Not for everyone, I know, but for myself personally, I really need the psycological break created by physically moving from one location to another. On occasion, I will dress in office attire, go to a local coffee shop, and then come back home and start the work day.
While I do like the idea that the issue such be debated, I'm not sure that this proposal would be workable. (It would just take one website to index cases and real names, and then it's worse because there's more likely to be errors that way.)
I'm also skeptical about whether the Privacy Commissioner is an officer likely to improve things for citizens or simply create more job security for the Privacy Commissioner, particularly under a Conservative government. In fact, Canadian privacy law is all about making money for privacy law lawyers and paper shredding companies - it does almost nothing to actually protect people's privacy.
For example, McDonalds is highly successful, but no-one confuses them with gourmet cuisine. Or confuses Microsoft with ethical and innovative product development.
Correspondence from your work e-mail is no different from paper mail on company letterhead. The company owns what has its name on it and what's composed on company time.
But some companies might be better off putting that kind of effort into quality control on the *products* they send out, rather than correspondence.
The statistics in The Fine Article are useless. What we would want to know is 1) what percentage of *otherwise unsolved* street crimes are solved by CCTV, and 2) how much (if any) street crime has fallen simply due to the presence of the CCTV cameras.
No matter how ludicrous the lawsuit is, when the obliteration of human civilization is on the line, I kind of want to give them some benefit of the doubt.
And this isn't even considering the other side of the comparison. Artificial intelligence has nothing to do with natural intelligence, and we don't have a clue how the human brain really achieves (or is it simulates?) intelligence.
Looking at it frame by frame, the only logical interpretation is:
Solo shot first. We simply don't see the first blaster bolt. Guido would not have shot Solo - he was worth more money alive. Guido, now dead with his nervous system overloaded, fires purely by reflex. This explains how a professional assassin aiming directly at his target at point-blank range was able to miss. Solo continues to shoot, moving the blaster into the view of the camera, understandable as a blaster bolt had just narrowly missed him.
It's *still* self-defence. Guido had made a death threat while pointing a gun at him.
While there were a variety of weak moments, I would have to agree with when "the first Ewok appeared on screen".
I blame the ewoks for my personal most unbelievable moment: when the ENTIRE LEGION (meaning a few thousand combat personnel) of the Emperor's BEST STORMTROOPERS (presumably meaning they could hit something occasionally) acting WITHOUT ORDERS while guarding the shield generator protecting the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET of the Imperial military LEFT THEIR POSTS knowing that there were REBEL SABOTEURS at large.
To be followed, possibly, by a military dictatorship of the admiral in command of the Stardestroyer fleet. Though the Emperor and Vader were pretty nasty rulers, that might still have been an improvement.
I found that with the prequel trilogy, I could, with effort, suspend disbelief for most of the weak points (though Anakin's juvenile/stalker crush on Amidala was a tough sell) right up until the climactic light sabre duel on the one planet that can't possibly have oxygen in its atmosphere. I know Jedi can hold their breath, but come on.
Lucas actually did do something brilliant, in that ewoks, Jar-jar, etc. were just campy enough to make lots of money but weren't quite destroying the story in its entirety. But commercial success is not the same as literary success.
He stood up to an evil corporation and won. But I have to think he could have just quit while he was ahead. A police officer is at least theoretically engaged in a public service.
Slashdot Mirror
Not for everyone, I know, but for myself personally, I really need the psycological break created by physically moving from one location to another. On occasion, I will dress in office attire, go to a local coffee shop, and then come back home and start the work day.
I liked #1 "Is full-time telecommuting a smart decision?" Not sure what you need the other questions for.
While I do like the idea that the issue such be debated, I'm not sure that this proposal would be workable. (It would just take one website to index cases and real names, and then it's worse because there's more likely to be errors that way.)
I'm also skeptical about whether the Privacy Commissioner is an officer likely to improve things for citizens or simply create more job security for the Privacy Commissioner, particularly under a Conservative government. In fact, Canadian privacy law is all about making money for privacy law lawyers and paper shredding companies - it does almost nothing to actually protect people's privacy.
I'll be impressed when they cloak some *thick* two-dimensional objects. Or even find any.
Monopoly capitalism (as opposed to free market capitalism) is also known as communism.
