You don't even have to do that. You can just take the MTA, which is an exam that is so easy they permit high school teachers to serve as proctors for it.
Right now I'm trying to get the MCSA for Windows Server 2012 R2, and it's a PITA. The biggest problem with it though is that there are NO training manuals for it that are sufficient. The Microsoft Official so called study guides sold at book stores are a joke. CBT nuggets/trainsignal are also insufficient. Microsoft's reasoning apparently is that you have to be very seasoned with Windows Server 2012 R2 before you can pass the exam. Problem is NO shops run Windows Server 2012 R2 yet. That won't happen until Server 2016 or whatever it ends up being comes out.
Which is annoying because I bought a voucher pack and I just can't find the right study materials for it, and it's about to expire in a few months.
If any URLs were ever "clicked", it would probably be a result of gmail's rather aggressive anti-spam system looking for signs that it's a phishing site.
I thought it was pretty funny the way Breaking Bad covered this one. DJ Qualls played that undercover DEA agent who said it was against the constitution to lie about not being a cop, and then proceeds to arrest Pinkman's dealer after buying.
I don't think so. People with normal eyesight probably lack this ability entirely, mainly due to a lack of "hardware" that has to be developed over time. There was some research done that found that the visual cortex can eventually rewire itself to process audio instead. That said, you'd have to be blind at a relatively young age to "learn" this skill, and you'd also need a functioning visual cortex. (Some blind people are blind solely because of a non-functional visual cortex. If they ever picked up this ability, it probably wouldn't work as well if at all.)
I remember there was a south park episode where Mr. Garrison says "Sorry I just don't trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die." That would certainly count as "gendered bigotry" but I still think it's funny anyways. If I was in the mood for making a joke, I'd say it too (though I haven't.) My mom laughed when she heard it on south park.
Because Obama has spent the last year studiously doing nothing to upset conservative talk radio, in the desperate hope that Republicans might not make every campaign and anti-Obama campaign
Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address.
That isn't true. They actually love regulation, see for example the laws they fancy that keep dealerships between auto companies and their customers. When they do want regulation, good or bad, it's usually reactive instead of theoretical. That is IMO a better way to go about it. If we always regulated based on theory, we'd never have video games today because of how much the democrats still to this day believe that they cause violence.
If Obama was really so serious about it, then why does he wait until he can't do anything about it to even SAY anything? Let alone do nothing the whole time, except appoint a former telecom lobbyist to the FCC?
And now, just to bring it full circle, remember that Lessig's PAC itself doesn't exist to convince people to support campaign finance restrictions. It exists to convince legislators to enact restrictions Lessig supports.
But if they aren't in office, what's he going to do? IIRC six of his candidates weren't *that* likely to win, rather he just funded them in the hopes that it pushes them into office, and THEN they work towards his goal.
I thought they were pretty safe incumbents, so I don't think Lessig mattered much there.
Correct, but my point is that this is often the case anyways. It could just be that the more popular candidate is able to draw funds easier. It probably follows that they're likely to win anyways, even without huge funding dollars.
Though what I just said was a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't explain one other point I made, so I'll expand on that. For example in the Colorado recall election, the incumbents were more popular with out of state interests, but those out of state interests couldn't vote there. So who wins?
Still though it's an open question of just how much money does influence voting, and also an open question of what voting it influences. For example, Lessig seems convinced that the voters will vote for whoever has the biggest campaign chest. I'm not so sure; I'm thinking perhaps the politicians themselves are influenced by the PACs. For example, Chris Dodd's donations to the Obama campaign to pass more copyright laws may not have made the voters change their mind, but it might have convinced Obama that he needs to push for legislation in the MPAA's favor.
If the later scenario is the case, then Lessig is really doing it wrong.
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does. We've already seen numerous times where throwing a lot of money after a particular cause still causes it to lose anyways. Like the Colorado recall elections where the incumbents raised some 11 times what the opposition raised, yet they still lost, some of them by a landslide.
