You mean like we in WA have been doing with MS? Right now MS owes our state just about enough money alone to plug our deficit. What we really need is for the federal government to step in and start doing something about the mess that is interstate commerce. States aren't going to be able to negotiate when they're faced with what is typically handled like the prisoners dilemma
Mostly right, but the problem is that in most states with a sales tax there isn't a sane way of consumers paying their sales tax if it isn't collected by the store. What I mean is that it pretty much involves keeping track of the receipts yourself and then there has to be some way of sending the money and the receipts in to the state.
I'm not aware of any state that actually advertises the process or enforces compliance. Really the best thing would be to just cave and provide a system for telling retailers how to calculate the tax for various parts of the state. Providing that free of charge would almost certainly result in more tax revenues for the state in one way or the other.
Read between the lines, it's hardly opaque when a teacher is talking about students who the students are to the people that matter. One of the reasons why America can be such a miserable place to live is that there's this presumption that only if in the strictest most literal sense has something been said has anything been said.
If there's enough information to presume who the individual is talking about then there's enough information to complain of privacy violations. Beyond that it makes the school district and school look bad for employing somebody so lacking in professionalism.
The answer is yes, I did find at least one instance, and according to the article it is possible to win such a suit. This charming lawsuit
Chamilia’s slander of title claims also failed. Allegations of patent infringement can be slander of title if they are false, reasonably calculated to cause harm, and result in special damages.
That's an excerpt from the article relevant to the topic.
Which is virtually impossible, but I'm going to wager that they've got patents to cover everything that VP8 does. As in all the VP6 patents plus all the ones for whatever they added. Which doesn't necessarily mean that they're safe, but I'm guessing they have enough of a war chest of patents to smack anybody foolish enough to try and claim infringement.
Yes, but I think the better question is: "Why does my bank not take security seriously?" I think that's really the question. I think it's rather fantastic that people haven't come to the conclusion that banks really and truly don't care about security, or at least that's the conclusion I've come to given the embarrassing measures they put into place for "security." They add inconvenience but little if anything in terms of security.
Which is fine if you don't access email on your phone. If you've got a smart phone and are using email on it, then you're basically where you were previously, with poor security. Sure it's not worse than what you have now, but it's hardly as much of a step forward as it could be.
Yeah, I know. If you choose answers which are actually secure, then you're screwed if you forget them. But if you can remember them then usually the information can be looked up or is known by friends or family. Why we let banks decide what regulations they're going to have is beyond me.
Oh, yeah, half the country is more than happy to go along with it if they're told they won't have a job if they don't.
That might get you off the hook for ambiguous violations of policy, but for something this blatant I don't think it would. Despite some of the comments here, that's a pretty serious violation of professional ethics. When I'm working with a student I am extremely careful as to how I phrase criticism, because a lot of students magnify whatever is said and it's really not productive to have students crying if you can reasonably avoid it.
You're not always going to be able to avoid it without watering things down, but as a general rule if the student is crying or likely to cry, there's something that isn't working as it should.
That might be, but nobody forced her to take the job or change her feelings. If the children were that dim there are ways of handling it. Sometimes parents do need to be told that the student isn't performing adequately. Typically that's done via report card, note home or possible home visit. Handling it via social networking site is completely unforgivable.
Typically I'm against employers holding employees accountable for personal writings, but in this case it's not really a personal writing so much as a violation of the students right to privacy and a general violation of professional ethics.
I've spent a lot of time personally undoing the damage that poor instruction has caused, and that was more legitimate lack of training without malice. Something like this could definitely haunt the students for years and possibly the rest of their lives. And no, I'm not exaggerating, a surprising number of late diagnosed "learning disorders" aren't really anxiety driven rather than whatever the diagnosis was.
Personally, I'd rather be fired than go to prison. Plus it's a lot easier to get further work if you're fired than it is if you're fired because you were convicted of violating regulations. Violating them is usually something that's fine, but getting caught isn't.
If it's your private HDD you're likely fine, unless you've been served. But in cases like this I'm pretty sure that there are retention requirements for the information, and destroying that information prior to that designated time period likely would play a factor in it. Especially if you're doing it yourself outside of standard procedures. In business that would usually involve IT personnel taking and wiping it rather than you doing it yourself.
If the allegations as to how the drives were destroyed is backed with evidence you can be pretty sure that it was his intention to destroy evidence. Whereas had he followed standard procedures it would likely be difficult to prove.
