I had the attention span to play through the entire game. I completed it
Hahaha sure you did. You mean you kept playing until the game stopped. Does anybody replaying it now even bother with the "final" battle? There's nothing interesting about it. You just keep running in circles around that wall until you can get in enough shots to kill the abominable snow man and make the credits start rolling. And the guy's too stupid to even know what's happening. He just stands there out in the open while Sarge weakens his shields. You'd think at least by the eight or ninth time it happened that it would occur to him to move out of the line of fire.
However, if you have one of the double-sided 5-1/4 drives in working condition ( I can't remember the number. It was FD something), I might be interested.
Heck, they hardly worked even back then. But they did hold a whopping 90K of data, if I remember right.
I take it by "arguing semantics" you mean responding to what you actually said? Essentially here's the way this thread went:
You: "The phone is subsidized."
Me: [explains why that's not a subsidy]
You: [Presents facts that have nothing to do with a subsidy.]
Me: [Points out that that's still not a subsidy]
You: "Well, if you want to argue semantics.
Now it seems you want to change your position to one that says "It's a very expensive phone."
Is the contract higher for an iPhone than for the same service on other phones? If not, the fact that it's more than a $500 outlay does nothing to support your position.
Ahh, no it's not. Cingular has a monopoly on something people want. So they want to extract the maximum they can. That has nothing to do with selling the phone below cost and recouping it on the contract.
I'm not saying that I know there's no subsidy. But what I am saying is that your link doesn't support your claim. It only supports the notion that they know they have people by the balls.
Then I suggest that the OED is wrong. "To game the system" is a common and not very new phrase. If people are using it, then that's what it means, irrespective of what the OED says.
His testimony in the Lindor case will wind up burying him in every case where the defendant has the ability to fight back, which sadly is almost never the case.
When this case is over would it be practical to create some sort of inexpensive "template" people could use in cases where this witness was involved?
This is a joke. More guilty people trying to get off the hook using slimy lawyers. and/. supports it.
Since you obviously have evidence for your well-considered conclusion, I don't see why you don't give the RIAA a call and offer your services. I suspect they'll be looking for someone pretty soon.
Am I the only one who does NOT despise Jacobson? I thought he held up fairly well in that deposition
Really? It's not like on Perry Mason or Matlock, where the witness breaks under the pressure and confesses. But short of that I don't see how an objective reader of the transcript could conclude that Jacobson is a qualified expert.
But he'll get another chance. On Monday he's being deposed in another case. Presumably he's had a chance to practice up a bit, so it will be interesting to see how that goes.
I couldn't determine whether or not Firefox is vulnerable or not.
Well that would depend on what's on the attacking page, wouldn't it? You can't simply say "this attack works only on X," because the attack can change at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is what's been known as F3, then the guy who wrote it has been posting some pretty impressive demos for a while now.
Hahaha sure you did. You mean you kept playing until the game stopped. Does anybody replaying it now even bother with the "final" battle? There's nothing interesting about it. You just keep running in circles around that wall until you can get in enough shots to kill the abominable snow man and make the credits start rolling. And the guy's too stupid to even know what's happening. He just stands there out in the open while Sarge weakens his shields. You'd think at least by the eight or ninth time it happened that it would occur to him to move out of the line of fire.
This is your problem. That is not what a subsidy is.
Heck, they hardly worked even back then. But they did hold a whopping 90K of data, if I remember right.
Are you saying he "owns" his name?
So then is it correct to infer that on some issues you may reject an otherwise reasonable position simply because it comes from the "wrong" party?
The article doesn't actually say it will be a computer. Maybe it's just a slab of wood or something.
You: "The phone is subsidized."
Me: [explains why that's not a subsidy]
You: [Presents facts that have nothing to do with a subsidy.]
Me: [Points out that that's still not a subsidy]
You: "Well, if you want to argue semantics.
Now it seems you want to change your position to one that says "It's a very expensive phone."
Well, duh.
I give up. None of what you're saying has anything to do with subsidies.
How many projects have you deployed using a framework?
It does say that they did their comparisons in 2006.
Is the contract higher for an iPhone than for the same service on other phones? If not, the fact that it's more than a $500 outlay does nothing to support your position.
Yes, and that's exactly the part you're not supplying. On what is your assertion based? There is no other price.
Ahh, no it's not. Cingular has a monopoly on something people want. So they want to extract the maximum they can. That has nothing to do with selling the phone below cost and recouping it on the contract.
I'm not saying that I know there's no subsidy. But what I am saying is that your link doesn't support your claim. It only supports the notion that they know they have people by the balls.
Then I suggest that the OED is wrong. "To game the system" is a common and not very new phrase. If people are using it, then that's what it means, irrespective of what the OED says.
Hey, that domain expires in a few days....
When this case is over would it be practical to create some sort of inexpensive "template" people could use in cases where this witness was involved?
Since you obviously have evidence for your well-considered conclusion, I don't see why you don't give the RIAA a call and offer your services. I suspect they'll be looking for someone pretty soon.
Really? It's not like on Perry Mason or Matlock, where the witness breaks under the pressure and confesses. But short of that I don't see how an objective reader of the transcript could conclude that Jacobson is a qualified expert.
But he'll get another chance. On Monday he's being deposed in another case. Presumably he's had a chance to practice up a bit, so it will be interesting to see how that goes.
Well that would depend on what's on the attacking page, wouldn't it? You can't simply say "this attack works only on X," because the attack can change at any time.
I don't think it's quite so easy. You figure out how to do that reliably and I'll bet you've got a job waiting for you at Google.
I see. So it has some special meaning. I thought it was like an "all new" TV episode, said as if most of the time they contained some old parts.
It seems to me that if a slashdot reader doesn't know who Feynman was, well, then they're in the wrong place.
I never quite understood that term. Aren't all bags pretty much "bags of holding"?
That's from the book Into The Wormhole, by Hugo Furst. Please try to keep your facts straight.
ok, cue the list of corny Title/Author jokes.