Just because the majority of "+5 insightful" posts may have been denying the attack, the majority of the posts in general were glorifying it, as does the majority of the userbase here, and the majority of the linux community.
The handful of "+5 insightful" yammerers dont make up this sites audience, nor do they keep it afloat by viewing all the MSDN ads.
All comments are merely one person's work. But the +4/+5 comments are indicative of the views of the audience as moderators are selected more or less at random from the audience. The fact that there were more posts glorifying the attack simply means that that view was not being modded up (i.e. not visible so people restated that view).
Maybe you don't realise but as producer Jackson had a huge degree of control over every aspect of the production. The things that the art department and camera crew did, they did because Jackson guided them in the right direction. You should also be aware that Jackson did not direct every scene and due to the time constraints if a scene wasn't quite right they didn't always have the opportunity to reshoot. That "the directing is just bad at times, is not necessarily a reflection on Jackson's direction.
My wife was commenting to me yesterday that the only movies she's ever liked Uma Thurman in are Tarantino's movies. He seems to get more out of her than most directors. And of course From Dusk Till Dawn was not directed by Tarantino.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to stop the war and save Zion. That's exactly what they did. The ultimate goal of the free people was to overthrow the machines but that is not what they were doing in the movies.
The studio gets about two thirds the domenstic box office money, and about one third (or less) of the international box office
Have you got a reference for those percentages? I've been looking for one...
Bob Geldof's knighthood is not honorary. He is addressed as Sir Bob Geldof. Giuliani, and others such as George Bush (Snr, not GWB), Steven Spielberg, and Alan Greenspan are honorary.
If someone unsubscribed you should have required them to fax a request to resubscribe. Then you'd have had actual physical evidence that the fax was not unsolicited, rather than just a claim that someone called.
Unless they had probable cause, they can't be issued a warrant in the first place. A fishing expidition doesn't constitute probable cause.
The FBI have a warrant therefore a judge has agreed that the evidence the FBI have shown constitutes probable cause. Now they get to fish for evidence
that will make a case.
Either they truely suspect him of the alleged crime and have some proof thereof to lead them to believe this is the case- or they don't. Sounds like they don't, to me.
But then what would you know? All you've seen is a account written by the suspect. It's a bit of jump for you to say the FBI don't have any evidence from that.
The warrant says they're looking for "internal IP addresses"
No, it says "any IP addresses related to any of the Valve internal or external networks". The warrant also says that they can seize whatever they like for offsite examination so the specifics really don't mean that much.
This is like saying, "The murder victim's last name was Smith, and this guy has a reference to a Mr. Smith in his Rolodex. He must be guilty."
It's a warrant, not a case. It says that if a machine has a Valve IP address then that may be evidence of hacking. They're not going to prosecute if all they find is an IP address. It's code, documentation, Valve usernames and passwords, and the like that they will want to build a case.
My analogy with the Nissan case was to illustrate that Nissan Computer Company had a much stronger case than Mike Rowe but still lost. So, the enthusiasm must be tempered in taking on MS.
I don't think the Nissan Computer Company did have a stronger case, unless you mean just the cybersquatting aspect of it (which they were found innocent of). Primarily it was a trademark case and nissan.com didn't have a great case because they were hosting banner ads for car companies. Uzi Nissan's FAQ claims they didn't but you can see them with the waybackmachine here and here, for example. I do think the injunction to force the webpage to non-commercial use was a little heavy handed, they could have just forced him to link to Nissan Motors website and stop the car related ads, but it seems clear that he did try to profit from Nissan Motor's trademark (hosting banner ads his shop site indicates that he knew a lot of people were not looking for a computer store at nissan.com).
If you register a trademark you do get protection from people using confusingly similar marks. In this case Mike has admitted that he registered the domain because it sounded similar. He doesn't appear to have used a similar logo though. In the Nissan case a similar logo was used, and the site started being used for car related business. If neither of those things had occured then Uzi Nissan would probably have been ok.
Spoilers work well at speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Spoilers do not produce downforce at a start, so it doesn't matter what wheels are moving your car.
Hopefully if you car is doing in excess of 100mph all of your wheels are moving. If not, you definitely need more downforce.
Re:Don't cover the airbag! Safety first.
on
The Star Wars Car
·
· Score: 1
his insurance company would probably have something negative and expensive to say about him disabling the airbags. If he has an accident his insurance company probably will refuse to cover him - it's insurance fraud if he originally told them the vehicle had airbags (and he was paying a lower premium) but he's now removed them.
His car insurance company won't care at all. They don't pay for injuries and airbags don't reduce the likelyhood of accidents or the damage to the vehicles. Insurance policies usually require you to inform the company if you make any modification that is not approved by the vehicle manufacturer so he'd be best to let them know but I doubt they would alter his premiums. His medical insurance would treat this car like any other that doesn't have an airbag.
Read the three articles in the post you replied to. Before 1959 all glass was of uneven thickness and often wavy. It was a common (but not exclusive) practice to have the thicker end of the glass at the bottom.
The "glass flows" myth appeared because people saw the uneven thickness of old glass and assumed that it had started out of regular thickness and changed over time. That assumption is false.
Running applications, non-running applications, folders, files, and open windows (minimized.)
So by moving things to the desktop... what are you asking it to do? Move the application? create an alias? move a window to the desktop (can't really do that.) move a document to the desktop? a folder?
