Not quite the same organisation. As I understand it, the BBB is a non-profit orginisation run by businesses that serves primarily as an intermediary and arbitrator. Trading standards is a government body, which exists in addition to various indpendent regulatory bodies and trade associations.
I heard about a suggestion for reform of loser pays winner a multiple of their own costs. So if you spend $100 000 000 on your prosection against a defendant who can only spend $1000, you have to realise you're risking $200 000 000 against a possible gain of $1000 + actual costs of damages. English law already has figures for plaintiff as council, so it wouldn't be possible to claim zero cost if you represent yourself.
This wasn't a formal suggestion though. Just a speculative idea from a phycisist and a legal professional, but it's an interesting idea.
Apparently that sort of bullying is only possible in England. Scotland does things slightly differently. (No, I don't know what the actual difference is.)
That's a minor subplot. It doesn't change anything.
I saw the one where they reformed the council of 12. After an episode with lots of half hearted political machinations, we have a political system pretty much the same as it was before, apart from the VP that doesn't seem to have actually done anything.
I've also seen the final episode.
Starbuck defying Adama because of one lie, even though his judgement has been pretty much spot on since she's known him. Has she no loyalty? My prediction for next series - Nothing substantial changes. Adama will still be in command, Starbuck will still be flying, Apollo will still be at odds with his dad.
Haven't we moved on from self contained episodic plots like this? I gave it a shot, and found the whole series painful to watch.
Lets have a look at the politics - We have an exact carbon copy of the US system of government. The Galactica is an exact carbon copy of a US carrier. Why didn't they go the whole hog and set the show on an aircrft carrier on Earth. Call the Cylons "the terrorists" or something.
Then there's the self indulgent dramatic decisions, where they have to destroy a ship to save the rest of the fleet. Yeah, okay. Dramitic. How about not doing it every week. Admittedly they got over this one after a while.
Then we have the tacked on conflict beteen the Adama and the president. Always at odds even though there's never actuallly anything to disagree on, as well as the usual slew of cookiecut characters. We have the skilled commander who should have retired but ended up back in command, his son, and the awkward relationship they have, the fighter jock who can;t keep control of her temper, and the CO who can;t keep control of the figter jock.
Imean puleeze. How about some decent sci-fi. Something with some science fiction ideas.
I've always understood it was a purchased (legal) copy, and therefore your property to do as you like with within the confines of copyright law. But the software publishers would appear to disagree with me.
Maybe it's just a marketing ploy. After all, a lot of people have now heard of the game, and the fact that there are skins. Probably not going to do their sales a lot of harm. Gamers aren't typically puritanical.
It's very easy to spot a bad UI, but a lot harder to actually pin down why its so bad. UI design is hard. It just looks easy.
One of the problems with GIMP is that the toolbar feels very divorced from the wok area. While the X philosophy is that windows just sit there on the desktop, there are better ways of doing this. Why does clicking on a button on the Tools window affect things on the paint window? It's a different window. How many other applications do this? Most X applications don't work like GIMP. Gimp is trying to combine the Photoshop control layout with the X methodology. It would make things easier if they put the controls, work area and menus in the same area as panels. This would work for X. I don't know if its a good solution. Like I said - UI design is hard.
But this is still wrong for Windows. Windows applications use MDI. Consistency is part of good UI design.
Using 8 vector units is easy. You simply treat it as an insanely wide single unit for handling a lot of data. Applications like Renderman (Pixar's rendering software) do a lot of this sort of thing.
I would highly recommend that all aspiring sailors learn how to use the sextants in their emergency kits.
Reminds me of a story about someone copmparing the accuracy of a sextant and GPS. The first night, it was overcast, so there were no stars. The same on the second. The third night, he managed to get a very accurate position, but this did require he knew what the time was. He got this from GPS.
Microsoft may be many things - crooked, bad engineers (actually compared with most companies out there, they're actually pretty good), evil, but to claim one fo the world's largest, most succesful companies is incompetent, I think you need a little more evidence.
Nope. UK terrestrial TV is handled in a totally different way from US TV.
What happens is between 6 and 10 episodes are shown over 6 weeks in a regular slot. Afterwards, that slot shows something else. This is usually something similar.
Part of the reason the US shows a series the way it does is the way the ratings are handled. They show new episodes when the nielson rating are being collated. The UK handles rating in a totally different way from the US, so there's no need to do this.
A US series will typically be shown as 20-24 episodes in a row (one per week) but there may be a break mid season depending on the channel.
The commercial satellite channels will usually try to time it so that the final episode in a season is shown the same week as the final episode in the US season.
