You should have contacted your manufacturer and demand they send you a proper CD Key for your computer; obviously this is a quality issue at their factory (wrong CD Key with install). Also, they will usually ship you a set of CDs if you request them, at no charge. Just convince them the partition holding the HDD Image is corrupt if they give you crap.
About 6-7 years ago the Microsoft home page showed a different picture depending on whether you were using Netscape or Internet Explorer. If you connected with Internet Explorer you had a nice, happy looking lady. If you connected with Netscape, it looked like she might be ready to rip your guts out at a moments notice (and the picture was a lot darker as well).
They're more concerned in targeting the people who are selling copies of Windows as legit retail copies, when they're just repackaged pirated versions. They don't have much interest in going after the average user, because the average user isn't worth the trouble. If they can shutdown a major retail pirate outlet, or find a medium-sized business running 500 copies of Windows that are all pirated; it would be a pretty good deal for them.
People that know they are pirating aren't going to run this tool (unless they're idiots). So, most of those that run it will either know for certain their copy is legit (or think it is) and 99.9% of them will probably turn out to be legit. It's the guy that bought his copy at the 2-bit shop down the street that finds out that it's not a legit copy that might just get pissed enough to turn in the bastard that sold it to him. He's not responsible for having it, and MS knows that. They want the phony retailer, not the poor schmuck that bought from him.
While you might have to trust that they're not going to try to hunt you down, it really does seem at this point that they are simply seeking to inform unsuspecting users that they may have received an illegit copy of Windows from a retailer. Most people who are intentionally pirating, aren't going to try to validate it. The focus of this campaign isn't try to catch Joe-Bob that loaned his copy to his sister, it's trying to get consumers who bought a copy of Windows at the corner PC store to go back and demand a legit copy.
I was going to run it, but it doesn't work under Mozilla. Oh well.
"Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100 mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what they say if they had." - Linux Torvalds
(I apologize if it's misquoted, I pulled it off of another site. I remember reading it several years ago, so who knows if it's accurate.)
I didn't say it was necessarily legal or moral to do so, but as far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for election fraud for voting absentee when they knew they could have voted on election day.
Re:Well, since I can't get to the article...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Okay, I decided I would go a little further than my last post and give you a little more reasoning here. There's a few issues I am going to address. First, it utterly disgusts me that anyone can be so narrow-minded as to vote with only one issue in mind. Second, George Bush's presidency has only exacerbated the problem of abortion. Next, that banning abortion will not solve the problem. Finally, what we should do instead.
I don't know how anyone can get it in there head that one issue, especially abortion, an issue which the president has a marginal influence over, is so much more important than anything else, that they will allow it to control their vote. I think abortion is morally wrong; but I don't let that control my vote. I also think that wars of aggression are morally wrong; and I don't let that control my vote either. If you can't be bothered to look at the big picture when voting, you should forfeit your right to vote.
The number of abortions performed in the United States has actually gone up since Bush has been in office. Abstinence only education, making abortion illegal, denying access to birth control, among other things, do not fix the problem. They make it worse. There are other factors that lead to more abortions being performed, which have ties to the current administrations policies. The poor have gotten poorer, and when economic distress is the most common reason cited for having an abortion, is it any surprise that when the rich get and richer and the poor get poorer than the poor go to drastic measures to save money? We won't give them adequate healthcare and hence access to contraceptives, so how can we honestly expect that accidents won't happen?
Banning abortion will not make it go away. I think that George Bush and many other people have this belief that the second a law is signed making all abortions illegal, the problem will be gone. You might not see as many doctors willing to perform an abortion, due to risk of loss of license; but they're still going to take place. Even if there were to be no more abortions, you've only shifted the problem. Instead of having abortions, we now have an entire class of unwanted children. Child neglect and abuse will rise, the strain on orphanages, adoption systems and child welfare would be enormous. The burden is only being shifted.