It's a legitimate argument to make. People are breaking the law by destroying evidence. People who aren't doing anything wrong are usually more concerned with getting busted for obstruction of justice than for what they've been charged with. It was extremely tenuous when the RIAA attorneys accused Jammie Thomas-Rasset of destroying the disk in response to a suit that she hadn't been served with yet. But in this case I'm pretty sure that they knew they were going to be served.
The difference being that in the Thomas-Rasset case there was no basis for assuming that she'd be served with a search warrant at the time the disk died whereas in the case of the current article it was a direct response to a probe that the individual had a reasonable expectation of being served with a search warrant.
You do realize that you can't compare a 80mph train with high speed rail, right? The two just are not comparable. If I only had to set aside one day each way to take the train to visit relatives rather than 3 each way. I would've been doing that from the get go rather than put up with the mess that is commercial air travel.
Suggesting that people don't want to spend four or five days traveling what they could in only two as being an argument against high speed rail is completely asinine. Nobody who has taken the train in the last decade and taken a plane is flying because they like flying. They're flying because the train takes too long and isn't dependable enough.
So I reiterate, one what basis can we demonstrate a need? We don't have anything which is in any way, shape or form comparable to use.
And God tells the Priest what the penalty should be? The Catholics believe a lot of really strange things which are thoroughly un-Christian, but that's up there with Purgatory. If you've sinned, which doctrine would indicate you have, there's one way of making that right, and it's not Confession.
For a denomination which claims to represent all Christians they seem to have a particularly poor grasp on theology.
And this is somehow different than confession in general? It's a purely Catholic construct that you can go do your confession and whatever the Priest tells you and you're good to go. The reality as far as Christian religion goes is that it's God not some church official that makes those decisions and anybody that believes that the Pope is capable of granting such powers is sorely mistaken.
One of the main reasons why we have Protestants is that the Pope tends to be full of it on a lot of issues. You can't earn your way into Heaven, anybody who claims otherwise isn't to be trusted.
Personally, I don't believe in this stuff, but if you're going to practice a religion you should at least try to practice something that reflects the teachers.
Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices. They remained for quite some time the only organization out there that didn't see anything wrong with the church shuffling pedophiles around to protect its own image.
The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into. Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers. I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.
I'm curious how do we demonstrate a need for high speed rail when we don't have any? It's a serious question, the trains max out typically at about 80mph or so, IIRC, and that's not anywhere near what one could describe as high speed.
Even before the TSA got involved I would rather have taken the train. I remember taking the TGV when I was in Europe in the late 90s and it was a lot more pleasant than flying. The main reason why people don't take the train these days is primarily the time it takes. It took nearly 60 hours for my trip from Seattle to Portage, WI and granted that was because we had 19 hours of delays, but that's part of the point. Even at the estimated 41 or so hours, that's still a long time to take, and most people don't have that time.
Now, if the train were to go 3x as fast then it would only take a bit less than a day on average and it would thus be comparable in terms of time to flying, when you include the time that you spend dealing with the airport and such.
b) Take a 1.5 hour plane flight...where I need to be at the airport 2 hours early, and get dropped off about an hour or so from Seattle city center in traffic, thus making the whole trip take about ~5 hours...without delays due to weather or pilots being late. Oh yeah, and don't forget about the baggage limits, security, incredibly uncomfortable cabin, and people with no social skills involved with that option.
I agree with most of your post, but I would like to point out that this is no longer correct. We now have light rail going from Sea Tac to downtown Seattle. For the most part you aren't competing with traffic. (I can't recall how that stretch that runs along the middle of the street gets there) The stretch is similar in some respects to BART. It's a much more limited service than what BART offers, but if you're mainly wanting to get into town it's quite convenient. Plus it's pretty easy to get connections elsewhere.
They can't do it with existing lines. Or at least not without replacing the existing lines. The current set of tracks just isn't designed to handle a train going at 250mph, or really anything much over the current speed limit. It's not just the track quality either, all the crossings would have to be redesigned to handle traffic going that speed. There's enough fatalities at crossing as there is without bumping the speed by that much.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like we in WA have been doing with MS? Right now MS owes our state just about enough money alone to plug our deficit. What we really need is for the federal government to step in and start doing something about the mess that is interstate commerce. States aren't going to be able to negotiate when they're faced with what is typically handled like the prisoners dilemma
Mostly right, but the problem is that in most states with a sales tax there isn't a sane way of consumers paying their sales tax if it isn't collected by the store. What I mean is that it pretty much involves keeping track of the receipts yourself and then there has to be some way of sending the money and the receipts in to the state.
