I grew up with the original trilogy. I'm not sure how to back this up without listing a bunch of ridiculous examples, but it's safe to say I'm a fan of the series.
I really liked The Last Jedi. It's not perfect, but I enjoyed it. I understand how a lifetime can cause someone (Luke) to change his perspective from hopeful to embittered. I understand failing to meet the expectations of your youth.
Legal process service does not go through first class mail.
If you're referring to a summons, usually it is done through certified mail, which is a service of the USPS. Further, all service after the initial service is done via first class mail. That is changing in some areas of some states due to efiling, but service by USPS is still a critical part of the infrastructure on which the legal system depends.
Help me out here, because I really don't understand how it works....but how are you supposed to pay for private health insurance if you lose employment?
I think that the argument was that you could leave your job and become self-employed or join a small business without a company plan. I did that. I left my job to start my own business, and I insure myself and my family through the marketplace.
It has not been a particularly pleasant experience. While yes, I am able to get insurance, the marketplace has an extremely limited number of options. For 2014, I had 3 choices in my state. For 2015, it's better and bigger, but choice basically amounts to "choose your hospital system."
The worst part, though, has been the repeated bureaucratic barriers the system puts into place. First, I had to prove the citizenship of me, my wife, and my children. Our birth certificates were not initially accepted as proof. After a back and forth with the Marketplace, I eventually convinced them that we were, in fact, citizens of the US. I should note that for at least four generations from me and my wife, our ancestors were born in the US. It's probably more than four.
The issue we continue to battle, though, is "proof of income." My income decreased dramatically -- it was to be expected as I went from a dependable salary to starting my own business. Every few months, I get a request from the marketplace to submit a W-2. After getting on the phone and explaining that I'm self-employed, I get asked to submit an income ledger. As I am an attorney, many of my financial transactions are legally privileged and I am not permitted to disclose them except in a general sense. The first several times I submitted my self-employment ledger, it was rejected on the grounds that it did not contain sufficient information. Additional calls followed, and I have some small hope that my most recent submission (done this month) will be accepted without further objection.
In any case, someone who says that it's easier to start your own business now than before may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it's no cakewalk now.
I tend to agree with this. It seems odd that a lot of people want there to have been a compromise by a government -- it seems at least as likely to me that the developer just didn't want to work on TC anymore and would like it to go away.
Flensed, refactored, rewritten, and fixed enough of the code so we have stable baseline that we trust and can be maintained/improved.
The right Portability team in place.
A Stable Commitment of Funding to support an increased development and porting effort.
If the answer is "No," then I've got some even worse news for you: we already have "socialized medicine." The patient will, in fact, be treated, and you and I will, in fact, pick up the tab. It just costs us several times more than it would in any other civilized nation on Earth, because unlike those nations, we insist on kidding ourselves.
This
This is where the debate ends. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) made the US a single payer system, we just haven't been honest about it. Because of this law, anyone who enters the ER with an emergency must be treated. If the person does not have an emergency, they may be sent away; however, if they have an actual condition (e.g. cancer), the hospital must treat it later when it is worse and an actual emergency.
I dislike the concept of the government being the purveyor of healthcare for philosophical reasons -- because if it provides it, it is at least implied that it can take it away. It also gives the government essential control over the medical profession (again, if you're the only payer, you can set the rules). The government manages to mess up most things it touches. That said, the current situation is both morally and economically untenable. At some point, reality and practicality triumph over philosophy. Everyone is living longer, and nearly everyone is going to need some form of long term care. The only economically efficient way to handle that is to have a single payer. Or let them die.
What are they referring to here? This seems like a quote pulled out of context and now it makes no sense.
"It's only 40 lines, but every line carried some careful thought. "
Indeed it is taken totally out of context -- it's from pg 4 of the article, talking about a library called d3.js, which is apparently a library "to make things move on the screen"
To combat identity theft. At least that's what the local NPR news said this morning.
