That's right... I don't HAVE to travel anywhere or cross borders. On the other hand, I do HAVE to pay taxes, and they violate the fourth amendment, IMO, just as much - if not more - when hunting for income to tax. The IRS is brutal and seems to have even fewer obstacles to screwing citizens than Homeland Security does, and with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.
Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?
This is just one example among many.
Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.
Actually, the stuck the and in there which makes it even harder, you could argue that an unreasonable search with no seizures is permissible; similar to the argument for capital punishment which may be cruel but not unusual.
This would be an opportune time for Apple to buy Sharp, re-organize the beast then ramp up displays and other parts for its booming business. If Sharp collapses, Apple will be in trouble - guaranteed.
Why? Let some other electronics manufacturer buy Sharp, reorganize and dump non-proitable lines. and then buy displays from them. Apple doesn't care what name is on the display as long as they can get the desired quality at the right price. They do not need the distraction of reorganizing a company and the political fallout from laying off staff; what they can do is ensure they have a significant order for Sharp displays to make that part of Sharp worth saving, assuming they need the displays.
The same very good legal team that filed in two different EU courts as a Community action? Which is not legal at all, and pointed out by the very judgement Apple is now flouting? That crack legal team?
Mart
Naw, that was their very bad legal team that did that.
Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.
The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Apple no doubt ran this buy their very good legal team and decided the risk was worth it. Apple laid out facts along with the required notice and did not specifically continue to accuse Samsung of copying their design so they 8may* be safe but then again judges have a lot of power and latitude to use when you piss them off.
Has anybody run into problems in life with the arrogance that seems to be so prevalent with nerds? If so, how did you handle the situation?"
Chunky swirlies. Nuggies. Combinations thereof or variants on the theme. They've been conditioned to react properly to those inputs, so it's best to apply time tested methods rather than create new ones.
The full joke from which that came involved somebody in the "10 items or less" line in a supermarket in Central Square (roughly halfway between Harvard and MIT, although a bit closer to MIT), where somebody's explanation was "either they went to MIT and can't read or went to Harvard and can't count". Not entirely fair, as you can get a literature degree from MIT
Isn't this an opt in system? I would have assumed you would need something other than the ticket, to indicate you are in the prescreening program.
Isn't this like stamping the ticket "first class" or "mvp flyer?"
Of course if you did away with the TSA and security screening, this wouldn't be a problem.
While I am not familiar with all the ways to get selected for Pre, one of the most common is via the Global Entry program. For GE; you pay a fee, go through a background check, fingerprinting and interview, and then get approved. You then use a GE machine to bypass the immigration line at US Ports of Entry. It's a big time saver for international travelers, as an added bonus you become a "Trusted Traveler" and can use the id for Pre as well.
Even in Pre you stuff is still scanned but it's less of a hassle because it stays in the bag; and even better the rest of the people in the line know the drill so you aren't stuck behind the idiot who keeps having to go back through the detector because they have a watch, iPhone, etc that sets it off along with a six pack in their bag.
to be serious, if the countries within the EU are not economically viable, who will buy our Audis/BMWs/MBs/Siemens trains/BOSCH components. Honestly, I don't mind because making our trading partners stronger only makes us stronger as well (classic everybody plays, everybody wins scenario). These people complaining here (Germany) about all the money going to Greece/Portugal/Ireland/Spain are morons.
The short answer is: Independent of the deadweight losses, the problem with that is very little, if any, is going to be used to buy imports.
The longer one is it does not address structural problems with the way the EU operates. They are trying to run a single currency with no strong central banking function so each country is essentially operating independently but tied to one currency so they can't let exchange rates float to make them more competitive. As a result, they their economies weaken and stagnate or decline.
In the end, the Germans will wind up permanently subsidizing other countries; assuming they have the political will to do so.
I don't know if they're going to decommission this reactor quickly or not.
from TFA it said safe shutdown - with proper maintenance and oversight they could conceivably restart it at some future date if the economics change. I'm willing to bet they wait on decommissioning to both allow the radioactivity to decay and keep earning money on the trust fund.
Taxes drive up the cost. However, these taxes pay my pension (80% of working salary), free university, free healthcare, keep housing affordable, allow me drive on perfect roads without paying tolls and support my 8 weeks/year holiday. I'll gladly pay 3x electricity cost and 2x fuel prices than the US. Keep on raising the taxes and keep on providing a reasonable work:life balance.
