Cable internet is fairly good, except that here in Burlington VT, it seems that after an hour or so of rain or snow, it stops working. It will come back up but only for a few minutes..
This continues basically until the storm is over...
Its the worst cable modem service i've had...TW in Roch. NY never went down, nor did Comcast near Philly. Comcast is a bunch of asshats though, so hopefully TW will take over here...but even if comcast grabs the area, service should improve (I hope).
Its not that he doesn't have love in his life, its that he doesn't want our legal system ruled by emotions, he wants it ruled by logic and reason and justice.
Murder is done purposefully (by definition). Manslaughter is not. Intent SHOULD be considered. The DD case is NOT voluntary, since said driver didn't INTEND to kill someone; it was an accident. Brought about by some poor judgements, but an accident none the less.
Same goes for the two girls (who are also handicapped in their decision making because of physiological issues).
So no, killing someone for any reason is not murder, as much as your logic-less mind would like it to be.
Excellent Example! I hate that damn physical spam WalMart, Safeway and Best Buy send me infinately more than I hate email spam, because it's much easier to set up a email filter.
Once those physical-mail spammers go to jail, I'll support this guy going to jail.
Although I don't like those either, I'm not getting literally hundreds of them a day either.
Restricting any sort of speach online is a really just one step in practicing for legal and technological control of the content on the internet.
Sorry, I don't count business ads as speech. I especially don't consider speech forced onto its recipients to be a right either. What about my choice to ignore your speech?
Why should users / ISPs be forced to spend money because of the actions of a spammer (who doesn't have to spend money). Again, normal spam costs the sender, not the recipients or USPS.
But $2 bills are NOT illegal tender...so I don't see how you justify that. I also don't think those 'we don't accept xx bill' legal either. If its legal (and $50 bills are just as legal as $2) they should be required to accept it.
your second point i believe is correct; to make a false statement to police, you'd have to know you were making a false statement.
I suspect then this is a population density problem (its not dense enough to offer coverage) and I suppose could also be a tech problem (maybe CDMA works well over a distance, but doesn't penetrate mountains too well).
I don't know that, I do know that the rest of the world together is a lot bigger then the USA, while I simply cannot remember encountering a place without coverage in the last decade while being outside, and only a few while being inside. That includes places like the jungle in northern Thailand, the mountain areas of Austria, Spain, France, Germany, middle of the desert in Egypt and many more non urban areas. Places without coverage do exist, but as long as some form of human settlement or travel is taking place, you have an extremely good chance of getting coverage also.
I agree the rest of the world is larger than the US, that doesn't quite fit the problem.
I'm sure Verizon would cover every square inch of say TX (roughly the size of France), if A) TX is the ONLY place they have to worry about covering; neighboring states would be covered by other companies and B) everyone in the US was squeezed into TX (TX is pretty sparcely populated given its size / number of residents). But if 260M people are in a very small space, there's alot of incentive to cover that area. As it stands now, there's only incentive to cover Dallas etc.
See above. No problem usually.
I suspect then that this is a problem because of sparce population density; the same reason much of VT doesn't have cable TV.
I disagree, I think it would fix some problems... namely those of the 'silent install' type.
IE could implement something were, by default, a plug is installed only locally (and for the plugin to network out, the user password or admin password is required, or as a harder to get to option, allow the user to install a plugin for all users, but you MUST supply the root password after reading a prompt, where the OK button isn't always in the same spot and is disabled for a short time.
RE, file renaming...why do you have to close the app before renaming a file? I'd think you'd have a simple handle at that point, and the OS could notify all those that have the file open that the name has changed (and ideally, the app would catch this message and change the name in the title bar as well).
I've always hated windows file locking, i've never really seen a need for it.
Whats the difference in saying file X can be accessed by groups x, y and z, versus X can be access by x, which y is a member of, and z, which is a memeber of y.
Seems like the latter would be even less clear and more complex to figure out (why does so and so have permissions??).
I heard GSM was good over short distances, and CDMA or TDMA are better for larger areas.
Assuming this is true (maybe not) then the US carriers would pick the latter so they can get the most out of each tower. After all, theyhave more to put up b/c they need to cover a MUCH larger area.
I'm in VT, and coverage is spotty due to the mountains. How to eurpoean cells compare in mountainous regions?
I think that, should you be exposed to something in that paper, if you were on a trial jury you would be able to ignore what you read in the papers. I really find it hard to believe that people would put more weight in a paper (even if they trust it) than the defense or prosecution.
So is it the responsiblity of the government to force citizens to do thier job?
It seems that said reforms also hinder 3rd parties, to the extent that they may not be able to raise enough funding (since there might only be one liberatarian millionare, for example).
