Either he is not alone or I've met that friend of yours. In a previous/. discussion some guy claimed to have started a business around moving companies to Gmail. We promptly pointed out that such a business would be a major violation of Google's terms of use (you know, the one stating Gmail is for personal use only) and thus a lawsuit waiting to happen. Still havn't heard back from him...
First of all, your origional statement was criticizing your father for thinking that it stands for Annual Percentage Rate, so even claiming that only once in a great while it stands for "above the prime rate" is sufficient to refute your point.
Second, yes, please show me a legitimate contract where it stands for "above the prime rate". I'm really interested to know how many legit businesses use it in that way.
Third, the fact you think Google is sufficient for research tells me all I need to know about the credibility of your sources.
No, trust me, APR stands for AnnualPercentageRate. I think the Federal Reserve, the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the Wikipedia community are going to be know more about what APR stands for than some random preacher you found on the Internet. All that link could possibly prove is that the net is full of idiots, something you have already proven with your "Ted Turner is the leader of a massive Jewish conspiracy" signature. Although I think that guy may have known what APR really means and was just using a common literary device to add humor to his sermon.
At the very least, he should have cited that source. Currently only two sources are cited, and neither of them have those exact facts.
I seem to remember other instances where Wikipedia articles were just copied and pasted from other sources, it does not surprise me at all that some of the articles are plagurized.
Re:Spam is dead for me.
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"We're switching 3 big companies from Exchange to gmail."
Unless you work for Google (in which case you should have mentioned it before you started this thread) that is almost certainly a violation of their Terms of Use.
Corporate email on Gmail?
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
You moved your business to gmail? As far as I know, Google has not come out with a corporate email solution. I hate to second guess your business decisions, but doesn't that sort of violate Google's Terms of Use? You know, the one saying "The Service is made available to you for your personal use only"? And add to that, I don't think Gmail has the security needed for business operations. Screw the fact that it makes you look unprofessional, it makes you look like you don't give a crap about security or business agreements, both of which make you look really bad to your customers.
"
See, laptops have these great things called ports on them. They let you plug in desktop peripherals, such as monitors, keyboards, and mice, directly into your laptop."
...or better yet, just get a docking station and you don't have to worry about all those cables. Of course if you are doing that, "using a laptop" isn't that accurate of a description.
But being that this guy is using his computer 15 hours a day, I think less flexibility would be better, it would force him to get off the damn thing every once in a while.
"
Many people see the effects when they learn something physically new, then go to sleep, and are better at it when they wake up. Not getting enough rest will cause loss of coordination, balance problems, concentration problems, shortened memory retention, make learning more difficult, and weaken the immune system, among other things."
I'll second that. Back in college, I used to try to stay up late doing my math homework. Have you ever tried to do number theory or abstract algebra at 2 a.m.? Its not that much fun. Nothing made sense, my proofs were off the wall, and my handwriting was scribble (ok, its normally bad, but this looked like a 7 year old had written it). Then I figured out that if I just went to sleep and crammed in the morning, I could get it done just fine. The problem that I spent an hour on in the night could be completed in 10 minutes in the morning. Of course an even better strategy would be to do it ahead of time, but then I was watching TV...
"I live in Holland, and here it's very hard to offend someone."
I think Theo Van Gogh may disagree with that. And a few minutes on Google reveals Chris Crain may have offended a few guys. Same with these guys.
Yeah, everyone over there in the Netherlands are very tolerant and no one is ever offended by anything.
"I don't know of any country in the EU where it's illegal to discuss something from the WWII era, only Germany where denying the holocaust is illegal."
Well obviously that was hyperbole referring to stuff like this.
Its because there is an old ethnic slur comparing people of African descent to monkeys. You may not have heard of it and the computer almost certainly has not heard of it (it is just doing statistical relations), but people can still get insulted regarding it.
And it certainly does not just occur in the United States. I remember a couple of years ago Conan O'Brian did a show in Canada and did a segment making fun of French Canadians which he got run out of the country for. And then there are plenty of examples in the Islamic world throwing fits whenever someone uses the word 'crusade'. And don't get me started about Europe where even mentioning events that happened 70-60 years ago is illegal. You didn't mention where you are from, but I'm sure there people are also bound to get offended by some innocent remark.
"When you consider speech is an act, you can also consider think is an act. And when doing so, applying all the rules that apply on the acts (i.e. some are forbidden) to thought. Thought crime, isn't it ?"
