Absolutely correct. The irony is that an injunction hearing is not technically "litigation", many people try to avoid "litigation" because without proper service and representation in court, you can't be held responsible. But in the case of injunction hearings, that doesn't hold true, and defendants need to be more selective about their use of the "hide to avoid responsibility" defense.
Sometimes people don't take their pills because they either (A) don't have time, or forget to refill them at the pharmacy, and/or (B) can't afford them.
The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.
More non-answers from a guy who claims to be running on a "not more of the same" platform.
For instance:
Quote: 2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
Ron Paul campaign: The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions.
3) Marijuana : My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign: I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws./Quote
Does anyone else think that Answer #2 conflicts with Answer #3? Did he just not answer the guy's direct question? (i.e. "what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?")
Another non-answer: "As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media. "
I must say, after all the hoopla about this guy being a "real candidate", I'm not impressed. He sounds like more of the same to me.
I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think that the Federal government has overstepped its boundaries in this case and agree with California. The states should have the right to set their own standards unless cross-border trade is imperiled, and I don't see that here.
Still, that said, we're talking about the results of negotiations between US-EPA and California prior to the lawsuit. This happens all the time, two parties sit down and try to solve their disagreement amicably before going to court. The thing is, the product of those discussions, whether in small claims all the way up to the national courts, have always been protected. Otherwise, neither party would have any incentive to sit down and try to settle. Both sides in a financial litigation (for instance) can't sit down and talk about a dollar settlement if their admission that a settlement is possible constituted admission of guilt or culpability. Same thing holds true here, I think - if EPA tried in good faith to come up with a solution that might have included verbage that could be construed as accepting California's position - even theoretically - they would want that kept out of the open court, and rightfully so.
The trouble is that the industry insiders, e.g. the buyers and retail sellers of this junk, can get their own private audiences with the companies that develop and market them. There are no big buyers at the CES (at least, none are making a committment to buy at the CIS) So that leaves only one other demographic, the end-user / retail-buyer lookie-lou's. And when you make access to the show so difficult and expensive and then have a bunch of off-floor activities in suites that those people don't even hear about (or worse yet - hear about but then don't get invited to) you might as well write off the purpose of the show.
The Chicago Auto Show has it right. People stop buying new cars in Chicago in about December or so, just to wait for the CAS. They go to the show in February, they sit in cars, play with the buttons, etc. They can do everything except drive them during the show, then they get auto show rebates to buy the cars in the showroom. It works great.
No system, not even France, is perfect, and no system is completely broken. I like Michael Moore too, but for a different reason - he takes one subject to the absolute extreme. France's may be far better than the U.S. in some respects, but it others it is worse.
How many fucking billionaires do we need?
I don't think that we have a quota per-se. Capitalism doesn't need billionaires, but it does produce them.
I don't see anything here that makes me think Google is doing any evil. Michael Moore's entertaining movies can, as I said, go to the very extreme and as such be very one-sided. I usually agree with his premise, but not with the extreme. But I find the "extreme" part entertaining. Still, no harm in Google providing a little bit of the other side of the argument, eh?
Or should we just shut up everyone who disagrees with us?
It should be noted that he's leaving the FSF board to devote more time to the SFLC. Which means, less Eben in FSF but he's still going to be a strong contributor to the legal protections and mitigation of risk of software developers and projects who participate in Open Source Software.
Wow. You've really cemented that dogma in your brain hard, haven't you? You've even come up with a positive euphemism for it, "childfree". Maybe if you light that fire of hatred hot enough, it will carry you through to your older years. Then, instead of being viewed as "passionate" you'll just be called "crotchety". Well, good luck with that, hope it works out for you.
>Most people, doing just compressions, will not be able to maintain an open airway in the patient
That statement confuses me, since in the last (~10?) years the Red Cross recommendations for CPR changed, such that clearing the airway prior to CPR is no longer considered necessary because the compressions will push enough air up the trachea at enough force to clear most obstructions without the risk of personal injury (bites etc) associated with the old "2 finger clear".
And (as I'm sure you already know) just the activity of chest compressions provides some oxygenation of the blood because you pretty much can't give compressions without contracting the lungs.
So how was Gerald Ford able to pardon Richard Nixon for "any and all crimes he may have committed"?
