Psst. This the United States of America. You don't have a choice as to if other American Citizens come into your town.
And that's not even paying attention to how many of us are already there. Even Utah, the most consistently "red" state of them all, has a substantial population of "blue."
Shows don't just get worse over time, as the authors cave to winey fanboys. They also get better, when the authors decide to tell a story and not try and game the ratings.
The ordinary understanding is that man causes global warming. If you want to refute this claim, you'll need to do more than stomp your feet and shout "no it's not!"
Come up with a link or a cite. your argument is worthless without it.
Be better off, because we can finally get rid of all the social bloat crap that those "blue" states ram down our throats!
Nope.
What will happen is that "blue" states will invade "red" states, and the politics will simply change. It happened in the 100 years after the civil war, and it will happen again. And again. And again.
(And remember: "Red" states, on average, get more federal dollars just thrown at them. Conversely, "blue" states tend to have a net loss from their federal taxes.)
So, why am I aggro about this topic? The reason is that people who drive to maximise their MPG, or who employ the ""intelligent"" braking described in this article, hold up traffic. This sort of driving **CAUSES** the congestion in the first place. If everybody accelerated briskly whenever they could (without crashing of course) then we would not have blocked arterials.
If everyone drove intelligently, we would have more efficient roads. Instead, we have asshats like you who decide that the road should drive on their requirement, which just causes more annoyance than anything else.
The Autobahn has situational speed limits to eliminate congestion. Slow down everyone 5 mph for ten miles before some congestion, and you won't have any congestion at all. A few years ago on the LIE, however, I had the pleasant experience of sitting through a TEN MILE spat of congestion, after some fifty miles of crazy-Long-Island speeding.
(And a modern car should turn its engine off when stopped -- meaning that the gas-per-second drops to zero.)
A fake ID is not an "illegal document", if such a thing even exists (very Orwellian). How that document is used is what constitutes a crime. There's nothing orwellian* about making something illegal on its face. Class A Drugs, for example, are illegal to have for any reason. Yes, even if they randomly grow as weeds in your very-large back yard. Medals of Honor and, in some countries, Nazi memorabilia are simply illegal. Firearms with their serial numbers filed off in the USA. Plutonium just about anywhere.
What would be "1984"ish* would be if you were not allowed to know what was illegal, if you were not allowed to dispose of an illegal substance as soon as you reasonably should have realized it was illegal, or if the government could declare something patently illegal without basing their law on one of the state's democratic realms of authority.
(Yes, Judges can and do throw out laws that are not in keeping with a legislature's constitutional authority. This is not judges making law; this is judges throwing out laws, which is fundamentally something different.)
(*: George Orwell wrote a good number of books OTHER than 1984, most of which got his point across in a far better manner. Hence the lowercasing of his name in the first instance, and the substitution of a more accurate term in the second.)
By the same retarded logic, the USA is really an empire conquered by the original Thirteen Colonies.
Given that none of the extant peoples or colonies are substantial forces anymore, save for Hawaii, that's actually about right.
The problem with joining the Roman Empire isn't that all of a sudden life will be terrible for the Jews. It's that, in a generation or two, the Jews will have all become Romans.
If you don't have copyright (or patent) to your code, I receive no consideration when I take your code and use it in my project. Once I have seen the code, I have all that I need. I can simply ignore what your contract says, state that I have been given nothing of value to compel me to release what I do in kind.
The day-to-day effect of OSS would be the same -- free as in beer software, because there's no law that keeps you from handing your buddy a DVD-R with every piece of software you own. Copyleft, however, would disappear.
(Remember that, if you nullified copyright today, it would apply to every OSS project in existence. MS could take Linux with impunity, Apple could (and would) give a big finger to BSD, and everyone from IBM to Dell would never pay another dollar to an out-of-house software developer ever again -- because they've already got all that they need.)
A friend showed me Vista in a VM (clean install). He logged in and instantly came up UAC.
Wait... the first launch of a Microsoft OS tried to do something that requires administrative privileges? Like, oh, setup devices? Or configure a network connection?
Call me shocked. Next think you'll know, Linux will require you to type in a password when you log in.
Vista, like most MS OSes, needs a full cycle or two to configure itself to its machine. I ran the beta for a few months on my laptop (it's inevitable that someone will ask me about it, so I it was worth the cost of "free" to learn.) Once everything's setup, UAC simply did not launch unless I installed something new.
The best thing about UAC is that it's user-agnostic; even if you're an admin, you still need to explictly grant it. Which means that you hardly have a reason to run as admin.
