WinXP allows users to set date-separators and the like in a way that makes unambiguous date/time parsing impossible.
That's a microsoft thing. Similarly, a.xls file created with a non-english excel (we often receive such files from clients who use excel in french) uses commas as the float separator and is unreadable in another version of excel.
There are tons of similar default behaviour of microsoft softwares that makes you want to kill people as soon as you begin working internationally.
While I was working for Microsoft, there was a webpage that handled various things about your paycheck, like how much to contribute to your 401(k), etc. Well, using the German client, I almost always had the German locale on my computer, and any time I told it that I wanted to save "8,00%" of my paycheck, it was all "ZOMG!!! YOU CAN'T SAVE 8000% OF YOUR PAYCHECK!!!"
There were a lot of annoying bugs in their webpages all over the place from a blanket assumption that the period and comma will be used the same as the American locale, but at the same time they apply localization upon the number.
I just wonder who did Microsoft hire that was retarded enough to localize the output but not the input? Seriously, if you can load the page, don't change anything, and hit submit, it should work regardless of locale.
I filed bugs, but if you knew how many bugs are currently active and open against various things, then you'd understand why it never got fixed.
EA execs must be circle-jerking right now. They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop. I find it hilarious, though. EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.
Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon", and says that (paraphrasing) "cosmic rays are single atoms" and in the same sentence (because it's a runon, like this one) that we've never observed a quark in cosmic rays. All credibility is lost with that, and that's the problem with even debating this issue... the average person has no real decent understanding of the actual risks involved, but if they know about it, they get all paranoid, and someone breaks out the SciFi.
Last time I checked, we are already spending millions on trying to stop car crashes, especially drunk driving, which is the biggest problem.
Right, but are we spending relative to the deaths that they cause? Are you seriously going to suggest to me that we implement the same amount of security theater in our cars as we do for planes?
No, with cars, we seriously, and honestly smash them together at speed to ensure that what we're doing actually does something real.
We should be testing this stuff more often. If the government were sending bombs on a regular basis through planes in the luggage of the average passenger, then we'd be well practiced at finding it.
Using innocent and unsuspecting members of the public to do it though seems like a pretty fucked up thing to be doing and I hope whoevers idea this was gets punished appropriately.
If you are a goverment want to do a test of airport security systems then fine but use someone who has agreed to do it, agree it with the governments of target countries first and give that person ID so that they can prove that they are doing an official test.
Then you're catching people who are giving off other clues than just that they are carrying a bomb.
The unfortunate reason for using unknowing participants in this case were likely for doing a double blind test.
but not at one time.. Cancer kill thousands of people, but if you kill 20 at one time.. the news will not shut up..
or maybe this logic should be carried on, well your honor, I only killed 1 person, the Flu kills more than that, so why should I serve anytime?
The argument is not that we should ignore terrorism, but rather put it in perspective. A slow trickle of water from a leaky faucet over time will make you lose more money in wasted water than drafting a whole bath and then not using it at all.
It's all about getting PRIORITIES straight.
A better question based off what you proposed is to ask why the government spent more catching me as a murderer of one person, than it did curing the flu.
SUBPOENA, chancery practice. A mandatory writ or process, directed to and requiring one or more persons to appear at a time to come, and answer the matters charged against him or them; the writ of subpoena was originally a process in the courts of common law, to enforce the attendance of a witness to give evidence; but this writ was used in the court of chancery for the game purpose as a citation in the courts of civil and canon law, to compel the appearance of a defendant, and to oblige him to answer upon oath the allegations of the plaintiff.
That just screams "politely worded request" doesn't it? It sounds like either the cop couldn't/didn't get one and tried anyway, or somebody's throwing around the word subpoena to make the request sound more legitimate.
That the word subpoena was used three times strongly suggests that word does not mean what somebody thinks it means.
There are also "subpoena ducum tecum", which is essentially an order to supply a set of records under penalty of law, and can be worded in such a way as to not even require the appearance of the individual themselves at all.
