There is a good reason for that. And if it didn't crash then it exercised a weekly (forced) reboot due to some updates
I just had that discussion with someone scared of using MS-based server software. He said -- I just looked at server uptime. Linux? 436 days. Windows? Since last Thursday.
idiotic "stand your ground" laws that absolve killers
Bullshit. The problem here is that police assumed that "stand your ground" law applies to someone who precipitated the confrontation. It really doesn't. (whether the law is good or bad is a different discussion)
If anything, "stand your ground" law should have applied if Trayvon killed Zimmerman. Then we could have had the debate on law's merit.
The DA's original assessment was that there wasn't even enough evidence to win a conviction, and that's consistent with the evidence that has come out since.
Well, this article makes think that there is enough evidence to at least try to get a convocation. Unless we don't actually live in a "post-racial" America?
4) include provisions to change if hacked. (Don't assume it's impossible, if someone manages to "copy" my hand...
Well, you'll just get a new hand...?
All the schemes with un-changeable authentication methods are such a bad idea. Hasn't using SSN demonstrated that? And I am sure once the biometric passports are widespread, they will prove that too.
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
True, but I think it is a discrimination issue, since access to Facebook would like provide answer to a host of questions they are explicitly forbidden to ask (e.g., age)
I believe that violates Facebook TOS (which may or may not be a felony, depending on if and how POTUS rules on that) in the same way as asking someone to provide their password to Facebook violates TOS.
Isn't it illegal to ask such things at an interview, since Facebook account likely to have some nuggets on your age/religion/etc?
Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.
Read his wikipedia page. Ron Paul is great in many ways (anti-war, pro-liberty, consistent in his views).
But he also plans to eliminate IRS and public schools. And I think all of health-related agencies (FDA, etc). I am concerned about that.
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
While I admire him for many of his views (anti-war, personal privacy, consistent, etc), Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He is not realistic in many of his plans - and he can get away with it because he doesn't really expect to win. For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools. How realistic is that?
People should know and defend their rights!!
Everyone (utility providers, eye doctor, dentists, etc) will ask you for a social security number by default. NONE of them are entitled to it and will suck it up if you refuse.
BestBuy may be mandating a drivers license copy for returns, but they have no right for that. And there is always a credit card chargeback if they think they are above the consumer protection laws.
Of course if you don't have your receipt, they may at least be legitimately able to refuse return...
It's quite obvious that people are abusing the system and that results in increased prices for everyone. As someone who doesn't abuse that, I welcome the move so we honest people get things cheaper.
Except that it never works that way. If all return fraud and abuse was eliminated today, not a single price would be reduced as a result. There is often the "official" reason and the "real" reason for these policies and I want to know more about the latter.
For example, everyone knows that you have the see a cashier at a gas station if you are paying cash. Officially, that's because of "drive-offs", i.e. people who would gas up and drive away. In practice, this happens (almost) never. In reality, people who pay with cash are good potential for an impulse buy when they are forced to come in to the store.
Monsanto is about to realize a dream: The absolute ownership of the food supply.
The article makes for a scary reading! "However, farmers remain free to sell the soybeans they grow in the commodity market,".
The implication here is that Monsanto may also eventually control farmer's ability to sell soybeans after they buy, plant and grow them?
Now, the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the case.
Supreme court already panders to the government quite a bit (e.g., commerce clause). Now they are going to reach out and ask what ruling the government wants?
AFAIK, Zimmerman has yet to go to trial (if ever), and reporting like this will only improperly skew the potential jury pool one way or another.
Of course there is always the possibility that the only reason this "may" ever go to trial is because the news was picked up. Media skew or not, I think Zimmerman should certainly go on trial to decide his innocence or guilt.
You don't know Zimmerman started the fight. From what I've seen reported, Zimmerman asked Martin a question, and Martin punched him, then jumped on Zimmerman and started to beat him.
Perhaps Martin was exercising his rights to the "stand your ground" law? If he reasonably thought his life was in danger from the stalker.
