As a non-native english speaker, I ask: is this an actual, socially acceptable name in english-speaking countries? "Reality Winner", just like somebody who won a reality show?!
In most English-speaking countries it is considered socially offensive to complain about people's names. It is not socially acceptable to covet the naming of other people's babies, or if they changed their name, their own sense of self.
That's why the people doing it are also generally engaging in name-calling and other socially abhorrent behaviors. Polite people "don't go there." It is a basic and obvious matter of personal freedom.
Or, it demonstrates that MS was guilty of using unfair tactics. It isn't at all clear that it was successful against Borland.
Obviously, WordPerfect and Netscape Navigator were harmed. They were also a lot more exposed.
In the case of Borland, they (and others) were possibly out-competing them anyways. Universities were using the MS toolchain already outside of *nix. Borland required knowing about lots of silly #pragma statements to get things done that MS had gui options for. Even their fans weren't very strong fans. Compare to WordPerfect or Lotus Notes, where users were crying for years that the old one was still better than the replacement.
That's what was learned after the war; the Japanese weren't changing the codes, and they did know we'd cracked them. Because it would imply the emperor wasn't a God, or something like that. So they just swept the problem under the rug and sailed right into an honorable death.
The Germans are a much better example to make your point using WWII.
A strong consensus could be achieved on abortion by limiting situations where legal abortion is legal, limiting the time frame with a health exception, and then making the parts in between that an enumerated right.
That's the thing, it is over 70% agreement in the middle on the specifics, but the conversation is driven entirely be opposing fringe views. Same as every other issue in American politics.
Exactly, the complete over-ness of the election means that anybody patriotic would want to investigate the accusations. There is no practical benefit for trying to sweep them under the rug other than to protect whoever helped.
I find it sad that so many regular people are eager to help in a coverup, even if it is just by repeating nonsense. However, the middle covers most of the country, even when things are otherwise partisan. Investigation will happen, we're not just going to leave our nation's pants down because some idiots think the Russians were helping their side.
I switched from Bugzilla to Retrospective about 10 years ago and never looked back. Huge improvement.
One of the best features is that it was abandoned around 2010, so it is perfectly stable with no code thrash. Just keeps working the same, year after year, except when I add a plugin for a sort option or something.
I love abandoned code. It has no bugs; only errata.
Right, the Judge will listen to your story, and if he will decide if he believes you that maintaining access to extra generic padlocks is the same as having access to a freakin' safe.
Remember, everybody's lawyer helps them come up with a story. All the people that go to jail for contempt, they had at least some basic story like you have. What you don't have is a convincing story.
Or, they could still hire a few A-list actors and just not go nuts on effects and executive producers. There is no excuse for it costing $500m now when it cost under $100m very recently.
They should save the expensive effects for the movies that need it, like superhero movies that in the past had to be animation. And you don't need more than a couple A-list actors to make a good superhero movie. They're so caught up in fighting for the top selling movie that they forget to aim for a high profit margin on multiple moderately successful movies for the same money.
It only takes a little bit of good special effects to make a great science fiction movie, because science fiction is mostly about making it possible to tell different stories than can be told in a contemporary setting. If anything they should hire better writers instead of focusing on "screen"writers who have the biggest resumes.
It just seemed that way because nudity was less common. We didn't have internet.
A movie back then might show 10 seconds total of boobs, and it is most of what people talked about. So it seemed like the movie was just about boobs. And people watched the whole movie waiting for those few seconds.
But if you rewatch R-rated films from the 80s now, there is very little nudity. Some of what was R then would be PG-13 now, too, if they only flashed it.
King copywrites mostly airport novels, not many of his works are masterpieces (actually can't think of any). They don't adapt well to films because the story lines are cheesy, predictable, boring crap.
Well, not directly, but the mechanical nature of his writing makes it very easy for production screenwriters to convert into storyboards that the producer can mangle according to the fads, hype, and echos of the day.
Who the hell wants to go see a brain dead comedy? An intelligent comedy is usually much funnier.
Teenage potheads. I think I remember it that way, anyhow. Small demographic, anyways.
Anyways, Baywatch needed to be a PG-13 teenager almost-showed-boobies type movie. And to teenagers, Baywatch is like... grandma boobs. Seriously people, you're 20 years too late for that movie to have any business asking to be at the top. As a B-movie it might remain a reasonable attempt. But trying to headline that?! That sounds like some executive producer forgot to phone it in during his working holiday.