The last statement that you said is probably the most clear and poignant... someone along the chain of reporting what happened is unclear about what "subpoena" actually means.
But everyone should understand this very well, a "subpoena ducum tecum" has the same force as a warrant. The difference is that the subpoena asks you to supply the information, while the warrant authorizes them to come and take the information.
As I said above, this guy needs to hire a competant lawyer to skim the EULA, check for breaches of data protection legislation, and get the case dropped.
If he has any sense, he won't try and sue Blizzard, though. He could, however, write to the guys who prosecute crime (In the UK we call them the Crown Prosecution Service) to take it up. GLWT, though.
As noted above, the EULA says exactly that they may pass out any and all information that they have on you to legal authorities for, as loosely as it is worded, pretty much any reason.
Not to mention that the prosecutors, or attorneys for Blizzard could note that Blizzard does business in the state of Indiana, and in particular, in the specific jurisdiction that they are in, and thus is bound by the subpoena. (Feasibly, the court could produce an order stating that Blizzard would be unable to provide their gaming service within their jurisdiction for failure to respond to a valid subpoena.)
Any lawyer should probably try what you're suggesting, but it would in all likelihood get swatted down. So, really, any smart lawyer worth their salt would likely weigh the cost of fighting it vs the chances of it actually working, and drop it.
To use the car analogy: the reason that there are still motorcycles cars AND SUVs is because each person chooses what is most important to them. People each make their individual choices about what is most important to them.
Back to the non-analogy: you're happy with your droid, and it does what you need/want it to. My friend has a 7" or 8" netbook, and it fits in her purse, and it does everything she wants it to. I have a 10" netbook, and it fits in my backpack, I don't carry it with me at all time, but I don't need it to be with me all the time. My boyfriend has a desktop and a full laptop... it works fine for what he needs to do with it.
The reason why netbooks will stick around for the long-term is because it fills a niche. Even with convergence, each device will converge in a slightly different way, based on what it is capable of. When phones start having a full keyboard (no matter the size) I may need to evaluate my needs, but until then, my netbook is the closest to perfect I can get.
Since when does some @$$hole NJ judge have a right decide to shutdown a web site that is critical to corporate interest ?
Since the individual websites allowed defamatory comment, and refused to produce any names or identifying information about the individual posters, and likely refused to take down said defamatory material.
They're suing for copyright infringement as well as libel? Please tell me there's something more to the libel allegations than just the posting of the contract. Otherwise, they're either suing for libel over the posting of a legitimate document or suing for copyright infringement over a document they do not own.
Yes, the two are separate claims. First the claim is copyright infringement for releasing a contract of theirs, and second is the libel claim for comments made my anonymous posters at the three relevant websites.
It's likely that since the websites refuse to comply with producing the names of the individual tortfeasors that the court is holding the websites themselves liable for the libel by shutting them down.
Actually, the judge does have authority to do this as long as he's not making a prior-restraint action. In this case, the judge has found that the content on the webpages is prima facie defamatory, and needs be taken down until such time as a full look can be made at the content.
It is likely that this action was taken because the websites in question refuse to, or are unable to produce the identities of those individuals making the defamatory comments.
You also seem to lack knowledge about how the judicial system works, because in a Common Law system such as we have in the United States, the significant amount of what is "legal" was established by judges hundreds of years ago, not by any legislative body. That one can sue a company for a dangerous product? Judicial activism. Trials for embezzlement? Judicial activism. In the Common Law system, you're more likely than not to come across a law being based on "judicial activism" than it being original legislation.
If you want a court system where the highest court can only render one page summary conclusions about which legislatively-enacted law applies in this specific instance you'll need to move to France, or another continental European country.
Except when the quality declines, and is considered acceptable because it saves so much money. The world is full of copy-and-paste programmers, and call centers with thick accents and no grasp of common English. And Americans are the worst to trust with voting with their dollars. The vast majority pick the cheapest every time, with no regard to quality.
