We still use Mac OS 9.4. We have two machines running Mac OS 9.4 that act as controllers for some very expensive equipment. I dread the day those machines won't run anymore. It is going to cost a chunk of money the company won't want to spend to replace that whole system (the machines they control and the computers).
How could it possibly be bad for the case for jurors to look up the defender's facebook account, find one claiming to be the defendants, conclude they're a douchebag, find them guilty, then several years later discover that wasn't their facebook account after all ? Hell, they might have the stolen jewelry on while posing for a facebook pic. Case solved! lol. But seriously, if there's some copyright troll suing another company and the jury (well okay, juries don't go copyright trials but let's pretend they do) Googles the plaintiff and find out they're a patent troll that's abused laws and caused havoc with other companies, guess what, CASE LOST! Too bad they aren't jury trials! The judge better hop on google!
I'm sorry, but the link you posted does not answer the primary questions posed by Dvorak in the previous poster's link. Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?
I am sorry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. The main difference between the Nazis and the Communists in pre-World War II Germany was that the Nazis were nationalists and the Communists were internationalists.
While comparing Obama to Hitler is inappropriate (Hitler openly called for genocide even before he was elected), Obama is closer on the political spectrum to Hitler than Bush or Cheney were/are. You seem to think that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, they weren't, they were right next to each other. Both of them were totalitarian and supported government dominance of all economic activity. A true political spectrum runs from libertarian-anarchy on the far right to absolute totalitarian on the far left.
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence
Isn't Britain otherwise pretty anal about the presumption of innocence, to the point that accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press? Why the huge difference for libel?
It isn't a huge difference for libel, the libel laws (and the way they have been interpreted by British courts) causes the "accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press". If the accusations are talked about in the press, the person who is the subject of the accusations can sue said press for libel.
Well, since I'm not living in a country where kooks and liars are given the benefit of the doubt, let me say quite publicly that chiropractors are frauds, along with naturopaths, healing touch types and all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety of those with more money than brains.
Not all chiropractors are frauds, some of them only claim to treat back pain and other physiological disorders of the musculoskeletal system. To what degree they are more effective than a good masseuse is certainly debatable. On the other hand, I know many people who believed that their chiropractor could cure everything from the common cold to cancer (and this was clearly based on carefully veiled claims made by the chiropractor)., this was, for the most part, complete BS.
Something being dirty is not an opinion. If it was dirty - and she could prove it - then it's not libellous to say so, full stop.
I am not the OP. However, the case he was talking about was about an opinion. Specifically she said it is "one of the most dirty and unsanitary looking food service places I have seen". That reads as an opinion to me.
So, what other private organizations have the right to tax you in the UK? The right to enforce anything? And from what you are saying they appear to have done this without prior authorization by Parliament.
In the example you gave of hacking Sky's encryption, Sky would have to go to court (the government) to get you fined, yet you appeared to state that BBC can enforce the license fee (fine you) without going to the government.
The problem is that it is the legislative branch's responsibility to write the laws. The system starts to break down when one branch (the legislative) delegates its powers to people who answer to another branch (the executive). This is further compounded when (as is currently the case) that first branch can't even be bothered to read the laws it passes delegating authority to the other branch.
You really don't have a clue, do you? The BBC is not government sponsored,
Prawn!.
Are you saying that the government doesn't levy a TV tax that goes to the BBC? So if you have a TV in the UK and choose not to pay the BBC licensing fee the government doesn't come around and fine you?
I'd say it's when legislatures delegate responsibility to the bureaucrats they hire.
Right, then they can say "It's not my fault, the bureaucrats are the bad guys." It is the legislators job to make the laws, when they delegate that responsibility to bureaucrats, they are abdicating their responsibility to make good laws and relying on the bureaucrats to do it for them (then blaming the bureaucrats when it doesn't work out so well).
I believe that lawmakers have delegated too much power to faceless, relatively unaccountable bureaucrats.
Here in Finland most mobile & broadband operators charge for the bill. Manual, email and electronic bills are free. There were some outbreaks when the first one did it, but it was eventually accepted (and got a lot of people using electronic billing). Personally, I prefer the electronic billing as you can't lose bills when you get them directly to your bank account.
That's right, they just take some money out of your bank account every month. How much? Who cares, it's easy. I like to look at my bills when they come in to see if they are high this month. Did I use more text messaging? Was I on the phone over the amount of time that I get as part of the bill? Did the phone company throw some other random charge on there that I want to challenge?
This isn't about what Obama will do, this is about what will happen three or four Presidents from now.
What got my back up when Bush was President was the people who all of a sudden were upset with things that they supported when Bill Clinton was President (for example, the most odious parts of the Patriot Act were first proposed when Bill Clinton was President). The other thing were the people who said "Bush is trying to do this bad thing, so that other thing he is doing must be bad."
Morals and ethics are not relative. There is a difference between the specific and the general. The general: it is immoral to coerce someone to have sex with you. The specific: a fourteen year old is unable to make an uncoerced decision to have sex with a 40 year old.
