The guy who's interviewed in the article says he used to recieve
22 movies a month and no longer does. Holy shit, don't these people
have no life of any kind?
I watch VERY little TV, and can still EASILY watch
up to twenty movies a month (even more in the winter)
without lacking "a life"...
During spring through late fall, Saturday and Sundays
I'll go out fairly early for a nice hike, usually come
home 6-8 hours later. Make dinner, watch a movie or
two. Two on Friday after work, two on Saturday, one
on Sunday, that adds up to twenty without wasting my
life away in front of the TV.
Thirdly, did they really expect 'unlimited' to mean unlimited?
If you buy a 32" TV only to take it home and find it
has a 20" screen in an 8.5" bezel, would you feel
just a little cheated there? (And although that
may sounds extreme, TVs and monitors NEVER actually
measure their advertised value for that exact reason,
often falling up to a full inch smaller).
So yeah, it bothers me that Netflix translates "unlimited"
as "as many as we want you to have". Their cheesy little
mantra of "no reasonable person would really think they
could get 8,000 movies a month" just doesn't cut it...
NO ONE would have complained if they "only" received 45
movies per month, which would equal the 2-day turnaround
imposed by the physical realities of sending it by
mail. Even a mere 30 per month, at a 3-day turnaround,
I doubt would have resulted in so much grumbling. But
I haven't even hit 20 in over a year.
Fourth, do you think there's someone else offering a
sweeter deal? Good luck trying to find it.
And that, my friend, describes the ONLY reason I still
have a netflix subscription. Even throttled down to 12-15
per month, it still costs a quarter what renting from a
physical Blockbuster does; and no one can beat
Netflix for the size of their catalog.
That doesn't make me a happy customer, however, and
eventually, some company WILL come along and offer
the same thing without lying about what "unlimited" means.
And when that happens, Netflix will learn how the local
crack dealer feels when the Mexican mob moves in.
It should be perfectly legal to murder, rape and rob, because
passing laws isn't going to make those things disappear.
Like hyperbole much?
People are always going to do evil things... so why
should we bother stopping them?
Except, stopping advertisements expressing such prejudice
doesn't stop the prejudice itself. It just prevents people
looking for a place to live/work from having any sort of warning
that they will waste their time by applying.
maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society
is the kind of society you want to live in.
Ah, you apparently use "free and just" in the neocon sense...
What about a right to free speech? Free association?
I have the right to refuse to sell/rent/employ/associate with
you for absolutely no reason, simply because I might not "like"
you. But that becomes illegal the moment I admit my dislike
derives from you following the Reformed Baptist Church of God,
reformation of 1915?
No. That doesn't stop prejudice. It stops speech, it stops people
expressing their opinions. "So maybe you should ask yourself whether
a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in."
GE Soft White Light Bulb; 60 watts; 820 lumens; 1500 hours; $1.50
Compact Fluorescent Energy Saver; 14 watts; 800 lumens (close enough
to 820); 10,000 hours; $11.98
Too generous. $12 for a single CF bulb? I buy them in 6-packs for
between $5 and $10 per pack. I have exactly two CF bulbs in
my house that, due to a the shade, I needed to use the "expensive"
ones shaped exactly like an incandescent, and even those
only cost me $7 each...
Yeah, CF bulbs WILL save you a good chunk of money, house-wide.
The ONLY reason I've heard not to use them (from my own parents,
sigh sigh sigh), some people dislike the startup time (ooh, a half
second delay, how can I stand it?) or the spectrum (which unless you
go with halogen, IMO CFs have a better spectrum than
incandescent).
office space does not cost $10k per employee.
Not even in the SF Bay area.
I suspect that number confuses several "facts"...
Most relevantly, maintaining a physical presence costs a
company between $5 and $10 an hour. As a full-timer, that
comes out to at least $10k per year.
However, the vast majority of that comes from things
like HVAC, lighting, providing a legal and reasonably
modern PC, and cleaning and maintenance staff. If
almost everyone telecommuted, a company could drastically
reduce that average per-employee cost. By merely moving
someone to a cubicle, a company only shaves the tiniest
fraction of that off (personal lighting and possibly a
bit of HVAC overhead).
So, the delta cost to a company for you to have a cube
vs. an office
Bingo! You've got the key idea... While my absolute
physical-space cost may come out to $10K or more per year,
I'll take up the vast majority of that whether you give me
a 12x20 private office with a view, or an 8x8 half-height
cubicle in the basement.
Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save
lives around the world are "fuckers."
Considering they charge the recipients for that aid,
yeah, I'd say we can safely call them "fuckers".
"Gee, the coming -20F winters in this POW camp will really suck...
We'll gladly sell you this 3x3 wool square..."
