(they could have kept Providence as a slower-speed spur).
How the hell else would I have gotten to Prov for Sex.Power.God?! On the timing issue, it then works out to a 1-3 hour savings -- then boiling into a 1-3 hour tradeoff for price -- the round trip airline ticket from DC-BOS is ~225 if you book 3 days in advance. Amtrak is NOT price competitive in that respect.
5 hours IN THE TRAIN. The flight from Bos-DC is an hour and a half *in the air*. It really is three hours at the OUTSET. Land speeds aren't going to compete for a while. Also, a bos-dc train is going to probably stop in: Providence, New Haven (ehh?) NYC, and maybe a few other stops along the way.
I go to school in Boston. (Law School. Somewhat closer to adult than a college student, which brings us to.....) There is someone living in DC I'm potentially interested in. Door-to-Door time flying? 2.5-3 hours.....
The shortest rail trip is 8 hours and costs 40$ more.
Rail is great for the small stuff where the overhead of going to the airport, checking in, runway issues, etc makes it ridiculous. (NYC-Boston is the perfect example; on travel time alone, flying from Logan to JFK is not worth it compared to Amtrak. BOS->LGA is potentially competitive, but then when you figure in the convenience of being able to show up at south station/penn station 5 minutes before your train vs showing up early at the airport (and trying to account for traffic, rather than just taking a subway) it really doesn't make sense to take the plane -- plus the vast majority of the time spent on the train is in one place, so you can be productive, whereas when flying you're going from a to b to c, to runway, to tray-tables-up, and have comparatively little time you can enjoy.
BUT, on the Boston-DC trip, it's a no brainer...and can mean the difference between things working or not for us....
So....some of us still might need planes;-)
There is nothing quite like this in B&M stores. Never heard of a Bloomingdales personal shopper eh? (Which just refines the point - the marginal cost of doing that kind of personalization is high, and thus requires a high profit. Bloomingdales can afford to do so...and still makes a killing)
I have lived in Texas and Georgia on stints for work. I'm by no means a big city type -- I found the South generally idyllic and peaceful. Outright homophobia is still "culturally acceptable" -- whereas in the north, it is shunned in mainstream society. While not all northerners are comfortable with outright equality (c.f. the marriage issue) openly calling gays and lesbians "deviants that should be locked up" basically assures social pariah status in most northern communities.
And if I'm trying to raise two kids with my life partner, I have to worry about being hatecrimed out of existence. No thanks. I'll pay the cost of living in a "blue state" for the dignity value alone. I believe in states' rights -- also because I live in a state where I have the right not to be tied to a fence and left for dead. Also, at 2788/week (current salary), 30-50k a year doesn't look attractive. At all.
Thank you. In my earlier post, some holier-than-thou ass tried to imply that "AOL wouldn't really let you do that." I legitimately was going to cancel the account of one of the "nice little old ladies" I take care of, and was given this offer. I immediately did the same for all the people that call me from time to time, even sending out emails to old acquaintances.... I think AOL has a real shot to save itself. They have a decent amount of cash and have hired some smart people -- just like Microsoft got big by some nefarious deeds and actually managed to turn out some quality alorithms/products [not EVERYTHING from squish sucks] AOL can do much the same.
....my post was targeted at people that deal with AOL subscribers already. These are people already paying 24.95 or 14.95 a month. I am sure a number of/.ers deal with AOL users in their capacities as "that geek guy I call" -- I wasn't attempting to convert you to the dark side.
I don't even know what you meant by "they probably won't let you do that" -- in the past 72 hours, I've switched over 12 people to "free" and have printouts of the confirmation email (for backup, obviously).
This is free as in beer, not speech. And again, I was only looking to help people *already paying* the fee -- i.e. the 86 year old woman that I *finally* taught her how to use gmail. I have been "teaching" her how to use computers since 1996 -- when I was in high school. At the time, she had AOL for *dialup* reasons -- and she learned the AOL interface. I got her a gmail account, but she was recalcitrant to use it. FINALLY she started to use it bit by bit (as she now has broadband) and was ready to make the jump off aol permanently -- when they offered this. For some of the others similarly situated, they are *not* ready to give up their aol accounts, and would have continued paying for the service. So long as it's free, they're saving a couple dollars a month. I wasn't targeting you, obviously. Please, save the rant. I wasn't born yesterday.
