"Interstellar space" is an arbitrary distinction. What, it crosses this boundary and all of a sudden the state of the universe massively changes?
In a manner of speaking, yes. The probes should, or might have already, pass through "termination shock", which is the area where the solar wind collides with interstellar plasma and slows down. What happens at this boundary layer of the solar system is interesting, and potentially useful in the long term. Later space exploration could benefit from knowing what happens at this boundary, and having a first look now could help us design better probes to study this region.
Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things. Most of them wrong. I.e. you can knowingly publish libelous material as long as nobody knows it was put out by you.
The ruling specifically impacts information published publicly. If you are required to provide accurate information for a non-published database, then there's no real issue. Law enforcement and legal proceedings can learn the true identity of the domain's owner and act accordingly.
Can you demonstrate one news article of a court deciding that a gun manufacturer was liable for injuries or deaths intentionally caused by use of their products?
What do the "business models" have to do with this? There are file sharing clients out there that are entirely free and have no company behind them to have a "business model". Not everybody's selling something.
They're assuming (rightly so I'd think) that most of the people watching that show are women.
Good Eats is, as far as I'm concerned, hands down the best cooking show on TV. Basically cooking for geeks, and I can think of no reason why demographics would target it to females in particular. Its a great show for either gender.
But demographics aside, why would an ad pop up during the actual content of the show? That's just absurd!
they should start a collection among similarly concerned students and retain a lawyer.
Chances are, the college has some form of student union, and student unions typically have access to legal counsel for when students get in trouble. I think this would qualify.
quite true, but since the discussion stems from a biblical (or more specifically commandment) translation, what should, in modern society, happen is not necessarily relevant.
Personally, I'm not religious, in particular I'm not christian. I just have issues with someone using a false justification for their position. In this case, using a commandment which doesn't say what people think it does.
I have no issue with people arguing that the taking of human life in any case is wrong, but the arguments have to have a valid basis. An incorrect translation of a 2000 year old book is not a basis I consider valid.
All of the examples you cite are indeed forms of murder. The taking of innocent life. However, killing your opponent in time of war is not murder (depending on the conditions of the war), and the death penalty is not murder, at least biblically.
Prior to the very controversial No Child Left Behind, there have effectively been no national standards in secondary education. I think a lot of the world finds that pretty mind-boggling and pretty mind-boggling that a local parent group can pressure their particular school to teach "intelligent design".
Most other countries don't understand our division of laws. In the US, the smaller divisions, which is to say, states, are supposed to have total jurisidiction over those things not specifically enumerated as federal in the US Constitution. Therefore, until the feds stepped in education was largely under the states, and thus this becomes a states rights issue.
Let those close to the situation and with a stake in it decide rather than some clueless busybody in another state entirely.
Besides, I don't see where in the constitution anything is written that might possibly grant the federal government jurisidiction in this case. I believe they're seriously overstepping their bounds in this case.
What's interesting about your position listings is that you can find analyse them and determine where they stem from, and that the root may not be as hypocritical as you think. Posit: Liberals value personal rights and not states rights. Conservatives value the right of the state and not personal rights. Abortion and euthanasia are personal choices one takes for one's self and one's family. War and capital punishment are rights the state takes for some greater good.
Thus, if you want to break it down over lines of whether or not it is ok to kill, then yes, both sides apear to demonstrate hipocrisy. But there is a real and possibly valid line which divides the two camps.
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
What is a day to a god?
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
First off, it says "commit murder", which is distinctly not the same thing as "kill". There are valid reasons to kill someone, but not to murder them. Secondly, the word murder has a clear before and after state, and a frame of mind involved.
Time is not necessarily a constant to a god. We consider a day the time it takes for the earth to rotate. But the use of the word "days" occurs before the earth actually existed, according to the myth, so what is a "day" in that context?
There's information in another reply to my post that a copyright holder can use to file for copyright and then get the feds involved. Once infringing products have been identified, customs should have no trouble siezing them. It only takes a few seziures before the bulk of companies will realise the GPL is serious and has teeth.
what do they intend on doing when some Taiwanese hardware manufacturer embeds their code?
Get an injunction from having the manufacturer's products distributed in the US, and have the products seized by customs when they enter the country. I.e., direct financial loss.
Only trick is in detecting what manufacturer is embedding it.
But we can't afford to spend a measly $4 million to maintain three projects that are still returning useful, interesting data, and haven't disappeared behind Mars or killed anyone?
Keep in mind that 4.2 million is roughly the cost of keeping our forces in iraq for 34 minutes.
Those pictures look like they're of a meeting of the Society for Creative Anachronism, or some other group of similar ilk
They don't look like the SCA, actually. The armor requirements in SCA are fairly strict, and they shouldn't be playing without head protection. The morning star in one picture is not SCA-legal, as it is an entangling weapon. The weapons pictured appear to be of the foam-covered type, which the SCA does use in its youth combat program, however as I said, other factors preclude this. (Adult combat uses rattan, a spongy type of wood also seen in some furniture.)
