It was a bit of being silly in my own right. But I distinctly recall having it drilled into me that "I" comes last in a list of people, and so the correct version would be "My classmates and I did the same thing."
It's not unknown. In the first (I think) LotR, there was a car off in the distance of one scene that had a glint off of its windshield, seen by a number of viewers. They removed it in the DVD, though, frustrating people who wanted to show their friends what they saw.
Wow... OK, this makes the lower fuel economy in the summer make even more sense. Warmer air = less dense, plus warmer gasoline = less dense, meaning the same volume let through into the cylinders makes for less power, and therefore higher fuel usage to maintain a given speed.
Man, just when you think you have all of the factors in place, someone else tosses another one in. Can you give an idea of the factors? Does it vary by 5%? 10%?
If this is about the recent Beastie Boys release, there was a post on one a security mailing list recently that said that he couldn't find the CD logo anywhere, and that it was not referred to as a CD. I'm not a fan of their work, so I don't have it in front of me, and the original message on the list could be the work of a blind man, so take it for what it's worth: second-hand reporting of what may or may not have been a first-hand event.
Logging in through the interface for one of my accounts, I got the following in the sidebar:
Coming soon! MSN Hotmail Upgrade
Summer: Virus cleaning of incoming email Fall: 250MB of storage for your Inbox Fall: Send/receive up to 10MB of attachments Keep checking here to learn more!
The lyrics for Happy Birthday were first published in 1935, and so the copyright on them begins there (copyright begins at the point the material is first put into a fixed form). Because of the changes to copyright law in the 70s (at which time the song was still under copyright), plus the 20-year extension a few years ago, the copyright term is 95 years, so it becomes public domain sometime in 2030 -- assuming no more extensions to copyright occur.
I'll grant some provisional acceptance of your point, though it's not clear to me that it's copyright law that allows this but rather antitrust law, wherein a label generally cannot limit artificially who is allowed to play a particular song. I skimmed through several seemingly relevant chapters of Title 17 but couldn't find anything specifically on that. However, even if you are correct in this case, it appears to apply solely to broadcast of non-dramatic songs, and other works still seem to be under the complete control of the copyright holder.
I believe that the law requires you to pay a specified fee for doing either of these, but you cannot actually be forbidden by the Copyright holder from doing either of these.
Incorrect. The law requires that you get the permission of the copyright holder before using the work for anything more than fair use. The holder may charge no fee, a dollar, a billion dollars, or outright refuse to let you use it at all for any or no reason.
There's a difference between singing Happy Birthday in a public park at your nephew's party and employees of a commercial establishment singing it. In the former, there's no money changing hands (notwithstanding anything the kid gets from grandma). In the latter, there is money changing hands, and it could be argued that the singing is part the service for which you pay. That's why they're not allowed to sing it without paying royalties.
They produced two issues afterward (I have them both), and promised a website, but never delivered. It was a shame. One of the best magazines for science bordering on pseudo-science.
PopSci called me at one point and offered to extend my one-year subscription by four years for $20, so I had to take it. I jump on that whenever it comes in. It's almost like a guilty pleasure, but I can read it (and its pseudo-clone, Popular Mechanics) in snippets. (Popular Mechanics I especially like for their 'buzz off' attitude to the people who complain about their occasional gun coverage.)
OTOH, there are different fingers.
I also get Scientific American, which I usually take about a week to read because the articles are much more in-depth. Lately, they've had a leftist bent, but it's improving as they begin to ask more questions again. Global warming may well be real, and it's fine to present articles that support it, but I don't need to read entreaties from regular columnists on where to place my vote in a scientific magazine.
A friend still has a subscription to it, and finds it worthwhile to continue. I occasionally grab a copy from him for interesting articles, such as the one they had a couple of years ago about ripping audio.
Generally speaking, FOIA requests are not charged for if the amount of time it takes to find, redact (if necessary), and copy an item are less than about $20 or so (I forget the exact number). If it's more than that, you can specify a maximum amount you're willing to pay, or ask that they contact you with an approximate cost before proceeding.
