Not exactly. Google the "laches defense" parent mentioned. Yes, patents can be selectively enforced, but you can't knowingly allow an infringer to continue violating your patent in order to make them a juicier target before bringing action.
Yeah, and the Interstate highway system, what a mess! And that Hoover Dam fiasco, and how the Big Government funded military lost World War 2, and how we all have to shit in buckets because those incompetent bureaucrats can't build sewers...
The reason people seek goverment solutions is because government is the people. I realize this is an idealistic view, but government is at least nominally accountable to the people, and by means other than simply not buying something. Furthermore, not every function lends itself to profitablity, nor is profitability the best metric of their performance, which puts those functions at odds with the interests of private industry. We're not "losing money" on, for instance, public schools any more than we're "losing money" on buying groceries. When the return on investment accrues to society as a whole rather than being limitable, the appropriate investor is society as a whole, which is represented by government.
Why should you subsidize someone else's commute? Because you reap the benefits regardless of whether you directly utilize the service you're paying for. We pay for methadone clinics because even though you and I don't need methadone ourselves, we don't want a bunch of untreated junkies stealing our car stereos. We pay for public transportation because even if we never set foot on it it benefits all of us to have fewer cars on the street. This is -- or should be -- the basic test of whether government should endeavour to provide a service: Does it benefit, at least potentially or indirectly, everyone represented by that government? The existence of pork-barrel politics, bureaucratic incompetence, cronyism and corruption, while not to be denied, as we are all of us mere imperfect humans, does not alter the fact that we have some common interests which cannot be achieved through pure anarchy. Thus, government.
You're probably thinking of Andrea Nemerson, who writes the "alt.sex" column that often appears opposite Newitz' "Techsploitation" column in the SF Bay Guardian.
Try some of these Japanese "bullet hell" shooters. They take every bit as much dexterity as Defender, if not so many fingers. They do allow the player unlimited continues, but no one's forcing you not to start over every time your lives are up. If you look around you can find videos of people finishing them on one life.
Ever seen "looking for tenant, no college students" or "women prefered"?
Not in ads posted by landlords. The only ads you'll see (in the U.S.) that mention those sorts of restrictions are ads for roommates or boarders. If you're advertising for someone who's going to be sharing your own living space you're allowed to discriminate on whatever basis you want to, but not if you're a nonresident landlord.
put reasonable policies in place (e.g. root/Administrator logins are not allowed[...])[...]Crap like not allowing experienced users to install software on their own machines just pisses people off and reduces productivity.
An account that can install software outside of its home folder is a de facto Administrator account. How do you resolve the contradiction you've put forth?
>> You don't get to unilaterally decide whether something is your business or not.
> This assumes you have some god-given right to declare "privacy!" on anything you do. You do not.
I meant that you as a systems administrator (or any other non-executive position) do not get to decide whether other employees' documents are your business. Do your own job and quit worrying about who's sending personal emails or playing Minesweeper on company time.
That would be true for a regular employee, but here it really depends on the terms of the guy's contract. (By the way, using your own equipment is one of the legal tests used to determine whether you're really a contractor or an employee that the company is illegally failing to do tax withholding and payroll reporting for.) I'd say that when a company lends you something like a laptop to do your job with it's understood that it may be used for personal stuff too -- it's not a theodolite or Geiger counter or cherrypicker. This case seems to boil down to not whether the files were the company's property, but whether he deleted them just before or just after severing his contract, a distinction which is academic at best given the burden of proof.
you should expect that at any time any employee of the comany may read that letter
Any employee? Really? Even if it's not their job to peruse others' emails? If you ever really started posting hard copies in a public place you'd quickly find yourself to be a BXOOTUL (Bastard Ex-Operator On The Unemployment Line.) Just because it's your job to maintain computers doesn't mean it's your job to monitor everything that people do on them. They have their own jobs to do, and it's up to their managers to determine what's appropriate, not you. You don't get to unilaterally decide whether something is your business or not.
anything you put on a company computer IS THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY
As another poster pointed out earlier, this is simply not true. The company may have the right to examine any files put onto their property (i.e., the laptop) but the files don't become the company's property any more than your bag lunch becomes their property when you put it in "your" desk. They can search the desk whenever they like, but the desk's contents don't automatically become their property. If you get word that management is planning to search desks this afternoon you have every right to remove your lunch beforehand.
So are you saying that the alleged Marine's allegations are untrue? Is rushlimbaugh.com blocked or not? Is Wonkette? O'Reilly? Air America? Be specific.
No, the proper analogy is leaving your door open with a big sign over it saying "Free stuff! Come on in! Everything must go!" If you do that and then club the ensuing visitors with a baseball bat, you are quite clearly the criminal, not them.
It is in no way stealing. There can be no unauthorized use of an unsecured AP, because the AP authorizes your machine to use it when its DHCP hands you an IP address. Period. "Piggybackers" have permission.
