Its largely a coya situation. Whether you are a complete imbecile or the grand daddy of all neck beards who shared part of creating computers, the cert is the only way a mid level manager is going to be able to pass the blame on you not doing it corectly rather than himself for hiring you if something goes wrong. It likely allows them to escape punitive damages if sued over it too- of course qe hired a qualified person, ignore the fact he's the owners neighbor's kid, he has all these certs.
It might be wise to release a press statement warning of the scam in your points 1 and 2 and state that they are "cooperating" with regulators and authorities to catch the scammers.
I put cooperate in quotes because trechnically it is true as long as it is reported to them whether they act or not.
But it seems that one of the ways this works is the legitimate number being used to trick people. Well, if the news runs a story about it, that element goes away.
You mean birther types. There are plenty or Tea Party types who do not challenge his birth- which is a premise originating from democrats.
This difference is significant unless your goal is to make shit up that you know little about and hope it sticks. Perhaps you are just the ignorant target of someone like that.
From what i saw, it doesn't appear that it would tip over easily unless you placed something tall on it to chang its center of gravity substantially.
The point seems to be to pass the design on and make parts availible to those without the machining tools or skills neccesary to get a scalable, proven design operational. There ate itherkits similar availible but i think their niche here is the ability to keep teaction in rough enviroments and not be thrawted by a stick on the ground or curb or whatever.
You are correct. That is what i was attempting to say but after looking my post over, i realized i failed in doing so. Nonetheless, i think you explained it better than i could.
You can stop reading whenever you want. All it does is makes you an uninformed fool. I suspect you do that a lot in life.
Your own link says he is " strongly critical of conservatism and the Republican Party" that he is a regular mouth piece on democrat talk shows and news programs " MSNBC and Current TV news program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and The Randi Rhodes Show". Well, currently only the ones who didn't go out of business because nobody watched or listened to them. IF this is not a democrat, I don't know what is. This no true scottsman fallacy of yours will only convince the people who do not ad 2+2 together and come up with 4.
Nixon, Bush, and Reagan are all serving, or did,serve prison terms for their illegal speech right?
No.. Do you think they were or are you being rhetorical?
Each of these guys are also in authoritative positions which can require people to follow their whims, unlike the person TFA discusses who is not in an authoritative position.
There is little to no clear evidence that they told anyone to do anything but the circumstantial indications are that they did. For Reagan, there was no criminal punishment for the Iran Contra affair- for bush, no laws were seen to be violated, and for Nixon, obstructing congress by deleting 18 or so minutes of a recording is the only thing linked to him outside the testimony of a known democrat (Dean) who was getting favorable treatment for that testimony. And since Nixon, it would seem that the white house regularly tells congress to STFU by claiming executive privilege which is about the same because they still do not get what they asked for. This all impacts the ability to prosecute if any laws are known to have been broken.
I don't think you can compare the two (or four) situations. Maybe a more accurate comparison would be all the accountants who devise schemes to dodge and defeat tax obligations. Whether right or wrong, a law exists that allows prosecution of someone who conspires to commit fraud on the government and they his teaching for the specific purpose of defeating FBI employment polygraphs seems to fit that description. Typically conspiracy charges crosses from free speech to criminal when someone takes steps further than talking about it. For instance, if you and a friend were sitting around smoking a joint talking about how easy it would be to rob a bank, it would be free speech. If you or your friend started staking banks out and purchasing supplies you discussed, it can become a criminal conspiracy whether you actually robbed the bank or not. Of course either of you would have to be aware the other was taking steps to make it stick.
So perhaps this is a good thing that this guy is being prosecuted. Perhaps it is going to end up changing the law or how it is applied in the future which seems to be misguided or misapplied in this case. Perhaps it is going to end the reliance of lie detectors for government. I think either of those would be a good thing. I'm just sorry that one guy will have to shoulder the brunt of the work.
Speech zones were created by the democrats after the chicago riots at their convention.
Anyways, the IRS had attempted to stop free speech by those not politically alaigned with the current administration. And yes, the included liberal groups as well as conservative groups/people. I'm not entirely sure it will stay alive and i have doubts about how well it is.
