Oddly enough, the British government actually *reduced* taxes on tea (eliminating the usual colonial tax in the American colonies), to undercut merchants and smugglers so the British East India company could have a monopoly. However, they started to crack down on people not paying their taxes, and that combined with the large number of smugglers who made their living selling tea, led to the Boston Tea Party.
So in effect, the government, in an attempt to grant a total monopoly to a floundering company, created seemingly decent legislation that didn't seem too harmful, yet people doing an illegal act started a revolution because they didn't like it. It's happened before, what's to prevent it from happening again?
He specificly pointed out the effect of the 27th ammendment. However, he noted that it shouldn't be based on the next election, but on an entirely different senator being elected (i.e. an incumbent doesn't get a payraise that he voted for).
The language spoken in England is no closer to Elizabethan English than the language spoken in America. And lets not forget that Chaucer would've had a fit if he saw Shakespeare's works, probably proclaiming them to be written for the vulgar masses. Heck, Beowulf isn't even close to modern English in any part of the world. So don't claim that American English is crap without realizing that Commonwealth English isn't any better, historically speaking.
So just because AIM doesn't have specific fields for age, they're less accountable in your mind? How does that even make sense? Someone can easily lie either way, one just has a simple prompt (which can essentialy be ignored anyway).
And how does AIM have less information about you? True, you don't have to put anything in your profile, but neither does myspace. And to say that AIM can't hold as much information about you as myspace is ludicrous. I could easily post a schedule of where I'll be on any given day in AIM. Does that mean that AOL is responsible for the information I post? Not in the least.
So why is myspace the problem here? If the issue is the medium that the information transfers over, than any place where you can post information (true or not) about yourself could be held liable for the actions of a poster. That's dangerous and pointless. The real problem is that someone committed a criminal act, period. Charge the person.
Or worse, taxpayers as a whole, like they've done with practicly every other part of the network (if the telcos had to pay out of pocket, most of the midwest wouldn't have phone service, period). Yet they'll still claim that they're losing money in bringing access to all, even if all they're doing is dictating which color wires get put up.
Oman and Pakistan don't have an age of consent, Mexico is 12 (unless their was deceit), Columbia is 12 for females and 14 for males, Chile is 12. Go look down the list: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
AIM isn't designed to allow hookups? How many times throughout the 90s (and even still today) did we hear about "sexual preditor meets child in AOL chatroom? Open chatrooms are, by definition, allowing people who do not know eachother personally to chat, which easily allows hookups. And it's not like someone can't lie on an AOL (and especially AIM) profile.
However, yes, it does boil down to parental responsibility (and plain common sense). The parent should be telling the kid that doing certain things (like, I dunno, meeting up with people online) are bad ideas. The kid should realize that even if the guy really were a high school senior, he could still have raped her, and besides, teeanage to college age boys have only so much that they're thinking about.
Really, I've got no idea how they can even expect that 1% of a company's worth is reasonable anyway. This just seems like a greedy mother and daughter. Besides, reading sections 10, 12, and 17 of the terms and conditions, it's pretty clear that the girl has no leg to stand on (unless we want to get into contract law involving minors, which opens up more than a few cans of worms).
I was talking about the theoretical "possession of stolen property" that might occur after buying from a store selling stolen property (a shady pawn shop, for example), which would be a criminal trial, and thus subject to the decision of a jury. Provided the jury wasn't braindead, there couldn't possibly be a conviction.
Our experience of consciousness may be atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles bouncing about semi-randomly, but the thoughts, ideas, and knowlege stemming from such allows for the consciousness to be changed.
Then again, not everything has to be pre-determined. Look at quantum mechanics. Not only are things not pre-determined, they're not determined at all till you actually look at it.
How about eyewitness statements not being reliable, especially when the eyewitness wasn't around to actually see the event and only wrote based on "revelations".
How are people going to hide their research if they sell the product? People could easily reverse engineer mechanical and electrical devices, as well as most software. Medicines have to go through the FDA, and would therefor not be impossible to duplicate (with the added bonus that any competing company would have to get their drug tested by the FDA, thus the first company would have a head start). That leaves what, business methods that will be kept "secret"? How secret can they be, companies have to do business to survive.