Actually, "Common English" continues to be Commonwealth English, which is slightly different from American English...
And Americans can have just as thick of an accent as well. It's why there aren't generally call centers in the deep south, or in the Bronx.
Are you suggesting sensible behaviour from the war-on-drugs crowd? Please. If they were capable of that, then we'd already have legalised drugs. Let's face it, we can't stop drugs, and if we could control them at least they'd be clean, and the profits could go to making drugs for ill people or whatever rather than crime. It's not perfect, but it'd be better than the current situation. Of course, everyone has it beaten into them the current stance is the only good one.
There is a fundamental conflict here in that changing the course of the war-on-drugs requires a "compromise of moral position". While it's certainly true that we make these compromises all the time some people will choose to dig in their heals when presented with the possibility of compromise, and will refuse to budge. They convince themselves that they're holding back a sea of water by plugging their finger in the dike, and if they compromise just a bit that it will flood the entire countryside.
For instance, on Oct 30, 2009, Ms. Langley appeared on a local TV station, Fox 35 (Ex. A-3). Langley was introduced as being one of "some of his people [Grayson] represents [who are getting really upset." Langley pretended to be a person whom I represent. During the interview, the interviewer said that Langley "lives in Lake County, one of the districts that Congressman Grayson represents." Langley continued the charade that she lives in my district. She even claimed that "I have many friends who voted for him." to try to cement the misperception that she lives in FL-8.
Similarly, in an Oct. 31, 2009, interview in the Washington Times (Ex. 4), Ms. Langley falsely claimed that she lives "in the Lake County portion of Mr. Grayson's distrct" (Ex. A-4).
You can make any number of arguments that you want, but when the facts are documented, it gets kind of hard to back out of a lie.
Yeah, I don't want to sit here and defend him very far... he's made some comments that have made some people take an aback and pissed off more than a few people... I think it's best to let people form their own opinions about him.
That said, I don't agree with FoxNews portraying this as "omg! he says that she says he's her congressman, but she's NOT, and he wants her to go to jail for it!"
I am no lawyer, so I am interested in what anyone that has insight into these particular laws might have to say.
Question: Just because this PAC has chosen this particular congressman to attack, can we infer that the PAC is going to stop with him? Can't they argue that this congressman inspired the concept? That they will move on to other congressmen (men as in mankind, i.e. male or female) later as they too demonstrate they too are "nuts"?
Can't the 'my' then in the domain name refer to all of us that read this site, and contribute to this site over time?
In which case it seems to me that our dear congressmen is attempting to be overly literal and overly strict temporally to claim that the maximum punishment allowed by law should be applied.
Oh, and he is being stupid.
The particular individual has repeatedly said openly on various news programs that she formed the group explicitly to get him defeated, and that is their entire purpose.
She has been and is currently soliciting funds from people under the claim that she is a constituent of Congressman Grayson, which she clearly is not, and as a former Republican part organizer should be well aware that he is not her elected representative.
Also, the FEC has already been informed about her actions, and they have reprimanded her already. As well, it's only natural for any victim to call for the maximum punishment allowable, which is why judges perform the actual sentencing.
However, Grayson is taking one more measured step in the correct process for dealing with illegal campaigning... this is not necessarily an overreaction, and it's not necessarily unwarranted.
Yay. I'm with you on this one. At the moment Rep Alan Grayson is a champion of truth, justice, etc etc. All the qualities you'd actually LIKE to see in a congressional representative. So I was a bit surprised when I read the headline. Then I clicked the link and realized it went to foxnews.com. Fox News has been trying to paint Rep. Grayson as a nutjob for a LONG time. He gets in the way of their agenda.
First line FTFA
My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."
A bit sensionalist don't ya think. I bet halfway through the article it talks about how he wants to kill babies and eat their brains. Well I chuckled, closed the link, and moved on.
Nothing to see here folks.
