I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.
Pretty much any large organization with annual budgets burns through any remaining money before the fiscal year runs out. The reasoning is simple: if you don't spend every penny, budget planners inevitably use that as evidence you didn't need the money and will give you less the next year, even if you then turn out to need it.
If you have to burn money at the end of the year, then you DON'T need it. The very definition of having too much money in the budget is having to work and find places to spend it all so you don't lose it.
So let me get this right. He took over Nokia 3 years ago. In that time their stock price has dropped by more than a third. In any way you measure it, he has failed as the head of the company. So they decide to sell to Microsoft, because he has been unable to do his job well and do anything to keep them from sinking further. And he will be REWARDED with $25 million?!?!?! So for helping his company continue to fail, he will get a $25 million dollar bonus over what is I'm sure a fairly ridiculous compensation package.
And to top it off, he is on the short list of people to become the new Microsoft CEO? They really are considering basically giving him a huge promotion for being unable to turn Nokia around and letting them get so bad off that selling to MS was their only option? CEOs are absolutely rewarded for failure, because his performance can't be seen as anything other than a failure.
Part of the issue was you requesting an invoice for something they never provided for you. If they issue you an invoice for $5000 for something, there are legal ramification that go along with that. You could then claim that you never received the item/services and sue. They may have to set up a separate business entity to handle this business and pay a whole different set of taxes on it because they currently are not set up as a business that provides services/items. If you want to donate, just donate. It is silly to try and get them to jump through these hoops for your "donation" so your company can claim it isn't a donation.
Actually, often part of a person's court sentence is to attend AA. Yes, I guess they instead accept jail time, but that seems like a false comparison. And yes, it is often mandated that it be AA, not alcohol treatment in general. People have actually tried to attend other, non-AA, non-religious treatments and been told no, you must attend AA.
I think before we start analyzing why 12 step programs work, maybe we should determine if they work. While everyone just assumes 12 step programs are the answers, there is very little scientific evidence and studies on whether they work better than anything else. It is a hard subject to study, but I think something that should be done since the state is sentencing people to 12 step programs. Before we force people to go into programs (especially one that force people to accept that there is a "higher power") I think there should be strong studies done to show that these programs work better than other programs or at least better than a person just deciding to stop.
Another reason the torrent numbers probably wen up is that CBS also blocked TW customers from accessing their shows from the CBS website. If a TW customer went to the CBS website to try and watch a show, they weren't able to. So any money they could have made from that was gone as well. So really, CBS actually pushed people who would go through the next legitimate channel further down the line. Sure, they could possibly buy it from Amazon or iTunes, but at a dollar per show, that is a pretty hefty price for a show you will watch once and then delete.
Spoken exactly like someone who has no idea how a business works. Yes, they could sell songs for 10 cents a piece, and they would sell more of them. Let's say they sell 3 times as many songs as they do now. Their revenues have just dropped by 70% (and their profit by more) because they are while they are selling more, they are making basically nothing off each one. And yes, they could sell DVDs at $2 a piece, but again, would they sell 10 times the amount they do now? If not, they end up making less money and probably losing money. Lexus could also sell it's cars for $10000 a piece, but they aren't going to because they want to actually make money. A dollar a song is not some ridiculous amount (especially when you can sometimes find individual songs cheaper and if you buy a full CD it is usually less as well). But at 10 cents a song, they couldn't cover their bandwidth and programming costs, much less the costs of the songs themselves (because don't forget, the music actually does cost money to make).
Quit expecting everything for free or close to it.
Have you actually listened to it? No one attacked them. They asked them some very pointed questions, but even the pointed questions were generally in reference to what they said (while referencing what is now known because of the leaks). When they ask about which countries were "adversaries" it was because they said they analyzed the communications of "adversaries". So she asked what they considered adversaries, since we know they analyze the communications of our allies. A lot of hard questions were asked, but no one attacked them just because they worked at the NSA.
While they do have profiling, it is not the profiling people in the US think of. It is not religious or racial profiling. It is proper profiling based on real factors that make professional, trained profilers think you need extra scrutiny. They don't mark muslims for extra scrutiny because they are muslims. They mark people who act nervous and like they have something to hide for extra scrutiny.