By issuing a pardon. The President can pardon whoever he wants for whatever he wants. When the pardoned person accepts the pardon, they also admit wrongdoing. It doesn't have to be a specific crime.
but it is quite different from a pardon, which is forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it.
Indeed, a pardon cannot become effective unless you admit to wrongdoing - then you are "forgiven" and the penalty is dropped.
In this case, he could argue that he never broke the law to begin with, because he was (albeit overzealeously) exposing security issues to his own employer. So accepting a pardon would be saying, "Yeah, I did break the law, sorry." In this case, he does not have to admit wrongdoing. In this case, Randall is instead being told, "Yeah, you didn't break the law, sorry."
Honestly every one who knows Randall probably knows about this legal blemish, and probably don't care about it.
You are absolutely right. Any job that starts this way goes nowhere.
I started a new job 12 years ago, and since my wife and I had already decided (but not yet acted) on starting a new family, I made sure that their health insurance included full maternity (e.g. hospital & doctor coverage for the birth). Yeah, no problem they said.
The first day I started, I got a copy of the insurance coverage booklet, wherein it explicitly stated that maternity coverage was excluded.
So I contacted their HR person, and even had my boss in the room to verify that I was offered health insurance with maternity. She said "no problem, that's not our standard policy, but we'll buy you the maternity". I figured, all was good.
Nine months later, my wife gets pregnant. I go to the HR lady to get a copy of my maternity policy, and she says "Oh, wow... you jumped the gun! We haven't bought it yet. Now this pregnancy will probably be excluded as a preexisting condition." I haggled. I argued. I did everything I could think of. No dice.
What I should have done was quit.
About a year later, I was layed off. It turns out the owner was trying to sell the company, and had lied about material financial data. The company cancelled the deal to buy his company, and instead bought the software company that he was a reseller for, and cancelled his franchise. This left the guy with no business. Their lie to me was endemic and was the same sort of situation that led to my eventual RIF.
These places that play fast and loose with employees never amount to anything. If they're lying to you, they're lying to everyone, and eventually it will catch up to them and you will be caught in the middle. Get out now, while you can.
Better yet, take the job. Let them pay your reloc., no matter how cheap. Sock away enough money to go back home. Get a new job in your hometown, and after they've got you all settled in your new home, quit and move back home.
The article's author's presumptions are flawed, and the posters here (at least so far) are absolutely correct. There has never been a presumption of privacy in the workplace, and there has always been an exception for warrantless search and siezure at borders. That's been well known and upheld in the courts for years. So you decided to put your personal data on a company asset for which you know that no presumption of privacy exists, and that's the courts fault? Eh? How does that work, Jennifer? I find this article whiney and annoying.
Here's another question: We can assume that you feel your employer is OK with your personal data being stored on their laptop. How sure are you about that? So sure that if, say, one day you are accused (OK let's say wrongly) of theft from your company, they won't seize your laptop instantly? Sure, it'll never happen to you.
But for everyone else who works for a less perfect employer: BEWARE! Your employer can someday take their laptop back from you, without your permission, and keep all of your data (without even giving you access to it). You will lose all your data.
I work for a scientific company, everyone uses metric measurement for their scientific work (as does everyone else in the world, no matter what country they're in). Oddly enough, the measure of the speed that our scientists drive to work or the temperature outside have failed to have any impact on the science they accomplish inside the building.
I did an eval of SSD back, oh five years ago for my employer. These were SSD's attached via SCSI to Sun boxes running Solaris and Sybase. Based on the results I saw then, I have two problems with this:
>Vista users would see a 4x speedup in many key operations. Back in the day, we were seeing 10-20X improvements over spinning media in Random Access. 4x is almost not worth it, depending on price - give spinning media another year or two and they'll match that gain.
>Pricing was not announced. Of course not, because it's going to be outrageously expensive!
Along with all the OTHER deathblows dealt to liberty (even over the last few weeks) this one is also a critical blow.
I don't understand, are you commenting on the article here on Slashdot, or your own article? If you're commenting on Slashdot's article, are you saying that HBO running the Diebold movie is a critical blow to liberty, or are you saying that Diebold demanding that they don't (despite every appearance that they will anyway) is a blow to liberty?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely correct. The irony is that an injunction hearing is not technically "litigation", many people try to avoid "litigation" because without proper service and representation in court, you can't be held responsible. But in the case of injunction hearings, that doesn't hold true, and defendants need to be more selective about their use of the "hide to avoid responsibility" defense.
