History prior to politics and winning in a field of rank losers does not make one a champion. Weak and viscous and self serving, pretty much describes your typical vulture capitalist. Nasty back stabbing individuals with no great skills at business just skilled at lying, they all have a history of hiding from things like the draft.
If you are the idiot that hooks up the power grid control systems to the internet to save a few dollars in administration costs, then you are the one that deserves to go to prison. Air gaps and parallel networks, is what is required for serious security, don't do it then you should be going to prison for criminal negligence.
Three debates and the only debate that really counts is the last one. Basically you treat them much like boxing. Go in easy in the first round, let your opponent tire them self and show you all of their best moves and just roll with the punches. Second round, stick in sold solid counterpoint jabs and go for some blows to the gut to expose weakness in argument, do not use your best stuff yet, save that for the final round. In the final round use everything you opponent has exposed of himself, all the their weaknesses and just let them have. Solid jab counter points, set up in lying to get caught by that uppercut, to really expose them found that final blow.
The weak opponent doesn't have that benefit already being weak. Mitt Romney had it too easy, surrounded by yes men or suckers not used to taking on really skilled opponents if Obama pushes him hard Romney could lose it and expose his vicious self serving nature. Romney clan easy target of course a family of chicken hawks for generations after generations, all to happy to send others to fight and die while they hide behind the mothers apron, after all they have more mothers than average to hide behind. Romney's mission to France, the rich kid's holidays to avoid the draft.
Hardly call it spin, more you statement of fact based upon endless bitter experiences as a customer. Experiences that you know will be repeated again, and again and again and again ad infinitum. We live in an era of corporate lies and deceit as the norm, it just never ever stops of even fucking slows down. Snakes in god damned fucking suits are our corporate executives.
The ruling basically states that there is a risk and that phones are not totally safe. Use them excessively from a very young age and you are taking a risk. For certain types of cancer at certain locations, it should be a simple an automatic win for the victim and the mobile phone companies need to set up a scheme to pay for those victims. Some people are always more vulnerable to certain affects than other people, more vulnerable to cancer and the range of artificial sources that can cause cancer. Greed just demands corporations always go the route of lies, lies and more lies, because lies are more profitable.
It seems Star Trek seems to be suffering from the whole Jerk Jerk A, affect, the bullshit reboot of Star Trek. Most people just don't give a crap about it any more. Gees, the killed one Vulcan 'Spock' in "Wrath of Kahn" and people went nuts demanding that Spock be brought back. Jerk Jerk blew up the whole planet Vulcan and nobody cared, youch, regardless of the millions spent of B$ public relations and marketing, that spelt failure for the attempt.
Who really is the targeted market. Obviously big market the market to win is education, get them while they are young and you have them for life. That is the real battle ground, the whole semi-disposable notebook market. Handle some rough and tumble, be readily replaceable, promote and environment of education solutions including free digital textbooks and lesson plans as well as educational interactive exercises.
Tablets will always struggle, just like in the days prior to computers, how many people could run their businesses from clipboards. They had their place and it wasn't in the day to day.
The fine doesn't need to be that large. The problem is no greater than a simple bit of moderating can't fix. Simple fine per call per unique number reporting that call. Simple forwarding of that number from which the robocall was received to a complaint line. Once sufficient complaints are received the service provider blocks that line until they have communicated the holder of the number of the problem, the number of complaints received, the fine likely to be allocated per complaint plus the cost to the service provider notifying the line holder of the problem. The line can then be re-activated in challenged by the line holder wishing to take the matter to court. Should more complaints be received following the reconnection the same process is repeated excluding the reconnection. The is a requirement to ensure the service provider is not penalised in the process and can recover their costs. The fine needs to be accumulative rising per complaint.
Good thing then that's it's not what is 'actually happening'. Most certainly it is what they are trying to do but they are saturninely getting their ass kicked by the internet. Not that we can sit back and relax but those arse holes will never ever stop trying until they are all finally locked up for being the corrupt douches they are. There is a legislation and political war going on and on one side is the end of freedom of speech and civil liberties and the other side is the fight to retain these most important elements of social humanity.
