So the RIAA/MPAA's strategy in stopping the lawsuits was simply to outsource that operation to a 3rd party in an attempt to distance themselves from the negative publicity they've been getting. Should anything go wrong, this company will just be cut loose and left to deal with whatever mess they've gotten themselves into, and the cycle will start again with a new company.
Much like the major recording labels' relationship to the RIAA cabal itself.
The FISA court ruled that the passage of the law was legal. That's it. They said that Congress was within their powers to pass the PAA as a bill. That's it. They didn't rule on the legality of the program before it was passed, and they didn't rule on the legality of the law after it was passed. They only said it was OK to pass it. Whether the program itself (that is, the content of the bill) is legal is a different case.
For several years now I've wondered if traffic planners ever talk to physicists, specifically with regard to fluid dynamics. As a non-physicist, natch -- though I did date a nice lady once who was a traffic planner in a large city -- it seems to me that this could produce some good ideas, perhaps a traffic version of PARC. Internet researchers are equally, if not more, qualified to pipe up here and I'm interested to see what they come up with.
However, it isn't the law enforcements responsibility to call every other department after an arrest to find out if something legitimate was being done. They were merely doing their jobs based on what they knew of current affairs.
It's law enforcement's responsibility not to enforce laws that don't exist.
Apples and oranges. The government's denial of UFO's does not affect the lives of sane people. It is not hypothetical that these nine people were kicked off the plane. The only connection to what you wrote is that the complainers on the airline with bigoted fantasies about Muslims might be tantamount to UFO believers, which works for me.
I wish that the world could work that way but it doesn't....yet.
For one thing being scared and stupid isn't a crime. And yes if you report anybody acting in a way that you feel is criminal the police are OBLIGATED to investigate.
Which is why people are charged for 911 calls and also...get this!...charged with a crime for making false police reports. I really don't see how you can defend scared and stupid people here, they are the least likely to know what they're talking about.
If anybody on a plane makes a claim that a group of people are acting auspicious then they have very little choice.
Anybody? Really? So there's no line to be drawn, can't be too safe, etc.? How about we have some First Amendment repercussions for the complainers? Certainly yelling "terrorist!" in a crowded airplane could be against the law just like "fire" in a crowded theater is.
The complainers should be punished, and this is where the airline got it wrong: the Muslim Nine should have been let back on and the complainers gotten kicked off the plane and should have lost their fares.
No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints -- the new checkpoint can detect if you have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building."
Let me (apparently) be the first to treat this claim with skepticism. Oh, anonymous submitters and their mysterious technologies that come out of the blue on a New Year's Day. I think there should at least be some disclosure that the author has a vested interest in people thinking that this is possible, but the practical effect is just going to be a technologizing of the "Idiot Security Guard" model they have going at the moment. What difference does it make if you are hassled for no reason because a computer randomly selected your boarding pass or if some slug of an official thinks your laptop bag is just a little too lame. You're still being hassled randomly.
The truth is that all of the DHS procedures produce only false positives. Why not economize and pay only union wages for this service rather than jillions for an overblown/dev/random?
It looks to me like you're the one with chalk on his hands. You're twisting "Yahoo and other third party" to somehow mean that Yahoo is not one. You may be right, but not without a double-twisting backflip to achieve it.
I'm not reading it that way. To me, "third party website" is singular, and "Yahoo and MSN" is plural. Therefore, the singular would more-appropriately be applied to the other singular presence in the statement: Verizon's portal site.
I agree that most likely the reporter simply got it wrong, but these two sentences, especially with the instead link, certainly imply that Yahoo is one of the third parties whose email will not be available except through fairpoint.
You inferred it but it's not implied (much less 'certainly'). If Yahoo was a "third party Web site" for the purpose of the article, then MSN would be too ("Yahoo and MSN subscribers") and they wouldn't have used the singular "site." All you have to do is replace "third party Web" with "Verizon's" and everything makes perfect sense without any interpretive gymnastics.
When the market share that competitive products on the Mac amounts to a more money than it costs to do something, they'll do that thing, which will be the cheapest thing they can do to address the problem. Which won't be a complete rewrite.
Then again you gotta spend money to make money, don't throw good money after bad, and invest in long-term gain. The story absolutely addresses the idea of doing the cheapest thing, which is not always the cheapest in the long run. That is to say: maintaining multiple platforms reduces Intuit's margins.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a hypothetical miscalculation be "massive?"
Try this one: "Jesus Lives."
While that may be true, my time isn't. Getting the lappy set up and restored from backup > 0.
What, you don't store all your data in THE CLOUD? n00b
They're about to get shellacked and they don't want anyone to see it any more than absolutely necessary.
Which is why I predict they will drop the case if the motion is denied.
So the RIAA/MPAA's strategy in stopping the lawsuits was simply to outsource that operation to a 3rd party in an attempt to distance themselves from the negative publicity they've been getting. Should anything go wrong, this company will just be cut loose and left to deal with whatever mess they've gotten themselves into, and the cycle will start again with a new company.
Much like the major recording labels' relationship to the RIAA cabal itself.
There's an irony that illegal business is the most honest kind.
As the old saying goes, there's no honor among thieves. Usually this is interpreted negatively but you illustrate another way to approach it.
