Well, it's patented. Find the patent, and that will tell you how it's done. As for scaling, I certainly don't see why it wouldn't. Judging from the article, it (or something like it) does.
First off, I have nothing against Debian, and I don't advocate any changes to it's development model. I just can't abide baseless slander such as what you have posted.
You have just described RedHat. No thanks.
Yikes. This is so wrong. First, RHEL 4 comes on 4 CDs, not one or two. Second, many packages supplied by RH are patched so far that the original developers won't provide support on the mailing lists (Squid, OpenLDAP for concrete examples). Others are maintained by RedHat, which either makes them massively patched, or not patched at all. Neither of the points given really apply to RedHat.
I would rather have Debian release schedules, but have all the packages that are in it. Most of the sysadmins out there who deploy debian do it exactly because "Resistance is futile, you shall be packaged" and because "apt-get install light" works 99.99% of the time.
I'd bet that most of the sysadmins who prefer Debian do so because it's what they are familiar and comfortable with it...such as yourself.
As a result there is a working platform on which to build services and commercial software regardless of what insane libraries your developers have chosen this time. Whatever it is, it can be apt-get installed. In the very rare cases you sometimes have to backport a version from testing, but someone has already solved most of the dependencies for you.
Trying something similar with RedHat quickly brings you into the land of RPM hell. I always love watching sysadmins suffering while trying to support development in a RedHat shop (especially where developers have su/sudo access). It is immensely entertaining to watch the network fall apart and be reduced to a random collection of machines all different from each other and each in its own circle of the RPM hell none being able to produce a release build.
Am I to take it that you are saying Debian based systems are immune to this? Not so much the RPM hell (duh, Debian doesn't use RPMs), but the random collection of machines all different from each other even though the developers have root access? How, pray tell, do you manage that? Block access to the apt repositories?
So from the perspective of someone who has been running Debian driven networks for 6+ years and with 5+ years of supporting Debian as a base for commercial development I can say - no thank you, you misunderstood what brings most sysadmins to Debian. It is the best *nix development platform out there.
First, what does System Administration have to do with developing software? A Sysadmin's job is keeping the boxes running, not crafting applications to run on them. If a system admin WERE to develop software, perhaps he wouldn't use libraries that require such acrobatics his box is endangered? Second, big commercial software developers seem to disagree with you. For example, BEA, BMC Software, Hyperion, IBM, Sybase and Symantec, Lyris, VMWare, Oracle, and Elluminate. These are just software products that either I deal with on a regular basis or came up with in a quick search.
Why, if Debian is the best development platform in existance, would that be the case? Debian Stable changes at least as infrequently as RHEL, so it shouldn't be a matter of code stability.
Perhaps your dealings with RedHat based distributions have been less than plesant, but if you want commercial application support, it's either RH or SUSE. Tools for dealing with RPMs have advanced quite a bit in the last 5 years, and FWIW, I have no problems getting a bo
The Rotating House(TM) rotates a full 360 around a central core of plumbing and electricals.
It sounds like the plumbing doesn't turn. This is entirely possible in a single unit dwelling. You can't do that for a 200 unit building, unless you want to have common washroom and kitchen facilities on each floor. Guess again. Now, you may wonder (because everyone does): How do you get plumbing and electricity -- pipes and wires -- into a rotating house? Al designed a swivel in the middle of the house, so the plumbing and electricity rotate, too.
Different rotating house, but I'd bet the principals are the same. Besides, if the plumbing didn't rotate, that would necessitate your kitchen, bath and laundry facilities wouldn't rotate either. That wouldn't be much of a rotating house.
Once the plumbing and electricity are within the main structure, it would be a simple matter to break them out to the individual units (as would be done in a conventional multi-unit housing structure).
I hope it rotates only 180 degrees (or less) then rotates back. Rigging plumbing, sewage, power, cable, phone, etc for full 360 degree rotation will be tricky. Those problems have been solved already. At least on a smaller scale (single unit dwelling).
Perhaps the cusomters find more value in a Windows host than a Linux host?
While a Cadillac Escalade certainly doesn't cost significantly more to produce than the Chevy Suburban it's based on, it manages to command a significant price premium. Cost does not dictate price.
Slashdot is part of the Internet's Yin. Look through the past stories and make a tally of how many ideas and gadgets are met with antipathy and disdain versus how many garner acclaim. You might be surprised.
I only noticed this characteristic after something that I have some connection to was treated with the scorn-stick.
