The Democratic party was panicking that Dean would actually get the nomination, and needed to find a way to stop that. If Dean had been nominated, it would be a slam dunk victory for Bush this fall and the Democrats knew that. They needed a more stuffy, pro establishment candidate to get the votes of mainstream America. Dean may have had some good ideas, but his platform overall failed to connect with the average American. Dean was losing momentum even before the famous overplayed scream, and the scream was just the final nail in his coffin.
Usually when companies are acquired, middle management is most at risk of losing their jobs. The worker bees will probably be needed in the combined company unless the department is redundant, but only one set of managers are necessary. The company with the most power wants to keep its executives, and get rid of the others. Since middle managers usually don't have golden parachutes, they are generally the most at risk.
There's a perfectly good business case to be made for switching away from SCO. Who wants to be stuck with a vendor that is out of business and unable to support the system? And based on how SCO has been conducting themselves, that will be the case in a year or two. Any user of SCO systems should be making similar plans.
Ssshhh. You're not supposed to tell the unwashed masses that the modern Hemi is all marketing hype. How else is Chrysler supposed to sell the $40,000 Dodge Durango Mini Van. Yes, it's a soccer mom mini van, not a real SUV. It even has the drop down LCD screen and built in DVD player.
I can see police cars equipted with this kinda stuff in places where Yack and Drive is illegal.
This type of law enforcement, like speed limit enforcement, will be primarily for the purpose of revenue generation. Cell phones in vehicles are not the problem, inattentive drivers are. And it doesn't matter what the source of the distraction is. Besides, what if the passenger is using a phone? No politician would suggest that passengers and drivers both cannot use cell phones in a vehicle.
Maybe this is true in grad school, or at some private universities, but at any public university, the professor will either be lecturing straight from the book or they would at least give the same lectures every semester. Professors have an interesting view of intellectual property, to say the least. They seem to think they should be able to use anyone's material, so long as they cite sources, but that nobody should be able to use their's. This same line of reasoning is used to prohibit companies that sell class notes on college campuses, and it falls flat on it's face.
Why exactly can universities be sued for student file sharing but ISPs cannot? I would think that a university could put students on a seperate network, which they usually do anyway, and call themselves an ISP. I'm guessing the real reason is that a commercial ISP would be more likely to fight a lawsuit like this since they would go out of business if they were responsible for customers' illegal file sharing.
If they do things correctly, they can offer television packages that give customers a real choice, as opposed to the cable monopoly. For example, have a no-ESPN package that costs significantly less than standard cable. Google on ESPN and cable TV for more info on how ESPN is the single most expensive channel on your cable bill. Then it will be possible to get a decent TV package for less than $50 a month. Whatever they do, it's about time somebody breaks up the Comcast monopoly over cable TV in most of the US.
Costs may increase to some extent, but VOIP will always be more competitive than traditional local service. This will keep costs to a reasonable level and encourage providers to innovate and provide better service, in theory anyway. They might end up being like cellphone companies, where some suck slightly less than others.
Even the small businesses you are praising are often incorporated. This is done for many reasons, and a corporation is not always corrupt. Sure, there are CEOs who are only concerned with plundering as much of the company's money as they can before getting fired and collecting that golden parachute, but there are many large companies that are still controlled by the founders, who are much more likely to be concerned about the company's long term future and growth. I understand your outrage at some corrupt large corporations, but I think you should realize that not all corporations become like this, and there are many honest people running businesses.
This just proves why it's a pointless waste of time and money to try to register domains such as abccorpsucks.com. You'll never think of all the possible permutations, and if someone wants to put up a hate site about you and your products, they will. That's the downside to living in a country with free speech.
Tell me about it. Maybe I can patent the process of posting a lame, unimaginative joke on Slashdot and put an end to this stupidity once and for all (or make money from it). Since prior art is apparently no longer required to get a patent, I might have a shot afterall.
The discussion is about how Ray Bradbury was upset at Michael Moore for ripping off his title and then he asked for an apology from Moore. Instead, he got ridicule and personal attacks by Moore supporters. Extremists on both the right and left are very intolerant of free speech by the other side. Sure, there are narrow minded conservatives that would like to lock up all liberals. At the same time, conservative viewpoints have been stifled at "peace rallies" in Berkeley, CA. McCarthyist tactics of smearing your opponent and vilifying them by any means possible are nothing new, and are regularly used by intolerant people on all sides of the political spectrum.
