Your image is funny, but your point is right on. We're paying a staggering amount of Land Tax in the US, but it's all going to the landlords.
Land "ownership" is no more a natural right than intellectual "property." Both are artificial monopolies created by governments.
You can't develop software for $6.00/hr here! It's not possible. Because of private land ownership, the market for material goods and living quarters is distorted, and Americans can't work for less to compete internationally. It's all about the price inflation induced by the existing Land Tax. You're paying maybe 20% of your income directly, and much more indirectly, to the people who literally own this country.
That interpretation of "centrifugal" is a great example of using words to obscure meaning. You know, the lawyer knows, the defendant knows, and the judge knows that what was meant in the statute was "when something comes spinning out from the center of a rotating object." It's the normal everyday English meaning of the word even if it's not 100% scientifically precise in that sense.
Come on. By your reasoning a statute that refers to a "line" such as a property line can't be enforced because a "line" in mathematics is infinitely narrow and has no endpoints and there are so such lines on property records. That's a crazy interpretation that has nothing to do with what the law is supposed to mean or do.
I was on the.us version of the show (back when it was still cool) but didn't make it into the "hot seat." I think some of the other contestants had a "Google buddy" at home but I said to hell with it, they either know the answer or they don't. Just get five people--at least here they let you have five--who are quick, have good hearing, and whose areas of knowledge don't overlap too much.
Seriously, have you ever seen the "Google buddy" tactic actually work? It takes way more than 30 seconds to find the data and communicate both ways. Wetware is still faster than that.
The public clearly didn't create the frequences, nor were they the first to discover or exploit them.
But it is the public and only the public that can reserve them to a single user.
Cell phone companies would be helpless if not for licensing, which is a creation of the public, working through the State. The frequencies weren't made by the people, but the monopoly in them certainly was.
Look, it is not hard to understand. Spammers send out their garbage because someone is responding with cash or a legitimate email address that can be sold to other spammers.
It's harder to understand than you know then. Spammers send out their garbage because they think someone will buy their product. But have you noticed how many products you get pitched to you exactly once? The spammer isn't successful, he gives up, he curses the spam-enabler who sold him the Millions of Addresses CD for US $295.00. And the spam-enabler finds another sucker.
It doesn't matter if nobody buys the product. What matters is that the spamware peddlers keep going and going and going...
I agree. It may be "politically correct" to say this on Slashdot, but it's true. The Windows shops I've known (and worked in) have many more servers than correspondingly powerful Unix installations, and each Unix admin was able to ride herd on more servers than a similarly situated Windows admin.
The whole Unix mindset and toolset is incredibly admin-friendly, once you grasp the simple principles.
"Regularly used as evidence in court"? How often do you get lawsuits and prosecutions at this university? It seems that this should be something that happens every year or two, max. I suppose that would be "regular" too but I get the impression you mean it happens frequently. What's up with that?
The plaintiff did not have the metaphorical curtains drawn. There was no realistic way to know the report was supposed to be hidden. The lack of a hyperlink to that report could mean a million different things--they forgot to add the link, they were publishing the report's URL in meatspace media, the link was in a place the defendant didn't know about, the link was propagated via email (hence not visible on any website), or whatever.
But there's only one good way to tell people to stay away from a given web document--the 403 response code.
The simplest common-sense defense would be to remind the court that the plaintiff's server gave a 200 response code. Defendants asked for a document and plaintiff provided it, where is the tort?
I happen to be acquainted with a guy who's something of an expert on tire track imprints. Dude says that they are incredibly accurate and useful in many circumstances.
Our webmaster is having a horrible time designing a Unv website that complies with the ADA requirements. It's truely a nightmare.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how making an existing site accessible can be a "nightmare" unless you've done something truly awful with the original design. What's the big holdup?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Thoreau was branded a radical leftist and marginalized by media and government when he was alive.
Your image is funny, but your point is right on. We're paying a staggering amount of Land Tax in the US, but it's all going to the landlords.
Land "ownership" is no more a natural right than intellectual "property." Both are artificial monopolies created by governments.
