...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't.
THAT'S. THEIR. JOB. Geeze.
If someone does something that goes against the law, and you're injured by it, you're supposed to go to the freaking courts. It IS their job to determine whether you're a victim or not.
Actually I think TV these days in terms of quality is probably on the whole better than it's ever been before. Yes, reality shows suck, but when you take away those there are still a lot of really first-rate things on the air.
What's the point of doing that? If someone tailgates me I slow down. Eventually it gets into their thick little heads that the tailgating's not doing anything.
Now, Friday morning, we got an e-mail saying that that has changed. That now we're supposed to keep e-mails but it didn't really say for how long. Plus it was Friday morning and an e-mail about a change in company policy was pretty high on my list of things to ignore. I'd imagine that our corporate policy is going to change to something vague and undefinable about under what circumstances you're supposed to archive it. And if a case comes up and my company is called on this Federal law that requires them to keep e-mails, it will now be the employee's fault since this e-mail was very applicable to a future case but they failed to archive it. What does that encourage me to do? Keep all my e-mails regardless of any policy.
If the e-mail says you're supposed to keep e-mails but doesn't specifiy a date, then they probably want them to be kept in perpetuity.
I haven't read through all the new rules, but everything I've read about them say they kick in at the discovery stage of litigation. Presumably the traditional rules regarding document retention policies are still in place (if someone who has read them all knows differently, please say so). Under the regular rules Courts generally will allow you to have document retention policies, and get rid of old stuff. What you're supposed to do is whenever you have a reasonable belief that you may be sued over something, you're supposed to at that point make sure to keep whatever documents might be requested in the litigation.
I used to work for an e-discovery firm. You have no idea how boring it is to go through thousands of e-mails and other electronic documents and decide whether they're responsive for a lawsuit or not.
I saw plenty of really interesting e-mails that I'm sure the sender never imagined someone else would ever read. Taught me a lesson; I never complain about my current job, or talk about anything specific about my work, over my work e-mail.
I say let the market decide. Have restaurants and movie theaters that have a cell phone jamming device and see who spends more money - the people who want a night out to enjoy themselves or the ass hats who think that because they are a paying customer they have a right to disrupt people's enjoyment of what they paid for - their food or their seat at the movie.
Whoa, I'm right there with you regarding movie theaters, but what's the big deal about cell phones in restaurants? I mean as long as people are speaking in a normal tone of voice it's not exactly a big deal when presumably a lot of other conversations are going on.
The framers of this law obviously did not intend to limit the it to digital traffic submitted via SMTP on port 25, but that is pretty much what they wrote in the law.
I looked at the law; it doesn't specifiy e-mail. In fact it's obviously very intentionally broad, referring to various computer systems in general.
This guy, who is not elected, just bypassed the entire process of bill creation, the elected representatives and the governor, to change the law to how he felt it could be. That is the dangerous slope here. If the judge is able to do it with this law, why not any other law?
First of all, he is elected.
I really don't understand the mindset on slashdot; it doesn't take much effort to learn a bare minimum about the U.S. legal system. In many states/municipalities judges are elected. All you have to know is that one basic, easy-to-remember fact. THEN, whenever you're tempted to criticize a judge for being unelected, you just do a quick google search.
And maybe you and everyone here who's complaining should look at the damn law. He was convicted of violating 2 obscenity statutes; neither one says e-mail. The first refers to "computer systems", the second just to transmittal. The judges interpret the law as the legislature wrote it.
In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
Miami cops were getting in trouble for tasering 6 year olds a little while ago. Ahhh, Florida.
None of the other books besides Hobbit are remotely filmable. They're mostly short stories or summaries of longer stories for which you'd have to write a lot of your own material to make a film.
I think it would be impossible to film the Hobbit and have it be a prequel to the LotR movies as they were filmed. The mood, plot, and characters were just completely incompatible.
If you had a talented writer, Tolkien left many, many fascinating stories about the Elves and early Men which could make good movies.
Ehhh. Some of them were good, I like the Numenor stuff. But a lot of them were cribbed from various European mythologies, and aren't really that fascinating.
His first specific criticism is that there's no cable to hook up a PS3 to an HD TV. This is simply incorrect. Sony includes a cable that works fine. It doesn't do HD, but it does hook up and let you use the system. This kind of untruth is to be expected from the NY Times
The article SPECIFICALLY states that the PS3 doesn't "does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television." I think that's a more direct answer than your claim that they include a cable that technically can hook up to an HDTV, just not in HD. In terms of grammar it might be slightly inaccurate, but the spirit of the sentence is truthful. Do you really think a lot of people reading that would think it meant that it came up with absolutely no cables to hook it up to a TV?
which is more about an agenda than about accurately describing the factual situation.
Oh, you like XYZ? Where can I find XYZ's song to see if I like it?
The radio? Amazon.com? BN.com? Jukebox? Listen to it at a friend's house? Listen to it at a record store listening kiosk? There are plenty of perfectly legit ways to try out songs before you buy them.
Slashdot Mirror
...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't.
THAT'S. THEIR. JOB. Geeze.
If someone does something that goes against the law, and you're injured by it, you're supposed to go to the freaking courts. It IS their job to determine whether you're a victim or not.
If you want to show anger towards linux, I recommend choosing a different path than complaining about it being built to standards like Posix and SUS.
You can make something POSIX-compliant without it looking like UNIX. Look Windows, for example.
That's true. Of course, back in the 80's people were gunned down constantly in cop/PI shows. Think how many people Magnum offed.
Actually I think TV these days in terms of quality is probably on the whole better than it's ever been before. Yes, reality shows suck, but when you take away those there are still a lot of really first-rate things on the air.
