From what I gather, cops move quicker when the homeowner gets in contact with the burglar because, in general, they're more worried about crimes (real or otherwise) directly against people (or corps.) than crimes against property.
Once there's contact between homeowner and burglar, the odds of things escalating beyond mere burglary and theft increase dramatically. The cops had to come when you met the fella who was trying to walk off with your backpack so that the burglar in question couldn't claim you assaulted him (I'm sure you used some force to reclaim that backpack) or take revenge on you later.
In my area, the actual detective work for most petty robberies I hear of is left to the general public. "If you've seen this robber, please call the Tips Hotline at...."
And the local cops' attitude toward non-violent robbery can get ridiculous. There's a 7-11 I know of that, according to the local news, gets majorly robbed once a month every month.
No, I don't know exactly where speeding tickets fit in this hierarchy--though the authorities do like to claim that "speeding kills."
There are numerous causes, but I suspect that some of the problem is colleges charging over $100,000 for their education.
There are any number of jobs out there that require degrees but don't pay enough to allow the person with the degree to pay the loan back in a reasonable time. Since college tuition is rising faster than inflation, this will only get worse.
And they wonder why there's a shortage of good teachers...
No, that (hypothetical) study determined that you had to increase security outside of MSG after an event. It also suggested, for cost-efficiency, that the people organizing the event should be the ones to pay for the security.
The hypothetical study almost paid for the hypothetical software.
Okay, but how are we going to unionize the people who upload to YouTube?
We also have the problem that many movie studios (and record labels) don't believe in fair use, and many of the people who do uploads of video collages don't believe in copyrights. The regulators would need a heavier hand to ensure that there was such a thing as fair use, and since these regulators helped create this problem with life+ copyright laws, we would risk getting a compromise in the wrong direction.
Try to see it my way
Do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on?
If we see it your way
We've the risk of knowing that our love will soon be gone
We can work it out...
Never mind if that height-weight ratio is possible, never mind how he'd look if he were 5'11" and 133lb., and never mind what common sense says: Does the BMI chart claim that this combo is in its normal range?
If it does, it's severely flawed and needs to be scrapped before any more celebrity femmes aim for those figures. (I know, it's not normal range for them, but the camera adds ten pounds...)
Yes, he chooses where he works. But when he's already in bad health because he's been paying too much attention to an unreasonable employer, he'll have this problem:
The health insurance of all the other employers likely won't cover pre-existing conditions at all. He'll only be covered for the conditions caused by his current employer if he stays with his current employer.
Catch-22.
Watch out--the corps. could get very selective.
If you're only covered for "cancer not directly related to my own activities," then they might refuse to cover your colon cancer unless you get an annual anal probe. After all, if you check often enough, it'll get caught before it's full-blown cancer; thus, if you don't check and you get cancer, then it's related to your own activities. (I think that link is as solid as the one between ciggies and lung cancer--unfortunately.)
And since when are driving and swimming not dangerous?
The cheapest policies will cover swimming injuries only in rectangular pools with lifeguards on duty, and driving-related injuries only if it can be proven that there was no usage of cell phones, radios, or food in the car.
Because the average price of visits has gone up since/because of the invention of insurance.
No one wants to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a doctor visit all at once, or hundreds of thousands for a hospital visit, and many people can't afford to spend that much anyway. Insurance spreads the cost out over time, pays much of the cost in advance, and hides how expensive things are really getting.
Without insurance, and with current medical prices, most people will never arrange any visits if they can avoid them. So, this isn't just breaking the insurance system; this is breaking the unhealthy people (further).
I think those involved in prescription drugs are slightly distrustful of the current insurance system, judging from how many drug companies have their own drug programs.
I'm sorry to hear about your insurance situation. Those private corps. don't want to insure anyone who has any detectable condition whatsoever. I suppose they're seeing the high triglycerides and then deciding to send you away. [sigh]
On another note, I wish that most anti-cholesterol medications would disappear off the face of the earth.
It's not that I don't think cholesterol shouldn't be lowered when necessary. It's not even that I think it's easy (or always possible) to get it down to desired levels using natural methods alone.
It's that I think many of the anti-cholesterol meds out there are snake oil despite their being "effective."
Ideally, people should be asked to lower their cholesterol for a reason--to fight heart attacks and strokes and such, for instance. So, when I see (judging from the ads) anti-cholesterol medicines that are contraindicated by some of the rational reasons to lower cholesterol, and that do nothing about most of the others because their side effects cancel out the benefits of lowering cholesterol, then I'm wondering why the darn medicines are being prescribed at all, let alone prescribed to everyone and his cat. (I am especially angry at Lipitor for these reasons.)
Yes, I know what the phrase itself means. I was silly enough, however, to think that you meant that it would be a walk in the park to get off the RIAA charges with claims of an open or easily-cracked router. If you only meant "an incredibly easily-cracked router," I apologize for misunderstanding--though, alas, I'm still cynical.
