If done straight up in a science only, non-political debate, it would be an hour of 'uhh, I don't know's. With only a touch of bias it would quickly turn into a series of loaded questions (Science X will destroy the world and kill babies, do you support Science X?). At best you'll get the candidates up the talking about the importance of science, technology and invention in the US and how they'll pledge to fund it. Which is great and all, but they'll all just sit there agreeing that science is good and should get funded.
So what's the point?
If you give them a list of topics in advance, and change the questions to a political nature, ie: Topic X, how do you feel X is going to effect the environment, and with that concern how do you intend to minimize/maximize it's effect on the economy and working class?
THAT would be a bunch of questions worth listening to answers from a would-be president.
Unfortunately, it would take a huge amount of the candidate's time to stage such an event, and to be honest, they'll get more votes shaking hands and giving passionate speeches on the steps of some historic land mark while preaching to the choir about security, war, and money.
From a layman's reading, it doesn't look like there is anything for ya in this bill. This bill doesn't do anything about clarifying what is or is not fair use, it only corrects the absence of legal use exemptions from the DMCA.
The bill has 3 primary parts. First is a requirement for retail packaging of DRM'd software (specifically music and digital books on CDs) to include a DRM warning label that identifies that the media contains a DRM security system and may not work in all players. Second is a requirement for a follow up report 2 years after the bill has been passed. And Third is the corrections to the DMCA. That part consists of:
(a) Scientific Research- Subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, are each amended by inserting after `title' in subsection (a)(2)(A) and after `thereof' in subsection (b)(1)(A) the following: `unless the person is acting solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological measures'.
(b) Fair Use Restoration- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in order to obtain access to the work for purposes of making noninfringing use of the work'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(5) Except in instances of direct infringement, it shall not be a violation of the Copyright Act to manufacture or distribute a hardware or software product capable of substantial noninfringing uses.'. -Rick
This bill has been "Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection" for over 2 and a half years. Kudos to these guys for stepping up the lobbying, but call me when something actually happens.
That really isn't that bad of an application process. You submit the request, negotiate a deal, the deal gets reviewed for appropriateness (ie, the school board isn't getting a company they have investments in the lucrative contract or grossly over paying), the deal gets reviewed for technical appropriateness (you're not trying to buy 500 phone lines to shot gun 56k modems over are you?), the paperwork goes through, and the applicant gets then money.
It's really quite efficient and stream lined, especially for government work.
Hell, do you know what the process is like for getting an office with a window in a government position?!?! Now THAT is a freaking insane process.
Corn subsidies, along with a lot of the other produce based agricultural subsidies, aren't there for profit margins. They are there for security. By supporting agriculture in the US, the government is ensuring that in case of a complete economic crash, there is still an existing agriculture production market that is still capable of producing enough food to feed the country. It's like long term disability insurance. You pay for it every month, but you hope to hell you never have to use it.
Ethanol subsidies on the other hand, suck donkey balls, but at least they keep farmers on the land.
The problem isn't censorship, it's competition. Right now, if the copper running to your house is owned by Company A, and Company A offers Internet Service, and Company B wants to provide you with Internet Services, Company A is required to share the copper they laid with Company B. What this ruling does is allow Company A to tell Company B to take a hike. The consumer (you) now has no choice for internet service because the company that owns the copper determines what options you have.
So, if Company A were to drop prices significantly, and crush all local competitors, thus ensuring that they have a strangle hold on the local area's ISP offerings, they can then jack prices up as high as they want and the consumers will have no other options for providers.
I would guess this could also have some higher stream issues if some major back bone provider decided that it didn't want to allow data from some other provider at that level. That might be route able to still get through, but if they blocked it all the way to the last mile, you'd never get that data.
Just remember that when Clear Channel buys out your local PBS station and starts broad casting "Barney, the created by God Dinosaur" children's show which features Barney and his friend Stegie giving a very white skinned couple named Adam and Eve taxi services around their over-sized garden.
Also, there are 3 stations in my broadcast area that carry the BBC broadcasts, headlines, and a number of other world news sources. I can learn more from a 3 minute BBC blurb in an extended commercial break than I can from an hour of Fox news.
Okay! Now THAT is a proper response! Thank you! This will take some research, but you definitely appear to have a very valid point. I hold no sacred candle for the Democrats, and I am pleased to be proven wrong if I can learn something from it.
