When I lived in college housing they tried to get me to pay for an entire room when my roomate moved out. But at the beginning of the year, I had specifically scratched that clause out and initialled it. When I was called to the housing office over the dispute, the Director of Housing whipped out his copy of the school's contract to see if it matched mine.
He bitched, but didn't make me pay, and I know from talking to others that MANY others on campus DID have to pay in the same situation.
Granted, in this case they would probably cut off your service first and ask questions later. But of course talk to a lawyer if you are not convinced. The message is that no contract should be signed just because you want something and don't feel like reading all the clauses and are too lazy to negotiate it. I cant' tell you the number of times I have seen people screwed over by clauses of documents they sign, especially housing/lease agreements. Cross the silly crap out.
As a side note, when you go to the store to buy something, you are always entitled to negotiate the price of things. People, both consumers and employees, are just not used to doing it. There is absolutely no difference between buying a $100 million Cezzane oil painting and buying a can of tuna. We just accept the asked for price of the stuff on the shelf because haggling with the manager over everything would take waaaay too long and get you weird stares from people.
My only point here really is that any legal troubles you get from signing or entering into a contract are your own fault, because it is all negotiable.:)
Remember, all contracts are negotiable. A lot of people don't realize this. I almost never sign boilerplate TOS or leases, or anything else without making changes. Each TOS they sign is an individual contract. If you don't like something, scratch it out and initial it, and maybe even date it. Scratch out the whole freakin' contract if you want.
When it comes time for them to accept it, either they will just as a matter of procedure, or they will call you and ask what the changes are. You can then negotiate with an agent of the company (like a manager) about the changes. But if they just accept it and file it away without looking at it, then set up and install your service, you are golden. If something happens months later you can go back to the modified contract that you both have a copy of as proof that you didn't agree to certain things.
I have done this dozens of times, from housing contracts with my college, to DSL service, to gas service, to apartment leases, to even ski lift ticket agreements and parachute jump liability waivers.
Don't be fooled. Absolutely everything is negotiable. This is one of those really sweet things about our legal system that everyone should learn. INAL, but check with one and they will tell you this.:)
So, I can tell you the time and patience it took to make this thing is incredible.
Let's take this shot for example. He had to build that entire wall sideways and the "lights" are actually the 1/3 wide plates. Then he had to line up the shot so you can't see anything in the background, light it properly, etc. That's for one shot.
This is a great bit of work. I ran into this site about a year ago, but it's great to see people liking his stuff.
Anyway, my $.02. I'm on to making movies now. It's amazing what you can do with the 1 or 2 hours a week you could have spent watching advertising spacer sitcoms on TV.
See the US Budget for next year
For instance, note that NASA's total budget (5.1 billion) is less than the military and other aid we give to one country, namely Israel.
To put it plainly, we spend more money (that's tax dollars, your money and mine) so one religious group can kill another with our helicopters than we spend on the total effort to go to Mars, explore space, and all the other things that make this a beautiful time to be living in. Instead, we spend this money to violently support one side in a dispute that has been going on for hundreds of years; (ok, since 1948 at least) one that no one is possibly going to give in to because both side are blinded by irrational religious fevor.
Take all the money, machine guns, ammunition, and other arms we give to Israel and give it to NASA. Double the budget!
I work at Nader's NHQ .. and vote local!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so I've only had time to work there once. But I believe in 80% of what he does, and almost 100% of his moral values and opinions. Also, people in states where one candidate has an obvious huge lead (like Bush in Texas) should definately vote Nader, because your vote will not "take away" from Gore or be "wasted".
Hell yes, you should vote. At the very least, if you sit out you have absolutely no right to bitch or complain about the president's actions come the next 4 years.
Now here's the REAL reason to vote, especially in local elections. Why do you think Gore and Bush are our only two choices? Because someone voted or them in local elections (House/Senate and Governor), and now they are supported by the major parties.
Don't let assholes win local elections, and you won't have assholes to choose from when it comes to President.
No one has asked this yet, and I can't glean it from the article.
Do these threads use light, or absorb it?
Because if they absorb it, this technology will make a room darker as it works. I don't see how it's possible to actually absorb light (instead of deflect or refract it).
But then, I am rusty on my physics.
$5.1 billion.
This year, we will give $5.2 billion in aid to Israel so they can kill civilians with our Cobra attack helicopters.
Next year's defense budget is $301 billion.
