Technically, it is the ONLY 100% effective method.
The problem is that people don't DO it.
It's always presented in such a way as to make it look like it's saying a woman can get pregnant without having sex :S
(not that this has much to do with anything at all, nor did i read the whole conversation to figure out if you were being sarcastic or not. but whatever)
well, if nothing else, reducing the USA to it's component parts would make life easier for the Rest of the world. at least until the corporations decided the EU or china or someone made a better beatstick...
i would, generally speaking and allowing for the proper exercise of common sense where aplicable, agree with you...
if any more serious action that isn't equally unenforceable hadn't been rendered illegal in this country ...
note that 'this country' is neither Germany nor the USA, just in case anyone's confused.
(seriously, if a cop wants to make your life hell, they Can run you through the courts for yanking your kid out of the way of an oncoming truck. Now, in this particularly ridiculous example, you'd win, but all it takes is sufficient vindictiveness or lack of intelligence on the part of *thinks* two or three people? and you'd still have to go through the process. government protestations to the contrary, the way it's worded you Can go to jail for abuse if you slap your kid's hand to prevent them pulling on, say, a jug cord which is currently attached to a jug full of boiling water...)
yeeeah, got off on a tangent there.
so, yeah, al, i agree with you... but if Germany's laws are anything like New Zealand's (and i seriously doubt they are, or our government would use them rather than Finland as an example of 'how to do it right' even when it doesn't work), all it takes is a kid who's not a total wimp and the parent can't do anything about it without getting in trouble that way too.
gah. this comment keeps going in circles! it has no end!
stopping now :S
... that sounds about as generally unhelpful and exploitable as our 'urgency' thingy for parliament.
it's Supposed to be so they can deal with things like natural disasters or wars in a timely manner.
in practice it's used to pass highly unpopular (and often poorly thought out) laws in a the weeks immediately before Christmas without going through the proper process, or even informing the public some times.
on the up side, urgency cannot be perpetual. the MPs have to sleep Sometime, and urgency requires parliament to stay in session until all issues are dealt with (even if that is by deciding that that particular issue is insufficiently urgent).
or at least, that's how i understand it.
buts seriously, 1933? really? that's just weird... and i say that living in a country that still uses English common law. (includes such fun effects as: legally speaking, if you park your car on someone else's property without permission, then leave? it's a cow unless other laws apply due to other factors. *laughs* )
you know, it wouldn't surprise me if getting you to drop your internet is the Point, ultimately. then they (be it government or corporations) don't have to worry about it any more. and when you realise that the internet is what they seem to mostly be tripping over on...
at that point, the terrorists win... (the ones with lots of money, not the crazy religious ones.)
Huh. The city libraries here seem to be doing well (Christchurch, New Zealand, that is). the only one there was even consideration about closing was due to it being too small and too close to another one.
of course, apart from the main central library, all the others are also 'council service centers' where people can pay their rates (basically a local utilities and services tax, which covers the libraries themselves, as well as water, general city maintenance, whatever stupid plans the council takes it into their heads to undertake in a given year, and probably some other stuff). most of them provide at least limited internet access now too. it helps that they're all linked up in one system, as well.
some also offer conference rooms, or contain cafe's...
they all get plenty of use from people of all ages, too.
i dunno, maybe it's different in the USA or where ever...
perhaps yet another case of people simply making up laws to suit themselves?
though if it'd been here,(it's not :P) I'd think it more likely that it got passed in the last minute rush in parliament at the end of the preceding year
you know, I'm always wary of claims that 'reports of X have reduced' is a good thing. while it can represent that the issues have reduced, and thus the problem is being solved, it can also very often mean that the people who would report things have so lost faith in the system that they no longer see it as worth the effort (that's happened here with a lot of lesser crimes. people just don't bother reporting them much.) alternatively, for many businesses it's in their interest to appear more secure than they acutally are, so they may simply under report such.
of course, there's no Other way to know how much of such a thing is happening, i suppose, but the automatic assumption that less reports = less issues isn't always the right one.
