Unhealthy fast food is a choice, not something anyone can "only afford". A couple cans of no-name beans & pork and rice totals about a buck to feed 3-4 people, just as an example. Plenty of options exist for eating on the cheap without resorting to fatburgers and megacalorie softdrinks.
I'm definitely not saying your example person has a great living, or that "poor" doesn't apply.
The state shouldn't be paying the bill for repealing unconstitutional legislation, the dumbfucks that pass blatantly unconstitutional bills should. Elected officials swore oaths to uphold the law, they violated their oath, they ought to be held accountable.
But even though warrantless searches may be inviolation of section 8 of the Charter, fruits of such search may in some cases still be admissable. Under section 24, subsection 2 of the Charter: "the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute".
The Charter has many such clauses, enough so that as a legal document it's barely worth using as asswipe.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will install radio frequency technology at five border posts with Canada and Mexico to track foreigners driving in and out of North America.
Where are these border crossings that have people driving into the United States from Canada or Mexico leaving or entering North America? I would have hoped that the department charged with defending the nation would aware of geography at least enough to realize that its only two neighbors connected by land are on the same continent.
TV is not a monopoly. TV programming is plentiful (entertaining is another matter altogether). TV networks are plentiful.
However, a series/mini-series/made-for-tv-movie may provide a network with exclusive rights to air their program. That particular programs distribution may be considered monopolistic, but looking at it broadly there are countless substitutes so the monopoly argument falls apart.
Even if it didn't, though, you've boiled down the issue to you wanting it without consideration for the content copyright holders' rights. There may well be a case to be made for indefinite copyright being immoral, but that isn't the case you're presenting. You're saying that you want control of the copyright holders' distribution rights. That isn't how things work under current law, so the content producers and distributors are, correctly, pursuing civil remedy.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe that I'm entitled to dictate the terms of distribution to the folks that produce content beyond the influence of choosing to consume or not consume under their terms. There are plenty of series I'd like to see, some of which will likely never be aired again nor will they be released on DVD, even at outrageously high prices. C'est la vie.
All total I probably netted a grand total of $10,000 worth of equipment, mostly computer parts, stero equipment, and such.
So we're supposed to believe you're reformed, even though you kept the stolen goods you weren't coerced into returning? You didn't redeem yourself, you are not a hero. You're a common criminal.
It doesn't take a hacker to do so, it takes someone with the same skills and thought processes as a hacker. There's a distinction between those two.
In the one case, there is a worthless piece of shit who, whether they currently continue to do so or not, engaged in immoral conduct. In the other case, there is someone who may have figured out how to be a worthless piece of shit but chose not to. The second guy is the one I'd want protecting my interests. Why? They have integrity. The second guy is more trustworthy than the first, so C) someone who has the skills to protect me, and the integrity not to put those skills to nefarious use.
Part of borrowing is risk too. It is not the job of government to give borrowers free money.
Eliminating chapter 7 bankruptcy (elimination of all debt obligations) in favor of chapter 13 (paying back by at a judicially specified schedule) is just. Lenders being forced to entirely absorb chapter 7 debtors only serves to raise the rate of interest when you lend, and lower the rate of interest on investments.
I hope you're not trying to say that people actually being held responsible for their debts is some evil plot by "big business".
If you're not, what the hell happened to being held accountable? They agree to lend you money, you agree to pay it back. The legislation seems to be aimed toward making being completely absolved of responsibility for incurred debt more difficult.
The market isn't entirely an abstraction. The market could be considered to be the sum of all consumers of goods and services, including producers purchasing their factors of production. Each of these actors places some value on clean air (though you can substitute anything) in their preferences. When purchasing other goods and services, part of the production of those goods and services may be heavy pollution, or child labour, or clubbing baby seals.
If consumers valued clean air (not necessarily monetarily), they would choose alternatives to goods with heavy-pollution as a factor of production. And some consumers do factor in pollution from production into their purchasing decisions. Some people will pay a premium for environmentally friendly goods, or refuse to purchase goods produced by child labour, or cosmetics tested on animals. The sum of these conscientious actors, however, is not significantly large enough to counter the more immediate cost (not necessarily monetary) benefits of cheaper goods and services produced with questionable long term consequences.
Ultimately "the market", free or regulated, does not deter pollution. Either way as long as there exists self-interest, an entirely free market does not very well address issues of public resources. And so there is a purpose for government regulation.
