As a side note, I think that this confirms my pet theory concerning time travel: any attempt to do it will change the past, which changes the conditions of the travel slightly, which changes the past, and so on, until the travel never occurs and the past stops changing. In other words, a spacetime where time travel happens is unstable and decays into one where it won't.
Why? Even if you were to go in the past and change the future, that doesn't mean the future would be changed enough to prevent the travel back to the past.
Different roads can still lead to the same destination... or have you never heard of the expression "All roads lead to Rome."
And all that's assuming that the universe won't tolerate what, to us, is a paradox - not a sure thing, or that causality is preserved, which is also debatable.
I am more interested in the terminal velocity of the Baguette.
According to Captain Bob [captainbob.com], it is quite low.
I soon found out however, that I had not counted on the terminal velocity of French baguettes. Even when I stretched the elastic band dangerously close to the breaking point (its and mine), the [baguette] would flutter out of the air, like a wounded duck, only a few meters down range.
Just goes to show - failure of imagination. Soak it, then freeze it - it'll go further and do a lot more damage. Just be glad the bird was a feather-brain and didn't think of it.
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like bananas.
Baguette + LHC is kind of fly.
There is no proof that the universe won't allow paradoxes, such as going back in time and shooting your grandparents before your parents are born.
*WE* think its paradoxical, and therefore it "can't happen that way". One doesn't necessarily lead to the other - we just assume it does.
Maybe the universe simply "doesn't give a shit"... and that actually appears to be the case, not just from this, but from the whole "arrow of time" perspective. To someone whose frame of reference isn't constrained by a unidirectional arrow of time, paradoxes cease to be paradoxes. To them, if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you were born, you continue to exist. No paradox, it just is what it is. It's allowed.
It's certainly a better explanation of everything than the "infinite multiple branching worlds" theory (and gives rise to a universe where the branching worlds theory would actually appear to be true).
and yes, you can subscribe to my newsletter explaining our baguette-flinging overlords:-)
The "existence of a record" in a database is not the same thing as having a criminal record. That is strictly a data retention policy, for internal usage (administrative purposes). The person who is granted an absolute discharge at the time of their trial does not have a criminal conviction, despite the presence of a notation in the database that they received the discharge. An absolute discharge means that the judge never convicted them, even though they pled guilty. The judge has the absolute right to order that the person not be convicted of a crime when there is no minimum sentence, even if the accused has pled guilty.
Or perhaps you forgot the case where a JUDGE turned out to have had an absolute discharge for an offense when he was a lot younger. It came out years later, and his argument was quite simple - absolute discharge == no criminal conviction, as per the law. It happens all the time. It's not hard to find cases where that happened. It took me less than a minute to find one, and only a few minutes more to cut-n-paste a bunch more.
SAGUENAY, Que. -- The son of former Montreal Canadiens goaltender Patrick Roy received an absolute discharge Wednesday after pleading guilty to an assault charge in connection with a nasty hockey fight last year.
Jonathan Roy, a former goalie for the Quebec Remparts of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League now turned singer, will not have a criminal record. He will have to donate $5,000 to local charitable organizations.
The younger Roy was charged after pounding rival goalie Bobby Nadeau during a hockey brawl in March 2008.
P.E.I. Progressive Conservative MLA Mike Currie has been given an absolute discharge for assault during a sentencing hearing in Charlottetown on Friday.
Currie, MLA for Georgetown-St. Peter's, said he was relieved by the judge's decision to grant him an absolute discharge, which means he will not have a criminal record.
Quebec boy's record cleared despite kirpan conviction
Judge says case has been given too much attention, gives boy unconditional discharge
Jan Ravensbergen, Canwest News Service
Thursday, Apr. 16, 2009
A 13-year-old LaSalle youth involved in Quebec's latest skirmish over the kirpan was declared guilty yesterday in Quebec Youth Court of having threatened two schoolmates with a hairpin normally used to secure his turban.
But Judge Gilles Ouellet then removed the sting from that conviction by handing the youth an absolute discharge -- ensuring the boy remains free of any criminal record.
B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg also found the man at the centre of the ruling, a worker for a marijuana compassion club on Vancouver Island, guilty of producing and possessing for the purpose of trafficking the drug, but gave him an absolute discharge.
If you had read the article, you would have known that most of the gps systems they're talking about aren't suitable for cats (too heavy) and that they have a very limited range (think home cordless phone - 700' if there's no buildings around).
And the price! Up to $1,995.00. Tuna's cheaper.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised someone broke in when you have to dogs. I guess you need bigger dogs. I'm sure the local animal shelter can help, and the dog will be very grateful:-)
All that's very nice, except that whether a person has been charged or not has NOTHING to do with whether they have a criminal record. You don't get a criminal record when you're charged with an offense, only when you're convicted.
If the judge grants an absolute discharge during the hearing for a summary offense, you have no criminal record - not at that point, and not going forward. That any police agency tracks that you got an absolute discharge is irrelevant. You simply don't have a criminal record.
