No, Clinton got involved in a war in former Yugoslavia, so nobody would pay attention to the fact that he was a serial sexual abuser of women subordinates.
As I asked someone else, I take it you would have no problem hiring someone as your bookkeeper who had just got out of jail for embezzling from the last guy he worked for as a bookkeeper?
They convicted Martha Stewart of lying about insider trading, but they never proved that she did any insider trading. They never even charged her with insider trading.
The poster I replied to was clearly implying that Haliburton got their contracts during the Bush Administration because Dick Cheney used to work for them. However, Haliburton was getting the same type of contracts before Dick Cheney was Vice President, so I was pointing out that his case was not made.
It is important when trying to fight government corruption (or other wrong doing by the powerful) to clearly make one's case and to not get sucked into edge cases that have an appearance of serving a partisan agenda. This is because there are many who will use corruption fighters for partisan advantage and then promptly abandon the cause when their group is in power.
Here in Canada, we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world. We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.
Why can't we (Canada, Australia and everywhere else) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online? This way the government wouldn't need to do internet censorship.
Because then the government wouldn't be able to use that excuse to control what their subjects are allowed to view. (Whenever a government acts as Australia is in this case it is clear that it views its population as subjects, not as citizens).
Of course it didn't help that he was convicted of abusing the trust that people gave him when offered his services as a security consultant in the first place (which appears to be his only marketable skills).
Similar checkboxes were on my security clearance application. The way I see it, it's so they can charge you with lying on a gov't form later if it turns out you are a terr'ist.
Actually, it is probably perjury. And that probably is the reason. They might not be able to prove the terrorism charge, but they'll convict you on the perjury charge.
Touch screens will never replace keyboards. It is possible that a dedicated touchscreen that is designed as a strictly input device will replace keyboards, but I suspect that most people will still prefer the tactile feel of an actual keyboard. However a display screen that also doubles as an input device will never replace the keyboard except in specialized usage (such as phones). It may be become a standard part of PCs in addition to keyboards.
On the other hand an admin giving a tour of the lab to some people asked me how much I loved the new great mouse from Apple (that was quite a while ago).
This reminds of some jobs I had before I got into IT. I worked for two of the leaders in one particular retail field as a store manager at different times. At both of those, I was at a regional managers' meeting where someone from corporate was introducing us to some new technology they were rolling out. After they had gone over all of the features and how it worked, they picked me out to ask, "Aren't you just excited to see this new tool coming out?" (or some variation on that). My answer was "No". They were stupid enough to ask me why not. So I proceeded to explain point out all the ways this new technology was going to make my job much harder with little benefit for me (Lots of benefit for the corporate office, but little to no for those actually in the stores).
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
The point I was making (in response to a poster who was trying to use this type of ruling to find a loophole in copyright that is not there), is that according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling a fact is independent of my publishing it and therefore can at least be theoretically obtained without reference to my publication.
Obviously, yes - but what about the kind of data day-traders use, for instance?
Companies are charging a lot of money for what is essentially access to facts about the value of stocks, commodities and currency over time.
If someone were to pay for this service, get the data, and then make these same facts freely available via his or her website... would that be legal under this ruling?
Probably, unless of course the contract he signed to obtain said data explicitly forbade such usage (which it probably would). If the company providing that service did not have such a clause, they would probably decline to renew his contract when it was up (assuming of course that he were able to get it posted to his website fast enough to matter). If I were to subscribe to such a service and post the data to my website so that it was freely available the following day, I doubt the company providing the service would care.
But if I make a list of all names which appear in your list, it's facts again, namely the fact which names appear in your list...
The way the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reads, it is not possible to copyright facts that could (at least in theory) be obtained without any reference to the copyrighted work. So, the OP's list is probably not copyrightable, since it is theoretically possible to obtain the same list by consulting the phone book. However, if there was more to the OP's list than just names obtained from the phone book, you would not pass the legal test by "listing the names that appear in his list." If he could demonstrate that the only possible way that you could have obtained the information you are copying is by reference, even if only indirectly, to his list. For example if he had put his list in some order other than alphabetical that he thought emphasized how funny sounding the names were and your copy was in the same order.