Welcome to Slashdot. Leave your sensitivity at the door.
Um... Alaska is a red state. Stevens is a Republican, and a seriously long time incumbent. Amusingly enough, he not initially voted in to his Senate seat. See the Wikipedia for more details.
The Alaska Republican Party's platform (those parts that they stick to, at least) put a positive spin on the crap that they pull.
Stevens is known to be very powerful in the Senate ("Dances with Bottomless War Chest"). Despite Alaska's low population (let alone population density), it makes you wonder how it happens...unless you know about this:
Stevens is powerful in the Senate because he has been there a LONG time (37 years). Former Senator Frank Murkowski was in office for 21 years (then he effectively claimed the Govenorship, and apponted his daughter to his Senate seat). Representitive Don Young has been in office for 33. It has nothing to do with oil revenue, and all to do with term in office.
I don't know if this is still the practice, but in college (early 80s), my roommate and his brother were from Juneau|Douglas, AK.[1] When it came time to memorialize the Sinking of the Titanic (IRS - April 15), it turned out they didn't have to pay state taxes. Instead, they were the recipients of oil rebate checks; in essence, profit-sharing. I think they were receiving [at least] $1'500/year [each].
The fourth result on a Google search for "alaska oil money" would get you to http://www.apfc.org/theapfc/faq.cfm, where you could read all about these "oil" checks" (it's called the Permanent Fund Dividend), how it was created and how much is distributed on a yearly basis. FWIW, oil revenues are a very small part of the Fund any more, and only five of the 23 dividend checks have breached $1,500 (1998-2002). In the early 80's they were closer to $500 (not counting the first, at $1,000).
You build and sell houses. Somebody invents a magical device to copy your houses and build them at no cost, and then gives them away for free. Does that interfere with your ability to sell the houses that you have built?
I'm going to answer your rhetorical question. Yes. Obviously it does. But the person who created the magical device is obviously putting more value into society than I am. He has found a far more efficient method of building houses. Assuming that his method is not stealing the resources (and I do mean stealing in the sense of depriving someone else of them), more power to him. Looks like I might need to adapt. Perhaps there will be those who value a hand built house more than a "magicly" made one (look at the cost of Amish hand made furniture versus machine built for an example). Perhaps I can continue to build houses and even charge more for them...
Or, more to your point: somebody duplicates your house next door. When it's time to move, they sell it for far less than you paid for yours. Your other neighbors who copied your house do the same -- after all, they got their house for free. Does that diminish the value of your home? Absolutely.
By the same respects, the next house I'll buy is going to cost much less (or be free). Sure I have incurred a net financial loss (the money I invested in purchasing the house in the first place), but the value of the house to me has not dropped at all (it is still home, sweet home). By the same respects, such a shift in the value of the housing market (a very different beast from entertainment) would have a profound effect on the economy. This is really where that analogy falls apart.
In any case, I have a job. I get paid for the work that I do. I would feel guilty holding my past work ransom. It's just who I am. As such I don't understand how someone else feels no guilt (quite the opposite in some cases) at doing so.
Poets, novelists and musicians pretty much have the lowest per capita income. It is far, far, far easier to make a decent living as a house painter or as a plumber. This is why copyright exists: to incent people to participate in a profession that largely pays shit, but has the potential to improve society. That "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" sort of stuff. This is what many laws do: they address inequities if the value to society makes it worth it.
That's all well and good, and a choice that each of us has to make. I can see granting a limited monoploly on the work to promote the creation of more work as a compromise... But how does that excuse passing the benefits to those that had no part in the creation of the enrichment? How does that justify a perpetual reward for a fixed amount of work?
If you truly believe that this is unfair -- if you think that artists are mooches and don't deserve to have their rights respected -- you can conduct a thought experiment. Rewind your way back to the time you were 18. Would you have rather have taken the path of trying to make a living as a composer, songwriter, author or poet? Making enough money off of your ideas to support yourself and your family? Or, do you think it was a safer -- and ultimately more lucrative -- choice to follow the path you have?
I have no artistic talent. I can't draw my way out of a paper bag, I can't carry a tune worth a spit, when I see a block of wood, I don't see the scupture within, I see a bock of wood. There was never any question of which path I was going to take. I'm also a bit risk adverse, so I didn't become an investment banker either. But I do a little trading as a hobby. Do you see a parallel?
