...I agree with you completely, and find it disheartening that the first time many people get to learn about religion, in a non-partisan, educational setting is in college...
It was taught as pary of my Mythology class.
And, for some reason that upset people... go figure.
It could be argued that serving the interest of corporations in turn, serves humanity.
OK... I tried... and failed.
What were you thinking... how would this argument sound?
Are you differentiating between "business" and "corporation"?
I can see the argument for business, but not for corporations.
<RANT> What I don't get about the "far right" is their belief that the individual morals must be enforced by government... yet... at the same time they seem to heavily favor forms of business that have little (none!?) moral consequence for breaking the law.
When was the last time you heard of a corporation being put in jail for 20 years? </RANT>
How many people really give a shit about multiple OSes? Really.
I don't... but there are a lot of people out there running Windows that might want to run something that wouldn't run on their platform if it wasn't a web app.
Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
Well, I'm not pro-Kerry... and, I'm not anti-Bush.
But, I'd vote for anyone but Bush. (Including Saddam if you really want to froth at the mouth... he'd be better for America than Bush, IMHO.)
Why?
Simple.
To restore the checks and balances in the constitution.
Having all of the branches following the same music director has proven to be a very bad idea... it needs to stop.
So, I expect that the republicans will hold the congress... and I'll vote for not-republican in the White House.
And, if someone really bad... like Saddam... was in there, then I believe congress would effectively nuter him... as the president should be.
Actually, if the president veto'd every bill passed by congress...they'd basically have to compromise and pass with a veto proof margin... and congress blocked everything the president did (again by compromising and getting together in a veto proof manner)... we'd probably have the absolute best four years ever.
So... in a way... someone really nasty, like Saddam... would probably give us the best four years of gov't ever. By stalling everything!
So, explain to us all how that scenario wouldn't be "just cause", and explain to us all how ANYONE is acting like thugs?
That would be the part where everybody forgot to get (or mention having) the warrant, which... ironically enough, also mentions a crime that is being committed.
No where (that I saw) was there mention of 1) a warrant 2) a crime being committed (just vague inuendo on this one) 3) an investigation.
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
So... I wonder 1) why this is there and 2) what is sufficient.
I would say that you could bring in a million people, all swearing that you did it... and it would not be enough. Because that is only evidence of reproduction or distribution.
I split this into two replies because there are two distinct issues here (in my mind).
That's a red herring.
Maybe, but I don't think so. Actually, your next statement looks like the red herring. Let's think about this a bit and see...
To give an example, somebody who is blind could quite easily use intranet web apps via use of a screenreader as long as the web apps are coded right to begin with.
Yeah, the web would be a great place if pages were coded "right" to begin with.
But, first one has to define "right".
Not only that, but the job could require looking at web pages not designed by your company. Pages you have no control over, at all.
And, to say that the blind person could us the app doesn't take into consideration what the app actually does. It is entirely possible that what it does falls outside the ability of a screen reader to "comprehend".
I used to have a job where I was tested each year to make sure I was not color blind. Not only did you have to have your sight, but you could not be color blind. Perfectly legal, because it was a legitimate need.
That's a lot of holes for such a generic statement...
But if you make it impossible for them to use the app, you'd better have a damn good reason, or you *will* fall foul of employment laws.
It isn't about making it impossible for them, it is about not making it possible for them. It is a matter of intent.
The company could just as easily have decided to create an application that ran on a palm pilot. Or as a Linux executable, or only runnable on the BeOS. None of these decisions are about making it impossible for a disabled person... they are technology choices.
Just as creating a web app is a technology choice. And, just as using JavaScript is a technology choice. They are not about excluding a class of people, they are about enabling certain features.
You stay out of trouble by doing things for legitimate reasons.
Weeding out "crappy browsers" is not a damn good reason.
If the company chooses not to use crappy browsers, it is a fine reason. It is no different than establishing a firewall policy and blocking ActiveX.
And my point is that you are turning away legitimate users.
How? It is a company intranet. The company decides on the browser to be used and the settings that browser will have.
Who is turned away?
Weeding out "crappy browsers" is not a damn good reason.
If the browser doen't do JavaScript, and the company spec's JavaScript, then it isn't suitable for the task.
