And that's the thing. Like the last/. discussion on this, if your hard drive is encrypted can they compel you to provide access as a condition for allowed travel?
What about employees of organizations/in professions that are legally required to protect information?
The only component of the new./ I don't like is the inline post comment function; it breaks under the current HTML reshaping rules I have set with Proxomitron and I am loathe to modify them/make exclusions for this. Fortunately the old posting form is still available.
EXTREMELY expensive cables That is 100% correct. I bought a spool of 12 gauge speaker wire from Lowes for pennies on the dollar spent on Monster cable.
There is one Monster product, however, that was worth the purchase. I sought an FM modulator and while none that I tried had any problems with reception, the several I tried before the Monster unit had awful, flat sound quality. In this case the premium was for a superior product, not just a name.
Microsoft immediately blasted the idea of a search advertising partnership between Yahoo and Google, saying it would be anticompetitive. "Any definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands," Microsoft said in a statement. *blinks*
(i) you can't sue the Federal Government IANAL, but "sue federal government" on Google links to a great deal of news articles, including from LexisNexis, involving that very action.
(ii) they have nothing to sue them for. Where there's a will there's a way. Isn't that what punitive damages are for?
Just because somebody is employed "at will" doesn't mean an employer can terminate an employee due to his or her religious affiliation. Since this is government, censorship does apply, and censorship is censorship no matter the vehicle. You may have an opinion on the viability, but I am convinced there is a case to be made.
Sure, they can get away with legislating other countries' policies (that moreover haven't even passed in the U.S.) by revoking funding, but why doesn't Johns Hopkins simply sue the federal government? Unless, of course, the administration claims once again that it is exempt from the basic legal tenets of the U.S.
It is commonly the case that exceeding the speed limit is safer than steadfastly obeying it regardless of traffic conditions. But this kind of enforcement isn't about safety, it is about revenue.
For example, note this article from Car and Driver magazine that outlines how fatalities remained static and even went down in some states after the national speed limit was lifted in 1995 and states began raising speed limits, yet authorities claimed they had gone up by not including all of the data. From the article:
According to the Cato study, in the states in which the IIHS says that highway deaths increased after the speed limits went up, the overall deaths were un-changed. Therefore, on the roads that were not affected by the increased speed limits, the number of traffic fatalities must have decreased by a similar amount.
This is exactly what one would expect, because the highways with the higher speed limits attract drivers from slower roads. More drivers on the highways mean more accidents and fatalities on the highways, but fewer drivers and fatalities on other roads. Charles Lave, an economics professor at the University of California-Irvine, examined this phenomenon in a study in 1989. He also found that raising highway speed limits allowed police to spend less of their time writing speeding tickets and more time apprehending drunk drivers and patrolling dangerous roads.
Here is the original site for the ladder theory. Though the other is hosted with permission of the author, its has extra graphics, etc., and I'd rather get it straight from the source.
Is the RIAA imposing the fees? Absolutely not. The ISPs are, which mandates some oversight. What you're suggesting is tantamount to saying that the road shouldn't be built because you're feeding money directly to *XYZ CONSTRUCTION ENTITY*.
Call me flamebait, but this is fucking ridiculous. So you're saying you shouldn't be paying for a service if it's not in its first degree serving you? For example, if you live a few blocks from your workplace, you should not have to pay taxes for a transit system? We are living in a society. The thing to understand is if people start paying a tax for something then they will no longer buy it, and those in the commercial sector realize this if they are considering it. It is more profitable to collect from all than some. How many roads do you think we would have if only those who used them paid?
And for fuck's sake, if you don't listen to music ever, it is the same as a bicyclist who never uses the interstate. And it's fine, but it's not an excuse for avoiding taxes. But honestly, it is an industry adapting. Are you saying it is unreasonable for them to adapt? Music is important to society at large. If you're upset about this, do you have unlimited funds for paying for your content repeatedly? If so, I commend your success.
Case in point: the Mozy online backup EULA, which requires you to use the service only for good and for awesome, and warns against taunting the happy fun ball.
See paragraphs 2 and 3 in the LIMITATION OF LIABILITY section.
I'm sure it's a debate between those in bed with the defensive patent holders and those spooning the offensive patent holders. They dare not make the bill too radical and wake any sleeping giants.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Microsoft should be required to finish WinFS before being trusted with a component of HTML 5.