ElForesto sounds like he's trying the "sovereign citizen" route, something that's already been knocked down by the Supreme Court on at least one occasion. A friend tried to get me to go along with it, and it includes taking such steps as not using ZIP codes and filing false tax returns so as to get back the money "stolen" by way of payroll deductions. Some people have been peripherally caught in this trap when their employers have decided that income taxes are illegal and not paid their side. Even though this is the fault of the employer, the employees still get contacted by the IRS and can suffer significant fines and penaltes.
OK, some of those I can believe, but the anthrax investigation was pretty strongly pursued in the US, is still going, and still has dedicated manpower attached to it. It wasn't so long ago that a pond was drained looking for equipment that may have been used to produce the anthrax.
Actually, they don't use anything to fire 1000 pound projectiles from the Iowa. She was decommissioned in 1990 after the accident in #2 turret and never repaird. She's been in San Francisco since then, and would require tens of millions of dollars in repairs to be considered battleworthy, probably including complete replacement of the damaged turret.
And the Iowa-class battleships had 16" guns, not 21", firing projectiles ranging from 1900 to 2700 pounds propelled by 550 to 650 pounds of powder. The largest deployed naval guns were on the Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and were 18.1" bore diameter.
If you'd read the more complete LA Times article, you'd know that both the four-county count and the statewide recount were done. A snippet from that article:
* If Florida's ballots had been recounted using a restrictive standard that some Bush lawyers said they could accept, the study found that Gore would have won the state by 105 votes--as long as optical scanner overvotes showing clear intent were included. But if overvotes were left out of the count, the study found that Bush would have won by 908 votes.
* If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes. The reason: Nine counties were including overvotes, but 58 were not. (The Times' analysis of this scenario recorded each ballot according to the standard each county said it was using or planned to use at the time.)
* If the recounts Gore initially requested had been completed in four heavily Democratic counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia), Bush still would have won by 225 votes. Those recounts focused only on undervotes, not overvotes--and the uncounted undervotes were not enough to swing the election to Gore.
Bush would not have won under the rules used by most (all?) other Western democracies because the US relies on the electoral college system, which is sorely outdated and needs replacing for the very reason we saw in the 2000 election, and because the current system means that the candidates kowtow to states like New York, Florida, California, and Texas, but ignore states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont because there are far fewer electoral votes at stake. Fix this, and you'll see candidates paying much close attention to the smaller states that could swing their way.
And as I mentioned in a post just a moment ago, whites were more likely to be blocked than blacks, and 6500 felons voted anyway.
This has been researched and debunked by the US Commission on Civil Rights in this report. There was one complaint about a checkpoint -- two miles away from the polling place, on a different road, and citing 16 people in the 90 minutes it was in operation, 12 of them white.
In addition, more whites were more likely to be removed from the voting list than blacks on the basis of convictions, and yet a total of some 6500 felons voted.
Unless you have some facts to back up your assertions instead of wild claims that just won't die, I'm sticking to my views.
That would be a recount solely by the University of Chicago, completely independent of the state of Florida and financed by the mentioned media corporations.
He didn't steal it. Even if the Supreme Court had let a state-wide recount go ahead, he would have won. So says a lengthy study by the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Sponsors of the study, lest you think it was the Republican Party, is stated on the website:
The consortium of news organizations sponsoring the NORC Florida ballot project is made up of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Co., Tribune Publishing, CNN, Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times and The Palm Beach Post. The New York Times owns The Boston Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the Lakeland Ledger among others. Washington Post Co. owns The Washington Post and Newsweek. Tribune, based in Chicago, owns the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, among others.
Lots of left-leaning media groups in there. Some links for the story covered by CNN, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune (registration required). Maybe if voters hadn't been confused by the ballot design (the NORC site has pictures of numerous types, some of them of seemingly bizarre design), then Gore might have won, but the rules say that if there's no clear choice, or if there are multiple punches, then the vote can't be counted.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell can something be literally done if it's being metaphorically done?
It was a bit of being silly in my own right. But I distinctly recall having it drilled into me that "I" comes last in a list of people, and so the correct version would be "My classmates and I did the same thing."