When discussions are held about any particular subject generally the assumed vernacular is "the majority", one does not repeat it ad infinitum because it really doesn't add to the discussion. The minority which can include all sorts of crazy 'er' mentally ill people, are not included into the discussion because they could be riding gilded attack rubber duckies into war against the loofah god in defence of innocent soap bubbles as readily as sticking up for the paedophile Mohamed and his imaginary friend Allah. There are clearly 'MANY' reasons but discussing each crazy ass variant would take many life times and be utterly pointless.
The problem of course with matching is, you are only matching the politicians promises, not their actual real true intent. What we need are truth forums, where politicians are forced to tell the truth. Reality is without truth democracies fail.
That exposure should also extend to law enforcement. Whilst it could be argued that to allow investigation to proceed that invasions of privacy by police and other agencies, there should be a time limit on it. Eventually the police and other investigatory agencies should be held accountable for all their invasions of privacy.
Where any invasion of privacy did not lead to a conviction or even a charge being made against the person whose privacy they invaded, the police and other investigatory agencies should be held accountable for the now obviously false grounds for that invasion of privacy. People have a right to know when their privacy has been invaded, when they are being treated as a criminal behind their back and, when they are being accused without their knowledge.
Citizens deserve the right to know, within a reasonable time period, say within 1 year of the invasion of privacy, that the breach of their rights has occurred, why it occurred, the basis of any accusations against and what corrective measures are being taken when the reason for the investigation proved false.
The idea that investigatory agencies have carte blanche to accuse people and invade their privacy without review by those people whom they have accused is appalling and those people have a right to challenge what has occurred and to seek correction of records and apologise for those false accusations.
Just to check I pretended I was an insane freak tea bagger and flip flopped all of answers, guess who I came up with the second time, you guessed it, Mitt Romney. Yes, I also got Jill Stein the first time round but hardly a surprise I am a paying member of the Green Party.
Want change then seriously, you have to push against the duopoly and start treating third and fourth parties seriously. Bleed corporations dry by forcing them to pay off too many politicians, no political party is immune because smarmy psychopaths will go where ever the cash is.
Let's start testing politicians, knowledge tests, law tests, intelligence test, health tests and mental health tests no more paid of by lobbyists psychopaths allowed.
Would this be the same as your lame arsed comment with a huge block of blank space to suck up as much as possible of the first page. I'm sure you would have produced more blank space in the Slashdot auto comment rejected would have allowed it.
Foxcon is largely viewed as Chinese because that's where it's factories are that pay wages in cents on the dollar compared to the western world. Sure it's multi-billionaire owner who sent the supervisors of Foxcon to a major Chinese zoo to learn how best to handle 'ANIMALS' and use those methods on the 'ANIMALS' at the factory http://www.businessinsider.com/foxconn-animals-2012-1.
"Chinaâ(TM)s largest electronics manufacturer, the already-loathed Foxconn" is a direct quote from the site, that site of course being http://www.vice.com/en_au. Most definitely a very edgy web site with some great videos but no matter, a direct quote is a direct quote. No if you want to complain naughty, naught, poo, poo because the submitter did not properly reference the quote, well fine.
OK "Upon review it was found that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was not a copy of the iPad, it was a largely *inferior product which really only bared cursory visual similarities to the vastly *superior iPad. Apple only wanted to protect it's loyal customer from wasting time and money buying an *inferior product"
Where the words inferior and superior appear, they relate not to the quality of the products just to the profit generated by Apple.
One thing, when working in the FOSS community a certain amount of political correctness is required to ensure no communities are insulted. Whilst s web server is reasonable obscure as far as the wider community is concerned. When it comes to an office suit that ideally would be used in all environments, this means it pushing into schooling environments. I'm not sure how appropriate the 'Apache' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache name and that it is very likely appropriate to ensure those people approve the use of the name and endorse the product as such but simply running rough shod over the identity is definitely not appropriate where a product hopes to be widely used in educational environments.
