go to our building supervisor and ask him for a desktop-on-a-cart
Who needs laptops when they have desktops on a cart! When I was young all we had were mainframes on a horse. We had to go down to the stables every time we wanted to check our email. Kids these days...
Seriously though, wtf. Tell them to get their own laptop and teach your art school about laptops too. Tell them they are kind of like desktops on carts but a lot more convenient.
I have to agree even though I hate to see silly technicalities (esp to do with "licensing" which is just a tax with another name) being used to suppress evidence, regardless of the strength of evidence itself. But then this is RIAA who have never been shy of using dirty tactics themselves so it serves them right.
It kind of saddens me that this may vary state to state, do other states have these sort of protections in place to stop a completely biased party (oh, like your ISP or MediaSentry) from gathering evidence against you for a trial?
Of course a biased party (such as a "licenced" private detective hired by your opponent) is able to gather evidence against you. As for your ISP, that's a different issue, but what are you saying, that ISPs falsify evidence to help RIAA win lawsuits?
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market".
What a stupid thing to say. Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public property, therefore we can decide how you set your prices, then why shouldn't it say this: you run your trucks on public roads therefore we can decide how you set your prices. That's the slippery slope I was talking about. Nothing to do with any monopolies.
Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth.
Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this doesn't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy. Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it's their property too (don't get me started on the evils of "public" property). In principle, this is the same thing as government mandating that a railroad is only allowed to charge based on the weight of the cargo and not allowed to charge based on the contents of the cargo. Why shouldn't railroad be allowed to set their pricing any way it wants? If you think we should stop tiered pricing (and I do) do it on the basis of the monopoly these telecoms enjoy in many areas, not because they use public property. That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
As per release notes, this is an experimental feature. It may be that Sun intends to provide it only to paid customers or it may be that they want to make sure you don't use it in "production" environment until it's ready and then whine that Java is buggy if it doesn't work 100%.
I don't know which is true but the second possibility seems far more likely to me, making this story completely pointless and unfair - but hey this is slashdot.
Btw, off topic but is it just me or the subjects in replies are showing up as white text on white bg in Firefox but look ok in IE. I even tried in on another pc and same thing.
I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers. I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused.
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."
So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then? And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?
It is true that he probably misses the point, in that a project like this has no choice but to sometimes ban those who deliberately and persistently abuse the rules. However, I would love to see the records of those edits that required such drastic action. As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.
The only problem is that there is no line they can wait in. There is no equivalent of H1B for agricultural workers and various other manual laborers. Yet, there is an enormous demand for them as evidenced by the fact that literally millions are employed in the US illegally. I am not saying it's ok to break the law, but if the US government really wanted to legalize the process there could be some sort of guest worker program (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter ). Instead, what's really happening is that the government is turning the blind eye and using the method of tightening or loosening the screw of the implementation of the immigration laws to regulate the flow, which has an unfortunate and unfair effect of keeping both the employees and the employers permanently illegal and vulnerable.
The current law on the books doesn't make the act illegal. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to transfer money to/from internet gambling sites.
The mechanism they used to ban it doesn't matter, the end result is the same. What's the point of making in illegal to transfer money specifically to gambling sites if not to prohibit online gambling.
Strictly speaking, this is fully within Congress' rights to regulate interstate commerce which is explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Read your constitution. Just because something is interstate doesn't automatically give congress unlimited authority over it. When prohibition was enacted, they understood this and had to pass a constitutional amendment before they could prohibit alcohol sales. I would love to see a constitutional justification for prohibition of online gambling but not offline gambling. Where is the distinction?
Your assertion about it never being the government's business about what you do with your money, doesn't pass a common sense test. Two obvious examples, drug money, and unlicensed gun sales
Criminalizing spending money on drugs is wrong too. Buying a gun from an unlicensed seller is not a federal crime. In many states it is not illegal either. There is an argument to be made for registering guns but it's a different issue.
If you ask me it is outrageous that we have given our government the power to even be discussing whether people should be allowed to make a choice to gamble, online or not. It is simply not any of the government's business what I do with my money as long as I am not hurting anybody else.
