Maybe this is my naive way of looking at things, but wouldn't a shortage in a job market INCREASE the average salary in said market?
This was covered in TFA. Management everywhere claims there's a shortage. But they aren't offering the higher wages that they would if there really was a shortage.
The C&D letter is not directed at unauthorized people using their service. It is directed at people publishing information about them and their service.
Do they have a right to be pissed at people viewing their content? Arguably yes.
Do they have legal recourse against those viewers? Possibly.
Do they have a right to dictate what others may discuss about them and their service? No
There's nothing legal or moral about security by gag-order.
When my mother died recently, I was surprised to find that she had 2 credit cards. She had declared bankruptcy a few years ago and had no assets. The cards were from the same issuer, and each had something like a $2,000 limit and and interest rate of 25%.
When I called to let the issuer know that she had died, the rep wanted my name and address so that they could arrange payment. I just laughed at him. So he said he'd send the bill to her address on file.
I think the big deal (as pointed out in the article) is:
1. According to the correspondence shown by wikileaks, Bear's lawyers did not attempt to discuss what they wanted. They only tried to contact them to serve legal papers. You'd be evasive too.
2. Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie. If they are fake, then there is no violation of banking privacy, so #2 is a lie. If they are real, #1 is a lie.
First of all I think the 'Vista Capable' suit is ridiculous. Microsoft deserves to win that one, because I am well aware of what was on the shelf on the low to mid range during that time frame. And those machines should of been fine....
Maybe you were well aware. Consumers with little computer knowledge were depending on the "Vista Capable" designation.
However I can understand Microsoft's dismay at it's performance...
You acknowledge that Microsoft was unhappy with Vistas performance. The internal emails show that Microsoft managers were unhappy with Vistas performance, and yet still lowered the Vista-capable specs. And you still say the lawsuit has no merit?
An Eskimo is driving when his car starts to make a noise. He takes it to the garage and the mechanic looks at it. "Hmm, looks like you've blown a seal."
"No," says the Eskimo, "it's just frost on my mustache."
People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.
I do have a problem with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in that it intentionally confuses those two categories.
When we hear all these scare statistics about the number of "Missing and Exploited" children, and see all the posters at such places as Wal-Mart, the term basically scares the public into thinking that huge numbers of children are being kidnapped for rape.
If you actually read the profiles under the pictures, you see that many of the children have the same last name as the "last seen with adult". In other words, many of these cases are custody cases where one parent left the state either before the custody case went to court, or after a court decision the parent didn't like.
I'm not condoning running from the law here. But these children really aren't likely to be in any danger. They are with a relative - just not the one the judge ordered.
I think it's disingenuous to lump them together with the runaways and children kidnapped by strangers who actually are in danger. It elevates the level of public paranoia by making the number of dangerous kidnappings seem higher, and uses that elevated paranoia to get a sympathetic populace to essentially enforce orders from family courts instead of focusing on finding the truly endangered.
I'll admit to not knowing a whole lot about web advertising.
But it's occurred to me that this business about measuring an ad's value by counting clicks is BS.
The same marketers that think an ad is worthless because not enough people visited their page don't think that television or newspaper ads are worthless because not enough people snapped off the TV and called the company.
They get no feedback from TV or newspaper ads - other than a rough estimate of how many people viewed them. Yet from an Internet ad, they expect potential customers to drop what they're doing and rush to the company's website.
For instance, the ad at the top of this slashdot page right now says "A golden opportunity to make Java apps richer... click here". It includes a meaningless picture of some golden eggs. No mention of the company name, product name, or anything that might stick in our minds for later. From their perspective, either we click now or the ad was useless.
They'd never run that ad on TV or in the paper ("blah blah blah, call now."), then cancel their TV ad because nobody called. They'd include some company and product info, and hope we remember them.
So why do they expect so much more from Internet ads?
Anyway, if you still think that incorporation is a sham -- despite having been around for a long while, and pretty likely having been the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to begin with -- could you say why, instead of just asserting that it is?
