From the article: "The chemical has all the firefighting properties of water..."
Except one. It doesn't wet. It will slide right off anything it touches, allowing the fire back onto it.
We also don't know what its evaporative cooling properties are. Someone might, but we don't. The misting of water in a burning room cools gases and reduces flashing probabilities.
The smothering property is nice, but it doesn't have all the firefighting properties of water.
But then, it has firefighting properties water doesn't have. Water, for instance, will cause electrical fires, and electrical explosions if the voltage of the electrical system is particularly high (first it electrolyzes to hydrogen and oxygen, then it recombines explosively to become water again).
>The various bullying C&D letters sent out are nothing more or less than willful bullying.
Corporate executives are often lawyers themselves, and if they caught their legal staff billing hours for unnecessary actions and destroying the company's public relations for no tangible or intangible benefit, it'd be open season on trussed-up corporate shysters for the ivory-tower clan.
Too many companies have been burned by this for it to be something they don't know will burn them.
So either they're plug stupid, or there's a purely CYA legal reason.
Brad's okay, even if he did take pecuniary advantage of Usenet and has a somewhat spotty sense of humor for a guy who runs a newsgroup with "funny" in its name.
But he's pissing in the wind. And that's all it is, wind.
Trademark holders must threaten everyone who coopts their mark, even when it seems like it's almost certain to be legitimate fair-use. If they don't make a sincere effort to protect the trademark, the failure to do so becomes evidence against them in cases the bring where the mark has actually been abused. Trademarks have been lost that way.
Same deal with Mattel suing over Barbie songs, Sony suing Sony's cafe, etc. The bad part is when they end up having to go through with the case and the big guy's lawyers beat up the little guy's lawyers and create new case law that erodes fair-use.
Brad's response that he'll bring up Parody and Satire is enough for them to argue that they didn't see value in fighting, but since they don't fight it doesn't create case law, and everyone has their asses covered. And it'll end there, just like the MasterCard threat did.
It's kind of odd that Brad doesn't get this right off the bat, seeing as he's also the guy who wrote the first real position paper on intellectual-property laws for the Internet.
N.B., IANAL, (but if the bar exam wasn't all about fiddly bits in real estate and divorce law and trial procedure I probably would be). I just like arguing with them and winning on the net.
When you're on the telephone you have no presumption that your conversation is being recorded.
Unless maybe you're talking into an answering machine or voicemail box, or have otherwise been informed that you are being recorded.
When you're sending data on the computer, you know, because you've been told again and again that THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE, that anything you transmit may be intercepted, recorded, retransmitted, stored, parsed, decrypted, or otherwise coopted. Your rights in this regard can be presumed to be limited to those you would have if you know someone has a legal copy of a document. Anything else the law has done to expand those rights is based on a fundamental failure to understand the fact that THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE.
I.e., it's not the copying and storing that's a problem. It's the uncopyrighted duplication to repeat to others that's a problem. Original copies are, as always, free to be transferred to others (and if they are, by law, not, then the law is, as always, a ass). But here's a hint for all the lawyers out there: the act of transferring a copy from hard disk to floppy disk is copying, and copying more than once, in the various hardware in the machine; destroying the copy on the hard disk doesn't change that; so you might have an out.
When you're using a chat, the conversation is already captured and recorded.
It's merely deleted when it reaches the end of the buffer. But if the buffer is a ream of tractor-feed paper, it's only deleted when the paper is destroyed.
Lawyers really need to learn how computers work, and stop mooting themselves by presuming technical unrealities.
These guys suck $millions out of corporations every year. Those are the $millions that should have been going to create jobs. Instead they're simply being raked off the top. And they always were.
Bush's tax cuts were a total scam. The only jobs they created was PR flacks to create more ridiculous and irrational reasons for more tax cuts.
Anyone who voted for a Republican in the last 30 years deserves to be run over with a rusted-out school bus.
1. I mean the clue is, if you let capitalism run rampant, you end up with feudalism. The clueful people act cautiously and with concern for social welfare to prevent that situation from happening. I can start a fire in the woods to keep myself warm and safe if I care for it. If I don't, it will burn down the woods and kill everyone and everything in them. There's your clue.
2. Poor people are poor because they don't have money. Getting money requires someone willing to give it. Those willing to give it, in this country, also control your ability to find the education needed to perform the jobs they need done. And it takes money to get that much education in the first place. It takes money just to be in a position where you can spend time getting that education.
3. Capitalism blew up in 2000. It's threatening to disappear completely from the face of the Earth and be replaced by feudalism and socialism. Pay attention.
