The express purpose of the jury (and the judges will tell you this) is to decide within the confines of the law whether the evidence supports the prosecution's claims. However, some theorists argue that it's the moral duty of a jury to judge the morality and justness of the law.
I see very little overlap in the world views and professed agendas of WBC and Anonymous. I would be very surprised if any WBC members were also part of Anonymous.
Yeah, I've always felt that Shelley's Frankenstein was a really derivative work. Didn't contribute anything to culture or have any lasting effect on the science ficiton genre.
Closed hardware is the only approach with a history of success.
Security through obscurity is not security, for the same reason that we have locks on our doors rather than a "secret door-opening lever": once some one knows the secret, you have no security.
I realize you're probably trying to be funny, but that sort of mindset is tremendously frightening. Many of us are nerds, and giving a jailbroken PS3 to a neighborhood kid that you know already has geeky tendencies could be a great way to introduce them to programming. Adults that might use a jailbroken PS3 for development have likely already bought one, whereas kids don't necessarily have the funds to do so.
Donating a (jailbroken) console, plus development tools, to a kid is a way of donating to the future education of geeks. It shameful that someone would assume it was a bribe in hopes of sexual favors, and not even consider that there is a good (nerdy) reason to do something like this. Most kids might use it for piracy. That's why he said "some deserverving" kid, that you (presumably) know would be interested in developing homebrew games, or having a computer of their own.
I realize you probably alreayd knew all of that, and were likely following along with the joke, but it's a pretty tasteless joke, and I wanted to make sure that other readers realize that there's an alternative explanation that doesn't involve sex.
Yep. Many states have laws that say that you are required to call 911 in case of an accident that does more than $X00 in damage. As most people are poor at estimating dollar values of damages, most people are advised to call 911 after ANY car accident that's more than a scratch. Someone may have whiplash, there may be some structural damage, etc. It's entirely reasonable (though not specified in the article) that the 911 call was about the first accident, not about the fatal one.
I can easily imagine a sequence events like this:
7:50: Beas starts car, waits for it to warm up. 7:51: Beas composes a message, hits send. Puts phone down, drives away. 7:53: Veloz has been talking with other driver. "You know, this looks minor, but we should report it anyway." 7:54: Beas drives two miles from her start location. Meanwhile, her phone is sending the SMS. 7:54: Facebook timestamps it based on arrival time, not composition time (I assume). 7:54: Veloz dials 911. The article didn't say whether the 911 call was for his fatal accident or for the prior collision. 7:54-8:00: "Near 8:00", Veloz is hit by Beas' car.
Clearly, this all hinges on what the 911 call was pertaining to. If it was "Oh god my leg!", then the accident was at or before 7:54. I presume it could take a couple minutes for her phone to actually finish sending. I hope the defense gets an expert witness to experiment with sending Facebook updates [u]via her cell phone provider in the same way she did[/u] in order to see what the variance in the delay is. Also, it depends on the variance in the adherence to a standardized clock at the 911 system, Facebook, and the cellular networks.
At the same time, if you're a pedestrian, you should be aware that shit happens and the physics of moving vehicles makes you the loser in nearly ANY collision between a car and you. You're careless if you don't actively try to get the hell out of the potential paths of vehicles. This means you stand on the sidewalk, away from your car, off on the median, etc. Standing next to traffic is an easy way to get clipped if someone is inattentive, careless, and so on.
Do you really want to put your life completely in someone else's hands? I don't. I assume all other drivers on the road are either idiots or psychopaths, and take precautions accordingly to protect myself. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you're dead.
I am absolutely certain that it will blend. If an iphone, ipad, skiis, and a high grade camera suite will blend, I'd be thoroughly surprised if an SSD couldn't. I'm still looking for something they blended with a metal case, though.
Dont bother, unless of course they call you up for 5x the money, to fix things... then your a 'consultant'
I disagree. When you leave, harp and leave a paper trail asking for them to lock your account (if you didn't have access to do so). When you come back, tell them "Please give me a login and credentials to access this." You're not even asking for your old account, in that case.
"Please change the bob.admin account's password, as it appears to not have been changed" : BAD.
"Hey Cyril, I just wanted to follow up and make sure that the new IT guys at XYZ.inc got all of my old accounts locked down. I expect they already changed the password on my old bob.admin account and disabled its permissions, but I want to make sure they also locked down the bob.vpn account and removed the firewall exceptions that we'd installed when I needed to fix the webserver that one time on my vacation." : LESS BAD.
The latter doesn't imply that you tried to access it, but rather that you're trying to make sure that the new IT people know about all of your accounts, not just the obvious one. The IT guys will say, "Oh yeah of course we did that... " and then go fix it quietly if they didn't.
