Given the penalties for employing unauthorized immigrants, it's a fair and reasonable question to ask, especially as the question can be answered with a straight "Yes" without needing to go into detail.
Voting Republican if you're a civil libertarian tells the Democrats not that they lost civil libertarians, but that they lost conservatives, and thus pushes the Democrats to the right, while causing issues on civil liberties to be ignored.
What you do is find a third party that is more representative of your views than the parties of power.
Policy wonks and party management generally ignore non-voters: they look at who votes and who they voted for. If a small party seems to have attracted a lot of voters who'd normally be in your camp, you look into why they voted against you, and see what you can do to win them over next time.
But this "I have to vote for the two biggest parties or not vote at all" crap has to stop. If you want clear blue water between both parties, with at least one actually representing your point of view, you do the world a disservice if you don't take a positive action to force the parties to change.
A friend of mine was a prosecutor and made the decision not to prosecute one of two murderers so that the murderer would testify against the other. The father and husband of the victims then turned into a serial killer, killed the other murderer, messed with the execution equipment of the convicted killer so he'd die a painful death, and then started killing everyone in the DA's office. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? Because THIS SHIT IS REAL.
Open a map, take a look at "Asia", and tell me with a straight face there's less cultural diversity (and therefore more ease of generalization about cultural customs) there than, say, across Europe (which is tiny in comparison.) This part of the world has part of Russia, the whole of China, and the whole of India in it. And that's just scratching the surface!
If we move to VoIP, the likely result is that the USF will be applied to broadband service. There's nothing wrong with that.
In a case where people are buying Internet access and phone service, VoIP can be a cost saving. That said, I think the best argument for VoIP is that it's a considerably more powerful service than POTS without the high price of ISDN, not that it's a cheap way to rid yourself of your home phone service.
* Subsequently, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. There has been no evidence that I am aware of that indicates that ZImmerman initiated any physical interaction; the police statement and witness story is that Trayvon fired the initial punch and proceeded to slam his head into the pavement
* At some point during all of this Zimmerman called for help.
This is very dubious and the facts are not remotely as clear cut as you're suggesting. It has been reported that a witness claims to have seen this. Most witnesses say they heard Trayvon call for help, not Zimmerman. At least one such witness had her testimony rewritten by police to claim it was Zimmerman and called them out on it. If every story you've read "agrees" that these are the facts, then you've limited yourself to a small number of very dubious sources.
It's also extremely dubious to suggest that Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman given even these facts even if Trayvon threw the first physical punch. If an armed, threatening, home intruder is shot by a home owner, did the home owner initiate the attack simply because the intruder hadn't yet touched him? Does the logic change simply because the exchange is outside of the home?
Look at the context here. Zimmerman was clearly, to Trayvon, a threat to Trayvon. He was armed. He was stalking him. Any person who believes in a right to self defense cannot possibly argue that Trayvon was in the wrong to defend himself against such a person, with both the facts that are known, and the most Zimmerman-friendly versions of the facts that aren't.
Your last paragraph isn't merely putting words into my mouth, it's claiming I'm free to say the opposite of what I said. You appear to be so keen on victimizing the victim, you can't even understand that the Zimmerman/Trayvon can be Zimmerman's fault without him being evil.
"Show" has multiple meanings. I was using the "Proves" or "Demonstrates" usage of the word, as in "The fact that the UK's economy is getting worse shows that austerity measures do not help", rather than the "Peter showed his penis to the class", or "Did you see that great show last night? It was awesome" definitions.
I'm not selling it short, I said you can combine Google Voice with Google Talk to make a VoIP system, it's just GV itself is not a VoIP system.
I have an Asterisk 1.8 server set up that routes outgoing International calls via Google Talk, outgoing office calls via Google Talk, and incoming Google Talk calls to my office line. Obviously as they're linked, the outgoing CLI is my Google Voice number, and calls to my GV number result in my office phone ringing. But it's Google Talk doing the grunt work, not GV.
The problem with the "It was Zimmerman who was jumped" arrgument is that the 911 tapes clearly show Zimmerman stalking and confronting Martin. Zimmerman may or may not have been injured in the resulting confrontation, but in a normal world, if I'm stalked and threatened by a gun waving nut, any injuries I inflict on said nut are self defense on MY part, not his. And if his gun goes off, that's him attacking me, not self defense.