Since they name D&D regularly in the article, the players probably referred to themselves that way, though they're actually doing a LARP variant of D&D.
I'm curious, does anyone have a plan where you pay the flat rate and when you hit the quota of free transfers, no more transfers are allowed? Not exactly a prepaid plan, but a plan that simply doesn't allow substantial overages.
According to the CDC,
the region labeled "South" has a firearm mortality rate of 13 per 100,000, whereas the average for the country is 10.5. For reference, northeast has 6.02.
Also for reference, the south had an overall violence-related mortality rate of 19.40, the overall US 17.41, and the northeast 12.01
So, while it appears there is indeed a higher rate of gun deaths in the south, it appears that people just kill each other more often in that area overall. I'm not sure a lack of firearms would change that.
bear in mind that around fifty eight thousand Americans are killed by guns every year
That number was killed in 1994, not every year.
According to the CDC, the authoritative source for this information in the US, gun deaths in 2002 (the most recent year with available data) there were 30,242 deaths for a rate of 10.50 deaths per 100,000 people. Of those, homicide accounted for 11,829 deaths. Total homicides were 17,638, of which firearms accounted for 67%.
I do not own a gun, and at this time have no intention to. However, I regard the right to own one highly, and think that the best method to reduce gun deaths is education and responsible ownership.
Guns may make it a little easier to commit a crime, but leveling the playing field by removing them from everyone except law enforcement will have 2 effects: First, it will cause criminals to simply use other means of committing crimes, including black market acquisition of firearms. Second, it gives law enforcement and military bodies undue control over the citizens of this country, which is one of the primary reasons for this right.
Yep, been there. There's no such thing as "cheap and reliable", you get one or the other.
My parents gave me the 10 year old volvo to drive to & from school while in high school, I went away to college, and after that they sent it to me to keep, and I drove it until it was 19 years old. It didn't fail, it was struck by some kid in a cheap car on his way to school and the "totalled" value was less than the value of the repairs by a substantial amount.
But that gets me into the whole rant about car insurance paying you what you could get for your car in trade-in at a dealer, not how much you'd have to pay at a dealer to get one like it.
In the US we take these as a given. I've encountered people where I work that are from other countries that truly do not comprehend the value of freedom and democracy. I'll grant the latter 2, human rights and equal application of the law.
However, while I may grant that everyone understands there are basic human rights, the definitions of those rights are cultural, and therefore the point there is moot. The mere existence of human rights cannot be the basis of an argument that another country doesn't have them. You can merely say they don't share our assumption of basic human rights.
As far as equal application of the law, I'll grant that pretty much every culture expects this, it just happens that there are always a few at high levels who can circumvent it, and it falls to the culture to police this. So I don't think the chinese people as a whole have this problem, though the government certainly does.
Now we get to freedom and democracy. You and I take as a given our freedom and the democracy. (ok, this country has an elected republic, not a democracy, but the word will do for now) However, in other cultures, the need for cultural and societal stability outweighs many personal freedoms. From everything I've seen, the culture of China rejects personal freedoms along these lines, though the government does indeed go too far in my opinion in enforcing this mindset.
Simply put, you're making assertions that require serious work to defend, and you have to understand the cultural background of the people you need to defend your assertions against.
Can you truly express why your first two assertions are accurate, and justify them to a culture not founded on them?
Slashdot Mirror
Go for it! Its going to take at least 20 years for both, and by then the patents will have expired and nobody can get rich off them!
In a manner of speaking, yes. The probes should, or might have already, pass through "termination shock", which is the area where the solar wind collides with interstellar plasma and slows down. What happens at this boundary layer of the solar system is interesting, and potentially useful in the long term. Later space exploration could benefit from knowing what happens at this boundary, and having a first look now could help us design better probes to study this region.
Yes, I can.
N.Y. jury finds some gun makers liable in shootings
Not that I personally agree with it.
What do the "business models" have to do with this? There are file sharing clients out there that are entirely free and have no company behind them to have a "business model". Not everybody's selling something.
No, nobody would believe you. Shakespeare's "classic".
Good Eats is, as far as I'm concerned, hands down the best cooking show on TV. Basically cooking for geeks, and I can think of no reason why demographics would target it to females in particular. Its a great show for either gender.
But demographics aside, why would an ad pop up during the actual content of the show? That's just absurd!
Chances are, the college has some form of student union, and student unions typically have access to legal counsel for when students get in trouble. I think this would qualify.
quite true, but since the discussion stems from a biblical (or more specifically commandment) translation, what should, in modern society, happen is not necessarily relevant.
I have no issue with people arguing that the taking of human life in any case is wrong, but the arguments have to have a valid basis. An incorrect translation of a 2000 year old book is not a basis I consider valid.
All of the examples you cite are indeed forms of murder. The taking of innocent life. However, killing your opponent in time of war is not murder (depending on the conditions of the war), and the death penalty is not murder, at least biblically.
