The USGS, the FCC, the DOE, and countless other government "agencies" derive their power directly from the president. If he tells them they need to wear only bright purple clothing every Thursday, they'd damned well better do so. Now, I will agree 100% with those suggesting the purely political motives behind this decree. But at least on this one, the asshat-in-chief does have the authority (if not the intellect or scientific understanding) to singlehandedly tell the USGS how to do their jobs.
Like most Federal agencies, the Geological Survey was created by an act of Congress. From the site....
The United States Geological Survey was established on March 3, 1879, just a few hours before the mandatory close of the final session of the 45th Congress, when President Rutherford B. Hayes signed the bill appropriating money for sundry civil expenses of the Federal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1879. The sundry civil expenses bill included a brief section establishing a new agency, the United States Geological Survey, placing it in the Department of the Interior, and charging it with a unique combination of responsibilities: "classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain."1 The legislation stemmed from a report of the National Academy of Sciences, which in June 1878 had been asked by Congress to provide a plan for surveying the Territories of the United States that would secure the best possible results at the least possible cost. Its roots, however, went far back into the Nation's history.
What Bush does here may not be an impeachable offense, but it makes a handy character reference for later mention during prosecution.
...but don't think it protects you completely. You don't really have any way of knowing this guy hasn't stolen somebody else's identity... Or if he just has never been caught for his misdeeds......but WOW, I can't believe a company that big wasn't doing background checks on EVERYBODY, at least when they hired a full-time employee. You never know what your psycho co-workers are really all about... They work with you, but at the same time, in a lot of ways they are total strangers.
Don't know if every company needs to do this, but certainly, every smart company should. If you can't keep yourself out of JAIL, as a potential employer/manager I want to know that.
Slashdot should stick to technology, and not try to pick stocks... The thing about stocks is that you don't judge the value by the price alone, you judge by the number of shares outstanding, the revenue (and profits) AND the price.
Google's shares cost what they cost because of scarcity--they didn't sell the whole company! They IPO'ed a small part of the company. Further, Google's revenues have been growing for a while now, and with deals like the rumored Clear Channel/Google ad partnership, will likely continue to do so.
If Google's managers believe the stock price is getting too high, they could always split it 2:1, or 3:1... That would likely lower the dollar figure significantly... But it would also mean there were twice or three times as many shares on the market--which wouldn't seem to fit Google's current M.O. The "upside" on Google is FAR from being maximized. Look at Walgreens--an OLD company with a very basic business model: Get health products and sell them in every neighborhood. But look at them--their share price hovers between $28-$40 over the course of about two years. As they expand and grow revenues and profits the price goes up. Once it gets to about $40-$43 the board splits it and the value drops, with everybody having twice as many shares. Over time, companies operating themselves this way have generated a considerable amount of wealth for their shareholders.
Google has a TON of upside left. It certainly won't grow this fast forever, but they're a long-time away from "significantly diminished upside."
If you're going to be a "technical" manager, for crying out loud stay current! Whatever you do, don't force it and be half-assed... If it comes naturally to you, do it. If not, maybe you should think about that MBA and become a "senior" manager.
Maybe this guy doesn't realize that the fastest way to get hit with a taser in this country is to be any-color-but-white and start mouthing off to a cop and refusing his lawful orders?
I would argue the first two tasers are both justified. A police-officer places himself at risk when he attempts to carry a handcuffed (and leg-manacled) limp adult down a flight of stairs. He could easily injure one or more officers if he chose to resume fighting while they were carrying him. Many decisions about what risks to take and what threat warrants a violent response are ultimately up to the police officer's discretion in the moment. I probably would have insisted he get up too--fuck this guy and his attitude... If you want to be in the library after hours, be prepared to show some ID! If I was a policeman responding to this call, my concern would be the guy was looking for the opportunity to sue the University, the CHP, or me (or all three.)
