Michaelson was an instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy at the time, and the experiment took place there (one end of it, anyway). There's a series of two-inch brass markers in the concrete between two of the Naval Academy's academic buildings indicating the path over which the experiment took place.
It's right between Chauvenet, and - wait for it - Michaelson halls.
While I do agree with you that once you own an X-Box, you should be able to do anything you want with it. But this doesn't mean that Microsoft has to make it easy for you. These boxes are sold for $199 each, less than comparable PC hardware. If people could easily modify the X-Box, then people would buy them for the purpose of having a cheap computer, rather than buy them for the purpose of playing X-Box games - which is what Microsoft wants you to do. So, Microsoft makes it harder to hack the X-Box. Too bad. The only reasonable response isn't to whine about it - it's to hack harder, or give up and don't hack the X-Box. Attacking Microsoft for attempting to prevent the unintended use of its product, which incidentally destroys its business model, is silly.
As funny as this is, it's actually true. McDonalds and most other fast food chains offer bundled foot at a lower cost than if each food item were purchased separately.
Under fast-food logic, I suppose Microsoft could sell a version of windows without IE, sell IE separately, and have a "bundled" version at a lower total cost.
But why bother?
The more you drive, the stupider you get....
on
ChronoSpace
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"Indeed, the story starts out revolving around the central premise that the small percentage of UFO's sighted that can't be explained away as airplanes, comets, or blimps, are in actuality time-travelling ships from the future sent to investigate the past."
I have another shuttle sighting. Last week the Space Shuttle flew not one, but two secret BATF missions to an insect-like alien vessel in high earth orbit with no apparent problems, to capture the renegade space captain from the Light Universe, Stanley H. Tweedle.
These shuttles have capabilities that we don't know about - and they are as easy to drive as your car.
The M16A1 is the original, and can fire either single shots or be fully automatic, just by moving the switch.
The M16A2 is the upgrade, and can fire either single shots or a three-round burst. It also has an upgraded plastic grip on the barrel (round instead of triangular), and also has a deflector behind the ejection port designed to prevent brass from flying into the face of left-handed shooters.
The idea behind the three shot burst was that most soldiers just wasted ammo, so limiting them to a three shot burst saved ammo without really reducing effective firepower. Mind you, the typcial infantary squad should still have an automatic rifleman, carrying an M-62, or the newer SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon). The one real downside to the three shot burst is that the weapon actually has three different trigger-pulls - the amount of force necessary to squeeze the trigger depends on whether you are shooting the first, second, or third round.
How to I know this? I once had possession of 650 of the damn things, curtesy of Uncle Sam.
Try reading Masamune Shirow's "Appleseed", published in America by Dark Horse Comics. The body armor worn by the ESWAT soldiers is clearly a precursor to the Radix armor.
Now if MIT had ripped of Shirow's artwork instead of the much lamer Radix artwork they would have wound up with a $100 million grant, instead of only $50 million.
I'm a PC user. I once owned an Apple ][c back in the day (loved it and even upgraded it to 1 Meg of RAM), but when I first tried the Mac (the original Mac) I hated the keyboard so much that I walked away and never went back.
But I do know why Apple is doing what they are doing. It's really simple, when you consider their hardware provider philosophy. Apples are marketed as being very easy to use, and being very reliable. They don't crash (or so they say). One of the principal reasons why the Microsoft OS's are much more crash-happy then Apple's OS's is because Apple doesn't attempt to make their OS compatable with every piece of hardware under the sun. They don't want third-party DVD burners because some of them won't work, and people with Apples will start complaining about how their systems are crashing.
I think that Apple is much more concerned with potential hardware compatibility issues than anything else, in order to protect the "sanctity" of their OS reliability.
What does this do? It drives out the upgraders. But Apple isn't marketing to the upgraders. They are selling new machines, not an OS like Microsoft does. They see little profit in attempting to reconcile old hardware with a new OS. And yes, while I know the hardware in this case (external DVD burners) is new, the system hardware is likely to be not new, and the DVD burners have not been waved over by Apple engineers.
