You argue some good points but you still are not realizing the opposite side of the issue. It isn't that we don't think there can possibly be harm from video games. It is that it IS NOT the governments place to parent your child for you.
It doesn't really matter if there are long term effects. People are responsible for their own actions even if they are young. Maybe less responsible when they are young, but by the time you are 13 you know it is wrong to kill, steal, rape, assault and all the other basic things. Every time I hear politicians back legislation like this I have a image of a puritain stuck in my head.
Even if gaming caused cancer it wouldn't be the governments job to regulate. It would be a personal responsibility of either the parents or the gamer to fix the problem. Anyways you never solve a problem by making it illegal. The kids and parents more likely to break the law will still do it anyway so the law would just be there for self agrandization.
The point is the US has never come out and blatenly said nor have they ever indicated that they want to firewall the information traveling over the web. China wants censorship, Brazil wants censorship, Islamic countries would make it very difficult for agency's like MI6 and the CIA/NSA could track online communication between extreme muslims. Lets face it until it isn't in the US National security interest to control the internet the UN will never get control.
UN: Give us control of the Internet you guys or we will be pissed.
US: Shut up or lose 50% of your funding and our military.
There you are wrong again. The singers were taken off the air not because of censorship but because their fans did not agree with their political statements and stopped listening to radio stations which played them. Name 1 country that has more freedoms than the US. The US snubs world courts because there are some political decisions we make that upset rival countries interest in different areas around the globe and to get back at us they take us to court or one of our officials. Until the UN stops using the US and US military as their primary source of both revenue and military backbone you can just get off your high-horse. On another note the term High-horse refers to knights back in the middle ages having multiple horses but 2 different types 1 was their smaller horse they rode between battles and their other was their High-horse otherwise known as their war horse. I did not engage you in battle with a lance or a tank so learn a little bit about the english language and stfu.
when lots of countries collaborate the standard thing is to only allow what all can agree to. Otherwise the UN would have more power. The UN has only what powers all members agree to give it. Now if the UN controlled the internet either they would have 0 power to do anything on it or the regulations would reflect only what the governing countries could agree on. Which would probably end up being the weather channel online WOOT!!!!
ip laws are in effect in lots of countries that aren't just because of the US. Perhaps if other countries were leading the edge in development they would be able to set IP laws. When it comes to Evolution you are truely retarded. There are a couple of states i.e. Kansas and Kentucky that have some activist groups wanting to teach Intelligent design in the class room. Which is a far cry form a lot of the brain washing that goes on in Chinese schools about how great some of their historical chinese leaders were or some Islamic fundi governments that teach islam as fact instead of Philosophy. Keep your petty bigotries about the US to yourself. If the US starts denying countries the use of the web freely or starts imposing weird laws about nothing negative about the and that type of Censorship then that will be the time to move control out of country. Until then piss of mate.
You have some good points but what people fail to realize is the actual function of the UN. The UN isn't a governing body. It is a forum for countries that hate each other to have open conversations with a vast number of 3rd parties present to help avert wars. The original concept was President Woodrow Wilson's idea of the World Organization.
That said many of the good branches of the UN is just countries with like interest creating a co-pay to fund humanitarian aide. So, WHO is a good organization because industrialized countries that want to keep the problem of rampant diseases from imigrating to their own doorstep create a governing body to distribute funds to blunt diseases and keep them in underdeveloped parts of the world and try to help alleviate the problems that the disease causes 3rd world gov'ts.
So lets all just realize the the UN isn't a government. It is just a open forum for debate and some of its members have more authority dictating how and what is debated.
You are an idiot. Both Germany and U.S.S.R. were defeated one by force the other by economics because the West I.E. The US, Britain and sometimes france. Granted the US has problems with our Intelectual Property laws but how would you like a bunch of Islamic fundi's making pacts with china dictating what could be placed on the web. First site they would take down would be/. and other blogs. No free exchange of ideas that could be negative to Allah or Mao.
