wow. modded troll? Yep, its official, slashdot moderators are on crack today (damn it, I had mod points all week, and now when they are handing out the crank I don't get any!)
If the city is only providing infrastructure then they do not need to deal with issues like billing, collections, etc. While the infrastructure costs money it is mostly an upfront cost. Sure, squirrels will do their damage and there will be money spent here or there on maintaining it, but the real headaches for offering Internet access in an ongoing fashion are the customers.
Back in the day I worked at RPS. Management feared and hated UPS because it was unionized resulting in something like twice the pay (and, no, half of that did not go to the union). They were on to something because people only stayed at RPS until they could get a job with UPS. I was fired when I put in my two weeks notice because they would not believe me that quitting was due to moving (too far to commute to a hub), not because I was switching to UPS. Stupid, but that they really hated and feared UPS.
I could relate some anecdotal stories about what RPS was like from the shipping side, but what's the point? They're just anecdotes. But I have a hard time believing that working in a union shop would be worse than what went on there. And our working conditions were much better than what you claim.
Yes, looking at it superficially, you can honestly say, "Trump won x% of the delegrates" which gives him a primary victory. This does not, however, translate to "the popular will of the voters". I'm not sure what you even mean by that, but winning a majority of the delegates -- especially in the republican primary -- in no way represents a majority of the voters. There are two basic reasons for this:
1) many primary contests are "winner takes most" if not simply "winner take all". So in a contested victory what amounts to a third of the voters are simply excluded from representation. Even worse, in a situation like Missouri, Trump took the delegates with something like 50.1% to Cruz's 49.9% (I don't recall the actual numbers, but it was very very close).
2) delegates are not awarded on a population basis. In fact, the delegate distribution makes some states more important than others and relegates others to complete insignificance. It is very possible to have the winner of the majority of the votes not even place second in the primary simply due to how those votes are distributed.
While the DNC has a better system, in neither case can it really be asserted that the presumptive candidates represent the "popular will". This is *especially* true of the republican party where much of Trump's victory is simply due to the number of candidates (the most in history for any party) with only Trump being meaningfully differentiated from the others. Oh, the other candidates tore each other apart over minutia to be sure, but in the end they split the vote of non-Trump supporters. Only late in the primaries when it was down to Cruz and Trump did things take a more even footing.
I'm not trying to say that Trump doesn't have large, loud and significant support -- but it is pretty absurd to claim that his candidacy represents the will of the republican electorate. At best the electorate is strongly divided between establishment and anti-establishment.
The same is true, though perhaps to a lesser degree, for the democrats. The fact that Sanders has not been completely and utterly ruled out despite a clear and consistent message from the leadership from the outset that Hillary was anointed -- that speaks a lot to the divisiveness in the party. If there had been another establishment candidate to dilute Hillary's share of the primary delegates then Sanders would be in the same position as Trump. However, she's been gunning for the presidency for decades now and, after losing to Obama, made sure that the playing field was clear of opposition. She didn't count on Sanders which is looking to spoil her coronation (oh, she'll be nominated, but it won't be the fairytale version where she received it unopposed).
The numbers don't validate yours, either. Look outside of your narrow little world and realize that there really is a whole *world* of people out there. And some of them do terrible things to other people. Sometimes they use political words, sometimes sexual, sometimes racial, sometimes religious. But in the end, what matters is what they are doing, not their justifications for it.
You are not wrong, except for arguing about "how the English language is defined." In a limited, narrow and technical sense you are almost sort of correct. But in fact, English is not defined by dictionary authors, or committees or legal mandate. Though those have been tried (anyone who laughs at the French for trying to outlaw "blue jeans" from the French language should read up on the history of American English and the various attempts by well-meaning parties to regularize or change it in some way.
The English language, like all living languages, is defined by the way it is used. That's just a fact of life, though one that I get disgruntled with because I *like* the Anglo-Saxon parts of the language that are disappearing.
So where do dictionaries come in? A dictionary is an attempt to record the current state of the English language as used in a formal setting. Thus it serves as a reference to those who care to guide them in their use of form English. However, this distinction is not perfect because the over riding goal of a dictionary is to record usage. Therefore, common slang terms will be recorded as well. At least, in the more comprehensive dictionaries, though obviously noted as such. They also will continue to record words that are no longer commonly used, flagging them as "archaic".