Oh yes oh wise fuck wit because blowing up uranium and nuclear facilities will cause no problems for the common population. By what fucking right do the holders of hundreds of nuclear weapons in the case of Israel and tens of fucking thousands of nuclear weapons in the case of the US, claim other countries are not entitled to them. Especially when the US claimed the right to first strike any country in the world with nuclear for what ever reason it deemed appropriate. That first strike crap basically blew any chance the US had of claiming good guy status, not to mention, illegal detention and, torture.
Of course there is the other reality of customised education to suit individual children, who is going to pay for it. This ignorant red necks already scream about taxes paying for too many teachers and teachers costing too much. Customised classes with a ration of say ten students per teacher and you get really flexible education but you better be prepared to pay for it.
It does work, see, they get out and vote. If they are unhappy with the candidates provided expect them to vote for nobody or vote for joke candidates. You can't force people to care but you can certainly teach them and getting to democracy class, the electoral booth and seeing all the other people that care is a big step in that direction.
In this case religious nuts are actively trying to paint everything as terrorism, the slightest perceived insult of their nasty misogynist compulsory religion so that they can claim it as acceptable to react with violence. This protest is all about forcing their acceptance of their religious laws upon the rest of society through direct acts of physical coercion. Either accede to the superiority of their religious laws over the laws of the land or face direct physical attack. They are purposefully going out of their way, to choose to be insulted when their religion is criticised in any way, shape of form and when their crazy people in robes are set above the rest of us rather than tossed in the looney bin or prison as they would nowadays when they run around claiming to speak for god whilst abusing children.
If Google submits to this intimidation then they will have become truly evil and a threat to free speech. Their religion, their problem. Clearly in the case Muslims are well and truly crossing the bounds of freedom of religion in trying to force their religion upon others.
The quote of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, âoeOur tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.â appears to be interpreted in an arse about fashion. Religious hatred is the hatred expressed by religions and their believers, hatred of religions is expressed by those disgusted with the behaviour of the members of religions. One is all about direct physical violence, intimidation, threats of violence and laws against free speech, the other is about the freedom to express yourself without inciting violence against religions.
Those who can not separate their own identity from that of their religion are quite simply trying to purposefully create the environment for hate and violence. If you religion is at fault expect the religion to be criticised, picked apart and mocked for it's delusional beliefs. There is a real legal difference between âoeCombating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Beliefâ and criticising someone's religion in what ever manner you choose to criticise it in. Egyptâ(TM)s U.N. ambassador showed himself as truly ignorant when he confused insulting religion with insulting people.
If you choose to view yourself as your religion then that is your problem, you are not entitled to enforce your religious viewpoint through the threats of violence upon others.
The "Patent Wars" heat up and if you don't think all this and other recent manoeuvring is all about patents and Apple's triggering of the "Patent Wars", then you really aren't paying attention.
Any representative of government is a part of that government. They all pass the laws, every congressmen and every senator, represent the US government, everything that comes out of their mouths, everything they write, us coming from the US government. The one way politi-speak endorsed by the executive branch where every other government around the world and it's people are held liable for every word spoken by any elected politcian but in the US the ill thought words of Congressman and Senators are routinely ignored. Now duck and weave with propaganda.
In this case law enforcement could be treading on extremely thin ice and be subject to a massive class action law suit costing the city tens of millions of dollars. Did the clients pay for the zumba and get sex as a freeby, whether an incentive or not. The taping was done illegally and is warrant less as such the police are not entitled to use it beyond those who committed the criminal act of recording it. Whether police obtain such records directly illegally or whether through plea bargain they obtain such records, they are still illegal recordings and law enforcement is not entitled to use them, the Federal and constitutional implications are clear.
All harm that results from the unsubstantiated release of information, the intent of which was clearly criminal, would now fall upon the city and the city would be liable for all costs. So those victims should not take the weak, please don't hurt us route but take the aggressive we will sue the town out of existence for the use of evidence obtain illegally and without a warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
History prior to politics and winning in a field of rank losers does not make one a champion. Weak and viscous and self serving, pretty much describes your typical vulture capitalist. Nasty back stabbing individuals with no great skills at business just skilled at lying, they all have a history of hiding from things like the draft.
