as an example that may be more relevant, if you catch your best friend cheating on you with your wife, pull out your gun in rage and shoot him, you're (probably) going to get less than you would if you decided to kill him in cold blood so his wife and you can collect his life insurance. Right? Yes, but the main difference there is premeditation, not motive.
Because our country and political system have become polarized to the point where you can't hold a pro-gun viewpoint without being considered a Conservative or a Republican. It goes the other way too. Utter nonsense. Many of the Democracts in congress are "pro-gun".
You can't be pro-choice without being considered a Liberal or Democrat. You do realize Giuliani is pro-choice, right?
If someone has internet access, which is necessary for this ridiculous scheme anyway, then they have the resources at their disposal to easily find all the information in the world about the candidates they will be voting for. If they choose not to do so, they don't care. You can't force information on them.
And no, you can never, ever, expect to get objective and complete political information from one source, especially a government one. You'll have the same "political spin", but one sided.
I can see it now:
"The incumbent supports everything good, has done a wonderful job, and here are links to a few speeches he read." "Running against him is a jerk, and here are links to a few embarrassing quotes"
Its not the walk that bothers most people, but rather the 3 hour line in some places due to underfunding of local elections. Then the problem is underfunding. Not the lack of an online voting system.
I know some states have laws that say employers must allow time off to vote, but most states don't Then they can vote in their free time.
If someone can't take an hour out of one day out of two years to vote, they don't care.
Honestly, I can't see the problem with not counting votes that people are too lazy/apathetic to cast in the first place. If they really don't care, then they don't need to make decisions for those that do.
Are we going to start enforcing free speech next? Requiring people to go to protests?
For every reason that people oppose electronic voting, this is much worse. The machines aren't even visible to the voter, there is no paper trail at all. It's a black box, but there isn't even a box visible to the voter. You have no idea if your vote was counted correctly.
Securing the system will be very hard, with tons of people trying to hack it, and being able to do so anonymously and from anywhere in the world.
People will have to get some kind of password to vote, and will have to register, and at least the former can't be done on the internet. This eliminates the purpose of online voting. I guess you could send everyone a password, though.
It will open new doors for corruption. There will be no secret ballot at all, and selling your vote will be incredibly easy. As will voter coercion.
And last, it has no great benefit. If someone is too lazy and/or apathetic to go to the polls to vote, they don't need to be voting.
To say that it lacks credibility because it's "just a theory" would be like saying that the Pythagorean theorem lacks credibility for the same reason. That is a poor analogyt. A theorem is entirely different from a theory. A theorem must be proven, and for that reason is generally mathematical rather than scientific.
The problem there is that while Firefox is generally better than IE, and is not much of a transition, OpenOffice is considered by many to not be as good as MSOffice, and is a big transition that most people aren't willing to make.
I know no one is really made to have a gun in Kennesaw. I was attempting to emphasize the lack of gun control, and I said nothing factually incorrect.
First of all, I was going by gun homicides, not all violent crimes, and was talking about per capita rates. I probably wasn't extremely accurate, though, as I used quickly grabbed numbers. 1 gun homicide in Kennesaw in the last 20 years, and 40,000 in New York. 30,000 people in Kennesaw, and 8 million in New York.
Second of all, I know the comparison is not reasonable. That was my point.
I never suggested Kennesaw's law lowered crime there. I doubt the law affected Kennesaw's crime rate or gun ownership much.
If New York City and Kennesaw, Georgia had the same population, New York would have hundreds of times the number of shooting homicides
Guns are tightly controlled in New York. In Kennesaw, every household is legally obligated to keep a gun. So explain to me again how gun control saves peoples' lives?
Or maybe, just maybe, you can't compare two very different places and assume that gun control is the difference!
I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but as someone once said, "your argument is trash".
Movies will still survive through private patronage or government subsidies. That's true in that there will still be movies. But movies as we know them will be gone. The kind of private patronage you are talking about would generally produce highbrow garbage. Government subsidized movies the same, but censored to make sure it can't offend anyone, and maybe a little dumbed down.
Think PBS, NPR, etc. Mostly nonsense to make listeners feel smart, or just plain nonsense. The best they can do is that show about people going to auctions with stuff they found around their house. And the fund drives are much more irritating than commercials, which are occasionally entertaining.
Oh sure, a few good movies would be made, but rarely.
Beyond that, do you really want to have to pay to produce every movie? Rather than pay only for those you want? Because that is apparently your aim here.
I doubt the reason for the bans is a real threat of interference is because if there were one, they would control them much more strictly (i.e. ban them from carry on luggage completely).
I think what this article proposes has some truth. A lot of people are bothered when sitting next to someone talking on a cell phone. And the airlines probably also enjoy being able to rip off customers with the in flight planes.
Most of all, and another reason put forth in this article, is that even though no one is really worried, if they remove the ban and something happens, they're in trouble. And it doesn't bother anyone enough to get past that.
Why should we have one copyright expiration limit for everything? Patents aren't like that.
Personally, I think books should be copyrighted longer than songs should be copyrighted longer (or the same as) movies should be copyrighted longer than software.
As for this comment:
if you can't extract enough value out of an original creative work in 15 years to make it worth your while, the work's probably not that good in the first place That assumption is completely untrue. In fact, it's utter nonsense.
