The corruption we see today from the democrat side never ceases. I am sure it has probably been as bad from the other side in the past but not in my memory. It just keeps coming. I can't think of a single truth I have heard from the current administration.
Nowhere by whose standards? The phone company is refusing to tell us where "nowhere" is. How am I supposed to make informed purchasing decisions in this case, since I wouldn't want to accidentally end up "nowhere" and not find out about it until after I have moved there.
There is no reason for these maps to remain secret. Unfair competitive advantage? God forbid someone competes with them for services they don't even provide. Maybe they're just afraid that a company will come along and figure out how to wire up a street for less than $10,000. If they can provide "nowhere" customers with service that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, just think what will happen to the "somewhere" customers when they discover they're overpaying for their service.
In the case, the ACLU sued in a civil action for an injunction against enforcement of the law on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The government waived a jury trial, and after finding of fact, the judge granted the injunction. The media grabbed the ball and ran with it.
I still want to know what you think the "role" of judges are, though, even if the judge didn't "strike down" the law.
Except that kind of reasoning is the job of legislators, not judges.
Explain your position.
The purpose of the appeals courts is to 1) make decisions on points of order to ensure that lower courts mete out justice in a formulaic and consistent matter and 2) keep the process of determining constitutionality on the path to the supreme court for a final decision of constitutionality.
If the government does not approve of this decision, they have the exact same remedy they've had for hundreds of years now: appeal. If the government does not appeal, then they have accepted the ruling of the judge as final. Attacking the judge for so-called "legislating" (point to the new law that this court created in this decision) is not part of the process.
No spam was sent from that network. Another company was using a website in that network to sell mailing list software (that may have never been used for spam, it's a little late now to find out whether they were advertising it as a tool for spammers or as a tool for companies to communicate with all of their employees easily).
The network was never abused by that network. The site was blocked because the owners assumed the worst and were offended by their assumption.
That US telcos comply to such oral requests alone should tell you something of the state of this country, which is the merging of the corporate world and the state.
Merging of the corporate world, what?
No, the reason this is happening is because every time a company does something bad (whether its censorship, seizing assets, turning people over to the gestapo, or whatnot) the droning starts. Millions of people chanting in unison: "The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government."
Your phone company giving your phone records to whoever they want? "The Constitution only applies to the government."
I would say that advertising as it stands would cease to exist. In a perfect(ly free market) world, all decisions would be made on complete and correct information. If your product cannot be fully described in a 30 second soundbite, you'll have to settle for the next best thing: a small book outlining your product's capabilities, weaknesses, unbiased comparisons to competitors, ingredients/components, component sources, tolerances of each component as produced by each source, each source's material supplies, their associated tolerances/purities/etc and so on and so forth.
Certainly beats a tv ad attempting to associate use of their product with scantily clad women.
The thing you're mistakenly suggesting is that X11-style copy should automatically fill the Ctrl-X,Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V -style clipboard buffer. This is wrong. It would lead to mass confusion among people migrating from windows if it did this.
Not only that, but it would be horrible. I'd copy a URL and try to paste it into my browser but hilight the current URL instead, whoops! Or trying to edit a document, copy a block of text and highlight another block to replace it, whoops! The X selection buffer is highly useful for quick pasting (it removes a keystroke or multiple menu clicks), but it must be kept separate by default from the clipboard buffer. The use of middle click in firefox in Linux to load the URL from the selection buffer is brilliant.
What I want to see is an application that can "edit" the clipboard or selection buffer on the fly. Swap between them, maintain multiple clipboards, perhaps even apply edits to them as they're being cut and pasted. Imagine copying a 5 mile long Amazon URL from your browser and magically pasting the short version in IRC to show people the cool shit you're buying. Bonus points if it can speak X (both selection buffer and clipboard), Gnome, and KDE all at once.
He's convinced that he has engineered some sort of coup for the next shareholders meeting, namely, that a majority of the shareholders will vote to fire all of the executives.
If this "coup" does happen, it's doubtful we'd hear the end of it from Mr. Thompson, even if every last shareholder is quoted as saying "we booted the CEO over the options scandal, and have no idea who this Jack guy is".
they could have enter sharing agreements with anybody willing, so they would split the money between the owner of the patent and the entity that actually does the work of implementing the patent.
Or they could just sit on the patent and sue the entity that actually does the work and get all of the money.
I think you misconstrue your definition of rational.