If you are the idiot that hooks up the power grid control systems to the internet to save a few dollars in administration costs, then you are the one that deserves to go to prison. Air gaps and parallel networks, is what is required for serious security, don't do it then you should be going to prison for criminal negligence.
Three debates and the only debate that really counts is the last one. Basically you treat them much like boxing. Go in easy in the first round, let your opponent tire them self and show you all of their best moves and just roll with the punches. Second round, stick in sold solid counterpoint jabs and go for some blows to the gut to expose weakness in argument, do not use your best stuff yet, save that for the final round. In the final round use everything you opponent has exposed of himself, all the their weaknesses and just let them have. Solid jab counter points, set up in lying to get caught by that uppercut, to really expose them found that final blow.
The weak opponent doesn't have that benefit already being weak. Mitt Romney had it too easy, surrounded by yes men or suckers not used to taking on really skilled opponents if Obama pushes him hard Romney could lose it and expose his vicious self serving nature. Romney clan easy target of course a family of chicken hawks for generations after generations, all to happy to send others to fight and die while they hide behind the mothers apron, after all they have more mothers than average to hide behind. Romney's mission to France, the rich kid's holidays to avoid the draft.
Hardly call it spin, more you statement of fact based upon endless bitter experiences as a customer. Experiences that you know will be repeated again, and again and again and again ad infinitum. We live in an era of corporate lies and deceit as the norm, it just never ever stops of even fucking slows down. Snakes in god damned fucking suits are our corporate executives.
The ruling basically states that there is a risk and that phones are not totally safe. Use them excessively from a very young age and you are taking a risk. For certain types of cancer at certain locations, it should be a simple an automatic win for the victim and the mobile phone companies need to set up a scheme to pay for those victims. Some people are always more vulnerable to certain affects than other people, more vulnerable to cancer and the range of artificial sources that can cause cancer. Greed just demands corporations always go the route of lies, lies and more lies, because lies are more profitable.
It seems Star Trek seems to be suffering from the whole Jerk Jerk A, affect, the bullshit reboot of Star Trek. Most people just don't give a crap about it any more. Gees, the killed one Vulcan 'Spock' in "Wrath of Kahn" and people went nuts demanding that Spock be brought back. Jerk Jerk blew up the whole planet Vulcan and nobody cared, youch, regardless of the millions spent of B$ public relations and marketing, that spelt failure for the attempt.
Who really is the targeted market. Obviously big market the market to win is education, get them while they are young and you have them for life. That is the real battle ground, the whole semi-disposable notebook market. Handle some rough and tumble, be readily replaceable, promote and environment of education solutions including free digital textbooks and lesson plans as well as educational interactive exercises.
Tablets will always struggle, just like in the days prior to computers, how many people could run their businesses from clipboards. They had their place and it wasn't in the day to day.
The fine doesn't need to be that large. The problem is no greater than a simple bit of moderating can't fix. Simple fine per call per unique number reporting that call. Simple forwarding of that number from which the robocall was received to a complaint line. Once sufficient complaints are received the service provider blocks that line until they have communicated the holder of the number of the problem, the number of complaints received, the fine likely to be allocated per complaint plus the cost to the service provider notifying the line holder of the problem. The line can then be re-activated in challenged by the line holder wishing to take the matter to court. Should more complaints be received following the reconnection the same process is repeated excluding the reconnection. The is a requirement to ensure the service provider is not penalised in the process and can recover their costs. The fine needs to be accumulative rising per complaint.
Good thing then that's it's not what is 'actually happening'. Most certainly it is what they are trying to do but they are saturninely getting their ass kicked by the internet. Not that we can sit back and relax but those arse holes will never ever stop trying until they are all finally locked up for being the corrupt douches they are. There is a legislation and political war going on and on one side is the end of freedom of speech and civil liberties and the other side is the fight to retain these most important elements of social humanity.
