For example, the business I worked for could only sell a certain company's filters in our specific region. If we had tried to sell them outside of that region, we would have been cut-off and/or sued by our supplier. It was AGREED UPON in a contract.
Exactly. The only resourse you have when someone breaks one of these extended contracts is to break it. The actual "contract" is trading X dollars for Y products. Once that's complete, he buyer has no real interest in complying with arbitray decrees by the seller. Sony can stop doing business with them, sure. That shouldn't prevent a company from buying PS3s from other companies and selling them to whomever they want. And Sony somehow got to judge to say no one on the planet can sell a physical device made by them without say-so because of "intellectual property."
Yeah, because the majority is always right.::rolls eyes:: Oh damn, what the majority believes changes every week. Well, that's OK, the government should just keep passing / reversing a law as the opinion polls change.
At least we'll have no one to blame but ourselves in that case.
Er...how does a neutral nation fit into the category of "groups hostile to US interests"?
"If they're not with us, they're against us." Bush is not the only one who thinks any nation not supporting us is by default hostile.
That is, if the United States was at war (cold or hot) with country X, then there's no obvious reason not to express that hostility in space, if it is in US national interest.
Can you please point me to the approximate time when the US embargo on Russia during the cold war involved preventing trading vessels from moving about?
I thought we could cover the earth's area with only 3 precisely-based sattelites? Wouldn't it be amazingly easy just to launch something above your country and angle the "laser" next door? Keeping the sky above your own land clear would be a futile gesture.
That's why you have to pull all of your money out of banks when you get sick enough and liquidat everything else. Cash is hard to trace as long as your heirs do not have an affinity for blind. It mean, it only makes sense, right?
Yeah, but a bot attack disbling security updates would really screw with a corporate environment. IT's choices would probably be only to a) let the unpatched machines go until they could fix it, risking haxxoring of sensitive information or b) take down the network until they can sort things out.
Wouldn't either of these things be more of a hassle than simply rebuilding machines that got hosed by a virus? (I dunno, I'm not IT)
Slashdot Mirror
For example, the business I worked for could only sell a certain company's filters in our specific region. If we had tried to sell them outside of that region, we would have been cut-off and/or sued by our supplier. It was AGREED UPON in a contract.
Exactly. The only resourse you have when someone breaks one of these extended contracts is to break it. The actual "contract" is trading X dollars for Y products. Once that's complete, he buyer has no real interest in complying with arbitray decrees by the seller. Sony can stop doing business with them, sure. That shouldn't prevent a company from buying PS3s from other companies and selling them to whomever they want. And Sony somehow got to judge to say no one on the planet can sell a physical device made by them without say-so because of "intellectual property."
Because they get a gig maybe once a week?
VAs have about as much control over the lines they're given as you have over what's greenlit on Slashdot.
The right to sell your own property is inalienable.
It's not capitalism when YOU do it!
Seriously, is it now okay in the UK to ban customers from reselling any products?
Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power
Wrong? More like horrifying.
Non-elected position having no checks and balances? Gee, where have we heard this before?
Batteries in controllers? Do we have to crank the system before it'll turn on, too?
thanks, +2 insightful.
Never heard him say this. Got a quote or anything?
o n.terror/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.
How about the blockade of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis?
Ah, touche.
I thought it was a new movie coming out
Yeah, because the majority is always right. ::rolls eyes:: Oh damn, what the majority believes changes every week. Well, that's OK, the government should just keep passing / reversing a law as the opinion polls change.
At least we'll have no one to blame but ourselves in that case.
Er...how does a neutral nation fit into the category of "groups hostile to US interests"?
"If they're not with us, they're against us." Bush is not the only one who thinks any nation not supporting us is by default hostile.
That is, if the United States was at war (cold or hot) with country X, then there's no obvious reason not to express that hostility in space, if it is in US national interest.
Can you please point me to the approximate time when the US embargo on Russia during the cold war involved preventing trading vessels from moving about?
I thought we could cover the earth's area with only 3 precisely-based sattelites? Wouldn't it be amazingly easy just to launch something above your country and angle the "laser" next door? Keeping the sky above your own land clear would be a futile gesture.
The policy says that space access can be denied to groups "hostile to US interests."
The guy who wrote this policy believes in the idea that any group or country not with us is against us.
Therefore, it states that we can prevent neutral nations from spaceflight.
i dunno about over there, can you really commit slander against an object?
International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
So yeah, I have a way to solve this problem without a bunch of emo hearings and speeches:
1) Ask the citzenry what should be done.
2) Do it.
That's why you have to pull all of your money out of banks when you get sick enough and liquidat everything else. Cash is hard to trace as long as your heirs do not have an affinity for blind. It mean, it only makes sense, right?
Stop messing with my head!
//also, monkeys are not donkeys
"wga or gtfo?"
I'm sure they thought...
You are already incorrect.
Yeah, but a bot attack disbling security updates would really screw with a corporate environment. IT's choices would probably be only to a) let the unpatched machines go until they could fix it, risking haxxoring of sensitive information or b) take down the network until they can sort things out.
Wouldn't either of these things be more of a hassle than simply rebuilding machines that got hosed by a virus? (I dunno, I'm not IT)
The answer is within your very post.
"decide what is (or isn't) a malicious rumor". There's nothing more to it.
You know half of them will be Madden games or Lee Caravillo's Putting Challenge.
Sounds more like something you'd see in the roped-off section of a sleazy video store.