Case in point - a guy tried to steal the hubcaps off my car. He was charged, and at his trial, his lawyer asked for an absolute discharge so he would not have a criminal record, because it would impare his security clearance at the airport. The judge denied the request.
So, just because an electronic trail about how the charge was handled exists in some computer has no relevance. Not everyone who is charged with a summary offense is convicted, and they may be found guilty, have to pay a fine, and still not receive a criminal record at the judge's discretion.
Don't argue with me - tell it to the judge.
In other words, just because something is in the CPIC is irrelevant to whether you have a criminal record. The CPIC is a tool, and as your own quote shows, it also contains information about people who have been charged but not convicted, charged but found not guilty, charged but the charges stayed, etc.
Either a person has a criminal record, or they don't. It's binary. An absolute discharge granted at the time of trial means they do NOT have a criminal record, contrary to what you claimed. So stop with the bullshit. Spend some time in court and see how it works. It'll be a real education. I've easily spent more than 1,000 hours in courtrooms, as a witness in one murder trial, as a juror in another, as defendant and plaintiff in more than a dozen other cases, etc. So cut the crap.
... but not all cellular devices are smartphones, duh!
They were asked to comment on the future of Symbian wrt smartphones, not all cell phones. The fact that they said they would continue to use it for "cellular devices" rather than answer the question about whether Symbian would continue to be used on smartphones makes it obvious that it's NOT going to be on their future smartphones - otherwise, why weasel around the question?
Most financial malware doesn't target a platform - it targets people. From email spam with sucker urls to phony web pages that come up because people have gamed the search engines to the advertising we see here on slashdot, served up by google, that advertises that "you can make $11,764 really easily with this government program" (I have adblock turned off for slashdot and many other sites because I want to see the latest scams), it's all about targeting people, not platforms.
You don't need to exploit the platform when you can trick people with sites that claim your computer is infected|broadcasting its IP address*|whatever. (*note, when I point out that "of course your computer is broadcasting its' address, you idiot - how do you think the it works? Do you get mail without an address on it, or people return your call without your phone number?" it's amazing how many still insiste "my computer's insecure - how can I block my IP addres?"
With people like that, you don't need to attack any platform, ever. Why try to take money from people when you can get them to GIVE it to you, right?:-)
Try using that line to explain to some kid that their cat isn't coming home because its' back is broken from being hit by a car and you had to take it to the vet to be put down.
Have you ever had to take a pet that's been hit by a car to the vet? Or had to put one down? Or explain it to a kid?
If your had read the article, there's no such thing as a GPS chip yet. They haven't solved the battery problem.
Also, the current units don't work well with cats and small dogs - they're too bulky for the animal.
In any case, most of the units are strictly line-of-sight. Their radio signal doesn't communicate with a cell tower, but with your receiver, so the range is limited to about the same as those hand-held cordless phones. And with a short battery life, they'll end up being dead most of the time. After all, how often do you go to someone's house, and when something comes up and you need a flashlight, they might have two or three, but all the batteries are dead?
In other words, they're not practical for most people in most situations.
So, what we all are soooo curious about is... how long did you, oh I mean "a family" do time for the obvious animal cruelty charges brought against them multiple times?
It obviously wasn't me. I've had cats come to my place, and I put a tin of tuna on the windowsill for them. They don't hang around because of the dogs. The dogs don't want to hurt them - in fact, when my St. Bernard was still alive, she absolutely adored cats, and my first Newfie, given the opportunity, would "mother" feral kittens that nobody else but the two of us could get near. He'd even lick them clean - and they'd let him. I had even considered getting him a pet cat to keep him company while I was at work. Funny, when I mentioned this to other people, they thought it was strange. "A pet for your dog?" "Sure." "A pet CAT for your DOG?" "Why not? He likes cats"
I don't condone what they did. People know that, if they're really stuck, and it's a matter of the animal otherwise being put down, they can dump it on me - not just dogs and squirrels and birds, but cats too. I'd treat the cat the same as a dog - walk on a leash outdoors, poop outdoors, learn to sit and beg on command, eat dry dog food (most cat food is too high in magnesium). I've done it before. Cats can be trained, same as dogs and squirrels.
That being said, I can also understand their frustration with the neighbor. As an example, they noticed their pool filter was unplugged and the water was greenish, and a long extension cord led to the neighbors. Turns out he didn't have a plug on that side of his house, and a few days before, rather than walk around his building, he decided to use their electrical outlet. and he was too lazy to plug back the filter after he was finished.
The cops were there on a regular basis for "domestic complaints."
When I had run into a similar problem years before (neighbor's dog was always running free, and would always crap on my lawn - to the point that it would stick its' rear end through the hedge just to crap here), I handled it differently. When I complained, he said "It's not my dog, it's the kids. They're minors, so there's nothing you can do." When it tried to hump my dog, I decided enough was enough and brought it to the SPCA. He got it back the next day, but there were no more problems after that.
