And I would go the other way (I qwiush I had checked for replies sooner as the chances that this discussion will go anywhere is now very low)...
I think that Pedestrians are alot more manuverable than cars, have much greater terrains that they can move over (including side walks, many of which a car couldn't even get up on without doing serious damage to itself even if it wanted to) etc.
They also have a much greater risk, should an accident happen.
Hence, I think that it follows that THEY, not the cars, should be the ones acting responsibly and staying out of the way of cars. A pedestrian wishing to cross a roadway typically has better visability and more time to see and react to a car, than the car has to react to the pedestrian.
Hence, CARS should ALWAYS (unless a red light or other traffic signal says otherwise) have right of way.
If a pedestrian can't look before he crosses the street, and thus take an active roll in his own safety, then I have very little sympathy for his plight.
That said, still visability is key. There are many situations where pedestrians may be around where a car has plenty of visability and can avoid a pedestrian in the roadway even at over 40 MPH. The fact is that a pedestrian has a nearly 100% chance of surviving a collision that doesn't happen, and I think that is a much better basis for speed limits.
As someone who puts tens of thousands of miles on both two and four wheeled vehicles each year, it has been my experience that avoiding collisons is always preferable to having them, even at low speeds, and that collisions can be quite adequetly avoided, much of the time, above posted speed limits.
While speed limits make sense in many situations, they don't always.
There are plenty of places that I can point to where speed limits are entirely too low. That is to say it is perfectly safe given normal driving conditions (no fog, dry or even slightly wet roads) to go 15-20 MPH over the posted speed limit.
This is both in town and out. In fact, I can say from my own experience, as someone who regularly "speeds" that about 95% of the time that I have had a close call with a pedestrian or another car it has not involved speed, but rather has involved crowded intersections where traffic is moving well below posted speed limits where it is needed for the driver to track moving objects in several places. (Cars in 2 other lanes of trafic, and pedestrians walkin gou tinto the street with abandon etc)
The simple fact is that speed limits are usually sweeping "30 in the city" which are really only needed in certain places within the city. Most wide city roads are no more dangerous at 45 than they are at 30, except when traffic is too heavy to do 45 anyway, in which case it self limits to safe speeds anyway.
All in all I agree this is a fine solution to real speeding... but generally speaking I think that speed limits are set too low for normal conditions and I shudder to think what decreasing the speeds people drive in such a hevay handed and sweeping way will do to traffic around here during the time periods at the ends of rush hour where speeds are starting to naturally pick back up.
That is I agree that it can be a sick behaviour. The standard I apply however is, is the individual living the life that they want? Is it interfereing with them living a relativly normal life in the manner that they would want to live it.
That is, are they staying at home and being a shut in because they want to do that, or are they doing it because they feel that they have to do it?
If the former, then more power to em. In the latter case however, then I agree it is very much unhealthy.
Sex is the mixing of genes to form a new organism that contains a somewhat randomized subset of the genes from 2 similar organisms.
This sets it apart as a method of organism reporudction from asexual reproduction, where an organism basically produces clones of itself with the only variation being from genetic mutation.
In street language it also refers to any action, enagaged in for either pleasure or reproduction (not mutually exclusive), that involves the stimulation of the sexual organs of more than one person. Well depending on who you talk to.
Biologically speaking, sex occurs in humans when sperm and egg meet and the genes meet. But collequally its definition varies widely, and refers to some subset of activities that stimulate the sexual organs of one or more people. Exactly what that subset that constitutes "sex" is varies from person to person.
There are those who do not feel that oral stimulation of ones genitals is sex, or rectal or whatever... about the only thing that is not disputed by someone is that the insertion of the male penis into a female humans vulva as a mode of stimulating the penis to release semen, is sex. I have yet to meet anyone that contests that this is in the set of activities refered to as sex. Everything else seems quite debatable. (and few, if any, add the biological requirement of viable gene mixing that produces a new organism in order to term it as sex)
Getting beyond thsi gets into th subject of "sexuality" which is a much bigger can of worms involving all manner of personal preference including number of partners (usually 1 but ranging, arguably, from 0 up, the type of partners (gender, race, body type, etc), and methods of stimulation (oral, vaginal, manual, rectal, mamarial, or some combination - possibly including the use of inanimate objects).
