And what do you think it is that the Electoral College does? I'm putting my money on "votes for a president."
To be completely correct, the United States vote for a president and vice-president and occasionally to ratify amendments to our constitution. None the less you are entirely wrong in disagreeing with me.
If you are truly an attorney, I'd be wary of employing your services as you seem unable to distinguish between something being done and how something is done.
Err, no. The United States of America votes for a president. That's pretty much it. All other votes are state level or county level. The people in California don't get to vote for the Sheriff of Prince Georges County Virginia. And the people of New York State don't get to vote for the Senator from Idaho.
Why don't you disagree with what I wrote instead of your moronic interpretation of what I wrote?
You say that science "doesn't claim that it has" explained the origin of the universe. That is my exact point. Science and Religion are not "100% incompatible" as the source post of this sub-thread claims. The very bedrock of science is nothing but pure faith. Science does not preclude this statement:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Additionally, the scientific method is also pure faith. The faith is that things are repeatable. Anything that you just have to accept because you cannot apply the scientific method, is an exercise in faith. When you wrote:
"And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist."
You may as well have written:
"God made the fundamental forces."
The point of science and religion isn't to say "something is", it's to explain why. Until you can explain why, then it might as well be magic.
Because at the root, science is based on faith. Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe. It cannot explain the four forces. It cannot explain time. All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause. For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.
You do realize that Mr. Carlin isn't an academic? I know plenty of engineers, doctors, lawyers who don't publish in academic journals. Do you know why that is? Because they are active practitioners doing the jobs they have trained to do. Mr. Carlin's report was not new science. New research isn't even the EPA's role. His report was a summary of papers counter to the holy scripture put forth by the political hacks running the show, political hacks in an agency that isn't supposed to be political. In fact he cites court cases that specifically state the EPA is supposed to be providing information on all of the positions around an issue. Not just the positions that support the executive branch's agenda.
So, how about, instead of the piss poor ad hominem hatchet job on this guy -- who is doing the job he is supposed to be doing -- why don't you explain why the EPA is failing to do its duty?
Actually, on item 1 I'd go along with you as long as you change it to you can donate to anyone who can vote on legislation that will affect you. I mean if the Senator from New Mexico gets to vote on a law regulating ocean fishing, it's only fair that residents of coastal states should have some small amount of influence in the senator's race for office.
On item 2, that really is just dumb. If there are three candidates running for office, one a democrat, one a republican and the other the nambla candidate, I may have a much larger desire for the pedophile not to get elected than I do for either of the others to be elected.
You just don't get it. Your opinion of a particular business practice don't automatically equate to abuse. That some business uses a mass market model while you want a personal service model, that isn't abuse. The fact that you seem to think it is, that just means you're an entitlement minded child. Being an asshole doesn't make you a consumer rights freedom fighter, it just shows you to a dickhead.
If you don't like a company's practices, if you want them to deprive them of your custom, then don't do business with them. That is entirely your right. But going into their place of business and shitting on people is not.
Here is some advice your parents should have taught you long ago: If you treat people civilly, they will treat you the same and will go out of their way to help you. Screaming and crying and throwing a tantrum doesn't endear you to people.
When a business that I attempt to patronize has a stupid/unfair/wrong policy and tries to do the "sorry, it's just corporate policy...nothing I can do" dance to shuffle me out the door, I make as big a stink and cause as much of a problem for every level of staff as I possibly legally can until the problem is resolved to my satisfaction, and make sure as many other customers as possible hear every word.
Wow. What a wanker. And stupid. And immature. And unrealistic. I can't believe how much of a dirt bag you are. And a putz. And ignorant.
What do you think I'm out of line? I'm flaming you? No, I'm just making as big a stink of your stupid/unfair/wrong policy as I can.
It sounds like you want personalized, private attention with custom agreements at a mass market price point. Why don't you just spine up and pay for the personal attention rather than just whine about it? No one is required to operate their business under model that you think they should.
Customers donâ(TM)t walk into retail stores to please the staff and give them a job; no, they walk in to be pleased BY THE STAFF by plunking down good money and â" GASP! â" BUYING STUFF FROM THE STORE!!!!
You do realize that no one is required to provide you service in the manner you desire? Sure, they can't refuse to sell you a cell phone because you are a "slanty-eyed gook", but they don't have to put on a French maid outfit and kiss your ass either.
