Actually - and I attribute this to good ol' BK - GCC *could* make the problem go away, by recognizing when it is compiling the kernel, and inserting the code itself.
Which companies are those? Time Warner? Time warner doesn't constitute "companies" - last I checked it's only one.
If you meant Time Warner (via Warner Music), it's worth noting that they gave almost half again as much money to Clinton as they did to Obama.
Thanks for the link, I've really found it interesting. I think the MOST interesting part is when you break down where the donations are coming from. *Individuals* at Warner Music gave $500 to Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affiliates.asp?ID=D000000094&Cycle=2008&Type=P Most of the biggest donations to Democrats seem to be from cable/movie content subsidiaries (the WB, HBO, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema). A healthy dose of fear of "family values" censorship, anyone?
Other subsidiaries don't donate with such disparities. Especially interesting is how content DELIVERY subsidiaries (AOL LLC, Time Warner Cable) donate a lot but are pretty split between Democrats and Republicans.
The fact that NETWORKS seem to be trying to buy out both sides is the disturbing thing here, in my opinion.
Noun phrases are recursive, so language is limited only by the stack size of the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identica...
Slashdot is supposed to be about news. I was wondering if we could get a link to the ruling that it was in violation? The fact of the matter is that discovery has not been performed, not all briefs have been submitted, trial has not begun, and rulings on the merits of the case have certainly not been handed down.
It is not the place of random story submitters to make pronouncements about facts and law when they know nothing about either. Facts will be revealed as the case unfolds. As for saying what the law is, don't go spouting off without pincites, k punkin?
There's an argument to be made that the amounts in the McDonald's coffee case were outrageous, but I don't think it's a very strong argument.
Damages in a civil tort action are not limited to those which are compensatory in nature, and "make-whole" damages (what you're probably thinking of as "fair") are largely seen as anachronistic. The leading modern theory in tort actions lies at the intersection of law and economics (and is called exactly that: "law and economics" or L&E); the L&E approach to an action with a corporate tortfeasor would be to impose damages in an amount to disincentivize the behavior which gave rise to the claim. The original award in this case amounted to the profits of one day of coffee sales by McDonald's Corp. Be careful not to conflate this with the total sales of one day of coffee sales - just the profits. McDonald's Corp. literally lost nothing in this lawsuit except the expense of the suit itself and opportunity cost. If you're looking for a genuine disincentive, I'd say that's a bit on the low end.
It's true that plaintiffs may seem to profit unjustly by the L&E approach. I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Usually a lawsuit involves three years, more headache than you can imagine, stress, stress-related illness, stress-related injury, attorneys' fees, credit damage, damage to personal relationships, and often a lot of harassment from the other side before the damages are finalized and paid. After going through all that for something that was deserved in the very beginning, I don't usually have a problem with the plaintiff getting the benefit of that disincentive.
I won't talk about the merits of the case itself, since you only mentioned outrageous lawsuit amounts. But I'm confident that a significant number of people would change their mind at least a little if they knew the entire story.
Off-topic: with Republican fiscal responsibility having been shown to be a myth, and with the Supreme Court as a bulwark against some of the scarier Dem positions, why is your head "with the right"?
They don't differ much on official stances on issues.
What they differ on is their willingness to work with other people (look up some of Obama's IL state legislation crafted w/ help from Republicans), their foreign policy experience and judgment (he's loved in Europe, has lived abroad, works with Kenya extensively, and was prescient about Iraq), their effect on democracy (he is able to make people remember that democracy is about civic involvement; she comes across as entitled, indifferent, and dynastic), their honesty (Obama reveals just about any flaws you might want to know about him in his book, Dreams From My Father; Clinton's life is marred by records of hiding her husband's sexual addiction), and their character (he passed up prestigious clerkships and lucrative offers - he certainly could have gotten a job at Wachtell, the #1 M&A law firm in New York, which recently paid $300,000 monetary compensation plus benefits to first-year associates, who are generally around 24 years old - to work as a community organizer; she chased fame and fortune to the board of Walmart).
