"Moon" means the same as "satellite," which both mean "object that orbits a planet." That waning crescent in the sky is a natural satellite. Hubble is an artificial moon.
Something that doesn't orbit a planet is neither a moon nor a satellite. If it orbits the sun and is of reasonable size, you can call it a "planet," or maybe "planetoid."
We don't call Voyager or Pioneer "satellites" for a reason.
"What are some of the bureaucratic black arts that you've performed in your workplace to work around the office politics and get your work done on time and to a high standard?".50 caliber automated sentry guns.
Re:I know it's covered in the FAQ, but still...
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 1
The fewer used discs sold, the less likely someone is going to buy a new disc they won't be able to get rid of later. You're still indirectly supporting Fox by maintaining demand.
Re:I know it's covered in the FAQ, but still...
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 1
"Which is what all of us really want, you dumbass!"
No, what I really want is to see Serenety lapse into the public domain after 28 years. What I really want is a Congress that isn't full of IP bitches that pass stuff like the DMCA. And if giving $1 to Joss Whedon means giving $5 to Universal Studios and continuing the status quo, Joss ain't getting any of my money.
As far as I'm concerned, if he wants my money, it's on him to find an alternate (and less odious) channel.
Re:I know it's covered in the FAQ, but still...
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 1
"Keep artists that don't suck in business."
I have a decent CD and DVD collection, I just make sure to look at who published the disc before I spend money on it.
Ultimatley, I have my priorities. I feel that both my rights under the United States Constitution (particularly free speech and due process) and my control over my elected officials is more important than somebody else's livelihood. As such, my desire to not give Universal or Fox any money outweighs my desire to give some to Joss Whedon.
But neither should any organization that gives countries with anti-speech policies such as the People's Republic of China or Saudia Arabia an equal voice as the United States.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of "No international organization should oversee the internet," it's "That internatinal organization shouldn't oversee the internet."
Any body that controls a communications medium should take into account a member's interest in controlling that communication. Perhaps some sort of weighted voting system that takes into account a nation's number of anti-speech arrests and/or prosecutions per 1000 citizens (and yes, I would include DMCA action). Simply handing out an even vote for anybody that happens to have a flag would be a mistake.
"They could at least port the SNES version of Dragon Warrior III to the GBA."
They already ported it to the Game Boy Color.
At any rate, there's always hope for the Revolution's online service for English translations of all the DQ Remix titles, and I seem to recall mention of the ability to download games onto the DS.
"I really don't want the internet to become another great cockup of the least organized, least effective polital body that has ever existed."
Have you looked at the United States Congress lately?
Or maybe the problem is that Congress is too effective. After all, consider the amount of internet control it's granted to the MPAA and RIAA. As far as I'm concerned as a US citizen, we're talking about the internet controlled by a body I have no electoral control over, or the internet controlled by a body I have no electoral control over. I'm not particularly fond of either poison.
I know it's covered in the FAQ, but still...
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
"Go out and watch the movie this weekend "
And support all those MPAA lawsuits you keep hearing about on Slashdot! Nothing gets people to stop what they're doing by giving them more money!
I'd like to see the movie. I'd really like to see the movie. But I'm not supporting an MPAA member. I haven't even bought the Firefly DVDs for the same reason.
If you're pissed at somebody, y'all should try showing it for once.
Ah, but 2.0 was the first firmware that had other reasons to upgrade beyond "Because Sony wants you to." How many more times can Sony come out with a "killer firmware app" before they run out of flash space?
Parent was flamebait for assuming the ROMs played were downloaded off of the internet. Many devices are available for dumping SNES and Genesis carts (among others) on your own, and while I admit I've only used my PSP for emulation, I have never done anything that would violate copyright laws in the United States.
Actually, IIRC, the buffer overflow on the Xbox was only done by purists who neither wanted to chip their Xboxes and/or use software written with an illegal copy of the Xbox dev kit. Because the other two options were easier, the overflow wasn't the preferred method.
"We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title."
Come on! Have you seen Congress' definition of "interstate commerce" lately? They won't change the law to fit the title, they'd simly modify the title to be sufficiently vague. "The Act to Protect Our Children." "The Child Protection Act." "The Protection of Children Act." "The Protection Act for Children." "The Feinstein-Hollings Child Protection Act."
"A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator"
And neither the power to veto nor to introduce legislation make him a "de facto legislator?" And let's not forget the fact that the other named member of the executive has an occasional vote. Ever wonder why there's no admonishment in the federal constitution that the three branches of the federal government shall be separate even though such a provision was in most state constitutions at the time?
After all, look at all the executive power given to the Senate, such as oversight on all executive appointments and treaties. Heck, they even have judicial powers during impeachments.
"they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill "
Can't work so long as we have a Twelfth Amendment. Separate tickets for president and vice president means that you don't get to run for president unless you have very strong connections with the people who decides who runs for which office: the political parties. If you complain about your own party's pork you may not make the ballot next year. Complain about the other party's pork and you come off as needlessly partisan.
