Better yet, I love how "cermanic and concrete" are somehow natural because they're made of natural materials. As if they're somehow more natural than plastic. I am reminded of Abstruse Goose.
Okay, this is something that's been bugging me for quite a while now. Here in Ottawa, there's typically about a second or two where all the lights are red before the next direction turns green. Is this not the case in the USA? As in, do the lights in the NS direction turn green exactly when the lights in the EW direction turn red?
To follow up on the other part of your question (what do I do), here are my suggestions.
See if there are any documents that back you up on this, e.g. style documents, and so on. Use them to your advantage.
Find people he's worked with before and see if this is a chronic issue, or if they've ever made headway on getting him to clean things up.
Get a feel of the culture there. If there's a culture of "get 'er done", you might be out of luck.
Talk to him. Let him know that you're having a hard time following his work in the format he typically hands to you, and that you end up spending a great deal of time refactoring things so that you can properly implement it. Emphasize that the whole project will go much smoother and faster if he's willing to spend some of his time cleaning things up. If you're lucky, he cleans things up. If you're less lucky, maybe he'll at least acknowledge the extra overhead, and manage his expectations of you accordingly.
Give up. If the guy is senior enough, or he's got an "in" with upper management, or he's just an asshole, then it might be better for you to just slog along and wait until the product launches.
(c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.
(d) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under any other Federal statute.
So in other words (if I understand the ruling & law correctly), for songs recorded before 1972, the parts of the DMCA granting rights & remedies apply, but not the parts of the DMCA removing previous rights and remedies (i.e. the safe harbour bits).
According to the article, "any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this Title until 2067". So in other words, the old works get the old protections for 95 years, as well as any new protections. So in this case, it seems that the old State-licensed works get all the benefits of the copyright term extension acts.
As for the belief/morality.. while it varies, it usually stems from the perception that many animals are thinking, feeling, social creatures.. not as intelligent or self aware as humans but possessing the same basic capabilities in diminished capacity.. thus they apply the same moral standards that society normally receives for diminished humans like babies or the mentally handicapped. Thus treatment that we would generally not accept for such people are also morally reprehensible to them for animals. Naturally there is a lot of variance there though.
And hence my confusion. If these people want a better life for these animals, then why are they so willing to kill them? I mean, at least WBC makes a certain twisted amount of sense - they hate everyone, believe everyone is going to hell, and believe that their job is to remind everyone of the horrible plight that will befall them. It's horrible, but at least it's consistent. For animal rights activists to kill animals simply beggars belief.
I am willing to abandon all modern medicines beyond antibiotics from say, 20 years ago.
So to clarify, you'd willingly give up the vaccinations for Lyme disease, rotavirus, and HPV? And finally, I hope that you never get cancer, because I'd be willing to wager that the best drugs have been developed fairly recently.
We also have to agree though to stop developing chemicals which cause new and old diseases to proliferate.
You do realize that antibiotics are the drugs most likely to cause resistant strains of bacteria, right? Other than that, I have no idea what chemicals are allowing diseases to proliferate.
Oh and stop feeding animals with inappropriate diets which cause things like prions to also spread. Who's with me?!
I'll give you this one, but I'm unsure as to how this relates to the rest of your post.
So they believe animal testing is morally wrong. Why? Is that a root belief, or does that derive from some other belief. For example, I believe that the anti-vaccination group is wrong, not in and of itself, but because I believe that 1) anti-vaccination propaganda leads to reduced vaccination rates, 2) reduced vaccination rates leads to more dead or crippled children, and 3) I believe in improving the quality of life for people where it is possible and the risks and side-effects are negligible. That is to say, there are several other things that lead me to believe that anti-vaccination teachings are morally wrong.
So if they believe a priori that animal testing is wrong, then I'll argue with them there. But surely they have to have a deeper reason than that. I mean, I can easily see the argument that animal testing is or can be cruel to animals, and I'm more than willing to take steps to reduce the animals' suffering. So if that's the case, then why are groups like them (and PETA - see PETA's disturbingly low adoption rates) so intent on rescuing animals only to kill them?
Put all of the relevant information in your will, or in a sealed & notarized envelope only to be opened upon your death. Accounts, password, approximate contents, the whole shebang. If you're worried about someone taking this information before you're dead, put in a single account and password to your KeyPass database, or an e-mail account that only has usernames / password, etc. Then, find some way of tracking access to that account, so that it pings you when someone uses it. Heck, even add a 1-week timer to it, so that they have to be sure you're dead before they can get those passwords.
Basically, rely on the systems we've always used to pass along our inheritance.
The full quote is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." So the question is this: are guns an essential liberty? And is the safety obtained by restricting gun use (if there is any) temporary?
I think that for my first federal election, I had to wait in line outside, but that's only because it was done in a relatively unused office, and hence there was very little internal space. My other elections have since typically been at school gymnasiums, with much more space for queuing inside.
To be fair, the person swearing has to prove that they live in the same polling division as you. This person must have ID, and it specifically states that 1. "This person can only vouch for one person", and 2. "the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector". This way you avoid one guy claiming he knows the whole block, and you also avoid a string of people being vouched for, and then vouching for others.