If you want to stop abortion, you have to stop what causes abortion. This is not the actual physical act of the abortion, but rather the underlying causes that lead up to the desire to abort a pregnancy. Poverty, lack of education (especially contraceptive education), lack of access to health-care (and contraceptives), lack of responsbility and others are all causes that lead to abortion. Poverty is not an easy problem to solve, but I know that George Bush certainly isn't going to be the one fix it. If we don't teach people that contraceptive options are available, we can't assume they're going to use them. We need universal availability of birth control to all citizens. Other healthcare issues are equally important, but the fact that birth control is next to impossible to obtain for someone who can barely afford to put food on the table is disgusting. Teaching social responsibility is also a difficult issue, but it is something that can be taught through other actions, such as no longer ignoring that these problems exist.
In summary, regardless of whether or not you think abortion is morally wrong is irrelevant to the solution. To stop abortion, you can't just outlaw it; you need to address its causes; namely, inaccessibility of contraceptives, and lack of education (among other things).
George Bush is not the answer to stopping abortion. John Kerry isn't the answer either, but his desire to have universal healthcare is a step in the right direction (so long as that includes access to birth control.)
What we really need to do is equate "third party" with "none of the above" in the minds of the disenfranchised voters.
Except, at least in this election, the third parties wouldn't be any better in office than George Bush or John Kerry.
Nothing would get done at all, every bill would be vetoed.
They're nice idealistic votes, I suppose, but if you want me voting for someone I reallly want to see in office, I don't see a single candidate that is viable. I'm picking from the least of 5 evils.
Re:Well, since I can't get to the article...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
George Bush supports the death penalty. To support the death penalty as it is currently implemented you have to accept that innocent human beings will be killed.
I won't bother going any futher, but it doesn't too much imagination to realize that the administration of justice is not perfect, and that since the standard for conviction of first degree murder is only "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "with 100% certainty," you have to accept that innocent people will get through, and will be killed.
George Bush himself also said he thinks abortion is okay in instances of rape or incest. Are those fetuses less innocent than those who are aborted out of financial distress?
Ohio has early voting; you would just have to lie on your absentee ballot form and tell them that you're going to be out of the precinct on election day.
The parent to my post stated that Kerry had not passed anything at all that he had drafted. I quote: I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
No claim was made regarding whether or not it was substantial legislation; I would say there a few there that are pretty substantial, the rest aren't that great, but my point was that the parent was incorrect in stating that Kerry had not passed any bills that he authored.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
Like the RNC ads that claim Kerry voted to raise taxes so many times. Half of those are amendment votes to the same bill, or procedural votes related to the bills. A good number of them were votes against bills lowering taxes (which is not a vote to raise taxes).
It's perfectly legal to lie in political ads, but if you lie to us about a cheeseburger, we'll sue you and make sure you stop. Which is more important, and why is one protected and the other not?
Ignoring tariffs and other things, the cost of shipping and moving something from Japan to Michigan is a lot more than from Michigan to Michigan. If a car company will switch nuts and bolts suppliers to save 5 cents per car, I imagine they'd move a factory to save a few hundred dollars per car in shipping costs.
I wasn't talking about alimony, I was talking about distribution of property, etc. It doesn't matter whether they get a divorce or not; anything that is acquired prior to a marriage is the property of the person that acquired it unless it is given to the other person (or mixed in joint accounts). If they do get a divorce, anything they had before, is still theirs. If the court awards alimony (which it usually only does when one party relies on the other for support) is a different issue.
If you married Bill Gates tomorrow, and divorced him a week later, you would only be entitled to 50% of whatever he made while you married (assuming Washington is a community property state, I have no idea if it is.) You have no claim to anything he made prior to the marriage while you are married, it is still his money.
So, what was Theresa's prior to her marriage, is still hers now, and in no way John Kerry's, unless she made a gift to him. Even upon divorce, he probably wouldn't be entitled to any of it.
The issue is tax-shelters overseas; I think Kerry uses the term "outsourcing" because it's a nice buzz word that hits a vein with people. Just like Bush likes to throw around "tort reform," when he probably could tell you more than 10 words about what it really means.