The English language is huge and complex. How many readers know what "tergiversator" is without googling it? Will it be in a dictionary? Which ones, and for how long? Does it stop being an English word if it is not listed?
Whether or not any given word or meaning for a word makes it into a dictionary depends on how significant the compilers feel it to be. I have a translation of the Poetic Edda into English that uses words that I challenge anyone to find in a dictionary (not listed in my unabridged Oxford-English dictionary).
So, sadly, things that should be clear, like the meaning of theist, atheist, gnostic and agnostic vary over time. Which makes reading older works more challenging. But that is the nature of a living language.
(As an aside, consider Arabic which has no dictionary. You could try making an argument about how a word is discussed in Lissan al-Arab, but only certain academics would even care. For all that moslems consider Arabic to be the perfect, unchanging language of God it is as ever changing as any other language which makes for some interesting difficulties reading anything historical [due to either slippage in word meaning or a word no longer existing]. You don't even have to go to the Quran to find difficulty with reading. Without a chronology of dictionaries to make the changes apparent it gets dismissed as being "insignificant" and "dialect" only without affecting the core.)
I realize that language changes over time, but atheist is not a theist who loses religion and an agnostic is not a non-theist. In fact, the way you have it rather reverses things.
Agnosticism is a response to gnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from Greek "gnosis" or "knowing" and represented a particular kind of religion, though there are many variations of gnosticism (including some christian, some not). An agnostic is someone who declares that they do not have such knowledge. They do not deny the existence of a god or gods (as an atheist does), but they do not claim knowledge of it.
As mentioned above, atheism is a rejection of theism. This does not mean "disgruntled theists" or "ex-theists". It means someone why denies the existence of a god or gods -- because doing otherwise would make the a theist.
An agnostic is a kind of theist, the kind you have left over after categorizing by religion.
I got a lesson in animal morality when I was kid from my pet hamsters. The larger male pinned the smaller male and had sex with it. Yep, homosexual rape.
On the other hand, the act was essentially non-violent and there was no evidence of remorse or ill-feeling afterward. I attribute that to the lack of intelligence* on the part of the hamsters. Yes, intelligence is the real root of all evil, for without it there would be no knowing that it was right/wrong, good/bad.
*intelligence is a notoriously difficult term to pin down. Here I do not mean "cleverness" but knowledge or understanding. Philosophically it would be akin to the result of eating from the tree of knowledge -- Adam and Eve were not sinning in their nakedness until they became aware of it. (Not that I subscribe to that particular myth, but it works to illustrate what I'm talking about.)
As I posted above, this view is not held by all atheists. I'm not sure what the take on animals would be as they lack society to enforce rules on them. And I'm not clear on the whole chicken-egg part.
No group is uniform, whether that be muslims, christians, racists, novelists or atheists. It doesn't matter how you define the group -- and even if you partition it down to the individual I challenge for a proof that the individual behaves in a consistent manner from minute-to-minute, much less year-to-year.
A friend of mine is a devout atheist. He believes that, deep down, people are monsters who would do horrible things to one another without some sort of external check. He believes that this role is adequately filled by societal rules and expectations (but if the rule of law and order is broken then all hell will break lose).
This is as much a matter of belief as any religion. It is easy enough to find examples demonstrating his belief, but it is also possible to find counter examples.
He isn't an extremist, just firm in his beliefs. But it is easy to see how an extremist who held those beliefs would see it as society's responsibility to rein him in if he felt like lopping off heads in the name of "humans are monsters" (perhaps simply to demonstrate through the consequences that society does react). There are certainly precedents among anarchists for non-religious (and non-racist) fanaticism.
heh. Did you know that many.22 rounds are actually.224? OMG, it is.001" larger!
Of course, if you are talking about the lower powered rounds they are typically soft lead (sometimes with the thinnest veneer someone foolish might mistakenly refer to as a "jacket") and you will get more than.001 variation from handling.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say about.223 vs 5.56. If you are loading 5.56x45mm in a rifle chambered for it then your only concern is the loading for the particular round, but with 5.56x45mm there really isn't that much variation. The closest to that would be.38 Special vs.357 magnum -- they both fire bullets having essentially the same diameter and it is common to run.38 special through a.357 for target practice due to the price difference. But.38 special is 9x29mmR while.357 magnum is 9x33mmR making it difficult to load the magnum round in a revolver chambered for.38 special.