I mean the two that Lessig's camp won...how easy would it be to argue that Lessig's camp CAUSED them to win?
I haven't read the book (don't plan to either) but it doesn't help the books detractors when virtually all of the five star reviewers are verified purchasers, and practically none of the one star reviewers are.
It's just kind of silly to bemoan something you have never "experienced." If you do that, you'll be just like all of the politicians and pundits seen in this video:
I think they would have said that about bittorrent, tor, and bitcoins years ago. Most of the world's more repressive governments have already banned one or all of those.
As for this one itself, I would think communist governments would ban this as well as trade itself is the biggest ideological enemy of communism.
Isn't there some ring of truth to that? I can't remember the specific laws, but I was pretty sure that if your business discriminated against any particular national who was also part of the EU, it was some kind of hate crime (not that extreme of a punishment, but you were discriminating against them somehow.)
Basically like how in Canada you can't provide services only in English, you have to provide them in French too.
Actually your state doesn't really do anything in that regard; the federal government does via the FDA and USDA. What little your state does probably doesn't change much with regard whether it's chicken or some other kind of fowl. So no, your counterpoint doesn't work here because there aren't any laws specific to *just* chicken.
It's like how I often hear some derps claim that prostitution is legal in Nevada, and occasionally you hear about some derp picking up a street walker on the Vegas Strip and then wondering why he goes to jail.
But either way I'm still going to go back to the first point: There no longer needs to be any kind of strict enforcement mechanism along with personnel and spending that goes into it, so yes, it's still smaller government no matter how you slice it.
Umm... It doesn't really work that way. We (here in Oregon) now move from the realm of criminal law to regulatory law.
Then by definition, you haven't fully legalized marijuana, you've just partially done so.
Truly legalizing it means there are no laws about it. That means no laws setting how much you can have, what you can do with it, etc, just like anything else that somebody considers legal to have, like fried chicken.
I worked for an employer that only seemed to drug test those who worked in the warehouse. I personally was never drug tested by them, but I remember talking to one of the warehouse supervisors who said that even if they take medicinal marijuana the company won't permit them to be a warehouse worker.
Just based on how and where the policy is enforced, I think it's purely a safety issue. The company is really big on avoiding workplace accidents, and I don't think it is at all unreasonable to have such a policy. If somebody comes to work stoned and operates a big fork lift for example, there are a lot of lives at stake other than their own. I've seen a forklift accident cause somebody to become a quadriplegic for example, and I'd hate to be the company that gets sued over that.
Legalization of marijuana is by definition smaller government because it means that A) The government no longer has to police Marijuana, so it can scale down (or at least reallocate) that portion of its law enforcement activities, and B) We now have fewer laws.
In my experience, "niche" content producers usually can't survive because their "art" really is crap. They don't make money because nobody actually values what they produce. In their mind they've got themselves and everybody around them convinced that they're some sort of genius, but they really aren't. Nobody buys anything they make to begin with because they'd never spend the time of day to watch it anyways, and they have much better things they'd rather spend their time money on.
BTW, I get annoyed with beatnik types who sit there and talk shit about how the quality of art is declining. The reality is far from it. They're just a bunch of smug snobs who need to get over themselves.
Here is the thing, I've read a lot of the comments by the TPB founders and saw a video of a few of them talking before; they seem too smart for something this dumb.
Just because they show smarts in one area doesn't mean they're street smart. Like that one time that guy hacked Marriott's systems and then demanded a $150,000 a year job along with free hotel stays and flights to anywhere he wants in exchange for revealing everything he did to their systems. His "interview" was done by the secret service who then arrested him and sent him to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even have to do that. You can just take the MTA, which is an exam that is so easy they permit high school teachers to serve as proctors for it.
