Well and I think YOU know that this was pretty much entirely in jest, especially toward those who always remember the past with rose-colored glasses instead of the way they really were.:-)
But I've always liked Usenet--it's a bit like a garage sale. With P2P, you have to go look for a specific something, but with Usenet all kinds of music (for example) from the indie, to the old radio to '78 records as well as the mainstream were posted so you might fine something you'd never heard before. Or that was impossible to find. --I had to pick on the Dutch movie loaders because they never mention the movie is PAL or that it's in the Dutch language with english subs. Which causes a lot of nasty notes to be posted by those who wasted their time downloading it.
This had already been through a grand jury and his lawyers had been informed that he was about to be charged. So it's not like some scientist committed suicide for another reason and the justice department is conveniently appointing him as the patsy.
And this is hardly a victory for the justice department or the FBI which will look like a bunch of keystone cops. It would have been better for them if this case had quietly gone away. Because this guy had been under investigation since 2002, but the dept. was so set upon Hatfield that they not only dismissed concerns about Ivins, but he was put in charge (if guilty) of analyzing the evidence in his own crime. Then they had to pay Hatfield off after ruining his life by making him a public suspect. He was exonerated this June. (An earlier version of the story in USA Today had mentioned an management change in the FBI that finally started the reinvestigate leads and not just hone in on Hatfield.)
Some wonder if Ivins was trying to use the scare to test or forward his vaccine. Says the WP: "Nearly two years after anthrax mailings killed five people and sickened 17 others, Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins accepted the Defense Department's highest honor for civilian performance for helping to resurrect a controversial vaccine that could protect against the deadly bacteria."
At a 2003 award ceremony he said, "Awards are nice. But the real satisfaction is knowing the vaccine is back on-line." Back on-line? Was the research being defunded and he saw creating a scare as a way to get the funding back to his research? This is also apparently the vaccine that has caused a concern over safety and some soldiers refused to take the shot.
I remember like it was yesterday.... Back in '96 we had an nice, friendly Usenet where people happily filled each other's requests and there was hardly ever spam. We didn't need no stinkin' P2P connection. Then came the PAR files so people stopped sharing and next came those long-haired, dope-smokin' Napster users and their RIAA and the MPAA and pretty soon this quiet community had been turned upside down. Now we've got spam, dutch-language movies, cross-posters and virus galore.
1) He's up for re-election. 2) His only primary opponent is a little-known business man. 3) The primary is Aug 26 so it's too late to make any changes. 4) He is in a tight reelection battle with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D), who in recent polls has edged slightly ahead. 5) Democrats are in charge of congress.
I'll let you connect the dots.
Just a note that I don't support either Stevens or anyone involved in such corruption, but I find it oddly coincidental that right at election time these charges are brought.
The UK, acting like the US' fucking lapdog, again. If I were PM I'd be telling the US government where they can shove their 'special relationship' and their entirely one-sided extradition treaty.
Oh please...cry that line to those Americans sitting in foreign prisons on drug or other charges.
Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?
That goes to the root of the problem with the Western (and by that I mean US, UK and probably most of Europe) society: There is NO shame. In fact, the shamers are usually blamed for picking on those committing the infraction. And where there's no shame, there's no boundaries regarding civility, politeness or common sense.
So, no, I don't think these videos will work, because society will not tell their neighbor, relative, etc. that they are a complete idiot and to grow up. They'll instead be celebrated as UTube celebs.
A better action would be a stiff fine (say, starting at 250 pounds every prank call and going up for any subsequent nonsense call) unless you can show there some form of dementia or mental illness going on. Everyone knows by now 911 is supposed to be for emergencies--these aren't all mentally ill people, some just think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.
I usually find that the more a (high-budget) movie is promoted, the bigger the stinker it's going to be. Which means by my count, Mummy III is going to be huge bomb, despite the special effects.
A movie that is going to be truely good is not going to have to spend a huge budget in advertising. Look at Jurassic Park I. You didn't even know what the dinosaurs looked like before seeing the movie.
I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.
Meh! I'd rather have remotes to turn off annoyingly loud music coming from some asshole's car. And another one to jam those annoying cell calls of the person who insists on talking through any event, in the retaurant, etc. They could be given fun names like "Turn that shit off" and "Call your pimp/ho later."