The funny thing is I'm paid for my mind and my ingenuity. I do make money off my ideas as a problem solver (at its most basic level). Just not perpetually. I have to continue to solve problems to be paid. *shrug*
First off, thanks for the reply. I get the distinct impression that we are on opposite sides of the fence and will never see eye to eye on this issue. Your taking the time to reply and keeping a civil tone with someone who poses a question that might seem threatening speaks volumes of your character. Anyway, on to the discussion...
Because its my creation. Why should Bill Gates 'mooch off' his millions of dollars he has in the bank every year? Why should office workers mooch off their salary? To me, this line of questioning is just as assinine as yours. I create something, I control it. It doesn't matter if it can be duplicated -- in fact, it makes it all the more morally right for me to control if it can be copied.
He didn't create the money in the bank. He created something of value (to someone) and was paid for it. He got paid for the perceived value he added. If he stopped adding that value, he would stop getting paid. Now he has enough money that he can invest it in other venues that add value, and claim some of the reward for that added value, but that is neither here nor there. It's the same thing for office workers. They stop adding value they stop getting paid. Let's say I'm a psychologist. I create contentment (if I'm any good). Do I get to control the level of contentment in the people I treat after I'm done treating them? I created it (it wasn't there before I did my work). Is it not mine?
If I build a house and sold it, I got paid and thus no longer need to get paid for someone admiring my house. You pay me upfront for a song what I think its worth and I'll sell it to you wholesale. I've done this a few times. I had a song I worked on that ended up on an aging pop singers album a few years back -- the guy wanted his grandson to get some writing credit even though he did absolutely nothing. I told the guy that I'd just sell it outright as opposed to waiting around for the royalties (which anyone in the music industry knows the songwritting credit is where the money comes from). The singer agreed and cut a check and we signed over all rights to him and his grandson.
No problems here. This is really how I feel it should work. You created something, you got paid for your work. As a painter, or a sculptor you charge admission to view your work. As a singer you hold concerts. As a songwriter, you write music for singers to sing.
Oh yeah -- if I were a plumber, I wouldn't install residential toilets -- I'd buy a storefront and set up the cleanest pay toilets downtown and charge everyone $10 a plop.
And if you found that people were not willing to pay this much, would you complain about the fact that you couldn't make a living at it?
Or I'd just put in toilets as normal plumbers do and be happy that I had a decent job that didn't worry about going out of style and that I was pretty much guarenteed a specific amount of money a year that was well above the nations average. Being a plumber is a lot less of a crapshoot than being a musician...
I imagine the pun was unintentional. In any case, this is simply not true. If you are a good plumber, then people will continue to call on your services. If you are a good artist, people will continue to call on your services. If your plumbing skills are sub-par, you are likely not going to be able to make a living at it*. Same thing for an artist. If nobody likes your work enough to make it worth your while to continue to produce it, why should you continue to get paid for the work that you did in the past? The biggest difference I see is the potential glamor of being a big name artist means there is a glut of supply there. Contrast the number of people who wish to be a rock star as a career, versus the number of people who dream of being a plumber.
I still feel my question is left unanswered. Where does this sense of entitlement to be paid for past work come in?
Personally, I think copyright should be perpetual as long as someone decided to will on the ownership it and folks paid to keep it current in the copyright system. Why? Because as an artist, if I create something, you should not take enjoyment or admiration of my piece to meaning that you now own a piece of my property. Lot of people like my house -- should it revert to my neighbors just because they like what I own? Some of them think so and have acted upon these beliefs.
Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?
Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?
This is not intended as a flame. I seriously want to know, from someone who feels this entitlement, where do you draw the line? How can you make these comparisons with a straight face?
To paraphrase the story, speakers in the Senate (and the House for that matter) quite often don't know what they are talking about and frequently engage in hyperbole. There's a shocker.
Yeah, it's off topic. Misinformation needs to be stopped, irrespecive of the cost.
Actually Freon is just a trademark (of Dupont) the refers to a number of different chemical compounds commonly used as refrigerants. R12 is the Ozone destroying compound formerly known as Freon. R134a is the "new" Freon, and does not share the ozone depeting characteristics of R12. The downside is that R134a is reported to not cool as well as R12.
It therefore takes light approximately 250ms to make a round trip.
You also have the round trip of reply packet to consider, so double that to 500ms. Then you have to add the normal internet latency, so say on average the lag will be about 550ms to 650ms.
hrmm you forgot to double it once again... you->Sat Sat->Target (There) Magical Internet Lag Target->sat Sat->you (back)
each trip adding about 250 you say...
useing your math ur looking at about 1000+the Internet
You seem to have mis-interpreted statements made above.
you->Sat Sat->Target is one "round trip" (Earth to bird to Earth), or about 250ms. Target->Sat Sat->you is another "round trip".
