Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?... because if someone is going to make money from what I write, directly or indirectly, I want a cut of it. If my work is good enough for you to make money from, it's good enough to pay me for it. This holds true whether in the classroom or not.
Also, as a writer, it's my article. If I want to sell it, it's my right to do so. If the person I sell it to turns around and uses it for standards that are less than ethical, that's between him and his school. It does not give his school the rights to what I write.
In addition, as a student (and a Libertarian), I object as a matter of principle to tracking, profiling, and invasions of privacy in general. This holds true whether it's done directly by the school, or through the use of a third party. Technology has made it way too easy to gather way too much information on people. It's true that it requires some creativity to envision scenarios where this particular data could come back to haunt you (unless, of course, you run for political office, or say something that could later be used against you as a public figure); however, it sets a bad precedent. Either the school should have the right to hand out your information, records, and other information to third parties, or it shouldn't. Given the existing laws regarding release of student information, it seems to me that people already feel those records have reasons to be protected.
Let's put this another way:
We're going to put a GPS tracking system in [You, your car, your kids]. It will only be used to [catch terrorists, find kidnapping victims, stop speeding on highways]. Why would a person not want to participate in a system that helps to [ensure safety, save lives, protect children]?
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and principles are worth fighting for.
It was, however, America West (in Phoenix) - they don't scan barcodes.
When closing out the flight, it's done by manually typing in the seat number. I know this because I worked for Mesa Airlines (America West Express), and used the system myself.
This was pre merger - it may have changed since they merged with US Airways.
In your example, what if the duplicate is indistinguishable from the original (which pirate copies often are, as far as the data goes).
I printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as.pdf files and print them from the PC).
They most certainly accepted it, and I got on the flight without issue. Was what I did legal? Probably not. The airline got their money, I paid for my ticket, and I got on the plane. Whether or not it was technically legal, was it wrong? Who was harmed by my actions - the airline? Society as a whole? Me?
Intercept the vote as it's being cast, write the wrong vote to the CD-R in realtime.
No longer to eject than before. It's slightly easier to catch this way; however, they aren't supposed to tamper with the machine during elections anyway.
Two receipts causes issues, as it's possible to prove who you voted for (and by extension, sell your vote).
There's an easier solution. Have the voting machine print out your vote on a paper ballot, with a barcode at the bottom (a checksum). Read it optically, read the barcode. If the two don't match, spit it out.
You can easily verify your vote, as you hold the ballot before it's counted (just like the current one). Hanging chads, etc. aren't an issue - black marks are printed on the page. The computer knows which you selected, and the barcode is based off of it, so the odds of a mis-read counted ballot are zero. Also, if you walk off with your ballot, it's not counted, so you can't prove who you voted for.
Not particularly difficult, either. You could retrofit a scantron to do it. The other nice thing about this is that even if the voting machine is completly compromised, the user can still detect it, because the supervised counting machine reads it both ways. Heck, if there's an issue (exit polls don't match), you can run all the ballots through a counting machine from a different precinct to make sure. 100% auditing ability.
Came across one of these locally - I only noticed it because the adhesive had come loose.
The device was a little over a half inch thick, and had a slot through which the card went. This device was placed over the normal ATM card slot. When you put your card in, it got read by the device, and the ATM sucked it in and read it there.
I found out from the bank that the PIN was read through a hidden camera nearby. The "nice" thing about a setup like this is that no change is made to the ATM itself. To add insult to injury, even if you type in the wrong PIN first, they still got both on camera, and can pull the mag stripe data from the memory in the device.
Sure, over time, things will tend to go up. That being said, in many areas, gains of 30% or more happened over the past year - that's simply not sustainable. In many of those places, builders have built huge amounts of homes - far more than the market can support.
In Phoenix, for example, sales are at record lows for this time of year (sales to inventory ratios - even without seasonal adjustments), and inventories are at the highest levels ever. Builders are literally walking away from developments, and large numbers of apartments that were converted to condos last year are being converted back to apartment. Selling prices (not asking prices) are way down from last year, and even Realtor.com is admitting that to sell your home, you have to be willing to cut a deal.