If an incompetent homeowner installs a lawn sprinkler system in such a way that it also waters his neighbor's garden, would you say that the neighbor is "stealing" water?
I'm not trying to get you to switch. Use whatever makes you happy. I was merely putting forth some reasons for the appeal of clamshells, which you said you could not understand at all. Hopefully now you can.
Maybe we can find common ground in making fun of people with Bluetooth earpieces, or the wired earbud with mic that makes the user look like a lunatic muttering to himself.
1) Not getting your screen all scratched up by your keys or change. 2) Not having your other pocket items randomly dialing numbers for you, or not having to punch in a knock code to allow you to dial. 3) A microphone that's somewhere in the vicinity of your mouth instead of pressed against your cheekbone. 3a) Smaller when folded, bigger when open. 4) If it's good enough for the Federation, it's good enough for me.
TFA is wrong. "One of the tenets of fair use is that the usage not be commercial" is not true. Commerciality has bearing on it, but doesn't automatically exclude all commercial use from the Fair Use doctrine.
It's the name of the factory because it's the name of the town the factory is in. There are lots of -kill placenames in the northeast US. "Kill" is Dutch for creek or stream, and "fish" in this case is a shortening of "fisherman."
You're using the word "guilt" too broadly, encompassing both its legal and colloquial meanings. Presumption of innocence applies to how a defendant is treated, and on which side has the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't mean officers of the court may not believe that the defendant committed the crime he is accused of.
[The lawyer has] lost whatever impartiality he might have had and isn't doing his client any favors either.
Wherever did you get the idea that lawyers are supposed to be impartial? The adversarial system is predicated on exactly the opposite.
Ah, so he did. Well, grandparent is an idiot, but I'm not sure that saying "that shouldn't be allowed" on a discussion forum quite rises to the level of suppression of speech.
You're venturing somewhat far afield from the original discussion into the question of whether "inalienable rights" are granted or recognized. An interesting question, but not entirely on-topic.
My problem with your earlier statement is that you equate religious hypocrites with ethical atheists, when there is actually a significant difference in kind. The religious man who says "God wants us to sacrifice a goat, and we should always do what God wants" and then proceeds to not sacrifice a goat is acting amorally -- sinning. On the other hand, the atheist who observes that his biological imperative tells him to steal his neighbor's bananas and rape his wife, but then exercises free will to leave the neighbor's bananas and wife alone is not "violating" anything, as there is no morality inherent in the biological imperative, and naturalism is not an overarching value. (Except to selfish pricks looking for a philosophical justification to steal your bananas.)
Religious morals are imposed from above; irreligious ethics are derived from within. The atheists who believe in human rights do so because they have arrived at the conclusion that human rights are a desirable framework, "useful fiction" or not. I do not agree that "we continue to live as if they were much greater than fiction." Or rather, I don't see how our behaviour would change depending on their Truthiness. Either you treat your fellow man with respect because you think he is imbued with deservingness by the Universe, or you treat him with respect out of a conviction that doing so is part of a pragmatically wholesome organizing principle. Thus it's not a question of primary truth, so the contradiction that exists when a religious person acts irreligiously does not pertain.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, not all of us are like that. Just too many.
Not exactly. Google the "laches defense" parent mentioned. Yes, patents can be selectively enforced, but you can't knowingly allow an infringer to continue violating your patent in order to make them a juicier target before bringing action.
The reason people seek goverment solutions is because government is the people. I realize this is an idealistic view, but government is at least nominally accountable to the people, and by means other than simply not buying something. Furthermore, not every function lends itself to profitablity, nor is profitability the best metric of their performance, which puts those functions at odds with the interests of private industry. We're not "losing money" on, for instance, public schools any more than we're "losing money" on buying groceries. When the return on investment accrues to society as a whole rather than being limitable, the appropriate investor is society as a whole, which is represented by government.
Why should you subsidize someone else's commute? Because you reap the benefits regardless of whether you directly utilize the service you're paying for. We pay for methadone clinics because even though you and I don't need methadone ourselves, we don't want a bunch of untreated junkies stealing our car stereos. We pay for public transportation because even if we never set foot on it it benefits all of us to have fewer cars on the street. This is -- or should be -- the basic test of whether government should endeavour to provide a service: Does it benefit, at least potentially or indirectly, everyone represented by that government? The existence of pork-barrel politics, bureaucratic incompetence, cronyism and corruption, while not to be denied, as we are all of us mere imperfect humans, does not alter the fact that we have some common interests which cannot be achieved through pure anarchy. Thus, government.
You're probably thinking of Andrea Nemerson, who writes the "alt.sex" column that often appears opposite Newitz' "Techsploitation" column in the SF Bay Guardian.
Oh, is that all?
Well, that doesn't sound like a very strenuous workout.
