The company I work for actually classifies data in that some data is labeled "confidential." The word "confidential" is not necessarily ambiguous, but rather refers to all company information labeled "confidential." Most companies that have policies regarding confidential data quite explicitly define it.
I filed a complaint with the BBB when I had problems with my cabel company arbitrarily deciding I needed an HD package. Oddly the cabel company called me the day after I filed the complaint to appologize and assure me they would be sending a training package to the local agencies and credit my account. I have found that if you want to get someone's attention, a BBB complaint works pretty well.
That's pretty cool that I use the internet to play games with my friends and families on the other side of the country in order to be less social... Would you also argue that by letting my daughter skype with her grand mother who lives a thousand miles away I am discouraging the relationship?
If you are that concerned about blowing out one of your appliance, I would suggest looking into a home warrenty. They will cover replacement/repairs costs for random appliances along with a number of other things home owners doesn't cover. When I bought my house it came with one and when my dishwasher failed they replaced it, no questions asked. You will still have the inconvience of being without the appliance for however long it takes you to replace it, but you won't be out the money.
If you do not notice that you cannot do something as fundamental as see, it is obviously not impacting your ability to function. Glasses are optional. I can chose to not wear mine. If it is not impacting my ability to function, why should I be forced to go see a doctor to get new ones?
The driving aspect is a separate aspect that should be addressed by the DMV. If we expect such radical and rapid vision changes, we should require the DMV to administer vision tests through renewal procedures more often. However, driving is also optional. I am not required to obtain and maintain a driver's license.
I have a a small child I would be willing to rent out. She would be quite happy to throw popcorn at you and ask silly questions randomly during key dialog.
I think we should all go watch the south park episode about Mormons:
Gary: [to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.
You are mistaken... football is a profit center,not a cost center for universities. You can sell tickets to football games; you can't sell tickets to CS.
I'm not sure what not discriminating against people has to do with regulating the price of electricity. Also, how does groping people in the airport promote civil rights? Can you please enlighten us?
You seem to implying that we would all be bigots if the government wasn't carefully watching over our shoulder to make sure we met our quotas.
Yes, but all those people also had parents. Had their parents not chosen to reproduce, then they would not have existed. In that since, the ancestors of those great people changed the world by having children.
Either way, it's a personal choice and we should not condemn people for having or not having kids. Some people should not be parents, plain and simple. Other people derive great satisfaction from it. I find it interesting how quickly this community judges people based on their reproductive choices, but if someone tried to condemn other lifestyle choices they would immediately get jumped as a bigot.
Fortenutly this is a case of violating the computer fraud and abuse act (18 USC 1030), not copyright, and that law specifically requires the access to be both intentional and knowingly unauthorized.
Creating tools is perfectly legal. The legality comes into question when you use the tool. For example, guns are legal tools to create. Shooting someone in the head is illegal. Cracking the password for a system you have legal right to access is legal. The law actually says that *unauthorized* access to a computer system is illegal. It says nothing about how you should go about obtaining *authorized* access.
According to those sources, 15 states do not have the death penaly and 35 do. The avg ranking in the violent crimes tables is 29 for states without and 24 for states with, supporting your claim that violent crime rates are not impacted by the presence of the death penalty. This data does not take into account any differences in application, only if the law exists.
Out of curiosity, how do you know how many people have chosen to not commit a crime because of the death penalty? Wouldn't the people we are currently executing be the people who were not deterred, leaving the number of successfully deterred people a mystery?
If I tried to say that my religion required the ritualistic sacrifice of virgins and then hid behind the 1st amendment, you and all the other people crying separation of church and state would call bullshit, even if my virgins were willing. Separation of church and state does not mean we arbitrarily throw out moral values simply because of religion. Rather, separation of church and state lets us make decisions on our laws based on common morality and social contract. You can be not religious and believe that killing is wrong. If I believe that killing is wrong because little green men told me so, that is no different than if you believe killing is wrong because the Bible says so, or if the guy down the street believes killing is wrong because he doesn't want to arbitrarily be killed. The point is we all believe killing is wrong and made a law accordingly. One of us pulling the bible out doesn't negate the believes of the others. The fact is, the majority of the population all still believe that killing is wrong. Who gives a shit why we decided it was wrong?