You'd make serious $$$. And after awhile people might even learn to be more considerate with their music and phone calls.
It sounds like Craigslist didn't want to give up the name outright, but they didn't want to enough to spend money to defend it in court either. Sort of like waiting until you get a subpoena before giving it up and then it's "Oh well, nothing I could do--don't sue me."
I wonder if the person in question knew about the lawsuit and, if so, could have sent his own representative.
A bigger question I have with these increasing attacks on privacy: How long before we start getting fake ids to protect our privacy from companies who seem all too will to give us up. For example, I found out my credit card now offers a different CC# to use on line so you have some layer of protection between your actual number, identity, etc. Not sure on how well that works, except that it should stop someone who has the number from using at large. I suppose it's a bit like PayPal. Although that still wouldn't help you if the company contacted Visa, MC, etc. and were able to get your ID through them. It would have to be like an off-shore PayPal that could verify a purchase or whatever needed verification, but kept your ID safe from even the ISPs.
How long before we need more layers of protection--where companies (and governments) can't just shut us down on a whim because we said something bad about them or sue us. Even if the individual is correct, very few people can afford to be sued by some company.
And yet didn't his wife help him escape? Makes him even more psychotic to cook up a scheme with her to get him out just to kill her....
Well we've all known or heard about women totally in love with complete psychotics. Look at all the mail convicted killers get.
But I wasn't sure from the article yesterday if she was helping him escape or he more or less forced her to go along. I suspect someone with his personality would be very controlling over his family. Yesterday, it sounded like he used her to get out and then ran off to parts unknown. So you'd think that would have meant law enforcement would have put a watch on their home to see if he came back there.
Even in some place like Mexico he would be quite a stand out if he flashed cash, and in the US you'd ultimately fall temptation to going to the local drugstore and risk being nabbed on camera. Any lawyers know if there are any countries which would absolutely refuse extradition? If so, he would still need to 1) get there and 2) transfer enough money to survive, and much more if he couldn't work.
IANAL, but I think I can safely say that nobody's going to harbor this guy unless they string him up themselves (after taking all the money he has on him). This is not only a Most Wanted...he's a most HATED, probably just under a child molester.
The only time, AFAIK countries resisting extradition is when there is the possibility of a death sentence.
That was going to be my question: What kind of lame-ass federal prison is this and did Martha do the decorating while she was there?
Davidson was housed in a minimum security facility. Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and are work and program-oriented.
What happened to breaking big rocks into little rocks, picking up trash, etc.? This isn't prison...it's "camp."
Here's the good news: At least it will get all the lamer n00bs off the binary groups!
Seriously, I think some are getting their panties in a wad over mostly nothing. It's not like they just dismantled Usenet. Most of these ISP did a rotten job when it came to Usenet regarding the number/types of groups hosted, dropped posts and retention. You can still get to discussion groups through places like Google and if you want a more complete selection of groups, there are several, professional Usenet hosts that are reasonably priced and much better than dealing with your ISP.
I agree this ban has nothing to do with reasons they claim. After all wouldn't it be better to not let these guys go underground somewhere else. Wouldn't they be better able to track and locate them if they know where they are posting. And I doubt most are just posting where anyone can find it. I suspect there's a lot more of this going on via chat clients in invitation-only chat rooms. That would be my guess.
You know, I found this discussion fairly interesting. But I think you've both missed something. Children are different. There are some that are easier to raise than others. Some you can trust and some you have to watch constantly. Just like some babies are just happy all the time (yes I have seen one or two;-) and others are constantly upset. Not that even the good ones won't rebel or test you once in a while. But it may be that you two have very different kids (by nature, not just nurture). But kids all need some sort of structure and while they may earn more privileges as they get older, and they have to take on more responsibility and that there are still consequences if they don't uphold their end. You must have a structure started when they're young, but even so, you can't just decide once they turn 15 or 16 that they are fully prepared for adulthood.
