A British firm that is the exclusive licensee for a portfolio of six US patents...
These are *pre-existing* US patents which they have *licensed*. They, themselves, have *not* patented these, they have paid money to the people who *did* patent them.
The real controversy here is their application of these patents: their business plan is that they will sue the pants off the largest corporations they can find that they can plausibly attest is violating "their" patent. This has been their modus operandi for awhile.
Ironically, they were originally set up by the government of Great Britain in 1948 to commercialize "publicly funded research". It seems that they have gotten a little off track, and should probably be reined it a little.
If you've rolled your own web ads (e.g., not using an aggregator), what did you use to do it and how did you find advertisers?
My site is affiliated with a local entertainment magazine. We are located in a town with a major public university. My boss is computer-phobic, so I am in charge of the website. It occurred to me that people advertising in our magazine could be posting ads on the website. During the school year we get about 60,000 pageviews/month; during the summer about 45,000.
I divided the website into 4 virtual directories with approximately equivalent pageviews so that people could target users based on what kind of pages they were looking at. Each of those directories has its own ads directory. The ads are strictly banner ads, and there is only one per page (at the top). I have never gotten any complaints from users about the ads, which are visible but unobtrusive.
In each of the 4 ad directories is 1 PHP page / advertiser. My algorithm counts the number of ads in the ad directory (actually it counts the number of pages in that directory with a.php extension), then randomly chooses one to display. (The ads themselves may point to a graphics directory one level deeper.) Needless to say, it is very useful to have executable PHP code in an ad.
I priced the ads pretty low (about $25/month to cover all four areas), but then found, much to my surprise, that the ad staff doesn't want to sell them because they won't make very much in commissions. However, I've been doing OK because people see an ad and call up to see if *they* can get one.
For the future, I'd like to write some code that enables advertisers to specify day and time selections (for example 75% of our traffic comes between 9-5 M-F). I am also thinking of rewriting the Restaurant Guide page so that I can toss up a random restaurant as an ad.
My business model is a little old-fashioned (impressions), but I am considering an alternative way of charging (clickthroughs, but with a higher price per clickthrough, compared to the price per impression).
So far I am making very little money, but I am planning an offensive for this summer that entails contacting everyone who advertises in our magazine that also mentions a URL in their ad: "Got a website? Where is your traffic coming from?"
From the referenced article (left side at bottom):
Rubber
Pure biodiesel will eventually devour any natural or butyl rubber parts in the fuel system (hoses and seals). Check with the vehicle manufacturer and replace the parts with resistant synthetic parts (such as Viton B). See Durability of plastics table. Newer motors don't use rubber. See also Biodiesel and your vehicle.
The technical term for the intersection of 2 words is called "keying". As one poster pointed out, Claude Shannon put the kibosh on *true* 3D crosswords by pointing out the connection between the redundancy of English and the subsequent inability to create 3D crosswords in English. (Although it *is* possible to create *very tiny* true 3D crosswords.)
However, if one relaxes the keying constraint, 3D puzzles *are* possible. The way I got around it was by *requiring* the words in my 3D puzzles to have only *2* of the 3 dimensions keyed. Every white cube was in at least 2 words, and *possibly* 3. A word *could* be 3D-keyed but it wasn't required. This made it possible to create a *pseudo*3D puzzle which actually could be solved. Unless you looked very carefully, you would think you were solving an *actual* 3D puzzle.
As to representation: I had 3 directions: Across, Down, Through. So I could rotate the puzzle (it was inside a computer) and display it 3 different ways. Obviously, if the three dimensions were A,D, and T, the total number of 2D crosswords contained in the 3D puzzle was A+D+T. (A D*T + D A*T + T A*D.)
