And for the cleaning alcohol, I'd ask a local barber or a local hair dresser to see where they get their supplies. Those guys have to disinfect their razor blades and scissors with no oxidization (otherwise, the oxidization would considerably dull the edge of their blades and shorten their lifetime use).
Actually, you want to do a little more than "completely". If you use a bleach/water solution as suggested, the little drops will leave deposits of conductive material.
Exactly! Bleach/water turns basically into salt water, the salt deposits will help kill the mold as well, but it should make the electronics useless.
RINSE thoroughly with distilled water, and use a hair dryer to blow as much of the distilled water off as possible.
The hair dryer I like, but the distilled water will help oxidization (rust), so I'd use some kind of cleaning alcohol instead (barring alcohol, then use distilled water only as a last resort).
That being said, I am not a chemist, and I haven't studied chemistry since high school, so feel free to critic/counter my comments.
A CPA is technically a designation created (in the wake of the Great Depression) to serve SEC requirements for publicly traded companies to properly disclose their financial reality to the public (e.g. investors and creditors). Being a CPA makes one a candidate (per the SEC) to audit and attest to the propriety of a company's financial statement disclosures. Iow, a CPA is an SEC thing, not an IRS thing.
No, the US CPA designation (1896) predates the creation of the SEC (1934) by 38 years.
Besides, the CPA designation can only be used for the State it's in (barring a few exceptions), it's not even Federal like the SEC or like the IRS (although it does have a national association in addition to its own State bar association).
I'm not a CPA (nor an attorney). Just check my posting history if you don't believe me. I'm a computer programmer. That being said, you're probably not an attorney yourself, it takes good reading comprehension to become an attorney, and I certainly did not say, nor imply, that a CPA had a broader legal knowledge than an attorney. Go read my post again.
Kind of difficult when your copyright takes the form of a Creative Commons license that cannot be verified unless its site is up.
Except now, he can just send a link of his slashdot submission (and corresponding comments) to his ISP, there is no source that's considered more reliable for Techies and for most ISP employees.
By the way, H&R Block people are not CPAs. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of them didn't even have an accounting background/training (which was not provided by H&R Block itself).
H&R Block sells a process. The process is designed by educated/experienced CPAs/Tax Lawyers at the top of the company. But their front line personnel are most likely inexpensive (in-house trained) employees -- probably the cheapest people they could find. After all, this is essentially what Tech companies do as well, they may hire very smart people at the very top, or in Research & Development, but they'll hire the cheapest people they can afford and train them themselves for positions like first-line tech support and/or first-line customer service.
Yes, CPAs are accountants. But just to be clear, being an accountant doesn't necessarily mean you're a CPA. In fact, less than 20% of accountants are even CPAs.
CPAs are not for tax preparation. You have a question about the tax code, you ask a tax lawyer, not a CPA.
No, it's the tax lawyers that shouldn't be used for tax preparation. "In most U.S. states, only CPAs who are licensed are able to provide to the public attestation (including auditing) opinions on financial statements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_public_accountant
Tax lawyers are too highly specialized. Now don't get me wrong, tax lawyers will be able to give you very a precise answer about something that falls within their narrow niche of experience, and they'll be able to give you an answer as long as you already know which right questions to ask, but they won't necessarily have the general legal knowledge of a CPA. And yes, CPAs have general legal knowledge, if you just take a look at their exam sample books, I think you'll see that the legal knowledge and the legal minutiae represents the bulk of their exam, and that the accounting part is really the easiest part they have to know.
So not only using a Tax Lawyer would probably be overkill, but he would also probably miss important deductions because he'd miss the bigger picture that comes with the experience of preparing taxes and signing his names to them day-in and day-out (that being said, the specialization trap can also apply to CPAs as well, so for instance a CPA who passed his CPA state bar exam twenty years ago and who isn't used to doing taxes at his day job -- will most likely not be a very good choice either).
Or just install OpenGoo on a Linux server and have everyone work from there. This way you own the documents you upload.
What do you mean by saying "you own the documents you upload"? Are you talking about legal ownership or physical ownership?
There is nothing in the ToS of Google Apps that implies you don't own your own documents. And also, if you want physical local ownership, all of you have to do is enable Google Gears, and that will maintain local copies of your documents on your desktop/laptop -- so that you can keep on working completely disconnected from the internet -- should you ever need to.
