I don't know if the Latitude D800 laptiop is a home liine or not; it's the standard issue for faculty in Penn State's Commonwealth college.
The other machine (the one that dropped its front door in the first week) is most definitely not a hgome machine--it's a dual xeon server with 15krpm scsi drives.
Well given that the basic sequence of the withdrawal was to the effect that we announced we were leaving, they refused to let us out, and that we bombed them into submission . ..
The real tragedy of Viet Nam was that as a military operation, it was a complete success. Our troops did *exactly* what they were supposed to do. The problem is that that was usesless . ..
Years ago, I had an ehman monitor--back when a 19" display was gargantuan.
I apparently had an early one, too. The developer discount was great ($600 instead of $900, including the controller car [yes, it was 1-bit]), but . ..
Eventaully, it had a problem. Flyback transformer, iirc.
So I called.
"No problem. Just send it back in the original shipper carton." "There was not carton." "pardon?" "It came on a shipping pallete with a huge cardboard wrapped around and a cardboard boxtop." "Oh. One of *those*. just send it back in whatever."
I could almsot hear him shudderingover the phone . . .
I'm surprised an anti-Dell site is not on the list.
What's sthe point?
The purpose of those sites is to get the word out. *Everyone* knows someone who owns a Dell . ..
"Dude, you've been Delled"
For crying out loud, on this laptop, the case squaks when I typeo on the right-hand side of the keyboard, while the drive bay cocvers fell off of the big one in gthe first week . . . (no, i didn't have a choice of brands)
From service@linuxsense.com Fri Feb 25 22:51:32 2005 From: "linuxsense" To: root@linuxsense.com Subject: linuxsense Account Security Measures
Dear linuxsense root, Your account has been randomly flagged in our system as a part of our routine security measures. This is a must to ensure that only you have access and use of your linuxsense account and to ensure a safe linuxsense experience. We require all flagged accounts to verify their information on file with us. To verify your Information at this time, please visit our secure server webform by clicking the hyperlink below [...]
If your SUV accellerates like a pig, it means you should have bought a larger engine:)
I had assumed that I'd be buying an excursion or suburban (4 kids, and 7000 mile summer vacation drive), but the van made more sense. I wanted the smaller V8, but to get the option package I wanted (and the limited slip differential), I was stuck with the slightly bigger one. Acceleration is *not* a problem in this 2.5 (not 3) ton vehicle; it can do that faster than any resonable need.
but then, I bought the vechicle that did what I needed, rather than a trophy. This thing hs a lot more room than an SUV (though when the steep alley to get out of our places ices up, I do think about 4WD and a winch to attach to the telephone pole cross the street:)
I don't think that that's his point, though. He raises the interesting possibility of shipping a CPU that is not capable of sustained operation at its rated speed.
It's not a problem that a CPU slows down under slow load, or something goes wrong. But a sneaky vendor could ship one that ends up spending most of its time in a throttled condition when it runs all-out.
I think that the best policy is at least some level of protection of sources--I am sensitve to the notion that without an expectation of confidentiality, information won't get out at all.
The line, or at least *how* the decision will be made, should be an established public policy. The problem is deciding where to put it.
I don't see any valid public purpose in protecting those who illegally release information that will by its nature cause harm, such as this one.
Perhpas only cases where the blabbermouth reveals previously unknown illegal activity?
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. I probably don't even have a license in your state! If your need legal advice, find an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There are two separe things going on here, whether or not blogs and the light are "press" for purposes of the first Amendment, and whether or not sources are protected.
If you look at the "newspapers" that constituted the press in 1789, they have a *lot* more in comomon with today's blogs and small web sites than today's mass media. A page or two, often screeds by malcontents. *That* is what is protected, and it would be hard to exclude blogs.
The other issue is tougher. The First Amendment guarantees that the press will not be silenced. That's pretty much it. Protection of sources may (or may not, people differ) be good *policy*, but that doesn't raise it to a constitutional level.
