The real estate industry lives by the fax machine. You gotta have the client's signature on the document before presenting it to the other party. You can't do that with an email fax.
My weight crept up, and my health suffered. I started having sleep apnea. I had no energy. My doctor saw signs of insulin resistance. I resolved to give Atkins a try.
I was shocked that I was losing weight considering all the "fattening" things I was eating. I never went hungry. My LDL dropped like a rock. I was stunned considering all the meat and fats I was eating on a regular basis. I dropped about 50 pounds in six months and reached my goal weight.
You can scoff at low carb all you want, but I am living proof that it works.
I would love to find a "job" that allows me to sit around, watch TV and belch creatively, but nobody wants to pay me for my artistic abilities when they can "copy" my belching technique. I still continue to do what I love, but only for close friends and family.
If you can't make money doing something you want, you had better want to do something else. Music isn't dying. The music industry cartel is declining compared to what they would prefer, but music is thriving.
Can anybody fill me in as to why downloading music without paying for it is ok?
Downloading music without paying for it is not in itself illegal or even a tort. Downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright owner may be.
Besides, if Gene Simmons is on one side of an issue, the other side has to be the correct one.
Back before the Do Not Call list, I left the default electronic greeting on my answering machine. It was quite short, only lasting a second or so. When I would get home from work, I would invariably have messages which included two or three telemarketers talking to my machine. It would end with 30 seconds or so of: "Hello... Is anybody there..."
It always brightened my day.
These days, I'm on the national and state "Do Not Call" lists, so I only get a call every couple of weeks.
>>> Harry Potter as an idea has become a very profitable subject. The storylines, the characters, the locations are all very much the invention of JK Rowling... How can anyone not be on her side? This site is not just publishing derivative works based on Harry Potter, they are making a PROFIT from her ideas.
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
The youngsters around here have certainly drunk a lot of the big media company Kool-Aid. It shows up whenever there is a controversy like this...
While I'm asking for ponies, is there any provider that sells you unlimited data and txts and then pre-paid (or otherwise minimal) voice minutes?
Get a prepaid Tracfone. Incoming text messages are free. Outgoing messages are only.3 minutes of airtime. If you don't use many voice minutes (20 minutes or so) each month, you can get your cost down to less then $7 per month.
If an OS level attack is successful, then all 5 virtual servers are likely vulnerable because it's an OS level attack.
Which is no worse than 5 separate pieces of hardware. No gain, no loss...
The only security "benefit" I can see is if a single virtual server is compromised through something like a web application. That application may not exist on the other virtual servers, so they're "safe"
Still similar to running 5 separate pieces of hardware. Throttling CPU usage between virtual machines will prevent a cracked one from affecting the others. Again, no loss, no gain...
If the virtualization software itself is attacked and compromised, all 5 servers go down.
This is really the only valid point. Right now, it does not seem to be an issue. Virtualization does contain many benefits aside from security that I would argue override this concern presently. And being able to create non-persistent state images ala Deep Freeze is in itself a security advantage as well as has testing benefits.
That's how I pronounce them too. It's just easier on my tongue. It doesn't make Lyons an asshole. Other things do that for him.
It's sort of reminiscent of the old battles about whether it you pronounce the Linux as leen-icks, lin-icks, or line-icks. Even though I knew Linus wanted it to be leen-icks, I called it lin-icks. It's just easier for a lazy, midwestern American to say. I might note that my way is the now commonly accepted method.
That's a pretty narrow view on life. Parents are generally the ones who can least afford to pony up extra taxes to solely fund the schools. If parents cannot afford to pay for schools, would you want to live where there are lots of uneducated youth with nothing to do?
As for the other parts of your ill considered rant, property owners generally DO pay for fire protection through property taxes, which get passed down to the renters. Roads are funded chiefly through gasoline taxes (43 cents per gallon in my state).
While I subscribe to a lot of the Libertarian ideas, this is where we part ways.
Any time I see that particular update appear in the hardware updates, I always hide it from the user. I have only had it successfully work in a very small handful of cases. It has failed so many times, I shudder when it shows up. It has failed so bad on two occasions that a rollback didn't fix it. I had to replace the video card to get XP working properly after installing that piece of malware.
