Nope. The reason Bill Gates and Larry Ellison are billionaires is not because they dropped out. It's because they have the personality that makes them good at running a business. This personality was also the reason that they dropped out. They knew where they were going, what they wanted to do, and realised that they could do a lot better dropping out.
If I'd have dropped out, I would have sat around wondering what to do with my life. I don't have the instincts to run a succesful business, or if I do, I certainly don't have the self confidence. But would that have affected anyone's perception that dropping out would be a good thing? Of course not. Unsuccesful college dropouts don't make the headlines.
Cut off everything above (and including) SI swimsuit. Parents who want filtering wouldn't object to that and everything above being blocked as unsuitable, even if they think it's harmless, they're not going to think it's unhealthy not to have access to those sites.
Or cut off everything above (and including playboy)
Most of those who think that any kind of nudity should be barred will accept that Victoria's secret and Danielle Steel at least have some legitimate purpose. There's likely to be an overlap in the borderline area rather than a gap. There will be a minority of people who think that even a medical description that mentions breast would be offensive, but those are the minority, and are not likely to get a lot of support for stricter controls.
Well, I'd have thought so too, but doesn't the ACLU have a few legal experts who look out for these issues? It seems a strange case for them to take on. Usually when there's an anti-porn bill mentioned here, there's hardly a single voice in support of it, but this time there are quite a few people saying that it sounds reasonable. Even the people who don't like it don't seem to have a lot of Constitutional arguments. They have opposition to government intrusion, which is all well and good and quite libertarian, but there's no constitutional guarentee to a libertarian government.
But the ACLU must see a genuine problem. This is a difficult case to win, and makes them seem extreme to a lot of moderates whose support they rely on. This is clearly not a high profile PR piece, so there's clearly something they object to on fundamental principles.
" Not to be too facetious, but a web site with information for breast cancer patients probably has lots of pictures of topless women, too.
But that wouldn't be pornography. Or obscenity.
And we could go back and forth all day trying to refine the definition of pornography and never reach a specific, objective definition that doesn't cover some non-pornographic material as well. Plus, someone could easily come along and disagree with both of us, saying that our definition is too strict or too loose.
How about Pornography is that which the majority of reasonable people would consider to be pornographic. The grey area is very small.
The government has all sorts of regulations on how businesses are run. There are many types of additives that restaurants are barred from adding to their food because they're considered harmful.
As for what constitutes an illicit site - There are many porn sites, and many sites that are not porn, and very few that are inbetween. Usually they have lots of pictures of topless women, and a notice to the effect that you musty be 18 or over to view the site.
If the summary from another post is correct, they can comply with the law either by providing software to block these sites, or by blocking all these sites themselves.
There seems to be an obsession with media execs that people want things based on a formula. They don't wantto take risks, or want originality. They want to repeat success.
And this is really really stupid.
Make an action adventure with swordfights and dogfights set in space in 1977 and you have a huge success. You've just made Star Wars. Do the same in 1978, and you've made a rather lame Star Wars rip off. In the early 80's everyone was trying to copy the formula, but the successes were the films that did things differently.
Disney is run by money men. People who are very good at working out money and merketting, but when it comes to imaginative ideas, they need to realise how clueless they are.
I disagree. The problem is, the best use you don't notice that it's CGI. Spirited away used a lot of CG in the backgrounds, and in The Iron Giant, the giant was totally computer generated. Nobody complained. People who didn't know it was CG didn't even notice.
And don't you just hate this? The idea of a patent is that it should make it clear to someone skilled in the area. If scientists and engineers were responsible for enforcing these, rather than lawyers, then 99% of patents would be rejected on the grounds that these are largely incomprehensible to anyone not also skilled in the art of law.
It's strange that people think that this is entirely about CPU speed. I've upgraded the speed of my speedy 500MHz Pentium III twice. Once by adding memory, and once by adding a faster hard disk. The speed-up depends on exactly what I'm doing, but most of the things I actually have to wait for (mainly loading times) improved substantially.
It would be a weak protection though. It could only work in conjunction with the kernel, and that's easily hackable (isn't it just a BSD kernel?). I think they'll rely mainly on the EULA.