Keep in mind this "child" was 6'3" and 17 years old. Not the 12 year old boy the media is showing
That may be, but 17 year old is still a high school student (junior or senior?). There is just no way to make this look good for Zimmerman. He may not be guilty of murder once investigation concludes, but you are not going to convince me that he did everything perfectly right.
It's amazing that despite the fact that the media has intentionally and willfully distorted the facts surrounding this case there are still people who stand by their ill-informed decision to immediately convict the suspect.
Most of us want an investigation into the issue. It would seem (I may be wrong) that before the media outrage, Zimmerman was going to walk without as much as a police investigation.
he didn't start the fight.. according to him and corroborated by witnesses, he was walking back to his car when trayvon confronted him and attacked him.
That may be useful to bring up in court, but I'd still like to know why did Zimmerman follow Trayvon into the dark alley with a gun. He may be exonerated, but there is just no way to make Zimmerman a completely innocent bystander in all of this. He followed a teenager around in a car and then followed him on foot into an alley.
everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but when a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man
Trayvon WAS unarmed and quite possibly scared. I'd be concerned if someone followed me too. And 17 year old is (legally) quite different from adult.
If everybody on Slashdot gets an old phone, opens it up and leaves it on a plane...
Then everybody on slashdot will get detained, probed and then TSA will request additional funding based on the spikes in detaining/probing/confiscations.
Seriously, there is no positive outcome here. I think those people were handcuffed to create an appearance of hard work. TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist in over a decade of existence. The fact that they are still getting (increased) funding is hard to imagine.
Couldn't this have been solved in a matter of minutes if the TSA just asked a few questions... The same with the shooting in Florida. If both guys had just talked/asked questions that teenager would still be alive.
In both cases you optimistically assume that the goal of the participants is to resolve things amicably. It is not.
TSA likely prefers the fear-mongering (many passengers saw up to 11 people handcuffed! Evil terrorists are everywhere and TSA is our last salvation). As far as Florida - I have no proof and incomplete information -- but my guess is that the teenager got shot because the guy who shot him preferred (or at least didn't mind) this outcome.
law prohibiting merchants from charging extra for credit card transactions to cover the additional risk of fraud. Some merchants get around it by offering a cash discount.
I believe such cash discount are simply due to the Visa/Mastercard charging merchant (rather than buyer) a fee. Most of these cash discounts happen to be aroun 3%, which is exactly what merchants typically pay.
I stand corrected.
I've read several articles, but none mentioned eyewitnesses
If there were indeed 3 eyewitnesses, it should be easy to figure out if he's guilty or not.
In any case, eyewtinesses said they saw Treyvon beating up Zimmerman.
You are making shit up. Not a single article mentioned any eyewitnesses. If there had been some who could testify to that, I'd be more prone to believe the self-defense theory.
While it would be interesting to hear what the EMTs saw, if they say he appeared to have been beaten you won't believe them.
I would totally believe the EMTs if they testified to that under oath in court. Of course I wouldn't really believe Zimmerman's claims, since he obviously has a bit of a bias
Problem is, he's not had to defend himself in court, to bring all that exonerating evidence. Police just took his word for it.
Does disregarding an "order" by a 911 operator mean you deserve being beat up, without the right to defend yourself?
Fair point. I think at this point he lost the right to use deadly force (i.e. the gun). Even "stand your ground" law does not protect the instigator of the confrontation.
But let me correct myself: Whether he was justified or not, disregarding an order by a 911 operator means you deserve to be charged and forced to defend yourself in court. Otherwise it is just to convenient to kill someone if you feel like it.
If she get's a good lawyer, she will walk away with 10 years of her salary from the school.
That's wonderful and as should be. But will people who cost the school (i.e. taxpayers) legal fees and 10 years of salary be fired? Because otherwise these problems will repeat forever.
Slashdot Mirror
When Microsoft cuts the chord on XP
Cuts the cord?
Or is this some sort of operation that will prevent XP from playing guitar?