This, by the way, is not evil. When I bought my Dell Dimension 8100 two years ago, Dell promised me an upgrade to XP for $20. I had to wait an additional six months or so after XP came out to get the upgrade, because Dell put a considerable amount of effort into patching the bios, etc. and updating their software package to ensure that upgrading XP wouldn't fsck my computer. As a result, I have a very reliable computer running XP, which is much more reliable than my HP notebook that came with XP preinstalled. I normally keep the machine on ALL of the time. Most of the time I reboot only because Microsoft Update tells me to (^_^).
Dell's acts here had a similar motiviation as Apple's (protect system reliability). As a user, I certainly preferred Dell's open-system approach, but Apple's closed-system approach is a viable model. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple. It's that simple.
Taking the original font, modifying it, and publishing it is a violation of copyright - the new font would be a derivative work, well beyond the boundary of "fair use".
The solution here is to adopt any of a number of true-type fonts that are in the public domain. I had a CD-ROM of them once, and I still use "blackletter686.ttf", a sort of olde english font, to make the words "Last Will and Testament" look more official looking.
Re:How do you rescind acceptance of the EULA?
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, if you violate the EULA, you are in breach of contract. If you remove the software, you will be limiting your damages to the damage you caused prior to the removal. But the real question is this: Is Microsoft going to sue you? No, unless there are damages.
Is Microsoft damaged if you use their products to steal music? No, unless Microsoft gets sued by RIAA for providing software that facilitates your violation of copyright and then loses, after which they'll come after you in an action for indemnity. Until then, Microsoft isn't going to get anything from you in a courtroom because you haven't caused them any damage at all - and that means until RIAA and the MPAA sue Microsoft, you don't have anything to worry about.
I'm a bit surprised about one issue in this discussion, namely, the idea that Apple has the "right" to control the dissemination of information about Apple produced products. Whatever happened to press integrity? Why are media organizations acquesing to "embargos" of information provided to them by Apple? Don't they realize that all they are doing is writing Apple's press releases for them, and giving Apple greater credibility by publishing them in "independent" media? Is it whoring for ad dollars?
I know that we all go koo-koo for the cocoa puffs of new technology, but why on earth would any self-respecting journalist sit on a story fed to them by a corporation? Alleged journalists are allowing themselves to be used as an arm in Apple's ad campaign. (I should say that Apple isn't the only corporation that does this, but this story has brought to light Apple's heavy-handed control of information.)
I wonder what would have happened to the first I-Mac mouse (the completely unusable round hockey puck) if someone in the media has the cojones to tell the world in advance about how much it obviously sucked (I have tried to use one - you can't tell which way it's pointed without looking). This is perhaps just a small example, but the way journalists treat the computer industry is sort of like the way that pre-Vietnam journalists treated government. The public is not served by the ra-ra journalism that leads to the lastest Apple product being featured on the cover of Time Magazine. Time's crime wasn't breaking the embargo early - it was agreeing to an embargo in the first place.
Wouldn't you love to see at least one journalist in a major news organization write about Apple, or Microsoft, or anyone else, and say, "I used it, and it's just not any good. Don't waste your money."
This kind of makes me wish that oldmanmurry was still around.
The Harry Potter books (the real ones) are great for children and OK for adults, but they are quickly turning into formula novels. Rowling needs to shake up the next novel a lot, otherwise Mr. Potter's books will sink back to the children's section.
If copyright is the only thing propping up the sale of information, then I say, "Thank God for copyright". In spite of recent abuses (infinite copyright extensions for Mickey Mouse), copyright is important because it protects the rights of creators of intellectual property. This is a necessary incentive towards encouraging creative work.
The principal change in society brought about by the internet may be cutting out the "middle man" by making the means of distribution of intellectual property open to everyone.