Addmittedly I generally agree with you, and when I don't socialize often enough I find myself unhappy with life, but I am perfectly willing to accept that other people have different desires and needs for socialization.
Those are only apparent contradictions. Living life is living life, whether you are goin gout climbing mountains or just sitting (in fact at least one of the japanese terms used for mediation translates well, I am told, as "just sitting") then you are living life.
One of my favorite analogies that of the woman who lost her head (I forget the names in the original story). One day a woman woke up and thought she had lost her head. Many people tried to show her and make her see that she had her head still, but she would not believe them. So finnaly someone (a monk probably, I forget) tied her to a pole so she could not move and let her stew for a bit. Then he smacked her in the head.
Upon feeling th epain of getting a sudden unexpected smack she snapped into the realisation that she still has her head and was eccstatic.
This is used as an analogy of people before and after "enlightenment". Basically that we are whole and complete and living our lives pefectly right now, we just don't know it, we don't realise our own perfection. Enlightenment is often persued by those who persue it with much ferver, but in that we are much like the woman who does not believe that she still has her head.
or another shorter favorite....
two men were talking about their masters. The first one says "My master is so spiritual that when he meditates he can float in the air" The second replies "My master is also very spiritual; when hungry he eats, when tired he sleeps"
Well maybe its bad to base a buisness model on controlling conditions that you can't ever hope to control? Ooh just maybe thats the case.
I am just so tired of hearing apologists for major multinational corperations whining because their buisness model has a major weakness and they want to blame that weakness on their customers rather than realising that thats just the way the world works and that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
"You can't stop the free movements of a free people".
I have noticed a trend lately. People see something that they effectivly can't stop, that is people modifying the hardware THAT THEY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. To get around restrictions that were built into it.
Now some people want to ask "Does this have a legitimate use?". Can it possibly matter? They arn't making WMDs here, they are modifying some game hardware that they bought and paid for, they are modifying their own property.
I think it absolutly audacious that restrictions of any sort were artificially built into these products for any reason other than operator safety. Even more so that someone would question whether modification of ones own property has "legitimate use".
The most fundamental legitimate use of a mod chip is "because I wanted to". End of story.
This makes gobs of sense in some situation and very little in others.
I grant that when my coworker build the beowulf cluster, it made lots of sense to have everything optimised out the hilt. However when I watched him build his desktop, and it took him, on a very modern machine just a year ago, nearly 3 days to have a full working system with X etc... thats overkill.
I don't need an optimised ls and df... I can do just fine with them compiled for a 386. The vast overwhelming majority of binaries on my system will give no benefit whatsoever if compiled with all the optomisations to tweak it to the box.
I am a fan of this...
I use debian... I install everything from packages as a rule. However for those few, oh so very few, packages that really need customization, then I compile them myself.
At this point, I can't think of a single package that I do that with right now.
My basic view is this: Compiling something that I don't NEED to compile is a waste of my time and CPU. I also like the idea of NOT having to have a compiler on every machine I run. A production server should never have a compiler on it, doesn't need it. Now I know the security argument is silly, any cracker worth his salt can put a compiler somewhere and use it... however....
Nobody should ever be compiling anything on a production server. If the machine is in production, then development should not ever be done on it. All that should be done elsewhere. SO why leave a compiler sitting there begging lazy admins to use it?
(OH yea and every rule can and should be broken at times, but its important to understand the rule so you know when those times are... thinking about where compilers are needed and where they arn't is a good exercise in developing those disciplines)
Overall, I think gentoo is neat... and on our solaris systems we are considering stealing portage and hacking it a bit to build solaris packages for us. Anyone else done this?
Or weren't. the FCC never actually listed any words, some station censors made some up (as in the famous Howard Stern story) and of course there is George Carlin's list of dirty words...
However the FCC only banned sexual or excrement talk that was not socially useful. (for example it would be fine to talk about feces if you are doing a segment on bowel disorders, but not just for the sake of talking about feces)
For example, according to the old FCC rules, you could probably show a picture of a Womans bush if you were doing a segment on crabs or personal hygene (not that it would ever get past the network censors) but you couldn't do it instead of a picture of the president as a joke.
Think... "the miracle of life" would be ok. The Miracle of Ron Jeremy, not so much.
In any case it was really vague. It never said anything too specific.
Personally I think the FCC itself has been alot more profane than anything I have ever seen on TV.