A modest suggestion that I hope you'll think about: if "our experience with the current administration" really concerns you, I'd like to think that part of that concern is his disregard for the Constitution.
If you agree, would you also agree that a Constitutional Law professor from one of the top law schools in the country might make a good President?
1) All caps is shouting. I think you meant to use quotes. 2) It's spelled "goddammit." Goddamnit is a 1998 album by the Alkaline Trio. 3) We don't start sentences with "And" 4) Gerunds are nouns. Nouns require determiners. You mean "Your saying..." 5) All caps is shouting. I think you meant to use the emphasis tag. "...is somehow confined..." 6) Time Machine is non-intrinsically confined to the Finder, by virtue of non-power-users not knowing how else to use it. In addressing the question of whether it was, in fact, "not confined to the Finder per say [sic]," you failed to address the core issue of whether there actually might be some non-intrinsic confining of the use of Time Machine by design or circumstance. For this, you fail. 7) Denying the truth of X "per se" does NOT imply a non-intrinsic truth of X; it merely suggests it. You should learn the difference between "imply" and "suggest"... unless you just like to use big-person words you don't understand. 8) Your phrase structure is awkward; it wouldn't "imply that either {X} or you just like to use...." It doesn't imply anything about his likes or dislikes at all. It may indicate them, but it does not suggest them, and it certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, implies them.
Darwin [is the] the robust BSD environment that underlies Mac OS X.
Most of what's in BSD makes it's way into Mac OS X. See above.
But Mac OS X does have a rather longer release cycle so things like this can take two years. Tiger (April 2005) - Leopard (October 2007) = 2y5m FBSD 5.0 (May 2006) - FBSD 6.0 (January 2007) = 0y8m
These are all correct factual statements. How is this trolling?
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
You might feel smug about your +5 Insightful rating. You might think that it somehow validates your post, that it somehow makes you right. I know I sometimes feel that way. But here's the thing: it doesn't, and you aren't.
The logical result of your ideal is aristocracy; only the upper echelons of an industry have lobbying power. In the debate over overtime exemption, who do the lobbyists represent: Microsoft or the programmers? The programmers aren't teenagers in their mother's basement, and to contend otherwise is facetious at best.
So if you want "groups of citizens" -- whose ostensibly collective stance is determined only by the rich and powerful among them -- to control the government, rather than the constituencies of elected representatives to control it, then go ahead. But your argument that there is "little more democratic" than that is untenable.
My hat goes off to you, sir, for Getting It (tm). Are you a lawyer/law student? I'm tired of people who rattle on and on about the law and deliberately spread misinformation (and moderate down correct information). Thank you for pointing out the ethical obligations of the legal profession.
On the other hand, I think that it would be in the client's best interest - if that client is responsible for a lot of GPL software - to set a precedent. It takes a larger up-front effort, but further actions that dispositively rely on the GPL being unenforceable are a 12(b)(6) away from disappearing. Also, it's dangerous to suggest (even remotely) that the client shouldn't want to go to trial; even though it's always better for people to settle, it could be construed as using a lawsuit to extort payment, which of course would be sanctionable.
Whoever keeps deliberately mis-moderating needs to be banned. Who else has nostalgia for the good old days when a majority of Slashdot users ACTUALLY stopped to consider their own biases before moderating?
You fail at reading comprehension.
HIV does not naturally contain loxP sites, so the team created a hybrid of the two DNA molecules, which they used to select a series of mutated Cre enzymes that were increasingly able to recognize the combined DNA. The final enzyme, Tre, removed all traces of HIV from cultured human cervical cells after about three months, the researchers report online today in Science. When "a series of mutated" forms of X are "select[ed for,]" resulting in a "final" Y, that's evolution, not contrivance. The initial cutting with Cre was contrived; Tre is a new enzyme which doesn't need the LoxP sites and recognizes HIV as it is.