The Sarah Palin birth control method, the NRA, talk-yell Radio, the Sarah Palin pre-signed resignation letters, their positions on stem cell research, and the death penalty, are all about expanding authority and increasing punishment. In that light, these self-proclaimed conservatives are very consistent.
That being said, these days they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, flip-flopping on issues, compromising on their very own principles, giving away the farm, increasing the size of government to massive proportions, saying instead of doing the "straight talk", mostly to pander for any vote they might get.
Once again, the account that got hacked was not the account that she used for official email. The one that McLeod is referring to is gov.sarah@yahoo.com, not gov.palin@yahoo.com.
I don't know. If the email address had been truly personal, I would have expected her to use something like goodtimes.sarah@yahoo.com or sarah12345@yahoo.com. And if you put your official title inside your email address, you're only encouraging people who send you email (or receive email from you) to think of you in that capacity.
Suppose farmers acted like that. They grow grain to sell, but their plants create oxygen from carbon dioxide gas as a side effect. Oxygen is a valuable commodity, it's sold in bottles for many uses: hospitals, aviators, steel-cutting, etc. But farmers are sensible enough to know that it would be totally impractical to try to charge for the oxygen their plants release into the atmosphere.
Well, we supposedly already subsidize farmers for vague unquantifiable benefits such as jobs, local self-sustenance, an old way of life (i.e the status quo), scenery, symbolic national pride, and I'm sure one could easily add oxygen (or carbon credits) to the mix.
On a side-note, I'm all for having food grown locally, it's just that on one hand, we want food to be grown locally, thereby reducing the environmental cost of transportation, but on the other hand we're subsidizing transportation and energy for transportation, thereby we've removed most of the existing incentives for the consumer to buy locally-grown foods. We should just try to cancel existing subsidies, instead of adding subsidies that work against other subsidies.
Anyway, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA would be pretty happy if they could secure themselves more taxes/subsidies from companies selling blank media (as they have already done for blank audio CDs). Government money, once you can get it, as many farmers already know, is usually a pretty reliable income stream. It's at least more stable and reliable than having to compete on the open market with everybody else.
The UI is good for webmail. Whoopie! No calendar / scheduling worth snot.
I've been out of the Corporate world for a number of years, so my needs for a calendaring/scheduling solution may be completely different than yours, but I love Google's Calendaring (if not Scheduling) functionality.
I have 19 calendars that I keep track of, and only 3 or 4 calendars that I keep constantly mashed up. I view everything in Agenda mode. I don't know any other interface that makes switching context/calendars so easy.
And the Scheduling functionality is not fancy, but it's adequate for me. It sure beats what I used to have to do when I was in a Corporation, every time I needed a conference room, I needed to go through a human gatekeeper to reserve resources (instead of being allowed to have direct/indirect access through Lotus Notes).
And the individual results aren't so amazing with their students; their high scores are simply because these schools can cherry pick students.
Private schools in France can also reject the students they do not want, french private schools also have smaller class sizes than their public counterpart, and yet the French public schools will still consistently outperform the private schools in every category.
What's different over there is class promotion. Fifteen years ago, 40% of the student population in public schools repeated at least one grade or more -- throughout their schooling (although, I suspect that percentage to be lower by now, I'm sure it's still pretty significant). And I'm not talking about repeating Kindergarten or 5th Grade or taking summer school, I'm talking about students repeating their full 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th Grade, which can be quite an humiliating experience for any teenager. It doesn't matter if you're popular or not, if you can't make the academic cut now, most of your friends are going to be looking down on you, because next year they all know you'll probably be one grade lower than most of them -- and so the better students end up being the same as the popular kids. That's just the way the system is set up. And the same goes for those French public school teachers, those teachers may actually not be that well paid, but once you make school important -- the teachers certainly become important -- much more important and respected than any American teacher (and that, not money, can be one of the greatest motivators for becoming a teacher).
So if the United States is serious about academics, it is indeed possible to upgrade its K-12 education, it's just that not everyone may be willing to pay the cost for such an effort. It takes serious backbone to tell a retarded kid (or his mom) that he's not moving up to the next grade (unless he's willing to go on the special ed track, or take another lesser track, which means he's not going to get the usual high school degree). And it takes some even more serious backbone to tell the mayor of your city that his son was just too lazy recently and is probably not going to graduate this year.
