The separate states have had some form of identification which records the four elements of information you mentioned for years. The definition of "photo ID" is pretty standard across the nation.
The problem is that the federal government has now decided that those identification cards are no longer acceptable, and mandated a solution to the problem through the RealID Act, but provided no funding to the separate states to achieve compliance. This will require the separate states to absorb the cost of complying with the Act. It's another unfunded mandate, and one which unfairly deprives otherwise law-abiding citizens of exercising their rights under Amendment One to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Which is exactly what caused the "American Experiment" in the first place.
If the federal government would agree to fund the Real ID Act, most of the complaining from the separate states would probably stop. Everyone more or less agrees that you shouldn't be able to acquire photo identification which says you're someone you're not. There are some privacy concerns, especially since the federal government hasn't demonstrated it is able to adequately police its own use of private, non-published information, and those safeguards should be strengthened.
But having real penalties for FBI agents who violate their neighbors' privacy to find out if their neighbors make more money than them, or lose their laptops, for example, would probably cause the problem of public servants abusing, or being careless with, their position of trust and authority to go away. When the mayor of Houston supports legislation that asserts the city should be free to place a closed-circuit television in the home of any minor offender, his house should be the first house wired. When Congress supports legislation allowing the FBI to expand its biometric database to everyone in the nation, they should be the first in line for cheek swabs. When the federal government mandates "Angel ID" or some other RFID-based solution to identity, every government representative should be chipped first, like dogs, starting with the President. And any citizen should be allowed to challenge any government representative, to essentially demand that the representative demonstrate his or her compliance with the law before requiring the citizen to comply.
The increasing cost of sports programming is the reason my cable bill is increasing, not the increasing cost of the Discovery Channel, History Channel, or SciFi Channel. I've heard that the cost of bundling ESPN has doubled in the past three years. In fact, my cable provider tried to launch a grass-roots campaign to force ESPN to lower its prices several years ago which failed miserably.
So I'm subsidizing the increasing cost of ESPN, which I don't watch.
I suspect the reality of the situation is far more complicated, but I'd prefer to rely on the market to adjust my cable provider's offerings, than my provider's benevolence and sense of "fair play".
I read a story on/. until a condition is satisfied, as in: READ... UNTIL. My condition for this submission was: read until the first comment that, more or less, stated that language is flexible and that the erosion of written English should be expected, even embraced, by text messagers who lack command of proper written English, preferring instead to express themselves with whatever is easiest on their thumbs.
It was your comment - second post. Congratulations. It almost never happens that quickly.
just individual actors. Likewise, a corporation cannot have "rights", just privileges extended by individuals, or their government, however representative.
Adjust your vocabulary accordingly, then apologize.
So you are saying that this woman suffered "burns [that] extend into deeper tissues. [Third degree burns] cause white or blackened, charred skin that may be numb." I'm sure the woman in the McDonald's lawsuit was burned, but I find it hard to believe that simple reflex was not enough to limit the burn to second degree in a very small area with a surrounding corona of first degree redness. Fucking molten metal doesn't burn someone that badly if contact with skin is intermittent or of very short duration.
Yes, and where I work the staff can't figure out how to locate a page for editing on the corporate webserver given its URL, add a personal folder to Outlook, or map to a workgroup templates folder without specific, step-by-step instructions. They treat the box on their desk like a combination electronic typewriter and "Internet machine". They are not stupid. They catch on quick when they see it done, but they don't know how to do those things because they've never had to do them.
How can training be a problem if they also have to be trained to use the Microsoft solution? You have to train them either way...
there's no doubt about it. Nonprofits exist to give a collective voice and purse to a group of people who would otherwise be mute or dependent on patronage.
I don't know what to do about it, except not donate. Various groups exist that track overhead spending by nonprofits, and more than a few nonprofits seem to exist solely for the purpose of employing their executives, which to me is a complete violation of trust. Unfortunately, there's nothing anyone can do but withdraw their support.
So I have a personal list of charities that will never receive another dollar of my money. Maybe we need a way to track the number of people that feel the same, a rating system for charities beyond simple economics.
