Fraud is not "against regulations", it's "misrepresenting what you offer or offering a thing you aren't going to do". Not all laws are "regulations" in the same sense that, say, the banking industry is "regulated".
There were some glass stairs, and there were some creeps taking upskirt pictures of cosplayers. It was creeping people out. But before they had to go to the police, they tried a simpler solution: They asked Sailor Bubba if he'd be willing to walk up and down those stairs for a while.
Note: He does not wear underwear under his sailor suit.
Apple makes a ton of money off app store licenses, and Valve makes their money selling software. The steam box is a device for getting people to buy games; it's never going to be even close to the profitability of selling games.
Selling software is a great deal for the vendor because the per-unit cost to them is effectively zero. Any theory that the vendor is going to try to eliminate the cost of software so they can make all that money on hardware is a stupid theory. And I don't mean "after sufficient research you can disprove it", I just mean stupid straight up.
I believe so. The whooping cough vaccine is a temporary thing; it only protects you for maybe 20-30 years. But as long as people give it to kids, adult immune systems are usually resilient enough that it had just about completely died out, so it didn't matter. But now, thanks to the anti-vax people, it's common enough that adults get it, and spend months in agony.
No to both, and that's actually a sort of stupid question, given the obvious evidence of general competence at larger-scale arithmetic, which I achieve in part by doing calculations twice using different paths and confirming the results.... and still do it significantly faster than most people. So far as I can tell, it's just a tuning thing; my neurons are tuned for faster responses rather than more-reliable responses, so I get answers quickly but sometimes they're wrong.
Works out okay. Turns out that the occasional misplaced or transposed digit doesn't cause much trouble, but being able to be right most of the time extremely quickly is very valuable.
Actually, uhm. They're pretty fucking lethal and debilitating. One of my friends has a sibling who's been hospitalized for a big chunk of the last six months from whooping cough, which exists today only because of anti-vaccine nutjobs.
I'd point out: I can't do single-digit arithmetic without errors. I never have been able to. I can do math in my head pretty decently; one time on a road trip I got bored, and came up with a km/miles conversion ratio starting from a vague recollection of the number of inches in a meter. I came up with 1.61. Google says 1.60934.
But give me a hundred single-digit addition problems, and I will get a couple of them wrong.
I dunno about "so hard", but it's more effort and attention than I want to give to the process, and I usually only want one cup in any given many-hour period. With the keurig, I put a cup in the thing, put a pod in it, push a button, and sometime later I have a cup of coffee which is done. I don't have to deal with the horrible noises or maintenance of grinders, and so on.
It's funny that you say that, when it's the anti-gay folks that have been pushing so hard for anti-gay legislation and constitutional amendments.
But yeah, the state does get involved when people aren't willing to do things voluntarily. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from killing people? We involve the state. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from discriminating against people, to try to deny them basic human rights? We involve the state. That's the one thing the state is legitimately for.
This is an excellent summary of the fundamental issue:
The above post is the sole real motivation behind any of this. There are a lot of ostensible excuses, but they're all lies. The above is the truthful statement of intent behind it all, and that's exactly why the bigots are losing every fight they pick these days; because they've gotten more and more angry and insulting until they made it completely crystal clear what the real motivation was. That's a big part of why David Blankenhorn, once one of the most respected and influential opponents of marriage equality, switched sides; he concluded that the real underlying motivation of most of the people he was working with was simple hostility, and he didn't want to support it.
It all comes down to people who nominally believe that other people will be punished for being different later, but also believe that God's not fast enough or competent enough and it needs to happen now before they lose their rageboner.
Thank you, anon. It was people like you who defeated the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota, by trying not quite hard enough to conceal your seething rage, and turning a state full of Lutherans who are a little uncomfortable with social changes like the widespread use of electricity around. They would never have voted against that amendment on its own; it wasn't until the people advocating for it started talking that Minnesota Nice came into play.
See, I actually think that photography case should have gone to the photographer, because photography is a creative endeavor and thus it's a free speech issue. But in the case of a restaurant or whatever? That's not a nuisance suit, that's a legitimate discrimination complaint. You don't get to decide you're only willing to feed some people when you're selling food.
You're entirely right that "the gay agenda" is bullshit. The entire concept that there's an agenda there other than "being allowed to live your life normally same as everybody else" is bullshit.
Except it's not "historically a religious institution/ceremony". If exactly one religion, or maybe two, had "marriage", you might have a case. But we see "marriage" in many cultures, across many religions and no religions and everything else, and religions that don't have marriage ceremonies acquire them -- because they are a thing people add to their religions.
Christianity in particular acknowledged that marriage was a thing, but didn't do religious ceremonies for it for about their first millennium. Rich people who had property bothered with formal marriages, though.
It's not inherently religious, and there is no reason religion should be entitled to a monopoly on it.
So what? No one's asking them to believe anything, just to not discriminate against people.