Because.22 is a popular caliber there are *many* different incompatible rounds in the nominal caliber, but the casings are different dimensions. If your ".223" rifle is chambered for 5.56x45mm then it is using 5.56x45mm -- no matter whether you call it 5.56 NATO,.223 Remington, etc.
Please, what is a 22L and what does it have to do with a ".22 bolt action"?
There are so many varieties of.22 caliber ammunition around that making assumptions based on just the diameter of the bullet is pretty foolish. Compare a.22 short with.22 long rifle with a.22 magnum with a.220 swift (and that is just highlights).
For what its worth, evaluating "stopping power" is a controversial topic, but using muzzle energy as the sole criteria is so demonstrably useless that it makes no sense. (And will quickly land you in hot water with.45ACP aficionados due to its relatively anaemic muzzle energy, especially if you bring up unusual small caliber/high velocity handgun rounds like.221 fireball or.22 SCAMP).
Maybe my information is dated (I don't hunt myself), but my understanding is that it is illegal to hunt deer in Missouri with a.22 caliber rifle. Now, people I know were using.220-swift thirty years ago to do so (and one was quite proud of a lucky long distance head shot). So either my understanding is wrong, or some hunters don't care.
to be clear: this was not a bug in the third party code. The vulnerability was *created* by Google's programmers removing an assert() from the library. The fix was for them to replace the assert() with an if() statement. Conceptually, this is similar to the debian ssh bug where the debian maintainer of openssh removed nearly all entropy by "fixing" the code so that it wouldn't generate a compile-time warning.
Don't go blaming third parties when its the integrator's fault.
I have thought the same many, many times. However, what worries me is the thought of what things would be like if I'm wrong and he doesn't obstruct a business controlled congress (why would he? he represents a significant business interest). He makes a wonderful (from some points of view) figurehead because his ludicrous antics will capture and draw attention away from an escalating abuse of power.
In other words, he can be completely ineffectual and accomplish a lot (or a lot be accomplished) by him doing nothing other than what he has shown himself good at: glorying in global attention.
"and make the burden of proof on the employer, not the employee."
More specifically, that will never happen. For all that the certain politicians make a lot of noise about illegal immigrants their clients are mostly large businesses -- and in the southwest many of those businesses hire illegal immigrants in order to keep costs down. Heck, even one of the presidential candidates has made it clear that he prefers to hire immigrants by bending/breaking the rules rather than Americans (though he says it is because it makes them "seem exotic" to the customers rather than admit the economics).
When the politicians comprising our government are either owners of business or are owned by businesses they will fight long and hard to avoid making any law that hurts those businesses. A major reason for CANSPAM was to undercut existing state laws which were stronger -- and even worse, more states were looking to pass even more onerous (from a business perspective) laws. CANSPAM is an apt acronym because it essentially authorizes spam.
There *are* other reasons to enter the US and defenders of the status quo will claim that "the illegals are sneaky and trick the companies into hiring them" or that it is too hard to verify citizenship, etc. On the other hand I suppose there is something to the difficulty of verifying citizenship when your budget for doing so is $0.
In the end, I do not expect to see any laws penalizing companies for hiring illegals. And with the offer of jobs that pay better than in Mexico it is inevitable that some will take the risk of illegal entry.
" I often wonder if shows like Firefly or Stargate were cancelled due to the higher likelihood of piracy."
Not even close.
Firefly was cancelled because the network wanted a "Joss Whedon show" because of him being popular, but they didn't want an actual Joss Whedon show. For example, they rejected the pilot and wanted something with action and whiz-bang. Joss provided them with the second episode which they then aired as the first. This dislike of the show they were paying for only intensified as the season progressed. By refusing to play the episodes in order they made the show confusing to any viewer. The cancellation was inevitable. The sad footnote to this is that Dark Angel's third and final season (which had already been green lit) was *cancelled* in order to give the slot to Firefly. So the Dark Angel story just cut off 2/3 of the way through and Firefly has a barely salvaged almost ending (not aired, but part of the DVD release).
Stargate was cancelled because they had run it into the ground. I'm not a fan of the show myself, but I understand that it was popular with some. But ten years for the main show and then considering spin offs it had been beaten to death.
Interesting, but I saw no mention of restoring seizure of cash. Instead, it talks about restoring "equitable sharing payments" which are between agencies/departments or some such and only related to civil asset forfeiture on the back end (distribution) and not the front end (seizure).
