The Arizona law says any ID that was issued along with an identity check can be used to prove citizenship. They go on to specify some of them, including a driver's license/non-driver's ID and a passport. Does anyone not have easy access to some identity document along those lines? (With easy access defined as "It's at my house. I can call someone and have them bring it to you.")
So, anyway, Microsoft have a new mobile device again with a hip ad again, awkward name again, that's trying to compete with a similar device from Apple again. Best of luck to them.
Kin is a word in the English language. I'm not sure that counts as awkward. The phone in question is a feature (i.e. non-smart) phone. It's connected to Twitter, Facebook, and a few other similar social networks all the time. Other than that, there's no apps. This isn't a phone for nerds, its a phone for teenagers to send Facebook pictures to their "BFF." Apple does not make a device in this space. This phone is competing with the free phone your carrier will give you.
And the ad is about a guy taking pictures of his chest. Does that sound hip to you?
To be fair, many morbidly obese people will reach a point where their metabolism slows such that they actually take in less than a healthy weight person... but whatever.
Yeah, and if you let Firefox run long enough, it will take up so much ram due to memory leaks that it crashes. This reduces its memory use... what were we talking about?
Re:It's more complicated than that
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
For instance, MacOS ships with development tools.
Microsoft doesn't include them in a default installation, but they do give development tools away for free. Even for their game console.
obviously you can't charge people a monthly fee to play a first person shooter in its current format,
Why not? Microsoft seems to be doing (extremely well) with XBox Live, which costs $60 / year. The vast majority of games played on it are shooters.
For one thing, XBL costs $50 US per year if you don't get it on sale. (About once a month, they'll offer you either $40/year or $50/13 months.) For another thing, that subscription covers EVERY GAME on the service.
Also, if you keep paying a subscription for a game, you expect the game to be continuously updated. If I had to continuously pay EA to play Madden, I'd damn well better keep getting all the updates for free. Right now, I have to pay $60 per year for them.
Given a black-and-white, either-or choice, I'd rather live in a world where it's assumed that everything is a slippery slope, and everything is dealt with accordingly.
To my knowledge, neither Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo have ever run ads claiming that they were the small upstart fighting the monopoly and raging against the machine. Apple, on the other hand, ran an ad exactly like that. So yes, it is different when Apple does it.
The post I replied to asked for places in which it was assumed to be a right to receive television broadcasts. I answered that since the citizens own the radio spectrum in the United States, American citizens have the right to receive television broadcasts. Since a radio broadcast signal* is not a limited resource, the Tragedy of the Commons does not apply at all.
My point was that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that the government has to give you the equipment to exercise that right. I picked "freedom of the press" as the 1st amendment freedom for my example because it requires equipment. I'd argue that the Internet counts as "speech" and not "press" for the purposes of this argument, but it doesn't really matter, because you still need equipment to access it. (Most libraries will lend you their equipment, but by no means all of them.) Similarly, the government can't MAKE you learn a language. They can pass laws saying that "All high school students MUST take 2 years of a foreign language to graduate," but the only ones who continue and become fluent in the language are the ones who put forth the effort to actually care.
*A radio broadcast signal is not the same thing as a section of the radio spectrum; the latter IS a limited resource. In other words, the number of broadcasters is limited, but the number of receivers is not.
He also purged homosexuals, intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, communists, anti-communists, foreigners, foreign-sympathises, oh, and other atheists. If you want to obsess over one minor part of the purges, that speaks more to your agenda than Stalin's.
The generally accepted count for people killed in the Holocaust is 11 million people.
The generally accepted count for people killed in Stalin's purges is 20 million people.
Am I the only one thinking we need a corollary to Goodwin's Law?
In order for an American to exercise their right to have a free press, they need access to a printing press. Hell, they need to learn a language to exercise their right to free speech. Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms. Public parks are generally owned by the government at some level and are open to the public, with varying levels of restrictions. For example, my town built a football field for the use of its little league football programs. They charge a modest fee to the parents of the kids in the league. The local high school team also practices on it, and pays the town for its exclusive use during those times. I play in an adult flag football league, and that's our home field too, but we need to schedule our games around times when the town and school are using it. Anyone who wants to play a pickup game is also welcome to use it, but the town isn't going to give you the equipment necessary to do so. We have to bring our own flags, footballs, referee, etc.
In the United States, we recognize the radio spectrum (i.e. where TV is broadcast) as a public resource, just like that park. The citizens own it and the government administers it on our behalf. Everyone has the right to access it with varying levels of restrictions. If you want exclusive use of it (e.g. to become a broadcast station) you have to pay for that, just like the high school has to pay the town for exclusive use of the field. If your use isn't going to interfere with anyone, (e.g. CB radio, getting TV reception with an antenna) you have the right to use it as a citizen, but you have to bring your own equipment.
