The article practically insinuates that a church that was originally started as a tax shelter has been involved with some sort of misdeed! But that's just ridiculous. I can practically feel my Thetan levels rising!
...but it doesn't magically keep the finders from blabbing to all hackers worldwide exactly what the problem is and how to exploit it. Unfortunately, the operative word is selling the exploits to hackers, as previously discussed on Slashdot.
Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida.
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?
So this must mean that every university that would be subject to the proposed law [i]also[/i] receives more funds to purchase equipment and software that will allow for the traffic shaping, monitoring, and filtering that the bill requires? OK, well at least the universities will receive more money to hire out IT professionals who can aid in such an onerous task?
What's that? No? Oh, I see...
At least the title of the bill sounds uplifting, right? The "College Opportunity and Affordability Act"--you can't go wrong there! It's not like this congress has a history of giving disastrous educational reform legislation an upbeat name.
That's exactly right. It's just like the Time Warner-as-ISP issue described in another article earlier this week. Once your usage crosses some unstated threshold, you've violated their Terms of Service and they can drop you like a republican presidential candidate.
I know you're kidding around, but there is some truth to this. On fresh installs, many former Windows 2000 users would routinely disable the extra services and eyecandy that were so prominent in XP, trying in vain to negate the loss in performance that came with the move to the newer Microsoft OS.
On most hardware, the older Windows 2000 had a huge performance advantage over its newer cousin--tirelessly proved out in benchmark after benchmark--that never actually went away until...ever. Microsoft just stopped supporting the older OS without special contracts, and people just sort of stopped using Windows 2000 in general. And so XP became the new performance baseline.
That should read "Of course it would be." and not "Of course not." Trying to type under these conditions is difficult. My sincere apologies if my posts seem muddled tonight.
Fair enough, but if irrational thinking is in the scope of things included in our assessment of this situation, then wouldn't it be irrational to think that Eli Lilly is somehow screwed now because the rest of the world outside of the (make-believe clean room environment of the) courtroom knows they were negotiating? Of course not. Everybody negotiates before trial, for fractions of a life spent behind bars, for money, or for other things. Negotiations will continue, and just like the ninety (insert number between 1 and 9) percent of cases like this one, the parties will reach an agreement.
I just glanced at this and realized that the preview button probably would have shown me that I needed to use HTML tags. But oh well, hopefully, I've made myself plain enough!:)
That's right, it really, truly doesn't matter.
on
A $1 Billion Email Gaffe
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Posting without a Karma bonus because I just want to make sure that this poster understands the situation:
Yes, that's right, it absolutely won't have an effect on negotiations. That was the point of the post, to assure you that as a matter of law, their bargaining position hasn't been compromised at all because the settlement information can't come in at trial anyway (and the strength of each side's case are the bargaining chips in negotiations, not some dollar amount that the press accidentally found out.) Generally, any information obtained during negotiations, or even in this case--the incredibly boring revelation that negotiations took place--cannot come in as evidence at trial. This is an well-known evidentiary rule, and the point of it is that there is a strong public policy concern for encouraging settlements between parties, so as to not needlessly burden the judicial system. And the best way to encourage settlements is to make sure that the parties can be as candid with each other during negotiations as possible without having to worry that what they say can be used against them at trial. Both parties are free to continue negotiating. No harm, no foul.
That's why the information revealed in this leak doesn't matter, and why the focus of the story is on the far more interesting [i]way[/i] it was leaked. The prosecution cannot utter a word about this at trial, regardless of what the press knows or doesn't know. Eli Lilly is still in great shape, they just might want to consider getting different counsel! Was this an embarrassing screwup by the lawyer? Absolutely. Will it have any kind of extrinsic effect, like causing a dip in stock prices? [i]Maybe[/i]. But will it matter in a potential trial, and therefore prove damaging to Lilly's position during during negotiations? Absolutely not.
Mod points wasted. AAAL, and I assure you it doesn't, any more than reading your signature creates a contractual obligation on my part to mod your posts "Informative" or send you money.