I found out afterwards that the REAL reason why the dogs supposedly belonged to the kids (both pre-schoolers) was because he had had two dogs before, and left them outside during the winter with no shelter. We have occasional mid-January thaws, with rainstorms that are quickly followed by the temperature dropping back down to -10, -20... the dogs were howling like always. The neighbors called the police. This time, the police found both dogs were literally FROZEN to the ground, partially embedded in the ice, and had to be put down on the spot. No wonder the dogs were "his kids' dogs" - he wasn't allowed to own a dog any more.
The animal-welfare laws have a bit more teeth in them nowadays, but that doesn't prevent people from being cruel. People still leave dogs tied up outside for weeks on end in the worst winter weather with no shelter. A recent case was a cop who did that - left the dog outside at their country place tied up unattended for days on end. People were reluctant to complain because they didn't want the cop harassing them (because let's face it, a cop who abuses their own pet probably isn't above abusing their position). Instead, someone I know "disappeared" the dog, finding it a new home. It took the former owners 4 days to even notice that their dog was gone!
I don't understand why people can't empathize with animals. If you care about your pet, you simply don't let it wander around where it can get into trouble or get run over or get its' collar snagged underwater (btw, ALWAYS remove any leash or collar before letting a dog into a lake - and don't let them in it unless you're prepared to go in after them if something goes wrong).
Well, gotta go give the dogs their last walk of the day.
Why should I have to spend money to pollute my environment just to control YOUR pests?...
It's easier for me to just call the city and have them give you a $300 fine, plus $25 day for boarding the cat (minimum 3 days while the rabies tests are done, paperwork processed, etc.,), plus the cost for test to make sure it doesn't have rabies.
Substitute you saying "YOUR pests" with me saying "YOUR kids", known to be causing all kinds of havoc throughout the neighborhood. Yes, I would love to send your kids away for at least 3 days, especially since I know you and your actions towards my pets. Better double up on the rabies shots too!
If my daugters were going around ripping up people's garbage and throwing it all over the place, shitting on your lawn, and pissing on your doorstep, you'd be more than justified. So what's your point again? Oh, right... you think that your animals should be allowed to do whatever they want and you should be free of the consequences.
Idiots are really out in force... (./me looks outside)... yep, full moon.
Do you have a dead kitty by snowblower fetish or something? I've never seen or heard of it happening, and I've always lived in urban areas where there was no shortage of snow for 4 to 5 months of the year.
More than once. My dogs usually find the frozen cats or their remains (it's always cats) while we're walking. Sometimes the city doesn't haul the snow away, they just blow it onto the land beside the sidewalk.
Also, during the ice storm, a local "psychic" (a not-so-distant relative) opened the door, her dog ran outside, started sliding towards the street on the shear ice, couldn't get a grip, and got sucked up by the municipal snowblower and SHLOOOMPHHH! - one pink slushpuppy.
I told my sister "See, I told you Margaret was NOT a psychic, that there's no such thing, and she just bullshitted people for $$$. If she really were psychic, she wouldn't have opened the door." Obvious to most of us, but I got "that look". and the usual cop-out "It doesn't work that way." Yeah, right.
Slushpuppies and puss-sicles. What would winter be like without them?
The definition of misdemeanor is "a criminal offense less similar than a felony". So, how is that different in any shape, manner, or form, from "summary offense", which, btw, many people won't be familiar with? Or do you think that people should purposefully obfuscate their writings? I made it clear to include the concepts of dual-mode offenses, and explained them clearly. I also made the mapping between the terms VERY clear. Why would you want to confuse the issue, except to troll?
All convictions under any statues of the Criminal Code of Canada, where by indictment or summary conviction result in a Criminal Record.
This is either a barefaced lie or just ignorance at work.
Obviously criminal code convictions can (but not necessarily) result in a criminal record, but you're TOTALLY wrong in saying that summary convictions mean you will automatically have a criminal record; this is an outright lie, and another indication that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are just trolling. The court is allowed, where there is no minimum penalty, to grant an absolute discharge, which - guess what - means you don't get a criminal record. Again, this is what most people would understand as one of the possible outcomes of a "lesser criminal offense", aka "misdemeanor". Using the term "summary conviction", without qualifying it by using the more commonly understood "misdemeanor", adds nothing to the discussion, and just confuses the reader - especially when "misdemeanor" literally means "lesser criminal offense."
Or would you prefer that, for example, I use the legal term "prescription" when talking about certain rights under the Code Civile, without qualifying it so people don't confuse it with a "medical prescription" and go WTF?
BTW, there are other legal limitations on summary offenses, which people won't grok, but if you also put it in context with the more common term misdemeanor, they'll more likely "get it." For example, you can't be fingerprinted if you're charged with a summary offense in Canada. The cops will try anyway - it's up to you to refuse to cooperate by saying "unless I'm under indictment, fuck off." Unfortunately, most people don't know their rights, or think that being impolite will hinder their case. To the contrary, Canadian courts have ruled that it's perfectly fine for people to tell police officers to "go fuck themselves" - there is NO requirement for people who believe that the police are overstepping their bounds to be polite, and one person was awarded $6,000.00 after being arrested for telling the police to fuck off after being asked for ID when there was no reason. He was walking through a vacant lot, minding his own business, and the police asked him for ID. He asked them why, and when they fed him a line of BS, he told them literally "Go fuck yourself, pig". They arrested him, he filed a complaint, and it was upheld. The police had no right to arrest him because they were offended that he asserted his civil rights.