"Oh, you need blood or you'll die during a messy childbirth? Don't
worry, we have it for you - Some sucker DONATED it for a cup of OJ,
but we'll gladly "give" it to you for $300 per unit"
So to hear them bitch about the misuse of their all-but-unprotected
trademark... Well, do you hear the violins playing a sad song?
Every smart customer checks what other customers have had to
say about a product before purchasing it
Except, that works well for physical objects, not matters
of preference. My washing machine, I want to know does what
it claims and won't break in three months. My newest CD, I
literally expect most people have never even heard of
the artist(1), and I don't really care if anyone but
me enjoys their music.
As for what surprises me about this study... It lacks a glaringly
obvious "control" group - Namely, let people listen to the
music in question and rate it according to preference, with no
outside influence. Lacking that control, this study has almost
no external validity.
Though, I suppose that basically agrees with you - The findings
have no meaning, and don't surprise me... Given an overwhelming
number of choices and no better means of selecting from them,
as a human, I will most likely find enjoyable the same things
other humans (with whom I have shared cultural experiences)
enjoyed. That strategy may not result in the optimal choice
(by which I mean that, out of 10k songs, I might not ever listen
to the one that would turn into my instant lifetime favorite), but
I'll probably find enough tolerable material from which to derive
some pleasure.
1: Bitstream Dream. It you want to check them out, you
can download their entire catalog FOR FREE, yet I still
bought their newest release - Suck that, RIAA!.
And no, I have no connection to them, other than as a listener.
50 comments, and not one good answer (though I saw three posts of
good advice vaguely applicable to your needs).
First of all - Debugging takes hard work. Sorry folks, no matter
how easy Microsoft tries to make it, no matter how tightly they integrate
Java-killer-P into app-Q, you still need the ability to follow the
flow of bits from point A to Z, and more importantly, figure out
what B through Y need to do.
How to debug asynchronous events... Since you mentioned c#, I will
presume you have a REALLY coarse granularity here when you say
"async".
So... First step, force non-reentrancy and non-overlapped
event handling. Does your problem go away? Find the global
data you clobbered.
Step 2 (if #1 fails) - Run both ends of your app on the same
machine. Does the problem go away? Don't trust.NET to
gracefully handle network errors. Don't trust your process
to have basically-uninterrupted control of the CPU. Don't
trust try/catch to save you from "real" problems.
Step 3 - Okay, you have a "real" bug, in your code. But on
the bright side, if you got here, you can probably reproduce
it, so, piece of cake. Load up your trusty debugger and
dump a COMPLETE stack trace up to the error. Don't trust
the last line to have caused the error, it just failed
to deal with whatever broken crap the actual problem threw
its way.
Step 4 - trace through your code, on both sides, one line at
a time. Sound tedious? Yup. You might spend a week on a
single run. But you'll sure as hell know the flow of your by the time
it finishes.
Step 5 - No step 5 exists. Step 4 WILL let you find your
problem, as long as it resides in your code and not in
the aether between the two sides of the connection (which
steps 1 and 2 should have eliminated as a problem).
Why? The FP seems to take that stance as well, but I consider
it really not very true.
Although the US may count as the biggest market for RIM, they
have plenty of other markets now that have invalidated the
offending patents. And most importantly, as a Canadian
company, The US has no power to force RIM out of business (just
out of the US).
If US courts thoroughly spank RIM, it will hurt them, a lot.
But not quite the death-blow many people seem to consider it.
The world doesn't end at the US border.
If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those
facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone
the time and expense of a full trial.
So in this situation, she should have gone for a
full trial, filing delay after delay a la SCO, to
cost the RIAA as much as possible?;-)
It's impossible for Apple to not know that they were selling
a product that can damage your hearing.
Of course they knew - People who buy them want
the ability to turn it up way louder than they would normally
need... 80db for six hours a day may cause hearing damage, but
your ears will recover from 80db for a fifteen minute commute
to work.
But regardless of "knowing" that people could use their
product in a dangerous manner, it still takes someone
stupid enough to go around for long periods of time with music
playing at a level that causes physical pain.
A hammer can cause deafness, too, but any reasonable person
knows not to press their ear tightly against the board they
want to drive a nail into. And I don't think I've ever
seen a hammer with a "may cause permanant hearing damage" sticker
on it.
At some point, that nasty phrase "personal responsibility"
has to rear its ugly head, and the courts need to tell
idiots to go autoDarwin themselves and stop wasting
time and money over frivolous lawsuits.
Because it establishes that semi-accurate "period"
entertainment can and should attempt to remain
true to the vices of that period.
Put another way - Let's say Activision made this exact
same game, but let the player pick between playing
an "enlightened indigenous person" or a "evil caucasian
male imperialist oppressor scum". Still a racist game?
