They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Um, where did you get that? The act is still in place - states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages. The only Supreme Court ruling that I know of (quick Google search seems to confirm, but I may not have used the right search terms) had to do with California's Prop 8, and the ruling said that you cannot take rights away from a group once they had already been granted. If the Supreme Court had struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, then Utah wouldn't have been able to appeal.
They also stated that one state does not have to recognize what happens in another state, but the federal government does - ie if you are married in California, Texas doesn't have to recognize the marriage as legal, but the IRS does when you list your spouse on your tax forms.
It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions
Eh, that is a bit of a stretch. In a nutshell, they said that race could not be the only determining factor, gave a list of guidelines, and sent it back to the lower courts.
Yes, but this still has me wondering. Meat spoils pretty fast if it is not refrigerated. Maybe they had ice ships or something and only transported in the winter, or maybe they had farms where they raised exotic animals for food supplies. Even if these animals were in Northern Africa, it would take a few days to cross the Mediterranian with wind / oars, and then it would have to have been transported over land or the Nile through Africa to the port in Africa, so it would be spoiled by the time they reached Pompeii
Unless the ancient Italians knew about drying meats. Giraffe jearkey anyone?
Actually, I wonder if maybe they trapped the animals, shipped them, and then slaughtered them at their destination. This would keep you from having spoilage.
Actually, this is the same news, although I do like Daniel's blog.
FTA:
Despite starting days later than her competitors Maria is significantly closer to the finish than American, Daniel Burton, and Spaniard, Juan Menendez Granados. The two men are cycling the most common route from Hercules Inlet to the South Pole on Fat Bikes – an approach that has been taken before but without success.
Very interesting read. I do have a question though - it seems that a good portion of your argument stems from intellegent people who are believers because they have been indoctorinated from a young age. So, how would you explain an intelligent person in a Christian society who imbraces, say, Islam or Buddhism as and adult, or say a person in a strict Islamic-law nation who decides as an adult to embrace Christianity knowing the oppression they will face?
Not saying your argument is right or wrong - it is very well written and insightful, I just feel that it is a bit incomplete.
Totally agree. Most of the under-20ish people I know use Facebook primaraly for games. The 20-40ish crowd may have accounts, but find themselves too busy nowadays to really use it.
I find that the thing that really seems to have killed Facebook is the "share" feature - especially on photos and videos. Now all Facebook is is people sharing comics, 6-month-old newsstories, virus hoaxes, etc. I wish there was a way to block all "shared" content - but more than that, I wish Facebook would just remove the feature. At least, if a person wants to share a website, they need to copy and paste the URL - do away with the ability to share someone else's posts and pictures.
Maybe then, Facebook may actually get back to being useful.
I have actually been thinking of jumping the Facebook ship myself, mainly because of everything I have mentioned. The only reason I haven't yet is because there really is no good alternative. At least, not in the English-speaking world. I just want to know what my friends are up to, if they are in a relationship, and see pictures and videos of their kids (and maybe vacation photos). I don't care if you joined a new team in such-and-such game, I don't need 20 of my friends to share Uncle George's picture of the day, and I don't want to see inspirational posts unless I am on an imspirational page.
Truthfully, I find Instagram to be much closer to what I am looking for in a social-networking site.
Facebook is turning off older users, and younger users don't have a need for it, and everyone in between just doesn't have time to sort through all the crap that is on Facebook now. As soon as a viable alternative comes up, people will jump ship. It happened to MySpace, which was thought to be unsinkable. It will happen to Facebook.
A tablet is capable of rendering a desktop version of a page reasnoably. As for a phone, not many people are going to be surfing the web on a phone. Those that are are usually looking to do one or two things (ie a google search, buy movie tickets, pay a bill, get directions, etc). Most sites where users want to do a specific feature on a phone already have mobile version or a phone app available.
Most people are not going to be reading a church website, a city or state website, trying to run Galaxy Zoo, or likewise on their cell phones, so why go through all the trouble to rewrite a site?