From what I've seen in the US, the system is set up to bow down to whomever has the most at stake in a political situation. And I don't see the Democrats, nor the Republicans, wanting to alienate 40% of parents -- even if both parties agreed completely with me on that issue. And there is also the issue of trust, I don't think the Republicans trust the Democrats not to use school as a way to promote their left-wing agenda. And I don't think that the Democrats trust the Republicans not to use school as a way to promote their right-wing agenda.
You seem to think that a service should only be available if it's cost effective to the provider. I disagree. I pay the same taxes everyone else does and I pay the same rate for my crappy service as anyone in a city with 10MB/s service. I should be offered the same services and option everyone else gets for the price.
Your rent (or mortgage) is probably a fraction of the cost of a city dweller's. No one forced you to go live there. You chose (or your parents chose) to live there (knowing full well the downside beforehand). Why should someone (who lives in a small apartment/studio in a city) subsidize someone else who pays the same amount or less for a very large house in the country side (or suburbia).
You're asking others to bail you out for a trade-off decision you made yourself. This is exactly the same as a house owner who demands to be bailed out because he chose to buy a property he couldn't really afford with a variable interest loan that was just an uncertain gamble. Why should we bail you guys out when you could just pick up your stuff and decide to go live in a more densely populated area (assuming cheap-fast internet was really that much important for you)?
Would you bail us out if we couldn't afford our rent? I seriously doubt it. You would be telling us to cram a couple more roommates into our already small apartments/rooms. You would be telling us to stop wasting so much money. And/or you would be telling us to just move back with family, or to go get another job.
Creative Commons puts out a variety of licenses that have a simple (human readable) version and a complete (legal) version. A logo or link on a site makes it immediately clear which license is being used. The exact same formula would probably work quite well for privacy policies.
I don't think this idea would get implemented very well.
Creative Commons gives additional rights to visitors. A privacy policy does the opposite. It's designed to take away rights from visitors.
So the web sites that are the most likely to use these standards are going to be ones that already have a simple privacy policy like: "We don't spam. We don't share your information with anyone. Period." Or they're the web sites that do not even require you to register with them (which is even better imo). In other words, this would only fix/change the web sites that do not need fixing/changing. And the web sites/companies that have the most horrible privacy policies to begin with are probably the most likely to avoid these simplifications, or fight them, or FUD them, every inch of the way.
And don't count on the Federal government to rescue us by forcing companies to implement this idea either. If what the government did, with the national-do-not-call registry or the can-spam-act, is any indication, it means that whatever licenses they might chose to enforce, that those privacy licenses will probably be coauthored by lobbyists and special interests, that they will probably be convoluted and nonsensical, and that they will probably be full of loop holes: like the non-profit sector, churches, political organizations, personal web sites, joint venture agreements, or whatever, and that the government might even require companies to keep records of private records for longer periods of time for the so-called purposes of 'homeland security' or 'fighting piracy'.
Try their slide show. Marylin Monroe looks like a freak on the left, and much better -- much more understated on the right. However, the two where I don't agree, and where I am quite shocked that the researchers found the opposite of what I found were both Marlon Brando and Woody Allen.
Marlon Brando looks pretty good on the left, but looks like a bumpy freak on the right. And Woody Allen looks good on the left, but more feminine and less handsome on the right. Which makes me think of a problem with gender-based standards, does the algorithm actually get told what gender each model is. An ugly woman could make an handsome man, and vice versa. So it might be a good idea to tell the computer which gender each individual is (I don't see the computer being able to do this kind of distinction on its own anytime soon).
Anyway, I don't think this algorithm is very good. If I disagree with two out of six or seven of its before & after pictures, that's not a good sign. Let's also keep in mind, that the six or seven samples that were selected out of the study -- were selected by a human being -- to show off the algorithm and the research on the New York Times. And I'll bet that thousands of pictures were ignored for this newspaper article precisely because those pictures might have made the algorithm or the researchers look bad.
A low tech way to discourage searches is to not bring the battery (buy a new one when you get there) and not clean the keyboard and/or screen.
Do this only if you're worrying more about having your computer searched by some random 8 dollars an hour baggage handler than having it "kept for further analysis" by the DHS.
