Many people are hard of hearing for many reasons, including that's what they had at birth. They often require hearing aids to hear. I can only imagine that hearing aids must be boosting the audio (I've never tried any). They need to be able to boost the audio. And some audio sources are way too low as it is. This is really an impractical solution to a stupid nanny problem. They should put their effort into real problems like fluorescent lights that give me a headache.
I'm currently playing a "remix" (all I really did was speed shift it to run at 2/3 speed) of selected tracks from the 4 Domased Electronica albums I bought from Magnatune.
My playlist for this set that I think works well at the 2/3 speed is:
Your headphones will be in the box of personal stuff as you walk out the door, if you do that. This is a situation that requires at least some tact. The objective is to change the conditions from negative to positive and keep the job. It it is not about making a negative condition worse.
The only thing worse is if the boss let you wear headphones but required you to listen to country music.
How about a set of really big ear covering protectors that have "Smith & Wesson" printed on each side, with a picture of a pistol. Or maybe the "Glock" ones.
It would be even better if every programmer sent out their updated resumes, and those that can find jobs coordinated their start dates for maximum impact. It might send an important message.
Where I work, we still have a couple openings for Java, Python, and/or C++ programmers. Programming experience counts well for lack of the exact language experience. Search skills, like figuring out how to get the resume to me, counts well, too.
I've found that vocal music is just as detrimental as voices chatting. So now I have yet another reason to not play country music. Instrumental music, most classical music, vocal-free electronica, and even heavy metal that manages to drown own their own vocals, works to boost the creative process... at least for me. I code to everything from Beethoven to Burzum.
If a judge and a lawyer that could appear before that judge are indeed friends, instead of being prohibited from disclosing that fact on Facebook, they should, instead, be mandated to disclose it. Why keep the friendship hidden? Hiding it works against proper ethics. I suspect the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee just doesn't understand what the internet really means... which is about information and exposing the truth. So now someone is going to need to create a new web site to detail all those friendships between judges and lawyers, complete with Youtube links for the bedroom activities (OK, in the chambers).
It also assures that some LEA can't carry out a vendetta by flooding them with 1000000 requests a day.
I do wonder how a surge of requests would be handled by a department that has a fixed staff. Would there be a backlog and delay? Could they have an "expedite" fee?
Make the procedural demand for the plaintiff to show how a copyright on this document would "... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and seek for the court to find that the document's copyright is not valid. If the court declines to do so, appeal the specific decision itself. This is all typical delay tactics all lawyers are trained to do. IANAL.
If a copyright notice is optional, then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted. It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked, and has only been corrected after the fact. If they did copyright it prior to dissemination, then there has to be at least something to show this.
Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming, if Cryptome's copy of the letter is accurate, that the document is in fact copyrighted. So how is it that he knows this to be the case? Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted? Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted? He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof, or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted, in order to be convincing. Otherwise, he is not very convincing at all.
The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted. How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof. WHERE'S THE PROOF?
It does seem the modes are confusing when considering both multiple monitors and multiple workspaces. I've got a laptop with a desktop monitor plugged in. Ubuntu 9.10 is freshly installed (not an upgrade from a previous). The only setup that brings the desktop monitor alive is treating both monitors (the one on the laptop and the one on the desktop) as one continuous screen. I currently have the laptop on the left because Gnome wanted to decorate the screen on the right. So I'm working in 3840x1200. But when I try to set up modes using each monitor as its own distinct desktop workspace, the desktop one (connected to the VGA output of the laptop) shuts off due to no video.
What I want is for each display to be its own desktop. I'll need some mechanism to switch input to which one I want to input to. Each virtual desktop (Ubuntu or Gnome gave me 2 to start with but I increased that) should be independently selectable in each display.
I'd accept the alternative of running a separate X server in each display, allowing each to login, logout, and switch user. It still needs an input selector (to tell something which display the keyboard and mouse inputs go to).
What I don't want is what some apps do, which is to put extra windows over on the laptop display when I'm working in the desktop display. So I really want to get away from this 3840x1200 mode made up of the two 1920x1200 displays side by side. Later, I'll get a real desktop machine and two real monitors and then a 3840x1200 would be fine. But for now, all I want is for my big monitor to be primary workspace until I have to work portable.
There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself. There isn't enough competition, yet. The only alternative is regulation. That needs to either directly correct the problem, or introduce the competition that can do it.
Capitalism is about investors investing in business. It has nothing to do with theft. Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism. Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery. It can come back if we do something about it.
No innovation here. As long as the ETF represents the losses that the provider would have had because of an early termination, I see no issue with it. If the cost of the phone is subsidized by the service contract, then an ETF should be the remaining subsidized cost of the phone. That should be specific to the type of phone, and spelled out in the contract.
