pu.edu is Pickering University, not Purdue University (purdue.edu); this puts the entire list in suspect considering the person's name given as having that e-mail address is Amanda Sue Pickering.
I'm pretty sure I remember a contestant on the game show "Lingo" on the Game Show Network (U.S. Version), having a number in their name. I can't recall exactly what it was though; anyone else?
If you browse comments at minimum score of 3 or 4/. isn't that bad to read on a regular day.
I was referring more to the seriousness of the responses of some people; how so many posters seem to take everything so seriously and take strong offense to comments posted by others.
I think that was obvious.
Re:I am a trained professional...
on
Death by Coffee?
·
· Score: 1
I suppose if it were possible to drink enough coffee within a certain time period such that the level of caffeine in your blood reached a fatal level (is that even possible) it could kill you. The problem is that since coffee is mostly water, you would probably have to drink quite a bit to get the caffeine level in your blood high enough, and the rate at which you would need to drink the coffee would probably exceed what is possible for your digestive system to process.
----
After doing some quick research, it appears that the minimal lethal dose is between 150-200 mg/kg; so a nice round weight of 80 kg, would mean 12,000-16,000 mg of caffiene. A strong cup of coffee might contrain 200 mg of caffeine, so that would make it anywhere between 60-80 cups of coffee.
Of course, that would mean 60-80 cups of coffee (about 4 gallons) in a very short period of time, say, an hour or so. I don't know if it is even possible to consume 1 gallon of any liquid in an hour, let alone 4.
Yeah, I guess the situation is different here in the midwest. People from other states come to our schools and then pack up and leave with their degree. =]
Just because a University is located somewhere doesn't mean that graduates stay in State. Especially since most people attending the big schools in MA probably aren't from MA originally.
If you go to an emergency room in the US, they will provide emergency care to the point of getting you 'stable' again without regards to if you can pay for it. At that point, they will not continue treatment until you pay your bill or you have insurance.
Also, who do you plan on suing? There are certain instances where it just makes more sense to put the burden on everyone rather than singling out someone who can't afford to pay you anyway. This is why you have auto insurance. Without it, you sure aren't going to be getting anything out of the guy that hit your car and killed your wife, because he doesn't have any money to begin with.
It's good public policy to place certain burdens on society as a whole, and others on the individuals you are at fault (or share the burden sometimes.) This is why we're all paying compensation to the victims of September 11th. Are you and I directly responsible for what happened to them? No. Are their families going to be able to find anyone to sue to get compensation from? No.
I figured that part of the explanation was obvious. I was just pointing out that it is still wrong, but I disagree that in the RIAA's case there has been a significant loss of money.
A further study into how the courts have determined monetary damages in infringement cases would be needed to really have an opinion.
It's still not theft. Theft is depriving someone of their property. The musician and mechanic still have their property.
I'm not arguing whether or not copyright infringement is right or wrong. I am merely pointing out that it is not theft of any kind, and simply because a copyright has been infringed does not mean that a monetary loss has occurred. (Nor does monetary loss have any effect on whether or not infringement occurred.)
Suppose I write an essay and copyright it. Someone finds my essay, and distributes it to thousands of people without my consent. Have I lost any money? Not really. My ideas have been more widely spread to people, and could probably help me out in the end if they like what they read. However, they did violate my exclusive rights to my work, and therefore I could sue them (although in this case, my only remedy would be an injunction against them, as proving statutory damages might be difficult.)
Just because a copyright infringement isn't losing you money doesn't mean you shouldn't seek to stop it.
Yes, but how many did you avoid buying, because after listening to it realized it sucked? Without p2p, you'd be stuck having to buy the CD first to find out if it sucks. Hence, more money for the RIAA.
Gates had some grasp on where things were going in the earlier days of Microsoft. That's how he was able to succeed as he did. Sort of putting himself in the right place at the right time more than anything.
Part of the reason people are seen as being so "sue happy" is that everyone seems to want to go directly to the court system without first trying several possible ways of resolving conflicts outside of the courts.
This situation be like suing a homeless person for something. You're never going to get your money from them, what's the point?
If a group of people got together on the internet and designed a car that could be built from parts available from Home Depot, would Ford or GM have to explain to us why their cars are better?
