Comment Re:Pointless waste of money (Score 1) 357
Yup. And neither of us have any experience (perceived or real) with the actual terrorism and sabotage. I bet a determined pro can come up with three dozen workable plans within an hour.
Yup. And neither of us have any experience (perceived or real) with the actual terrorism and sabotage. I bet a determined pro can come up with three dozen workable plans within an hour.
The decision today doesn't have anything to do with the the fundamental ability of the government to indefinitely detain sex offenders after they've served their sentence. The court decided that back in 1997 in Kansas v. Hendricks. Todays decision was just about whether the federal government has such power. This is a federalism case, not an individual rights case.
I disagree with the '97 ruling, but powers like this given to the Federal government disturb me even further.
They can put you away for good for being "sexually dangerous" but not for being a mortal danger to the lives of others?
Ms. Kagan pointed to the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause as granting Congress the power to pass the law, though the clause is not ordinarily thought of as a source of free-standing authority. The clause gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other powers
Not that it makes it any more right, but it isn't the commerce clause. It's their second favorite misused clause.
This is what I don't understand about the whole debate. Why can't the browser vendors just build their tags to use the *built in* codecs that are available on the underlying platform? All users of (modern) Windows and Mac systems have these codecs. Built in. They are licensed to use them - full stop. They *paid for it* with their Windows & Mac OS license. Why do we need to even talk about re-licensing them? Just use the damn things, that are *already there*. If they are not there, show the user a nice page about software patents and how evil they are.
We don't argue about the fact that FireFox relies on the user having a graphics card that is probably patented from top to bottom to display the graphics FireFox renders. Or an audio card. Or an OS that can display windows etc. These all exist at the layer below the browser. So should the video codecs.
You have a much higher likelihood of developing cancer from UV light than from microwaves.
Citation needed. You're saying it's silly to investigate the likelihood of cell phones or microwaves causing cancer because you're more likely to get it from the sun. What is that based off of? Gut feelings about the relative likelihood?
In science and especially health-related scientific questions, you test a hypothesis, you don't just assume. At some point someone thought the question of "could the sun's rays be causing cancer" was silly because obviously the sun, giver of all life, could not be causing ill effects aside from some sunburn. We needed to investigate whether or not cell phones were causing cancer because we didn't actually know.
Furthermore, even if the sun did cause far more cancer than cell phones, you might want to take all the steps you can to avoid cancer, as most of us do. If cell phones -were- linked to cancer, you could stop using one and still reduce your threat of cancer, much like how we've taken steps to ensure we don't get skin cancer from UV rays.
While admittedly my cheap-ass netbook struggles a bit with videos, it's only the higher-def ones that trip it up. I don't use my netbook for "proper" TV watching (I have larger screened computers for that), and it handles YouTube et al just fine.
The more expensive ones certainly perform better, and I'd be willing to bet that you hit ones that can handle the full gamut long before that whole price difference is eroded.
I should have been clearer. Those are just non-US countries in the list; there are plenty of US patents there too.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.