Most things that stay classified are probably just to hide hemorrhaging incompetence.
And that's the thing. Like the last /. discussion on this, if your hard drive is encrypted can they compel you to provide access as a condition for allowed travel?
What about employees of organizations/in professions that are legally required to protect information?
Aye, I iIM'd you, ai-yi-yi!
The only component of the new ./ I don't like is the inline post comment function; it breaks under the current HTML reshaping rules I have set with Proxomitron and I am loathe to modify them/make exclusions for this. Fortunately the old posting form is still available.
I've been saying all along, it's only a matter of time before the entire state of Illinois slides into Lake Michigan.
What do they care as long as they get their check in the mail?
FWIW, here is a link to an article from the university's website.
There is one Monster product, however, that was worth the purchase. I sought an FM modulator and while none that I tried had any problems with reception, the several I tried before the Monster unit had awful, flat sound quality. In this case the premium was for a superior product, not just a name.
They still make those?
Somebody's a fan of pubic lawn care.
I've said it before, if Microsoft eliminates Yahoo Cribbage I will kill myself.
Do you want that blood on your hands, Microsoft?
Just because somebody is employed "at will" doesn't mean an employer can terminate an employee due to his or her religious affiliation. Since this is government, censorship does apply, and censorship is censorship no matter the vehicle. You may have an opinion on the viability, but I am convinced there is a case to be made.
Sure, they can get away with legislating other countries' policies (that moreover haven't even passed in the U.S.) by revoking funding, but why doesn't Johns Hopkins simply sue the federal government? Unless, of course, the administration claims once again that it is exempt from the basic legal tenets of the U.S.
For example, note this article from Car and Driver magazine that outlines how fatalities remained static and even went down in some states after the national speed limit was lifted in 1995 and states began raising speed limits, yet authorities claimed they had gone up by not including all of the data. From the article: According to the Cato study, in the states in which the IIHS says that highway deaths increased after the speed limits went up, the overall deaths were un-changed. Therefore, on the roads that were not affected by the increased speed limits, the number of traffic fatalities must have decreased by a similar amount.
This is exactly what one would expect, because the highways with the higher speed limits attract drivers from slower roads. More drivers on the highways mean more accidents and fatalities on the highways, but fewer drivers and fatalities on other roads. Charles Lave, an economics professor at the University of California-Irvine, examined this phenomenon in a study in 1989. He also found that raising highway speed limits allowed police to spend less of their time writing speeding tickets and more time apprehending drunk drivers and patrolling dangerous roads.
I'm looking forward to Web 3.11 for Workgroups. (sigh) I miss Winsock.
Here is the original site for the ladder theory. Though the other is hosted with permission of the author, its has extra graphics, etc., and I'd rather get it straight from the source.
Is the RIAA imposing the fees? Absolutely not. The ISPs are, which mandates some oversight. What you're suggesting is tantamount to saying that the road shouldn't be built because you're feeding money directly to *XYZ CONSTRUCTION ENTITY*.
Call me flamebait, but this is fucking ridiculous. So you're saying you shouldn't be paying for a service if it's not in its first degree serving you? For example, if you live a few blocks from your workplace, you should not have to pay taxes for a transit system? We are living in a society. The thing to understand is if people start paying a tax for something then they will no longer buy it, and those in the commercial sector realize this if they are considering it. It is more profitable to collect from all than some. How many roads do you think we would have if only those who used them paid?
And for fuck's sake, if you don't listen to music ever, it is the same as a bicyclist who never uses the interstate. And it's fine, but it's not an excuse for avoiding taxes. But honestly, it is an industry adapting. Are you saying it is unreasonable for them to adapt? Music is important to society at large. If you're upset about this, do you have unlimited funds for paying for your content repeatedly? If so, I commend your success.
Really? I feel like Peter Griffin standing outside the newsstand for 48 hours trying to understand the New Yorker comic.
(closes PDF)
Case in point: the Mozy online backup EULA, which requires you to use the service only for good and for awesome, and warns against taunting the happy fun ball.
See paragraphs 2 and 3 in the LIMITATION OF LIABILITY section.
For example, by loosening up the definition of "citizen" only slightly, I can double the U.S. population. Every life counts.
Government Accountability Office, apparently.
I'm sure it's a debate between those in bed with the defensive patent holders and those spooning the offensive patent holders. They dare not make the bill too radical and wake any sleeping giants.