I've worked at quite a few "large" and medium-sized companies, and it's been my experience that, unless they're hosting a special event, you pay for your lunch at the company's cafeteria.
I was going to ask, at the risk of Godwin-ing myself, how requiring these implants was any different from the tats that the Nazis applied to the prisoners - Jews and otherwise - in the camps. Same concept, different implementation. I can't believe this woman is actually promoting the idea. Does she, herself, have an implant?
> Too many performers-- equals too small of an audience per performer.
Not true. If only X number of people could listen to a particular song and _only_ that particular song, then, maybe, this would be true. But the total number of people who can listen to an artist is, essentially, only bound by the number of people in existence, in perpetuity, hence, unlimited (until the Big Collapse).
My son had a band, and we'd - I'm using the plural sense because I paid for the equipment, drove them to the site, set things up, etc., so it was a shared effort, even if I didn't play an instrument - sometimes do shared gigs with other bands. Sometimes band members look at other bands and get competitive, as if the other band were stealing fans from them. But that's not true. Just think how many artists you like, and how many you could _theoretically_ like: it's unlimited. As long as I have money to buy their songs - or, even better, listen to them for free on the radio, which is, admittedly, a whole 'nother box of worms - I can listen to as many bands as I want. There really is little to no competition between bands. If one band has a catchy tune, there's nothing to stop another band from creating an equally catchy tune, and there's nothing to stop me from listening to both of 'em. It's all good. Anyone saying that creative talent is a finite resource is misguided. Technically, it may be true, since there are only 3.something billion people on the planet, but, pragmatically speaking, it's unlimited.
> I suspect Homeland Security is much more likely to be applied against citizens of the homeland than it is likely to be applied against any enemy of America.
Well, enemies are both foreign _and_ domestic, ya know... In fact, if you're not a flag-waving, frothing at the mouth Republican, with an autographed picture of W. on your desk, chances are pretty good that you're an enemy. Say, citizen, what have you been up to lately? Anything subversive...? (It's rhetorical. They already know what you're up to...)
Granted, we still don't have all the details, yet, but this strikes me as odd in that Apple would let AT&T "force" this requirement on the sale of the phone. Aren't they known for getting deals done that work for Apple and their customers? This doesn't seem like one of those deals.
I'll soon be in the market for a new phone, and while I'm leaning heavily toward a Treo P model, I'm keeping an open mind for the iPhone, too. However, if they're going to play BS games like this, forget it. I don't need it that bad. Too bad Apple doesn't have their own cell system so they could skip AT&T...
I think you guys misunderstand his point. I don't read it as "He hasn't done anyone any harm," or "let him off easy," but, rather, that the punishment should be considered in context when compared with what someone might get for, say, murdering another, or raping someone. I think we can all agree that the latter two should be about the "ultimate" in offenses one could commit - against an individual, at least. But when we have "white collar" criminals getting jail sentences - and, granted, it hasn't been handed down, yet - that are more severe than a rape or murder sentence, something is not right with the system.
Oh, bud, you are _so_ screwed. You broke their code, exposed their secret, and now Agent Smith is going to pay you a visit.
Seriously, this makes a _lot_ of sense. I wonder if they actually sit around scheming things like this, or if it just happens this way. And if it just happens, why? What forces shape the market to turn out this way (and "economics, stupid" is an incomplete answer)?
Even if we accept your explanation at face value, and I have no reason not to, apparently the guy couldn't use his PC to indicate acceptance, so how does this fulfill the "Using the product constitutes acceptance of the contract"?
When I served on our local school board, one of our teachers had pop-ups take over his screen when a student used the PC while the teacher was logged in. He quickly responded to the situation to minimize the exposure, but some students still saw things they shouldn't, according to the district, and it was reported up the chain. When I heard about it, I was more unhappy with the IT folks who can manage to block all sorts of sites, and lock down this, and make impenetrable that, according to their boasts, but couldn't block a pop-up. I argued that if anyone should be punished, it should be the head IT guy, but, as only one voice among seven on the board, I was overruled and the principal wrote up the teacher for some infraction or another - I don't recall exactly what they settled on. I don't believe it was turned over to the police or DA, though.
