Actually, you can't. The BSA's rules state, "You cannot be the employee who has installed the unlicensed software onto the reported company's computers, unless you were directed by your supervisor to do so." So, if you got fired for doing sloppy licensing, you're probably not the guy who can profit from ratting the company out.
Wait a minute. So you're saying that Microsoft, rather than fixing a bug that allowed unsigned code to programatically take control of the desktop, decided instead to halt all other processes during the dialog and create a usability problem?
And somehow it's the *users* fault for thinking that's a bad decision?
Yeah, but how many times have you seen a ballot with just one question on it? We also have to count all the votes for congressmen, state congressmen, mayors, school district committee members, dogcatchers, etc., plus all the ballot propositions. Now that 2-hour timeframe to count all the votes is more like a couple days.
Your third allegation was true until the publication of this PDF which you obviously didn't read since it included a dedication of qmail to the public domain.
Uh, no. The *document* is being placed in the public domain. There is no change to the software licensing.
Pretty much all of the parties -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Communist, etc.-- would, if taken to the extremes of their professed ideals, lead this country boldly into the gutter. That's why having different parties in Congress is a good thing.
I wouldn't want to see the country run on a totally Libertarian philosophy. But I sure want a whole lot more Libertarians arguing their platform's views in Washington, D.C., and I'll gladly vote for anything that might make that happen.
Don't actually recall that ep, but from your description, it sounds pretty clear that he's not, as you say, "calling people retards for having [a] different political stance" -- he's calling Bush a retard, presuambly for being Bush.
Um, he's helping her, not dropping the hammer on her. The fact that she has bought hundreds of CDs from Best Buy corroborates her testimony that the files on her replacment disk drive are ripped from CDs she already owns, not pirated from the 'net.
CDNow is operated by Amazon now, so you really can't say that their primary business is CDs. Wherehouse is still alive, yes, but it's reported that they're making most of their profit from DVD and game sales these days.
Now we have an Apple spokeswoman admitting freely that the simple act of bringing it out of the country without using it actually cost "and arm and a leg".
No, that's not what she said. That's the Inquirer's interpretation of what she said. If you click through TFA to the actual NewsDay source, you find something more akin to what Apple actually said:
"Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said the company adequately discloses the potential charges on the Web site and when the phone is activated."
The NewsDay article then goes on to look up the information on the AT&T web site to find the phrase, "Substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used."
I'm not sure that comes even close to an Apple spokeswoman saying what TFA says she said.
From a tactical standpoint, getting Universal's people up on a stand to walk a jury through a byzantine recording contract to explain just how it is that they own the copyright and are owed a kajillion dollars in damages when the original artist gets a pittance is almost certain to dispose a jury toward the defendant.
Except that's not what would happen. The RIAA legal team merely has to describe how, for example, when Mercury Records recorded "Hysteria" they were operating under the parent company Polygram, which was later bought by Seagrams, who then folded Mercury and all its assets into Universal. In short they're going to describe a rather straightforward transfer of property, and not mention the artists at all.
In order for the defendants to actually get in the entire "here's how we screw artists" thing, they're going to have to show that it's at least relevant to the case. Sadly, it's not.
Chertoff? Not gonna happen. He'd get approved at the end, but in the meantime it would be a week of questioning about the failures of post-Katrina FEMA under his watch. With candidates like Edwards already beating that drum, it would be like a week of free airtime for the Democratic candidates.
I don't know; given that the central conceit of Drood is that it's a troupe of vaudeville-era actors well before Strasberg and the Method style, I'd say that rehearsing Jasper shouldn't involve actually feeling murderous rage, but feeling like an 1890s actor named Clive pretending to be angry, which hopefully shouldn't trip the TSA's BDOs.
(Just a little aside: One of my favorite suppressed studies -- one that's funded but never officially published because the results conflict with the politically necessary results -- was a two question survey of college students. The first question was "What's your GPA?" The second was "Do you smoke pot?" Turns out that the pot smokers had a higher GPA than the non pot smokers. Now if I could just convince my boss I'd code better with a plate of "special" brownies next to me...)
Maybe it hasn't been published because the methodology, as you describe it, is unbelievably flawed. A two-question study doesn't yield enough information to properly interpret the results -- pot smokers could be more likely to exaggerate their GPA than others; low-GPA pot smokers could be more likely to be caught and thrown out of school; pot smokers might find it harder to concentrate and thus drop hard classes for the easy As. Give me a few minutes and I can come up with more.
The problem usually boils down to the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- "Who watches the watchers?" Just because the ostensible reason for the cameras is public safety is no guarantee that their use will be limited to that capacity. Since you have no control over the information that the cameras are generating, nor in how that data will be used, they can easily be used against the people being filmed.
On the other hand, this is why I'm actually OK with this issue about account info -- the files that contain the information are placed into my control, and I can do what I will with them. By and large, they are not available for public consumption unless I take an overt action to make them available.
I'll say. I mean, the only time that would make sense is if you could send all the users home for a couple of months while you worked out all the kinks.
...the blogger was not concerned about protecting "some people damaging a cop car and setting it on fire," but rather protecting the identities of the rest of the law abiding protesters who had attended the protest.
But isn't this a mis-application of the journalistic shield? The state laws that allow for such a defense apply to sources, so that people can feel safe creating a dialogue with a journalist and feed information that the public has a right to know. The identities that Wolf was protecting are not, as far as we know, people whom he was cultivating as sources. They're just people that he knows that were at the same place he was when he was filming. They're also potential witnesses to vandalism, arson and battery.
