Actually, as a resident of Pennsylvania, you are still required to comply with Ohio law if you are sending alcohol to an Ohio resident.
As long as I do not go into Ohio, I can thumb my nose at all of its laws.
If I violate Pennsylvania law at the same time that I violate Ohio law, I would have to face the justice of my state, but Ohio would have no claim or standing to prosecute me.
The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal.
You can't sue someone under the laws of one state for actions committed in another. It's common sense. I'm a resident of Pennsylvania. I can't be compelled to comply with laws that are enacted by Ohio or New York.
Time Magazine seems to have adjudged Steve Jobs' iTunes as the Invention of 2003.
Steve Jobs is an asshole. His products are constantly being praised by the societal elite, but you know what? No one else cares! Apple has held a consistantly small market share for 15 years. The Apple faithful will continue to be, the rest of the world will continue to not care.
Personally I think that iTMS is pretty cool, but so what? How is it the best technology of 2003?
My vote would be for cheap ($100) dual format +R/RW & -R/RW DVD writers.
I've got a 4x Lite On dual format burner, which I got for only $80. Dual format is the only way to go. But I know several people that got single format +R burners, which usually cost slightly less. I doubt either format will ever completely die, but I can definitely see -R single format burners and -R media getting a little harder to find a few years down the road.
I got the same burner on the weekend after Thanksgiving, my drive HATES -R media and loves +R/RW media. Unfortunately -R media is much cheaper where I live.
Actually, I was taught in the advanced political science courses (by a senator) to appeal to the lunatic fringe. The "average" person will neither donate nor go out of their way to vote you in.
It was a coalition of such groups that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. In 1994 a similar group of fringe interests elected a Republican majority to congress.
The political campaigns during election years suck up nearly all the bandwidth in terms of what the voters are allowed to hear. As a result, things that voters think are real issues get buried or not addressed at all.
I'm sorry if it doesn't hold your interest, but Social Security reform IS a real issue. Tax cuts are a real issue. Welfare reform is a real issue. Gun Control/Gun Rights are real issues.
One really debatable example: I think most slashdotters and other tech people would feel that the area of IP law needs some serious legislative attention. But since politicians follow money, and more money is coming from big business, this gets near zero air time in front of the voters.
While I agree that IP law needs a serious overhaul, there are issues of more immediate concern to 95% of the voting public. I vote two issues, anything else is just gravy. IP law is not one of those two issues.
Young people used to vote. Registering to vote used to be somewhat like getting a driver's license today. It wa taken as a sign that a young man (and later, a young woman) was maturing into a productive member of society. So it's not that young people don't care, but that they have been disenfranchised by the system.
It used to be a right of passage, for people of my parents age. I'm nearly 30 and consistantly I'm one of the youngest people that I see at the poll when I vote. I'm not exaggerating, many of the people working the polls are old enough to have changed my grandfather's diapers.
In the 70's young people were too busy with sex and drugs to pay much attention to voting, I'm afraid that they have not quite recovered since.
If a political issue is ever allowed to come up that young people are very interested in, things could get out of hand very quickly. (As the politicians learned in the 1960's).
This is a chicken-egg type argument. I think that they ignore the issues that are important to young people because young people don't vote. You think that young people don't vote because politicians ignore the issues that are important to them.
The baby boomers are the most numerous group in our(US) society. Whatever they want, they will get.
Things important to those demographics are ignored by the media and politicians, because the politicians/media can't control it.
Politicians only ignore background radioation, if an issue can't hurt or help, it will be ignored.
You had no real reason to post that argument except to imply that homosexual couplings would cost more to insurance companies or just be more "destabalizing." So far, you have yet to show any evidence to support either of those claims. Most of what you have said has been personal opinion so far.
Here's a quote CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.
I concede that this study only focuses on men from one geographic region.
In fact, in some areas it may be worse, this documentary shows this.
Some evidence does indicate the frequency of cellular-only is highest among 18-24 year olds, traditionally the hardest to survey anyway. If the problem grows worse, it's possible we could end up with a "Dewey Defeats Truman"-like situation where the telephone poll results were skewed because Truman supporters were less likely to own a telephone.
Um, no. 18-24 year olds are also less likely to vote than say 50-70 year olds who have regular land line telephones.
For political polls, this might result in more accurate polling.
While it's true that married couples get better rates and may even cause less loss, I'm not sure how this applies to your argument against homosexuality.
