If the far side of the intersection is not clear, you're not supposed to enter. So yes, it's sort of fair.
Maybe it was clear when you committed to going through, but someone made a right-hand turn in front of you and you brake to avoid an accident. Maybe a policeman would've pulled over and ticket the person you avoided killing, but that doesn't show up on the camera so you're on the hook for it. That's what makes the cameras indefensible: they remove human judgment from the situation.
That would've made a lot more sense were I a Republican. I'm not. That's something you just have to say on Slashdot to try to derail partisan knuckleheads from claiming political bias in the direction they oppose, sort of like you're doing.
Isn't that true of almost any field, though? If I give you bad IT advice here and you follow it to the letter, trashing your data or otherwise compromising it, wouldn't I face the same exposure?
Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC, that is. Again, party affiliation only gets mentioned when it makes Republicans look evil or Democrats look good. Note: I don't like either party. I just find the pattern to be interesting.
IANYourL. This post is my rambling, not legal advice. Do not rely on this post for any reason.
Out of curiosity, why do lawyers in public forums almost always say that? I'm not your IT guy, but I don't disclaim technical advice I give you. Neither am I a doctor, but I'll hypothesize about medical stuff without prepending "IANAD" to every statement. In fact, I only see those disclaimers from lawyers, and seemingly every time a lawyer chimes in on legal stuff. Why is that?
BTW, I do mean that as a serious question. Is it a requirement of the bar or something?
He's lost grasp of the point of software. The point of software is not 'to run free software', its to get something done.
Pragmatism is very high on his list of important values, but he sees it differently than you do. Much of his career developed from wanting to be able to use a printer but being hamstrung by its broken software. In Stallman's world, non-Free software is inherently limited in its usefulness because you don't have the right to fix it or adapt it to your own needs. After being victim to vendor-enforced software obsolescence on several occasions, I'd say he's far more pragmatic than you're giving him credit for.
Anonymous Bob - if you did vote libertarian all you did was help elect Obama.
That's OK; I didn't use to understand the Electoral College either. In reality, McCain won my state 57% to 42% over Obama, so my vote for Bob Barr did nothing to help Obama except to minutely alter the popular vote - which doesn't matter anyway.
I find it very telling that Steve Ballmer won't let his kids use an iPod, and Bill Gates won't let Melinda use an iPhone.
I do too: it means Bill has more porn than he can watch in a lifetime. That's only explanation I have for being able to flat-out tell the wife that she can't have something you can trivially afford just because you don't like it, rich guy or not.
You think claims of voter fraud will be carried out equitably, that you're willing to kill people?
Absolutely. Honestly, I can't think of a more fundamental crime against a democracy. By disenfranchising 100% of the electorate, it's a direct attack on the foundations of our entire system of government and way of life. If no other crimes deserve capital punishment, this one should.
FACT: human beings "bond" with music in their teens as music has an emotional component and the flood of hormones wreaks havoc with ones emotional make up and ordering. As a result: people "focus" on the music of their "coming of age" or maturation.
FACT: some human beings... I like a lot of new stuff more than the mid-80s music I grew up with. I'll see your fondly-remembered Peter Gabriel and raise you a Stacey Q.
FACT: there has been no decrease in talent, nor has there been a decrease in creativity.
The hell there hasn't. Prior to MTV, a good bit of a performer's success depended on whether they could, you know, perform. Now it's down to how pretty they are in the video, whether they're good sports on reality shows, and whether the autotuner can make them halfway on-key without distorting their tone too much. Turn to the standard ClearChannel outlet and find the music split equally between 1) boy bands, 2) faux-{metal,punk} sanitized rebellion, 3) cute starlet, and 4) dangerous-sounding hip-hop from the suburbs of Des Moines.
Pointless consumers whose lives are devoted to working and shopping discover they can't afford to shop any more, yet have no idea what to do with their free time other than going to the mall.
I meet my wife at the mall regularly for lunch. It's close, parking is convenient, and we get different things from the food court. Sometimes we'll amble around afterward, holding hands and watching people and talking about our days.
And we call this civilization.
