Just for full disclosure's sake, one of Harvard Business School's former Professors is Yoshi Tsurumi. Yeah, the guy that came out and tried to say that Bush, while a student there, came up to him and said something to the effect of, "My daddy got me into the guard despite the waiting list".
Think he's telling the truth? Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....
In the beginning of the interview they ask:
Seder: Alright, let's start with something simple. How was his attendance?
Tsurumi: Well attendance was not that bad. But his attention span was very short.
But then later on he says this about Bush's attendance:
Seder: '73-74. Now when we left. I posed the question to you. I would not let you answer. How many times did George Bush come drunk to your class, as a student?
(silence)
Seder: He's counting on his fingers. He's counting
Garofalo: Hangovers count as well, because sometimes there is residual.
Tsurumi: Well certainly he missed quite a few.
SederS: He missed quite a few classes?
Tsurumi: And when he came to classes some times he stays half-drunk.
...and another quote
Tsurumi: The lack of leadership quality we like to expect of any president. Certainly presidency of the United States. For example, lack of compassion, lying, indulging self-denial. Blaming the victims there are others. Certainly in trying to justify his own prejudices as if they are the American Way. Now a days he is trying to justify his prejudices as if they are given by God.
So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.
You know, I honestly don't care if they caught him and they're hiding him. If Bush gets that murderous bastard, it's cool with me if he trots him out a week before the election. And quite honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans share my exact sentiments.
The winner of the debate doesn't exactly have to come that night. For instance, in the Ford/Carter debate, everybody that night thought Gerald Ford had won, but it wasn't until the following days did the press report, and both Ford and the public realize how big a mistake Ford's "There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe" line was. The "winner", as you would have it, was actually Carter - but only the preceding days after the debate told us that.
I think this ties into blogs in that, as one blogger so famously put it, "We can fact check your ass!". The average Joe never really had this power before, we would see something said in the media and have little recourse but to talk about it at the water cooler, but now he can post corrections to bad journalism and candidate's claims for the world to see.
Didn't taco say the politics section was going to have a balance of opinion and wouldn't be slanted either way? Well, it has been been pretty much pro-kerry, pro-liberal, pro-democratic non-geek news foisted on slashdotters of all persuasions. How about some conservative links, seriously.
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?
Now I'm sure the Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances, my point here is about the coverage. If Republicans do it, it's evil and it needs to be on the front page. If the Democrats do it, then it's just good ol' fashion politics, nothing to see here folks.
You are close, but I must again say that you are incorrect on this point. Trust me, if someone stole your ipod while you were down in the great state of Texas and to exact your revenge you hunted the thief down and killed him, you would indeed be rung up on 1st degree murder charges.
I think this may be my fault for not being entirely specific about the Texas statute, and for that I apologize. Let me try to be more explicit.....
The statute we're both talking about is sec. 9.42 of Title 2 of the Texas Code. It does in fact say that you can kill a person to defend property alone, however, if you read to the end of the statute [specifically 9.42(3)(b)], reprinted here:
(b)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
You will find that the use of deadly force to protected property is only allowed in those instances in which the protection of said property with deadly force is the only means available to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. This is an extremely steep burden and although Texas does have that old wild west reputation, people are most certainly not allowed to kill simply for the fact that their property has been damaged or stolen.
Again I apologize for not being specific about this earlier, and it's possible that we were both right. I hope I cleared this up somewhat.
Where did I say that this wasn't state specific? There are some rules in common law that exist in all jurisdictions. Please look here for a little more explanation.
Funny that someone on slashdot would just assume something with no evidence supporting their contention.;)
You are correct that this is state specific, however, it is illegal in every jusisdiction in the United States to use deadly force to protect property alone. Courts have long held that life is infintely more valuable than property. Property can be replaced, but life cannot - no matter how much of a scumbag it is that converts/damages your property.
Now again, I must emphasize that the rules are completely different when you are in your dwelling when someone breaks in - you are then allowed to use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger.
