And yet we've gone from it being publicly acceptable to put blacks in the back of a bus and make them drink from a different water fountain, to an African American president.
They essentially made overt racism illegal, at least in public.
Possibly, but realistically, I don't think so. They obviously did some hand wringing and went through some iterations in an attempt to either clarify the search, or force someone to specifically look for that image rather than stumble on it.
Given the sensitivity of the subject, I think they did a good job.
I seriously doubt this will ruin their credibility, or even dent it.
And yet not one of these Links is based in fact. They are all best guesses.
Just because something sounds good doesn't make it fact.
The FACT is that Sony doesn't release their Production costs and never has. They could be getting substantial savings in bulk (or not). Quoting someones best guess isn't good enough and shouldn't be presented as fact.
Sony is not an American company, but I'm sure they were more than happy offer up a boot loader considering how big a customer the the US government could become if they were given a little courtesy. I doubt the would have to resort to threats.
As to the budget, it is not meaningless. They can be shut down without a proper budget, unless you missed the California meltdown, and all of the drama when it came to funding our troops. Budget and government are always very real hurdles.
I think it's more likely that someone at Sony saw the potential for a very large customer and supplied it without the need for any threats.
I beg to differ. If the hooks are OS specific, then chance are, that they will not work on any other OS but the one they are targeted for.
Change the OS, and your applications break. This proprietary path is most definitely NOT standards compliant. If your browser is using non-standard HTML tabs, methods, or properties, then it is not standards compliant. IE6 may have displayed the standard HTML without issue (debatable), but it also had non-standard MS specific implementations that are specific only to IE.
Compliance cuts both ways, both in what you do within and outside of the standards.
Your own quotes answer the question. He was publicizing an event in the first tweets. He warned everyone to leave once the police told him they would start arresting people.
The article says specifically what they are referring to. From TFA:
"The San Diego-based team discovered that normal bacteria that live on the skin trigger a pathway that helps prevent inflammation when we get hurt.
These bugs dampen down overactive immune responses which can cause cuts and grazes to swell, or lead to rashes, according to research published in the online edition of Nature Medicine."
It is also a well known mechanism that is the primary method in vaccines, where the immune system is primed for something before hand so that it can recognize it later as a thread and respond accordingly. If someone is exposed to a lot of these viruses and bacteria at a young age, it follows that they might have a stronger or more rapid immune response later on.
Yes, after months or years of testing. Had IE been standards compliant in the first place, without all of the OS specific hooks, many companies wouldn't be in this boat.
It is not an insignificant effort to get off of IE 6, especially without many thousands of users, and hundreds or thousands of apps that will break, or require testing under Windows 7's Virtual PC software.
This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?). That said, I think the cops were in the wrong with the arrest. If he was actively tweeting, to incite the crowd into malicious behavior, they would have something, but unless they could prove that someone in the crowd was in imminent harm, they have no case. They can't compel you to say something. That goes against the very basic principals of the 1st amendment. If anything, the mall was responsible for proper security, as would the local city, assuming they require permits for this very reason. Failure to plan by the Mall and the police does not make this man a criminal.
Here are the exceptions to free speech:
Special exceptions
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)
Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.
Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.
Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).
Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.
The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.
No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.
That's the clincher. I can only imagine how many corporations are in the same boat as mine. Tons of IE6 specific apps and XP due to the Vista fiasco. I'm still waiting for an IE upgrade, years after 7 and 8 have been released. It's about as insecure as you can get, yet they still use it.
This alone should teach the dangers of relying on a single vendor too much. What's odd is they are actually very good about this on any other platforms, but they wear blinders when it comes to Microsoft products.
"According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim's computer."
Does this mean it's on a level playing field with old versions of IE? It does not always work properly, and can install unauthroized software on a victim's computer?
Not so. Ballmer still refers to Apple as a rounding error. They already have significants digit(s) to the left of the decimal. MS has blinders on lately, and the dogs are past nipping on their heels. They are biting their ankles. Get enough dogs, and they can bring down any big animal.