386, yes. 286? I recognize belatedly that P2P software suitable for copyright-infringing can run on them, yes, though whether the RIAA would recognize it is another matter.
Judging from what you say, likely it would not have Kazaa.
We will note that (if what I hear from others is correct) one of the things that brought this round of corporate evidence-snatching on was that the defendant's home computer lacks standard Verizon internet software. Hopelessly obsolete computers will fall in the same category as "internet-free" computers--and so the RIAA will keep digging.
It has been discovered that there are microbes on earth that can survive in space.
It is possible that some of those microbes have been sent into space before we knew they could survive there. We've sent things to Mars for decades.
So, it is possible that there is life on Mars, but we put it there.
You know, if we (in biological form) suddenly discovered FTL, found and went to an Earth-like planet, and found a civilization that all looked like your end-point for human development, it's possible we'd fail to recognize that as life. We'd know that there had been life there, but we might not see these self-absorbed computers as anything more than AI left behind by a recently extinct lifeform.
So, yes, if we made that leap in "evolution," any aliens that were looking for us would only find us through our Luddites....
The defendant's employer will be supeona'd! Anything they tell the court, they'll have to say under oath, and I've a feeling this judge will go down harder on defense perjury than on RIAA perjury.
If the employer says he used 100 computers, the RIAA will simply demand all 100 of them. They're already demanding every computer and hard drive the defendant used in the last three years, and they already have judicial force behind that demand. And it doesn't matter who owns the computers--if the defendant used them, they're fair game.
The RIAA likely won't accept that he only used a computer which doesn't even have enough memory to run Kazaa, especially if it still has dust on it.
I'm sure the RIAA will use the same conservative methods on all the remote log-ins as they did on their original sting....
So, the trade secrets are the only chance--and I don't know if it'll be enough.
I can't read "insecure router" as "walk in the park." The kind of judge who would accept "it could've been anyone with Wi-Fi" as an answer that would clear the defendant would likely be the kind of judge who wouldn't require this request by the RIAA to be forcibly enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I gather, cops move quicker when the homeowner gets in contact with the burglar because, in general, they're more worried about crimes (real or otherwise) directly against people (or corps.) than crimes against property.
Once there's contact between homeowner and burglar, the odds of things escalating beyond mere burglary and theft increase dramatically. The cops had to come when you met the fella who was trying to walk off with your backpack so that the burglar in question couldn't claim you assaulted him (I'm sure you used some force to reclaim that backpack) or take revenge on you later.
In my area, the actual detective work for most petty robberies I hear of is left to the general public. "If you've seen this robber, please call the Tips Hotline at...."
And the local cops' attitude toward non-violent robbery can get ridiculous. There's a 7-11 I know of that, according to the local news, gets majorly robbed once a month every month.
No, I don't know exactly where speeding tickets fit in this hierarchy--though the authorities do like to claim that "speeding kills."
If it works in real life, then it's okay if Charlie Eppes did it before the real-life database did.
Thanks. I was wondering why the local news kept saying people were heroes because they called 911.
Ah, yes. Reduce the number of cops, and raise the number of emergency medical technicians....
There are numerous causes, but I suspect that some of the problem is colleges charging over $100,000 for their education.
There are any number of jobs out there that require degrees but don't pay enough to allow the person with the degree to pay the loan back in a reasonable time. Since college tuition is rising faster than inflation, this will only get worse.
And they wonder why there's a shortage of good teachers...
We do. (Think DeVry University. Or not.) But right now, those aren't cheap either, just cheaper.
Sorry, loan-sharking inside check-cashing stores has been declared legal. Unfortunately.
No, that (hypothetical) study determined that you had to increase security outside of MSG after an event. It also suggested, for cost-efficiency, that the people organizing the event should be the ones to pay for the security.
The hypothetical study almost paid for the hypothetical software.
We also have the problem that many movie studios (and record labels) don't believe in fair use, and many of the people who do uploads of video collages don't believe in copyrights. The regulators would need a heavier hand to ensure that there was such a thing as fair use, and since these regulators helped create this problem with life+ copyright laws, we would risk getting a compromise in the wrong direction.
Try to see it my way
Do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on?
If we see it your way
We've the risk of knowing that our love will soon be gone
We can work it out...
Just what everyone needs:
A color Etch-a-Sketch monitor.
Never mind if that height-weight ratio is possible, never mind how he'd look if he were 5'11" and 133lb., and never mind what common sense says:
Does the BMI chart claim that this combo is in its normal range?
If it does, it's severely flawed and needs to be scrapped before any more celebrity femmes aim for those figures. (I know, it's not normal range for them, but the camera adds ten pounds...)
Yes, he chooses where he works. But when he's already in bad health because he's been paying too much attention to an unreasonable employer, he'll have this problem:
The health insurance of all the other employers likely won't cover pre-existing conditions at all. He'll only be covered for the conditions caused by his current employer if he stays with his current employer.
