Bob Weir, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann were greedy because they felt the 50,000,000 per year that the band earned while Jerry Garcia was alive just wasn't enough to retire on. They threw a tantrum. Archive.org attempted to do what they though the Dead wanted and removed all the music.
John Perry Barlow, Phil Lesh and others disagreed, holding true to Garcia's attitude about trading. Live-recorded music (by fans) is restored to Archive.org; studio recordings are not.
Deadheads are freaking out and suffering from disillusionment. The question of whether the more pristine studio recordings should be allowed is not yet answered.
It's a little creature that you can make hop around and avoid enemies on three dimensional blocks on a relatively low-resolution screen. But that's not important right now....
American Express, I have found, is very aggressive on its customers behalf.
This is absolutely true, and it's the only reason why I continue to have (and use) an American Express card. They almost always act on behalf of the customer first and ask questions later.
What's wrong with believing that the "Intelligent Being" *designed* evolution?
That's not the source of contention. Almost everyone believes or can be easily convinced that organisms adapt (microevolution). The primary arguments are centered around macroevolution (monkey to man, etc) and differing timetables between evolution and creation. To make things a little more complicated, you'll also find a large number of Intelligent Design proponents who do not support creation in 6 days.
These ratings are no replacement for parenting. Instead of wasting time complaining, work a few more hours a week and donate the money to your church marketing fund.
While I agree with most of what you say, I fail to see how demanding accurate ratings is considered to be a replacement for parenting. Ratings are not a replacement for parenting. They are a much-needed tool. Parents ask for ratings on video games so that they can make better choices in what they let their children play. When those ratings do not live up to the standards most parents expect, the organization responsible for the ratings needs to be questioned. In this case, you have an organization (ESRB) that is largely composed of "self-policing" companies who have a vested interest in getting as many titles as possible into the largest target audience possible. This does not automatically make them "evil", but it does create a likelihood to try to balance the merits of sloppy rating (in order to get more titles to more audiences) against the inherent risks (forced government regulation). Self-policing organizations like this need enemies to continue to do their job effectively. Chances are, part of the "F" rating are due to the GTA-San Andreas Hot Coffee fiasco. In this case, I don't think ESRB is the guilty party -- Rockstar is. The ESRB rated the game AS THEY SAW IT, and when they were informed of the hidden Hot Coffee thing, they adjusted their rating appropriately. So if this is what the "F" was about, the NIMF was off base.
Your job as a parent is to be involved 100% in your child's life.
This is not possible, and every good parent knows it. The parent's job is to equip his or her child to make good decisions, and to provide some age-appropriate protection until the child reaches a point where they at least have the ability to do so (even if they don't always use it).
Try to live sin free, and stop forcing your child to be perfect if you are not perfect yourself.
I agree with trying to live sin-free, but bear in mind that most parents (including Christians) don't demand perfection from their children. They just demand that their children learn what is right and wrong (at least in the eyes of the parent). This is reinforced in a variety of ways that include both natural and artificial consequences. Whether they agree with the values of their parent is a decision that they will eventually make as they enter adulthood.
A significant number of the people clamouring for restrictions on porn do it based on arguments centered around morality, degradation or violence.
Probably true, but I haven't seen any statistics on this. Running counter to this is the fact that those jumping on the "porn isolation" bandwagon are from Oregon, where you are most likely to find the morality-centered argument. Either way, I feel that the most significant number of people just want to keep it out of their homes and away from their children (purely conjecture on my part).
If they believe porn to be degrading, morally reprehensible or cause increased violent behavior, why would they stop just because they were given "protection" for themselves?
Look at it this way... if you isolate the porn, you have two positive side effects. The first is that you remove the support of the people who are only trying to keep porn away from their children. The second is that you yank the legs out from under one of the best arguments of those who want to do away with porn completely. Somebody mentioned earlier that it would be great if the porn industry would do this voluntarily. I agree. That would keep additional laws from hitting the books while at the same time diminishing the perceived problem.
then the next thing you see will be all kinds of pressure groups pushing for ISP's to filter that port.
I'm sure you'll see some of this, but if you are going to write laws, why not write in that ISPs CANNOT provide a general filter, but that they can filter this port out for customers who ask for it. That way, the ISP can decide how they want to deal with this for dynamic IP addresses, or provide instructions for consumers to do it on their own.