Where I take exception is the third-hit and forward. He was disoriented and pissed after the first-two, but it appeared he was starting to get up when they hit him with the third-charge. After watching the angles available online, this seems to be when the police go from appropriate, measured force for their own safety and into the realm of "attitude adjustment." This was when the litany of "motherfuckers" and "cocksuckers" started coming out, and the guy was essentially incoherent for the remaining time of the video. From here on out, it is unreasonable. The thid-shock appeared to have been applied in frustration, and not because of non-compliance--indeed the subject appears to begin to comply by starting to stand-up when he's hit with the third charge....and that also brings me to why they continued to insist he stand up rather than calling for a stretcher he could be strapped onto and moved safely on... If the cops carry him out, or the EMTs wheel him out on a stretch, his lawsuit is that much stronger. "Your honor, how could the force have not been excessive? Every attempt at compliance was met with more force and my client was unable to leave the building under his own power."
So to all of you who say "He had it all coming," you're wrong. And to all of you who said "HE had none of it coming... you're wrong too. There, that should piss-off just about everybody...
There are very few original ideas and what original ideas there are are already in the queue to have themselves patented. The only reason you think that software patents shouldn't be given the same amount of respect as any other patent is because you work with software every day.
Two-things: You're correct, there are few "original" ideas. And I would say any idea that isn't original (or is blatantly obvious) shouldn't be patentable. Technically you're not supposed to be able to patent an obvious or non-original idea, but regular slashdot readers will remember a litany of patent cases where the idea was obvious, unoriginal, or described something so broad and vague as to preclude all possible competition. If that rule was enforced, I wouldn't have a problem with software patents. But you actually make the point of the GP-poster who I think was pointing out (correctly) that there are WAY TOO MANY patents for software being issued, to the point that it is stifling creativity rather than encouraging it.
Secondly... You're comparing apples and giraffes... A patent for a TV-set is a patent for a device and the device alone... and not even for the whole device, but for parts of the device... They don't have a patent on the idea of viewing video over a cathode-ray-tube, they have a patent on an implementation of technology to ACHIEVE the viewing of video over a device in your home. If you can create a TV-set that works without the patented technologies you would be free to sell it without any license from anybody. This is as it should be--if your TV-set works better than the patented model then the patent has achieved its goal--it allowed the orginal inventor to get something for his work, while enticing you to evolve the tech to the next level. The key is, you have to PRODUCE something that WORKS in order to get a patent.
Software patents, as they've been used to date, are doing just the opposite. Software patents are being granted for basic, "helloworld.c" implementations of broad and complex concepts... "Software" developed not to create a marketable or usable product, but for the pupose of acquiring a patent that can later be used to hijack a successful competitors profits. "Oops, we realized a patent we filed a few years back might apply to your product. Please pay us several billion dollars." The patent-related-extortion of RIM comes to mind... Rather than create real products and patenting the original/unique components of THOSE products, they're instead setting up dozens or hundreds of projects whose goal is to achieve a patent, and not to actually bring any workable product to market. Instead of giving consumers access to MORE technology, as more of these bogus astroturf patents get filed, the effect is actually opposite: Innovators who can't afford to pay high licensing fees (or patent-search fees to an attorney) simply can't relase their products in any way that they can easily profit from, for fear of being sued into destitution by an "inventor" (whose "invention" was written as a fifty-line C program by a CS-grad student) who suddenly comes out of the woodwork waving a patent your search didn't find, and wanting half of your profits.
In fact, the RIM case should really underline the absurdity of the patent-situation in the software world, because the patents RIM was sued over were eventually invalidated, but RIM still was out several hundred-million from a settlement they made, and from attorneys fees. Even INVALID patents can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars with the right lawyer and low-enough ethical standards for yourself. THAT stifles competition, and THAT is just plain broken.
...not tonight you can't.... Slashdotted to all hell, since tomorrow is election day... As expected, my fellow citizens are all waiting until the eleventh hour to do their research.
i think we'll find that the argument will show that the school owns that copyright, just as a company you work for owns the copyright to any code you produce for them (and in some situations, code you produce for yourself).
You're comparing apples and zebras, my friend.
In a professional setting, a "work for hire" is what you're talking about... You're being paid to code for XYZ Corporation, therefore whatever work you produce for them on their time, they own copyright to. You refer to occasions where your employer might own YOUR code too, but that is legally gray, and generally based on how restrictive an employment contract/non-compete agreement you sign. Unless you sign that, your code is your code, as long as you produced it on your own time.
Compare this with a University setting. You are paying them, not the other way around. Clearly not a work-for-hire situation. You are producing written (or coded) works for your own personal development and education. The professor MAY have the right to compare your document to a database to see if you're cheating or not, but I can't see any legitimate situation where some third-party would have the right to store and use that document. You haven't signed any contract giving the university or your professor copyright over your work, so that wouldn't seem to apply either.