Mod this man up. It's a ridiculous statement to say that we know nothing about our planets climate beyond 150 years. The data is literally lying around.
California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.
Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.
Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.
Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.
They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.
I have to ask this, and it's not intended as flamebait, but isn't China one of the biggest violators of software copyright in the world? By this, I don't mean any specific person or group, but rather the region as a whole? I would think their own government would need to step up and show they are truly interested in stopping copyright infringement, even when it is being violated on non-Chinese products for instance, before the rest of the world can take them seriously.
I think that's what a lot of folks are trying to imply in this thread. It's kind of like the whole "Do as I say, but don't do as I do" viewpoint.
Time Capsule works well. Wireless storage. Just keep security in mind. It supports WPA-2, and password protected access in addition to the usual MAC filtering and such. From there you just need software to sync to the central point. It's local to the wireless point however, unless you also set up WAN access.
TFA title is a bit over reaching. To make matters worse, the guy handed the app over to someone else to continue development in the App store.
The second link lists 3 that are leaving. This doesn't strike me as the same as rats leaving a sinking ship.
There are thousands of developers lined up behind them.
Yes the approval process sucks, and yes it needs improvement. To be fair, they are making it more transparent. They are also still swamped with submissions meaning there are still way to many developers submitting apps. The 'not so great' developers that we end up with tomorrow will hopefully be great developers in a couple of years.
IMO, the app store is too much like Steam. It's too easy and convenient, all around, to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this on Google after searching in vain for the Obama pic. This one spreads it around and pokes at everyone equally. I may not sleep for weeks:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/monkey-palin-obama-clinton-putin-biden.png
And yet we've gone from it being publicly acceptable to put blacks in the back of a bus and make them drink from a different water fountain, to an African American president.
They essentially made overt racism illegal, at least in public.
Possibly, but realistically, I don't think so. They obviously did some hand wringing and went through some iterations in an attempt to either clarify the search, or force someone to specifically look for that image rather than stumble on it.
Given the sensitivity of the subject, I think they did a good job.
I seriously doubt this will ruin their credibility, or even dent it.
And yet not one of these Links is based in fact. They are all best guesses.
Just because something sounds good doesn't make it fact.
The FACT is that Sony doesn't release their Production costs and never has. They could be getting substantial savings in bulk (or not). Quoting someones best guess isn't good enough and shouldn't be presented as fact.
[Citation Needed] "Except that Sony is not selling them below production costs. It costs them about $250 apiece to produce."
Sony is not an American company, but I'm sure they were more than happy offer up a boot loader considering how big a customer the the US government could become if they were given a little courtesy. I doubt the would have to resort to threats.
As to the budget, it is not meaningless. They can be shut down without a proper budget, unless you missed the California meltdown, and all of the drama when it came to funding our troops. Budget and government are always very real hurdles.
I think it's more likely that someone at Sony saw the potential for a very large customer and supplied it without the need for any threats.
I beg to differ. If the hooks are OS specific, then chance are, that they will not work on any other OS but the one they are targeted for.
Change the OS, and your applications break. This proprietary path is most definitely NOT standards compliant. If your browser is using non-standard HTML tabs, methods, or properties, then it is not standards compliant. IE6 may have displayed the standard HTML without issue (debatable), but it also had non-standard MS specific implementations that are specific only to IE.
Compliance cuts both ways, both in what you do within and outside of the standards.
He ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election.
Political party:
Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)
He remains a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Seconded. He was a Republican long before proclaiming himself Libertarian. Republican and all that is implied by that...
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Your own quotes answer the question. He was publicizing an event in the first tweets. He warned everyone to leave once the police told him they would start arresting people.
How do you equate that with inciting a riot?
Yes and no. They can still put something into law with 2/3rds majority vote.
He didn't tell them anything of that sort. He just publicized via Tweet that they would be at the mall. There was no evidence of inciting a riot.