As an aside, where do you draw the line on these big-bad-polluters? At what point does clean air/water/soil as a factor of production, or consumption of clean air/water/soil put someone in the "fraud and extortion" game? Is it when you exhale some CO2? Turn on your computer? Light a cigarette? Start your car?
As another aside, this got a little side-tracked from the original story on the broadcast flag.;)
A monopoly most certainly can exist in a free market. A free market refers to the degree of regulation imposed from outside the market, on the market. Whether or not you think that free market actors should not be permitted to unduly restrict access to a market, that is not what a free market system is.
The antitrust legislation which is supposed to re move Microsofts ability to restrict access to the market from some good or service is what removes freedom from the market, not Microsoft leveraging products against each other to strengthen their market position. A free market provides the right for anyone to produce widgetX for windows, it does not provide that everyone have equal access to windows in order to do so.
The market on its own would disagree with you. People don't value clean air, water, soil, etc. enough for their purchasing decisions to force polluters out of business, or to even change their production methods. This is where government has had to step in and apply environmental enforcement provisions. This is not a free market at work, it's regulated. There are other such goods which the government steps in on to fill the lack of a free market providing, such as building and maintaining roads and highways, provision of police services, provision of an army to protect form foreign agents, to name a few.
Not to nit-pick, but removing environmental enforcement provisions and letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements are both actions that make the market more free. Consumer protection and corporate protection are both regulated influence on the markets, something with a free market is supposed to avoid.
MS condom would be made of lace, and be coated in sand and an astringent on both sides. They'd bundle lubricant, to put other lube manufacturers out of business. And after years of unwanted pregnancies, they'd sell an add-on Microsoft Spermicide & IUD to actually stop pregnancies.
It gets a lot colder than -20C here. Below -40C a few times every year.
Having a wide range of operating temperatures is no excuse for software problems arising from shitty programming. It isn't like the temperature range for places cars are sold is information unavailable to manufacturers.
2)You are not going to miss bits and pieces of a video because of your router. Your router can route packets way faster then can be recieved over the incoming transmission line. Additionally, most people with broadband simply do NOT usually max out the speeds. Usually, especially when downstreaming large media, there is some sort of bottleneck on the other end of the line. Your aren't likely going to miss any of the broadcast due to someone on your wireless connection. Maybe if they were running Kazaa or something, but at that point I'd agree that they were an asshole, but certainly still not a criminal.
And while wardriving you know who is going to notice changes in usable network bandwidth? How do you know that particular person isn't copying large amounts of data from a laptop to a pc on their network, which can easily saturate a connection. Point being, you may be affecting their resources in a perceptible way.
I'm (...), and have no qualms taking advantage of an idiot.
That right there says it all. You want something from someone who may not know how to protect himself from assholes. And it's their fault for it, apparently.
And your logic is any better? It's based entirely on "I want to use something that isn't mine, and it's their fault I can." That's what it boils down to.
You aren't asking the owner. No amount of claiming you are will make it different. You're asking an inanimate object for consent to use something that isn't yours. If you have a remote control that unlocks the doors to your car, and it happens to unlock someone else's car are you saying you're free to go sit in their car for a while, and justified in doing so? They didn't secure their car door, afterall.
Let me say it again, you are not asking the owner for consent to use their wireless access point, their network, the electricity required to power each. You aren't compensating them for any of these things.
If someone has a garden hose run out to the sidewalk with a triggered nozzle and the water is turned on at the house, are you claiming it's alright for you to pick it up and wash your car?
You: "Hi, hose, may I use you?" Hose: *gurgle* *sputter* *gurgle* You: "Thanks!"
You seem mistakenly under the impression that all drunk drivers are all over the road every time they drive drunk. That isn't the case. Maybe if you're driving around with a blood alcohol content of 0.2 or 0.3 the driving is that erratic, but this is compared against 0.08 (as little as one alcoholic beverage in the last hour).
It isn't that someone is swerving all over the road at 0.08, it's that their judgement and reaction times are impaired. Not quite optimal. Much like judgement and reaction times are not quite optimal for most people when engaging in conversations on a cell phone while driving. Or futzing around with their cd player/cassette deck/stereo. Or looking up directions on OnStar. Or getting a blowjob from a toothless hooker.