We follow Accounting Principles Board Opinion 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, to account for stock option and employee stock purchase plans, which
generally does not require income statement recognition of options granted at the market price on the date of issuance.
Am I reading that wrong? I understand the question is whether they should be required to expense options, which Microsoft is clearly stating that it is not required to do.
Will my stock be worth less when those options are exercised, en masse, by employees fleeing a sinking ship? If the answer is yes, then companies should expense stock options.
In fact, it's amusing that this even requires discussion. Options are like any other debt, except that the eventual cost of paying off that debt is unknown. Companies are required to report outstanding debt. Why should options be any different?
You are not
on
Metal Velcro
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
even half right, and we're not competing here.
You paraphrased the article inaccurately, attributing the commercial potential you're talking about to a technology that isn't described. Your defense is that someone else previously pointed it out so that it's a "fair cop", and that Mick Hamer used the word "teasing" to describe the process to his intended audience in the article he wrote.
The "fast to create" that you speak of is a direct result of the technology you misrepresented. Your path does not lead to the "why", and that's unfortunate, because the why explains why the process may lead to incredible gains in:
Heat sink efficiency
Catalytic converter (and other smog-scrubbing technology) efficiency
Bone adhesion to artificial joint replacements or other medical prosthetics, like artificial teeth
Strength of metal-to-adhesive bonds
Strength of composite materials. A way to reduce or eliminate failure at the interface, which is the most common failure mode for composite materials
When you figure out how to do it with a laser, let us know (with a rotating crystal perhaps), and if it is a commercially viable technology discussed on slashdot, I'll bitch and whine when the first poster misses the point entirely. This isn't personal. I just couldn't pass on the need to set you straight because almost everyone will read the first post.
It doesn't "use lasers to melt the metal and tease the structures into being".
The process uses a beam of electrons; a laser is beam of photons. The process relies on surface tension to form the structures; they form on their own and are not "teased" at all.
You are neither interesting nor informative. I was going to mod you down, but because this process has tremendous commercial potential, I decided that it was more important to point out the facts are not in agreement with your summary. You're welcome.
Seriously, the customer has to learn that the reckless pursuit of lower prices, and conversely, the reckless pursuit of profit by shareholders, has consequences.
Walmart is the appropriate retail outlet for cheap, plastic, Chinese junk. But the average citizen needs to learn that what Walmart really represents is a vast income redistribution scheme, and the income that's being redistributed is theirs, to the third world. I'm in favor of raising the standard of living everywhere, but I do not believe that the global economy is a zero sum game and that some must lose so that others can gain.
I remembered Intuit's product activation scheme from last tax season (maybe a couple of years ago now). I sent them an angry letter and received a very odd phone call at my place of work from someone who had clearly been hired to make official apologies to everyone who announced their intention to defect to a competitor (in my case, Taxcut). The very odd thing was that the call was placed to my work phone. I didn't provide that number to Intuit.
I consider myself to be a very reasonable person - no point holding a grudge. But if I forgave Intuit and started using its product again after one year would that provide an incentive to Intuit not to engage in invasive licensing? If the company doesn't lose customers as a result of its policies and decisions, how does it learn? Money is the medium of corporate communication.
I would follow a similar chain of reasoning in this case, were I an EV1 customer. I would be one of the ones to defect because otherwise, EV1 has no incentive. There's probably enough competition in the local hosting market so that there is no noticable degradation in quality.
Otherwise I agree with you completely. It's refreshing to hear EV1's CEO make such an admission, but I would still defect. The cynic in me makes me wonder whether this is damage control. If the purpose of his admission is to short circuit the process of penalizing EV1 for its decision, how will it learn that it was the wrong thing to do? All EV1 would learn is to immediately back off and apologize for any unpopular decision. SCO still gets paid.
TDY = temporary duty, an "on loan" assignment to another unit.
RSDNCO = regimental staff duty non-commissioned officer. There's also a regimental staff duty officer (RSDO). Together, they're the point of contact for the regiment after everyone else is dismissed for the day.
OER = officer evaluation report. OERs and NCOERs are the military's version of the quarterly performance review or annual evaluation report used in the civilian sector.
