Well first I called Subaru about my problem and asked if I could ship the car back to Japan to have it fixed; they told me that the cost of shipping it would be more than the car was worth and that I would be better off buying a new one. Then I noticed an auto parts store down the road that sold me a brand new battery. It was manufactured by another company but it works just fine.
No, insurance isn't free, but the banks are already paying for insurance, and the FDIC doeszn't base its rates on losses by the individual banks' they assess risk based on the bank's total capitalization. So no, running insecure ATMs isn't going to cause banks to lose money that they'll pass on to their customers.
Then it's pretty amazing that my bank can change my PIN without me giving them my card. Do they have some sort of satellite transmitter that can change the magnetic strip while it's in my wallet?
That's Byrd, and he's one of the very few who stayed, mostly because he lives in West Virginia, where no one cares if you're a racist as long as you don't judge what they're doing to their sheep.
Yes, but that's one company, and the cost of not removing for most people is a lot lower. If you already have lots of space under your floors or above drop ceilings, it doesn't cost a lot extra to add more cables.
Well, see, the people elect Congressmen who pass legislation like this, so what they do is, in theory, with the people's consent.
Of course, except for a few high-profile issues, the Congressmen know they can get away with passing all sorts of stuff that their constituents would never agree to, as long as they can make enough money to get negative ads about their opponents in the elections on TV, since the voters care more about style than about policy.
Basically, there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Descartes was wrong. You can't even be sure that you exist. "I think" as a premise assumes the existence of a unified subject ('I'). "There is a thought" is about as far as you can really get without making a jump you can't justify.
Adding a label to something doesn't mean that you're not infringing. You can't burn 10,000 copies of a DVD, print "For research purposes only" on them, and then sell them. The courts won't care that you thought you found a loophole.
Actually, only 2 states do split their votes; that is, Maine and Nebraska require the electors besides the 2 at-large electors to vote based on the vote in the congressional district they represent (which, as you'd expect in small, largely homogenous states, have always gone for the same candidate anyway).
About half the states actually require the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state, while the others (as the system is supposedly designed to permit) allow the electors to vote their conscience (even though they were picked by the winning party specifically to vote in their candidate.) These electors do not represent a specific district that may have gone against the plurality in the state; the point is that an elector from these states, once sent to the Electoral College, could, if he or she wanted to, vote for absolutely anyone. Of course, one would expect the parties to have a rigorous enough screening process that none of the electors would do anything but what they were sent to do.
I might be wrong, but isn't over 50% of the population in 3 states? New York, California, Florida?
No, you're very wrong. If that was the case, Gore would have moved his entire campaign to Florida, campaigned for Nader in every other state in a deal to keep him from being added to the ballot in Florida, and would have won the election easily.
Also, states are allowed to split their electoral votes. Some states themselves forbid their electors from voting for anyone but the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote, but even in those states (I believe about half of them) that allow the electors to vote for whomever they want, they don't.
A better system, and one that would actually preserve the intent of the Electoral College, would just be to just have the electors themselves run for election and let the voters choose electors whom they trust to make the best decision. Right now, the parties pick a group of electors for each state that they trust to elect their guy, and if they win a plurality in the state they get to have their electors in the College.
They should check the name first, and yes, if they create confusion by using the same name and then use their relative size to crush you, they're breaking several US laws and just about every principle of ethics.
Outside of Slashdot's readership, Linux is comparatively an unknown project compared to anything Microsoft puts out. The scale doesn't matter. The principle is what matters, and you're blinded by mindless Linux advocacy.
Well then your reply is also offtopic, and it's rather inconsiderate to not post as AC and force someone to waste mod points modding you down to the level you think your comment deserves to be at.
How about a better example. Microsoft decides they want to release an OS called "GNU/Linux." By your logic, they should have every right to do so, and anyone else using that name should come up with a different name.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should improve your site instead of pimping it on slashdot.
You've had problems with the tech support at Wendy's??
Bah. The ancient Greeks didn't need any accents, why should we?
"Sure our computers use only ugly, hard to read, uppercase letters, but as long as we can spell 'God' correctly everyone should be ok with it."