The issue is that litigation costs are high enough that getting over the cost-benefit point would be pretty painful for your average American. Even in a really simple case, say your boss decides not to pay you for a month's work. To litigate you might run up $10,000 in costs. If you aren't making $240,000/yr you'll have no affordable recourse. Or someone smashes into your parked car and totals it. Or the banister of your stairway collapses and you fall and break your arm.
Having the system work, even for low cost items, is a good thing.
Tough shit. If they want damages for each and every song in her folder, they have to give her the chance to defend against that.
They certainly could have gone for each song. But that would put an undue burden on the court. The final award wasn't for thousands of songs, it was for twenty four at the level of intentional copyright violations. So she gets the "I'm a greedy, amoral bitch" fine.
Thomas was certainly painted as a victim in media coverage, (rightly so, yes) and the idea that ANY song is worth 80,000$ for being stolen in ANY form is pretty ludicrous and now widely acknowledged as such.
I don't think you make any sense here. If I understand your position correctly it is this:
1) Person A can get thousands(*) of items that each normally cost $0.99 without paying. Also Person A shares those thousands of items with all comers. 2) People B -- who would normally be paid -- should have to spend thousands of dollars to take Person A to court. 3) Person A should then be able to claim innocence in court -- while lying, destroying evidence, etc. 4) The jury finds person A liable. 5) Finally People B should be paid $0.99 per item, for a grand total of $23.76.
Sorry, but the system won't work under your fantasy rules.
* - Yes, she had thousands of songs in her kazaa share folder. They just chose 24 specific examples in order to keep things manageable in court.
Now, I have a big problem with this, because it robbed me of a great 'teachable moment' for my kids... a chance to talk about the fact that just fifty years ago that sort of thing was perfectly acceptable and accepted, and why it was wrong.
For the rest of your post, I am simply too lazy to prove you wrong. For a beer each I could fiddle out those that were confirmed to lead to data loss, including unrecoverable data loss, as I mentioned in my post.
This is what the world commonly calls fud. And the appropriate response is put up or shut up.
Those exist in four-fold. Why? It seems the consistency of blocks on the drive being guaranteed, the layer of actually having the links to those correct data is more vulnerable. Think of a pool: if you jank the structure of a pool by janking a USB, you have 100% correct data (contrary to any other file system, I agree), but alas no more structured access to reassemble them (compared to inodes).
I have no idea what filesystem you are talking about, but it's not ZFS. Every time a txg is committed, the entire on disk structure is completely valid. The "USB problem" (also shared by some of the SIL controllers) is that the device reports the I/O as complete when it's not, then when the device finally gets around to actually writing the blocks to nonvolatile storage, it can be done out of order. At which point you're fubared neither your metadata or data can be said to be correct, and the same problem exists for all filesystems. The only reason UFS descended and inspired filesystems can be partially recovered is because they have a fixed on disk structure, which ZFS, JFS, VXFS don't have. (On the other hand ZFS, JFS, VXFS won't ever run out of inodes on you.)
Not being able to use crappy hardware, but getting full checksums, snapshots, ssd backed intent logs and l2arc -- that's a trade off I'm gleeful to accept.
Allowing a system admin to invalidate recent uberblocks is one of the tasks currently on Jeff B.'s list. Along with the block rewriter which is going to make a slew of other features possible (pool shrinking, hierarchical storage, etc.)
As far as a single bit flip leading to an unusable pool, I'd like to see a repeatable example. The architecture of ZFS is such that that shouldn't be possible. Even with the implementation bug in the fletcher checksum algorithms, ZFS can detect all single bit errors and through mirroring, parity or ditto blocks, can correct such errors.
I've followed the zfs lists for a while and the only legit complaints that I've come across are issues with zil/slog failures (a failed log device will prevent import of an otherwise valid pool) and the underlying support needed to fix that issue was recently committed to the repository. All the other issues appear to be education problems, like the guy who considered an unmount the same as an export, or defective hardware that doesn't do what it says it does. The file system that can survive active sabotage doesn't exist and never will, and intentional or not, these two cases fall into that kind of category.