I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system. Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing.
I remember the old CP/M days too. But I also remember the original PC days: Open BIOS specs, PC compatibles, and open DOS specs.
Do you still remember the days when you bought a PC compatible machine and had to buy DOS separately? You could choose between PC-DOS, MS-DOS, and DRDOS. Apps would run on any DOS you bought. That went away with Windows and the ever changing (undocumented) APIs.
Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know!
The litigation follows a decision last week handed down by a judge who ruled that a speed-camera program in a southeast Ohio community was illegal.
The decision stems from a class-action lawsuit involving more than 1,500 drivers filed in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.
Judge John M. Stuard ruled that Girard, Ohio, officials illegally changed traffic violations from the criminal code to a civil infraction in order to avoid the state law.
Red Light Camera tickets are sent to the owner of the car.
Which is precisely what I have been complaining about.
They are not 'left on the car' to be paid by the offending party, but are mailed to the owner
Maybe in Michigan, but every parking ticket I have ever received in Ohio was left under the windshield wiper.
A camera is not "a real live cop". Different situation, diferent rules.
Again, this is what I am complaining about. It is NOT a different situation. There is no differentiation in the law between two different citations for the same infraction. Yet law enforcement wants to impose different rules.
According to the law, it is your responsibility to either pay or ID the driver.
Hmmm.. I must have missed that one. you need to point out where the law states that little gem.
However, According to the Ohio Supreme Court http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/traffic/ Ohio Traffic Rules, barring a felony indictment standard rules of criminal procedures do not apply to "secure the fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity and uniformity in procedure, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay" but a jury demand may be made under Traffic Rule 9 pursuant to Criminal Rule 23 even for a petty offense. If the case is to be heard in Mayor's Court and the defendant demands a jury trial, the case must be transferred to a higher court.
If the defendant declines to demand a jury trial, he may plead not-guilty and have the case tried before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge's proceedings shall be conducted as provided in Criminal Rule 19.
In Ohio, traffic violations, even petty, are tried in criminal court, unless you want to plead guilty to the Traffic Bureau or before the local Court judge. Read the rules, everything is applied under criminal rules, just slightly modified to guarantee the generous infusion of cash in the form of fines. In Dayton, near where I live, there are quite a few automated, photo enforced traffic lights. It is a criminal offense, albeit a petty one. Again, I WOULD NEVER CONVICT!
That's why Parking tickets and Red Light tickets are written to the Owner of the car, not necessarily the Driver.
You are half right. Parking citations are registered to the owner of the car. They are left on the vehicle and are supposed to be paid by the offending party. If the offending party does not pay them, the owner will be subpoenaed. Moving violations do not work that way.
If I run a light or speed and am pulled over by a real live cop, do you think he will issue the citation in the name of the owner of the car? Seriously? Moving violations are cited in the name of the offender. That is why photo enforcement is so wrong. It assumes the owner is the offender. Assumption of guilt...
Since you lack the ability to see the issue in any way other than your small world, let me give you a real live situation. I have a set of twins that will be 16 in December. I have bought a $2,000 Chevy Blazer for them to drive. The car is titled and licensed in my name. If I get a ticket for a photo enforced red light, will you still think I am automatically guilty?
If there is no face in the photo, do you honestly think both of my twins (non-identical) won't claim the other is the guilty party? Is it my responsibility to do all the police work, figure it all out and turn them in?
It should be raise reasonable doubt that I am not the driver since there are others that COULD be the driver. Photo enforced lights are just plain wrong.
Defendant: "Everybody in the house used that gun and I even let friends borrow it when they wanted."
Prosecutor: "The victim was undoubtedly killed with your gun, and even though we can't show powder burns on your hands, can't prove you bought the bullets, have no credible witness that places you at the scene, admit that others could have had access to the gun, never bothered to see if you were even in the area at the time and never checked if you knew the victim, you must have done it because you bought the gun.
FredKlein: "Hang the bastard!"
Fuzznutz: "Wait a minute. The prosecutor never proved the case."
