I believe it refers to Janet Reno's involvement in both the Elian Gonzales case and the Microsoft anti-trust case. Frank Beckwith does have an oddball sense of humor at times. That's probably why I like it.
The problem I have observed is that some teachers expect the computer to do their job for them. They'd just march the kids down to the computer lab and show them how to log in and drift off into cruise control. Some of the early educational software was simply the electronic equivalent of flash cards. Those same teachers would never have handed out stacks of flash cards and expected their students to teach themselves, but somehow the computer was supposed to work that magic for them. While software has improved, the attitudes of some educators has not.
Ok, you're using my rules to create a truth that applies to other people. All I am saying is that if you have first hand experience that penicillin is bad for you, don't let someone else say penicillin is good for you. I think you're reading a tad too much into them.;)
Somtimes that's what makes 'em interesting enough to reply to.....
Besides, these are simple rules from ME. Don't trust me to tell you the truth when you have experienced different.
OK. I don't believe you.
As a general rule I don't like those rules that only apply to one person. Unless there was a rule that only applied to me and it was really cool. I might like that one.
5) No matter how much you trust someone else to tell you something (be it `sensemakers' or the media at large), don't trust them as much as you trust what you know from your own experience.
That's nice in theory, but the world is full of people who have interpreted their experiences in error. I am highly allergic to penicillin. Judging by my experience alone, penicillin is a deadly poison. I have to go outside of my personal experience to find that many people have been helped by the use of this 'poison'. If I were a doctor (or played one on TV) I would probably have occasion to prescribe or administer penicillin even though my own experience contraindicates its use.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say that something won't work even though others can do the same thing with appropriate results. We all tend to filter information based upon past experience, but we have to learn to recognize that tendency and investigate the claims that do not mesh with our filter. The trick is knowing which claims to selectively investigate so that we don't end up reinventing the wheel before we can learn anything new.
Darn. Broke my own links! I read about something like this months ago in a magazine (I forget which.)
I read about it in whatever took the place of PC Computing (can't remember the new name). Here is a link to a related story I posted in an earlier discussion. Additionally, This is a link showing some of the LEP displays.
At first I was under the impression that these two articles were covering differing technologies since they both came from the same source just a month or so apart, but then I thought about double posting of stories here on slashdot a month or so apart.....
I read about something like this months ago in a magazine (I forget which.)
I read about it in whatever took the place of PC Computing (can't remember the new name). is a link to a related story I posted in an earlier discussion. Additionally, is a link showing some of the LEP displays.
At first I was under the impression that these two articles were covering differing technologies since they both came from the same source just a month or so apart, but then I thought about double posting of stories here on slashdot a month or so apart.....
I think it should include transcripts from 'War of the Worlds' followed by 'Planet of the Apes'. The rest should say, 'This space intentionally left blank'.
Any deaths directly caused by the commision of a crime are murder.
I was under the impression it had to be a felony.
Re:The reasons why - please read, Jon.
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 2
Huh, they must put it in the water where you live. Around here, taking birth control is a choice left up to individuals.
I believe the point was the numbers of people who choose that as an option. Those numbers indicate both a numerical effect on numbers of births as well as the numbers of dollars flowing into corporate coffers. They don't put lottery tickets in the water either and look how many dollars get poured into those systems.
Has anyone else pointed out the broken link? Only 2 dozen or so?
So, don't the big guys that post the stories have that neat 'preview' thingy so that they can check their links? Perhaps that's how all the typos and grammer oopses get into the stories. Either that or they just scramble to see who can post a particular story first.
Let's not forget, folks, the Star Wars films are meant primarily for children.
I'd have to disagree. In fact I will. I was in my early 20's when the original was released and was blown away by the story and FX. I still think the first three movies were exceptional in many ways (OK, other than the Ewoks, but I thought those were added to broaden the demographics and open the market for product targeting the kiddie set).
.... look at how long it's taking for HDTV or IPv6 to be adopted! Moving from a legacy communications protocol will probably take at least 5-10 years in a best case scenario.
Except that the difference between rolling out HDTV and a replacement for http is where the changes take place. With HDTV you have to upgrade the equipment at the broadcast and receiver end. You also have to deal with limited bandwidth for broadcasting that makes it difficult to serve both technologies at the same time. With a protocol change, you can transition more easily by including both standards in your browser and on the websites. How many sites already keep multiple formats on hand? Do you want frames or no frames? Do you want shockwave or no shockwave? Would you like to view the video in RealPlayer or Quicktime? I can update my browser for free. How much does that new HDTV box cost?
....they didn't do it with the intent of holding the domain hostage.
