No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of. I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon. And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.
For example, I had two interviews in two different cities. Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips. Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place. I won't need luggage at all in that case. Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.
In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( >$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.
This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist. If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?
I once realized (before getting to security) that I had my pocket knife. I had parked off-airport so I couldn't get back to my car, and I didn't want to lose the knife. I like your potted plant as the solution, but what I did was to go to the airport lost and found and give it to them.
It almost worked...
I asked them for an envelope and put my name and address on it and enclosed the knife. When I got back the next day, they couldn't find my envelope in the lost and found, but a couple of months later I recieved it in the mail.
Basically, we're looking at Emacs as a self-contradiction as things stand. Too much more of this and it's going to just go *poof*.
No. It is when EMACS and vi come into contact that they annihilate eachother in a loud *poof* (of orange smoke no less!). In fact some physicists theorize that the universe began when EMACS and vi spontaneously separated, and will end when they recombine.
Actually, with some of the data retention rules caused by SOX, etc. I have often wondered how much storing the volume of spam that must be received by a corporate mailserver is costing the economy. Unless there is some loophole that allows "spam" that is presumedly filterend and never delivered to not be archived.
Blood was coming out of the ear and i couldn't hear anymore
A bug in the ear is one of the few things that really creeps me out any time I think of it. (I have heard other people tell similar stories.) I have to ask.... Did your hearing return in that ear?
I am sure you can't turn the car off with the keyless power button, the only option on this model.
You can force a Prius to turn off in an emergency by holding down the power button for several seconds.
This is still a safety flaw. The off switch should be more prominant and easier to hit than the on switch. Having to do an emergency action that requires one to wait several seconds is just wrong.
Apparently the typical push-button start system can be manually turned off, but you have to hold the button for several seconds.
This sounds like a poor design as regards safety. In industrial equipment it is standard practice (required by code I think) that the off switch be more prominant and completely override the on button. Often the "off" is a button that must be pulled out (it remains in that position) for the system to operate, whereas the "on" is a momentary button.
The idea is that, in an emergency situation, if one flails at the control panel, you are most likely to accomplish turning the thing off; which is probably what you wanted to do (in an emergency).
When you mentioned Danielle Steele my mind read Daneel Steel and it took me a couple of moments trying to remember if there was another Daneel in the Robot/Foundation books that I had forgotten.
This is the conservative view on every topic of import: the status quo is the best system possible.
...
"I can't imagine any system better the segregation. It's always been this way and people don't change."
This is always the heart of the conservative view -- at least, that of mainstream American conservatism, of the sort that stands athwart history yelling "Stop!". It's always wrong, and always gets bowled over.
You may have a point in the rest of your post, but just to set the matter straight, it was the "conservative" Republican party who passed many of the civil rights laws fighting segregation. The "liberal" Democrats in the south were the ones fighting to keep the segregation intact.
Now it should also be mentioned that there are multiple meanings of "conservative", but you mentioned "American conservatism", by which I read you trying to refer to the Republicans. I guess my point is that, unfortunatly, many of these terms don't mean what they did originaly, or at least can't be used with such large brushstrokes.
In it's current incarnation the sportiest of the luxury lines would be Cadillac by a mile. (have you seen the new CTS-V?). The last truly sporty Olds I can recall is the 442 from the late 60's and Buick has had a number of quick rides since then, most notably the LT1 powered Roadmaster, 3800 S/C based models and the GNX/Grand National (3.8 Turbo).
In its current incarnation, yes, Cadillac produces sport luxury vehicles; that is also a strategic decision made by GM. Also, yes, there have been sporty Buicks over the years; there are exceptions to every rule. Another good exception is that usually Chevys are the base model in a platform, but then you have the Corvette (which, of course, is NOT a platform vehicle). To be honest, as I was typing my earlier comments, the Roadmaster had run through my mind as an exception, but that isn't what I was speaking of.