Contrary to popular belief, the US basically has national health care, they just don't call it that. Low income people can get treatment for most conditions at county hospitals. There is usually a long wait, and it's not the absolute best medical care, but from what I've heard, it's not much different than the national systems in countries such as Canada and the UK. You're best off having insurance, but they won't let you die on the street just because you don't.
When I see someone driving a rusted out Mercedes which is probably older than me, I don't think "crappy car company", I think "cheap bastard won't get a new car". Most people are smart enough to know that the manufacturer, or in this case the photographer, is responsible for their product only to a certain extent. What the user does with it is strictly up to the user. As for people complaining to the photographer about their cheap inkjet prints, these people are simply unsatisfyable and will always find something to complain about. It's best to avoid doing business with people like this if at all possible.
Its quite simple. You are the least terrorist-like person on the flight, along with the old ladies and children, therefore you will be the most likely to be searched. If they actually searched people that were more likely to commit a terrorist act, like Middle Eastern males, all the civil rights groups would be up in arms. Non-threatening people must be searched to keep up the illusion of security and make everyone else feel safe.
Law enforcements' current view of the Internet is like a source of intelligence. Some criminal and terrorist groups communicate out in the open over the Internet, and those communications can be intercepted and used in investigations. Since this makes police work a lot easier in many ways, I'm not so sure they'd want to shut this down unless it really began to work against them too much.
the MPAA does not have the power to make things legal or illegal
Actually, they do. This is the main problem with the DMCA. It becomes illegal to do anything that a corporation does not want you to do with their product, such as servicing it yourself. All they have to do is phrase it in the form of protecting some sort of intellectual property, which can be defined as almost anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The Democratic party was panicking that Dean would actually get the nomination, and needed to find a way to stop that. If Dean had been nominated, it would be a slam dunk victory for Bush this fall and the Democrats knew that. They needed a more stuffy, pro establishment candidate to get the votes of mainstream America. Dean may have had some good ideas, but his platform overall failed to connect with the average American. Dean was losing momentum even before the famous overplayed scream, and the scream was just the final nail in his coffin.
Usually when companies are acquired, middle management is most at risk of losing their jobs. The worker bees will probably be needed in the combined company unless the department is redundant, but only one set of managers are necessary. The company with the most power wants to keep its executives, and get rid of the others. Since middle managers usually don't have golden parachutes, they are generally the most at risk.
Ever thought about starting your own business?
There's a perfectly good business case to be made for switching away from SCO. Who wants to be stuck with a vendor that is out of business and unable to support the system? And based on how SCO has been conducting themselves, that will be the case in a year or two. Any user of SCO systems should be making similar plans.
Ssshhh. You're not supposed to tell the unwashed masses that the modern Hemi is all marketing hype. How else is Chrysler supposed to sell the $40,000 Dodge Durango Mini Van. Yes, it's a soccer mom mini van, not a real SUV. It even has the drop down LCD screen and built in DVD player.
I can see police cars equipted with this kinda stuff in places where Yack and Drive is illegal.
This type of law enforcement, like speed limit enforcement, will be primarily for the purpose of revenue generation. Cell phones in vehicles are not the problem, inattentive drivers are. And it doesn't matter what the source of the distraction is. Besides, what if the passenger is using a phone? No politician would suggest that passengers and drivers both cannot use cell phones in a vehicle.
Maybe this is true in grad school, or at some private universities, but at any public university, the professor will either be lecturing straight from the book or they would at least give the same lectures every semester. Professors have an interesting view of intellectual property, to say the least. They seem to think they should be able to use anyone's material, so long as they cite sources, but that nobody should be able to use their's. This same line of reasoning is used to prohibit companies that sell class notes on college campuses, and it falls flat on it's face.
Why exactly can universities be sued for student file sharing but ISPs cannot? I would think that a university could put students on a seperate network, which they usually do anyway, and call themselves an ISP. I'm guessing the real reason is that a commercial ISP would be more likely to fight a lawsuit like this since they would go out of business if they were responsible for customers' illegal file sharing.