I think so too. After all, if his insurance company decides that it no longer wants to honor the contract, "misplacing" the payment and canceling the contract while blaming the other party seems perfectly rational to me.
Depositing the check once they "find" it, though, is just icing on the cake.
Health Spending Accounts are a good way to accomplish hedging against risk
Unless, of course, you don't get sick, in which case the company is allowed to take your money back. Great plan! I'm glad to see that Congress is working on a plan to allow you to roll over a whopping $500 to the next year.
How about this: if I don't get sick and don't use my pay that I set-aside pre-tax, tax it and give my pay to me. The only difference between this and regular health insurance is that health insurance generally has pay-out limits of around a million dollars, while this runs out of money after a few thousand.
When we learn about genes, it does not only give us the tools to know that we are going to die, it also gives the tools to prevent it from happening.
So in other words, he shouldn't buy a house or start a family now, so he can save up to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars it will cost to save his life.
The solution is simple, at least if you're in one of the (vast majority of) states that have at-will employment laws.
If you get stuck on one of those 7-day-a-week cruises and you've seen how the company treats the workers who actually make stuff happen, ship out your resumes. When you've got a bite, just walk off the job. Call the boss up and let them know you're done. Don't break anything, don't burn anything, don't steal anything, just walk away.
I believe that most people would agree that opt-out does a service to the vast majority of site publishers who are unaware of robots.txt. That's my arguement.
Opt-in would educate those site publishers pretty quickly.
The bigger issue though, is that traditionally robots.txt files are designed for opt-out. There is a draft RFC (written in 1996) that allows fine-grain control with both Allow and Disallow commands, which could be further extended in the google age to approve or deny additional options like caching or thumbnailing, etc.
Misbehaving bots using the file specifically to find things that shouldn't be spidered could be whacked pretty easily by starting the file with a dummy agent name that allows and denies scripts that add visitors IP addresses to a ban list.
While I agree with you in principle, the law suggests that she did post the notice correctly, since (from what I gathered FTFA) the law doesn't make any distinctions between a human eyeball and a robot eyeball.
Except that if you don't agree to it (pressing Cancel when the javascript tells you that if you continue, you agree to it) you're taken to a page that says that you have agreed to it.
I wonder if duress (compelling the user to agree regardless of their wishes) is grounds for a lawsuit by itself, or if you have to wait until the contract you entered under duress causes some damage to you.
I don't know... all Google has to do is trot out Viacom's screwups like C&Ding a game engine tutorial and they can make a pretty good case that Viacom has no clue whatsoever how much of their stuff is on YouTube, and that their claims of massive infringement are massively overstated. Furthermore they can state that if Viacom can't figure out what they own, Google obviously has no chance to figure it out on their own, and therefore must abide by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and follow Viacom's takedown notices to the best of their abilities, given the evidence of Viacom's inaccuracies.
I doubt the allegations, since if Monsanto really tried to cover up toxic effects in food that it was selling, it'll lose much more than it ever could earn.
You mean, the company will tie the case up in courts for years while the CxOs bail out with billion dollar golden parachutes before finally crumbling and taking a significant chunk of agribusiness with it? Sounds like standard corporate operating procedure to me. Of course, I'm sure that if there was a cover-up, it was because the people doing it thought they'd never be found out.
Personally, if there was a cover-up, I'll settle for having everyone involved arrested for assault with a deadly weapon (or assault by poisoning for those in jurisdictions that distinguish them), but I'm sure in this day and age, the realistic prognosis is that the company will be fined for about 1/10th of the profits from the crop.
Organizes what better? Pornography? "I'll know it when I see it"? Rape and murder are a mostly common morality, shared by the majority of the residents of the country. Legislation banning these at least legislates a common morality for the masses to obey.
"Obscenity" legislation, however, amounts to "if it offends me it must be wrong". It legislates a single individual's morality that is not shared with everyone else, and worse, it is not even told to anyone else before the fact: do it, and then we'll decide whether or not you broke the law. If it was shared, then it would be a simple task to codify obscenity in law, and that has been done before, when child pornography was banned a few decades ago.
My conclusion: obscenity legislation is itself immoral, as the legislators writing it refuse to exhaustively state which actions are illegal, making it impossible for citizens to obey the law.
What is annoying is the fact that the research funding is stopped because it does not agree with the conclusion the UK government wants. That is not about science anymore. So they want to make children more active to be healthier. Good. That alone should be enough a reason regardless of what the research says, but they shouldn't stop funding a research because they don't like the conclusion.
