I believe there are legal consequences to making public statements like that, but I forget the legal principle - it basically says "once you announce something in public, you can't just 'take it back'". The legal term is "estoppel".
Basically, Microsoft pledges not to sue if you use the API. Then once people start using it, they say, "Sorry, we didn't mean it. We sue you now." The doctrines of estoppel would prevent them from successfully suing you, as they are estopped by their pledge. You can't be held liable for their change.
Of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything any time in our legal system, so it may be no great comfort to know that they won't succeed if they sue you. They know they can bankrupt you with legal fees, at least for however long they can drag out appeals (which can be longer than you can go without the money).
For some time, it seemed the only thing the good guys would get out of SCO would be some old stationery and a few logo pens. With $100 million more, there's a chance that someone can be made to pay at least a little something for the many sins of that den of iniquity which calls itself SCO.
Tell you what, let's have all the evil team come right out and invest *everything* in SCO. That way we can have enough to pay for some really nice pyres and ale for the victory dancing.
Initially, I was thinking Hanlon's Razor. Even though NetSol has never proven worthy of being given the benefit of a doubt, in the interest of undeserved fairness, I'd assume the best.
Then, however, I got to thinking about the situation. It *doesn't* protect the customer at all, now, does it? If John Q. Hostmaster looks up JohnQHostmasterIsGreat.com, little Johnny can't register the domain anywhere else, but *anyone* can register the domain from NetSol. A "domain speculator" (i.e. lying, conniving jerk) can come right after and purchase the domain from NetSol in the wonderful "5-day waiting period".
By making it more costly to grab domains out from under the curious, it may allow some people to register their domains before they're sniped, but you can't overlook the side effect. At best, you can think of it as NetSol charging you a "protection fee" for making it slightly more expensive for the "speculators". At worst, well, you can think of it exactly as it appears: a simple case of greed with a very thin veneer of "for the children".
The thing that most people don't know about the shuttle is the number of pressure modules on it. These are mostly high-pressure titanium-alloy composite-wrapped spheres, with service pressures ranging to 4500 psi or so. Outside the space program, the absolute life limit of a fiber-wrapped composite pressure vessel is 15 years. After 15 years, it must be condemned and removed from service.
They are *well* past the original design lifetime of the pressure vessels on the shuttle. Additionally, there is no manufacturer who *can* make replacements at this point. It would require them to retool a line and start from scratch, and no business is going to do that for less than a king's ransom, and even if they did, it would require time to build the line and test the vessels.
In order to keep flying with pressure vessels *well* past their "expiration date", NASA has run some tests and decided the vessels were capable of (safe enough) continued service. Still, they were concerned enough to rewrite the procedures. Now, they ramp up the pressure to less than the rated service pressure, and they wait until basically the latest possible time to "top off" to the required values. This leaves the pressure vessels under full stress for less total time, but there's still the risk that they'll "go boom" (and if you've never seen what even a 3000-psi 80 cubic foot scuba cylinder can do when it ruptures... well, as Keanu Reeves would say, "Whoa...").
Anyway, they've "extended" the service life of the pressure vessels on the shuttle, but they do not have arbitrarily infinite lives. It's certainly not a single thing that is forcing NASA's hand into retiring the shuttle fleet, but you can be damn well sure that the condition of the high pressure vessels is right at the front of many an engineer's darkest fears.
No wifi, no pdf support, no support for encrypted (purchased) mobipocket ebooks (only unencrypted), no paper backup options for ebook purchases, nickle and dime charges for wireless transfers, selling access to web sites that are basically free including blogs, $400 and an exterior look inspired by 1980's Coleco products all lead to one conclusion: EPIC FAIL.
You can use USB if you don't want to use "Whispernet", and saving the cost and energy usage of another chipset is fine by me. You wouldn't want them to pull the EVDO feature, would you?
PDF support in Sony Reader (the competition) is crap. The minute you go with PDF, you lose all the control the user has over presentation. I'd like to be able to munge PDFs into the thing, but only if they can be handled primarily as text, which is not trivial in the general case.