Maybe not for personal gain, but he does say he traded it for a T-1 for a highschool. I thought the admission that they deliberately looked for Fortune 500 names fit the cyber squatter M.O. but my post was intended to be facetious.
"For some people, online journalism is a path to interactive enlightenment and economic liberty," gloated the New York Times. "But to the puritans of the old media world, Web journalists are apostates who have confused liberty with license and whose delusional disregard for profit can only end in self-immolation. It was hard for the puritans not to act smug last week."
What an interesting statement. When exactly did "disregard for profit" become a journalistic liability as opposed to an ethical standard? And who conferred on mainstream journalism -- as greedy, non-interactive, incestuous and elitist an institution as exists in American public life -- this high moral ground?
I think that the more interesting statements here belong to Mr. Katz. Why use the term 'gloated' to describe what appears to be a statement of fact without value (either negative or positive) being ascribed? I think the Times' characterizations of the two sides are fairly accurate and balanced.
As far as disregard for profit being a journalistic liability, that battle has been waged in editorial meetings from the dawn of time (in the early days, profit meant you kept your skin intact by using discretion). The only publishers who have a total disregard for profit are those who have an agenda to push that they see as greater than their own well-being. That agenda may well be the unbiased, balanced reporting of the facts, but usually is not.
Previous articles put more emphasis on the embarrasment of alumni and crude jokes with censorware being the catalyst for the current discussions about a name change. In fact, prior articles seemed to downplay the effect censorware has had on the college and the enrollment numbers in this story seem to indicate the same. Reading between the lines I can see how the cesorware issue might have been used by the pro-name-change faction to convince other board menbers that blocking the name might have a negative effect on enrollment.
" The bulk of the cost is from the LCD screen, someone needs to come up with an alternative."
They already have. Here is an article about a flexible display with low power requirements that's inexpensive to produce. Supposed to be shopped to manufacturers this summer.
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was a vegetarian.
Waiter: Okay, who ordered the broiled fish with honeycomb?"
No, the honeycomb was a John the Baptist trademark along with locust (Thank you for your order at John the McBaptist's. Would you like locusts with that?)
I think the creators of RibMan, a superhero dedicated to "Truth, Justice, & Quality Meat Products", are located in KC. They might be interested in a tie-in. I don't know if RibMan would be able to come all the way from Meatropolis.
"....since binary code is simply a stream of numbers and numbers cannot be copyrighted. In fact, this goes much further... Anything represented on a digital computer is simply a binary number. Sure, the number is huge but it's just a number. (In fact, it's just an integer.) And numbers cannot be patented or copyrighted as they already exist in the public domain."
Aren't all (english) words, and therefore all texts, simply an arrangement of 26 letters that are in the public domain? You can break down anything to the component level, molecular level or whatever, but that doesn't nullify copyright or patent protection any more than murder can be justified by refering to your victim as a construct of component elements.
Well, IBM was the godfather of FUD before MS stole that crown.
However, some of this sounds a lot like the LVM for AIX - like expanding a volume's size on the fly. Wonder if they'll include smit/smitty or something like that? (Anybody else remember AT&T's FACE?)
Grammar nazi's conlusions: libel = written slander = oral electronic background checks = neither written nor oral
But the definition for libel clearly said 'written or oral', albeit not in the primary. As for the grammar nazi's conclusion:
The post said background check, 'electronic' was assumed by the grammar nazi. If we were looking at an electronic check, the results (even if transmitted via email or a report on a web page) would be considered written. I mean, we don't say somebody didn't tell us something just because their voice was transmitted electronically over the telephone network (I'm pretty sure that would work with my wife anyway).
Oh. One more thing. A spelling nazi came by while I was reading your post and said next time you should try to clarify things instead of clearify.
"I mean how will I supply a burner with enough power to burn actively when im taking photos? A burner usually suck up a lot of power, so how can they get this thing working good and portable? "
Slashdot Mirror
carlos
carlos
Somtimes that's what makes 'em interesting enough to reply to.....
Besides, these are simple rules from ME. Don't trust me to tell you the truth when you have experienced different.
OK. I don't believe you.
As a general rule I don't like those rules that only apply to one person. Unless there was a rule that only applied to me and it was really cool. I might like that one.
carlos
That's nice in theory, but the world is full of people who have interpreted their experiences in error. I am highly allergic to penicillin. Judging by my experience alone, penicillin is a deadly poison. I have to go outside of my personal experience to find that many people have been helped by the use of this 'poison'. If I were a doctor (or played one on TV) I would probably have occasion to prescribe or administer penicillin even though my own experience contraindicates its use.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say that something won't work even though others can do the same thing with appropriate results. We all tend to filter information based upon past experience, but we have to learn to recognize that tendency and investigate the claims that do not mesh with our filter. The trick is knowing which claims to selectively investigate so that we don't end up reinventing the wheel before we can learn anything new.
carlos
I read about it in whatever took the place of PC Computing (can't remember the new name). Here is a link to a related story I posted in an earlier discussion. Additionally, This is a link showing some of the LEP displays.