Money itself is not speech. The act of giving money can be considered speech, or communication of approval -- just as flashing headlights at other drivers is a form of sending a message.
but the vagina is hardly so precious that entering it unlawfully merits a lifetime sentence.
In some US jurisdictions, it's permissible to use lethal force to prevent a rape. I think that many people believe it does merit a lifetime sentence, in effect. The owner of the vagina would like to discourage it by any means necessary, and most of us who know people with vaginas tend to (instinctively) react similarly to the idea of someone raping them.
I can't imagine how someone would think that raping someone was a good idea, let alone posting threats on FB. Given that he'd already acted with extreme stupidity, I think it's not a far stretch past that to think he'd do that too.
There's a large difference between being jumpy enough to interpret a tap on the shoulder as an attack and being able to reflexively respond when someone grabs your arm, punches you, or puts you in a chokehold. (I can do none of those things.)
It may not have been an idyllic paradise filled with innocent natives, but the US government has certainly done an extensive amount of lying, cheating, and stealing from the natives. Consider the treaties we broke with the Lakotah: http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_huey.html
You can see and hear ample, legit clips online before buying, as well as thousands of reviews by people from every possible perspective and level of taste
Music is highly subjective, as are movies. Many of my favourite movies are ones that are (objectively) complete crap: I've watched Equilibrium more often (and own the DVD) than I've watched my Matrix DVD, or Braveheart. You can't depend solely on reviews. (This is the value of Netflix: watch it, and if you like it enough, buy it.)
For music, this is even more important. I've bought CDs after liking one song, and found that I could not stand the entire rest of the CD, to the point where I don't listen to it. Pretty much my entire metal CD collection was bought after that fiasco, and I've previewed as many songs as I can before I buy them. You can almost never tell from a 30 second or even 1-minute clip if a particular song will become an earworm of the good variety. Go listen to the clips on Amazon for an album you like, and tell me if they even remotely capture the things you like about those songs (or dislike). For me, the clips are pretty much useless.
Long ago, I used to download MP3s of the albums in order to see if I liked it, but now I simply queue up as many youtube music videos as I can. It's prevented me from buying several CDs ("This album is crap -- the first song is decent but the rest of it sounds like $BAND which I no longer enjoy listening to"), but has led me to buy double that many that I would have bought otherwise. I treat Youtube as borrowing a CD from a friend for a week, to see if I like it -- the difference being that my friends are strangers.
The reason they think of that stuff as intangible is because they can't wrap their heads around the very tangible risks, cash, and time that goes into creating it in the first place.
No, that's not it. Stealing a keg of beer deprives someone else of the beer. Copying an album or movie does not deprive anyone of that movie -- it merely reduces the distribution and copying cost to nearly zero. Most people easily see the harm in stealing something physical, as they identify the unfairness of taking something away from someone else. In the case of movies, nothing's taken away. Rather, the publishers don't get a sale. Not Giving someone money is not the same as taking money from them.
That's an interesting point. Many of us are accustomed to paying $15 (or $13) a month for a service that we use 15+ hours a week. (I'm being naiively optimistic: most uf us play more than that.) That boils down to the entertainment costing us less than $0.25/hour.
A DVD boxed set is normally one season of a show. Let's look at something one might reasonably consider representative, The Shield. It has about 13 hours of content; let's be generous and say it has 15. It costs $20. That's $1.33/hour, which is more than five times more expensive than a WoW subscription. Moreover, after those 15 hours are up, how often will I watch it again? Once? Three times? My wife and I love Harry Potter and Star Wars, but we still have only watched them a few times. I guess you should divide the cost further across the number of viewers, so $20/15h/2 = ~$.67/hour. I'd have to watch it more than twice for it to be at roughly the same cost/person-hour as a WoW subscription.
In that light, DVDs of TV shows are much more reasonably priced than I'd previously thought. DVDs of movies, though, have one fifth (or less) of the entertainment time per disc, so I'd have to watch it about a dozen times to compete with WoW. (My son's watched Bolt and my Hayao Miyazaki times more than this by now, I'm sure.)
I guess this is one reason I so enjoy the Netflix service.
Slashdot Mirror
The express purpose of the jury (and the judges will tell you this) is to decide within the confines of the law whether the evidence supports the prosecution's claims. However, some theorists argue that it's the moral duty of a jury to judge the morality and justness of the law.
I see very little overlap in the world views and professed agendas of WBC and Anonymous. I would be very surprised if any WBC members were also part of Anonymous.