You'd be right in some circumstances (software) if you said "if you can't make it worth your while in 15 years, you won't ever", but you would still be wrong in many.
Slashdot Mirror
But they are not as convenient, which is the point of downloading music.
Maybe you value packaging more than instant purchase and shipping, but others do not.
First of all, you're making your entire little tirade up.
Second of all, they have to release the composition of the drug to patent it.
So you're saying his point is invalid because other people who support it in the case he was referring to don't always support it.
Let me try that:
Exercise is unhealthy because often people who support exercise support unhealthy things.
If someone has internet access, which is necessary for this ridiculous scheme anyway, then they have the resources at their disposal to easily find all the information in the world about the candidates they will be voting for. If they choose not to do so, they don't care. You can't force information on them.
And no, you can never, ever, expect to get objective and complete political information from one source, especially a government one. You'll have the same "political spin", but one sided.
I can see it now:
"The incumbent supports everything good, has done a wonderful job, and here are links to a few speeches he read."
"Running against him is a jerk, and here are links to a few embarrassing quotes"
If someone can't take an hour out of one day out of two years to vote, they don't care.
Honestly, I can't see the problem with not counting votes that people are too lazy/apathetic to cast in the first place. If they really don't care, then they don't need to make decisions for those that do.
Are we going to start enforcing free speech next? Requiring people to go to protests?
This is a bad idea, for many reasons.
For every reason that people oppose electronic voting, this is much worse. The machines aren't even visible to the voter, there is no paper trail at all. It's a black box, but there isn't even a box visible to the voter. You have no idea if your vote was counted correctly.
Securing the system will be very hard, with tons of people trying to hack it, and being able to do so anonymously and from anywhere in the world.
People will have to get some kind of password to vote, and will have to register, and at least the former can't be done on the internet. This eliminates the purpose of online voting. I guess you could send everyone a password, though.
It will open new doors for corruption. There will be no secret ballot at all, and selling your vote will be incredibly easy. As will voter coercion.
And last, it has no great benefit. If someone is too lazy and/or apathetic to go to the polls to vote, they don't need to be voting.
A democratically elected government can still be totalitarian. democracy != freedom.
You don't need extra hardware. This site allows you to see exactly what your website looks like on Safari.
You were right about the rest, though.
The problem there is that while Firefox is generally better than IE, and is not much of a transition, OpenOffice is considered by many to not be as good as MSOffice, and is a big transition that most people aren't willing to make.
What kind of uninformed idiot are you? Haven't you heard of the horrid mistreatment of peanut plants going on? Why aren't you getting involved?
You need to go to your local PETP meeting to learn of the injustice, and stop living in ignorance.
I know no one is really made to have a gun in Kennesaw. I was attempting to emphasize the lack of gun control, and I said nothing factually incorrect.
First of all, I was going by gun homicides, not all violent crimes, and was talking about per capita rates. I probably wasn't extremely accurate, though, as I used quickly grabbed numbers. 1 gun homicide in Kennesaw in the last 20 years, and 40,000 in New York. 30,000 people in Kennesaw, and 8 million in New York.
Second of all, I know the comparison is not reasonable. That was my point.
I never suggested Kennesaw's law lowered crime there. I doubt the law affected Kennesaw's crime rate or gun ownership much.
If New York City and Kennesaw, Georgia had the same population, New York would have hundreds of times the number of shooting homicides
Guns are tightly controlled in New York. In Kennesaw, every household is legally obligated to keep a gun. So explain to me again how gun control saves peoples' lives?
Or maybe, just maybe, you can't compare two very different places and assume that gun control is the difference!
I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but as someone once said, "your argument is trash".
Corrected:
After all, it takes a falsely convicted monopolist to falsely spot another one in the making.
Think PBS, NPR, etc. Mostly nonsense to make listeners feel smart, or just plain nonsense. The best they can do is that show about people going to auctions with stuff they found around their house. And the fund drives are much more irritating than commercials, which are occasionally entertaining.
Oh sure, a few good movies would be made, but rarely.
Beyond that, do you really want to have to pay to produce every movie? Rather than pay only for those you want? Because that is apparently your aim here.
I doubt the reason for the bans is a real threat of interference is because if there were one, they would control them much more strictly (i.e. ban them from carry on luggage completely).
I think what this article proposes has some truth. A lot of people are bothered when sitting next to someone talking on a cell phone. And the airlines probably also enjoy being able to rip off customers with the in flight planes.
Most of all, and another reason put forth in this article, is that even though no one is really worried, if they remove the ban and something happens, they're in trouble. And it doesn't bother anyone enough to get past that.
Apple has its own system, in addition to AIM. But iChat does support Jabber.
i dont undrstnd hw ppl tlkn on aol culd b mistkn 4 ppl speakin a pidgin lang. roflmaool!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111oneoneone!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I think books should be copyrighted longer than songs should be copyrighted longer (or the same as) movies should be copyrighted longer than software.
As for this comment: if you can't extract enough value out of an original creative work in 15 years to make it worth your while, the work's probably not that good in the first place That assumption is completely untrue. In fact, it's utter nonsense.
You'd be right in some circumstances (software) if you said "if you can't make it worth your while in 15 years, you won't ever", but you would still be wrong in many.
Yes. Plenty of things.
Vandalism and assault are not legal protesting.