That's an interesting perspective, but I don't really agree. Yes, it does require you to assert that you didn't cheat, but it also takes your word for it pretty much unless there is significant evidence to the contrary.
UofM CoE is what I was referring to, so I'm afraid I can't add a data point there. There are some other comments in the story mentioning other schools with similar policies though.
My brother had an Acer with face-based login. I could always get it to let me log in with my face instead (he was around, we were messing with it), no matter how many times he trained it.
I think what they meant by essential was "urgent". For example, a routine cholesterol test probably doesn't have to actually happen over the weekend. Of course the doctor is the best person to determine that, hence the differentiation is left to the doctor. (I agree that a checkbox makes more sense though)
It's unfortunate that you expected better treatment because of your license plate/looks, and not because _nobody_ should by treated like that without strong probable cause or preferably a warrant.
Except that your company happens to have a written policy requiring that for security purposes, keys to the safe can only be handed to the CEO. (Imagine you're at a bank and the policy is that only specially trained tellers or the CEO can have safe keys, not any random middle managers). Others have posted links to the specific policy documents here, which everyone seems to be ignoring.
Re:Sure, it's official
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
The company itself doesn't cease to exist like you said in your original post though. It just changes its name, which may have the meanings that you ascribe.
Re:Sure, it's official
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So if you change your name, you're a completely new person?
No it certainly wouldn't. It would practically solve it. Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US.
Uh huh. All the research showing that it's a tiny fraction of the cost must be wrong, and you're right. And I'm sure malpractice insurance rates went way down in Texas when they implemented your beloved reform. Oh wait, they went UP? Huh.
I disagree. Polls have repeatedly shown that the public is in favor of this sort of bill if a strong public option is included, but opposed if it is not. This is not because they're selfish, but because they don't see the point in having insurance if the insurance company is randomly going to deny treatment anyways.
The media makes it look like people are opposed because government is involved, but in reality most people are opposed because they don't want to be forced to buy from the same corrupt insurance companies. There's very little "socialist" in this bill, just corporate welfare
Even though it was already used by the R's 36 times in 2005-2006 and by the D's 49 times in 2007-2008? The media is awfully good at making a routine procedure look exceptional when their masters bid them to do so
They want it in Word format so they can mess with it. I've seen tons of horror stories of an applicant going into an interview only to see that the copy of their resume the interviewer has lists all sorts of skills and qualifications that were not on their real resume. So don't give it to the recruitment agencies in a format that allows them to easily do that.
The Dems/Repubs are _not_ progressive. I think because you are a Libertarian (at least I'm assuming that from the tone of your post), and you don't like what the politicians in DC do, you assume they must be progressive. This is not the case. Here's what I think is a good description of the parties we ought to have. (Disclaimer: I consider myself Progressive and the descriptions may have a bias based on that, though I tried to make them objective)
Progressives: For a progressive tax system, and government-run services for everyone. i.e., national healthcare, free secondary (and primary!) education, etc.
Libertarians: For true honest limited government. i.e. Low taxes, only basic services like the military.
Both Progressives and Libertarians would support freedom. i.e. right to habeas corpus, a fair trial, limit police power and government spying on citizens. Basically everything that is the opposite of the Bush/Obama police state
The last party would be the Corporate-Authoritarians. i.e. patriot act, police state, give all of our money to the corporations that buy them off. Actually, the correct term for this party would be fascist, in both the technical and commonly used sense of the term, but that term is too politically charged. This is where most of the current Democrats and Republicans would fall, although there are a few true Progressive Democrats and a few Libertarian Republicans.
Hopefully, once they are divided up as such, the Corporate-Authoritarians would become a small minority and we can have an honest debate between Progressive and Libertarian views. The real challenge though would be keeping the Corporate-Authoritarians from infiltrating the other two parties as they have with the current Dem/Repub parties.
I know my MyTouch 3G also has poor detection along the edges... hitting the keys on the far left or right of the virtual keyboard is much harder than those in the center. That's one application where there are UI elements right at the edge.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew Verizon couldn't keep this whole open phones thing up. It goes against their very core culture of lockdowns built up over many years.
That's an interesting perspective, but I don't really agree. Yes, it does require you to assert that you didn't cheat, but it also takes your word for it pretty much unless there is significant evidence to the contrary.
UofM CoE is what I was referring to, so I'm afraid I can't add a data point there. There are some other comments in the story mentioning other schools with similar policies though.
