That's a false dichotomy. We have the regulations necessary to prevent that abuse, it's just that the typical conservative view point is to take the government out of regulating it and to leave the regulators out of it.
The bigger issue which you're ignoring is that it's not cheap to do that last mile. The only reason why anybody did it was for a monopoly control over to guarantee that they'd be paid back for extending into territory that wasn't necessarily profitable.
You're not going to get a change by taking the government out of it, unless by change you mean change for the worse in terms of price and availability.
I'm not surprised that you got modded down. A lot of conservatives can't handle the fact that the GOP has been hate and fear mongering for a while, and that the representative was on Ms. Palin's hitlist with a bull's eye over her district. Ms. Palin isn't directly responsible, but here irresponsible statements and refusal to acknowledge the risk she was running definitely contributing to the pool of possible assassins.
A tad be sensitive are we? It's a perfectly legitimate point that Sarah Palin has been engaged in hate and fear mongering and that she's in part to blame for anybody that takes her suggestion seriously.
The various white supremacist groups have been using tactics like that for quite a while to shield their leaders from the consequences of ordering contracts and to make it hard for the FBI to stop their plans.
So, when is the time for politics? The GOP has in recent years been playing with fire. It's going to be some time before we know what the motivation for this was, but the fact remains that the GOP has been using this sort of hateful motivation for political gain for years.
The GOP tends to say that whenever they get taken to task for their irresponsible politicking on people's fear and hatred.
Indeed, but given the sloppy language and the celebrity she's garnered by encouraging this sort of sentiment, she ought to be ashamed of herself for commenting on the issue. I'm just surprised that it took this long for somebody to decide that it was a good idea to go about shooting politicians.
Perhaps if the Republican party looked in the mirror and considered that perhaps encouraging violence for political gain isn't something that is moral or Christian and certainly not patriotic when it's a democratically elected offical.
If it's that big of a concern, you could always use a dead man switch to delete your encrypted porn stash. Which if it's that embarrassing ought to be encrypted already.
Bad idea, the issue wasn't that the alarms were broken so much as they were ignored for going off too frequently. And rather than address the issue of the frequent occurrences they opted to shut them off. It's unlikely that you're going to solve that by programming around that. Programming around it is more or less the same thing as turning the alarms off or ignoring them.
I think everyone's familiar of that phenomenon regarding the alarm that cried wolf due to all the car alarms. Rarely do people even turn their head when they hear a car alarm.
Competent professionals don't do that. The problem with car alarms is that they aren't aimed at professionals, competent or otherwise, they're aimed at the general public and the mechanism they use isn't typically going to assure that anything is going on.
Competent professionals like the ones that are supposed to be running rigs should know to check them out every time and not turn the alarm off withotu ascertaining that the alarm is in fact false. Disabling an alarm should only be done when there are adequate contingency plans in place to handle if the condition happened and how they would respond.
I used to work security at a high rise and we'd often times have alarms turned off on portions of the building. It was the only way to ensure that under certain circumstances that work wouldn't cause a false alarm. It was done in a controlled way with plans in place to make sure that there was somebody keeping an eye on it while the work was being done, and that the alarms would be turned back on when they could be.
And every time that building had an alarm go off which wasn't a known cause, it was always investigated promptly. Alarms that go off repeatedly need to be fixed, not disabled.
Because burdensome regulation is OK when it better allows the government to spy on the citizens. The problem with the set up is that the citizens that tend to fight against all forms or regulation don't see this as a problem, and there aren't enough people that are OK with regulation that view it as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
And as long as it's voluntary, I don't care who signs up for it. The problem is that if say 60% of the population signs up for it, there's a pretty good chance that at least 50% +1 would be willing to sell out the people that opted not to sign up for it.
Two questions, what have you been smoking? And where can I get some?
The Internet ID is genuinely that bad an idea, as is failing to provide real net neutrality rules, but you've got to be high if you think that national health care is some sort of infringement on your rights. There are exemptions baked into it for people that genuinely can't afford it or have religious objections to it.
That's not true. PFC Manning, assuming he was the leak, would be guilty. However, it's not a death penalty offense and unless you've got evidence that somebody helped him procure the information that he leaked, he'd be the only one that would be guilty. There is no culpability for Wikileaks releasing information that was leaked to them, they are not an investigative organization, they only leak what people voluntarily provide them.
It does seem that perhaps instead of modding the GP up, they ought to have posted a comment that the links are safe to look at. Probably would've been more useful. Personally, I know better than to click on links like that which don't offer a preview.
That's not a smart move, unless the court order reasonably suggests that, it's highly likely that the judge would find Twitter in contempt of court for doing that sort of thing. Judges get rather pissy when they think they're being disrespected or disregarded, and parties that pull that sort of thing tend to get deal with gruffly.
That doesn't work if it has to cross borders. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US, the customs agents have the legal right to open any and all packages crossing the border.
