Now why not just explain the issue in its response?
Tunisia is a small Islamic republic, the nothernmost country in Africa. Its population is smaller than that of the US state that I grew up in, Pennsylvania.
I'm not Islamic (or religious). I live in a big city, but the terrersts ain't gonna come here. To show a little US bigotry, why the hell should I care? "Up next: Poor people pissed off at Government."
I am being completely serious here, not being bigoted. You cannot expect the entire world to be up-to-date on some little date republic's problem. Hell, they're even running out of colors to call the various "Revolutions" over there - we're on jasmine now.
wait, is this really all they're tryin to prove? I'll admit, I pulled a non-RTFA, but shit, I've known for years that peripheral vision was not great at discerning detail. I've done degree tests, and while I can detect items slightly beyond the 180 degree plane, I have no clue what they are. If that's their point, this is first-year psychology shit. The center of human vision is accurate yet less sensitive to movement, and the peripherals are vice versa. That appears to be the way things should be, an object coming up out of direct view SHOULD be easily detected as movement, detail is not necessary. Conversely, in the center of vision, detail is more important that sensation of movement, which can be easily extrapolated.
And, in the case of mine, have the code out of the RFID chip in my key.
Seriously. I had a remote start on a 1994 car that was more secure than this! Sure, you might start and unlock the car by guessing the shitty rolling code, but touch ANYTHING in it except the heat, radio, or ignition without turning the key to on, the car dies and panics.
They already have honeypot, or, as they call them, bait cars. They'll drive the bait car into a bad neighborhood where car thefts are regular, and cause some sort of scene, such as a husband and wife fighting. They both depart the car (say, husband chasing after wife), while leaving the car running. Dumbass car thief sees the chance, grabs the car, gets a few blocks down the road until *blip* all the doors lock and the engine goes into limp mode, all while taping the thief in the car. Thief. Busted.
I do, however, like your idea better. Usually the thief fucks the car all up in the process of trying to escape. Never figured out why one didn't use a screwdriver (all car thiefs have a screwdriver to break the ignition lock, right??) to smash out the window and run. Then again, that wouldn't make for a good COPS episode.
Shit, mcgrew, you're easily my favorite/.'er. You bring a great flair of, well, fucking reality here. But I gotta call ya wrong on this one. While I quite heartily agree that a dog easily outdoes a human on hearing and sound, I think my ver was still correct.
You see, here's why I believe that damn vet - he meant facial nerves, not cranial ones. I'm surrounded by animals (I'm a country bumpkin), but there's only two that ever "get" a person: horses and dogs. A horse is right at eye level with a person, and that's what they follow. A dog, on the other hand, has that great advantage of sight and sound. They do, as you posit, rely greatly on that fact.
But dogs (and horses alike) watch you. Sight bad or not (horses aren't that hot either, and I got a mostly blind Missouri Foxtrot that'll prove it), they know to watch faces. Dogs, for social animals, are very limited in vocal language. A cat has more "phonemes" than a dog, and they couldn't give a fuck what anyone else is doing around them - they don't really talk to other cats.
Maybe my pooch is an exception to the rule, but this guy watches people. I can take this guy to a park, and watch him stare down a shady gangbanger way before I even get a funny feeling. He's watching their face, their movements. He learned something on the street that I never did. And to just look at the pup, he's got a face as expressive as any human.
I completely agree that this pound mutt can smell the fear on ya, but there's something else that he's got too. I'm a firm believer in Karma. Perhaps he's a benevolent FBI profiler that got demoted in the rebirth.
As an aside, man, love the wit of your journal. I'm young, but I remember the days when K5 was a place of, well, "enlightenment" of sorts. Quite fun to read your tales here and remember the, to me anyway, days of a different 'net. Three cheers, dude.
Sounds about right. If you wanted an entity with which I would compare him, you nailed it. He is, to be honest, slightly better. He doesn't say he's out to protect the innocent email user, he's quite honest that he's out to make money.
He's on my list of moral shitheads, but much farther down than the **AA crowd.
My dog knows the difference between someone scared of him and a threat to me (or, for that matter, anyone with me). He's a HUGE, 130lb german shepherd and rottweiler mix. I got him from the pound, who found him as a stray. I guess he must have figured out how to approach people who were scared of him in order to get some chow or something, because he sure tries hard to be everyone's friend. Now, if a person is being shifty, etc. not because of fear of him but something else? He seems to know that too.
I was told by a vet back in the day that A. a dog has more nerve endings in their face than a human, and (this one is obvious) B. dogs instinctually read human faces. Of course, this doesn't mean that a human could train a dog to do such a feat as good as mine - it was a survival trick for him. This dog is a ladies man if there ever was one in the dog world.