There are worse ways to spend a lunch hour. I apologize if you feel otherwise.
While peer pressures may be one of the reasons (to make it easier to form), secret ballots in the workplace have their issues. Generally, there aren't enough people voting to maintain anonymity, and people get fired, etc, for how their employer thinks they've voted.
So secret ballots are worse at protecting anonymity than open ballots? That's a novel point.
Actually, this would apply to CGI, on-the-fly machine generated XML.
Literally every page on our web application is generated on-the-fly. Why should lawyer types not care that our application is potentially infringing? And why should choices between things like mod_php and FastCGI be the province of the legal department?
If this results in the abandonment of SOAP, I'm all for it.
No complaints there, but it would be inconvenient if you're no longer allowed to return XML in response to a request. Even a large proportion of HTML documents are valid XML, so hypothetically you might have to include unclosed tags in your pages to be on the safe side.
I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.
Or are you just evoking the Righteous Forefathers to cover that you're blowing hard-line smoke out your ass?
Hard-line?!? Elected officials have directly acted to remove the rights of democracy from their constituency. They said, explicitly, that the will of the people no longer matters and that they are picking the leadership. In what way is that less horrible than any other farcical election throughout the world? In what way are the people who want to punish those involved to the fullest extent of the law possibly considered hard-liners?
Wanna bet they were changing the votes to favour the GOP?
One million dollars please? We already know they were Democrats. But who cares? I tend to vote Republican but I'm more than ready to throw a Republican politician to the dogs for committing this crime. I trust that honest Democrats will feel the same way about these particular cretins.
Slashdot Mirror
I read it exactly the other way, that they were slagging on the newcomers in favor of us old fogies (PostgreSQL FTW!).
Not everyone puts their right not to pay fines above other's safety, you know.
Provide evidence that the cameras improve safety. Your claim, your burden of proof.
If the far side of the intersection is not clear, you're not supposed to enter. So yes, it's sort of fair.
Maybe it was clear when you committed to going through, but someone made a right-hand turn in front of you and you brake to avoid an accident. Maybe a policeman would've pulled over and ticket the person you avoided killing, but that doesn't show up on the camera so you're on the hook for it. That's what makes the cameras indefensible: they remove human judgment from the situation.
That would've made a lot more sense were I a Republican. I'm not. That's something you just have to say on Slashdot to try to derail partisan knuckleheads from claiming political bias in the direction they oppose, sort of like you're doing.
Isn't that true of almost any field, though? If I give you bad IT advice here and you follow it to the letter, trashing your data or otherwise compromising it, wouldn't I face the same exposure?
Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC, that is. Again, party affiliation only gets mentioned when it makes Republicans look evil or Democrats look good. Note: I don't like either party. I just find the pattern to be interesting.
IANYourL. This post is my rambling, not legal advice. Do not rely on this post for any reason.
Out of curiosity, why do lawyers in public forums almost always say that? I'm not your IT guy, but I don't disclaim technical advice I give you. Neither am I a doctor, but I'll hypothesize about medical stuff without prepending "IANAD" to every statement. In fact, I only see those disclaimers from lawyers, and seemingly every time a lawyer chimes in on legal stuff. Why is that?
BTW, I do mean that as a serious question. Is it a requirement of the bar or something?
He's lost grasp of the point of software. The point of software is not 'to run free software', its to get something done.
Pragmatism is very high on his list of important values, but he sees it differently than you do. Much of his career developed from wanting to be able to use a printer but being hamstrung by its broken software. In Stallman's world, non-Free software is inherently limited in its usefulness because you don't have the right to fix it or adapt it to your own needs. After being victim to vendor-enforced software obsolescence on several occasions, I'd say he's far more pragmatic than you're giving him credit for.
Anonymous Bob - if you did vote libertarian all you did was help elect Obama.
That's OK; I didn't use to understand the Electoral College either. In reality, McCain won my state 57% to 42% over Obama, so my vote for Bob Barr did nothing to help Obama except to minutely alter the popular vote - which doesn't matter anyway.
I find it very telling that Steve Ballmer won't let his kids use an iPod, and Bill Gates won't let Melinda use an iPhone.