But that aside (a big issue to put aside, but anyway) I wouldn't be so sure that the bill won't pass. As we see all over the country, state governments have been steadily allowing more and more gambling purely as a way to increase the tax revenue in difficult times, so the trend is towards more gambling, not less. The way they see it is not as an issue of rights through. What they see is all this money going out to overseas companies without the US government being given a chance to keep a share for itself, which in their mind is the real crime here.
Where and when did communism work? Apart from the obvious issue of human rights which are undermined by the very nature of communism, not any particular implementation of it, the fundamental difference is the economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom) which historically is VERY strongly correlated with living standards. There is almost no exception to the rule that, assuming the basic rule of law exists in a country, the more free its economy is (i.e. more capitalist) the more prosperous it is.
I almost miss getting telemarketing calls. It was kinda fun to have someone that you can mess with and insult in most disgusting ways without feeling the least bit bad about it.
I think global warming, if it happens, will be great
Many of the biggest population centers are vulnerable to being wiped out by the rising sea levels. If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean disruption of global economy on a scale far greater than WWII and over far longer period, with all the wars, famines and who knows what else this will bring. In short, yes humans will probably adapt to the changes in climate but the cost will be enormous, so I wouldn't call that "great".
Thinking about buying Alienware (now owned by Dell)?
Nope. They are vastly overpriced for what they are and I'm not in a habit of paying extra for computers because of the way they look.
Four different Alienware teams have refused to even give me a price on this accessory, instead accusing me of stealing the machine since I didn't buy it directly from their eBay store.
If that is true then I agree it's crazy. I noticed that they were asking for a warranty number and I've never heard of a computer manufacturer refusing to SELL you a part unless you have a warranty number. However, is it at all possible that the support people were misunderstanding you and thinking that you wanted the part for free, under warranty? I know it's four different people and you explained it to them, but it is perfectly possible that all four are complete idiots and didn't even bother listening fully to your explanation of what you wanted.
Exodus 12:29-30: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
Let's not forget:
Isaiah 13:15-16: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
And:
Samuel 15:2-3: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
I would rather let my children read about Egyptians donkey penises than about mass murder of women and children being depicted as a good thing that god encourages and occasionally commits himself.
the policy of America is simply to ship programming jobs overseas
No it's not. The policy of America is to promote globalization and free trade which in the long run is thought (rightly or not) to be beneficial to the USA. If that's what you are doing then it does make it kinda hard to use legislation to stop American companies from doing what they want which is hiring labor where its cheapest. Either you are for protectionism in which case we will lose in the long run because US companies won't be able to compete, or you are for liberalization of trade (including labor) in which case US workers will have to compete for jobs on equal terms with Chinese, Indians etc
The ideology of free market capitalism is broken? Ahhh, so that explains the worldwide trend towards nationalization of industries, central planning of the economy and redistribution of income by the government in the name of equality... Thanks for clearing that up, now it all makes sense. Oh wait, it is actually exactly the opposite.
So you are saying then that you are concerned about the government protecting you from foreign invaders? In that case I would think you would be opposed to the war that we started in Iraq
Yep I sure am against US military being in Iraq and about 130 other countries at the cost of 1bn/day. Empire building is another symptom of a government that has lost touch with people and the constitution.
So then if I sign an employment contract for which no voluntary tax was paid, and I rob the company blind, they can't use the courts to seek out damages?
Exactly. That's why paying this tax would become the norm but that's they way it should be since contract enforcement costs money and this way only those who use that service will pay for it.
Though more significant is that many people would try to get back the trivial portion of their income taxes that cover scientific research only because they are cheap
Just replace "scientific research" in that sentence with any other cause that would be desirable, such as housing for the poor, health care for the sick, jobs for the unemployed etc etc and you will see why runaway spending of other people's money happens so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
go to our building supervisor and ask him for a desktop-on-a-cart
Who needs laptops when they have desktops on a cart! When I was young all we had were mainframes on a horse. We had to go down to the stables every time we wanted to check our email. Kids these days...
Seriously though, wtf. Tell them to get their own laptop and teach your art school about laptops too. Tell them they are kind of like desktops on carts but a lot more convenient.