Slashdot Mirror
Unhealthy fast food is a choice, not something anyone can "only afford". A couple cans of no-name beans & pork and rice totals about a buck to feed 3-4 people, just as an example. Plenty of options exist for eating on the cheap without resorting to fatburgers and megacalorie softdrinks.
I'm definitely not saying your example person has a great living, or that "poor" doesn't apply.
The state shouldn't be paying the bill for repealing unconstitutional legislation, the dumbfucks that pass blatantly unconstitutional bills should. Elected officials swore oaths to uphold the law, they violated their oath, they ought to be held accountable.
[BLOCKQUOTE]CBS, a reputable news source[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I'm not sure why, but that made me laugh. It is better than a lot of them, but Dan Rather's career ending clusterfuck wasn't really -that- long ago.
Seems to be a compression speed section on page 12 - Aggregated Results. Ranging from gzip really fast, to winrk really slow.
But even though warrantless searches may be inviolation of section 8 of the Charter, fruits of such search may in some cases still be admissable. Under section 24, subsection 2 of the Charter: "the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute".
The Charter has many such clauses, enough so that as a legal document it's barely worth using as asswipe.
Don't forget Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay.
By virtue of having not been invented for another 28 years, I suppose you're right that DNS has been stable since 1955!
Where are these border crossings that have people driving into the United States from Canada or Mexico leaving or entering North America? I would have hoped that the department charged with defending the nation would aware of geography at least enough to realize that its only two neighbors connected by land are on the same continent.
TV is not a monopoly. TV programming is plentiful (entertaining is another matter altogether). TV networks are plentiful.
However, a series/mini-series/made-for-tv-movie may provide a network with exclusive rights to air their program. That particular programs distribution may be considered monopolistic, but looking at it broadly there are countless substitutes so the monopoly argument falls apart.
Even if it didn't, though, you've boiled down the issue to you wanting it without consideration for the content copyright holders' rights. There may well be a case to be made for indefinite copyright being immoral, but that isn't the case you're presenting. You're saying that you want control of the copyright holders' distribution rights. That isn't how things work under current law, so the content producers and distributors are, correctly, pursuing civil remedy.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe that I'm entitled to dictate the terms of distribution to the folks that produce content beyond the influence of choosing to consume or not consume under their terms. There are plenty of series I'd like to see, some of which will likely never be aired again nor will they be released on DVD, even at outrageously high prices. C'est la vie.
So we're supposed to believe you're reformed, even though you kept the stolen goods you weren't coerced into returning? You didn't redeem yourself, you are not a hero. You're a common criminal.
It doesn't take a hacker to do so, it takes someone with the same skills and thought processes as a hacker. There's a distinction between those two.
In the one case, there is a worthless piece of shit who, whether they currently continue to do so or not, engaged in immoral conduct. In the other case, there is someone who may have figured out how to be a worthless piece of shit but chose not to. The second guy is the one I'd want protecting my interests. Why? They have integrity. The second guy is more trustworthy than the first, so C) someone who has the skills to protect me, and the integrity not to put those skills to nefarious use.
Go to the post office with two envelopes. Send one to the US, and one to Canada. Yes, you will pay extra postage for cross-carrier service.
Part of borrowing is risk too. It is not the job of government to give borrowers free money.
Eliminating chapter 7 bankruptcy (elimination of all debt obligations) in favor of chapter 13 (paying back by at a judicially specified schedule) is just. Lenders being forced to entirely absorb chapter 7 debtors only serves to raise the rate of interest when you lend, and lower the rate of interest on investments.
I hope you're not trying to say that people actually being held responsible for their debts is some evil plot by "big business".
If you're not, what the hell happened to being held accountable? They agree to lend you money, you agree to pay it back. The legislation seems to be aimed toward making being completely absolved of responsibility for incurred debt more difficult.
The market isn't entirely an abstraction. The market could be considered to be the sum of all consumers of goods and services, including producers purchasing their factors of production. Each of these actors places some value on clean air (though you can substitute anything) in their preferences. When purchasing other goods and services, part of the production of those goods and services may be heavy pollution, or child labour, or clubbing baby seals.
;)
If consumers valued clean air (not necessarily monetarily), they would choose alternatives to goods with heavy-pollution as a factor of production. And some consumers do factor in pollution from production into their purchasing decisions. Some people will pay a premium for environmentally friendly goods, or refuse to purchase goods produced by child labour, or cosmetics tested on animals. The sum of these conscientious actors, however, is not significantly large enough to counter the more immediate cost (not necessarily monetary) benefits of cheaper goods and services produced with questionable long term consequences.
