Of course. Bash Microsoft and you get modded up to 5.
Microsoft decided they want to name a product Windows Defender.
They discover that someone else is using the name.
They inform this guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
He decides not to challenge them.
He signs over all rights to the name.
Microsoft announces Windows Defender.
You claim that Microsoft has no trademark on Windows. That's irrelevant. The guy decided not to fight.
According to the article, he probably was infringing on their trademark. Microsoft is under no obligation to reveal their product plans to anyone least of someone in a position to potentially profit at their expense.
Now, the guy's bitching that they didn't tell him while insisting that he would not have wanted a cut. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Now he's acting like he got the shaft while insisting that he would have given them the name freely if they had just trusted him with their confidential marketing plans.
He lost nothing that he wouldn't have given up freely, (he claims) while gaining publicity and some misguided sympathy.
Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs...
Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.
A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinary measures they see fit. Far from being an abomination, this is exactly as it should be.
The Hacker's Diet isn't really a diet plan, it's more of a diet tracking system. Within that framework, you still need to find a way to get your caloric intake down and/or your caloric output up. If you are losing weight on the Atkins diet, it's not because of some magical properties of low carb food, it's because your caloric intake goes down or your caloric need goes up. It works because it's easier to maintain a low calorie diet that way. The Hacker's Diet does not give you the tools to change your calorie flow. There are other plans that give you those tools, and they can work great alongside.
You're right, the human body is not that simple, and there are far too many variables to even begin to predict any individual's caloric needs, but if an individual's behavior is consistent, then over time their average caloric needs will also be consistent. What the Hacker's Diet does is get rid of the smoke and mirrors. It's self correcting nature enables you to accurately track track your caloric flow.
Say you want to lose a pound a week. Make a wild ass guess about your caloric needs. Subtract 500 Calories. Eat that many calories per day while recording your weight. After a few weeks, look at how fast you are losing weight. That gives you a more accurate picture of your caloric needs. Adjust your your intake and/or activity level to match. Lather, rinse, repeat. With a fairly short delay, any change in your eating habits or activity level will be represented.
They want to get it out before December so they can take advantage of the Christmas buying rush. Post Christmas sales will be much slower. That would imply a "ship just short of a boatload, then have a limited supply through January" would be the logical option. If they want to try and keep a steady supply then the Christmas sales spike is going to throw that out, so release whenever manufacturing and available supply are in place makes sense.
In other words, it makes sense to do something that:
as has been pointed out, pissed off lots of PS2 fans
will, according to their market research, reduce overall demand
Try this: Take an uninflated latex balloon and stick a pin in it. What happens? Now, take a fresh balloon and blow it up. Now stick a pin in it. What happens? Why? Now, take another fresh balloon and stretch it out. While it is stretched, stick a pin in it. What happens? Grab a handful of your own skin and pull really hard. What happens? Now, while you are pulling really hard, find a spot where the skin is very tightly stretched. Stick a pin in it.
You do not have point. A critical leadership role requires someone to be resourceful, adaptable, and willing to take responsibility for the true scope of the problem at hand. Getting hold of the Governor and making sure she has what she needs, and making sure she does what she needs to do to get your help was part of the job. It was not an acceptable reason for failure. Getting hold of the President and making sure he knows what you need so he can authorize the necessary resources is part of the job. It is not an acceptable reason for failure. Brown was not a functionary filling a role with predefined responsibilities and procedures. This is what is meant by thinking like a private when he should have been thinking like a general. It is not a metaphor and it is not hyperbole.
Even if there is such a rule, which I doubt, this might be a valid point if there were constitutional issues or if it involved some lower level bureaucrats following an automated procedure, or if it was the result of a Louisiana state law.
None of these cases apply. The people in direct control of the situation had the authority and the resources to cut through bullshit quickly.
Let's assume for the moment that there is such a rule. It was clear the governor needed the help, and was clear she had asked for help. Further, it was clear she was willing to accept help as far back as August 26. In that case, Bush, Brown, or that other guy could just call her up and tell her what she needs to do. Better yet, they could have had a secretary pull the necessary forms, fill them out and fax them to the governor for her signature. Maybe she is technically responsible, but there is no excuse for the head of FEMA, the head of Homeland Security, and the President to sit by with their thumbs up their asses waiting for i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed.
