Bloggers link to each other so they can find each other, not so they have pagerank coming out of their ass.
Spammers, however, discovered this pagerank, and started abusing it. Google 'solved' this problem by giving bloggers the ability to add a note to a link saying 'Don't give this any pagerank'.
However, spammers, being about as smart as pond scum's waste products, continue to spam blogs, even the ones that had such attributes added automatically. (These are the same people who attempt to deliver mail to hundreds of addresses on my server that do not and never have existed.) Spammers apparently cannot tell blogs apart.
And hence, to force the issue, blogs have started abusing the power themselves. Google now must write something to tell blogs apart from normal websites, or its entire database will be under the control of bloggers, mwhahahahaha.
The hope is that if google fixes this, within two or three years spammers who have been spamming blogs will have drowned by staring up when it's raining or deciding to go outside for a smoke break while on an airplane, and the new crop won't ever have spammed any blogs. (Spammers cannot learn to stop doing things, only to do new things.)
Of course, bloggers may be overestimating the intelligence of spammers by assuming they know how to operate airplane doors or tilt their head back.
Yes, they can do that, because your bank sucks. They can legally charge you 20 dollars for accepted checks, they can certainly do it for unaccepted ones. (Just the other day, First Union tried to charge me five dollars for cashing a check on themselves. What the fuck? I took the check and walked out, cashed it at my own bank. I was tempted to press it and point out they can't do that...they can charge the account holder, but they cannot refuse to honor the draft (Checks are legally drafts on accounts.) or charge me to do so.)
And the other bank can, like I said, after three months (They've changed that since I looked last, apparently.), refuse to honor a check if it so chooses. (Although 'expires after 45 days or 30 days' are just gibberish. A bank cannot refuse a legitimate check written on itself issued less than three months ago (aka, non-overdue) unless there has been a hold placed on it by the payee.)
I'm still not sure as to how they got away with taking the money back out. However, there are two sets of banking regulations in this country. The legal regulations that state how banks have to treat each other, and non-customers, and the contract you signed with your bank. It's entirely possibly they can withdraw all the money from your account because you looked at them funny. (So maybe you shouldn't take my advise and try to deposit expired checks, at least not without checking your bank contract. But you can still take them to the bank they are issued on.)
However, you need to point out to your bank that the other bank chose to dishonor (Be sure to use the word 'dishonor', it's a legal term.) your perfectly valid overdue check. If your bank won't refund the money they charged you, close your account with them. Don't put up with that crap. It's one thing to take the cash back out, it's another to treat it like a bad check...it isn't, legally. Banks cannot honor bad checks, banks choose not to honor overdue checks.
Be sure to read up here on how checks work. Be sure to pay careful attention to terms...a check is 'a negotiable instrument that is a draft that's payable on demand'. Not a 'cashier's check' or a 'teller's check'.
Do you still have the check? Because what you neeed to do is take it to the bank, and deposit it, and it will be honored, sometimes. Checks do not legally 'expire', despite what it says on the check.
Some banks won't honor checks over six months old, and a few amount won't honor checks with a different expiration date...but many will, and you just need to slip it into the system once. Once it get into the computer, it won't be stopped, computers have no idea of expiration dates.
And if they accept it, they can't take it back out, even if they realize it later. It's not 'fraudulent', it's just that they failed to follow their own policy in what checks they would accept.
So first go to your bank and try to deposit it. (Not cash, just deposit, they pay a lot less attention to those checks, because if it's bad they can suck the money back out. Also note your bank has no incentive to care.) Then try their bank.
If all that fails, or you no longer have the check, you have the legal right to contact the issuer and demand they honor their debt. The check expiration was not part of the rebate rules...they still owe you that money.
Check expirations are mainly a scam. Don't fall for it. A check is not a contract, and just printing something one is explictly not legally binding under the UCC. Even if the check won't be honored by a bank, the money is still owed to you, and you can demand another check.
Use multiple addresses: If your name is John Jones, ask your non-computing friends to tell their postmen that a new person, John Jones, lives at their address. Your friends cannot accidentally cash the rebate check when it arrives because it will be in your name. One CD recorder for $5 may be a marginal deal after considering the time it takes to prepare the rebate forms; three drives for $15 may be worth the time. Rebates are often one per household; you are the John Jones in your friend's household. If you don't feel comfortable with this, apply for the rebate in your friend's name. There are no restrictions on who does the buying or on who prepares the forms.