Anything that would fall outside of the ordinary should a raise a major red flag for them, and that includes having a laptop with no battery and no power chord, having a cell phone/PDA with no batteries in it (or next to it), or having a non-work related laptop from a male traveler that has no pornography on it and no bodily fluid (that's UV light reacting) on its keys.
Was this a civil case? or a criminal case? A "not guilty" verdict would imply that this was a criminal case. If you ask me, the standard for finding someone guilty in a criminal case is already too high.
If you'd be willing to lower that standard of proof for criminal cases, then yes, I might be willing to pay for the time of the accused in court. Barring that, if you could prove to me that the police maliciously/lazily pursued someone they knew was probably innocent (as this does happen some times), then I would be willing to pay for the time of the accused in court.
Otherwise coming back to your case, I don't see why someone should be able to profit from being the most likely to have triggered a "road traffic accident". For instance, if your third party testimony cleared him of any wrongdoing, then the police should have taken your statement and he should never have been indicted in the first place.
Your joke is too close to the truth to be funny. Senator Prescott Bush (father of H.W. and grandfather of W.) was indeed a Trustee at Yale and the Bush family indeed raised funds for a full Wing to be built there.
W would probably have been rejected if he were to apply now.
Really? Yale wouldn't admit into their school a current President of the United States? Nor would they admit the son of a guy who used be President of the United States and the Director of the CIA? Also, since the uncle of George Bush Senior donated an entire wing to Yale as Bush Senior was admitted into the school, I'll suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that donating a building now to Yale would have absolutely no influence in their admission process?
I'll grant you one thing thought. The pool of rich kids, or highly politically connected kids, accepted into Yale has gotten a lot smaller. But the fact that they accept women/minorities now, doesn't change much. They can just replace their super-rich male students with super-rich female students, or super-rich minorities. And they would just have to sprinkle a couple of token students with decent prospects throughout the rest of the school, and throughout their brochures and web sites, just to keep up appearances. It would be political and financial suicide for any University to forego that kind active legacy funding/political support.
Employers search for you online to find damning things. There's nothing they can find online that would make a positive impression that shouldn't be in your resume already.
May be, that should be the exact reason for posting positive stuff about you online. Think of it like a decoy. If you don't post anything, all the negative stuff (that's outside of your control) may rise to the top of Google's search results. Or worse yet, an employer who doesn't find anything on you through google, may try Lexis Nexus, or may try harder to track down and question more of your references.
That being said, a moderate amount of informal self-disclosure is a mark of emotional maturity. That's how we build trust with each other. If you're good at building rapport on the phone, or in person, all the power to you, but if you happen to be an introvert in real life, then you may want to do some of that self-disclosure online -- in may case -- that should tip your balance in your favor. Besides, you're probably not as bad as you think you are, and you should benefit from a moderate amount of self-disclosure.
Arrive, go somewhere, sleep on the train to somewhere else, see what's there...
If you come to the US, and sleep on the train, on the street, on the bus, or near any place that's interesting. Do not expect to have your laptop when you get back home, DHS or no DHS. Same goes for your iPod, your wallet, your credit cards, your money, your virginity, and your organs.
Well, I was only kidding about the virginity part, that part would only apply to females.
Slashdot Mirror
And for the cleaning alcohol, I'd ask a local barber or a local hair dresser to see where they get their supplies. Those guys have to disinfect their razor blades and scissors with no oxidization (otherwise, the oxidization would considerably dull the edge of their blades and shorten their lifetime use).
Exactly! Bleach/water turns basically into salt water, the salt deposits will help kill the mold as well, but it should make the electronics useless.
The hair dryer I like, but the distilled water will help oxidization (rust), so I'd use some kind of cleaning alcohol instead (barring alcohol, then use distilled water only as a last resort).
That being said, I am not a chemist, and I haven't studied chemistry since high school, so feel free to critic/counter my comments.
No, the US CPA designation (1896) predates the creation of the SEC (1934) by 38 years.
Besides, the CPA designation can only be used for the State it's in (barring a few exceptions), it's not even Federal like the SEC or like the IRS (although it does have a national association in addition to its own State bar association).
I'm not a CPA (nor an attorney). Just check my posting history if you don't believe me. I'm a computer programmer. That being said, you're probably not an attorney yourself, it takes good reading comprehension to become an attorney, and I certainly did not say, nor imply, that a CPA had a broader legal knowledge than an attorney. Go read my post again.