So glad I went to a school with an honor code where people are not assumed to be criminals by default.
So does the US. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
And no, we're not twins. Our faces our similar to some degree, since we're brothers and all, but not that close.
My brother had an Acer with face-based login. I could always get it to let me log in with my face instead (he was around, we were messing with it), no matter how many times he trained it.
I think what they meant by essential was "urgent". For example, a routine cholesterol test probably doesn't have to actually happen over the weekend. Of course the doctor is the best person to determine that, hence the differentiation is left to the doctor. (I agree that a checkbox makes more sense though)
It's unfortunate that you expected better treatment because of your license plate/looks, and not because _nobody_ should by treated like that without strong probable cause or preferably a warrant.
Except that your company happens to have a written policy requiring that for security purposes, keys to the safe can only be handed to the CEO. (Imagine you're at a bank and the policy is that only specially trained tellers or the CEO can have safe keys, not any random middle managers). Others have posted links to the specific policy documents here, which everyone seems to be ignoring.
The company itself doesn't cease to exist like you said in your original post though. It just changes its name, which may have the meanings that you ascribe.
So if you change your name, you're a completely new person?
Umm, I'm not sure if that was a joke or not, but I only use Firefox and found those with Firefox
Convoluted? It took me a grand total of 2 minutes to find the text after reading your comment. Here you go (sorry, not sure if these are perma-links):
Senate bill (PDF): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf
Reconcilliation bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872:
No it certainly wouldn't. It would practically solve it. Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US.
Uh huh. All the research showing that it's a tiny fraction of the cost must be wrong, and you're right. And I'm sure malpractice insurance rates went way down in Texas when they implemented your beloved reform. Oh wait, they went UP? Huh.
I disagree. Polls have repeatedly shown that the public is in favor of this sort of bill if a strong public option is included, but opposed if it is not. This is not because they're selfish, but because they don't see the point in having insurance if the insurance company is randomly going to deny treatment anyways.
The media makes it look like people are opposed because government is involved, but in reality most people are opposed because they don't want to be forced to buy from the same corrupt insurance companies. There's very little "socialist" in this bill, just corporate welfare
Even though it was already used by the R's 36 times in 2005-2006 and by the D's 49 times in 2007-2008? The media is awfully good at making a routine procedure look exceptional when their masters bid them to do so
CNN does that for state of the union speeches in the US
It's 2011 already?
They want it in Word format so they can mess with it. I've seen tons of horror stories of an applicant going into an interview only to see that the copy of their resume the interviewer has lists all sorts of skills and qualifications that were not on their real resume. So don't give it to the recruitment agencies in a format that allows them to easily do that.
That's a legitimate point of view. That's why I wish we could get rid of the corporatists and then have that national discussion :)
The Dems/Repubs are _not_ progressive. I think because you are a Libertarian (at least I'm assuming that from the tone of your post), and you don't like what the politicians in DC do, you assume they must be progressive. This is not the case. Here's what I think is a good description of the parties we ought to have. (Disclaimer: I consider myself Progressive and the descriptions may have a bias based on that, though I tried to make them objective)
Progressives: For a progressive tax system, and government-run services for everyone. i.e., national healthcare, free secondary (and primary!) education, etc.
Libertarians: For true honest limited government. i.e. Low taxes, only basic services like the military.
Both Progressives and Libertarians would support freedom. i.e. right to habeas corpus, a fair trial, limit police power and government spying on citizens. Basically everything that is the opposite of the Bush/Obama police state
The last party would be the Corporate-Authoritarians. i.e. patriot act, police state, give all of our money to the corporations that buy them off. Actually, the correct term for this party would be fascist, in both the technical and commonly used sense of the term, but that term is too politically charged. This is where most of the current Democrats and Republicans would fall, although there are a few true Progressive Democrats and a few Libertarian Republicans.
Hopefully, once they are divided up as such, the Corporate-Authoritarians would become a small minority and we can have an honest debate between Progressive and Libertarian views. The real challenge though would be keeping the Corporate-Authoritarians from infiltrating the other two parties as they have with the current Dem/Repub parties.
FYI, it helps (at least for me) if you hold your thumb at a slightly more vertical angle when trying to hit those keys.
I know my MyTouch 3G also has poor detection along the edges... hitting the keys on the far left or right of the virtual keyboard is much harder than those in the center. That's one application where there are UI elements right at the edge.