The truth is that there are 5 people who are principally responsible. Any one of them could have headed off this situation. In my opinion, that makes each of them individually responsible for the entire clusterfuck.
Why was there no evacuation plan? Why didn't the Mayor recruit drivers to help with the evacuation? Why didn't he request volunteers to help out after the fact? Why didn't he provide useful information to coordinate these activities. In 2001 we all saw how it was supposed to be done. Maybe he was waiting for FEMA. Ok, that excuses him for the first 12 hours or so.
Most of the above applies to the Governor. Also, why didn't she mobilize the LA national guard? Anyone who hasn't already been called up by Bush is under her direct command.
As head of FEMA, Brown is directly responsible for the federal response to this crisis. When he saw his organization's pathetic reaction, why didn't he start booting some heads? If he was misinformed, that's no excuse. He was being misinformed by his own organization.
Everything I said above applies equally well to the head of Homeland Security. In addition, he is responsible for Brown's performance.
Bush filled time and performance critical posts with political appointees. The heads of most government organizations can be dealt with through channels or routed around if things go pear shaped. FEMA does not have that luxury. FEMA's primary mission requires that it hit the ground running. Contingency plans should have been in place, people, equipment and transportation should have been standing by and the situation should have been monitored closely during the storm. It should have been evaluated quickly after the storm, and dealt with efficiently, making full use or all available resources, whether state, federal, military, volunteer, or foreign.
All that being said, while the politicians bear ultimate responsibility, Brown was their point man. He was expected to be prepared, and he was expected to assume control of the situation. He was not, and he did not.
Here's an alternate suggestion. When you're in a hospital, you wear a blood oxygen saturation sensor on your finger. How about making a waterproof, bluetooth enabled device that each swimmer must wear. There's no confusion. Swimmers either have enough oxygen in their blood or they don't. If they do, then they're ok even if they decide to play dead on the bottom. If they don't, they're in trouble.
Here's a silly question. Why are you comparing heart disease research to general anti-terrorism spending?
Comparing apples to apples, I would suggest that between research, CPR training, doctor's visits, dietary counseling, pacemakers, portable defibrilators, health club memberships, prescriptions, hospital treatment, and a proportional (and probably quite substantial) chunk of the budget of every ambulance service throughout the country, spending on heart disease probably outstrips spending on terrorism by at least two orders of magnitude.
Funny email arrived recently claiming to be from Wells Fargo. Of course I don't even have a Wells Fargo account but even if I did, would I really be tricked since they spelt their own company name as 'Wells Forgo'?
The spelling and grammatical errors are a mark filter. They aren't trying to trick you.
The path from your property line to your doorbell is a public accessway. That's not trespassing unless you have specifically barred that person from your property. therefore, the walkway is an invitation, at least for the purposes of going up to your home to visit or communicate in some fashion. Therefore, as you say, it's only reasonale if I'm liable for any accident they have if it's a result of gross negligence on my behalf or failure to warn etc...
American law says almost nothing about when you can sue. You can sue for anything. The question is whether you can convince a jury of the defendant's culpability. The preexisting law is this area is primarily common law. That means that it is the accumulated decisions of juries for the last 500 years or so.
Again, you are responsible for the safety of others on your property if either you invited them, they are on the path to your doorbell, or they are too young to know any better and wander onto your land from elsewhere.
Where did metal ladders come in? That's the action of a responsible adult. Nowhere has what I've said come anywhere close to your example, and in fact, I agree with you on that point. So what?
When you find out there is something you should be doing but are not, and the majority (at least on juries) regards obvious and necessary, your reaction should be "I guess I should take responsibility for my own affairs", not "Why aren't other people more responsible?". It's true that it might not be necessary if all parents were more responsible, but human life is at stake. Redundancy is a good thing.
Let me get this straight. Are you honestly comparing the actions of a child too young to know any better with those of a criminal? The law is pretty clear. A swimming pool is what's known as an attractive nuisance. You, as a pool owner, are required to take reasonable precautions for the safety of children who might be attracted to it. This means a gate with a lock. It doesn't have to be very secure, just secure enough that people too young to know any better won't be able to easily get in.