It would likely silence the speech you just made too.
If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.
And when it does, we can connect it. It just isn't at this point. The op in the article is using established laws to protect himself from actions that have been already established by law as bad. If politics did come into play at this point, it should/could be the state AG collecting evidence to file charges/protection suit on behalf of the state's citizens.
But if more people took their experiences to the courts, regulatory boards, and states attourneys offices, i do not think Net Neutrality would be an issue.
This is probably the reality. The genetics seem to foster the growth and sustainability of certain microbes so depending on how strong of an effect it maintains throughout life, it should likely revert back to the genetic normal.
However, if the gut microbes could be administered several times as needed, it might defeat this as the length of time it might take to revert could be longer than shorter. What I mean is, if the microbes could be inserted by capsule and take a year before they are replaced or overcome by other microbes, then a yearly pill or perhaps shot might be sufficient. People smarter than me will have to figure that out though.
The rules that the FCC implemented that prevents someone from saying "fuck you" on the radio, or broadcast television, came about from a single complaint back in the 70's.
The rules may have, but the law concerning it- that's right, I said law- was passed by congress and signed into law back in 1948. look it up, title 18 section 1464.
So lets not pretend that the FCC just made this up. It was the enforcement of laws already on the books.
Thirty years later, and four million times more complaints were filed about net neutrality, and they're still dragging their feet.
Yes, because no law gives them the power to do so after they already declared it to be an information service.
THAT should put some perspective of democracy into this.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. This is a simple consumer protection lawsuit authorized by law- law that has been on the books for quite a while now. Every state has them, even the feds have them. They even allow criminal prosecution in some cases.
But you are in such a hurried rush to make an ass of yourself that you have to "guess" at what the republicans "might" do with a situation that can be handled by laws already on the books just to attempt to hurl a partisan insult. Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.
Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist. That's right, it all is already covered by consumer protections laws in most states. They want to slow your connection because you use vonage instead of their VoIP offering, they want to slow it because Netflix failed to pay them extra, well they are not delivering the service they sold you so false advertising and deceptive business practices come into play and if people would sue or complain to their state PUC (or equivalent) and their state attorney general, it would be done and over with.
Oh yeah, one more thing, the up to "speed" doesn't cover their slowing it down because it will never be up to anything more than the slower speed they limited it at. So no, the up to speed claims does not give the ISP an out.
I was with you until you spewed crap about republicans. Obviously you do not know what you are talking about because the law has been on the books and remains on the books despite republicans having control of congress and the presidency in the recent past.
Try keeping politics out of places it doesn't belong. Especially if you checked, you would know 2/3 or better time warner political contributiones go to democrats. If any politicisn would actually be against the consumer here, it is more likely to be them
A subsonic round indicates the velocity of the projectile. This will pick up the sound of the propelant escaping the gun's muzzel and possibly measure differences in pressure of the atmosphere (which would likely only be effective in buildings). As long as there is a shot sound, it should pick it up.
A silencer could possibly escape detection and none firearm type weapons too. For instance a modified potato cannon that shoots.17 cal projectiles may have a completely different sound profile.
First, the FCC is not under the executive branch. It was set up and remains separate. Second, i challenge you to show where the law allows the FCC to change its mind and all the sudden start regulating something more strictly than it previously has. The constitution has no provisions for congress to ingore its responsibility to create law and pass that to regulatory agencies to dictate defacto law outside the constitutional process.
Finally, i do not really care if congress is disfunctional or not. That is only a small problem to fix compared to extra constitutional dictatorships. If congress wants internet to be included under a different regulatory scheme, they need to act.
Four million assuming one comment per person out of three hundred and sixteen million million people? And comments leading to unelected groups dictating law instead of legislation as described by the constitution?
Yeah, you really put that into perspective of democracy.
And that should scare the crap out of everyone whether they support net neutrity or not.
Seriously, a regulatory board just changing law or the implimentation of it with absolutely no constitutional process at all or involving any elected official. This should not be possible and we need to make it impossible. There are other ways to enact net neutrality.