How does that compare to the trend in sci-fi and fantasy
games to let the player take the role of someone other
than the Gallant Knights in White Tights, ie, the Sith?
How about the now-classic game "Postal"?
Playing the "bad guy" doesn't realy break any new ground
in the entertainment realm. But if you want to feign some
degree of historical accuracy, you can't rewrite core parts
of that time period.
She said "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them."
Funny, the founding fathers held the same view. Fire the lot
of 'em! (Oh, wait, the Patriot Act pretty much did)
She works for a law firm.
Worked, past tense. Thus this story.
A law firm can't employ someone who is publicly
advocating breaking the law.
Yes, they can. Some law firms even specialize
in such matters. You could even take the stance that
THIS law firm publically advocates breaking
the law, since at least in my state (and most have
similar laws), selling a "broken" CD as a functional
product violates the "warrant of merchantability". Look
that phrase up - You can use it in a LOT of situations
where retailers try to refuse to let you return
goods that do not function in their intended capacity.
Also, having a dissenting opinion does not mean
someone will fail to do their job, much less deliberately
sabotage the work. At the very least, this would have given
the law firm a sort of built-in "Devil's Advocate", and it
never hurts to know how the "enemy" thinks (and on
the flip side of that, surrounding oneself with "yes men"
unfailingly leads to a delusional world-view).
A law firm shouldn't employ someone who, for all
intents and purposes, wrote "I hate our clients." in
a public forum.
So, newcomer to Slashdot and IT in general, eh?;-)
a pinnacle DV500 card with a copy of Premiere 6 and extra tools
costs about $150.00 most places on the net right now
You don't even need the dedicated capture board anymore... Most
PCs now have FireWire (if not, a PCI card costs under $20), and
virtually all DV cams have FW out.
As for the editing tools... Honestly I've never used Premiere, so
perhaps it justifies every penny it costs. But you can also use
a number of free editing and transcoding (assuming you want a DVD
as your final format) tools. Although they focus more on ripping,
Doom9 makes a good place to start for any (PC) geek looking to get
into the guts of digital A/V manipulation.
Good writing, good direction and most of all Competent crew = good
project. Gear and money does not.
Sort of an aside... I don't know if the cheap digital trend will
help or hurt the indie (by which I mean six guys with more time
than money, not Troma) film scene... I've occasionally gone to
small festivals over the past 20 years, and the production quality
has definitely shot WAY up as a result of technology (at the most
recent one I attended, the MSFF, out of 12 shorts only one
didn't use digital from end-to-end). But at the same time, this
makes it a lot easier for a group of idiots with more time than
talent to throw something together as well. As the saying
goes, you can shine shit...
That still does not qualify as a background check or a credit check. ...
it still does not satisfy how a car dealer broke the law by selling
a car without doing a credit check.
Okay, since you seem stuck on those two points...
1) I didn't say it did count as a background check or credit check.
Only that you can't get a loan (from any financial institution... Uncle Joe lending a few bucks doesn't count) without a credit check.
2) I also didn't say the car dealer broke the law. I said that if
he accepted over $10k without reporting it to the IRS, he broke the law.
But then, following up on point #1, the topic at hand involves ID
checks, not credit checks. And how exactly does one have ownership of
a car transferred to them without showing some form of ID?
As an aside, I do agree with the... Umm... GGP? I find it
sickening that we need to show ID to travel... The airlines (and to
some extent, Amtrak) have taken to walking a VERY fine line between
a private business refusing service, and the government making sure
we have our travelling papers in order.
Why would you have to use cash to buy a car? I'd use a cashier's
check from the bank where my money was kept. That does not have to
be reported.
"Cash" in the sense of "paid in full. Which a cashier's check would
satisfy. And yes, if you get one for more than $10k, the IRS gets
notified. Do a Google search for "IRS Form 8300" if you don't
believe me. And while you or I may not give two squirts of a cat's
teats over complying with stupid IRS rules, you can bet that neither
the bank nor any legit car dealer will risk it.
And I'm dying to hear your explanation about how a dealer
broke the law by selling someone a car. This oughta be good.
Logic tutorial #216: Extended Disjunction. An extended disjunction
consists of a series of three or more conditions linked by the "OR"
operator. The entire compound statement will evaluate to "true" when
at least one (and in the case of exclusive-OR, at most one) of its
conditions evaluates to true.
"That do anything for ya? That's [Deductive Logic], Holmes!";-)
That's funny - I have bought 3 cars so far and not once
did I need to "submit" to a credit check by the seller or
anything even vaguely resembling one.
Then either:
1) You don't live in the US,
2) You bought cars costing under $10,000 and paid cash,
3) The dealer broke the law.
Any cash transactions over $10k, you need to report to the IRS.
