Thanks for straightening me out by answering my question with a snarky bitch-slap rather than a patient and thoughtful clarification, FFS. Though I'm sure it won't change your self-righteous indignation any, I did RTFM before I posted and it frankly wasn't that clear to me so, yeah thanks for the insight.
It's asshats like you that have caused me to spend less and less time on/. these days.
I thought that America Invents changed the game from "first to think of it" to "first to file for it"?? If that's true then prior art doesn't mean squat anymore. Which, now that I think about it, would create a rather chilling effect on the idea of even discussing a new idea with ANY one for fear that the person you talked to might beat you to the patent office even though it was truly your idea in the first place. Not sure I see how that change would make anything better for actual inventors, though it certainly would cut the patent office workload...
Not just in Florida. The popular trick here in the midwest is to put up the signs right before the entrance to a Rest Area. The druggies think they're being clever by pulling off at the Rest Area right away so they can throw away the evidence and "clean up" their act. But of course the rest area is where the cops really are, watching for that very activity...
I have a desktop at home, a laptop for mobility and general use around-the-house plus a netbook on my nightstand. I browse on all three of them and syncing bookmarks has been a godsend to me. For example, I browse music download sites on all three but I only actually download on the desktop. For that usage alone it's worth it, but that's not the only scenario for me.
I wouldn't call my situation "peculiar" by any means and it certainly wouldn't need 10 OS's and 40 or more browsers to justify using a bookmark syncer. Any quantity of browser > 1 is reason enough for me!
I'm sure he's referring only to the name change from Weave to Sync, which happened 'not that long ago' (earlier this summer). Weave itself has been around at least as long as you remember, of course.
And let's add redneck pick-up truck drivers to the list as well. Anyone who plasters a decal of Calvin pissing on their favorite thing to hate should be charged with urinating in public. Seriously.
They seem to advertise the belief that they think it's funny to piss on things you don't like, but I can just imagine what their humorless reaction would be if I pissed on their g*damn truck decal...
Just to be clear, there is no such thing as a "brake/steering" fluid system in your car. It's either brake fluid or steering fluid - these are two separate systems with separate reservoirs and separate fluids.
From what you describe, the mechanic fixed your problem by topping off your steering fluid. He may have checked the brake fluid as well - and even topped it off - but that would have been uninvolved in solving your original problem.
In any event, it does nothing to lessen the gross incompetence of the original mechanic. {shudder}
I can go you one better - I once held her in my arms...
I was working as a PA for a movie called Mommy. Majel played the role of Mrs. Withers, a schoolteacher who gets killed by the movie's lead villainess.
In her final scene, Mrs. Withers is hanging up decorations after hours in her classroom when she is confronted by the murderous lead character. After a brief argument with her would-be killer, Majel's character climbs back up a stepladder to resume her decorating and the murderess does the dirty deed by pushing Majel off the stepladder, causing her to fall to the floor where she presumably dies from a fractured skull.
The scene called for an upper torso shot of Majel falling backwards off the ladder. Since we're talking "B" movie here and the budget did not include an airbag for her to fall onto, the director had me and three other PA's stand next to the ladder with our arms linked together so as to catch her. She literally fell into my arms - not once but several times before the final take. Absolute highlight of my life! What really impressed me, though, was how trusting she was and - to echo what many other posters have already said - how joyful she was as a person.
One other story about Majel's final scene in the movie - her very last camera shot was from above, looking down on the fallen Mrs. Withers as she lay dying on the classroom floor. The director told Majel to ham it up a bit for her death scene so the editor would have some extra footage to work with for the final cut, so there she laid on the floor - eyes closed, a pained expression on her face, rolling her head to and fro and moaning...
(i'm just gonna let that image sink in for a moment or two)
... it was a hypnotic moment, the entire crew was transfixed and except for Majel the room was absolutely quiet. And at some point it sunk in with me that the scene had been going on for a lot longer than was probably necessary and that the director wasn't saying "cut". It must have occurred to Majel as well because she suddenly stopped, raised her head and looked over at the director as if to ask whether it was enough footage. But before she could speak - out of the deafening silence of that moment - a small desperate voice in the back of the room cried out "Marry me, Majel!!".
If you ever get a chance to see the actual movie, keep that story in mind as you watch Mrs. Withers' final on-screen moments.