This is different, of course, if you're working in some sort of grad. assistant or research role to produce work for somebody else. In THAT circumstance, work-for-hire might apply to things you actually write "for-hire." But it certainly wouldn't give your employer blanket control of everything you produce while employed there.
...because they've heard--for years--how much people hate the "Press 1 for this, Press 2 for that" system, and figure they've just "solved" that problem by giving them the option of "talking to" something. But of course, those "voice-response" systems work only as well as you train them. If you don't teach them the all the words you need them to know, then voice-response will be an endless source of frustration for your customers. And I think this is probably most of the problem--a Telecomm Admin problem, not a technology problem.
For example, most of Dell's voice-response menus, until recently, didn't know the term "Poweredge server"--a glaring deficiency, considering those are some of their most expensive products... This would not have been a problem, except that the "Please say your express service code" prompt didn't work right either... About half the time it would say "I didn't hear your entire response," and would then say "Please say the name of the product you're calling about" which led back to the system not knowing what a "Poweredge" was. They've finally changed their menus so you can say OR enter your info on the numeric keypad... Which is good, otherwise I would simply not be able to get service for my servers.
With all this complaining done, I will say that if you call Avaya, THEIR voice-response system works swimmingly. But they are a company that MAKES phone systems and voice-response systems, so they likely have configured theirs correctly. But it works really well! You call Avaya and it knows all the words you need it to know, and has--to date--never misunderstood me.
...not to mention the millions of other DBs which have been designed with all column names in ALL CAPS. What are those of us who need to query those databases supposed to do?...HOLD DOWN the shift key for the next five years/indefinitely?
Unlike a one-railroad Western town, most broadband customers can choose between cable and D.S.L., and a growing number have access to wireless options as well.
...but of course, since DSL and cable-modem services are (almost universally) sold by publicly-held corporations, and given that public-companies operate on a "monkey-see, monkey-do" level, it seems hard to imagine a scenario where one major provider charging tier prices to media companies would not lead to ALL of them doing it. For the board of directors NOT to do so when it was clearly a legal, viable means of increasing revenue, would be a violation of their responsibility as directors of that corporation.
Lee is correct--regulation can backfire, but it doesn't always. Occasionally, it works out just fine and catches on... See also: 40-hour work week and Family Medical Leave Act. These are the reasons you know your father's faces, and the reason your mother was able to go BACK to work after having you. A good rule puts things in balance, and these rules IMO meet that test. I also think net nuetrality does as well. If the big ISPs need revenue to build out their networks to provide "video-on-demand" they should do it like every other business in the world does when they want it to expand--pour profits back into the business! How arrogant and ridiculous to assume that everybody else should pay so that AT&T can minimize their risk on investing in what will eventually be a profit-bonanza for them.
Figure out your monthly nut (living expenses, ie. food, rent, medicine) and then set yourself up a salary from your cash. Invest in something liquid and safer... A large portion cash (ie. Money Market,) maybe as much as 33%; some in a stock index mutual fund, maybe a third, and the other third in high-quality bonds. This is a fairly conservative investment strategy, and you probably won't be a millionaire at graduation, but you'll spend less of your original capital by having steady income streams from your conservative investments, and some protection against inflation from your stock-based mutual fund.
The bottom line is you might be able to get ahead by buying stocks and taking loans out for school... But US Dept. of Ed. loans have gone up drastically in the last couple years--into the 6% range. This means you'd have to have a pretty good year on your stocks--every single year you're in school--or you'd end up paying more in student loan interest than you would earn from your stock investments, especially after you adjust for inflation... That 10% avergage on Large-Cap stocks over time is fine, but after inflation is factored in your margin gets pretty thin before you're upside down.
No problem... Call Visa, explain the situation, dispute any existing charges you know you don't owe, and tell Visa that automated charge is no longer authorized. If they won't stop the charges, complete your dispute(s) and then cancel the card (or better, threaten to cancel the card.) You'll find that CC companies, when they have a customer with good credit/payment history on the phone are a little more flexible once you start complaining and make waves about cutting up your card...