And NO bank or "financing agency" would give you a
rusty bent penny without a background check.
So offhand, I'd say that you either only buy used cars and
pay cash, or that you did in fact submit to a background
chack and didn't notice signing that particular paper among
the rest of the stack.
It's not a valid defense in those cases where there
actually is evidence.
So of course, BPI has either pictures of these guys actually
in the act of sharing music, or credibile witnesses that
claims to have watched them do so?
No evidence means just that. The BPI has an IP address and
a filename. By the same standards of "proof", you could
convict Richard Nixon of bank robbery on no better evidence
than someone wearing a Nixon Halloween mask during the
crime.
As unlikely as you may consider it (from the "intent", not the
"techical" aspect), 10 seconds from now I could make my machine
"look" like yours as far as Kazaa and the rest can tell. With
a bit more effort and some luck (such as you running an unpatched
XP machine), I could actually USE your machine to generate the
offending traffic.
And even going so far as to address intent (why someone would
attack these guys' machines) - How long does it take an unpatched
machine on the net to turn into a zombie? Last I heard, it happens
quickly enough that you can't patch a new install fast enough
(if dumb enough to stick it on the net unprotected) to avoid the
impending attacks.
So no, no evidence proving the accused gents did anything
wrong. The BPI has the murder weapon and the corpse, but nothing
else.
Just for the record, I don't make this claim because I support
file sharing. It scares the hell out of me that the goverment
may apply the same reasoning to real crimes. "Well,
someone hacked into the pentagon, and they logged
your IP address, so the prosecution rests".
If they want to join the fight, then they should use their clout
and cash to take a more substantive swipe at the RIAA than just a
tiny, ineffective gesture.
Although they have some GREAT artists signed (Delirium, Guster,
BT, Paul van Dyk, and of course their "superstars" BNL and Sarah
McLachlan), most of whom have a good understanding of technology
and its role in music in the modern world... Nettwerk really
doesn't have that much sway in the industry overall.
You can almost think of it more as an artist collective than a
real "label".
As for helping just one out of thousands of victims of the RIAA's
SLAPP tactics.. Yes, I agree this counts as little more than a
PR stunt. But not a self-promoting PR stunt; rather, it attempts
to show that "the music industry" doesn't exist as a uniformly-evil
and luddite monolithic entity. It shouts the message "go ahead and
boycott Sony, but you can still buy new music without
selling your soul to Rosen (Somehow, "Mitch Bainwol" doesn't have
the same love-to-hate-him feel as Hilary Rosen...).
I will never forget watching it 1) explode, and 2) the shock
on my teacher's face. This guy is totally false on #1 and #2.
I think a lot of people seem to want to split hairs on point #1 (including
the FP link). Live vs a 30-second lag? Gimme a break! I'd say that we
can still call it "live" either way.
As for #2... I remember one of the most commonly reported "opinions"
of watching the disaster as running something like "I just thought
they had used some new booster, and kept waiting for the shuttle to
emerge from the cloud... And waiting... And waiting... And then the
SRBs appeared, out of control and in different places, and I just
turned the TV off and sat there in shock".
the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear
fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors.
Owwwwww, make it stop!
I loathe the current administration. Everything about
him/them. I look forward to the impending impeachment proceedings,
led most satisfyingly of all by the Republicans.
But...
I agree with this one! I've argued that we need to
recycle spent fuel for years.
So this confuses me and hurts my head. Bush double plus bad,
but recycling good... Bush bad, recycling good...
Ahhh (breathes a sigh of relief)... No doubt he'll mention
next week that in order to guarantee that no baddies
get ahold of spent fuel, we'll all need to install "the eye"
in our homes. Now it all makes sense.
And it's easily disabled with the local security policy MMC.
Not something you'd do by accident, though. Anyone tweaking
their GP knows damned well the consequences of enabling access
to the administrative shares, as well as the consequences of a
blank admin password. If someone still does it, they meant to
do it.
Wang-Piao Dumani Ross, a Ryerson University student, has
been charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing
to stop after the accident.
Failing to stop after the accident (which did not directly
involve him) breaks the law?
So hypothetical situation - If, driving down a Canadian
highway during a snowstorm I see someone go off the road
but keep driving, will they come after me for failing to
stop? Sure, you might call such a non-stopper an asshole,
but a criminal?
I would also have to question the "leading to death" part
(he didn't hit the taxi), but I can see that as a
bit more a matter of interpretation. But not an accident...
Either the collision includes your vehicle, or it doesn't.
Nice to see EA ignoring possible revenue in favor of the consumer.
Don't worry, they'll just make up for it by banning all that
frivolous "sleep" by their developers, when the could spend
the same time helping the CEO get his 14th solid gold Lexus.