So, I could make a list of the words that Tolkien used in "The Hobbit", but if I put them in the exact same order as he did, that would violate copyright (although in my opinion "The Hobbit" should no longer be under copyright).
There have been several studies that indicate that countries with free trade are economically better off than their trading partners with high barriers to trade.
Big stores periodically rearrange the shelves on purpose to get you to wander around more. If you already know the layout, you are less likely to impulse shop from seeing something you weren't actually looking for. Watch that superwalmart. After it is "finished", you'll notice them doing it again a few months later.
That is absolutely true. What is funny about that is that a year or two ago somebody did another study and discovered that while there is a significant amount of impulse buying, the people who spend the most money don't impulse buy. Which fits with what I find, I get angry whenever I go into a store I frequent on a regular basis and can't find what I am looking for where I expect it to be. I tend to shop at the same stores all the time. However, those stores are stores where I can go in, walk straight to where the item I am looking for is, get it and leave. If I go into a store for a single item and it isn't where I expect it to be, I am significantly less likely to return to that store the next time I need a single item (and somewhat more likely to make my big shopping trips elsewhere as well).
And was Christ's life documented as well as Cicero's, or Caesar's?
Yes. I am not going to go into all of the historical basis for accepting the documentation that shows that Jesus actually lived. If you are interested, do the research yourself.
A place to start would be "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. While I am sure that you would not accept his conclusions at face value, they would provide you with a basis to investigate the facts for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Clinton got involved in a war in former Yugoslavia, so nobody would pay attention to the fact that he was a serial sexual abuser of women subordinates.
Google is your friend.
Once again, Halliburton got no bid contracts under Clinton.
As I asked someone else, I take it you would have no problem hiring someone as your bookkeeper who had just got out of jail for embezzling from the last guy he worked for as a bookkeeper?
As another poster pointed out already. Haliburton get no bid contracts under Clinton. So, try again.
So, you would have no problem hiring a guy to be your bookkeeper who had been convicted of embezzling from the last guy he worked for as a bookkeeper?
They convicted Martha Stewart of lying about insider trading, but they never proved that she did any insider trading. They never even charged her with insider trading.
The poster I replied to was clearly implying that Haliburton got their contracts during the Bush Administration because Dick Cheney used to work for them. However, Haliburton was getting the same type of contracts before Dick Cheney was Vice President, so I was pointing out that his case was not made.
It is important when trying to fight government corruption (or other wrong doing by the powerful) to clearly make one's case and to not get sucked into edge cases that have an appearance of serving a partisan agenda. This is because there are many who will use corruption fighters for partisan advantage and then promptly abandon the cause when their group is in power.
Halliburten got contract after contract with a former employee as vice president of the United States
Of course, it got the same sorts of contracts when Bill Clinton was President.
Here in Canada, we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world. We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.
Why can't we (Canada, Australia and everywhere else) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online? This way the government wouldn't need to do internet censorship.
Because then the government wouldn't be able to use that excuse to control what their subjects are allowed to view. (Whenever a government acts as Australia is in this case it is clear that it views its population as subjects, not as citizens).
Of course it didn't help that he was convicted of abusing the trust that people gave him when offered his services as a security consultant in the first place (which appears to be his only marketable skills).
Similar checkboxes were on my security clearance application. The way I see it, it's so they can charge you with lying on a gov't form later if it turns out you are a terr'ist.
Actually, it is probably perjury. And that probably is the reason. They might not be able to prove the terrorism charge, but they'll convict you on the perjury charge.
What job? You say that people will say that the Ipad "gets the job done", what job? What is the job that the Ipad is the perfect device for?
Touch screens will never replace keyboards. It is possible that a dedicated touchscreen that is designed as a strictly input device will replace keyboards, but I suspect that most people will still prefer the tactile feel of an actual keyboard. However a display screen that also doubles as an input device will never replace the keyboard except in specialized usage (such as phones). It may be become a standard part of PCs in addition to keyboards.