There is nothing wrong with proper profiling. It is a very useful tool. Unfortunately in the US, profiling means having a poorly trained, poorly paid TSA agent check anyone who is brown. To proper profile you need intelligent, well trained profilers, which the US won't pay for.
The issue is that what is complaining about isn't really private information. Yes, the page he is entering the info into is https, but that doesn't mean everything on that page is private info. It is secure page to prevent man in the middle attacks for things like credit card numbers. Your name and address are not at all private information and can be found out in any number of public records (including telephone books). Just because my favorite type of ice cream is sent to someone on a page that is https doesn't make that information private. Hell, I can use https to post things to Facebook for Bob's sake. Should Facebook then be forces to treat that all with the same security as my password?
I think they are absolutely right that limiting their ability to bid on this spectrum will cause the price to be lower. That only makes sense since you are limiting the 2 biggest and best funded companies from going all out for it. But in the long term, I think it will be better and bring in more money to have more than just 2 strong competitors in the cell phone business. Revenue comes from more than just the money from selling the spectrum. If we can help open up the market so there are more successful companies in it, that is better for everyone involved and will hopefully spur both growth for the other companies and innovation in the industry, which will lead to further growth and a better economy in general.
I don't see how they are being deceptive. There is no contract for their service. If you want to do financing for a phone through them, there is an agreement for that, but that is something entirely different and not required at all. I can go in there and get cell phone service and not sign a contract. I can even get cell phone coverage and buy a phone from them (outright) without a contract. But if I want to take advantage of their financing for phones, then of course I need to have some type of agreement about that. I don't need a contract to by something at Best Buy, but if I want to use their financing then I have to. That isn't false advertising, that is them offering additional services that I can take or leave.
While I think it is the right decision to allow testimony on whether they found the documents at the compound, it seems to be missing a key component. They charge is "aiding the enemy". Shouldn't they also have to prove it actually aided them? What if Bin Laden read through the documents and they were all stuff he didn't care about? Or what if he just was interested in them and wanted to read them (as many people did). Possession of the documents doesn't prove that they aided the enemy anymore than a copy of Twilight would.
Having made the mistake of reading the article, I'm not sure this really changes anything. They are saying that the US has a higher percentage of students in the lower socio-economic categories. These categories always perform lower so that lowers the overall US scores. While I am sure all of this is true, it is a simple fact of the US. We do have more poor people and poor people do perform poorer on the tests, therefore the US as a whole does poorer on the tests. So yes, our top students do as well as their top students and our poorest students do as poorly as their poorest students, but overall they have more students performing higher because they are more students in the higher categories. This means they overall performed better.
The policy continues, "The weapon is a level of force normally required to overcome passive, defensive, or offensive resistance that is intended as an act of overt aggression toward the officer where an individual refuses to comply with verbal instructions."
How exactly can "passive resistance" be an act of overt aggression? So basically, do whatever the cops say, or they will tase you. If you do not follow their orders, you are being "overtly aggressive" , the same as if you were throwing punches at them. Tasers being being overused in this country.
This is a horrible idea. If you can go back and verify your vote later, that means your vote is kept somewhere associated with your name. And if you can see it, so can other people. That pretty much kills the idea of a secret ballot.
While this is an awesome idea in theory, in practice, it just isn't tenable. So, if we went with this theory, should every government email be open to the public? So if a spy sends an email back to his handler, that email should be open to the public? If someone in the government gets an email from someone wanting to leave Cuba, that email should be open to everyone? If there are emails about an upcoming secret mission (say for the raid to get the next Osama Bin Laden), these should all be open to the public? What if it is an email between someone in the government and their attorney (either work related or not)? You are then breaking attorney/client privilege by releasing the email. What about emails about how to weaponize a disease or about the new bomb we are creating?
I am all for open government and I think our government should be working towards being a lot more open, but the idea that it should just open everything is silly. I don't want the nuclear launch code being public just because they are government information; there has to be some limits.
