Why not scrap DST altogether? No more falling back or springing forward. It creates a hassle with everything.
But still allow States to decide which timezone they want. So if Washington state wants to go to Mountain Time instead of Pacific Time, so be it. Afterall, this new DST is going to be 9 months a year, so why not just have the next standard time zone year-round?
I think we should keep leap seconds. GMT needs to come at noon. The U.S. government doesn't need to be doing stupid stuff like this in the name of saving energy. People can stagger their work schedules. Schools can adjust their times. And people can invest in having solar panels on their roofs.
On the contrary. The anonymity will end up, at least for some, to break out of their shell, so-to-speak. It will allow some students to speak their mind without fear, but additionally, will end up giving them more courage when they see that there was nothing to fear in the first place.
I cannot believe how stupid this is. (Not your post, but this subject of equal time for creationism.) Whatever happened to just sticking to the facts? Last I've checked, a theory is not a fact.
This is more of a joke kind of comment, but if they are going to decide what we can and can't do after hours, they might as well pay us overtime.
I find the classics to be real good
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
Go to a thift store and buy like an NES or SNES. Get some games. Real cheap. If you spent $300 on that alone, you can still have hours of fun. You don't need 3D effects to have fun. Does anyone think the way I do, or am I just "old" when it comes to this?
Fair I would call ignoring the sexes of the couple marrying. But I'd really rather not have the government issueing a piece of paper with the word marriage on it to any couple, same-sex or not. I'd rather see government issued pieces of paper contain the word "civil union" cause that is what it is, a civil union. Personally, I still see the word "marriage" having a religious tone to it.
If someone takes pictures and sells them to a newspaper, I'd assume they'd both enter a contract stating what the newspaper can and can't do with the pictures, plus any royalties the owner gets if the newspaper uses the pictures in the future.
That is insightful (assuming it is true, which I don't know for sure).
Not allowing pornography to be copyrighted. What defines pornography, I guess would be something sexually explicit that only adults should view, but I hope that isn't too broad of a definition.
Where in the Constitution does it give Congress to tax pornography anyways? And what kind of tax is it? I am against direct taxes on people. Taxes on businesses may be another thing. Maybe a flat excise tax or something on gross receipts from all revenue from the pornography business. If your business earns $100,000 in gross revenue (profits are less than $100k that is), maybe a flat 10% off the top?
You're correct. With rare exceptions, there usually has to be intent for it to be a criminal case. Accidents usually aren't criminal. Accidently hurting someone, damaging property, etc., don't constitute criminal activity (with few exceptions).
But when it comes to theft. I still believe intellectual theft should be handled in civil cases, unless someone is profiting off that theft. Imagine for a second, you are poor, and really want to read the newest Harry Potter book, but it is completely out of your budget, so you download it. You don't sell that copy you downloaded, and let us say you don't share that digital copy you found either. Then a big company finds out you illegally obtained it, and now is bringing criminal charges on you. I believe it would be better to do civil charges, but that's my opinion. Restitution for damages done.
It needs to be a civil case when someone illegally obtains certain material.
It needs to be a criminal case when someone is profiting off that illegally obtained material, like reselling it.
In other words, I believe if someone were to illegally obtain like a program, music, or video game, and just keeping it to themselves (or maybe even as going as far as freely sharing it), it needs to be a civil case. In a civil case, the lost revenue can be obtained exactly for what it would have cost, plus interest, if the persons would have bought it. However, if you SELL someone elses property, i.e. digital property, like an e-book, music, movie, etc., you're gaining a profit off of that. You are getting money for something you didn't do, and that needs to be regarded as theft.
My idea would eliminate voters from filling in the bubble or whatever when going to the polls. Imagine a response, "Oh my God. They made it non-partisan. I don't know whom to vote for! Which one was the Democrat?!"
It wouldn't stop political parties from donating money and such. Basically it would work the same as is now. Just no party listed on the ballot. As to how they get on the ballot, well, I think in my State it requires 1000 signatures or something for the State level. My State is having a problem though right now. We're going to have a different primary I guess.
I said making elections non-partisan. There'd still exist political parties. In my State, we're not allowed to register for a major political party I think.
When someone sells someone else's work, like writings, that is theft of intellectual property. But simply downloading someone else's work without paying the original writer their dues, that can get into a gray area depending on the circumstances.
Here are some other thoughts. - Stealing a car from an auto dealer and keeping it as your own, Stealing the design of a car, making the cars, and selling them without any royalties to the original designer, Taking the design of a car then building your own private car from that,
Why should the government define what a marriage is? I see marriage as something religious in nature. Each church has a different definition and requirements for marriage. I don't want the government putting the label "marriage" on the certificates they issue to people they "unionize", if you get what I mean.
Selling someone else's work as your own and making a profit on that is just immoral. How would you feel if you made a painting, or drew something, only to have someone scan it or copy it then sell it to others?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not scrap DST altogether? No more falling back or springing forward. It creates a hassle with everything.
But still allow States to decide which timezone they want. So if Washington state wants to go to Mountain Time instead of Pacific Time, so be it. Afterall, this new DST is going to be 9 months a year, so why not just have the next standard time zone year-round?
I think we should keep leap seconds. GMT needs to come at noon. The U.S. government doesn't need to be doing stupid stuff like this in the name of saving energy. People can stagger their work schedules. Schools can adjust their times. And people can invest in having solar panels on their roofs.
