It's not correct that a decline in property values becomes a lower base for the 2% annual tax increase. Any decline in taxation due to lower valuation can be reversed immediately when valuation returns.
Under prop 13, the only time property is re-valued is when it changes ownership or there is significant development. As long as you own property, your taxes are absolutely guaranteed to never increase beyond 2% per year, until you sell it or build on it.
Don't do this. It basically puts your passwords (their building blocks, really) in clear text in your command history. It's not any greater security than Chrome has when someone has physical access, and it is significantly less convenient.
1. Modify safepassword.sh to grab a local salt from the individual user's directory.
2. echo "export HISTIGNORE=\"safepassword.sh*\"" >> ~/.profile
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
Ironically, this is also exactly what vaccinations do.
So is counteracting evolution good or bad?
You cannot "counteract" evolution. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait just as our immune system is. Using our intelligence to build a simple tool (a club) to defend ourselves from external threats is no different than using our intelligence to build a complex tool (a vaccine) to protect ourselves from external threats.
Our complex social structure is an evolutionary trait as well, no different than our other traits.
Perhaps protecting the weak & stupid enhances our chances of surviving long-term by protecting future beneficial traits that are, currently, only living amongst the "weak & stupid". There is no way to tell what trait(s) will be beneficial to our own survival in 100, 1000, or 1,000,000 years. Specialization in nature (even specialization in intelligence) at first seems beneficial if you specialize in something nobody else has because it gives you a quick edge. But if that trait becomes obsolete too fast, you risk becoming extinct.
It is difficult to argue that intelligence is a harmful trait in today's (or any future) world... unless you take into account the damage our intelligence is doing on a global scale. There will come a time in the (near) future where this planet cannot sustain our population. If that time comes after a "point of no return" and we're on our way to a new ice age or something equally drastic, it is very possible that humans will cease to exist.
At that point, looking back at our history, the cockroaches may conclude that human intelligence was the worst trait evolution ever produced.
Going off of this description of pdf documents, it appears that everything in there is nicely encapsulated in an object. So it looks like all you need is a short text processing script (sed, php, whatever you know) to pipe the attachments through.
The actual javascript object looks something like this:
244 0 obj<</S/JavaScript/JS(all javascript code is between the two paranthesis)>>
endobj
Just stripping it out appears to work ok. Though the first number on the line appears to be an object number... so you might need to renumber the remaining objects as well to avoid problems with some viewers (I'm just guessing here).
Context....mt first point had nothing to do with either of your examples so please don't try expanding my comment to include the men in your comment.
I was continuing the conversation. You were contesting mi's claims, so I offered 2 more examples that didn't fit the points you covered.
As to your challenge:
Executed? You mean hit with Drone strikes while in a terrorist occupied building?
I shouldn't use the word executed, you're right, as that word indicates a lawful killing. I'll use murdered from now on. However neither strike occurred in a "terrorist occupied building". Both were on the streets of Yemen, a non-combat area, and subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities only.
If you hang out with and engage in actions that aid and support enemy combatants outside of US sovereignty then you probably should not expect to have the door kicked in and be arrested.
If you're a US Citizen, you should. That is the point of the Constitution: to guarantee the US government does not violate your inalienable right to life (or your other rights, like a trial).
P.S. Abdulrahman, a 16 year old kid, was killed 2 weeks after his father. According to the white house, his accused crime is "not having a more responsible father." He had no known ties to any terrorist organization besides being the unlucky offspring of an alleged terrorist (Anwar). Abdulrahman's 17 year old cousin... well, his crime was hanging out with Abdulrahman apparently... so I guess he should have had friends with more responsible fathers.
Bush talked about such killings, Obama did it, and now says he can do the same thing whenever he wants wherever he wants all over the world, including on US soil, with no judicial oversight. Obama claims that there was no other option, that arresting them was too difficult. Not once did any US official ever ask the Al-Awlaki's to turn over Abdulrahman. Not once did any US official ever share what Abdulrahman was accused of doing.
Really? India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK. The Soviet Union collapsed and it wasn't because of personal firearms.