Now, there are a handful of people I know whom a cell phone is their only data-connection at home. Many of those will either go to a friend's house, library or work or the couple of times that they need a desktop for something (such as filling for unemployment or job searching or doing their taxes). It could be argued that maybe the unemployment office and welfare pages might benefit from mobile versions of their sites, but as those are government agencies, I don't expect to see that any time soon.
Truthfully, the reason that most places don't have a mobile site is that they don't need it. It is as simple as that.
will replace Jeffrey Zients, who stepped in to lead the team fixing the health insurance website when it crashed and burned on its Oct. 1 launch. Zients is set to take over next month as senior White House economic adviser
So, you either have an economist who was working in an IT position, which may explain why the website is having such problems, or you have an IT guy who is going to step into an economist position, which means that the economy is going to tank. Or you have a manager who doesn't understand either but acts like they do. Who thought this was a good idea?
Would be nice if someone created a website where people could submit newsstories and they get reviewed by multiple people before going live to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening.
Oh wait, that's slashdot circa 1999.
We are seeing more and more of these bogus newsstories on slashdot. I think Slashdot needs to fire a few editors and do away with the Firehose.
Lets get real here for a moment. It’s 1.5mbps DSL. It isn’t going to be fast. There’s nothing you can do but work around it and not try to make it something it isn’t.
Oh, whaaa! You may not be able to stream 1080p SuperHD from Netflix or HDX from Vudu, but this is fine for just about everyone. Most of my friends who are on DSL are on 768k, and I got a few friends on cable and UVerse at 1meg and 1.5 meg. They watch YouTube and Netflix, they download torrents, they play games.
Truthfully, if you are still close enough to an exchange to get DSL, you are probably in an area where you can get wireless internet (microwave). I have friends who live way out on ranches and stuff who have microwave internet and 40Mbps speeds with unlimited transfers. And if you are really out there, there is always HughesNet and CenturyLink.
Yeah, I may have 20meg at home, but I don't think I would be complaining about having to deal with "slow" 1.5, as you have options pretty much anywhere in North America to get faster via satelite, and I could make allowances (such as downloading versus streaming) to compensate if I want to do HD. I had 1.5Mbps for years up until about 7 or 8 years ago, and it was fine.
80ms ping rate isn't bad either. It's not great, but up until about 3-4 years ago, that is what I was getting on most things. So it takes a few extra seconds for facebook to load up. Whaa!
Worse, the article is really poorly written. It sounds mostly like a rant from someone who thinks he is entitled to fiber or something.
Longer than that - I was dealing with this issue 8 years ago working desktop support (I'm in networking now). While I never put together svchost was related to Windows Update, I was always having svchost kill my XP machines, and I knew the more updates that were installed, the longer it took to run Windows Update.
Doesn't really matter now, though. XP is EOL in a few months. If you still want to run XP, just turn Windows Updates off - its not like you will miss anything.
tight cluster of Alpine venues in the nearby Krasnaya Polyana Mountains
I am sure this is a typo, but I thought it funny. According to dictionary.com, if the word Alpine has a capitol A, it means either 1)of, pertaining to, on, or part of the Alps or 2) of or pertaining to downhill skiing or a competitive downhill skiing event.
Down further in the page: 1. of or relating to the Alps or their inhabitants 2. geology
a. of or relating to an episode of mountain building in the Tertiary period during which the Alps were formed
As the article is not referring to The Alps, but rather to the Krasnaya Polyana Mountains, they should be using the word "alpine" with a lowercase A.
Yes, I am being a grammar Nazi, but found it funny.
You got that from the article? The article is written by ComputerWorld, suggests that only a couple of people get it, and litterally says the rest of the entertainment industry doesn't.
And quite frankly, I am not sure why ComputerWorld even bothered to write an article about this - pretty much anyone who reads a computing magazine will already know that DRM is bad, and doesn't even speak to their target readers - software pirates (as opposed to movie or music pirates). Shoot, I cannot tell you how many times I have purchased a game, and ended up having to go download a crack because I had issues getting the game to work. The No-CD cracks are really nice - so I don't have to go digging out my discs to play a game I have installed.