I really have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I realize some of the difficulties with blocking unwanted porn (particularly from other countries), but outside of that, it really does help to isolate content that is likely generate high levels of objection to a section of cyberspace that is relatively easy to filter. This means that people who WANT to filter it can do it easily, and those who DON'T want to filter it will no longer have to worry about their ISP doing it against their will. The porn sites will not even have to give up existing functionality (as in moving to a.xxx domain) because they can just perform a redirect from their port 80 web site to port whatever, which won't work for people who don't want to see this kind of traffic. Look at it this way: every couple of years, there's another big legal push by activist groups to eliminate the porn or in some way subdue it. All of this would stop (or at least decrease significantly) if most porn were successfully channeled into a segment of the 'net that could easily be blocked by consumers who don't want it.
The microwave idea is *highly* inefficient and this article sounds like someone advertising for VC.
And you'll also notice that their "web site" is still under construction. It doesn't sound much like a well-established business that you can trust. If you're giong to pay off a periodical to advertise for you, you might as well spend a few extra hundred dollars to have a convincing web site ready....
Just to generate converstion... how would you feel about setting up.xxx as a domain name and REQUIRING all pornographic material to be confined to this domain? How do you think the porn industry would feel?
It's a relativelys small nuissance in the grand scheme of things where the average american car tends to start imploding at 60 thousand or so miles.
Dude, the 80s have been over for more than 10 years. While the average American car is not quite up to the standards of their Japanese counterparts, they don't typically start imploding at 60 thousand miles anymore, either. This is only anecdotal, but I have a 1989 Buick LeSabre with about 215,000 miles on it that I'm getting rid of this week. It still runs great, but didn't pass emissions inspection this year. We tried a few things, but it isn't worth the cost of comprehensive diagnostics to really find out what's wrong. During the life of the car, I spent less than $2000 for things other than normal maintenance. We also have a Ford with about 75,000 miles on it, and we haven't spent anything other than for normal maintenance. In fact, it has had less problems in 75,000 miles than my new Toyota with less than 15,000 miles.
Other than that, your argument is mostly valid, but the 7K pricetag is still a little high. $3500 or $4000 would be more palatable.
There's something wrong with the whole comment. It's not exactly a secret that the US social security system is essentially a Ponzi scheme and is in crisis.
It's not a secret, but you really ought to examine the situation in Germany. It is in far worse shape, but not as highly publicized.
The only way that scams will be unprofitable is when government stops "protecting" citizens and lets people learn to be aware of what they're buying.
Actually, the only way scams will stop is when the government stops "protecting" the scam artists. A couple high profile cases of citizens taking law into their own hands on a scammer and the government looking the other way would probably take care of most of the problem. Not that I advocate that sort of thing....
Re:Slightly incorrect research.
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
Other issue is that it does not compare apples to apples: most H1b are non-managerial positions with relatively low experience, while national average includes middle managers.
Except that the study compared both groups (H1B and non-H1B) with positions that seemed to be in the programmer role, not a management role. In fact, they compared all of the H1Bs that were either programmers or analysts as though they were merely programmers, to be as fair as possible. Or did I misunderstand the article??
Sorry for the late reply. I see that I appeared to be implying that MySQL is supported by SAP. It is not. However, the company MySQL AB is now responsible for MaxDB (which used to be ADABAS and was owned by SAP). SAP supports development in both MaxDB and MySQL. To the best of my knowledge, neither MySQL nor Postgres are officially supported by SAP at the moment. However, based on a MySQL press release, efforts are being made to develop a "next-generation" version of MySQL that I assume will be officially supported by SAP. As of today, MaxDB is the officially supported product for low-end installations, and for big enterprise installations, the cost of even Oracle is only a small fraction of the total costs involved. To be honest, the actual database used doesn't really matter that much (except in some very specific performance-oriented situations), as SAP has its own layer built on top of the database. It is extremely rare that you would access the database outside of SAP's compatibility layer.
Specifically, why is it that people turn to God for comfort after natural disasters, but seem unable to ask hard questions about why they're suffering from these "Acts of God" in the first place? And I agree; it's dumb. Millennia of apologists have come up with ever-more-baroque philosophical explanations for the Problem of Suffering (both natural and man-made) and not a single one of them has ever arrived at a convincing answer.
