Uhh...so students for whom English was not their native language did not read and write English as well as native English speakers in the US? This surprised you?
Most politicians realize this. But most politicians realize that if they do say so, other politicians will campaign against them by saying "omg they're blaming America." And a majority of American voters will agree.
US manufacturing output reached an all-time high in 2008 [blogspot.com], despite having a very small number of employees. US manufacturing is highly automated and productive, it will never employ very many people any more.
You own link says otherwise; it states that output PER WORKER reached an all-time high, not US manufacturing output. If you have a tenth as many factory workers in year X as you did in year Y, but the ones that are there in year X produce 5 times as much as workers in year Y, you've still seen a big drop in manufacturing output.
There was no "just" about it; the second one was exponentially worse than the first one. I play the first one once a year or so, and the second one I finished once out of stubbornness but haven't touched yet. And I remember almost nothing about it. There was nothing noticeably bad about it, it was just mediocre on so many levels that it just became completely forgettable.
Just read the damn thing he wrote before you talk. And "FUD" is a semantically empty term on slashdot, people use it when they don't want to think critically.
You know, I heard it said the things you hate most about others are the things you hate most about yourself.
No you didn't, you just made up a vague and nonsensical epigram.
The full passage:
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
So it's just whining about all those evil commies in the northeast and on the west coast. I.e., the blue states.
There was a boxing game in the arcade where you actually put on a pair of gloves that predates the Wii. There was also a fighting game that involved you getting into an actual little ring and the game sensed your movement that predates the Wii. Check out this
2002 strip from Penny Arcade and the accompanying news story.
And he writes: Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites.
Ron Paul can take his paranoid, hypocritical, bigoted viewpoint and go to hell. He would make a lousy president.
I was never a Paul fan but after reading his little essay on why the electoral college is needed (because red staters are simply better than blue staters and deserve to have their votes counted more) I lost what little use I had for the man.
Oh, to the slashbots, Ron Paul is far WORSE than being a Republican:
What the hell are you talking about? Ron Paul is idolized on slashdot by the vast majority of its posters (myself definitely excluded). Stop following the crowd but pretending you're a rebel. The "slashbots" are the ones who shriek RON PAUL 2012 every time a politics article is posted.
Anyone who's been a gamer for a while should know that Nintendo has always been like this; they HATE developing new consoles. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming by their competitors. I think it's an outgrowth of their two consoles that pretty much monopolized the market for several years, the NES and the Game Boy, which were great for them; didn't have to budget R&D, just had to sit back and collect the licensing fees. In fact, I forget which console it was (this was back a few years), but I remember seeing actual Nintendo advertisements before one of their consoles coming out claiming that for this new console they had focused on gameplay, and it would be around for years, and pleading with gamers not to focus on graphics or power. It was one of the strangest ads I've ever seen.
For example, Wii's controllers aren't revolutionary, we had those for a long time (where??).
Arcades. The Wii was a direct outgrowth of similar devices in arcades.
Another example: iPhone was never revolutionary, we always had a lot of multitouch phones with a full browser, easy to install apps, and features that even mere mortals can figure out (which ones??).
Huh? Who said we had multitouch phones? All you have to do is add that to your list to suddenly exclude all other phones, while at the same time implying that none of these other phones have the other characteristics you have on your list. Apple did not invent smartphones.
Though, unfortunately the statute of limitations for debts in most states tends to be fairly long. And once they get it reduced to judgment, it gets extended even further.
Probably not, though they can be disciplined for violating policy. And you all need to take a deep breath and think out this whole "zomg sexual assault!!!!!" angle. There's already enough "think of the children" paranoia already, all touching is not sexual in nature, and there's a perfectly available civil remedy for non-sexual but unwelcome touching, it's called "battery."
Can we select which airport employee pats us down? I mean, it's annoying if it's some burly TSA guy, but I could probably handle a Singapore Airlines stewardess handing my search...
In the US you can't be directly incarcerated for debt; you can, however, be incarcerated for refusing to obey a court order that you pay the debt, which courts don't usually order unless the judge is convinced you have the money.
I know collection debt law Is hazy as it varies from state to state and sometimes even has caveats internal to cities themselves but I thought there was a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect consumers from crap just like this. I'm not a lawyer and Wikipedia's not exactly the foremost authority on the law but:
Communication with third parties: revealing or discussing the nature of debts with third parties (other than the consumer's spouse or attorney) (Collection agencies are allowed to contact neighbors or co-workers but only to obtain location information; disreputable agencies often harass debtors with a "block party" or "office party" where they contact multiple neighbors or co-workers telling them they need to reach the debtor on an urgent matter.)
And if they posted something on your wall, that could fall under a number of these laws. Hell, if you consider 'Facebook' an embarrassing media:
Contact by embarrassing media, such as communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card, or using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business
And if the debt collection's profile wasn't MARKONE DEBT COLLECTOR I'd be looking at that sort of shadiness as well.
