BUT, if the ruling prevents TESTING (not the government providing test kits), it is a fscked up ruling and someone is a total numbskull for making such a ruling.
It's sort of inbetween; the exporter wants to buy their own BSE test kits, but the USDA regulates who they can be sold to, and won't grant the exporter permission to get them. I think the USDA is right in this situation, they're tasked with monitoring BSE, and the test the exporter wants to use is pretty much useless:
There are several types of BSE tests available; the most
common--and the one at issue here--is the immunoassay, or
"rapid," BSE test.3 See CX-3, at 89-91. The rapid BSE test,
7
is then treated with an antibody that binds to any abnormal
prion. Id. By measuring the amount of any antibody that binds,
the presence of BSE can be determined in a matter of hours. See
id. at 90.
however, has limitations. It can detect abnormal prions only if
they exist in a relatively high concentration, id. at 91, and
abnormal prions typically reach detectable concentrations only
two to three months before an animal exhibits observable
symptoms. See Declaration of Byron Rippke 9 (Sept. 12,
2006). The incubation period for BSE (i.e., from infection to
observable symptoms) is two to eight years--the average being
five years--and cattle younger than thirty months are rarely
symptomatic. Ferguson Decl. 5. Because most cattle for
slaughter in the United States go to market before they are
twenty-four months old, it is unlikely that the rapid BSE test will
detect the disease. Id. In light of the rapid BSE test's limited
efficacy, USDA believes that the routine use of the test on
"clinically normal young cattle is not practical[], offers no food
safety value," is "likely [to] produce false negative results" and
is "meaningful and reliable . . . when used for surveillance
purposes on . . . animals exhibiting some type of clinical
abnormality that could be consistent with BSE" (e.g., cattle that
cannot stand or walk, show signs of neurological disorders or
die from an unknown cause). Ferguson Decl. 6.
In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.
On a more serious note, there's the same rule in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions.
...for Slashdot to hammer the crap out of some corporate bullies, it sounds like this might be it. Could someone appropriately knowledgeable perhaps post a detailed account of how incredibly hackable RFID security is? A couple of URL's leading to websites with all the red meat would also be appropriate. PGP proves that once the genii is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in all that easily.
Well the waterchip purification chip part maybe, but that's only a small fraction of the total game. I've been playing the game on and off all day and while I still think it's a good game, some parts are really starting to annoy me. Like the fact that the important NPCs are so static; if I just discover something important, the head of the Brotherhood or the Vault Controller should be able to discuss the matter with me.
I am familiar with the fact that Fallout is the spiritual successor to Wasteland, but my main complaint is that the story is too similar, not the setting. I made no complaint about the setting.
The thing about the Patriot Act is (theoretically at least), the US government needed it to give them permission to do certain things. In a lot (most?) of countries such an act would be unnecessary because the government already feels free to do whatever it wants. Does anyone actually think China, or Russia, or the UK won't be doing the same thing, just not as openly? I mean, you could maybe make an argument that some of the more enlightened Scandinavian countries may be trusted to put human rights above paranoia, but it's a very small group.
Some of it's probably nostalgia, sure. Keep in mind that there was nothing like Fallout before, nothing with the same level of panache and style in everything it did. The neo-50's art theme, the very stylized over-the-top violence, all of that created a game that remains indelible upon those who played it when they were young.
Hmmm, maybe, but I'm not sure. Fallout was kind of after my time, mind you, I grew up playing CRPGs in the late 80's early 90's, and I can still load up Wasteland and have fun with it. As a 1999 game, Fallout seems kind of a recent game to me. But maybe that's the problem, when you grew up on the classics your standards are pretty high...Though like I mentioned before I recently played, and loved, Planescape:Torment. Now with Fallout I like the graphics and mechanics, my problem seems to be primarily with the story, and quest and dialogue scripting, which are inconsistent and buggy. And the story is totally taken from Wasteland...
Well that could definitely be it. It's common enough to impact my enjoyment of the game, unfortunately. And unless I'm just missing a lot there just doesn't seem to be that much to the game.
I've been playing Fallout 1 for the first time as well, and while I like it I have some complaints too. The thing that frustrates me is the character conversation trees didn't make too much sense; I kept getting dialogue options to ask about things I've never heard of. The combat is definitely hard in the beginning until you get decent equipment, and most of the hard fights involve several saves/restores. I won't spoil anything, but I will say the exploration gets a lot better not too far into the game.
Last RPG I played was Planescape so maybe I was just spoiled by that.
