Yea, related to your car dealer tricks - my mom recently bought a new car from a local dealership, and a month later discovered they'd charged her for a 'sport package' or something that she didn't want, they never discussed during the sale, and they hadn't given her. And it wasn't that there was an option in there for it - they said the base price for the car was a certain amount, but that base price was for the car including the sport package. So essentially they quoted the base price from a different car.
Yes, and if they have a generator and a VOIP system, the VOIP will still work. My point was that if the tower has power, VOIP works. If the tower doesn't - well, you're gonna have bigger problems than just not having a connection to the phone network.
Wait - you think currently cell towers will operate if they have no electricity running to them? EVEN IF the phone line to the cell tower is still up, that doesn't matter if the tower has no power - they need electricity to communicate with your phone! The benefit of a cell phone is not that the tower doesn't need power - because it most certainly does. The benefit is that there's no fixed line from the tower to your phone to get taken out. And the phone has a battery, so if your power is out, you can still call. If the power's out to the cell tower - well, that's the same as power being out to the local POTS exchange. Doesn't matter if the cell tower is connecting to VOIP, POTS, or another cell tower - if it doesn't have power, you're phone ain't gonna work.
I'm not even going to bother to make a real reply here - you clearly haven't been paying attention. SSDP specifically states on their website that they have no opinion on the issue of legalization. That's not what we do. So how about you stop assuming every time you hear the word 'drug' that it's a buch of pot smoking hippies trying to legalize weed.
It fits the definition of 'charity' used by chase in the official contest rules, which is a, "501(c)(3) organizations and not be subject to any U.S. sanctions." And again, there are plenty of political action groups that _did_ win the prize. If they're going to say 'no political action groups', that's fine, but actually _say_ that, and actually enforce it. What they did was pick a couple particular political action groups that they didn't like, disqualify them, and then _never even state a reason_. Or even state that they were disqualified. From the information Chase gave, SSDP was still eligible and still in the running, they just somehow dropped 90 places in the last 2 days of voting, after the vote counters were removed. We technically were never even disqualified.
That case, specifically, is an example of him fucking up and getting shot. Try again.
No. He heard noises coming from near his back door. He opened the door. The police shot him. They never even announced they were police before firing upon him. He didn't even have time to see their uniform before they fired upon them. The police statement specifically said they did not consider him a threat when they fired on him.
The problem that SSDP is trying to solve is the fact that we view drug use as some terrible crime. Yes, you lose your financial aid for drug use - but guess what? Steal something, rape someone, assault someone - you're still eligible. Why is someone who gets caught smoking a single joint of weed losing rights that we still give to RAPISTS? I mean if you wanna take away financial aid because it's illegal - fine, I'm OK with that, but take it away for anyone convicted of _any_ felony, not _just_ drug users. This is not a matter of 'he did something illegal' - if he had chosen _any_ other law to break, he'd still have his financial aid.
The point is, we shouldn't be ruining someone's life for smoking a joint. We shouldn't have cops going in with guns raised over misdemeanor offenses. People shouldn't look at drug use and see it as the worst crime you could possibly commit - these people need HELP. We should not be throwing people in PRISON over legitimate medical problems! Besides, it's cheaper to put them in rehab than to put them in prison, it works better, but for someone reason we still have this belief as a society that drug users need to be punished and made to suffer.
I'm a member of SSDP. I'm also a member of Amnesty International - and I've been with AI much longer, and am much more involved with them - I've worked with the regional office in D.C. on a couple campaigns even. But I don't think it is at all fair to say that Amnesty's cases are any more important than those of groups like SSDP. And even if you think they are, in this specific case Amnesty wasn't one of the organizations SSDP was competing against. Neither was the Red Cross. Or Doctors without Borders. The organizations that _won_ this contest included things like the "Stella Adler Studio Of Acting". Now, I'm not going to get into what organizations are more worthy of the money, but seriously, if it's worth giving to art education programs then surely it can be worth giving to drug education programs as well.
