This "study" is probably from a manager barking off orders to a bean counter:
1. determine how much HD space we need per movie 2. figure out the cost 3. multiply that by a format refresh every 2 years 4. come up with an absurd guess on how expensive it will be to maintain codecs and compatible systems 5. act like this system will have no business utility other than storing archived movies 6. add it all up 7. divide by number of movies sold so we can figure out how much to raise prices, then multiply that number by 2.
If you're MTV, why would you care about "helping" the sale of music?
The fact is, all those "inane" reality shows you deride are there because that's what the audience actually wants.
MTV has a high churn rate, and that's be design. Quite some time ago, they had the decision to keep things "old & friendly" and thereby stick with their founding audience from the time they wore spandex and Jordache jeans in 1985 until they're old and blue-haired. Or, they could evolve every few years, and remain relevant to the teenagers of the day.
And, to be fair, the decision has worked out pretty well for them.
"We should really put a term limit on every office."
We already have term limits. They're called elections.
Seriously, I understand your argument. The power of incumbency is often too hard for a challenger to overcome. But we can cure the SOURCE of that malady, not just treat the symptoms.
If we moved to publicly funded elections, and non-partisan redistricting, the incumbent would only retain the slight edge of name recognition. They'd lose the stacked-deck of gerrymandering, and the ability to raise money for favors & influence, quid pro quo.
True, in practice, term limits are easier to pass into law. But that should be evidence that they really don't work as well as planned. We have them for all state-level offices here in Ohio and it's almost a game to watch these people. They'll serve their allowed 2-terms in the State House, and then go over to the state Senate and serve 2 terms there, then they'll trade back to the house, and back to the senate, all the while gaming for their shot at a seat in Congress or the state house.
Furthermore, I think that term limits can do a disservice by making ineligible, perhaps, the best man for the job. I believe in a peoples ability to pick their own leader, and they shouldn't be shackled by a law that says they can't elect who they may really WANT to elect, within reason.
Publicly funded elections, completely separating money and politics, would bring some purity back to our system. Two US States have adopted voluntary public financing and it's been a smash hit, especially in Maine. The idea has also produced compelling results in European countries.
Yes, this would require either a constitutional amendment, or a Supreme Court willing to say that money does NOT equal free speech. And it would also require a legislature willing to pass it, and a President willing to sign it. Which is why it would be great if Congress could write such a law that takes effect, say, 20 years hence.
That was the dumbest post in this whole thread. And that, my friend, is really saying something.
The "Common Courtesy" argument IS used to suggest to other people how they could act.
But it only has validity when the issue in question REALLY IS "common courtesy."
Whether you (and the other 25% of the people here arguing on your side) care for it or not, we, as a society, have established a set of customs and rules on how one should act. You may have heard of this before, it's called "ethics."
Now, your personal morality should prevent you from exposing a child to porn or offensive language. But even when it doesn't, if you intend to be a productive, respected member of society, you're expected to abide by our collective ethics.
Furthermore, it just so happens that these ethics are so widely held that MOST of them are law. And the ones that aren't may very likely still be prosecuted in a civil court.
If you don't like the fact that the huge majority of Americans have coalesced around these "rules," then you're more than welcome to remove yourself from society. People do it all the time.
And if you chose to just flaunt the collective ethic, don't be surprised if it lands you in jail, on the receiving end of a lawsuit, or at the receiving end of a fist moving at a fast clip.
Because if you decided it was your right to watch your Blondes on Blacks Part V in front of MY kid, and you refused to relocate yourself or cease your inapropos behavior, i would DEFINITELY take the matter in to my own hands. Literally. Because you can count on the fact that a parent is going to protect his child with a LOT more force than you are going to use to protect your laptop OR your nose.
And really, if that were to happen, who would you be to make issue over it? After all, you decided to flaunt the "common courtesy" of illegally exposing children to porn. How can you possibly complain when an offended parent flaunts the "common courtesy" of not swelling your face to match the ridiculous size of your head.