Good luck with the re-trial, but if their district is anything like ours, a "not guilty" verdict still won't help her get her job back. Not that she'd want to work for them, anyway...
Spoken like someone who's never been in charge of a classroom full of kids. Rounding up the kids and marching them off somewhere else is easier said than done, and entirely appropriate for dire emergencies, but hardly for a porn pop-up on the screen.
I don't know why she couldn't have just turned off the monitor, but losing a teaching license for this, let alone serve 40 years in jail, is beyond extreme.
And, at least in NY, you don't need a teaching license to work as a sub; in many districts, all you need is two years of college.
Why? Is she going to get pregnant from it? Does this thing play drums in a screemo band, and she's going to run off with it (apologies ahead of time for the implied stereotype of screemo band drummers)? I know you're joking - at least I think you're joking - but she's harmlessly entertaining herself. It could be worse, bud...
You make some good points, and I don't disagree with you. But much like a full-house beats three of a kind, perception beats reality. What the rest of the world sees is a collection of border-line lunatics waving rifles, throwing rocks, stoning people to death, showing bloody hands as a symbol of an "accomplishment," dragging dead bodies through the streets, etc. Maybe the mainstream Muslims _are_ tolerant, but you'd never know it from what we typically see. And I'm curious: if the majority are peaceful, tolerant, etc., why don't they do something about the minority that are casting _all_ of them in a bad light? Like here in the States, when the KKK holds a rally - rarer and rarer, thankfully - you typically see a collection of people who counter their message, to show them for the "haters" they really are. In the numerous clippings we see of the Middle East, you never see the "good" Muslims shouting down the "radical" Muslims.
Yes, every Muslim _is_ part of the problem. If they're not doing anything to stop their fellow Muslims from doing things like this, or "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation, or... then they're part of the problem. Something about, "No man is an island."
I agree that police - as well as politicians, and other public servants - should do their jobs. But I'm sure there were, are and will be higher priority items for our cops to work on. You know, things that might actually keep the public safe, or help out someone who's been wronged.
For example, the last few times I've bit the bullet and gone down to the police station to ask for assistance, or file some complaint, I've been totally blown off. They don't care. They don't _have_ to care. Someone broke into your house and stole your stuff? Yeah, we'll look into it, but don't hold your breath. In fact, if you push your luck, we'll look into it deep enough that we'll find something to use against _you_. Go 'way, boy, you bother me.
Someone backed into your car and drove away, leaving $800 worth of damage? Yeah, we won't ask any of the 15 potential witnesses if they saw anything; it's too much work to get out of my patrol car. Um.
No, instead, they're harassing guys for sitting in front of a cafe using free wi-fi. _That's_ not serving the public. That's fiddling while Rome burns, and those cops should be embarrassed that they spent that much time on a non-issue rather than any of the umpteen other matters that would actually make a difference.
> Milanowski didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed. "I had a feeling a law was being broken," the chief said. Milanowski did some research and found Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
A job well done to chief Milanowski. Way to dig for a tool to hit the guy with. Instead of tracking down drug dealers, thieves or physically abusive spouses - or even setting speed traps - he's protecting the town against wi-fi users. I feel so much safer...
I wonder if it came into consideration the idea that a) using a freely offered wi-fi connection doesn't seem to cover the intent of the law as described; and b) the cafe offered the wi-fi connection _freely_. Whether it was offered specifically to customers or anyone in a radius - which isn't made clear - the cafe was offering and didn't even complain about the guy using it. They certainly could either post a sign saying, "Must be a customer to use this service," like restrooms, or enable a key that would be given out only to customers.
Again, Bravo! to chief Wiggum - oops, Milanowski - for going well out of his way to bust someone. You, sir, are a shining example of what law enforcement should be like - in a police state...