Yeah, well, then you read the four page document to Eric Holder, and you find out that she actually organized a PAC with the FEC and is soliciting money to use against him and only him, in violation of the terms under which her PAC was established... so... yeah, not like Fox News would totally gloss over the huge pointy teeth on the rabbit, but rather just point and laugh at Tim saying, "you're crazy!!!"
Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.
I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.
Actually, the "crime" here is that she organized a PAC with legal status with the FEC in order to solicit funds to defeat Grayson in the next election. Only, PACs must endorse more than one candidate or be against more than one candidate.
The reason the word "my" comes into play here is that she is not one of his constituents although she is soliciting money and funds from people under the misrepresentation that she is.
This isn't about whether Grayson is trying to censor opposing viewpoints, this is about if she, or the PAC materially committed fraud.
When I saw that this article was on foxnews.com it immediately raised my skept-o-meter into thinking that there is more to this story than was presented. And of course it suits Fox New's agenda to skim over the part where she's collecting money in a potentially fraudulent manner.
Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 1
I even speak American Sign Language, and I know that it's just as much a language as any other language. But consider this stuff:
Noam Chimpsky had a native sign-language speaker observing his signing. That native signer submitted less signs signed by Noam Chimpsky than any other observer... he then rigorously observed himself and others to determine the cause of this difference. He then realized, that other observers were indicating signs that were not valid words.
When I talk about someone cutting me off on the road, I don't use a single sign for "cutting off". I sign that I am driving, and using classifiers, I indicate which car is me, and which car is them, and use non-verbal gestures to indicate the actions taken by the other driver.
No one denies that Kiko uses signs, and uses signs in simple combinations. However, building compound words is not considered syntax in linguistics, it's morphology.
Kiko speaks sign language as if speaking a pidgin... with no defined or consistent syntax.
Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 1
I believe I said that humans had yet to FIND anything that can use syntax, and grammar. (And not "grammar girl" grammar, I mean, real linguistic grammar.)
I fully hold that humans are just another animal, however bats are the only mammals that can fly... the fact that we have syntax, and have yet to find another animal capable of this?
It's interesting regardless of the "pompus aire" that it gives us.
This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There are so many people out there who have been pushing for "animals can speak!" and "we taught monkeys to use sign language!" And it's like, as a linguist, one has to pull out all sorts of jargon and details about why this isn't actual language.
Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language. You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.
That's why I think this is so cool... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.
It's not bigoted. You conveniently left out the part where spousal abusers that happen to be female are treated far less harshly than males are. And that the police rarely enforce the law when it's the women that's doing the beating.
Yes, there's plenty that I left out. However, I don't refuse to acknowledge it. You're right that domestic violence perpetrated by women against men is definitely poorly handled.
And part of that is because our culture instills beliefs in us, that results in these irrational actions.
But don't try and tell me that the genders have equality, when I'm treated like an idiot constantly, despite being a brilliant and accomplished programmer.
Which is sort of ironic, since you've just proven my point, women are held to a lower standard, and these sorts of ignorant bitchy outbursts just reinforce the idea that women can't form a cogent argument.
You're demonstrating your own misogyny here... just because something is a bitchy outburst doesn't mean that it's not a cogent argument.
I made an argument through the whole post talking about how our culture still reinforces stereotypes about the genders, and how even if legally there's nothing stopping a woman from being president, that doesn't mean that anyone actually believes that a woman would be a capable president.
I make quite a convincing eloquent argument, and end it with "shut your f*ing face", and what do you do? You reinforce my claims and the claims of the study mentioned in TFA, and skip over everything intelligent in my argument, and call me a bitch, and that I was just making a stupid bitchy outburst...
God sir, I do hope that one day, you are confronted with a large and unwieldy item that should be inserted forcibly into your rectum... and at such time, I will gain a small mote of happiness in continuing existence.
Slashdot Mirror
WinXP allows users to set date-separators and the like in a way that makes unambiguous date/time parsing impossible.