And you sound like one of my fellow Americans. Who seems to think that bailing them out in a war 50 years ago is good enough and now the europeans should just be our bitches and shut up about anything they don't like.
Note that YOU are the one bringing up the fact that we used atomics, and were the only ones to ever do it. He just said we are, today, hipocrits for having more WMDs than anyone and being the worlds biggest crybaby about other people getting them.
Ever note how quick "we" Aemricans are at bringing up the fact that we bailed out Europe, but the French never bring up the fact that they bailed out our revolution.
The Europeans don't get any credit when they help us out on operations we want. Guess thats ok, afterall, they seem to still "owe" us for bailing them out right? And god forbid they disagree with us on something. The bastards. The biggeset "Freedom" that my fellow Americans seem to care about is the "Freedom from dissenting opinions".
Well my policy is "If my employer didn't pay for it, then it doesn't get used for work.". I drive in to work. My car gets used in no other way that is work related. I have cell phone... the closest it EVER gets used for work is to reply to a message on my pager (which work DOES pay for).
Its simply that simple. I need a laptop to do my job, I make them buy me one, I need a pager for work, I make them buy me one and pay for service.
You should go to them and tell them you have been usin gyour cell phone for work and let them know that their policy is hurting them, and furthermore that they should be paying for the potion of the cell phone bill that you have incurred doing work for them.
If they say no, then simple... just stop using it for work and be sure they know that its the problem.
If they fire you, then sue for wrongful termination.
Seriously people...this is why workers should be unionizing. Why should we put up with this shit? Peopl ehave to work together, the workers should have some say in the culture of the workforce.
Thats what I said now that I am comming back to read replys! (well I notice one who mentioned the burnt rice at the bottom beinr a delicacy... which I agree...but not burnt... its should be kind of fried up and crunchy when done right... but certainly not burnt!)
My persian friend doesn't do the potatoes at the bottom... but when He and I tried to do it I had a pyrex glass pot and he claimed that was the problem we were having, so I should use a metal pot...
now that I am the issue hasn't gotten better:)
Maybe tonight I bring my bag of rice over his house and make him show me with proper equipment.
I was doing some digging through old apache logs recnetly, and way back when my system was still just an old p100 off a dsl line, seems I was getting alot of hits through goodle for a couple of recipes I put up...
SO i created a cookbook section of the current site and put up at least one of the recipes...
Thing is, I can never get the basmati rice to come out right. Anyone know how to cook it persian style and wanna give me a hint?
I wash my rice with alot of water and salt... then boil it 4-5 mins in alot of water until it i smostly cooked, but still just a tiny bit of crunch left.
Then I strain it, rince with cold water...
heat up the pot woth some olive oil in the bottom... throw the rice in, cover with a paper towel and then the lid, and leave it on very low until water steams off when flicked from my fingers to the pot.
But the bottom of the pot always burns. Anyone know?
> Granted taking a physical DVD is theft while downloading one is copyright > infringement; morally they are similar.
Er well maybe.
I am willing to conceede that according to your moral codes, they are similar.
However, my moral codes derive differently. I see them as VERY different things. In once case, I am making a copy of some information that someone has, leaving that person with his own copy of that information and no less well off for it.
In the other case I am taking a physical object from another person (or group of people as we are talking about a company here), thus leaving them without that physical object (whether or not they have multiple exact duplicates of that physical item is not relevant to the morality of it)
The second case I call stealing, and don't engage in it. I think it is morally reprehensable. The first case, is copying. I have no moral issue with copying. Copying is just fine with me, nor do I have any moral issue with not respecting the governments subsidy of the motion picture and music recording industries (which is really what copyright has become in my eyes).
In fact, I see no moral issues attached to copyright at all as it is nothing more than a fiction created by the legal system to promote certain social ideals. In my eyes that system ahs been perverted away from those original ideals... regardless even if that wasn't the case, I don't see breaking the law as amoral per se (I think an act is moral or immoral regardless of legality) nor for not supporting its programs of promoting social ideals either.
because the desire to protect proivacy has now given what was previously refered to as a "Booster Bag" that had no known legitimate use, a very simple, easily explained, legitimate use.
The burglary tool is now a privacy protection device! Awesome. My bet is that thi sbecomes a defense in court. Anyone care to test this one out?
