"It's" isn't the possessive form, "its" is. Of course this is strange since nouns do the opposite. But it fits in with his, hers, theirs, etc. So in general we can say that possessive pronouns don't take apostrophes, and when they do, baby Jesus crie's.
Two years ago sections of Boston were closed to traffic over what amounted to a few lite-brite style ads. They *will* assume that it's a bomb, and you *will* end up with a gloved hand up your butt. You probably won't make your flight, either.
What's the hangup about airport searches? He mentioned wiretapping. He mentioned habeas corpus. He mentioned that silly little mix-up where we implicated Iraq in the 9/11 plot. I think you're trying to make the OP fit into the context of the article, when it was more of an off-topic rant about how we've let isolated events, one very large and yes tragic one in particular, become the rationale for causing ourselves even more long-term harm.
It's sort of tangential but I'm reminded of a David Cross quote:
I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he 'hated our freedom'. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia.
You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of six-year-olds?
I've only ever taken the Metro-North but in my limited experience, there's no such thing as a "train TSA". Smaller stations don't even have people working at them.
Another reason why it's not all felons is that for 20 states + DC, ex-felons *can* vote, once they've completed parole (at minimum...in some of these states you can vote as soon as you leave prison, in ME & VT you can even vote from prison).
The really depressing thing I think is that at the end of the day, as a country, we do get the government we deserve. There may not be any great injustice here. The people have spoken, and what they said was "quit bothering me with that political crap, faggot".
Like it or not, we have a representative system. Like it or not, one of those guys is getting in.
The current atmosphere is one of secrecy and government being above the law. At least part of this has to do with the fact that those elected *know* they're not under close scrutiny because half of the people in this country can't be bothered to vote.
So yes, I'm saying that a vote for a bad candidate is better than a non-vote. I think any rational person could come to this conclusion, and it pisses me off to see people justifying shrugging off their civic duty. Like they're too smart to vote or something. If they were smart, they'd see how stupid it is to send a such message to their leaders: that there's no incentive for governing effectively.
Rest assured, there are plenty of incentives for governing ineffectively. Bribes, for instance. In a different South Park, the whole town buries their head in sand. That applies here just as much as the school election one.
Google has the luxury of not telling you what to do with the hardware, because they're not the ones selling it.
I agree with you completely, I think most of us realize how sad it is that you can't do anything fun without getting express written consent (tm) but I'm not ready to pat Google on the back just yet. Their business model is completely different (as is their implementation of Java). They won't beat Apple at the walled garden, so they're going the same route RIM and everyone else has. Make the platform, hope people write for it. It's not like you can't develop BlackBerry apps, etc.
How much of Android is open source? I'm not asking in any rhetorical way...I honestly don't know but from what I'd heard in the past I'm assuming it's only partly open.
Again, I agree with the sentiment and I think it's great that Google is more open and has created financial incentives for developers, among other things. But I wouldn't put them on the same level as something like OpenMoko. There still seem to be some walls, and Google seems to me to just be doing what they need to do to get this off the ground in an already saturated market.
I think the "will be" when "should be" or "are" would have worked is a little confusing. I know people still use "will" that way but it's less common now and just seems really old-fashioned to me. It did throw me off a little, but maybe it's just lack of sleep.
Also, it does say "the get a...schedule" instead of "to get a...schedule".
Just nitpicking obviously, but I get what the OP is saying.
It's not just teenagers with photographs. I do know someone who's on the list, and served time, and who at least appears to me to be rehabilitated. Not that his sexual preferences changed, but it seems like he simply changed his routine so that he's not tempted, or has constant family support, etc. I've talked to people who wouldn't have him in their house, and I got the impression that they just wanted something to gossip about, since obviously you wouldn't leave your kids alone with someone you didn't know well anyway.
The bad thing about the list is that someone might read it and think, "this person did such and such" without realizing that charges are often piled on in order to force a plea bargain. And obviously you only ever get one side.
The sex offender registry punishes without officially being a punishment. You can serve half of a prison sentence, but you can't be halfway on the list. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but it's certainly something that I question, and it obviously does harm to people. The fact that they may be undesirables doesn't excuse it, at least not in my mind. (Disclaimer: young, idealistic, no kids. I doubt the second one will change that much though.)
Cynicism is cool and all, but there's nothing impossible about doing something illegal, getting caught, and deciding upon being released from jail that you won't do it again. I know more than one person who's followed that pattern.
Put another way: I don't see any hard evidence for the idea that people are intrinsically "good people" or "evil people". I do see evidence for the idea that people screw up, and not everyone is rich enough to shield themselves from the consequences of that.
I doubt that. Only Microsoft innovates(TM). Other people just code stuff. When Microsoft codes stuff, they're actually exercising their freedom to innovate(R).