I'm not arguing against homosexuality. I'm pointing out why heterosexuals get certain benefits.
I mean, divorce rates have generally hung around the same amount (between 40 and 50 percent). Doesn't seem that stabalizing to me.
That's a misleading figure. 70-80% of first time marriages last. The people who are married multiple times are the ones who skew the statistics. Larry King and Richard Pryor have been been divorced enough times that it would take over 20 successful marriages to make for a 50% success rate.
Of course, what you really meant to say was that it was destabalizing for you since you don't like seeing men in love with other men, right?
I have no problem with people loving whomever they choose. I just have a problem with one small group pressuring the rest of society into altering one of its most fundamental institutions in the name of diversity.
Often, girls in this situation need love, appreciation, and support. To cut them off because they're diseased is just wrong on every human level I know of.
Except on the level of a parent who wants to protect his children from stupidity. Sure, girls who find themselves pregnant at 16 need love and support, but not at the expense of my child.
Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
I have no problem with that, as long as no one is forced to treat it the same as a marriage. People have the right to give next of kin status to whomever they choose. Same sex partners should have the right to inherit property or make medical decisions. This is not a problem, it's only fair; But it is not a marriage.
Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid.
Most of our laws have their roots in Judeo/Christian/Islamic morality. We can't steal, we can't murder, and we can't bear false witness without facing the criminal justice. In some places your can't screw your neighbor's wife without facing civil justice.
Have fun defining the world in your ever-so-righteous view of right and wrong, but please, do the rest of the world a favor, and don't talk to my kids.
God forbid someone tries to expose your future children to ethics and morality. Well, I'm sure there will be all kinds of unwed teenage mothers that you can get your kids to keep company with.
The longer I sit here and think and type and preview this comment, the more sure I am that I hope to never meet you in life, nor that you introduce yourself or your belief system to my kids.
There are millions of people just like me. Anyone of them will be just as good.
And Fuck You for comparing my unwed fiancee's "problem" of pregnancy to smoking crack.
Is your fiance' out of high school? Did she drop out of high school because of her pregnancy? Is her pregnancy going to ruin her life, in the way that becoming a crack addict would?
Quite bitching. You know what I was talking about.
If you had said that to my face, I'd have flattened you.
I don't doubt that you might have tried, but the question lies with whether or not you'd have been successful. I'm too old for fist fights.
In common parlance, not in legal usage. On numerous occasions the US Supreme Court has had to contemplate the "Original Intent" of many words and phrases as they make their decisions.
Marriage is now equated in many peoples mind with a "license" to fuck someone, and get various financial breaks from the government, banks, and insurance companies, etc.
You seem to not understand. Actuarial data shows that male-female married couples cause cause less loss for insurance companies, so guess what...They get better rates. Marriage (as it currently exists) is a stabilizing force in society, the government has to spend less money in housing and rehabilitating prisoners when society is stable. So why not give a break to the people who keep costs down? Married couples have children, they invest in the future of those children, they generate business for banks. Why not try to convince them to come to YOUR bank instead of the competition?
LK
Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?!
on
10 Ads The US Won't See
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool like they had some sort of communicable disease.
Stupidity can spread like a plague. Unwed highschool-age mothers are flagrantly displaying their stupidity. I wouldn't want a teenage crack addict spending time with my kids either.
And we still get our panties in a twist because the someone might want to marry someone who has the same genetals as them.
It's not possible. You can't marry someone of the same gender anymore than you can murder a dead man. The meaning of the word prevents it from happening.
The USA is incredably sexually screwed up.
Yes. Because somewhere along the line, people stopped saying "That is wrong", everything is acceptable and you're a bigot if you don't go along with it.
The gist of the question is still valid, however: what will it take to get BIOS manufacturers to make an OS neutral BIOS upgrade path?
No, it's not. It's a stupid question, based upon a stupid premise.
As someone who doesn't know anyone who runs Windows 98, nor do I own any copies of any Microsoft operating system, how does someone complete the delicate task of a BIOS upgrade?
You're either living in a spider hole like Saddam or you're lying.
You don't know anyone who runs Win 95, 98, ME, 2000, or XP who could whip up a boot disk for you? I don't believe you.
An email to Tyan's tech support has so far not yielded any response.
They're probably ignoring you, because they are just as sure as I am that you are trolling.
When will motherboard manufacturers realize that upgrading your BIOS is better off being a neutral OS event?