Now, as for SSDP and similar organizations not being worthy in general - it sounds like you are thinking we are NORML or other legalization organizations. We aren't. We are not a "weed pushing organization", we are a drug policy reform organization. Look at cases like University of Michigan student Derek Copp - he was shot, through his lungs and liver by a police officer over what was later described as "a few tablespoons" of marijuana. A _misdemeanor_ offense in the state of Michigan. He nearly died over it. Look at our prisons - how many hundreds of thosands of people are in prison for no reason other than minor drug offenses? These are not violent people, these are people whose crimes are far less severe than those that Amnesty tries to free. I mean honestly, Amnestly works to help people proven guilty of murder in some cases. So what, we should try to save those people, but if your crime is just smoking a joint, you deserve to rot in prison forever for it? SSDP fights to restore financial aid to students convicted of drug offenses. I have a friend, who's extremely intelligent but from a very poor family. He had financial aid covering his entire college expense. And he got caught once smoking weed. Now he's working at McDonald's trying to save up enough money to go back. SSDP works to help people like him. SSDP works to promote _real_ drug education - the amount of people addicted to illegal drugs hasn't changed at all in nearly a hundred years - yet in just a decade, through _education_ not incarceration, we managed to cut the number of people addicted to nicotine (one of the most addictive substances we know of) in half!
So tell me this - why is saving lives lost to drugs not worth anything? Why is providing a good education to good kids not worth anything? Why is keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison not a worthy cause? I mean ok, I can accept you ranking the red cross up there higher than groups like SSDP - I mean they're purely about saving lives. But things like Amnesty International - they are only different from SSDP because of their size. They're both extremely political organizations trying to save the lives and freedoms of people who _they_ feel haven't done anything wrong.
There are places in the US where McDonalds charges for Wifi? I've never seen one. I know all the ones in my town that offer wifi (about 3 of them I think) are all free, and have been for at least 3 years. Any other ones I've been to that I've bothered to check have also been free. Where is it that they've been charging for it?
Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK).
Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well. Mostly disability and general social security cases though. And I would imagine they pre-screen the cases pretty heavily to make sure they're going to win them before they take it. But still, they do exist.
Maybe because their index is tiny and their interface reminds me of search engines from the mid 90s? Oh, and the results are total crap. I mean seriously, when I search for a band, why am I getting lyrics to _specific songs_ in the top 5 results? They have about 15 albums, why are the lyrics to _one_ of hundreds of songs, not even a very popular or new or notable one number 5 in my results? And why are 2-6 sites that I've never heard of? Along with 8-10...
Meanwhile, same band on Google, the top 5 results are all sites that I know. And not just sites I know from Google. I get the offical website, then the wikipedia page (this doesn't even come up on clusty until page 4, and even then it's not the main article but some wikimedia commons thing), then their myspace page (number 7 on clusty), Encyclopaedia Metallum, and Last.fm.
Also: Why is clusty giving me literally PAGES of links to random youtube videos? Why am I getting _six_ different last.fm pages within the first 3 pages of results? Why is the wikimedia commons page with band pictures ranked about ten spots higher than the actual wikipedia page for them? Yea, pretty much the only useful result on the first page from Clusty is the official band website, and I already know that.
And finally, Clusty floods the first page of results with lyrics sites. Google gives me one lyrics site, one guitar tabs site, two sites where I can preview their music, two pages of general information on the band, and their main homepage. If I wanted lyrics sites I would have put 'lyrics' in my search query.
Um, what? I hope you're trying and failing to be funny....