They will switch you to the free plan now. I have a number of people for whom I manage their "internets!@#@@!!" and have finally gotten around to getting them all comfortable with gmail. I've had them in the "walled garden" for a while (14.95 a month AOL over Broadban plan) -- when I called to cancel for each one of them, AOL offered the same "we'll give you the service free" shtick. So if you're still using AOL, might as well take advantage now. (No clue what happens when the program is discontinued)
Certain things in the law don't change. Dioguardi is still good law. Certain issues, once dealt with, rarely come back up for judicial review at the apellate level, being disposed of in district court. [Celotex, Conley v Gibson, Erie Railroad, Asahi, World Wide Volkswagon are all still good law, and in fact are staples in any Civil Procedure textbook. ] That being said:
The case has been cited approximately 232 times since decided; 25 of those times since 2000. (Oftentimes in law review articles -- as it's still one of the "better" examples of a semi-crazy pro-se litigant who still managed to cobble together a complaint that could pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim)
There can be no serious dispute that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abandoned the rigid rules of pleading that existed 70 years ago. The drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even went so far as to refrain from using the expression "cause of action" in order to underscore the intended departure from arcane pleading rules. Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 83, 86,(2d Cir. 1939) (Clark, J., concurring); see Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774, 775 (2d Cir. 1944) (Clark, J.). HN1Where a litigant is proceeding pro se, even "greater latitude" is appropriate. Hou v. New York City Dep't of Envtl. Prot., supra, 1998 WL at *2.
This is from:
Ming Yen Hou v. N.Y. City Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5151 (D.N.Y. 2001)
Also, the word from SCOTUS (via a nice quote from a Bankruptcy court judge):
Courts generally afford pro se litigants special consideration. In Haines v. Kerner, the Supreme Court held that the pleadings of pro se litigants are subject to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957); Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)) (per curiam). Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the majority of courts liberally construe pro se pleadings, particularly complaints. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1980) ("It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, however inartfully pleaded' are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . ..'") (quoting Haines, 404 U.S. at 520); Didie v. Howes, 988 F.2d 1097, 1105 (11th Cir. 1993) ("Further, we are mindful of the leniency accorded to review of the filings of pro se parties.") (citing Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21).
Mosley v. Gen. Revenue Corp. (In re Mosley), 330 B.R. 832 (Bankr. D. Ga. 2005)
(Mosley is the ultimate bitchslap to a debt collection agency -- a pro se veteran injured in ROTC training to head to the Persian Gulf during Summer of 1993 vs Large Student Loan Collection Agency. Basically, the judge said "he can't hire experts to testify, he can't get what little evidence he has into open court because he has no legal training to respond to your objections, and he lives in abject poverty. screw you. judgment in favor of debtor.")
Courts routinely cite "old" precedent -- they are good until legislatively (or constitutionally) obliterated OR overruled [or otherwise resolved by a higher authority, e.g. resolution of a circuit split from a later circuit is binding precedent on other circuits] -- if someone cites something from long ago, lawyers use tools like "Shepards" or "Citecheck" to see if the case is still good law. Dioguardi is. It has very memorable facts, and so sticks easily in the memory.
I love it. When ya'll have a nice majority in Congress and want to pass shit that those "pesky" blue-staters don't like, you go on and on about a mandate from the people and some bullshit about "majority votes." When someone might actually come along to level the playing field -- you push back.
That being said, I don't necessarily disagree. Our founding fathers had a SEVERE distrust the of the American Populace. The reason we have electors was because the "common-folk" weren't smart enough to vote for president -- you were supposed to vote for the smartest (guy -- at the time) you knew, and then the electors would pick the pres. And back then, guy #2 was the VP. Or have we forgotten that? We've strayed so far from the system our founding fathers set up originally -- remember all the warnings AGAINST two party systems?
At the end of the day, there are persuasive arguments on BOTH sides of the debate -- but yours is not one of them.
