The involvement of DNA in trials is overrated and blown completely out of proportion by the media. What does DNA evidence prove in most cases, other than that a person, or something they might have come in contact with ended up in a particular location? Often times it's a small part of the whole of evidence. It's also very expensive and is not used in the majority of cases, even those involving murder and/or rape.
Most on-line casinos make their money by taking a "rake" on each hand. They make plenty of money that way, that they really don't need to cheat, and are better off encouraging people to play against each other and bet big money, so they get a bigger rake.
Saw some show on the History Channel the other day about the MIT Blackjack group that made craploads of money; is this the modern day incarnation of that? =]
The bots they refer to are not ones that tell you your odds, but ones that play the entire game for you.
Anyway, the issue is that it detracts regular uses from wanting to participate, and therefore overall business goes down. The bot user isn't necessarily affected directly, but the online casino will lose customers as it gains a reputation as a haven for bots.
You can either pay $50/year (only those that use the service will pay for it) or $25-50 more for the game, whether or not you use the service.
I think subscription based games make sense in some cases. That said, I think that WoW should be "free" and the only fee be for the online subscription, since it's useless otherwise. I'm pretty sure I heard otherwise though.
instead of (almost) always the nice round, multiples of 10...
Not only that, but they always come in nice round dosage increments as well.
More than likely with antibiotics, you are getting more than you need in order to be safe.
I've got some drugs I'm taking now where the dosage can be very flexible, all I need to do is call my doctor and tell him I feel I need more or less for the prescription.
Considering they're the BNC, it only makes sense that they would be mostly concerned with the use of English within Britian.
From the BNC themselves:
"The British National Corpus (BNC) is a 100 million word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent a wide cross-section of current British English, both spoken and written."
Actually, now that I've typed this comment, it does appear that WordCount is misrepresenting their data; the BNC is quite clear about it's origins, and WordCourt seems to purport that it covers the entire cross-section of current English usage.
Why do they transport atomic bombs around the world? what for?
Ever hear of the cold war? When someone has that many nukes pointed at you, you need to have just as many or more pointed back at them and ready to go, or you're a sitting duck.
I suppose you think that Russia, France, China, UK, Israel, India and Pakistan are all "co[w]ard[s] and assholes."?
Show boss that after x=f(a,b) days you will be ahead and have more time to work on projects and thus cut costs (use the word MONEY somewhere) in his department.
The best thing you could do is show them how this small effort could eliminate someone's job. That's how you save the most money. Of course, it's also a good way to not make any friends at work.
Fortran is still used in many applications. Obviously it's what was used when the program was first started, and it easier to continue on in the same language at this point, than to start over in a new language.
They're also primarily concerned with performance over other things; this would definitely influence their opinion if they were to adopt a new language (as opposed to maintainability and/or portability).
Interestingly enough, I took my car in for service regarding a turn signal issue and was told that there was an (internal?) announcement regarding the issue, but since it was not widespread enough yet, there was not yet a recall (and thus, owners of the vehicle were not notified).
I wonder if similar things occur with safety issues? It makes sense, in that you don't want to issue a recall until you've had the chance to fully evaluate the problem and come up with a workable solution.
These issues raised by Benson have been addressed by the Supreme Court of a number of different occasions (with specific references to his book). Not surprisingly, their arguments are far more convincing and have much better reasoning that those presented by Benson. I present the cases for you, and allow you to draw your own conclusions:
Miller v. U.S., 868 F.2d 236, C.A.7 (Ind.),1989.
United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1986)
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.1986)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed.2d 493 (1916)
There is much evidence that the 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED by congress.
Congress doesn't ratify amendments, the states do. Give me your evidence that it was never ratified. I assure you it had long been put to rest that it was ratified, and the Supreme Court has addressed the issue numerous times and each time concluded that it was properly ratified. Thus, Congress has the power to levy an income tax.
The argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified is based on that the States did not all receive exactly replicas of the text of the Amendment (some things being as trivial as capitalization, misspellings, etc.) If similar rules are applied to other Amendments, women would not have the right to vote, black people might still only be 3/5ths of a person, etc.
The Supreme Court has very clearly decided the issue and repeatedly said that because the Secretary of State certified everything it is binding on the Courts, who do not have the power to rule about Constitutional Amendments anyway.
Which is just a clarification of the scope of the powers of Congress under Article I Section 8; and still clearly gives them the power to levy taxes on income (and authorize the IRS to collect said taxes).
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Copyright infringement is when you infringe on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. So, the unauthorized distributer/public displayer, etc. of a copyrighted work is infringing on the copyright holder's exlusive right to distribute their work as they see fit.
So, no it's not illegal to download copyrighted material from an unauthorized distributer. However, the distributer is infringing on someone else's copyrights, and there is definitely a moral dilemna in that you are helping to create a demand for the infringer's actions.
I don't think it will happen any time soon; however, there is always the possibility that Congress will change the law to include "contributing to infringement" as an offense as well, which could be construed as to include receiving nonauthorized distributions of materials.
Slashdot Mirror
The involvement of DNA in trials is overrated and blown completely out of proportion by the media. What does DNA evidence prove in most cases, other than that a person, or something they might have come in contact with ended up in a particular location? Often times it's a small part of the whole of evidence. It's also very expensive and is not used in the majority of cases, even those involving murder and/or rape.
Yes, I was concurring with you and just elaborating a little bit.
Most on-line casinos make their money by taking a "rake" on each hand. They make plenty of money that way, that they really don't need to cheat, and are better off encouraging people to play against each other and bet big money, so they get a bigger rake.