While I'll agree that only bad guys can be hurt, he's not hurting them enough. I don't think he even cares to end the spam, just make a quick buck off of it.
It's morally wrong because he's being no greater than your average RIAA shill. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but he's not suing these companies to make them stop, he's suing them to get them to settle (so, among other things, a judge can't order them to stop).
He's scummy because he doesn't do a damn thing. He sets up honeypots, and then sues the spammers, hoping they settle. It's like the pigs buying up a crackhouse and busting everyone that comes in, but never finding the dealer. Legally right? Yes. Morally? No. Only scum go after the low-hanging fruit.
Any Joe Sixpack moron can go file a lawsuit at small claims court. If he was really interested in making a change, he wouldn't be taking the settlements, he'd be dragging them all through the coals. Instead, he's just a money grabbing slimeball.
Hell, he was just some two-bit marketing droid before he thought "oh kool, getting default judgements is fun, I'll go make myself a loyuh!"
Fuck him. Maybe I'd be OK with him if he was working pro bono to help 419 scam victims or something, but right now, he's just as bad as the assholes on TV that advertise class action lawsuits
Let me make the argument another way. Say someone is going on Fox News with a Ford advertisement that states known slashdot celebrity slyguy135 thinks the Ford Pinto is just GREAT. no gas tank problems! However, you never endorsed them (dick). Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is common law intended to prevent such things.
OK, I coulda done better, but I'm only on my fourth glass of whiskey.
Try a bar exam. Or, if you're not professionally inclined, try a few background checks. Hope ya kept a few hundred bucks of your senior year party money. --Broke law student.
Oh, and that fuckin' bar exam only lets you practice in ONE state. Good luck getting a "license by motion" anywhere til you're 40.
I concur. On that shoestring budget, I was able to wing it without the books. They're on course reserve anyway. On the other hand, when a prof requires.DOCX or.PPTX and OpenOffice makes files that render as garbage in MS Office, welp, I'm gonna "photocopy" Office, then.
Ugh, I know I'm late on the reply, but I was out of town!
I will agree with you and the many others that agree that 180F is far too hot to serve a beverage that, at McDonald's, is served in a flimsy cup, and (was, they now add them) handed to the customer in a car. In fact, I'm one of those boneheads, having never owned a car with proper cupholders, that holds cups between the legs. And I drive stick.
However, courts since the Stella case have, on appeal, conceded that 180F is the proper temperature at which coffee is to be served. The National Coffee Association of the USA, Inc. indicates that coffee should be brewed with water in the range of 195-205 degrees for proper extraction, and should be served immediately. If it is not, it should be served within a temperature range of 180-185F. See their website.
As per your link, Stella and McDonald's ended up settling out of court. What the link does not indicate is that McDonald's had already begun the appeals process, and the parties settled out of court to end the appeal. It does seem odd that they left that fact out, otherwise, why would Stella have taken a settlement deal after she already had a jury verdict?
I have not intensely researched the subject, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a coffee maker manufacturer was not liable for burns suffered by consumers of the machine's product. Here is the link to that. The first half is jurisdictional nonsense, the meat starts about halfway down.
The Court here didn't even use the National Coffee Association's recommended temperatures (because neither side of the case presented any sort of evidence about the proper temperature), but the Court did their own homework and came up with ANSI CM-1-1986, Standard 5.2.1 that says 170-205F, 2 minutes after brewing is the standard. Standard 5.2.3.2 states that the brew shall not be allowed to go beneath 170F while the carafe heater is still on.
Ugh, the worst offender I've ever seen is the US Postal Service. I dunno how it is now, but at the time, my password had to be EXACTLY EIGHT characters and had to contain EXACTLY ONE capital letter and number, respectively.
Of course, at sign up, the form just discarded any letter over 8 chars and any capital or numbers after the first entered. WTF,man?
I agree. Not much you can do with used motor oil. I remember back in the day when they didn't collect the stuff. I was young, and emptied a lawn mower's oil into a corner of the back yard, and that damn patch didn't grow grass for YEARS.
Slashdot Mirror
Now why not just explain the issue in its response?
Tunisia is a small Islamic republic, the nothernmost country in Africa. Its population is smaller than that of the US state that I grew up in, Pennsylvania.
I'm not Islamic (or religious). I live in a big city, but the terrersts ain't gonna come here. To show a little US bigotry, why the hell should I care? "Up next: Poor people pissed off at Government."
I am being completely serious here, not being bigoted. You cannot expect the entire world to be up-to-date on some little date republic's problem. Hell, they're even running out of colors to call the various "Revolutions" over there - we're on jasmine now.
