The plan requires two active cellular phone connections. Last I checked that isn't free. Sure, it will be cheaper than actually making direct calls, but that is not the same as free. Furthermore, it doesn't sound like it handles incoming calls, so really what you have is a flat fee for unlimited outgoing calls. This doesn't sound particularly free.
Now the burden of proof will be upon "device" and software makers to establish that they are not promoting copyright infringement.
Did the burden actually shift? My understanding is that the RIAA will still have to prove that the software producer promoted the software's use for copyright infringement. The only change is that now that prove is sufficient to find copyright infringement.
It is still pretty difficult as it sounds like the plaintiff will have to prove that you wanted the software to be used for copyright infringement, and not merely that it was used for copyright infringement.
I believe that this principle does apply to firearms. However, there is a big line between knowing someone could do something wrong, and expressly promoting it. It is the difference between selling piano wire, and selling piano wire attached to hand grips, instructions on how to choke somebody with it, and the schedule of somebody that you don't like.
However, it isn't possible for everyone to switch everything over to Hotmail. Furthermore, from a consumer perspective, things will have changed from working to not working because of something Hotmail did. I don't think Hotmail is big enough to cause people to change to match it as oppposed to the reverse. This will get tricky however, if most e-mail doesn't have a problem. I don't know if yahoo or Gmail already support Sender ID, and if they do it will be a problem only for the marginal players.
Not using hotmail is one thing, but it looks like you might not be able to continue sending e-mail to those with hotmail accounts and don't share your view.
The administration was not right to fire him. Presumably, the use of the cafeteria is open to everyone for any purpose. I think you are assuming that his use was unauthorized. Afterall, he could have used one of the facilities that he was explicitly denied. I also assume that he was not asked to stop during his talk due to disruption in cafeteria functioning. As for his contacting the organizations listed, it was probably for clearance and not for raising a stink. Afterall, if he wanted a stink he would contacted the media first and foremost.
Lastly, I agree that if raising a stink was his purpose, then he wouldn't have resigned.
The question is wheter or not one can spoof biometrics. I can probably get a copy of a lot of fingerprints, and I could post them on my wall. That doesn't mean I could make gloves with them. Despite how it appears in movies, I don't know how easy it would be to fake someone else's fingerprints or retina for that matter.
I agree that biometrics can't be changed, but will you ever need to?
The significance I think which is going unnoticed is that someone thinks it is worth it to support something other than Internet Explorer. Perhaps, this can spread?
You may have a point about "preaching to the choir," but here, much like in real life, people continue to do so. Besides, any day could be someone's first day on Slashdot, and we certainly wouldn't want this person to get the wrong idea.
Isn't this the problem? Liberals (for whatever reason) that come from conservative environments concentrate in certain areas which has the effect of deluting their representation based on the electoral college system. Those that like the conservate environment move back to those areas, so you basically have a conservative minority dictating policy for a less conservative majority. Even though the electoral college was close, the number of states that went for Bush was way more than half. Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller.
I'm not volunteering to move to a conservative area, but if liberals don't occupy these areas then the country can expect more of this type of outcome.
I'll let the philosophers sort out whether the ability to track every object is a good or bad thing. However, I do know that if this system becomes too pervasive without security, this is going to be a big problem in a hurry.
I remember a commercial where a shifty guy walks through a store stuffing things in his jacket, and then walks out of the door to be stopped by security. The guard informs him that he forgot his receipt, hands it to him, and sends him on his way. I'm all for putting checkers out of work, but if such an environment existed, it would also be profitable to spoof the system.
As they are currenly used, I suppose the only profit would be to either disable the tags or somehow make the store think it has already been purchased. That brings me to the next issue. I assume most people have tried to walk out of a store with a purchased tagged item where the checker forgot to take off the tag. It is annoying and embarassing. Imagine if this could happen with every article of clothing that you own because the store database gets screwed up.
But no, not all Nigerians are scammers, but many are... And thats a very sad thing.
Perhaps, scammers preferentially claim to be Nigerian. However, any reasonable scammer would claim something else to mix it up since the good name of Nigeria has been sullied.
It is much simpler than that. All I'm suggesting is that a person realize on a basic level what it is that they're doing. In the case of a tax lawyer, you are trusting your money and possibly your freedom to the judgment and expertise of another person. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, but you shouldn't forget that what is that you are entrusting.
In the case of surfing the web, I'm talking about the person that thinks it is okay to install random software just because a pop-up window appears. "It must be okay, because it came from Gator." Changing the defaults won't fix this, if a webpage has instructions on how to change them back.
