This is why i felt the telcos deserve some immunity - they were illegally requested to do things in a way that may have appeared valid to their legal counsel.
If so, they didn't break the law and their prosecution at trial will fail. So why do they need blanket immunity? You quietly corrected his word usage without pointing it out? Sir, I salute you.
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. IANAL, but the telecoms were complicit in breaking the law. I'm not saying they wouldn't have run into a whole lot of hassle from the gov't for refusing to engage in such complicity. I'm simply saying that if they took the high ground, there would be no need for IMMUNITY FROM LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY TELECOM CUSTOMERS because there would be no grounds for telecom customers to sue them.
If the telecom companies gave up information -- the minimum necessary that they were required to hand over in order to comply with the law, that could be an justification for immunity. If they gave up only that which was required in order to comply with the law (which is zero, in the warrantless cases), there would be no need for immunity.
So you're saying that you owe society nothing for providing the stimulus to your amazing brain? That everything that comes out of my brain is MINE MINE MINE and has nothing to do with the world I live in? That's a pretty high standard you're setting for the "Right to Own", isn't it? You didn't create the land you live on, and you didn't manufacture the atoms of anything you've made, nor were any atoms made by the people you've bought things from, yet you don't seem to object to the concept of physical property.
Has *anybody* who read my GP post looked at the article and seen the part where Dubya insisted that Sweden was neutral even after someone corrected him and told him it was Switzerland?
As for the mathematical sense, you've provided neither an example nor a citation. As for the colloquial sense, you entirely missed my point. I'm aware, obviously, of the existence of the colloquial sense. My point was that the colloquial sense is nothing more than an egregious abuse of mathematical terminology.
Great, let's all dumb down to the lowest common denominator. There's no such thing as a "lowest common denominator". There's a "greatest common denominator" and a "least common multiple".
(Is being a math Nazi as bad as being a grammar Nazi?):-)
There's plenty evidence that 9/11 was the most devastating attack on US soil in the 20th century.
Hell, I'd like to see some evidence that 9/11 was a devastating attack on US soil in the 20th century. Sorry, but I just don't buy into your calendar-manufacturer conspiracy theories.
Because it's next. Because we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is on a timeline of explorations and this is What's next.
Well structured code doesn't need comments, you should be able to just look at the source and understand it.
Ideally, yes. The less in need of comments it is, the better it is, generally.
It also helps if you make it readable instead of something that resembles line noise.
Whoa there, nellie! It also helps to make it readable not not resemble line noise? I thought that was implied by the "doesn't need coments" remark in the first place! Are you saying that you've seen will structured code that doesn't need comments, but which is sometimes unreadable and resembles line noise?
I think you should write code as if you weren't going to comment it, and then comment it anyway. Comment anything unusual you do. If there's a more obvious way to do something, explain why you're not using it. If the obvious way is flawed, explain how. If the obvious way is slower, explain why your way is faster. If you're working around a bug in the compiler, say so, and include in the comments how you would have written the code if the compiler didn't have the bug.
but this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits.
As opposed to the problems that the absence of such a record creates for the victims of repeat drunk drivers and spousal abuse.
Whoever applied that "funny" mod to the gazillionth incarnation of the "I'm going to patent patenting" joke deserves to be meta-modded deep into hell's septic tank.
It feels like there's nothing we can do to stop idiots like Ted Stevens from getting elected.
Did I miss something about Stevens? Did he say something outrageous like like propose logging every packet in order to help fight terrorism? I mean, it can't just be the "series of tubes" thing, right? Look, I like Jon Stewart as much as the next guy, probably more so, but continuing to make fun of him like that just seems to make it apparent that there really wasn't all that much to make fun of. I mean, the guy uses a perfectly reasonable analogy to convey the point that the Internet itself is merely a conduit of information, and is not responsible for the "dump-trucks" full of crap that are congesting it, and all of a sudden he becomes the poster-boy for elderly computer illiteracy? I don't get it.
Does anyone here really think Stevens was under the mistaken impression that the Internet is physically implmemented in the form of hollow cylindrical tubes through which we push little capsules containing IP packets written on paper, like at the drive-thru teller at the bank? Can I get a show of hands? Anybody?
Please, please, please tell me it's not just the tubes thing.
