You want fathers to participate equally in raising their children, give them equal leave to stay at home and bond with them when they're born. If you think fathers are just there to provide a paycheck, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Wonder what they plan to do with these things in the winter. For that matter, if they want to sell to police or the military, they're going to tell the potential buyers that they can't wear gloves at all? How well does this mechanism handle dirt, mud or blood? None of those things are unusual in combat, nor in the field for LEOs.
Somehow I doubt he reached terminal velocity in the what.. 100 feet from the launch pad?
If you fall 100 feet, odds are it's going to be terminal.
I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.
You read wrong. Only a fraction of all weapons seized could be traced back to the US. Of those, some were stolen, some purchased illegally, and some purchased "legally" for resale. The real figure for what can be traced back to the US is probably around 1/3. See http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
And the military weapons (machine guns, full-auto assault rifles, grenades, etc.) being used by the drug gangs certainly didn't come from the US, where automatic weapons are heavily regulated and controlled, and grenades and explosives are banned from civilian possession. The heavy stuff is stolen or bought from the Mexican police and military, or smuggled in from the south where they were bought or stolen from the military and police of other countries.
This is my last post on the subject. After this I give up. I'm tired of arguing with people who try to make it appear that they're blowing holes in arguments that I never made.
The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would
NO ONE has said that the ISPs are not private. NO ONE has claimed that getting government money changes that!
(that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!)
You bet your ass they can! If grants, subsidies, and monopoly protection are given subject to government regulation, you do not get to take the cash and then say "kiss my ass", if you don't like the regulations and controls.
Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers)
This is why I'm giving up. I'm either being trolled for the fun of it, or I'm arguing with an idiot. Are you seriously claiming that the Internet is "intrastate"? Do you seriously believe that a company that sells international communications access is not subject to the Commerce Clause? Tell that to the FCC.
I'll leave that, because even if you do believe that everyone on Slashdot is a resident of your state, it doesn't matter. Call it terms of service, consent decree, contract, whatever. If companies agree to be regulated in return for subsidies, protected monopoly status, etc. THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
It is entirely relevant. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. This is not a free speech issue, but rather the use of public property (airwaves, government-controlled rights-of-way). No one is restricting speech based on content. But if a company wants to restrict the speech, content, or access to information of others, it better not be using public facilities, tax-funded subsidies, or government-granted monopolies to do so. How is this so hard to understand? If you claim to be offering a public service, and take public money to do so, you have to play fair. If you don't want to play fair, no one is forcing you to take public money.
The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government".
Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.
The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it
The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.
Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.
I never said anything about packets going over "government owned link[s]", I said the lines were on public land and on right-of-ways granted by the government. When telcos run copper and fiber, they don't call up the property owners and ask for permission to run the lines, they use the same government-granted right of ways that they've always used. Yes, the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property, but they also are legally required to allow access to these right of ways so that public utilities and private corporations may run lines, place equipment, and maintain same. Most of these companies and utilities are given exclusive rights to use these strips of land, and are guaranteed by this same government that their competitors will not be given access.
So while my post may not be true in whatever "dimension most of us live in", it is in fact quite true in reality. Your imaginary dimension and its population are not correct.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".
in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.
So if these corporations don't get a big government handout and aren't allowed full control of the public lands and airwaves at the expense of the public that owns them, we're slipping towards dictatorship? Pure BS.
Here is a decent reference of the term "dictatorship". I don't see anything about not giving huge corporate handouts as qualifying.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government". The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government". Wireless carriers are granted licenses to use public airwaves, and must provide a public service to do so (not just rake in money). At the local level, most of the carriers are monopolies granted by "the government". These monopolies are free from having to worry about competition because "the government" has agreed to lock out anyone else from access to these same right-of-ways.
A protective case would seem to be only common sense. Unfortunately, Apple bizarrely decided to make the BACK out of glass as well. There are a lot of reports of small bits of dirt or other abrasives getting caught between the case and the glass back, and the subsequent scratches causing the back to break as well. What would just be minor scratches on any other phone can cause serious damage to the integrity of the iPhone 4 casing. That's not sloppy handling, that's piss-poor design (IMHO).
Until someone steals the dog.
the mess they make in doing so is not worth the negligible benefit for the cause of animal welfare they're trying to serve.
That's never stopped them before.
The same way when you are pulled over without a license now you prove that you do have a license. You tell the officer your number, or you give him your name and address and he pulls it up on his snazzy little car computer. Same with social security number. The fact is this law parrots federal law, so if you don't like it change the federal law.
No, it does NOT parrot federal law. Federal law does not say that suspicion of being in the country illegally is sufficient probable cause to stop and detain someone and compel identification. This is NOT the same as forcing people to provide ID when they're pulled over for speeding or arrested for another crime, and I really wish people would stop trying to pretend it is.