Knowing this, when polite refusal has failed, I've told cops who have overstepped the bounds to go fuck themselves a few times, and followed that with "If you want to have a hearing on the 8th floor at the commission, I have the forms sitting at home." They ALWAYS back down, because nobody wants to face the sort of paperwork that they'd have to fill in, trying to justify why they've screwed up.
This is one reason why I can't understand why anyone who is innocent would accept a plea bargain. Or why lawyers would recommend it. Bullies always back down. If you're in the right and someone is bullying you, then you KNOW that they're really cowards; don't encourage them. It's like feeding the trolls.
Ah, I understand. You're attempting to corrolate defects with attacks and thus asserting that the platform with the most defects is going to have the most attacks.
No - I'm just saying that correlation isn't causation. You're attempting to say I'm implying a different correlation/causation. I'm not. Both assertions are wrong. A platform can have LOTS more defects, and still not have many attacks; for example, who wants to p0wn your microwave's embedded OS, even if it's trivial? (Your roomba is another story...:-)
"Just around the corner" for most people is probably more like a 2-3 month time frame. A Wii2 coming out a year from now isn't going to stop people from buying a Wii today for someone's birthday or for Christmas. Also, a Wii2 doesn't suddenly render the original Wii unable to play games. To the contrary, it means that most Wii owners will have a second unit in the house that they can hook up to a second TV and have lan-party-style games. With enough Wiis and TVs, you can have up to 32 players going at it at once.
Look at what happened with the MotionPlus - it didn't render the other games obsolete.
Or just look at how many people downloaded the WiiWare Mario Brothers game from the Wii Shop.
As for Natal, Wii owners (and lets face it, the Wii is the #1 console this time around) obviously don't care. You'd have to ask the Microsofties... but given how Microsoft is always late delivering, nobody's holding their breath.
If you get your cat neutered, it will be less likely to spray, less likely to fight, and unable to impregnate other cats. No need for a leash.
The problem is that the people who are less likely to get their cats neutered are also more likely to let them roam around the neighborhood because they're fed up with their cat spraying the furniture and howling to get out all the time.
It also doesn't solve the problems of cats ripping open garbage bags and crapping on people's lawns or in the sandboxes at the park ("Hi mommy, I made you a doll from the clay I found in the sandbox"), or ending up as road pizza. If you don't want your pet to become a speed bump, why wouldn't you keep it indoors or on a leash?
If you read the article, most of these units are overpriced (up to $1,995), most don't connect to the local cell network, and have a range about the same as a cordless 2.4 ghz phone. That's pretty useless. They're gimmicks.
The ones that do connect to the cell network to get greater range have other issues - weight (way too big for cats and small dogs), ongoing fees, very poor battery life,
If you actually read the article, you'd have seen that most of these units have very limited range (they don't connect to a cell network, so it's basically line-of-sight with a maximum of 700 meters in areas with no buildings and no interference - think cordless 2.4ghz phones). poor battery life, VERY expensive (up to $1,995.00), and too bulky for cats.
You won't get any argument from me, just like I don't buy any potential "pedophilia gene" as an argument for letting pedophiles out early. To the contrary, if you have a disease, you're quarantined until you're safe. A genetic disease (which is what this guy is arguing) is the same thing. Gee, you want to argue that you have a genetic disposition to be aggressive? Okay, life it is, since we cannot cure your disease and it's a threat to the general population. Sayanara, baby!
The original person made the unsupported claim that Windows market share was solely responsible for it having more viruses and trojans. Only ONE counter-example, no matter how old, is sufficient to burst that bubble.
Correlation does not mean causation. In this case, the larger market share might correlate with the larger number of viruses, but there is no causation agent. To put it more plainly, increased market share does NOT in some way create more bugs, or the products with the smallest market share would be the most bug-free. Bugs are created solely by bad coding practices, and again, there's no way that an increase in market share can suddenly make code worse. There's no "spooky action at a distance" effect that would allow an increase in market share to suddenly retroactively introduce new bugs into existing code.
Code is either defective, or not defective. Buggy or not buggy. A decline in market share can't suddenly make code less buggy, just as an increase in market share can't suddenly make the same code more buggy. Any apparent correlation, absent a mechanism for causation, is just that, an "apparent" correlation, not a cause and effect.
Responsible pet ownership includes not letting pets run free in an urban environment.
You say. In most of the world where domestic cats are kept it is normal and acceptable for them to come and go freely in Urban and Rural enviroments.
Doesn't make it responsible, any more than the huge number of people who got into debt over their heads during the housing bubble were acting responsibly.
Just because many people think it's okay to allow cats to rip open the trash and spread it around for other vermin, spray all over other people's property, get run over by cars, and breed generations of feral cats, doesn't make it a good idea.
How can atheism NOT equal determinism? What enters into the equation to allow free will?
Watch it - you're positing that only some sort of God can somehow "create" free will.
