It says longer than two weeks. Not within two weeks. It also places this blame on your carrier and their settings.
My first thought was that this was their answer to fast lanes- if a carrier dlowed them down they would make the carrier look like it isn't as good as others instead of paying. But it might be the opposite- so the carrier's network doesn't get saturated with large updates. This would explain giving them the control. However, it can always be used to obsolete a product and trick you into extending a contract lock in.
Functionally no money=guilty but not in principle.
The problem is that the system is so stacked against a person, that without money you will have an extremely difficult time defending yourself. In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.
But this is not a hearing to determine if he is guilty or innocent, just if he broke the terms of his bail. You could attach a guilty or innocent aspect to that but there are no criminal penalties or charges of breaking laws involved.
In other words, if they do not believe like you do or in act in ways that you find acceptable, they have no business being involved with the governance of their lives or the society around them. Got it..
Seriously, the abolitionists were completely biased and I would think their bias ended up as an improvement in the end. You may think your comment was insightful but it is shortsighted at best. Biases have a strong place in society and the governance of it. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you do not. Your objective should be to influence them, not bar them.
There is no separation of church and state. There is however a letter written by Jefferson which mentioned that in his attempt to describe the first amendment's religious protections to a congregation that feared it wouldn't be allowed to practice its version of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So when the state compels a child to attend school under penalty of law and participate in the teachings of that school, the state is bared by the first amendment from prohibiting the free exercise thereof in regards to religion. It's not that it can or cannot be taught, it's that it has to be taught in ways that do not end up with the schools undermining any religion because of the separation of church and state. This ends up with either information being removed or additional but unrelated information being added in order to not undermine the religious freedoms of the people.
Nothing suggests that this information will never be taught in these schools. It just makes it clear that it will not be taught the way it was presented in the text book. Most schools in the US have a separate health class that deals with these subjects and does so usually in ways that while some religions might find upsetting, does not undermine any of them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Now the part you are missing is the free exercise thereof. When the state compels a person to attend and learn something, the state is forbidden from doing so in ways that prohibit the free exercise thereof (religion). So if the state is going to require something to be in the curriculum that prohibits the free exercise of religion, it has to do it in ways that also allow the free exercise thereof. In other words, it cannot say any religion is correct or wrong in it's teaching of students who are compelled by law to attend.
I hope you are informed enough to have an informed discussion.
I seriously doubt the information will not be covered, just not covered the way the book presents it. Most all US schools have a separate class that deals with these issues called health class and all the information is generally covered in those but is often presented in ways that do not offend religions and other interests.
In my area, midwest USA, it's required in 5th or 6th grade, 7th, and 8th grades with each grade level presenting more appropriate amounts of information for the age which the child is. So you basically get an introduction to puberty and then more advanced topics including sex ed by the time you are13 or so years old. In the first two years, the course is separated by sex so all the girls learn about girls and boy learn about boys the first year, the opposite sex the second and eventually its a normal mixed class that sort of recaps everything and talks about STDs, protection, pregnancy, and so on.
But they have a constitutional right to exist and the constitution bars the government from prohibiting the free exercise of it.
This is true regardless of whether you agree with any religion or not. The state is the government and subject to the first amendment via the 14th. Whether you respect that or not, the state has to. The state cannot just go around saying this religion is real or fake and believe this other information. It has to present the information in ways that avoid that or ignore the information as part of a state mandated curriculum. the difference here is that some at a local level objected, they dealt with it at a local level. Others seem not to care so they do nothing about it.
lol.. They have a constitutional right to those personal beliefs and the state is expressly forbidden from denying it or encouraging it or prohibiting it. So when the state compels a person's child to attend school, they either have to present contrary information in a neutral way or not at all when it comes to religion. Just because the page is removed from the books does not mean the material will not be taught. It just means it will not be taught in the way the book presents it.
But think about that. Suppose it was a speech issue, suppose you were for gay rights and the schools removed any mention of gay rights or gay struggles from the learning environment and brainwashed the children into thinking they have less rights and are not the same as "normal people". How about if they gave them bad grades or other punishment because they held a contrary belief and thought all man was created equal and should all enjoy the same privileges and abilities and have the same opportunities that everyone else can.
Does the state have the right to do that with your child when you are dead set on equal rights? what if the year was 1835 and it was colored people instead of gays? Well, even if you think they do, they are specifically barred from doing it with religion.