It's going to be a great time to _buy_ soon, but don't plan on flipping the house for a quick buck any time soon. If you wait long enough, you will make a profit (or die, in which chase it doesn't really matter).
So, you're NATTed. When someone tries to connect to you, it doesn't know where to send the traffic, so it's dropped. That's nice and good; however, it doesn't protect you from:
1) Macro viruses in documents you open 2) Web sites you visit (WMF exploit, anyone) 3) Privelege escalation through plugins (java - buggy VM, flash, etc.) 4) Infected media you come in contact with (including things on commercially manufactured CDs - Sony Rootkit, etc.) 5) Software you install that comes with backdoors/"autoupdate"/etc. (Comet Cursor, Bonsai Buddy) 6) Vulnerable software installed on your PC (IE, things w/ buffer overflows, IE, applications relying on DNS for update security, IE, games with flaws in scripting languages, IE, etc.)
Securing windows takes more than just a NATTed router.
Call me anti-social if you want, but all things being equal, I'll take the self checkout over a human, even if both lines are empty.
I don't particularly like to shop, and I prefer to be done with it as quickly as possible. Unless I have so many items that I can't just hit "skip bagging" (I bag in the cart - it's faster), I will be out of there way quicker than with a cashier. Give me the tools to get what I want, pay for it, and get on my way.
For one thing, I tend not to shop alone. A computer won't interrupt the conversation I'm having with some irrelevant, unwanted conversation related to the weather or some sports team I really don't care about. It's less likely to dispense the wrong change, and I have direct control (in the sense that I can observe and take action) over the entire process. Sure, in the event of a mis-scan or the like, my recourse is limited to getting a human being to fix the problem, but given the likelyhood of such an incident, that is acceptable.
All in all, I'd much rather put my faiith in a computer than a person. Computers are consistant in behavior, and don't suffer from "bad days", household/marital issues, dyslexia, or the like.
There's a reason the law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases. Let's examine a "worst case" scenario:
So, the cops find child porn online - what happens? They contact the ISP, perhaps get a warrant for the DHCP logs. The logs show it was your IP. This gives them... probable cause for a search warrant. You get a nice visit from the friendly police squad, and they take your PC(s) as evidence. Upon looking through your PC, they find *gasp* all kinds of porn, just no kiddie porn. Guess what, they have no case. They either drop it (likely, especially if you can demonstrate you had an open AP), or you get to rely on a judge or jury to drop it for them.
Eventually, justice prevails (possibly after a couple appeals and a lot of money), you get your stuff back, and you aren't convicted of anything.
Does it suck? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that you are an idiot, and "aiding and abetting" requires, among other things, mens rea (criminal intent). In other words, they have to demonstrate that you intended to violate the law. (There are civil issues, but we're talking criminal here).
It may be _unpleasant_ when someone uses your connection for something illegal; however, that doesn't automatically mean you are liable. In fact, courts tend to be hesitant to assign liability to ISPs that do not knowingly facilitate crimes. Imagine if Cox/Comcast were responsible for every illegal action performed by their users online. It would be "death by lawyers" for the internet.
The RIAA may be able to sue you for what someone else does; however, it does provide a certain level of plausable deniability when _you_ are the one doing it in the first place.
It depends on the term - it's easy to rack up $125/day for the right terms (mesotheliomatic cancer, anyone?). For a lot of people, that's a good chunk of money.
All you need is an internet connection, some proxies, greed, and a "they're rich americans (because they exploit everyone else) so they deserve what they get" mentality.
How do I know this? I'm an adwords advertiser, and I tracked down one of the site owners who was doing a fair amount of fraud on one of my terms. One of the proxies he used had an X-Forwarded-For header, and I found his IP in an IRC log, and finally managed to track him down on IRC. I pretended to be a fellow fraudster, and we compared account screenshots. The guy was very proud that he was making over $4000USD/mo. His sites were simply wikis with stolen content (it's easier to make pages for a specific term that way, I guess). He did the clicks himself, and had a proxy program that simply took from a list of proxies and picked a random one every page load. He actually sat there for several hours a day clicking, and made about $40/hour to do it.