Atheism doesn't require creation of anything by any god. It's sufficient to simply decree that free will exists because we're free to choose to say it exists. (now how's that for a self-referential axiomatic proof that actually makes sense:-)
Free Will gene. Nestled between the Must Have Sex gene and the Must Listen to Wife gene.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Must Listen to Wife gene is dominant; the Must Have Sex gene is not only recessive, but repeated expression of the Must Listen to Wife gene inhibits both the Must Have Sex and Free Will gene receptors from responding to further chemical or hormonal stimuli.
This is doubly so if you also have the Must Have Trophy Wife gene, which when expressed, also triggers both the MicroPenis gene and the Red Sportscar gene, as well as the Bad Hair Combover gene.
Research indicates that it's now possible to prevent the Must Have Trophy Wife gene from successfully activating by ingesting a sufficient dose of CreditCardOverLimitus during the first date.
People with defective Must Listen To Wife genes are usually treated with the combination of a weeks' regimen of SleepOnTheCouchYouBastardex followed by new-age crystal therapy - preferably in the form of a large-carat diamond.
Sometimes, the treatment is unsuccessful; such patients are usually initially diagnosed as suffering from simple LackaNookie Syndrome, but when repeated dosing with medicinal ethanol fails (such as Jack Daniels, Beefeater, Amareto di Soronia, Captain Morgan, Appleton Estates or other name brand product - the class of ethanols collectively known as American Beer lack the necessary active ingredient in sufficient quantity to differentiate them from either water or urine), LackaNookie is simply masking the more serious and usually incurable PussyWhipt Emasculitis.
At that point, radical surgery, with the excision of the problematic tissue via an expensive operation known as a TheBitchGotEverythingInTheDivorce procedure, or more colloquially, a "Walletectomy", sometimes restores partial function.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Even if you were to go in the past and change the future, that doesn't mean the future would be changed enough to prevent the travel back to the past.
Different roads can still lead to the same destination ... or have you never heard of the expression "All roads lead to Rome."
And all that's assuming that the universe won't tolerate what, to us, is a paradox - not a sure thing, or that causality is preserved, which is also debatable.
Only if the universe cannot tolerate a paradox.
There is no proof that the universe won't allow paradoxes, such as going back in time and shooting your grandparents before your parents are born.
*WE* think its paradoxical, and therefore it "can't happen that way". One doesn't necessarily lead to the other - we just assume it does.
Maybe the universe simply "doesn't give a shit" ... and that actually appears to be the case, not just from this, but from the whole "arrow of time" perspective. To someone whose frame of reference isn't constrained by a unidirectional arrow of time, paradoxes cease to be paradoxes. To them, if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you were born, you continue to exist. No paradox, it just is what it is. It's allowed.
It's certainly a better explanation of everything than the "infinite multiple branching worlds" theory (and gives rise to a universe where the branching worlds theory would actually appear to be true).
and yes, you can subscribe to my newsletter explaining our baguette-flinging overlords :-)
The "existence of a record" in a database is not the same thing as having a criminal record. That is strictly a data retention policy, for internal usage (administrative purposes). The person who is granted an absolute discharge at the time of their trial does not have a criminal conviction, despite the presence of a notation in the database that they received the discharge. An absolute discharge means that the judge never convicted them, even though they pled guilty. The judge has the absolute right to order that the person not be convicted of a crime when there is no minimum sentence, even if the accused has pled guilty.
Or perhaps you forgot the case where a JUDGE turned out to have had an absolute discharge for an offense when he was a lot younger. It came out years later, and his argument was quite simple - absolute discharge == no criminal conviction, as per the law. It happens all the time. It's not hard to find cases where that happened. It took me less than a minute to find one, and only a few minutes more to cut-n-paste a bunch more.
Here - recent cases: read them and weep.
Another case from July of 2009
And Another one, April of 2009
One form BC in February, 2009
Same with an RCMP Officer in Nova Scotia
If you had read the article, you would have known that most of the gps systems they're talking about aren't suitable for cats (too heavy) and that they have a very limited range (think home cordless phone - 700' if there's no buildings around).
And the price! Up to $1,995.00. Tuna's cheaper.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised someone broke in when you have to dogs. I guess you need bigger dogs. I'm sure the local animal shelter can help, and the dog will be very grateful :-)
All that's very nice, except that whether a person has been charged or not has NOTHING to do with whether they have a criminal record. You don't get a criminal record when you're charged with an offense, only when you're convicted.
If the judge grants an absolute discharge during the hearing for a summary offense, you have no criminal record - not at that point, and not going forward. That any police agency tracks that you got an absolute discharge is irrelevant. You simply don't have a criminal record.
Case in point - a guy tried to steal the hubcaps off my car. He was charged, and at his trial, his lawyer asked for an absolute discharge so he would not have a criminal record, because it would impare his security clearance at the airport. The judge denied the request.
So, just because an electronic trail about how the charge was handled exists in some computer has no relevance. Not everyone who is charged with a summary offense is convicted, and they may be found guilty, have to pay a fine, and still not receive a criminal record at the judge's discretion.
