How far back do you want to go to find the root cause?
Perhaps the guy shouldn't be the one getting punished, perhaps it's his parents fault for not teaching him to respect the sanctity of marriage. Or maybe his school teachers fault for not teaching him to respect other peoples feelings. Or maybe NASAs fault for not stopping all employees from fraternising socially so this wouldn't come up in the first place?
Somewhere down the line the criminal has to take responsibility for their actions. Is it really likely that the guy is going to move on to another relationship and someone else is going to completely flip out and assault/kidnap/murder someone? and that will be his fault as well?
I agree with the idea that the root cause of crimes needs to be dealt with, but I think its a stretch to say her actions can be blamed on his in this situation. Nowaks actions were off the charts crazy as a response to what had happened between the three parties involved.
Yep, the guy that "played with womens emotions" should get fired before the girl that drove across the country in a car loaded with gear for some sort of kidnapping/murder attempt and assaults another woman should definately get a second chance because someone "played with her emotions".
There might be enough dissent now that Mission Accomplished wasnt exactly all it was made out to be, but there didnt seem to be much dissent at the time the first bombs started to fall.
3.) (Rarely anymore...) The request from RIAA fails to indicate an IP or time or some other piece of information to clearly identify what account / user was responsible is being targeted.
uhhhmmm....what?
So it used to happen a fair bit but now just rarely...that someone gets fingered for a lawsuit when either an IP or time (or something else? like what?) isnt indicated?!
Who then takes a guess at who it is? the RIAA or the ISP? and what exactly is used to make the guess? witchcraft?
If you have a time but not an IP is it just the first customer that comes up on the list? If you have an IP address but no time is it just whoever has that IP address at the time of the request? If you dont have both you are only guessing...
Yep, I have done something similar. When I moved to the UK a couple of years ago I joined every job search site I could find, so was getting daily emails from each with reponses to searches I had set up.
Once I was employed I went to unsubscribe from each of these. Most of them I was able to do and they stopped coming through but 3 either had no way I could find to unsubscribe or ignored and unsubscribe requests. So they are now marked as spam and I dont see them anymore.
If this means they are more likely to be marked as spam for everyone else its their own fault for not offering an unsubscribe method.
If Bush thought the signing statements were meaningless then why would he do it? The only other reason I can think of would be to announce his intentions if they did have power, which in most cases looks pretty unpopular so it would only be negative to put it on there.
The only reason I can think to put them on would be for putting all these signing statements in place and everyone saying, oh dont worry they dont have any power anyway, then making some other change down the line that validates them all.
It sounds like tinfoil cap brigade talk but it would be a pretty neat way of making wholesale changes without it looking like it.
Consider this: 1) If they had no power and never will then there would be no reason to put them on there other than generating bad press for himself. 2) If they have no power now then it means he thinks (or hopes?) they will have some power in the future.
"More cameras don't prevent more murders, and the police seem to be doing fine catching the murderers without them."
How do you come to this conclusion?
The murder rates are much higher in the USA, and the conviction rates match this. So you can say that cameras dont help to increase the amount of convictions but you cannot say that they dont help to prevent the crime in the first place.
The stats dont prove that cameras reduce murder rates, but they do support the theory.
did you read your own link? the explanation for the higher murder conviction rate is explained about halfway down:
The higher U.S. conviction rate for murder is explained entirely by the higher U.S. murder rate. According to the most recent statistics on crime (1996) and the justice system (1994 in the United States, 1995 in England), the U.S. murder rate is nearly six times the English murder rate (figure 5). Correspondingly, the U.S. murder conviction rate per 1,000 population is nearly six times England's (.059 versus.010) (figure 19).
Actually almost all differences in conviction rates on that page are attributed to different rates of the crime being committed in each country. While the number of crimes committed may or may not have something to do with the number of cameras present these stats won't show it, similarly these stats won't show the effect of cameras on conviction rates of crimes either. I think you need stats that compare conviction versus actual crimes committed.
Perhaps the long legged lizards was an evolutionary dead-end once the predators were introduced.
On introduction of the predators some lizards climbed to escape and some ran. For a while the longest legged run-away lizards survived as the predators ate the slower ones first. Why chase after the quickest ones when you can eat all the slow ones first.
As the slower ones were all eaten then the longer legged ones were caught as well and eaten. Now if the predators were slightly slower or the longer legged run-away lizards were slightly faster (or even evolved quicker to get faster before the died out) then either the whole species would have evolved that way or perhaps there may have even been a divergence in the species with one path being long legged runners and short legged climbers.
But as it turned out looks like running away was an evolutionary dead-end.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how any of those are evidence that a god of some sort exists and created the universe...
I dont get it.
It looks like it goes to some aimoo message board that no longer exists. Domain registered to some guy in Bolivia.
You seem to be suggesting it is owned by Microsoft or something?
I know where you could get an unlicensed copy of Office as well. And you dont even have to be a teacher!
How far back do you want to go to find the root cause?