Then when the ISP sends you a bill in the mail because your card is cancelled, you can return it to them with a threatening letter from your barrister. Something along the lines of "Please present evidence that our client signed a contract (ie. a copy of the signed contract) or stop harassing them."
I think you'll find they fold like a house of cards... There is a reason the Cell PHone companies force you to SIGN an ACTUAL contract in real life--so they can't get sued for trying to collect the "early termination" fees.
There is an Exchange server utility that is optimised for moving gigantic files very fast; doubtless you can find similar programs about.
Perhaps you mean ROBOCOPY.EXE (RobustCopy)? It is a tool in the Wind2k/2k3 Admin toolkit designed to do just what you describe: Faithfully, accurately, (and efficiently) copy large files from one place to another.
I did find it intreresting that the anit-neutrality viewpoint was someone actually being paid to be a spokesperson against neutrality, not someone who decided on their own. I don't know that I would have made that choice for an oposing view.
How else would you find somebody to tell such a lie with a straight face? Only a paid lobbyist, or even an actual politician have the lying skills needed to achieve this without totally bursting out laughing and admitting its just a naked cash-grab.
Hey, seriously, who hasn't done this? I travel for work, have a wireless enabled laptop, and sometimes get lost. I've pulled into the parking-lot of the friendly neighborhood Panera more than once to use mapquest on the passenger seat... Does this mean I am now subject to arrest at the whim of Panera management? I eat there frequently, but not neccessarily at the times I need to use the wireless.
I get that they're freaked out--I even understand asking the cops to intervene, since another motive for sitting in a parking lot for an extended period is planning a robbery, but actually arresting him for using wireless seems a little... goofy. NoCatAuth is free (as in beer and freedom) and shouldn't take the network engineering team at Starbucks more than a couple hours to figure out, solves the whole problem.
No forced neutrality, no forced billing - just get the FSCK out of the way and let things progress via market forces like they have been for the last 15 years now.
In situations where there IS a competitive marketplace to choose frmo, I would tend to agree. But I would argue there is not a healthy, competitive marketplace for broadband services to the consumer in the United States, which ultimately means any threats of "taking your business elsewhere" are meaningless, since there is no "elsewhere" to go to. High-speed internet is available only through a few monopoly players for most people in this coutnry.... For me those players are SBC and Comcast. Some people who have Time-Warner cable in my area do have choice of two or three ISPs, but they are in the VAST minority (less than 1% of the people int he state.) For everybody else, its Phone Company, Cable Company, or jack squat....Unless by "elsewhere" you mean "totally unplug from the internet," the overwhelming majority of Americans do not have many (or, in some cases, any) options.
Well actually I used my 2 week old estate (station wagon in the USA) to take horse manure from the local stables to my back garden so yes, exactly, a car is a car,
Sheesh, that'd be one stinky ride to soccer practice afterwards! What, you don't have a friend with a pickup truck? They're designed to haul shit! Well, shit in the metaphorical sense, but it would've worked out okay...
...They probably started this program (selling shares at IPO price to customers--average Joes not Wall St. insiders) for good publicity, but now that their customers are going to instantly LOSE money when they buy shares at the IPO price, they're getting nothing but bad publicity. I mean, I know there's no such thing as bad publicity, but then ask the record companies how suing your customers makes you look.
Slashdot Mirror
Like most Federal agencies, the Geological Survey was created by an act of Congress. From the site....
What Bush does here may not be an impeachable offense, but it makes a handy character reference for later mention during prosecution.
...but don't think it protects you completely. You don't really have any way of knowing this guy hasn't stolen somebody else's identity... Or if he just has never been caught for his misdeeds... ...but WOW, I can't believe a company that big wasn't doing background checks on EVERYBODY, at least when they hired a full-time employee. You never know what your psycho co-workers are really all about... They work with you, but at the same time, in a lot of ways they are total strangers.
Don't know if every company needs to do this, but certainly, every smart company should. If you can't keep yourself out of JAIL, as a potential employer/manager I want to know that.
Slashdot should stick to technology, and not try to pick stocks... The thing about stocks is that you don't judge the value by the price alone, you judge by the number of shares outstanding, the revenue (and profits) AND the price.
Google's shares cost what they cost because of scarcity--they didn't sell the whole company! They IPO'ed a small part of the company. Further, Google's revenues have been growing for a while now, and with deals like the rumored Clear Channel/Google ad partnership, will likely continue to do so.