Basically, they played that "You have 5 steps to change NET to PAWN changing/adding/removing one letter each time: NET NEW SEW SAW PAW PAWN" game with an enzyme.
This summary is extraordinarily inflammatory. It's a very very very sad reflection on the community that an early poster was modded Flamebait for pointing out that "bashing like this summary is just not necessary" and making a South Park reference.
This summary was written by someone with an axe to grind against the new Congress. Probably a Republican, but that doesn't matter. The point is that it's partisan hackery and has no place on Slashdot.
It's also short on facts, since there isn't any way to know if the change caused a decrease in energy consumption or not -- all you can know is whether *MAKING* the DST change made a *NET* decrease in energy consumption. That is, since IT professionals patching systems until 10pm has through leaving operational systems on five hours longer for a week, etc. causes an increase in energy consumption, the net change this year could be significantly less than the overall change. You're not taking into account the overhead.
Fair enough bout OWA not being great on a regular basis. You have to remember though that this is a full webbrowser, not the built-in thing on most PDAs, so it's likely certain OWA features will be available there that aren't on most. So maybe that's not as bad an option as you thought.
In your situation, I would suggest getting your sysadmin to enable IMAP on the Exchange server. IMAP is *the* open standard for accessing a single mail account from multiple, synchronized clients.
Uh. Why don't you watch the introduction of the iPhone instead of going by rumors? The Exchange server can be accessed via Outlook Web Access. Also, last I checked, you can configure Exchange to handle IMAP connections.
On the other hand, if the server is set up to try to lock out other vendors' clients, that's not Apple's fault, it's your sysadmin's.
Did I just say "freedom" is totalitarian? No. And you know it. So why did you do this?
Yes, you did. "Freedom" with restrictions isn't freedom. You don't like what people do, so you want them to be unable to do it. Well maybe I don't like people speaking Hebrew in America, so we should outlaw Jewish holidays. Maybe I don't like people waving the flags of our enemies, so we should execute half the South for putting Confederate flags on their trucks.
You can't put restrictions on "some freedom." That's not freedom, it's allowance. China started letting people own businesses and doesn't kill as many religious leaders anymore. That doesn't make them a free country. It just means they're being nice. Maybe YOU feel like information exchange should be a privilege. Just about every single other person on Slashdot feels it should be a right. Freedom is a right, and it is or should be an unbounded right, right up until it directly causes harm to other people's rights.
Insisting that community projects have immunity is wrong.
Who's talking about immunity? Immunity from what? Jimmy Wales hasn't done anything but make a Web 2.0 model of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia gets a lot of flak that MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc. don't get. Why? Because people misunderstand what it is. Wikipedia doesn't promise the information is accurate, so to blame them for having "presented [libelous and false claims] as encyclopedic truth" is just ignorant and belligerent. They encourage you to cite outside sources and to correct bad information. They ban users and IPs with histories of bad edits. They allow you to see if the last edit (or five or twenty thousand) were made by an anonymous editor with nothing but an IP, or a registered user with a full user page that displays his or her real name. If YOU decide to trust random IPs as much as or more than accountable persons, that's YOUR fault and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to hold your friggin hand.
And you're goshdang right, I'm a "fundamentalist" about free speech and free press. Every person is. There's a reason it's the friggin FIRST Amendment, not the 7th or 8th. Do you really need this spelled out for you? The First Amendment is the First Amendment because it's fundamental to a free society. You say that "they should be forced to permanently remove entries on people who do not want to have articles about them." Really? What about articles about President Bush? Should he be able to make Wikipedia take those articles down? Is it just because you hate Wikipedia, or do you think people should be able to remove articles about them from anywhere? What about from Slashdot? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will both be glad to hear that. What about Newsweek? CNN?
Wikipedia makes it easy to be semi-anonymous, sure. Guess what? So does a blowhorn in Times Square. It makes no difference that it was online and not in real life. In fact, I'm almost certain that fewer people saw it online than would have heard it in Times Square. The only difference is that online, a third party (Wikipedia) has created a space for people to communicate. And so you want to sue them. That's stupid.
