I’m pretty sure the Humane Society is also against the outright killing of puppies, so your argument is completely ridiculous. And the tenth time the Humane Society receives a $1500 donation, they will have $15,000 worth of the Puppy Killing Party’s money that I have no doubt they will gladly put to better use than the Puppy Killing Party would have.
When someone pays you for work you do, you're working for them. If you don't want to work for them, you have no choice but to refuse their payment.
I’m personally all for accepting free blood money. You can probably put it to a more worthy use (or less destructive one, should we say) than they would if you refused it, after all.
Both “frequently” and “many” are relative terms. You can have something occur more or less frequently than expected, or more or fewer times than expected.
“More often than not” is unambiguous and definite.
It probably depends on whether you calculate it based on the number of bugs whose finder refused cash or the number of researchers who refused cash for the bug reports they had submitted. The article states that over 120 bugs have been found by about 80 researchers – some of the researchers submitted more than one bug.
I’d omitted/forgotten that a charity also needs to be a non-profit organisation (as maxume had already noted that Mozilla Foundation is a NPO) – perhaps I should have included it.
Reproduce the bug from home and send in the error report from there. You aren’t supposed to be using unapproved software anyway, and Firefox probably isn’t approved and installed on the computers by the IT department in most workplaces. Although, admittedly, the IT department might turn a blind eye toward people so long as they aren’t causing other problems.
It is creating something valuable (Firefox, etc.) and giving it away free of charge. Charities give away things free of charge. They’re not terribly different... the only differences are what they’re giving away and who they’re giving it to and under what conditions or circumstances.
Getting it pretty close would be enough that you could straighten it all out in the editing. Somebody else also posted some Flickr links showing people holding old photographs, which is another way to do the “viewfinding” without needing the foresight, ability, or trouble of printing them on transparencies. Just line up the shot, then pull the photo out of the view without moving the camera.
Searching someone before letting them board an airplane may be reasonable, but what degree of a search is reasonable? Is strip-searching them reasonable? That’s basically what this amounts to. But don’t worry... they’re very professional about it.
It works pretty simple. You pack a firearm in your hard-sided suitcase, you lock it with a secure lock, you take it to the baggage check counter, you declare the firearm, and they don’t open it. If they need to open it for any reason at all, they must either get your permission or (failing to contact you) refuse to load it onto a plane. Otherwise, they cannot open it (and it would, I think, be a pretty severe crime for them to do so).
Note that I have never tried it, but if I had to pack valuables in my luggage I’d certainly consider it.
* You must declare all firearms to the airline during the ticket counter check-in process. * The firearm must be unloaded. * The firearm must be in a hard-sided container. * The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one that completely secures the firearm from access by anyone other than you. Cases that can be pulled open with little effort do not meet this criterion. The pictures provided here illustrate the difference between a properly packaged and an improperly packaged firearm. * We recommend that you provide the key or combination to the security officer if he or she needs to open the container. You should remain in the area designated by the aircraft operator or TSA representative to take the key back after the container is cleared for transportation. If you are not present and the security officer must open the container, we or the airline will make a reasonable attempt to contact you. If we can't contact you, the container will not be placed on the plane. Federal regulations prohibit unlocked gun cases (or cases with broken locks) on aircraft. * You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. * You can't use firearm magazines/clips for packing ammunition unless they completely and securely enclose the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard). * You may carry the ammunition in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as you pack it as described above. * You can't bring black powder or percussion caps used with black-powder type firearms in either your carry-on or checked baggage.
It also recommends contacting the airline to make sure you’re aware of any additional restrictions they have, and if traveling internationally making sure that the local authorities are okay with it.
You don’t have a problem with a mosque being built on the site where Muslims destroyed what they perceived as the symbol of US economic and financial power... and naming it after Córdoba, the city which Muslims conquered in 711 and which became a provincial capital city and “a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre” of the Muslim world?
These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.
Relative to Bush, Obama can move star systems with his mind.
He waits for them to move on their own then takes the credit? Yeah, sounds about right... just like his horrible mangling of handing the BP oil spill, or the Somali pirate hostage situation.
