It was my understanding that a combination to a safe (unlike the physical KEY to a safe) *was* testimonial, as it's from one's head. In "In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher" the US District Court for Vermont ruled (IANAL, so please excuse my non-legal interpretation here) that only because the government had already seen the incriminating evidence on the defendant's laptop was the request for the same material upheld, though the password itself was not required to be turned over, only the unencrypted files on the drive, as those were the files that government agents had already seen. While I know you can't simply take other information from legal rulings as precedent, it sure sounds like if some lowly citizen merely *told* the agents they saw child porn on the drive, but the government hadn't verified this at all, they would've allowed to quash.
There haven't been any cases setting precedent that *I* know of, but it sounds like that in the US passwords are still testimonial.
It handles a lot of the Math rendering needed for the web without the need for the end user to install/do anything. Granted, it doesn't do things like macros or any other number of LaTeX stuff, but it does quite a lot as-is for taking straight TeX and rendering it properly.
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but GMail allows any user to put dots (.) in their email address as they want to help filtering and general formatting. So really, anyone with a GMail account starting with "wh" already has an address you could format like this.
I can't wait for the commercials of Windows Se7en being released. Morgan Freeman, fresh off a Mac commercial, signing for the package and having Brad Pitt pace around screaming, "What's in the box?!"
A woman that has a hysterectomy is still a woman will functioning female breasts or are we now talking about a woman with a hysterectomy that also lost her breasts in a comical incident with a meat grinder?
The GP suggested women are only women because they can give birth - I offered a counter example. Moreso, some women have small breasts and can't lactate. Where do these women fall? Or what of women who have has a double mastectomy and hysterectomy combo due to, for example, cancer? No longer women to you?
A woman who has a hysterectomy is still a woman with a vagina and not an orific that is potentially made out of bits of penis and goes into an anal cavity.
So by your definition, a woman who has GRS and rids herself of her vagina is no longer a woman? Can't have it one way and not the other...
Finally a woman who has had a hysterectomy is one who doesn't need pills to make her a woman.
So now hormones make the woman? Women who have had an oophorectomy take some of the same hormone pills that are used post-GRS. So these women are no longer women then?
Again, the only deciding factor on sex is our chromosomal makeup. As shown by you, other posters, and even me, there are societal definitions, as well as personal definitions, at work here. It's not as simple as projecting these quick-thought, shallow definitions onto everyone else -- from either side of the argument.
Personally? There are (wo)?men who are fit the classic definition of (wo)?men, effeminate men, masculine women, (wo)?men who sexually identify as the other biological sex, (wo?)men who are sexually attracted to their own sex, etc. I've known a biological woman who sexually identified as a gay man, i.e. she was biologically a woman (and still had the female bits), was attracted to men who were the classic definition of men, and was undergoing hormone therapy to be more like a male, physically. He also preferred the pronoun "he" when used to describe him. I don't think it's as simple anymore as saying, "Oh, that's a guy/girl."
Neither will women who have had a hysterectomy, but it makes them no less a woman. The only thing you can argue is what chromosomes are possessed, but dictionary definition aside, there's more to being a woman than having two X chromosomes. The social definition is arguably as or more important than the textbook definition. In a world where people desire brevity, how do you simplify "a born male who sexually, emotionally, and intellectually identifies (him|her)self as a woman" without acting like a 14 year old?
Semi-related: A quick tip it seems many don't know.. if you think you will actually find an answer on experts-exchange.com from, say, a Google search, click the link and scroll to the bottom, and by bottom I mean the part below what looks like the page footer and isn't. The actual, fulltext replies are all at the bottom of the page.
Cyberstalking is a crime in many states and in other countries. I'm not sure if these actions would really be considered cyberstalking, mind you, but this should show that stalking doesn't require any physical contact/interaction.
Slightly offtopic, but the most recent word screw-up that's been bugging me:
vegetarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetarian) 1. a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.
pescetarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pescetarian) 1. a vegetarian who will eat fish
Defining a pescetarian as a vegetarian who eats fish is like defining a slut as a virgin who fucks.
