Having a lack of white blood cells (a critical component of the immune system), or something that attacks white blood cells considering transmitting is possible, would indicate an acquiring of deficiencies in the immune system, yes?
He goes by many names...call him what you like; the questioning you have should be directed to the leaders whom are merely men and what they think the rules should be.
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to carry a national ID card
as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the USA? 66% favor / 33% oppose
This smacks strangely familiar on how SS cards came about.
so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit
I agree...the bitch is probably only 45 years old with her 14 year old grandson. With such an awkward view toward sex, she and her daughter probably had teen pregancies and we'll learn the kid's a father at 16.
Sort of. Depends on the authority/enforcement specifically granted, but I do believe you are essentially correct in this (please note however, IANAL). For example, your local police will not actively chase you down (or even have the authority to) because you evaded paying your taxes at tax time. But they will be used to track you down should you hit the FBI's most wanted list (independent of your original crime).
That said...most, if not all states, have their own consititution and local laws that coincide or even copy/follow the federal version to be sure that enforcement IS allowed. Usually the federal portion is referred to only for discrepancies and/or conflicts in enforcement. Oregon's medicinal marijuana law comes to mind as an example...local police might not arrest a grower because they're allowed by state law, they can only enforce their own laws, but federal marshalls can come in and supersede the enforcement and the local enforcement may have a current law on their books that tell them they have to turn you in (even if they don't arrest at the time).
Granted, IE would be MUCH, MUCH, further in its own development had they embraced the mozilla format back then rather than practicing the monopolistic methods that brought down Netscape and IE4 into the light...just imagine, we could still be stuck at the "Millenium Edition"-like level of browsers with it "integrated into the OS" crap had it not been for the judge that decided MS "will" remove IE4 from the OS (way too mac-style for me, IMHO).
But on the other hand, it took 10 years for OSS to spit out a decent browser...sorry, but even Opera wasn't refined properly until recently (glad to see them still around, btw) and I suspect it's only because of the increased stability in the OS out today.
He told me that Windows 2000 would absolutely work with a Unix Kerberos Domain controller.
FWIW, documentation states that "member servers" will give in to a UKDC, but also points out that the "first" domain controller, even in a mixed environment, will consider itself to be the root of the forest, thereby the authoritive controller in the first domain of that forest.
What actually gets me is your reply post is considered "Insightful" (because you said "Quite possibly."?) and the post consists of an encounter you had with a MS rep and what he told you (I guess your "insight" is how you jumped to your conclusion he's an outright liar?) and your reference to the MS-Korn incident, where Mr. Sullivan "should" be embarrased for not recognizing Mr. Korn (perhaps your "insight" is how you deduced his embarrassment by his pink cheeked face).
Before you go on the "troll, troll, troll" rant, I would like to point out you were BOTH right. Win2K "will" work with Unix Kerberos DC's as member servers (making him right), but not if it's a domain controller itself (making you right). You also have to keep in mind that reps and teachers alike have NO idea of the real world scenarios we deal with everyday.
Yeah! And we'll have flying cars, jet packs, and nanobots working through our blood stream. And McDonalds food that causes you to loose weight and reduces your cholesterol.
Why not? Milk now causes cancer, they've discovered medicinal value in chocolate, and while TVs aren't in the bottom of the bowls, they do appear in virtually every kitchen where toddlers throw their mess. Hell, you don't even have to leave the house to get "new" porn material. I'm expecting Woody Allen to walk out in his Sleeper outfit any minute.
I think it's the case of the Al Capone scenario..."if we can't get him on bootlegging, we'll get him on tax evasion" argument.
The cons of this game hate it already, sex or not, based on its 'released' content already. However, now that the easter-eggs reveal "sex" and the fact that 17 year-olds are still minors by law, this puts the companies involved in Al Capone's shoes.
I'm not comparing Rockstar or Take Two to Al Capone himself (the alcohol ban WAS later revoked), but this is the route they're taking; charging the companies of distributing sexual material (hidden or not) to a children market ("o dear god, please think of the children").
Hopefully, the attorney(s) for Rockstar, et.al. will successfully argue that "easter-eggs" are not uncommon because they often contain portions of the code that just didn't make the cut of the final release. Rather than rewrite the whole mess just to get rid of one scene, common practice is to just hide that portion of the code to be unlocked later when release deadlines and content-rating compliance can be better managed (alot of this is speculation on my part, but I suspect more truth to it than speculation). Their saving grace might be the argument that they "hid" the scene with the requirement that one does need unapproved hardware and reverse engineering for it to be shown.