A little note on tort reform, malpractice costs amount to a whopping 2% of health care costs. Insurance company profits are up (Anthem just posted a 30% or so increasing in income over last year), and drug companies can afford to burn money on more marketing than GM. Reducing liability for doctors will do nothing more than screw over patients and fatten insurance companies wallets. (They admitted themselves that lowering malpractice claims would probably not affect malpractice premiums charged to doctors).
You do know that it is a myth that Canadian beer has more alcohol than American beer, right? (Canadian beer alcohol content is measured by weight, US by volume.)
The moderators are nothing more than a representation of the people that regularly post, have good karma, and bother to moderate. I don't think you can make ANY conclusion at all about their political leanings as a whole. (perhaps you meant editors?)
Also, the comment about John Kerry in the article was added by the article submitter, not the Slashdot editors. The editors almost always leave the submissions in their original form.
Last I checked, his wife's money was made prior to their marriage; and therefore he isn't legally entitled to a penny of it unless she wants him to be. I have this odd feeling that she hasn't promised him 50% of her net worth.
My point was that often times people from one country refer to people from another country by a name different the people of that country refer to themselves. I don't think my use of a bad example negates that claim.
By the way, the appropriate term now for referring to the people that were in North America before Columbus showed up, is "American Indians." This is upon their request, with the general belief that the term "Native Americans" tends to imply some degree of inferiority by the negative connotation associated with the word "native."
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
The burden of proof is already on the plaintiff in civil cases, except in cases where res ipsa loquitur comes into play. (res ipsa loquitur - literally, the thing speaks for itself; if you walk by a concrete block factory and a concrete block falls on your head, a reasonable person would conclude that the concrete block factory was responsible, and they have the burden of proving otherwise.)
Slashdot Mirror
You should have contacted your manufacturer and demand they send you a proper CD Key for your computer; obviously this is a quality issue at their factory (wrong CD Key with install). Also, they will usually ship you a set of CDs if you request them, at no charge. Just convince them the partition holding the HDD Image is corrupt if they give you crap.
About 6-7 years ago the Microsoft home page showed a different picture depending on whether you were using Netscape or Internet Explorer. If you connected with Internet Explorer you had a nice, happy looking lady. If you connected with Netscape, it looked like she might be ready to rip your guts out at a moments notice (and the picture was a lot darker as well).
They're more concerned in targeting the people who are selling copies of Windows as legit retail copies, when they're just repackaged pirated versions. They don't have much interest in going after the average user, because the average user isn't worth the trouble. If they can shutdown a major retail pirate outlet, or find a medium-sized business running 500 copies of Windows that are all pirated; it would be a pretty good deal for them.
People that know they are pirating aren't going to run this tool (unless they're idiots). So, most of those that run it will either know for certain their copy is legit (or think it is) and 99.9% of them will probably turn out to be legit. It's the guy that bought his copy at the 2-bit shop down the street that finds out that it's not a legit copy that might just get pissed enough to turn in the bastard that sold it to him. He's not responsible for having it, and MS knows that. They want the phony retailer, not the poor schmuck that bought from him.
While you might have to trust that they're not going to try to hunt you down, it really does seem at this point that they are simply seeking to inform unsuspecting users that they may have received an illegit copy of Windows from a retailer. Most people who are intentionally pirating, aren't going to try to validate it. The focus of this campaign isn't try to catch Joe-Bob that loaned his copy to his sister, it's trying to get consumers who bought a copy of Windows at the corner PC store to go back and demand a legit copy.
I was going to run it, but it doesn't work under Mozilla. Oh well.
"Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100 mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what they say if they had." - Linux Torvalds
(I apologize if it's misquoted, I pulled it off of another site. I remember reading it several years ago, so who knows if it's accurate.)
I didn't say it was necessarily legal or moral to do so, but as far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for election fraud for voting absentee when they knew they could have voted on election day.
Okay, I decided I would go a little further than my last post and give you a little more reasoning here. There's a few issues I am going to address. First, it utterly disgusts me that anyone can be so narrow-minded as to vote with only one issue in mind. Second, George Bush's presidency has only exacerbated the problem of abortion. Next, that banning abortion will not solve the problem. Finally, what we should do instead.
