I think corrupt cops should have their heads publicly split open with an axe. Corrupt politicians too.
Granted, the bar to prove actual corruption, as opposed to honest error, should be high. But, it strikes me as the highest crime is undermining the criminal justice system from within, and the punishment for doing so needs to be severe to act as a sufficient deterrent. Not just death, but public, painful death.
Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for mod points!
I think 50 years from date of first publication is an adequate term for copyrights
I disagree. I want to be able to leverage my culture while it is still feasible for me to do so.
Consider a situation where a work becomes a cultural phenomenon in, say, 5 years. A 25 years old person, whose culture this work is a part of, will not be able to build upon it until he's 70. I consider it unreasonable for society. Restricting a work for two generations is not "adequate". Of course, it is better than the (effectively) five generations restrictions that we have today but it is still too much.
I want the following from a digital camera... 1. Small physical size (I wanna slip it in my pocket). 2. Good image quality 3. Good telephoto lens. 4. ???
Depending on the size of your pocket. If a camera that fits in a coat pocket is acceptable, go for the Panasonic DMC-FZ28 as it seems to offer the best compromise.
I'm still hoping that they will find a way to combine your 3 points with: 4. Good low-light performance.
Anything as low as 70% is grossly wrong, as should be obvious to anyone who is aware of the fact that ice is a kind of water. 71% is the correct rounded figure for the amount of the surface covered in liquid water, but the question as asked doesn't contain the word "liquid". (The Antarctic ice sheet alone covers about 2.7% of the earth's entire surface area.)
I would argue that in most (every?) Human languages, the local equivalent of word "water" is used to describe the liquid state of H2O.
you win a chess match, or ace an exam, or win the nobel prize, while under the influence of a concentration enhancing drug, or with some sort of technological mind alteration the question is: did YOU achieve something, or did your modification achieve something?
The answer is: I did it, with the help of my enhancement/modification.
Humans evolved as tool-using creatures. Did you kill that smilodon or did your spear? Did you catch that fish or did your fishing rod? Did you clean your driveway or did your snow-thrower? Did you land on the moon or was it the mind boggling amount of sophisticated technology, that could not be created without even more technology which could not be created without even more technology...?
Some people enhance their eyesight by using corrective lenses or surgery. An acquaintance of mine, who used to fly fighter jets, opted to enhance his eyesight to better than 20/20 (6/6 for the metric crowd). Engineers use calculators and computer programs to enhance their math abilities.
what happens is we develop a poverty of self-perception. you begin to think: without various crutches, i cannot achieve what i achieved. such that you have no confidence, and you have no real self-regard. you begin to think of yourself as just a piece of meat channeling some sort of technology or drug. that you yourself are not the key to your own performance
No. You may develop "a poverty of self-perception". You have a problem with confidence and self regard. You think of yourself as just a piece of meat channelling some sort of technology or drug. Do not project your issues on others.
And regarding your quaint metaphor, I for one would not mind not being constrained by the limitations of the "meat" I was born with.
some will say radical modifications are no different philosophically from simple sustenance in terms of contributing to performance. but hydrating before an exam is absolutely nothing like taking a cognition enhancer in terms of contributing something to your performance, really
That is your personal opinion, nothing more. To me, the difference is quantitative. That and the possibility of detrimental side effects.
if you yourself don't even think any of your accomplishments are due to your own innate abilities, then you eventually have no drive in life, you become empty and self-loathing.
Here you go projecting again.
My dictionary defines "innate" as "native, natural, inborn; inherent". I see no compelling reason to be constrained by what I was born with. I use a bicycle to travel faster and further than I could run, a car or a plane when said bicycle does not suffice. I also use a calculator, spreadsheet or modelling software to "think" better. The fact that these enhancements happen to reside outside my physical body and require somewhat crude interaction to operate, is incidental.
it has absolutel ynothing to do with judgmental busy bodies, but simply because of subtle philosophical alterations on the idea of "self" that can lead to terrible consequences for your own happiness
It has everything to do with judgemental busybodies such as yourself telling the rest of us what should or should not cause us happiness.
