What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten. He was ruffed up when he was arrested but that was because he resisted his arrest and the security (provided by Iraqi's) needed to get him under control. Sure, you can say he just threw a shoe now but at the time, no one knew what he was just doing or what he was capable of and proceeded as if he was a serious threat.
And yes, that is the high and moral ground. It appears that if anything was actually done to him inappropriately, it will come out in court and they will be punished according to Iraqi law. And yes, that is likely more then what would have been done under Saddam. This guy is getting far more of a chance at justice then anyone under Saddam would have. Furthermore, his trial for an offense that he already admitted to in a court is postponed so he can argue that his actions as an insult instead of an assault in order to drop the maximum potential sentencing from 15 years to 3 years. That is something I would consider a moral high ground for the country that never would have happened under Saddam.
The problem is that every Congress Person who doesn't bring home the bacon to their district isn't going to get reelected, thus every bill basically has to guarantee something for every district. This is a function of the fact that each representative is only accountable to their own little part of the country.
That's not necessarily true. I don't credits the productivity of the are I live in with the success of government taking from me or other areas. If all of congress would just cut it out citing real reasons like the constitutionality of it, that perception would change for those people who think like you mentioned.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids the Federal Government from spending money on things that primarily benefit local areas. Congress has limited authority to make laws. It doesn't have limited authority to spend money. These are two different things and should not be confused. The only limits on Congress' ability to spend money are that it can only make an appropriation for the "Army" for a two year period, and 'from time to time' a 'complete accounting' of what money was appropriated and spent must be prepared.
Well, no. Congress has all sorts of limits in spending money. You see, the constitution tells them what rights they have in legislation. Outside of those rights, the government isn't supposed to be involved at all. This is a severe limit on the government and would prohibit most of the social programs it is involved with right now. It would also limit most of it's spending too. The problem is that the government has left the constitutional building so long ago, you think it's actually proper for it to give money away with not constitutional limits.
If we want to FIX the mess we have with how our money is spent, then we are going to have to make some serious and sweeping changes in the structure of the legislative branch of our government.
Yes, I agree with you. But the extent of the changes could seriously be back to a constitutional government instead of this charade we have now.
One might ask why other countries, like the UK, which has a Parliament elected from districts don't have similar problems. In part they answer is that they do, but being a MUCH less geographically extended state the problem is a lot less apparent because the districts are much smaller and so close together that money going to any one district also benefits a bunch of other nearby ones. This makes it far easier for an MP to simply act in the general interest.
I will take up arms if necessary to stop a UK style Parliment from replacing the congress. Outside of military bases and federally operated ports, traditionally we never had the problem of elected officials bringing the bacon home. It wasn't until the new deal where it turned from a let the people make their own future to a the federal government is necessary to our survival. Sure, you had people who stood to gain from statehood and so on, but for the most part, the thriving success in the country happened when the federal government stayed out of the way.
I can go on about this and how we have over regulated ourselves in the local areas because of the abuses of the federal government. But I don't think it's necessary. The role of the federal government is only to involve itself in matters of state and commerce between the states and foreign governments. It's not to be directly invested in areas within the states. The Idea behind the representatives is to stop damage to the people, not give them something. It's an oxymoron to think that the feds need to take away from the people just to give back to the people. That's a role of the state and local governments. The entire idea of public interest has been perverted and you can see this when they have 80 year old crippled grandma on the news in a perfectly sound house that was condemned t
200 billion isn't that much money, what more would you have expected to be accomplished?
BTW, the wiring in the US, some of which wasn't even documented properly or in a universal way that could easily be understood by people from different areas, wasn't even in a digital format that could be used in planning computers and so on let along the quality of the wires actually known.
I don't think you understand the breadth of the task that was demanded. I also think that your blaming normal and common expenses in curing those problems as sink holes. Well, your right except that they were neccesary which you don't seem to understand.
Actually, he "could not" fix my computer, that was the issue. There is a difference between a bad DVD drive and a Plug and play card whatever that is supposed to be. There is also a difference between "could not" and "did not". The only reason he got the computer is because I was working double shifts all week long and my girlfriend at the time said he could fix it and she needed it working. He was her dad's rocket scientist neighbor who "fixed" all the computers in the neighborhood.
Actually, no. The Iraqi government exists at the sufferance of the people of Iraq. The Iraqi populace put the government in place and elected every individual serving. The US provided the frame work for a Democratic Government to emerge instead of a dictatorship with the provisional government but that has been long gone. The Iraqi government that created the constitution was even not only elected, the constitution itself was put to the people to approve. Your a complete and total fool if you think otherwise.
It's not just suspicious, it's beyond reasonable suspicion.
The problem is that your constitutional rights don't say unless suspicion, it says you are protected from unreasonable searches. That means that the cop has to find you suspicious in a way that a normal person with similar training could find the suspicion too. Long hair, being black in a white neighborhood, or looking like a hobo while driving a million dollar car aren't just causes.
I caught a guy wearing a shit like that once who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He tried to tell me I needed a "plug and play card" because my DVD drive wasn't working. I don't know what his reason was but it wasn't the same as yours.