I find it hard to describe how much it pisses me off to listen to someone proclaiming full responsibility for something they have absolutely no power to change, ordering the stars to move, and then claiming responsibility when they do.
Would a hand drawn image of a minor be considered pornographic?
Drawn of actual kids posing? Yes. Drawn from photos of actual kids? Yes. Completely fictional drawing? As you said... some places yes.
Photograph implies using the visible light spectrum and generating a reproduction of what is normally visible to the naked eye. Using ranges of the EM spectrum outside of normal vision will definitely generate an image, but I'm not sure you would consider something like an x-ray to be a photograph.
Photograph implies that the resulting image is visible to the human eye.
Infrared photography is a common term, infrared being normally invisible to the human eye. Astronomy photos are often taken at various x-ray or infra-red frequencies and pseudo-coloured composites are made.
Which is, admittedly, mildly annoying if not a huge issue... they couldn't have put this all in a foot south of where they did?
It’s entirely possible that they couldn’t. Somebody else might have owned that easement; there might have been stuff buried there already or buried deeper that they might need to dig up and would have had to dig through all the new stuff; there might have been separation issues – for instance, you can’t bury a sewer line above a water line or parallel within a certain distance of it, and specific rules apply to how they can cross. Etc. In any event I’m sure they had well-paid lawyers and engineers telling them that it’d be cheaper and simpler to just get easements along the edge of the property.
Slashdot Mirror
It’s more like if Catholics started demanding a “Defense of Fish Act”.
I’m pretty sure the Humane Society is also against the outright killing of puppies, so your argument is completely ridiculous. And the tenth time the Humane Society receives a $1500 donation, they will have $15,000 worth of the Puppy Killing Party’s money that I have no doubt they will gladly put to better use than the Puppy Killing Party would have.
When someone pays you for work you do, you're working for them. If you don't want to work for them, you have no choice but to refuse their payment.
Sometimes you have no choice but to accept the payment and continue to do the work.
This guy should get the same sentence that the guy he framed would have gotten.
Possession of child porn?
Pretty sure he will get that. In addition to distribution...
Accept the money and donate it to the Humane Society. Then call up the local news, they’d likely want to report on it.
I’m personally all for accepting free blood money. You can probably put it to a more worthy use (or less destructive one, should we say) than they would if you refused it, after all.
If you want to make a point about it, it’s more effective to accept the money then turn around and give it to a charity that the blood-money givers would disapprove of.
Both “frequently” and “many” are relative terms. You can have something occur more or less frequently than expected, or more or fewer times than expected.
“More often than not” is unambiguous and definite.
It probably depends on whether you calculate it based on the number of bugs whose finder refused cash or the number of researchers who refused cash for the bug reports they had submitted. The article states that over 120 bugs have been found by about 80 researchers – some of the researchers submitted more than one bug.
I’d omitted/forgotten that a charity also needs to be a non-profit organisation (as maxume had already noted that Mozilla Foundation is a NPO) – perhaps I should have included it.
Reproduce the bug from home and send in the error report from there. You aren’t supposed to be using unapproved software anyway, and Firefox probably isn’t approved and installed on the computers by the IT department in most workplaces. Although, admittedly, the IT department might turn a blind eye toward people so long as they aren’t causing other problems.
It is creating something valuable (Firefox, etc.) and giving it away free of charge. Charities give away things free of charge. They’re not terribly different... the only differences are what they’re giving away and who they’re giving it to and under what conditions or circumstances.
When lack of technical proficiency is obvious enough so as to be quite distracting from the art, pointing that out is a valid criticism.
Getting it pretty close would be enough that you could straighten it all out in the editing. Somebody else also posted some Flickr links showing people holding old photographs, which is another way to do the “viewfinding” without needing the foresight, ability, or trouble of printing them on transparencies. Just line up the shot, then pull the photo out of the view without moving the camera.
Are you kidding? This is the government we are talking about. They probably had to sleep through an eight-hour class on it.
Searching someone before letting them board an airplane may be reasonable, but what degree of a search is reasonable? Is strip-searching them reasonable? That’s basically what this amounts to. But don’t worry... they’re very professional about it.