Oooo, examples!! How about Syria? Libya? Palestine? United States? Mexico? Cyprus? North Korea? Tibet? Iraq?
Just because bad governments can be brought down by other means doesn't mean those methods are better in every situation. Right tool for the job and all.
Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really.
Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Imperial Navy once said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
can the military overwhelm every armed citizen in revolt? Of course. Is it worth it? Definitely not.
The notion that your personal firearms are what preserves your liberty is a cute little sound bite that doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
It worked in Syria for a while. But there is the fact that the Constitution said "arms" not "guns", despite having a nice range of words and weapons to guarantee our right to own: rifles, pistols, knives, swords, cannons, TNT, battle ships, rockets... All Constitutionally protected "arms".
I have no illusions whatsoever that my own guns (yes I have some) are what is keeping our government at bay. What keeps them at bay is our collective behavior and our willingness to speak up courageously in the face of power. The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever. As the saying goes, "vox populi, vox Dei".
Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up.
Is your gun keeping the government at bay? No. Not even the entire Branch Davidian's guns kept them at bay... But an entire nation's "collective behavior" does. Gun ownership is one right of many that is constantly being tested. Hopefully the reason it is needed will never come up, but it might, so it must be protected.
It only takes a small number of people with guns to cause a big problem.
Except such a problem is very temporary, or legitimate. The same logic applies to many other rights as well.
I'm a supporter of gun rights but the the gun lobby (aka the NRA) has really gotten out of hand. There ARE crazy people out there looking to shoot up schools and movie theaters and public gatherings. They exist but as a society we seem unwilling to have an adult conversation about what to do about them. I'm not for a moment proposing that we take away everyone's guns but I don't think it is unreasonable to register firearms, *require* safety and competency training, and to conduct background checks. I don't think it is unreasonable to require precautions when handing someone a weapon whose primary purpose is to kill.
Totally agree with you here. What is the solution? I think its to strengthen the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th, disband the army, and actually start relying on a "well regulated militia" for home defense. The only reason your gun ownership is a Constitutional right is to defend the country in place of a standing army.
I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.
It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Syntax Error: Undefined variable "$DEITY", assumed "$DEITY" on line 5
No the three strikes rule should be you lose your IP to the public domain. If you cannot be trusted to not claim ownership of other peoples property, you should lose your right to claim copyright at all.
We take a felons right to vote (without a doubt a more important right) so why can't we take away their copy right.
You can.
You just have to stop voting for the two major parties that support the current system.
Mauritania still practices slavery today (hint: thats in Africa) even though they outlawed it waaay back in 1981.
There were 6 white jurors in the Zimmerman trial. What are the odds of getting 6 white jurors?
Pretty good in the Sanford area as the jury pools are comprised of locals... aka "peers".
What are the odds of getting heads 6 times in a row?
I don't know off hand. But I'm sure it can be calculated fairly quickly. What are the odds of a quarter having 27 white sides, 7 black sides, 3 hispanic sides, 3 "mixed" sides, and a prosecution & defense team interviewing each side to determine their impartiality and knowledge of the coin flip?
P.S., if somebody wants to answer the all-white jury pool question while ignoring such things as jury pools being comprised of people that voted in the last election or the jury being interviewed by the prosecution & defense teams... the 40 strong pool was racially broken down as above: 27, 7, 3, 3.
Trevor Dooley, a black male, shot and killed David James (white) in front of James' 7 year old daughter on a playground. Dooley cited Stand Your Ground and walked home.
Of course once the investigation concluded it was painfully obvious (by way of witness accounts) that Dooley was a crazy gun-toting fool that murdered an innocent father. It was only then (several days after the shooting) that Dooley was arrested.
Dooley is now at home despite his 8 year prison sentence due to his age and health.
1. NOT arrested immediately
2. Did NOT receive a life sentence (8 years)
3. Is NOT even serving his sentence
So now you and all your race-card throwing simpletons can go kill yourselves in shame. Please.
1) Constitutional rights have nothing to do with how any of those 4 men were adjudicated.
Anwar Al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. Both prime gitmo candidates (for using their horrible 1st amendment rights), US Citizens, and... executed without trials. Explain please.
Seriously.
