Uh... you might want to check usernames there, champ. I didn't say anything at all about ex-presidents. I said this one was completely full of shit, as is anyone making the "too many problems to fix it in one term" excuse.
And, for the record, I refer to ALL presidents, sitting or ex, live or dead, perjoratively (the last one was 'Redneck Nero'). That's not bias.
As far as Hope and Change, well do you expect somebody to come in and cure the ills building in the political system for the past 30 years in one term?
Your bias is showing, too. You can only give his water-walking holiness a pass by saying "he can't fix it all in one term" by conveniently ignoring that he and his administration are actually making negative progress, by continuing and even expanding the same abuses that have been going on for the past 30 years.
Isn't Nokia also bound to release Qt (albeit, maybe not Qt Creator, I'm not sure) under a BSD-like license if they stop supporting it? IIRC, that condition was there to protect from just that eventuality.
The original statement was that eye witness testimony wasn't "Evidence" I pointed out that was wrong. I didn't say anything about whether it was sufficient for conviction.
No, my statement was that the PROBLEM in question is that it IS considered "evidence" (in the legal sense) even when there is a clear conflict of interest. And since you bring it up, you should take a look around. In several jurisdictions, it IS grounds for convictions, or at least for extrajudicial punishment. For example, any state (such as Florida) that requires, BY LAW, a man accused of abuse to be removed from the house and a restraining order issued.
When you whined that it shouldn't be sufficient, I pointed out that it is considered sufficient in traffic court, and there aren't large groups of pissed off men protesting that.
And I ignored that because it is 1) A strawman, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We're talking about a woman being able to drop the A-bomb for a slam dunk in court, whether or not there's any other evidence. 2) Also fucking wrong. Just look at slashdot everytime some slow news day has a "Geek fights traffic ticket with physics/gadget/portal gun". Plenty of people take issue with the inherent trust the police get, even in traffic court.
My parents met as probation officers, and my mother and sister worked for the state in family law, and my father was a lawyer in family law. So I have an idea of family law.
Then ask them if a lawyer they've had to deal with/oppose in court (since I'm sure that, like you, they are absolute paragons and would never do such a thing) has ever recommended to a woman that she should make complaints of abuse to strengthen her case.
Fuck you. You are lying. You are pissed off abuser, or defender of abusers who lies in court and is lying here.
Um.. yeah. Everyone knows slashdotters don't have girlfriends, remember?
But you're clearly illiterate. I'm not defending abusers, I'm defending those falsely accused of being abusers. I had thought I'd made that clear from the beginning. Maybe I used too many big words.
But that little quote right there pretty much gives lie to any of your claims of logic being on your side.
You're saying that a man complaining about his soon-to-be-ex-wife lying about abuse should be given less credibility than the accuser, based on the fact that he's being accused of being abusive.
So not only can't you grasp the flaw in your reasoning, you clearly have no grasp of human nature or the inherent scumminess of family law.
Oh, wait. I'm criticising family law. That must make me an abuser!
I don't think you need to go back so far as the 50s.
Hell, look at every big 80s franchise that's been rebooted in the past 5 years. Pretty sure all of them started out as 20-minute animated commercials.;)
I assume you mean 32GB. 32MB isn't even enough for one CD using quality settings that would make Beethoven's teeth grind.:)
I'm honestly surprised that people still put up with the 25-minutes-per-hour of radio ads these days. Even my mom has a little 4GB Sansa that connects into the car stereo.
I'd go nuts without my iPod (the only HDD based mp3 player I can find anymore) and my Discworld audiobooks.
Also, I'm curious to know which headaches you're running into with Windows 7, because I can't think of any offhand. XP? sure. Vista? Of course. 7? nothing comes to mind.
The window Z-layering is frequently idiotic. I don't care one way or another how anyone feels about "click to focus" vs. "focus follows mouse" but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if the DM is raising a window to the to top, it should, maybe, give it focus, and if it's going to raise it behind other windows, it shouldn't.