A CCNA will go a long way toward getting your foot in the door at a lot of places. The CCNA often is today what MCSE and CNE were yesterday.
I and my classmates did the same thing.
:)
I'm guess you weren't an English major?
It's not unknown. In the first (I think) LotR, there was a car off in the distance of one scene that had a glint off of its windshield, seen by a number of viewers. They removed it in the DVD, though, frustrating people who wanted to show their friends what they saw.
I think it's time for some experiments, then Thank you for the lead on this.
Wow... OK, this makes the lower fuel economy in the summer make even more sense. Warmer air = less dense, plus warmer gasoline = less dense, meaning the same volume let through into the cylinders makes for less power, and therefore higher fuel usage to maintain a given speed.
Man, just when you think you have all of the factors in place, someone else tosses another one in. Can you give an idea of the factors? Does it vary by 5%? 10%?
If this is about the recent Beastie Boys release, there was a post on one a security mailing list recently that said that he couldn't find the CD logo anywhere, and that it was not referred to as a CD. I'm not a fan of their work, so I don't have it in front of me, and the original message on the list could be the work of a blind man, so take it for what it's worth: second-hand reporting of what may or may not have been a first-hand event.
Logging in through the interface for one of my accounts, I got the following in the sidebar:
Coming soon!
MSN Hotmail Upgrade
Summer: Virus cleaning of incoming email
Fall: 250MB of storage for your Inbox
Fall: Send/receive up to 10MB of attachments
Keep checking here to learn more!
The lyrics for Happy Birthday were first published in 1935, and so the copyright on them begins there (copyright begins at the point the material is first put into a fixed form). Because of the changes to copyright law in the 70s (at which time the song was still under copyright), plus the 20-year extension a few years ago, the copyright term is 95 years, so it becomes public domain sometime in 2030 -- assuming no more extensions to copyright occur.
That part was in reference to plays, though, and had to be sent seven days in advance of opening.
I'll look through and see if I can find the compulsory licensing parts.
I'll grant some provisional acceptance of your point, though it's not clear to me that it's copyright law that allows this but rather antitrust law, wherein a label generally cannot limit artificially who is allowed to play a particular song. I skimmed through several seemingly relevant chapters of Title 17 but couldn't find anything specifically on that. However, even if you are correct in this case, it appears to apply solely to broadcast of non-dramatic songs, and other works still seem to be under the complete control of the copyright holder.
I believe that the law requires you to pay a specified fee for doing either of these, but you cannot actually be forbidden by the Copyright holder from doing either of these.
Incorrect. The law requires that you get the permission of the copyright holder before using the work for anything more than fair use. The holder may charge no fee, a dollar, a billion dollars, or outright refuse to let you use it at all for any or no reason.
There's a difference between singing Happy Birthday in a public park at your nephew's party and employees of a commercial establishment singing it. In the former, there's no money changing hands (notwithstanding anything the kid gets from grandma). In the latter, there is money changing hands, and it could be argued that the singing is part the service for which you pay. That's why they're not allowed to sing it without paying royalties.
They produced two issues afterward (I have them both), and promised a website, but never delivered. It was a shame. One of the best magazines for science bordering on pseudo-science.
PopSci called me at one point and offered to extend my one-year subscription by four years for $20, so I had to take it. I jump on that whenever it comes in. It's almost like a guilty pleasure, but I can read it (and its pseudo-clone, Popular Mechanics) in snippets. (Popular Mechanics I especially like for their 'buzz off' attitude to the people who complain about their occasional gun coverage.)
OTOH, there are different fingers.
I also get Scientific American, which I usually take about a week to read because the articles are much more in-depth. Lately, they've had a leftist bent, but it's improving as they begin to ask more questions again. Global warming may well be real, and it's fine to present articles that support it, but I don't need to read entreaties from regular columnists on where to place my vote in a scientific magazine.
Wasn't the original name Boot Magazine?
A friend still has a subscription to it, and finds it worthwhile to continue. I occasionally grab a copy from him for interesting articles, such as the one they had a couple of years ago about ripping audio.