In short, the article told us nothing we didn't already know, offered no insight at all, didn't even really speak to its target audience, and is really not news-worthy. But the story-publishing guidelines on Slashdot seems to have really gone downhill lately.
GM had met the terms required of it from the bailout - some of which was paying back in cash, and some of which was paying in stock. The government decided to sell the stock at a loss. That's not GM's fault.
Here is my question - what happened to GM stock when that many shares suddenly flooded the market? Wouldn't that make stock prices go DOWN? Ironically, though, the stock price went up considerably as investors are happy the government no longer holds a part of GM.
In any case, whether GM benefited from this or not, the point is that 1)GM fulfilled its obligation and 2) the government sold stock at a loss. Maybe this lesson will force the government to make better financial decisions. Okay, probably not, but one could hope
"customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."
This was actually one of Amazon's big selling points a couple of years ago - if you purchase a digital video through Amazon, you are not suppose to loose access to it. HOWEVER, this statement is not what Amazon's Terms of Use says:
e. Availability of Purchased Digital Content . Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.
Vudu seems to have clearer Terms of Service, which seem to favor the viewer - from Vudu's Terms of Service:
Exhibition periods for Content will vary depending on the method of purchase or rental and the Content being purchased or rented. When you purchase or rent Content, it is your responsibility to review any additional terms of use provided to you. Such additional terms of use may set forth restrictions upon your window of time to initiate viewing of content and, once initiated, the duration of time you have to complete viewing such Content. If no additional terms concerning timing and duration of viewing the Content are applicable to your order, then the following general terms may apply: SNIP If you purchase Content, you may view it for as long as you (i) are capable of accessing the VUDU Service, and (ii) maintain an active VUDU Account.
Sounds more like some cops need to be fired. They have also said to the country that if you want a place to hide your stolen vehicles, Boston is the place to go
Maybe the law should read that only local groups can put up monuments. That way, they represent the community, not some politically-correctness thing. The Satanist group is from New York - they shouldn't have any sayso as to what happens in Oklahoma. Now, if they have a branch in Tulsa, and the branch wants to put up a monument, that is different.
Problem is, when you let outside groups dictate what can or cannot be put up, then no one is going to be happy. I could go around the country demanding that all government and public education places that have statues or names of Chris Columbus on them change because I am offended that some idiot who doesn't even understand the science of his own time and then goes and starts slave trade, paprticipates in human trafficing of children, did horrible acts against humanity and was actually stripped of his office and title by his own government for these reasons. I could sue the entire city of Columbus, Ohio, sue the District of Columbia, sue CBS, etc.
Let's stick though with seperation of Church and State. Does anyone know what the First Ammendment actually says?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
This speaks to the United States Congress and the federal government. The issue in place is about an Oklahoma State Building on state land. First Ammendment doesn't apply (although some Supreme Court decisions may state otherwise - I honestly do not know every court decision ever made, I am not a law student). By extension, the first Ammendment does not apply to schools or city governments.
However, in 1947, there was a Supreme Court decision. Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State'... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."'
This did extend the first Ammendment to include states, and, from my brief research, is where the term "seperation of church and state" appear.
So governments cannot establish a church, and by this ammendment, a state or federal government cannot setup their own religious monuments (this does not apply to cities). But, likewise they cannot prevent a private entity from setting up a monument because to do so would show preference to one religion or another (or lack of religion). So they cannot stop a group from doing this.....
EXCEPT.....
and it doesn't say this, but you could go back to this - this is STATE land, so a New York group really should have no say. If it was federal land, that would be different.
This is just a badly designed business model. The most successful companies I have worked for have managers and VPs who have risen through their IT departments and know how things work. They are the best at understanding the ups and downs of workloads, so understand the concept of having periods of down time, they understand the concept of on-call and will work to either try to minimize how often a person is on-call or try to work in some kind of compensation, they understand technologies and actually listen to their teams when making business decisions, they are good at dealing with the end-users because they can set realistic expectations, and when researching new technologies, they ask the teams who will be implementing it to research products rather than putting out a general call to vendors.... I honestly do not understand why companies will put someone with no IT background over different IT departments or over the IT department as a whole. You wouldn't go grab a random Congressman with no military experience and give him the rank of General in the armed forces, yet this is exactly what many companies do with their IT departments.