I want cling peaches, in thick syrup.
Sometimes people don't take their pills because they either (A) don't have time, or forget to refill them at the pharmacy, and/or (B) can't afford them.
The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.
More non-answers from a guy who claims to be running on a "not more of the same" platform.
/Quote
For instance:
Quote:
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions.
3) Marijuana : My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
Does anyone else think that Answer #2 conflicts with Answer #3? Did he just not answer the guy's direct question? (i.e. "what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?")
Another non-answer: "As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media. "
I must say, after all the hoopla about this guy being a "real candidate", I'm not impressed. He sounds like more of the same to me.
>Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.
I came to this forum to see the Ron Paul fanboys shoot milk out of their noses at that. I wasn't disappointed.
I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think that the Federal government has overstepped its boundaries in this case and agree with California. The states should have the right to set their own standards unless cross-border trade is imperiled, and I don't see that here.
Still, that said, we're talking about the results of negotiations between US-EPA and California prior to the lawsuit. This happens all the time, two parties sit down and try to solve their disagreement amicably before going to court. The thing is, the product of those discussions, whether in small claims all the way up to the national courts, have always been protected. Otherwise, neither party would have any incentive to sit down and try to settle. Both sides in a financial litigation (for instance) can't sit down and talk about a dollar settlement if their admission that a settlement is possible constituted admission of guilt or culpability. Same thing holds true here, I think - if EPA tried in good faith to come up with a solution that might have included verbage that could be construed as accepting California's position - even theoretically - they would want that kept out of the open court, and rightfully so.
The trouble is that the industry insiders, e.g. the buyers and retail sellers of this junk, can get their own private audiences with the companies that develop and market them. There are no big buyers at the CES (at least, none are making a committment to buy at the CIS) So that leaves only one other demographic, the end-user / retail-buyer lookie-lou's. And when you make access to the show so difficult and expensive and then have a bunch of off-floor activities in suites that those people don't even hear about (or worse yet - hear about but then don't get invited to) you might as well write off the purpose of the show.
The Chicago Auto Show has it right. People stop buying new cars in Chicago in about December or so, just to wait for the CAS. They go to the show in February, they sit in cars, play with the buttons, etc. They can do everything except drive them during the show, then they get auto show rebates to buy the cars in the showroom. It works great.
I don't see anything here that makes me think Google is doing any evil. Michael Moore's entertaining movies can, as I said, go to the very extreme and as such be very one-sided. I usually agree with his premise, but not with the extreme. But I find the "extreme" part entertaining. Still, no harm in Google providing a little bit of the other side of the argument, eh?
Or should we just shut up everyone who disagrees with us?
Apple has released the FIRST TOUCHSCREEN EVER! Everybody drop what they're doing and hurmph about the problems this causes!
It should be noted that he's leaving the FSF board to devote more time to the SFLC. Which means, less Eben in FSF but he's still going to be a strong contributor to the legal protections and mitigation of risk of software developers and projects who participate in Open Source Software.
Wow. You've really cemented that dogma in your brain hard, haven't you? You've even come up with a positive euphemism for it, "childfree". Maybe if you light that fire of hatred hot enough, it will carry you through to your older years. Then, instead of being viewed as "passionate" you'll just be called "crotchety". Well, good luck with that, hope it works out for you.
The RIAA so far has been playing the "We've got deeper pockets and more lawyers than you" card.
Schools should play the "We've got law students galore, just itching for something to work on" card.
>Most people, doing just compressions, will not be able to maintain an open airway in the patient
That statement confuses me, since in the last (~10?) years the Red Cross recommendations for CPR changed, such that clearing the airway prior to CPR is no longer considered necessary because the compressions will push enough air up the trachea at enough force to clear most obstructions without the risk of personal injury (bites etc) associated with the old "2 finger clear".
And (as I'm sure you already know) just the activity of chest compressions provides some oxygenation of the blood because you pretty much can't give compressions without contracting the lungs.
By issuing a pardon. The President can pardon whoever he wants for whatever he wants. When the pardoned person accepts the pardon, they also admit wrongdoing. It doesn't have to be a specific crime.
