If it's 'the truth', let's see some strategic forecasts. Let's see logistical analysis, nuclear force readiness reports, military intelligence.
Let's see some Russian geopolitical analysis- well reasoned, well thought-out analysis of Russian leaders, their past behavior, and their likely future behavior with probability analysis and explanations.
Let's see strategic forecasts for Russia's major neighbors; force readiness reports from China and the major EU nations; geopolitical analysis of the Chinese, the EU, and the Americans; logistical analysis of EU/Chinese/American tactical and strategic response to Russian aggression.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, although I think you are. What I am saying is that if you want people to take you seriously, crying "OH NOES ANOTHER GERMANY" is not the way to do it.
The only thing a credit rating is good for is getting into debt.
Are you one of those people who hates debt? Debt can be incredibly useful. One of my friends is a very prominent investment banker, who has a ten million dollar mortgage on her property- one that she never bothers to pay off the principal of. She makes more money on the ten million dollars than her bank makes in interest on their mortgage.
But it is illegal to them to refuse cash in repayment for a debt.
So either you agree that debt is useful, or this doesn't apply to you, either.
That's a load of nonsense. Many people pay their rent with cash. You can buy a house and a car with cash, if you have the cash. You can immediately cash you paycheck and never use a bank account.
That works, sometimes. Some places will not accept cash rent (large corporations), and some banks will not allow you to directly cash cheques, because it's ridiculously insecure.
The best way to deal with these policies, I have found, is to issue a written direction to the bank and hand it to your manager as well as mailing it to the bank's legal services division.
I have, for example, a written direction on file with my bank that they are to refuse any charges that would overdraft my account, regardless of whether they are preauthorized or not.
If the bank fails to uphold my explicit written instructions, they become responsible for the results.
That's actually not entirely true. It's an ethically grey area, at best, especially for lawyers.
Yes, lawyers generally have the right to refuse clients based on their personal morality.
However, lawyers shouldn't exercise this right except under exceptional circumstances (or as a blanket clause- i.e., "I am not accepting any more clients".)
According to the Law Society of Upper Canada:
The lawyer has a general right to decline a particular representation (except when assigned as counsel by a tribunal), but it is a right to be exercised prudently, particularly if the probable result would be to make it difficult for a person to obtain legal advice or representation. Generally, the lawyer should not exercise the right merely because a person seeking legal services or that person's cause is unpopular or notorious, or because powerful interests or allegations of misconduct or malfeasance are involved, or because of the lawyer's private opinion about the guilt of the accused. A lawyer declining representation should assist in obtaining the services of another licensee qualified in the particular field and able to act.
In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.
Code placed in the public domain does fulfill all of those qualities. Derivatives may or may not, but that's a different issue he wasn't talking about.
And really, the ability to make non-free derivatives is a freedom too.
Plea bargaining is dangerous because it tends to generate what comes to be known as the 'trial penalty'- the extra time that the DA will ask for if you go to trial that he wouldn't ask for under a plea bargain.
However, that's not to say that the trial penalty is intimidation. Rather, it's generally exactly the opposite- the DA is supposed to hit you for the full value of the law if he can. It's his job to prosecute you to the full extent of the law.
But DAs and judges deal with a lot of cases- in some cases, hundreds or thousands a year. As a result, major defense attorneys, DAs, and judges, together the judicial community, basically all come to an understanding of what each crime is 'worth'.
A plea bargain basically gives the defendant the ability to go to the DA, show them any extenuating circumstances, and have the community come to an agreement on what the crime is 'worth'- something that they can do because they handle so many different cases that they know the going rate.
Trial is much more uncertain. You may win, you may not win, the sentence handed down may be high or low, or the defendant might be acquitted... it's unpredictable entirely. Everyone involved, especially if you're guilty, generally wants to get it over with quickly- and one of the major ways to do that is with a plea bargain.
In a case like this, where it's relatively clear he doesn't want to plead out and there really are issues at play, the DA's job is to basically gather up every single thing he can think of to throw at the defendant and do it, on the hope that something'll stick, even if some of it doesn't convince at trial.
