According to the dictionary (which I linked to) and popular usage, a catheter is used to drain fluids from the body, not to add fluids. The most common usage is to insert a catheter to drain the bladder when urination has become difficult or impossible, or when bladder control has been hampered by medicine.
Thus, a catheter would be of little help when attempting to add caffeine to the bloodstream.
Wikipedia says 3/4 have to ratify it, not 2/3; that makes my claim work out properly;) Remember, in 1933 there were 48 states, not 50, so 35 states (without Utah) did not make 75%, but 36 states made exactly 75%.
Whether they are spelt out or not is irrlevent, both sides are attacking fundamental rights.
That's quite untrue. It's far less heinous to attack nebulous, undefined "rights" than it is to attack concrete, defined rights, especially when those defined rights have been part of the foundation of the country since its creation.
Conservatives also seem to really hate video games
I don't know any high-profile conservatives that hate video games. Jack Thompson showed himself to be the idiot he is. I'm unaware of any anti-video-game legislation, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
I'm unaware of any legislation in the works that aims to ban pornography depicting consensual sexual activity between adults, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
That wasn't put to a state vote, so it's not really relevant to my comments - besides, it went nowhere and though I don't know if it's still technically a law, it's not being enforced.
Constitutional amendments need a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if memory serves - you'll notice that Utah voted for it on December 5th, and (together with the other states that voted for it on that day) was the vote that made it an amendment.
If not for Utah, the repeal would not have been ratified that day; perhaps one of the two states that later ratified it would still have done so and thus passed the amendment, but it's just as likely that those two states only ratified in the interest of unity.
Quite true. In a year of DHCP on my fiber service back in Utah, my IP only changed once - and that's because the network changed ownership (and therefore a new IP range was used). This sort of thing is the norm for always-on connections; you can't go changing your customers' IP addresses mid-connection or their sessions get all screwed up.
Not-always-on connections might be "vulnerable" to this type of thing, but if you're bored enough to red-flag the IP range of a dialup provider on a local business' webserver, you have serious issues.
You might have a point, but it's stupid for liberals to claim we're taking away fundamental rights (which are NOT spelled out) while they go around trying to take away fundamental rights which ARE spelled out.
The word for that is "hypocrisy".
If you want "the right to watch other adults engage in consensual sexual activity" to be spelled out, well, vote an amendment to the constitution.
In any case, your point is sort of wrong, because very, very few conservatives want porn to be illegal. They want child porn to be illegal, of course, but then, so does most everybody.
To put a little substance behind that claim, Utah has a very high porn subscription rate, despite its conservative population. I suspect most of them would not vote to ban porn. Utah was also (essentially) the vote that ended the Prohibition.
If your point about conservatives were correct, neither of those things would be true.
It's only a lie if you don't believe it yourself;) The fact that the statement later turned out to be false doesn't make it a lie.
Mom says "We're having chicken for dinner tonight." You get home and she's making beef. Did she lie? Most likely not; the store was probably out of chicken, or beef was on sale, or whatever.
A politician promises wealth and growth based on his policies. His policies turn out to not work due to an economic collapse beyond his control. Did the politician lie? Assuming his policies were sound, then no.
The leader of a certain country tells us "Based on past experience and British intel, Iraq certainly has WMDs." Soldiers get there, and can't find any. Did that leader lie? Assuming he was acting based on past experience and British intel, then no, he did not. Perhaps British intel lied; but the person repeating a lie is not a liar unless he is also aware that it is a lie.
A statement is a lie if and only if the speaker knows it is untrue when spoken. Whether or not it is factual is irrelevant.
Speaking of pitchforks, the following weapon grew out of a random discussion with a friend:
Imagine for me, if you will, a pitchfork. Now set the pitchfork on fire. Now grab about a hundred of these burning pitchforks and put them in a stack. Attach that stack to a double-barreled shotgun.
You now have our new invention - the gravity-fed double-barreled burning pitchfork shotgun!
I'll license the idea to any gun company for 5% of the royalties.
(Posting without karma because this is way off-topic and I'm replying to a pair of ACs...)
I find it ironic that most conservatives think of liberals as trying to "take-control", a la Stalin style, but have a blind spot for enforcing their morality on others.
And yet it's not the conservatives that want to take away our right to own firearms...
Yes, we conservatives may want our moral standards to be universal, but at least we're not trying to take away any fundamental, constitution-provided rights like (many) liberals want to do.
(I say this as a conservative who does not own and does not intend to own firearms unless it becomes necessary to protect my family. To that end, I will do my best to protect that right, although I would prefer not to have to use it.)
... not if the ISPs have their way. Hasn't this been discussed to death elsewhere?
