I got my info from here, the first result when googling "12 states two-party recording."
The third link says:
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Which is, of course, eleven states. I don't care enough to find out more--I already know that my state (PA) is one of 'em.
It's a very minor point to be sure, and perhaps only a personal nitpick, but to me it feels like an ad-hoc veneer over a hodge-podge labyrinthine system, which is exactly what it is--especially in the Zune's case, which isn't even in the same domain. Contrast that to Apple's design that leaves the user at the friendly URL he entered: it makes the internal structure of the site feel simple, logical, and consistent.
I could also make the case that friendly URLs are less likely to be used if the user is redirected, but that is incidental. It's mostly an aesthetic thing, and rest assured I wouldn't have brought it up (or likely even been conscious of it) had this article and thread not already been here. =)
Agreed - you only hear about cave-ins because they're more sensational and because there are more likely to be people in a cave than in a storm drain at any given time.
I've never been in a big city storm drain, but from the images I've seen they can be just as varied and interesting as natural caves. If anyone has info on good ones in the Philadelphia area, inform me at gmail please! (That goes for more caves, too--the only one I know of is a good-sized one along the Susquehanna, and that's quite the western trek for me).
Sure, Bush's bunch created DHS, but Obama's crew is keeping it alive and well. Do the democrats get a free pass for inheriting a mess even if they choose to do nothing or make it more onerous?
I'm not suggesting a "democrats" tag be added, but that whoever tagged it "republicans" needs to think more clearly about the trend of *all* administrations over the past few decades instead of pointing fingers at whichever face of the Party they like least.
T-Mobile has issues with everything. My girlfriend is on their network and they are just horrible with coverage, service, pretty much everything. I'm on Cingular and we have similar problems to yours, as well as out-of-order texts which can get very confusing.
I checked out the boost coverage map before my original response--the problem is I've recently moved, and slightly embarrassed to admit that I'm not entirely sure where my tiny town is on their map, but there are two sizable coverage gaps in its general area. My contract isn't up for another 4 months anyway, so I have time to do some cartography.
I've been keeping my eye on Boost for some time now. It looks to me like I live in a no-service pocket, but if I move or if they increase coverage, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
I found some linked from this writeup. It's a neat sound, one I'm tempted to sample and throw into music, but then again I say that after hearing almost anything.
I never used Safari enough to notice, but that is apparently a good thing. Now that you mention it, I see the problem with it and it doesn't look like such a good idea after all.
There are multiple cures for cancer out there. We hear about some of them on Slashdot, and I know of two basically uncontested cures through someone who works in big pharma. But it takes years and years of testing to even get approval for human trials, and then another handfuls of years to put all your ducks in a row to start producing and marketing it, all for the sake of safety.
Western society has forgotten that everything carries risks, and often greater risks are coupled with greater rewards. I can understand putting restrictions on what products can be mass-marketed, but if there is some untested drug out there that can help me with a condition of mine, and if I am willing to accept the risks of taking such an untested drug, I ought to be able to take it regardless of whether or not it is FDA approved.
I like tabs on top because it makes them "pop" more--I save almost 0.1 second when hunting for an open tab at the top of the window compared to looking past the normal clutter to a lower tab bar! The lost title bar functionality doesn't affect me much since I always browse in a maximized window, but the mockup shows a thin strip above the tabs which should help those who don't.
The Windows 7 stuff doesn't excite me, because I am no longer a Windows user except here at work, where we will not be moving to 7 anytime soon.
The nicest feature IMO looks to be the combo stop/refresh/go button. That makes so much sense that I'm surprised I haven't seen it before. It removes excess buttons from the UI and shows only the functionality that makes sense within the current context. Very nice.