The only reason I mention this is the incredible amount of waste that our government spends . . . that could be going to actually travel to Mars or explore the universe. I mention the Israel figure because I find it truly pathetic that we spend more on giving Israel foreign military funds than we spend on the entire budget of NASA.
Our priorities are all screwed up. Remember how much national pride and worldwide respect we had when we went to the moon in the 60s?
Let's use out wealth in this country for something truly interesting and expansive.
It seems that the problem is about two specific people on the review board.
One stopped working for the Justice Deptartment over 13 years ago, and has since been involved in litigation against the Justice Dept.
The other simply _has_ worked for the Clinton Administration in advising information policy, but has also worked for the Republicans.
I think if you look at the comments being made by the illustrious Congressman's staff, they are simply PR ploys. I honestly don't see the conflict of interest here.
Anyone else have information that shows a conflict of interest? Specific information? Just becasue someone has worked for the government does nto mean they are biased. You could lose a HUGE pool of really talented candidates for any kind of independent study that way.
Everyone has political affiliations, if you stretch it far enough.
I used to work for IBM. They have a great policy of promotion of IT vs. Management. It's a little too government rating system for me, but they do have 300,000 employees, so you have to give them some concessions.
Essentially, it goes like this:
You are hired on as a certain "grade", i.e. Grade 9.
In the new system, you are payed a fixed amount based on your grade (i.e. $60,000-90,000 for grade 9)
You also have other "levels" within a grade. Now, it used to be that only management could get to above a certain grade, say grade 10. But in the new system, almost everyone can get to higher grades, based on their performance/reviews/etc.
In this way, you can stay a techie and still make decent money, say $130,000 at grade 12.
But to get the BIG bucks, you still have to sell stuff, or be a manager. that's where bonuses and quick promotion comes in. In ALL companies, that's really how you make money. You have to prove you are bringing in revenue for the company, besides your actual bill rate by being a consultant.
For me, the pay I was getting and the rate they were charging was too drastically different, so I went independent. But this would not be so true at a really high level. It's a pretty good system, for pay anyway.
*camera pans to an avid/. reader reading about the Carnivore disclosure hearing*
*cut to the reader leaping in a taxi to make it down to the courthouse in time for the "public" hearing*
*wipe to the reader getting there to an empty room, a tumbleweed blows by*
The guard said the so called "public" hearing lasted about 20 mintues.
What a crock. It's like disclosing something, but only flashing it in the public's face for a second. Luckily they have a transcript. but what can be said in 20 mintues? Not much, I bet.
*Fade to avid reader spitting on the judge's bench as he leaves*
If anyone (especially the moderators or someone from/. staff) would like a scoop on thsi story for free, I am willing to go down there. Just called the judge's chambers!
The hearing is going on right now in Courtroom 16 at the Federal Courthouse at 333 Constiution. Any interest?
United States District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 No one there knows what I am talking about. Where is this thing? Any interest in me getting a scoop for/.? I can leave teh office RIGHT NOW.:)
... of where the hearings are (it mentions a federal courthouse), and I'll go down there right now and report back for this story. I'm in downtown Washington right now. Hurry! VesuviusDC
Again, the courts prove that they do not have any idea the importance of the internet. Someone (name forgotten) recently claimed that the internet is the biggest step in civilization since the industrial revolution. Though you or I may disagree with this, it is certainly important. And now, the very core of what the internet stands for is challenged. Remember when there was NO commerce on the net? Ever since we started buying and selling things over it, the courts have gotten involved and mucked things up. we need a new court system entirely to deal with the internet. Judges that are well versed on the scope and potential should be teh only ones allowed to rule on it. We have special courts for many things (small claims, torts, federal vs. state vs. local issues), why not the internet?
This sounds very Philip K. to me. He wrote a story about a guy commuting from Mars to Earth, and all the way these direct-to-mind advertisements were ramming themselves into his thoughts. I see myself walking around town and being bombared at all sides by cheap, 40 days life span moving ads. Since the human eye is naturally attracted to motion, you would be constantly bombarded. what I would invent to counteract this is a pair of "sunglasses" that would filter out the light frequency of the LEPs. Call them "non-ad" shades. Protect your eyes. Either that, or the government would make regulations agaisnt garish, moving ads. Oh, and about the people complaining they have to replace their cell phone screen every 41 days... if it cost $.25, who cares? Only the environment.