I will have to look a bit close on this, but thanks for posting the bills.
[hold music]
I pulled up the bills on http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2128: And you are correct. Strong republican backing in the Senate. That would imply that there is limited Democrat support for this bill, but does not make that an absolute truth. I stand by my previous statement that if the Democrats knew that the permanent ban would not clear the Senate before the temporary ban expired, then the correct thing to do would be to propose the extension and to deal with the permanent ban when time was not such an issue. That being said, I am very curious as to why this bill does not have more Democrat support. I may have to write my legislatures and see what their opinion on the bill is.
Actually, I believe you are thinking of the 'Socialist Party'. The Democrats are a little more conservative then you are giving them credit for.
The funny thing though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are *big* government spenders. Republican's may claim to be pro-small government, but it's BS, just look at their actual voting records as to whether or not to increase the governments involvement in any number of scenarios. And hiring 'consultants' to do the governments work, while paid for by the government is included in government activities.
And given the choice between the Democrats 'Tax and Spend' policy, and the Republican 'Borrow and Spend' policy... I'd much rather go with the Democrats. Tax and Spend may be a bit more of a pain in the ass to the citizens (who could then vote for more fiscally conservative people), but the Borrow and Spend approach is crushing the US dollar, giving our international competitors leverage over the US, and does nothing to motivate people to push for fiscal conservation.
Heck, where do you think the $12+ billion we're spending each month in Iraq is coming from? Have your taxes gone up recently? Did the government have 1/2 a trillion dollars just sitting around waiting to be spent on a war? Nah, this is all being funded at a deficit, but where is the cash coming from? The answer? Japan and China. Yup, two of our major competitors in science and technology are funding our government through purchasing our debt.
Gives ya a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that the Republican party mantra of Borrow and Spend is slowly selling our country out to foreign nations. And just wait, some day China might demand payment on the half a trillion dollars we owe them. And if we reneg on that debt, guess how that will make all of the other foreign investors with another trillion dollars of interest in our debt feel? Yup, the dollar would plummet in value world wide, the US economy would crumble, and life in the US would go down the crapper because we depend on imports for damn near everything in this country. At least we would still have food:) thanks to those damn Democrats and their socialist farm subsidies.
You're nothing but an asshole flame baiter looking to get scorched by posting your NeoCon Bush-centric head-up-your-own-ass Republican bullshit. Not only that, but you are a lazy sack of shit who can't even defend his own view. Hell, you're probably one of those asshole who pushed for war, sending hundreds of thousands of our troops to risk their lives for your buddies profit margins. Way to 'support the troops' asshole! For quite a while now, I've thought the problem was Bush. But I think I may have been wrong. The problem is the mindless fucktards like you who follow along bahhing the White House issued talking points you heard some hate monger spew on Fox news. For fuck sake, open your eyes, the shit you preach and the crap your leaders pull do not match up.
You sir are a tool, and a dull one at that.
I can't believe you cited a fucking convicted felon/cult leader and a graphics artist with a blog as reputable sources for the going ons in Washington. WTF is wrong with you? Is this the caliber of debate artist that Fox News is producing these days?
Interesting, it would appear that enforcement of that law would vary depending on the circumstances. My sister managed to roll her car when she was a new driver. This was before the wide spread adoption of cell phones, and it was the middle of winter in Wisconsin. She managed to flag down a passer-by and got a ride back to the house and called the cops. I know she got one heck of a tongue lashing for leaving the scene, but in the end they gave her an 'illegal right hand turn' for rolling her car 3 times into some farmer's field, and another ticket that I had thought was for leaving the scene. Thanks for the correction though.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the average punishment for leaving the scene is? I would assume points/suspension of license would be automatic, but is there a minimum fine and/or possible jail time?
Uh, that is the best you can do? An editorial by a graphics artist? A Neo-Con associated right wing smear mag? A blog from a convicted money launderer/cult leader? Come on, of all of those, only one was even close to factual and even then, it left out some key details that even the Republican's have brought up.
