1. Bridgestone == Firestone. Bridgestone is a subdivision of Firestone, a subsidiary started years ago to be an OEM for Ford.
2. Try this one: Dell Computers contracts with UPS to deliver their boxen. Dell gets special pricing from UPS if they agree to only ship UPS. Same idea. Perfectly legal--matter of fact, that was their deal for a while. They only changed (and gave up some of their special pricing) after the UPS strike; they realized that putting all of their eggs in one basket like that was a risky move. But until that strike, they (quite legally) contracted with UPS, and only UPS, to deliver their machines, and they got a special deal for it.
Likewise, I miss those big-ass keyboards that click when you type. These flimsy, wussy keyboards that come with modern PCs are terrible! My favorite keyboard was an old IBM AT keyboard from 1984.
Check your local university's surplus department. I know here at OU, we have a decent surplus department with lots of old stuff for sale. (Anybody need a VAX? There's one down there.) Among other things, they have a large bin (i.e. large hotel laundry bin) full of keyboards, many of them IBM PS/2 (the computer PS/2, not just the 6-pin mini-DIN connector) models. About eight pounds apiece, nearly indestructable (very handy when you can't find that last bug, get pissed, throw the keyboard across the room...), and great feel. You'd be surprised what turns up at University Surplus.
There are two arguments to your claim that we are "completely ignoring" the treaty. First is the fact that we are not ignoring it, we are withdrawing from it, in accordance with the procedures specified in the treaty:
Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty,
have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. [Emphasis mine] --ABM Treaty, Article XV, Paragraph 2
A link to the full text of the treaty is provided at the end of this post.
This paragraph gives us the full authority to withdraw from the treaty at any time, so long as we provide an explanation and six months' notice of intent. When Pres. Bush announced our intent to withdraw, Pres. Putin called it a "source of annoyance" for Russia, but acknowledged that we were, in fact, within our rights.
The second argument is slightly shakier, but does have some validity. The second argument is that the treaty does not apply. From the preamble to the treaty: "The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties...." The signatories include the USA and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore. That being true, a case can be made saying the treaty is null and void, because the opposing signatory no longer exists.
In either case, we are not ignoring the treaty; we are in full compliance with it. Whether or not that is a good idea is a matter of debate, but no party claims we are ignoring or breaching the treaty.
As promised, a link: ABM Treaty, as published by the US Department of State.
Honestly, this answer would probably get an applicant hired, in my book. I consider a good sense of humor to be critical in any job that involves working with other people (hint: almost every job). If he has a sense of humor, odds are he'll get along with other members of his team, and I'd rather have a good (but not great) programmer who gets along with everybody and contributes to a low-stress work environment than a great programmer who's an ass. Just my two cents.
I should be able to put people in physical danger so I can talk to my girlfriend on the flight.
Physical danger? Not quite. Cell phone signals do not even come close to affecting aircraft avionics; the frequencies are all wrong, and with even the fundamental being above everything we use, harmonics aren't even an issue. The real reason for the prohibition is the FCC--when you're up high, you can hit a lot more cell phone repeaters (see also: 39,000 foot tall antenna tower), taking a disproportionately large portion of the infrastructure. You can rest assured that using a cell phone in flight will not put anybody in danger.
Incidentally, I'm a flight instructor and instrument flight instructor, so I do know a little bit about these things. Just so you know.
Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.
In case you hadn't noticed, the compulsion has already been forbidden. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students could not be compelled to say the pledge. Quoting from that opinion, "[s]uch a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States." So for the past 49 years, it has been unconstitutional for the State to require anybody to recite the pledge of allegiance. This decision goes further--this decision restricts the rights of those people who do wish to say it. That's a whole different matter.
Unlike your average slashdotter, I actually read the court's opinion. In the opinion, the Court recognizes that "Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge [page 4]." They also mention that Dr. Newdow went off the deep end, asking to court to order both President Clinton and the Congress to change the wording, actions which are well outside the jurisdiction of the court (page 6). He named as defendants the Southern California Unified School District, again a breach of jurisdiction, as his daughter is not enrolled there. Dr. Newdow has a history of making such challenges: in 2000, he sued President Bush over his inauguration, seeking to enjoin him from making any reference to religion in the future. When the suit was thrown out, "[i]n a last-ditch effort to salvage the suit, Newdow sought to add as a defendant Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the congressional committee in charge of the 2000 inaugural. At a hearing before the magistrate, Newdow suggested the committee could be ordered to ban clergy from the guest list or not let them speak [Denny Walsh, The Sacramento Bee." He also filed a lawsuit against then-President Clinton, Congress, and the Broward County School District for the same reason, and attempted to continue the suit even after his daughter was no longer a student in that district. That case, as well, was thrown out.