The thing is look at the list of countries that want control of it. China ok they would want to censor everything. Brazil they don't want any porn on the net cause they are over 90% catholic so more censorship. Syria......hot bed for terrorists, the list goes on. None of these countries are say Britain or France or Germany. Why is that. Well it would cost billions of dollars to make a totally separate internet and so far the US has yet to restrict what can be put on the web. So as long as us 280 million people in the US want to foot the bill for maintaining the nets root why should other countries care.
Although you, try to use circular reasoning and other rediculous ways of being contrary, are still wrong. Language was not first written then spoken. It was first spoken then written. Even sign language which has no sound was formed by people who had first learned to talk.
If you go through life being contrary saying things like well your purple isn't purple to me but red. You still have to realize that although what I see as "purple" (even though that is an abstraction for what the light is doing) still has to be called something we both agree to otherwise you are just refusing to LEARN language and personally choose to confuse the facts. On the same line no matter if we call 1 apple, 1 or if we call it zimbabwae there still has to be a consistent way in which to represent the physical world in language. If it isn't consistent it isn't math nor is it language. Even so Math is considered the Universal language because in math you don't have theories you have LAWS!!! People don't make up new laws they discover them.
Even if you still wish to try to say that math is open to interpretation you are wrong. I really can't see why that is hard to understand to you. If you continue to think that I am talking out my ass, which sometimes is the case, you should probably read a few math books and study the subject. Math is one of the few things that can be looked upon throughout history and ancient cultures that is consistent. Some cultures never developed a concept of 0 but whether or not they developed a 0 in their math does not mean that 0 is not an intregal part of advanced math.
And on a final note your belief that math also entails casual relationships shows how little you truly know about math. You are describing Statistics which is a way of using math to calculate observations. It is not math. So next time you are trying to be contrary and think it is funny at least be smart about it.
Math is an abstraction of concrete evidence. If Tom has 1 apple and Jane has 1 apple and Jane gives Tom her apple. Then Tom has 2 apples. Whether you write the idea of value of 1 as # or % or @ the mathematical problem would look like 1+1 or #+# or %+% or @+@. Just because you want to make a post to be contrary at least think before you do it. Math is a concrete thing we just us abstract terms to define what is already there. This is true of language also. There is no "Jesus Christ" considering there was no English Language back when he was supposedly being reborn. Language is a way of using abstract sounds in a consistent manner so that other beings with enough intelligence can understand us. So, please whether you are trying to make a joke or post somthing intelligent next time THINK about what you post.
You have stupid circular reasoning. AMD can't produce enough chips. Ok so explain then how having a more fair market that allowed AMD to gain new customers and expand their production division wouldn't solve this. Either you think there is a magical natural barrier from AMD producing X number of chips or it is because Intel uses illegal business tactics with their current monopoly on major clients to keep AMD small and struggling.
From what I recall from the article Intel builds in rebate schemes into their contracts and if a manufacturer meets all the criterier for the rebate and also has a contract with AMD then intel will with hold shipments, up the price of their products and with hold rebates. Basically if you are HP and you know that AMD has the capacity to supply 20% of your chips but not replace Intel atm you can't buy any AMD chips because Intel will with hold their chips leaving you with only 20% of the chips you need. So, it isn't fair business practice or under pricing AMD so much as just pricing slightly higher than AMD then threatening to with hold shipments or kick backs to their clients if they don't use Intel exclusively.
It is hard to increase productivity when Intel has exclusivity contracts with 90% of the vendors. AMD makes sales to people that build their own and a small number of retail computer makers. BTW next time RTFA!