If Google's managers believe the stock price is getting too high, they could always split it 2:1, or 3:1... That would likely lower the dollar figure significantly... But it would also mean there were twice or three times as many shares on the market--which wouldn't seem to fit Google's current M.O. The "upside" on Google is FAR from being maximized. Look at Walgreens--an OLD company with a very basic business model: Get health products and sell them in every neighborhood. But look at them--their share price hovers between $28-$40 over the course of about two years. As they expand and grow revenues and profits the price goes up. Once it gets to about $40-$43 the board splits it and the value drops, with everybody having twice as many shares. Over time, companies operating themselves this way have generated a considerable amount of wealth for their shareholders.
Google has a TON of upside left. It certainly won't grow this fast forever, but they're a long-time away from "significantly diminished upside."
If you're going to be a "technical" manager, for crying out loud stay current! Whatever you do, don't force it and be half-assed... If it comes naturally to you, do it. If not, maybe you should think about that MBA and become a "senior" manager.
Maybe this guy doesn't realize that the fastest way to get hit with a taser in this country is to be any-color-but-white and start mouthing off to a cop and refusing his lawful orders?
...and that also brings me to why they continued to insist he stand up rather than calling for a stretcher he could be strapped onto and moved safely on... If the cops carry him out, or the EMTs wheel him out on a stretch, his lawsuit is that much stronger. "Your honor, how could the force have not been excessive? Every attempt at compliance was met with more force and my client was unable to leave the building under his own power."
I would argue the first two tasers are both justified. A police-officer places himself at risk when he attempts to carry a handcuffed (and leg-manacled) limp adult down a flight of stairs. He could easily injure one or more officers if he chose to resume fighting while they were carrying him. Many decisions about what risks to take and what threat warrants a violent response are ultimately up to the police officer's discretion in the moment. I probably would have insisted he get up too--fuck this guy and his attitude... If you want to be in the library after hours, be prepared to show some ID! If I was a policeman responding to this call, my concern would be the guy was looking for the opportunity to sue the University, the CHP, or me (or all three.)
Where I take exception is the third-hit and forward. He was disoriented and pissed after the first-two, but it appeared he was starting to get up when they hit him with the third-charge. After watching the angles available online, this seems to be when the police go from appropriate, measured force for their own safety and into the realm of "attitude adjustment." This was when the litany of "motherfuckers" and "cocksuckers" started coming out, and the guy was essentially incoherent for the remaining time of the video. From here on out, it is unreasonable. The thid-shock appeared to have been applied in frustration, and not because of non-compliance--indeed the subject appears to begin to comply by starting to stand-up when he's hit with the third charge.
So to all of you who say "He had it all coming," you're wrong. And to all of you who said "HE had none of it coming... you're wrong too. There, that should piss-off just about everybody...
Two-things: You're correct, there are few "original" ideas. And I would say any idea that isn't original (or is blatantly obvious) shouldn't be patentable. Technically you're not supposed to be able to patent an obvious or non-original idea, but regular slashdot readers will remember a litany of patent cases where the idea was obvious, unoriginal, or described something so broad and vague as to preclude all possible competition. If that rule was enforced, I wouldn't have a problem with software patents. But you actually make the point of the GP-poster who I think was pointing out (correctly) that there are WAY TOO MANY patents for software being issued, to the point that it is stifling creativity rather than encouraging it.
Secondly... You're comparing apples and giraffes... A patent for a TV-set is a patent for a device and the device alone... and not even for the whole device, but for parts of the device... They don't have a patent on the idea of viewing video over a cathode-ray-tube, they have a patent on an implementation of technology to ACHIEVE the viewing of video over a device in your home. If you can create a TV-set that works without the patented technologies you would be free to sell it without any license from anybody. This is as it should be--if your TV-set works better than the patented model then the patent has achieved its goal--it allowed the orginal inventor to get something for his work, while enticing you to evolve the tech to the next level. The key is, you have to PRODUCE something that WORKS in order to get a patent.