Also, since settlement information is excluded from evidence when trying to prove culpability, and never reaches the finder of fact in a court case anyway, this whole story is pretty pointless. While the leak may have a modest effect on stock prices, the fact that Eli Lilly attempted to settle and the amount in question couldn't possibly matter less in the case at bar.
If these kinds of political discussions are moderated by mod point lottery winners, then isn't there a strong temptation on their part to mod down any insightful or interesting, comment that is nevertheless critical of their own pet candidate, and to mod up any comment that does the opposite? From what I've seen, that's exactly what has happened.
If Taco et al are in charge of moderating, then wouldn't our ability to easily read the most insightful or interesting comments be exclusively a product of their own partiality or impartiality, as it were?
How do you feel about George W. Bush? Because that's how a large part of this country feels about Hillary Clinton. Really? Two out of every three Americans are unhappy with Hillary Clinton's job performance? You're going to have to cite to some kind of poll or other data, otherwise you're just making this up. The fact is, more Democrats support Clinton than Obama. That is what we're supposed to be talking about, remember? And if you actually think that Obama has mass appeal to the same conservative Republicans who dislike Hillary, well, it's quite possible that a large cross-section of them would never vote for an African American candidate under any circumstances anyway, isn't it?
Given that Obama will likely have a Democratic Congress to work with, what makes you think he is any less likely to be able to get his agenda passed then Hillary is? Ooops, you really tipped your hand here. Now I know who I'm dealing with. Believe it or not, it's not really possible to completely disregard the minority party in either legislative body--especially when the split between parties is so close. If you were previously unaware of this fact, then I suggest you crack a book or start Google searching for information on voting pluralities in the Senate and House and also information about the committee system. You may be surprised at what you find.
Well, right here is a view off her own fucking webpage that I would argue against. You could argue against it, but you didn't. Instead, you dropped an f-bomb to try to seem more persuasive. I realize it's a lot easier to swear than to develop a reasoned argument, but you newbies are giving we lifetime Democrats a bad name. This is exactly the kind bad behavior I'm talking about.
The rest of your post looks like it came right off of Obama's web site, and doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking on your part. Overall, an unimpressive effort.
Careful, making up extreme examples to try to prove a point is the hallmark of bad discourse.
Why has Barack Obama himself readily conceded that Hillary Clinton did heavy lifting on a number of issues when she was first lady? I suspect it's because she actually did. Unless you're trying to imply that Obama is a liar?
It is true that we live in a world where perception carries more weight than reality, but Obama is simply not the uniter he frames himself to be. His Pollyanna approach to reaching across the aisle and dealing with entrenched Republican leaders is unrealistic and, worse, has already proven an abject failure during his few years in the Senate.
This demonstrates two things: First of all, it says that John McCain is probably not a very pleasant or reasonable man on the job; he is an aged Republican with tenure who is unafraid to play the "Don't you know who I am?" card when approached by someone who is relatively new to the political game. But that's practically to be expected. The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era. I say "Democratic" agenda, because--as both candidates will readily admit, there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose. Really, their stated goals about health care reform, equitable tax rates, and so on are a callback to what real Democrats have been trying to get passed for at least the last 12 years. (Just as an aside, in this day and age, there is NO credible reason why U.S. citizens should not have access to universal health care, just like literally every other leading nation. But we can thank a Republican congress and a complicit President for that.)
Because of the similarity of their proposals, Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views. That's fine, Obama supporters--you're allowed to like or dislike any candidate for any reason at all. But just understand that when you're not engaging the issues, you've done little more than turn the presidential race into an inane popularity contest. ("I don't like her, and he can talk in public places to groups of people...just like every other politician!")
Many Obama supporters tend to skew so young that they barely even remember the Bill Clinton era, and have instead latched onto the potential idea of the President being a man of color. Again, that's fine, young voters. First of all--welcome to the political discussion. It is wonderful that you've found a candidate that you feel you can rally behind. Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.
