Every tube? No. But it makes sense to take one "off the top" of each shipment. Did they do that? If not, then they have some quality control issues of their own.
I imagine, though, that since misleading doesn't require an overt action, and lying does, that the other is more actionable than the first. So "misleading" is good CYA lingo when you're calling shenanigans.
F-Prot was swift. We actually had copies of this get detected coming across our server in Houston on Monday morning. Don't know what those other two companies are smoking, but F-Prot was all over it.
It is clear that under our legal system these conditions totally lacks of any value; whoever enter a shop and purchases a box with a software or a console inside, purchases without limits or conditions because he doesn't know what has been written (in English, maybe) into the box. States correctly the Civil Code that General Agreement Terms can be used against to the other contractor if the latter knew it before entering into the agreement; how could the purchaser know it if the seller didn't make it read and sign before give away the object and get the money?
I considered it strongly, but I decided to buy an 8X burner instead. The reason for this is that the 8X's also have much faster CD-burning rates: mine has 40x CD burning, while most 4x's have 16x CD burning.
In this case, it means I don't have to shop the market for a faster CD burner to replace my 12x, as I'd planned on doing. In addition, it means that I was able to build a system with only one optical drive (I don't do a lot of optical-to-optical burning), save one bay. And of course for the mini-systems, the 8x's can provide all of the optical needed in the one alloted slot.
Except that they already did delay HL2, remember? Not that your thoughts don't have merit, just that I personally suspect that Valve has known about the stolen source for some time, and they had to find the right way to frame the language describing the theft.
I had a guy who only listened to the last few words I said when I called tech support last week for my DSL line. The error code changed right after I went on hold, then the error went away just as I got off the hold queue and with a live person. I tried to explain how my service had been restored about 30 seconds ago, but as soon as he heard "30 seconds" he started launching into a script for dealing with Blaster.
Now, look for the part that talks about ratification. See where it starts talking about 3/4ths of the states? Congress can pass laws recommendations to be ratified by the states, but they can't themselves change the Constitution. Otherwise, they'd just say "yeauh-huh, Article 148 says the FTC can run do-not-call lists, so bleah."
Actually, there were 12 amendments submitted in the batch we think of as the Bill of Rights. 10 of them we think about all the time, but there one wasn't ratified until 1992 (the one about pay raises) and then another hasn't been ratified at all, and so hasn't taken effect.
Meanwhile, I feel very concerned if you've already forgotten the basics from Civics class.
You're confusing the first injunction with the second injunction. In the first, earlier case, the FTC was told it didn't have jurisdiction to operate a list. In this case, though, it lost for different reasons, that the structure of the list is unconstitutional, but won on the argument that it had jurisdiction.
Unlike the earlier decision, Congress cannot override this one by saying "Oh yes they can." Either appeal must be won, or fundamental changes must be made to the structure of the list.
The "decision" in this case is not whether the consumer wishes to be protected from certain forms of speech -- in fact precedent says that they have that right. Instead, the decision is just who is delivering that speech. The FTC has made itself responsible for deciding just who does and doesn't have to honor the consumer's request. This is where it's getting in trouble.
If the FTC wants to maintain a database with consumer's info, crossreferenced with the companties that consumer has requested relief from, that's ok with the court, because then it was entirely the consumer's decision that a given company was a problem. That's not happening here.
Here's the thing, though: Let's assume that corporations don't have the right of free speech. Because for-profit corporations are included, but non-profits are excluded, the government is saying that one group's speech is more important than the other. That's dangerous in itself.
Here are the saliant points as I can read it. IANAL, but I probably could be, so this shouldn't totally suck:
a) The judge tries to use as precedent rulings concerning the ability of people to have their name removed from a snail mail list. In the case of that, it requires a specific recipient of the request. That is, you have to tell the postmaster who it is you want to stop calling. Here, we're relying on governmental determination of who is and isn't a telemarketer as defined by the regulation. The feds make that decision, instead of you or me. That's a line that the judge believes crosses into undue restriction on free speech. That the government is exluding charities from restrictions is doubly worse (remember that many charities are filed as corporations, just as their money-hording counterparts are, so you're essentially going to be exempting one class of charity while condemning others.)
b) The judge sides with the FTC in regards to the idea of "A man's home is his castle". That is, he agrees that a person has the right to restrict speech in his own home, and that the government can be involved in helping him restrict it, provided you fix the problems in point (a).
c) The judge goes back again to pointing out that the government can't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial speech in something like this. That the FTC does this to curb abusive practices doesn't hold because, as observed here, charity cold-calls can be abusive, too. The policy as written just assumes that one class is abusive and the other isn't, and we know that isn't true. (Remember, though, it says the government isn't allowed to distingish, not that you and me aren't.)
d) The judge specifically states that the FTC does have the authority to do what it's doing. (Given that, of course, the now conflicting decisions we have will be moot once Bush signs the law.)
