Look at a car repair bill sometime. It's much worse. Higher hourly rate, and even if it took 2 minutes to tighten that screw, you're paying for the full hour.
To Joe Computer User, looking at a URL that says something other than http://www.google.com/ might be considered "nitty-gritty." Just like to a heart surgeon picking the right knife to make that first cut with might seem to make perfect sense, I wouldn't have a clue what to do.
A little bit of an addendum to this, in case it wasn't clear...
If you want to sell a product, you adapt to your target audience. If you make your product so that they have to expend too much effort versus the potential gain from using it, they're not going to use it.
It's Linux' fatal flaw at the moment (with the "target audience" variable being debatable).
I think you need to back off the elite attitude a little bit.
As far as driving goes, most of the "morons" I see on the road are those that think they know everything and they don't. (i.e., I'm the best driver in the world and everyone else is a moron). Their ability to actually handle an automobile has little to do with knowing how the innards work.
The point in computers is that they are supposed to be easy to use. While you might find it exciting to look at a URL and understand that it isn't actually pointing where you think it is, a good majority of "average" users, probably don't even look at the address bar a good majority of the time (possibly because they are so often bombarded with "junk" looking URLs, i.e. look at the average slashdot URL when browsing comments).
People want to be able to sit at a computer and have it do what they want it to do without having to worry about those mundane details. This isn't a user issue, it's a design issue. It is easy to sit around and blame stupid users, but they're only stupid because the design hasn't conformed to their needs.
Think of it in terms of Operating Systems and security. The OS should come configured to be secure already. The average user isn't going to know or want to know how to make it secure, they expect to already be secure. Are they "stupid" for not wanting to do that? No, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure that takes place, so that the user doesn't have to worry about it.
We can either try to educate the world, or we can design products that conform to the world's "stupidity". The latter will probably be more successful.
The paypal ones can be a little tricky sometimes, like "There has a been an e-mail change request, go here to tell us if this is wrong"
Then you go there and unwittingly give your password to some stranger. Now if you have a credit card or checking account tied to your paypal account you could be in trouble.
But yeah, forms that ask for personal information are easier to avoid. You know the same people that fill those out and click "send" would probably never give the same information out to a person standing in front of them, so why do they do it online?
As for economies, if you're investing money why not just give it to me. I'll handle it for you. Why bother doing research. Why bother supporting local economies over foreign ones [e.g. walmart], etc, etc, etc.
You're seriously sitting there and saying "knowing things is a bad idea"...
The parent's point was that you don't need to know the intricate working details of everything in order to be able to effectively use it. That's the whole point of technology, we put enough layers on top of all the nitty-gritty so that what was once a complex task because simple.
You don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works to effectively drive a car. Someone purposefully put a lot of effort into making a car simple to drive so that almost anyone could do it without needing to be a mechanical engineer.
So, what we really have here is the original poster went a little too far with his hyperbolic examples, and you went too far the other way with yours.
Yes, knowing a little bit about what you are buying before you buy it is important, but you don't need to review the schematics and understand everything that went in to building it in order to use it. Otherwise, why didn't you just make it yourself?
Ah, the truth at last! It's not meant for you to understand, peasant! Get back to toiling!
Does it frighten anyone else that the US seems to be run by a group of people without the basic ability to convey their wishes clearly in writing?
I will agree there are many pieces of legislation would could be written more clearly than they are; however, it is essentially the problem with written laws. There is no one universal accepted meaning of a particular series of words.
For example:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
There are many valid interpretations of this, and the author's true intent and purpose is not known until it is considered with a substantial amount of context.
To "bear false witness" could mean simply lying under oath; or it could mean spreading rumors about another; or it could mean lying at all. Which one of these meanings is correct? Which one encompasses the degree of false witness which its author intended to cover by this law?
"Thy neighbor" is equally confusing. Depending on what part of the world you live in, neighbor could mean only those who live immediately to your left and right on the same side of the road; all people that reside within a square mile of you; maybe just the people in the same building; it could mean your entire village or town; or maybe the entire world.
So, am I breaking this law if I spread gossip about a person living halfway across the world?
How do you know which interpretation is the right one?
While it's easy to say that all laws should be easily understood; once you dive and look around, you will begin to understand why legislation is not that simple. You will also begin to understand why legislation is easy to change, but the Constitution is not.
Your insanity stopped amusing me a few days ago, but the hilarity you continue to provide is priceless.