For some advertisers, it is a huge problem, especially when paying $10+ per click.
As far as abortion and gay marriage go, I do not agree with the stated libertarian position.
That being said, a general libertarian principle is that have the right to live as free from other's coercion as possible. With regards to abortion, this raises an interesting question. If the baby isn't really a person, anti-abortion legislation is infringing on the right of the mother to kill the mass of cells inside her. On the other hand, if the aforementioned mass of cells is a person with rights, then killing him would be the ultimate act of coercion, and his rights would "trump" the rights of the mother, just as the right of the victim outweighs the rights of the murderer.
I hold my beliefs, and for the most part, I agree with the libertarian party. I am in favor of less taxes, less government, less welfare, and less restrictions. That being said, I believe an "unborn mass of cells" to be a person, and as such feel compelled to work towards protecting those who can not do so themselves. I'm not arguing for a ban on homosexuality, but I certainly don't want the government I fund creating programs designed to provide benefits for things detrimental to society. That applies to homosexual marriage just as much as welfare for freeloaders, or a giant ineffective wall between us and Mexico.
I would imagine that whatever party you subscribe to doesn't align perfectly with your beliefs either (unless, of course, you're an registered independent).
Well, since it seems to be a "bash the mormon" kind of comment, and I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll go ahead and step in here. I'm a libertarian, live in Utah, and I've used cleanflicks.
As for the buying alcohol on Sunday, it's always seemed kind of silly. If you shouldn't be buying alcohol on Sunday, you shouldn't be buying it any day. Personally, as long as you keep out of situations which present unacceptable risk to me (i.e. driving a car), I don't really care if you go get completly plastered. Not my problem. On the other hand, if you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are a risk to me and it is my problem.
With regards to abortion, I would interfere with it for the same reason I would interfere with murder. You are ending the life of a person who is unable to defend himself. Sure, miscarriages happen, and we aren't certain he's going to live to birth. Nature's cruel - it happens. The point is that you are potentially (probably?) preventing the life of someone who would otherwise be born, and society has a certain interest in protecting the innocent from harm. Surely, you aren't trying to argue that a society shouldn't outlaw and prevent murder? The question then is simply a matter of when does a mass of cells become a person, worthy of protection?
Sex before marriage seems stupid to me (I've seen the problems it can cause), but I don't recall Mormons making a big push to put adulterers in jail. If I see you about to put your hand on a hot stove, I'll tell you you're being stupid, but I'm not about to seek legislation making it illegal to put your hand on a hot stove. What would be the point?
Finally, the same-sex marriage. Moral issues aside, willfully engaging in behavior contrary to basic biological drives (reproduction) indicates something seriously wrong with an individual. It's a trait which, if present in all members of a species, would result in the death of said species very quickly. There are obviously benefits to marriage - if there weren't, homosexuals (presumably) wouldn't seek it. Given that marriage is an artificial construct created by society, why should society provide such advantages to behavior which it finds to be detrimental to it? There's a reason that organizations lose tax-exempt when their views are deemed detrimental to society (hate speech, etc).
Well, I'd hardly consider myself "ultra-conservative" (I tend to have a libertarian slant to me); however, I've bought cleanflicks-edited movies, and I live in Provo, UT (they sell a lot of 'em here).
Here's the deal - movies are made, and some of them are R-rated. As a person with libertarian leanings, I fully support the right of people to make just about any smut (no kiddie porn) they want.
So, that being said, I don't want to watch said smut. In many cases, the removal of a few short clips from a movie results in a movie I would find enjoyable. So, not wanting to interfere with people's rights to produce or watch what they want, I pay someone else to edit a purchased copy for me. I get a good movie that I enjoy, the producers can make what they want (and get paid for it), and you can still watch what you want.