If the method that we now have works, why fux0r with it? If you can download a bios upgrade from the MB maker, you can download a dos boot disk image. You can download bochs and freedos and make your own boot disk.
I can't believe that Cliff let this question past and actually get posted. Please stop wasting our with with stupid questions.
Download a DOS boot disk image. Flash your bios. Shut the hell up and go away.
If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.
Not only are you missing the point, but I believe that you are trying even harder to understand less than that which is obvious.
This "if you don't like it, don't use it" attitude that you and those like you exhibit, encourages companies and gov't agencies to further intrude upon our privacy.
If there is no penalty, and only an incentive for them to snoop, they will.
If preference in gov't contracts is given to those who snoop over those who don't and there is no consumer backlash, guess what happens? Everyone will be falling all over each other to outsnoop the competition.
A few years back when Smith and Wesson made a deal with the Clinton administration to gain immunity from civil lawsuits and preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts by compromising the rights of gun buyers, do you know what happened?
EVERY concerned 2nd amendment group in the country turned on them. Boycotts are still in place against them because of what they did. That showed the rest of the gun makers that if you betray us, we'll remember.
You can bet dimes to dollars that Glock or Beretta doesn't sell out the way that S&W did.
Apply this to the right to privacy. If companies knew that it was PR suicide to snoop on their customers, no one would do it. If we would make the private sector penalties outweigh the public sector incentives, companies would put an end to this bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
I smoked out the pretenders. My work here is finished.
LK
Believe whatever you must to make it through a day, but there are many geeks here who have regular contact with hot women.
Actually, as a resident of Pennsylvania, you are still required to comply with Ohio law if you are sending alcohol to an Ohio resident.
As long as I do not go into Ohio, I can thumb my nose at all of its laws.
If I violate Pennsylvania law at the same time that I violate Ohio law, I would have to face the justice of my state, but Ohio would have no claim or standing to prosecute me.
My god, a grammer Nazi. How can you stand to read slashdot?
I can only guess that he must of found alot to be annoyed with.
A cybersquatter goes to prison for pr0n linking to mis-spelled children specific sites.
Let's also not forget this not so minor point...
Zuccarini also pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography.
LK
The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal.
You can't sue someone under the laws of one state for actions committed in another. It's common sense. I'm a resident of Pennsylvania. I can't be compelled to comply with laws that are enacted by Ohio or New York.
LK
A surgeon made her busty.
By what standards? This is slashdot, there are men here with bigger breasts than this chick.
The number of Apple stories on Slashdot suggests otherwise. Unless Slashdotters are the "societal elite", which I somehow doubt.
/. started banner ads?
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but did you notice that the number of Apple stories increased AFTER
Maybe, just maybe the two are related.
LK
I'll mention what I paid for 16Kx1 bit memory chips in the old days.
Speak on Sensei.
Time Magazine seems to have adjudged Steve Jobs' iTunes as the Invention of 2003.
Steve Jobs is an asshole. His products are constantly being praised by the societal elite, but you know what? No one else cares! Apple has held a consistantly small market share for 15 years. The Apple faithful will continue to be, the rest of the world will continue to not care.
Personally I think that iTMS is pretty cool, but so what? How is it the best technology of 2003?
My vote would be for cheap ($100) dual format +R/RW & -R/RW DVD writers.
LK
I remember when RAM was $200 for an 8MB SIMM (yes, SIMM, 60ns 72pin EDO).
STFU Newbie! I remember when the price was $349 for an 8MB FP SIMM.
LK
I've got a 4x Lite On dual format burner, which I got for only $80. Dual format is the only way to go. But I know several people that got single format +R burners, which usually cost slightly less. I doubt either format will ever completely die, but I can definitely see -R single format burners and -R media getting a little harder to find a few years down the road.
I got the same burner on the weekend after Thanksgiving, my drive HATES -R media and loves +R/RW media. Unfortunately -R media is much cheaper where I live.
LK
Actually, I was taught in the advanced political science courses (by a senator) to appeal to the lunatic fringe. The "average" person will neither donate nor go out of their way to vote you in.
It was a coalition of such groups that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. In 1994 a similar group of fringe interests elected a Republican majority to congress.
LK
The political campaigns during election years suck up nearly all the bandwidth in terms of what the voters are allowed to hear. As a result, things that voters think are real issues get buried or not addressed at all.
