Without having read the original post, there's no reason to imagine the intent was "come steal my landlord's the water heater and windows" rather than "come get a free couch that I left behind when I had to move in with my sister in a hurry."
I don't think she went to live with her sister. Her sister is the landlord that evicted her.
You'll have to explain your criteria for "new". The rest of us will probably continue to concider an aircraft that has been in active service for less than 2 years to be "new".
The JSF, now known as the F-35, is still in flight testing; there are no active squadrons.
I don't know about PS3s since I see them in stores everywhere but...
I can't detect any unfairness in allocation of Wii consoles since they are equally hard to find at brick and mortar stores as they are hard to find online. I'd been trying to find a Wii console since mid-December and finally got one locally at Circuit City only because I used http://www.itrackr.com/ to notify me when some arrived (they were sold out again in less than 2 hours; probably less than 10 units).
In general, you're right. Verison and the others want you to pay them for every little thing you do with your phone. But even Verizon offers phones you can connect with your computer. I use the Treo650 and I've copied pictures and MP3s to it without any problem. I can view the pictures and play the MP3s I've even used an MP3 I created as a ringtone.
TiVo needs to lease/licence their software to cable COs for their DVRs, I owuld sooo pay an extra $4-5/Mo for TiVo software on my leased HDDVR box.
Some cable and satalite companies do and/or have licensed the TiVo software for thier service. If your cable company doesn't then complain to them. TiVo makes it available to them.
That would probably only destroy the circuit board on the drive. The data on the drive platters should still be fine. They'd just buy another drive of the exact same model swap in the good circuit board and access your drive anyway. OK. They might have to do that several times until they notice what you've done to the power connector but they would get the data.
Examine the word; copyright. It refers to the right to copy. If you don't hold the right to copy something and you copy it anyway, you have committed a copyright violation. Money is not a factor.
I'm not saying I agree with the way it works but there you have it. And the penalty isn't for how many MP3s you may have downloaded to your drive, it is for how many times they might have been downloaded from you. It is pretty harsh.
What's so hard about that? If Google's traffic is bogging your network, raise the price on your contract with Google. They will either pay the price, so you can expand, or they will fire up the dark net, opening tons of your pipe back up.
And right there is the part so many people don't get... Google's traffic??? It's not Google's traffic that is bogging down an ISP's network. It's the ISP's own customers's traffic. That those customers happen to be initiating communication with Google doesn't change that. It is still the ISP's customer's traffic and those customers have paid the ISP for it. Some ISP (or ISPs) out there has a customer named Google that uses a lot of bandwidth and pays that ISP a lot of money. The different ISPs negotiate payments to each other for passing traffic between each other. Pretty fair. Fairly Neutral.
"from what I hear" isn't good enough. The requirement that they get warrents is a part of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of our government. The FISA court is the mechanism that makes reasonably sure that the numbers targeted actually have something to do with terrorism; at least until it get bypassed. Mr. Bush's word isn't good enough either (obviously).
If Mr. Bush and his administration are doing nothing wrong in their "domestic wiretaping" / "terrorist surveillance program" then surely they have nothing to hide from the FISA court. The fact that they are doing it without warrents is so wrong that it is un-American. Any wrong-doing they are hiding, if any, by not getting warrents is minor by comparison.
> Unless you work as a media monkey in any branch of entertainment industry, I don't see why you need sound at work.
If you work for a large corporation in any industry it is very likely that the corporation will have required training distributed by intranet or CD and played on your computer. Sound is usually required (though not necessarily wanted).
Email is a completely different type of problem. Logic for one doesn't apply to the other in either direction.
I am well aware that there are nice features programmed into the new bugzilla client. I've seen neato features added to the clients of other vendors problem tracking tools too. I also note that in all of those cases you end up with users of one OS able to use those features while users of another OS cannot. Then I have multiple different groups of users to support.
I prefer the vendor of tool I choose to spend his development time putting those neato featues into the web interface that all of my users can use regardless of what OS they are running.
We've been evaluating a few request/bug/issue tracking products.
The first thing I tell the vendors is that I'm not interested in client side software. I want it to be fully usable from most modern web browsers on most common OSs. This makes it accessible by any of our users without the need to install additional software on their computer (and we don't have to worry about updating it when a new version is released).