No, but when Japanese manufacturers started producing more reliable vehicles Ford, GM, and Chrysler all had to resort to intensive marketing strategies until they could develop something that was more competitive. It worked pretty good too.
They thought they were in control of the automobile world and were proved wrong; the same *might* be happening to Microsoft. For quite a while they had little to no competition; now they are seeing some real threats on the horizon, and they're only doing what anyone else would do in the same position. They simply became too comfortable with having a large piece of the pie, and now are having to fight to keep as much of it as they can.
Women tend to be more inclined towards the liberal arts because they are strongly discouraged against involvement in the sciences and engineering when they are in elementary and middle school (high school as well, but it gets its start earlier.)
When I started my CS degree 4 years ago, the male:female ratio was about 25:1, as I look at the freshman class from this yearh it's more like 3:1.
Or, the people capable of doing IT realize that they can make more money in a factory doing work that only requires a high school degree; so they go work there instead and the guy that was there gets pushed out because he was slightly less competent.
I agree; around here the major grocery options are Meijer, Marsh, and Kroger (with Wal-mart and Target moving in as well). Marsh and Kroger both have loyalty card programs (which you can get around by just telling them you forgot your card at home and they'll give you the discounts anyway.) Meijer does not, and has consistently lower prices on all food products. When they do have sales, everyone is eligible.
The problem with the cards is how they're presented to customers. That the company is able to give them lower prices because they have this card and not everyone has this card. Therefore, since not everyone is taking advantage of the discount, it will be a larger discount for those that use it.
It makes sense, except that so many people do use these cards that it really isn't true. Besides, it's probably cheaper down the road at a non discount card place.
Did anyone else see Jeopardy last night? The answer purported that the Richter AND Mercalli scales of earthquake intensity are only measurable with a seismograph. I found it quite hilarious.
Slashdot Mirror
pu.edu is Pickering University, not Purdue University (purdue.edu); this puts the entire list in suspect considering the person's name given as having that e-mail address is Amanda Sue Pickering.
I think whoever gave those people their surnames hated them just as much.
I'm pretty sure I remember a contestant on the game show "Lingo" on the Game Show Network (U.S. Version), having a number in their name. I can't recall exactly what it was though; anyone else?
If you browse comments at minimum score of 3 or 4 /. isn't that bad to read on a regular day.
I was referring more to the seriousness of the responses of some people; how so many posters seem to take everything so seriously and take strong offense to comments posted by others.
I think that was obvious.
I suppose if it were possible to drink enough coffee within a certain time period such that the level of caffeine in your blood reached a fatal level (is that even possible) it could kill you. The problem is that since coffee is mostly water, you would probably have to drink quite a bit to get the caffeine level in your blood high enough, and the rate at which you would need to drink the coffee would probably exceed what is possible for your digestive system to process.
----
After doing some quick research, it appears that the minimal lethal dose is between 150-200 mg/kg; so a nice round weight of 80 kg, would mean 12,000-16,000 mg of caffiene. A strong cup of coffee might contrain 200 mg of caffeine, so that would make it anywhere between 60-80 cups of coffee.
Of course, that would mean 60-80 cups of coffee (about 4 gallons) in a very short period of time, say, an hour or so. I don't know if it is even possible to consume 1 gallon of any liquid in an hour, let alone 4.
Yes, /. has done the same thing every April 1st for the past several years. I think it's nice to have a break from the all the seriousness on here.
The trick is trying to figure out when they start posting real stories again. Usually around midnight tonight depending on what time zone you're in.
If Gmail is a joke, they've fooled CNN too.
Yeah, I guess the situation is different here in the midwest. People from other states come to our schools and then pack up and leave with their degree. =]
Just because a University is located somewhere doesn't mean that graduates stay in State. Especially since most people attending the big schools in MA probably aren't from MA originally.
If you go to an emergency room in the US, they will provide emergency care to the point of getting you 'stable' again without regards to if you can pay for it. At that point, they will not continue treatment until you pay your bill or you have insurance.
Also, who do you plan on suing? There are certain instances where it just makes more sense to put the burden on everyone rather than singling out someone who can't afford to pay you anyway. This is why you have auto insurance. Without it, you sure aren't going to be getting anything out of the guy that hit your car and killed your wife, because he doesn't have any money to begin with.