Well, another significant downfall will be users who have the minimum and an average gameplay and uaers who spend thousands of dollars for the upgrades and have an advantage. Its like with pc games right now. The average family computer might play them well enough but the people with big gaming rigs and multiple high end video cards can often run circles around them.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither, arena football field size..
Its largely a coya situation. Whether you are a complete imbecile or the grand daddy of all neck beards who shared part of creating computers, the cert is the only way a mid level manager is going to be able to pass the blame on you not doing it corectly rather than himself for hiring you if something goes wrong. It likely allows them to escape punitive damages if sued over it too- of course qe hired a qualified person, ignore the fact he's the owners neighbor's kid, he has all these certs.
It might be wise to release a press statement warning of the scam in your points 1 and 2 and state that they are "cooperating" with regulators and authorities to catch the scammers.
I put cooperate in quotes because trechnically it is true as long as it is reported to them whether they act or not.
But it seems that one of the ways this works is the legitimate number being used to trick people. Well, if the news runs a story about it, that element goes away.
You mean birther types. There are plenty or Tea Party types who do not challenge his birth- which is a premise originating from democrats.
This difference is significant unless your goal is to make shit up that you know little about and hope it sticks. Perhaps you are just the ignorant target of someone like that.
From what i saw, it doesn't appear that it would tip over easily unless you placed something tall on it to chang its center of gravity substantially.
The point seems to be to pass the design on and make parts availible to those without the machining tools or skills neccesary to get a scalable, proven design operational. There ate itherkits similar availible but i think their niche here is the ability to keep teaction in rough enviroments and not be thrawted by a stick on the ground or curb or whatever.
You are correct. That is what i was attempting to say but after looking my post over, i realized i failed in doing so. Nonetheless, i think you explained it better than i could.
You can stop reading whenever you want. All it does is makes you an uninformed fool. I suspect you do that a lot in life.
Your own link says he is " strongly critical of conservatism and the Republican Party" that he is a regular mouth piece on democrat talk shows and news programs " MSNBC and Current TV news program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and The Randi Rhodes Show". Well, currently only the ones who didn't go out of business because nobody watched or listened to them. IF this is not a democrat, I don't know what is. This no true scottsman fallacy of yours will only convince the people who do not ad 2+2 together and come up with 4.
lol.. I love that series.
No.. Do you think they were or are you being rhetorical?
There is little to no clear evidence that they told anyone to do anything but the circumstantial indications are that they did. For Reagan, there was no criminal punishment for the Iran Contra affair- for bush, no laws were seen to be violated, and for Nixon, obstructing congress by deleting 18 or so minutes of a recording is the only thing linked to him outside the testimony of a known democrat (Dean) who was getting favorable treatment for that testimony. And since Nixon, it would seem that the white house regularly tells congress to STFU by claiming executive privilege which is about the same because they still do not get what they asked for. This all impacts the ability to prosecute if any laws are known to have been broken.
I don't think you can compare the two (or four) situations. Maybe a more accurate comparison would be all the accountants who devise schemes to dodge and defeat tax obligations. Whether right or wrong, a law exists that allows prosecution of someone who conspires to commit fraud on the government and they his teaching for the specific purpose of defeating FBI employment polygraphs seems to fit that description. Typically conspiracy charges crosses from free speech to criminal when someone takes steps further than talking about it. For instance, if you and a friend were sitting around smoking a joint talking about how easy it would be to rob a bank, it would be free speech. If you or your friend started staking banks out and purchasing supplies you discussed, it can become a criminal conspiracy whether you actually robbed the bank or not. Of course either of you would have to be aware the other was taking steps to make it stick.
So perhaps this is a good thing that this guy is being prosecuted. Perhaps it is going to end up changing the law or how it is applied in the future which seems to be misguided or misapplied in this case. Perhaps it is going to end the reliance of lie detectors for government. I think either of those would be a good thing. I'm just sorry that one guy will have to shoulder the brunt of the work.
And once again, the truth is a flame. Its interesting how many people can't handle the truth.
Speech zones were created by the democrats after the chicago riots at their convention.
Anyways, the IRS had attempted to stop free speech by those not politically alaigned with the current administration. And yes, the included liberal groups as well as conservative groups/people. I'm not entirely sure it will stay alive and i have doubts about how well it is.