For the most part, the idea is that providing free counsel to anyone who wants it One of these days I'm going to remember to state my/. posts with the same anal nuance I'd need to in a law office.
You're correct. There is no right to counsel in a civil matter. If you can't afford an attorney, you may very well have to stand up and defend yourself. But then again, you might also if you're not poor, just cheap.
As I said, if there's no law against it, you can ask a judge to appoint an attorney for you. This attorney would likely not be a public defender, but rather a random attorney who needs to get his X hours of pro-bono work done. You might even get stuck with a bill (especially if you're suing someone, and you win.) I know there's precedent for it in NY, and an actual attorney (or even someone with a law library) could probably dig you up a few dozen principles.
If you find need to go to court, and genuinely cannot afford an attorney (not "the best attorney in town", but any warm body with the right credentials), and you can convince a judge that your case deserves to be heard in court, the judge may appoint an attorney for you. If you're accused of a crime, then SCOTUS says you deserve an attorney, and it's up to the local court to decide if you're poor enough to merit the expense of a public defender.
In any case, I have a hard time believing that a poor kid, whose computer and internet access exist only through the largess of others, and is suddenly facing a several-thousand-dollar-fee from a big and mighty conglomerate, won't be able to convince a judge to point to a lawyer and say "help this kid out."
(Of course, if you don't believe me, find time to speak to your next elected judge when they're running for office and ask them. Or call up your state's bar association. Or pay a lawyer for an authoritative statement of the law -- although that lawyer will probably point out that, all else being equal, you get a better lawyer if he's not working for you because the court told him to. Whatever you do, don't trust random people on the internet, or online legislative compendiums, for legal advice.)
Consider a part-time governing board (which is most, in my state). The board as a whole may have direct ability to hire/fire the department head, but not the staffers below the head. Monthly agendas, staff opinions, the quality of research, legal opinions, etc. are all influenced significantly by multiple people the elected official--as an individual--has no direct control over.
I think you just made NY seem sane.
Anyone who sets substantial policy in any level of NY government (we can have as many as four! Not counting the fed!) is either an elected official, an appointed public official, or under the direct supervision of an elected official. "Consultant" types in the legislature (like a fiscal analysist hired to study tax problems or whatever) would serve at the direction of a twice-elected official, the head of whatever committee he reports to.
Once you get beyond the nominal reach of the state's officers, down to where i work, the policies that get decided on are either implementations of whatever comes down from on-high (like "all tax contacts have to be color-blind") or beneath the care of the public official ("cut calls to busy if there are 300 already in queue". "Lunch is at 12:30 pm.")
Clarification -- it's "right to counsel." If you can pay, you have to pay. Even in a criminal case.
As for a cite, well, not at the moment. It's almost midnight, and work beckons in the morning. Send me a cite as to the "no right to counsel in WA" claim, and I'll find the comparable one in NY.
Sure you can. The Church tells you that you should repent, seek atonement, and all that crap, but the crap is their way of helping their followers to not sin again.
"Through faith alone are we saved" means that God-the-Word forgave our sins for no cause of our own at all. Admission, repentance, atonement, determination, flagellation, beautification, or anything else you care to try neither helps nor hinders God's forgiveness of your sins. At best, they keep you from sinning in the future, and they usually make the world a better place--but they do jack and shit when it comes to Jesus deciding that you can walk on the wages of your sins.
OTOH, being the kind of person who repents, seeks to make amends, and does the good and right thing without the Church wagging its ecumenical finger at you likely makes you the kind of guy who "gets it", and will get tagged by the Messiah in that eternal game of "who's on my team" we're all going to face.
Who is "us" and how do you know that most of them are Christians?
I understand statistics.
Most Americans are Christian. Most/.'ers are American. Therefore, absent any data to the contrary, we can conclude that most/.'ers are Christian.
There is a tilt to the left, white, and dorky here -- but as none of those have a strong correlation to "non-Christian", well, it doesn't help your case much.
Those power plants are still creating the same amount of waste
Basic high school physics time: energy not used from the grid remains on the grid, and typically causes generators to produce less because demand is lower, which means less mercury used.
The same thing happens, btw, when you, oh, plug in a few heavy-draw devices into your car's electrical system. (A DVD -playing laptop, an electric cooler, and, oh, an electric heater). Your alternator will draw more power, causing more fuel to be spent, lowering your fuel effeciency. If you don't have special equipment, you won't likely notice it. But the effect is still there.
I don't have the 2007 version, but to the ribbons still work with any of the key mappings most of us are used to?
yes.