Works for me - better than what I have going on at home, and cheaper than I could set up something like this. And anyways, I still have my External HDD backups as well. Its just another level of backup to keep me from data loss.
I have been going through this issue myself. In a single weekend of photo and video taking, I can easily fill up a 16 gig memory card, sometimes a 32 gig. About 10 years ago I lost about two years worth of pictures due to bitrot (ie my primary failed, and the backup DVD-Rs were unreadable after only a year - I was able to recover only a handfull of photos using disc-recovery software). Since then, I kept at least three backups, and reburning discs every couple of years. But if I can fill up two BD-Rs in a weekend, and given the high price of media, that wasn't an option. Extra harddrives?
I finally realized the best way was just to get a Carbonite account. They are about $70 a year for unlimited encrypted storage space (if you are really anal, I guess you could always put things into TrueCrypt encrypted file containers and upload them). The worst part is how long it takes to do a backup on a residental broadband line (it would also suck if your ISP has data caps). It has taken me about 2 weeks to do half a terrabyte.
The deal is, the peace of mind that comes from this is huge, and it is cheaper than buying another harddrive.
Yes, I know that is not the question you asked, but I feel like it is a much more practical alternative. I mean, as I continue backing stuff up, I am sure I will pass a terrabyte. How much are you going to pay for discs, for harddrives? Then trying to keep them safe and secure, and having to worry about bitrot?
Seriously, I've lost family pictures and videos before even though I had backups, and it sucked. Do yourself a favor and get a cloud backup. Yeah, it may take a while to do your backups and restorations, but it is worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Um, where did you get that? The act is still in place - states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages. The only Supreme Court ruling that I know of (quick Google search seems to confirm, but I may not have used the right search terms) had to do with California's Prop 8, and the ruling said that you cannot take rights away from a group once they had already been granted. If the Supreme Court had struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, then Utah wouldn't have been able to appeal.
They also stated that one state does not have to recognize what happens in another state, but the federal government does - ie if you are married in California, Texas doesn't have to recognize the marriage as legal, but the IRS does when you list your spouse on your tax forms.
It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions
Eh, that is a bit of a stretch. In a nutshell, they said that race could not be the only determining factor, gave a list of guidelines, and sent it back to the lower courts.
Yes, but this still has me wondering. Meat spoils pretty fast if it is not refrigerated. Maybe they had ice ships or something and only transported in the winter, or maybe they had farms where they raised exotic animals for food supplies. Even if these animals were in Northern Africa, it would take a few days to cross the Mediterranian with wind / oars, and then it would have to have been transported over land or the Nile through Africa to the port in Africa, so it would be spoiled by the time they reached Pompeii
Unless the ancient Italians knew about drying meats. Giraffe jearkey anyone?
Actually, I wonder if maybe they trapped the animals, shipped them, and then slaughtered them at their destination. This would keep you from having spoilage.
Actually, this is the same news, although I do like Daniel's blog.
FTA:
Despite starting days later than her competitors Maria is significantly closer to the finish than American, Daniel Burton, and Spaniard, Juan Menendez Granados. The two men are cycling the most common route from Hercules Inlet to the South Pole on Fat Bikes – an approach that has been taken before but without success.
Very interesting read. I do have a question though - it seems that a good portion of your argument stems from intellegent people who are believers because they have been indoctorinated from a young age. So, how would you explain an intelligent person in a Christian society who imbraces, say, Islam or Buddhism as and adult, or say a person in a strict Islamic-law nation who decides as an adult to embrace Christianity knowing the oppression they will face?
Not saying your argument is right or wrong - it is very well written and insightful, I just feel that it is a bit incomplete.
Totally agree. Most of the under-20ish people I know use Facebook primaraly for games. The 20-40ish crowd may have accounts, but find themselves too busy nowadays to really use it.
