Do you want a convicted felon in your office? As far as I am concerned, there is just cause for any occupation. I don't want a convicted felon representing my company at any level.
Re:Explain to stupid: Why faster?
on
Linux BIOS
·
· Score: 1
You can be at your login prompt less than two seconds after applying power to the system
Did you mean LILO: prompt? My computer doesn't get to login prompt two seconds after the BIOS (and the SCSI card, and the HPT366, blah, blah) is done.
Can you imagine Windows on all those things? A two or three minute boot up time on anything in your house! And, imagine changing the channel on your TV in Windows (Your changes will not take affect until you reboot the system. Would you like to reboot now?)!
I believe that you CAN discriminate based on past felonies. That is why it is an allowable question on an application. They all say 'A conviction will not necessarily bar you from employment', but the only places that probably holds true is a gas station. I sure as hell wouldn't hire a convicted felon, and the government shouldn't be allowed to make me do so.
They could argue all day about how it was unintentional. Most everyone believes that is unintentional. Where you will be able to get them is that they are apparently not taking enough precautions to prevent this from happening. If they are going to provide background checks, they are agreeing to provide accurate information. They therefore bear the responsibility of verifying their information. To provide information in the manner posted above is extremely careless. The confused felon had a different birthdate and Social Security number. We have computers nowadays. This stuff should be easily weeded out.
It should not have anything to do with 'intention'. It should have to do with not taking reasonable precautions to provide accurate information. The information they are providing is of a critical nature and therefore they have a legal responsibility to provide it accurately.
We are, in effect, allowing law to be written not by elected legislators but by a contract lawyer. (A somewhat direct quote - I fixed a typo).
Unfortunately, laws made by 'elected legislators' amount to whatever the contract lawyers' employers paid for anyway. We are going to get screwed by this system no matter which way they go about it. At some point, the government is going to have to realize that John Q. Public cannot be expected to look out for himself when required to sign a 5000-word contract every time he does ANYTHING.
They can't force you to give up your rights. That would leave you with these two (lousy) choices:
1. Agree not to sue us, even if we decide to make up a criminal record for you. 2. Don't sign. We won't do a background check, and your potential employer won't hire you.
They can have you sign a document saying you won't take action against them in the event that the background check turns up undesirable, but true information.
I have no idea what the law is, but if they can make you sign a document that is summed up as "we can make up shit about your past, and you can't sue us for it", then something is wrong.
Say a large company starts using Linux or some other GPL software internally. They do some modifications that fit their needs and help the code mesh with their infrastructure. If the company keeps this internal, are they required to provide the source to anyone that asks? Or do they only have to provide source for something they are distributing?
Sorry about the bad joke. This is a victory for them because the Supreme Court is more likely to support the breakup. The Appeals Court is generally more conservative (read: in favor of capitalism) and the Supreme Court is more liberal (read: socialism). The conservatives all feel MS will get their just desserts in the marketplace, while the liberals cry about them having too much money.
We could save ourselves some time by asking the people who are actually lawyers to put IAAL in their posts. That way, everyone else - the majority of posters - could quit putting IANAL in their posts.
As a side benefit, you could search the page for 'IAAL' and easily identify lawyers in order to flame them.
The press is not interested in what it reasonable or considerate. They do not care what benefits the public. They want to get their name on a really good by-line.
Well, if their feature set changes between the article and the product release, it looks poorly on Adobe. The current feature set, as published by MacNN, may include things that Adobe may decide are unattainable in this release. Then, customers get a sense of disappointment in Adobe's product. I'm sure Adobe will seed these sneak peaks when the time is right.
Freon - its legitimate use was causing the problem Heroin - there seems to be no real reason any drugs are illegal AK-47 - no real use outside of the military
the only reason for napster to become illegal is because corporate america wants it that way. of course, a lot of things happen for this reason.
I don't think that this could be properly implemented. I have four computers at my house. Each has a different keyboard. The keyboards are different enough that I type differently on each. As well, each keyboard is in a different place, which also affects my typing. Sometimes I lean back and prop my feet up, which affects the angle at which I access the keyboard. This also affects my typing.
Each of those things affects my typing so much that I notice each different position/keyboard. So, I would have different settings on each computer? I would have to sit upright to use 'protected' software?
How inconvenienced do software manufacturers think they can make consumers before we will scream? Forcing me to have the CD in the drive is enough of a pain. Forcing me to register on the internet before the software will run is a bigger pain (I travel and don't always have access to the internet). Telling me that since I am on an airplane, or in a hotel with a different desk height and my typing has been affected, I can't run my software or listen to my music will make me hunt you down and kill you.
this won't ever work, and the people working on it should realize this. do you type the same way when the keyboard is in your lap as you do when it is on a desk? how about when you are leaning back? or using your laptop?
this is absolutely stupid. i wouldn't be surprised to find out it was a hoax.
there's nothing that napster can do about that. however, it would go a long ways if they showed a little 'cooperation' even if it accomplishes little. as it is, they almost act like they promote piracy. that attitude will keep them in court until they are bled dry.
Slashdot Mirror
iYes it's annoying sometimes when (gasp!) someone has a differet opinion to you but hey, that's democracy :)
Tsk, tsk! The US (and several other countries) is a democracy. This site has a world audience.
Do you want a convicted felon in your office? As far as I am concerned, there is just cause for any occupation. I don't want a convicted felon representing my company at any level.