Reread what you wrote and try REAL hard to understand this: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I don't know how to make it more clear. The "proof" you are asking the defendant to "refute" is absurd. The only "facts" are that somebody ran a red light in a car owned by the defendant. The burden of proof is on the state, not the other way around. If the state wanted to introduce evidence that the incident occurred two blocks from the defendant's employer at 8:25 on a weekday and that he passes that intersection at 8:25 every weekday morning, I might be more inclined to find him guilty. Absent more proof than just a photo of a car running a light where the driver cannot be identified, I would NEVER convict.
The photo may show proof of the crime, but it certainly does not show proof it was committed by the owner of the car.
But "it might, maybe, could have happened differently" does not count as a defense.
Okay. I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Assuming you are not...
It certainly does "count" as a defense. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the state to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state cannot convincingly place the defendant at the scene of the crime (bad photo, no face)there is no "absolute proof", only circumstantial evidence and supposition. Entering evidence of an alternate supposition can and SHOULD raise reasonable doubt. The state is making assumptions as to the identity of the driver. If there are equally possible alternate scenarios, the state cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read about the Minneapolis case where the district court abolished such cameras. Clearly, greater legal minds than yours believe that the system is inherently unfair.
Same with claiming it "COULD" have been a friend or family member. Which one? Why? Just saying it "COULD" have been someone else if NOT enough of a defense.
Minnesota courts don't seem to agree with you.
It is NOT the responsibility of the defendant to do the police work for the state. The defendant does not have to find the guilty party just because the state decides to be lazy and let cameras and computers do their work for them. The defendant ONLY has to introduce reasonable doubt as to his/her own guilt. Barring a convincing photo that shows the defendant driving the car, it will take very little to introduce that doubt. Remember, the defendant does not have to testify on his/her own behalf, so he/she cannot be compelled to identify the driver. He/she merely needs to call a witness that can testify that there is more than one individual with access to the vehicle. If the state cannot place the owner with the car, there is reasonable doubt.
Think about it this way. The state wants to convict you of a crime by simply saying, it could be you. With our legal rights, they must say it has to be you.
In Ohio, you have the right to demand a jury trial for even petty traffic offenses. Your court costs may exceed the fine and the time spent in court may be prohibitive, so it is rare, but it is legal. The state MUST PROVE YOUR GUILT!!!!!
You are insane if you think that just because your car was involved in a traffic offense, that the state gets a pass on proving guilt. There are no loopholes for criminal cases, despite how petty. If you can introduce reasonable doubt among your peers or the administrative judge, the state cannot prove guilt.
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, but you may call witnesses to introduce doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
The real estate industry lives by the fax machine. You gotta have the client's signature on the document before presenting it to the other party. You can't do that with an email fax.
Negotiation counter offers are all done by fax.
Symantec is where good software goes to die.
I wish I could take credit for this little bit of wisdom, but I read it here on Slashdot.
How about PlaysForShit?
What you call propaganda meant success for me.
My weight crept up, and my health suffered. I started having sleep apnea. I had no energy. My doctor saw signs of insulin resistance. I resolved to give Atkins a try.
I was shocked that I was losing weight considering all the "fattening" things I was eating. I never went hungry. My LDL dropped like a rock. I was stunned considering all the meat and fats I was eating on a regular basis. I dropped about 50 pounds in six months and reached my goal weight.
You can scoff at low carb all you want, but I am living proof that it works.
I would love to find a "job" that allows me to sit around, watch TV and belch creatively, but nobody wants to pay me for my artistic abilities when they can "copy" my belching technique. I still continue to do what I love, but only for close friends and family.
If you can't make money doing something you want, you had better want to do something else. Music isn't dying. The music industry cartel is declining compared to what they would prefer, but music is thriving.
Hey Media Cartel Apologists. It's official.
If Gene Simmons is on one side of the copyright issue, the other side must be the correct one.
Downloading music without paying for it is not in itself illegal or even a tort. Downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright owner may be.
Besides, if Gene Simmons is on one side of an issue, the other side has to be the correct one.
