You're forgetting that plenty of colleges advertise that they have internet, cable, phone, whatever. If they suddenly take it away after you've paid tutition and housing costs, then they're violating the agreed upon conditions.
Not to say that Amish University couldn't get off the ground and running, just that most colleges at this point are rather locked into what they said they'd do.
Last time I checked, people pay to go to college and pay more on top of that for housing. The university is obligated to provide what it says it will provide (which in todays world almost always includes an internet connection). Beyond that, many college's internet use policy assumes general privacy, so unless you're hogging like crazy, I don't really see where it should matter what you're doing (until the law comes along).
In "the real world", you are getting paid to perform a task. If you are using the internet, you aren't doing the task (though I don't think anyone really wants to get into the discussion of whether it's even humanly possible to focus on your job the entire workday). If someone is fired for "abuse" of the internet at work, they probably spent most of their day doing diddly squat, and would've gotten fired regardless.
There's not really any connection between paying for a service and complaining when it's taken away and being paid to do something and then goofing off.
If you mean original list of people who could vote in America, the age range was anyone over 21, and you left out the part about being white (though if you weren't white, you probably didn't have land anyway).
In Athens however, you had to be a male citizen (going back generations on both sides of the family, unless an exclusion was voted in) who had completed a certain level of military training (meaning that you almost had to be over at least 20). Also, you could have rights suspended, often for debt to the city (which was inheritable, thus screwing over you and your children). Oddly, there weren't any effective property requirements (some were on the books, but not enforced).
Not everyone has a burning desire to go out and socialize, not due to fear, but due to apathy. These same people could use your very arguement against you to try to get you to do particle physics, botany, taxidermy, engineering, coding, whatever. Life's goals are not the same for everyone, and it doesn't mean that people are "scared" of things they just plain don't want to do.
Besides, let's face it, given society's obsession with pop stars and actors (and the endless relationships they have that are constantly mentioned), can you really blame someone for wanting to avoid that kind of crap? Endless pseudodrama is... for lack of a nicer term, irrelevent to quite a few people.
No, it's the liberal stance to not use unnessicary force (even if it is nonlethal) to abridge constitutionally protected freedoms (like freedom of speech, and peaceable assembly, for example).
It has everything to do with this. This is an obvious patent to strike down unmercifully. The patent itself says that verb conjugation has been around online and that the only major difference is that this method *might* detect spelling errors (gee, like *that* hasn't been done) and would allow a person to imput their native verb to get conjugations in another language (not novel in the least). If the USPTO can't even pass basic common sense tests, why should they be allowed to issue anything that could lead to million dollar court battles?
Since when has DRM made it harder to pirate... anything? Is there a single example of something that DRM has actually protected from any copying? There are thousands of groups who will break any DRM that is put out there, and so long as DRM exists, they will too.
I also fail to see how your broken car window is similar in any way to the downloading of music. In your case, there was actual destruction of property. If I go and use bittorrent to download an album, that doesn't mean that I've destroyed the master copy in the recording studio.
As to those who would stop making music if they didn't get money for it... GREAT! I'm tired of marginally talented people who just want a quick buck. There will still be music out there from people and bands who actually enjoy the creative process of music. Will they make money? Probably. They could take direct donations, or go on tour, or bundle physical CDs with interesting goodies.
And you really don't want to get started on capitalism vs communism in a debate on copyrights. Copyrights are a government granted monopoly (i.e. an intervention by the government into the economy). If you want free market economics, then copyright must cease to exist. Yeah, you might work your ass off on your CD of "The Songs of Austrialian Goat Herders", but no matter how much you sacrificed for it, it doesn't mean you'll get money off it.
Is it just me, or is it bad that the person directing all this can't remember that HIV doesn't have DNA? It only has two copies of single stranded RNA. For that matter, HIV doesn't come in cells, because it's a virus. I *really* don't want anything to do with this vaccine until it's been tested many times with large samples by independent scientists.
Or we could save everyone trouble and kill everyone with AIDS, right? Then no one would die and no one would ever get AIDS again! Nevermind that it is an exceedingly difficult ethical question to essentially condemn 10% of the people to death (your scenario) through no fault of their own, when simply educating them about proper condom use (oh the horror!) would kill no one *and* prevent the vast majority of AIDS cases (over 99%), all without any real ethical concerns.
