Get the daylight bulbs. We have a room with daylight bulbs right next to a room with incandescent (small bathroom, on short duration, don't like the longer warm-up of cf bulbs for that). Just looking at the light coming from the two rooms was amazing -- nice white shining off the white walls from the one room, dull yellow reflecting off the white walls of the bathroom.
RTFA I guess. But why is he thinking about switching rather than switching? Each month he waits, that's enough money to buy a few compact fluorescents. After a year, most of his house will be switched over.
Time to get those compact fluorescents. I have them in all but a few of the sockets in my house, and I estimate they save me big $$ given how much we have the lights on (there's almost always someone home, and I'm a night owl).
The literal meaning is valid. Through it we know that the people who wrote it did not intend that only an army would get to have weapons, that having a weapon is a right of the people (not of the military). In fact, if you read further back behind the intent of the amendment, you can see that they actually intended to have an armed populace that could rise against the United States government should it become oppressive. Of course the statists in this country do not like that idea at all.
Notice that freedom of speech ends at the exact point where you transgress on the rights of others, like perjury to wrongfully convict (or acquit, in which case the victim is harmed), damage to reputation (libel/slander) and fire in a crowded theater (your speech immediately led to physical injury during the stampede). The anti-gun lobby wants to prohibit the possession of guns even when the owner is not using them to transgress on the rights of others (as is the case with the vast majority of guns). I believe we all recognize that using a gun in a manner that directly transgresses on the rights of others should be illegal.
Just for a little more information, did you know that most genocides and mass slaughters were carried out not long after the government disarmed the populace? Just ask the Jews and the Armenians, who were both disarmed prior to their slaughter.
Two possibilities: One, the update is so that the system will be ready should you ever install a camera. Two, it's possible that the update doesn't just address issues with iSight, but updates other programs that work with iSight -- and all of the "i" programs work together.
After all, OS X is a bit of a pig when it comes to resources I realize that the idea of Apple not putting form over function for once is hard to grasp, but I'm sure it could happen...
Each generation of OS X gets faster, so their are working on the innards. As it stands now, most of the UI is done on the graphics card, and as of Leopard your UI will basically be one big OpenGL scene. Yes, OS X puts a lot of computing power towards that eye candy, but Apple keeps moving the cycle and memory load away from the CPU.
"Illuminous" could just be referring to the various technologies that will show up in Leopard like Core Animation and the significant improvement in the other interface libraries. Rumor turned that into a whole new interface. The supposed announcement time is about when Leopard is expected anyway.
This is the third major recent instance I can remember.
First was having a congressional staffer slip a clause into an unrelated bill that would have made the work of the musicians classified as a "work for hire," which would mean the record labels get the copyright to the music. After this was outed and some stars complained, the RIAA said "Oops, how did that get in there, we are working with Congress to restore the rights of the artists." The RIAA of course hired that staffer for a fat paycheck.
The second was holding back royalties, hiding behind complex accounting so the musicians wouldn't find out. Imagine some 70s musician who is probably owed an unknown amount of royalties, but it would take a $10,000 audit (that he has to pay for) to find out. NY AG Eliot Spitzer nailed them on this, and they owed millions in back royalties.
We have an NES, N64, Game Cube, Wii, Atari 7800, Genesis, VSmile and PSOne hooked up to one TV, plus the cable box, DVD and tape player. The TV has an RF input that the Atari and Genesis hook up to, and two RCA inputs. Each RCA input goes to a switch box, one 4-port auto-switching and one 6-port manually switched.
So I have at most two things to hit to select a console: the TV input selection if it's on a different input, and the switch box if the console is on the manual one.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment states a right (keep and bear arms) that cannot be infringed. That's it -- no infringement, period. The introductory phrase states a reason for stating this right, but "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. Note it doesn't grant the right; it considers that right, along with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and others to be inherent, above government powers, and says the government will not infringe on them.
ny man who would take on a position at a yarn store, much less a technological position while surrounded by a dozen women, ages 55+ deserves some kind of reward...'"
That's not so hard. Try being doing the same at a modeling agency or such, and actually be able to concentrate on your work while surrounded by a dozen hot babes.