The justice system doesn't need to intimidate you- it's infinitely better funded, better equipped, and more knowledgeable and experienced than most people can ever hope to be. That's intimidating by itself.
Exactly my question- why does such a device need a keyboard, monitor, etc jacks? Those are irrelevant, as they imply a large amount of extra equipment added to it.
If you do plan to add that equipment, you can use a bigger computer. If you don't, then it's not necessary.
Then the design is a failure, as it could be made smaller and lighter by removing all the components that make it a desktop system. Like a display port.
If that were true, which is certainly possible, the keyboard and monitor interfaces are irrelevant, and should not have been added in the design phase. They're totally not necessary, increase the cost, increase the complexity, increase the weight and increase the size.
Also, I have devices that charge via USB and come with a wall-wart; they just charge a lot faster via the wall-wart than from a PC, despite both using the USB connector.
There's a reason they serve astronauts caviar- the cost of the caviar is pretty much irrelevant compared to the cost of launching it.
As it is, if the thing was designed for use in space- why didn't they cut off the ports during the design phase? Why leave them on so they could (possibly, I don't even know if they can) cut them off at a later date?
Of course not. And it also doesn't help that the Space Cube, unlike the eeePC, is totally useless by itself.
It's wonderful to have a tiny computer, but if you need to slap on a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to use it it's really not all that tiny, is it?
It also doesn't help that the real reason, in general (i.e., other than embedded computing environments) the reason people want small computers is portability, and this thing is hardly portable- sure, it's small and light, but given that it's totally useless on its own, that lack of size and weight is mostly irrelevant.
Even for use in space, I still think it's a waste of, well, space. Either you're going to connect it to a real computer for display and use (with that big monitor and keyboard) or you're not, and all those jacks are a waste of space.
Right then, I'm glad reading comprehension on slashdot is as good as usual today.
Firstly, I never said that their government was better than democracy. (And even if I had, it would have been that their form of government was better than democracy.)
Secondly, my comment obviously refers to the manner of making decisions and not merely this decision in particular- namely that dictatorial regimes can centrally and efficiently make and enforce decisions, even when those decisions may be unpopular with the masses or with corporations- and specifically, that as a non-western state, the Chinese government (and other dictatorships in general) have no particular ideological history of kowtowing to free enterprise.
Thirdly, I agree with the US government mandating non-analog TV signals. I have no problems with them doing so. The government is often too lax about stepping in and mandating advancements or specific levels of service, especially in areas where it has a public responsibility to do so- consumer safety, publicly-owned services, that sort of thing.
It would be much easier to compress your comment into the simple statement that convergent devices do everything poorly and nothing well.
For those of us who like devices that actually do things well, separate units is the way to go.
I used to like convergent devices; I had a HTC Universal, in the hopes that it would combine my camera, PDA, phone, and music player. Hell, it even had a gameboy emulator on it. But after a while, I realized that it made a crappy phone, a crappy camera, a bulky PDA, and had a terrible control scheme to be a gameboy. Sure, it played music, but it was terribly bulky for that and held only about 4GB based on the size of my SD card at the time.
I also realized I didn't need most of that crap anyway. Now I just carry a cellphone, which has an equally crappy camera in it- but hey, I don't use the camera that often and it's a slim cell phone. I also carry a blackberry for PDA and messaging if I need it... and last but not least, I've realized that I don't actually need a gameboy or a music player the vast majority of the time.
That's not to say, however, that I've learned my lesson. The weight saved in my gear-bag is now occupied with a night vision monocular...
And people wonder why I often appreciate non-democratic regimes.
If the Chinese government wants to say that all cellular handsets sold in China must charge via USB, they just make the rule, and then go ahead and execute everyone who breaks it.
It's much easier than the standard "Oh, but the market will sort it out!" *wank wank wank* that we often hear.
Actually, I'd have to check the Rules, but I believe legal fees in Small Claims Court are capped at 15% of the value of the issue up for decision.
(Also, the Rules are different from province to province- in... Alberta, BC, NWT, YT, and Nunavut, I believe, the max is 25,000 but in Ontario and Quebec, I think, it's $10,000.)
Slashdot Mirror
Entrapment is a criminal statutory doctrine, not a civil one.