So, the only part where the the law was overturned was over the idea that commercial speech was unfairly singled out, and the compaines speech would be limited specifically by the government, not by the individuals. The FTC won as much as it lost, but it only needed to lose one to get sent back to the drawing board.
Well, you might prefer "man Saturn.Ion" but I don't mind paper disclosure. What I do mind is requiring it in the manual, instead of as a separate piece of paper, like errata. This will have the effect of making that notice appear nationwide, and while I do think the warning is laudable, one state imposing its will on all of the others in that way isn't.
I work for a service company, where one of our primary sources of income is from secondary student organizations. Basically, this means that when FBLA, DECA, TSA, and all of those other clubs you joined in high school want to outsources some of their workload at the state or national level, we get the call. It might vary anywhere from providing some training or conference coordination to, in some cases, running the day-to-day operations in its entirety.
"IT Manager" doesn't mean a lot around here. It just means that I keep our servers from getting hacked (too often), help out on website launches and educating clients on using backend software, occasionally do multimedia for conferences when we're stretched thin, and sometimes conduct workshops and seminars on technology. It's part time for now while I complete by degrees.
I'm basically the guy who has to explain to the boss why it's a good idea to have server-side spam filtering, so that the 16-year-old student representatives of our clients don't get penis enlargement soliciatations in their morning inboxes. (The boss now loves me for it -- the 16-year-olds are a bit sullen)
She shared about 1,000 songs, and they offered $2 per song.
Coincidentally, that's about how many pieces of media I share right now, but they're all outside of RIAA purvue. I actually hope my name gets picked, as I would very much love to be a test case for invasion of privacy.
Unfortunately, you've again missed the scope of the article, and of my argument.
A paper as open-ended as "write something about Dante's Inferno" is not going to be gradable by computer, unless scope has been verbally given beforehand, in which case the question is no longer just "write something about Dante's Inferno."
Now, let's write rewrite that as something with parameters (with the caveat that I don't know much about Dante and I may be talking out my ass here):
"Compare Dante's Inferno with the events surrounding his life. Explain how Dante's real world affected Dante's fictional world. Summarize this in the form of what you believe Dante's world-view to be. Possible sources of material include, but should not be limited to, the Catholic Church, Dante's concept of God, and influence from love interests. A minimum of seven examples should be defended to be eligible for full points. Recommended paper length is five pages double-spaced, but you are free to extend or contract that as you see fit to defend your arguments. As this paper is a take-home assignment, grammar, style, and spelling will constitute 25% of your grade."
This question allows for some freedom in writing while providing for the development manageable parameters for the scorer. It will still, however, require that the student learn to make inferences, unless those inferences were given to him, in which case the teacher kinda sucks.
Will a completely open-ended paper be served by computerized scoring? Not for a long, long time. Will an essay with properly written parameters? Yes. Will it do it perfectly? No. This is why grade appeal should be encouraged where a student feels an argument hasn't been properly rewarded. But this will take way less time than the instructor having to judge every argument individually.
And while I'd love to reduce class sizes, the question must be asked: where's the money coming from? Districts are closing school years weeks early and laying off teachers as it is. I know that's outside the scope of things, but it bears saying nonetheless.
Well in that case, respectfully, this is a case of RTFA. The papers in the original article, while essay finals, were standardized.
Human judgement in this case isn't about looking just for topic "a" and "b". It's about expecting "a" through "x" ahead of time and being prepared to award points based on understading of those. And yes, sometimes someone will come up with "y" or "z", and if those haven't been formally disqualified ahead of time, then the instructor is going to have to reconsider standards and rewrite his rubric, or in this case, his algorithms.
As to the professor in your example, in such a situation, I have to agree, if the essay is so open-ended, it would be inappropriate to use any kinda of structured metrics. But what you have there isn't about knowing the material so much as demonstrating creative writing ability. In a standard restricted or even an extended response item with clear parameters, though, the "formula" is pre-written.
Finally, yes, I presume that the professor knows what a good paper is. I also presume that as a professor at a university level, I'm going to hand off grading to my peons. Why? Because I don't have time to grade auditoriums full of essays. So as a student, which is better: having a peon grade, or having the professor program a computer with rules and filters based on what he is looking for.
Keep in mind that I don't believe that the computer's grade is inviolate -- I never said that. But I do believe that with proper training and coding, the instructor's work on grading can be reduced to handling appeals and addressing new arguments that the instructor hadn't previously considered -- the "disagreements" that catch him by surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
Every tube? No. But it makes sense to take one "off the top" of each shipment. Did they do that? If not, then they have some quality control issues of their own.
