So the question is, is it reasonable for a single city to have as much influence over the election as the state of Wyoming? I guess that depends on whether Wyoming has particular state-specific interests that would otherwise be trampled. I have a hard time believing that this is the case in 2006.
"Next item: turning Wyoming into the new San Francisco landfill. All those in favor..."
It's not that the individual citizens get a vote that weighs more. It's that the state as a unit gets a certain amount in a compromise that recognizes them as "equal" states for some purposes - and each state that has ever agreed to join the union has been granted that same level of recognition.
My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.
Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.
No, they are both U.S. citizens, and the federal government equally denies both the ability to directly elect the President. Let's look at this another way...
Your view: Wyoming is a less important state than New York. (Presumably because it has fewer people)
Sure, but state law can only punish after the fact (assuming they didn't remove the elector in advance). Once the vote is cast, it cannot be revoked on the basis that the elector didn't vote as pledged. So you can still have a rogue elector - though, if all states had a pact as proposed, it would be more difficult for one elector to sway the outcome.
As noted here, the doodles aren't exactly religious or specific to "Christmas" (or other specific religious December holidays). Go review the "holiday" logos: they have snow, lights, and gift exchanges, but no visible Christmas trees, no Nativity scene, no menorahs or dreidels, no Kwanzaa references - nor even any people, so far as I can tell...
"Dennis Hwang may be the most famous unknown artist in the world -- his work doesn't hang in galleries or museums, but it's been viewed hundreds of millions of times."
So, how is this different from someone who designs the logo of a national (or international) fast-food chain, or the package art for a widely distributed consumer product?
Even if it's not 100% of his job duties, he's being paid to produce artwork to build & reinforce a brand. Sounds like the job a *lot* of graphic artists hold, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's seen by more people (more views != more viewers) than a number of national or international ad campaigns.
So, if I sold a set of movie-watching goggles, saying "The Hunt for Red October" looks better through rose-colored lenses, could I get sued?
(Is it just because the movie's name is referenced? How is this different from selling a slipcover for an MP3 player and saying "fits Apple iPod Shuffle" with a disclaimer that the manufacturer is not affiliated with Apple?)
No, no... knowing a little about one person isn't dangerous. It's when they know that everyone in England likes cheese sandwiches that you need to worry. Using subliminal AdWords messages to ignite the Great Cheese Embargo of 2007 is just the first step in their master plan...
offer a $X reward to anyone who loses the auction (2nd place) by $X or less
That wouldn't work too well, considering that eBay will only ever show you the winning bid as some standard increment (such as 50 cents or $1.00) above the 2nd highest, even if the highest bidder had entered $100 more. (eBay doesn't disclose the absolute maximum the high bidder was willing to pay, unless of course it was only a few cents more than the "losing" bid.)
Waaait... hold the network owner responsible for "enabling" an illegal upload, instead of holding the actual culprit responsible? If we did that, why not just fine the ISPs every time a copyrighted file is transferred illegally? After all, they're ultimately enablng the exchange by providing access.
It's not illegal if they obtained a warrant or court order. They likely were able to produce their logs of the IP address used (or some similar information), along with sufficient info from his ISP to tie it to him specifically. I doubt they knocked on his door without the piece of paper saying they could.
I don't remember it being described as an advance screening during the show. It seemed as though the husband was just reading a regular movie listing ("Hey, they're showing Memoirs of a Geisha, didn't you like that book?"). And the couple they run into aren't their close friends; it's an old friend (old flame) that they "happen" to meet, as happens in many episodes of your typical TV show. A plot device plus a product placement.
Eh, design it so that it's printed on the receipt, as a one-time-use code? Then the staff can't access it without ringing up an order, and they won't be ringing up fake Happy Meal orders if they want their drawer to balance at the end of their shift.
Re:Something like this happened to me once
on
Webhost Sues Google
·
· Score: 1
Now suppose you say it's "not fair" that they won't let you empty the jar and count the contents first.
Actually, it would be slightly more analogous to asking to count the jar's contents after being told you guessed wrong.
Did you miss the part about it being a small business? It was a spike in Adword clicks on a specific keyword, not a "spike" in overall site traffic. 50 additional clicks on a keyword, where the small business is probably not paying top dollar for that keyword, is pretty significant, especially if that particular keyword was previously doing, let's say, 30-50 clicks a day (hypothetical).