Even with good kid, you have to monitor, because teens (despite what they would say) are still naive and not mature enough to be just thrown to the wolves. How many (even college aged) children have we seen killed and/or abducted? How many teens and pre-teens have gone off to meet someone they met over the internet and never came home? And you KNOW they've seen or heard reports of kids getting kidnapped. But at that age they think they are bullet-proof and that it can't happen to them. Just like some teens think having a baby would be great because they would have someone to love and who would love them. It's completely unrealistic to any adult who's raised children, but you don't let them get themselves into that situation to show them they're wrong. Not unless you want to raise a pack of grandkids too! So you don't "trust them" by letting their boyfriend visit in their bedroom while you're away or with the door closed. You let them go to a party where the parents are in attendance, but you call and make sure that the parents are indeed going to be there.
I think teens and young adults are even more immature than previous generations. Some might argue that's because parents are over-protecting. Others would say that they just had it easy. They have a nice home and a car. Maybe yes, maybe no. I know that when I went to college the legal age to drink was 18 and there were clubs all over. I don't recall anyone dying of alcohol poisoning. I also know my parents would have NEVER let me go to these spring-break destinations while in high school. (In college I would have had to pay my own way.) I feel like (the people I hung with) had more common sense back then than to go out and binge drink.
My parents were pretty strict, they expected me to tell them where I was going and be home on time. On some things, I thought they were unreasonable or overprotective, and we butted heads plenty of times. (And yes sometimes I got things--pretty minor ones--over on them!) But on the other hand, my friends and I never:
Had or made any babies out of wedlock Got involved in drug use Dropped out of high school or college Got involved with gangs or other criminal activities
Unfortunately, those who you see in the above situations usually come from homes where the parent or parents don't set any rules or boundaries on their kids. They make excuses for their behavior. And if they do manage to realize there's a problem, it's too late to establish boundaries. Their teen already disrespects them. I've not seen cases where the teen who got in serious trouble came from a home that was overly strict, unless it was to the point of abuse. I worked in a drug rehab for adults. Most of those there started using at around 12 and most had had parents who were themselves addicts, involve in criminal activity or otherwise didn't take on the responsiblity of raising their child. They were enablers in one form or another.
My only comment about this case is I wonder how much the parents spent to go to trial and fight to get a traffic ticket overturned. Yes, there is the principle of the thing, but the teen could have taken defensive driving for I'm sure a lot less.
The article that sparked this Slashdot post is by some know-nothing Ivory tower far leftist. Full of 10 dollar words, long on speculation and short on facts.
Thank you! We have, of course, uranium and other naturally radioactive minerals in the earth right now. And yet we've mostly avoided exposure (except by early scientists who worked with them.) This author could have just summed his article into one sentence: I hate nuclear power.
If we end up back in the stone age it will be BECAUSE of people like Ulrich Beck who jump up and down about climate change, but then complain that no solution is good enough. THOSE are the people who would have us living back in time with no electric, no cars and eating berries and twigs because cows pass too much methane!
It will also apparently kill TabsPlus (yes, the one you can get at Download.com that DOES work with FF 3.0). And as, 1) I haven't had any problems with crashing and 2) there's no mention that they fixed the bug which caused tabs not to be saved (and I like TP better anyway), I'll stick with 3.0.
Put the f-ing Administration items in one area or at least a logical group of pages that can be easily found. And that includes things that usually have to be run (for no reason) from the command line like msconfig or regedit. Microsoft, I realize you're afraid about your great-aunt Carrie is going to screw something up, but face it, she's probably going to screw something up anyway unless her nephew knows how to lock everything down. And that's just it. In the business versions you could make it easy for the admin to lock users out of the bits they shouldn't be messing with. That does not mean you have to make it hard on the business and non-business administrators when it comes to going behind the scenes for a little tinkering.
And on that note: Why did you practically HIDE the recovery system in Vista? Those system recovery points have been one of the few things that have saved my ass. And I hate the Vista's version of Windows Explorer.
Also, Microsoft, it never ceases to amaze me about the number of helpful items you could add instead of all the stupid bling. Things like being able to move programs around on the taskbar. If I'm working on several things, I like to group items together, not just in the order than I opened them and not just all of the same type. I might want my website editor next to a browser with the page loaded. Fortunately I found Taskbar Shuffle and it works brilliantly.