I find that the thing that really seems to have killed Facebook is the "share" feature - especially on photos and videos. Now all Facebook is is people sharing comics, 6-month-old newsstories, virus hoaxes, etc. I wish there was a way to block all "shared" content - but more than that, I wish Facebook would just remove the feature. At least, if a person wants to share a website, they need to copy and paste the URL - do away with the ability to share someone else's posts and pictures.
Maybe then, Facebook may actually get back to being useful.
I have actually been thinking of jumping the Facebook ship myself, mainly because of everything I have mentioned. The only reason I haven't yet is because there really is no good alternative. At least, not in the English-speaking world. I just want to know what my friends are up to, if they are in a relationship, and see pictures and videos of their kids (and maybe vacation photos). I don't care if you joined a new team in such-and-such game, I don't need 20 of my friends to share Uncle George's picture of the day, and I don't want to see inspirational posts unless I am on an imspirational page.
Truthfully, I find Instagram to be much closer to what I am looking for in a social-networking site.
Facebook is turning off older users, and younger users don't have a need for it, and everyone in between just doesn't have time to sort through all the crap that is on Facebook now. As soon as a viable alternative comes up, people will jump ship. It happened to MySpace, which was thought to be unsinkable. It will happen to Facebook.
SocialFixer puts your posts back into Chronological order
I hate it when those damn kids start playing on my lawn.
I'm not familar with that game, but I block game requests on Facebook.
A tablet is capable of rendering a desktop version of a page reasnoably. As for a phone, not many people are going to be surfing the web on a phone. Those that are are usually looking to do one or two things (ie a google search, buy movie tickets, pay a bill, get directions, etc). Most sites where users want to do a specific feature on a phone already have mobile version or a phone app available.
Most people are not going to be reading a church website, a city or state website, trying to run Galaxy Zoo, or likewise on their cell phones, so why go through all the trouble to rewrite a site?
Now, there are a handful of people I know whom a cell phone is their only data-connection at home. Many of those will either go to a friend's house, library or work or the couple of times that they need a desktop for something (such as filling for unemployment or job searching or doing their taxes). It could be argued that maybe the unemployment office and welfare pages might benefit from mobile versions of their sites, but as those are government agencies, I don't expect to see that any time soon.
Truthfully, the reason that most places don't have a mobile site is that they don't need it. It is as simple as that.
will replace Jeffrey Zients, who stepped in to lead the team fixing the health insurance website when it crashed and burned on its Oct. 1 launch. Zients is set to take over next month as senior White House economic adviser
So, you either have an economist who was working in an IT position, which may explain why the website is having such problems, or you have an IT guy who is going to step into an economist position, which means that the economy is going to tank. Or you have a manager who doesn't understand either but acts like they do. Who thought this was a good idea?
Would be nice if someone created a website where people could submit newsstories and they get reviewed by multiple people before going live to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening.
Oh wait, that's slashdot circa 1999.
We are seeing more and more of these bogus newsstories on slashdot. I think Slashdot needs to fire a few editors and do away with the Firehose.
I thought Harvard students were smarter than that.
Lets get real here for a moment. It’s 1.5mbps DSL. It isn’t going to be fast. There’s nothing you can do but work around it and not try to make it something it isn’t.
Oh, whaaa! You may not be able to stream 1080p SuperHD from Netflix or HDX from Vudu, but this is fine for just about everyone. Most of my friends who are on DSL are on 768k, and I got a few friends on cable and UVerse at 1meg and 1.5 meg. They watch YouTube and Netflix, they download torrents, they play games.
Truthfully, if you are still close enough to an exchange to get DSL, you are probably in an area where you can get wireless internet (microwave). I have friends who live way out on ranches and stuff who have microwave internet and 40Mbps speeds with unlimited transfers. And if you are really out there, there is always HughesNet and CenturyLink.
Yeah, I may have 20meg at home, but I don't think I would be complaining about having to deal with "slow" 1.5, as you have options pretty much anywhere in North America to get faster via satelite, and I could make allowances (such as downloading versus streaming) to compensate if I want to do HD. I had 1.5Mbps for years up until about 7 or 8 years ago, and it was fine.