I will still hold that for the last years in which Oldsmobile existed, when there was a platform vehicle shared between Olds and Buick, Olds got the sport tuning and Buick got the soft tuning. This over simple genrealization was aimed at the original commenter who stated that Oldsmobile was for old people with too much money (my paraphrase). For which I was contending that (at the time) Buick would have been closer to that mark.
Despite what many would have one think, GM has made many changes (business and technical, mostly for the better) over the last 20 years. Simplifying the brand structure is probably a good thing, despite the loss of some great automotive namesplates.
Pontiac was the sport version of the mainline cars. Oldsmobile was the sport version of the luxury lines.
Perhaps moreso in the 50's, but it was still true if you compare product lines that were produced in both Buick and Oldsmobile versions.
I never said the reasons I gave for choosing Buick over Oldsmobile were the only reasons, but there was a lot of coverage here in the Detroit area, and the ones I gave were significant. (The historical Buick name was perhaps less so, but it didn't hurt and they made a big deal of it last year at the centennial -- but that is after the fact.) Mostly it was a marketing question of what they thought would be easiest to move forward with. Olds sounded "old" even if, as car people knew, the plate that targeted the elderly was Buick.
Heck, at the time there were inteviews with senior citizens in this area who said they wouldn't buy Buick because it was designed for "old people". GM did a creditable job of changing that in the last few years.
The tax is for the privilage of using the vehicle in the state, not exporting it, etc. as prohibited by the constitution.
Michigan (and most others) have USE taxes for all items purchased outside the state; if you use it in the state, you have to prove that you paid at least as much sales tax in the other state as you would have in MI, or you have to pay the use tax which just happens to be the same 6% as the MI sales tax.
This was enacted long, long ago first to discourage people from shopping across the border, then to discourage people from mail-ordering when they could shop locally, and it nicely fits in with internet shoppers the same way. The place to fill in any use tax in on the tax form wasn't the obvious in the past, but for the last several years, MI has made it very obvious so that you can't miss it.
Now for most things the state has a hard time proving that you purchased something outside for use within, although with credit cards and databases this is probably getting easier. With vehicles that have to be registered, it is very easy.
Unless you have a luxury level car with thermostatic climate control, your AC is going to be working just as hard whether you have low-e glass or not. The only difference is how quickly the car will reach a comfortable temperature. If you live in a hot state, most people do not then turn off the AC to wait for the vehicle to warm up again, they just leave it on.
If you live in a state where you can turn off the AC and remain comfortable, you probably would have been better-off just lowering the windows for a minute to vent the hot air and then closing them without ever running the AC in the first place.
The Oldsmobile Bravada is a bloated version of the Chevy Blazer.
. ..
The Oldsmobile brand has come to mean added "features" that only the older generation like and will pay for. And less of them are around to pay for it anymore. Or they are still around but a health emergency has taken all of their retirement money.
You are partially correct, the reason was much simpler however, GM was going to drop either Buick or Oldsmobile, as there was too much overlap between Buick Oldsmobile and Cadallac. They made new Cadillac models with better differentiating features and dropped Oldsmobile because of the name "Olds" sounding too much like "aged." Also Buick is the original nameplate of General Motors, actually predating the name GM, so it had that going for it as well.
In truth, of the three, the Oldsmobile was always the sport version of the luxury brands. (Bigger engine, tighter steering and suspension, etc.) Yes, GM often produced a luxury version of their mainline vehicles, and gave it the Oldsmobile plate along with a bigger engine, but that is no different from Honda (Accura), Toyota (Lexus), or any of the other OEMs.
Buick, on the other hand, was known for being the car for grandma, with the overly soft suspension, pillowy seats, etc., the "older generation" features you mention. About the same time as they dropped Oldsmobile, GM changed the Buick suspension design parameters and started making the sporty luxury vehicles under that name instead. GM thought it was easier to reform the Buick name than to deal with the word "old" in Oldsmobile, and your comment seems to indicate that they may have been correct.
