I would say it's closer to leaving them a voicemail. That's not really the issue though. Would you or I wave to someone in a public place after a court issues a no contact order? I sure as hell wouldn't. There's something wrong with that woman.
You know, I have almost never heard of someone having a restraining order placed upon them who didn't have "something wrong" with them. The only exceptions being cases where the person who got the restraining order issued had something seriously wrong with them that only became obvious after the restraining order was issued.
Are they? Forget AC, lets say both people have accounts, but they don't know each other...
You don't get a restraining order to not contact someone you don't know. Second, I thought that Facebook had a Terms of Service policy that required you to use your real name (I know that not everyone does, but I am pretty sure that such a TOS would make it impossible to violate the restraining order if the other person was using a pseudonym). If the person who had the restraining order issued was using their real name the violator has no case.
It's not fun to be in that situation and, frankly, if I can't just relax and be a PERSON instead of potential sex to the people I'd be dealing with to get involved with a project... why would I want to be there? It's just not worth it.
Then guess what, you can't work with straight guys (unless you are completely unattractive). I had a friend who once made the statement that guys are only friends with women they want to sleep with. That isn't entirely true, but it is very close to true. When I review the women friends I have made in my life, they fall into three categories: women I find attractive (or at least found attractive when we became friends), women I am/was forced to spend a large amount of time around do to some activity I wanted to do for other reasons, women who are close friends of my wife. Every woman in the first category is one who I would have slept with if circumstances had been different (I wasn't dating someone seriously/ married at the time, she wasn't dating someone seriously/married at the time). That is a fact of life, if you don't like it, sorry, that's the way it is.
Of course what you said is like most "sexual harassment", if the woman thinks the guy is unattractive it is sexual harassment, if she thinks he is attractive it isn't.
. UAC still requires multiple approvals before executing one task.
I almost always run Vista as a non-Administrator. The UAC never makes me do more than enter my Administrator password for any task. When I am doing a lot of Administrative tasks and log in as Administrator to avoid entering my password repeatedly, it only makes me click ok once for each task.
I wish I had mod points because that is the best summation of "cloud" computing I have read yet. Every few years some technological development causes this computing paradigm to be brought up as the "new thing" in computing. Every time this happens there are all these people talking about how it is the "wave of the future" and that all computing will go that way. After a few years, people realize that it has the same limitations that caused it to be rejected except for those limited industries and applications where it is a good idea. Of course, most of those were already using the old way of doing this and only move to this where the new implementation is an improvement over the old way.
There are always companies who massively push this "new" approach because it is a great way to guarantee a steady income stream
I know we'd all like to say that there is no link between illegally copied software (I refuse to use the word "pirated") and malware, but I'm sure we've all seen instances where relatives' PCs got infected by software downloaded from Kazaa, etc.
The majority of infected machines I have been asked to clean up have been infected by people using Limewire to download illegally copied music, only one of the ten or so where I could clearly identify the vector of infection was downloading illegally copied software. One of the others infected themselves by clicking to install "antivirus" software that a website told them they needed.
No, but it amazing how many people on slashdot don't have a clue and most of them call the "birthers" nutjobs. The birthers are wrong, but the Obama campaign intentionally cultivated the doubts of those who questioned his qualifications to be President.
Thats almost as dumb as putting a Halliburton CEO in charge of the entire military.
Luckily nothing that stupid would ever happen here in America.
You're right, that never happened. While Dick Cheney was at one point the CEO of Halliburton, he was in charge of the U.S. military before he worked for Halliburton. As Vice President he had no authority over the military.
cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health..
The problem is that the argument is not over "cleaning up the air", it is over whether CO2 represents something that needs to be cleaned up. While most people agree that reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air is a good thing, not everyone agrees that CO2 is a pollutant.
You know we the sane rational people, whose view of reality is informed by Western Science, as in "unlike those ancient authors, we now know that the Earth is not flat." Oh, sorry you don't know sane? Well you can fix that easily: take you science from authoritative sources such as the ISI peer-reviewed literature, or the IPCC, rather swallowing the BS fed to you by some denialist blog. Oh, you actually prefer being hoodwinked by pseudo-science and running with paranoid conspiracy theories of UN world government... well your choice.
Here's a tip. Wanna save the world? Reduce the population. Start with yourself by making out with a loaded shotgun.
Better still, why don't you make out? That way we'll reduce the population and increase the mean IQ all that the same time!
Well, obviously you can't be bothered to study history since there was never a time when a significant number of those who were literate thought that the earth was flat.