Doesn't your written Constitution say something about ex post facto laws?
Ex post facto is for criminal law, so it doesn't apply.
However, it is unconstitutional for other reasons. The intent of copyright is to provide incentive for new works. Extending copyright might provide incentive for new works, but there is no incentive for retroactive copyrights, as those works have already been created under the incentive of the shorter copyright term. It also violates the "limited time" provision, in that successive retroactive extensions effectively create an unlimited time ("Forever on the installment plan").
I also think that any personally-held copyright beyond the lifetime of the author is unconstitutional. First, logically anything beyond a person's lifetime is effectively unlimited. Second, copyright is a limited monopoly right, not property (although the right can be bought and sold as property). You have rights, I have rights, but when we die we have no more rights. A person's right to copyright can be exercised after death no more than the right to free speech.
given that they are multiple times the amount of people in the US (what are we talking here? factor of 4? 5?) they have every damn right to produce pollution similar to the US.
They achieve this by having about half their workforce in agriculture, much of it not industrialized. The equivalent of half the US population is homeless migrant farm workers, the same number being below poverty level. I would understand the comparison if they actually had a fully industrialized economy like we do, but even with that many people they are behind us in economic output.
And don't let Russia back-date the reference point for its emissions to the ultra-polluting communist era.
Oh, and a commitment to converting 50% of the world's coal-fired power plants to nuclear by 2020 is a must.
You're asking for a coherent, rational policy here -- stop it. Carbon is a no-no, but actual workable solutions are not allowed. What would the environmentalists do for a living if we actually stopped industrial CO2 emissions?
The infamous Copyright Term Extension Act (a.k.a., Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act) retroactively extended previous copyrights. Mickey Mouse comes into it because the copyright on the original Mickey cartoons was about to expire before the law was passed. This was challenged in our Supreme Court, but the law was upheld.
You can get different sets of inserts for different frequency and db reduction characteristics. I got some because I tended to drive a very loud open-top roadster at 100+ mph all the time. It canceled the wind noise very well, but allowed me to hear the important stuff. Different inserts, perfect for shooting.
I would say that's tremendous power, wouldn't you?
Even if it is, it does work as a check against the anti-Israel sentiment the UN has. For example, at a time when serious human rights abuses abound as policy throughout the Arab world, the only permanent expert mandate of the UN Human Rights Council is against Israel (it was sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference).
You have to remember that with Blu-Ray, the PS3 is easily worth more than Sony is charging, as evidenced by the fact that Sony is taking a loss on each one sold.
To me the question is whether the console market is ready for something like this. It's big, expensive, powerful and hot (heat-wise). It sucks far more power than my Athlon desktop, including large CRT monitor, five hard drives, cable modem, router and other accessories (that's from the reading on my UPS). Something this powerful should have come along in a couple of years, when the technology could have it be smaller, cooler and cheaper.
Nice troll moderation, except when you think that all of those countries listed here are in the UN, and some of them have a lot of power and a history of getting on commissions where the don't belong. China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (all on this list) are currently sitting on the UN Human Rights Council despite rules meant to keep countries with a policy of human rights abuses from being members. You can bet that China and one or more of the others will be on any Internet Governance Council in the future, and they will be deciding what speech is allowed.
It's a good bet that European countries will be on the council, and their legal philosophy is that "hate speech" is not allowed, even if it is valid criticism.
Even the United States may be on that council, and you know how we are about freedom of speech when it comes to programming code (DeCSS and crypto exports).
Basically, the semi-anarchy we have now is quite necessary in order to ensure freedom of speech on the Internet.
Go ahead, moderate me troll again for telling the truth. I've got karma to burn. However, I believe that since I criticized the US in this post it won't be moderated as a troll.
The Joos run everything! The Joos control the media! The Joos control our government! The Joos are responsible for fluoridating our drinking water and contaminating our precious bodily fluids!
The only thing the Joos don't run is the UN, which is why the UN today is staunchly anti-Israel and supports those who have pledged to work towards its destruction.
McCain. Wasn't he behind the campaign finance law that violated freedom of speech while leaving loopholes for the parties to operate with big money, and virtually ensured that no third party would be able to amass the funding necessary to successfully challenge the current duopoly?