For example, the IP address they stored for this particular entry looks a lot like leading nowhere.
Uh. It led to a place of business where people work. There are about 30 people there. That's not "nowhere." Despite your uninformed verbal diarrhea, there is accountability when proper. I mean, he's already suing the people responsible. What more do you want?
-- PS - It's not a law firm. They're international educational consultants. They train you for the TOEFL. Talk about a lack of accountability - this story is the worst-researched POS I've ever seen on Slashdot. Also, in case it escaped everyone's attention, this man is in professional sports. He chose to be in the public view. If Josef Silny & Associates hires a lawyer who doesn't raise the "public figure" defense, that attorney should be disbarred.
I'm currently a senior at a top rated public school...
Unless you mean Stuyvesant, this doesn't matter. It's actually better to go to a lower-ranked public high school than to many higher-ranked schools, public or private. The marginal bump you get for going to a "good" high school doesn't mean much to admissions officials, because grading standards are arbitrary and, frankly, because high school is such a poor indicator of future success (the only exceptions to these are at the extraordinary high end -- Stuy, Andover, Exeter, Bronx Bcience -- or where an admissions official knows the school's tough on grading so your 3.9 or whatever it works out to be looks a lot better). On the other hand, you can get geographic and socioeconomic status diversity points if you raised hogs in North Dakota and educational diversity points if that meant going to the same eight-person one-room schoolhouse for K-12.
I look forward to majoring in Electrical Engineering. I've already been accepted into Carnegie Mellon University, so I don't need to worry about any 'safety' schools. However, I still have my sights set on getting into a school such as MIT or Cal Tech.
Well, IvyLeage Engineer, you know that none of these schools are in fact in the Ivy League? That's not to say that they're not prestigious, and certainly not to say that they're not good schools. Honestly, though, I'm surprised you didn't apply to Princeton.
My grades are high (95.6 on a 100 scale), I have several leadership positions in clubs, however I'm pretty sure that's not enough. What else can I do to improve my chances of being accepted there? I've already been deferred from early action at both institutions and I'm afraid it's too late to do much at this point. I'm sure there are other people like me wondering just what it takes to get admitted to a prestigious college.
Congrats on the GPA. I'm almost certain that it won't mean much. The fact that it's on a 100 scale in high school is part of my point -- scales and policies are nowhere near uniform across high schools (they aren't in college, either, but they're closer). The leadership positions in clubs can be meaningless, but they can be great, too. It kind of depends on what you get out of it, and how well you communicate that to the admissions office. I'll assume that you had to submit a personal statement or something. If so, and you feel you did a good job conveying the meaningful life lessons you learned (it doesn't matter if you actually did or not, especially at these schools), then you should be golden. Honestly, though, as I hinted at earlier, your personal life is sometimes more important. The real world is something we all have in common, it's the best objective measure of the challenges you've faced, and it's more likely to resonate with real people (admissions officers are people too). I'd say the only things more valuable on an application are meaningful major academic achievements, standardized test scores, and maybe a really stellar recommendation letter by a faculty member who both knows you well personally and has worked with you extensively.
Unfortunately, I think you were right in that there's not a lot you can do now. If you submitted the applications before you got last semester's grades, you could send them an update. But random extra statements or recommendations at this point just look overly anxious, unless the school has an explicit invitation in its application instructions.
That said, chill out. CMU is a great school. There are people who would, literally, kill to get in there. And if you do get accepted to MIT or CalTech, you might be able to finagle more financial aid out of them by asking them to match what CMU offered. A tactful "Well, I really do love your school. It's just that financing school is important to me, and Carnegie Mellon offered me $10,000 more in grant money per year, so it's a tough choice..." usually does the trick.
In the space of two minutes you railed against both free speech and free press, misunderstood what a loophole is, swore at me, advocated a malicious, flippant, and frivolous lawsuit, and denounced community projects. All without getting modded down. Congrats.