Responding to the gp about ignoring the constitution? So what if they brought up "de gunz"? If you haven't noticed the repeated and escalating trampling on the constitution for the last >100 years then you haven't paid attention to either history or current events. Forget about the thinly veiled second amendment reference.
Your rant makes you look like an idiot whose bought into the false narrative encouraged by the totalitarian state that "resistance is futile". By all means, use encryption and do whatever else takes your fancy to "fight the power". But, at the end of the day, rebellions involve real people and occur in "meat space". They are bloody and violent. That means people get killed. In a full scale rebellion that means people you know and love. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters. So I can understand the appeal of wanting it to be somehow theoretical, for it to somehow take place somewhere removed -- like "cyber space". You can appeal to "but technology" but that doesn't change the reality of people being physical, "meat space", entities.
[For the totalitarian state that is sweeping this up into their Data Heaven, please note that I am in no way encouraging rebellions, whether physical or cyber, and certainly not against a lawful, elected government. Please construe my points about the death and violence inherent in the system as being to dissuade any poor, lost souls who might be determined to fight against the machine from doing so. Thank you.]
That was my first thought. But it is a prepaid "line of credit" and so is, essentially, a secured credit card. Because the officer need not even charge you with anything much less arrest you the "perpetrator" could obtain a replacement card and drain it themselves. In the event of an arrest they could use an accomplice to do the same thing.
In the interest of protecting the government's right to seize property without a conviction the only solution is to drain the cards. Naturally, the company is paid 7.7% of the seizure in the best spirit of profit sharing anywhere.
My favorite quote from the article: "If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution,” Loveless said.
Knowing Apple it would probably be proprietary (or, an open standard not used by anyone else). But the idea of them creating power stations as outlets for their excess power does not *require* that. Arguably, they would in fact benefit by using whatever standard Tesla does. This idea makes a lot of sense -- and if they are allowed to sell electricity "at retail" then they can make money off of it. Here's hoping Apple doesn't do stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
well, that's why you spend money hiring a lawyer to convince the court/jury that *you* didn't craft that fraudulent check.
In soviet russia the robot overloads server you!
wow. modded troll? Yep, its official, slashdot moderators are on crack today (damn it, I had mod points all week, and now when they are handing out the crank I don't get any!)
Short answer: Dealing with customers.
If the city is only providing infrastructure then they do not need to deal with issues like billing, collections, etc. While the infrastructure costs money it is mostly an upfront cost. Sure, squirrels will do their damage and there will be money spent here or there on maintaining it, but the real headaches for offering Internet access in an ongoing fashion are the customers.
Back in the day I worked at RPS. Management feared and hated UPS because it was unionized resulting in something like twice the pay (and, no, half of that did not go to the union). They were on to something because people only stayed at RPS until they could get a job with UPS. I was fired when I put in my two weeks notice because they would not believe me that quitting was due to moving (too far to commute to a hub), not because I was switching to UPS. Stupid, but that they really hated and feared UPS.
I could relate some anecdotal stories about what RPS was like from the shipping side, but what's the point? They're just anecdotes. But I have a hard time believing that working in a union shop would be worse than what went on there. And our working conditions were much better than what you claim.
Yes, looking at it superficially, you can honestly say, "Trump won x% of the delegrates" which gives him a primary victory. This does not, however, translate to "the popular will of the voters". I'm not sure what you even mean by that, but winning a majority of the delegates -- especially in the republican primary -- in no way represents a majority of the voters. There are two basic reasons for this:
1) many primary contests are "winner takes most" if not simply "winner take all". So in a contested victory what amounts to a third of the voters are simply excluded from representation. Even worse, in a situation like Missouri, Trump took the delegates with something like 50.1% to Cruz's 49.9% (I don't recall the actual numbers, but it was very very close).
2) delegates are not awarded on a population basis. In fact, the delegate distribution makes some states more important than others and relegates others to complete insignificance. It is very possible to have the winner of the majority of the votes not even place second in the primary simply due to how those votes are distributed.
While the DNC has a better system, in neither case can it really be asserted that the presumptive candidates represent the "popular will". This is *especially* true of the republican party where much of Trump's victory is simply due to the number of candidates (the most in history for any party) with only Trump being meaningfully differentiated from the others. Oh, the other candidates tore each other apart over minutia to be sure, but in the end they split the vote of non-Trump supporters. Only late in the primaries when it was down to Cruz and Trump did things take a more even footing.
