They once had turbines for Nantucket
that aroused the rich (where they stuck it)
for the juice didn't flow
when the wind didn't blow
so instead they contented to suck it.
If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Then you clearly didn't pay enough millions. You should have bought the whole of Nantucket Sound if you wanted to dictate what could happen within sight of and not merely on your property. I'd be pissed too, if I'd bought the property for a view that would be spoiled. But I'd have no real claim. Owning a piece of shoreline doesn't allow one to determine what can happens miles from shore.
Every rational person, that is, who isn't directly involved or doesn't personally know someone who is. While humans are pretty good at caring about those whom they know, most of us cannot help but regard others in a situation like this as far away abstractions.
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that most of us should be concerned about how the event will impact us personally--we might worry about further erosion of liberty or that this will be a Gulf of Tonkin incident, providing cover to go into Syria, Iran, or some other place we'd be better off leaving be. It is an exceptional person, a saint even, who is reflexively concerned first for the suffering of strangers. A laudable goal, but if we're honest most of us do not live up to such a standard.
Forgive the eschatological excess, but if the age of the MS PC should draw a close, then, at last, we have have the much prophesied YotLD. Not that everyone will then use a Linux desktop, but a great many of those left using desktops may be users of Linux (i.e. IT guys, programmers, people who have very particular needs and must customize, hobbyists, open sources aficionados, etc.).
The Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz, with Justice Black in dissent. Justice Marshall did not participate in the vote. Writing for the majority, Justice Stewart wrote, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.” Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determine if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversations can be made in public areas.
Justice Harlan’s Concurring opinion summarizes the essential holdings of the majority: “(a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (c) that an invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant.”
This line of reasoning easily applies also to email especially if the burden of proof is, as it should be, on those who would restrict legal and constitutional protections.
That's the point of having speeding laws; it is not the point of having automated enforcement. The point of automated enforcement is to increase revenues.
Get me back to the good 'ol days where your prof knew your name.
That would be nice. But, of course, back in those days a person like me wouldn't have had a shot at higher education, much less a Ph.D. No, I'd probably be on my way to black lung or some similar ailment by now, working in mines acquired by some guy who could afford to send his kids to a low student-to-teach ratio private school. The democratization of education has its costs as well as its benefits.
There is no policy that says to hassle passengers who aren't properly subservient, the employees do that because they're given a position of power with no supervision or adequate training.
Yes, people (in this case employees) will do what they can get away with. I agree with this and everything you say thereafter. But part of crafting good policy is ensuring accountability as part of that policy. A policy which puts people in power without adequate supervision and training--as well as regular means of ensuring these are implemented--is a faulty policy. Any curative would require policy changes (in oversight,guidelines, management procedures, hiring requirements, transparency, redundancies, etc.). The responsibility for making such changes and therefore the responsibility for continued delay until changes are made rests with the policy-makers.
You know, I gotta say that as somebody who travels all over the country for work, the people who get the hassle from the TSA are the people like you who think they're being cute, funny, or "proving a point" by being a smart-ass to the TSA agent, and cracking jokes about weapons, or sexual assault.
This is very likely true. Given my temperament, I try to be polite and get on my way in situations like this and I am rarely if ever hassled. Even so, we've a real problem if being a smart-ass is grounds for suspicion. Talk of bombs and weapons aside, if TSA agents are groping someone and he chooses to crack wise about being molested, that is no excuse for getting hassled by said agents. To be detained or delayed for such is an attempt on the part of the agent or the agency to chill free speech.
You might get aggravated by such smart-ass grandstanding--I probably would a bit myself were I waiting in line--but the real people responsible for the delay aren't the smart-asses but the policy-makers and those they choose to execute their policies. Nothing is so clear a sign of the loss of civil liberty and the rule of law as people in authority who can treat heckling as suspect.
Seriously, I'd like the/. feedback on this... haven't all real linux users abandoned *buntu since a year or 2 back?
Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu. This is sort of like Mint which I, a former Ubuntu user, currently run. I would guess that much of what has frustrated Ubuntu users will be excluded and replaced with custom, in-house frustrations. Secondly, "all real linux users"? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. A Linux user, by definition, is a person who uses Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. Therefore, a person who uses Ubuntu is also a Linux user. There is no place for "real" qualifiers to enter this any more than someone can be a "real bachelor" or a "true Scotsman". To count oneself a real Linux user and to deny that to others who happen to use a distro one doesn't like is just self-indulgent.
After this, few will see the joke next year because few will bother visiting the site. Maybe it's all an elaborate scheme to reduce the number of "days read in a row" awards they hand out. Those things get expensive.
Maybe not for such instances. Though I honestly have not seen any sources that indicate someone selling himself into slavery to accumulate money for a dowry. But say rather that you are presented with these options: 1) suffer physical violence and possible death for failure to repay debt; 2) starve or see your children starve to save up money to pay the debt; 3) sell yourself into slavery to pay the debt. Would this be included in your definition?
Indeed many did choose to sell themselves into slavery, or their children, in order to secure a better life than they could make on their own. Slaves very often lived better off than the unskilled poor, and they weren't likely to be found starving on the street. To say they weren't as exploited as in modern times, however, is something I would hesitate to do. I suppose it depends on your definition of exploitation. In the end, the pater familias had the power of life and death over his household. He could even kill one of his own sons (though this was rarely done in later times), so a slave who was on his bad side much to fear. Sure, some bought their way to freedom or even pleased their masters so much that freedom was given them, but this depended entirely on the good nature of the owners who might just as likely work them to death in the mines. If you've ever heard those stories of the "good" slave owners in the U.S., whose slaves would willingly fight for them or were freed, you will recognize that they're exceptions used to justify a broadly exploitive system. The same applies to Roman slavery. Give that much power to any person and the same results will always show.
Theoretically you could come up with a slavery contract that restricted what the owner could ask you to do and when and how much, but at what point would that still be called slavery?
Conversely, at what point could employment conditions in the industrial world, where the threat of being fired is like the threat of losing access to healthcare or even losing your home, be called a slow, steady return to the servile state? In the Roman republic, the working poor largely chose to work as what we would call day laborers. Workers would hang out near the forum (they didn't have a Home Depot, or I suppose a Domus Depositum back then, the savages) and wait for someone to come hire them for the day. One of the most common jobs was simply carrying goods, mostly building material, from the outer to the inner parts of town since ox carts were forbidden in town. You'd get a flat wage for the work once the day was done and you'd likely work for someone else entirely the next day. I forget the exact calculations, but once the public grain dole was in place an unskilled laborer could make a living for himself and his family by securing such work for about 100 days out of the year. You wouldn't get rich but you'd have food in your stomach and enough money to rent an apartment in one of the massive apartment blocks (insulae). This was considered a preferable form of unskilled labor for many because there was a stigma attached to regular employment, i.e. going to work for the same person day after day, and taking his orders, looked too much like slavery.
Yeah, I had to read that part twice because I had the same thought. What the writer seems to mean is that there won't in fact be drop in energy significant enough to step down power production and thereby save CO2. The "moreover" introduces a hypothetical possibility: i.e. even if power consumption decreased enough to step down power production, the energy wasted in stepping production down and up would outweigh the overall savings in consumption. This makes a sort of sense, but I saw no numbers in TFA to back it up, so I'll remain skeptical.
The fact that the author indulges in one non sequitur after another (why is he talking about the benefits of electricity? who's denying them? I thought the point was that our means of generating it has some drawbacks. Who's lighting candles?), often without offering evidence, leaves me even colder. The basic notion that shutting off electric lights for an hour is about making us feel good I can agree with. But I think this guy is just trolling. Maybe it makes him feel better about himself.
We are pleased to receive anonymous donations in the mail, but please note that your personal information is required if you choose to donate using our online form.
