Anyone who hasn't listened to "I'll give you fire" from the Ruby series (on this one, I believe: http://snipurl.com/gvwa) might enjoy the context it affords this latest "smart appliance" instance.
Proving that a 20 year old quirky radio drama can still be spot on.;-)
The right to earn a living? Sure. There are 2301 other jobs the guy can do. Expecting a man to be good for his word doesn't abridge that in the least. No one is entitled to do whatever he wants, if he has legally agreed to do or not to do some specific thing. This is normal life, not some extraordinary hardship foisted by one party to some draconian agreement. It's not as if this guy was threatened with a life of soup kitchens as the only alternative to the Microsoft job that involved the contract. Good grief. Now I think it's legit enough to argue whether this particular job is, or is not, an instance of violating the contract. It may or may not be. But a valid argument is NOT that the contract is moot.
If a kid gets sued for $10,000, this implies that Yahoo ought to pony up ($10,000 - $5)*(duration of ostensible piracy sited in lawsuit) per subscriber. Interesting.
Funny that it made it past three gatekeepers, then seemed to have open range freedom within the conference organizers' little world.
After all, downstream editorial judgment would be in the context of "my peers have seen this and passed it along with approval; if I don't understand what the hell it's even saying, the problem must be me -- and since I don't want to look stupid, I'll quietly pass it along, seconding their approval."
The subversion of reason by ego and intellectual cowardice. No one wants to call anything by its name any more, because idiocy and mindless blather are not only tolerated in this era of postmodern tenurism -- they're celebrated as the sine qua non and shibboleth of club membership among an elite increasinly out of touch not just with the rest of us but, thankfully for the rest of us, the reality we know and they don't.
Sure can't see what's new about this -- unless it's someone getting the bright idea that kiosks are now practical as personal computers. They might indeed be, for older people. I've been thinking about something like this too.
The claim is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Geeks fed up with low staffing levels and obscene workloads will bring about the innovative improvements which will result in their layoffs. I say we remain content with our misery, in order that our happiness may perdure.;-)
I don't believe that what the courts say should be law, no matter what. I note your magic word "should." Nor do I believe that everything that's legislated should be law. But I do believe that not all acts are protected rights, and frankly that's a rather self-evident thing.
The logical terminus of your implications, since "actions are speech," is that all actions are defended by the first amendment. Since we know that's not true, neither are your premises.
All speech is a right
All actions are speech instances
Therefore, all actions are a right
But not all actions are exercises of rights (to the contrary, some are abridgments of rights)
Therefore, at least one of your two premises must be false. Either not all actions are speech instances, or not all speech is a right.
Which is pretty much my point. The only thing I "don't like" is unsound thinking on the matter. As for support of free will, all freedom has limits. I am not free to both live and die, to both endear myself to and alienate myself from someone, to both act and refrain from acting, to both speak and to remain silent (unless we're going to engage in equivocation, in which case we might just as well say "Hitler," evoke Godwin, and be done with it;-)
Are you being disingenuous? Not everything defended as exercise of first amendment rights is genuine "speech." This should be obvious to anyone familiar with either the absurd or almost-reasonable-sounding cases that have been through the courts.
For example, in the reasonable-sounding department, in December of '99 the USSC found (7-2) that a state can squelch the commercial use of some public records. A California law makes police records available to journalists and private detectives, but proscribes commercial use. Facing an argument that this was in violation of free speech, the court disagreed, arguing that the use of such records is not "speech" (I won't go into their reasons).
Less reasonable was the case of a man in South Carolina, who violated state law by tattooing without a license (a health issue in the state). He argued that his indictment was wrongful on a couple grounds, one being that the law suppressed free speech. The appelate [federal] court ruled that tattooing is not "speech."
I poked around a bit, and there's a ton of case law on this. And then there's the longstanding -- and admittedly besieged -- notion that obscenity is not protected speech. Like it or not, the USSC has upheld this. And we all know the SC is the law of the land.:-/
Now if "a lot of people seem to feel" the way the courts also rule (namely, that not everthing defended as free speech actually is), isn't that a good thing?