1) The permanent ban would pass in the House 2) The permanent ban would take a significant period of time to pass in the Senate 3) The existing temporary ban is expiring
Given those three
facts
, the best solution is to bring the extension of the temporary ban up for a vote as it can be completed prior to the expiration of the existing ban. Once the temporary ban is extended, it gives congress another 4 years to deal with getting the permanent ban worked out. Seeing as how we are currently heavily involved with two foreign occupations, have a health care crisis inside our boarders, a President with his eyes set on a Unitarian Executive branch, rampant corruption and crony-ism, I think our Senate has some bigger issues to spend time on then making a permanent ban out of something that is already banned for the next 4 years.
And the funny thing is that this bill has been extended already, by a Republican controlled Congress and President, if the Republicans are so strongly in favor of permanently banning this tax, why didn't they do so when they had total control of the legislative and executive branches of the government? Nah, this is just another example of political parties twisting the facts to get the talking points they want. There is no conspiracy to tax here, just a FUD campaign to scare you into voting republican. Come on, this is/. put on your critical thinking hats and use some logic!
To be fair, in many cultures a cash contribution in response to an accident is appropriate. Whether it smells like a bribe to us is immaterial.
Heck, if this had happened in the US, what would the out come have been? (assuming the driver stayed at the scene). The deceased ran the stop light, so there's no way a jury would convict him of vehicular manslaughter, but a civil court wrongful death case would have been likely to succeed since the driver was participating in a race. In the end, the race league and driver would have had to cough up a chunk of cash to the family of the victims and restitution to the state for any services provided. Even if he had left the scene in the US, that's still just a traffic citation.
If the league/driver donate cash to the local government and victim's family, all they are doing is getting to that same end with out dragging the family and government (along with themselves) through months if not years of legal proceedings.
Haven forbid a group of people come to a conclusion with out the assistance of the government. Won't somebody thing of the citizens?!?!
I was just going to mod you flame bait, but I figured I'd do the more appropriate thing and ask you to provide a site of your statement. If you fail to provide one, I'll just flame you myself. What's a little karma in exchange for proper moderating?
Actually, promotions in the military are points based. You get points for each month you are active, points for high physical fitness scores, points for high marksmanship on the range, points for going to military education (Corporals course, aggressor school, etc...), points for taking specific billets (MSG duty, recruiting, Drill Instructor, etc...) points for civilian education, and so on. So, properly responding with this tool could quite actually have an effect on a person's score and thus the time frame of their promotion.
Actually it is pretty well defined, see page two. Well defined is a relative term. It does have some well defined words, but it also has purposefully vague wording to imply that the defining list is based on the current opinion of the local social group in power.
He isn't proposing a government agency to do the game rating - please, cite me chapter and verse I already did. That law IS the rating. There is NO agency that would "do" the game rating. It is just a law. It is up to the producers of the game to ensure that their game, if it contains the content the government describes, would be required to put the logo on it. The interesting part is that there is no definition of the penalty against producers if their software is qualified as "violent" by the government, but they fail to label it as such.
That's the whole point of this legislature: since selling a certain type of game is illegal to minors, you must specify what makes a game illegal.
Reading comprehension. Do I really need to qualify each clause I say for you to understand? No offense, it sounds like anger is getting the best of you. Good day. Okay brain child... nothing, nothing at all, makes the GAME ILLEGAL. THE GAME IS NOT ILLEGAL. Period end of story. Good day sir! If you want to get into reading comprehension, perhaps you were meaning to write "...what makes selling the game to minors illegal". But I'm not psychic, if that is what you meant, just clarify yourself and move on.
This law comes down to simple facts. 1) The government determines moral content. 2) The government determines who is allowed to purchase content they deem immoral.
That is it. Those are the 2 items that this bill pushes for. Those same two items have been tried again and again and again, and each and every time they have been struck down as unconstitutional. This legislation is a waste of tax payer money, the legislature's and the court's time, and even if it were to pass, it would be completely ineffective because it doesn't apply to the store clerks who actually sell the games. This bill is nothing more than a publicity/election stunt wrapping fear mongering and 'think about the children' all into one.