Don't argue with me - tell it to the judge.
In other words, just because something is in the CPIC is irrelevant to whether you have a criminal record. The CPIC is a tool, and as your own quote shows, it also contains information about people who have been charged but not convicted, charged but found not guilty, charged but the charges stayed, etc.
Either a person has a criminal record, or they don't. It's binary. An absolute discharge granted at the time of trial means they do NOT have a criminal record, contrary to what you claimed. So stop with the bullshit. Spend some time in court and see how it works. It'll be a real education. I've easily spent more than 1,000 hours in courtrooms, as a witness in one murder trial, as a juror in another, as defendant and plaintiff in more than a dozen other cases, etc. So cut the crap.
... but not all cellular devices are smartphones, duh!
They were asked to comment on the future of Symbian wrt smartphones, not all cell phones. The fact that they said they would continue to use it for "cellular devices" rather than answer the question about whether Symbian would continue to be used on smartphones makes it obvious that it's NOT going to be on their future smartphones - otherwise, why weasel around the question?
Symbian is a dead end. Get over it, already.
Most financial malware doesn't target a platform - it targets people. From email spam with sucker urls to phony web pages that come up because people have gamed the search engines to the advertising we see here on slashdot, served up by google, that advertises that "you can make $11,764 really easily with this government program" (I have adblock turned off for slashdot and many other sites because I want to see the latest scams), it's all about targeting people, not platforms.
You don't need to exploit the platform when you can trick people with sites that claim your computer is infected|broadcasting its IP address*|whatever. (*note, when I point out that "of course your computer is broadcasting its' address, you idiot - how do you think the it works? Do you get mail without an address on it, or people return your call without your phone number?" it's amazing how many still insiste "my computer's insecure - how can I block my IP addres?"
With people like that, you don't need to attack any platform, ever. Why try to take money from people when you can get them to GIVE it to you, right? :-)
Try using that line to explain to some kid that their cat isn't coming home because its' back is broken from being hit by a car and you had to take it to the vet to be put down.
Have you ever had to take a pet that's been hit by a car to the vet? Or had to put one down? Or explain it to a kid?
A leash is better.
If your had read the article, there's no such thing as a GPS chip yet. They haven't solved the battery problem.
Also, the current units don't work well with cats and small dogs - they're too bulky for the animal.
In any case, most of the units are strictly line-of-sight. Their radio signal doesn't communicate with a cell tower, but with your receiver, so the range is limited to about the same as those hand-held cordless phones. And with a short battery life, they'll end up being dead most of the time. After all, how often do you go to someone's house, and when something comes up and you need a flashlight, they might have two or three, but all the batteries are dead?
In other words, they're not practical for most people in most situations.
It obviously wasn't me. I've had cats come to my place, and I put a tin of tuna on the windowsill for them. They don't hang around because of the dogs. The dogs don't want to hurt them - in fact, when my St. Bernard was still alive, she absolutely adored cats, and my first Newfie, given the opportunity, would "mother" feral kittens that nobody else but the two of us could get near. He'd even lick them clean - and they'd let him. I had even considered getting him a pet cat to keep him company while I was at work. Funny, when I mentioned this to other people, they thought it was strange. "A pet for your dog?" "Sure." "A pet CAT for your DOG?" "Why not? He likes cats"
I don't condone what they did. People know that, if they're really stuck, and it's a matter of the animal otherwise being put down, they can dump it on me - not just dogs and squirrels and birds, but cats too. I'd treat the cat the same as a dog - walk on a leash outdoors, poop outdoors, learn to sit and beg on command, eat dry dog food (most cat food is too high in magnesium). I've done it before. Cats can be trained, same as dogs and squirrels.
That being said, I can also understand their frustration with the neighbor. As an example, they noticed their pool filter was unplugged and the water was greenish, and a long extension cord led to the neighbors. Turns out he didn't have a plug on that side of his house, and a few days before, rather than walk around his building, he decided to use their electrical outlet. and he was too lazy to plug back the filter after he was finished.
The cops were there on a regular basis for "domestic complaints."
When I had run into a similar problem years before (neighbor's dog was always running free, and would always crap on my lawn - to the point that it would stick its' rear end through the hedge just to crap here), I handled it differently. When I complained, he said "It's not my dog, it's the kids. They're minors, so there's nothing you can do." When it tried to hump my dog, I decided enough was enough and brought it to the SPCA. He got it back the next day, but there were no more problems after that.
I found out afterwards that the REAL reason why the dogs supposedly belonged to the kids (both pre-schoolers) was because he had had two dogs before, and left them outside during the winter with no shelter. We have occasional mid-January thaws, with rainstorms that are quickly followed by the temperature dropping back down to -10, -20 ... the dogs were howling like always. The neighbors called the police. This time, the police found both dogs were literally FROZEN to the ground, partially embedded in the ice, and had to be put down on the spot. No wonder the dogs were "his kids' dogs" - he wasn't allowed to own a dog any more.