Get over yourself. You're part of a society. If you don't like it, leave.
Mass-produced optical discs are pressed or stamped.
And "burnt" optical discs don't contain any pits/valleys at all. They contain a photosensitive dye sandwiched between inert plastic. The laser turns the die opaque, which absorbs the light, and simulates the pit/valley. This is why quality of blank optical media can vary so greatly. More expensive dye will retain its photosensitive qualities for longer than cheaper dyes.
Do you really think that Pam Anderson, who has been said to suffer from one of the worst treatments of American society -- that is, to be famous but not wealthy -- has actually had an image boost by doing charity work? Similarly, I'm sure Paris Hilton has publicists. Why isn't she out there pounding in nails for Habitat for Humanity?
I think you're being OVERLY cynical in this regard. Sure, there's reason to be a cynic when it comes it American celebrity. But to suggest that wealthy, famous people could not POSSIBLY want to help there mere plebes at the bottom of the foodchain, that just overlooks the fact that there are a lot of genuinely good people who just so happen to be successful.
The actual problem is the way JScript does string concatenation.
When you concatenate 2 strings in JScript, it determines the size of the buffer needed, allocates the buffer, does the concatenation, and returns the result to the caller.
Which works fine, until you start putting some load on those old tires...
x = 'some'; y = 'string'; z = 'here';
testString = x + " " + y + " " + z;
(Ignore that nobody would actually write code JUST LIKE THAT, they would just add a trailing or leading space to the x, y & z strings. But concatenating a result with some white space is not abnormal.)
Now, just think about what this is actually doing under the hood..
1. determine len of x (4) plus len of " " (1) = 5 2. Allocate new buffer(5) 3. Concatenate, assign result to temp 4. determine len of temp (5) plus len of y (6) = 11 5. Allocate new buffer(11) 6. Concatenate, assign results to new temp, destroy old temp 7. determine len of temp (11) plus len of " " (1) = 12 6. Allocate new buffer(12) 8. Concatenate, assign results to new temp, destroy old temp 9. determine len of temp (12) plus len of z (4) = 16 10. Allocate new buffer (16) 11. Concatenate, assign results to testString
So, to concatenate relatively little string data, 3 temporary buffers were needed and 4 separate allocations were done.
It works fine, right up to the point where it doesn't:)
Seriously, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. It wasn't your post that I replied to. As far as I can tell, you didn't involve yourself into this discussion until you did so, rather rudely, with the GP.
If you'd like to be included in this conversation, then why don't you start by offering something, instead of just heckling?
I was having a conversation with the gentleman that wrote the (g-g-g parent?), not with a johnny-come-lately whose only involvement came a day late and a dollar short.
I've put significantly more effort into writing this post than it would've taken to link to the Wikipedia entry that you're asking for. But the point is not that I'm lazy. It's that I see little value in feeding trolls. Your hit-and-run style is played-out on this website. If you're looking for a debate so badly that you resort to these tactics, perhaps you should make more friends that share your common interests.
Honestly, I prefer to support regional chains. Big enough to have decent prices, small enough that they cannot single-handedly control the market. (I've read right here on/. abotu, for example, video games that were purposely "toned down" after Walmart threatened to deny them shelf space).
I've shopped at BB on occassion, but there isn't one close to my house. I'd have to look at their history of political activism before I could make a judgement.
But generally speaking, low prices do not equal low costs. I may pay a few dollars less for a widget at Walmart than I would at a less-evil store, but what are the back-side costs of that walmart purchase? What vendors are cheapening their products in order to meet Walmarts mandatory year-over-year price reductions? What content is being censored, whether video games or books or magazines, in order to avoid being shunned by the worlds largest retailer? What share of every dollar I spend is going DIRECTLY into their PAC, that's used to support conservative candidacies and issues from Pro-Life to Abstinence-Only-Education to the 2004 Bush re-elect?