No libraries are actually publishing more more and more of the books online for everyone's viewing. However, I knew someone would make this ignorant statement about Libraries being gateways to poor people having internet access. First, libraries are highly underfunded they lack capacity, don't let you use office suites, regulate what you can view, how long you can use, they have regular hours that are not always convinient, there is not always a library that is close by, kids w/o a computer in the home and internet access are less likely to be familiar with computer operations. Anyway, stop thinking that all socially owned businesses are bad and evil. Add to your luxury list cars and roads because you really don't need them if you are poor and have no job or job skills.
what we are refering to that is important is internet access. High speed internet should be easily accessible from every home providing they have a computer. The gap in education and job marketible skills from people with access to highspeed internet from home and those that don't is significant enough to justify public ownership of cable infrastructure.
Your post should be rethought. Companies expand games because they need more content. If you don't add more content everyone leaves for a new game. Minor annoyances are fixed in weekly patches...which they have teams working on...content is developed and implemented to keep people interested and paying.
ok all apple lovers please read!!!! Apple is now making a PC not a MAC. This means they are directly competing with Dell and HP for PC sales. So it is not the hardware that will separate them, they will be using Dell and HP can use also, it is the operating system. If they don't make their OS installable on all PC's then they will lose all share in the computer making market.
What I think people are saying is that there seems to be a higher amount of information sales now that companies have outsourced. And without jurisdiction we don't like it. Not that Indians are more criminally active just that they know and we know the reason they have a job....they will be getting paid the lowest salary of anyone in the world for doing their job and they know it won't improve cause the company will just pack up and leave.
I have no clue what you think but please read my post before making stupid comments. I said it did not matter to me or anyone I knew about Iraq "potentially" having wmd's. What mattered was the hundreds of thousands of civilians he had killed.
Furthermore, we do have enough power to still contain North Korea but at present we are in no danger from them and if history has taught us anything nuclear weapons once 2 oppenents have them are deterants not offense, look at Pakistan and India, Russia and the US. Also, if you HAD read what I wrote I didn't say WMD's were the reason the administration gave just the one that I knew for certain was true. You think the US should solve all of the worlds problems but be subservient to the UN. Get a life man we are a sovereign nation and will act in our own best interest if that includes wiping out a dictator to deprive France of Oil Fields and put them under our control so be it.
I hate to point out your uninformedness but many of us did not care about Iraq "potentially" having wmd's what concerned me and most of the people I know were the 500k civilians he had murdered since beginning his dictatorship in Iraq. Also, the war he had with Iran droping all sorts of mustard gas and other very hazardous gasses which even though he didn't have any would not have stopped him in the future from obtaining some more. I also agree with you that the Sudan is a problem atm and there needs to be something done about it, but the United States is only 1 nation and we have 3 hot spots currently (Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea) and we can not do all of this on our own. If the Sudan had large oil reserves then yes the powers that be would make it happen, much as I hate that, but even though it is a war for oil for republicans I still feel we have done a positive service for Iraqi civilians.
You don't have rights or at least very many unless you are willing to fight to keep them. Also I think that freedom of the press is a little to free when it allows paparzi and crap to chase people around simply because they are famous. A governments job is to protect the citizen body as a whole in a way that gives those in power more power without causing a revolution. Only countries with a history of freedom does the government have any check due to social mindset. And even then governments try to promote fear and hate between members of their own society so that it can grab more and more of the citizens rights. Look at hate crimes in the US....should it really matter who was attacked, beaten, raped or killed...not imo instead justice should be blind, but how would the government be able to grab more police power w/o fear, fear of terrorist, your neighbors, people of different cultures, sex and race. Anyways, don't believe you have any innate rights because humans not born into the wealthy and powerful are born as servants and only by determination and fighting have we secured a counter balance of power held by the few.
I do like your post and let me reiterate mine. The Bill Of Rights are rights that are specifically made sacrosanct. The government even in the interests of enforcing one of their powers cannot intrude onto the rights set forth in the first 10 Amendments. The reason that the bill of rights was created was because certain states would not sign the constitution until certain liberties were garunteed. The original constitution is the one w/o any amendments which sorely lacks any protection of rights. So, if you are a cinic like me the government can and will infringe on all of your rights that you don't fight to keep. They will also try to infringe on your first 10 amendment rights even tho expressly forbiden to do so. It is in the interest of the ruling parties to keep dissent focused on issues they choose otherwise public opinion would be to hard for them to control and retain their power. Anyways, in a perfect world the government would only have the rights we grant it in the real world we only have what rights have been granted to us and we are steadily conceeding them in the name of Homeland security.
