Personally, I think there should be a number of world wide repositories for all papers. The cost of each country/corporation hosting one would be minimal.
Try here and for a nice talk describing the goals and ideals of the IA go here.
Going by this I suppose you could theoretically charge them with fraud if you could successfully argue that intentional misrepresentation of the law is a 'matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail'
Though honestly, thinking that people would consider it a trivial detail somewhat frightens me.
Perhaps you could make the case that this would convince a young person or his family to avoid a fictional criminal prosecution by not fighting a civil action made against them on the basis of copyright; whereupon you point out that the distributor of the publication has the official sounding name of "The National Center for State Courts" and was supposedly reviewed by legal experts.
Of course, on the other hand, the NCSC is a non-profit organization, and if they did take money or favors from the RIAA and used their non-profit status for personal gain... perhaps someone who is a lawyer can tell us what the legal ramifications of that would be.
I was rather interested in what you were saying up and until you decided to unload on Libertarians simply because you do not like the extremist/fundamentalist people in our party. Is Rush Limbaugh the absolute spokesperson for Republicans? How would you describe them then?
There are a lot of Libertarians, like myself, who simply feel that the federal government is too large, has too much power that should be localized back to the states when not done away with completely, and no longer follows the ideas originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I am NOT an elitist, unless you consider being paid the amount your work is worth elitist; and certainly the idea of RULING over your 'inferiors' is as far off the mark of what the idea of Libertarianism is as claiming that the democrats want the rich to rule the poor.
Please consider that perhaps your views on Libertarians are INCREDIBLY BIASED AND UNINFORMED and that just as there are radicals and wackos in EVERY political party there are those of us who actually are moderate and rational. Do I want the pointless and expensive War on Drugs stopped? Yes. Do I want to repeal most of the drug laws? Yes. Would I do it over night? No. I'm not stupid enough to think that would be sensible or even right to do.
If all you've met are the wacko Libertarians, if all you've heard are the radicals, then please do remember that especially in a third party here in the US they tend to be the ONLY ones ever heard because they are the ones ridiculous enough to get picked up by the media to be laughed at.
...that to be chosen to govern something does not mean actually having to know anything about it. At least from what I read it seems all they did was re-arrange how the components were mounted inside the machine. Would they sue if the company had left everything the same but used different sized screws? I'm glad someone is paying attention, but come on, do a bit of homework. If there is no actual functional changes, I could see why the company might not have thought of notifying the state.
Even given they should have notified them, is this really how to resolve this? Please, go on using my tax dollars to fatten more lawyers. It's not as if you couldn't just RETURN the ones that are non-certified and taken your business elsewhere like every other rational consumer.
Whatever the hell is going on, I smell 'idiot' all over this. I don't know or even care to guess who or on what side, but this just reeks of it. I'm not for or against electronic voting machines per se, I'm against people with the technological understanding of a retarded hamster being in charge of them.
When I was working at Compusa as a lead cashier I had something very similar happen. Guy comes in with a hard drive box, and claimed that inside was an older drive instead of the new drive he had purchased. However, instead of telling the guy he was out of luck, it took all of sixty seconds of research to find that the supposed WD hard drive had already been purchased and returned 'unopened'. Then we talked to the other lead who had done the first return, and he mentioned that while the box had been shrink wrapped, he could tell it was opened and resealed (stores do this when an item has the outer seals removed but the inner contents are still unopened, so it registered as being unusual but not completely uncommon to the lead). After that the general manager gave the customer the benefit of the doubt and gave him the drive he was supposed to have purchased.
The best part, however, is that it didn't end there. The general manager continued looking into the case as I went back to work doing returns etc. Around five minutes later, he walks out and tells me that some kid would be coming in to hand in the stolen hard drive. Turns out the retard had used fake info on the return slip, but had gotten an extended warranty on another item purchased at the same time as the hard drive, and THAT had his real info. So the GM called him up and told him to have the drive back in the store within the hour or his next visitors would be the boys in blue. Maybe 20 minutes later, a teenager walks in and hands me the drive, looking like he was expecting the cops to drop down off the ceiling on his ass. Instead he got a "Don't ever let us catch you in the store again."