Which was totally ripped off from Robert Aspirin.
Well first I called Subaru about my problem and asked if I could ship the car back to Japan to have it fixed; they told me that the cost of shipping it would be more than the car was worth and that I would be better off buying a new one. Then I noticed an auto parts store down the road that sold me a brand new battery. It was manufactured by another company but it works just fine.
No, insurance isn't free, but the banks are already paying for insurance, and the FDIC doeszn't base its rates on losses by the individual banks' they assess risk based on the bank's total capitalization. So no, running insecure ATMs isn't going to cause banks to lose money that they'll pass on to their customers.
Then it's pretty amazing that my bank can change my PIN without me giving them my card. Do they have some sort of satellite transmitter that can change the magnetic strip while it's in my wallet?
Hasn't anyone heard of the FDIC? Banks don't pass the cost of theft on to their customers; they're insured.
Oh, and the alternator belt that ran the recharging system corroded and had to be replaced as well! Time to make a whiny movie about it!
That's Byrd, and he's one of the very few who stayed, mostly because he lives in West Virginia, where no one cares if you're a racist as long as you don't judge what they're doing to their sheep.
Q: Which party did all of the racist former Democrats join when they left the Democratic party to protest the Civil Rights Act?
Yes, but that's one company, and the cost of not removing for most people is a lot lower. If you already have lots of space under your floors or above drop ceilings, it doesn't cost a lot extra to add more cables.
Of course, except for a few high-profile issues, the Congressmen know they can get away with passing all sorts of stuff that their constituents would never agree to, as long as they can make enough money to get negative ads about their opponents in the elections on TV, since the voters care more about style than about policy.
Basically, there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Descartes was wrong. You can't even be sure that you exist. "I think" as a premise assumes the existence of a unified subject ('I'). "There is a thought" is about as far as you can really get without making a jump you can't justify.
A university providing bandwidth to its affliates is not a common carrier.
Adding a label to something doesn't mean that you're not infringing. You can't burn 10,000 copies of a DVD, print "For research purposes only" on them, and then sell them. The courts won't care that you thought you found a loophole.
About half the states actually require the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state, while the others (as the system is supposedly designed to permit) allow the electors to vote their conscience (even though they were picked by the winning party specifically to vote in their candidate.) These electors do not represent a specific district that may have gone against the plurality in the state; the point is that an elector from these states, once sent to the Electoral College, could, if he or she wanted to, vote for absolutely anyone. Of course, one would expect the parties to have a rigorous enough screening process that none of the electors would do anything but what they were sent to do.
No, you're very wrong. If that was the case, Gore would have moved his entire campaign to Florida, campaigned for Nader in every other state in a deal to keep him from being added to the ballot in Florida, and would have won the election easily.
Also, states are allowed to split their electoral votes. Some states themselves forbid their electors from voting for anyone but the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote, but even in those states (I believe about half of them) that allow the electors to vote for whomever they want, they don't.
A better system, and one that would actually preserve the intent of the Electoral College, would just be to just have the electors themselves run for election and let the voters choose electors whom they trust to make the best decision. Right now, the parties pick a group of electors for each state that they trust to elect their guy, and if they win a plurality in the state they get to have their electors in the College.
They should check the name first, and yes, if they create confusion by using the same name and then use their relative size to crush you, they're breaking several US laws and just about every principle of ethics.
Read the US Code and stop spreading ridiculous myths.
Outside of Slashdot's readership, Linux is comparatively an unknown project compared to anything Microsoft puts out. The scale doesn't matter. The principle is what matters, and you're blinded by mindless Linux advocacy.
Well then your reply is also offtopic, and it's rather inconsiderate to not post as AC and force someone to waste mod points modding you down to the level you think your comment deserves to be at.
Apparently you didn't read the comment to which he was replying, which was evaluating the redhat Fedora project. Get a clue yourself.
How about a better example. Microsoft decides they want to release an OS called "GNU/Linux." By your logic, they should have every right to do so, and anyone else using that name should come up with a different name.