You would never support these things, I'm sure. But Walmart does. And when you shop there, you're supporting it too.
Your money is like your vote. You should only give it to the people you'd like to have it.
Walmart has done as much to advance the conservative agenda in America as any Congressman or Senator has, yet people who would never vote for the right-wing facists queue up every day to give their money to one.
Your money is like your vote. You should only give it to the people you'd like to have it.
Walmart has done as much to advance the conservative agenda in America as any Congressman or Senator has, yet people who would never vote for the right-wing facists queue up every day to give their money to one.
The AVERAGE human ear cannot distinguish the difference between a *perfectly encoded* mp3 at 320kbps.
However, not all MP3 codecs are perfect, and not all ears are average.
Just as some people have a sense of taste so powerful that they can tell you every ingredient in a sauce, every spice in a stew, some people have an ear so precise that they can (easily) notice the muffled treble and dropped notes.
Not surprisingly, these people are often the ones buying the $80,000 stereo systems.
Half wit? For me being the "dumb one" you're awfully good at making yourself look stupid...
In every other instance you mentioned there is corroborating evidence that can be weighed. Is it self defense? Well, what was the sequence of events? Was there reason to believe your (or another persons) life was in imminent danger. Is it premeditated? Well, was there any planning involved? Was a weapon imported into the crime scene? Etc. Is he a minor? Does he have any priors? All of these questions of fact can be substantiated with evidence or testimony.
But in federal hate crime legislation, all you have to prove is a prior disposition towards a protected class. White man X killed black man Y. Here are emails from a year ago showing X is a racist. There you go, that's enough.
And really, what *is* the point of being an arrogant douche? Maybe you think you sound more authoritative when you're mean and combative? You don't. You should do the world a favor and write that down and carry it in your pocket.
The parent to my post is talking about the Google Search Box built-into firefox. The GP to my post is talking about the Google search page that has Suggest activated within it. It looks basically like the normal google search page up to the point you start typing-in queries.
[this is an excerpt from a post I made further up the thread...] The problem is this.. if I kill somebody opposite my race, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate. But how can I prove that? Even if i'm a known racist, a trillion other circumstances could exist. But, defacto, it would look like a hate crime, so therefore it is a hate crime. And there I would be, getting additional punishment, because of an invented explanation of why i did it.
> "Hate crime doesn't mean additional penalty for hating their victims. You don't usually commit crime on people unless you hate them, do you?"
1. Hate crimes often DO carry additional penalties over their "non-hate" counterparts. That's the POINT of the legislation.
2. And yes, there are a lot of reasons to commit a crime that don't involve hating the victim. Fear, Lust, Greed, and Stupidity are just a few of MANY reasons.
> "Justification for harsher punishments for hate-crimes is because they inflict greater personal and societal harm"
Is that a fact? Using what means has this been proven?
Allow me to paraphrase Bobby Kennedy. He was giving a speech in the Indianapolis ghetto the night that MLK was assassinated. He said something along the lines of "It looks now like the killer was a white man. I know how upset you must be and how outraged you are at white people for this crime. I understand because I had a member of my family killed, and he was killed by a white man."
If a white man murders my (white) mother, I'll grieve. If a man of any other race were to murder her, I'd grieve in equal measure.
> "You can argue that being "race-motivated" or "religion-motivated" are not important factors to warrant special considerations in the US"... "Hate crime is not a thought crime."
The problem is this.. if I kill somebody opposite my race, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate. But how can I prove that? Even if i'm a known racist, a trillion other circumstances could exist. But, defacto, it would look like a hate crime, so therefore it is a hate crime. And there I would be, getting additional punishment, because of an invented explanation of why i did it.
We already have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc, we don't need to amplify the sentencing just because a person has a derogatory view of a given race, religion, etc.
> "Even the US Supreme Court has decided."
