Ah, but so long as you do not say "The theif cut the cable" on the police report, there is no problem. Simply say "My laptop is gone and the cable is cut." This, in fact, is 100% truthful. Only if they directly ask you "Did you cut the cable?" would you *have* to tell the truth...
What is it with Apple making parts that look like Disney characters. If anyone remembers the "yo-yo" power supplies, the cable that went from the wall to the circle part was called the "mouse-ears plug" because the end looked like Mickey Mouse.
I have to say, that thing is pretty cool, but there are too many changes to the qwerty layout for me. (Mostly where the keyboard meets the mouse.) In a few revs, I'll bet that thing will be pretty nice though.
I use a SUN USB keyboard - the only odd thing about it is that the Control key and the Caps Lock key are basically switched around. It took some getting used to, but now that I'm used to it, I find it much easier to use.
You're right. So instead, simply say "Leave and don't come back - if you come back, you'll be arrested."
My real point was that it's a waste of time and money to put this man through our legal system when the "crime" he had commited was of no consequence.
To me, it seems a lot like getting pulled over for a broken tail light or something trivial like that. 9 times out of 10, the cop will give you a warning the first time and expect you to fix it.
I think, if he goes to trial, he will be convicted more for the statements he has made against the US than for the "crime" he commited.
I read a survey which stated that there would be a 50% loss of productive working time as many managers would burst out laughing when their Canadian counterpart said the word "about". This causes too much "down time" in the workplace.
The US spent resources over several years looking for him. They will continue to spend resources in bringing him to the US, providing a fair trial (which will be next to impossible given his statements in the past) and housing and feeding him for the next x years while he sits in prison.
Is he a true criminal? No. The only thing he has actually done that is illegal is play chess in a "bad" (as defined by the US Government) country. His views on terrorism and the attacks suffered by the US (as previously explained) are, unfortunately, shared by people who are still given time on TV, in newspapers and other media outlets. Freedom of speech is a basic right in this country.
IMHO, the US should not bother bringing this guy back to the states and prosecuting him. They should revoke his citzenship and ban him from the US. "If you don't like it here, don't come back!" There is nothing to gain and everything to lose in giving this man a trial.
Usually, I start out telling them simply that the word is bad. It offends some people and it should not be said (I understand that kids will swear when among kids - I did it, you probably did too). Then, I explain how dumb using such words makes you look and the fact that people simply will not respect you as much if you use these words (ex, Howard Stern). If you cannot find another word in your vocabulary that will portray the same thing as these "bad" words, you must not have a very large vocabulary.
If that doesn't work, I go to the "I'm taking away the Nintendo for a month" trick. That gets them every time.;)
The problem here is that you're letting the government decide how to stop your kids from becoming Howard Stern. Why don't you censor what your kids watch on TV and listen to on the radio?
I have 2 kids. I watch what they watch to make sure it's appropriate, regardless of what the FCC or Walt Disney say. If *I* think a show is too violent, they will not watch it - bottom line. When my kids hear a "bad" word, I explain to them why they shouldn't use that word. I don't rely on our wonderful (note sarcasm) government to raise my children.
As the article says, "let the people vote with their remotes." Leave the shows uncensored - if people don't like it, they won't watch it which will force the networks to tame down their content.
The only problem with this suggestion is that the people that come out to do the install, typically, have no desire to help you. I had waited over 2 months for someone to come out from Direct TV and the Dish Network. Both told me that I had no clear view of the sky (due to trees - I live in the stix) so I simply couldn't get their services.
Then, a friend of my neighbors checked it out (who happens to do Direct TV installs) and had my service installed in 2 days by simply mounting on my existing antennae pole (telephone pole on the side of the house) and running the cable from there.
I would definitely call, but remember that the first guy to come out may not really want to do this job in the first place. Especially if there's something tricky that they'll have to do and not get paid extra for it.
As was explained to me during my recent Direct TV install, anything organic will screw with reception.