Since the NIH is a government agency, why not just screw the publisher and demand the information under the Freedom of Information Act? (yes, USA only I know) I'm sure there would be a fee under the FOIA but it could be a whole lot less than paying a publisher, who would get squat out of the arrangement.
Maybe that's a bit far-fetched but even if everyone just did that for a while as a form of protest it might get the point across to the folks on Capitol Hill.
Fantastic idea! I'm sure the Pentagon will be extremely interested in your Mo' font as their newest anti-terrorism tool. By using the font for their sensitive battlefield communications they can eliminate the need for clunky and time-consuming encryption as the Islamic extremists would never be able to allow themselves to read any of the messages.
A new twist on the old adage that the best place to hide is in plain sight.
What part of TFA lead you to believe that it was a case of NASA scientists not being able to multiply numbers together correctly??? (besides the blatantly misleading title and crappy summary, that is...)
The story itself explains that there was no miscalculation per se. The kid pointed out a factor in their scenario that NASA hadn't considered: given how close the asteroid will pass Earth, what if it hits one or more of our orbiting satellites? The fact that he was mathematically inclined allowed him to recalculate the scenario himself, instead of waiting for NASA's brainiacs to confirm.
His math skills are somewhat incidental to the real story, which is that he has better disaster planning skills than NASA. But that wouldn't be nearly as sensational as implying that even a German schoolboy could add up numbers better than those dumb ol' NASA people.
I *still* use Eudora (version 6-point-sumpin-or-other) and although I would have preferred for Qualcomm to keep it going, I was really happy to hear they were turning it over to Mozilla. That move really cemented my belief that the Eudora developers were Good People®.
Though I've been recommending Thunderbird to my friends and clients for what seems like forever, I could never convince myself to give up Eudora...
fwiw, adding IE rendering was totally a reaction at the time to the burgeoning popularity of Outlook and HTML-formatted emails. Thankfully it was optional and could be turned off, leaving Eudora as bulletproof as before.
Your recollection of what it says is pretty good - but all it means is that if the machine breaks and thereby results in a win for you, they are not obligated to give you the results of that win (the "play" or "payment"). It does not mean that if the machine breaks and thereby "eats" your quarter that they do not have to give you back your quarter. The play is voided and so is the cost of that play - you get your money back.
And that reminds me of the company I'm working for right now...
The goofiest thing I've ever experienced was when the previous voice mail system (s'been replaced since) somehow decided to prank call my house and put a recording of the ensuing hilarity into my voice mail box.
The message consisted of the sound of a phone ringing - as if I had just dialed the number myself - followed by the sound of my wife answering "Hello? Hello?!? Is anyone there? Who is this?!? HELLO?!?!? (expletive!!) (click!) (dialtone...)"
The system did that no less than three times over the span of about a week before I was finally able to convince the telecom support folks that it was the system, and not me, that was making the prank calls. They eventually tried to explain why they thought the system was doing what it did, by way of explaining what they had done to fix it, but it sounded to me suspiciously like "We don't know why it did that, but we changed something in the hopes that it will make it stop...".
I imagine that's how my explanations must sound to some of the users I support...
Technically, it's only illegal if the stations try to hide the fact that the music has been "paid for". The labels are free to buy as much airtime as they like for their preferred artists, as long as they don't try to hide their sponsorship. That's the definition of 'payola'.
The reason the labels prefer the illegal route is because they know that their teenage demographic would go out of its way to NOT buy any music that hinted at being "paid for".
Competition decreases demand, moving the demand curve lower.
I must have missed that Econ lecture... you're saying that the more sellers there are for a product, the less I want to buy that very product. How does that happen?!?
I've always understood that having more sellers increases supply and moves the supply curve higher. The end result may be the same with respect to price, but the mechanism by which it happens is distinctly different.
WTF?!? And you're a real asshole, but that really has no bearing on your logic or subtle powers of persuasion.
All I asked was for you to simply prove to me what you are claiming, but you really haven't. Instead, you attack me personally and then throw some obscure four-year old links at me that aren't even relevant anymore. Jeezus, you even said it yourself that eMusic USED to be owned by Vivendi but instead of reconsidering your own brand of hatred you concoct yet another conjecture that somehow the new owners must also be evil and involved with the RIAA in some way which you haven't proven either.