Look, think it through. Imagine that someone's sincerely held religious beliefs were that interracial couples weren't legitimate and couldn't be validly married, and they wanted to refuse to make cakes for them. Or just they didn't think black people could get married. Would you expect people to just stand by and watch someone refuse to serve people based on skin color, given how long it took to fight that battle? I wouldn't.
I don't think it's a nuisance suit, any more than I think the various lawsuits about refusing service to blacks were nuisance suits. I think it's a fundamental question about what we think is the baseline of acceptable behavior in our society.
Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.
Yeah. At one point there was a Rift forums thread on favorite community reps, and I said that much though I liked the Rift guys, I had to give the nod to Zwillinger, and one of their community reps agreed with me.:)
The customer service is by most accounts still excellent. I've heard many people report quick and effective resolutions of problems. Certainly, that's been my experience.
Thanks! I appreciate this because it's the first time I've seen an actual response that makes a useful technical distinction. That said:
So let's say I did do it at the router level. I have my mail server watch for spam signs, and when it sees them it tells the router to start throttling all packets from the IP address it thinks looks spammy. Should this be allowed? It seems to me that it should. The question is whether we can write a law that permits me to throttle probably-abusive traffic without allowing me to throttle traffic which is legitimate, and merely too popular for my infrastructure.
BTW, the article linked from that reddit comments thread really is beautiful. In the absence of the later disasters, I might have speculated that this was parody.
Note that "unsubscribe" is not "report spam". Google does have a way to report spam; they have a web form you're supposed to fill out, which requires you to enter a valid gmail address for the sender. Note that you can cause gmail to generate outgoing messages which do not contain any gmail addresses anywhere in their headers. These cannot be reported to Google at all.
This is basically exactly what crappy spam-for-hire places have done, and exactly what legitimate mailers usually don't do. Google gets away with it in part because they're too big to fail (you can't just block all their stuff without serious losses), and in part because their automated filtering is reasonably good most of the time. But the fact remains, they're seneding spam and making it extra hard for people to inform them that it's spam. This is probably because there's money to be made sending spam and telling people to unsubscribe...
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud is not "against regulations", it's "misrepresenting what you offer or offering a thing you aren't going to do". Not all laws are "regulations" in the same sense that, say, the banking industry is "regulated".
Problem: More material to read than time.
Solution: Read faster.
Sounds good to me.
There were some glass stairs, and there were some creeps taking upskirt pictures of cosplayers. It was creeping people out. But before they had to go to the police, they tried a simpler solution: They asked Sailor Bubba if he'd be willing to walk up and down those stairs for a while.
Note: He does not wear underwear under his sailor suit.
The creeps left.
Sailor Bubba is a fairly cool guy.
Or spend a few bucks on Amiga Forever and not have that problem?
Apple makes a ton of money off app store licenses, and Valve makes their money selling software. The steam box is a device for getting people to buy games; it's never going to be even close to the profitability of selling games.
Selling software is a great deal for the vendor because the per-unit cost to them is effectively zero. Any theory that the vendor is going to try to eliminate the cost of software so they can make all that money on hardware is a stupid theory. And I don't mean "after sufficient research you can disprove it", I just mean stupid straight up.
I believe so. The whooping cough vaccine is a temporary thing; it only protects you for maybe 20-30 years. But as long as people give it to kids, adult immune systems are usually resilient enough that it had just about completely died out, so it didn't matter. But now, thanks to the anti-vax people, it's common enough that adults get it, and spend months in agony.
The beautiful thing is their lovely page explaining that it wasn't an insecure design, just one which "could be misused".
I'd say that a feature that easy to "misuse" in ways that lead to security holes is, in fact, a pretty good example of an "insecure design".
No to both, and that's actually a sort of stupid question, given the obvious evidence of general competence at larger-scale arithmetic, which I achieve in part by doing calculations twice using different paths and confirming the results. ... and still do it significantly faster than most people. So far as I can tell, it's just a tuning thing; my neurons are tuned for faster responses rather than more-reliable responses, so I get answers quickly but sometimes they're wrong.
Works out okay. Turns out that the occasional misplaced or transposed digit doesn't cause much trouble, but being able to be right most of the time extremely quickly is very valuable.
Actually, uhm. They're pretty fucking lethal and debilitating. One of my friends has a sibling who's been hospitalized for a big chunk of the last six months from whooping cough, which exists today only because of anti-vaccine nutjobs.
This sounds all edgy and clever, until you look at who actually dies. Hint: Not just their kids.
Up to a point, yes.
I'd point out: I can't do single-digit arithmetic without errors. I never have been able to. I can do math in my head pretty decently; one time on a road trip I got bored, and came up with a km/miles conversion ratio starting from a vague recollection of the number of inches in a meter. I came up with 1.61. Google says 1.60934.
But give me a hundred single-digit addition problems, and I will get a couple of them wrong.
