And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.
While I would agree that this administration seems bent on creating an all-powerful executive branch and removing the independent judiciary, that really isn't what is going on in this case.
The OPR is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is a huge part of the executive branch. That's why Bush has so much power over the DOJ. The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.
FreeDB provides CDDB info. In other words, a media player or cd ripper can contact the website with a hash of information specific to that CD or song and then return the name, artist, etc.
What does that have to do with being a cheap a-hole?
Makes you wonder why children take the male's family name
A: You live in a patrilineal society.
Not everyone has live or currently does live in such a society. Arguably, matrilinealization is the more intuitive method, becase you can be pretty certain who is the mother of the child.
What they really need is better copy protection out the door, instead of relying on a way of detecting it after the fact, they should be finding ways to prevent it beforehand.
I think probably one of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made regarding copy protection was in its method of handling volume licensing. Entire Universities across the country were given a copy of Windows that requires no activation or anything, along with (in many cases) one CD key for the lot. All anyone had to do was copy that CD, give away that CD key and those people are immune from detection. Of course, Microsoft knows a lot of those CD keys that have spread like wildfire, but they haven't blocked the one I got from my university yet.
Better copy protection and management in volume licensing upfront would have gone a long way to prevent a lot of these problems. I do suppose there is a balancing of factors taking place, in that on one hand you don't want to overburden customers that are feeding you millions for a volume license, but on the other hand, you also don't want them to turn around and give a copy to every family member and friend and acquaintance.
Perhaps you failed statistics, but the proper conclusion from the statement that "80% of failures are due to unauthorized use of leaked or stolen volume license keys." is that the other 20% of failures are due to something else.
I would guess some percentage would be the unauthorized use of leaked or stolen non-volume license keys. The rest of that 20% could be anything or nothing.
I have no idea what conclusion you were trying to draw from that statement, but you made quite a jump in logic there. That figure gives us no indication as to what total percentage of users have problems with WGA.
The problem is that while $1 or $2 million is a lot of money by most standards, it's not hard to have a family farm or a family business that's worth more than that. That means the heirs often can't take over the family business, and must instead break it up or sell out to some bigger business that can afford to buy it, simply to pay the inheritance taxes. So a tax aimed at the super-rich ends up killing family farms and medium-sized businesses.
I don't think I know any "family farms" that aren't knee-deep in debt. Exactly where are these millionaire farmers you knows that aren't mega-corps?
If I could just subscribe to the coupons and not the rest of the paper, I'd be set. That's the only reason I buy the Sunday paper anymore. I read it all online before I buy it and take the coupons out.
What I wanna know.. is how many Libraries of Congress can fit into the new crater?
Everyone knows that Libraries of Congress is a equivalent to 20 terrabytes, which in hard drives would be 40x500gb hard drives, or about 23 cubic meters.
The new crater on the moon is about 5500 cubic meters.
So, approximately 239 Libraries of Congress can fit.
The constitution doesn't give us rights, its restricts what government can do.
Not entirely true. The Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendments have a very different tone from the First through Fifth, in that they specifically grant the rights to a speedy trial and trial by jury, whereas the First through Fifth Amendments refer to rights which apparently already existed and the Government is explicitly restricted from infringing upon.
By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically
Some treaties are self-effectuating, meaning that no action on the part of Congress is required to make them actually work. Most extradition treaties tend to be of this form. "Country X agrees to send Country Y any of its citizens that commit a crime in Country X."
Other treaties require some action by Congress before they're effective. "Country X agrees to make its laws conform to the following set of requirements:"
The latter kind of treaty is technically not very useful until Congress acts, but you have to remember that if you want those other countries to deal with you in the future, it's probably a good idea to follow through on your word.
Congress does not have the power to make treaties. They can pass laws implementing them, and the President needs their "advice and consent" to make them, but Congress does not have the power to make treaties.
perhaps more interesting is that it appears more people with ipods are having sex, than people drinking beer. Also, in Australia, Beer and Sex are more closely related; whereas in the UK, ipods and sex are more closely related; and in the US it's about even.
I think this has much more to do with the fact that 2nd and 3rd world countries never had telephone infrastructure to begin with
"Second World" countries would be those allied with the USSR during the Cold War.
