'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice. It refers to a legal proceeding where all involved parties are not present. Usually when one side is trying to get the judge to do something without the other party having a chance to argue their side. This is 'ex parte' because it's a John Doe defendant. And I'm pretty sure that it being 'ex parte' has nothing to do with this story, but something thought it sounded nice when they submitted the story. 'Ex parte' does sound nice.
Also, the legislator in question, has in local interviews said he doesn't think it'll pass or that it necessarily should pass. He said a bunch of people in his district brought it up to him, because they think it is a problem. So he wrote the bill, so that there can be debate. While I agree the idea is ridiculous, and unenforceable, at least he is responding to the people he is representing, even when they're idiots. Assuming people really came to him with this, and he's not just trying to score some free media.
Insight (In Kentucky, Indiana and a few other places that I know of) has been doing this for 9 months. But unfortunately their opt-out isn't by MAC address, it's handled by cookies. I use a mac, and safari, and this means if I browse in private mode (which I always do) I effectively can't opt-out. It'll opt out for the session, but I don't mistype a url every session, so it's pretty pointless to opt out each time. The thing that pisses me off about it is when I screwed up one letter, or reverse two letters. It use to be that I could just go to the address bar and fix the address, but can't do that now. Have to retype the whole address (I've yet to see the site I mistyped listed in the results page).
And I just tested it to see how opt-out worked, and it redirects you to a "standard" error page, changed the address in the address bar, so effective it still sucks after opting out.
I wrote them a letter saying this was unacceptable, and they told me to go an opt-out every time I opened my browser, or to turn cookies on.
"Firewire (IEE1394) is a true standard coming with every high end Laptop out there. A person buying a $1700 laptop (or $3K) won't trust his/her data to your average sub speed USB junk. High end cameras doesn't even do anything over USB. There is no high end audio equipment for USB2 because of a basic reason: Its advertised speed is completely false. Do you think a $1700 laptop owner have a el cheapo USB2 camera?"
Bull shit. My Cannon Digital Rebel uses USB, so I checked out their highest end camera ($7999). USB.
That would be believeable, if they didn't immediately throw up a "This domain is available" page. If they're protecting the person who searched for it, why are they offering it to sell to everyone else?
Parent needs to be modded up, the link really clears up the vast majority of the arguements in this thread. Policy does not ban blogging (according to their own blogger). It bans blogging from inside the press box.
No great way to argue with that. If you blog the game, they won't give you the best (and free) seats, and they won't invite you to do post-game interviews. Fair enough.
Private stadium? Um, UofL is a public university, and it happened in our Stadium. Not private. If this were a private school or private venue, sure, then your arguement holds up, but no, this was in a publically funded stadium. I'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, but your arguement holds no water, nor does your comparison to if someone trie to blog from inside your house.
A quick Google reseach reveals the Inuit have only been where they are now for 5,000 years From the article: "The Inuit people of the American Subarctic are an exception. They have moderately heavy skin pigmentation despite the far northern latitude at which they live. While this is a disadvantage for vitamin D production, they apparently made up for it by eating fish and sea mammal blubber that are high in D. In addition, the Inuit have been in the far north for only about 5,000 years. This may not have been enough time for significantly lower melanin production to have been selected for by nature."
According to this article you're totally wrong on the Ainu, and they are a great example showing that people lighten up as they move north:
"Another example is the Ainu of northern Japan, who have light skin but overall are very similar genetically to the darker-skinned groups that surround them. The evolution of skin color was apparently not a onetime event; it has occurred repeatedly during the history of our species. "
I can't find anything in the skin color of Mongols, but any reply has a picture which doesn't seem terribly dark skinned to me.
No, if you said "all niggers are fags, so we have twice as many reasons to kill them" and then killed one, then it would be considered a hate crime, and you could have an increased sentence for the crime. But if you just said it and did nothing to kill them, no crime. Now, of course, if you said it to a large crowd, and said "Go out there and kill them now" that would be inciting violence, and you could be charged.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
Fair fair. Point taken. I'm just tired of people acting like the U.S. is such a shit hole, especially when they turn around and brag about Europe. I like Europe, I vacation there whenever I can, but I wouldn't move there.
So yes, BAD OP! You're wrong (though he didn't say the ONLY one, he said "pretty unique" which I interpret to mean not unique but still rare). And don't be such a fricking elitist! But the U.S. is still better than the majority (9 out of 16 after the norweigan chimed in) of countries that GP tried to put forward as examples.