So, why does he say this now, yet back then he said Vader and Anakin fought? It's not like he needed to add that extra detail to obscure things. He could have just said he faught with Obi Wan.
I think it was just a lucky coincidence that Vader can be stretched to mean father and over time, Lucas has convinced himeself that that's what he was planning all along. There were no hints that Vader and Anakin might be the same person, apart from the "vader" thing, which could have any number of other explanations, and if it was that important why was it changed to "Dark Vador" in the French dub? The first print of Star Wars Didn't even have the Episode 4: A New Hope subtitle.
Lucas himself openly said "Vader" is a bastardization of "Father" in a Rolling Stone interview about Star Wars. It's online if you do a bit of digging.
"It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader."
It's pretty obvious that when he wrote Obi Wan's dialogue, he hadn't decided this. Then he added the "true, in a manner of speaking" line as a retcon.
I have an MP who always votes for the party line, and even if he didn't, is strongly in favour of ID cards. And the Iraq war for that matter. Perhaps I should move to somewhere with a slightly more liberal MP.
While a trivial parent can be struck down, it's expensive to do, and will usually be cheaper to pay for it.
What would solve this would be that if a patent holder demanded damages, and the patent was struck down on the basis of obviousness, then the patent holder would haveto pay the same amount that he was demanding in the first place.
We'd probably want to be careful not to penalise patent holders whose patents failed on minor technicalities, but that's something that can be dealt with by legal experts.
Well, yeah. It's the old false dichotomy. But I find it so difficult to explain why they're not mutually exclusive to most people who use this argument, that if possible, I'll justify the "wrong" answer.
Daemon and demon are the same thing when applied to supernatural beings. Maybe the daemon spelling is considered in American English, but in Britain, it's quite common.
I was fortunate enough to visit google's main HQ. They gave mea tour of thei server room. Now, on any server, you expect to have a few daemons. Google seem to have taken this literally. They summoned thousands of daemons from hell, and chained them to keyboards to answer people's queries.
I was a little shocked by this, but I put my surprise aside. I've worked with a lot of tech companies. I can forgive them their idiosynchrasies. But then we went to their CEO's office. To even meet the CEO, you have to sacrifice a goat, and if you actually want a full length meeting, he demands nothing less that a virgin sacrifice. So I sacrificed someone who was there for a job interview. The COE was pleased with this sacrifice, and I got to see him. To my shock, I saw that the CEO was Satan himself!
Dunno. Either because people are so used to image formats being acronyms, or because filenames are usually stored in FAT's 8.3 format in capitals, with a filename along the lines of IMAGE001.RAW, which means it should probably be called ".RAW" format.
Chemists correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the molecular weight determine where oxygen might occur in an atmosphere?
I don't think so. Gasses mix together. The atmosphere gets thinner but I believe the proportions are roughly the same. Of course, temperature could have an effect. At higher altitudes, the tibanna gas might simply liquify or something. No idea if this is plausible or not.
I don't think Hoth is right in the asteroid field. The Falcon had to fly for a while before they got to it, and eventually (it seems conceivable that the trip took weeks) made it to Bespin. Even at sublight speeds, space vessels in the Star Wars galaxy have got to be pretty fast. All kinds of junk from space makes its way to Earth's atmosphere every day, and it hasn't stopped us from developing civilization. I don't see why the occasional small meteorite would stop animals from living on Hoth.
How about this for an explanation - The asteroid field is somehting that drifted into an orbit near hoth many years ago. The big impacts at the start caused an ice age, and now we're seeing quite a lot of smaller impacts from the leftovers that were caught in a decaying orbit.
Later on, the falcon escapes, and stumbles upon this asteroid field. See. It was all planned that way from the start:)
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The reason Bill Gates and Larry Ellison are billionaires is not because they dropped out. It's because they have the personality that makes them good at running a business. This personality was also the reason that they dropped out. They knew where they were going, what they wanted to do, and realised that they could do a lot better dropping out.