The explanation that makes the most sense is that bad things happen to everyone, regardless of what they believe or how good they are. Based on the Bible, if God really wants to eliminate the wicked, He does a pretty thorough job of it. Examples: Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the flood (Genesis 6-8), Jericho (Joshua 6). When God is punishing sinners, He general sends a warning first, so that there's no doubt about why things are happening (see pretty much everything that happened to Israel in the Old Testament). Therefore, anybody who wants to speculate about the nature of those who are suffering the hardships of hurricanes and tornados needs to take a closer look at the Bible. Although the people living in New Orleans, Texas and Mississipi may have done many things wrong, the hurricanes were not natural consequences (except possibly of pollution), and I doubt that they were the vengeance of God.
This is most likely the primary reason that Oracle made their move. SAP actively supports MySQL development, and promotes it (and naturally MaxDB) for use by customers who don't need huge enterprise-scale databases. Oracle and SAP are in fierce competition, and Oracle will most likely do anything they can to get in the way.
That way, clients get compensated for bad product, and developers pay premiums based on their history.
Yes, because this model has really worked well for both auto and medical malpractice insurance. Let's be realistic. If this actually worked well, people with long established safe driving records would have to pay almost nothing for liability insurance, and doctors would see their malpractice rates drop for every year they went without a malpractice suit. Obviously, that isn't happening.
I'm not saying one way or the other that it is, only if you're going to say that copyright infringement can not be equated to theft, then misuse of English certainly can not be equated to rape.
The important distinction here is that you don't have a powerful organization trying to convince the public that "raping" the English language is equivalent to raping a human being, and as such should be prosecuted with similar penalties. As long as the RIAA continues to push for tougher punishment for copyright infringement and as long as they continue to refer to it as theft, it is critical that the rest of us be adamant about destroying the illusion that would equate infringement of copyright with stealing. If for no reason other than matter of principle, nobody who feels the RIAA has overstepped all reasonable boundries should ever, under any circumstances, refer to copyright infringement as theft, or even accept such a definition from any other party. It is the duty of all who are opposed to the actions of the RIAA to literally sound like a broken record (pun intended) by repeating "It's not theft" over and over.
Has anybody noticed the cute little "advertisement-like" warnings against copyright infringement that are at the beginning of DVDs that you rent? They specifically refer to such violations as "theft." It would be interesting to see if the short clip they include could actually be considered an advertisement. If so, they could actually be sued for being untruthful in their advertising....
You are implying that her argument was dishonest. That isn't true. You might be able to argue "unethical," but not dishonesty.
That would be like arguing that not everyone who has potentially defective silicone-gel breast implants should have them removed - you've got to wait until they burst and you get all sorts of auto-immune diseases
Nice try. And what about the children? There's a HUGE difference. Silicone breast implants have known HEALTH risks. We're talking serious illness and death here. People with the implants were walking around with a time bomb in their chest that was just waiting for the right circumstances (which were never very clear) to go off. Those who were running DOS 6.0 could easily avoid injury by avoiding the compression feature. For those who never planned to use the compression feature, this was a non-issue.
Now, let me give you my full perspective. Microsoft SHOULD have provided the upgrade free of charge to anybody who wanted it. That's called good customer service. In a non-monopoly situation, they wouldn't have hesitated to provide the update. They probably balked most at the distribution costs. The fact that $10 is roughly what it would have cost them to develop the customer list and package and mail the update seems to provide evidence for this. The plaintiff's attorney was going for a money grab. He/she hoped for an easy case. Had they anticipated a more difficult case, they would have practiced due dilligence and actually established a class consisting of individuals or businesses who had truly suffered some damage (lost data or unable to use features they depended on). They probably knew that weeding through all potential parties wasn't going to be easy, and for only $10 each, most people weren't even going to bother responding.
Bear in mind that Harriet Miers was working for a law firm that was representing Microsoft. It was HER JOB to defend Microsoft. You can argue that she should have declined (assuming she really had the choice) if she felt it was unethical to do so. My guess is that she fully understood what the plaintiff's attorney was after (money), and so didn't see any conflicts with her own value system.
If you want to discredit Harriet, you're going to have a hard time. Even those who hate her most agree that she has done almost nothing that would prove her to be a poor choice, and in fact, that's the biggest thing she has going against her. She hasn't done much that would prove her to be a good choice, either. There is not really much information available to determine what kind of decisions she would make as a Supreme Court Justice.
What was she supposed to argue? "My client is guilty."?
And more importantly, if you read through other news articles about her, you'll see that many of her arguments are highly based on logic. In the mentioned Microsoft case, her argument was against the "class" that was chosen for the lawsuit. The plaintiffs chose everyone who bought DOS 6.0 as for the class, arguing that they had been harmed and shouldn't have to pay $10 for an upgrade. However, not everybody who bought the product was using, or intended to use the compression features, so it was difficult to justify including all of them in the class. Therefore, the class was decertified. The suit was dismissed and dropped because the lawyer representing the plaintiffs didn't want to bother with actually getting a more reasonable class determined for the suit.