Separation of church and state means that we cannot pass laws ONLY because a religion says so nor can we pass a law requiring our population to practice a specific religion. It doesn't say you have to check your conscience at the door because get your moral belief structure from a Judeo-Christian background.
And I have a friend who cried for days after she had an abortion. It's a little insensitive to mock the pain of others. Not everyone is the same and to imply they are is ignorant.
So how do you deal with the varying definition of person over the centuries? Slavery was justified for centuries because Africans were not considered people. My purpose was not to debate the definition of person hood, simply to point out that it is that fundamental difference of believe that drives the argument and thus the argument that abortion doesn't hurt people is invalid. It is also invalidated by the fact that we have laws protecting animals.
But isn't that the crux of the abortion argument? Anti-abortionists believe that fetuses are people and thus killing them is wrong. Abortionists believe that fetuses are not people worthy of protecting. There was a time when blacks were not believed to be people. There was a time when women were believed to be of less value than men. Those beliefs changed. Some people believe that animals should be treated the same as people.
Out of curiosity, have you ever had an abortion or known someone who had? Even if you discount the fetus, it does hurt and is a terrible decision to have to make.
I pop the disk in and then go make popcorn/put daughter to bed/whatever while it plays the commercials. By the time I am ready to watch the movie it is at the menu screen.
Slashdot Mirror
The company I work for actually classifies data in that some data is labeled "confidential." The word "confidential" is not necessarily ambiguous, but rather refers to all company information labeled "confidential." Most companies that have policies regarding confidential data quite explicitly define it.
It doesn't matter how brilliant you are if no one is willing to work with you or you cannot communicate your brilliance to others.
I filed a complaint with the BBB when I had problems with my cabel company arbitrarily deciding I needed an HD package. Oddly the cabel company called me the day after I filed the complaint to appologize and assure me they would be sending a training package to the local agencies and credit my account. I have found that if you want to get someone's attention, a BBB complaint works pretty well.
That's pretty cool that I use the internet to play games with my friends and families on the other side of the country in order to be less social... Would you also argue that by letting my daughter skype with her grand mother who lives a thousand miles away I am discouraging the relationship?
If you are that concerned about blowing out one of your appliance, I would suggest looking into a home warrenty. They will cover replacement/repairs costs for random appliances along with a number of other things home owners doesn't cover. When I bought my house it came with one and when my dishwasher failed they replaced it, no questions asked. You will still have the inconvience of being without the appliance for however long it takes you to replace it, but you won't be out the money.
If you do not notice that you cannot do something as fundamental as see, it is obviously not impacting your ability to function. Glasses are optional. I can chose to not wear mine. If it is not impacting my ability to function, why should I be forced to go see a doctor to get new ones?
The driving aspect is a separate aspect that should be addressed by the DMV. If we expect such radical and rapid vision changes, we should require the DMV to administer vision tests through renewal procedures more often. However, driving is also optional. I am not required to obtain and maintain a driver's license.
I have a a small child I would be willing to rent out. She would be quite happy to throw popcorn at you and ask silly questions randomly during key dialog.
I think we should all go watch the south park episode about Mormons:
Gary: [to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.
You are mistaken... football is a profit center,not a cost center for universities. You can sell tickets to football games; you can't sell tickets to CS.
Shush. We have no place for you facts here.
I have a baby who screams constantly. Would you like to demonstrate to me what I am doing wrong since you clearly have all the answers?
Been to Virginia lately
Wouldn't that help the jury pool? If only intelligent, skilled workers had employers that would permit them to take time off for jury duty?
