It's a moot point. As we were told time and time again every time legalization of pot came up, "pot users don't ever drive high." So, obviously the authorities are just imagining that these people have marijuana in their bloodstreams. Because surely a pot user would not lie to us.
"How do I reach them? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?" and “I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it.”
This is a simple problem to solve. Just advertise on Pandora. In fact, you can advertise whenever your own song is played. So every time your song is played, you get X for the play and you pay them X+profit for the advertisement. Feel better now?
Now, what these drones do when they fly over your property is another matter. You may have a case to sue the operator if they took photos of your daughter sunbathing in the backyard that's surrounded by a fence.
I think case law is pretty clear. Google had to deal with this when they did streetview and basically if you can see it from the street without any special (telephoto, infrared) lens, then it is not private. If you need a special lens, or have to go through efforts to see in, then you are infringing on privacy rights. So, if the activists could have just as easily snapped pictures from outside the picture, then they are free to do so, but if they have to have a drone to do so, then they were operating illegally, and when you operate illegally, you have to expect that sometimes there are consequences. Now, we do in the U.S. more and more of late, try to protect criminals as much as possible from being hurt or killed by their intended victims. In some cases, going so far as to throw the victims in jail for shooting back at the criminals, but so far, innocent civilians still seem to have this reckless urge to protect themselves from criminals. It's like they think it is their right to protect themselves from criminals or something.
And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow.
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal? Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters? Of course, the answer is "no", because what they are trying to do is paint the shooters in a bad light. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.
I deal with images every day and I haven't used the word a couple of times in the last decade. I have NEVER heard anyone use the word GIF as a verb. I think that a prerequisite for word of the year is that it has to be a word that more than 1% of the general population would have heard and uses on a regular basis. I guess all the commonly used words were all copyrighted.
Well, I wasn't speaking from a legal perspective. From a legal perspective of course it is trespass because you are a normal law abiding citizen and they would much rather arrest you for a crime than the possibly armed bad guy who stole your stuff. But from a moral perspective, it is definitely justified to thwart whatever barriers they have put up between you and your property.
Even if you force the gate, it is not trespass. They invited you onto their property by acquiring and stowing your property on it without your permission. In order to recover your property, you obviously have to gain entry to that property.
From a legal perspective, no it is not legal to steal your stuff back from a robber. If you can prove it is yours, then you can get the police to force them to give it back, but if you know it is yours and don't have proof, then you can be arrested for stealing it back, and since you are a normally law abiding citizen, and the person you stole from is a dangerous robber, the police would rather arrest you because you are not actually dangerous.
A guy a know had a bike stolen when he was a kid. He had the serial number, and he went with the cops down to the garage of the person he knew stole their bike. Sure enough, the bike was there, along with 20 or 30 others. The problem? It was in pieces. The frame had the serial number, and the police said they could take the frame, but when he pointed out his wheels and handlebars, they said "Sorry, you can't have those because we don't know they are yours". His father was with him and said "What if we just take them anyway?" The police told them they would arrest him and charge him with theft. However, when all was said and done, the person who had 20 or 30 stolen bicycles parted out in his shop was not arrested and not charged with theft.
I've recently had an experience with LinkedIn that is making me value it less and less. It came up and asked me if I had the following skills, and then listed about 20 skills, about 15 of which I had. I didn't know whether to hit "no" because I didn't have all of them or "yes" because I had a lot of them. I hit "yes". Now, LinkedIn says I have a couple of skills that I don't actually have. I tried to find a quick way remove those skills, but didn't have all day to try to figure out how to do it, and five minutes of looking around my profile yielded no results, and led to a rabbit trail where LinkedIn was trying to get me to update my whole life history. The same thing happened when I tried to change my title in my existing company. It wanted me to put a new company name in and everything. I just gave up and now my profile has false and outdated information. If I was hiring, I would not use a LinkedIn profile as a good indicator of what skills or even what employer somebody had.
It's a stereotype: Just like used-car salesmen, the majority of recruiters are helpful, knowledgeable and genuinely want to help.
You're right. 99% of recruiters give the other 1% a bad name.
I have known a couple of recruiters that were genuinely clueful and did try to put the right people with the right skills into the right positions. However, a large number of recruiters I have worked with were not knowledgeable at all about skillsets or about the marketability of certain skillsets.They genuinely tried to help, but there was simply no way that they were going to be able to help without knowing something about the skills I had. That probably represented about 30% of the recruiters I have dealt with. The other 69+% of recruiters were Indian shell companies searching for cheap H1B labor to place and wouldn't submit an American for an open contract if you held a gun to their head. The first clue to these scams is when they ask about your H1b status. They don't even pretend to be legitimate by putting "I am a citizen" as a valid response on their contact sheet.