I know what you're going to say. The parents are responsible. You are correct, but every once in a while, a kid gets away from his parents. Perfect 24 hour surveillance is difficult to maintain. Not only is the pool rule a good idea, but it is also simple common sense.
You talk about holding criminals responsible. That's fine. You sound like a very strong believer in personal responsibility. Why don't you accept your responsibility to others when it comes to your property?
There is a limited but important set of circumstances where you are responsible for the safety of others on your property:
You invite someone into your home. You are responsible for warning about or eliminating nonobvious hazards. This is common sense.
Public accessways to your home. People visiting your home, invited or uninvited, are expected to come up your front walk, and up your front steps. If they are icy and your visitor slips, you are responsible. This is common sense.
A hazard which may be encountered by children too young to know any better. Especially an attractive hazard. This is common sense.
None of these cases has anything to do with the safety of a thief who breaks into your house or the irresponsible actions of people who should be responsible.
Isn't it funny how many of the people who talk about personal responsibility have a blind spot when it comes to their own?
Please, stop making so monstrous laptops with pentiumIII or athlons. Those are not needed!!
Sure they are. I have a laptop with 1400x1050 screen, Windows 2000, 802.11, and a DVD drive. When I'm home, I can carry it around with me and be online anywhere in the house. When I'm at a friends place, I can plug it into the TV and watch DVDs. It takes standard memory and hard disks. I do software development on it including Linux in a VMWare window. It has completely replaced my desktop system. Battery life isn't even a problem. I have two batteries and I can easily go 5 hours without charging them. Today, something equivalent will probably cost about $1700.
The only thing lacking right now is hard drive speed. It's a little heavy for a laptop, but it has to be to have everything I want.
My old desktop is going to be a Linux firewall, mp3 server, print server, and file server.
A sack full of good intentions is worth an empty sack. I forget which rule of acquisition that is, but it definitely applies in this case. The TT practitioners may very well be far better human beings than Emily. That, however, means exactly dick.
So let's look at what we have. we have a theory which makes some claims which can be falsified by a schoolgirl. This means that the people who came up with it did not bother to test it. What this means is that TT practitioners around the globe are using their boundless good intentions in a way that is at the very least extremely suboptimal and may even be valueless or counterproductive. Lots of good people wasting their efforts when they could have been doing genuine good in ways that have been proven. Let's see, good people trying to do good work but accomplishing or at least nothing measurable. That to me sounds like all their good intentions are just paving the road to hell. You should instead focus your venom on the people who gave them the road they are paving.
I'm sorry if this is a bit harsh, but one thing that really bugs me is people and organizations who feel justified in either lying or fudging data in support of a good cause. Emily, with her wicked act of tearing down the illusions of good people without replacing them with something constructive, has done more good than any TT practitioner ever has. I'll take her kind of evil over your kind of good any day.
Really? I don't use Tk on a Mac, but I have used it under both Windows and Linux and I've always found it to be very sluggish. I know that under Windows it doesn't actually use native controls but instead uses lookalikes that work through an XLib compatibility layer.
I've done quite a bit of Tk programming and I've become somewhat disillusioned with it. Not only is it very slow, but the API has a number of rough spots and is a little wordier than necessary. In addition, it is far too easy to miss circular references when programming it in either Perl or Python.
I support about 30-40 users and I've found a good cure for people putting their stuff on the desktop. When I give new users their computer orientation (how to access the file server, which printers to use, etc.) they are all told that they have a "Documents" folder/directory and they must put all their documents in that folder or sub folders or it will not be backed up.
What can I say. You may think you're joking about BOFH, but you are not. I am not a typical end user. I have been programming Unix for about 10 years and Windows almost as long. When it comes to a windowed environment, I use the desktop as my home directory. I typically have well over 100 icons on my desktop. The computer should work for me and not the other way around. If you pursue this backup policy then when the users lose their files, it is your fault. I don't care what the company policy is and I don't care if the CEO agrees with you. I hope to God that you are never my admin.