Even better, they enable us in Portugal as well as friends in Spain and Greece enjoy similar things as well. Please keep raising your taxes; the rest of the EU needs them.
If you live in the US - you really don't understand how the First Amendment operates.
You are correct that the right is limited - but it is ONLY limited by that speech which might create a public panic, etc. Yelling FIRE! in a crowed room is against the law.
While it is against the law; it's not a limitation on free speech. You can still yell fire; but will bear the consequences of your action. If the government decided you should not be allowed to speak then it would be a limitation of your free speech rights. That's prior restraint; and while it is permissible in some cases, such as gag orders in trials or national security cases, it's still very limited and subject to litigation.
I do agree that limiting speech is not the answer.
Flash: Photographers have been manipulating images since before photoshop. Photography is an art; and unless you are claiming to be doing photojournalism, where accuracy is important, adjusting an image to capture what you want to convey is part of the process. it's no more lying than the painter who leaves out things in a landscape or adds details to make a picture more appealing. It's the ability to compose a shot, get the lighting right, and then work darkroom magic to get it perfect is what separates a photographer from someone with a camera.
Of course, photos can be manipulated to deceive as well; it's all a matter of intent.
So, you could actually create signalling protocol based on ring times and pauses between them. Just install an app, and you have slow but totally free messaging service.
According the the law, the phone companies can not charge for airtime of incoming calls. Most people use prepaid phones, with just enough money to keep the phone active. But they would not dial out any calls. Many very poor people use these phones. Street vegetable vendors, unofficial jitney taxis, servant maids, low paid gate security fellas....
And they have developed some social customs regarding "missed call etiquette". Typically it is understood that you never accept a call from certain classes of people, drivers, maids, delivery boys etc. They call, let it ring once, and they hang up.
Deja vu all over again. I remember when that was the pay phone deal - call, let it ring 3 times and your ride knew to come get you; when you hung up you got your quarter back as well.
No, that's insulting. Good trolling seems to be a dying art these days. A good troll post says something that sounds plausible, and encourages responses. During the thread, it becomes less and less reasonable, but the aim is to make the other person say something unreasonable first or to make them waste a large amount of effort replying. If you want to see a good troll, read some of the threads started by roman_mir.
True, a good troll had that ring of plausibility that it triggered teh "Huh? I must respond to this..." reflex before the responder sat down and thought it through. For example:
While Star Trek (Star Wars / Firefly / Battlestar Galactica - pick one) tried to stay true to science as much as is possible in a science fiction world where faster than light travel is the norm; they missed one big thing -> everytime a shuttle craft passed the Enterprise it cast a shadow. In a vacuum; everyone knows you don't have shadows in a vacuum.
Of course, posting that in a Star Trek (or Mensa) group is like shooting fish in a barrel..
Trolling isn't flaming (any idiot can flame); but unfortunately trolling has lost its original meaning much as hacker has. Nor is simply disagreeing and laying out your position; though many people are willing to yell "Troll" when they can't defend their position. AFU, in the old usenet days, was a great example of the art of trolling; unfortunately since the decline of usenet and the onset of eternal September it's a different world.
Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?
The 18th amendment did not give the government an additional power to regulate a specific product; they could already do that. Many states in fact already outlawed the sale of alcohol; and its regulation and taxation was begun almost immediately after the founding of the US.
What it did do was remove the states ability to regulate alcohol by giving the US Congress the power to establish nation wide laws and preempt state and local laws. The Volstead Act provided the specific law and punishments for violating the law. As with most laws that attempt to legislate one narrow view of "morality" it failed miserably. Repealing the 18th did not make alcohol says legal across the US; it simply returned the regulatory power to the states and localities. As a result, the US has a patchwork of laws; some of which result in odd situations such as Jack Daniels being able to manufacture alcohol but not be able to sell or provide samples at the distillery since it is in a dry county where the sale is illegal but not the manufacturer.
"At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations," the court ruled.
The legal drinking age in Germany is 14 (for undistilled drinks given by a parent or guardian). By this court's reasoning, if a family went on vacation in Germany for Octoberfest and dad gave his 14 yo son a beer to drink, then it's a Washington State parent giving alcohol to an underage Washington State child, and he would be subject to fines and jail under the drinking laws of Washington State.