If they do things correctly, they can offer television packages that give customers a real choice, as opposed to the cable monopoly. For example, have a no-ESPN package that costs significantly less than standard cable. Google on ESPN and cable TV for more info on how ESPN is the single most expensive channel on your cable bill. Then it will be possible to get a decent TV package for less than $50 a month. Whatever they do, it's about time somebody breaks up the Comcast monopoly over cable TV in most of the US.
Costs may increase to some extent, but VOIP will always be more competitive than traditional local service. This will keep costs to a reasonable level and encourage providers to innovate and provide better service, in theory anyway. They might end up being like cellphone companies, where some suck slightly less than others.
Even the small businesses you are praising are often incorporated. This is done for many reasons, and a corporation is not always corrupt. Sure, there are CEOs who are only concerned with plundering as much of the company's money as they can before getting fired and collecting that golden parachute, but there are many large companies that are still controlled by the founders, who are much more likely to be concerned about the company's long term future and growth. I understand your outrage at some corrupt large corporations, but I think you should realize that not all corporations become like this, and there are many honest people running businesses.
This just proves why it's a pointless waste of time and money to try to register domains such as abccorpsucks.com. You'll never think of all the possible permutations, and if someone wants to put up a hate site about you and your products, they will. That's the downside to living in a country with free speech.
Tell me about it. Maybe I can patent the process of posting a lame, unimaginative joke on Slashdot and put an end to this stupidity once and for all (or make money from it). Since prior art is apparently no longer required to get a patent, I might have a shot afterall.
The discussion is about how Ray Bradbury was upset at Michael Moore for ripping off his title and then he asked for an apology from Moore. Instead, he got ridicule and personal attacks by Moore supporters. Extremists on both the right and left are very intolerant of free speech by the other side. Sure, there are narrow minded conservatives that would like to lock up all liberals. At the same time, conservative viewpoints have been stifled at "peace rallies" in Berkeley, CA. McCarthyist tactics of smearing your opponent and vilifying them by any means possible are nothing new, and are regularly used by intolerant people on all sides of the political spectrum.
The far left is not exactly know for being accommodating of free speech, unless it's speech they agree with.
Contrary to popular belief, the US basically has national health care, they just don't call it that. Low income people can get treatment for most conditions at county hospitals. There is usually a long wait, and it's not the absolute best medical care, but from what I've heard, it's not much different than the national systems in countries such as Canada and the UK. You're best off having insurance, but they won't let you die on the street just because you don't.
Is there anything that you don't blame Bush for? When you have no better argument, just work in some good old fashioned Bush bashing. Fucking troll.
Wow, could his arrogance and sense of self importance be any greater? Guys like this give geeks a bad name.
Who exactly is Linux?
When I see someone driving a rusted out Mercedes which is probably older than me, I don't think "crappy car company", I think "cheap bastard won't get a new car". Most people are smart enough to know that the manufacturer, or in this case the photographer, is responsible for their product only to a certain extent. What the user does with it is strictly up to the user. As for people complaining to the photographer about their cheap inkjet prints, these people are simply unsatisfyable and will always find something to complain about. It's best to avoid doing business with people like this if at all possible.
Its quite simple. You are the least terrorist-like person on the flight, along with the old ladies and children, therefore you will be the most likely to be searched. If they actually searched people that were more likely to commit a terrorist act, like Middle Eastern males, all the civil rights groups would be up in arms. Non-threatening people must be searched to keep up the illusion of security and make everyone else feel safe.
Law enforcements' current view of the Internet is like a source of intelligence. Some criminal and terrorist groups communicate out in the open over the Internet, and those communications can be intercepted and used in investigations. Since this makes police work a lot easier in many ways, I'm not so sure they'd want to shut this down unless it really began to work against them too much.
I agree this whole thing is stupid, but last time I checked cell phone service isn't exactly a civil right.
the MPAA does not have the power to make things legal or illegal
Actually, they do. This is the main problem with the DMCA. It becomes illegal to do anything that a corporation does not want you to do with their product, such as servicing it yourself. All they have to do is phrase it in the form of protecting some sort of intellectual property, which can be defined as almost anything.
Apple's focus is to make a product that does the core job first,
And then make sure it has no interoperability with anything else under any circumstances. Yay Apple!