And yah, I do think a dipshit that says his country is the only one who does something is less offensive (pride is excusable) than the one who says no, here are 16 countries that also do it and is wrong on more than half. At least the first dipshit was right about the basic fact (his country has freedom of speech).
Ryan Stultz
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
Their constitution is unwritten - I'm not sure why they call it a constitution. It's a combination of written statutes and common-law practices.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Let's look at these one at a time:
France: Stand in Paris ad shout "The Holocaust never happened." You can be arrested. Restriction (among several others) on freedom of speech.
Germany: Same as above, plus their law restrictions disparagement of the state and federal government, along with insults to "organs and representatives of foreign states." Not only can you be restricted from insulting the german federal president, you also might not be able to insult George Bush (Americans would go mute).
UK: has one of the worst defamation laws. Defendant has a lot of responsiblity to prove their were not defaming the complaintant. This is why you see a lot more defamation lawsuits in UK than US. This is one way freedom of speech can be restricted. Britain also bans incitement to religious and/or racial hatred.
Ireland:Freedom of speech may not be used against "public order or morality or the authority of the State".
Switzerland: law bans "denying, belittling or justifying any genocide".
Sweden: Hate speech banned against several groups (including homosexuals)
Denmark: No problems found. They seem to have a true freedom of speech, or at least as high of a standard as the U.S.
Norway: Seems fine, though up until the 80s was banning films.
Finland: Let's give you most of the nordic countries, greenland, iceland.
Canada: Hate Speech is restricted.
Italy: Can't find any restrictions.
Greece: Has laws against blasphemy.
Portugal: Can't find any restritions.
Spain: Working on a law to make all webmasters register with the state (not domain owners, anyone who posts content on web). This isn't per se a restriction of freedom of speech, but historically making peope register to use their freedom of speech has been frowned upon.
So of your list of 16, only 8 of them have freedom of speech protections that equal the U.S. Lots of places have laws saying they have freedom of speech (I'm pretty sure China actually has a law protecting speech). It's a combination of putting the protection in the constitution and having a legislature and/or judiciary that preserves that protections that determine if you truly have freedom of speech. The United States (along with a handful of other countries, mostly in Europe) is one of the few countries (out of 192 UN members) that you can do all of the following: stand in front of the white house (on property that you are legally allowed upon) and declare to anyone and everyone that the president of the united states is an ignorant hick. You can also tell anyone you want that christ (or budda or allah) doesn't exist and is just used to scare simple-minded people into submission. There are three basic restrictions on freedom of speech in American: you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't incite violence and you can't slander/libel someone. These restrictions are all based on the idea that your rights end where everyone else's begin. Which means your right to freedom of speech ends when it endangers life or well being (slander, but only in the instance that it is untrue, you can't tell the truth and be found guilty of slander and/or libel). Notice the difference between this and most of the euro countries on the list that ban incitement to hatred (as opposed to violence). As an American I can talk about how lazy and dirty caucasians are, and how we should send everyone of them back to Europe where they belong. To get in trouble here I would have to tell people to kill the whitie, not just hate him. In Britain if I were to give the same speech about Muslims, I would be breaking the law. Freedom of speech means you have to allow the indefensible along with your own pet causes. This means holocaust deniers and sodomists along with feminists and progressives.
Oh, by the way, if I lived in a country that doesn't have a true constitution and doesn't have true freedom of speech, I probably wouldn't come on here and badmouth citizens of a country which does have freedom of speech.
I'm pretty sure it's much simpler than you think to figure out the "algorithm." I thought about this last fall, and looked at two stocks that made it through my filter. One had an approximately 8 day cycle and the other had something like a 17 day cycles. It wasn't exact, but over the previous 6 months it was pretty steady, every 6-10 days on the first stock and every 15-19 days on the other one. I didn't check it to a calendar all the way back, but it seemed the variation was due to weekends.
I seriously considered trying to beat the spammers, buy the day before they were buying, sell at the high.
That is until I talked to my attorney friend, who convinced me the risk wasn't worth it, that if you did get investigated for doing this, you'd have to work pretty damn hard to convince them that you had nothing to do with the Pump and Dump scheme, and that it was a grey area if you can profit off a pump and dump (even if you had nothing to do with it).
Well, I'm not sure who you write for, though later you suggest it is a literature magazine, which may explain your answer, but as a copy-editor and page designer I can tell you that the overriding authority for the vast majority of print publications, television stations and online news sites is the AP stylebook.
