Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:All about tha Benjamins (Score 1) 143

No, it's not a positive if the hypothesis being supported by the test (drug abuse) is not the actual cause, it's a false positive. It's a Type I error. The person being tested may have also erred by eating poppy seeds before a drug test, but it's still not a positive test result for drug abuse or use.

Comment: Re:You're dying off (Score 1) 284

by multimediavt (#49748927) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry

Umm, I think you are confusing the vehicle Registration with the vehicle Title. If you buy a car and have car payments, whatever institution you're paying that money to holds the Title for the vehicle until the loan is paid off. That means the institution actually OWNS the vehicle as they hold the Title. The Title is then transferred to you once the vehicle is paid off and you then own the vehicle.

I'm glad I dont live where you live. In most civilised countries a loan does not give the lender ownership rights, it only places an encumbrance on the vehicle. This is certainly the case in most countries based on Common (British) law. This means you have the right to sell the vehicle but if the vehicle is being used as security for a loan, the lender must be paid first. The only rights the lender has in a sale is to demand that the purchaser pay the lender the remainder of the loan first but this is only done when the debtor is believed or known to be untrustworthy (this is very rare in Australia).

Well, having read about the recent politics in Australia, I'm glad I don't live there. Would you care to explain to me how the lender needing to be paid before a vehicle is sold is NOT them owning the vehicle? Sure, I can sell anything--including a house I don't own, live in nor possess--as long as I pay the actual owner off. If you have to pay someone other than yourself before transferring ownership, then how is it you think you own something? Where I come from ownership of something means you are beholden to no one but yourself for something you possess. Possessing something and owning it are not the same thing, and possession (in the U.S.) only counts for nine points of the law (yes, it's points not tenths as the misquote goes). In Virginia, there are a total of 37 points to ownership in law, last I checked, YMMV.

Comment: Re:You're dying off (Score 1) 284

by multimediavt (#49748909) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry

It isn't title, it is the Certificate of Title. While they function similarly, it isn't the same thing.

No, that *IS* a vehicle Title in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I know, I've owned several vehicles in the state, including the one I just paid off last week and am still waiting for the bank to mail me the Title (as pictured).

Comment: Re:You're dying off (Score 1) 284

by multimediavt (#49748901) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry
Ok, here's an experiment you can try with the next vehicle you "buy" and tell me how it works out for you. Take your Title with its lien and try to sell the vehicle to someone without paying the bank off and then find out who really owns the vehicle. A dollar says the bank will win. There's a reason there is a practice called "repossession"! The vehicle is collateral if there is a lien, which means you DO NOT OWN the vehicle whether you have the piece of paper that says Title or not, which is why Virginia (where I live) and other states don't send you the Title to a piece of collateral. They send it to the institution that holds the lien. If I sell the vehicle, I have to pay off the lien before I get the Title to sign over to the new owner. New York state, for all its good points, is STUPID to hand someone other than the lien holder the Title to a vehicle. It enables fraud. Virginia also does a lot of stupid things, but handing the Title to an unpaid-for vehicle to someone other than the lien holder is not one of them.

Comment: Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..." (Score 2) 356

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

You're, apparently, not the only one and why one of my English teachers got her Ph.D. on the concept of Saturday Suspension in the late-1960s, early-1970s, where you have to go to school on Saturday (or a series of Saturdays) as punishment. I really disliked Dr. Kershes!

Or as in the '80s the movie the "Breakfast Club" (of course not realistic). However, there are some actual real school districts that implement Saturday School.

What? Did you think Dr. Kershes's idea (and Ph.D. from the late 60s, early 70s) wasn't implemented by the 1980s? I met the hag in 1983 and Saturday Suspension was alive and well in northern Virginia by then. I know, I had her for 6th grade English and after spending a Saturday in detention (which I had never heard of as an option before then) found out a week or two later that it was her dissertation that more-or-less created the practice. The Breakfast Club hadn't begun principle photography when Saturday Suspension was in practice. Good movie, but by the time it went public I had been there, done that. BTW, it's still used today, but thanks. The only unrealistic things about the movie were the camaraderie among everyone in SS and the monitor leaving the room. That never happened, but people were ditching and getting in even more trouble when they'd dip out for a pee break.

Comment: Re:Camer was owned by the school (Score 1) 356

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

No. It does not work like that. If you borrow my guitar and write a hit song, it's your song, the copyright is yours. If you borrow my camera and take a Pulitzer-winning photo, it's your photo, the copyright is yours. Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

Correct, but the ownership of IP relating to student work is murky in some states, but someone posted above that the article states students using state equipment own the rights to the work they've done with said equipment. I checked TAJE and ATPI and found nothing about release forms or any weird IP laws regarding Texas high school student photography. The student owns the images and may do with them what he will. I don't know what the IRS would want out of this. That part of the threat made no sense at all.

Comment: Re:It's the same in professional sports. (Score 1) 356

The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.

so at football games and graduations, the press must get releases from the parents of all of the students who appear in their photographs? Do they really track down all of the spectators visible in the background of photos, determine whether or not they are current students, and then get releases from all of their parents?

No, not even close, but there may be a stated release in the invitation or program that lifts the restriction for certain events like graduation, but all of it still seems like it would be impossible to enforce in the modern Internet world anyway, even if it's a real rule. AFAIK, there's no foul unless you're profiting from the pictures or every student that's taken a picture of themselves or their friends at school would be culpable, because what high school student doesn't post pictures on the Internet of themselves at school events these days. Texas is more than a little batshit crazy these days, anyway, so who knows.

Comment: Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..." (Score 4, Interesting) 356

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

You're, apparently, not the only one and why one of my English teachers got her Ph.D. on the concept of Saturday Suspension in the late-1960s, early-1970s, where you have to go to school on Saturday (or a series of Saturdays) as punishment. I really disliked Dr. Kershes!

Comment: Re:Slashdot (Score 1) 64

I'd mod you up. The constant stream of HughPickens, StartsWithABang and (bogus) "anonymous reader" posts is getting even more annoying than the /. BETA ever was. It's obvious that these posts are tied to ad revenue and are contrived submissions. The whole point of /. was to find things that weren't everyday articles that were relevant to the community. Now, it's, "Here's the new thing the company wants to promote." Completely anti-/.

Comment: Re:Modularity (Score 1) 284

by multimediavt (#49720669) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry
You should be modded up. Anyone that has even owned a car and tried to fix it themselves (even with a great deal of automotive and electronics knowledge) will tell you how ridiculous it is to work on a car. If it's ten years old there may be a chance of finding a good bit of the parts you need, but older than that and everything has changed so much that you might as well buy a newer car and spend less money than trying to find parts and fix something. Sure, there are standard parts for certain eras of cars, like my E39 BMW, but once the manufacturer moves to a new series for a model, like the E60, then all the stuff around, over and under the hood changes and is only "standard" to that series. Now translate that across all vehicle manufacturers during those changes and you have a ridiculous number of custom/proprietary parts.

Comment: Re:You're dying off (Score 1) 284

by multimediavt (#49720539) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry

While those Gizmos may be cool and fun, they are no longer your major concern. Now this isn't all that bad, you are more mature and comfortable with yourself, things don't bother you so much, but you also need such distractions as well.

I thought like that for a long time, then one day I realized that I had optimized "fun" almost entirely out of my life. I am a lot happier now that I make sure to budget for "fun" things. Going through life without frivolous, but fun things was negatively affecting my mental condition. The joy of saving a dollar can only take you so far.

Plus, you can't take money with you when you die so might as well enjoy it while you're alive.

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

Working...