Maybe, but there's nothing that protects free speech. The First Amendment limits Congress -- not State legislatures (directly, anyway -- as applied, it limits them too) -- from making laws against certain kinds of speech. Making something illegal and letting someone get money from you when you're a j*****s are two different things.
He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia, because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).
The move also raises two questions. First - why is Puretracks still blocking Mac users? I tried this morning to access the site and was completely blocked using Firefox and partially blocked with Safari. Presumably offering clean MP3 should allow the service to sell to anyone. Second, the move to clean MP3s brings to mind my colleague Jeremy deBeer's posting last November in which he noted that the online music tariff before the Copyright Board appears to include a mandatory DRM provision. Such a provision is obviously incompatible with the Puretracks DRM-free service.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually - and I attribute this to good ol' BK - GCC *could* make the problem go away, by recognizing when it is compiling the kernel, and inserting the code itself.
Just sayin'.
Read this -- http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
Which companies are those? Time Warner? Time warner doesn't constitute "companies" - last I checked it's only one.
If you meant Time Warner (via Warner Music), it's worth noting that they gave almost half again as much money to Clinton as they did to Obama.
Thanks for the link, I've really found it interesting. I think the MOST interesting part is when you break down where the donations are coming from. *Individuals* at Warner Music gave $500 to Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affiliates.asp?ID=D000000094&Cycle=2008&Type=P Most of the biggest donations to Democrats seem to be from cable/movie content subsidiaries (the WB, HBO, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema). A healthy dose of fear of "family values" censorship, anyone?
Other subsidiaries don't donate with such disparities. Especially interesting is how content DELIVERY subsidiaries (AOL LLC, Time Warner Cable) donate a lot but are pretty split between Democrats and Republicans.
The fact that NETWORKS seem to be trying to buy out both sides is the disturbing thing here, in my opinion.
Yeah, there's this little teensy crime called "fraud"...
Noun phrases are recursive, so language is limited only by the stack size of the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identical with the universe, which is identica...
Slashdot is supposed to be about news. I was wondering if we could get a link to the ruling that it was in violation? The fact of the matter is that discovery has not been performed, not all briefs have been submitted, trial has not begun, and rulings on the merits of the case have certainly not been handed down.
It is not the place of random story submitters to make pronouncements about facts and law when they know nothing about either. Facts will be revealed as the case unfolds. As for saying what the law is, don't go spouting off without pincites, k punkin?
There's an argument to be made that the amounts in the McDonald's coffee case were outrageous, but I don't think it's a very strong argument.
Damages in a civil tort action are not limited to those which are compensatory in nature, and "make-whole" damages (what you're probably thinking of as "fair") are largely seen as anachronistic. The leading modern theory in tort actions lies at the intersection of law and economics (and is called exactly that: "law and economics" or L&E); the L&E approach to an action with a corporate tortfeasor would be to impose damages in an amount to disincentivize the behavior which gave rise to the claim. The original award in this case amounted to the profits of one day of coffee sales by McDonald's Corp. Be careful not to conflate this with the total sales of one day of coffee sales - just the profits. McDonald's Corp. literally lost nothing in this lawsuit except the expense of the suit itself and opportunity cost. If you're looking for a genuine disincentive, I'd say that's a bit on the low end.
It's true that plaintiffs may seem to profit unjustly by the L&E approach. I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Usually a lawsuit involves three years, more headache than you can imagine, stress, stress-related illness, stress-related injury, attorneys' fees, credit damage, damage to personal relationships, and often a lot of harassment from the other side before the damages are finalized and paid. After going through all that for something that was deserved in the very beginning, I don't usually have a problem with the plaintiff getting the benefit of that disincentive.
I won't talk about the merits of the case itself, since you only mentioned outrageous lawsuit amounts. But I'm confident that a significant number of people would change their mind at least a little if they knew the entire story.
Off-topic: with Republican fiscal responsibility having been shown to be a myth, and with the Supreme Court as a bulwark against some of the scarier Dem positions, why is your head "with the right"?
They don't differ much on official stances on issues.
