Actually, California is one of the aforementioned states that require both parties on the phone to be notified of recording.
Fun tip, though: If you call a company and get a message that "To insure quality of service, this call may be recorded," this implies two things: 1. If you don't hang up, you are giving permission to be recorded. 2. Since they're stating it, they are also giving permission to be recorded (otherwise their recording would be illegal), and thus you can make your own recording and produce it in court to prove perjury when they produce an edited version.
1. It is easier to get a boat, load up all your possessions, sail to an unknown land across an uncertain sea journey, build entire towns from scratch, and find some way of making a living in this new land than it would have been to just pay lip service to the dominant sect at the time?
2. It's easier to risk life and limb staging sit-downs, stand-ups, and marches across the nation than it would have been to just stay in your place, drink out of the designated drinking fountain, and move the back of the bus?
3. It was easier to mobilize production across the nation for war, to recruit soldiers from every town and city across the country, build a massive war machine, with all the government takeover of industry and domestic transportation that involves, send all these troops to Europe, coordinate with allies, fight battles, keep up morale at home as people die in unprecedented numbers, and everything else a massive war effort entails, than it would have been to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany?
How about the source of our freedoms in this country - the Revolution. Many people at the time went bankrupt funding our armies. Not to mention died in the fighting. Do you really think that was easier than just going along with King George and paying the damn taxes?
On all points, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.
Due to the long history of anthropologists, archaeologists, and other researchers such as these guys, screwing over the Native Americans, it is already very difficult to get their cooperation on a lot of research.
This has been getting better in recent years. ("Recent" beginning in the late 1980s).
But then, when assholes like this come along, not only are they screwing over the group they're dealing with, they're also making things difficult for every other scientist in the country who depend on the cooperation of native tribes for their research.
Congratulations, guys, due to your dishonesty, you've set back the course of scientific research in every field related to yours by at least a couple more years. Assholes.
...a lack of defensiveness can also open one up to various dangers, the kinds that can remove one from the gene pool before reaching reproductive age.
While this was certainly true at least through the end of the neolithic age, it's very rarely so today.
Sure, some strangers pose some danger to us, but no more so for the most part than people we know.
We've come a long way since the times when coming across a stranger would mean we'd have to kill them lest they over-hunt our areas to feed their family, leaving ours to go hungry. These days, even if someone else does dig up your favorite clam bed you can just go to Safeway to get more.
The additional chances of reproduction by the highly social are going to far outweigh the minimal extra dangers it causes.
If the school, or anybody else, for-profit or non-, can't afford to pay for the licenses they need then the answer is to find another alternative, not to engage in illegal copyright infringement.
In this case, there are two possible solutions: They can ask Microsoft for donated licenses (which MS does all the time, by the way), or they can use a free alternative, such as OpenOffice. The latter is even better, really, as the open source can be used to demonstrate real-world programming examples. Even if a kid never programs professionally, it's still good for them to know that software is written and some idea of what it looks like and how it's accomplished will serve them well.
Good questions. And where would answers possibly be found. Oh, gods, if only there were an article linked from that summary! Or... and I know this is crazy talk here... but, what if the summary itself mentioned something other than billions of dollars!
The issue has become too much of a religion for the doubters to ever be convinced. (In many ways it has become intertwined with actual religion, as the Christian Right has taken up the banner to cease being good stewards of the Earth.)
Even if the next two investigations by the House of Commons find nothing, all it will prove to most people who currently deny global warming is that the House of Commons can't be trusted to objectively evaluate the evidence. Just like the United Nations.
As a leftist extremist, I've never been able to understand it either.
When I was volunteering at the Obama campaign office, this was probably my second biggest argument with most of my fellow workers, after nuclear power.
There have been some very bad voucher schemes proposed, which amount to nothing more than yet another tax break for wealthy people while shifting the burden to the poor.
But there have also been some good voucher schemes proposed. Something that would let parents send their children to any school, public or private, that they wanted, would be awesome. Something that would actually reduce the cost of expensive private schools for those who can't afford it would be great.
Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I've got a fairly common name, and have participated in a variety of online forums, including this one.
And, like you, the number one hit on Google for my name is actually me. But, if you add site:facebook, there's a page and a half of results before you get one that's actually related to me. And, even then, it's someone else talking about me. The first result that's by me is on the third page.
No idea how they'd decide which were and were not actually me.
Of course, the problem's the same when using Google. Even though the first few results are all me, an employer would have no way of knowing that. I've actually been asked before in a job interview about a software package I'd never heard of. When I looked it up later, I discovered that someone else going by "pluther" on a forum I'd never been to frequently posted technical advice for the tool.