Oh, Well, that settles it. If the SUPREME COURT decided it, then it's just fine and dandy. After all, without the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court, we'd be stuck with, say, Al Gore in the White House and we'd probably have a crappy economy and a failing foreign policy because of it. And without the Supreme Court, law abiding citizens wouldn't be able to carry around assault weapons. And without the Supreme Court, the government couldn't keep us safe by helpfully listening in on our conversations. After all, the Supreme Court isn't politicized one bit, is it?
At the end of the day, what good does hate crime legislation do? All it means is that a racist might spend 20 years in jail for the same exact crime that a non-racist would only spend 15 years in for. So, when it comes down to that, he's spending 5 years in jail just for being a racist. And HOW is that not "thought crime?"
1. For a single-user implementation, Citrix doesn't offer you anything that Terminal Services doesn't. The ONLY thing that I could think of that WOULD be helpful from Citrix here is nFuse. And that's seriously not necessary.
2. If you've got XP Pro you don't need a Term Serv license. As long as somebody doesn't need to use the PC while you're connecting to it remotely, you're fine, right out of the box.
If it's registered as a US-based non-profit then absolutely. The easiest way to keep "proof" would be to just mail them a check and keep a copy of the canceled check. It's not as easy for the non-prof as an online donation, but it'd probably be the best way to show proof of your donation.
Otherwise, I'd just print-out whatever receipt you get after donating, and maybe a copy of your CC statement showing the transaction.
I've never been audited, but this is what my CPA has told me. canceled checks are best, but in lieu, be certain to get a receipt.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly.
This "study" is probably from a manager barking off orders to a bean counter:
1. determine how much HD space we need per movie
2. figure out the cost
3. multiply that by a format refresh every 2 years
4. come up with an absurd guess on how expensive it will be to maintain codecs and compatible systems
5. act like this system will have no business utility other than storing archived movies
6. add it all up
7. divide by number of movies sold so we can figure out how much to raise prices, then multiply that number by 2.
If you're MTV, why would you care about "helping" the sale of music?
The fact is, all those "inane" reality shows you deride are there because that's what the audience actually wants.
MTV has a high churn rate, and that's be design. Quite some time ago, they had the decision to keep things "old & friendly" and thereby stick with their founding audience from the time they wore spandex and Jordache jeans in 1985 until they're old and blue-haired. Or, they could evolve every few years, and remain relevant to the teenagers of the day.
And, to be fair, the decision has worked out pretty well for them.
"We should really put a term limit on every office."
We already have term limits. They're called elections.
Seriously, I understand your argument. The power of incumbency is often too hard for a challenger to overcome. But we can cure the SOURCE of that malady, not just treat the symptoms.
If we moved to publicly funded elections, and non-partisan redistricting, the incumbent would only retain the slight edge of name recognition. They'd lose the stacked-deck of gerrymandering, and the ability to raise money for favors & influence, quid pro quo.
True, in practice, term limits are easier to pass into law. But that should be evidence that they really don't work as well as planned. We have them for all state-level offices here in Ohio and it's almost a game to watch these people. They'll serve their allowed 2-terms in the State House, and then go over to the state Senate and serve 2 terms there, then they'll trade back to the house, and back to the senate, all the while gaming for their shot at a seat in Congress or the state house.
Furthermore, I think that term limits can do a disservice by making ineligible, perhaps, the best man for the job. I believe in a peoples ability to pick their own leader, and they shouldn't be shackled by a law that says they can't elect who they may really WANT to elect, within reason.
Publicly funded elections, completely separating money and politics, would bring some purity back to our system. Two US States have adopted voluntary public financing and it's been a smash hit, especially in Maine. The idea has also produced compelling results in European countries.
Yes, this would require either a constitutional amendment, or a Supreme Court willing to say that money does NOT equal free speech. And it would also require a legislature willing to pass it, and a President willing to sign it. Which is why it would be great if Congress could write such a law that takes effect, say, 20 years hence.
That was the dumbest post in this whole thread. And that, my friend, is really saying something.