So while it should be easy to find a neighbour who knows you, if you're the kind of person who avoids ID, there's a decent chance that the people who know you also avoid ID.
Slashdot Mirror
One of your slobs in Sector 7G.
Better yet, I love how "cermanic and concrete" are somehow natural because they're made of natural materials. As if they're somehow more natural than plastic. I am reminded of Abstruse Goose.
Wow. That's horrible. If I could mod you up, I would.
Okay, this is something that's been bugging me for quite a while now. Here in Ottawa, there's typically about a second or two where all the lights are red before the next direction turns green. Is this not the case in the USA? As in, do the lights in the NS direction turn green exactly when the lights in the EW direction turn red?
To follow up on the other part of your question (what do I do), here are my suggestions.
But they are appointed by elected officials.
So in other words (if I understand the ruling & law correctly), for songs recorded before 1972, the parts of the DMCA granting rights & remedies apply, but not the parts of the DMCA removing previous rights and remedies (i.e. the safe harbour bits).
According to the article, "any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this Title until 2067". So in other words, the old works get the old protections for 95 years, as well as any new protections. So in this case, it seems that the old State-licensed works get all the benefits of the copyright term extension acts.
So you'd rather die from cancer? Well, at least you're consistent in your beliefs.
Touche, sir. Is there a newsletter or some sort of rss feed I can obtain from whoever designed that system?
As for the belief/morality.. while it varies, it usually stems from the perception that many animals are thinking, feeling, social creatures.. not as intelligent or self aware as humans but possessing the same basic capabilities in diminished capacity.. thus they apply the same moral standards that society normally receives for diminished humans like babies or the mentally handicapped. Thus treatment that we would generally not accept for such people are also morally reprehensible to them for animals. Naturally there is a lot of variance there though.
And hence my confusion. If these people want a better life for these animals, then why are they so willing to kill them? I mean, at least WBC makes a certain twisted amount of sense - they hate everyone, believe everyone is going to hell, and believe that their job is to remind everyone of the horrible plight that will befall them. It's horrible, but at least it's consistent. For animal rights activists to kill animals simply beggars belief.
So to clarify, you'd willingly give up the vaccinations for Lyme disease, rotavirus, and HPV? And finally, I hope that you never get cancer, because I'd be willing to wager that the best drugs have been developed fairly recently.
You do realize that antibiotics are the drugs most likely to cause resistant strains of bacteria, right? Other than that, I have no idea what chemicals are allowing diseases to proliferate.
I'll give you this one, but I'm unsure as to how this relates to the rest of your post.
So they believe animal testing is morally wrong. Why? Is that a root belief, or does that derive from some other belief. For example, I believe that the anti-vaccination group is wrong, not in and of itself, but because I believe that 1) anti-vaccination propaganda leads to reduced vaccination rates, 2) reduced vaccination rates leads to more dead or crippled children, and 3) I believe in improving the quality of life for people where it is possible and the risks and side-effects are negligible. That is to say, there are several other things that lead me to believe that anti-vaccination teachings are morally wrong.
So if they believe a priori that animal testing is wrong, then I'll argue with them there. But surely they have to have a deeper reason than that. I mean, I can easily see the argument that animal testing is or can be cruel to animals, and I'm more than willing to take steps to reduce the animals' suffering. So if that's the case, then why are groups like them (and PETA - see PETA's disturbingly low adoption rates) so intent on rescuing animals only to kill them?
Twenty minute maximum call time? I assume this doesn't count time on hold. Either way, kudos to your employer for deploying a foolproof Plan B.
Put all of the relevant information in your will, or in a sealed & notarized envelope only to be opened upon your death. Accounts, password, approximate contents, the whole shebang. If you're worried about someone taking this information before you're dead, put in a single account and password to your KeyPass database, or an e-mail account that only has usernames / password, etc. Then, find some way of tracking access to that account, so that it pings you when someone uses it. Heck, even add a 1-week timer to it, so that they have to be sure you're dead before they can get those passwords.
Basically, rely on the systems we've always used to pass along our inheritance.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think that joke may be a bit young for this crowd.
The full quote is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." So the question is this: are guns an essential liberty? And is the safety obtained by restricting gun use (if there is any) temporary?
Note that it says "injured", and not "killed."
Not everywhere they go, but they do have about 46 guns per hundred residents.
I lost it. You win, sir.
I think that for my first federal election, I had to wait in line outside, but that's only because it was done in a relatively unused office, and hence there was very little internal space. My other elections have since typically been at school gymnasiums, with much more space for queuing inside.
Or, you know, design the system so that affiliation is shown, and force it towards affiliation.
To be fair, the person swearing has to prove that they live in the same polling division as you. This person must have ID, and it specifically states that 1. "This person can only vouch for one person", and 2. "the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector". This way you avoid one guy claiming he knows the whole block, and you also avoid a string of people being vouched for, and then vouching for others.
So while it should be easy to find a neighbour who knows you, if you're the kind of person who avoids ID, there's a decent chance that the people who know you also avoid ID.
You say "[c]hildren get too many vaccinations". How many is too many? And which diseases do you propose we stop vaccinating for?
Did you miss the one where the girl wanted to kill the mayor? Because I'm pretty sure that should be illegal.