Legal or not, I'd rather not risk it anyways. Plus I know I have the CD around somewhere, just not sure where.
I remember Microsoft Bob. I wonder if I could still find my CD of it, let alone any stickers. (Kind of reminds me of those Wal-Mart commercials.)
huh?
Compare the games of now with the games of old. Such games as Super Mario (or something like that), Contra, and Zelda.
So does this make the American Citizens the enemy of the government? That they have to know everything about us to retain their status quo?
Students aren't that immature though.
On the contrary. The anonymity will end up, at least for some, to break out of their shell, so-to-speak. It will allow some students to speak their mind without fear, but additionally, will end up giving them more courage when they see that there was nothing to fear in the first place.
I cannot believe how stupid this is. (Not your post, but this subject of equal time for creationism.) Whatever happened to just sticking to the facts? Last I've checked, a theory is not a fact.
This is more of a joke kind of comment, but if they are going to decide what we can and can't do after hours, they might as well pay us overtime.
Go to a thift store and buy like an NES or SNES. Get some games. Real cheap. If you spent $300 on that alone, you can still have hours of fun. You don't need 3D effects to have fun. Does anyone think the way I do, or am I just "old" when it comes to this?
Fair I would call ignoring the sexes of the couple marrying. But I'd really rather not have the government issueing a piece of paper with the word marriage on it to any couple, same-sex or not. I'd rather see government issued pieces of paper contain the word "civil union" cause that is what it is, a civil union. Personally, I still see the word "marriage" having a religious tone to it.
If someone takes pictures and sells them to a newspaper, I'd assume they'd both enter a contract stating what the newspaper can and can't do with the pictures, plus any royalties the owner gets if the newspaper uses the pictures in the future.
That is insightful (assuming it is true, which I don't know for sure).
Not allowing pornography to be copyrighted. What defines pornography, I guess would be something sexually explicit that only adults should view, but I hope that isn't too broad of a definition.
Where in the Constitution does it give Congress to tax pornography anyways? And what kind of tax is it? I am against direct taxes on people. Taxes on businesses may be another thing. Maybe a flat excise tax or something on gross receipts from all revenue from the pornography business. If your business earns $100,000 in gross revenue (profits are less than $100k that is), maybe a flat 10% off the top?
I never realized there is an actual use for viruses and such. That would be fun though. I'd probably cut down the steps to just two.
1) Format hard drive and reinstall Windows.
2) Using Google, search xxx and click on all those pornography sites. I'm sure that will load you with some viruses.
You're correct. With rare exceptions, there usually has to be intent for it to be a criminal case. Accidents usually aren't criminal. Accidently hurting someone, damaging property, etc., don't constitute criminal activity (with few exceptions).
But when it comes to theft. I still believe intellectual theft should be handled in civil cases, unless someone is profiting off that theft. Imagine for a second, you are poor, and really want to read the newest Harry Potter book, but it is completely out of your budget, so you download it. You don't sell that copy you downloaded, and let us say you don't share that digital copy you found either. Then a big company finds out you illegally obtained it, and now is bringing criminal charges on you. I believe it would be better to do civil charges, but that's my opinion. Restitution for damages done.
Exactly.
It needs to be a civil case when someone illegally obtains certain material.
It needs to be a criminal case when someone is profiting off that illegally obtained material, like reselling it.
In other words, I believe if someone were to illegally obtain like a program, music, or video game, and just keeping it to themselves (or maybe even as going as far as freely sharing it), it needs to be a civil case. In a civil case, the lost revenue can be obtained exactly for what it would have cost, plus interest, if the persons would have bought it. However, if you SELL someone elses property, i.e. digital property, like an e-book, music, movie, etc., you're gaining a profit off of that. You are getting money for something you didn't do, and that needs to be regarded as theft.
Which is the point of licenses.
My idea would eliminate voters from filling in the bubble or whatever when going to the polls. Imagine a response, "Oh my God. They made it non-partisan. I don't know whom to vote for! Which one was the Democrat?!"
It wouldn't stop political parties from donating money and such. Basically it would work the same as is now. Just no party listed on the ballot. As to how they get on the ballot, well, I think in my State it requires 1000 signatures or something for the State level. My State is having a problem though right now. We're going to have a different primary I guess.
I guess it depends on whether it's completely sold, copyrights and all, or just leased away.
I said making elections non-partisan. There'd still exist political parties. In my State, we're not allowed to register for a major political party I think.
When someone sells someone else's work, like writings, that is theft of intellectual property. But simply downloading someone else's work without paying the original writer their dues, that can get into a gray area depending on the circumstances.
Here are some other thoughts.
-
Stealing a car from an auto dealer and keeping it as your own,
Stealing the design of a car, making the cars, and selling them without any royalties to the original designer,
Taking the design of a car then building your own private car from that,
Why should the government define what a marriage is? I see marriage as something religious in nature. Each church has a different definition and requirements for marriage. I don't want the government putting the label "marriage" on the certificates they issue to people they "unionize", if you get what I mean.
Selling someone else's work as your own and making a profit on that is just immoral. How would you feel if you made a painting, or drew something, only to have someone scan it or copy it then sell it to others?
What about making all elections non-partisan? It would make the voter actually work instead of just looking at a label and filling in that bubble.