Do not do this, this is mail fraud. Never lie to the post office about who lives where, or make up people.
OTOH, because you don't have to live somewhere to receive mail there, feel free to tell the post office that you can receive mail at those addresses. Which amounts to the same thing but doesn't involve a made up person. (Actually, you don't need to tell the post office, so I'm not exactly sure what the parent is talking about. They'll either deliver the mail to those people, or 'correct' it to your address, and either way it works.)
If you're really clever, you can go to the post office and have your mail forwarded from their address to yours. (You'll want to inform them first, although legally you probably don't have to.)
But most people already have plenty of places they actually could receive mail. Like their parent's or sibling's house. (And you trust them a bit more than random neighbors.)
No one's saying stores should come with infinite stock.
However, advertisting products you know you're going to run out of, in hopes it gets people in the store so they'll buy other things, is called 'bait-and-switch', and can be illegal.
And the point wasn't that customers have a right to the product, but that the store was causing its own damn problems and problems for everyone else, so maybe the store should stop whining about it.
Rebates are scams, pure and simple. They shouldn't be allowed to advertist rebate prices unless they also advertise how many of them do not get paid and all the hoops you have to jump through to get one.
While Replaygain isn't the solution, foobar2000 does have the ability to do 'dynamic compression' that is exactly this, called foo_dynamics. I don't know if it came with foobar2000 or not, but it would be easy enough to find if not.
If you just want to kill loud sounds, there's also a 'soft clipping limiter' that will just not let sounds get any louder than a certain volume.
As I said in another post, somebody has to make a decision somewhere along the line, and somebody will make some money out of the deal. The person who makes the money will try to influence the person that makes the decision. A law doesn't magically change that. And as long as the federal government is providing funding, it will encourage the breaking of that law even if it did exist.
No, it wouldn't. That's absurd. Organ transplanting gets a lot of federal funding, and because of that government oversight, very little sale of human organs happen. Because of the government, illegal organ sales happen entirely seperate of the legit donation system.
And, no, with government funded research, often no one makes any money. Um, DUH. If companies were making money from it, they would be funding it! We wouldn't need to!
But no one makes any money off of unpatentable therapies. NO ONE. That includes all surgical techniques and any likely results from stem cell research. You can patent certain drugs, but you can't patent 'curing a patient using stem cells in this way', and thus no private industry is likely to fund it. That sort of research is only funded by the government and some large hospitals and universities.
I think it's unlikely that people are being grown entirely for their organs. I think it's much more likely that embryos will be produced for the purpose of stem cell research, law or not.
Erm, it's not 'grown' that's at issue there, it's killed that's at issue with regard to selling organs. I thought that was obvious, but I guess some people don't know that.
Are you suggesting that there is greater demand for embryos when the government is not funding research upon them? That doesn't make any sense. The demand for embryos will be much higher if federal money is subsidizing the research.
Yes, and the government oversight will be a hell of a lot higher, also. You can't step up a embryo purchasing system at a government-supported lab, just like you can't set up an aspirin manufacturing plant, the government wants to know everything you're doing with the lab and federal funds. If there was Federal funding of stem cells, there would be ten or twenty lines created that scientists could get stem cells from, after filling out miles of paperwork.
But you can trivially set an embryo purchasing system in private industry, especially as our 'morality' leader hasn't even bothered to outlaw the sell of them. Without any sort of oversight at all.
Luckily, like I said, there's no profit to going in the stem cell research business, and thus no private lab is likely to do that. And if they did they'd only have to buy a few embryos before they had enough, so it's unlikely anyone would set up any sort of supply business.
Of course, that logic only works because, despite the Republican retortic, private industry is not going to step up and fund stem cell research.
So, it's the position of the church that sex is a 'a natural, chance occurence'? That not only is it normal, but the results of sex is entirely seperate from the moral implications of sex? Interesting.
Because I've heard exactly the opposite from the pro-life camp...that if you choose to make a life, you should be responsible for it. But not responsible enough, apparently, to do anything about it dying naturally.
So, you're allowed to let 'babies' die through inaction, but not through action, right? Does that mean you have feed them and whatnot? (Morally, I mean.)
Anyway, you're now saying we shouldn't allow any IVF at all, because when the 'baby' is implanted, there's only a 50% chance it will live, right? And IVF isn't natural, right?