The moral of the story? A little bit of detective work can leave everyone that should be happy, happy, and save your store from negative publicity that will hurt far more than the loss of a single hard drive.
Since when in history have we not had groups both within and without the United States that "hated our guts" and were "evil people." By your argument, we never have the rights of the constitution because there are always those out there that want to kill us all, and that the only way to save ourselves is by giving up any and all freedoms as deemed necessary by the people who are in power and will never have to suffer as any other citizen would in such a system.
I agree that the idea of fighting a 'humane' war is ridiculous, but I look at fighting things like this as doing MY part to protect the country our soldiers are fighting for to return to. What worse could we do for our soldiers but to turn the country they love and fight for into everything they were supposed to be fighting against?
Better yet, get enough people together to pass laws that force your will. Yup, just like how we got into that whole prohibition thing.
You can't eat principles ...but neither can you produce food without them.
It's stupid to die for money You're right, we prefer to die, or at least, send our sons and daughters to die, for oil. But, as you've said, we've outsourced our responsibilities to the government, so who are we to complain when they make decisions that are geared for their own gain? We're the ones that decided we didn't want the responsibility.
Besides, the living sheep can get the money back in court, while the dead hero can't. And wool is warm at winter. Because I'm sure that most muggers and their ilk get caught immediately by the police... that they pay back the money when they are caught... and that they all don't care about leaving a live witness... or that they'll ever, ever, do it again, let alone escalate to bigger more violent acts...
The police, nothing against them, I feel they are heroes simply for pledging their lives in the defense of others, can do nothing to protect you if they are not there, and they can not be everywhere at every moment. Nobody is ultimately responsible for your own safety but yourself. How you choose to exercise it is your own choice, whether to do something, or nothing, but the only future which you can influence is the future in which you take action.
I am not advocating that everyone fight and die whenever you get robbed, I am mourning the loss of spirit, and decrying the society and politics that makes out those of courage to be nothing but fools for standing up for what was right, when they used to be known as our heroes.
My answer to you, on everything, is that I would prefer fighting and dying in freedom, than survival by slavery, or any form of it. If you prefer to live at any cost, that is your choice. But do not make out those that chose to defend themselves and their property, even if it is for something that you think is inconsequential and meaningless, to be fools. They Are Heroes.
As a libertarian, I'd say that yes, it would be up to the employees to show the employers what they would and would not tolerate.
Why must we pass laws to state the obvious? I think that if you went around and asked employees of this country how they felt about employers requiring such things, you would find 9 out of 10 would abhor the idea.
If you do not like the concept, and your employer decides to implement it, then get as many people together as you can, and boycott. Don't come into work until they change their minds.
If you won't (do not say can't, this is a voluntary choice) then you either A) Care more about the comfort of the moment than the consequences, or are B) already as good as a slave, so why not make it even more abundantly clear?
"I can't, I have a family to support." - Yes, a family and children that will eventually grow up to inherit whatever legacy you leave behind. Maybe there are more important things than getting the latest console for your kid on their birthday.
But as Americans we have become sheep, to the point where it is barely legal to defend yourself, where we are encouraged to "just give up the money, it's not worth as much as your life". It's the mentality that lets a couple of fanatics hijack planes filled with dozens of people.
Having said this, I am sad to say that I would support the bill (I live in SoCal), because I no longer believe our people have the courage to stand firm and do what is right for themselves, if they but knew it. Because the cost of doing nothing, of letting those with the power, financial or otherwise, but without the morality do as they please, would be too high a cost.
It is true that parents and society will always point to the things that are different from their own childhoods as causes for violence, obesity, poor academics, and a host of other woes. It is also true that those parents will always fight to interfere with those activities, be it by denying it at the home level, or by writing to those congress men and women to whom they are constituents. This is their right, and even if in their masses they manage to get laws passed, we (usually) can depend on the supreme court to defend free speech and our rights. So KISS and Marilyn Manson keep rocking, shows like The Shield still get broadcast time, and violent video games are still legal to sell.