The "Common Courtesy" argument IS used to suggest to other people how they could act.
But it only has validity when the issue in question REALLY IS "common courtesy."
Whether you (and the other 25% of the people here arguing on your side) care for it or not, we, as a society, have established a set of customs and rules on how one should act. You may have heard of this before, it's called "ethics."
Now, your personal morality should prevent you from exposing a child to porn or offensive language. But even when it doesn't, if you intend to be a productive, respected member of society, you're expected to abide by our collective ethics.
Furthermore, it just so happens that these ethics are so widely held that MOST of them are law. And the ones that aren't may very likely still be prosecuted in a civil court.
If you don't like the fact that the huge majority of Americans have coalesced around these "rules," then you're more than welcome to remove yourself from society. People do it all the time.
And if you chose to just flaunt the collective ethic, don't be surprised if it lands you in jail, on the receiving end of a lawsuit, or at the receiving end of a fist moving at a fast clip.
Because if you decided it was your right to watch your Blondes on Blacks Part V in front of MY kid, and you refused to relocate yourself or cease your inapropos behavior, i would DEFINITELY take the matter in to my own hands. Literally. Because you can count on the fact that a parent is going to protect his child with a LOT more force than you are going to use to protect your laptop OR your nose.
And really, if that were to happen, who would you be to make issue over it? After all, you decided to flaunt the "common courtesy" of illegally exposing children to porn. How can you possibly complain when an offended parent flaunts the "common courtesy" of not swelling your face to match the ridiculous size of your head.
Get over yourself. You're part of a society. If you don't like it, leave.
In all seriousness, such media doesn't exist.
Mass-produced optical discs are pressed or stamped.
And "burnt" optical discs don't contain any pits/valleys at all. They contain a photosensitive dye sandwiched between inert plastic. The laser turns the die opaque, which absorbs the light, and simulates the pit/valley. This is why quality of blank optical media can vary so greatly. More expensive dye will retain its photosensitive qualities for longer than cheaper dyes.
Do you really think that Pam Anderson, who has been said to suffer from one of the worst treatments of American society -- that is, to be famous but not wealthy -- has actually had an image boost by doing charity work? Similarly, I'm sure Paris Hilton has publicists. Why isn't she out there pounding in nails for Habitat for Humanity?
I think you're being OVERLY cynical in this regard. Sure, there's reason to be a cynic when it comes it American celebrity. But to suggest that wealthy, famous people could not POSSIBLY want to help there mere plebes at the bottom of the foodchain, that just overlooks the fact that there are a lot of genuinely good people who just so happen to be successful.
I read that about 2 months ago when it was written.
It was just as easy to explain it as it would've been to search for the blog entry.
Thanks for digging it up.
2
6
7
6
8
11
In other news, somebody has appeared to do some overloading on my internal increment-operator
The actual problem is the way JScript does string concatenation.
:)
When you concatenate 2 strings in JScript, it determines the size of the buffer needed, allocates the buffer, does the concatenation, and returns the result to the caller.
Which works fine, until you start putting some load on those old tires...
x = 'some';
y = 'string';
z = 'here';
testString = x + " " + y + " " + z;
(Ignore that nobody would actually write code JUST LIKE THAT, they would just add a trailing or leading space to the x, y & z strings. But concatenating a result with some white space is not abnormal.)
Now, just think about what this is actually doing under the hood..
1. determine len of x (4) plus len of " " (1) = 5
2. Allocate new buffer(5)
3. Concatenate, assign result to temp
4. determine len of temp (5) plus len of y (6) = 11
5. Allocate new buffer(11)
6. Concatenate, assign results to new temp, destroy old temp
7. determine len of temp (11) plus len of " " (1) = 12
6. Allocate new buffer(12)
8. Concatenate, assign results to new temp, destroy old temp
9. determine len of temp (12) plus len of z (4) = 16
10. Allocate new buffer (16)
11. Concatenate, assign results to testString
So, to concatenate relatively little string data, 3 temporary buffers were needed and 4 separate allocations were done.