I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.
Soon embryonic stem cells will be obsolete. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do research with them, because anything we learn can be transfered over once we figure out how to reset all cells.
In fact, doing research on them is the best way to figure out how to reset other cells. We can't figure ou thow normal cells are different if we don't have anything to compare them to.
So, to avoid conflicts of interest you...restrict federal funding? WTF? IVF clinics aren't going to be doing the research, and they don't get federal funding anyway!
If you're afraid of embryos being sold, the obvious and sane solution would be to ban the sell of them. Absolutely no one would have a problem with that. (I'm really baffled as to why this hasn't happened.)
Exactly like, duh, we ban the sale of human organs, in fact. You could probably just amend those laws.
In fact, by banning federal funding, you've pushed research out to labs that are less worried about pissing the government off, and thus more likely to start buying embryos.
Do Republicans actually think about what they are doing?
If you think that Bush in particular is deceiving us, that's another topic that warrants further evidence.
With all due respect, it requires about as much investigate as the topic 'Does the earth orbit the sun?' does.;) Of course Bush is deceiving us! Of course the conservatives are pulling a bait-and-switch with morality.
If they actually solved the problems they were yammering about, they wouldn't have any way get get elected next time.
Why isn't in criminal to create these 'babies' to implant when you know that they only have a one out of two chance of living in the first place?
In fact, why isn't it criminal to have sex, because if the woman gets 'pregnant' from that, the odds are the 'baby' will not live out the first month? Something like 2/3 of all women who get 'pregnant' never know it, because their body kills the 'baby' at their next period. (At which point, BTW, they are much much further developed than the 16 cell 'babies' that are killed with IVF.)
Oh, apparently God killing a quarter billion 'babies' a year is okay. At least, I don't see you doing anything about it.
Instead, you're whining about saving a few thousand 'babies' that wouldn't even exist if not for us.
Me, I'm amazed at all these scientists who insist on researching things with no promise. I mean, in what universe do we fund pointless research, anyway? Don't they have to write up a proposal and justify how they are going to use the funding for some worthwhile goal?
Can I propose an expedition to find the hole at the north pole and climb within and make contact with the people living on the inside of the earth? Could I propose building a giant soda can and mechanical shaking arm that we can put people on top of and launch them into orbit when we open it? Are we really giving scientists money for research that has no promise and is patently stupid?
Of course not. Either the people handing out funding to scientists are idiots, or perhaps they know more human development and the potential of stem cells than the Bush administration.
I think you mean the xSeries. The minicomputer that can run Linux or Windows 2003 in a virtual enviroment?
Yeah, can't imagine what they'd do about that. Except, you know, try to sell more Linux installations instead of Windows.
In fact, can you even buy Windows 2003 with an xSeries? Don't you buy that separately? It looks like you can't buy it with Linux or Windows at all, you just install those.
Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers link to each other so they can find each other, not so they have pagerank coming out of their ass.
Spammers, however, discovered this pagerank, and started abusing it. Google 'solved' this problem by giving bloggers the ability to add a note to a link saying 'Don't give this any pagerank'.
However, spammers, being about as smart as pond scum's waste products, continue to spam blogs, even the ones that had such attributes added automatically. (These are the same people who attempt to deliver mail to hundreds of addresses on my server that do not and never have existed.) Spammers apparently cannot tell blogs apart.
And hence, to force the issue, blogs have started abusing the power themselves. Google now must write something to tell blogs apart from normal websites, or its entire database will be under the control of bloggers, mwhahahahaha.
The hope is that if google fixes this, within two or three years spammers who have been spamming blogs will have drowned by staring up when it's raining or deciding to go outside for a smoke break while on an airplane, and the new crop won't ever have spammed any blogs. (Spammers cannot learn to stop doing things, only to do new things.)
Of course, bloggers may be overestimating the intelligence of spammers by assuming they know how to operate airplane doors or tilt their head back.
And the other bank can, like I said, after three months (They've changed that since I looked last, apparently.), refuse to honor a check if it so chooses. (Although 'expires after 45 days or 30 days' are just gibberish. A bank cannot refuse a legitimate check written on itself issued less than three months ago (aka, non-overdue) unless there has been a hold placed on it by the payee.)
