The main problem with this is the lack of accountability, and lack of a resulting permanent record. If you invest in the "real world", your credit rating will get shot to hell and banks will deny you funding for opportunities down the road. With these gifts, is there any sort of "real world" mechanism to track who has used their gifts honestly and who has pissed them away?....Carrot, meet stick.
Sure, undue burden on so-called out-of-state businesses on this plan. However, the drop in sales tax income as more and more sales have moved online is a serious problem that underlies the tax structure of all state governments (Putting aside arguments against the sales tax in general).
What does not change is the fact that Colorado citizens are required to pay sales tax on these purchases, just like anywhere else. Of course, no one does this, so the taxes go uncollected. Coloradans may as well be Greeks. (And well, frankly, all of us.)
The problem with overturning this law is that it now puts pressure on the idea of "regulating the Internet" - in other words, government may now want to obtain your internet history from your service provider to see how many items you have purchased.
Call it an automated audit.
Pretty sure no one is going to like that.
So, sales tax is rendered obsolete with internet sales = increased property tax burdens on homeowners = further stress on already shaky housing market = ?
There may be some religious folks who self-identify as conservative who do not trust science, although I would like to see exactly what questions were asked in this survey. But there are plenty of liberals who deny the realities of evidence too. People of every political stripe tend to see what they want to see.
Moreover, let's apply scientific analysis to the study in the American Sociological Review. How does one reasonably define "science?" Does "science" include doctors, medicine, biology, or was the study in the surely-unbiased American Sociological Review slanted toward the hot-button issues of climate change, etc.?
How does one reasonably define "trust"?
If I question the scientific rigor of this study, does that make me some kind of a Conservative? Maybe people who tend to be Conservative are also the same types of people who have a healthy degree of skepticism.
I know plenty of successful professionals who have trouble figuring out their Blackberry. Computer technical proficiency may be helpful in a number of fields, but "web construction" is hardly the economic cure-all.
I take these comments in a particular way:
1) It's very French to consider such a philosophical response. "Don't tell me it's not possible." Which leads to Point #2...
2) Sarkozy's need to appear "tough on crime" to fend off his ultra-conservative competitor in the upcoming elections, Le Pin.
That's a really good point. I was not thinking about keyboard language translations.
It's also a pain to try to explain to someone remotely how to type your password....which actually might be a good thing.
Though, this method does tend to get me instant cred from the IT guys.:)
Instead of words, I think shapes. Pick a starting point, say &, then for a shape on the keyboard (say a 4x4 square), returning to the original key.
Lots of shapes, sizes, patterns that are not vulnerable to dictionary attacks, but easy to remember.
Used to work at a major university lab doing brain research - liked the naming scheme there, all landmarks in the brain: Amygdala, Hippocampus, Cortex, Callosum, Thalamus...
Again, not an engineer here, but if the CME / magnetic pulse is large enough in magnitude, couldn't it also effect the circuitry on the generators, independently?
Why does it seem I am the only one that is concerned about what's going to happen when one of these flares whacks the power grid in the Northeast U.S.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
Oh, that's right - the US Gov't is real concerned too. - http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/
So here's what really concerns me - say, the entire Northeast grid goes down. There are a number of nuclear plants that have cooling pools for spent fuel rods, just like Fukushima. So what happens when - just like Fukushima - the power goes down and the pool pumps can't run for lack of electricity -
Won't that be like Fukushima x (no. of nuclear plants in the Northeast)?
Don't mean to be alarmist, but someone tell me where I am wrong on this?
Please - there are 50 states in the Union, and at any given time, one of the hundreds of judges in each state has the ability to issue an Order of the Court that a) vastly oversteps his/her powers; and b) vastly misunderstands the far-reaching implications of said order.
This does not mean the "United States" is taking over the internets....It's just one judge making an error in judgment.
That's why we have appeals courts.
What better idea is there to get the dry idea of patent system reform on the radar of politicians than to start suing them individually.
Even if the suit is totally frivolous, they will still need to hire attorneys to defend the suit and get it dismissed (albeit probably quickly).
Would think being able to sue someone individually under these circumstances would really stick in the craw of someone like Romney.
Isn't the underlying message that increased reliability is due to increased reliance on robotic assembly lines? Human error is taken out of the equation.
Ok, fine...Let me amend my comment to begin, "I'm willing to bet that...." Better now?
I am not making an argument - I am making a comment, the premises of which are not about the merits of Santorum/santorum, but rather about the consistency of Google's response to such tactics, which was the premise of Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan's article from the OP.
