Which is a really good justification for him shutting the hell up when it comes to issues of welfare. I can't personally afford to work for free, in fact most Americans can't afford to do so either. We just don't have the money in the bank to allow for that. Perhaps if the GOP kleptocracy would stop looking for new and innovative ways of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, we might be able to afford to give back more.
At the end of the day, any politician that can afford to do that, whether or not they do, has no right to suggest that we cut back on our minimalist safety net.
The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it. If you choose to use any other OS, then you're choosing to prevent a large group of less savvy users from being able to copy files onto it, either because you're going to need a special utility or because you need special drivers. Either way, it's not a particularly workable solution for a mass market device, and MS knows that.
A better thing would be for the DoJ and the EU to step in and tell MS, that they can't have patents for VFAT or anything else which they're throwing their weight behind to get licensing dollars.
The ones who wanted it were probably using Vista. I didn't personally think that Vista was as bad as folks thought, but there were a lot of folks that did want an upgrade.
Personally, the only reason I have Win 7 at all is because it's difficult to find a price competitive laptop that doesn't have it. In the end it was cheaper to pay for the license I didn't want than it was to spend extra money and pay for somebody to take the copy off an install something sensible. Why the DoJ doesn't do anything about it is beyond me, because I don't want to pay MS for something I don't want.
That only applies when one is referring to the inhabitants of the super continent of America, which is rarely a useful grouping of nations, cultures and people. It's the 2nd definition behind citizens of the US, and just ahead of the indigenous peoples of the super continent.
You don't get to pick and choose in that fashion. In the context of national identity, American is the only acceptable term with any formality. There are a small number of generally accepted nicknames, and USAian and USAsian are not on that list.
Only in the context of the super continent, which rarely if ever is a useful category to use, even just referring to North or South Americans tends not to be particularly useful most of the time as you've got a substantial range of cultures and various other ways in which they're not alike.
That's the Spanish language, not English. In English, the term Americans is used more or less exclusively to refer to citizens of the US. The alternative is referring to individuals who reside on the super continent of America, which is rarely if ever a useful designation to use. It's a bit like referring to somebody in Eurasia as being Eurasian. There's so many cultural differences at that scale that there's very little point of referring to all of them in one word. Even if you separate it out into continents it's usually not terribly useful for similar reasons.
The folks using the term USAsian or USAian aren't doing it out of any legitimate linguistic reason, they're doing it as a way of undermining the cultural legacy of the US. Hence why I labeled the GP a bigot.
The previous episode was taped, and subsequently was posted to Youtube. Free speech isn't limited to areas of the country with internet access. By your logic the government could prevent a person from doing a political ad because it wasn't being broadcast live.
Wow, nice trolling there. The Sasquatch doesn't exist, it's been pretty reliably proven that Sasquatch doesn't exist, there are limitations to what one can be held liable for. And ultimately, pretending to be a mythical animal is hardly grounds for fraud charges whether or not there's been any commercial gain. Now, if they're claiming to have a Sasquatch and try to sell it that's different. But ultimately, if people are so stupid as to be afraid of a Sasquatch that you're filming, that's hardly the responsibility or the fault of the people involved.
We don't generally place limits on free speech based upon how a few cretins react to it, unless they happen to be on the Supreme Court.
In this case it's at most a hoax, and even that is stretching the definition quite a bit.
16GB is an awful lot of RAM, I'm really curious as to what it is that they're doing that's going to require more RAM than most of these devices have in total storage space.
I get that optimizations take memory and that there are likely independent steps, but still 16GB of RAM?
That's a lot of money for most folks, especially when you consider that it's likely that the insurance and permitting is going to cost more than the rest of the things being used for the production.
That's not how that has been interpreted in the past. Speech isn't just literal speech, it applies to other creative means of communication. You're free to communicate whatever you want to communicate in the US unless the communication involves a very small number of illegal activities such as fraud or libel, otherwise the state can't interfere. In this case, I can't imagine what compelling interest that state could possibly have that would necessitate them from putting prohibitive strings on permission for 2 or 3 people to film in a park.
In this case, filming isn't any different than standing on a soap box in the park, something else that isn't literally speech, but is pretty damn important if you're going to have freedom of speech that's of any value.
That's typically because of the disruption. Things like closing down roads and the ensuring that there's adequate security, not to mention just the matter of ensuring that the film crew is in contact with the relevant department. Most cities want to have film crews come to their city and permitting is a way of reducing the possibility of mishaps or miscommunications happening.
Just shooting next to a major street or in a park typically necessitates that the public not use the right of way for a period in time. I remember a couple years back the local park was closed for a week end for a film crew.