But I thought Meg was in favor of a free market! Well, it seems that in a free market, you could walk in to either company and offer your services and be judged based on your skills and price and on their need. An agreement not to hire another companies employees is an illegal restriction of the free market. Unfortunately, 90% or more of companies do it. The company I work for does it. All of the vendors and suppliers have to sign agreements saying they will not hire from my company.
Yes. 30 years ago, a family that had a computer in the home also had someone who specifically knew how to use it, how to monitor what was going on it, and how to control access to it. Now, thanks to the efforts of Microsoft and other large corporations, computers are ubiquitous. There is one or more than one in nearly every home. More importantly, you don't have to be a computer genius to use them. We as a society think that is A GOOD THING. So how can we on one hand say that we want computers to be so easy to use that you don't have to actually understand security, firewalling, and whatever else, but then also try to hold someone responsible because they do not know those things? Would it be better for society as a whole if we went back to only computer professionals are allowed to have any sort of computing device, such as a PC, a cell phone, a TV, a gaming console?
I'm more shocked that he got 5 years for assaulting a police officer. Seriously?
I'm shocked, too. Around here, you can get thrown in jail for life for shooting and killing a gun wielding robber. I can't imagine what they would do if you assaulted a police officer.
Of course, what they mean by assaulting a police officer is that he probably accidentally stepped on the officer's foot while being pushed into the cop car.
Because that's where the potential customers are. It's more productive to put an ad in a shopping mall than in a forest.
I would also think it would be more effective and cheaper to advertise on your own site. If I want to go buy a Dell, I think "I will go to Dell.com", not "I will go to Dell's facebook page".
What I'd really like to see though is for the "red states" to get precisely what they're asking for.
Well, that would lead to a rather disjointed United States, and one that is about 1/5 or less the current size.
I should point out that of the net consumer states that voted republican, all of them are rather sparsely populated. Most of the money is not going as free handouts to citizens, but as money for infrastructure and for subsidies for agriculture. So if the red states were cut out, then transportation of goods would have to be by air and the blue states are net consumers of food, so something would have to be done about that.
And then you name drop Oklahoma twice. Ironic.
Which was not even mentioned in the summary, even more ironically. I guess all of Oklahoma's racists moved to North Dakota.
Actually, I disagree with my own statement, Most of the racists in Oklahoma are minorities. Of course, that is true anywhere.
Even when the climate changes, there will still be some areas suited to the growing of coffee
Somehow it doesn't seem as sensational when you think rationally. Of course, if it is getting to hot to grow coffee in one place, then there is almost certainly a close by climate that is coming into it's own as a good place to grow coffee.
Areas that are desert now were fertile 2,000 years ago, and vice versa. Things change. Areas get hotter, other areas get colder. Some places that used to get lots of rain become more arid, while other arid areas start to get rain.
Why don't you drink more beer?
Because American beer is crap and imported beer is expensive, and to me, at least, tastes like more expensive crap. I don't want coffee, either. I have had one decent tasting cup of coffee in my life, in Honduras, and when I went back years later and had another cup, it tasted awful. Give me soda.
Gullible fool detected.
That's not a very nice thing to say about Charles Darwin. He was a brilliant naturalist and extremely well educated. You can't just dismiss all his theories simply because he believed in God.
If Darwin were elected to congress in 2012 he would see a nation devolving. Most of the public has no real problem with evolution but people who are devolving to a more primitive state would not like a politician who was so focused upon evolution. Nothing could be more proof of devolution than the right wing diatribe and lack of a center core like Mitt Romney.
Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest. It almost seems like that is the position of the Republicans. The Democrats tend to be more about making sure that everybody gets a chance to reproduce , no matter how fit. In fact, the more responsible, intelligent, and hardworking people are, the less likely they are to reproduce.
As a fellow Christian and college educated person, I think that Darwin would make an excellent leader. Maybe not a great politician, but we don't need great politicians, we need great leaders. Now science is not the most import plank for a governmental platform, but I think he would properly fund science and research, which has not happened since the heyday of 50s and 60s, when, by a bizarre and surely unrelated coincidence, the United States produced the greatest technological advances in history.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a moot point. As we were told time and time again every time legalization of pot came up, "pot users don't ever drive high." So, obviously the authorities are just imagining that these people have marijuana in their bloodstreams. Because surely a pot user would not lie to us.
