vs users who pay a couple hundred for one of those Linux PCs that Walmart and others are selling).
You missed one:
VOTE:
(C)obb
Nader isn't the Green Party candidate this year, David Cobb is.
Actually, Nader won the Reform party endorsement. You missed that one too come to think of it.
PARTY AFFILIATION:
(Ref)orm
But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said. At Polygram (which became Universal), Kennedy had stopped the practice of chart-fixing, he said, "because we were so bad at it. Songs that were supposed to chart at No.6 were coming in at No.34". Don't you love it when the people who run the music industry don't actually care about the people who MAKE music? And he said they stopped chart-fixing because they were bad at it?! He does think that it's WRONG to outright lie to the public to try to shove shitty music down their throats, he's just disappointed it didn't work as well as they thought it would. What a joke.
In October 2003, when Reynolds first announced plans for the bill, Andrew Wise, a Texas-based Microsoft lobbyist, flew up to Oklahoma to try to convince him that his bill was misguided. Reynolds was surprised that Microsoft, which doesn't make custom software, was interested. He says Wise told him that Microsoft might one day enter the custom software market.
Wow... Does Microsoft plan on entering EVERY market some day? Can't you just see them lobby for or against some legislation for cloning because they may "one day enter the cloning market?"
Don't worry, all the bugs will be worked out... ...in Service Pack 3.