The creation difficulty of the puzzle was figured by adding up the keying score for every white cube and dividing by the number of white cubes in the puzzle. If the average score was at or near 3, the puzzle was virtually impossible to create. 2.5 was about the limit to be able to create decent "3D" crosswords; that is, half of the white boxes had a score of 3 and half had a score of 2. That was still pretty hard though. 2.3 ones (of 3 white cubes, 2 were 2Dkeyed and 1 was 3D keyed) were -- comparatively -- easy.
A useful algorithm I developed was called "slabs". Little 2D slabs (X*Y*1) were connected at the corners to other 2D slabs; the corner cube where the connection was made was the only 3Dkeyed piece then. The results looked more like 3D diagramless puzzles than traditional crosswords.
While there are too many to list here, one is the concept of Open Source Software as antirival. As more copies are made and put into use, value increases as a result of a larger market and the small percentage of users that contribute bug reports and possibly patches. This turns the traditional "free rider" problem into an advantage.
Do you mean the 'network effect'? If so, why not call it that? "Antirival" -- sounds like a bug spray.
...behaving like the party that, in contrast to the Republicans in 2000, actually won the elections in Germany... circa 1939.
Nice try, newbie historian. It was 1933. And, as to name-checking Godwin's Law, as one reply poster did -- he can't: FreeUser didn't mention the N*z* word. *That* is what trigger's Godwin's law, not merely a reference to the correct country and time period.
Suppose you did have some kind of high-accuracy prediction algorithm, and everybody started using it. Then what happens?
It becomes a *low-accuracy* prediction algorithm with all sorts of jumps about (noise). Two words: "chaotic attractors".
In one of his books, Richard Feynmann has an interesting story about something similar to this. Apparently there was a popular bar near Los Alamos. It was so popular that sometimes people would be turned away. People started using *how crowded* it was *last week* to figure out how crowded it would be *next week*. What Feynmann found was that the population of the bar fluctuated around a certain value, but that simply knowing *last week's* value could not predict *next weeks's* value, as all of the actors involved were autonomous.
So with your stock market prediction algorithm. Success will cause more people to use it, thus making it less predictable. When it starts failing, less people will use it, thus making it work better for people who then use it. Some people will adopt a contrarian strategy -- picking trends *opposite* to what it picks, and they will be more successful when it is not (and, of course, vice versa).
This is also related to the "predator/prey" problem in biology, where you have two (or more) variables coupled to each other. They rise and fall in sync, but out of phase.
I know it, because I was "mesário" (election "table" official? election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?)
This is what we would call a "poll worker". But 'election clerk' gets the main idea across nicely.
Babelfish translates "mesário" as 'board member'. In English, that isn't quite correct. Even if you said "election board member", I would think of the Board of Canvassers, which is the entity which *certifies* the elections. That would be the "Regional Electoral Court" to you.
Try this. If you have *two* interleaved radar generation points -- one on either side of the car, you should be able to come up with a meaningful 3D radar image because you are moving at a known speed. Metaphorically, imagine you are riding a bicycle and alternately blinking your eyes. Your brain automatically integrates the two 2D images it sees into a 3D image. Do the same thing with computers in a car. Remember, you only *really* have to pay attention to the objects that are seen to be moving -- subtract everything that appears 'stationary' (except, obviously, those things directly in your path).
A song might be compressed into a lower quality recording, or have a few seconds of silence taken out at the beginning or end, or be otherwise transformed, and the technology will still recognize it as the same song, the company says.
For example could it tell that Vi*gra, V1agr-A and viA$gr*a are all the same word that I have in my blocking rules? Then it could read subject lines and block spam!
3. This section shall not apply to persons making available computer software or interactive computer service that is reasonably needed to do any of the following:
a. Determine whether or not the user is a licensed or authorized user of the software.
b. Provide technical support for the use of such software or computer service upon request of the user.
c. For any legitimate law enforcement purpose as authorized by applicable federal, state, or local law.
d. To enable an employer to monitor employee computer usage while such employee is within the scope of any employment as authorized by applicable federal, state, or local law.
By the way, this also appears to illegalize cookies.