No software package can fix ignorance. Mozilla makes ignorance a little cheaper. Microsoft is trying to do the same with changing the defaults in Service Pack 2. However, the real problem won't be fixed as long as people choose not to think.
This is just like on the Simpsons where Mrs. Lovejoy always says, "Won't anybody please think about the children?" (or its functional equivalent). It was funnier when it wasn't the basis for actual as opposed to animated public policy.
The problem is that it transfers resources from the stupid to the morally bankrupt. I don't know if either group deserves to spread its genes. Furthermore, a lot of the "stupid" have already spawned.
Whenever I see the make money fast schemes on television or on the internet, my first question is always, "What do they need me for?" Schemes that actually make money sell themselves. All I know initially is that rather than invest money into the scheme itself they are spending it recruiting new people. Does this sound fishy? A person that really intends to commit fraud probably won't trust a random stranger.
I understand that people fall on hard times and get desperate for salvation, but outside of cinema does it ever just fall into your lap? I once went to a meeting that I didn't realize at the time was for a pyramid scheme when I was looking for a job. I assume I was being recruited based on that fact. I shudder to imagine how worse it would have been had I bought into that crap.
Hope is a beautiful thing until it makes people stupid.
Every time you try to switch someone and they don't switch, they've chosen IE.
Actually, that means that they chose not to switch. Every day I don't change cellular phone providers isn't an affirmative choice in favor of my current provider. It just means that some people didn't care enough to make a change. Every windows user is automatically signed up with IE, and just because they don't get a new browser doesn't make it a choice.
I'm glad you at least tried Mozilla & Firefox before continuing to use IE.
Some people actually choose to use IE. However, there is no real way to know how many because of the fact that it is automatically integrated with XP for your convenience.
I believe that Mozilla is better, but there is no doubt that my decision was based on a choice. At least some people using IE didn't chose it, but merely accepted it. That is an entirely different thing.
Probably not. You would have to show that the expense or a part thereof is for benefit of the employer, and I believe that the portion that you could show would be limited to the amount over 2% of adjusted gross as a miscellaneous expense.
NOTE: This is not official tax advice, and I don't have the IRC in front of me right now.
Slashdot Mirror
The plan requires two active cellular phone connections. Last I checked that isn't free. Sure, it will be cheaper than actually making direct calls, but that is not the same as free. Furthermore, it doesn't sound like it handles incoming calls, so really what you have is a flat fee for unlimited outgoing calls. This doesn't sound particularly free.
Now the burden of proof will be upon "device" and software makers to establish that they are not promoting copyright infringement.
Did the burden actually shift? My understanding is that the RIAA will still have to prove that the software producer promoted the software's use for copyright infringement. The only change is that now that prove is sufficient to find copyright infringement.
It is still pretty difficult as it sounds like the plaintiff will have to prove that you wanted the software to be used for copyright infringement, and not merely that it was used for copyright infringement.
Regarding madness, does it ever stop?
I believe that this principle does apply to firearms. However, there is a big line between knowing someone could do something wrong, and expressly promoting it. It is the difference between selling piano wire, and selling piano wire attached to hand grips, instructions on how to choke somebody with it, and the schedule of somebody that you don't like.
However, it isn't possible for everyone to switch everything over to Hotmail. Furthermore, from a consumer perspective, things will have changed from working to not working because of something Hotmail did. I don't think Hotmail is big enough to cause people to change to match it as oppposed to the reverse. This will get tricky however, if most e-mail doesn't have a problem. I don't know if yahoo or Gmail already support Sender ID, and if they do it will be a problem only for the marginal players.
Not using hotmail is one thing, but it looks like you might not be able to continue sending e-mail to those with hotmail accounts and don't share your view.
The administration was not right to fire him. Presumably, the use of the cafeteria is open to everyone for any purpose. I think you are assuming that his use was unauthorized. Afterall, he could have used one of the facilities that he was explicitly denied. I also assume that he was not asked to stop during his talk due to disruption in cafeteria functioning. As for his contacting the organizations listed, it was probably for clearance and not for raising a stink. Afterall, if he wanted a stink he would contacted the media first and foremost.
Lastly, I agree that if raising a stink was his purpose, then he wouldn't have resigned.
The question is wheter or not one can spoof biometrics. I can probably get a copy of a lot of fingerprints, and I could post them on my wall. That doesn't mean I could make gloves with them. Despite how it appears in movies, I don't know how easy it would be to fake someone else's fingerprints or retina for that matter.
I agree that biometrics can't be changed, but will you ever need to?
The significance I think which is going unnoticed is that someone thinks it is worth it to support something other than Internet Explorer. Perhaps, this can spread?
You may have a point about "preaching to the choir," but here, much like in real life, people continue to do so. Besides, any day could be someone's first day on Slashdot, and we certainly wouldn't want this person to get the wrong idea.
