In Russia this type of propaganda is as acceptable as Americans whole believe Obama is not a US citizen.
Of course, when someone in America believes in a crazy theory we get an avalanche of posts excoriating the American educational system for producing such a person, American culture for being so anti-intellectual, American politics, etc., which we don't seem to get when any other countries' conspiracy theorists get mentioned.
I will just point out that under criminal law you don't have "possession" of something until you make a conscious decision not to discard it immediately. I can't just shove drugs into your hands and accuse you of possession a split second later.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
How so? The prosecutor felt that the administrators did not intentionally violate the law; this is a factual determination that doesn't set "precedent." Another administrator is not going to say "ooh, now I can spy on them because of this case"; knowing about this case means if they spy on the students they knowingly violated the law and can be charged.
My first modem was 2400 bps. It was slow enough that I could read text as it came in. My next modem was 9600 bps. Door games ran a little faster, which was cool. My third modem was 14.4k. I was able to download Doom. It took me 6 hours. You all need to calm the hell down and get some perspective. Bunch of spoiled babies.
But my point is if you want to convince me of something, you need to use more more than blockquotes of just conclusory statements. I read through the article, and the one it applauds in the opening, and it's just typical right-wing populist paranoia, overlaid with Ayn Rand's brand of poorly-thought out "philosophy." It's a typical "we're the useful ones to society" self-aggrandizement that clings to a false mythology; that red-state conservatives are the only ones who work, while everyone else is a drain on society commie traitor leeching off them. The fact that the biggest economic production in the past 50 years have come from liberal urban and suburban enclaves on the coasts is ignored, and the rural red stater is extolled for his productive capability, despite the fact that the northeast and west coasts have been carrying the welfare red states for years.
OP here, the term is taken from the essay "The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy". It distinguishes those who create wealth and jobs -- as compared to those who not only create nothing, but actively despise the productive class for being who they are. "Aristocracies commonly prevent talented individuals from earning more wealth then their social betters, and today's progressive aristocracy runs true to form. Far from being the most talented individuals, its recruits are 'people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in.'"
An article that relies on Limbaugh blockquotes, now there's credibility.
It's how the industry generally construes it, it's not an "argument." If you think it's asinine then I am afraid that it is something you are going to have to learn to live with.
The mothers of all the soldiers who died in Pearl Harbor are dead by now.
Just as an aside, I doubt that's true. Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, 69 years ago. Someone in her 80's and 90's now could very easily have lost a son in Pearl Harbor.
Huh? Plaintiff? In a criminal case? And juries have the power to nullify, but not necessarily the right. It's a question that has been argued for hundreds of years and it hasn't been resolved, so I wouldn't be so quick to accuse the judge of lying.
Before this post gets modded as a troll or flamebait, it is my humble and sincere view as someone born and raised outside the USA, that Americans are often obsessed by finding a single cause for a problem and the idea that there might be multiple causes is rarely explored.
As opposed to what distinguished country, where every man is a philosopher king who never makes a snap decision?
I have, and you know? I can play that office-political game well enough. I know when my good advice won't be heeded, and I know to make sure I have my clear, polite, lucid warnings in writing along with management overriding them in writing such that I can clearly, unambiguously prove to my boss's boss what really happened when the decision goes south.
I think you hit on something very important that many slashdotters don't get. Most of you are grownup professionals now, and you have to start looking out for yourself. Do get stupid things in writing, and hold onto important CYA emails. You might not like doing it, but it's important.
Game's rigged. If you don't waive your right to a speedy trial, the prosecution will ensure you don't get the information you need to defend yourself until it's too late.
The prosecution has to disclose everything before trial. If they do it late enough, you probably have a good argument for appealing. Actually long delays tend to help defendants, because the older the evidence and witnesses get, the weaker the prosecution's case is.
The only thing I can really get behind in the article is the fact that Childs was in jail for two years before his trial began. That sounds very much like a violation of his right to a speedy trial to me.
Childs undoubtedly waived his right to a speedy trial, like many, many criminal defendants do (and like Kevin Mitnick did, on multiple occasions, all the while dishonestly claiming that he was being denied his right to a speedy trial).
It's lifetime of the product in general, not the one you bought. If they make that model for the next 20 years, that's how long the lifetime warranty lasts.
I have no idea. I didn't make the warranty. They were supposed to have figured out how to keep their promises at the time they decided to make them.
Technically, a lifetime warranty is for the lifetime of the product. If the company ends, they are no longer producing the product. Thus, the lifetime of the product has ended.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people on Slashdot are in the US or Europe. Fixing Russia's educational system or culture is not our problem.
How is fixing America's educational system or culture Europe's problem?
In Russia this type of propaganda is as acceptable as Americans whole believe Obama is not a US citizen.
Of course, when someone in America believes in a crazy theory we get an avalanche of posts excoriating the American educational system for producing such a person, American culture for being so anti-intellectual, American politics, etc., which we don't seem to get when any other countries' conspiracy theorists get mentioned.