I don't have the newest stylebook, so I'm not sure if they have an individual entry for iTunes yet (they will, they have company names, products, everything under the sun that doesn't adhere to basic style guidelines). But after 5 years of being a copy-editor for daily papers, I feel pretty comfortable calling this one. If it is the beginning of the sentence, it's capitalized. Don't care who/what it is, it's capitalized. Otherwise, write it like the owner/person wants.
And, just to cover my ass, I went and checked out the Times and a few other reliable newspapers. That's how they treat iTunes.
And I'd say Slashdot's style guide should follow AP (since it it a news site) if it actually followed any guidelines.
The article I read about this several days ago said that it wasn't merely the copyright issue, that's just how they got him to stop. He was distributing an outdated map, they had changed one route, shortened another, and his maps didn't reflect this. They said that if just anyone was redistributing maps, it'd be a mess, because they'd have no control over it. Plus they said they wouold be adding the iPod maps to their own web-site, because it was a good idea (for free).
Now the $500 fee is a bit ridiculous, but the rest made sense.
No I haven't RTFA, so I have no idea what this one says, but someone (wired?) had it two days ago, same guy.
I agree. If it were going to be the EU, U.S., Canada, Australia, etc running it, I'd be a lot more comfortable. But this specifically is about giving developing nations a say. Look at developing nations. Not bedrocks fo freedom, by and large.
Other than the fact that your comment is entirely ridiculous (Heard of Wall Street, Multinational companies, the UN [yah, it's based here and we do provide a decent amount of their budget, I think Japan is the only one who pays more], a university system that educates people from the accross the world?), this isn't about the U.S. bullying people. For once this is the U.S. government doing the right thing.
Ever heard of the great fire wall? Imagine giving china, saudi arabia, egypt, Libya, Zimbabwe and Cuba a say in running ICANN (or it's replacement)..XXX would be a joke, we'd be fighting over whether ISPs have to be registered with their state government, whether you have to be registered with the censors to have an IP address, etc.
While we have a fucked up government that I trust about as far as I can throw Dick Cheney, unfortunately the truth is that our government respects freedom better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. We have managed to largely keep politics out of ICANN (largely, not entirely) but that would be a thing of the past if it became a UN function.
Just think about the fact that slashdot would be illegal in a number of the countries clammering for control. Too much anti-government content.
Think about all of the totally inocuous things that get held up at the UN because the Arab League won't approve it unless there is a tag at the bottom calling Ariel Sharon a babykiller. Now imagine what those some people will do when they control the root DNS servers. Very easily wipe countries off of the map.
Not saying he isn't full of shit, but he is already manufacturing them. He already has a network of dealerships (based on a google search for more information). The reporter test drove a jeep outfitted with one of them. All of the steps you named, he claims to have already done them. This isn't some new company, he's been working on this for years.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I pretty sure that the original poster was talking about the Alaskan bridge to Gravina Island. It is a $300 million bridge connecting a town of 8,000 to an island of 50. The island currently has no bridge, it has no paved roads for that matter. It is served by a ferry. Residents are quoting as saying they like their ferry, and didn't ask for a bridge. This is the project that the nation got up in arms about. What project are you talking about? Or are you just making things up? And as for how I know? Well I spent the five minutes to look it up. Looked to see what the project was called in the transportation bill and then found the actual information. Research, there's no substitute.
Lloyds has a three-hundred year history or ups and downs, it's the insurance industry (quite literally, the insurance industry was created out of Lloyd's, then a coffee house dedicated to maritime shipping).
While I don't doubt that Lloyds has problems, has had problems, will have problems, they are known as a gold standard. It's not a single entity, it's a market, much like the stock market. There are large syndicates, made up of names (investors) who are the ones who actually are taking the risk. Lloyds is the gold standard because they have shown time and time again that they will not allow themselves to go bust. In whole or part. If a syndicate can not pay it's liabilities, then Lloyds governing body pays, with all of the other names sharing the cost. It's expensive, especially considering that they are covering policies they aren't legally reponsible for. But it's worked for 300 years, I still have faith in them.
Also, the financial fraud/troubles your link points out are from 80s and 90s. Lloyds was either the largest or second largest reinsurer (the ones who actually had to pay) on the World Trade Center, and they paid that claim (billions), so I would assume they're not in that much trouble.