"republicans" in new york and "republicans" in north dakota have little in common. nation wide parties are a load of crap.
Courts afford ridiculous leeway to pro se litigants. For an example case, look at Dioguardi v Durning, 139 F 2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
"In his complaint, obviously home drawn, plaintiff attempts to assert a series of grievances against.....the complaint was dismissed by the District Court, with leave, however,to plaintiff to amend..."
"Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended com-plaint, wherein, with an obviously heightened conviction that he was being unjustly treated, he vigorously reiterates his claims...."
"We think that, however inartistically they may be stated, the plaintiff has disclosed his claims..."
They had the good sense to revive some things that others (including themselves) had let lapse. I am not giving them credit for things others did -- I am giving them credit for being smart enough to recognize that things previously done by others were superior to the things that would have resulted from their then-current path, and having the prescience to change that path, admitting their mistakes implicitly in the process. The Squish had the money to get the right people; the right people made some necessary changes.
What Microsoft did with MSIL and the core of.NET is actually pretty respectable. Inasmuch as I am not the biggest fan of many of the Squish's tactics, credit should be given where credit is due. [There are a ton of smart smart *smart* people at the core of.Net and SQL.]
Is very much automated-submission and grading -- or at least was from 00-04. Some professors do the grading by-hand (i.e. they run scripts by hand) but the majority of classes I took where you turned programs in, there were scripts that graded you that you could run part of yourself. (i.e. there were "public" and "private" scripts that used the same interface.)
In a large part, it depends on how big your class is, and if you plan on continuing teaching. One professor, (whom I idolize) has been doing this long enough to have set up an extensive and all-inclusive framework. Can't go (too badly) wrong when you roll your own, but YMMV.
-b
Understood. There's a strange mentality to long-term survivors; a cousin of mine lived with something for 11 years during the time when his life expectancy should have been four to five months.
AOL Communicator is actually decent -- and allows export of everything from AOL. (I recently migrated one of my former "students" [I taught nice little old ladies how to use their PCs while I was in high school] off AOL to gmail, and Communicator lets you export EVERYTHING.] In the interim, I had played with the Communicator software -- it's not half bad for the newbie set.
Middle class. Not bourgeois. The middle class has one home and takes vacations if they're lucky.
A family of 4 or 5 with a combined income between 80k and 120k living in or near the NYC or Boston (or DC) metro areas are staunchly middle class, potentially on the lower end of it.
Slashdot Mirror
(they could have kept Providence as a slower-speed spur).
How the hell else would I have gotten to Prov for Sex.Power.God?!
On the timing issue, it then works out to a 1-3 hour savings -- then boiling into a 1-3 hour tradeoff for price -- the round trip airline ticket from DC-BOS is ~225 if you book 3 days in advance. Amtrak is NOT price competitive in that respect.
5 hours IN THE TRAIN. The flight from Bos-DC is an hour and a half *in the air*. It really is three hours at the OUTSET. Land speeds aren't going to compete for a while. Also, a bos-dc train is going to probably stop in: Providence, New Haven (ehh?) NYC, and maybe a few other stops along the way.
I go to school in Boston. (Law School. Somewhat closer to adult than a college student, which brings us to.....) There is someone living in DC I'm potentially interested in. Door-to-Door time flying? 2.5-3 hours..... ;-)
The shortest rail trip is 8 hours and costs 40$ more.
Rail is great for the small stuff where the overhead of going to the airport, checking in, runway issues, etc makes it ridiculous. (NYC-Boston is the perfect example; on travel time alone, flying from Logan to JFK is not worth it compared to Amtrak. BOS->LGA is potentially competitive, but then when you figure in the convenience of being able to show up at south station/penn station 5 minutes before your train vs showing up early at the airport (and trying to account for traffic, rather than just taking a subway) it really doesn't make sense to take the plane -- plus the vast majority of the time spent on the train is in one place, so you can be productive, whereas when flying you're going from a to b to c, to runway, to tray-tables-up, and have comparatively little time you can enjoy.
BUT, on the Boston-DC trip, it's a no brainer...and can mean the difference between things working or not for us....
