No matter how you run it, the fact that the Greeks were able to measure the circumfrence of the world thousands of years ago, to a high degree of accuracy, considering they used a couple sticks and math, if the constants of things like light were changing, that would mean they would necessarily needed different numbers in the same equations, or different equations with the same numbers, whether it was accelerating, decelerating, or changing at a fixed rate. But since the equations still work with our constants, the numbers have to still be the same. The illogicality of the arguement is just making my head hurt.
That sounds borderline psychotic. Considering scientists are doing experiments for hundreds of years and using those, expecting certain results, shouldn't the results not match what was expected, if those constants are changing? I mean, if the earth *is* only 5000 years old, a couple hundred years would be a significant enough chunk of time to figure it out.
okay, so they'd save training costs, but they'd still lose time in actually needing to train whoever along the chain needs to be trained, plus costs of filing for a licence for each individual, since you can't get a licence for the overarching company, correct? Each person would still need a personal licence? I'm honestly not sure, since I've never really looked in to becoming a PI, since this isn't a 1920s pulp novel. Seems like it'd be a bit of a drain, then, but not a killer by any means.
Well fuck. I managed to go to the one school that's not fixated on teaching bullshit then. Writing, but not articles. Technical writing, and editing were the focus. Technical writing needs to be simple to the point of pandering to the LCD, since something unclear could make a big issue. And it's hard to BS on editing, since there's several large books with a lot of rules on what's the proper form for usage.
The fun thing about the US is she could sue no matter what. If this motion *passes* she would have good grounds to sue, thus making a settlement a likelyhood. I could see her getting legal fees back, *if* the entire case goes her way. If the case goes against her, any suit would be seen as spurrious at best.
My question is what will happen next, if this motion is allowed. The implication of such a finding is that MediaSentry broke the law. As I understand it, state and federal laws. I would assume law enforcement agencies would be forced to act against MediaSentry.
Sort of. They could go to a grand jury, and present a very weak case on purpose, in order to get a no-bill.
Would that mean the organisation packs up and moves to Russia (or some other less restrictive country) to conduct their operation, or would it continue operating in the USA with a different brief?
I can't see a Russian company being allowed to testify in US procedures without needing to still follow US laws, so a move wouldn't help. It'd be more likely they'd "close the company," then resurface as someone else.
Would any money MediaSentry has gathered from its clients be confiscated as proceeds of crime?
If they were actually charged and convicted, it could be. There's a number of punishments available to a corporation.
Would any previous law suits agreed to be overturned by such evidence?
If a case was finished, it would be up to the defendant to push for an appeal, and then it would need to be reviewed, and enough evidence would need to be found to support the relief of either dismissal of the suit, or a new trial. As not only is the law in each state different as to what's permissible, every jury and judge has different opinions as well, so it is completely possible that not every suit that used MediaSentry would be overturned.
I think I'm going to introduce the "Logical Accusation Fallacy". It states the invalidity of an argument due to referencing random and inappropriate logical fallacies;).
Appeal to ridicule! "Look how silly this person is! They actually think this! How can you possibly believe anything they say?!"
No one likes to see murderers go free. The only evidence to prove a murderer guilty was illegally obtained. Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be admissible.
Seems almost reasonable, until you remember that the case at hand is a civil suit, so breaking the law to win a civil suit is hardly on the level of any kind of criminal trial. QED.
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
It's not admissible as evidence if you live in a "two-party consent" state. That requires all parties to be made aware of any recordings which may be made of the conversation. If they don't consent, you can't use it, and you could be on the hook for various charges or civil suits for trying.
Yes, it might be easy, but wouldn't every person involved in gathering the evidence require a PI Licence? So repeat that by however many employees they have.
Yeah, there are multiple editorial failures in this summary. And in honour of the story being about China, I vote that the punishment be summary excecution!
While I emphatically disagree with the practice of slipping a modification for a seperate program in with other updates, rather than being explicitly seperated out and accepted in the clear, your bit about
It's not like the JRE shipped by default with the OS, and the original version didn't include the firefox extension while subsequent updates bring this new functionality.
is misleading. Of course JRE doesn't ship with the OS. It doesn't ship with any OS. It's a product made by a company seperate from the OS's manufacturer. It's like bitching about a.pdf reader not coming with the OS, and when you go get it, it plugs in to your browser to read.pdfs in the browser window, but the.jpg viewer that came with the OS gains.pdf support through a later update, and causes.pdf links in your browser to open in it instead after you install the update. Would it have been nice to know about this before it was installed? Yeah. Can you turn the feature off? Yes. Can you remove it? Yeah, but it takes mucking about in shit you'd rather not. All this is is an update to the OS that was unadvertised. Take it in stride, and just disable it.
All those who equate Scientology and Christianity obviously don't interact with many Christians, or if they did, they interacted with the fringe minority.