Most people accept that they should pay money for things they use/want.
You may want to rephrase that.
I have used a lot of Oxygen since I was conceived and quite a bit of sunshine since I was born. When I entertain friends or relatives, I don't expect them to pay me for the food and entertainment that I provide (but I gladly accept the occasional bottle of wine, if offered). Recently I took the kids skiing on Mont Tremblant. At the end of the day, we gave a ride to a snowboarder who got stuck on the wrong side of the mountain when the lifts stopped. When he offered to pay me, I just laughed and wished him a nice day.
So let us say that most people accept that they should fairly compensate the costs and labour that went into things that they use/want. And I will add my own observation that most people do not accept what they consider to be greedy demands form more than what one is due.
And this is why Canadians have less rights and freedoms than Americans do. They don't have any true protections under the law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very fragile document. There's an especially huge hole in the Notwithstanding Clause. The federal government or any province can override sections of the Charter as they fit. Sure there's a time limit of five years on it, however there's no limit as to how many times they can renew it. The Charter is flawed and doesn't even come close to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the US.
It may be the case that Canadian politicians are not eager to explicitly invoke a "screw the constitution" clause, possibly because they understand it to be a potentially career terminating move.
In fact, outside of Quebec (which is very different from the rest of Canada), the clause has been used only three times since it entered the charter in 1981, and never actually invoked.
The first was in Yukon's Land Planning and Development Act (1982), which was never proclaimed into law. The second was in Saskatchewan (1984-86), to protect back-to-work legislation that was later ruled not to violate the charter. The third was in Alberta (2000), amending that province's Marriage Act to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. That had no legal effect because the federal government has sole jurisdiction to decide who is eligible to marry in Canada.
I am not defending section 33, but before you dismiss the Canadian constitution out of hand because of it, I suggest you read a little about it.
Weather.com, the web presence of "The Weather Channel", has their own forecasters, and they're seldom as accurate as the NOAA. But at least they're not as bad as AccuWeather.com, which is one of the companies that sells forecasts to local TV stations.
weather.gov may not be a pretty site, but it rocks in terms of usability and accuracy of the data.
Firefox has a couple of extensions that pull data from AccuWeather: ForecastFox and its derivative ForecastBar Enhanced. There are also a couple that pull data from weather.com: ForecastFox l10n and 1-click weather. I am not not aware of any that pull data from "official" American/Canadian sites.
Charles Anthon, A Classical Dictionary: Containing An Account Of The Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, And Intended To Elucidate All The Important Points Connected With The Geography, History, Biography, Mythology, And Fine Arts Of The Greeks And Romans Together With An Account Of Coins, Weights, And Measures, With Tabular Values Of The Same, Harper & Bros, 1841, page 1273: In 500 BC, in the Greek city of Sybaris, "encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by patent for the space of a year."
I have no disagreement with one-year patents, even though the pace of innovation today is much faster (so, logically, patent protection should be shorter).
An even better idea would be to base exclusivity on the average (or median) ratio of research time to the time to recoup the investment in each industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for mod points!
In other words, mass transit (trains, trams, etc.)
I disagree.
I want to be able to leverage my culture while it is still feasible for me to do so.
Consider a situation where a work becomes a cultural phenomenon in, say, 5 years.
A 25 years old person, whose culture this work is a part of, will not be able to build upon it until he's 70.
I consider it unreasonable for society. Restricting a work for two generations is not "adequate".
Of course, it is better than the (effectively) five generations restrictions that we have today
but it is still too much.
Depending on the size of your pocket.
If a camera that fits in a coat pocket is acceptable, go for the Panasonic DMC-FZ28 as it seems to offer the best compromise.
I'm still hoping that they will find a way to combine your 3 points with:
4. Good low-light performance.
Cropping.
12MP with a 10x zoom is equivalent to 7MP with a 13x zoom
without the need for better, bulkier, heavier and pricier optics.
I would argue that in most (every?) Human languages, the local equivalent of word "water" is used to describe the liquid state of H2O.
Like this.
Farscape.