4. Doctors, lawyers, and managers are not rich people. They work for a living. They are the middle class. I'd bet you thought you were middle class; no; you're just a sucker for an ad campaign that needs you to think you're rich enough to afford $200 shoes. Entrepreneurs are certainly not rich people; 75% of all new businesses fail, i.e., never return what they cost to start.
Unions are good for everyone if the union leadership and corporate management don't act like a bunch of thuggish pissants and result in excluded-middle negotiation (strikes, lockouts, all-or-nothing arbitration), where the result is either a broken union or desperate management acquiescence to draconian and unnecessary union demands (like the inability to fire incompetent workers). It's a negotiation sytem. Think of the union as a company that services the management company's value-addition needs. The managers don't want you to think of it that way. They want you to think you owe them something so you'll do dangerous work for crappy pay. Unions should have the right to take the company away from incompetent owners and give it to new owners for the price of the depreciated plant and equipment.
The current attitude towards unions is testament to the ability of concentrated funds to buy PR to create public opinion that runs counter to reality.
1. Money makes money. Lacking money makes more lack. The system as constituted must be managed by hand to reign in these two expansive forces. Otherwise, deserving people can end up with nothing, and undeserving people can end up with everything. And then hand it down to their kids, who never have to work for anything.
2. The middle class got theirs through work and smarts and care. The very rich got very lucky, and some of them now don't understand that their opportunity was given to them by the good graces of the work others did.
3. There is some evil inherent in a system where it behooves the corporation to try to take as much unfair advantage as it can of an individual who has an education in a skill but no education in negotiation tactics. There is a lot of evil inherent in a system where it behooves the corporation to maintain that educational focus, and keep individuals from building a power base to create enough excess capital of their own to hire a negotiating team.
The current problems weren't caused by little old ladies storing cash in their cookie jars. They were caused by plutocrats gaming the system to convince those little old ladies to take the money out of their cookie jars to be collected in banks which skim 80% or more of the actual profits of their investing of depositors' funds.
1. Euros and Canucks get paid less than Americans do. And once the Rich get the clue, they'll move that capital to India and China, too.
2. Most of the poor don't suck at anything. But concentration of property rights and social contacts creates a higher hurdle for attaining wealth than many of the current wealthy families had.
3. Capitalism is good when it is regulated. Unfettered capitalism is like a car with a turbocharger, no brakes, and an eternal downhill slope. It tears itself to pieces every so often.
4. If we exile all the rich people but impound their wealth first and give it to a new class of people who HAVE A CLUE about the real value of capitalism, then our problem is solved. People absolutely are poor because rich people are exploiting them. Ask any corporate executive if he likes unions, and why. And don't take any emotional nonsense about "socialism"; ask about what would happen to his share of the revenue stream if the unions were busted.
Offshoring jobs increases the management/labor revenue split.
Isn't offshoring just a way to make the rich richer without regard for the American working class?
Isn't it evidence that the wealthy have no regard for those who must do work to stay alive?
Isn't it an utter repudiation of the widely held belief that concentration of capital is good for all of us?
Isn't it a strong reminder that the only thing that keeps capitalism alive is tolerance of the working man for the profligacy of the non-working class?
I'm no socialist, but I know a revolt when I see one coming. The rich in this country will be lucky if they aren't killed, cooked, and eaten before it's done.
You obviously have a bad template for "software engineer".
>Throwing people at a late software project only makes it later.
Throwing people at a broken software project makes it later. Throwing people at a software project to get the rest of the features implemented makes it only as late as it would be in the first place.
And, if you know where to put the people (testing and requirements, not coding), you can add people to a late software project and improve its quality without making it later.
Cutting features from a software project makes it a different software project, and violates the requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Descent (you remember, the first 360degrees shooter)
>Actually, it was the first 4*PI steradian shooter.
Actually, it was probably the hundredth, if you count all the space- and flight-combat sims...
So it was the first 4*PI steradian FPS constrained to a fractally linear environment (a tunnel).
Which, when you think about it, is kind of a ripoff...
But not really, because the ability to do a vertical circle strafe totally kicks ass.
When I take over the galaxy, all my fighters will have 6-DOF thrusters and Logitech Cyberman II puck controllers.
>Descent (you remember, the first 360degrees shooter)
Actually, it was the first 4*PI steradian shooter.
From the article: "The chemical has all the firefighting properties of water..."
Except one. It doesn't wet. It will slide right off anything it touches, allowing the fire back onto it.
We also don't know what its evaporative cooling properties are. Someone might, but we don't. The misting of water in a burning room cools gases and reduces flashing probabilities.
The smothering property is nice, but it doesn't have all the firefighting properties of water.
But then, it has firefighting properties water doesn't have. Water, for instance, will cause electrical fires, and electrical explosions if the voltage of the electrical system is particularly high (first it electrolyzes to hydrogen and oxygen, then it recombines explosively to become water again).