Actually, I've interacted with a number of non-fringe Christians, and the big difference between them seems to be, Scientology orders its people to do immoral things.
Mainstream Christians do immoral things because they want to, and then say that God will forgive them and they'll go to heaven anyways, because they were just flawed people.
In the end, they're both committing immoral acts, it's just a matter of justification and scale. CoS is currently WAY ahead of anything Christianity's doing. And of course, you're still going to have the minority who joined for all the right reasons, and do their damnedest to follow the actual principles they're supposed to have. And it really is a minority. Most people who adopt labels just pay it lipservice, no matter what the label is.
Christianity even has an (early) history of leadership that wasn't paid at all.
VERY early. Basically, once it got a firm foothold in Europe, and the practice of tithing was established amongst a large population, the Church became a for-profit entity, and I haven't seen anything recently that convinces me the higher echelons have changed. Like any other organization, you have the "true believers" who embody the principles espoused by the organization, but once you get off the front lines, that usually gets shot to shit. My personal favourite argument is "They say killing is immoral, but they're against condoms because they're a form of birth control. Telling people in developing nations not to use condoms isn't murder, but it's definitely killing them due to preventable STDs." So really, their heirarchy of beliefs - to the world at large - is "We value the possibility of new members more than we value the lives of our current members."
1.I have seen little mention of the many problems it has: frequent application crashes due to poor memory handling.
2.The way windows update will now/automatically/ restart your computer by default if you don't pay attention to the snooze prompt (or if you're executing a long-running process and walk away for a couple of hours).
3.The way Explorer will occasionally start sucking up all of a CPU and not release it; or start churning the hard drive until you kill it.
4.The fact that memory usage is higher than Vista, which was no XP to begin with.
5.THe fact that indexing runs even when you're not idle - and still gives shitty search results.
1. I haven't had an application crash on me yet that didn't also crash in every other OS I tried it in.
2. Yeah. True, but so does XP. Or at least it did when I used it. That's why I always set update to "Download, but let me choose when to install."
3.Yeah, I've been using the RC since it came out, and the Beta for a bit before that, and I've not had that happen once. Ever. Neither has my friend who's using the RC. Sounds more like an issue between the OS and your hardware than just an OS issue.
4. This is just plain wrong. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium installed, and never went below 800 MB used, no matter what. With the RC, it's been under 600. No, still not to XP, but hardware's improved massively since then, so expecting them to limit their program to hardware almost a decade old is rather short-sighted.
5. Again, not sure why that's happening to you, because once it built the initial index, it's not done anything of the sort to me. As for the quality of search returns, that's a personal opinion, so I'll grant that the returns don't fit your needs.
1.5 out of 5 complaints. If I was an ass, I'd make a joke asking if you were on Apple's payroll to diss Win 7, but it's probably more you're running across esoteric bugs, which would be why you're not finding anything on them. Tried reporting them to Microsoft?
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV.
Oh, you're worried about entertainment being censored. I thought we were worried about political, religious, and civil dissidence being censored.
Snarky comment aside, if the US censors one thing, it can easily censor another. And since Americans were giving up civil liberties left and right for a while there (Patriot Act et al), are we sure they'd say boo about anything else being censored on the internet?
As for the whole "China could squash Taiwan" type posts, aren't there already independent international associations on technical matters? Why can't one of them take care of it?
And what's the appropriate thing when you absolutely cannot stop being bitter over the tinyest things? People read articles like this and go "bah, stupid sounding. They should just deal with the problem."
But then they don't realize the difference between "layperson" and "clinical" definitions of the disorder. It's not about just being a little upset at something that's not gone your way, it's a life-consuming issue. That's when it becomes clinical.
Read it again. He *IS* dealing with it, and positively. And it's not just being "paranoid about something sometimes." It's about it being a long-term thing that keeps going, with enough severity to affect your life. There's a history of mental history on my mom's side of the family, and while I firmly believe that my mother's full of shit when she claims she has issues, my uncle suffered from panic attacks that literally left him cowering in a corner. It took a fairly strict meds schedule to improve his situation, since he had a chemical imbalance, where his brain simply didn't make enough of a certain chemical.
Yes it is. It's called "Trolling" or "flamebait." Deliberately posting an unpopular or unsupported opinion for the purpose of pissing off people or causing them to waste time in refuting... oooooohhh, I see what you did there.
Slashdot Mirror
Any chance you could point me in the direction of this? I'm actually interested in this now, if only for a good chuckle.
Actually, no, I wasn't.
No matter how you run it, the fact that the Greeks were able to measure the circumfrence of the world thousands of years ago, to a high degree of accuracy, considering they used a couple sticks and math, if the constants of things like light were changing, that would mean they would necessarily needed different numbers in the same equations, or different equations with the same numbers, whether it was accelerating, decelerating, or changing at a fixed rate. But since the equations still work with our constants, the numbers have to still be the same. The illogicality of the arguement is just making my head hurt.