Your entire argument is based upon a flawed belief that 28 USC 3002 somehow declares that the United States is a corporation. I've already dismissed this argument quite thoroughly elsewhere, and unless you can come up with additional evidence of your claim, you've got nothing to go on here.
I am curious what anti-corporation website stuck this into your brain so deeply it doesn't appear a full lobotomy would remove it.
Here you go, I had to search pretty in depth to find any cases that actually cited 28 USC 3002 (15), but I did.
"The FTC is considered the United States for purposes of the FDCPA. See id. 3002(15)(B). Therefore, the United States, not any individual or group of individuals, is the formal owner of the judgment." F.T.C. v. National Business Consultants, Inc., 376 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004).
This helps to understand the meaning of the rest of that statute. It is not proclaiming that the United State is a federal corporation. Instead, it is stating that for the purpose of Title 28, any and all federal corporations are considered as the United States. Therefore, such things as a judgment in a court would be effective as against the United States, not the FDIC or whatever.
Understand? Need more? Too bad. If you can't figure this out by now, you need to remove Cornell's USC from your bookmarks. There is more to the laws of the United States that the words that are written in those codes. You can't simply pull out a law and sit down with your handy Webster's and fully grasp the meaning of it. Legislation is not such a simple beast to handle. (Unless your name is Antonin "plain meaning" Scalia).
You're not interpretting the statute correctly at all.
The definition section is merely stating that where "United States" is referred to in that section, such things apply to all federal corporations, agencies, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or any instrumentality of the United States.
In other words, it applies to the TVA (A Federal corporation), it also applies to the FDIC (another Federal corporation). It doesn't apply to the California Bureau of Motor Vehicles (A California agency) but it does apply to the USPTO, which is an entity of the United States.
See 5 USC 103; which definies "government corporation" and "government controlled corporation." A Government corporation is one which is owned by the United States; a government controlled corporation is one which the US does not own, but it controls.
Or, for example, see 12 USC 1811; which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a federal corporation.
However, the is no federal corporation called "the United States".
See, you can't just create things without there being a law to create them. There is no law creating any such federal corporation. There are many laws creating other federal corporations. You're just making stuff up because you think you understand what you read, but you really don't.
The other section you quoted, which is basically a long way of saying, every document you submit to the courts of the United States must say that you declare that everything is correct under penalty of perjury.
The first part means that if the document is executed (signed) outside the territory of the United States, then you must add the phrase that you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States for committing perjury in the document, even though the perjure may have been committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States. If you are inside the territory of the United States when you execute such a document, it would be redundant to include "under the laws of the United States of America," because when you commit perjury within the territory of the United States, you are already subject to those laws.
I've actually bothered to take the time and review some case law regarding 28 USC 1746, and they're pretty much all cases where someone tried to submit a document for evidence without putting in the nice form statement that is prescribed in that statute. If the person was outside the United States (i.e. in Germany) at the time of filing, they needed to include the phrase "laws of the United States", if they were inside the United States (i.e. in Texas) at the time of filing, they didn't need to include the phrase.
The only purpose of that phrase is to say that you submit to jurisdiction in the United States for the crime of perjury if you have committed it in filing said document with the court.
In fact, the Federal District Court of Hawaii has even said that so long as something substantially similar to those magic phrases are included in the document, it is good enough. Even if the phrase "under the laws of the United States of America" is left out.
If you don't put that declaration on a document submitted for evidence, chances are, you're not going to be able to use it as evidence.
Stop trying to draw something out the federal rules of evidence that isn't there.
First, let's look at the entire definition of "United States" as it pertains to Title 28:
"(15) "United States" means-- (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States."
In other words, anywhere you see "United States" it applies to any of those things listed under A, B or C.
A) a Federal corporation, does NOT mean that the United States is a federal corporation, it means that within Title 28, any thing that mentions "United States" applies to all Federal corporations, etc.
An example of a Federal corporation would be TVA or FDIC.
Also, what exactly does law regarding the certifying of statements to be given to courts have to do with China?
Please, take more things out of context and try to draw conclusions on them, it's hilarious.
There are some liabilities that you can't disclaim. It also gets a little fuzzy when you're dealing with liability toward a third party that is not a party to the contract.
Most laptops already have this; some have a separate area drawn on the touchpad for scrolling, otherwise you simply slide your finger along the right edge of the touchpad to scroll. It's amazing how people I show this too that have used their laptop for over a year and didn't know it.
