I think modding is great, but this is where I draw the line.
Why? This mod makes a great wall decoration, if nothing else. Why blow $100 on a painting that your girlfriend chose when you could make your own wall decoration for the same price and show everyone how cool you are?
linux doesn't really have that. sure there's "gnu" as in "gnutar" - but everyone just says "tar" anyway. and "k" and "g" for the desktop manager... but there's not over-arching naming mechanism that says "this is linux".
For corporations, Linux has IBM. For everything else, it has the penguin and the simple but memorable Linux name.
Besides, Linux is no longer a brand name, it's its own category. For now, some people still want Linux to be like Windows, but eventually everyone will want Windows to be like Linux.
Notice, I didn't say "MS Windows", only the marketing people, the retarded, and the overly constipated say "MS Windows".
The courts have generally allowed engineers to make mistakes, short of gross negligence. Engineers are allowed to be human. Engineering firms on the other hand, are not given such allowances.
Problem is, would this lead to a tyranny of the majority? If something like Wikipedia were around in Gallileo's time, would it ever say that the earth is round?
If the articles you discuss keep on getting erased, you can always create your own wiki.
That's the most idiotic backpedalling attempt I have ever seen. It reminds me of a little kid who's splitting words so he's not labeled a liar.
"are we a helluva lot safer? for sure."
We would be a lot safer if we had not coaxed Saddam into attacking Kuwait and we would be a lot safer if we had not sent American troops to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was never in any danger from Saddam, it was in danger from its own people, that's why we sent our troops over there, and that's why we keep on sending them civilian ex-military to train them. Iraq was not a rogue state, we knew he wanted to invade Kuwait and our American Ambassador actually gave him the express permission to do so. Saddam was a pawn, that's all. Every crime he ever committed, we helped him do it.
But you can filter water to become drinkable can't you? Well yes. To a certain degree and at a cost. So if factory X takes water from a river and then dumps it back with pollution then it is taking Y amount of drinkable water from everyone down stream.
You forgot to mention that we're not the only ones who filter water, Mother nature also helps, in fact, the amount of filtering we do is miniscule compared to what Mother nature actually does.
If you don't understand why its important to answer these two questions, then you're not qualified to determine whether something is or isn't 'ecologically' sound.
Then, based on your reasoning, noone is qualified to determine whether something is or isn't 'ecologically' sound.
You can give me an example of where water is being misused and I can give you an example of where water is being used wisely, but in the end, those are just examples and we have no idea what's really happening to *all* that water.
It's really easy to point fingers and say "what if", "what if", and "what if", but in the end you are just as clueless as all of us.
In the United States, the courts have found that a business has the same rights that an individual person would. But thanks to our Republican and Libertarian minded friends, regulations are hard to pass or enforce. And now thanks to the gullible and naive buying industry propoganda, companies will be shielded from any kind of meaningful responsibility by so called "tort reform". But tort reform doesn't do a shred of good for consumers, all it does is shield companies from paying for their negligence.
Excuse-me!?! As a Libertarian, I resent what you've just said. I don't know enough about "tort reform" to be for it or against it, but I do like the tort system we have right now. It's probably the only thing I wouldn't get rid of in this government.
In America, big business always wins in the court. As much as it sucks, even if the consumer is 100% right, it's rare a consumer can afford to even take a case to court, let alone pay for a lawyer good enough to win. Sure, we hear about a few cases, but there are thousands we don't hear about.
You're wrong! In fact, the bigger the businesses, the harder they fall. For example, if you're lucky enough to have been wronged by a company-wide policy that has affected thousands of customers, and if you're educated enough to project a professional image, all you have to do is threaten them with a class action. That's all. When faced with paying off one educated customer or paying off 5,000 class action customers, the company will always take the easy way out and pay you off as quickly as they can.
By the way, that's why most people don't hear about the little guys winning against the big guys. Most little guys that do win usually settle out of court and agree to not talk about the case.
If anything, your post is just a stupid self-fulfilling prophecy based on what the media tells you. Take it from someone who's not a lawyer and who has actually won cases against the big guys. Stop making so many damn assumptions.
A lot of businesses already require your tax history before they will consider hiring you...
It depends on your State and it depends what job you're applying for. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little fuzzy on this, but in California a company can not do a credit check on you unless you earn more than 75k a year and/or unless you will have to handle cash on a daily basis as part of your job duty.
Did your friend get reimbursed fully for the damages done to the car and for the stuff that was taken from it?
If not, your friend can sue in a civil court.
When in doubt, sue everyone. When you sue everyone, one of two things happen, the people you're suing start pointing fingers at each other, and/or the people you're suing pay you off and start suing each other. (-:
The standard of proof for a civil action is the "preponderance of evidence". I won't go into what it means but it's not much and it will be very easy. If you win against an insurance company, its lawyers will go after the real culprit. And if you win against the owner of the pickup, he will probably sue or settle with the boyfriend of his daughter.