Most Christians do no care about it either. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that a used car will never be yours or by using used car parts to fix your car it automagically makes it someone else' because someone else owned it at one time. While what you say is an interesting factoid, it is completely irrelevant as Christians now own the day in regards to their celebrations. The fact that someone else may have or still is doing something different is ancillary to that.
We've been doing renewables and efficiency for almost 50 years. How much longer till we can reach that goal?
Yes, i said it. We are close to the limits of renewables and efficiency. Unless there is a major discovery, we will only see minor improvements that will likely be outpaced by population growth and lifestyle improvements with poorer people. I think progress will outpace the efforts.
The problem is the people in general. They do not want to be inconvenienced, burdened, overly taxed, or told they have to go without something they are already taking for granted while wealthy and rich people gets to still enjoy it. It is a step backwards in society from any rational sense of reality.
This is why the governments who are concerned should not be trying to force more expensive tech onto people, they should not be trying to tax them in hopes that someone will get fed up and create a better alternative before replacing the government and ignoring their concerns. The governments, the UN, all those concerned, should be investing in direct research to make cleaner alternatives and perhaps even cleaner fossil energy sources that are both cost competitive and safe which could be implemented by any country at little to no royalty costs. If instead of Kyoto requiring countries to tax energy use in excess of so much emissions or penalizing some countries while ignoring others (Seriously, out of 157 or so countries, only 37 had limits on carbon emissions and of those 2 had limits they would reach in the future) and instead put as much effort and attention into researching and developing energy sources that would effectively meet those goals while being cost competitive, we would likely not be talking about this right now. We would likely either realize there isn't good alternatives or be instituting them as they are more productive and profitable.
But it would seem that everything done is for some other agenda. You can see those agendas if you look around enough.
You are correct, poorly trained admins will net poorly secured systems with the same or similar horrible mistakes.
However, you are glossing over what was actually said in order to make those statements as if it was some overriding truth. The problem is that windows exposes to much of the underlying systems to programs running so exploits in power point or outlook can infect the entire machine kernel and spread to the servers via internal network support infrastructure (domain controller functions). Now much has been done in more recent versions to limit this but it still remains true for the most part.
Part of this is because programmers write bad code to sell cheap software to people who are familiar with the ease of use of windows. In fact, this is likely why it is the most common OS out there- because it is so easy to write software and do things in that people see it as just working. Its that layer of ease which makes it easy to be exploited. Almost every anti-virus company out there worth a salt, will have complex (and sometimes simple) methods of virus removal you can look up and follow for when a virus gets past their products. It is simply impossible to completely secure windows or linux and still have a usable machine but it is easier to limit vulnerabilities on a linux or Mac system currently. This could change if they get more popular or do something stupid in the future or if malware writers decide to focus more and more on these smaller platforms. This is also why Adobe and Java was such a target for the longest of times. Cross platform and complete access.
I'm not sure a 16 year old driver is the best driver out there and I think that was his point. They can get the job done, but have accidents and close calls because they are inexperienced. In a lot of areas, a 16 year old driver is also limited in how many people can be in the vehicle with them and when they can drive (night verses day and so on).
This is so true. I do a lot of driving and do not know how many times I have come across road crews that closed a lane down for something. Sometimes there is another lane in the same direction and it is just a matter of merging but sometimes you have to go into oncoming traffic lanes while they stop and meter the flow. Also, we still hear reports of people driving into lakes or on to parks and pedestrian paths because their GPS said to turn here or had to recalculate.
And I also agree with the ABS. I was unfortunate enough to have one of those early cars and I had to pull the fuse to the ABS unit if it was slick at all out. I live in a northern area which means quite a bit of winter snow and ice as well as grit and sand at intersections to remedy the snow and ice. When you would brake, if one tire slipped or the sensors were dirty or something and it just thought it slipped just a little, it would increase your stopping distance by about 15-30 foot. Imagine your dismay when approaching an intersection and the car's computer causes you to stop on the other side of it after appearing to being able to stop before the intersection. And good luck parking, it could actually allow you to roll past your space and into some obstacle like another parked car or a cement parking block or wall or iron pipes filled with concrete to stop people from driving further or something because it would release your brakes to regain traction even at 3mph if it thought one tire was slipping.
The ABS systems are much better now. But at one time, you were better off without it at all if you knew how to drive in slick conditions. The early versions basically pumped your brakes for you, the newer versions can do it per wheel and just enough to remedy the slipping on the affected wheel(s).
