1). Look up a local sex offender on online registry
2). Snap some candid photos of them in public
3). Threaten to make a myspace profile in their name unless the pay up
4). Profit!
From what I remember about database theory, the logical and correct thing to do in the case that two tables do not have a common primary key is to either A) not relate the tables, as doing so would be prone to producing errors, or B) create a third table to relate the primary keys of one table with the other.
It would be interesting to see if the actual statute included rules for what was supposed to happen in such cases. However, something makes me rather doubtful that anything like that crossed our elected officials' minds.
Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.
In the US, we have a nice little thing called due process, which guarantees (or at least it used to) that, before a person could be deprived of their rights in such a way as having a camera installed in their home, they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers.
Can't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half? I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like, not the appearance of the actual ink-blot. I could be wrong though.
The author suggests that math be taught more as an art than a dry requisite skill. This presents somewhat of a problem though: A great deal of a person's mathematical ability depends on how strongly they understand the foundation of a particular area of study. If we were to treat math courses as "elective", I could forsee all sorts of problems arising.
I've always done well in math and enjoyed it thoroughly, but I'm not to naive as to say that I would enjoy learning about differential equations without first understanding functions, slopes, derivatives, etc. Taylor Series, Fourier Transforms--these are all beautiful and intricate mathematical concepts, but without understanding the fundamental building blocks which make infinite series work, they are all but useless.
It never ceases to amaze me how many taxpayer dollars and how much court time could be saved if legislators simply read and understood the documents they are supposed to be upholding.
Sadly, neither party seems to be particularly true to their own ideals anymore. The Dems claim that they are the party of the workers and unions, yet they use taxpayer dollars to bailout the big corporations instead of helping the increasingly unemployed population. The GOP claims to favor less government regulation and intrusion in people's lives, yet doesn't object when the government ruins the lives of non-violent drug users, tells people they can't have sex if it's for money, or makes any other legislation of the perceived morality of someone's private life.
The two parties in this country are more alike than you think. And they both want more power and money in their pockets than anything else.
It seems like we're fighting this never ending battle to shove more worthless equipment into cars while at the same time attempting to increase fuel efficiency. We'll never be able to have both. Every ill-conceived and improperly tested safety feature that's put in a vehicle will either increase its weight, sap power from the engine, or both. Call me nostalgic if you want, but I miss the cars of 20 to 30 years ago: Light, fuel efficient, and simple. I highly doubt that any of the cars coming out today will be running a few decades from now, what with all the cheaply made electronics that are essential to their function.
If you want my two cents, I'd say that all cars should be made with five-point safety harnesses and a roll cage integrated into the frame. This would be light, not require constant electronic monitoring of status, and sufficiently protect the vehicle's occupants. After all, race drivers have had these for years with mostly positive outcomes.
Are you crazy? We can't have students learning to think critically and logically--they might end up voting for third parties or worse. And encouraging debate? Do you just want to ruin our carefully constructed tapestry of political-correctness and cultural-sensitivity?
I was going to say the exact same thing, but you beat me to it.
However, whether or not the letter is genuine it seems unlikely that a glitch would cause specifically gay literature to be de-listed; one would expect some other unusal behavior from their search engine as well, which hasn't been reported so far. As for it being a hack, I would suspect that anyone who gained access to Amazon's listing service would do something a little more malicious than simply de-listing gay books (I know I would).
Not sure if you were being serious or not, but either way I'm going to respond with my usual rant on the subject because I think it's important: Whether or not being gay is genetic shouldn't matter in the context of any policy whatsoever. It appalls me to no end that people debate about this when the real issue at hand is that adults ought to be able to have consensual sex with whomever they want. What I do in the bedroom is between me and whomever I'm in there with.
the speculation was that the FBI raided the data center for IP piracy. Which would, assuming they in fact had a warrant, be within the scope of criminal law, e.g. The Copyright act.
However, I was under the impression that, in America, it was no violation of the law to owe someone money; at least until that person or corporation showed that money was owed or a contract was breached in a CIVIL suit.
Or has the Federal Government legislated itself into that area as well?
Besides which, even if this crudely formed analogy were true, the equivalent of the blogger's actions would be shouting insults at the bear from outside the cage. The bear, being at the zoo, ought to be used to that sort of thing.
Well, I must say that the UK is a horrible place to live and I absolutely would not recommend anyone to travel there. Ever. Wherever you go, make sure it isn't the UK.
[sarcasm]Because having, at some point in one's life, broken one of the labyrinthine maze of laws and rules that govern behavior in this country would obviously mean that one could never, under any circumstances, judge someone fairly and impartially.[/sarcasm]
Sorry--I myself have always wanted to do my civil duty and serve on a jury but know that I will never be able to because of some stupid stuff I did when I was young.
