Come on now. These are adults. If they choose to skip class because they feel their time is better spent elsewhere, that's their business. If they're wrong, they'll be punished at exam time. No attendance checks are necessary.
Not to mention the fact that university students are paying to be there - unless the school plans to only bill for the classes attended, why do they care?
Side note: how long before someone hacks/clones the RFID tags and builds a widget to log *everyone* into a classroom at once?
That's not the point - they can just as easily use their refund money to get a PC (to run Linux), or get a XBox or Wii, or just spend it on hookers and blow.
It's no different than if my dishwasher doesn't perform as advertised - I get my money back, and if I want to buy a lesser dishwasher, that's my own business.
Well if they have to have their full purchase price refunded they very well should have to send back in the PS3.
I wonder how many people will sue then? Some, but not near as many. Some people are expecting to "get rich quick" (and that will probably be a $10 PSN voucher) and keep their PS3.
Keep in mind that "full purchase price" would be the *original* price paid, not the currently reduced selling price.
I suspect a lot of people would happily turn in their years-old PS3, get full money back, and buy a brand-new one at the cheaper rate.
You still use Facebook? Call me a troll, but think. Are you being intelligent if you still use Facebook after all this?
Sure - because I know what's being sent out. I consider Facebook to be the "white pages" of the Internet at this point. I'm there so that old friends and classmates can find me (and the information I've given facebook - school, work, some groups - is just enough so to distinguish me from others with similar names).
How long until identity thieves, 419 scammers & spammers create software that can
trawl sites like facebook for useful info?
Seriously, what are they going to find that will be so useful? "Hello, sir -- I note that you went to the University of Nebraska and worked for a while at Cargill. Because of this, I am interested in repatriating my family's fortune to your bank account, for which you will get a fee." Get real...
The realistic threat of facebook vis a vis privacy is that of your youthful indiscretions being on wide display for coworkers and bosses to see.
I'd put the danger in two parts:
1. You can MadLibs the details in to make the scam more plausable - "Hey, do you remember me? We had classes together at $EDUCATION_PLACE."
2. It lets people "connect the dots". Sure, knowing I went to UNebraska isn't much - but what can you get *them* to tell you about me? Social engineering still works.
Time for me to log back into Facebook and remove a few more details, I guess...
I must have trimmed too far - let's try this again.
I say good job to the AZ legislature. It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal. This applies to everybody.
Still not seeing relevance here - I'm pretty sure here in Canada if I get arrested the lack of ID isn't a barrier - they'll run my prints, get someone else to ID me, or worst case just call me "John Doe".
The key point (even in the AZ) bill is that it doesn't allow cops to pull a "papers please" unless they have a suspicion of a crime. (And I'll bet money that the "cops suspect you're an illegal" isn't going to hold up long-term.)
I wonder what the world would be like if the Natives had immigration laws back in the day...
now everyone knows, I suspect that this will be asked for nationwide. Even where the logs aren't kept, defense attorneys will spin it into a chain-of-custody problem for the jurors that think every case should be CSI caliber.
Well, it does force them to address the question of why police departments would be deleting digital records in an age where data storage is stupidly cheap.
It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal.
And this would be relevant if the person had been charged with an actual crime. He wasn't - his arrest was for not IDing himself just because the "nice officer" asked.
I pay for my bandwidth I'll choose what I serve, including page elements. If you block ads, then I will block content.
And that's entirely fair. I've seen quite a few sites that say variations of "you need JavaScript enabled to view this site". Sometimes I enable JavaScript, sometimes I don't. The site is entirely within it's rights to limit who gets in, same as I'm free to limit what I'll accept.
Well, the bans appear to have been reversed because of the uproar (I wonder if the fact that one of the banned was a paying member figured into that equation).
The part I found amusing is that the ban-happy admin then admits to using adblocking software himself...
You agree to not interfere with the display of these adverts through banner blocking software or browser features.
Strikes me as a bit unenforceable, particularly the "browser features" part - will they ban you for hitting the site with Lynx, for example?
Let's be realistic - once you send your webpage, you have zero control over what the user sees. Maybe they have a non-compliant browser. Maybe they just have images turned off in general. (In much the same way that a TV station can't stop me from messing with my TV controls to make the weather lady look like an Orion slave girl.)
Actually, it's not uncommon for talk shows (or other "live to tape" programs) to say "we'll be back in two minutes" or what-not. (Chuck Woolery is famous for "We'll be back in two and two", for instance.)
It's a shame there isn't some sort of recognized internet protocol, where people could transfer text files that included links and images (we could call it "hypertext")..
why is the us military using unmanned drones above waziristan?
Cowardice on the part of the military leaders comes to mind. Don't have to worry about casualties if you can keep all the troops at home and blow stuff up video-game style...
Unmanned probes and great and all, but you're going to look pretty foolish when the manned astronaut gets there and kicks your rover over.