It usually doesn't work that way. Typically thos old men are willing to kill and oppress for those ideals. Blood will run in the streets before they loose their jobs.
The police should have less rights than an ordinary citizen when acting in their official capacity. Our rights guaranteed in the constitution are protections from government intrusions and the police are government plain and clear. The people however have more leeway in some matters that government is expressly prohibited in or limited unless certain hoops are cleared first.
I'm pretty sure they can. Here is a hint. love means nothing in this context as child birth is a utility or tool to achieve an end- not the natural progression of opposite sexes mating.
"critical thinking skills", I do not think that means what you think it means. You have brought it up several times now seemingly to indicate you do not agree with something that someone has said or done. That would be completely wrong. You further seem to suggest that a lack of critical thinking skills would lead someone to actually applying them "internalize Republican nonsense" as if being dismissive without using your critical thinking skills was in and of itself critical thinking skills.
That may float in your little circle but everyone else is seeing the failure in logic you seem to be suffering.
No investors does not mean no value. The stock has to be either sokd to someone else or repurchased by the company. It doesn't go on to a shelf with no owner until someone decides to purchase it like a second hand store item or something.
Selling and driving stock prices down does little harm to an established company. They still have assets and a revenue stream.
Its because they have to take econ 101 as part of their degree but see it as one of those courses they just need to get out of the way so they do not do much more than what is neccesary to pass it
You see the same things when people take psych 101 also. It gives just enough info to understand what is being presented but is dangerous to assume you know it all
I don't think you understand what you are taljing about. Fraud is not inherent to capitalism. Capitalism requires informed parties to be involved which negates fraud. Fraud can only happen when one or more parties either are not informed, purposely misinformed, or there is an out an outright refusal/ability to deliver the product. The later is taking advantage of it and regullation of it isnot regulation of capitalism unless it manipulates the transaction in some way to prevent fraud. This is BTW no different than any other system
Pure capitalism exists in real transactions but not as a pure system in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
It says longer than two weeks. Not within two weeks. It also places this blame on your carrier and their settings.
My first thought was that this was their answer to fast lanes- if a carrier dlowed them down they would make the carrier look like it isn't as good as others instead of paying. But it might be the opposite- so the carrier's network doesn't get saturated with large updates. This would explain giving them the control. However, it can always be used to obsolete a product and trick you into extending a contract lock in.
Lol.. now your just making things up and sounding silly.
He would still be paying twice or paying for other people's kids. Nothing you mentionex invalidates that.
That is of course only if he went to that school system. Home school and private school tax payers are still paying.
Functionally no money=guilty but not in principle.
The problem is that the system is so stacked against a person, that without money you will have an extremely difficult time defending yourself. In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.
But this is not a hearing to determine if he is guilty or innocent, just if he broke the terms of his bail. You could attach a guilty or innocent aspect to that but there are no criminal penalties or charges of breaking laws involved.
In other words, if they do not believe like you do or in act in ways that you find acceptable, they have no business being involved with the governance of their lives or the society around them. Got it..
Seriously, the abolitionists were completely biased and I would think their bias ended up as an improvement in the end. You may think your comment was insightful but it is shortsighted at best. Biases have a strong place in society and the governance of it. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you do not. Your objective should be to influence them, not bar them.
There is no separation of church and state. There is however a letter written by Jefferson which mentioned that in his attempt to describe the first amendment's religious protections to a congregation that feared it wouldn't be allowed to practice its version of religion.
So when the state compels a child to attend school under penalty of law and participate in the teachings of that school, the state is bared by the first amendment from prohibiting the free exercise thereof in regards to religion. It's not that it can or cannot be taught, it's that it has to be taught in ways that do not end up with the schools undermining any religion because of the separation of church and state. This ends up with either information being removed or additional but unrelated information being added in order to not undermine the religious freedoms of the people.
Nothing suggests that this information will never be taught in these schools. It just makes it clear that it will not be taught the way it was presented in the text book. Most schools in the US have a separate health class that deals with these subjects and does so usually in ways that while some religions might find upsetting, does not undermine any of them.
What does the first amendment say?
Here is part of it.
Now the part you are missing is the free exercise thereof. When the state compels a person to attend and learn something, the state is forbidden from doing so in ways that prohibit the free exercise thereof (religion). So if the state is going to require something to be in the curriculum that prohibits the free exercise of religion, it has to do it in ways that also allow the free exercise thereof. In other words, it cannot say any religion is correct or wrong in it's teaching of students who are compelled by law to attend.