Except this case is in the US, also, the UK is hardly a bastion of freedom. We have issues in the US, but you guys seem to manage to three or four up us whenever we slide away from freedom.
Because restricting free speech to one particular block in the middle of Topeka would be way too easy a way of curtailing freedom of expression. And they could do the same thing for freedom of assembly or right to bear arms.
The right to free speech necessitates the ability to engage in it everywhere one can. Having these zones like at the airport is counter the purpose of having the freedom in the first place.
Having permits for large productions is reasonable, but from what I gather, this wasn't a large production and it didn't place any significant burden on the park officials or the park itself.
If you missed it, there's a $100 fee, 30 day waiting period and a requirement of having $2 million in coverage in case something goes wrong. Which is disproportionate to the type of enterprise that involves two people and a consumer grade camcorder.
Yes, how one dresses is by and large covered by freedom of expression. There are a few limits in that you do generally need to be clothed, but it's been settled case law for years that you can legitimately wear an American flag as a shirt, I don't see why dressing like a Sasquatch would be any different.
Actually, that's pretty common, especially for individuals who are that rich. It's tough to buy investments with that amount of money without having to deal with serious SEC red tape. It wouldn't surprise me if a 3rd party was doing most of the investing for him.
That being said, if he owns Apple stock and is hyping it, he could be in hot water about promoting it which is why I rather doubt that he knowingly owns any shares.
You're right, in 2001, the iPod was extremely expensive, ugly and wouldn't work with anything other than a Mac. And as for the iPhone, it wasn't going up against Windows phones, it was going up against RIM's Blackberry, who knows what would have happened had RIM not been criminally incompetent.
That's only true if q and only q follows from p. If there is any time when q doesn't logically follow from p then the whole thing breaks down immediately.
In this case there is the alternate explanation that Google is now defaulting to SSL for it's searches and perhaps they don't want to be a party to clickjacking and various other hijinks that could result.
It's not complete hogwash, he had to try over 2,000 different ways before he reached the one that ultimately worked. It doesn't matter how systematic he was being, if he didn't know what the result should look like, or have an idea, then he'd never have found the correct solution.
You clearly didn't read TFS, they're not using it at all during the school day and suggesting to parents that the kids not use them at all at home either.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a really good justification for him shutting the hell up when it comes to issues of welfare. I can't personally afford to work for free, in fact most Americans can't afford to do so either. We just don't have the money in the bank to allow for that. Perhaps if the GOP kleptocracy would stop looking for new and innovative ways of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, we might be able to afford to give back more.
At the end of the day, any politician that can afford to do that, whether or not they do, has no right to suggest that we cut back on our minimalist safety net.
The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it. If you choose to use any other OS, then you're choosing to prevent a large group of less savvy users from being able to copy files onto it, either because you're going to need a special utility or because you need special drivers. Either way, it's not a particularly workable solution for a mass market device, and MS knows that.
A better thing would be for the DoJ and the EU to step in and tell MS, that they can't have patents for VFAT or anything else which they're throwing their weight behind to get licensing dollars.
Win 7 may be the best Windows to date, but it's pretty mediocre compared to the other options.
The ones who wanted it were probably using Vista. I didn't personally think that Vista was as bad as folks thought, but there were a lot of folks that did want an upgrade.
Personally, the only reason I have Win 7 at all is because it's difficult to find a price competitive laptop that doesn't have it. In the end it was cheaper to pay for the license I didn't want than it was to spend extra money and pay for somebody to take the copy off an install something sensible. Why the DoJ doesn't do anything about it is beyond me, because I don't want to pay MS for something I don't want.
That only applies when one is referring to the inhabitants of the super continent of America, which is rarely a useful grouping of nations, cultures and people. It's the 2nd definition behind citizens of the US, and just ahead of the indigenous peoples of the super continent.
You don't get to pick and choose in that fashion. In the context of national identity, American is the only acceptable term with any formality. There are a small number of generally accepted nicknames, and USAian and USAsian are not on that list.
Only in the context of the super continent, which rarely if ever is a useful category to use, even just referring to North or South Americans tends not to be particularly useful most of the time as you've got a substantial range of cultures and various other ways in which they're not alike.
That's the Spanish language, not English. In English, the term Americans is used more or less exclusively to refer to citizens of the US. The alternative is referring to individuals who reside on the super continent of America, which is rarely if ever a useful designation to use. It's a bit like referring to somebody in Eurasia as being Eurasian. There's so many cultural differences at that scale that there's very little point of referring to all of them in one word. Even if you separate it out into continents it's usually not terribly useful for similar reasons.
The folks using the term USAsian or USAian aren't doing it out of any legitimate linguistic reason, they're doing it as a way of undermining the cultural legacy of the US. Hence why I labeled the GP a bigot.