Right now I'm trying to get the MCSA for Windows Server 2012 R2, and it's a PITA. The biggest problem with it though is that there are NO training manuals for it that are sufficient. The Microsoft Official so called study guides sold at book stores are a joke. CBT nuggets/trainsignal are also insufficient. Microsoft's reasoning apparently is that you have to be very seasoned with Windows Server 2012 R2 before you can pass the exam. Problem is NO shops run Windows Server 2012 R2 yet. That won't happen until Server 2016 or whatever it ends up being comes out.
Which is annoying because I bought a voucher pack and I just can't find the right study materials for it, and it's about to expire in a few months.
If any URLs were ever "clicked", it would probably be a result of gmail's rather aggressive anti-spam system looking for signs that it's a phishing site.
I thought it was pretty funny the way Breaking Bad covered this one. DJ Qualls played that undercover DEA agent who said it was against the constitution to lie about not being a cop, and then proceeds to arrest Pinkman's dealer after buying.
That's not what I'm seeing:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
If what's described in that article is correct, then this isn't happening without a functioning visual cortex.
I don't think so. People with normal eyesight probably lack this ability entirely, mainly due to a lack of "hardware" that has to be developed over time. There was some research done that found that the visual cortex can eventually rewire itself to process audio instead. That said, you'd have to be blind at a relatively young age to "learn" this skill, and you'd also need a functioning visual cortex. (Some blind people are blind solely because of a non-functional visual cortex. If they ever picked up this ability, it probably wouldn't work as well if at all.)
I remember there was a south park episode where Mr. Garrison says "Sorry I just don't trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die." That would certainly count as "gendered bigotry" but I still think it's funny anyways. If I was in the mood for making a joke, I'd say it too (though I haven't.) My mom laughed when she heard it on south park.
Dry Land does exist, I've seen it!
Because Obama has spent the last year studiously doing nothing to upset conservative talk radio, in the desperate hope that Republicans might not make every campaign and anti-Obama campaign
So the Obama admin kowtows to pundits? Ok.
Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address.
That isn't true. They actually love regulation, see for example the laws they fancy that keep dealerships between auto companies and their customers. When they do want regulation, good or bad, it's usually reactive instead of theoretical. That is IMO a better way to go about it. If we always regulated based on theory, we'd never have video games today because of how much the democrats still to this day believe that they cause violence.
If Obama was really so serious about it, then why does he wait until he can't do anything about it to even SAY anything? Let alone do nothing the whole time, except appoint a former telecom lobbyist to the FCC?
And now, just to bring it full circle, remember that Lessig's PAC itself doesn't exist to convince people to support campaign finance restrictions. It exists to convince legislators to enact restrictions Lessig supports.
But if they aren't in office, what's he going to do? IIRC six of his candidates weren't *that* likely to win, rather he just funded them in the hopes that it pushes them into office, and THEN they work towards his goal.
I thought they were pretty safe incumbents, so I don't think Lessig mattered much there.
Correct, but my point is that this is often the case anyways. It could just be that the more popular candidate is able to draw funds easier. It probably follows that they're likely to win anyways, even without huge funding dollars.
Though what I just said was a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't explain one other point I made, so I'll expand on that. For example in the Colorado recall election, the incumbents were more popular with out of state interests, but those out of state interests couldn't vote there. So who wins?
Still though it's an open question of just how much money does influence voting, and also an open question of what voting it influences. For example, Lessig seems convinced that the voters will vote for whoever has the biggest campaign chest. I'm not so sure; I'm thinking perhaps the politicians themselves are influenced by the PACs. For example, Chris Dodd's donations to the Obama campaign to pass more copyright laws may not have made the voters change their mind, but it might have convinced Obama that he needs to push for legislation in the MPAA's favor.
If the later scenario is the case, then Lessig is really doing it wrong.
Oh and BTW:
Proctor and Gamble spends about $5 billion a year advertising for the likes of laundry detergent, Nyquil, and diapers.
Proctor and gamble needs to advertise 24/7/365. Politicians don't.
the future of our nation is at stake
When is it ever NOT at stake?