Now the real question is: should the providers be allowed to even subsidize the phones via a combination service contract? I say sure because many people need this as a way to bankroll the cost of a new phone (a real bank is less likely to grant credit because they don't have a particular interest in generating demand for phone services). For this to be a valid offering, it needs to also offer paid-up-front pricing for the phone, and service at the basic service rate. The basic service rate must not be more than the total term cost minus the ETF (no jacking the service rates to embed the cost of phones). Basic service must be available to anyone owning a compatible phone, too.
The phone and the phone service are complements in microeconomics, just like Joel described. In this case the phone company is assisting in lowering the cost of one to drive demand for the other which they make their real revenue on (supposedly). That's fine as long as the basic costs balance out (not considering the extra service someone might later choose to add on) for the consumer. The problem exists when these numbers manipulate the consumer to bring in un-earned revenues (much like banks do for all those service fees they charge which are way much more then the supposed costs they claim those are to cover).
Again, there is no innovation here by Verizon, regardless of whether you look at this as a means to subsidize phones for people that cannot afford to buy them up front (and don't have the will power to save up to buy them later on), or look at this as a way to boost revenues by ripping off less savvy consumers... because both of these things have been going on for decades.
However, if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person, who has special interest in the situation, it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot.
They see Google News (and Search) succeeding as a business model... AND doing it with their (the newspaper's) content. They don't like it. But they do seem to have an idea that if they just don't let Google's crawlers access the content, then they won't get the traffic they have been getting from Google. The problem is, they just feel like they are not in control. They want everyone to get all their news from one site (theirs). They want to figure out how to get people to stay and not go back to Google News. But they can't figure out how to do that, so they want to force Google to do it for them.
Why should Google have to do, for them, what THEY could do for themselves (by seeing that five articles with Google as a referrer were accessed from the same IP in one day)? Like you say, Google would be inclined to route them to another news site. At least if the routing is done at the newspaper's own site, they can go where they want, and change where that is any time they like (even do so different for different IP addresses, etc). It's called "being in control". But the real reason for this whole problem is that newspapers are just not willing to deploy something intelligent (because it might require hiring someone that really knows what they are doing).
Slashdot Mirror
Many people are hard of hearing for many reasons, including that's what they had at birth. They often require hearing aids to hear. I can only imagine that hearing aids must be boosting the audio (I've never tried any). They need to be able to boost the audio. And some audio sources are way too low as it is. This is really an impractical solution to a stupid nanny problem. They should put their effort into real problems like fluorescent lights that give me a headache.
... by doing searches through various open web proxies, and Tor. Now the Google Ads are for stuff I have no interest in. So does that make it better?
Norwegian works, too. Burzum FTW!
I'm currently playing a "remix" (all I really did was speed shift it to run at 2/3 speed) of selected tracks from the 4 Domased Electronica albums I bought from Magnatune.
My playlist for this set that I think works well at the 2/3 speed is:
Your headphones will be in the box of personal stuff as you walk out the door, if you do that. This is a situation that requires at least some tact. The objective is to change the conditions from negative to positive and keep the job. It it is not about making a negative condition worse.
The only thing worse is if the boss let you wear headphones but required you to listen to country music.
I find it works for writing documentation, too.
How about a set of really big ear covering protectors that have "Smith & Wesson" printed on each side, with a picture of a pistol. Or maybe the "Glock" ones.
We get around this with IM, Email, and PostIt notes.
It would be even better if every programmer sent out their updated resumes, and those that can find jobs coordinated their start dates for maximum impact. It might send an important message.
Where I work, we still have a couple openings for Java, Python, and/or C++ programmers. Programming experience counts well for lack of the exact language experience. Search skills, like figuring out how to get the resume to me, counts well, too.
I've found that vocal music is just as detrimental as voices chatting. So now I have yet another reason to not play country music. Instrumental music, most classical music, vocal-free electronica, and even heavy metal that manages to drown own their own vocals, works to boost the creative process ... at least for me. I code to everything from Beethoven to Burzum.
If a judge and a lawyer that could appear before that judge are indeed friends, instead of being prohibited from disclosing that fact on Facebook, they should, instead, be mandated to disclose it. Why keep the friendship hidden? Hiding it works against proper ethics. I suspect the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee just doesn't understand what the internet really means ... which is about information and exposing the truth. So now someone is going to need to create a new web site to detail all those friendships between judges and lawyers, complete with Youtube links for the bedroom activities (OK, in the chambers).
... and they will come!
... you think big corporations, especially investor owned ones, are fundamentally honest.
It also assures that some LEA can't carry out a vendetta by flooding them with 1000000 requests a day.
I do wonder how a surge of requests would be handled by a department that has a fixed staff. Would there be a backlog and delay? Could they have an "expedite" fee?