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
-Agent Smith
So what exactly explains the people who insist on creationism, denying every shred of evidence and fact that supports evolution? Are they just pulling their 6 day creation story out of thin air? Did Answers in Genesis just have millions of dollars fall from the sky in their fundraiser to build a creationism "museum"? And I'm fairly certain that Jerry Falwell has some sort of audiance (unfortunately).
As to why these persons are conservative, I'll never know, however in case you haven't noticed, the US president is an evangelical Christian. Why the fundamentalists ignore the part of the new testiment that is actually about Jesus speaking in favor of the old testiment, Paul's writings, and revelations, I'll never know, but they do. Ignoring or denying that they exist is like ignoring the giant squid at the kitchen table.
Read up on Reid v. Covert, a very important precident (probably more and more as we go forward) that says that all international treaties must respect the laws of the Constitution, preventing Congress from authorizing actions that it otherwise could not.
I'll probably never change anything if I do that. Short of actually instigating an armed revolution in this country, there is very little recourse for those in Washington. There's what, a 96% incumbancy rate? Do you honestly think that people aren't trying to vote for other candidates or run for office? Heck, there's enough of a problem getting people to pick anything but the one major political party they've voted for all their life, let alone getting people to pick a political party that doesn't start with an R or a D. With news networks on both sides cheering on their own side with every small guy getting pushed out of even the edge of the limelight, what do you think we can do to peacefully change anything?
Vote for who? The other guy who will be just as sleazy if you give him some time? The third party candidate who has no shot of winning? You might as well cast a write in vote for Santa Clause, as much effect as that has.
And run yourself? Are you kidding me? You're facing people backed with millions of dollars in a political war chest who will resort to finding the most menial thing in your past to dredge up and run a negative campaign against you.
Let's face it. The day of the politicians being by, of, and for the people are long over, and they're getting further and further behind every election. The only real hope? Read your history books if you don't know the answer. Hint: It's what eventually happens to every authoritarian government not externally toppled.
Hmm, I always thought it was the ultraconservatives who always said "government cannot give rights, it can only take them away". To claim that it is a "right" of the state to abridge free speech is horrifyingly authoritarian, and in direct opposition to the freedom of the country. But then again, we have that 14th ammendment which clearly states that, no, states (and local governments) don't have the right to trample over the rights of the people for free speech, religion, press, what have you. So... you must be confusing "activist courts" with Congress and the states (who ratified the 14th ammendment).
Besides, I'm sure you won't complain when equally activist conservative court judges overturn 50 years of precident as far as abortion goes, unless you can point out to me where the Constitution says "Oh, and no abortions." Although I can specificly spell out how the Constitution only grants the federal government certain powers, and how conservatives have gone far past the reach of those (and yes, liberals have too, and I don't like that either). For example, look up Nixon, Richard, the entire presidency of. Or for that matter, find where the NSA is given the power of warrentless wiretapping (hint: it's not!).
I severely doubt that they can do that, because that is an extension of school power outside of school grounds. They couldn't make that ammendment any more than they could make an ammendment to their policy stating that you have to wear a tutu every Saturday night.
It's a matter of overreaching their authority. The school has a say on school grounds and on school related activities (i.e. field trips and bus rides home). The school does not have authority over what a kid does in their house. If the kid is running anything illegal (which he isn't), then it's the duty of the police, and not the school. If the parents of the kid don't have a problem with it, then how can the school step in and stop it? They can't.
Sweeden (that socialist haven:p) has a 5% unemployment rate. They have a balanced budget (slight surplus, actually). They don't have as much public debt (as a percentage of GDP) as America. They have lower inflation than the US. They also have a 2.7% GDP growth rate, which ain't too shabby.
How are two breasts automaticly pornography? Guess what: over half the world has breasts. That's right, every woman (and some really fat men) has a pair of breasts, and guess what: if they take their shirt and bra off, they will be right there. It's not pornography to merely model breasts. If the game did anything further with the breasts, than perhaps you'd have something, but until then, all you've got is a model of a female character having an anatomicly correct torso. So what?
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, the British government actually *reduced* taxes on tea (eliminating the usual colonial tax in the American colonies), to undercut merchants and smugglers so the British East India company could have a monopoly. However, they started to crack down on people not paying their taxes, and that combined with the large number of smugglers who made their living selling tea, led to the Boston Tea Party.