I'm a graphic artist, and we encounter non-compete agreements all the time (since we directly service clients, it's very easy for us to walk with the client if we get pissed off at the agency). I've asked an attorney before about these, and was told, it depends on where the worker lives. State law governs non-compete agreements. A bunch of states do not honor them, a bunch do. I was specifically told (by my attorney) to sign it, and if it became a problem, I'd just have to move across the river (I live on the Ohio river, cross it, different state) and it would be unenforceable.
This article says that the worker was in a research lab in China. The suit was filed in King County (Seattle). I'm not a lawyer, no do I play one, but I don't see how they're going convince a judge in King County that they have jurisdiction, when it's not only out of state, but out of the country.
I worked for a company that had it for the past 2 years. We were a newspaper. Used VoIP for everything, through a local provider, with a T1. When I got there, I was shocked that they used. Our ad reps used it to talk to clients, our reporters used it to interview people.
No one ever complained. I think the real issue with it is that you have to have an extremely good, reliable connection.
I don't know about everywhere else, but in Louisville (Ky.) we have a local provider who is bundling connections with VoIP services, and a lot of companies are switching.
I also have Vonage at home. It sucked for a long time. I was able to have it disconnected, and then I reconfigured my network, and now I can't tell the difference from my old Bellsouth phone. And that's with the phone going over airport and a cable modem.
I have to disagree, at least with the situations I've used it in.
"The device compared the car's speed with the local limit -- displayed on the dashboard -- and sent a signal to the accelerator or brake pedal to slow if it was too fast. The system can be overridden to avoid a hazard."
Don't know what the mechanism is, but they've obviously considered that sometimes it is justified to go over the speed limit.
Yah, that makes sense, we'd make the largest country in the world have two representatives, so that only India and China have a representative. Instead, think about how the House of Representatives works. Each state gets votes based on population, every state gets 1 vote.
Slashdot Mirror
'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice. It refers to a legal proceeding where all involved parties are not present. Usually when one side is trying to get the judge to do something without the other party having a chance to argue their side. This is 'ex parte' because it's a John Doe defendant. And I'm pretty sure that it being 'ex parte' has nothing to do with this story, but something thought it sounded nice when they submitted the story. 'Ex parte' does sound nice.
Good point.
Also, the legislator in question, has in local interviews said he doesn't think it'll pass or that it necessarily should pass. He said a bunch of people in his district brought it up to him, because they think it is a problem. So he wrote the bill, so that there can be debate. While I agree the idea is ridiculous, and unenforceable, at least he is responding to the people he is representing, even when they're idiots. Assuming people really came to him with this, and he's not just trying to score some free media.
Ryan Stultz
Insight (In Kentucky, Indiana and a few other places that I know of) has been doing this for 9 months. But unfortunately their opt-out isn't by MAC address, it's handled by cookies. I use a mac, and safari, and this means if I browse in private mode (which I always do) I effectively can't opt-out. It'll opt out for the session, but I don't mistype a url every session, so it's pretty pointless to opt out each time. The thing that pisses me off about it is when I screwed up one letter, or reverse two letters. It use to be that I could just go to the address bar and fix the address, but can't do that now. Have to retype the whole address (I've yet to see the site I mistyped listed in the results page).
And I just tested it to see how opt-out worked, and it redirects you to a "standard" error page, changed the address in the address bar, so effective it still sucks after opting out.
I wrote them a letter saying this was unacceptable, and they told me to go an opt-out every time I opened my browser, or to turn cookies on.
Ryan Stultz
"Firewire (IEE1394) is a true standard coming with every high end Laptop out there. A person buying a $1700 laptop (or $3K) won't trust his/her data to your average sub speed USB junk. High end cameras doesn't even do anything over USB. There is no high end audio equipment for USB2 because of a basic reason: Its advertised speed is completely false. Do you think a $1700 laptop owner have a el cheapo USB2 camera?"
Bull shit. My Cannon Digital Rebel uses USB, so I checked out their highest end camera ($7999). USB.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15710#ModelTechSpecsAct
That would be believeable, if they didn't immediately throw up a "This domain is available" page. If they're protecting the person who searched for it, why are they offering it to sell to everyone else?
Yah, that seemed reasonable, but go to their site, search for a domain, then go to that domain, and you'll see a "This domain is available, buy now."
I think that undercuts the theory that maybe they're just trying to be helpful.
