This is the last state below wartime. Given the attackes, they'd be damned fools not to.
But this points to another strategic error by these chuckleheads--attacking the Pentagon is going to make this *personal* for the U.S. military.
Think of *all* the stupid things you've done in your lifetime. Add them all up. Now compare this to the United States Marine Corp being your personal enemy . . .
OUr entry into WWII was one of those responses. That solved a lot.
Bombing Tripoli in the 80's caused an overnight drop in world Terrorism.
At least at times, violent reponses *are* effective. You can still make a moral case against them, but the dotion that they are ineffective is demonstrably false.
I'm a belligerent evangelical pacifist. I am opposed to violence (pacifist), and want to spread this attitude to everyone else (evangelical). But I'm also willing to use massive military force to bring them to this enlightenment.
last time I was in one, it was for a watch battery. They tend to be fresh enough there, and most of their folks have a better chance than I of opening the watch without damage (and this wasa $100 watch).
Then, "do you have yet?"
"a what?"
She then handed me a bag with a cue-cat in it . . . just a couple of weeks before they folded.
I'd almost forgotten I'd wanted one to manage my library . . .
>> Unlike journalists, lawyers are held to a code of ethics and when
>>they violate it, they can lose their butts.
More bullshit. They're held accountable by the American Bar Association, their own brethren.
Until this, I assumed that you were merely misinformed and rabid. But now I see that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The ABA has *absolutely* no power over individual lawyers. The overwhelming majority of lawyers have nothing to do with the ABA. This is handled by the Supreme Courts of the individual states, often by delegation (and by federal courts for matters in those courts).
That's like saying that the Direct Marketing Association holds its members accountable for spamming.
Again, please find a clue. YOu have *clearly* not looked *at all* at how disciplinary proceedings work. In many states, the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction. Two of my favorites from California:
1) public discipline for kicking an ex-fiance during an arguement *7 years* earlier.
2) A lawyer, who generally charged consultation fees, shared an ad offering free consultations. Someone scheduled an appointment without mentioning the ad. When the client arrived, he requested his consultation fee, and the client informed him that he'd called from the ad. The lawyer provided the free consultation, and the client complained to the bar (didn't like the advice, perhaps?). The lawyer was disciplined.
THese are not isolated incidents when in California. Lawyers are regularly disbarred and suspended for actual misconduct.
That factors in as well, yes. If you'd just strike the "character development" nonsense from the spinoffs,
a) they'd be about half as long
b) they'd be much better.
I'm not arguing that ongoing story arcs and character development are bad in themselves; you can certainly have a wonderful progarm with them. But that's an entirely different kind of story telling than what made Star Trek successful and interesting.
>A few years back, the statistic I heard was that the US has 5% of the world's
>population, but 75% of the world's lawyers.
This is complete and utter nonsense. We don't even have proportionally more lawyers than the countries that tend to be cited as examples.
For example, Japan is frequently cited as having a fraction as many lawyers as the U.S. That only holds up until you look at the legal professions in the two countries. If you look at the number of Japanese who are the equivalent of members of the bar here, it's true. The problem with the statistic is that the overwhelming amount of work that would be done here by lawyers is done there by folks with legal training (including law school) who are not formally admitted. Additionally, they tend to be in-house rather than in law firms. When you count the folks doing the tasks we send to lawyers, both sides have about the same number of lawyeres as a portion of the population.
While I'm at it, the total number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. per capita hasn't increased much over times; the U.S. has *always* been a litigious lot.
hawk
Lawyer: when hell freezes over . . .
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
I'm stunned. Not that the device existed, but by what they want to do with it. I assumed that the posts here would be the usual ignorant overreaction to taking a line out of context, but it's not.
This is the most serious threat to American liberty since the proposed flag burning amendment [I support burning flag burners, but an amendment to ban that hateful activity will do more damage to the flag than all the cretins that ever burned it. That flag represents the very liberty that allows them to burn it, and burning it acknowleges that . . . but I digress.]