It works pretty simple. You pack a firearm in your hard-sided suitcase, you lock it with a secure lock, you take it to the baggage check counter, you declare the firearm, and they don’t open it. If they need to open it for any reason at all, they must either get your permission or (failing to contact you) refuse to load it onto a plane. Otherwise, they cannot open it (and it would, I think, be a pretty severe crime for them to do so).
Note that I have never tried it, but if I had to pack valuables in my luggage I’d certainly consider it.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm
* You must declare all firearms to the airline during the ticket counter check-in process.
* The firearm must be unloaded.
* The firearm must be in a hard-sided container.
* The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one that completely secures the firearm from access by anyone other than you. Cases that can be pulled open with little effort do not meet this criterion. The pictures provided here illustrate the difference between a properly packaged and an improperly packaged firearm.
* We recommend that you provide the key or combination to the security officer if he or she needs to open the container. You should remain in the area designated by the aircraft operator or TSA representative to take the key back after the container is cleared for transportation. If you are not present and the security officer must open the container, we or the airline will make a reasonable attempt to contact you. If we can't contact you, the container will not be placed on the plane. Federal regulations prohibit unlocked gun cases (or cases with broken locks) on aircraft.
* You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
* You can't use firearm magazines/clips for packing ammunition unless they completely and securely enclose the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard).
* You may carry the ammunition in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as you pack it as described above.
* You can't bring black powder or percussion caps used with black-powder type firearms in either your carry-on or checked baggage.
It also recommends contacting the airline to make sure you’re aware of any additional restrictions they have, and if traveling internationally making sure that the local authorities are okay with it.
You don’t have a problem with a mosque being built on the site where Muslims destroyed what they perceived as the symbol of US economic and financial power... and naming it after Córdoba, the city which Muslims conquered in 711 and which became a provincial capital city and “a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre” of the Muslim world?
And here’s a pretty fair image of the seal: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/evidenceresponseteamvehicle.jpg, which is offered under the following terms:
These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.
The Federal government doesn’t have to balance its budget. State and local governments do.
Before 9/11 happened, they wouldn’t have needed bullets in the guns to pull off a 9/11.
Relative to Bush, Obama can move star systems with his mind.
He waits for them to move on their own then takes the credit? Yeah, sounds about right... just like his horrible mangling of handing the BP oil spill, or the Somali pirate hostage situation.
I find it hard to describe how much it pisses me off to listen to someone proclaiming full responsibility for something they have absolutely no power to change, ordering the stars to move, and then claiming responsibility when they do.
They pull you aside, make you stand inside a glass hallway, spread your feet apart and place your hands on your head.
Would a hand drawn image of a minor be considered pornographic?
Drawn of actual kids posing? Yes. Drawn from photos of actual kids? Yes. Completely fictional drawing? As you said... some places yes.
Photograph implies using the visible light spectrum and generating a reproduction of what is normally visible to the naked eye. Using ranges of the EM spectrum outside of normal vision will definitely generate an image, but I'm not sure you would consider something like an x-ray to be a photograph.
Photograph implies that the resulting image is visible to the human eye.
Infrared photography is a common term, infrared being normally invisible to the human eye. Astronomy photos are often taken at various x-ray or infra-red frequencies and pseudo-coloured composites are made.
Which is, admittedly, mildly annoying if not a huge issue... they couldn't have put this all in a foot south of where they did?
It’s entirely possible that they couldn’t. Somebody else might have owned that easement; there might have been stuff buried there already or buried deeper that they might need to dig up and would have had to dig through all the new stuff; there might have been separation issues – for instance, you can’t bury a sewer line above a water line or parallel within a certain distance of it, and specific rules apply to how they can cross. Etc. In any event I’m sure they had well-paid lawyers and engineers telling them that it’d be cheaper and simpler to just get easements along the edge of the property.
My current plan is to smile and say (loudly enough for everyone to hear), “No thanks, I’ll take a handjob instead.”
Yes, I know. I was mocking the people who fanatically believe those things.