It would likely silence the speech you just made too.
If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.
Oh noes.. when will we be able to get wikicondums and how would that work?
Which is ancient magic compared to the power of hashtags. ... #duh
And when it does, we can connect it. It just isn't at this point. The op in the article is using established laws to protect himself from actions that have been already established by law as bad. If politics did come into play at this point, it should/could be the state AG collecting evidence to file charges/protection suit on behalf of the state's citizens.
But if more people took their experiences to the courts, regulatory boards, and states attourneys offices, i do not think Net Neutrality would be an issue.
This is probably the reality. The genetics seem to foster the growth and sustainability of certain microbes so depending on how strong of an effect it maintains throughout life, it should likely revert back to the genetic normal.
However, if the gut microbes could be administered several times as needed, it might defeat this as the length of time it might take to revert could be longer than shorter. What I mean is, if the microbes could be inserted by capsule and take a year before they are replaced or overcome by other microbes, then a yearly pill or perhaps shot might be sufficient. People smarter than me will have to figure that out though.
The rules may have, but the law concerning it- that's right, I said law- was passed by congress and signed into law back in 1948. look it up, title 18 section 1464.
So lets not pretend that the FCC just made this up. It was the enforcement of laws already on the books.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. This is a simple consumer protection lawsuit authorized by law- law that has been on the books for quite a while now. Every state has them, even the feds have them. They even allow criminal prosecution in some cases.
But you are in such a hurried rush to make an ass of yourself that you have to "guess" at what the republicans "might" do with a situation that can be handled by laws already on the books just to attempt to hurl a partisan insult. Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.
Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist. That's right, it all is already covered by consumer protections laws in most states. They want to slow your connection because you use vonage instead of their VoIP offering, they want to slow it because Netflix failed to pay them extra, well they are not delivering the service they sold you so false advertising and deceptive business practices come into play and if people would sue or complain to their state PUC (or equivalent) and their state attorney general, it would be done and over with.
Oh yeah, one more thing, the up to "speed" doesn't cover their slowing it down because it will never be up to anything more than the slower speed they limited it at. So no, the up to speed claims does not give the ISP an out.
I was with you until you spewed crap about republicans. Obviously you do not know what you are talking about because the law has been on the books and remains on the books despite republicans having control of congress and the presidency in the recent past.
Try keeping politics out of places it doesn't belong. Especially if you checked, you would know 2/3 or better time warner political contributiones go to democrats. If any politicisn would actually be against the consumer here, it is more likely to be them
What makes you think anything was funny?
A subsonic round indicates the velocity of the projectile. This will pick up the sound of the propelant escaping the gun's muzzel and possibly measure differences in pressure of the atmosphere (which would likely only be effective in buildings). As long as there is a shot sound, it should pick it up.
A silencer could possibly escape detection and none firearm type weapons too. For instance a modified potato cannon that shoots .17 cal projectiles may have a completely different sound profile.
First, the FCC is not under the executive branch. It was set up and remains separate. Second, i challenge you to show where the law allows the FCC to change its mind and all the sudden start regulating something more strictly than it previously has. The constitution has no provisions for congress to ingore its responsibility to create law and pass that to regulatory agencies to dictate defacto law outside the constitutional process.
Finally, i do not really care if congress is disfunctional or not. That is only a small problem to fix compared to extra constitutional dictatorships. If congress wants internet to be included under a different regulatory scheme, they need to act.
Four million assuming one comment per person out of three hundred and sixteen million million people? And comments leading to unelected groups dictating law instead of legislation as described by the constitution?
Yeah, you really put that into perspective of democracy.
And that should scare the crap out of everyone whether they support net neutrity or not.
Seriously, a regulatory board just changing law or the implimentation of it with absolutely no constitutional process at all or involving any elected official. This should not be possible and we need to make it impossible. There are other ways to enact net neutrality.
Well, another significant downfall will be users who have the minimum and an average gameplay and uaers who spend thousands of dollars for the upgrades and have an advantage. Its like with pc games right now. The average family computer might play them well enough but the people with big gaming rigs and multiple high end video cards can often run circles around them.