As much as I hate in-your-face ads, unobtrusive advertising
(ie, "product placement") doesn't really bother me. Working
"exempt" salaried slaves literally to the detriment of their
health and family life does bother me.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who's interviewed in the article says he used to recieve 22 movies a month and no longer does. Holy shit, don't these people have no life of any kind?
I watch VERY little TV, and can still EASILY watch up to twenty movies a month (even more in the winter) without lacking "a life"...
During spring through late fall, Saturday and Sundays I'll go out fairly early for a nice hike, usually come home 6-8 hours later. Make dinner, watch a movie or two. Two on Friday after work, two on Saturday, one on Sunday, that adds up to twenty without wasting my life away in front of the TV.
Thirdly, did they really expect 'unlimited' to mean unlimited?
If you buy a 32" TV only to take it home and find it has a 20" screen in an 8.5" bezel, would you feel just a little cheated there? (And although that may sounds extreme, TVs and monitors NEVER actually measure their advertised value for that exact reason, often falling up to a full inch smaller).
So yeah, it bothers me that Netflix translates "unlimited" as "as many as we want you to have". Their cheesy little mantra of "no reasonable person would really think they could get 8,000 movies a month" just doesn't cut it... NO ONE would have complained if they "only" received 45 movies per month, which would equal the 2-day turnaround imposed by the physical realities of sending it by mail. Even a mere 30 per month, at a 3-day turnaround, I doubt would have resulted in so much grumbling. But I haven't even hit 20 in over a year.
Fourth, do you think there's someone else offering a sweeter deal? Good luck trying to find it.
And that, my friend, describes the ONLY reason I still have a netflix subscription. Even throttled down to 12-15 per month, it still costs a quarter what renting from a physical Blockbuster does; and no one can beat Netflix for the size of their catalog.
That doesn't make me a happy customer, however, and eventually, some company WILL come along and offer the same thing without lying about what "unlimited" means. And when that happens, Netflix will learn how the local crack dealer feels when the Mexican mob moves in.
It should be perfectly legal to murder, rape and rob, because passing laws isn't going to make those things disappear.
Like hyperbole much?
People are always going to do evil things... so why should we bother stopping them?
Except, stopping advertisements expressing such prejudice doesn't stop the prejudice itself. It just prevents people looking for a place to live/work from having any sort of warning that they will waste their time by applying.
maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in.
Ah, you apparently use "free and just" in the neocon sense... What about a right to free speech? Free association?
I have the right to refuse to sell/rent/employ/associate with you for absolutely no reason, simply because I might not "like" you. But that becomes illegal the moment I admit my dislike derives from you following the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?
No. That doesn't stop prejudice. It stops speech, it stops people expressing their opinions. "So maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in."
GE Soft White Light Bulb; 60 watts; 820 lumens; 1500 hours; $1.50
Compact Fluorescent Energy Saver; 14 watts; 800 lumens (close enough to 820); 10,000 hours; $11.98
Too generous. $12 for a single CF bulb? I buy them in 6-packs for between $5 and $10 per pack. I have exactly two CF bulbs in my house that, due to a the shade, I needed to use the "expensive" ones shaped exactly like an incandescent, and even those only cost me $7 each...
Yeah, CF bulbs WILL save you a good chunk of money, house-wide. The ONLY reason I've heard not to use them (from my own parents, sigh sigh sigh), some people dislike the startup time (ooh, a half second delay, how can I stand it?) or the spectrum (which unless you go with halogen, IMO CFs have a better spectrum than incandescent).
office space does not cost $10k per employee. Not even in the SF Bay area.
I suspect that number confuses several "facts"...
Most relevantly, maintaining a physical presence costs a company between $5 and $10 an hour. As a full-timer, that comes out to at least $10k per year.
However, the vast majority of that comes from things like HVAC, lighting, providing a legal and reasonably modern PC, and cleaning and maintenance staff. If almost everyone telecommuted, a company could drastically reduce that average per-employee cost. By merely moving someone to a cubicle, a company only shaves the tiniest fraction of that off (personal lighting and possibly a bit of HVAC overhead).
So, the delta cost to a company for you to have a cube vs. an office
Bingo! You've got the key idea... While my absolute physical-space cost may come out to $10K or more per year, I'll take up the vast majority of that whether you give me a 12x20 private office with a view, or an 8x8 half-height cubicle in the basement.
Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."
Considering they charge the recipients for that aid, yeah, I'd say we can safely call them "fuckers".
"Gee, the coming -20F winters in this POW camp will really suck... We'll gladly sell you this 3x3 wool square..."
