Doesn't that depend on what was in the letters? If he's demanding something and threatening to reveal it if not, that's blackmail... especially if the supposed "information" is not true.
According to the article, we don't know what the information was or whether it was true or not (emphasis mine).
The amendments made to the woman's entry involved information about her professional expenses claims and details about her child which the judge did not reveal.
She has also received two anonymous letters - although it was not possible to say if these were from the same person who altered the website.
It does say it involved expense claims, but that isn't proven to be true or false either... so you're believing someone that has presumably sent threatening letters over the businesswoman. She denies the wrongdoing, by the way.
But there's a difference. Walking (or biking, public transit, etc) due to finances is not done for the sake of being "green." It's done because you can't afford anything else (or don't want to afford something else, i.e., you're saving it).
The "green fashion," or as I call it, the green fad, seems to be a thing going on with rich people who feel that they are better than others because they are saving the planet. Ok, so maybe not the self-righteous bit, but they certainly aren't doing it because they have to do it. If you can afford a $70k electric vehicle (or whatever Tesla things are going for nowadays), you qualify as being caught up in the "green fad" in my book... in more than one way, too. If you take mass transit, walk, or bike instead of driving your existing car AND tell me you do it "for the environment," then I'll believe you.
In other words, I have a hard time believing people when the only difference between them NOT "going green" and them "going green" is the fact that they have enough money to throw away that they don't care about the extra cost incurred to them. If they couldn't afford to live the way they want and have luxury cars (or whatever the item is) that were green and thus went "back" to non-green luxury cars/items...
But I'm kinda anti-fad, so whatever. I drive large cars/trucks AND bike/take mass transit to work. Primarily for cost, though. May as well not pay for gas if I don't have to. If I was able to get an electric car for cheap enough that it'd actually be worth it, I'd probably consider it as a commute vehicle... but there's other issues, too. I'd like to eventually do more outdoors type stuff, sorta quasi-ranch style. Pulling a horse trailer with two or four horses in it isn't exactly a job for a Prius.
More efficient than internal combustion? Most definitely. Now, how efficient we are at producing the electricity to charge the batteries that power the electric vehicle is a question, too, though.
Physical science doesn't lie, but marketers do, and you apparently always find "scientific evidence" for anything you want... you just have to be willing to ignore things, too. Yes, I'm a skeptic:P hehe.
It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.
Then call it a donation. Meaningful feel to it? It feels silly, to me... not meaningful.:)
And you've actually seen proof that Tesla's car is greener than other cars, with all production/manufacturing included (in both)? You are sure you're not just lining the pockets of people that are seeking to gain from the "go green" fad/hype going on right now? (including Al Gore, of course)
Båstad is a locality and the seat of Båstad Municipality, Skåne County, Sweden with 4,793 inhabitants in 2005. [It] is located in a sheltered bay with the Hallandian ridge stretching behind it. The town borders the shore, whereafter the terrain raises until the dense vegetation of the ridge takes over.
I don't see what bringing a Swedish town into the discussion adds...;)
I completely agree with this. I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.
If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it... just like everyone else.
OK, so it's stupidness on the part of the advertiser that caused it and not the consumer. We all know the "the coffee burned me when I spilled it" stories, though, too.
Ever read one? Ever read WHO is forbidden from delabeling it?
Know why those labels are there in the first place? That's right. Because some consumer somewhere probably sued the company because he didn't know mattresses were heavy or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard or something stupid like that...:)
is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.
Few people argue that, IMO. The thing people tend to argue about is just how long "our weather patterns" have been taking place. It seems to me that the last 100 years, even if you believe in a rather young earth, is a pretty small, er, chip out of the iceberg of time.
It seems that our weather is significantly different from weather history.
by white males out of proportion to their actual representation in the population
You are assuming (let's just take the case of "white women") that men and women are inherently the same on the inside, even culturally... that is, that an equal amount of white women as white men actually WANT to run businesses and be politicians.
I have met very few "white men" who want to be "stay at home dad's." I have met very many "white women" that want to be stay at home mom's. Unfortunately, the "thinkers" of today appear to invariably hold the premise that men and women are not different in any way, except physical appearance, thus we should have equal representation based on demographics in every job. Except jobs that women don't like, of course. And there isn't a huge social outcry about the discrimination against male secretaries/"administrative assistants." And when I've heard that argued, the answer seems to typically be that "well, women are better at doing those sorts of functions - phone answering, organization, etc." But it's sexist to say that men - on the whole/average is understood, of course - are better at anything. Except violence or something like that.