Besides, I run a web server from my home for personal convenience (I keep my documents and code in Subversion), and that's something I'd more than likely have to stop doing. I'm certainly not the only person doing that sort of thing.
I will not sign up with an ISP wanting to charge per-byte, and I would not accept it if my current ISP changed to a per-byte model.
Utopia is in Salt Lake, not Provo (I did live there, you know), but Provo does have what used to be called iProvo (was owned by the city) but the city sold the fiber network to Broadweave Networks - because the city was bleeding money. 15Mbps symmetric fiber for $40? Yeah, it was nice, for me, but I can't say I'm glad the city wasted so much money on it. Broadweave grandfathered the monthly rates for existing customers, but they weren't so generous with new customers.
And it wasn't quite "any company" that could provide services - it was "any company which hasn't already invested in infrastructure in the area", which basically narrowed it down to two startups (which got kicked out when Provo sold the network). So now it's back to one single provider on their own private fiber network.
Sandy, which is just south of Salt Lake City, voted against joining Utopia, because they didn't want to lose money like the cities that signed up. Utopia is nice for customers on the surface - but the program bleeds money, and that money comes from somewhere. (Hint: the government has to get money to pay for that somehow, and they don't print money to do it.)
The advertising problem is that it's legal to mislead, as long as what you're saying isn't actually false. You can even put the fine print in tiny print on the TV ad without saying it out loud - "FREE (<font size=1>with six year subscription at regular rates</font>)" is a legal advertising technique. They can say "FREE" out loud and leave the caveat in the fine print in silence.
Until it's no longer legal to mislead, we'll have these sorts of problems.
Perhaps I shouldn't complain about the typos in 18-word fake domain names, but I can certainly complain about the half-dozen spelling errors (or other typos) in your reply, since they're complete sentences.
That said, your plan wouldn't be bulletproof unless you register the domain names in question (and webhosts) under assumed names, have the websites programmed by people who can't identify you personally, and never visit them from an internet connection traceable to you except to create the account. Note that this would probably cost more in time, if not money, than you could hope to get back from your discrimination lawsuit.
Since you obviously missed it, the point of my comment regarding your spelling was "this idea is stupid, but rather than point out the reasons it's stupid, it's more entertaining to make fun of your spelling mistakes, so that's what I'll do". You'll also note that I pointed out the reasons your idea is stupid in this post, since you apparently think your idea is so amazing.
Bad spelling (in the quantities it occurs in in your posts) is almost as annoying as that guy who spells "time" with a y just because it's technically a correct spelling (if you enjoy archaic English), and thinks he's cool for it, even though he comes of as an arrogant jerk instead.
At this point I probably deserve a -1 Troll or something but I'm sure some of you out there agree with me.
That's a good point. Web hosting costs could easily skyrocket if per-byte charges become the norm. If you don't like someone, just grab a botnet and spam their IP with connections. AJAX-based sites suddenly cost more to use than non-AJAX sites. It could cost (say) $3 in images and flash downloads just to browse comcast.com to find out if you want to upgrade your connection. It's no longer $50 for your new 10GB game on Steam - it's $50 plus $10 to download it.
Per-byte seems like an absolutely terrible way to do ISP fees.
As someone else pointed out, it's not actually illegal to ask those questions (especially if it's an optional survey), but asking them can get you into trouble if the person decides to accuse you of discrimination if/when you don't hire them.
The cost of upgrades? I seem to recall a recent article about a Comcast memo stating they could double their network speed for every single customer for a one-time cost of something like $6 per customer.
Why on earth haven't they simply charged every customer an extra $6 just once - with, say, three months' advance notice - and upgraded their network? Because they don't see any advantage for their business in doing so. Granted, there are advantages - but if they don't see them then it doesn't matter that they exist.
As a Comcast customer, I would gladly pay a one-time fee of $6 to double my connection speed - heck, I'd double my monthly service charge for one month to get it. They're missing a huge one-time cash boost opportunity here.
Dunno where you live, but I've never had a choice of power companies in any of the cities I've lived in (Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah, and Seattle, Washington).
Besides, that would make the infrastructure more complex (and expensive) than it needs to be, at least in the case of electricity.
Not to apply, no. It's illegal to discriminate based on location. As long as your application says you're willing to relocate you don't actually have to go there.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the dictionary (which I linked to) and popular usage, a catheter is used to drain fluids from the body, not to add fluids. The most common usage is to insert a catheter to drain the bladder when urination has become difficult or impossible, or when bladder control has been hampered by medicine.
Thus, a catheter would be of little help when attempting to add caffeine to the bloodstream.
I hope you're dripping that into an IV, not a catheter...
Best. Analogy. Ever.
Mod parent up!
