"When inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them."
If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.
e) Lock the bastards up for fraud -- They lured in new users with the promise of unlimited broadband but didn't allocate enough of their profits to upgrading the network to support them.
I'll happily let the telcos choose between d and e.
You can't overdo it, and you have to tailor your approach to the woman your dealing with. My previous girlfriend responded quite well to me making snide comments about other women, but she would have seen right through feigned outrage.
My current girlfriend is bi. That's a much better solution to the problem.
Congress has passed blatantly unconstitutional laws in the past. They get away with it as long as they remain unchallenged. The Constitution still applies, but applying it would require an AIG exec to take the matter up with the courts.
Disclaimer: A friend of mine was laid off from Tesla.
I think their demand for government money says more about their greed than their viability. If this government subsidy weren't available then they'd be raising capital in the private market, as private ventures ought to.
But the sort of people who normally invest in such ventures are annoying and demanding. If the company does well, they want to share in that profit. If they invest a lot of money, the kind of money that Tesla's looking for, then they might even want a say in how things are run.
A cheap government loan gets around all that. Taxpayers are suckers. We'll loan Tesla $350 million and not demand a single share of stock or a seat on the board. If Tesla crashes and burns then we lose all of the investment, as do the current shareholders. The difference is if Tesla takes off and becomes hugely profitable, then all we get is the interest on the loan. The rest of the profits go to the guys who put in the first $200 million.
So this isn't really a bailout. It is, however, and attempt to privatize profits while socializing losses.
It's hard to see how the 2nd amendment isn't a fundamental individual right.
I went to the link you posted previously. I think the ACLU explains pretty clearly:
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
So they don't see the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. And up until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them.
In my experience, yes. A private school is a business. The parents of students are customers. If the customers decide that they're getting bad service, then they take their money elsewhere.
But you haven't shown that teacher layoffs and hurricanes are correlated. Correlation is a statistic. It's a calculation, and at the end you wind up with a number ranging from -1.0 to 1.0. And even if you do get a high correlation result, whether it's actually significant enough to be worth considering depends on the number of data points you have. Two data points don't make for a meaningful correlation.
The CompUSA near my office went out of business too quickly for me to execute this plan, but perhaps someone else can try it at a store that that's either going under or that you never ever want to return to:
I concede that video games have made certain responses to Jack Thompson's antics come more naturally. Unfortunately, I don't have enough resources to complete the construction of my battlecruiser. Otherwise he'd be in a word of hurt in about five turns.
That's the first thing I thought of when I heard of people cloning their pets. Since clones aren't necessarily identical in appearance or personality, this has the potential to be a great scam. I think I've finally figured out step 2:
Collect $150K to clone dog.
Send mass email with picture to shelters: "Will pay $1000 for puppy that looks like this."
The California Supreme Court has previously ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to marriage rights under the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Prop 8 reverses this, and presents two problems for an employer's attempt to recruit anyone from out of state who is homosexual.
First, people who are married will be highly unlikely to relocate to a state where their marriage won't be recognized.
Secondly, and more seriously, if Prop 8 stands then it will set the precedent that particular group can be stripped of constitutional rights by a simple majority vote. If gays can have their marriage rights taken away by referendum, then any other rights assured by the state constitution are also up for grabs. People will likely be averse to moving to a state where their basic rights are subject to the whims of voters.
Frank Abagnale went to prison. If Mr. Adware were behind bars and bartering his skills for reduced prison time, then I would agree with you. As it is, your option #2 isn't happening for the producers of adware. If it did, then people wouldn't be proposing #1.
Okay, some of them still would. But they'd be fewer in number.
Yes, but the prosecutor can do that even without the account password. All this law does is allow another avenue for introducing reasonable doubt. Any sex offender can say "anyone in the government with an axe to grind and access to this list could have used my login, or given it to someone else to use."
All they need to do is use an internet connection that can't be linked directly to them (e.g., neighbor's wifi, proxy server) and they now have plausible deniability for anything done with the registered account. Granted, the vast majority of internet users aren't tech savvy. But I bet a lot of them will become much more savvy once they're forced to hand over their login information.
This case isn't entrapment. The FBI didn't tempt the accused to commit a crime. The crime had already been committed. They just tried to get him into their jurisdiction. They failed.
Regarding your example: I don't know about "should", but you very well could. If viewing the content is violation of Chinese law, then I would strongly advise you to decline any job offers from China. Yes, it's silly, but not because of the jurisdictional issues. It's the state of government censorship in China that's silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I be both anti-tax and anti-war?
"When inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them."
If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.
My girlfriend is a bit of the jealous type, but she's also as lecherous as I am. She can't catch me looking if she's too busy looking herself. ;)
How about:
e) Lock the bastards up for fraud -- They lured in new users with the promise of unlimited broadband but didn't allocate enough of their profits to upgrading the network to support them.
I'll happily let the telcos choose between d and e.