The US has had a problem with kangaroo courts for quite some time now, it's just that in recent years they've been less opaque than usual. There's a view that the government would never accuse an innocent person of committing a felony, so an acquittal is really just a failure of the justice system. Not to mention that "justice delayed is justice denied." Or some such bullshit.
There's a lot of people out there that are either deluded into thinking that they can't accidentally be accused or don't care as long as one of the accused is actually guilty and is willing to toss the others under the bus to get a conviction.
Citation, the US for better or for worse has the right to refuse to issue papers for any diplomat they wish. In practice we don't do that a whole lot unless the point is to send a message to their politicians that we're really unhappy about something.
Just because we have the UN in NYC, doesn't mean that they have the right to violate our laws. It just means that they have immunity from prosecution, doesn't mean we can't expel them from the country if they go too far over the line, however we choose to define it.
If you'll notice from the subpoena, 2 of the names are Manning and Assange, the others are ones which I'm not familiar with. While the subpoena is somewhat light on the details, I would assume that whatever argument was given for the request complied with the normal rules. Otherwise they would have sent in a national security letter and avoided the courts.
Under the Bush administration, they wouldn't have gotten a subpoena. Because they believed the President had unlimited powers when at war.
Not that I'm thrilled with his performance, but a lot of that is the fault of people like you for failing to comprehend that there are differences, even if they're not as substantial as they ought to be. And at any rate, this is still a lot better than what McCain was offering up.
Additionally, he has limited power as the President, he's been trying to close GITMO, but without the ability to move at least some of the inmates to US courts for trial and possible incarceration, it's really hard to get other countries to buy into taking them off our hands. Which is totally shocking that they'd expect us to eat our own cooking.
Um, the app should never have appeared in the store to begin with. Considering the amount of time that Apple employees spend verifying that it can't be used to look at porn or counting the dirty words in word games, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to verify the license is compatible with their ToS. I mean it's not exactly an unusual license.
No, but it is there fault for not noticing the violation when they were doing their review of the application for inclusion. Unlike Google which doesn't seem to exercise any control over what goes in the market at all, Apple exerts quite a bit of control and presumably would be on the hook for such an obvious violation.
I know, how dare the GP assert ownership over something that he paid for. The nerve, next thing he's going to demand the ability to rip CDs to MP3 for use on his MP3 player rather than buying an additional copy.
Yes, they're discontinuing the subscription plan and will be working with developers. Personally, I will continue to not buy anything from them as they don't seem to give much, if anything, back. That may have changed, but Codeweavers at least contributes most of their patches back to Wine.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a false dichotomy. We have the regulations necessary to prevent that abuse, it's just that the typical conservative view point is to take the government out of regulating it and to leave the regulators out of it.
The bigger issue which you're ignoring is that it's not cheap to do that last mile. The only reason why anybody did it was for a monopoly control over to guarantee that they'd be paid back for extending into territory that wasn't necessarily profitable.
You're not going to get a change by taking the government out of it, unless by change you mean change for the worse in terms of price and availability.
I'm not surprised that you got modded down. A lot of conservatives can't handle the fact that the GOP has been hate and fear mongering for a while, and that the representative was on Ms. Palin's hitlist with a bull's eye over her district. Ms. Palin isn't directly responsible, but here irresponsible statements and refusal to acknowledge the risk she was running definitely contributing to the pool of possible assassins.
A tad be sensitive are we? It's a perfectly legitimate point that Sarah Palin has been engaged in hate and fear mongering and that she's in part to blame for anybody that takes her suggestion seriously.
The various white supremacist groups have been using tactics like that for quite a while to shield their leaders from the consequences of ordering contracts and to make it hard for the FBI to stop their plans.
So, when is the time for politics? The GOP has in recent years been playing with fire. It's going to be some time before we know what the motivation for this was, but the fact remains that the GOP has been using this sort of hateful motivation for political gain for years.
The GOP tends to say that whenever they get taken to task for their irresponsible politicking on people's fear and hatred.
Indeed, but given the sloppy language and the celebrity she's garnered by encouraging this sort of sentiment, she ought to be ashamed of herself for commenting on the issue. I'm just surprised that it took this long for somebody to decide that it was a good idea to go about shooting politicians.
Perhaps if the Republican party looked in the mirror and considered that perhaps encouraging violence for political gain isn't something that is moral or Christian and certainly not patriotic when it's a democratically elected offical.
If it's that big of a concern, you could always use a dead man switch to delete your encrypted porn stash. Which if it's that embarrassing ought to be encrypted already.
Bad idea, the issue wasn't that the alarms were broken so much as they were ignored for going off too frequently. And rather than address the issue of the frequent occurrences they opted to shut them off. It's unlikely that you're going to solve that by programming around that. Programming around it is more or less the same thing as turning the alarms off or ignoring them.
I think everyone's familiar of that phenomenon regarding the alarm that cried wolf due to all the car alarms. Rarely do people even turn their head when they hear a car alarm.
Competent professionals don't do that. The problem with car alarms is that they aren't aimed at professionals, competent or otherwise, they're aimed at the general public and the mechanism they use isn't typically going to assure that anything is going on.
