I had a similar experience where one bad semester ( my third) not only lost me my scholarship, but also forever destroyed my GPA. The bad part (I paid off what I owed and that's all over now) is that I was almost rejected from graduate school (and not even a high profile one) based on only having a 3.0 GPA. If I had not been going for a professional MS, I am certain I would have been rejected, despite the fact that I brought myself from a 2.6 to a 3.0 over the last 3 years of engineering school, which I am certain you all can imagine is extremely difficult.
I seem to remember that in the old days they had to specify what they were looking for,just to keep them from doing fishing expeditions.Does that still stand? This still stands, but I believe if they find other criminal activity while searching for what they listed as searching for, they can nail you for that too. In other words, if they are looking for financial records to prove tax evasion and find a dime bag of marijuana, they can also prosecute you for drug posession. I think there's some tricky business to this where if what they are looking for is out in the open and they find something else illegal that was burried in the back of a locked closet, you can get that evidence thrown out for illegal search and seizure.
Sure looks to me as if we're quite happy to give people another chance. Unless you're a registered sex offender. Then you're screwed. It must be part of the Calvinist history of this nation that makes us create a system that puts someone pissing in a bush or streaking at their high school graduation on the same level as a child rapist.
Why stop at treason? I think this calls for high treason. The penalty for that is death if I recall correctly. It's been a long time since there has been a death penalty handed down (originally) from a federal court.
I find the idea of using light therapy in this way mildly disturbing. The result of doing this will set your circadian rythm to wake up at night, which will throw you all out of wack if you have to get up for work/school in the morning. An out of wack circadian rythm can really mess you up, and there are devices on the market specifically designed to help stabilize your circadian rythm. These devices are NOT intended to be used to help people deprive themselves of sleep. just because you don't think you're tired, if you're sleep deprived, you will suffer all of the symptoms of sleep deprivation. And ironically this includes impared mental and physical reflexes, making you more dangerous on the road.
I know, let's block all discussion of Evolution from television! After all, some people find it objectionable. I have a better idea. Lets block all discussion of Creationism from television! After all, some people find it objectionable.
Yes they should. However, books do not serve as a sufficient news source.
Careful with the books though, they often make Libertarians out of conservatives and socialists out of those nutty liberals. This is a result of trying to use books as a replacement for news. People need to be reading history, philosophy, and good fiction; not modern political commentary that is far too often nothing but an excersize in rhetoric.
If someone tries to sell you a unregistered hand gun from the trunk of a car in an alley and you buy it, you are just as guilty as the person who sold it to you. Just because you are asked to do something illegal doesn't mean that you are innocent under the law if you do it. The absolute BEST they could hope for is calling it entrapment. But I don't think an entrapment argument would hold up when the ones asking them to break the law weren't trying to get them on a crime, they just wanted help with their own criminal activity.
While comparing Bush to Nazis may be a little extreme, it does call for some serious examination of how the Nazi party operated early on. Hitler did everything he could to undermine the German legislature when he was still just Vice Chancellor. He also enacted warrentless domestic spying that included wire taps, warrentless searches, and brute force watching people. All of this was done with an extreme air of secrecy. Behind closed doors citizens were held indefinitely without trial and subjected to torture. They were not given access to a lawyer (not that it would soon make a difference since after Hindenburg died, lawyers were required to be NSDAP members).
Now to say that Bush is comparable to Nazi's is far fetched unless you can show a true intent for National Socialism (Hitler's variety of it at least) and a maximally aggressive effort against those who don't fit the Nationalist bill. He would probably need plans to invade Canada, and many professions would legally require membership in the GOP.
Protect someone whose product is ripped off? Copyright.
Ok, I keep hearing this "copyright" defense to replace software patents. But how can you enforce that if someone simply modifies the source code? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just genuinely curious as to what the specifics to that issue are.