Price fixing a floor is not Illegal. Opec does this all the time. What is illegal is selling your product for a loss to drive out competition then hiking your price up. It would only be illegal to set a Price if you controlled all of the products and competing products. The reason it would be legal is that Apple would sell their own product and stipulate that for Dell to sell OSX they can't undercut Apple's price there by driving them out of the market.
Very well stated. I think it was 3 posts up that tried to make the case that the patriot act helps define personal liberties and repealing it would leave everyone wondering what rights they had. All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.
Whether or not congress repeals the PATRIOT act is of no significance to your rights. I know the White House and the FBI would like to convince all americans that it is but if they start arresting US citizens, raiding houses, and the SS crap that is in the PATRIOT act the Supreme Court will toss out the ACT as unconstitutional. They have already ruled that you can't hold prisoners indefinently as "terror" suspects w/o a trial. they have already ruled that even if you are arrested as a terror suspect and are a citizen you have a right to a lawyer and to be charged. The biggest problem with most of us Americans is we have no clue what rights we do have.
So, my suggestion to all of you wondering about and worrying about police abuse of power is, never talk to the cops if they are interrogating you w/o a lawyer present. It is simple even if the FBI says you're a terrorist. If you are a terrorist you probably won't have much luck but if you are innocent and they abuse their power then you got them by the balls and will probably be able to sue the FBI for harrassment. Anyways, the Patriot Act infringes on our rights only as much as we let it and will only get fully removed when people start to fight it in the courst because politicians will never give back any power they steal.
Slashdot Mirror
You argue some good points but you still are not realizing the opposite side of the issue. It isn't that we don't think there can possibly be harm from video games. It is that it IS NOT the governments place to parent your child for you.
It doesn't really matter if there are long term effects. People are responsible for their own actions even if they are young. Maybe less responsible when they are young, but by the time you are 13 you know it is wrong to kill, steal, rape, assault and all the other basic things. Every time I hear politicians back legislation like this I have a image of a puritain stuck in my head.
Even if gaming caused cancer it wouldn't be the governments job to regulate. It would be a personal responsibility of either the parents or the gamer to fix the problem. Anyways you never solve a problem by making it illegal. The kids and parents more likely to break the law will still do it anyway so the law would just be there for self agrandization.
The point is the US has never come out and blatenly said nor have they ever indicated that they want to firewall the information traveling over the web. China wants censorship, Brazil wants censorship, Islamic countries would make it very difficult for agency's like MI6 and the CIA/NSA could track online communication between extreme muslims. Lets face it until it isn't in the US National security interest to control the internet the UN will never get control.
UN: Give us control of the Internet you guys or we will be pissed.
US: Shut up or lose 50% of your funding and our military.
There you are wrong again. The singers were taken off the air not because of censorship but because their fans did not agree with their political statements and stopped listening to radio stations which played them. Name 1 country that has more freedoms than the US. The US snubs world courts because there are some political decisions we make that upset rival countries interest in different areas around the globe and to get back at us they take us to court or one of our officials. Until the UN stops using the US and US military as their primary source of both revenue and military backbone you can just get off your high-horse.