Saw some show on the History Channel the other day about the MIT Blackjack group that made craploads of money; is this the modern day incarnation of that? =]
The bots they refer to are not ones that tell you your odds, but ones that play the entire game for you.
Anyway, the issue is that it detracts regular uses from wanting to participate, and therefore overall business goes down. The bot user isn't necessarily affected directly, but the online casino will lose customers as it gains a reputation as a haven for bots.
You can either pay $50/year (only those that use the service will pay for it) or $25-50 more for the game, whether or not you use the service.
I think subscription based games make sense in some cases. That said, I think that WoW should be "free" and the only fee be for the online subscription, since it's useless otherwise. I'm pretty sure I heard otherwise though.
instead of (almost) always the nice round, multiples of 10...
Not only that, but they always come in nice round dosage increments as well.
More than likely with antibiotics, you are getting more than you need in order to be safe.
I've got some drugs I'm taking now where the dosage can be very flexible, all I need to do is call my doctor and tell him I feel I need more or less for the prescription.
Pharmacy is not by any means an exact science.
it's = its
Cut me some slack, I had to watch da Bears beat the Packers yesterday, and as a consequence, had to stay up an extra few hours doing schoolwork.
Considering they're the BNC, it only makes sense that they would be mostly concerned with the use of English within Britian.
From the BNC themselves:
"The British National Corpus (BNC) is a 100 million word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent a wide cross-section of current British English, both spoken and written."
Actually, now that I've typed this comment, it does appear that WordCount is misrepresenting their data; the BNC is quite clear about it's origins, and WordCourt seems to purport that it covers the entire cross-section of current English usage.
Name me a major terrorist attack since the OKC bombing that was not carried out by Islamic extremists.
All of those that have occurred in Spain and Russia?
All of those that have been done by Israel?
Why do they transport atomic bombs around the world? what for?
Ever hear of the cold war? When someone has that many nukes pointed at you, you need to have just as many or more pointed back at them and ready to go, or you're a sitting duck.
I suppose you think that Russia, France, China, UK, Israel, India and Pakistan are all "co[w]ard[s] and assholes."?
as shown by the fact that users deliberately and knowingly install it...
Just like they did with their anti-virus software, and they also told it to go ahead and delete the crap.
Show boss that after x=f(a,b) days you will be ahead and have more time to work on projects and thus cut costs (use the word MONEY somewhere) in his department.
The best thing you could do is show them how this small effort could eliminate someone's job. That's how you save the most money. Of course, it's also a good way to not make any friends at work.
Fortran is still used in many applications. Obviously it's what was used when the program was first started, and it easier to continue on in the same language at this point, than to start over in a new language.
They're also primarily concerned with performance over other things; this would definitely influence their opinion if they were to adopt a new language (as opposed to maintainability and/or portability).
There has to be somewhere within walking distance that you can get a beer on your lunch break.
Interestingly enough, I took my car in for service regarding a turn signal issue and was told that there was an (internal?) announcement regarding the issue, but since it was not widespread enough yet, there was not yet a recall (and thus, owners of the vehicle were not notified).
I wonder if similar things occur with safety issues? It makes sense, in that you don't want to issue a recall until you've had the chance to fully evaluate the problem and come up with a workable solution.
I didn't say it was, but more than likely it is still less than twice the computer hardware in the other.
Suppose you have 2 employees; you have the following options:
2 separate computers - costs: (2*cost of computer hardware)+(2*cost of software licenses)
1 computer, two consoles - costs: (1*cost of computer hardware)+(2*cost of software licenses)
There is a cost savings, although it might be somewhat minimal.
These issues raised by Benson have been addressed by the Supreme Court of a number of different occasions (with specific references to his book). Not surprisingly, their arguments are far more convincing and have much better reasoning that those presented by Benson. I present the cases for you, and allow you to draw your own conclusions:
Miller v. U.S., 868 F.2d 236, C.A.7 (Ind.),1989.
United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1986)
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.1986)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed.2d 493 (1916)
U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, C.A.9 (Mont.),1986.
There is much evidence that the 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED by congress.
Congress doesn't ratify amendments, the states do. Give me your evidence that it was never ratified. I assure you it had long been put to rest that it was ratified, and the Supreme Court has addressed the issue numerous times and each time concluded that it was properly ratified. Thus, Congress has the power to levy an income tax.
The argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified is based on that the States did not all receive exactly replicas of the text of the Amendment (some things being as trivial as capitalization, misspellings, etc.) If similar rules are applied to other Amendments, women would not have the right to vote, black people might still only be 3/5ths of a person, etc.
The Supreme Court has very clearly decided the issue and repeatedly said that because the Secretary of State certified everything it is binding on the Courts, who do not have the power to rule about Constitutional Amendments anyway.
This argument has been dead since at least 1986.
Which is just a clarification of the scope of the powers of Congress under Article I Section 8; and still clearly gives them the power to levy taxes on income (and authorize the IRS to collect said taxes).
U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Is that a good enough explanation?
Perhaps the orginal poster confused you cannucks with pirates?
Copyright infringement is when you infringe on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. So, the unauthorized distributer/public displayer, etc. of a copyrighted work is infringing on the copyright holder's exlusive right to distribute their work as they see fit.
So, no it's not illegal to download copyrighted material from an unauthorized distributer. However, the distributer is infringing on someone else's copyrights, and there is definitely a moral dilemna in that you are helping to create a demand for the infringer's actions.
I don't think it will happen any time soon; however, there is always the possibility that Congress will change the law to include "contributing to infringement" as an offense as well, which could be construed as to include receiving nonauthorized distributions of materials.
It's not German, it's Dutch (Nederlandic?)