I think you are assuming a few things, and using some incorrect technology. Rather, the article uses them incorrectly and you perpetuate it. When I read the article, I had the same thoughts. What if the car is fuzzy/in darkness/not clear/etc. This is the same iwth all pattern recognition. Even looking at your mother's face, you (or your brain, rather) matches this image to memory, and you can say with 99% certainty that that face is your mother. but what if the face changes ever so slightly? then you are less certain. It _could_ be her.. hmmm, 75% maybe? Now onto terminology. Digital just means that a signal is brken down into a binary medium. You do not have "digital" decisions. For a very simple example, I can look at the image of a car and say "It's a car", "It's not a car", or "I'm not sure". A musically talented friend of mine and I used to have huge analog vs. digital arguments. His view was that analog is superior becasue you can express the subtle differences along a true sliding scale rather than a "digitized" scale. But this arguement hodls no weight, as being digital is not the same as a binary off/on. For example, in music, you could have an analog tone that goes from 10,000 Hz to 15,000 Hz, sliding smoothly up the scale. But you can create a sliding scale just as smooth using digital if you break the scale down small enough so that the ear cannot tell where one tone begins and the other ends. The first step might be "on" at 10,000, then off. The next might be "on" at 10,000.001 Hz, etc. To sum, when you are talking a digital vs. analog arguement of any kind, there becomes ABSOLUTELY no difference between the two on a small enough scale. Vesuvius_DC
I absolutely hate the trend that the game industry is taking here. As much as I hate the big Redmond, you have to admit they have released some fantastic games lately. The publisher gets all the credit, when the developer does all the work. It's the same with Hasbro Interactive. They acquire a developer and then publish the stuff as their own, when all they have bought is the creativity. The only credit can give Microsoft is in their aquisition strategy. Bungie is hot right now, so MS bought the energy. Here's to unique creativity and originally being bought by corporate power. It's been said a thousand times. But is there any way to stop it? If you owned a hot company, wouldn't you sell it to get rich? Doing so crushes the creative and independent spirit of the company, but I doubt honestly that any/.er would not sell to make a mint. Probably me included.
Slashdot Mirror
When I lived in college housing they tried to get me to pay for an entire room when my roomate moved out. But at the beginning of the year, I had specifically scratched that clause out and initialled it. When I was called to the housing office over the dispute, the Director of Housing whipped out his copy of the school's contract to see if it matched mine.
:)
He bitched, but didn't make me pay, and I know from talking to others that MANY others on campus DID have to pay in the same situation.
Granted, in this case they would probably cut off your service first and ask questions later. But of course talk to a lawyer if you are not convinced. The message is that no contract should be signed just because you want something and don't feel like reading all the clauses and are too lazy to negotiate it. I cant' tell you the number of times I have seen people screwed over by clauses of documents they sign, especially housing/lease agreements. Cross the silly crap out.
As a side note, when you go to the store to buy something, you are always entitled to negotiate the price of things. People, both consumers and employees, are just not used to doing it. There is absolutely no difference between buying a $100 million Cezzane oil painting and buying a can of tuna. We just accept the asked for price of the stuff on the shelf because haggling with the manager over everything would take waaaay too long and get you weird stares from people.
My only point here really is that any legal troubles you get from signing or entering into a contract are your own fault, because it is all negotiable.
Remember, all contracts are negotiable. A lot of people don't realize this. I almost never sign boilerplate TOS or leases, or anything else without making changes. Each TOS they sign is an individual contract. If you don't like something, scratch it out and initial it, and maybe even date it. Scratch out the whole freakin' contract if you want.
:)
When it comes time for them to accept it, either they will just as a matter of procedure, or they will call you and ask what the changes are. You can then negotiate with an agent of the company (like a manager) about the changes. But if they just accept it and file it away without looking at it, then set up and install your service, you are golden. If something happens months later you can go back to the modified contract that you both have a copy of as proof that you didn't agree to certain things.
I have done this dozens of times, from housing contracts with my college, to DSL service, to gas service, to apartment leases, to even ski lift ticket agreements and parachute jump liability waivers.
Don't be fooled. Absolutely everything is negotiable. This is one of those really sweet things about our legal system that everyone should learn. INAL, but check with one and they will tell you this.
I would, but I live in DC, and I don't have a fucking rep. Or a senator. Yet, I am still taxed, with no voting representation. Tea, anyone?
I've done some similar work (on a much, much smaller scale) around the X-COM universe.
You can go here to see it, if you wish.