Real pirates provide fairly limited story arcs. It was impossible to make more than a couple without going Monster of the Week/Year. They started with just enough fantasy genre to be appropriate to the level of superstition and myth normally in pirate stories, but they had to go off the rails to keep making them.
If they were smart enough they'd make Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle into a series of 27 pirate movies, and it would work. But they're not going to manage it when the first one started off with Generic Action-Adventure Screenplay as the story.
Your concept of Absolute Proof isn't used by any court at any level for any decision.
And when it comes to your statement about the contents of your brain, the Judge will have to decide to the standard of proof appropriate for the exact stage and nature of the inquiry.
The "express intent" of the 5th Amendment is not as you wildly claim. The fifth Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Nothing in there about mind readers. Only about being compelled to be a witness against yourself. And it isn't because of the low quality of mind-readers of the day, but rather the specific forms of prosecutorial misconduct that were prevalent in Colonial times. Same with those others things; they weren't worried about being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense out of abundance of caution, but rather because that was one of the many abuses that they had just fought a war of independence over, and it rated highly enough to get listed.
The difference is, in your hypothetical they haven't proven that he's guilty, so they can't prove he knows where the murder weapon is. That is why they're demanding testimony.
In the case of a lock, they've already proven that you owned the lock. For example, if they searched your house and confiscated a locked safe, they can prove to a satisfactory degree that you owned the safe, and it is reasonable to presume that a person knows how to open their own safe. So there is nothing testimonial about admitting you know how to open the safe.
The protection from self incrimination isn't about protecting criminals from the mean police, it is because in the past before we had that protection that prosecutors would use circular logic where they would prove some minor fact connected to the case, and use that to claim you must know what happened, and then accuse you of lying if your story doesn't match theirs. You either admit to the crime and are guilty, or you deny it (lie) and are guilty. They didn't have any means to stop that behavior other than simply banning them from requiring that you testify. It is important to keep that in mind when looking at the topic, because that context is not lost on the Court when they consider the finer details of the protection. And that is why, when it comes to things like the far edge of what is and isn't a "key" they're not going to be very sympathetic with the accused, but if it isn't a key, then they're not going to be very sympathetic with the prosecutor either.
It isn't a right that they wanted to have to give out, it isn't a right that we would need in a perfect world, and it isn't a right that the Court is going to want to expand. And if technology makes the right less useful, the Court will likely view that as a positive thing.
Oh yeah, certainly; that's why I know these boards are full of rednecks.
The contractor's board does that stuff all the time.
On the flip side, we have good Courts that generally clean it up in the end.
It is enough that I would not be willing to make a career change that required board certification. I looked into teaching mushroom and berry foraging classes in the summer, but it would require being licensed as a Wilderness Guide or Outfitter by the State Marine Board, and I'd have to retain liability insurance with $1,000,000 coverage for an entire calendar year. Their primary job is to oversea salt water fishing, they don't any idea how to manage something like a weekend seminar on wild blueberries. If I did the seminar entirely inside a classroom, or on private land not zoned as forest or wilderness, then they wouldn't be able to regulate it at all and instead of being a Wilderness Guide it wouldn't be regulated at all under Oregon law. I could legally do it on agricultural zoned land that had some forest on it, but not on land zoned as forest.
That's the funny part; narrow things that are covered by these boards are poorly managed, but business outside of those are often not regulated at all. We don't have generic business licenses, only an Assumed Business Name registration that isn't a license and can't be denied. But it flows from, we don't want engineering to be unregulated because then if there is an earthquake all the houses fall down and everybody dies. It happens in some places in the world, and those places do not have these redneck boards of engineers to protect them. We mismanage what we have to, but usually no more than that.
My bank isn't one of those three, and has lots of ATMs. That said, sounds like more of a life skills problem than a banking problem.
None of those banks have a fixed number of fees they refund. It doesn't take an hour to get a fee rescinded. If your banker told you that, it means you were being difficult, or otherwise asking in an ineffective way. The branch manager can always rescind fees at their discretion. And anyways, a couple fees is one thing, but why would you need some high number? Don't you learn how the accounts work the first time you get hit with the fee, and then know to avoid it if you don't want to pay? As for the time, it takes me an extra 30 seconds to 5 minutes to get a fee rescinded, depending on how easy it is to explain.