Get a friend to pass around a rumor that he caught you watching a porn clip and masturbating onto the keyboard. Nobody will ask for it anymore.
I hope they uphold the law.
I have to agree even though I hate to see silly technicalities (esp to do with "licensing" which is just a tax with another name) being used to suppress evidence, regardless of the strength of evidence itself. But then this is RIAA who have never been shy of using dirty tactics themselves so it serves them right.
It kind of saddens me that this may vary state to state, do other states have these sort of protections in place to stop a completely biased party (oh, like your ISP or MediaSentry) from gathering evidence against you for a trial?
Of course a biased party (such as a "licenced" private detective hired by your opponent) is able to gather evidence against you. As for your ISP, that's a different issue, but what are you saying, that ISPs falsify evidence to help RIAA win lawsuits?
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market".
What a stupid thing to say. Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public property, therefore we can decide how you set your prices, then why shouldn't it say this: you run your trucks on public roads therefore we can decide how you set your prices. That's the slippery slope I was talking about. Nothing to do with any monopolies.
The ones with fudged paperwork are also decoys. For really important stuff they use Twitter. Nobody would expect that.
Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth.
Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this doesn't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy. Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it's their property too (don't get me started on the evils of "public" property). In principle, this is the same thing as government mandating that a railroad is only allowed to charge based on the weight of the cargo and not allowed to charge based on the contents of the cargo. Why shouldn't railroad be allowed to set their pricing any way it wants? If you think we should stop tiered pricing (and I do) do it on the basis of the monopoly these telecoms enjoy in many areas, not because they use public property. That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
As per release notes, this is an experimental feature. It may be that Sun intends to provide it only to paid customers or it may be that they want to make sure you don't use it in "production" environment until it's ready and then whine that Java is buggy if it doesn't work 100%.
I don't know which is true but the second possibility seems far more likely to me, making this story completely pointless and unfair - but hey this is slashdot.
Btw, off topic but is it just me or the subjects in replies are showing up as white text on white bg in Firefox but look ok in IE. I even tried in on another pc and same thing.
I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers. I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused.
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."
So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then? And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?
It is true that he probably misses the point, in that a project like this has no choice but to sometimes ban those who deliberately and persistently abuse the rules. However, I would love to see the records of those edits that required such drastic action. As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.
The only problem is that there is no line they can wait in. There is no equivalent of H1B for agricultural workers and various other manual laborers. Yet, there is an enormous demand for them as evidenced by the fact that literally millions are employed in the US illegally. I am not saying it's ok to break the law, but if the US government really wanted to legalize the process there could be some sort of guest worker program (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter ). Instead, what's really happening is that the government is turning the blind eye and using the method of tightening or loosening the screw of the implementation of the immigration laws to regulate the flow, which has an unfortunate and unfair effect of keeping both the employees and the employers permanently illegal and vulnerable.
The current law on the books doesn't make the act illegal. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to transfer money to/from internet gambling sites.
The mechanism they used to ban it doesn't matter, the end result is the same. What's the point of making in illegal to transfer money specifically to gambling sites if not to prohibit online gambling.
Strictly speaking, this is fully within Congress' rights to regulate interstate commerce which is explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Read your constitution. Just because something is interstate doesn't automatically give congress unlimited authority over it. When prohibition was enacted, they understood this and had to pass a constitutional amendment before they could prohibit alcohol sales. I would love to see a constitutional justification for prohibition of online gambling but not offline gambling. Where is the distinction?
Your assertion about it never being the government's business about what you do with your money, doesn't pass a common sense test. Two obvious examples, drug money, and unlicensed gun sales
Criminalizing spending money on drugs is wrong too. Buying a gun from an unlicensed seller is not a federal crime. In many states it is not illegal either. There is an argument to be made for registering guns but it's a different issue.
If you ask me it is outrageous that we have given our government the power to even be discussing whether people should be allowed to make a choice to gamble, online or not. It is simply not any of the government's business what I do with my money as long as I am not hurting anybody else.