"Third World" countries historically was everyone that wasn't allied with either the US or the USSR during the Cold War, but has, in the media, come to mean "undeveloped country."
Many state courts have implied "for just cause" requirements to any dismissal, even though there may be an at-will statute. I don't have numbers, but the law can vary widely depending on where you live. I do know that New York employment law, even as interpreted by the courts is very pro-management (which might surprise some people). All states allow some very minor exceptions to EAW, and somes have almost obliterated EAW through court decisions or statutes.
Part of the reason Silicon Valley was able to do what it did, is because non-compete clauses are unforceable there, so employees were free to move between companies at will. It worked pretty good.
What if someone didn't like a particular student, created a blog claiming to be them, and posted illegal or inappropriate material? The same thing goes for employers checking out potential employees. There's no way to verify people are who they say they are on these sites.
I imagine it would be treated much the same way as a false positive piss test.
It wouldn't be a contract at all, since many essential elements are lacking, but making the kids read something and then sign something saying they read it can help prevent them trying to say they were unaware of such a rule existing. It's sort of like when States passes sweeping new laws, they tend to let us know about them for a few months BEFORE they start enforcing them.
Well, I think some schools have some power over truancy regulations, so this could be seen as extension of that in some respects. If a student is absent from school, and the school finds information the student posted online that can provide information on their whereabouts during that time period, then that would be well within what schools should be doing. If they're going further, looking for random evidence of illegal activity and then reporting it to the police, well they probably need to fire some excess employees that have that kind of time to waste.
It can still be an invasion of privacy to be monitoring blogs depending on what the purpose is in doing the monitoring. Privacy is not just about secrecy - secrecy is merely one facet of privacy, and is not even the most important one. Privacy is a much broader concept and is about being left the hell alone. The monitoring in this case appears to be planned for the purpose of the school district systematically interfering in stuff that is none of their damned business, and so it can still be an invasion of privacy even though the information being monitored is publicly available.
There's no oxymoron, but it's clear the spokesperson is a moron.
I'm sorry, you're a moron. If you broadcast into the public, you have no right to privacy regarding that matter. The second you posted it on "myspace" it stopped being private. "Invasion of privacy," is also often termed "intrusion upon one's seclusion." No intrusion can occur upon that which you had displayed in public. If you don't want the world to know, don't tell the world.
Back when people lived in smaller communities and actually talked to their neighbors, they had to be a lot more careful about what they said and did, because it could very quickly spread to the entire town. For awhile, we all got busy and ignored our neighbors and that wasn't a problem. Now, thanks to the Internet, the world has shrunk again and we're back to the same situation we were in before, except that people haven't yet figured out that they need to use a little more discretion regarding what they do and say in "public."
You should consider every single thing you post online, write in an e-mail, or tell someone on instant messager as fair game to the public. Once you've past that information onto someone else, you have no control over what they do with it, and you should probably start treating it as public the minute it leaves your computer. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any "invading your privacy."
Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...
Lawyers are officers of the court and therefore take similar oaths to all other public officials (uphold the laws of the state and constitutions, etc). They also generally take an oath to zealously represent their clients. As to your comment regarding defending a murder suspect, I don't see where you are going there. First of all, murder "suspects" are all innocent (until the state carries their burden of proof in a court of law) and have the right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Greater harm would be done by not defending those suspected of crimes.
Anyway, most criminal defense attorneys don't necessarily see their job as helping criminals get away with crimes, but instead, they see their job as ensuring the Constitution is upheld (something all lawyers swear to do). If that means that a few "bad people" have to go loose, it's probably worth it in the long run. That's exactly the weighing of harms that our forefathers did when writing the Constitution. It is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one for a day. (apologies to whomever may have said something similar before me).
One step further is the fact that attorneys generally don't have the same kind of protections even with representation agreements, etc. If you want to get rid of your attorney, you can, but you will owe them for everything up until the point you fired them.
Attorneys are in a worse situation than employment-at-will in most cases.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not their fault there's so many people named Anonymous Coward. You could just login.
And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.
While I would agree that this administration seems bent on creating an all-powerful executive branch and removing the independent judiciary, that really isn't what is going on in this case.
The OPR is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is a huge part of the executive branch. That's why Bush has so much power over the DOJ. The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.