I can't speak as to Best Buy Specifically, however, I did some contract work for another Big Dept store a few years back (about 2-3 years before they went out of buisness)... I wasn't doing security but I saw the security offices and whatnot (in fact, I stayed overnight in the store, sometimes with a security person, sometimes with just a manager - only once did we get a request by one of them to check our tool bags at the end of the night, but when we said ok immediatly, she just let us go - but she was just a biutchy manager that gave us an attitude all night long - she was also the only one that complained about me wanting to take a book and sit on one of the futons in the store when I had an hour of downtime waiting for data to copy... bitch)
Anyway... my point... ive seen the way their security operate and talked with them about it a bit.
From the moment you enter the store, you are on tape. They may or may not be watching you specifically... you just don't know. Rest assured they are watching somewhere in the store. They know what to look for, they know how to tell who to watch.
Who is the security guy? Well I will tell you, he is probably dressed well, but not like an employee. He/she wont wear the store colors, or a name tag, and he is watching the cash registers as much as anywhere else.
In fact, the store I saw had a very old system overall that hadn't been upgraed in years, not like all these new Best Buy stores. Yet still with that old system they could watch a cashier (what? you think the shoppers are the only people the security folks watch? notice the camera density by the checkout - those are for watching the clerks as much as you) and on a seprate terminal he could watch the transactions go by as the clerk scanned items and input stuff into he register to make sure the clerk wasn't putting through improper transactions or helping people steal from the store.
Well it was only written a couple centuries before anyone thought of standardizing spelling for english. Believe it or not that spelling is not rough at all, its absolutly correct (as there is no standard for correctness at all, pretty much anything that is intelligable by the people who spoke the language of the day, which was not exactly modern english, was correct. We can only assume that this is the case (unless you know of someone still around who learned english in that same area as the writter, around the same time)
Remember grammar is the study of language, the rules arn't fixed, language lives and changes as people use it. At BEST the rules of grammar that we are taught in school, while they are not wrong, only work for a major subset of the language that we actually use, there are many perfectly acceptable and understood constructs that the rules of grammar know nothing about... and some where they are absolutly wrong.
Take double negatives. They are perfectly understood, and used by nearly everyone. Any grammar rule saying that one can't use a double negative is just flat out wrong. (thats not tosay that they can be used as prolifically in english as they are in some languages, but they do work in english)
About 2 years ago I was turned on to "High definition" face shields for my motorcycle helmet. They have a yellow or pink tint to them. The Shoei ones being pink.
WHat I noticed was it did cut down on glare and it was not obnoxious at night (just as the salesman had said, "sometimes I think I might be able to see something at nigh tbetter if I lift my sheild, and so I try it, and I never can see it any better")
The thing was colors were so wrong.
Now, 15k miles later, I put on the helmet and don't even notice that its tinted, my brain just instantly adjusts the color and I am off.
I think we can solve a number of problems like this...
Say everyone MUST vote
Now you have the problem of everyone MUST vote, what do you do about people who decide not to vote? Simple... you add "none of the above" to the ballot and assume that any elligable voters who don't vote (even the ones who just don't bother to go to a polling place or even to register) as votes for "none of the above"....
Then, if nobody gets a clear majority, you have a new election with all new candidates.
Um given that its not illegal (as you quoted above) to use photoshop in this way, why would they ask, (and why would you agree?) to not discuss the workaround that you found out?
Frankly I find this offensive. Whatever happend to police doing their jobs and finding people who commit crimes? I mean, if I am committing no crime in what I am doing on my own computer, then why should I be prohibited from doing it?
Admittedly this is voluntary on the part of Adobe, but whats the secret services problem with people working around it? Afterall if its not illegal, then its hardly their place to be telling people not to do it (or tell others how to).
Slashdot Mirror
And I would go the other way (I qwiush I had checked for replies sooner as the chances that this discussion will go anywhere is now very low)...
I think that Pedestrians are alot more manuverable than cars, have much greater terrains that they can move over (including side walks, many of which a car couldn't even get up on without doing serious damage to itself even if it wanted to) etc.
They also have a much greater risk, should an accident happen.
Hence, I think that it follows that THEY, not the cars, should be the ones acting responsibly and staying out of the way of cars. A pedestrian wishing to cross a roadway typically has better visability and more time to see and react to a car, than the car has to react to the pedestrian.