I'm still not sure as to how they got away with taking the money back out. However, there are two sets of banking regulations in this country. The legal regulations that state how banks have to treat each other, and non-customers, and the contract you signed with your bank. It's entirely possibly they can withdraw all the money from your account because you looked at them funny. (So maybe you shouldn't take my advise and try to deposit expired checks, at least not without checking your bank contract. But you can still take them to the bank they are issued on.)
However, you need to point out to your bank that the other bank chose to dishonor (Be sure to use the word 'dishonor', it's a legal term.) your perfectly valid overdue check. If your bank won't refund the money they charged you, close your account with them. Don't put up with that crap. It's one thing to take the cash back out, it's another to treat it like a bad check...it isn't, legally. Banks cannot honor bad checks, banks choose not to honor overdue checks.
Be sure to read up here on how checks work. Be sure to pay careful attention to terms...a check is 'a negotiable instrument that is a draft that's payable on demand'. Not a 'cashier's check' or a 'teller's check'.
Some banks won't honor checks over six months old, and a few amount won't honor checks with a different expiration date...but many will, and you just need to slip it into the system once. Once it get into the computer, it won't be stopped, computers have no idea of expiration dates.
And if they accept it, they can't take it back out, even if they realize it later. It's not 'fraudulent', it's just that they failed to follow their own policy in what checks they would accept.
So first go to your bank and try to deposit it. (Not cash, just deposit, they pay a lot less attention to those checks, because if it's bad they can suck the money back out. Also note your bank has no incentive to care.) Then try their bank.
If all that fails, or you no longer have the check, you have the legal right to contact the issuer and demand they honor their debt. The check expiration was not part of the rebate rules...they still owe you that money.
Check expirations are mainly a scam. Don't fall for it. A check is not a contract, and just printing something one is explictly not legally binding under the UCC. Even if the check won't be honored by a bank, the money is still owed to you, and you can demand another check.
Do not do this, this is mail fraud. Never lie to the post office about who lives where, or make up people.
OTOH, because you don't have to live somewhere to receive mail there, feel free to tell the post office that you can receive mail at those addresses. Which amounts to the same thing but doesn't involve a made up person. (Actually, you don't need to tell the post office, so I'm not exactly sure what the parent is talking about. They'll either deliver the mail to those people, or 'correct' it to your address, and either way it works.)
If you're really clever, you can go to the post office and have your mail forwarded from their address to yours. (You'll want to inform them first, although legally you probably don't have to.)
But most people already have plenty of places they actually could receive mail. Like their parent's or sibling's house. (And you trust them a bit more than random neighbors.)
However, advertisting products you know you're going to run out of, in hopes it gets people in the store so they'll buy other things, is called 'bait-and-switch', and can be illegal.
And the point wasn't that customers have a right to the product, but that the store was causing its own damn problems and problems for everyone else, so maybe the store should stop whining about it.
QPS wasn't committing fraud at all, they were committing bankruptcy, which is perfectly legal. (In fact, it is a legally defined process.)
CompuServe, however, was advertising rebates that did not exist. It was the only place committing fraud.
It's frowned upon because giving people more incentive to spend a company's money is pretty damn stupid.
Rebates are scams, pure and simple. They shouldn't be allowed to advertist rebate prices unless they also advertise how many of them do not get paid and all the hoops you have to jump through to get one.
I suspect Jar-Jar.
A DoS you can do with nmap or netcat with a forged source IP, forget requiring any special tools.
Those servers?
Trust him, he's a music industry professional.
If you just want to kill loud sounds, there's also a 'soft clipping limiter' that will just not let sounds get any louder than a certain volume.
No, it wouldn't. That's absurd. Organ transplanting gets a lot of federal funding, and because of that government oversight, very little sale of human organs happen. Because of the government, illegal organ sales happen entirely seperate of the legit donation system.
And, no, with government funded research, often no one makes any money. Um, DUH. If companies were making money from it, they would be funding it! We wouldn't need to!
But no one makes any money off of unpatentable therapies. NO ONE. That includes all surgical techniques and any likely results from stem cell research. You can patent certain drugs, but you can't patent 'curing a patient using stem cells in this way', and thus no private industry is likely to fund it. That sort of research is only funded by the government and some large hospitals and universities.
I think it's unlikely that people are being grown entirely for their organs. I think it's much more likely that embryos will be produced for the purpose of stem cell research, law or not.