Of course, the apparent decision making between which it chooses seems to border on the non-deterministic. And, for added lulz, the windows "stick". Alt-tabbing or clicking on another overlapped window will give it focus, but NOT raise it. The fix I've found is to have to minimize it and re-raise it.
Total PITA. I would have thought it was my PC, but it happens on both mine and my machine at work.
Pretty much this. Let's be honest. No one involved in this patent-war-on-twelve-fronts gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about "the public interest."
They need to go ahead with the ban. The only thing that's ever made the giants in the sandbox ever stop and go "wait a sec..." was MAD.
It's amazing how complicated our tax code is yet we can't provide basic human needs (IMHO) to our citizens.
Oh, we can. We just decided that "teh socializim is ebil!!11!" and that money is much better used on endless clusterfucks of wars to "bring freedom" while domestically creating a police state, and corporate blowjobs.
Face it. If you want the government to do something right, you have to tell them to make a left turn.
While I don't doubt that she does (who doesn't, these days), and what it would be is probably easily guessed (she's Texan, after all)... how do you get that from her wiki page? I looked at it and it's pretty sparse.
There's plenty of blame to go around for all involved.
The Legislative branch deserves the blame for crafting these shitty laws in the first place.
The Judicial branch deserves the blame for letting these shitty laws stand. (Hint: Their job was supposed to be more than just running trials and turning lawyers into the new priesthood)
The executive branch deserves the blame for enforcing these shitty laws.
That was supposed to to be the whole point of "checks and balances." To use a metaphor from my own family, when one of the brothers starts acting the fool, one (or, preferably both) could step in and dopeslap his dumb ass back in line.
When that "witness" also happens to be the opposing party, with a deep, vested interest in making sure that her opponent gets fucked as hard and deep as possible by the courts, granting her word more depth than his simply because she lacks external gonads is, to quote a once-great philosopher, "Bullshit!"
The fact that people think like you seem to is a huge part of the problem.
You do realize that your own statement there is pretty much supporting the same imbalanced court system, right?
To make it clear:
I've targeted my abuse in a manner as to be undetectable to the outsider after the fact, so any outsider after the fact who holds my abuse against me when I lie about it is obviously taking someone else's word over mine, and that's unfair.
Anywhere else in the legal system, there's a much shorter word for that: "evidence." So you're complaining about other people complaining that courts ignoring a lack of evidence against them is unfair?
Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against.
In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.
To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them
And since, as we all know, you don't actually have any intention of "properly representing them," this does make the bottom 51% the ideal target. Not too many of them are interested in evidence and logic.
A little idealistic, when you consider the symbiotic relationship between prosecutors and cops. Like an AC posted above, it will just make sure that the recording devices are "confiscated" rather than destroyed on-site. Then, short of something like Qik automatically streaming the recording elsewhere, it's the recorders' word against the cops'.
Historically, it's not difficult to guess which side will get preference.
Call it residual bad taste. Between the fact that I didn't know that the default config had changed, and that I was dealing with Tier 1 tech support, I was fighting with it for the better part of 5 hours since I was plugging it in to my existing router.
And you usually can't get the good firmwares for the combo units.
Why would any corporate entity make "open-and-free Road B?" I don't think the Redhat model would work there. Even if they did offer some type of long-distance chaeuffer service and let others use the roads, they'd probably drown in red ink on it.
I was wondering the same thing. Then I remembered a few years back when my provider, replacing a modem that had taken a power surge, tried to pawn off one of those "NAT router/modems" on me.
If they're being used as such, for internal DHCP, that might be a problem, I guess...
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... you might want to check usernames there, champ. I didn't say anything at all about ex-presidents. I said this one was completely full of shit, as is anyone making the "too many problems to fix it in one term" excuse.
And, for the record, I refer to ALL presidents, sitting or ex, live or dead, perjoratively (the last one was 'Redneck Nero'). That's not bias.