I'm not aware of any state that actually advertises the process or enforces compliance. Really the best thing would be to just cave and provide a system for telling retailers how to calculate the tax for various parts of the state. Providing that free of charge would almost certainly result in more tax revenues for the state in one way or the other.
Read between the lines, it's hardly opaque when a teacher is talking about students who the students are to the people that matter. One of the reasons why America can be such a miserable place to live is that there's this presumption that only if in the strictest most literal sense has something been said has anything been said.
If there's enough information to presume who the individual is talking about then there's enough information to complain of privacy violations. Beyond that it makes the school district and school look bad for employing somebody so lacking in professionalism.
The answer is yes, I did find at least one instance, and according to the article it is possible to win such a suit. This charming lawsuit
Chamilia’s slander of title claims also failed. Allegations of patent infringement can be slander of title if they are false, reasonably calculated to cause harm, and result in special damages.
That's an excerpt from the article relevant to the topic.
Which is virtually impossible, but I'm going to wager that they've got patents to cover everything that VP8 does. As in all the VP6 patents plus all the ones for whatever they added. Which doesn't necessarily mean that they're safe, but I'm guessing they have enough of a war chest of patents to smack anybody foolish enough to try and claim infringement.
Yes, but I think the better question is: "Why does my bank not take security seriously?" I think that's really the question. I think it's rather fantastic that people haven't come to the conclusion that banks really and truly don't care about security, or at least that's the conclusion I've come to given the embarrassing measures they put into place for "security." They add inconvenience but little if anything in terms of security.
Which is fine if you don't access email on your phone. If you've got a smart phone and are using email on it, then you're basically where you were previously, with poor security. Sure it's not worse than what you have now, but it's hardly as much of a step forward as it could be.
Yeah, I know. If you choose answers which are actually secure, then you're screwed if you forget them. But if you can remember them then usually the information can be looked up or is known by friends or family. Why we let banks decide what regulations they're going to have is beyond me.
Oh, yeah, half the country is more than happy to go along with it if they're told they won't have a job if they don't.
That's because we get the a majority of our oil from Canada. Top 7 suppliers of oil to the US
I'd be fine with them killing off OO.org, I think most people are migrating over to LibreOffice, anyways.
That might get you off the hook for ambiguous violations of policy, but for something this blatant I don't think it would. Despite some of the comments here, that's a pretty serious violation of professional ethics. When I'm working with a student I am extremely careful as to how I phrase criticism, because a lot of students magnify whatever is said and it's really not productive to have students crying if you can reasonably avoid it.
You're not always going to be able to avoid it without watering things down, but as a general rule if the student is crying or likely to cry, there's something that isn't working as it should.
That might be, but nobody forced her to take the job or change her feelings. If the children were that dim there are ways of handling it. Sometimes parents do need to be told that the student isn't performing adequately. Typically that's done via report card, note home or possible home visit. Handling it via social networking site is completely unforgivable.
Typically I'm against employers holding employees accountable for personal writings, but in this case it's not really a personal writing so much as a violation of the students right to privacy and a general violation of professional ethics.
I've spent a lot of time personally undoing the damage that poor instruction has caused, and that was more legitimate lack of training without malice. Something like this could definitely haunt the students for years and possibly the rest of their lives. And no, I'm not exaggerating, a surprising number of late diagnosed "learning disorders" aren't really anxiety driven rather than whatever the diagnosis was.
Personally, I'd rather be fired than go to prison. Plus it's a lot easier to get further work if you're fired than it is if you're fired because you were convicted of violating regulations. Violating them is usually something that's fine, but getting caught isn't.
If it's your private HDD you're likely fine, unless you've been served. But in cases like this I'm pretty sure that there are retention requirements for the information, and destroying that information prior to that designated time period likely would play a factor in it. Especially if you're doing it yourself outside of standard procedures. In business that would usually involve IT personnel taking and wiping it rather than you doing it yourself.
If the allegations as to how the drives were destroyed is backed with evidence you can be pretty sure that it was his intention to destroy evidence. Whereas had he followed standard procedures it would likely be difficult to prove.