Software patents, as they've been used to date, are doing just the opposite. Software patents are being granted for basic, "helloworld.c" implementations of broad and complex concepts... "Software" developed not to create a marketable or usable product, but for the pupose of acquiring a patent that can later be used to hijack a successful competitors profits. "Oops, we realized a patent we filed a few years back might apply to your product. Please pay us several billion dollars." The patent-related-extortion of RIM comes to mind... Rather than create real products and patenting the original/unique components of THOSE products, they're instead setting up dozens or hundreds of projects whose goal is to achieve a patent, and not to actually bring any workable product to market. Instead of giving consumers access to MORE technology, as more of these bogus astroturf patents get filed, the effect is actually opposite: Innovators who can't afford to pay high licensing fees (or patent-search fees to an attorney) simply can't relase their products in any way that they can easily profit from, for fear of being sued into destitution by an "inventor" (whose "invention" was written as a fifty-line C program by a CS-grad student) who suddenly comes out of the woodwork waving a patent your search didn't find, and wanting half of your profits.
In fact, the RIM case should really underline the absurdity of the patent-situation in the software world, because the patents RIM was sued over were eventually invalidated, but RIM still was out several hundred-million from a settlement they made, and from attorneys fees. Even INVALID patents can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars with the right lawyer and low-enough ethical standards for yourself. THAT stifles competition, and THAT is just plain broken.
...Presidential... right now. Just think, ME, Karl Cocknozzle, with my own enemies list! And on Election Day to boot!
...Not sure if that's a word or not but there it is.
I feel very Nixonian right now.
Indeed.
You're comparing apples and zebras, my friend.
In a professional setting, a "work for hire" is what you're talking about... You're being paid to code for XYZ Corporation, therefore whatever work you produce for them on their time, they own copyright to. You refer to occasions where your employer might own YOUR code too, but that is legally gray, and generally based on how restrictive an employment contract/non-compete agreement you sign. Unless you sign that, your code is your code, as long as you produced it on your own time.
Compare this with a University setting. You are paying them, not the other way around. Clearly not a work-for-hire situation. You are producing written (or coded) works for your own personal development and education. The professor MAY have the right to compare your document to a database to see if you're cheating or not, but I can't see any legitimate situation where some third-party would have the right to store and use that document. You haven't signed any contract giving the university or your professor copyright over your work, so that wouldn't seem to apply either.
This is different, of course, if you're working in some sort of grad. assistant or research role to produce work for somebody else. In THAT circumstance, work-for-hire might apply to things you actually write "for-hire." But it certainly wouldn't give your employer blanket control of everything you produce while employed there.
...because they've heard--for years--how much people hate the "Press 1 for this, Press 2 for that" system, and figure they've just "solved" that problem by giving them the option of "talking to" something. But of course, those "voice-response" systems work only as well as you train them. If you don't teach them the all the words you need them to know, then voice-response will be an endless source of frustration for your customers. And I think this is probably most of the problem--a Telecomm Admin problem, not a technology problem.
For example, most of Dell's voice-response menus, until recently, didn't know the term "Poweredge server"--a glaring deficiency, considering those are some of their most expensive products... This would not have been a problem, except that the "Please say your express service code" prompt didn't work right either... About half the time it would say "I didn't hear your entire response," and would then say "Please say the name of the product you're calling about" which led back to the system not knowing what a "Poweredge" was. They've finally changed their menus so you can say OR enter your info on the numeric keypad... Which is good, otherwise I would simply not be able to get service for my servers.
With all this complaining done, I will say that if you call Avaya, THEIR voice-response system works swimmingly. But they are a company that MAKES phone systems and voice-response systems, so they likely have configured theirs correctly. But it works really well! You call Avaya and it knows all the words you need it to know, and has--to date--never misunderstood me.
Lee is correct--regulation can backfire, but it doesn't always. Occasionally, it works out just fine and catches on... See also: 40-hour work week and Family Medical Leave Act. These are the reasons you know your father's faces, and the reason your mother was able to go BACK to work after having you. A good rule puts things in balance, and these rules IMO meet that test. I also think net nuetrality does as well. If the big ISPs need revenue to build out their networks to provide "video-on-demand" they should do it like every other business in the world does when they want it to expand--pour profits back into the business! How arrogant and ridiculous to assume that everybody else should pay so that AT&T can minimize their risk on investing in what will eventually be a profit-bonanza for them.
...i thought this was going to be about your PHYSICAL site growth (ie. Datacenter stuff.)
Maybe we need to have that discussion later... or tomorrow...
Here's a better plan...