Indeed, a pardon cannot become effective unless you admit to wrongdoing - then you are "forgiven" and the penalty is dropped.
In this case, he could argue that he never broke the law to begin with, because he was (albeit overzealeously) exposing security issues to his own employer. So accepting a pardon would be saying, "Yeah, I did break the law, sorry." In this case, he does not have to admit wrongdoing. In this case, Randall is instead being told, "Yeah, you didn't break the law, sorry."
Honestly every one who knows Randall probably knows about this legal blemish, and probably don't care about it.
Unix security and file permissions aren't enough??? Say it ain't so, Joe!
Next we'll have dogs and cats living together.
You are absolutely right. Any job that starts this way goes nowhere.
I started a new job 12 years ago, and since my wife and I had already decided (but not yet acted) on starting a new family, I made sure that their health insurance included full maternity (e.g. hospital & doctor coverage for the birth). Yeah, no problem they said.
The first day I started, I got a copy of the insurance coverage booklet, wherein it explicitly stated that maternity coverage was excluded.
So I contacted their HR person, and even had my boss in the room to verify that I was offered health insurance with maternity. She said "no problem, that's not our standard policy, but we'll buy you the maternity". I figured, all was good.
Nine months later, my wife gets pregnant. I go to the HR lady to get a copy of my maternity policy, and she says "Oh, wow... you jumped the gun! We haven't bought it yet. Now this pregnancy will probably be excluded as a preexisting condition." I haggled. I argued. I did everything I could think of. No dice.
What I should have done was quit.
About a year later, I was layed off. It turns out the owner was trying to sell the company, and had lied about material financial data. The company cancelled the deal to buy his company, and instead bought the software company that he was a reseller for, and cancelled his franchise. This left the guy with no business. Their lie to me was endemic and was the same sort of situation that led to my eventual RIF.
These places that play fast and loose with employees never amount to anything. If they're lying to you, they're lying to everyone, and eventually it will catch up to them and you will be caught in the middle. Get out now, while you can.
Better yet, take the job. Let them pay your reloc., no matter how cheap. Sock away enough money to go back home. Get a new job in your hometown, and after they've got you all settled in your new home, quit and move back home.
The article's author's presumptions are flawed, and the posters here (at least so far) are absolutely correct. There has never been a presumption of privacy in the workplace, and there has always been an exception for warrantless search and siezure at borders. That's been well known and upheld in the courts for years. So you decided to put your personal data on a company asset for which you know that no presumption of privacy exists, and that's the courts fault? Eh? How does that work, Jennifer? I find this article whiney and annoying.
Here's another question: We can assume that you feel your employer is OK with your personal data being stored on their laptop. How sure are you about that? So sure that if, say, one day you are accused (OK let's say wrongly) of theft from your company, they won't seize your laptop instantly? Sure, it'll never happen to you.
But for everyone else who works for a less perfect employer: BEWARE! Your employer can someday take their laptop back from you, without your permission, and keep all of your data (without even giving you access to it). You will lose all your data.
I work for a scientific company, everyone uses metric measurement for their scientific work (as does everyone else in the world, no matter what country they're in). Oddly enough, the measure of the speed that our scientists drive to work or the temperature outside have failed to have any impact on the science they accomplish inside the building.
And, apparently, you like comparing apples to oranges.
Go make your money. Not everyone is in it for the money. Sounds like you picked the right OS to support.
I did an eval of SSD back, oh five years ago for my employer. These were SSD's attached via SCSI to Sun boxes running Solaris and Sybase. Based on the results I saw then, I have two problems with this:
>Vista users would see a 4x speedup in many key operations.
Back in the day, we were seeing 10-20X improvements over spinning media in Random Access. 4x is almost not worth it, depending on price - give spinning media another year or two and they'll match that gain.
>Pricing was not announced.
Of course not, because it's going to be outrageously expensive!
The only thing worse than FUD coming out of Redmond is FUD coming out of the OSC
I don't understand, are you commenting on the article here on Slashdot, or your own article? If you're commenting on Slashdot's article, are you saying that HBO running the Diebold movie is a critical blow to liberty, or are you saying that Diebold demanding that they don't (despite every appearance that they will anyway) is a blow to liberty?