If I'd have dropped out, I would have sat around wondering what to do with my life. I don't have the instincts to run a succesful business, or if I do, I certainly don't have the self confidence. But would that have affected anyone's perception that dropping out would be a good thing? Of course not. Unsuccesful college dropouts don't make the headlines.
Cut off everything above (and including) SI swimsuit. Parents who want filtering wouldn't object to that and everything above being blocked as unsuitable, even if they think it's harmless, they're not going to think it's unhealthy not to have access to those sites.
Or cut off everything above (and including playboy)
Most of those who think that any kind of nudity should be barred will accept that Victoria's secret and Danielle Steel at least have some legitimate purpose. There's likely to be an overlap in the borderline area rather than a gap. There will be a minority of people who think that even a medical description that mentions breast would be offensive, but those are the minority, and are not likely to get a lot of support for stricter controls.
Well, I'd have thought so too, but doesn't the ACLU have a few legal experts who look out for these issues? It seems a strange case for them to take on. Usually when there's an anti-porn bill mentioned here, there's hardly a single voice in support of it, but this time there are quite a few people saying that it sounds reasonable. Even the people who don't like it don't seem to have a lot of Constitutional arguments. They have opposition to government intrusion, which is all well and good and quite libertarian, but there's no constitutional guarentee to a libertarian government.
But the ACLU must see a genuine problem. This is a difficult case to win, and makes them seem extreme to a lot of moderates whose support they rely on. This is clearly not a high profile PR piece, so there's clearly something they object to on fundamental principles.
" Not to be too facetious, but a web site with information for breast cancer patients probably has lots of pictures of topless women, too.
But that wouldn't be pornography. Or obscenity.
And we could go back and forth all day trying to refine the definition of pornography and never reach a specific, objective definition that doesn't cover some non-pornographic material as well. Plus, someone could easily come along and disagree with both of us, saying that our definition is too strict or too loose.
How about Pornography is that which the majority of reasonable people would consider to be pornographic. The grey area is very small.
The government has all sorts of regulations on how businesses are run. There are many types of additives that restaurants are barred from adding to their food because they're considered harmful.
As for what constitutes an illicit site - There are many porn sites, and many sites that are not porn, and very few that are inbetween. Usually they have lots of pictures of topless women, and a notice to the effect that you musty be 18 or over to view the site.
If the summary from another post is correct, they can comply with the law either by providing software to block these sites, or by blocking all these sites themselves.
Doesn't mean it will work in the future.
There seems to be an obsession with media execs that people want things based on a formula. They don't wantto take risks, or want originality. They want to repeat success.
And this is really really stupid.
Make an action adventure with swordfights and dogfights set in space in 1977 and you have a huge success. You've just made Star Wars. Do the same in 1978, and you've made a rather lame Star Wars rip off. In the early 80's everyone was trying to copy the formula, but the successes were the films that did things differently.
Disney is run by money men. People who are very good at working out money and merketting, but when it comes to imaginative ideas, they need to realise how clueless they are.
How much does an OEM copy of Windows cost these days? This must affect the final price quite considerably.
I disagree. The problem is, the best use you don't notice that it's CGI. Spirited away used a lot of CG in the backgrounds, and in The Iron Giant, the giant was totally computer generated. Nobody complained. People who didn't know it was CG didn't even notice.
And don't you just hate this? The idea of a patent is that it should make it clear to someone skilled in the area. If scientists and engineers were responsible for enforcing these, rather than lawyers, then 99% of patents would be rejected on the grounds that these are largely incomprehensible to anyone not also skilled in the art of law.
That's not neccesarily a good thing. It may be a smaller file because a load of extra data is missing.
It's strange that people think that this is entirely about CPU speed. I've upgraded the speed of my speedy 500MHz Pentium III twice. Once by adding memory, and once by adding a faster hard disk. The speed-up depends on exactly what I'm doing, but most of the things I actually have to wait for (mainly loading times) improved substantially.
It would be a weak protection though. It could only work in conjunction with the kernel, and that's easily hackable (isn't it just a BSD kernel?). I think they'll rely mainly on the EULA.