My first thought is that if you are going to be using it for 9 hours every day, then you shouldn't be getting a standing desk. Standing for 9 hours every day is not good on your body. It is horrible on your legs, especially your knees. Yes, sitting for 9 hours isn't good either, but it is much either to get up and walk around than it is to sit down. Standing desks are a great idea for light to moderate use. If you are using them off and on all day, they are great. But if you are using them continually all day, they are horrible, mainly because you have to stand. At a regular sitting desk, it is very easy to stand up and stretch, walk around, or even just stand for a couple minutes and still look at your computer. When you go to the bathroom or to the copier or printer, you are getting a break form sitting, but not from standing. Unless your standing desk is extremely flexible, it is usually very difficult to sit down at a standing desk and still be productive.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products. If I stole 3 CDs from Wallmart, would I also be charged $675,000? What if I stole $30 from someone? I am not familiar with the case, but I don't see on here that he stole with the intent to undermine future sales of that company, causing significant losses.
Because he did not just download MP3s, he also uploaded them. If all he did was download the MP3s, then yes, the damages should be in a similar range to the cost of an MP3. But since he uploaded then, the cost of an MP3 to him is not relevant. What about the cost of licensing to distribute the MP3s (which is what he did)? If he called up Warner Brothers (or whoever) and said "I want to put this song as an MP3 on my website for anyone to download, what would it cost me?" do you think the response would be $1? I think ti would probably be along the lines of the fines he is paying. And that is why the fines are high, not because he decided to download an MP3, but because he decided to assume the rights to distribute that MP3 to other people. And that is worth a hell of a lot more than just the cost of an MP3.
I see this as a good thing. First, as long as the ads aren't obnoxious, it will get a little money for the uTorrent team. Second, it will help encourage legitimate use of torrents. One of the knock on torrents and why they are so often throttled and blocked is that they are a tool for piracy. While there are currently legitimate uses, I would suspect that 95% or more of usage is for piracy. If these ads expose more people to legitimate torrent content and help get the legitimate use up, that is a good thing all around.
While I think it's a shit policy and would prefer that they don't do it, I do have to say I do like the fact that it is open to anyone. To me, if law enforcement is gathering this type of information, it should be available to anyone. That way, we can keep track of the police and politicians as well as they keep track of us. The same things goes for public "safety" cameras. While I would prefer to not have any, if they are going to do them, they should be open to anyone to be able to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.
Pretty much any large organization with annual budgets burns through any remaining money before the fiscal year runs out. The reasoning is simple: if you don't spend every penny, budget planners inevitably use that as evidence you didn't need the money and will give you less the next year, even if you then turn out to need it.
If you have to burn money at the end of the year, then you DON'T need it. The very definition of having too much money in the budget is having to work and find places to spend it all so you don't lose it.
So let me get this right. He took over Nokia 3 years ago. In that time their stock price has dropped by more than a third. In any way you measure it, he has failed as the head of the company. So they decide to sell to Microsoft, because he has been unable to do his job well and do anything to keep them from sinking further. And he will be REWARDED with $25 million?!?!?! So for helping his company continue to fail, he will get a $25 million dollar bonus over what is I'm sure a fairly ridiculous compensation package.
And to top it off, he is on the short list of people to become the new Microsoft CEO? They really are considering basically giving him a huge promotion for being unable to turn Nokia around and letting them get so bad off that selling to MS was their only option? CEOs are absolutely rewarded for failure, because his performance can't be seen as anything other than a failure.
Part of the issue was you requesting an invoice for something they never provided for you. If they issue you an invoice for $5000 for something, there are legal ramification that go along with that. You could then claim that you never received the item/services and sue. They may have to set up a separate business entity to handle this business and pay a whole different set of taxes on it because they currently are not set up as a business that provides services/items. If you want to donate, just donate. It is silly to try and get them to jump through these hoops for your "donation" so your company can claim it isn't a donation.
Actually, often part of a person's court sentence is to attend AA. Yes, I guess they instead accept jail time, but that seems like a false comparison. And yes, it is often mandated that it be AA, not alcohol treatment in general. People have actually tried to attend other, non-AA, non-religious treatments and been told no, you must attend AA.
I think before we start analyzing why 12 step programs work, maybe we should determine if they work. While everyone just assumes 12 step programs are the answers, there is very little scientific evidence and studies on whether they work better than anything else. It is a hard subject to study, but I think something that should be done since the state is sentencing people to 12 step programs. Before we force people to go into programs (especially one that force people to accept that there is a "higher power") I think there should be strong studies done to show that these programs work better than other programs or at least better than a person just deciding to stop.