Back before the Do Not Call list, I left the default electronic greeting on my answering machine. It was quite short, only lasting a second or so. When I would get home from work, I would invariably have messages which included two or three telemarketers talking to my machine. It would end with 30 seconds or so of: "Hello... Is anybody there..."
It always brightened my day.
These days, I'm on the national and state "Do Not Call" lists, so I only get a call every couple of weeks.
Something named after John Holmes has to be big.
Uhhh... So what?
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html
The youngsters around here have certainly drunk a lot of the big media company Kool-Aid. It shows up whenever there is a controversy like this...
Get a prepaid Tracfone. Incoming text messages are free. Outgoing messages are only
Which is no worse than 5 separate pieces of hardware. No gain, no loss...
Still similar to running 5 separate pieces of hardware. Throttling CPU usage between virtual machines will prevent a cracked one from affecting the others. Again, no loss, no gain...
This is really the only valid point. Right now, it does not seem to be an issue. Virtualization does contain many benefits aside from security that I would argue override this concern presently. And being able to create non-persistent state images ala Deep Freeze is in itself a security advantage as well as has testing benefits.
That's how I pronounce them too. It's just easier on my tongue. It doesn't make Lyons an asshole. Other things do that for him.
It's sort of reminiscent of the old battles about whether it you pronounce the Linux as leen-icks, lin-icks, or line-icks. Even though I knew Linus wanted it to be leen-icks, I called it lin-icks. It's just easier for a lazy, midwestern American to say. I might note that my way is the now commonly accepted method.
That's a pretty narrow view on life. Parents are generally the ones who can least afford to pony up extra taxes to solely fund the schools. If parents cannot afford to pay for schools, would you want to live where there are lots of uneducated youth with nothing to do?
As for the other parts of your ill considered rant, property owners generally DO pay for fire protection through property taxes, which get passed down to the renters. Roads are funded chiefly through gasoline taxes (43 cents per gallon in my state).
While I subscribe to a lot of the Libertarian ideas, this is where we part ways.
Any time I see that particular update appear in the hardware updates, I always hide it from the user. I have only had it successfully work in a very small handful of cases. It has failed so many times, I shudder when it shows up. It has failed so bad on two occasions that a rollback didn't fix it. I had to replace the video card to get XP working properly after installing that piece of malware.
I fixed your error...
s/Plaintiff/Defendant/g
We should have heard from the "If you've got nothing to hide" bunch by now...
Surely, they'll be the first ones to sign up!
I remember the old CP/M days too. But I also remember the original PC days: Open BIOS specs, PC compatibles, and open DOS specs.
Do you still remember the days when you bought a PC compatible machine and had to buy DOS separately? You could choose between PC-DOS, MS-DOS, and DRDOS. Apps would run on any DOS you bought. That went away with Windows and the ever changing (undocumented) APIs.
Will Gnumeric do?
Which is precisely what I have been complaining about.
Maybe in Michigan, but every parking ticket I have ever received in Ohio was left under the windshield wiper.
Again, this is what I am complaining about. It is NOT a different situation. There is no differentiation in the law between two different citations for the same infraction. Yet law enforcement wants to impose different rules.
Hmmm.. I must have missed that one. you need to point out where the law states that little gem.
However, According to the Ohio Supreme Court http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/traffic/ Ohio Traffic Rules, barring a felony indictment standard rules of criminal procedures do not apply to "secure the fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity and uniformity in procedure, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay" but a jury demand may be made under Traffic Rule 9 pursuant to Criminal Rule 23 even for a petty offense. If the case is to be heard in Mayor's Court and the defendant demands a jury trial, the case must be transferred to a higher court.
If the defendant declines to demand a jury trial, he may plead not-guilty and have the case tried before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge's proceedings shall be conducted as provided in Criminal Rule 19.
In Ohio, traffic violations, even petty, are tried in criminal court, unless you want to plead guilty to the Traffic Bureau or before the local Court judge. Read the rules, everything is applied under criminal rules, just slightly modified to guarantee the generous infusion of cash in the form of fines. In Dayton, near where I live, there are quite a few automated, photo enforced traffic lights. It is a criminal offense, albeit a petty one. Again, I WOULD NEVER CONVICT!