Well, tell us why you choose to use the term "non-USAian" when the correct term is "American"? Makes you look like a bigoted moron.
The previous episode was taped, and subsequently was posted to Youtube. Free speech isn't limited to areas of the country with internet access. By your logic the government could prevent a person from doing a political ad because it wasn't being broadcast live.
Wow, nice trolling there. The Sasquatch doesn't exist, it's been pretty reliably proven that Sasquatch doesn't exist, there are limitations to what one can be held liable for. And ultimately, pretending to be a mythical animal is hardly grounds for fraud charges whether or not there's been any commercial gain. Now, if they're claiming to have a Sasquatch and try to sell it that's different. But ultimately, if people are so stupid as to be afraid of a Sasquatch that you're filming, that's hardly the responsibility or the fault of the people involved.
We don't generally place limits on free speech based upon how a few cretins react to it, unless they happen to be on the Supreme Court.
In this case it's at most a hoax, and even that is stretching the definition quite a bit.
http://xkcd.com/303/
16GB is an awful lot of RAM, I'm really curious as to what it is that they're doing that's going to require more RAM than most of these devices have in total storage space.
I get that optimizations take memory and that there are likely independent steps, but still 16GB of RAM?
That's a lot of money for most folks, especially when you consider that it's likely that the insurance and permitting is going to cost more than the rest of the things being used for the production.
That's not how that has been interpreted in the past. Speech isn't just literal speech, it applies to other creative means of communication. You're free to communicate whatever you want to communicate in the US unless the communication involves a very small number of illegal activities such as fraud or libel, otherwise the state can't interfere. In this case, I can't imagine what compelling interest that state could possibly have that would necessitate them from putting prohibitive strings on permission for 2 or 3 people to film in a park.
In this case, filming isn't any different than standing on a soap box in the park, something else that isn't literally speech, but is pretty damn important if you're going to have freedom of speech that's of any value.
That's typically because of the disruption. Things like closing down roads and the ensuring that there's adequate security, not to mention just the matter of ensuring that the film crew is in contact with the relevant department. Most cities want to have film crews come to their city and permitting is a way of reducing the possibility of mishaps or miscommunications happening.
Just shooting next to a major street or in a park typically necessitates that the public not use the right of way for a period in time. I remember a couple years back the local park was closed for a week end for a film crew.
Except this case is in the US, also, the UK is hardly a bastion of freedom. We have issues in the US, but you guys seem to manage to three or four up us whenever we slide away from freedom.
Because restricting free speech to one particular block in the middle of Topeka would be way too easy a way of curtailing freedom of expression. And they could do the same thing for freedom of assembly or right to bear arms.
The right to free speech necessitates the ability to engage in it everywhere one can. Having these zones like at the airport is counter the purpose of having the freedom in the first place.
Having permits for large productions is reasonable, but from what I gather, this wasn't a large production and it didn't place any significant burden on the park officials or the park itself.
If you missed it, there's a $100 fee, 30 day waiting period and a requirement of having $2 million in coverage in case something goes wrong. Which is disproportionate to the type of enterprise that involves two people and a consumer grade camcorder.
Yes, how one dresses is by and large covered by freedom of expression. There are a few limits in that you do generally need to be clothed, but it's been settled case law for years that you can legitimately wear an American flag as a shirt, I don't see why dressing like a Sasquatch would be any different.
Actually, that's pretty common, especially for individuals who are that rich. It's tough to buy investments with that amount of money without having to deal with serious SEC red tape. It wouldn't surprise me if a 3rd party was doing most of the investing for him.
That being said, if he owns Apple stock and is hyping it, he could be in hot water about promoting it which is why I rather doubt that he knowingly owns any shares.
We have freedom in search, I switched to duckduckgo a while back and I rarely if ever feel the need to use Google's search engine.
You're right, in 2001, the iPod was extremely expensive, ugly and wouldn't work with anything other than a Mac. And as for the iPhone, it wasn't going up against Windows phones, it was going up against RIM's Blackberry, who knows what would have happened had RIM not been criminally incompetent.
That's only true if q and only q follows from p. If there is any time when q doesn't logically follow from p then the whole thing breaks down immediately.
In this case there is the alternate explanation that Google is now defaulting to SSL for it's searches and perhaps they don't want to be a party to clickjacking and various other hijinks that could result.
It's not complete hogwash, he had to try over 2,000 different ways before he reached the one that ultimately worked. It doesn't matter how systematic he was being, if he didn't know what the result should look like, or have an idea, then he'd never have found the correct solution.
You clearly didn't read TFS, they're not using it at all during the school day and suggesting to parents that the kids not use them at all at home either.