By the way, they (like everyone else) still do the luxury upgrade thing, (Think GMC Acadia vs. Buick Enclave) and the upgrades sell quite well.
--McFly ------
P.S. To round out the three... The Cadillac suspension/powertrain was somewhere between Oldsmobile and Buick, and added many more features. Call it bloat if you wish, but the most popular of those items eventually were included in the base model cars as technology improved and made them cheaper to produce. Things like automatic headlights, fuel consumption computers, etc.
I have given this thought in the past and figured that since the USPTO does a lot of legwork to check out patents before granting them, why not let them do the research and then redo the patent filing based upon the rejection?
Actually, for the patent which I recieved, this is exactly what the high-priced patent attorney did. He even admitted that to be the most efficient way to handle the process.
It WAS initially rejected as being too close to a German patent; the attorney then made a few adjustments of the wording in the first claim based on the examiners comments and the German patent, such that it more clearly defined the novel differences, and boom whe patent was granted.
Allow me to answer your question, with a question.
If only 1.5% of your cake consisted of strawberries.... but fewer than 0.1% of your cake consisted of feces, what is the real problem with your cake?
I hate to tell you this, but there are standards that allow for a certain amount of rat feces in your food. The example I remember the best was for peanut butter, but I also recall such things being discussed for grains and flour. I don't know what the value is but there is an allowed amount.
Also, have you ever thought about what "organic" farmers use for fertilizer...
Your mention of strawberries is interesting as I can recall several incidents of off-season strawberries, shipped from Mexico, being recalled due to the use of human excrement as fertilizer.
So in answer to your question, yes there is an acceptable limit... even for that!
... having a pointer to the vendor's download URLs for a file. This is a lot easier, but still requires some added infrastructure and bandwidth. However, third party utilities like Secunia's PSI are able to hunt down and point out outdated/insecure versions, so it wouldn't be too onerous for a central switchboard for application vendors to have one place for update checking....
Not a bad idea. But perhaps the infrastructure already exists. It seems like much of this could be a TXT record in a DNS file. Microsoft would only have to host the "root" server for windows software update info. Why create a new infrastructure/protocol when a perfectly good one exists?
Now before you all go and beat up on the idea, I am sure there would be some decisions that would need to be made. For example, does the TXT record actually go in the current zone file, or is this a separate system just using the same protocol? I am sure there are others...
I agree with most of what you said, except for the blanket statement quoted here:
Judges make decisions of law, juries make decisions of fact.
Although you won't get a judge to admit it (they aren't allowed to) the jury has the right to try both the law and the facts of the case. Go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation and proper legal citations, etc.
While I agree with your point that there are situations where recursive application of the proposed jury review would be ridiculous, there is a good point here. Judges should not be above review (and they aren't, just the process takes too long) and in many cases a jury is the proper instrument of review. You don't want to rely on an appeals court as they (if I understand correctly) mostly only determine if the proper procedures were followed. The concept of a jury of peers was supposed to prevent overreaching judges and laws.
Unfortunately, even in the situations where our jury system is used, it has become perverted over the years. Judges will tell you that the jury is only to decide the facts of the case, and not determine whether the law really should apply to the situation presented, but it is the jurors right to do just that. Some would say that it is the jurors responsibility, as it is a part of the people's checks and balances over the government.
Please don't believe just me. IANAL, etc. Instead, go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation, with proper legal citations etc.
2. They mix 568A and 568B - usually wiring A in the wall, and using premade B patch cables. Instant crosstalk. OK on very short runs, but anything longer than 80' to 100' will become problematic with many NICs.
Hmmm....
First, I agree that 568A on one end of a cable and 568B on the other will not work. BUT, it has been awhile so I went and looked up the definition of A vs B.