No, it's more like one parent sued the other over drinking, then went to a foreign court to get a verdict they like. The US court says "Stop, you started the fight here and are US companies so we will decide the outcome; if you try to enforce your rights under the foreign decision we will be pissed." You don't want to piss of a US judge if you fall under their jurisdiction.
Surprised by regulatory capture? It's one way to reduce competition and has been going on long before the internet; some guy even one an award for describing it. Despite all the complaints companies make about "regulation;" they don't want *their* regulations removed to the extent someone could *gasp* actually offer better service at a lower price. Look how long it took SWA to end the Wright Amendment prohibitions on its operations. Can't have some upstart come in and end our comfortable existence; and no, Romney ain't gonna do jack about either.
Let's separate topics into "objective" and "subjective".
The "Objective" ones are "easy" - math-engineering-parts of science. There is supposed to be "1.0001" right answers. (The "Right One" and the one in a million shot that the official answer is in fact incorrect.) So no amount of students thrashing around with no closure will help if at the end of the day the instructor-team doesn't produce the right answer. Then there's more thrashing about why 70% didn't get it right, and there is where you learn.
For engineering, there often isn't a "1.001 right answer;" at least not in how you arrive at a reasonable approximation of how your design will behave in the real world. I learned a number of ways, for the same problem, to get to such an approximation; what was important that you develop an understanding of how things work and where you can safely simplify a problem. Much of it was subjective despite the rigorous and equation laden world of engineering; as one professor put it "if the design looks right it probably is right; the hard part is developing a good sense of what looks right..." Oddly enough, that was when I decided I really didn't want to be an engineer but rather learn how develop a sense of what looks right and solve problems; I really enjoyed my days working for a degree after taht and never really worked as the prototypical engineer even though my engineering education has been valuable no matter what I do.
Talk to a lawyer. It may cost a bit of money to do this, unless you can find a lawyer that will do it pro-bono; but you need to know what your options are and what you are getting into. A simple lawyer's letter to YouTube may be enough, or you may need to go to court to enforce your rights. At least get competent advice; not the random collections of/. drivel and musings.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right... I don't HAVE to travel anywhere or cross borders. On the other hand, I do HAVE to pay taxes, and they violate the fourth amendment, IMO, just as much - if not more - when hunting for income to tax. The IRS is brutal and seems to have even fewer obstacles to screwing citizens than Homeland Security does, and with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.
The 16th addressed that issue.
Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?
This is just one example among many.
Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.
Actually, the stuck the and in there which makes it even harder, you could argue that an unreasonable search with no seizures is permissible; similar to the argument for capital punishment which may be cruel but not unusual.
This would be an opportune time for Apple to buy Sharp, re-organize the beast then ramp up displays and other parts for its booming business. If Sharp collapses, Apple will be in trouble - guaranteed.
Why? Let some other electronics manufacturer buy Sharp, reorganize and dump non-proitable lines. and then buy displays from them. Apple doesn't care what name is on the display as long as they can get the desired quality at the right price. They do not need the distraction of reorganizing a company and the political fallout from laying off staff; what they can do is ensure they have a significant order for Sharp displays to make that part of Sharp worth saving, assuming they need the displays.
Anything less would be uncivilized.
With the chrome cap removed to reveal the color below - generally white but occasionally another color. (Yes, long watches are boring...)
The same very good legal team that filed in two different EU courts as a Community action? Which is not legal at all, and pointed out by the very judgement Apple is now flouting? That crack legal team?
Mart
Naw, that was their very bad legal team that did that.
Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined. The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Apple no doubt ran this buy their very good legal team and decided the risk was worth it. Apple laid out facts along with the required notice and did not specifically continue to accuse Samsung of copying their design so they 8may* be safe but then again judges have a lot of power and latitude to use when you piss them off.
Has anybody run into problems in life with the arrogance that seems to be so prevalent with nerds? If so, how did you handle the situation?"
Chunky swirlies. Nuggies. Combinations thereof or variants on the theme. They've been conditioned to react properly to those inputs, so it's best to apply time tested methods rather than create new ones.
"...and can't read." :-)
The full joke from which that came involved somebody in the "10 items or less" line in a supermarket in Central Square (roughly halfway between Harvard and MIT, although a bit closer to MIT), where somebody's explanation was "either they went to MIT and can't read or went to Harvard and can't count". Not entirely fair, as you can get a literature degree from MIT
Isn't that what one of the Tappet brothers have?