Hence, CARS should ALWAYS (unless a red light or other traffic signal says otherwise) have right of way.
If a pedestrian can't look before he crosses the street, and thus take an active roll in his own safety, then I have very little sympathy for his plight.
That said, still visability is key. There are many situations where pedestrians may be around where a car has plenty of visability and can avoid a pedestrian in the roadway even at over 40 MPH. The fact is that a pedestrian has a nearly 100% chance of surviving a collision that doesn't happen, and I think that is a much better basis for speed limits.
As someone who puts tens of thousands of miles on both two and four wheeled vehicles each year, it has been my experience that avoiding collisons is always preferable to having them, even at low speeds, and that collisions can be quite adequetly avoided, much of the time, above posted speed limits.
-Steve
but can we define speeding?
While speed limits make sense in many situations, they don't always.
There are plenty of places that I can point to where speed limits are entirely too low. That is to say it is perfectly safe given normal driving conditions (no fog, dry or even slightly wet roads) to go 15-20 MPH over the posted speed limit.
This is both in town and out. In fact, I can say from my own experience, as someone who regularly "speeds" that about 95% of the time that I have had a close call with a pedestrian or another car it has not involved speed, but rather has involved crowded intersections where traffic is moving well below posted speed limits where it is needed for the driver to track moving objects in several places.
(Cars in 2 other lanes of trafic, and pedestrians walkin gou tinto the street with abandon etc)
The simple fact is that speed limits are usually sweeping "30 in the city" which are really only needed in certain places within the city. Most wide city roads are no more dangerous at 45 than they are at 30, except when traffic is too heavy to do 45 anyway, in which case it self limits to safe speeds anyway.
All in all I agree this is a fine solution to real speeding... but generally speaking I think that speed limits are set too low for normal conditions and I shudder to think what decreasing the speeds people drive in such a hevay handed and sweeping way will do to traffic around here during the time periods at the ends of rush hour where speeds are starting to naturally pick back up.
-Steve
I agree and disagree....
That is I agree that it can be a sick behaviour. The standard I apply however is, is the individual living the life that they want? Is it interfereing with them living a relativly normal life in the manner that they would want to live it.
That is, are they staying at home and being a shut in because they want to do that, or are they doing it because they feel that they have to do it?
If the former, then more power to em. In the latter case however, then I agree it is very much unhealthy.
-Steve
Sex is the mixing of genes to form a new organism that contains a somewhat randomized subset of the genes from 2 similar organisms.
This sets it apart as a method of organism reporudction from asexual reproduction, where an organism basically produces clones of itself with the only variation being from genetic mutation.
In street language it also refers to any action, enagaged in for either pleasure or reproduction (not mutually exclusive), that involves the stimulation of the sexual organs of more than one person. Well depending on who you talk to.
Biologically speaking, sex occurs in humans when sperm and egg meet and the genes meet. But collequally its definition varies widely, and refers to some subset of activities that stimulate the sexual organs of one or more people. Exactly what that subset that constitutes "sex" is varies from person to person.
There are those who do not feel that oral stimulation of ones genitals is sex, or rectal or whatever... about the only thing that is not disputed by someone is that the insertion of the male penis into a female humans vulva as a mode of
stimulating the penis to release semen, is sex. I have yet to meet anyone that contests that this is in the set of activities refered to as sex. Everything else seems quite debatable. (and few, if any, add the biological requirement of viable gene mixing that produces a new organism in order to term it as sex)
Getting beyond thsi gets into th subject of "sexuality" which is a much bigger can of worms involving all manner of personal preference including number of partners (usually 1 but ranging, arguably, from 0 up, the type of partners (gender, race, body type, etc), and methods of stimulation (oral, vaginal, manual, rectal, mamarial, or some combination - possibly including the use of inanimate objects).
I hope this clears it up for you.
-Steve
... and thats all good too. :)
Addmittedly I generally agree with you, and when I don't socialize often enough I find myself unhappy with life, but I am perfectly willing to accept that other people have different desires and needs for socialization.
-Steve
Those are only apparent contradictions. Living life is living life, whether you are goin gout climbing mountains or just sitting (in fact at least one of the japanese terms used for mediation translates well, I am told, as "just sitting")
then you are living life.