Actually she has both, but she gets a lot of calls that say "out of service area" some of which are out-of-state relatives, but some are not so she usually picks the phone up just in case. We tell her just to turn off the ringer, but old habits are hard to break and she, of course, gets lonely.
I'm hoping that if she'll just start saying 'there's no one by that name', they'll think someone else has the number and drop it off the list. Sometimes that works.
Yes, for instance, if it's a Microsoft product, the pre-release is really the Alpha and the final release is actually the beta. They figure, "Hey the more beta testers, the better, let's roll out that SP3!"
2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers That is covered under freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech does not have the same protection as political or religious speech.
I hardly think that calling up my 82 year-old widowed mother to ask for campaign donations = protected political speech! Begging for money shouldn't be protected speak whether you're buying siding or donating to a non-profit.
It's been exasperating, my parents used to be active locally in political campaigns when they were much younger. And it's been some time that they donated any monies. My dad died over a year ago and she gets calls asking for him. Naturally she doesn't want to tell a complete stranger her husband died. When they'd ask if Mr. ___ could come to the phone, she'd say no and they'd say, "okay, I'll call back." Usually they hang up before she can tell them, don't call here again. Even when she does, she still gets calls. I've told her to say instead, "There's no one here by that name." Short of changing the phone number she's had for decades, I hope that tactic works.
Except, that's not what the courts found. And the lawsuit wasn't an urban myth. I would have thought the fact that the TOS stated otherwise would have decided the case, but it didn't. I don't know if it ever got overturned on appeal or where the appellate case is at. But the plaintiff won his lawsuit (or should I say, the lawyers did.)
On another note, I don't know how you could even find 20-30 movies that you'd want to see per month. I'm lucky if I can find 2-3 a YEAR that I want to see.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Well and I think YOU know that this was pretty much entirely in jest, especially toward those who always remember the past with rose-colored glasses instead of the way they really were. :-)
But I've always liked Usenet--it's a bit like a garage sale. With P2P, you have to go look for a specific something, but with Usenet all kinds of music (for example) from the indie, to the old radio to '78 records as well as the mainstream were posted so you might fine something you'd never heard before. Or that was impossible to find. --I had to pick on the Dutch movie loaders because they never mention the movie is PAL or that it's in the Dutch language with english subs. Which causes a lot of nasty notes to be posted by those who wasted their time downloading it.
This had already been through a grand jury and his lawyers had been informed that he was about to be charged. So it's not like some scientist committed suicide for another reason and the justice department is conveniently appointing him as the patsy.
And this is hardly a victory for the justice department or the FBI which will look like a bunch of keystone cops. It would have been better for them if this case had quietly gone away. Because this guy had been under investigation since 2002, but the dept. was so set upon Hatfield that they not only dismissed concerns about Ivins, but he was put in charge (if guilty) of analyzing the evidence in his own crime. Then they had to pay Hatfield off after ruining his life by making him a public suspect. He was exonerated this June. (An earlier version of the story in USA Today had mentioned an management change in the FBI that finally started the reinvestigate leads and not just hone in on Hatfield.)
Some wonder if Ivins was trying to use the scare to test or forward his vaccine. Says the WP: "Nearly two years after anthrax mailings killed five people and sickened 17 others, Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins accepted the Defense Department's highest honor for civilian performance for helping to resurrect a controversial vaccine that could protect against the deadly bacteria."
At a 2003 award ceremony he said, "Awards are nice. But the real satisfaction is knowing the vaccine is back on-line." Back on-line? Was the research being defunded and he saw creating a scare as a way to get the funding back to his research? This is also apparently the vaccine that has caused a concern over safety and some soldiers refused to take the shot.
I remember like it was yesterday.... Back in '96 we had an nice, friendly Usenet where people happily filled each other's requests and there was hardly ever spam. We didn't need no stinkin' P2P connection. Then came the PAR files so people stopped sharing and next came those long-haired, dope-smokin' Napster users and their RIAA and the MPAA and pretty soon this quiet community had been turned upside down. Now we've got spam, dutch-language movies, cross-posters and virus galore.