What will blow this case for the lady, though is from TFA itself:
Cohen said in the suit that she bought the game in late 2004 for her grandson when it was rated "M" for mature, for players 17 and older. According to the suit, she directed that it be taken away from her grandson, which was done.
She buys a "17yrs and older" game for a 14yr old and THEN directs it be taken away? Sounds fishy to me...seems she bought the game just to bring up this frivolous lawsuit at a later date.
Actually, it's the blue collars that get the day off (steel workers, journeyman, manufacturers, etc). Retail workers are actually considered "white" collars because they provide a service.
After all, do you see people expecting to buy and use a car with zero training, no licence or maintenance?
Actually, yes...they take some test at 16 and seemingly forget the rules for the next 40 or more years (i can't attest to countries other than my own).
The good news I see out of this behaviour is the hand-me-downs will enable the poor to gain access as the auto has in its own way.
I wonder why it is cheaper to buy a new $400 PC than paying top rate of, say $100 per machine, to get someone to insert the recovery CD and get everything back to factory defaults.
Because they don't want you to see the porn they downloaded.
You are at a loss for words, I understand...so you resort to attacking my sig.:)
Mathematically, rounding is used, of course. Politically, there are those that offer less, yet doesn't add up; most accept the norm or middle of the road; and those that actually offer or produce more than expected. Each are compensated in their fashion. (yeah, I know...hokey, but i'm sure it'll change next week anyways.)
The practice of "check holding" was determined long before 9/11. Case in point is Washington Mutual's policy that the federal law "allows" them to hold ANY check up to eleven (11) BUSINESS days. This allowance they practice in full force until you've been a customer for longer than a year. Most (if not all) other banks realize it doesn't take 11 days anymore to verify funds and vary from three to five business days instead for new customers.
I do believe the "float" is derived from that fact that under the old law, it had to be "physically" delivered to the dispensing bank...and not just some local branch either (yeah, I know...you'd think), but rather it had to physically go back to the MAIN branch (usually back east) where the actual corporation of the bank was.
To elaborate; first, it would take one day for the check to be deposited in the store's local branch (the store being the place you bought something), then one day to get the physical check from there to the MAIN branch; and one more day to get it physically from there to the MAIN branch of the customer that signed the check. Once verified, the funds were then withdrawn. Then the reverse order for the funds to be added to the account of the person/store that was paid with the check.
Before the days of Fed-Ex and fast planes, however, it often took up to 2 full weeks for this to carry out in real-time from one coast to the next. Hence, WAMU's 11-day enforcement. Most (if not all) other banks have shorter policies because they honor the verification of funds rather than the 'letter of the law', but WAMU's policy is "because the law allows them 11 days per regulation" as told by a bank employee that kept pointing to their policy booklet and seemed shocked I should even ask such a silly question (at the time, I was trying to cash my payroll check and ended up just moving my business to another bank...screw them and their 11-day policy).
9/11 had nothing to do with the change. Rather, the accecptance of the electronic signature did. With that in place, the banks no longer have to wait for the physical check to arrive and verify. Now they can withdraw immediately and treat ALL signatures electronically.
I do agree with you that in this electronic age, deposits should be just as quick or at least shortened to 24-hour cycle for the verification of funds, but more than likely, I'll bet WAMU (and others) will gloss over that portion of the law as they have in previous decades so that they continue getting the benefit of earing interest for their junk (imho) bonds during the 'waiting' period.
Slashdot Mirror
Having a lack of white blood cells (a critical component of the immune system), or something that attacks white blood cells considering transmitting is possible, would indicate an acquiring of deficiencies in the immune system, yes?
He goes by many names...call him what you like; the questioning you have should be directed to the leaders whom are merely men and what they think the rules should be.
Perhaps a ;) would have gotten your point across.
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to carry a national ID card as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the USA? 66% favor / 33% oppose
This smacks strangely familiar on how SS cards came about.
so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit
I agree...the bitch is probably only 45 years old with her 14 year old grandson. With such an awkward view toward sex, she and her daughter probably had teen pregancies and we'll learn the kid's a father at 16.
Phones have bells?