I'm happy to go with the tragic misjudgement thesis, I think it was, I think on the basis of what we've heard some stupidity and a little prejudice (OMG! A black in a hoodie looking at the houses he passes!") lead to Zimmerman making an utterly foolish decision that lead to the death of a blameless teen.
I'm also happy to go with the "This has nothing to do with the stand your ground law" view (a law that I reluctantly support.)
But this sudden apologia for the killing, this decision to paint the victim as deserving, from evidence of injuries as Martin fought back against a threatening stranger against him, to stupid comments about the wisdom of wearing your hood when it's raining, to irrelevent factoids about dope use (yeah, 'cos cannabis smokers are so violent...).... it's disgusting, I find it repulsive, and it needs to stop.
...plus they get what they get from GMail: advertising dollars.
Yes, I'm aware that the Android apps don't show apps. But the websites do. And the chances are that if you use GV, you use the websites as well as the apps. I read* half my voicemails in GMail.
I'm kind of baffled by this article to be honest. In any other case, a site funded by ads on the web front-end, and payments for premium services, would not generate this kind of stupid question! But if it's GOOGLE, OMG! They must be up to something!
* For those who think that's an error, which will compromise of 90% of Slashdotters based upon my experience, please find out what Google Voice is. Go to voice.google.com and take a look. Yes, I read my voicemails.
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
It was bad enough when the critics insisted that Google Voice was some VoIP service, and you now think it's a voice command system?
Google Voice is a really cool voicemail, call screening, redirection, and discounted international calls service. The only speech recognition it does is a transcription service for incoming voicemails (so you can read them rather than listen to them.) The transcriptions are rarely anything close to perfect, but usually good enough to get the gist.
It's not VoIP (although it's integrated quite nicely with Google Talk so it can be _part_ of a VoIP system if you want), it's not voice commands, it's a pretty unique and, in my view (disclaimer: I own ONE share of GOOG) awesome enhancement to your phone system.
On the other hand, when Kodak saw the writing was on the wall for film, it adapted and went all in for digital photography, developing many of the key technologies and essentially moving their entire consumer photography line to digital.
Did adapting help Kodak? Fuck no!
Some companies adapt and survive. Others adapt and do not. Still others hang around, see what happens, and survive anyway. And others don't adapt, and die.
You really can't generalize about this kind of thing.
Simply not true. VHS was barely region encoded (it need matching to the national TV standard, but there are only a handful of those and they're not consistent in terms of local content laws) - and if frame rate/# lines was the same, black and white playback was always garanteed; Laserdisc, IIRC, only required the same frame rate/# lines, and HD DVD was entirely regionless.
The region encoding concept really doesn't exist outside of DVD and Blu-ray, and there were never legal issues with the other formats, any more than there were with books or music.
I wouldn't. I want a decent chance of the disc playing in any player I'd be likely to throw it at. I thought things were bad enough with BD+, I didn't realize there was also crap like Cinavia added since.
Blu-ray is an awful, awful, format, quite genuinely the worst of the HD formats - but unfortunately it's the very things that made it awful that made it Hollywood's choice. Which is probably why, even in an age of sub-$100 players, I don't see many people buying the players or, if they do, buying discs (except when forced to because the DVD isn't available separately.)
Not to defend Apple, but I've never come across a mobile phone that you unlock using a physical slider. The nearest I can think of are slide phones where you pull (or rather push with your thumb) the phone apart, which is made of two parts similar to the two parts of a flip phone.)
You'll notice the GP didn't say anything about a right not to be offended. He was talking about intimidation.
Hate crimes are not simply crimes where someone has said "I think gays are bad". Nobody has outlawed that. They're crimes where someone's said "I'm going to beat you up, or kill you, because you're gay."
This is about violence being used to, or with the effect of, intimidate a group of real people who have done nothing wrong. Sometimes motives matter. This is one of those cases. If it doesn't matter, if violence and killing is no worse if the intent is to intimidate a group of people, then convict Bin Laden for manslaughter and have him do community service.
Well, with hate crimes, I think it's one of the few times the T word might actually be appropriate - at least, for those involving violence (arguably not this one.)