If you open up Word 2007 and hit "alt + V", the View tab will show up, with a keyboard shortcut for every command you see in front of you.
The only downside to the Ribbon is the learning curve for customizing it: you need to essentially create a plugin, instead of just dragging a few icons to how you want them.
Darth Vader did something at the end to earn our forgiveness. As far as I can tell, Jack Valenti didn't kill the Emperor. Most of us are Christians. We are forgiven our sins against our creator for no reason at all.
Rest in peace, Jack Valenti. May you find wisdom in heaven that seemed so lacking in your life on earth.
You have no clue how the system works. People DO NOT GET FREE ATTORNEYS FOR CIVIL SUITES. At least in NY, you do. Where are you that you don't, and where did you learn that?
You don't get court provided attorneys for civil matters, which is what a lawsuit is.
Yes, you do. You go to court, tell the judge "I can't afford an attorney", and one is appointed for you. You can even have one appointed when you FILE a case, let alone have to defend against one.
(Note that this is as it works in NY. Your redneck state might be different -- but unless they've passed a law against it, you can always go to a judge and plead for a civil implementation of Miranda.)
a) the elected official is often not the staffer's employer...
Any elected official that allows policy descions to be made in their office by a civil servant should be impeached. We're good for a lot of things, but we shouldn't be doing a legislator's work for them. "Aides" should be just like the heads of gov't offices -- appointed by an elected official and serving at his pleasure.
What is there to appeal against? "The patents system is fucking retarded and you should throw the case out on principle"? No. Both the structure of Congress, our electoral system, and the absurd extremes of the 1st and 2nd amendment prove that "fucking retarted" doesn't disqualify a law.
I'd go with the simple "that patent is invalid" argument, and if that doesn't work a "they're a monopoly and should be made to license that patent for a court-determined cost" argument.
The first vehicles were made to last longer, vehicles today have maybe a tenth of the lifespan
You know of a time when cars were designed to run for one million miles or fifty years, whichever came first?
The first cars, mass-produced or not, broke down ALL THE TIME. If they seemed to last longer, it's because (1) people didn't drive nearly as much as they do today, and (2) they were constantly maintaining them.
Quality is so high that discussing it is meaningless.
The mark of a true snob -- thinking that personal preference equates to quality.
Europeans don't like American chocolate. Fine. Most Americans don't really like European chocolate, beer, or most European food; why do you think everything from coffee to pasta is done differently?
But, unless you're talking about the original spiced aztec drink, don't pull any shit about "real chocolate." You're just talking out your ass and displaying your bias for the whole world to see.
Slashdot Mirror
Psst. This the United States of America. You don't have a choice as to if other American Citizens come into your town.
And that's not even paying attention to how many of us are already there. Even Utah, the most consistently "red" state of them all, has a substantial population of "blue."
Hey, dork:
Shows don't just get worse over time, as the authors cave to winey fanboys. They also get better, when the authors decide to tell a story and not try and game the ratings.
If the general sort of size of any coin was what was intended, then he should have put "coin", not "nickel".
Nobody says "coin" colloquially anymore. They pick a random coin, and use that instead.
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The ordinary understanding is that man causes global warming. If you want to refute this claim, you'll need to do more than stomp your feet and shout "no it's not!"
Come up with a link or a cite. your argument is worthless without it.
Be better off, because we can finally get rid of all the social bloat crap that those "blue" states ram down our throats!
Nope.
What will happen is that "blue" states will invade "red" states, and the politics will simply change. It happened in the 100 years after the civil war, and it will happen again. And again. And again.
(And remember: "Red" states, on average, get more federal dollars just thrown at them. Conversely, "blue" states tend to have a net loss from their federal taxes.)
So, why am I aggro about this topic? The reason is that people who drive to maximise their MPG, or who employ the ""intelligent"" braking described in this article, hold up traffic. This sort of driving **CAUSES** the congestion in the first place. If everybody accelerated briskly whenever they could (without crashing of course) then we would not have blocked arterials.
If everyone drove intelligently, we would have more efficient roads. Instead, we have asshats like you who decide that the road should drive on their requirement, which just causes more annoyance than anything else.
The Autobahn has situational speed limits to eliminate congestion. Slow down everyone 5 mph for ten miles before some congestion, and you won't have any congestion at all. A few years ago on the LIE, however, I had the pleasant experience of sitting through a TEN MILE spat of congestion, after some fifty miles of crazy-Long-Island speeding.
