WRTFA (Without Reading the Fucking Article), I'd say nothing at all. There are international conventions concerning IP and its protection, which seems to indicate that this, indeed, has nothing to do with the RIAA. In this matter the US is engaging in unfair trade practices - in effect protecting American casinos from competition from oversees online gaming. It would be different if all gambling was illegal - but it's not.
this monkey has been driven by instinct like all animals till now, therefore it's likely to keep evolving and being driven by instinct.
Is that really mutually exclusive to
we developed a language and started being driven by rationality.
I'm not sure that mere language and something that appears to be "rationality" necessitates being driven by something other than instinct. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Isn't language just another way to get laid? Isn't rationality just a better way to feed yourself and spread your DNA? Don't other [Earth] organisms have pretty much the same goals?
Colombia said, ok we'll implement these laws for this aid... and then did the absolute minimum... That pretty much is a function of how close the Uribe gov't is with the AUC. With the two large cartels now detroyed, the drug trade is run by smaller cartels - with the FARC and the AUC taxing the coke trade, if they're not outright invovled themselves. Of course, Uribe has been accused of having paramilitary links. There also is the "amnesty" for dearming that has been offered to the AUC, with many of them giving up their weapons -- though it is too soon to tell if they will actually stay de-armed.
Afghanistan said no opium is too profitable and went back to growing it... The "national" governemnt barely controls the capital, so perhaps you should have said "Farmers in Afghanistan said no opium is too profitable and went back to growing it."
Nice how the "global narcotics prohibition regime" benefits criminal organizations and rebel groups. And of course the few government agencies around the would who get a budget to "fight the war on drugs." Lame.
I don't know, think of our we (the US) export our drug laws. Plan Colombia anyone? I imaine that many poor countries, and many not so poor, will enforce types of laws they ordinarily wouldn't when confronted with $billions of "aid."
We ought to just leave it alone. It's probably a group of people, former Free Masons and members of the Hermatic Order of the Golden Dawn no doubt, who arrange these rocks as symbols that then influence, I don't know, the stock market or elections. And, you don't see their footprints because they drag them and then walk away in snow shoes:)
I know this sounds unreasonable and a bit quacky. But really, when we've exhausted science and reason, might not we then look to the supernatural. I mean, come one, it's called "Death Valley." Queue the spooky music. I'm getting a sympathetic response from my power crystal just now. Oh GOD! There coming through the door...
A lot of people also say that Tibet was also an example of this, of course the PRC doesn't though.
The Sino-Indian War is an arguable example as well.
Now, I guess you could say that China wasn't going beyound her borders to "plant population-slumping drugs, take islands, and ensnare governments in heinous multi-hundred-year land leases." But they've certainly gone beyound their borders to acquire other things that they perceive to be in their interests. And, here is a history/politics lesson for you, they have sought their interests just like every other nation-state in the world is prone to do. That is the nature of a nation-state - to look after its own interests. Do a little research and you'll find that Chinese goals are to become a regional hegemony in order to balance US world hegemony (if you don't believe me say so and I'll dig out an old paper and find some citations to Chinese national policy plans which state this publically). They don't like US hegemony because it limits their regional aims. They likewise don't want world hegemony themselves because they see what it is doing to the US (look up imperial overstretch).
"But computers follow the laws of physics. Even if I don't know all the intricacies, I understand that it has something to do with binary numbers, silicon, etc. Its hard to have a working understaning of life without most of this knowledge."
I think that by just waiting a fews years, the above will probably be the case (it already is for the first sentence!) It's probably better to wait a few years for something to "naturally" fix itself, than to muck with something that kinda works. Certainly this would be better than starting a precedent where we create new courts just for some new tech, or whatever, that comes along. It's bad enough having maritime, federal, state, county, municipal, 'drug courts,' etc (not to mention civil and criminal). And in so far as the military tribunals, there is an arguable point that they have been used in circumstances which exceed their conceptualization. Whether that is the case or not, certainly we could imagine instances where that does happen - just like it could happen with "IT Courts."
Also, some of these problems need to be handled by the legislature, I wouldn't doubt. Especially when it comes to the admissiability of "evidence." For example, I think we could come up with a framwork that would exclude hypothetical data on the type of RAM in my PC from being used to show any intent of "data retention.
Yeah, and then maybe we can let miltary tribunals handle cases which they have superior info on. And plumbers courts for stuff about plumbing. And hey, most judges don't understand the intricacies of animal grooming, so really there should be animal grooming courts. Also, who really knows children better than children? That's why we need child judges to adjudicate on matters involving children.
However, you do realize that this may complicate things even more than they are already.