"Oh, you need blood or you'll die during a messy childbirth? Don't worry, we have it for you - Some sucker DONATED it for a cup of OJ, but we'll gladly "give" it to you for $300 per unit"
So to hear them bitch about the misuse of their all-but-unprotected trademark... Well, do you hear the violins playing a sad song?
Me neither. Huh.
Every smart customer checks what other customers have had to say about a product before purchasing it
Except, that works well for physical objects, not matters of preference. My washing machine, I want to know does what it claims and won't break in three months. My newest CD, I literally expect most people have never even heard of the artist(1), and I don't really care if anyone but me enjoys their music.
As for what surprises me about this study... It lacks a glaringly obvious "control" group - Namely, let people listen to the music in question and rate it according to preference, with no outside influence. Lacking that control, this study has almost no external validity.
Though, I suppose that basically agrees with you - The findings have no meaning, and don't surprise me... Given an overwhelming number of choices and no better means of selecting from them, as a human, I will most likely find enjoyable the same things other humans (with whom I have shared cultural experiences) enjoyed. That strategy may not result in the optimal choice (by which I mean that, out of 10k songs, I might not ever listen to the one that would turn into my instant lifetime favorite), but I'll probably find enough tolerable material from which to derive some pleasure.
1: Bitstream Dream. It you want to check them out, you can download their entire catalog FOR FREE, yet I still bought their newest release - Suck that, RIAA!. And no, I have no connection to them, other than as a listener.
50 comments, and not one good answer (though I saw three posts of good advice vaguely applicable to your needs).
.NET to
gracefully handle network errors. Don't trust your process
to have basically-uninterrupted control of the CPU. Don't
trust try/catch to save you from "real" problems.
First of all - Debugging takes hard work. Sorry folks, no matter how easy Microsoft tries to make it, no matter how tightly they integrate Java-killer-P into app-Q, you still need the ability to follow the flow of bits from point A to Z, and more importantly, figure out what B through Y need to do.
How to debug asynchronous events... Since you mentioned c#, I will presume you have a REALLY coarse granularity here when you say "async".
So... First step, force non-reentrancy and non-overlapped event handling. Does your problem go away? Find the global data you clobbered.
Step 2 (if #1 fails) - Run both ends of your app on the same machine. Does the problem go away? Don't trust
Step 3 - Okay, you have a "real" bug, in your code. But on the bright side, if you got here, you can probably reproduce it, so, piece of cake. Load up your trusty debugger and dump a COMPLETE stack trace up to the error. Don't trust the last line to have caused the error, it just failed to deal with whatever broken crap the actual problem threw its way.
Step 4 - trace through your code, on both sides, one line at a time. Sound tedious? Yup. You might spend a week on a single run. But you'll sure as hell know the flow of your by the time it finishes.
Step 5 - No step 5 exists. Step 4 WILL let you find your problem, as long as it resides in your code and not in the aether between the two sides of the connection (which steps 1 and 2 should have eliminated as a problem).
But we all know the big fight is in the USA.
Why? The FP seems to take that stance as well, but I consider it really not very true.
Although the US may count as the biggest market for RIM, they have plenty of other markets now that have invalidated the offending patents. And most importantly, as a Canadian company, The US has no power to force RIM out of business (just out of the US).
If US courts thoroughly spank RIM, it will hurt them, a lot. But not quite the death-blow many people seem to consider it. The world doesn't end at the US border.
If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone the time and expense of a full trial.
;-)
So in this situation, she should have gone for a full trial, filing delay after delay a la SCO, to cost the RIAA as much as possible?
It's impossible for Apple to not know that they were selling a product that can damage your hearing.
Of course they knew - People who buy them want the ability to turn it up way louder than they would normally need... 80db for six hours a day may cause hearing damage, but your ears will recover from 80db for a fifteen minute commute to work.
But regardless of "knowing" that people could use their product in a dangerous manner, it still takes someone stupid enough to go around for long periods of time with music playing at a level that causes physical pain.
A hammer can cause deafness, too, but any reasonable person knows not to press their ear tightly against the board they want to drive a nail into. And I don't think I've ever seen a hammer with a "may cause permanant hearing damage" sticker on it.
At some point, that nasty phrase "personal responsibility" has to rear its ugly head, and the courts need to tell idiots to go autoDarwin themselves and stop wasting time and money over frivolous lawsuits.
...and this relates to our discussion how?
Because it establishes that semi-accurate "period" entertainment can and should attempt to remain true to the vices of that period.
Put another way - Let's say Activision made this exact same game, but let the player pick between playing an "enlightened indigenous person" or a "evil caucasian male imperialist oppressor scum". Still a racist game? How does that compare to the trend in sci-fi and fantasy games to let the player take the role of someone other than the Gallant Knights in White Tights, ie, the Sith? How about the now-classic game "Postal"?