I'm not sure what not discriminating against people has to do with regulating the price of electricity. Also, how does groping people in the airport promote civil rights? Can you please enlighten us?
You seem to implying that we would all be bigots if the government wasn't carefully watching over our shoulder to make sure we met our quotas.
Yes, but all those people also had parents. Had their parents not chosen to reproduce, then they would not have existed. In that since, the ancestors of those great people changed the world by having children.
Either way, it's a personal choice and we should not condemn people for having or not having kids. Some people should not be parents, plain and simple. Other people derive great satisfaction from it. I find it interesting how quickly this community judges people based on their reproductive choices, but if someone tried to condemn other lifestyle choices they would immediately get jumped as a bigot.
Fact: Populations that chose to not reproduce will be replaced by populations that do chose to reproduce.
Perhaps you should rethink your opinion that reproduction is a bad thing.
Fortenutly this is a case of violating the computer fraud and abuse act (18 USC 1030), not copyright, and that law specifically requires the access to be both intentional and knowingly unauthorized.
Creating tools is perfectly legal. The legality comes into question when you use the tool. For example, guns are legal tools to create. Shooting someone in the head is illegal. Cracking the password for a system you have legal right to access is legal. The law actually says that *unauthorized* access to a computer system is illegal. It says nothing about how you should go about obtaining *authorized* access.
Listing of states with and without the death penalty
Violent Crime Rankings by state
According to those sources, 15 states do not have the death penaly and 35 do. The avg ranking in the violent crimes tables is 29 for states without and 24 for states with, supporting your claim that violent crime rates are not impacted by the presence of the death penalty. This data does not take into account any differences in application, only if the law exists.
Out of curiosity, how do you know how many people have chosen to not commit a crime because of the death penalty? Wouldn't the people we are currently executing be the people who were not deterred, leaving the number of successfully deterred people a mystery?
If I tried to say that my religion required the ritualistic sacrifice of virgins and then hid behind the 1st amendment, you and all the other people crying separation of church and state would call bullshit, even if my virgins were willing. Separation of church and state does not mean we arbitrarily throw out moral values simply because of religion. Rather, separation of church and state lets us make decisions on our laws based on common morality and social contract. You can be not religious and believe that killing is wrong. If I believe that killing is wrong because little green men told me so, that is no different than if you believe killing is wrong because the Bible says so, or if the guy down the street believes killing is wrong because he doesn't want to arbitrarily be killed. The point is we all believe killing is wrong and made a law accordingly. One of us pulling the bible out doesn't negate the believes of the others. The fact is, the majority of the population all still believe that killing is wrong. Who gives a shit why we decided it was wrong?
Separation of church and state means that we cannot pass laws ONLY because a religion says so nor can we pass a law requiring our population to practice a specific religion. It doesn't say you have to check your conscience at the door because get your moral belief structure from a Judeo-Christian background.
And I have a friend who cried for days after she had an abortion. It's a little insensitive to mock the pain of others. Not everyone is the same and to imply they are is ignorant.
So how do you deal with the varying definition of person over the centuries? Slavery was justified for centuries because Africans were not considered people. My purpose was not to debate the definition of person hood, simply to point out that it is that fundamental difference of believe that drives the argument and thus the argument that abortion doesn't hurt people is invalid. It is also invalidated by the fact that we have laws protecting animals.
But isn't that the crux of the abortion argument? Anti-abortionists believe that fetuses are people and thus killing them is wrong. Abortionists believe that fetuses are not people worthy of protecting. There was a time when blacks were not believed to be people. There was a time when women were believed to be of less value than men. Those beliefs changed. Some people believe that animals should be treated the same as people.
Out of curiosity, have you ever had an abortion or known someone who had? Even if you discount the fetus, it does hurt and is a terrible decision to have to make.
But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.
I pop the disk in and then go make popcorn/put daughter to bed/whatever while it plays the commercials. By the time I am ready to watch the movie it is at the menu screen.