Damn, I love the foot-controlled high beam switch. I had that on a 1991 Ford E-150 van. It was a sweet van and that switch made it sweeter. Nevertheless, although I do think the foot switch is the most convenient and useful location, I think having the switch part of the same mechanism that turns on the lights is more straightforward and easy for new users to find, so I understand why modern cars have the switch there.
If you claim to be a proponent of free markets, which means markets without any regulation whatsoever, then you must reject this law. According to your ideology, people want extremely loud commercials, because those people watch those commercials. To some people, it is circular logic to say that people get what they want, and want what they get. To those people, the way to determine what a person wants is to ask them what they want, which is the underpinning of this law; but to free market proponents, people by definition want loud commercials, and the evidence is that people don't completely reject the entire medium of television because of those loud commercials.
If you claim to support free markets, then speak up now and come out against this law. This is government meddling in private enterprise.
Right? Eh? Right, you libertarian Slashdotters? The fact that loud commercials didn't bring on the death of television is proof positive that people love and want loud commercials, right?
Maybe not all bush-league hackers, but with all the WikiLeaks shit hitting the fan recently, don't you think they would in this case? I bet they would.
do you even know what the claims of the suit are? I read the article but it didn't say, and I can't imagine what legally plausible claims could be made in this kind of situation. But, I can certainly imagine that there are plausible claims that I can't imagine.
Okay. I read the fucking article, but I still don't understand what this guy got sued for. Like, what are the claims against him? (Why wouldn't the article say?) Does anyone know?
I have only found an option for "elevate privs without asking". That is helpful and eliminates the 4th step; but I haven't found a way to eliminate the third step (which is also UAC, I think) nor the second step (which is just a Windows annoyance). But I am always trying to collect together ways to make Windows less annoying, so if you have tips I'm all ears.
My context is remoting into a Server 2008 box and changing filename extensions.
1. Actually change the filename. 2. "Are you sure you want to change the filename extension? Blah blah stupid warning which presumes I'm retarded, with no FOAD Forever checkbox." 3. The first UAC box. Something like "This requires admin privs." 4. Are you really sure you want to grant those access privs?
One part of my job is to do that kind of thing dozens of times a day. It is a useless waste of my will to live. I was able to discover the hid-away setting for how to eliminate the 4th of those boxes, which saves 33% of my sanity.
Ranting about Windows is just a way to blow off steam. I do really hate Windows, though.
I don't hate UAC because it's from Microsoft. I hate UAC because I think it is totally stupid that I have to change a filename, then say yes I want to change the filename, then say yes I really want to change the filename, then say yes I really, really want to change the filename. Four times? Why is four times the magical threshold between security and insecurity? For me, the number of times is zero (I know when I want to change a filename, and no amount of dialog boxes is going to change my mind, so they serve no purpose) or one time (thanks for the reminder, let me consider it a second time), but three times? four? Why not ten times? or more?
I hate UAC because it makes Windows even more unusable. It is, absolutely and without a doubt, the number one thing I hate about my career. I have not been successful finding jobs that I want to do and in which I can completely get away from Windows. I hate it for what it is, not because it's from Microsoft.
This is the end of my rant for now, but I reserve the right to bitch about Windows as often as it pisses me off, which is a lot.
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine the difference is the written employment contract and explicit written company policies. If you have a contract giving you the right to erase data from company computers, then you probably won't get prosecuted for doing so.
Don't most companies, instead of outright paying for and managing devices and services, pay a stipend which people can use to pay for their own phone? That's how it was at my previous employer, and my current one. At my current job I also get a stipend to pay for my home internet, because I sometimes have to log in from home to fix stuff. I don't want to carry two phones, I don't need to have double internet service into my home.
I thought this situation was common, but commenters here seem to be saying they all carry two phones around. Really? That's fine and all, I'm just a little surprised.
I heard of a group which tried to call an event a picnic until someone complained (black slur). They then changed it to an outing until someone complained (gay slur). I think there was a third example of a word which garnered a complaint, so they said screw it and changed it back to a picnic. Awesome.
Two-thirds of Americans think this search is "reasonable", as do apparently all elected officials and judges. Also, you are absolutely able to sign away your constitutional rights, that happens all the time, for instance every time a criminal waives his right to a speedy trial, or testifies at his own trial, or speaks to the police without a lawyer present. It also happens when you consent to a police search (they don't need consent for any reasonable or warranted search), and it definitely explicitly happens when you go to airports and volunteer to go through security.