So, I can tell you the time and patience it took to make this thing is incredible.
Let's take this shot for example. He had to build that entire wall sideways and the "lights" are actually the 1/3 wide plates. Then he had to line up the shot so you can't see anything in the background, light it properly, etc. That's for one shot.
This is a great bit of work. I ran into this site about a year ago, but it's great to see people liking his stuff.
Anyway, my $.02. I'm on to making movies now. It's amazing what you can do with the 1 or 2 hours a week you could have spent watching advertising spacer sitcoms on TV.
Budgets and funding are not tight.
We are simply not spending our money wisely.
See the US Budget for next year
For instance, note that NASA's total budget (5.1 billion) is less than the military and other aid we give to one country, namely Israel.
To put it plainly, we spend more money (that's tax dollars, your money and mine) so one religious group can kill another with our helicopters than we spend on the total effort to go to Mars, explore space, and all the other things that make this a beautiful time to be living in. Instead, we spend this money to violently support one side in a dispute that has been going on for hundreds of years; (ok, since 1948 at least) one that no one is possibly going to give in to because both side are blinded by irrational religious fevor.
Take all the money, machine guns, ammunition, and other arms we give to Israel and give it to NASA. Double the budget!
Ok, so I've only had time to work there once. But I believe in 80% of what he does, and almost 100% of his moral values and opinions. Also, people in states where one candidate has an obvious huge lead (like Bush in Texas) should definately vote Nader, because your vote will not "take away" from Gore or be "wasted".
Hell yes, you should vote. At the very least, if you sit out you have absolutely no right to bitch or complain about the president's actions come the next 4 years.
Now here's the REAL reason to vote, especially in local elections. Why do you think Gore and Bush are our only two choices? Because someone voted or them in local elections (House/Senate and Governor), and now they are supported by the major parties.
Don't let assholes win local elections, and you won't have assholes to choose from when it comes to President.
Vote Nader
No one has asked this yet, and I can't glean it from the article.
Do these threads use light, or absorb it?
Because if they absorb it, this technology will make a room darker as it works. I don't see how it's possible to actually absorb light (instead of deflect or refract it).
But then, I am rusty on my physics.
Vesuvius
$5.1 billion.
This year, we will give $5.2 billion in aid to Israel so they can kill civilians with our Cobra attack helicopters.
Next year's defense budget is $301 billion.
The only reason I mention this is the incredible amount of waste that our government spends . . . that could be going to actually travel to Mars or explore the universe. I mention the Israel figure because I find it truly pathetic that we spend more on giving Israel foreign military funds than we spend on the entire budget of NASA.
Our priorities are all screwed up. Remember how much national pride and worldwide respect we had when we went to the moon in the 60s?
Let's use out wealth in this country for something truly interesting and expansive.
Anyone here agree? Go NASA!
It seems that the problem is about two specific people on the review board.
One stopped working for the Justice Deptartment over 13 years ago, and has since been involved in litigation against the Justice Dept.
The other simply _has_ worked for the Clinton Administration in advising information policy, but has also worked for the Republicans.
I think if you look at the comments being made by the illustrious Congressman's staff, they are simply PR ploys. I honestly don't see the conflict of interest here.
Anyone else have information that shows a conflict of interest? Specific information? Just becasue someone has worked for the government does nto mean they are biased. You could lose a HUGE pool of really talented candidates for any kind of independent study that way.
Everyone has political affiliations, if you stretch it far enough.
I used to work for IBM. They have a great policy of promotion of IT vs. Management. It's a little too government rating system for me, but they do have 300,000 employees, so you have to give them some concessions.
Essentially, it goes like this:
You are hired on as a certain "grade", i.e. Grade 9.
In the new system, you are payed a fixed amount based on your grade (i.e. $60,000-90,000 for grade 9)
You also have other "levels" within a grade. Now, it used to be that only management could get to above a certain grade, say grade 10. But in the new system, almost everyone can get to higher grades, based on their performance/reviews/etc.
In this way, you can stay a techie and still make decent money, say $130,000 at grade 12.
But to get the BIG bucks, you still have to sell stuff, or be a manager. that's where bonuses and quick promotion comes in. In ALL companies, that's really how you make money. You have to prove you are bringing in revenue for the company, besides your actual bill rate by being a consultant.
For me, the pay I was getting and the rate they were charging was too drastically different, so I went independent. But this would not be so true at a really high level. It's a pretty good system, for pay anyway.