4. As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
a. "Identifying personal information" means information that personally identifies a user of computer software or interactive computer service, including but not limited to any of the following:
[items skipped]
(8) Any other information identifying an individual.
SEC. 2. UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
(a) NOTICE, CHOICE, AND UNINSTALL PROCEDURES- It is unlawful for any person who is not the user of a protected computer to install computer software on that computer, or to authorize, permit, or cause the installation of computer software on that computer, unless--
(1) the user of the computer has received notice that satisfies the requirements of section 3;
(2) the user of the computer has granted consent that satisfies the requirements of section 3; and
(3) the computer software's uninstall procedures satisfy the requirements of section 3.
Did anyone else notice that there is no exception in here for law enforcement agencies? In other words, bye-bye big brother spyware!
In California, new security measures range from random tests of touch-screen machines by independent computer experts to a recommendation that poll workers prevent voters from carrying cell phones or other wireless devices into booths.
Hmmmmmm. What do they know that we don't know?
Scenario:
Poll worker: Gee, I don't know what's wrong. Everytime we try to change the poll totals to the correct value, it suddenly switches to 18181. And what the heck does "j00 R 0wN3d!" mean? Must be some kind of error message.
Perhaps the most important detail is that a rhodium-based catalyst needs to be heated to 700 celsius for the reaction to have any efficiency.
Perhaps they should get together with those University of Wisconsin researchers who developed a tin/nickel catalyst for breaking off hydrogen atoms at a much lower temperature.
What doesn't burn (or melt, or vaporize, disassemble) when the temperature is high enough ?
Carbon dioxide. How do you oxidate something that's *already* the product of oxidation?
To answer your forthcoming objection -- CO2 is obviously not a very complex compound, and presumably you *meant* "a sufficiently complex compound created by nanotechnology" when you referenced 'what'. But it *is* one of a class of compounds (like, say, the chlorides -- I'm thinking of dioxin) that has such a high binding energy that, while it might be *possible* to incinerate it at a high enough temperature to disassemble, the amount of fuel required just to disassemble *one* of them makes this technique infeasible. Especially if there are trillions -- or more -- of them. And -- another problem -- how are you going to *find* them all, if you need to destroy them in the first place? We can't yet even deal with bacteria, which are, by nanotechnologial standards, gigantic. (And along these lines look at anthrax: *really* hard to disassemble *already*.)
The bottom line here is this: we may discover that, analogically, creating nanotech is like a one-way trap door: easy to go one way (creation), hard to go the other (disassembly). We may eventually have to reboot the planet to deal with the hard cases. Yep: GGSOD.
...biopsies from soldiers who died from influenza in 1918 were preserved and maintained in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Another sample was taken from an Inuit woman who had succumbed to the infection and had been buried in the Alaskan permafrost. Together, these samples yielded a number of pieces of RNA from the virus. A few years ago, Taubenberger and his colleagues at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology were able to piece together enough fragments to reconstruct the sequence of the gene that coded for the viral protein hemagglutinin. These are the oldest viral sequences that have been reconstructed to date. Then Basler and Palese at Mount Sinai Institute of Medicine in New York managed to construct an expression system that allowed them to make the hemagglutinin protein. Finally, Wilson and Stevens developed their own systems and made enough of the protein to crystallize and solve the structure using x-ray crystallography.
Gee, Waldoj, perhaps you should RTA (the second link, to the Scripps Institute). In fact *some* of the RNA *did* come from an Arctic tundra burial. But the final protein analysis was somewhat more complex.
PS: Thanks for mentioning this book. I'm jotting it down and am going to search it out.
That's the best description of coffee I've ever seen. Me, I drink Water Joe: water with caffeine. No nasty taste, no constantly having to buy fresh Half'n'half to drown out the flavor, no cavities from all the sugar I used to have to flavor the icky brown water with, just gulp and gogogo!