In fact, despite complaints, most peak time TV (between 6:00 and 12:00) is new to UK terrestrial TV. Shows are rarely repeated more than once.
People always come up with the question "hat about talking to a passenger". Others try to justify it with arguments along the lines of the passenger is more aware of the situation, but essentially it all comes down to statistics.
People's reaction speeds go down when talking on a cellphone. They don't when talking to a passenger. This has been studied. I'm not sure how thouroughly researched this has been, but the evidence suggests that whatever the reason, talking to a passenger has less effect than talking on a phone. The reasons for this are a matter for further research, but we don't need to explain the difference. We just need to observe that there is a difference.
So how, exactly, in terms of informational content communication, is radio different from the newspaper (which they had at the time of America's founding)?
One had been invented at the time. The other hadn't. That is pretty much my entire point. That the amendment was not intended to cover radio, and the effect it would have on the regulation of the spectrum. Presumably, the reason for special consideration for the radio is that radio spectrum is a finite resource. This should not be wasted on foul language.
Why then, didn't the Founding Fathers ban such literature depicting child molestation, whether in text or in paintings?
I don't know. Are you suggesting they may have considered it, and decided that this was something they wanted to encourage?
Hence, if they wanted to make special provisions in the Constitution for the military, they could have done so. So where are those provisions?
That's a very good point. It should have become apparent at least after a certain time that there would be military secrets that would need protection. There should have been an amendment to set up military intelligence.
Well, yeah, probably. But I really didn't want to say anything too contentious about original intent. I felt it was reasonable to assume they weren't explicitely intending to include anything that hadn't yet been conceived.
They knew that they would enter into power, and that power would be passed on to others. The first thing they did was build in a whole slew of safeguards and restrictions to that power.
Yes. That happened before the first amendment. They arrranged this by creating a fair electoral system. The first amendment was simply an amendment.
Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent.
Off the top of my head, in the second world war, the allies put considerable resources into codebreaking. They put a lot of effort into making sure that nobody realised they were decoding German transmissions. If this secret was shared with the people then it would also have been shared with the germans. A totally free press would potentially have revealed this information. Freedom of speech can kill.
Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent. Right now it is corrupt cesspool of liars, thieves, and swindlers. Bribery is everywhere. Nearly half of the population does not believe their vote is counted, and that the electoral process is rigged. 90% of people believe that if you have enough money, you can usually ignore the laws. It is rotten to the core.
No. If you uncover corruption you are free to talk about it. This is and always should be the case. This is not what I mean by govermnet secrets. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is the intended purpose of the 1st amendment.
Common sense is what the propaganda tells you. Since records have been kept every president elected has been the one that spent more money on PR. It may come as a surprise to you, but PR works. That is why all those companies spend so much money on it. Our government is just a huge corrupt festering pile of crap, that maintains the status quo because that is how they get paid. Tear away the veil, at very least the public can get a laugh at how sickeningly their tax dollars are spent.
Surely this is an argument against absolute freedom of speech. Most other countries have legal limits on the amount that can be spent on campaigning. This isn't possible in the US though because all such measures are ruled unconstitutional.
Surely the original intent was just to make it perfectly clear that criticism of the government, peaceful protests (e.g. marches), and freedom to practice ones own religion was permitted. Child pornography was unthinkable, the US didn't have a military, and the radio was yet to be invented.
I'm not sure about the radio issue, but exceptions for the other two seem to be a rare case of common sense triumphing over the letter of the law. Ideally there should have been an amendment but are you going to make it perfectly legal to publish all government secrets while the is ratified?
Well, let's analyse this. "Serves them" write. So it clearly serves them some writing. Now, serving can also mean delivering legal papers. And since this was written on paper, we have another link there. You also mentioned it has been used in court. Clearly you are concerned about the legal system.
Obviously, from this, I can deduce that you're a deranged serial killer, abd you know that your handwriting will identify you as the culprit if the police ever get a sample of it.
Either Bill G suffers from all of the characteristics that are currently being attributed to Tony Blair in the press.
Or handwriting analysis is a load of baloney.
Even if none of them was able to recognise it was a fake, you would have thought that they might at least have mentioned an obsessive streak, or social awkwardness, or the other typical geek attributes that Bill certainly has .
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite the same organisation. As I understand it, the BBB is a non-profit orginisation run by businesses that serves primarily as an intermediary and arbitrator. Trading standards is a government body, which exists in addition to various indpendent regulatory bodies and trade associations.