Ryan
Parent needs to be modded up, the link really clears up the vast majority of the arguements in this thread. Policy does not ban blogging (according to their own blogger). It bans blogging from inside the press box.
No great way to argue with that. If you blog the game, they won't give you the best (and free) seats, and they won't invite you to do post-game interviews. Fair enough.
Ryan Stultz
Private stadium? Um, UofL is a public university, and it happened in our Stadium. Not private. If this were a private school or private venue, sure, then your arguement holds up, but no, this was in a publically funded stadium. I'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, but your arguement holds no water, nor does your comparison to if someone trie to blog from inside your house.
Ryan Stultz
A quick Google reseach reveals the Inuit have only been where they are now for 5,000 years From the article:
"The Inuit people of the American Subarctic are an exception. They have moderately heavy skin pigmentation despite the far northern latitude at which they live. While this is a disadvantage for vitamin D production, they apparently made up for it by eating fish and sea mammal blubber that are high in D. In addition, the Inuit have been in the far north for only about 5,000 years. This may not have been enough time for significantly lower melanin production to have been selected for by nature."
According to this article you're totally wrong on the Ainu, and they are a great example showing that people lighten up as they move north:
"Another example is the Ainu of northern Japan, who have light skin but overall are very similar genetically to the darker-skinned groups that surround them. The evolution of skin color was apparently not a onetime event; it has occurred repeatedly during the history of our species. "
I can't find anything in the skin color of Mongols, but any reply has a picture which doesn't seem terribly dark skinned to me.
No, if you said "all niggers are fags, so we have twice as many reasons to kill them" and then killed one, then it would be considered a hate crime, and you could have an increased sentence for the crime. But if you just said it and did nothing to kill them, no crime. Now, of course, if you said it to a large crowd, and said "Go out there and kill them now" that would be inciting violence, and you could be charged.
Fair fair. Point taken. I'm just tired of people acting like the U.S. is such a shit hole, especially when they turn around and brag about Europe. I like Europe, I vacation there whenever I can, but I wouldn't move there.
So yes, BAD OP! You're wrong (though he didn't say the ONLY one, he said "pretty unique" which I interpret to mean not unique but still rare). And don't be such a fricking elitist! But the U.S. is still better than the majority (9 out of 16 after the norweigan chimed in) of countries that GP tried to put forward as examples.
And yah, I do think a dipshit that says his country is the only one who does something is less offensive (pride is excusable) than the one who says no, here are 16 countries that also do it and is wrong on more than half. At least the first dipshit was right about the basic fact (his country has freedom of speech).
Ryan Stultz
Their constitution is unwritten - I'm not sure why they call it a constitution. It's a combination of written statutes and common-law practices.
Let's look at these one at a time:
France: Stand in Paris ad shout "The Holocaust never happened." You can be arrested. Restriction (among several others) on freedom of speech.
Germany: Same as above, plus their law restrictions disparagement of the state and federal government, along with insults to "organs and representatives of foreign states." Not only can you be restricted from insulting the german federal president, you also might not be able to insult George Bush (Americans would go mute).
UK: has one of the worst defamation laws. Defendant has a lot of responsiblity to prove their were not defaming the complaintant. This is why you see a lot more defamation lawsuits in UK than US. This is one way freedom of speech can be restricted. Britain also bans incitement to religious and/or racial hatred.
Ireland:Freedom of speech may not be used against "public order or morality or the authority of the State".
Switzerland: law bans "denying, belittling or justifying any genocide".
Sweden: Hate speech banned against several groups (including homosexuals)
Denmark: No problems found. They seem to have a true freedom of speech, or at least as high of a standard as the U.S.
Norway: Seems fine, though up until the 80s was banning films.
Finland: Let's give you most of the nordic countries, greenland, iceland.
Canada: Hate Speech is restricted.
Italy: Can't find any restrictions.
Greece: Has laws against blasphemy.
Portugal: Can't find any restritions.
Spain: Working on a law to make all webmasters register with the state (not domain owners, anyone who posts content on web). This isn't per se a restriction of freedom of speech, but historically making peope register to use their freedom of speech has been frowned upon.