Applications (running or not), and minimized windows: bring up the window.
Folders and Files: move to the desktop.
Pretty straight forward if you ask me.
Sure, you can get your camera 'printed' (the ones around here require the whole camera for a couple of days, plus you have to purchase a special 'kodak CD' at approx. 20UKP per print - perhaps the US is more advanced), but it's nowhere near the simplicity of 'drop film in envelope, post envelope'.
Where are you living? Around here I can stop in at virtually any photolab, give them any sort of memory card (or a CD) and have prints back in an hour. And it costs the same as prints from film. I can also email my images to most places.
"In the "real world" situations, LCD TVs are 4 times brighter than plasma TVs."
"LCD TVs contrast ratios measured in real world situations double typical plasma TVs."
Looking at LCDs and Plasmas side by side in a showroom (ie in the "real world"), my experience is that LCD TVs are not double the contrast and 4 times the brightness so I doubt the whole article. Anyone got anything to back this comparison up with?
"If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc."
The reason SCO keeps bringing up indemnification is simple: if the customer is indemnified then the customer can be sued more easily. Essentially it would allow SCO to launch indirect suits against the vendors. SCO know that suing customers without indemnification is not likely to pay off - it's going to be costly to bring that number of suits and the likelyhood of getting significant settlements out of everyone is low. That's why they haven't done it yet, despite threatening to do so for months.
Today's Lego sets look way too specialized to me- too many specialized pieces, not enough basic Lego bricks- so there's a lot less creative potential.
You're not looking hard enough. This complaint has been said many times here and it's not entirely true. Many of the Star Wars sets use few specialised pieces (though the prequel themed sets are not as good in this regard as the older original triology sets). The collectors series, while expensive, are particularly good in this regard. The only problem is that I can't bring myself to break mine up to make anything else. You can also buy the "creator" buckets, which are mostly general pieces, or you can buy basic piece packs online.
As for the expense, yes it is a problem, but the expense is due to the quality of the product. One of the reasons why specialised pieces have become more common is that this reduces the number of pieces and therefore the cost of the sets. It's possible The LEGO Company might make more money if they reduced the quality of the product and therefore the cost. But that would annoy a lot of people and there are already lower quality alternatives. Lego has always been expensive, and I'd rather have it that way than have a lower quality product.
Am I the only one who has noticed that Lego barely sells a kit (in stores) that require any effort or concentration to complete?
They sell the collectors series Star Wars sets are not. I bought the X-Wing and it took my wife and I about 3 hours to put it together (working together on it). The biggest of the sets, the Star Destroyer, takes a lot longer than that.
I can't find any papers from the said authors on the physics archive, so these two obviously aren't well known or respectable among the scientific community.
Or you screwed up the search. I found 4 papers when search for Mottola in astro-ph, and 32 overall. For P Mazur I found 28.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you don't realise but as producer Jackson had a huge degree of control over every aspect of the production. The things that the art department and camera crew did, they did because Jackson guided them in the right direction. You should also be aware that Jackson did not direct every scene and due to the time constraints if a scene wasn't quite right they didn't always have the opportunity to reshoot. That "the directing is just bad at times, is not necessarily a reflection on Jackson's direction.
My wife was commenting to me yesterday that the only movies she's ever liked Uma Thurman in are Tarantino's movies. He seems to get more out of her than most directors. And of course From Dusk Till Dawn was not directed by Tarantino.
The studio gets about two thirds the domenstic box office money, and about one third (or less) of the international box office Have you got a reference for those percentages? I've been looking for one...
Bob Geldof's knighthood is not honorary. He is addressed as Sir Bob Geldof. Giuliani, and others such as George Bush (Snr, not GWB), Steven Spielberg, and Alan Greenspan are honorary.
If someone unsubscribed you should have required them to fax a request to resubscribe. Then you'd have had actual physical evidence that the fax was not unsolicited, rather than just a claim that someone called.
Actually they're back in print as the deluxe edition.
If you register a trademark you do get protection from people using confusingly similar marks. In this case Mike has admitted that he registered the domain because it sounded similar. He doesn't appear to have used a similar logo though. In the Nissan case a similar logo was used, and the site started being used for car related business. If neither of those things had occured then Uzi Nissan would probably have been ok.
The "glass flows" myth appeared because people saw the uneven thickness of old glass and assumed that it had started out of regular thickness and changed over time. That assumption is false.
The reason SCO keeps bringing up indemnification is simple: if the customer is indemnified then the customer can be sued more easily. Essentially it would allow SCO to launch indirect suits against the vendors. SCO know that suing customers without indemnification is not likely to pay off - it's going to be costly to bring that number of suits and the likelyhood of getting significant settlements out of everyone is low. That's why they haven't done it yet, despite threatening to do so for months.
As for the expense, yes it is a problem, but the expense is due to the quality of the product. One of the reasons why specialised pieces have become more common is that this reduces the number of pieces and therefore the cost of the sets. It's possible The LEGO Company might make more money if they reduced the quality of the product and therefore the cost. But that would annoy a lot of people and there are already lower quality alternatives. Lego has always been expensive, and I'd rather have it that way than have a lower quality product.
They're not overpriced, if they were The Lego Company would be able to make a profit. The problem is that they are expensive.