Huh? Courts are not free. Even (most of the time) when the judge says you're right.
wait, is this really all they're tryin to prove? I'll admit, I pulled a non-RTFA, but shit, I've known for years that peripheral vision was not great at discerning detail. I've done degree tests, and while I can detect items slightly beyond the 180 degree plane, I have no clue what they are. If that's their point, this is first-year psychology shit. The center of human vision is accurate yet less sensitive to movement, and the peripherals are vice versa. That appears to be the way things should be, an object coming up out of direct view SHOULD be easily detected as movement, detail is not necessary. Conversely, in the center of vision, detail is more important that sensation of movement, which can be easily extrapolated.
And, in the case of mine, have the code out of the RFID chip in my key.
Seriously. I had a remote start on a 1994 car that was more secure than this! Sure, you might start and unlock the car by guessing the shitty rolling code, but touch ANYTHING in it except the heat, radio, or ignition without turning the key to on, the car dies and panics.
Fuck that pushbutton shit. I'll take a key.
They already have honeypot, or, as they call them, bait cars. They'll drive the bait car into a bad neighborhood where car thefts are regular, and cause some sort of scene, such as a husband and wife fighting. They both depart the car (say, husband chasing after wife), while leaving the car running. Dumbass car thief sees the chance, grabs the car, gets a few blocks down the road until *blip* all the doors lock and the engine goes into limp mode, all while taping the thief in the car. Thief. Busted.
I do, however, like your idea better. Usually the thief fucks the car all up in the process of trying to escape. Never figured out why one didn't use a screwdriver (all car thiefs have a screwdriver to break the ignition lock, right??) to smash out the window and run. Then again, that wouldn't make for a good COPS episode.
Shit, mcgrew, you're easily my favorite /.'er. You bring a great flair of, well, fucking reality here. But I gotta call ya wrong on this one. While I quite heartily agree that a dog easily outdoes a human on hearing and sound, I think my ver was still correct.
You see, here's why I believe that damn vet - he meant facial nerves, not cranial ones. I'm surrounded by animals (I'm a country bumpkin), but there's only two that ever "get" a person: horses and dogs. A horse is right at eye level with a person, and that's what they follow. A dog, on the other hand, has that great advantage of sight and sound. They do, as you posit, rely greatly on that fact.
But dogs (and horses alike) watch you. Sight bad or not (horses aren't that hot either, and I got a mostly blind Missouri Foxtrot that'll prove it), they know to watch faces. Dogs, for social animals, are very limited in vocal language. A cat has more "phonemes" than a dog, and they couldn't give a fuck what anyone else is doing around them - they don't really talk to other cats.
Maybe my pooch is an exception to the rule, but this guy watches people. I can take this guy to a park, and watch him stare down a shady gangbanger way before I even get a funny feeling. He's watching their face, their movements. He learned something on the street that I never did. And to just look at the pup, he's got a face as expressive as any human.
I completely agree that this pound mutt can smell the fear on ya, but there's something else that he's got too. I'm a firm believer in Karma. Perhaps he's a benevolent FBI profiler that got demoted in the rebirth.
As an aside, man, love the wit of your journal. I'm young, but I remember the days when K5 was a place of, well, "enlightenment" of sorts. Quite fun to read your tales here and remember the, to me anyway, days of a different 'net. Three cheers, dude.
Sounds about right. If you wanted an entity with which I would compare him, you nailed it. He is, to be honest, slightly better. He doesn't say he's out to protect the innocent email user, he's quite honest that he's out to make money.
He's on my list of moral shitheads, but much farther down than the **AA crowd.
My dog knows the difference between someone scared of him and a threat to me (or, for that matter, anyone with me). He's a HUGE, 130lb german shepherd and rottweiler mix. I got him from the pound, who found him as a stray. I guess he must have figured out how to approach people who were scared of him in order to get some chow or something, because he sure tries hard to be everyone's friend. Now, if a person is being shifty, etc. not because of fear of him but something else? He seems to know that too.
I was told by a vet back in the day that A. a dog has more nerve endings in their face than a human, and (this one is obvious) B. dogs instinctually read human faces. Of course, this doesn't mean that a human could train a dog to do such a feat as good as mine - it was a survival trick for him. This dog is a ladies man if there ever was one in the dog world.
While I'll agree that only bad guys can be hurt, he's not hurting them enough. I don't think he even cares to end the spam, just make a quick buck off of it.
It's morally wrong because he's being no greater than your average RIAA shill. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but he's not suing these companies to make them stop, he's suing them to get them to settle (so, among other things, a judge can't order them to stop).