So....some of us still might need planes
Windows runs on intel Macs.
QED.
There is nothing quite like this in B&M stores.
Never heard of a Bloomingdales personal shopper eh? (Which just refines the point - the marginal cost of doing that kind of personalization is high, and thus requires a high profit. Bloomingdales can afford to do so...and still makes a killing)
I have lived in Texas and Georgia on stints for work. I'm by no means a big city type -- I found the South generally idyllic and peaceful. Outright homophobia is still "culturally acceptable" -- whereas in the north, it is shunned in mainstream society. While not all northerners are comfortable with outright equality (c.f. the marriage issue) openly calling gays and lesbians "deviants that should be locked up" basically assures social pariah status in most northern communities.
And if I'm trying to raise two kids with my life partner, I have to worry about being hatecrimed out of existence. No thanks. I'll pay the cost of living in a "blue state" for the dignity value alone. I believe in states' rights -- also because I live in a state where I have the right not to be tied to a fence and left for dead.
Also, at 2788/week (current salary), 30-50k a year doesn't look attractive. At all.
Thank you. In my earlier post, some holier-than-thou ass tried to imply that "AOL wouldn't really let you do that." I legitimately was going to cancel the account of one of the "nice little old ladies" I take care of, and was given this offer. I immediately did the same for all the people that call me from time to time, even sending out emails to old acquaintances.... I think AOL has a real shot to save itself. They have a decent amount of cash and have hired some smart people -- just like Microsoft got big by some nefarious deeds and actually managed to turn out some quality alorithms/products [not EVERYTHING from squish sucks] AOL can do much the same.
....my post was targeted at people that deal with AOL subscribers already. These are people already paying 24.95 or 14.95 a month. I am sure a number of /.ers deal with AOL users in their capacities as "that geek guy I call" -- I wasn't attempting to convert you to the dark side.
I don't even know what you meant by "they probably won't let you do that" -- in the past 72 hours, I've switched over 12 people to "free" and have printouts of the confirmation email (for backup, obviously).
This is free as in beer, not speech. And again, I was only looking to help people *already paying* the fee -- i.e. the 86 year old woman that I *finally* taught her how to use gmail. I have been "teaching" her how to use computers since 1996 -- when I was in high school. At the time, she had AOL for *dialup* reasons -- and she learned the AOL interface. I got her a gmail account, but she was recalcitrant to use it. FINALLY she started to use it bit by bit (as she now has broadband) and was ready to make the jump off aol permanently -- when they offered this. For some of the others similarly situated, they are *not* ready to give up their aol accounts, and would have continued paying for the service. So long as it's free, they're saving a couple dollars a month. I wasn't targeting you, obviously. Please, save the rant. I wasn't born yesterday.
They will switch you to the free plan now. I have a number of people for whom I manage their "internets!@#@@!!" and have finally gotten around to getting them all comfortable with gmail. I've had them in the "walled garden" for a while (14.95 a month AOL over Broadban plan) -- when I called to cancel for each one of them, AOL offered the same "we'll give you the service free" shtick. So if you're still using AOL, might as well take advantage now. (No clue what happens when the program is discontinued)
</pedant>
Cross your fingers and pray to the librarians over on Terminus. Or St. Liebowitz.
The case has been cited approximately 232 times since decided; 25 of those times since 2000. (Oftentimes in law review articles -- as it's still one of the "better" examples of a semi-crazy pro-se litigant who still managed to cobble together a complaint that could pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim)
This is from: Ming Yen Hou v. N.Y. City Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5151 (D.N.Y. 2001)
Also, the word from SCOTUS (via a nice quote from a Bankruptcy court judge): Mosley v. Gen. Revenue Corp. (In re Mosley), 330 B.R. 832 (Bankr. D. Ga. 2005)
(Mosley is the ultimate bitchslap to a debt collection agency -- a pro se veteran injured in ROTC training to head to the Persian Gulf during Summer of 1993 vs Large Student Loan Collection Agency. Basically, the judge said "he can't hire experts to testify, he can't get what little evidence he has into open court because he has no legal training to respond to your objections, and he lives in abject poverty. screw you. judgment in favor of debtor.")