Exactly. I mentioned earlier how insurance companies are private corporations which are primarily interested in making a profit. This is an especially bad situation for the consumer when they are required to have auto insurance and when the companies have an insidious information sharing agreement with the state that justifies them to raise your rates for practically any reason. The fact that tickets raise your insurance rates is irritating, considering that in most municipalities you can be pulled over and ticketed for practically ANYTHING: Such as (where I live) driving in the left hand lane when no other cars are on the road, engine breaking, coasting, etc. However, what even more infuriating is the fact that being involved in an accident raises one's premiums even if it was determined that the person wasn't at fault: Just another example of the corporations hiding behind some spurious statistical reasoning to justify ripping off their customers.
First of all, the fact that insurance is viewed as individual risk assessment, instead of pooled risk, is why there is such an unfair and unfounded disparity between insurance rates in this country. And it's not just auto insurance--if you get seriously ill, you're health insurance goes up; if you're a doctor and you get sued for malpractice, your insurance rates go up; etc. All of this is essentially insurance companies trying to nickle and dime people for any reason they can--ie. your male, you got a speeding ticket, you drive a red car, etc.--so they can fatten their own wallets.
Second of all, what do these insurance companies do with all that profit they make over their information-sharing agreement with the state? They sure ain't giving it to charity or using to make the roads safer, for that matter. Where I live (Seattle, WA) Safeco Insurance paid peoples' hard earned money to have a fucking baseball stadium named after them. If the government wants to require people to have auto insurance it should either offer decent public transportation so having a car isn't a necessity, or offer discounted insurance for low income individuals, who need a provider that doesn't spend more on marketing than their paying customers.
Last of all, studies have actually shown that people who drive while stoned are more safe and cautious than those who drive sober. Maybe free joints for motorists would be a good way to keep out roads safe.
I had a girlfriend and a boyfriend at different points in high school. And let me tell you, I was told by school administrators that I couldn't hug or kiss my boyfriend at school because it "offended" other students, even though such activities were completely okay with my girlfriend because nobody took offense to it. Most gay people don't call any more attention to their sexuality than their straight counterparts; it's just that certain people (who, I'm quite sure, have their own sexual identity issues) think that the same type of normal human interaction that they can participate in in patently offensive and should be forbidden in someone with different tastes.
Slashdot Mirror
1). Look up a local sex offender on online registry
2). Snap some candid photos of them in public
3). Threaten to make a myspace profile in their name unless the pay up
4). Profit!
From what I remember about database theory, the logical and correct thing to do in the case that two tables do not have a common primary key is to either A) not relate the tables, as doing so would be prone to producing errors, or B) create a third table to relate the primary keys of one table with the other.
It would be interesting to see if the actual statute included rules for what was supposed to happen in such cases. However, something makes me rather doubtful that anything like that crossed our elected officials' minds.
Putting cameras in their homes might be better than sending them to jail.
In the US, we have a nice little thing called due process, which guarantees (or at least it used to) that, before a person could be deprived of their rights in such a way as having a camera installed in their home, they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers.
Can't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half? I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like, not the appearance of the actual ink-blot. I could be wrong though.
The author suggests that math be taught more as an art than a dry requisite skill. This presents somewhat of a problem though: A great deal of a person's mathematical ability depends on how strongly they understand the foundation of a particular area of study. If we were to treat math courses as "elective", I could forsee all sorts of problems arising.
I've always done well in math and enjoyed it thoroughly, but I'm not to naive as to say that I would enjoy learning about differential equations without first understanding functions, slopes, derivatives, etc. Taylor Series, Fourier Transforms--these are all beautiful and intricate mathematical concepts, but without understanding the fundamental building blocks which make infinite series work, they are all but useless.
Okay, so kids, to see if you have attention deficit disorder, I'm going to start by reading you "The Great Gatsby", by F. Scott Fitzgerald...
(Several Hours Later)
--So we beat on, boats against the current, bourne back ceaselessly into the past.
So children, who can tell me the kind of car that Gatsby drove in chapter three? Anybody? My god, these kids all have ADD!
It never ceases to amaze me how many taxpayer dollars and how much court time could be saved if legislators simply read and understood the documents they are supposed to be upholding.
Sadly, neither party seems to be particularly true to their own ideals anymore. The Dems claim that they are the party of the workers and unions, yet they use taxpayer dollars to bailout the big corporations instead of helping the increasingly unemployed population. The GOP claims to favor less government regulation and intrusion in people's lives, yet doesn't object when the government ruins the lives of non-violent drug users, tells people they can't have sex if it's for money, or makes any other legislation of the perceived morality of someone's private life.
The two parties in this country are more alike than you think. And they both want more power and money in their pockets than anything else.
It seems like we're fighting this never ending battle to shove more worthless equipment into cars while at the same time attempting to increase fuel efficiency. We'll never be able to have both. Every ill-conceived and improperly tested safety feature that's put in a vehicle will either increase its weight, sap power from the engine, or both. Call me nostalgic if you want, but I miss the cars of 20 to 30 years ago: Light, fuel efficient, and simple. I highly doubt that any of the cars coming out today will be running a few decades from now, what with all the cheaply made electronics that are essential to their function.