I also saw a shirt that said "I love lamp". Surprisingly, we aren't talking about the lamp stack, he claimed the shirt was about a scene in the 40 year old virgin where they were talking about women they loved and the virgin said he loved lamp then grabbed a desk lamp or something. Saw another one that said "Got Root". Evidently, he thought it was something about the size of his member and new nothing about *nix. I overheard a family at some Toy store during Christmas time saying the Stuffed penguin on the shelf must be the Sony mascot because it was on their TV. Are you sure that Joe SixPack would even understand why you were wearing the shirt?
Like many people in your situation, you are infering too much.
First, the US didn't tear down the shoe, Iraq did. Second, it isn't like the same hasn't happened elswhere in the world when the things are created on other people's propery, without permits, unsafe and so on.
Well, Actually in America, assaulting a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person is subject to a fine plus three years imprisonment unless they use a uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily injury, then it becomes a fine plus ten years imprisonment in the US. If he would have been just harassing him, then it would be six months and a fine.
If the person is a US official, inside the US, then an assault could get fines and imprisoned for one year if it's a "simple assault" and up to eight year and a fine if it is more. If they use a dangerous or deadly weapon, it jumps to a fine and 20 years.
So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
BTW, It is a fair comparison to look at the former leadership of a country when all of the current leaders have lived and suffered the penalties of the former leadership. It will take time and probably a few generations before people realize how strong laws and punishment don't need to be.
That $200bil would only service 10mil farm houses in the middle of nowhere. And even that would mean neglecting all the outdated equipment and lines that prevented simple DSL service from being delivered in major population areas. The 200billl went to quite a bit more then just putting internet in the middle of nowhere. In some places, the entire infrastructure needed to be replaced, lines needed to be added and so on just to get the regular systems compatible. Then your looking at running to rural areas on top of that.
Are communities really going to start complaining if Verizon makes them competitive in the broadband service sector at no cost?
Sort of. Currently, most communities, especially rural ones get a set fee per subscriber on a line. If Verizon puts up telephone poles and rents/leases access to Time Warner, it counts those subscribers too. Same goes with underground lines but it isn't quite as much because it's easier to maintain the right of way for the most part when there are no poles. So if Verizon wants to install some tech that replaces two extra functions, then instead of getting broadband for free, the township, village or city will lose two thirds of their funding from the right of way and possible the funding from the regular service that gets moved. Time Warner wanted to put Cable down my road about 3 years ago and the township wanted $2.00 per customer until TW low balled them, started a trash talk campaign against the trustees and the township then asked for $3.00 per customer. Two of the trustees have survived reelection since then too.
So yes, they very well might start complaining if a significant portion of their funding is removed.
This most likely applies to the cable running to the buildings, which the municipality likely owns. These contracts usually are in the form of "we own the copper but we recognize your contribution and efforts to get it there so you have the exclusive right to sell services on it." In any case it's irrelevant since we're talking about fiber, not cable.
The FCC allows cable companies to negotiate contracts of exclusivity that even lock out satellite providers to any apartment building regardless of who owns it. There could be 5 different providers in the area and the Apartment building can be approached by one of them and agree to only let that one provide service on the property. I (me and my brother) have a rental with 6 units and to stop from having 20 dishes mounted and 200 wires being strung and restrung, we took a contract with Time Warner that gets tenants 25% off regular rates while living there. I have heard of of places that get no discounts to the tenants at all.
Things are fucked up. More so then I think you understand.
Actually, this congress and style of government is perfectly fine for modern America. The problem is that they have strayed away from a constitutional application of the government for the better part of 100 years now. It started around the civil war, ramped up in the 30's got worse in the 50's with the cold war and here we are today with you claiming that government is borked because every single bill has to be a bonanza giveaway with something for everyone.
The constitution never intended the federal government to be spending money at the district levels in the ways we are today. That was supposed to be a function of the state and local governments. The idea that a person by nature of not participating in interstate commerce will effect interstate commerce so it under the power of the feds is absolutely ridiculous but it is one of the main excuses for the giveaways. People sit on the couch and bitch about it because their "public education" has neglected to tell them they can do something about it. Hell, even here, about every 4 years you get people who are convinced by their schools that their vote doesn't count then bitch and complain when the other guy wins like he stole the election or something.
If the feds were acting constitutional, the government would be perfectly fine.
No, you did not. If you had automatic updates on, you agreed to install critical security updates, not functional addons designed to further MS's goals. Further more, there is no listing of this even when doing a manual update and specificaly seeing it in the Critical security updates section.
This for the most part was installed by pure deception on a lot of computers. Well, unless you can find something with security that this thing deals with that also falls within the lines of Microsoft's own classification of critical security updates.
Wow, way to inject rhetorical ideologist bullshit into a conversation about EULAs. You have convinced me to hate them all like they are evil or something.
It's like a mugger declaring "I assert the right to stab you in the stomach unless you pay me" before setting about a victim with a knife, believing that grants some kind of legal protection.