I imagine, though, that since misleading doesn't require an overt action, and lying does, that the other is more actionable than the first. So "misleading" is good CYA lingo when you're calling shenanigans.
F-Prot was swift. We actually had copies of this get detected coming across our server in Houston on Monday morning. Don't know what those other two companies are smoking, but F-Prot was all over it.
Unless you're answerable to a publicly held company. Then it's the SEC's business.
Rough translation: EULA's are bullshit.
What, you've never heard of the Horned Toad before?
In this case, it means I don't have to shop the market for a faster CD burner to replace my 12x, as I'd planned on doing. In addition, it means that I was able to build a system with only one optical drive (I don't do a lot of optical-to-optical burning), save one bay. And of course for the mini-systems, the 8x's can provide all of the optical needed in the one alloted slot.
10 Episodes every weeknight (I believe) now, then 10 more in the spring leading to the premiere.
Except that they already did delay HL2, remember? Not that your thoughts don't have merit, just that I personally suspect that Valve has known about the stolen source for some time, and they had to find the right way to frame the language describing the theft.
I had a guy who only listened to the last few words I said when I called tech support last week for my DSL line. The error code changed right after I went on hold, then the error went away just as I got off the hold queue and with a live person. I tried to explain how my service had been restored about 30 seconds ago, but as soon as he heard "30 seconds" he started launching into a script for dealing with Blaster.
<shudder>
Now, look for the part that talks about ratification. See where it starts talking about 3/4ths of the states? Congress can pass laws recommendations to be ratified by the states, but they can't themselves change the Constitution. Otherwise, they'd just say "yeauh-huh, Article 148 says the FTC can run do-not-call lists, so bleah."
Actually, there were 12 amendments submitted in the batch we think of as the Bill of Rights. 10 of them we think about all the time, but there one wasn't ratified until 1992 (the one about pay raises) and then another hasn't been ratified at all, and so hasn't taken effect.
Meanwhile, I feel very concerned if you've already forgotten the basics from Civics class.
That was simply me saying, "No, Congress can't amend the Constitution, and here's why."
Umm... no.
u ti on.articlev.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit
You're confusing the first injunction with the second injunction. In the first, earlier case, the FTC was told it didn't have jurisdiction to operate a list. In this case, though, it lost for different reasons, that the structure of the list is unconstitutional, but won on the argument that it had jurisdiction.
Unlike the earlier decision, Congress cannot override this one by saying "Oh yes they can." Either appeal must be won, or fundamental changes must be made to the structure of the list.
The "decision" in this case is not whether the consumer wishes to be protected from certain forms of speech -- in fact precedent says that they have that right. Instead, the decision is just who is delivering that speech. The FTC has made itself responsible for deciding just who does and doesn't have to honor the consumer's request. This is where it's getting in trouble.
If the FTC wants to maintain a database with consumer's info, crossreferenced with the companties that consumer has requested relief from, that's ok with the court, because then it was entirely the consumer's decision that a given company was a problem. That's not happening here.
Here's the thing, though: Let's assume that corporations don't have the right of free speech. Because for-profit corporations are included, but non-profits are excluded, the government is saying that one group's speech is more important than the other. That's dangerous in itself.
Here are the saliant points as I can read it. IANAL, but I probably could be, so this shouldn't totally suck:
a) The judge tries to use as precedent rulings concerning the ability of people to have their name removed from a snail mail list. In the case of that, it requires a specific recipient of the request. That is, you have to tell the postmaster who it is you want to stop calling. Here, we're relying on governmental determination of who is and isn't a telemarketer as defined by the regulation. The feds make that decision, instead of you or me. That's a line that the judge believes crosses into undue restriction on free speech. That the government is exluding charities from restrictions is doubly worse (remember that many charities are filed as corporations, just as their money-hording counterparts are, so you're essentially going to be exempting one class of charity while condemning others.)
b) The judge sides with the FTC in regards to the idea of "A man's home is his castle". That is, he agrees that a person has the right to restrict speech in his own home, and that the government can be involved in helping him restrict it, provided you fix the problems in point (a).
c) The judge goes back again to pointing out that the government can't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial speech in something like this. That the FTC does this to curb abusive practices doesn't hold because, as observed here, charity cold-calls can be abusive, too. The policy as written just assumes that one class is abusive and the other isn't, and we know that isn't true. (Remember, though, it says the government isn't allowed to distingish, not that you and me aren't.)
d) The judge specifically states that the FTC does have the authority to do what it's doing. (Given that, of course, the now conflicting decisions we have will be moot once Bush signs the law.)
