The authority to issue this order (a writ) in this particular case. This is not a warrant. You need to understand that if you want to have this conversation.
Compound that with there *is* no party being charged (at this time). This is *not* a warrant and there's nobody who has been charged or indicted or arraigned or anything. That last part can be easily changed but, for now, there's nobody charged - they can charge one or both of the dead people posthumously.
Mostly true is not true. It is either true or not. Yes, yes I do think politicians should be held to a reasonable standard. My statement is correct. She's telling the truth less than 25% of the time.
Come to think of it... Wait, what? You're willing to accept "mostly true" and not be unhappy about that?
It's okay - my favorite candidate lies more often than she does - I'd already checked that. I just like his lies better. (Sanders.)
Seriously, it's reasonable to conclude that if Hillery is speaking, she's not telling the truth. With a politician, truth is a very binary thing. Unfortunately, we've been accepting lies for so long that we're now able to accept "mostly true" as the truth. That's horrible! (And I'm just as guilty.)
There is that. I've not looked at it like that. Now that I think of it, a small number did say something akin to, "They shouldn't force the company to..." However, the majority seemed inclined to postulate that it was a security and privacy overreach that could be used in more than one case. Of course, I think some of these people were also the ones who supported the TSA, DHS, and NSA's snorting up data like McAfee and an eight-ball of coke.
If an ISP wants to sell their service and it gives you limited access or intentionally degrades content that is not on its own network and, for example, wants to offer this at a lower price - then why shouldn't they be allowed to sell that service to someone who is a willing consumer of that service? Why are we restricting the freedom of choice from people?
To use the Free Basic thing, why would we take away the freedom of choice where, for example, someone could pay $1/mo for access to just Facebook and Wikipedia? Why not allow them to make that choice? If the customer only wants to pay to access those services (or might only be able to pay for those services) then why shouldn't they be free to do so?
Full disclosure: I've had parts of this conversation before so it's a semi-formalized debate. I've managed to "win" with it but I don't really hold a strong opinion either way. I can see both sides of the argument and I'm inclined to support neutrality but I feel that we have to keep logic and reason in the argument so someone has to play Devil's Advocate. If nobody does so, then how are we sure that we're being logical and not just operating based on emotions?
Do you sneak up behind the mentally handicapped and tie their shoelaces together? Do you go to the Special Olympics and change the tape that they run through to an electric fence? Probably not, right? So, what are you picking on that particular group of mentally handicapped for?;-)
Hmm... I'm very, very far to the left - as in, further left than any elected official at the Federal level - even left of Bernie. I'm just there for different reasons. (Don't take this wrong, I like to phrase it that I used logic and reasoned my way to my political position. I can elaborate if needed.)
I say that to point out that I think you might be a little off. If my memory is correct (and it might not be) the Republicans learned their tactics from the Democrats. They just have a different target but the tactics are the same. Hell, even the "Free Speech Zones" came from the Democrats. They were first used at the DNC in 1988, New York as I recall.
It amuses me to no end when the Dems bitch about the Reps tactics. "Oh, they're stalling!" Yes, yes they are... I wonder where they picked that up from? More current, the SCOTUS nominee? Biden rings a bell. No, the Republicans had a good mentor. I believe I said something like this back in the early 1980s, "This is not going to end well." That's probably fairly close to verbatim though it was a bit more nuanced in context. Now? I guess if I had to make a statement (and I feel inclined to) I'd say, "The chickens, they have come home to roost." Or, maybe, "You reap what you sow."
Don't read into that what I didn't say. That is not excusing their behavior, that's the reason for their behavior. It has escalated since in a tit-for-tat from both sides.
Seeing as I've already typed this much... I also must admit that I set a trap earlier but nobody fell for it. *sighs* I pointed out that Clinton, according to PolitiFact, tells the truth only about 25% of the time. I even linked to it. I was hoping someone would look up Sanders' rating. According to them, he tells the truth about 18% of the time. I was hoping someone would point out that the guy I support lies more often than Hillary. I'd already prepared my response, "Yes, but I like his lies better."