Err, no. Plenty of things broke going from system 6 to 7. Particularly affected were things that used low-level interfaces. My multi-user calendar program was one.
Also, almost all (or was it all?) viruses were broken by the change.
And then there's the software that wasn't only not 32 bit clean, but directly violated the software guidelines--including the initial macwrite (or was it macpaint? It's been a few years . ..)
> First, no court or judge can overturn a verdict >of "not guilty". That's the "double indemnity clause".
Err, you mean "double jeapordy." "Double indemnity" refers to double payment on some insurance policies for violent death . ..
>l say that every time I've been in a courtroom >the judges have been universally, absolutely >professional. I have never failed to be impressed >by a judge's common sense approach.
I've seen them cross the professionalism line--but with one exception, it was in the name of common sense, and I agreed with them.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, you're likely to be confficted.
It's not even a ruling on the law by the court.
Judges make conclusions about the law as part of an appeal, but they also look at the facts. Each court subsitutes its own legal judgment for that of the lower court, but they treat factual findings by the jury (or judge) differently.
The standard for reversal on law is mere disagreement with the lower court. The standard for facts, however, is quite high: If a *rational* person could have reached that conclusion from that evidence, it isn't touched.
In this case, it appears that the court found that a rational person *could not* make the factual findings about that defendant which would be necessary to support a conviction. This says *nothing* about the law itself.
Compare this to a court in a murder case finding that no reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was at the scene--this says nothing about murder becomingg legal, just that the DA didn't make a casse.
Slashdot Mirror
But it still leaves a tachyon trail; Kirk will get it . . .
hawk
I don't know if the Latitude D800 laptiop is a home liine or not; it's the standard issue for faculty in Penn State's Commonwealth college.
The other machine (the one that dropped its front door in the first week) is most definitely not a hgome machine--it's a dual xeon server with 15krpm scsi drives.
hawk
We thought of that possibility, and contacted the French military for comment.
The spokesman capitalized.
hawk
Well given that the basic sequence of the withdrawal was to the effect that we announced we were leaving, they refused to let us out, and that we bombed them into submission . . .
.
The real tragedy of Viet Nam was that as a military operation, it was a complete success. Our troops did *exactly* what they were supposed to do. The problem is that that was usesless . .
hawk
The tenth site was about the french military!
hawk
Years ago, I had an ehman monitor--back when a 19" display was gargantuan.
.
I apparently had an early one, too. The developer discount was great ($600 instead of $900, including the controller car [yes, it was 1-bit]), but . .
Eventaully, it had a problem. Flyback transformer, iirc.
So I called.
"No problem. Just send it back in the original shipper carton."
"There was not carton."
"pardon?"
"It came on a shipping pallete with a huge cardboard wrapped around and a cardboard boxtop."
"Oh. One of *those*. just send it back in whatever."
I could almsot hear him shudderingover the phone . . .
hawk
I'm surprised an anti-Dell site is not on the list.
.
What's sthe point?
The purpose of those sites is to get the word out. *Everyone* knows someone who owns a Dell . .
"Dude, you've been Delled"
For crying out loud, on this laptop, the case squaks when I typeo on the right-hand side of the keyboard, while the drive bay cocvers fell off of the big one in gthe first week . . . (no, i didn't have a choice of brands)
hawk
From service@linuxsense.com Fri Feb 25 22:51:32 2005
From: "linuxsense"
To: root@linuxsense.com
Subject: linuxsense Account Security Measures
Dear linuxsense root,
Your account has been randomly flagged in our system as a part of our routine security measures. This
is a must to ensure that only you have access and use of your linuxsense
account and to ensure a safe linuxsense experience. We require all flagged
accounts to verify their information on file with us. To verify your
Information at this time, please visit our secure server webform by
clicking the hyperlink below [...]