Figure out your monthly nut (living expenses, ie. food, rent, medicine) and then set yourself up a salary from your cash. Invest in something liquid and safer... A large portion cash (ie. Money Market,) maybe as much as 33%; some in a stock index mutual fund, maybe a third, and the other third in high-quality bonds. This is a fairly conservative investment strategy, and you probably won't be a millionaire at graduation, but you'll spend less of your original capital by having steady income streams from your conservative investments, and some protection against inflation from your stock-based mutual fund.
The bottom line is you might be able to get ahead by buying stocks and taking loans out for school... But US Dept. of Ed. loans have gone up drastically in the last couple years--into the 6% range. This means you'd have to have a pretty good year on your stocks--every single year you're in school--or you'd end up paying more in student loan interest than you would earn from your stock investments, especially after you adjust for inflation... That 10% avergage on Large-Cap stocks over time is fine, but after inflation is factored in your margin gets pretty thin before you're upside down.
No problem... Call Visa, explain the situation, dispute any existing charges you know you don't owe, and tell Visa that automated charge is no longer authorized. If they won't stop the charges, complete your dispute(s) and then cancel the card (or better, threaten to cancel the card.) You'll find that CC companies, when they have a customer with good credit/payment history on the phone are a little more flexible once you start complaining and make waves about cutting up your card...
Then when the ISP sends you a bill in the mail because your card is cancelled, you can return it to them with a threatening letter from your barrister. Something along the lines of "Please present evidence that our client signed a contract (ie. a copy of the signed contract) or stop harassing them."
I think you'll find they fold like a house of cards... There is a reason the Cell PHone companies force you to SIGN an ACTUAL contract in real life--so they can't get sued for trying to collect the "early termination" fees.
...You will DEFINITELY make eBay rich by trying!
Perhaps you mean ROBOCOPY.EXE (RobustCopy)? It is a tool in the Wind2k/2k3 Admin toolkit designed to do just what you describe: Faithfully, accurately, (and efficiently) copy large files from one place to another.
How else would you find somebody to tell such a lie with a straight face? Only a paid lobbyist, or even an actual politician have the lying skills needed to achieve this without totally bursting out laughing and admitting its just a naked cash-grab.
...because he's a sex offender.
Hey, seriously, who hasn't done this? I travel for work, have a wireless enabled laptop, and sometimes get lost. I've pulled into the parking-lot of the friendly neighborhood Panera more than once to use mapquest on the passenger seat... Does this mean I am now subject to arrest at the whim of Panera management? I eat there frequently, but not neccessarily at the times I need to use the wireless.
I get that they're freaked out--I even understand asking the cops to intervene, since another motive for sitting in a parking lot for an extended period is planning a robbery, but actually arresting him for using wireless seems a little... goofy. NoCatAuth is free (as in beer and freedom) and shouldn't take the network engineering team at Starbucks more than a couple hours to figure out, solves the whole problem.
In situations where there IS a competitive marketplace to choose frmo, I would tend to agree. But I would argue there is not a healthy, competitive marketplace for broadband services to the consumer in the United States, which ultimately means any threats of "taking your business elsewhere" are meaningless, since there is no "elsewhere" to go to. High-speed internet is available only through a few monopoly players for most people in this coutnry.... For me those players are SBC and Comcast. Some people who have Time-Warner cable in my area do have choice of two or three ISPs, but they are in the VAST minority (less than 1% of the people int he state.) For everybody else, its Phone Company, Cable Company, or jack squat.
Sheesh, that'd be one stinky ride to soccer practice afterwards! What, you don't have a friend with a pickup truck? They're designed to haul shit! Well, shit in the metaphorical sense, but it would've worked out okay...
I knew I should've been suspicious when all the females who wanted to join my friend list claimed to make $900k and be 34DD...
...of Deep Space 9... "A Rogue Planet." Lookout! I think its the homeworld of the Founders. You red-shirts better get the hell out of there...
...They probably started this program (selling shares at IPO price to customers--average Joes not Wall St. insiders) for good publicity, but now that their customers are going to instantly LOSE money when they buy shares at the IPO price, they're getting nothing but bad publicity. I mean, I know there's no such thing as bad publicity, but then ask the record companies how suing your customers makes you look.
Is "ogresque" a word? If it isn't, it is now...