Essentially, what you have is pixels which have only 4 possible values but which are 1/100 the size of normal screen pixels. I think that with appropriate dithering, the display could be amazing. Isn't this basically what four color printing does?
Imagine a screen in which everything is specified by vectors (display postscript or display pdf) which doesn't even really have a concept of pixels in the interface. All dithering and antialiasing are handled by the display hardware and the picture has the resolution and color of a glossy magazine. Furthermore, the display is as clearly visible in sunlight as it is under a desk lamp. Maybe the resolution needs to be a bit higher, but I think this is a positive development.
My ideal display is a flat panel with 24 bit color, pixels too small to be seen, touch sensitive, and as large as a drafting table. I see this as one small step closer to nirvana.
- To install/remove tracks, the device must be plugged into your computer. IDE device, which means a total shutdown and restart each time. Yes, bulk copies are *much* quicker than serial or whatever, but just adding a single song at a time would be tedious.
Get a USB HD enclosure. $60-$80. Leave the cover off and just use the 40 pin cable. It's not as fast, but it allows you to add IDE devices on the fly. If you want the speed, spend a little more and do the same thing with firewire.
I think you will find if you look closer that the evidence was thrown out because the initial search was deemed illegal. (The prosecutor could not produce a warrant even though the police claimed to have one)
In any case, police are allowed to act on illegal materials found in the course of searching for something else. What they are not allowed to do is go out of their way to search for anything illegal. If they are looking for a fugitive and find a joint in a jewelry box, they cannot use that as evidence unless they are dealing with a very small fugitive or a very large jewelry box.
The reason they lost Mapp v. Ohio is because they should not have been in the house in the first place.
This is incorrect. If the police see evidence of illegal activity, they may act on it. A warrant gives them the authority to search a particular place for a particular item, but if they happen to see something else, they are not required to forget it. They are still cops. The only problem comes if they go looking in other places, for example, if they are looking for something the size of a refridgerator and find a joint in your desk drawer, then they have a problem because it is unreasonable for a fridge to hide in a desk drawer. Joints on the coffee table, however, are not protected. Also, use some air freshener.
I'm surprised that this isn't common sense. Constitutional protections exist to prevent police abuse of power. If a cop sees something illegal and acts on it, there is no abuse. You got your hand caught in the cookie jar, fair and square.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Bash Microsoft and you get modded up to 5.
You claim that Microsoft has no trademark on Windows. That's irrelevant. The guy decided not to fight.
According to the article, he probably was infringing on their trademark. Microsoft is under no obligation to reveal their product plans to anyone least of someone in a position to potentially profit at their expense.
Now, the guy's bitching that they didn't tell him while insisting that he would not have wanted a cut. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Now he's acting like he got the shaft while insisting that he would have given them the name freely if they had just trusted him with their confidential marketing plans.
He lost nothing that he wouldn't have given up freely, (he claims) while gaining publicity and some misguided sympathy.
Some people just have no class.
Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.
A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinary measures they see fit. Far from being an abomination, this is exactly as it should be.
The Hacker's Diet isn't really a diet plan, it's more of a diet tracking system. Within that framework, you still need to find a way to get your caloric intake down and/or your caloric output up. If you are losing weight on the Atkins diet, it's not because of some magical properties of low carb food, it's because your caloric intake goes down or your caloric need goes up. It works because it's easier to maintain a low calorie diet that way. The Hacker's Diet does not give you the tools to change your calorie flow. There are other plans that give you those tools, and they can work great alongside.
You're right, the human body is not that simple, and there are far too many variables to even begin to predict any individual's caloric needs, but if an individual's behavior is consistent, then over time their average caloric needs will also be consistent. What the Hacker's Diet does is get rid of the smoke and mirrors. It's self correcting nature enables you to accurately track track your caloric flow.
Say you want to lose a pound a week. Make a wild ass guess about your caloric needs. Subtract 500 Calories. Eat that many calories per day while recording your weight. After a few weeks, look at how fast you are losing weight. That gives you a more accurate picture of your caloric needs. Adjust your your intake and/or activity level to match. Lather, rinse, repeat. With a fairly short delay, any change in your eating habits or activity level will be represented.