If you bought DRM-laden MobiPocket books, go figure, you're out of luck. (Why are we arguing for *more* DRM?)
Who needs a paper backup when you can always re-download if something happens? (Isn't the absence of paper rather the whole *point*?)
Would you rather pay a "transfer fee" per purchase or a monthly subscription *and* the price of the reading materials? (Plus, if you want to copy your converted material, you can just use the USB interface to avoid the ten cent convenience fee.)
They're not selling access; they're selling bandwidth. Frankly, more power to them, as that's another feature *I* don't have to pay for. My recurring cost would be zilch, and that's a good thing to me.
Can't argue with you about the high cost, and I was trying to come up with what it looked like. It is a bit like Coleco, or perhaps like the version of the 2600 that was all black, sharp-edged plastic with not a hint of wood grain.
Anyway, looking at it from a reader's perspective, I dare say that the only prohibitively negative line item is the price. If I could get one for $200, I'd give it to myself today. (It's my birthday, after all.) For $400? I just can't justify that, especially considering the complete lack of books such as the Homecoming saga from Orson Scott Card (which is my current reading material). If I were more into best-sellers, it might look a little better.
Honestly, though, if I bought one, I'd likely use it primarily with Project Gutenberg texts, as I really enjoy them, but it's unpleasant reading them on any of my current devices. The thing that really intrigues me, however, is the whole Whispernet thing. It almost looks like this is the beginning of the Star Trek PADD. Wherever you go, you've got universal wireless access to all data -- it's not nearly to that extent yet, but you can see how it's a glimmer of the future.
Rich corp sues single mom. She spends $100k defending herself through a long, pitched legal battle. She finally wins.
Meanwhile, the corp has only spent $50k on the baseless accusations, as they get a bulk rate on their worthless experts and they used staff lawyers paid far less than partners (or some associates). After all, they didn't really care if they won *every* case, just some of them.
Anyway, the single mom is exonerated, but she is only paid $50k of her legal fees. The other $50k is her expense. That's only fair, eh?
The problem with "loser pays up to what loser spent" is that there exist entities that can afford to "file in bulk" and who don't really care to win, just to harass enough to force a settlement. The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale, and as the defendants can't afford to lose, they have to pay for "higher quality" representation (or at least, they have to pay for a lawyer to handle their case, as opposed to paying a law firm to stamp out 500 cases with little intent to follow through on them all).
Every time something like this comes up, there is a cacophony of geekdom crying out tripe about "common carrier" status without any understanding about what those words *mean*.
Do we not ridicule politicians who make laws based on their completely boneheaded ideas about what technology means ("tubes", anyone?)? Do we not loathe judges who rule in favor of the "MAFIAA" due to their complete lack of even elementary comprehension of what is involved in, say, *watching* a DVD? Do we not scoff at the astonishingly anemic attempts to create engaging television and movie plots out of programming and information security? Do we not groan inwardly (and some of us, outwardly) when a reporter tarnishes the good name that was "hacker"?
If we're going to claim to be anything better than those who speak from ignorance, let us cease with the "common carrier" whine until such point as we know what it *means*!
It is acceptable to give a big Skywalkerian whine about the "system" that lets a huge corporation own separately regulated subsidiaries, with some being "telecommunications services" subject to "common carrier" laws and others being "information services" not included in "common carrier" laws. (Whining to elected officials may not be any more productive, but then again, it would be the proper venue.) On the other hand, whining here while not even bothering to know what you're whining about? That makes you ignorant, and if the trend I pointed out above is any indicator, we don't abide ignorance here.
(Guess I should've used the rant markup, but I couldn't remember whether it was supposed to be SGML, XML, OOpsXML, or what, so it likely wouldn't validate even if I did.)
