I don't know if you silly 'subjects of the crown' do this, but I've never had a loyalty card for over a week. I swap them around and get new ones all the time.
I wish more trafficking in human organs was available. I wish I could come to a financial agreement to purchase a kidney for myself or a loved one, or sell a kidney. Or sell a portion of my liver suitable for transplant. Or sell a lung. Or sell bone marrow. I wish more people engaged in breaking the laws barring such activities, even if they also launder the money involved.
Things get trickier for non-live transplants, but not insurmountably.
Unless, of course, being a potential donor makes you more likely to die.
In fact, you're (very very slightly) more likely to survive if you are a known donor. This is because an effort to bring your body to a condition where your organs may be harvested might in fact make conscious recovery possible where without such efforts you might have been written off as unsurvivable.
The dark side of this sort of policy is that someone decides whether you live or die. If you have a lot of good organs, they might well decide to let you die in favor of a sicker patient.
Which is brain death. A position where "somebody decides whether you live or die" no matter what. Including for such reasons as financial.
A lot of healthy people die suddenly in accidents.
Not enough. Europe has adopted an "opt-out" policy for donations, unlike the US. This means that an individual must make a legal declaration that they are not willing to donate organs, otherwise their organs are harvested if they become available and are usable.
Europe still has people die on waiting lists for every organ. Including kidney, which can be done live and every healthy person can donate one.
1) Cancers are almost never 'cured' by transplantation. If your organ is failing due to a cancer, be prepared to die regardless of the reason for the cancer. This is largely because the new organ would almost certainly also be a loss.
2) At least in the US, Children are already at the top of the list.
Taxpayer bankrolled (what some call, "free") healthcare means never having to decide when spending the money isn't worth the value anymore. Spend millions on the last week of life? NO problem! Everybody -else- will pay for it, and you can still pass on your financial portfolio to your kids! Win win! Well, except for all the people paying. They're losing.
For the millionth time, you CAN put these cars into neutral at speed. I've personally done so. Your explanation of how transmissions work is not correct.
Being able to shift to neutral is a required safety feature. Because all drive-by-wire vehicles are recent in design, you will not find a single one that doesn't allow shifting to neutral at any speed and is legal to sell in the US.
Furthermore, you realize you just made the claim that people tried to "turn the key off" and were unsuccessful? What kind of world do you live on? Anybody who tried to turn the key off would have found themselves moving at highway speeds with dramatically decreased steering.
Being able to shift to neutral is a required safety feature. I can't imagine where "he couldn't do it!!!1111oneoneone" got started.
The Lexus ES-350, the vehicle CHP Officer Mark Saylor died in, does not have electronic shifters. Even if it did, electronic shifters allow gear shifting under speed. In fact, they do so without the natural increase in force necessary for non-electronic shifters to shift gears while under speed.
This is something you can actually test, it won't hurt the vehicle if you don't let it revv for very long. Accerlate on the freeway, shift to neutral without ceasing acceleration. Most vehicles will require more than normal force to change gears but will do so without complaint or problem. The exceptions are the vehicles that will act entirely as they do all the time, because they're by-wire themselves. Do, however, stop accelerating before shifting back.
Some -drivers- are uneducated and instinctively feel that they would be unable to shift into neutral so they interpret the higher threshold of force required to shift gears as indication that it is not possible.
For example, the car that CHP Officer Mark Saylor was killed, a Lexus, in is absolutely positively known to be able to shift to neutral at high speed. So why didn't a supposedly trained police officer, who should be trained in all sorts of driving techniques, plow into the back of another vehicle at high speed?
Anything you create, including shopping lists, notes to your spouse, and your diary is copywritten. Automatically. Without needing notification of the gov't or on the article itself.
Berne convention. Look it, and the associated laws in your home nation used to enforce it, up.
Notice: The above work (30 minutes of artistic time needed), is protected under copyright of this poster, even though no notice of Copyright is required after 1989, and even though this work is entirely a list of facts regarding how Microsoft retains data and discloses it to authorities.
