God damn them all I was told we'd block the seeds for american gold we'd waste no puns, drink more beers Now i'm a broken man with an unresolved peer... the last of rogers marketeers.
Well, keep in mind there is no "rights violators" label until conviction. Before that they are the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant. There should be no sides involved in a judge or juries heads, only the facts evidence and law.
Personally, i think its the laws part thats the problem, not the courts or the rights holders (even if some rights holders are the impetus for these legislations). There's serious overhaul work to be done on the US copyright and patent systems, but it'll take a long time for the sleeping-dragon-now-awake to lumber in a new direction...especially with the number of "oooh look at the kitty" moments bound to be providing distraction.
Dictionary.com (v 1.1) funny 1. providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical: a funny remark; a funny person. 2. attempting to amuse; facetious: Did you really mean that or were you just being funny? 3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded: We thought there was something funny about those extra charges. 4. Informal. insolent; impertinent: Don't get funny with me, young man! 5. curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang. -noun 6. Informal. a funny remark or story; a joke: to make a funny.
and the fact that bolded was there right off the bat at old dictionary.com did make me smirk somewhat.
So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.
Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.
If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.
Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.
However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening"
The point of recent actions isn't to rule an increasingly larger part of the world. If that was the agenda, they've accomplished the exact opposite in terms of global influence.
In fact if that is really your concern, you should be grinning like a maniac at how much LESS influence the US has since the clinton or bush sr eras.
There's concerns to be had, but i do not consider this to be one of them at this time. They can influence europe less than before, even less so for russia or india, and even less if not vice versa for china. I'm more worried about America doing something so mindbogglingly arrogant and jingoistic that it sets off another major multi-national conflict.
See, that I would be fine with. What worries me is the precedent it sets, and the day when specific site access is based on a cable "channel set" model.
"Browse these common subnets/domains at blazing fast gigabit speeds!*"
* Maximum throughput may vary based on peak hours. All other destinations limited to 5KiB u/d.
Course, just creating the technology to be able to do so isn't bad in my book. I'll start bitching and moaning (for serial) when someone wants to USE such techs in this manner. If they DID stick to legitimate control traffic being the only traffic shaped this way I'd be fine with it.
If someone was a jerk though they'd start the layout of such a plan exactly that way, then add "small transfers versus larger" requests next.
I am somewhat curious about the type of person that uses Firefox 3 but has a Hotmail (note not Passport) account that they actually check. I believe that population would fall somewhere between size 0 and size N where N is the number of users that had firefox installed on their system by their open source savvy friend.
Plus or minus a few for the "I only use it for passport, but then use it as a throwaway email for some sites" crowd or the "I only use my ISP email address" crowd.
Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.
Which is strangely followed in the list you wanted with:
Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of the Iraq war being a war of aggression, making him liable for prosecution for war crimes under the command responsibility doctrine. The judge ruled that a US soldier is not allowed to determine whether orders given are unlawful and as such this would mean he/she is forced to follow those orders he/she considers illegal, and inevitably if charged with war crimes has to resort to the I was only following orders defense. What a wacky worrisome world we work with
It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders. Great, i'll be hearing "Cancer merchant! Cancer merchant!" for the rest of the day.
And Stahl didnt simply say "he would be punishing you for not saying what he wanted you to say"?
mind boggling on all sides really.
I'm sincerely beginning to wonder if i'm completely losing my mind and the paradoxical self-righteous amoralism in the world is simply the misfirings colouring perceptions.
Somehow i do not see the cellphone subsidy model working in this case. Laptops are one of the most frequently "lost" or stolen items i know of. If such devices are coming subsidized, you can bet your ass that there will be a hefty contract along with it as well as limitations on what you can do with it.
I mean, who wants the liability of having to continue to meet your contractual obligations for near the cost of the device, in exchange for having to use it their way.
The thought of AT&T getting a massive overage bill due to people going hog wild on their networks because the people in question are not as impacted by the resulting cost pleases me.
Firefox at least: Go to Tools, Options, then click on General on the left click the languages... tab on the right hand side click the down arrow where it says select a language to add click add. then just click the down arrow by where it says "Default character encoding" and pick the language you just installed and confirm it all with ok's.
As far as i remember, two of the major carriers (Bell and Rogers) had trialed lost cellphone insurance and had the services disappear. I am unaware of any third party cell phone insurances in canada, and a quick google search left me needing to do a longer one which i can't do at work.
The fact that such services were discontinued speaks volumes, whether they were too incompetant to properly price the insurance based on the risk probabilities or whether it was intentional to cash in on the ETFs or subscription fees being paid without possible use.
Why must either the chinese government or the organization involved continuously act so amorally in the pursuit of profit (monetary or otherwise) despite the terrible impact it has on others and ignore any 'outsiders' outcry against their actions.
oh...wait...familiar that.....sounds like a good chunk of humanity.