So in effect, the government, in an attempt to grant a total monopoly to a floundering company, created seemingly decent legislation that didn't seem too harmful, yet people doing an illegal act started a revolution because they didn't like it. It's happened before, what's to prevent it from happening again?
He specificly pointed out the effect of the 27th ammendment. However, he noted that it shouldn't be based on the next election, but on an entirely different senator being elected (i.e. an incumbent doesn't get a payraise that he voted for).
The language spoken in England is no closer to Elizabethan English than the language spoken in America. And lets not forget that Chaucer would've had a fit if he saw Shakespeare's works, probably proclaiming them to be written for the vulgar masses. Heck, Beowulf isn't even close to modern English in any part of the world. So don't claim that American English is crap without realizing that Commonwealth English isn't any better, historically speaking.
So just because AIM doesn't have specific fields for age, they're less accountable in your mind? How does that even make sense? Someone can easily lie either way, one just has a simple prompt (which can essentialy be ignored anyway).
And how does AIM have less information about you? True, you don't have to put anything in your profile, but neither does myspace. And to say that AIM can't hold as much information about you as myspace is ludicrous. I could easily post a schedule of where I'll be on any given day in AIM. Does that mean that AOL is responsible for the information I post? Not in the least.
So why is myspace the problem here? If the issue is the medium that the information transfers over, than any place where you can post information (true or not) about yourself could be held liable for the actions of a poster. That's dangerous and pointless. The real problem is that someone committed a criminal act, period. Charge the person.
Or worse, taxpayers as a whole, like they've done with practicly every other part of the network (if the telcos had to pay out of pocket, most of the midwest wouldn't have phone service, period). Yet they'll still claim that they're losing money in bringing access to all, even if all they're doing is dictating which color wires get put up.
Oman and Pakistan don't have an age of consent, Mexico is 12 (unless their was deceit), Columbia is 12 for females and 14 for males, Chile is 12. Go look down the list: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
AIM isn't designed to allow hookups? How many times throughout the 90s (and even still today) did we hear about "sexual preditor meets child in AOL chatroom? Open chatrooms are, by definition, allowing people who do not know eachother personally to chat, which easily allows hookups. And it's not like someone can't lie on an AOL (and especially AIM) profile.
However, yes, it does boil down to parental responsibility (and plain common sense). The parent should be telling the kid that doing certain things (like, I dunno, meeting up with people online) are bad ideas. The kid should realize that even if the guy really were a high school senior, he could still have raped her, and besides, teeanage to college age boys have only so much that they're thinking about.
Really, I've got no idea how they can even expect that 1% of a company's worth is reasonable anyway. This just seems like a greedy mother and daughter. Besides, reading sections 10, 12, and 17 of the terms and conditions, it's pretty clear that the girl has no leg to stand on (unless we want to get into contract law involving minors, which opens up more than a few cans of worms).
I was talking about the theoretical "possession of stolen property" that might occur after buying from a store selling stolen property (a shady pawn shop, for example), which would be a criminal trial, and thus subject to the decision of a jury. Provided the jury wasn't braindead, there couldn't possibly be a conviction.
Good luck convincing a jury to convict if there was no criminal intent.
Almost any author of a religious text, although I was more specificly referencing the Bible.
Our experience of consciousness may be atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles bouncing about semi-randomly, but the thoughts, ideas, and knowlege stemming from such allows for the consciousness to be changed.
Then again, not everything has to be pre-determined. Look at quantum mechanics. Not only are things not pre-determined, they're not determined at all till you actually look at it.
How about eyewitness statements not being reliable, especially when the eyewitness wasn't around to actually see the event and only wrote based on "revelations".
How are people going to hide their research if they sell the product? People could easily reverse engineer mechanical and electrical devices, as well as most software. Medicines have to go through the FDA, and would therefor not be impossible to duplicate (with the added bonus that any competing company would have to get their drug tested by the FDA, thus the first company would have a head start). That leaves what, business methods that will be kept "secret"? How secret can they be, companies have to do business to survive.
"It looks like you're attempting inhumane and degrading treatment. Would you like to:
Learn how to evade international treaties against torture?
Learn proper engineering techniques for forming a naked pyramid out of prisoners?
Learn Islamic culture, the better to disrespect it?
No thanks, I don't need help."