I dunno about "so hard", but it's more effort and attention than I want to give to the process, and I usually only want one cup in any given many-hour period. With the keurig, I put a cup in the thing, put a pod in it, push a button, and sometime later I have a cup of coffee which is done. I don't have to deal with the horrible noises or maintenance of grinders, and so on.
And this is a big part of why.
It's funny that you say that, when it's the anti-gay folks that have been pushing so hard for anti-gay legislation and constitutional amendments.
But yeah, the state does get involved when people aren't willing to do things voluntarily. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from killing people? We involve the state. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from discriminating against people, to try to deny them basic human rights? We involve the state. That's the one thing the state is legitimately for.
This is an excellent summary of the fundamental issue:
The above post is the sole real motivation behind any of this. There are a lot of ostensible excuses, but they're all lies. The above is the truthful statement of intent behind it all, and that's exactly why the bigots are losing every fight they pick these days; because they've gotten more and more angry and insulting until they made it completely crystal clear what the real motivation was. That's a big part of why David Blankenhorn, once one of the most respected and influential opponents of marriage equality, switched sides; he concluded that the real underlying motivation of most of the people he was working with was simple hostility, and he didn't want to support it.
It all comes down to people who nominally believe that other people will be punished for being different later, but also believe that God's not fast enough or competent enough and it needs to happen now before they lose their rageboner.
Thank you, anon. It was people like you who defeated the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota, by trying not quite hard enough to conceal your seething rage, and turning a state full of Lutherans who are a little uncomfortable with social changes like the widespread use of electricity around. They would never have voted against that amendment on its own; it wasn't until the people advocating for it started talking that Minnesota Nice came into play.
You're right, they're not really free. They also don't have the right to kill people, even if it makes them money. Tragic, no?
See, I actually think that photography case should have gone to the photographer, because photography is a creative endeavor and thus it's a free speech issue. But in the case of a restaurant or whatever? That's not a nuisance suit, that's a legitimate discrimination complaint. You don't get to decide you're only willing to feed some people when you're selling food.
You're entirely right that "the gay agenda" is bullshit. The entire concept that there's an agenda there other than "being allowed to live your life normally same as everybody else" is bullshit.
Except it's not "historically a religious institution/ceremony". If exactly one religion, or maybe two, had "marriage", you might have a case. But we see "marriage" in many cultures, across many religions and no religions and everything else, and religions that don't have marriage ceremonies acquire them -- because they are a thing people add to their religions.
Christianity in particular acknowledged that marriage was a thing, but didn't do religious ceremonies for it for about their first millennium. Rich people who had property bothered with formal marriages, though.
It's not inherently religious, and there is no reason religion should be entitled to a monopoly on it.
So what? No one's asking them to believe anything, just to not discriminate against people.
Look, think it through. Imagine that someone's sincerely held religious beliefs were that interracial couples weren't legitimate and couldn't be validly married, and they wanted to refuse to make cakes for them. Or just they didn't think black people could get married. Would you expect people to just stand by and watch someone refuse to serve people based on skin color, given how long it took to fight that battle? I wouldn't.
I don't think it's a nuisance suit, any more than I think the various lawsuits about refusing service to blacks were nuisance suits. I think it's a fundamental question about what we think is the baseline of acceptable behavior in our society.
Doesn't sound very "pro-freedom" to me.
Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.
Yeah. At one point there was a Rift forums thread on favorite community reps, and I said that much though I liked the Rift guys, I had to give the nod to Zwillinger, and one of their community reps agreed with me. :)
The customer service is by most accounts still excellent. I've heard many people report quick and effective resolutions of problems. Certainly, that's been my experience.
Thanks! I appreciate this because it's the first time I've seen an actual response that makes a useful technical distinction. That said:
So let's say I did do it at the router level. I have my mail server watch for spam signs, and when it sees them it tells the router to start throttling all packets from the IP address it thinks looks spammy. Should this be allowed? It seems to me that it should. The question is whether we can write a law that permits me to throttle probably-abusive traffic without allowing me to throttle traffic which is legitimate, and merely too popular for my infrastructure.
A programmer who would implement an ssh server in PHP may be part of the problem?
BTW, the article linked from that reddit comments thread really is beautiful. In the absence of the later disasters, I might have speculated that this was parody.
Note that "unsubscribe" is not "report spam". Google does have a way to report spam; they have a web form you're supposed to fill out, which requires you to enter a valid gmail address for the sender. Note that you can cause gmail to generate outgoing messages which do not contain any gmail addresses anywhere in their headers. These cannot be reported to Google at all.
This is basically exactly what crappy spam-for-hire places have done, and exactly what legitimate mailers usually don't do. Google gets away with it in part because they're too big to fail (you can't just block all their stuff without serious losses), and in part because their automated filtering is reasonably good most of the time. But the fact remains, they're seneding spam and making it extra hard for people to inform them that it's spam. This is probably because there's money to be made sending spam and telling people to unsubscribe...