Not that I can understand why anybody would want to drink McDonald's coffee anyway -- it's HORRIBLE! But that's just my opinion.
I used to think that the reason they were serving it so hot was to numb your throat so you didn't notice how horrible it was. So, IMHO, that was the best part of the fallout from the lawsuit; McDonald's now serves some fairly good coffee at a decent temperature.
On the other hand, kids that are of a coloring-book age (like my 5-year-old) at this point probably don't remember September 11, 2001, anyhow.
That's the reason that the book as it was should have been pulled and re-written. Explaining "a scary thing" and how people respond to it should be based on incidents that will be understandable to the "kids of coloring-book age." The events of 9/11 and the utter screw-up surrounding Katrina are now too far away in both place and time to be relevant to most kids of that age. The "scary thing" should be something that they can relate to, like "Mr. Jones's house caught fire" or "two cars hit each other in front of our house." Then the book can explain the role of fire fighters, paramedics, ambulances, etc. in an understandable context.
Good points, phantomfive, although I was trying to make the point that, at least with regard to their GM crops, Monsanto appears quite capable of ignoring the facts of life. BTW, your signature is great.
It's not like Monsanto suddenly owns all pigs ever born.....they can still keep using normal, everyday, unmodified pigs like they do now.
Yeah, right...if one of the Monsanto boars gets loose, all the pig farmers in the area will get sued on the theory that the Monsanto pig impregnated all of their sows and they now owe Monsanto royalties on all the progeny. Just look at their history of suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by pollen from nearby Monsanto-licensed fields of the same crops. For the full saga of one such case which the farmer had to take all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, see http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm. Mr. Schmeiser's fight, along with Monsanto's other dirty tactics, is also covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
And finally, just to annoy you some more, there's a split infinitive in the first sentence of this post.
Are you trying to taunt PitaBred into further pedantry? I'm sure that you are familiar with Fowler's discussions of split infinitives, e.g.,Robert Allen, ed (2002). "Split infinitive". Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press, quoted inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
No other grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split infinitive was declared to be a solecism in the 19c: raise the subject of English usage in any conversation today and it is sure to be mentioned.
I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise
I applaud your honesty, artor3, and agree that many, if not most, of the downloaders are just rationalizing their copyright infringement. On the other hand, it seems that today's record company setup requires you to buy a whole album at $10-$20 in order to have the 2 or 3 songs you really want.
It might be helpful for both sides of the issue for someone to research whether people are downloading entire albums or only single cuts from the albums. If my suspicions are correct, the RIAA member companies could eliminate a lot of this P2P activity by simply going back to the practice of selling singles. In fact isn't that what places like iTunes are doing -- essentially selling singles? If they're making money by doing so, then the RIAA might want to change their methods of issuing music, thus making life simpler and cheaper for everyone.
Do you really have reason to believe that dissenting is "a down-moddable 'offense'," or are you just letting off steam because AC's always start at -1 and seldom get up-modded unless they're presenting a view that is relevant to the discussion? I can't speak for anyone else but I use about 95-98% of any mod points I'm given to reward those who say something meaningful, informative and/or funny in relation to the subject raised in the original summary. So, in answer to your implied question, I'd be glad to have the same moderation standards applied to my submissions.
I just keep remembering that Orwell was a Brit. He may have gotten the year wrong in 1984, but it's looking more like he really understood their government.
I wonder if the dual screen will sell any better than the "butterfly" keyboard that was part of the IBM Think Pad in the 90's. Apparently, at that time, IBM thought that what laptop users wanted was a larger keyboard, so there was some sort of mechanism by which the keyboard on the laptop spread out. IIRC, this setup didn't work as well in practice as it did on paper, and didn't last very long.
I don't see how you can make the case that waiving the 4th means you've waived the 5th. If you're dumb enough to let the cops search your place and they find some dope, that's exactly when you need to shut up and ask for a lawyer.
There's a very good article discussing your point with reference to the magistrate's decision in the case. The columnist/law professor has answered your concerns much better than I can.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20080204.html
According to TFA, he opened the Z drive and the inspector saw the directory list, including a file name that contained titles suggestive of child porn, such as "rape of 2 year old."
The safe is a different issue and they'd have to ask separately for you to open that but once you let them AND agree that they can search the house, you can't suddenly decide that your bedroom is off limits. Of course, if you change your mind and ask them to leave, that will probably be all the evidence they'd need to get a search warrant.
If you agree to a search, then you are required to testify at your trial? IANAL, but that seems... odd. The two don't really seem related.