80ms ping rate isn't bad either. It's not great, but up until about 3-4 years ago, that is what I was getting on most things. So it takes a few extra seconds for facebook to load up. Whaa!
Worse, the article is really poorly written. It sounds mostly like a rant from someone who thinks he is entitled to fiber or something.
Longer than that - I was dealing with this issue 8 years ago working desktop support (I'm in networking now). While I never put together svchost was related to Windows Update, I was always having svchost kill my XP machines, and I knew the more updates that were installed, the longer it took to run Windows Update.
Doesn't really matter now, though. XP is EOL in a few months. If you still want to run XP, just turn Windows Updates off - its not like you will miss anything.
tight cluster of Alpine venues in the nearby Krasnaya Polyana Mountains
I am sure this is a typo, but I thought it funny. According to dictionary.com, if the word Alpine has a capitol A, it means either 1)of, pertaining to, on, or part of the Alps or 2) of or pertaining to downhill skiing or a competitive downhill skiing event.
Down further in the page:
1. of or relating to the Alps or their inhabitants
2. geology
a. of or relating to an episode of mountain building in the Tertiary period during which the Alps were formed
As the article is not referring to The Alps, but rather to the Krasnaya Polyana Mountains, they should be using the word "alpine" with a lowercase A.
Yes, I am being a grammar Nazi, but found it funny.
You got that from the article? The article is written by ComputerWorld, suggests that only a couple of people get it, and litterally says the rest of the entertainment industry doesn't.
And quite frankly, I am not sure why ComputerWorld even bothered to write an article about this - pretty much anyone who reads a computing magazine will already know that DRM is bad, and doesn't even speak to their target readers - software pirates (as opposed to movie or music pirates). Shoot, I cannot tell you how many times I have purchased a game, and ended up having to go download a crack because I had issues getting the game to work. The No-CD cracks are really nice - so I don't have to go digging out my discs to play a game I have installed.
In short, the article told us nothing we didn't already know, offered no insight at all, didn't even really speak to its target audience, and is really not news-worthy. But the story-publishing guidelines on Slashdot seems to have really gone downhill lately.
GM had met the terms required of it from the bailout - some of which was paying back in cash, and some of which was paying in stock. The government decided to sell the stock at a loss. That's not GM's fault.
Here is my question - what happened to GM stock when that many shares suddenly flooded the market? Wouldn't that make stock prices go DOWN? Ironically, though, the stock price went up considerably as investors are happy the government no longer holds a part of GM.
In any case, whether GM benefited from this or not, the point is that 1)GM fulfilled its obligation and 2) the government sold stock at a loss. Maybe this lesson will force the government to make better financial decisions. Okay, probably not, but one could hope
"customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."
This was actually one of Amazon's big selling points a couple of years ago - if you purchase a digital video through Amazon, you are not suppose to loose access to it. HOWEVER, this statement is not what Amazon's Terms of Use says:
e. Availability of Purchased Digital Content . Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.
Vudu seems to have clearer Terms of Service, which seem to favor the viewer - from Vudu's Terms of Service:
Exhibition periods for Content will vary depending on the method of purchase or rental and the Content being purchased or rented. When you purchase or rent Content, it is your responsibility to review any additional terms of use provided to you. Such additional terms of use may set forth restrictions upon your window of time to initiate viewing of content and, once initiated, the duration of time you have to complete viewing such Content. If no additional terms concerning timing and duration of viewing the Content are applicable to your order, then the following general terms may apply:
SNIP
If you purchase Content, you may view it for as long as you (i) are capable of accessing the VUDU Service, and (ii) maintain an active VUDU Account.
You think the latency is bad, this will be the slowest deployment roleout in history
Sounds more like some cops need to be fired. They have also said to the country that if you want a place to hide your stolen vehicles, Boston is the place to go
Maybe the law should read that only local groups can put up monuments. That way, they represent the community, not some politically-correctness thing. The Satanist group is from New York - they shouldn't have any sayso as to what happens in Oklahoma. Now, if they have a branch in Tulsa, and the branch wants to put up a monument, that is different.