I think Google's relying on a technicality, but it's a significant one. In this case Google isn't the creator of the library, they received it from it's creator. So either it's creator could grant them an LGPL 2.1-compatible patent license, or the library can be distributed without a license, or it's creator couldn't have legally distributed the library to them.
You're confused. The author of the product doesn't have to abide by the license, they own the copyright and can do anything they want. The LGPL doesn't apply to them. It's perfectly legit for them to say, "hey, here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder."
As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place, there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research. Not as safe as having a license, but better than selling a blue-ray player without one. Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof (ie. they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them.)
Slashdot Mirror
And what do you think it is that the Electoral College does? I'm putting my money on "votes for a president."
To be completely correct, the United States vote for a president and vice-president and occasionally to ratify amendments to our constitution. None the less you are entirely wrong in disagreeing with me.
If you are truly an attorney, I'd be wary of employing your services as you seem unable to distinguish between something being done and how something is done.
Err, no. The United States of America votes for a president. That's pretty much it. All other votes are state level or county level. The people in California don't get to vote for the Sheriff of Prince Georges County Virginia. And the people of New York State don't get to vote for the Senator from Idaho.
Other than this:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf
We are all Rasputin now.
Except that there is no requirement that a jpeg be encoded in YCbCr. Lossless jpeg is a totally separate mode of encoding. See faq entry.
Except for Lossless JPEG standardized in 1993. But other than that, no there is no lossless jpeg.
A psychiatrist or psychologist? Cause one of them has a medical degree and the other doesn't.
How can you write that? The underlying assumptions of the big bang are no less faith based than the sky fairy on a six-day creation tour.
Why don't you disagree with what I wrote instead of your moronic interpretation of what I wrote?
You say that science "doesn't claim that it has" explained the origin of the universe. That is my exact point. Science and Religion are not "100% incompatible" as the source post of this sub-thread claims. The very bedrock of science is nothing but pure faith. Science does not preclude this statement:
Additionally, the scientific method is also pure faith. The faith is that things are repeatable. Anything that you just have to accept because you cannot apply the scientific method, is an exercise in faith. When you wrote:
You may as well have written:
The point of science and religion isn't to say "something is", it's to explain why. Until you can explain why, then it might as well be magic.
Because at the root, science is based on faith. Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe. It cannot explain the four forces. It cannot explain time. All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause. For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.
You do realize that Mr. Carlin isn't an academic? I know plenty of engineers, doctors, lawyers who don't publish in academic journals. Do you know why that is? Because they are active practitioners doing the jobs they have trained to do. Mr. Carlin's report was not new science. New research isn't even the EPA's role. His report was a summary of papers counter to the holy scripture put forth by the political hacks running the show, political hacks in an agency that isn't supposed to be political. In fact he cites court cases that specifically state the EPA is supposed to be providing information on all of the positions around an issue. Not just the positions that support the executive branch's agenda.
So, how about, instead of the piss poor ad hominem hatchet job on this guy -- who is doing the job he is supposed to be doing -- why don't you explain why the EPA is failing to do its duty?
Well that is just... broken?... dumb?
Actually, on item 1 I'd go along with you as long as you change it to you can donate to anyone who can vote on legislation that will affect you. I mean if the Senator from New Mexico gets to vote on a law regulating ocean fishing, it's only fair that residents of coastal states should have some small amount of influence in the senator's race for office.
On item 2, that really is just dumb. If there are three candidates running for office, one a democrat, one a republican and the other the nambla candidate, I may have a much larger desire for the pedophile not to get elected than I do for either of the others to be elected.
You just don't get it. Your opinion of a particular business practice don't automatically equate to abuse. That some business uses a mass market model while you want a personal service model, that isn't abuse. The fact that you seem to think it is, that just means you're an entitlement minded child. Being an asshole doesn't make you a consumer rights freedom fighter, it just shows you to a dickhead.
If you don't like a company's practices, if you want them to deprive them of your custom, then don't do business with them. That is entirely your right. But going into their place of business and shitting on people is not.
Here is some advice your parents should have taught you long ago: If you treat people civilly, they will treat you the same and will go out of their way to help you. Screaming and crying and throwing a tantrum doesn't endear you to people.
Wow. What a wanker. And stupid. And immature. And unrealistic. I can't believe how much of a dirt bag you are. And a putz. And ignorant.
