I don't know what planet you live on, but only a very small percentage of consumer goods are specifically designed to only work with other products so they can extract a fee from the other consumer goods products. The only ones that come to mind are game consoles, cell phones, some software packages, and cable/satallite services. You don't live in a basement with only game console (not plugged into a tv) and a cell phone do you?
I bought one of those for my wife, as she wanted a completely silent computer for her desk in the bedroom. I was considering getting another for a MythTV box, but had nothing but trouble when I tried to install MythTV on her's. What distro, and Video capture did you use? Was it a total pain to set up? and do you know a good tutorial for installing to that board? I also have a PVR350 that I was going to use for video capture.
No, it's more like saying:
You need to sell your Toyota and buy a Kia to drive, after all, you don't HAVE to drive. You will also need to stop using whatever shampoo you are using, and only use Head and Shoulders. After all, you don't HAVE to wash your hair. You are also going to be able to only where Nike shoes. After all, you don't HAVE to wear shoes.
The government should not be mandating the purchase of a single vendors products when there alternative choices. Especially when the alternatives are free.
You joke, but there are plenty of people that would do just that. A lady I work with has called the city on the 'Section 8' family living next door several times because they simply choose not to pay for trash service. The city makes an appointment to come out, the family hauls off the garbage, the city finds nothing, and the cycle starts again. If they are willing to live with that health risk, there is no reason to believe that they won't just dig a hole in the back yard, and live with an outhouse.
Pools kill lots of people too, and don't have the benefit of having prevented many rapes, robberies, beatings and killings. Maybe your list should be alcohol, tobacco, and pools.
I might shop at your store as long as it isn't your alcohol, tobacco and firearms store. Although the lack of product would keep my bill down.
That certainly isn't the case, as the phone was used for less than two hours during the month and a half that it has been installed (two months of billing because they bill in advance). They have simply "crammed" my bill with a ton of service charges. Heck, they even have a $25 charge for "Change Telephone Number". I've only had the number for a month and a half, and it hasn't changed. The "Residence Flat Rate" shows that it is a $10.69 per month charge, and they have me charged 3 times for it in the amounts of $6.06, $10.69, and amazingly enough $14.25!
Don't forget:
Employee has to jump through hoops because the companies computer policies prevent them from running the software that would let them get their job done.
"With AT&T, you're buying a service; it amounts to a work for hire, in essence. As such, they can require you to agree to certain terms, but not ones which would restrict you from certain rights, e.g., if they work with the government to subert your constitutional rights (e.g., engaged in wiretapping without a warrant), engage in fraud and charge you for services you do not receive, or falsely advertise their services (advertising them as unlimited), and so forth, it is unreasonable for a court to accept that waiver of such rights is valid or even possible."
Funny you say that. AT&T committed fraud against me just this week. They are "Cramming" my phone bill. I signed up for a basic flat rate service at $10.95 a month (+all of the various taxes). Two months into it and I already have a $125 bill! To be fair, I did make 3 minutes worth of long distance calls and dialed local number to connect to my ISP on this line while I was waiting for my DSL connection. Nothing after that though, as I use my cell and Vonage for all of my calls.
1) Do you acknowledge evolution?
2) If no, which of the following do you not believe in?
a) Life forms physical makeup is defined by their genetic code.
b) Life forms get their genetic code from their parents.
c) Genes can be mutated by naturally occurring radiation and/or chemicals.
d) Life forms with genetic code makes them less fit for an environment are less likely to thrive and breed.
It really only takes not believing in one to not believe in evolution, and if you believe in all of them, you do believe in evolution whether you want to admit it or not.
The guy might not have said it well, but he is absolutely correct when he said that the second amendment is not about protecting yourself from criminals, and it is also not about hunting. Do you really believe that in 1790, they were sitting around arguing whether you needed a guarantee that you could hunt or not? That would be like needing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that you could go to the grocery store. Do you really believe that they were debating whether or not you needed an amendment saying you could use the strongest weapon you could get your hands on to stop that group of ruffians from brutally raping your wife and daughter? Do you think it was brought up that, "Hey, if someone breaks into your house, you can just make the two hour ride to the nearest town to get the sheriff to ride another two hours back to stop the raping". No, these kinds of arguments would be absurd.