Ok, this article says that three students were suspended for 40 days - which, as others have argued, seems excessive. At least they were consistent - in this case. I want to see the school policy that stipulates this amount of punishment for this particular crime. Schools have tons of policies; I want to see how they came to the conclusion that 40 days suspension was appropriate. How did they justify 8 weeks of missed schooling for after-the-fact class disruption, versus a typical five day suspension for fighting?
Recently, we had a student who was busted for being drunk at the prom. His punishment, as determined by established policy, was three days suspension. There's no way, even if this Seattle kid was involved in the filming or production, or was dancing stark naked with the teacher in front of the class, that this is worth 40 days.
Another question the kid should ask is: what is the policy? If they have a policy for suspension, what does it say in this case? Is disruption of class typically a 40 day penalty? If so, I wonder how they would've handled a drunk kid at the prom, which seems worse, to me, than a prank in class.
Seems to me a knee-jerk reaction designed to send a message, but, as usual with school boards - I served on one - it's the wrong message. Cue quote from M. Twain...
We're preaching to the choir, here. No one, here - at least no dyed in the wool/.er - would say that MS is doing a [good|intelligent|moral] thing. We all know they're not. But, to steal a phrase that still gives me the giggles, "from the abyss of our parents' basements, we strike at thee with our nerd forum debating skills." Which is all good, but somewhat useless.
We need to get our message to the right people: we somehow need to let the Fortune 500 folks who are about to succumb to extortion know that they're just being ripped off. How do we do that? I say we take up a collection and place a full page ad in the NY Times, or WSJ. I got, lessee, two bucks and forty-five cents. Wait, I found another penny.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked at quite a few "large" and medium-sized companies, and it's been my experience that, unless they're hosting a special event, you pay for your lunch at the company's cafeteria.
I was going to ask, at the risk of Godwin-ing myself, how requiring these implants was any different from the tats that the Nazis applied to the prisoners - Jews and otherwise - in the camps. Same concept, different implementation. I can't believe this woman is actually promoting the idea. Does she, herself, have an implant?
> Too many performers-- equals too small of an audience per performer.
Not true. If only X number of people could listen to a particular song and _only_ that particular song, then, maybe, this would be true. But the total number of people who can listen to an artist is, essentially, only bound by the number of people in existence, in perpetuity, hence, unlimited (until the Big Collapse).
My son had a band, and we'd - I'm using the plural sense because I paid for the equipment, drove them to the site, set things up, etc., so it was a shared effort, even if I didn't play an instrument - sometimes do shared gigs with other bands. Sometimes band members look at other bands and get competitive, as if the other band were stealing fans from them. But that's not true. Just think how many artists you like, and how many you could _theoretically_ like: it's unlimited. As long as I have money to buy their songs - or, even better, listen to them for free on the radio, which is, admittedly, a whole 'nother box of worms - I can listen to as many bands as I want. There really is little to no competition between bands. If one band has a catchy tune, there's nothing to stop another band from creating an equally catchy tune, and there's nothing to stop me from listening to both of 'em. It's all good. Anyone saying that creative talent is a finite resource is misguided. Technically, it may be true, since there are only 3.something billion people on the planet, but, pragmatically speaking, it's unlimited.
> I suspect Homeland Security is much more likely to be applied against citizens of the homeland than it is likely to be applied against any enemy of America.
Well, enemies are both foreign _and_ domestic, ya know... In fact, if you're not a flag-waving, frothing at the mouth Republican, with an autographed picture of W. on your desk, chances are pretty good that you're an enemy. Say, citizen, what have you been up to lately? Anything subversive...? (It's rhetorical. They already know what you're up to...)
They covered that in the "dept." identifier...
Granted, we still don't have all the details, yet, but this strikes me as odd in that Apple would let AT&T "force" this requirement on the sale of the phone. Aren't they known for getting deals done that work for Apple and their customers? This doesn't seem like one of those deals.