Is it stereotypical to think that someone who has the flu will likely be tired? Is it stereotypical to think that someone with lung cancer will cough? It's a disorder. It has certain symptoms. Saying that _A SPECIFIC PERSON_ with that disorder has certain symptoms of that disorder is not in any way similar to racial stereotypes. What you are saying is that asking someone who is coughing heavily and blowing their nose frequently if they are sick is no different than assuming that all Mexicans can't drive. There's a huge difference. You might as well bitch about people saying that someone with a Y chromosome is a boy. I mean that's not _always_ true either, so that must be a horrible insensitive stereotype too, huh?
Yea, I know exactly what case you're talking about. Got an email from SSDP about it.
But really that case was just a problem of the kid being stupid. Yes, the cops picked him up for a picture, but the kid then admitted to underage drinking. He didn't even try to fight it. I mean if he had tried to fight it and still gotten charged, then there would be a problem. But if you're a 19 year old kid walking down the street with a bottle in a paper bag and a cop stops you and says 'is that alcohol?' and you say 'yes'....Or if you pull over someone driving the same make and model as a car recently reported stolen, and you ask them if it's stolen and they say yes...well, it's hard to say the cop did anything wrong. And you can hardly call the arrest unreasonable (and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment) when the kid was holding a beer can. If it was a red solo cup or something, sure. But it was a beer can. It was a container that specifically stated that it contained alcohol.
Of course if you want to question police officers posing as attractive young females (as they did in this case)...then yea, you could make a case for that. But then again, they go undercover all the time, and this isn't really any different.
Ah, but as someone pointed out in a different reply to my original reply, if you RTFA, the bacteria they found arrived at Earth long after life had already evolved here. Of course, life could have originally come to Earth from Mars on a _different_ meteor, evolved into a highly intelligent race, sent a rover to mars which was then lifeless planting their own bacteria there, which was later discovered on a meteor that hit Earth. That race then died out and humans came and went to mars and find the rover of the previous civilization. But I think that's getting just a bit too cracked out, even for me in my current state. lol
Ohh wait, and are you saying that the bacteria then came from Earth originally? That'd be pretty trippy.
I was just thinking this morning (as a side note, I'm rather sick right now and was/am somewhat delirious...and on medication) that they should make a sci-fi thriller movie where Adam and Eve were actually members of some ultra high tech oppressive society and they learned some secret that they shouldn't have so they were cast out. And then the society died for some reason. Maybe the secret was the fact that the society was gonna die. And hell, let's have fun with it - maybe the society died fairly recently, and they were actually Atlantis. And Jesus was another member of that society sent to seek out people that they could mate with to stay alive? Or something? I dunno. But hell you could link all kinds of crazy shit to that. OH! Maybe they're still alive, in the Bermuda triangle! Or they moved to Europa. It could be a prequel to 2001!
I don't know. I do know that several of them were unaware of what they were doing - the police said 'sign this or you're going to jail' to people who couldn't read to get them to sign testimony against Davis. Plus, the statute of limitation on perjury is only 5 years, and it's now been close to 20. I'm not sure when exactly they recanted their testimony, but I would imagine it was past the 5 year point.
I doubt that even matters. It seems to me that he's not being arrested for refusing to do something, he's being arrested for creating this giant mob. The police just offered to cut him a deal along the lines of 'make these people disperse and we won't arrest you'. It's like one of those movies where the police take the criminal and offer him freedom in exchange for helping them in some way. They don't arrest the guy for refusing to help them, they just don't let him go.
The only question _I_ would have is whether it's legal for the police to selectively enforce the law - i.e. 'we'll arrest you if you don't cooperate' - but I think if he had cooperated they could have just said he didn't endanger the public after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, related to your car dealer tricks - my mom recently bought a new car from a local dealership, and a month later discovered they'd charged her for a 'sport package' or something that she didn't want, they never discussed during the sale, and they hadn't given her. And it wasn't that there was an option in there for it - they said the base price for the car was a certain amount, but that base price was for the car including the sport package. So essentially they quoted the base price from a different car.
Yes, and if they have a generator and a VOIP system, the VOIP will still work. My point was that if the tower has power, VOIP works. If the tower doesn't - well, you're gonna have bigger problems than just not having a connection to the phone network.