Because they may have disabled employees in the future.
This is true. Very true.
But that is not my call. That is the call of the company requesting the work.
I can't make them pay for a feature they swear they don't need.
My point is that the company spec'ing the work gets to decide what they want to pay for. And, many of them will simply say that they won't have a person with disabilities do that particular task.
My job as the contractor is to give them options and complete the work. One of the most selected options is to not support older browsers. The other is to have some method of doing "interactive" tasks w/o a trip to the server.
Most IT departments I've worked with consider JavaScript to be the least burdomsome technology to deploy, especially across homogenous clients.
I am not a lawyer, and I often suggest to them that they may want to talk to their company lawyers about certain issues (mostly privacy stuff)... but, that is as far as my role goes in that respect.
Slashdot Mirror
The marshalls would presumably be in plain clothes.
Simple problem to deal with.
Dude #1 starts attack... air marshall stops attack.
Now... air marshall is identified... proceed with stage 2.
I give... how is a bunch of peasants and farmers defying the will of the king patriotic?
I believe that some religious education is important to a society as a whole. It provides for a moral base (at least most religions).
Every church I've ever been to was full of sinners. Certainly wouldn't want them setting the example...
Me, I prefer the golden rule. Neat and simple.
The author did not claim that "religion" in schools was a problem...
And, the parent did claim that the author said it was.
To me, the parent seems to be presenting his own feeling about the matter...
...I agree with you completely, and find it disheartening that the first time many people get to learn about religion, in a non-partisan, educational setting is in college...
It was taught as pary of my Mythology class.
And, for some reason that upset people... go figure.
It could be argued that serving the interest of corporations in turn, serves humanity.
OK... I tried... and failed.
What were you thinking... how would this argument sound?
Are you differentiating between "business" and "corporation"?
I can see the argument for business, but not for corporations.
<RANT>
What I don't get about the "far right" is their belief that the individual morals must be enforced by government... yet... at the same time they seem to heavily favor forms of business that have little (none!?) moral consequence for breaking the law.
When was the last time you heard of a corporation being put in jail for 20 years?
</RANT>
Change your sig... they'll jump all over you if you do it right.
Any RFC standard that breaks because it looks just like the computer on the other end of the line is turned off... needs breaking any way.
If you have a specific need to know I am here... it should be a part of your protocol.
Because, other than those things I want to work... my machine does not exist.
In short: I don't need ping replies to work. So, my machine does not do it.
How many people really give a shit about multiple OSes? Really.
;-)
I don't... but there are a lot of people out there running Windows that might want to run something that wouldn't run on their platform if it wasn't a web app.
Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
Well, I'm not pro-Kerry... and, I'm not anti-Bush.
But, I'd vote for anyone but Bush. (Including Saddam if you really want to froth at the mouth... he'd be better for America than Bush, IMHO.)
Why?
Simple.
To restore the checks and balances in the constitution.
Having all of the branches following the same music director has proven to be a very bad idea... it needs to stop.
So, I expect that the republicans will hold the congress... and I'll vote for not-republican in the White House.
And, if someone really bad... like Saddam... was in there, then I believe congress would effectively nuter him... as the president should be.
Actually, if the president veto'd every bill passed by congress...they'd basically have to compromise and pass with a veto proof margin... and congress blocked everything the president did (again by compromising and getting together in a veto proof manner)... we'd probably have the absolute best four years ever.
So... in a way... someone really nasty, like Saddam... would probably give us the best four years of gov't ever. By stalling everything!
There should be a "No, Seriously" mod to counteract "Funny".
It isn't a joke.
Die.
according to an affidavit filed in connection with one of the search warrants."
Just read this today... maybe that explains why I didn't see that (took two more tries after you pointed it out).
Thanks for pointing it out, makes me feel better.
So, explain to us all how that scenario wouldn't be "just cause", and explain to us all how ANYONE is acting like thugs?
That would be the part where everybody forgot to get (or mention having) the warrant, which... ironically enough, also mentions a crime that is being committed.
No where (that I saw) was there mention of 1) a warrant 2) a crime being committed (just vague inuendo on this one) 3) an investigation.
Also note that according to the law:
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Mere distribution is not sufficient.