If anyone needs that in car analogy form, the park is a 10 minute jog from my house, and I play running back and corner back on the team, so I need to run a lot during the game; I can't run TO the game as well. Count a car as part of the equipment I need to utilize the football field and *BOOM* instant car analogy.
Sure, you find a page with the Battle of Trafalgar on Wikipedia, but then you click on a link on that page, and then another one, and then BOOM! It's two hours later and you're reading about the United States Football League while your report on the battle goes unwritten.
According to thesearticles and others I've read, she did claim executive privilege.
You're assuming a lot here. You assume that the "disgruntled" former aide is lying, although there's no evidence of that. You're assuming that the suit is just for purposes of harassment, again with no evidence of that. You're assuming that these emails are all personal (which just from the subject lines that were leaked (see the msnbc link for those too), it's quite obvious that they were about state business.
I made a lot of assumptions about the facts of these e-mails because I only had the first set of articles you posted, plus what I posted later. The second set is a lot more helpful.
I made other assumptions about the complaint based on a pattern. Like I said, there were 13 ethics complaints against Palin resolved (and two outstanding) when she resigned. Of those 13, Palin was found to not have committed any wrongdoing. She was governor for two and a half years. Having 15 complaints about her filed in that time and being found to not have committed wrongdoing in the 13 settled ones seems like her enemies are throwing everything they have at the wall and seeing what sticks. In my book, that counts as evidence in Palin's favor. Once again, you're making the assumption that she's guilty because you disagree with her politics. (By the way, the MSNBC* article says that even if Palin was using the e-mails like the disgruntled former employee says, that's not illegal.)
Whether they should be protected rather than released because they are part of the "deliberative process" is for a court to decide, not Palin. It may very well be that they should remain private for now, but that still doesn't mean it was appropriate or legal for those communications to go through a non-governmental email service.
I originally said that the e-mails being part of the deliberative process and therefore not subject to disclosure was a reasonable thing for Palin to say to the judge. Clearly, the judge would then rule on it. And he did; the MSNBC* article said the judge ruled it not illegal.
*By the way, MSNBC absolutely HATES Palin. If they're saying it "wasn't necessarily illegal" you can probably take their word for it.
The hacking incident took place in September 2008. The only other stories I find say the same things. The boxes of emails that were turned over to Andree McLeod in June 2008 were heavily redacted, and the ones that were still being requested from the Yahoo accounts are the ones that Palin refuses to turn over, citing executive privilege. How you claim executive privilege over email that isn't related to state business, I have no idea, so I can only assume that they are state business related emails.
Do you have a link to a story giving either these dates, or citing Palin's executive privilege claim? It seems to me that "these are my private e-mails, and not state business, and therefore I shouldn't have to turn them over (and should be allowed to redact them)" is a perfectly reasonable position for Palin to take. Would you turn over all your personal e-mail to someone who you know is going to try to use it to harass you and your family?
There were still FOIA requests pending, but Palin said it would cost $88,000 to hand over those emails, knowing that the woman couldn't pay it. That's more than a year's salary for most people, and a completely ridiculous amount for handing over 1,000 emails.
Cry me a river. This lawsuit was brought to harass Sarah Palin and make her look like an unsuitable candidate for national office. The cost of fighting off stupid lawsuits like this one is what wound up driving Palin from office.
Also, neither Palin nor the state of Alaska was keeping an archive of these e-mails; Yahoo was. And since you're not supposed to do important business via Yahoo e-mail, Yahoo probably doesn't keep the world's best backups, and getting to the backups they do have is most likely expensive. Plus, paying someone to go through and check what information is private is going to cost money.
Lots of politicians get cleared after ethics probes. It's hard as hell to ever prove anything because of all the privileges they get and how easy it is for them to obstruct the investigation without consequence.
There's also the possibility that she didn't do it. That seems to be the most likely option, especially since the judge would most likely have to have approved the redaction (which means he would have had to have access to the unredacted text.) But no, you choose to ignore the "she didn't do it" option (and all the evidence to support it) because you disagree with her politics. That's probably the biggest problem in American politics today.
Slashdot Mirror
The Arizona law says any ID that was issued along with an identity check can be used to prove citizenship. They go on to specify some of them, including a driver's license/non-driver's ID and a passport. Does anyone not have easy access to some identity document along those lines? (With easy access defined as "It's at my house. I can call someone and have them bring it to you.")
It seems like the reason nobody is reporting the actual data is because THE SCIENTISTS IN THE STORY DELETED IT.
So, anyway, Microsoft have a new mobile device again with a hip ad again, awkward name again, that's trying to compete with a similar device from Apple again. Best of luck to them.