And the bully pulpit has its limits. With the Twelfth Amendment and winner-takes-all on the exeuctive's side, and the Seventeenth Amendment and single-seat-districts on the legislature's side, both sides have the illusion of a public mandate, each saying "The majority of the people like us, therefore the majority of the people must like what I'm about to do." With both branches operating under something vaguely resembling direct elections, everybody has equal claim to "working for the people."
And then there's the matter of vote buying. Pork not only helps get legislators get re-elected, but the president can take equal credit and get a few more votes to swing his way (or at least toward the incumbent's party).
Using the "bully pulpit" is ultimately damaging for all the politicians ("Can't they all just get along and run the country already?"). The line item veto allows for pork to disappear as quietly as it was inserted.
A constitutional amendment through Congress. Except you'd need 2/3 majorities in each house, from the people responsible for the pork to begin with. Write your congresscritters, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
A constitutional convention. Except that the last time we had a convention to amdend the constitution, we eneded up with a new constitution outright. Blue states will worry about religious rights, red states about gun rights, and there's no way in Hell 3/4 of them are going to to agree to give each other that kind of power. The last time anybody tried doing something that even vaguely resembled a constitutional convention, nobody would touch it with a three-meter pole. Google for "conference of the states" and Utah.
The Constitution was written in plain language so that things like that can be interpreted with a minimum application of common sense.
"It says here in the Constitution 'Congress shall not,' but they just did. The Constitution also says 'I'm the supreme law of the land.' Who's job is it to decide whether a law agrees with the Constitution?" It was either that or the state courts (look up "state nullification").
The real problem is that the federal government has been expanded as far as common sense can allow, yet the people we like to put into office want it expanded even further (without going that pesky amendment process). "It says 'Congress regulates interstate commerce,' so we can make a federal law banning the sale and consumption of marijuana even if it doesn't cross state lines." "It says 'Congress can raise an army,' so we can forcibly conscript people into the federal army." "It says 'for a limited time,' so we can just extend the term of copyrights to more than a century so long as there's techincally a limit."
Why? Because we obviously want it. Just look at the poll numbers.
"Either that or his ex-girlfriends must have been really monstrous."
Dude, the closest thing we have to "attractive guy" here on Slashdot is freakin' Wil Wheaton. Assuming the poster has even had girlfriends, what do you think they were like? Supermodels?:)
" I have a better, more proven technology that will foil hijack attempts.
A lock."
I will kill one passenger every minute until you open this door. Slowly, so you can hear their screams of agony through the locked door as I do it.
Most hijackers aren't interested in martyrdom (which is why there was cooperation with the hijackers on 9/11) and may not intend to kill all of the passengers unless the crew is uncooperative. Would you be willing to take that chance and have that hanging over your conscience?
Slashdot Mirror
Local governments don't like it when eminent domain abuse isn't in their favor?
"Mike Brown, who discovered it"
Brownie is doing a heck of a job!
"Moon" means the same as "satellite," which both mean "object that orbits a planet." That waning crescent in the sky is a natural satellite. Hubble is an artificial moon.
Something that doesn't orbit a planet is neither a moon nor a satellite. If it orbits the sun and is of reasonable size, you can call it a "planet," or maybe "planetoid."
We don't call Voyager or Pioneer "satellites" for a reason.
Politics is the world's second-oldest profession, and is closely related to the first.
"What are some of the bureaucratic black arts that you've performed in your workplace to work around the office politics and get your work done on time and to a high standard?" .50 caliber automated sentry guns.
The fewer used discs sold, the less likely someone is going to buy a new disc they won't be able to get rid of later. You're still indirectly supporting Fox by maintaining demand.
"Which is what all of us really want, you dumbass!"
No, what I really want is to see Serenety lapse into the public domain after 28 years. What I really want is a Congress that isn't full of IP bitches that pass stuff like the DMCA. And if giving $1 to Joss Whedon means giving $5 to Universal Studios and continuing the status quo, Joss ain't getting any of my money.
As far as I'm concerned, if he wants my money, it's on him to find an alternate (and less odious) channel.
"Keep artists that don't suck in business."
I have a decent CD and DVD collection, I just make sure to look at who published the disc before I spend money on it.
Ultimatley, I have my priorities. I feel that both my rights under the United States Constitution (particularly free speech and due process) and my control over my elected officials is more important than somebody else's livelihood. As such, my desire to not give Universal or Fox any money outweighs my desire to give some to Joss Whedon.
"No single country should. That's the point."
But neither should any organization that gives countries with anti-speech policies such as the People's Republic of China or Saudia Arabia an equal voice as the United States.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of "No international organization should oversee the internet," it's "That internatinal organization shouldn't oversee the internet."
Any body that controls a communications medium should take into account a member's interest in controlling that communication. Perhaps some sort of weighted voting system that takes into account a nation's number of anti-speech arrests and/or prosecutions per 1000 citizens (and yes, I would include DMCA action). Simply handing out an even vote for anybody that happens to have a flag would be a mistake.
"They could at least port the SNES version of Dragon Warrior III to the GBA."
They already ported it to the Game Boy Color.
At any rate, there's always hope for the Revolution's online service for English translations of all the DQ Remix titles, and I seem to recall mention of the ability to download games onto the DS.