Erm, it's not 'grown' that's at issue there, it's killed that's at issue with regard to selling organs. I thought that was obvious, but I guess some people don't know that.
Are you suggesting that there is greater demand for embryos when the government is not funding research upon them? That doesn't make any sense. The demand for embryos will be much higher if federal money is subsidizing the research.
Yes, and the government oversight will be a hell of a lot higher, also. You can't step up a embryo purchasing system at a government-supported lab, just like you can't set up an aspirin manufacturing plant, the government wants to know everything you're doing with the lab and federal funds. If there was Federal funding of stem cells, there would be ten or twenty lines created that scientists could get stem cells from, after filling out miles of paperwork.
But you can trivially set an embryo purchasing system in private industry, especially as our 'morality' leader hasn't even bothered to outlaw the sell of them. Without any sort of oversight at all.
Luckily, like I said, there's no profit to going in the stem cell research business, and thus no private lab is likely to do that. And if they did they'd only have to buy a few embryos before they had enough, so it's unlikely anyone would set up any sort of supply business.
Of course, that logic only works because, despite the Republican retortic, private industry is not going to step up and fund stem cell research.
Because I've heard exactly the opposite from the pro-life camp...that if you choose to make a life, you should be responsible for it. But not responsible enough, apparently, to do anything about it dying naturally.
So, you're allowed to let 'babies' die through inaction, but not through action, right? Does that mean you have feed them and whatnot? (Morally, I mean.)
Anyway, you're now saying we shouldn't allow any IVF at all, because when the 'baby' is implanted, there's only a 50% chance it will live, right? And IVF isn't natural, right?
I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.
Ha! Good luck with getting that past the religious right.
You know, lighter-than-air ships are being used TODAY to transport actual people. Heavier-than-air ships are a dead end.
Soon embryonic stem cells will be obsolete. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do research with them, because anything we learn can be transfered over once we figure out how to reset all cells.
In fact, doing research on them is the best way to figure out how to reset other cells. We can't figure ou thow normal cells are different if we don't have anything to compare them to.
If you're afraid of embryos being sold, the obvious and sane solution would be to ban the sell of them. Absolutely no one would have a problem with that. (I'm really baffled as to why this hasn't happened.)
Exactly like, duh, we ban the sale of human organs, in fact. You could probably just amend those laws.
In fact, by banning federal funding, you've pushed research out to labs that are less worried about pissing the government off, and thus more likely to start buying embryos.
Do Republicans actually think about what they are doing?
I mean, that should get rid of the 'this could become a person' argument, right? It already did become a person!
Why do I have the feeling I'm about to be lynched?
Hell, these embyros aren't anywhere near as complicated as ants. They're completely undifferentiated. They're just a small blob of cells.
Something I don't understand...if sixteen cells are a 'person', than aren't existing stem cell lines 'people'?
With all due respect, it requires about as much investigate as the topic 'Does the earth orbit the sun?' does. ;) Of course Bush is deceiving us! Of course the conservatives are pulling a bait-and-switch with morality.
If they actually solved the problems they were yammering about, they wouldn't have any way get get elected next time.
In fact, why isn't it criminal to have sex, because if the woman gets 'pregnant' from that, the odds are the 'baby' will not live out the first month? Something like 2/3 of all women who get 'pregnant' never know it, because their body kills the 'baby' at their next period. (At which point, BTW, they are much much further developed than the 16 cell 'babies' that are killed with IVF.)
Oh, apparently God killing a quarter billion 'babies' a year is okay. At least, I don't see you doing anything about it.
Instead, you're whining about saving a few thousand 'babies' that wouldn't even exist if not for us.
Can I propose an expedition to find the hole at the north pole and climb within and make contact with the people living on the inside of the earth? Could I propose building a giant soda can and mechanical shaking arm that we can put people on top of and launch them into orbit when we open it? Are we really giving scientists money for research that has no promise and is patently stupid?
Of course not. Either the people handing out funding to scientists are idiots, or perhaps they know more human development and the potential of stem cells than the Bush administration.
Guess which one I'm suspecting? ;)
Yeah, can't imagine what they'd do about that. Except, you know, try to sell more Linux installations instead of Windows.
In fact, can you even buy Windows 2003 with an xSeries? Don't you buy that separately? It looks like you can't buy it with Linux or Windows at all, you just install those.