Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.
I considered that he might be talking about that. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense since the play mechanic was totally different. Mario Bros showed up on the SNES in Super Mario All Stars. Might as well talk about Mario Kart, which came out before it. Yes, Mario Bros was released before then but the poster specifically said SNES.
Really, I'm just taking them far too seriously, as it's obvious that their comment was a throwaway joke that wasn't meant to actually be viewed logically. Still, they could have constructed it a bit better.
Basically, PAX defeated what E3 was trying to become. It was trying to mutate into a gamers convention, but it was only doing it half-heartedly because it also needed to be a press/developers convention. They were seeing some success (in terms of attendance, at least) with this, until PAX came around and provided a full-on convention for gamers. This pretty much stole the market that E3 was lurching towards serving. As your post shows, this will turn out to be a good thing for E3 The Press/Developer Event and a bad thing for E3 The Gamer's Convention, as those two goals conflict with each other.
but that law directly contradicts all prior legal precedent
This is a non-sequitur. Unless the law is unconstitutional, the judges will have no choice but to follow it. Any judge that decides "I know that's what the law says and I don't find it unconstitutional, but I just don't like it because older laws used to be different" would be overturned on appeal and likely removed from office/disbarred. That's how the U.S. legal system works and no amount of "well, I don't like it" is going to make it not so.
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.
Why wouldn't the same logic apply to this, I wonder? By this reasoning, it's surprising that they can claim tax evasion on any kind of illegally obtained money.
The tax in the article is a state tax, but the article summary was written towards the issue of it being used in tax evasion cases for illegal downloads. As such, the GP has already made it a moot point since federal income tax code already makes it tax evasion to not pay taxes on stolen property. So if the RIAA isn't already pushing that claim, it seems unlikely they would specifically push for prosecution under existing federal tax evasion laws first.
Yes, it is rather awkward. Not the best video I've seen, but the best I could find on youtube. I've seen some where it's a much longer drawn out process.
When you see giraffes doing the neck-slapping thing, you can see how when their necks bend sideways, it's not a continuous curve but rather like a low-grade 3d render of one with vertices at each vertebra.
I wonder if dimmable CFLs would be able to ride out power fluctuations like this any better. Anyone with actual in depth knowledge of electronics (not me) know?
Yes, but wouldn't using the "saved" electricity from heating your house be offset by having to cool your house more in the warm months? This is especially true in places like Houston, where you basically run the A/C 75% of the year. In any case, I have a high efficiency furnace, so I'd put more stock in it than in incandescents.
I do have to disagree with the whole "you're going to spend the money later" part. If I have the money and buy an expensive bottle of wine rather than a cheap one, it really has no impact on energy consumption. There are far too many ways to spend more money that don't involve buying extra units of stuff you wouldn't otherwise have bought to make that a good argument.
Attention. If I can look at and search for thousands of books in one place, I am more likely to notice your book if it is there.
The more you think about it, the less that actually makes sense. The more books that are there, the less likely you are to notice my specific book.
Having tried to find decent apps in Apple's App Store (especially free games), I know that eventually volume becomes more of a negative than a positive. I wind up searching the net for people's "top X list of free iphone games", etc. So in reality, what I'm looking for is a content portal with reviews and discussion groups done by area of interest that can then directly link to a publisher or author's store.
Not always. It might do so in a business where they could use the money saved to invest in something that sucked up more power. However, the increased efficiency in my house created by replacing burned out incandescent has resulted in zero increased demand from my house.
Work on that plan while at the same time working on the CFL plan. Eventually, LEDs will replace CFLs (probably - or something even better). In the meantime, we can offset the tons of waste spewed out by the coal plants which includes mercury along with a whole host of other nasties. Switching to CFLs will actually make it EASIER to eventually replace conventional power plants, as your new technology won't have to support the same peak load.
So embrace CFLs, knowing that they aren't perfect but they are feasible.
Were these in a bathroom, by chance? Humidity will shorten the life of CFLs. They never say how much, though. I stick with incandescents in the bathroom and outdoors (very cold winters that cause the flourescents to take forever). You may also have some funky electrical problems in your house that the CFLs dying are simply a symptom of. I've bought the cheap home depot ones for years and have replaced maybe one CFL since. That's opposed to the bathroom, where the incandescents have been replaced over and over.
I have the same problems with my Garmin nuvi sometimes. It seems worse in some cities than others (in quite different latitudes, so that could be the key). And if there are skyscrapers around, the signals will bounce off those and screw it up even more.