Alas, nobody noticed. I do think it's segues into this same line of thought nicely. Though, I should add that I think truth is a very binary thing where politics is concerned. "Mostly true" means not-true to me. It's either the truth or it isn't. There is no leeway where those entrusted with running the country is concerned. I do hold them to a high standard and I think I'm justified in doing so. I was really hopeful about using that line. I've not yet read all of the replies so I've still got a little bit of hope!
Will do and thanks. I see you in enough threads and don't care about an O/T moderation here and there. I've got karma to burn. Hell, someone annoyed me so I turned on the karma bonus. That'll teach 'em. Well, probably not but I can hope.
Do the paperwork yourself and have it checked by a lawyer. It's really not expensive. You can do it on your own if you want but I've never done it without getting it checked. I mostly get it checked because I want to share liability.;-)
Feel free to scroll through my post history. Under what authority does the judge issue these orders? Nobody has been able to cite where this authority is coming from. Lots of people have told me that I'm wrong, in lots of ways. Nobody has actually answered the damned question or shown where the authority comes from. The judge doesn't have this kind of power.
An example, albeit not a good one, is that even though there's litter on the ground, a judge can't just order a random person to pick it up. There's nobody even charged in this case. There has been no indictment, no arraignment, nothing... There's nobody charged AND if there were, I'm still not sure that the judge has authority to issue this order.
People are still running around calling it a warrant. It's not a warrant. It was never a warrant.
They're relatively inexpensive and the paperwork is tit-easy. It's easy enough that I can do it. I don't, but I can. I've done it and had it checked. I have oft-repeated that many folks here should look into the benefits of incorporation and hiring an accountant. Chances are good that the two will save you more than they cost. You don't need to hire an accountant but it's not easy to stay up-to-date with tax law changes and an accountant can often get better results than you can. On top of that, an accountant accepts liability.
In the matter of a corporation, why not take advantage of the benefits and protections afforded by forming one? There are many types and it is perfectly lawful and moral to do so. This thing of hating corporations is silly an unproductive. Learn what they are and take advantage of the protections. I've been saying this for, I dunno, years and years.
I'm not actually sure how my initial comment was a troll. Meh, I don't mind so much - I've got more karma than a god, I'm a little curious about the mentality of the moderator. Ah well... I'll just turn my karma bonus back on for a few days and crank it back up there and even higher. (Unless things have changed, the karma bonus is cumulative and no, I am not sure why. It's like a neat little hack that I noticed back when karma was still listed as a numeric value.)
AV has a current use but it's often A/V. AV, in context, is good for autonomous vehicles - I have found. You'll probably still get ACs saying "What's that?" They (seem to) like pretending that they aren't smart enough to pick things up in context. No, I am not sure why someone would announce to the world that they're unable to grasp something so simple but, there it is. For the rest of us, the 'aton' was easy enough to grok because we're not willfully obtuse.
As an automotive enthusiast, I was actually particularly intrigued by your turn of phrase. I even gave it some thought before scrolling and seeing this sub-thread. You know, I'd not be surprised to see that in use? It kind of makes sense and we humans are fairly lazy with our speech. I'd not be surprised at all to come back in 100 years and hear them called 'atons.'
By the way, the AC almost certainly didn't even "Google" the word. They're the same (type of) person who asks, "What does FTP mean? We shouldn't be expected to know these acronyms!"
In most areas that I've hunted, bucks just require a license - unless they don't have enough. Does require a separate license, that is granted by lottery, everywhere that I've hunted but not all the bucks. Some other animals require winning a lottery to get a tag. Moose and bear spring to mind as those seem to always require a lottery, though some may not even allow them to be hunted.
I have not hunted everywhere but I might have hunted in "most" States - I'm not actually sure. I've hunted in quite a few of 'em and I can't say that I've ever counted. I've only come across a couple where I needed to win a lottery for a buck permit/license if I were a resident. In some, you may need to win a lottery if you're not a resident but that's not often the case - in my experiences.