Except now, he can just send a link of his slashdot submission (and corresponding comments) to his ISP, there is no source that's considered more reliable for Techies and for most ISP employees.
By the way, H&R Block people are not CPAs. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of them didn't even have an accounting background/training (which was not provided by H&R Block itself).
H&R Block sells a process. The process is designed by educated/experienced CPAs/Tax Lawyers at the top of the company. But their front line personnel are most likely inexpensive (in-house trained) employees -- probably the cheapest people they could find. After all, this is essentially what Tech companies do as well, they may hire very smart people at the very top, or in Research & Development, but they'll hire the cheapest people they can afford and train them themselves for positions like first-line tech support and/or first-line customer service.
Yes, CPAs are accountants. But just to be clear, being an accountant doesn't necessarily mean you're a CPA. In fact, less than 20% of accountants are even CPAs.
No, it's the tax lawyers that shouldn't be used for tax preparation. "In most U.S. states, only CPAs who are licensed are able to provide to the public attestation (including auditing) opinions on financial statements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_public_accountant
Tax lawyers are too highly specialized. Now don't get me wrong, tax lawyers will be able to give you very a precise answer about something that falls within their narrow niche of experience, and they'll be able to give you an answer as long as you already know which right questions to ask, but they won't necessarily have the general legal knowledge of a CPA. And yes, CPAs have general legal knowledge, if you just take a look at their exam sample books, I think you'll see that the legal knowledge and the legal minutiae represents the bulk of their exam, and that the accounting part is really the easiest part they have to know.
So not only using a Tax Lawyer would probably be overkill, but he would also probably miss important deductions because he'd miss the bigger picture that comes with the experience of preparing taxes and signing his names to them day-in and day-out (that being said, the specialization trap can also apply to CPAs as well, so for instance a CPA who passed his CPA state bar exam twenty years ago and who isn't used to doing taxes at his day job -- will most likely not be a very good choice either).
What do you mean by saying "you own the documents you upload"? Are you talking about legal ownership or physical ownership?
There is nothing in the ToS of Google Apps that implies you don't own your own documents. And also, if you want physical local ownership, all of you have to do is enable Google Gears, and that will maintain local copies of your documents on your desktop/laptop -- so that you can keep on working completely disconnected from the internet -- should you ever need to.
The Sarah Palin birth control method, the NRA, talk-yell Radio, the Sarah Palin pre-signed resignation letters, their positions on stem cell research, and the death penalty, are all about expanding authority and increasing punishment. In that light, these self-proclaimed conservatives are very consistent.
That being said, these days they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, flip-flopping on issues, compromising on their very own principles, giving away the farm, increasing the size of government to massive proportions, saying instead of doing the "straight talk", mostly to pander for any vote they might get.
I don't know. If the email address had been truly personal, I would have expected her to use something like goodtimes.sarah@yahoo.com or sarah12345@yahoo.com. And if you put your official title inside your email address, you're only encouraging people who send you email (or receive email from you) to think of you in that capacity.
Well, we supposedly already subsidize farmers for vague unquantifiable benefits such as jobs, local self-sustenance, an old way of life (i.e the status quo), scenery, symbolic national pride, and I'm sure one could easily add oxygen (or carbon credits) to the mix.
On a side-note, I'm all for having food grown locally, it's just that on one hand, we want food to be grown locally, thereby reducing the environmental cost of transportation, but on the other hand we're subsidizing transportation and energy for transportation, thereby we've removed most of the existing incentives for the consumer to buy locally-grown foods. We should just try to cancel existing subsidies, instead of adding subsidies that work against other subsidies.
Anyway, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA would be pretty happy if they could secure themselves more taxes/subsidies from companies selling blank media (as they have already done for blank audio CDs). Government money, once you can get it, as many farmers already know, is usually a pretty reliable income stream. It's at least more stable and reliable than having to compete on the open market with everybody else.
I've been out of the Corporate world for a number of years, so my needs for a calendaring/scheduling solution may be completely different than yours, but I love Google's Calendaring (if not Scheduling) functionality.
I have 19 calendars that I keep track of, and only 3 or 4 calendars that I keep constantly mashed up. I view everything in Agenda mode. I don't know any other interface that makes switching context/calendars so easy.