That is actually incorrect. "Spring guns" are never legal. Ever. You can't say "never" too many times in the legal profession, but this is one of the times. Also, you are never allowed to protect your property with deadly force. Now mind you, I said property. If you are in your home and a burglar comes in and you shoot him dead, you weren't protecting your property, you were protecting yourself and your family - that's the distinction. So protecting your property with a spring guy is doubly illegle, even if the person on your property is a burglar.
Well I'm nowhere near completing it, but what I will say is DO NOT use Word. Use Wordperfect. Word is a very capable word processor, but you can't see what is going on behind the scenes re:formatting. Wordperfect's reveal codes helped me tremendously and since you're here on/. I assume you're somewhat proficient with html - it's just like that. If some formatting is screwed up, just look at the reveal codes and tweak it by hand. Since 2 years ago when I made the switch, I've typed all my legal documents in Wordperfect and I'm a little saner for it. If I ever do get the LaTeX/Legal (LeGaL-TeX?) I will certainly post the templates somewhere, but I will need help from the Geek/Law community because I likely only create templates for 3rd District and Delaware/Pennsylvania/New Jersey State courts.
I don't have any answers, but I will share one thing I have been working on....
Every court has their own rules for how documents must be submitted (margins, typeface, font size, character spacing) and it can get extremely detailed. A large part of my writing time is getting everything formatted and making sure your citations are right. So upon sharing this with a geek friend, he recommended that I try to create templates for each court for use with LaTeX. I'm a LaTeX n00b so I don't have anything for you there, but so far it looks promising... Imagine only having to reference a case and you can refer to it throughout and the the document updates the cites on the fly??? Hope that helps!
"On the mac, I can play plenty of great games that you just can't find on the PC anymore. You know, like Zork, Breakout.............Super Breakout..........photoshop..."
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong. Both parody and satire are protected forms of speech. I don't have the cases in front of me, but the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Hustler v. Fallwell case, et al, bare this out. In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official, there is a much higher standard that is used in finding whether or not the work was defamatory in nature ("actual malice").
On a side note, there is a unique case coming up through the Texas courts involving something called "Libel by fiction" (ie - "If what i said is fiction, it's can't be a truth I'm asserted, therefore 'wrong'").
For the non-legal types, here is a good CNN article that pretty much somes it up in plain english. Note that the finding of the lower courts in Texas is not the law is the vast majority of jurisdictions, so let's hope that Texas gets this one right at their Supreme Court level.
Matt Stone is a Republican and Trey Parker is a libertarian.
I saw an interview with Matt where he professed his Republicanism, and here is an article about Trey Parker's letter writing campaign and endorsements of Libertarian candidates.
Oh and their appearence in Bowling for Columbine? One thing about Michael Moore, if you agree with his views or not, is that he is extremely deceptive with his filmmaking. They didn't make the "History of the USA" cartoon that is in the movie. Michael Moore wrote the cartoon and gave you the impression that the South Park folks had done it by inserting clips from the real South Park in the rest of the movie, interviewing Matt Stone in the movie before the cartoon is shown, and having Harold Moss animate the cartoon in a style that mimics South Park's style. So the interview with the guys pretty much stands on it's own as "South Park and Littleton kinda suck." I don't know how you get "We're flaming liberals!" out of that.
They do tend to stick it to both sides though, I forget which of then said, "We hate conservatives. But we really fucking hate liberals."
This guy has an account set up specifically test Gmail's spam detecting capabilities. Right now, Gmail isn't going so well - it's only identifying 41% of all spam. No doubt it'll get better though.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers.
If you would have done the slightest bit of research whatsoever, you would have found that the 1's and 2's most likely do no affect the score very much. The scores are are not a median or average, they are weighted. Please see this page
I've said this before, as have others, but I must extend many props to the guys at Autopatcher. Just put the latest service pack and the Autopatcher installer and install them into a fresh install of XP (2000 version coming soon) and you are up secure (but we know that 'secure' is an extremely relative term). Just go to windowsupdate afterwards and see if there is anything that's been released since the latest autopatcher.
The great thing is, it has more than just the critical updates. It has all hotfixes and a bunch of extras too. It's great and you can show your appreciation for their hard work by paypal'ing a couple bucks their way. It makes life so much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Think he's telling the truth? Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....