Here is a link to their website (that skips the Flash intro).
18 years ago, when my father was co-author of a report for the Department of Energy on the possible effects of global warming on American crops, we had a conversation that went something like this:
Me: So, global warming means that the Earth will eventually wind up like Venus, because the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to keep heat in?
Him: Well, not exactly. The increase in greenhouse gases (not only CO2 but methane [CH4]) in the atmosphere means that the climate will become more unstable: hotter summers, colder winters, more powerful hurricanes. In fact, based on historical data, it's even possible that we may suddenly (within about 500 years, a mere eyeblink in geologic terms) be precipitated into an ice age.
Me: An ice age!?! How can that be?
[At this point he went into a somewhat technical discussion as to how the the rise in temperature would lead to the melting of the polar icecaps, thus reducing the earth's albedo [reflection of radiant energy from the sun] and how this would eventually lead to a net drop in temperature, and thus a new ice age. I don't recall all the details, but this was the first time I had heard the theory that an ice age might be a side effect of global warming.]
He also showed me a graph of the rise in global temperature to date and said, covering the future part with his hand, "Here's what climatologists are predicting for the future. Which way is the graph going to go?" Naturally, I said "Up." He uncovered the future part, and there were about 20 lines diverging from that point: Some went up, some went flat, and some went down. He then said, "Nobody really knows, of course, and every one of these climatologists can point to some bit of evidence that indicates that they might be right."
I should point out that he is one of the few people in the world to have a doctorate in Agriclimatology (i.e. the study of the relationship between climate and agriculture), so he knows whereof he speaks. (That's why the DOE recruited him to write that report.)
Web Developers are a dying breed. It used to mean someone who handcrafted HTML or systems to produce HTML. But now, there are mainstream tools to create page designs, to create weblogs and portals and content management systems. Very few people who are web developers need to actually touch the HTML anymore.
I've WM'd a certain site for 7 years. (I started writing HTML before tables even existed). The site's been through several incarnations and tools: joe, pagemill [1.0 & 2.0 -- painful], now I use BBE6.1 and my own templates and REGX macros for replacements. It had a [very] short incarnation as a database-driven site. A couple of years ago I added CSS. At various times, it's used server-side includes, javascript and [currently] PHP to serve ads. I just went to MacOSX; now I'll be able to write perl and use BBE on the same system.
Yet I still "touch the HTML" on a regular basis. Things are always changing and I'm always learning. Maybe in the future I'll have some reason to add some XML in there, or I might want to drop a little Flash movie in there somewhere [no, not on the front page 8^], or perhaps I can be part of TimBL's semantic web.
I guess I don't care if "professional" web developers are dying off -- they're latecomers (from my perspective) anyway.
I'm running 10.2.4 and, by chance, I happened to run Check permissions (under Disk Utility) last night. I noticed one of the incorrect permissions settings was under Netinfo. I repaired it. You might want to try checking your permissions just to be on the safe side.
...the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act today; which carries with it a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Considering that the actual artists make *very little* from their *own work*, I hope that the first people charged under this act are the RIAA, who have stolen *millions* from recording artists for years "legally".
Slashdot Mirror
These are *pre-existing* US patents which they have *licensed*. They, themselves, have *not* patented these, they have paid money to the people who *did* patent them.
The real controversy here is their application of these patents: their business plan is that they will sue the pants off the largest corporations they can find that they can plausibly attest is violating "their" patent. This has been their modus operandi for awhile.
Ironically, they were originally set up by the government of Great Britain in 1948 to commercialize "publicly funded research". It seems that they have gotten a little off track, and should probably be reined it a little.
My site is affiliated with a local entertainment magazine. We are located in a town with a major public university. My boss is computer-phobic, so I am in charge of the website. It occurred to me that people advertising in our magazine could be posting ads on the website. During the school year we get about 60,000 pageviews/month; during the summer about 45,000.