So, the only part where the the law was overturned was over the idea that commercial speech was unfairly singled out, and the compaines speech would be limited specifically by the government, not by the individuals. The FTC won as much as it lost, but it only needed to lose one to get sent back to the drawing board.
A SCO invoice?
Well, you might prefer "man Saturn.Ion" but I don't mind paper disclosure. What I do mind is requiring it in the manual, instead of as a separate piece of paper, like errata. This will have the effect of making that notice appear nationwide, and while I do think the warning is laudable, one state imposing its will on all of the others in that way isn't.
I work for a service company, where one of our primary sources of income is from secondary student organizations. Basically, this means that when FBLA, DECA, TSA, and all of those other clubs you joined in high school want to outsources some of their workload at the state or national level, we get the call. It might vary anywhere from providing some training or conference coordination to, in some cases, running the day-to-day operations in its entirety.
"IT Manager" doesn't mean a lot around here. It just means that I keep our servers from getting hacked (too often), help out on website launches and educating clients on using backend software, occasionally do multimedia for conferences when we're stretched thin, and sometimes conduct workshops and seminars on technology. It's part time for now while I complete by degrees.
I'm basically the guy who has to explain to the boss why it's a good idea to have server-side spam filtering, so that the 16-year-old student representatives of our clients don't get penis enlargement soliciatations in their morning inboxes. (The boss now loves me for it -- the 16-year-olds are a bit sullen)
Our junky storage area. They used to provide for us until we jumped ship cause of some service issues. They never got their stuff.
Time to scheme.
Ah, so it's not. Was mixing it up with some of the other articles out on this topic.
You got any ketchup for me to use with my crow?
This is an RTFA issue, with all due respect.
She shared about 1,000 songs, and they offered $2 per song.
Coincidentally, that's about how many pieces of media I share right now, but they're all outside of RIAA purvue. I actually hope my name gets picked, as I would very much love to be a test case for invasion of privacy.
Unfortunately, you've again missed the scope of the article, and of my argument.
A paper as open-ended as "write something about Dante's Inferno" is not going to be gradable by computer, unless scope has been verbally given beforehand, in which case the question is no longer just "write something about Dante's Inferno."
Now, let's write rewrite that as something with parameters (with the caveat that I don't know much about Dante and I may be talking out my ass here):
"Compare Dante's Inferno with the events surrounding his life. Explain how Dante's real world affected Dante's fictional world. Summarize this in the form of what you believe Dante's world-view to be. Possible sources of material include, but should not be limited to, the Catholic Church, Dante's concept of God, and influence from love interests. A minimum of seven examples should be defended to be eligible for full points. Recommended paper length is five pages double-spaced, but you are free to extend or contract that as you see fit to defend your arguments. As this paper is a take-home assignment, grammar, style, and spelling will constitute 25% of your grade."
This question allows for some freedom in writing while providing for the development manageable parameters for the scorer. It will still, however, require that the student learn to make inferences, unless those inferences were given to him, in which case the teacher kinda sucks.
Will a completely open-ended paper be served by computerized scoring? Not for a long, long time. Will an essay with properly written parameters? Yes. Will it do it perfectly? No. This is why grade appeal should be encouraged where a student feels an argument hasn't been properly rewarded. But this will take way less time than the instructor having to judge every argument individually.
And while I'd love to reduce class sizes, the question must be asked: where's the money coming from? Districts are closing school years weeks early and laying off teachers as it is. I know that's outside the scope of things, but it bears saying nonetheless.
Well in that case, respectfully, this is a case of RTFA. The papers in the original article, while essay finals, were standardized.
Human judgement in this case isn't about looking just for topic "a" and "b". It's about expecting "a" through "x" ahead of time and being prepared to award points based on understading of those. And yes, sometimes someone will come up with "y" or "z", and if those haven't been formally disqualified ahead of time, then the instructor is going to have to reconsider standards and rewrite his rubric, or in this case, his algorithms.
As to the professor in your example, in such a situation, I have to agree, if the essay is so open-ended, it would be inappropriate to use any kinda of structured metrics. But what you have there isn't about knowing the material so much as demonstrating creative writing ability. In a standard restricted or even an extended response item with clear parameters, though, the "formula" is pre-written.
Finally, yes, I presume that the professor knows what a good paper is. I also presume that as a professor at a university level, I'm going to hand off grading to my peons. Why? Because I don't have time to grade auditoriums full of essays. So as a student, which is better: having a peon grade, or having the professor program a computer with rules and filters based on what he is looking for.
Keep in mind that I don't believe that the computer's grade is inviolate -- I never said that. But I do believe that with proper training and coding, the instructor's work on grading can be reduced to handling appeals and addressing new arguments that the instructor hadn't previously considered -- the "disagreements" that catch him by surprise.