Also useless security because if I was a terrorist I sure as hell would be changing my name to John Smith ASAP.
Just like all the current Islamic-believing terrorists we've caught. They all had "white" names. To blend in.
...
Seriously, though. Why is it racism to connect two points of information: (1) there is a current high number of people of a certain ethnic group (or religious group that is highly populated with people of a particular ethnic group) that want to kill the US, and (2) this person that wants to sell to the DoD [or something like that].
It's "racist" in the sense that you are treating an entire group of people differently because of people in their ethnic group that have been consistently problematic. If we had a sudden influx of Spanish terrorists, I would say the same thing.
It's no different than if (or when) the US did something bad to some small country and that small country now distrusts all Americans. But somehow, that's not "racism." That's "America getting a taste of its own medicine" or "justice" or whatever. Personally, I don't have a problem with it - if my country did something bad, or if my religious group, or if my ethnic group... then I expect to have to work much harder to show that I'm not like that.
And there's a difference between mistreating and being cautions/careful. Unfortunately, we don't seem to notice there is a way to be careful without mistreatment.
Slashdot Mirror
She also received anonymous threatening letters suggesting her accuser would reveal information to the press.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232901/Wikipedia-ordered-reveal-identity-editor-accused-blackmailing-mother-child.html#ixzz0Yfq9nBa3
Doesn't that depend on what was in the letters? If he's demanding something and threatening to reveal it if not, that's blackmail... especially if the supposed "information" is not true.
According to the article, we don't know what the information was or whether it was true or not (emphasis mine).
The amendments made to the woman's entry involved information about her professional expenses claims and details about her child which the judge did not reveal. She has also received two anonymous letters - although it was not possible to say if these were from the same person who altered the website.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232901/Wikipedia-ordered-reveal-identity-editor-accused-blackmailing-mother-child.html#ixzz0Yfqcw5Yk
It does say it involved expense claims, but that isn't proven to be true or false either... so you're believing someone that has presumably sent threatening letters over the businesswoman. She denies the wrongdoing, by the way.
But there's a difference. Walking (or biking, public transit, etc) due to finances is not done for the sake of being "green." It's done because you can't afford anything else (or don't want to afford something else, i.e., you're saving it).
The "green fashion," or as I call it, the green fad, seems to be a thing going on with rich people who feel that they are better than others because they are saving the planet. Ok, so maybe not the self-righteous bit, but they certainly aren't doing it because they have to do it. If you can afford a $70k electric vehicle (or whatever Tesla things are going for nowadays), you qualify as being caught up in the "green fad" in my book... in more than one way, too. If you take mass transit, walk, or bike instead of driving your existing car AND tell me you do it "for the environment," then I'll believe you.
In other words, I have a hard time believing people when the only difference between them NOT "going green" and them "going green" is the fact that they have enough money to throw away that they don't care about the extra cost incurred to them. If they couldn't afford to live the way they want and have luxury cars (or whatever the item is) that were green and thus went "back" to non-green luxury cars/items...
But I'm kinda anti-fad, so whatever. I drive large cars/trucks AND bike/take mass transit to work. Primarily for cost, though. May as well not pay for gas if I don't have to. If I was able to get an electric car for cheap enough that it'd actually be worth it, I'd probably consider it as a commute vehicle... but there's other issues, too. I'd like to eventually do more outdoors type stuff, sorta quasi-ranch style. Pulling a horse trailer with two or four horses in it isn't exactly a job for a Prius.
It was designed to drive at speeds commonly used by commuters. Under those conditions it does very well averaging somewhere in the 40's.
Most of the Prius drivers I know do 70 to 80 in the carpool lane.
... the Year of Linux on the Laptop Orchestra!
More efficient than internal combustion? Most definitely. Now, how efficient we are at producing the electricity to charge the batteries that power the electric vehicle is a question, too, though.
Physical science doesn't lie, but marketers do, and you apparently always find "scientific evidence" for anything you want... you just have to be willing to ignore things, too. Yes, I'm a skeptic :P hehe.
It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.
Then call it a donation. Meaningful feel to it? It feels silly, to me... not meaningful. :)
And you've actually seen proof that Tesla's car is greener than other cars, with all production/manufacturing included (in both)? You are sure you're not just lining the pockets of people that are seeking to gain from the "go green" fad/hype going on right now? (including Al Gore, of course)
BSOD? Pft, it was PCOD. Punch Card of Death.