None of those in America's only native criminal class are clean.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus they have a terribly harsh color quality.
Get the daylight bulbs. We have a room with daylight bulbs right next to a room with incandescent (small bathroom, on short duration, don't like the longer warm-up of cf bulbs for that). Just looking at the light coming from the two rooms was amazing -- nice white shining off the white walls from the one room, dull yellow reflecting off the white walls of the bathroom.
RTFA I guess. But why is he thinking about switching rather than switching? Each month he waits, that's enough money to buy a few compact fluorescents. After a year, most of his house will be switched over.
Time to get those compact fluorescents. I have them in all but a few of the sockets in my house, and I estimate they save me big $$ given how much we have the lights on (there's almost always someone home, and I'm a night owl).
The literal meaning is valid. Through it we know that the people who wrote it did not intend that only an army would get to have weapons, that having a weapon is a right of the people (not of the military). In fact, if you read further back behind the intent of the amendment, you can see that they actually intended to have an armed populace that could rise against the United States government should it become oppressive. Of course the statists in this country do not like that idea at all.
Notice that freedom of speech ends at the exact point where you transgress on the rights of others, like perjury to wrongfully convict (or acquit, in which case the victim is harmed), damage to reputation (libel/slander) and fire in a crowded theater (your speech immediately led to physical injury during the stampede). The anti-gun lobby wants to prohibit the possession of guns even when the owner is not using them to transgress on the rights of others (as is the case with the vast majority of guns). I believe we all recognize that using a gun in a manner that directly transgresses on the rights of others should be illegal.
Just for a little more information, did you know that most genocides and mass slaughters were carried out not long after the government disarmed the populace? Just ask the Jews and the Armenians, who were both disarmed prior to their slaughter.
Two possibilities: One, the update is so that the system will be ready should you ever install a camera. Two, it's possible that the update doesn't just address issues with iSight, but updates other programs that work with iSight -- and all of the "i" programs work together.
Each generation of OS X gets faster, so their are working on the innards. As it stands now, most of the UI is done on the graphics card, and as of Leopard your UI will basically be one big OpenGL scene. Yes, OS X puts a lot of computing power towards that eye candy, but Apple keeps moving the cycle and memory load away from the CPU.
"Illuminous" could just be referring to the various technologies that will show up in Leopard like Core Animation and the significant improvement in the other interface libraries. Rumor turned that into a whole new interface. The supposed announcement time is about when Leopard is expected anyway.
This is the third major recent instance I can remember.
First was having a congressional staffer slip a clause into an unrelated bill that would have made the work of the musicians classified as a "work for hire," which would mean the record labels get the copyright to the music. After this was outed and some stars complained, the RIAA said "Oops, how did that get in there, we are working with Congress to restore the rights of the artists." The RIAA of course hired that staffer for a fat paycheck.
The second was holding back royalties, hiding behind complex accounting so the musicians wouldn't find out. Imagine some 70s musician who is probably owed an unknown amount of royalties, but it would take a $10,000 audit (that he has to pay for) to find out. NY AG Eliot Spitzer nailed them on this, and they owed millions in back royalties.
We have an NES, N64, Game Cube, Wii, Atari 7800, Genesis, VSmile and PSOne hooked up to one TV, plus the cable box, DVD and tape player. The TV has an RF input that the Atari and Genesis hook up to, and two RCA inputs. Each RCA input goes to a switch box, one 4-port auto-switching and one 6-port manually switched.
So I have at most two things to hit to select a console: the TV input selection if it's on a different input, and the switch box if the console is on the manual one.
The 2nd Amendment states a right (keep and bear arms) that cannot be infringed. That's it -- no infringement, period. The introductory phrase states a reason for stating this right, but "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. Note it doesn't grant the right; it considers that right, along with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and others to be inherent, above government powers, and says the government will not infringe on them.
Time to start suing everyone!
That's not so hard. Try being doing the same at a modeling agency or such, and actually be able to concentrate on your work while surrounded by a dozen hot babes.
OTOH, that would be its own reward.