So of your list of 16, only 8 of them have freedom of speech protections that equal the U.S. Lots of places have laws saying they have freedom of speech (I'm pretty sure China actually has a law protecting speech). It's a combination of putting the protection in the constitution and having a legislature and/or judiciary that preserves that protections that determine if you truly have freedom of speech. The United States (along with a handful of other countries, mostly in Europe) is one of the few countries (out of 192 UN members) that you can do all of the following: stand in front of the white house (on property that you are legally allowed upon) and declare to anyone and everyone that the president of the united states is an ignorant hick. You can also tell anyone you want that christ (or budda or allah) doesn't exist and is just used to scare simple-minded people into submission. There are three basic restrictions on freedom of speech in American: you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't incite violence and you can't slander/libel someone. These restrictions are all based on the idea that your rights end where everyone else's begin. Which means your right to freedom of speech ends when it endangers life or well being (slander, but only in the instance that it is untrue, you can't tell the truth and be found guilty of slander and/or libel). Notice the difference between this and most of the euro countries on the list that ban incitement to hatred (as opposed to violence). As an American I can talk about how lazy and dirty caucasians are, and how we should send everyone of them back to Europe where they belong. To get in trouble here I would have to tell people to kill the whitie, not just hate him. In Britain if I were to give the same speech about Muslims, I would be breaking the law. Freedom of speech means you have to allow the indefensible along with your own pet causes. This means holocaust deniers and sodomists along with feminists and progressives.
Oh, by the way, if I lived in a country that doesn't have a true constitution and doesn't have true freedom of speech, I probably wouldn't come on here and badmouth citizens of a country which does have freedom of speech.
I'm pretty sure it's much simpler than you think to figure out the "algorithm." I thought about this last fall, and looked at two stocks that made it through my filter. One had an approximately 8 day cycle and the other had something like a 17 day cycles. It wasn't exact, but over the previous 6 months it was pretty steady, every 6-10 days on the first stock and every 15-19 days on the other one. I didn't check it to a calendar all the way back, but it seemed the variation was due to weekends.
I seriously considered trying to beat the spammers, buy the day before they were buying, sell at the high.
That is until I talked to my attorney friend, who convinced me the risk wasn't worth it, that if you did get investigated for doing this, you'd have to work pretty damn hard to convince them that you had nothing to do with the Pump and Dump scheme, and that it was a grey area if you can profit off a pump and dump (even if you had nothing to do with it).
I still think it's a good idea.
Ryan Stultz
Well, I'm not sure who you write for, though later you suggest it is a literature magazine, which may explain your answer, but as a copy-editor and page designer I can tell you that the overriding authority for the vast majority of print publications, television stations and online news sites is the AP stylebook.
I don't have the newest stylebook, so I'm not sure if they have an individual entry for iTunes yet (they will, they have company names, products, everything under the sun that doesn't adhere to basic style guidelines). But after 5 years of being a copy-editor for daily papers, I feel pretty comfortable calling this one. If it is the beginning of the sentence, it's capitalized. Don't care who/what it is, it's capitalized. Otherwise, write it like the owner/person wants.
And, just to cover my ass, I went and checked out the Times and a few other reliable newspapers. That's how they treat iTunes.
And I'd say Slashdot's style guide should follow AP (since it it a news site) if it actually followed any guidelines.
Ryan Stultz
The article I read about this several days ago said that it wasn't merely the copyright issue, that's just how they got him to stop. He was distributing an outdated map, they had changed one route, shortened another, and his maps didn't reflect this. They said that if just anyone was redistributing maps, it'd be a mess, because they'd have no control over it. Plus they said they wouold be adding the iPod maps to their own web-site, because it was a good idea (for free).
Now the $500 fee is a bit ridiculous, but the rest made sense.
No I haven't RTFA, so I have no idea what this one says, but someone (wired?) had it two days ago, same guy.
Ryan
I agree. If it were going to be the EU, U.S., Canada, Australia, etc running it, I'd be a lot more comfortable. But this specifically is about giving developing nations a say. Look at developing nations. Not bedrocks fo freedom, by and large.
Other than the fact that your comment is entirely ridiculous (Heard of Wall Street, Multinational companies, the UN [yah, it's based here and we do provide a decent amount of their budget, I think Japan is the only one who pays more], a university system that educates people from the accross the world?), this isn't about the U.S. bullying people. For once this is the U.S. government doing the right thing.
.XXX would be a joke, we'd be fighting over whether ISPs have to be registered with their state government, whether you have to be registered with the censors to have an IP address, etc.
Ever heard of the great fire wall? Imagine giving china, saudi arabia, egypt, Libya, Zimbabwe and Cuba a say in running ICANN (or it's replacement).