(And a modern car should turn its engine off when stopped -- meaning that the gas-per-second drops to zero.)
What would be "1984"ish* would be if you were not allowed to know what was illegal, if you were not allowed to dispose of an illegal substance as soon as you reasonably should have realized it was illegal, or if the government could declare something patently illegal without basing their law on one of the state's democratic realms of authority.
(Yes, Judges can and do throw out laws that are not in keeping with a legislature's constitutional authority. This is not judges making law; this is judges throwing out laws, which is fundamentally something different.)
(*: George Orwell wrote a good number of books OTHER than 1984, most of which got his point across in a far better manner. Hence the lowercasing of his name in the first instance, and the substitution of a more accurate term in the second.)
By the same retarded logic, the USA is really an empire conquered by the original Thirteen Colonies.
Given that none of the extant peoples or colonies are substantial forces anymore, save for Hawaii, that's actually about right.
The problem with joining the Roman Empire isn't that all of a sudden life will be terrible for the Jews. It's that, in a generation or two, the Jews will have all become Romans.
Open source without copyright law.
No, not really.
If you don't have copyright (or patent) to your code, I receive no consideration when I take your code and use it in my project. Once I have seen the code, I have all that I need. I can simply ignore what your contract says, state that I have been given nothing of value to compel me to release what I do in kind.
The day-to-day effect of OSS would be the same -- free as in beer software, because there's no law that keeps you from handing your buddy a DVD-R with every piece of software you own. Copyleft, however, would disappear.
(Remember that, if you nullified copyright today, it would apply to every OSS project in existence. MS could take Linux with impunity, Apple could (and would) give a big finger to BSD, and everyone from IBM to Dell would never pay another dollar to an out-of-house software developer ever again -- because they've already got all that they need.)
A friend showed me Vista in a VM (clean install). He logged in and instantly came up UAC.
Wait... the first launch of a Microsoft OS tried to do something that requires administrative privileges? Like, oh, setup devices? Or configure a network connection?
Call me shocked. Next think you'll know, Linux will require you to type in a password when you log in.
Vista, like most MS OSes, needs a full cycle or two to configure itself to its machine. I ran the beta for a few months on my laptop (it's inevitable that someone will ask me about it, so I it was worth the cost of "free" to learn.) Once everything's setup, UAC simply did not launch unless I installed something new.
The best thing about UAC is that it's user-agnostic; even if you're an admin, you still need to explictly grant it. Which means that you hardly have a reason to run as admin.
You're correct. There is no right to counsel in a civil matter. If you can't afford an attorney, you may very well have to stand up and defend yourself. But then again, you might also if you're not poor, just cheap.
As I said, if there's no law against it, you can ask a judge to appoint an attorney for you. This attorney would likely not be a public defender, but rather a random attorney who needs to get his X hours of pro-bono work done. You might even get stuck with a bill (especially if you're suing someone, and you win.) I know there's precedent for it in NY, and an actual attorney (or even someone with a law library) could probably dig you up a few dozen principles.
If you find need to go to court, and genuinely cannot afford an attorney (not "the best attorney in town", but any warm body with the right credentials), and you can convince a judge that your case deserves to be heard in court, the judge may appoint an attorney for you. If you're accused of a crime, then SCOTUS says you deserve an attorney, and it's up to the local court to decide if you're poor enough to merit the expense of a public defender.
In any case, I have a hard time believing that a poor kid, whose computer and internet access exist only through the largess of others, and is suddenly facing a several-thousand-dollar-fee from a big and mighty conglomerate, won't be able to convince a judge to point to a lawyer and say "help this kid out."
(Of course, if you don't believe me, find time to speak to your next elected judge when they're running for office and ask them. Or call up your state's bar association. Or pay a lawyer for an authoritative statement of the law -- although that lawyer will probably point out that, all else being equal, you get a better lawyer if he's not working for you because the court told him to. Whatever you do, don't trust random people on the internet, or online legislative compendiums, for legal advice.)
Consider a part-time governing board (which is most, in my state). The board as a whole may have direct ability to hire/fire the department head, but not the staffers below the head. Monthly agendas, staff opinions, the quality of research, legal opinions, etc. are all influenced significantly by multiple people the elected official--as an individual--has no direct control over.
I think you just made NY seem sane.
Anyone who sets substantial policy in any level of NY government (we can have as many as four! Not counting the fed!) is either an elected official, an appointed public official, or under the direct supervision of an elected official. "Consultant" types in the legislature (like a fiscal analysist hired to study tax problems or whatever) would serve at the direction of a twice-elected official, the head of whatever committee he reports to.