You do realize the US federal deficit is something like 60 trillion USD?
If it's 'the truth', let's see some strategic forecasts. Let's see logistical analysis, nuclear force readiness reports, military intelligence.
Let's see some Russian geopolitical analysis- well reasoned, well thought-out analysis of Russian leaders, their past behavior, and their likely future behavior with probability analysis and explanations.
Let's see strategic forecasts for Russia's major neighbors; force readiness reports from China and the major EU nations; geopolitical analysis of the Chinese, the EU, and the Americans; logistical analysis of EU/Chinese/American tactical and strategic response to Russian aggression.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, although I think you are. What I am saying is that if you want people to take you seriously, crying "OH NOES ANOTHER GERMANY" is not the way to do it.
Are you one of those people who hates debt? Debt can be incredibly useful. One of my friends is a very prominent investment banker, who has a ten million dollar mortgage on her property- one that she never bothers to pay off the principal of. She makes more money on the ten million dollars than her bank makes in interest on their mortgage.
So either you agree that debt is useful, or this doesn't apply to you, either.
That works, sometimes. Some places will not accept cash rent (large corporations), and some banks will not allow you to directly cash cheques, because it's ridiculously insecure.
The answer to that quote, of course, is... well, if the Supreme Court can't force him to obey them, what's forcing the Army to obey him?
The best way to deal with these policies, I have found, is to issue a written direction to the bank and hand it to your manager as well as mailing it to the bank's legal services division.
I have, for example, a written direction on file with my bank that they are to refuse any charges that would overdraft my account, regardless of whether they are preauthorized or not.
If the bank fails to uphold my explicit written instructions, they become responsible for the results.
That's actually not entirely true. It's an ethically grey area, at best, especially for lawyers.
Yes, lawyers generally have the right to refuse clients based on their personal morality.
However, lawyers shouldn't exercise this right except under exceptional circumstances (or as a blanket clause- i.e., "I am not accepting any more clients".)
According to the Law Society of Upper Canada:
In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.
Except it doesn't work that way. At all.
That is also a freedom. Just because you don't like the repercussions doesn't mean it's otherwise.
One of the most basic elements of our society is balancing where one party's freedoms end and the other's begin.
Yes, being able to put something under lock and key is a freedom. So is being able to shoot people that you don't like in the face.
Code placed in the public domain does fulfill all of those qualities. Derivatives may or may not, but that's a different issue he wasn't talking about.
And really, the ability to make non-free derivatives is a freedom too.
Actually, that's not really it at all.
Plea bargaining is dangerous because it tends to generate what comes to be known as the 'trial penalty'- the extra time that the DA will ask for if you go to trial that he wouldn't ask for under a plea bargain.
However, that's not to say that the trial penalty is intimidation. Rather, it's generally exactly the opposite- the DA is supposed to hit you for the full value of the law if he can. It's his job to prosecute you to the full extent of the law.
But DAs and judges deal with a lot of cases- in some cases, hundreds or thousands a year. As a result, major defense attorneys, DAs, and judges, together the judicial community, basically all come to an understanding of what each crime is 'worth'.
A plea bargain basically gives the defendant the ability to go to the DA, show them any extenuating circumstances, and have the community come to an agreement on what the crime is 'worth'- something that they can do because they handle so many different cases that they know the going rate.
Trial is much more uncertain. You may win, you may not win, the sentence handed down may be high or low, or the defendant might be acquitted... it's unpredictable entirely. Everyone involved, especially if you're guilty, generally wants to get it over with quickly- and one of the major ways to do that is with a plea bargain.
In a case like this, where it's relatively clear he doesn't want to plead out and there really are issues at play, the DA's job is to basically gather up every single thing he can think of to throw at the defendant and do it, on the hope that something'll stick, even if some of it doesn't convince at trial.
The justice system doesn't need to intimidate you- it's infinitely better funded, better equipped, and more knowledgeable and experienced than most people can ever hope to be. That's intimidating by itself.
Would you want to be viewing your data on a display 2" square?
Exactly my question- why does such a device need a keyboard, monitor, etc jacks? Those are irrelevant, as they imply a large amount of extra equipment added to it.