Grow up. For the most part, the EULAs only attempt to distinguish that you have the right of use and not the rights availible as the copyright or patent holder. They also attempt to avoid liability. Only a small percentage of them attemp to take rights they don't lawfully already have. The liability is also covered under warranty law which is perfectly fine to display after the sale.
There is NO LEGAL BASIS FOR A EULA WHATSOEVER
Yes, there is. The original concept of the EULA which is one that is still in use is to inform the user of what rights you retain because of law and what actual rights they have by law. It's that simple, the laws say you can take code or make copies and redistribute the program/code without permission from the copyright holder or patent holder and that your purchase of the software doesn't make you neither. That is a totally legal concept just as the purchase of a book doesn't make you either.
EULAS are, always have been, and always will be bullshit. They are an attempt at unilateral imposition of arbitary hidden terms on a customer after the real contract has been concluded. Quasi-legal language and CAPITAL LETTERS or FTC blessing will not change that one jot.
No they haven't. And no they aren't. Some might be but most of them aren't and never where. And yes, the FTC authorizing or establishing what is legal and not will make a difference just as big as the law saying go on green and stop on red. If a software EULA said that, you would still be bound by it regardless of what you think. IF a Software EULA says you can't murder, illegally assault your neighbor, or that you couldn't cheat on your taxes, you are still bound by that. That's the intent of the EULA, you specifically inform you of what rights the copyright owner is allowing you that the law doesn't allow them to retain. You can continue to insert rhetorical ideologist bullshit and never understand that but it will be you who is forever pissed off.
Most companies started puting disclaimers on the boxes saying "this product is governed by a "end user license agreement" goto Thisweb.site, read and agree to the EULA before opening this product.
I don't know how sane that is if a court ever hears a case concerning it. But I guess it was a response to a case about not being able to get a refund before. I think Bestbuy was involved too.
There is never a EULA on a virus or trojan. The government just wouldn't have the ability to enforce one nor would it have the ability to make you accept one. There would be no EULA on spyware cops install onto suspects computers, there would be no EULA requirements on software obtained outside the US even though the User is sitting inside the US. In other words, requiring a ELUA in every instance is impossible and would present an unnecessary burden on US software sales.
Now that being said, the situation is probably going to be a If you do X, you are bound by these rules. If there is no EULA in the first place, one probably will not be needed and straight copyright/Patent law will govern. The original EULAs were only statements that you didn't buy the copyrights to the software just the right to use your copy within the bounds of copyright law.
What has happened is that EULAs have included terms that can allow a software manufacture disable competitors programs, stop you from having your fair use rights like the right of first sale or in some cases, they even deny you the right to talk negatively about the programs or it's performance. There are lots more weird and somewhat evil things and I suspect they are attempting to reign this under control as well as stop companies from advertising this product does this the best and then claim it isn't able to do it in the license to escape damages when it screws up. Well, you know, the shit the article talked about.
I doubt it will have any real effect on GPL or BSD programs.
Depends on when he installed QuickTime. Apple pulled a stunt where is hid and changed the downloed to Quicktime without Itunes. There was a period of a couple of months where they even forgot to make the public page for the standalone download availible from the quicktime page. That means if you didn't follow a link in from a this party site, you wouldn't have found it.
It's possible that both of you are right and neither of you are wrong or not looking very hard depending when he went after the QuickTime. Apple certainly didn't make it easy.
Actually, no, a critical update to the dotnet framework installed it on my computer. If it was as simple as you say, I could agree, but this was included in the dotnet 3.5 SP1 that was just listed as critical and you heard nothing about the thing installing this until people started asking what the fuck was going on?
The problem is for most of these people, that MS didn't install it when they installed the frame work. It was installed with a security update that shouldn't be adding functionality or anything. Dotnet framework 3.5 SP1 installed this and if you have automatic updates on, your hit because they bundled it with some fix that allows them to list it as critical.
If this was something as simple as installing a frame work and it being there, half of the people wouldn't be pissed because they knew about before hand. But imagine adobe reader installing the google toolbar and destop search BS without ever telling you during the install, and even hid that by popping up a notice that a security update is availible. Do you ever wonder why the Real player ever lost it's place? It's because it did that same shit, started installing spyware with updates and pushing popups that you couldn't figure out how to stop. This is the same thing.
Well, Yes, MS does automatically install this program. The dotnet update 3.5 SP1 was listed as a critical security update, I have this on two servers that IE can't even access the web on. Firefox is only on it to check an internal website and monitor/access the web interfaces to routers and switches. The update installed the thing as it wasn't there before and yes, I check quite often. It also hasn't attempted to do anything on the internet yet because I monitor port access and nothing out of the ordinary has came up.
So if you had automatic updates on, it would have been installed without you choosing to install it. If you manually install automatic updates, there is no warning of it being installed. Critical updates shouldn't be adding new features or changing the way other software works unless it's specifically to address a security problem. Adding functionality to Firefox isn't a security fix.
Now it doesn't matter if you get this with any DotNet install now because you didn't in the past. Up until this month, it didn't even exist as far as I know. And just because it installs with dotnet now doesn't mean I agreed to installing it a year ago when I installed the last dotnet package to suppose a program we are using.