While we have a fucked up government that I trust about as far as I can throw Dick Cheney, unfortunately the truth is that our government respects freedom better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. We have managed to largely keep politics out of ICANN (largely, not entirely) but that would be a thing of the past if it became a UN function.
Just think about the fact that slashdot would be illegal in a number of the countries clammering for control. Too much anti-government content.
Think about all of the totally inocuous things that get held up at the UN because the Arab League won't approve it unless there is a tag at the bottom calling Ariel Sharon a babykiller. Now imagine what those some people will do when they control the root DNS servers. Very easily wipe countries off of the map.
Ryan Stultz
Um, did you read the article?
Not saying he isn't full of shit, but he is already manufacturing them. He already has a network of dealerships (based on a google search for more information). The reporter test drove a jeep outfitted with one of them. All of the steps you named, he claims to have already done them. This isn't some new company, he's been working on this for years.
Ryan
I have no idea what you're talking about. I pretty sure that the original poster was talking about the Alaskan bridge to Gravina Island. It is a $300 million bridge connecting a town of 8,000 to an island of 50. The island currently has no bridge, it has no paved roads for that matter. It is served by a ferry. Residents are quoting as saying they like their ferry, and didn't ask for a bridge. This is the project that the nation got up in arms about. What project are you talking about? Or are you just making things up? And as for how I know? Well I spent the five minutes to look it up. Looked to see what the project was called in the transportation bill and then found the actual information. Research, there's no substitute.
Ryan Stultz
Lloyds has a three-hundred year history or ups and downs, it's the insurance industry (quite literally, the insurance industry was created out of Lloyd's, then a coffee house dedicated to maritime shipping).
While I don't doubt that Lloyds has problems, has had problems, will have problems, they are known as a gold standard. It's not a single entity, it's a market, much like the stock market. There are large syndicates, made up of names (investors) who are the ones who actually are taking the risk. Lloyds is the gold standard because they have shown time and time again that they will not allow themselves to go bust. In whole or part. If a syndicate can not pay it's liabilities, then Lloyds governing body pays, with all of the other names sharing the cost. It's expensive, especially considering that they are covering policies they aren't legally reponsible for. But it's worked for 300 years, I still have faith in them.
Also, the financial fraud/troubles your link points out are from 80s and 90s. Lloyds was either the largest or second largest reinsurer (the ones who actually had to pay) on the World Trade Center, and they paid that claim (billions), so I would assume they're not in that much trouble.
Ryan Stultz
I'm a graphic artist, and we encounter non-compete agreements all the time (since we directly service clients, it's very easy for us to walk with the client if we get pissed off at the agency). I've asked an attorney before about these, and was told, it depends on where the worker lives. State law governs non-compete agreements. A bunch of states do not honor them, a bunch do. I was specifically told (by my attorney) to sign it, and if it became a problem, I'd just have to move across the river (I live on the Ohio river, cross it, different state) and it would be unenforceable.
This article says that the worker was in a research lab in China. The suit was filed in King County (Seattle). I'm not a lawyer, no do I play one, but I don't see how they're going convince a judge in King County that they have jurisdiction, when it's not only out of state, but out of the country.
Just my two cents.
Ryan Stultz
I worked for a company that had it for the past 2 years. We were a newspaper. Used VoIP for everything, through a local provider, with a T1. When I got there, I was shocked that they used. Our ad reps used it to talk to clients, our reporters used it to interview people.
No one ever complained. I think the real issue with it is that you have to have an extremely good, reliable connection.
I don't know about everywhere else, but in Louisville (Ky.) we have a local provider who is bundling connections with VoIP services, and a lot of companies are switching.
I also have Vonage at home. It sucked for a long time. I was able to have it disconnected, and then I reconfigured my network, and now I can't tell the difference from my old Bellsouth phone. And that's with the phone going over airport and a cable modem.
I have to disagree, at least with the situations I've used it in.
Ryan Stultz
From the article:
"The device compared the car's speed with the local limit -- displayed on the dashboard -- and sent a signal to the accelerator or brake pedal to slow if it was too fast. The system can be overridden to avoid a hazard."
Don't know what the mechanism is, but they've obviously considered that sometimes it is justified to go over the speed limit.
Ryan Stultz
Yah, that makes sense, we'd make the largest country in the world have two representatives, so that only India and China have a representative. Instead, think about how the House of Representatives works. Each state gets votes based on population, every state gets 1 vote.
Ryan Stultz