Outright lies I can understand (my opponent X is a baby killer), but other than that, I fail to see that this will help.
After all, if what you say is true, we have far greater problems than who's producing the ads...I've seen the ads, they say very little as to what the canditate intends to do.
The republicans, since they want the change. The problem is (and this is really my whole point) is that at one time republicans didn't want much change and thus were labeled conservative. It stuck, but their ideals have changed such that conservative no longer really fits. I'd just as soon call Republicans Republicans, and Democrats Democrats.
Well, thats what the terms mean. The political machine took the terms and then twisted them.
Maybe at one point republicans were conservative and democrats liberal, but certainly not anymore. Even some values within each are inconsitant with the labels. So using those terms to define 'small government, individual freedom' does nothing to clear the air, it in fact clouds things.
Seems to me the current trend is to call someone that agrees with you a conservative (a 'good' thing) and someone that doesn't agree a liberal (a 'bad' thing). The name calling of course ignores any issues at hand.
As far as the regulation goes, its not clear what party might be behind it (maybe both are?), as the members drafting it are 'elected by each district on a non-partisan basis.' So, take from that what you will.
No, I'm not a lawyer you're right. However 'case law' as you put it isn't defined in the constitution either. There's no basis for allowing it. Calling it 'common law' implies it is law, and the constution IS clear on who may make laws, and that clearly lies within the power of congress.
I think the idea is that there shouldn't be a need for congress to cover much of anything at all. That except for the few powers listed, the people and the states have jurisdiction over everything else.
Remember, just because its been done for the past 150 years or so (I don't think using case law was common just after the country was formed) doesn't mean that its right and falls within the bounds setup by the constitution. After all congress orginally only needed to meet for about a month out of the entire year.
Perhaps you're the moron because you so quickly lost sight of the original intent. Oh, and please point out inthe constitution that its ok for judges to make common law or refer to legal precidents (which may be ok, but IGNORING law in favor of precidents is not, especially since we now have cases of precident directly contradicting law).
Nice of you to ignore the rest of my post, which, dispite a simple mix up, is still valid.
But go ahead if you think that totally invalidates everything i've said, feel free. Its easier that way, you can ignore that you really don't know the difference between fraud and good salesman ship. Dig your head back into the sand (or ass, as thats where its seems to be most comfortable) and believe whatever you like.
I'll still enjoy paying less for the same exact things you buy.
Hopefully there will be a smarter judge or an appeal of the case, because the WWW is not broadcast at all. You specificaly REQUEST documents (webservers will even tell you they can't understand your request if you send a bad one).
Clients tell a server they want something; servers only respond to a given request, rarely do servers broadcast to all nodes.
I've been thinking about this alot. Why does it matter if someone actually believes what they are saying, or was just paid to say so?
More to the point..what is the point of 'campaign fianance reform?' Looking for a serious answer here...what exactly is the problem that is supposed to be solved by it?
Re:Beyond the simulation of 'fighting while wounde
on
Games That Shoot Back
·
· Score: 1
Didn't he have a belt pack to hold a few bottles of ammo? Whenever i've gone paintballing, we had those to carry extra.
Wearing them in the front will also serve as protection.
Which is contrary to the previous statements that the customer is responsible except in case of deception. You believe that the customer is responsible even in the case of fraud.
None of those examples you provided were fraud. Would you believe me if i told you you could lift 100lbs when the max you've lifted ever has been 25lbs? If so, why? Because I was smiling as I said it?
'You can drive like a moron this car is so safe' is an obvious metaphor. The keyword is 'like.' A is like b indicates a metaphor, this is elementry school English.
'This car has side impact airbags' is a statement of fact, and if the car DOESN'T have airbags, most certainliy is fraud. Fortunatly specs about a cars are commonly published and easily available in today's world, when years ago you may have only had the word of the dealer.
You obvisouly think that people should be responsible for their actions and all the consequences, but that companies/corporations are not responsible for their fraud.
I certainly think companies should be held accountable for fraud. However none of the car dealership examples you gave are examples of fraud. Hell, one is entirely subjective and may very well be true (i'm sure there is at lesat one woman that would find someone sexy in just about any car). I did provide one fraudlent example though. In that case the dealer has no business saying what he did.
Another example of fraud was when Verizion wireless told me 'yes, i have coverage in this area.' Later, when i found i had no signal and complained they explained that meant only that, if i should happen to get a signal, it would come off my plan minutes. The map they had shown me was where my minutes applied, NOT where there was signal. THAT is fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Cable internet is fairly good, except that here in Burlington VT, it seems that after an hour or so of rain or snow, it stops working. It will come back up but only for a few minutes..
This continues basically until the storm is over...