Now, I want you to imagine that you are a programmer born with lady bits who is reading this thread. How exactly do you feel right now?
Wow, it works! I'm wondering why I don't get invited to more parties.
As far as Hope and Change, well do you expect somebody to come in and cure the ills building in the political system for the past 30 years in one term?
Your bias is showing, too. You can only give his water-walking holiness a pass by saying "he can't fix it all in one term" by conveniently ignoring that he and his administration are actually making negative progress, by continuing and even expanding the same abuses that have been going on for the past 30 years.
Isn't Nokia also bound to release Qt (albeit, maybe not Qt Creator, I'm not sure) under a BSD-like license if they stop supporting it? IIRC, that condition was there to protect from just that eventuality.
The original statement was that eye witness testimony wasn't "Evidence" I pointed out that was wrong. I didn't say anything about whether it was sufficient for conviction.
No, my statement was that the PROBLEM in question is that it IS considered "evidence" (in the legal sense) even when there is a clear conflict of interest. And since you bring it up, you should take a look around. In several jurisdictions, it IS grounds for convictions, or at least for extrajudicial punishment. For example, any state (such as Florida) that requires, BY LAW, a man accused of abuse to be removed from the house and a restraining order issued.
When you whined that it shouldn't be sufficient, I pointed out that it is considered sufficient in traffic court, and there aren't large groups of pissed off men protesting that.
And I ignored that because it is 1) A strawman, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We're talking about a woman being able to drop the A-bomb for a slam dunk in court, whether or not there's any other evidence.
2) Also fucking wrong. Just look at slashdot everytime some slow news day has a "Geek fights traffic ticket with physics/gadget/portal gun". Plenty of people take issue with the inherent trust the police get, even in traffic court.
My parents met as probation officers, and my mother and sister worked for the state in family law, and my father was a lawyer in family law. So I have an idea of family law.
Then ask them if a lawyer they've had to deal with/oppose in court (since I'm sure that, like you, they are absolute paragons and would never do such a thing) has ever recommended to a woman that she should make complaints of abuse to strengthen her case.
Fuck you. You are lying. You are pissed off abuser, or defender of abusers who lies in court and is lying here.
Um.. yeah. Everyone knows slashdotters don't have girlfriends, remember?
But you're clearly illiterate. I'm not defending abusers, I'm defending those falsely accused of being abusers. I had thought I'd made that clear from the beginning. Maybe I used too many big words.
But that little quote right there pretty much gives lie to any of your claims of logic being on your side.
You're saying that a man complaining about his soon-to-be-ex-wife lying about abuse should be given less credibility than the accuser, based on the fact that he's being accused of being abusive.
So not only can't you grasp the flaw in your reasoning, you clearly have no grasp of human nature or the inherent scumminess of family law.
Oh, wait. I'm criticising family law. That must make me an abuser!
Simpleton.
I don't think you need to go back so far as the 50s.
Hell, look at every big 80s franchise that's been rebooted in the past 5 years. Pretty sure all of them started out as 20-minute animated commercials. ;)
I assume you mean 32GB. 32MB isn't even enough for one CD using quality settings that would make Beethoven's teeth grind. :)
I'm honestly surprised that people still put up with the 25-minutes-per-hour of radio ads these days. Even my mom has a little 4GB Sansa that connects into the car stereo.
I'd go nuts without my iPod (the only HDD based mp3 player I can find anymore) and my Discworld audiobooks.
Read this and go away.
Idiot.
Also, I'm curious to know which headaches you're running into with Windows 7, because I can't think of any offhand. XP? sure. Vista? Of course. 7? nothing comes to mind.
The window Z-layering is frequently idiotic. I don't care one way or another how anyone feels about "click to focus" vs. "focus follows mouse" but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if the DM is raising a window to the to top, it should, maybe, give it focus, and if it's going to raise it behind other windows, it shouldn't.