If we can find some means of allowing internet distribution while protecting the rights of the copyright owners, then more artists will self-distribute their creative works - we can destroy the once necessary but now obsolete monopolies of record and book publishers.
Just having watched the trailer, and having read the description of the original Russian film from imdb.com, I can only conclude that the new Solaris is a remake of:
In analyzing this matter you first need to separate the emotional issue (oh my god they're suing for stories posted on the Internet) from the legal issue (whether or not the court in Virginia has the jurisdiction to hear a case concerning alleged liable against a company in Connecticutt that published the story on a web page).
The legal issue is pretty simple: Does the web-publisher have sufficient contacts in the forum state (Virginia) such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend the principles of fair play and substantial justice?
Answer: It depends. On one hand the company is based in Connnecticutt. However, CNN is based in Atlanta, and they can be sued more or less anywhere (they earn ad revenue in Nebraska, for example). The issue here is what are the nature of the contacts of the publisher in Virginia beyond having a web page that is viewable in Virginia and a story about a warden in Virginia.
If you want my ballpark legal opinion, the court in Virginia can exercise jurisdiction not necessarily because of the web page, but merely because the story was written about a warden in Virginia, and the publisher and/or author created sufficient contacts in Virginia while getting the information needed to write the story to give the court specific jurisdiction over any litigation related to that story.
It all goes back to a case where an insurance company based in another state got sued in California over the single insurance policy they sold to a customer in California. The jurisdiction created is insufficient to sue the web publisher for all purposes, but it is sufficient to sue the web publisher over the story that was published.
If the court in Virginia exericses jurisdiction based on this approach, it will probably be held valid on appeal AND WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT STATE THE SERVERS HAPPEN TO BE LOCATED.
As for the libel question, that's another issue entirely. In general, you cannot prove libel against a public figure (such as a warden) unlesss you can prove "actual malice" in which the publisher either knew the story was false or acted with a deliberate and callous disregard for the truth.
Sorry, the Uniform Commerical Code applies only to transactions regarding the sale of goods. A billboard is not a good, it's a limited real property right.
Actually federal courts apply state law all the time. Federal courts are supposed to apply the substantive (ie, not procedureal) laws of the forum state. There may be some choice of law issues here that could prevent application of the NY Anti-SLAPP law, but it is certainly could have been raised in federal court.
Sorry, but carbon can have five bonds - even seven sometimes.
Chemistry is a series of lies built upon lies. As you progress in its study, you learn that a lot of the things you learned before are not quite true.
It's a very weird egghead part of inorganic chemistry called "hyper-valent carbon" that I've forgotten all the details of - along with almost everything else I learned about Chemistry in College.
I installed the latest version of Morpheus, and like the bad Internet citizen I am, I did all I could to limit file sharing. In fact, I deleted every directory off the shared directory list. Yes, I fully admit to being a hypocrite who downloads stuff and doesn't share his own.
So what happens? After running Morpheus for a couple of days, I note from Zone Alarm that I've uploaded about 600Mb through Morpheus. How? The hell if I know. Maybe by deleting all of the shared directories Morpheus decided I wanted to share my entire hard drive.
What was uploaded? I have no idea. If were paranoid this would frighten me.
An now someone says that Morpheus can redirect my web browser. Shudder.
Slashdot Mirror
For love and justice, I am the pretty sailor suited warrior, Sailor Quaoar! I will right wrongs and triumph over evil, and that means you!
And because Quaoar is named after a Native American God from a tribe near Los Angeles, Sailor Quaoar's attack could be none other then...
"Quaoar Sticky Tar Pit!"
Michaelson was an instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy at the time, and the experiment took place there (one end of it, anyway). There's a series of two-inch brass markers in the concrete between two of the Naval Academy's academic buildings indicating the path over which the experiment took place.
It's right between Chauvenet, and - wait for it - Michaelson halls.