For example, McDonalds is highly successful, but no-one confuses them with gourmet cuisine. Or confuses Microsoft with ethical and innovative product development.
More shameless pandering to the Pluto cultists. That renegade dwarf has had a free ride for too long already!
Do we call it 'tampering' if it was originally manufactured that way? (It's not a bug, it's a feature!)
Correspondence from your work e-mail is no different from paper mail on company letterhead. The company owns what has its name on it and what's composed on company time.
But some companies might be better off putting that kind of effort into quality control on the *products* they send out, rather than correspondence.
The statistics in The Fine Article are useless. What we would want to know is 1) what percentage of *otherwise unsolved* street crimes are solved by CCTV, and 2) how much (if any) street crime has fallen simply due to the presence of the CCTV cameras.
Typical Earth-centric chauvanism. Venus isn't developmentally challenged, it *meant* to turn out that way.
No matter how ludicrous the lawsuit is, when the obliteration of human civilization is on the line, I kind of want to give them some benefit of the doubt.
I had a feeling that a big piece of hardware looking like Tricia Helfer, Lucy Lawless, or Rekha Sharma was too good to be true.
And this isn't even considering the other side of the comparison. Artificial intelligence has nothing to do with natural intelligence, and we don't have a clue how the human brain really achieves (or is it simulates?) intelligence.
Whenever there's Visual Basic, bad things are sure to happen, but apparently, he was
"armed only with VBA, Walkenbach and the right passwords"
so I would say both VBA stupidity and human stupidity were factors.
"either Windows or a faster, less-complex operating system"
Isn't *every* operating system faster and less-complex than Windows?
Let's not forget that the 'theoretical' part is *by natural selection*. *Evolution* was proven in 2005 from all those genome projects.
"Beg" is simply an old-fashioned way to say "ask".
So, given a particular question, "beg the question" can legitimately mean:
to provide an answer that simply reformulates the *same* question over again,
or
to provide an unsatisfactory answer that immediately raises a *different* question.
Looking at it frame by frame, the only logical interpretation is:
Solo shot first. We simply don't see the first blaster bolt. Guido would not have shot Solo - he was worth more money alive. Guido, now dead with his nervous system overloaded, fires purely by reflex. This explains how a professional assassin aiming directly at his target at point-blank range was able to miss. Solo continues to shoot, moving the blaster into the view of the camera, understandable as a blaster bolt had just narrowly missed him.
It's *still* self-defence. Guido had made a death threat while pointing a gun at him.
While there were a variety of weak moments, I would have to agree with when "the first Ewok appeared on screen".
I blame the ewoks for my personal most unbelievable moment: when the ENTIRE LEGION (meaning a few thousand combat personnel) of the Emperor's BEST STORMTROOPERS (presumably meaning they could hit something occasionally) acting WITHOUT ORDERS while guarding the shield generator protecting the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET of the Imperial military LEFT THEIR POSTS knowing that there were REBEL SABOTEURS at large.
To be followed, possibly, by a military dictatorship of the admiral in command of the Stardestroyer fleet. Though the Emperor and Vader were pretty nasty rulers, that might still have been an improvement.
I found that with the prequel trilogy, I could, with effort, suspend disbelief for most of the weak points (though Anakin's juvenile/stalker crush on Amidala was a tough sell) right up until the climactic light sabre duel on the one planet that can't possibly have oxygen in its atmosphere. I know Jedi can hold their breath, but come on.
Lucas actually did do something brilliant, in that ewoks, Jar-jar, etc. were just campy enough to make lots of money but weren't quite destroying the story in its entirety. But commercial success is not the same as literary success.
"A product is worth exactly what it's purchaser will pay for it."
Funny how purchasers are not as convinced of this as sellers.
Economics is the ultimate snake-oil scam. Come on, they start with the assumption that people are rational, how much more obvious can they make it?
Don't forget, creator = Theory of Evolution by natural selection over self-replication with variation.
On the other hand, if someone discovers oil there.....
I think they can come up with about six thousand years of protection racket prior art without much trouble.
He stood up to an evil corporation and won. But I have to think he could have just quit while he was ahead. A police officer is at least theoretically engaged in a public service.