Apparently the BMV plans to compare your new picture when you get a license to all your previous license pictures. If it looks significantly different, they'll take extra steps to ensure that you are, in fact, who you say you are.
I was at a seminar today where the General Counsel for the Indiana BMV explained the reason for the new regulation in more detail. Apparently, Indiana had been attracting fraudsters who would apply for a driver's license under someone else's name. In order to prevent this, the clerks at the BMV compare all past driver's license photos with the appearance of the person trying to get the new license. If the clerk noticed a discrepancy, the person was flagged and they needed to have a hearing and provide further proof that they are who they say they are to get the license. That has been going on for "some time."
Under the new system, the photos will be additionally compared using facial recognition software. Further, the system will check faces in its database against one another to determine if someone is getting licenses under multiple names. The software is somewhat limited in that things like smiles and glasses throw it off, hence the regulation.
In other words, the system isn't trying to make it easier for the police, FBI, interpol, etc. to catch you -- it's trying to make it easier for the BMV to catch people applying for licenses fraudulently. At least, that's what the General Counsel said.
Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.
Find a new doctor! In my town (a relatively large midwestern city), I've never waited that long, even for specialists. Fifteen minutes, sure, but not an hour.
But why the small jab at the end, I can't understand; and yes, I took offense of it.
My apologies. My intention was to point out the often prevalent hypocrisy that some around here demonstrate that all that Apple does is good, while all software patents are bad. Usually the "all that Apple does is good" side seems to win out. I write this on a Mac.
One of the rule permitted in your country is to apply for software patents. How then can they be evil for applying for said patents? If you don't like the rules, well get them changed.
Interesting... The "jd" part of my username does not refer to my initials, but my occupation. Suffice it to say I do not have a blanket dislike for business method patents. There are some which are bad and some which are good. IMO the need for reform is at the patent office, specifically with patent examiners. If they obeyed the rules set for them (and were competent to do so as regards novelty and obviousness), I think most issues would be resolved. However, the Patent Office is an executive agency, and difficult to change from a voter's point of view. It would take a president who wishes to make it a point of fixing the office, and in the grand scheme of things, that's pretty low on the priority list.
1. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a bar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a size of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display and for repositioning others of said plurality of tiles along said bar to accommodate the varied size of said one tile.
Roughly, increasing the size of the icon which the mouse is over, and repositioning icons around it.
36. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, in accordance with a predefined relationship between an effect width W, a default height h of said at least one of said plurality of tiles and a selected maximum height H of said at least one of said plurality of tiles wherein said predefined relationship includes a function S defined as: S=((H-h)/2)/sine(.pi..times.(h+2)/(W.times.2)).
Roughly, a bar in a gui where the position of icons nearby the mouse is modified according to the formula given.
65. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, wherein said processor displays a label associated with said at least one of said plurality of tiles with a first predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from another of said plurality of tiles, and with a second predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from outside a region associated with said userbar.
Roughly, displaying the name of a program (by fading it in) when you run the mouse over the associated icon from outside the dock.
67. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, wherein said processor displays a label associated with said at least one of said plurality of tiles with a first predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from another of said plurality of tiles, and wherein said processor fades out said label when said cursor moves away from said at least one of said plurality of tiles using a first fade out rate when said cursor moves into another of said at least one of said plurality of tiles, and using a second fade out rate when said cursor moves out of a region associated with said bar.
Roughly, displaying the name of a program (by fading it in) when you run the mouse over the associated icon from another icon.
69. A method for displaying items in a graphical user interface comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of said items in a region of said graphical user interface, each of said items having a default height associated therewith; moving a cursor along said region; and selectively magnifying at least one of said items closest to said cursor to a first level and magnifying items proximate to said one item to other levels less than said first level.
Click through EULAs have been deemed to be unenforcable.
Really? What's your citation to the case which unambiguously holds that click through EULAs are unenforceable? Sure, you'll be able to find cases where a particular EULA was unenforceable, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction which has a blanket prohibition on the enforcement of click through EULAs.