I'll soon be in the market for a new phone, and while I'm leaning heavily toward a Treo P model, I'm keeping an open mind for the iPhone, too. However, if they're going to play BS games like this, forget it. I don't need it that bad. Too bad Apple doesn't have their own cell system so they could skip AT&T...
I think you guys misunderstand his point. I don't read it as "He hasn't done anyone any harm," or "let him off easy," but, rather, that the punishment should be considered in context when compared with what someone might get for, say, murdering another, or raping someone. I think we can all agree that the latter two should be about the "ultimate" in offenses one could commit - against an individual, at least. But when we have "white collar" criminals getting jail sentences - and, granted, it hasn't been handed down, yet - that are more severe than a rape or murder sentence, something is not right with the system.
Oh, bud, you are _so_ screwed. You broke their code, exposed their secret, and now Agent Smith is going to pay you a visit.
Seriously, this makes a _lot_ of sense. I wonder if they actually sit around scheming things like this, or if it just happens this way. And if it just happens, why? What forces shape the market to turn out this way (and "economics, stupid" is an incomplete answer)?
Even if we accept your explanation at face value, and I have no reason not to, apparently the guy couldn't use his PC to indicate acceptance, so how does this fulfill the "Using the product constitutes acceptance of the contract"?
When I served on our local school board, one of our teachers had pop-ups take over his screen when a student used the PC while the teacher was logged in. He quickly responded to the situation to minimize the exposure, but some students still saw things they shouldn't, according to the district, and it was reported up the chain. When I heard about it, I was more unhappy with the IT folks who can manage to block all sorts of sites, and lock down this, and make impenetrable that, according to their boasts, but couldn't block a pop-up. I argued that if anyone should be punished, it should be the head IT guy, but, as only one voice among seven on the board, I was overruled and the principal wrote up the teacher for some infraction or another - I don't recall exactly what they settled on. I don't believe it was turned over to the police or DA, though.
Good luck with the re-trial, but if their district is anything like ours, a "not guilty" verdict still won't help her get her job back. Not that she'd want to work for them, anyway...
Spoken like someone who's never been in charge of a classroom full of kids. Rounding up the kids and marching them off somewhere else is easier said than done, and entirely appropriate for dire emergencies, but hardly for a porn pop-up on the screen.
I don't know why she couldn't have just turned off the monitor, but losing a teaching license for this, let alone serve 40 years in jail, is beyond extreme.
And, at least in NY, you don't need a teaching license to work as a sub; in many districts, all you need is two years of college.
New Jersey?? "The horror..."
The nice folks over at scientology.com should be able to help.
Why? Is she going to get pregnant from it? Does this thing play drums in a screemo band, and she's going to run off with it (apologies ahead of time for the implied stereotype of screemo band drummers)? I know you're joking - at least I think you're joking - but she's harmlessly entertaining herself. It could be worse, bud...
Hey, it could be worse. He could've said Barbara Bush. Or Margaret Thatcher.
You make some good points, and I don't disagree with you. But much like a full-house beats three of a kind, perception beats reality. What the rest of the world sees is a collection of border-line lunatics waving rifles, throwing rocks, stoning people to death, showing bloody hands as a symbol of an "accomplishment," dragging dead bodies through the streets, etc. Maybe the mainstream Muslims _are_ tolerant, but you'd never know it from what we typically see. And I'm curious: if the majority are peaceful, tolerant, etc., why don't they do something about the minority that are casting _all_ of them in a bad light? Like here in the States, when the KKK holds a rally - rarer and rarer, thankfully - you typically see a collection of people who counter their message, to show them for the "haters" they really are. In the numerous clippings we see of the Middle East, you never see the "good" Muslims shouting down the "radical" Muslims.
Yes, every Muslim _is_ part of the problem. If they're not doing anything to stop their fellow Muslims from doing things like this, or "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation, or... then they're part of the problem. Something about, "No man is an island."
