Actually, I did know that. (Though I think it might depend on the state.)
I think it is a shame... (And why should only companies caught in voter fraud be disallowed from donating? One of the purposes of government in my view is to be the voice of people to companies.)
I like it all, except for 'revocation of voting rights' for normal voting fraud.
I don't care if they are a felon, or a muderer, or a kiddnapper or anything else. They can be in jail on death row for all I care. They still get to vote, as long as they are an adult.
Otherwise we have created a way to create classes, 'true citizens' and 'partial citizens.' Which is an enabler of discrimination.
There is no good reason to deny votes to any possible voter. No matter what.
It's extremely hard to even say exactly who is actually locked up there: For all intents and purposes you just have to trust the Army to tell you who is there.
That said, I don't think there are any American citizens locked up there. But it is hard to come up with a good reason why a government that felt it could lock up non-citizens in that manner and hide it would not lock up citizens that way if it felt it could get away with it.
An analogy, in this case, is precident. It is how we are intending to think about the issue. The question is this: Is an unsecured wireless access point assumed to be open to the public or not? An analogy is reasoning for a particular argument: it is or it isn't because we are treating it as if it were a newer version of $foo.
Personally, I think an unsecured access point should be considered public. There is no seperate flag for 'you are allowed to access this' besides the fact that when you try you can. It is trivial to at least make it obvious I don't want you to access this connection, using passwords and/or encryption. (Even if you can break it, you know I didn't want you in at that point.) Therefore, since some people do want to run publicly accessable access points, using the fact that connection is possible as implying that connection is permitted makes logical sense.
Oh, this one is easy. You've got their claims right, and this is just the next in a never-ending series of excuses SCO has been putting up on why they can't show the connection. (And why that is IBM's fault, and not theirs.)
Basically, SCO is trying to blame the fact that they have no case on IBM. If they could get it to stick, IBM would be guilty of obstructing justice at least. If they can't, at least it takes the courts a few months to churn through their latest excuse, and that's a few months longer that they survive.
Sooner or later the judge is going to find some way to stop the excuses, and the case will be over. But SCO can't stop now; it's all they've got.
They are specially designed to allow you to operate the iPod while wearing the gloves. (Which is otherwise quite difficult, due to the iPod's touch-sensitive design.)
But I've got to say: a whole article on weird iPod accessories, and these are the best they can do?
The problem isn't that it is an electronic chip. No one has a problem with that. The problem is that the chip is designed to be read by radio, automatically, at range.
Give me a good scenero where I want someone able to read my passport without me being able to hand it over to them. I can think of a few places where it might speed things up a bit, but no legitimate ones where it would save more than a few seconds.
On the other hand, I can think of lots of illegitimate ones where it would make a crook's (or an opressive government's) job much easier.
It would cost about the same, and provide more data, to embed a smartchip in the passport instead. And then no one could read my passport without me knowing about it.
Why would they? This is to benefit the advertiser. The person buying the ad does not want click fraud. Google is giving them a tool to help that.
Sure, they can circumvent it, but that doesn't get them anything. If they do it to keep from paying Google, Google can just stop presenting their ads. (Because Google is being ripped off.) Google doesn't have to take their money, or present the ad if they don't want to.
1. The complexity of not reporting all relevent sales to Google. (You'd have to recognize this was a Google sale, decide you don't want to report it, and generate a different HTML page based on that decision.) 2. The value-added services Google gives from the data, which are worth nearly as much as the sale itself to some advertisers.
Technically, that is no longer Google's problem. That is the advertiser's.
The company advertising has no reason to commit click-fraud. An AdSense partner who has ads on their site does, and your competitors do, but you don't. If you let people cancel their sale immediately via a scriptable interface, you've got bigger problems. (Yes, it should be easy to cancel a sale, but not that easy.)
Actually, Google has a better solution for that. If the transaction is online, you can embed a small piece of HTML/Javascript code in your 'thank you for purchasing' page that allows Google to check the value of a cookie they placed on a customer's computer when they clicked an ad.
The cookie links the click to the sale. And there is value to the advertiser as well: Google can then help you track which ad resulted in a sale, and which keywords it was linked to. (So you don't have to buy an expensive but poor-return keyword.)
(I may be mis-describing: Check Google's docs to be sure.)
Who cares whether it's actually a human? What you really care is that they purchased your product. If the payment is tied to that, it becomes irrelevent who clicked or how they clicked.
They spent money because of your ad. So you can afford to pay for the ad.
And if an AI was the one who spent the money, great. As long as their credit card works.
Because an advertiser won't pay if they think they aren't getting value for their money. They'll go someplace where they are getting value for their money.
Charge less works for a while, but the price per-click is already so low it's hardly worth mentioning in many cases. You need to charge for something that is of actual value to the advertisers.
That's an entirely seperate argument. If you are using an IDE, it makes sense that the IDE can handle all common coding tasks, one of which is source-control.
Whether or not an IDE is a good idea is a seperate question all together. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe they only are for some people or situations. But if you are making one, it makes sense to make a good one.
Sounds like you were helpful and polite, but just had some unusual requirements. Those are actually the fun tech support calls: I have to figure out, on the fly, some interesting way to do some common thing that they can't do.
Slashdot Mirror
He is informative: He's informing us of a crackpot theory that most haven't heard of. So we can all laugh at it.
Unfortunately, the US is pushing the rest of the world to be brought 'up' to their standards...
Dude, anyone who sees a bottle of KY Jelly next to your computer is likely to get the right idea about you...
Actually, I did know that. (Though I think it might depend on the state.)
