I remember running into this type of issue at my first programming job, almost thirty years ago. I told my boss (the owner of the company) that in order to get the software to do what he wanted, we had to change some of the defaults on the computer. He insisted that I was wrong, because he hadn't missed any payments on any loans, and I was never able to get him to understand that the term had a different meaning when you're talking about computers. Still, he wasn't a techno-phobe by any means, he was computerizing his business long before it became common.
Of course not. The people running the gates aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow orders blindly. In fact, I suspect that the TSA gives all applicants an IQ test and only hires those who fail it. Now that I come to think of it, it occurs to me that Vogons would be just perfect for the job.
If you have trouble using a mouse because of shoulder trouble, do what I do: use a trackball. Most of the time it's resting on my knee, because that's the most comfortable place for me. I too have shoulder trouble (tendinitis) and find using a regular mouse very uncomfortable.
You, sir, are neglecting your patriotic duty to help choose your leaders.
Two problems with that: first, I wasn't talking about myself and second, I worked the polls at every election for over ten years before moving, and would do so again if asked. I take my civic duties very seriously, TYVM.
Except that national health care is highly unlikely to be unpopular.
Except, of course, with those millions of middle-class taxpayers who's tax bill is going to go up to pay for health insurance for homeless people and welfare mothers. Of course, they're too busy trying to make ends meet to spend any money on campaign contributions, so they don't matter, do they?
This is an out-of-court settlement, not a ruling by a judge. It doesn't set a precedent to be used in later cases. I'd almost bet money that as soon as the RIAA's landsharks found out what the professor's report said, they fell all over themselves offering a settlement to make sure it never came up in court. That means that they can continue to use the same type of "evidence" in other cases and hope the defendant caves.
If you read slashdot, you'd think that there would have been no possibility of RIAA winning because they are incompetent idiots without a clue.
Judging by the summary (No, of course I didn't RTFA.) the only real incompetent in this case was the defense attorney. What is the point of getting an expert witness if you're not going to use their testimony? Why wasn't the technical evidence challenged? When does the legal malpractice suit get filed?
And again, it doesn't matter what you *believe*; it matters what peer-reviewed science says. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of empirical data.
To be more accurate, it doesn't matter what you *believe,* it's what's actually happening, and only the empirical data can tell you that.
And on average, only 40% of eligible voters do vote, so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters
Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote, it's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast. Is that what you're suggesting?
I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Of course, I'd also make sure all machines were set up so that you can't log in using an account that doesn't have a password.
The Soviet Union lost more than 10 million soldiers in Europe.
Most of them during the early part of the conflict due largely to errors by their own commanders. And, since when is the butcher's bill the only measure of how important a part a combatant played? The US has always preferred spending brain-power and/or material instead of manpower to win wars, and WW II was no exception.
The US military did not play a significant role in Europe.
You are joking, right? Either that, or you don't know your history. Yes, the Soviets fielded a larger army than the Western Allies did, but they would have taken years more than they did to beat off the Germans if it weren't for the US. Why do you think Stalin kept pushing for a Second Front?
I had no idea that the US Supreme Court possibly dealt with any criminal cases at all.
Judging only by what you wrote, you didn't fully understand how the Supreme Court works, and that's all I had to go on. Also, judging by what a large number of slashdotters have written on legal issues, many posters have a very confused, superficial understanding of the US Justice system. (Look at how many people are so eager to accuse politicians of treason, ignoring the very precise definition of the crime in the Constitution.) Quite frankly, I've gotten to the point that I don't expect any understanding of our legal system here, until proven otherwise.
My guess is that you're just being an asshole.
Why? Because I took your words literally and pointed out an error politely?
Yes, it did: you can't get around the fatal word "only," so you decided to obfuscate the issue by quibbling about the syntax. Nice try, but it didn't work.
Where in the world did I claim it was limitted to civil suits?
To quote your post: "...the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen." That's where. The word "only" rules out the possibility of SCOTUS ruling on a criminal case, which is wrong. It may not be what you meant, but it's exactly what you wrote. If you don't think so, go back and look because I copied/pasted without change.
As much as the people here on Slashdot are anxious to prove how much smarter they are than the average poster, comments should slow down and actually READ what they are responding to.
Even better would be if they remembered what they'd posted in the first place, as the above demonstrates.
Not so. SCOTUS also hears appeals on criminal cases, such as Miranda, because it's the final court of appeal for any case. However, unless there are Constitutional issues involved, they don't generally accept the case. And, AIUI, those Constitutional issues have to be in the first appeal because as you can't add new grounds to your appeal as you move up the court ladder. IANAL, but that's what I've heard.
hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with
How...how...how...Second Millennium! Either you haven't had anything to do with Linux for the last decade or so, or you're a Microsoft fanboi astroturfing FUD. In either case, get back under your bridge, troll. I have a billygoat, and I'm not afraid to use it!
... and charge them time and materials for increase support overhead
Now there's a thought! Pointy-haired middle-manager wants you to stop doing your main job to do something for him. You demand more money for it. Then, your own boss offers to pay you more if you don't drop your Important Project for this. Now, you have a bidding war, and may the deepest pockets win!
I don't know why, but looking at your post gave me a weird idea: I'd love to have a utility that could run from a bootable CD, and transform an NTFS filesystem to an ext3 system while leaving the data and directory structure intact. Run it on aome hard cae's computer late at night and watch the fun when he tries to boot the next day...
All the data's there, Windows is still there, but it can't read the file system to boot itself.
I'm on the edge of adopting world class BOFHdom in self-defense.