The article says specifically what they are referring to. From TFA:
"The San Diego-based team discovered that normal bacteria that live on the skin trigger a pathway that helps prevent inflammation when we get hurt.
These bugs dampen down overactive immune responses which can cause cuts and grazes to swell, or lead to rashes, according to research published in the online edition of Nature Medicine."
It is also a well known mechanism that is the primary method in vaccines, where the immune system is primed for something before hand so that it can recognize it later as a thread and respond accordingly. If someone is exposed to a lot of these viruses and bacteria at a young age, it follows that they might have a stronger or more rapid immune response later on.
Yes, after months or years of testing. Had IE been standards compliant in the first place, without all of the OS specific hooks, many companies wouldn't be in this boat.
It is not an insignificant effort to get off of IE 6, especially without many thousands of users, and hundreds or thousands of apps that will break, or require testing under Windows 7's Virtual PC software.
This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?). That said, I think the cops were in the wrong with the arrest. If he was actively tweeting, to incite the crowd into malicious behavior, they would have something, but unless they could prove that someone in the crowd was in imminent harm, they have no case. They can't compel you to say something. That goes against the very basic principals of the 1st amendment. If anything, the mall was responsible for proper security, as would the local city, assuming they require permits for this very reason. Failure to plan by the Mall and the police does not make this man a criminal.
Here are the exceptions to free speech:
Special exceptions
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)
Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.
Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.
Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).
Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.
The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.
No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.
That's the clincher. I can only imagine how many corporations are in the same boat as mine. Tons of IE6 specific apps and XP due to the Vista fiasco. I'm still waiting for an IE upgrade, years after 7 and 8 have been released. It's about as insecure as you can get, yet they still use it.
This alone should teach the dangers of relying on a single vendor too much. What's odd is they are actually very good about this on any other platforms, but they wear blinders when it comes to Microsoft products.
"According to security vendor Symantec, the code does not always work properly, but it could be used to install unauthorized software on a victim's computer."
Does this mean it's on a level playing field with old versions of IE? It does not always work properly, and can install unauthroized software on a victim's computer?
Not so. Ballmer still refers to Apple as a rounding error. They already have significants digit(s) to the left of the decimal. MS has blinders on lately, and the dogs are past nipping on their heels. They are biting their ankles. Get enough dogs, and they can bring down any big animal.
Not a good year for Microsoft.
Mod this man up. It's a ridiculous statement to say that we know nothing about our planets climate beyond 150 years. The data is literally lying around.
California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.
Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.
Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.
Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.
They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.
I have to ask this, and it's not intended as flamebait, but isn't China one of the biggest violators of software copyright in the world? By this, I don't mean any specific person or group, but rather the region as a whole? I would think their own government would need to step up and show they are truly interested in stopping copyright infringement, even when it is being violated on non-Chinese products for instance, before the rest of the world can take them seriously.
I think that's what a lot of folks are trying to imply in this thread. It's kind of like the whole "Do as I say, but don't do as I do" viewpoint.
Lunkwill: Rubbish, we don't want to be happy, we want to be famous!
Fook: Yeah! What is all this "is she the one" tripe?
Lunkwill: Take his brain!
Time Capsule works well. Wireless storage. Just keep security in mind. It supports WPA-2, and password protected access in addition to the usual MAC filtering and such. From there you just need software to sync to the central point. It's local to the wireless point however, unless you also set up WAN access.
lol..Where was my mind at? ^_^
TFA title is a bit over reaching. To make matters worse, the guy handed the app over to someone else to continue development in the App store.
The second link lists 3 that are leaving. This doesn't strike me as the same as rats leaving a sinking ship.
There are thousands of developers lined up behind them.
Yes the approval process sucks, and yes it needs improvement. To be fair, they are making it more transparent. They are also still swamped with submissions meaning there are still way to many developers submitting apps. The 'not so great' developers that we end up with tomorrow will hopefully be great developers in a couple of years.
IMO, the app store is too much like Steam. It's too easy and convenient, all around, to fail.