Yes, it's a list of facts. Yes, you cannot copyright simple facts.
Yes, you may copyright a work that is just a list of facts. No, that doesn't mean the facts themselves are copywritten. No, the pdf document in question is not just a list of facts. As pointed out elsewhere, it's a significant portion of marketroidspeak.
The newsworthiness of the document makes for a very strong defense against any copyright claim and that's the rebuttal Cryptome made in the DMCA reply.
What what what now?
Newsworthiness should allow you to quote small portions. Fair use, and what not. Nothing in lets you post up the article in its entirity.
Plus, I'd argue about the "newsworthiness" in the first place. I've read the pdf, and there is nothing in there I didn't expect - OR ALREADY KNOW from reading agreements.
This whole line of questioning belies an incredible lack of understanding.
First, and foremost, -ALL- public sector jobs are unproductive tax fed jobs.
Second, the more public sector jobs, the higher taxes. Higher taxes means less private sector jobs. There is a definite connection between growth of gov't and shrinkage of private sector employment.
Hint: There exists state jobs, which are massively in excess at the moment - compared to lossage in every other field.
Basically, the "stimulus" has been used to shore up failing state budgets to avoid public employee layoffs. Then these jobs are listed as "saved or created", and Obama takes a bow. Meanwhile, productive jobs in the private sector are experiencing 10% unemployment - that's people looking for work, the official Unemployment Rate. Alternative measures reaches as high as 18% in the month of January 2010.
Shouldn't the least productive, public tax fed jobs be pruned first?
Oh but wait, those jobs are unionized - primarily - and the system allows the union to get their representatives on both sides of the negotiation table.
Too be fair, no matter your opinion of the vaccine/autism link (or lack thereof), but science is not determined by courts. If a court said that evolution wasn't plausible, you'd be railing about how it was proof the judges were "bought off", or some other such.
You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".
You mean the Cuba that regularly exports its only product to the max of its production capacity? Where non party members are not allowed to partake of that product?
Cuba's economic problems stem from poor economic meddling by a gov't that is also too costly. The US (and ONLY US) embargo doesn't even touch it on a worldwide scale. Dropping that embargo would do nothing, positive or negative, and yet continues to exist because it both major US parties want to appease a large minority faction in Florida.
However, certain groups in the US should look to Cuba. It's a fine example of the end result of the current trillion dollar per year expansion our gov't is "enjoying".
Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
Neither of those entities have ever -had- real power. The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused?
Almost certainly. Just like the French and German did and do. Only the Iraqis will be doing it via cyber attacks before they get bored, go down and buy a starbucks, and crash out in front of their big screen tv.
It's early, maybe I'm just slow, but what would be the advantage of that for the person who would be doing the scanning?
Seriously? This is a question?
"Hey Joe, that guy over there in the blue suit coming out of that bar..." "Yeah?" "No gun." "Niiiiceeeee."
Much of the benefit of concealed carry laws is the fact that nobody knows if you, yourself, right then and there, are carrying. If somebody can determine, particularly without error, if you are currently carrying, then that benefit goes away. It also means you -must-always-carry-. Including on nights you go out drinking.
Gun enthusiasts who keep guns in the house teach their kids about guns. Conservatives or not.
Note, IMO, darwinistic outliers that do meth, pop out the occasional sickly underweight baby, and keep a few AK47s are not proof of violations of the rule. Some people are simply so screwed up that they don't follow any standards of practice.
Maybe it should be "Gun enthusiasts who keep guns in the house and care about their kids, teach their kids about guns."
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the immediate departure from the industry by all participants.
I don't know if you silly 'subjects of the crown' do this, but I've never had a loyalty card for over a week. I swap them around and get new ones all the time.
Israel is only supported by Christian fanatics in the US.
False.