Why is my paying someone else to edit a movie for me a problem for you? It's not the producers, and you are free to purchase whatever version you want.
And for what it's worth, there are plenty of "ultra-conservative" people out there, and they like movies too. If they can't buy cleaned up versions of movies, the answer is (to them) to simply enact "decency" laws, and keep them from being produced in the first place. Personally, I consider legislation to be a _cause_ of problems, rather than the solution; however, I seem to be in the minority.
So, in other words, go for the lethal force first, and make sure you finish the job, ensuring he has no opportunity to fight back?
I try to avoid attacking policemen in general (ran from one, once, though...), and I'd much rather face the consequences of tasering an officer than killing him.
I've found my trailer hitch to be invaluable for much the same reason.
I drive a large E150 van (family of 7, what can I say?), and have gotten rear-ended 3 seperate times. Without fail, it's people who don't understand that a large van with good breaks can stop fairly quickly when necessary. In all 3 cases, the other driver was uninsured (arizona), and in all 3 cases, the only damage was a nice big square-shaped hole in their front bumper.
Even if we only tow a trailer 2-3 times a year, the hitch has paid for itself in saved repair costs alone.
Got this little gem from my companie's Microsoft rep. There are a variety of "leasing" options available, where a) your volume license expires after so long, or b) you get MS product ala carte (i.e. SQL server for $X/mo, and can scale up as needed - targeted at hosting providers ).
This will allow them to deactivate these machines remotely, even if the user plays games with the clock. The rep also made it sound like there were plans to eventually add support for other Microsoft apps (Office, SQL Server, etc.) as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it was "Punch the monkey".
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards? ... because if someone is going to make money from what I write, directly or indirectly, I want a cut of it. If my work is good enough for you to make money from, it's good enough to pay me for it. This holds true whether in the classroom or not.
Also, as a writer, it's my article. If I want to sell it, it's my right to do so. If the person I sell it to turns around and uses it for standards that are less than ethical, that's between him and his school. It does not give his school the rights to what I write.
In addition, as a student (and a Libertarian), I object as a matter of principle to tracking, profiling, and invasions of privacy in general. This holds true whether it's done directly by the school, or through the use of a third party. Technology has made it way too easy to gather way too much information on people. It's true that it requires some creativity to envision scenarios where this particular data could come back to haunt you (unless, of course, you run for political office, or say something that could later be used against you as a public figure); however, it sets a bad precedent. Either the school should have the right to hand out your information, records, and other information to third parties, or it shouldn't. Given the existing laws regarding release of student information, it seems to me that people already feel those records have reasons to be protected.
Let's put this another way:
We're going to put a GPS tracking system in [You, your car, your kids]. It will only be used to [catch terrorists, find kidnapping victims, stop speeding on highways]. Why would a person not want to participate in a system that helps to [ensure safety, save lives, protect children]?
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and principles are worth fighting for.
Yes, it had a barcode.
It was, however, America West (in Phoenix) - they don't scan barcodes.
When closing out the flight, it's done by manually typing in the seat number. I know this because I worked for Mesa Airlines (America West Express), and used the system myself.
This was pre merger - it may have changed since they merged with US Airways.
In your example, what if the duplicate is indistinguishable from the original (which pirate copies often are, as far as the data goes).
.pdf files and print them from the PC).
I printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as
They most certainly accepted it, and I got on the flight without issue. Was what I did legal? Probably not. The airline got their money, I paid for my ticket, and I got on the plane. Whether or not it was technically legal, was it wrong? Who was harmed by my actions - the airline? Society as a whole? Me?
Intercept the vote as it's being cast, write the wrong vote to the CD-R in realtime.
No longer to eject than before. It's slightly easier to catch this way; however, they aren't supposed to tamper with the machine during elections anyway.
Two receipts causes issues, as it's possible to prove who you voted for (and by extension, sell your vote).
There's an easier solution. Have the voting machine print out your vote on a paper ballot, with a barcode at the bottom (a checksum). Read it optically, read the barcode. If the two don't match, spit it out.