I do too: it means Bill has more porn than he can watch in a lifetime. That's only explanation I have for being able to flat-out tell the wife that she can't have something you can trivially afford just because you don't like it, rich guy or not.
You think claims of voter fraud will be carried out equitably, that you're willing to kill people?
Absolutely. Honestly, I can't think of a more fundamental crime against a democracy. By disenfranchising 100% of the electorate, it's a direct attack on the foundations of our entire system of government and way of life. If no other crimes deserve capital punishment, this one should.
There is no way in this universe that your claim could be possible.
FACT: human beings "bond" with music in their teens as music has an emotional component and the flood of hormones wreaks havoc with ones emotional make up and ordering. As a result: people "focus" on the music of their "coming of age" or maturation.
FACT: some human beings... I like a lot of new stuff more than the mid-80s music I grew up with. I'll see your fondly-remembered Peter Gabriel and raise you a Stacey Q.
FACT: there has been no decrease in talent, nor has there been a decrease in creativity.
The hell there hasn't. Prior to MTV, a good bit of a performer's success depended on whether they could, you know, perform. Now it's down to how pretty they are in the video, whether they're good sports on reality shows, and whether the autotuner can make them halfway on-key without distorting their tone too much. Turn to the standard ClearChannel outlet and find the music split equally between 1) boy bands, 2) faux-{metal,punk} sanitized rebellion, 3) cute starlet, and 4) dangerous-sounding hip-hop from the suburbs of Des Moines.
Pointless consumers whose lives are devoted to working and shopping discover they can't afford to shop any more, yet have no idea what to do with their free time other than going to the mall.
I meet my wife at the mall regularly for lunch. It's close, parking is convenient, and we get different things from the food court. Sometimes we'll amble around afterward, holding hands and watching people and talking about our days.
And we call this civilization.
There are worse ways to spend a lunch hour. I apologize if you feel otherwise.
But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs" Is the plural Phenum IIss?
No. It's Phenom IIses.
Language changes, even grammar, and 's appened to product names and abbreviations is becoming understood to mean the plural of a 'non-word'.
However, it's still considered a sign of illiteracy among educated people.
Really, the alternative is what?
XMLRPC (which would probably also be covered by this patent)?
While peer pressures may be one of the reasons (to make it easier to form), secret ballots in the workplace have their issues. Generally, there aren't enough people voting to maintain anonymity, and people get fired, etc, for how their employer thinks they've voted.
So secret ballots are worse at protecting anonymity than open ballots? That's a novel point.
Actually, this would apply to CGI, on-the-fly machine generated XML.
Literally every page on our web application is generated on-the-fly. Why should lawyer types not care that our application is potentially infringing? And why should choices between things like mod_php and FastCGI be the province of the legal department?
Yeah. I can't think of a single defensible reason for such a bizarre, anti-democratic plan.
If this results in the abandonment of SOAP, I'm all for it.
No complaints there, but it would be inconvenient if you're no longer allowed to return XML in response to a request. Even a large proportion of HTML documents are valid XML, so hypothetically you might have to include unclosed tags in your pages to be on the safe side.
Personally I believed that they would be programmed by now to automatically click OK on any popup without reading it.
They needed to put "WARNING!" in the titlebar. That would've triggered the correct response.
I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.
In fairness, it did leak. This time, at least.
Thank you. It's nice to know that there are still issues we can all agree on. :-)
Or are you just evoking the Righteous Forefathers to cover that you're blowing hard-line smoke out your ass?
Hard-line?!? Elected officials have directly acted to remove the rights of democracy from their constituency. They said, explicitly, that the will of the people no longer matters and that they are picking the leadership. In what way is that less horrible than any other farcical election throughout the world? In what way are the people who want to punish those involved to the fullest extent of the law possibly considered hard-liners?
Wanna bet they were changing the votes to favour the GOP?
One million dollars please? We already know they were Democrats. But who cares? I tend to vote Republican but I'm more than ready to throw a Republican politician to the dogs for committing this crime. I trust that honest Democrats will feel the same way about these particular cretins.