Go for it! And always remember, the most BOFHly thing you can do is give some luser exactly what he asked for, knowing he'll regret it. (e.g., he demands you install a search bar for him, so you give him Bonzai Buddy.)
Are you sure that's the only time men got down there? I'd not be surprised if the Seaview didn't manage it at least once. After all, that's exactly the type of thing she was built for.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember running into this type of issue at my first programming job, almost thirty years ago. I told my boss (the owner of the company) that in order to get the software to do what he wanted, we had to change some of the defaults on the computer. He insisted that I was wrong, because he hadn't missed any payments on any loans, and I was never able to get him to understand that the term had a different meaning when you're talking about computers. Still, he wasn't a techno-phobe by any means, he was computerizing his business long before it became common.
Of course not. The people running the gates aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow orders blindly. In fact, I suspect that the TSA gives all applicants an IQ test and only hires those who fail it. Now that I come to think of it, it occurs to me that Vogons would be just perfect for the job.
How boring. Of course, I live in Southern California where we have all of the above except hurricanes, so my viewpoint is a tad biased.
If you have trouble using a mouse because of shoulder trouble, do what I do: use a trackball. Most of the time it's resting on my knee, because that's the most comfortable place for me. I too have shoulder trouble (tendinitis) and find using a regular mouse very uncomfortable.
Two problems with that: first, I wasn't talking about myself and second, I worked the polls at every election for over ten years before moving, and would do so again if asked. I take my civic duties very seriously, TYVM.
Except, of course, with those millions of middle-class taxpayers who's tax bill is going to go up to pay for health insurance for homeless people and welfare mothers. Of course, they're too busy trying to make ends meet to spend any money on campaign contributions, so they don't matter, do they?
This is an out-of-court settlement, not a ruling by a judge. It doesn't set a precedent to be used in later cases. I'd almost bet money that as soon as the RIAA's landsharks found out what the professor's report said, they fell all over themselves offering a settlement to make sure it never came up in court. That means that they can continue to use the same type of "evidence" in other cases and hope the defendant caves.
Judging by the summary (No, of course I didn't RTFA.) the only real incompetent in this case was the defense attorney. What is the point of getting an expert witness if you're not going to use their testimony? Why wasn't the technical evidence challenged? When does the legal malpractice suit get filed?
To be more accurate, it doesn't matter what you *believe,* it's what's actually happening, and only the empirical data can tell you that.
Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote, it's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast. Is that what you're suggesting?
I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Of course, I'd also make sure all machines were set up so that you can't log in using an account that doesn't have a password.
If that's a typo, it's certainly one of the most apt ones I've ever seen.
Most of them during the early part of the conflict due largely to errors by their own commanders. And, since when is the butcher's bill the only measure of how important a part a combatant played? The US has always preferred spending brain-power and/or material instead of manpower to win wars, and WW II was no exception.
You are joking, right? Either that, or you don't know your history. Yes, the Soviets fielded a larger army than the Western Allies did, but they would have taken years more than they did to beat off the Germans if it weren't for the US. Why do you think Stalin kept pushing for a Second Front?
No, of course it isn't. It only turns into lava when you put it in a lamp. Either that, or soap. I'm not sure which.
Judging only by what you wrote, you didn't fully understand how the Supreme Court works, and that's all I had to go on. Also, judging by what a large number of slashdotters have written on legal issues, many posters have a very confused, superficial understanding of the US Justice system. (Look at how many people are so eager to accuse politicians of treason, ignoring the very precise definition of the crime in the Constitution.) Quite frankly, I've gotten to the point that I don't expect any understanding of our legal system here, until proven otherwise.
My guess is that you're just being an asshole.
Why? Because I took your words literally and pointed out an error politely?
Yes, it did: you can't get around the fatal word "only," so you decided to obfuscate the issue by quibbling about the syntax. Nice try, but it didn't work.
To quote your post: "...the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen." That's where. The word "only" rules out the possibility of SCOTUS ruling on a criminal case, which is wrong. It may not be what you meant, but it's exactly what you wrote. If you don't think so, go back and look because I copied/pasted without change.
As much as the people here on Slashdot are anxious to prove how much smarter they are than the average poster, comments should slow down and actually READ what they are responding to.
Even better would be if they remembered what they'd posted in the first place, as the above demonstrates.
And that is relevant, how? SCOTUS is the final court of appeal for all cases, civil and criminal, not just for civil suits as you claim.
Not so. SCOTUS also hears appeals on criminal cases, such as Miranda, because it's the final court of appeal for any case. However, unless there are Constitutional issues involved, they don't generally accept the case. And, AIUI, those Constitutional issues have to be in the first appeal because as you can't add new grounds to your appeal as you move up the court ladder. IANAL, but that's what I've heard.
How...how...how...Second Millennium! Either you haven't had anything to do with Linux for the last decade or so, or you're a Microsoft fanboi astroturfing FUD. In either case, get back under your bridge, troll. I have a billygoat, and I'm not afraid to use it!
Now there's a thought! Pointy-haired middle-manager wants you to stop doing your main job to do something for him. You demand more money for it. Then, your own boss offers to pay you more if you don't drop your Important Project for this. Now, you have a bidding war, and may the deepest pockets win!
All the data's there, Windows is still there, but it can't read the file system to boot itself.
Go for it! And always remember, the most BOFHly thing you can do is give some luser exactly what he asked for, knowing he'll regret it. (e.g., he demands you install a search bar for him, so you give him Bonzai Buddy.)
Are you sure that's the only time men got down there? I'd not be surprised if the Seaview didn't manage it at least once. After all, that's exactly the type of thing she was built for.