There also doesn't seem that much to the game questwise; I think I'm almost done and I haven't really been playing that long.
I'll be voting "none of the above" (Libertarian, Green, or Constitution) this election, as I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who is beholden to nobody but the corporations again.
I've seen this expressed on slashdot many times and I still don't quite understand it. I can understand voting Libertarian. I can understand voting Green. I can't understand people who would vote for both. I mean, they represent opposite sides of so many of their core issues.
Until you start to consider small business owners, to many of which $250k a year isn't even breaking even. So now you are going to tax them even more heavily and either (a) drive them to tax loopholes that Obama denounced during his acceptance speech or (b) drive them out of business.
Only you're conflating revenue and income. Income is what those small business owners pay themselves after expenses.
In fact, small business owners have an advantage over the rest of us because they can avoid a higher tax bracket by simply pouring more money into their business rather than directly to their salary.
That's right, since 1929, the second worst democratic record of job creation beats the best republican record. Now, some of that is luck, but the evidence is astoundingly strong that having a democratic president is simply much better for the economy than having a republican president.
Well, having a democratic president is better for people who need jobs, not for the "economy" as a whole. Now you probably think the more jobs the better, I think the more jobs the better, but many of the wealthy measure economic success in how they themselves are doing, not everyone else. Nothing's more fun than listening to an ivory tower, pro-capitalist economics professor complaining about unemployment being too low, though unfortunately we haven't had that in a while.
What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard.
Because there are a lot of socialist geeks? Just because the libertarian contingent is loud on places like slashdot doesn't mean it represents everyone, or even the majority.
It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.
I want a government that will do its job. If it can do that while small, then great. If it needs to be big, then that's fine.
I mean lets look at McCain vs Obama on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year and increase taxes for those earning more than $250k a year and he says he will increase federal spending.
Sounds good to me! If you're making more than $250k a year then you can afford to shoulder a little more of the tax burden.
In the case of announcements of moving voting day for certain groups of people, only peoples stupidity prevented them from casting legitimate votes....nothing else.
Wow, way to completely exonerate the malicious, anti-democratic thugs who actually went out with the purpose to subvert an election. You have quite a moral compass there, I'm sure your mother is proud of you.
Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.
That is one of the silliest things I've ever read on Slashdot, and believe me that takes some doing. Kudos to you.
Let's try to apply some rationality here. First of all, let's look at your premise. How on earth would increased military spending have helped against Al Qaeda? What, if we had just developed a sufficiently powerful new fighter jet there wouldn't have been any 9/11?
Secondly, the intelligence apparatus in place pre-9/11 was sufficiently funded to fight Al Qaeda. The intelligence about 9/11 existed, but it was ignored--this is not a funding issue, but a personnel issue. When you put inexperienced, anti-government zealots in positions of power purely based on their personal loyalty to the head of government, you get people who can't do their job.
Thirdly, your factual assertion is ludicrous. Clinton paid a lot more attention to Al Qaeda than Bush did pre-9/11. Clinton's people warned the incoming Bush officials about Al Qaeda, and they were laughed at and ignored.
I thought that was the joke, that it's done all the time by people trying to prevent people who demographically tend to be democrats from voting. Unfortunately the Deceptive Practice and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act hasn't been passed yet.
If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.
It's hardcoded in; people naturally align into groups, and the larger the scale the fewer the groups. For those countries with more than two effective political parties, in the end it typically comes down to two groups of coalitions.
Anyway in this country we elect a person, not a party. Both parties are broad enough (though the Republicans have narrowed their view of what it means to be a Republican dramatically since the early 90s) to be able to produce candidates who will support any legitimate side of an issue. No, they won't produce candidates who believe in abolishing the income tax system, but that's a strength, not a weakness.
Just leave it as it is. Yes everyone likes to put their professional demeanor on and make proper recommendations and use words like BTU and SEER, but everyone here has seen a bunch of servers jammed into a poorly ventilated closet work just fine. Computers have pretty high tolerances for heat, and usually the worst that happens is the computer will shut down if it gets really bad. I remember one place I worked had modems that got so hot you couldn't touch them; every once in a while they'd stop working because of it but you'd just sort of jostle them around and they'd cool off just fine and start working again.
I completely agree. Think for a moment if employers were not required to take taxes (federal, state, SS, etc...) out of your pay and instead you had to write a check each month to the government. There would be riots in the streets about how much money is taken, spent, and what it's spent on.