That said, you listed the three banks with the worst reputation for customer service, so if you're only willing to consider those options I would naturally predict your banking experience will be less pleasant than mine.
BTW, the fact that you are complaining about how they order transactions, instead of understanding how it works, is suggestive as to why you might quickly reach a patience limit with your banker. You need to start the day with the money already in your account that you will charge to that account today. Deposits will be there tomorrow. The reason they re-order the transactions is because it means they can process them in a single batch, instead of using a more complicated multi-stage process, but there is no reason for the client to worry about those implementation details. Just know to only charge to your account today things that you had enough money for this morning. If you put cash in today, think of it as being available tomorrow morning, and you won't have any ordering problems.
If for example you got a law passed to ban the banks from re-ordering the transactions, they'd just use a 2-stage process and the result would be exactly the same for you. So it is not worth complaining about.
I actually had a similar situation to what you described except that it wasn't because I misunderstood when my money in available, but because of an unexpected account fee when I had less than the fee in the account. Then, it added another fee every day for having a negative balance. It was a couple weeks before I noticed, and the account was way underwater at that point. In the end they refunded all the fees, including the original fee. Get a better bank, man.
Try to think of how what I said is true, before you try to tell me why it isn't.;)
You simply didn't understand. I was going to explain further, but looking at it again, I already explained the part you missed. It doesn't "carry over" but the money in your bank account does. Maybe that helps?
Slashdot Mirror
As a non-native english speaker, I ask: is this an actual, socially acceptable name in english-speaking countries? "Reality Winner", just like somebody who won a reality show?!
In most English-speaking countries it is considered socially offensive to complain about people's names. It is not socially acceptable to covet the naming of other people's babies, or if they changed their name, their own sense of self.
That's why the people doing it are also generally engaging in name-calling and other socially abhorrent behaviors. Polite people "don't go there." It is a basic and obvious matter of personal freedom.
On secure printers that keep logs they might not have options for disabling the watermark that easily.
Or, it demonstrates that MS was guilty of using unfair tactics. It isn't at all clear that it was successful against Borland.
Obviously, WordPerfect and Netscape Navigator were harmed. They were also a lot more exposed.
In the case of Borland, they (and others) were possibly out-competing them anyways. Universities were using the MS toolchain already outside of *nix. Borland required knowing about lots of silly #pragma statements to get things done that MS had gui options for. Even their fans weren't very strong fans. Compare to WordPerfect or Lotus Notes, where users were crying for years that the old one was still better than the replacement.
See what MS did to Bordland for compiler space as well.
gcc got a lot more popular at the same time that Borland was getting less popular, so it might not be realistic to blame MS.
I doubt I'm the only person who made that switch.
That's what was learned after the war; the Japanese weren't changing the codes, and they did know we'd cracked them. Because it would imply the emperor wasn't a God, or something like that. So they just swept the problem under the rug and sailed right into an honorable death.
The Germans are a much better example to make your point using WWII.
A strong consensus could be achieved on abortion by limiting situations where legal abortion is legal, limiting the time frame with a health exception, and then making the parts in between that an enumerated right.
That's the thing, it is over 70% agreement in the middle on the specifics, but the conversation is driven entirely be opposing fringe views. Same as every other issue in American politics.
Uhm, no. Why lie?
That was part of a quote that you didn't understand.
She didn't even state it, it was part of a question she was asking Kayne West on twitter. LOL
Exactly, the complete over-ness of the election means that anybody patriotic would want to investigate the accusations. There is no practical benefit for trying to sweep them under the rug other than to protect whoever helped.
I find it sad that so many regular people are eager to help in a coverup, even if it is just by repeating nonsense. However, the middle covers most of the country, even when things are otherwise partisan. Investigation will happen, we're not just going to leave our nation's pants down because some idiots think the Russians were helping their side.
Yeah, and I want a free pony, and I want Rupert to walk behind it with a shovel.
I switched from Bugzilla to Retrospective about 10 years ago and never looked back. Huge improvement.