While I do agree with you that once you own an X-Box, you should be able to do anything you want with it. But this doesn't mean that Microsoft has to make it easy for you. These boxes are sold for $199 each, less than comparable PC hardware. If people could easily modify the X-Box, then people would buy them for the purpose of having a cheap computer, rather than buy them for the purpose of playing X-Box games - which is what Microsoft wants you to do. So, Microsoft makes it harder to hack the X-Box. Too bad. The only reasonable response isn't to whine about it - it's to hack harder, or give up and don't hack the X-Box. Attacking Microsoft for attempting to prevent the unintended use of its product, which incidentally destroys its business model, is silly.
As funny as this is, it's actually true. McDonalds and most other fast food chains offer bundled foot at a lower cost than if each food item were purchased separately.
Under fast-food logic, I suppose Microsoft could sell a version of windows without IE, sell IE separately, and have a "bundled" version at a lower total cost.
But why bother?
"Indeed, the story starts out revolving around the central premise that the small percentage of UFO's sighted that can't be explained away as airplanes, comets, or blimps, are in actuality time-travelling ships from the future sent to investigate the past."
Repo Man, 1984.
I have another shuttle sighting. Last week the Space Shuttle flew not one, but two secret BATF missions to an insect-like alien vessel in high earth orbit with no apparent problems, to capture the renegade space captain from the Light Universe, Stanley H. Tweedle.
These shuttles have capabilities that we don't know about - and they are as easy to drive as your car.
The M16A1 is the original, and can fire either single shots or be fully automatic, just by moving the switch.
The M16A2 is the upgrade, and can fire either single shots or a three-round burst. It also has an upgraded plastic grip on the barrel (round instead of triangular), and also has a deflector behind the ejection port designed to prevent brass from flying into the face of left-handed shooters.
The idea behind the three shot burst was that most soldiers just wasted ammo, so limiting them to a three shot burst saved ammo without really reducing effective firepower. Mind you, the typcial infantary squad should still have an automatic rifleman, carrying an M-62, or the newer SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon). The one real downside to the three shot burst is that the weapon actually has three different trigger-pulls - the amount of force necessary to squeeze the trigger depends on whether you are shooting the first, second, or third round.
How to I know this? I once had possession of 650 of the damn things, curtesy of Uncle Sam.
Try reading Masamune Shirow's "Appleseed", published in America by Dark Horse Comics. The body armor worn by the ESWAT soldiers is clearly a precursor to the Radix armor.
Now if MIT had ripped of Shirow's artwork instead of the much lamer Radix artwork they would have wound up with a $100 million grant, instead of only $50 million.
Oops.
I'm a PC user. I once owned an Apple ][c back in the day (loved it and even upgraded it to 1 Meg of RAM), but when I first tried the Mac (the original Mac) I hated the keyboard so much that I walked away and never went back.
But I do know why Apple is doing what they are doing. It's really simple, when you consider their hardware provider philosophy. Apples are marketed as being very easy to use, and being very reliable. They don't crash (or so they say). One of the principal reasons why the Microsoft OS's are much more crash-happy then Apple's OS's is because Apple doesn't attempt to make their OS compatable with every piece of hardware under the sun. They don't want third-party DVD burners because some of them won't work, and people with Apples will start complaining about how their systems are crashing.
I think that Apple is much more concerned with potential hardware compatibility issues than anything else, in order to protect the "sanctity" of their OS reliability.
What does this do? It drives out the upgraders. But Apple isn't marketing to the upgraders. They are selling new machines, not an OS like Microsoft does. They see little profit in attempting to reconcile old hardware with a new OS. And yes, while I know the hardware in this case (external DVD burners) is new, the system hardware is likely to be not new, and the DVD burners have not been waved over by Apple engineers.