Sorry, but not much beats the sheer fun of making your own gunpowder, thermite or nitrocellulose and watching it go up.
Ex post facto is for criminal law, so it doesn't apply.
However, it is unconstitutional for other reasons. The intent of copyright is to provide incentive for new works. Extending copyright might provide incentive for new works, but there is no incentive for retroactive copyrights, as those works have already been created under the incentive of the shorter copyright term. It also violates the "limited time" provision, in that successive retroactive extensions effectively create an unlimited time ("Forever on the installment plan").
I also think that any personally-held copyright beyond the lifetime of the author is unconstitutional. First, logically anything beyond a person's lifetime is effectively unlimited. Second, copyright is a limited monopoly right, not property (although the right can be bought and sold as property). You have rights, I have rights, but when we die we have no more rights. A person's right to copyright can be exercised after death no more than the right to free speech.
They achieve this by having about half their workforce in agriculture, much of it not industrialized. The equivalent of half the US population is homeless migrant farm workers, the same number being below poverty level. I would understand the comparison if they actually had a fully industrialized economy like we do, but even with that many people they are behind us in economic output.
You're asking for a coherent, rational policy here -- stop it. Carbon is a no-no, but actual workable solutions are not allowed. What would the environmentalists do for a living if we actually stopped industrial CO2 emissions?
The infamous Copyright Term Extension Act (a.k.a., Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act) retroactively extended previous copyrights. Mickey Mouse comes into it because the copyright on the original Mickey cartoons was about to expire before the law was passed. This was challenged in our Supreme Court, but the law was upheld.
Switching my wireless router to channel 11 as suggested on the Nintendo site seems to have fixed all of my online problems.
You can get different sets of inserts for different frequency and db reduction characteristics. I got some because I tended to drive a very loud open-top roadster at 100+ mph all the time. It canceled the wind noise very well, but allowed me to hear the important stuff. Different inserts, perfect for shooting.
Even if it is, it does work as a check against the anti-Israel sentiment the UN has. For example, at a time when serious human rights abuses abound as policy throughout the Arab world, the only permanent expert mandate of the UN Human Rights Council is against Israel (it was sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference).
I do not want to see a resurgence of clipper chips and key escrow, both Democrat initiatives.
Democrats are not necessarily your friends.
You have to remember that with Blu-Ray, the PS3 is easily worth more than Sony is charging, as evidenced by the fact that Sony is taking a loss on each one sold.
To me the question is whether the console market is ready for something like this. It's big, expensive, powerful and hot (heat-wise). It sucks far more power than my Athlon desktop, including large CRT monitor, five hard drives, cable modem, router and other accessories (that's from the reading on my UPS). Something this powerful should have come along in a couple of years, when the technology could have it be smaller, cooler and cheaper.
Nice troll moderation, except when you think that all of those countries listed here are in the UN, and some of them have a lot of power and a history of getting on commissions where the don't belong. China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (all on this list) are currently sitting on the UN Human Rights Council despite rules meant to keep countries with a policy of human rights abuses from being members. You can bet that China and one or more of the others will be on any Internet Governance Council in the future, and they will be deciding what speech is allowed.
It's a good bet that European countries will be on the council, and their legal philosophy is that "hate speech" is not allowed, even if it is valid criticism.
Even the United States may be on that council, and you know how we are about freedom of speech when it comes to programming code (DeCSS and crypto exports).
Basically, the semi-anarchy we have now is quite necessary in order to ensure freedom of speech on the Internet.
Go ahead, moderate me troll again for telling the truth. I've got karma to burn. However, I believe that since I criticized the US in this post it won't be moderated as a troll.
The Joos run everything! The Joos control the media! The Joos control our government! The Joos are responsible for fluoridating our drinking water and contaminating our precious bodily fluids!
The only thing the Joos don't run is the UN, which is why the UN today is staunchly anti-Israel and supports those who have pledged to work towards its destruction.
McCain. Wasn't he behind the campaign finance law that violated freedom of speech while leaving loopholes for the parties to operate with big money, and virtually ensured that no third party would be able to amass the funding necessary to successfully challenge the current duopoly?
None of those in America's only native criminal class are clean.