One of the best features is that it was abandoned around 2010, so it is perfectly stable with no code thrash. Just keeps working the same, year after year, except when I add a plugin for a sort option or something.
I love abandoned code. It has no bugs; only errata.
And how do you release with a heap of untested code?
You just build the installer, and upload the package. Exactly the same with tests, or without.
If it was different, you'd have to account for all those times where you tests, they just didn't test for the bugs.
Carol could sue Mallory in theory, but she's unlikely to have the logs to prove it.
Alice and Bob are both protected because they were just responding to that cyber thing.
I never believed them when they said cybering could make the world go blind, but now I'm starting to understand it.
We're not talking about "during a search warrant."
Right, the Judge will listen to your story, and if he will decide if he believes you that maintaining access to extra generic padlocks is the same as having access to a freakin' safe.
Remember, everybody's lawyer helps them come up with a story. All the people that go to jail for contempt, they had at least some basic story like you have. What you don't have is a convincing story.
Or, they could still hire a few A-list actors and just not go nuts on effects and executive producers. There is no excuse for it costing $500m now when it cost under $100m very recently.
They should save the expensive effects for the movies that need it, like superhero movies that in the past had to be animation. And you don't need more than a couple A-list actors to make a good superhero movie. They're so caught up in fighting for the top selling movie that they forget to aim for a high profit margin on multiple moderately successful movies for the same money.
It only takes a little bit of good special effects to make a great science fiction movie, because science fiction is mostly about making it possible to tell different stories than can be told in a contemporary setting. If anything they should hire better writers instead of focusing on "screen"writers who have the biggest resumes.
It just seemed that way because nudity was less common. We didn't have internet.
A movie back then might show 10 seconds total of boobs, and it is most of what people talked about. So it seemed like the movie was just about boobs. And people watched the whole movie waiting for those few seconds.
But if you rewatch R-rated films from the 80s now, there is very little nudity. Some of what was R then would be PG-13 now, too, if they only flashed it.
When you replaced "should" with "must," you could have just stopped right there and not said anything and it would have the same weight.
King copywrites mostly airport novels, not many of his works are masterpieces (actually can't think of any). They don't adapt well to films because the story lines are cheesy, predictable, boring crap.
Well, not directly, but the mechanical nature of his writing makes it very easy for production screenwriters to convert into storyboards that the producer can mangle according to the fads, hype, and echos of the day.
Who the hell wants to go see a brain dead comedy?
An intelligent comedy is usually much funnier.
Teenage potheads. I think I remember it that way, anyhow. Small demographic, anyways.
Anyways, Baywatch needed to be a PG-13 teenager almost-showed-boobies type movie. And to teenagers, Baywatch is like... grandma boobs. Seriously people, you're 20 years too late for that movie to have any business asking to be at the top. As a B-movie it might remain a reasonable attempt. But trying to headline that?! That sounds like some executive producer forgot to phone it in during his working holiday.
Real pirates provide fairly limited story arcs. It was impossible to make more than a couple without going Monster of the Week/Year. They started with just enough fantasy genre to be appropriate to the level of superstition and myth normally in pirate stories, but they had to go off the rails to keep making them.
If they were smart enough they'd make Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle into a series of 27 pirate movies, and it would work. But they're not going to manage it when the first one started off with Generic Action-Adventure Screenplay as the story.
Your concept of Absolute Proof isn't used by any court at any level for any decision.
And when it comes to your statement about the contents of your brain, the Judge will have to decide to the standard of proof appropriate for the exact stage and nature of the inquiry.
The "express intent" of the 5th Amendment is not as you wildly claim. The fifth Amendment states:
Nothing in there about mind readers. Only about being compelled to be a witness against yourself. And it isn't because of the low quality of mind-readers of the day, but rather the specific forms of prosecutorial misconduct that were prevalent in Colonial times. Same with those others things; they weren't worried about being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense out of abundance of caution, but rather because that was one of the many abuses that they had just fought a war of independence over, and it rated highly enough to get listed.
The difference is, in your hypothetical they haven't proven that he's guilty, so they can't prove he knows where the murder weapon is. That is why they're demanding testimony.
In the case of a lock, they've already proven that you owned the lock. For example, if they searched your house and confiscated a locked safe, they can prove to a satisfactory degree that you owned the safe, and it is reasonable to presume that a person knows how to open their own safe. So there is nothing testimonial about admitting you know how to open the safe.