Twinkies (and cupcakes and hohos) first appeared at a couple locations here in the SF Bay Area a couple months ago. At first I thought it was a distributor that hoarded a few crates and was disgusted. (I think others thought the same thing cause the shelf didn't get touched for a few days).
But I asked and found out they were already back in production and being sold. The only change I saw was the lack of the paper base inside the packaging. Its now just a Twinkie and a wrapper.
Ahhh the Silicon Valley... I still can't get high speed internet at my house, but I can buy Twinkies...
Just throw the book at this guy. He's scum. This is precisely what's wrong with the corporations on our planet and there has to be some kind of accountability, not that it would do much good in convincing CEOs to play a fair game. It seems everyone is cutting corners these days.
That is NOT how you grow a brand.
Don't be so quick to judge. You don't know the details of the case. I'm willing to bet you don't even know which Federal statues were allegedly violated. All you have are prosecutor's comments.
The feds have a 96% conviction rate in these types of cases. 90% of all their convictions are via plea deal. This is not because they are so good at finding criminals, but because many of the laws allegedly violated by these "scum" are so vague and wide-ranging that they are impossible to defend. Of the non-plea deal cases, many are thrown out by the time they get to appeal due to the vagueness of the laws, or improper jury instructions given by judges that misinterpret the laws.
I encourage you to read Three Felonies a Day to get an idea of what the other side of the coin looks like.
Until quite recently most people opposed gay marriage (but most supported civil unions). Until recently most people opposed legalizing pot. Now those laws are changing.
Laws don't change because "me and all my friends want them to change", unless you and all your friends are an oligarchy.
I'm sorry, are you trying to disagree with me? Are you calling the LA Times and Huffington Post "my friends"? Or just their millions of readers?
Cause last I checked "me and all my friends want them to change" has worked quite well. I recall that being what got gay marriage banned in California by a voter referendum and a LOT of campaigning by a few select hate-filled organizations like the LDS.
Unfortunately something that is also needed is for some of those friends to either have the ear of the right government officials, or enough money to educate people. Also unfortunate is the fact that most big businesses that support extending copyright law have both the money and the ears, while the people do not.
Simply claiming that "The law is the way it is because The People want it that way" is either naive, disingenuous, or flat out stupid. There are countless current and past government actions that show such a claim to be absolutely false... You can start with Congress' single digit approval rating and then move into more detail on specific issues. Claiming that "we've all agreed on IP laws for 230 years" is even worse. The IP laws we have today are NOTHING like the IP laws of 1776. LIFE+70 years isn't even remotely comparable to a flat 7 years.
One humorous side-note though... I'll go back and actually agree with you on the oligarchy claim... as long as you admit the US is an oligarchy.
You can't forbid people to share information with other people
Except it's not sharing, is it? Sharing implies that one party is giving something they have to another person for a period of time at which point that something is returned.
That sounds like what banks do. But they call it "lending", not "sharing".
Your fantasy futuristic free-content utopian vision does not justify breaking IP laws that society has agreed are valid for 230 years (and longer). We have a system for changing laws if the majority of society agreed with you. It doesnt, which is why those laws arent changed.
Some subcultures are so destructive any normal person could smell it on contact. This is one of them. You don't want that job at any price. Working with nothing but assholes coke fiends and sociopaths carries the potential to ruin your attitude towards not just work, but humanity itself.
I'm already in IT... might as well get the money too.
BYOD means you can no longer trust your own network because you no longer have the same level of control over the devices on it.
Didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't agree with the article?
Three things, 1 from the article, 1 anecdote, 1 question.
Article: The article, and the summary, stated that the primary and only real difference between COPE and BYOD is ownership. Why do you automatically assume that "BYOD" means "Bring absolutely anything you want from an iPhone to a kitchen sink and plug it into our network without running past IT first."? BYOD in no way prevents you from saying "Bring your own Windows 7 or 8, OSX 10.6-8, or RedHat 7 laptop; iPhone 4+ or Android 4+ phone; And install this software we provide...; No CentOS; No BB; No XP; No 10.5". You don't have to relinquish control or standards, you don't have to give up your Terms of Use for your network. The only thing that has to change is who pays the invoice when the computer is delivered.