What they differ on is their willingness to work with other people (look up some of Obama's IL state legislation crafted w/ help from Republicans), their foreign policy experience and judgment (he's loved in Europe, has lived abroad, works with Kenya extensively, and was prescient about Iraq), their effect on democracy (he is able to make people remember that democracy is about civic involvement; she comes across as entitled, indifferent, and dynastic), their honesty (Obama reveals just about any flaws you might want to know about him in his book, Dreams From My Father; Clinton's life is marred by records of hiding her husband's sexual addiction), and their character (he passed up prestigious clerkships and lucrative offers - he certainly could have gotten a job at Wachtell, the #1 M&A law firm in New York, which recently paid $300,000 monetary compensation plus benefits to first-year associates, who are generally around 24 years old - to work as a community organizer; she chased fame and fortune to the board of Walmart).
A modest suggestion that I hope you'll think about: if "our experience with the current administration" really concerns you, I'd like to think that part of that concern is his disregard for the Constitution.
If you agree, would you also agree that a Constitutional Law professor from one of the top law schools in the country might make a good President?
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/10/barack_obama.html
1) All caps is shouting. I think you meant to use quotes. ... unless you just like to use big-person words you don't understand.
2) It's spelled "goddammit." Goddamnit is a 1998 album by the Alkaline Trio.
3) We don't start sentences with "And"
4) Gerunds are nouns. Nouns require determiners. You mean "Your saying..."
5) All caps is shouting. I think you meant to use the emphasis tag. "...is somehow confined..."
6) Time Machine is non-intrinsically confined to the Finder, by virtue of non-power-users not knowing how else to use it. In addressing the question of whether it was, in fact, "not confined to the Finder per say [sic]," you failed to address the core issue of whether there actually might be some non-intrinsic confining of the use of Time Machine by design or circumstance. For this, you fail.
7) Denying the truth of X "per se" does NOT imply a non-intrinsic truth of X; it merely suggests it. You should learn the difference between "imply" and "suggest"
8) Your phrase structure is awkward; it wouldn't "imply that either {X} or you just like to use...." It doesn't imply anything about his likes or dislikes at all. It may indicate them, but it does not suggest them, and it certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, implies them.
Please, think about what you're saying!
Mac OS is BSD
Let's check http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:59st5nC2IpAJ:www.opensource.apple.com/ shall we?
Also, http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:aaotxMNAvXsJ:www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
Most of what's in BSD makes it's way into Mac OS X.
See above.
But Mac OS X does have a rather longer release cycle so things like this can take two years.
Tiger (April 2005) - Leopard (October 2007) = 2y5m
FBSD 5.0 (May 2006) - FBSD 6.0 (January 2007) = 0y8m
These are all correct factual statements. How is this trolling?
You might feel smug about your +5 Insightful rating. You might think that it somehow validates your post, that it somehow makes you right. I know I sometimes feel that way. But here's the thing: it doesn't, and you aren't.
The logical result of your ideal is aristocracy; only the upper echelons of an industry have lobbying power. In the debate over overtime exemption, who do the lobbyists represent: Microsoft or the programmers? The programmers aren't teenagers in their mother's basement, and to contend otherwise is facetious at best.
So if you want "groups of citizens" -- whose ostensibly collective stance is determined only by the rich and powerful among them -- to control the government, rather than the constituencies of elected representatives to control it, then go ahead. But your argument that there is "little more democratic" than that is untenable.
My hat goes off to you, sir, for Getting It (tm). Are you a lawyer/law student? I'm tired of people who rattle on and on about the law and deliberately spread misinformation (and moderate down correct information). Thank you for pointing out the ethical obligations of the legal profession.
On the other hand, I think that it would be in the client's best interest - if that client is responsible for a lot of GPL software - to set a precedent. It takes a larger up-front effort, but further actions that dispositively rely on the GPL being unenforceable are a 12(b)(6) away from disappearing. Also, it's dangerous to suggest (even remotely) that the client shouldn't want to go to trial; even though it's always better for people to settle, it could be construed as using a lawsuit to extort payment, which of course would be sanctionable.