The only difference is the color of the wire at pins 1/2 and 3/6. The pairing is identical, and there is nothing that specifies how the various color pairs lay in the cable (in the middle, not at the connectors). So as long as both ends of each cable are the same it doesn't matter if one cable is 568A and another is 568B. You don't have to make sure that the prepackaged cable that you just bought "matches" your existing wiring. Dennon cables with arrows aside, not only can't the electrons read, they are colorblind too, and can't tell if they are in a green wire or an orange wire.
On the other hand, if you are using punchdown connectors, either for a wall jack, or a cabinet frame, you need to pick one system and stick with it. But that is only to prevent confusion causing you to get one end made up as 568A and the other end as 568B.
BTW, I am willing to be proven wrong. If you have a reference showing otherwise, please give a link. I would love to see it.
What will give crosstalk is not following the 1/2, 3/6, 4/5, 7/8 pairing. If you put a pair on 3/4 and a pair on 5/6 (which is logical if you don't know better) then you will get crosstalk between those two pairs.
This may not be the reason that this project changed its name, and IANAL, so take this with a block of salt, but one reason that I can think of immediatly is Trademark Dilution. Since the BIOS has little to do with Linux (and visa versa), using Linux in the name simply confuses things by suggesting a connection that isn't there. Really "Open BIOS" is more accurate than Linux BIOS, and CoreBoot is probably better yet from a trademark standpoint.
Now, before somebody else says it, I read in another thread that Linux was one of the earlier OSs that this BIOS could boot, but that is because Linux doesn't use the bios for much at all, whereas Microsoft OSs rely much more heavily on the BIOS. Thus the reason that this article is news.
I am a GM fan, but I have to admit that I like the idea of the car just using the bluetooth in my existing phone, rather than needing to be it's own phone, ala OnStar. Note however that Ford wants to charge you to use your own car and phone after three years anyway... Oh well....
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of. I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon. And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.
For example, I had two interviews in two different cities. Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips. Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place. I won't need luggage at all in that case. Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.
In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( >$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.
This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist. If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?
I once realized (before getting to security) that I had my pocket knife. I had parked off-airport so I couldn't get back to my car, and I didn't want to lose the knife. I like your potted plant as the solution, but what I did was to go to the airport lost and found and give it to them.
It almost worked...
I asked them for an envelope and put my name and address on it and enclosed the knife. When I got back the next day, they couldn't find my envelope in the lost and found, but a couple of months later I recieved it in the mail.
Basically, we're looking at Emacs as a self-contradiction as things stand. Too much more of this and it's going to just go *poof*.
No. It is when EMACS and vi come into contact that they annihilate eachother in a loud *poof* (of orange smoke no less!). In fact some physicists theorize that the universe began when EMACS and vi spontaneously separated, and will end when they recombine.
Actually, with some of the data retention rules caused by SOX, etc. I have often wondered how much storing the volume of spam that must be received by a corporate mailserver is costing the economy. Unless there is some loophole that allows "spam" that is presumedly filterend and never delivered to not be archived.
Blood was coming out of the ear and i couldn't hear anymore
A bug in the ear is one of the few things that really creeps me out any time I think of it. (I have heard other people tell similar stories.) I have to ask.... Did your hearing return in that ear?
I am sure you can't turn the car off with the keyless power button, the only option on this model.
You can force a Prius to turn off in an emergency by holding down the power button for several seconds.
This is still a safety flaw. The off switch should be more prominant and easier to hit than the on switch. Having to do an emergency action that requires one to wait several seconds is just wrong.
Apparently the typical push-button start system can be manually turned off, but you have to hold the button for several seconds.
This sounds like a poor design as regards safety. In industrial equipment it is standard practice (required by code I think) that the off switch be more prominant and completely override the on button. Often the "off" is a button that must be pulled out (it remains in that position) for the system to operate, whereas the "on" is a momentary button.
The idea is that, in an emergency situation, if one flails at the control panel, you are most likely to accomplish turning the thing off; which is probably what you wanted to do (in an emergency).
When you mentioned Danielle Steele my mind read Daneel Steel and it took me a couple of moments trying to remember if there was another Daneel in the Robot/Foundation books that I had forgotten.