Try some of these Japanese "bullet hell" shooters. They take every bit as much dexterity as Defender, if not so many fingers. They do allow the player unlimited continues, but no one's forcing you not to start over every time your lives are up. If you look around you can find videos of people finishing them on one life.
Maybe that physics engine is part of the console's API. Elsewhere he mentions that everything was coded high-level rather than assembly.
Not in ads posted by landlords. The only ads you'll see (in the U.S.) that mention those sorts of restrictions are ads for roommates or boarders. If you're advertising for someone who's going to be sharing your own living space you're allowed to discriminate on whatever basis you want to, but not if you're a nonresident landlord.
An account that can install software outside of its home folder is a de facto Administrator account. How do you resolve the contradiction you've put forth?
> This assumes you have some god-given right to declare "privacy!" on anything you do. You do not.
I meant that you as a systems administrator (or any other non-executive position) do not get to decide whether other employees' documents are your business. Do your own job and quit worrying about who's sending personal emails or playing Minesweeper on company time.
you should expect that at any time any employee of the comany may read that letter
Any employee? Really? Even if it's not their job to peruse others' emails? If you ever really started posting hard copies in a public place you'd quickly find yourself to be a BXOOTUL (Bastard Ex-Operator On The Unemployment Line.) Just because it's your job to maintain computers doesn't mean it's your job to monitor everything that people do on them. They have their own jobs to do, and it's up to their managers to determine what's appropriate, not you. You don't get to unilaterally decide whether something is your business or not.
As another poster pointed out earlier, this is simply not true. The company may have the right to examine any files put onto their property (i.e., the laptop) but the files don't become the company's property any more than your bag lunch becomes their property when you put it in "your" desk. They can search the desk whenever they like, but the desk's contents don't automatically become their property. If you get word that management is planning to search desks this afternoon you have every right to remove your lunch beforehand.
So are you saying that the alleged Marine's allegations are untrue? Is rushlimbaugh.com blocked or not? Is Wonkette? O'Reilly? Air America? Be specific.
No, the proper analogy is leaving your door open with a big sign over it saying "Free stuff! Come on in! Everything must go!" If you do that and then club the ensuing visitors with a baseball bat, you are quite clearly the criminal, not them.
If an incompetent homeowner installs a lawn sprinkler system in such a way that it also waters his neighbor's garden, would you say that the neighbor is "stealing" water?
Maybe we can find common ground in making fun of people with Bluetooth earpieces, or the wired earbud with mic that makes the user look like a lunatic muttering to himself.
1) Not getting your screen all scratched up by your keys or change.
2) Not having your other pocket items randomly dialing numbers for you, or not having to punch in a knock code to allow you to dial.
3) A microphone that's somewhere in the vicinity of your mouth instead of pressed against your cheekbone.
3a) Smaller when folded, bigger when open.
4) If it's good enough for the Federation, it's good enough for me.
TFA is wrong. "One of the tenets of fair use is that the usage not be commercial" is not true. Commerciality has bearing on it, but doesn't automatically exclude all commercial use from the Fair Use doctrine.
It's the name of the factory because it's the name of the town the factory is in. There are lots of -kill placenames in the northeast US. "Kill" is Dutch for creek or stream, and "fish" in this case is a shortening of "fisherman."
Yeah, and? That in no way refutes Zappa's point. If he'd meant "hump" instead of "love" he'd have said so.
Maybe your admins should learn to do their jobs and implement traffic shaping instead of yelling at people.
[The lawyer has] lost whatever impartiality he might have had and isn't doing his client any favors either.
Wherever did you get the idea that lawyers are supposed to be impartial? The adversarial system is predicated on exactly the opposite.
Ah, so he did. Well, grandparent is an idiot, but I'm not sure that saying "that shouldn't be allowed" on a discussion forum quite rises to the level of suppression of speech.
My problem with your earlier statement is that you equate religious hypocrites with ethical atheists, when there is actually a significant difference in kind. The religious man who says "God wants us to sacrifice a goat, and we should always do what God wants" and then proceeds to not sacrifice a goat is acting amorally -- sinning. On the other hand, the atheist who observes that his biological imperative tells him to steal his neighbor's bananas and rape his wife, but then exercises free will to leave the neighbor's bananas and wife alone is not "violating" anything, as there is no morality inherent in the biological imperative, and naturalism is not an overarching value. (Except to selfish pricks looking for a philosophical justification to steal your bananas.)
Religious morals are imposed from above; irreligious ethics are derived from within. The atheists who believe in human rights do so because they have arrived at the conclusion that human rights are a desirable framework, "useful fiction" or not. I do not agree that "we continue to live as if they were much greater than fiction." Or rather, I don't see how our behaviour would change depending on their Truthiness. Either you treat your fellow man with respect because you think he is imbued with deservingness by the Universe, or you treat him with respect out of a conviction that doing so is part of a pragmatically wholesome organizing principle. Thus it's not a question of primary truth, so the contradiction that exists when a religious person acts irreligiously does not pertain.