Isn't this an opt in system? I would have assumed you would need something other than the ticket, to indicate you are in the prescreening program. Isn't this like stamping the ticket "first class" or "mvp flyer?" Of course if you did away with the TSA and security screening, this wouldn't be a problem.
While I am not familiar with all the ways to get selected for Pre, one of the most common is via the Global Entry program. For GE; you pay a fee, go through a background check, fingerprinting and interview, and then get approved. You then use a GE machine to bypass the immigration line at US Ports of Entry. It's a big time saver for international travelers, as an added bonus you become a "Trusted Traveler" and can use the id for Pre as well.
Even in Pre you stuff is still scanned but it's less of a hassle because it stays in the bag; and even better the rest of the people in the line know the drill so you aren't stuck behind the idiot who keeps having to go back through the detector because they have a watch, iPhone, etc that sets it off along with a six pack in their bag.
to be serious, if the countries within the EU are not economically viable, who will buy our Audis/BMWs/MBs/Siemens trains/BOSCH components. Honestly, I don't mind because making our trading partners stronger only makes us stronger as well (classic everybody plays, everybody wins scenario). These people complaining here (Germany) about all the money going to Greece/Portugal/Ireland/Spain are morons.
The short answer is: Independent of the deadweight losses, the problem with that is very little, if any, is going to be used to buy imports.
The longer one is it does not address structural problems with the way the EU operates. They are trying to run a single currency with no strong central banking function so each country is essentially operating independently but tied to one currency so they can't let exchange rates float to make them more competitive. As a result, they their economies weaken and stagnate or decline.
In the end, the Germans will wind up permanently subsidizing other countries; assuming they have the political will to do so.
I don't know if they're going to decommission this reactor quickly or not.
from TFA it said safe shutdown - with proper maintenance and oversight they could conceivably restart it at some future date if the economics change. I'm willing to bet they wait on decommissioning to both allow the radioactivity to decay and keep earning money on the trust fund.
Taxes drive up the cost. However, these taxes pay my pension (80% of working salary), free university, free healthcare, keep housing affordable, allow me drive on perfect roads without paying tolls and support my 8 weeks/year holiday. I'll gladly pay 3x electricity cost and 2x fuel prices than the US. Keep on raising the taxes and keep on providing a reasonable work:life balance.
Even better, they enable us in Portugal as well as friends in Spain and Greece enjoy similar things as well. Please keep raising your taxes; the rest of the EU needs them.
If you live in the US - you really don't understand how the First Amendment operates.
You are correct that the right is limited - but it is ONLY limited by that speech which might create a public panic, etc. Yelling FIRE! in a crowed room is against the law.
While it is against the law; it's not a limitation on free speech. You can still yell fire; but will bear the consequences of your action. If the government decided you should not be allowed to speak then it would be a limitation of your free speech rights. That's prior restraint; and while it is permissible in some cases, such as gag orders in trials or national security cases, it's still very limited and subject to litigation.
I do agree that limiting speech is not the answer.
How do you know they didn't send men to the moon to create fake photos of a studio? It goes that deep. That's what she said.
Yup. The hard part was getting that giant wind machine up there to make the flag flutter.
Of course, photos can be manipulated to deceive as well; it's all a matter of intent.
what is your biggest regret and what would you do differently? Also - thanks for the Apple ][...
So, you could actually create signalling protocol based on ring times and pauses between them. Just install an app, and you have slow but totally free messaging service.
Morse Code
According the the law, the phone companies can not charge for airtime of incoming calls. Most people use prepaid phones, with just enough money to keep the phone active. But they would not dial out any calls. Many very poor people use these phones. Street vegetable vendors, unofficial jitney taxis, servant maids, low paid gate security fellas. ...
And they have developed some social customs regarding "missed call etiquette". Typically it is understood that you never accept a call from certain classes of people, drivers, maids, delivery boys etc. They call, let it ring once, and they hang up.
Deja vu all over again. I remember when that was the pay phone deal - call, let it ring 3 times and your ride knew to come get you; when you hung up you got your quarter back as well.
No, that's insulting. Good trolling seems to be a dying art these days. A good troll post says something that sounds plausible, and encourages responses. During the thread, it becomes less and less reasonable, but the aim is to make the other person say something unreasonable first or to make them waste a large amount of effort replying. If you want to see a good troll, read some of the threads started by roman_mir.