You're correct in believing that he still would not be required to testify at trial. However, what was being discussed in TFA was a grand jury proceeding, which is much more like a police investigation than a trial. A grand jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence; they just decide if there is enough evidence that a crime has been committed and the subject of the investigation should be tried.
It wasn't just that he admitted that it was his laptop; he actually opened the Z drive for the border agent who then saw evidence of child pornography. This is like you standing at your door and saying, "Of course you can come in and search my house, officer." Once you've done that, you can't really take the 5th with regard to the illegal items they find in that search.
And before someone raises the issue, the decision should come down differently if the illegal goods were found in your roommates room and you had no way of knowing that he possessed these items.
Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.
Two points here: first, no attorney I've ever met will spend billable time making changes to any agreement unless the client asks for a change. Second, sometimes some member of the client's staff, in an attempt to impress the boss, will come up with language that was used at his former employer and have it inserted in the contract. Then when the shit hits the fan, he'll try to blame it on the attorneys.
Not only is IE impossible to remove, MS has made it against your best interest to remove it. At some point, Windows Explorer (the functional equivalent of Krusader) was transmogrified into a part of IE. I think it was about the time they finally got rid of that ridiculous dog, which was such a great change that none of us noted the much less obvious change in Windows Explorer.
So much of this discussion reminds me of the 50's and 60's Mutually Assured Destruction which was truly a MAD waste of time and money. At some point, we need to get over the "my dad can beat your dad" thinking, and quit applying it to "my bombs or my drone planes or my satellites" or whatever other weaponry in which we think we have the upper hand.
It might even be helpful if we started applying some sense instead of just flexing our muscles and refusing to abide by the rules (i.e., the Geneva convention) that we expect others to follow. I believe that this is where President Obama is headed and IMHO it certainly beats the "bomb them back into the Stone Age" rhetoric.
I was wondering if anyone would get to this point. Our family was not at all rich and we never had lots of books around, let alone a house packed with them, but we went to the library at least twice a month. These days, I enjoy reading news stories and short articles on line, but I don't think I'll ever lose the enjoyment of turning that first page of a new book.
That's a very good moral lesson, barneco; even if this stunt was not very original. The idea of doing a total wipe like this was the basis of John D. McDonald's 1984 book, One More Sunday. It's a very good read except for those who believe that the charismatic, television preachers are actually conveying a moral lesson.
I'm not sure why parent was modded Flamebait but he's right. The soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as dead as those killed in WWII or any other war or"police action." Believe me, all states of war are equal when you're on the wrong end of an enemy weapon.
The install took me about 20 seconds, because I had to twice tell Firefox it was okay to download the program. Although I've been anti-Microsoft for several years, I have to give them kudos for this.
Happy Say Goodbye to Dubya Day to everyone.
[This is in addition to] the $33 million already settled upon between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Wachovia Bank, which allegedly processed thousands of unauthorized demand drafts on Suntasia's behalf.
I'm not exactly sure why the Comptroller of the Currency, or anyone else for that matter, believes that Wachovia was the only bank player in the game. I've received these "try a month for free" offers from a couple of other large banks. These include the "buyer's discount clubs," the "save money on travel clubs" and my newest favorite, the "death or disability" plans. They jumped to the top of the list when the salesperson explained that my premium would only be equal to 3% of my current balance.
That would not be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is to willfully, and usually with great public fanfare, break a law in an attempt to showcase the unjustness of that law. Choosing not to take a bus is a customer choice, not civil disobedience.
You really should read the Wikipedia article or one of the contemporaneous accounts of the boycott. It began when Rosa Parks was arrested for for refusing to give up her seat in favor of a white person. The fanfare began that evening with a newsletter urging all black citizens to avoid riding the bus on the following Monday. The boycott ended up lasting over a year and was widely reported all over the country. During that time, many of the protesters were arrested for their actions; one of those jailed was Rev. Martin Luther King, who stated:
"I was proud of my crime. It was the crime of joining my people in a nonviolent protest against injustice."
The "fanfare" continued when a court case involving the segregation of Montgomery's busses was declared unlawful by the US Supreme Court.
civil disobedience against unjust, anti-consumer, and economically crushing copyright over-reach,
is rather disingenuous. I agree that the extreme extensions of the length of copyright protections have become "the elephant in the room." However, piracy of new games, music and/or movies is not truly a civil protest against those extensions but is actually a complete rejection of any form of copyright.
Consider, for example, a fairly recent example of true civil disobedience to an unjust law - the Mongomery Bus Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott). Those who wished to bring attention to the unjustness of the bus segregation rules did not ride the busses while paying nothing or only what they felt was a "fair" price; they simply refused to ride the busses.