RTFASummary even?
FreeDB provides CDDB info. In other words, a media player or cd ripper can contact the website with a hash of information specific to that CD or song and then return the name, artist, etc.
What does that have to do with being a cheap a-hole?
Makes you wonder why children take the male's family name
A: You live in a patrilineal society.
Not everyone has live or currently does live in such a society. Arguably, matrilinealization is the more intuitive method, becase you can be pretty certain who is the mother of the child.
What they really need is better copy protection out the door, instead of relying on a way of detecting it after the fact, they should be finding ways to prevent it beforehand.
I think probably one of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made regarding copy protection was in its method of handling volume licensing. Entire Universities across the country were given a copy of Windows that requires no activation or anything, along with (in many cases) one CD key for the lot. All anyone had to do was copy that CD, give away that CD key and those people are immune from detection. Of course, Microsoft knows a lot of those CD keys that have spread like wildfire, but they haven't blocked the one I got from my university yet.
Better copy protection and management in volume licensing upfront would have gone a long way to prevent a lot of these problems. I do suppose there is a balancing of factors taking place, in that on one hand you don't want to overburden customers that are feeding you millions for a volume license, but on the other hand, you also don't want them to turn around and give a copy to every family member and friend and acquaintance.
Perhaps you failed statistics, but the proper conclusion from the statement that "80% of failures are due to unauthorized use of leaked or stolen volume license keys." is that the other 20% of failures are due to something else.
I would guess some percentage would be the unauthorized use of leaked or stolen non-volume license keys. The rest of that 20% could be anything or nothing.
I have no idea what conclusion you were trying to draw from that statement, but you made quite a jump in logic there. That figure gives us no indication as to what total percentage of users have problems with WGA.
I imagine a good number of natural born citizens couldn't pass the citizenship test. I say we trade them for some better immigrants.
The problem is that while $1 or $2 million is a lot of money by most standards, it's not hard to have a family farm or a family business that's worth more than that. That means the heirs often can't take over the family business, and must instead break it up or sell out to some bigger business that can afford to buy it, simply to pay the inheritance taxes. So a tax aimed at the super-rich ends up killing family farms and medium-sized businesses.
I don't think I know any "family farms" that aren't knee-deep in debt. Exactly where are these millionaire farmers you knows that aren't mega-corps?
Gifts to charity, upon death or during life, are exempt from federal estate and gift taxes. What's your point?
If I could just subscribe to the coupons and not the rest of the paper, I'd be set. That's the only reason I buy the Sunday paper anymore. I read it all online before I buy it and take the coupons out.
What I wanna know.. is how many Libraries of Congress can fit into the new crater?
Everyone knows that Libraries of Congress is a equivalent to 20 terrabytes, which in hard drives would be 40x500gb hard drives, or about 23 cubic meters.
The new crater on the moon is about 5500 cubic meters.
So, approximately 239 Libraries of Congress can fit.
The constitution doesn't give us rights, its restricts what government can do.
Not entirely true. The Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendments have a very different tone from the First through Fifth, in that they specifically grant the rights to a speedy trial and trial by jury, whereas the First through Fifth Amendments refer to rights which apparently already existed and the Government is explicitly restricted from infringing upon.
By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically
Some treaties are self-effectuating, meaning that no action on the part of Congress is required to make them actually work. Most extradition treaties tend to be of this form. "Country X agrees to send Country Y any of its citizens that commit a crime in Country X."
Other treaties require some action by Congress before they're effective. "Country X agrees to make its laws conform to the following set of requirements:"
The latter kind of treaty is technically not very useful until Congress acts, but you have to remember that if you want those other countries to deal with you in the future, it's probably a good idea to follow through on your word.
Congress does not have the power to make treaties. They can pass laws implementing them, and the President needs their "advice and consent" to make them, but Congress does not have the power to make treaties.
perhaps more interesting is that it appears more people with ipods are having sex, than people drinking beer. Also, in Australia, Beer and Sex are more closely related; whereas in the UK, ipods and sex are more closely related; and in the US it's about even.
e x&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
http://www.google.com/trends?q=beer+sex%2C+iPod+s
I think this has much more to do with the fact that 2nd and 3rd world countries never had telephone infrastructure to begin with
"Second World" countries would be those allied with the USSR during the Cold War.