That sounds borderline psychotic. Considering scientists are doing experiments for hundreds of years and using those, expecting certain results, shouldn't the results not match what was expected, if those constants are changing? I mean, if the earth *is* only 5000 years old, a couple hundred years would be a significant enough chunk of time to figure it out.
*snerk* Yeah. Hardly a killing blow. So why didn't they do this in the FIRST place? Buncha lazy arses. Lazy and CHEAP.
okay, so they'd save training costs, but they'd still lose time in actually needing to train whoever along the chain needs to be trained, plus costs of filing for a licence for each individual, since you can't get a licence for the overarching company, correct? Each person would still need a personal licence? I'm honestly not sure, since I've never really looked in to becoming a PI, since this isn't a 1920s pulp novel. Seems like it'd be a bit of a drain, then, but not a killer by any means.
Well fuck. I managed to go to the one school that's not fixated on teaching bullshit then. Writing, but not articles. Technical writing, and editing were the focus. Technical writing needs to be simple to the point of pandering to the LCD, since something unclear could make a big issue. And it's hard to BS on editing, since there's several large books with a lot of rules on what's the proper form for usage.
The fun thing about the US is she could sue no matter what. If this motion *passes* she would have good grounds to sue, thus making a settlement a likelyhood. I could see her getting legal fees back, *if* the entire case goes her way. If the case goes against her, any suit would be seen as spurrious at best.
My question is what will happen next, if this motion is allowed.
The implication of such a finding is that MediaSentry broke the law. As I understand it, state and federal laws.
I would assume law enforcement agencies would be forced to act against MediaSentry.
Sort of. They could go to a grand jury, and present a very weak case on purpose, in order to get a no-bill.
Would that mean the organisation packs up and moves to Russia (or some other less restrictive country) to conduct their operation, or would it continue operating in the USA with a different brief?
I can't see a Russian company being allowed to testify in US procedures without needing to still follow US laws, so a move wouldn't help. It'd be more likely they'd "close the company," then resurface as someone else.
Would any money MediaSentry has gathered from its clients be confiscated as proceeds of crime?
If they were actually charged and convicted, it could be. There's a number of punishments available to a corporation.
Would any previous law suits agreed to be overturned by such evidence?
If a case was finished, it would be up to the defendant to push for an appeal, and then it would need to be reviewed, and enough evidence would need to be found to support the relief of either dismissal of the suit, or a new trial. As not only is the law in each state different as to what's permissible, every jury and judge has different opinions as well, so it is completely possible that not every suit that used MediaSentry would be overturned.
My kingdom for an edit.
I just realized:
I think I'm going to introduce the "Logical Accusation Fallacy". It states the invalidity of an argument due to referencing random and inappropriate logical fallacies ;).
Appeal to ridicule! "Look how silly this person is! They actually think this! How can you possibly believe anything they say?!"
Actually, the strawman argument goes thusly:
No one likes to see murderers go free.
The only evidence to prove a murderer guilty was illegally obtained.
Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be admissible.
Seems almost reasonable, until you remember that the case at hand is a civil suit, so breaking the law to win a civil suit is hardly on the level of any kind of criminal trial. QED.
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
It's not admissible as evidence if you live in a "two-party consent" state. That requires all parties to be made aware of any recordings which may be made of the conversation. If they don't consent, you can't use it, and you could be on the hook for various charges or civil suits for trying.
Yes, it might be easy, but wouldn't every person involved in gathering the evidence require a PI Licence? So repeat that by however many employees they have.
Also:
That's not true at all. Stop spreading this shit.
Even a cockroach can't survive a lawyer attack. Sheesh.
--
Is +3 Insightful
Yeah, there are multiple editorial failures in this summary. And in honour of the story being about China, I vote that the punishment be summary excecution!
You're one of those "software as a service" nutters, aren't you?
If it was really good, would you let it get behind you?
While I emphatically disagree with the practice of slipping a modification for a seperate program in with other updates, rather than being explicitly seperated out and accepted in the clear, your bit about
It's not like the JRE shipped by default with the OS, and the original version didn't include the firefox extension while subsequent updates bring this new functionality.
is misleading. Of course JRE doesn't ship with the OS. It doesn't ship with any OS. It's a product made by a company seperate from the OS's manufacturer. It's like bitching about a .pdf reader not coming with the OS, and when you go get it, it plugs in to your browser to read .pdfs in the browser window, but the .jpg viewer that came with the OS gains .pdf support through a later update, and causes .pdf links in your browser to open in it instead after you install the update. Would it have been nice to know about this before it was installed? Yeah. Can you turn the feature off? Yes. Can you remove it? Yeah, but it takes mucking about in shit you'd rather not. All this is is an update to the OS that was unadvertised. Take it in stride, and just disable it.
