Software is expensive, render farms are relatively less so, but artists who understand how to use the tools efficiently and effectively aren't exactly a dime a dozen.
Big difference. The Federal Aviation Administration, a US governmental agency, is responsible for the airspace over the United States so I would say it was well within its rights to shutdown the airspace over the US. It's nowhere near the same thing is it would be if they told a private company that they couldn't do business in the US because of a data breach.
So why, exactly, would anyone in their right mind want to go through the necessary years of education, the long hours of work, the continuing re-credentialing requirements on top of having to deal with parents that send their kids to school for no other reason than it is required by law, to be told "we value you, but not very much".
Yeah, 'cause you'd never see a good conservative turn the other cheek, would you? It's not as though it's in any book that they'd be likely to read, would it...
If you've got the chemicals. Dwayne's Photo didn't stop processing Kodachrome due to lack of business, they stopped because the only supplier - Kodak - stopped making the developing chemicals and they eventually ran out.
Sorry to fuck up "your" bash on state employees, but the reason that California can't pay its bills is because they haven't had a realistic budget in over a decade. Nobody has been willing to make the hard choices that may lead to their ouster in the next election, so every budget has been based on false assumptions of revenue and hopes that somehow they could pay their bills without revenue enhancements (like taxes or fees) or cuts in programs that would get them unelected. So we have what we have today - an unbalanced budget with no real way out. You could fire all State employees tomorrow and grab all of the money in the pension fund (which has been tried twice - and the reimbursement cost came out greater than what was "borrowed") and still not come even close to resolving California's budgetary problems.
Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.
Of course it doesn't sell well. Because people won't sit still for long-form investigative journalism. They want the salacious details - whether they're true or not - and they want them now. If they don't get them, they'll change the channel to someone who will give it to them.
Watergate-style investigative reporting won't ever happen again. Not because of any interference by government, but because nobody will be interested in spending the time and effort to gather all of the details and make sense of the big picture. The "best" we'll have in the future is a leak reporting the break-in, another one reporting some of the money deals, possibly another one reporting the "dirty tricks", but nothing to link them together. Without context, everyone will see what they want to see. People who hate government will point at the leaks as further indication of how corrupt government is. People who have more trust in government will ignore it. Which is exactly what we have now.
Because that's what the founders set up Federal Court system and the Supreme Court to do. They can't "mess with the laws" as in alter them, all they can do is rule whether the law specifies rights that are within or exceed those rights enumerated to the government within the Constitution - in this case, the Federal Court ruled that the law exceeded what the government is permitted to do.
Considered Fair Use by whom? The people who created the image, the ones that wanted to use it without attribution or the U.S. Copyright Office?
All the Drudge Report needed to do is attribute the original copyright holder in their post, but they chose not to. Drudge or anybody else who uses someone else's images should expend the minimal effort necessary to do what's right. That being said, the penalty asked for far exceeds the crime.
Unless you're sequestered (very unusual because of the expense), you aren't "imprisoned", all you're asked to do is not talk about the trial nor gather any information about the matters being disputed. Why is this a problem? Is it so impossible to tell people that you can't talk about it?
Of course you may be found in contempt of court if you don't show up without notification. Trials are expensive and the schedules are always packed. The trial may have to be delayed because you can't be troubled to show up. And you feel that this is wrong?
I've served on multiple juries, some trials lasting multiples of weeks. In that time all of my friends accepted that I wouldn't talk about the trial, I didn't run home and look up the particulars of the case (can't say that I wouldn't have loved to, I just didn't) and didn't feel imprisoned. I guess something's wrong with me...
No, the tributary effect of these efforts will be to convince hosting companies to that they need to revise their policies to make them more restrictive as to what types of sites they will host.
Is there a shred of evidence supporting the contention that the U.S. Government requested, coerced or in any way compelled MasterCard to stop providing payment services to Wikileaks?