One of my favorite analogies that of the woman who lost her head (I forget the names in the original story). One day a woman woke up and thought she had lost her head. Many people tried to show her and make her see that she had her head still, but she would not believe them. So finnaly someone (a monk probably, I forget) tied her to a pole so she could not move and let her stew for a bit.
Then he smacked her in the head.
Upon feeling th epain of getting a sudden unexpected smack she snapped into the realisation that she still has her head and was eccstatic.
This is used as an analogy of people before and after "enlightenment". Basically that we are whole and complete and living our lives pefectly right now, we just don't know it, we don't realise our own perfection. Enlightenment is often persued by those who persue it with much ferver, but in that we are much like the woman who does not believe that she still has her head.
or another shorter favorite....
two men were talking about their masters. The first one says "My master is so spiritual that when he meditates he can float in the air"
The second replies
"My master is also very spiritual; when hungry he eats, when tired he sleeps"
-Steve
Well maybe its bad to base a buisness model on controlling conditions that you can't ever hope to control? Ooh just maybe thats the case.
I am just so tired of hearing apologists for major multinational corperations whining because their buisness model has a major weakness and they want to blame that weakness on their customers rather than realising that thats just the way the world works and that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
"You can't stop the free movements of a free people".
-Steve
Does it really matter?
I have noticed a trend lately. People see something that they effectivly can't stop, that is people modifying the hardware THAT THEY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. To get around restrictions that were built into it.
Now some people want to ask "Does this have a legitimate use?". Can it possibly matter? They arn't making WMDs here, they are modifying some game hardware that they bought and paid for, they are modifying their own property.
I think it absolutly audacious that restrictions of any sort were artificially built into these products for any reason other than operator safety. Even more so that someone would question whether modification of ones own property has "legitimate use".
The most fundamental legitimate use of a mod chip is "because I wanted to". End of story.
-Steve
Correction:
I build custom kernels...and I use kernel package to make packages out
of them before I install them.
So there is one package I do compile myself... however, thats the major exception.
-Steve
This makes gobs of sense in some situation and very little in others.
I grant that when my coworker build the beowulf cluster, it made lots of sense to have everything optimised out the hilt. However when I watched him build his desktop, and it took him, on a very modern machine just a year ago, nearly 3 days to have a full working system with X etc... thats overkill.
I don't need an optimised ls and df... I can do just fine with them compiled for a 386. The vast overwhelming majority of binaries on my system will give no benefit whatsoever if compiled with all the optomisations to tweak it to the box.
I am a fan of this...
I use debian... I install everything from packages as a rule. However for those few, oh so very few, packages that really need customization, then I compile them myself.
At this point, I can't think of a single package that I do that with right now.
My basic view is this:
Compiling something that I don't NEED to compile is a waste of my time and CPU. I also like the idea of NOT having to have a compiler on every machine I run. A production server should never have a compiler on it, doesn't need it. Now I know the security argument is silly, any cracker worth his salt can put a compiler somewhere and use it... however....
Nobody should ever be compiling anything on a production server. If the machine is in production, then development should not ever be done on it. All that should be done elsewhere. SO why leave a compiler sitting there begging lazy admins to use it?
(OH yea and every rule can and should be broken at times, but its important to understand the rule so you know when those times are... thinking about where compilers are needed and where they arn't is a good exercise in developing those disciplines)
Overall, I think gentoo is neat... and on our solaris systems
we are considering stealing portage and hacking it a bit to build
solaris packages for us. Anyone else done this?
-Steve
There arn't any.
Or weren't. the FCC never actually listed any words, some station censors made some up (as in the famous Howard Stern story) and of course there is George Carlin's list of dirty words...
However the FCC only banned sexual or excrement talk that was not socially useful. (for example it would be fine to talk about feces if you are doing a segment on bowel disorders, but not just for the sake of talking about feces)
For example, according to the old FCC rules, you could probably show a picture of a Womans bush if you were doing a segment on crabs or personal hygene (not that it would ever get past the network censors) but you couldn't do it instead of a picture of the president as a joke.
Think... "the miracle of life" would be ok. The Miracle of Ron Jeremy, not so much.
In any case it was really vague. It never said anything too specific.
Personally I think the FCC itself has been alot more profane than anything I have ever seen on TV.
-Steve
And you sound like one of my fellow Americans. Who seems to think that bailing them out in a war 50 years ago is good enough and now the europeans should just be our bitches and shut up about anything they don't like.
