No special law regarding TOS violations is required. You'd be granting unauthorised access to a third party's computer system, which IIUC is already a violation of Federal law. (And this is what I keep saying whenever this topic comes up.)
So say a state makes a law abridging the freedom of speech. That does not violate the constitution in any way.
Evidently you failed high school civics class. Article Six doesn't say anything about Congress; it specifically binds *judges* to rule according to the *Federal* Constitution in the event of a conflict between it and the laws or constitution of any state. Note also that it doesn't say anything about State or Federal judges--it says *judges*, period.
US states that do not exist only in your imagination may not enact laws that contravene the US Constitution. States may not restrict or take away rights that are guaranteed by the US Constituion. Period.
Jag har bott i Sverige under tillräcklig tid för att lära mig att man säger rättvist "jag ska inte få en enda krona", inte "kronor"...:)
That being said, it appears that FuturePower(R) is attempting to introduce a false dichotomy into the discussion, as it's perfectly possible that (a) economists were using a fundamentally flawed model and (b) securities traders (like a lot of other "haves") have become hyper-greedy and increasingly ruthless and uncaring over the last couple of decades.
"Breakdown of the family" = shock-and-horror code for "having a family no longer guarantees women's subjugation to men"
"Immorality" = shock-and-horror code for "women get to enjoy sex, too"
Maybe you need to chain your woman to the stove and/or bed, but mine stays with me by her own volition. She's free to leave anytime she wants. This means, if I want to keep her, I'd best give her good reason to want to stay. Doing my best to treat her with respect, and as an equal partner in our relationship, seems to be working pretty well so far to that end.
Ever hear of something called "due process"? Even the Nazis got trials, and they were accused of things which few if any would dispute should actually *be* considered crimes.
In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate....
I'd consider it *possibly* malicious (a) if Google were holding 60+% of the market and Yandex 25% rather than the other way round, and (b) if you couldn't download/install 3 or 4 other major browsers on all major platforms in localised versions, and (c) if you couldn't change the search provider in Chrome at all.
My point is that his argument boils down to "ZOMG Google have 5/6 of the market share needed to trigger Russian anti-competitiveness laws" as though it's the same as having 6/6 of that amount, which it is not.
Since Yandex have more than double Google's share, and since it's not like it's impossible even now to change search providers in Chrome.ru (we're talking a couple of extra clicks, no?) and *nobody is forcing anyone to use Chrome in Russia or anywhere else*, it sounds to me more like Yandex are just whinging because they actually have to compete in what they'd like consider their very own captive market. (At least until Google have increased their market share by another 20% of its current level.)
On a personal note, I've used Yandex, and it seems pretty crappy (do they even know what SEO spam is, and how to filter for it?), and Google actually provides better Russian-language results AFAICT. Of course, I am not a native speaker, and YMMV in any case.
We're not talking about "puritanical bigotry" or "politically correct" here. However, it looks like we might need to talk about your prejudices and unwillingness to accept inconvenient facts.
BTW, "euphoria" doesn't mean ''happy"; it means "*excessive or uncontrolled* feelings of happiness". And this can make you unable to concentrate or even careless to the point of doing something stupid or even dangerous. As someone who occasionally suffers from violent mood swings, I don't desire to be excessively or uncontrollably happy; I want to be happy in a *normal* way which I can control, thanks very much.
As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot.
That really depends on the individual case. Some of my issues have turned out to be rooted in events or conditions in my childhood. Others not.
There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people.
That's not quite true. Psychologists and psychiatrists do in fact study these, and I doubt you'll find any who don't acknowledge that it largely (still) goes back to Freud. While many of Freud's interpretations have been superseded, the basic methodology remains much the same. (One must also remember that Freud dealt with a lot of "hysterical" women who were that way due to Victorian-era sexual repression.) And Jungian psychology is more concerned with social psychology and the psychology of creativity than it is with individual therapeutics. At least this is what I recall from my own university courses, and more recently mostly confirmed by my counsellor.
The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.
Bingo. In fact, my counsellor seems to think of herself and to present herself more as a guide or a coach than anything else. She has a background in process psychology and is very practical and goal-directed in her therapy. She helps me most by providing a calmer, more rational view of my situation than I am sometimes capable of mustering, helping me to identify my problems clearly and to prioritise the tasks I need to accomplish to solve them, and to get help with those tasks that I'm having trouble with managing on my own. Since she knows that I'm a Buddhist, she also helps me view things in terms of attachments, and to avoid or untangle myself from those that are detrimental or unnecessary. Sometimes she recommends that I take something like St. John's wort or melatonin for a few weeks to help me get back on an even keel.
And I've been on Slashdot one hell of a lot longer than you have, and it's the considered opinion of this Old One you're at least one (and possibly more) of: (a) ignorant of basic logic; (b) trolling; (c) brain-damaged.