I think most would agree that SETI could have done with a little less taxpayer money during the time they were NASA-funded. Some would say they should have had no taxpayer money.
But it bears mentioning that (a) SETI's budget at its peak was three orders of magnitude lower than the amount of money referenced in the article and (b) if my only choices were paying for SETI or paying for UK-style surveillance, it'd be a pretty easy choice.
It goes both ways. Walmart should not have been selling DRMed music if they didn't plan on keeping the servers up. Even though it's no longer earning money for them, it earned money for them at one point.
At what point does it become reasonable to withhold delivery of the product? Two years? A year? A day?
This is an extreme exaggeration, I know. But what if they decided to take your money at the register, and not give you back the bag with the things you'd bought? Seeing as they'd already "made their money".
Of course, it is still up to the consumer to avoid bad deals like these, or at least to put pressure on companies to keep their DRM key servers up for as long as possible. I'm assuming these people paid full price, as opposed to a rental price or a subscription.
The legal definition of evidence is very different from what we'd consider proof of something in a normal setting. 'Good' evidence might get thrown out of court because the judge improperly instructed the jury as to its significance.
As to why that is, IANAL and I don't have a solid answer. Obviously clarity is a big part of it. As far as the police goes, they need a disincentive toward illegally obtaining evidence, otherwise they'd make a damn sport out of it. Here's something related from Wikipedia:
Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, mainly because it is thought that the use of such evidence discourages parties from carrying insurance, fixing hazardous conditions, offering to settle, and pleading guilty to crimes, respectively.
I think the general reasoning is that the court itself should never be directly or indirectly related to the harming of someone. The court is not impartial if it promotes a system where people's rights are consistently infringed.
According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the Amendment.[11] However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the "privileges or immunities" clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship.
a computer which can solve my real-life math problems which mostly revolve around when will I pass Bob if Bob is driving at a speed in miles per hour from a place to a place at a time and I start driving toward the first place from the second place at a speed in kilometers per hour at a time
The math part you could do on a calculator...but what you really have seems to be a language problem.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"It's" isn't the possessive form, "its" is. Of course this is strange since nouns do the opposite. But it fits in with his, hers, theirs, etc. So in general we can say that possessive pronouns don't take apostrophes, and when they do, baby Jesus crie's.
Two years ago sections of Boston were closed to traffic over what amounted to a few lite-brite style ads. They *will* assume that it's a bomb, and you *will* end up with a gloved hand up your butt. You probably won't make your flight, either.
What's the hangup about airport searches? He mentioned wiretapping. He mentioned habeas corpus. He mentioned that silly little mix-up where we implicated Iraq in the 9/11 plot. I think you're trying to make the OP fit into the context of the article, when it was more of an off-topic rant about how we've let isolated events, one very large and yes tragic one in particular, become the rationale for causing ourselves even more long-term harm.
It's sort of tangential but I'm reminded of a David Cross quote:
I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he 'hated our freedom'. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia.
You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of six-year-olds?
I've only ever taken the Metro-North but in my limited experience, there's no such thing as a "train TSA". Smaller stations don't even have people working at them.
Violence != Terrorism.
9/11 changed everything, remember?
Another reason why it's not all felons is that for 20 states + DC, ex-felons *can* vote, once they've completed parole (at minimum...in some of these states you can vote as soon as you leave prison, in ME & VT you can even vote from prison).
The really depressing thing I think is that at the end of the day, as a country, we do get the government we deserve. There may not be any great injustice here. The people have spoken, and what they said was "quit bothering me with that political crap, faggot".
Like it or not, we have a representative system. Like it or not, one of those guys is getting in.
The current atmosphere is one of secrecy and government being above the law. At least part of this has to do with the fact that those elected *know* they're not under close scrutiny because half of the people in this country can't be bothered to vote.
So yes, I'm saying that a vote for a bad candidate is better than a non-vote. I think any rational person could come to this conclusion, and it pisses me off to see people justifying shrugging off their civic duty. Like they're too smart to vote or something. If they were smart, they'd see how stupid it is to send a such message to their leaders: that there's no incentive for governing effectively.
Rest assured, there are plenty of incentives for governing ineffectively. Bribes, for instance. In a different South Park, the whole town buries their head in sand. That applies here just as much as the school election one.
So you're saying someone should run a defrag on these filesystem projects?
Google has the luxury of not telling you what to do with the hardware, because they're not the ones selling it.
I agree with you completely, I think most of us realize how sad it is that you can't do anything fun without getting express written consent (tm) but I'm not ready to pat Google on the back just yet. Their business model is completely different (as is their implementation of Java). They won't beat Apple at the walled garden, so they're going the same route RIM and everyone else has. Make the platform, hope people write for it. It's not like you can't develop BlackBerry apps, etc.