Not saying its not wrong, just putting a perspective stick in the spokes.
no one is willing to spend several hundred dollars. At least, not in a lump sum up front. Most of the people i know here in canada fit what you describe there.....until they end up in a situation where the phone fails or is lost or stolen. Cellphone theft is the biggest cash cow in terms of the devices market for the providers.
They'll change their minds if they end up paying for a few months worth of contracted service that they cant use. If they never run into that, well its a moot point and they'll probably continue happily with the contracts. If you know you're going to use the service for the length of the LTC and that you can deal with replacing the phone in the event of the unforseen, AND read your damned contract then there really is no problem with this. The problem there is no one is willing to wade through pages of fine print to check every possible caveat situation (which isn't exactly a fault but neither is it transparent and honest).
Another thing is that there are a lot of contracts with clauses that i'm fairly sure are illegal (in canada at least, i'm not sure how things would work in the US there) such as disclaiming liability for the actions of their customer service representatives in its entirety (at least it was in certain companies contracts when i was doing cell phone customer service back in 2004-2006). I honestly wonder how many of these "contractual obligations" would actually hold up in court given a good attourney with the balls to bring it to the big boys.
And to the complaint people have that such actions would increase the price of cellphones. YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING THAT PRICE FOR THE CELLPHONE. It's simply rolled into the costing of the service, and MUCH harder to check the true cost effectiveness of the two (device and service). If providers had to advertise contractless prices primarily and list contractual bonuses seperately, it would make things much more transparent. There is no reason they cannot keep the ETF's out of the contract if they do not provide the device, and if its quite clear in the contractual bonuses that there is a penalty fee if one DOES subsidise a device.
Also remember that if you activate your own phone on a contracted plan, the ETF is still the same regardless of whether they provided you with a phone or not (ie if you take a contracted 'special offer' and upgrade your plan with the phone you already have). Granted people can just get a new one with the new contract to not have the liability for no reason, but that seems rather wasteful if the previous device does everything the client wants already.
People always say that you should read your contracts, but to be quite honest the majority of contractual ETF cases i ran into were situations where the customer did not even know they had a contract. If they accept a plan over the phone, are told it comes with a contract, and the notes on the account state that the user was advised of the fee (whether they were or not) good luck trying to prove it. And good luck trying to subpoena the call recording without a harsh capital investment in either time or money.
Slashdot Mirror
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Yep. Salvor Hardin had that as a plaque in his office if I remember correctly.
God damn them all
I was told we'd block the seeds for american gold
we'd waste no puns, drink more beers
Now i'm a broken man with an unresolved peer...
the last of rogers marketeers.
Seconded.
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Assuming equivalent enough functionality of course. If not, well then its time to get coding!
Well, keep in mind there is no "rights violators" label until conviction. Before that they are the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant. There should be no sides involved in a judge or juries heads, only the facts evidence and law.
Personally, i think its the laws part thats the problem, not the courts or the rights holders (even if some rights holders are the impetus for these legislations).
There's serious overhaul work to be done on the US copyright and patent systems, but it'll take a long time for the sleeping-dragon-now-awake to lumber in a new direction...especially with the number of "oooh look at the kitty" moments bound to be providing distraction.
Thats the funny thing about Funny.
Dictionary.com (v 1.1)
funny
1. providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical: a funny remark; a funny person.
2. attempting to amuse; facetious: Did you really mean that or were you just being funny?
3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded: We thought there was something funny about those extra charges.
4. Informal. insolent; impertinent: Don't get funny with me, young man!
5. curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang.
-noun 6. Informal. a funny remark or story; a joke: to make a funny.
and the fact that bolded was there right off the bat at old dictionary.com did make me smirk somewhat.
time for coffee indeed.
Actually, i think more people are excited by the Waste-to-Fuel biofuels, like the work being done here in Sherbrooke, QC.
No need to affect arable land in any way shape or form.
So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.
Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.
If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.
Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.
Do apologize if you're wrong though.
Funnily enough, we can look to movies for the boiled down version of what you're getting at.
back in MiB:
J: People are smart.
K: No, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening"
The point of recent actions isn't to rule an increasingly larger part of the world. If that was the agenda, they've accomplished the exact opposite in terms of global influence.
In fact if that is really your concern, you should be grinning like a maniac at how much LESS influence the US has since the clinton or bush sr eras.
There's concerns to be had, but i do not consider this to be one of them at this time. They can influence europe less than before, even less so for russia or india, and even less if not vice versa for china. I'm more worried about America doing something so mindbogglingly arrogant and jingoistic that it sets off another major multi-national conflict.
See, that I would be fine with. What worries me is the precedent it sets, and the day when specific site access is based on a cable "channel set" model.
"Browse these common subnets/domains at blazing fast gigabit speeds!*"
* Maximum throughput may vary based on peak hours. All other destinations limited to 5KiB u/d.
Course, just creating the technology to be able to do so isn't bad in my book. I'll start bitching and moaning (for serial) when someone wants to USE such techs in this manner. If they DID stick to legitimate control traffic being the only traffic shaped this way I'd be fine with it.