I heard about a suggestion for reform of loser pays winner a multiple of their own costs. So if you spend $100 000 000 on your prosection against a defendant who can only spend $1000, you have to realise you're risking $200 000 000 against a possible gain of $1000 + actual costs of damages. English law already has figures for plaintiff as council, so it wouldn't be possible to claim zero cost if you represent yourself.
This wasn't a formal suggestion though. Just a speculative idea from a phycisist and a legal professional, but it's an interesting idea.
Apparently that sort of bullying is only possible in England. Scotland does things slightly differently. (No, I don't know what the actual difference is.)
That's a minor subplot. It doesn't change anything.
I saw the one where they reformed the council of 12. After an episode with lots of half hearted political machinations, we have a political system pretty much the same as it was before, apart from the VP that doesn't seem to have actually done anything.
I've also seen the final episode.
Starbuck defying Adama because of one lie, even though his judgement has been pretty much spot on since she's known him. Has she no loyalty? My prediction for next series - Nothing substantial changes. Adama will still be in command, Starbuck will still be flying, Apollo will still be at odds with his dad.
Haven't we moved on from self contained episodic plots like this? I gave it a shot, and found the whole series painful to watch.
Lets have a look at the politics - We have an exact carbon copy of the US system of government. The Galactica is an exact carbon copy of a US carrier. Why didn't they go the whole hog and set the show on an aircrft carrier on Earth. Call the Cylons "the terrorists" or something.
Then there's the self indulgent dramatic decisions, where they have to destroy a ship to save the rest of the fleet. Yeah, okay. Dramitic. How about not doing it every week. Admittedly they got over this one after a while.
Then we have the tacked on conflict beteen the Adama and the president. Always at odds even though there's never actuallly anything to disagree on, as well as the usual slew of cookiecut characters. We have the skilled commander who should have retired but ended up back in command, his son, and the awkward relationship they have, the fighter jock who can;t keep control of her temper, and the CO who can;t keep control of the figter jock.
Imean puleeze. How about some decent sci-fi. Something with some science fiction ideas.
I've always understood it was a purchased (legal) copy, and therefore your property to do as you like with within the confines of copyright law. But the software publishers would appear to disagree with me.
Car mods are a restriction on what you do with government property. i.e. roads.
Maybe it's just a marketing ploy. After all, a lot of people have now heard of the game, and the fact that there are skins. Probably not going to do their sales a lot of harm. Gamers aren't typically puritanical.
It's very easy to spot a bad UI, but a lot harder to actually pin down why its so bad. UI design is hard. It just looks easy.
One of the problems with GIMP is that the toolbar feels very divorced from the wok area. While the X philosophy is that windows just sit there on the desktop, there are better ways of doing this. Why does clicking on a button on the Tools window affect things on the paint window? It's a different window. How many other applications do this? Most X applications don't work like GIMP. Gimp is trying to combine the Photoshop control layout with the X methodology. It would make things easier if they put the controls, work area and menus in the same area as panels. This would work for X. I don't know if its a good solution. Like I said - UI design is hard.
But this is still wrong for Windows. Windows applications use MDI. Consistency is part of good UI design.
Using 8 vector units is easy. You simply treat it as an insanely wide single unit for handling a lot of data. Applications like Renderman (Pixar's rendering software) do a lot of this sort of thing.
I would highly recommend that all aspiring sailors learn how to use the sextants in their emergency kits.
Reminds me of a story about someone copmparing the accuracy of a sextant and GPS. The first night, it was overcast, so there were no stars. The same on the second. The third night, he managed to get a very accurate position, but this did require he knew what the time was. He got this from GPS.
Microsoft may be many things - crooked, bad engineers (actually compared with most companies out there, they're actually pretty good), evil, but to claim one fo the world's largest, most succesful companies is incompetent, I think you need a little more evidence.
Nope. UK terrestrial TV is handled in a totally different way from US TV.
What happens is between 6 and 10 episodes are shown over 6 weeks in a regular slot. Afterwards, that slot shows something else. This is usually something similar.
Part of the reason the US shows a series the way it does is the way the ratings are handled. They show new episodes when the nielson rating are being collated. The UK handles rating in a totally different way from the US, so there's no need to do this.
A US series will typically be shown as 20-24 episodes in a row (one per week) but there may be a break mid season depending on the channel.
The commercial satellite channels will usually try to time it so that the final episode in a season is shown the same week as the final episode in the US season.
In fact, despite complaints, most peak time TV (between 6:00 and 12:00) is new to UK terrestrial TV. Shows are rarely repeated more than once.
Why? Do you have research that suggests talking to a passenger is as dangerous as talking on a cellphone?