It was a mediocre book that was obviously written with a movie deal in mind.
Not with an (typical) American movie in mind -- it is sparse on fight scenes. There is arguably only one out and out fight against the zombies. The rest of the book is a series of anecdotes from the survivors about their particular niches of the War. I don't see too many Hollywood movies where people sit and describe their reflections on the war.
I personally think it'll be extremely difficult to turn it into a movie with losing its essential character and merely ripping some broadly painted ideas and a few very specific references.
When I picked up the novel, I expected a more linear narrative which would have been perfect for a movie. What I got was ultimately likely more satisfying.
From the Wikipedia article you quoted: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.
I didn't read the GP as proclaiming that it is true that life is divine in origin. He or she merely pointed out that it is impossible to show that it is not. Surely the simple observation that evolution has not be demonstrated (in the non-theoretical sense) does not automatically create a presumption that it could only have been divinely created. That in and of itself advances the theory of evolution to some sort of inviolate stage where it cannot be questioned. It can always be questioned, and it only advances or becomes more refined when challenged.
I personally despise these religiously charged articles on slashdot. The rancor thrown by the atheist crowd abandons the passionless purpose of science, which is ultimately observation and description. The religious crowd is just as bad at damning the other side and not responding with any complex or nuanced theology. I know some very smart atheists and some very smart religious people -- scientists and engineers on both sides; Democrats and Republicans on both sides. Slashdot is not the place to convert people, because ultimately 99.9% (insert your own decimal level of confidence here) of people are not won over to either by the strength of any logical or reasoned argument, but by fickle emotion. Sure, everyone on slashdot will claim to be part of the.1% who chooses only on the basis of observable evidence, but given how emotionally charged these (and other - btw, Apple Sucks) discussions get.
so now a collection of 1's and 0's with a filename ending with.mp3 will be searched for as if it were a kilo of coke?
Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc. This part of the law is aimed at customs enforcement at ports and national borders. This is about someone shipping crates of knock-off DVDs or purses into a country, and the customs agents of that country seizing the goods and informing the rights-holder.
I don't think this is intended to deal with lone citizens re-entering the country with a couple of CDs from China. It could be used for that, of course, but there are the same enforcement issues you have now.
Re:How can a culture that celebrates ignorance
on
How Do You Fix Education?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Our fellow countrymen have gone so far as to use the word "intellectual" as a slur. WTF is that all about?
I think it has far more to do with the attitude associated with many of those who call themselves "intellectual" than the actual status of using one's ability to reason along with the capacity for knowledge. If more intellectuals criticized those other intellectuals who are rude and condescending to the less intelligent, I imagine it would cease to be a slur.
This seems to imply that management that puts these policies in place should be carefully reviewed by their company's owners. They do not seem to have the best of the company in mind
The officers (and attorneys) of the company have a duty to the shareholders to ensure that their policies do benefit and protect the owners (likely shareholders, but maybe it's an LLC or some other type of organization). If the officers don't, the shareholders absolutely should remove them. It should be clear for reasons besides just the email policy if the officers don't have the shareholders' best interests in mind.
A really good CEO would make sure the incriminating emails were found quicker, not work towards hiding the evidence.
While I agree with you, you seem to be thinking only of the case where the officers are embezzling or otherwise harming the shareholders. In many cases of officer misconduct, the shareholders are beneficiaries of illicit activity. For example, the shareholders of Enron who sold before the fall made out extremely well from the illegal actions of the officers. Obviously other shareholders lost everything, but had Enron never been caught, all shareholders would have benefited.
but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?
I guess you just have to say... "oh well, sorry, we don't have a copy of the [warning/caution/acceptance] that puts us in the clear..., I guess we're screwed".