Cops don't tell you about these options. Cops don't like the civil courts. Cops want their convictions. Victims want their money back. Those two goals are usually mutually exclusive.
Does the practices of a single franchise represent the entire chain? If so, then you can send the mail with a clear conscience. Otherwise, you are just punishing random companies that have no relation to the incident.
If the Head Quarters or the store in question have an appropriate explanation/solution to the problem, they will reply to the email.
By the way, my conscience is clearer than yours. Instead of finding an alternate EB store to shop at, I am giving them a chance to respond and defend themselves.
Forget Narita Airport, the Airport was fine the last time I was there. You got to get those translator things on the subway system. Foreigners don't get lost in the airport, they get lost in the subway. The signs in the subway are all in Japanese. Each subway line is owned by a different company, so sometimes, you have to exist one station to enter another station that has the same name. And everything else is compounded by the fact that their subway employees don't speak english and say yes to everything you say.
1. Use and LCD panel and have the video signal from your machine to your monitor be encrypted.
2. Learn morse code and just have all your sensitive stuff outputed to the LED's on your keyboard.
he did not ask for his initial investment back. He simply asked that they pay going forward.
According to his side of the story yes, but according to the Sheriff that's not the case and the Sheriff even says the guy lied about not owning the domain name anymore. If you don't believe the Sheriff, do you think the Sheriff is lying about the domain name too?
"You don't see greedy/selfish people work selflessly for 3 years with no return on investment."
You may not see them, but personally I see them all the time. There are some people who can't ask for what they want upfront. Those people are the passive aggresive types and they usually suffer from low self-esteem (I know because I used to be one of them). So what do they do? They start doing favors for others. They start making themselves feel needed. They start telling little white lies about what their true intentions are. They start making covert contracts with others.
If they like a girl, they think they have nothing of value to offer her, so they'll start buying her things, doing things for her, and listening to her problems. Eventually, with enough persistence, they believe they can slip under her radar as a friend, and then turn her into a lover when the time is right. And eventually, that's not what happens, the girl ends up feeling guilty about receiving all those gifts, and this makes her feel even less attracted to the guy.
And in this case, this is business, but the dynamics are similar. The guy said he wanted to get publicity for his web design consultancy out of this. To me, this sounds like it was a perfectly valid reason to start doing this. In fact, it seems the Sheriff held his side of the bargain because he let the webmaster plug his services right there on the front page.
When the webmaster didn't get what he wanted. He should have ended the relationship then and there. At the very least, he should have sold the domain name back to the sheriff department for a nominal fee. What he did instead was dishonest. He made an implied contract with the sheriff and then he broke it. Now, the web designer is playing the victim card, but to me his story is too inconsistent and it doesn't add up. Usually, I don't take the side of the cops and usually I don't trust what the mainstream media has to say, but after hearing both sides -- I'm siding with the Sheriff on this one.
The news paper is of course going to get the Sherrif's side of the story and villanize the big bad old Internt extortionist.
That may be the case, but it seems the guy also lied about who owned the domain name. Granted, I can't be 100% sure about this, but to me, the story given by the sheriff seems much more coherent then the story the guy is giving out to defend himself.
Someone marked you down as a troll? What the F___? Personally, I don't agree with what you have to say, but there is no reason to mark you down to from +2 to 0. I don't see why they did that. Your post was a well-reasoned argument and I didn't find inflamatory.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? This mod makes a great wall decoration, if nothing else. Why blow $100 on a painting that your girlfriend chose when you could make your own wall decoration for the same price and show everyone how cool you are?
For corporations, Linux has IBM. For everything else, it has the penguin and the simple but memorable Linux name.
Besides, Linux is no longer a brand name, it's its own category. For now, some people still want Linux to be like Windows, but eventually everyone will want Windows to be like Linux.
Notice, I didn't say "MS Windows", only the marketing people, the retarded, and the overly constipated say "MS Windows".
Finally, a voice of reason and common sense.
No, but Microsoft is worth 45 stories on Slashdot every month. That has to count for something.
If the articles you discuss keep on getting erased, you can always create your own wiki.
I don't see how Yahoo can be getting more accurate when it's blurring the lines between search results and advertisements even more.
"are we a helluva lot safer? for sure."
We would be a lot safer if we had not coaxed Saddam into attacking Kuwait and we would be a lot safer if we had not sent American troops to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was never in any danger from Saddam, it was in danger from its own people, that's why we sent our troops over there, and that's why we keep on sending them civilian ex-military to train them. Iraq was not a rogue state, we knew he wanted to invade Kuwait and our American Ambassador actually gave him the express permission to do so. Saddam was a pawn, that's all. Every crime he ever committed, we helped him do it.
Then, why did she marry you in the first place?
I don't see why not.
You forgot to mention that we're not the only ones who filter water, Mother nature also helps, in fact, the amount of filtering we do is miniscule compared to what Mother nature actually does.
Then, based on your reasoning, noone is qualified to determine whether something is or isn't 'ecologically' sound.