Its the worst cable modem service i've had...TW in Roch. NY never went down, nor did Comcast near Philly. Comcast is a bunch of asshats though, so hopefully TW will take over here...but even if comcast grabs the area, service should improve (I hope).
And don't forget Clinton continued the trend with the TCA 1996 and I believe some more bank deregulations.
Its not that he doesn't have love in his life, its that he doesn't want our legal system ruled by emotions, he wants it ruled by logic and reason and justice.
Murder is done purposefully (by definition). Manslaughter is not. Intent SHOULD be considered. The DD case is NOT voluntary, since said driver didn't INTEND to kill someone; it was an accident. Brought about by some poor judgements, but an accident none the less.
Same goes for the two girls (who are also handicapped in their decision making because of physiological issues).
So no, killing someone for any reason is not murder, as much as your logic-less mind would like it to be.
Excellent Example! I hate that damn physical spam WalMart, Safeway and Best Buy send me infinately more than I hate email spam, because it's much easier to set up a email filter.
Once those physical-mail spammers go to jail, I'll support this guy going to jail.
Although I don't like those either, I'm not getting literally hundreds of them a day either.
Restricting any sort of speach online is a really just one step in practicing for legal and technological control of the content on the internet.
Sorry, I don't count business ads as speech. I especially don't consider speech forced onto its recipients to be a right either. What about my choice to ignore your speech?
Why should users / ISPs be forced to spend money because of the actions of a spammer (who doesn't have to spend money). Again, normal spam costs the sender, not the recipients or USPS.
But $2 bills are NOT illegal tender...so I don't see how you justify that. I also don't think those 'we don't accept xx bill' legal either. If its legal (and $50 bills are just as legal as $2) they should be required to accept it.
your second point i believe is correct; to make a false statement to police, you'd have to know you were making a false statement.
Care to list said states?
Hm...too bad for me then.
I suspect then this is a population density problem (its not dense enough to offer coverage) and I suppose could also be a tech problem (maybe CDMA works well over a distance, but doesn't penetrate mountains too well).
I don't know that, I do know that the rest of the world together is a lot bigger then the USA, while I simply cannot remember encountering a place without coverage in the last decade while being outside, and only a few while being inside. That includes places like the jungle in northern Thailand, the mountain areas of Austria, Spain, France, Germany, middle of the desert in Egypt and many more non urban areas. Places without coverage do exist, but as long as some form of human settlement or travel is taking place, you have an extremely good chance of getting coverage also.
I agree the rest of the world is larger than the US, that doesn't quite fit the problem.
I'm sure Verizon would cover every square inch of say TX (roughly the size of France), if A) TX is the ONLY place they have to worry about covering; neighboring states would be covered by other companies and B) everyone in the US was squeezed into TX (TX is pretty sparcely populated given its size / number of residents). But if 260M people are in a very small space, there's alot of incentive to cover that area. As it stands now, there's only incentive to cover Dallas etc.
See above. No problem usually.
I suspect then that this is a problem because of sparce population density; the same reason much of VT doesn't have cable TV.
I disagree, I think it would fix some problems... namely those of the 'silent install' type.
IE could implement something were, by default, a plug is installed only locally (and for the plugin to network out, the user password or admin password is required, or as a harder to get to option, allow the user to install a plugin for all users, but you MUST supply the root password after reading a prompt, where the OK button isn't always in the same spot and is disabled for a short time.
RE, file renaming...why do you have to close the app before renaming a file? I'd think you'd have a simple handle at that point, and the OS could notify all those that have the file open that the name has changed (and ideally, the app would catch this message and change the name in the title bar as well).
I've always hated windows file locking, i've never really seen a need for it.
Whats the difference in saying file X can be accessed by groups x, y and z, versus X can be access by x, which y is a member of, and z, which is a memeber of y.
Seems like the latter would be even less clear and more complex to figure out (why does so and so have permissions??).
I heard GSM was good over short distances, and CDMA or TDMA are better for larger areas.
Assuming this is true (maybe not) then the US carriers would pick the latter so they can get the most out of each tower. After all, theyhave more to put up b/c they need to cover a MUCH larger area.
I'm in VT, and coverage is spotty due to the mountains. How to eurpoean cells compare in mountainous regions?
I think that, should you be exposed to something in that paper, if you were on a trial jury you would be able to ignore what you read in the papers. I really find it hard to believe that people would put more weight in a paper (even if they trust it) than the defense or prosecution.
One would hope that the evidence presented by both sides would outweight anything the papers might have said.
So is it the responsiblity of the government to force citizens to do thier job?
It seems that said reforms also hinder 3rd parties, to the extent that they may not be able to raise enough funding (since there might only be one liberatarian millionare, for example).