I'm not running around suppressing other people's free speech. But I'm glad that courts are ruling responsibly in tough cases (such as the first, above) and ridiculous cases (such as the second, above). It's ridiculous to claim that they do so because they "feel" as if other people's rights don't matter. The question is what the constitution is protecting, and on the other hand what it never intended as cover for bad arguments by people trying to evade justice on other issues.
Free speech implies the freedom to lie, but the number of statutes that punish misrepresentation and, yes, lying, belie;-) the notion that all lying is protected speech. Furthermore, for my part I'm sick of everything anyone does, anymore, being classified as "speech." All I need to do is claim I'm a performance artist, and anything I freakin' do is protected. And how do I prove I'm a performance artist? By doing something gratuitous and outrageous. Everyone knows no one but a genuine performance artist would engage in the outrageous, inasmuch as only everyone else would be interested in preserving the respectable status quo, whereas we artistes are, of course, obliged to challenge such pretentions.;-)
I'm not aware of this -- I had thought it was controlled by Barry Diller. If it's true, I call for the complete destruction of Microsoft (just trying to keep the punishment in proportion to the crimer, here;-)
My colleague linked me to this story, as I reminded him how much I wish someone would go on a trust-busting hunt for Ticketmaster's throat. Tie up a human being staring at a half-broken terminal for 20 minutes with a line behind you, and the convenience fee is three bucks. Do it on-line and the fee is triple that? Please.
My colleague points out that everyone's always suing Microsoft, who has only a perceived monopoly in many areas (perception = fear, liberatarian concern about prior restraint, etc.), whereas Ticketmaster has an absolute Monopoply and abuses everyone with it. WTF?
Can anyone name a theist who believes that a "Creator appeared out of nothing?" Even one such theist, in all of human history?
If no such theist can be found, then what's the relevance of the claim that it's simpler to believe other things, than things no one has ever believed in the first place?;-)
If the meaning we're after is "really, really big," do we even need "billion billion" to get there? I think two "reallys" should be code for "numbers you can't imagine," and we all live with that. We're at the point where the numbers don't, really, matter. This google search actually works:
furlongs per fortnight to femtoparsecs per gigasecond
In our case, I wrote a little VB applet that reads an authenticated user's name, formats a header, and so forth. The app simply appends the contents of a file to the newest entry and writes the file out again -- to the share the team uses for other stuff. The file is parked on Active Desktop, and includes a refresh tag in it. Every five minutes the user gets a refresh.
This has been wildly popular -- the idea being that a lot of quotidian factoids whose relevance is brief is nevertheless at least very relevant while it is, and may be relevant to some, or all of the team. They can glance at the "tickler" as we call it, and decide for themselves.
It took me a while, once blogs became commonplace, to realize that we'd been doing it for some time -- without a web server.
You don't need to set up users as admins. Quickbooks needs the Intuit keys opened in the registry; that's well known.
For such software, the first thing you should do is open the Intuit folders and keys for security groups whose members will be using the application.
In fact, this is the whole point of access control. One could argue that Intuit's approach is *good* security. I've been irritated enough by this myself, though, that I won't be the one to make the argument.;-)
RFID chips need a writable component that stores a cookie that includes information about the last reader (referrer?) of the chip. Then you could know who knows -- but the price you'd pay is that the next person would know you know. Of course, no one would know who knows, because who knows what what the cookie knows means?
It certainly seems that way. They say the gloves are thinner -- that means they're not insulating as much, thus there's more heat loss. At least fingers limit how much heat can be lost -- now they're pumping more heat out there to be lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who hasn't listened to "I'll give you fire" from the Ruby series (on this one, I believe: http://snipurl.com/gvwa) might enjoy the context it affords this latest "smart appliance" instance.
;-)
Proving that a 20 year old quirky radio drama can still be spot on.
"Black . . . blacker . . . blackessst!"
Toasters with a 'tude!
