Okay, my initial post was a little uneven. Both innocent commitment issues and other cases of sneakiness are involved. An infant child is worth over $5,000 in some cases per year depending on the tax benefits claimed, and it's "instant" because it's tax law driven, no application anywhere needed. So then there ARE some mothers who game the system. Ask around in the right places.
The problem exists, though I'll say it doesn't necessarily require a marriage to start with. I'll avoid the "Citation needed" gig, and instead reply that you should ask around about the "Head of Household" income tax status on the US tax code. The kids appear, the marriage collapses, and then the father is on the hook by law because the woman doesn't re-marry (which would end the child support). Then the woman "conveniently" gets a new boyfriend in her life who pays for the perks of living, and the child support payments come in on top of that for 18 years but the ex only gets to see the kids twice a week or whatever.
"Why get rid of the dad" is the point, because for the women who do this, sometimes they're all hot and saucy and even like it for a year, but then they get bored and move on but now the kid is in the picture. It's about a lack of commitment to hold down the marriage "for better and worse" etc. And this isn't "we tried for 9 years and it didn't work", just look at the ages of the kids. 2 year olds etc.
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms. They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash. Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
Remember good French Slashdot readers, it is the French ISP Free.fr that is doing this! What Free.fr is doing might be controversial! But never ever forget that Free.fr is innovating in the internet marketing space!
We actually did, the next batch of critters will have 100 newbies, who are even LESS willing to compromise. The Tea Party has trapped the R side of the Aisle.
I know about four sentences of a whole lot of stuff. It's like it's a party game, you can drop a key word or two, but the min any actual specialist asks you a question, you're hosed.
I'll reply to you, way down here, because the first half of the entire chain got eaten by the hijacked first post. (offtopic - ever wanna know how to Influence A Thread? Look at how many times the First Post title gets copied without being changed!)
I'm glad this case got settled "right", because any cheap 2-cent murder tale (meant in the fashion of the old days of pulp thrillers from 1920, not as an insult!) would have had this kind of thing, but because it's not *visual* it's suddenly against morals? Really?!
So at least y'all escaped one cheap trick of a trap that could have only turned out badly. If it had been in the US with Shooter CT Mania it might have gone the other way. : (
We basically beat that one too, they're at like 0-4 and they're pissed. Hence we're seeing the spin campaigns starting. I think the Fiscal Cliff is crowding out the meme space, so they have to get past that one, and then we might see more updates about spring.
Not all functions have that luxury. "Half an hour to get back in the groove" can be seen as "wasting time". In the place I worked, emails meant that you had a little bit of time to answer it, IM's meant that every minute you burned answering it was some one else's minute they couldn't do their job, so you were the one on the "timer". And no, you could maybe squeak 7 minutes to "get back in the groove" before something else popped up.
I'll say you had a good first phrase that can be useful.
Managers rely on the tech team to know what not to do. The mistake in "don't do that, it's idiotic" is that the last word suddenly makes it Ad Hominem. It stops being informative and becomes an attack. "Don't do that, it (making up something here, don't hurt me) interferes with the nightly backup integrity which means you might not be able log onto the system at all if any other glitch happens" is informative. With a few minutes to think they can realize that's a Bad Thing. Bad Things cost money. So maybe a rule of thumb is to avoid Adverbs. If you find a sentence about to end in an Adverb, maybe replace it with an extended noun clause. I know, all fancy English grammar, but a Factoid is what it is, that's what the techies do. Adverbs are judgemental.
For 20 years the standard advice especially for Minors (Think of the Kiddies!!) was to "never give out identifiable info online". So when did that suddenly change when they turn 19 and join Facebook?
"Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."
Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!
For the record, does Instagram's TOS have the usual "we can change this policy at our discretion without notice at any time" famous clause? Because this strikes me as a huge Contract Law grab. Last I knew from when Contract Law almost made sense, EULA/TOS type agreements are supposedly agreements between both vendor and the user, and being generous enough to say the user actually read the legalese.
However a policy change like this then becomes something our user *specifically did not agree to*. In particular, our hypothetical careful user probably looked at the original policy, decided it was okay, and then posted his pictures. No rational user can expect to use a service allowing for *unlimited* unilateral policy changes that may occur at random points in the future. You might as well say "we have the right to come to your house and take additional pictures of you to verify your Instagram identity with the police" or some nonsense.