No, people would simply ask their employers to voluntarily withhold your taxes from your paycheck. People already see exactly how much money is being taken out already, and they're not rioting in the streets.
Looking at how many comments you've posted under this story it's apparent you're an Apple zealot, and thus immune to reason, so I'll keep this short.
You can't put whatever you want in a license and have it enforceable. Look up the first sale doctrine. More importantly for the purposes here, the law specifically states that a copyright holder's rights under copyright law do not immunize them from being subject to the various anti-monopoly laws.
Slashdot Mirror
It's sort of inbetween; the exporter wants to buy their own BSE test kits, but the USDA regulates who they can be sold to, and won't grant the exporter permission to get them. I think the USDA is right in this situation, they're tasked with monitoring BSE, and the test the exporter wants to use is pretty much useless:
According to the Law Society of Upper Canada:
There's an upper Canada?!?
In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.
On a more serious note, there's the same rule in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions.
...for Slashdot to hammer the crap out of some corporate bullies, it sounds like this might be it. Could someone appropriately knowledgeable perhaps post a detailed account of how incredibly hackable RFID security is? A couple of URL's leading to websites with all the red meat would also be appropriate. PGP proves that once the genii is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in all that easily.
You don't think Slashdot would knuckle under too?
Well the waterchip purification chip part maybe, but that's only a small fraction of the total game. I've been playing the game on and off all day and while I still think it's a good game, some parts are really starting to annoy me. Like the fact that the important NPCs are so static; if I just discover something important, the head of the Brotherhood or the Vault Controller should be able to discuss the matter with me.
I am familiar with the fact that Fallout is the spiritual successor to Wasteland, but my main complaint is that the story is too similar, not the setting. I made no complaint about the setting.
The thing about the Patriot Act is (theoretically at least), the US government needed it to give them permission to do certain things. In a lot (most?) of countries such an act would be unnecessary because the government already feels free to do whatever it wants. Does anyone actually think China, or Russia, or the UK won't be doing the same thing, just not as openly? I mean, you could maybe make an argument that some of the more enlightened Scandinavian countries may be trusted to put human rights above paranoia, but it's a very small group.
Some of it's probably nostalgia, sure. Keep in mind that there was nothing like Fallout before, nothing with the same level of panache and style in everything it did. The neo-50's art theme, the very stylized over-the-top violence, all of that created a game that remains indelible upon those who played it when they were young.
Hmmm, maybe, but I'm not sure. Fallout was kind of after my time, mind you, I grew up playing CRPGs in the late 80's early 90's, and I can still load up Wasteland and have fun with it. As a 1999 game, Fallout seems kind of a recent game to me. But maybe that's the problem, when you grew up on the classics your standards are pretty high...Though like I mentioned before I recently played, and loved, Planescape:Torment. Now with Fallout I like the graphics and mechanics, my problem seems to be primarily with the story, and quest and dialogue scripting, which are inconsistent and buggy. And the story is totally taken from Wasteland...
Well that could definitely be it. It's common enough to impact my enjoyment of the game, unfortunately. And unless I'm just missing a lot there just doesn't seem to be that much to the game.
I've been playing Fallout 1 for the first time as well, and while I like it I have some complaints too. The thing that frustrates me is the character conversation trees didn't make too much sense; I kept getting dialogue options to ask about things I've never heard of. The combat is definitely hard in the beginning until you get decent equipment, and most of the hard fights involve several saves/restores. I won't spoil anything, but I will say the exploration gets a lot better not too far into the game.
Last RPG I played was Planescape so maybe I was just spoiled by that.
There also doesn't seem that much to the game questwise; I think I'm almost done and I haven't really been playing that long.
I'll be voting "none of the above" (Libertarian, Green, or Constitution) this election, as I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who is beholden to nobody but the corporations again.
I've seen this expressed on slashdot many times and I still don't quite understand it. I can understand voting Libertarian. I can understand voting Green. I can't understand people who would vote for both. I mean, they represent opposite sides of so many of their core issues.
Until you start to consider small business owners, to many of which $250k a year isn't even breaking even. So now you are going to tax them even more heavily and either (a) drive them to tax loopholes that Obama denounced during his acceptance speech or (b) drive them out of business.
Only you're conflating revenue and income. Income is what those small business owners pay themselves after expenses.
In fact, small business owners have an advantage over the rest of us because they can avoid a higher tax bracket by simply pouring more money into their business rather than directly to their salary.
That's right, since 1929, the second worst democratic record of job creation beats the best republican record. Now, some of that is luck, but the evidence is astoundingly strong that having a democratic president is simply much better for the economy than having a republican president.