What about the Chechans? The IRA? That crazy Japanese group that used nerve gas in the subway? What about the unabomber? What about Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? What about N17, a Greek Marxist group that assassinated Stephen Saunders? Do I need to go on? There are so many more terrorist groups than just Arab Muslims. To claim that whites, asians, blacks, and aboriginees aren't just as capable of using terrorism is bullshit of the highest calibre.
Strings haven't been verified in the least. Beyond that, there are 6 different ideas for how string theory might work. Bringing up string theory at this point is useless because it doesn't say *anything* that we can use. Call me if it's proven, then I'll care.
Someone failed their science class. It is Law that says something is "wrong" until proven otherwise. Science in many ways says almost the exact opposite. In science any Theory (and there is a difference between conjecture and Theory) is correct until proven false.
Considering that a theory is defined as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena", it is, by definition, a reasonable explaination, which hasn't been proven false because it supports and is supported by the evidence. The very point of a theory is that it is probably not totally right, but it does explain everything we have. If new information comes along, then the theory is modified or thrown out, hence why Newtonian gravity is no longer considered a viable theory for the attraction between masses.
However, a conjecture is more or less guesswork. It might be true, but it can't be considered useful in the context of an experiment.
Outside of a few diciplines, science generally doesn't go around proving stuff, quite the opposite, science falsifies stuff.
Science can prove plenty of things . V=IR. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun is a giant ball of mostly hydrogen and will continue to fuse mostly hydrogen together for another 5 billion years or so. Frozen heavy water will sink in normal water. You get your energy from glucose being broken down to produce ATP. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. There are plenty of things that can be proven with experiments and/or observations.
Science by default says that any statement is wrong until proven otherwise. Faith says that something is right because we really hope it is. Science admittedly can't answer every question (nor is it designed to do so), nor does it ever get the "truth" in some final sense. It does, however, continually approach the truth. Sometimes it is wrong, and has to backtrack, but that is welcome and applauded. Faith, however, is based upon saying that X is true, regardless of any other evidence, which means that to someone of "faith", the evidence is irrelevent. Now, some things don't have any concrete evidence either way (god, the IPU, the FSM, underpants gnomes, etc), however, if someone is looking at things from the perspective of being a scientist, they can't say that any of those must be true, they can only say that it is likely or unlikely (though admittedly it's easier to just say yes or no). As a result, people delving deeper and deeper into science generally get more and more detached from faith, because it's irrelevent to their work and the way they see the universe. I'd imagine that many deeper and deeper in faith experiance a similar effect with their religion. However, it still comes down to one group getting closer and closer to the facts and one stuck in what they only imagine to be "the truth".
He never said anything about not taking weapons on planes, he's refering to the asinine policy of not allowing *any* bottled liquids on planes (even those bought inside the terminal). Do you seriously think that the decision is only between two extremes with no middle ground? No government can provide total security, period. However, a government can provide reasonable security without trying to scare every soccer mom and nascar dad into supporting greater and greater restriction of rights. Sure, we may get terrorists performing an attack. Guess what: terrorists are just as capable of performing the attacks in a totalitarian system as they are in a demcracy.
IANAL, but wouldn't the "under the Authority of the United States" preclude any treaties which violate the constitution? I.E. Since Congress can't abridge freedom of speech, they also shouldn't be able to enter into a treaty which abridges free speech. Then again, given things that have managed to pass, I'm getting some nasty doubts.:\
Well, here are the countries that don't have extradition treaties with the US: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.
Out of those, there aren't many good ones. Perhaps you could find a small island in Micronesia and set up a satalite connection to the internet. That would also allow you to take the role of a criminal mastermind and carve out a mountain to use as your evil lair.
Well, it's a bit slower than that, because radio waves can't travel through the earth itself, so we have to bounce them off of satalites and ground stations. Still, it's generally under a second or two, which is still just fine for almost everything.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If they don't have a warrant and they monitor your calls, they are in violation of the law and should be tried. Period. I'm a little antsy about retroactive warrants, but I at least see that they can be monitored for abuse.
And DAs, detectives, and even the average cop will do whatever they can to get you to give up your rights. They're looking for convictions, not for you to be educated about what you don't have to do (which can easily make or break a case). For the most part, judges aren't very forgiving (they're not willing to overturn status quo, not that I can blame them).