Anecdote: I worked on a contract with Lucent about... wow 10 years ago. As a vendor I obviously brought my own laptop (well, my company's, but same difference as far as Lucent is concerned... its not theirs). The first thing I had to do when I plugged in though was install their software. I still have no idea what it did beyond letting me join the network (and pop up a friendly little window when I did connect, reminding me of Lucent's right to monitor, record, restrict, or redirect absolutely anything sent over their network). But as soon as its there, guess what? They had whatever control they wanted over their network and my PC. What would have happened if their software didn't work on my PC? Who knows...
Question: Considering the anecdote above, what is the difference between having a BYOD policy and not providing a brand new laptop to every vendor and contractor that walks through your front door?
BYOD is a short sighted, stupid idea thought up by someone who sure as hell has no experience with I/T support.
Spoken like a grunt with no management experience that didn't think things through.:)
I'll assume you're young and thus not yet crippled by such things as "bad posture" and tell you to work outside.
Really, you're traveling to see the world right? So, see it. Always. Work anywhere the tour guides won't kick you out of. Bust out your laptop on the steps of the Sistine chapel. Read a tech book at the top of the Eiffel Tower. Head over to "The Pub" or wherever that cute local girl is frequenting.
Starbucks will always be waiting for you if you really need something "normal".
You'll just need a camp chair and some good noise cancelling headphones.
Slashdot Mirror
nt
Sorry I misread the post you were responding to. You got it right.
It's not correct that a decline in property values becomes a lower base for the 2% annual tax increase. Any decline in taxation due to lower valuation can be reversed immediately when valuation returns.
Under prop 13, the only time property is re-valued is when it changes ownership or there is significant development. As long as you own property, your taxes are absolutely guaranteed to never increase beyond 2% per year, until you sell it or build on it.
Don't do this. It basically puts your passwords (their building blocks, really) in clear text in your command history. It's not any greater security than Chrome has when someone has physical access, and it is significantly less convenient.
1. Modify safepassword.sh to grab a local salt from the individual user's directory.
2. echo "export HISTIGNORE=\"safepassword.sh*\"" >> ~/.profile
Only some kind of random generator could come up with such a load of crap ...
Or an out-of-his-depth middle manager.
Score -1: redundant
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
Ironically, this is also exactly what vaccinations do.
So is counteracting evolution good or bad?
You cannot "counteract" evolution. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait just as our immune system is. Using our intelligence to build a simple tool (a club) to defend ourselves from external threats is no different than using our intelligence to build a complex tool (a vaccine) to protect ourselves from external threats.
Our complex social structure is an evolutionary trait as well, no different than our other traits.
Perhaps protecting the weak & stupid enhances our chances of surviving long-term by protecting future beneficial traits that are, currently, only living amongst the "weak & stupid". There is no way to tell what trait(s) will be beneficial to our own survival in 100, 1000, or 1,000,000 years. Specialization in nature (even specialization in intelligence) at first seems beneficial if you specialize in something nobody else has because it gives you a quick edge. But if that trait becomes obsolete too fast, you risk becoming extinct.
It is difficult to argue that intelligence is a harmful trait in today's (or any future) world... unless you take into account the damage our intelligence is doing on a global scale. There will come a time in the (near) future where this planet cannot sustain our population. If that time comes after a "point of no return" and we're on our way to a new ice age or something equally drastic, it is very possible that humans will cease to exist.
At that point, looking back at our history, the cockroaches may conclude that human intelligence was the worst trait evolution ever produced.
The actual javascript object looks something like this:
244 0 obj<</S/JavaScript/JS(all javascript code is between the two paranthesis)>>
endobj
Just stripping it out appears to work ok. Though the first number on the line appears to be an object number... so you might need to renumber the remaining objects as well to avoid problems with some viewers (I'm just guessing here).
Context....mt first point had nothing to do with either of your examples so please don't try expanding my comment to include the men in your comment.
I was continuing the conversation. You were contesting mi's claims, so I offered 2 more examples that didn't fit the points you covered.
As to your challenge:
Executed? You mean hit with Drone strikes while in a terrorist occupied building?