From the looks of things... The tires, wheels, brakes, the mirrors, and I think the glass are all recreations and the rubber's not even anything that was available for that model - never mind that it looks like they're radials (I can't really be certain but the sidewalls look pretty strong so they're almost certainly belted). I suspect the body is, at some point, still original in that, yeah, it had some original metal left.
So yeah, a "restored" A might be worth that. I didn't view your original link but an actual restoration (with original parts) is far, far more expensive. Without looking under the hood, without having a few charts with me, and without being able to check what's under that paint - I'm thinking you might actually want to let others do your shopping for you. Unless, of course, you want to use a very loose definition for "restored."
I disagree. They were scraping. Scraping doesn't have any additional connotations unless attached. It may even be done with permission. Knowing that you like to argue, I've gone ahead and grabbed a citation for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hate to say this but it's true. Many, I dare say most, people aren't actually interested in learning. They're not interested in constructive dialogue. They're not interested in changing their minds when presented with new information. They aren't interested in honest debate. They're not interested in accepting that they're wrong and adjusting their beliefs accordingly. They're sure as hell not interested in improving themselves because improving themselves involves both work and admission that they're less than perfect.
And, more on topic, scraping is a more specific type of copying. Being specific is a good thing. It means less confusion for those who actually understand the issues. Those who don't understand the issues probably don't have opinions of any value and can be discounted or ignored. Why they feel compelled, or perhaps entitled, to have a valued opinion is probably also a matter of ego - akin to needing to admin that they're not perfect in order to be willing to learn.
You hate corporations? Hmm... That seems a bit misguided. Do you actually know what a corporation is? No, seriously, do you know what a corporation is? It's okay to say you do not. There are quite a few people who seem to have absolutely no clue what a corporation is.
This is true, or at least I'm pretty sure it is. It's also important to note that they might even be incorporated, or not. I'd expect that a number of them are not actually incorporated. The funny thing is the people who have no idea what a corporation is. The other day, we had someone railing about how all corporations were evil - all of them. I know they meant all of them because I asked. They then railed about how we needed to use Linux and free software because corporations are evil.
*sighs* I linked to the corporate charters and/or articles of incorporation for the Linux Foundation, FSF, EFF and, I think, a couple of others. I don't think I've seen that person post since. I was actually expecting a response that said something about how they didn't mean those corporations. Yes, yes I did have a response already thought up for it but they didn't bother. I want to say it was within the past month. I've not noticed 'em posting since. Those damned evil corporations!
Through an odd turn of events, I know a couple of people who used to work for CPS-type services as "baby snatchers." Out of those, both quit. They've also both shared some of their experiences with me. I know exactly zero people who kept doing that job. There are times and places where it might be the safer choice to do some of the tings that are done by those groups (intentionally vague) but there's so much potential for abuse that it seems we might be better off just accepting the misfortune that comes from inaction.
The download stalled and never got meta data and proceeded. It's okay, I'll go searching and see if there are other documentaries that I can find.
I dunno? I've learned a lot through it. I guess, if you want, you could also 'man -k man >> man.txt' and read until you're happy. I think of it as a fine tutorial, coupled with --help, it goes a long ways. Or, well, it can *IF* it was well written.
Err... I have a copy, gathered with HTTrack, of the entire man pages. Yes, yes I do. Yes, yes I do read it. Yes, yes I am probably *not* in the group you'd define as "most."
I'm a bit lazy but if you spin up a Mint VM, Live USB, or fresh install then there's a usage tutorial in the "welcome to" screen that pops up on boot. I want to say that Ubuntu has one too? I am not sure... I do not believe that one comes with Lubuntu. I can't speak to the quality of any of them. While there's a good chance that I've read the man page - I've not actually read the official labeled tutorial on any of 'em. I have read quite a few of the --help outputs.
Slashdot Mirror
The authority to issue this order (a writ) in this particular case. This is not a warrant. You need to understand that if you want to have this conversation.
Compound that with there *is* no party being charged (at this time). This is *not* a warrant and there's nobody who has been charged or indicted or arraigned or anything. That last part can be easily changed but, for now, there's nobody charged - they can charge one or both of the dead people posthumously.