If someone was a jerk though they'd start the layout of such a plan exactly that way, then add "small transfers versus larger" requests next.
The rest could easily follow though.
Damn you senor counterexample =)
Ok so add no1home-ish users to N.
yes, but for many who started with their account back in the day, it became their passport account.
Out of curiosity, was there a point in that either way?
Plus or minus a few for the "I only use it for passport, but then use it as a throwaway email for some sites" crowd or the "I only use my ISP email address" crowd.
Well before this gets all snitty...
This is nothing new.
in which
Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty."The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.
Which is strangely followed in the list you wanted with: Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of the Iraq war being a war of aggression, making him liable for prosecution for war crimes under the command responsibility doctrine. The judge ruled that a US soldier is not allowed to determine whether orders given are unlawful and as such this would mean he/she is forced to follow those orders he/she considers illegal, and inevitably if charged with war crimes has to resort to the I was only following orders defense. What a wacky worrisome world we work withIt is not the lies themselves that is driving me insane.
Its the blind belief that follows.
And Stahl didnt simply say "he would be punishing you for not saying what he wanted you to say"?
mind boggling on all sides really.
I'm sincerely beginning to wonder if i'm completely losing my mind and the paradoxical self-righteous amoralism in the world is simply the misfirings colouring perceptions.
just remember to go back and put it next to where you're sitting when you're done and it'll be there for you to use now.
and hey, maybe you did steal your fathers keys!
Somehow i do not see the cellphone subsidy model working in this case. Laptops are one of the most frequently "lost" or stolen items i know of. If such devices are coming subsidized, you can bet your ass that there will be a hefty contract along with it as well as limitations on what you can do with it.
I mean, who wants the liability of having to continue to meet your contractual obligations for near the cost of the device, in exchange for having to use it their way.
The thought of AT&T getting a massive overage bill due to people going hog wild on their networks because the people in question are not as impacted by the resulting cost pleases me.
Greatly.
Firefox at least:
Go to Tools, Options, then click on General on the left
click the languages... tab on the right hand side
click the down arrow where it says select a language to add
click add.
then just click the down arrow by where it says "Default character encoding" and pick the language you just installed and confirm it all with ok's.
As far as i remember, two of the major carriers (Bell and Rogers) had trialed lost cellphone insurance and had the services disappear. I am unaware of any third party cell phone insurances in canada, and a quick google search left me needing to do a longer one which i can't do at work.
The fact that such services were discontinued speaks volumes, whether they were too incompetant to properly price the insurance based on the risk probabilities or whether it was intentional to cash in on the ETFs or subscription fees being paid without possible use.
Why must either the chinese government or the organization involved continuously act so amorally in the pursuit of profit (monetary or otherwise) despite the terrible impact it has on others and ignore any 'outsiders' outcry against their actions.
oh...wait...familiar that.....sounds like a good chunk of humanity.
Not saying its not wrong, just putting a perspective stick in the spokes.
Ahhh i didnt catch the international part of all this.
That would make the body about as useful as the BBB....barely useful at all for exactly the reasons you state heh.
They'll change their minds if they end up paying for a few months worth of contracted service that they cant use. If they never run into that, well its a moot point and they'll probably continue happily with the contracts. If you know you're going to use the service for the length of the LTC and that you can deal with replacing the phone in the event of the unforseen, AND read your damned contract then there really is no problem with this. The problem there is no one is willing to wade through pages of fine print to check every possible caveat situation (which isn't exactly a fault but neither is it transparent and honest).
Another thing is that there are a lot of contracts with clauses that i'm fairly sure are illegal (in canada at least, i'm not sure how things would work in the US there) such as disclaiming liability for the actions of their customer service representatives in its entirety (at least it was in certain companies contracts when i was doing cell phone customer service back in 2004-2006). I honestly wonder how many of these "contractual obligations" would actually hold up in court given a good attourney with the balls to bring it to the big boys.
And to the complaint people have that such actions would increase the price of cellphones. YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING THAT PRICE FOR THE CELLPHONE. It's simply rolled into the costing of the service, and MUCH harder to check the true cost effectiveness of the two (device and service). If providers had to advertise contractless prices primarily and list contractual bonuses seperately, it would make things much more transparent. There is no reason they cannot keep the ETF's out of the contract if they do not provide the device, and if its quite clear in the contractual bonuses that there is a penalty fee if one DOES subsidise a device.
Also remember that if you activate your own phone on a contracted plan, the ETF is still the same regardless of whether they provided you with a phone or not (ie if you take a contracted 'special offer' and upgrade your plan with the phone you already have). Granted people can just get a new one with the new contract to not have the liability for no reason, but that seems rather wasteful if the previous device does everything the client wants already.
People always say that you should read your contracts, but to be quite honest the majority of contractual ETF cases i ran into were situations where the customer did not even know they had a contract. If they accept a plan over the phone, are told it comes with a contract, and the notes on the account state that the user was advised of the fee (whether they were or not) good luck trying to prove it. And good luck trying to subpoena the call recording without a harsh capital investment in either time or money.