I'm not trying to say that Trump doesn't have large, loud and significant support -- but it is pretty absurd to claim that his candidacy represents the will of the republican electorate. At best the electorate is strongly divided between establishment and anti-establishment.
The same is true, though perhaps to a lesser degree, for the democrats. The fact that Sanders has not been completely and utterly ruled out despite a clear and consistent message from the leadership from the outset that Hillary was anointed -- that speaks a lot to the divisiveness in the party. If there had been another establishment candidate to dilute Hillary's share of the primary delegates then Sanders would be in the same position as Trump. However, she's been gunning for the presidency for decades now and, after losing to Obama, made sure that the playing field was clear of opposition. She didn't count on Sanders which is looking to spoil her coronation (oh, she'll be nominated, but it won't be the fairytale version where she received it unopposed).
The numbers don't validate yours, either. Look outside of your narrow little world and realize that there really is a whole *world* of people out there. And some of them do terrible things to other people. Sometimes they use political words, sometimes sexual, sometimes racial, sometimes religious. But in the end, what matters is what they are doing, not their justifications for it.
You are not wrong, except for arguing about "how the English language is defined." In a limited, narrow and technical sense you are almost sort of correct. But in fact, English is not defined by dictionary authors, or committees or legal mandate. Though those have been tried (anyone who laughs at the French for trying to outlaw "blue jeans" from the French language should read up on the history of American English and the various attempts by well-meaning parties to regularize or change it in some way.
The English language, like all living languages, is defined by the way it is used. That's just a fact of life, though one that I get disgruntled with because I *like* the Anglo-Saxon parts of the language that are disappearing.
So where do dictionaries come in? A dictionary is an attempt to record the current state of the English language as used in a formal setting. Thus it serves as a reference to those who care to guide them in their use of form English. However, this distinction is not perfect because the over riding goal of a dictionary is to record usage. Therefore, common slang terms will be recorded as well. At least, in the more comprehensive dictionaries, though obviously noted as such. They also will continue to record words that are no longer commonly used, flagging them as "archaic".
The English language is huge and complex. How many readers know what "tergiversator" is without googling it? Will it be in a dictionary? Which ones, and for how long? Does it stop being an English word if it is not listed?
Whether or not any given word or meaning for a word makes it into a dictionary depends on how significant the compilers feel it to be. I have a translation of the Poetic Edda into English that uses words that I challenge anyone to find in a dictionary (not listed in my unabridged Oxford-English dictionary).
So, sadly, things that should be clear, like the meaning of theist, atheist, gnostic and agnostic vary over time. Which makes reading older works more challenging. But that is the nature of a living language.
(As an aside, consider Arabic which has no dictionary. You could try making an argument about how a word is discussed in Lissan al-Arab, but only certain academics would even care. For all that moslems consider Arabic to be the perfect, unchanging language of God it is as ever changing as any other language which makes for some interesting difficulties reading anything historical [due to either slippage in word meaning or a word no longer existing]. You don't even have to go to the Quran to find difficulty with reading. Without a chronology of dictionaries to make the changes apparent it gets dismissed as being "insignificant" and "dialect" only without affecting the core.)
I realize that language changes over time, but atheist is not a theist who loses religion and an agnostic is not a non-theist. In fact, the way you have it rather reverses things.
Agnosticism is a response to gnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from Greek "gnosis" or "knowing" and represented a particular kind of religion, though there are many variations of gnosticism (including some christian, some not). An agnostic is someone who declares that they do not have such knowledge. They do not deny the existence of a god or gods (as an atheist does), but they do not claim knowledge of it.
As mentioned above, atheism is a rejection of theism. This does not mean "disgruntled theists" or "ex-theists". It means someone why denies the existence of a god or gods -- because doing otherwise would make the a theist.
An agnostic is a kind of theist, the kind you have left over after categorizing by religion.
I got a lesson in animal morality when I was kid from my pet hamsters. The larger male pinned the smaller male and had sex with it. Yep, homosexual rape.
On the other hand, the act was essentially non-violent and there was no evidence of remorse or ill-feeling afterward. I attribute that to the lack of intelligence* on the part of the hamsters. Yes, intelligence is the real root of all evil, for without it there would be no knowing that it was right/wrong, good/bad.