I hope you are informed enough to have an informed discussion.
I seriously doubt the information will not be covered, just not covered the way the book presents it. Most all US schools have a separate class that deals with these issues called health class and all the information is generally covered in those but is often presented in ways that do not offend religions and other interests.
What school/country/state did you go to?
In my area, midwest USA, it's required in 5th or 6th grade, 7th, and 8th grades with each grade level presenting more appropriate amounts of information for the age which the child is. So you basically get an introduction to puberty and then more advanced topics including sex ed by the time you are13 or so years old. In the first two years, the course is separated by sex so all the girls learn about girls and boy learn about boys the first year, the opposite sex the second and eventually its a normal mixed class that sort of recaps everything and talks about STDs, protection, pregnancy, and so on.
But they have a constitutional right to exist and the constitution bars the government from prohibiting the free exercise of it.
This is true regardless of whether you agree with any religion or not. The state is the government and subject to the first amendment via the 14th. Whether you respect that or not, the state has to. The state cannot just go around saying this religion is real or fake and believe this other information. It has to present the information in ways that avoid that or ignore the information as part of a state mandated curriculum. the difference here is that some at a local level objected, they dealt with it at a local level. Others seem not to care so they do nothing about it.
lol.. They have a constitutional right to those personal beliefs and the state is expressly forbidden from denying it or encouraging it or prohibiting it. So when the state compels a person's child to attend school, they either have to present contrary information in a neutral way or not at all when it comes to religion. Just because the page is removed from the books does not mean the material will not be taught. It just means it will not be taught in the way the book presents it.
But think about that. Suppose it was a speech issue, suppose you were for gay rights and the schools removed any mention of gay rights or gay struggles from the learning environment and brainwashed the children into thinking they have less rights and are not the same as "normal people". How about if they gave them bad grades or other punishment because they held a contrary belief and thought all man was created equal and should all enjoy the same privileges and abilities and have the same opportunities that everyone else can.
Does the state have the right to do that with your child when you are dead set on equal rights? what if the year was 1835 and it was colored people instead of gays? Well, even if you think they do, they are specifically barred from doing it with religion.
Most Christians do no care about it either. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that a used car will never be yours or by using used car parts to fix your car it automagically makes it someone else' because someone else owned it at one time. While what you say is an interesting factoid, it is completely irrelevant as Christians now own the day in regards to their celebrations. The fact that someone else may have or still is doing something different is ancillary to that.
We've been doing renewables and efficiency for almost 50 years. How much longer till we can reach that goal?
Yes, i said it. We are close to the limits of renewables and efficiency. Unless there is a major discovery, we will only see minor improvements that will likely be outpaced by population growth and lifestyle improvements with poorer people. I think progress will outpace the efforts.
They likely waited to both allow the police to set up and for the weather to degrade a bit hoping less protesters would suffer the elements.
Of course i'm wondering why this is even on slashdot.
The problem is the people in general. They do not want to be inconvenienced, burdened, overly taxed, or told they have to go without something they are already taking for granted while wealthy and rich people gets to still enjoy it. It is a step backwards in society from any rational sense of reality.
This is why the governments who are concerned should not be trying to force more expensive tech onto people, they should not be trying to tax them in hopes that someone will get fed up and create a better alternative before replacing the government and ignoring their concerns. The governments, the UN, all those concerned, should be investing in direct research to make cleaner alternatives and perhaps even cleaner fossil energy sources that are both cost competitive and safe which could be implemented by any country at little to no royalty costs. If instead of Kyoto requiring countries to tax energy use in excess of so much emissions or penalizing some countries while ignoring others (Seriously, out of 157 or so countries, only 37 had limits on carbon emissions and of those 2 had limits they would reach in the future) and instead put as much effort and attention into researching and developing energy sources that would effectively meet those goals while being cost competitive, we would likely not be talking about this right now. We would likely either realize there isn't good alternatives or be instituting them as they are more productive and profitable.
But it would seem that everything done is for some other agenda. You can see those agendas if you look around enough.
You are correct, poorly trained admins will net poorly secured systems with the same or similar horrible mistakes.
However, you are glossing over what was actually said in order to make those statements as if it was some overriding truth. The problem is that windows exposes to much of the underlying systems to programs running so exploits in power point or outlook can infect the entire machine kernel and spread to the servers via internal network support infrastructure (domain controller functions). Now much has been done in more recent versions to limit this but it still remains true for the most part.