What's the point of doing that? If someone tailgates me I slow down. Eventually it gets into their thick little heads that the tailgating's not doing anything.
Like I'm going to take advice on how things should look from a guy with a moustache.
Don't forget annoying programmers...
Eliminate public schools and I guarantee you..at least 50% of people who are unable to solve simple math problems.
Hey, if they can't learn math then there's something wrong with them. So 50% of people can't do math, the other 60% of us get along just fine.
Now, Friday morning, we got an e-mail saying that that has changed. That now we're supposed to keep e-mails but it didn't really say for how long. Plus it was Friday morning and an e-mail about a change in company policy was pretty high on my list of things to ignore. I'd imagine that our corporate policy is going to change to something vague and undefinable about under what circumstances you're supposed to archive it. And if a case comes up and my company is called on this Federal law that requires them to keep e-mails, it will now be the employee's fault since this e-mail was very applicable to a future case but they failed to archive it. What does that encourage me to do? Keep all my e-mails regardless of any policy.
If the e-mail says you're supposed to keep e-mails but doesn't specifiy a date, then they probably want them to be kept in perpetuity.
I haven't read through all the new rules, but everything I've read about them say they kick in at the discovery stage of litigation. Presumably the traditional rules regarding document retention policies are still in place (if someone who has read them all knows differently, please say so). Under the regular rules Courts generally will allow you to have document retention policies, and get rid of old stuff. What you're supposed to do is whenever you have a reasonable belief that you may be sued over something, you're supposed to at that point make sure to keep whatever documents might be requested in the litigation.
I used to work for an e-discovery firm. You have no idea how boring it is to go through thousands of e-mails and other electronic documents and decide whether they're responsive for a lawsuit or not.
I saw plenty of really interesting e-mails that I'm sure the sender never imagined someone else would ever read. Taught me a lesson; I never complain about my current job, or talk about anything specific about my work, over my work e-mail.
Art design trumps resolution 99 times out of 100.
True. Look at Diablo II; a beautiful game, lousy resolution, but it didn't matter. Or any one of a number of PS2 games.
I say let the market decide. Have restaurants and movie theaters that have a cell phone jamming device and see who spends more money - the people who want a night out to enjoy themselves or the ass hats who think that because they are a paying customer they have a right to disrupt people's enjoyment of what they paid for - their food or their seat at the movie.
Whoa, I'm right there with you regarding movie theaters, but what's the big deal about cell phones in restaurants? I mean as long as people are speaking in a normal tone of voice it's not exactly a big deal when presumably a lot of other conversations are going on.
I thought European companies didn't use GAAP, they used some looser Euro thing.
Worst game ever in the "that's too short" genre would be Loom. Awesome game during the two hours it takes to finish.
Best-paced game ever has to be Ultima 5. PERFECT pacing.
Who cares about how it works? Just listen to the name, man, Quantum Vortex Cores?? That's so freaking cool.
"Today's sermon is taken from a magazine that I found in a hedge..."
In Florida, the court that released the opinion at issue, Supreme Court judges are elected (as are circuit court judges).
Alright, actually the second does mention electronic mail, I was wrong there.
The framers of this law obviously did not intend to limit the it to digital traffic submitted via SMTP on port 25, but that is pretty much what they wrote in the law.
I looked at the law; it doesn't specifiy e-mail. In fact it's obviously very intentionally broad, referring to various computer systems in general.
This guy, who is not elected, just bypassed the entire process of bill creation, the elected representatives and the governor, to change the law to how he felt it could be. That is the dangerous slope here. If the judge is able to do it with this law, why not any other law?
First of all, he is elected.
I really don't understand the mindset on slashdot; it doesn't take much effort to learn a bare minimum about the U.S. legal system. In many states/municipalities judges are elected. All you have to know is that one basic, easy-to-remember fact. THEN, whenever you're tempted to criticize a judge for being unelected, you just do a quick google search.
And maybe you and everyone here who's complaining should look at the damn law. He was convicted of violating 2 obscenity statutes; neither one says e-mail. The first refers to "computer systems", the second just to transmittal. The judges interpret the law as the legislature wrote it.
In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
Miami cops were getting in trouble for tasering 6 year olds a little while ago. Ahhh, Florida.
None of the other books besides Hobbit are remotely filmable. They're mostly short stories or summaries of longer stories for which you'd have to write a lot of your own material to make a film.
I think it would be impossible to film the Hobbit and have it be a prequel to the LotR movies as they were filmed. The mood, plot, and characters were just completely incompatible.
If you had a talented writer, Tolkien left many, many fascinating stories about the Elves and early Men which could make good movies.
Ehhh. Some of them were good, I like the Numenor stuff. But a lot of them were cribbed from various European mythologies, and aren't really that fascinating.
His first specific criticism is that there's no cable to hook up a PS3 to an HD TV. This is simply incorrect. Sony includes a cable that works fine. It doesn't do HD, but it does hook up and let you use the system. This kind of untruth is to be expected from the NY Times
The article SPECIFICALLY states that the PS3 doesn't "does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television." I think that's a more direct answer than your claim that they include a cable that technically can hook up to an HDTV, just not in HD. In terms of grammar it might be slightly inaccurate, but the spirit of the sentence is truthful. Do you really think a lot of people reading that would think it meant that it came up with absolutely no cables to hook it up to a TV?
which is more about an agenda than about accurately describing the factual situation.
What possible agenda could they have?
Oh, you like XYZ? Where can I find XYZ's song to see if I like it?
The radio? Amazon.com? BN.com? Jukebox? Listen to it at a friend's house? Listen to it at a record store listening kiosk? There are plenty of perfectly legit ways to try out songs before you buy them.