"How do I reach them? How can I tell them I have a new album coming out?" and “I want my data and in 2012 I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t own it.”
This is a simple problem to solve. Just advertise on Pandora. In fact, you can advertise whenever your own song is played. So every time your song is played, you get X for the play and you pay them X+profit for the advertisement. Feel better now?
Now, what these drones do when they fly over your property is another matter. You may have a case to sue the operator if they took photos of your daughter sunbathing in the backyard that's surrounded by a fence.
I think case law is pretty clear. Google had to deal with this when they did streetview and basically if you can see it from the street without any special (telephoto, infrared) lens, then it is not private. If you need a special lens, or have to go through efforts to see in, then you are infringing on privacy rights. So, if the activists could have just as easily snapped pictures from outside the picture, then they are free to do so, but if they have to have a drone to do so, then they were operating illegally, and when you operate illegally, you have to expect that sometimes there are consequences. Now, we do in the U.S. more and more of late, try to protect criminals as much as possible from being hurt or killed by their intended victims. In some cases, going so far as to throw the victims in jail for shooting back at the criminals, but so far, innocent civilians still seem to have this reckless urge to protect themselves from criminals. It's like they think it is their right to protect themselves from criminals or something.
Do you shoot at those 747s flying 38,000ft over your property?
He could, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow.
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal? Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters? Of course, the answer is "no", because what they are trying to do is paint the shooters in a bad light. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.
"stay under 400', and keep it in sight", and basically no rules.
And, of course, have permission to be flying the model aircraft there.
I deal with images every day and I haven't used the word a couple of times in the last decade. I have NEVER heard anyone use the word GIF as a verb. I think that a prerequisite for word of the year is that it has to be a word that more than 1% of the general population would have heard and uses on a regular basis. I guess all the commonly used words were all copyrighted.
Well, I wasn't speaking from a legal perspective. From a legal perspective of course it is trespass because you are a normal law abiding citizen and they would much rather arrest you for a crime than the possibly armed bad guy who stole your stuff. But from a moral perspective, it is definitely justified to thwart whatever barriers they have put up between you and your property.
Even if you force the gate, it is not trespass. They invited you onto their property by acquiring and stowing your property on it without your permission. In order to recover your property, you obviously have to gain entry to that property.
From a legal perspective, no it is not legal to steal your stuff back from a robber. If you can prove it is yours, then you can get the police to force them to give it back, but if you know it is yours and don't have proof, then you can be arrested for stealing it back, and since you are a normally law abiding citizen, and the person you stole from is a dangerous robber, the police would rather arrest you because you are not actually dangerous.
A guy a know had a bike stolen when he was a kid. He had the serial number, and he went with the cops down to the garage of the person he knew stole their bike. Sure enough, the bike was there, along with 20 or 30 others. The problem? It was in pieces. The frame had the serial number, and the police said they could take the frame, but when he pointed out his wheels and handlebars, they said "Sorry, you can't have those because we don't know they are yours". His father was with him and said "What if we just take them anyway?" The police told them they would arrest him and charge him with theft. However, when all was said and done, the person who had 20 or 30 stolen bicycles parted out in his shop was not arrested and not charged with theft.
'nuff said.
I've recently had an experience with LinkedIn that is making me value it less and less. It came up and asked me if I had the following skills, and then listed about 20 skills, about 15 of which I had. I didn't know whether to hit "no" because I didn't have all of them or "yes" because I had a lot of them. I hit "yes". Now, LinkedIn says I have a couple of skills that I don't actually have. I tried to find a quick way remove those skills, but didn't have all day to try to figure out how to do it, and five minutes of looking around my profile yielded no results, and led to a rabbit trail where LinkedIn was trying to get me to update my whole life history. The same thing happened when I tried to change my title in my existing company. It wanted me to put a new company name in and everything. I just gave up and now my profile has false and outdated information. If I was hiring, I would not use a LinkedIn profile as a good indicator of what skills or even what employer somebody had.
Huh, I always thought the apple fanboi stereotype was a skinny, vegan, prius driver.
It's a stereotype: Just like used-car salesmen, the majority of recruiters are helpful, knowledgeable and genuinely want to help.
You're right. 99% of recruiters give the other 1% a bad name.