With most research, it is the quality and not the quantity of information that is more important. It's a lot easier to find a needle in a haystack if there is less hay and only one needle.
While "outdated," it actually provides a more realistic interpretation of the actual affects of an earthquake. Whereas an 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale could cause no damage at all in an area full of bedrock, it could completely flatten an area built on silt and mud. (Eastern California vs. St. Louis, for example)
When's the last time someone talked in a normal voice on a cell phone? For whatever reason, almost everyone talks quite louder on the phone than they do face to face.
I imagine they did some traffic studies and determined that a large number of people were visiting the front page and then going straight to the Op-Ed section and not reading anything else. So, you capture that market. If you lose a bunch of freeloaders, it's no big loss. If you gain some paying customers, well it's better than making no money at all I guess.
Great. It will be that much easier to ignore. The paper has gone downhill in the past 10 years enormously. Ever since William Safire left there has been little reason to read the OpEd at all. It is mostly become a collection of liberal left twaddle.
I don't understand this attitude of so many people. How can you make an informed decision when you consciously ignore one point of view entirely? I think it is partly because it is easier to be told what you like to hear than to be forced to question your opinions and beliefs. I like to read what all sides of a particular issue have to say and then evaluate their position thoroughly before making a decision. You can't do that if you ignore what one side of the issue is saying. You're just seeking reinforcement of beliefs you already hold, rather than seeking out the truth on your own.
The rest of the papers in the country are ran by Gannett which buys local papers and slowly turns them into USA Today, without any local articles written by local journalists.
I fear a day would come when we have to pay yearly software license renewal fee to keep our cars running.
Car insurance, gas, oil, regular maintenence, etc. You already pay plenty each year to keep it running.
Re:Since when did time off cost anyone anything?
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 1
But chances are you will be happier when you go to work the next day and be more productive. Whereas if you had skipped the movie and gone to work, you'd be miserable an unproductive.
I recall a study not too long ago that demonstrated that people who show up to work when sick cost employers more money than people who take the day off when sick, for similar reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at a car repair bill sometime. It's much worse. Higher hourly rate, and even if it took 2 minutes to tighten that screw, you're paying for the full hour.
Hey Tom... I think I know you from somewhere....
To Joe Computer User, looking at a URL that says something other than http://www.google.com/ might be considered "nitty-gritty." Just like to a heart surgeon picking the right knife to make that first cut with might seem to make perfect sense, I wouldn't have a clue what to do.
A little bit of an addendum to this, in case it wasn't clear...
If you want to sell a product, you adapt to your target audience. If you make your product so that they have to expend too much effort versus the potential gain from using it, they're not going to use it.
It's Linux' fatal flaw at the moment (with the "target audience" variable being debatable).
I think you need to back off the elite attitude a little bit.
As far as driving goes, most of the "morons" I see on the road are those that think they know everything and they don't. (i.e., I'm the best driver in the world and everyone else is a moron). Their ability to actually handle an automobile has little to do with knowing how the innards work.
The point in computers is that they are supposed to be easy to use. While you might find it exciting to look at a URL and understand that it isn't actually pointing where you think it is, a good majority of "average" users, probably don't even look at the address bar a good majority of the time (possibly because they are so often bombarded with "junk" looking URLs, i.e. look at the average slashdot URL when browsing comments).
People want to be able to sit at a computer and have it do what they want it to do without having to worry about those mundane details. This isn't a user issue, it's a design issue. It is easy to sit around and blame stupid users, but they're only stupid because the design hasn't conformed to their needs.
Think of it in terms of Operating Systems and security. The OS should come configured to be secure already. The average user isn't going to know or want to know how to make it secure, they expect to already be secure. Are they "stupid" for not wanting to do that? No, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure that takes place, so that the user doesn't have to worry about it.
We can either try to educate the world, or we can design products that conform to the world's "stupidity". The latter will probably be more successful.
The paypal ones can be a little tricky sometimes, like "There has a been an e-mail change request, go here to tell us if this is wrong"
Then you go there and unwittingly give your password to some stranger. Now if you have a credit card or checking account tied to your paypal account you could be in trouble.
But yeah, forms that ask for personal information are easier to avoid. You know the same people that fill those out and click "send" would probably never give the same information out to a person standing in front of them, so why do they do it online?
As for economies, if you're investing money why not just give it to me. I'll handle it for you. Why bother doing research. Why bother supporting local economies over foreign ones [e.g. walmart], etc, etc, etc.