'course, this may be simple paranoia speaking. hehe.
sometimes i wonder if getting elected, appointed, or otherwise acquire any position of authority by any non-disreputable means, requires some sort of damaging brain surgery as part of the process...
(the above statement is fairly broad, but the exceptions seem to be extensive And irregular, so I'm just gonna leave it :) )
that only works if the counties exist as valid entities without the state giving them authority.
if the state exists by the authority and agreement of the counties, then it could be a federation. if the counties exist at the dictate of the state, then it is unitary, i believe.
then there's Feudalism, which can be kinda both and neither...
you know, i've never heard it used in the second sense? the word for that is usually 'blockage'. they don't even sound similar, as the stress in 'blockade' is on the a, but in 'blockage' is on the o.
not heard of the third sense either, but that's less odd.
What's going on there sounds more like an embargo than a blockade, really, though I'm not sure that's quite right either.
I know you changed it already, Mike, but the bellow is, near as i can see anyway, the logic:
A blockade involves parking ships (well, taking it in it's most literal sense) actually in the way, keeping anything and everything belonging to Anyone from going in or out, and sinking those who don't comply. it will cripple the place in question if they rely on trade at all, and cause problems for all their trading partners too.
in this case, the USA is refusing to trade in sugar with Costa Rica. still potentially crippling if Costa Rica is heavily dependent on sugar exports to the USA, but all Costa Rica has to do is say 'fine, sod off then.' and go trade with someone else. disruptive, and not ideal, but doable, and doesn't affect anyone else.
using the word blockade here might be metaphorically appropriate, but as the literal interpretation is available, confusing.
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Re: Re:
Technically, it is the ONLY 100% effective method.
The problem is that people don't DO it.
It's always presented in such a way as to make it look like it's saying a woman can get pregnant without having sex :S
(not that this has much to do with anything at all, nor did i read the whole conversation to figure out if you were being sarcastic or not. but whatever)
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
On the post: Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records
Re: Re: Re: Time
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Parental Responsibility
if any more serious action that isn't equally unenforceable hadn't been rendered illegal in this country ...
note that 'this country' is neither Germany nor the USA, just in case anyone's confused.
(seriously, if a cop wants to make your life hell, they Can run you through the courts for yanking your kid out of the way of an oncoming truck. Now, in this particularly ridiculous example, you'd win, but all it takes is sufficient vindictiveness or lack of intelligence on the part of *thinks* two or three people? and you'd still have to go through the process. government protestations to the contrary, the way it's worded you Can go to jail for abuse if you slap your kid's hand to prevent them pulling on, say, a jug cord which is currently attached to a jug full of boiling water...)
yeeeah, got off on a tangent there.
so, yeah, al, i agree with you... but if Germany's laws are anything like New Zealand's (and i seriously doubt they are, or our government would use them rather than Finland as an example of 'how to do it right' even when it doesn't work), all it takes is a kid who's not a total wimp and the parent can't do anything about it without getting in trouble that way too.
gah. this comment keeps going in circles! it has no end!
stopping now :S
On the post: Director Of The Hitler Downfall Movie Likes The Hundreds Of Parody Clips
Re: Re: This Is Why ...
details are your friend. :)
On the post: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned
Re: Re: America at "war"
it's Supposed to be so they can deal with things like natural disasters or wars in a timely manner.
in practice it's used to pass highly unpopular (and often poorly thought out) laws in a the weeks immediately before Christmas without going through the proper process, or even informing the public some times.
on the up side, urgency cannot be perpetual. the MPs have to sleep Sometime, and urgency requires parliament to stay in session until all issues are dealt with (even if that is by deciding that that particular issue is insufficiently urgent).
or at least, that's how i understand it.
buts seriously, 1933? really? that's just weird... and i say that living in a country that still uses English common law. (includes such fun effects as: legally speaking, if you park your car on someone else's property without permission, then leave? it's a cow unless other laws apply due to other factors. *laughs* )
On the post: Libraries Cost Publishers $100 Billion Per Year! Ban Them!
Re: Re: Re: I will be smiling all the way to the library
On the post: BPI Insists UK ISPs Overstating The Cost Of Three Strikes; So Will BPI Pay The Difference If Wrong?
