In a case like this, extraordinarily drunk people have it coming. Most of the drunk people you are talking about aren't necessarily addicted, they are "social" binge drinkers who go out on the town (perhaps in college) to, in the words of the Black Eyed Peas, "get retarded."
It might not be criminal, and it shouldn't be. How about people clear their heads and think about the situations they want to put themselves in. If this includes getting intentionally wasted, I'd say the next most responsible thing to do would be to do it in a safe place, with a sober friend, and without setting yourself up beforehand with services that debit your accounts at the click of a button. What ever happened to the concept of personal responsibility?
--the rest of this message is qualifier against the unreasonable arguments this message will no doubt promote.--
And before someone makes the inevitable comparison to the same line of reasoning about rape, I think there is an enormous moral difference between the two. With music stores, etc., you are providing a service that drunk people and non-drunk people might participate in. With statutory rape, one is actively seeking out people not in the right state of mind to make decisions about their bodies that will have an impact on them for the rest of their lives.
Added to this, if enough/alcoholics/ were fleeced by this, they could conceivably sue the organization because no legal contract would exist: it is missing the essential element of capacity. And it wouldn't be left to the plaintiffs to engage this civil suit. If it were possible to win, you'd bet some lawyer would be on it soliciting plaintiffs.
In Canada, they can point to section 8; however, pointing is mostly useless. Sometimes it takes someone to rally people together -- to take a stand against the minority who are hell-bent on creating the means that one day will be used for the perpetration of injustice.
It is not only this legislation, and it is certainly not a phenomenon confined to one country. Sadly, I can think of no truly "shining city upon a hill" where this is not a significant problem -- where such affronts to individual freedom are met with due force and disgust.
I was only taking exception to the use of the word "creation," suggesting that creation has nothing to do with genetic variation in the sense used. Things like genetic drift and mutations do however. Creation implies intent.
The ban was partially lifted, opening a whole new market to gum manufacturers. I read an article around this time last year where an entrepreneur had started a chewing gum company just to sell gum in Singapore. Sure, there are regulations, but I doubt the US government would get into any trouble over it.
I purchased the 2 Fast, 2 Furious soundtrack from Barnes & Noble several years ago to see what the Digital Restrictions were like.
If it were only the sound that offended me, I would have simply thrown away the disc after my experiment (and trust me, this is by far the worst movie soundtrack I've ever encountered). However, I had problems actually listening to the disc.
I took the CD back to Barnes & Noble and explained the problem. They offered to exchange my opened disc for the same title. I then proceeded to explain that all discs in the lot were defective and that it was intentionally crippled by BMI (if I recall correctly). After less than 7 minutes talking to management, I left the store with cash in hand for my returned, defective disc.
Sometimes returning things is not easy, but if you can make the case that you were sold defective goods, any sane manager will accept the return. Your assertion is only true if you take the initial answer they give you.
I just wanted to clarify the parent's comment for those who don't necessarily know what the correct term is.
As someone who has done combustion experiments in the Glenn Research drop towers, I can authoritatively say that the term (that the parent likely means) is microgravity, not zero gravity. Zero gravity would imply that one is defying the rules of physics. Microgravity suggests merely that the effects of gravity are significantly diminished due to free fall: orbit, the vomit comet, or simply dropping a vessel in an evacuated tower.
Things having to do with such experiments are frequently labeled with neat mu-g stickers in NASAs facilities.
For example, Berkshire Hathaway* trades at nearly $90,000 per share. Saying that some shares were trading at $950 per share does not indicated the magnitude of the problem without knowing which shares those were.
* I know Berkshire isn't listed on the Nasdaq, but others like CheckPoint trade in 3 digits so I'm sure $950 isn't unheard of on the Nasdaq.
You stand on your soapbox, you get your megaphone, and you let people KNOW that the reason you voted against it was because it was a PURELY POLITICAL PLOY, and not in any way beneficial to the constituents.
I am not naive. I know that you'd probably still get ousted. BUT AT LEAST YOU WOULDN'T HAVE CONDONED THE MULCHING OF BABIES. Or in this case a national ID card.
That is not a DILEMMA! That is a case of being either a weak sheep or a power hungry wolf (and true naivety would be believing that senators are overwhelmingly in the sheep category).