Having been the subject of a mysterious $180 debt collection put on my credit report over six years after they allege it happened in 2003 with no attempts to contact me until two months ago, I implore this woman to seek more than just a court order against MarkOne but instead to get the law amended now that social network websites are prevalent. They are a new form of contact medium that exposes far more information than the phone book and the current laws should apply or be updated minimally to reflect this.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
Why would you log onto a third party site for a patently fake proceeding? You contest it with the credit rating agencies.
Constant surveillance of NYU students? Sounds dull. If I want to watch a bunch of pretentious, talentless, hipster trust fund kids from flyover states who think they're going to make it big in NYC as artists/musicians/directors, I'll just go hang out in Williamsburgh. I don't need to go all the way to Qatar.
but I suspect the police wouldn't appreciate the task of sorting out legal from illegal use of widespread, essentially neutral software tools.
From the Georgia statutes:
16-9-93. Computer crimes defined; exclusivity of article; civil remedies; criminal penalties
(a) Computer theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:
(1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession;
(2) Obtaining property by any deceitful means or artful practice; or
(3) Converting property to such person's use in violation of an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application or disposition of such property
shall be guilty of the crime of computer theft.
If the university says straight out you don't have the authority to use filesharing, you've already met one element of this crime. Is it really unreasonable to provide the police with that information so they can investigate and see if you committed the other element? Crimes are meant to be investigated by law enforcement, not civilians.
The implication being that without them those people would all be out of jobs, which just isn't the case. It's like an ER doctor saying that if it wasn't for him, all these people would die, with the implication that if the hospital hadn't hired him they wouldn't have hired anybody else either and the ER would be unmanned during his shift.
It's being kept a secret because settlement agreements frequently are. Why on earth would a party agree to pay money (implicitly admitting wrongdoing) and NOT demand on a confidentiality clause? And Bruce, the "case" isn't being sealed, simply the terms of the agreement, and while a judge can enter an order prohibiting the parties from discussing the terms it's not typical. Usually the parties reach an agreement on their own and simply file a notice or motion that the case should be dismissed with prejudice. And no offense but I doubt very much that you are facing jail time if you talked about the settlement agreement in that unnamed case you say you can't talk about; that's generally not how things are done.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh...so students for whom English was not their native language did not read and write English as well as native English speakers in the US? This surprised you?
Most politicians realize this. But most politicians realize that if they do say so, other politicians will campaign against them by saying "omg they're blaming America." And a majority of American voters will agree.
The USA interfering in other countries' business has a lot to do with the fact that every powerful country interferes in other countries' business.
will render "Middle America" unlivable
It's livable now?
US manufacturing output reached an all-time high in 2008 [blogspot.com], despite having a very small number of employees. US manufacturing is highly automated and productive, it will never employ very many people any more.
You own link says otherwise; it states that output PER WORKER reached an all-time high, not US manufacturing output. If you have a tenth as many factory workers in year X as you did in year Y, but the ones that are there in year X produce 5 times as much as workers in year Y, you've still seen a big drop in manufacturing output.
There was no "just" about it; the second one was exponentially worse than the first one. I play the first one once a year or so, and the second one I finished once out of stubbornness but haven't touched yet. And I remember almost nothing about it. There was nothing noticeably bad about it, it was just mediocre on so many levels that it just became completely forgettable.
Just read the damn thing he wrote before you talk. And "FUD" is a semantically empty term on slashdot, people use it when they don't want to think critically.
You know, I heard it said the things you hate most about others are the things you hate most about yourself.
No you didn't, you just made up a vague and nonsensical epigram.
The full passage: Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
So it's just whining about all those evil commies in the northeast and on the west coast. I.e., the blue states.
There was a boxing game in the arcade where you actually put on a pair of gloves that predates the Wii. There was also a fighting game that involved you getting into an actual little ring and the game sensed your movement that predates the Wii. Check out this 2002 strip from Penny Arcade and the accompanying news story.
Here it is.
And he writes:
Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites.
Ron Paul can take his paranoid, hypocritical, bigoted viewpoint and go to hell. He would make a lousy president.
I was never a Paul fan but after reading his little essay on why the electoral college is needed (because red staters are simply better than blue staters and deserve to have their votes counted more) I lost what little use I had for the man.
Oh, to the slashbots, Ron Paul is far WORSE than being a Republican:
What the hell are you talking about? Ron Paul is idolized on slashdot by the vast majority of its posters (myself definitely excluded). Stop following the crowd but pretending you're a rebel. The "slashbots" are the ones who shriek RON PAUL 2012 every time a politics article is posted.
Anyone who's been a gamer for a while should know that Nintendo has always been like this; they HATE developing new consoles. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming by their competitors. I think it's an outgrowth of their two consoles that pretty much monopolized the market for several years, the NES and the Game Boy, which were great for them; didn't have to budget R&D, just had to sit back and collect the licensing fees. In fact, I forget which console it was (this was back a few years), but I remember seeing actual Nintendo advertisements before one of their consoles coming out claiming that for this new console they had focused on gameplay, and it would be around for years, and pleading with gamers not to focus on graphics or power. It was one of the strangest ads I've ever seen.