One of the things that I've found in redoing the low-level quests is because I'm not concentrating on learning the game or on leveling, I can actually get involved in the story that they're telling. It's been a while since I did these quests the first time, but it seems like they're telling a more complete set of stories rather than "this is what you need to do to get through this area and on to the next one".
Not to be argumentative, but I would say that the software that you use probably does have a contract. If it's licensed under the GPL, the GPL is a contract - it may not say "EULA" on it, but it assigns specific roles and responsibilities to all parties and places restrictions on certain use cases. You may not feel that it applies to you, but it's there nevertheless...
We don't "hire" politicians for anything. We elect them to represent us - which doesn't mean the same thing to all people. I'm pretty much certain that the folks that elected representatives in, say, Colorado, feel that they have little to nothing in common with the California electorate.
And the absolute last thing that people would want in a politician (or anybody else, for that matter) is unfaltering honesty. Telling nothing but the truth on the floor of the Congress may be a good movie plot but may make it a bit difficult to find a co-sponsor for your bills...
No, he was talking about artwork and photos. The conversation would be more like:
Here's my portfolio.
-turns on the tablet and passes it around-
A flat surface is a lot easier for more than one person to look at and pass around than a laptop screen is, and the colors are a lot better represented on an tablet versus a projected image. Not all presentations need a projector - just the boring ones.
This happened to me. One of my wonderful neighbors moved and the new address and phone number that they gave to their creditors was mine. After six months of me trying to explain that I wasn't the person that they wanted to talk to, I let them know that if I heard from them again, my next call would be to a lawyer. They finally got the point.
Do you want California and New York and other high-population states determining the outcomes of elections? I'm pretty sure Iowa doesn't. The Electoral College gives less populous states a say that they wouldn't have if people voted directly for the candidates rather than for electors.
Slashdot Mirror
Software is expensive, render farms are relatively less so, but artists who understand how to use the tools efficiently and effectively aren't exactly a dime a dozen.
Big difference. The Federal Aviation Administration, a US governmental agency, is responsible for the airspace over the United States so I would say it was well within its rights to shutdown the airspace over the US. It's nowhere near the same thing is it would be if they told a private company that they couldn't do business in the US because of a data breach.
So why, exactly, would anyone in their right mind want to go through the necessary years of education, the long hours of work, the continuing re-credentialing requirements on top of having to deal with parents that send their kids to school for no other reason than it is required by law, to be told "we value you, but not very much".
Yeah, 'cause you'd never see a good conservative turn the other cheek, would you? It's not as though it's in any book that they'd be likely to read, would it...
If you've got the chemicals. Dwayne's Photo didn't stop processing Kodachrome due to lack of business, they stopped because the only supplier - Kodak - stopped making the developing chemicals and they eventually ran out.
Sorry to fuck up "your" bash on state employees, but the reason that California can't pay its bills is because they haven't had a realistic budget in over a decade. Nobody has been willing to make the hard choices that may lead to their ouster in the next election, so every budget has been based on false assumptions of revenue and hopes that somehow they could pay their bills without revenue enhancements (like taxes or fees) or cuts in programs that would get them unelected. So we have what we have today - an unbalanced budget with no real way out. You could fire all State employees tomorrow and grab all of the money in the pension fund (which has been tried twice - and the reimbursement cost came out greater than what was "borrowed") and still not come even close to resolving California's budgetary problems.
It's also the U.S. Postal Service abbreviation for California. But you already knew that.
Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.
Of course it doesn't sell well. Because people won't sit still for long-form investigative journalism. They want the salacious details - whether they're true or not - and they want them now. If they don't get them, they'll change the channel to someone who will give it to them.
Watergate-style investigative reporting won't ever happen again. Not because of any interference by government, but because nobody will be interested in spending the time and effort to gather all of the details and make sense of the big picture. The "best" we'll have in the future is a leak reporting the break-in, another one reporting some of the money deals, possibly another one reporting the "dirty tricks", but nothing to link them together. Without context, everyone will see what they want to see. People who hate government will point at the leaks as further indication of how corrupt government is. People who have more trust in government will ignore it. Which is exactly what we have now.