Once you get beyond the nominal reach of the state's officers, down to where i work, the policies that get decided on are either implementations of whatever comes down from on-high (like "all tax contacts have to be color-blind") or beneath the care of the public official ("cut calls to busy if there are 300 already in queue". "Lunch is at 12:30 pm.")
no right to free counsel...
Clarification -- it's "right to counsel." If you can pay, you have to pay. Even in a criminal case.
As for a cite, well, not at the moment. It's almost midnight, and work beckons in the morning. Send me a cite as to the "no right to counsel in WA" claim, and I'll find the comparable one in NY.
You can't just absolve someone, for no reason.
Sure you can. The Church tells you that you should repent, seek atonement, and all that crap, but the crap is their way of helping their followers to not sin again.
"Through faith alone are we saved" means that God-the-Word forgave our sins for no cause of our own at all. Admission, repentance, atonement, determination, flagellation, beautification, or anything else you care to try neither helps nor hinders God's forgiveness of your sins. At best, they keep you from sinning in the future, and they usually make the world a better place--but they do jack and shit when it comes to Jesus deciding that you can walk on the wages of your sins.
OTOH, being the kind of person who repents, seeks to make amends, and does the good and right thing without the Church wagging its ecumenical finger at you likely makes you the kind of guy who "gets it", and will get tagged by the Messiah in that eternal game of "who's on my team" we're all going to face.
/. is an American site. Or haven't you noticed the Politics Section, or the "Your Rights Online" section?
/. is an English site. I'd wager that if you extend "American" to "native-English-speaker", you'd get much the same bias towards Christianity.
Heck,
Who is "us" and how do you know that most of them are Christians?
/.'ers are American. Therefore, absent any data to the contrary, we can conclude that most /.'ers are Christian.
I understand statistics.
Most Americans are Christian. Most
There is a tilt to the left, white, and dorky here -- but as none of those have a strong correlation to "non-Christian", well, it doesn't help your case much.
Those power plants are still creating the same amount of waste
Basic high school physics time: energy not used from the grid remains on the grid, and typically causes generators to produce less because demand is lower, which means less mercury used.
The same thing happens, btw, when you, oh, plug in a few heavy-draw devices into your car's electrical system. (A DVD -playing laptop, an electric cooler, and, oh, an electric heater). Your alternator will draw more power, causing more fuel to be spent, lowering your fuel effeciency. If you don't have special equipment, you won't likely notice it. But the effect is still there.
I don't have the 2007 version, but to the ribbons still work with any of the key mappings most of us are used to?
yes.
If you open up Word 2007 and hit "alt + V", the View tab will show up, with a keyboard shortcut for every command you see in front of you.
The only downside to the Ribbon is the learning curve for customizing it: you need to essentially create a plugin, instead of just dragging a few icons to how you want them.
Rest in peace, Jack Valenti. May you find wisdom in heaven that seemed so lacking in your life on earth.
You don't get court provided attorneys for civil matters, which is what a lawsuit is.
Yes, you do. You go to court, tell the judge "I can't afford an attorney", and one is appointed for you. You can even have one appointed when you FILE a case, let alone have to defend against one.
(Note that this is as it works in NY. Your redneck state might be different -- but unless they've passed a law against it, you can always go to a judge and plead for a civil implementation of Miranda.)
a) the elected official is often not the staffer's employer...
Any elected official that allows policy descions to be made in their office by a civil servant should be impeached. We're good for a lot of things, but we shouldn't be doing a legislator's work for them. "Aides" should be just like the heads of gov't offices -- appointed by an elected official and serving at his pleasure.
I'd go with the simple "that patent is invalid" argument, and if that doesn't work a "they're a monopoly and should be made to license that patent for a court-determined cost" argument.
The first vehicles were made to last longer, vehicles today have maybe a tenth of the lifespan
You know of a time when cars were designed to run for one million miles or fifty years, whichever came first?
The first cars, mass-produced or not, broke down ALL THE TIME. If they seemed to last longer, it's because (1) people didn't drive nearly as much as they do today, and (2) they were constantly maintaining them.
Quality is so high that discussing it is meaningless.
The mark of a true snob -- thinking that personal preference equates to quality.
Europeans don't like American chocolate. Fine. Most Americans don't really like European chocolate, beer, or most European food; why do you think everything from coffee to pasta is done differently?
But, unless you're talking about the original spiced aztec drink, don't pull any shit about "real chocolate." You're just talking out your ass and displaying your bias for the whole world to see.