Whoever keeps deliberately mis-moderating needs to be banned. Who else has nostalgia for the good old days when a majority of Slashdot users ACTUALLY stopped to consider their own biases before moderating?
Basically, they played that "You have 5 steps to change NET to PAWN changing/adding/removing one letter each time: NET NEW SEW SAW PAW PAWN" game with an enzyme.
This summary is extraordinarily inflammatory. It's a very very very sad reflection on the community that an early poster was modded Flamebait for pointing out that "bashing like this summary is just not necessary" and making a South Park reference.
This summary was written by someone with an axe to grind against the new Congress. Probably a Republican, but that doesn't matter. The point is that it's partisan hackery and has no place on Slashdot.
It's also short on facts, since there isn't any way to know if the change caused a decrease in energy consumption or not -- all you can know is whether *MAKING* the DST change made a *NET* decrease in energy consumption. That is, since IT professionals patching systems until 10pm has through leaving operational systems on five hours longer for a week, etc. causes an increase in energy consumption, the net change this year could be significantly less than the overall change. You're not taking into account the overhead.
Fair enough bout OWA not being great on a regular basis. You have to remember though that this is a full webbrowser, not the built-in thing on most PDAs, so it's likely certain OWA features will be available there that aren't on most. So maybe that's not as bad an option as you thought.
In your situation, I would suggest getting your sysadmin to enable IMAP on the Exchange server. IMAP is *the* open standard for accessing a single mail account from multiple, synchronized clients.
Uh. Why don't you watch the introduction of the iPhone instead of going by rumors? The Exchange server can be accessed via Outlook Web Access. Also, last I checked, you can configure Exchange to handle IMAP connections.
On the other hand, if the server is set up to try to lock out other vendors' clients, that's not Apple's fault, it's your sysadmin's.
Yes, you did. "Freedom" with restrictions isn't freedom. You don't like what people do, so you want them to be unable to do it. Well maybe I don't like people speaking Hebrew in America, so we should outlaw Jewish holidays. Maybe I don't like people waving the flags of our enemies, so we should execute half the South for putting Confederate flags on their trucks.
You can't put restrictions on "some freedom." That's not freedom, it's allowance. China started letting people own businesses and doesn't kill as many religious leaders anymore. That doesn't make them a free country. It just means they're being nice. Maybe YOU feel like information exchange should be a privilege. Just about every single other person on Slashdot feels it should be a right. Freedom is a right, and it is or should be an unbounded right, right up until it directly causes harm to other people's rights.
Who's talking about immunity? Immunity from what? Jimmy Wales hasn't done anything but make a Web 2.0 model of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia gets a lot of flak that MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc. don't get. Why? Because people misunderstand what it is. Wikipedia doesn't promise the information is accurate, so to blame them for having "presented [libelous and false claims] as encyclopedic truth" is just ignorant and belligerent. They encourage you to cite outside sources and to correct bad information. They ban users and IPs with histories of bad edits. They allow you to see if the last edit (or five or twenty thousand) were made by an anonymous editor with nothing but an IP, or a registered user with a full user page that displays his or her real name. If YOU decide to trust random IPs as much as or more than accountable persons, that's YOUR fault and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to hold your friggin hand.
And you're goshdang right, I'm a "fundamentalist" about free speech and free press. Every person is. There's a reason it's the friggin FIRST Amendment, not the 7th or 8th. Do you really need this spelled out for you? The First Amendment is the First Amendment because it's fundamental to a free society. You say that "they should be forced to permanently remove entries on people who do not want to have articles about them." Really? What about articles about President Bush? Should he be able to make Wikipedia take those articles down? Is it just because you hate Wikipedia, or do you think people should be able to remove articles about them from anywhere? What about from Slashdot? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will both be glad to hear that. What about Newsweek? CNN?
