Devices to demagnetize your CDs. Or your vinyl. Yes, demagnitize your plastic. (I predict that some dumbass will reply to this defending one or both of these devices, with a lot of technobabble they don't understand, because it doesn't actually mean anything.)
$100 speaker cables.
$8000 speaker cables. (Current flamewar going on between manufacturers of the two over which is the bigger pile of steaming shit.)
Tube amplifiers.
$485 wooden volume control knobs for your tube amplifiers.
Magic markers to color the edges of your audio CDs to improve the sound.
Magic laquer to paint on your transistors.
Note that any of these claimed miracles would easily qualify for the $1,000,000 JREF prize - if they worked. None of the manufacturers, or the reviewers or editors for various audiophile magazines, has the time - maybe half an hour - to win a $1,000,000, which they all confidently claim they could win. If only they had the time.
This is news? This is even slightly worrying? Not a day goes by that I don't have a dozen near misses driving to and from work. Idiots who change lanes without looking. Idiots who don't wait until I'm out of the way before they start pulling out to merge in to my traffic lane. Idiot pedestrians who are too stupid to know what a car is, much less that they shouldn't jump in front of them.
A near miss isn't an accident.
(But then, I live in southern California, where every day is Teach A Retard To Drive Day, with bonus points for the short bus.)
Despite what you think about 99% of what's on TV, it's only there because somebody is watching it.
You have cause and effect reversed. The only reason 99% of it ever gets watches is because once you've watched the other 1%, crap is all that's left to watch.
You can only pack so many analog channels on one cable line.
So, instead of having 99 channels full of crap, and one with something interesting once in while, you have 999 channels full of crap, and one with someting interesting once in a while. And you pay more.
Color me a little skeptical.
The reason to go digital is to get the DVR in the msot convenient way (as opposed to rolling your own).
As soon as someone printed something from the PC it was plugged in to, it errored out again, with the same error code. Which I found on the manufacturer's web site in less than 60 seconds, and knew exactly what the problem was.
I had a workgroup sized laser printer, a few years ago, that had some RAM soldered on to the motherboard - not replaceable (at least, not for less than the board cost). It even provided a cryptic error message on the front display panel. So I called the only factory authorized service center in the county. They sent a technician out. He ignored the error code, changes the serial cable to the PC, printed a test page from the control panel on the printer, and left. (And sent us a bill, including trip charge, of something like $200.)
Courts are very willing to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. You just don't see it in the news because that kind of story doesn't sell advertising. As for awarding costs, it's generally meaningless, because filing frivolous lawsuits is usually an act of desperation by a company that's been bankrupt for a long time, and doesn't want to admit it. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
If it's illegal to file bogus lawsuits, there has to be a committee of government bureaucrats appointed to decide what's bogus, and what's not. You and I will not be invited to participate.
The Creative Commons license covers copyright permission. So far as I know, it does, and does not intend to, cover the privacy issues. Unless the photographer has a release signed by the parents (because, being under 18, the kid can't sign it herself), he's got a serious problem. And in the end, so does the publisher, whoever that might be (probably the ad agency), becaues they have a responsibility to check on whether or not there is a signed, legal release. How much of that liability devolves on the client and others depends on exactly whose laws apply to the situation.
Indeed, there is. And it's in front of a jury. There's no other way. But the store manager didn't do that, because in order to put it to a jury, there has to be an arrest made, and in order to make an arrest, you are supposed to have probable cause. Which is to say, you have to personally watch the suspect take something out of the store without paying for it. Which neither the manager nor the door nazi did, and the manager knew it. In other words, they had no case, and they admitted it when they were invited to make a citizen's arrest, and refused to do so.
If you think that searching someone's person against their will on the bases of a non-accusation is the only way to prove shoplifting, then I accuse you of shoplifting my car and shoving it up your ass, and you must now immediately allow me to do a body cavity search. Not the police, not someone who has made a credible accusation, me, right now, or you're just a hypocrite.
Free hint, son: if everybody else in the world is retarded but you, it's not everybody in the world else in the world that's retarded.
I really, truly, sincerely hope that you, personally, are falsely accused of shoplifting something you paid for, and arrested, and put in jail, on the basis of unfounded accusations. You, personally, deserve it. Seriously.
You apparently do not understand the difference between "ask for a receipt" and "hold you prisoner against your will - in a criminal fashion - if you say no." The guy didn't ask for a receipt, he demanded it and committed at least two crimes (three counts on one of them) when to to blow.
And you approve of that.
You're beyond fascist police state, son. This wasn't the police exercising fascist police state powers, it was a rent-a-cop.
If there's any justice in the world, you'll learn that difference first hand, one day soon.