This, by the way, is not evil. When I bought my Dell Dimension 8100 two years ago, Dell promised me an upgrade to XP for $20. I had to wait an additional six months or so after XP came out to get the upgrade, because Dell put a considerable amount of effort into patching the bios, etc. and updating their software package to ensure that upgrading XP wouldn't fsck my computer. As a result, I have a very reliable computer running XP, which is much more reliable than my HP notebook that came with XP preinstalled. I normally keep the machine on ALL of the time. Most of the time I reboot only because Microsoft Update tells me to (^_^).
Dell's acts here had a similar motiviation as Apple's (protect system reliability). As a user, I certainly preferred Dell's open-system approach, but Apple's closed-system approach is a viable model. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple. It's that simple.
>>Though I'd argue that pr0n is more dependent on bandwidth than CPU horsepower.
Hey, it's not the bandwidth that counts, it's how you use it.
Taking the original font, modifying it, and publishing it is a violation of copyright - the new font would be a derivative work, well beyond the boundary of "fair use".
The solution here is to adopt any of a number of true-type fonts that are in the public domain. I had a CD-ROM of them once, and I still use "blackletter686.ttf", a sort of olde english font, to make the words "Last Will and Testament"
look more official looking.
Well, if you violate the EULA, you are in breach of contract. If you remove the software, you will be limiting your damages to the damage you caused prior to the removal. But the real question is this: Is Microsoft going to sue you? No, unless there are damages.
Is Microsoft damaged if you use their products to steal music? No, unless Microsoft gets sued by RIAA for providing software that facilitates your violation of copyright and then loses, after which they'll come after you in an action for indemnity. Until then, Microsoft isn't going to get anything from you in a courtroom because you haven't caused them any damage at all - and that means until RIAA and the MPAA sue Microsoft, you don't have anything to worry about.
Actually the system requires a reboot only when a sprite enters a game cube...
I'm a bit surprised about one issue in this discussion, namely, the idea that Apple has the "right" to control the dissemination of information about Apple produced products. Whatever happened to press integrity? Why are media organizations acquesing to "embargos" of information provided to them by Apple? Don't they realize that all they are doing is writing Apple's press releases for them, and giving Apple greater credibility by publishing them in "independent" media? Is it whoring for ad dollars?
I know that we all go koo-koo for the cocoa puffs of new technology, but why on earth would any self-respecting journalist sit on a story fed to them by a corporation? Alleged journalists are allowing themselves to be used as an arm in Apple's ad campaign. (I should say that Apple isn't the only corporation that does this, but this story has brought to light Apple's heavy-handed control of information.)
I wonder what would have happened to the first I-Mac mouse (the completely unusable round hockey puck) if someone in the media has the cojones to tell the world in advance about how much it obviously sucked (I have tried to use one - you can't tell which way it's pointed without looking). This is perhaps just a small example, but the way journalists treat the computer industry is sort of like the way that pre-Vietnam journalists treated government. The public is not served by the ra-ra journalism that leads to the lastest Apple product being featured on the cover of Time Magazine. Time's crime wasn't breaking the embargo early - it was agreeing to an embargo in the first place.
Wouldn't you love to see at least one journalist in a major news organization write about Apple, or Microsoft, or anyone else, and say, "I used it, and it's just not any good. Don't waste your money."
This kind of makes me wish that oldmanmurry was still around.
>DDR support on the desktop. Obvious. They'll >say it's a revolutionary new step to insure >their voracious G4 gets fed data.
It's about damn time that somebody ported Dance Dance Revolution to the desktop. If this is true, I'm dumping my PC for a Mac.
Wait for it...
The new Defense of the Dark Arts teacher!
The Harry Potter books (the real ones) are great for children and OK for adults, but they are quickly turning into formula novels. Rowling needs to shake up the next novel a lot, otherwise Mr. Potter's books will sink back to the children's section.
Of couse, this wouldn't really be a bad thing.