If Isreal attacked country B unprovoked, sounds fair to me. If country B attacked the West Bank unprovoked, I would call it less fair. This of course assumes that the US stays out of the mess (good luck). The fact is that all regions of the world go through long periods of near constant warfare until one side becomes powerful enough that efforts for peace are more productive to advancing society and power than expansion is. I believe that by getting involved, the only thing we are doing is prolonging this period for the Middle East.
Please explain to me where a standing army is forbidden by the US Constitution
Article II. Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
That sounds like an assumption of a standing army and navy to me.
Lack of sleep causes a lot of crap problems for people. I work for a company specializing in sleep therapy consumer devices and we see all kinds of problems that sleep depravation causes. One of the most interesting problems is that with a consistent sleep depravation, people will perceive that they get used to it and their ability to react goes back to normal. However, the real effect is that it keeps getting worse. If you want to have a healthy and productive work force, it is essential that they get sufficient sleep (generally about 7-8 hours a day). It is also essential that those who work night shifts are exposed to bright light throughout their work day to fool their circadian rhythm.
They should protect the product just like anything else protected under patents. Just like a patent on a new type of engine protects the new type of engine and not the alloy, processes, or components used to make it. It only protects the engine as a whole unit. If you come up with a novel application, then you should have a time period to market that application and have a chance to make a return on it without competition. If you protect it under copyright only, minimal modifications could be done to create an equivalent competing product, thus defeating the purpose.
Maybe what could be done is to have the patent term last only a few years, from when a product is released on the market and to stop patent trolls they'd have to release a product within a reasonable tyme period. Say make the term 5 years, then if the patent holder wants to extend it another year they would then pay a 1% royalty on sales. After 5 years the royalty would be 10% and in 10 year it would be 25%. The money paid could then be used to hire enough expert patent examiners to make sure it isn't obvious or in the public domain, there's no prior art.
I actually like this idea. It would also prevent universities from sitting on patents that they never intend to take to market. I have seen how university patents just sit and die in limbo because they just expect some company to buy up the patent or infringe on it without ever taking effort to put a product on the market (not that much different from a patent troll). I still believe there needs to be some form of patent protection for software, but certainly not for the code or methods themselves.
Don't forget that Evangelical Christians labored since the 70s to redefine the term "conservative" for their own benefit. They achieved success rather quickly with Jerry Falwell uniting the evangelical christians to hi-jack the Republican party. Now the term "conservative" more closely defines a set of social control principles that force everyone to act like the Calvinists. It has little to nothing to do with conservation of traditional governmental practice.
Don't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them. The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
You missed the point. I'm talking about patenting what the usable output of an application is. For example, the instant messanger. To the best of my knowledge, AOL was the first to come up with this back when AOL was a self contained piece of crap (though you might argue that IRC was the first place this was done, but I'm just trying to make a hypthetical example). They could have reasonably patented the instant messanger. However, it makes little sense to allow them to patent the methods they used to make the instant messanger work. To patent the "buddy list" (a list of frequent contacts made for ready access) would be retarded.
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar experience where one bad semester ( my third) not only lost me my scholarship, but also forever destroyed my GPA. The bad part (I paid off what I owed and that's all over now) is that I was almost rejected from graduate school (and not even a high profile one) based on only having a 3.0 GPA. If I had not been going for a professional MS, I am certain I would have been rejected, despite the fact that I brought myself from a 2.6 to a 3.0 over the last 3 years of engineering school, which I am certain you all can imagine is extremely difficult.
Too bad I don't have any guilt for the laws that I break.
Why stop at treason? I think this calls for high treason. The penalty for that is death if I recall correctly. It's been a long time since there has been a death penalty handed down (originally) from a federal court.
I find the idea of using light therapy in this way mildly disturbing. The result of doing this will set your circadian rythm to wake up at night, which will throw you all out of wack if you have to get up for work/school in the morning. An out of wack circadian rythm can really mess you up, and there are devices on the market specifically designed to help stabilize your circadian rythm. These devices are NOT intended to be used to help people deprive themselves of sleep. just because you don't think you're tired, if you're sleep deprived, you will suffer all of the symptoms of sleep deprivation. And ironically this includes impared mental and physical reflexes, making you more dangerous on the road.