I wish more trafficking in human organs was available. I wish I could come to a financial agreement to purchase a kidney for myself or a loved one, or sell a kidney. Or sell a portion of my liver suitable for transplant. Or sell a lung. Or sell bone marrow. I wish more people engaged in breaking the laws barring such activities, even if they also launder the money involved.
Things get trickier for non-live transplants, but not insurmountably.
Unless, of course, being a potential donor makes you more likely to die.
In fact, you're (very very slightly) more likely to survive if you are a known donor. This is because an effort to bring your body to a condition where your organs may be harvested might in fact make conscious recovery possible where without such efforts you might have been written off as unsurvivable.
The dark side of this sort of policy is that someone decides whether you live or die. If you have a lot of good organs, they might well decide to let you die in favor of a sicker patient.
Which is brain death. A position where "somebody decides whether you live or die" no matter what. Including for such reasons as financial.
A lot of healthy people die suddenly in accidents.
Not enough. Europe has adopted an "opt-out" policy for donations, unlike the US. This means that an individual must make a legal declaration that they are not willing to donate organs, otherwise their organs are harvested if they become available and are usable.
Europe still has people die on waiting lists for every organ. Including kidney, which can be done live and every healthy person can donate one.
Two points:
1) Cancers are almost never 'cured' by transplantation. If your organ is failing due to a cancer, be prepared to die regardless of the reason for the cancer. This is largely because the new organ would almost certainly also be a loss.
2) At least in the US, Children are already at the top of the list.
Taxpayer bankrolled (what some call, "free") healthcare means never having to decide when spending the money isn't worth the value anymore. Spend millions on the last week of life? NO problem! Everybody -else- will pay for it, and you can still pass on your financial portfolio to your kids! Win win! Well, except for all the people paying. They're losing.
For the millionth time, you CAN put these cars into neutral at speed. I've personally done so. Your explanation of how transmissions work is not correct.
That's asinine.
Being able to shift to neutral is a required safety feature. Because all drive-by-wire vehicles are recent in design, you will not find a single one that doesn't allow shifting to neutral at any speed and is legal to sell in the US.
Furthermore, you realize you just made the claim that people tried to "turn the key off" and were unsuccessful? What kind of world do you live on? Anybody who tried to turn the key off would have found themselves moving at highway speeds with dramatically decreased steering.
Being able to shift to neutral is a required safety feature. I can't imagine where "he couldn't do it!!!1111oneoneone" got started.
The Lexus ES-350, the vehicle CHP Officer Mark Saylor died in, does not have electronic shifters. Even if it did, electronic shifters allow gear shifting under speed. In fact, they do so without the natural increase in force necessary for non-electronic shifters to shift gears while under speed.
This is something you can actually test, it won't hurt the vehicle if you don't let it revv for very long. Accerlate on the freeway, shift to neutral without ceasing acceleration. Most vehicles will require more than normal force to change gears but will do so without complaint or problem. The exceptions are the vehicles that will act entirely as they do all the time, because they're by-wire themselves. Do, however, stop accelerating before shifting back.
This is false.
Some -drivers- are uneducated and instinctively feel that they would be unable to shift into neutral so they interpret the higher threshold of force required to shift gears as indication that it is not possible.
For example, the car that CHP Officer Mark Saylor was killed, a Lexus, in is absolutely positively known to be able to shift to neutral at high speed. So why didn't a supposedly trained police officer, who should be trained in all sorts of driving techniques, plow into the back of another vehicle at high speed?
The proper response to "car accelerating on its own" is Neutral gear. Whats the problem? Nobody needs especially strong breaks.
Oh noez! The engine will revv up! Oh me oh my! The noise is skeery!
Anything you create, including shopping lists, notes to your spouse, and your diary is copywritten. Automatically. Without needing notification of the gov't or on the article itself.
Berne convention. Look it, and the associated laws in your home nation used to enforce it, up.
Notice: The above work (30 minutes of artistic time needed), is protected under copyright of this poster, even though no notice of Copyright is required after 1989, and even though this work is entirely a list of facts regarding how Microsoft retains data and discloses it to authorities.