Wikipedia says 3/4 have to ratify it, not 2/3; that makes my claim work out properly ;) Remember, in 1933 there were 48 states, not 50, so 35 states (without Utah) did not make 75%, but 36 states made exactly 75%.
Whether they are spelt out or not is irrlevent, both sides are attacking fundamental rights.
That's quite untrue. It's far less heinous to attack nebulous, undefined "rights" than it is to attack concrete, defined rights, especially when those defined rights have been part of the foundation of the country since its creation.
Conservatives also seem to really hate video games
I don't know any high-profile conservatives that hate video games. Jack Thompson showed himself to be the idiot he is. I'm unaware of any anti-video-game legislation, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
I'm unaware of any legislation in the works that aims to ban pornography depicting consensual sexual activity between adults, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
Feel free to enlighten me.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/22/utah_filtering_law/ [theregister.co.uk]
That wasn't put to a state vote, so it's not really relevant to my comments - besides, it went nowhere and though I don't know if it's still technically a law, it's not being enforced.
http://www.prohibitionrepeal.com/legacy/hall.asp [prohibitionrepeal.com]
Constitutional amendments need a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if memory serves - you'll notice that Utah voted for it on December 5th, and (together with the other states that voted for it on that day) was the vote that made it an amendment.
If not for Utah, the repeal would not have been ratified that day; perhaps one of the two states that later ratified it would still have done so and thus passed the amendment, but it's just as likely that those two states only ratified in the interest of unity.
So... yes, I'm sure about that.
Quite true. In a year of DHCP on my fiber service back in Utah, my IP only changed once - and that's because the network changed ownership (and therefore a new IP range was used). This sort of thing is the norm for always-on connections; you can't go changing your customers' IP addresses mid-connection or their sessions get all screwed up.
Not-always-on connections might be "vulnerable" to this type of thing, but if you're bored enough to red-flag the IP range of a dialup provider on a local business' webserver, you have serious issues.
You might have a point, but it's stupid for liberals to claim we're taking away fundamental rights (which are NOT spelled out) while they go around trying to take away fundamental rights which ARE spelled out.
The word for that is "hypocrisy".
If you want "the right to watch other adults engage in consensual sexual activity" to be spelled out, well, vote an amendment to the constitution.
In any case, your point is sort of wrong, because very, very few conservatives want porn to be illegal. They want child porn to be illegal, of course, but then, so does most everybody.
To put a little substance behind that claim, Utah has a very high porn subscription rate, despite its conservative population. I suspect most of them would not vote to ban porn. Utah was also (essentially) the vote that ended the Prohibition.
If your point about conservatives were correct, neither of those things would be true.
It's only a lie if you don't believe it yourself ;) The fact that the statement later turned out to be false doesn't make it a lie.
Mom says "We're having chicken for dinner tonight." You get home and she's making beef. Did she lie? Most likely not; the store was probably out of chicken, or beef was on sale, or whatever.
A politician promises wealth and growth based on his policies. His policies turn out to not work due to an economic collapse beyond his control. Did the politician lie? Assuming his policies were sound, then no.
The leader of a certain country tells us "Based on past experience and British intel, Iraq certainly has WMDs." Soldiers get there, and can't find any. Did that leader lie? Assuming he was acting based on past experience and British intel, then no, he did not. Perhaps British intel lied; but the person repeating a lie is not a liar unless he is also aware that it is a lie.
A statement is a lie if and only if the speaker knows it is untrue when spoken. Whether or not it is factual is irrelevant.
5% of the profits, I mean. I guess I don't have enough caffeine in me yet.
Speaking of pitchforks, the following weapon grew out of a random discussion with a friend:
Imagine for me, if you will, a pitchfork. Now set the pitchfork on fire. Now grab about a hundred of these burning pitchforks and put them in a stack. Attach that stack to a double-barreled shotgun.
You now have our new invention - the gravity-fed double-barreled burning pitchfork shotgun!
I'll license the idea to any gun company for 5% of the royalties.
(Posting without karma because this is way off-topic and I'm replying to a pair of ACs...)
I find it ironic that most conservatives think of liberals as trying to "take-control", a la Stalin style, but have a blind spot for enforcing their morality on others.
And yet it's not the conservatives that want to take away our right to own firearms...
Yes, we conservatives may want our moral standards to be universal, but at least we're not trying to take away any fundamental, constitution-provided rights like (many) liberals want to do.
(I say this as a conservative who does not own and does not intend to own firearms unless it becomes necessary to protect my family. To that end, I will do my best to protect that right, although I would prefer not to have to use it.)
... not if the ISPs have their way. Hasn't this been discussed to death elsewhere?