When discussions are held about any particular subject generally the assumed vernacular is "the majority", one does not repeat it ad infinitum because it really doesn't add to the discussion. The minority which can include all sorts of crazy 'er' mentally ill people, are not included into the discussion because they could be riding gilded attack rubber duckies into war against the loofah god in defence of innocent soap bubbles as readily as sticking up for the paedophile Mohamed and his imaginary friend Allah. There are clearly 'MANY' reasons but discussing each crazy ass variant would take many life times and be utterly pointless.
The problem of course with matching is, you are only matching the politicians promises, not their actual real true intent. What we need are truth forums, where politicians are forced to tell the truth. Reality is without truth democracies fail.
That exposure should also extend to law enforcement. Whilst it could be argued that to allow investigation to proceed that invasions of privacy by police and other agencies, there should be a time limit on it. Eventually the police and other investigatory agencies should be held accountable for all their invasions of privacy.
Where any invasion of privacy did not lead to a conviction or even a charge being made against the person whose privacy they invaded, the police and other investigatory agencies should be held accountable for the now obviously false grounds for that invasion of privacy. People have a right to know when their privacy has been invaded, when they are being treated as a criminal behind their back and, when they are being accused without their knowledge.
Citizens deserve the right to know, within a reasonable time period, say within 1 year of the invasion of privacy, that the breach of their rights has occurred, why it occurred, the basis of any accusations against and what corrective measures are being taken when the reason for the investigation proved false.
The idea that investigatory agencies have carte blanche to accuse people and invade their privacy without review by those people whom they have accused is appalling and those people have a right to challenge what has occurred and to seek correction of records and apologise for those false accusations.
Just to check I pretended I was an insane freak tea bagger and flip flopped all of answers, guess who I came up with the second time, you guessed it, Mitt Romney. Yes, I also got Jill Stein the first time round but hardly a surprise I am a paying member of the Green Party.
Want change then seriously, you have to push against the duopoly and start treating third and fourth parties seriously. Bleed corporations dry by forcing them to pay off too many politicians, no political party is immune because smarmy psychopaths will go where ever the cash is.
Let's start testing politicians, knowledge tests, law tests, intelligence test, health tests and mental health tests no more paid of by lobbyists psychopaths allowed.
Would this be the same as your lame arsed comment with a huge block of blank space to suck up as much as possible of the first page. I'm sure you would have produced more blank space in the Slashdot auto comment rejected would have allowed it.
Foxcon is largely viewed as Chinese because that's where it's factories are that pay wages in cents on the dollar compared to the western world. Sure it's multi-billionaire owner who sent the supervisors of Foxcon to a major Chinese zoo to learn how best to handle 'ANIMALS' and use those methods on the 'ANIMALS' at the factory http://www.businessinsider.com/foxconn-animals-2012-1.
"Chinaâ(TM)s largest electronics manufacturer, the already-loathed Foxconn" is a direct quote from the site, that site of course being http://www.vice.com/en_au. Most definitely a very edgy web site with some great videos but no matter, a direct quote is a direct quote. No if you want to complain naughty, naught, poo, poo because the submitter did not properly reference the quote, well fine.
OK "Upon review it was found that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was not a copy of the iPad, it was a largely *inferior product which really only bared cursory visual similarities to the vastly *superior iPad. Apple only wanted to protect it's loyal customer from wasting time and money buying an *inferior product"
Where the words inferior and superior appear, they relate not to the quality of the products just to the profit generated by Apple.
One thing, when working in the FOSS community a certain amount of political correctness is required to ensure no communities are insulted. Whilst s web server is reasonable obscure as far as the wider community is concerned. When it comes to an office suit that ideally would be used in all environments, this means it pushing into schooling environments. I'm not sure how appropriate the 'Apache' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache name and that it is very likely appropriate to ensure those people approve the use of the name and endorse the product as such but simply running rough shod over the identity is definitely not appropriate where a product hopes to be widely used in educational environments.