That being said, I seriously doubt you could get signal through a roof. And even if you could, come winter, there better not be any snow on that roof.
Personally, I'd make a small platform to hang out my window. But then again, you have to have windows that face the right direction in the first place.
Aha! You see my point! That is why parents SHOULD take the initiative and get involved - not try to let the government embed morals and lessons into their children.
And yes, the day I see one of my children on/. will be the last day they see a computer.
That's all well and good, but I know that I drank well before I was 21. I smoked before I was 18 and I never wore a helmet on my bike. I think the OP is trying to say that it's better for everyone if the parents know how to do these things and actively get involved in protecting their own children rather than yelling at the government when things happen.
Why wouldn't people be interchangeable? Isn't that what CRMs are for? I would rather talk to a guy who can look me up in his database and get my information, problem, history, etc than a guy who has to look through a paper filled file sitting on his desk. What if he is out sick? At lunch? Got hit by a truck?
If this guys company is not at a level where there people are interchangeable like that, he should really look to take care of that major problem before worrying if the people on hold like the Beatles.
Maybe they're not releasing the names because they're on the list? That would be a little embarassing, huh? They'd basically show the list and say "by the way, GOTCHA!"
Note: I have no knowledge of what servers they run to know if this is even possible, it is just a guess.
Actually, this brings up a decent point. Why worry about hold music when you should be worrying about hold times. The music you play to people on hold isn't going to retain or attract customers. Low average hold times could.
if the person who bought the character instead started from scratch, then you'd have two people playing through the game instead of one.
Actually, probably not as the person selling the character wouldn't be creating the character to sell in the first place. And what if the person purchasing the character decided he didn't have the time required to play the entire game in the first place, so he never p(l)ayed at all.
As much as gamers like you hate this, this is part of what keeps these games going. It's all about the Benjamin$ and this tactic brings in more of them.
The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.
Claim that linux isn't free.
Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux
I don't understand a few things about this. Why do people believe this type of thing when Microsoft brings absolutely *NO* proof of any of these claims? Can any of this be considered slander? They're trying to throw mud on Linux's image with no real proof.
And why did this guy sit through this entire "seminar" in the first place?
But, according to this ruling, if nothing tells me that, I don't know it. When I watch a DVD, the only thing telling me I can't copy it is the FBI warning that comes on in the beginning. If this ruling sets a precedent, I could simply state that I did not read this, ergo, I did no wrong.
And in theory, a good lawyer could take this ruling as far as he wanted, applying it to common laws in the same manner. "Sure, I killed him, but I never got around to reading the law that says I couldn't."
Sure, worst case scenario, but this is/. afterall...
Slashdot Mirror
This should be just as effective.
Ah, but so long as you do not say "The theif cut the cable" on the police report, there is no problem. Simply say "My laptop is gone and the cable is cut." This, in fact, is 100% truthful. Only if they directly ask you "Did you cut the cable?" would you *have* to tell the truth...
What is it with Apple making parts that look like Disney characters. If anyone remembers the "yo-yo" power supplies, the cable that went from the wall to the circle part was called the "mouse-ears plug" because the end looked like Mickey Mouse.
I use a SUN USB keyboard - the only odd thing about it is that the Control key and the Caps Lock key are basically switched around. It took some getting used to, but now that I'm used to it, I find it much easier to use.
My real point was that it's a waste of time and money to put this man through our legal system when the "crime" he had commited was of no consequence.
To me, it seems a lot like getting pulled over for a broken tail light or something trivial like that. 9 times out of 10, the cop will give you a warning the first time and expect you to fix it.
I think, if he goes to trial, he will be convicted more for the statements he has made against the US than for the "crime" he commited.
I read a survey which stated that there would be a 50% loss of productive working time as many managers would burst out laughing when their Canadian counterpart said the word "about". This causes too much "down time" in the workplace.