I haven't flown in many months, but I was thinking about next time I go through airport security I could use packing tape to attach strips of aluminum foil to my chest spelling out FUCK YOU. This would be clearly visible in the X-ray, but would not be visible otherwise, and an agent could not even feel it during a pat down. It furthermore would not provide any security threat, and could not possibly conceal any weapon. It would be a pure speech opportunity. How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?
I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.
To be clear, are you merely saying that phoning 911 is smarter than texting 911, or are you further saying that texting 911 should by policy be disallowed?
To be honest I'm a little surprised that 911 can't receive text messages. For goodness sake! My own elderly mother can receive text messages, and she isn't supported by billions of dollars of federal funding for high-tech communication systems. Seriously? Nobody at 911 has a frickin' cell phone?
I'm just saying, when I dial 911 I didn't realize I was calling someone stuck with technology from 1911.
If I were in a noise-sensitive situation, it is the "hello? hello?" that I would be worried about.
Anyway, the way I see it 911 should be able to receive just about any possible type of communication: traditional phone, cell phone, CB radio, short wave radio, text, video, carrier pigeon, email, IM, snail mail, Wave. Everything EXCEPT that new Facebook thing, because that is stupid.
Oh, okay, great so you do recognize the government has the prerogative to do things that normal individuals do not. Thanks. I accept your apology. Have a good one. I don't have any problem with opponents of the death penalty, by the way, and I would be fine if it were abandoned. So we don't need to argue about that.
You might wish that were what "free market" means, and you might mean that when you say "free market", but that's not what it means.
Wiki: "A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property."
A market with "minimal regulations" is called a market. A market with "zero regulations" is called a "free market". That's just what the words mean.
I encourage you to start using phrases in the way they will be understood, lest you give credence to "anarchists". If you have been promoting "free markets", then that's what you've been doing. Just use the word "market" or "minimal regulations" and that will be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Ladies and gentlemen, I think nurb432 could be the next senator from a red state.
No, they won't. In fact I find it absurd that you might think that, but whatever, the answer is no.
Damn, I love the foot-controlled high beam switch. I had that on a 1991 Ford E-150 van. It was a sweet van and that switch made it sweeter. Nevertheless, although I do think the foot switch is the most convenient and useful location, I think having the switch part of the same mechanism that turns on the lights is more straightforward and easy for new users to find, so I understand why modern cars have the switch there.
If you claim to be a proponent of free markets, which means markets without any regulation whatsoever, then you must reject this law. According to your ideology, people want extremely loud commercials, because those people watch those commercials. To some people, it is circular logic to say that people get what they want, and want what they get. To those people, the way to determine what a person wants is to ask them what they want, which is the underpinning of this law; but to free market proponents, people by definition want loud commercials, and the evidence is that people don't completely reject the entire medium of television because of those loud commercials.
If you claim to support free markets, then speak up now and come out against this law. This is government meddling in private enterprise.
Right? Eh? Right, you libertarian Slashdotters? The fact that loud commercials didn't bring on the death of television is proof positive that people love and want loud commercials, right?
Maybe not all bush-league hackers, but with all the WikiLeaks shit hitting the fan recently, don't you think they would in this case? I bet they would.
do you even know what the claims of the suit are? I read the article but it didn't say, and I can't imagine what legally plausible claims could be made in this kind of situation. But, I can certainly imagine that there are plausible claims that I can't imagine.
Okay. I read the fucking article, but I still don't understand what this guy got sued for. Like, what are the claims against him? (Why wouldn't the article say?) Does anyone know?
I have only found an option for "elevate privs without asking". That is helpful and eliminates the 4th step; but I haven't found a way to eliminate the third step (which is also UAC, I think) nor the second step (which is just a Windows annoyance). But I am always trying to collect together ways to make Windows less annoying, so if you have tips I'm all ears.
Oh! To live in a world of proper solutions. Man, that would be sweet.
My context is remoting into a Server 2008 box and changing filename extensions.
1. Actually change the filename.
2. "Are you sure you want to change the filename extension? Blah blah stupid warning which presumes I'm retarded, with no FOAD Forever checkbox."
3. The first UAC box. Something like "This requires admin privs."
4. Are you really sure you want to grant those access privs?
One part of my job is to do that kind of thing dozens of times a day. It is a useless waste of my will to live. I was able to discover the hid-away setting for how to eliminate the 4th of those boxes, which saves 33% of my sanity.