All economic and political models benefit different people in different ways and no math will tell you the "right" way unless you first prove that person X deserves more than person Y
Huh? Models are used to predict future actions and behavior, at least in so well as human behavior can be modeled. I think you meant "system," not "model." For example, neoliberal economic policies are a type of 'system.' Modernization or dependency theory, however, are models used to make predictions. Though I'll give you that sometimes they become confluent, but the system is what manfests in reality and the model is used to try to, well, model that system so as predictions can be made that might, just might, help policy formation (whatever your idealogy).
So, systems may have parts which are most difinitely subjective. Models, though, are kinda like throwing yarrow sticks in I Ching - they're around to predict behavior. But, even though I want to make a career of poli/sci, I've gotta say that modeling human behavior is sometimes as futile of a predictor as is the I Ching. You know what I'm talking about, we've all read Asimov's Foundation on here... right?
Also, assuming you disagree with my above diatribe, we does it matter that this is subjective. We're dealing with humans here. And when dealing with humans there are a host of value judgements which must be made. That's just the way it is. In criminal and civil law, in deciding what OS you like best, what politician you want running your little burg, etc. These crys of "everything is subjective and therefore of little value" strike me as fatalistic and overly relativistic - at some point you must make a decision, knowing full well that not everyone will agree with you (b/c that's impossible) and that you might be wrong. Really though, I am surprised that we're still around to argue about it though:) How's the saying go, "World War Three will be fought with nuclear weapons, while World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
If your talking about Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," I believe any federal service counted towards becoming a "citizen." It just took the guys in the mobile infantry (like the protaganist) less service time than someone who opted for a non-military service. Do you remember what the protaganist's father told him though, something like "Why do you need to be a citizen and get a vote that doesn't count, you're going to Harvard just like I did so you can run the familiy business?" Also remember, when his father eventually joined the MI, he did so more out of revenge ('cause the bugs blew up his home city and wife) than out of civic responsibility.
I thought I was making a joke. Who cares what kind of toy some snot-nosed kid gets. Now don't get me wrong, when I was a snot-nosed kid, I would have been pissed. Almost as pissed as when a friend broke my Metroplex transformer's leg off.
On another note, since I'm making appeals to emotion, you eat babies and so, obviously, can't be trusted. I prefer the ad hominem attack.
Of course amendments are part of the Constitution. But tjstork was, I think, talking about
"social security, medicare, the voting and civil rights acts."
They're not amendments.
IANAL, buy I wonder if he even has standing to bring this suit, since he sent his son to buy it. Its my understanding that these ratings are for parents to determine if the game if suitable for their children. And since his son bought it with his permission, exactly what claim would the dumbass have? Or does the parental permission have to be given in front of a sales clerk?
On a side note, does anyone else think that if this was twenty years ago, Thompson would probably be on the talk circuit expounding on the horrors of statanism and D&D? What a fucking loser.
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy L.E. Modesitt, but you've got to admit that his books are rather formulaic. Do we really want the last WoT to end with some long essay about ethics?
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking. I just use some c-clamps to keep the calipers open and change the pads that way. Maybe he doesn't have c-clamps...
WRTFA (Without Reading the Fucking Article), I'd say nothing at all. There are international conventions concerning IP and its protection, which seems to indicate that this, indeed, has nothing to do with the RIAA. In this matter the US is engaging in unfair trade practices - in effect protecting American casinos from competition from oversees online gaming. It would be different if all gambling was illegal - but it's not.
Also, rocketry gives you SAM infantry for those pesky gunships.
Is that really mutually exclusive to
we developed a language and started being driven by rationality.I'm not sure that mere language and something that appears to be "rationality" necessitates being driven by something other than instinct. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Isn't language just another way to get laid? Isn't rationality just a better way to feed yourself and spread your DNA? Don't other [Earth] organisms have pretty much the same goals?
Nice how the "global narcotics prohibition regime" benefits criminal organizations and rebel groups. And of course the few government agencies around the would who get a budget to "fight the war on drugs." Lame.
I don't know, think of our we (the US) export our drug laws. Plan Colombia anyone? I imaine that many poor countries, and many not so poor, will enforce types of laws they ordinarily wouldn't when confronted with $billions of "aid."
I know this sounds unreasonable and a bit quacky. But really, when we've exhausted science and reason, might not we then look to the supernatural. I mean, come one, it's called "Death Valley." Queue the spooky music. I'm getting a sympathetic response from my power crystal just now. Oh GOD! There coming through the door...
See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm for one example of Chinese projection of power outside of her border.
A lot of people also say that Tibet was also an example of this, of course the PRC doesn't though.
The Sino-Indian War is an arguable example as well.