It's a fair question, and one I've certainly struggled with. Ultimately, you have to come up with a balancing of the possibilities. On one hand is the possibility that an email over 180 days exonerates you and on the other is an email over 180 days old that sends your executives to prison. The calculation may be that it's harder for someone to prove you guilty, than to be forced to prove yourself innocent. Apparently the balance for this company is at 180 days. That's a bit short for my taste, but that's what this company has decided.
Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
I don't think those are our only two choices. Firearms are legal despite the fact that they can be (and are) used to kill other people. Cars kill an unbelievable amount of people every year, yet we don't think of outlawing them. The copy machine has been around for decades, and somehow the printing industry hasn't gone out of business. There is a middle ground, admittedly difficult to enforce, where copying has legal restrictions while general computers are free. I think that there can be behavior that's looked down upon by the community and still be illegal, despite the fact that it's easy to get away with the crime.
The consumer looks at a product and says "hey, i like that, but i can't afford to spend $20 on it. so i will not buy it." but now all of a sudden there is a way for that person to get it for free so they obtain it that way.
Why, then, should anyone pay for the software? There are an almost unlimited number of things to spend money on. I am guessing that most "pirated" copies are not a matter of either I eat or I pay for the software -- it's a matter of either I go-to-the-movies or buy-a-new-TV or I pay for the software. At what point does "I can't afford it" justify the piracy in your mind?
The software clearly has some value to the "pirate". It has filled some useful purpose, and the creator's efforts are going unrewarded (that is, the creator didn't intend to give it away -- he or she wanted to be paid for it). Is the creator who wants to be paid for his or her software simply inherently wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
I grew up with the original trilogy. I'm not sure how to back this up without listing a bunch of ridiculous examples, but it's safe to say I'm a fan of the series.
I really liked The Last Jedi. It's not perfect, but I enjoyed it. I understand how a lifetime can cause someone (Luke) to change his perspective from hopeful to embittered. I understand failing to meet the expectations of your youth.
I liked Rose, and the adventure to Canto Bight.
Do I count?
Legal process service does not go through first class mail.
If you're referring to a summons, usually it is done through certified mail, which is a service of the USPS. Further, all service after the initial service is done via first class mail. That is changing in some areas of some states due to efiling, but service by USPS is still a critical part of the infrastructure on which the legal system depends.
Help me out here, because I really don't understand how it works....but how are you supposed to pay for private health insurance if you lose employment?
I think that the argument was that you could leave your job and become self-employed or join a small business without a company plan. I did that. I left my job to start my own business, and I insure myself and my family through the marketplace.
It has not been a particularly pleasant experience. While yes, I am able to get insurance, the marketplace has an extremely limited number of options. For 2014, I had 3 choices in my state. For 2015, it's better and bigger, but choice basically amounts to "choose your hospital system."
The worst part, though, has been the repeated bureaucratic barriers the system puts into place. First, I had to prove the citizenship of me, my wife, and my children. Our birth certificates were not initially accepted as proof. After a back and forth with the Marketplace, I eventually convinced them that we were, in fact, citizens of the US. I should note that for at least four generations from me and my wife, our ancestors were born in the US. It's probably more than four.
The issue we continue to battle, though, is "proof of income." My income decreased dramatically -- it was to be expected as I went from a dependable salary to starting my own business. Every few months, I get a request from the marketplace to submit a W-2. After getting on the phone and explaining that I'm self-employed, I get asked to submit an income ledger. As I am an attorney, many of my financial transactions are legally privileged and I am not permitted to disclose them except in a general sense. The first several times I submitted my self-employment ledger, it was rejected on the grounds that it did not contain sufficient information. Additional calls followed, and I have some small hope that my most recent submission (done this month) will be accepted without further objection.
In any case, someone who says that it's easier to start your own business now than before may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it's no cakewalk now.
I tend to agree with this. It seems odd that a lot of people want there to have been a compromise by a government -- it seems at least as likely to me that the developer just didn't want to work on TC anymore and would like it to go away.
It does indeed appear to be OpenBSD only at present (from http://www.libressl.org/ ):
Multi OS support will happen once we have
Flensed, refactored, rewritten, and fixed enough of the code so we have stable baseline that we trust and can be maintained/improved.