Ranting about Windows is just a way to blow off steam. I do really hate Windows, though.
I don't hate UAC because it's from Microsoft. I hate UAC because I think it is totally stupid that I have to change a filename, then say yes I want to change the filename, then say yes I really want to change the filename, then say yes I really, really want to change the filename. Four times? Why is four times the magical threshold between security and insecurity? For me, the number of times is zero (I know when I want to change a filename, and no amount of dialog boxes is going to change my mind, so they serve no purpose) or one time (thanks for the reminder, let me consider it a second time), but three times? four? Why not ten times? or more?
I hate UAC because it makes Windows even more unusable. It is, absolutely and without a doubt, the number one thing I hate about my career. I have not been successful finding jobs that I want to do and in which I can completely get away from Windows. I hate it for what it is, not because it's from Microsoft.
This is the end of my rant for now, but I reserve the right to bitch about Windows as often as it pisses me off, which is a lot.
I only read your first sentence. I'm pretty sure the brilliant idea is install NetBSD.
You did them this favor more than once? Masochist.
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine the difference is the written employment contract and explicit written company policies. If you have a contract giving you the right to erase data from company computers, then you probably won't get prosecuted for doing so.
Don't most companies, instead of outright paying for and managing devices and services, pay a stipend which people can use to pay for their own phone? That's how it was at my previous employer, and my current one. At my current job I also get a stipend to pay for my home internet, because I sometimes have to log in from home to fix stuff. I don't want to carry two phones, I don't need to have double internet service into my home.
I thought this situation was common, but commenters here seem to be saying they all carry two phones around. Really? That's fine and all, I'm just a little surprised.
I heard of a group which tried to call an event a picnic until someone complained (black slur). They then changed it to an outing until someone complained (gay slur). I think there was a third example of a word which garnered a complaint, so they said screw it and changed it back to a picnic. Awesome.
Two-thirds of Americans think this search is "reasonable", as do apparently all elected officials and judges. Also, you are absolutely able to sign away your constitutional rights, that happens all the time, for instance every time a criminal waives his right to a speedy trial, or testifies at his own trial, or speaks to the police without a lawyer present. It also happens when you consent to a police search (they don't need consent for any reasonable or warranted search), and it definitely explicitly happens when you go to airports and volunteer to go through security.
I haven't flown in many months, but I was thinking about next time I go through airport security I could use packing tape to attach strips of aluminum foil to my chest spelling out FUCK YOU. This would be clearly visible in the X-ray, but would not be visible otherwise, and an agent could not even feel it during a pat down. It furthermore would not provide any security threat, and could not possibly conceal any weapon. It would be a pure speech opportunity. How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?
I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.
Hmmm. I have carefully considered what you said and decided that I want a big-government nanny state and am willing to pay for it with higher taxes.
To be clear, are you merely saying that phoning 911 is smarter than texting 911, or are you further saying that texting 911 should by policy be disallowed?
To be honest I'm a little surprised that 911 can't receive text messages. For goodness sake! My own elderly mother can receive text messages, and she isn't supported by billions of dollars of federal funding for high-tech communication systems. Seriously? Nobody at 911 has a frickin' cell phone?
I'm just saying, when I dial 911 I didn't realize I was calling someone stuck with technology from 1911.
If I were in a noise-sensitive situation, it is the "hello? hello?" that I would be worried about.
Anyway, the way I see it 911 should be able to receive just about any possible type of communication: traditional phone, cell phone, CB radio, short wave radio, text, video, carrier pigeon, email, IM, snail mail, Wave. Everything EXCEPT that new Facebook thing, because that is stupid.
Oh, okay, great so you do recognize the government has the prerogative to do things that normal individuals do not. Thanks. I accept your apology. Have a good one. I don't have any problem with opponents of the death penalty, by the way, and I would be fine if it were abandoned. So we don't need to argue about that.
You might wish that were what "free market" means, and you might mean that when you say "free market", but that's not what it means.
Wiki: "A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property."
A market with "minimal regulations" is called a market. A market with "zero regulations" is called a "free market". That's just what the words mean.
I encourage you to start using phrases in the way they will be understood, lest you give credence to "anarchists". If you have been promoting "free markets", then that's what you've been doing. Just use the word "market" or "minimal regulations" and that will be fine.