You may be asked for your receipt. You cannot be forced to show it. That's the law. The store employees should be in jail for assault and unlawful imprisonment. What the cop did was not only not allowed by law, but specifcially prohibited by state law. He belongs in prison. But instead, people like you have made it absolutely clear that he will not be punished in any way for abusing his authority.
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
The Apollo program has paid for itself at least a hundred times over, in direct economic benefits, by creating entire new industries, and spawning more new technology than you can imagine, much of which is used in every day life.
Re:please actually read my review, it's not that l
on
Republic.com 2.0
·
· Score: 1
You (or perhaps Cass) seem to be claiming that, in the past, people were not allowed to simply walk by "the speaker's corner," that they were somehow held against their will and forced to listen to the latest bampot's ranting. You (or perhaps Cass) seem to be claiming that people could simply decline to buy the NYT or WSJ, but rather, if they failed to renew their subscriptions, their doors would be kicked in and they would be forced to read such with guns to their heads.
You may dispute his applications of such arguments to the real world, but it's certainly the case that they're both new and non-trivial.
The reviewer apparently lives in a cave, far from civilization.
but if you think about it, its really quite bad. Leftists only watch leftist media (to avoid critism/trolling, I make no examples), while rightists only watch rightist media. The result is that everyone only gets their own opinions reinforced, and not challenged. This pushes them away from the opposite side. Biased media, while legal, is bad because it has a polarizing effect. The individual Media outlets are biased one way or another (especially in the US), meaning it, as a whole, just kinda pushes everyone away from the moderate position. Thus, its not really a matter of it making people liberal or conservative, but less moderate. If the number of left media outlets matches the number of right is equal, the result is NOT unbiased media, but rather one biased against moderation.
How is the different from any other point in recorded human history?
Slashdot Mirror
The latest toys for audiophiles:
Devices to demagnetize your CDs. Or your vinyl. Yes, demagnitize your plastic. (I predict that some dumbass will reply to this defending one or both of these devices, with a lot of technobabble they don't understand, because it doesn't actually mean anything.)
$100 speaker cables.
$8000 speaker cables. (Current flamewar going on between manufacturers of the two over which is the bigger pile of steaming shit.)
Tube amplifiers.
$485 wooden volume control knobs for your tube amplifiers.
Magic markers to color the edges of your audio CDs to improve the sound.
Magic laquer to paint on your transistors.
Note that any of these claimed miracles would easily qualify for the $1,000,000 JREF prize - if they worked. None of the manufacturers, or the reviewers or editors for various audiophile magazines, has the time - maybe half an hour - to win a $1,000,000, which they all confidently claim they could win. If only they had the time.
Audiophiles are idiots.
If you RTFA, it makes it entirely clear. But I guess that's just too much trouble. It has, like, words and stuff in it.
No money, government issued IDs. Possibly government employee IDs of some sort. And yeah, that's the big time.
This is news? This is even slightly worrying? Not a day goes by that I don't have a dozen near misses driving to and from work. Idiots who change lanes without looking. Idiots who don't wait until I'm out of the way before they start pulling out to merge in to my traffic lane. Idiot pedestrians who are too stupid to know what a car is, much less that they shouldn't jump in front of them.
A near miss isn't an accident.
(But then, I live in southern California, where every day is Teach A Retard To Drive Day, with bonus points for the short bus.)
Despite what you think about 99% of what's on TV, it's only there because somebody is watching it.
You have cause and effect reversed. The only reason 99% of it ever gets watches is because once you've watched the other 1%, crap is all that's left to watch.
You can only pack so many analog channels on one cable line.
So, instead of having 99 channels full of crap, and one with something interesting once in while, you have 999 channels full of crap, and one with someting interesting once in a while. And you pay more.
Color me a little skeptical.
The reason to go digital is to get the DVR in the msot convenient way (as opposed to rolling your own).
As soon as someone printed something from the PC it was plugged in to, it errored out again, with the same error code. Which I found on the manufacturer's web site in less than 60 seconds, and knew exactly what the problem was.
I had a workgroup sized laser printer, a few years ago, that had some RAM soldered on to the motherboard - not replaceable (at least, not for less than the board cost). It even provided a cryptic error message on the front display panel. So I called the only factory authorized service center in the county. They sent a technician out. He ignored the error code, changes the serial cable to the PC, printed a test page from the control panel on the printer, and left. (And sent us a bill, including trip charge, of something like $200.)
We deal with another shop now.
I predict we'll be seeing homeopathic "medicine" made out of this magick water within a few weeks.
"challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior."
Yeah, especially since humans aren't very good at recognizing suspicious behavior on a reliable enough basis for law enforcement.
That guys play female characters in these games, or that it matters so much to other players.
It makes me suspicious what that the motivations of the majority of players really is.
I think they're Doing It Wrong.