You are half right. Parking citations are registered to the owner of the car. They are left on the vehicle and are supposed to be paid by the offending party. If the offending party does not pay them, the owner will be subpoenaed. Moving violations do not work that way.
If I run a light or speed and am pulled over by a real live cop, do you think he will issue the citation in the name of the owner of the car? Seriously? Moving violations are cited in the name of the offender. That is why photo enforcement is so wrong. It assumes the owner is the offender. Assumption of guilt...
Since you lack the ability to see the issue in any way other than your small world, let me give you a real live situation. I have a set of twins that will be 16 in December. I have bought a $2,000 Chevy Blazer for them to drive. The car is titled and licensed in my name. If I get a ticket for a photo enforced red light, will you still think I am automatically guilty?
If there is no face in the photo, do you honestly think both of my twins (non-identical) won't claim the other is the guilty party? Is it my responsibility to do all the police work, figure it all out and turn them in?
It should be raise reasonable doubt that I am not the driver since there are others that COULD be the driver. Photo enforced lights are just plain wrong.
Actually, it is more like this:
Defendant: "Everybody in the house used that gun and I even let friends borrow it when they wanted."
Prosecutor: "The victim was undoubtedly killed with your gun, and even though we can't show powder burns on your hands, can't prove you bought the bullets, have no credible witness that places you at the scene, admit that others could have had access to the gun, never bothered to see if you were even in the area at the time and never checked if you knew the victim, you must have done it because you bought the gun.
FredKlein: "Hang the bastard!"
Fuzznutz: "Wait a minute. The prosecutor never proved the case."
Reread what you wrote and try REAL hard to understand this: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I don't know how to make it more clear. The "proof" you are asking the defendant to "refute" is absurd. The only "facts" are that somebody ran a red light in a car owned by the defendant. The burden of proof is on the state, not the other way around. If the state wanted to introduce evidence that the incident occurred two blocks from the defendant's employer at 8:25 on a weekday and that he passes that intersection at 8:25 every weekday morning, I might be more inclined to find him guilty. Absent more proof than just a photo of a car running a light where the driver cannot be identified, I would NEVER convict.
The photo may show proof of the crime, but it certainly does not show proof it was committed by the owner of the car.
It certainly does "count" as a defense. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the state to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state cannot convincingly place the defendant at the scene of the crime (bad photo, no face)there is no "absolute proof", only circumstantial evidence and supposition. Entering evidence of an alternate supposition can and SHOULD raise reasonable doubt. The state is making assumptions as to the identity of the driver. If there are equally possible alternate scenarios, the state cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read about the Minneapolis case where the district court abolished such cameras. Clearly, greater legal minds than yours believe that the system is inherently unfair.
Minnesota courts don't seem to agree with you.
It is NOT the responsibility of the defendant to do the police work for the state. The defendant does not have to find the guilty party just because the state decides to be lazy and let cameras and computers do their work for them. The defendant ONLY has to introduce reasonable doubt as to his/her own guilt. Barring a convincing photo that shows the defendant driving the car, it will take very little to introduce that doubt. Remember, the defendant does not have to testify on his/her own behalf, so he/she cannot be compelled to identify the driver. He/she merely needs to call a witness that can testify that there is more than one individual with access to the vehicle. If the state cannot place the owner with the car, there is reasonable doubt.
Think about it this way. The state wants to convict you of a crime by simply saying, it could be you. With our legal rights, they must say it has to be you.
Umm... Yes.
In Ohio, you have the right to demand a jury trial for even petty traffic offenses. Your court costs may exceed the fine and the time spent in court may be prohibitive, so it is rare, but it is legal. The state MUST PROVE YOUR GUILT!!!!!
You are insane if you think that just because your car was involved in a traffic offense, that the state gets a pass on proving guilt. There are no loopholes for criminal cases, despite how petty. If you can introduce reasonable doubt among your peers or the administrative judge, the state cannot prove guilt.
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, but you may call witnesses to introduce doubt.
An arrest is not the same thing as being charged. What we are talking about is a summons to court for a traffic offense. Do you see the difference?