There's going to be a judge who'll understand, and slap the Empire with a multi-decagigadollar fine.
They have it in uninvested cash. There'd be no reason to argue it's a hardship.
Microsoft will in our lifetimes either reform or pay.
>The various bullying C&D letters sent out are nothing more or less than willful bullying.
Corporate executives are often lawyers themselves, and if they caught their legal staff billing hours for unnecessary actions and destroying the company's public relations for no tangible or intangible benefit, it'd be open season on trussed-up corporate shysters for the ivory-tower clan.
Too many companies have been burned by this for it to be something they don't know will burn them.
So either they're plug stupid, or there's a purely CYA legal reason.
And that can go either way in a big corporation.
I had assumed it was SOP in the first place.
The airlines don't own the sky, the FAA does, so why wouldn't the FAA already know who's flying where and when?
And the only applicable Ben Franklin quote is, as always,
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Brad's okay, even if he did take pecuniary advantage of Usenet and has a somewhat spotty sense of humor for a guy who runs a newsgroup with "funny" in its name.
But he's pissing in the wind. And that's all it is, wind.
Trademark holders must threaten everyone who coopts their mark, even when it seems like it's almost certain to be legitimate fair-use. If they don't make a sincere effort to protect the trademark, the failure to do so becomes evidence against them in cases the bring where the mark has actually been abused. Trademarks have been lost that way.
Same deal with Mattel suing over Barbie songs, Sony suing Sony's cafe, etc. The bad part is when they end up having to go through with the case and the big guy's lawyers beat up the little guy's lawyers and create new case law that erodes fair-use.
Brad's response that he'll bring up Parody and Satire is enough for them to argue that they didn't see value in fighting, but since they don't fight it doesn't create case law, and everyone has their asses covered. And it'll end there, just like the MasterCard threat did.
It's kind of odd that Brad doesn't get this right off the bat, seeing as he's also the guy who wrote the first real position paper on intellectual-property laws for the Internet.
N.B., IANAL, (but if the bar exam wasn't all about fiddly bits in real estate and divorce law and trial procedure I probably would be). I just like arguing with them and winning on the net.
Dumb reply. Full of Grade-F economic misapprehensions and ludicrous political blather.
And another thing:
When you're on the telephone you have no presumption that your conversation is being recorded.
Unless maybe you're talking into an answering machine or voicemail box, or have otherwise been informed that you are being recorded.
When you're sending data on the computer, you know, because you've been told again and again that THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE, that anything you transmit may be intercepted, recorded, retransmitted, stored, parsed, decrypted, or otherwise coopted. Your rights in this regard can be presumed to be limited to those you would have if you know someone has a legal copy of a document. Anything else the law has done to expand those rights is based on a fundamental failure to understand the fact that THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE.
I.e., it's not the copying and storing that's a problem. It's the uncopyrighted duplication to repeat to others that's a problem. Original copies are, as always, free to be transferred to others (and if they are, by law, not, then the law is, as always, a ass). But here's a hint for all the lawyers out there: the act of transferring a copy from hard disk to floppy disk is copying, and copying more than once, in the various hardware in the machine; destroying the copy on the hard disk doesn't change that; so you might have an out.
When you're using a chat, the conversation is already captured and recorded.
It's merely deleted when it reaches the end of the buffer. But if the buffer is a ream of tractor-feed paper, it's only deleted when the paper is destroyed.
Lawyers really need to learn how computers work, and stop mooting themselves by presuming technical unrealities.
I just answered my own question. This is where the money goes.
0 4_ 16/b3879010.htm
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/
These guys suck $millions out of corporations every year. Those are the $millions that should have been going to create jobs. Instead they're simply being raked off the top. And they always were.
Bush's tax cuts were a total scam. The only jobs they created was PR flacks to create more ridiculous and irrational reasons for more tax cuts.
Anyone who voted for a Republican in the last 30 years deserves to be run over with a rusted-out school bus.
1. I mean the clue is, if you let capitalism run rampant, you end up with feudalism. The clueful people act cautiously and with concern for social welfare to prevent that situation from happening. I can start a fire in the woods to keep myself warm and safe if I care for it. If I don't, it will burn down the woods and kill everyone and everything in them. There's your clue.
2. Poor people are poor because they don't have money. Getting money requires someone willing to give it. Those willing to give it, in this country, also control your ability to find the education needed to perform the jobs they need done. And it takes money to get that much education in the first place. It takes money just to be in a position where you can spend time getting that education.
3. Capitalism blew up in 2000. It's threatening to disappear completely from the face of the Earth and be replaced by feudalism and socialism. Pay attention.