Note that YOU are the one bringing up the fact that we used atomics, and were the only ones to ever do it. He just said we are, today, hipocrits for having more WMDs than anyone and being the worlds biggest crybaby about other people getting them.
Ever note how quick "we" Aemricans are at bringing up the fact that we bailed out Europe, but the French never bring up the fact that they bailed out our revolution.
The Europeans don't get any credit when they help us out on operations we want. Guess thats ok, afterall, they seem to still "owe" us for bailing them out right? And god forbid they disagree with us on something. The bastards. The biggeset "Freedom" that my fellow Americans seem to care about is the "Freedom from dissenting opinions".
-Steve
You say your cell phone is needed for work?
Well my policy is "If my employer didn't pay for it, then it doesn't get used for work.". I drive in to work. My car gets used in no other way that is work related. I have cell phone... the closest it EVER gets used for work is to reply
to a message on my pager (which work DOES pay for).
Its simply that simple. I need a laptop to do my job, I make them buy me one, I need a pager for work, I make them buy me one and pay for service.
You should go to them and tell them you have been usin gyour cell phone for work and let them know that their policy is hurting them, and furthermore that they should be paying for the potion of the cell phone bill that you have incurred doing work for them.
If they say no, then simple... just stop using it for work and be sure they know that its the problem.
If they fire you, then sue for wrongful termination.
Seriously people...this is why workers should be unionizing. Why should we put up with this shit? Peopl ehave to work together, the workers should have some say in the culture of the workforce.
-Steve
Thats what I said now that I am comming back to read replys!
:)
(well I notice one who mentioned the burnt rice at the bottom beinr
a delicacy... which I agree...but not burnt... its should be kind of fried
up and crunchy when done right... but certainly not burnt!)
My persian friend doesn't do the potatoes at the bottom... but when He and I tried to do it I had a pyrex glass pot and he claimed that was the problem we were having, so I should use a metal pot...
now that I am the issue hasn't gotten better
Maybe tonight I bring my bag of rice over his house and make him show
me with proper equipment.
-Steve
mmm sushi....
thanks. I think its sushi for diner tonight.
I was doing some digging through old apache logs recnetly, and way back when my system was still just an old p100 off a dsl line, seems I was getting alot of hits through goodle for a couple of recipes I put up...
SO i created a cookbook section of the current site and put up at least one of the recipes...
Thing is, I can never get the basmati rice to come out right. Anyone know how to cook it persian style and wanna give me a hint?
I wash my rice with alot of water and salt... then boil it 4-5 mins in alot
of water until it i smostly cooked, but still just a tiny bit of crunch left.
Then I strain it, rince with cold water...
heat up the pot woth some olive oil in the bottom... throw the rice in,
cover with a paper towel and then the lid, and leave it on very low until
water steams off when flicked from my fingers to the pot.
But the bottom of the pot always burns. Anyone know?
-steve
> Granted taking a physical DVD is theft while downloading one is copyright
... regardless even if that wasn't the case, I don't see breaking the law as amoral per se (I think an act is moral or immoral regardless of legality) nor for not supporting its programs of promoting social ideals either.
> infringement; morally they are similar.
Er well maybe.
I am willing to conceede that according to your moral codes, they are similar.
However, my moral codes derive differently. I see them as VERY different things. In once case, I am making a copy of some information that someone has, leaving that person with his own copy of that information and no less well off for it.
In the other case I am taking a physical object from another person (or group of people as we are talking about a company here), thus leaving them without that physical object (whether or not they have multiple exact duplicates of that physical item is not relevant to the morality of it)
The second case I call stealing, and don't engage in it. I think it is morally reprehensable. The first case, is copying. I have no moral issue with copying. Copying is just fine with me, nor do I have any moral issue with not respecting the governments subsidy of the motion picture and music recording industries (which is really what copyright has become in my eyes).
In fact, I see no moral issues attached to copyright at all as it is nothing more than a fiction created by the legal system to promote certain social ideals. In my eyes that system ahs been perverted away from those original ideals
-Steve
Ahhhh but the RFID is now perfect...
because the desire to protect proivacy has now given what was previously refered to as a "Booster Bag" that had no known legitimate use, a very simple, easily explained, legitimate use.