Except I can easily make an argument as to why people cannot feel consequences over what they just think of (in fact it is rather trivial, since no one else can know what they are thinking, no one can react to their thought). Can you do that with regard to speech? So far every attept has been a failure.
"When you say "speech is act", what i hear is a nice parrallel with "intellectual property" is like "physical property", and so, copy = theft. I find it pretty logical in a cerain sense."
...ok. I fail to see what intellectual property has to do with this discussion, but its not like many of your previous posts make much sense.
"And as a last remark, if you rant publicly on your girlfriend, I can't see, anyway, what you are doing with her; but in private relation, no problem, you (or her) can end it as you want."
So you admit that you do not have "freedom from consequences" regarding something you said?
"In a contractual relation, finding you are abused (the other is not doing his part) should mean you can criticize (even publicly) the other part, without the contract being interrupted."
Show me where the student and university had signed a contract stating that they would never deny him his scholarship or suspend him regardless of anything he does. It is almost always the case in scenarios like this that the university retains the right to throw someone out of school if they deem appropriate (hence the large number of college dropouts).
"
Excuse me, but I find it strange : if she "deny" him sex, she can't have sex too ?"
Sure she can, just not with him.
Yes, she will potentially lose out some as well (just as the university will potentially lose out when they cancel their relationship with a student). But if you just called her a 'cockmaster' on your public blog, I doubt she will consider it too much of a loss.
"I wrote : "Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts." Excuse me, but what part of "speech. Not acts" did I spell wrong ? English is not my native language."
Speech is an act. You open your mouth and expel air through your vocal chords in such a way that it forms recognizable sounds (or if you are a blogger, you move your hands around on a keyboard in such a way that the computer records recognizable strings). Now you can get in a semantics debate on the word "act", but semantics is not enough to establish such a wild claim that no one should be allowed to suffer any consequence for what they say. You thus differentiated it from other actions due to the fact it is avoidable. Your argument was of the form:
Speech is an avoidable action.
People should suffer no consequnces if the action they performed was avoidable.
Thus people should suffer no consequences regarding anything they say
So I gave an example of another avoidable action, a bombing with ample warning. If your argument is sound, the bomber in that scenario should suffer no consequences as a result of what he did.
"
But the building can't escape. So not everyone and everything is safe."
Great, the building can sue me. If it makes you feel better, assume this is a dirty bomb. All buildings and other inanimate objects are safe, but any people foolish enough to remain in the area after I earmarked it for destruction die painful deaths.
"
A slight difference : your girlfriend can dump you. That's OK. But there is no hierachial link between you, or if you prefer, she has no power so to say upon you. (Nothing personnal, of course, i don't know your girlfriend:))"
You had better hope no women you are ever interested in hears you say that...
A person's girlfriend certainly does have some power in the relationship. For instance she has the power to deny her boyfriend sex with her. Just as a university has the power to deny a student their scholarship or access to their program.
"
Freedom of speech _should_mean_ freedom from consequences. Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts. When someone fires on you, you can't decide to dodge the bullet. When someone wrongly criticize you, you can safely ignore it. And you can safely ignore everyone who is stupid enough to listen it and believe it without any evidence."
So one should only feel consequences from an action if the other party had no way to avoid it? Meaning that as long as I give sufficient advance warning, I can do pretty much anything and be free from the consequences? If I announce that tomorrow I am going to set off a bomb in a certain building, everyone can safely avoid that building and be safe from my bomb. Does that mean nothing can happen to me as a result of that particular action?
No, in the real world it does not work that way. Anything you do or say may have consequences. Thats life. If you criticize someone unjustly, you will hurt your current and any potential relationship you may have with that person which may well have negative consequences if you need that person for something (for instance to train you to become a dentist).
Well first of all, since you didn't RTFA (or even the/. summary) he did not get suspended nor did he lose his scholarship. Those were reversed on appeal.
Second of all, in many programs getting kicked out of a class could result in a loss of a scholarship or a suspension.
Are you trying to say that the school signed a contract guaranteeing him he would never be placed on probation? Or even (if you missed the part about his sentence being reduced) guaranteeing him that scholarship, or the right to attend their university?
"...it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs."
Well if he critized members of the university in his blog, that is certainly at least a connection.
Come on people, this isn't about freedom of speech at all. Of course he has the freedom to say what he wants to say about his professors and peers. What he does not have is the freedom against having those professors and peers and their university getting upset at him (to the point where they are willing to deny him their services) for what he said.