I don't know how anyone can get it in there head that one issue, especially abortion, an issue which the president has a marginal influence over, is so much more important than anything else, that they will allow it to control their vote. I think abortion is morally wrong; but I don't let that control my vote. I also think that wars of aggression are morally wrong; and I don't let that control my vote either. If you can't be bothered to look at the big picture when voting, you should forfeit your right to vote.
The number of abortions performed in the United States has actually gone up since Bush has been in office. Abstinence only education, making abortion illegal, denying access to birth control, among other things, do not fix the problem. They make it worse. There are other factors that lead to more abortions being performed, which have ties to the current administrations policies. The poor have gotten poorer, and when economic distress is the most common reason cited for having an abortion, is it any surprise that when the rich get and richer and the poor get poorer than the poor go to drastic measures to save money? We won't give them adequate healthcare and hence access to contraceptives, so how can we honestly expect that accidents won't happen?
Banning abortion will not make it go away. I think that George Bush and many other people have this belief that the second a law is signed making all abortions illegal, the problem will be gone. You might not see as many doctors willing to perform an abortion, due to risk of loss of license; but they're still going to take place. Even if there were to be no more abortions, you've only shifted the problem. Instead of having abortions, we now have an entire class of unwanted children. Child neglect and abuse will rise, the strain on orphanages, adoption systems and child welfare would be enormous. The burden is only being shifted.
If you want to stop abortion, you have to stop what causes abortion. This is not the actual physical act of the abortion, but rather the underlying causes that lead up to the desire to abort a pregnancy. Poverty, lack of education (especially contraceptive education), lack of access to health-care (and contraceptives), lack of responsbility and others are all causes that lead to abortion. Poverty is not an easy problem to solve, but I know that George Bush certainly isn't going to be the one fix it. If we don't teach people that contraceptive options are available, we can't assume they're going to use them. We need universal availability of birth control to all citizens. Other healthcare issues are equally important, but the fact that birth control is next to impossible to obtain for someone who can barely afford to put food on the table is disgusting. Teaching social responsibility is also a difficult issue, but it is something that can be taught through other actions, such as no longer ignoring that these problems exist.
In summary, regardless of whether or not you think abortion is morally wrong is irrelevant to the solution. To stop abortion, you can't just outlaw it; you need to address its causes; namely, inaccessibility of contraceptives, and lack of education (among other things).
George Bush is not the answer to stopping abortion. John Kerry isn't the answer either, but his desire to have universal healthcare is a step in the right direction (so long as that includes access to birth control.)
What we really need to do is equate "third party" with "none of the above" in the minds of the disenfranchised voters.
Except, at least in this election, the third parties wouldn't be any better in office than George Bush or John Kerry.
Nothing would get done at all, every bill would be vetoed.
They're nice idealistic votes, I suppose, but if you want me voting for someone I reallly want to see in office, I don't see a single candidate that is viable. I'm picking from the least of 5 evils.
George Bush supports the death penalty. To support the death penalty as it is currently implemented you have to accept that innocent human beings will be killed.
I won't bother going any futher, but it doesn't too much imagination to realize that the administration of justice is not perfect, and that since the standard for conviction of first degree murder is only "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "with 100% certainty," you have to accept that innocent people will get through, and will be killed.
George Bush himself also said he thinks abortion is okay in instances of rape or incest. Are those fetuses less innocent than those who are aborted out of financial distress?
Ohio has early voting; you would just have to lie on your absentee ballot form and tell them that you're going to be out of the precinct on election day.
The parent to my post stated that Kerry had not passed anything at all that he had drafted. I quote: I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
No claim was made regarding whether or not it was substantial legislation; I would say there a few there that are pretty substantial, the rest aren't that great, but my point was that the parent was incorrect in stating that Kerry had not passed any bills that he authored.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
Like the RNC ads that claim Kerry voted to raise taxes so many times. Half of those are amendment votes to the same bill, or procedural votes related to the bills. A good number of them were votes against bills lowering taxes (which is not a vote to raise taxes).