Besides, I run a web server from my home for personal convenience (I keep my documents and code in Subversion), and that's something I'd more than likely have to stop doing. I'm certainly not the only person doing that sort of thing.
I will not sign up with an ISP wanting to charge per-byte, and I would not accept it if my current ISP changed to a per-byte model.
Utopia is in Salt Lake, not Provo (I did live there, you know), but Provo does have what used to be called iProvo (was owned by the city) but the city sold the fiber network to Broadweave Networks - because the city was bleeding money. 15Mbps symmetric fiber for $40? Yeah, it was nice, for me, but I can't say I'm glad the city wasted so much money on it. Broadweave grandfathered the monthly rates for existing customers, but they weren't so generous with new customers.
And it wasn't quite "any company" that could provide services - it was "any company which hasn't already invested in infrastructure in the area", which basically narrowed it down to two startups (which got kicked out when Provo sold the network). So now it's back to one single provider on their own private fiber network.
Sandy, which is just south of Salt Lake City, voted against joining Utopia, because they didn't want to lose money like the cities that signed up. Utopia is nice for customers on the surface - but the program bleeds money, and that money comes from somewhere. (Hint: the government has to get money to pay for that somehow, and they don't print money to do it.)
The advertising problem is that it's legal to mislead, as long as what you're saying isn't actually false. You can even put the fine print in tiny print on the TV ad without saying it out loud - "FREE (<font size=1>with six year subscription at regular rates</font>)" is a legal advertising technique. They can say "FREE" out loud and leave the caveat in the fine print in silence.
Until it's no longer legal to mislead, we'll have these sorts of problems.
*"comes off as". *sigh* It never fails... and I tried so hard this time.
Perhaps I shouldn't complain about the typos in 18-word fake domain names, but I can certainly complain about the half-dozen spelling errors (or other typos) in your reply, since they're complete sentences.
That said, your plan wouldn't be bulletproof unless you register the domain names in question (and webhosts) under assumed names, have the websites programmed by people who can't identify you personally, and never visit them from an internet connection traceable to you except to create the account. Note that this would probably cost more in time, if not money, than you could hope to get back from your discrimination lawsuit.
Since you obviously missed it, the point of my comment regarding your spelling was "this idea is stupid, but rather than point out the reasons it's stupid, it's more entertaining to make fun of your spelling mistakes, so that's what I'll do". You'll also note that I pointed out the reasons your idea is stupid in this post, since you apparently think your idea is so amazing.
Bad spelling (in the quantities it occurs in in your posts) is almost as annoying as that guy who spells "time" with a y just because it's technically a correct spelling (if you enjoy archaic English), and thinks he's cool for it, even though he comes of as an arrogant jerk instead.
At this point I probably deserve a -1 Troll or something but I'm sure some of you out there agree with me.
That's a good point. Web hosting costs could easily skyrocket if per-byte charges become the norm. If you don't like someone, just grab a botnet and spam their IP with connections. AJAX-based sites suddenly cost more to use than non-AJAX sites. It could cost (say) $3 in images and flash downloads just to browse comcast.com to find out if you want to upgrade your connection. It's no longer $50 for your new 10GB game on Steam - it's $50 plus $10 to download it.
Per-byte seems like an absolutely terrible way to do ISP fees.
... and then add, "for definitions of 'reasonable' which I can change at any time".
As someone else pointed out, it's not actually illegal to ask those questions (especially if it's an optional survey), but asking them can get you into trouble if the person decides to accuse you of discrimination if/when you don't hire them.
The cost of upgrades? I seem to recall a recent article about a Comcast memo stating they could double their network speed for every single customer for a one-time cost of something like $6 per customer.
Why on earth haven't they simply charged every customer an extra $6 just once - with, say, three months' advance notice - and upgraded their network? Because they don't see any advantage for their business in doing so. Granted, there are advantages - but if they don't see them then it doesn't matter that they exist.
As a Comcast customer, I would gladly pay a one-time fee of $6 to double my connection speed - heck, I'd double my monthly service charge for one month to get it. They're missing a huge one-time cash boost opportunity here.
Dunno where you live, but I've never had a choice of power companies in any of the cities I've lived in (Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah, and Seattle, Washington).
Besides, that would make the infrastructure more complex (and expensive) than it needs to be, at least in the case of electricity.
Not to apply, no. It's illegal to discriminate based on location. As long as your application says you're willing to relocate you don't actually have to go there.
dissent != descent.
That said, you have a good point.
We should have a poll to find out the relationship status of slashdotters (with the obligatory "no lying!" in the poll question)...
It would probably help if you could spell some of those words properly. Or are you really "afried" to come out of the closet?
That's especially true if you haven't left your current employer yet but are looking for a new job.