On another note the term High-horse refers to knights back in the middle ages having multiple horses but 2 different types 1 was their smaller horse they rode between battles and their other was their High-horse otherwise known as their war horse. I did not engage you in battle with a lance or a tank so learn a little bit about the english language and stfu.
when lots of countries collaborate the standard thing is to only allow what all can agree to. Otherwise the UN would have more power. The UN has only what powers all members agree to give it. Now if the UN controlled the internet either they would have 0 power to do anything on it or the regulations would reflect only what the governing countries could agree on. Which would probably end up being the weather channel online WOOT!!!!
ip laws are in effect in lots of countries that aren't just because of the US. Perhaps if other countries were leading the edge in development they would be able to set IP laws. When it comes to Evolution you are truely retarded. There are a couple of states i.e. Kansas and Kentucky that have some activist groups wanting to teach Intelligent design in the class room. Which is a far cry form a lot of the brain washing that goes on in Chinese schools about how great some of their historical chinese leaders were or some Islamic fundi governments that teach islam as fact instead of Philosophy. Keep your petty bigotries about the US to yourself. If the US starts denying countries the use of the web freely or starts imposing weird laws about nothing negative about the and that type of Censorship then that will be the time to move control out of country. Until then piss of mate.
You have some good points but what people fail to realize is the actual function of the UN. The UN isn't a governing body. It is a forum for countries that hate each other to have open conversations with a vast number of 3rd parties present to help avert wars. The original concept was President Woodrow Wilson's idea of the World Organization.
That said many of the good branches of the UN is just countries with like interest creating a co-pay to fund humanitarian aide. So, WHO is a good organization because industrialized countries that want to keep the problem of rampant diseases from imigrating to their own doorstep create a governing body to distribute funds to blunt diseases and keep them in underdeveloped parts of the world and try to help alleviate the problems that the disease causes 3rd world gov'ts.
So lets all just realize the the UN isn't a government. It is just a open forum for debate and some of its members have more authority dictating how and what is debated.
You are an idiot. Both Germany and U.S.S.R. were defeated one by force the other by economics because the West I.E. The US, Britain and sometimes france. Granted the US has problems with our Intelectual Property laws but how would you like a bunch of Islamic fundi's making pacts with china dictating what could be placed on the web. First site they would take down would be /. and other blogs. No free exchange of ideas that could be negative to Allah or Mao.
The thing is look at the list of countries that want control of it. China ok they would want to censor everything. Brazil they don't want any porn on the net cause they are over 90% catholic so more censorship. Syria......hot bed for terrorists, the list goes on. None of these countries are say Britain or France or Germany. Why is that. Well it would cost billions of dollars to make a totally separate internet and so far the US has yet to restrict what can be put on the web. So as long as us 280 million people in the US want to foot the bill for maintaining the nets root why should other countries care.
Although you, try to use circular reasoning and other rediculous ways of being contrary, are still wrong. Language was not first written then spoken. It was first spoken then written. Even sign language which has no sound was formed by people who had first learned to talk.
If you go through life being contrary saying things like well your purple isn't purple to me but red. You still have to realize that although what I see as "purple" (even though that is an abstraction for what the light is doing) still has to be called something we both agree to otherwise you are just refusing to LEARN language and personally choose to confuse the facts. On the same line no matter if we call 1 apple, 1 or if we call it zimbabwae there still has to be a consistent way in which to represent the physical world in language. If it isn't consistent it isn't math nor is it language. Even so Math is considered the Universal language because in math you don't have theories you have LAWS!!! People don't make up new laws they discover them.
Even if you still wish to try to say that math is open to interpretation you are wrong. I really can't see why that is hard to understand to you. If you continue to think that I am talking out my ass, which sometimes is the case, you should probably read a few math books and study the subject. Math is one of the few things that can be looked upon throughout history and ancient cultures that is consistent. Some cultures never developed a concept of 0 but whether or not they developed a 0 in their math does not mean that 0 is not an intregal part of advanced math.
And on a final note your belief that math also entails casual relationships shows how little you truly know about math. You are describing Statistics which is a way of using math to calculate observations. It is not math. So next time you are trying to be contrary and think it is funny at least be smart about it.