Apparently only the cool people got T-shirts. If even my underwater party wasn't enough to get any participants or even a T-shirt, I suppose it was T-shirts for the cool people with the big drinking parties... Wait a minute, so after 10 years, Slashdot has moved from geek style to grown-up frat boy? Popular people and alcohol get all the free stuff, and the nerds are left with nothing but an innate sense that they haven't sold out.;)
Honestly, if nobody else even bothered to show up, what chance do I have of winning any cool people stuff? I didn't even have a camera diver, so I couldn't do the underwater birthday cake with candles that I'd prepped. (Note that disposable lighters don't work below about 35 feet or so, and the cake display was at 50 feet. Matches worked well in tests.)
*More* honestly, it's just a whole lot of bother, and I'm too lazy to deal with it for the mathematically infinitesimal chance of winning a prize. I'd be more likely to bother if there *weren't* a prize. I don't have to admit any of that, however, as the classic "I'm being oppressed" whine is far more in character for a random post pulled from the first ten years. I figure the least I can do is whine properly if I'm going to be too lazy to bother sending anything in so I can lose a contest.;)
I'm just wondering, should I take the summary as intentionally ironic (i.e. as if it had referred to an operating system "by a company called Microsoft"), or should I assume it was written by someone *fascinatingly* oblivious to the recent history of decryption software and the disputed legalities thereof? An informed, non-ironic summary would simply say, "...by ElcomSoft...", of course.
For any of you who may have been living under a rock (possibly on another planet), ElcomSoft is the company that was employing Dmitry Sklyarov, who was arrested in the US on DMCA charges when he'd come to present at a conference. Wikipedia has more.
You'd be hard pressed to make that distinction from advertising, since it is all advertised together as a single product. Comcast Cable, Internet and Telephone all from one. I haven't seen the Comcast bundle ads, but I've seen the same from Cox. You have to be looking for it, but if you watch for fine print and use your mad DVR skills, you get to see something like "Phone service provided through Cox Blatheringly-Long-Name, LLC." It's no different than seeing an ad for an AT&T, with the video service actually being bundled DirecTV satellite service.
(The fact that Cox shows ads lambasting AT&T's bundle as being a bunch of unrelated services from multiple companies all on one bill and then shows their own ads for... yep... unrelated services from multiple companies all on one bill shows both sides' apparently opinions about the stupidity of their marks... er... "customers".)
Anyway, if you wish to make the argument that what an ad says should matter and that fine print should be discounted (or even prohibited), you have a very, very long road ahead of you, but you can probably do decently well in the primaries. How about making a run for office next time around?
But Comcast IS a "Telecommunications Service" now that they are offering "Comcast Digital Voice". Ah, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders. Beware the high art of misdirection:
The "Comcast" from which you'd get Internet access is an "Information Service", and they remain as such. The "Comcast" from which you get "Comcast Digital Voice", on the other hand, is not the same "Comcast" as the other "Comcast".
For example, take the following excerpt from some Comcast Digital Voice residential Terms of Service that I found somewhere out there on the Net:
"We," "our," and "us" mean Comcast Phone of Maryland, Inc. and Comcast Phone of Michigan, LLC (doing business as Comcast Digital Phone), Comcast Phone of Northern Virginia, Inc. (doing business as Comcast Digital Phone of Northern Virginia), as well as any affiliates of those companies authorized to provide Comcast Digital Phone to customers located in Maryland, Michigan, and Northern Virginia. It turns out it's the *name* that's important. Just like the Dread Pirate Roberts, there are many who go by the name "Comcast", but they are not all truly the same entity.
So... um... How much is it for a charter to the Spiegel Grove?;)
Just give me a few minutes to fab a fake monitor with a Windows BSOD on it, and we can claim it was one of those new-fangled Clippy Ships. (Hmm... or better yet, same idea, but on the Oriskany...)
Okay, yes, I actually created a party planned to be about 50-60 feet (15-18 meters) underwater at a spring in Florida, and sure, live network connections are a bit hard to come by under that much water and rock. Thankfully laser printed pages are relatively impervious to water (although the paper tends to go downhill fast), because I don't think my laptop would really care for the dampness. (1. Inverter. 2. Water. 3. ??? 4. Profit?) I think the 2.5 ata of pressure might harm some components, too.