There's a Conservative Party in Canada. For a couple hours they were named the Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
All those who equate Scientology and Christianity obviously don't interact with many Christians, or if they did, they interacted with the fringe minority.
Actually, I've interacted with a number of non-fringe Christians, and the big difference between them seems to be, Scientology orders its people to do immoral things.
Mainstream Christians do immoral things because they want to, and then say that God will forgive them and they'll go to heaven anyways, because they were just flawed people.
In the end, they're both committing immoral acts, it's just a matter of justification and scale. CoS is currently WAY ahead of anything Christianity's doing. And of course, you're still going to have the minority who joined for all the right reasons, and do their damnedest to follow the actual principles they're supposed to have. And it really is a minority. Most people who adopt labels just pay it lipservice, no matter what the label is.
Christianity even has an (early) history of leadership that wasn't paid at all.
VERY early. Basically, once it got a firm foothold in Europe, and the practice of tithing was established amongst a large population, the Church became a for-profit entity, and I haven't seen anything recently that convinces me the higher echelons have changed. Like any other organization, you have the "true believers" who embody the principles espoused by the organization, but once you get off the front lines, that usually gets shot to shit. My personal favourite argument is "They say killing is immoral, but they're against condoms because they're a form of birth control. Telling people in developing nations not to use condoms isn't murder, but it's definitely killing them due to preventable STDs." So really, their heirarchy of beliefs - to the world at large - is "We value the possibility of new members more than we value the lives of our current members."
1.I have seen little mention of the many problems it has: frequent application crashes due to poor memory handling.
2.The way windows update will now /automatically/ restart your computer by default if you don't pay attention to the snooze prompt (or if you're executing a long-running process and walk away for a couple of hours).
3.The way Explorer will occasionally start sucking up all of a CPU and not release it; or start churning the hard drive until you kill it.
4.The fact that memory usage is higher than Vista, which was no XP to begin with.
5.THe fact that indexing runs even when you're not idle - and still gives shitty search results.
1. I haven't had an application crash on me yet that didn't also crash in every other OS I tried it in.
2. Yeah. True, but so does XP. Or at least it did when I used it. That's why I always set update to "Download, but let me choose when to install."
3.Yeah, I've been using the RC since it came out, and the Beta for a bit before that, and I've not had that happen once. Ever. Neither has my friend who's using the RC. Sounds more like an issue between the OS and your hardware than just an OS issue.
4. This is just plain wrong. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium installed, and never went below 800 MB used, no matter what. With the RC, it's been under 600. No, still not to XP, but hardware's improved massively since then, so expecting them to limit their program to hardware almost a decade old is rather short-sighted.
5. Again, not sure why that's happening to you, because once it built the initial index, it's not done anything of the sort to me. As for the quality of search returns, that's a personal opinion, so I'll grant that the returns don't fit your needs.
1.5 out of 5 complaints. If I was an ass, I'd make a joke asking if you were on Apple's payroll to diss Win 7, but it's probably more you're running across esoteric bugs, which would be why you're not finding anything on them. Tried reporting them to Microsoft?
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV.
Oh, you're worried about entertainment being censored. I thought we were worried about political, religious, and civil dissidence being censored.
Snarky comment aside, if the US censors one thing, it can easily censor another. And since Americans were giving up civil liberties left and right for a while there (Patriot Act et al), are we sure they'd say boo about anything else being censored on the internet?
As for the whole "China could squash Taiwan" type posts, aren't there already independent international associations on technical matters? Why can't one of them take care of it?
And what's the appropriate thing when you absolutely cannot stop being bitter over the tinyest things? People read articles like this and go "bah, stupid sounding. They should just deal with the problem."
But then they don't realize the difference between "layperson" and "clinical" definitions of the disorder. It's not about just being a little upset at something that's not gone your way, it's a life-consuming issue. That's when it becomes clinical.
Get used to it and deal with it positively.
This is why mental disorders have a stigma.
Read it again. He *IS* dealing with it, and positively. And it's not just being "paranoid about something sometimes." It's about it being a long-term thing that keeps going, with enough severity to affect your life. There's a history of mental history on my mom's side of the family, and while I firmly believe that my mother's full of shit when she claims she has issues, my uncle suffered from panic attacks that literally left him cowering in a corner. It took a fairly strict meds schedule to improve his situation, since he had a chemical imbalance, where his brain simply didn't make enough of a certain chemical.
Yes it is. It's called "Trolling" or "flamebait." Deliberately posting an unpopular or unsupported opinion for the purpose of pissing off people or causing them to waste time in refuting ... oooooohhh, I see what you did there.