Add in internet latency and 550 to 650ms is very realistic:
[admin admin]$ ping -c4 slashdot.org PING slashdot.org (66.35.250.150): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=640.5 ms 64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms 64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms 64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms
--- slashdot.org ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 640.5/640.9/641.1 ms
One might think that the extraordinary (and IMO ridiculous) efforts society puts into ensuring no one's widdle feewings are hurt might help people believe they are in fact worthwhile humans
OTOH, perhaps putting so much focus on keeping peoples' feelings from being hurt puts a lot of focus on things that might (without this focus) go unnoticed, but (with the focus) are blown out of proportion and (ironically) cause said feelings to be hurt (not always in the "intended"* direction). Further, perhaps this process was not fully unintended. Who is more likely to pursue happiness via exercising their wallets, the secure and happy or the insecure and want-to-fit-in crowd.
Heh. I seem to be wearing a tin-foil hat today.
* The use of intended here indicates that the original (perceived) slight may not offend the parties that the slight is "aimed" at (e.g. those offended by the use of the term "gay" to denounce something as uncool are, often, not homosexual).
Well, it was the paleontologist (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/quotes - search for "movement") in the story that expressed the movement vision theory, and he did so before he was even aware of Jurassic Park's existance.
Sure it might have been a plot point (it allowed the kids and the paleontologist get away), but I can't possibly see what it had to do with the amphibious DNA.
An important distinction to make is that debit cards don't offer the protections that credit cards do. If someone makes a fradulent purchase with your debit card (using it as a "Visa" card), you don't get the opportunity to dispute it.
ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.
For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's patented. Find the patent, and that will tell you how it's done. As for scaling, I certainly don't see why it wouldn't. Judging from the article, it (or something like it) does.
You have just described RedHat. No thanks.
Yikes. This is so wrong. First, RHEL 4 comes on 4 CDs, not one or two. Second, many packages supplied by RH are patched so far that the original developers won't provide support on the mailing lists (Squid, OpenLDAP for concrete examples). Others are maintained by RedHat, which either makes them massively patched, or not patched at all. Neither of the points given really apply to RedHat.
I would rather have Debian release schedules, but have all the packages that are in it. Most of the sysadmins out there who deploy debian do it exactly because "Resistance is futile, you shall be packaged" and because "apt-get install light" works 99.99% of the time.
I'd bet that most of the sysadmins who prefer Debian do so because it's what they are familiar and comfortable with it...such as yourself.
As a result there is a working platform on which to build services and commercial software regardless of what insane libraries your developers have chosen this time. Whatever it is, it can be apt-get installed. In the very rare cases you sometimes have to backport a version from testing, but someone has already solved most of the dependencies for you.
Trying something similar with RedHat quickly brings you into the land of RPM hell. I always love watching sysadmins suffering while trying to support development in a RedHat shop (especially where developers have su/sudo access). It is immensely entertaining to watch the network fall apart and be reduced to a random collection of machines all different from each other and each in its own circle of the RPM hell none being able to produce a release build.
Am I to take it that you are saying Debian based systems are immune to this? Not so much the RPM hell (duh, Debian doesn't use RPMs), but the random collection of machines all different from each other even though the developers have root access? How, pray tell, do you manage that? Block access to the apt repositories?
So from the perspective of someone who has been running Debian driven networks for 6+ years and with 5+ years of supporting Debian as a base for commercial development I can say - no thank you, you misunderstood what brings most sysadmins to Debian. It is the best *nix development platform out there.
First, what does System Administration have to do with developing software? A Sysadmin's job is keeping the boxes running, not crafting applications to run on them. If a system admin WERE to develop software, perhaps he wouldn't use libraries that require such acrobatics his box is endangered? Second, big commercial software developers seem to disagree with you. For example, BEA, BMC Software, Hyperion, IBM, Sybase and Symantec, Lyris, VMWare, Oracle, and Elluminate. These are just software products that either I deal with on a regular basis or came up with in a quick search.
Why, if Debian is the best development platform in existance, would that be the case? Debian Stable changes at least as infrequently as RHEL, so it shouldn't be a matter of code stability.