Nah. Zorro could leave his mark on a cdrom . .
hawk
hawk
nah, that's easy. Just wait for it to catch an appropriate virus :)
hawk
Plus, how many buffer overflow exploits have you seen recently on Fortran programs? :-)
:)
Oh, we have them. We work them the same way as unix mail viruses: on the honor system.
hawk
If your SUV accellerates like a pig, it means you should have bought a larger engine :)
:)
I had assumed that I'd be buying an excursion or suburban (4 kids, and 7000 mile summer vacation drive), but the van made more sense. I wanted the smaller V8, but to get the option package I wanted (and the limited slip differential), I was stuck with the slightly bigger one. Acceleration is *not* a problem in this 2.5 (not 3) ton vehicle; it can do that faster than any resonable need.
but then, I bought the vechicle that did what I needed, rather than a trophy. This thing hs a lot more room than an SUV (though when the steep alley to get out of our places ices up, I do think about 4WD and a winch to attach to the telephone pole cross the street
hawk
I don't think that that's his point, though. He raises the interesting possibility of shipping a CPU that is not capable of sustained operation at its rated speed.
It's not a problem that a CPU slows down under slow load, or something goes wrong. But a sneaky vendor could ship one that ends up spending most of its time in a throttled condition when it runs all-out.
hawk
I think that the best policy is at least some level of protection of sources--I am sensitve to the notion that without an expectation of confidentiality, information won't get out at all.
The line, or at least *how* the decision will be made, should be an established public policy. The problem is deciding where to put it.
I don't see any valid public purpose in protecting those who illegally release information that will by its nature cause harm, such as this one.
Perhpas only cases where the blabbermouth reveals previously unknown illegal activity?
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. I probably don't even have a license in your state! If your need legal advice, find an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There are two separe things going on here, whether or not blogs and the light are "press" for purposes of the first Amendment, and whether or not sources are protected.
If you look at the "newspapers" that constituted the press in 1789, they have a *lot* more in comomon with today's blogs and small web sites than today's mass media. A page or two, often screeds by malcontents. *That* is what is protected, and it would be hard to exclude blogs.
The other issue is tougher. The First Amendment guarantees that the press will not be silenced. That's pretty much it. Protection of sources may (or may not, people differ) be good *policy*, but that doesn't raise it to a constitutional level.
hawk, esq.
hawk
Err, no. Plenty of things broke going from system 6 to 7. Particularly affected were things that used low-level interfaces. My multi-user calendar program was one.
.)
Also, almost all (or was it all?) viruses were broken by the change.
And then there's the software that wasn't only not 32 bit clean, but directly violated the software guidelines--including the initial macwrite (or was it macpaint? It's been a few years . .
hawk
Yeah, htat :)
hawk, who can't tyep well below 100wpm
Lessee, you do that by downloading slashdot every hour or two, scan for complaints about repeats, and go down seven posts from there for a punchline?
hawk
> First, no court or judge can overturn a verdict
.
>of "not guilty". That's the "double indemnity clause".
Err, you mean "double jeapordy." "Double indemnity" refers to double payment on some insurance policies for violent death . .
>l say that every time I've been in a courtroom
>the judges have been universally, absolutely
>professional. I have never failed to be impressed
>by a judge's common sense approach.
I've seen them cross the professionalism line--but with one exception, it was in the name of common sense, and I agreed with them.
hawk, esq.
insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find she committed the alleged acts is hardly a "technicality" . . .
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, you're likely to be confficted.
It's not even a ruling on the law by the court.
Judges make conclusions about the law as part of an appeal, but they also look at the facts. Each court subsitutes its own legal judgment for that of the lower court, but they treat factual findings by the jury (or judge) differently.
The standard for reversal on law is mere disagreement with the lower court. The standard for facts, however, is quite high: If a *rational* person could have reached that conclusion from that evidence, it isn't touched.
In this case, it appears that the court found that a rational person *could not* make the factual findings about that defendant which would be necessary to support a conviction. This says *nothing* about the law itself.
Compare this to a court in a murder case finding that no reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was at the scene--this says nothing about murder becomingg legal, just that the DA didn't make a casse.
hawk, esq.
Kodak does exactly that with their digital camera docks.
.
Unfortunately, the camerat didn't react well to water . .
hawk