Slashdot Mirror

Just google it. Example: Lakewood welfare fraud. In light of that case, 159 people were granted amesty to the tune of $2.2 million.

This is what it looks like: https://www.app.com/story/news...

Funny thing is the trials have yet to get through grand jury, and the State offered an Amnesty package to others for a period of time: https://www.app.com/story/news...

This is what it looks like: https://www.app.com/story/news...

Funny thing is the trials have yet to get through grand jury, and the State offered an Amnesty package to others for a period of time: https://www.app.com/story/news...

Verizon seem to have a different idea as to the cheapest and fastest way to replace their damaged copper lines and poles - go wireless:
see (for example) http://www.app.com/article/20130503/NJBIZ/305020135/Verizon-Wireless-Mantoloking and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tells-More-Sandy-Victims-Theyll-Never-See-DSL-Repaired-124166

I grew up in Morris County, and am a bit bewildered by this article, given that there's no Morris County school board. This particular issue pertains to Mount Olive -- a town of 26,000 people with a 5000-student school district, not the entire county.

Not sure how they butchered these details from the source article.

Or they could roll-out FireFox (with NoScript) as the default browser using Group Policy with FireMotion's FireFox MSI and create shortcuts on the desktop with a target of "iexplore http://your.wretched.old.internal.app.com/".
More security, same ol' craptastic IE6 "experience" for your internal apps.

>>Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.

Nope, not true, In NJ unless it has become a common access point ( has been open to the public and in use for 1 year or longer), you can shut your entrance to the beach. I know this to be valid in Point Pleasant, Long Beach Island, Deal, and Mantoloking. http://www.app.com/article/20081220/NEWS/81220018

currently in California, some people have refused to let people access to the beach via their property, Why? insurance liability. so until the state gives a blanket coverage for the issue, people are welding their gates. - sorry could not find the link for that

Hmmm where did you get Christian Supremacist from that article? He only mentions God once and doesn't specify which god he is talking about. Actually all he says that is even potentially religious is "under God" which is part of our Pledge of Alliance. Now you might take issue with that fact or that "In God We Trust" is on our currency, but to brand author of the GP link as a "Christian Supremacist" is hypersensitive foolishness. On top of that you seem to think that his potential religious views somehow negate the validity of his opinion. There are names for people who dismiss the opinions of someone simply because they of a different religious persuasion. Perhaps if you can manage to overcome your bigotry long enough to read the entire article, you will see that he is speaking as a former police officer not a religious nut. That is why I quoted him, because even many of the police can see that the policing in this country is becoming ever more oppresive.

Seriously, what kind of kid eats non-edible beads when they are 10 years old?

Many of them.

I'm glad that your child is acting safely in this particular example--though I'm perfectly sure he's doing any number of unsafe things in other areas; he is three after all--but here's the fact: The risk-management and decision-making centers of the brain are not fully developed until into the 20s. If you need sources, here is one from 10 seconds of Googling: http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/NEWS/710140303/1001/DWEK01. You can find any number of others if you keep looking.

Obviously, some people will mature at faster rates than others, "not fully developed" does not necessarily mean they will do every dangerous thing known to man, and good parenting is strongly in play. Still, it's important to realize that a child doing stupid things is not necessarily a function of them being stupid.

On an semi-related note, I find it abhorrent that an adult would be judging a 10-year-old child he knows nothing about other than he got sick because of a toxic bead. Part of me is tempted to wish some harm befalls your own child to see if you still think of it as Darwinian evolution at work, but then I realize: I'm not that sort of a bastard monster.

These are children. I'm not one of those "somebody think of the children!" types, but you really are despicable. Personally I don't think it's the child who ate the bead who needs to grow up.

if you want convenience, you don't get privacy

if you want privacy, you don't get convenience

This argument is faulty. It sounds like a pretty nifty contradiction, but it simply is not true. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. You *can* have both convenience and privacy, but much like a software project that meets the requirements *and* is on time... it is going to cost more.

"Privacy data" means different things to different people in different situations. Some people are very comfortable sharing intimate details with strangers. Some people have trouble discussing their feelings with their spouses. I prefer to err on the side of Openness (we demand it of our business executives, do we not?) but I think a lot of people will broadcast data that you think might be "private" because they have the opinion that the information is safe to be considered public.

A seemingly scary invasion of privacy that I came across recently is a site that lets you query information of public education professionals in New Jersey. Because this is "private" data, I think it shouldn't be made available. But because the professionals are "public servants" it is arguable that the information should be provided because of full disclosure of the rights of parents. Here's the infringing site: http://php.app.com/edstaff/search.php . If you went to public high school in New Jersey, knock yourself out.

fear isn't a neocon invention. setting off a dirty bomb doesn't have to kill a lot of people. in fact, if a dirty bomb killed one person, it would be more terrifying than a regular bomb that killed 1,000 people. a regular bomb: the dead people are gone. it's over. history. you can grive and put it behind you. but a dirty bomb causes a permanent nagging psychological degradation for decades, a permanent worry about nonquantifiable health effects. in other words, it terrorizes more effectively. set one off in midtown manhattan, and you would have reporters walking around with geiger counters talking about the half life of strontium 90 (30 years)

6 years after 9/11 we still have front page news stories about the air quality degradation of downtown manhattan in the weeks after 9/11. then epa chief whitman testifying last month, michale moore taking 9/11 rescue workers to cuba. a son of one of the workers who died from that went to the state of the union address ...in january 2007. this is 5.5 years later

catch my drift yet?