You can easily verify your vote, as you hold the ballot before it's counted (just like the current one). Hanging chads, etc. aren't an issue - black marks are printed on the page. The computer knows which you selected, and the barcode is based off of it, so the odds of a mis-read counted ballot are zero. Also, if you walk off with your ballot, it's not counted, so you can't prove who you voted for.
Not particularly difficult, either. You could retrofit a scantron to do it. The other nice thing about this is that even if the voting machine is completly compromised, the user can still detect it, because the supervised counting machine reads it both ways. Heck, if there's an issue (exit polls don't match), you can run all the ballots through a counting machine from a different precinct to make sure. 100% auditing ability.
Came across one of these locally - I only noticed it because the adhesive had come loose.
The device was a little over a half inch thick, and had a slot through which the card went. This device was placed over the normal ATM card slot. When you put your card in, it got read by the device, and the ATM sucked it in and read it there.
I found out from the bank that the PIN was read through a hidden camera nearby. The "nice" thing about a setup like this is that no change is made to the ATM itself. To add insult to injury, even if you type in the wrong PIN first, they still got both on camera, and can pull the mag stripe data from the memory in the device.
Yes, because Real Estate Will Go Up Forever.
Sure, over time, things will tend to go up. That being said, in many areas, gains of 30% or more happened over the past year - that's simply not sustainable. In many of those places, builders have built huge amounts of homes - far more than the market can support.
In Phoenix, for example, sales are at record lows for this time of year (sales to inventory ratios - even without seasonal adjustments), and inventories are at the highest levels ever. Builders are literally walking away from developments, and large numbers of apartments that were converted to condos last year are being converted back to apartment. Selling prices (not asking prices) are way down from last year, and even Realtor.com is admitting that to sell your home, you have to be willing to cut a deal.
It's going to be a great time to _buy_ soon, but don't plan on flipping the house for a quick buck any time soon. If you wait long enough, you will make a profit (or die, in which chase it doesn't really matter).
Housing Doom is a pretty good bubble blog. The author isn't a realtor, and isn't trying to sell anything either.
It seems to be mainly phoenix related, and has some interesting graphs courtesy of the local MLS data.
So, you're NATTed. When someone tries to connect to you, it doesn't know where to send the traffic, so it's dropped. That's nice and good; however, it doesn't protect you from:
1) Macro viruses in documents you open
2) Web sites you visit (WMF exploit, anyone)
3) Privelege escalation through plugins (java - buggy VM, flash, etc.)
4) Infected media you come in contact with (including things on commercially manufactured CDs - Sony Rootkit, etc.)
5) Software you install that comes with backdoors/"autoupdate"/etc. (Comet Cursor, Bonsai Buddy)
6) Vulnerable software installed on your PC (IE, things w/ buffer overflows, IE, applications relying on DNS for update security, IE, games with flaws in scripting languages, IE, etc.)
Securing windows takes more than just a NATTed router.
Well, now you do.
Call me anti-social if you want, but all things being equal, I'll take the self checkout over a human, even if both lines are empty.
I don't particularly like to shop, and I prefer to be done with it as quickly as possible. Unless I have so many items that I can't just hit "skip bagging" (I bag in the cart - it's faster), I will be out of there way quicker than with a cashier. Give me the tools to get what I want, pay for it, and get on my way.
For one thing, I tend not to shop alone. A computer won't interrupt the conversation I'm having with some irrelevant, unwanted conversation related to the weather or some sports team I really don't care about. It's less likely to dispense the wrong change, and I have direct control (in the sense that I can observe and take action) over the entire process. Sure, in the event of a mis-scan or the like, my recourse is limited to getting a human being to fix the problem, but given the likelyhood of such an incident, that is acceptable.
All in all, I'd much rather put my faiith in a computer than a person. Computers are consistant in behavior, and don't suffer from "bad days", household/marital issues, dyslexia, or the like.