*intelligence is a notoriously difficult term to pin down. Here I do not mean "cleverness" but knowledge or understanding. Philosophically it would be akin to the result of eating from the tree of knowledge -- Adam and Eve were not sinning in their nakedness until they became aware of it. (Not that I subscribe to that particular myth, but it works to illustrate what I'm talking about.)
As I posted above, this view is not held by all atheists. I'm not sure what the take on animals would be as they lack society to enforce rules on them. And I'm not clear on the whole chicken-egg part.
No group is uniform, whether that be muslims, christians, racists, novelists or atheists. It doesn't matter how you define the group -- and even if you partition it down to the individual I challenge for a proof that the individual behaves in a consistent manner from minute-to-minute, much less year-to-year.
A friend of mine is a devout atheist. He believes that, deep down, people are monsters who would do horrible things to one another without some sort of external check. He believes that this role is adequately filled by societal rules and expectations (but if the rule of law and order is broken then all hell will break lose).
This is as much a matter of belief as any religion. It is easy enough to find examples demonstrating his belief, but it is also possible to find counter examples.
He isn't an extremist, just firm in his beliefs. But it is easy to see how an extremist who held those beliefs would see it as society's responsibility to rein him in if he felt like lopping off heads in the name of "humans are monsters" (perhaps simply to demonstrate through the consequences that society does react). There are certainly precedents among anarchists for non-religious (and non-racist) fanaticism.
Fanaticism does not require religion.
heh. Did you know that many .22 rounds are actually .224? OMG, it is .001" larger!
Of course, if you are talking about the lower powered rounds they are typically soft lead (sometimes with the thinnest veneer someone foolish might mistakenly refer to as a "jacket") and you will get more than .001 variation from handling.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say about .223 vs 5.56. If you are loading 5.56x45mm in a rifle chambered for it then your only concern is the loading for the particular round, but with 5.56x45mm there really isn't that much variation. The closest to that would be .38 Special vs .357 magnum -- they both fire bullets having essentially the same diameter and it is common to run .38 special through a .357 for target practice due to the price difference. But .38 special is 9x29mmR while .357 magnum is 9x33mmR making it difficult to load the magnum round in a revolver chambered for .38 special.
Because .22 is a popular caliber there are *many* different incompatible rounds in the nominal caliber, but the casings are different dimensions. If your ".223" rifle is chambered for 5.56x45mm then it is using 5.56x45mm -- no matter whether you call it 5.56 NATO, .223 Remington, etc.
Please, what is a 22L and what does it have to do with a ".22 bolt action"?
There are so many varieties of .22 caliber ammunition around that making assumptions based on just the diameter of the bullet is pretty foolish. Compare a .22 short with .22 long rifle with a .22 magnum with a .220 swift (and that is just highlights).
For what its worth, evaluating "stopping power" is a controversial topic, but using muzzle energy as the sole criteria is so demonstrably useless that it makes no sense. (And will quickly land you in hot water with .45ACP aficionados due to its relatively anaemic muzzle energy, especially if you bring up unusual small caliber/high velocity handgun rounds like .221 fireball or .22 SCAMP).
Maybe my information is dated (I don't hunt myself), but my understanding is that it is illegal to hunt deer in Missouri with a .22 caliber rifle. Now, people I know were using .220-swift thirty years ago to do so (and one was quite proud of a lucky long distance head shot). So either my understanding is wrong, or some hunters don't care.
Apparently by your logic there is no such thing as native or indigenous people.
Pretty cool.
to be clear: this was not a bug in the third party code. The vulnerability was *created* by Google's programmers removing an assert() from the library. The fix was for them to replace the assert() with an if() statement. Conceptually, this is similar to the debian ssh bug where the debian maintainer of openssh removed nearly all entropy by "fixing" the code so that it wouldn't generate a compile-time warning.
Don't go blaming third parties when its the integrator's fault.
I have thought the same many, many times. However, what worries me is the thought of what things would be like if I'm wrong and he doesn't obstruct a business controlled congress (why would he? he represents a significant business interest). He makes a wonderful (from some points of view) figurehead because his ludicrous antics will capture and draw attention away from an escalating abuse of power.
In other words, he can be completely ineffectual and accomplish a lot (or a lot be accomplished) by him doing nothing other than what he has shown himself good at: glorying in global attention.
You are right, but it will never happen.
"and make the burden of proof on the employer, not the employee."