Now if you've got some sort of problem with the Orchard regards "screwing their artists" then that's fine - you just roll with that and boycott them if you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the RIAA and giving them money. You do recall that was the issue you raised in the first place which I replied to, right?? That whole "giving money to eMusic is the same as giving it to the RIAA" screed? I just want to be sure you remembered what the actual topic was, because your seething anger regarding my musical tastes (which you also haven't a clue about) seems to have distracted you from the original argument.
As far as believing is concerned - I'd be happy to believe what you believe. Seriously! I'll be YOUR little sheep and follow you around going baaah baaah baaah, if you can honestly prove what you said without resorting to anger or merely spouting a long list of names taken from the RIAA's own "distributed label of a reporting company" list, which everyone agrees is total misinformation. In case you really have forgotten, what you said is that there were "thousands" of labels on eMusic that "are RIAA affiliates", and the implication was that buying from eMusic was helping to fund the RIAA. Proving your statement should be easy - just SHOW ME THE MONEY! Show me a list of actual paying RIAA members or affiliates or whatever the hell you want to call them and then show me that either eMusic itself is on that list, or that a preponderance of labels on eMusic are on that list. I'll even accept a count of 100 labels instead of your original arm-waving estimate of "thousands".
Alternatively, show me where it says that a "distributed label of a reporting company" has to pay ANY money to the RIAA. Show me where it says that a "distributed label of a reporting company" gets ANY benefits at all from the RIAA or whether the RIAA has ANY influence or power over a label simply because they are a "distributed label of a reporting company". For that matter, tell me what you think a "distributed label of a reporting company" is because I don't think you even know.
btw, Hillary Rosen hasn't run the RIAA for the last four years either. For some reason, your bile seems to be stuck in the year 2003.
Slashdot Mirror
Trolling for things to be angry at? Just makes you another asshat...
Thanks for straightening me out by answering my question with a snarky bitch-slap rather than a patient and thoughtful clarification, FFS. Though I'm sure it won't change your self-righteous indignation any, I did RTFM before I posted and it frankly wasn't that clear to me so, yeah thanks for the insight.
/. these days.
It's asshats like you that have caused me to spend less and less time on
Does "prior art" even matter anymore?
I thought that America Invents changed the game from "first to think of it" to "first to file for it"?? If that's true then prior art doesn't mean squat anymore. Which, now that I think about it, would create a rather chilling effect on the idea of even discussing a new idea with ANY one for fear that the person you talked to might beat you to the patent office even though it was truly your idea in the first place. Not sure I see how that change would make anything better for actual inventors, though it certainly would cut the patent office workload...
Not just in Florida. The popular trick here in the midwest is to put up the signs right before the entrance to a Rest Area. The druggies think they're being clever by pulling off at the Rest Area right away so they can throw away the evidence and "clean up" their act. But of course the rest area is where the cops really are, watching for that very activity...
He noted that Facebook-style networks kept users within their existing friend groups, and didn't 'stretch' them to meet new people.
Hermmm... wasn't Chatroulette supposed to fix that for us...??
I have a desktop at home, a laptop for mobility and general use around-the-house plus a netbook on my nightstand. I browse on all three of them and syncing bookmarks has been a godsend to me. For example, I browse music download sites on all three but I only actually download on the desktop. For that usage alone it's worth it, but that's not the only scenario for me.
I wouldn't call my situation "peculiar" by any means and it certainly wouldn't need 10 OS's and 40 or more browsers to justify using a bookmark syncer. Any quantity of browser > 1 is reason enough for me!
I'm sure he's referring only to the name change from Weave to Sync, which happened 'not that long ago' (earlier this summer). Weave itself has been around at least as long as you remember, of course.
+1
And let's add redneck pick-up truck drivers to the list as well. Anyone who plasters a decal of Calvin pissing on their favorite thing to hate should be charged with urinating in public. Seriously.
They seem to advertise the belief that they think it's funny to piss on things you don't like, but I can just imagine what their humorless reaction would be if I pissed on their g*damn truck decal...
Just to be clear, there is no such thing as a "brake/steering" fluid system in your car. It's either brake fluid or steering fluid - these are two separate systems with separate reservoirs and separate fluids.