I loathe drunk drivers. After a first offense, when the license is eventually restored, the drunk should be required to have a reflective Scarlet D on all sides of the vehicle and a distinctive tint to his headlights to warn us he's coming. On a second conviction, license revocation should be permanent with no future license for anything heavier than a moped. [I *grudgingly* acknowledge that a first offense might conceivably happen to someone from not understanding the levels involved. Grudgingly. Once a person has been through that, though . ..]
Is it clear enough yet that I want everly last drunk caught and executed?
That said, this devise is an intrusion at the level that should have common citizens ready to take up arms against the government. This *is* an intrusive search. This is *more* than a little step down the slippery slope to the surveillance of 1984.
There is a clear role for such technology. When I first started practicing in '89, one of the lawyers from my suite came back confused as to what the judge hade ordered on a drunk. He had gone in expecting a prison term, but the judge ordered "interlock," which he'd never heard before. It was a breathalyzer attached to the ignition system, a damned good idea (add it to my D above:). But this is for a convicted drunk driver.
Something sampling the air neer the steering wheel would be harder to defeat (though how many people will breath in the tube for their driver???). As a consequence of conviction, such a device is reasonable. But this device is fundamentally flawed in concept.
Send a little signal to the police? How about *calling* them??? For that matter, the car shouldn't even *start*, or should shut off (after a warning period to pull over). This device is *insane*.
Look at this in comparison to the fields microsoft has stomped out: palm has survived. It's the third round where microsoft wins or dominates, and wince 3 just didn't cut it. So ms, floundering, tries for 4.0 . . . they may be too late . . .
>The main difference is that most people want their site
>accessed and indexed by search engines, so almost nobody complains
>about the need to add robots.txt to sites they don't want indexed.
No, that's not the main, nor even the important, difference.
There already exists an established culture, and indexing is part of this. It predates what we now call the web. By putting up a webpage, you are implicitly consenting to the rules of the culture. Spam is *not* the existing culture; it violates these rules, and there is no consent.
The question here is whether the impied consent, which cannot be explictly revoked in other than the established manner, extends to the photographs, or only the text.
hawk, esq., but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
. . . is the category of SF that you're looking for. It seems to have gone out of style, and is generally only found in short stories rather than novels, but they exist . ..and some are *really* well done
> Oh, certainly. In the end, "It's The Writing, Stupid!" The vehicle
> only matters in that it allows the good writers to do good work.
and this is the crux of it, more than anything else.
Star Trek (and I refuse to toss silly three letter things around for it, other than, perhaps, TRO) was a series of free standing stories, generally well done. We weren't supposed to be concerned about the "development" of the characters, and it didn't waste time on those inane poker games. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were not ongoing characters, but faces of humanity. [and, damnit, that stupid robot was no replacement for spock's role! (but then, Kirk & McCoy were missing, too . ..)]
The concern with continuity was one of the worst things that they did with the spinoffs (hey, it's a tough list to choose from), which were generally a mix of plot crutches and time loops, with the viewer supposed to (for some inane reason) care about the technical details of proactively levering the synnergies of the quantum flux giga bubble, rahter than the simpple "Scotty somehow fixed it in time!")
sigh. I really shouldn't get my hopes up again . . .
The enterprise had transporters for a very simple reason: the special effects budget couldn't handle a weekly landing.
They were aware of the danger that these would be a worse plot than Commander Cleavage, and thus the comment or two about the danger of intra-ship use, etc. They seemed to have forgotten this by the time that spinoff occurred, and techno-babble became a substitute for a plot . . .
THe four-hour setting seems to have disappeared off the newer vcr's; it's either 2 or 6. BUt it doesn't matter for me; I have to use 2. My moster television has 700 horizontal lines, and extrapolates from the 450 or so usable lines. Anything short of full quality looks lousy. And then with the CBS feed apparently being digitized, then back to analog before my cable company redigitizes, then over inadequate bandwidth, then back to s-video before being interpolated like this, watching cbs is a pain--my analog signal is better! (ok, the second cbs channel is only bad rather than horrible, but still . ..)