The US did just come off of a revolution, where the government had been seen as extremely abusive. Other governments in the world had previously taken the action of disarming the citizens so that the government could abuse them. Do you really believe that the argument would have been presented of "Look, the war was horrible, but can you imagine what would have happened if we didn't have guns? We need to make sure that the government knows they can only go so far before the people rise up and replace them".
As for the "it's a guarantee that the government can have arms." argument... What government in all the history of the world has ever felt the need to guarantee itself in writing, the right to bare arms? It is an absurd argument.
I have heard the retort to this before. It goes something like "It's a guarantee for the STATES to have their own military. Not the individual". Of course that argument requires that the person making it, not understand the Constitution at all. It is very clear in the constitution that anything that is not explicitly granted in the Constitution is the domain of the states. There is no need to guarantee the states the right to have their own military because if it the right to regulate state military isn't in the Constitution, then the Constitution already says it is a state right.
Of course, if we WERE to take the view that the second amendment was designed to make sure the states had military to fight off the federal government, then we would need to see the Civil War as a great loss, and should be demanding that our national guards start blockading the AT&T buildings to keep the federal government from performing warrantless wiretaps.
I honestly cannot tell whether you are joking or not. The first and last paragraphs definitely sound like you are joking, but the two middle ones sound totally serious.
What kind of job do you have that you can call in 10% of the time, and still keep your job? What ever it is, you should count yourself lucky, because in most places, you would be fired very quickly for that.
So, your saying that you see it likely that this school district had so much critical computer infrastructure that this teacher couldn't take an hour out of his IT problem solving day to show up to class? What exactly is it that this school district would be doing on their computers that couldn't wait until this teachers class was over?
And in other news... The UMAA (United Mall Association of America) have started posting security gates at the entrances to member Malls. Old people are being turned away in droves, as Mall owners are tired of old people "stealing our resources". Since many of the old people walk around the mall without purchasing products, they are clearly "stealing resources". This must stop! Won't someone think of the mall owners?!?!?
"But if I've seen anything in recent years, it's this increased propensity for school's to teach what I call "touch-feely" curricula, to try and work on children's self-esteem and socialization."
No doubt. A couple of weeks ago, I actually heard a five year old tell her mother "Your not my teacher" when her mother told her to climb up to the table.
What was going on that kept this teacher from showing up to work? Teachers only have 180 work days out of the possible 260 weekdays. That is 80 vacation days a year. A whopping 12 week summer vacation leaves 20 days off in the remaining 9 months. That averages just over two weekdays a month off. Your complaint shouldn't be that the sub didn't know programming. Your complain should be that they didn't, or couldn't fire an employee that didn't seem capable of showing up to work. Then on top of that, we all get to listen to their complaining about how their yearly salary isn't big enough.
To bring it back on subject... Do you really want someone like that teaching your kid ethics?
Permanently attaching the file to you IS crippling it. Many, many people sell their CDs when they tire of them. If your name is permanently attached to the file, you can be sure that you will be the one who ends up in court when the file shows up on a p2p network.
Ahh yes, The old "if your not doing anything illegal, you don't have to worry" argument. Watermarking is for tracking. I don't want to be tracked. I'm not any more interested in having corporate stalkers than I am in having private stalkers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out many ways that tracking peoples purchases can be used against them, even if they are not doing anything illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what planet you live on, but only a very small percentage of consumer goods are specifically designed to only work with other products so they can extract a fee from the other consumer goods products. The only ones that come to mind are game consoles, cell phones, some software packages, and cable/satallite services. You don't live in a basement with only game console (not plugged into a tv) and a cell phone do you?