If only education and internet access were able to influence people to distance themselves from those corrupt governments.
Yeah, I've always felt that Shelley's Frankenstein was a really derivative work. Didn't contribute anything to culture or have any lasting effect on the science ficiton genre.
</sarcasm>
Closed hardware is the only approach with a history of success.
Security through obscurity is not security, for the same reason that we have locks on our doors rather than a "secret door-opening lever": once some one knows the secret, you have no security.
I realize you're probably trying to be funny, but that sort of mindset is tremendously frightening. Many of us are nerds, and giving a jailbroken PS3 to a neighborhood kid that you know already has geeky tendencies could be a great way to introduce them to programming. Adults that might use a jailbroken PS3 for development have likely already bought one, whereas kids don't necessarily have the funds to do so.
Donating a (jailbroken) console, plus development tools, to a kid is a way of donating to the future education of geeks. It shameful that someone would assume it was a bribe in hopes of sexual favors, and not even consider that there is a good (nerdy) reason to do something like this. Most kids might use it for piracy. That's why he said "some deserverving" kid, that you (presumably) know would be interested in developing homebrew games, or having a computer of their own.
I realize you probably alreayd knew all of that, and were likely following along with the joke, but it's a pretty tasteless joke, and I wanted to make sure that other readers realize that there's an alternative explanation that doesn't involve sex.
The Anonymous attacks on the church of Scientology showed that many of them are willing to stand on the street with signs.
What next - video fruit-flies that can shoot tiny rockets?
Video fruit-flies that upload to a large and persistent database of surveillance footage, indexed by your identity, location, and time.
Yep. Many states have laws that say that you are required to call 911 in case of an accident that does more than $X00 in damage. As most people are poor at estimating dollar values of damages, most people are advised to call 911 after ANY car accident that's more than a scratch. Someone may have whiplash, there may be some structural damage, etc. It's entirely reasonable (though not specified in the article) that the 911 call was about the first accident, not about the fatal one.
I can easily imagine a sequence events like this:
7:50: Beas starts car, waits for it to warm up.
7:51: Beas composes a message, hits send. Puts phone down, drives away.
7:53: Veloz has been talking with other driver. "You know, this looks minor, but we should report it anyway."
7:54: Beas drives two miles from her start location. Meanwhile, her phone is sending the SMS.
7:54: Facebook timestamps it based on arrival time, not composition time (I assume).
7:54: Veloz dials 911. The article didn't say whether the 911 call was for his fatal accident or for the prior collision.
7:54-8:00: "Near 8:00", Veloz is hit by Beas' car.
Clearly, this all hinges on what the 911 call was pertaining to. If it was "Oh god my leg!", then the accident was at or before 7:54. I presume it could take a couple minutes for her phone to actually finish sending. I hope the defense gets an expert witness to experiment with sending Facebook updates [u]via her cell phone provider in the same way she did[/u] in order to see what the variance in the delay is. Also, it depends on the variance in the adherence to a standardized clock at the 911 system, Facebook, and the cellular networks.
At the same time, if you're a pedestrian, you should be aware that shit happens and the physics of moving vehicles makes you the loser in nearly ANY collision between a car and you. You're careless if you don't actively try to get the hell out of the potential paths of vehicles. This means you stand on the sidewalk, away from your car, off on the median, etc. Standing next to traffic is an easy way to get clipped if someone is inattentive, careless, and so on.
Do you really want to put your life completely in someone else's hands? I don't. I assume all other drivers on the road are either idiots or psychopaths, and take precautions accordingly to protect myself. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you're dead.
Made me proud to be his son when after all the pain she caused he just walked away
Wow. Just wow. Talk about a good role model.
I hope she finds expert witnesses that can explain this well enough.
I am absolutely certain that it will blend. If an iphone, ipad, skiis, and a high grade camera suite will blend, I'd be thoroughly surprised if an SSD couldn't. I'm still looking for something they blended with a metal case, though.
http://www.willitblend.com/videos.aspx?type=unsafe
Dont bother, unless of course they call you up for 5x the money, to fix things... then your a 'consultant'
I disagree. When you leave, harp and leave a paper trail asking for them to lock your account (if you didn't have access to do so). When you come back, tell them "Please give me a login and credentials to access this." You're not even asking for your old account, in that case.
It's all in how you phrase it.
"Please change the bob.admin account's password, as it appears to not have been changed" : BAD.
"Hey Cyril, I just wanted to follow up and make sure that the new IT guys at XYZ.inc got all of my old accounts locked down. I expect they already changed the password on my old bob.admin account and disabled its permissions, but I want to make sure they also locked down the bob.vpn account and removed the firewall exceptions that we'd installed when I needed to fix the webserver that one time on my vacation." : LESS BAD.