I went throught the AACSB renewal process a couple of years ago as a visiting professor. Quite bluntly, their accreditation means nothing. It used to require certain levels of library, faculty education and activity, etc. Only about half of the schools qualified, so the other schools came up with a body to accredit themselves. Faced with a choice between standards and market share, the AACSB chose market share.
I felt as if I was trapped in a bad Dilbert sequence on ISO 9000. I actually saw the answers coming. THeir focus now is on "outcome assessment." You can be as bad as you want, as long as you're measuring something.
At this campus, I'm involved in the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) program. It is a separate program from the Smeal college on the main campus, as they had accreditation concerns. Now some of the faculty in this program are talking about accreditation, and I (and others) are opposed to even applying. The Penn State name means a lot more than AACSB. We would be foolish to make any changes to satisfy them; it would be a tradeoff of standards for nonsense.
In fact, I don't want to stop at not applying; I want an official statement explaining the reason, and stating our willingness to joinin forming a body that accredits based on standards and quality rather than process.
hawk, of course speaking for himself and neither the program or the university.
Just think of how many of those you can fit in under the weight limit. Tie them together with a redundant mesh. Surround your opponent. dance under his feet. Call it,
>You're right about the cat not
> appreciating it, though. That's what slows me down.
If this is indoors, on the cat's home ground, I think I'[d put my money on the cat. There's only so many times you're going to come home and clean up what the catled it to.
For the next round, everyone knows that it (or a successor, I suppose) is out there. There will of course be knock-offs, but defenses will be geared to that.
[Flash back to 5 years ago in the NFL, when the Cowboys fans whined that the 49ers ad tooled the team just to beat Dallas. Well, *duh*. They could thrash the other 28 teams in the league; of course they targeted to remaining team . ..]\end{flashback}
There's a rule about deliberately entangling with a projectile weapon. I'm not sure that that would apply to attacking the hammer system, but the solution is sytraightforward: a secondary weapon, perhaps a small spike, that has the side effect of fouling the hammers as it attacks.
This bot worked because there was no effective defense in the existing pool, and nothing that could effectively foil its weapon. But *knowing* that that weapon is out there, it doesn't look to hard to beat. Could it have taken any damage once you took out the hammers?
I stumbled across that and taped it to watch with my daughter. Battle Bots in the WWF is about right. I was shocked and stunned. If I'd seen it ahead of time, I wouldn't have let her watch it.
Just what do those guys have against classw, anyway? "THere will be other losers today, but you're the biggest loser of all?" And then gratuitiously attacking the disabled bots??? Who needs another show for this; you can already watch Raiders games . . .
Overall, I was disgusted. We'll stick to the other two . . .
Slashdot Mirror
> as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems.
no, no, no. That's "depreciated managers' heads" that leadsto such solutions.
hawk
herding cats is another story . . .
:)
hawk
But this points to another strategic error by these chuckleheads--attacking the Pentagon is going to make this *personal* for the U.S. military.
Think of *all* the stupid things you've done in your lifetime. Add them all up. Now compare this to the United States Marine Corp being your personal enemy . . .
hawk
Bombing Tripoli in the 80's caused an overnight drop in world Terrorism.
At least at times, violent reponses *are* effective. You can still make a moral case against them, but the dotion that they are ineffective is demonstrably false.
I'm a belligerent evangelical pacifist. I am opposed to violence (pacifist), and want to spread this attitude to everyone else (evangelical). But I'm also willing to use massive military force to bring them to this enlightenment.
hawk
Then, "do you have yet?"
"a what?"
She then handed me a bag with a cue-cat in it . . . just a couple of weeks before they folded.
I'd almost forgotten I'd wanted one to manage my library . . .
hawk
>their mailing-list.
what? and give up the free beach balls and flashlights? Noooooooo!
:)
hawk
>>they violate it, they can lose their butts.
More bullshit. They're held accountable by the American Bar Association, their own brethren.
Until this, I assumed that you were merely misinformed and rabid. But now I see that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The ABA has *absolutely* no power over individual lawyers. The overwhelming majority of lawyers have nothing to do with the ABA. This is handled by the Supreme Courts of the individual states, often by delegation (and by federal courts for matters in those courts).