Mostly because Rosie was a robot. Uniblab was the computer.
Because that's what the founders set up Federal Court system and the Supreme Court to do. They can't "mess with the laws" as in alter them, all they can do is rule whether the law specifies rights that are within or exceed those rights enumerated to the government within the Constitution - in this case, the Federal Court ruled that the law exceeded what the government is permitted to do.
Considered Fair Use by whom? The people who created the image, the ones that wanted to use it without attribution or the U.S. Copyright Office?
All the Drudge Report needed to do is attribute the original copyright holder in their post, but they chose not to. Drudge or anybody else who uses someone else's images should expend the minimal effort necessary to do what's right. That being said, the penalty asked for far exceeds the crime.
Unless you're sequestered (very unusual because of the expense), you aren't "imprisoned", all you're asked to do is not talk about the trial nor gather any information about the matters being disputed. Why is this a problem? Is it so impossible to tell people that you can't talk about it?
Of course you may be found in contempt of court if you don't show up without notification. Trials are expensive and the schedules are always packed. The trial may have to be delayed because you can't be troubled to show up. And you feel that this is wrong?
I've served on multiple juries, some trials lasting multiples of weeks. In that time all of my friends accepted that I wouldn't talk about the trial, I didn't run home and look up the particulars of the case (can't say that I wouldn't have loved to, I just didn't) and didn't feel imprisoned. I guess something's wrong with me...
If you're not part of the mob there's very little difference.
No, the tributary effect of these efforts will be to convince hosting companies to that they need to revise their policies to make them more restrictive as to what types of sites they will host.
Not that past history is gives an exact indication of the future, but Netflix doesn't show commercials in its streaming content now...
Is there a shred of evidence supporting the contention that the U.S. Government requested, coerced or in any way compelled MasterCard to stop providing payment services to Wikileaks?
One of the things that I've found in redoing the low-level quests is because I'm not concentrating on learning the game or on leveling, I can actually get involved in the story that they're telling. It's been a while since I did these quests the first time, but it seems like they're telling a more complete set of stories rather than "this is what you need to do to get through this area and on to the next one".
Not to be argumentative, but I would say that the software that you use probably does have a contract. If it's licensed under the GPL, the GPL is a contract - it may not say "EULA" on it, but it assigns specific roles and responsibilities to all parties and places restrictions on certain use cases. You may not feel that it applies to you, but it's there nevertheless...
And people who were just there at the time who have little to no relationship to the events will suffer. But they're just mushrooms, so who cares?
We don't "hire" politicians for anything. We elect them to represent us - which doesn't mean the same thing to all people. I'm pretty much certain that the folks that elected representatives in, say, Colorado, feel that they have little to nothing in common with the California electorate.
And the absolute last thing that people would want in a politician (or anybody else, for that matter) is unfaltering honesty. Telling nothing but the truth on the floor of the Congress may be a good movie plot but may make it a bit difficult to find a co-sponsor for your bills...
No, he was talking about artwork and photos. The conversation would be more like:
Here's my portfolio.
-turns on the tablet and passes it around-
A flat surface is a lot easier for more than one person to look at and pass around than a laptop screen is, and the colors are a lot better represented on an tablet versus a projected image. Not all presentations need a projector - just the boring ones.
This happened to me.
One of my wonderful neighbors moved and the new address and phone number that they gave to their creditors was mine. After six months of me trying to explain that I wasn't the person that they wanted to talk to, I let them know that if I heard from them again, my next call would be to a lawyer. They finally got the point.
What is a Cold Play? Is that some type of sexual innuendo, like chatting up someone who doesn't like sex?
It's a bit pedantic, but the GP is correct: United States isn't a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.
Do you want California and New York and other high-population states determining the outcomes of elections? I'm pretty sure Iowa doesn't. The Electoral College gives less populous states a say that they wouldn't have if people voted directly for the candidates rather than for electors.