I don't see how. He never said it, you are presuming it. RTFB! From Assembly Bill No. 1179 Chapter 638, Section 1, Title 1.2A [1746.d(1)]:
"Violent video game" means a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either of the following From Assembly Bill No. 1179 Chapter 638, Section 1, Title 1.2A [1746.1(a)]:
A person may not sell or rent a video game that has been labeled as a violent video game to a minor. There you go. They define immoral content, then state that a person may not sell immoral content to a minor. That is the problem. My issue is not with minors not being able to purchase violent video games. If the ESRB says a game is M or AO and Best Buy refuses to sell that game to a 14 year old kid, kuddos to them! I wouldn't want Best Buy selling that game to my child either. My problem is with the Government sticking their nose into it. This same law has been struck down as unconstitutional time after time after time. Yet still elected officials use it as a campaign tool. It is censorship and it is unnecessary.
Yes. These things are called 'guidelines'. Guidelines the ESRB can follow. Guidelines are not a regulatory board. That's the whole point of this legislature: since selling a certain type of game is illegal to minors, you must specify what makes a game illegal. You need to see the tree from the forest. GO READ THE DAMN BILL!!! There are no guidelines, there is a vague list of things that makes the game be listed BY THE GOVERNMENT as a violent game. The game MUST contain a Government supplied identifying logo on the box cover indicating that by GOVERNMENT STANDARDS the game is violent. This is NOT a guidelines bill for the ESRB. I have no idea what you are talking about a game being "illegal" though, this bill has nothing to do with making games illegal, it makes it illegal to sell games, not make/possess them. A forest my cloud my vision of a tree, but at the moment I think the inner lining of your large intestine is blocking your view of the world.
I disagree. We both agree he said "the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents". Regardless of the question that prompted that statement, his message is clear, the ESRB needs to be replaced. And his replacement for a self regulating industry board is, the Government. That much is inarguable. For better, for worse, who cares, it is unconstitutional and that is that. Heck, if you don't believe me, go read the freaking bill! It specifically states what acts it considers immoral and states that selling a game with state deemed immoral acts will result in a fine.
So not selling alcohol to a ten year old is abridging freedom of speech? Now you're just being silly. But to tread down this path of silliness, no it is not abridging their freedom of speech, but it is a dumb law. The not-a-drop laws create a situation where children learn how to drink not with supervision and safety in mind, but in basements, fields, unchaperoned parties, etc... How many kids die each year to alcohol poisoning or alcohol related fatalities because they were drinking with out supervision and with out knowing how alcohol would effect them? And why were they drinking behind closed doors? Because any parent who thinks to teach their child how to drink appropriately before they wind up in those situations is liable to be sent to jail and loose their child. Some state laws give some leniency on the matter, but the over arching standard is that we are forcing kids who would like to experiment with drinking to do so in the most un-safe conditions possible. Instead of creating an environment where there are limits and safety nets, we create situations ripe for tragedy.
I ain't that old! The 80's weren't easy, but I wasn't eating dirt. And $2/week as a young teenager in the early 90's wasn't that bad either. No car, no gas, no smokes, no cell phone. I mean, what does a 12-14 year old kid have to blow their money on anyways? I lived out in the boonies, so if I wanted to see a movie, the parents were coming with (and buying) anyways. The closest roller-rink was 15 miles, so again, parents had to be on hand to drive/pay. Heck, at that age all I had to blow my money on was junk food, and it took a 12 mile round trip bike ride to get it. On those occasions I did want to make some extra cash, there was always hay bails that needed tossing, or some harvest to pick for, or even the occasional baby-sitting gig.
Growing up in the city is a huge difference I know (as I'm now trying to raise my son!) but the basic premise still remains, if your kid doesn't have money, they'll have a much more challenging time getting a hold of inappropriate games from retailers. Not that that is the end all be all solution. I mean, how much did you pay for your first porno mag? Luckily, most/. readers are smart enough to check their children's installed applications list from time to time, just like my mother was smart enough to check under the mattress from time to time. And if my son figures out how to hide an application from the WMI, I figure he's earned the reward;)
Slashdot Mirror
This has all the makings of a bad idea.
If done straight up in a science only, non-political debate, it would be an hour of 'uhh, I don't know's. With only a touch of bias it would quickly turn into a series of loaded questions (Science X will destroy the world and kill babies, do you support Science X?). At best you'll get the candidates up the talking about the importance of science, technology and invention in the US and how they'll pledge to fund it. Which is great and all, but they'll all just sit there agreeing that science is good and should get funded.
So what's the point?