Make the procedural demand for the plaintiff to show how a copyright on this document would "... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and seek for the court to find that the document's copyright is not valid. If the court declines to do so, appeal the specific decision itself. This is all typical delay tactics all lawyers are trained to do. IANAL.
And what does Cryptome charge to take down a document?
If a copyright notice is optional, then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted. It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked, and has only been corrected after the fact. If they did copyright it prior to dissemination, then there has to be at least something to show this.
Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming, if Cryptome's copy of the letter is accurate, that the document is in fact copyrighted. So how is it that he knows this to be the case? Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted? Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted? He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof, or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted, in order to be convincing. Otherwise, he is not very convincing at all.
The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted. How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof. WHERE'S THE PROOF?
It does seem the modes are confusing when considering both multiple monitors and multiple workspaces. I've got a laptop with a desktop monitor plugged in. Ubuntu 9.10 is freshly installed (not an upgrade from a previous). The only setup that brings the desktop monitor alive is treating both monitors (the one on the laptop and the one on the desktop) as one continuous screen. I currently have the laptop on the left because Gnome wanted to decorate the screen on the right. So I'm working in 3840x1200. But when I try to set up modes using each monitor as its own distinct desktop workspace, the desktop one (connected to the VGA output of the laptop) shuts off due to no video.
What I want is for each display to be its own desktop. I'll need some mechanism to switch input to which one I want to input to. Each virtual desktop (Ubuntu or Gnome gave me 2 to start with but I increased that) should be independently selectable in each display.
I'd accept the alternative of running a separate X server in each display, allowing each to login, logout, and switch user. It still needs an input selector (to tell something which display the keyboard and mouse inputs go to).
What I don't want is what some apps do, which is to put extra windows over on the laptop display when I'm working in the desktop display. So I really want to get away from this 3840x1200 mode made up of the two 1920x1200 displays side by side. Later, I'll get a real desktop machine and two real monitors and then a 3840x1200 would be fine. But for now, all I want is for my big monitor to be primary workspace until I have to work portable.
How about a more modern up to date document?
There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself. There isn't enough competition, yet. The only alternative is regulation. That needs to either directly correct the problem, or introduce the competition that can do it.
Capitalism is about investors investing in business. It has nothing to do with theft. Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism. Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery. It can come back if we do something about it.
No innovation here. As long as the ETF represents the losses that the provider would have had because of an early termination, I see no issue with it. If the cost of the phone is subsidized by the service contract, then an ETF should be the remaining subsidized cost of the phone. That should be specific to the type of phone, and spelled out in the contract.
Now the real question is: should the providers be allowed to even subsidize the phones via a combination service contract? I say sure because many people need this as a way to bankroll the cost of a new phone (a real bank is less likely to grant credit because they don't have a particular interest in generating demand for phone services). For this to be a valid offering, it needs to also offer paid-up-front pricing for the phone, and service at the basic service rate. The basic service rate must not be more than the total term cost minus the ETF (no jacking the service rates to embed the cost of phones). Basic service must be available to anyone owning a compatible phone, too.
The phone and the phone service are complements in microeconomics, just like Joel described. In this case the phone company is assisting in lowering the cost of one to drive demand for the other which they make their real revenue on (supposedly). That's fine as long as the basic costs balance out (not considering the extra service someone might later choose to add on) for the consumer. The problem exists when these numbers manipulate the consumer to bring in un-earned revenues (much like banks do for all those service fees they charge which are way much more then the supposed costs they claim those are to cover).
Again, there is no innovation here by Verizon, regardless of whether you look at this as a means to subsidize phones for people that cannot afford to buy them up front (and don't have the will power to save up to buy them later on), or look at this as a way to boost revenues by ripping off less savvy consumers ... because both of these things have been going on for decades.
However, if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person, who has special interest in the situation, it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot.
They see Google News (and Search) succeeding as a business model ... AND doing it with their (the newspaper's) content. They don't like it. But they do seem to have an idea that if they just don't let Google's crawlers access the content, then they won't get the traffic they have been getting from Google. The problem is, they just feel like they are not in control. They want everyone to get all their news from one site (theirs). They want to figure out how to get people to stay and not go back to Google News. But they can't figure out how to do that, so they want to force Google to do it for them.
Why should Google have to do, for them, what THEY could do for themselves (by seeing that five articles with Google as a referrer were accessed from the same IP in one day)? Like you say, Google would be inclined to route them to another news site. At least if the routing is done at the newspaper's own site, they can go where they want, and change where that is any time they like (even do so different for different IP addresses, etc). It's called "being in control". But the real reason for this whole problem is that newspapers are just not willing to deploy something intelligent (because it might require hiring someone that really knows what they are doing).