I'm afraid that I already have - at least to the best of my ability. But I'll try to elaborate -
The Constitution is very specific as to what limitations apply to what parties, addressing "the Congress" and "the people". It specifically mentions things that the feds can do that the states cannot. In other cases, it limits the feds without limiting the states. In some cases it is open ended and limits both. For example:
After all, it's not merely good enough to have a fair process for dispensing justice, but there has to be actual justice, rather than unjust punishments, laws, etc
This is covered by the eighth amendment - not by "incorporation". The eighth amendment is open-ended: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This limit applies to any governing body under the constitution - both federal and state.
As for why "incorporation" is a sham - you are asking me to explain why I think the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly doesn't say. I can't. Previously in this thread, I asked where the Constitution explicitly says that powers denied the feds were now denied to the states. You explained "incorporation" as a set of judicial principles surrounding the 14th amendment, and I appreciate that. But those judicial principles still don't change the meaning of the words that the states ratified.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
I can't explain why this does not say that powers denied the feds are now denied to the states any more than I can explain why it does not enshrine a right to free jelly doughnuts. I can explain what it does say (affirms of the right to jury trial and legal representation in state matters). But what isn't there just isn't there.
The Supreme Court found that many of the rights protected in the First through Eighth Amendments are among the liberties mentioned in the due process clause.
I appreciate your insight, as no one has ever attempted to explain this to me beyond simply saying "14th amendment".
However, reading the wording it still sounds like another fabrication of the courts.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This simply seems to be reiterating rights found elsewhere - that the state cannot deprive you of these things without your day in court. The logic you've outlined seems to indicate that the courts have ruled like this:
1. The first amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.
2. This implies a "liberty from religion" on the part of the people.
3. The 14th amendment says the state can't deprive you of a liberty, so
4. The first amendment applies to the state.
I'm not endorsing state religion here (and most state constitutions do protect against this). I'm just saying that the legal basis for the conclusion in (4) is a sham, and it's the same kind of whimsical logic that has allowed the courts to pretty much rewrite the Constitution to suit their whims.
Which part of that says that restrictions on Congressional power are now restrictions on state power?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
So a state imposing speech regulations is abridging "Congress shall make no law..."
Hardly.
This amendment has been turned on its head almost as much as the Interstate commerce clause (which is often combined with chaos theory to show that everything will eventually impact somebody buying something from out of state).
Welcome to PA, where we have some of the nuttiest liquor laws around.
I guess you've noticed you can't buy beer in a convenience store or grocery store. You can get it by the case only at "distributors", or by the six pack as a carry-out at a bar. You can't carry out wine at a bar - unless it's also a restaurant and you drank some of the bottle with your meal. Then it's ok. But you can't carry out liquor.
You can only buy liquor at state-run stores, (but they don't sell tonic and such - you have to get that at the grocery store). You can get wine at the state stores or at the winery, but not at bars or distributors (although they sell "wine coolers"). If you buy wine from another state, you are legally required to have it shipped to and buy it through a state-run store (like anybody actually does this).
The hours of these establishments are strictly regulated. I've seen distributors close with people still in line because they can get fined for having the register open after 5:00 on a Sunday. Likewise, most of the state stores are closed on Sunday.
Of course, if you live near the border (like me), you probably just drive to the next state where it's cheaper and you don't have to deal with the stupidity.
Anyway, welcome to PA. Be sure to check your sanity at the border.
And it will be the downfall of our kind.
As a male -
Work as hard as you can and learn everything you can and become the smarted male on the planet. What are your chances of mating?
Zero - no woman wants you. You are not amusing enough.
As a woman -
Work as hard as you can and learn everything you can. Become the smartest woman on the planet? What are your chances of mating?
Depends. How big are your tits?
We're doomed.
Ok, so NetApp filed the lawsuit, but Sun started it?
How does that work? Did Jonathon twist Dave's arm, haul him into the courthouse, and make him file?
It seems to me that if NetApp were merely defending themselves, they would be counter-suing over ZFS in response to a Sun-initiated lawsuit over other patents.
I bought some at Gander Mountain last month. In stores, it now has to be kept behind the counter. You have to show ID and they record your name and address in the little book. They have to report these purchases to the feds.