the people killed on 9/11 are dead and buried. almost 3,000 of them. even the dust from the event is all washed away. and yet the air quality issue lives on, and continues to involve us 6 years later. how many died from the dust? definitely or not? a dozen? a dirty bomb wouldn't have to kill a single person. at the moment of the explosion or ever from the radioactivity

it's all psychological, which is the whole point of terrorism in the first place

now imagine the ongoing media and societal handwringing that would go on with radioactive contamination. no matter how minimal. even if no one died. this is called terrorism. this is called fear. to paraphrase stalin ("a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"): the endless fretting over a nebulous, low grade continuous degradation to your health, for years, is a more effective terrorist tool than outright killing thousands of people in one sudden event that is then permanently over. radioactive contaimination is not uddenly over. even if the contamination is tiny and insignificant scientifically, you are not thinking about human psychology and how fear works

furthermore, i would like to add that if you are a liberal, and you downplay the effects of terrorism and hype the effects of government abuses, you fail. and if you are a conservative, and you downplay the effects of government abuses, and hype the effects of terrorism, you fail

the only intellectual and morally honest position is to worry about BOTH terrorism and government abuses. to downplay one or the other is intellectually dishonest, and means you are just another lousy biased partisan. terrorism is real and dangerous. government abuses are real and dangerous. anyone who sits there and tries to argue against simple human fear of either government abuses or terrorism has instantly achieved a state of losing the argument and missing the point

fear isn't a neocon invention. setting off a dirty bomb doesn't have to kill a lot of people. in fact, if a dirty bomb killed one person, it would be more terrifying than a regular bomb that killed 1,000 people. a regular bomb: the dead people are gone. it's over. history. you can grive and put it behind you. but a dirty bomb causes a permanent nagging psychological degradation for decades, a permanent worry about nonquantifiable health effects. in other words, it terrorizes more effectively. set one off in midtown manhattan, and you would have reporters walking around with geiger counters talking about the half life of strontium 90 (30 years)

6 years after 9/11 we still have front page news stories about the air quality degradation of downtown manhattan in the weeks after 9/11. then epa chief whitman testifying last month, michale moore taking 9/11 rescue workers to cuba. a son of one of the workers who died from that went to the state of the union address ...in january 2007. this is 5.5 years later

catch my drift yet?

the people killed on 9/11 are dead and buried. almost 3,000 of them. even the dust from the event is all washed away. and yet the air quality issue lives on, and continues to involve us 6 years later. how many died from the dust? definitely or not? a dozen? a dirty bomb wouldn't have to kill a single person. at the moment of the explosion or ever from the radioactivity

it's all psychological, which is the whole point of terrorism in the first place

now imagine the ongoing media and societal handwringing that would go on with radioactive contamination. no matter how minimal. even if no one died. this is called terrorism. this is called fear. to paraphrase stalin ("a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"): the endless fretting over a nebulous, low grade continuous degradation to your health, for years, is a more effective terrorist tool than outright killing thousands of people in one sudden event that is then permanently over. radioactive contaimination is not uddenly over. even if the contamination is tiny and insignificant scientifically, you are not thinking about human psychology and how fear works

furthermore, i would like to add that if you are a liberal, and you downplay the effects of terrorism and hype the effects of government abuses, you fail. and if you are a conservative, and you downplay the effects of government abuses, and hype the effects of terrorism, you fail

the only intellectual and morally honest position is to worry about BOTH terrorism and government abuses. to downplay one or the other is intellectually dishonest, and means you are just another lousy biased partisan. terrorism is real and dangerous. government abuses are real and dangerous. anyone who sits there and tries to argue against simple human fear of either government abuses or terrorism has instantly achieved a state of losing the argument and missing the point

Qualcomm says the new phones, with features like faster Internet access and better graphics, are necessary to public safety agencies. The Broadcom patent is for a battery-saving feature.

CompUSA said in a statement it would close 126 of its stores and would receive a $440 million cash capital infusion, but it was not specific as to the source of the cash

This isn't the same as the original article. The letter from Coulter is an informational letter to parents, telling them that some students are participating in what could be a risky behavior, while the first article was an outright ban . . .

What Coulter is alluding to when he talks about those participating in extracuricular activities is probably along the lines of this. (Article is about students who posted pictures of themselves at a party and drinking, and then had disciplinary action taken against them.)

This was probably the single biggest casualty of the Bell System breakup. First The Labs had Bellcore sheared off to support the RBOCs, then Lucent/Avaya took a lot of the hardware research. The market pressure that had been absent in the monopoly days burned off a lot of the pure research work as being too blue-sky. Having grown up in the Holmdel NJ area in the 60's & 70's, then getting to work in the central NJ campus in the late 80's just post-breakup, I could see the decline starting. Now the Holmdel facility is on the block. I don't think we'd have seen UNIX or C in the post-monopoly environment. Sic transit...

I grew up in central NJ, got my first taste of programming at the Explorer post run by the Telephone Pioneers at Holmdel, and worked at the adjacent Middletown and Lincroft sites for five years. I was a visitor at Murray Hill frequently over that time, and always felt a little awe-struck walking around in there. This news, along with Lucent selling the Holmdel site (story at Asbury Park Press), leave me feeling all too old. Sic transit...

Duh, they form beer drinking teams. (Official US Beer Drinking Team website)

Was that the charge? Proof?

Oh, no, I have your proof right here. From the Asbury Park Press:
He is charged with one count of interfering with the operation of a mass transportation vehicle and one count of making false statements to the FBI.

I think you should be charged with making false statements, deek!

You can also find pop talks and even movies that suggest the same.

Sometimes I like to just try to slow down and do one thing, have a beer and read slashdot... d'oh! (that's two things!)

The other gay guy was New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey. Note that he appears in front of a "Welcome to New Jersey" sign. IIRC, McGreevey is a Democrat.