Another reason the torrent numbers probably wen up is that CBS also blocked TW customers from accessing their shows from the CBS website. If a TW customer went to the CBS website to try and watch a show, they weren't able to. So any money they could have made from that was gone as well. So really, CBS actually pushed people who would go through the next legitimate channel further down the line. Sure, they could possibly buy it from Amazon or iTunes, but at a dollar per show, that is a pretty hefty price for a show you will watch once and then delete.
Spoken exactly like someone who has no idea how a business works. Yes, they could sell songs for 10 cents a piece, and they would sell more of them. Let's say they sell 3 times as many songs as they do now. Their revenues have just dropped by 70% (and their profit by more) because they are while they are selling more, they are making basically nothing off each one. And yes, they could sell DVDs at $2 a piece, but again, would they sell 10 times the amount they do now? If not, they end up making less money and probably losing money. Lexus could also sell it's cars for $10000 a piece, but they aren't going to because they want to actually make money. A dollar a song is not some ridiculous amount (especially when you can sometimes find individual songs cheaper and if you buy a full CD it is usually less as well). But at 10 cents a song, they couldn't cover their bandwidth and programming costs, much less the costs of the songs themselves (because don't forget, the music actually does cost money to make).
Quit expecting everything for free or close to it.
Have you actually listened to it? No one attacked them. They asked them some very pointed questions, but even the pointed questions were generally in reference to what they said (while referencing what is now known because of the leaks). When they ask about which countries were "adversaries" it was because they said they analyzed the communications of "adversaries". So she asked what they considered adversaries, since we know they analyze the communications of our allies. A lot of hard questions were asked, but no one attacked them just because they worked at the NSA.
While they do have profiling, it is not the profiling people in the US think of. It is not religious or racial profiling. It is proper profiling based on real factors that make professional, trained profilers think you need extra scrutiny. They don't mark muslims for extra scrutiny because they are muslims. They mark people who act nervous and like they have something to hide for extra scrutiny.
There is nothing wrong with proper profiling. It is a very useful tool. Unfortunately in the US, profiling means having a poorly trained, poorly paid TSA agent check anyone who is brown. To proper profile you need intelligent, well trained profilers, which the US won't pay for.
The issue is that what is complaining about isn't really private information. Yes, the page he is entering the info into is https, but that doesn't mean everything on that page is private info. It is secure page to prevent man in the middle attacks for things like credit card numbers. Your name and address are not at all private information and can be found out in any number of public records (including telephone books). Just because my favorite type of ice cream is sent to someone on a page that is https doesn't make that information private. Hell, I can use https to post things to Facebook for Bob's sake. Should Facebook then be forces to treat that all with the same security as my password?
I think they are absolutely right that limiting their ability to bid on this spectrum will cause the price to be lower. That only makes sense since you are limiting the 2 biggest and best funded companies from going all out for it. But in the long term, I think it will be better and bring in more money to have more than just 2 strong competitors in the cell phone business. Revenue comes from more than just the money from selling the spectrum. If we can help open up the market so there are more successful companies in it, that is better for everyone involved and will hopefully spur both growth for the other companies and innovation in the industry, which will lead to further growth and a better economy in general.
I don't see how they are being deceptive. There is no contract for their service. If you want to do financing for a phone through them, there is an agreement for that, but that is something entirely different and not required at all. I can go in there and get cell phone service and not sign a contract. I can even get cell phone coverage and buy a phone from them (outright) without a contract. But if I want to take advantage of their financing for phones, then of course I need to have some type of agreement about that. I don't need a contract to by something at Best Buy, but if I want to use their financing then I have to. That isn't false advertising, that is them offering additional services that I can take or leave.
While I think it is the right decision to allow testimony on whether they found the documents at the compound, it seems to be missing a key component. They charge is "aiding the enemy". Shouldn't they also have to prove it actually aided them? What if Bin Laden read through the documents and they were all stuff he didn't care about? Or what if he just was interested in them and wanted to read them (as many people did). Possession of the documents doesn't prove that they aided the enemy anymore than a copy of Twilight would.
Now I have the worst mashup ever stuck in head!