Yes, it's a list of facts. Yes, you cannot copyright simple facts.
Yes, you may copyright a work that is just a list of facts. No, that doesn't mean the facts themselves are copywritten.
No, the pdf document in question is not just a list of facts. As pointed out elsewhere, it's a significant portion of marketroidspeak.
The newsworthiness of the document makes for a very strong defense against any copyright claim and that's the rebuttal Cryptome made in the DMCA reply.
What what what now?
Newsworthiness should allow you to quote small portions. Fair use, and what not. Nothing in lets you post up the article in its entirity.
Plus, I'd argue about the "newsworthiness" in the first place. I've read the pdf, and there is nothing in there I didn't expect - OR ALREADY KNOW from reading agreements.
Are you kidding me? Police are unproductive? Firefighters are unproductive? Teachers do nothing of value if they happen to teach at public school?
Absolutely. None of those jobs -produce-.
This whole line of questioning belies an incredible lack of understanding.
First, and foremost, -ALL- public sector jobs are unproductive tax fed jobs.
Second, the more public sector jobs, the higher taxes. Higher taxes means less private sector jobs. There is a definite connection between growth of gov't and shrinkage of private sector employment.
Hint: There exists state jobs, which are massively in excess at the moment - compared to lossage in every other field.
Basically, the "stimulus" has been used to shore up failing state budgets to avoid public employee layoffs. Then these jobs are listed as "saved or created", and Obama takes a bow. Meanwhile, productive jobs in the private sector are experiencing 10% unemployment - that's people looking for work, the official Unemployment Rate. Alternative measures reaches as high as 18% in the month of January 2010.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm
Select U-6.
Public sector jobs experience "only" a 4% unemployment rate.
http://mercatus.org/publication/public-vs-private-unemployment
Shouldn't the least productive, public tax fed jobs be pruned first?
Oh but wait, those jobs are unionized - primarily - and the system allows the union to get their representatives on both sides of the negotiation table.
Too be fair, no matter your opinion of the vaccine/autism link (or lack thereof), but science is not determined by courts. If a court said that evolution wasn't plausible, you'd be railing about how it was proof the judges were "bought off", or some other such.
You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".
You mean the Cuba that regularly exports its only product to the max of its production capacity? Where non party members are not allowed to partake of that product?
Cuba's economic problems stem from poor economic meddling by a gov't that is also too costly. The US (and ONLY US) embargo doesn't even touch it on a worldwide scale. Dropping that embargo would do nothing, positive or negative, and yet continues to exist because it both major US parties want to appease a large minority faction in Florida.
However, certain groups in the US should look to Cuba. It's a fine example of the end result of the current trillion dollar per year expansion our gov't is "enjoying".
Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
Neither of those entities have ever -had- real power. The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused?
Almost certainly. Just like the French and German did and do. Only the Iraqis will be doing it via cyber attacks before they get bored, go down and buy a starbucks, and crash out in front of their big screen tv.
It's early, maybe I'm just slow, but what would be the advantage of that for the person who would be doing the scanning?
Seriously? This is a question?
"Hey Joe, that guy over there in the blue suit coming out of that bar..."
"Yeah?"
"No gun."
"Niiiiceeeee."
Much of the benefit of concealed carry laws is the fact that nobody knows if you, yourself, right then and there, are carrying. If somebody can determine, particularly without error, if you are currently carrying, then that benefit goes away. It also means you -must-always-carry-. Including on nights you go out drinking.
Gun enthusiasts who keep guns in the house teach their kids about guns. Conservatives or not.
Note, IMO, darwinistic outliers that do meth, pop out the occasional sickly underweight baby, and keep a few AK47s are not proof of violations of the rule. Some people are simply so screwed up that they don't follow any standards of practice.
Maybe it should be "Gun enthusiasts who keep guns in the house and care about their kids, teach their kids about guns."