So, why does he say this now, yet back then he said Vader and Anakin fought? It's not like he needed to add that extra detail to obscure things. He could have just said he faught with Obi Wan.
I think it was just a lucky coincidence that Vader can be stretched to mean father and over time, Lucas has convinced himeself that that's what he was planning all along. There were no hints that Vader and Anakin might be the same person, apart from the "vader" thing, which could have any number of other explanations, and if it was that important why was it changed to "Dark Vador" in the French dub? The first print of Star Wars Didn't even have the Episode 4: A New Hope subtitle.
Lucas himself openly said "Vader" is a bastardization of "Father" in a Rolling Stone interview about Star Wars. It's online if you do a bit of digging.
This interview?
"It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader."
It's pretty obvious that when he wrote Obi Wan's dialogue, he hadn't decided this. Then he added the "true, in a manner of speaking" line as a retcon.
And he had no idea what a Parsec was either.
Lucky you.
I have an MP who always votes for the party line, and even if he didn't, is strongly in favour of ID cards. And the Iraq war for that matter. Perhaps I should move to somewhere with a slightly more liberal MP.
Because they haven't thought if that.
I dare say it would be possible to persuade an administrator or colleague at another university to set up a proxy though.
While a trivial parent can be struck down, it's expensive to do, and will usually be cheaper to pay for it.
What would solve this would be that if a patent holder demanded damages, and the patent was struck down on the basis of obviousness, then the patent holder would haveto pay the same amount that he was demanding in the first place.
We'd probably want to be careful not to penalise patent holders whose patents failed on minor technicalities, but that's something that can be dealt with by legal experts.
Well, yeah. It's the old false dichotomy. But I find it so difficult to explain why they're not mutually exclusive to most people who use this argument, that if possible, I'll justify the "wrong" answer.
What do you prefer? Freedom from terrorists or freedom from the government?
Personally, my answer is freedom from the government. But most people seem to think the other way.
Doh! I meant to say "Maybe the daemon spelling is considered archaic in American English"
Daemon and demon are the same thing when applied to supernatural beings. Maybe the daemon spelling is considered in American English, but in Britain, it's quite common.
I was fortunate enough to visit google's main HQ. They gave mea tour of thei server room. Now, on any server, you expect to have a few daemons. Google seem to have taken this literally. They summoned thousands of daemons from hell, and chained them to keyboards to answer people's queries.
I was a little shocked by this, but I put my surprise aside. I've worked with a lot of tech companies. I can forgive them their idiosynchrasies. But then we went to their CEO's office. To even meet the CEO, you have to sacrifice a goat, and if you actually want a full length meeting, he demands nothing less that a virgin sacrifice. So I sacrificed someone who was there for a job interview. The COE was pleased with this sacrifice, and I got to see him. To my shock, I saw that the CEO was Satan himself!
So don't believe the Google "Do No Evil" lies.
Dunno. Either because people are so used to image formats being acronyms, or because filenames are usually stored in FAT's 8.3 format in capitals, with a filename along the lines of IMAGE001.RAW, which means it should probably be called ".RAW" format.
Chemists correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the molecular weight determine where oxygen might occur in an atmosphere?
I don't think so. Gasses mix together. The atmosphere gets thinner but I believe the proportions are roughly the same. Of course, temperature could have an effect. At higher altitudes, the tibanna gas might simply liquify or something. No idea if this is plausible or not.
I don't think Hoth is right in the asteroid field. The Falcon had to fly for a while before they got to it, and eventually (it seems conceivable that the trip took weeks) made it to Bespin. Even at sublight speeds, space vessels in the Star Wars galaxy have got to be pretty fast. All kinds of junk from space makes its way to Earth's atmosphere every day, and it hasn't stopped us from developing civilization. I don't see why the occasional small meteorite would stop animals from living on Hoth.
How about this for an explanation - The asteroid field is somehting that drifted into an orbit near hoth many years ago. The big impacts at the start caused an ice age, and now we're seeing quite a lot of smaller impacts from the leftovers that were caught in a decaying orbit.
Later on, the falcon escapes, and stumbles upon this asteroid field. See. It was all planned that way from the start:)