"Third World" countries historically was everyone that wasn't allied with either the US or the USSR during the Cold War, but has, in the media, come to mean "undeveloped country."
Many state courts have implied "for just cause" requirements to any dismissal, even though there may be an at-will statute. I don't have numbers, but the law can vary widely depending on where you live. I do know that New York employment law, even as interpreted by the courts is very pro-management (which might surprise some people). All states allow some very minor exceptions to EAW, and somes have almost obliterated EAW through court decisions or statutes.
Part of the reason Silicon Valley was able to do what it did, is because non-compete clauses are unforceable there, so employees were free to move between companies at will. It worked pretty good.
What if someone didn't like a particular student, created a blog claiming to be them, and posted illegal or inappropriate material? The same thing goes for employers checking out potential employees. There's no way to verify people are who they say they are on these sites.
I imagine it would be treated much the same way as a false positive piss test.
It wouldn't be a contract at all, since many essential elements are lacking, but making the kids read something and then sign something saying they read it can help prevent them trying to say they were unaware of such a rule existing. It's sort of like when States passes sweeping new laws, they tend to let us know about them for a few months BEFORE they start enforcing them.
Well, I think some schools have some power over truancy regulations, so this could be seen as extension of that in some respects. If a student is absent from school, and the school finds information the student posted online that can provide information on their whereabouts during that time period, then that would be well within what schools should be doing. If they're going further, looking for random evidence of illegal activity and then reporting it to the police, well they probably need to fire some excess employees that have that kind of time to waste.
It can still be an invasion of privacy to be monitoring blogs depending on what the purpose is in doing the monitoring. Privacy is not just about secrecy - secrecy is merely one facet of privacy, and is not even the most important one. Privacy is a much broader concept and is about being left the hell alone. The monitoring in this case appears to be planned for the purpose of the school district systematically interfering in stuff that is none of their damned business, and so it can still be an invasion of privacy even though the information being monitored is publicly available.
There's no oxymoron, but it's clear the spokesperson is a moron.
I'm sorry, you're a moron. If you broadcast into the public, you have no right to privacy regarding that matter. The second you posted it on "myspace" it stopped being private. "Invasion of privacy," is also often termed "intrusion upon one's seclusion." No intrusion can occur upon that which you had displayed in public. If you don't want the world to know, don't tell the world.
Back when people lived in smaller communities and actually talked to their neighbors, they had to be a lot more careful about what they said and did, because it could very quickly spread to the entire town. For awhile, we all got busy and ignored our neighbors and that wasn't a problem. Now, thanks to the Internet, the world has shrunk again and we're back to the same situation we were in before, except that people haven't yet figured out that they need to use a little more discretion regarding what they do and say in "public."
You should consider every single thing you post online, write in an e-mail, or tell someone on instant messager as fair game to the public. Once you've past that information onto someone else, you have no control over what they do with it, and you should probably start treating it as public the minute it leaves your computer. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any "invading your privacy."
Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...
Lawyers are officers of the court and therefore take similar oaths to all other public officials (uphold the laws of the state and constitutions, etc). They also generally take an oath to zealously represent their clients. As to your comment regarding defending a murder suspect, I don't see where you are going there. First of all, murder "suspects" are all innocent (until the state carries their burden of proof in a court of law) and have the right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Greater harm would be done by not defending those suspected of crimes.
Anyway, most criminal defense attorneys don't necessarily see their job as helping criminals get away with crimes, but instead, they see their job as ensuring the Constitution is upheld (something all lawyers swear to do). If that means that a few "bad people" have to go loose, it's probably worth it in the long run. That's exactly the weighing of harms that our forefathers did when writing the Constitution. It is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one for a day. (apologies to whomever may have said something similar before me).
Great research, but I'm sure he verbally waived those protections when this got started
Those aren't rights that the client can waive, those are laws the state made regulating the conduct of attorneys.
One step further is the fact that attorneys generally don't have the same kind of protections even with representation agreements, etc. If you want to get rid of your attorney, you can, but you will owe them for everything up until the point you fired them.
Attorneys are in a worse situation than employment-at-will in most cases.