4. Doctors, lawyers, and managers are not rich people. They work for a living. They are the middle class. I'd bet you thought you were middle class; no; you're just a sucker for an ad campaign that needs you to think you're rich enough to afford $200 shoes. Entrepreneurs are certainly not rich people; 75% of all new businesses fail, i.e., never return what they cost to start.
Unions are good for everyone if the union leadership and corporate management don't act like a bunch of thuggish pissants and result in excluded-middle negotiation (strikes, lockouts, all-or-nothing arbitration), where the result is either a broken union or desperate management acquiescence to draconian and unnecessary union demands (like the inability to fire incompetent workers). It's a negotiation sytem. Think of the union as a company that services the management company's value-addition needs. The managers don't want you to think of it that way. They want you to think you owe them something so you'll do dangerous work for crappy pay. Unions should have the right to take the company away from incompetent owners and give it to new owners for the price of the depreciated plant and equipment.
The current attitude towards unions is testament to the ability of concentrated funds to buy PR to create public opinion that runs counter to reality.
Can I get an award for my bestselling book, _Zen and the Art of Time Machine Maintenance_, to be written in 2024?
No?
What kind of fans are you?
1. Money makes money. Lacking money makes more lack. The system as constituted must be managed by hand to reign in these two expansive forces. Otherwise, deserving people can end up with nothing, and undeserving people can end up with everything. And then hand it down to their kids, who never have to work for anything.
2. The middle class got theirs through work and smarts and care. The very rich got very lucky, and some of them now don't understand that their opportunity was given to them by the good graces of the work others did.
3. There is some evil inherent in a system where it behooves the corporation to try to take as much unfair advantage as it can of an individual who has an education in a skill but no education in negotiation tactics. There is a lot of evil inherent in a system where it behooves the corporation to maintain that educational focus, and keep individuals from building a power base to create enough excess capital of their own to hire a negotiating team.
The current problems weren't caused by little old ladies storing cash in their cookie jars. They were caused by plutocrats gaming the system to convince those little old ladies to take the money out of their cookie jars to be collected in banks which skim 80% or more of the actual profits of their investing of depositors' funds.
I'd be happy if we had a President who obeyed these laws.
It's funny watching the plutocrats in the audience abuse their political power by modding facts down to hide them.
It's just like real life.
1. Euros and Canucks get paid less than Americans do. And once the Rich get the clue, they'll move that capital to India and China, too.
2. Most of the poor don't suck at anything. But concentration of property rights and social contacts creates a higher hurdle for attaining wealth than many of the current wealthy families had.
3. Capitalism is good when it is regulated. Unfettered capitalism is like a car with a turbocharger, no brakes, and an eternal downhill slope. It tears itself to pieces every so often.
4. If we exile all the rich people but impound their wealth first and give it to a new class of people who HAVE A CLUE about the real value of capitalism, then our problem is solved. People absolutely are poor because rich people are exploiting them. Ask any corporate executive if he likes unions, and why. And don't take any emotional nonsense about "socialism"; ask about what would happen to his share of the revenue stream if the unions were busted.
Offshoring jobs increases the management/labor revenue split.
Isn't offshoring just a way to make the rich richer without regard for the American working class?
Isn't it evidence that the wealthy have no regard for those who must do work to stay alive?
Isn't it an utter repudiation of the widely held belief that concentration of capital is good for all of us?
Isn't it a strong reminder that the only thing that keeps capitalism alive is tolerance of the working man for the profligacy of the non-working class?
I'm no socialist, but I know a revolt when I see one coming. The rich in this country will be lucky if they aren't killed, cooked, and eaten before it's done.
So if AMD steals from Intel
If I'm buying a new chipset, I'm buying 802.11g and getting 5X the speed, not just 3X.
It's not a bunch of horseshit.
Do you think for one seconds that the people who own companies there care about trees?
People who care about anything don't build strip-malls.
If it wasn't for Liberal votes in the governments they answer to, they'd have mulched those oaks.
>You're obviously not a software engineer.
You obviously have a bad template for "software engineer".
>Throwing people at a late software project only makes it later.
Throwing people at a broken software project makes it later. Throwing people at a software project to get the rest of the features implemented makes it only as late as it would be in the first place.
And, if you know where to put the people (testing and requirements, not coding), you can add people to a late software project and improve its quality without making it later.
Cutting features from a software project makes it a different software project, and violates the requirements.
I want a computer case made by fusing the electronic components with a living starship.
Apparently, your link was cached on an Akamai server.
Akamai is mostly owned by Intel, afaik.
I only mentioned that for those who wanted to be mad at some other kneejerk-meme on this good Friday.