Never said it wasn't overkill, only that it's fairly straightforward, free, and provides the same functionality (and more). Considering a lot of individuals and businesses have used LogMeIn for remote management and support, it seemed to be worth a mention to me; by all means, feel free to ignore!:)
Yeah, I get what you're saying. My point falls more along the lines of, if you lower the limit from what has been the accepted standard, you're going to end up with a lot of people falling between the new and old limits getting arrested...without a proportionate increase in safety. I get the feeling people aren't going to simply stop having that second bottle of beer with dinner because the percentage rate dropped by.03; at least not until their friends and family who were always responsible drinkers before the change start running afoul of it. Then again, I guess there's always a "user education" period...
Ultimately, I'm just always wary when the law makes it easier and easier to be a lawbreaker. I'd hate for people who legitimately exercise responsible drinking to inadvertently find themselves in trouble.
All this will result in is more arrests. The average Joe isn't going to know the difference between.08% and.05%; the only result will be a larger probability in jail time for someone who would otherwise be considered fine to drive today. If we're going to change the numbers in this manner, why not just make it 0% and at least be clear about the message: Drink at all, and you'd better be willing to not drive for a couple of hours.
I wonder if a workaround for this technicality would be for services to offer to "buy" your phone, they unlock it, and subsequently offer your previous phone for sale to you. So long as money changes hands in the right order, would this be classified as legal despite violating the spirit of the law?
As an IT administrator at a large public university, I can say with absolute truthfulness that it is still the case that public [state] professionals are largely underpaid in comparison to their private-sector peers. As stated, we get great benefits, [usually] more holidays, and don't get laid off with little notice; that's the trade-off, and we know that going in.
However, we usually get annoyed when the agreed-upon terms of our employment are changed after the fact. Here in Florida, state employees were previously not required to contribute to their pensions; the current governor disagreed with this particular benefit and successfully pushed for this to be changed. At this point, we get back to the concept of promises; when I was hired, it was at a lower wage on the condition that the lower salary is offset by not contributing to my pension plan (among other things). If the government wants to save money by forcing contribution, that's fine so long as this new aspect of the terms of employment is enforced on new hires from the date this law was passed. This is not the case, and that's why the law is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, it can be said that if people are so offended by this ex post facto law, they can find employment in the private sector and take a higher wage. I completely agree; while I hope the law is struck, it's not a "deal breaker" for me given the value I receive from other benefits that the state is choosing to still honor. Still, on principal, the terms of an agreement should be honored and not changed without due process, bargaining, etc., and that's what is at issue here.
Unfortunately, security isn't that big of a deal to Apple...yet. With the increase in market penetration the bulls-eye on Macs is getting larger and a lot more tempting; hopefully they realize this before something very serious happens and take steps to bolster their in-house security research (or hell, outsource it).
Those are mostly (if not completely) social issues. Some of us Republicans feel we should respect the rights of our fellow human beings, live and let live, while also feeling that Big Government is a bad idea and fiscal conservatism is good. Not everyone that identifies with either major political party is intently "Black or White" in their ideas; in fact, I'd say those who don't identify themselves as being in the "Grey" are the people you need to worry about on both sides.
Yes, the first amendment should protect someone from saying that. It's when the money exchanges hands and the deal is actually struck that you have someone acting criminally.
It's not so much that clients are specifically avoiding Blackboard; schools and such are vastly under-funded, and given the choice between competent free software with smaller support costs and a proprietary LMS, why pay the premium? My university has been steadily moving courses from Blackboard to Moodle for that reason specifically.
So long as the services and prices of these companies remain the same, I don't think clients are going to care who the owner is.
Not even. I'm sure eventually people will just start using URL shortening services to post links (if it becomes a larger problem of censorship, perhaps TPB will start generating them itself for users to share).
Terabyte drives (or close to them) are practically a standard in new desktops. It would have been much more practical to lower the absurdly-high 16 GB of RAM (c'mon, does it need more than 8 as the baseline?) and use the cost savings there to beef up on storage, either through more space available or SSDs.
You could very well ask them why they prefer a competitor's products; I'd encourage anyone in this situation (including Microsoft) to do so. There's a huge difference, however, between allowing employees to bring in their personal Macs for work purposes and allowing employees to use your hardware refresh funding or hardware stipends on an excessively expensive competitor's product. The whole situation regarding banning iPods was ridiculous, and they were rightly mocked for doing so. Still, this scenario is about what Microsoft allows to be done with its own money, and I can't particularly demonize them for making this choice.