The judge says he's open to the idea that if Google manually changed the pagerank to zero, then maybe it's defamation, which is a valid reason to bring a suit. It's equivalent to saying, out loud and deliberately, "You suck". He's saying that if they do it manually, that could be evidence for malice, which is a requirement for a defamation suit. (At least according to Wikipedia; IANAL.)
However, statements of opinion are protected under US law from being the target of defamation suits.
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting that plenty of colleges advertise that they have internet, cable, phone, whatever. If they suddenly take it away after you've paid tutition and housing costs, then they're violating the agreed upon conditions.
Not to say that Amish University couldn't get off the ground and running, just that most colleges at this point are rather locked into what they said they'd do.
Last time I checked, people pay to go to college and pay more on top of that for housing. The university is obligated to provide what it says it will provide (which in todays world almost always includes an internet connection). Beyond that, many college's internet use policy assumes general privacy, so unless you're hogging like crazy, I don't really see where it should matter what you're doing (until the law comes along). In "the real world", you are getting paid to perform a task. If you are using the internet, you aren't doing the task (though I don't think anyone really wants to get into the discussion of whether it's even humanly possible to focus on your job the entire workday). If someone is fired for "abuse" of the internet at work, they probably spent most of their day doing diddly squat, and would've gotten fired regardless. There's not really any connection between paying for a service and complaining when it's taken away and being paid to do something and then goofing off.
If you mean original list of people who could vote in America, the age range was anyone over 21, and you left out the part about being white (though if you weren't white, you probably didn't have land anyway). In Athens however, you had to be a male citizen (going back generations on both sides of the family, unless an exclusion was voted in) who had completed a certain level of military training (meaning that you almost had to be over at least 20). Also, you could have rights suspended, often for debt to the city (which was inheritable, thus screwing over you and your children). Oddly, there weren't any effective property requirements (some were on the books, but not enforced).
Not everyone has a burning desire to go out and socialize, not due to fear, but due to apathy. These same people could use your very arguement against you to try to get you to do particle physics, botany, taxidermy, engineering, coding, whatever. Life's goals are not the same for everyone, and it doesn't mean that people are "scared" of things they just plain don't want to do.
Besides, let's face it, given society's obsession with pop stars and actors (and the endless relationships they have that are constantly mentioned), can you really blame someone for wanting to avoid that kind of crap? Endless pseudodrama is... for lack of a nicer term, irrelevent to quite a few people.
But whatever. To each their own.
No, it's the liberal stance to not use unnessicary force (even if it is nonlethal) to abridge constitutionally protected freedoms (like freedom of speech, and peaceable assembly, for example).
It has everything to do with this. This is an obvious patent to strike down unmercifully. The patent itself says that verb conjugation has been around online and that the only major difference is that this method *might* detect spelling errors (gee, like *that* hasn't been done) and would allow a person to imput their native verb to get conjugations in another language (not novel in the least). If the USPTO can't even pass basic common sense tests, why should they be allowed to issue anything that could lead to million dollar court battles?
Since when has DRM made it harder to pirate... anything? Is there a single example of something that DRM has actually protected from any copying? There are thousands of groups who will break any DRM that is put out there, and so long as DRM exists, they will too.
I also fail to see how your broken car window is similar in any way to the downloading of music. In your case, there was actual destruction of property. If I go and use bittorrent to download an album, that doesn't mean that I've destroyed the master copy in the recording studio.
As to those who would stop making music if they didn't get money for it... GREAT! I'm tired of marginally talented people who just want a quick buck. There will still be music out there from people and bands who actually enjoy the creative process of music. Will they make money? Probably. They could take direct donations, or go on tour, or bundle physical CDs with interesting goodies.
And you really don't want to get started on capitalism vs communism in a debate on copyrights. Copyrights are a government granted monopoly (i.e. an intervention by the government into the economy). If you want free market economics, then copyright must cease to exist. Yeah, you might work your ass off on your CD of "The Songs of Austrialian Goat Herders", but no matter how much you sacrificed for it, it doesn't mean you'll get money off it.
Is it just me, or is it bad that the person directing all this can't remember that HIV doesn't have DNA? It only has two copies of single stranded RNA. For that matter, HIV doesn't come in cells, because it's a virus. I *really* don't want anything to do with this vaccine until it's been tested many times with large samples by independent scientists.