Playing the "bad guy" doesn't realy break any new ground in the entertainment realm. But if you want to feign some degree of historical accuracy, you can't rewrite core parts of that time period.
Custer didn't lose to invading Martians.
She said "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them."
;-)
Funny, the founding fathers held the same view. Fire the lot of 'em! (Oh, wait, the Patriot Act pretty much did)
She works for a law firm.
Worked, past tense. Thus this story.
A law firm can't employ someone who is publicly advocating breaking the law.
Yes, they can. Some law firms even specialize in such matters. You could even take the stance that THIS law firm publically advocates breaking the law, since at least in my state (and most have similar laws), selling a "broken" CD as a functional product violates the "warrant of merchantability". Look that phrase up - You can use it in a LOT of situations where retailers try to refuse to let you return goods that do not function in their intended capacity.
Also, having a dissenting opinion does not mean someone will fail to do their job, much less deliberately sabotage the work. At the very least, this would have given the law firm a sort of built-in "Devil's Advocate", and it never hurts to know how the "enemy" thinks (and on the flip side of that, surrounding oneself with "yes men" unfailingly leads to a delusional world-view).
A law firm shouldn't employ someone who, for all intents and purposes, wrote "I hate our clients." in a public forum.
So, newcomer to Slashdot and IT in general, eh?
a pinnacle DV500 card with a copy of Premiere 6 and extra tools costs about $150.00 most places on the net right now
You don't even need the dedicated capture board anymore... Most PCs now have FireWire (if not, a PCI card costs under $20), and virtually all DV cams have FW out.
As for the editing tools... Honestly I've never used Premiere, so perhaps it justifies every penny it costs. But you can also use a number of free editing and transcoding (assuming you want a DVD as your final format) tools. Although they focus more on ripping, Doom9 makes a good place to start for any (PC) geek looking to get into the guts of digital A/V manipulation.
Good writing, good direction and most of all Competent crew = good project. Gear and money does not.
Sort of an aside... I don't know if the cheap digital trend will help or hurt the indie (by which I mean six guys with more time than money, not Troma) film scene... I've occasionally gone to small festivals over the past 20 years, and the production quality has definitely shot WAY up as a result of technology (at the most recent one I attended, the MSFF, out of 12 shorts only one didn't use digital from end-to-end). But at the same time, this makes it a lot easier for a group of idiots with more time than talent to throw something together as well. As the saying goes, you can shine shit...
That still does not qualify as a background check or a credit check.
...
it still does not satisfy how a car dealer broke the law by selling a car without doing a credit check.
Okay, since you seem stuck on those two points...
1) I didn't say it did count as a background check or credit check. Only that you can't get a loan (from any financial institution... Uncle Joe lending a few bucks doesn't count) without a credit check.
2) I also didn't say the car dealer broke the law. I said that if he accepted over $10k without reporting it to the IRS, he broke the law.
But then, following up on point #1, the topic at hand involves ID checks, not credit checks. And how exactly does one have ownership of a car transferred to them without showing some form of ID?
As an aside, I do agree with the... Umm... GGP? I find it sickening that we need to show ID to travel... The airlines (and to some extent, Amtrak) have taken to walking a VERY fine line between a private business refusing service, and the government making sure we have our travelling papers in order.
Why would you have to use cash to buy a car? I'd use a cashier's check from the bank where my money was kept. That does not have to be reported.
;-)
"Cash" in the sense of "paid in full. Which a cashier's check would satisfy. And yes, if you get one for more than $10k, the IRS gets notified. Do a Google search for "IRS Form 8300" if you don't believe me. And while you or I may not give two squirts of a cat's teats over complying with stupid IRS rules, you can bet that neither the bank nor any legit car dealer will risk it.
And I'm dying to hear your explanation about how a dealer broke the law by selling someone a car. This oughta be good.
Logic tutorial #216: Extended Disjunction. An extended disjunction consists of a series of three or more conditions linked by the "OR" operator. The entire compound statement will evaluate to "true" when at least one (and in the case of exclusive-OR, at most one) of its conditions evaluates to true.
"That do anything for ya? That's [Deductive Logic], Holmes!"
That's funny - I have bought 3 cars so far and not once did I need to "submit" to a credit check by the seller or anything even vaguely resembling one.
Then either:
1) You don't live in the US,
2) You bought cars costing under $10,000 and paid cash,
3) The dealer broke the law.
Any cash transactions over $10k, you need to report to the IRS. And NO bank or "financing agency" would give you a rusty bent penny without a background check.
So offhand, I'd say that you either only buy used cars and pay cash, or that you did in fact submit to a background chack and didn't notice signing that particular paper among the rest of the stack.
It's not a valid defense in those cases where there actually is evidence.