There's a reason the law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases. Let's examine a "worst case" scenario:
So, the cops find child porn online - what happens? They contact the ISP, perhaps get a warrant for the DHCP logs.
The logs show it was your IP. This gives them... probable cause for a search warrant. You get a nice visit from the friendly police squad, and they take your PC(s) as evidence.
Upon looking through your PC, they find *gasp* all kinds of porn, just no kiddie porn. Guess what, they have no case. They either drop it (likely, especially if you can demonstrate you had an open AP), or you get to rely on a judge or jury to drop it for them.
Eventually, justice prevails (possibly after a couple appeals and a lot of money), you get your stuff back, and you aren't convicted of anything.
Does it suck? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that you are an idiot, and "aiding and abetting" requires, among other things, mens rea (criminal intent). In other words, they have to demonstrate that you intended to violate the law. (There are civil issues, but we're talking criminal here).
It may be _unpleasant_ when someone uses your connection for something illegal; however, that doesn't automatically mean you are liable. In fact, courts tend to be hesitant to assign liability to ISPs that do not knowingly facilitate crimes. Imagine if Cox/Comcast were responsible for every illegal action performed by their users online. It would be "death by lawyers" for the internet.
You know, this goes both ways.
The RIAA may be able to sue you for what someone else does; however, it does provide a certain level of plausable deniability when _you_ are the one doing it in the first place.
It depends on the term - it's easy to rack up $125/day for the right terms (mesotheliomatic cancer, anyone?). For a lot of people, that's a good chunk of money.
All you need is an internet connection, some proxies, greed, and a "they're rich americans (because they exploit everyone else) so they deserve what they get" mentality.
How do I know this? I'm an adwords advertiser, and I tracked down one of the site owners who was doing a fair amount of fraud on one of my terms. One of the proxies he used had an X-Forwarded-For header, and I found his IP in an IRC log, and finally managed to track him down on IRC. I pretended to be a fellow fraudster, and we compared account screenshots. The guy was very proud that he was making over $4000USD/mo. His sites were simply wikis with stolen content (it's easier to make pages for a specific term that way, I guess). He did the clicks himself, and had a proxy program that simply took from a list of proxies and picked a random one every page load. He actually sat there for several hours a day clicking, and made about $40/hour to do it.
For some advertisers, it is a huge problem, especially when paying $10+ per click.
Perhaps you mean something like Google Checkout?
As far as abortion and gay marriage go, I do not agree with the stated libertarian position.
That being said, a general libertarian principle is that have the right to live as free from other's coercion as possible. With regards to abortion, this raises an interesting question. If the baby isn't really a person, anti-abortion legislation is infringing on the right of the mother to kill the mass of cells inside her. On the other hand, if the aforementioned mass of cells is a person with rights, then killing him would be the ultimate act of coercion, and his rights would "trump" the rights of the mother, just as the right of the victim outweighs the rights of the murderer.
I hold my beliefs, and for the most part, I agree with the libertarian party. I am in favor of less taxes, less government, less welfare, and less restrictions. That being said, I believe an "unborn mass of cells" to be a person, and as such feel compelled to work towards protecting those who can not do so themselves. I'm not arguing for a ban on homosexuality, but I certainly don't want the government I fund creating programs designed to provide benefits for things detrimental to society. That applies to homosexual marriage just as much as welfare for freeloaders, or a giant ineffective wall between us and Mexico.
I would imagine that whatever party you subscribe to doesn't align perfectly with your beliefs either (unless, of course, you're an registered independent).
Well, since it seems to be a "bash the mormon" kind of comment, and I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll go ahead and step in here. I'm a libertarian, live in Utah, and I've used cleanflicks.
As for the buying alcohol on Sunday, it's always seemed kind of silly. If you shouldn't be buying alcohol on Sunday, you shouldn't be buying it any day. Personally, as long as you keep out of situations which present unacceptable risk to me (i.e. driving a car), I don't really care if you go get completly plastered. Not my problem. On the other hand, if you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are a risk to me and it is my problem.