In the beginning of the interview they ask:
But then later on he says this about Bush's attendance:
So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.
Here is a cool little search that let's you find who in your area (or wherever you want to search) donated how much to whom.
You know, I honestly don't care if they caught him and they're hiding him. If Bush gets that murderous bastard, it's cool with me if he trots him out a week before the election. And quite honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans share my exact sentiments.
The winner of the debate doesn't exactly have to come that night. For instance, in the Ford/Carter debate, everybody that night thought Gerald Ford had won, but it wasn't until the following days did the press report, and both Ford and the public realize how big a mistake Ford's "There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe" line was. The "winner", as you would have it, was actually Carter - but only the preceding days after the debate told us that.
I think this ties into blogs in that, as one blogger so famously put it, "We can fact check your ass!". The average Joe never really had this power before, we would see something said in the media and have little recourse but to talk about it at the water cooler, but now he can post corrections to bad journalism and candidate's claims for the world to see.
OK, I'm gonna burn a little more karma....
Didn't taco say the politics section was going to have a balance of opinion and wouldn't be slanted either way? Well, it has been been pretty much pro-kerry, pro-liberal, pro-democratic non-geek news foisted on slashdotters of all persuasions. How about some conservative links, seriously.
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Google has a new command shell coming out as well; the name? Gonad.
I'll go ahead and burn some karma here...
Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?
Now I'm sure the Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances, my point here is about the coverage. If Republicans do it, it's evil and it needs to be on the front page. If the Democrats do it, then it's just good ol' fashion politics, nothing to see here folks.
Flame away.
You are close, but I must again say that you are incorrect on this point. Trust me, if someone stole your ipod while you were down in the great state of Texas and to exact your revenge you hunted the thief down and killed him, you would indeed be rung up on 1st degree murder charges.
I think this may be my fault for not being entirely specific about the Texas statute, and for that I apologize. Let me try to be more explicit.....
The statute we're both talking about is sec. 9.42 of Title 2 of the Texas Code. It does in fact say that you can kill a person to defend property alone, however, if you read to the end of the statute [specifically 9.42(3)(b)], reprinted here:
(b)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
You will find that the use of deadly force to protected property is only allowed in those instances in which the protection of said property with deadly force is the only means available to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. This is an extremely steep burden and although Texas does have that old wild west reputation, people are most certainly not allowed to kill simply for the fact that their property has been damaged or stolen.
Again I apologize for not being specific about this earlier, and it's possible that we were both right. I hope I cleared this up somewhat.
Where did I say that this wasn't state specific? There are some rules in common law that exist in all jurisdictions. Please look here for a little more explanation.
;)
Funny that someone on slashdot would just assume something with no evidence supporting their contention.
You are correct that this is state specific, however, it is illegal in every jusisdiction in the United States to use deadly force to protect property alone. Courts have long held that life is infintely more valuable than property. Property can be replaced, but life cannot - no matter how much of a scumbag it is that converts/damages your property.
Now again, I must emphasize that the rules are completely different when you are in your dwelling when someone breaks in - you are then allowed to use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger.
That is actually incorrect. "Spring guns" are never legal. Ever. You can't say "never" too many times in the legal profession, but this is one of the times. Also, you are never allowed to protect your property with deadly force. Now mind you, I said property. If you are in your home and a burglar comes in and you shoot him dead, you weren't protecting your property, you were protecting yourself and your family - that's the distinction. So protecting your property with a spring guy is doubly illegle, even if the person on your property is a burglar.
Well I'm nowhere near completing it, but what I will say is DO NOT use Word. Use Wordperfect. Word is a very capable word processor, but you can't see what is going on behind the scenes re:formatting. Wordperfect's reveal codes helped me tremendously and since you're here on /. I assume you're somewhat proficient with html - it's just like that. If some formatting is screwed up, just look at the reveal codes and tweak it by hand. Since 2 years ago when I made the switch, I've typed all my legal documents in Wordperfect and I'm a little saner for it. If I ever do get the LaTeX/Legal (LeGaL-TeX?) I will certainly post the templates somewhere, but I will need help from the Geek/Law community because I likely only create templates for 3rd District and Delaware/Pennsylvania/New Jersey State courts.