That's like saying that the Direct Marketing Association holds its members accountable for spamming.
Again, please find a clue. YOu have *clearly* not looked *at all* at how disciplinary proceedings work. In many states, the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction. Two of my favorites from California:
1) public discipline for kicking an ex-fiance during an arguement *7 years* earlier.
2) A lawyer, who generally charged consultation fees, shared an ad offering free consultations. Someone scheduled an appointment without mentioning the ad. When the client arrived, he requested his consultation fee, and the client informed him that he'd called from the ad. The lawyer provided the free consultation, and the client complained to the bar (didn't like the advice, perhaps?). The lawyer was disciplined.
THese are not isolated incidents when in California. Lawyers are regularly disbarred and suspended for actual misconduct.
hawk, esq.
That factors in as well, yes. If you'd just strike the "character development" nonsense from the spinoffs,
a) they'd be about half as long
b) they'd be much better.
I'm not arguing that ongoing story arcs and character development are bad in themselves; you can certainly have a wonderful progarm with them. But that's an entirely different kind of story telling than what made Star Trek successful and interesting.
hawk
>population, but 75% of the world's lawyers.
This is complete and utter nonsense. We don't even have proportionally more lawyers than the countries that tend to be cited as examples.
For example, Japan is frequently cited as having a fraction as many lawyers as the U.S. That only holds up until you look at the legal professions in the two countries. If you look at the number of Japanese who are the equivalent of members of the bar here, it's true. The problem with the statistic is that the overwhelming amount of work that would be done here by lawyers is done there by folks with legal training (including law school) who are not formally admitted. Additionally, they tend to be in-house rather than in law firms. When you count the folks doing the tasks we send to lawyers, both sides have about the same number of lawyeres as a portion of the population.
While I'm at it, the total number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. per capita hasn't increased much over times; the U.S. has *always* been a litigious lot.
hawk
I'm stunned. Not that the device existed, but by what they want to do with it. I assumed that the posts here would be the usual ignorant overreaction to taking a line out of context, but it's not.
This is the most serious threat to American liberty since the proposed flag burning amendment [I support burning flag burners, but an amendment to ban that hateful activity will do more damage to the flag than all the cretins that ever burned it. That flag represents the very liberty that allows them to burn it, and burning it acknowleges that . . . but I digress.]
I loathe drunk drivers. After a first offense, when the license is eventually restored, the drunk should be required to have a reflective Scarlet D on all sides of the vehicle and a distinctive tint to his headlights to warn us he's coming. On a second conviction, license revocation should be permanent with no future license for anything heavier than a moped. [I *grudgingly* acknowledge that a first offense might conceivably happen to someone from not understanding the levels involved. Grudgingly. Once a person has been through that, though . .
Is it clear enough yet that I want everly last drunk caught and executed?
That said, this devise is an intrusion at the level that should have common citizens ready to take up arms against the government. This *is* an intrusive search. This is *more* than a little step down the slippery slope to the surveillance of 1984.
There is a clear role for such technology. When I first started practicing in '89, one of the lawyers from my suite came back confused as to what the judge hade ordered on a drunk. He had gone in expecting a prison term, but the judge ordered "interlock," which he'd never heard before. It was a breathalyzer attached to the ignition system, a damned good idea (add it to my D above
Something sampling the air neer the steering wheel would be harder to defeat (though how many people will breath in the tube for their driver???). As a consequence of conviction, such a device is reasonable. But this device is fundamentally flawed in concept.
Send a little signal to the police? How about *calling* them??? For that matter, the car shouldn't even *start*, or should shut off (after a warning period to pull over). This device is *insane*.
hawk, esq.
Look at this in comparison to the fields microsoft has stomped out: palm has survived. It's the third round where microsoft wins or dominates, and wince 3 just didn't cut it. So ms, floundering, tries for 4.0 . . . they may be too late . . .
>accessed and indexed by search engines, so almost nobody complains
>about the need to add robots.txt to sites they don't want indexed.