They want to get it out before December so they can take advantage of the Christmas buying rush. Post Christmas sales will be much slower. That would imply a "ship just short of a boatload, then have a limited supply through January" would be the logical option. If they want to try and keep a steady supply then the Christmas sales spike is going to throw that out, so release whenever manufacturing and available supply are in place makes sense.
In other words, it makes sense to do something that:
Makes sense.
Dear God. Think of the children.
So let me get this straight. We have this vile, evil corporation that is denying us the opportunity to give them money. How dare they?
I think a boycott might be in order.
From what I've heard, David Copperfield is going to show us how it's done.
Um, that's $5,000.
Try this: Take an uninflated latex balloon and stick a pin in it. What happens? Now, take a fresh balloon and blow it up. Now stick a pin in it. What happens? Why? Now, take another fresh balloon and stretch it out. While it is stretched, stick a pin in it. What happens? Grab a handful of your own skin and pull really hard. What happens? Now, while you are pulling really hard, find a spot where the skin is very tightly stretched. Stick a pin in it.
Sucker.
You do not have point. A critical leadership role requires someone to be resourceful, adaptable, and willing to take responsibility for the true scope of the problem at hand. Getting hold of the Governor and making sure she has what she needs, and making sure she does what she needs to do to get your help was part of the job. It was not an acceptable reason for failure. Getting hold of the President and making sure he knows what you need so he can authorize the necessary resources is part of the job. It is not an acceptable reason for failure. Brown was not a functionary filling a role with predefined responsibilities and procedures. This is what is meant by thinking like a private when he should have been thinking like a general. It is not a metaphor and it is not hyperbole.
Even if there is such a rule, which I doubt, this might be a valid point if there were constitutional issues or if it involved some lower level bureaucrats following an automated procedure, or if it was the result of a Louisiana state law.
None of these cases apply. The people in direct control of the situation had the authority and the resources to cut through bullshit quickly.
Let's assume for the moment that there is such a rule. It was clear the governor needed the help, and was clear she had asked for help. Further, it was clear she was willing to accept help as far back as August 26. In that case, Bush, Brown, or that other guy could just call her up and tell her what she needs to do. Better yet, they could have had a secretary pull the necessary forms, fill them out and fax them to the governor for her signature. Maybe she is technically responsible, but there is no excuse for the head of FEMA, the head of Homeland Security, and the President to sit by with their thumbs up their asses waiting for i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed.
The truth is that there are 5 people who are principally responsible. Any one of them could have headed off this situation. In my opinion, that makes each of them individually responsible for the entire clusterfuck.
Why was there no evacuation plan? Why didn't the Mayor recruit drivers to help with the evacuation? Why didn't he request volunteers to help out after the fact? Why didn't he provide useful information to coordinate these activities. In 2001 we all saw how it was supposed to be done. Maybe he was waiting for FEMA. Ok, that excuses him for the first 12 hours or so.
Most of the above applies to the Governor. Also, why didn't she mobilize the LA national guard? Anyone who hasn't already been called up by Bush is under her direct command.
As head of FEMA, Brown is directly responsible for the federal response to this crisis. When he saw his organization's pathetic reaction, why didn't he start booting some heads? If he was misinformed, that's no excuse. He was being misinformed by his own organization.
Everything I said above applies equally well to the head of Homeland Security. In addition, he is responsible for Brown's performance.
Bush filled time and performance critical posts with political appointees. The heads of most government organizations can be dealt with through channels or routed around if things go pear shaped. FEMA does not have that luxury. FEMA's primary mission requires that it hit the ground running. Contingency plans should have been in place, people, equipment and transportation should have been standing by and the situation should have been monitored closely during the storm. It should have been evaluated quickly after the storm, and dealt with efficiently, making full use or all available resources, whether state, federal, military, volunteer, or foreign.
All that being said, while the politicians bear ultimate responsibility, Brown was their point man. He was expected to be prepared, and he was expected to assume control of the situation. He was not, and he did not.
Here's an alternate suggestion. When you're in a hospital, you wear a blood oxygen saturation sensor on your finger. How about making a waterproof, bluetooth enabled device that each swimmer must wear. There's no confusion. Swimmers either have enough oxygen in their blood or they don't. If they do, then they're ok even if they decide to play dead on the bottom. If they don't, they're in trouble.
