That's not true. Bush got over 5 years before the media stopped kissing his ass after 9/11. Clinton spent most of his Presidency explaining as the press dug into things which weren't reasonable related to Presidency.
Face it, the media sucks up to the GOP because if they don't, the GOP cries about the "liberal" media, never mind that the media itself is already right of center.
You make it sound like the IRS violated some law, they were issued a warrant that allowed them to image the drive on that computer, and there happened to be medical records on there. Just because there are medical records on the machine does not mean that the IRS has no right to the other data on there, but because they imaged the drive they got all of it.
What you're suggesting is tantamount to the police searching a house for allegedly doing cockfights in the basement and being required to ignore anything else they see while on the premises.
The article doesn't state it, but it looks like they probably imaged the entire HDD, which is normal, and that resulted in them having copies of all those medical records. And because the records themselves were not properly stored the IRS now has access to them.
Sounds to me more like the firm is concerned with covering their own asses for not having properly secured the data in the first place. Laptops have a tendency to be stolen or otherwise walk off, and if they lost the records that easily, I'd want to change insurers.
Not really, didn't Google wind up just giving them away for free? They realized there were problems before they actually released it, and I thought that they had given them away.
I personally hope that they have the good sense to not make it spherical again. Set top boxes are generally cuboids for a reason.
It's not a strawman, your entire post consisted of ad hominems and various other forms of defective reasoning.
There's no inherent reason to believe that the poll wasn't statistically valid because of where they took the samples from. Yes, it does have a likelihood of not being representative, but you're inferring that it's not valid on the basis of it disagreeing with your opinion.
It's just as socially acceptable, but you're deluding yourself if you think that trade school or an apprenticeship are equivalent to what you're getting in college. College itself is about teaching people how to think and right now they aren't doing such a good job of that.
In large part yes, but I thought that the receiver had to be registered with the ATF. The receiver being the thing that the ATF considers to be the firearm. I could be wrong about that though.
Yes, that was one girl, and just because some people manage anyways, does not imply that firearms don't make it easier and lead to deaths that might otherwise not happen. A firearm is an extremely easy way of killing people you might not already be capable of killing. With a firearm, that same 8 year old girl could have killed the 12 year old brother which would have been substantially less likely were she only to have had access to pointy sticks.
Posts like yours really reinforce the idea that perhaps the people with firearms are precisely the people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. Because critical reasoning is an essential firearm handling skill.
1000 most certainly isn't too small of a sample, provided that it was a good. You're just discounting it because you don't like the result.
1000 is sufficient to establish that most Americans are likely to support a ban, depending upon your specific estimate for sigma. It could get a bit dicey if you're getting near to 50%, but you don't need 50k respondents for the survey to be valid. The reason we have polled data for this is because it's not realistic to ask everybody individually.
Perhaps before spouting off about the necessary sample size, you might actually like to understand the related statistical analysis.
Pansy? You mean the folks out there that don't like the idea of criminals having even easier access to firearms than they enjoy at the present? Especially firearms with basically no metal, except the firing pin, in them that are much easier to smuggle past metal detectors.
Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say
on
Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
The reason why that's the most busy rail corridor is largely because the quality of the service is much better than it is anywhere else in the country. The trains run more reliably and at a higher rate of speed. It's hardly the only corridor that could be profitable, it's just that because it's located in New England rather than on the West Coast, it gets funding. Vancouver to Portland would easily be profitable once built and I believe that there's a few stretches in California that could be as well. Just to name a few.
Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say
on
Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
The rails were always private going back to the beginning. How do you think the railroad companies came up with the money to build the system in the first place?
It's the politicians, there are a few routes where high speed rail would be profitable, the Boston to Washington line is one; Vancouver, BC to Portland would be another one. And a lot of those delays that people complain about are the direct result of not having enough spare equipment to allow for a proper turn around. Last trip I took was delayed by a huge amount because the train hadn't been winterized, even though it was December and the route went through Montana and North Dakota.
I'm not really sure why it's just that New England corridor that gets all the funding when there are other corridors that could be profitable as well. I don't understand why they're adding improved WiFi when last I checked there wasn't any wifi at all on most of their routes.