If you do plan to add that equipment, you can use a bigger computer. If you don't, then it's not necessary.
Then the design is a failure, as it could be made smaller and lighter by removing all the components that make it a desktop system. Like a display port.
If that were true, which is certainly possible, the keyboard and monitor interfaces are irrelevant, and should not have been added in the design phase. They're totally not necessary, increase the cost, increase the complexity, increase the weight and increase the size.
USB 3.0 is designed for greater power, I believe.
Also, I have devices that charge via USB and come with a wall-wart; they just charge a lot faster via the wall-wart than from a PC, despite both using the USB connector.
There's a reason they serve astronauts caviar- the cost of the caviar is pretty much irrelevant compared to the cost of launching it.
As it is, if the thing was designed for use in space- why didn't they cut off the ports during the design phase? Why leave them on so they could (possibly, I don't even know if they can) cut them off at a later date?
Of course not. And it also doesn't help that the Space Cube, unlike the eeePC, is totally useless by itself.
It's wonderful to have a tiny computer, but if you need to slap on a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to use it it's really not all that tiny, is it?
It also doesn't help that the real reason, in general (i.e., other than embedded computing environments) the reason people want small computers is portability, and this thing is hardly portable- sure, it's small and light, but given that it's totally useless on its own, that lack of size and weight is mostly irrelevant.
Even for use in space, I still think it's a waste of, well, space. Either you're going to connect it to a real computer for display and use (with that big monitor and keyboard) or you're not, and all those jacks are a waste of space.
Right then, I'm glad reading comprehension on slashdot is as good as usual today.
Firstly, I never said that their government was better than democracy. (And even if I had, it would have been that their form of government was better than democracy.)
Secondly, my comment obviously refers to the manner of making decisions and not merely this decision in particular- namely that dictatorial regimes can centrally and efficiently make and enforce decisions, even when those decisions may be unpopular with the masses or with corporations- and specifically, that as a non-western state, the Chinese government (and other dictatorships in general) have no particular ideological history of kowtowing to free enterprise.
Thirdly, I agree with the US government mandating non-analog TV signals. I have no problems with them doing so. The government is often too lax about stepping in and mandating advancements or specific levels of service, especially in areas where it has a public responsibility to do so- consumer safety, publicly-owned services, that sort of thing.
Because people abuse freedom.
They could do that. And in many ways, it would not be intelligent, although in many ways it would be intelligent.
That, however, is not what they've done. I don't see any downsides to mandating that all cell phones must charge via USB.
It would be much easier to compress your comment into the simple statement that convergent devices do everything poorly and nothing well.
For those of us who like devices that actually do things well, separate units is the way to go.
I used to like convergent devices; I had a HTC Universal, in the hopes that it would combine my camera, PDA, phone, and music player. Hell, it even had a gameboy emulator on it. But after a while, I realized that it made a crappy phone, a crappy camera, a bulky PDA, and had a terrible control scheme to be a gameboy. Sure, it played music, but it was terribly bulky for that and held only about 4GB based on the size of my SD card at the time.
I also realized I didn't need most of that crap anyway. Now I just carry a cellphone, which has an equally crappy camera in it- but hey, I don't use the camera that often and it's a slim cell phone. I also carry a blackberry for PDA and messaging if I need it... and last but not least, I've realized that I don't actually need a gameboy or a music player the vast majority of the time.
That's not to say, however, that I've learned my lesson. The weight saved in my gear-bag is now occupied with a night vision monocular...
And people wonder why I often appreciate non-democratic regimes.
If the Chinese government wants to say that all cellular handsets sold in China must charge via USB, they just make the rule, and then go ahead and execute everyone who breaks it.
It's much easier than the standard "Oh, but the market will sort it out!" *wank wank wank* that we often hear.
Actually, I'd have to check the Rules, but I believe legal fees in Small Claims Court are capped at 15% of the value of the issue up for decision.
(Also, the Rules are different from province to province- in... Alberta, BC, NWT, YT, and Nunavut, I believe, the max is 25,000 but in Ontario and Quebec, I think, it's $10,000.)
...Wooosh.