But could it become fully reflective, and thus make things like mirrors?
The video game industry is a crappy model that relies on ignorance and short sightedness of the unwashed masses to support it.
I bought one of those for my wife, as she wanted a completely silent computer for her desk in the bedroom. I was considering getting another for a MythTV box, but had nothing but trouble when I tried to install MythTV on her's. What distro, and Video capture did you use? Was it a total pain to set up? and do you know a good tutorial for installing to that board? I also have a PVR350 that I was going to use for video capture.
No, it's more like saying: You need to sell your Toyota and buy a Kia to drive, after all, you don't HAVE to drive. You will also need to stop using whatever shampoo you are using, and only use Head and Shoulders. After all, you don't HAVE to wash your hair. You are also going to be able to only where Nike shoes. After all, you don't HAVE to wear shoes. The government should not be mandating the purchase of a single vendors products when there alternative choices. Especially when the alternatives are free.
You joke, but there are plenty of people that would do just that. A lady I work with has called the city on the 'Section 8' family living next door several times because they simply choose not to pay for trash service. The city makes an appointment to come out, the family hauls off the garbage, the city finds nothing, and the cycle starts again. If they are willing to live with that health risk, there is no reason to believe that they won't just dig a hole in the back yard, and live with an outhouse.
Correct. I know I'm glad that the auto industry crashes hundreds (thousands?) of cars a year during testing.
OK, I can accept that. But we really should put pools in the list too.
Pools kill lots of people too, and don't have the benefit of having prevented many rapes, robberies, beatings and killings. Maybe your list should be alcohol, tobacco, and pools.
I might shop at your store as long as it isn't your alcohol, tobacco and firearms store. Although the lack of product would keep my bill down.
That certainly isn't the case, as the phone was used for less than two hours during the month and a half that it has been installed (two months of billing because they bill in advance). They have simply "crammed" my bill with a ton of service charges. Heck, they even have a $25 charge for "Change Telephone Number". I've only had the number for a month and a half, and it hasn't changed. The "Residence Flat Rate" shows that it is a $10.69 per month charge, and they have me charged 3 times for it in the amounts of $6.06, $10.69, and amazingly enough $14.25!
Don't forget: Employee has to jump through hoops because the companies computer policies prevent them from running the software that would let them get their job done.
I believe he is comparing them to the GDP.
"With AT&T, you're buying a service; it amounts to a work for hire, in essence. As such, they can require you to agree to certain terms, but not ones which would restrict you from certain rights, e.g., if they work with the government to subert your constitutional rights (e.g., engaged in wiretapping without a warrant), engage in fraud and charge you for services you do not receive, or falsely advertise their services (advertising them as unlimited), and so forth, it is unreasonable for a court to accept that waiver of such rights is valid or even possible."
Funny you say that. AT&T committed fraud against me just this week. They are "Cramming" my phone bill. I signed up for a basic flat rate service at $10.95 a month (+all of the various taxes). Two months into it and I already have a $125 bill! To be fair, I did make 3 minutes worth of long distance calls and dialed local number to connect to my ISP on this line while I was waiting for my DSL connection. Nothing after that though, as I use my cell and Vonage for all of my calls.
I would frame it in two parts.
1) Do you acknowledge evolution?
2) If no, which of the following do you not believe in?
a) Life forms physical makeup is defined by their genetic code.
b) Life forms get their genetic code from their parents.
c) Genes can be mutated by naturally occurring radiation and/or chemicals.
d) Life forms with genetic code makes them less fit for an environment are less likely to thrive and breed.
It really only takes not believing in one to not believe in evolution, and if you believe in all of them, you do believe in evolution whether you want to admit it or not.