And people wonder why folks out west complain about the East Coast bias.
The point is that $11k alone is barely any more money that rent is around here.
And of course, the aid should permit you to save for retirement. At some point these people need to be able to get off the government dole, and bottom line is that means saving money for the future.
They always use the federal poverty level for these calculations which doesn't make any sense. Around here you have to make substantially more than the poverty level to have a simple apartment. At $11k you're rent alone is going to take up more than half of that, and ultimately you're going to be lucky to be living paycheck to paycheck.
Even as a single making $27k a year, that's not enough to have your own place and save for retirement.
I wish people would stop repeating this bullshit. That's not true.
The insurance companies are required to issue rebates for any money they take in over the limits. They have to spend at least 85% of the premiums on actual health care related activities. And since they will no longer be able to refuse to accept individuals for service, people can just shop for the policy which best covers their needs.
And they won't be losing money, they just will have to figure out how to provide the service as efficiently as possible.
Except that in this disagreement Google doesn't have to negotiate with MS. Google owns Youtube and can refuse to permit MS to create their own application to access it. Youtube itself would still be available through m.youtube.com for mobile users.
Or, more likely, Google would write their own application at some point.
Bottom line on this is that MS has no negotiating power on this. Android and iOS are much more significant in this space than anything that MS is doing.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this article.
People generally underestimate the complexity of the laws that they're expected to obey. What's more, it's not just the way that the laws are written, there's the centuries of precedence that's involved. Considering that you can't find an attorney that can represent you on all legal matters, that ought to be a hint to the judiciary that it's not reasonable to expect that of people with even less knowledge and experience with litigation.
Sure it's an excuse, and as the law gets increasingly complex, it's high time that the legal system acknowledges that ignorance is to be expected. Assuming that people have infinite money to spend on attorneys to ask if they're legally permitted to do something is something which only makes sense to attorneys.
To the rest of us, we do what we intend to do and only check up on things if there's some obvious problem with it.
BTW, in none of the cases have the plaintiffs proven that there were hundreds or even thousands of copies made, the making available theory has been discarded and in general the only copies that have ever been proven to have been made have been copies authorized by the owner of the IP. It's been inferred that there were some number of copies made, but nobody has presented evidence that has demonstrated that people other than the investigators have downloaded them.
Traffic tickets are normally civil fines in general and the consequences of one or even a dozen is usually limited to your insurance rates going through the roof. You might not be eligible for some jobs that require a security clearance, but over all the consequences are relatively minor for pleading out on a ticket.
And often times they'll suspend it, provided you aren't cited again within the stated length of time.
The big problem tends to be the felony and misemeanor stuff that can lead to huge fines and time behind bars. And I doubt that's going to be fixed any time soon as clearly the solution to not being charged is to not commit any crimes. Because obviously only guilty people are charged.
You know that you don't have to load things in tabs if you don't want to, right? And I highly doubt that you're going to have any meaningful performance improvements by loading up different windows. Plugins are there for every browser and the worst offenders tend to be things like Flash which aren't always easily avoided. Extentions themselves aren't usually a problem if you don't install badly behaving ones. And many of them do actually help out with performance, noscript anybody?
Normal probably isn't so useful here, but it would give some context. 11% of files being highly interconnected could be a sign of incompetence on the part of the developers, or it could be a sign that they're engaged in sound design by splitting off commonly used methods into their own files and treating them as libraries.
It's ultimately the same problem. People are not in a position to know what their real liabilities or rights are if they engage in file sharing. I know that it would never have occured to me that sharing a file for non-commercial purposes could lead to even a $7500 fine were it not for the fact that I hang out on tech sites following these stories.
I'd suggest that most people aren't aware that cases like this can be handled anywhere other than small claims court. Which for a $10 file is precisely the venue where they should be tried in non-commercial copyright infringement cases.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. Bush got over 5 years before the media stopped kissing his ass after 9/11. Clinton spent most of his Presidency explaining as the press dug into things which weren't reasonable related to Presidency.