That's a microsoft thing. .xls file created with a non-english excel (we often receive such files from clients who use excel in french) uses commas as the float separator and is unreadable in another version of excel.
Similarly, a
There are tons of similar default behaviour of microsoft softwares that makes you want to kill people as soon as you begin working internationally.
While I was working for Microsoft, there was a webpage that handled various things about your paycheck, like how much to contribute to your 401(k), etc. Well, using the German client, I almost always had the German locale on my computer, and any time I told it that I wanted to save "8,00%" of my paycheck, it was all "ZOMG!!! YOU CAN'T SAVE 8000% OF YOUR PAYCHECK!!!"
There were a lot of annoying bugs in their webpages all over the place from a blanket assumption that the period and comma will be used the same as the American locale, but at the same time they apply localization upon the number.
I just wonder who did Microsoft hire that was retarded enough to localize the output but not the input? Seriously, if you can load the page, don't change anything, and hit submit, it should work regardless of locale.
I filed bugs, but if you knew how many bugs are currently active and open against various things, then you'd understand why it never got fixed.
Not an issue. We'll hit the Mayan calendar 2012 bug first.
Stupid Mayan computers not being able to handle a 14th B'ak'tun... why did we have to program the universe in Mayan again?
EA execs must be circle-jerking right now. They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop. I find it hilarious, though. EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.
They play sports games... duh.
Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon", and says that (paraphrasing) "cosmic rays are single atoms" and in the same sentence (because it's a runon, like this one) that we've never observed a quark in cosmic rays. All credibility is lost with that, and that's the problem with even debating this issue... the average person has no real decent understanding of the actual risks involved, but if they know about it, they get all paranoid, and someone breaks out the SciFi.
Last time I checked, we are already spending millions on trying to stop car crashes, especially drunk driving, which is the biggest problem.
Right, but are we spending relative to the deaths that they cause? Are you seriously going to suggest to me that we implement the same amount of security theater in our cars as we do for planes?
No, with cars, we seriously, and honestly smash them together at speed to ensure that what we're doing actually does something real.
We should be testing this stuff more often. If the government were sending bombs on a regular basis through planes in the luggage of the average passenger, then we'd be well practiced at finding it.
Using innocent and unsuspecting members of the public to do it though seems like a pretty fucked up thing to be doing and I hope whoevers idea this was gets punished appropriately.
If you are a goverment want to do a test of airport security systems then fine but use someone who has agreed to do it, agree it with the governments of target countries first and give that person ID so that they can prove that they are doing an official test.
Then you're catching people who are giving off other clues than just that they are carrying a bomb.
The unfortunate reason for using unknowing participants in this case were likely for doing a double blind test.
but not at one time.. Cancer kill thousands of people, but if you kill 20 at one time.. the news will not shut up..
or maybe this logic should be carried on, well your honor, I only killed 1 person, the Flu kills more than that, so why should I serve anytime?
The argument is not that we should ignore terrorism, but rather put it in perspective. A slow trickle of water from a leaky faucet over time will make you lose more money in wasted water than drafting a whole bath and then not using it at all.
It's all about getting PRIORITIES straight.
A better question based off what you proposed is to ask why the government spent more catching me as a murderer of one person, than it did curing the flu.
As written in a law dictionary:
SUBPOENA, chancery practice. A mandatory writ or process, directed to and
requiring one or more persons to appear at a time to come, and answer the
matters charged against him or them; the writ of subpoena was originally a
process in the courts of common law, to enforce the attendance of a witness
to give evidence; but this writ was used in the court of chancery for the
game purpose as a citation in the courts of civil and canon law, to compel
the appearance of a defendant, and to oblige him to answer upon oath the
allegations of the plaintiff.
That just screams "politely worded request" doesn't it? It sounds like either the cop couldn't/didn't get one and tried anyway, or somebody's throwing around the word subpoena to make the request sound more legitimate.
That the word subpoena was used three times strongly suggests that word does not mean what somebody thinks it means.
