Yeah, I suspect if a large insurance company just delays policy pay outs for one or two days they'll make enough money to cover a huge malpractice suit.
Of course delayed pay outs may mean some people will die. But hey that often means you pay out less (the dead don't usually continue getting fancy expensive medical treatment ).
"if you strip all of the patent protection and licensing from a project that a $100+ chunk of electronics is only $12 worth of components, shipping and handling, and Chinese labor?"
It's best that patents and copyrights don't last for much more than a few years.
After all, progress, marketing, distribution is supposed to be faster now than say 50-100 years ago, so the protection terms should be getting shorter and shorter, instead of longer and longer (which appears to be happening).
I believe Nintendo has made enough money from the NES, and is on to this Wii thing (which I doubt this $12 thing will significantly threaten).
Schindler's latest series of long-term experiments shows that nitrogen removal completely fails to control blue-green algae blooms. He proved this by manipulating nitrogen and phosphorus levels on Lake 227 for 37 years. Nitrogen control, he found, only encouraged algae blooms.
"This is a common exaggeration. Once they've served their time they are once again allowed to vote. it's only while incarcerated or on parole that they are forbidden."
I was replying to someone who said: "Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time."
If the majority of people find the people _they_ the voters _elected intolerable, then they should _vote_ for someone else. Not start killing people.
If there is no candidate suitable, then the voters deserve what they get, since out of millions of voters none want to stand as candidates despite things being "oh so intolerable".
As I said, anyone "sparking a revolution" where there is a semblance of democracy is doing the wrong thing.
In countries which are Dictatorships there are a few options: 1) Keep having violent revolutions and hope you get a dictator that's benevolent. This could eventually happen. 2) Wait till the violent Dictator hands over the reigns to someone less willing to be violent (or has a looser grip on the reins) - this can happen, since the violent Dictator would usually get rid of people too much like him (they would pose a threat to him), so the people he voluntarily hands over to tend to be slightly milder. 3) Wait for an external country to defeat the Dictator, and hopefully install something better.
"In fact if you read Marx he's quite clearly talking about a collapse of capitalism, not a violent revolution at all."
You're the one who hasn't read Marx:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Go get someone to translate the German version if you don't think the English translation is correct about forcible/violent overthrow.
See also: If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
My emphasis: swept away the conditions... and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
Go ahead and believe Marx and Engels. I might not be that smart, but hindsight shows they got that rather wrong.
Sweep away the conditions and install a Dictatorship so far has proven the rule for any revolution that involves violence.
Possible reasons why it's not being done: 1) The actual system itself has "evolved/mutated" to the point where it's hard to do so. 2) Nobody is left that understands it or is willing to stand up and say "Hey I'll do it" (and take the fall if stuff goes wrong). 3) There is lack of will in management to tell the grunts to "Just do it!", because there is no reward for doing so. 4) The whole thing is probably all some political show/stunt anyway as part of the State budget approval process;).
I thought all these sites are mainly for people to:
1) Show off their plumages, tails and strut/dance/whatever so that they can attract potential mates. 2) pick lice off/play with their friends fur and so strengthen bonds.:)
In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.
Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).
Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No. If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".
Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." 57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" 58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
In verse 59 the Jews knew what he was claiming, and that's why they tried to stone him.
Jesus did not say "before Abraham was born, I was". He said "I am".
13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
It's definitely been there for years. I've been using Yahoo for ages and "Spam protection" is the "new" feature.
Turn off javascript, login to mail.yahoo.com and select the "old" UI. Then you can see what the old yahoo email interface looks like - no "Spam Protection" options, but filtering is there.
Email filtering is not just for spam so I guess they didn't think it should be moved to "Spam Protection".
Hotmail was the one with crap filtering - I haven't checked recently but in the past Hotmail didn't allow you filter based on To/CC.
Back then if someone/something sent email to me, but did not put my name (or even email address) in the To/CC, there was a higher chance it was spam (so only the whitelisted should do that).
Yahoo aren't that bad. They're not as hip as Google, but in general stuff does work, and keeps working. Definitely much better than Hotmail (hotmail can't even remember to renew their domain;) ).
If you loan your lawnmower to your neighbour you often can't get it back before your neighbour is done with it - especially if he's already in the middle of mowing his lawn.
And I believe it is usually considered unreasonable to "seize it" even though it is your property (unless in exceptional circumstances).
I am assuming the Director's intent was the FBI _temporarily_ have those computers.
If I were the Director I'd insist the FBI bought the computers for book value + margin (to cover replacement expenses, downtime, etc).
"You're the FBI and want the computers and don't have a warrant? Sure, they are yours for $$$$, otherwise bring a warrant".
Then the library would soon have new (and maybe even better) computers to use and the FBI can keep those old computers for as long as they want.
This would be harder if Yahoo gave each mail account a "trust" weighting, which is used to weight the account's "This is Spam" vote.