Look, if a random person is beat up for their shoes, most people tut tut and go on with their lives. They might avoid that area of town after dark, but they don't feel the attack was made at them, and do not feel especially at risk. They do not feel like they have to hide some aspect of themselves or get protection from others who are not like them.
If someone is beaten up because they are gay (or black, or a woman, or whatever), then that does change the formula somewhat. Gay (or black, or female) people are suddenly aware that there's a group out there that hates them and is willing to single them out for violence if it happens. Those who are committing the act are causing terror.
And there's a reason why we single out certain groups for protection (such as homosexuals, Jews, etc) rather than all identifiable groups (nerds, redheads, rich white men, etc) - because those groups have a history of being targeted by hate groups, and of having violence against them, and those groups lack the power and organization to protect themselves. That combination of knowing that an act of violence against a member of a group that includes you means something serious, and that you have little options in terms of defense, is why it crosses the line from "Some people are assholes" to "I have legitimate reasons to be terrified."
Motives don't always matter, but there's at least a legitimate reason for distinguishing between a drunk flailing at a passer-by and a burning cross on someone's lawn.
A BSoD is a sign that the kernel space has been tampered with in some way. Now, it could be that there's no way to predictably tamper with the kernel using this exploit (eg all it does is, say, to cause some kernel routine to divide by zero, and thus crash), or it could be something like a buffer overflow exploit, where you can, using this technique, set a specific part of the memory to contain specific code, and by a little finagling, cause that code to be executed.
Now, it's a whole lot easier to demonstrate that a flaw like a buffer overflow can be used to cause a DoS situation like a BSoD than to spend days or weeks getting it to do something more "useful", so what we have here is a quick and dirty proof of concept to demonstrate there is a flaw to begin with.
Basically, the fact the proof-of-concept causes a BSoD doesn't mean that exploits of the flaw are limited to a BSoD. If it's a buffer overflow or something similar, then in theory anyone could exploit this bug to gain remote kernel level access to a Windows computer, without you ever knowing or seeing anything out of the ordinary.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the penalties for employing unauthorized immigrants, it's a fair and reasonable question to ask, especially as the question can be answered with a straight "Yes" without needing to go into detail.
In this instance you vote for a third party.
Voting Republican if you're a civil libertarian tells the Democrats not that they lost civil libertarians, but that they lost conservatives, and thus pushes the Democrats to the right, while causing issues on civil liberties to be ignored.
What you do is find a third party that is more representative of your views than the parties of power.
Policy wonks and party management generally ignore non-voters: they look at who votes and who they voted for. If a small party seems to have attracted a lot of voters who'd normally be in your camp, you look into why they voted against you, and see what you can do to win them over next time.
But this "I have to vote for the two biggest parties or not vote at all" crap has to stop. If you want clear blue water between both parties, with at least one actually representing your point of view, you do the world a disservice if you don't take a positive action to force the parties to change.
A friend of mine was a prosecutor and made the decision not to prosecute one of two murderers so that the murderer would testify against the other. The father and husband of the victims then turned into a serial killer, killed the other murderer, messed with the execution equipment of the convicted killer so he'd die a painful death, and then started killing everyone in the DA's office. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? Because THIS SHIT IS REAL.
Open a map, take a look at "Asia", and tell me with a straight face there's less cultural diversity (and therefore more ease of generalization about cultural customs) there than, say, across Europe (which is tiny in comparison.) This part of the world has part of Russia, the whole of China, and the whole of India in it. And that's just scratching the surface!
Now Slashdot is going to be come synonymous with something people use to waste time, except for nerds.
If we move to VoIP, the likely result is that the USF will be applied to broadband service. There's nothing wrong with that.
In a case where people are buying Internet access and phone service, VoIP can be a cost saving. That said, I think the best argument for VoIP is that it's a considerably more powerful service than POTS without the high price of ISDN, not that it's a cheap way to rid yourself of your home phone service.
This is very dubious and the facts are not remotely as clear cut as you're suggesting. It has been reported that a witness claims to have seen this. Most witnesses say they heard Trayvon call for help, not Zimmerman. At least one such witness had her testimony rewritten by police to claim it was Zimmerman and called them out on it. If every story you've read "agrees" that these are the facts, then you've limited yourself to a small number of very dubious sources.