Having made the mistake of reading the article, I'm not sure this really changes anything. They are saying that the US has a higher percentage of students in the lower socio-economic categories. These categories always perform lower so that lowers the overall US scores. While I am sure all of this is true, it is a simple fact of the US. We do have more poor people and poor people do perform poorer on the tests, therefore the US as a whole does poorer on the tests. So yes, our top students do as well as their top students and our poorest students do as poorly as their poorest students, but overall they have more students performing higher because they are more students in the higher categories. This means they overall performed better.
I think you are confusing most art with best art. It is certainly an accomplishment, but the art isn't particular amazing.
The policy continues, "The weapon is a level of force normally required to overcome passive, defensive, or offensive resistance that is intended as an act of overt aggression toward the officer where an individual refuses to comply with verbal instructions."
How exactly can "passive resistance" be an act of overt aggression? So basically, do whatever the cops say, or they will tase you. If you do not follow their orders, you are being "overtly aggressive" , the same as if you were throwing punches at them. Tasers being being overused in this country.
I fear for what this world has become is a company is so inept that it can't make money selling fat, lard, and chocolate to Americans...
This is a horrible idea. If you can go back and verify your vote later, that means your vote is kept somewhere associated with your name. And if you can see it, so can other people. That pretty much kills the idea of a secret ballot.
While this is an awesome idea in theory, in practice, it just isn't tenable. So, if we went with this theory, should every government email be open to the public? So if a spy sends an email back to his handler, that email should be open to the public? If someone in the government gets an email from someone wanting to leave Cuba, that email should be open to everyone? If there are emails about an upcoming secret mission (say for the raid to get the next Osama Bin Laden), these should all be open to the public? What if it is an email between someone in the government and their attorney (either work related or not)? You are then breaking attorney/client privilege by releasing the email. What about emails about how to weaponize a disease or about the new bomb we are creating?
I am all for open government and I think our government should be working towards being a lot more open, but the idea that it should just open everything is silly. I don't want the nuclear launch code being public just because they are government information; there has to be some limits.
My first thought is that if you are going to be using it for 9 hours every day, then you shouldn't be getting a standing desk. Standing for 9 hours every day is not good on your body. It is horrible on your legs, especially your knees. Yes, sitting for 9 hours isn't good either, but it is much either to get up and walk around than it is to sit down. Standing desks are a great idea for light to moderate use. If you are using them off and on all day, they are great. But if you are using them continually all day, they are horrible, mainly because you have to stand. At a regular sitting desk, it is very easy to stand up and stretch, walk around, or even just stand for a couple minutes and still look at your computer. When you go to the bathroom or to the copier or printer, you are getting a break form sitting, but not from standing. Unless your standing desk is extremely flexible, it is usually very difficult to sit down at a standing desk and still be productive.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products. If I stole 3 CDs from Wallmart, would I also be charged $675,000? What if I stole $30 from someone? I am not familiar with the case, but I don't see on here that he stole with the intent to undermine future sales of that company, causing significant losses.
Because he did not just download MP3s, he also uploaded them. If all he did was download the MP3s, then yes, the damages should be in a similar range to the cost of an MP3. But since he uploaded then, the cost of an MP3 to him is not relevant. What about the cost of licensing to distribute the MP3s (which is what he did)? If he called up Warner Brothers (or whoever) and said "I want to put this song as an MP3 on my website for anyone to download, what would it cost me?" do you think the response would be $1? I think ti would probably be along the lines of the fines he is paying. And that is why the fines are high, not because he decided to download an MP3, but because he decided to assume the rights to distribute that MP3 to other people. And that is worth a hell of a lot more than just the cost of an MP3.
I see this as a good thing. First, as long as the ads aren't obnoxious, it will get a little money for the uTorrent team. Second, it will help encourage legitimate use of torrents. One of the knock on torrents and why they are so often throttled and blocked is that they are a tool for piracy. While there are currently legitimate uses, I would suspect that 95% or more of usage is for piracy. If these ads expose more people to legitimate torrent content and help get the legitimate use up, that is a good thing all around.
While I think it's a shit policy and would prefer that they don't do it, I do have to say I do like the fact that it is open to anyone. To me, if law enforcement is gathering this type of information, it should be available to anyone. That way, we can keep track of the police and politicians as well as they keep track of us. The same things goes for public "safety" cameras. While I would prefer to not have any, if they are going to do them, they should be open to anyone to be able to watch.