The animal-welfare laws have a bit more teeth in them nowadays, but that doesn't prevent people from being cruel. People still leave dogs tied up outside for weeks on end in the worst winter weather with no shelter. A recent case was a cop who did that - left the dog outside at their country place tied up unattended for days on end. People were reluctant to complain because they didn't want the cop harassing them (because let's face it, a cop who abuses their own pet probably isn't above abusing their position). Instead, someone I know "disappeared" the dog, finding it a new home. It took the former owners 4 days to even notice that their dog was gone!
I don't understand why people can't empathize with animals. If you care about your pet, you simply don't let it wander around where it can get into trouble or get run over or get its' collar snagged underwater (btw, ALWAYS remove any leash or collar before letting a dog into a lake - and don't let them in it unless you're prepared to go in after them if something goes wrong).
Well, gotta go give the dogs their last walk of the day.
If my daugters were going around ripping up people's garbage and throwing it all over the place, shitting on your lawn, and pissing on your doorstep, you'd be more than justified. So what's your point again? Oh, right ... you think that your animals should be allowed to do whatever they want and you should be free of the consequences.
Idiots are really out in force ... (./me looks outside) ... yep, full moon.
More than once. My dogs usually find the frozen cats or their remains (it's always cats) while we're walking. Sometimes the city doesn't haul the snow away, they just blow it onto the land beside the sidewalk.
Also, during the ice storm, a local "psychic" (a not-so-distant relative) opened the door, her dog ran outside, started sliding towards the street on the shear ice, couldn't get a grip, and got sucked up by the municipal snowblower and SHLOOOMPHHH! - one pink slushpuppy.
I told my sister "See, I told you Margaret was NOT a psychic, that there's no such thing, and she just bullshitted people for $$$. If she really were psychic, she wouldn't have opened the door." Obvious to most of us, but I got "that look". and the usual cop-out "It doesn't work that way." Yeah, right.
Slushpuppies and puss-sicles. What would winter be like without them?
Typo: misdemeanor - "a criminal offense less serious than a felony". For those following along, sorry. wish we could edit posts on /.
The definition of misdemeanor is "a criminal offense less similar than a felony". So, how is that different in any shape, manner, or form, from "summary offense", which, btw, many people won't be familiar with? Or do you think that people should purposefully obfuscate their writings? I made it clear to include the concepts of dual-mode offenses, and explained them clearly. I also made the mapping between the terms VERY clear. Why would you want to confuse the issue, except to troll?
This is either a barefaced lie or just ignorance at work.
Obviously criminal code convictions can (but not necessarily) result in a criminal record, but you're TOTALLY wrong in saying that summary convictions mean you will automatically have a criminal record; this is an outright lie, and another indication that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are just trolling. The court is allowed, where there is no minimum penalty, to grant an absolute discharge, which - guess what - means you don't get a criminal record. Again, this is what most people would understand as one of the possible outcomes of a "lesser criminal offense", aka "misdemeanor". Using the term "summary conviction", without qualifying it by using the more commonly understood "misdemeanor", adds nothing to the discussion, and just confuses the reader - especially when "misdemeanor" literally means "lesser criminal offense."
Or would you prefer that, for example, I use the legal term "prescription" when talking about certain rights under the Code Civile, without qualifying it so people don't confuse it with a "medical prescription" and go WTF?
BTW, there are other legal limitations on summary offenses, which people won't grok, but if you also put it in context with the more common term misdemeanor, they'll more likely "get it." For example, you can't be fingerprinted if you're charged with a summary offense in Canada. The cops will try anyway - it's up to you to refuse to cooperate by saying "unless I'm under indictment, fuck off." Unfortunately, most people don't know their rights, or think that being impolite will hinder their case. To the contrary, Canadian courts have ruled that it's perfectly fine for people to tell police officers to "go fuck themselves" - there is NO requirement for people who believe that the police are overstepping their bounds to be polite, and one person was awarded $6,000.00 after being arrested for telling the police to fuck off after being asked for ID when there was no reason. He was walking through a vacant lot, minding his own business, and the police asked him for ID. He asked them why, and when they fed him a line of BS, he told them literally "Go fuck yourself, pig". They arrested him, he filed a complaint, and it was upheld. The police had no right to arrest him because they were offended that he asserted his civil rights.
Knowing this, when polite refusal has failed, I've told cops who have overstepped the bounds to go fuck themselves a few times, and followed that with "If you want to have a hearing on the 8th floor at the commission, I have the forms sitting at home." They ALWAYS back down, because nobody wants to face the sort of paperwork that they'd have to fill in, trying to justify why they've screwed up.
This is one reason why I can't understand why anyone who is innocent would accept a plea bargain. Or why lawyers would recommend it. Bullies always back down. If you're in the right and someone is bullying you, then you KNOW that they're really cowards; don't encourage them. It's like feeding the trolls.