You havn't seen anything yet. Just wait until we get the general election. You might as well just turn off the radio and TV and go read a good book.
Not to mention that it has been long accepted that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for violating it.
I would take this a step further. If their legal council bent over and accepted this, they should be examined by the Bar Association for incompetancy.
If someone tries to sell you a unregistered hand gun from the trunk of a car in an alley and you buy it, you are just as guilty as the person who sold it to you. Just because you are asked to do something illegal doesn't mean that you are innocent under the law if you do it. The absolute BEST they could hope for is calling it entrapment. But I don't think an entrapment argument would hold up when the ones asking them to break the law weren't trying to get them on a crime, they just wanted help with their own criminal activity.
While comparing Bush to Nazis may be a little extreme, it does call for some serious examination of how the Nazi party operated early on. Hitler did everything he could to undermine the German legislature when he was still just Vice Chancellor. He also enacted warrentless domestic spying that included wire taps, warrentless searches, and brute force watching people. All of this was done with an extreme air of secrecy. Behind closed doors citizens were held indefinitely without trial and subjected to torture. They were not given access to a lawyer (not that it would soon make a difference since after Hindenburg died, lawyers were required to be NSDAP members).
Now to say that Bush is comparable to Nazi's is far fetched unless you can show a true intent for National Socialism (Hitler's variety of it at least) and a maximally aggressive effort against those who don't fit the Nationalist bill. He would probably need plans to invade Canada, and many professions would legally require membership in the GOP.
If Isreal attacked country B unprovoked, sounds fair to me. If country B attacked the West Bank unprovoked, I would call it less fair. This of course assumes that the US stays out of the mess (good luck). The fact is that all regions of the world go through long periods of near constant warfare until one side becomes powerful enough that efforts for peace are more productive to advancing society and power than expansion is. I believe that by getting involved, the only thing we are doing is prolonging this period for the Middle East.
Well he DOES have a 7-digit ID number
Please explain to me where a standing army is forbidden by the US Constitution
Article II. Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
That sounds like an assumption of a standing army and navy to me.
Lack of sleep causes a lot of crap problems for people. I work for a company specializing in sleep therapy consumer devices and we see all kinds of problems that sleep depravation causes. One of the most interesting problems is that with a consistent sleep depravation, people will perceive that they get used to it and their ability to react goes back to normal. However, the real effect is that it keeps getting worse. If you want to have a healthy and productive work force, it is essential that they get sufficient sleep (generally about 7-8 hours a day). It is also essential that those who work night shifts are exposed to bright light throughout their work day to fool their circadian rhythm.
They should protect the product just like anything else protected under patents. Just like a patent on a new type of engine protects the new type of engine and not the alloy, processes, or components used to make it. It only protects the engine as a whole unit. If you come up with a novel application, then you should have a time period to market that application and have a chance to make a return on it without competition. If you protect it under copyright only, minimal modifications could be done to create an equivalent competing product, thus defeating the purpose.
Don't forget that Evangelical Christians labored since the 70s to redefine the term "conservative" for their own benefit. They achieved success rather quickly with Jerry Falwell uniting the evangelical christians to hi-jack the Republican party. Now the term "conservative" more closely defines a set of social control principles that force everyone to act like the Calvinists. It has little to nothing to do with conservation of traditional governmental practice.
Don't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them. The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
You missed the point. I'm talking about patenting what the usable output of an application is. For example, the instant messanger. To the best of my knowledge, AOL was the first to come up with this back when AOL was a self contained piece of crap (though you might argue that IRC was the first place this was done, but I'm just trying to make a hypthetical example). They could have reasonably patented the instant messanger. However, it makes little sense to allow them to patent the methods they used to make the instant messanger work. To patent the "buddy list" (a list of frequent contacts made for ready access) would be retarded.
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.