Even so, I'm glad that there's SOMEONE out there gullible enough to help me out financially when I get caught. Apparently all I have to do is host a website with PayPal as my financier, but that's a different story.
Why wait? Do it now "just in case."
For bonus points, admit up-front on the site that you want people's money for no other reason than because they'll give it to you.
I don't know what twisted vision of capitalism you have in mind, but nobody has the right to demolish the underpinnings of the free market by colluding to restrict competition. This settlement was A Good Thing [tm]; it was designed to remove a distortion in the market.
He didn't demand surrender, just presentation. There is a large difference.
Yes. The threshold between the two is crossed when the license leaves my hand. Last time I checked, we aren't even required to own an ID, so how can it be an arrestable offense not to show one?
For that matter (did you watch the video?) the cop just wanted his name, which the man was beligerant about giving.
What video were you watching? The officer said either "identification" or "ID" thirteen times by my count, and the word "name" a total of zero times. Besides which, the very first time the officer asked for ID, the suspect stated he didn't have any on him. Finally, whether he was belligerant is debatable. To me, it seems he did nothing more than demand the officer justify his order. I concede he was probably taunting the officer, daring him to arrest him; definitely not the route I'd take. But that alone doesn't give the officer grounds to arrest him.
A cop asking for your ID is not asking you to surrender it.
If the ID leaves my hand, I am surrendering it. There is no guarantee I'll get it back.
I've been asked for my ID on 3 ocassions, and in all cases I choose to give it, and in all occasions it was returned to me in less than 3 minutes.
First, I'm happy things worked out for you in your personal experience. Next, though, I must point out that you yourself used the word "choose" (I think you meant "chose," but it all comes out the same). If I choose not to hand over my ID, I should have that right.
You do, by the way, have to tell the police who you are.
I don't think so. Fortunately for us, that's the exact issue the Supreme Court is going to settle for us. From the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF):
QUESTION PRESENTED
Do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States constitution bar the state from compelling people to identify themselves during a police investigation when someone has been seized upon less than probable cause?
Anyone who yells "Nazi Germany" and calls Bush Hitler or Ashcroft Hitler is just so ridiculous.... I didn't say you did that,...
To be perfectly blunt, you were the one to bring Nazi Germany into this thread. Let's review, shall we?
madMingusMax makes comparison to "1950s Communist Russia"
You assure him/her that "it really isn't Nazi Germany here yet."
I point out what I suspect it a logical fallacy in your post.
You tell me to "grow a brain and stop screaming Nazi Germany every 2 seconds."
I point out another logical inconsistency in your post.
You tell me you didn't say this stuff of me, as if I can't simply scroll up and read it for myself.
[T]here is a gaggle of people on this website that do it, and they're moron [sic] quite frankly.
So why aren't you replying to any of them? I've gone through your "recent comments" page, and none of your posts for this article are in reply to a post which actually makes a comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany.
Well, implementation details aside, we still have the whole constitutional issue.
I used to go around rhetorically asking, "How come it took a constitutional amendment for prohibition of alcohol, but some federal agency can just 'decide' that marijuana is illegal?" Then a Catholic friend of mine pointed out that alcohol is a necessary part of his religion, which raises serious first amendment issues.
Beyond that, I certainly hope you don't think that making mild-altering illegal actually improves society. You need something to keep the down-trodden in their place.;-)
You have a right to life, liberty, etc etc, but not to anonymity.
In that case, I can't see any objection to our President deploying troops to the polling stations to guarantee that democracy doesn't fall to terrorists:
A large man in military fatigues and a loaded rifle will check your ID, to make sure you're permitted to vote at this location, aren't trying to vote twice, etc. A second soldier will escort you into the booth, and stand guard over you as you fill out your ballot. He'll go over your selections with you, to ensure you didn't make any mistakes; we can't have another Florida-style fiasco, can we?
Shrill hysterical prepubescent rantings only make your case harder to make. So grow a brain and stop screaming Nazi Germany every 2 seconds. Then maybe someone in government will actually take slashdot seriously.
I never mentioned Nazi Germany (Godwin's Law, and all that).
By the way, exactly what is it about jumping to the conclusion that all people concerned about their rights are brainless and shrill that will make someone in government take slashdot seriously?
I understand where you're coming from, but it's not dishonest: I worked for two different employers during 2001, and that fact is reflected in my resume. If the interviewer simply fails to ask, that's an oversight on their part. If they think to ask, I'll answer honestly and fully.
What people don't seem to realize is that while you're being interviewed by the employer, you should be interviewing them. This is one of my little tests. If they can't demonstrate basic reading-comprehension skills, I'm much less likely to opt to work for them. If the interviewer is a programmer and manages to make an assumption that two jobs in the same year means a seamless transition, it's a strong indicator that their code is brittle.
When Sol dies in 20 billion years, what could you possibly have done in your life that will matter then?
That's a very good question, one which serves as a grand motivation on a daily basis...
That's definitely an exaggeration, but the point stands: You will die, probably within the next seventy years, and anything you "accomplished" was for naught.
So, to uninstall something, you just kill off the folders corresponding to it -- there's no registry, no central folder full of dlls, just simplicity.
I've never owned a Mac, so I'd like to ask a question. If what you say is true, does that mean that I can install an app simply by copying the folders that correspond to it from one Mac to the next? And how many folders are we talking about here?
Every patch I've submitted to an Open Source project was met with a note that said something to the effect of, "Thanks for catching the bug. I'll look over your changes and, if it looks like it really fixes the problem, I'll commit it."