I mean if you were to call your girlfriend names like those in your blog, are you going to run crying to the EFF when she finds out and dumps you?
Uh, elephants, which are very large mammals with very large brains (much larger than a human's, as noted by another poster) are more than capable of beating gravitiy and surviving. Baluchitherium is the largest known land mammal to have ever lived, and it grew to twice the size of elephants. Of course these animals had body structures specially designed to carry their size, so Kong's porportions may in fact be impossible (he would need very thick legs, especially if were to be capable of bipedal motion), but you can say that about most Hollywood actresses.
Blue whales are even bigger than crocodiles, but that doesn't make them the world's largest lizard either. This is because for most people an important requirement for being the world's largest lizard is being a lizard, and neither the blue whale nor the crocodile are lizards.
Slashdot Mirror
Either he is not alone or I've met that friend of yours. In a previous /. discussion some guy claimed to have started a business around moving companies to Gmail. We promptly pointed out that such a business would be a major violation of Google's terms of use (you know, the one stating Gmail is for personal use only) and thus a lawsuit waiting to happen. Still havn't heard back from him...
Second, yes, please show me a legitimate contract where it stands for "above the prime rate". I'm really interested to know how many legit businesses use it in that way.
Third, the fact you think Google is sufficient for research tells me all I need to know about the credibility of your sources.
I'm pretty sure Immanuel Kant wrote about that over two hundred years ago. I wouldn't consider it exactly 'new'.
No, trust me, APR stands for Annual Percentage Rate. I think the Federal Reserve, the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the Wikipedia community are going to be know more about what APR stands for than some random preacher you found on the Internet. All that link could possibly prove is that the net is full of idiots, something you have already proven with your "Ted Turner is the leader of a massive Jewish conspiracy" signature. Although I think that guy may have known what APR really means and was just using a common literary device to add humor to his sermon.
I seem to remember other instances where Wikipedia articles were just copied and pasted from other sources, it does not surprise me at all that some of the articles are plagurized.
Unless you work for Google (in which case you should have mentioned it before you started this thread) that is almost certainly a violation of their Terms of Use.
You moved your business to gmail? As far as I know, Google has not come out with a corporate email solution. I hate to second guess your business decisions, but doesn't that sort of violate Google's Terms of Use? You know, the one saying "The Service is made available to you for your personal use only"? And add to that, I don't think Gmail has the security needed for business operations. Screw the fact that it makes you look unprofessional, it makes you look like you don't give a crap about security or business agreements, both of which make you look really bad to your customers.
But being that this guy is using his computer 15 hours a day, I think less flexibility would be better, it would force him to get off the damn thing every once in a while.
I'll second that. Back in college, I used to try to stay up late doing my math homework. Have you ever tried to do number theory or abstract algebra at 2 a.m.? Its not that much fun. Nothing made sense, my proofs were off the wall, and my handwriting was scribble (ok, its normally bad, but this looked like a 7 year old had written it). Then I figured out that if I just went to sleep and crammed in the morning, I could get it done just fine. The problem that I spent an hour on in the night could be completed in 10 minutes in the morning. Of course an even better strategy would be to do it ahead of time, but then I was watching TV...
Apparently not too hard. News Corp is the parent company.
MySpace users have wallets? I thought most of them were 12 year old kids...
The British newspaper? How does it control MySpace? Surely you mean News Corp, the name of the parent company.
I think Theo Van Gogh may disagree with that. And a few minutes on Google reveals Chris Crain may have offended a few guys. Same with these guys.
Yeah, everyone over there in the Netherlands are very tolerant and no one is ever offended by anything.
"I don't know of any country in the EU where it's illegal to discuss something from the WWII era, only Germany where denying the holocaust is illegal."
Well obviously that was hyperbole referring to stuff like this.
And it certainly does not just occur in the United States. I remember a couple of years ago Conan O'Brian did a show in Canada and did a segment making fun of French Canadians which he got run out of the country for. And then there are plenty of examples in the Islamic world throwing fits whenever someone uses the word 'crusade'. And don't get me started about Europe where even mentioning events that happened 70-60 years ago is illegal. You didn't mention where you are from, but I'm sure there people are also bound to get offended by some innocent remark.
Except I can easily make an argument as to why people cannot feel consequences over what they just think of (in fact it is rather trivial, since no one else can know what they are thinking, no one can react to their thought). Can you do that with regard to speech? So far every attept has been a failure.
"When you say "speech is act", what i hear is a nice parrallel with "intellectual property" is like "physical property", and so, copy = theft. I find it pretty logical in a cerain sense."