Oh, I am well aware of those. There was the "brain tumor" patient from Canada who came to the US to get care and was shuttled around the conservative circuit as being someone who would have died waiting had she stayed in Canada. Turns out everyone in the medical industry knew that her tumor is benign, and would not have killed her. Did it cause discomfort? I don't know--everything is so polarized that very few people are after the truth. Is discomfort enough to claim that the system has failed someone? That's something for each individual to decide, but it's a more interesting topic than something built on a lie.
I also made sure to mention in my post that there are ~8 million chronically uninsured people in the US, because the post I replied to implied (through omission) that there were none. If legislation were created that specifically targeted those people, in truth I would still likely be opposed to it because I have a libertarian mindset. Yet I would be less angry about it because it would be less burdensome to taxpayers than the proposed behemoth, it would be legislation honestly written, and it would have a better chance of doing some good.
I got an email from the C4L today that says 'congressional leaders are attempting to overcome their scheme's plunging approval numbers by manipulating Ted Kennedy's death to create support for a "legacy" health care bill.' I have yet to hear this anywhere else, and the bigger C4L has gotten the less I trust its content, but if true it's a shameful tactic, naming the bill for the American people as the PATRIOT act was named for Congress in a cheap ploy to secure passage.
There's a lot of misinformation flying around on all sides (note that there are more than two). The biggest culprit is the media, who takes the White House at its word or listens to the bizarre concoctions of Republican leaders without doing any further investigation, and those two groups are only slightly less culpable. Most of the time when you hear someone on/. spouting nonsense, it's because he heard it straight from people at the top. Honest discourse doesn't exist very much in this country any longer, and we are all poorer for it.
1) Jason Statham is a British actor. 2) Britain is also called England. 3) Ergo, Jason Statham is an English person, 4) and it is perfectly sensible to watch a film about an English person in an English class.
You obviously didn't take any logic courses during your public education.
Wish I had mod points left. The "47 million" number is bandied about so often by everyone from the President down to NPR radio hosts and everyone's simply accepted it. There are people who are chronically uninsured, but that number is around 8 million, or 2.6% of the population. The problem is magnified both to get more support for reform, and to get support for sweeping changes instead of something narrow in scope actually targeted at those who need it most.
Those of you that are for Obama's health care reforms, take note. (While I'm at it, I'd also like to say that I don't like the current system any more than you do; I simply have different ideas on how it should be changed--namely, for the better.)
...unless you're using a laptop with a hard drive that's nearly full. Yes, they make nice, physically-tiny informationally-big USB drives now, but this'll keep me going for another month or so.
The problem lies not with the stories, but with the label. "Science Fiction" is little more than a new label on "fantasy" that is more acceptable to modern readers. As Gene Wolfe says, "All fiction is fantasy, some is just more honest about it." Most SF except for "hard SF" really does use the fantastic elements as a backdrop for character dilemmas and plot development, exploring the themes of humanity. They are often thought experiments that would be very dry if written in an academic manner but become engaging through the use of a story framework. Even "Hard SF," while generally more focused on the scientific aspects, often contains elements that are nowhere near practically possible in the present, and one could argue that many staple elements of fantasy are equally plausible in the future ("Any sufficient technology is indistinguishable from magic," says Arthur C. Clarke).
It is undeniable that SF and fantasy have different flavors, but the dividing line between them isn't so much a line as it is a shifting, subjective porous border. They both fit under the label "speculative fiction" which isn't catchy enough to gain traction, and "science fiction" is so entrenched that the genre will probably never get a better label. We just have to keep in mind that "science fiction" is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive term, and that it should be more accurately called "science-y fiction."
Slashdot Mirror
I got my info from here, the first result when googling "12 states two-party recording."
The third link says:
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Which is, of course, eleven states. I don't care enough to find out more--I already know that my state (PA) is one of 'em.
Yeah, the original was a vertical list.
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington
"Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."
It's a very minor point to be sure, and perhaps only a personal nitpick, but to me it feels like an ad-hoc veneer over a hodge-podge labyrinthine system, which is exactly what it is--especially in the Zune's case, which isn't even in the same domain. Contrast that to Apple's design that leaves the user at the friendly URL he entered: it makes the internal structure of the site feel simple, logical, and consistent.