This is the conservative view on every topic of import: the status quo is the best system possible.
"I can't imagine any system better the segregation. It's always been this way and people don't change."
This is always the heart of the conservative view -- at least, that of mainstream American conservatism, of the sort that stands athwart history yelling "Stop!". It's always wrong, and always gets bowled over.
You may have a point in the rest of your post, but just to set the matter straight, it was the "conservative" Republican party who passed many of the civil rights laws fighting segregation. The "liberal" Democrats in the south were the ones fighting to keep the segregation intact.
Now it should also be mentioned that there are multiple meanings of "conservative", but you mentioned "American conservatism", by which I read you trying to refer to the Republicans. I guess my point is that, unfortunatly, many of these terms don't mean what they did originaly, or at least can't be used with such large brushstrokes.
In it's current incarnation the sportiest of the luxury lines would be Cadillac by a mile. (have you seen the new CTS-V?). The last truly sporty Olds I can recall is the 442 from the late 60's and Buick has had a number of quick rides since then, most notably the LT1 powered Roadmaster, 3800 S/C based models and the GNX/Grand National (3.8 Turbo).
In its current incarnation, yes, Cadillac produces sport luxury vehicles; that is also a strategic decision made by GM. Also, yes, there have been sporty Buicks over the years; there are exceptions to every rule. Another good exception is that usually Chevys are the base model in a platform, but then you have the Corvette (which, of course, is NOT a platform vehicle). To be honest, as I was typing my earlier comments, the Roadmaster had run through my mind as an exception, but that isn't what I was speaking of.
I will still hold that for the last years in which Oldsmobile existed, when there was a platform vehicle shared between Olds and Buick, Olds got the sport tuning and Buick got the soft tuning. This over simple genrealization was aimed at the original commenter who stated that Oldsmobile was for old people with too much money (my paraphrase). For which I was contending that (at the time) Buick would have been closer to that mark.
Despite what many would have one think, GM has made many changes (business and technical, mostly for the better) over the last 20 years. Simplifying the brand structure is probably a good thing, despite the loss of some great automotive namesplates.
It doesn't matter what they call it.
In effect, it's a duty on goods imported into a state, and it's blatantly unconstitutional.
Maybe I missed it but I thought the restriction was on export tariffs, not on import tariffs.
Pontiac was the sport version of the mainline cars. Oldsmobile was the sport version of the luxury lines.
Perhaps moreso in the 50's, but it was still true if you compare product lines that were produced in both Buick and Oldsmobile versions.
I never said the reasons I gave for choosing Buick over Oldsmobile were the only reasons, but there was a lot of coverage here in the Detroit area, and the ones I gave were significant. (The historical Buick name was perhaps less so, but it didn't hurt and they made a big deal of it last year at the centennial -- but that is after the fact.) Mostly it was a marketing question of what they thought would be easiest to move forward with. Olds sounded "old" even if, as car people knew, the plate that targeted the elderly was Buick.
Heck, at the time there were inteviews with senior citizens in this area who said they wouldn't buy Buick because it was designed for "old people". GM did a creditable job of changing that in the last few years.
The tax is for the privilage of using the vehicle in the state, not exporting it, etc. as prohibited by the constitution.
Michigan (and most others) have USE taxes for all items purchased outside the state; if you use it in the state, you have to prove that you paid at least as much sales tax in the other state as you would have in MI, or you have to pay the use tax which just happens to be the same 6% as the MI sales tax.
This was enacted long, long ago first to discourage people from shopping across the border, then to discourage people from mail-ordering when they could shop locally, and it nicely fits in with internet shoppers the same way. The place to fill in any use tax in on the tax form wasn't the obvious in the past, but for the last several years, MI has made it very obvious so that you can't miss it.