In spite of the plaintiff's whiny nature, though, there is at least a glimmer of validity to his claim. The wording alone is innocuous enough, similar to "In God We Trust," but the history of the Pledge reveals more. The Pledge originally had no reference to God; the reference was added by an act of Congress in 1954. To quote Neal Boortz:
What was the big threat in 1954? Godless Communism, that's what. Democratic Congressman Louis C. Rabaut from Michigan was the House sponsor of the bill which added "under God" to our Pledge. Rabaut testified before a congressional committee in support of the legislation. He said "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins.
... Rabaut wasn't the only person who indicated a religious purpose to the 1954 legislation. We also have the words of the President of the United States in 1954, Dwight Eisenhower. When he signed the legislation he said "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.
Realistically, I expect the decision to be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court; they have already held that the phrasing is not unconstitutional in a similar case from Chicago (don't remember, about to go to lunch, don't want to look it up). He may have won his day this time, but public opinion, government opinion (Bush, and 99 senators, condemned the decision), and court opinion (the Chicago case) all seem to be against him. It will make an interesting case, to be sure.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court decided two other interesting cases today. Previously, random drug testing had been held to be legal only for student athletes; the case they decided today opened that up to students in any extra-curricular activities. The plaintiff in this case was in a the school chorus, and on an academic quiz team. She tested negative, but sued over what she called a "humiliating and accusatory policy FOXNews.com." Schools do not need to have any just cause for testing students. In the second case, the Court upheld the idea of school vouchers for parochial schools, striking a blow in favor of school choice advocates everywhere. Expect to hear a lot of rhetoric about this one.
That said, 5 o'clock computers, best shop I know of. Won't buy anywhere else.
Right on! I'm from the Dayton area myself, but now living in Oklahoma, and I order parts from 5 O'Clock all the time, both for personal systems and boxen at work. Their prices are great, and I've had a lot of good experiences in their store (the Beavercreek one; I haven't been to the Springboro one yet). It is so nice to have a good screwdriver shop near home...just wish I had one down here.
Perhaps somebody can start a site for rating local shops, so we can pool knowledge?
One of these systems (there are several) is called TARDIS--Terminal Area Radar DISplay, IIRC. We have one at Westheimer Airport in Norman, OK. Good points: it helps (tremendously at times) with situational awareness. It tells the controllers where to look for the traffic they can't see. It tells the controllers where to find the traffic that just reported "over the river" (they never are, they're just reporting ahead for better positioning, or lost). Bad points are, the system doesn't update rapidly enough to be used for guidance in the terminal area. It drops traffic. It freezes, requiring a reset. It does both of these more than an approved radar display. It is based on ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center) radar, not terminal radar, so coverage is often lacking. A few other things I can't think of offhand. Short answer is that it works well as a situational awareness tool at airports not requiring radar, but if radar is necessary, you have to install a much more complex (and expensive) system.
To put things in perspective, Westheimer is the third busiest public-use airport in Oklahoma, losing only to OKC-Will Rogers and Tulsa World. There is high-density student training at Westheimer, and operations often exceed 1000/day. Traffic ranges from Cessna 150's to Beech Barons to Citation X's to T-38's, with a smattering of helicopters thrown in the keep things interesting. The airport is served by several instrument approaches, including a localizer, and is scheduled to get an ILS in a couple of years; an ILS allows traffic to descend to 200' above ground before breaking out of the clouds. In spite of this, Westheimer does not warrant radar.
Short answer here is that yes, Joe Blow's system may be cheaper, and may work well enough for a VFR tower like Bowman or Westheimer, but you need a lot more for any environment that actually needs radar.
from the incredible-irony department
on
Buying Unix?
·
· Score: 2
Incidentally, a few hours after I submitted this story, my Windows server crashed. File system shit itself; box wouldn't boot to save its (or my) life. Tried the boot disk, etc, but I couldn't get it to let me fix the problem.