I think it is a shame... (And why should only companies caught in voter fraud be disallowed from donating? One of the purposes of government in my view is to be the voice of people to companies.)
I like it all, except for 'revocation of voting rights' for normal voting fraud.
I don't care if they are a felon, or a muderer, or a kiddnapper or anything else. They can be in jail on death row for all I care. They still get to vote, as long as they are an adult.
Otherwise we have created a way to create classes, 'true citizens' and 'partial citizens.' Which is an enabler of discrimination.
There is no good reason to deny votes to any possible voter. No matter what.
It's extremely hard to even say exactly who is actually locked up there: For all intents and purposes you just have to trust the Army to tell you who is there.
That said, I don't think there are any American citizens locked up there. But it is hard to come up with a good reason why a government that felt it could lock up non-citizens in that manner and hide it would not lock up citizens that way if it felt it could get away with it.
An analogy, in this case, is precident. It is how we are intending to think about the issue. The question is this: Is an unsecured wireless access point assumed to be open to the public or not? An analogy is reasoning for a particular argument: it is or it isn't because we are treating it as if it were a newer version of $foo.
Personally, I think an unsecured access point should be considered public. There is no seperate flag for 'you are allowed to access this' besides the fact that when you try you can. It is trivial to at least make it obvious I don't want you to access this connection, using passwords and/or encryption. (Even if you can break it, you know I didn't want you in at that point.) Therefore, since some people do want to run publicly accessable access points, using the fact that connection is possible as implying that connection is permitted makes logical sense.
Oh, this one is easy. You've got their claims right, and this is just the next in a never-ending series of excuses SCO has been putting up on why they can't show the connection. (And why that is IBM's fault, and not theirs.)
Basically, SCO is trying to blame the fact that they have no case on IBM. If they could get it to stick, IBM would be guilty of obstructing justice at least. If they can't, at least it takes the courts a few months to churn through their latest excuse, and that's a few months longer that they survive.
Sooner or later the judge is going to find some way to stop the excuses, and the case will be over. But SCO can't stop now; it's all they've got.
The difference is whether you intend to go out or in via that door.
They are specially designed to allow you to operate the iPod while wearing the gloves. (Which is otherwise quite difficult, due to the iPod's touch-sensitive design.)
But I've got to say: a whole article on weird iPod accessories, and these are the best they can do?
Reading through that site, I think you just proved the argument of the poster before you.
You can get pretty close to that right now: Harman Kardon Drive+Play
But why hand people the way to break it?
The problem isn't that it is an electronic chip. No one has a problem with that. The problem is that the chip is designed to be read by radio, automatically, at range.
Give me a good scenero where I want someone able to read my passport without me being able to hand it over to them. I can think of a few places where it might speed things up a bit, but no legitimate ones where it would save more than a few seconds.
On the other hand, I can think of lots of illegitimate ones where it would make a crook's (or an opressive government's) job much easier.
It would cost about the same, and provide more data, to embed a smartchip in the passport instead. And then no one could read my passport without me knowing about it.
Only to the credit card company.
Why would they? This is to benefit the advertiser. The person buying the ad does not want click fraud. Google is giving them a tool to help that.
Sure, they can circumvent it, but that doesn't get them anything. If they do it to keep from paying Google, Google can just stop presenting their ads. (Because Google is being ripped off.) Google doesn't have to take their money, or present the ad if they don't want to.
1. The complexity of not reporting all relevent sales to Google. (You'd have to recognize this was a Google sale, decide you don't want to report it, and generate a different HTML page based on that decision.)
2. The value-added services Google gives from the data, which are worth nearly as much as the sale itself to some advertisers.
Technically, that is no longer Google's problem. That is the advertiser's.
The company advertising has no reason to commit click-fraud. An AdSense partner who has ads on their site does, and your competitors do, but you don't. If you let people cancel their sale immediately via a scriptable interface, you've got bigger problems. (Yes, it should be easy to cancel a sale, but not that easy.)
Actually, Google has a better solution for that. If the transaction is online, you can embed a small piece of HTML/Javascript code in your 'thank you for purchasing' page that allows Google to check the value of a cookie they placed on a customer's computer when they clicked an ad.
The cookie links the click to the sale. And there is value to the advertiser as well: Google can then help you track which ad resulted in a sale, and which keywords it was linked to. (So you don't have to buy an expensive but poor-return keyword.)
(I may be mis-describing: Check Google's docs to be sure.)
Who cares whether it's actually a human? What you really care is that they purchased your product. If the payment is tied to that, it becomes irrelevent who clicked or how they clicked.
They spent money because of your ad. So you can afford to pay for the ad.
And if an AI was the one who spent the money, great. As long as their credit card works.
Because an advertiser won't pay if they think they aren't getting value for their money. They'll go someplace where they are getting value for their money.
Charge less works for a while, but the price per-click is already so low it's hardly worth mentioning in many cases. You need to charge for something that is of actual value to the advertisers.
Sorry; I can't spell, and there is no spellcheck avalible for the browser I'm forced to use at work. (Moz 1.7 for OS/2.)
That's an entirely seperate argument. If you are using an IDE, it makes sense that the IDE can handle all common coding tasks, one of which is source-control.
Whether or not an IDE is a good idea is a seperate question all together. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe they only are for some people or situations. But if you are making one, it makes sense to make a good one.
The 'I' stands for integrated. What's integrated about it if you need to go to a seperate program to do a routine action?
You don't vote someone out. You vote someone else in.
So, who do we have to vote in? (That are actually any better, that is.)
Sounds like you were helpful and polite, but just had some unusual requirements. Those are actually the fun tech support calls: I have to figure out, on the fly, some interesting way to do some common thing that they can't do.