The US spent resources over several years looking for him. They will continue to spend resources in bringing him to the US, providing a fair trial (which will be next to impossible given his statements in the past) and housing and feeding him for the next x years while he sits in prison.
Is he a true criminal? No. The only thing he has actually done that is illegal is play chess in a "bad" (as defined by the US Government) country. His views on terrorism and the attacks suffered by the US (as previously explained) are, unfortunately, shared by people who are still given time on TV, in newspapers and other media outlets. Freedom of speech is a basic right in this country.
IMHO, the US should not bother bringing this guy back to the states and prosecuting him. They should revoke his citzenship and ban him from the US. "If you don't like it here, don't come back!" There is nothing to gain and everything to lose in giving this man a trial.
Usually, I start out telling them simply that the word is bad. It offends some people and it should not be said (I understand that kids will swear when among kids - I did it, you probably did too). Then, I explain how dumb using such words makes you look and the fact that people simply will not respect you as much if you use these words (ex, Howard Stern). If you cannot find another word in your vocabulary that will portray the same thing as these "bad" words, you must not have a very large vocabulary.
If that doesn't work, I go to the "I'm taking away the Nintendo for a month" trick. That gets them every time. ;)
I have 2 kids. I watch what they watch to make sure it's appropriate, regardless of what the FCC or Walt Disney say. If *I* think a show is too violent, they will not watch it - bottom line. When my kids hear a "bad" word, I explain to them why they shouldn't use that word. I don't rely on our wonderful (note sarcasm) government to raise my children.
As the article says, "let the people vote with their remotes." Leave the shows uncensored - if people don't like it, they won't watch it which will force the networks to tame down their content.
Why not use StrokeIt! and have them everywhere?
Then, a friend of my neighbors checked it out (who happens to do Direct TV installs) and had my service installed in 2 days by simply mounting on my existing antennae pole (telephone pole on the side of the house) and running the cable from there.
I would definitely call, but remember that the first guy to come out may not really want to do this job in the first place. Especially if there's something tricky that they'll have to do and not get paid extra for it.
That being said, I seriously doubt you could get signal through a roof. And even if you could, come winter, there better not be any snow on that roof.
Personally, I'd make a small platform to hang out my window. But then again, you have to have windows that face the right direction in the first place.
You mean "this will help for now, please wait until we discontinue the product or come out with another version."
And yes, the day I see one of my children on /. will be the last day they see a computer.
That's all well and good, but I know that I drank well before I was 21. I smoked before I was 18 and I never wore a helmet on my bike. I think the OP is trying to say that it's better for everyone if the parents know how to do these things and actively get involved in protecting their own children rather than yelling at the government when things happen.
If a news source gets their stories from /. and prints them in a way that would change uninformed consumers decisions, this world is in deep shit.
If this guys company is not at a level where there people are interchangeable like that, he should really look to take care of that major problem before worrying if the people on hold like the Beatles.
Note: I have no knowledge of what servers they run to know if this is even possible, it is just a guess.
I'd work on your priorities.
Man, I could go on forever..
Actually, probably not as the person selling the character wouldn't be creating the character to sell in the first place. And what if the person purchasing the character decided he didn't have the time required to play the entire game in the first place, so he never p(l)ayed at all.
As much as gamers like you hate this, this is part of what keeps these games going. It's all about the Benjamin$ and this tactic brings in more of them.
Personally, I'd prefer Denny's.
I don't understand a few things about this. Why do people believe this type of thing when Microsoft brings absolutely *NO* proof of any of these claims? Can any of this be considered slander? They're trying to throw mud on Linux's image with no real proof.
And why did this guy sit through this entire "seminar" in the first place?
So we should watch out for Blaster for Xbox2?
And in theory, a good lawyer could take this ruling as far as he wanted, applying it to common laws in the same manner. "Sure, I killed him, but I never got around to reading the law that says I couldn't."
Sure, worst case scenario, but this is /. afterall...