Isn't this the problem? Liberals (for whatever reason) that come from conservative environments concentrate in certain areas which has the effect of deluting their representation based on the electoral college system. Those that like the conservate environment move back to those areas, so you basically have a conservative minority dictating policy for a less conservative majority. Even though the electoral college was close, the number of states that went for Bush was way more than half. Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller.
I'm not volunteering to move to a conservative area, but if liberals don't occupy these areas then the country can expect more of this type of outcome.
I understand the sentiment, but wouldn't moving to Ohio be slightly more effective?
I think someone thinks a little too highly about their profession.
I understand the error of my ways now. HA HA
I'm only half way through the report, and it seems to have the worse logic that I have ever seen.
Most hackers run Linux or Mac, therefore Windows is safer. Where the hell does this come from?
I'll let the philosophers sort out whether the ability to track every object is a good or bad thing. However, I do know that if this system becomes too pervasive without security, this is going to be a big problem in a hurry.
I remember a commercial where a shifty guy walks through a store stuffing things in his jacket, and then walks out of the door to be stopped by security. The guard informs him that he forgot his receipt, hands it to him, and sends him on his way. I'm all for putting checkers out of work, but if such an environment existed, it would also be profitable to spoof the system.
As they are currenly used, I suppose the only profit would be to either disable the tags or somehow make the store think it has already been purchased. That brings me to the next issue. I assume most people have tried to walk out of a store with a purchased tagged item where the checker forgot to take off the tag. It is annoying and embarassing. Imagine if this could happen with every article of clothing that you own because the store database gets screwed up.
But no, not all Nigerians are scammers, but many are... And thats a very sad thing.
Perhaps, scammers preferentially claim to be Nigerian. However, any reasonable scammer would claim something else to mix it up since the good name of Nigeria has been sullied.
you need to be smart.
I think you mean smarter than your intended victim. You are also forgetting how many would-be fraud artist get caught.
It is much simpler than that. All I'm suggesting is that a person realize on a basic level what it is that they're doing. In the case of a tax lawyer, you are trusting your money and possibly your freedom to the judgment and expertise of another person. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, but you shouldn't forget that what is that you are entrusting.
In the case of surfing the web, I'm talking about the person that thinks it is okay to install random software just because a pop-up window appears. "It must be okay, because it came from Gator." Changing the defaults won't fix this, if a webpage has instructions on how to change them back.
I'm talking about too ignorant to be suspicious.
No software package can fix ignorance. Mozilla makes ignorance a little cheaper. Microsoft is trying to do the same with changing the defaults in Service Pack 2. However, the real problem won't be fixed as long as people choose not to think.
This is just like on the Simpsons where Mrs. Lovejoy always says, "Won't anybody please think about the children?" (or its functional equivalent). It was funnier when it wasn't the basis for actual as opposed to animated public policy.
The problem is that it transfers resources from the stupid to the morally bankrupt. I don't know if either group deserves to spread its genes. Furthermore, a lot of the "stupid" have already spawned.
Whenever I see the make money fast schemes on television or on the internet, my first question is always, "What do they need me for?" Schemes that actually make money sell themselves. All I know initially is that rather than invest money into the scheme itself they are spending it recruiting new people. Does this sound fishy? A person that really intends to commit fraud probably won't trust a random stranger.
I understand that people fall on hard times and get desperate for salvation, but outside of cinema does it ever just fall into your lap? I once went to a meeting that I didn't realize at the time was for a pyramid scheme when I was looking for a job. I assume I was being recruited based on that fact. I shudder to imagine how worse it would have been had I bought into that crap.
Hope is a beautiful thing until it makes people stupid.
Every time you try to switch someone and they don't switch, they've chosen IE.
Actually, that means that they chose not to switch. Every day I don't change cellular phone providers isn't an affirmative choice in favor of my current provider. It just means that some people didn't care enough to make a change. Every windows user is automatically signed up with IE, and just because they don't get a new browser doesn't make it a choice.
I'm glad you at least tried Mozilla & Firefox before continuing to use IE.
Some people actually choose to use IE. However, there is no real way to know how many because of the fact that it is automatically integrated with XP for your convenience.
I believe that Mozilla is better, but there is no doubt that my decision was based on a choice. At least some people using IE didn't chose it, but merely accepted it. That is an entirely different thing.
Probably not. You would have to show that the expense or a part thereof is for benefit of the employer, and I believe that the portion that you could show would be limited to the amount over 2% of adjusted gross as a miscellaneous expense.
NOTE: This is not official tax advice, and I don't have the IRC in front of me right now.