I prefer to know exactly where people stand, myself. So, I personally go out of my way to avoid working with people who make that their standard mode of operation if I find out that's what they're doing. At least with people who are blatant about fucking everyone over, determining my position of opposition is really quite simple.
Just because an employer doesn't represent an employee's best interest does not automatically mean an existing union does.
The fact that organized crime has long been involved with unions just goes to show they're a great vehicle for money and power. Those sorts of vehicles attract exactly the sort of people you don't want driving them. No, they're not all bad, but neither are they all good. The knee-jerk jumping to the defense of all unions when someone points out something which is both negative and true does not endear people to pro-union causes, any more than the opposite does to anti-union causes. It's perfectly reasonable to argue for the good while acknowledging that there is a dark side to many unions, much as the reverse can also be a reasonable position to hold.
I didn't want to stir up any Mac or A/V zealots, not to mention the one aviation nut out there who thinks aircraft control systems count for the purposes of this argument. But yes, I agree.
I don't get the supporters' hard-on for the convergence, especially video + ethernet. Those two things are going in the opposite direction for me. One goes to my desk, the other to the rack with networking equipment. Even if I had a more-standard setup it wouldn't make sense. Alright, use two separate ports? Sure. I can do that already. For cheaper. A LOT cheaper. Get a new breakout box if it's only one port? No thanks, don't need even more space eaten up off my desk.
It's got benefits, but this type of convergence (aside from docking portable devices) is not really one of them.
Yeah, FireWire ports are decently common-ish. FireWire devices? Not so much. And that's really a shame.
I'm not really an Apple fan, but I hope that Thunderbolt takes off more than FireWire did. Meaning, something more than random A/V equipment and external hard drives. So you can actually buy reasonably standard, decently-priced desktop equipment that uses it as an interface. I'm not holding my breath though. The biggest reason is USB3 is here, it's standard, and it's cheap. Unless they can price Thunderbolt identically, it's unlikely to take off any more than FireWire did. The ports will be there; the devices (other than the above mentioned) will not.
I'd be interested to see if the law in Florida protects those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would suspect it likely does not, and the person claiming such is more than likely an idiot. I could be wrong though.
All it takes is determining where you place China and/or India. You either get squeezed way left, way right, or dead center, depending on how you categorize those two.
The point being that "structuring" was, up to that point, an add-on offense. It was explicitly passed to be added as a charge only when another crime had been committed. Even then, it's only provable circumstantially, which is why it was an add-on. Unless someone confesses to deliberately structuring their deposits to avoid mandatory reporting, it can only be circumstantial. Absent provable criminal intent (via the commission of another crime contemporaneously), it cannot be a crime, since it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
"The App Store revolutionized mobile apps. We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun. We can’t wait to get started on January 6." --Steve Jobs
The utilities were never deregulated. They were differently regulated. Electrical utilities are still among the most heavily regulated businesses in the United States.
That's not to say the system isn't rotten, but deregulation is not something that ever actually happened.
The actual business model is: "The Federal government is providing massive subsidies if we upgrade to smart grid."
End of story. Yes, I personally know people who work in the utility industry deploying smart grid infrastructure for exactly that reason. The Federal government is already involved, being the primary reason for the deployment already.
'Backbone' refers to core network links, while 'backhaul' usually refers to secondary links which connect edge networks or endpoint aggregators to the backbone.
For anyone unfamiliar with the term, it's the depositing of money into an account in such a way as to avoid triggering mandatory transaction reporting for banks. It's intended as a tack-on charge for money laundering when another crime has been committed. In this case, the lawyer did nothing wrong other than "structure" his deposits. The money was earned legally and all taxes had been paid on it. He even got to keep the money after being convicted, because it was earned legally and taxes had been paid on it. He committed no crime, but because his deposits were designed to not trigger mandatory reporting requirements from the bank, he now has a criminal record.
The patent does discuss Fourier transforms as a part of the technique, though it didn't seem as though there were any specifics involved listed in the patent itself. I don't know how complete the USPTO listings are though.
CSIRO's patent is a combination of technologies which weren't put together on a chip already due to technical problems with putting them together on a chip. CSIRO didn't manage to figure out a way to do it either. And, as far as I'm aware, their contention is that nobody took their royalty requests seriously. There was no "reneging" on an agreement to pay royalties. They took these companies to court specifically because they denied the validity of the patent.
It's sort of like saying "Mix A, B, and C together without blowing it up" will fix problem Z. That's all well and good if you, yourself, patent a non-obvious method for doing so when nobody else can figure it out. However, in this case it seems they patented the recipe "Mix A, B, C" without being able to themselves, not a process that actually worked. The problem seemed to be that the recipe was obvious to everyone, but nobody had figured out how to put it together successfully (again, CSIRO didn't either). So, once others figured out how to finally get these elements working together they sued because it used the recipe of ingredients that were obvious to everyone from the get-go would eventually be used in some form or other.
I could be off-base about the above assumptions, but they are what I've gathered from reading the various articles I could find actually discussing the patents technically and from reading the patent description itself. I'm not a radiophysicist/engineer, so I could be missing something which would be obvious to one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Anywhere you find karst you're liable to find sinkholes.
I prefer to know exactly where people stand, myself. So, I personally go out of my way to avoid working with people who make that their standard mode of operation if I find out that's what they're doing. At least with people who are blatant about fucking everyone over, determining my position of opposition is really quite simple.
Just because an employer doesn't represent an employee's best interest does not automatically mean an existing union does.