But that aside (a big issue to put aside, but anyway) I wouldn't be so sure that the bill won't pass. As we see all over the country, state governments have been steadily allowing more and more gambling purely as a way to increase the tax revenue in difficult times, so the trend is towards more gambling, not less. The way they see it is not as an issue of rights through. What they see is all this money going out to overseas companies without the US government being given a chance to keep a share for itself, which in their mind is the real crime here.
Where and when did communism work? Apart from the obvious issue of human rights which are undermined by the very nature of communism, not any particular implementation of it, the fundamental difference is the economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom) which historically is VERY strongly correlated with living standards. There is almost no exception to the rule that, assuming the basic rule of law exists in a country, the more free its economy is (i.e. more capitalist) the more prosperous it is.
I almost miss getting telemarketing calls. It was kinda fun to have someone that you can mess with and insult in most disgusting ways without feeling the least bit bad about it.
I think global warming, if it happens, will be great
Many of the biggest population centers are vulnerable to being wiped out by the rising sea levels. If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean disruption of global economy on a scale far greater than WWII and over far longer period, with all the wars, famines and who knows what else this will bring. In short, yes humans will probably adapt to the changes in climate but the cost will be enormous, so I wouldn't call that "great".
Maybe Dell looked at what women actually buy as opposed to what feminists think they should buy. I actually think the :
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/magazines/602372/ref=pd_ts_mag_nav
Don't worry, google will buy it soon enough
Thinking about buying Alienware (now owned by Dell)?
Nope. They are vastly overpriced for what they are and I'm not in a habit of paying extra for computers because of the way they look.
Four different Alienware teams have refused to even give me a price on this accessory, instead accusing me of stealing the machine since I didn't buy it directly from their eBay store.
If that is true then I agree it's crazy. I noticed that they were asking for a warranty number and I've never heard of a computer manufacturer refusing to SELL you a part unless you have a warranty number. However, is it at all possible that the support people were misunderstanding you and thinking that you wanted the part for free, under warranty? I know it's four different people and you explained it to them, but it is perfectly possible that all four are complete idiots and didn't even bother listening fully to your explanation of what you wanted.
people get shot at or worse.
Worse? They get tickled to death?
Bowen, a coastal town about 700 miles northwest of Brisbane
Thankfully the town in question seems to be fairly isolated if the nearest city is 700 miles away.
That's nothing:
Exodus 12:29-30: And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
Let's not forget:
Isaiah 13:15-16: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
And:
Samuel 15:2-3: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
I would rather let my children read about Egyptians donkey penises than about mass murder of women and children being depicted as a good thing that god encourages and occasionally commits himself.
So if a patient dies due to a (computer) virus and the virus writer gets caught can he be charged with manslaughter or something?
the policy of America is simply to ship programming jobs overseas
No it's not. The policy of America is to promote globalization and free trade which in the long run is thought (rightly or not) to be beneficial to the USA. If that's what you are doing then it does make it kinda hard to use legislation to stop American companies from doing what they want which is hiring labor where its cheapest. Either you are for protectionism in which case we will lose in the long run because US companies won't be able to compete, or you are for liberalization of trade (including labor) in which case US workers will have to compete for jobs on equal terms with Chinese, Indians etc
The ideology of free market capitalism is broken? Ahhh, so that explains the worldwide trend towards nationalization of industries, central planning of the economy and redistribution of income by the government in the name of equality... Thanks for clearing that up, now it all makes sense. Oh wait, it is actually exactly the opposite.
So you are saying then that you are concerned about the government protecting you from foreign invaders? In that case I would think you would be opposed to the war that we started in Iraq
Yep I sure am against US military being in Iraq and about 130 other countries at the cost of 1bn/day. Empire building is another symptom of a government that has lost touch with people and the constitution.
So then if I sign an employment contract for which no voluntary tax was paid, and I rob the company blind, they can't use the courts to seek out damages?
Exactly. That's why paying this tax would become the norm but that's they way it should be since contract enforcement costs money and this way only those who use that service will pay for it.
Though more significant is that many people would try to get back the trivial portion of their income taxes that cover scientific research only because they are cheap
Just replace "scientific research" in that sentence with any other cause that would be desirable, such as housing for the poor, health care for the sick, jobs for the unemployed etc etc and you will see why runaway spending of other people's money happens so easily.