However, there is an insidious culture that is coming to be common practice in our society. It comes from having half of the world's population of lawyers in one country. We now live in a day and age where a woman can spill coffee on herself and successfully sue for millions of dollars. Just imagine if, instead of not playing any video games as seems to be the case, Cho played Counter-Strike. Think of the huge class-action lawsuit that would most likely follow. It's easy to contemplate, because it would be expected. Today we no longer await one trial on any large publicly known crime, but two: the criminal trial and the civil.
With people like Dr. Phil and Jack Thompson blaming video games, and getting as much media time as they do, how likely in the future will it be for video game makers to get a fair civil trial? That those two did so without even bothering to check facts, and the media's willingness to report such until proven otherwise, reflects a growing trend of belief that violent video games are strongly connected to young people that commit these types of armed massacres.
The pro-video game groups are making a large point out of this because they are fighting a losing battle to change the minds of Americans regarding these issues.
...my party, the Libertarians, which has enough problems with funding as is, needed to pay for something that the elected officials should have done in the first place.
...just train the personnel that do security checks to do their job right? Such as the ones that, if they had done the job correctly, would have caught those guys with their boxcutters?
Maybe give them an incentive to do it right, such as paying them a decent wage?
And how does this system deal with people who have taken alcohol or a narcotic before hand? I have yet to find a decent sized airport that didn't have a bar or 5 in it.
"Bartender, give me a double scotch on the rocks, I need to get through security."
So, I'll be be eligble for an extended stay at a nice federal penetatiary for downloading some music or a movie, and Sony releases a rootkit that endangers the security of thousands of computers, and they get...a lawsuit?
Can we get the Florida judge whom declared spyware a type of trespass on the supreme court? Please?
I agree that, while there is room for abuse of such a technology (let's face it, technology is like a weapon; only as good as the people that use it), it's implications for user experience might be interesting. Such as, I'd love to be playing WoW with it supplying my own sound track that would adapt to what I was doing in game. Or a service that could search for new music that you might like on online radio stations.
While I appreciate creativity and originalism, I can still admit to myself that the music in certain genres tend to have things in common. For me, in techno music I am swayed towards sets that have a vocal theme, or at least have a good vocal section. I don't only listen to vocal trance, but it's a good bet that if it has vocals, I'll like it. Having something that could look for new music that I might otherwise not be introduced to by looking at patterns in my musical taste would be, in a word, awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think there should be a number of world wide repositories for all papers. The cost of each country/corporation hosting one would be minimal.
Try here and for a nice talk describing the goals and ideals of the IA go here.
Going by this I suppose you could theoretically charge them with fraud if you could successfully argue that intentional misrepresentation of the law is a 'matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail'
Though honestly, thinking that people would consider it a trivial detail somewhat frightens me.
Perhaps you could make the case that this would convince a young person or his family to avoid a fictional criminal prosecution by not fighting a civil action made against them on the basis of copyright; whereupon you point out that the distributor of the publication has the official sounding name of "The National Center for State Courts" and was supposedly reviewed by legal experts.
Of course, on the other hand, the NCSC is a non-profit organization, and if they did take money or favors from the RIAA and used their non-profit status for personal gain... perhaps someone who is a lawyer can tell us what the legal ramifications of that would be.
I was rather interested in what you were saying up and until you decided to unload on Libertarians simply because you do not like the extremist/fundamentalist people in our party. Is Rush Limbaugh the absolute spokesperson for Republicans? How would you describe them then?
There are a lot of Libertarians, like myself, who simply feel that the federal government is too large, has too much power that should be localized back to the states when not done away with completely, and no longer follows the ideas originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I am NOT an elitist, unless you consider being paid the amount your work is worth elitist; and certainly the idea of RULING over your 'inferiors' is as far off the mark of what the idea of Libertarianism is as claiming that the democrats want the rich to rule the poor.
Please consider that perhaps your views on Libertarians are INCREDIBLY BIASED AND UNINFORMED and that just as there are radicals and wackos in EVERY political party there are those of us who actually are moderate and rational. Do I want the pointless and expensive War on Drugs stopped? Yes. Do I want to repeal most of the drug laws? Yes. Would I do it over night? No. I'm not stupid enough to think that would be sensible or even right to do.