The fact that organized crime has long been involved with unions just goes to show they're a great vehicle for money and power. Those sorts of vehicles attract exactly the sort of people you don't want driving them. No, they're not all bad, but neither are they all good. The knee-jerk jumping to the defense of all unions when someone points out something which is both negative and true does not endear people to pro-union causes, any more than the opposite does to anti-union causes. It's perfectly reasonable to argue for the good while acknowledging that there is a dark side to many unions, much as the reverse can also be a reasonable position to hold.
I want it legal until the 100th trimester, myself.
Except when it's not. It's a trait of both parties. They just want to control different aspects of peoples' lives.
Don't see many right wingers advocating for abolishing the drug war.
Our failure to insist on scientific literacy rates as high as written-word literacy rates is going to be something that comes back to bite us [...]
It's been my experience that written literacy rates are a contrived number which are no higher than scientific literacy rates.
I didn't want to stir up any Mac or A/V zealots, not to mention the one aviation nut out there who thinks aircraft control systems count for the purposes of this argument. But yes, I agree.
American freedom is the target in the same way the average elected official's primary concern is the welfare of the average US citizen.
Well, in the case of a .disgruntledpenguins TLD, it would be the actual domain. As a subdomain it's usually irrelevant though.
I don't get the supporters' hard-on for the convergence, especially video + ethernet. Those two things are going in the opposite direction for me. One goes to my desk, the other to the rack with networking equipment. Even if I had a more-standard setup it wouldn't make sense. Alright, use two separate ports? Sure. I can do that already. For cheaper. A LOT cheaper. Get a new breakout box if it's only one port? No thanks, don't need even more space eaten up off my desk.
It's got benefits, but this type of convergence (aside from docking portable devices) is not really one of them.
Yeah, FireWire ports are decently common-ish. FireWire devices? Not so much. And that's really a shame.
I'm not really an Apple fan, but I hope that Thunderbolt takes off more than FireWire did. Meaning, something more than random A/V equipment and external hard drives. So you can actually buy reasonably standard, decently-priced desktop equipment that uses it as an interface. I'm not holding my breath though. The biggest reason is USB3 is here, it's standard, and it's cheap. Unless they can price Thunderbolt identically, it's unlikely to take off any more than FireWire did. The ports will be there; the devices (other than the above mentioned) will not.
I'd be interested to see if the law in Florida protects those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would suspect it likely does not, and the person claiming such is more than likely an idiot. I could be wrong though.
And here I was investing in the new Tea Leaves reader technology. Dammit, I'm gonna lose everything...
All it takes is determining where you place China and/or India. You either get squeezed way left, way right, or dead center, depending on how you categorize those two.
The point being that "structuring" was, up to that point, an add-on offense. It was explicitly passed to be added as a charge only when another crime had been committed. Even then, it's only provable circumstantially, which is why it was an add-on. Unless someone confesses to deliberately structuring their deposits to avoid mandatory reporting, it can only be circumstantial. Absent provable criminal intent (via the commission of another crime contemporaneously), it cannot be a crime, since it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just for kicks:
"The App Store revolutionized mobile apps. We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun. We can’t wait to get started on January 6."
--Steve Jobs
You can certainly paradigm shift without a clutch. You just need to know the paradigms well enough to know at what point they're synchronized. :)
The utilities were never deregulated. They were differently regulated. Electrical utilities are still among the most heavily regulated businesses in the United States.
That's not to say the system isn't rotten, but deregulation is not something that ever actually happened.
The actual business model is: "The Federal government is providing massive subsidies if we upgrade to smart grid."
End of story. Yes, I personally know people who work in the utility industry deploying smart grid infrastructure for exactly that reason. The Federal government is already involved, being the primary reason for the deployment already.
'Backbone' refers to core network links, while 'backhaul' usually refers to secondary links which connect edge networks or endpoint aggregators to the backbone.
Yeah, an example of that is the recent (by recent, sometime in the last couple years) conviction of a defense lawyer for "structuring." http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7056927
For anyone unfamiliar with the term, it's the depositing of money into an account in such a way as to avoid triggering mandatory transaction reporting for banks. It's intended as a tack-on charge for money laundering when another crime has been committed. In this case, the lawyer did nothing wrong other than "structure" his deposits. The money was earned legally and all taxes had been paid on it. He even got to keep the money after being convicted, because it was earned legally and taxes had been paid on it. He committed no crime, but because his deposits were designed to not trigger mandatory reporting requirements from the bank, he now has a criminal record.
The patent does discuss Fourier transforms as a part of the technique, though it didn't seem as though there were any specifics involved listed in the patent itself. I don't know how complete the USPTO listings are though.
Interesting, I saw no mention of that. Do you have a link to the source?
I know a number of people who are devout Occupiers. Not a single one of them brings up Obama as a source of their rage.
CSIRO's patent is a combination of technologies which weren't put together on a chip already due to technical problems with putting them together on a chip. CSIRO didn't manage to figure out a way to do it either. And, as far as I'm aware, their contention is that nobody took their royalty requests seriously. There was no "reneging" on an agreement to pay royalties. They took these companies to court specifically because they denied the validity of the patent.
It's sort of like saying "Mix A, B, and C together without blowing it up" will fix problem Z. That's all well and good if you, yourself, patent a non-obvious method for doing so when nobody else can figure it out. However, in this case it seems they patented the recipe "Mix A, B, C" without being able to themselves, not a process that actually worked. The problem seemed to be that the recipe was obvious to everyone, but nobody had figured out how to put it together successfully (again, CSIRO didn't either). So, once others figured out how to finally get these elements working together they sued because it used the recipe of ingredients that were obvious to everyone from the get-go would eventually be used in some form or other.
I could be off-base about the above assumptions, but they are what I've gathered from reading the various articles I could find actually discussing the patents technically and from reading the patent description itself. I'm not a radiophysicist/engineer, so I could be missing something which would be obvious to one.