Most other countries don't understand our division of laws. In the US, the smaller divisions, which is to say, states, are supposed to have total jurisidiction over those things not specifically enumerated as federal in the US Constitution. Therefore, until the feds stepped in education was largely under the states, and thus this becomes a states rights issue.
Besides, I don't see where in the constitution anything is written that might possibly grant the federal government jurisidiction in this case. I believe they're seriously overstepping their bounds in this case.
Thus, if you want to break it down over lines of whether or not it is ok to kill, then yes, both sides apear to demonstrate hipocrisy. But there is a real and possibly valid line which divides the two camps.
What is a day to a god?
First off, it says "commit murder", which is distinctly not the same thing as "kill". There are valid reasons to kill someone, but not to murder them. Secondly, the word murder has a clear before and after state, and a frame of mind involved.Time is not necessarily a constant to a god. We consider a day the time it takes for the earth to rotate. But the use of the word "days" occurs before the earth actually existed, according to the myth, so what is a "day" in that context?
He was also the script doctor for Speed, which is why such a campy concept resulted in a fairly good movie. Unlike its sequels.
There's information in another reply to my post that a copyright holder can use to file for copyright and then get the feds involved. Once infringing products have been identified, customs should have no trouble siezing them. It only takes a few seziures before the bulk of companies will realise the GPL is serious and has teeth.
Get an injunction from having the manufacturer's products distributed in the US, and have the products seized by customs when they enter the country. I.e., direct financial loss.
Only trick is in detecting what manufacturer is embedding it.
Keep in mind that 4.2 million is roughly the cost of keeping our forces in iraq for 34 minutes.
They don't look like the SCA, actually. The armor requirements in SCA are fairly strict, and they shouldn't be playing without head protection. The morning star in one picture is not SCA-legal, as it is an entangling weapon. The weapons pictured appear to be of the foam-covered type, which the SCA does use in its youth combat program, however as I said, other factors preclude this. (Adult combat uses rattan, a spongy type of wood also seen in some furniture.)
Since they name D&D regularly in the article, the players probably referred to themselves that way, though they're actually doing a LARP variant of D&D.
I'm curious, does anyone have a plan where you pay the flat rate and when you hit the quota of free transfers, no more transfers are allowed? Not exactly a prepaid plan, but a plan that simply doesn't allow substantial overages.
Also for reference, the south had an overall violence-related mortality rate of 19.40, the overall US 17.41, and the northeast 12.01
So, while it appears there is indeed a higher rate of gun deaths in the south, it appears that people just kill each other more often in that area overall. I'm not sure a lack of firearms would change that.
That number was killed in 1994, not every year. According to the CDC, the authoritative source for this information in the US, gun deaths in 2002 (the most recent year with available data) there were 30,242 deaths for a rate of 10.50 deaths per 100,000 people. Of those, homicide accounted for 11,829 deaths. Total homicides were 17,638, of which firearms accounted for 67%.
I do not own a gun, and at this time have no intention to. However, I regard the right to own one highly, and think that the best method to reduce gun deaths is education and responsible ownership.
Guns may make it a little easier to commit a crime, but leveling the playing field by removing them from everyone except law enforcement will have 2 effects: First, it will cause criminals to simply use other means of committing crimes, including black market acquisition of firearms. Second, it gives law enforcement and military bodies undue control over the citizens of this country, which is one of the primary reasons for this right.
Yep, been there. There's no such thing as "cheap and reliable", you get one or the other. My parents gave me the 10 year old volvo to drive to & from school while in high school, I went away to college, and after that they sent it to me to keep, and I drove it until it was 19 years old. It didn't fail, it was struck by some kid in a cheap car on his way to school and the "totalled" value was less than the value of the repairs by a substantial amount. But that gets me into the whole rant about car insurance paying you what you could get for your car in trade-in at a dealer, not how much you'd have to pay at a dealer to get one like it.
However, while I may grant that everyone understands there are basic human rights, the definitions of those rights are cultural, and therefore the point there is moot. The mere existence of human rights cannot be the basis of an argument that another country doesn't have them. You can merely say they don't share our assumption of basic human rights.
As far as equal application of the law, I'll grant that pretty much every culture expects this, it just happens that there are always a few at high levels who can circumvent it, and it falls to the culture to police this. So I don't think the chinese people as a whole have this problem, though the government certainly does.
Now we get to freedom and democracy. You and I take as a given our freedom and the democracy. (ok, this country has an elected republic, not a democracy, but the word will do for now) However, in other cultures, the need for cultural and societal stability outweighs many personal freedoms. From everything I've seen, the culture of China rejects personal freedoms along these lines, though the government does indeed go too far in my opinion in enforcing this mindset.
Simply put, you're making assertions that require serious work to defend, and you have to understand the cultural background of the people you need to defend your assertions against.
Can you truly express why your first two assertions are accurate, and justify them to a culture not founded on them?