Legal reform for this problem made simple: The loosing [sic] party pays ALL legal expenses for ALL parties!....just think...no more nuiscense [sic] suits,
While this might sound like a good idea on the surface, it would in fact have a devastating effect on the justice system. Even the most seemingly ironclad lawsuit is a crapshoot when taken before a judge. Law is a game of subtleties and minutiae; further more, it is inherently subjective. The mere fact that claims are contested is evidence of this: a case that seems airtight to a plaintiff is scoffed at by the defendant. The judge listens to the arguments as presented by each side (in effect, making the skill of the argument part of the case, for better or for worse), and renders his decision based on his legal training, precedent, his experiences, his ideology (again, for better or for worse), and a whole host of other factors. These factors introduce an element of chance into the proceedings, an element which one cannot discount.
What does this mean? It means that even the most solid case, argued by the most skilled attorney, can be lost. Now, if you make the loser pay the legal fees for both sides, then you are putting a potential plaintiff in the position of having to pay legal fees on a case that may have been perfectly legitimate, but cursed by bad luck; this problem is compounded by the fact that with the loser paying, both parties would have incentive to hire the best attorney possible: if a better attorney can win the case for you, and you won't have to pay if you win, then it is absolutely to your advantage to hire somebody better. This would inevitably lead to a chilling effect on lawsuits. While that may be viewed as desirable, the chill would extend not just to frivilous suits, but to legitimate suits as well.
Also consider enforcement: if Microsoft were found to be using code from the Linux kernel, and Linus decided to file suit against Microsoft, how would he be held to pay if he should lose? Would he be required to post funds in advance in escrow, in case he loses? How much should he post? Microsoft has quite a legal team. What if MS decided to hire additional lawyers, or specialists? Perhaps expert witnesses? Should Linus pony up every time they add a staffer to the payroll? If you institute a policy like this, quashing a lawsuit would be as easy as hiring everybody you know. The other options would be to make them pay afterward (what if they don't have the money), or require some sort of legal insurance (equally expensive).
Short answer is that, while it may seem attractive, having the loser pay the winner's legal fees, it would have dramatic negative consequences. A better idea, perhaps, would be to have a two-tiered system: bring your case before the court, the judge listens to the synopses. If your case fails a "straight-face" test, he can instruct you to pay the defendant's legal fees. If you pass the "straight-face" test, you move on to the trial court, and follow the current rules. This is, in fact, a derivative of the criminal system: before the trial, the prosecution must get an indictment. The indictment forces the prosecution to show some sufficient cause to believe that you committed a crime, before you go to trial. Incidentally, even now, there are some provisions for making the the loser pay the winner's legal fees; legal fees can be included in a judgement. This is just used semi-sparingly, to prevent the effects mentioned above.
Just for the record, I am not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me anywhere I missed a detail. My dad is, though (Oklahoma, Ohio, and Federal bar (USAF)), and we've discussed this at length. He's disgusted with the legal industry, too.:-)
I was sitting at my desk, just decided to buy a Mac workstation for myself, doing a little window-shopping (well, Mac-shopping...getting rid of 'doze...). Browsed on over to store.apple.com, saw that they were temporarily down, pending update (loved the Post-It note!). Looked at their homepage, and saw the box...am I the only one who damn near wet himself when I saw that?
My favorite two addresses for web forms are root@yourdomain.com and administrator@yourdomain.com, where yourdomain is the domain of the site hosting the web form. I've only seen one company that uses Javascript to filter such addresses (Adobe, if memory serves, but don't hold me to it). At that point, I encourage them to spam me.;-)
The whole little sordid affair came to light as the result of a criminal investigation regarding a rape charge brought by Juanita Broderick (IIRC). The rape charges didn't stick because she brought them too late (five-year statute of limitations on rape), but the rest of his activities came to light as a result of that criminal investigation. The reason for the continuation of the investigation was not so much the adultery as the lying--if you recall, he was impeached on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury, not on anything sexual. But it all started with a criminal rape investigation, something that should always be investigated.
Also, incidentally, the President's salary may be only $200K/year, but the total compensation package is a lot more. He has two expense accounts at his disposal, $50K/year and $100K/year (mind you, that's from my middle-school social studies class, so I might be in error there); housing is provided free of charge (in a $300 million (IIRC) piece of property, no less); food, prepared by outstanding chefs, free; transportation, including limousine, helicopter, and 747, free; security, including highly-trained, heavily-armed bodyguards, free...the total package ain't too shabby.