Anyway, if any of you happen to be divers, please do join me. You're already a nerd or a geek (that being an inclusive or, of course), so why not be a dork, too, and do a slashdot dive? It'll be fun! Trust me.:D
(The dive is set for the fall of night on the 20th at "The Cavern at Vortex Spring" right near Ponce de Leon, FL.)
This brings up a question. Is a store legally allowed to make you show your receipt or look through your bags? From what I've read (which is by no means authoritative), a normal store can only ask; you are free to refuse. A "club" on the other hand (like Sam's, Costco, or whatever) where you are a member and have a membership agreement *can* require it, as they'll have that permission written into the membership agreement, which you accepted as a condition of shopping there.
If the guy lied and said he didn't have his license, the police could charge him for perjury. No, they couldn't. Perjury is lying under oath, and nobody can claim that he was giving sworn testimony.
Obstruction? Lying to an officer? Something else? Sure. Just not perjury.
Why don't you do a little research before you post next time?
Florida Statutes Look at Section 3(b). I didn't say they couldn't pull you over, I said they couldn't fine you. Read your own link, specifically, items 318.18(3)(c) and (e) -- just below where you stopped reading.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a person cited for exceeding the speed limit by up to 5 m.p.h. in a legally posted school zone will be fined $50. A person exceeding the speed limit in a school zone shall pay a fine double the amount listed in paragraph (b).
(e) A person cited for exceeding the speed limit in an enhanced penalty zone shall pay a fine amount of $50 plus the amount listed in paragraph (b). Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a person cited for exceeding the speed limit by up to 5 m.p.h. in a legally posted enhanced penalty zone shall pay a fine amount of $50. Won't you read the whole section before you "BZZT, Wrong!" someone next time?:p
The BBC article also gives a value for its voltage:
a sample slightly larger than a postage stamp... can release about 2.3 volts But the voltage across the cell is independent of the area of the electrodes. A sample the size of a house could also "release about 2.3 volts", assuming it was the same number of cells. (Would that be "one"?)
For you non-science types, think about your little batteries from the local store (AAA, AA, C, and D). They all have one cell per "battery", so they all provide the same voltage (about 1.5 volts for an "alkaline battery"). A "9-volt", on the other hand, while smaller than a "D-cell", provides six times the voltage. If you take it apart (wear gloves and safety glasses), you'll find that it is made up of six cells in a stack.
Swimming Machine "Flex your legs, then kick out -- the Aqueon swimming machine enables you to out-speed an Olympic swimmer, says Pan Western Research. As your legs move, the forward plane rises and falls." -- Popular Science
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, Microsoft pledges not to sue if you use the API. Then once people start using it, they say, "Sorry, we didn't mean it. We sue you now." The doctrines of estoppel would prevent them from successfully suing you, as they are estopped by their pledge. You can't be held liable for their change.
Of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything any time in our legal system, so it may be no great comfort to know that they won't succeed if they sue you. They know they can bankrupt you with legal fees, at least for however long they can drag out appeals (which can be longer than you can go without the money).
For some time, it seemed the only thing the good guys would get out of SCO would be some old stationery and a few logo pens. With $100 million more, there's a chance that someone can be made to pay at least a little something for the many sins of that den of iniquity which calls itself SCO.
Tell you what, let's have all the evil team come right out and invest *everything* in SCO. That way we can have enough to pay for some really nice pyres and ale for the victory dancing.
Initially, I was thinking Hanlon's Razor. Even though NetSol has never proven worthy of being given the benefit of a doubt, in the interest of undeserved fairness, I'd assume the best.
Then, however, I got to thinking about the situation. It *doesn't* protect the customer at all, now, does it? If John Q. Hostmaster looks up JohnQHostmasterIsGreat.com, little Johnny can't register the domain anywhere else, but *anyone* can register the domain from NetSol. A "domain speculator" (i.e. lying, conniving jerk) can come right after and purchase the domain from NetSol in the wonderful "5-day waiting period".
By making it more costly to grab domains out from under the curious, it may allow some people to register their domains before they're sniped, but you can't overlook the side effect. At best, you can think of it as NetSol charging you a "protection fee" for making it slightly more expensive for the "speculators". At worst, well, you can think of it exactly as it appears: a simple case of greed with a very thin veneer of "for the children".