If copyright is the only thing propping up the sale of information, then I say, "Thank God for copyright". In spite of recent abuses (infinite copyright extensions for Mickey Mouse), copyright is important because it protects the rights of creators of intellectual property. This is a necessary incentive towards encouraging creative work.
The principal change in society brought about by the internet may be cutting out the "middle man" by making the means of distribution of intellectual property open to everyone.
If we can find some means of allowing internet distribution while protecting the rights of the copyright owners, then more artists will self-distribute their creative works - we can destroy the once necessary but now obsolete monopolies of record and book publishers.
Just having watched the trailer, and having read the description of the original Russian film from imdb.com, I can only conclude that the new Solaris is a remake of:
Ren & Stimpy: Space Madness
My bet is that George Clooney plays Stimpy.
In analyzing this matter you first need to separate the emotional issue (oh my god they're suing for stories posted on the Internet) from the legal issue (whether or not the court in Virginia has the jurisdiction to hear a case concerning alleged liable against a company in Connecticutt that published the story on a web page).
The legal issue is pretty simple: Does the web-publisher have sufficient contacts in the forum state (Virginia) such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend the principles of fair play and substantial justice?
Answer: It depends. On one hand the company is based in Connnecticutt. However, CNN is based in Atlanta, and they can be sued more or less anywhere (they earn ad revenue in Nebraska, for example). The issue here is what are the nature of the contacts of the publisher in Virginia beyond having a web page that is viewable in Virginia and a story about a warden in Virginia.
If you want my ballpark legal opinion, the court in Virginia can exercise jurisdiction not necessarily because of the web page, but merely because the story was written about a warden in Virginia, and the publisher and/or author created sufficient contacts in Virginia while getting the information needed to write the story to give the court specific jurisdiction over any litigation related to that story.
It all goes back to a case where an insurance company based in another state got sued in California over the single insurance policy they sold to a customer in California. The jurisdiction created is insufficient to sue the web publisher for all purposes, but it is sufficient to sue the web publisher over the story that was published.
If the court in Virginia exericses jurisdiction based on this approach, it will probably be held valid on appeal AND WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT STATE THE SERVERS HAPPEN TO BE LOCATED.
As for the libel question, that's another issue entirely. In general, you cannot prove libel against a public figure (such as a warden) unlesss you can prove "actual malice" in which the publisher either knew the story was false or acted with a deliberate and callous disregard for the truth.
Sorry, the Uniform Commerical Code applies only to transactions regarding the sale of goods. A billboard is not a good, it's a limited real property right.
Upsidasium.
"Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta this hat."
"That trick never works."
"Presto..."
Actually federal courts apply state law all the time. Federal courts are supposed to apply the substantive (ie, not procedureal) laws of the forum state. There may be some choice of law issues here that could prevent application of the NY Anti-SLAPP law, but it is certainly could have been raised in federal court.
Yes, of course, but that's different from saying that carbon may not have more than four bonds.
Sorry, but carbon can have five bonds - even seven sometimes.
Chemistry is a series of lies built upon lies. As you progress in its study, you learn that a lot of the things you learned before are not quite true.
It's a very weird egghead part of inorganic chemistry called "hyper-valent carbon" that I've forgotten all the details of - along with almost everything else I learned about Chemistry in College.
Homer was correct.
David Brown
BS Chemistry, 1987 U.S. Naval Academy
I installed the latest version of Morpheus, and like the bad Internet citizen I am, I did all I could to limit file sharing. In fact, I deleted every directory off the shared directory list. Yes, I fully admit to being a hypocrite who downloads stuff and doesn't share his own.
So what happens? After running Morpheus for a couple of days, I note from Zone Alarm that I've uploaded about 600Mb through Morpheus. How? The hell if I know. Maybe by deleting all of the shared directories Morpheus decided I wanted to share my entire hard drive.
What was uploaded? I have no idea. If were paranoid this would frighten me.
An now someone says that Morpheus can redirect my web browser. Shudder.