Re: stupid people dont get it
at that point, the terrorists win... (the ones with lots of money, not the crazy religious ones.)
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
Re: Let the money flow in!
On the post: Libraries Cost Publishers $100 Billion Per Year! Ban Them!
Re:
you know, just in case you weren't joking there...
at least until someone gets around to seeing a way to make enough money to justify the hassle in getting that changed...
On the post: Libraries Cost Publishers $100 Billion Per Year! Ban Them!
Re: On Libraries
of course, apart from the main central library, all the others are also 'council service centers' where people can pay their rates (basically a local utilities and services tax, which covers the libraries themselves, as well as water, general city maintenance, whatever stupid plans the council takes it into their heads to undertake in a given year, and probably some other stuff). most of them provide at least limited internet access now too. it helps that they're all linked up in one system, as well.
some also offer conference rooms, or contain cafe's...
they all get plenty of use from people of all ages, too.
i dunno, maybe it's different in the USA or where ever...
On the post: Verizon -- Who Promised Not To Do This -- Says It's Kicking Accused File Sharers Off The Internet [Update: Or... Maybe Not]
Re: New Law?
though if it'd been here,(it's not :P) I'd think it more likely that it got passed in the last minute rush in parliament at the end of the preceding year
On the post: Hacking Surpassing Human Error For Data Breaches?
of course, there's no Other way to know how much of such a thing is happening, i suppose, but the automatic assumption that less reports = less issues isn't always the right one.
'course, this may be simple paranoia speaking. hehe.
On the post: UK Man Arrested And Banned From Airport For Twitter Joke About Blowing Up An Airport
Re: Re: im right here terrorist blow me up already
Especially when there seems to be a meaningful, if possibly irrelevant and nicely hidden, point to it.
On the post: UK Man Arrested And Banned From Airport For Twitter Joke About Blowing Up An Airport
Re: But are we safer?
but yeah. it's dumb. we know this.
sometimes i wonder if getting elected, appointed, or otherwise acquire any position of authority by any non-disreputable means, requires some sort of damaging brain surgery as part of the process...
(the above statement is fairly broad, but the exceptions seem to be extensive And irregular, so I'm just gonna leave it :) )
On the post: If School Officials Got Confused By Kid's Science Project, Why Does The Kid Need Counseling?
Re: Re: Re: Re: (sigh)
your entire political spectrum is on the 'right' anyway, and all equally useless (much like almost everyone else's, that part), so why argue about it?
On the post: If School Officials Got Confused By Kid's Science Project, Why Does The Kid Need Counseling?
Re: Re: Re: Where is this?
if the state exists by the authority and agreement of the counties, then it could be a federation. if the counties exist at the dictate of the state, then it is unitary, i believe.
then there's Feudalism, which can be kinda both and neither...
On the post: China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?
Re: Re: most likely instigated by the Chinese government.
how that works is anyone's guess.
if they saw some way to benefit from it, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
On the post: US Blocking Costa Rican Sugar From US Markets Unless It Agrees To Draconian IP Laws Citizens Don't Want
Re: Re: Re: RE: No
not heard of the third sense either, but that's less odd.
On the post: US Blocking Costa Rican Sugar From US Markets Unless It Agrees To Draconian IP Laws Citizens Don't Want
Re: Re: No
I know you changed it already, Mike, but the bellow is, near as i can see anyway, the logic:
A blockade involves parking ships (well, taking it in it's most literal sense) actually in the way, keeping anything and everything belonging to Anyone from going in or out, and sinking those who don't comply. it will cripple the place in question if they rely on trade at all, and cause problems for all their trading partners too.
in this case, the USA is refusing to trade in sugar with Costa Rica. still potentially crippling if Costa Rica is heavily dependent on sugar exports to the USA, but all Costa Rica has to do is say 'fine, sod off then.' and go trade with someone else. disruptive, and not ideal, but doable, and doesn't affect anyone else.
using the word blockade here might be metaphorically appropriate, but as the literal interpretation is available, confusing.
Next >>