There are also "subpoena ducum tecum", which is essentially an order to supply a set of records under penalty of law, and can be worded in such a way as to not even require the appearance of the individual themselves at all.
The last statement that you said is probably the most clear and poignant... someone along the chain of reporting what happened is unclear about what "subpoena" actually means.
But everyone should understand this very well, a "subpoena ducum tecum" has the same force as a warrant. The difference is that the subpoena asks you to supply the information, while the warrant authorizes them to come and take the information.
As I said above, this guy needs to hire a competant lawyer to skim the EULA, check for breaches of data protection legislation, and get the case dropped.
If he has any sense, he won't try and sue Blizzard, though. He could, however, write to the guys who prosecute crime (In the UK we call them the Crown Prosecution Service) to take it up. GLWT, though.
As noted above, the EULA says exactly that they may pass out any and all information that they have on you to legal authorities for, as loosely as it is worded, pretty much any reason.
Not to mention that the prosecutors, or attorneys for Blizzard could note that Blizzard does business in the state of Indiana, and in particular, in the specific jurisdiction that they are in, and thus is bound by the subpoena. (Feasibly, the court could produce an order stating that Blizzard would be unable to provide their gaming service within their jurisdiction for failure to respond to a valid subpoena.)
Any lawyer should probably try what you're suggesting, but it would in all likelihood get swatted down. So, really, any smart lawyer worth their salt would likely weigh the cost of fighting it vs the chances of it actually working, and drop it.
To use the car analogy: the reason that there are still motorcycles cars AND SUVs is because each person chooses what is most important to them. People each make their individual choices about what is most important to them.
Back to the non-analogy: you're happy with your droid, and it does what you need/want it to. My friend has a 7" or 8" netbook, and it fits in her purse, and it does everything she wants it to. I have a 10" netbook, and it fits in my backpack, I don't carry it with me at all time, but I don't need it to be with me all the time. My boyfriend has a desktop and a full laptop... it works fine for what he needs to do with it.
The reason why netbooks will stick around for the long-term is because it fills a niche. Even with convergence, each device will converge in a slightly different way, based on what it is capable of. When phones start having a full keyboard (no matter the size) I may need to evaluate my needs, but until then, my netbook is the closest to perfect I can get.
Since when does some @$$hole NJ judge have a right decide to shutdown a web site that is critical to corporate interest ?
Since the individual websites allowed defamatory comment, and refused to produce any names or identifying information about the individual posters, and likely refused to take down said defamatory material.
They're suing for copyright infringement as well as libel? Please tell me there's something more to the libel allegations than just the posting of the contract. Otherwise, they're either suing for libel over the posting of a legitimate document or suing for copyright infringement over a document they do not own.
Yes, the two are separate claims. First the claim is copyright infringement for releasing a contract of theirs, and second is the libel claim for comments made my anonymous posters at the three relevant websites.
It's likely that since the websites refuse to comply with producing the names of the individual tortfeasors that the court is holding the websites themselves liable for the libel by shutting them down.
Actually, the judge does have authority to do this as long as he's not making a prior-restraint action. In this case, the judge has found that the content on the webpages is prima facie defamatory, and needs be taken down until such time as a full look can be made at the content.
It is likely that this action was taken because the websites in question refuse to, or are unable to produce the identities of those individuals making the defamatory comments.
You also seem to lack knowledge about how the judicial system works, because in a Common Law system such as we have in the United States, the significant amount of what is "legal" was established by judges hundreds of years ago, not by any legislative body. That one can sue a company for a dangerous product? Judicial activism. Trials for embezzlement? Judicial activism. In the Common Law system, you're more likely than not to come across a law being based on "judicial activism" than it being original legislation.
If you want a court system where the highest court can only render one page summary conclusions about which legislatively-enacted law applies in this specific instance you'll need to move to France, or another continental European country.