It's good public policy to place certain burdens on society as a whole, and others on the individuals you are at fault (or share the burden sometimes.) This is why we're all paying compensation to the victims of September 11th. Are you and I directly responsible for what happened to them? No. Are their families going to be able to find anyone to sue to get compensation from? No.
I figured that part of the explanation was obvious. I was just pointing out that it is still wrong, but I disagree that in the RIAA's case there has been a significant loss of money.
A further study into how the courts have determined monetary damages in infringement cases would be needed to really have an opinion.
It's still not theft. Theft is depriving someone of their property. The musician and mechanic still have their property.
I'm not arguing whether or not copyright infringement is right or wrong. I am merely pointing out that it is not theft of any kind, and simply because a copyright has been infringed does not mean that a monetary loss has occurred. (Nor does monetary loss have any effect on whether or not infringement occurred.)
Suppose I write an essay and copyright it. Someone finds my essay, and distributes it to thousands of people without my consent. Have I lost any money? Not really. My ideas have been more widely spread to people, and could probably help me out in the end if they like what they read. However, they did violate my exclusive rights to my work, and therefore I could sue them (although in this case, my only remedy would be an injunction against them, as proving statutory damages might be difficult.)
Just because a copyright infringement isn't losing you money doesn't mean you shouldn't seek to stop it.
You have a point, but your analogy is horrible. Is the case of the vehicle, you are paying for a service rendered.
Downloading/distributing pirated music/software/movies/etc is not theft, it's copyright infringement. US Code Title 17
Yes, but how many did you avoid buying, because after listening to it realized it sucked? Without p2p, you'd be stuck having to buy the CD first to find out if it sucks. Hence, more money for the RIAA.
=]
Gates had some grasp on where things were going in the earlier days of Microsoft. That's how he was able to succeed as he did. Sort of putting himself in the right place at the right time more than anything.
Part of the reason people are seen as being so "sue happy" is that everyone seems to want to go directly to the court system without first trying several possible ways of resolving conflicts outside of the courts.
This situation be like suing a homeless person for something. You're never going to get your money from them, what's the point?
If a group of people got together on the internet and designed a car that could be built from parts available from Home Depot, would Ford or GM have to explain to us why their cars are better?
No, but when Japanese manufacturers started producing more reliable vehicles Ford, GM, and Chrysler all had to resort to intensive marketing strategies until they could develop something that was more competitive. It worked pretty good too.
They thought they were in control of the automobile world and were proved wrong; the same *might* be happening to Microsoft. For quite a while they had little to no competition; now they are seeing some real threats on the horizon, and they're only doing what anyone else would do in the same position. They simply became too comfortable with having a large piece of the pie, and now are having to fight to keep as much of it as they can.
Women tend to be more inclined towards the liberal arts because they are strongly discouraged against involvement in the sciences and engineering when they are in elementary and middle school (high school as well, but it gets its start earlier.)
When I started my CS degree 4 years ago, the male:female ratio was about 25:1, as I look at the freshman class from this yearh it's more like 3:1.
Or, the people capable of doing IT realize that they can make more money in a factory doing work that only requires a high school degree; so they go work there instead and the guy that was there gets pushed out because he was slightly less competent.
I agree; around here the major grocery options are Meijer, Marsh, and Kroger (with Wal-mart and Target moving in as well). Marsh and Kroger both have loyalty card programs (which you can get around by just telling them you forgot your card at home and they'll give you the discounts anyway.) Meijer does not, and has consistently lower prices on all food products. When they do have sales, everyone is eligible.
The problem with the cards is how they're presented to customers. That the company is able to give them lower prices because they have this card and not everyone has this card. Therefore, since not everyone is taking advantage of the discount, it will be a larger discount for those that use it.
It makes sense, except that so many people do use these cards that it really isn't true. Besides, it's probably cheaper down the road at a non discount card place.
'fdisk /mbr' should restore it.
MS Support article
Did anyone else see Jeopardy last night? The answer purported that the Richter AND Mercalli scales of earthquake intensity are only measurable with a seismograph. I found it quite hilarious.
If you go to a restaurant and ask for your entree without mushrooms or whatever you don't like you still get charged for them.
"Onion"-style = satirical. It's not like they invented satirical reporting.