85% of households with a Mac is still less than 29% of households with Windows PC. The first number being the number with two or more computers (85% of households with a Mac also have a Windows PC), the second number being the number with three or more computers in a Windows PC only household (or Windows and other non Mac OS's, the article is not clear if it checked for non-windows, non-mac OS). The conclusion that the article reaches is the only one that the information supports: people who buy Macs have more money to spend on electronics.
Install unauthorized software on a government, or business, computer anywhere and see what sort of response you get.
This fellow installed an unauthorized perl script on a computer in a federal court (okay, the library thereof). I'm not surprised that the government decided to take a look at things. I'd be disappointed if they had not done so.
DUH.
Two points, how in Hades is there a government computer accessible to the public that a random person can install software on?
The second point is that I agree that I would expect the government to investigate someone who did someone like this even if it wasn't done from a government computer. However, this investigation was a bit of overkill, not a lot, but a bit. Run his name through the various federal databases to see what turns up, sure. Check for outstanding warrants and prior convictions, sure. Check if his mobile number had come up in a federal wiretap or pen register, sure. Check against a private data broker's database, overkill. Consider staking out his home when the other stuff came up empty (or before it was completed), overkill. The reason for the things I am "ok, sure" about is to see if there is reason to suspect that he has any motive other than making the data publicly available and if the motive might involve illegal activity, if that came up negative the investigation should have been closed at that point (which it apparently was).
What real commodity has stable inherent value? Don't give me gold (or any other "precious" metal), most of the value of gold is because people think it has that value.
If the FDIC needs to pay out more than half of the funds insured by it, I don't care what you have your money in, if you can't grow your own food you are in for a world of hurt.
From what I have read, I am pretty sure that someone at the network didn't want Firefly to succeed. I don't know why, but showing the episodes out of sequence and pre-empting it for special events are a pretty dependable way to ensure that a show will be a failure. I don't have any idea if the show would have been a success if they had broadcast it in order and with a regular schedule, but I am sure that someone at Fox wanted it to fail. I loved the show, but I never even heard of it until after it was canceled. The first I heard of it was when the movie was released, but then the only network shows I watch are sports.
Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes from Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit? The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews on their own website, whether written by professional reviewers or the public at large. Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.
You are right that the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their website. However, if they provide a link that says "read all user reviews" but they only show the positive reviews what they are doing is false advertising.
This is the crux of the matter. Apple modified Itunes to make the original Pre solution not work. No matter what arguments you make, modifying your product solely for the purpose of making it incompatible with a competitor's product is evil. If Apple had modified Itunes for other reasons and that modification, incidentally, broke compatibility with the Pre, that would be a different story (although I would question the claim that the compatibility was broken by accident). Apple didn't even try to pretend that they changed Itunes for any reason other than to break compatibility with the Pre.
The goal isn't to make the law confusing (most of the time), the goal is to take power away from judges. If we wrote things to be not confusing they'd be simple. And while simple may seem nice it would mean handing control of the more complicated issues to the judges. That or you end up with huge miscarriages of justice.
I would rather deal with complicated texts and have more power in the hands of the voters (theoretically) than which ever judge you happen to get. In small towns judges would have more power than anyone.
Except of course complicated laws have exactly the opposite effect of what you say the purpose is. Complicated laws mean that no one is quite sure what the law means. This gives lawyers and judges greater power.
Laws should be written simply and plainly, so that everyone can understand what they mean. Legislators should not try to cover every edge case. Once a law is passed and a court case comes up that covers an edge case, then if the judge decides the outcome contrary to the accepted norm, the legislature should write an amendment to the law fixing this particular "hole" in the law. Of course if legislators did not fell that they have to pass lots of laws it would help a lot too.
Laws should also be tightly focused. The health care reform is a perfect example of one bill trying to do too much. With health care reform the proponents are claiming they want to address the problem of people who do not have adequate health care coverage and they want to address the problem of health care (and health care coverage) costing too much. In addition to those two items, some health care reform proponents claim to want to address various other "problems" with American health care. The various "problems" should be addressed separately. If you want to address people who do not have health care coverage, write and pass a bill which will address that issue. If you want to address the high cost of health, care write a bill to address that. If you want to address the high cost of health care coverage, write a bill to address that.
There are two reasons for this. First if you are only worried about addressing one problem, it is a lot easier to see how to craft a solution. Second, if you are only trying to address one problem, it is a lot easier for the general public to determine if your bill will do what you are claiming it will do. Of course this second reason is why they write such complicated bills aimed at solving multiple problems, because it is much harder for the general populace to see the what the actual results of the bill will be.