I could also make the case that friendly URLs are less likely to be used if the user is redirected, but that is incidental. It's mostly an aesthetic thing, and rest assured I wouldn't have brought it up (or likely even been conscious of it) had this article and thread not already been here. =)
www.microsoft.com/office redirects to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx
www.microsoft.com/office2007 redirects to http://www.microsoft.com/office/2007-rlt/en-US/Office
www.microsoft.com/zune redirects to http://social.zune.net/home.aspx?culture=en-us
this does not inspire confidence.
The article I read says they were planning on using hydrogen peroxide as the explosive.
WTF? Were they going to plant a paper-mache volcano in the passenger cabin?
Agreed - you only hear about cave-ins because they're more sensational and because there are more likely to be people in a cave than in a storm drain at any given time.
I've never been in a big city storm drain, but from the images I've seen they can be just as varied and interesting as natural caves. If anyone has info on good ones in the Philadelphia area, inform me at gmail please! (That goes for more caves, too--the only one I know of is a good-sized one along the Susquehanna, and that's quite the western trek for me).
Sure, Bush's bunch created DHS, but Obama's crew is keeping it alive and well. Do the democrats get a free pass for inheriting a mess even if they choose to do nothing or make it more onerous?
I'm not suggesting a "democrats" tag be added, but that whoever tagged it "republicans" needs to think more clearly about the trend of *all* administrations over the past few decades instead of pointing fingers at whichever face of the Party they like least.
as that was my first thought too upon reading the headline =)
T-Mobile has issues with everything. My girlfriend is on their network and they are just horrible with coverage, service, pretty much everything. I'm on Cingular and we have similar problems to yours, as well as out-of-order texts which can get very confusing.
I checked out the boost coverage map before my original response--the problem is I've recently moved, and slightly embarrassed to admit that I'm not entirely sure where my tiny town is on their map, but there are two sizable coverage gaps in its general area. My contract isn't up for another 4 months anyway, so I have time to do some cartography.
I've been keeping my eye on Boost for some time now. It looks to me like I live in a no-service pocket, but if I move or if they increase coverage, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
I found some linked from this writeup. It's a neat sound, one I'm tempted to sample and throw into music, but then again I say that after hearing almost anything.
Yep. "Normal" is an illusory artifact of statistics and has nothing to do with empirical reality.
I never used Safari enough to notice, but that is apparently a good thing. Now that you mention it, I see the problem with it and it doesn't look like such a good idea after all.
There are multiple cures for cancer out there. We hear about some of them on Slashdot, and I know of two basically uncontested cures through someone who works in big pharma. But it takes years and years of testing to even get approval for human trials, and then another handfuls of years to put all your ducks in a row to start producing and marketing it, all for the sake of safety.
Western society has forgotten that everything carries risks, and often greater risks are coupled with greater rewards. I can understand putting restrictions on what products can be mass-marketed, but if there is some untested drug out there that can help me with a condition of mine, and if I am willing to accept the risks of taking such an untested drug, I ought to be able to take it regardless of whether or not it is FDA approved.
I like tabs on top because it makes them "pop" more--I save almost 0.1 second when hunting for an open tab at the top of the window compared to looking past the normal clutter to a lower tab bar! The lost title bar functionality doesn't affect me much since I always browse in a maximized window, but the mockup shows a thin strip above the tabs which should help those who don't.
The Windows 7 stuff doesn't excite me, because I am no longer a Windows user except here at work, where we will not be moving to 7 anytime soon.
The nicest feature IMO looks to be the combo stop/refresh/go button. That makes so much sense that I'm surprised I haven't seen it before. It removes excess buttons from the UI and shows only the functionality that makes sense within the current context. Very nice.