These are exciting times for the Democratic party. We have not one but two credible candidates ready and willing to hold the office. With cooperation, I'm sure we can work together to ensure that the next President will be from our party.
Big congratulations goes to the Ubuntu team for sticking to their release schedules, and getting their fairly solid alphas and betas out there for users to bang on well in advance. Like many others, I thought that Ubuntu Linux was just another flavor-of-the-month distribution, but the tenacity, reliability, and graciousness of the Ubuntu community has proved us all wrong.
Good point, especially considering that police have already testified in court documents to a belief that the first idiot who was attacked ("Carlos Sousa Jr.", age 17) was trying to impress his friends, acting like some kind of badass by taunting the tiger and dangling limbs into the enclosure. Given that the tiger was...a tiger, It's not really surprising that the tiger would take advantage of a marginal wall and try to get a good clamp on the whole ignorant gang, is it?
Consider that there was once a time in human history when the humanoid who didn't know not to go near a tiger, or not to run the hell away from it at the first opportunity, simply ended up tiger food, and our species ended up stronger because of it.
So far, the so-called victims have contradicted other eyewitness accounts and denied any involvement in provoking the tiger or, worse yet, giving the animal means to escape (with a board or other instrument). Their side of the story comes as a predicate to potential litigation, so you can understand that the incentive to lie about what really happened is strong.
Suppose I were to show you a way to manufacture a wall that would do the same job but be only one inch thick...Would that be worth something to you, laddie?
Please stop linking to "articles" on the page-o-ads tomshardware site and making them money. They have a hardware roundup every month; there's no need to link to them just to improve their ad revenue stream.
I kind of resent AC's who refuse to actually read parent posts, just so they can chime in with their 2 cents. Thank you for the added insight, but the plain words of my post reveal that I don't "seem to find" a cure or a vaccine synonymous at all. They are similar only in the sense that they accomplish the same goal through different means. The first part of my post was explicitly dedicated to making that distinction, while still maintaining that a "cure" in the medical sense is something that brings a patient back to full health while a vaccine acts as a preemptive measure (i.e. a constructive cure). I even used the word preemptive (that would be the big clue).
Because you failed to actually answer my question (hedging on the issue of treatment options), we can all safely assume that this is simply yet another treatment positioned as more than such by a couple of vainglorious scientists. Bravo, Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
The article practically insinuates that a church that was originally started as a tax shelter has been involved with some sort of misdeed! But that's just ridiculous. I can practically feel my Thetan levels rising!
...but it doesn't magically keep the finders from blabbing to all hackers worldwide exactly what the problem is and how to exploit it. Unfortunately, the operative word is selling the exploits to hackers, as previously discussed on Slashdot.It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?
So this must mean that every university that would be subject to the proposed law [i]also[/i] receives more funds to purchase equipment and software that will allow for the traffic shaping, monitoring, and filtering that the bill requires? OK, well at least the universities will receive more money to hire out IT professionals who can aid in such an onerous task?
What's that? No? Oh, I see...
At least the title of the bill sounds uplifting, right? The "College Opportunity and Affordability Act"--you can't go wrong there! It's not like this congress has a history of giving disastrous educational reform legislation an upbeat name.
That's exactly right. It's just like the Time Warner-as-ISP issue described in another article earlier this week. Once your usage crosses some unstated threshold, you've violated their Terms of Service and they can drop you like a republican presidential candidate.
I know you're kidding around, but there is some truth to this. On fresh installs, many former Windows 2000 users would routinely disable the extra services and eyecandy that were so prominent in XP, trying in vain to negate the loss in performance that came with the move to the newer Microsoft OS.
On most hardware, the older Windows 2000 had a huge performance advantage over its newer cousin--tirelessly proved out in benchmark after benchmark--that never actually went away until...ever. Microsoft just stopped supporting the older OS without special contracts, and people just sort of stopped using Windows 2000 in general. And so XP became the new performance baseline.