I'm trying to come up with a reasonable identity for the cosine of experience.
The thing that most people don't know about the shuttle is the number of pressure modules on it. These are mostly high-pressure titanium-alloy composite-wrapped spheres, with service pressures ranging to 4500 psi or so. Outside the space program, the absolute life limit of a fiber-wrapped composite pressure vessel is 15 years. After 15 years, it must be condemned and removed from service.
They are *well* past the original design lifetime of the pressure vessels on the shuttle. Additionally, there is no manufacturer who *can* make replacements at this point. It would require them to retool a line and start from scratch, and no business is going to do that for less than a king's ransom, and even if they did, it would require time to build the line and test the vessels.
In order to keep flying with pressure vessels *well* past their "expiration date", NASA has run some tests and decided the vessels were capable of (safe enough) continued service. Still, they were concerned enough to rewrite the procedures. Now, they ramp up the pressure to less than the rated service pressure, and they wait until basically the latest possible time to "top off" to the required values. This leaves the pressure vessels under full stress for less total time, but there's still the risk that they'll "go boom" (and if you've never seen what even a 3000-psi 80 cubic foot scuba cylinder can do when it ruptures... well, as Keanu Reeves would say, "Whoa...").
Anyway, they've "extended" the service life of the pressure vessels on the shuttle, but they do not have arbitrarily infinite lives. It's certainly not a single thing that is forcing NASA's hand into retiring the shuttle fleet, but you can be damn well sure that the condition of the high pressure vessels is right at the front of many an engineer's darkest fears.
With pay phones finally out of the way, there will be plenty of room for the new suicide booths!
- You can use USB if you don't want to use "Whispernet", and saving the cost and energy usage of another chipset is fine by me. You wouldn't want them to pull the EVDO feature, would you?
- PDF support in Sony Reader (the competition) is crap. The minute you go with PDF, you lose all the control the user has over presentation. I'd like to be able to munge PDFs into the thing, but only if they can be handled primarily as text, which is not trivial in the general case.
- If you bought DRM-laden MobiPocket books, go figure, you're out of luck. (Why are we arguing for *more* DRM?)
- Who needs a paper backup when you can always re-download if something happens? (Isn't the absence of paper rather the whole *point*?)
- Would you rather pay a "transfer fee" per purchase or a monthly subscription *and* the price of the reading materials? (Plus, if you want to copy your converted material, you can just use the USB interface to avoid the ten cent convenience fee.)
- They're not selling access; they're selling bandwidth. Frankly, more power to them, as that's another feature *I* don't have to pay for. My recurring cost would be zilch, and that's a good thing to me.
- Can't argue with you about the high cost, and I was trying to come up with what it looked like. It is a bit like Coleco, or perhaps like the version of the 2600 that was all black, sharp-edged plastic with not a hint of wood grain.
Anyway, looking at it from a reader's perspective, I dare say that the only prohibitively negative line item is the price. If I could get one for $200, I'd give it to myself today. (It's my birthday, after all.) For $400? I just can't justify that, especially considering the complete lack of books such as the Homecoming saga from Orson Scott Card (which is my current reading material). If I were more into best-sellers, it might look a little better.Honestly, though, if I bought one, I'd likely use it primarily with Project Gutenberg texts, as I really enjoy them, but it's unpleasant reading them on any of my current devices. The thing that really intrigues me, however, is the whole Whispernet thing. It almost looks like this is the beginning of the Star Trek PADD. Wherever you go, you've got universal wireless access to all data -- it's not nearly to that extent yet, but you can see how it's a glimmer of the future.
Rich corp sues single mom. She spends $100k defending herself through a long, pitched legal battle. She finally wins.
Meanwhile, the corp has only spent $50k on the baseless accusations, as they get a bulk rate on their worthless experts and they used staff lawyers paid far less than partners (or some associates). After all, they didn't really care if they won *every* case, just some of them.