Math is an abstraction of concrete evidence. If Tom has 1 apple and Jane has 1 apple and Jane gives Tom her apple. Then Tom has 2 apples. Whether you write the idea of value of 1 as # or % or @ the mathematical problem would look like 1+1 or #+# or %+% or @+@. Just because you want to make a post to be contrary at least think before you do it. Math is a concrete thing we just us abstract terms to define what is already there. This is true of language also. There is no "Jesus Christ" considering there was no English Language back when he was supposedly being reborn. Language is a way of using abstract sounds in a consistent manner so that other beings with enough intelligence can understand us. So, please whether you are trying to make a joke or post somthing intelligent next time THINK about what you post.
You have stupid circular reasoning. AMD can't produce enough chips. Ok so explain then how having a more fair market that allowed AMD to gain new customers and expand their production division wouldn't solve this. Either you think there is a magical natural barrier from AMD producing X number of chips or it is because Intel uses illegal business tactics with their current monopoly on major clients to keep AMD small and struggling.
From what I recall from the article Intel builds in rebate schemes into their contracts and if a manufacturer meets all the criterier for the rebate and also has a contract with AMD then intel will with hold shipments, up the price of their products and with hold rebates. Basically if you are HP and you know that AMD has the capacity to supply 20% of your chips but not replace Intel atm you can't buy any AMD chips because Intel will with hold their chips leaving you with only 20% of the chips you need. So, it isn't fair business practice or under pricing AMD so much as just pricing slightly higher than AMD then threatening to with hold shipments or kick backs to their clients if they don't use Intel exclusively.
It is hard to increase productivity when Intel has exclusivity contracts with 90% of the vendors. AMD makes sales to people that build their own and a small number of retail computer makers. BTW next time RTFA!
No libraries are actually publishing more more and more of the books online for everyone's viewing. However, I knew someone would make this ignorant statement about Libraries being gateways to poor people having internet access. First, libraries are highly underfunded they lack capacity, don't let you use office suites, regulate what you can view, how long you can use, they have regular hours that are not always convinient, there is not always a library that is close by, kids w/o a computer in the home and internet access are less likely to be familiar with computer operations. Anyway, stop thinking that all socially owned businesses are bad and evil. Add to your luxury list cars and roads because you really don't need them if you are poor and have no job or job skills.
what we are refering to that is important is internet access. High speed internet should be easily accessible from every home providing they have a computer. The gap in education and job marketible skills from people with access to highspeed internet from home and those that don't is significant enough to justify public ownership of cable infrastructure.
Your post should be rethought. Companies expand games because they need more content. If you don't add more content everyone leaves for a new game. Minor annoyances are fixed in weekly patches...which they have teams working on...content is developed and implemented to keep people interested and paying.
ok all apple lovers please read!!!! Apple is now making a PC not a MAC. This means they are directly competing with Dell and HP for PC sales. So it is not the hardware that will separate them, they will be using Dell and HP can use also, it is the operating system. If they don't make their OS installable on all PC's then they will lose all share in the computer making market.
What I think people are saying is that there seems to be a higher amount of information sales now that companies have outsourced. And without jurisdiction we don't like it. Not that Indians are more criminally active just that they know and we know the reason they have a job....they will be getting paid the lowest salary of anyone in the world for doing their job and they know it won't improve cause the company will just pack up and leave.
I have no clue what you think but please read my post before making stupid comments. I said it did not matter to me or anyone I knew about Iraq "potentially" having wmd's. What mattered was the hundreds of thousands of civilians he had killed.
Furthermore, we do have enough power to still contain North Korea but at present we are in no danger from them and if history has taught us anything nuclear weapons once 2 oppenents have them are deterants not offense, look at Pakistan and India, Russia and the US. Also, if you HAD read what I wrote I didn't say WMD's were the reason the administration gave just the one that I knew for certain was true. You think the US should solve all of the worlds problems but be subservient to the UN. Get a life man we are a sovereign nation and will act in our own best interest if that includes wiping out a dictator to deprive France of Oil Fields and put them under our control so be it.