Mostly true is not true. It is either true or not. Yes, yes I do think politicians should be held to a reasonable standard. My statement is correct. She's telling the truth less than 25% of the time.
Come to think of it... Wait, what? You're willing to accept "mostly true" and not be unhappy about that?
It's okay - my favorite candidate lies more often than she does - I'd already checked that. I just like his lies better. (Sanders.)
Seriously, it's reasonable to conclude that if Hillery is speaking, she's not telling the truth. With a politician, truth is a very binary thing. Unfortunately, we've been accepting lies for so long that we're now able to accept "mostly true" as the truth. That's horrible! (And I'm just as guilty.)
There is that. I've not looked at it like that. Now that I think of it, a small number did say something akin to, "They shouldn't force the company to ..." However, the majority seemed inclined to postulate that it was a security and privacy overreach that could be used in more than one case. Of course, I think some of these people were also the ones who supported the TSA, DHS, and NSA's snorting up data like McAfee and an eight-ball of coke.
Hmm... I want to play Devil's Advocate?
If an ISP wants to sell their service and it gives you limited access or intentionally degrades content that is not on its own network and, for example, wants to offer this at a lower price - then why shouldn't they be allowed to sell that service to someone who is a willing consumer of that service? Why are we restricting the freedom of choice from people?
To use the Free Basic thing, why would we take away the freedom of choice where, for example, someone could pay $1/mo for access to just Facebook and Wikipedia? Why not allow them to make that choice? If the customer only wants to pay to access those services (or might only be able to pay for those services) then why shouldn't they be free to do so?
Full disclosure: I've had parts of this conversation before so it's a semi-formalized debate. I've managed to "win" with it but I don't really hold a strong opinion either way. I can see both sides of the argument and I'm inclined to support neutrality but I feel that we have to keep logic and reason in the argument so someone has to play Devil's Advocate. If nobody does so, then how are we sure that we're being logical and not just operating based on emotions?
Do you sneak up behind the mentally handicapped and tie their shoelaces together? Do you go to the Special Olympics and change the tape that they run through to an electric fence? Probably not, right? So, what are you picking on that particular group of mentally handicapped for? ;-)
Hmm... I'm very, very far to the left - as in, further left than any elected official at the Federal level - even left of Bernie. I'm just there for different reasons. (Don't take this wrong, I like to phrase it that I used logic and reasoned my way to my political position. I can elaborate if needed.)
I say that to point out that I think you might be a little off. If my memory is correct (and it might not be) the Republicans learned their tactics from the Democrats. They just have a different target but the tactics are the same. Hell, even the "Free Speech Zones" came from the Democrats. They were first used at the DNC in 1988, New York as I recall.
It amuses me to no end when the Dems bitch about the Reps tactics. "Oh, they're stalling!" Yes, yes they are... I wonder where they picked that up from? More current, the SCOTUS nominee? Biden rings a bell. No, the Republicans had a good mentor. I believe I said something like this back in the early 1980s, "This is not going to end well." That's probably fairly close to verbatim though it was a bit more nuanced in context. Now? I guess if I had to make a statement (and I feel inclined to) I'd say, "The chickens, they have come home to roost." Or, maybe, "You reap what you sow."
Don't read into that what I didn't say. That is not excusing their behavior, that's the reason for their behavior. It has escalated since in a tit-for-tat from both sides.
Seeing as I've already typed this much... I also must admit that I set a trap earlier but nobody fell for it. *sighs* I pointed out that Clinton, according to PolitiFact, tells the truth only about 25% of the time. I even linked to it. I was hoping someone would look up Sanders' rating. According to them, he tells the truth about 18% of the time. I was hoping someone would point out that the guy I support lies more often than Hillary. I'd already prepared my response, "Yes, but I like his lies better."
Alas, nobody noticed. I do think it's segues into this same line of thought nicely. Though, I should add that I think truth is a very binary thing where politics is concerned. "Mostly true" means not-true to me. It's either the truth or it isn't. There is no leeway where those entrusted with running the country is concerned. I do hold them to a high standard and I think I'm justified in doing so. I was really hopeful about using that line. I've not yet read all of the replies so I've still got a little bit of hope!