It's perfectly legal to lie in political ads, but if you lie to us about a cheeseburger, we'll sue you and make sure you stop. Which is more important, and why is one protected and the other not?
Ignoring tariffs and other things, the cost of shipping and moving something from Japan to Michigan is a lot more than from Michigan to Michigan. If a car company will switch nuts and bolts suppliers to save 5 cents per car, I imagine they'd move a factory to save a few hundred dollars per car in shipping costs.
enough to maintain the same level of living
I wasn't talking about alimony, I was talking about distribution of property, etc. It doesn't matter whether they get a divorce or not; anything that is acquired prior to a marriage is the property of the person that acquired it unless it is given to the other person (or mixed in joint accounts). If they do get a divorce, anything they had before, is still theirs. If the court awards alimony (which it usually only does when one party relies on the other for support) is a different issue.
If you married Bill Gates tomorrow, and divorced him a week later, you would only be entitled to 50% of whatever he made while you married (assuming Washington is a community property state, I have no idea if it is.) You have no claim to anything he made prior to the marriage while you are married, it is still his money.
So, what was Theresa's prior to her marriage, is still hers now, and in no way John Kerry's, unless she made a gift to him. Even upon divorce, he probably wouldn't be entitled to any of it.
The issue is tax-shelters overseas; I think Kerry uses the term "outsourcing" because it's a nice buzz word that hits a vein with people. Just like Bush likes to throw around "tort reform," when he probably could tell you more than 10 words about what it really means.
A little note on tort reform, malpractice costs amount to a whopping 2% of health care costs. Insurance company profits are up (Anthem just posted a 30% or so increasing in income over last year), and drug companies can afford to burn money on more marketing than GM. Reducing liability for doctors will do nothing more than screw over patients and fatten insurance companies wallets. (They admitted themselves that lowering malpractice claims would probably not affect malpractice premiums charged to doctors).
You do know that it is a myth that Canadian beer has more alcohol than American beer, right? (Canadian beer alcohol content is measured by weight, US by volume.)
it's moderators
The moderators are nothing more than a representation of the people that regularly post, have good karma, and bother to moderate. I don't think you can make ANY conclusion at all about their political leanings as a whole. (perhaps you meant editors?)
Also, the comment about John Kerry in the article was added by the article submitter, not the Slashdot editors. The editors almost always leave the submissions in their original form.
Kerry's record for introducing and passing bills.
At least try to find out if your claim is true before you try to reason based on it.
Last I checked, his wife's money was made prior to their marriage; and therefore he isn't legally entitled to a penny of it unless she wants him to be. I have this odd feeling that she hasn't promised him 50% of her net worth.
Basically moving subsidaries and what not to places like the Cayman islands or Bermuda and avoiding paying taxes on the profits.
decent article on the subject.
It's not about outsourcing jobs so much as tax sheltering.
There needs to be a way to correctly adjust for primary momentum.
Easy, have all the states hold their primaries at the same time.
Did we try that once already, and failed? (1812).
You live in Indiana, so it doesn't matter who you vote for for president, because the other 99% of the state will vote for Bush.
My point was that often times people from one country refer to people from another country by a name different the people of that country refer to themselves. I don't think my use of a bad example negates that claim.
By the way, the appropriate term now for referring to the people that were in North America before Columbus showed up, is "American Indians." This is upon their request, with the general belief that the term "Native Americans" tends to imply some degree of inferiority by the negative connotation associated with the word "native."
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
The burden of proof is already on the plaintiff in civil cases, except in cases where res ipsa loquitur comes into play. (res ipsa loquitur - literally, the thing speaks for itself; if you walk by a concrete block factory and a concrete block falls on your head, a reasonable person would conclude that the concrete block factory was responsible, and they have the burden of proving otherwise.)
You don't get to decide what Americans should call themselves.
The funny thing is, that "Americans" have been doing the same thing forever. (Eskimos, Indians, etc).