I shouldn't use the word executed, you're right, as that word indicates a lawful killing. I'll use murdered from now on. However neither strike occurred in a "terrorist occupied building". Both were on the streets of Yemen, a non-combat area, and subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities only.
If you hang out with and engage in actions that aid and support enemy combatants outside of US sovereignty then you probably should not expect to have the door kicked in and be arrested.
If you're a US Citizen, you should. That is the point of the Constitution: to guarantee the US government does not violate your inalienable right to life (or your other rights, like a trial).
P.S. Abdulrahman, a 16 year old kid, was killed 2 weeks after his father. According to the white house, his accused crime is "not having a more responsible father." He had no known ties to any terrorist organization besides being the unlucky offspring of an alleged terrorist (Anwar). Abdulrahman's 17 year old cousin... well, his crime was hanging out with Abdulrahman apparently... so I guess he should have had friends with more responsible fathers.
Bush talked about such killings, Obama did it, and now says he can do the same thing whenever he wants wherever he wants all over the world, including on US soil, with no judicial oversight. Obama claims that there was no other option, that arresting them was too difficult. Not once did any US official ever ask the Al-Awlaki's to turn over Abdulrahman. Not once did any US official ever share what Abdulrahman was accused of doing.
Really? India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK. The Soviet Union collapsed and it wasn't because of personal firearms.
Oooo, examples!! How about Syria? Libya? Palestine? United States? Mexico? Cyprus? North Korea? Tibet? Iraq?
Just because bad governments can be brought down by other means doesn't mean those methods are better in every situation. Right tool for the job and all.
Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really.
Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Imperial Navy once said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
can the military overwhelm every armed citizen in revolt? Of course. Is it worth it? Definitely not.
The notion that your personal firearms are what preserves your liberty is a cute little sound bite that doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.
It worked in Syria for a while. But there is the fact that the Constitution said "arms" not "guns", despite having a nice range of words and weapons to guarantee our right to own: rifles, pistols, knives, swords, cannons, TNT, battle ships, rockets... All Constitutionally protected "arms".
I have no illusions whatsoever that my own guns (yes I have some) are what is keeping our government at bay. What keeps them at bay is our collective behavior and our willingness to speak up courageously in the face of power. The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever. As the saying goes, "vox populi, vox Dei".
Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up.
Is your gun keeping the government at bay? No. Not even the entire Branch Davidian's guns kept them at bay... But an entire nation's "collective behavior" does. Gun ownership is one right of many that is constantly being tested. Hopefully the reason it is needed will never come up, but it might, so it must be protected.
It only takes a small number of people with guns to cause a big problem.
Except such a problem is very temporary, or legitimate. The same logic applies to many other rights as well.
I'm a supporter of gun rights but the the gun lobby (aka the NRA) has really gotten out of hand. There ARE crazy people out there looking to shoot up schools and movie theaters and public gatherings. They exist but as a society we seem unwilling to have an adult conversation about what to do about them. I'm not for a moment proposing that we take away everyone's guns but I don't think it is unreasonable to register firearms, *require* safety and competency training, and to conduct background checks. I don't think it is unreasonable to require precautions when handing someone a weapon whose primary purpose is to kill.
Totally agree with you here. What is the solution? I think its to strengthen the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th, disband the army, and actually start relying on a "well regulated militia" for home defense. The only reason your gun ownership is a Constitutional right is to defend the country in place of a standing army.
It depends.
I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.
It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Syntax Error: Undefined variable "$DEITY", assumed "$DEITY" on line 5
No the three strikes rule should be you lose your IP to the public domain. If you cannot be trusted to not claim ownership of other peoples property, you should lose your right to claim copyright at all.
We take a felons right to vote (without a doubt a more important right) so why can't we take away their copy right.
You can.
You just have to stop voting for the two major parties that support the current system.
I'm not going to look them up,
You never did, why start now?
but there are statistics to show that black people who kill white people are more likely to get the death penalty than vice versa.
There are also statistics that show blacks are twice as likely to commit a hate crime as whites. FBI.gov, DOJ.gov... whats your point?