Maybe the others knew how to handle it better... ;-)
I agree that police - as well as politicians, and other public servants - should do their jobs. But I'm sure there were, are and will be higher priority items for our cops to work on. You know, things that might actually keep the public safe, or help out someone who's been wronged.
For example, the last few times I've bit the bullet and gone down to the police station to ask for assistance, or file some complaint, I've been totally blown off. They don't care. They don't _have_ to care. Someone broke into your house and stole your stuff? Yeah, we'll look into it, but don't hold your breath. In fact, if you push your luck, we'll look into it deep enough that we'll find something to use against _you_. Go 'way, boy, you bother me.
Someone backed into your car and drove away, leaving $800 worth of damage? Yeah, we won't ask any of the 15 potential witnesses if they saw anything; it's too much work to get out of my patrol car. Um.
No, instead, they're harassing guys for sitting in front of a cafe using free wi-fi. _That's_ not serving the public. That's fiddling while Rome burns, and those cops should be embarrassed that they spent that much time on a non-issue rather than any of the umpteen other matters that would actually make a difference.
> Milanowski didn't immediately cite or arrest Peterson, mostly because he wasn't certain a crime had been committed. "I had a feeling a law was being broken," the chief said. Milanowski did some research and found Michigan's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
A job well done to chief Milanowski. Way to dig for a tool to hit the guy with. Instead of tracking down drug dealers, thieves or physically abusive spouses - or even setting speed traps - he's protecting the town against wi-fi users. I feel so much safer...
I wonder if it came into consideration the idea that a) using a freely offered wi-fi connection doesn't seem to cover the intent of the law as described; and b) the cafe offered the wi-fi connection _freely_. Whether it was offered specifically to customers or anyone in a radius - which isn't made clear - the cafe was offering and didn't even complain about the guy using it. They certainly could either post a sign saying, "Must be a customer to use this service," like restrooms, or enable a key that would be given out only to customers.
Again, Bravo! to chief Wiggum - oops, Milanowski - for going well out of his way to bust someone. You, sir, are a shining example of what law enforcement should be like - in a police state...
Ok, this article says that three students were suspended for 40 days - which, as others have argued, seems excessive. At least they were consistent - in this case. I want to see the school policy that stipulates this amount of punishment for this particular crime. Schools have tons of policies; I want to see how they came to the conclusion that 40 days suspension was appropriate. How did they justify 8 weeks of missed schooling for after-the-fact class disruption, versus a typical five day suspension for fighting?
Recently, we had a student who was busted for being drunk at the prom. His punishment, as determined by established policy, was three days suspension. There's no way, even if this Seattle kid was involved in the filming or production, or was dancing stark naked with the teacher in front of the class, that this is worth 40 days.
Another question the kid should ask is: what is the policy? If they have a policy for suspension, what does it say in this case? Is disruption of class typically a 40 day penalty? If so, I wonder how they would've handled a drunk kid at the prom, which seems worse, to me, than a prank in class.
Seems to me a knee-jerk reaction designed to send a message, but, as usual with school boards - I served on one - it's the wrong message. Cue quote from M. Twain...
You forgot "6. Profit!!!" It's pretty much required, ya know...
We're preaching to the choir, here. No one, here - at least no dyed in the wool /.er - would say that MS is doing a [good|intelligent|moral] thing. We all know they're not. But, to steal a phrase that still gives me the giggles, "from the abyss of our parents' basements, we strike at thee with our nerd forum debating skills." Which is all good, but somewhat useless.
We need to get our message to the right people: we somehow need to let the Fortune 500 folks who are about to succumb to extortion know that they're just being ripped off. How do we do that? I say we take up a collection and place a full page ad in the NY Times, or WSJ. I got, lessee, two bucks and forty-five cents. Wait, I found another penny.
Reminds me of that - apocryphal, of course - excerpt from a 9th grade History report:
In the late 1800's, all of the Morons moved to Utah.
Well, if that's the case, how do we explain DC?