I've worked in the government and it is not efficient.
In my experience, most of the money goes to administrative related stuff while some of it goes to equipment and such.
Generally, each agency is headed by political cronies that have no experience or little in the area they work in. This is especially true with government CIO/CTOs.
What usually ends up happening is the ranks in an agency ignore the political cronies as much as possible. Dosen't make for efficient or good policy.
So, don't be too surprised the SEC wastes that much money.
It is very simple. It means that if you give up liberty simply for security, chances are good you won't get either.
Why? If you don't have liberty, what is to stop the FBI from breaking into your house because someone tipped them off that you once went to someplace in the Middle East?
Or at the airport, they often search you now without a probably reason to do so.
Did you know that the House Majority Leader (a Republican) recently criticized the 'Bush Justice Dept. saying it "was out of control" (his words).
That was in an article today in the print edition of USA Today. Might be online.
The ACLU campaign aims to promote a public debate about proposals and measures that violate civil liberties without increasing our security."
Say it violates civil liberties, but don't say it doesn't increase our security. I'd like to see that claim hold up. That's just a rationalization they make to make themselves feel 100% okay with their work.
"Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin
Frankly very few of the people at Earthlink have any connection with Scientology. That is like saying 10% of earning go to the Catholic Church because a certain number of executive give money to the church.
I don't like Scientology but, you strike me as someone who is spreading FUD.
Mind you there are some decent free apps for windows (never said there weren't) but, there are fewer of them than on alternative platforms (free ones that are decent).
HTMLkit for example is a free Windows HTML editor.
On the Mac, there is a lot of freeware utilites and other things and the same freature set will cost money under Windows.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, fanboys? If it isn't true, explain to me why what are free utilities for Windows machines are $20-$30 extortionware for the Mac.
:stares in disbelief:
um actually, stuff that is Free under the MacOS/MacOS X costs money on Windows for the same thing from another developer.
I use Windows at work and getting the same function as provided by a freeware Mac app costs money on Windows.
Mind you there are always exceptions to the rule.
My theory is that all Windows developers code fro money while some developers on other platforms code to give something back or just for the love of the platform (be it Linux, BSD, Mac, or something else).
College is where people are taught to turn off their minds and subscribe to politically-correct orthodoxy, so shearing the sheep at the shearing station is the right tack for Valenti et al.
Wouldn't that depend where you go to college? Here at RIT you have to think to do well. I mean you can't get away with what you just mentioned in a liberal arts class here, you'd have to actually have an opinion of your own.
Standards are legally required for web sites when the site isn't accessible otherwise.
This is basically the same as the physical accessibility issues that the ADA addresses.
Same principle.
Isn't it sad that people even need to be told to do this by law? I mean not doing it is either incompetence, laziness, negligence, or heaven forbid discrimination.
No where do the blind ask for being able to drive or anything like that just to be able to access what they need to.
I said to talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me about the ADA.
I have asked said lawyer you are the one who I'm calling the bluff on.
There are plenty of blind web users out there to justify making a site accessible. Besides making a site accessible basically means good coding practices and using standards which, I might add you should have done in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be Colonial Brazil/Brasil, Colonial, Mexico, etc.
That is how it is referred to in the US anyway.
Actually there was a colony in the 1500 in the British area of North America but, if my memory is correct failed.
I must have misremembered.
My memory said 30 years.
When people in the US say American in the 1500's they really mean Colonial America (aka British America).
As in the area of the eastern US before independence.
And they can't enforce it. :grins:
It was filed in 1983 and granted in December of 1985 so, we have a bit over a decade until it expires.
You will notice Unisys claims they can apply it to viewers so, that would apply to lots of things. Thus it isn't enforceable at all.
If you have to ask, you aren't in government. :-/
I've worked in the government and it is not efficient.
In my experience, most of the money goes to administrative related stuff while some of it goes to equipment and such.
Generally, each agency is headed by political cronies that have no experience or little in the area they work in. This is especially true with government CIO/CTOs.
What usually ends up happening is the ranks in an agency ignore the political cronies as much as possible. Dosen't make for efficient or good policy.
So, don't be too surprised the SEC wastes that much money.