The right Portability team in place.
A Stable Commitment of Funding to support an increased development and porting effort.
If the answer is "No," then I've got some even worse news for you: we already have "socialized medicine." The patient will, in fact, be treated, and you and I will, in fact, pick up the tab. It just costs us several times more than it would in any other civilized nation on Earth, because unlike those nations, we insist on kidding ourselves.
This
This is where the debate ends. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) made the US a single payer system, we just haven't been honest about it. Because of this law, anyone who enters the ER with an emergency must be treated. If the person does not have an emergency, they may be sent away; however, if they have an actual condition (e.g. cancer), the hospital must treat it later when it is worse and an actual emergency.
I dislike the concept of the government being the purveyor of healthcare for philosophical reasons -- because if it provides it, it is at least implied that it can take it away. It also gives the government essential control over the medical profession (again, if you're the only payer, you can set the rules). The government manages to mess up most things it touches. That said, the current situation is both morally and economically untenable. At some point, reality and practicality triumph over philosophy. Everyone is living longer, and nearly everyone is going to need some form of long term care. The only economically efficient way to handle that is to have a single payer. Or let them die.
What are they referring to here? This seems like a quote pulled out of context and now it makes no sense.
"It's only 40 lines, but every line carried some careful thought. "
Indeed it is taken totally out of context -- it's from pg 4 of the article, talking about a library called d3.js, which is apparently a library "to make things move on the screen"
punitive damages ... if awarded go to the court, NOT the plaintiff.
In what jurisdiction are you speaking? In every place I'm aware of in the US the plaintiff does receive the damages.
To combat identity theft. At least that's what the local NPR news said this morning.
Apparently the BMV plans to compare your new picture when you get a license to all your previous license pictures. If it looks significantly different, they'll take extra steps to ensure that you are, in fact, who you say you are.
I was at a seminar today where the General Counsel for the Indiana BMV explained the reason for the new regulation in more detail. Apparently, Indiana had been attracting fraudsters who would apply for a driver's license under someone else's name. In order to prevent this, the clerks at the BMV compare all past driver's license photos with the appearance of the person trying to get the new license. If the clerk noticed a discrepancy, the person was flagged and they needed to have a hearing and provide further proof that they are who they say they are to get the license. That has been going on for "some time."
Under the new system, the photos will be additionally compared using facial recognition software. Further, the system will check faces in its database against one another to determine if someone is getting licenses under multiple names. The software is somewhat limited in that things like smiles and glasses throw it off, hence the regulation.
In other words, the system isn't trying to make it easier for the police, FBI, interpol, etc. to catch you -- it's trying to make it easier for the BMV to catch people applying for licenses fraudulently. At least, that's what the General Counsel said.
Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.
Find a new doctor! In my town (a relatively large midwestern city), I've never waited that long, even for specialists. Fifteen minutes, sure, but not an hour.
But why the small jab at the end, I can't understand; and yes, I took offense of it.
My apologies. My intention was to point out the often prevalent hypocrisy that some around here demonstrate that all that Apple does is good, while all software patents are bad. Usually the "all that Apple does is good" side seems to win out. I write this on a Mac.
One of the rule permitted in your country is to apply for software patents. How then can they be evil for applying for said patents? If you don't like the rules, well get them changed.
Interesting... The "jd" part of my username does not refer to my initials, but my occupation. Suffice it to say I do not have a blanket dislike for business method patents. There are some which are bad and some which are good. IMO the need for reform is at the patent office, specifically with patent examiners. If they obeyed the rules set for them (and were competent to do so as regards novelty and obviousness), I think most issues would be resolved. However, the Patent Office is an executive agency, and difficult to change from a voter's point of view. It would take a president who wishes to make it a point of fixing the office, and in the grand scheme of things, that's pretty low on the priority list.
1. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a bar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a size of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display and for repositioning others of said plurality of tiles along said bar to accommodate the varied size of said one tile.
Roughly, increasing the size of the icon which the mouse is over, and repositioning icons around it.
36. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, in accordance with a predefined relationship between an effect width W, a default height h of said at least one of said plurality of tiles and a selected maximum height H of said at least one of said plurality of tiles wherein said predefined relationship includes a function S defined as: S=((H-h)/2)/sine(.pi..times.(h+2)/(W.times.2)).
Roughly, a bar in a gui where the position of icons nearby the mouse is modified according to the formula given.
65. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, wherein said processor displays a label associated with said at least one of said plurality of tiles with a first predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from another of said plurality of tiles, and with a second predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from outside a region associated with said userbar.
Roughly, displaying the name of a program (by fading it in) when you run the mouse over the associated icon from outside the dock.
67. A computer system comprising: a display; a cursor for pointing to a position within said display; a userbar rendered on said display and having a plurality of tiles associated therewith; and a processor for varying a position of at least one of said plurality of tiles on said display when said cursor is proximate said bar on said display, wherein said processor displays a label associated with said at least one of said plurality of tiles with a first predetermined fade-in rate when said cursor moves proximate said at least one of said plurality of tiles from another of said plurality of tiles, and wherein said processor fades out said label when said cursor moves away from said at least one of said plurality of tiles using a first fade out rate when said cursor moves into another of said at least one of said plurality of tiles, and using a second fade out rate when said cursor moves out of a region associated with said bar.
Roughly, displaying the name of a program (by fading it in) when you run the mouse over the associated icon from another icon.
69. A method for displaying items in a graphical user interface comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of said items in a region of said graphical user interface, each of said items having a default height associated therewith; moving a cursor along said region; and selectively magnifying at least one of said items closest to said cursor to a first level and magnifying items proximate to said one item to other levels less than said first level.
Click through EULAs have been deemed to be unenforcable.
Really? What's your citation to the case which unambiguously holds that click through EULAs are unenforceable? Sure, you'll be able to find cases where a particular EULA was unenforceable, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction which has a blanket prohibition on the enforcement of click through EULAs.
It was a mediocre book that was obviously written with a movie deal in mind.
Not with an (typical) American movie in mind -- it is sparse on fight scenes. There is arguably only one out and out fight against the zombies. The rest of the book is a series of anecdotes from the survivors about their particular niches of the War. I don't see too many Hollywood movies where people sit and describe their reflections on the war.
I personally think it'll be extremely difficult to turn it into a movie with losing its essential character and merely ripping some broadly painted ideas and a few very specific references.
When I picked up the novel, I expected a more linear narrative which would have been perfect for a movie. What I got was ultimately likely more satisfying.
I didn't read the GP as proclaiming that it is true that life is divine in origin. He or she merely pointed out that it is impossible to show that it is not. Surely the simple observation that evolution has not be demonstrated (in the non-theoretical sense) does not automatically create a presumption that it could only have been divinely created. That in and of itself advances the theory of evolution to some sort of inviolate stage where it cannot be questioned. It can always be questioned, and it only advances or becomes more refined when challenged.
I personally despise these religiously charged articles on slashdot. The rancor thrown by the atheist crowd abandons the passionless purpose of science, which is ultimately observation and description. The religious crowd is just as bad at damning the other side and not responding with any complex or nuanced theology. I know some very smart atheists and some very smart religious people -- scientists and engineers on both sides; Democrats and Republicans on both sides. Slashdot is not the place to convert people, because ultimately 99.9% (insert your own decimal level of confidence here) of people are not won over to either by the strength of any logical or reasoned argument, but by fickle emotion. Sure, everyone on slashdot will claim to be part of the .1% who chooses only on the basis of observable evidence, but given how emotionally charged these (and other - btw, Apple Sucks) discussions get.
only a few metals are liquid on its surface and not even the extremely abundant ones like iron.