If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped.
This is one of the best opinions I've read all day.
I'm Canadian, and I'm glad our troops are getting out of these warzones. Why? Because no-one actually wants to win these wars. You want to conquer a country? Then frakkin' do it. But shooting the place up and then hanging around for years after wondering why they're shooting back instead of baking you cookies? It's stupid, and it shows a lack of disrespect for our soldiers by throwing their lives away on a war that we don't even want to win.
If they don't wish to be targets, they should be wearing a designated fluorescent press vest, specifically issued to journalists in Iraq to prevent exactly what happened here.
Obvious question - if wearing a fluorescent vest tells soldiers not to shoot at you, as a reasonably intelligent person, which is more likely?
1. The insurgents and civilians are too stupid or lazy to get their hands on these vests (or reasonably convincing copies) to protect themselves.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason for that, but I do think you'd have to be a complete idiot to drive into a battle with your kids, good samaritan or not. And no, the shooting hadn't been stopped for remotely long enough to think it was safe.
Considering the state that the Allies have left the country in, I suspect keeping your kids with you is inherently safer than leaving them unattended. Especially when you remember that there isn't a "do not shoot" area in the first place.
Does seem hard to be the "good guys" when you're shooting at them from so far away they can't hear the bullet coming...
Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time?
That sort of thing is pretty limited in practice, though - otherwise I could sell you a box promising gold bricks and the "we reserve the right" text on the outside, and a note inside saying "we changed from gold to air - enjoy!" on the inside.
The sales guys don't even have to expend effort to redirect money in their direction: they get obscene commissions on the sales they make, sometimes on top of high salaries.
More accurately, it comes down to skill sets - sales people are good at convincing other people to do what they want. This is a good skill to have when negotiating salaries and benefits.
Engineers and scientists work in factual reality, which is a disadvantage in these situations. (Particularly if you're negotiating with sales-types.)
Are you willing to look a person in the eye, and tell them that it's only right and proper that their loved one will die, because they aren't rich enough to save them?
Also, don't be looking for help from police, fire, or military when people come by to rob you or burn your house down - that's all paid by taxes as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on now. These are adults. If they choose to skip class because they feel their time is better spent elsewhere, that's their business. If they're wrong, they'll be punished at exam time. No attendance checks are necessary.
Not to mention the fact that university students are paying to be there - unless the school plans to only bill for the classes attended, why do they care?
Side note: how long before someone hacks/clones the RFID tags and builds a widget to log *everyone* into a classroom at once?
That's not the point - they can just as easily use their refund money to get a PC (to run Linux), or get a XBox or Wii, or just spend it on hookers and blow.
It's no different than if my dishwasher doesn't perform as advertised - I get my money back, and if I want to buy a lesser dishwasher, that's my own business.
Actually, nowhere on that page does it say any of what you claimed.
What it says is that if you install the software you can do things with it.
Nowhere does it guarantee the software to be installable.
Oooh... I like where this is going...
"If you drive our car, your anatomy will swell to untold sizes!"
Then sell cars that don't turn on.
Well if they have to have their full purchase price refunded they very well should have to send back in the PS3. I wonder how many people will sue then? Some, but not near as many. Some people are expecting to "get rich quick" (and that will probably be a $10 PSN voucher) and keep their PS3.
Keep in mind that "full purchase price" would be the *original* price paid, not the currently reduced selling price.
I suspect a lot of people would happily turn in their years-old PS3, get full money back, and buy a brand-new one at the cheaper rate.
You still use Facebook? Call me a troll, but think. Are you being intelligent if you still use Facebook after all this?
Sure - because I know what's being sent out. I consider Facebook to be the "white pages" of the Internet at this point. I'm there so that old friends and classmates can find me (and the information I've given facebook - school, work, some groups - is just enough so to distinguish me from others with similar names).
Informed decisions, and all that.
How long until identity thieves, 419 scammers & spammers create software that can trawl sites like facebook for useful info?
Seriously, what are they going to find that will be so useful? "Hello, sir -- I note that you went to the University of Nebraska and worked for a while at Cargill. Because of this, I am interested in repatriating my family's fortune to your bank account, for which you will get a fee." Get real...
The realistic threat of facebook vis a vis privacy is that of your youthful indiscretions being on wide display for coworkers and bosses to see.
I'd put the danger in two parts:
1. You can MadLibs the details in to make the scam more plausable - "Hey, do you remember me? We had classes together at $EDUCATION_PLACE."
2. It lets people "connect the dots". Sure, knowing I went to UNebraska isn't much - but what can you get *them* to tell you about me? Social engineering still works.
Time for me to log back into Facebook and remove a few more details, I guess...
I must have trimmed too far - let's try this again.
I say good job to the AZ legislature. It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal. This applies to everybody.
Still not seeing relevance here - I'm pretty sure here in Canada if I get arrested the lack of ID isn't a barrier - they'll run my prints, get someone else to ID me, or worst case just call me "John Doe".