You can't overdo it, and you have to tailor your approach to the woman your dealing with. My previous girlfriend responded quite well to me making snide comments about other women, but she would have seen right through feigned outrage.
My current girlfriend is bi. That's a much better solution to the problem.
Congress has passed blatantly unconstitutional laws in the past. They get away with it as long as they remain unchallenged. The Constitution still applies, but applying it would require an AIG exec to take the matter up with the courts.
Disclaimer: A friend of mine was laid off from Tesla.
I think their demand for government money says more about their greed than their viability. If this government subsidy weren't available then they'd be raising capital in the private market, as private ventures ought to.
But the sort of people who normally invest in such ventures are annoying and demanding. If the company does well, they want to share in that profit. If they invest a lot of money, the kind of money that Tesla's looking for, then they might even want a say in how things are run.
A cheap government loan gets around all that. Taxpayers are suckers. We'll loan Tesla $350 million and not demand a single share of stock or a seat on the board. If Tesla crashes and burns then we lose all of the investment, as do the current shareholders. The difference is if Tesla takes off and becomes hugely profitable, then all we get is the interest on the loan. The rest of the profits go to the guys who put in the first $200 million.
So this isn't really a bailout. It is, however, and attempt to privatize profits while socializing losses.
It's hard to see how the 2nd amendment isn't a fundamental individual right.
I went to the link you posted previously. I think the ACLU explains pretty clearly:
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
So they don't see the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. And up until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them.
And didn't Valve already show that one solution was to charge less for games?
In my experience, yes. A private school is a business. The parents of students are customers. If the customers decide that they're getting bad service, then they take their money elsewhere.
Why would you buy a mp3 player the size of a suppository anyway?
I can only think of one reason. And I sorely wish I could unthink it.
Circuit City is bankrupt. Apparently this tactic didn't actually keep them competitive. I suspect Office Depot will follow suit.
But you haven't shown that teacher layoffs and hurricanes are correlated. Correlation is a statistic. It's a calculation, and at the end you wind up with a number ranging from -1.0 to 1.0. And even if you do get a high correlation result, whether it's actually significant enough to be worth considering depends on the number of data points you have. Two data points don't make for a meaningful correlation.
Slashdot Editorializing: UR DOIN IT WR -- Oh wait, my bad. Ur doin it rite.
The CompUSA near my office went out of business too quickly for me to execute this plan, but perhaps someone else can try it at a store that that's either going under or that you never ever want to return to:
I concede that video games have made certain responses to Jack Thompson's antics come more naturally. Unfortunately, I don't have enough resources to complete the construction of my battlecruiser. Otherwise he'd be in a word of hurt in about five turns.
That's the first thing I thought of when I heard of people cloning their pets. Since clones aren't necessarily identical in appearance or personality, this has the potential to be a great scam. I think I've finally figured out step 2:
I used to work with a guy who smoked pot frequently, often before coming in to work. So yes it affected his ability to get work done.
He got fired.
If you're picking up the slack for underperforming workers, then that's a management issue.
The California Supreme Court has previously ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to marriage rights under the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Prop 8 reverses this, and presents two problems for an employer's attempt to recruit anyone from out of state who is homosexual.
First, people who are married will be highly unlikely to relocate to a state where their marriage won't be recognized.
Secondly, and more seriously, if Prop 8 stands then it will set the precedent that particular group can be stripped of constitutional rights by a simple majority vote. If gays can have their marriage rights taken away by referendum, then any other rights assured by the state constitution are also up for grabs. People will likely be averse to moving to a state where their basic rights are subject to the whims of voters.
Frank Abagnale went to prison. If Mr. Adware were behind bars and bartering his skills for reduced prison time, then I would agree with you. As it is, your option #2 isn't happening for the producers of adware. If it did, then people wouldn't be proposing #1.
Okay, some of them still would. But they'd be fewer in number.
Yes, but the prosecutor can do that even without the account password. All this law does is allow another avenue for introducing reasonable doubt. Any sex offender can say "anyone in the government with an axe to grind and access to this list could have used my login, or given it to someone else to use."
All they need to do is use an internet connection that can't be linked directly to them (e.g., neighbor's wifi, proxy server) and they now have plausible deniability for anything done with the registered account. Granted, the vast majority of internet users aren't tech savvy. But I bet a lot of them will become much more savvy once they're forced to hand over their login information.
And with this latest bit of chicanery, it seems they've changed the metric to "items ordered per share."
This case isn't entrapment. The FBI didn't tempt the accused to commit a crime. The crime had already been committed. They just tried to get him into their jurisdiction. They failed.
Regarding your example: I don't know about "should", but you very well could. If viewing the content is violation of Chinese law, then I would strongly advise you to decline any job offers from China. Yes, it's silly, but not because of the jurisdictional issues. It's the state of government censorship in China that's silly.
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." - Arthur C. Clarke
Can you provide any examples of Muslim leaders who have been arrested in the US for preaching hatred?