Was this supposed to be some sort of abstract attempt at humor? Your GPS device does not send data back to the satellites. It's just a passive receiver. It doesn't matter one bit how many other people have GPSes. Might as well claim you're getting poor FM radio reception due to too many people listening to their stereos.
You would have had a point if you talked about your MOBILE not getting a signal or something due to devices that use that network had you said that.
Actually, strangely enough, you just made a completely non-racist statement. One major factor why whites do better on standardized tests is that those tests are written by other white people who share a common fund of experiences.
Thanks for proving my point. I'll let you handle both sides of the discussion from here on out.
Then why say "Latina woman" and "White male" in that statement?
Because the entire speech was on the topic of the history of the court, which is that of a group of white males, versus her own experiences, which are that of a Latina woman? This is so staggeringly obvious that I can only guess you're just looking for something to not like about her and it's probably pointless to try to converse with you.
Well, I think we can see from your response that you are at odds with the common opinion in that most classic example. It's not held "sacrosanct", it's just that I think most people look at it and go "Hmm, yeah, you're right, it's very hard to cover complicated situations with a literal reading of a spare handful of worse."
I guess I'm happy for you that you can see things in such black and white terms, as it's a lot easier to live your life like that than to admit that there's a lot of gray areas.
Since your first point has been thoroughly debunked, I think I'll address the second one: I'm just pointing out that it's a whacky thing for a judge to say. And that's not the only thing:
"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."
C'mon, really?
What is it with you and intentionally twisting quotes and taking them out of context. First, let's look at the original quote: The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't 'make law,' I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK.
So, which part of this is false? Are you saying it's not true that court of appeals makes policy? I know you think it SHOULDN'T, but are you just going to lie and say it doesn't? Because she was telling the plain truth. You'd rather have someone who'd just lie?
Constitutional issues aren't so hard. They boil down to this: what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
Well, considering "shall not be infringed" is only mentioned one time in the Constitution and Amendments and that's only in the 2nd amendment, I'd say you've already failed the boiling down test in an objective fashion.
But aside from that, take the first amendment and the wording "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Is making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater an abridgment of freedom of speech? In the narrowest terms, absolutely. In practical terms, no. That's the easiest example I can point that society in general doesn't want a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.
I considered that he might be talking about that. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense since the play mechanic was totally different. Mario Bros showed up on the SNES in Super Mario All Stars. Might as well talk about Mario Kart, which came out before it. Yes, Mario Bros was released before then but the poster specifically said SNES.
Really, I'm just taking them far too seriously, as it's obvious that their comment was a throwaway joke that wasn't meant to actually be viewed logically. Still, they could have constructed it a bit better.
Yes, but still...
Basically, PAX defeated what E3 was trying to become. It was trying to mutate into a gamers convention, but it was only doing it half-heartedly because it also needed to be a press/developers convention. They were seeing some success (in terms of attendance, at least) with this, until PAX came around and provided a full-on convention for gamers. This pretty much stole the market that E3 was lurching towards serving. As your post shows, this will turn out to be a good thing for E3 The Press/Developer Event and a bad thing for E3 The Gamer's Convention, as those two goals conflict with each other.
That's not multiple players, that's alternating players.
You basically just described PAX. Seriously, everything you just said is in there. They modeled it after comic conventions.
but that law directly contradicts all prior legal precedent
This is a non-sequitur. Unless the law is unconstitutional, the judges will have no choice but to follow it. Any judge that decides "I know that's what the law says and I don't find it unconstitutional, but I just don't like it because older laws used to be different" would be overturned on appeal and likely removed from office/disbarred. That's how the U.S. legal system works and no amount of "well, I don't like it" is going to make it not so.
See subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Electronic_Theft_Act
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.
Why wouldn't the same logic apply to this, I wonder? By this reasoning, it's surprising that they can claim tax evasion on any kind of illegally obtained money.
The tax in the article is a state tax, but the article summary was written towards the issue of it being used in tax evasion cases for illegal downloads. As such, the GP has already made it a moot point since federal income tax code already makes it tax evasion to not pay taxes on stolen property. So if the RIAA isn't already pushing that claim, it seems unlikely they would specifically push for prosecution under existing federal tax evasion laws first.
... at least for a while.
That's really the most important part of the summary.
Yes, it is rather awkward. Not the best video I've seen, but the best I could find on youtube. I've seen some where it's a much longer drawn out process.
When you see giraffes doing the neck-slapping thing, you can see how when their necks bend sideways, it's not a continuous curve but rather like a low-grade 3d render of one with vertices at each vertebra.
I wonder if dimmable CFLs would be able to ride out power fluctuations like this any better. Anyone with actual in depth knowledge of electronics (not me) know?