Part of this is because programmers write bad code to sell cheap software to people who are familiar with the ease of use of windows. In fact, this is likely why it is the most common OS out there- because it is so easy to write software and do things in that people see it as just working. Its that layer of ease which makes it easy to be exploited. Almost every anti-virus company out there worth a salt, will have complex (and sometimes simple) methods of virus removal you can look up and follow for when a virus gets past their products. It is simply impossible to completely secure windows or linux and still have a usable machine but it is easier to limit vulnerabilities on a linux or Mac system currently. This could change if they get more popular or do something stupid in the future or if malware writers decide to focus more and more on these smaller platforms. This is also why Adobe and Java was such a target for the longest of times. Cross platform and complete access.
I'm not sure a 16 year old driver is the best driver out there and I think that was his point. They can get the job done, but have accidents and close calls because they are inexperienced. In a lot of areas, a 16 year old driver is also limited in how many people can be in the vehicle with them and when they can drive (night verses day and so on).
This is so true. I do a lot of driving and do not know how many times I have come across road crews that closed a lane down for something. Sometimes there is another lane in the same direction and it is just a matter of merging but sometimes you have to go into oncoming traffic lanes while they stop and meter the flow. Also, we still hear reports of people driving into lakes or on to parks and pedestrian paths because their GPS said to turn here or had to recalculate.
And I also agree with the ABS. I was unfortunate enough to have one of those early cars and I had to pull the fuse to the ABS unit if it was slick at all out. I live in a northern area which means quite a bit of winter snow and ice as well as grit and sand at intersections to remedy the snow and ice. When you would brake, if one tire slipped or the sensors were dirty or something and it just thought it slipped just a little, it would increase your stopping distance by about 15-30 foot. Imagine your dismay when approaching an intersection and the car's computer causes you to stop on the other side of it after appearing to being able to stop before the intersection. And good luck parking, it could actually allow you to roll past your space and into some obstacle like another parked car or a cement parking block or wall or iron pipes filled with concrete to stop people from driving further or something because it would release your brakes to regain traction even at 3mph if it thought one tire was slipping.
The ABS systems are much better now. But at one time, you were better off without it at all if you knew how to drive in slick conditions. The early versions basically pumped your brakes for you, the newer versions can do it per wheel and just enough to remedy the slipping on the affected wheel(s).
It usually doesn't work that way. Typically thos old men are willing to kill and oppress for those ideals. Blood will run in the streets before they loose their jobs.
I agree with one exception....
The police should have less rights than an ordinary citizen when acting in their official capacity. Our rights guaranteed in the constitution are protections from government intrusions and the police are government plain and clear. The people however have more leeway in some matters that government is expressly prohibited in or limited unless certain hoops are cleared first.
Gays can't have kids?
I'm pretty sure they can. Here is a hint. love means nothing in this context as child birth is a utility or tool to achieve an end- not the natural progression of opposite sexes mating.
"critical thinking skills", I do not think that means what you think it means. You have brought it up several times now seemingly to indicate you do not agree with something that someone has said or done. That would be completely wrong. You further seem to suggest that a lack of critical thinking skills would lead someone to actually applying them "internalize Republican nonsense" as if being dismissive without using your critical thinking skills was in and of itself critical thinking skills.
That may float in your little circle but everyone else is seeing the failure in logic you seem to be suffering.
No investors does not mean no value. The stock has to be either sokd to someone else or repurchased by the company. It doesn't go on to a shelf with no owner until someone decides to purchase it like a second hand store item or something.
Selling and driving stock prices down does little harm to an established company. They still have assets and a revenue stream.
Its because they have to take econ 101 as part of their degree but see it as one of those courses they just need to get out of the way so they do not do much more than what is neccesary to pass it
You see the same things when people take psych 101 also. It gives just enough info to understand what is being presented but is dangerous to assume you know it all
I don't think you understand what you are taljing about. Fraud is not inherent to capitalism. Capitalism requires informed parties to be involved which negates fraud. Fraud can only happen when one or more parties either are not informed, purposely misinformed, or there is an out an outright refusal/ability to deliver the product. The later is taking advantage of it and regullation of it isnot regulation of capitalism unless it manipulates the transaction in some way to prevent fraud. This is BTW no different than any other system
Pure capitalism exists in real transactions but not as a pure system in the real world.