Courts routinely cite "old" precedent -- they are good until legislatively (or constitutionally) obliterated OR overruled [or otherwise resolved by a higher authority, e.g. resolution of a circuit split from a later circuit is binding precedent on other circuits] -- if someone cites something from long ago, lawyers use tools like "Shepards" or "Citecheck" to see if the case is still good law. Dioguardi is. It has very memorable facts, and so sticks easily in the memory.
"I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep" -- Judith Kaye dissenting in Robles.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0543909/
Greatest episode of Cold Case. Ever.
I love it. When ya'll have a nice majority in Congress and want to pass shit that those "pesky" blue-staters don't like, you go on and on about a mandate from the people and some bullshit about "majority votes." When someone might actually come along to level the playing field -- you push back.
That being said, I don't necessarily disagree. Our founding fathers had a SEVERE distrust the of the American Populace. The reason we have electors was because the "common-folk" weren't smart enough to vote for president -- you were supposed to vote for the smartest (guy -- at the time) you knew, and then the electors would pick the pres. And back then, guy #2 was the VP. Or have we forgotten that? We've strayed so far from the system our founding fathers set up originally -- remember all the warnings AGAINST two party systems?
At the end of the day, there are persuasive arguments on BOTH sides of the debate -- but yours is not one of them.
"republicans" in new york and "republicans" in north dakota have little in common. nation wide parties are a load of crap.
Courts afford ridiculous leeway to pro se litigants. For an example case, look at Dioguardi v Durning, 139 F 2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
,to plaintiff to amend..."
"In his complaint, obviously home drawn, plaintiff attempts to assert a series of grievances against.....the complaint was dismissed by the District Court, with leave, however
"Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended com-plaint, wherein, with an obviously heightened conviction that he was being unjustly treated, he vigorously reiterates his claims...."
"We think that, however inartistically they may be stated, the plaintiff has disclosed his claims..."
They had the good sense to revive some things that others (including themselves) had let lapse. I am not giving them credit for things others did -- I am giving them credit for being smart enough to recognize that things previously done by others were superior to the things that would have resulted from their then-current path, and having the prescience to change that path, admitting their mistakes implicitly in the process. The Squish had the money to get the right people; the right people made some necessary changes.
What Microsoft did with MSIL and the core of .NET is actually pretty respectable. Inasmuch as I am not the biggest fan of many of the Squish's tactics, credit should be given where credit is due. [There are a ton of smart smart *smart* people at the core of .Net and SQL.]
Is very much automated-submission and grading -- or at least was from 00-04. Some professors do the grading by-hand (i.e. they run scripts by hand) but the majority of classes I took where you turned programs in, there were scripts that graded you that you could run part of yourself. (i.e. there were "public" and "private" scripts that used the same interface.)
In a large part, it depends on how big your class is, and if you plan on continuing teaching. One professor, (whom I idolize) has been doing this long enough to have set up an extensive and all-inclusive framework. Can't go (too badly) wrong when you roll your own, but YMMV.
-b
Understood. There's a strange mentality to long-term survivors; a cousin of mine lived with something for 11 years during the time when his life expectancy should have been four to five months.
;-)
Stubborn jews.
-b
Ouch. I knew you were part of the hyper-intelligent slashdot-posting jewish TS-carrier junta, but no idea about the CF. Sorry about that dude :(
-b
Slashdot needs a: +1 Has a clue mod.
[IAAL]
AOL Communicator is actually decent -- and allows export of everything from AOL. (I recently migrated one of my former "students" [I taught nice little old ladies how to use their PCs while I was in high school] off AOL to gmail, and Communicator lets you export EVERYTHING.] In the interim, I had played with the Communicator software -- it's not half bad for the newbie set.
I believe he meant the FTC or the Dept. of Justice.
Middle class. Not bourgeois. The middle class has one home and takes vacations if they're lucky.
A family of 4 or 5 with a combined income between 80k and 120k living in or near the NYC or Boston (or DC) metro areas are staunchly middle class, potentially on the lower end of it.
And for them? its almost all loans.