Hundreds of years ago society did not agree with the specific rule, but it did agree with the general rule. If you examine the moral rules from society to society you will discover that they all follow the same general rules even though the specific rules vary (there may be some exceptions, but those are immoral societies).
What raises my suspicions that this was caused by government regulation is that this system exists in cars because of federal government regulations. This proposed Massachusetts' law is not a change to existing regulation, but an additional regulation. In order for it to be a change to existing regulation it would need to be enacted at the federal level.
There is another point that I want to address, there is a difference between laws and regulations. There is no regulation against armed robbery, there is a law against armed robbery. The law explicitly spells out what constitutes armed robbery. An example of a regulation is the EPA rules set up to enforce the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act essentially empowers the EPA to create rules that will keep the air clean. For this particular discussion that distinction is not terribly important, but it is one that is important.
I happen to think that regulations result when legislators abdicate their responsibility. Laws should be simple and exact, not complex and ambiguous.
This is just like voice activated technology. Back in the late 80's, people kept saying that voice commands would replace the keyboard. By now, instead of typing this comment, I would dictate it and the text would appear on the screen. The technology to do that exists, but it was never widely adopted because it doesn't suit the way we use our computers. I believe that touch interface will be the same. It will get progressively cheaper and find adoption in those specialized cases where it is a good idea, but it will never be the primary interface for most computer use.
Bet you'd have rockin' shoulders though, from holding your arms up all day.
Yeah, then that one shoulder would match that one forearm you use so much
Nah, it would be the other shoulder. It would look really weird, all those guys with the shoulder on one side all muscled up and the forearm on the other, with the rest of the body small and spindly.
So, the whole Bill of Rights thing can be done away with, since it is only needed to protect people from a totalitarian government and since we don't have a totalitarian government, we don't need it?
I have a hard time understanding this state of mind. Regulations are needed, but there are good regulations and bad regulations. The regulation (aka "law") forbidding armed robbery is a good one, don't you think? And as I see it, this scam by car manufacturers is unarmed robbery and should be stopped.
The problem is that I suspect this scam came about as the result of government regulation, so I am less than enthusiastic about government regulation to fix problems created by government regulation.
I may be reading your post wrong, but you appear to be saying that if I had access to all of the codes for my car and the access to repair a certain range of changes to my car I could do things that would get the car manufacturer fined.
If that is the case, the law that does that needs to be changed. The manufacturer should not be liable for the changes I make to something I bought.
Slashdot Mirror
Flow cytometers
We still use Mac OS 9.4. We have two machines running Mac OS 9.4 that act as controllers for some very expensive equipment. I dread the day those machines won't run anymore. It is going to cost a chunk of money the company won't want to spend to replace that whole system (the machines they control and the computers).
How could it possibly be bad for the case for jurors to look up the defender's facebook account, find one claiming to be the defendants, conclude they're a douchebag, find them guilty, then several years later discover that wasn't their facebook account after all ? Hell, they might have the stolen jewelry on while posing for a facebook pic. Case solved! lol. But seriously, if there's some copyright troll suing another company and the jury (well okay, juries don't go copyright trials but let's pretend they do) Googles the plaintiff and find out they're a patent troll that's abused laws and caused havoc with other companies, guess what, CASE LOST! Too bad they aren't jury trials! The judge better hop on google!
Yeah, look how well that worked for China.
I'm sorry, but the link you posted does not answer the primary questions posed by Dvorak in the previous poster's link. Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?
I am sorry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. The main difference between the Nazis and the Communists in pre-World War II Germany was that the Nazis were nationalists and the Communists were internationalists.
While comparing Obama to Hitler is inappropriate (Hitler openly called for genocide even before he was elected), Obama is closer on the political spectrum to Hitler than Bush or Cheney were/are. You seem to think that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, they weren't, they were right next to each other. Both of them were totalitarian and supported government dominance of all economic activity. A true political spectrum runs from libertarian-anarchy on the far right to absolute totalitarian on the far left.
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence
Isn't Britain otherwise pretty anal about the presumption of innocence, to the point that accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press? Why the huge difference for libel?
It isn't a huge difference for libel, the libel laws (and the way they have been interpreted by British courts) causes the "accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press". If the accusations are talked about in the press, the person who is the subject of the accusations can sue said press for libel.
Well, since I'm not living in a country where kooks and liars are given the benefit of the doubt, let me say quite publicly that chiropractors are frauds, along with naturopaths, healing touch types and all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety of those with more money than brains.
Not all chiropractors are frauds, some of them only claim to treat back pain and other physiological disorders of the musculoskeletal system. To what degree they are more effective than a good masseuse is certainly debatable. On the other hand, I know many people who believed that their chiropractor could cure everything from the common cold to cancer (and this was clearly based on carefully veiled claims made by the chiropractor)., this was, for the most part, complete BS.
Something being dirty is not an opinion. If it was dirty - and she could prove it - then it's not libellous to say so, full stop.
I am not the OP. However, the case he was talking about was about an opinion. Specifically she said it is "one of the most dirty and unsanitary looking food service places I have seen". That reads as an opinion to me.