It's also extremely dubious to suggest that Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman given even these facts even if Trayvon threw the first physical punch. If an armed, threatening, home intruder is shot by a home owner, did the home owner initiate the attack simply because the intruder hadn't yet touched him? Does the logic change simply because the exchange is outside of the home?
Look at the context here. Zimmerman was clearly, to Trayvon, a threat to Trayvon. He was armed. He was stalking him. Any person who believes in a right to self defense cannot possibly argue that Trayvon was in the wrong to defend himself against such a person, with both the facts that are known, and the most Zimmerman-friendly versions of the facts that aren't.
Your last paragraph isn't merely putting words into my mouth, it's claiming I'm free to say the opposite of what I said. You appear to be so keen on victimizing the victim, you can't even understand that the Zimmerman/Trayvon can be Zimmerman's fault without him being evil.
"Show" has multiple meanings. I was using the "Proves" or "Demonstrates" usage of the word, as in "The fact that the UK's economy is getting worse shows that austerity measures do not help", rather than the "Peter showed his penis to the class", or "Did you see that great show last night? It was awesome" definitions.
Because they're effing expensive!
I'd buy more long term, but Google doesn't pay dividends, and I usually only invest in dividend stocks. But I like Google.
I have an Asterisk 1.8 server set up that routes outgoing International calls via Google Talk, outgoing office calls via Google Talk, and incoming Google Talk calls to my office line. Obviously as they're linked, the outgoing CLI is my Google Voice number, and calls to my GV number result in my office phone ringing. But it's Google Talk doing the grunt work, not GV.
The problem with the "It was Zimmerman who was jumped" arrgument is that the 911 tapes clearly show Zimmerman stalking and confronting Martin. Zimmerman may or may not have been injured in the resulting confrontation, but in a normal world, if I'm stalked and threatened by a gun waving nut, any injuries I inflict on said nut are self defense on MY part, not his. And if his gun goes off, that's him attacking me, not self defense.
I'm happy to go with the tragic misjudgement thesis, I think it was, I think on the basis of what we've heard some stupidity and a little prejudice (OMG! A black in a hoodie looking at the houses he passes!") lead to Zimmerman making an utterly foolish decision that lead to the death of a blameless teen.
I'm also happy to go with the "This has nothing to do with the stand your ground law" view (a law that I reluctantly support.)
But this sudden apologia for the killing, this decision to paint the victim as deserving, from evidence of injuries as Martin fought back against a threatening stranger against him, to stupid comments about the wisdom of wearing your hood when it's raining, to irrelevent factoids about dope use (yeah, 'cos cannabis smokers are so violent...).... it's disgusting, I find it repulsive, and it needs to stop.
Uh, don't show ads, obviously. Sorry. Not enough coffee this morning.
Yes, I'm aware that the Android apps don't show apps. But the websites do. And the chances are that if you use GV, you use the websites as well as the apps. I read* half my voicemails in GMail.
I'm kind of baffled by this article to be honest. In any other case, a site funded by ads on the web front-end, and payments for premium services, would not generate this kind of stupid question! But if it's GOOGLE, OMG! They must be up to something!
* For those who think that's an error, which will compromise of 90% of Slashdotters based upon my experience, please find out what Google Voice is. Go to voice.google.com and take a look. Yes, I read my voicemails.
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
It was bad enough when the critics insisted that Google Voice was some VoIP service, and you now think it's a voice command system?
Google Voice is a really cool voicemail, call screening, redirection, and discounted international calls service. The only speech recognition it does is a transcription service for incoming voicemails (so you can read them rather than listen to them.) The transcriptions are rarely anything close to perfect, but usually good enough to get the gist.
It's not VoIP (although it's integrated quite nicely with Google Talk so it can be _part_ of a VoIP system if you want), it's not voice commands, it's a pretty unique and, in my view (disclaimer: I own ONE share of GOOG) awesome enhancement to your phone system.
On the other hand, when Kodak saw the writing was on the wall for film, it adapted and went all in for digital photography, developing many of the key technologies and essentially moving their entire consumer photography line to digital.
Did adapting help Kodak? Fuck no!
Some companies adapt and survive. Others adapt and do not. Still others hang around, see what happens, and survive anyway. And others don't adapt, and die.