Or we could save everyone trouble and kill everyone with AIDS, right? Then no one would die and no one would ever get AIDS again! Nevermind that it is an exceedingly difficult ethical question to essentially condemn 10% of the people to death (your scenario) through no fault of their own, when simply educating them about proper condom use (oh the horror!) would kill no one *and* prevent the vast majority of AIDS cases (over 99%), all without any real ethical concerns.
What about the Chechans? The IRA? That crazy Japanese group that used nerve gas in the subway? What about the unabomber? What about Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? What about N17, a Greek Marxist group that assassinated Stephen Saunders? Do I need to go on? There are so many more terrorist groups than just Arab Muslims. To claim that whites, asians, blacks, and aboriginees aren't just as capable of using terrorism is bullshit of the highest calibre.
Strings haven't been verified in the least. Beyond that, there are 6 different ideas for how string theory might work. Bringing up string theory at this point is useless because it doesn't say *anything* that we can use. Call me if it's proven, then I'll care.
And let me just say, I hate forgetting to close my tags.
Science by default says that any statement is wrong until proven otherwise. Faith says that something is right because we really hope it is. Science admittedly can't answer every question (nor is it designed to do so), nor does it ever get the "truth" in some final sense. It does, however, continually approach the truth. Sometimes it is wrong, and has to backtrack, but that is welcome and applauded. Faith, however, is based upon saying that X is true, regardless of any other evidence, which means that to someone of "faith", the evidence is irrelevent. Now, some things don't have any concrete evidence either way (god, the IPU, the FSM, underpants gnomes, etc), however, if someone is looking at things from the perspective of being a scientist, they can't say that any of those must be true, they can only say that it is likely or unlikely (though admittedly it's easier to just say yes or no). As a result, people delving deeper and deeper into science generally get more and more detached from faith, because it's irrelevent to their work and the way they see the universe. I'd imagine that many deeper and deeper in faith experiance a similar effect with their religion. However, it still comes down to one group getting closer and closer to the facts and one stuck in what they only imagine to be "the truth".
He never said anything about not taking weapons on planes, he's refering to the asinine policy of not allowing *any* bottled liquids on planes (even those bought inside the terminal). Do you seriously think that the decision is only between two extremes with no middle ground? No government can provide total security, period. However, a government can provide reasonable security without trying to scare every soccer mom and nascar dad into supporting greater and greater restriction of rights. Sure, we may get terrorists performing an attack. Guess what: terrorists are just as capable of performing the attacks in a totalitarian system as they are in a demcracy.
Why not just use post-it notes?
I have been touched by his noodley appendage! (not that one, you sickos!)
Well at least we know that they can't blame pirates for global warming!
IANAL, but wouldn't the "under the Authority of the United States" preclude any treaties which violate the constitution? I.E. Since Congress can't abridge freedom of speech, they also shouldn't be able to enter into a treaty which abridges free speech. Then again, given things that have managed to pass, I'm getting some nasty doubts. :\
Only if you're being held in custody (i.e. you can't leave). If they're questioning you before that, it's perfectly admissable.
Fuji apples are 4129. (I bet that if you go to your grocery store, it will be that, regardless of where you are in America. It's always the same.)
Yes, I've been a cashier, and it sucks, but it's at least useful for checking yourself out a bit faster.
Well, here are the countries that don't have extradition treaties with the US: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.
Out of those, there aren't many good ones. Perhaps you could find a small island in Micronesia and set up a satalite connection to the internet. That would also allow you to take the role of a criminal mastermind and carve out a mountain to use as your evil lair.
Well, it's a bit slower than that, because radio waves can't travel through the earth itself, so we have to bounce them off of satalites and ground stations. Still, it's generally under a second or two, which is still just fine for almost everything.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If they don't have a warrant and they monitor your calls, they are in violation of the law and should be tried. Period. I'm a little antsy about retroactive warrants, but I at least see that they can be monitored for abuse.
And DAs, detectives, and even the average cop will do whatever they can to get you to give up your rights. They're looking for convictions, not for you to be educated about what you don't have to do (which can easily make or break a case). For the most part, judges aren't very forgiving (they're not willing to overturn status quo, not that I can blame them).
However, statements of opinion are protected under US law from being the target of defamation suits.