From what you describe, the mechanic fixed your problem by topping off your steering fluid. He may have checked the brake fluid as well - and even topped it off - but that would have been uninvolved in solving your original problem.
In any event, it does nothing to lessen the gross incompetence of the original mechanic. {shudder}
I lost mine in WW2, you insensitive clods!
No wait... you said shims?!?!
Nevermind.
I can go you one better - I once held her in my arms...
... it was a hypnotic moment, the entire crew was transfixed and except for Majel the room was absolutely quiet. And at some point it sunk in with me that the scene had been going on for a lot longer than was probably necessary and that the director wasn't saying "cut". It must have occurred to Majel as well because she suddenly stopped, raised her head and looked over at the director as if to ask whether it was enough footage. But before she could speak - out of the deafening silence of that moment - a small desperate voice in the back of the room cried out "Marry me, Majel!!".
I was working as a PA for a movie called Mommy. Majel played the role of Mrs. Withers, a schoolteacher who gets killed by the movie's lead villainess.
In her final scene, Mrs. Withers is hanging up decorations after hours in her classroom when she is confronted by the murderous lead character. After a brief argument with her would-be killer, Majel's character climbs back up a stepladder to resume her decorating and the murderess does the dirty deed by pushing Majel off the stepladder, causing her to fall to the floor where she presumably dies from a fractured skull.
The scene called for an upper torso shot of Majel falling backwards off the ladder. Since we're talking "B" movie here and the budget did not include an airbag for her to fall onto, the director had me and three other PA's stand next to the ladder with our arms linked together so as to catch her. She literally fell into my arms - not once but several times before the final take. Absolute highlight of my life! What really impressed me, though, was how trusting she was and - to echo what many other posters have already said - how joyful she was as a person.
One other story about Majel's final scene in the movie - her very last camera shot was from above, looking down on the fallen Mrs. Withers as she lay dying on the classroom floor. The director told Majel to ham it up a bit for her death scene so the editor would have some extra footage to work with for the final cut, so there she laid on the floor - eyes closed, a pained expression on her face, rolling her head to and fro and moaning...
(i'm just gonna let that image sink in for a moment or two)
If you ever get a chance to see the actual movie, keep that story in mind as you watch Mrs. Withers' final on-screen moments.
Since the NIH is a government agency, why not just screw the publisher and demand the information under the Freedom of Information Act? (yes, USA only I know) I'm sure there would be a fee under the FOIA but it could be a whole lot less than paying a publisher, who would get squat out of the arrangement.
Maybe that's a bit far-fetched but even if everyone just did that for a while as a form of protest it might get the point across to the folks on Capitol Hill.
Are you sure?? They're very good scissors...
Fantastic idea! I'm sure the Pentagon will be extremely interested in your Mo' font as their newest anti-terrorism tool. By using the font for their sensitive battlefield communications they can eliminate the need for clunky and time-consuming encryption as the Islamic extremists would never be able to allow themselves to read any of the messages.
A new twist on the old adage that the best place to hide is in plain sight.
You want to see the math?!?
What part of TFA lead you to believe that it was a case of NASA scientists not being able to multiply numbers together correctly??? (besides the blatantly misleading title and crappy summary, that is...)
The story itself explains that there was no miscalculation per se. The kid pointed out a factor in their scenario that NASA hadn't considered: given how close the asteroid will pass Earth, what if it hits one or more of our orbiting satellites? The fact that he was mathematically inclined allowed him to recalculate the scenario himself, instead of waiting for NASA's brainiacs to confirm.
His math skills are somewhat incidental to the real story, which is that he has better disaster planning skills than NASA. But that wouldn't be nearly as sensational as implying that even a German schoolboy could add up numbers better than those dumb ol' NASA people.
For a minute there I thought this was about Safari
Nevermind...
Yep. The rest will merely be driverless...
... that Microsoft created Google.
Just like Al Gore created the Internets.
I *still* use Eudora (version 6-point-sumpin-or-other) and although I would have preferred for Qualcomm to keep it going, I was really happy to hear they were turning it over to Mozilla. That move really cemented my belief that the Eudora developers were Good People®.
Though I've been recommending Thunderbird to my friends and clients for what seems like forever, I could never convince myself to give up Eudora...
fwiw, adding IE rendering was totally a reaction at the time to the burgeoning popularity of Outlook and HTML-formatted emails. Thankfully it was optional and could be turned off, leaving Eudora as bulletproof as before.