Perhaps your dealings with RedHat based distributions have been less than plesant, but if you want commercial application support, it's either RH or SUSE. Tools for dealing with RPMs have advanced quite a bit in the last 5 years, and FWIW, I have no problems getting a bo
It sounds like the plumbing doesn't turn. This is entirely possible in a single unit dwelling. You can't do that for a 200 unit building, unless you want to have common washroom and kitchen facilities on each floor. Guess again.
Now, you may wonder (because everyone does): How do you get plumbing and electricity -- pipes and wires -- into a rotating house? Al designed a swivel in the middle of the house, so the plumbing and electricity rotate, too.
Different rotating house, but I'd bet the principals are the same. Besides, if the plumbing didn't rotate, that would necessitate your kitchen, bath and laundry facilities wouldn't rotate either. That wouldn't be much of a rotating house.
Once the plumbing and electricity are within the main structure, it would be a simple matter to break them out to the individual units (as would be done in a conventional multi-unit housing structure).
Next time you'll know: Bring your beverage in a Beer Belly. Planes are even mentioned on the Use It page.
Perhaps the cusomters find more value in a Windows host than a Linux host?
While a Cadillac Escalade certainly doesn't cost significantly more to produce than the Chevy Suburban it's based on, it manages to command a significant price premium. Cost does not dictate price.
*shrug*
Slashdot is part of the Internet's Yin. Look through the past stories and make a tally of how many ideas and gadgets are met with antipathy and disdain versus how many garner acclaim. You might be surprised.
I only noticed this characteristic after something that I have some connection to was treated with the scorn-stick.
Welcome to Slashdot. Leave your sensitivity at the door.
Um... Alaska is a red state. Stevens is a Republican, and a seriously long time incumbent. Amusingly enough, he not initially voted in to his Senate seat. See the Wikipedia for more details.
The Alaska Republican Party's platform (those parts that they stick to, at least) put a positive spin on the crap that they pull.
Stevens is powerful in the Senate because he has been there a LONG time (37 years). Former Senator Frank Murkowski was in office for 21 years (then he effectively claimed the Govenorship, and apponted his daughter to his Senate seat). Representitive Don Young has been in office for 33. It has nothing to do with oil revenue, and all to do with term in office.
The fourth result on a Google search for "alaska oil money" would get you to http://www.apfc.org/theapfc/faq.cfm, where you could read all about these "oil" checks" (it's called the Permanent Fund Dividend), how it was created and how much is distributed on a yearly basis. FWIW, oil revenues are a very small part of the Fund any more, and only five of the 23 dividend checks have breached $1,500 (1998-2002). In the early 80's they were closer to $500 (not counting the first, at $1,000).
I'm going to answer your rhetorical question. Yes. Obviously it does. But the person who created the magical device is obviously putting more value into society than I am. He has found a far more efficient method of building houses. Assuming that his method is not stealing the resources (and I do mean stealing in the sense of depriving someone else of them), more power to him. Looks like I might need to adapt. Perhaps there will be those who value a hand built house more than a "magicly" made one (look at the cost of Amish hand made furniture versus machine built for an example). Perhaps I can continue to build houses and even charge more for them...
By the same respects, the next house I'll buy is going to cost much less (or be free). Sure I have incurred a net financial loss (the money I invested in purchasing the house in the first place), but the value of the house to me has not dropped at all (it is still home, sweet home). By the same respects, such a shift in the value of the housing market (a very different beast from entertainment) would have a profound effect on the economy. This is really where that analogy falls apart.
In any case, I have a job. I get paid for the work that I do. I would feel guilty holding my past work ransom. It's just who I am. As such I don't understand how someone else feels no guilt (quite the opposite in some cases) at doing so.
That's all well and good, and a choice that each of us has to make. I can see granting a limited monoploly on the work to promote the creation of more work as a compromise... But how does that excuse passing the benefits to those that had no part in the creation of the enrichment? How does that justify a perpetual reward for a fixed amount of work?
I have no artistic talent. I can't draw my way out of a paper bag, I can't carry a tune worth a spit, when I see a block of wood, I don't see the scupture within, I see a bock of wood. There was never any question of which path I was going to take. I'm also a bit risk adverse, so I didn't become an investment banker either. But I do a little trading as a hobby. Do you see a parallel?