The CD burning software is available through the Nautilus file manager.
In Gnome.
Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job: beware what you post online
Or in newspapers, magazines, bridges, overpasses...
I would have thought this would be common-sense. If you want to keep something private, don't tell everyone about it :)
Båstad is a locality and the seat of Båstad Municipality, Skåne County, Sweden with 4,793 inhabitants in 2005. [It] is located in a sheltered bay with the Hallandian ridge stretching behind it. The town borders the shore, whereafter the terrain raises until the dense vegetation of the ridge takes over.
I don't see what bringing a Swedish town into the discussion adds... ;)
I completely agree with this. I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.
If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it ... just like everyone else.
Primarily an NFL reference I guess. 3 timeouts per half (per team), IIRC. :)
get a timeout error
Maybe you already used all three of yours?
OK, so it's stupidness on the part of the advertiser that caused it and not the consumer. We all know the "the coffee burned me when I spilled it" stories, though, too.
I've heard of dirt. Isn't that one of those grassroots projects?
I also heard it wasn't very secure, had to be root to do anything...
But I guess the effort paid off, since a lot of recent projects have grown out of it.
:P
I bet he's not afraid to tear labels off things.
Ever read one? Ever read WHO is forbidden from delabeling it?
Know why those labels are there in the first place? That's right. Because some consumer somewhere probably sued the company because he didn't know mattresses were heavy or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard or something stupid like that... :)
Actually, it was more of a joke about remembering something from 30k years ago than memory in general... but oh well. :)
IIRC.
You, sir, are old!
is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.
Few people argue that, IMO. The thing people tend to argue about is just how long "our weather patterns" have been taking place. It seems to me that the last 100 years, even if you believe in a rather young earth, is a pretty small, er, chip out of the iceberg of time.
It seems that our weather is significantly different from weather history.
I have no idea why "a low end non power user" would know or care what their display resolution is.
"Is there a way I can make my screen bigger?"
"The power went out, and when I turned my computer on, everything was really big and now I have to scroll to see anything."
...
I don't know what end users you know, but the ones I know definitely care :)
There korrected that for you ;)
*ahem* Fixed that for you.
by white males out of proportion to their actual representation in the population
You are assuming (let's just take the case of "white women") that men and women are inherently the same on the inside, even culturally... that is, that an equal amount of white women as white men actually WANT to run businesses and be politicians.
I have met very few "white men" who want to be "stay at home dad's." I have met very many "white women" that want to be stay at home mom's. Unfortunately, the "thinkers" of today appear to invariably hold the premise that men and women are not different in any way, except physical appearance, thus we should have equal representation based on demographics in every job. Except jobs that women don't like, of course. And there isn't a huge social outcry about the discrimination against male secretaries/"administrative assistants." And when I've heard that argued, the answer seems to typically be that "well, women are better at doing those sorts of functions - phone answering, organization, etc." But it's sexist to say that men - on the whole/average is understood, of course - are better at anything. Except violence or something like that.
The only question that should arise from such a slaying is if there was gross negligence involved in the death.
Like knowingly selling faulty and/or "mislabeled" electronic components?
If I knowingly drive a car that I know to malfunction on occasion and I hit you because it malfunctions, I can't blame it on the car.
Or do you mean "purely incidental" or something like that? "Purely accidental" seems a little strong to apply in this case.
Also useless security because if I was a terrorist I sure as hell would be changing my name to John Smith ASAP.
Just like all the current Islamic-believing terrorists we've caught. They all had "white" names. To blend in.
...
Seriously, though. Why is it racism to connect two points of information: (1) there is a current high number of people of a certain ethnic group (or religious group that is highly populated with people of a particular ethnic group) that want to kill the US, and (2) this person that wants to sell to the DoD [or something like that].
It's "racist" in the sense that you are treating an entire group of people differently because of people in their ethnic group that have been consistently problematic. If we had a sudden influx of Spanish terrorists, I would say the same thing.
It's no different than if (or when) the US did something bad to some small country and that small country now distrusts all Americans. But somehow, that's not "racism." That's "America getting a taste of its own medicine" or "justice" or whatever. Personally, I don't have a problem with it - if my country did something bad, or if my religious group, or if my ethnic group... then I expect to have to work much harder to show that I'm not like that.
And there's a difference between mistreating and being cautions/careful. Unfortunately, we don't seem to notice there is a way to be careful without mistreatment.