Bugzilla is already a web application. I can't fathom why would anybody waste so much time making a client version that most sane administrators wouldn't want?
> Provided it was SSL enabled anyway, one thing that chaps my hide > is that all these free email clients don't have any security on > them. That sort of keeps me from using goggle mail for anything > but fluff email.
Wrong. whois only tells us that gmail.com was first registered (created) on August 13, 1995 and that Google is the current owner. It does not say that Google was the entity that registered it in 1995.
> We seem to have a fundamental disagreement: you believe that human rights are inherent, I believe that they are cultural.
So we'll just have to disagree since it isn't something that can be proven one way or the other.
> My position is that it isn't
Understood.
> because very few societies throughout history have recognized it as such.
Whoa! In what "society" has everyone in it thought and believed the same? How do you decide which subset of the "society" has the beliefs that represent that "society"? The rulers perhaps? What about those with dissenting opinions (which might even be in the majority)?
As for the trolling assumptions... that's never going anywhere productive. Time to go.
"The Chinese"? Do you really think they all think the same? Do you really think all of the people in their current government believe the party line? All of the citizens too? "The Chinese"? How arrogant to speak for all of them. (That name calling judgmental crap can be fired both way you know.:)
Some are too morally bankrupt to care, as you put it. Also true everywhere else in the world. Some do care and are working to change it. Some have fled the country. Some are in jail. Some meekly accept what they don't think they can change. And like everywhere else in the world, many have never given it serious thought.
The balance, to put it in the terms of this discussion, is between basic human rights and how much a society infringes upon them (for the collective welfare, merely in the name of collective welfare, the forecfull subjugation of some portion of the population, or whatever other reason, good or bad).
The basic human right to express what you believe to be true (often poorly rephrased as freedom of speach) does allow us to explore ideas and possibly improve society. The truth doesn't cause riots. If people rioted because someone did a bad thing and tried to cover it up, the one who spoke of it didn't cause the riot, the person that did the bad thing caused it. Speaking the truth screw up the economy? The things spoken about screwed it up not the speaking of it. Untold suffering? Hurt feeling at worst, I say. No gamble, simple choice, respect my fellow man.
The hard part for a society in respecting a person's right to speak what he believes to be true (freedom of speach?) is determining if what he speaks is really what he thinks is true. Is it factually false and he not aware of the facts? Is it an opinion and, hence, neither true nor false? Is it factually true but society (or maybe just a few people in power within a society) doesn't like it being said? What is to be done about it in each situation? How a society/government structures its mechanisms for handling these questions determines how right or wrong it is with respect to this issue.
I really don't think the governments of China or the "West" can be referred to as age-old traditions. They are always changing; as it should be. As for changing terminology to "traditions", that term is both too all-encompassing and to wishy-washy to even have a meaningful duscussion. Good rhetoric though!
Human rights are individual, not societal or cultural. They are inherent, not granted. Anything granted to you is merely a priveledge. Documents such as the US Bill of Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only acknowledge them, not grant them (not that I necessarily agree that either of those documents does so perfectly).
A basic human right is just that, a basic concept. It relates to what an individual has the right to do. Freedom of Speach is one phrase used to describe the basic human right of the individual to express what he believes to be true. Such expression doesn't affect any other individual and does not imply that any other individual owes him anything.
Contrast that with that made up "right of everybody to live in a safe, secure and stable society". The closest thing to a basic human right in there is "right... to live". The rest expresses a rather complex relationship of responsibilities among many people (a society) obligating them to keep that individual safe and secure. Ouch. I'm really not seeing the "basic" here. Nor the human (individual). Nor the "right".
A basic human right is inherent. That a given culture has become conditioned to tolerate or even agree with some degree of infringement does not mean the right no longer exists or that infringement of it isn't occurring.
>The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system
Basic human rights are inherent to every human being; we all have them. The governments and laws of some countries such as the US and EU respect our rights and mostly don't infringe upon them. The governments and laws of other countries such as China actively infringe and abuse our rights.
In other words the laws of a country and the actions of its government do not in any way affect the fact that we have basic rights as humans; they just determine how good or bad the laws and governments are.
Slashdot Mirror
Grrr... wrong link in paste buffer... take 2...