With regards to abortion, I would interfere with it for the same reason I would interfere with murder. You are ending the life of a person who is unable to defend himself. Sure, miscarriages happen, and we aren't certain he's going to live to birth. Nature's cruel - it happens. The point is that you are potentially (probably?) preventing the life of someone who would otherwise be born, and society has a certain interest in protecting the innocent from harm. Surely, you aren't trying to argue that a society shouldn't outlaw and prevent murder? The question then is simply a matter of when does a mass of cells become a person, worthy of protection?
Sex before marriage seems stupid to me (I've seen the problems it can cause), but I don't recall Mormons making a big push to put adulterers in jail. If I see you about to put your hand on a hot stove, I'll tell you you're being stupid, but I'm not about to seek legislation making it illegal to put your hand on a hot stove. What would be the point?
Finally, the same-sex marriage. Moral issues aside, willfully engaging in behavior contrary to basic biological drives (reproduction) indicates something seriously wrong with an individual. It's a trait which, if present in all members of a species, would result in the death of said species very quickly. There are obviously benefits to marriage - if there weren't, homosexuals (presumably) wouldn't seek it. Given that marriage is an artificial construct created by society, why should society provide such advantages to behavior which it finds to be detrimental to it? There's a reason that organizations lose tax-exempt when their views are deemed detrimental to society (hate speech, etc).
Well, I'd hardly consider myself "ultra-conservative" (I tend to have a libertarian slant to me); however, I've bought cleanflicks-edited movies, and I live in Provo, UT (they sell a lot of 'em here).
Here's the deal - movies are made, and some of them are R-rated. As a person with libertarian leanings, I fully support the right of people to make just about any smut (no kiddie porn) they want.
So, that being said, I don't want to watch said smut. In many cases, the removal of a few short clips from a movie results in a movie I would find enjoyable. So, not wanting to interfere with people's rights to produce or watch what they want, I pay someone else to edit a purchased copy for me. I get a good movie that I enjoy, the producers can make what they want (and get paid for it), and you can still watch what you want.
Why is my paying someone else to edit a movie for me a problem for you? It's not the producers, and you are free to purchase whatever version you want.
And for what it's worth, there are plenty of "ultra-conservative" people out there, and they like movies too. If they can't buy cleaned up versions of movies, the answer is (to them) to simply enact "decency" laws, and keep them from being produced in the first place. Personally, I consider legislation to be a _cause_ of problems, rather than the solution; however, I seem to be in the minority.
So, in other words, go for the lethal force first, and make sure you finish the job, ensuring he has no opportunity to fight back?
I try to avoid attacking policemen in general (ran from one, once, though...), and I'd much rather face the consequences of tasering an officer than killing him.
Perhaps the IDS is stateless, and the firewall itself (i.e. iptables) is not.
I've found my trailer hitch to be invaluable for much the same reason.
I drive a large E150 van (family of 7, what can I say?), and have gotten rear-ended 3 seperate times. Without fail, it's people who don't understand that a large van with good breaks can stop fairly quickly when necessary. In all 3 cases, the other driver was uninsured (arizona), and in all 3 cases, the only damage was a nice big square-shaped hole in their front bumper.
Even if we only tow a trailer 2-3 times a year, the hitch has paid for itself in saved repair costs alone.
Microsoft is certainly trying. Fortunatly, iTunes doesn't implement this yet.
Actually, yes.
Got this little gem from my companie's Microsoft rep. There are a variety of "leasing" options available, where a) your volume license expires after so long, or b) you get MS product ala carte (i.e. SQL server for $X/mo, and can scale up as needed - targeted at hosting providers ).
This will allow them to deactivate these machines remotely, even if the user plays games with the clock. The rep also made it sound like there were plans to eventually add support for other Microsoft apps (Office, SQL Server, etc.) as well.
You misunderstood - that's 9AM to 5AM.
Welcome to the new economy.
I tried two CSRs, the website, and a store trying to get the ex-sprint Treo 650 on Verizon.
They all gave me the same answer. This was like 3 months ago.