You're seriously sitting there and saying "knowing things is a bad idea"...
The parent's point was that you don't need to know the intricate working details of everything in order to be able to effectively use it. That's the whole point of technology, we put enough layers on top of all the nitty-gritty so that what was once a complex task because simple.
You don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works to effectively drive a car. Someone purposefully put a lot of effort into making a car simple to drive so that almost anyone could do it without needing to be a mechanical engineer.
So, what we really have here is the original poster went a little too far with his hyperbolic examples, and you went too far the other way with yours.
Yes, knowing a little bit about what you are buying before you buy it is important, but you don't need to review the schematics and understand everything that went in to building it in order to use it. Otherwise, why didn't you just make it yourself?
Ah, the truth at last! It's not meant for you to understand, peasant! Get back to toiling!
Does it frighten anyone else that the US seems to be run by a group of people without the basic ability to convey their wishes clearly in writing?
I will agree there are many pieces of legislation would could be written more clearly than they are; however, it is essentially the problem with written laws. There is no one universal accepted meaning of a particular series of words.
For example:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
There are many valid interpretations of this, and the author's true intent and purpose is not known until it is considered with a substantial amount of context.
To "bear false witness" could mean simply lying under oath; or it could mean spreading rumors about another; or it could mean lying at all. Which one of these meanings is correct? Which one encompasses the degree of false witness which its author intended to cover by this law?
"Thy neighbor" is equally confusing. Depending on what part of the world you live in, neighbor could mean only those who live immediately to your left and right on the same side of the road; all people that reside within a square mile of you; maybe just the people in the same building; it could mean your entire village or town; or maybe the entire world.
So, am I breaking this law if I spread gossip about a person living halfway across the world?
How do you know which interpretation is the right one?
While it's easy to say that all laws should be easily understood; once you dive and look around, you will begin to understand why legislation is not that simple. You will also begin to understand why legislation is easy to change, but the Constitution is not.
Your insanity stopped amusing me a few days ago, but the hilarity you continue to provide is priceless.
Your entire argument is based upon a flawed belief that 28 USC 3002 somehow declares that the United States is a corporation. I've already dismissed this argument quite thoroughly elsewhere, and unless you can come up with additional evidence of your claim, you've got nothing to go on here.
I am curious what anti-corporation website stuck this into your brain so deeply it doesn't appear a full lobotomy would remove it.
Here you go, I had to search pretty in depth to find any cases that actually cited 28 USC 3002 (15), but I did.
"The FTC is considered the United States for purposes of the FDCPA. See id. 3002(15)(B). Therefore, the United States, not any individual or group of individuals, is the formal owner of the judgment." F.T.C. v. National Business Consultants, Inc., 376 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004).
This helps to understand the meaning of the rest of that statute. It is not proclaiming that the United State is a federal corporation. Instead, it is stating that for the purpose of Title 28, any and all federal corporations are considered as the United States. Therefore, such things as a judgment in a court would be effective as against the United States, not the FDIC or whatever.
Understand? Need more? Too bad. If you can't figure this out by now, you need to remove Cornell's USC from your bookmarks. There is more to the laws of the United States that the words that are written in those codes. You can't simply pull out a law and sit down with your handy Webster's and fully grasp the meaning of it. Legislation is not such a simple beast to handle. (Unless your name is Antonin "plain meaning" Scalia).
"United States" means a Federal corporation.
You're not interpretting the statute correctly at all.
The definition section is merely stating that where "United States" is referred to in that section, such things apply to all federal corporations, agencies, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or any instrumentality of the United States.
In other words, it applies to the TVA (A Federal corporation), it also applies to the FDIC (another Federal corporation). It doesn't apply to the California Bureau of Motor Vehicles (A California agency) but it does apply to the USPTO, which is an entity of the United States.
See 5 USC 103; which definies "government corporation" and "government controlled corporation." A Government corporation is one which is owned by the United States; a government controlled corporation is one which the US does not own, but it controls.
Or, for example, see 12 USC 1811; which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a federal corporation.
However, the is no federal corporation called "the United States".
See, you can't just create things without there being a law to create them. There is no law creating any such federal corporation. There are many laws creating other federal corporations. You're just making stuff up because you think you understand what you read, but you really don't.
The other section you quoted, which is basically a long way of saying, every document you submit to the courts of the United States must say that you declare that everything is correct under penalty of perjury.