Here's a silly question. Why are you comparing heart disease research to general anti-terrorism spending?
Comparing apples to apples, I would suggest that between research, CPR training, doctor's visits, dietary counseling, pacemakers, portable defibrilators, health club memberships, prescriptions, hospital treatment, and a proportional (and probably quite substantial) chunk of the budget of every ambulance service throughout the country, spending on heart disease probably outstrips spending on terrorism by at least two orders of magnitude.
The spelling and grammatical errors are a mark filter. They aren't trying to trick you.
The path from your property line to your doorbell is a public accessway. That's not trespassing unless you have specifically barred that person from your property. therefore, the walkway is an invitation, at least for the purposes of going up to your home to visit or communicate in some fashion. Therefore, as you say, it's only reasonale if I'm liable for any accident they have if it's a result of gross negligence on my behalf or failure to warn etc...
American law says almost nothing about when you can sue. You can sue for anything. The question is whether you can convince a jury of the defendant's culpability. The preexisting law is this area is primarily common law. That means that it is the accumulated decisions of juries for the last 500 years or so.
Again, you are responsible for the safety of others on your property if either you invited them, they are on the path to your doorbell, or they are too young to know any better and wander onto your land from elsewhere.
Where did metal ladders come in? That's the action of a responsible adult. Nowhere has what I've said come anywhere close to your example, and in fact, I agree with you on that point. So what?
When you find out there is something you should be doing but are not, and the majority (at least on juries) regards obvious and necessary, your reaction should be "I guess I should take responsibility for my own affairs", not "Why aren't other people more responsible?". It's true that it might not be necessary if all parents were more responsible, but human life is at stake. Redundancy is a good thing.
Let me get this straight. Are you honestly comparing the actions of a child too young to know any better with those of a criminal? The law is pretty clear. A swimming pool is what's known as an attractive nuisance. You, as a pool owner, are required to take reasonable precautions for the safety of children who might be attracted to it. This means a gate with a lock. It doesn't have to be very secure, just secure enough that people too young to know any better won't be able to easily get in.
I know what you're going to say. The parents are responsible. You are correct, but every once in a while, a kid gets away from his parents. Perfect 24 hour surveillance is difficult to maintain. Not only is the pool rule a good idea, but it is also simple common sense.
You talk about holding criminals responsible. That's fine. You sound like a very strong believer in personal responsibility. Why don't you accept your responsibility to others when it comes to your property?
There is a limited but important set of circumstances where you are responsible for the safety of others on your property:
None of these cases has anything to do with the safety of a thief who breaks into your house or the irresponsible actions of people who should be responsible.
Isn't it funny how many of the people who talk about personal responsibility have a blind spot when it comes to their own?
So tell me. How long until the government is trying to ban a 7 line Perl script which turns a cell phone into an illegal scanner?
Please, stop making so monstrous laptops with pentiumIII or athlons. Those are not needed!!
Sure they are. I have a laptop with 1400x1050 screen, Windows 2000, 802.11, and a DVD drive. When I'm home, I can carry it around with me and be online anywhere in the house. When I'm at a friends place, I can plug it into the TV and watch DVDs. It takes standard memory and hard disks. I do software development on it including Linux in a VMWare window. It has completely replaced my desktop system. Battery life isn't even a problem. I have two batteries and I can easily go 5 hours without charging them. Today, something equivalent will probably cost about $1700.
The only thing lacking right now is hard drive speed. It's a little heavy for a laptop, but it has to be to have everything I want.
My old desktop is going to be a Linux firewall, mp3 server, print server, and file server.
I'm a little confused. Don't some processors use register windows to speed up context switching? How is this any different?
PS I'm not trolling, I really don't understand how this is new.
A sack full of good intentions is worth an empty sack. I forget which rule of acquisition that is, but it definitely applies in this case. The TT practitioners may very well be far better human beings than Emily. That, however, means exactly dick.