This is the real story here. Everyone missed that in their haste to post about counting calories (hint, there is no such law as the law of conservation of calories) and getting off slashdot to run around outside.
I always buy my freshly cooked hamburgers and pizza from local merchants.
True. Cruise around a bit, ask around the office. Someone knows where you can get an awesome burger for lunch that didn't come prepackaged and microwaved. There's an awesome family-run place around the corner from my office. $5 gets you a great bacon cheeseburger, in and out in 30 minutes. Drive a little farther and there's a burger dive, complete with deep-fried whatever-the-hell-you-want: $8 gets you burger, onion rings and either jalapeno poppers or a real milkshake. For office meetings, an Italian restaurant serves up pizza.
If you're in cookie-cutter suburbia, you might have to drive a little farther and look a little harder, but they're there, tucked into the strip malls and shopping centers.
What, you got to post #3 before you declared it crap. When someone suggested using windows's fixmbr to restore the MBR to a usable state, you went off about "liberation and openness" in post #7.
It's clear from that point that you weren't looking for help, you were "not happy" and just looking to vent your spleen. When you start attacking the people trying to get information about your computer so that they could help you (post #16) while complaining about their chutzpah, that becomes even clearer.
Clearly something with your system is either broken or incompatible with Grub. Sure, someone should have looked up what grub's error code meant which would have gone a long way towards discovering that there was a problem reading from the drive. My personal suspicion is that the drive is fine, and you are (well, were, since this whole episode was over a year ago now) simply the victim of a legacy BIOS that is dragging decades of backwards compatibility with it, including the inability to count harddrives past two.
And yes, since your system is not bootable, you're going to have to find some other way of booting it, whether it's a boot CD or a floppy or a USB key or moving the drive from secondary master to primary slave and reinstalling there. That is the logical next step whether you like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
and please, try to prove me wrong!
OK
The corruption we see today from the democrat side never ceases. I am sure it has probably been as bad from the other side in the past but not in my memory. It just keeps coming. I can't think of a single truth I have heard from the current administration.
If you live in the middle of nowhere
Nowhere by whose standards? The phone company is refusing to tell us where "nowhere" is. How am I supposed to make informed purchasing decisions in this case, since I wouldn't want to accidentally end up "nowhere" and not find out about it until after I have moved there.
There is no reason for these maps to remain secret. Unfair competitive advantage? God forbid someone competes with them for services they don't even provide. Maybe they're just afraid that a company will come along and figure out how to wire up a street for less than $10,000. If they can provide "nowhere" customers with service that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, just think what will happen to the "somewhere" customers when they discover they're overpaying for their service.
AT&T won't tell me a thing.
"Sorry, we canceled all of our upgrades and spent the money on buying up phone companies."
I'm sure the government will bail them out though. It would be terrible for the phone monopoly to have to cut their CEOs pay.
I located the actual court decision.
In the case, the ACLU sued in a civil action for an injunction against enforcement of the law on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The government waived a jury trial, and after finding of fact, the judge granted the injunction. The media grabbed the ball and ran with it.
I still want to know what you think the "role" of judges are, though, even if the judge didn't "strike down" the law.
Except that kind of reasoning is the job of legislators, not judges.
Explain your position.
The purpose of the appeals courts is to 1) make decisions on points of order to ensure that lower courts mete out justice in a formulaic and consistent matter and 2) keep the process of determining constitutionality on the path to the supreme court for a final decision of constitutionality.
If the government does not approve of this decision, they have the exact same remedy they've had for hundreds of years now: appeal. If the government does not appeal, then they have accepted the ruling of the judge as final. Attacking the judge for so-called "legislating" (point to the new law that this court created in this decision) is not part of the process.
OK, I appear to have mis-read
Appear to?
No spam was sent from that network. Another company was using a website in that network to sell mailing list software (that may have never been used for spam, it's a little late now to find out whether they were advertising it as a tool for spammers or as a tool for companies to communicate with all of their employees easily).
The network was never abused by that network. The site was blocked because the owners assumed the worst and were offended by their assumption.
That US telcos comply to such oral requests alone should tell you something of the state of this country, which is the merging of the corporate world and the state.
Merging of the corporate world, what?
No, the reason this is happening is because every time a company does something bad (whether its censorship, seizing assets, turning people over to the gestapo, or whatnot) the droning starts. Millions of people chanting in unison: "The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government."