Just out of curiosity, what's the operational distinction between having the option to have it returned, and having the right to have it returned? In each case, I get to choose whether I want it, right?
Slashdot Mirror
If so, they didn't break the law and their prosecution at trial will fail. So why do they need blanket immunity? You quietly corrected his word usage without pointing it out? Sir, I salute you.
Are you saying you own no property at all? Or are you admitting that you're a thief?
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. IANAL, but the telecoms were complicit in breaking the law. I'm not saying they wouldn't have run into a whole lot of hassle from the gov't for refusing to engage in such complicity. I'm simply saying that if they took the high ground, there would be no need for IMMUNITY FROM LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY TELECOM CUSTOMERS because there would be no grounds for telecom customers to sue them.
All software is a form of math,
All hardware is a form of physics,
Thanks. I'm glad *somebody* bothered to read it!
Has *anybody* who read my GP post looked at the article and seen the part where Dubya insisted that Sweden was neutral even after someone corrected him and told him it was Switzerland?
I can see Bush figuring that attacking Sweden would be a piece of cake, seeing as how they're a neutral country with no army.
There. Does that qualify as understating the importance?
Or, perhaps you meant, "The importance of this *cannot* be overstated"?
As for the mathematical sense, you've provided neither an example nor a citation. As for the colloquial sense, you entirely missed my point. I'm aware, obviously, of the existence of the colloquial sense. My point was that the colloquial sense is nothing more than an egregious abuse of mathematical terminology.
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
-- Frank Zappa
(Is being a math Nazi as bad as being a grammar Nazi?)
There's plenty evidence that 9/11 was the most devastating attack on US soil in the 20th century.
Hell, I'd like to see some evidence that 9/11 was a devastating attack on US soil in the 20th century. Sorry, but I just don't buy into your calendar-manufacturer conspiracy theories.
"Atheism is a religion in much the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby". -Richard Dawkins
Well structured code doesn't need comments, you should be able to just look at the source and understand it.
Ideally, yes. The less in need of comments it is, the better it is, generally.
It also helps if you make it readable instead of something that resembles line noise.
Whoa there, nellie! It also helps to make it readable not not resemble line noise? I thought that was implied by the "doesn't need coments" remark in the first place! Are you saying that you've seen will structured code that doesn't need comments, but which is sometimes unreadable and resembles line noise?
I think you should write code as if you weren't going to comment it, and then comment it anyway. Comment anything unusual you do. If there's a more obvious way to do something, explain why you're not using it. If the obvious way is flawed, explain how. If the obvious way is slower, explain why your way is faster. If you're working around a bug in the compiler, say so, and include in the comments how you would have written the code if the compiler didn't have the bug.
but this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits.
As opposed to the problems that the absence of such a record creates for the victims of repeat drunk drivers and spousal abuse.
It's not over yet. Maybe Oprah will endorse HD-DVD.
Whoever applied that "funny" mod to the gazillionth incarnation of the "I'm going to patent patenting" joke deserves to be meta-modded deep into hell's septic tank.
US already has lower life expectancy [...]
That's a tribute to our productivity. We can complete a lifetime in far less time than those european slackers.
It feels like there's nothing we can do to stop idiots like Ted Stevens from getting elected.
Did I miss something about Stevens? Did he say something outrageous like like propose logging every packet in order to help fight terrorism? I mean, it can't just be the "series of tubes" thing, right? Look, I like Jon Stewart as much as the next guy, probably more so, but continuing to make fun of him like that just seems to make it apparent that there really wasn't all that much to make fun of. I mean, the guy uses a perfectly reasonable analogy to convey the point that the Internet itself is merely a conduit of information, and is not responsible for the "dump-trucks" full of crap that are congesting it, and all of a sudden he becomes the poster-boy for elderly computer illiteracy? I don't get it.
Does anyone here really think Stevens was under the mistaken impression that the Internet is physically implmemented in the form of hollow cylindrical tubes through which we push little capsules containing IP packets written on paper, like at the drive-thru teller at the bank? Can I get a show of hands? Anybody?
Please, please, please tell me it's not just the tubes thing.
I wasn't familiar with Excel in 85. What innovative features did it have that VisiCalc was lacking?
Just out of curiosity, what's the operational distinction between having the option to have it returned, and having the right to have it returned? In each case, I get to choose whether I want it, right?