The right to earn a living? Sure. There are 2301 other jobs the guy can do. Expecting a man to be good for his word doesn't abridge that in the least. No one is entitled to do whatever he wants, if he has legally agreed to do or not to do some specific thing. This is normal life, not some extraordinary hardship foisted by one party to some draconian agreement. It's not as if this guy was threatened with a life of soup kitchens as the only alternative to the Microsoft job that involved the contract. Good grief. Now I think it's legit enough to argue whether this particular job is, or is not, an instance of violating the contract. It may or may not be. But a valid argument is NOT that the contract is moot.
Actually, it's more like their "N" has the appearance of an "H". ;-)
If a kid gets sued for $10,000, this implies that Yahoo ought to pony up ($10,000 - $5)*(duration of ostensible piracy sited in lawsuit) per subscriber. Interesting.
Funny that it made it past three gatekeepers, then seemed to have open range freedom within the conference organizers' little world.
After all, downstream editorial judgment would be in the context of "my peers have seen this and passed it along with approval; if I don't understand what the hell it's even saying, the problem must be me -- and since I don't want to look stupid, I'll quietly pass it along, seconding their approval."
The subversion of reason by ego and intellectual cowardice. No one wants to call anything by its name any more, because idiocy and mindless blather are not only tolerated in this era of postmodern tenurism -- they're celebrated as the sine qua non and shibboleth of club membership among an elite increasinly out of touch not just with the rest of us but, thankfully for the rest of us, the reality we know and they don't.
Sure can't see what's new about this -- unless it's someone getting the bright idea that kiosks are now practical as personal computers. They might indeed be, for older people. I've been thinking about something like this too.
The claim is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Geeks fed up with low staffing levels and obscene workloads will bring about the innovative improvements which will result in their layoffs. I say we remain content with our misery, in order that our happiness may perdure. ;-)
Macs are, therefore, properly construed as conservative. ;-)
I don't believe that what the courts say should be law, no matter what. I note your magic word "should." Nor do I believe that everything that's legislated should be law. But I do believe that not all acts are protected rights, and frankly that's a rather self-evident thing.
;-)
The logical terminus of your implications, since "actions are speech," is that all actions are defended by the first amendment. Since we know that's not true, neither are your premises.
All speech is a right
All actions are speech instances
Therefore, all actions are a right
But not all actions are exercises of rights (to the contrary, some are abridgments of rights) Therefore, at least one of your two premises must be false. Either not all actions are speech instances, or not all speech is a right.
Which is pretty much my point. The only thing I "don't like" is unsound thinking on the matter. As for support of free will, all freedom has limits. I am not free to both live and die, to both endear myself to and alienate myself from someone, to both act and refrain from acting, to both speak and to remain silent (unless we're going to engage in equivocation, in which case we might just as well say "Hitler," evoke Godwin, and be done with it
Oh, I dunno that it matters so much. But the EDUs tend toward USSC, I note:
;-)
http://snipurl.com/a53k
http://snipurl.com/a53m
And there's someone else that uses USSC somewhat exclusively:
http://snipurl.com/a53p
http://snipurl.com/a53q
Are you being disingenuous? Not everything defended as exercise of first amendment rights is genuine "speech." This should be obvious to anyone familiar with either the absurd or almost-reasonable-sounding cases that have been through the courts.
:-/
For example, in the reasonable-sounding department, in December of '99 the USSC found (7-2) that a state can squelch the commercial use of some public records. A California law makes police records available to journalists and private detectives, but proscribes commercial use. Facing an argument that this was in violation of free speech, the court disagreed, arguing that the use of such records is not "speech" (I won't go into their reasons).
Less reasonable was the case of a man in South Carolina, who violated state law by tattooing without a license (a health issue in the state). He argued that his indictment was wrongful on a couple grounds, one being that the law suppressed free speech. The appelate [federal] court ruled that tattooing is not "speech."
I poked around a bit, and there's a ton of case law on this. And then there's the longstanding -- and admittedly besieged -- notion that obscenity is not protected speech. Like it or not, the USSC has upheld this. And we all know the SC is the law of the land.