Kin is a word in the English language. I'm not sure that counts as awkward. The phone in question is a feature (i.e. non-smart) phone. It's connected to Twitter, Facebook, and a few other similar social networks all the time. Other than that, there's no apps. This isn't a phone for nerds, its a phone for teenagers to send Facebook pictures to their "BFF." Apple does not make a device in this space. This phone is competing with the free phone your carrier will give you.
And the ad is about a guy taking pictures of his chest. Does that sound hip to you?
The collage we went to was all Mac
Was your collage best known as an art school? Perhaps one that taught students how to cut out pictures from magazines and glue them to paper?
To be fair, many morbidly obese people will reach a point where their metabolism slows such that they actually take in less than a healthy weight person... but whatever.
Yeah, and if you let Firefox run long enough, it will take up so much ram due to memory leaks that it crashes. This reduces its memory use... what were we talking about?
For instance, MacOS ships with development tools.
Microsoft doesn't include them in a default installation, but they do give development tools away for free. Even for their game console.
obviously you can't charge people a monthly fee to play a first person shooter in its current format,
Why not? Microsoft seems to be doing (extremely well) with XBox Live, which costs $60 / year. The vast majority of games played on it are shooters.
For one thing, XBL costs $50 US per year if you don't get it on sale. (About once a month, they'll offer you either $40/year or $50/13 months.) For another thing, that subscription covers EVERY GAME on the service.
Also, if you keep paying a subscription for a game, you expect the game to be continuously updated. If I had to continuously pay EA to play Madden, I'd damn well better keep getting all the updates for free. Right now, I have to pay $60 per year for them.
The Japanese occupied Alaskan islands off the mainland during World War II as well. Also, Pearl Harbor was located in a US territory.
Yeah, we did a lot of crazy things in the 40's. Misuse of census data, treatment of japanese americans, tuskegee airmen.
Letting African Americans volunteer to fly bomber escort missions was a bad thing? What are you talking about?
Why, exactly, do we have a "major site is down" story with no links?
Yeah, they should totally link to YouTube's response to it. Oh wait...
The teabaggers would go ballistic, these are people ready to shoot at the census takers.
The incident you're referring to was in fact a suicide, not an attack by anyone, and certainly not by Tea Party activists.
It's Canada. EVERYONE is out in the cold.
Given a black-and-white, either-or choice, I'd rather live in a world where it's assumed that everything is a slippery slope, and everything is dealt with accordingly.
Too bad only the Sith deal in absolutes.
To my knowledge, neither Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo have ever run ads claiming that they were the small upstart fighting the monopoly and raging against the machine. Apple, on the other hand, ran an ad exactly like that. So yes, it is different when Apple does it.
The post I replied to asked for places in which it was assumed to be a right to receive television broadcasts. I answered that since the citizens own the radio spectrum in the United States, American citizens have the right to receive television broadcasts. Since a radio broadcast signal* is not a limited resource, the Tragedy of the Commons does not apply at all.
My point was that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that the government has to give you the equipment to exercise that right. I picked "freedom of the press" as the 1st amendment freedom for my example because it requires equipment. I'd argue that the Internet counts as "speech" and not "press" for the purposes of this argument, but it doesn't really matter, because you still need equipment to access it. (Most libraries will lend you their equipment, but by no means all of them.) Similarly, the government can't MAKE you learn a language. They can pass laws saying that "All high school students MUST take 2 years of a foreign language to graduate," but the only ones who continue and become fluent in the language are the ones who put forth the effort to actually care.
*A radio broadcast signal is not the same thing as a section of the radio spectrum; the latter IS a limited resource. In other words, the number of broadcasters is limited, but the number of receivers is not.
He also purged homosexuals, intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, communists, anti-communists, foreigners, foreign-sympathises, oh, and other atheists. If you want to obsess over one minor part of the purges, that speaks more to your agenda than Stalin's.
The generally accepted count for people killed in the Holocaust is 11 million people.
The generally accepted count for people killed in Stalin's purges is 20 million people.
Am I the only one thinking we need a corollary to Goodwin's Law?
In order for an American to exercise their right to have a free press, they need access to a printing press. Hell, they need to learn a language to exercise their right to free speech. Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms. Public parks are generally owned by the government at some level and are open to the public, with varying levels of restrictions. For example, my town built a football field for the use of its little league football programs. They charge a modest fee to the parents of the kids in the league. The local high school team also practices on it, and pays the town for its exclusive use during those times. I play in an adult flag football league, and that's our home field too, but we need to schedule our games around times when the town and school are using it. Anyone who wants to play a pickup game is also welcome to use it, but the town isn't going to give you the equipment necessary to do so. We have to bring our own flags, footballs, referee, etc.
In the United States, we recognize the radio spectrum (i.e. where TV is broadcast) as a public resource, just like that park. The citizens own it and the government administers it on our behalf. Everyone has the right to access it with varying levels of restrictions. If you want exclusive use of it (e.g. to become a broadcast station) you have to pay for that, just like the high school has to pay the town for exclusive use of the field. If your use isn't going to interfere with anyone, (e.g. CB radio, getting TV reception with an antenna) you have the right to use it as a citizen, but you have to bring your own equipment.