Wait - you think currently cell towers will operate if they have no electricity running to them? EVEN IF the phone line to the cell tower is still up, that doesn't matter if the tower has no power - they need electricity to communicate with your phone! The benefit of a cell phone is not that the tower doesn't need power - because it most certainly does. The benefit is that there's no fixed line from the tower to your phone to get taken out. And the phone has a battery, so if your power is out, you can still call. If the power's out to the cell tower - well, that's the same as power being out to the local POTS exchange. Doesn't matter if the cell tower is connecting to VOIP, POTS, or another cell tower - if it doesn't have power, you're phone ain't gonna work.
Strange. Whenever I go to see my doctor I _always_ actually see my doctor for at least 10 minutes....
I'm not even going to bother to make a real reply here - you clearly haven't been paying attention. SSDP specifically states on their website that they have no opinion on the issue of legalization. That's not what we do. So how about you stop assuming every time you hear the word 'drug' that it's a buch of pot smoking hippies trying to legalize weed.
It fits the definition of 'charity' used by chase in the official contest rules, which is a, "501(c)(3) organizations and not be subject to any U.S. sanctions." And again, there are plenty of political action groups that _did_ win the prize. If they're going to say 'no political action groups', that's fine, but actually _say_ that, and actually enforce it. What they did was pick a couple particular political action groups that they didn't like, disqualify them, and then _never even state a reason_. Or even state that they were disqualified. From the information Chase gave, SSDP was still eligible and still in the running, they just somehow dropped 90 places in the last 2 days of voting, after the vote counters were removed. We technically were never even disqualified.
That case, specifically, is an example of him fucking up and getting shot. Try again.
No. He heard noises coming from near his back door. He opened the door. The police shot him. They never even announced they were police before firing upon him. He didn't even have time to see their uniform before they fired upon them. The police statement specifically said they did not consider him a threat when they fired on him.
The problem that SSDP is trying to solve is the fact that we view drug use as some terrible crime. Yes, you lose your financial aid for drug use - but guess what? Steal something, rape someone, assault someone - you're still eligible. Why is someone who gets caught smoking a single joint of weed losing rights that we still give to RAPISTS? I mean if you wanna take away financial aid because it's illegal - fine, I'm OK with that, but take it away for anyone convicted of _any_ felony, not _just_ drug users. This is not a matter of 'he did something illegal' - if he had chosen _any_ other law to break, he'd still have his financial aid.
The point is, we shouldn't be ruining someone's life for smoking a joint. We shouldn't have cops going in with guns raised over misdemeanor offenses. People shouldn't look at drug use and see it as the worst crime you could possibly commit - these people need HELP. We should not be throwing people in PRISON over legitimate medical problems! Besides, it's cheaper to put them in rehab than to put them in prison, it works better, but for someone reason we still have this belief as a society that drug users need to be punished and made to suffer.
I'm a member of SSDP. I'm also a member of Amnesty International - and I've been with AI much longer, and am much more involved with them - I've worked with the regional office in D.C. on a couple campaigns even. But I don't think it is at all fair to say that Amnesty's cases are any more important than those of groups like SSDP. And even if you think they are, in this specific case Amnesty wasn't one of the organizations SSDP was competing against. Neither was the Red Cross. Or Doctors without Borders. The organizations that _won_ this contest included things like the "Stella Adler Studio Of Acting". Now, I'm not going to get into what organizations are more worthy of the money, but seriously, if it's worth giving to art education programs then surely it can be worth giving to drug education programs as well.