No - I'm just saying that correlation isn't causation. You're attempting to say I'm implying a different correlation/causation. I'm not. Both assertions are wrong. A platform can have LOTS more defects, and still not have many attacks; for example, who wants to p0wn your microwave's embedded OS, even if it's trivial? (Your roomba is another story ... :-)
"Just around the corner" for most people is probably more like a 2-3 month time frame. A Wii2 coming out a year from now isn't going to stop people from buying a Wii today for someone's birthday or for Christmas. Also, a Wii2 doesn't suddenly render the original Wii unable to play games. To the contrary, it means that most Wii owners will have a second unit in the house that they can hook up to a second TV and have lan-party-style games. With enough Wiis and TVs, you can have up to 32 players going at it at once.
Look at what happened with the MotionPlus - it didn't render the other games obsolete.
Or just look at how many people downloaded the WiiWare Mario Brothers game from the Wii Shop.
As for Natal, Wii owners (and lets face it, the Wii is the #1 console this time around) obviously don't care. You'd have to ask the Microsofties ... but given how Microsoft is always late delivering, nobody's holding their breath.
The problem is that the people who are less likely to get their cats neutered are also more likely to let them roam around the neighborhood because they're fed up with their cat spraying the furniture and howling to get out all the time.
It also doesn't solve the problems of cats ripping open garbage bags and crapping on people's lawns or in the sandboxes at the park ("Hi mommy, I made you a doll from the clay I found in the sandbox"), or ending up as road pizza. If you don't want your pet to become a speed bump, why wouldn't you keep it indoors or on a leash?
The ones that do connect to the cell network to get greater range have other issues - weight (way too big for cats and small dogs), ongoing fees, very poor battery life,
If you actually read the article, you'd have seen that most of these units have very limited range (they don't connect to a cell network, so it's basically line-of-sight with a maximum of 700 meters in areas with no buildings and no interference - think cordless 2.4ghz phones). poor battery life, VERY expensive (up to $1,995.00), and too bulky for cats.
They're pretty much a gimmick.
You won't get any argument from me, just like I don't buy any potential "pedophilia gene" as an argument for letting pedophiles out early. To the contrary, if you have a disease, you're quarantined until you're safe. A genetic disease (which is what this guy is arguing) is the same thing. Gee, you want to argue that you have a genetic disposition to be aggressive? Okay, life it is, since we cannot cure your disease and it's a threat to the general population. Sayanara, baby!
The original person made the unsupported claim that Windows market share was solely responsible for it having more viruses and trojans. Only ONE counter-example, no matter how old, is sufficient to burst that bubble.
Correlation does not mean causation. In this case, the larger market share might correlate with the larger number of viruses, but there is no causation agent. To put it more plainly, increased market share does NOT in some way create more bugs, or the products with the smallest market share would be the most bug-free. Bugs are created solely by bad coding practices, and again, there's no way that an increase in market share can suddenly make code worse. There's no "spooky action at a distance" effect that would allow an increase in market share to suddenly retroactively introduce new bugs into existing code.
Code is either defective, or not defective. Buggy or not buggy. A decline in market share can't suddenly make code less buggy, just as an increase in market share can't suddenly make the same code more buggy. Any apparent correlation, absent a mechanism for causation, is just that, an "apparent" correlation, not a cause and effect.
Doesn't make it responsible, any more than the huge number of people who got into debt over their heads during the housing bubble were acting responsibly.
Just because many people think it's okay to allow cats to rip open the trash and spread it around for other vermin, spray all over other people's property, get run over by cars, and breed generations of feral cats, doesn't make it a good idea.
Watch it - you're positing that only some sort of God can somehow "create" free will.
Atheism doesn't require creation of anything by any god. It's sufficient to simply decree that free will exists because we're free to choose to say it exists. (now how's that for a self-referential axiomatic proof that actually makes sense :-)
Sorry to break it to you, but the Must Listen to Wife gene is dominant; the Must Have Sex gene is not only recessive, but repeated expression of the Must Listen to Wife gene inhibits both the Must Have Sex and Free Will gene receptors from responding to further chemical or hormonal stimuli.
This is doubly so if you also have the Must Have Trophy Wife gene, which when expressed, also triggers both the MicroPenis gene and the Red Sportscar gene, as well as the Bad Hair Combover gene.
Research indicates that it's now possible to prevent the Must Have Trophy Wife gene from successfully activating by ingesting a sufficient dose of CreditCardOverLimitus during the first date.
People with defective Must Listen To Wife genes are usually treated with the combination of a weeks' regimen of SleepOnTheCouchYouBastardex followed by new-age crystal therapy - preferably in the form of a large-carat diamond.
Sometimes, the treatment is unsuccessful; such patients are usually initially diagnosed as suffering from simple LackaNookie Syndrome, but when repeated dosing with medicinal ethanol fails (such as Jack Daniels, Beefeater, Amareto di Soronia, Captain Morgan, Appleton Estates or other name brand product - the class of ethanols collectively known as American Beer lack the necessary active ingredient in sufficient quantity to differentiate them from either water or urine), LackaNookie is simply masking the more serious and usually incurable PussyWhipt Emasculitis.
At that point, radical surgery, with the excision of the problematic tissue via an expensive operation known as a TheBitchGotEverythingInTheDivorce procedure, or more colloquially, a "Walletectomy", sometimes restores partial function.