Ves
*camera pans to an avid /. reader reading about the Carnivore disclosure hearing*
*cut to the reader leaping in a taxi to make it down to the courthouse in time for the "public" hearing*
*wipe to the reader getting there to an empty room, a tumbleweed blows by*
The guard said the so called "public" hearing lasted about 20 mintues.
What a crock. It's like disclosing something, but only flashing it in the public's face for a second. Luckily they have a transcript. but what can be said in 20 mintues? Not much, I bet.
*Fade to avid reader spitting on the judge's bench as he leaves*
If anyone (especially the moderators or someone from /. staff) would like a scoop on thsi story for free, I am willing to go down there. Just called the judge's chambers!
The hearing is going on right now in Courtroom 16 at the Federal Courthouse at 333 Constiution. Any interest?
Called:
/.? I can leave teh office RIGHT NOW. :)
United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
No one there knows what I am talking about. Where is this thing? Any interest in me getting a scoop for
... of where the hearings are (it mentions a federal courthouse), and I'll go down there right now and report back for this story. I'm in downtown Washington right now. Hurry! VesuviusDC
Again, the courts prove that they do not have any idea the importance of the internet. Someone (name forgotten) recently claimed that the internet is the biggest step in civilization since the industrial revolution. Though you or I may disagree with this, it is certainly important. And now, the very core of what the internet stands for is challenged. Remember when there was NO commerce on the net? Ever since we started buying and selling things over it, the courts have gotten involved and mucked things up. we need a new court system entirely to deal with the internet. Judges that are well versed on the scope and potential should be teh only ones allowed to rule on it. We have special courts for many things (small claims, torts, federal vs. state vs. local issues), why not the internet?
This sounds very Philip K. to me. He wrote a story about a guy commuting from Mars to Earth, and all the way these direct-to-mind advertisements were ramming themselves into his thoughts. I see myself walking around town and being bombared at all sides by cheap, 40 days life span moving ads. Since the human eye is naturally attracted to motion, you would be constantly bombarded. what I would invent to counteract this is a pair of "sunglasses" that would filter out the light frequency of the LEPs. Call them "non-ad" shades. Protect your eyes. Either that, or the government would make regulations agaisnt garish, moving ads. Oh, and about the people complaining they have to replace their cell phone screen every 41 days... if it cost $.25, who cares? Only the environment.
I think you are assuming a few things, and using some incorrect technology. Rather, the article uses them incorrectly and you perpetuate it. When I read the article, I had the same thoughts. What if the car is fuzzy/in darkness/not clear/etc. This is the same iwth all pattern recognition. Even looking at your mother's face, you (or your brain, rather) matches this image to memory, and you can say with 99% certainty that that face is your mother. but what if the face changes ever so slightly? then you are less certain. It _could_ be her .. hmmm, 75% maybe? Now onto terminology. Digital just means that a signal is brken down into a binary medium. You do not have "digital" decisions. For a very simple example, I can look at the image of a car and say "It's a car", "It's not a car", or "I'm not sure". A musically talented friend of mine and I used to have huge analog vs. digital arguments. His view was that analog is superior becasue you can express the subtle differences along a true sliding scale rather than a "digitized" scale. But this arguement hodls no weight, as being digital is not the same as a binary off/on. For example, in music, you could have an analog tone that goes from 10,000 Hz to 15,000 Hz, sliding smoothly up the scale. But you can create a sliding scale just as smooth using digital if you break the scale down small enough so that the ear cannot tell where one tone begins and the other ends. The first step might be "on" at 10,000, then off. The next might be "on" at 10,000.001 Hz, etc. To sum, when you are talking a digital vs. analog arguement of any kind, there becomes ABSOLUTELY no difference between the two on a small enough scale. Vesuvius_DC
I absolutely hate the trend that the game industry is taking here. As much as I hate the big Redmond, you have to admit they have released some fantastic games lately. The publisher gets all the credit, when the developer does all the work. It's the same with Hasbro Interactive. They acquire a developer and then publish the stuff as their own, when all they have bought is the creativity. The only credit can give Microsoft is in their aquisition strategy. Bungie is hot right now, so MS bought the energy. Here's to unique creativity and originally being bought by corporate power. It's been said a thousand times. But is there any way to stop it? If you owned a hot company, wouldn't you sell it to get rich? Doing so crushes the creative and independent spirit of the company, but I doubt honestly that any /.er would not sell to make a mint. Probably me included.