If the numbers are accurate, does it matter which media source is reporting them?
Of course, there's lots of other questions that aren't answered here - such as the total number of requests, how much information is available publicly without a FOIA request, and how many requests are being ignored (remember, Ashcroft's official written policy was to ignore the first request for any given item and only deny it if there was a second one.)
Also, how much are requests being delayed for excessively long periods of time, and how many are being "fulfilled" with partial, heavily redacted, or completely unrelated data?
In fact, they don't even have to file to be treated as tax exempt.
Holy crap!
I was about to post to say you were full of shit on this one, so went to the IRS site to get a reference, and it turns out you're right.
"Religious organizations" still have to do all the paperwork that regular non-profits do, but there's a special exemption for "churches" that waive all these requirements. They don't even have to pay the $150 a year that we have to.
The IRS has a handy summary Q&A explaining how it works.
They have to obey certain rules, such as they're not allowed to transfer Church property to private individuals for less than market value (but nothing prohibits the church from owning a private jet that's used solely by Pat Robertson, for example).
Also, the church is prohibited from spending a "substantial part of its activity" in attempting to influence legislation, nor may it interfere in political campaigns. Of course, these rules are blatantly violated by large churches all the time.
There's even special rules for churches limiting the IRS's authority to audit them.
Most of the time, these things will be singular events.
Do you honestly expect this to lead to a whole bunch of Jedi trying to keep their hoods up in this place?
Sometimes the best response to a one-off like this is to just ignore it and move on. See previous post on letting things go.
Sure, the guy's religion is silly. But no sillier than any other, really.
Of course, she could have simply pointed out that nothing in the Jedi code requires one to keep their hood on at all times, and, in fact, we have counter-examples in every movie...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, California is one of the aforementioned states that require both parties on the phone to be notified of recording.
Fun tip, though: If you call a company and get a message that "To insure quality of service, this call may be recorded," this implies two things:
1. If you don't hang up, you are giving permission to be recorded.
2. Since they're stating it, they are also giving permission to be recorded (otherwise their recording would be illegal), and thus you can make your own recording and produce it in court to prove perjury when they produce an edited version.
Hell, I was using a notebook (as we called 'em back in Ye Olden Days) computer in class back in 1990, and I wasn't the only one.
No wireless, though, so I didn't surf the web with it.
No web either, come to think of it...
Which license redefines math so that 1980 + 10 = 2000, and taking 93% leaves only 3% remaining?
Notice, though, that the March of Dimes didn't try to block the Polio vaccine, or lobby against it in any way.
Instead, they switched to other things to wipe out, and have apparently made great progress on all sorts of various birth defects now...
"The largest" <> "the only"
Also, it was his nounage that was off. The verbage was correct.
So, you're making the claims that:
1. It is easier to get a boat, load up all your possessions, sail to an unknown land across an uncertain sea journey, build entire towns from scratch, and find some way of making a living in this new land than it would have been to just pay lip service to the dominant sect at the time?
2. It's easier to risk life and limb staging sit-downs, stand-ups, and marches across the nation than it would have been to just stay in your place, drink out of the designated drinking fountain, and move the back of the bus?
3. It was easier to mobilize production across the nation for war, to recruit soldiers from every town and city across the country, build a massive war machine, with all the government takeover of industry and domestic transportation that involves, send all these troops to Europe, coordinate with allies, fight battles, keep up morale at home as people die in unprecedented numbers, and everything else a massive war effort entails, than it would have been to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany?
How about the source of our freedoms in this country - the Revolution. Many people at the time went bankrupt funding our armies. Not to mention died in the fighting. Do you really think that was easier than just going along with King George and paying the damn taxes?
On all points, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.
So, really, they need 138 votes.
137 137 1/3, therefore it wouldn't pass.
Yes, it would have been easier.
We have rights because some people stand up for them, even when it's not the easiest thing to do.
And, it's not just YOU they get angry enough.
Due to the long history of anthropologists, archaeologists, and other researchers such as these guys, screwing over the Native Americans, it is already very difficult to get their cooperation on a lot of research.
This has been getting better in recent years. ("Recent" beginning in the late 1980s).
But then, when assholes like this come along, not only are they screwing over the group they're dealing with, they're also making things difficult for every other scientist in the country who depend on the cooperation of native tribes for their research.
Congratulations, guys, due to your dishonesty, you've set back the course of scientific research in every field related to yours by at least a couple more years. Assholes.
So, the only two things you got were a chip, a lousy t-shirt, and a story to tell.
No, wait...
But it ought to be.