When does a netbook stop being a netbook? My answer is a netbook costs less than $300 and has a screen 12" or less (I'm not sure that 12" isn't too big).
The demise of the print newspaper has a few causes.
3. Most print newspapers have journalist with a very liberal slant, and people don't want that anymore, witness the success of Fox News and online bloggers.
Appeal to Reason was liberal. The Daily Kos is liberal. Air America is liberal. Newspaper-wise, AFAIK, there are no liberal daily newspapers of any appreciable size in the US. It's hard to find a paper left of John Birch.
I take it you have never heard of either the Washington Post or the New York Times?
Repeated surveys have indicated that the majority of those working in the "news" business self-identify as liberal. In addition, an even larger percentage are registered Democratic. I stopped reading the local newspaper after I got tired of seeing political commentary in articles on the sports page. I am sure the writer didn't even know he was doing it, he just made some comment using what he considered a failure of a Republican politician as a simile for the failure of the local sports team.
Reckless driving (in NY) is defined as 'unreasonably endangering' others. And it is serious - a misdemeanor, not just a traffic violation. Do you have a crystal-clear definition of 'unreasonably endangering'? Does texting fall into that definition? The combination of the vague wording and the seriousness of the offence practically guarantees a jury trial. Reckless driving laws are best applied to really egregious cases, not something endlessly debatable like the safety of texting.
I agree that an education campaign is all that SHOULD be necessary, but there are a lot of idiots who think 'I can do it safely'. A potential hit to the wallet in terms of fines and insurance rates has a big effect on many people.
I do not believe that a jury trial would get you off of a reckless driving charge for texting while driving.
When I look at the laws of several states that define reckless driving, I conclude that texting while driving meets these definitions.
Several states have a violation called careless driving, which is not as severe as reckless driving but which also carries a significant penalty. When I consider the number of tickets for careless/reckless driving I have seen handed out by police for subjective behaviors, I fail to see how a careless/reckless driving ticket for texting while driving would not hold up just as well (if not better).
Slashdot Mirror
I would say it's closer to leaving them a voicemail. That's not really the issue though. Would you or I wave to someone in a public place after a court issues a no contact order? I sure as hell wouldn't. There's something wrong with that woman.
You know, I have almost never heard of someone having a restraining order placed upon them who didn't have "something wrong" with them. The only exceptions being cases where the person who got the restraining order issued had something seriously wrong with them that only became obvious after the restraining order was issued.
Are they? Forget AC, lets say both people have accounts, but they don't know each other. ..
You don't get a restraining order to not contact someone you don't know. Second, I thought that Facebook had a Terms of Service policy that required you to use your real name (I know that not everyone does, but I am pretty sure that such a TOS would make it impossible to violate the restraining order if the other person was using a pseudonym). If the person who had the restraining order issued was using their real name the violator has no case.
It's not fun to be in that situation and, frankly, if I can't just relax and be a PERSON instead of potential sex to the people I'd be dealing with to get involved with a project... why would I want to be there? It's just not worth it.
Then guess what, you can't work with straight guys (unless you are completely unattractive). I had a friend who once made the statement that guys are only friends with women they want to sleep with. That isn't entirely true, but it is very close to true. When I review the women friends I have made in my life, they fall into three categories: women I find attractive (or at least found attractive when we became friends), women I am/was forced to spend a large amount of time around do to some activity I wanted to do for other reasons, women who are close friends of my wife. Every woman in the first category is one who I would have slept with if circumstances had been different (I wasn't dating someone seriously/ married at the time, she wasn't dating someone seriously/married at the time). That is a fact of life, if you don't like it, sorry, that's the way it is.
Of course what you said is like most "sexual harassment", if the woman thinks the guy is unattractive it is sexual harassment, if she thinks he is attractive it isn't.
. UAC still requires multiple approvals before executing one task.
I almost always run Vista as a non-Administrator. The UAC never makes me do more than enter my Administrator password for any task. When I am doing a lot of Administrative tasks and log in as Administrator to avoid entering my password repeatedly, it only makes me click ok once for each task.
I wish I had mod points because that is the best summation of "cloud" computing I have read yet. Every few years some technological development causes this computing paradigm to be brought up as the "new thing" in computing. Every time this happens there are all these people talking about how it is the "wave of the future" and that all computing will go that way. After a few years, people realize that it has the same limitations that caused it to be rejected except for those limited industries and applications where it is a good idea. Of course, most of those were already using the old way of doing this and only move to this where the new implementation is an improvement over the old way.