Assuming that all Cell phone companies would agree to limiting calls like that, how do you suggest they distinguish between calls made at the prisons or whatever place verses calls made 200 feet from it or from people who otherwise have legitimate reasons to make a call?
I can see where spot jamming might be wanted. Something like a bomb scare where you wouldn't want the possibility of remote triggering to happen. Or maybe in a prison riot situation where contact to the outside could escalate the situation and empower the inmates. You also have problems with inmates conducting business inside the jails and putting people on the outside who may have witnessed against them or something at risk. I'm not sure if the later was is something that couldn't be dealt with in other ways though. Something like a ban on cell phones inside the prison in it's entirety and signal location detection devices that can track cell phones in non-authorized areas and then good old fashioned detective work.
Anyways, besides there being times where blocking the signals altogether might be with more advantages, I'm not sure how a cell company can distinguish who is inside the prison any better then this tech can distinguish who it effects outside the area. It will most likely be overly weak and functionally ineffective or contain a lot of false positives.
f=ma is a law. observable, solid, valid laws for our locale of the universe. 'superiority' is a human perceptional invention.
And that breaks down with Quantum physics as well as light particles. It is was a law, it wouldn't be applied sometimes and not others. It's a universal observation that is accurate more often then not.
3/4 of your planet is water. if you wander into a desert or mountain, you will probably come back without getting attacked by wolves. what matters is, what happens when you chance up with one.
If the human has any experience, he walks away from it. That's because we are smarter and more adaptable. We are a higher species.
again you dont know about history, yet you are speaking with surety. nazis never negotiated with anyone. WEHRMACHT did. this might be a good time for you to do a search about wehrmacht and read up. especially what it meant in between 1918-1945.
Whatever, what I said still stands. You point is ridiculous as well as fallacious and it doesn't over turn what I said about the Nazi's.
you are choosing not to get it.
germans DIDNT USE ANY MILITARY FORCE UNTIL THEY WERE FAR SUPERIOR THAN ANY ARMY THAT COULD OPPOSE THEM. get this in your head. germany administration at that time = nazi. nazis did the same thing in internal politics BEFORE they got power. THEY DIDNT USE VIOLENCE UNTIL THEY WERE POWERFUL THAN ANY OTHER POLITICAL GROUP. currently muslim organizations in europe are OPENLY declaring that they want to make all world an islam state, with sharia, and will kill anyone opposing them if necessary. YET they are not killing anyone, but recruiting people, increasing their numbers geometrically. see a similarity ?
No, YOU are the one refusing to get it. I didn't say anything about military force. I said they used violence so it would have been fine to respond with violence. You don't need a military to have violence. Fuck, quit quit ignoring what I said and trying to rebute what you wanted me to say. And yes, they did use violence before they were all powerful. They were killing and sending jews to camps a long time before they even built troops up.
that happened TOWARDS THE END. this is you are failing to get, due to probably lack of your knowledge on historical subjects. SUCH FUNDAMENTALIST/HARDLINER GROUPS WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE POWERFUL THAN ANY OTHER GROUP to commit any violence.
I'm not failing to get it, I don't agree that you should kill however you disagree with because your afraid they might do something in the future. You seem to think that is ok, but your fucked in the head anyways. You don't know what some will or wont do until after they do it or start to do it.
dont try to sell me what i lived with. i am a former muslim, or, 'made' muslim from birth. and yes, there is a tax, which is called jizyah, and all non muslims that are under sharia law are BOUND to pay it. they are not in charge yet, but they will be, if people around the world keep going willy nilly lighthearted like you. they werent even a political power in turkey 25 years ago. now they control the government. their islamist prime minister had scowled to israel prime minister just a day ago. all the while turkey being the 4rd most important nato member, and a long time ally of israel. see the pattern.
You don't get a tax unless it's a muslim run state. We don't have that and never will. You point is still moot.
this shit, - i would be careful about using the word shit for anything involving koran if i were you, depending on my experiences, for islamist radicalism is real and some dimwitted caveman may come to kill you in a back alley just for that word if anyone saw it - is in El-Tevba surah (in arabic). here is the excerpt, 9/29
Unfortunately, I have had close relatives die before. I never took care of them in their dieing days though. Perhaps that gave me a degree of separation. I've also seen a lot of death and I'm not sure it effects me like it would others.
Riiight. Michael Dell is just an incredibly nice and selfless guy trying to lend a hand with no strings attached. I'm sure that same egalitarianism and selflessness is also how be came to be CEO of a major competitive corporation.
How about he became the CEO of a major competitive corporation because he started it in his garage and grew it through niche marketing campaigns into what it has become today.
I never said he was UberNice or or anything of the sort. You don't need to be to offer a fair product for a fair cost. There is nothing except your imagination to say that he or his sales staff would not offer services for a just compensation.
What I'm saying, in case the above isn't obvious enough, is that your view of the motives here is delusional, not at all realistic. I at least recognize Dell's true motives, while at the same I recognize that my socialism is a GOAL to overcome motivation and behavior like Dell's. I have a self-centric nature just like Dell; the difference is that I fight it every minute of the day and don't manipulate people to my own selfish benefit. If Dell were to behave likewise, of course he would have to voluntarily agree to it, or it wouldn't be very socialistic. I'd be a lousy and hypocritical socialist if I tried to somehow force him.