Problem is, when you let outside groups dictate what can or cannot be put up, then no one is going to be happy. I could go around the country demanding that all government and public education places that have statues or names of Chris Columbus on them change because I am offended that some idiot who doesn't even understand the science of his own time and then goes and starts slave trade, paprticipates in human trafficing of children, did horrible acts against humanity and was actually stripped of his office and title by his own government for these reasons. I could sue the entire city of Columbus, Ohio, sue the District of Columbia, sue CBS, etc.
Let's stick though with seperation of Church and State. Does anyone know what the First Ammendment actually says?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
This speaks to the United States Congress and the federal government. The issue in place is about an Oklahoma State Building on state land. First Ammendment doesn't apply (although some Supreme Court decisions may state otherwise - I honestly do not know every court decision ever made, I am not a law student). By extension, the first Ammendment does not apply to schools or city governments.
However, in 1947, there was a Supreme Court decision. Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."'
This did extend the first Ammendment to include states, and, from my brief research, is where the term "seperation of church and state" appear.
So governments cannot establish a church, and by this ammendment, a state or federal government cannot setup their own religious monuments (this does not apply to cities). But, likewise they cannot prevent a private entity from setting up a monument because to do so would show preference to one religion or another (or lack of religion). So they cannot stop a group from doing this.....
EXCEPT.....
and it doesn't say this, but you could go back to this - this is STATE land, so a New York group really should have no say. If it was federal land, that would be different.
This is just a badly designed business model. The most successful companies I have worked for have managers and VPs who have risen through their IT departments and know how things work. They are the best at understanding the ups and downs of workloads, so understand the concept of having periods of down time, they understand the concept of on-call and will work to either try to minimize how often a person is on-call or try to work in some kind of compensation, they understand technologies and actually listen to their teams when making business decisions, they are good at dealing with the end-users because they can set realistic expectations, and when researching new technologies, they ask the teams who will be implementing it to research products rather than putting out a general call to vendors.... I honestly do not understand why companies will put someone with no IT background over different IT departments or over the IT department as a whole. You wouldn't go grab a random Congressman with no military experience and give him the rank of General in the armed forces, yet this is exactly what many companies do with their IT departments.
http://www.jimkarpen.com/cloudsecurity.html
They also allow you to manage your own encryption keys
http://www.carbonite.com/online-backup/home/safe-and-secure
how can you be sure that your cloud provider is not suffering from bitrot on your stored files?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonite_(online_backup)#Product_details
Works for me - better than what I have going on at home, and cheaper than I could set up something like this. And anyways, I still have my External HDD backups as well. Its just another level of backup to keep me from data loss.
I have been going through this issue myself. In a single weekend of photo and video taking, I can easily fill up a 16 gig memory card, sometimes a 32 gig. About 10 years ago I lost about two years worth of pictures due to bitrot (ie my primary failed, and the backup DVD-Rs were unreadable after only a year - I was able to recover only a handfull of photos using disc-recovery software). Since then, I kept at least three backups, and reburning discs every couple of years. But if I can fill up two BD-Rs in a weekend, and given the high price of media, that wasn't an option. Extra harddrives?
I finally realized the best way was just to get a Carbonite account. They are about $70 a year for unlimited encrypted storage space (if you are really anal, I guess you could always put things into TrueCrypt encrypted file containers and upload them). The worst part is how long it takes to do a backup on a residental broadband line (it would also suck if your ISP has data caps). It has taken me about 2 weeks to do half a terrabyte.
The deal is, the peace of mind that comes from this is huge, and it is cheaper than buying another harddrive.
Yes, I know that is not the question you asked, but I feel like it is a much more practical alternative. I mean, as I continue backing stuff up, I am sure I will pass a terrabyte. How much are you going to pay for discs, for harddrives? Then trying to keep them safe and secure, and having to worry about bitrot?
Seriously, I've lost family pictures and videos before even though I had backups, and it sucked. Do yourself a favor and get a cloud backup. Yeah, it may take a while to do your backups and restorations, but it is worth it.
Yes, but we were not recommending tablets for you, we were recommending tablets for this guy's father who is in his 70s.