So when people like you leave law enforcement, who's left? The drunk-with-power and the corrupt?
Some experiments got close enough.
Of course not!
That would earn the movie an X rating.
The answer is: I did it, with the help of my enhancement/modification.
Humans evolved as tool-using creatures.
Did you kill that smilodon or did your spear?
Did you catch that fish or did your fishing rod?
Did you clean your driveway or did your snow-thrower?
Did you land on the moon or was it the mind boggling amount of sophisticated technology, that could not be created without even more technology which could not be created without even more technology...?
Some people enhance their eyesight by using corrective lenses or surgery. An acquaintance of mine, who used to fly fighter jets, opted to enhance his eyesight to better than 20/20 (6/6 for the metric crowd).
Engineers use calculators and computer programs to enhance their math abilities.
No.
You may develop "a poverty of self-perception". You have a problem with confidence and self regard. You think of yourself as just a piece of meat channelling some sort of technology or drug. Do not project your issues on others.
And regarding your quaint metaphor, I for one would not mind not being constrained by the limitations of the "meat" I was born with.
That is your personal opinion, nothing more.
To me, the difference is quantitative. That and the possibility of detrimental side effects.
Here you go projecting again.
My dictionary defines "innate" as "native, natural, inborn; inherent". I see no compelling reason to be constrained by what I was born with. I use a bicycle to travel faster and further than I could run, a car or a plane when said bicycle does not suffice. I also use a calculator, spreadsheet or modelling software to "think" better. The fact that these enhancements happen to reside outside my physical body and require somewhat crude interaction to operate, is incidental.
It has everything to do with judgemental busybodies such as yourself telling the rest of us what should or should not cause us happiness.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decimate
crucifixion?
Couldn't find Laura Roslin on that list.
Must be fake.
I'm with you so far...
You may want to rephrase that.
I have used a lot of Oxygen since I was conceived and quite a bit of sunshine since I was born.
When I entertain friends or relatives, I don't expect them to pay me for the food and entertainment that I provide (but I gladly accept the occasional bottle of wine, if offered).
Recently I took the kids skiing on Mont Tremblant. At the end of the day, we gave a ride to a snowboarder who got stuck on the wrong side of the mountain when the lifts stopped. When he offered to pay me, I just laughed and wished him a nice day.
So let us say that most people accept that they should fairly compensate the costs and labour that went into things that they use/want.
And I will add my own observation that most people do not accept what they consider to be greedy demands form more than what one is due.
> whats a pop-under?
Australian soda?
How does one become a member?
It may be the case that Canadian politicians are not eager to explicitly invoke a "screw the constitution" clause, possibly because they understand it to be a potentially career terminating move.
In fact, outside of Quebec (which is very different from the rest of Canada), the clause has been used only three times since it entered the charter in 1981, and never actually invoked.
The first was in Yukon's Land Planning and Development Act (1982), which was never proclaimed into law.
The second was in Saskatchewan (1984-86), to protect back-to-work legislation that was later ruled not to violate the charter.
The third was in Alberta (2000), amending that province's Marriage Act to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. That had no legal effect because the federal government has sole jurisdiction to decide who is eligible to marry in Canada.
I am not defending section 33, but before you dismiss the Canadian constitution out of hand because of it, I suggest you read a little about it.
True, but assuming a spherical Darwin in a vacuum gives a decent approximation.
Firefox has a couple of extensions that pull data from AccuWeather: ForecastFox and its derivative ForecastBar Enhanced.
There are also a couple that pull data from weather.com: ForecastFox l10n and 1-click weather.
I am not not aware of any that pull data from "official" American/Canadian sites.
An adult brain?
The kind of intelligence that has the potential to make complex machines, has survived to reach that potential on Earth exactly once.
I have no disagreement with one-year patents, even though the pace of innovation today is much faster (so, logically, patent protection should be shorter).
An even better idea would be to base exclusivity on the average (or median) ratio of research time to the time to recoup the investment in each industry.
> MS is going to lose this suit, and the countersuit could well cost them hundreds of millions.
Cost of doing business.