Yes.
Have any of you young'uns ever disassembled one or just thought the bell sound was devised out of the matrix like the taste of chicken?
Sort of. Depends on the authority/enforcement specifically granted, but I do believe you are essentially correct in this (please note however, IANAL). For example, your local police will not actively chase you down (or even have the authority to) because you evaded paying your taxes at tax time. But they will be used to track you down should you hit the FBI's most wanted list (independent of your original crime).
That said...most, if not all states, have their own consititution and local laws that coincide or even copy/follow the federal version to be sure that enforcement IS allowed. Usually the federal portion is referred to only for discrepancies and/or conflicts in enforcement. Oregon's medicinal marijuana law comes to mind as an example...local police might not arrest a grower because they're allowed by state law, they can only enforce their own laws, but federal marshalls can come in and supersede the enforcement and the local enforcement may have a current law on their books that tell them they have to turn you in (even if they don't arrest at the time).
Last I looked, Firefox is much "better" than IE
and IE has been out for what, a decade?!
Granted, IE would be MUCH, MUCH, further in its own development had they embraced the mozilla format back then rather than practicing the monopolistic methods that brought down Netscape and IE4 into the light...just imagine, we could still be stuck at the "Millenium Edition"-like level of browsers with it "integrated into the OS" crap had it not been for the judge that decided MS "will" remove IE4 from the OS (way too mac-style for me, IMHO).
But on the other hand, it took 10 years for OSS to spit out a decent browser...sorry, but even Opera wasn't refined properly until recently (glad to see them still around, btw) and I suspect it's only because of the increased stability in the OS out today.
Not that it matters, really, since I personally think the "AO" was punitive, and intended to show that the ESRB was taking this seriously
You mean, rolled over to the political correctness police and drama (see previous posts about lack of genetalia...breasts do not count as genetalia).
He told me that Windows 2000 would absolutely work with a Unix Kerberos Domain controller.
FWIW, documentation states that "member servers" will give in to a UKDC, but also points out that the "first" domain controller, even in a mixed environment, will consider itself to be the root of the forest, thereby the authoritive controller in the first domain of that forest.
What actually gets me is your reply post is considered "Insightful" (because you said "Quite possibly."?) and the post consists of an encounter you had with a MS rep and what he told you (I guess your "insight" is how you jumped to your conclusion he's an outright liar?) and your reference to the MS-Korn incident, where Mr. Sullivan "should" be embarrased for not recognizing Mr. Korn (perhaps your "insight" is how you deduced his embarrassment by his pink cheeked face).
Before you go on the "troll, troll, troll" rant, I would like to point out you were BOTH right. Win2K "will" work with Unix Kerberos DC's as member servers (making him right), but not if it's a domain controller itself (making you right). You also have to keep in mind that reps and teachers alike have NO idea of the real world scenarios we deal with everyday.
Yeah! And we'll have flying cars, jet packs, and nanobots working through our blood stream. And McDonalds food that causes you to loose weight and reduces your cholesterol.
Why not? Milk now causes cancer, they've discovered medicinal value in chocolate, and while TVs aren't in the bottom of the bowls, they do appear in virtually every kitchen where toddlers throw their mess. Hell, you don't even have to leave the house to get "new" porn material. I'm expecting Woody Allen to walk out in his Sleeper outfit any minute.
I think it's the case of the Al Capone scenario..."if we can't get him on bootlegging, we'll get him on tax evasion" argument.
The cons of this game hate it already, sex or not, based on its 'released' content already. However, now that the easter-eggs reveal "sex" and the fact that 17 year-olds are still minors by law, this puts the companies involved in Al Capone's shoes.
I'm not comparing Rockstar or Take Two to Al Capone himself (the alcohol ban WAS later revoked), but this is the route they're taking; charging the companies of distributing sexual material (hidden or not) to a children market ("o dear god, please think of the children").
Hopefully, the attorney(s) for Rockstar, et.al. will successfully argue that "easter-eggs" are not uncommon because they often contain portions of the code that just didn't make the cut of the final release. Rather than rewrite the whole mess just to get rid of one scene, common practice is to just hide that portion of the code to be unlocked later when release deadlines and content-rating compliance can be better managed (alot of this is speculation on my part, but I suspect more truth to it than speculation). Their saving grace might be the argument that they "hid" the scene with the requirement that one does need unapproved hardware and reverse engineering for it to be shown. What will blow this case for the lady, though is from TFA itself:
Cohen said in the suit that she bought the game in late 2004 for her grandson when it was rated "M" for mature, for players 17 and older. According to the suit, she directed that it be taken away from her grandson, which was done.