Your recollection of what it says is pretty good - but all it means is that if the machine breaks and thereby results in a win for you, they are not obligated to give you the results of that win (the "play" or "payment"). It does not mean that if the machine breaks and thereby "eats" your quarter that they do not have to give you back your quarter. The play is voided and so is the cost of that play - you get your money back.
The goofiest thing I've ever experienced was when the previous voice mail system (s'been replaced since) somehow decided to prank call my house and put a recording of the ensuing hilarity into my voice mail box.
The message consisted of the sound of a phone ringing - as if I had just dialed the number myself - followed by the sound of my wife answering "Hello? Hello?!? Is anyone there? Who is this?!? HELLO?!?!? (expletive!!) (click!) (dialtone...)"
The system did that no less than three times over the span of about a week before I was finally able to convince the telecom support folks that it was the system, and not me, that was making the prank calls. They eventually tried to explain why they thought the system was doing what it did, by way of explaining what they had done to fix it, but it sounded to me suspiciously like "We don't know why it did that, but we changed something in the hopes that it will make it stop...".
I imagine that's how my explanations must sound to some of the users I support...
Option 2 is not necessarily Payola.
Technically, it's only illegal if the stations try to hide the fact that the music has been "paid for". The labels are free to buy as much airtime as they like for their preferred artists, as long as they don't try to hide their sponsorship. That's the definition of 'payola'.
The reason the labels prefer the illegal route is because they know that their teenage demographic would go out of its way to NOT buy any music that hinted at being "paid for".
Where will we be in 100 years?
ummm... living on Algon, fifth world in the system of Gliese 581, where an ordinary cup of drinking chocolate costs £800,000,0000...??
I must have missed that Econ lecture... you're saying that the more sellers there are for a product, the less I want to buy that very product. How does that happen?!?
I've always understood that having more sellers increases supply and moves the supply curve higher. The end result may be the same with respect to price, but the mechanism by which it happens is distinctly different.
WTF?!? And you're a real asshole, but that really has no bearing on your logic or subtle powers of persuasion.
All I asked was for you to simply prove to me what you are claiming, but you really haven't. Instead, you attack me personally and then throw some obscure four-year old links at me that aren't even relevant anymore. Jeezus, you even said it yourself that eMusic USED to be owned by Vivendi but instead of reconsidering your own brand of hatred you concoct yet another conjecture that somehow the new owners must also be evil and involved with the RIAA in some way which you haven't proven either.
Now if you've got some sort of problem with the Orchard regards "screwing their artists" then that's fine - you just roll with that and boycott them if you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the RIAA and giving them money. You do recall that was the issue you raised in the first place which I replied to, right?? That whole "giving money to eMusic is the same as giving it to the RIAA" screed? I just want to be sure you remembered what the actual topic was, because your seething anger regarding my musical tastes (which you also haven't a clue about) seems to have distracted you from the original argument.
As far as believing is concerned - I'd be happy to believe what you believe. Seriously! I'll be YOUR little sheep and follow you around going baaah baaah baaah, if you can honestly prove what you said without resorting to anger or merely spouting a long list of names taken from the RIAA's own "distributed label of a reporting company" list, which everyone agrees is total misinformation. In case you really have forgotten, what you said is that there were "thousands" of labels on eMusic that "are RIAA affiliates", and the implication was that buying from eMusic was helping to fund the RIAA. Proving your statement should be easy - just SHOW ME THE MONEY! Show me a list of actual paying RIAA members or affiliates or whatever the hell you want to call them and then show me that either eMusic itself is on that list, or that a preponderance of labels on eMusic are on that list. I'll even accept a count of 100 labels instead of your original arm-waving estimate of "thousands".
Alternatively, show me where it says that a "distributed label of a reporting company" has to pay ANY money to the RIAA. Show me where it says that a "distributed label of a reporting company" gets ANY benefits at all from the RIAA or whether the RIAA has ANY influence or power over a label simply because they are a "distributed label of a reporting company". For that matter, tell me what you think a "distributed label of a reporting company" is because I don't think you even know.
btw, Hillary Rosen hasn't run the RIAA for the last four years either. For some reason, your bile seems to be stuck in the year 2003.