Does that mean there are pools of liquid metal, even if there aren't rivers?
Perhaps the headline should be "Cuil Proves that VCs are Still Vulnerable to Hype"?
Not being condescending is difficult if you want to communicate with your inferiors
Perhaps you could begin by not thinking of them as "inferiors."
so now a collection of 1's and 0's with a filename ending with .mp3 will be searched for as if it were a kilo of coke?
Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc. This part of the law is aimed at customs enforcement at ports and national borders. This is about someone shipping crates of knock-off DVDs or purses into a country, and the customs agents of that country seizing the goods and informing the rights-holder.
I don't think this is intended to deal with lone citizens re-entering the country with a couple of CDs from China. It could be used for that, of course, but there are the same enforcement issues you have now.
Our fellow countrymen have gone so far as to use the word "intellectual" as a slur. WTF is that all about?
I think it has far more to do with the attitude associated with many of those who call themselves "intellectual" than the actual status of using one's ability to reason along with the capacity for knowledge. If more intellectuals criticized those other intellectuals who are rude and condescending to the less intelligent, I imagine it would cease to be a slur.
This seems to imply that management that puts these policies in place should be carefully reviewed by their company's owners. They do not seem to have the best of the company in mind
The officers (and attorneys) of the company have a duty to the shareholders to ensure that their policies do benefit and protect the owners (likely shareholders, but maybe it's an LLC or some other type of organization). If the officers don't, the shareholders absolutely should remove them. It should be clear for reasons besides just the email policy if the officers don't have the shareholders' best interests in mind.
A really good CEO would make sure the incriminating emails were found quicker, not work towards hiding the evidence.
While I agree with you, you seem to be thinking only of the case where the officers are embezzling or otherwise harming the shareholders. In many cases of officer misconduct, the shareholders are beneficiaries of illicit activity. For example, the shareholders of Enron who sold before the fall made out extremely well from the illegal actions of the officers. Obviously other shareholders lost everything, but had Enron never been caught, all shareholders would have benefited.
but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?
I guess you just have to say... "oh well, sorry, we don't have a copy of the [warning/caution/acceptance] that puts us in the clear..., I guess we're screwed".
It's a fair question, and one I've certainly struggled with. Ultimately, you have to come up with a balancing of the possibilities. On one hand is the possibility that an email over 180 days exonerates you and on the other is an email over 180 days old that sends your executives to prison. The calculation may be that it's harder for someone to prove you guilty, than to be forced to prove yourself innocent. Apparently the balance for this company is at 180 days. That's a bit short for my taste, but that's what this company has decided.
Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
I don't think those are our only two choices. Firearms are legal despite the fact that they can be (and are) used to kill other people. Cars kill an unbelievable amount of people every year, yet we don't think of outlawing them. The copy machine has been around for decades, and somehow the printing industry hasn't gone out of business. There is a middle ground, admittedly difficult to enforce, where copying has legal restrictions while general computers are free. I think that there can be behavior that's looked down upon by the community and still be illegal, despite the fact that it's easy to get away with the crime.
The consumer looks at a product and says "hey, i like that, but i can't afford to spend $20 on it. so i will not buy it." but now all of a sudden there is a way for that person to get it for free so they obtain it that way.
Why, then, should anyone pay for the software? There are an almost unlimited number of things to spend money on. I am guessing that most "pirated" copies are not a matter of either I eat or I pay for the software -- it's a matter of either I go-to-the-movies or buy-a-new-TV or I pay for the software. At what point does "I can't afford it" justify the piracy in your mind?
The software clearly has some value to the "pirate". It has filled some useful purpose, and the creator's efforts are going unrewarded (that is, the creator didn't intend to give it away -- he or she wanted to be paid for it). Is the creator who wants to be paid for his or her software simply inherently wrong?
People drive to a perceived level of risk. Hiding the risks make people drive faster and less safely.
The same argument can be made for car insurance, and to some extent, it's probably true. The alternative, however, is much worse.