I wonder what kind of juicy information I could get if I had a bill.gates@microsoup.com email address. Hmm... ;)
That should read "Of course it would be." and not "Of course not." Trying to type under these conditions is difficult. My sincere apologies if my posts seem muddled tonight.
Fair enough, but if irrational thinking is in the scope of things included in our assessment of this situation, then wouldn't it be irrational to think that Eli Lilly is somehow screwed now because the rest of the world outside of the (make-believe clean room environment of the) courtroom knows they were negotiating? Of course not. Everybody negotiates before trial, for fractions of a life spent behind bars, for money, or for other things. Negotiations will continue, and just like the ninety (insert number between 1 and 9) percent of cases like this one, the parties will reach an agreement.
I do declare, y'all ah crackin' me right on up! Next thing you know, I'll be wearing white seersucker and suspenders like Matlock.
:)
Obviously, making typo-free posts in the midst of Super Tuesday excitement is not a forte of mine!
I just glanced at this and realized that the preview button probably would have shown me that I needed to use HTML tags. But oh well, hopefully, I've made myself plain enough! :)
Posting without a Karma bonus because I just want to make sure that this poster understands the situation:
Yes, that's right, it absolutely won't have an effect on negotiations. That was the point of the post, to assure you that as a matter of law, their bargaining position hasn't been compromised at all because the settlement information can't come in at trial anyway (and the strength of each side's case are the bargaining chips in negotiations, not some dollar amount that the press accidentally found out.) Generally, any information obtained during negotiations, or even in this case--the incredibly boring revelation that negotiations took place--cannot come in as evidence at trial. This is an well-known evidentiary rule, and the point of it is that there is a strong public policy concern for encouraging settlements between parties, so as to not needlessly burden the judicial system. And the best way to encourage settlements is to make sure that the parties can be as candid with each other during negotiations as possible without having to worry that what they say can be used against them at trial. Both parties are free to continue negotiating. No harm, no foul.
That's why the information revealed in this leak doesn't matter, and why the focus of the story is on the far more interesting [i]way[/i] it was leaked. The prosecution cannot utter a word about this at trial, regardless of what the press knows or doesn't know. Eli Lilly is still in great shape, they just might want to consider getting different counsel! Was this an embarrassing screwup by the lawyer? Absolutely. Will it have any kind of extrinsic effect, like causing a dip in stock prices? [i]Maybe[/i]. But will it matter in a potential trial, and therefore prove damaging to Lilly's position during during negotiations? Absolutely not.
1. You take the blue pill and the story ends.
2. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland, and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
3. You take the blue speckled pill and develop serious health issues.
Mod points wasted. AAAL, and I assure you it doesn't, any more than reading your signature creates a contractual obligation on my part to mod your posts "Informative" or send you money.
Also, since settlement information is excluded from evidence when trying to prove culpability, and never reaches the finder of fact in a court case anyway, this whole story is pretty pointless. While the leak may have a modest effect on stock prices, the fact that Eli Lilly attempted to settle and the amount in question couldn't possibly matter less in the case at bar.
Does this mean that all boats on the Aegean Sea will now have to use proprietary rudders?
If these kinds of political discussions are moderated by mod point lottery winners, then isn't there a strong temptation on their part to mod down any insightful or interesting, comment that is nevertheless critical of their own pet candidate, and to mod up any comment that does the opposite? From what I've seen, that's exactly what has happened.
If Taco et al are in charge of moderating, then wouldn't our ability to easily read the most insightful or interesting comments be exclusively a product of their own partiality or impartiality, as it were?
The rest of your post looks like it came right off of Obama's web site, and doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking on your part. Overall, an unimpressive effort.
Careful, making up extreme examples to try to prove a point is the hallmark of bad discourse.
Why has Barack Obama himself readily conceded that Hillary Clinton did heavy lifting on a number of issues when she was first lady? I suspect it's because she actually did. Unless you're trying to imply that Obama is a liar?
Also, most people would absolutely resent your implication that a first lady cannot be an influential and politically active figure.