No, that's not the main, nor even the important, difference.
There already exists an established culture, and indexing is part of this. It predates what we now call the web. By putting up a webpage, you are implicitly consenting to the rules of the culture. Spam is *not* the existing culture; it violates these rules, and there is no consent.
The question here is whether the impied consent, which cannot be explictly revoked in other than the established manner, extends to the photographs, or only the text.
hawk, esq., but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
hawk
hawk
> only matters in that it allows the good writers to do good work.
and this is the crux of it, more than anything else.
Star Trek (and I refuse to toss silly three letter things around for it, other than, perhaps, TRO) was a series of free standing stories, generally well done. We weren't supposed to be concerned about the "development" of the characters, and it didn't waste time on those inane poker games. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were not ongoing characters, but faces of humanity. [and, damnit, that stupid robot was no replacement for spock's role! (but then, Kirk & McCoy were missing, too . .
The concern with continuity was one of the worst things that they did with the spinoffs (hey, it's a tough list to choose from), which were generally a mix of plot crutches and time loops, with the viewer supposed to (for some inane reason) care about the technical details of proactively levering the synnergies of the quantum flux giga bubble, rahter than the simpple "Scotty somehow fixed it in time!")
sigh. I really shouldn't get my hopes up again . . .
hawk
If my pick goes down past the hammer, and stays down, the hammers come to a stop. Even minor damage will unbalance the system. . .
hawk
anyway, I'd like to see them gone, gone, gone.
The enterprise had transporters for a very simple reason: the special effects budget couldn't handle a weekly landing.
They were aware of the danger that these would be a worse plot than Commander Cleavage, and thus the comment or two about the danger of intra-ship use, etc. They seemed to have forgotten this by the time that spinoff occurred, and techno-babble became a substitute for a plot . . .
hawk
hawk
I felt as if I was trapped in a bad Dilbert sequence on ISO 9000. I actually saw the answers coming. THeir focus now is on "outcome assessment." You can be as bad as you want, as long as you're measuring something.
At this campus, I'm involved in the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) program. It is a separate program from the Smeal college on the main campus, as they had accreditation concerns. Now some of the faculty in this program are talking about accreditation, and I (and others) are opposed to even applying. The Penn State name means a lot more than AACSB. We would be foolish to make any changes to satisfy them; it would be a tradeoff of standards for nonsense.
In fact, I don't want to stop at not applying; I want an official statement explaining the reason, and stating our willingness to joinin forming a body that accredits based on standards and quality rather than process.
hawk, of course speaking for himself and neither the program or the university.
"Revenge of the Lilliputians"!
hawk
> appreciating it, though. That's what slows me down.
If this is indoors, on the cat's home ground, I think I'[d put my money on the cat. There's only so many times you're going to come home and clean up what the catled it to.
*never* underestimate a threatened cat . . .
hawk
sigh. so redhat-centric. real men don't use
hawk, wandering off mumbling incoherently about those who aswsume everyone runs redhat
Don't be silly. The frenchwomen want them. If they *didn't* want the frenchmen, they'red be no frenchbabies . . .
oh, did you mean the keyboard?
hawk
[Flash back to 5 years ago in the NFL, when the Cowboys fans whined that the 49ers ad tooled the team just to beat Dallas. Well, *duh*. They could thrash the other 28 teams in the league; of course they targeted to remaining team . .
There's a rule about deliberately entangling with a projectile weapon. I'm not sure that that would apply to attacking the hammer system, but the solution is sytraightforward: a secondary weapon, perhaps a small spike, that has the side effect of fouling the hammers as it attacks.
This bot worked because there was no effective defense in the existing pool, and nothing that could effectively foil its weapon. But *knowing* that that weapon is out there, it doesn't look to hard to beat. Could it have taken any damage once you took out the hammers?
hawk
Just what do those guys have against classw, anyway? "THere will be other losers today, but you're the biggest loser of all?" And then gratuitiously attacking the disabled bots??? Who needs another show for this; you can already watch Raiders games . . .
Overall, I was disgusted. We'll stick to the other two . . .
hawk