What do you think I'm out of line? I'm flaming you? No, I'm just making as big a stink of your stupid/unfair/wrong policy as I can.
It sounds like you want personalized, private attention with custom agreements at a mass market price point. Why don't you just spine up and pay for the personal attention rather than just whine about it? No one is required to operate their business under model that you think they should.
You do realize that no one is required to provide you service in the manner you desire? Sure, they can't refuse to sell you a cell phone because you are a "slanty-eyed gook", but they don't have to put on a French maid outfit and kiss your ass either.
The issue is that litigation costs are high enough that getting over the cost-benefit point would be pretty painful for your average American. Even in a really simple case, say your boss decides not to pay you for a month's work. To litigate you might run up $10,000 in costs. If you aren't making $240,000/yr you'll have no affordable recourse. Or someone smashes into your parked car and totals it. Or the banister of your stairway collapses and you fall and break your arm.
Having the system work, even for low cost items, is a good thing.
They certainly could have gone for each song. But that would put an undue burden on the court. The final award wasn't for thousands of songs, it was for twenty four at the level of intentional copyright violations. So she gets the "I'm a greedy, amoral bitch" fine.
I don't think you make any sense here. If I understand your position correctly it is this:
1) Person A can get thousands(*) of items that each normally cost $0.99 without paying. Also Person A shares those thousands of items with all comers.
2) People B -- who would normally be paid -- should have to spend thousands of dollars to take Person A to court.
3) Person A should then be able to claim innocence in court -- while lying, destroying evidence, etc.
4) The jury finds person A liable.
5) Finally People B should be paid $0.99 per item, for a grand total of $23.76.
Sorry, but the system won't work under your fantasy rules.
* - Yes, she had thousands of songs in her kazaa share folder. They just chose 24 specific examples in order to keep things manageable in court.
Just go rent "White Chicks" and teach away.
There is no browser market. They are free. Anyone trying to sell a browser is SOL.
This is what the world commonly calls fud. And the appropriate response is put up or shut up.
I have no idea what filesystem you are talking about, but it's not ZFS. Every time a txg is committed, the entire on disk structure is completely valid. The "USB problem" (also shared by some of the SIL controllers) is that the device reports the I/O as complete when it's not, then when the device finally gets around to actually writing the blocks to nonvolatile storage, it can be done out of order. At which point you're fubared neither your metadata or data can be said to be correct, and the same problem exists for all filesystems. The only reason UFS descended and inspired filesystems can be partially recovered is because they have a fixed on disk structure, which ZFS, JFS, VXFS don't have. (On the other hand ZFS, JFS, VXFS won't ever run out of inodes on you.)
Not being able to use crappy hardware, but getting full checksums, snapshots, ssd backed intent logs and l2arc -- that's a trade off I'm gleeful to accept.
Allowing a system admin to invalidate recent uberblocks is one of the tasks currently on Jeff B.'s list. Along with the block rewriter which is going to make a slew of other features possible (pool shrinking, hierarchical storage, etc.)
As far as a single bit flip leading to an unusable pool, I'd like to see a repeatable example. The architecture of ZFS is such that that shouldn't be possible. Even with the implementation bug in the fletcher checksum algorithms, ZFS can detect all single bit errors and through mirroring, parity or ditto blocks, can correct such errors.
I've followed the zfs lists for a while and the only legit complaints that I've come across are issues with zil/slog failures (a failed log device will prevent import of an otherwise valid pool) and the underlying support needed to fix that issue was recently committed to the repository. All the other issues appear to be education problems, like the guy who considered an unmount the same as an export, or defective hardware that doesn't do what it says it does. The file system that can survive active sabotage doesn't exist and never will, and intentional or not, these two cases fall into that kind of category.
Control of case sensitivity is built into ZFS:
-bash-3.2$ zfs get 2>&1 | grep case
casesensitivity NO YES sensitive | insensitive | mixed
They included it so that CIFS could behave as expected.
You're confused. The author of the product doesn't have to abide by the license, they own the copyright and can do anything they want. The LGPL doesn't apply to them. It's perfectly legit for them to say, "hey, here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder."
As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place, there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research. Not as safe as having a license, but better than selling a blue-ray player without one. Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof (ie. they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them.)
We already do. They're called the NSA.