How much of Android is open source? I'm not asking in any rhetorical way...I honestly don't know but from what I'd heard in the past I'm assuming it's only partly open.
Again, I agree with the sentiment and I think it's great that Google is more open and has created financial incentives for developers, among other things. But I wouldn't put them on the same level as something like OpenMoko. There still seem to be some walls, and Google seems to me to just be doing what they need to do to get this off the ground in an already saturated market.
Sure, they do magic.
(ziphone has source @ google code, dunno about the others)
Dear mods,
Bacon is never off-topic.
Sincerely,
Everyone
I think the "will be" when "should be" or "are" would have worked is a little confusing. I know people still use "will" that way but it's less common now and just seems really old-fashioned to me. It did throw me off a little, but maybe it's just lack of sleep.
Also, it does say "the get a...schedule" instead of "to get a...schedule".
Just nitpicking obviously, but I get what the OP is saying.
Once the schedule is made, doesn't it then exist merely as a fact (station X is going to broadcast show Y at time Z)?
I guess the Australian copyright law doesn't bear this out, but the above logic is why I don't think a list of anything should count.
List: I was creative while making it, but once I'm done, it's just a list.
Novel: Still creative once it's been written.
(If that makes any sense.)
It's not just teenagers with photographs. I do know someone who's on the list, and served time, and who at least appears to me to be rehabilitated. Not that his sexual preferences changed, but it seems like he simply changed his routine so that he's not tempted, or has constant family support, etc. I've talked to people who wouldn't have him in their house, and I got the impression that they just wanted something to gossip about, since obviously you wouldn't leave your kids alone with someone you didn't know well anyway.
The bad thing about the list is that someone might read it and think, "this person did such and such" without realizing that charges are often piled on in order to force a plea bargain. And obviously you only ever get one side.
The sex offender registry punishes without officially being a punishment. You can serve half of a prison sentence, but you can't be halfway on the list. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but it's certainly something that I question, and it obviously does harm to people. The fact that they may be undesirables doesn't excuse it, at least not in my mind. (Disclaimer: young, idealistic, no kids. I doubt the second one will change that much though.)
Cynicism is cool and all, but there's nothing impossible about doing something illegal, getting caught, and deciding upon being released from jail that you won't do it again. I know more than one person who's followed that pattern.
Put another way: I don't see any hard evidence for the idea that people are intrinsically "good people" or "evil people". I do see evidence for the idea that people screw up, and not everyone is rich enough to shield themselves from the consequences of that.
While we're at it, maybe "rehab" shouldn't be a euphemism for the prison industry getting cheap forced labor out of inmates.
Where'd you hear that? We've been at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Who said it wasn't?
I doubt that. Only Microsoft innovates(TM). Other people just code stuff. When Microsoft codes stuff, they're actually exercising their freedom to innovate(R).
I think most would agree that SETI could have done with a little less taxpayer money during the time they were NASA-funded. Some would say they should have had no taxpayer money.
But it bears mentioning that (a) SETI's budget at its peak was three orders of magnitude lower than the amount of money referenced in the article and (b) if my only choices were paying for SETI or paying for UK-style surveillance, it'd be a pretty easy choice.
It goes both ways. Walmart should not have been selling DRMed music if they didn't plan on keeping the servers up. Even though it's no longer earning money for them, it earned money for them at one point.
At what point does it become reasonable to withhold delivery of the product? Two years? A year? A day?
This is an extreme exaggeration, I know. But what if they decided to take your money at the register, and not give you back the bag with the things you'd bought? Seeing as they'd already "made their money".
Of course, it is still up to the consumer to avoid bad deals like these, or at least to put pressure on companies to keep their DRM key servers up for as long as possible. I'm assuming these people paid full price, as opposed to a rental price or a subscription.
As to why that is, IANAL and I don't have a solid answer. Obviously clarity is a big part of it. As far as the police goes, they need a disincentive toward illegally obtaining evidence, otherwise they'd make a damn sport out of it. Here's something related from Wikipedia:
Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, mainly because it is thought that the use of such evidence discourages parties from carrying insurance, fixing hazardous conditions, offering to settle, and pleading guilty to crimes, respectively.
I think the general reasoning is that the court itself should never be directly or indirectly related to the harming of someone. The court is not impartial if it promotes a system where people's rights are consistently infringed.
According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the Amendment.[11] However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the "privileges or immunities" clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship.
I know all about that...last time I lost my car keys I looked all over and then, wouldn't you know it? They were in Pakistan!
a computer which can solve my real-life math problems which mostly revolve around when will I pass Bob if Bob is driving at a speed in miles per hour from a place to a place at a time and I start driving toward the first place from the second place at a speed in kilometers per hour at a time
The math part you could do on a calculator...but what you really have seems to be a language problem. :)