I'm sorry if it doesn't hold your interest, but Social Security reform IS a real issue. Tax cuts are a real issue. Welfare reform is a real issue. Gun Control/Gun Rights are real issues.
One really debatable example: I think most slashdotters and other tech people would feel that the area of IP law needs some serious legislative attention. But since politicians follow money, and more money is coming from big business, this gets near zero air time in front of the voters.
While I agree that IP law needs a serious overhaul, there are issues of more immediate concern to 95% of the voting public. I vote two issues, anything else is just gravy. IP law is not one of those two issues.
Young people used to vote. Registering to vote used to be somewhat like getting a driver's license today. It wa taken as a sign that a young man (and later, a young woman) was maturing into a productive member of society. So it's not that young people don't care, but that they have been disenfranchised by the system.
It used to be a right of passage, for people of my parents age. I'm nearly 30 and consistantly I'm one of the youngest people that I see at the poll when I vote. I'm not exaggerating, many of the people working the polls are old enough to have changed my grandfather's diapers.
In the 70's young people were too busy with sex and drugs to pay much attention to voting, I'm afraid that they have not quite recovered since.
LK
If a political issue is ever allowed to come up that young people are very interested in, things could get out of hand very quickly. (As the politicians learned in the 1960's).
This is a chicken-egg type argument. I think that they ignore the issues that are important to young people because young people don't vote. You think that young people don't vote because politicians ignore the issues that are important to them.
The baby boomers are the most numerous group in our(US) society. Whatever they want, they will get.
Things important to those demographics are ignored by the media and politicians, because the politicians/media can't control it.
Politicians only ignore background radioation, if an issue can't hurt or help, it will be ignored.
LK
You had no real reason to post that argument except to imply that homosexual couplings would cost more to insurance companies or just be more "destabalizing." So far, you have yet to show any evidence to support either of those claims. Most of what you have said has been personal opinion so far.
How about this?
Here's a quote CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.
I concede that this study only focuses on men from one geographic region.
In fact, in some areas it may be worse, this documentary shows this.
LK
Some evidence does indicate the frequency of cellular-only is highest among 18-24 year olds, traditionally the hardest to survey anyway. If the problem grows worse, it's possible we could end up with a "Dewey Defeats Truman"-like situation where the telephone poll results were skewed because Truman supporters were less likely to own a telephone.
Um, no. 18-24 year olds are also less likely to vote than say 50-70 year olds who have regular land line telephones.
For political polls, this might result in more accurate polling.
LK
People who are not british can be Knighted, but those who are not "Subjects of the Crown" don't get called "Sir".
If memory serves correctly, Ronald Reagan was knighted, but he isn't called Sir like Laurence Olivier and Isaac Newton.
LK
In a sense they already have/likely will. Both Glock and Beretta are European. A better example would be Browning, Colt, Ruger, and Winchester
As I understand it, Smith & Wesson ownership is now located in Europe as well.
While it's true that married couples get better rates and may even cause less loss, I'm not sure how this applies to your argument against homosexuality.
I'm not arguing against homosexuality. I'm pointing out why heterosexuals get certain benefits.
I mean, divorce rates have generally hung around the same amount (between 40 and 50 percent). Doesn't seem that stabalizing to me.
That's a misleading figure. 70-80% of first time marriages last. The people who are married multiple times are the ones who skew the statistics. Larry King and Richard Pryor have been been divorced enough times that it would take over 20 successful marriages to make for a 50% success rate.
Of course, what you really meant to say was that it was destabalizing for you since you don't like seeing men in love with other men, right?
I have no problem with people loving whomever they choose. I just have a problem with one small group pressuring the rest of society into altering one of its most fundamental institutions in the name of diversity.
LK
Often, girls in this situation need love, appreciation, and support. To cut them off because they're diseased is just wrong on every human level I know of.
Except on the level of a parent who wants to protect his children from stupidity. Sure, girls who find themselves pregnant at 16 need love and support, but not at the expense of my child.
Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
I have no problem with that, as long as no one is forced to treat it the same as a marriage. People have the right to give next of kin status to whomever they choose. Same sex partners should have the right to inherit property or make medical decisions. This is not a problem, it's only fair; But it is not a marriage.
Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid.
Most of our laws have their roots in Judeo/Christian/Islamic morality. We can't steal, we can't murder, and we can't bear false witness without facing the criminal justice. In some places your can't screw your neighbor's wife without facing civil justice.