Another point to consider is that a lot of business data is "Encoded". You hear a lot of stuff like "X company is 'concerned' about some such development". They can't outright say "Jim over at Seagate told me that his last batch of inventory was defective and so he won't meet his numbers this quarter" because that is too obvious. So they say things like "concerned" about "the current trends in the hard drive business being sustainable".
Unlike writing a review saying a game is "bad", it's often far easier to define "bad work" in construction in any of several categories. In a sense construction is one of the more notorious fields that shysters can lurk in, and this has resulted in some basic protections for both sides. So let's say she wanted a room painted, if anything the construction company did wasn't up to code, BOOM, it's "bad work". Or, presuming they did their contracting process right, it may be valid work, but if they didn't actually use the right grades of materials and tried to save a buck, it's breach of contract.
I'm this far down and I seem to be missing something. Why do you (for example) have a copy at all? This is what I see as the big coming collision of the Sharing 2.0 web. Let's say I upload a picture to my website or YouTube channel, meta-data it, register it, and all. Why do any other copies go anywhere at all?
It's because we have an old web culture to the point of "if it's cool I'll share it" and then someone *forwards a copy*. BANG. That's where all the stuff the music industry has been doing kicks in. The person forwarding/reposting/whatever is making those copies.
There's different kinds of works but copyright law is struggling to encompass all of them. Handed a movie DVD people will at least need and have some kind of hand-waving answer to copyright about "sharing" it with their friends. Handed a clip of a cat doing a backflip and they'll go "ooh, kittiez, I'll post this to my page."
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, my initial post was a little uneven. Both innocent commitment issues and other cases of sneakiness are involved. An infant child is worth over $5,000 in some cases per year depending on the tax benefits claimed, and it's "instant" because it's tax law driven, no application anywhere needed. So then there ARE some mothers who game the system. Ask around in the right places.
See the article a few above this one - they are starting to figure them out. I am only one of many though!
You could always type in Gangnam Style!
The problem exists, though I'll say it doesn't necessarily require a marriage to start with. I'll avoid the "Citation needed" gig, and instead reply that you should ask around about the "Head of Household" income tax status on the US tax code. The kids appear, the marriage collapses, and then the father is on the hook by law because the woman doesn't re-marry (which would end the child support). Then the woman "conveniently" gets a new boyfriend in her life who pays for the perks of living, and the child support payments come in on top of that for 18 years but the ex only gets to see the kids twice a week or whatever.
"Why get rid of the dad" is the point, because for the women who do this, sometimes they're all hot and saucy and even like it for a year, but then they get bored and move on but now the kid is in the picture. It's about a lack of commitment to hold down the marriage "for better and worse" etc. And this isn't "we tried for 9 years and it didn't work", just look at the ages of the kids. 2 year olds etc.
It's NOT the majority, but it DOES happen.
Haha I missed the AC button. Oh well. I can take the karma hit.
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms.
They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash.
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
They just did!
Remember good French Slashdot readers, it is the French ISP Free.fr that is doing this! What Free.fr is doing might be controversial! But never ever forget that Free.fr is innovating in the internet marketing space!
It absolutely is.
I dunno exactly who thought it up, but spending was never a problem for 8 years of "Staying The Course In The War On Terror".
We actually did, the next batch of critters will have 100 newbies, who are even LESS willing to compromise. The Tea Party has trapped the R side of the Aisle.
Not really buying it.
If you got a kiddo with a 150+ IQ, your lectures on Gilgamesh will be wasted. End Of Story.
Problem is, if you're off your guns just a little, you get dropped by the Genius Envy crowd and then you're just cooked.
I'm lost, he apparently wrote a bunch of stuff on his deathbed and sent it all to Mr. Hardy.
Hi AC,
I know about four sentences of a whole lot of stuff. It's like it's a party game, you can drop a key word or two, but the min any actual specialist asks you a question, you're hosed.
Play real life Angry Birds?
I'll reply to you, way down here, because the first half of the entire chain got eaten by the hijacked first post. (offtopic - ever wanna know how to Influence A Thread? Look at how many times the First Post title gets copied without being changed!)