I will just point out that under criminal law you don't have "possession" of something until you make a conscious decision not to discard it immediately. I can't just shove drugs into your hands and accuse you of possession a split second later.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
How so? The prosecutor felt that the administrators did not intentionally violate the law; this is a factual determination that doesn't set "precedent." Another administrator is not going to say "ooh, now I can spy on them because of this case"; knowing about this case means if they spy on the students they knowingly violated the law and can be charged.
My first modem was 2400 bps. It was slow enough that I could read text as it came in. My next modem was 9600 bps. Door games ran a little faster, which was cool. My third modem was 14.4k. I was able to download Doom. It took me 6 hours. You all need to calm the hell down and get some perspective. Bunch of spoiled babies.
But my point is if you want to convince me of something, you need to use more more than blockquotes of just conclusory statements. I read through the article, and the one it applauds in the opening, and it's just typical right-wing populist paranoia, overlaid with Ayn Rand's brand of poorly-thought out "philosophy." It's a typical "we're the useful ones to society" self-aggrandizement that clings to a false mythology; that red-state conservatives are the only ones who work, while everyone else is a drain on society commie traitor leeching off them. The fact that the biggest economic production in the past 50 years have come from liberal urban and suburban enclaves on the coasts is ignored, and the rural red stater is extolled for his productive capability, despite the fact that the northeast and west coasts have been carrying the welfare red states for years.
Acrobat actually doesn't suck as much as it used to.
Ray Kurzweil is yet another computer programmer blathering on about things that he has no understanding on.
Get Kurzweil a slashdot account, stat!
OP here, the term is taken from the essay "The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy". It distinguishes those who create wealth and jobs -- as compared to those who not only create nothing, but actively despise the productive class for being who they are. "Aristocracies commonly prevent talented individuals from earning more wealth then their social betters, and today's progressive aristocracy runs true to form. Far from being the most talented individuals, its recruits are 'people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in.'"
An article that relies on Limbaugh blockquotes, now there's credibility.
It's how the industry generally construes it, it's not an "argument." If you think it's asinine then I am afraid that it is something you are going to have to learn to live with.
The mothers of all the soldiers who died in Pearl Harbor are dead by now.
Just as an aside, I doubt that's true. Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, 69 years ago. Someone in her 80's and 90's now could very easily have lost a son in Pearl Harbor.
Huh? Plaintiff? In a criminal case? And juries have the power to nullify, but not necessarily the right. It's a question that has been argued for hundreds of years and it hasn't been resolved, so I wouldn't be so quick to accuse the judge of lying.
And the person will come off less credible if it's too rehearsed. And "recorded" testimony is frequently not allowed because of the hearsay rules.
Before this post gets modded as a troll or flamebait, it is my humble and sincere view as someone born and raised outside the USA, that Americans are often obsessed by finding a single cause for a problem and the idea that there might be multiple causes is rarely explored.
As opposed to what distinguished country, where every man is a philosopher king who never makes a snap decision?
Childs was screwed no matter what he did.
No, he wasn't. If he had given the password, he would not be in jail now, and he would probably still have his job.
I have, and you know? I can play that office-political game well enough. I know when my good advice won't be heeded, and I know to make sure I have my clear, polite, lucid warnings in writing along with management overriding them in writing such that I can clearly, unambiguously prove to my boss's boss what really happened when the decision goes south.
I think you hit on something very important that many slashdotters don't get. Most of you are grownup professionals now, and you have to start looking out for yourself. Do get stupid things in writing, and hold onto important CYA emails. You might not like doing it, but it's important.
Game's rigged. If you don't waive your right to a speedy trial, the prosecution will ensure you don't get the information you need to defend yourself until it's too late.
The prosecution has to disclose everything before trial. If they do it late enough, you probably have a good argument for appealing. Actually long delays tend to help defendants, because the older the evidence and witnesses get, the weaker the prosecution's case is.
The only thing I can really get behind in the article is the fact that Childs was in jail for two years before his trial began. That sounds very much like a violation of his right to a speedy trial to me.
Childs undoubtedly waived his right to a speedy trial, like many, many criminal defendants do (and like Kevin Mitnick did, on multiple occasions, all the while dishonestly claiming that he was being denied his right to a speedy trial).
It's lifetime of the product in general, not the one you bought. If they make that model for the next 20 years, that's how long the lifetime warranty lasts.
You've committed civil fraud, congratulations.
I have no idea. I didn't make the warranty. They were supposed to have figured out how to keep their promises at the time they decided to make them.
Technically, a lifetime warranty is for the lifetime of the product. If the company ends, they are no longer producing the product. Thus, the lifetime of the product has ended.
What they said they would do?
How do they do that, if they have no money to do so? Should their suppliers give them materials for free? Should their employees work for free?
If they were "reputable" would they be burning people with "lifetime" warranties?
What would you have them do?
Actually, "tabloid" in the United States generally refers to papers like the NY Post and the NY Daily News, so pretty much the same meaning over here.
Technically, you "prosecute" a civil case if you are the plaintiff.