Perhaps the guy shouldn't be the one getting punished, perhaps it's his parents fault for not teaching him to respect the sanctity of marriage. Or maybe his school teachers fault for not teaching him to respect other peoples feelings. Or maybe NASAs fault for not stopping all employees from fraternising socially so this wouldn't come up in the first place?
Somewhere down the line the criminal has to take responsibility for their actions. Is it really likely that the guy is going to move on to another relationship and someone else is going to completely flip out and assault/kidnap/murder someone? and that will be his fault as well?
I agree with the idea that the root cause of crimes needs to be dealt with, but I think its a stretch to say her actions can be blamed on his in this situation. Nowaks actions were off the charts crazy as a response to what had happened between the three parties involved.
Yep, the guy that "played with womens emotions" should get fired before the girl that drove across the country in a car loaded with gear for some sort of kidnapping/murder attempt and assaults another woman should definately get a second chance because someone "played with her emotions".
They would just need a big truck to dump it all on. Tubes would be no use in this situation.
There might be enough dissent now that Mission Accomplished wasnt exactly all it was made out to be, but there didnt seem to be much dissent at the time the first bombs started to fall.
How about Afghanistan?
uhhhmmm....what?
So it used to happen a fair bit but now just rarely...that someone gets fingered for a lawsuit when either an IP or time (or something else? like what?) isnt indicated?!
Who then takes a guess at who it is? the RIAA or the ISP? and what exactly is used to make the guess? witchcraft?
If you have a time but not an IP is it just the first customer that comes up on the list? If you have an IP address but no time is it just whoever has that IP address at the time of the request? If you dont have both you are only guessing...
I think I heard somewhere that they are studying the effects of weightlessness on tiny screws.
Yep, I have done something similar. When I moved to the UK a couple of years ago I joined every job search site I could find, so was getting daily emails from each with reponses to searches I had set up.
Once I was employed I went to unsubscribe from each of these. Most of them I was able to do and they stopped coming through but 3 either had no way I could find to unsubscribe or ignored and unsubscribe requests. So they are now marked as spam and I dont see them anymore.
If this means they are more likely to be marked as spam for everyone else its their own fault for not offering an unsubscribe method.
I just figured hieroglyphics meant they would convert it to wingdings.
If Bush thought the signing statements were meaningless then why would he do it? The only other reason I can think of would be to announce his intentions if they did have power, which in most cases looks pretty unpopular so it would only be negative to put it on there.
The only reason I can think to put them on would be for putting all these signing statements in place and everyone saying, oh dont worry they dont have any power anyway, then making some other change down the line that validates them all.
It sounds like tinfoil cap brigade talk but it would be a pretty neat way of making wholesale changes without it looking like it.
Consider this:
1) If they had no power and never will then there would be no reason to put them on there other than generating bad press for himself.
2) If they have no power now then it means he thinks (or hopes?) they will have some power in the future.
"you can learn open office or the new ms office- both are different, but only one is free"
And now you can say that the free one is more like the Office you are using now than the new MS Office.
That link just screams NSFW.
I agree that they don't increase the amount of convictions.
They may decrease the actual number of murders though, which would be a better result than just increasing the number of convictions.
Though the benefit of this over privacy concerns is a whole other kettle of fish.
"More cameras don't prevent more murders, and the police seem to be doing fine catching the murderers without them."
How do you come to this conclusion?
The murder rates are much higher in the USA, and the conviction rates match this. So you can say that cameras dont help to increase the amount of convictions but you cannot say that they dont help to prevent the crime in the first place.
The stats dont prove that cameras reduce murder rates, but they do support the theory.
Actually almost all differences in conviction rates on that page are attributed to different rates of the crime being committed in each country. While the number of crimes committed may or may not have something to do with the number of cameras present these stats won't show it, similarly these stats won't show the effect of cameras on conviction rates of crimes either. I think you need stats that compare conviction versus actual crimes committed.
Not only that, Vista isnt even going to need ANY AV products! Microsoft said so themselves:
1 4210
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/01
non-broadband (or at least non-internet connected) users DON'T matter to Google.
Google is all about advertising and AdSense/Adwords. If you arent on the net you arent in their target market.
Non-broadband people might be a significant part of the OS market but they arent a significant part of Googles market.
You're the analogy guy, you tell us.
Perhaps the long legged lizards was an evolutionary dead-end once the predators were introduced.
On introduction of the predators some lizards climbed to escape and some ran. For a while the longest legged run-away lizards survived as the predators ate the slower ones first. Why chase after the quickest ones when you can eat all the slow ones first.
As the slower ones were all eaten then the longer legged ones were caught as well and eaten. Now if the predators were slightly slower or the longer legged run-away lizards were slightly faster (or even evolved quicker to get faster before the died out) then either the whole species would have evolved that way or perhaps there may have even been a divergence in the species with one path being long legged runners and short legged climbers.
But as it turned out looks like running away was an evolutionary dead-end.
really?
>I'll suck it up.
That should get you breakfast thrown in then I reckon.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man" -the Dude.
Talk is cheap.
A one-liner from a senior policy counsel isn't exactly a firm commitment.