It's been a while since I've used keywords, but when my last (small) company was using them, I'm pretty sure a 50-click surge on one keyword would have made us take notice. (As it was, Adwords got us clicks but not conversions so it wasn't worth the cost and we ended that little experiment.)
1. Most (I presume you mean straight) men like looking at sexy women because it causes an instinctive postive reaction or stimulation.
2. Most women look at sexy women because they want to evoke the same reaction and are looking for the guidelines. Ergo, women look at sexy women not because they like looking at sexy women, but because they like getting positive attention especially from men.
The whole debate about the ethics or morality of the media promoting imagery of sexy women is the question of whether women should be encouraged to pursue a particular version of beauty simply because it pleases men.
Count me in that "etc" - not for this case specifically, but I, too, don't like the idea that laws can be thrown out the window because they're unpopular. There are some cases where laws protect the minority, to the chagrin of the majority. If you happen to get a 12-member jury made up of the majority that finds a law irritating, do they somehow have the right to stick it to the minority by ignoring that law?
I don't doubt that they have the power, but I'm wary of calling it a "right".
The jurors are supposed to and expected to vote based on the laws. That's why the judge's instructions specifically instruct them to consider the evidence and detemine whether the defendant broke the law.
The loophole is that there is no punishment for jurors who blatantly disregard the law when considering their verdict. Therefore, jurors do have th power to decide based on their conscience, or their political viewpoint, or their mood of the day, or a flip of a coin. (Perhaps someone should set up a website describing your right and duty to flip a coin to decide a verdict - then that would make it the right thing to do!)
Slashdot Mirror
So the question is, is it reasonable for a single city to have as much influence over the election as the state of Wyoming? I guess that depends on whether Wyoming has particular state-specific interests that would otherwise be trampled. I have a hard time believing that this is the case in 2006.
"Next item: turning Wyoming into the new San Francisco landfill. All those in favor..."
It's not that the individual citizens get a vote that weighs more. It's that the state as a unit gets a certain amount in a compromise that recognizes them as "equal" states for some purposes - and each state that has ever agreed to join the union has been granted that same level of recognition.
My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.
Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.
No, they are both U.S. citizens, and the federal government equally denies both the ability to directly elect the President. Let's look at this another way...
Your view: Wyoming is a less important state than New York. (Presumably because it has fewer people)
Sure, but state law can only punish after the fact (assuming they didn't remove the elector in advance). Once the vote is cast, it cannot be revoked on the basis that the elector didn't vote as pledged. So you can still have a rogue elector - though, if all states had a pact as proposed, it would be more difficult for one elector to sway the outcome.
As noted here, the doodles aren't exactly religious or specific to "Christmas" (or other specific religious December holidays). Go review the "holiday" logos: they have snow, lights, and gift exchanges, but no visible Christmas trees, no Nativity scene, no menorahs or dreidels, no Kwanzaa references - nor even any people, so far as I can tell...
"Dennis Hwang may be the most famous unknown artist in the world -- his work doesn't hang in galleries or museums, but it's been viewed hundreds of millions of times."
So, how is this different from someone who designs the logo of a national (or international) fast-food chain, or the package art for a widely distributed consumer product?
Even if it's not 100% of his job duties, he's being paid to produce artwork to build & reinforce a brand. Sounds like the job a *lot* of graphic artists hold, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's seen by more people (more views != more viewers) than a number of national or international ad campaigns.
Normal people don't speak like that, normal people use series of words that make sense and have something to do with the discussion.
You must be new here.
Is it the "god" or the "damn", or as American TV censorship clearly demonstrates, the combination of the two that makes for a profanity?
I always found it odd that they bleep out the first half, when the latter is what would traditionally be considered the (more offensive) curse word.
So, if I sold a set of movie-watching goggles, saying "The Hunt for Red October" looks better through rose-colored lenses, could I get sued?
(Is it just because the movie's name is referenced? How is this different from selling a slipcover for an MP3 player and saying "fits Apple iPod Shuffle" with a disclaimer that the manufacturer is not affiliated with Apple?)