Except when the quality declines, and is considered acceptable because it saves so much money. The world is full of copy-and-paste programmers, and call centers with thick accents and no grasp of common English. And Americans are the worst to trust with voting with their dollars. The vast majority pick the cheapest every time, with no regard to quality.
Actually, "Common English" continues to be Commonwealth English, which is slightly different from American English...
And Americans can have just as thick of an accent as well. It's why there aren't generally call centers in the deep south, or in the Bronx.
You forgot the line: "NO CARRIER".
Are you suggesting sensible behaviour from the war-on-drugs crowd? Please. If they were capable of that, then we'd already have legalised drugs. Let's face it, we can't stop drugs, and if we could control them at least they'd be clean, and the profits could go to making drugs for ill people or whatever rather than crime. It's not perfect, but it'd be better than the current situation. Of course, everyone has it beaten into them the current stance is the only good one.
There is a fundamental conflict here in that changing the course of the war-on-drugs requires a "compromise of moral position". While it's certainly true that we make these compromises all the time some people will choose to dig in their heals when presented with the possibility of compromise, and will refuse to budge. They convince themselves that they're holding back a sea of water by plugging their finger in the dike, and if they compromise just a bit that it will flood the entire countryside.
For instance, on Oct 30, 2009, Ms. Langley appeared on a local TV station, Fox 35 (Ex. A-3). Langley was introduced as being one of "some of his people [Grayson] represents [who are getting really upset." Langley pretended to be a person whom I represent. During the interview, the interviewer said that Langley "lives in Lake County, one of the districts that Congressman Grayson represents." Langley continued the charade that she lives in my district. She even claimed that "I have many friends who voted for him." to try to cement the misperception that she lives in FL-8.
Similarly, in an Oct. 31, 2009, interview in the Washington Times (Ex. 4), Ms. Langley falsely claimed that she lives "in the Lake County portion of Mr. Grayson's distrct" (Ex. A-4).
You can make any number of arguments that you want, but when the facts are documented, it gets kind of hard to back out of a lie.
Yeah, I don't want to sit here and defend him very far... he's made some comments that have made some people take an aback and pissed off more than a few people... I think it's best to let people form their own opinions about him.
That said, I don't agree with FoxNews portraying this as "omg! he says that she says he's her congressman, but she's NOT, and he wants her to go to jail for it!"
That's just simplifying the news down too far...
I am no lawyer, so I am interested in what anyone that has insight into these particular laws might have to say.
Question: Just because this PAC has chosen this particular congressman to attack, can we infer that the PAC is going to stop with him? Can't they argue that this congressman inspired the concept? That they will move on to other congressmen (men as in mankind, i.e. male or female) later as they too demonstrate they too are "nuts"?
Can't the 'my' then in the domain name refer to all of us that read this site, and contribute to this site over time?
In which case it seems to me that our dear congressmen is attempting to be overly literal and overly strict temporally to claim that the maximum punishment allowed by law should be applied.
Oh, and he is being stupid.
The particular individual has repeatedly said openly on various news programs that she formed the group explicitly to get him defeated, and that is their entire purpose.
She has been and is currently soliciting funds from people under the claim that she is a constituent of Congressman Grayson, which she clearly is not, and as a former Republican part organizer should be well aware that he is not her elected representative.
Also, the FEC has already been informed about her actions, and they have reprimanded her already. As well, it's only natural for any victim to call for the maximum punishment allowable, which is why judges perform the actual sentencing.
However, Grayson is taking one more measured step in the correct process for dealing with illegal campaigning... this is not necessarily an overreaction, and it's not necessarily unwarranted.
Yay. I'm with you on this one. At the moment Rep Alan Grayson is a champion of truth, justice, etc etc. All the qualities you'd actually LIKE to see in a congressional representative. So I was a bit surprised when I read the headline. Then I clicked the link and realized it went to foxnews.com. Fox News has been trying to paint Rep. Grayson as a nutjob for a LONG time. He gets in the way of their agenda.
First line FTFA
My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."