Ultimately "the market", free or regulated, does not deter pollution. Either way as long as there exists self-interest, an entirely free market does not very well address issues of public resources. And so there is a purpose for government regulation.
As an aside, where do you draw the line on these big-bad-polluters? At what point does clean air/water/soil as a factor of production, or consumption of clean air/water/soil put someone in the "fraud and extortion" game? Is it when you exhale some CO2? Turn on your computer? Light a cigarette? Start your car?
As another aside, this got a little side-tracked from the original story on the broadcast flag.
A monopoly most certainly can exist in a free market. A free market refers to the degree of regulation imposed from outside the market, on the market. Whether or not you think that free market actors should not be permitted to unduly restrict access to a market, that is not what a free market system is.
The antitrust legislation which is supposed to re move Microsofts ability to restrict access to the market from some good or service is what removes freedom from the market, not Microsoft leveraging products against each other to strengthen their market position. A free market provides the right for anyone to produce widgetX for windows, it does not provide that everyone have equal access to windows in order to do so.
The market on its own would disagree with you. People don't value clean air, water, soil, etc. enough for their purchasing decisions to force polluters out of business, or to even change their production methods. This is where government has had to step in and apply environmental enforcement provisions. This is not a free market at work, it's regulated. There are other such goods which the government steps in on to fill the lack of a free market providing, such as building and maintaining roads and highways, provision of police services, provision of an army to protect form foreign agents, to name a few.
Not to nit-pick, but removing environmental enforcement provisions and letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements are both actions that make the market more free. Consumer protection and corporate protection are both regulated influence on the markets, something with a free market is supposed to avoid.
Is this really any more insightful than it was here:c id=11667699/ ?
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139384&
MS condom would be made of lace, and be coated in sand and an astringent on both sides. They'd bundle lubricant, to put other lube manufacturers out of business. And after years of unwanted pregnancies, they'd sell an add-on Microsoft Spermicide & IUD to actually stop pregnancies.
It gets a lot colder than -20C here. Below -40C a few times every year.
Having a wide range of operating temperatures is no excuse for software problems arising from shitty programming. It isn't like the temperature range for places cars are sold is information unavailable to manufacturers.
And while wardriving you know who is going to notice changes in usable network bandwidth? How do you know that particular person isn't copying large amounts of data from a laptop to a pc on their network, which can easily saturate a connection. Point being, you may be affecting their resources in a perceptible way.
That right there says it all. You want something from someone who may not know how to protect himself from assholes. And it's their fault for it, apparently.
And your logic is any better? It's based entirely on "I want to use something that isn't mine, and it's their fault I can." That's what it boils down to.
You aren't asking the owner. No amount of claiming you are will make it different. You're asking an inanimate object for consent to use something that isn't yours. If you have a remote control that unlocks the doors to your car, and it happens to unlock someone else's car are you saying you're free to go sit in their car for a while, and justified in doing so? They didn't secure their car door, afterall.
Let me say it again, you are not asking the owner for consent to use their wireless access point, their network, the electricity required to power each. You aren't compensating them for any of these things.
If someone has a garden hose run out to the sidewalk with a triggered nozzle and the water is turned on at the house, are you claiming it's alright for you to pick it up and wash your car?
You: "Hi, hose, may I use you?"
Hose: *gurgle* *sputter* *gurgle*
You: "Thanks!"
They didn't bolt it to the ground, afterall.
search.msn.com: about the same amount of cruft as google.
So it's not the cruft on the page, it's having to type "search." that makes google better?
You seem mistakenly under the impression that all drunk drivers are all over the road every time they drive drunk. That isn't the case. Maybe if you're driving around with a blood alcohol content of 0.2 or 0.3 the driving is that erratic, but this is compared against 0.08 (as little as one alcoholic beverage in the last hour).
It isn't that someone is swerving all over the road at 0.08, it's that their judgement and reaction times are impaired. Not quite optimal. Much like judgement and reaction times are not quite optimal for most people when engaging in conversations on a cell phone while driving. Or futzing around with their cd player/cassette deck/stereo. Or looking up directions on OnStar. Or getting a blowjob from a toothless hooker.