Get off my lawn, ya hooligans!
What about Google Groups...they host the Usenet Discussion groups and they're free.
1) He's up for re-election.
2) His only primary opponent is a little-known business man.
3) The primary is Aug 26 so it's too late to make any changes.
4) He is in a tight reelection battle with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D), who in recent polls has edged slightly ahead.
5) Democrats are in charge of congress.
I'll let you connect the dots.
Just a note that I don't support either Stevens or anyone involved in such corruption, but I find it oddly coincidental that right at election time these charges are brought.
The UK, acting like the US' fucking lapdog, again. If I were PM I'd be telling the US government where they can shove their 'special relationship' and their entirely one-sided extradition treaty.
Oh please...cry that line to those Americans sitting in foreign prisons on drug or other charges.
Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?
That goes to the root of the problem with the Western (and by that I mean US, UK and probably most of Europe) society: There is NO shame. In fact, the shamers are usually blamed for picking on those committing the infraction. And where there's no shame, there's no boundaries regarding civility, politeness or common sense.
So, no, I don't think these videos will work, because society will not tell their neighbor, relative, etc. that they are a complete idiot and to grow up. They'll instead be celebrated as UTube celebs.
A better action would be a stiff fine (say, starting at 250 pounds every prank call and going up for any subsequent nonsense call) unless you can show there some form of dementia or mental illness going on. Everyone knows by now 911 is supposed to be for emergencies--these aren't all mentally ill people, some just think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.
I usually find that the more a (high-budget) movie is promoted, the bigger the stinker it's going to be. Which means by my count, Mummy III is going to be huge bomb, despite the special effects.
A movie that is going to be truely good is not going to have to spend a huge budget in advertising. Look at Jurassic Park I. You didn't even know what the dinosaurs looked like before seeing the movie.
I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.
Meh! I'd rather have remotes to turn off annoyingly loud music coming from some asshole's car. And another one to jam those annoying cell calls of the person who insists on talking through any event, in the retaurant, etc. They could be given fun names like "Turn that shit off" and "Call your pimp/ho later."
You'd make serious $$$. And after awhile people might even learn to be more considerate with their music and phone calls.
It sounds like Craigslist didn't want to give up the name outright, but they didn't want to enough to spend money to defend it in court either. Sort of like waiting until you get a subpoena before giving it up and then it's "Oh well, nothing I could do--don't sue me."
I wonder if the person in question knew about the lawsuit and, if so, could have sent his own representative.
A bigger question I have with these increasing attacks on privacy: How long before we start getting fake ids to protect our privacy from companies who seem all too will to give us up. For example, I found out my credit card now offers a different CC# to use on line so you have some layer of protection between your actual number, identity, etc. Not sure on how well that works, except that it should stop someone who has the number from using at large. I suppose it's a bit like PayPal. Although that still wouldn't help you if the company contacted Visa, MC, etc. and were able to get your ID through them. It would have to be like an off-shore PayPal that could verify a purchase or whatever needed verification, but kept your ID safe from even the ISPs.
How long before we need more layers of protection--where companies (and governments) can't just shut us down on a whim because we said something bad about them or sue us. Even if the individual is correct, very few people can afford to be sued by some company.
And yet didn't his wife help him escape? Makes him even more psychotic to cook up a scheme with her to get him out just to kill her....
Well we've all known or heard about women totally in love with complete psychotics. Look at all the mail convicted killers get.
But I wasn't sure from the article yesterday if she was helping him escape or he more or less forced her to go along. I suspect someone with his personality would be very controlling over his family. Yesterday, it sounded like he used her to get out and then ran off to parts unknown. So you'd think that would have meant law enforcement would have put a watch on their home to see if he came back there.
Even in some place like Mexico he would be quite a stand out if he flashed cash, and in the US you'd ultimately fall temptation to going to the local drugstore and risk being nabbed on camera. Any lawyers know if there are any countries which would absolutely refuse extradition? If so, he would still need to 1) get there and 2) transfer enough money to survive, and much more if he couldn't work.
IANAL, but I think I can safely say that nobody's going to harbor this guy unless they string him up themselves (after taking all the money he has on him). This is not only a Most Wanted...he's a most HATED, probably just under a child molester.