Likewise, an appropriate protest against "copyright over-reach" would be a refusal to use the overreaching media in any form; in other words, don't buy it, don't pirate it, and don't even use the free demo. If everyone who feels "economically crushed" by the current copyright laws had the patience to boycott the products, they might be able to change the current rules rather than encouraging the producers to try more restrictive means of enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I can understand why anybody would want to drink McDonald's coffee anyway -- it's HORRIBLE! But that's just my opinion.
I used to think that the reason they were serving it so hot was to numb your throat so you didn't notice how horrible it was. So, IMHO, that was the best part of the fallout from the lawsuit; McDonald's now serves some fairly good coffee at a decent temperature.
On the other hand, kids that are of a coloring-book age (like my 5-year-old) at this point probably don't remember September 11, 2001, anyhow.
That's the reason that the book as it was should have been pulled and re-written. Explaining "a scary thing" and how people respond to it should be based on incidents that will be understandable to the "kids of coloring-book age." The events of 9/11 and the utter screw-up surrounding Katrina are now too far away in both place and time to be relevant to most kids of that age. The "scary thing" should be something that they can relate to, like "Mr. Jones's house caught fire" or "two cars hit each other in front of our house." Then the book can explain the role of fire fighters, paramedics, ambulances, etc. in an understandable context.
Good points, phantomfive, although I was trying to make the point that, at least with regard to their GM crops, Monsanto appears quite capable of ignoring the facts of life. BTW, your signature is great.
It's not like Monsanto suddenly owns all pigs ever born.....they can still keep using normal, everyday, unmodified pigs like they do now.
Yeah, right...if one of the Monsanto boars gets loose, all the pig farmers in the area will get sued on the theory that the Monsanto pig impregnated all of their sows and they now owe Monsanto royalties on all the progeny. Just look at their history of suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by pollen from nearby Monsanto-licensed fields of the same crops. For the full saga of one such case which the farmer had to take all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, see http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm. Mr. Schmeiser's fight, along with Monsanto's other dirty tactics, is also covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
And finally, just to annoy you some more, there's a split infinitive in the first sentence of this post.
Are you trying to taunt PitaBred into further pedantry? I'm sure that you are familiar with Fowler's discussions of split infinitives, e.g.,Robert Allen, ed (2002). "Split infinitive". Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press, quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
as well as his latter division of English-speakers into four classes with regard to their opinions regarding split infinitives, quoted in full in "Fowler on the Split Infinitive," http://hubpages.com/hub/splitinfinitive. See also James Thurber's sexist but hilarious discussion of the topic at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/thurber-split.html.
I'm man enough to admit that I have pirated music which I would have paid for otherwise
I applaud your honesty, artor3, and agree that many, if not most, of the downloaders are just rationalizing their copyright infringement. On the other hand, it seems that today's record company setup requires you to buy a whole album at $10-$20 in order to have the 2 or 3 songs you really want.
It might be helpful for both sides of the issue for someone to research whether people are downloading entire albums or only single cuts from the albums. If my suspicions are correct, the RIAA member companies could eliminate a lot of this P2P activity by simply going back to the practice of selling singles. In fact isn't that what places like iTunes are doing -- essentially selling singles? If they're making money by doing so, then the RIAA might want to change their methods of issuing music, thus making life simpler and cheaper for everyone.
But at least no one is trying to attribute it to anchors dragging along the sea bottom.
Do you really have reason to believe that dissenting is "a down-moddable 'offense'," or are you just letting off steam because AC's always start at -1 and seldom get up-modded unless they're presenting a view that is relevant to the discussion? I can't speak for anyone else but I use about 95-98% of any mod points I'm given to reward those who say something meaningful, informative and/or funny in relation to the subject raised in the original summary. So, in answer to your implied question, I'd be glad to have the same moderation standards applied to my submissions.
I just keep remembering that Orwell was a Brit. He may have gotten the year wrong in 1984, but it's looking more like he really understood their government.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expandable+keyboard+puts+new+IBM+ThinkPad+in+a+class+of+its+own-a016694636
I don't see how you can make the case that waiving the 4th means you've waived the 5th. If you're dumb enough to let the cops search your place and they find some dope, that's exactly when you need to shut up and ask for a lawyer.
There's a very good article discussing your point with reference to the magistrate's decision in the case. The columnist/law professor has answered your concerns much better than I can. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20080204.html
According to TFA, he opened the Z drive and the inspector saw the directory list, including a file name that contained titles suggestive of child porn, such as "rape of 2 year old."