"My Computer crashed again, damn Microsoft!"
There is a good reason for that. And if it didn't crash then it exercised a weekly (forced) reboot due to some updates
I just had that discussion with someone scared of using MS-based server software. He said -- I just looked at server uptime. Linux? 436 days. Windows? Since last Thursday.
idiotic "stand your ground" laws that absolve killers
Bullshit. The problem here is that police assumed that "stand your ground" law applies to someone who precipitated the confrontation. It really doesn't. (whether the law is good or bad is a different discussion)
If anything, "stand your ground" law should have applied if Trayvon killed Zimmerman. Then we could have had the debate on law's merit.
The DA's original assessment was that there wasn't even enough evidence to win a conviction, and that's consistent with the evidence that has come out since.
Well, this article makes think that there is enough evidence to at least try to get a convocation. Unless we don't actually live in a "post-racial" America?
4) include provisions to change if hacked. (Don't assume it's impossible, if someone manages to "copy" my hand...
Well, you'll just get a new hand...?
All the schemes with un-changeable authentication methods are such a bad idea. Hasn't using SSN demonstrated that? And I am sure once the biometric passports are widespread, they will prove that too.
It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.
True, but I think it is a discrimination issue, since access to Facebook would like provide answer to a host of questions they are explicitly forbidden to ask (e.g., age)
So make a dummy Facebook account.
I believe that violates Facebook TOS (which may or may not be a felony, depending on if and how POTUS rules on that) in the same way as asking someone to provide their password to Facebook violates TOS.
Isn't it illegal to ask such things at an interview, since Facebook account likely to have some nuggets on your age/religion/etc?
Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.
Read his wikipedia page. Ron Paul is great in many ways (anti-war, pro-liberty, consistent in his views).
But he also plans to eliminate IRS and public schools. And I think all of health-related agencies (FDA, etc). I am concerned about that.
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
While I admire him for many of his views (anti-war, personal privacy, consistent, etc), Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He is not realistic in many of his plans - and he can get away with it because he doesn't really expect to win. For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools. How realistic is that?
Except that they are indeed saying that.
People should know and defend their rights!!
Everyone (utility providers, eye doctor, dentists, etc) will ask you for a social security number by default. NONE of them are entitled to it and will suck it up if you refuse.
BestBuy may be mandating a drivers license copy for returns, but they have no right for that. And there is always a credit card chargeback if they think they are above the consumer protection laws.
Of course if you don't have your receipt, they may at least be legitimately able to refuse return...
It's quite obvious that people are abusing the system and that results in increased prices for everyone. As someone who doesn't abuse that, I welcome the move so we honest people get things cheaper.
Except that it never works that way. If all return fraud and abuse was eliminated today, not a single price would be reduced as a result. There is often the "official" reason and the "real" reason for these policies and I want to know more about the latter.
For example, everyone knows that you have the see a cashier at a gas station if you are paying cash. Officially, that's because of "drive-offs", i.e. people who would gas up and drive away. In practice, this happens (almost) never. In reality, people who pay with cash are good potential for an impulse buy when they are forced to come in to the store.
Monsanto is about to realize a dream: The absolute ownership of the food supply.
The article makes for a scary reading!
"However, farmers remain free to sell the soybeans they grow in the commodity market,".
The implication here is that Monsanto may also eventually control farmer's ability to sell soybeans after they buy, plant and grow them?
Now, the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the case.
Supreme court already panders to the government quite a bit (e.g., commerce clause). Now they are going to reach out and ask what ruling the government wants?
AFAIK, Zimmerman has yet to go to trial (if ever), and reporting like this will only improperly skew the potential jury pool one way or another.
Of course there is always the possibility that the only reason this "may" ever go to trial is because the news was picked up. Media skew or not, I think Zimmerman should certainly go on trial to decide his innocence or guilt.
You don't know Zimmerman started the fight. From what I've seen reported, Zimmerman asked Martin a question, and Martin punched him, then jumped on Zimmerman and started to beat him.