"And as a last remark, if you rant publicly on your girlfriend, I can't see, anyway, what you are doing with her; but in private relation, no problem, you (or her) can end it as you want."
So you admit that you do not have "freedom from consequences" regarding something you said?
"In a contractual relation, finding you are abused (the other is not doing his part) should mean you can criticize (even publicly) the other part, without the contract being interrupted."
Show me where the student and university had signed a contract stating that they would never deny him his scholarship or suspend him regardless of anything he does. It is almost always the case in scenarios like this that the university retains the right to throw someone out of school if they deem appropriate (hence the large number of college dropouts).
Sure she can, just not with him.
Yes, she will potentially lose out some as well (just as the university will potentially lose out when they cancel their relationship with a student). But if you just called her a 'cockmaster' on your public blog, I doubt she will consider it too much of a loss.
"I wrote : "Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts." Excuse me, but what part of "speech. Not acts" did I spell wrong ? English is not my native language."
Speech is an act. You open your mouth and expel air through your vocal chords in such a way that it forms recognizable sounds (or if you are a blogger, you move your hands around on a keyboard in such a way that the computer records recognizable strings). Now you can get in a semantics debate on the word "act", but semantics is not enough to establish such a wild claim that no one should be allowed to suffer any consequence for what they say. You thus differentiated it from other actions due to the fact it is avoidable. Your argument was of the form:
So I gave an example of another avoidable action, a bombing with ample warning. If your argument is sound, the bomber in that scenario should suffer no consequences as a result of what he did." But the building can't escape. So not everyone and everything is safe."
Great, the building can sue me. If it makes you feel better, assume this is a dirty bomb. All buildings and other inanimate objects are safe, but any people foolish enough to remain in the area after I earmarked it for destruction die painful deaths.
Are you familiar with what a scholarship is? Usually it is not something you pay for.
Actually, no, only Congress is subject to the First Amendment.
You had better hope no women you are ever interested in hears you say that...
A person's girlfriend certainly does have some power in the relationship. For instance she has the power to deny her boyfriend sex with her. Just as a university has the power to deny a student their scholarship or access to their program.
" Freedom of speech _should_mean_ freedom from consequences. Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts. When someone fires on you, you can't decide to dodge the bullet. When someone wrongly criticize you, you can safely ignore it. And you can safely ignore everyone who is stupid enough to listen it and believe it without any evidence."
So one should only feel consequences from an action if the other party had no way to avoid it? Meaning that as long as I give sufficient advance warning, I can do pretty much anything and be free from the consequences? If I announce that tomorrow I am going to set off a bomb in a certain building, everyone can safely avoid that building and be safe from my bomb. Does that mean nothing can happen to me as a result of that particular action?
No, in the real world it does not work that way. Anything you do or say may have consequences. Thats life. If you criticize someone unjustly, you will hurt your current and any potential relationship you may have with that person which may well have negative consequences if you need that person for something (for instance to train you to become a dentist).
Second of all, in many programs getting kicked out of a class could result in a loss of a scholarship or a suspension.
Are you trying to say that the school signed a contract guaranteeing him he would never be placed on probation? Or even (if you missed the part about his sentence being reduced) guaranteeing him that scholarship, or the right to attend their university?
Well if he critized members of the university in his blog, that is certainly at least a connection.
Come on people, this isn't about freedom of speech at all. Of course he has the freedom to say what he wants to say about his professors and peers. What he does not have is the freedom against having those professors and peers and their university getting upset at him (to the point where they are willing to deny him their services) for what he said.
I mean if you were to call your girlfriend names like those in your blog, are you going to run crying to the EFF when she finds out and dumps you?
BTW, for the record I am not really a Van Halen fan, I just couldn't think of a less embarrassing band associated with the 1980s.
Uh, elephants, which are very large mammals with very large brains (much larger than a human's, as noted by another poster) are more than capable of beating gravitiy and surviving. Baluchitherium is the largest known land mammal to have ever lived, and it grew to twice the size of elephants. Of course these animals had body structures specially designed to carry their size, so Kong's porportions may in fact be impossible (he would need very thick legs, especially if were to be capable of bipedal motion), but you can say that about most Hollywood actresses.
Blue whales are even bigger than crocodiles, but that doesn't make them the world's largest lizard either. This is because for most people an important requirement for being the world's largest lizard is being a lizard, and neither the blue whale nor the crocodile are lizards.