It is true that we live in a world where perception carries more weight than reality, but Obama is simply not the uniter he frames himself to be. His Pollyanna approach to reaching across the aisle and dealing with entrenched Republican leaders is unrealistic and, worse, has already proven an abject failure during his few years in the Senate.
Consider Obama's letters to John McCain on bipartisan lobbying reform. Be sure to read McCain's absolutely withering reply to the junior Senator.
This demonstrates two things: First of all, it says that John McCain is probably not a very pleasant or reasonable man on the job; he is an aged Republican with tenure who is unafraid to play the "Don't you know who I am?" card when approached by someone who is relatively new to the political game. But that's practically to be expected. The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era. I say "Democratic" agenda, because--as both candidates will readily admit, there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose. Really, their stated goals about health care reform, equitable tax rates, and so on are a callback to what real Democrats have been trying to get passed for at least the last 12 years. (Just as an aside, in this day and age, there is NO credible reason why U.S. citizens should not have access to universal health care, just like literally every other leading nation. But we can thank a Republican congress and a complicit President for that.)
Because of the similarity of their proposals, Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views. That's fine, Obama supporters--you're allowed to like or dislike any candidate for any reason at all. But just understand that when you're not engaging the issues, you've done little more than turn the presidential race into an inane popularity contest. ("I don't like her, and he can talk in public places to groups of people...just like every other politician!")
Many Obama supporters tend to skew so young that they barely even remember the Bill Clinton era, and have instead latched onto the potential idea of the President being a man of color. Again, that's fine, young voters. First of all--welcome to the political discussion. It is wonderful that you've found a candidate that you feel you can rally behind. Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.
These are exciting times for the Democratic party. We have not one but two credible candidates ready and willing to hold the office. With cooperation, I'm sure we can work together to ensure that the next President will be from our party.
Big congratulations goes to the Ubuntu team for sticking to their release schedules, and getting their fairly solid alphas and betas out there for users to bang on well in advance. Like many others, I thought that Ubuntu Linux was just another flavor-of-the-month distribution, but the tenacity, reliability, and graciousness of the Ubuntu community has proved us all wrong.
-A Longtime Gentoo User
Good point, especially considering that police have already testified in court documents to a belief that the first idiot who was attacked ("Carlos Sousa Jr.", age 17) was trying to impress his friends, acting like some kind of badass by taunting the tiger and dangling limbs into the enclosure. Given that the tiger was...a tiger, It's not really surprising that the tiger would take advantage of a marginal wall and try to get a good clamp on the whole ignorant gang, is it?
Consider that there was once a time in human history when the humanoid who didn't know not to go near a tiger, or not to run the hell away from it at the first opportunity, simply ended up tiger food, and our species ended up stronger because of it.
So far, the so-called victims have contradicted other eyewitness accounts and denied any involvement in provoking the tiger or, worse yet, giving the animal means to escape (with a board or other instrument). Their side of the story comes as a predicate to potential litigation, so you can understand that the incentive to lie about what really happened is strong.
Suppose I were to show you a way to manufacture a wall that would do the same job but be only one inch thick...Would that be worth something to you, laddie?
Hold on, my friends. Just hold on. He's only president for another 10 months.
Please stop linking to "articles" on the page-o-ads tomshardware site and making them money. They have a hardware roundup every month; there's no need to link to them just to improve their ad revenue stream.
I kind of resent AC's who refuse to actually read parent posts, just so they can chime in with their 2 cents. Thank you for the added insight, but the plain words of my post reveal that I don't "seem to find" a cure or a vaccine synonymous at all. They are similar only in the sense that they accomplish the same goal through different means. The first part of my post was explicitly dedicated to making that distinction, while still maintaining that a "cure" in the medical sense is something that brings a patient back to full health while a vaccine acts as a preemptive measure (i.e. a constructive cure). I even used the word preemptive (that would be the big clue).
Because you failed to actually answer my question (hedging on the issue of treatment options), we can all safely assume that this is simply yet another treatment positioned as more than such by a couple of vainglorious scientists. Bravo, Slashdot.