If you give them a list of topics in advance, and change the questions to a political nature, ie: Topic X, how do you feel X is going to effect the environment, and with that concern how do you intend to minimize/maximize it's effect on the economy and working class?
THAT would be a bunch of questions worth listening to answers from a would-be president.
Unfortunately, it would take a huge amount of the candidate's time to stage such an event, and to be honest, they'll get more votes shaking hands and giving passionate speeches on the steps of some historic land mark while preaching to the choir about security, war, and money.
-Rick
Thanks for the update! It looks like the 'new' bill has only been sitting in subcommitee for 6 months...
-Rick
The bill has 3 primary parts. First is a requirement for retail packaging of DRM'd software (specifically music and digital books on CDs) to include a DRM warning label that identifies that the media contains a DRM security system and may not work in all players. Second is a requirement for a follow up report 2 years after the bill has been passed. And Third is the corrections to the DMCA. That part consists of: (a) Scientific Research- Subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, are each amended by inserting after `title' in subsection (a)(2)(A) and after `thereof' in subsection (b)(1)(A) the following: `unless the person is acting solely in furtherance of scientific research into technological measures'.
(b) Fair Use Restoration- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in order to obtain access to the work for purposes of making noninfringing use of the work'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(5) Except in instances of direct infringement, it shall not be a violation of the Copyright Act to manufacture or distribute a hardware or software product capable of substantial noninfringing uses.'. -Rick
This bill has been "Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection" for over 2 and a half years. Kudos to these guys for stepping up the lobbying, but call me when something actually happens.
-Rick
That really isn't that bad of an application process. You submit the request, negotiate a deal, the deal gets reviewed for appropriateness (ie, the school board isn't getting a company they have investments in the lucrative contract or grossly over paying), the deal gets reviewed for technical appropriateness (you're not trying to buy 500 phone lines to shot gun 56k modems over are you?), the paperwork goes through, and the applicant gets then money.
It's really quite efficient and stream lined, especially for government work.
Hell, do you know what the process is like for getting an office with a window in a government position?!?! Now THAT is a freaking insane process.
-Rick
I think we already tried that... a few people got internet access and a couple of really rich CEO's retired.
-Rick
Corn subsidies, along with a lot of the other produce based agricultural subsidies, aren't there for profit margins. They are there for security. By supporting agriculture in the US, the government is ensuring that in case of a complete economic crash, there is still an existing agriculture production market that is still capable of producing enough food to feed the country. It's like long term disability insurance. You pay for it every month, but you hope to hell you never have to use it.
Ethanol subsidies on the other hand, suck donkey balls, but at least they keep farmers on the land.
-Rick
I LOL'd.
-Rick
The problem isn't censorship, it's competition. Right now, if the copper running to your house is owned by Company A, and Company A offers Internet Service, and Company B wants to provide you with Internet Services, Company A is required to share the copper they laid with Company B. What this ruling does is allow Company A to tell Company B to take a hike. The consumer (you) now has no choice for internet service because the company that owns the copper determines what options you have.
So, if Company A were to drop prices significantly, and crush all local competitors, thus ensuring that they have a strangle hold on the local area's ISP offerings, they can then jack prices up as high as they want and the consumers will have no other options for providers.
I would guess this could also have some higher stream issues if some major back bone provider decided that it didn't want to allow data from some other provider at that level. That might be route able to still get through, but if they blocked it all the way to the last mile, you'd never get that data.
-Rick
Just remember that when Clear Channel buys out your local PBS station and starts broad casting "Barney, the created by God Dinosaur" children's show which features Barney and his friend Stegie giving a very white skinned couple named Adam and Eve taxi services around their over-sized garden.
Also, there are 3 stations in my broadcast area that carry the BBC broadcasts, headlines, and a number of other world news sources. I can learn more from a 3 minute BBC blurb in an extended commercial break than I can from an hour of Fox news.
-Rick
Okay! Now THAT is a proper response! Thank you! This will take some research, but you definitely appear to have a very valid point. I hold no sacred candle for the Democrats, and I am pleased to be proven wrong if I can learn something from it.
I will have to look a bit close on this, but thanks for posting the bills.