It works fine, right up to the point where it doesn't
Seriously, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. It wasn't your post that I replied to. As far as I can tell, you didn't involve yourself into this discussion until you did so, rather rudely, with the GP.
If you'd like to be included in this conversation, then why don't you start by offering something, instead of just heckling?
I was having a conversation with the gentleman that wrote the (g-g-g parent?), not with a johnny-come-lately whose only involvement came a day late and a dollar short.
I've put significantly more effort into writing this post than it would've taken to link to the Wikipedia entry that you're asking for. But the point is not that I'm lazy. It's that I see little value in feeding trolls. Your hit-and-run style is played-out on this website. If you're looking for a debate so badly that you resort to these tactics, perhaps you should make more friends that share your common interests.
Honestly, I prefer to support regional chains. Big enough to have decent prices, small enough that they cannot single-handedly control the market. (I've read right here on /. abotu, for example, video games that were purposely "toned down" after Walmart threatened to deny them shelf space).
I've shopped at BB on occassion, but there isn't one close to my house. I'd have to look at their history of political activism before I could make a judgement.
But generally speaking, low prices do not equal low costs. I may pay a few dollars less for a widget at Walmart than I would at a less-evil store, but what are the back-side costs of that walmart purchase? What vendors are cheapening their products in order to meet Walmarts mandatory year-over-year price reductions? What content is being censored, whether video games or books or magazines, in order to avoid being shunned by the worlds largest retailer? What share of every dollar I spend is going DIRECTLY into their PAC, that's used to support conservative candidacies and issues from Pro-Life to Abstinence-Only-Education to the 2004 Bush re-elect?
You would never support these things, I'm sure. But Walmart does. And when you shop there, you're supporting it too.
Walmart: Low Prices. High Costs.
You recommended Walmart? ::shudder::
Your money is like your vote. You should only give it to the people you'd like to have it.
Walmart has done as much to advance the conservative agenda in America as any Congressman or Senator has, yet people who would never vote for the right-wing facists queue up every day to give their money to one.
You recommended Walmart? ::shudder::
Your money is like your vote. You should only give it to the people you'd like to have it.
Walmart has done as much to advance the conservative agenda in America as any Congressman or Senator has, yet people who would never vote for the right-wing facists queue up every day to give their money to one.
The AVERAGE human ear cannot distinguish the difference between a *perfectly encoded* mp3 at 320kbps.
However, not all MP3 codecs are perfect, and not all ears are average.
Just as some people have a sense of taste so powerful that they can tell you every ingredient in a sauce, every spice in a stew, some people have an ear so precise that they can (easily) notice the muffled treble and dropped notes.
Not surprisingly, these people are often the ones buying the $80,000 stereo systems.
"No, he's spending the extra 5 years for acting out a racist agenda."
Do you have a citation on that?
If not, i'll maintain that the GP is correct.
Your fingers aren't broken, look it up yourself.
And seriously, who are you and why would I care what you "maintain?"
Half wit? For me being the "dumb one" you're awfully good at making yourself look stupid...
In every other instance you mentioned there is corroborating evidence that can be weighed. Is it self defense? Well, what was the sequence of events? Was there reason to believe your (or another persons) life was in imminent danger. Is it premeditated? Well, was there any planning involved? Was a weapon imported into the crime scene? Etc. Is he a minor? Does he have any priors? All of these questions of fact can be substantiated with evidence or testimony.
But in federal hate crime legislation, all you have to prove is a prior disposition towards a protected class. White man X killed black man Y. Here are emails from a year ago showing X is a racist. There you go, that's enough.
And really, what *is* the point of being an arrogant douche? Maybe you think you sound more authoritative when you're mean and combative? You don't. You should do the world a favor and write that down and carry it in your pocket.
Ah yes, the Versatile Disc..