Competent professionals like the ones that are supposed to be running rigs should know to check them out every time and not turn the alarm off withotu ascertaining that the alarm is in fact false. Disabling an alarm should only be done when there are adequate contingency plans in place to handle if the condition happened and how they would respond.
I used to work security at a high rise and we'd often times have alarms turned off on portions of the building. It was the only way to ensure that under certain circumstances that work wouldn't cause a false alarm. It was done in a controlled way with plans in place to make sure that there was somebody keeping an eye on it while the work was being done, and that the alarms would be turned back on when they could be.
And every time that building had an alarm go off which wasn't a known cause, it was always investigated promptly. Alarms that go off repeatedly need to be fixed, not disabled.
Because even in that case, the problem originated higher up.
People watch that crap without being forced to?
Duty Calls
Because burdensome regulation is OK when it better allows the government to spy on the citizens. The problem with the set up is that the citizens that tend to fight against all forms or regulation don't see this as a problem, and there aren't enough people that are OK with regulation that view it as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
And as long as it's voluntary, I don't care who signs up for it. The problem is that if say 60% of the population signs up for it, there's a pretty good chance that at least 50% +1 would be willing to sell out the people that opted not to sign up for it.
National Healthcare is about controlling people?
Two questions, what have you been smoking? And where can I get some?
The Internet ID is genuinely that bad an idea, as is failing to provide real net neutrality rules, but you've got to be high if you think that national health care is some sort of infringement on your rights. There are exemptions baked into it for people that genuinely can't afford it or have religious objections to it.
That's not true. PFC Manning, assuming he was the leak, would be guilty. However, it's not a death penalty offense and unless you've got evidence that somebody helped him procure the information that he leaked, he'd be the only one that would be guilty. There is no culpability for Wikileaks releasing information that was leaked to them, they are not an investigative organization, they only leak what people voluntarily provide them.
It does seem that perhaps instead of modding the GP up, they ought to have posted a comment that the links are safe to look at. Probably would've been more useful. Personally, I know better than to click on links like that which don't offer a preview.
That's not a smart move, unless the court order reasonably suggests that, it's highly likely that the judge would find Twitter in contempt of court for doing that sort of thing. Judges get rather pissy when they think they're being disrespected or disregarded, and parties that pull that sort of thing tend to get deal with gruffly.
That doesn't work if it has to cross borders. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US, the customs agents have the legal right to open any and all packages crossing the border.
The US has had a problem with kangaroo courts for quite some time now, it's just that in recent years they've been less opaque than usual. There's a view that the government would never accuse an innocent person of committing a felony, so an acquittal is really just a failure of the justice system. Not to mention that "justice delayed is justice denied." Or some such bullshit.
There's a lot of people out there that are either deluded into thinking that they can't accidentally be accused or don't care as long as one of the accused is actually guilty and is willing to toss the others under the bus to get a conviction.
Citation, the US for better or for worse has the right to refuse to issue papers for any diplomat they wish. In practice we don't do that a whole lot unless the point is to send a message to their politicians that we're really unhappy about something.
Just because we have the UN in NYC, doesn't mean that they have the right to violate our laws. It just means that they have immunity from prosecution, doesn't mean we can't expel them from the country if they go too far over the line, however we choose to define it.
If you'll notice from the subpoena, 2 of the names are Manning and Assange, the others are ones which I'm not familiar with. While the subpoena is somewhat light on the details, I would assume that whatever argument was given for the request complied with the normal rules. Otherwise they would have sent in a national security letter and avoided the courts.
Under the Bush administration, they wouldn't have gotten a subpoena. Because they believed the President had unlimited powers when at war.
Not that I'm thrilled with his performance, but a lot of that is the fault of people like you for failing to comprehend that there are differences, even if they're not as substantial as they ought to be. And at any rate, this is still a lot better than what McCain was offering up.
Additionally, he has limited power as the President, he's been trying to close GITMO, but without the ability to move at least some of the inmates to US courts for trial and possible incarceration, it's really hard to get other countries to buy into taking them off our hands. Which is totally shocking that they'd expect us to eat our own cooking.
Um, the app should never have appeared in the store to begin with. Considering the amount of time that Apple employees spend verifying that it can't be used to look at porn or counting the dirty words in word games, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to verify the license is compatible with their ToS. I mean it's not exactly an unusual license.
No, but it is there fault for not noticing the violation when they were doing their review of the application for inclusion. Unlike Google which doesn't seem to exercise any control over what goes in the market at all, Apple exerts quite a bit of control and presumably would be on the hook for such an obvious violation.
I know, how dare the GP assert ownership over something that he paid for. The nerve, next thing he's going to demand the ability to rip CDs to MP3 for use on his MP3 player rather than buying an additional copy.
Yes, they're discontinuing the subscription plan and will be working with developers. Personally, I will continue to not buy anything from them as they don't seem to give much, if anything, back. That may have changed, but Codeweavers at least contributes most of their patches back to Wine.