I don't have any answers, but I will share one thing I have been working on....
Every court has their own rules for how documents must be submitted (margins, typeface, font size, character spacing) and it can get extremely detailed. A large part of my writing time is getting everything formatted and making sure your citations are right. So upon sharing this with a geek friend, he recommended that I try to create templates for each court for use with LaTeX. I'm a LaTeX n00b so I don't have anything for you there, but so far it looks promising... Imagine only having to reference a case and you can refer to it throughout and the the document updates the cites on the fly??? Hope that helps!
"On the mac, I can play plenty of great games that you just can't find on the PC anymore. You know, like Zork, Breakout.............Super Breakout..........photoshop..."
;-)
with much respect to the drunk gamers
again, i keed!
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong. Both parody and satire are protected forms of speech. I don't have the cases in front of me, but the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Hustler v. Fallwell case, et al, bare this out. In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official, there is a much higher standard that is used in finding whether or not the work was defamatory in nature ("actual malice").
On a side note, there is a unique case coming up through the Texas courts involving something called "Libel by fiction" (ie - "If what i said is fiction, it's can't be a truth I'm asserted, therefore 'wrong'").
For the non-legal types, here is a good CNN article that pretty much somes it up in plain english. Note that the finding of the lower courts in Texas is not the law is the vast majority of jurisdictions, so let's hope that Texas gets this one right at their Supreme Court level.
Matt Stone is a Republican and Trey Parker is a libertarian.
I saw an interview with Matt where he professed his Republicanism, and here is an article about Trey Parker's letter writing campaign and endorsements of Libertarian candidates.
Oh and their appearence in Bowling for Columbine? One thing about Michael Moore, if you agree with his views or not, is that he is extremely deceptive with his filmmaking. They didn't make the "History of the USA" cartoon that is in the movie. Michael Moore wrote the cartoon and gave you the impression that the South Park folks had done it by inserting clips from the real South Park in the rest of the movie, interviewing Matt Stone in the movie before the cartoon is shown, and having Harold Moss animate the cartoon in a style that mimics South Park's style. So the interview with the guys pretty much stands on it's own as "South Park and Littleton kinda suck." I don't know how you get "We're flaming liberals!" out of that.
They do tend to stick it to both sides though, I forget which of then said, "We hate conservatives. But we really fucking hate liberals."
This color sucks, click here to make it an annoying tan color. CmdrTaco, we slashdotters won't quit complaining until the entire site is unreadable.
You mean unprofesional like spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign (M$) like you did in this post?
;-)
Let ye without sin cast the first stone....you might end up breaking a window or something.
If you're a linux-only user but want to see what doom3 looks like on your system, just simply turn your monitor off.
I keed, I keed!
how could you post to slashdot without knowing how to type?
;-)
Many people post to slashdot apparently without having the ability to read
I wonder if this processor ran again after thermal paste was lightly applied.
Go here...
This guy has an account set up specifically test Gmail's spam detecting capabilities. Right now, Gmail isn't going so well - it's only identifying 41% of all spam. No doubt it'll get better though.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers.
If you would have done the slightest bit of research whatsoever, you would have found that the 1's and 2's most likely do no affect the score very much. The scores are are not a median or average, they are weighted. Please see this page
Comparing Microsoft to retards is an insult to retards everywhere
I've said this before, as have others, but I must extend many props to the guys at Autopatcher. Just put the latest service pack and the Autopatcher installer and install them into a fresh install of XP (2000 version coming soon) and you are up secure (but we know that 'secure' is an extremely relative term). Just go to windowsupdate afterwards and see if there is anything that's been released since the latest autopatcher.
The great thing is, it has more than just the critical updates. It has all hotfixes and a bunch of extras too. It's great and you can show your appreciation for their hard work by paypal'ing a couple bucks their way. It makes life so much easier.