Generally speaking, FOIA requests are not charged for if the amount of time it takes to find, redact (if necessary), and copy an item are less than about $20 or so (I forget the exact number). If it's more than that, you can specify a maximum amount you're willing to pay, or ask that they contact you with an approximate cost before proceeding.
ElForesto sounds like he's trying the "sovereign citizen" route, something that's already been knocked down by the Supreme Court on at least one occasion. A friend tried to get me to go along with it, and it includes taking such steps as not using ZIP codes and filing false tax returns so as to get back the money "stolen" by way of payroll deductions. Some people have been peripherally caught in this trap when their employers have decided that income taxes are illegal and not paid their side. Even though this is the fault of the employer, the employees still get contacted by the IRS and can suffer significant fines and penaltes.
OK, some of those I can believe, but the anthrax investigation was pretty strongly pursued in the US, is still going, and still has dedicated manpower attached to it. It wasn't so long ago that a pond was drained looking for equipment that may have been used to produce the anthrax.
Actually, they don't use anything to fire 1000 pound projectiles from the Iowa. She was decommissioned in 1990 after the accident in #2 turret and never repaird. She's been in San Francisco since then, and would require tens of millions of dollars in repairs to be considered battleworthy, probably including complete replacement of the damaged turret.
And the Iowa-class battleships had 16" guns, not 21", firing projectiles ranging from 1900 to 2700 pounds propelled by 550 to 650 pounds of powder. The largest deployed naval guns were on the Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and were 18.1" bore diameter.
They are impressive, though.
If you'd read the more complete LA Times article, you'd know that both the four-county count and the statewide recount were done. A snippet from that article:
* If Florida's ballots had been recounted using a restrictive standard that some Bush lawyers said they could accept, the study found that Gore would have won the state by 105 votes--as long as optical scanner overvotes showing clear intent were included. But if overvotes were left out of the count, the study found that Bush would have won by 908 votes.
* If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes. The reason: Nine counties were including overvotes, but 58 were not. (The Times' analysis of this scenario recorded each ballot according to the standard each county said it was using or planned to use at the time.)
* If the recounts Gore initially requested had been completed in four heavily Democratic counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia), Bush still would have won by 225 votes. Those recounts focused only on undervotes, not overvotes--and the uncounted undervotes were not enough to swing the election to Gore.
Bush would not have won under the rules used by most (all?) other Western democracies because the US relies on the electoral college system, which is sorely outdated and needs replacing for the very reason we saw in the 2000 election, and because the current system means that the candidates kowtow to states like New York, Florida, California, and Texas, but ignore states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont because there are far fewer electoral votes at stake. Fix this, and you'll see candidates paying much close attention to the smaller states that could swing their way.
And as I mentioned in a post just a moment ago, whites were more likely to be blocked than blacks, and 6500 felons voted anyway.
This has been researched and debunked by the US Commission on Civil Rights in this report. There was one complaint about a checkpoint -- two miles away from the polling place, on a different road, and citing 16 people in the 90 minutes it was in operation, 12 of them white.
In addition, more whites were more likely to be removed from the voting list than blacks on the basis of convictions, and yet a total of some 6500 felons voted.
Unless you have some facts to back up your assertions instead of wild claims that just won't die, I'm sticking to my views.
That would be a recount solely by the University of Chicago, completely independent of the state of Florida and financed by the mentioned media corporations.
He didn't steal it. Even if the Supreme Court had let a state-wide recount go ahead, he would have won. So says a lengthy study by the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Sponsors of the study, lest you think it was the Republican Party, is stated on the website:
The consortium of news organizations sponsoring the NORC Florida ballot project is made up of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Co., Tribune Publishing, CNN, Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times and The Palm Beach Post. The New York Times owns The Boston Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the Lakeland Ledger among others. Washington Post Co. owns The Washington Post and Newsweek. Tribune, based in Chicago, owns the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, among others.
Lots of left-leaning media groups in there. Some links for the story covered by CNN, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune (registration required). Maybe if voters hadn't been confused by the ballot design (the NORC site has pictures of numerous types, some of them of seemingly bizarre design), then Gore might have won, but the rules say that if there's no clear choice, or if there are multiple punches, then the vote can't be counted.