Of course, the apparent decision making between which it chooses seems to border on the non-deterministic. And, for added lulz, the windows "stick". Alt-tabbing or clicking on another overlapped window will give it focus, but NOT raise it. The fix I've found is to have to minimize it and re-raise it.
Total PITA. I would have thought it was my PC, but it happens on both mine and my machine at work.
Pretty much this. Let's be honest. No one involved in this patent-war-on-twelve-fronts gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about "the public interest."
They need to go ahead with the ban. The only thing that's ever made the giants in the sandbox ever stop and go "wait a sec..." was MAD.
It's amazing how complicated our tax code is yet we can't provide basic human needs (IMHO) to our citizens.
Oh, we can. We just decided that "teh socializim is ebil!!11!" and that money is much better used on endless clusterfucks of wars to "bring freedom" while domestically creating a police state, and corporate blowjobs.
Face it. If you want the government to do something right, you have to tell them to make a left turn.
While I don't doubt that she does (who doesn't, these days), and what it would be is probably easily guessed (she's Texan, after all)... how do you get that from her wiki page? I looked at it and it's pretty sparse.
Why would the elections have any bearing on who's in power? Have they finally put the seats on all of the corporate boards onto the ballot?
There's plenty of blame to go around for all involved.
The Legislative branch deserves the blame for crafting these shitty laws in the first place.
The Judicial branch deserves the blame for letting these shitty laws stand. (Hint: Their job was supposed to be more than just running trials and turning lawyers into the new priesthood)
The executive branch deserves the blame for enforcing these shitty laws.
That was supposed to to be the whole point of "checks and balances." To use a metaphor from my own family, when one of the brothers starts acting the fool, one (or, preferably both) could step in and dopeslap his dumb ass back in line.
The failure here is pretty much universal.
When that "witness" also happens to be the opposing party, with a deep, vested interest in making sure that her opponent gets fucked as hard and deep as possible by the courts, granting her word more depth than his simply because she lacks external gonads is, to quote a once-great philosopher, "Bullshit!"
The fact that people think like you seem to is a huge part of the problem.
What exactly does that mean?
In my limited (read: TV, movies, and books) knowledge of Community Property law, it's basically "you're fucked in the divorce."
Needless to say, I'm not the astute reader you speak of. Care to enlighten me? :)
You do realize that your own statement there is pretty much supporting the same imbalanced court system, right?
To make it clear:
I've targeted my abuse in a manner as to be undetectable to the outsider after the fact, so any outsider after the fact who holds my abuse against me when I lie about it is obviously taking someone else's word over mine, and that's unfair.
Anywhere else in the legal system, there's a much shorter word for that: "evidence." So you're complaining about other people complaining that courts ignoring a lack of evidence against them is unfair?
Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against.
In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.
Yeah, because derping around with fucking access keys for a CLI utility is such an efficient use of time...
To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them
And since, as we all know, you don't actually have any intention of "properly representing them," this does make the bottom 51% the ideal target. Not too many of them are interested in evidence and logic.
Stop the planet, please? I'd like to get off.
A little idealistic, when you consider the symbiotic relationship between prosecutors and cops. Like an AC posted above, it will just make sure that the recording devices are "confiscated" rather than destroyed on-site. Then, short of something like Qik automatically streaming the recording elsewhere, it's the recorders' word against the cops'.
Historically, it's not difficult to guess which side will get preference.
Call it residual bad taste. Between the fact that I didn't know that the default config had changed, and that I was dealing with Tier 1 tech support, I was fighting with it for the better part of 5 hours since I was plugging it in to my existing router.
And you usually can't get the good firmwares for the combo units.
Why would any corporate entity make "open-and-free Road B?" I don't think the Redhat model would work there. Even if they did offer some type of long-distance chaeuffer service and let others use the roads, they'd probably drown in red ink on it.
I was wondering the same thing. Then I remembered a few years back when my provider, replacing a modem that had taken a power surge, tried to pawn off one of those "NAT router/modems" on me.
If they're being used as such, for internal DHCP, that might be a problem, I guess...