I divided the website into 4 virtual directories with approximately equivalent pageviews so that people could target users based on what kind of pages they were looking at. Each of those directories has its own ads directory. The ads are strictly banner ads, and there is only one per page (at the top). I have never gotten any complaints from users about the ads, which are visible but unobtrusive.
In each of the 4 ad directories is 1 PHP page / advertiser. My algorithm counts the number of ads in the ad directory (actually it counts the number of pages in that directory with a .php extension), then randomly chooses one to display. (The ads themselves may point to a graphics directory one level deeper.) Needless to say, it is very useful to have executable PHP code in an ad.
I priced the ads pretty low (about $25/month to cover all four areas), but then found, much to my surprise, that the ad staff doesn't want to sell them because they won't make very much in commissions. However, I've been doing OK because people see an ad and call up to see if *they* can get one.
For the future, I'd like to write some code that enables advertisers to specify day and time selections (for example 75% of our traffic comes between 9-5 M-F). I am also thinking of rewriting the Restaurant Guide page so that I can toss up a random restaurant as an ad.
My business model is a little old-fashioned (impressions), but I am considering an alternative way of charging (clickthroughs, but with a higher price per clickthrough, compared to the price per impression). So far I am making very little money, but I am planning an offensive for this summer that entails contacting everyone who advertises in our magazine that also mentions a URL in their ad: "Got a website? Where is your traffic coming from?"
I hope that this was helpful.
Rubber
Pure biodiesel will eventually devour any natural or butyl rubber parts in the fuel system (hoses and seals). Check with the vehicle manufacturer and replace the parts with resistant synthetic parts (such as Viton B). See Durability of plastics table. Newer motors don't use rubber. See also Biodiesel and your vehicle.
However, if one relaxes the keying constraint, 3D puzzles *are* possible. The way I got around it was by *requiring* the words in my 3D puzzles to have only *2* of the 3 dimensions keyed. Every white cube was in at least 2 words, and *possibly* 3. A word *could* be 3D-keyed but it wasn't required. This made it possible to create a *pseudo*3D puzzle which actually could be solved. Unless you looked very carefully, you would think you were solving an *actual* 3D puzzle.
As to representation: I had 3 directions: Across, Down, Through. So I could rotate the puzzle (it was inside a computer) and display it 3 different ways. Obviously, if the three dimensions were A,D, and T, the total number of 2D crosswords contained in the 3D puzzle was A+D+T. (A D*T + D A*T + T A*D.)
The creation difficulty of the puzzle was figured by adding up the keying score for every white cube and dividing by the number of white cubes in the puzzle. If the average score was at or near 3, the puzzle was virtually impossible to create. 2.5 was about the limit to be able to create decent "3D" crosswords; that is, half of the white boxes had a score of 3 and half had a score of 2. That was still pretty hard though. 2.3 ones (of 3 white cubes, 2 were 2Dkeyed and 1 was 3D keyed) were -- comparatively -- easy.
A useful algorithm I developed was called "slabs". Little 2D slabs (X*Y*1) were connected at the corners to other 2D slabs; the corner cube where the connection was made was the only 3Dkeyed piece then. The results looked more like 3D diagramless puzzles than traditional crosswords.
Do you mean the 'network effect'? If so, why not call it that? "Antirival" -- sounds like a bug spray.
The Constitution is unequivocal about this point:
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
To be perfectly blunt: YES, it IS illegal.
Nice try, newbie historian. It was 1933. And, as to name-checking Godwin's Law, as one reply poster did -- he can't: FreeUser didn't mention the N*z* word. *That* is what trigger's Godwin's law, not merely a reference to the correct country and time period.
It becomes a *low-accuracy* prediction algorithm with all sorts of jumps about (noise). Two words: "chaotic attractors".