More specifically, that will never happen. For all that the certain politicians make a lot of noise about illegal immigrants their clients are mostly large businesses -- and in the southwest many of those businesses hire illegal immigrants in order to keep costs down. Heck, even one of the presidential candidates has made it clear that he prefers to hire immigrants by bending/breaking the rules rather than Americans (though he says it is because it makes them "seem exotic" to the customers rather than admit the economics).
When the politicians comprising our government are either owners of business or are owned by businesses they will fight long and hard to avoid making any law that hurts those businesses. A major reason for CANSPAM was to undercut existing state laws which were stronger -- and even worse, more states were looking to pass even more onerous (from a business perspective) laws. CANSPAM is an apt acronym because it essentially authorizes spam.
There *are* other reasons to enter the US and defenders of the status quo will claim that "the illegals are sneaky and trick the companies into hiring them" or that it is too hard to verify citizenship, etc. On the other hand I suppose there is something to the difficulty of verifying citizenship when your budget for doing so is $0.
In the end, I do not expect to see any laws penalizing companies for hiring illegals. And with the offer of jobs that pay better than in Mexico it is inevitable that some will take the risk of illegal entry.
" I often wonder if shows like Firefly or Stargate were cancelled due to the higher likelihood of piracy."
Not even close.
Firefly was cancelled because the network wanted a "Joss Whedon show" because of him being popular, but they didn't want an actual Joss Whedon show. For example, they rejected the pilot and wanted something with action and whiz-bang. Joss provided them with the second episode which they then aired as the first. This dislike of the show they were paying for only intensified as the season progressed. By refusing to play the episodes in order they made the show confusing to any viewer. The cancellation was inevitable. The sad footnote to this is that Dark Angel's third and final season (which had already been green lit) was *cancelled* in order to give the slot to Firefly. So the Dark Angel story just cut off 2/3 of the way through and Firefly has a barely salvaged almost ending (not aired, but part of the DVD release).
Stargate was cancelled because they had run it into the ground. I'm not a fan of the show myself, but I understand that it was popular with some. But ten years for the main show and then considering spin offs it had been beaten to death.
In neither case was piracy even a consideration.
Interesting, but I saw no mention of restoring seizure of cash. Instead, it talks about restoring "equitable sharing payments" which are between agencies/departments or some such and only related to civil asset forfeiture on the back end (distribution) and not the front end (seizure).
Do you have another link?
+1 Insightful. Too bad I already posted...
Responding to the gp about ignoring the constitution? So what if they brought up "de gunz"? If you haven't noticed the repeated and escalating trampling on the constitution for the last >100 years then you haven't paid attention to either history or current events. Forget about the thinly veiled second amendment reference.
Your rant makes you look like an idiot whose bought into the false narrative encouraged by the totalitarian state that "resistance is futile". By all means, use encryption and do whatever else takes your fancy to "fight the power". But, at the end of the day, rebellions involve real people and occur in "meat space". They are bloody and violent. That means people get killed. In a full scale rebellion that means people you know and love. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters. So I can understand the appeal of wanting it to be somehow theoretical, for it to somehow take place somewhere removed -- like "cyber space". You can appeal to "but technology" but that doesn't change the reality of people being physical, "meat space", entities.
[For the totalitarian state that is sweeping this up into their Data Heaven, please note that I am in no way encouraging rebellions, whether physical or cyber, and certainly not against a lawful, elected government. Please construe my points about the death and violence inherent in the system as being to dissuade any poor, lost souls who might be determined to fight against the machine from doing so. Thank you.]
That was my first thought. But it is a prepaid "line of credit" and so is, essentially, a secured credit card. Because the officer need not even charge you with anything much less arrest you the "perpetrator" could obtain a replacement card and drain it themselves. In the event of an arrest they could use an accomplice to do the same thing.
In the interest of protecting the government's right to seize property without a conviction the only solution is to drain the cards. Naturally, the company is paid 7.7% of the seizure in the best spirit of profit sharing anywhere.
My favorite quote from the article: "If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution,” Loveless said.
Knowing Apple it would probably be proprietary (or, an open standard not used by anyone else). But the idea of them creating power stations as outlets for their excess power does not *require* that. Arguably, they would in fact benefit by using whatever standard Tesla does. This idea makes a lot of sense -- and if they are allowed to sell electricity "at retail" then they can make money off of it. Here's hoping Apple doesn't do stupid.