Face it, the media sucks up to the GOP because if they don't, the GOP cries about the "liberal" media, never mind that the media itself is already right of center.
You make it sound like the IRS violated some law, they were issued a warrant that allowed them to image the drive on that computer, and there happened to be medical records on there. Just because there are medical records on the machine does not mean that the IRS has no right to the other data on there, but because they imaged the drive they got all of it.
What you're suggesting is tantamount to the police searching a house for allegedly doing cockfights in the basement and being required to ignore anything else they see while on the premises.
This isn't necessarily over the line.
The article doesn't state it, but it looks like they probably imaged the entire HDD, which is normal, and that resulted in them having copies of all those medical records. And because the records themselves were not properly stored the IRS now has access to them.
Sounds to me more like the firm is concerned with covering their own asses for not having properly secured the data in the first place. Laptops have a tendency to be stolen or otherwise walk off, and if they lost the records that easily, I'd want to change insurers.
That's unlikely, President Obama was born in 1961, by the time he was 18, the Vietnam conflict was already over.
I'm curious where you got the evidence that he was palling around with terrorists when he was still in grade school.
I thought it was inverse to the number of chairs thrown...
Not really, didn't Google wind up just giving them away for free? They realized there were problems before they actually released it, and I thought that they had given them away.
I personally hope that they have the good sense to not make it spherical again. Set top boxes are generally cuboids for a reason.
It's not a strawman, your entire post consisted of ad hominems and various other forms of defective reasoning.
There's no inherent reason to believe that the poll wasn't statistically valid because of where they took the samples from. Yes, it does have a likelihood of not being representative, but you're inferring that it's not valid on the basis of it disagreeing with your opinion.
It's just as socially acceptable, but you're deluding yourself if you think that trade school or an apprenticeship are equivalent to what you're getting in college. College itself is about teaching people how to think and right now they aren't doing such a good job of that.
In large part yes, but I thought that the receiver had to be registered with the ATF. The receiver being the thing that the ATF considers to be the firearm. I could be wrong about that though.
Yes, that was one girl, and just because some people manage anyways, does not imply that firearms don't make it easier and lead to deaths that might otherwise not happen. A firearm is an extremely easy way of killing people you might not already be capable of killing. With a firearm, that same 8 year old girl could have killed the 12 year old brother which would have been substantially less likely were she only to have had access to pointy sticks.
Posts like yours really reinforce the idea that perhaps the people with firearms are precisely the people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. Because critical reasoning is an essential firearm handling skill.
1000 most certainly isn't too small of a sample, provided that it was a good. You're just discounting it because you don't like the result.
1000 is sufficient to establish that most Americans are likely to support a ban, depending upon your specific estimate for sigma. It could get a bit dicey if you're getting near to 50%, but you don't need 50k respondents for the survey to be valid. The reason we have polled data for this is because it's not realistic to ask everybody individually.
Perhaps before spouting off about the necessary sample size, you might actually like to understand the related statistical analysis.
Pansy? You mean the folks out there that don't like the idea of criminals having even easier access to firearms than they enjoy at the present? Especially firearms with basically no metal, except the firing pin, in them that are much easier to smuggle past metal detectors.
The reason why that's the most busy rail corridor is largely because the quality of the service is much better than it is anywhere else in the country. The trains run more reliably and at a higher rate of speed. It's hardly the only corridor that could be profitable, it's just that because it's located in New England rather than on the West Coast, it gets funding. Vancouver to Portland would easily be profitable once built and I believe that there's a few stretches in California that could be as well. Just to name a few.
The rails were always private going back to the beginning. How do you think the railroad companies came up with the money to build the system in the first place?
It's the politicians, there are a few routes where high speed rail would be profitable, the Boston to Washington line is one; Vancouver, BC to Portland would be another one. And a lot of those delays that people complain about are the direct result of not having enough spare equipment to allow for a proper turn around. Last trip I took was delayed by a huge amount because the train hadn't been winterized, even though it was December and the route went through Montana and North Dakota.