I think in this case the ends may justify the means. I'd love to see a shield law at the Federal level, to help the Judith Millers of the world. I'm just not seeing grounds for a law that would protect Wolf here.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can't. The BSA's rules state, "You cannot be the employee who has installed the unlicensed software onto the reported company's computers, unless you were directed by your supervisor to do so." So, if you got fired for doing sloppy licensing, you're probably not the guy who can profit from ratting the company out.
Wait a minute. So you're saying that Microsoft, rather than fixing a bug that allowed unsigned code to programatically take control of the desktop, decided instead to halt all other processes during the dialog and create a usability problem?
And somehow it's the *users* fault for thinking that's a bad decision?
Yeah, but how many times have you seen a ballot with just one question on it? We also have to count all the votes for congressmen, state congressmen, mayors, school district committee members, dogcatchers, etc., plus all the ballot propositions. Now that 2-hour timeframe to count all the votes is more like a couple days.
THE PDF UNDER DISCUSSION says no such thing. If djb is relicensing the code, he should say so publically; not just to you.
Uh, no. The *document* is being placed in the public domain. There is no change to the software licensing.
Pretty much all of the parties -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Communist, etc.-- would, if taken to the extremes of their professed ideals, lead this country boldly into the gutter. That's why having different parties in Congress is a good thing.
I wouldn't want to see the country run on a totally Libertarian philosophy. But I sure want a whole lot more Libertarians arguing their platform's views in Washington, D.C., and I'll gladly vote for anything that might make that happen.
Don't actually recall that ep, but from your description, it sounds pretty clear that he's not, as you say, "calling people retards for having [a] different political stance" -- he's calling Bush a retard, presuambly for being Bush.
In turn, the notion that other people can't markup or change my text has a psychological impact on me.
As for "gambling of any kind": http://www.worldcasinodirectory.com/utah
Um, he's helping her, not dropping the hammer on her. The fact that she has bought hundreds of CDs from Best Buy corroborates her testimony that the files on her replacment disk drive are ripped from CDs she already owns, not pirated from the 'net.
CDNow is operated by Amazon now, so you really can't say that their primary business is CDs. Wherehouse is still alive, yes, but it's reported that they're making most of their profit from DVD and game sales these days.
No, that's not what she said. That's the Inquirer's interpretation of what she said. If you click through TFA to the actual NewsDay source, you find something more akin to what Apple actually said:
"Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said the company adequately discloses the potential charges on the Web site and when the phone is activated."
The NewsDay article then goes on to look up the information on the AT&T web site to find the phrase, "Substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used."
I'm not sure that comes even close to an Apple spokeswoman saying what TFA says she said.
Except that's not what would happen. The RIAA legal team merely has to describe how, for example, when Mercury Records recorded "Hysteria" they were operating under the parent company Polygram, which was later bought by Seagrams, who then folded Mercury and all its assets into Universal. In short they're going to describe a rather straightforward transfer of property, and not mention the artists at all.
In order for the defendants to actually get in the entire "here's how we screw artists" thing, they're going to have to show that it's at least relevant to the case. Sadly, it's not.
Chertoff? Not gonna happen. He'd get approved at the end, but in the meantime it would be a week of questioning about the failures of post-Katrina FEMA under his watch. With candidates like Edwards already beating that drum, it would be like a week of free airtime for the Democratic candidates.
I don't know; given that the central conceit of Drood is that it's a troupe of vaudeville-era actors well before Strasberg and the Method style, I'd say that rehearsing Jasper shouldn't involve actually feeling murderous rage, but feeling like an 1890s actor named Clive pretending to be angry, which hopefully shouldn't trip the TSA's BDOs.
Now, maybe for Jud Fry in Oklahoma!...
Wait a minute. So, when I pick up a copy of the Metro for free and read it on the subway, I *have* to read the ads?
Crash of the Moons:
"Object ahead."
"Can you be any more vague, Winkie?"
Maybe it hasn't been published because the methodology, as you describe it, is unbelievably flawed. A two-question study doesn't yield enough information to properly interpret the results -- pot smokers could be more likely to exaggerate their GPA than others; low-GPA pot smokers could be more likely to be caught and thrown out of school; pot smokers might find it harder to concentrate and thus drop hard classes for the easy As. Give me a few minutes and I can come up with more.
The problem usually boils down to the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- "Who watches the watchers?" Just because the ostensible reason for the cameras is public safety is no guarantee that their use will be limited to that capacity. Since you have no control over the information that the cameras are generating, nor in how that data will be used, they can easily be used against the people being filmed.
On the other hand, this is why I'm actually OK with this issue about account info -- the files that contain the information are placed into my control, and I can do what I will with them. By and large, they are not available for public consumption unless I take an overt action to make them available.
I'll say. I mean, the only time that would make sense is if you could send all the users home for a couple of months while you worked out all the kinks.
3.0 was released in mid-2002. May I say, you're remarkably articulate for a five-year-old. :-)
But isn't this a mis-application of the journalistic shield? The state laws that allow for such a defense apply to sources, so that people can feel safe creating a dialogue with a journalist and feed information that the public has a right to know. The identities that Wolf was protecting are not, as far as we know, people whom he was cultivating as sources. They're just people that he knows that were at the same place he was when he was filming. They're also potential witnesses to vandalism, arson and battery.
I think in this case the ends may justify the means. I'd love to see a shield law at the Federal level, to help the Judith Millers of the world. I'm just not seeing grounds for a law that would protect Wolf here.
Unless they have gotten Anal since 2000, i'm not sure anyone would say anything.
It's probably fine. I doubt anything happened after 2000 that would cause airline employees to be more nervous.
Sigh. At one point we taught people to be considerate of others, and thus to try to limit the annoyances we place on those around us.
Now, the guideline is apparently "Being annoyed doesn't constitute harm. Deal."
Yay, progress.
You might want to try adding that up again. This time, pretend that there are 162 games in an MLB season.