Have fun defining the world in your ever-so-righteous view of right and wrong, but please, do the rest of the world a favor, and don't talk to my kids.
God forbid someone tries to expose your future children to ethics and morality. Well, I'm sure there will be all kinds of unwed teenage mothers that you can get your kids to keep company with.
The longer I sit here and think and type and preview this comment, the more sure I am that I hope to never meet you in life, nor that you introduce yourself or your belief system to my kids.
There are millions of people just like me. Anyone of them will be just as good.
And Fuck You for comparing my unwed fiancee's "problem" of pregnancy to smoking crack.
Is your fiance' out of high school? Did she drop out of high school because of her pregnancy? Is her pregnancy going to ruin her life, in the way that becoming a crack addict would?
Quite bitching. You know what I was talking about.
If you had said that to my face, I'd have flattened you.
I don't doubt that you might have tried, but the question lies with whether or not you'd have been successful. I'm too old for fist fights.
LK
The meaning of words change.
In common parlance, not in legal usage. On numerous occasions the US Supreme Court has had to contemplate the "Original Intent" of many words and phrases as they make their decisions.
Marriage is now equated in many peoples mind with a "license" to fuck someone, and get various financial breaks from the government, banks, and insurance companies, etc.
You seem to not understand. Actuarial data shows that male-female married couples cause cause less loss for insurance companies, so guess what...They get better rates. Marriage (as it currently exists) is a stabilizing force in society, the government has to spend less money in housing and rehabilitating prisoners when society is stable. So why not give a break to the people who keep costs down? Married couples have children, they invest in the future of those children, they generate business for banks. Why not try to convince them to come to YOUR bank instead of the competition?
LK
To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool like they had some sort of communicable disease.
Stupidity can spread like a plague. Unwed highschool-age mothers are flagrantly displaying their stupidity. I wouldn't want a teenage crack addict spending time with my kids either.
And we still get our panties in a twist because the someone might want to marry someone who has the same genetals as them.
It's not possible. You can't marry someone of the same gender anymore than you can murder a dead man. The meaning of the word prevents it from happening.
The USA is incredably sexually screwed up.
Yes. Because somewhere along the line, people stopped saying "That is wrong", everything is acceptable and you're a bigot if you don't go along with it.
LK
The gist of the question is still valid, however: what will it take to get BIOS manufacturers to make an OS neutral BIOS upgrade path?
No, it's not. It's a stupid question, based upon a stupid premise.
As someone who doesn't know anyone who runs Windows 98, nor do I own any copies of any Microsoft operating system, how does someone complete the delicate task of a BIOS upgrade?
You're either living in a spider hole like Saddam or you're lying.
You don't know anyone who runs Win 95, 98, ME, 2000, or XP who could whip up a boot disk for you? I don't believe you.
An email to Tyan's tech support has so far not yielded any response.
They're probably ignoring you, because they are just as sure as I am that you are trolling.
When will motherboard manufacturers realize that upgrading your BIOS is better off being a neutral OS event?
If the method that we now have works, why fux0r with it? If you can download a bios upgrade from the MB maker, you can download a dos boot disk image. You can download bochs and freedos and make your own boot disk.
I can't believe that Cliff let this question past and actually get posted. Please stop wasting our with with stupid questions.
Download a DOS boot disk image. Flash your bios. Shut the hell up and go away.
LK
If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.
Not only are you missing the point, but I believe that you are trying even harder to understand less than that which is obvious.
This "if you don't like it, don't use it" attitude that you and those like you exhibit, encourages companies and gov't agencies to further intrude upon our privacy.
If there is no penalty, and only an incentive for them to snoop, they will.
If preference in gov't contracts is given to those who snoop over those who don't and there is no consumer backlash, guess what happens? Everyone will be falling all over each other to outsnoop the competition.
A few years back when Smith and Wesson made a deal with the Clinton administration to gain immunity from civil lawsuits and preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts by compromising the rights of gun buyers, do you know what happened?
EVERY concerned 2nd amendment group in the country turned on them. Boycotts are still in place against them because of what they did. That showed the rest of the gun makers that if you betray us, we'll remember.
You can bet dimes to dollars that Glock or Beretta doesn't sell out the way that S&W did.
Apply this to the right to privacy. If companies knew that it was PR suicide to snoop on their customers, no one would do it. If we would make the private sector penalties outweigh the public sector incentives, companies would put an end to this bullshit.
LK