And the Scheduling functionality is not fancy, but it's adequate for me. It sure beats what I used to have to do when I was in a Corporation, every time I needed a conference room, I needed to go through a human gatekeeper to reserve resources (instead of being allowed to have direct/indirect access through Lotus Notes).
Private schools in France can also reject the students they do not want, french private schools also have smaller class sizes than their public counterpart, and yet the French public schools will still consistently outperform the private schools in every category.
What's different over there is class promotion. Fifteen years ago, 40% of the student population in public schools repeated at least one grade or more -- throughout their schooling (although, I suspect that percentage to be lower by now, I'm sure it's still pretty significant). And I'm not talking about repeating Kindergarten or 5th Grade or taking summer school, I'm talking about students repeating their full 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th Grade, which can be quite an humiliating experience for any teenager. It doesn't matter if you're popular or not, if you can't make the academic cut now, most of your friends are going to be looking down on you, because next year they all know you'll probably be one grade lower than most of them -- and so the better students end up being the same as the popular kids. That's just the way the system is set up. And the same goes for those French public school teachers, those teachers may actually not be that well paid, but once you make school important -- the teachers certainly become important -- much more important and respected than any American teacher (and that, not money, can be one of the greatest motivators for becoming a teacher).
So if the United States is serious about academics, it is indeed possible to upgrade its K-12 education, it's just that not everyone may be willing to pay the cost for such an effort. It takes serious backbone to tell a retarded kid (or his mom) that he's not moving up to the next grade (unless he's willing to go on the special ed track, or take another lesser track, which means he's not going to get the usual high school degree). And it takes some even more serious backbone to tell the mayor of your city that his son was just too lazy recently and is probably not going to graduate this year.
From what I've seen in the US, the system is set up to bow down to whomever has the most at stake in a political situation. And I don't see the Democrats, nor the Republicans, wanting to alienate 40% of parents -- even if both parties agreed completely with me on that issue. And there is also the issue of trust, I don't think the Republicans trust the Democrats not to use school as a way to promote their left-wing agenda. And I don't think that the Democrats trust the Republicans not to use school as a way to promote their right-wing agenda.
Your rent (or mortgage) is probably a fraction of the cost of a city dweller's. No one forced you to go live there. You chose (or your parents chose) to live there (knowing full well the downside beforehand). Why should someone (who lives in a small apartment/studio in a city) subsidize someone else who pays the same amount or less for a very large house in the country side (or suburbia).
You're asking others to bail you out for a trade-off decision you made yourself. This is exactly the same as a house owner who demands to be bailed out because he chose to buy a property he couldn't really afford with a variable interest loan that was just an uncertain gamble. Why should we bail you guys out when you could just pick up your stuff and decide to go live in a more densely populated area (assuming cheap-fast internet was really that much important for you)?
Would you bail us out if we couldn't afford our rent? I seriously doubt it. You would be telling us to cram a couple more roommates into our already small apartments/rooms. You would be telling us to stop wasting so much money. And/or you would be telling us to just move back with family, or to go get another job.
I don't think this idea would get implemented very well.
Creative Commons gives additional rights to visitors. A privacy policy does the opposite. It's designed to take away rights from visitors.
So the web sites that are the most likely to use these standards are going to be ones that already have a simple privacy policy like: "We don't spam. We don't share your information with anyone. Period." Or they're the web sites that do not even require you to register with them (which is even better imo). In other words, this would only fix/change the web sites that do not need fixing/changing. And the web sites/companies that have the most horrible privacy policies to begin with are probably the most likely to avoid these simplifications, or fight them, or FUD them, every inch of the way.
And don't count on the Federal government to rescue us by forcing companies to implement this idea either. If what the government did, with the national-do-not-call registry or the can-spam-act, is any indication, it means that whatever licenses they might chose to enforce, that those privacy licenses will probably be coauthored by lobbyists and special interests, that they will probably be convoluted and nonsensical, and that they will probably be full of loop holes: like the non-profit sector, churches, political organizations, personal web sites, joint venture agreements, or whatever, and that the government might even require companies to keep records of private records for longer periods of time for the so-called purposes of 'homeland security' or 'fighting piracy'.
Insightful? Damn, that's the last time I'll try to make a joke if no one can understand my punch lines.