I'm not really sure why it's just that New England corridor that gets all the funding when there are other corridors that could be profitable as well. I don't understand why they're adding improved WiFi when last I checked there wasn't any wifi at all on most of their routes.
And people wonder why folks out west complain about the East Coast bias.
The point is that $11k alone is barely any more money that rent is around here.
And of course, the aid should permit you to save for retirement. At some point these people need to be able to get off the government dole, and bottom line is that means saving money for the future.
They always use the federal poverty level for these calculations which doesn't make any sense. Around here you have to make substantially more than the poverty level to have a simple apartment. At $11k you're rent alone is going to take up more than half of that, and ultimately you're going to be lucky to be living paycheck to paycheck.
Even as a single making $27k a year, that's not enough to have your own place and save for retirement.
I wish people would stop repeating this bullshit. That's not true.
The insurance companies are required to issue rebates for any money they take in over the limits. They have to spend at least 85% of the premiums on actual health care related activities. And since they will no longer be able to refuse to accept individuals for service, people can just shop for the policy which best covers their needs.
And they won't be losing money, they just will have to figure out how to provide the service as efficiently as possible.
Except that in this disagreement Google doesn't have to negotiate with MS. Google owns Youtube and can refuse to permit MS to create their own application to access it. Youtube itself would still be available through m.youtube.com for mobile users.
Or, more likely, Google would write their own application at some point.
Bottom line on this is that MS has no negotiating power on this. Android and iOS are much more significant in this space than anything that MS is doing.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this article.
People generally underestimate the complexity of the laws that they're expected to obey. What's more, it's not just the way that the laws are written, there's the centuries of precedence that's involved. Considering that you can't find an attorney that can represent you on all legal matters, that ought to be a hint to the judiciary that it's not reasonable to expect that of people with even less knowledge and experience with litigation.
Sure it's an excuse, and as the law gets increasingly complex, it's high time that the legal system acknowledges that ignorance is to be expected. Assuming that people have infinite money to spend on attorneys to ask if they're legally permitted to do something is something which only makes sense to attorneys.
To the rest of us, we do what we intend to do and only check up on things if there's some obvious problem with it.
BTW, in none of the cases have the plaintiffs proven that there were hundreds or even thousands of copies made, the making available theory has been discarded and in general the only copies that have ever been proven to have been made have been copies authorized by the owner of the IP. It's been inferred that there were some number of copies made, but nobody has presented evidence that has demonstrated that people other than the investigators have downloaded them.
Traffic tickets are normally civil fines in general and the consequences of one or even a dozen is usually limited to your insurance rates going through the roof. You might not be eligible for some jobs that require a security clearance, but over all the consequences are relatively minor for pleading out on a ticket.
And often times they'll suspend it, provided you aren't cited again within the stated length of time.
The big problem tends to be the felony and misemeanor stuff that can lead to huge fines and time behind bars. And I doubt that's going to be fixed any time soon as clearly the solution to not being charged is to not commit any crimes. Because obviously only guilty people are charged.
You know that you don't have to load things in tabs if you don't want to, right? And I highly doubt that you're going to have any meaningful performance improvements by loading up different windows. Plugins are there for every browser and the worst offenders tend to be things like Flash which aren't always easily avoided. Extentions themselves aren't usually a problem if you don't install badly behaving ones. And many of them do actually help out with performance, noscript anybody?
Normal probably isn't so useful here, but it would give some context. 11% of files being highly interconnected could be a sign of incompetence on the part of the developers, or it could be a sign that they're engaged in sound design by splitting off commonly used methods into their own files and treating them as libraries.
I'd suspect that the latter is the case here.
It's ultimately the same problem. People are not in a position to know what their real liabilities or rights are if they engage in file sharing. I know that it would never have occured to me that sharing a file for non-commercial purposes could lead to even a $7500 fine were it not for the fact that I hang out on tech sites following these stories.
I'd suggest that most people aren't aware that cases like this can be handled anywhere other than small claims court. Which for a $10 file is precisely the venue where they should be tried in non-commercial copyright infringement cases.