A new account's weight should start at zero or near zero. As time goes by and the numbers of email messages received go up and the decisions are counter checked (with those of existing trusted accounts), the trust weighting could go up (or back down).
If you sign up for lists and promptly mark them as spam, you get marked as zero trust (or even untrustworthy).
Sure someone could try to create thousands of mail accounts and sign them up on various lists and wait a year to gain a trust level before bombing a particular list.
Yahoo could flag those accounts after that though, so you'll have to start all over again.
Yahoo could also flag those accounts way before that if it thinks those accounts are bot controlled - and you won't KNOW till you try bombing the list and possibly failing.
After all there are ways Yahoo could use to detect that those accounts are bot controlled or not, even during the sign up process - after all Yahoo could actually choose to let some bots sign up ( if they try to send spam, Yahoo could flag them as spam senders right from the start and take special measures).
"Yahoo's is fucking useless. There is no way you can write your own rules -- why can't I block all email with certain words in the subject, or from a particular domain? "
I don't know why you can't do it.
Anyway I just checked and I still could Click on Options, Filters, Create (Add if you are using the javascript interface) and set: Subject contains "Mod Parent Troll" (match case not selected), Deliver/move message to Trash.
"I do have a smidgin of intelligence, why won't they let me use it directly? No "
I don't know why they won't let you use it directly.
I don't need to use that feature so often, so their "not direct" system works fine for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I suspect if a large insurance company just delays policy pay outs for one or two days they'll make enough money to cover a huge malpractice suit.
Of course delayed pay outs may mean some people will die. But hey that often means you pay out less (the dead don't usually continue getting fancy expensive medical treatment ).
"if you strip all of the patent protection and licensing from a project that a $100+ chunk of electronics is only $12 worth of components, shipping and handling, and Chinese labor?"
It's best that patents and copyrights don't last for much more than a few years.
After all, progress, marketing, distribution is supposed to be faster now than say 50-100 years ago, so the protection terms should be getting shorter and shorter, instead of longer and longer (which appears to be happening).
I believe Nintendo has made enough money from the NES, and is on to this Wii thing (which I doubt this $12 thing will significantly threaten).
Because he said he has to check their age first.
The recent conclusion of a 37 year experiment is it's phosphorus not nitrogen that's the problem:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=381d4ce5-89a2-4901-864e-34239419bf67
Schindler's latest series of long-term experiments shows that nitrogen removal completely fails to control blue-green algae blooms. He proved this by manipulating nitrogen and phosphorus levels on Lake 227 for 37 years. Nitrogen control, he found, only encouraged algae blooms.
"I can understand, but is there any other reason why just having been there is worth paying more for"
;).
How about because you didn't screw up big time in the first, second, third, etc years, and perhaps did good stuff instead?
You don't know that will happen for a new hire.
Too bad in most cases companies can't "try before they buy" CEOs.
Too often companies pay for their CEOs only to have them tried (in court) later
You should see a number of those women volleyball players. They are practically legs and just a bit of torso :).
;).
Makes me wonder where the lungs, stomach etc go.
Not complaining though
"Do you really have to check with yuor local ordinances before you fantasize about anything?"
I believe in lots of countries they're throwing the book (and more) at people with child porn.
So yes, it's best he get used to checking the legality of his fantasy.
"This is a common exaggeration. Once they've served their time they are once again allowed to vote. it's only while incarcerated or on parole that they are forbidden."
Really? My references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
Sure but please see context.
I was replying to someone who said: "Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time."
If the majority of people find the people _they_ the voters _elected intolerable, then they should _vote_ for someone else. Not start killing people.
If there is no candidate suitable, then the voters deserve what they get, since out of millions of voters none want to stand as candidates despite things being "oh so intolerable".
As I said, anyone "sparking a revolution" where there is a semblance of democracy is doing the wrong thing.
In countries which are Dictatorships there are a few options:
1) Keep having violent revolutions and hope you get a dictator that's benevolent. This could eventually happen.
2) Wait till the violent Dictator hands over the reigns to someone less willing to be violent (or has a looser grip on the reins) - this can happen, since the violent Dictator would usually get rid of people too much like him (they would pose a threat to him), so the people he voluntarily hands over to tend to be slightly milder.
3) Wait for an external country to defeat the Dictator, and hopefully install something better.
"In fact if you read Marx he's quite clearly talking about a collapse of capitalism, not a violent revolution at all."
You're the one who hasn't read Marx:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win.
English version:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61/61.txt
German version:
http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me04/me04_459.htm
Go get someone to translate the German version if you don't think the English translation is correct about forcible/violent overthrow.
See also:
If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
My emphasis: swept away the conditions... and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
Go ahead and believe Marx and Engels. I might not be that smart, but hindsight shows they got that rather wrong.
Sweep away the conditions and install a Dictatorship so far has proven the rule for any revolution that involves violence.
I doubt it's COBOL that stops them from doing it.
;).
Possible reasons why it's not being done:
1) The actual system itself has "evolved/mutated" to the point where it's hard to do so.