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
-Agent Smith
Sorry, couldn't resist.
So what exactly explains the people who insist on creationism, denying every shred of evidence and fact that supports evolution? Are they just pulling their 6 day creation story out of thin air? Did Answers in Genesis just have millions of dollars fall from the sky in their fundraiser to build a creationism "museum"? And I'm fairly certain that Jerry Falwell has some sort of audiance (unfortunately).
As to why these persons are conservative, I'll never know, however in case you haven't noticed, the US president is an evangelical Christian. Why the fundamentalists ignore the part of the new testiment that is actually about Jesus speaking in favor of the old testiment, Paul's writings, and revelations, I'll never know, but they do. Ignoring or denying that they exist is like ignoring the giant squid at the kitchen table.
Read up on Reid v. Covert, a very important precident (probably more and more as we go forward) that says that all international treaties must respect the laws of the Constitution, preventing Congress from authorizing actions that it otherwise could not.
I'll probably never change anything if I do that. Short of actually instigating an armed revolution in this country, there is very little recourse for those in Washington. There's what, a 96% incumbancy rate? Do you honestly think that people aren't trying to vote for other candidates or run for office? Heck, there's enough of a problem getting people to pick anything but the one major political party they've voted for all their life, let alone getting people to pick a political party that doesn't start with an R or a D. With news networks on both sides cheering on their own side with every small guy getting pushed out of even the edge of the limelight, what do you think we can do to peacefully change anything?
Vote for who? The other guy who will be just as sleazy if you give him some time? The third party candidate who has no shot of winning? You might as well cast a write in vote for Santa Clause, as much effect as that has.
And run yourself? Are you kidding me? You're facing people backed with millions of dollars in a political war chest who will resort to finding the most menial thing in your past to dredge up and run a negative campaign against you.
Let's face it. The day of the politicians being by, of, and for the people are long over, and they're getting further and further behind every election. The only real hope? Read your history books if you don't know the answer. Hint: It's what eventually happens to every authoritarian government not externally toppled.
Hmm, I always thought it was the ultraconservatives who always said "government cannot give rights, it can only take them away". To claim that it is a "right" of the state to abridge free speech is horrifyingly authoritarian, and in direct opposition to the freedom of the country. But then again, we have that 14th ammendment which clearly states that, no, states (and local governments) don't have the right to trample over the rights of the people for free speech, religion, press, what have you. So... you must be confusing "activist courts" with Congress and the states (who ratified the 14th ammendment).
Besides, I'm sure you won't complain when equally activist conservative court judges overturn 50 years of precident as far as abortion goes, unless you can point out to me where the Constitution says "Oh, and no abortions." Although I can specificly spell out how the Constitution only grants the federal government certain powers, and how conservatives have gone far past the reach of those (and yes, liberals have too, and I don't like that either). For example, look up Nixon, Richard, the entire presidency of. Or for that matter, find where the NSA is given the power of warrentless wiretapping (hint: it's not!).
I severely doubt that they can do that, because that is an extension of school power outside of school grounds. They couldn't make that ammendment any more than they could make an ammendment to their policy stating that you have to wear a tutu every Saturday night.
It's a matter of overreaching their authority. The school has a say on school grounds and on school related activities (i.e. field trips and bus rides home). The school does not have authority over what a kid does in their house. If the kid is running anything illegal (which he isn't), then it's the duty of the police, and not the school. If the parents of the kid don't have a problem with it, then how can the school step in and stop it? They can't.
Sweeden (that socialist haven :p) has a 5% unemployment rate. They have a balanced budget (slight surplus, actually). They don't have as much public debt (as a percentage of GDP) as America. They have lower inflation than the US. They also have a 2.7% GDP growth rate, which ain't too shabby.
But if you don't work as long, you won't put as much into social security, thus you get slightly less screwed over in the end.
My bad, I thought we were still on Oblivion. *shoots self* Ignore the above. :\
How are two breasts automaticly pornography? Guess what: over half the world has breasts. That's right, every woman (and some really fat men) has a pair of breasts, and guess what: if they take their shirt and bra off, they will be right there. It's not pornography to merely model breasts. If the game did anything further with the breasts, than perhaps you'd have something, but until then, all you've got is a model of a female character having an anatomicly correct torso. So what?