Perhaps Martin was exercising his rights to the "stand your ground" law? If he reasonably thought his life was in danger from the stalker.
Keep in mind this "child" was 6'3" and 17 years old. Not the 12 year old boy the media is showing
That may be, but 17 year old is still a high school student (junior or senior?). There is just no way to make this look good for Zimmerman. He may not be guilty of murder once investigation concludes, but you are not going to convince me that he did everything perfectly right.
It's amazing that despite the fact that the media has intentionally and willfully distorted the facts surrounding this case there are still people who stand by their ill-informed decision to immediately convict the suspect.
Most of us want an investigation into the issue. It would seem (I may be wrong) that before the media outrage, Zimmerman was going to walk without as much as a police investigation.
he didn't start the fight.. according to him and corroborated by witnesses, he was walking back to his car when trayvon confronted him and attacked him.
That may be useful to bring up in court, but I'd still like to know why did Zimmerman follow Trayvon into the dark alley with a gun. He may be exonerated, but there is just no way to make Zimmerman a completely innocent bystander in all of this. He followed a teenager around in a car and then followed him on foot into an alley.
everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but when a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man
Trayvon WAS unarmed and quite possibly scared. I'd be concerned if someone followed me too. And 17 year old is (legally) quite different from adult.
If everybody on Slashdot gets an old phone, opens it up and leaves it on a plane...
Then everybody on slashdot will get detained, probed and then TSA will request additional funding based on the spikes in detaining/probing/confiscations.
Seriously, there is no positive outcome here. I think those people were handcuffed to create an appearance of hard work. TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist in over a decade of existence. The fact that they are still getting (increased) funding is hard to imagine.
Couldn't this have been solved in a matter of minutes if the TSA just asked a few questions ... The same with the shooting in Florida. If both guys had just talked/asked questions that teenager would still be alive.
In both cases you optimistically assume that the goal of the participants is to resolve things amicably. It is not.
TSA likely prefers the fear-mongering (many passengers saw up to 11 people handcuffed! Evil terrorists are everywhere and TSA is our last salvation).
As far as Florida - I have no proof and incomplete information -- but my guess is that the teenager got shot because the guy who shot him preferred (or at least didn't mind) this outcome.
law prohibiting merchants from charging extra for credit card transactions to cover the additional risk of fraud. Some merchants get around it by offering a cash discount.
I believe such cash discount are simply due to the Visa/Mastercard charging merchant (rather than buyer) a fee. Most of these cash discounts happen to be aroun 3%, which is exactly what merchants typically pay.
I stand corrected. I've read several articles, but none mentioned eyewitnesses
If there were indeed 3 eyewitnesses, it should be easy to figure out if he's guilty or not.
In any case, eyewtinesses said they saw Treyvon beating up Zimmerman.
You are making shit up. Not a single article mentioned any eyewitnesses. If there had been some who could testify to that, I'd be more prone to believe the self-defense theory.
While it would be interesting to hear what the EMTs saw, if they say he appeared to have been beaten you won't believe them.
I would totally believe the EMTs if they testified to that under oath in court. Of course I wouldn't really believe Zimmerman's claims, since he obviously has a bit of a bias
Problem is, he's not had to defend himself in court, to bring all that exonerating evidence. Police just took his word for it.
Does disregarding an "order" by a 911 operator mean you deserve being beat up, without the right to defend yourself?
Fair point. I think at this point he lost the right to use deadly force (i.e. the gun). Even "stand your ground" law does not protect the instigator of the confrontation.
But let me correct myself: Whether he was justified or not, disregarding an order by a 911 operator means you deserve to be charged and forced to defend yourself in court. Otherwise it is just to convenient to kill someone if you feel like it.
If she get's a good lawyer, she will walk away with 10 years of her salary from the school.
That's wonderful and as should be. But will people who cost the school (i.e. taxpayers) legal fees and 10 years of salary be fired? Because otherwise these problems will repeat forever.