In one of his books, Richard Feynmann has an interesting story about something similar to this. Apparently there was a popular bar near Los Alamos. It was so popular that sometimes people would be turned away. People started using *how crowded* it was *last week* to figure out how crowded it would be *next week*. What Feynmann found was that the population of the bar fluctuated around a certain value, but that simply knowing *last week's* value could not predict *next weeks's* value, as all of the actors involved were autonomous.
So with your stock market prediction algorithm. Success will cause more people to use it, thus making it less predictable. When it starts failing, less people will use it, thus making it work better for people who then use it. Some people will adopt a contrarian strategy -- picking trends *opposite* to what it picks, and they will be more successful when it is not (and, of course, vice versa).
This is also related to the "predator/prey" problem in biology, where you have two (or more) variables coupled to each other. They rise and fall in sync, but out of phase.
This is what we would call a "poll worker". But 'election clerk' gets the main idea across nicely.
Babelfish translates "mesário" as 'board member'. In English, that isn't quite correct. Even if you said "election board member", I would think of the Board of Canvassers, which is the entity which *certifies* the elections. That would be the "Regional Electoral Court" to you.
Try this. If you have *two* interleaved radar generation points -- one on either side of the car, you should be able to come up with a meaningful 3D radar image because you are moving at a known speed. Metaphorically, imagine you are riding a bicycle and alternately blinking your eyes. Your brain automatically integrates the two 2D images it sees into a 3D image. Do the same thing with computers in a car. Remember, you only *really* have to pay attention to the objects that are seen to be moving -- subtract everything that appears 'stationary' (except, obviously, those things directly in your path).
For example could it tell that Vi*gra, V1agr-A and viA$gr*a are all the same word that I have in my blocking rules? Then it could read subject lines and block spam!
a. Determine whether or not the user is a licensed or authorized user of the software.
b. Provide technical support for the use of such software or computer service upon request of the user.
c. For any legitimate law enforcement purpose as authorized by applicable federal, state, or local law.
d. To enable an employer to monitor employee computer usage while such employee is within the scope of any employment as authorized by applicable federal, state, or local law.
By the way, this also appears to illegalize cookies.
4. As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
a. "Identifying personal information" means information that personally identifies a user of computer software or interactive computer service, including but not limited to any of the following:
[items skipped]
(8) Any other information identifying an individual.
(a) NOTICE, CHOICE, AND UNINSTALL PROCEDURES- It is unlawful for any person who is not the user of a protected computer to install computer software on that computer, or to authorize, permit, or cause the installation of computer software on that computer, unless--
(1) the user of the computer has received notice that satisfies the requirements of section 3;
(2) the user of the computer has granted consent that satisfies the requirements of section 3; and
(3) the computer software's uninstall procedures satisfy the requirements of section 3.
Did anyone else notice that there is no exception in here for law enforcement agencies? In other words, bye-bye big brother spyware!
Hmmmmmm. What do they know that we don't know?
Scenario:
Poll worker: Gee, I don't know what's wrong. Everytime we try to change the poll totals to the correct value, it suddenly switches to 18181. And what the heck does "j00 R 0wN3d!" mean? Must be some kind of error message.
Perhaps they should get together with those University of Wisconsin researchers who developed a tin/nickel catalyst for breaking off hydrogen atoms at a much lower temperature.
See this article.
Carbon dioxide. How do you oxidate something that's *already* the product of oxidation?
To answer your forthcoming objection -- CO2 is obviously not a very complex compound, and presumably you *meant* "a sufficiently complex compound created by nanotechnology" when you referenced 'what'. But it *is* one of a class of compounds (like, say, the chlorides -- I'm thinking of dioxin) that has such a high binding energy that, while it might be *possible* to incinerate it at a high enough temperature to disassemble, the amount of fuel required just to disassemble *one* of them makes this technique infeasible. Especially if there are trillions -- or more -- of them. And -- another problem -- how are you going to *find* them all, if you need to destroy them in the first place? We can't yet even deal with bacteria, which are, by nanotechnologial standards, gigantic. (And along these lines look at anthrax: *really* hard to disassemble *already*.)