Your phone company giving your phone records to whoever they want? "The Constitution only applies to the government."
The drones have won.
That advertising would be ineffective?
I would say that advertising as it stands would cease to exist. In a perfect(ly free market) world, all decisions would be made on complete and correct information. If your product cannot be fully described in a 30 second soundbite, you'll have to settle for the next best thing: a small book outlining your product's capabilities, weaknesses, unbiased comparisons to competitors, ingredients/components, component sources, tolerances of each component as produced by each source, each source's material supplies, their associated tolerances/purities/etc and so on and so forth.
Certainly beats a tv ad attempting to associate use of their product with scantily clad women.
The thing you're mistakenly suggesting is that X11-style copy should automatically fill the Ctrl-X,Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V -style clipboard buffer. This is wrong. It would lead to mass confusion among people migrating from windows if it did this.
Not only that, but it would be horrible. I'd copy a URL and try to paste it into my browser but hilight the current URL instead, whoops! Or trying to edit a document, copy a block of text and highlight another block to replace it, whoops! The X selection buffer is highly useful for quick pasting (it removes a keystroke or multiple menu clicks), but it must be kept separate by default from the clipboard buffer. The use of middle click in firefox in Linux to load the URL from the selection buffer is brilliant.
What I want to see is an application that can "edit" the clipboard or selection buffer on the fly. Swap between them, maintain multiple clipboards, perhaps even apply edits to them as they're being cut and pasted. Imagine copying a 5 mile long Amazon URL from your browser and magically pasting the short version in IRC to show people the cool shit you're buying. Bonus points if it can speak X (both selection buffer and clipboard), Gnome, and KDE all at once.
He's convinced that he has engineered some sort of coup for the next shareholders meeting, namely, that a majority of the shareholders will vote to fire all of the executives.
If this "coup" does happen, it's doubtful we'd hear the end of it from Mr. Thompson, even if every last shareholder is quoted as saying "we booted the CEO over the options scandal, and have no idea who this Jack guy is".
they could have enter sharing agreements with anybody willing, so they would split the money between the owner of the patent and the entity that actually does the work of implementing the patent.
Or they could just sit on the patent and sue the entity that actually does the work and get all of the money.
I think you misconstrue your definition of rational.
I think so too. After all, if his insurance company decides that it no longer wants to honor the contract, "misplacing" the payment and canceling the contract while blaming the other party seems perfectly rational to me.
Depositing the check once they "find" it, though, is just icing on the cake.
Health Spending Accounts are a good way to accomplish hedging against risk
Unless, of course, you don't get sick, in which case the company is allowed to take your money back. Great plan! I'm glad to see that Congress is working on a plan to allow you to roll over a whopping $500 to the next year.
How about this: if I don't get sick and don't use my pay that I set-aside pre-tax, tax it and give my pay to me. The only difference between this and regular health insurance is that health insurance generally has pay-out limits of around a million dollars, while this runs out of money after a few thousand.
When we learn about genes, it does not only give us the tools to know that we are going to die, it also gives the tools to prevent it from happening.
So in other words, he shouldn't buy a house or start a family now, so he can save up to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars it will cost to save his life.
People are hired to produce (or save) a company more profit than they cost the company.
Yet Dilbert-style management typically has no idea what IT is saving for their company, only how much IT is being paid.
This is not the fault of IT's "professionalism".
The solution is simple, at least if you're in one of the (vast majority of) states that have at-will employment laws.
If you get stuck on one of those 7-day-a-week cruises and you've seen how the company treats the workers who actually make stuff happen, ship out your resumes. When you've got a bite, just walk off the job. Call the boss up and let them know you're done. Don't break anything, don't burn anything, don't steal anything, just walk away.
At will employment laws work both ways.
I believe that most people would agree that opt-out does a service to the vast majority of site publishers who are unaware of robots.txt. That's my arguement.
Opt-in would educate those site publishers pretty quickly.
The bigger issue though, is that traditionally robots.txt files are designed for opt-out. There is a draft RFC (written in 1996) that allows fine-grain control with both Allow and Disallow commands, which could be further extended in the google age to approve or deny additional options like caching or thumbnailing, etc.
Misbehaving bots using the file specifically to find things that shouldn't be spidered could be whacked pretty easily by starting the file with a dummy agent name that allows and denies scripts that add visitors IP addresses to a ban list.
While I agree with you in principle, the law suggests that she did post the notice correctly, since (from what I gathered FTFA) the law doesn't make any distinctions between a human eyeball and a robot eyeball.