In the case of HIV, that means the host will have more sexual partners, giving that less deadly strain more hosts to infect.
So, wait...getting the HIV will guarantee you more sexual partners? No wonder it's so popular!
then everything will become an emergency.
That was really the only problem you had with the post? Wow.
Oh, I am well aware of those. There was the "brain tumor" patient from Canada who came to the US to get care and was shuttled around the conservative circuit as being someone who would have died waiting had she stayed in Canada. Turns out everyone in the medical industry knew that her tumor is benign, and would not have killed her. Did it cause discomfort? I don't know--everything is so polarized that very few people are after the truth. Is discomfort enough to claim that the system has failed someone? That's something for each individual to decide, but it's a more interesting topic than something built on a lie.
I also made sure to mention in my post that there are ~8 million chronically uninsured people in the US, because the post I replied to implied (through omission) that there were none. If legislation were created that specifically targeted those people, in truth I would still likely be opposed to it because I have a libertarian mindset. Yet I would be less angry about it because it would be less burdensome to taxpayers than the proposed behemoth, it would be legislation honestly written, and it would have a better chance of doing some good.
I got an email from the C4L today that says 'congressional leaders are attempting to overcome their scheme's plunging approval numbers by manipulating Ted Kennedy's death to create support for a "legacy" health care bill.' I have yet to hear this anywhere else, and the bigger C4L has gotten the less I trust its content, but if true it's a shameful tactic, naming the bill for the American people as the PATRIOT act was named for Congress in a cheap ploy to secure passage.
There's a lot of misinformation flying around on all sides (note that there are more than two). The biggest culprit is the media, who takes the White House at its word or listens to the bizarre concoctions of Republican leaders without doing any further investigation, and those two groups are only slightly less culpable. Most of the time when you hear someone on /. spouting nonsense, it's because he heard it straight from people at the top. Honest discourse doesn't exist very much in this country any longer, and we are all poorer for it.
I wish I had a solution.
1) Jason Statham is a British actor.
2) Britain is also called England.
3) Ergo, Jason Statham is an English person,
4) and it is perfectly sensible to watch a film about an English person in an English class.
You obviously didn't take any logic courses during your public education.
Wish I had mod points left. The "47 million" number is bandied about so often by everyone from the President down to NPR radio hosts and everyone's simply accepted it. There are people who are chronically uninsured, but that number is around 8 million, or 2.6% of the population. The problem is magnified both to get more support for reform, and to get support for sweeping changes instead of something narrow in scope actually targeted at those who need it most.
Those of you that are for Obama's health care reforms, take note. (While I'm at it, I'd also like to say that I don't like the current system any more than you do; I simply have different ideas on how it should be changed--namely, for the better.)
disseminated?
...unless you're using a laptop with a hard drive that's nearly full. Yes, they make nice, physically-tiny informationally-big USB drives now, but this'll keep me going for another month or so.
The problem lies not with the stories, but with the label. "Science Fiction" is little more than a new label on "fantasy" that is more acceptable to modern readers. As Gene Wolfe says, "All fiction is fantasy, some is just more honest about it." Most SF except for "hard SF" really does use the fantastic elements as a backdrop for character dilemmas and plot development, exploring the themes of humanity. They are often thought experiments that would be very dry if written in an academic manner but become engaging through the use of a story framework. Even "Hard SF," while generally more focused on the scientific aspects, often contains elements that are nowhere near practically possible in the present, and one could argue that many staple elements of fantasy are equally plausible in the future ("Any sufficient technology is indistinguishable from magic," says Arthur C. Clarke).
It is undeniable that SF and fantasy have different flavors, but the dividing line between them isn't so much a line as it is a shifting, subjective porous border. They both fit under the label "speculative fiction" which isn't catchy enough to gain traction, and "science fiction" is so entrenched that the genre will probably never get a better label. We just have to keep in mind that "science fiction" is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive term, and that it should be more accurately called "science-y fiction."