I hate to point out your uninformedness but many of us did not care about Iraq "potentially" having wmd's what concerned me and most of the people I know were the 500k civilians he had murdered since beginning his dictatorship in Iraq. Also, the war he had with Iran droping all sorts of mustard gas and other very hazardous gasses which even though he didn't have any would not have stopped him in the future from obtaining some more. I also agree with you that the Sudan is a problem atm and there needs to be something done about it, but the United States is only 1 nation and we have 3 hot spots currently (Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea) and we can not do all of this on our own. If the Sudan had large oil reserves then yes the powers that be would make it happen, much as I hate that, but even though it is a war for oil for republicans I still feel we have done a positive service for Iraqi civilians.
You don't have rights or at least very many unless you are willing to fight to keep them. Also I think that freedom of the press is a little to free when it allows paparzi and crap to chase people around simply because they are famous. A governments job is to protect the citizen body as a whole in a way that gives those in power more power without causing a revolution. Only countries with a history of freedom does the government have any check due to social mindset. And even then governments try to promote fear and hate between members of their own society so that it can grab more and more of the citizens rights. Look at hate crimes in the US....should it really matter who was attacked, beaten, raped or killed...not imo instead justice should be blind, but how would the government be able to grab more police power w/o fear, fear of terrorist, your neighbors, people of different cultures, sex and race. Anyways, don't believe you have any innate rights because humans not born into the wealthy and powerful are born as servants and only by determination and fighting have we secured a counter balance of power held by the few.
I do like your post and let me reiterate mine. The Bill Of Rights are rights that are specifically made sacrosanct. The government even in the interests of enforcing one of their powers cannot intrude onto the rights set forth in the first 10 Amendments. The reason that the bill of rights was created was because certain states would not sign the constitution until certain liberties were garunteed. The original constitution is the one w/o any amendments which sorely lacks any protection of rights. So, if you are a cinic like me the government can and will infringe on all of your rights that you don't fight to keep. They will also try to infringe on your first 10 amendment rights even tho expressly forbiden to do so. It is in the interest of the ruling parties to keep dissent focused on issues they choose otherwise public opinion would be to hard for them to control and retain their power. Anyways, in a perfect world the government would only have the rights we grant it in the real world we only have what rights have been granted to us and we are steadily conceeding them in the name of Homeland security.
Price fixing a floor is not Illegal. Opec does this all the time. What is illegal is selling your product for a loss to drive out competition then hiking your price up. It would only be illegal to set a Price if you controlled all of the products and competing products. The reason it would be legal is that Apple would sell their own product and stipulate that for Dell to sell OSX they can't undercut Apple's price there by driving them out of the market.
Very well stated. I think it was 3 posts up that tried to make the case that the patriot act helps define personal liberties and repealing it would leave everyone wondering what rights they had. All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.
Whether or not congress repeals the PATRIOT act is of no significance to your rights. I know the White House and the FBI would like to convince all americans that it is but if they start arresting US citizens, raiding houses, and the SS crap that is in the PATRIOT act the Supreme Court will toss out the ACT as unconstitutional. They have already ruled that you can't hold prisoners indefinently as "terror" suspects w/o a trial. they have already ruled that even if you are arrested as a terror suspect and are a citizen you have a right to a lawyer and to be charged. The biggest problem with most of us Americans is we have no clue what rights we do have.
So, my suggestion to all of you wondering about and worrying about police abuse of power is, never talk to the cops if they are interrogating you w/o a lawyer present. It is simple even if the FBI says you're a terrorist. If you are a terrorist you probably won't have much luck but if you are innocent and they abuse their power then you got them by the balls and will probably be able to sue the FBI for harrassment. Anyways, the Patriot Act infringes on our rights only as much as we let it and will only get fully removed when people start to fight it in the courst because politicians will never give back any power they steal.
for the win!!!!! His friend probably already has a card capable of TV-out just has no f'ing clue what an S-video hook up looks like....