The first part means that if the document is executed (signed) outside the territory of the United States, then you must add the phrase that you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States for committing perjury in the document, even though the perjure may have been committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States. If you are inside the territory of the United States when you execute such a document, it would be redundant to include "under the laws of the United States of America," because when you commit perjury within the territory of the United States, you are already subject to those laws.
I've actually bothered to take the time and review some case law regarding 28 USC 1746, and they're pretty much all cases where someone tried to submit a document for evidence without putting in the nice form statement that is prescribed in that statute. If the person was outside the United States (i.e. in Germany) at the time of filing, they needed to include the phrase "laws of the United States", if they were inside the United States (i.e. in Texas) at the time of filing, they didn't need to include the phrase.
The only purpose of that phrase is to say that you submit to jurisdiction in the United States for the crime of perjury if you have committed it in filing said document with the court.
In fact, the Federal District Court of Hawaii has even said that so long as something substantially similar to those magic phrases are included in the document, it is good enough. Even if the phrase "under the laws of the United States of America" is left out.
If you don't put that declaration on a document submitted for evidence, chances are, you're not going to be able to use it as evidence.
Stop trying to draw something out the federal rules of evidence that isn't there.
First, let's look at the entire definition of "United States" as it pertains to Title 28:
"(15) "United States" means--
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States."
In other words, anywhere you see "United States" it applies to any of those things listed under A, B or C.
A) a Federal corporation, does NOT mean that the United States is a federal corporation, it means that within Title 28, any thing that mentions "United States" applies to all Federal corporations, etc.
An example of a Federal corporation would be TVA or FDIC.
Also, what exactly does law regarding the certifying of statements to be given to courts have to do with China?
Please, take more things out of context and try to draw conclusions on them, it's hilarious.
There are some liabilities that you can't disclaim. It also gets a little fuzzy when you're dealing with liability toward a third party that is not a party to the contract.
Most laptops already have this; some have a separate area drawn on the touchpad for scrolling, otherwise you simply slide your finger along the right edge of the touchpad to scroll. It's amazing how people I show this too that have used their laptop for over a year and didn't know it.
How can more information be bad?
With most research, it is the quality and not the quantity of information that is more important. It's a lot easier to find a needle in a haystack if there is less hay and only one needle.
The Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity perhaps?
While "outdated," it actually provides a more realistic interpretation of the actual affects of an earthquake. Whereas an 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale could cause no damage at all in an area full of bedrock, it could completely flatten an area built on silt and mud. (Eastern California vs. St. Louis, for example)
When's the last time someone talked in a normal voice on a cell phone? For whatever reason, almost everyone talks quite louder on the phone than they do face to face.
You have to physically steal the card to be able to do anything with it.
New technology, same flaw.
The 911 operator could have talked the woman through basic first aid or CPR over the phone while she waited for the amublance to arive.
I imagine they did some traffic studies and determined that a large number of people were visiting the front page and then going straight to the Op-Ed section and not reading anything else. So, you capture that market. If you lose a bunch of freeloaders, it's no big loss. If you gain some paying customers, well it's better than making no money at all I guess.
Great. It will be that much easier to ignore. The paper has gone downhill in the past 10 years enormously. Ever since William Safire left there has been little reason to read the OpEd at all. It is mostly become a collection of liberal left twaddle.
I don't understand this attitude of so many people. How can you make an informed decision when you consciously ignore one point of view entirely? I think it is partly because it is easier to be told what you like to hear than to be forced to question your opinions and beliefs. I like to read what all sides of a particular issue have to say and then evaluate their position thoroughly before making a decision. You can't do that if you ignore what one side of the issue is saying. You're just seeking reinforcement of beliefs you already hold, rather than seeking out the truth on your own.
The rest of the papers in the country are ran by Gannett which buys local papers and slowly turns them into USA Today, without any local articles written by local journalists.
I fear a day would come when we have to pay yearly software license renewal fee to keep our cars running.
Car insurance, gas, oil, regular maintenence, etc. You already pay plenty each year to keep it running.
But chances are you will be happier when you go to work the next day and be more productive. Whereas if you had skipped the movie and gone to work, you'd be miserable an unproductive.
I recall a study not too long ago that demonstrated that people who show up to work when sick cost employers more money than people who take the day off when sick, for similar reasons.
The amendment you're referring to made some changes to the REAL ID section; however, it was already a part of the text of the bill at that time.
Scroll down to "TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS".
----
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.