The funny thing is I'm paid for my mind and my ingenuity. I do make money off my ideas as a problem solver (at its most basic level). Just not perpetually. I have to continue to solve problems to be paid. *shrug*
He didn't create the money in the bank. He created something of value (to someone) and was paid for it. He got paid for the perceived value he added. If he stopped adding that value, he would stop getting paid. Now he has enough money that he can invest it in other venues that add value, and claim some of the reward for that added value, but that is neither here nor there. It's the same thing for office workers. They stop adding value they stop getting paid. Let's say I'm a psychologist. I create contentment (if I'm any good). Do I get to control the level of contentment in the people I treat after I'm done treating them? I created it (it wasn't there before I did my work). Is it not mine?
No problems here. This is really how I feel it should work. You created something, you got paid for your work. As a painter, or a sculptor you charge admission to view your work. As a singer you hold concerts. As a songwriter, you write music for singers to sing.
And if you found that people were not willing to pay this much, would you complain about the fact that you couldn't make a living at it?
I imagine the pun was unintentional. In any case, this is simply not true. If you are a good plumber, then people will continue to call on your services. If you are a good artist, people will continue to call on your services. If your plumbing skills are sub-par, you are likely not going to be able to make a living at it*. Same thing for an artist. If nobody likes your work enough to make it worth your while to continue to produce it, why should you continue to get paid for the work that you did in the past? The biggest difference I see is the potential glamor of being a big name artist means there is a glut of supply there. Contrast the number of people who wish to be a rock star as a career, versus the number of people who dream of being a plumber.
I still feel my question is left unanswered. Where does this sense of entitlement to be paid for past work come in?
Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?
Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?
This is not intended as a flame. I seriously want to know, from someone who feels this entitlement, where do you draw the line? How can you make these comparisons with a straight face?
Rouge Squadron? Is that the one where you apply make-up in a group?
Use your email instead...
http://www.efax.com/ for example. Search for "fax gateway" for more details.
Even more FYI...
e ctor4.htm
Though movies are shot at 24 fps, each frame is lit twice:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-proj
Lots of misinformation on this one...
p -7062460c.html
Here's rebuttle from a (biased the other direction) source:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/knik/story/7153327
To paraphrase the story, speakers in the Senate (and the House for that matter) quite often don't know what they are talking about and frequently engage in hyperbole. There's a shocker.
Yeah, it's off topic. Misinformation needs to be stopped, irrespecive of the cost.
Actually Freon is just a trademark (of Dupont) the refers to a number of different chemical compounds commonly used as refrigerants. R12 is the Ozone destroying compound formerly known as Freon. R134a is the "new" Freon, and does not share the ozone depeting characteristics of R12. The downside is that R134a is reported to not cool as well as R12.
R12's manufature is banned. Not its use.
To paraphrase 2Nu's DDS Blues:
"No brag, just fact security and alarm company's motto: The only decision you'll have to make is who'll go in after the lion in the morning"
you->Sat Sat->Target is one "round trip" (Earth to bird to Earth), or about 250ms.
Target->Sat Sat->you is another "round trip".
Add in internet latency and 550 to 650ms is very realistic:
[admin admin]$ ping -c4 slashdot.org
PING slashdot.org (66.35.250.150): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=640.5 ms
64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms
64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms
64 bytes from 66.35.250.150: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=641.1 ms
--- slashdot.org ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 640.5/640.9/641.1 ms
This ping passed through Galaxy 10R.
I belive the official term is Sluggite ...
The wheels are not moving. compare and contrast.
Aside from the position of the shadow those two pictures are identical.
A Google search would have served you better:
4 8&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1-800-328-74
OTOH, perhaps putting so much focus on keeping peoples' feelings from being hurt puts a lot of focus on things that might (without this focus) go unnoticed, but (with the focus) are blown out of proportion and (ironically) cause said feelings to be hurt (not always in the "intended"* direction). Further, perhaps this process was not fully unintended. Who is more likely to pursue happiness via exercising their wallets, the secure and happy or the insecure and want-to-fit-in crowd.
Heh. I seem to be wearing a tin-foil hat today.
* The use of intended here indicates that the original (perceived) slight may not offend the parties that the slight is "aimed" at (e.g. those offended by the use of the term "gay" to denounce something as uncool are, often, not homosexual).
Well, it was the paleontologist (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/quotes - search for "movement") in the story that expressed the movement vision theory, and he did so before he was even aware of Jurassic Park's existance.
Sure it might have been a plot point (it allowed the kids and the paleontologist get away), but I can't possibly see what it had to do with the amphibious DNA.
This is incorrect. From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/atmcar
ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.
For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.