You really can't generalize about this kind of thing.
Simply not true. VHS was barely region encoded (it need matching to the national TV standard, but there are only a handful of those and they're not consistent in terms of local content laws) - and if frame rate/# lines was the same, black and white playback was always garanteed; Laserdisc, IIRC, only required the same frame rate/# lines, and HD DVD was entirely regionless.
The region encoding concept really doesn't exist outside of DVD and Blu-ray, and there were never legal issues with the other formats, any more than there were with books or music.
I wouldn't. I want a decent chance of the disc playing in any player I'd be likely to throw it at. I thought things were bad enough with BD+, I didn't realize there was also crap like Cinavia added since.
Blu-ray is an awful, awful, format, quite genuinely the worst of the HD formats - but unfortunately it's the very things that made it awful that made it Hollywood's choice. Which is probably why, even in an age of sub-$100 players, I don't see many people buying the players or, if they do, buying discs (except when forced to because the DVD isn't available separately.)
Frankly, that analogy is the kind of one Hilter would make.
I'm pretty sure Wall Street is unhappy with Hesse anyway. The stock has been tanking for years now.
Why not use USB tethering then?
Not to defend Apple, but I've never come across a mobile phone that you unlock using a physical slider. The nearest I can think of are slide phones where you pull (or rather push with your thumb) the phone apart, which is made of two parts similar to the two parts of a flip phone.)
You'll notice the GP didn't say anything about a right not to be offended. He was talking about intimidation.
Hate crimes are not simply crimes where someone has said "I think gays are bad". Nobody has outlawed that. They're crimes where someone's said "I'm going to beat you up, or kill you, because you're gay."
This is about violence being used to, or with the effect of, intimidate a group of real people who have done nothing wrong. Sometimes motives matter. This is one of those cases. If it doesn't matter, if violence and killing is no worse if the intent is to intimidate a group of people, then convict Bin Laden for manslaughter and have him do community service.
Well, with hate crimes, I think it's one of the few times the T word might actually be appropriate - at least, for those involving violence (arguably not this one.)
Look, if a random person is beat up for their shoes, most people tut tut and go on with their lives. They might avoid that area of town after dark, but they don't feel the attack was made at them, and do not feel especially at risk. They do not feel like they have to hide some aspect of themselves or get protection from others who are not like them.
If someone is beaten up because they are gay (or black, or a woman, or whatever), then that does change the formula somewhat. Gay (or black, or female) people are suddenly aware that there's a group out there that hates them and is willing to single them out for violence if it happens. Those who are committing the act are causing terror.
And there's a reason why we single out certain groups for protection (such as homosexuals, Jews, etc) rather than all identifiable groups (nerds, redheads, rich white men, etc) - because those groups have a history of being targeted by hate groups, and of having violence against them, and those groups lack the power and organization to protect themselves. That combination of knowing that an act of violence against a member of a group that includes you means something serious, and that you have little options in terms of defense, is why it crosses the line from "Some people are assholes" to "I have legitimate reasons to be terrified."
Motives don't always matter, but there's at least a legitimate reason for distinguishing between a drunk flailing at a passer-by and a burning cross on someone's lawn.
It depends on what the exploit is.
A BSoD is a sign that the kernel space has been tampered with in some way. Now, it could be that there's no way to predictably tamper with the kernel using this exploit (eg all it does is, say, to cause some kernel routine to divide by zero, and thus crash), or it could be something like a buffer overflow exploit, where you can, using this technique, set a specific part of the memory to contain specific code, and by a little finagling, cause that code to be executed.
Now, it's a whole lot easier to demonstrate that a flaw like a buffer overflow can be used to cause a DoS situation like a BSoD than to spend days or weeks getting it to do something more "useful", so what we have here is a quick and dirty proof of concept to demonstrate there is a flaw to begin with.
Basically, the fact the proof-of-concept causes a BSoD doesn't mean that exploits of the flaw are limited to a BSoD. If it's a buffer overflow or something similar, then in theory anyone could exploit this bug to gain remote kernel level access to a Windows computer, without you ever knowing or seeing anything out of the ordinary.
Well, yes, because the mob would be threatening people with broken limbs and missing digits, not with lawsuits.
What's your point?