So of course, BPI has either pictures of these guys actually in the act of sharing music, or credibile witnesses that claims to have watched them do so?
No evidence means just that. The BPI has an IP address and a filename. By the same standards of "proof", you could convict Richard Nixon of bank robbery on no better evidence than someone wearing a Nixon Halloween mask during the crime.
As unlikely as you may consider it (from the "intent", not the "techical" aspect), 10 seconds from now I could make my machine "look" like yours as far as Kazaa and the rest can tell. With a bit more effort and some luck (such as you running an unpatched XP machine), I could actually USE your machine to generate the offending traffic.
And even going so far as to address intent (why someone would attack these guys' machines) - How long does it take an unpatched machine on the net to turn into a zombie? Last I heard, it happens quickly enough that you can't patch a new install fast enough (if dumb enough to stick it on the net unprotected) to avoid the impending attacks.
So no, no evidence proving the accused gents did anything wrong. The BPI has the murder weapon and the corpse, but nothing else.
Just for the record, I don't make this claim because I support file sharing. It scares the hell out of me that the goverment may apply the same reasoning to real crimes. "Well, someone hacked into the pentagon, and they logged your IP address, so the prosecution rests".
If they want to join the fight, then they should use their clout and cash to take a more substantive swipe at the RIAA than just a tiny, ineffective gesture.
Although they have some GREAT artists signed (Delirium, Guster, BT, Paul van Dyk, and of course their "superstars" BNL and Sarah McLachlan), most of whom have a good understanding of technology and its role in music in the modern world... Nettwerk really doesn't have that much sway in the industry overall.
You can almost think of it more as an artist collective than a real "label".
As for helping just one out of thousands of victims of the RIAA's SLAPP tactics.. Yes, I agree this counts as little more than a PR stunt. But not a self-promoting PR stunt; rather, it attempts to show that "the music industry" doesn't exist as a uniformly-evil and luddite monolithic entity. It shouts the message "go ahead and boycott Sony, but you can still buy new music without selling your soul to Rosen (Somehow, "Mitch Bainwol" doesn't have the same love-to-hate-him feel as Hilary Rosen...).
I will never forget watching it 1) explode, and 2) the shock on my teacher's face. This guy is totally false on #1 and #2.
I think a lot of people seem to want to split hairs on point #1 (including the FP link). Live vs a 30-second lag? Gimme a break! I'd say that we can still call it "live" either way.
As for #2... I remember one of the most commonly reported "opinions" of watching the disaster as running something like "I just thought they had used some new booster, and kept waiting for the shuttle to emerge from the cloud... And waiting... And waiting... And then the SRBs appeared, out of control and in different places, and I just turned the TV off and sat there in shock".
the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors.
Owwwwww, make it stop!
I loathe the current administration. Everything about him/them. I look forward to the impending impeachment proceedings, led most satisfyingly of all by the Republicans.
But...
I agree with this one! I've argued that we need to recycle spent fuel for years.
So this confuses me and hurts my head. Bush double plus bad, but recycling good... Bush bad, recycling good...
Ahhh (breathes a sigh of relief)... No doubt he'll mention next week that in order to guarantee that no baddies get ahold of spent fuel, we'll all need to install "the eye" in our homes. Now it all makes sense.
Do it for the Children, you terrorist scum!
And it's easily disabled with the local security policy MMC.
Not something you'd do by accident, though. Anyone tweaking their GP knows damned well the consequences of enabling access to the administrative shares, as well as the consequences of a blank admin password. If someone still does it, they meant to do it.
Wang-Piao Dumani Ross, a Ryerson University student, has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to stop after the accident.
Failing to stop after the accident (which did not directly involve him) breaks the law?
So hypothetical situation - If, driving down a Canadian highway during a snowstorm I see someone go off the road but keep driving, will they come after me for failing to stop? Sure, you might call such a non-stopper an asshole, but a criminal?
I would also have to question the "leading to death" part (he didn't hit the taxi), but I can see that as a bit more a matter of interpretation. But not an accident... Either the collision includes your vehicle, or it doesn't.
Nice to see EA ignoring possible revenue in favor of the consumer.
Don't worry, they'll just make up for it by banning all that frivolous "sleep" by their developers, when the could spend the same time helping the CEO get his 14th solid gold Lexus.
As much as I hate in-your-face ads, unobtrusive advertising (ie, "product placement") doesn't really bother me. Working "exempt" salaried slaves literally to the detriment of their health and family life does bother me.
DDR Coming To West Virginia Schools
You mean those poor buggers still had machines running with PC133? Ouch!
I've just remembered after school chess when i was 4.
Four? As in, Earth-years? And you don't have a tail?
You had extracurricular activities in preschool???
Damn, talk about putting too much pressure on a kid to achieve!