You can give me an example of where water is being misused and I can give you an example of where water is being used wisely, but in the end, those are just examples and we have no idea what's really happening to *all* that water.
It's really easy to point fingers and say "what if", "what if", and "what if", but in the end you are just as clueless as all of us.
Excuse-me!?! As a Libertarian, I resent what you've just said. I don't know enough about "tort reform" to be for it or against it, but I do like the tort system we have right now. It's probably the only thing I wouldn't get rid of in this government.
You're wrong! In fact, the bigger the businesses, the harder they fall. For example, if you're lucky enough to have been wronged by a company-wide policy that has affected thousands of customers, and if you're educated enough to project a professional image, all you have to do is threaten them with a class action. That's all. When faced with paying off one educated customer or paying off 5,000 class action customers, the company will always take the easy way out and pay you off as quickly as they can.
By the way, that's why most people don't hear about the little guys winning against the big guys. Most little guys that do win usually settle out of court and agree to not talk about the case.
If anything, your post is just a stupid self-fulfilling prophecy based on what the media tells you. Take it from someone who's not a lawyer and who has actually won cases against the big guys. Stop making so many damn assumptions.
It depends on your State and it depends what job you're applying for. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little fuzzy on this, but in California a company can not do a credit check on you unless you earn more than 75k a year and/or unless you will have to handle cash on a daily basis as part of your job duty.
If not, your friend can sue in a civil court. When in doubt, sue everyone. When you sue everyone, one of two things happen, the people you're suing start pointing fingers at each other, and/or the people you're suing pay you off and start suing each other. (-:
The standard of proof for a civil action is the "preponderance of evidence". I won't go into what it means but it's not much and it will be very easy. If you win against an insurance company, its lawyers will go after the real culprit. And if you win against the owner of the pickup, he will probably sue or settle with the boyfriend of his daughter.
Cops don't tell you about these options. Cops don't like the civil courts. Cops want their convictions. Victims want their money back. Those two goals are usually mutually exclusive.
If the Head Quarters or the store in question have an appropriate explanation/solution to the problem, they will reply to the email.
By the way, my conscience is clearer than yours. Instead of finding an alternate EB store to shop at, I am giving them a chance to respond and defend themselves.
Forget Narita Airport, the Airport was fine the last time I was there. You got to get those translator things on the subway system. Foreigners don't get lost in the airport, they get lost in the subway. The signs in the subway are all in Japanese. Each subway line is owned by a different company, so sometimes, you have to exist one station to enter another station that has the same name. And everything else is compounded by the fact that their subway employees don't speak english and say yes to everything you say.
2. Learn morse code and just have all your sensitive stuff outputed to the LED's on your keyboard.
Someone has been reading too much Cryptonomicron.
According to his side of the story yes, but according to the Sheriff that's not the case and the Sheriff even says the guy lied about not owning the domain name anymore. If you don't believe the Sheriff, do you think the Sheriff is lying about the domain name too?
You may not see them, but personally I see them all the time. There are some people who can't ask for what they want upfront. Those people are the passive aggresive types and they usually suffer from low self-esteem (I know because I used to be one of them). So what do they do? They start doing favors for others. They start making themselves feel needed. They start telling little white lies about what their true intentions are. They start making covert contracts with others.
If they like a girl, they think they have nothing of value to offer her, so they'll start buying her things, doing things for her, and listening to her problems. Eventually, with enough persistence, they believe they can slip under her radar as a friend, and then turn her into a lover when the time is right. And eventually, that's not what happens, the girl ends up feeling guilty about receiving all those gifts, and this makes her feel even less attracted to the guy.
And in this case, this is business, but the dynamics are similar. The guy said he wanted to get publicity for his web design consultancy out of this. To me, this sounds like it was a perfectly valid reason to start doing this. In fact, it seems the Sheriff held his side of the bargain because he let the webmaster plug his services right there on the front page.
When the webmaster didn't get what he wanted. He should have ended the relationship then and there. At the very least, he should have sold the domain name back to the sheriff department for a nominal fee. What he did instead was dishonest. He made an implied contract with the sheriff and then he broke it. Now, the web designer is playing the victim card, but to me his story is too inconsistent and it doesn't add up. Usually, I don't take the side of the cops and usually I don't trust what the mainstream media has to say, but after hearing both sides -- I'm siding with the Sheriff on this one.
That may be the case, but it seems the guy also lied about who owned the domain name. Granted, I can't be 100% sure about this, but to me, the story given by the sheriff seems much more coherent then the story the guy is giving out to defend himself.
Do you have a source for this conjecture? I didn't get this from the newspaper article.
Says me. In any case, I knew someone was going to contradict me. I don't know why I went ahead and posted this.
Someone marked you down as a troll? What the F___? Personally, I don't agree with what you have to say, but there is no reason to mark you down to from +2 to 0. I don't see why they did that. Your post was a well-reasoned argument and I didn't find inflamatory.
Well, at least now we're getting some variety. You can only go to the Rocky Horror show so many times.