1 _project_collaboration_mozilla.html
Even funnier after that comment is the Eudora is basing new releases on Thunderbird...
http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/06101
Even funnier after that comment is the fact that the new Eudora is based on Thunderbird...
l y&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=187959 53
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231405&op=Rep
He didn't make Judge Karlie Jorgensen look bad. The only person making Judge Karlie Jorgensen look bad is Judge Karlie Jorgensen.
I don't think she went to live with her sister. Her sister is the landlord that evicted her.
Is there any limit on how many attorneys you hire and disclose it to?
I wish they were better at behaving this way. The world would be a better place in a few decades.
You'll have to explain your criteria for "new". The rest of us will probably continue to concider an aircraft that has been in active service for less than 2 years to be "new".
The JSF, now known as the F-35, is still in flight testing; there are no active squadrons.
I don't know about PS3s since I see them in stores everywhere but...
I can't detect any unfairness in allocation of Wii consoles since they are equally hard to find at brick and mortar stores as they are hard to find online. I'd been trying to find a Wii console since mid-December and finally got one locally at Circuit City only because I used http://www.itrackr.com/ to notify me when some arrived (they were sold out again in less than 2 hours; probably less than 10 units).
In general, you're right. Verison and the others want you to pay them for every little thing you do with your phone. But even Verizon offers phones you can connect with your computer. I use the Treo650 and I've copied pictures and MP3s to it without any problem. I can view the pictures and play the MP3s I've even used an MP3 I created as a ringtone.
Some cable and satalite companies do and/or have licensed the TiVo software for thier service. If your cable company doesn't then complain to them. TiVo makes it available to them.
That would probably only destroy the circuit board on the drive. The data on the drive platters should still be fine. They'd just buy another drive of the exact same model swap in the good circuit board and access your drive anyway. OK. They might have to do that several times until they notice what you've done to the power connector but they would get the data.
Examine the word; copyright. It refers to the right to copy. If you don't hold the right to copy something and you copy it anyway, you have committed a copyright violation. Money is not a factor.
I'm not saying I agree with the way it works but there you have it. And the penalty isn't for how many MP3s you may have downloaded to your drive, it is for how many times they might have been downloaded from you. It is pretty harsh.
And right there is the part so many people don't get... Google's traffic??? It's not Google's traffic that is bogging down an ISP's network. It's the ISP's own customers's traffic. That those customers happen to be initiating communication with Google doesn't change that. It is still the ISP's customer's traffic and those customers have paid the ISP for it. Some ISP (or ISPs) out there has a customer named Google that uses a lot of bandwidth and pays that ISP a lot of money. The different ISPs negotiate payments to each other for passing traffic between each other. Pretty fair. Fairly Neutral.
"from what I hear" isn't good enough. The requirement that they get warrents is a part of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of our government. The FISA court is the mechanism that makes reasonably sure that the numbers targeted actually have something to do with terrorism; at least until it get bypassed. Mr. Bush's word isn't good enough either (obviously).
If Mr. Bush and his administration are doing nothing wrong in their "domestic wiretaping" / "terrorist surveillance program" then surely they have nothing to hide from the FISA court. The fact that they are doing it without warrents is so wrong that it is un-American. Any wrong-doing they are hiding, if any, by not getting warrents is minor by comparison.
> Unless you work as a media monkey in any branch of entertainment industry, I don't see why you need sound at work.
If you work for a large corporation in any industry it is very likely that the corporation will have required training distributed by intranet or CD and played on your computer. Sound is usually required (though not necessarily wanted).
Email is a completely different type of problem. Logic for one doesn't apply to the other in either direction.
I am well aware that there are nice features programmed into the new bugzilla client. I've seen neato features added to the clients of other vendors problem tracking tools too. I also note that in all of those cases you end up with users of one OS able to use those features while users of another OS cannot. Then I have multiple different groups of users to support.
I prefer the vendor of tool I choose to spend his development time putting those neato featues into the web interface that all of my users can use regardless of what OS they are running.
We've been evaluating a few request/bug/issue tracking products.
The first thing I tell the vendors is that I'm not interested in client side software. I want it to be fully usable from most modern web browsers on most common OSs. This makes it accessible by any of our users without the need to install additional software on their computer (and we don't have to worry about updating it when a new version is released).
Bugzilla is already a web application. I can't fathom why would anybody waste so much time making a client version that most sane administrators wouldn't want?