Amusingly enough, they recorded my purchase of black powder (for antiques). But Pyrodex and modern synthetic substitutes can be sold off the shelf because they are 'technically' not gunpowder.
Oh, and I couldn't help but notice that what used to be $8 a tin is now $14 a tin.....
Slashdot Mirror
This was covered in TFA. Management everywhere claims there's a shortage. But they aren't offering the higher wages that they would if there really was a shortage.
.. who?
Why? Do guns fake their user-agent to hack experts-exchange?
Or maybe you're saying his browser is guilty of "hacking" experts-exchange? That if we banned browsers, there'd be no "URL hacking" ?
Your corollary is completely backwards. You blame him - not his browser - for "hacking" experts exchange. But you blame the gun for shooting someone.
The C&D letter is not directed at unauthorized people using their service. It is directed at people publishing information about them and their service.
There's nothing legal or moral about security by gag-order.
When my mother died recently, I was surprised to find that she had 2 credit cards. She had declared bankruptcy a few years ago and had no assets. The cards were from the same issuer, and each had something like a $2,000 limit and and interest rate of 25%.
When I called to let the issuer know that she had died, the rep wanted my name and address so that they could arrange payment. I just laughed at him. So he said he'd send the bill to her address on file.
Yeah, good luck with that.
The Six Million Peso Man
Can't decide.... interesting? or insightful? ..uh, funny? Ow... my head! Must decide... Ow!
Oh hell. Now I've posted and can't mod anyway.
1. According to the correspondence shown by wikileaks, Bear's lawyers did not attempt to discuss what they wanted. They only tried to contact them to serve legal papers. You'd be evasive too.
2. Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie. If they are fake, then there is no violation of banking privacy, so #2 is a lie. If they are real, #1 is a lie.
Maybe you were well aware. Consumers with little computer knowledge were depending on the "Vista Capable" designation.
However I can understand Microsoft's dismay at it's performance...
You acknowledge that Microsoft was unhappy with Vistas performance. The internal emails show that Microsoft managers were unhappy with Vistas performance, and yet still lowered the Vista-capable specs. And you still say the lawsuit has no merit?
Where's the -1 shill option?
"No," says the Eskimo, "it's just frost on my mustache."
~~~
(What the hell, I've got some karma to burn.)
You were shooting for +5 funny, right?
When we hear all these scare statistics about the number of "Missing and Exploited" children, and see all the posters at such places as Wal-Mart, the term basically scares the public into thinking that huge numbers of children are being kidnapped for rape.
If you actually read the profiles under the pictures, you see that many of the children have the same last name as the "last seen with adult". In other words, many of these cases are custody cases where one parent left the state either before the custody case went to court, or after a court decision the parent didn't like.
I'm not condoning running from the law here. But these children really aren't likely to be in any danger. They are with a relative - just not the one the judge ordered.
I think it's disingenuous to lump them together with the runaways and children kidnapped by strangers who actually are in danger. It elevates the level of public paranoia by making the number of dangerous kidnappings seem higher, and uses that elevated paranoia to get a sympathetic populace to essentially enforce orders from family courts instead of focusing on finding the truly endangered.
But it's occurred to me that this business about measuring an ad's value by counting clicks is BS.
The same marketers that think an ad is worthless because not enough people visited their page don't think that television or newspaper ads are worthless because not enough people snapped off the TV and called the company.
They get no feedback from TV or newspaper ads - other than a rough estimate of how many people viewed them. Yet from an Internet ad, they expect potential customers to drop what they're doing and rush to the company's website.
For instance, the ad at the top of this slashdot page right now says "A golden opportunity to make Java apps richer... click here". It includes a meaningless picture of some golden eggs. No mention of the company name, product name, or anything that might stick in our minds for later. From their perspective, either we click now or the ad was useless.
They'd never run that ad on TV or in the paper ("blah blah blah, call now."), then cancel their TV ad because nobody called. They'd include some company and product info, and hope we remember them.
So why do they expect so much more from Internet ads?