Courts are very willing to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. You just don't see it in the news because that kind of story doesn't sell advertising. As for awarding costs, it's generally meaningless, because filing frivolous lawsuits is usually an act of desperation by a company that's been bankrupt for a long time, and doesn't want to admit it. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
If it's illegal to file bogus lawsuits, there has to be a committee of government bureaucrats appointed to decide what's bogus, and what's not. You and I will not be invited to participate.
Does anybody really think that's an improvement?
The Creative Commons license covers copyright permission. So far as I know, it does, and does not intend to, cover the privacy issues. Unless the photographer has a release signed by the parents (because, being under 18, the kid can't sign it herself), he's got a serious problem. And in the end, so does the publisher, whoever that might be (probably the ad agency), becaues they have a responsibility to check on whether or not there is a signed, legal release. How much of that liability devolves on the client and others depends on exactly whose laws apply to the situation.
To note even be aware that it exists.
Indeed, there is. And it's in front of a jury. There's no other way. But the store manager didn't do that, because in order to put it to a jury, there has to be an arrest made, and in order to make an arrest, you are supposed to have probable cause. Which is to say, you have to personally watch the suspect take something out of the store without paying for it. Which neither the manager nor the door nazi did, and the manager knew it. In other words, they had no case, and they admitted it when they were invited to make a citizen's arrest, and refused to do so.
If you think that searching someone's person against their will on the bases of a non-accusation is the only way to prove shoplifting, then I accuse you of shoplifting my car and shoving it up your ass, and you must now immediately allow me to do a body cavity search. Not the police, not someone who has made a credible accusation, me, right now, or you're just a hypocrite.
Free hint, son: if everybody else in the world is retarded but you, it's not everybody in the world else in the world that's retarded.
I really, truly, sincerely hope that you, personally, are falsely accused of shoplifting something you paid for, and arrested, and put in jail, on the basis of unfounded accusations. You, personally, deserve it. Seriously.
You're a Circuit City employee, aren't you?
Note that, while the guy agreed not to sue the city, he never agreed not to sue Circuit City, and they did commit at least two crimes against him.
You apparently do not understand the difference between "ask for a receipt" and "hold you prisoner against your will - in a criminal fashion - if you say no." The guy didn't ask for a receipt, he demanded it and committed at least two crimes (three counts on one of them) when to to blow.
And you approve of that.
You're beyond fascist police state, son. This wasn't the police exercising fascist police state powers, it was a rent-a-cop.
If there's any justice in the world, you'll learn that difference first hand, one day soon.
First, his family is more important to him than his principles. No problem with that. It's even admirable, in a way.
Second, his family's convenience is more important to them than he is. That's not admirable at all.
You may be asked for your receipt. You cannot be forced to show it. That's the law. The store employees should be in jail for assault and unlawful imprisonment. What the cop did was not only not allowed by law, but specifcially prohibited by state law. He belongs in prison. But instead, people like you have made it absolutely clear that he will not be punished in any way for abusing his authority.
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
As I recall, the Space Treaty doesn't apply to individuals or private companies, only governments.
The Apollo program has paid for itself at least a hundred times over, in direct economic benefits, by creating entire new industries, and spawning more new technology than you can imagine, much of which is used in every day life.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/usa-001012.htm
http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/space_program_spinoffs.htm
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/02/space.medical/index.html
And on and on and on.
You (or perhaps Cass) seem to be claiming that, in the past, people were not allowed to simply walk by "the speaker's corner," that they were somehow held against their will and forced to listen to the latest bampot's ranting. You (or perhaps Cass) seem to be claiming that people could simply decline to buy the NYT or WSJ, but rather, if they failed to renew their subscriptions, their doors would be kicked in and they would be forced to read such with guns to their heads.
You (or perhaps Cass) seem to be a fool.
No, its not new,
The reviewed believes otherwise, and says so:
You may dispute his applications of such arguments to the real world, but it's certainly the case that they're both new and non-trivial.
The reviewer apparently lives in a cave, far from civilization.
but if you think about it, its really quite bad. Leftists only watch leftist media (to avoid critism/trolling, I make no examples), while rightists only watch rightist media. The result is that everyone only gets their own opinions reinforced, and not challenged. This pushes them away from the opposite side. Biased media, while legal, is bad because it has a polarizing effect. The individual Media outlets are biased one way or another (especially in the US), meaning it, as a whole, just kinda pushes everyone away from the moderate position. Thus, its not really a matter of it making people liberal or conservative, but less moderate. If the number of left media outlets matches the number of right is equal, the result is NOT unbiased media, but rather one biased against moderation.
How is the different from any other point in recorded human history?
His premise is that people avoid reading stuff that they disagree with? And he thinks this is a new idea?