If someone on the conservative Right had come up with a scatological term for "Kennedy" (say, "the sound that an government benefit check makes when it gets deposited in your mailbox") or "Pelosi" (you know, Pelosi, that thing growing along your gum line that you have to keep fiddling with), then Google long ago would have modified the algorithm or put up a disclaimer.
(Not to mention the mainstream media's scathing dissent against said Republican, whereas Savage gets a wink and a free pass...)
Because Santorum is such a tool, no one - least of all liberal minded technologists - is going to bend over backwards to help him out.
So is Google meant to lead us to an objective trove of information?
Savage's outrageousness has put real pressure on the matrix....
This entire article is probably blowing things way out of proportion.
The law firm in question - Pepper Hamilton - has 11 offices and 500 attorneys.
Whenever a new client comes in, EVERY law firm will perform a conflict check to make sure that none of the parties that it currently represents has interests that are adverse to the new client. What likely happened here - I am guessing - is that the Android partners did not come up as being in conflict because Google was not listed as a named party in the Android partner litigation. That + a system of 500 lawyers who probably exhibit the typically poor communication of large networks and you have the issue here.
This is a big gaffe for the law firm, but otherwise, this is not really a big deal. Pepper I am sure has transferred its plaintiff's case against Google to another firm and is doing some major asskissing at Google headquarters as we speak.
The cost of a law school degree has nothing to do with this.
You are free to opt-out of the class settlement, thus preserving your claims against Ticketmaster. You then have every right in the world to bring your own legal action against Ticketmaster, to get every last cent that you are owed.
Unfortunately, you were defrauded at most say $10 (damages, plus interest), but for argument's sake, let's say that you could get $50 on your best day.
But you won't get a lawyer to take your case - why? Cost-prohibitive - most states require a filing fee to bring suit - it will probably be at least $100.
You can always take the case to small claims, but then it's your time that you're wasting, which again you have a Constitutional right to do.
Now this does not take away from the reaction to the abhorrent sums that were gained by the attorneys, but that's their incentive to invest their money and time over the course of a number of years to make a case against a corporation that has been nickel-and-diming its customers in a fraudulent manner.
It's just business.
Of course, if you are anti-Capitalist, go right ahead and declare this to your boss, during your lunch break.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem with this is the lack of accountability, and lack of a resulting permanent record. If you invest in the "real world", your credit rating will get shot to hell and banks will deny you funding for opportunities down the road. With these gifts, is there any sort of "real world" mechanism to track who has used their gifts honestly and who has pissed them away? ....Carrot, meet stick.
Sure, undue burden on so-called out-of-state businesses on this plan. However, the drop in sales tax income as more and more sales have moved online is a serious problem that underlies the tax structure of all state governments (Putting aside arguments against the sales tax in general). What does not change is the fact that Colorado citizens are required to pay sales tax on these purchases, just like anywhere else. Of course, no one does this, so the taxes go uncollected. Coloradans may as well be Greeks. (And well, frankly, all of us.) The problem with overturning this law is that it now puts pressure on the idea of "regulating the Internet" - in other words, government may now want to obtain your internet history from your service provider to see how many items you have purchased. Call it an automated audit. Pretty sure no one is going to like that. So, sales tax is rendered obsolete with internet sales = increased property tax burdens on homeowners = further stress on already shaky housing market = ?
There may be some religious folks who self-identify as conservative who do not trust science, although I would like to see exactly what questions were asked in this survey. But there are plenty of liberals who deny the realities of evidence too. People of every political stripe tend to see what they want to see. Moreover, let's apply scientific analysis to the study in the American Sociological Review. How does one reasonably define "science?" Does "science" include doctors, medicine, biology, or was the study in the surely-unbiased American Sociological Review slanted toward the hot-button issues of climate change, etc.? How does one reasonably define "trust"? If I question the scientific rigor of this study, does that make me some kind of a Conservative? Maybe people who tend to be Conservative are also the same types of people who have a healthy degree of skepticism.
I know plenty of successful professionals who have trouble figuring out their Blackberry. Computer technical proficiency may be helpful in a number of fields, but "web construction" is hardly the economic cure-all.
I take these comments in a particular way: 1) It's very French to consider such a philosophical response. "Don't tell me it's not possible." Which leads to Point #2... 2) Sarkozy's need to appear "tough on crime" to fend off his ultra-conservative competitor in the upcoming elections, Le Pin.
That's why I prefer shapes. My feeble brain can remember "equilateral triangle" starting at '6' far easier than the complex methods described above.
That's a really good point. I was not thinking about keyboard language translations. It's also a pain to try to explain to someone remotely how to type your password....which actually might be a good thing. Though, this method does tend to get me instant cred from the IT guys. :)
Instead of words, I think shapes. Pick a starting point, say &, then for a shape on the keyboard (say a 4x4 square), returning to the original key. Lots of shapes, sizes, patterns that are not vulnerable to dictionary attacks, but easy to remember.