Well, having a democratic president is better for people who need jobs, not for the "economy" as a whole. Now you probably think the more jobs the better, I think the more jobs the better, but many of the wealthy measure economic success in how they themselves are doing, not everyone else. Nothing's more fun than listening to an ivory tower, pro-capitalist economics professor complaining about unemployment being too low, though unfortunately we haven't had that in a while.
What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard.
Because there are a lot of socialist geeks? Just because the libertarian contingent is loud on places like slashdot doesn't mean it represents everyone, or even the majority.
It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.
I want a government that will do its job. If it can do that while small, then great. If it needs to be big, then that's fine.
I mean lets look at McCain vs Obama on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year and increase taxes for those earning more than $250k a year and he says he will increase federal spending.
Sounds good to me! If you're making more than $250k a year then you can afford to shoulder a little more of the tax burden.
In the case of announcements of moving voting day for certain groups of people, only peoples stupidity prevented them from casting legitimate votes....nothing else.
Wow, way to completely exonerate the malicious, anti-democratic thugs who actually went out with the purpose to subvert an election. You have quite a moral compass there, I'm sure your mother is proud of you.
Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.
That is one of the silliest things I've ever read on Slashdot, and believe me that takes some doing. Kudos to you.
Let's try to apply some rationality here. First of all, let's look at your premise. How on earth would increased military spending have helped against Al Qaeda? What, if we had just developed a sufficiently powerful new fighter jet there wouldn't have been any 9/11?
Secondly, the intelligence apparatus in place pre-9/11 was sufficiently funded to fight Al Qaeda. The intelligence about 9/11 existed, but it was ignored--this is not a funding issue, but a personnel issue. When you put inexperienced, anti-government zealots in positions of power purely based on their personal loyalty to the head of government, you get people who can't do their job.
Thirdly, your factual assertion is ludicrous. Clinton paid a lot more attention to Al Qaeda than Bush did pre-9/11. Clinton's people warned the incoming Bush officials about Al Qaeda, and they were laughed at and ignored.
I thought that was the joke, that it's done all the time by people trying to prevent people who demographically tend to be democrats from voting. Unfortunately the Deceptive Practice and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act hasn't been passed yet.
Can you imagine a Ron Paul presidency? He'd wear out the veto stamp and have to wear a bullet-proof vest to bed.
And that's why I would never vote for him.
If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.
It's hardcoded in; people naturally align into groups, and the larger the scale the fewer the groups. For those countries with more than two effective political parties, in the end it typically comes down to two groups of coalitions.
Anyway in this country we elect a person, not a party. Both parties are broad enough (though the Republicans have narrowed their view of what it means to be a Republican dramatically since the early 90s) to be able to produce candidates who will support any legitimate side of an issue. No, they won't produce candidates who believe in abolishing the income tax system, but that's a strength, not a weakness.
Set us up the bomb!
I'm impressed with Microsoft's forbearance.
Just leave it as it is. Yes everyone likes to put their professional demeanor on and make proper recommendations and use words like BTU and SEER, but everyone here has seen a bunch of servers jammed into a poorly ventilated closet work just fine. Computers have pretty high tolerances for heat, and usually the worst that happens is the computer will shut down if it gets really bad. I remember one place I worked had modems that got so hot you couldn't touch them; every once in a while they'd stop working because of it but you'd just sort of jostle them around and they'd cool off just fine and start working again.
They just look at what shows up in their bank account.
People are surprising focused when you're talking about their money. They've been waiting two weeks for that paycheck, believe me they'll look at it.
I completely agree. Think for a moment if employers were not required to take taxes (federal, state, SS, etc...) out of your pay and instead you had to write a check each month to the government. There would be riots in the streets about how much money is taken, spent, and what it's spent on.
No, people would simply ask their employers to voluntarily withhold your taxes from your paycheck. People already see exactly how much money is being taken out already, and they're not rioting in the streets.
Is there anyway to donate to Amazon/Newegg's legal defense team? : )
Sure! Buy an ATI HD4870 graphics card and give it to me. Newegg gets a nice profit on those, and you'd be supporting their cause.
Looking at how many comments you've posted under this story it's apparent you're an Apple zealot, and thus immune to reason, so I'll keep this short.
You can't put whatever you want in a license and have it enforceable. Look up the first sale doctrine. More importantly for the purposes here, the law specifically states that a copyright holder's rights under copyright law do not immunize them from being subject to the various anti-monopoly laws.