Outright lies I can understand (my opponent X is a baby killer), but other than that, I fail to see that this will help.
After all, if what you say is true, we have far greater problems than who's producing the ads...I've seen the ads, they say very little as to what the canditate intends to do.
The republicans, since they want the change. The problem is (and this is really my whole point) is that at one time republicans didn't want much change and thus were labeled conservative. It stuck, but their ideals have changed such that conservative no longer really fits. I'd just as soon call Republicans Republicans, and Democrats Democrats.
Well, thats what the terms mean. The political machine took the terms and then twisted them.
Maybe at one point republicans were conservative and democrats liberal, but certainly not anymore. Even some values within each are inconsitant with the labels. So using those terms to define 'small government, individual freedom' does nothing to clear the air, it in fact clouds things.
Seems to me the current trend is to call someone that agrees with you a conservative (a 'good' thing) and someone that doesn't agree a liberal (a 'bad' thing). The name calling of course ignores any issues at hand.
As far as the regulation goes, its not clear what party might be behind it (maybe both are?), as the members drafting it are 'elected by each district on a non-partisan basis.' So, take from that what you will.
No, I'm not a lawyer you're right. However 'case law' as you put it isn't defined in the constitution either. There's no basis for allowing it. Calling it 'common law' implies it is law, and the constution IS clear on who may make laws, and that clearly lies within the power of congress.
I think the idea is that there shouldn't be a need for congress to cover much of anything at all. That except for the few powers listed, the people and the states have jurisdiction over everything else.
Remember, just because its been done for the past 150 years or so (I don't think using case law was common just after the country was formed) doesn't mean that its right and falls within the bounds setup by the constitution. After all congress orginally only needed to meet for about a month out of the entire year.
Perhaps you're the moron because you so quickly lost sight of the original intent. Oh, and please point out inthe constitution that its ok for judges to make common law or refer to legal precidents (which may be ok, but IGNORING law in favor of precidents is not, especially since we now have cases of precident directly contradicting law).
Sorry asshole, I got them backwards. Sue me.
Nice of you to ignore the rest of my post, which, dispite a simple mix up, is still valid.
But go ahead if you think that totally invalidates everything i've said, feel free. Its easier that way, you can ignore that you really don't know the difference between fraud and good salesman ship. Dig your head back into the sand (or ass, as thats where its seems to be most comfortable) and believe whatever you like.
I'll still enjoy paying less for the same exact things you buy.
I think your defintions are a bit off.
Conservates want to make things like they used to be (or keep them as they are). Liberals want change.
Hopefully there will be a smarter judge or an appeal of the case, because the WWW is not broadcast at all. You specificaly REQUEST documents (webservers will even tell you they can't understand your request if you send a bad one).
Clients tell a server they want something; servers only respond to a given request, rarely do servers broadcast to all nodes.
I've been thinking about this alot. Why does it matter if someone actually believes what they are saying, or was just paid to say so?
More to the point..what is the point of 'campaign fianance reform?' Looking for a serious answer here...what exactly is the problem that is supposed to be solved by it?
Didn't he have a belt pack to hold a few bottles of ammo? Whenever i've gone paintballing, we had those to carry extra.
Wearing them in the front will also serve as protection.
Hopefully the manufacturer of the device will include some kind of circuit breaker or fuse to stop a lethal shock.
Which is contrary to the previous statements that the customer is responsible except in case of deception. You believe that the customer is responsible even in the case of fraud.
None of those examples you provided were fraud. Would you believe me if i told you you could lift 100lbs when the max you've lifted ever has been 25lbs? If so, why? Because I was smiling as I said it?
'You can drive like a moron this car is so safe' is an obvious metaphor. The keyword is 'like.' A is like b indicates a metaphor, this is elementry school English.
'This car has side impact airbags' is a statement of fact, and if the car DOESN'T have airbags, most certainliy is fraud. Fortunatly specs about a cars are commonly published and easily available in today's world, when years ago you may have only had the word of the dealer.
You obvisouly think that people should be responsible for their actions and all the consequences, but that companies/corporations are not responsible for their fraud.
I certainly think companies should be held accountable for fraud. However none of the car dealership examples you gave are examples of fraud.
Hell, one is entirely subjective and may very well be true (i'm sure there is at lesat one woman that would find someone sexy in just about any car).
I did provide one fraudlent example though. In that case the dealer has no business saying what he did.
Another example of fraud was when Verizion wireless told me 'yes, i have coverage in this area.' Later, when i found i had no signal and complained they explained that meant only that, if i should happen to get a signal, it would come off my plan minutes. The map they had shown me was where my minutes applied, NOT where there was signal. THAT is fraud.