For example, Wii's controllers aren't revolutionary, we had those for a long time (where??).
Arcades. The Wii was a direct outgrowth of similar devices in arcades.
Another example: iPhone was never revolutionary, we always had a lot of multitouch phones with a full browser, easy to install apps, and features that even mere mortals can figure out (which ones??).
Huh? Who said we had multitouch phones? All you have to do is add that to your list to suddenly exclude all other phones, while at the same time implying that none of these other phones have the other characteristics you have on your list. Apple did not invent smartphones.
Because it's a more important goal to prevent accidents than to punish people after the fact.
Like they were going to be a sideshow compared to centralized computing by now?
Though, unfortunately the statute of limitations for debts in most states tends to be fairly long. And once they get it reduced to judgment, it gets extended even further.
Yeah but with stewardess I can emphasize that I'm talking about a female.
Probably not, though they can be disciplined for violating policy. And you all need to take a deep breath and think out this whole "zomg sexual assault!!!!!" angle. There's already enough "think of the children" paranoia already, all touching is not sexual in nature, and there's a perfectly available civil remedy for non-sexual but unwelcome touching, it's called "battery."
Can we select which airport employee pats us down? I mean, it's annoying if it's some burly TSA guy, but I could probably handle a Singapore Airlines stewardess handing my search...
In the US you can't be directly incarcerated for debt; you can, however, be incarcerated for refusing to obey a court order that you pay the debt, which courts don't usually order unless the judge is convinced you have the money.
I know collection debt law Is hazy as it varies from state to state and sometimes even has caveats internal to cities themselves but I thought there was a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect consumers from crap just like this. I'm not a lawyer and Wikipedia's not exactly the foremost authority on the law but:
Communication with third parties: revealing or discussing the nature of debts with third parties (other than the consumer's spouse or attorney) (Collection agencies are allowed to contact neighbors or co-workers but only to obtain location information; disreputable agencies often harass debtors with a "block party" or "office party" where they contact multiple neighbors or co-workers telling them they need to reach the debtor on an urgent matter.)
And if they posted something on your wall, that could fall under a number of these laws. Hell, if you consider 'Facebook' an embarrassing media:
Contact by embarrassing media, such as communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card, or using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business
And if the debt collection's profile wasn't MARKONE DEBT COLLECTOR I'd be looking at that sort of shadiness as well. Having been the subject of a mysterious $180 debt collection put on my credit report over six years after they allege it happened in 2003 with no attempts to contact me until two months ago, I implore this woman to seek more than just a court order against MarkOne but instead to get the law amended now that social network websites are prevalent. They are a new form of contact medium that exposes far more information than the phone book and the current laws should apply or be updated minimally to reflect this. If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
If you're wondering about my $180, I contacted them immediately. After getting all my current information so they could commence harassment, they told me to log onto some third party site and contest it. I did. Three weeks later I got a judgment: REMAINS. I was informed that, short of litigious action, that was the extent of my rights in that situation.
Why would you log onto a third party site for a patently fake proceeding? You contest it with the credit rating agencies.
Constant surveillance of NYU students? Sounds dull. If I want to watch a bunch of pretentious, talentless, hipster trust fund kids from flyover states who think they're going to make it big in NYC as artists/musicians/directors, I'll just go hang out in Williamsburgh. I don't need to go all the way to Qatar.
but I suspect the police wouldn't appreciate the task of sorting out legal from illegal use of widespread, essentially neutral software tools.
From the Georgia statutes:
16-9-93. Computer crimes defined; exclusivity of article; civil remedies; criminal penalties (a) Computer theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of: (1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession; (2) Obtaining property by any deceitful means or artful practice; or (3) Converting property to such person's use in violation of an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application or disposition of such property shall be guilty of the crime of computer theft.
If the university says straight out you don't have the authority to use filesharing, you've already met one element of this crime. Is it really unreasonable to provide the police with that information so they can investigate and see if you committed the other element? Crimes are meant to be investigated by law enforcement, not civilians.
The implication being that without them those people would all be out of jobs, which just isn't the case. It's like an ER doctor saying that if it wasn't for him, all these people would die, with the implication that if the hospital hadn't hired him they wouldn't have hired anybody else either and the ER would be unmanned during his shift.
It's being kept a secret because settlement agreements frequently are. Why on earth would a party agree to pay money (implicitly admitting wrongdoing) and NOT demand on a confidentiality clause? And Bruce, the "case" isn't being sealed, simply the terms of the agreement, and while a judge can enter an order prohibiting the parties from discussing the terms it's not typical. Usually the parties reach an agreement on their own and simply file a notice or motion that the case should be dismissed with prejudice. And no offense but I doubt very much that you are facing jail time if you talked about the settlement agreement in that unnamed case you say you can't talk about; that's generally not how things are done.