Here's a case where a black man who thought his family's life was in danger killed a white teenager who was threatening him -- and got convicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/nyregion/30white.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html
And here is a pic of NPH and a rainbow. http://fukung.net/v/30962/3b9f4dce9e25ffe63f8cc3eb7a0a72de.jpg
Florida was a slave state.
Mauritania still practices slavery today (hint: thats in Africa) even though they outlawed it waaay back in 1981.
There were 6 white jurors in the Zimmerman trial. What are the odds of getting 6 white jurors?
Pretty good in the Sanford area as the jury pools are comprised of locals... aka "peers".
What are the odds of getting heads 6 times in a row?
I don't know off hand. But I'm sure it can be calculated fairly quickly. What are the odds of a quarter having 27 white sides, 7 black sides, 3 hispanic sides, 3 "mixed" sides, and a prosecution & defense team interviewing each side to determine their impartiality and knowledge of the coin flip?
P.S., if somebody wants to answer the all-white jury pool question while ignoring such things as jury pools being comprised of people that voted in the last election or the jury being interviewed by the prosecution & defense teams... the 40 strong pool was racially broken down as above: 27, 7, 3, 3.
The difference is that if Zimmerman was black, he would have been arrested on the spot and he would already be serving his life sentence.
Typical simpleton racist belief. Here, let me prove you wrong with a single link:
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/297704/8/Trevor-Dooleys-neighbors-moving-out--
Trevor Dooley, a black male, shot and killed David James (white) in front of James' 7 year old daughter on a playground. Dooley cited Stand Your Ground and walked home.
Of course once the investigation concluded it was painfully obvious (by way of witness accounts) that Dooley was a crazy gun-toting fool that murdered an innocent father. It was only then (several days after the shooting) that Dooley was arrested.
Dooley is now at home despite his 8 year prison sentence due to his age and health.
1. NOT arrested immediately
2. Did NOT receive a life sentence (8 years)
3. Is NOT even serving his sentence
So now you and all your race-card throwing simpletons can go kill yourselves in shame. Please.
1) Constitutional rights have nothing to do with how any of those 4 men were adjudicated.
Anwar Al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. Both prime gitmo candidates (for using their horrible 1st amendment rights), US Citizens, and... executed without trials. Explain please.
I think you did it wrong. Those normally get modded +5 pretty quick.
Twinkies (and cupcakes and hohos) first appeared at a couple locations here in the SF Bay Area a couple months ago. At first I thought it was a distributor that hoarded a few crates and was disgusted. (I think others thought the same thing cause the shelf didn't get touched for a few days).
But I asked and found out they were already back in production and being sold. The only change I saw was the lack of the paper base inside the packaging. Its now just a Twinkie and a wrapper.
Ahhh the Silicon Valley... I still can't get high speed internet at my house, but I can buy Twinkies...
I honestly have not noticed that until just right now.
Oh man I need a minute to digest this.
Be glad you didn't just eat a twinkie. You'd need a few years to digest that.
Just throw the book at this guy. He's scum. This is precisely what's wrong with the corporations on our planet and there has to be some kind of accountability, not that it would do much good in convincing CEOs to play a fair game. It seems everyone is cutting corners these days.
That is NOT how you grow a brand.
Don't be so quick to judge. You don't know the details of the case. I'm willing to bet you don't even know which Federal statues were allegedly violated. All you have are prosecutor's comments.
The feds have a 96% conviction rate in these types of cases. 90% of all their convictions are via plea deal. This is not because they are so good at finding criminals, but because many of the laws allegedly violated by these "scum" are so vague and wide-ranging that they are impossible to defend. Of the non-plea deal cases, many are thrown out by the time they get to appeal due to the vagueness of the laws, or improper jury instructions given by judges that misinterpret the laws.
I encourage you to read Three Felonies a Day to get an idea of what the other side of the coin looks like.
Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.
Because we all would like to think "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and not a human certainty.
Slipper slopes apply to policy, not technology.
It doesn't matter if they revive the psychic studies and develop clairvoyant super spies as long as they get a warrant before peeking at US citizens.
Until quite recently most people opposed gay marriage (but most supported civil unions). Until recently most people opposed legalizing pot. Now those laws are changing.