The bottom line here is this: we may discover that, analogically, creating nanotech is like a one-way trap door: easy to go one way (creation), hard to go the other (disassembly). We may eventually have to reboot the planet to deal with the hard cases. Yep: GGSOD.
Gee, Waldoj, perhaps you should RTA (the second link, to the Scripps Institute). In fact *some* of the RNA *did* come from an Arctic tundra burial. But the final protein analysis was somewhat more complex.
PS: Thanks for mentioning this book. I'm jotting it down and am going to search it out.
That's the best description of coffee I've ever seen. Me, I drink Water Joe: water with caffeine. No nasty taste, no constantly having to buy fresh Half'n'half to drown out the flavor, no cavities from all the sugar I used to have to flavor the icky brown water with, just gulp and gogogo!
Here is a link to their website (that skips the Flash intro).
Me: So, global warming means that the Earth will eventually wind up like Venus, because the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to keep heat in?
Him: Well, not exactly. The increase in greenhouse gases (not only CO2 but methane [CH4]) in the atmosphere means that the climate will become more unstable: hotter summers, colder winters, more powerful hurricanes. In fact, based on historical data, it's even possible that we may suddenly (within about 500 years, a mere eyeblink in geologic terms) be precipitated into an ice age.
Me: An ice age!?! How can that be? [At this point he went into a somewhat technical discussion as to how the the rise in temperature would lead to the melting of the polar icecaps, thus reducing the earth's albedo [reflection of radiant energy from the sun] and how this would eventually lead to a net drop in temperature, and thus a new ice age. I don't recall all the details, but this was the first time I had heard the theory that an ice age might be a side effect of global warming.]
He also showed me a graph of the rise in global temperature to date and said, covering the future part with his hand, "Here's what climatologists are predicting for the future. Which way is the graph going to go?" Naturally, I said "Up." He uncovered the future part, and there were about 20 lines diverging from that point: Some went up, some went flat, and some went down. He then said, "Nobody really knows, of course, and every one of these climatologists can point to some bit of evidence that indicates that they might be right."
I should point out that he is one of the few people in the world to have a doctorate in Agriclimatology (i.e. the study of the relationship between climate and agriculture), so he knows whereof he speaks. (That's why the DOE recruited him to write that report.)
Like the "miniscule" 1% "income" tax passed in 1913?
I think we'd all be happier paying it if it were *still* 1%...
I've WM'd a certain site for 7 years. (I started writing HTML before tables even existed). The site's been through several incarnations and tools: joe, pagemill [1.0 & 2.0 -- painful], now I use BBE6.1 and my own templates and REGX macros for replacements. It had a [very] short incarnation as a database-driven site. A couple of years ago I added CSS. At various times, it's used server-side includes, javascript and [currently] PHP to serve ads. I just went to MacOSX; now I'll be able to write perl and use BBE on the same system.
Yet I still "touch the HTML" on a regular basis. Things are always changing and I'm always learning. Maybe in the future I'll have some reason to add some XML in there, or I might want to drop a little Flash movie in there somewhere [no, not on the front page 8^], or perhaps I can be part of TimBL's semantic web.
I guess I don't care if "professional" web developers are dying off -- they're latecomers (from my perspective) anyway.
I'm running 10.2.4 and, by chance, I happened to run Check permissions (under Disk Utility) last night. I noticed one of the incorrect permissions settings was under Netinfo. I repaired it. You might want to try checking your permissions just to be on the safe side.
Considering that the actual artists make *very little* from their *own work*, I hope that the first people charged under this act are the RIAA, who have stolen *millions* from recording artists for years "legally".
Here is a preview of that show from CURRENT magazine back in May:
Captured! by Robots. (This was the first tour to feature the Headless Hornsmen.)
No, it isn't:
The GA tries them all out and awards them a fitness rating, depending on how far it makes the snake move.