People always come up with the question "hat about talking to a passenger". Others try to justify it with arguments along the lines of the passenger is more aware of the situation, but essentially it all comes down to statistics.
People's reaction speeds go down when talking on a cellphone. They don't when talking to a passenger. This has been studied. I'm not sure how thouroughly researched this has been, but the evidence suggests that whatever the reason, talking to a passenger has less effect than talking on a phone. The reasons for this are a matter for further research, but we don't need to explain the difference. We just need to observe that there is a difference.
The accident rate.
It's the Australian accent. They often raise their voices at the end of a phrase so it sounds like a question.
Stop arguineg semantics and use terms that both sides agree on. "Stealing" and "Theft" are loaded terms which is why people object to them.
The links aren't going to work but you can get the idea from the thumbnails Google image search
So how, exactly, in terms of informational content communication, is radio different from the newspaper (which they had at the time of America's founding)?
One had been invented at the time. The other hadn't. That is pretty much my entire point. That the amendment was not intended to cover radio, and the effect it would have on the regulation of the spectrum. Presumably, the reason for special consideration for the radio is that radio spectrum is a finite resource. This should not be wasted on foul language.
Why then, didn't the Founding Fathers ban such literature depicting child molestation, whether in text or in paintings?
I don't know. Are you suggesting they may have considered it, and decided that this was something they wanted to encourage?
Hence, if they wanted to make special provisions in the Constitution for the military, they could have done so. So where are those provisions?
That's a very good point. It should have become apparent at least after a certain time that there would be military secrets that would need protection. There should have been an amendment to set up military intelligence.
Well, yeah, probably. But I really didn't want to say anything too contentious about original intent. I felt it was reasonable to assume they weren't explicitely intending to include anything that hadn't yet been conceived.
Okayyy...
They knew that they would enter into power, and that power would be passed on to others. The first thing they did was build in a whole slew of safeguards and restrictions to that power.
Yes. That happened before the first amendment. They arrranged this by creating a fair electoral system. The first amendment was simply an amendment.
Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent.
Off the top of my head, in the second world war, the allies put considerable resources into codebreaking. They put a lot of effort into making sure that nobody realised they were decoding German transmissions. If this secret was shared with the people then it would also have been shared with the germans. A totally free press would potentially have revealed this information. Freedom of speech can kill.
Why does our government need to keep secrets from us? Our government is supposed to be by us and for us. It should be transparent. Right now it is corrupt cesspool of liars, thieves, and swindlers. Bribery is everywhere. Nearly half of the population does not believe their vote is counted, and that the electoral process is rigged. 90% of people believe that if you have enough money, you can usually ignore the laws. It is rotten to the core.
No. If you uncover corruption you are free to talk about it. This is and always should be the case. This is not what I mean by govermnet secrets. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is the intended purpose of the 1st amendment.
Common sense is what the propaganda tells you. Since records have been kept every president elected has been the one that spent more money on PR. It may come as a surprise to you, but PR works. That is why all those companies spend so much money on it. Our government is just a huge corrupt festering pile of crap, that maintains the status quo because that is how they get paid. Tear away the veil, at very least the public can get a laugh at how sickeningly their tax dollars are spent.
Surely this is an argument against absolute freedom of speech. Most other countries have legal limits on the amount that can be spent on campaigning. This isn't possible in the US though because all such measures are ruled unconstitutional.
Surely the original intent was just to make it perfectly clear that criticism of the government, peaceful protests (e.g. marches), and freedom to practice ones own religion was permitted. Child pornography was unthinkable, the US didn't have a military, and the radio was yet to be invented.
I'm not sure about the radio issue, but exceptions for the other two seem to be a rare case of common sense triumphing over the letter of the law. Ideally there should have been an amendment but are you going to make it perfectly legal to publish all government secrets while the is ratified?
Well, let's analyse this. "Serves them" write. So it clearly serves them some writing. Now, serving can also mean delivering legal papers. And since this was written on paper, we have another link there. You also mentioned it has been used in court. Clearly you are concerned about the legal system.
Obviously, from this, I can deduce that you're a deranged serial killer, abd you know that your handwriting will identify you as the culprit if the police ever get a sample of it.
Am I close?
I'm sure the graphologists would have a world of time analysing that typo.
Either Bill G suffers from all of the characteristics that are currently being attributed to Tony Blair in the press.
Or handwriting analysis is a load of baloney.
Even if none of them was able to recognise it was a fake, you would have thought that they might at least have mentioned an obsessive streak, or social awkwardness, or the other typical geek attributes that Bill certainly has .