The protection from self incrimination isn't about protecting criminals from the mean police, it is because in the past before we had that protection that prosecutors would use circular logic where they would prove some minor fact connected to the case, and use that to claim you must know what happened, and then accuse you of lying if your story doesn't match theirs. You either admit to the crime and are guilty, or you deny it (lie) and are guilty. They didn't have any means to stop that behavior other than simply banning them from requiring that you testify. It is important to keep that in mind when looking at the topic, because that context is not lost on the Court when they consider the finer details of the protection. And that is why, when it comes to things like the far edge of what is and isn't a "key" they're not going to be very sympathetic with the accused, but if it isn't a key, then they're not going to be very sympathetic with the prosecutor either.
It isn't a right that they wanted to have to give out, it isn't a right that we would need in a perfect world, and it isn't a right that the Court is going to want to expand. And if technology makes the right less useful, the Court will likely view that as a positive thing.
Oh yeah, certainly; that's why I know these boards are full of rednecks.
The contractor's board does that stuff all the time.
On the flip side, we have good Courts that generally clean it up in the end.
It is enough that I would not be willing to make a career change that required board certification. I looked into teaching mushroom and berry foraging classes in the summer, but it would require being licensed as a Wilderness Guide or Outfitter by the State Marine Board, and I'd have to retain liability insurance with $1,000,000 coverage for an entire calendar year. Their primary job is to oversea salt water fishing, they don't any idea how to manage something like a weekend seminar on wild blueberries. If I did the seminar entirely inside a classroom, or on private land not zoned as forest or wilderness, then they wouldn't be able to regulate it at all and instead of being a Wilderness Guide it wouldn't be regulated at all under Oregon law. I could legally do it on agricultural zoned land that had some forest on it, but not on land zoned as forest.
That's the funny part; narrow things that are covered by these boards are poorly managed, but business outside of those are often not regulated at all. We don't have generic business licenses, only an Assumed Business Name registration that isn't a license and can't be denied. But it flows from, we don't want engineering to be unregulated because then if there is an earthquake all the houses fall down and everybody dies. It happens in some places in the world, and those places do not have these redneck boards of engineers to protect them. We mismanage what we have to, but usually no more than that.
My bank isn't one of those three, and has lots of ATMs. That said, sounds like more of a life skills problem than a banking problem.
None of those banks have a fixed number of fees they refund. It doesn't take an hour to get a fee rescinded. If your banker told you that, it means you were being difficult, or otherwise asking in an ineffective way. The branch manager can always rescind fees at their discretion. And anyways, a couple fees is one thing, but why would you need some high number? Don't you learn how the accounts work the first time you get hit with the fee, and then know to avoid it if you don't want to pay? As for the time, it takes me an extra 30 seconds to 5 minutes to get a fee rescinded, depending on how easy it is to explain.
That said, you listed the three banks with the worst reputation for customer service, so if you're only willing to consider those options I would naturally predict your banking experience will be less pleasant than mine.
BTW, the fact that you are complaining about how they order transactions, instead of understanding how it works, is suggestive as to why you might quickly reach a patience limit with your banker. You need to start the day with the money already in your account that you will charge to that account today. Deposits will be there tomorrow. The reason they re-order the transactions is because it means they can process them in a single batch, instead of using a more complicated multi-stage process, but there is no reason for the client to worry about those implementation details. Just know to only charge to your account today things that you had enough money for this morning. If you put cash in today, think of it as being available tomorrow morning, and you won't have any ordering problems.
If for example you got a law passed to ban the banks from re-ordering the transactions, they'd just use a 2-stage process and the result would be exactly the same for you. So it is not worth complaining about.
I actually had a similar situation to what you described except that it wasn't because I misunderstood when my money in available, but because of an unexpected account fee when I had less than the fee in the account. Then, it added another fee every day for having a negative balance. It was a couple weeks before I noticed, and the account was way underwater at that point. In the end they refunded all the fees, including the original fee. Get a better bank, man.
Try to think of how what I said is true, before you try to tell me why it isn't. ;)
You simply didn't understand. I was going to explain further, but looking at it again, I already explained the part you missed. It doesn't "carry over" but the money in your bank account does. Maybe that helps?