Your right, your views of the motivation are delusional. Do you think he should provide the services completely free? At his expense? then where is the fairness mark your claiming to reach and how do you know that Dell wouldn't reach it? Keep in mind that Russia would have to invest way more money to develop in house, it would take way more time and lots more resources. So where is that "fair mark" and what makes you think Putin is so incompetent that he wouldn't be able to find it and negotiate for it. Making a 2% profit on a project as big as the country of Russia is still quite a bit of money as well as prestige that would influence other contracts.
Now given that we just don't know what Dell would have charged or whether or not Russia would have found it an equal exchange, I am left to only assume that you are transfixing your own perceived short comings to Dell. Here is a newsflash, you aren't Dell and you aren't Russia. In fact, your abandoning real just trade where people exchange equally valuable parts of a transaction for your own arbitrary and restrictive ideals. All Dell needs to do is cover costs plus make a profit, Russia will have to cover those same costs plus some extra because of a development cycle. Dell's profit can actually be less then the extra amount that Russia would have to spend on top of the costs. Russia can actually see that as a more then fair deal given specific considerations about their needs. It may be more beneficial to them to get the infrastructure working while developing their own compatible replacements.
What we have is possible scenarios that you just haven't stopped to consider. Dell won't have set prices for contracts that large and above all else, Russia is not obligated to use them. They won't be any worse off then they are now if they can't come to an arrangement they both will agree to. I don't understand how you can even look at this and claim someone is going to screw someone else over. If Russia decides whatever deal Dell works out is worth it, then an exchanges of equal value has taken place. Your precious socialism isn't damaged at all. This is because we are free and live in a free world and we have the choice to buy something or not. This is especially true for something as large as Russia that actually does have the resources and abilities to make their own solutions from scratch.
I thought that too. I was thinking the will would have been vacated on that alone without having to claim how much your entitled to something because of family love and all. But I also think taking care of her for 6 years while she died would have cinched that too.
There really was no talking any sence into her. It was all emotions and irrational behavior. It makes me wonder what caused it when thinking about it. I don't push the subject or bring it up when I see her, I'm afraid it would be like slapping her in the face or something.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten. He was ruffed up when he was arrested but that was because he resisted his arrest and the security (provided by Iraqi's) needed to get him under control. Sure, you can say he just threw a shoe now but at the time, no one knew what he was just doing or what he was capable of and proceeded as if he was a serious threat.
And yes, that is the high and moral ground. It appears that if anything was actually done to him inappropriately, it will come out in court and they will be punished according to Iraqi law. And yes, that is likely more then what would have been done under Saddam. This guy is getting far more of a chance at justice then anyone under Saddam would have. Furthermore, his trial for an offense that he already admitted to in a court is postponed so he can argue that his actions as an insult instead of an assault in order to drop the maximum potential sentencing from 15 years to 3 years. That is something I would consider a moral high ground for the country that never would have happened under Saddam.
That's not necessarily true. I don't credits the productivity of the are I live in with the success of government taking from me or other areas. If all of congress would just cut it out citing real reasons like the constitutionality of it, that perception would change for those people who think like you mentioned.
Well, no. Congress has all sorts of limits in spending money. You see, the constitution tells them what rights they have in legislation. Outside of those rights, the government isn't supposed to be involved at all. This is a severe limit on the government and would prohibit most of the social programs it is involved with right now. It would also limit most of it's spending too. The problem is that the government has left the constitutional building so long ago, you think it's actually proper for it to give money away with not constitutional limits.
Yes, I agree with you. But the extent of the changes could seriously be back to a constitutional government instead of this charade we have now.
I will take up arms if necessary to stop a UK style Parliment from replacing the congress. Outside of military bases and federally operated ports, traditionally we never had the problem of elected officials bringing the bacon home. It wasn't until the new deal where it turned from a let the people make their own future to a the federal government is necessary to our survival. Sure, you had people who stood to gain from statehood and so on, but for the most part, the thriving success in the country happened when the federal government stayed out of the way.
I can go on about this and how we have over regulated ourselves in the local areas because of the abuses of the federal government. But I don't think it's necessary. The role of the federal government is only to involve itself in matters of state and commerce between the states and foreign governments. It's not to be directly invested in areas within the states. The Idea behind the representatives is to stop damage to the people, not give them something. It's an oxymoron to think that the feds need to take away from the people just to give back to the people. That's a role of the state and local governments. The entire idea of public interest has been perverted and you can see this when they have 80 year old crippled grandma on the news in a perfectly sound house that was condemned t
200 billion isn't that much money, what more would you have expected to be accomplished?
BTW, the wiring in the US, some of which wasn't even documented properly or in a universal way that could easily be understood by people from different areas, wasn't even in a digital format that could be used in planning computers and so on let along the quality of the wires actually known.
I don't think you understand the breadth of the task that was demanded. I also think that your blaming normal and common expenses in curing those problems as sink holes. Well, your right except that they were neccesary which you don't seem to understand.