Yes, PJ can be biased and is at times unreasonable as hell. (I've had posts removed by her because she apparently could not understand that I was *agreeing* with her, for crying out loud.) But she does NOT have any conflict of interest.
Personally, I think you're pretending not to understand what "conflict of interest" means, so that you can oh-so-cleverly shift its *apparent* definition until you trick people into agreeing with you that it applies to PJ. Whereas at least some of us *do* know what it means (and at one point I wrote ad copy for a living, so I know all about how your little game is played), and so you're being called out on it, as well you should be.
I just hope you're actually getting paid. It would really be tragic, otherwise.
I think you're reading a little too much into what F69631 said. I read it as, "If you treat yourself (only) with drugs...". And what he says about about drugs tending to lose their efficacy over time (due to building up tolerance) is perfectly true. I don't think he's saying, "Don't use drugs at all", and I also think you are being unnecessarily defensive, since he doesn't say anything about drugs being "dangerous and ineffective".
If you read what he said *in context*, he also says that *his depression is not necessarily exactly the same as other people's*. The rest of his post suggests that he is also talking to a large extent about people who seem to think they can just take a magic pill and their problems will go away. Not to mention those people who tell someone suffering from depression, "Oh, you just take take a pill for that." (Maybe you've never seen ads for various meds that imply that this is the case on TV, in magazines, etc.? I'm pretty sure that I have.) And he goes to imply that he thinks that therapy/consultation should always be a part of treatment.
And, as someone who's been there himself, I happen to agree with him.
ExecSummary: He doesn't say (IMNSHO), "Don't do meds at all"; he says, "Don't rely on meds to the exclusion of anything else".
Slashdot Mirror
No special law regarding TOS violations is required. You'd be granting unauthorised access to a third party's computer system, which IIUC is already a violation of Federal law. (And this is what I keep saying whenever this topic comes up.)
So say a state makes a law abridging the freedom of speech. That does not violate the constitution in any way.
Evidently you failed high school civics class. Article Six doesn't say anything about Congress; it specifically binds *judges* to rule according to the *Federal* Constitution in the event of a conflict between it and the laws or constitution of any state. Note also that it doesn't say anything about State or Federal judges--it says *judges*, period.
US states that do not exist only in your imagination may not enact laws that contravene the US Constitution. States may not restrict or take away rights that are guaranteed by the US Constituion. Period.
And yours is not recognising that nouns and verbs have singular and plural forms which must agree, apparently.
Your sarcasm detector is badly out of adjustment and/or you've responded to the wrong post.
Jag har bott i Sverige under tillräcklig tid för att lära mig att man säger rättvist "jag ska inte få en enda krona", inte "kronor"... :)
That being said, it appears that FuturePower(R) is attempting to introduce a false dichotomy into the discussion, as it's perfectly possible that (a) economists were using a fundamentally flawed model and (b) securities traders (like a lot of other "haves") have become hyper-greedy and increasingly ruthless and uncaring over the last couple of decades.
This is almost exactly what some folks at the London School of Economics admitted to HM The Queen not too long ago.
You're the one who neglected to address that question, not me. :)
Do you actually know what that book is about? (For starters, it doesn't predict anything.)
Huh? What part of "unless..., or..., or..., you have to use it or lose it!" did you fail to understand?
This was a first post, and asks an entirely relevant question. The fact that it was posted as AC is not relevant.
Therefore it should *not* have been modded Redundant.
NB: "bovvered" is British slang for "bothered".
"Breakdown of the family" = shock-and-horror code for "having a family no longer guarantees women's subjugation to men"
"Immorality" = shock-and-horror code for "women get to enjoy sex, too"
Maybe you need to chain your woman to the stove and/or bed, but mine stays with me by her own volition. She's free to leave anytime she wants. This means, if I want to keep her, I'd best give her good reason to want to stay. Doing my best to treat her with respect, and as an equal partner in our relationship, seems to be working pretty well so far to that end.
You must be great f---aw, nevermind.
Ever hear of something called "due process"? Even the Nazis got trials, and they were accused of things which few if any would dispute should actually *be* considered crimes.
In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate. ...
Methinks this would be what some call plausible deniability.
I'd consider it *possibly* malicious (a) if Google were holding 60+% of the market and Yandex 25% rather than the other way round, and (b) if you couldn't download/install 3 or 4 other major browsers on all major platforms in localised versions, and (c) if you couldn't change the search provider in Chrome at all.
My point is that his argument boils down to "ZOMG Google have 5/6 of the market share needed to trigger Russian anti-competitiveness laws" as though it's the same as having 6/6 of that amount, which it is not.
Since Yandex have more than double Google's share, and since it's not like it's impossible even now to change search providers in Chrome.ru (we're talking a couple of extra clicks, no?) and *nobody is forcing anyone to use Chrome in Russia or anywhere else*, it sounds to me more like Yandex are just whinging because they actually have to compete in what they'd like consider their very own captive market. (At least until Google have increased their market share by another 20% of its current level.)