No, the Ipad appears to be an oversized Ipod designed to be an ereader.
On the other hand an admin giving a tour of the lab to some people asked me how much I loved the new great mouse from Apple (that was quite a while ago).
This reminds of some jobs I had before I got into IT. I worked for two of the leaders in one particular retail field as a store manager at different times. At both of those, I was at a regional managers' meeting where someone from corporate was introducing us to some new technology they were rolling out. After they had gone over all of the features and how it worked, they picked me out to ask, "Aren't you just excited to see this new tool coming out?" (or some variation on that). My answer was "No". They were stupid enough to ask me why not. So I proceeded to explain point out all the ways this new technology was going to make my job much harder with little benefit for me (Lots of benefit for the corporate office, but little to no for those actually in the stores).
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
The point I was making (in response to a poster who was trying to use this type of ruling to find a loophole in copyright that is not there), is that according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling a fact is independent of my publishing it and therefore can at least be theoretically obtained without reference to my publication.
If the ruling is significantly similar to the U.S. ruling that found the same thing, the answer is no.
Obviously, yes - but what about the kind of data day-traders use, for instance?
Companies are charging a lot of money for what is essentially access to facts about the value of stocks, commodities and currency over time.
If someone were to pay for this service, get the data, and then make these same facts freely available via his or her website... would that be legal under this ruling?
Probably, unless of course the contract he signed to obtain said data explicitly forbade such usage (which it probably would). If the company providing that service did not have such a clause, they would probably decline to renew his contract when it was up (assuming of course that he were able to get it posted to his website fast enough to matter). If I were to subscribe to such a service and post the data to my website so that it was freely available the following day, I doubt the company providing the service would care.
But if I make a list of all names which appear in your list, it's facts again, namely the fact which names appear in your list ...
The way the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reads, it is not possible to copyright facts that could (at least in theory) be obtained without any reference to the copyrighted work. So, the OP's list is probably not copyrightable, since it is theoretically possible to obtain the same list by consulting the phone book. However, if there was more to the OP's list than just names obtained from the phone book, you would not pass the legal test by "listing the names that appear in his list." If he could demonstrate that the only possible way that you could have obtained the information you are copying is by reference, even if only indirectly, to his list. For example if he had put his list in some order other than alphabetical that he thought emphasized how funny sounding the names were and your copy was in the same order.
So, I could make a list of the words that Tolkien used in "The Hobbit", but if I put them in the exact same order as he did, that would violate copyright (although in my opinion "The Hobbit" should no longer be under copyright).
There have been several studies that indicate that countries with free trade are economically better off than their trading partners with high barriers to trade.
Big stores periodically rearrange the shelves on purpose to get you to wander around more. If you already know the layout, you are less likely to impulse shop from seeing something you weren't actually looking for. Watch that superwalmart. After it is "finished", you'll notice them doing it again a few months later.
That is absolutely true. What is funny about that is that a year or two ago somebody did another study and discovered that while there is a significant amount of impulse buying, the people who spend the most money don't impulse buy. Which fits with what I find, I get angry whenever I go into a store I frequent on a regular basis and can't find what I am looking for where I expect it to be. I tend to shop at the same stores all the time. However, those stores are stores where I can go in, walk straight to where the item I am looking for is, get it and leave. If I go into a store for a single item and it isn't where I expect it to be, I am significantly less likely to return to that store the next time I need a single item (and somewhat more likely to make my big shopping trips elsewhere as well).
And was Christ's life documented as well as Cicero's, or Caesar's?
Yes. I am not going to go into all of the historical basis for accepting the documentation that shows that Jesus actually lived. If you are interested, do the research yourself.
A place to start would be "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. While I am sure that you would not accept his conclusions at face value, they would provide you with a basis to investigate the facts for yourself.
I'm glad to see that you are so open minded and receptive to ideas that you don't already hold.