Now, as for SSDP and similar organizations not being worthy in general - it sounds like you are thinking we are NORML or other legalization organizations. We aren't. We are not a "weed pushing organization", we are a drug policy reform organization. Look at cases like University of Michigan student Derek Copp - he was shot, through his lungs and liver by a police officer over what was later described as "a few tablespoons" of marijuana. A _misdemeanor_ offense in the state of Michigan. He nearly died over it. Look at our prisons - how many hundreds of thosands of people are in prison for no reason other than minor drug offenses? These are not violent people, these are people whose crimes are far less severe than those that Amnesty tries to free. I mean honestly, Amnestly works to help people proven guilty of murder in some cases. So what, we should try to save those people, but if your crime is just smoking a joint, you deserve to rot in prison forever for it? SSDP fights to restore financial aid to students convicted of drug offenses. I have a friend, who's extremely intelligent but from a very poor family. He had financial aid covering his entire college expense. And he got caught once smoking weed. Now he's working at McDonald's trying to save up enough money to go back. SSDP works to help people like him. SSDP works to promote _real_ drug education - the amount of people addicted to illegal drugs hasn't changed at all in nearly a hundred years - yet in just a decade, through _education_ not incarceration, we managed to cut the number of people addicted to nicotine (one of the most addictive substances we know of) in half!
So tell me this - why is saving lives lost to drugs not worth anything? Why is providing a good education to good kids not worth anything? Why is keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison not a worthy cause? I mean ok, I can accept you ranking the red cross up there higher than groups like SSDP - I mean they're purely about saving lives. But things like Amnesty International - they are only different from SSDP because of their size. They're both extremely political organizations trying to save the lives and freedoms of people who _they_ feel haven't done anything wrong.
There are places in the US where McDonalds charges for Wifi? I've never seen one. I know all the ones in my town that offer wifi (about 3 of them I think) are all free, and have been for at least 3 years. Any other ones I've been to that I've bothered to check have also been free. Where is it that they've been charging for it?
Avoiding ads isn't the primary reason for subscribing to slashdot - I don't and never have but I can still kill the ads if I want to.
Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK).
Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well. Mostly disability and general social security cases though. And I would imagine they pre-screen the cases pretty heavily to make sure they're going to win them before they take it. But still, they do exist.
Maybe because their index is tiny and their interface reminds me of search engines from the mid 90s? Oh, and the results are total crap. I mean seriously, when I search for a band, why am I getting lyrics to _specific songs_ in the top 5 results? They have about 15 albums, why are the lyrics to _one_ of hundreds of songs, not even a very popular or new or notable one number 5 in my results? And why are 2-6 sites that I've never heard of? Along with 8-10...
Meanwhile, same band on Google, the top 5 results are all sites that I know. And not just sites I know from Google. I get the offical website, then the wikipedia page (this doesn't even come up on clusty until page 4, and even then it's not the main article but some wikimedia commons thing), then their myspace page (number 7 on clusty), Encyclopaedia Metallum, and Last.fm.
Also: Why is clusty giving me literally PAGES of links to random youtube videos? Why am I getting _six_ different last.fm pages within the first 3 pages of results? Why is the wikimedia commons page with band pictures ranked about ten spots higher than the actual wikipedia page for them? Yea, pretty much the only useful result on the first page from Clusty is the official band website, and I already know that.
And finally, Clusty floods the first page of results with lyrics sites. Google gives me one lyrics site, one guitar tabs site, two sites where I can preview their music, two pages of general information on the band, and their main homepage. If I wanted lyrics sites I would have put 'lyrics' in my search query.
Um, what? I hope you're trying and failing to be funny....
Is it stereotypical to think that someone who has the flu will likely be tired? Is it stereotypical to think that someone with lung cancer will cough? It's a disorder. It has certain symptoms. Saying that _A SPECIFIC PERSON_ with that disorder has certain symptoms of that disorder is not in any way similar to racial stereotypes. What you are saying is that asking someone who is coughing heavily and blowing their nose frequently if they are sick is no different than assuming that all Mexicans can't drive. There's a huge difference. You might as well bitch about people saying that someone with a Y chromosome is a boy. I mean that's not _always_ true either, so that must be a horrible insensitive stereotype too, huh?