If all you've met are the wacko Libertarians, if all you've heard are the radicals, then please do remember that especially in a third party here in the US they tend to be the ONLY ones ever heard because they are the ones ridiculous enough to get picked up by the media to be laughed at.
My dear sir, let me introduce you to something called 'linux'. I favor Kubuntu myself.
...that to be chosen to govern something does not mean actually having to know anything about it. At least from what I read it seems all they did was re-arrange how the components were mounted inside the machine. Would they sue if the company had left everything the same but used different sized screws? I'm glad someone is paying attention, but come on, do a bit of homework. If there is no actual functional changes, I could see why the company might not have thought of notifying the state.
Even given they should have notified them, is this really how to resolve this? Please, go on using my tax dollars to fatten more lawyers. It's not as if you couldn't just RETURN the ones that are non-certified and taken your business elsewhere like every other rational consumer.
Whatever the hell is going on, I smell 'idiot' all over this. I don't know or even care to guess who or on what side, but this just reeks of it. I'm not for or against electronic voting machines per se, I'm against people with the technological understanding of a retarded hamster being in charge of them.
When I was working at Compusa as a lead cashier I had something very similar happen. Guy comes in with a hard drive box, and claimed that inside was an older drive instead of the new drive he had purchased. However, instead of telling the guy he was out of luck, it took all of sixty seconds of research to find that the supposed WD hard drive had already been purchased and returned 'unopened'. Then we talked to the other lead who had done the first return, and he mentioned that while the box had been shrink wrapped, he could tell it was opened and resealed (stores do this when an item has the outer seals removed but the inner contents are still unopened, so it registered as being unusual but not completely uncommon to the lead). After that the general manager gave the customer the benefit of the doubt and gave him the drive he was supposed to have purchased.
The best part, however, is that it didn't end there. The general manager continued looking into the case as I went back to work doing returns etc. Around five minutes later, he walks out and tells me that some kid would be coming in to hand in the stolen hard drive. Turns out the retard had used fake info on the return slip, but had gotten an extended warranty on another item purchased at the same time as the hard drive, and THAT had his real info. So the GM called him up and told him to have the drive back in the store within the hour or his next visitors would be the boys in blue. Maybe 20 minutes later, a teenager walks in and hands me the drive, looking like he was expecting the cops to drop down off the ceiling on his ass. Instead he got a "Don't ever let us catch you in the store again."
The moral of the story? A little bit of detective work can leave everyone that should be happy, happy, and save your store from negative publicity that will hurt far more than the loss of a single hard drive.
But where's the Monolith?
Since when in history have we not had groups both within and without the United States that "hated our guts" and were "evil people." By your argument, we never have the rights of the constitution because there are always those out there that want to kill us all, and that the only way to save ourselves is by giving up any and all freedoms as deemed necessary by the people who are in power and will never have to suffer as any other citizen would in such a system. I agree that the idea of fighting a 'humane' war is ridiculous, but I look at fighting things like this as doing MY part to protect the country our soldiers are fighting for to return to. What worse could we do for our soldiers but to turn the country they love and fight for into everything they were supposed to be fighting against?
It's stupid to die for money You're right, we prefer to die, or at least, send our sons and daughters to die, for oil. But, as you've said, we've outsourced our responsibilities to the government, so who are we to complain when they make decisions that are geared for their own gain? We're the ones that decided we didn't want the responsibility.
Besides, the living sheep can get the money back in court, while the dead hero can't. And wool is warm at winter. Because I'm sure that most muggers and their ilk get caught immediately by the police... that they pay back the money when they are caught... and that they all don't care about leaving a live witness... or that they'll ever, ever, do it again, let alone escalate to bigger more violent acts...
The police, nothing against them, I feel they are heroes simply for pledging their lives in the defense of others, can do nothing to protect you if they are not there, and they can not be everywhere at every moment. Nobody is ultimately responsible for your own safety but yourself. How you choose to exercise it is your own choice, whether to do something, or nothing, but the only future which you can influence is the future in which you take action.
I am not advocating that everyone fight and die whenever you get robbed, I am mourning the loss of spirit, and decrying the society and politics that makes out those of courage to be nothing but fools for standing up for what was right, when they used to be known as our heroes.