No, no... knowing a little about one person isn't dangerous. It's when they know that everyone in England likes cheese sandwiches that you need to worry. Using subliminal AdWords messages to ignite the Great Cheese Embargo of 2007 is just the first step in their master plan...
the whole point is that one, by definition, cannot be held liable for crimes abroad if he/she was not physically there while commiting them.
So if I push this big red button, and it launches a missile across the border...
offer a $X reward to anyone who loses the auction (2nd place) by $X or less
That wouldn't work too well, considering that eBay will only ever show you the winning bid as some standard increment (such as 50 cents or $1.00) above the 2nd highest, even if the highest bidder had entered $100 more. (eBay doesn't disclose the absolute maximum the high bidder was willing to pay, unless of course it was only a few cents more than the "losing" bid.)
It all depends on which generation you're talking about...
Waaait... hold the network owner responsible for "enabling" an illegal upload, instead of holding the actual culprit responsible? If we did that, why not just fine the ISPs every time a copyrighted file is transferred illegally? After all, they're ultimately enablng the exchange by providing access.
It's not illegal if they obtained a warrant or court order. They likely were able to produce their logs of the IP address used (or some similar information), along with sufficient info from his ISP to tie it to him specifically. I doubt they knocked on his door without the piece of paper saying they could.
In other news, today DirecTV created the new "Do Not Complain" list for companies who do not want their violations reported to the FTC.
I don't remember it being described as an advance screening during the show. It seemed as though the husband was just reading a regular movie listing ("Hey, they're showing Memoirs of a Geisha, didn't you like that book?"). And the couple they run into aren't their close friends; it's an old friend (old flame) that they "happen" to meet, as happens in many episodes of your typical TV show. A plot device plus a product placement.
And this is somehow new? (I seem to remember Raymond Burr drinking Dr. Pepper in "Godzilla 1985"...)
Eh, design it so that it's printed on the receipt, as a one-time-use code? Then the staff can't access it without ringing up an order, and they won't be ringing up fake Happy Meal orders if they want their drawer to balance at the end of their shift.
Now suppose you say it's "not fair" that they won't let you empty the jar and count the contents first.
Actually, it would be slightly more analogous to asking to count the jar's contents after being told you guessed wrong.
Did you miss the part about it being a small business? It was a spike in Adword clicks on a specific keyword, not a "spike" in overall site traffic. 50 additional clicks on a keyword, where the small business is probably not paying top dollar for that keyword, is pretty significant, especially if that particular keyword was previously doing, let's say, 30-50 clicks a day (hypothetical).
It's been a while since I've used keywords, but when my last (small) company was using them, I'm pretty sure a 50-click surge on one keyword would have made us take notice. (As it was, Adwords got us clicks but not conversions so it wasn't worth the cost and we ended that little experiment.)
Try it with finger quotes.
1. Most men like looking at sexy women.
2. Most women also like looking at sexy women.
1. Most (I presume you mean straight) men like looking at sexy women because it causes an instinctive postive reaction or stimulation.
2. Most women look at sexy women because they want to evoke the same reaction and are looking for the guidelines. Ergo, women look at sexy women not because they like looking at sexy women, but because they like getting positive attention especially from men.
The whole debate about the ethics or morality of the media promoting imagery of sexy women is the question of whether women should be encouraged to pursue a particular version of beauty simply because it pleases men.
Count me in that "etc" - not for this case specifically, but I, too, don't like the idea that laws can be thrown out the window because they're unpopular. There are some cases where laws protect the minority, to the chagrin of the majority. If you happen to get a 12-member jury made up of the majority that finds a law irritating, do they somehow have the right to stick it to the minority by ignoring that law?
I don't doubt that they have the power, but I'm wary of calling it a "right".
The jurors are supposed to and expected to vote based on the laws. That's why the judge's instructions specifically instruct them to consider the evidence and detemine whether the defendant broke the law.
The loophole is that there is no punishment for jurors who blatantly disregard the law when considering their verdict. Therefore, jurors do have th power to decide based on their conscience, or their political viewpoint, or their mood of the day, or a flip of a coin. (Perhaps someone should set up a website describing your right and duty to flip a coin to decide a verdict - then that would make it the right thing to do!)