The guy might not have said it well, but he is absolutely correct when he said that the second amendment is not about protecting yourself from criminals, and it is also not about hunting. Do you really believe that in 1790, they were sitting around arguing whether you needed a guarantee that you could hunt or not? That would be like needing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that you could go to the grocery store. Do you really believe that they were debating whether or not you needed an amendment saying you could use the strongest weapon you could get your hands on to stop that group of ruffians from brutally raping your wife and daughter? Do you think it was brought up that, "Hey, if someone breaks into your house, you can just make the two hour ride to the nearest town to get the sheriff to ride another two hours back to stop the raping". No, these kinds of arguments would be absurd.
The US did just come off of a revolution, where the government had been seen as extremely abusive. Other governments in the world had previously taken the action of disarming the citizens so that the government could abuse them. Do you really believe that the argument would have been presented of "Look, the war was horrible, but can you imagine what would have happened if we didn't have guns? We need to make sure that the government knows they can only go so far before the people rise up and replace them".
As for the "it's a guarantee that the government can have arms." argument... What government in all the history of the world has ever felt the need to guarantee itself in writing, the right to bare arms? It is an absurd argument.
I have heard the retort to this before. It goes something like "It's a guarantee for the STATES to have their own military. Not the individual". Of course that argument requires that the person making it, not understand the Constitution at all. It is very clear in the constitution that anything that is not explicitly granted in the Constitution is the domain of the states. There is no need to guarantee the states the right to have their own military because if it the right to regulate state military isn't in the Constitution, then the Constitution already says it is a state right.
Of course, if we WERE to take the view that the second amendment was designed to make sure the states had military to fight off the federal government, then we would need to see the Civil War as a great loss, and should be demanding that our national guards start blockading the AT&T buildings to keep the federal government from performing warrantless wiretaps.
I honestly cannot tell whether you are joking or not. The first and last paragraphs definitely sound like you are joking, but the two middle ones sound totally serious.
What kind of job do you have that you can call in 10% of the time, and still keep your job? What ever it is, you should count yourself lucky, because in most places, you would be fired very quickly for that.
So, your saying that you see it likely that this school district had so much critical computer infrastructure that this teacher couldn't take an hour out of his IT problem solving day to show up to class? What exactly is it that this school district would be doing on their computers that couldn't wait until this teachers class was over?
And in other news... The UMAA (United Mall Association of America) have started posting security gates at the entrances to member Malls. Old people are being turned away in droves, as Mall owners are tired of old people "stealing our resources". Since many of the old people walk around the mall without purchasing products, they are clearly "stealing resources". This must stop! Won't someone think of the mall owners?!?!?
OK, I know this is completely off topic, but how is it that someone can take a novel written by there prophet, and make such a travesty out of it?!?!?
"But if I've seen anything in recent years, it's this increased propensity for school's to teach what I call "touch-feely" curricula, to try and work on children's self-esteem and socialization."
No doubt. A couple of weeks ago, I actually heard a five year old tell her mother "Your not my teacher" when her mother told her to climb up to the table.
Actually, they will probably classify it as Health and Safety. That way they can hire more coaches. It's important to have your priorities straight.
What was going on that kept this teacher from showing up to work? Teachers only have 180 work days out of the possible 260 weekdays. That is 80 vacation days a year. A whopping 12 week summer vacation leaves 20 days off in the remaining 9 months. That averages just over two weekdays a month off. Your complaint shouldn't be that the sub didn't know programming. Your complain should be that they didn't, or couldn't fire an employee that didn't seem capable of showing up to work. Then on top of that, we all get to listen to their complaining about how their yearly salary isn't big enough.
To bring it back on subject... Do you really want someone like that teaching your kid ethics?
Permanently attaching the file to you IS crippling it. Many, many people sell their CDs when they tire of them. If your name is permanently attached to the file, you can be sure that you will be the one who ends up in court when the file shows up on a p2p network.
Ahh yes, The old "if your not doing anything illegal, you don't have to worry" argument. Watermarking is for tracking. I don't want to be tracked. I'm not any more interested in having corporate stalkers than I am in having private stalkers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out many ways that tracking peoples purchases can be used against them, even if they are not doing anything illegal.