Actually, he "could not" fix my computer, that was the issue. There is a difference between a bad DVD drive and a Plug and play card whatever that is supposed to be. There is also a difference between "could not" and "did not". The only reason he got the computer is because I was working double shifts all week long and my girlfriend at the time said he could fix it and she needed it working. He was her dad's rocket scientist neighbor who "fixed" all the computers in the neighborhood.
Actually, no. The Iraqi government exists at the sufferance of the people of Iraq. The Iraqi populace put the government in place and elected every individual serving. The US provided the frame work for a Democratic Government to emerge instead of a dictatorship with the provisional government but that has been long gone. The Iraqi government that created the constitution was even not only elected, the constitution itself was put to the people to approve. Your a complete and total fool if you think otherwise.
It's not just suspicious, it's beyond reasonable suspicion.
The problem is that your constitutional rights don't say unless suspicion, it says you are protected from unreasonable searches. That means that the cop has to find you suspicious in a way that a normal person with similar training could find the suspicion too. Long hair, being black in a white neighborhood, or looking like a hobo while driving a million dollar car aren't just causes.
I caught a guy wearing a shit like that once who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He tried to tell me I needed a "plug and play card" because my DVD drive wasn't working. I don't know what his reason was but it wasn't the same as yours.
I also saw a shirt that said "I love lamp". Surprisingly, we aren't talking about the lamp stack, he claimed the shirt was about a scene in the 40 year old virgin where they were talking about women they loved and the virgin said he loved lamp then grabbed a desk lamp or something. Saw another one that said "Got Root". Evidently, he thought it was something about the size of his member and new nothing about *nix. I overheard a family at some Toy store during Christmas time saying the Stuffed penguin on the shelf must be the Sony mascot because it was on their TV. Are you sure that Joe SixPack would even understand why you were wearing the shirt?
Like many people in your situation, you are infering too much.
First, the US didn't tear down the shoe, Iraq did. Second, it isn't like the same hasn't happened elswhere in the world when the things are created on other people's propery, without permits, unsafe and so on.
Bush is out of office. You can drop the act now.
Well, Actually in America, assaulting a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person is subject to a fine plus three years imprisonment unless they use a uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily injury, then it becomes a fine plus ten years imprisonment in the US. If he would have been just harassing him, then it would be six months and a fine.
If the person is a US official, inside the US, then an assault could get fines and imprisoned for one year if it's a "simple assault" and up to eight year and a fine if it is more. If they use a dangerous or deadly weapon, it jumps to a fine and 20 years.
So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
BTW, It is a fair comparison to look at the former leadership of a country when all of the current leaders have lived and suffered the penalties of the former leadership. It will take time and probably a few generations before people realize how strong laws and punishment don't need to be.
That $200bil would only service 10mil farm houses in the middle of nowhere. And even that would mean neglecting all the outdated equipment and lines that prevented simple DSL service from being delivered in major population areas. The 200billl went to quite a bit more then just putting internet in the middle of nowhere. In some places, the entire infrastructure needed to be replaced, lines needed to be added and so on just to get the regular systems compatible. Then your looking at running to rural areas on top of that.
You need to be realistic.
Sort of. Currently, most communities, especially rural ones get a set fee per subscriber on a line. If Verizon puts up telephone poles and rents/leases access to Time Warner, it counts those subscribers too. Same goes with underground lines but it isn't quite as much because it's easier to maintain the right of way for the most part when there are no poles. So if Verizon wants to install some tech that replaces two extra functions, then instead of getting broadband for free, the township, village or city will lose two thirds of their funding from the right of way and possible the funding from the regular service that gets moved. Time Warner wanted to put Cable down my road about 3 years ago and the township wanted $2.00 per customer until TW low balled them, started a trash talk campaign against the trustees and the township then asked for $3.00 per customer. Two of the trustees have survived reelection since then too.
So yes, they very well might start complaining if a significant portion of their funding is removed.
The FCC allows cable companies to negotiate contracts of exclusivity that even lock out satellite providers to any apartment building regardless of who owns it. There could be 5 different providers in the area and the Apartment building can be approached by one of them and agree to only let that one provide service on the property. I (me and my brother) have a rental with 6 units and to stop from having 20 dishes mounted and 200 wires being strung and restrung, we took a contract with Time Warner that gets tenants 25% off regular rates while living there. I have heard of of places that get no discounts to the tenants at all.
Things are fucked up. More so then I think you understand.
Actually, this congress and style of government is perfectly fine for modern America. The problem is that they have strayed away from a constitutional application of the government for the better part of 100 years now. It started around the civil war, ramped up in the 30's got worse in the 50's with the cold war and here we are today with you claiming that government is borked because every single bill has to be a bonanza giveaway with something for everyone.
The constitution never intended the federal government to be spending money at the district levels in the ways we are today. That was supposed to be a function of the state and local governments. The idea that a person by nature of not participating in interstate commerce will effect interstate commerce so it under the power of the feds is absolutely ridiculous but it is one of the main excuses for the giveaways. People sit on the couch and bitch about it because their "public education" has neglected to tell them they can do something about it. Hell, even here, about every 4 years you get people who are convinced by their schools that their vote doesn't count then bitch and complain when the other guy wins like he stole the election or something.