True, a good troll had that ring of plausibility that it triggered teh "Huh? I must respond to this..." reflex before the responder sat down and thought it through. For example:
While Star Trek (Star Wars / Firefly / Battlestar Galactica - pick one) tried to stay true to science as much as is possible in a science fiction world where faster than light travel is the norm; they missed one big thing -> everytime a shuttle craft passed the Enterprise it cast a shadow. In a vacuum; everyone knows you don't have shadows in a vacuum.
Of course, posting that in a Star Trek (or Mensa) group is like shooting fish in a barrel..
Trolling isn't flaming (any idiot can flame); but unfortunately trolling has lost its original meaning much as hacker has. Nor is simply disagreeing and laying out your position; though many people are willing to yell "Troll" when they can't defend their position. AFU, in the old usenet days, was a great example of the art of trolling; unfortunately since the decline of usenet and the onset of eternal September it's a different world.
Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?
The 18th amendment did not give the government an additional power to regulate a specific product; they could already do that. Many states in fact already outlawed the sale of alcohol; and its regulation and taxation was begun almost immediately after the founding of the US.
What it did do was remove the states ability to regulate alcohol by giving the US Congress the power to establish nation wide laws and preempt state and local laws. The Volstead Act provided the specific law and punishments for violating the law. As with most laws that attempt to legislate one narrow view of "morality" it failed miserably. Repealing the 18th did not make alcohol says legal across the US; it simply returned the regulatory power to the states and localities. As a result, the US has a patchwork of laws; some of which result in odd situations such as Jack Daniels being able to manufacture alcohol but not be able to sell or provide samples at the distillery since it is in a dry county where the sale is illegal but not the manufacturer.
The legal drinking age in Germany is 14 (for undistilled drinks given by a parent or guardian). By this court's reasoning, if a family went on vacation in Germany for Octoberfest and dad gave his 14 yo son a beer to drink, then it's a Washington State parent giving alcohol to an underage Washington State child, and he would be subject to fines and jail under the drinking laws of Washington State.
No, it's more like one parent sued the other over drinking, then went to a foreign court to get a verdict they like. The US court says "Stop, you started the fight here and are US companies so we will decide the outcome; if you try to enforce your rights under the foreign decision we will be pissed." You don't want to piss of a US judge if you fall under their jurisdiction.
Surprised by regulatory capture? It's one way to reduce competition and has been going on long before the internet; some guy even one an award for describing it. Despite all the complaints companies make about "regulation;" they don't want *their* regulations removed to the extent someone could *gasp* actually offer better service at a lower price. Look how long it took SWA to end the Wright Amendment prohibitions on its operations. Can't have some upstart come in and end our comfortable existence; and no, Romney ain't gonna do jack about either.
Sorry, I profoundly disagree.
Let's separate topics into "objective" and "subjective".
The "Objective" ones are "easy" - math-engineering-parts of science. There is supposed to be "1.0001" right answers. (The "Right One" and the one in a million shot that the official answer is in fact incorrect.) So no amount of students thrashing around with no closure will help if at the end of the day the instructor-team doesn't produce the right answer. Then there's more thrashing about why 70% didn't get it right, and there is where you learn.
For engineering, there often isn't a "1.001 right answer;" at least not in how you arrive at a reasonable approximation of how your design will behave in the real world. I learned a number of ways, for the same problem, to get to such an approximation; what was important that you develop an understanding of how things work and where you can safely simplify a problem. Much of it was subjective despite the rigorous and equation laden world of engineering; as one professor put it "if the design looks right it probably is right; the hard part is developing a good sense of what looks right..." Oddly enough, that was when I decided I really didn't want to be an engineer but rather learn how develop a sense of what looks right and solve problems; I really enjoyed my days working for a degree after taht and never really worked as the prototypical engineer even though my engineering education has been valuable no matter what I do.
Talk to a lawyer. It may cost a bit of money to do this, unless you can find a lawyer that will do it pro-bono; but you need to know what your options are and what you are getting into. A simple lawyer's letter to YouTube may be enough, or you may need to go to court to enforce your rights. At least get competent advice; not the random collections of /. drivel and musings.
That assumes you always upgrade, something many companies do not do every time a new version comes out.
If you're never going to upgrade then this whole conversation is pretty much irrelevant to you anyway.
While I agree with you the GP that I responded to characterized migration costs as "minimal," which in my experience is not the case.