Now if "a lot of people seem to feel" the way the courts also rule (namely, that not everthing defended as free speech actually is), isn't that a good thing?
I'm not running around suppressing other people's free speech. But I'm glad that courts are ruling responsibly in tough cases (such as the first, above) and ridiculous cases (such as the second, above). It's ridiculous to claim that they do so because they "feel" as if other people's rights don't matter. The question is what the constitution is protecting, and on the other hand what it never intended as cover for bad arguments by people trying to evade justice on other issues.
Free speech implies the freedom to lie, but the number of statutes that punish misrepresentation and, yes, lying, belie ;-) the notion that all lying is protected speech. Furthermore, for my part I'm sick of everything anyone does, anymore, being classified as "speech." All I need to do is claim I'm a performance artist, and anything I freakin' do is protected. And how do I prove I'm a performance artist? By doing something gratuitous and outrageous. Everyone knows no one but a genuine performance artist would engage in the outrageous, inasmuch as only everyone else would be interested in preserving the respectable status quo, whereas we artistes are, of course, obliged to challenge such pretentions. ;-)
I'm not aware of this -- I had thought it was controlled by Barry Diller. If it's true, I call for the complete destruction of Microsoft (just trying to keep the punishment in proportion to the crimer, here ;-)
My colleague linked me to this story, as I reminded him how much I wish someone would go on a trust-busting hunt for Ticketmaster's throat. Tie up a human being staring at a half-broken terminal for 20 minutes with a line behind you, and the convenience fee is three bucks. Do it on-line and the fee is triple that? Please.
My colleague points out that everyone's always suing Microsoft, who has only a perceived monopoly in many areas (perception = fear, liberatarian concern about prior restraint, etc.), whereas Ticketmaster has an absolute Monopoply and abuses everyone with it. WTF?
I wish Microsoft would take on Ticketmaster.
Can anyone name a theist who believes that a "Creator appeared out of nothing?" Even one such theist, in all of human history? If no such theist can be found, then what's the relevance of the claim that it's simpler to believe other things, than things no one has ever believed in the first place? ;-)
If the meaning we're after is "really, really big," do we even need "billion billion" to get there? I think two "reallys" should be code for "numbers you can't imagine," and we all live with that. We're at the point where the numbers don't, really, matter. This google search actually works: furlongs per fortnight to femtoparsecs per gigasecond
"Remember, these are the people who said Columbia was traveling at 25 times the speed of light when it disintegrated.
;-)
Well, something would certainly disintegrate at such speeds. So they must be right, QED.
In our case, I wrote a little VB applet that reads an authenticated user's name, formats a header, and so forth. The app simply appends the contents of a file to the newest entry and writes the file out again -- to the share the team uses for other stuff. The file is parked on Active Desktop, and includes a refresh tag in it. Every five minutes the user gets a refresh. This has been wildly popular -- the idea being that a lot of quotidian factoids whose relevance is brief is nevertheless at least very relevant while it is, and may be relevant to some, or all of the team. They can glance at the "tickler" as we call it, and decide for themselves. It took me a while, once blogs became commonplace, to realize that we'd been doing it for some time -- without a web server.
You don't need to set up users as admins. Quickbooks needs the Intuit keys opened in the registry; that's well known. For such software, the first thing you should do is open the Intuit folders and keys for security groups whose members will be using the application. In fact, this is the whole point of access control. One could argue that Intuit's approach is *good* security. I've been irritated enough by this myself, though, that I won't be the one to make the argument. ;-)
RFID chips need a writable component that stores a cookie that includes information about the last reader (referrer?) of the chip. Then you could know who knows -- but the price you'd pay is that the next person would know you know. Of course, no one would know who knows, because who knows what what the cookie knows means?
It certainly seems that way. They say the gloves are thinner -- that means they're not insulating as much, thus there's more heat loss. At least fingers limit how much heat can be lost -- now they're pumping more heat out there to be lost.