Anyway, I'm sure you know that Class Action lawsuits rarely have a good outcome for the class...usually they get a $5 coupon for some product the company makes, while the lawyers get millions.
If you're just a random member of the class, yes. If you're a class representative, though, you can get a decent amount of money. Needless to say, Agram expects to be a class representative.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is "It doesn't cost anything" a get-out-of-jail-free card? I can just see it now:
"You're getting their service for free and you're concerned that they are mulching babies to power their servers? WTF?"
Sanctimony isn't going to change the fact that you're clearly doing something wrong. The AC who replied to you gave two examples:
In both cases, the first result returned is, in fact, a review of the requested hardware.
PS: Another helpful technique is to add something like -sales to a query.
Why wait? Do it now "just in case."
For bonus points, admit up-front on the site that you want people's money for no other reason than because they'll give it to you.
Methinks you're unfamiliar with what exactly a settlement is.
I don't know what twisted vision of capitalism you have in mind, but nobody has the right to demolish the underpinnings of the free market by colluding to restrict competition. This settlement was A Good Thing [tm]; it was designed to remove a distortion in the market.
Yes. The threshold between the two is crossed when the license leaves my hand. Last time I checked, we aren't even required to own an ID, so how can it be an arrestable offense not to show one?
What video were you watching? The officer said either "identification" or "ID" thirteen times by my count, and the word "name" a total of zero times. Besides which, the very first time the officer asked for ID, the suspect stated he didn't have any on him. Finally, whether he was belligerant is debatable. To me, it seems he did nothing more than demand the officer justify his order. I concede he was probably taunting the officer, daring him to arrest him; definitely not the route I'd take. But that alone doesn't give the officer grounds to arrest him.
If the ID leaves my hand, I am surrendering it. There is no guarantee I'll get it back.
First, I'm happy things worked out for you in your personal experience. Next, though, I must point out that you yourself used the word "choose" (I think you meant "chose," but it all comes out the same). If I choose not to hand over my ID, I should have that right.
I don't think so. Fortunately for us, that's the exact issue the Supreme Court is going to settle for us. From the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF):
I, for one, anxiously await the Court's decision.
To be perfectly blunt, you were the one to bring Nazi Germany into this thread. Let's review, shall we?
So why aren't you replying to any of them? I've gone through your "recent comments" page, and none of your posts for this article are in reply to a post which actually makes a comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany.
Indirectly, yes.
MOFO is relying on state and/or federal law and the threat of force via the judiciary to silence a member of the press.
Well, implementation details aside, we still have the whole constitutional issue.
I used to go around rhetorically asking, "How come it took a constitutional amendment for prohibition of alcohol, but some federal agency can just 'decide' that marijuana is illegal?" Then a Catholic friend of mine pointed out that alcohol is a necessary part of his religion, which raises serious first amendment issues.
Beyond that, I certainly hope you don't think that making mild-altering illegal actually improves society. You need something to keep the down-trodden in their place. ;-)
They already tried that once before. It didn't work out so well.
In that case, I can't see any objection to our President deploying troops to the polling stations to guarantee that democracy doesn't fall to terrorists:
A large man in military fatigues and a loaded rifle will check your ID, to make sure you're permitted to vote at this location, aren't trying to vote twice, etc. A second soldier will escort you into the booth, and stand guard over you as you fill out your ballot. He'll go over your selections with you, to ensure you didn't make any mistakes; we can't have another Florida-style fiasco, can we?
I never mentioned Nazi Germany (Godwin's Law, and all that).
By the way, exactly what is it about jumping to the conclusion that all people concerned about their rights are brainless and shrill that will make someone in government take slashdot seriously?
That's one crazy cop: he goes from winter to spring to winter to fall; personally, I'd rather have two summers to two winters.
My state-issued ID is on my person, which is protected by the fourth amendment.
But that's the thing: the issue here isn't that the cop questioned him; it's that he demanded the suspect surrender something in his possession.
You want the contents of my wallet? Get a warrant.
Are you honestly suggesting we should wait until after our rights are gone to get worried?
...regardless of your clearance level.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's not dishonest: I worked for two different employers during 2001, and that fact is reflected in my resume. If the interviewer simply fails to ask, that's an oversight on their part. If they think to ask, I'll answer honestly and fully.
What people don't seem to realize is that while you're being interviewed by the employer, you should be interviewing them. This is one of my little tests. If they can't demonstrate basic reading-comprehension skills, I'm much less likely to opt to work for them. If the interviewer is a programmer and manages to make an assumption that two jobs in the same year means a seamless transition, it's a strong indicator that their code is brittle.
Hear! Hear!
On my resume, my employment history tends to look something like this:
Everyone who interviews me simply assumes I've had continuous employment, and I see no need to disabuse them of that notion.
Fine. Then if you buy something online, you should pay the sales tax of the state in which the business is located.
That's definitely an exaggeration, but the point stands: You will die, probably within the next seventy years, and anything you "accomplished" was for naught.
I've never owned a Mac, so I'd like to ask a question. If what you say is true, does that mean that I can install an app simply by copying the folders that correspond to it from one Mac to the next? And how many folders are we talking about here?
36-24-36? Only if she's 5'3".
Every patch I've submitted to an Open Source project was met with a note that said something to the effect of, "Thanks for catching the bug. I'll look over your changes and, if it looks like it really fixes the problem, I'll commit it."
That doesn't sound like blind trust to me.
If you're just a random member of the class, yes. If you're a class representative, though, you can get a decent amount of money. Needless to say, Agram expects to be a class representative.