The key point (even in the AZ) bill is that it doesn't allow cops to pull a "papers please" unless they have a suspicion of a crime. (And I'll bet money that the "cops suspect you're an illegal" isn't going to hold up long-term.)
I wonder what the world would be like if the Natives had immigration laws back in the day...
now everyone knows, I suspect that this will be asked for nationwide. Even where the logs aren't kept, defense attorneys will spin it into a chain-of-custody problem for the jurors that think every case should be CSI caliber.
Well, it does force them to address the question of why police departments would be deleting digital records in an age where data storage is stupidly cheap.
It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal.
And this would be relevant if the person had been charged with an actual crime. He wasn't - his arrest was for not IDing himself just because the "nice officer" asked.
Playing devil's advocate...
I pay for my bandwidth I'll choose what I serve, including page elements. If you block ads, then I will block content.
And that's entirely fair. I've seen quite a few sites that say variations of "you need JavaScript enabled to view this site". Sometimes I enable JavaScript, sometimes I don't. The site is entirely within it's rights to limit who gets in, same as I'm free to limit what I'll accept.
Well, the bans appear to have been reversed because of the uproar (I wonder if the fact that one of the banned was a paying member figured into that equation).
The part I found amusing is that the ban-happy admin then admits to using adblocking software himself...
You agree to not interfere with the display of these adverts through banner blocking software or browser features.
Strikes me as a bit unenforceable, particularly the "browser features" part - will they ban you for hitting the site with Lynx, for example?
Let's be realistic - once you send your webpage, you have zero control over what the user sees. Maybe they have a non-compliant browser. Maybe they just have images turned off in general. (In much the same way that a TV station can't stop me from messing with my TV controls to make the weather lady look like an Orion slave girl.)
Actually, it's not uncommon for talk shows (or other "live to tape" programs) to say "we'll be back in two minutes" or what-not. (Chuck Woolery is famous for "We'll be back in two and two", for instance.)
So, when you chase other men away from your wife and daughter, you're perpetuating censorship (denying access to content arbitrarily)?
It's a shame there isn't some sort of recognized internet protocol, where people could transfer text files that included links and images (we could call it "hypertext")..
why is the us military using unmanned drones above waziristan?
Cowardice on the part of the military leaders comes to mind. Don't have to worry about casualties if you can keep all the troops at home and blow stuff up video-game style...
Unmanned probes and great and all, but you're going to look pretty foolish when the manned astronaut gets there and kicks your rover over.
If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped.
This is one of the best opinions I've read all day.
I'm Canadian, and I'm glad our troops are getting out of these warzones. Why? Because no-one actually wants to win these wars. You want to conquer a country? Then frakkin' do it. But shooting the place up and then hanging around for years after wondering why they're shooting back instead of baking you cookies? It's stupid, and it shows a lack of disrespect for our soldiers by throwing their lives away on a war that we don't even want to win.
If they don't wish to be targets, they should be wearing a designated fluorescent press vest, specifically issued to journalists in Iraq to prevent exactly what happened here.
Obvious question - if wearing a fluorescent vest tells soldiers not to shoot at you, as a reasonably intelligent person, which is more likely?
1. The insurgents and civilians are too stupid or lazy to get their hands on these vests (or reasonably convincing copies) to protect themselves.
2. The vests don't work as advertised.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason for that, but I do think you'd have to be a complete idiot to drive into a battle with your kids, good samaritan or not. And no, the shooting hadn't been stopped for remotely long enough to think it was safe.
Considering the state that the Allies have left the country in, I suspect keeping your kids with you is inherently safer than leaving them unattended. Especially when you remember that there isn't a "do not shoot" area in the first place.
Does seem hard to be the "good guys" when you're shooting at them from so far away they can't hear the bullet coming...
I would be amazed if Amazon hasn't already passed the bill back to Sony - it's a pretty standard practice in retail to get refunds from vendors.
Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time?
That sort of thing is pretty limited in practice, though - otherwise I could sell you a box promising gold bricks and the "we reserve the right" text on the outside, and a note inside saying "we changed from gold to air - enjoy!" on the inside.
Which country do you live in?
And how strict are the immigration laws?
The sales guys don't even have to expend effort to redirect money in their direction: they get obscene commissions on the sales they make, sometimes on top of high salaries.
More accurately, it comes down to skill sets - sales people are good at convincing other people to do what they want. This is a good skill to have when negotiating salaries and benefits.
Engineers and scientists work in factual reality, which is a disadvantage in these situations. (Particularly if you're negotiating with sales-types.)
I have one question to pose to you, then:
Are you willing to look a person in the eye, and tell them that it's only right and proper that their loved one will die, because they aren't rich enough to save them?
Also, don't be looking for help from police, fire, or military when people come by to rob you or burn your house down - that's all paid by taxes as well.