At first I was under the impression that these two articles were covering differing technologies since they both came from the same source just a month or so apart, but then I thought about double posting of stories here on slashdot a month or so apart.....
carlos
I read about it in whatever took the place of PC Computing (can't remember the new name). is a link to a related story I posted in an earlier discussion. Additionally, is a link showing some of the LEP displays.
At first I was under the impression that these two articles were covering differing technologies since they both came from the same source just a month or so apart, but then I thought about double posting of stories here on slashdot a month or so apart.....
carlos
carlos
I was under the impression it had to be a felony.
I believe the point was the numbers of people who choose that as an option. Those numbers indicate both a numerical effect on numbers of births as well as the numbers of dollars flowing into corporate coffers. They don't put lottery tickets in the water either and look how many dollars get poured into those systems.
carlos
So, don't the big guys that post the stories have that neat 'preview' thingy so that they can check their links? Perhaps that's how all the typos and grammer oopses get into the stories. Either that or they just scramble to see who can post a particular story first.
I'd have to disagree. In fact I will. I was in my early 20's when the original was released and was blown away by the story and FX. I still think the first three movies were exceptional in many ways (OK, other than the Ewoks, but I thought those were added to broaden the demographics and open the market for product targeting the kiddie set).
Except that the difference between rolling out HDTV and a replacement for http is where the changes take place. With HDTV you have to upgrade the equipment at the broadcast and receiver end. You also have to deal with limited bandwidth for broadcasting that makes it difficult to serve both technologies at the same time. With a protocol change, you can transition more easily by including both standards in your browser and on the websites. How many sites already keep multiple formats on hand? Do you want frames or no frames? Do you want shockwave or no shockwave? Would you like to view the video in RealPlayer or Quicktime? I can update my browser for free. How much does that new HDTV box cost?
carlos
They did send in a video guy. He invested before he even reported back to them.
carlos
Maybe not for personal gain, but he does say he traded it for a T-1 for a highschool. I thought the admission that they deliberately looked for Fortune 500 names fit the cyber squatter M.O. but my post was intended to be facetious.
carlos
carlos
What an interesting statement. When exactly did "disregard for profit" become a journalistic liability as opposed to an ethical standard? And who conferred on mainstream journalism -- as greedy, non-interactive, incestuous and elitist an institution as exists in American public life -- this high moral ground?
I think that the more interesting statements here belong to Mr. Katz. Why use the term 'gloated' to describe what appears to be a statement of fact without value (either negative or positive) being ascribed? I think the Times' characterizations of the two sides are fairly accurate and balanced.
As far as disregard for profit being a journalistic liability, that battle has been waged in editorial meetings from the dawn of time (in the early days, profit meant you kept your skin intact by using discretion). The only publishers who have a total disregard for profit are those who have an agenda to push that they see as greater than their own well-being. That agenda may well be the unbiased, balanced reporting of the facts, but usually is not.
carlos
carlos
They already have. Here is an article about a flexible display with low power requirements that's inexpensive to produce. Supposed to be shopped to manufacturers this summer.
carlos
Waiter: Okay, who ordered the broiled fish with honeycomb?"
No, the honeycomb was a John the Baptist trademark along with locust (Thank you for your order at John the McBaptist's. Would you like locusts with that?)
carlos
carlos
Aren't all (english) words, and therefore all texts, simply an arrangement of 26 letters that are in the public domain? You can break down anything to the component level, molecular level or whatever, but that doesn't nullify copyright or patent protection any more than murder can be justified by refering to your victim as a construct of component elements.
carlos
Since the Venus is marble, that shouldn't be detected as skin tones.
However, some of this sounds a lot like the LVM for AIX - like expanding a volume's size on the fly. Wonder if they'll include smit/smitty or something like that? (Anybody else remember AT&T's FACE?)
carlos
libel = written
slander = oral
electronic background checks = neither written nor oral
But the definition for libel clearly said 'written or oral', albeit not in the primary. As for the grammar nazi's conclusion:
The post said background check, 'electronic' was assumed by the grammar nazi. If we were looking at an electronic check, the results (even if transmitted via email or a report on a web page) would be considered written. I mean, we don't say somebody didn't tell us something just because their voice was transmitted electronically over the telephone network (I'm pretty sure that would work with my wife anyway).
Oh. One more thing. A spelling nazi came by while I was reading your post and said next time you should try to clarify things instead of clearify.
carlos
Propane?
carlos