It's a legitimate argument to make. People are breaking the law by destroying evidence. People who aren't doing anything wrong are usually more concerned with getting busted for obstruction of justice than for what they've been charged with. It was extremely tenuous when the RIAA attorneys accused Jammie Thomas-Rasset of destroying the disk in response to a suit that she hadn't been served with yet. But in this case I'm pretty sure that they knew they were going to be served.
The difference being that in the Thomas-Rasset case there was no basis for assuming that she'd be served with a search warrant at the time the disk died whereas in the case of the current article it was a direct response to a probe that the individual had a reasonable expectation of being served with a search warrant.
You do realize that you can't compare a 80mph train with high speed rail, right? The two just are not comparable. If I only had to set aside one day each way to take the train to visit relatives rather than 3 each way. I would've been doing that from the get go rather than put up with the mess that is commercial air travel.
Suggesting that people don't want to spend four or five days traveling what they could in only two as being an argument against high speed rail is completely asinine. Nobody who has taken the train in the last decade and taken a plane is flying because they like flying. They're flying because the train takes too long and isn't dependable enough.
So I reiterate, one what basis can we demonstrate a need? We don't have anything which is in any way, shape or form comparable to use.
And God tells the Priest what the penalty should be? The Catholics believe a lot of really strange things which are thoroughly un-Christian, but that's up there with Purgatory. If you've sinned, which doctrine would indicate you have, there's one way of making that right, and it's not Confession.
For a denomination which claims to represent all Christians they seem to have a particularly poor grasp on theology.
And this is somehow different than confession in general? It's a purely Catholic construct that you can go do your confession and whatever the Priest tells you and you're good to go. The reality as far as Christian religion goes is that it's God not some church official that makes those decisions and anybody that believes that the Pope is capable of granting such powers is sorely mistaken.
One of the main reasons why we have Protestants is that the Pope tends to be full of it on a lot of issues. You can't earn your way into Heaven, anybody who claims otherwise isn't to be trusted.
Personally, I don't believe in this stuff, but if you're going to practice a religion you should at least try to practice something that reflects the teachers.
Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices. They remained for quite some time the only organization out there that didn't see anything wrong with the church shuffling pedophiles around to protect its own image.
The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into. Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers. I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.
So what's up next? Farmville with real sperm and egg?
I'm curious how do we demonstrate a need for high speed rail when we don't have any? It's a serious question, the trains max out typically at about 80mph or so, IIRC, and that's not anywhere near what one could describe as high speed.
Even before the TSA got involved I would rather have taken the train. I remember taking the TGV when I was in Europe in the late 90s and it was a lot more pleasant than flying. The main reason why people don't take the train these days is primarily the time it takes. It took nearly 60 hours for my trip from Seattle to Portage, WI and granted that was because we had 19 hours of delays, but that's part of the point. Even at the estimated 41 or so hours, that's still a long time to take, and most people don't have that time.
Now, if the train were to go 3x as fast then it would only take a bit less than a day on average and it would thus be comparable in terms of time to flying, when you include the time that you spend dealing with the airport and such.
b) Take a 1.5 hour plane flight...where I need to be at the airport 2 hours early, and get dropped off about an hour or so from Seattle city center in traffic, thus making the whole trip take about ~5 hours...without delays due to weather or pilots being late. Oh yeah, and don't forget about the baggage limits, security, incredibly uncomfortable cabin, and people with no social skills involved with that option.
I agree with most of your post, but I would like to point out that this is no longer correct. We now have light rail going from Sea Tac to downtown Seattle. For the most part you aren't competing with traffic. (I can't recall how that stretch that runs along the middle of the street gets there) The stretch is similar in some respects to BART. It's a much more limited service than what BART offers, but if you're mainly wanting to get into town it's quite convenient. Plus it's pretty easy to get connections elsewhere.
Link Light Rail (Central Link) Schedule
What benefit am I getting from subsidizing their farmers, why am I subsidizing them? Remember it cuts both ways.
They can't do it with existing lines. Or at least not without replacing the existing lines. The current set of tracks just isn't designed to handle a train going at 250mph, or really anything much over the current speed limit. It's not just the track quality either, all the crossings would have to be redesigned to handle traffic going that speed. There's enough fatalities at crossing as there is without bumping the speed by that much.