[hold music]
I pulled up the bills on http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2128: And you are correct. Strong republican backing in the Senate. That would imply that there is limited Democrat support for this bill, but does not make that an absolute truth. I stand by my previous statement that if the Democrats knew that the permanent ban would not clear the Senate before the temporary ban expired, then the correct thing to do would be to propose the extension and to deal with the permanent ban when time was not such an issue. That being said, I am very curious as to why this bill does not have more Democrat support. I may have to write my legislatures and see what their opinion on the bill is.
-Rick
Actually, I believe you are thinking of the 'Socialist Party'. The Democrats are a little more conservative then you are giving them credit for.
:) thanks to those damn Democrats and their socialist farm subsidies.
The funny thing though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are *big* government spenders. Republican's may claim to be pro-small government, but it's BS, just look at their actual voting records as to whether or not to increase the governments involvement in any number of scenarios. And hiring 'consultants' to do the governments work, while paid for by the government is included in government activities.
And given the choice between the Democrats 'Tax and Spend' policy, and the Republican 'Borrow and Spend' policy... I'd much rather go with the Democrats. Tax and Spend may be a bit more of a pain in the ass to the citizens (who could then vote for more fiscally conservative people), but the Borrow and Spend approach is crushing the US dollar, giving our international competitors leverage over the US, and does nothing to motivate people to push for fiscal conservation.
Heck, where do you think the $12+ billion we're spending each month in Iraq is coming from? Have your taxes gone up recently? Did the government have 1/2 a trillion dollars just sitting around waiting to be spent on a war? Nah, this is all being funded at a deficit, but where is the cash coming from? The answer? Japan and China. Yup, two of our major competitors in science and technology are funding our government through purchasing our debt.
Gives ya a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that the Republican party mantra of Borrow and Spend is slowly selling our country out to foreign nations. And just wait, some day China might demand payment on the half a trillion dollars we owe them. And if we reneg on that debt, guess how that will make all of the other foreign investors with another trillion dollars of interest in our debt feel? Yup, the dollar would plummet in value world wide, the US economy would crumble, and life in the US would go down the crapper because we depend on imports for damn near everything in this country. At least we would still have food
-Rick
I'm not the one making assertions. You are.
And sorry, but you fail.
You're nothing but an asshole flame baiter looking to get scorched by posting your NeoCon Bush-centric head-up-your-own-ass Republican bullshit. Not only that, but you are a lazy sack of shit who can't even defend his own view. Hell, you're probably one of those asshole who pushed for war, sending hundreds of thousands of our troops to risk their lives for your buddies profit margins. Way to 'support the troops' asshole! For quite a while now, I've thought the problem was Bush. But I think I may have been wrong. The problem is the mindless fucktards like you who follow along bahhing the White House issued talking points you heard some hate monger spew on Fox news. For fuck sake, open your eyes, the shit you preach and the crap your leaders pull do not match up.
You sir are a tool, and a dull one at that.
I can't believe you cited a fucking convicted felon/cult leader and a graphics artist with a blog as reputable sources for the going ons in Washington. WTF is wrong with you? Is this the caliber of debate artist that Fox News is producing these days?
-Rick
Interesting, it would appear that enforcement of that law would vary depending on the circumstances. My sister managed to roll her car when she was a new driver. This was before the wide spread adoption of cell phones, and it was the middle of winter in Wisconsin. She managed to flag down a passer-by and got a ride back to the house and called the cops. I know she got one heck of a tongue lashing for leaving the scene, but in the end they gave her an 'illegal right hand turn' for rolling her car 3 times into some farmer's field, and another ticket that I had thought was for leaving the scene. Thanks for the correction though.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the average punishment for leaving the scene is? I would assume points/suspension of license would be automatic, but is there a minimum fine and/or possible jail time?
-Rick
1) The permanent ban would pass in the House
2) The permanent ban would take a significant period of time to pass in the Senate
3) The existing temporary ban is expiring
Given those three
- facts
, the best solution is to bring the extension of the temporary ban up for a vote as it can be completed prior to the expiration of the existing ban. Once the temporary ban is extended, it gives congress another 4 years to deal with getting the permanent ban worked out. Seeing as how we are currently heavily involved with two foreign occupations, have a health care crisis inside our boarders, a President with his eyes set on a Unitarian Executive branch, rampant corruption and crony-ism, I think our Senate has some bigger issues to spend time on then making a permanent ban out of something that is already banned for the next 4 years.And the funny thing is that this bill has been extended already, by a Republican controlled Congress and President, if the Republicans are so strongly in favor of permanently banning this tax, why didn't they do so when they had total control of the legislative and executive branches of the government? Nah, this is just another example of political parties twisting the facts to get the talking points they want. There is no conspiracy to tax here, just a FUD campaign to scare you into voting republican. Come on, this is
-Rick
To be fair, in many cultures a cash contribution in response to an accident is appropriate. Whether it smells like a bribe to us is immaterial.