There are always companies who massively push this "new" approach because it is a great way to guarantee a steady income stream
I know we'd all like to say that there is no link between illegally copied software (I refuse to use the word "pirated") and malware, but I'm sure we've all seen instances where relatives' PCs got infected by software downloaded from Kazaa, etc.
The majority of infected machines I have been asked to clean up have been infected by people using Limewire to download illegally copied music, only one of the ten or so where I could clearly identify the vector of infection was downloading illegally copied software. One of the others infected themselves by clicking to install "antivirus" software that a website told them they needed.
Close. FA means "(very) Friendly Article" and TFA means "The (very) Friendly Article". RTFA means "Read The Friendly Article". RTFG
The V is not included in the acronym because it is expected to be understood from context.
No, but it amazing how many people on slashdot don't have a clue and most of them call the "birthers" nutjobs. The birthers are wrong, but the Obama campaign intentionally cultivated the doubts of those who questioned his qualifications to be President.
Thats almost as dumb as putting a Halliburton CEO in charge of the entire military.
Luckily nothing that stupid would ever happen here in America.
You're right, that never happened. While Dick Cheney was at one point the CEO of Halliburton, he was in charge of the U.S. military before he worked for Halliburton. As Vice President he had no authority over the military.
cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health. .
The problem is that the argument is not over "cleaning up the air", it is over whether CO2 represents something that needs to be cleaned up. While most people agree that reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air is a good thing, not everyone agrees that CO2 is a pollutant.
And who's we, exactly?
You know we the sane rational people, whose view of reality is informed by Western Science, as in "unlike those ancient authors, we now know that the Earth is not flat." Oh, sorry you don't know sane? Well you can fix that easily: take you science from authoritative sources such as the ISI peer-reviewed literature, or the IPCC, rather swallowing the BS fed to you by some denialist blog. Oh, you actually prefer being hoodwinked by pseudo-science and running with paranoid conspiracy theories of UN world government ... well your choice.
Here's a tip. Wanna save the world? Reduce the population. Start with yourself by making out with a loaded shotgun.
Better still, why don't you make out? That way we'll reduce the population and increase the mean IQ all that the same time!
Well, obviously you can't be bothered to study history since there was never a time when a significant number of those who were literate thought that the earth was flat.
the more likely you are to have a Mac?
85% of households with a Mac is still less than 29% of households with Windows PC. The first number being the number with two or more computers (85% of households with a Mac also have a Windows PC), the second number being the number with three or more computers in a Windows PC only household (or Windows and other non Mac OS's, the article is not clear if it checked for non-windows, non-mac OS). The conclusion that the article reaches is the only one that the information supports: people who buy Macs have more money to spend on electronics.
Install unauthorized software on a government, or business, computer anywhere and see what sort of response you get. This fellow installed an unauthorized perl script on a computer in a federal court (okay, the library thereof). I'm not surprised that the government decided to take a look at things. I'd be disappointed if they had not done so. DUH.
Two points, how in Hades is there a government computer accessible to the public that a random person can install software on?
The second point is that I agree that I would expect the government to investigate someone who did someone like this even if it wasn't done from a government computer. However, this investigation was a bit of overkill, not a lot, but a bit. Run his name through the various federal databases to see what turns up, sure. Check for outstanding warrants and prior convictions, sure. Check if his mobile number had come up in a federal wiretap or pen register, sure. Check against a private data broker's database, overkill. Consider staking out his home when the other stuff came up empty (or before it was completed), overkill. The reason for the things I am "ok, sure" about is to see if there is reason to suspect that he has any motive other than making the data publicly available and if the motive might involve illegal activity, if that came up negative the investigation should have been closed at that point (which it apparently was).
What real commodity has stable inherent value? Don't give me gold (or any other "precious" metal), most of the value of gold is because people think it has that value.
If the FDIC needs to pay out more than half of the funds insured by it, I don't care what you have your money in, if you can't grow your own food you are in for a world of hurt.
From what I have read, I am pretty sure that someone at the network didn't want Firefly to succeed. I don't know why, but showing the episodes out of sequence and pre-empting it for special events are a pretty dependable way to ensure that a show will be a failure. I don't have any idea if the show would have been a success if they had broadcast it in order and with a regular schedule, but I am sure that someone at Fox wanted it to fail. I loved the show, but I never even heard of it until after it was canceled. The first I heard of it was when the movie was released, but then the only network shows I watch are sports.
Oddly enough, I still remember this. Steve Jobs is the new Bill Gates.
What do you mean "new"?
Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes from Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit? The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews on their own website, whether written by professional reviewers or the public at large. Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.
You are right that the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their website. However, if they provide a link that says "read all user reviews" but they only show the positive reviews what they are doing is false advertising.
This is the crux of the matter. Apple modified Itunes to make the original Pre solution not work. No matter what arguments you make, modifying your product solely for the purpose of making it incompatible with a competitor's product is evil. If Apple had modified Itunes for other reasons and that modification, incidentally, broke compatibility with the Pre, that would be a different story (although I would question the claim that the compatibility was broken by accident). Apple didn't even try to pretend that they changed Itunes for any reason other than to break compatibility with the Pre.
The goal isn't to make the law confusing (most of the time), the goal is to take power away from judges. If we wrote things to be not confusing they'd be simple. And while simple may seem nice it would mean handing control of the more complicated issues to the judges. That or you end up with huge miscarriages of justice. I would rather deal with complicated texts and have more power in the hands of the voters (theoretically) than which ever judge you happen to get. In small towns judges would have more power than anyone.
Except of course complicated laws have exactly the opposite effect of what you say the purpose is. Complicated laws mean that no one is quite sure what the law means. This gives lawyers and judges greater power.
Laws should be written simply and plainly, so that everyone can understand what they mean. Legislators should not try to cover every edge case. Once a law is passed and a court case comes up that covers an edge case, then if the judge decides the outcome contrary to the accepted norm, the legislature should write an amendment to the law fixing this particular "hole" in the law. Of course if legislators did not fell that they have to pass lots of laws it would help a lot too.
Laws should also be tightly focused. The health care reform is a perfect example of one bill trying to do too much. With health care reform the proponents are claiming they want to address the problem of people who do not have adequate health care coverage and they want to address the problem of health care (and health care coverage) costing too much. In addition to those two items, some health care reform proponents claim to want to address various other "problems" with American health care. The various "problems" should be addressed separately. If you want to address people who do not have health care coverage, write and pass a bill which will address that issue. If you want to address the high cost of health, care write a bill to address that. If you want to address the high cost of health care coverage, write a bill to address that.
There are two reasons for this. First if you are only worried about addressing one problem, it is a lot easier to see how to craft a solution. Second, if you are only trying to address one problem, it is a lot easier for the general public to determine if your bill will do what you are claiming it will do. Of course this second reason is why they write such complicated bills aimed at solving multiple problems, because it is much harder for the general populace to see the what the actual results of the bill will be.
$350 is not less than $300 and that is the price new, not the price you pay for used, refurbished, etc.
When does a netbook stop being a netbook? My answer is a netbook costs less than $300 and has a screen 12" or less (I'm not sure that 12" isn't too big).
The demise of the print newspaper has a few causes. 3. Most print newspapers have journalist with a very liberal slant, and people don't want that anymore, witness the success of Fox News and online bloggers.
Appeal to Reason was liberal. The Daily Kos is liberal. Air America is liberal. Newspaper-wise, AFAIK, there are no liberal daily newspapers of any appreciable size in the US. It's hard to find a paper left of John Birch.
I take it you have never heard of either the Washington Post or the New York Times?
Repeated surveys have indicated that the majority of those working in the "news" business self-identify as liberal. In addition, an even larger percentage are registered Democratic. I stopped reading the local newspaper after I got tired of seeing political commentary in articles on the sports page. I am sure the writer didn't even know he was doing it, he just made some comment using what he considered a failure of a Republican politician as a simile for the failure of the local sports team.
Reckless driving (in NY) is defined as 'unreasonably endangering' others. And it is serious - a misdemeanor, not just a traffic violation. Do you have a crystal-clear definition of 'unreasonably endangering'? Does texting fall into that definition? The combination of the vague wording and the seriousness of the offence practically guarantees a jury trial. Reckless driving laws are best applied to really egregious cases, not something endlessly debatable like the safety of texting.
I agree that an education campaign is all that SHOULD be necessary, but there are a lot of idiots who think 'I can do it safely'. A potential hit to the wallet in terms of fines and insurance rates has a big effect on many people.
I do not believe that a jury trial would get you off of a reckless driving charge for texting while driving.
When I look at the laws of several states that define reckless driving, I conclude that texting while driving meets these definitions.
Several states have a violation called careless driving, which is not as severe as reckless driving but which also carries a significant penalty. When I consider the number of tickets for careless/reckless driving I have seen handed out by police for subjective behaviors, I fail to see how a careless/reckless driving ticket for texting while driving would not hold up just as well (if not better).