Slashdot Mirror
but the chip can still serve up 4mbps even at 13,000 feet
OK, sure, so this is great for all of us light airplane pilots, but what about the airlines?
1. Bridgestone == Firestone. Bridgestone is a subdivision of Firestone, a subsidiary started years ago to be an OEM for Ford.
2. Try this one: Dell Computers contracts with UPS to deliver their boxen. Dell gets special pricing from UPS if they agree to only ship UPS. Same idea. Perfectly legal--matter of fact, that was their deal for a while. They only changed (and gave up some of their special pricing) after the UPS strike; they realized that putting all of their eggs in one basket like that was a risky move. But until that strike, they (quite legally) contracted with UPS, and only UPS, to deliver their machines, and they got a special deal for it.
Likewise, I miss those big-ass keyboards that click when you type. These flimsy, wussy keyboards that come with modern PCs are terrible! My favorite keyboard was an old IBM AT keyboard from 1984.
Check your local university's surplus department. I know here at OU, we have a decent surplus department with lots of old stuff for sale. (Anybody need a VAX? There's one down there.) Among other things, they have a large bin (i.e. large hotel laundry bin) full of keyboards, many of them IBM PS/2 (the computer PS/2, not just the 6-pin mini-DIN connector) models. About eight pounds apiece, nearly indestructable (very handy when you can't find that last bug, get pissed, throw the keyboard across the room...), and great feel. You'd be surprised what turns up at University Surplus.
There are two arguments to your claim that we are "completely ignoring" the treaty. First is the fact that we are not ignoring it, we are withdrawing from it, in accordance with the procedures specified in the treaty:
A link to the full text of the treaty is provided at the end of this post.This paragraph gives us the full authority to withdraw from the treaty at any time, so long as we provide an explanation and six months' notice of intent. When Pres. Bush announced our intent to withdraw, Pres. Putin called it a "source of annoyance" for Russia, but acknowledged that we were, in fact, within our rights.
The second argument is slightly shakier, but does have some validity. The second argument is that the treaty does not apply. From the preamble to the treaty: "The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties...." The signatories include the USA and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore. That being true, a case can be made saying the treaty is null and void, because the opposing signatory no longer exists.
In either case, we are not ignoring the treaty; we are in full compliance with it. Whether or not that is a good idea is a matter of debate, but no party claims we are ignoring or breaching the treaty.
As promised, a link: ABM Treaty, as published by the US Department of State.
Honestly, this answer would probably get an applicant hired, in my book. I consider a good sense of humor to be critical in any job that involves working with other people (hint: almost every job). If he has a sense of humor, odds are he'll get along with other members of his team, and I'd rather have a good (but not great) programmer who gets along with everybody and contributes to a low-stress work environment than a great programmer who's an ass. Just my two cents.
Nah. The bender fund is the collection I take up every Friday afternoon, so we can have the keg party that night.
127.24.88.72. Why do you ask?
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Wonderful. Now I can be on call even when I'm in the head. Lovely.
I'll carry the thing for about ten minutes, as long as it takes me to flush the little POS...
I should be able to put people in physical danger so I can talk to my girlfriend on the flight.
Physical danger? Not quite. Cell phone signals do not even come close to affecting aircraft avionics; the frequencies are all wrong, and with even the fundamental being above everything we use, harmonics aren't even an issue. The real reason for the prohibition is the FCC--when you're up high, you can hit a lot more cell phone repeaters (see also: 39,000 foot tall antenna tower), taking a disproportionately large portion of the infrastructure. You can rest assured that using a cell phone in flight will not put anybody in danger.
Incidentally, I'm a flight instructor and instrument flight instructor, so I do know a little bit about these things. Just so you know.
Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.
In case you hadn't noticed, the compulsion has already been forbidden. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students could not be compelled to say the pledge. Quoting from that opinion, "[s]uch a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States." So for the past 49 years, it has been unconstitutional for the State to require anybody to recite the pledge of allegiance. This decision goes further--this decision restricts the rights of those people who do wish to say it. That's a whole different matter.