Their address is:
Electronic Frontier Foundation,
454 Shotwell Street,
San Francisco, CA 94110
This is probably as close as you can get to anonymous, unless you have a friend drop off cash at their office.
Slashdot Mirror
They once had turbines for Nantucket
that aroused the rich (where they stuck it)
for the juice didn't flow
when the wind didn't blow
so instead they contented to suck it.
Then you clearly didn't pay enough millions. You should have bought the whole of Nantucket Sound if you wanted to dictate what could happen within sight of and not merely on your property. I'd be pissed too, if I'd bought the property for a view that would be spoiled. But I'd have no real claim. Owning a piece of shoreline doesn't allow one to determine what can happens miles from shore.
Every rational person, that is, who isn't directly involved or doesn't personally know someone who is. While humans are pretty good at caring about those whom they know, most of us cannot help but regard others in a situation like this as far away abstractions.
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that most of us should be concerned about how the event will impact us personally--we might worry about further erosion of liberty or that this will be a Gulf of Tonkin incident, providing cover to go into Syria, Iran, or some other place we'd be better off leaving be. It is an exceptional person, a saint even, who is reflexively concerned first for the suffering of strangers. A laudable goal, but if we're honest most of us do not live up to such a standard.
Forgive the eschatological excess, but if the age of the MS PC should draw a close, then, at last, we have have the much prophesied YotLD. Not that everyone will then use a Linux desktop, but a great many of those left using desktops may be users of Linux (i.e. IT guys, programmers, people who have very particular needs and must customize, hobbyists, open sources aficionados, etc.).
This line of reasoning easily applies also to email especially if the burden of proof is, as it should be, on those who would restrict legal and constitutional protections.
That's the point of having speeding laws; it is not the point of having automated enforcement. The point of automated enforcement is to increase revenues.
And that for an extremely cool reason.
It is, as one commentator has recently put it, the bitter legacy of Mickey Mouse.
Stop sending takedown notices. You're helping the so-called pirates and by the logic you've used in the past that makes you culpable for their piracy.
That would be nice. But, of course, back in those days a person like me wouldn't have had a shot at higher education, much less a Ph.D. No, I'd probably be on my way to black lung or some similar ailment by now, working in mines acquired by some guy who could afford to send his kids to a low student-to-teach ratio private school. The democratization of education has its costs as well as its benefits.
A perfectly normal, human mistake. Now you understand the sarcasm. Had the computer been able to fact check, well, let's imagine its reaction.
Archaisms are also not a grammatical problem. Even so, the checker chided him for chided, so why shouldn't he expect it for swearing?
Yes, people (in this case employees) will do what they can get away with. I agree with this and everything you say thereafter. But part of crafting good policy is ensuring accountability as part of that policy. A policy which puts people in power without adequate supervision and training--as well as regular means of ensuring these are implemented--is a faulty policy. Any curative would require policy changes (in oversight,guidelines, management procedures, hiring requirements, transparency, redundancies, etc.). The responsibility for making such changes and therefore the responsibility for continued delay until changes are made rests with the policy-makers.
This is very likely true. Given my temperament, I try to be polite and get on my way in situations like this and I am rarely if ever hassled. Even so, we've a real problem if being a smart-ass is grounds for suspicion. Talk of bombs and weapons aside, if TSA agents are groping someone and he chooses to crack wise about being molested, that is no excuse for getting hassled by said agents. To be detained or delayed for such is an attempt on the part of the agent or the agency to chill free speech.
You might get aggravated by such smart-ass grandstanding--I probably would a bit myself were I waiting in line--but the real people responsible for the delay aren't the smart-asses but the policy-makers and those they choose to execute their policies. Nothing is so clear a sign of the loss of civil liberty and the rule of law as people in authority who can treat heckling as suspect.
Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu. This is sort of like Mint which I, a former Ubuntu user, currently run. I would guess that much of what has frustrated Ubuntu users will be excluded and replaced with custom, in-house frustrations. Secondly, "all real linux users"? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. A Linux user, by definition, is a person who uses Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. Therefore, a person who uses Ubuntu is also a Linux user. There is no place for "real" qualifiers to enter this any more than someone can be a "real bachelor" or a "true Scotsman". To count oneself a real Linux user and to deny that to others who happen to use a distro one doesn't like is just self-indulgent.
After this, few will see the joke next year because few will bother visiting the site. Maybe it's all an elaborate scheme to reduce the number of "days read in a row" awards they hand out. Those things get expensive.
Maybe not for such instances. Though I honestly have not seen any sources that indicate someone selling himself into slavery to accumulate money for a dowry. But say rather that you are presented with these options: 1) suffer physical violence and possible death for failure to repay debt; 2) starve or see your children starve to save up money to pay the debt; 3) sell yourself into slavery to pay the debt. Would this be included in your definition?
Indeed many did choose to sell themselves into slavery, or their children, in order to secure a better life than they could make on their own. Slaves very often lived better off than the unskilled poor, and they weren't likely to be found starving on the street. To say they weren't as exploited as in modern times, however, is something I would hesitate to do. I suppose it depends on your definition of exploitation. In the end, the pater familias had the power of life and death over his household. He could even kill one of his own sons (though this was rarely done in later times), so a slave who was on his bad side much to fear. Sure, some bought their way to freedom or even pleased their masters so much that freedom was given them, but this depended entirely on the good nature of the owners who might just as likely work them to death in the mines. If you've ever heard those stories of the "good" slave owners in the U.S., whose slaves would willingly fight for them or were freed, you will recognize that they're exceptions used to justify a broadly exploitive system. The same applies to Roman slavery. Give that much power to any person and the same results will always show.
Conversely, at what point could employment conditions in the industrial world, where the threat of being fired is like the threat of losing access to healthcare or even losing your home, be called a slow, steady return to the servile state? In the Roman republic, the working poor largely chose to work as what we would call day laborers. Workers would hang out near the forum (they didn't have a Home Depot, or I suppose a Domus Depositum back then, the savages) and wait for someone to come hire them for the day. One of the most common jobs was simply carrying goods, mostly building material, from the outer to the inner parts of town since ox carts were forbidden in town. You'd get a flat wage for the work once the day was done and you'd likely work for someone else entirely the next day. I forget the exact calculations, but once the public grain dole was in place an unskilled laborer could make a living for himself and his family by securing such work for about 100 days out of the year. You wouldn't get rich but you'd have food in your stomach and enough money to rent an apartment in one of the massive apartment blocks (insulae). This was considered a preferable form of unskilled labor for many because there was a stigma attached to regular employment, i.e. going to work for the same person day after day, and taking his orders, looked too much like slavery.
He represents all that is soulless and wrong! And you slept with him! Wait... you don't mean Bill either do you.
And bad symbolism at that. Within the symbolic context of this Earth Hour, a solar powered solution to our CO2 woes should shine the brightest.
Yeah, I had to read that part twice because I had the same thought. What the writer seems to mean is that there won't in fact be drop in energy significant enough to step down power production and thereby save CO2. The "moreover" introduces a hypothetical possibility: i.e. even if power consumption decreased enough to step down power production, the energy wasted in stepping production down and up would outweigh the overall savings in consumption. This makes a sort of sense, but I saw no numbers in TFA to back it up, so I'll remain skeptical.
The fact that the author indulges in one non sequitur after another (why is he talking about the benefits of electricity? who's denying them? I thought the point was that our means of generating it has some drawbacks. Who's lighting candles?), often without offering evidence, leaves me even colder. The basic notion that shutting off electric lights for an hour is about making us feel good I can agree with. But I think this guy is just trolling. Maybe it makes him feel better about himself.
Their address is:
This is probably as close as you can get to anonymous, unless you have a friend drop off cash at their office.
Give money to the EFF. You'll even get a nifty t-shirt out of the deal if you like.
It's not just for Humble Bundles anymore.