Slashdot Mirror
The separate states have had some form of identification which records the four elements of information you mentioned for years. The definition of "photo ID" is pretty standard across the nation.
The problem is that the federal government has now decided that those identification cards are no longer acceptable, and mandated a solution to the problem through the RealID Act, but provided no funding to the separate states to achieve compliance. This will require the separate states to absorb the cost of complying with the Act. It's another unfunded mandate, and one which unfairly deprives otherwise law-abiding citizens of exercising their rights under Amendment One to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Which is exactly what caused the "American Experiment" in the first place.
If the federal government would agree to fund the Real ID Act, most of the complaining from the separate states would probably stop. Everyone more or less agrees that you shouldn't be able to acquire photo identification which says you're someone you're not. There are some privacy concerns, especially since the federal government hasn't demonstrated it is able to adequately police its own use of private, non-published information, and those safeguards should be strengthened.
But having real penalties for FBI agents who violate their neighbors' privacy to find out if their neighbors make more money than them, or lose their laptops, for example, would probably cause the problem of public servants abusing, or being careless with, their position of trust and authority to go away. When the mayor of Houston supports legislation that asserts the city should be free to place a closed-circuit television in the home of any minor offender, his house should be the first house wired. When Congress supports legislation allowing the FBI to expand its biometric database to everyone in the nation, they should be the first in line for cheek swabs. When the federal government mandates "Angel ID" or some other RFID-based solution to identity, every government representative should be chipped first, like dogs, starting with the President. And any citizen should be allowed to challenge any government representative, to essentially demand that the representative demonstrate his or her compliance with the law before requiring the citizen to comply.
specifically requires logs of your IM server to be maintained?
The increasing cost of sports programming is the reason my cable bill is increasing, not the increasing cost of the Discovery Channel, History Channel, or SciFi Channel. I've heard that the cost of bundling ESPN has doubled in the past three years. In fact, my cable provider tried to launch a grass-roots campaign to force ESPN to lower its prices several years ago which failed miserably.
So I'm subsidizing the increasing cost of ESPN, which I don't watch.
I suspect the reality of the situation is far more complicated, but I'd prefer to rely on the market to adjust my cable provider's offerings, than my provider's benevolence and sense of "fair play".
Accountability.
I needed that.
I read a story on /. until a condition is satisfied, as in: READ... UNTIL. My condition for this submission was: read until the first comment that, more or less, stated that language is flexible and that the erosion of written English should be expected, even embraced, by text messagers who lack command of proper written English, preferring instead to express themselves with whatever is easiest on their thumbs.
It was your comment - second post. Congratulations. It almost never happens that quickly.
just individual actors. Likewise, a corporation cannot have "rights", just privileges extended by individuals, or their government, however representative.
Adjust your vocabulary accordingly, then apologize.
So you are saying that this woman suffered "burns [that] extend into deeper tissues. [Third degree burns] cause white or blackened, charred skin that may be numb." I'm sure the woman in the McDonald's lawsuit was burned, but I find it hard to believe that simple reflex was not enough to limit the burn to second degree in a very small area with a surrounding corona of first degree redness. Fucking molten metal doesn't burn someone that badly if contact with skin is intermittent or of very short duration.
Fucking rebel. Really, it's that simple.
It's okay, we're all adults here. You can type "hell" with the "e". You can even type "fuck" or "cunt", if you like, without the asterisk.
The wise and timely use of invective and prophanity should be encouraged.
"Tools">""Options">"OpenOffice.org">"General">"H elp Agent">"Activate" (uncheck the little box)
Simple, really.
Black Sunday?
Me either, but I've seen the movie so many times that I've practically memorized the script.
Yes, and where I work the staff can't figure out how to locate a page for editing on the corporate webserver given its URL, add a personal folder to Outlook, or map to a workgroup templates folder without specific, step-by-step instructions. They treat the box on their desk like a combination electronic typewriter and "Internet machine". They are not stupid. They catch on quick when they see it done, but they don't know how to do those things because they've never had to do them.
How can training be a problem if they also have to be trained to use the Microsoft solution? You have to train them either way...
Behold.