2) Nobody is left that understands it or is willing to stand up and say "Hey I'll do it" (and take the fall if stuff goes wrong).
3) There is lack of will in management to tell the grunts to "Just do it!", because there is no reward for doing so.
4) The whole thing is probably all some political show/stunt anyway as part of the State budget approval process
"Google has hired ten thousand people in the past year alone has really put a drain on the availability"
;).
Maybe Google should start having transfer fees for its employees
Not necessarily?
From what you've said so far, I suspect that deep down you actually believe.
Whether that belief is correct or not, that's not easy to prove I guess.
But if there really is such a deceiver, the implications are considerable.
I thought all these sites are mainly for people to:
:)
1) Show off their plumages, tails and strut/dance/whatever so that they can attract potential mates.
2) pick lice off/play with their friends fur and so strengthen bonds.
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.
Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).
Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".
Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.
So you believe there is a deceiver and devil?
He does make a fairly strong claim in John 8:56-59
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:56-59;&version=31;
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
In verse 59 the Jews knew what he was claiming, and that's why they tried to stone him.
Jesus did not say "before Abraham was born, I was". He said "I am".
For context see:
Exodus 3:13-14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-14;&version=31;
13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
It's definitely been there for years. I've been using Yahoo for ages and "Spam protection" is the "new" feature.
;) ).
Turn off javascript, login to mail.yahoo.com and select the "old" UI. Then you can see what the old yahoo email interface looks like - no "Spam Protection" options, but filtering is there.
Email filtering is not just for spam so I guess they didn't think it should be moved to "Spam Protection".
Hotmail was the one with crap filtering - I haven't checked recently but in the past Hotmail didn't allow you filter based on To/CC.
Back then if someone/something sent email to me, but did not put my name (or even email address) in the To/CC, there was a higher chance it was spam (so only the whitelisted should do that).
Yahoo aren't that bad. They're not as hip as Google, but in general stuff does work, and keeps working. Definitely much better than Hotmail (hotmail can't even remember to renew their domain
If you loan your lawnmower to your neighbour you often can't get it back before your neighbour is done with it - especially if he's already in the middle of mowing his lawn.
And I believe it is usually considered unreasonable to "seize it" even though it is your property (unless in exceptional circumstances).
I am assuming the Director's intent was the FBI _temporarily_ have those computers.
If I were the Director I'd insist the FBI bought the computers for book value + margin (to cover replacement expenses, downtime, etc).
"You're the FBI and want the computers and don't have a warrant? Sure, they are yours for $$$$, otherwise bring a warrant".
Then the library would soon have new (and maybe even better) computers to use and the FBI can keep those old computers for as long as they want.
I think with the normal usage of "seize" implies you don't ask permission. You take stuff either using your power (force) or authority.
If the Director gave permission without duress (which seems to be his version of events), it sure does not seem like "seize" to me.
The slashdot title is very misleading: "Seizes Library Computers" is very different from what the cops did.
This would be harder if Yahoo gave each mail account a "trust" weighting, which is used to weight the account's "This is Spam" vote.
A new account's weight should start at zero or near zero. As time goes by and the numbers of email messages received go up and the decisions are counter checked (with those of existing trusted accounts), the trust weighting could go up (or back down).
If you sign up for lists and promptly mark them as spam, you get marked as zero trust (or even untrustworthy).
Sure someone could try to create thousands of mail accounts and sign them up on various lists and wait a year to gain a trust level before bombing a particular list.
Yahoo could flag those accounts after that though, so you'll have to start all over again.
Yahoo could also flag those accounts way before that if it thinks those accounts are bot controlled - and you won't KNOW till you try bombing the list and possibly failing.
After all there are ways Yahoo could use to detect that those accounts are bot controlled or not, even during the sign up process - after all Yahoo could actually choose to let some bots sign up ( if they try to send spam, Yahoo could flag them as spam senders right from the start and take special measures).
"Yahoo's is fucking useless. There is no way you can write your own rules -- why can't I block all email with certain words in the subject, or from a particular domain? "
I don't know why you can't do it.
Anyway I just checked and I still could Click on Options, Filters, Create (Add if you are using the javascript interface) and set: Subject contains "Mod Parent Troll" (match case not selected), Deliver/move message to Trash.
"I do have a smidgin of intelligence, why won't they let me use it directly? No "
I don't know why they won't let you use it directly.
I don't need to use that feature so often, so their "not direct" system works fine for me.
No thanks, don't intend to live there unless maybe that global warming thing gets really serious ;).
I've never been to somewhere that cold but I believe with enough insulation (stuff like aerogel?) the windchill might not be as big a problem.
The problem I see is icy surfaces and bicycles aren't a good combination.
And cycling through snow is a lot harder than walking through snow.
By the time you've got gear and a bicycle that can handle all that safely, you might as well get a car.
Very very slightly, yes.
But still more in comparison to most other people.
Many of whom mistakenly think they _know_ reality.