Except that if you don't agree to it (pressing Cancel when the javascript tells you that if you continue, you agree to it) you're taken to a page that says that you have agreed to it.
I wonder if duress (compelling the user to agree regardless of their wishes) is grounds for a lawsuit by itself, or if you have to wait until the contract you entered under duress causes some damage to you.
I don't know... all Google has to do is trot out Viacom's screwups like C&Ding a game engine tutorial and they can make a pretty good case that Viacom has no clue whatsoever how much of their stuff is on YouTube, and that their claims of massive infringement are massively overstated. Furthermore they can state that if Viacom can't figure out what they own, Google obviously has no chance to figure it out on their own, and therefore must abide by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and follow Viacom's takedown notices to the best of their abilities, given the evidence of Viacom's inaccuracies.
But why is that search hitting on your site?
Google was wearing the beer goggles that night?
I doubt the allegations, since if Monsanto really tried to cover up toxic effects in food that it was selling, it'll lose much more than it ever could earn.
You mean, the company will tie the case up in courts for years while the CxOs bail out with billion dollar golden parachutes before finally crumbling and taking a significant chunk of agribusiness with it? Sounds like standard corporate operating procedure to me. Of course, I'm sure that if there was a cover-up, it was because the people doing it thought they'd never be found out.
Personally, if there was a cover-up, I'll settle for having everyone involved arrested for assault with a deadly weapon (or assault by poisoning for those in jurisdictions that distinguish them), but I'm sure in this day and age, the realistic prognosis is that the company will be fined for about 1/10th of the profits from the crop.
It just organizes it better
Organizes what better? Pornography? "I'll know it when I see it"? Rape and murder are a mostly common morality, shared by the majority of the residents of the country. Legislation banning these at least legislates a common morality for the masses to obey.
"Obscenity" legislation, however, amounts to "if it offends me it must be wrong". It legislates a single individual's morality that is not shared with everyone else, and worse, it is not even told to anyone else before the fact: do it, and then we'll decide whether or not you broke the law. If it was shared, then it would be a simple task to codify obscenity in law, and that has been done before, when child pornography was banned a few decades ago.
My conclusion: obscenity legislation is itself immoral, as the legislators writing it refuse to exhaustively state which actions are illegal, making it impossible for citizens to obey the law.
What is annoying is the fact that the research funding is stopped because it does not agree with the conclusion the UK government wants. That is not about science anymore. So they want to make children more active to be healthier. Good. That alone should be enough a reason regardless of what the research says, but they shouldn't stop funding a research because they don't like the conclusion.
This is the real story here. Everyone missed that in their haste to post about counting calories (hint, there is no such law as the law of conservation of calories) and getting off slashdot to run around outside.
Mod parent up.
I always buy my freshly cooked hamburgers and pizza from local merchants.
True. Cruise around a bit, ask around the office. Someone knows where you can get an awesome burger for lunch that didn't come prepackaged and microwaved. There's an awesome family-run place around the corner from my office. $5 gets you a great bacon cheeseburger, in and out in 30 minutes. Drive a little farther and there's a burger dive, complete with deep-fried whatever-the-hell-you-want: $8 gets you burger, onion rings and either jalapeno poppers or a real milkshake. For office meetings, an Italian restaurant serves up pizza.
If you're in cookie-cutter suburbia, you might have to drive a little farther and look a little harder, but they're there, tucked into the strip malls and shopping centers.
What, you got to post #3 before you declared it crap. When someone suggested using windows's fixmbr to restore the MBR to a usable state, you went off about "liberation and openness" in post #7.
It's clear from that point that you weren't looking for help, you were "not happy" and just looking to vent your spleen. When you start attacking the people trying to get information about your computer so that they could help you (post #16) while complaining about their chutzpah, that becomes even clearer.
Clearly something with your system is either broken or incompatible with Grub. Sure, someone should have looked up what grub's error code meant which would have gone a long way towards discovering that there was a problem reading from the drive. My personal suspicion is that the drive is fine, and you are (well, were, since this whole episode was over a year ago now) simply the victim of a legacy BIOS that is dragging decades of backwards compatibility with it, including the inability to count harddrives past two.
And yes, since your system is not bootable, you're going to have to find some other way of booting it, whether it's a boot CD or a floppy or a USB key or moving the drive from secondary master to primary slave and reinstalling there. That is the logical next step whether you like it or not.