Yes, but wouldn't using the "saved" electricity from heating your house be offset by having to cool your house more in the warm months? This is especially true in places like Houston, where you basically run the A/C 75% of the year. In any case, I have a high efficiency furnace, so I'd put more stock in it than in incandescents.
I do have to disagree with the whole "you're going to spend the money later" part. If I have the money and buy an expensive bottle of wine rather than a cheap one, it really has no impact on energy consumption. There are far too many ways to spend more money that don't involve buying extra units of stuff you wouldn't otherwise have bought to make that a good argument.
Attention. If I can look at and search for thousands of books in one place, I am more likely to notice your book if it is there.
The more you think about it, the less that actually makes sense. The more books that are there, the less likely you are to notice my specific book.
Having tried to find decent apps in Apple's App Store (especially free games), I know that eventually volume becomes more of a negative than a positive. I wind up searching the net for people's "top X list of free iphone games", etc. So in reality, what I'm looking for is a content portal with reviews and discussion groups done by area of interest that can then directly link to a publisher or author's store.
Not always. It might do so in a business where they could use the money saved to invest in something that sucked up more power. However, the increased efficiency in my house created by replacing burned out incandescent has resulted in zero increased demand from my house.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Work on that plan while at the same time working on the CFL plan. Eventually, LEDs will replace CFLs (probably - or something even better). In the meantime, we can offset the tons of waste spewed out by the coal plants which includes mercury along with a whole host of other nasties. Switching to CFLs will actually make it EASIER to eventually replace conventional power plants, as your new technology won't have to support the same peak load.
So embrace CFLs, knowing that they aren't perfect but they are feasible.
Were these in a bathroom, by chance? Humidity will shorten the life of CFLs. They never say how much, though. I stick with incandescents in the bathroom and outdoors (very cold winters that cause the flourescents to take forever). You may also have some funky electrical problems in your house that the CFLs dying are simply a symptom of. I've bought the cheap home depot ones for years and have replaced maybe one CFL since. That's opposed to the bathroom, where the incandescents have been replaced over and over.
I have the same problems with my Garmin nuvi sometimes. It seems worse in some cities than others (in quite different latitudes, so that could be the key). And if there are skyscrapers around, the signals will bounce off those and screw it up even more.
Was this supposed to be some sort of abstract attempt at humor? Your GPS device does not send data back to the satellites. It's just a passive receiver. It doesn't matter one bit how many other people have GPSes. Might as well claim you're getting poor FM radio reception due to too many people listening to their stereos.
You would have had a point if you talked about your MOBILE not getting a signal or something due to devices that use that network had you said that.
Actually, strangely enough, you just made a completely non-racist statement. One major factor why whites do better on standardized tests is that those tests are written by other white people who share a common fund of experiences.
Thanks for proving my point. I'll let you handle both sides of the discussion from here on out.
Then why say "Latina woman" and "White male" in that statement?
Because the entire speech was on the topic of the history of the court, which is that of a group of white males, versus her own experiences, which are that of a Latina woman? This is so staggeringly obvious that I can only guess you're just looking for something to not like about her and it's probably pointless to try to converse with you.
Well, I think we can see from your response that you are at odds with the common opinion in that most classic example. It's not held "sacrosanct", it's just that I think most people look at it and go "Hmm, yeah, you're right, it's very hard to cover complicated situations with a literal reading of a spare handful of worse."
I guess I'm happy for you that you can see things in such black and white terms, as it's a lot easier to live your life like that than to admit that there's a lot of gray areas.
Since your first point has been thoroughly debunked, I think I'll address the second one:
I'm just pointing out that it's a whacky thing for a judge to say. And that's not the only thing:
"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."
C'mon, really?
What is it with you and intentionally twisting quotes and taking them out of context. First, let's look at the original quote:
The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't 'make law,' I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK.
So, which part of this is false? Are you saying it's not true that court of appeals makes policy? I know you think it SHOULDN'T, but are you just going to lie and say it doesn't? Because she was telling the plain truth. You'd rather have someone who'd just lie?
Constitutional issues aren't so hard. They boil down to this: what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
Well, considering "shall not be infringed" is only mentioned one time in the Constitution and Amendments and that's only in the 2nd amendment, I'd say you've already failed the boiling down test in an objective fashion.
But aside from that, take the first amendment and the wording "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Is making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater an abridgment of freedom of speech? In the narrowest terms, absolutely. In practical terms, no. That's the easiest example I can point that society in general doesn't want a literal interpretation of the Constitution.