.so, my data is there, I just can't see it? That's reassuring.
Yes, and it's fully accessible as long as the system is powered off.
The FISA court ruled that the passage of the law was legal. That's it. They said that Congress was within their powers to pass the PAA as a bill. That's it. They didn't rule on the legality of the program before it was passed, and they didn't rule on the legality of the law after it was passed. They only said it was OK to pass it. Whether the program itself (that is, the content of the bill) is legal is a different case.
For several years now I've wondered if traffic planners ever talk to physicists, specifically with regard to fluid dynamics. As a non-physicist, natch -- though I did date a nice lady once who was a traffic planner in a large city -- it seems to me that this could produce some good ideas, perhaps a traffic version of PARC. Internet researchers are equally, if not more, qualified to pipe up here and I'm interested to see what they come up with.
True to form, even the announcement of his passing has a link to his blog.
Y'know, this just might work, seeing that there is such a plentiful supply of jerks on the planet.
Since the Bush Administration is about to be unemployed, this timing is fortuitous indeed.
Your being afraid of shadows does not trump our rights to perform lawful actions...
Even more clearly: Your being afraid of shadows does not trump our right to walk in the sunlight.
As much as I hate to use it as a excuse for them,
Then don't.
However, it isn't the law enforcements responsibility to call every other department after an arrest to find out if something legitimate was being done. They were merely doing their jobs based on what they knew of current affairs.
It's law enforcement's responsibility not to enforce laws that don't exist.
Apples and oranges. The government's denial of UFO's does not affect the lives of sane people. It is not hypothetical that these nine people were kicked off the plane. The only connection to what you wrote is that the complainers on the airline with bigoted fantasies about Muslims might be tantamount to UFO believers, which works for me.
Okay, politeness is nice and all. As long as we can agree it's not actually legally required.
Correct. As stated many times, there is no law against being a dick.
Last year, congress passed a law giving legal protection to any dumbshit making such accusations.
well that sucks.
I wish that the world could work that way but it doesn't. ...yet.
For one thing being scared and stupid isn't a crime.
And yes if you report anybody acting in a way that you feel is criminal the police are OBLIGATED to investigate.
Which is why people are charged for 911 calls and also...get this!...charged with a crime for making false police reports. I really don't see how you can defend scared and stupid people here, they are the least likely to know what they're talking about.
If anybody on a plane makes a claim that a group of people are acting auspicious then they have very little choice.
Anybody? Really? So there's no line to be drawn, can't be too safe, etc.? How about we have some First Amendment repercussions for the complainers? Certainly yelling "terrorist!" in a crowded airplane could be against the law just like "fire" in a crowded theater is.
The complainers should be punished, and this is where the airline got it wrong: the Muslim Nine should have been let back on and the complainers gotten kicked off the plane and should have lost their fares.
No more waving a wand to get through checkpoints -- the new checkpoint can detect if you have plans to set off a bomb before you even enter the building."
Let me (apparently) be the first to treat this claim with skepticism. Oh, anonymous submitters and their mysterious technologies that come out of the blue on a New Year's Day. I think there should at least be some disclosure that the author has a vested interest in people thinking that this is possible, but the practical effect is just going to be a technologizing of the "Idiot Security Guard" model they have going at the moment. What difference does it make if you are hassled for no reason because a computer randomly selected your boarding pass or if some slug of an official thinks your laptop bag is just a little too lame. You're still being hassled randomly.
The truth is that all of the DHS procedures produce only false positives. Why not economize and pay only union wages for this service rather than jillions for an overblown /dev/random?
In normal times, evil would be fought by good
Outside of a book, where else have you found pure good battling against pure evil? HINT: it doesn't exist.
It looks to me like you're the one with chalk on his hands. You're twisting "Yahoo and other third party" to somehow mean that Yahoo is not one. You may be right, but not without a double-twisting backflip to achieve it.
I'm not reading it that way. To me, "third party website" is singular, and "Yahoo and MSN" is plural. Therefore, the singular would more-appropriately be applied to the other singular presence in the statement: Verizon's portal site.
Wonder what they would have to say if I started seeding this on a bit torrent client.
Nothing. Court records are not subject to copyright (Westlaw and their ilk aside).
I agree that most likely the reporter simply got it wrong, but these two sentences, especially with the instead link, certainly imply that Yahoo is one of the third parties whose email will not be available except through fairpoint.
You inferred it but it's not implied (much less 'certainly'). If Yahoo was a "third party Web site" for the purpose of the article, then MSN would be too ("Yahoo and MSN subscribers") and they wouldn't have used the singular "site." All you have to do is replace "third party Web" with "Verizon's" and everything makes perfect sense without any interpretive gymnastics.
When the market share that competitive products on the Mac amounts to a more money than it costs to do something, they'll do that thing, which will be the cheapest thing they can do to address the problem. Which won't be a complete rewrite.
Then again you gotta spend money to make money, don't throw good money after bad, and invest in long-term gain. The story absolutely addresses the idea of doing the cheapest thing, which is not always the cheapest in the long run. That is to say: maintaining multiple platforms reduces Intuit's margins.
...there's a such thing as an "impact factor."
Case in point.