Oh yes oh wise fuck wit because blowing up uranium and nuclear facilities will cause no problems for the common population. By what fucking right do the holders of hundreds of nuclear weapons in the case of Israel and tens of fucking thousands of nuclear weapons in the case of the US, claim other countries are not entitled to them. Especially when the US claimed the right to first strike any country in the world with nuclear for what ever reason it deemed appropriate. That first strike crap basically blew any chance the US had of claiming good guy status, not to mention, illegal detention and, torture.
Of course there is the other reality of customised education to suit individual children, who is going to pay for it. This ignorant red necks already scream about taxes paying for too many teachers and teachers costing too much. Customised classes with a ration of say ten students per teacher and you get really flexible education but you better be prepared to pay for it.
It does work, see, they get out and vote. If they are unhappy with the candidates provided expect them to vote for nobody or vote for joke candidates. You can't force people to care but you can certainly teach them and getting to democracy class, the electoral booth and seeing all the other people that care is a big step in that direction.
Then why don't you campaign to make voting compulsory. Those who fail to uphold democracy with the simplest act of voting should be penalised.
In this case religious nuts are actively trying to paint everything as terrorism, the slightest perceived insult of their nasty misogynist compulsory religion so that they can claim it as acceptable to react with violence. This protest is all about forcing their acceptance of their religious laws upon the rest of society through direct acts of physical coercion. Either accede to the superiority of their religious laws over the laws of the land or face direct physical attack. They are purposefully going out of their way, to choose to be insulted when their religion is criticised in any way, shape of form and when their crazy people in robes are set above the rest of us rather than tossed in the looney bin or prison as they would nowadays when they run around claiming to speak for god whilst abusing children.
If Google submits to this intimidation then they will have become truly evil and a threat to free speech. Their religion, their problem. Clearly in the case Muslims are well and truly crossing the bounds of freedom of religion in trying to force their religion upon others.
The quote of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, âoeOur tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.â appears to be interpreted in an arse about fashion. Religious hatred is the hatred expressed by religions and their believers, hatred of religions is expressed by those disgusted with the behaviour of the members of religions. One is all about direct physical violence, intimidation, threats of violence and laws against free speech, the other is about the freedom to express yourself without inciting violence against religions.
Those who can not separate their own identity from that of their religion are quite simply trying to purposefully create the environment for hate and violence. If you religion is at fault expect the religion to be criticised, picked apart and mocked for it's delusional beliefs. There is a real legal difference between âoeCombating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Beliefâ and criticising someone's religion in what ever manner you choose to criticise it in. Egyptâ(TM)s U.N. ambassador showed himself as truly ignorant when he confused insulting religion with insulting people.
If you choose to view yourself as your religion then that is your problem, you are not entitled to enforce your religious viewpoint through the threats of violence upon others.
The "Patent Wars" heat up and if you don't think all this and other recent manoeuvring is all about patents and Apple's triggering of the "Patent Wars", then you really aren't paying attention.
Any representative of government is a part of that government. They all pass the laws, every congressmen and every senator, represent the US government, everything that comes out of their mouths, everything they write, us coming from the US government. The one way politi-speak endorsed by the executive branch where every other government around the world and it's people are held liable for every word spoken by any elected politcian but in the US the ill thought words of Congressman and Senators are routinely ignored. Now duck and weave with propaganda.
In this case law enforcement could be treading on extremely thin ice and be subject to a massive class action law suit costing the city tens of millions of dollars. Did the clients pay for the zumba and get sex as a freeby, whether an incentive or not. The taping was done illegally and is warrant less as such the police are not entitled to use it beyond those who committed the criminal act of recording it. Whether police obtain such records directly illegally or whether through plea bargain they obtain such records, they are still illegal recordings and law enforcement is not entitled to use them, the Federal and constitutional implications are clear.
All harm that results from the unsubstantiated release of information, the intent of which was clearly criminal, would now fall upon the city and the city would be liable for all costs. So those victims should not take the weak, please don't hurt us route but take the aggressive we will sue the town out of existence for the use of evidence obtain illegally and without a warrant.