I have known a couple of recruiters that were genuinely clueful and did try to put the right people with the right skills into the right positions. However, a large number of recruiters I have worked with were not knowledgeable at all about skillsets or about the marketability of certain skillsets.They genuinely tried to help, but there was simply no way that they were going to be able to help without knowing something about the skills I had. That probably represented about 30% of the recruiters I have dealt with. The other 69+% of recruiters were Indian shell companies searching for cheap H1B labor to place and wouldn't submit an American for an open contract if you held a gun to their head. The first clue to these scams is when they ask about your H1b status. They don't even pretend to be legitimate by putting "I am a citizen" as a valid response on their contact sheet.
But I thought Meg was in favor of a free market!
Well, it seems that in a free market, you could walk in to either company and offer your services and be judged based on your skills and price and on their need. An agreement not to hire another companies employees is an illegal restriction of the free market. Unfortunately, 90% or more of companies do it. The company I work for does it. All of the vendors and suppliers have to sign agreements saying they will not hire from my company.
Yes. 30 years ago, a family that had a computer in the home also had someone who specifically knew how to use it, how to monitor what was going on it, and how to control access to it. Now, thanks to the efforts of Microsoft and other large corporations, computers are ubiquitous. There is one or more than one in nearly every home. More importantly, you don't have to be a computer genius to use them. We as a society think that is A GOOD THING. So how can we on one hand say that we want computers to be so easy to use that you don't have to actually understand security, firewalling, and whatever else, but then also try to hold someone responsible because they do not know those things? Would it be better for society as a whole if we went back to only computer professionals are allowed to have any sort of computing device, such as a PC, a cell phone, a TV, a gaming console?
I'm more shocked that he got 5 years for assaulting a police officer. Seriously?
I'm shocked, too. Around here, you can get thrown in jail for life for shooting and killing a gun wielding robber. I can't imagine what they would do if you assaulted a police officer.
Of course, what they mean by assaulting a police officer is that he probably accidentally stepped on the officer's foot while being pushed into the cop car.
Because that's where the potential customers are. It's more productive to put an ad in a shopping mall than in a forest.
I would also think it would be more effective and cheaper to advertise on your own site. If I want to go buy a Dell, I think "I will go to Dell.com", not "I will go to Dell's facebook page".
What I'd really like to see though is for the "red states" to get precisely what they're asking for. Well, that would lead to a rather disjointed United States, and one that is about 1/5 or less the current size.
I should point out that of the net consumer states that voted republican, all of them are rather sparsely populated. Most of the money is not going as free handouts to citizens, but as money for infrastructure and for subsidies for agriculture. So if the red states were cut out, then transportation of goods would have to be by air and the blue states are net consumers of food, so something would have to be done about that.
And then you name drop Oklahoma twice. Ironic.
Which was not even mentioned in the summary, even more ironically. I guess all of Oklahoma's racists moved to North Dakota.
Actually, I disagree with my own statement, Most of the racists in Oklahoma are minorities. Of course, that is true anywhere.
Even when the climate changes, there will still be some areas suited to the growing of coffee
Somehow it doesn't seem as sensational when you think rationally. Of course, if it is getting to hot to grow coffee in one place, then there is almost certainly a close by climate that is coming into it's own as a good place to grow coffee.
Areas that are desert now were fertile 2,000 years ago, and vice versa. Things change. Areas get hotter, other areas get colder. Some places that used to get lots of rain become more arid, while other arid areas start to get rain.
Why don't you drink more beer?
Because American beer is crap and imported beer is expensive, and to me, at least, tastes like more expensive crap. I don't want coffee, either. I have had one decent tasting cup of coffee in my life, in Honduras, and when I went back years later and had another cup, it tasted awful. Give me soda.
Gullible fool detected.
That's not a very nice thing to say about Charles Darwin. He was a brilliant naturalist and extremely well educated. You can't just dismiss all his theories simply because he believed in God.
If Darwin were elected to congress in 2012 he would see a nation devolving. Most of the public has no real problem with evolution but people who are devolving to a more primitive state would not like a politician who was so focused upon evolution. Nothing could be more proof of devolution than the right wing diatribe and lack of a center core like Mitt Romney.
Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest. It almost seems like that is the position of the Republicans. The Democrats tend to be more about making sure that everybody gets a chance to reproduce , no matter how fit. In fact, the more responsible, intelligent, and hardworking people are, the less likely they are to reproduce.
As a fellow Christian and college educated person, I think that Darwin would make an excellent leader. Maybe not a great politician, but we don't need great politicians, we need great leaders. Now science is not the most import plank for a governmental platform, but I think he would properly fund science and research, which has not happened since the heyday of 50s and 60s, when, by a bizarre and surely unrelated coincidence, the United States produced the greatest technological advances in history.