So, where/what is the crime?
This is interesting:
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
So... I wonder 1) why this is there and 2) what is sufficient.
I would say that you could bring in a million people, all swearing that you did it... and it would not be enough. Because that is only evidence of reproduction or distribution.
So... what else is required?
Ahh!
That's why the planes hit the buildings... there were other things on the list.
P.S. Ever hear of priorities?
Then you don't pay much attention.
Guilty.
It happens all the time to bad guys, and before 9/11.
OK, I'll bite...
What makes them "bad guys"?
Are they charged with a crime?
Or, is this action related with a crime they were convicted of?
There used to be a concept of "just cause" in our "rule of law" that the Bush administration is so fond of.
Now, all I see is people acting like thugs.
Let's see... they went in to someone's home and took their stuff.
And made no arrests.
I don't recall the gov't being able to do that before 9/11... so... I'm sure it is related somehow.
But, can you uninstall any crappy browser built into the OS?
So, use a picture of the crusifiction.
Dude's head droops to the left the attack is a go.
Dude's head droops to the right the attack is postponed.
Millions of ways to communicate...
It's... a pig!
To recap its stable then testing and finally unstable.
;-))
I think they could solve their name problems if they would rename everything like this:
Stable => Debian Server
Testing => Debian Desktop
Unstable => Debian Windows
Each name clearly denoting the level of stability for that branch.
(Let the flame wars begin
Were the IDE and SCSI drives rotating at the same speed?
I split this into two replies because there are two distinct issues here (in my mind).
That's a red herring.
Maybe, but I don't think so. Actually, your next statement looks like the red herring. Let's think about this a bit and see...
To give an example, somebody who is blind could quite easily use intranet web apps via use of a screenreader as long as the web apps are coded right to begin with.
Yeah, the web would be a great place if pages were coded "right" to begin with.
But, first one has to define "right".
Not only that, but the job could require looking at web pages not designed by your company. Pages you have no control over, at all.
And, to say that the blind person could us the app doesn't take into consideration what the app actually does. It is entirely possible that what it does falls outside the ability of a screen reader to "comprehend".
I used to have a job where I was tested each year to make sure I was not color blind. Not only did you have to have your sight, but you could not be color blind. Perfectly legal, because it was a legitimate need.
That's a lot of holes for such a generic statement...
But if you make it impossible for them to use the app, you'd better have a damn good reason, or you *will* fall foul of employment laws.
It isn't about making it impossible for them, it is about not making it possible for them. It is a matter of intent.
The company could just as easily have decided to create an application that ran on a palm pilot. Or as a Linux executable, or only runnable on the BeOS. None of these decisions are about making it impossible for a disabled person... they are technology choices.
Just as creating a web app is a technology choice. And, just as using JavaScript is a technology choice. They are not about excluding a class of people, they are about enabling certain features.
You stay out of trouble by doing things for legitimate reasons.
Weeding out "crappy browsers" is not a damn good reason.
If the company chooses not to use crappy browsers, it is a fine reason. It is no different than establishing a firewall policy and blocking ActiveX.
And my point is that you are turning away legitimate users.
How? It is a company intranet. The company decides on the browser to be used and the settings that browser will have.
Who is turned away?
Weeding out "crappy browsers" is not a damn good reason.
If the browser doen't do JavaScript, and the company spec's JavaScript, then it isn't suitable for the task.
Because they may have disabled employees in the future.
This is true. Very true.
But that is not my call. That is the call of the company requesting the work.
I can't make them pay for a feature they swear they don't need.
My point is that the company spec'ing the work gets to decide what they want to pay for. And, many of them will simply say that they won't have a person with disabilities do that particular task.
My job as the contractor is to give them options and complete the work. One of the most selected options is to not support older browsers. The other is to have some method of doing "interactive" tasks w/o a trip to the server.
Most IT departments I've worked with consider JavaScript to be the least burdomsome technology to deploy, especially across homogenous clients.
I am not a lawyer, and I often suggest to them that they may want to talk to their company lawyers about certain issues (mostly privacy stuff)... but, that is as far as my role goes in that respect.
Why?
Because he isn't running the same model computer as one of the 150 Dells you upgraded?