She buys a "17yrs and older" game for a 14yr old and THEN directs it be taken away? Sounds fishy to me...seems she bought the game just to bring up this frivolous lawsuit at a later date.
Result: downgrade complete.
But they didn't, did they?
Yes, he had the _freedom_ to weigh the consequences of a non-compete clause effective for 6 months after termination or going to jail for perjury.
Yeah, a bird is going to fly into a screaming loud obnoxious object headed towards it in the sky.
The bad news is they can't come into re-entry with a flawed craft.
The good news is they saved a bunch by switching to Geico!
I'm from the same crowd of kids who played all these games and never killed anyone.
You and every other kid that wasn't on psychiatric drugs. Oh, yeah...the ones that did kill; they were.
I didn't turn into some psycho killer because of the games,
Nor did you turn into some psycho killer because you weren't taking psycho drugs, like the REAL shooters.
You didn't go on a killing spree because you weren't on a psychiatric drug (for some reason, missed by all these "reporters").
Actually, it's the blue collars that get the day off (steel workers, journeyman, manufacturers, etc). Retail workers are actually considered "white" collars because they provide a service.
Law Rule #1 in U.S.: You can sue anybody for anything for any reason.
After all, do you see people expecting to buy and use a car with zero training, no licence or maintenance?
Actually, yes...they take some test at 16 and seemingly forget the rules for the next 40 or more years (i can't attest to countries other than my own).
The good news I see out of this behaviour is the hand-me-downs will enable the poor to gain access as the auto has in its own way.
I wonder why it is cheaper to buy a new $400 PC than paying top rate of, say $100 per machine, to get someone to insert the recovery CD and get everything back to factory defaults.
Because they don't want you to see the porn they downloaded.
You are at a loss for words, I understand...so you resort to attacking my sig. :)
Mathematically, rounding is used, of course. Politically, there are those that offer less, yet doesn't add up; most accept the norm or middle of the road; and those that actually offer or produce more than expected. Each are compensated in their fashion. (yeah, I know...hokey, but i'm sure it'll change next week anyways.)
The practice of "check holding" was determined long before 9/11. Case in point is Washington Mutual's policy that the federal law "allows" them to hold ANY check up to eleven (11) BUSINESS days. This allowance they practice in full force until you've been a customer for longer than a year. Most (if not all) other banks realize it doesn't take 11 days anymore to verify funds and vary from three to five business days instead for new customers.
I do believe the "float" is derived from that fact that under the old law, it had to be "physically" delivered to the dispensing bank...and not just some local branch either (yeah, I know...you'd think), but rather it had to physically go back to the MAIN branch (usually back east) where the actual corporation of the bank was.
To elaborate; first, it would take one day for the check to be deposited in the store's local branch (the store being the place you bought something), then one day to get the physical check from there to the MAIN branch; and one more day to get it physically from there to the MAIN branch of the customer that signed the check. Once verified, the funds were then withdrawn. Then the reverse order for the funds to be added to the account of the person/store that was paid with the check.
Before the days of Fed-Ex and fast planes, however, it often took up to 2 full weeks for this to carry out in real-time from one coast to the next. Hence, WAMU's 11-day enforcement. Most (if not all) other banks have shorter policies because they honor the verification of funds rather than the 'letter of the law', but WAMU's policy is "because the law allows them 11 days per regulation" as told by a bank employee that kept pointing to their policy booklet and seemed shocked I should even ask such a silly question (at the time, I was trying to cash my payroll check and ended up just moving my business to another bank...screw them and their 11-day policy).
9/11 had nothing to do with the change. Rather, the accecptance of the electronic signature did. With that in place, the banks no longer have to wait for the physical check to arrive and verify. Now they can withdraw immediately and treat ALL signatures electronically.
I do agree with you that in this electronic age, deposits should be just as quick or at least shortened to 24-hour cycle for the verification of funds, but more than likely, I'll bet WAMU (and others) will gloss over that portion of the law as they have in previous decades so that they continue getting the benefit of earing interest for their junk (imho) bonds during the 'waiting' period.