How does using a Mac make the company that uses them dead?
Whatever, I'm probably replying to someone completely clueless or a troll. Knowing some of the people here, I'll bet on the former.
I should point out that the people Apple uses in the Switch commercial are real.
Here is how they got picked:
Apple asks for feedback why Windows users switched to the Mac.
Actual switchers send in an e-mail about why.
Switcher material is looked over by Apple and a few are picked to be called if they want to be in a commercial.
This is generally how it happens.
There are two celebity's though that are just providing testimonials that are true but, they didn't switch anytime recently.
All of that is true which, I can't say for MS.
Oh?
It is very simple. It means that if you give up liberty simply for security, chances are good you won't get either.
Why? If you don't have liberty, what is to stop the FBI from breaking into your house because someone tipped them off that you once went to someplace in the Middle East?
Or at the airport, they often search you now without a probably reason to do so.
Did you know that the House Majority Leader (a Republican) recently criticized the 'Bush Justice Dept. saying it "was out of control" (his words). That was in an article today in the print edition of USA Today. Might be online.
You wrote:
"Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin
Franklin says it better than I probably could.
I use Earthlink and this borders on slander.
Frankly very few of the people at Earthlink have any connection with Scientology. That is like saying 10% of earning go to the Catholic Church because a certain number of executive give money to the church.
I don't like Scientology but, you strike me as someone who is spreading FUD.
Mostly true.
There is also something known as false advertising which can get a company a hefty fine.
Knowing MS, they'd just pay it as chump change.
The person in question works for MS so, this whole thing is bunk (MS's page that is)
However, don't be sure that Don couldn't be a girl or possibly a TS of some sort.
Um, no.
The Twentieth Aniversary Macitosh was there first.
"most" is indeed what I meant.
That was a general rule.
Every rule has exceptions.
Mind you there are some decent free apps for windows (never said there weren't) but, there are fewer of them than on alternative platforms (free ones that are decent).
HTMLkit for example is a free Windows HTML editor.
On the Mac, there is a lot of freeware utilites and other things and the same freature set will cost money under Windows.
Basically it is a matter of numbers.
For a moment there I thought you meant QT insead of Qt
We need to do something about the abbreviation confusion.
You wrote:
:stares in disbelief:
um actually, stuff that is Free under the MacOS/MacOS X costs money on Windows for the same thing from another developer.
I use Windows at work and getting the same function as provided by a freeware Mac app costs money on Windows.
Mind you there are always exceptions to the rule.
My theory is that all Windows developers code fro money while some developers on other platforms code to give something back or just for the love of the platform (be it Linux, BSD, Mac, or something else).
You wrote:
C++?Objective-C is an extensions to C (like C++) but, for the extensions draws on Smalltalk for inspiration.
In addition you wrote:
Cocoa is an updated NeXT API.
You wrote:
Wouldn't that depend where you go to college? Here at RIT you have to think to do well. I mean you can't get away with what you just mentioned in a liberal arts class here, you'd have to actually have an opinion of your own.
No I don't.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I expect to pay for transport like everyone else. However, I expect there to be some kind of transport system in the area in question.
Why do so many people here assume that I want things on a silver platter?
Standards are legally required for web sites when the site isn't accessible otherwise.
This is basically the same as the physical accessibility issues that the ADA addresses.
Same principle.
Isn't it sad that people even need to be told to do this by law? I mean not doing it is either incompetence, laziness, negligence, or heaven forbid discrimination.
No where do the blind ask for being able to drive or anything like that just to be able to access what they need to.
No.
You said and I quote:
Followed by:
I never said anything about suing you. You however, claimed I had no idea what I was talking about as mentioned in the quotes.
You calling my bluff?
I said to talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me about the ADA.
I have asked said lawyer you are the one who I'm calling the bluff on.
There are plenty of blind web users out there to justify making a site accessible. Besides making a site accessible basically means good coding practices and using standards which, I might add you should have done in the first place.
No I don't drive and don't expect you to pay for that.
What I do expect is a way to do it.
I and other doin't care what way it is done as long as accesability is there.
And no you don't have to make the streets safe for blind drivers. You do however, have to have some means of public transport.