Burke, underscored later by Anna Seghers put it best: ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.
They could have something like this on their record if they weren't collectively a bunch of politically motivated fucks*. If they really cared they would have openly voted against it on the principal that the two issues don't belong in a bill together.
* and how did they get into power? People who are either too forgiving or too stupid -- OR BOTH -- gave it to them. Government by the people, against the people.
Hi,
I was disappointed to find that you are running advertisements that intentionally circumvent the settings of the user.
I will not be browsing to your site again until you remove the annoying onclick() popups. You should share with your advertisers that people who see these ads are even more pissed about them than regular popups. I don't mind advertising, but I like to be in control of my computer. Opening new windows is not something I want someone doing from a web site unless I request it. And if I specifically make efforts to prevent someone from doing this and they maneuver around it, it is even more frustrating.
Entirely unscrupulous and I am sincerely disappointed.
Regards,
Paul
I received an email from them soon after that they had sent to their advertising partner, TribalFusion:
Hi.
I want to express my anger at the recent changes with your popunder ad technology. It is infuriating to both my readers and to me that you would write ads that do not respect browser pop-up blocking preferences.
Just because you're able to fool Safari and Mozilla-based browsers into displaying pop-under advertisements does not mean that you should. In fact, it's among the most unethical thing I've seen by internet ad companies. The reason I allowed pop-unders on the site to begin with was because there was an easy way for readers to "opt-out" of seeing them by using browsers that they could enable pop up blocking with. After four great years of working with TF, that you would go to such lengths to subvert my reader's wishes tarnishes Tribal Fusion's image in my mind is disturbing.
I've heard from 20 long-time readers just this week telling me they will no longer visit MacSlash because of these ads. Why on earth would you go to such lengths to antagonize my readers? It's unacceptable.
Dismayed,
Ben Stanfield
Executive Editor, MacSlash
Needless to say, I was very impressed, am browsing Macslash again, and have yet to see any more of these pop-ups.
RFP has a fairly respected document on public disclosure methods. The idea is basically that public disclosure happens only when there is no vendor response or when vendor response irresponsibly wanes. I agree that immediate public disclosure is not the right approach to take.
The mouse will return x/y coordinates as well as click events. Typically input devices do the processing of light/dark, rolling, touch, etc. internally and then just send the info that the operating system wants to know.
Slashdot Mirror
In a case like this, extraordinarily drunk people have it coming. Most of the drunk people you are talking about aren't necessarily addicted, they are "social" binge drinkers who go out on the town (perhaps in college) to, in the words of the Black Eyed Peas, "get retarded."
/alcoholics/ were fleeced by this, they could conceivably sue the organization because no legal contract would exist: it is missing the essential element of capacity. And it wouldn't be left to the plaintiffs to engage this civil suit. If it were possible to win, you'd bet some lawyer would be on it soliciting plaintiffs.
It might not be criminal, and it shouldn't be. How about people clear their heads and think about the situations they want to put themselves in. If this includes getting intentionally wasted, I'd say the next most responsible thing to do would be to do it in a safe place, with a sober friend, and without setting yourself up beforehand with services that debit your accounts at the click of a button. What ever happened to the concept of personal responsibility?
--the rest of this message is qualifier against the unreasonable arguments this message will no doubt promote.--
And before someone makes the inevitable comparison to the same line of reasoning about rape, I think there is an enormous moral difference between the two. With music stores, etc., you are providing a service that drunk people and non-drunk people might participate in. With statutory rape, one is actively seeking out people not in the right state of mind to make decisions about their bodies that will have an impact on them for the rest of their lives.
Added to this, if enough
In Canada, they can point to section 8; however, pointing is mostly useless. Sometimes it takes someone to rally people together -- to take a stand against the minority who are hell-bent on creating the means that one day will be used for the perpetration of injustice.
It is not only this legislation, and it is certainly not a phenomenon confined to one country. Sadly, I can think of no truly "shining city upon a hill" where this is not a significant problem -- where such affronts to individual freedom are met with due force and disgust.
I was only taking exception to the use of the word "creation," suggesting that creation has nothing to do with genetic variation in the sense used. Things like genetic drift and mutations do however. Creation implies intent.
By random variation. To call it random creation offends the mind.