Wikipedia makes it easy to be semi-anonymous, sure. Guess what? So does a blowhorn in Times Square. It makes no difference that it was online and not in real life. In fact, I'm almost certain that fewer people saw it online than would have heard it in Times Square. The only difference is that online, a third party (Wikipedia) has created a space for people to communicate. And so you want to sue them. That's stupid.
Uh. It led to a place of business where people work. There are about 30 people there. That's not "nowhere." Despite your uninformed verbal diarrhea, there is accountability when proper. I mean, he's already suing the people responsible. What more do you want?
--
PS - It's not a law firm. They're international educational consultants. They train you for the TOEFL. Talk about a lack of accountability - this story is the worst-researched POS I've ever seen on Slashdot. Also, in case it escaped everyone's attention, this man is in professional sports. He chose to be in the public view. If Josef Silny & Associates hires a lawyer who doesn't raise the "public figure" defense, that attorney should be disbarred.
Unless you mean Stuyvesant, this doesn't matter. It's actually better to go to a lower-ranked public high school than to many higher-ranked schools, public or private. The marginal bump you get for going to a "good" high school doesn't mean much to admissions officials, because grading standards are arbitrary and, frankly, because high school is such a poor indicator of future success (the only exceptions to these are at the extraordinary high end -- Stuy, Andover, Exeter, Bronx Bcience -- or where an admissions official knows the school's tough on grading so your 3.9 or whatever it works out to be looks a lot better). On the other hand, you can get geographic and socioeconomic status diversity points if you raised hogs in North Dakota and educational diversity points if that meant going to the same eight-person one-room schoolhouse for K-12.
Well, IvyLeage Engineer, you know that none of these schools are in fact in the Ivy League? That's not to say that they're not prestigious, and certainly not to say that they're not good schools. Honestly, though, I'm surprised you didn't apply to Princeton.
Congrats on the GPA. I'm almost certain that it won't mean much. The fact that it's on a 100 scale in high school is part of my point -- scales and policies are nowhere near uniform across high schools (they aren't in college, either, but they're closer). The leadership positions in clubs can be meaningless, but they can be great, too. It kind of depends on what you get out of it, and how well you communicate that to the admissions office. I'll assume that you had to submit a personal statement or something. If so, and you feel you did a good job conveying the meaningful life lessons you learned (it doesn't matter if you actually did or not, especially at these schools), then you should be golden. Honestly, though, as I hinted at earlier, your personal life is sometimes more important. The real world is something we all have in common, it's the best objective measure of the challenges you've faced, and it's more likely to resonate with real people (admissions officers are people too). I'd say the only things more valuable on an application are meaningful major academic achievements, standardized test scores, and maybe a really stellar recommendation letter by a faculty member who both knows you well personally and has worked with you extensively.
Unfortunately, I think you were right in that there's not a lot you can do now. If you submitted the applications before you got last semester's grades, you could send them an update. But random extra statements or recommendations at this point just look overly anxious, unless the school has an explicit invitation in its application instructions.
That said, chill out. CMU is a great school. There are people who would, literally, kill to get in there. And if you do get accepted to MIT or CalTech, you might be able to finagle more financial aid out of them by asking them to match what CMU offered. A tactful "Well, I really do love your school. It's just that financing school is important to me, and Carnegie Mellon offered me $10,000 more in grant money per year, so it's a tough choice..." usually does the trick.
Good luck.
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
In the space of two minutes you railed against both free speech and free press, misunderstood what a loophole is, swore at me, advocated a malicious, flippant, and frivolous lawsuit, and denounced community projects. All without getting modded down. Congrats.
You mean "libel, not slander." Slander and libel are both forms of defamation.
Maybe, but there's nothing that protects free speech. The First Amendment limits Congress -- not State legislatures (directly, anyway -- as applied, it limits them too) -- from making laws against certain kinds of speech. Making something illegal and letting someone get money from you when you're a j*****s are two different things.
He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia , because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).
That doesn't do any good when they won't even let you access the FAQ!
Also see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=1719&Itemid=125