Used to work at a major university lab doing brain research - liked the naming scheme there, all landmarks in the brain: Amygdala, Hippocampus, Cortex, Callosum, Thalamus...
Again, not an engineer here, but if the CME / magnetic pulse is large enough in magnitude, couldn't it also effect the circuitry on the generators, independently?
Why does it seem I am the only one that is concerned about what's going to happen when one of these flares whacks the power grid in the Northeast U.S.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859 Oh, that's right - the US Gov't is real concerned too. - http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/ So here's what really concerns me - say, the entire Northeast grid goes down. There are a number of nuclear plants that have cooling pools for spent fuel rods, just like Fukushima. So what happens when - just like Fukushima - the power goes down and the pool pumps can't run for lack of electricity - Won't that be like Fukushima x (no. of nuclear plants in the Northeast)? Don't mean to be alarmist, but someone tell me where I am wrong on this?
Please - there are 50 states in the Union, and at any given time, one of the hundreds of judges in each state has the ability to issue an Order of the Court that a) vastly oversteps his/her powers; and b) vastly misunderstands the far-reaching implications of said order. This does not mean the "United States" is taking over the internets....It's just one judge making an error in judgment. That's why we have appeals courts.
What better idea is there to get the dry idea of patent system reform on the radar of politicians than to start suing them individually. Even if the suit is totally frivolous, they will still need to hire attorneys to defend the suit and get it dismissed (albeit probably quickly). Would think being able to sue someone individually under these circumstances would really stick in the craw of someone like Romney.
Isn't the underlying message that increased reliability is due to increased reliance on robotic assembly lines? Human error is taken out of the equation.
Or the Dennis Miller quip when they went back out on tour ...
Hope to die before I get old..er.
We should also boycott the umbrella guy when he raises prices when it is raining.
Ok, fine...Let me amend my comment to begin, "I'm willing to bet that...." Better now? I am not making an argument - I am making a comment, the premises of which are not about the merits of Santorum/santorum, but rather about the consistency of Google's response to such tactics, which was the premise of Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan's article from the OP.
If someone on the conservative Right had come up with a scatological term for "Kennedy" (say, "the sound that an government benefit check makes when it gets deposited in your mailbox") or "Pelosi" (you know, Pelosi, that thing growing along your gum line that you have to keep fiddling with), then Google long ago would have modified the algorithm or put up a disclaimer. (Not to mention the mainstream media's scathing dissent against said Republican, whereas Savage gets a wink and a free pass...) Because Santorum is such a tool, no one - least of all liberal minded technologists - is going to bend over backwards to help him out. So is Google meant to lead us to an objective trove of information? Savage's outrageousness has put real pressure on the matrix....
This entire article is probably blowing things way out of proportion. The law firm in question - Pepper Hamilton - has 11 offices and 500 attorneys. Whenever a new client comes in, EVERY law firm will perform a conflict check to make sure that none of the parties that it currently represents has interests that are adverse to the new client. What likely happened here - I am guessing - is that the Android partners did not come up as being in conflict because Google was not listed as a named party in the Android partner litigation. That + a system of 500 lawyers who probably exhibit the typically poor communication of large networks and you have the issue here. This is a big gaffe for the law firm, but otherwise, this is not really a big deal. Pepper I am sure has transferred its plaintiff's case against Google to another firm and is doing some major asskissing at Google headquarters as we speak.
Or as Yogurt said in Spaceballs: Moichendising!
I know, I'm paranoid...but really...what is going to happen to all the spent fuel rod cooling ponds when all the transformers get blown?
The cost of a law school degree has nothing to do with this. You are free to opt-out of the class settlement, thus preserving your claims against Ticketmaster. You then have every right in the world to bring your own legal action against Ticketmaster, to get every last cent that you are owed. Unfortunately, you were defrauded at most say $10 (damages, plus interest), but for argument's sake, let's say that you could get $50 on your best day. But you won't get a lawyer to take your case - why? Cost-prohibitive - most states require a filing fee to bring suit - it will probably be at least $100. You can always take the case to small claims, but then it's your time that you're wasting, which again you have a Constitutional right to do. Now this does not take away from the reaction to the abhorrent sums that were gained by the attorneys, but that's their incentive to invest their money and time over the course of a number of years to make a case against a corporation that has been nickel-and-diming its customers in a fraudulent manner. It's just business. Of course, if you are anti-Capitalist, go right ahead and declare this to your boss, during your lunch break.