So, what other private organizations have the right to tax you in the UK? The right to enforce anything? And from what you are saying they appear to have done this without prior authorization by Parliament.
In the example you gave of hacking Sky's encryption, Sky would have to go to court (the government) to get you fined, yet you appeared to state that BBC can enforce the license fee (fine you) without going to the government.
The problem is that it is the legislative branch's responsibility to write the laws. The system starts to break down when one branch (the legislative) delegates its powers to people who answer to another branch (the executive). This is further compounded when (as is currently the case) that first branch can't even be bothered to read the laws it passes delegating authority to the other branch.
You really don't have a clue, do you? The BBC is not government sponsored, Prawn!.
Are you saying that the government doesn't levy a TV tax that goes to the BBC? So if you have a TV in the UK and choose not to pay the BBC licensing fee the government doesn't come around and fine you?
I'd say it's when legislatures delegate responsibility to the bureaucrats they hire.
Right, then they can say "It's not my fault, the bureaucrats are the bad guys." It is the legislators job to make the laws, when they delegate that responsibility to bureaucrats, they are abdicating their responsibility to make good laws and relying on the bureaucrats to do it for them (then blaming the bureaucrats when it doesn't work out so well).
I believe that lawmakers have delegated too much power to faceless, relatively unaccountable bureaucrats.
Here in Finland most mobile & broadband operators charge for the bill. Manual, email and electronic bills are free. There were some outbreaks when the first one did it, but it was eventually accepted (and got a lot of people using electronic billing). Personally, I prefer the electronic billing as you can't lose bills when you get them directly to your bank account.
That's right, they just take some money out of your bank account every month. How much? Who cares, it's easy.
I like to look at my bills when they come in to see if they are high this month. Did I use more text messaging? Was I on the phone over the amount of time that I get as part of the bill? Did the phone company throw some other random charge on there that I want to challenge?
It was considered normal, but was not considered moral.
This isn't about what Obama will do, this is about what will happen three or four Presidents from now.
What got my back up when Bush was President was the people who all of a sudden were upset with things that they supported when Bill Clinton was President (for example, the most odious parts of the Patriot Act were first proposed when Bill Clinton was President). The other thing were the people who said "Bush is trying to do this bad thing, so that other thing he is doing must be bad."
Morals and ethics are not relative. There is a difference between the specific and the general. The general: it is immoral to coerce someone to have sex with you. The specific: a fourteen year old is unable to make an uncoerced decision to have sex with a 40 year old.
Hundreds of years ago society did not agree with the specific rule, but it did agree with the general rule. If you examine the moral rules from society to society you will discover that they all follow the same general rules even though the specific rules vary (there may be some exceptions, but those are immoral societies).
What raises my suspicions that this was caused by government regulation is that this system exists in cars because of federal government regulations. This proposed Massachusetts' law is not a change to existing regulation, but an additional regulation. In order for it to be a change to existing regulation it would need to be enacted at the federal level.
There is another point that I want to address, there is a difference between laws and regulations. There is no regulation against armed robbery, there is a law against armed robbery. The law explicitly spells out what constitutes armed robbery. An example of a regulation is the EPA rules set up to enforce the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act essentially empowers the EPA to create rules that will keep the air clean. For this particular discussion that distinction is not terribly important, but it is one that is important.
I happen to think that regulations result when legislators abdicate their responsibility. Laws should be simple and exact, not complex and ambiguous.
This is just like voice activated technology. Back in the late 80's, people kept saying that voice commands would replace the keyboard. By now, instead of typing this comment, I would dictate it and the text would appear on the screen. The technology to do that exists, but it was never widely adopted because it doesn't suit the way we use our computers. I believe that touch interface will be the same. It will get progressively cheaper and find adoption in those specialized cases where it is a good idea, but it will never be the primary interface for most computer use.
Bet you'd have rockin' shoulders though, from holding your arms up all day.
Yeah, then that one shoulder would match that one forearm you use so much
Nah, it would be the other shoulder. It would look really weird, all those guys with the shoulder on one side all muscled up and the forearm on the other, with the rest of the body small and spindly.
So, the whole Bill of Rights thing can be done away with, since it is only needed to protect people from a totalitarian government and since we don't have a totalitarian government, we don't need it?
I have a hard time understanding this state of mind. Regulations are needed, but there are good regulations and bad regulations. The regulation (aka "law") forbidding armed robbery is a good one, don't you think? And as I see it, this scam by car manufacturers is unarmed robbery and should be stopped.
The problem is that I suspect this scam came about as the result of government regulation, so I am less than enthusiastic about government regulation to fix problems created by government regulation.
As an example for the need of regulations see the finance industry, although it's also an example how to much lobbying can destroy oversight :(
You use as an example of the need for regulations an industry that was messed up by badly implemented regulations?
I may be reading your post wrong, but you appear to be saying that if I had access to all of the codes for my car and the access to repair a certain range of changes to my car I could do things that would get the car manufacturer fined.
If that is the case, the law that does that needs to be changed. The manufacturer should not be liable for the changes I make to something I bought.
Really, so totalitarian regimes have never set up systems to monitor where people are going and why?