Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
He chose to sell his house instead of trying that.
Pass a law that if a service provider says that they offer service to an address they must do so by law. No fines, they have to install service. If that means $30,000 in new cable to be laid, then so be it. The service providers will get their service maps in order really quickly and we'd have accurate coverage numbers for the country.
.The service providers will get their service maps in order really quickly and we'd have accurate coverage numbers for the country.
This is the problem with people who typically see regulation as the solution to everything - they assume the best possible outcome for themselves. When in fact the best possible outcome for the company targeted by the regulations is what will really happen.
If your proposal were implemented, the best possible outcome for the company is that they simply discontinue providing coverage maps for the country, and require you to call in. You will verbally be given a quote with a disclaimer that quoting a price does not constitute a guarantee that your address is within their service area. And if you need that guarantee, you will need to subscribe for a year and put down a deposit so they can send someone out there to survey the location. If it turns out they can't provide service, they'll refund your deposit. But if they can service you, you're committed to the year's subscription (thus neatly preventing you from finding if another ISP also covers you).
How do I know? Because I just went through this trying to get Time-Warner cable internet at the commercial building I manage.
Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.
It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.
A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret
The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.
The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA
Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.
I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.
An NDA for a released product makes no sense.
Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.
what exactly is confusing to you about that term
Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!
What? You can't find any? I thought so.
we will have the founder's intent
The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.
So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.
So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.
all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns
So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?
Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.
OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.
If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.
Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are deliberately flipping their intent upside down in an attempt to reinvent the constitution to suit your tastes.
How about Samuel Adams, clarifying things for you, in 1788: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." That sums up the first round of amendments nicely, and makes it plainly clear (to everyone but you, because you're trying to wish it away, and assume that they wrote just one of those amendments as a regulation requiring limits rather than protecting liberty) that ALL of those amendments are intended to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER. To prevent the government from infringing on things like freedom of speech, freedom to keep their own arms, assembly, etc.
You're probably thinking of some other founders, right? You wouldn't want to involve people like Jefferson, probably, because it would ruin your narrative? Jefferson loved to quote Beccaria, incuding this one: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I'll look forward to you citing a specific example of the second amendment being described by any of the people who wrote and implemented all of those contemporary amendments, as protecting a right that was in ANY way conditional on passing some sort of government test of skill. You seem certain that intent exists: put up, or shut up. Show the thinking that defines the founders' concepts of a skill test for individual gun ownership, something that they repeatedly say shall not be infringed.
The phrase "contacted Facebook" sounds more like "talked to a random employee" than "participated in a business meeting under NDA".
Could be - who knows. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of thing that would come out in the civil trial, or, being absent from any evidence provided in the suit, possibly cause the judge to throw the whole thing out. I'm party to multiple NDA's, and it can be very dangerous ground if you're not careful.
we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training
Except that's not what the amendment means, it's not what it says, and it's not what the people who wrote it said - in their MANY supporting letters and other documents - that they meant. You are going out of your way to avoid basic facts because you want to convert the constitution into a document that regulates individual freedoms.
I notice that when asked to cite the basis for a whole list of irrational assertions on your part, you're just ignoring that. Why? Because you don't have anything to go on.
I get it. You think that of all the dangerous things in the world, and despite the countless other ways that people are murdered every year, that you think guns shouldn't be allowed. Fine, that's your opinion. It's an opinion completely lacking any perspective, relative to everything else mentioned, but you're entitled to your opinion. What you're NOT entitled to are your own set of facts. Facts: the people who wrote the constitution explained exactly why they did it, and there are copious contemporary writings that demonstrate you have your understanding of not only wrong, but exactly backwards. The only possibility is that you're well aware of that, but are pretending otherwise because you're hoping that gullible readers will fall for it, in support of your agenda. Otherwise, you'd actually address the issues raised - which you won't, because you can't without showing that you're BSing about it.
The only thing you ARE doing is trotting out a link to some stats about Canadian homicide rates. That page indirectly brings up the notion of the high homicide rate in the US. Fine! Let's talk about that (again). If you remove from the US stats a handful of specific areas where urban gang crime is very high (even though, by your standards, it should be a paradise because of the most restrictive gun laws in the country), then the homicide rates are actually lower than elsewhere.
So I'll ask you again, on the off chance you're feeling braver this time: reconcile those facts. Don't link to a web site about Canada. Actually address the substance of the matter, directly, in your own words: how does a place like Chicago, which has some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the country - just the way you like it! - end up having a murder problem that accounts for a huge portion of the entire country's statistics? Is it possible that the problem is actually the people who are killing each other over gang turf? That happens in other places, too - only they use machetes and other implements
do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?
You are also unable to understand the difference between "owning" and "using." To you belive that you shouldn't be allowed to own a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife without government-provided training? No? Why not? Be specific. Otherwise, your hypocrisy on the subject will be plain enough for even you to see.
Clarkson was the one to report the assault so if anyone was looking for an excuse out of re-upping a contract it was probably Clarkson. This way he can leave without carrying any of the baggage simply quitting the show would have given him.
Jeremy will be fine. He knows that every other channel has been trying for years to poach him away from the BBC and once he sold his interest in the show to the BBC a year or so ago his income was no longer tied to how well Top Gear itself did.