Unlike your average slashdotter, I actually read the court's opinion. In the opinion, the Court recognizes that "Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge [page 4]." They also mention that Dr. Newdow went off the deep end, asking to court to order both President Clinton and the Congress to change the wording, actions which are well outside the jurisdiction of the court (page 6). He named as defendants the Southern California Unified School District, again a breach of jurisdiction, as his daughter is not enrolled there. Dr. Newdow has a history of making such challenges: in 2000, he sued President Bush over his inauguration, seeking to enjoin him from making any reference to religion in the future. When the suit was thrown out, "[i]n a last-ditch effort to salvage the suit, Newdow sought to add as a defendant Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the congressional committee in charge of the 2000 inaugural. At a hearing before the magistrate, Newdow suggested the committee could be ordered to ban clergy from the guest list or not let them speak [Denny Walsh, The Sacramento Bee." He also filed a lawsuit against then-President Clinton, Congress, and the Broward County School District for the same reason, and attempted to continue the suit even after his daughter was no longer a student in that district. That case, as well, was thrown out.
In spite of the plaintiff's whiny nature, though, there is at least a glimmer of validity to his claim. The wording alone is innocuous enough, similar to "In God We Trust," but the history of the Pledge reveals more. The Pledge originally had no reference to God; the reference was added by an act of Congress in 1954. To quote Neal Boortz:
--Neal Boortz, 27 Jun 2002The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.
Realistically, I expect the decision to be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court; they have already held that the phrasing is not unconstitutional in a similar case from Chicago (don't remember, about to go to lunch, don't want to look it up). He may have won his day this time, but public opinion, government opinion (Bush, and 99 senators, condemned the decision), and court opinion (the Chicago case) all seem to be against him. It will make an interesting case, to be sure.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court decided two other interesting cases today. Previously, random drug testing had been held to be legal only for student athletes; the case they decided today opened that up to students in any extra-curricular activities. The plaintiff in this case was in a the school chorus, and on an academic quiz team. She tested negative, but sued over what she called a "humiliating and accusatory policy FOXNews.com." Schools do not need to have any just cause for testing students. In the second case, the Court upheld the idea of school vouchers for parochial schools, striking a blow in favor of school choice advocates everywhere. Expect to hear a lot of rhetoric about this one.
That said, 5 o'clock computers, best shop I know of. Won't buy anywhere else.
Right on! I'm from the Dayton area myself, but now living in Oklahoma, and I order parts from 5 O'Clock all the time, both for personal systems and boxen at work. Their prices are great, and I've had a lot of good experiences in their store (the Beavercreek one; I haven't been to the Springboro one yet). It is so nice to have a good screwdriver shop near home...just wish I had one down here.
Perhaps somebody can start a site for rating local shops, so we can pool knowledge?
laziness
I thought you said unusual situations...
To put things in perspective, Westheimer is the third busiest public-use airport in Oklahoma, losing only to OKC-Will Rogers and Tulsa World. There is high-density student training at Westheimer, and operations often exceed 1000/day. Traffic ranges from Cessna 150's to Beech Barons to Citation X's to T-38's, with a smattering of helicopters thrown in the keep things interesting. The airport is served by several instrument approaches, including a localizer, and is scheduled to get an ILS in a couple of years; an ILS allows traffic to descend to 200' above ground before breaking out of the clouds. In spite of this, Westheimer does not warrant radar.
Short answer here is that yes, Joe Blow's system may be cheaper, and may work well enough for a VFR tower like Bowman or Westheimer, but you need a lot more for any environment that actually needs radar.
--Dave Buckles, CP-ASMEL, Instrument Airplane, CFI (double-I checkride on Monday! Woo-hoo!)
Incidentally, a few hours after I submitted this story, my Windows server crashed. File system shit itself; box wouldn't boot to save its (or my) life. Tried the boot disk, etc, but I couldn't get it to let me fix the problem.
I love 'doze...
Quoth the poster:
Legal reform for this problem made simple: The loosing [sic] party pays ALL legal expenses for ALL parties!....just think...no more nuiscense [sic] suits,
While this might sound like a good idea on the surface, it would in fact have a devastating effect on the justice system. Even the most seemingly ironclad lawsuit is a crapshoot when taken before a judge. Law is a game of subtleties and minutiae; further more, it is inherently subjective. The mere fact that claims are contested is evidence of this: a case that seems airtight to a plaintiff is scoffed at by the defendant. The judge listens to the arguments as presented by each side (in effect, making the skill of the argument part of the case, for better or for worse), and renders his decision based on his legal training, precedent, his experiences, his ideology (again, for better or for worse), and a whole host of other factors. These factors introduce an element of chance into the proceedings, an element which one cannot discount.