On a personal note, I've used Yandex, and it seems pretty crappy (do they even know what SEO spam is, and how to filter for it?), and Google actually provides better Russian-language results AFAICT. Of course, I am not a native speaker, and YMMV in any case.
This has been used to pressure companies or individuals to give up proprietary build processes...
You say this like it's a bad thing.
"close to" != "is". Thanks for playing.
I didn't say it was easy, did I?
I said that it helps. And it does.
Undesirable Effects: ...psychotomimetic phenomena (euphoria, dysphasia [speech impairment], blunted affect, psychomotor retardation, vivid dreams, nightmares, impaired attention, memory and judgement, illusions, hallucinations, altered body image), delirium, dizziness, diplopia [double vision], blurred vision, nystagmus [involuntary eye movement], altered hearing, hypertension [high blood pressure], tachycardia [too-rapid heartbeat], hypersalivation [drooling], nausea and vomiting, erythema [rash] and pain at injection site. Urinary tract toxicity...
We're not talking about "puritanical bigotry" or "politically correct" here. However, it looks like we might need to talk about your prejudices and unwillingness to accept inconvenient facts.
BTW, "euphoria" doesn't mean ''happy"; it means "*excessive or uncontrolled* feelings of happiness". And this can make you unable to concentrate or even careless to the point of doing something stupid or even dangerous. As someone who occasionally suffers from violent mood swings, I don't desire to be excessively or uncontrollably happy; I want to be happy in a *normal* way which I can control, thanks very much.
As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot.
That really depends on the individual case. Some of my issues have turned out to be rooted in events or conditions in my childhood. Others not.
There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people.
That's not quite true. Psychologists and psychiatrists do in fact study these, and I doubt you'll find any who don't acknowledge that it largely (still) goes back to Freud. While many of Freud's interpretations have been superseded, the basic methodology remains much the same. (One must also remember that Freud dealt with a lot of "hysterical" women who were that way due to Victorian-era sexual repression.) And Jungian psychology is more concerned with social psychology and the psychology of creativity than it is with individual therapeutics. At least this is what I recall from my own university courses, and more recently mostly confirmed by my counsellor.
The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.
Bingo. In fact, my counsellor seems to think of herself and to present herself more as a guide or a coach than anything else. She has a background in process psychology and is very practical and goal-directed in her therapy. She helps me most by providing a calmer, more rational view of my situation than I am sometimes capable of mustering, helping me to identify my problems clearly and to prioritise the tasks I need to accomplish to solve them, and to get help with those tasks that I'm having trouble with managing on my own. Since she knows that I'm a Buddhist, she also helps me view things in terms of attachments, and to avoid or untangle myself from those that are detrimental or unnecessary. Sometimes she recommends that I take something like St. John's wort or melatonin for a few weeks to help me get back on an even keel.
*highfive*
And I've been on Slashdot one hell of a lot longer than you have, and it's the considered opinion of this Old One you're at least one (and possibly more) of: (a) ignorant of basic logic; (b) trolling; (c) brain-damaged.
Yes, PJ can be biased and is at times unreasonable as hell. (I've had posts removed by her because she apparently could not understand that I was *agreeing* with her, for crying out loud.) But she does NOT have any conflict of interest.
Personally, I think you're pretending not to understand what "conflict of interest" means, so that you can oh-so-cleverly shift its *apparent* definition until you trick people into agreeing with you that it applies to PJ. Whereas at least some of us *do* know what it means (and at one point I wrote ad copy for a living, so I know all about how your little game is played), and so you're being called out on it, as well you should be.
I just hope you're actually getting paid. It would really be tragic, otherwise.
In case you're not just trying to be clever: You really should try to get out and connect with other humans more often.
It really does help.
I believe the applicable meme is, "You must be great fun at parties".
I think you're reading a little too much into what F69631 said. I read it as, "If you treat yourself (only) with drugs...". And what he says about about drugs tending to lose their efficacy over time (due to building up tolerance) is perfectly true. I don't think he's saying, "Don't use drugs at all", and I also think you are being unnecessarily defensive, since he doesn't say anything about drugs being "dangerous and ineffective".
If you read what he said *in context*, he also says that *his depression is not necessarily exactly the same as other people's*. The rest of his post suggests that he is also talking to a large extent about people who seem to think they can just take a magic pill and their problems will go away. Not to mention those people who tell someone suffering from depression, "Oh, you just take take a pill for that." (Maybe you've never seen ads for various meds that imply that this is the case on TV, in magazines, etc.? I'm pretty sure that I have.) And he goes to imply that he thinks that therapy/consultation should always be a part of treatment.
And, as someone who's been there himself, I happen to agree with him.
ExecSummary: He doesn't say (IMNSHO), "Don't do meds at all"; he says, "Don't rely on meds to the exclusion of anything else".