The only time, AFAIK countries resisting extradition is when there is the possibility of a death sentence.
That was going to be my question: What kind of lame-ass federal prison is this and did Martha do the decorating while she was there?
Davidson was housed in a minimum security facility. Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and are work and program-oriented.
What happened to breaking big rocks into little rocks, picking up trash, etc.? This isn't prison...it's "camp."
Damn...I need some more mod points! I was wondering how far I'd have to scroll down to find someone who also caught that! Well done!
The only problem is the dolphins are asking for Corona or Tequila....
Here's the good news: At least it will get all the lamer n00bs off the binary groups!
Seriously, I think some are getting their panties in a wad over mostly nothing. It's not like they just dismantled Usenet. Most of these ISP did a rotten job when it came to Usenet regarding the number/types of groups hosted, dropped posts and retention. You can still get to discussion groups through places like Google and if you want a more complete selection of groups, there are several, professional Usenet hosts that are reasonably priced and much better than dealing with your ISP.
I agree this ban has nothing to do with reasons they claim. After all wouldn't it be better to not let these guys go underground somewhere else. Wouldn't they be better able to track and locate them if they know where they are posting. And I doubt most are just posting where anyone can find it. I suspect there's a lot more of this going on via chat clients in invitation-only chat rooms. That would be my guess.
You know, I found this discussion fairly interesting. But I think you've both missed something. Children are different. There are some that are easier to raise than others. Some you can trust and some you have to watch constantly. Just like some babies are just happy all the time (yes I have seen one or two ;-) and others are constantly upset. Not that even the good ones won't rebel or test you once in a while. But it may be that you two have very different kids (by nature, not just nurture). But kids all need some sort of structure and while they may earn more privileges as they get older, and they have to take on more responsibility and that there are still consequences if they don't uphold their end. You must have a structure started when they're young, but even so, you can't just decide once they turn 15 or 16 that they are fully prepared for adulthood.
Even with good kid, you have to monitor, because teens (despite what they would say) are still naive and not mature enough to be just thrown to the wolves. How many (even college aged) children have we seen killed and/or abducted? How many teens and pre-teens have gone off to meet someone they met over the internet and never came home? And you KNOW they've seen or heard reports of kids getting kidnapped. But at that age they think they are bullet-proof and that it can't happen to them. Just like some teens think having a baby would be great because they would have someone to love and who would love them. It's completely unrealistic to any adult who's raised children, but you don't let them get themselves into that situation to show them they're wrong. Not unless you want to raise a pack of grandkids too! So you don't "trust them" by letting their boyfriend visit in their bedroom while you're away or with the door closed. You let them go to a party where the parents are in attendance, but you call and make sure that the parents are indeed going to be there.
I think teens and young adults are even more immature than previous generations. Some might argue that's because parents are over-protecting. Others would say that they just had it easy. They have a nice home and a car. Maybe yes, maybe no. I know that when I went to college the legal age to drink was 18 and there were clubs all over. I don't recall anyone dying of alcohol poisoning. I also know my parents would have NEVER let me go to these spring-break destinations while in high school. (In college I would have had to pay my own way.) I feel like (the people I hung with) had more common sense back then than to go out and binge drink.
My parents were pretty strict, they expected me to tell them where I was going and be home on time. On some things, I thought they were unreasonable or overprotective, and we butted heads plenty of times. (And yes sometimes I got things--pretty minor ones--over on them!) But on the other hand, my friends and I never:
Had or made any babies out of wedlock
Got involved in drug use
Dropped out of high school or college
Got involved with gangs or other criminal activities
Unfortunately, those who you see in the above situations usually come from homes where the parent or parents don't set any rules or boundaries on their kids. They make excuses for their behavior. And if they do manage to realize there's a problem, it's too late to establish boundaries. Their teen already disrespects them. I've not seen cases where the teen who got in serious trouble came from a home that was overly strict, unless it was to the point of abuse. I worked in a drug rehab for adults. Most of those there started using at around 12 and most had had parents who were themselves addicts, involve in criminal activity or otherwise didn't take on the responsiblity of raising their child. They were enablers in one form or another.