Try their slide show. Marylin Monroe looks like a freak on the left, and much better -- much more understated on the right. However, the two where I don't agree, and where I am quite shocked that the researchers found the opposite of what I found were both Marlon Brando and Woody Allen.
Marlon Brando looks pretty good on the left, but looks like a bumpy freak on the right. And Woody Allen looks good on the left, but more feminine and less handsome on the right. Which makes me think of a problem with gender-based standards, does the algorithm actually get told what gender each model is. An ugly woman could make an handsome man, and vice versa. So it might be a good idea to tell the computer which gender each individual is (I don't see the computer being able to do this kind of distinction on its own anytime soon).
Anyway, I don't think this algorithm is very good. If I disagree with two out of six or seven of its before & after pictures, that's not a good sign. Let's also keep in mind, that the six or seven samples that were selected out of the study -- were selected by a human being -- to show off the algorithm and the research on the New York Times. And I'll bet that thousands of pictures were ignored for this newspaper article precisely because those pictures might have made the algorithm or the researchers look bad.
Do this only if you're worrying more about having your computer searched by some random 8 dollars an hour baggage handler than having it "kept for further analysis" by the DHS.
Anything that would fall outside of the ordinary should a raise a major red flag for them, and that includes having a laptop with no battery and no power chord, having a cell phone/PDA with no batteries in it (or next to it), or having a non-work related laptop from a male traveler that has no pornography on it and no bodily fluid (that's UV light reacting) on its keys.
Was this a civil case? or a criminal case? A "not guilty" verdict would imply that this was a criminal case. If you ask me, the standard for finding someone guilty in a criminal case is already too high.
If you'd be willing to lower that standard of proof for criminal cases, then yes, I might be willing to pay for the time of the accused in court. Barring that, if you could prove to me that the police maliciously/lazily pursued someone they knew was probably innocent (as this does happen some times), then I would be willing to pay for the time of the accused in court.
Otherwise coming back to your case, I don't see why someone should be able to profit from being the most likely to have triggered a "road traffic accident". For instance, if your third party testimony cleared him of any wrongdoing, then the police should have taken your statement and he should never have been indicted in the first place.
Your joke is too close to the truth to be funny. Senator Prescott Bush (father of H.W. and grandfather of W.) was indeed a Trustee at Yale and the Bush family indeed raised funds for a full Wing to be built there.
Really? Yale wouldn't admit into their school a current President of the United States? Nor would they admit the son of a guy who used be President of the United States and the Director of the CIA? Also, since the uncle of George Bush Senior donated an entire wing to Yale as Bush Senior was admitted into the school, I'll suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that donating a building now to Yale would have absolutely no influence in their admission process?
I'll grant you one thing thought. The pool of rich kids, or highly politically connected kids, accepted into Yale has gotten a lot smaller. But the fact that they accept women/minorities now, doesn't change much. They can just replace their super-rich male students with super-rich female students, or super-rich minorities. And they would just have to sprinkle a couple of token students with decent prospects throughout the rest of the school, and throughout their brochures and web sites, just to keep up appearances. It would be political and financial suicide for any University to forego that kind active legacy funding/political support.
I blame the poster for being an idiot. You're only supposed to say "I am not a lawyer" ONLY if you are one. Now everybody is saying it.
May be, that should be the exact reason for posting positive stuff about you online. Think of it like a decoy. If you don't post anything, all the negative stuff (that's outside of your control) may rise to the top of Google's search results. Or worse yet, an employer who doesn't find anything on you through google, may try Lexis Nexus, or may try harder to track down and question more of your references.
That being said, a moderate amount of informal self-disclosure is a mark of emotional maturity. That's how we build trust with each other. If you're good at building rapport on the phone, or in person, all the power to you, but if you happen to be an introvert in real life, then you may want to do some of that self-disclosure online -- in may case -- that should tip your balance in your favor. Besides, you're probably not as bad as you think you are, and you should benefit from a moderate amount of self-disclosure.
And you're posting this on?
If you come to the US, and sleep on the train, on the street, on the bus, or near any place that's interesting. Do not expect to have your laptop when you get back home, DHS or no DHS. Same goes for your iPod, your wallet, your credit cards, your money, your virginity, and your organs.
Well, I was only kidding about the virginity part, that part would only apply to females.