A bit sensionalist don't ya think. I bet halfway through the article it talks about how he wants to kill babies and eat their brains. Well I chuckled, closed the link, and moved on.
Nothing to see here folks.
Yeah, well, then you read the four page document to Eric Holder, and you find out that she actually organized a PAC with the FEC and is soliciting money to use against him and only him, in violation of the terms under which her PAC was established... so... yeah, not like Fox News would totally gloss over the huge pointy teeth on the rabbit, but rather just point and laugh at Tim saying, "you're crazy!!!"
Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.
I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.
Actually, the "crime" here is that she organized a PAC with legal status with the FEC in order to solicit funds to defeat Grayson in the next election. Only, PACs must endorse more than one candidate or be against more than one candidate.
The reason the word "my" comes into play here is that she is not one of his constituents although she is soliciting money and funds from people under the misrepresentation that she is.
This isn't about whether Grayson is trying to censor opposing viewpoints, this is about if she, or the PAC materially committed fraud.
When I saw that this article was on foxnews.com it immediately raised my skept-o-meter into thinking that there is more to this story than was presented. And of course it suits Fox New's agenda to skim over the part where she's collecting money in a potentially fraudulent manner.
I even speak American Sign Language, and I know that it's just as much a language as any other language. But consider this stuff:
Noam Chimpsky had a native sign-language speaker observing his signing. That native signer submitted less signs signed by Noam Chimpsky than any other observer... he then rigorously observed himself and others to determine the cause of this difference. He then realized, that other observers were indicating signs that were not valid words.
When I talk about someone cutting me off on the road, I don't use a single sign for "cutting off". I sign that I am driving, and using classifiers, I indicate which car is me, and which car is them, and use non-verbal gestures to indicate the actions taken by the other driver.
No one denies that Kiko uses signs, and uses signs in simple combinations. However, building compound words is not considered syntax in linguistics, it's morphology.
Kiko speaks sign language as if speaking a pidgin... with no defined or consistent syntax.
I believe I said that humans had yet to FIND anything that can use syntax, and grammar. (And not "grammar girl" grammar, I mean, real linguistic grammar.)
I fully hold that humans are just another animal, however bats are the only mammals that can fly... the fact that we have syntax, and have yet to find another animal capable of this?
It's interesting regardless of the "pompus aire" that it gives us.
There are so many people out there who have been pushing for "animals can speak!" and "we taught monkeys to use sign language!" And it's like, as a linguist, one has to pull out all sorts of jargon and details about why this isn't actual language.
Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language. You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.
That's why I think this is so cool... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.
It's not bigoted. You conveniently left out the part where spousal abusers that happen to be female are treated far less harshly than males are. And that the police rarely enforce the law when it's the women that's doing the beating.
Yes, there's plenty that I left out. However, I don't refuse to acknowledge it. You're right that domestic violence perpetrated by women against men is definitely poorly handled.
And part of that is because our culture instills beliefs in us, that results in these irrational actions.
But don't try and tell me that the genders have equality, when I'm treated like an idiot constantly, despite being a brilliant and accomplished programmer.
Which is sort of ironic, since you've just proven my point, women are held to a lower standard, and these sorts of ignorant bitchy outbursts just reinforce the idea that women can't form a cogent argument.
You're demonstrating your own misogyny here... just because something is a bitchy outburst doesn't mean that it's not a cogent argument.
I made an argument through the whole post talking about how our culture still reinforces stereotypes about the genders, and how even if legally there's nothing stopping a woman from being president, that doesn't mean that anyone actually believes that a woman would be a capable president.
I make quite a convincing eloquent argument, and end it with "shut your f*ing face", and what do you do? You reinforce my claims and the claims of the study mentioned in TFA, and skip over everything intelligent in my argument, and call me a bitch, and that I was just making a stupid bitchy outburst...
God sir, I do hope that one day, you are confronted with a large and unwieldy item that should be inserted forcibly into your rectum... and at such time, I will gain a small mote of happiness in continuing existence.