Were any chairs thrown?
"I really don't want the internet to become another great cockup of the least organized, least effective polital body that has ever existed."
Have you looked at the United States Congress lately?
Or maybe the problem is that Congress is too effective. After all, consider the amount of internet control it's granted to the MPAA and RIAA. As far as I'm concerned as a US citizen, we're talking about the internet controlled by a body I have no electoral control over, or the internet controlled by a body I have no electoral control over. I'm not particularly fond of either poison.
Obviously he's talking about Jovian days! Duh!
"Go out and watch the movie this weekend "
And support all those MPAA lawsuits you keep hearing about on Slashdot! Nothing gets people to stop what they're doing by giving them more money!
I'd like to see the movie. I'd really like to see the movie. But I'm not supporting an MPAA member. I haven't even bought the Firefly DVDs for the same reason.
If you're pissed at somebody, y'all should try showing it for once.
See point 2. The only way to amend the constitution outside of Congress is through a convention.
"It didn't take long until they patched 1.50."
Ah, but 2.0 was the first firmware that had other reasons to upgrade beyond "Because Sony wants you to." How many more times can Sony come out with a "killer firmware app" before they run out of flash space?
Parent was flamebait for assuming the ROMs played were downloaded off of the internet. Many devices are available for dumping SNES and Genesis carts (among others) on your own, and while I admit I've only used my PSP for emulation, I have never done anything that would violate copyright laws in the United States.
Actually, IIRC, the buffer overflow on the Xbox was only done by purists who neither wanted to chip their Xboxes and/or use software written with an illegal copy of the Xbox dev kit. Because the other two options were easier, the overflow wasn't the preferred method.
"We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title."
Come on! Have you seen Congress' definition of "interstate commerce" lately? They won't change the law to fit the title, they'd simly modify the title to be sufficiently vague. "The Act to Protect Our Children." "The Child Protection Act." "The Protection of Children Act." "The Protection Act for Children." "The Feinstein-Hollings Child Protection Act."
"A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator"
And neither the power to veto nor to introduce legislation make him a "de facto legislator?" And let's not forget the fact that the other named member of the executive has an occasional vote. Ever wonder why there's no admonishment in the federal constitution that the three branches of the federal government shall be separate even though such a provision was in most state constitutions at the time?
After all, look at all the executive power given to the Senate, such as oversight on all executive appointments and treaties. Heck, they even have judicial powers during impeachments.
"they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill "
Can't work so long as we have a Twelfth Amendment. Separate tickets for president and vice president means that you don't get to run for president unless you have very strong connections with the people who decides who runs for which office: the political parties. If you complain about your own party's pork you may not make the ballot next year. Complain about the other party's pork and you come off as needlessly partisan.
And the bully pulpit has its limits. With the Twelfth Amendment and winner-takes-all on the exeuctive's side, and the Seventeenth Amendment and single-seat-districts on the legislature's side, both sides have the illusion of a public mandate, each saying "The majority of the people like us, therefore the majority of the people must like what I'm about to do." With both branches operating under something vaguely resembling direct elections, everybody has equal claim to "working for the people."
And then there's the matter of vote buying. Pork not only helps get legislators get re-elected, but the president can take equal credit and get a few more votes to swing his way (or at least toward the incumbent's party).
Using the "bully pulpit" is ultimately damaging for all the politicians ("Can't they all just get along and run the country already?"). The line item veto allows for pork to disappear as quietly as it was inserted.
The Constitution was written in plain language so that things like that can be interpreted with a minimum application of common sense.
"It says here in the Constitution 'Congress shall not,' but they just did. The Constitution also says 'I'm the supreme law of the land.' Who's job is it to decide whether a law agrees with the Constitution?" It was either that or the state courts (look up "state nullification").
The real problem is that the federal government has been expanded as far as common sense can allow, yet the people we like to put into office want it expanded even further (without going that pesky amendment process). "It says 'Congress regulates interstate commerce,' so we can make a federal law banning the sale and consumption of marijuana even if it doesn't cross state lines." "It says 'Congress can raise an army,' so we can forcibly conscript people into the federal army." "It says 'for a limited time,' so we can just extend the term of copyrights to more than a century so long as there's techincally a limit."
Why? Because we obviously want it. Just look at the poll numbers.
"Either that or his ex-girlfriends must have been really monstrous."
:)
Dude, the closest thing we have to "attractive guy" here on Slashdot is freakin' Wil Wheaton. Assuming the poster has even had girlfriends, what do you think they were like? Supermodels?
" I have a better, more proven technology that will foil hijack attempts.
A lock."
I will kill one passenger every minute until you open this door. Slowly, so you can hear their screams of agony through the locked door as I do it.
Most hijackers aren't interested in martyrdom (which is why there was cooperation with the hijackers on 9/11) and may not intend to kill all of the passengers unless the crew is uncooperative. Would you be willing to take that chance and have that hanging over your conscience?
"the project to integrate its calendar application Sunbird with its email application Thunderbird."
Obviously they should acll it "Mozilla Spacellama."
Oh, wait, that's their browser...