Yea, I know exactly what case you're talking about. Got an email from SSDP about it.
But really that case was just a problem of the kid being stupid. Yes, the cops picked him up for a picture, but the kid then admitted to underage drinking. He didn't even try to fight it. I mean if he had tried to fight it and still gotten charged, then there would be a problem. But if you're a 19 year old kid walking down the street with a bottle in a paper bag and a cop stops you and says 'is that alcohol?' and you say 'yes'....Or if you pull over someone driving the same make and model as a car recently reported stolen, and you ask them if it's stolen and they say yes...well, it's hard to say the cop did anything wrong. And you can hardly call the arrest unreasonable (and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment) when the kid was holding a beer can. If it was a red solo cup or something, sure. But it was a beer can. It was a container that specifically stated that it contained alcohol.
Of course if you want to question police officers posing as attractive young females (as they did in this case)...then yea, you could make a case for that. But then again, they go undercover all the time, and this isn't really any different.
Does it feel like you're running a modern OS on hardware from the early to mid 90s?
Well at least with the JVM it's rather possible that it could be used in such a way.
Ah, but as someone pointed out in a different reply to my original reply, if you RTFA, the bacteria they found arrived at Earth long after life had already evolved here. Of course, life could have originally come to Earth from Mars on a _different_ meteor, evolved into a highly intelligent race, sent a rover to mars which was then lifeless planting their own bacteria there, which was later discovered on a meteor that hit Earth. That race then died out and humans came and went to mars and find the rover of the previous civilization. But I think that's getting just a bit too cracked out, even for me in my current state. lol
Ohh wait, and are you saying that the bacteria then came from Earth originally? That'd be pretty trippy.
I was just thinking this morning (as a side note, I'm rather sick right now and was/am somewhat delirious...and on medication) that they should make a sci-fi thriller movie where Adam and Eve were actually members of some ultra high tech oppressive society and they learned some secret that they shouldn't have so they were cast out. And then the society died for some reason. Maybe the secret was the fact that the society was gonna die. And hell, let's have fun with it - maybe the society died fairly recently, and they were actually Atlantis. And Jesus was another member of that society sent to seek out people that they could mate with to stay alive? Or something? I dunno. But hell you could link all kinds of crazy shit to that. OH! Maybe they're still alive, in the Bermuda triangle! Or they moved to Europa. It could be a prequel to 2001!
This is slashdot! Who RTFA? :)
But damn, if only that meteorite was a few million years earlier. That woulda been cool.
Umm, TFA?
ancient microbial life on Mars was carried to Earth in a Martian meteorite.
The life was on Mars first though - so they'd be more likely to find an ancient rover on Earth...
any copyright would seem to have expired at this point,
There's shit from the 30s still under copyright. No way in hell is a book from the 70s going to be out of copyright yet...as retarded as that is...
well i've tried telling her that, and she just replies that they must work, because after the 5 days her cold is gone....
Why aren't those 7 people in prison for perjury?
I don't know. I do know that several of them were unaware of what they were doing - the police said 'sign this or you're going to jail' to people who couldn't read to get them to sign testimony against Davis. Plus, the statute of limitation on perjury is only 5 years, and it's now been close to 20. I'm not sure when exactly they recanted their testimony, but I would imagine it was past the 5 year point.
I doubt that even matters. It seems to me that he's not being arrested for refusing to do something, he's being arrested for creating this giant mob. The police just offered to cut him a deal along the lines of 'make these people disperse and we won't arrest you'. It's like one of those movies where the police take the criminal and offer him freedom in exchange for helping them in some way. They don't arrest the guy for refusing to help them, they just don't let him go.
The only question _I_ would have is whether it's legal for the police to selectively enforce the law - i.e. 'we'll arrest you if you don't cooperate' - but I think if he had cooperated they could have just said he didn't endanger the public after all.