If you want my two cents, I'd say that all cars should be made with five-point safety harnesses and a roll cage integrated into the frame. This would be light, not require constant electronic monitoring of status, and sufficiently protect the vehicle's occupants. After all, race drivers have had these for years with mostly positive outcomes.
Are you crazy? We can't have students learning to think critically and logically--they might end up voting for third parties or worse. And encouraging debate? Do you just want to ruin our carefully constructed tapestry of political-correctness and cultural-sensitivity?
By heating up the upper and middle levels of an infant hurricane, they say they could disrupt the flows of air that power the enormous storms.
So what happens if you heat the lower layers? Sorry, just my evil genius side coming out.
You think that's bad? Just wait until the government introduces a new "hurricane prevention excise tax".
It will be called, the Resisty!
I was going to say the exact same thing, but you beat me to it.
However, whether or not the letter is genuine it seems unlikely that a glitch would cause specifically gay literature to be de-listed; one would expect some other unusal behavior from their search engine as well, which hasn't been reported so far. As for it being a hack, I would suspect that anyone who gained access to Amazon's listing service would do something a little more malicious than simply de-listing gay books (I know I would).
Just my two cents.
*sigh*
Not sure if you were being serious or not, but either way I'm going to respond with my usual rant on the subject because I think it's important: Whether or not being gay is genetic shouldn't matter in the context of any policy whatsoever. It appalls me to no end that people debate about this when the real issue at hand is that adults ought to be able to have consensual sex with whomever they want. What I do in the bedroom is between me and whomever I'm in there with.
the speculation was that the FBI raided the data center for IP piracy. Which would, assuming they in fact had a warrant, be within the scope of criminal law, e.g. The Copyright act.
However, I was under the impression that, in America, it was no violation of the law to owe someone money; at least until that person or corporation showed that money was owed or a contract was breached in a CIVIL suit.
Or has the Federal Government legislated itself into that area as well?
IANAL, etc.
Cops =/= Bears
Besides which, even if this crudely formed analogy were true, the equivalent of the blogger's actions would be shouting insults at the bear from outside the cage. The bear, being at the zoo, ought to be used to that sort of thing.
Now if the cops were pedobear....
Well, I must say that the UK is a horrible place to live and I absolutely would not recommend anyone to travel there. Ever. Wherever you go, make sure it isn't the UK.
Come and get me, bitches.
[sarcasm]Because having, at some point in one's life, broken one of the labyrinthine maze of laws and rules that govern behavior in this country would obviously mean that one could never, under any circumstances, judge someone fairly and impartially.[/sarcasm]
Sorry--I myself have always wanted to do my civil duty and serve on a jury but know that I will never be able to because of some stupid stuff I did when I was young.
Exactly. I mentioned earlier how insurance companies are private corporations which are primarily interested in making a profit. This is an especially bad situation for the consumer when they are required to have auto insurance and when the companies have an insidious information sharing agreement with the state that justifies them to raise your rates for practically any reason. The fact that tickets raise your insurance rates is irritating, considering that in most municipalities you can be pulled over and ticketed for practically ANYTHING: Such as (where I live) driving in the left hand lane when no other cars are on the road, engine breaking, coasting, etc. However, what even more infuriating is the fact that being involved in an accident raises one's premiums even if it was determined that the person wasn't at fault: Just another example of the corporations hiding behind some spurious statistical reasoning to justify ripping off their customers.
First of all, the fact that insurance is viewed as individual risk assessment, instead of pooled risk, is why there is such an unfair and unfounded disparity between insurance rates in this country. And it's not just auto insurance--if you get seriously ill, you're health insurance goes up; if you're a doctor and you get sued for malpractice, your insurance rates go up; etc. All of this is essentially insurance companies trying to nickle and dime people for any reason they can--ie. your male, you got a speeding ticket, you drive a red car, etc.--so they can fatten their own wallets.
Second of all, what do these insurance companies do with all that profit they make over their information-sharing agreement with the state? They sure ain't giving it to charity or using to make the roads safer, for that matter. Where I live (Seattle, WA) Safeco Insurance paid peoples' hard earned money to have a fucking baseball stadium named after them. If the government wants to require people to have auto insurance it should either offer decent public transportation so having a car isn't a necessity, or offer discounted insurance for low income individuals, who need a provider that doesn't spend more on marketing than their paying customers.
Last of all, studies have actually shown that people who drive while stoned are more safe and cautious than those who drive sober. Maybe free joints for motorists would be a good way to keep out roads safe.
You could ask these guys.
...but if you're talking, haven't you waived your right to remain silent...
Just make sure they have the right coverpage.
Exactly.
I had a girlfriend and a boyfriend at different points in high school. And let me tell you, I was told by school administrators that I couldn't hug or kiss my boyfriend at school because it "offended" other students, even though such activities were completely okay with my girlfriend because nobody took offense to it. Most gay people don't call any more attention to their sexuality than their straight counterparts; it's just that certain people (who, I'm quite sure, have their own sexual identity issues) think that the same type of normal human interaction that they can participate in in patently offensive and should be forbidden in someone with different tastes.