My answer to you, on everything, is that I would prefer fighting and dying in freedom, than survival by slavery, or any form of it. If you prefer to live at any cost, that is your choice. But do not make out those that chose to defend themselves and their property, even if it is for something that you think is inconsequential and meaningless, to be fools. They Are Heroes.
As a libertarian, I'd say that yes, it would be up to the employees to show the employers what they would and would not tolerate.
Why must we pass laws to state the obvious? I think that if you went around and asked employees of this country how they felt about employers requiring such things, you would find 9 out of 10 would abhor the idea.
If you do not like the concept, and your employer decides to implement it, then get as many people together as you can, and boycott. Don't come into work until they change their minds.
If you won't (do not say can't, this is a voluntary choice) then you either A) Care more about the comfort of the moment than the consequences, or are B) already as good as a slave, so why not make it even more abundantly clear?
"I can't, I have a family to support." - Yes, a family and children that will eventually grow up to inherit whatever legacy you leave behind. Maybe there are more important things than getting the latest console for your kid on their birthday.
But as Americans we have become sheep, to the point where it is barely legal to defend yourself, where we are encouraged to "just give up the money, it's not worth as much as your life". It's the mentality that lets a couple of fanatics hijack planes filled with dozens of people.
Having said this, I am sad to say that I would support the bill (I live in SoCal), because I no longer believe our people have the courage to stand firm and do what is right for themselves, if they but knew it. Because the cost of doing nothing, of letting those with the power, financial or otherwise, but without the morality do as they please, would be too high a cost.
It is true that parents and society will always point to the things that are different from their own childhoods as causes for violence, obesity, poor academics, and a host of other woes. It is also true that those parents will always fight to interfere with those activities, be it by denying it at the home level, or by writing to those congress men and women to whom they are constituents. This is their right, and even if in their masses they manage to get laws passed, we (usually) can depend on the supreme court to defend free speech and our rights. So KISS and Marilyn Manson keep rocking, shows like The Shield still get broadcast time, and violent video games are still legal to sell.
However, there is an insidious culture that is coming to be common practice in our society. It comes from having half of the world's population of lawyers in one country. We now live in a day and age where a woman can spill coffee on herself and successfully sue for millions of dollars. Just imagine if, instead of not playing any video games as seems to be the case, Cho played Counter-Strike. Think of the huge class-action lawsuit that would most likely follow. It's easy to contemplate, because it would be expected. Today we no longer await one trial on any large publicly known crime, but two: the criminal trial and the civil.
With people like Dr. Phil and Jack Thompson blaming video games, and getting as much media time as they do, how likely in the future will it be for video game makers to get a fair civil trial? That those two did so without even bothering to check facts, and the media's willingness to report such until proven otherwise, reflects a growing trend of belief that violent video games are strongly connected to young people that commit these types of armed massacres.
The pro-video game groups are making a large point out of this because they are fighting a losing battle to change the minds of Americans regarding these issues.
...my party, the Libertarians, which has enough problems with funding as is, needed to pay for something that the elected officials should have done in the first place.
Maybe give them an incentive to do it right, such as paying them a decent wage?
And how does this system deal with people who have taken alcohol or a narcotic before hand? I have yet to find a decent sized airport that didn't have a bar or 5 in it.
"Bartender, give me a double scotch on the rocks, I need to get through security."
Can we get the Florida judge whom declared spyware a type of trespass on the supreme court? Please?
I agree that, while there is room for abuse of such a technology (let's face it, technology is like a weapon; only as good as the people that use it), it's implications for user experience might be interesting. Such as, I'd love to be playing WoW with it supplying my own sound track that would adapt to what I was doing in game. Or a service that could search for new music that you might like on online radio stations.
While I appreciate creativity and originalism, I can still admit to myself that the music in certain genres tend to have things in common. For me, in techno music I am swayed towards sets that have a vocal theme, or at least have a good vocal section. I don't only listen to vocal trance, but it's a good bet that if it has vocals, I'll like it. Having something that could look for new music that I might otherwise not be introduced to by looking at patterns in my musical taste would be, in a word, awesome.