Don't be the guy who thinks Pink says, "Look, Mommy, there's no plane up in the sky."
there's no doubt about it. Nonprofits exist to give a collective voice and purse to a group of people who would otherwise be mute or dependent on patronage.
I don't know what to do about it, except not donate. Various groups exist that track overhead spending by nonprofits, and more than a few nonprofits seem to exist solely for the purpose of employing their executives, which to me is a complete violation of trust. Unfortunately, there's nothing anyone can do but withdraw their support.
So I have a personal list of charities that will never receive another dollar of my money. Maybe we need a way to track the number of people that feel the same, a rating system for charities beyond simple economics.
Never give a charity with no purpose your address.
I once gave my address to The March of Dimes Foundation, but that was a mistake.
At present, the only charity with my current address is the local NPR affiliate, and they haven't abused it to my knowledge.
From Microsoft's most recent filing, dated 20030905, Form 10-K [emphasis added]:
Am I reading that wrong? I understand the question is whether they should be required to expense options, which Microsoft is clearly stating that it is not required to do.
Will my stock be worth less when those options are exercised, en masse, by employees fleeing a sinking ship? If the answer is yes, then companies should expense stock options.
In fact, it's amusing that this even requires discussion. Options are like any other debt, except that the eventual cost of paying off that debt is unknown. Companies are required to report outstanding debt. Why should options be any different?
even half right, and we're not competing here.
You paraphrased the article inaccurately, attributing the commercial potential you're talking about to a technology that isn't described. Your defense is that someone else previously pointed it out so that it's a "fair cop", and that Mick Hamer used the word "teasing" to describe the process to his intended audience in the article he wrote.
The "fast to create" that you speak of is a direct result of the technology you misrepresented. Your path does not lead to the "why", and that's unfortunate, because the why explains why the process may lead to incredible gains in:
When you figure out how to do it with a laser, let us know (with a rotating crystal perhaps), and if it is a commercially viable technology discussed on slashdot, I'll bitch and whine when the first poster misses the point entirely. This isn't personal. I just couldn't pass on the need to set you straight because almost everyone will read the first post.
It doesn't "use lasers to melt the metal and tease the structures into being".
The process uses a beam of electrons; a laser is beam of photons. The process relies on surface tension to form the structures; they form on their own and are not "teased" at all.
You are neither interesting nor informative. I was going to mod you down, but because this process has tremendous commercial potential, I decided that it was more important to point out the facts are not in agreement with your summary. You're welcome.
Seriously, the customer has to learn that the reckless pursuit of lower prices, and conversely, the reckless pursuit of profit by shareholders, has consequences.
Walmart is the appropriate retail outlet for cheap, plastic, Chinese junk. But the average citizen needs to learn that what Walmart really represents is a vast income redistribution scheme, and the income that's being redistributed is theirs, to the third world. I'm in favor of raising the standard of living everywhere, but I do not believe that the global economy is a zero sum game and that some must lose so that others can gain.
I remembered Intuit's product activation scheme from last tax season (maybe a couple of years ago now). I sent them an angry letter and received a very odd phone call at my place of work from someone who had clearly been hired to make official apologies to everyone who announced their intention to defect to a competitor (in my case, Taxcut). The very odd thing was that the call was placed to my work phone. I didn't provide that number to Intuit.
I consider myself to be a very reasonable person - no point holding a grudge. But if I forgave Intuit and started using its product again after one year would that provide an incentive to Intuit not to engage in invasive licensing? If the company doesn't lose customers as a result of its policies and decisions, how does it learn? Money is the medium of corporate communication.
I would follow a similar chain of reasoning in this case, were I an EV1 customer. I would be one of the ones to defect because otherwise, EV1 has no incentive. There's probably enough competition in the local hosting market so that there is no noticable degradation in quality.
Otherwise I agree with you completely. It's refreshing to hear EV1's CEO make such an admission, but I would still defect. The cynic in me makes me wonder whether this is damage control. If the purpose of his admission is to short circuit the process of penalizing EV1 for its decision, how will it learn that it was the wrong thing to do? All EV1 would learn is to immediately back off and apologize for any unpopular decision. SCO still gets paid.
Because that's exactly what I said: "degree" != "officer".
k? thx. bye.