Anyway, the single mom is exonerated, but she is only paid $50k of her legal fees. The other $50k is her expense. That's only fair, eh?
The problem with "loser pays up to what loser spent" is that there exist entities that can afford to "file in bulk" and who don't really care to win, just to harass enough to force a settlement. The individual defendants don't get the benefit of the economies of scale, and as the defendants can't afford to lose, they have to pay for "higher quality" representation (or at least, they have to pay for a lawyer to handle their case, as opposed to paying a law firm to stamp out 500 cases with little intent to follow through on them all).
Every time something like this comes up, there is a cacophony of geekdom crying out tripe about "common carrier" status without any understanding about what those words *mean*.
Do we not ridicule politicians who make laws based on their completely boneheaded ideas about what technology means ("tubes", anyone?)? Do we not loathe judges who rule in favor of the "MAFIAA" due to their complete lack of even elementary comprehension of what is involved in, say, *watching* a DVD? Do we not scoff at the astonishingly anemic attempts to create engaging television and movie plots out of programming and information security? Do we not groan inwardly (and some of us, outwardly) when a reporter tarnishes the good name that was "hacker"?
If we're going to claim to be anything better than those who speak from ignorance, let us cease with the "common carrier" whine until such point as we know what it *means*!
It is acceptable to give a big Skywalkerian whine about the "system" that lets a huge corporation own separately regulated subsidiaries, with some being "telecommunications services" subject to "common carrier" laws and others being "information services" not included in "common carrier" laws. (Whining to elected officials may not be any more productive, but then again, it would be the proper venue.) On the other hand, whining here while not even bothering to know what you're whining about? That makes you ignorant, and if the trend I pointed out above is any indicator, we don't abide ignorance here.
(Guess I should've used the rant markup, but I couldn't remember whether it was supposed to be SGML, XML, OOpsXML, or what, so it likely wouldn't validate even if I did.)
(I hope this doesn't get in the way of my thrice-weekly xkcd entertainment.)
Apparently only the cool people got T-shirts. If even my underwater party wasn't enough to get any participants or even a T-shirt, I suppose it was T-shirts for the cool people with the big drinking parties... Wait a minute, so after 10 years, Slashdot has moved from geek style to grown-up frat boy? Popular people and alcohol get all the free stuff, and the nerds are left with nothing but an innate sense that they haven't sold out. ;)
;)
Honestly, if nobody else even bothered to show up, what chance do I have of winning any cool people stuff? I didn't even have a camera diver, so I couldn't do the underwater birthday cake with candles that I'd prepped. (Note that disposable lighters don't work below about 35 feet or so, and the cake display was at 50 feet. Matches worked well in tests.)
*More* honestly, it's just a whole lot of bother, and I'm too lazy to deal with it for the mathematically infinitesimal chance of winning a prize. I'd be more likely to bother if there *weren't* a prize. I don't have to admit any of that, however, as the classic "I'm being oppressed" whine is far more in character for a random post pulled from the first ten years. I figure the least I can do is whine properly if I'm going to be too lazy to bother sending anything in so I can lose a contest.
I'm just wondering, should I take the summary as intentionally ironic (i.e. as if it had referred to an operating system "by a company called Microsoft"), or should I assume it was written by someone *fascinatingly* oblivious to the recent history of decryption software and the disputed legalities thereof? An informed, non-ironic summary would simply say, "...by ElcomSoft...", of course.
For any of you who may have been living under a rock (possibly on another planet), ElcomSoft is the company that was employing Dmitry Sklyarov, who was arrested in the US on DMCA charges when he'd come to present at a conference. Wikipedia has more.
(The fact that Cox shows ads lambasting AT&T's bundle as being a bunch of unrelated services from multiple companies all on one bill and then shows their own ads for... yep... unrelated services from multiple companies all on one bill shows both sides' apparently opinions about the stupidity of their marks... er... "customers".)
Anyway, if you wish to make the argument that what an ad says should matter and that fine print should be discounted (or even prohibited), you have a very, very long road ahead of you, but you can probably do decently well in the primaries. How about making a run for office next time around?
