Comment Re: No standing, no case (Score 2) 155
Well, actually it's the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC.
Well, actually it's the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC.
Let me guess, you haven't spent much time in the states, have you?
My ex was from North Carolina, so yeah I have spent a fair amount of time in the states. Admittedly each state is difference (same as Europe).
as an atheist, I can't imagine dating a theist. How could I respect someone who believes obvious nonsense?
My ex-wife was Mormon. You learn to get over it. I'll still invite missionaries into my house if they knock; they're usually very nice and interesting people and there's no need for me to be an ass.
Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.
Can I make a guess? You're American, aren't you?
Can I just point out that American Atheists are, uh, weird? They are not representative of 99% of the worlds Atheists.
I once met a nice girl, who had just moved to the UK from America. She told me that on her first few weeks here she wondered where all the atheists were, and it took her to little while to figure out that unlike the states, atheists did not seek out other atheists, congregate into groups, and spend all their free time discussing atheism. In fact it was quite a relief to her when she realised that atheists were everywhere but as nobody a) gave a shit b) talked about religion or lack thereof, she could just relax and go about her day without interference or having to form Atheist Defence Leagues.
For the record. Myself, personally, as a life long atheist, have never read Dawkins (because that's who you meant, isn't it?) and think he's actually a gigantic cock. I've never knowingly been a member of an "atheist community" (do they build Yurts?) and I really don't care if other atheists can agree on anything, or even if they're having pitched battles in the fucking streets. The only "dogma" I'm aware of is the rather good Kevin Smith film.
You are right about one thing: as an atheist it's not just "lack of belief in God". It's also a lack of giving a shit what you or other people think, or caring when you project your own biases and religious frameworks in a desperate attempt to make sense of it. You're wrong and I simply don't care.
Get rid of your dictator and adopt a representative democracy and it will be over. Indeed, nobody could have thought it would go on this long.
Obviously you've never met a Finn.
Talking isn't part of their vocabulary
Spain has already stated they will not veto Scotland
Every source I can find seems to indicate the complete opposite.
Unsurprising after the Windscale Fire that nuclear power is unpopular in the UK
Windscale was 60 years ago, in an air-cooled open loop pile who's only purpose was to produce plutonium and other nuclear isotopes as quickly as possible and damn the consequences.
Most people now don't even remember what Windscale was or even recognise the name. Out of those that do, a lot of them understand the different between Windscale and their local nuclear power station.
To the best of my personal knowledge, nuclear power is not unpopular in the UK, Windscale or otherwise. If anything the attitude appears to be "Get on and build the damn things!" and "Why are we letting the French/Chinese build them, I remember when the UK used to build things!".
It's not the ripping software, it's the digital recording function, i.e. the ability to write to disk.
Here's what the court said in the RIAA v Diamond Multimedia case: (internal citations removed)
Unlike digital audio tape machines, for example, whose primary purpose is to make digital audio copied recordings, the primary purpose of a computer is to run various programs and to record the data necessary to run those programs and perform various tasks. The legislative history is consistent with this interpretation of the Act's provisions, stating that "the typical personal computer would not fall within the definition of 'digital audio recording device,'" because a personal computer's "recording function is designed and marketed primarily for the recording of data and computer programs." Another portion of the Senate Report states that "[i]f the 'primary purpose' of the recording function is to make objects other than digital audio copied recordings, then the machine or device is not a 'digital audio recording device,' even if the machine or device is technically capable of making such recordings."
So it really depends on what else the car's ability to write to disk is both primarily used for, and what it is primarily marketed for. The latter is probably worse for them; even if the car happens to be writing map or diagnostic information to disk, probably ripping CDs is what is mainly being advertised.
No. Here's the relevant part of the ruling, quoting the Senate report on the bill:
"[i]f the `primary purpose' of the recording function is to make objects other than digital audio copied recordings, then the machine or device is not a `digital audio recording device,' even if the machine or device is technically capable of making such recordings."
What information does the car's system digitally record other than music? That it might display digital information, or play digital information isn't relevant, since those don't involve the recording function.
Computers record lots of stuff to their hard drives. Some of it is music, but the ability to write to disk isn't primarily designed for digital music, nor primarily marketed for that.
In every other language you have to put in braces to make it easier for the parser to understand you
Advantage: none.
If you don't own the CD you're ripping, it's obviously illegal.
Well, there are ways to do it with CDs you don't own where you will be protected from legal trouble. But in practice, it never comes up.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