While this was certainly true at least through the end of the neolithic age, it's very rarely so today.
Sure, some strangers pose some danger to us, but no more so for the most part than people we know.
We've come a long way since the times when coming across a stranger would mean we'd have to kill them lest they over-hunt our areas to feed their family, leaving ours to go hungry. These days, even if someone else does dig up your favorite clam bed you can just go to Safeway to get more.
The additional chances of reproduction by the highly social are going to far outweigh the minimal extra dangers it causes.
No, he did exactly the right thing.
I wish more people would do that.
If the school, or anybody else, for-profit or non-, can't afford to pay for the licenses they need then the answer is to find another alternative, not to engage in illegal copyright infringement.
In this case, there are two possible solutions: They can ask Microsoft for donated licenses (which MS does all the time, by the way), or they can use a free alternative, such as OpenOffice. The latter is even better, really, as the open source can be used to demonstrate real-world programming examples. Even if a kid never programs professionally, it's still good for them to know that software is written and some idea of what it looks like and how it's accomplished will serve them well.
Good questions.
And where would answers possibly be found. Oh, gods, if only there were an article linked from that summary!
Or... and I know this is crazy talk here... but, what if the summary itself mentioned something other than billions of dollars!
The issue has become too much of a religion for the doubters to ever be convinced. (In many ways it has become intertwined with actual religion, as the Christian Right has taken up the banner to cease being good stewards of the Earth.)
Even if the next two investigations by the House of Commons find nothing, all it will prove to most people who currently deny global warming is that the House of Commons can't be trusted to objectively evaluate the evidence. Just like the United Nations.
At least 98, it would seem...
As a leftist extremist, I've never been able to understand it either.
When I was volunteering at the Obama campaign office, this was probably my second biggest argument with most of my fellow workers, after nuclear power.
There have been some very bad voucher schemes proposed, which amount to nothing more than yet another tax break for wealthy people while shifting the burden to the poor.
But there have also been some good voucher schemes proposed. Something that would let parents send their children to any school, public or private, that they wanted, would be awesome. Something that would actually reduce the cost of expensive private schools for those who can't afford it would be great.
Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I've got a fairly common name, and have participated in a variety of online forums, including this one.
And, like you, the number one hit on Google for my name is actually me. But, if you add site:facebook, there's a page and a half of results before you get one that's actually related to me. And, even then, it's someone else talking about me. The first result that's by me is on the third page.
No idea how they'd decide which were and were not actually me.
Of course, the problem's the same when using Google. Even though the first few results are all me, an employer would have no way of knowing that. I've actually been asked before in a job interview about a software package I'd never heard of. When I looked it up later, I discovered that someone else going by "pluther" on a forum I'd never been to frequently posted technical advice for the tool.
For not knowing, you'd have to turn in your Trekkie card.
For having to ask, that'll be your Google license.
If the numbers are accurate, does it matter which media source is reporting them?
Of course, there's lots of other questions that aren't answered here - such as the total number of requests, how much information is available publicly without a FOIA request, and how many requests are being ignored (remember, Ashcroft's official written policy was to ignore the first request for any given item and only deny it if there was a second one.)
Also, how much are requests being delayed for excessively long periods of time, and how many are being "fulfilled" with partial, heavily redacted, or completely unrelated data?
See? SEE?? This is what happens when you let Texas choose school books.
No.
That just means that now they have a valid email address to sell along with the rest of your data.
Holy crap!
I was about to post to say you were full of shit on this one, so went to the IRS site to get a reference, and it turns out you're right.
"Religious organizations" still have to do all the paperwork that regular non-profits do, but there's a special exemption for "churches" that waive all these requirements. They don't even have to pay the $150 a year that we have to.
The IRS has a handy summary Q&A explaining how it works.
They have to obey certain rules, such as they're not allowed to transfer Church property to private individuals for less than market value (but nothing prohibits the church from owning a private jet that's used solely by Pat Robertson, for example).
Also, the church is prohibited from spending a "substantial part of its activity" in attempting to influence legislation, nor may it interfere in political campaigns. Of course, these rules are blatantly violated by large churches all the time.
There's even special rules for churches limiting the IRS's authority to audit them.
Damn.
Most of the time, these things will be singular events.
Do you honestly expect this to lead to a whole bunch of Jedi trying to keep their hoods up in this place?
Sometimes the best response to a one-off like this is to just ignore it and move on. See previous post on letting things go.
Sure, the guy's religion is silly. But no sillier than any other, really.
Of course, she could have simply pointed out that nothing in the Jedi code requires one to keep their hood on at all times, and, in fact, we have counter-examples in every movie...