If anyone needs that in car analogy form, the park is a 10 minute jog from my house, and I play running back and corner back on the team, so I need to run a lot during the game; I can't run TO the game as well. Count a car as part of the equipment I need to utilize the football field and *BOOM* instant car analogy.
It comes with an FTP client.
What if the thing they had the monopoly on was a hardware device of some sort, and they were using the hardware device to promote the use of iTunes?
Sure, you find a page with the Battle of Trafalgar on Wikipedia, but then you click on a link on that page, and then another one, and then BOOM! It's two hours later and you're reading about the United States Football League while your report on the battle goes unwritten.
Everyone remember this post, where sopssa is clearly defending SONY, next time he makes sense but is accused of being an "M$ troll."
"Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were... aggregated over different collection methods..
Isn't aggregating numbers over different collection methods (in this case, tree ring data and thermometers) the basis of the infamous Nature trick?
Neither of your two examples require admin privileges (and thus don't trigger UAC.)
According to these articles and others I've read, she did claim executive privilege. You're assuming a lot here. You assume that the "disgruntled" former aide is lying, although there's no evidence of that. You're assuming that the suit is just for purposes of harassment, again with no evidence of that. You're assuming that these emails are all personal (which just from the subject lines that were leaked (see the msnbc link for those too), it's quite obvious that they were about state business.
I made a lot of assumptions about the facts of these e-mails because I only had the first set of articles you posted, plus what I posted later. The second set is a lot more helpful.
I made other assumptions about the complaint based on a pattern. Like I said, there were 13 ethics complaints against Palin resolved (and two outstanding) when she resigned. Of those 13, Palin was found to not have committed any wrongdoing. She was governor for two and a half years. Having 15 complaints about her filed in that time and being found to not have committed wrongdoing in the 13 settled ones seems like her enemies are throwing everything they have at the wall and seeing what sticks. In my book, that counts as evidence in Palin's favor. Once again, you're making the assumption that she's guilty because you disagree with her politics. (By the way, the MSNBC* article says that even if Palin was using the e-mails like the disgruntled former employee says, that's not illegal.)
Whether they should be protected rather than released because they are part of the "deliberative process" is for a court to decide, not Palin. It may very well be that they should remain private for now, but that still doesn't mean it was appropriate or legal for those communications to go through a non-governmental email service.
I originally said that the e-mails being part of the deliberative process and therefore not subject to disclosure was a reasonable thing for Palin to say to the judge. Clearly, the judge would then rule on it. And he did; the MSNBC* article said the judge ruled it not illegal.
*By the way, MSNBC absolutely HATES Palin. If they're saying it "wasn't necessarily illegal" you can probably take their word for it.
The hacking incident took place in September 2008. The only other stories I find say the same things. The boxes of emails that were turned over to Andree McLeod in June 2008 were heavily redacted, and the ones that were still being requested from the Yahoo accounts are the ones that Palin refuses to turn over, citing executive privilege. How you claim executive privilege over email that isn't related to state business, I have no idea, so I can only assume that they are state business related emails.
Do you have a link to a story giving either these dates, or citing Palin's executive privilege claim? It seems to me that "these are my private e-mails, and not state business, and therefore I shouldn't have to turn them over (and should be allowed to redact them)" is a perfectly reasonable position for Palin to take. Would you turn over all your personal e-mail to someone who you know is going to try to use it to harass you and your family?
There were still FOIA requests pending, but Palin said it would cost $88,000 to hand over those emails, knowing that the woman couldn't pay it. That's more than a year's salary for most people, and a completely ridiculous amount for handing over 1,000 emails.
Cry me a river. This lawsuit was brought to harass Sarah Palin and make her look like an unsuitable candidate for national office. The cost of fighting off stupid lawsuits like this one is what wound up driving Palin from office.
Also, neither Palin nor the state of Alaska was keeping an archive of these e-mails; Yahoo was. And since you're not supposed to do important business via Yahoo e-mail, Yahoo probably doesn't keep the world's best backups, and getting to the backups they do have is most likely expensive. Plus, paying someone to go through and check what information is private is going to cost money.
Lots of politicians get cleared after ethics probes. It's hard as hell to ever prove anything because of all the privileges they get and how easy it is for them to obstruct the investigation without consequence.
There's also the possibility that she didn't do it. That seems to be the most likely option, especially since the judge would most likely have to have approved the redaction (which means he would have had to have access to the unredacted text.) But no, you choose to ignore the "she didn't do it" option (and all the evidence to support it) because you disagree with her politics. That's probably the biggest problem in American politics today.