The safe is a different issue and they'd have to ask separately for you to open that but once you let them AND agree that they can search the house, you can't suddenly decide that your bedroom is off limits. Of course, if you change your mind and ask them to leave, that will probably be all the evidence they'd need to get a search warrant.
If you agree to a search, then you are required to testify at your trial? IANAL, but that seems... odd. The two don't really seem related.
You're correct in believing that he still would not be required to testify at trial. However, what was being discussed in TFA was a grand jury proceeding, which is much more like a police investigation than a trial. A grand jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence; they just decide if there is enough evidence that a crime has been committed and the subject of the investigation should be tried.
And before someone raises the issue, the decision should come down differently if the illegal goods were found in your roommates room and you had no way of knowing that he possessed these items.
Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.
Two points here: first, no attorney I've ever met will spend billable time making changes to any agreement unless the client asks for a change. Second, sometimes some member of the client's staff, in an attempt to impress the boss, will come up with language that was used at his former employer and have it inserted in the contract. Then when the shit hits the fan, he'll try to blame it on the attorneys.
Not only is IE impossible to remove, MS has made it against your best interest to remove it. At some point, Windows Explorer (the functional equivalent of Krusader) was transmogrified into a part of IE. I think it was about the time they finally got rid of that ridiculous dog, which was such a great change that none of us noted the much less obvious change in Windows Explorer.
It might even be helpful if we started applying some sense instead of just flexing our muscles and refusing to abide by the rules (i.e., the Geneva convention) that we expect others to follow. I believe that this is where President Obama is headed and IMHO it certainly beats the "bomb them back into the Stone Age" rhetoric.
I was wondering if anyone would get to this point. Our family was not at all rich and we never had lots of books around, let alone a house packed with them, but we went to the library at least twice a month. These days, I enjoy reading news stories and short articles on line, but I don't think I'll ever lose the enjoyment of turning that first page of a new book.
That's a very good moral lesson, barneco; even if this stunt was not very original. The idea of doing a total wipe like this was the basis of John D. McDonald's 1984 book, One More Sunday. It's a very good read except for those who believe that the charismatic, television preachers are actually conveying a moral lesson.
I'm not sure why parent was modded Flamebait but he's right. The soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as dead as those killed in WWII or any other war or"police action." Believe me, all states of war are equal when you're on the wrong end of an enemy weapon.
The install took me about 20 seconds, because I had to twice tell Firefox it was okay to download the program. Although I've been anti-Microsoft for several years, I have to give them kudos for this. Happy Say Goodbye to Dubya Day to everyone.
[This is in addition to] the $33 million already settled upon between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Wachovia Bank, which allegedly processed thousands of unauthorized demand drafts on Suntasia's behalf.
I'm not exactly sure why the Comptroller of the Currency, or anyone else for that matter, believes that Wachovia was the only bank player in the game. I've received these "try a month for free" offers from a couple of other large banks. These include the "buyer's discount clubs," the "save money on travel clubs" and my newest favorite, the "death or disability" plans. They jumped to the top of the list when the salesperson explained that my premium would only be equal to 3% of my current balance.
You really should read the Wikipedia article or one of the contemporaneous accounts of the boycott. It began when Rosa Parks was arrested for for refusing to give up her seat in favor of a white person. The fanfare began that evening with a newsletter urging all black citizens to avoid riding the bus on the following Monday. The boycott ended up lasting over a year and was widely reported all over the country. During that time, many of the protesters were arrested for their actions; one of those jailed was Rev. Martin Luther King, who stated:
The "fanfare" continued when a court case involving the segregation of Montgomery's busses was declared unlawful by the US Supreme Court.
civil disobedience against unjust, anti-consumer, and economically crushing copyright over-reach,
is rather disingenuous. I agree that the extreme extensions of the length of copyright protections have become "the elephant in the room." However, piracy of new games, music and/or movies is not truly a civil protest against those extensions but is actually a complete rejection of any form of copyright.
Consider, for example, a fairly recent example of true civil disobedience to an unjust law - the Mongomery Bus Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott). Those who wished to bring attention to the unjustness of the bus segregation rules did not ride the busses while paying nothing or only what they felt was a "fair" price; they simply refused to ride the busses.
Likewise, an appropriate protest against "copyright over-reach" would be a refusal to use the overreaching media in any form; in other words, don't buy it, don't pirate it, and don't even use the free demo. If everyone who feels "economically crushed" by the current copyright laws had the patience to boycott the products, they might be able to change the current rules rather than encouraging the producers to try more restrictive means of enforcement.