Now for most things the state has a hard time proving that you purchased something outside for use within, although with credit cards and databases this is probably getting easier. With vehicles that have to be registered, it is very easy.
less gas burned in AC
Unless you have a luxury level car with thermostatic climate control, your AC is going to be working just as hard whether you have low-e glass or not. The only difference is how quickly the car will reach a comfortable temperature. If you live in a hot state, most people do not then turn off the AC to wait for the vehicle to warm up again, they just leave it on.
If you live in a state where you can turn off the AC and remain comfortable, you probably would have been better-off just lowering the windows for a minute to vent the hot air and then closing them without ever running the AC in the first place.
Are the Blazer and Jimmy actually even different?
Not much. Mostly just trim and the grill on the front. IIRC.
The Oldsmobile Bravada is a bloated version of the Chevy Blazer.
. . .
The Oldsmobile brand has come to mean added "features" that only the older generation like and will pay for. And less of them are around to pay for it anymore. Or they are still around but a health emergency has taken all of their retirement money.
You are partially correct, the reason was much simpler however, GM was going to drop either Buick or Oldsmobile, as there was too much overlap between Buick Oldsmobile and Cadallac. They made new Cadillac models with better differentiating features and dropped Oldsmobile because of the name "Olds" sounding too much like "aged." Also Buick is the original nameplate of General Motors, actually predating the name GM, so it had that going for it as well.
In truth, of the three, the Oldsmobile was always the sport version of the luxury brands. (Bigger engine, tighter steering and suspension, etc.) Yes, GM often produced a luxury version of their mainline vehicles, and gave it the Oldsmobile plate along with a bigger engine, but that is no different from Honda (Accura), Toyota (Lexus), or any of the other OEMs.
Buick, on the other hand, was known for being the car for grandma, with the overly soft suspension, pillowy seats, etc., the "older generation" features you mention. About the same time as they dropped Oldsmobile, GM changed the Buick suspension design parameters and started making the sporty luxury vehicles under that name instead. GM thought it was easier to reform the Buick name than to deal with the word "old" in Oldsmobile, and your comment seems to indicate that they may have been correct.
By the way, they (like everyone else) still do the luxury upgrade thing, (Think GMC Acadia vs. Buick Enclave) and the upgrades sell quite well.
--McFly
------
P.S. To round out the three... The Cadillac suspension/powertrain was somewhere between Oldsmobile and Buick, and added many more features. Call it bloat if you wish, but the most popular of those items eventually were included in the base model cars as technology improved and made them cheaper to produce. Things like automatic headlights, fuel consumption computers, etc.
I have given this thought in the past and figured that since the USPTO does a lot of legwork to check out patents before granting them, why not let them do the research and then redo the patent filing based upon the rejection?
Actually, for the patent which I recieved, this is exactly what the high-priced patent attorney did. He even admitted that to be the most efficient way to handle the process.
It WAS initially rejected as being too close to a German patent; the attorney then made a few adjustments of the wording in the first claim based on the examiners comments and the German patent, such that it more clearly defined the novel differences, and boom whe patent was granted.
Allow me to answer your question, with a question.
If only 1.5% of your cake consisted of strawberries .... but fewer than 0.1% of your cake consisted of feces, what is the real problem with your cake?
I hate to tell you this, but there are standards that allow for a certain amount of rat feces in your food. The example I remember the best was for peanut butter, but I also recall such things being discussed for grains and flour. I don't know what the value is but there is an allowed amount.
Also, have you ever thought about what "organic" farmers use for fertilizer...
Your mention of strawberries is interesting as I can recall several incidents of off-season strawberries, shipped from Mexico, being recalled due to the use of human excrement as fertilizer.
So in answer to your question, yes there is an acceptable limit... even for that!
... having a pointer to the vendor's download URLs for a file. This is a lot easier, but still requires some added infrastructure and bandwidth. However, third party utilities like Secunia's PSI are able to hunt down and point out outdated/insecure versions, so it wouldn't be too onerous for a central switchboard for application vendors to have one place for update checking. ...