So let's look at what we have. we have a theory which makes some claims which can be falsified by a schoolgirl. This means that the people who came up with it did not bother to test it. What this means is that TT practitioners around the globe are using their boundless good intentions in a way that is at the very least extremely suboptimal and may even be valueless or counterproductive. Lots of good people wasting their efforts when they could have been doing genuine good in ways that have been proven. Let's see, good people trying to do good work but accomplishing or at least nothing measurable. That to me sounds like all their good intentions are just paving the road to hell. You should instead focus your venom on the people who gave them the road they are paving.
I'm sorry if this is a bit harsh, but one thing that really bugs me is people and organizations who feel justified in either lying or fudging data in support of a good cause. Emily, with her wicked act of tearing down the illusions of good people without replacing them with something constructive, has done more good than any TT practitioner ever has. I'll take her kind of evil over your kind of good any day.
Really? I don't use Tk on a Mac, but I have used it under both Windows and Linux and I've always found it to be very sluggish. I know that under Windows it doesn't actually use native controls but instead uses lookalikes that work through an XLib compatibility layer.
I've done quite a bit of Tk programming and I've become somewhat disillusioned with it. Not only is it very slow, but the API has a number of rough spots and is a little wordier than necessary. In addition, it is far too easy to miss circular references when programming it in either Perl or Python.
I support about 30-40 users and I've found a good cure for people putting their stuff on the desktop. When I give new users their computer orientation (how to access the file server, which printers to use, etc.) they are all told that they have a "Documents" folder/directory and they must put all their documents in that folder or sub folders or it will not be backed up.
What can I say. You may think you're joking about BOFH, but you are not. I am not a typical end user. I have been programming Unix for about 10 years and Windows almost as long. When it comes to a windowed environment, I use the desktop as my home directory. I typically have well over 100 icons on my desktop. The computer should work for me and not the other way around. If you pursue this backup policy then when the users lose their files, it is your fault. I don't care what the company policy is and I don't care if the CEO agrees with you. I hope to God that you are never my admin.
Essentially, what you have is pixels which have only 4 possible values but which are 1/100 the size of normal screen pixels. I think that with appropriate dithering, the display could be amazing. Isn't this basically what four color printing does?
Imagine a screen in which everything is specified by vectors (display postscript or display pdf) which doesn't even really have a concept of pixels in the interface. All dithering and antialiasing are handled by the display hardware and the picture has the resolution and color of a glossy magazine. Furthermore, the display is as clearly visible in sunlight as it is under a desk lamp. Maybe the resolution needs to be a bit higher, but I think this is a positive development.
My ideal display is a flat panel with 24 bit color, pixels too small to be seen, touch sensitive, and as large as a drafting table. I see this as one small step closer to nirvana.
- To install/remove tracks, the device must be plugged into your computer. IDE device, which means a total shutdown and restart each time. Yes, bulk copies are *much* quicker than serial or whatever, but just adding a single song at a time would be tedious.
Get a USB HD enclosure. $60-$80. Leave the cover off and just use the 40 pin cable. It's not as fast, but it allows you to add IDE devices on the fly. If you want the speed, spend a little more and do the same thing with firewire.
I think you will find if you look closer that the evidence was thrown out because the initial search was deemed illegal. (The prosecutor could not produce a warrant even though the police claimed to have one)
In any case, police are allowed to act on illegal materials found in the course of searching for something else. What they are not allowed to do is go out of their way to search for anything illegal. If they are looking for a fugitive and find a joint in a jewelry box, they cannot use that as evidence unless they are dealing with a very small fugitive or a very large jewelry box.
The reason they lost Mapp v. Ohio is because they should not have been in the house in the first place.
This is incorrect. If the police see evidence of illegal activity, they may act on it. A warrant gives them the authority to search a particular place for a particular item, but if they happen to see something else, they are not required to forget it. They are still cops. The only problem comes if they go looking in other places, for example, if they are looking for something the size of a refridgerator and find a joint in your desk drawer, then they have a problem because it is unreasonable for a fridge to hide in a desk drawer. Joints on the coffee table, however, are not protected. Also, use some air freshener.
I'm surprised that this isn't common sense. Constitutional protections exist to prevent police abuse of power. If a cop sees something illegal and acts on it, there is no abuse. You got your hand caught in the cookie jar, fair and square.