Laws don't change because "me and all my friends want them to change", unless you and all your friends are an oligarchy.
I'm sorry, are you trying to disagree with me? Are you calling the LA Times and Huffington Post "my friends"? Or just their millions of readers?
Cause last I checked "me and all my friends want them to change" has worked quite well. I recall that being what got gay marriage banned in California by a voter referendum and a LOT of campaigning by a few select hate-filled organizations like the LDS.
Unfortunately something that is also needed is for some of those friends to either have the ear of the right government officials, or enough money to educate people. Also unfortunate is the fact that most big businesses that support extending copyright law have both the money and the ears, while the people do not.
Simply claiming that "The law is the way it is because The People want it that way" is either naive, disingenuous, or flat out stupid. There are countless current and past government actions that show such a claim to be absolutely false... You can start with Congress' single digit approval rating and then move into more detail on specific issues. Claiming that "we've all agreed on IP laws for 230 years" is even worse. The IP laws we have today are NOTHING like the IP laws of 1776. LIFE+70 years isn't even remotely comparable to a flat 7 years.
One humorous side-note though... I'll go back and actually agree with you on the oligarchy claim... as long as you admit the US is an oligarchy.
You can't forbid people to share information with other people Except it's not sharing, is it? Sharing implies that one party is giving something they have to another person for a period of time at which point that something is returned.
That sounds like what banks do. But they call it "lending", not "sharing".
The ends do not justify the means.
Your fantasy futuristic free-content utopian vision does not justify breaking IP laws that society has agreed are valid for 230 years (and longer). We have a system for changing laws if the majority of society agreed with you. It doesnt, which is why those laws arent changed.
Its not that simple. Otherwise gays would be getting married and MJ would be legal. :/
Government is always slow to react.
Some subcultures are so destructive any normal person could smell it on contact. This is one of them. You don't want that job at any price. Working with nothing but assholes coke fiends and sociopaths carries the potential to ruin your attitude towards not just work, but humanity itself.
I'm already in IT... might as well get the money too.
BYOD means you can no longer trust your own network because you no longer have the same level of control over the devices on it.
Didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't agree with the article?
Three things, 1 from the article, 1 anecdote, 1 question.
Article: The article, and the summary, stated that the primary and only real difference between COPE and BYOD is ownership. Why do you automatically assume that "BYOD" means "Bring absolutely anything you want from an iPhone to a kitchen sink and plug it into our network without running past IT first."? BYOD in no way prevents you from saying "Bring your own Windows 7 or 8, OSX 10.6-8, or RedHat 7 laptop; iPhone 4+ or Android 4+ phone; And install this software we provide...; No CentOS; No BB; No XP; No 10.5". You don't have to relinquish control or standards, you don't have to give up your Terms of Use for your network. The only thing that has to change is who pays the invoice when the computer is delivered.
Anecdote: I worked on a contract with Lucent about ... wow 10 years ago. As a vendor I obviously brought my own laptop (well, my company's, but same difference as far as Lucent is concerned... its not theirs). The first thing I had to do when I plugged in though was install their software. I still have no idea what it did beyond letting me join the network (and pop up a friendly little window when I did connect, reminding me of Lucent's right to monitor, record, restrict, or redirect absolutely anything sent over their network). But as soon as its there, guess what? They had whatever control they wanted over their network and my PC. What would have happened if their software didn't work on my PC? Who knows...
Question: Considering the anecdote above, what is the difference between having a BYOD policy and not providing a brand new laptop to every vendor and contractor that walks through your front door?
BYOD is a short sighted, stupid idea thought up by someone who sure as hell has no experience with I/T support.
Spoken like a grunt with no management experience that didn't think things through. :)
Really, you're traveling to see the world right? So, see it. Always. Work anywhere the tour guides won't kick you out of. Bust out your laptop on the steps of the Sistine chapel. Read a tech book at the top of the Eiffel Tower. Head over to "The Pub" or wherever that cute local girl is frequenting.
Starbucks will always be waiting for you if you really need something "normal".
You'll just need a camp chair and some good noise cancelling headphones.