I have. After being caught trespassing in a public park after dark, when it was closed, though not doing anything else illegal (drugs, drinking, etc), the police asked us if they could search our car. We told them no, we'd like to get home. They asked if they'd have to bring in drug dogs or hold us up while waiting on a warrant (it was 2am and in the suburbs of Philly). We told them it would be a waste of their time, reiterated our "no," and that was the end of it. We didn't even have to do the community service for trespassing (which at the time they told us was the punishment).
So yeah, I've said no to the police before, and they didn't even "nail" me on what they had all the right and evidence to. They were doing their jobs by asking, and we exercised our rights by saying no to a search. Was rather uneventful.
I fail to see why him not charging makes any difference. He's lying for gain - the gain need not be monetary. It's a deceitful and (my opinion) disgusting business practice for one to engage in. Would it be worse if he charged people? Yes. Is it acceptable simply because it's free? No.
And who's to speak for his future intentions. Seems from his previous arguments (from his replies to other posters) his actions would be acceptable if he were no longer lying -- the ends would justify the means. He also seems to think I'm/we're the bad ones because there are worse evils in the world than him.
To clarify my stance: His original position was what he's doing isn't fraud (which later became qualified as not fraud by reason of lack of monetary gain). His actions are fraudulent regardless.
Sorry, man. I read all of his posts in here so far, and I understand what he's saying. But my god, I couldn't disagree with him more.
Ignore what I said much? You claim what you do isn't fraudulent. I claim it is, with a simple dictionary reference as my proof. You talk of my panties and the opinion of your users. Whether or not your users are happy, you defrauded them. It's a pretty simple concept. If you somehow know otherwise, I'd like to see how. But seeing what you've replied to other posters with, I don't think you're aware that legal precedent regarding your actions doesn't make a damn bit of difference on what the words mean. Just because no one has been charged with fraud for what you're doing doesn't mean it's not fraud.
By the very definition of the words... You've defrauded your customers. You've scammed your customers.
No, it's fraud, asshole: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud Just because it's not legal fraud doesn't mean it's not fraud. Deceit for profit -- seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Quit trying to defend unethical actions by simply claiming what you do isn't illegal. It can still be disgusting and wrong.
Not to say this applies to you (as you didn't give details), but something it seems too many people forget is how your actions can help cause or avoid an accident regardless of whose fault it is. I have a friend who's also been hit twice while sitting at a red light - what he leaves out until you bug him for details is he drives over the speed limit and relies on heavy braking to avoid hitting the guy in front of him at a light. Yes, the person behind him shouldn't be following so closely. But yes, if he wasn't tailgating and stopping short all the time he'd have a greater chance of avoiding those accidents.
This is why I have little sympathy for the 8 accidents he's been in which were all "not his fault" or for his higher insurance rates because of it.
I know this is/., but RTFA: "The Soylent Green: You can see the seams between this monitor's four segments, but the Alienware humanoids tell us that flaw will be gone by the time this craft lands on Earth."
Which makes it better than a source that can only be edited by a select few how? Some guy at the bar saying something will be called out on his lying bullshit when the entire bar hears him.
While Wikipedia has its shortcomings, every source you can cite does, too. One of the concepts behind Wikipedia is if there was bad information on there one of the millions (I'm guessing) who view it daily or who track specific articles because they're interested or an expert on that topic will notice, change, and correct. If you doubt the veracity of something, you have every right to challenge it, or to view the current discussions of and recent changes to the article.
But being blindly dismissive won't get you anywhere.
In which case my parents "brick" their computer two or three times a year by forgetting they turned the monitor off and can't figure out why their computer doesn't work when they press the power button on the computer itself.
No, I think bricking means something more than "the people who own it don't know what to do now."
Slashdot Mirror
It was my understanding that a combination to a safe (unlike the physical KEY to a safe) *was* testimonial, as it's from one's head. In "In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher" the US District Court for Vermont ruled (IANAL, so please excuse my non-legal interpretation here) that only because the government had already seen the incriminating evidence on the defendant's laptop was the request for the same material upheld, though the password itself was not required to be turned over, only the unencrypted files on the drive, as those were the files that government agents had already seen. While I know you can't simply take other information from legal rulings as precedent, it sure sounds like if some lowly citizen merely *told* the agents they saw child porn on the drive, but the government hadn't verified this at all, they would've allowed to quash.
There haven't been any cases setting precedent that *I* know of, but it sounds like that in the US passwords are still testimonial.