The latter doesn't imply that you tried to access it, but rather that you're trying to make sure that the new IT people know about all of your accounts, not just the obvious one. The IT guys will say, "Oh yeah of course we did that ... " and then go fix it quietly if they didn't.
http://www.google.com/images?q=orchid
Enjoy! :D
Money itself is not speech.
The act of giving money can be considered speech, or communication of approval -- just as flashing headlights at other drivers is a form of sending a message.
Here's wishing I knew how to make Opera do the same ...
but the vagina is hardly so precious that entering it unlawfully merits a lifetime sentence.
In some US jurisdictions, it's permissible to use lethal force to prevent a rape. I think that many people believe it does merit a lifetime sentence, in effect. The owner of the vagina would like to discourage it by any means necessary, and most of us who know people with vaginas tend to (instinctively) react similarly to the idea of someone raping them.
I can't imagine how someone would think that raping someone was a good idea, let alone posting threats on FB. Given that he'd already acted with extreme stupidity, I think it's not a far stretch past that to think he'd do that too.
There's a large difference between being jumpy enough to interpret a tap on the shoulder as an attack and being able to reflexively respond when someone grabs your arm, punches you, or puts you in a chokehold. (I can do none of those things.)
It may not have been an idyllic paradise filled with innocent natives, but the US government has certainly done an extensive amount of lying, cheating, and stealing from the natives. Consider the treaties we broke with the Lakotah: http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_huey.html
You can see and hear ample, legit clips online before buying, as well as thousands of reviews by people from every possible perspective and level of taste
Music is highly subjective, as are movies. Many of my favourite movies are ones that are (objectively) complete crap: I've watched Equilibrium more often (and own the DVD) than I've watched my Matrix DVD, or Braveheart. You can't depend solely on reviews. (This is the value of Netflix: watch it, and if you like it enough, buy it.)
For music, this is even more important. I've bought CDs after liking one song, and found that I could not stand the entire rest of the CD, to the point where I don't listen to it. Pretty much my entire metal CD collection was bought after that fiasco, and I've previewed as many songs as I can before I buy them. You can almost never tell from a 30 second or even 1-minute clip if a particular song will become an earworm of the good variety. Go listen to the clips on Amazon for an album you like, and tell me if they even remotely capture the things you like about those songs (or dislike). For me, the clips are pretty much useless.
Long ago, I used to download MP3s of the albums in order to see if I liked it, but now I simply queue up as many youtube music videos as I can. It's prevented me from buying several CDs ("This album is crap -- the first song is decent but the rest of it sounds like $BAND which I no longer enjoy listening to"), but has led me to buy double that many that I would have bought otherwise. I treat Youtube as borrowing a CD from a friend for a week, to see if I like it -- the difference being that my friends are strangers.
The reason they think of that stuff as intangible is because they can't wrap their heads around the very tangible risks, cash, and time that goes into creating it in the first place.
No, that's not it. Stealing a keg of beer deprives someone else of the beer. Copying an album or movie does not deprive anyone of that movie -- it merely reduces the distribution and copying cost to nearly zero. Most people easily see the harm in stealing something physical, as they identify the unfairness of taking something away from someone else. In the case of movies, nothing's taken away. Rather, the publishers don't get a sale. Not Giving someone money is not the same as taking money from them.
That's an interesting point. Many of us are accustomed to paying $15 (or $13) a month for a service that we use 15+ hours a week. (I'm being naiively optimistic: most uf us play more than that.) That boils down to the entertainment costing us less than $0.25/hour.
A DVD boxed set is normally one season of a show. Let's look at something one might reasonably consider representative, The Shield. It has about 13 hours of content; let's be generous and say it has 15. It costs $20. That's $1.33/hour, which is more than five times more expensive than a WoW subscription. Moreover, after those 15 hours are up, how often will I watch it again? Once? Three times? My wife and I love Harry Potter and Star Wars, but we still have only watched them a few times. I guess you should divide the cost further across the number of viewers, so $20/15h/2 = ~$.67/hour. I'd have to watch it more than twice for it to be at roughly the same cost/person-hour as a WoW subscription.
In that light, DVDs of TV shows are much more reasonably priced than I'd previously thought. DVDs of movies, though, have one fifth (or less) of the entertainment time per disc, so I'd have to watch it about a dozen times to compete with WoW. (My son's watched Bolt and my Hayao Miyazaki times more than this by now, I'm sure.)
I guess this is one reason I so enjoy the Netflix service.