The burglary tool is now a privacy protection device! Awesome. My bet is that thi sbecomes a defense in court. Anyone care to test this one out?
-Steve
I can't speak as to Best Buy Specifically, however, I did some contract work for another Big Dept store a few years back (about 2-3 years before they went out of buisness)... I wasn't doing security but I saw the security offices and whatnot (in fact, I stayed overnight in the store, sometimes with a security person, sometimes with just a manager - only once did we get a request by one of them to check our tool bags at the end of the night, but when we said ok immediatly, she just let us go - but she was just a biutchy manager that gave us an attitude all night long - she was also the only one that complained about me wanting to take a book and sit on one of the futons in the store when I had an hour of downtime waiting for data to copy... bitch)
Anyway... my point... ive seen the way their security operate and talked with them about it a bit.
From the moment you enter the store, you are on tape. They may or may not be watching you specifically... you just don't know. Rest assured they are watching somewhere in the store. They know what to look for, they know how to tell who to watch.
Who is the security guy? Well I will tell you, he is probably dressed well, but not like an employee. He/she wont wear the store colors, or a name tag, and he is watching the cash registers as much as anywhere else.
In fact, the store I saw had a very old system overall that hadn't been upgraed in years, not like all these new Best Buy stores. Yet still with that old system they could watch a cashier (what? you think the shoppers are the only people the security folks watch? notice the camera density by the checkout - those are for watching the clerks as much as you) and on a seprate terminal he could watch the transactions go by as the clerk scanned items and input stuff into he register to make sure the clerk wasn't putting through improper transactions or helping people steal from the store.
-Steve
Are we still so unevolved that we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea?
Come on people.
Rough spelling and grammar?
Well it was only written a couple centuries before anyone thought of standardizing spelling for english. Believe it or not that spelling is not rough at all, its absolutly correct (as there is no standard for correctness at all, pretty much anything that is intelligable by the people who spoke the language of the day, which was not exactly modern english, was correct. We can only assume that this is the case (unless you know of someone still around who learned english in that same area as the writter, around the same time)
Remember grammar is the study of language, the rules arn't fixed, language lives and changes as people use it. At BEST the rules of grammar that we are taught in school, while they are not wrong, only work for a major subset of the language that we actually use, there are many perfectly acceptable and understood constructs that the rules of grammar know nothing about... and some where they are absolutly wrong.
Take double negatives. They are perfectly understood, and used by nearly everyone. Any grammar rule saying that one can't use a double negative is just flat out wrong. (thats not tosay that they can be used as prolifically in english as they are in some languages, but they do work in english)
-Steve
I am quite fammiliar with this effect myself.
About 2 years ago I was turned on to "High definition" face shields for my motorcycle helmet. They have a yellow or pink tint to them. The Shoei ones
being pink.
WHat I noticed was it did cut down on glare and it was not obnoxious at night (just as the salesman had said, "sometimes I think I might be able to see something at nigh tbetter if I lift my sheild, and so I try it, and I never can see it any better")
The thing was colors were so wrong.
Now, 15k miles later, I put on the helmet and don't even notice that its tinted, my brain just instantly adjusts the color and I am off.
-Steve
I disagree....
I think we can solve a number of problems like this...
Say everyone MUST vote
Now you have the problem of everyone MUST vote, what do you do about people who decide not to vote? Simple... you add "none of the above" to the ballot and assume that any elligable voters who don't vote (even the ones who just don't bother to go to a polling place or even to register) as votes for "none of the above"....
Then, if nobody gets a clear majority, you have a new election with all new candidates.
-Steve
Well certainly you may disseminate information as you see fit.
My issue is with them asking you to not disseminate that information.
Tho I suposeyou never actually said that they requested this..
-Steve
Show them to an iranian man and showing some ankle or some body hair and thats porn to them.
-Steve
Um given that its not illegal (as you quoted above) to use photoshop in this way,
why would they ask, (and why would you agree?) to not discuss the workaround that you found out?
Frankly I find this offensive. Whatever happend to police doing their jobs and finding people who commit crimes? I mean, if I am committing no crime in what I am doing on my own computer, then why should I be prohibited from doing it?
Admittedly this is voluntary on the part of Adobe, but whats the secret services problem with people working around it? Afterall if its not illegal, then its hardly their place to be telling people not to do it (or tell others how to).
-Steve