The main difference is that you are not transmitting your username and password in the clear.
There is no perfect solution for email but I'll take a small improvement whenever I can get it.
> Provided it was SSL enabled anyway, one thing that chaps my hide
> is that all these free email clients don't have any security on
> them. That sort of keeps me from using goggle mail for anything
> but fluff email.
Have you tried accessing Google Mail like this:
https://gmail.google.com/
Wrong. whois only tells us that gmail.com was first registered (created) on August 13, 1995 and that Google is the current owner. It does not say that Google was the entity that registered it in 1995.
> We seem to have a fundamental disagreement: you believe that human rights are inherent, I believe that they are cultural.
So we'll just have to disagree since it isn't something that can be proven one way or the other.
> My position is that it isn't
Understood.
> because very few societies throughout history have recognized it as such.
Whoa! In what "society" has everyone in it thought and believed the same? How do you decide which subset of the "society" has the beliefs that represent that "society"? The rulers perhaps? What about those with dissenting opinions (which might even be in the majority)?
As for the trolling assumptions... that's never going anywhere productive. Time to go.
Nice chatting with ya.
"The Chinese"? Do you really think they all think the same? Do you really think all of the people in their current government believe the party line? All of the citizens too? "The Chinese"? How arrogant to speak for all of them. (That name calling judgmental crap can be fired both way you know. :)
Some are too morally bankrupt to care, as you put it. Also true everywhere else in the world. Some do care and are working to change it. Some have fled the country. Some are in jail. Some meekly accept what they don't think they can change. And like everywhere else in the world, many have never given it serious thought.
The balance, to put it in the terms of this discussion, is between basic human rights and how much a society infringes upon them (for the collective welfare, merely in the name of collective welfare, the forecfull subjugation of some portion of the population, or whatever other reason, good or bad).
The basic human right to express what you believe to be true (often poorly rephrased as freedom of speach) does allow us to explore ideas and possibly improve society. The truth doesn't cause riots. If people rioted because someone did a bad thing and tried to cover it up, the one who spoke of it didn't cause the riot, the person that did the bad thing caused it. Speaking the truth screw up the economy? The things spoken about screwed it up not the speaking of it. Untold suffering? Hurt feeling at worst, I say. No gamble, simple choice, respect my fellow man.
The hard part for a society in respecting a person's right to speak what he believes to be true (freedom of speach?) is determining if what he speaks is really what he thinks is true. Is it factually false and he not aware of the facts? Is it an opinion and, hence, neither true nor false? Is it factually true but society (or maybe just a few people in power within a society) doesn't like it being said? What is to be done about it in each situation? How a society/government structures its mechanisms for handling these questions determines how right or wrong it is with respect to this issue.
I really don't think the governments of China or the "West" can be referred to as age-old traditions. They are always changing; as it should be. As for changing terminology to "traditions", that term is both too all-encompassing and to wishy-washy to even have a meaningful duscussion. Good rhetoric though!
Nicely put.
Human rights are individual, not societal or cultural. They are inherent, not granted. Anything granted to you is merely a priveledge. Documents such as the US Bill of Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only acknowledge them, not grant them (not that I necessarily agree that either of those documents does so perfectly).
... to live". The rest expresses a rather complex relationship of responsibilities among many people (a society) obligating them to keep that individual safe and secure. Ouch. I'm really not seeing the "basic" here. Nor the human (individual). Nor the "right".
A basic human right is just that, a basic concept. It relates to what an individual has the right to do. Freedom of Speach is one phrase used to describe the basic human right of the individual to express what he believes to be true. Such expression doesn't affect any other individual and does not imply that any other individual owes him anything.
Contrast that with that made up "right of everybody to live in a safe, secure and stable society". The closest thing to a basic human right in there is "right
A basic human right is inherent. That a given culture has become conditioned to tolerate or even agree with some degree of infringement does not mean the right no longer exists or that infringement of it isn't occurring.
>The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system
Basic human rights are inherent to every human being; we all have them. The governments and laws of some countries such as the US and EU respect our rights and mostly don't infringe upon them. The governments and laws of other countries such as China actively infringe and abuse our rights.
In other words the laws of a country and the actions of its government do not in any way affect the fact that we have basic rights as humans; they just determine how good or bad the laws and governments are.