If Apple were a competitor to my products, I'd absolutely prevent employees from using company funds to purchase Macs. If we're a BYOD shop, with devices purchased with private money, then no problem...but I'm not helping out a rival, especially given the cost of Apple's hardware.
I do find it kind of interesting that they've waited this long to blatantly say it, though. Perhaps they're now starting to see Apple as a more viable competitor to their interests?
I can't disagree with the fact that men usually get the short end of the stick regarding divorce and child-related proceedings. Still, the issue here IS about free speech; how can a judge reasonably order someone to issue an apology online like this, while the man was (presumably) writing within Facebook's Terms of Service and directing his thoughts to his friends and family? Facebook pages may be public, but so what; it's still a medium for personal thought, much like a blog.
This is actually quite disturbing, and something we need to be proactive against whenever possible.
That's exactly what it is...musically speaking; the rests are often equally important to the rest of the notes. In fact, an entire composition (John Cage's "4'33" is dedicated to the "sound" of silence: http://youtu.be/hUJagb7hL0E
It's an absolute travesty that it took nearly a year to have this domain returned. A lot of people make their livelihoods from their websites; domains are brands, and the government erroneously damaged these guys' ability to operate. I'd recommend seeking damages if the website was a source of income; even if it wasn't, something needs to be done to prove the point that a little more thought and due process needs to occur before arbitrarily taking things down.
...now the inane mumblings and poor grammar of the Twitter Age will be remembered throughout history. I was kinda hoping we'd eventually be able to forget all of this ever happened.
Your local comic shop proprietor(s) truly thank you for it. A friend of mine owns a shop in South Florida, and it's amazing how difficult it is for these shops to stay open given so many competing avenues to purchase comics and such. Between the national book chains, digital comics, etc., it seems that the publishers hardly care about the little shops that have fostered and helped to grow the comic-loving community over all these years.
Don't even get me started with the artificial scarcity of DC's "New 52," which I'm fairly certain was orchestrated to push digital comic sales while the physical shops had little to no stock...
Slashdot Mirror
Except that in this case, it's not a valid police measure and its use has been banned for some time in New York.
Never said it wasn't overkill, only that it's fairly straightforward, free, and provides the same functionality (and more). Considering a lot of individuals and businesses have used LogMeIn for remote management and support, it seemed to be worth a mention to me; by all means, feel free to ignore! :)
This service provided by Cisco seems to be a viable, free alternative:
https://meraki.cisco.com/products/systems-manager
Shame about LogMeIn though; it made troubleshooting my parents' various computer woes over the years a lot easier.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. My point falls more along the lines of, if you lower the limit from what has been the accepted standard, you're going to end up with a lot of people falling between the new and old limits getting arrested...without a proportionate increase in safety. I get the feeling people aren't going to simply stop having that second bottle of beer with dinner because the percentage rate dropped by .03; at least not until their friends and family who were always responsible drinkers before the change start running afoul of it. Then again, I guess there's always a "user education" period...
Ultimately, I'm just always wary when the law makes it easier and easier to be a lawbreaker. I'd hate for people who legitimately exercise responsible drinking to inadvertently find themselves in trouble.
All this will result in is more arrests. The average Joe isn't going to know the difference between .08% and .05%; the only result will be a larger probability in jail time for someone who would otherwise be considered fine to drive today. If we're going to change the numbers in this manner, why not just make it 0% and at least be clear about the message: Drink at all, and you'd better be willing to not drive for a couple of hours.
I wonder if a workaround for this technicality would be for services to offer to "buy" your phone, they unlock it, and subsequently offer your previous phone for sale to you. So long as money changes hands in the right order, would this be classified as legal despite violating the spirit of the law?
As an IT administrator at a large public university, I can say with absolute truthfulness that it is still the case that public [state] professionals are largely underpaid in comparison to their private-sector peers. As stated, we get great benefits, [usually] more holidays, and don't get laid off with little notice; that's the trade-off, and we know that going in.
However, we usually get annoyed when the agreed-upon terms of our employment are changed after the fact. Here in Florida, state employees were previously not required to contribute to their pensions; the current governor disagreed with this particular benefit and successfully pushed for this to be changed. At this point, we get back to the concept of promises; when I was hired, it was at a lower wage on the condition that the lower salary is offset by not contributing to my pension plan (among other things). If the government wants to save money by forcing contribution, that's fine so long as this new aspect of the terms of employment is enforced on new hires from the date this law was passed. This is not the case, and that's why the law is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, it can be said that if people are so offended by this ex post facto law, they can find employment in the private sector and take a higher wage. I completely agree; while I hope the law is struck, it's not a "deal breaker" for me given the value I receive from other benefits that the state is choosing to still honor. Still, on principal, the terms of an agreement should be honored and not changed without due process, bargaining, etc., and that's what is at issue here.