You can't develop software for $6.00/hr here! It's not possible. Because of private land ownership, the market for material goods and living quarters is distorted, and Americans can't work for less to compete internationally. It's all about the price inflation induced by the existing Land Tax. You're paying maybe 20% of your income directly, and much more indirectly, to the people who literally own this country.
And global exchange rates have nothing to do with it?
When the ruble and the rupee gain in value relative to the dollar, the global outsourcing trend will slow at least a little.
I'm just amazed this never comes up in news reports.
But SCO is not bound by the GPL on software it created, even when the same software is licensed to others using GPL.
That interpretation of "centrifugal" is a great example of using words to obscure meaning. You know, the lawyer knows, the defendant knows, and the judge knows that what was meant in the statute was "when something comes spinning out from the center of a rotating object." It's the normal everyday English meaning of the word even if it's not 100% scientifically precise in that sense.
Come on. By your reasoning a statute that refers to a "line" such as a property line can't be enforced because a "line" in mathematics is infinitely narrow and has no endpoints and there are so such lines on property records. That's a crazy interpretation that has nothing to do with what the law is supposed to mean or do.
Do you have any idea what the steel industry was like before unions?
Oy. You're young, aren't you?
The farther I get reading this discussion, the more extreme this statistic gets. It's a wonder anyone makes a living at all.
I was on the .us version of the show (back when it was still cool) but didn't make it into the "hot seat." I think some of the other contestants had a "Google buddy" at home but I said to hell with it, they either know the answer or they don't. Just get five people--at least here they let you have five--who are quick, have good hearing, and whose areas of knowledge don't overlap too much.
Seriously, have you ever seen the "Google buddy" tactic actually work? It takes way more than 30 seconds to find the data and communicate both ways. Wetware is still faster than that.
But it is the public and only the public that can reserve them to a single user.
Cell phone companies would be helpless if not for licensing, which is a creation of the public, working through the State. The frequencies weren't made by the people, but the monopoly in them certainly was.
Think newbies. Think turnover.
It's harder to understand than you know then. Spammers send out their garbage because they think someone will buy their product. But have you noticed how many products you get pitched to you exactly once? The spammer isn't successful, he gives up, he curses the spam-enabler who sold him the Millions of Addresses CD for US $295.00. And the spam-enabler finds another sucker.
It doesn't matter if nobody buys the product. What matters is that the spamware peddlers keep going and going and going...
I agree. It may be "politically correct" to say this on Slashdot, but it's true. The Windows shops I've known (and worked in) have many more servers than correspondingly powerful Unix installations, and each Unix admin was able to ride herd on more servers than a similarly situated Windows admin.
The whole Unix mindset and toolset is incredibly admin-friendly, once you grasp the simple principles.
Well, "once every 17 years" would qualify as "regular" too. You're good, man.
"Regularly used as evidence in court"? How often do you get lawsuits and prosecutions at this university? It seems that this should be something that happens every year or two, max. I suppose that would be "regular" too but I get the impression you mean it happens frequently. What's up with that?
I would say a 200 result code is all the permission anyone should ever need.
The plaintiff did not have the metaphorical curtains drawn. There was no realistic way to know the report was supposed to be hidden. The lack of a hyperlink to that report could mean a million different things--they forgot to add the link, they were publishing the report's URL in meatspace media, the link was in a place the defendant didn't know about, the link was propagated via email (hence not visible on any website), or whatever.
But there's only one good way to tell people to stay away from a given web document--the 403 response code.
The simplest common-sense defense would be to remind the court that the plaintiff's server gave a 200 response code. Defendants asked for a document and plaintiff provided it, where is the tort?
And who said she was non-technical?
Mine was... the "eye protector for chickens." Which sounds very much like the one in the BBC article.
Yes, but they would have an unambiguous way to find out.
Which is all fine.
But it doesn't make the browser any more compliant.
Credit where credit's due, that's all I'm saying.
Non-compliant browser.
I happen to be acquainted with a guy who's something of an expert on tire track imprints. Dude says that they are incredibly accurate and useful in many circumstances.
You could start a new organization from scratch, or you could support EFF. Which way do you think would be more effective?
I'm sorry, I don't understand how making an existing site accessible can be a "nightmare" unless you've done something truly awful with the original design. What's the big holdup?
Only Microsoft's ad copywriters and marketers ever say "user experience."