What, a brick? Seriously, what do you have that has zero components from China?
Will do and thanks. I see you in enough threads and don't care about an O/T moderation here and there. I've got karma to burn. Hell, someone annoyed me so I turned on the karma bonus. That'll teach 'em. Well, probably not but I can hope.
At any rate, I'll remind ya, thanks!
Do the paperwork yourself and have it checked by a lawyer. It's really not expensive. You can do it on your own if you want but I've never done it without getting it checked. I mostly get it checked because I want to share liability. ;-)
Well, that explains why it looked funny.
Feel free to scroll through my post history. Under what authority does the judge issue these orders? Nobody has been able to cite where this authority is coming from. Lots of people have told me that I'm wrong, in lots of ways. Nobody has actually answered the damned question or shown where the authority comes from. The judge doesn't have this kind of power.
An example, albeit not a good one, is that even though there's litter on the ground, a judge can't just order a random person to pick it up. There's nobody even charged in this case. There has been no indictment, no arraignment, nothing... There's nobody charged AND if there were, I'm still not sure that the judge has authority to issue this order.
People are still running around calling it a warrant. It's not a warrant. It was never a warrant.
They're relatively inexpensive and the paperwork is tit-easy. It's easy enough that I can do it. I don't, but I can. I've done it and had it checked. I have oft-repeated that many folks here should look into the benefits of incorporation and hiring an accountant. Chances are good that the two will save you more than they cost. You don't need to hire an accountant but it's not easy to stay up-to-date with tax law changes and an accountant can often get better results than you can. On top of that, an accountant accepts liability.
In the matter of a corporation, why not take advantage of the benefits and protections afforded by forming one? There are many types and it is perfectly lawful and moral to do so. This thing of hating corporations is silly an unproductive. Learn what they are and take advantage of the protections. I've been saying this for, I dunno, years and years.
I'm not actually sure how my initial comment was a troll. Meh, I don't mind so much - I've got more karma than a god, I'm a little curious about the mentality of the moderator. Ah well... I'll just turn my karma bonus back on for a few days and crank it back up there and even higher. (Unless things have changed, the karma bonus is cumulative and no, I am not sure why. It's like a neat little hack that I noticed back when karma was still listed as a numeric value.)
AV has a current use but it's often A/V. AV, in context, is good for autonomous vehicles - I have found. You'll probably still get ACs saying "What's that?" They (seem to) like pretending that they aren't smart enough to pick things up in context. No, I am not sure why someone would announce to the world that they're unable to grasp something so simple but, there it is. For the rest of us, the 'aton' was easy enough to grok because we're not willfully obtuse.
As an automotive enthusiast, I was actually particularly intrigued by your turn of phrase. I even gave it some thought before scrolling and seeing this sub-thread. You know, I'd not be surprised to see that in use? It kind of makes sense and we humans are fairly lazy with our speech. I'd not be surprised at all to come back in 100 years and hear them called 'atons.'
By the way, the AC almost certainly didn't even "Google" the word. They're the same (type of) person who asks, "What does FTP mean? We shouldn't be expected to know these acronyms!"
In most areas that I've hunted, bucks just require a license - unless they don't have enough. Does require a separate license, that is granted by lottery, everywhere that I've hunted but not all the bucks. Some other animals require winning a lottery to get a tag. Moose and bear spring to mind as those seem to always require a lottery, though some may not even allow them to be hunted.
I have not hunted everywhere but I might have hunted in "most" States - I'm not actually sure. I've hunted in quite a few of 'em and I can't say that I've ever counted. I've only come across a couple where I needed to win a lottery for a buck permit/license if I were a resident. In some, you may need to win a lottery if you're not a resident but that's not often the case - in my experiences.
If you're not strong enough to attack real monsters then you invent straw men and attack those. We're humans, it's what we do.