If the feds were acting constitutional, the government would be perfectly fine.
No, you did not. If you had automatic updates on, you agreed to install critical security updates, not functional addons designed to further MS's goals. Further more, there is no listing of this even when doing a manual update and specificaly seeing it in the Critical security updates section.
This for the most part was installed by pure deception on a lot of computers. Well, unless you can find something with security that this thing deals with that also falls within the lines of Microsoft's own classification of critical security updates.
Wow, way to inject rhetorical ideologist bullshit into a conversation about EULAs. You have convinced me to hate them all like they are evil or something.
Grow up. For the most part, the EULAs only attempt to distinguish that you have the right of use and not the rights availible as the copyright or patent holder. They also attempt to avoid liability. Only a small percentage of them attemp to take rights they don't lawfully already have. The liability is also covered under warranty law which is perfectly fine to display after the sale.
Yes, there is. The original concept of the EULA which is one that is still in use is to inform the user of what rights you retain because of law and what actual rights they have by law. It's that simple, the laws say you can take code or make copies and redistribute the program/code without permission from the copyright holder or patent holder and that your purchase of the software doesn't make you neither. That is a totally legal concept just as the purchase of a book doesn't make you either.
No they haven't. And no they aren't. Some might be but most of them aren't and never where. And yes, the FTC authorizing or establishing what is legal and not will make a difference just as big as the law saying go on green and stop on red. If a software EULA said that, you would still be bound by it regardless of what you think. IF a Software EULA says you can't murder, illegally assault your neighbor, or that you couldn't cheat on your taxes, you are still bound by that. That's the intent of the EULA, you specifically inform you of what rights the copyright owner is allowing you that the law doesn't allow them to retain. You can continue to insert rhetorical ideologist bullshit and never understand that but it will be you who is forever pissed off.
Most companies started puting disclaimers on the boxes saying "this product is governed by a "end user license agreement" goto Thisweb.site, read and agree to the EULA before opening this product.
I don't know how sane that is if a court ever hears a case concerning it. But I guess it was a response to a case about not being able to get a refund before. I think Bestbuy was involved too.
There is never a EULA on a virus or trojan. The government just wouldn't have the ability to enforce one nor would it have the ability to make you accept one. There would be no EULA on spyware cops install onto suspects computers, there would be no EULA requirements on software obtained outside the US even though the User is sitting inside the US. In other words, requiring a ELUA in every instance is impossible and would present an unnecessary burden on US software sales.
Now that being said, the situation is probably going to be a If you do X, you are bound by these rules. If there is no EULA in the first place, one probably will not be needed and straight copyright/Patent law will govern. The original EULAs were only statements that you didn't buy the copyrights to the software just the right to use your copy within the bounds of copyright law.
What has happened is that EULAs have included terms that can allow a software manufacture disable competitors programs, stop you from having your fair use rights like the right of first sale or in some cases, they even deny you the right to talk negatively about the programs or it's performance. There are lots more weird and somewhat evil things and I suspect they are attempting to reign this under control as well as stop companies from advertising this product does this the best and then claim it isn't able to do it in the license to escape damages when it screws up. Well, you know, the shit the article talked about.
I doubt it will have any real effect on GPL or BSD programs.
Depends on when he installed QuickTime. Apple pulled a stunt where is hid and changed the downloed to Quicktime without Itunes. There was a period of a couple of months where they even forgot to make the public page for the standalone download availible from the quicktime page. That means if you didn't follow a link in from a this party site, you wouldn't have found it.
It's possible that both of you are right and neither of you are wrong or not looking very hard depending when he went after the QuickTime. Apple certainly didn't make it easy.
Actually, no, a critical update to the dotnet framework installed it on my computer. If it was as simple as you say, I could agree, but this was included in the dotnet 3.5 SP1 that was just listed as critical and you heard nothing about the thing installing this until people started asking what the fuck was going on?
The problem is for most of these people, that MS didn't install it when they installed the frame work. It was installed with a security update that shouldn't be adding functionality or anything. Dotnet framework 3.5 SP1 installed this and if you have automatic updates on, your hit because they bundled it with some fix that allows them to list it as critical.
If this was something as simple as installing a frame work and it being there, half of the people wouldn't be pissed because they knew about before hand. But imagine adobe reader installing the google toolbar and destop search BS without ever telling you during the install, and even hid that by popping up a notice that a security update is availible. Do you ever wonder why the Real player ever lost it's place? It's because it did that same shit, started installing spyware with updates and pushing popups that you couldn't figure out how to stop. This is the same thing.
Well, Yes, MS does automatically install this program. The dotnet update 3.5 SP1 was listed as a critical security update, I have this on two servers that IE can't even access the web on. Firefox is only on it to check an internal website and monitor/access the web interfaces to routers and switches. The update installed the thing as it wasn't there before and yes, I check quite often. It also hasn't attempted to do anything on the internet yet because I monitor port access and nothing out of the ordinary has came up.