Heck, if this had happened in the US, what would the out come have been? (assuming the driver stayed at the scene). The deceased ran the stop light, so there's no way a jury would convict him of vehicular manslaughter, but a civil court wrongful death case would have been likely to succeed since the driver was participating in a race. In the end, the race league and driver would have had to cough up a chunk of cash to the family of the victims and restitution to the state for any services provided. Even if he had left the scene in the US, that's still just a traffic citation.
If the league/driver donate cash to the local government and victim's family, all they are doing is getting to that same end with out dragging the family and government (along with themselves) through months if not years of legal proceedings.
Haven forbid a group of people come to a conclusion with out the assistance of the government. Won't somebody thing of the citizens?!?!
-Rick
I was just going to mod you flame bait, but I figured I'd do the more appropriate thing and ask you to provide a site of your statement. If you fail to provide one, I'll just flame you myself. What's a little karma in exchange for proper moderating?
-Rick
I haven't read anything that funny in years.
-Rick
Ahhh, interesting. I was Marine Corps, so there was a bit more stress on the physical part of our training ;)
-Rick
Actually, promotions in the military are points based. You get points for each month you are active, points for high physical fitness scores, points for high marksmanship on the range, points for going to military education (Corporals course, aggressor school, etc...), points for taking specific billets (MSG duty, recruiting, Drill Instructor, etc...) points for civilian education, and so on. So, properly responding with this tool could quite actually have an effect on a person's score and thus the time frame of their promotion.
-Rick
Reading comprehension. Do I really need to qualify each clause I say for you to understand? No offense, it sounds like anger is getting the best of you. Good day. Okay brain child... nothing, nothing at all, makes the GAME ILLEGAL. THE GAME IS NOT ILLEGAL. Period end of story. Good day sir! If you want to get into reading comprehension, perhaps you were meaning to write "...what makes selling the game to minors illegal". But I'm not psychic, if that is what you meant, just clarify yourself and move on.
This law comes down to simple facts.
1) The government determines moral content.
2) The government determines who is allowed to purchase content they deem immoral.
That is it. Those are the 2 items that this bill pushes for. Those same two items have been tried again and again and again, and each and every time they have been struck down as unconstitutional. This legislation is a waste of tax payer money, the legislature's and the court's time, and even if it were to pass, it would be completely ineffective because it doesn't apply to the store clerks who actually sell the games. This bill is nothing more than a publicity/election stunt wrapping fear mongering and 'think about the children' all into one.
-Rick
-Rick
-Rick
I ain't that old! The 80's weren't easy, but I wasn't eating dirt. And $2/week as a young teenager in the early 90's wasn't that bad either. No car, no gas, no smokes, no cell phone. I mean, what does a 12-14 year old kid have to blow their money on anyways? I lived out in the boonies, so if I wanted to see a movie, the parents were coming with (and buying) anyways. The closest roller-rink was 15 miles, so again, parents had to be on hand to drive/pay. Heck, at that age all I had to blow my money on was junk food, and it took a 12 mile round trip bike ride to get it. On those occasions I did want to make some extra cash, there was always hay bails that needed tossing, or some harvest to pick for, or even the occasional baby-sitting gig.
/. readers are smart enough to check their children's installed applications list from time to time, just like my mother was smart enough to check under the mattress from time to time. And if my son figures out how to hide an application from the WMI, I figure he's earned the reward ;)
Growing up in the city is a huge difference I know (as I'm now trying to raise my son!) but the basic premise still remains, if your kid doesn't have money, they'll have a much more challenging time getting a hold of inappropriate games from retailers. Not that that is the end all be all solution. I mean, how much did you pay for your first porno mag? Luckily, most
-Rick
/. markup pwnt my bbcode markup. Imagine that.
-Rick