The ban was partially lifted, opening a whole new market to gum manufacturers. I read an article around this time last year where an entrepreneur had started a chewing gum company just to sell gum in Singapore.
Sure, there are regulations, but I doubt the US government would get into any trouble over it.
I purchased the 2 Fast, 2 Furious soundtrack from Barnes & Noble several years ago to see what the Digital Restrictions were like.
If it were only the sound that offended me, I would have simply thrown away the disc after my experiment (and trust me, this is by far the worst movie soundtrack I've ever encountered). However, I had problems actually listening to the disc.
I took the CD back to Barnes & Noble and explained the problem. They offered to exchange my opened disc for the same title. I then proceeded to explain that all discs in the lot were defective and that it was intentionally crippled by BMI (if I recall correctly). After less than 7 minutes talking to management, I left the store with cash in hand for my returned, defective disc.
Sometimes returning things is not easy, but if you can make the case that you were sold defective goods, any sane manager will accept the return. Your assertion is only true if you take the initial answer they give you.
I just wanted to clarify the parent's comment for those who don't necessarily know what the correct term is.
As someone who has done combustion experiments in the Glenn Research drop towers, I can authoritatively say that the term (that the parent likely means) is microgravity, not zero gravity. Zero gravity would imply that one is defying the rules of physics. Microgravity suggests merely that the effects of gravity are significantly diminished due to free fall: orbit, the vomit comet, or simply dropping a vessel in an evacuated tower.
Things having to do with such experiments are frequently labeled with neat mu-g stickers in NASAs facilities.
-Paul
I wasn't commenting on TFA, rather on the blurb as indicated in the title of TFC. Thanks though.
For example, Berkshire Hathaway* trades at nearly $90,000 per share. Saying that some shares were trading at $950 per share does not indicated the magnitude of the problem without knowing which shares those were. * I know Berkshire isn't listed on the Nasdaq, but others like CheckPoint trade in 3 digits so I'm sure $950 isn't unheard of on the Nasdaq.
If you are a senator you have a soapbox that won't make you look like a nut. The senate floor.
You stand on your soapbox, you get your megaphone, and you let people KNOW that the reason you voted against it was because it was a PURELY POLITICAL PLOY, and not in any way beneficial to the constituents.
I am not naive. I know that you'd probably still get ousted. BUT AT LEAST YOU WOULDN'T HAVE CONDONED THE MULCHING OF BABIES. Or in this case a national ID card.
That is not a DILEMMA! That is a case of being either a weak sheep or a power hungry wolf (and true naivety would be believing that senators are overwhelmingly in the sheep category).
Burke, underscored later by Anna Seghers put it best: ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.
(YES, I'M SHOUTING!)
They could have something like this on their record if they weren't collectively a bunch of politically motivated fucks*. If they really cared they would have openly voted against it on the principal that the two issues don't belong in a bill together.
* and how did they get into power? People who are either too forgiving or too stupid -- OR BOTH -- gave it to them. Government by the people, against the people.
He clearly must be. Otherwise he would have said: "Not near ly as gay.
Or maybe they gave them a "free" iPod.
Cheers,
Paul Thomas
Until they license it.
-Paul
That would be avant-garde, unless you were trying to be, well... avant-garde.
Ugh. I just had it happen to me :/. Maybe when they actually start hurting revenue-wise.
I sent them a brief email: I received an email from them soon after that they had sent to their advertising partner, TribalFusion:
Needless to say, I was very impressed, am browsing Macslash again, and have yet to see any more of these pop-ups.
-Paul
And when work==play?
RFP has a fairly respected document on public disclosure methods. The idea is basically that public disclosure happens only when there is no vendor response or when vendor response irresponsibly wanes. I agree that immediate public disclosure is not the right approach to take.
http://www.wiretrip.net/rfp/policy.html
-Paul
Thinking of the Clie perhaps? PalmOne makes the Treo, Sony makes Clie.
They also show real debates when they happen... like the Green/Libertarian debate. This was also online, albeit in Real format. -Paul
What if they don't trust that the money has any value?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that since they're both EM radiation, they both travel at the speed of light.
-Paul
Unlikely.
The mouse will return x/y coordinates as well as click events. Typically input devices do the processing of light/dark, rolling, touch, etc. internally and then just send the info that the operating system wants to know.