The "Comcast" from which you'd get Internet access is an "Information Service", and they remain as such. The "Comcast" from which you get "Comcast Digital Voice", on the other hand, is not the same "Comcast" as the other "Comcast".
For example, take the following excerpt from some Comcast Digital Voice residential Terms of Service that I found somewhere out there on the Net: "We," "our," and "us" mean Comcast Phone of Maryland, Inc. and Comcast Phone of Michigan, LLC (doing business as Comcast Digital Phone), Comcast Phone of Northern Virginia, Inc. (doing business as Comcast Digital Phone of Northern Virginia), as well as any affiliates of those companies authorized to provide Comcast Digital Phone to customers located in Maryland, Michigan, and Northern Virginia. It turns out it's the *name* that's important. Just like the Dread Pirate Roberts, there are many who go by the name "Comcast", but they are not all truly the same entity.
So... um... How much is it for a charter to the Spiegel Grove? ;)
Just give me a few minutes to fab a fake monitor with a Windows BSOD on it, and we can claim it was one of those new-fangled Clippy Ships. (Hmm... or better yet, same idea, but on the Oriskany...)
Don't let me be the only Slashdot diver at the Vortex Spring party.
:D
Sure, having an underwater party makes me a dork, but this is Slashdot! We're *good* at being dorks!
Okay, yes, I actually created a party planned to be about 50-60 feet (15-18 meters) underwater at a spring in Florida, and sure, live network connections are a bit hard to come by under that much water and rock. Thankfully laser printed pages are relatively impervious to water (although the paper tends to go downhill fast), because I don't think my laptop would really care for the dampness. (1. Inverter. 2. Water. 3. ??? 4. Profit?) I think the 2.5 ata of pressure might harm some components, too.
:D
Anyway, if any of you happen to be divers, please do join me. You're already a nerd or a geek (that being an inclusive or, of course), so why not be a dork, too, and do a slashdot dive? It'll be fun! Trust me.
(The dive is set for the fall of night on the 20th at "The Cavern at Vortex Spring" right near Ponce de Leon, FL.)
Obstruction? Lying to an officer? Something else? Sure. Just not perjury.
Why don't you do a little research before you post next time?
Florida Statutes Look at Section 3(b). I didn't say they couldn't pull you over, I said they couldn't fine you. Read your own link, specifically, items 318.18(3)(c) and (e) -- just below where you stopped reading. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a person cited for exceeding the speed limit by up to 5 m.p.h. in a legally posted school zone will be fined $50. A person exceeding the speed limit in a school zone shall pay a fine double the amount listed in paragraph (b). (e) A person cited for exceeding the speed limit in an enhanced penalty zone shall pay a fine amount of $50 plus the amount listed in paragraph (b). Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a person cited for exceeding the speed limit by up to 5 m.p.h. in a legally posted enhanced penalty zone shall pay a fine amount of $50. Won't you read the whole section before you "BZZT, Wrong!" someone next time?
For you non-science types, think about your little batteries from the local store (AAA, AA, C, and D). They all have one cell per "battery", so they all provide the same voltage (about 1.5 volts for an "alkaline battery"). A "9-volt", on the other hand, while smaller than a "D-cell", provides six times the voltage. If you take it apart (wear gloves and safety glasses), you'll find that it is made up of six cells in a stack.
Swimming Machine
"Flex your legs, then kick out -- the Aqueon swimming machine enables you to out-speed an Olympic swimmer, says Pan Western Research. As your legs move, the forward plane rises and falls." -- Popular Science
(Popular Science, "What's New", June 1974)
You can see the old flyer at Innerspace Corporation.
Of course, I read the article. In the interest of not spoiling it for you, I'll just mention that it's on the first page.
(I'd normally answer, but I figure a bit of non-spoiling karma might come in handy. I don't get my copy of HP7 until Saturday morning at 12:01am CDT.)
So, basically, Google takes the Google Maps mashups and makes a mashup of them, if you want to think of it like that?
Or, perhaps, might one better think of it as potato flakes -- i.e. making it so users can get their mashups pre-mashed.