Also of note is MathJax (http://www.mathjax.com/) which is a full rewrite of jsMath (http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/)
(See jsMath in action: http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/examples/Henrici.html)
It handles a lot of the Math rendering needed for the web without the need for the end user to install/do anything. Granted, it doesn't do things like macros or any other number of LaTeX stuff, but it does quite a lot as-is for taking straight TeX and rendering it properly.
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but GMail allows any user to put dots (.) in their email address as they want to help filtering and general formatting. So really, anyone with a GMail account starting with "wh" already has an address you could format like this.
whiney@gmail.com == wh.iney@gmail.com == w.h.i.n.e.y@gmail.com
If you need up-to-date equipment, why are you buying the MacBook and not the MacBook Pro, which still has FireWire?
I can't wait for the commercials of Windows Se7en being released. Morgan Freeman, fresh off a Mac commercial, signing for the package and having Brad Pitt pace around screaming, "What's in the box?!"
Come to think of it...
http://therawfeed.com/pix/steve_ballmer-2.jpg
http://www.theambler.com/images/KevinSpaceySe7en.jpg
Oh shit, I think we're on to something.
A woman that has a hysterectomy is still a woman will functioning female breasts or are we now talking about a woman with a hysterectomy that also lost her breasts in a comical incident with a meat grinder?
The GP suggested women are only women because they can give birth - I offered a counter example. Moreso, some women have small breasts and can't lactate. Where do these women fall? Or what of women who have has a double mastectomy and hysterectomy combo due to, for example, cancer? No longer women to you?
A woman who has a hysterectomy is still a woman with a vagina and not an orific that is potentially made out of bits of penis and goes into an anal cavity.
So by your definition, a woman who has GRS and rids herself of her vagina is no longer a woman? Can't have it one way and not the other...
Finally a woman who has had a hysterectomy is one who doesn't need pills to make her a woman.
So now hormones make the woman? Women who have had an oophorectomy take some of the same hormone pills that are used post-GRS. So these women are no longer women then?
Again, the only deciding factor on sex is our chromosomal makeup. As shown by you, other posters, and even me, there are societal definitions, as well as personal definitions, at work here. It's not as simple as projecting these quick-thought, shallow definitions onto everyone else -- from either side of the argument.
Personally? There are (wo)?men who are fit the classic definition of (wo)?men, effeminate men, masculine women, (wo)?men who sexually identify as the other biological sex, (wo?)men who are sexually attracted to their own sex, etc. I've known a biological woman who sexually identified as a gay man, i.e. she was biologically a woman (and still had the female bits), was attracted to men who were the classic definition of men, and was undergoing hormone therapy to be more like a male, physically. He also preferred the pronoun "he" when used to describe him. I don't think it's as simple anymore as saying, "Oh, that's a guy/girl."
Neither will women who have had a hysterectomy, but it makes them no less a woman.
The only thing you can argue is what chromosomes are possessed, but dictionary definition aside, there's more to being a woman than having two X chromosomes. The social definition is arguably as or more important than the textbook definition. In a world where people desire brevity, how do you simplify "a born male who sexually, emotionally, and intellectually identifies (him|her)self as a woman" without acting like a 14 year old?
Semi-related: A quick tip it seems many don't know.. if you think you will actually find an answer on experts-exchange.com from, say, a Google search, click the link and scroll to the bottom, and by bottom I mean the part below what looks like the page footer and isn't. The actual, fulltext replies are all at the bottom of the page.
Quick example: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Scripting/Perl/Q_23602251.html
Scroll down to the "Solution" section.
7-day trial my ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#In_the_United_States
Cyberstalking is a crime in many states and in other countries. I'm not sure if these actions would really be considered cyberstalking, mind you, but this should show that stalking doesn't require any physical contact/interaction.
Eye, singular? You mugging pirates?
Seriously, though, I don't know if I'd say it's "very, very easy to detach yourself" - maybe..._easier_ to detach yourself?
Anti-blanket statement argument... ...Sponge Bob quote in the sig.
Since when is gasoline a basic necessity?
Slightly offtopic, but the most recent word screw-up that's been bugging me:
vegetarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetarian)
1. a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.
pescetarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pescetarian)
1. a vegetarian who will eat fish
Defining a pescetarian as a vegetarian who eats fish is like defining a slut as a virgin who fucks.