You can be at your login prompt less than two seconds after applying power to the system
Did you mean LILO: prompt? My computer doesn't get to login prompt two seconds after the BIOS (and the SCSI card, and the HPT366, blah, blah) is done.
Can you imagine Windows on all those things? A two or three minute boot up time on anything in your house! And, imagine changing the channel on your TV in Windows (Your changes will not take affect until you reboot the system. Would you like to reboot now?)!
I believe that you CAN discriminate based on past felonies. That is why it is an allowable question on an application. They all say 'A conviction will not necessarily bar you from employment', but the only places that probably holds true is a gas station. I sure as hell wouldn't hire a convicted felon, and the government shouldn't be allowed to make me do so.
They could argue all day about how it was unintentional. Most everyone believes that is unintentional. Where you will be able to get them is that they are apparently not taking enough precautions to prevent this from happening. If they are going to provide background checks, they are agreeing to provide accurate information. They therefore bear the responsibility of verifying their information. To provide information in the manner posted above is extremely careless. The confused felon had a different birthdate and Social Security number. We have computers nowadays. This stuff should be easily weeded out.
It should not have anything to do with 'intention'. It should have to do with not taking reasonable precautions to provide accurate information. The information they are providing is of a critical nature and therefore they have a legal responsibility to provide it accurately.
We are, in effect, allowing law to be written not by elected legislators but by a contract lawyer. (A somewhat direct quote - I fixed a typo).
Unfortunately, laws made by 'elected legislators' amount to whatever the contract lawyers' employers paid for anyway. We are going to get screwed by this system no matter which way they go about it. At some point, the government is going to have to realize that John Q. Public cannot be expected to look out for himself when required to sign a 5000-word contract every time he does ANYTHING.
They can't force you to give up your rights. That would leave you with these two (lousy) choices:
1. Agree not to sue us, even if we decide to make up a criminal record for you.
2. Don't sign. We won't do a background check, and your potential employer won't hire you.
They can have you sign a document saying you won't take action against them in the event that the background check turns up undesirable, but true information.
I have no idea what the law is, but if they can make you sign a document that is summed up as "we can make up shit about your past, and you can't sue us for it", then something is wrong.
Excellent post. (sorry, don't have any mod points to give).
Say a large company starts using Linux or some other GPL software internally. They do some modifications that fit their needs and help the code mesh with their infrastructure. If the company keeps this internal, are they required to provide the source to anyone that asks? Or do they only have to provide source for something they are distributing?
here is the link
Sorry about the bad joke. This is a victory for them because the Supreme Court is more likely to support the breakup. The Appeals Court is generally more conservative (read: in favor of capitalism) and the Supreme Court is more liberal (read: socialism). The conservatives all feel MS will get their just desserts in the marketplace, while the liberals cry about them having too much money.
Money buys you anything you want. Especially in the US.
I am no US layer
Is that part of the OSI model? Layer 10? MS probably doesn't like the US layer very much right now!
We could save ourselves some time by asking the people who are actually lawyers to put IAAL in their posts. That way, everyone else - the majority of posters - could quit putting IANAL in their posts.
As a side benefit, you could search the page for 'IAAL' and easily identify lawyers in order to flame them.
Please see post 18 for the answer to this. Of course, that poster was not a lawyer.
The press is not interested in what it reasonable or considerate. They do not care what benefits the public. They want to get their name on a really good by-line.
It's pathetic, but it is all too often true.
Well, if their feature set changes between the article and the product release, it looks poorly on Adobe. The current feature set, as published by MacNN, may include things that Adobe may decide are unattainable in this release. Then, customers get a sense of disappointment in Adobe's product. I'm sure Adobe will seed these sneak peaks when the time is right.
The review was stupid and illegal. Adobe saying it could potentially have cost them tens of millions of dollars was stupid.
I'm sure Adobe will win, and they should.
Freon - its legitimate use was causing the problem
Heroin - there seems to be no real reason any drugs are illegal
AK-47 - no real use outside of the military
the only reason for napster to become illegal is because corporate america wants it that way. of course, a lot of things happen for this reason.
Umm, Windows 95 has a scrolling credit easter egg as well. I forget how to do it, but it was there.
I don't think that this could be properly implemented. I have four computers at my house. Each has a different keyboard. The keyboards are different enough that I type differently on each. As well, each keyboard is in a different place, which also affects my typing. Sometimes I lean back and prop my feet up, which affects the angle at which I access the keyboard. This also affects my typing.
Each of those things affects my typing so much that I notice each different position/keyboard. So, I would have different settings on each computer? I would have to sit upright to use 'protected' software?
How inconvenienced do software manufacturers think they can make consumers before we will scream? Forcing me to have the CD in the drive is enough of a pain. Forcing me to register on the internet before the software will run is a bigger pain (I travel and don't always have access to the internet). Telling me that since I am on an airplane, or in a hotel with a different desk height and my typing has been affected, I can't run my software or listen to my music will make me hunt you down and kill you.
this won't ever work, and the people working on it should realize this. do you type the same way when the keyboard is in your lap as you do when it is on a desk? how about when you are leaning back? or using your laptop?
this is absolutely stupid. i wouldn't be surprised to find out it was a hoax.
that guy is screwed no matter what! however, searching for "the the" (most sites let you use quotes) should limit undesirable responses.
there's nothing that napster can do about that. however, it would go a long ways if they showed a little 'cooperation' even if it accomplishes little. as it is, they almost act like they promote piracy. that attitude will keep them in court until they are bled dry.