I'm glad this case got settled "right", because any cheap 2-cent murder tale (meant in the fashion of the old days of pulp thrillers from 1920, not as an insult!) would have had this kind of thing, but because it's not *visual* it's suddenly against morals? Really?!
So at least y'all escaped one cheap trick of a trap that could have only turned out badly. If it had been in the US with Shooter CT Mania it might have gone the other way. : (
We basically beat that one too, they're at like 0-4 and they're pissed. Hence we're seeing the spin campaigns starting. I think the Fiscal Cliff is crowding out the meme space, so they have to get past that one, and then we might see more updates about spring.
Not all functions have that luxury. "Half an hour to get back in the groove" can be seen as "wasting time". In the place I worked, emails meant that you had a little bit of time to answer it, IM's meant that every minute you burned answering it was some one else's minute they couldn't do their job, so you were the one on the "timer". And no, you could maybe squeak 7 minutes to "get back in the groove" before something else popped up.
I'll say you had a good first phrase that can be useful.
Managers rely on the tech team to know what not to do. The mistake in "don't do that, it's idiotic" is that the last word suddenly makes it Ad Hominem. It stops being informative and becomes an attack. "Don't do that, it (making up something here, don't hurt me) interferes with the nightly backup integrity which means you might not be able log onto the system at all if any other glitch happens" is informative. With a few minutes to think they can realize that's a Bad Thing. Bad Things cost money. So maybe a rule of thumb is to avoid Adverbs. If you find a sentence about to end in an Adverb, maybe replace it with an extended noun clause. I know, all fancy English grammar, but a Factoid is what it is, that's what the techies do. Adverbs are judgemental.
(Grumpy)
Once again we get an article on how the Web has changed. They list 5 companies in the summary... and Facebook gets the Graphic on the article?!
Hmm.
For 20 years the standard advice especially for Minors (Think of the Kiddies!!) was to "never give out identifiable info online". So when did that suddenly change when they turn 19 and join Facebook?
"Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."
Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!
For the record, does Instagram's TOS have the usual "we can change this policy at our discretion without notice at any time" famous clause? Because this strikes me as a huge Contract Law grab. Last I knew from when Contract Law almost made sense, EULA/TOS type agreements are supposedly agreements between both vendor and the user, and being generous enough to say the user actually read the legalese.
However a policy change like this then becomes something our user *specifically did not agree to*. In particular, our hypothetical careful user probably looked at the original policy, decided it was okay, and then posted his pictures. No rational user can expect to use a service allowing for *unlimited* unilateral policy changes that may occur at random points in the future. You might as well say "we have the right to come to your house and take additional pictures of you to verify your Instagram identity with the police" or some nonsense.
Another point to consider is that a lot of business data is "Encoded". You hear a lot of stuff like "X company is 'concerned' about some such development". They can't outright say "Jim over at Seagate told me that his last batch of inventory was defective and so he won't meet his numbers this quarter" because that is too obvious. So they say things like "concerned" about "the current trends in the hard drive business being sustainable".
Unlike writing a review saying a game is "bad", it's often far easier to define "bad work" in construction in any of several categories. In a sense construction is one of the more notorious fields that shysters can lurk in, and this has resulted in some basic protections for both sides. So let's say she wanted a room painted, if anything the construction company did wasn't up to code, BOOM, it's "bad work". Or, presuming they did their contracting process right, it may be valid work, but if they didn't actually use the right grades of materials and tried to save a buck, it's breach of contract.
I'm this far down and I seem to be missing something. Why do you (for example) have a copy at all? This is what I see as the big coming collision of the Sharing 2.0 web. Let's say I upload a picture to my website or YouTube channel, meta-data it, register it, and all. Why do any other copies go anywhere at all?
It's because we have an old web culture to the point of "if it's cool I'll share it" and then someone *forwards a copy*. BANG. That's where all the stuff the music industry has been doing kicks in. The person forwarding/reposting/whatever is making those copies.
There's different kinds of works but copyright law is struggling to encompass all of them. Handed a movie DVD people will at least need and have some kind of hand-waving answer to copyright about "sharing" it with their friends. Handed a clip of a cat doing a backflip and they'll go "ooh, kittiez, I'll post this to my page."