I have. After being caught trespassing in a public park after dark, when it was closed, though not doing anything else illegal (drugs, drinking, etc), the police asked us if they could search our car. We told them no, we'd like to get home. They asked if they'd have to bring in drug dogs or hold us up while waiting on a warrant (it was 2am and in the suburbs of Philly). We told them it would be a waste of their time, reiterated our "no," and that was the end of it. We didn't even have to do the community service for trespassing (which at the time they told us was the punishment).
So yeah, I've said no to the police before, and they didn't even "nail" me on what they had all the right and evidence to. They were doing their jobs by asking, and we exercised our rights by saying no to a search. Was rather uneventful.
Except I never said he was charging - that's my point :) Profit doesn't only mean monetary gain. People don't need to pay to be customers.
( To be fair, I shouldn't have called him an asshole in my first post, but I was mocking the way he called the GP an asshole in the first place. )
I fail to see why him not charging makes any difference. He's lying for gain - the gain need not be monetary. It's a deceitful and (my opinion) disgusting business practice for one to engage in. Would it be worse if he charged people? Yes. Is it acceptable simply because it's free? No.
And who's to speak for his future intentions. Seems from his previous arguments (from his replies to other posters) his actions would be acceptable if he were no longer lying -- the ends would justify the means. He also seems to think I'm/we're the bad ones because there are worse evils in the world than him.
To clarify my stance: His original position was what he's doing isn't fraud (which later became qualified as not fraud by reason of lack of monetary gain). His actions are fraudulent regardless.
Sorry, man. I read all of his posts in here so far, and I understand what he's saying. But my god, I couldn't disagree with him more.
Ignore what I said much? You claim what you do isn't fraudulent. I claim it is, with a simple dictionary reference as my proof. You talk of my panties and the opinion of your users. Whether or not your users are happy, you defrauded them. It's a pretty simple concept. If you somehow know otherwise, I'd like to see how. But seeing what you've replied to other posters with, I don't think you're aware that legal precedent regarding your actions doesn't make a damn bit of difference on what the words mean. Just because no one has been charged with fraud for what you're doing doesn't mean it's not fraud.
By the very definition of the words...
You've defrauded your customers.
You've scammed your customers.
I don't see how it could be any clearer.
No, it's fraud, asshole: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud Just because it's not legal fraud doesn't mean it's not fraud. Deceit for profit -- seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Quit trying to defend unethical actions by simply claiming what you do isn't illegal. It can still be disgusting and wrong.
Not to say this applies to you (as you didn't give details), but something it seems too many people forget is how your actions can help cause or avoid an accident regardless of whose fault it is. I have a friend who's also been hit twice while sitting at a red light - what he leaves out until you bug him for details is he drives over the speed limit and relies on heavy braking to avoid hitting the guy in front of him at a light. Yes, the person behind him shouldn't be following so closely. But yes, if he wasn't tailgating and stopping short all the time he'd have a greater chance of avoiding those accidents.
This is why I have little sympathy for the 8 accidents he's been in which were all "not his fault" or for his higher insurance rates because of it.
What about Gavin Harrison from Porcupine Tree? He gets my vote - his stuff isn't as masterbatory as the rest.
I know this is /., but RTFA: "The Soylent Green: You can see the seams between this monitor's four segments, but the Alienware humanoids tell us that flaw will be gone by the time this craft lands on Earth."
Which makes it better than a source that can only be edited by a select few how? Some guy at the bar saying something will be called out on his lying bullshit when the entire bar hears him.
While Wikipedia has its shortcomings, every source you can cite does, too. One of the concepts behind Wikipedia is if there was bad information on there one of the millions (I'm guessing) who view it daily or who track specific articles because they're interested or an expert on that topic will notice, change, and correct. If you doubt the veracity of something, you have every right to challenge it, or to view the current discussions of and recent changes to the article.
But being blindly dismissive won't get you anywhere.
In which case my parents "brick" their computer two or three times a year by forgetting they turned the monitor off and can't figure out why their computer doesn't work when they press the power button on the computer itself.
No, I think bricking means something more than "the people who own it don't know what to do now."