I'm afraid that I already have - at least to the best of my ability. But I'll try to elaborate -
The Constitution is very specific as to what limitations apply to what parties, addressing "the Congress" and "the people". It specifically mentions things that the feds can do that the states cannot. In other cases, it limits the feds without limiting the states. In some cases it is open ended and limits both. For example:
After all, it's not merely good enough to have a fair process for dispensing justice, but there has to be actual justice, rather than unjust punishments, laws, etc
This is covered by the eighth amendment - not by "incorporation". The eighth amendment is open-ended: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This limit applies to any governing body under the constitution - both federal and state.
As for why "incorporation" is a sham - you are asking me to explain why I think the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly doesn't say. I can't. Previously in this thread, I asked where the Constitution explicitly says that powers denied the feds were now denied to the states. You explained "incorporation" as a set of judicial principles surrounding the 14th amendment, and I appreciate that. But those judicial principles still don't change the meaning of the words that the states ratified.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
I can't explain why this does not say that powers denied the feds are now denied to the states any more than I can explain why it does not enshrine a right to free jelly doughnuts. I can explain what it does say (affirms of the right to jury trial and legal representation in state matters). But what isn't there just isn't there.
I appreciate your insight, as no one has ever attempted to explain this to me beyond simply saying "14th amendment".
However, reading the wording it still sounds like another fabrication of the courts.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This simply seems to be reiterating rights found elsewhere - that the state cannot deprive you of these things without your day in court. The logic you've outlined seems to indicate that the courts have ruled like this:
1. The first amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.
2. This implies a "liberty from religion" on the part of the people.
3. The 14th amendment says the state can't deprive you of a liberty, so
4. The first amendment applies to the state.
I'm not endorsing state religion here (and most state constitutions do protect against this). I'm just saying that the legal basis for the conclusion in (4) is a sham, and it's the same kind of whimsical logic that has allowed the courts to pretty much rewrite the Constitution to suit their whims.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
So a state imposing speech regulations is abridging "Congress shall make no law..."
Hardly.
This amendment has been turned on its head almost as much as the Interstate commerce clause (which is often combined with chaos theory to show that everything will eventually impact somebody buying something from out of state).
...just stupid posts and goatse trolls.
I guess you've noticed you can't buy beer in a convenience store or grocery store. You can get it by the case only at "distributors", or by the six pack as a carry-out at a bar. You can't carry out wine at a bar - unless it's also a restaurant and you drank some of the bottle with your meal. Then it's ok. But you can't carry out liquor.
You can only buy liquor at state-run stores, (but they don't sell tonic and such - you have to get that at the grocery store). You can get wine at the state stores or at the winery, but not at bars or distributors (although they sell "wine coolers"). If you buy wine from another state, you are legally required to have it shipped to and buy it through a state-run store (like anybody actually does this).
The hours of these establishments are strictly regulated. I've seen distributors close with people still in line because they can get fined for having the register open after 5:00 on a Sunday. Likewise, most of the state stores are closed on Sunday.
Of course, if you live near the border (like me), you probably just drive to the next state where it's cheaper and you don't have to deal with the stupidity.
Anyway, welcome to PA. Be sure to check your sanity at the border.
Oh hell - what do I care? I've already spawned two, and they will be the planet's ultimate demise.
Muuuahahahaaaa!!!!!!
And it will be the downfall of our kind. As a male - Work as hard as you can and learn everything you can and become the smarted male on the planet. What are your chances of mating? Zero - no woman wants you. You are not amusing enough. As a woman - Work as hard as you can and learn everything you can. Become the smartest woman on the planet? What are your chances of mating? Depends. How big are your tits? We're doomed.
How does that work? Did Jonathon twist Dave's arm, haul him into the courthouse, and make him file?
It seems to me that if NetApp were merely defending themselves, they would be counter-suing over ZFS in response to a Sun-initiated lawsuit over other patents.
But that's not what's happening here, is it?
Cool! Where do you do your grocery shopping? I want to go there.
Amusingly enough, they recorded my purchase of black powder (for antiques). But Pyrodex and modern synthetic substitutes can be sold off the shelf because they are 'technically' not gunpowder.
Oh, and I couldn't help but notice that what used to be $8 a tin is now $14 a tin.....
You're not from around here, are you?
RTFA. It took more than that.