So if you had automatic updates on, it would have been installed without you choosing to install it. If you manually install automatic updates, there is no warning of it being installed. Critical updates shouldn't be adding new features or changing the way other software works unless it's specifically to address a security problem. Adding functionality to Firefox isn't a security fix.
Now it doesn't matter if you get this with any DotNet install now because you didn't in the past. Up until this month, it didn't even exist as far as I know. And just because it installs with dotnet now doesn't mean I agreed to installing it a year ago when I installed the last dotnet package to suppose a program we are using.
Assuming that all Cell phone companies would agree to limiting calls like that, how do you suggest they distinguish between calls made at the prisons or whatever place verses calls made 200 feet from it or from people who otherwise have legitimate reasons to make a call?
I can see where spot jamming might be wanted. Something like a bomb scare where you wouldn't want the possibility of remote triggering to happen. Or maybe in a prison riot situation where contact to the outside could escalate the situation and empower the inmates. You also have problems with inmates conducting business inside the jails and putting people on the outside who may have witnessed against them or something at risk. I'm not sure if the later was is something that couldn't be dealt with in other ways though. Something like a ban on cell phones inside the prison in it's entirety and signal location detection devices that can track cell phones in non-authorized areas and then good old fashioned detective work.
Anyways, besides there being times where blocking the signals altogether might be with more advantages, I'm not sure how a cell company can distinguish who is inside the prison any better then this tech can distinguish who it effects outside the area. It will most likely be overly weak and functionally ineffective or contain a lot of false positives.
And that breaks down with Quantum physics as well as light particles. It is was a law, it wouldn't be applied sometimes and not others. It's a universal observation that is accurate more often then not.
If the human has any experience, he walks away from it. That's because we are smarter and more adaptable. We are a higher species.
Whatever, what I said still stands. You point is ridiculous as well as fallacious and it doesn't over turn what I said about the Nazi's.
No, YOU are the one refusing to get it. I didn't say anything about military force. I said they used violence so it would have been fine to respond with violence. You don't need a military to have violence. Fuck, quit quit ignoring what I said and trying to rebute what you wanted me to say. And yes, they did use violence before they were all powerful. They were killing and sending jews to camps a long time before they even built troops up.
I'm not failing to get it, I don't agree that you should kill however you disagree with because your afraid they might do something in the future. You seem to think that is ok, but your fucked in the head anyways. You don't know what some will or wont do until after they do it or start to do it.
You don't get a tax unless it's a muslim run state. We don't have that and never will. You point is still moot.
Unfortunately, I have had close relatives die before. I never took care of them in their dieing days though. Perhaps that gave me a degree of separation. I've also seen a lot of death and I'm not sure it effects me like it would others.
How about he became the CEO of a major competitive corporation because he started it in his garage and grew it through niche marketing campaigns into what it has become today.
I never said he was UberNice or or anything of the sort. You don't need to be to offer a fair product for a fair cost. There is nothing except your imagination to say that he or his sales staff would not offer services for a just compensation.
Your right, your views of the motivation are delusional. Do you think he should provide the services completely free? At his expense? then where is the fairness mark your claiming to reach and how do you know that Dell wouldn't reach it? Keep in mind that Russia would have to invest way more money to develop in house, it would take way more time and lots more resources. So where is that "fair mark" and what makes you think Putin is so incompetent that he wouldn't be able to find it and negotiate for it. Making a 2% profit on a project as big as the country of Russia is still quite a bit of money as well as prestige that would influence other contracts.
Now given that we just don't know what Dell would have charged or whether or not Russia would have found it an equal exchange, I am left to only assume that you are transfixing your own perceived short comings to Dell. Here is a newsflash, you aren't Dell and you aren't Russia. In fact, your abandoning real just trade where people exchange equally valuable parts of a transaction for your own arbitrary and restrictive ideals. All Dell needs to do is cover costs plus make a profit, Russia will have to cover those same costs plus some extra because of a development cycle. Dell's profit can actually be less then the extra amount that Russia would have to spend on top of the costs. Russia can actually see that as a more then fair deal given specific considerations about their needs. It may be more beneficial to them to get the infrastructure working while developing their own compatible replacements.
What we have is possible scenarios that you just haven't stopped to consider. Dell won't have set prices for contracts that large and above all else, Russia is not obligated to use them. They won't be any worse off then they are now if they can't come to an arrangement they both will agree to. I don't understand how you can even look at this and claim someone is going to screw someone else over. If Russia decides whatever deal Dell works out is worth it, then an exchanges of equal value has taken place. Your precious socialism isn't damaged at all. This is because we are free and live in a free world and we have the choice to buy something or not. This is especially true for something as large as Russia that actually does have the resources and abilities to make their own solutions from scratch.
I thought that too. I was thinking the will would have been vacated on that alone without having to claim how much your entitled to something because of family love and all. But I also think taking care of her for 6 years while she died would have cinched that too.
There really was no talking any sence into her. It was all emotions and irrational behavior. It makes me wonder what caused it when thinking about it. I don't push the subject or bring it up when I see her, I'm afraid it would be like slapping her in the face or something.