He's scummy because he doesn't do a damn thing. He sets up honeypots, and then sues the spammers, hoping they settle. It's like the pigs buying up a crackhouse and busting everyone that comes in, but never finding the dealer. Legally right? Yes. Morally? No. Only scum go after the low-hanging fruit.
Any Joe Sixpack moron can go file a lawsuit at small claims court. If he was really interested in making a change, he wouldn't be taking the settlements, he'd be dragging them all through the coals. Instead, he's just a money grabbing slimeball.
Hell, he was just some two-bit marketing droid before he thought "oh kool, getting default judgements is fun, I'll go make myself a loyuh!"
Fuck him. Maybe I'd be OK with him if he was working pro bono to help 419 scam victims or something, but right now, he's just as bad as the assholes on TV that advertise class action lawsuits
Why thank you, slyguy.
Let me make the argument another way. Say someone is going on Fox News with a Ford advertisement that states known slashdot celebrity slyguy135 thinks the Ford Pinto is just GREAT. no gas tank problems! However, you never endorsed them (dick). Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is common law intended to prevent such things.
OK, I coulda done better, but I'm only on my fourth glass of whiskey.
With ya there, dude. I'm 24, live in the middle of farmville USA, and $30/week would feed me to survive, but NOT good enough to be studying.
WTF is that guy eating?!
Try a bar exam. Or, if you're not professionally inclined, try a few background checks. Hope ya kept a few hundred bucks of your senior year party money. --Broke law student.
Oh, and that fuckin' bar exam only lets you practice in ONE state. Good luck getting a "license by motion" anywhere til you're 40.
I concur. On that shoestring budget, I was able to wing it without the books. They're on course reserve anyway. On the other hand, when a prof requires .DOCX or .PPTX and OpenOffice makes files that render as garbage in MS Office, welp, I'm gonna "photocopy" Office, then.
Ugh, I know I'm late on the reply, but I was out of town!
I will agree with you and the many others that agree that 180F is far too hot to serve a beverage that, at McDonald's, is served in a flimsy cup, and (was, they now add them) handed to the customer in a car. In fact, I'm one of those boneheads, having never owned a car with proper cupholders, that holds cups between the legs. And I drive stick.
However, courts since the Stella case have, on appeal, conceded that 180F is the proper temperature at which coffee is to be served. The National Coffee Association of the USA, Inc. indicates that coffee should be brewed with water in the range of 195-205 degrees for proper extraction, and should be served immediately. If it is not, it should be served within a temperature range of 180-185F. See their website.
As per your link, Stella and McDonald's ended up settling out of court. What the link does not indicate is that McDonald's had already begun the appeals process, and the parties settled out of court to end the appeal. It does seem odd that they left that fact out, otherwise, why would Stella have taken a settlement deal after she already had a jury verdict?
I have not intensely researched the subject, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a coffee maker manufacturer was not liable for burns suffered by consumers of the machine's product. Here is the link to that. The first half is jurisdictional nonsense, the meat starts about halfway down.
The Court here didn't even use the National Coffee Association's recommended temperatures (because neither side of the case presented any sort of evidence about the proper temperature), but the Court did their own homework and came up with ANSI CM-1-1986, Standard 5.2.1 that says 170-205F, 2 minutes after brewing is the standard. Standard 5.2.3.2 states that the brew shall not be allowed to go beneath 170F while the carafe heater is still on.
If I recall correctly, the temperature was quite fine. Coffee brewed correctly will cause burns when just removed from the pot.
Ugh, the worst offender I've ever seen is the US Postal Service. I dunno how it is now, but at the time, my password had to be EXACTLY EIGHT characters and had to contain EXACTLY ONE capital letter and number, respectively.
Of course, at sign up, the form just discarded any letter over 8 chars and any capital or numbers after the first entered. WTF,man?
I agree. Not much you can do with used motor oil. I remember back in the day when they didn't collect the stuff. I was young, and emptied a lawn mower's oil into a corner of the back yard, and that damn patch didn't grow grass for YEARS.
Jesus, lets hope this never happens on /. with something like "ough"...
You do have a right to drive.... just not on a public right of way.
Back in the day, make -j4 world used to keep my apartment warm at night, slowly putting me to sleep with das blinkenlights..... ahh, memories.
Wow!
I always wanted to do that on my old t-bird, had even started saving money for some LCD panels. But I like my good ol analog gauges better!
Ever driven in a white-out?
Those bastards in the semis are PASSING because with 30 tons, they don't blow off the mostly-frozen road with a little gust of wind.
You mean to say that it is bad to ever pay for/charge for art?
Fuck, I better get the sandpaper and pulse laser out...