Sometimes it fucks you...
And sometimes you fuck it...
I think you two are confusing each other..
The parent to my post is talking about the Google Search Box built-into firefox. The GP to my post is talking about the Google search page that has Suggest activated within it. It looks basically like the normal google search page up to the point you start typing-in queries.
Another way to try Google Suggest would be just to install Firefox itself, sans toolbar, and use the browsers Search Box...
[this is an excerpt from a post I made further up the thread...]
The problem is this.. if I kill somebody opposite my race, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate. But how can I prove that? Even if i'm a known racist, a trillion other circumstances could exist. But, defacto, it would look like a hate crime, so therefore it is a hate crime. And there I would be, getting additional punishment, because of an invented explanation of why i did it.
> "Hate crime doesn't mean additional penalty for hating their victims. You don't usually commit crime on people unless you hate them, do you?"
... "Hate crime is not a thought crime."
1. Hate crimes often DO carry additional penalties over their "non-hate" counterparts. That's the POINT of the legislation.
2. And yes, there are a lot of reasons to commit a crime that don't involve hating the victim. Fear, Lust, Greed, and Stupidity are just a few of MANY reasons.
> "Justification for harsher punishments for hate-crimes is because they inflict greater personal and societal harm"
Is that a fact? Using what means has this been proven?
Allow me to paraphrase Bobby Kennedy. He was giving a speech in the Indianapolis ghetto the night that MLK was assassinated. He said something along the lines of "It looks now like the killer was a white man. I know how upset you must be and how outraged you are at white people for this crime. I understand because I had a member of my family killed, and he was killed by a white man."
If a white man murders my (white) mother, I'll grieve. If a man of any other race were to murder her, I'd grieve in equal measure.
> "You can argue that being "race-motivated" or "religion-motivated" are not important factors to warrant special considerations in the US"
The problem is this.. if I kill somebody opposite my race, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate. But how can I prove that? Even if i'm a known racist, a trillion other circumstances could exist. But, defacto, it would look like a hate crime, so therefore it is a hate crime. And there I would be, getting additional punishment, because of an invented explanation of why i did it.
We already have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc, we don't need to amplify the sentencing just because a person has a derogatory view of a given race, religion, etc.
> "Even the US Supreme Court has decided." Oh, Well, that settles it. If the SUPREME COURT decided it, then it's just fine and dandy. After all, without the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court, we'd be stuck with, say, Al Gore in the White House and we'd probably have a crappy economy and a failing foreign policy because of it. And without the Supreme Court, law abiding citizens wouldn't be able to carry around assault weapons. And without the Supreme Court, the government couldn't keep us safe by helpfully listening in on our conversations. After all, the Supreme Court isn't politicized one bit, is it?
At the end of the day, what good does hate crime legislation do? All it means is that a racist might spend 20 years in jail for the same exact crime that a non-racist would only spend 15 years in for. So, when it comes down to that, he's spending 5 years in jail just for being a racist. And HOW is that not "thought crime?"
1. For a single-user implementation, Citrix doesn't offer you anything that Terminal Services doesn't. The ONLY thing that I could think of that WOULD be helpful from Citrix here is nFuse. And that's seriously not necessary.
2. If you've got XP Pro you don't need a Term Serv license. As long as somebody doesn't need to use the PC while you're connecting to it remotely, you're fine, right out of the box.
If it's registered as a US-based non-profit then absolutely. The easiest way to keep "proof" would be to just mail them a check and keep a copy of the canceled check. It's not as easy for the non-prof as an online donation, but it'd probably be the best way to show proof of your donation.
Otherwise, I'd just print-out whatever receipt you get after donating, and maybe a copy of your CC statement showing the transaction.
I've never been audited, but this is what my CPA has told me. canceled checks are best, but in lieu, be certain to get a receipt.
Wasting mod-points by marking a +5 funny (meaning no karma bonus) as "over-rated"...
Now THAT is funny.