Catch-22.
Watch out--the corps. could get very selective.
If you're only covered for "cancer not directly related to my own activities," then they might refuse to cover your colon cancer unless you get an annual anal probe. After all, if you check often enough, it'll get caught before it's full-blown cancer; thus, if you don't check and you get cancer, then it's related to your own activities. (I think that link is as solid as the one between ciggies and lung cancer--unfortunately.)
And since when are driving and swimming not dangerous?
The cheapest policies will cover swimming injuries only in rectangular pools with lifeguards on duty, and driving-related injuries only if it can be proven that there was no usage of cell phones, radios, or food in the car.
Because the average price of visits has gone up since/because of the invention of insurance.
No one wants to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a doctor visit all at once, or hundreds of thousands for a hospital visit, and many people can't afford to spend that much anyway. Insurance spreads the cost out over time, pays much of the cost in advance, and hides how expensive things are really getting.
Without insurance, and with current medical prices, most people will never arrange any visits if they can avoid them. So, this isn't just breaking the insurance system; this is breaking the unhealthy people (further).
I think those involved in prescription drugs are slightly distrustful of the current insurance system, judging from how many drug companies have their own drug programs.
I'm sorry to hear about your insurance situation. Those private corps. don't want to insure anyone who has any detectable condition whatsoever. I suppose they're seeing the high triglycerides and then deciding to send you away. [sigh]
On another note, I wish that most anti-cholesterol medications would disappear off the face of the earth.
It's not that I don't think cholesterol shouldn't be lowered when necessary. It's not even that I think it's easy (or always possible) to get it down to desired levels using natural methods alone.
It's that I think many of the anti-cholesterol meds out there are snake oil despite their being "effective."
Ideally, people should be asked to lower their cholesterol for a reason--to fight heart attacks and strokes and such, for instance. So, when I see (judging from the ads) anti-cholesterol medicines that are contraindicated by some of the rational reasons to lower cholesterol, and that do nothing about most of the others because their side effects cancel out the benefits of lowering cholesterol, then I'm wondering why the darn medicines are being prescribed at all, let alone prescribed to everyone and his cat. (I am especially angry at Lipitor for these reasons.)
Yeah, but the burn-in rate for oil-on-canvas monitors is horrific.
No. Lava lamps use random mutations to make their patterns. These monitors, if made correctly, should use intelligent design for that. [grin]
No, that's what it actually says. The headline doesn't have boldface, though.
At least it isn't "British Left Waffles on Falklands."
Yes, I know what the phrase itself means. I was silly enough, however, to think that you meant that it would be a walk in the park to get off the RIAA charges with claims of an open or easily-cracked router. If you only meant "an incredibly easily-cracked router," I apologize for misunderstanding--though, alas, I'm still cynical.
386, yes. 286? I recognize belatedly that P2P software suitable for copyright-infringing can run on them, yes, though whether the RIAA would recognize it is another matter.
Judging from what you say, likely it would not have Kazaa.
We will note that (if what I hear from others is correct) one of the things that brought this round of corporate evidence-snatching on was that the defendant's home computer lacks standard Verizon internet software. Hopelessly obsolete computers will fall in the same category as "internet-free" computers--and so the RIAA will keep digging.
It has been discovered that there are microbes on earth that can survive in space.
It is possible that some of those microbes have been sent into space before we knew they could survive there. We've sent things to Mars for decades.
So, it is possible that there is life on Mars, but we put it there.
You know, if we (in biological form) suddenly discovered FTL, found and went to an Earth-like planet, and found a civilization that all looked like your end-point for human development, it's possible we'd fail to recognize that as life. We'd know that there had been life there, but we might not see these self-absorbed computers as anything more than AI left behind by a recently extinct lifeform.
So, yes, if we made that leap in "evolution," any aliens that were looking for us would only find us through our Luddites....
The defendant's employer will be supeona'd! Anything they tell the court, they'll have to say under oath, and I've a feeling this judge will go down harder on defense perjury than on RIAA perjury.
If the employer says he used 100 computers, the RIAA will simply demand all 100 of them. They're already demanding every computer and hard drive the defendant used in the last three years, and they already have judicial force behind that demand. And it doesn't matter who owns the computers--if the defendant used them, they're fair game.
The RIAA likely won't accept that he only used a computer which doesn't even have enough memory to run Kazaa, especially if it still has dust on it.
I'm sure the RIAA will use the same conservative methods on all the remote log-ins as they did on their original sting....
So, the trade secrets are the only chance--and I don't know if it'll be enough.
I can't read "insecure router" as "walk in the park." The kind of judge who would accept "it could've been anyone with Wi-Fi" as an answer that would clear the defendant would likely be the kind of judge who wouldn't require this request by the RIAA to be forcibly enforced.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/04/tech/pri ntable3133675.shtml
Seriously, if you are going to link to an Associated Press article, please link to a version that doesn't require registration to read.