...and not using some form of AdBlock anyway?
I'm sure it'll make an interested read / skim, but it seems like this is all stuff we've known they've been doing for years.
Just came across this on The Oatmeal today.
Unfortunately, security isn't that big of a deal to Apple...yet. With the increase in market penetration the bulls-eye on Macs is getting larger and a lot more tempting; hopefully they realize this before something very serious happens and take steps to bolster their in-house security research (or hell, outsource it).
Those are mostly (if not completely) social issues. Some of us Republicans feel we should respect the rights of our fellow human beings, live and let live, while also feeling that Big Government is a bad idea and fiscal conservatism is good. Not everyone that identifies with either major political party is intently "Black or White" in their ideas; in fact, I'd say those who don't identify themselves as being in the "Grey" are the people you need to worry about on both sides.
Yes, the first amendment should protect someone from saying that. It's when the money exchanges hands and the deal is actually struck that you have someone acting criminally.
It's not so much that clients are specifically avoiding Blackboard; schools and such are vastly under-funded, and given the choice between competent free software with smaller support costs and a proprietary LMS, why pay the premium? My university has been steadily moving courses from Blackboard to Moodle for that reason specifically.
So long as the services and prices of these companies remain the same, I don't think clients are going to care who the owner is.
Not even. I'm sure eventually people will just start using URL shortening services to post links (if it becomes a larger problem of censorship, perhaps TPB will start generating them itself for users to share).
Terabyte drives (or close to them) are practically a standard in new desktops. It would have been much more practical to lower the absurdly-high 16 GB of RAM (c'mon, does it need more than 8 as the baseline?) and use the cost savings there to beef up on storage, either through more space available or SSDs.
You could very well ask them why they prefer a competitor's products; I'd encourage anyone in this situation (including Microsoft) to do so. There's a huge difference, however, between allowing employees to bring in their personal Macs for work purposes and allowing employees to use your hardware refresh funding or hardware stipends on an excessively expensive competitor's product. The whole situation regarding banning iPods was ridiculous, and they were rightly mocked for doing so. Still, this scenario is about what Microsoft allows to be done with its own money, and I can't particularly demonize them for making this choice.
If Apple were a competitor to my products, I'd absolutely prevent employees from using company funds to purchase Macs. If we're a BYOD shop, with devices purchased with private money, then no problem...but I'm not helping out a rival, especially given the cost of Apple's hardware.
I do find it kind of interesting that they've waited this long to blatantly say it, though. Perhaps they're now starting to see Apple as a more viable competitor to their interests?
I can't disagree with the fact that men usually get the short end of the stick regarding divorce and child-related proceedings. Still, the issue here IS about free speech; how can a judge reasonably order someone to issue an apology online like this, while the man was (presumably) writing within Facebook's Terms of Service and directing his thoughts to his friends and family? Facebook pages may be public, but so what; it's still a medium for personal thought, much like a blog. This is actually quite disturbing, and something we need to be proactive against whenever possible.
That's exactly what it is...musically speaking; the rests are often equally important to the rest of the notes. In fact, an entire composition (John Cage's "4'33" is dedicated to the "sound" of silence: http://youtu.be/hUJagb7hL0E
It's an absolute travesty that it took nearly a year to have this domain returned. A lot of people make their livelihoods from their websites; domains are brands, and the government erroneously damaged these guys' ability to operate. I'd recommend seeking damages if the website was a source of income; even if it wasn't, something needs to be done to prove the point that a little more thought and due process needs to occur before arbitrarily taking things down.
...now the inane mumblings and poor grammar of the Twitter Age will be remembered throughout history. I was kinda hoping we'd eventually be able to forget all of this ever happened.
Your local comic shop proprietor(s) truly thank you for it. A friend of mine owns a shop in South Florida, and it's amazing how difficult it is for these shops to stay open given so many competing avenues to purchase comics and such. Between the national book chains, digital comics, etc., it seems that the publishers hardly care about the little shops that have fostered and helped to grow the comic-loving community over all these years.
Don't even get me started with the artificial scarcity of DC's "New 52," which I'm fairly certain was orchestrated to push digital comic sales while the physical shops had little to no stock...
A bit excessive, don't you think? All of that on top of, say, a manslaughter charge is a little rough for an accident.
It's nice to see someone take a stand for a change. I doubt it'll accomplish much, but it's a start...