Not a bad idea. But perhaps the infrastructure already exists. It seems like much of this could be a TXT record in a DNS file. Microsoft would only have to host the "root" server for windows software update info. Why create a new infrastructure/protocol when a perfectly good one exists?
Now before you all go and beat up on the idea, I am sure there would be some decisions that would need to be made. For example, does the TXT record actually go in the current zone file, or is this a separate system just using the same protocol? I am sure there are others...
If a judge says you must turn over your SSH/PGP private keys, then you are legally obligated to do so.
Have you ever forgotten a password, particularly a long complicated one? . . . I didn't think so.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the blanket statement quoted here:
Judges make decisions of law, juries make decisions of fact.
Although you won't get a judge to admit it (they aren't allowed to) the jury has the right to try both the law and the facts of the case. Go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation and proper legal citations, etc.
While I agree with your point that there are situations where recursive application of the proposed jury review would be ridiculous, there is a good point here. Judges should not be above review (and they aren't, just the process takes too long) and in many cases a jury is the proper instrument of review. You don't want to rely on an appeals court as they (if I understand correctly) mostly only determine if the proper procedures were followed. The concept of a jury of peers was supposed to prevent overreaching judges and laws.
Unfortunately, even in the situations where our jury system is used, it has become perverted over the years. Judges will tell you that the jury is only to decide the facts of the case, and not determine whether the law really should apply to the situation presented, but it is the jurors right to do just that. Some would say that it is the jurors responsibility, as it is a part of the people's checks and balances over the government.
Please don't believe just me. IANAL, etc. Instead, go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation, with proper legal citations etc.
Here's how people screw up cables:
...
2. They mix 568A and 568B - usually wiring A in the wall, and using premade B patch cables. Instant crosstalk. OK on very short runs, but anything longer than 80' to 100' will become problematic with many NICs.
Hmmm....
First, I agree that 568A on one end of a cable and 568B on the other will not work. BUT, it has been awhile so I went and looked up the definition of A vs B.
The only difference is the color of the wire at pins 1/2 and 3/6. The pairing is identical, and there is nothing that specifies how the various color pairs lay in the cable (in the middle, not at the connectors). So as long as both ends of each cable are the same it doesn't matter if one cable is 568A and another is 568B. You don't have to make sure that the prepackaged cable that you just bought "matches" your existing wiring. Dennon cables with arrows aside, not only can't the electrons read, they are colorblind too, and can't tell if they are in a green wire or an orange wire.
On the other hand, if you are using punchdown connectors, either for a wall jack, or a cabinet frame, you need to pick one system and stick with it. But that is only to prevent confusion causing you to get one end made up as 568A and the other end as 568B.
BTW, I am willing to be proven wrong. If you have a reference showing otherwise, please give a link. I would love to see it.
What will give crosstalk is not following the 1/2, 3/6, 4/5, 7/8 pairing. If you put a pair on 3/4 and a pair on 5/6 (which is logical if you don't know better) then you will get crosstalk between those two pairs.
This may not be the reason that this project changed its name, and IANAL, so take this with a block of salt, but one reason that I can think of immediatly is Trademark Dilution. Since the BIOS has little to do with Linux (and visa versa), using Linux in the name simply confuses things by suggesting a connection that isn't there. Really "Open BIOS" is more accurate than Linux BIOS, and CoreBoot is probably better yet from a trademark standpoint.
Now, before somebody else says it, I read in another thread that Linux was one of the earlier OSs that this BIOS could boot, but that is because Linux doesn't use the bios for much at all, whereas Microsoft OSs rely much more heavily on the BIOS. Thus the reason that this article is news.
Unfortunately, Ford is still in bed with Microsoft.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/16/ford-think-us-technology-company/
I am a GM fan, but I have to admit that I like the idea of the car just using the bluetooth in my existing phone, rather than needing to be it's own phone, ala OnStar. Note however that Ford wants to charge you to use your own car and phone after three years anyway... Oh well....