My only comment about this case is I wonder how much the parents spent to go to trial and fight to get a traffic ticket overturned. Yes, there is the principle of the thing, but the teen could have taken defensive driving for I'm sure a lot less.
The article that sparked this Slashdot post is by some know-nothing Ivory tower far leftist. Full of 10 dollar words, long on speculation and short on facts.
Thank you! We have, of course, uranium and other naturally radioactive minerals in the earth right now. And yet we've mostly avoided exposure (except by early scientists who worked with them.) This author could have just summed his article into one sentence: I hate nuclear power.
If we end up back in the stone age it will be BECAUSE of people like Ulrich Beck who jump up and down about climate change, but then complain that no solution is good enough. THOSE are the people who would have us living back in time with no electric, no cars and eating berries and twigs because cows pass too much methane!
Mr. Beck might be interested to know there is ALREADY a universal warning sign denoting radioactivity.
Perhaps if we add a "Mr. Yuck" symbol....
It will also apparently kill TabsPlus (yes, the one you can get at Download.com that DOES work with FF 3.0). And as, 1) I haven't had any problems with crashing and 2) there's no mention that they fixed the bug which caused tabs not to be saved (and I like TP better anyway), I'll stick with 3.0.
Put the f-ing Administration items in one area or at least a logical group of pages that can be easily found. And that includes things that usually have to be run (for no reason) from the command line like msconfig or regedit. Microsoft, I realize you're afraid about your great-aunt Carrie is going to screw something up, but face it, she's probably going to screw something up anyway unless her nephew knows how to lock everything down. And that's just it. In the business versions you could make it easy for the admin to lock users out of the bits they shouldn't be messing with. That does not mean you have to make it hard on the business and non-business administrators when it comes to going behind the scenes for a little tinkering.
And on that note: Why did you practically HIDE the recovery system in Vista? Those system recovery points have been one of the few things that have saved my ass. And I hate the Vista's version of Windows Explorer.
Also, Microsoft, it never ceases to amaze me about the number of helpful items you could add instead of all the stupid bling. Things like being able to move programs around on the taskbar. If I'm working on several things, I like to group items together, not just in the order than I opened them and not just all of the same type. I might want my website editor next to a browser with the page loaded. Fortunately I found Taskbar Shuffle and it works brilliantly.
Spoiler: Luke's father is Darth Vader!
Oops...nevermind....
Actually she has both, but she gets a lot of calls that say "out of service area" some of which are out-of-state relatives, but some are not so she usually picks the phone up just in case. We tell her just to turn off the ringer, but old habits are hard to break and she, of course, gets lonely.
I'm hoping that if she'll just start saying 'there's no one by that name', they'll think someone else has the number and drop it off the list. Sometimes that works.
Yes, for instance, if it's a Microsoft product, the pre-release is really the Alpha and the final release is actually the beta. They figure, "Hey the more beta testers, the better, let's roll out that SP3!"
2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers
That is covered under freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech does not have the same protection as political or religious speech.
I hardly think that calling up my 82 year-old widowed mother to ask for campaign donations = protected political speech! Begging for money shouldn't be protected speak whether you're buying siding or donating to a non-profit.
It's been exasperating, my parents used to be active locally in political campaigns when they were much younger. And it's been some time that they donated any monies. My dad died over a year ago and she gets calls asking for him. Naturally she doesn't want to tell a complete stranger her husband died. When they'd ask if Mr. ___ could come to the phone, she'd say no and they'd say, "okay, I'll call back." Usually they hang up before she can tell them, don't call here again. Even when she does, she still gets calls. I've told her to say instead, "There's no one here by that name." Short of changing the phone number she's had for decades, I hope that tactic works.
Except, that's not what the courts found. And the lawsuit wasn't an urban myth. I would have thought the fact that the TOS stated otherwise would have decided the case, but it didn't. I don't know if it ever got overturned on appeal or where the appellate case is at. But the plaintiff won his lawsuit (or should I say, the lawyers did.)
On another note, I don't know how you could even find 20-30 movies that you'd want to see per month. I'm lucky if I can find 2-3 a YEAR that I want to see. :P