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does. We've already seen numerous times where throwing a lot of money after a particular cause still causes it to lose anyways. Like the Colorado recall elections where the incumbents raised some 11 times what the opposition raised, yet they still lost, some of them by a landslide.
I mean the two that Lessig's camp won...how easy would it be to argue that Lessig's camp CAUSED them to win?
I haven't read the book (don't plan to either) but it doesn't help the books detractors when virtually all of the five star reviewers are verified purchasers, and practically none of the one star reviewers are.
It's just kind of silly to bemoan something you have never "experienced." If you do that, you'll be just like all of the politicians and pundits seen in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think they would have said that about bittorrent, tor, and bitcoins years ago. Most of the world's more repressive governments have already banned one or all of those.
As for this one itself, I would think communist governments would ban this as well as trade itself is the biggest ideological enemy of communism.
Isn't there some ring of truth to that? I can't remember the specific laws, but I was pretty sure that if your business discriminated against any particular national who was also part of the EU, it was some kind of hate crime (not that extreme of a punishment, but you were discriminating against them somehow.)
Basically like how in Canada you can't provide services only in English, you have to provide them in French too.
Actually your state doesn't really do anything in that regard; the federal government does via the FDA and USDA. What little your state does probably doesn't change much with regard whether it's chicken or some other kind of fowl. So no, your counterpoint doesn't work here because there aren't any laws specific to *just* chicken.
It's like how I often hear some derps claim that prostitution is legal in Nevada, and occasionally you hear about some derp picking up a street walker on the Vegas Strip and then wondering why he goes to jail.
But either way I'm still going to go back to the first point: There no longer needs to be any kind of strict enforcement mechanism along with personnel and spending that goes into it, so yes, it's still smaller government no matter how you slice it.
Umm ... It doesn't really work that way. We (here in Oregon) now move from the realm of criminal law to regulatory law.
Then by definition, you haven't fully legalized marijuana, you've just partially done so.
Truly legalizing it means there are no laws about it. That means no laws setting how much you can have, what you can do with it, etc, just like anything else that somebody considers legal to have, like fried chicken.
I worked for an employer that only seemed to drug test those who worked in the warehouse. I personally was never drug tested by them, but I remember talking to one of the warehouse supervisors who said that even if they take medicinal marijuana the company won't permit them to be a warehouse worker.
Just based on how and where the policy is enforced, I think it's purely a safety issue. The company is really big on avoiding workplace accidents, and I don't think it is at all unreasonable to have such a policy. If somebody comes to work stoned and operates a big fork lift for example, there are a lot of lives at stake other than their own. I've seen a forklift accident cause somebody to become a quadriplegic for example, and I'd hate to be the company that gets sued over that.
Legalization of marijuana is by definition smaller government because it means that A) The government no longer has to police Marijuana, so it can scale down (or at least reallocate) that portion of its law enforcement activities, and B) We now have fewer laws.
Or a constitutional amendment.
In my experience, "niche" content producers usually can't survive because their "art" really is crap. They don't make money because nobody actually values what they produce. In their mind they've got themselves and everybody around them convinced that they're some sort of genius, but they really aren't. Nobody buys anything they make to begin with because they'd never spend the time of day to watch it anyways, and they have much better things they'd rather spend their time money on.
BTW, I get annoyed with beatnik types who sit there and talk shit about how the quality of art is declining. The reality is far from it. They're just a bunch of smug snobs who need to get over themselves.
Here is the thing, I've read a lot of the comments by the TPB founders and saw a video of a few of them talking before; they seem too smart for something this dumb.
Just because they show smarts in one area doesn't mean they're street smart. Like that one time that guy hacked Marriott's systems and then demanded a $150,000 a year job along with free hotel stays and flights to anywhere he wants in exchange for revealing everything he did to their systems. His "interview" was done by the secret service who then arrested him and sent him to prison.