Interestingly enough, I've tried this using a quarter. High in the sky, the moon is completely eclipsed by a quarter held 12 inches from my eye. At the horizon, it is close to twice as wide as the quarter, again at 12 inches from the eye.
I think what makes it interesting is that if a republican appointed republican doesn't guarantee a republican vote, what makes it likely that a bush appointed republican would vote republican?
In favor: John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican David H. Souter - Bush/republican Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against: Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
I was taking personalized as the contrast to automated (ie written by a person, rather than a computer), which I think is what the great-grandparent seemed to want google to do. Otherwise, I can't see why he would have cared enough to post in the first place. Who in their right mind cares if their automated rejection letters are individualized?
However, there is also a widely agreed upon base of moral values which pretty much all the free thinking people of the world have agreed to (the universal declaration of human rights). One might argue that efforts to support and codify those rights have a stronger moral justification than some more obscure societal 'mores' such as whether or not taking pictures of the dead is ok.
Well, I was actually counting out the app evaluation, because they have no choice about that: if they don't evaluate the apps, they are left with random choice. App evaluation is necessary to the functioning of the company, so they pretty much have no choice but to pay someone to do that. All I was questioning really was the need to pay someone to write a personalized letter to the people who didn't get in.
Think of the time involved. Taking ~6000 applications and writing a 10 minute rejection: 60,000 person-minutes. That's 1,000 person hours, or half of a work year for some guy just to type up personal apologies. Who in their right mind _wants_ companies to pay people to do such things, that's like demanding that people have sucky jobs!
Microsoft is at fault because the responsibility to act morally trumps the responsibility to act lawfully or ethically. Obeying and supporting censorship laws that are morally wrong is repugnant, and the excuse of 'maximizing shareholder value' doesn't hold water. When you act wrongfully, you act wrongfully. When a corporation does this, their shareholders should worry that laws might change, and their corporation might be punished financially for acting immorally.
No law or code of ethics trumps your responsibility to act morally. Microsoft is acting immorally, which violates their true first responsibility. Their second responsibility of course is to maximize shareholder value, which appears to be the responsibility they are taking more seriously.
One somewhat known trick is to hire a photographer to take pictures of your wedding, rather than hiring a wedding photographer. The price is usually cheaper, and the quality often better, and the contract strictures much more favorable.
I totally disagree. Look at how the B&W has uniformly better clarity on the subjects left, and uniformly more blur on the right. Consider the choice of shirt for the B&W vs color. This shot may not have been professional, but it would take a pro some time to properly set up the equivalent shot if he wanted to do it deliberately for the jump out effect this shot achieves pretty well.
Wow, your definition of equally good looking is interesting. The B&W they refused to print is a much better photo. Look at the blurring on the color photo, it's terrible. The B&W is nice and crisp. Better lit too.
It's actually the reverse case by default (because he is doing work for hire, you own the copyright), you have to sign a contract to hand over copyright in this case. If you choose to sign such a contract, that's your business, but why would you? Plenty of competent photographers will be happy to take your business without such a contract.
All of this seems to describe why you shouldn't build a business purely out of taking wedding pictures, rather than any sort of motivation actually to pay people foolish enough to try such large sums of money.
Slashdot Mirror
2T vs 3T can mean close to 5% in game benchmarks.
Interestingly enough, I've tried this using a quarter. High in the sky, the moon is completely eclipsed by a quarter held 12 inches from my eye. At the horizon, it is close to twice as wide as the quarter, again at 12 inches from the eye.
Well then at least if you manage to bust them they've committed two crimes.
I think what makes it interesting is that if a republican appointed republican doesn't guarantee a republican vote, what makes it likely that a bush appointed republican would vote republican?
As I posted in response to another:
Yeah, but that's the judge's political party affiliation, not the president's.
To clarify:
That's the judge's political party affiliation, not the president's.
Yeah, but that's the judge's political party affiliation, not the president's.
Let's see:
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
It's not blank, it's black, and it's called 'atmosphere'. It makes the game scary and exciting.
I was taking personalized as the contrast to automated (ie written by a person, rather than a computer), which I think is what the great-grandparent seemed to want google to do. Otherwise, I can't see why he would have cared enough to post in the first place. Who in their right mind cares if their automated rejection letters are individualized?
However, there is also a widely agreed upon base of moral values which pretty much all the free thinking people of the world have agreed to (the universal declaration of human rights). One might argue that efforts to support and codify those rights have a stronger moral justification than some more obscure societal 'mores' such as whether or not taking pictures of the dead is ok.
Well, I was actually counting out the app evaluation, because they have no choice about that: if they don't evaluate the apps, they are left with random choice. App evaluation is necessary to the functioning of the company, so they pretty much have no choice but to pay someone to do that. All I was questioning really was the need to pay someone to write a personalized letter to the people who didn't get in.
That seems like pretty much the opposite of the definition of personalized.
Think of the time involved. Taking ~6000 applications and writing a 10 minute rejection: 60,000 person-minutes. That's 1,000 person hours, or half of a work year for some guy just to type up personal apologies. Who in their right mind _wants_ companies to pay people to do such things, that's like demanding that people have sucky jobs!
It is in fact illegal and you can get yourself up to 5 years:
/ parts/i/chapters/41/sections/section_871.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
Microsoft is at fault because the responsibility to act morally trumps the responsibility to act lawfully or ethically. Obeying and supporting censorship laws that are morally wrong is repugnant, and the excuse of 'maximizing shareholder value' doesn't hold water. When you act wrongfully, you act wrongfully. When a corporation does this, their shareholders should worry that laws might change, and their corporation might be punished financially for acting immorally.
No law or code of ethics trumps your responsibility to act morally. Microsoft is acting immorally, which violates their true first responsibility. Their second responsibility of course is to maximize shareholder value, which appears to be the responsibility they are taking more seriously.
One somewhat known trick is to hire a photographer to take pictures of your wedding, rather than hiring a wedding photographer. The price is usually cheaper, and the quality often better, and the contract strictures much more favorable.
Guess it varies based on who you invite to your wedding ;-)
I totally disagree. Look at how the B&W has uniformly better clarity on the subjects left, and uniformly more blur on the right. Consider the choice of shirt for the B&W vs color. This shot may not have been professional, but it would take a pro some time to properly set up the equivalent shot if he wanted to do it deliberately for the jump out effect this shot achieves pretty well.
Wow, your definition of equally good looking is interesting. The B&W they refused to print is a much better photo. Look at the blurring on the color photo, it's terrible. The B&W is nice and crisp. Better lit too.
It's actually the reverse case by default (because he is doing work for hire, you own the copyright), you have to sign a contract to hand over copyright in this case. If you choose to sign such a contract, that's your business, but why would you? Plenty of competent photographers will be happy to take your business without such a contract.
All of this seems to describe why you shouldn't build a business purely out of taking wedding pictures, rather than any sort of motivation actually to pay people foolish enough to try such large sums of money.
I'll chime in here: the disposable cameras supplied at tables/chairs idea works great. We got all of our best pictures this way.
You could download the service pack direct from microsoft using the bandwidth that you paid for on both sides.