From the looks of things... The tires, wheels, brakes, the mirrors, and I think the glass are all recreations and the rubber's not even anything that was available for that model - never mind that it looks like they're radials (I can't really be certain but the sidewalls look pretty strong so they're almost certainly belted). I suspect the body is, at some point, still original in that, yeah, it had some original metal left.
So yeah, a "restored" A might be worth that. I didn't view your original link but an actual restoration (with original parts) is far, far more expensive. Without looking under the hood, without having a few charts with me, and without being able to check what's under that paint - I'm thinking you might actually want to let others do your shopping for you. Unless, of course, you want to use a very loose definition for "restored."
I disagree. They were scraping. Scraping doesn't have any additional connotations unless attached. It may even be done with permission. Knowing that you like to argue, I've gone ahead and grabbed a citation for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hate to say this but it's true. Many, I dare say most, people aren't actually interested in learning. They're not interested in constructive dialogue. They're not interested in changing their minds when presented with new information. They aren't interested in honest debate. They're not interested in accepting that they're wrong and adjusting their beliefs accordingly. They're sure as hell not interested in improving themselves because improving themselves involves both work and admission that they're less than perfect.
And, more on topic, scraping is a more specific type of copying. Being specific is a good thing. It means less confusion for those who actually understand the issues. Those who don't understand the issues probably don't have opinions of any value and can be discounted or ignored. Why they feel compelled, or perhaps entitled, to have a valued opinion is probably also a matter of ego - akin to needing to admin that they're not perfect in order to be willing to learn.
You hate corporations? Hmm... That seems a bit misguided. Do you actually know what a corporation is? No, seriously, do you know what a corporation is? It's okay to say you do not. There are quite a few people who seem to have absolutely no clue what a corporation is.
> FTFY.
I dunno... Seems redundant to me. ;-)
This is true, or at least I'm pretty sure it is. It's also important to note that they might even be incorporated, or not. I'd expect that a number of them are not actually incorporated. The funny thing is the people who have no idea what a corporation is. The other day, we had someone railing about how all corporations were evil - all of them. I know they meant all of them because I asked. They then railed about how we needed to use Linux and free software because corporations are evil.
*sighs* I linked to the corporate charters and/or articles of incorporation for the Linux Foundation, FSF, EFF and, I think, a couple of others. I don't think I've seen that person post since. I was actually expecting a response that said something about how they didn't mean those corporations. Yes, yes I did have a response already thought up for it but they didn't bother. I want to say it was within the past month. I've not noticed 'em posting since. Those damned evil corporations!
AFAIK, most anything that begins with 'AFAIK' is probably wrong.
Then again, I think that anything that begins with 'I think' is likely to have serious veracity issues.
SMB is a Small or Mid-size (sometimes medium) Business and is usually 249, or fewer, employees.
Through an odd turn of events, I know a couple of people who used to work for CPS-type services as "baby snatchers." Out of those, both quit. They've also both shared some of their experiences with me. I know exactly zero people who kept doing that job. There are times and places where it might be the safer choice to do some of the tings that are done by those groups (intentionally vague) but there's so much potential for abuse that it seems we might be better off just accepting the misfortune that comes from inaction.
The download stalled and never got meta data and proceeded. It's okay, I'll go searching and see if there are other documentaries that I can find.
I dunno? I've learned a lot through it. I guess, if you want, you could also 'man -k man >> man.txt' and read until you're happy. I think of it as a fine tutorial, coupled with --help, it goes a long ways. Or, well, it can *IF* it was well written.
Err... I have a copy, gathered with HTTrack, of the entire man pages. Yes, yes I do. Yes, yes I do read it. Yes, yes I am probably *not* in the group you'd define as "most."
I'm a bit lazy but if you spin up a Mint VM, Live USB, or fresh install then there's a usage tutorial in the "welcome to" screen that pops up on boot. I want to say that Ubuntu has one too? I am not sure... I do not believe that one comes with Lubuntu. I can't speak to the quality of any of them. While there's a good chance that I've read the man page - I've not actually read the official labeled tutorial on any of 'em. I have read quite a few of the --help outputs.