Now, I guess you could say that China wasn't going beyound her borders to "plant population-slumping drugs, take islands, and ensnare governments in heinous multi-hundred-year land leases." But they've certainly gone beyound their borders to acquire other things that they perceive to be in their interests. And, here is a history/politics lesson for you, they have sought their interests just like every other nation-state in the world is prone to do. That is the nature of a nation-state - to look after its own interests. Do a little research and you'll find that Chinese goals are to become a regional hegemony in order to balance US world hegemony (if you don't believe me say so and I'll dig out an old paper and find some citations to Chinese national policy plans which state this publically). They don't like US hegemony because it limits their regional aims. They likewise don't want world hegemony themselves because they see what it is doing to the US (look up imperial overstretch).
Also, we don't require a complete video history, only the video of movement.
"But computers follow the laws of physics. Even if I don't know all the intricacies, I understand that it has something to do with binary numbers, silicon, etc. Its hard to have a working understaning of life without most of this knowledge."
I think that by just waiting a fews years, the above will probably be the case (it already is for the first sentence!) It's probably better to wait a few years for something to "naturally" fix itself, than to muck with something that kinda works. Certainly this would be better than starting a precedent where we create new courts just for some new tech, or whatever, that comes along. It's bad enough having maritime, federal, state, county, municipal, 'drug courts,' etc (not to mention civil and criminal). And in so far as the military tribunals, there is an arguable point that they have been used in circumstances which exceed their conceptualization. Whether that is the case or not, certainly we could imagine instances where that does happen - just like it could happen with "IT Courts."
Also, some of these problems need to be handled by the legislature, I wouldn't doubt. Especially when it comes to the admissiability of "evidence." For example, I think we could come up with a framwork that would exclude hypothetical data on the type of RAM in my PC from being used to show any intent of "data retention.
However, you do realize that this may complicate things even more than they are already.
Huh? Models are used to predict future actions and behavior, at least in so well as human behavior can be modeled. I think you meant "system," not "model." For example, neoliberal economic policies are a type of 'system.' Modernization or dependency theory, however, are models used to make predictions. Though I'll give you that sometimes they become confluent, but the system is what manfests in reality and the model is used to try to, well, model that system so as predictions can be made that might, just might, help policy formation (whatever your idealogy).
So, systems may have parts which are most difinitely subjective. Models, though, are kinda like throwing yarrow sticks in I Ching - they're around to predict behavior. But, even though I want to make a career of poli/sci, I've gotta say that modeling human behavior is sometimes as futile of a predictor as is the I Ching. You know what I'm talking about, we've all read Asimov's Foundation on here... right?
Also, assuming you disagree with my above diatribe, we does it matter that this is subjective. We're dealing with humans here. And when dealing with humans there are a host of value judgements which must be made. That's just the way it is. In criminal and civil law, in deciding what OS you like best, what politician you want running your little burg, etc. These crys of "everything is subjective and therefore of little value" strike me as fatalistic and overly relativistic - at some point you must make a decision, knowing full well that not everyone will agree with you (b/c that's impossible) and that you might be wrong. Really though, I am surprised that we're still around to argue about it though :) How's the saying go, "World War Three will be fought with nuclear weapons, while World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
If your talking about Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," I believe any federal service counted towards becoming a "citizen." It just took the guys in the mobile infantry (like the protaganist) less service time than someone who opted for a non-military service. Do you remember what the protaganist's father told him though, something like "Why do you need to be a citizen and get a vote that doesn't count, you're going to Harvard just like I did so you can run the familiy business?" Also remember, when his father eventually joined the MI, he did so more out of revenge ('cause the bugs blew up his home city and wife) than out of civic responsibility.
On another note, since I'm making appeals to emotion, you eat babies and so, obviously, can't be trusted. I prefer the ad hominem attack.
here here
And if you can give your kid a 5cent paper sack and tell them it's a bicycle helmet, all the better :)
And don't forget R. Kelly's criminal suit that he has pending against him. That's been, what, like 6-7 years since he... well, we know what he did.
Of course amendments are part of the Constitution. But tjstork was, I think, talking about "social security, medicare, the voting and civil rights acts." They're not amendments.
Now if you want an encore you might hear is at luck
So, you're saying that Marlin Brando was really a 4th level dwarf priestess and that all British folk speak Klingon. Fascinating!
On a side note, does anyone else think that if this was twenty years ago, Thompson would probably be on the talk circuit expounding on the horrors of statanism and D&D? What a fucking loser.
That's no shit. Maybe the folks on CNN will pronounce it correctly too. Here's a hint for 'em, it ends with an 'i' not a fucking 'a.'
Enjoy!
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy L.E. Modesitt, but you've got to admit that his books are rather formulaic. Do we really want the last WoT to end with some long essay about ethics?
Dear Trouser-Stain, Huh? Fin.