What does this mean? It means that even the most solid case, argued by the most skilled attorney, can be lost. Now, if you make the loser pay the legal fees for both sides, then you are putting a potential plaintiff in the position of having to pay legal fees on a case that may have been perfectly legitimate, but cursed by bad luck; this problem is compounded by the fact that with the loser paying, both parties would have incentive to hire the best attorney possible: if a better attorney can win the case for you, and you won't have to pay if you win, then it is absolutely to your advantage to hire somebody better. This would inevitably lead to a chilling effect on lawsuits. While that may be viewed as desirable, the chill would extend not just to frivilous suits, but to legitimate suits as well.
Also consider enforcement: if Microsoft were found to be using code from the Linux kernel, and Linus decided to file suit against Microsoft, how would he be held to pay if he should lose? Would he be required to post funds in advance in escrow, in case he loses? How much should he post? Microsoft has quite a legal team. What if MS decided to hire additional lawyers, or specialists? Perhaps expert witnesses? Should Linus pony up every time they add a staffer to the payroll? If you institute a policy like this, quashing a lawsuit would be as easy as hiring everybody you know. The other options would be to make them pay afterward (what if they don't have the money), or require some sort of legal insurance (equally expensive).
Short answer is that, while it may seem attractive, having the loser pay the winner's legal fees, it would have dramatic negative consequences. A better idea, perhaps, would be to have a two-tiered system: bring your case before the court, the judge listens to the synopses. If your case fails a "straight-face" test, he can instruct you to pay the defendant's legal fees. If you pass the "straight-face" test, you move on to the trial court, and follow the current rules. This is, in fact, a derivative of the criminal system: before the trial, the prosecution must get an indictment. The indictment forces the prosecution to show some sufficient cause to believe that you committed a crime, before you go to trial. Incidentally, even now, there are some provisions for making the the loser pay the winner's legal fees; legal fees can be included in a judgement. This is just used semi-sparingly, to prevent the effects mentioned above.
Just for the record, I am not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me anywhere I missed a detail. My dad is, though (Oklahoma, Ohio, and Federal bar (USAF)), and we've discussed this at length. He's disgusted with the legal industry, too. :-)
Thirteenth post!
why do I pay more for the 100 channel package than the 20 channel package?
Because you can't get into the box with the channel traps...
Guess Erwin's six lines isn't so impressive after all...
I was sitting at my desk, just decided to buy a Mac workstation for myself, doing a little window-shopping (well, Mac-shopping...getting rid of 'doze...). Browsed on over to store.apple.com, saw that they were temporarily down, pending update (loved the Post-It note!). Looked at their homepage, and saw the box...am I the only one who damn near wet himself when I saw that?
My favorite two addresses for web forms are root@yourdomain.com and administrator@yourdomain.com, where yourdomain is the domain of the site hosting the web form. I've only seen one company that uses Javascript to filter such addresses (Adobe, if memory serves, but don't hold me to it). At that point, I encourage them to spam me. ;-)
I think this is the first time some kind of stat has gone down! instead of up when posted on slashdot
Better the stat than the site...
The whole little sordid affair came to light as the result of a criminal investigation regarding a rape charge brought by Juanita Broderick (IIRC). The rape charges didn't stick because she brought them too late (five-year statute of limitations on rape), but the rest of his activities came to light as a result of that criminal investigation. The reason for the continuation of the investigation was not so much the adultery as the lying--if you recall, he was impeached on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury, not on anything sexual. But it all started with a criminal rape investigation, something that should always be investigated.
Also, incidentally, the President's salary may be only $200K/year, but the total compensation package is a lot more. He has two expense accounts at his disposal, $50K/year and $100K/year (mind you, that's from my middle-school social studies class, so I might be in error there); housing is provided free of charge (in a $300 million (IIRC) piece of property, no less); food, prepared by outstanding chefs, free; transportation, including limousine, helicopter, and 747, free; security, including highly-trained, heavily-armed bodyguards, free...the total package ain't too shabby.
The kind that powers a radio-frequency oscillator...
Because I said so, damnit!