Effective this week, the Universe will be officially renamed to "Googleverse". This is not just an effort to pay homage to Google, our new ruling class, but also to distinguish the Googleverse that we live in from other parallel universes.
Perfect summary. The only thing I would add is that I agree with the assessment on the communication abilities of Teaching Assistants. If they can't speak and understand English very very well, the university has no business providing them with an assistantship at the expense of those who are actually paying for their education. When I was in college, I dropped my class on semiconductor materials because the information was almost completely new to me and the TA who was teaching the class could barely speak any English at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I wish I could edit my posting to correct this.
Bob Weir, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann were greedy because they felt the 50,000,000 per year that the band earned while Jerry Garcia was alive just wasn't enough to retire on. They threw a tantrum. Archive.org attempted to do what they though the Dead wanted and removed all the music.
John Perry Barlow, Phil Lesh and others disagreed, holding true to Garcia's attitude about trading. Live-recorded music (by fans) is restored to Archive.org; studio recordings are not.
Deadheads are freaking out and suffering from disillusionment. The question of whether the more pristine studio recordings should be allowed is not yet answered.
It's a little creature that you can make hop around and avoid enemies on three dimensional blocks on a relatively low-resolution screen. But that's not important right now....
This is absolutely true, and it's the only reason why I continue to have (and use) an American Express card. They almost always act on behalf of the customer first and ask questions later.
That's not the source of contention. Almost everyone believes or can be easily convinced that organisms adapt (microevolution). The primary arguments are centered around macroevolution (monkey to man, etc) and differing timetables between evolution and creation. To make things a little more complicated, you'll also find a large number of Intelligent Design proponents who do not support creation in 6 days.
While I agree with most of what you say, I fail to see how demanding accurate ratings is considered to be a replacement for parenting. Ratings are not a replacement for parenting. They are a much-needed tool. Parents ask for ratings on video games so that they can make better choices in what they let their children play. When those ratings do not live up to the standards most parents expect, the organization responsible for the ratings needs to be questioned. In this case, you have an organization (ESRB) that is largely composed of "self-policing" companies who have a vested interest in getting as many titles as possible into the largest target audience possible. This does not automatically make them "evil", but it does create a likelihood to try to balance the merits of sloppy rating (in order to get more titles to more audiences) against the inherent risks (forced government regulation). Self-policing organizations like this need enemies to continue to do their job effectively. Chances are, part of the "F" rating are due to the GTA-San Andreas Hot Coffee fiasco. In this case, I don't think ESRB is the guilty party -- Rockstar is. The ESRB rated the game AS THEY SAW IT, and when they were informed of the hidden Hot Coffee thing, they adjusted their rating appropriately. So if this is what the "F" was about, the NIMF was off base.
Your job as a parent is to be involved 100% in your child's life.
This is not possible, and every good parent knows it. The parent's job is to equip his or her child to make good decisions, and to provide some age-appropriate protection until the child reaches a point where they at least have the ability to do so (even if they don't always use it).
Try to live sin free, and stop forcing your child to be perfect if you are not perfect yourself.
I agree with trying to live sin-free, but bear in mind that most parents (including Christians) don't demand perfection from their children. They just demand that their children learn what is right and wrong (at least in the eyes of the parent). This is reinforced in a variety of ways that include both natural and artificial consequences. Whether they agree with the values of their parent is a decision that they will eventually make as they enter adulthood.
Exactly how is this a threat? It's like terrorists threatening to take their ball and go home.
Probably true, but I haven't seen any statistics on this. Running counter to this is the fact that those jumping on the "porn isolation" bandwagon are from Oregon, where you are most likely to find the morality-centered argument. Either way, I feel that the most significant number of people just want to keep it out of their homes and away from their children (purely conjecture on my part).
If they believe porn to be degrading, morally reprehensible or cause increased violent behavior, why would they stop just because they were given "protection" for themselves?
Look at it this way ... if you isolate the porn, you have two positive side effects. The first is that you remove the support of the people who are only trying to keep porn away from their children. The second is that you yank the legs out from under one of the best arguments of those who want to do away with porn completely. Somebody mentioned earlier that it would be great if the porn industry would do this voluntarily. I agree. That would keep additional laws from hitting the books while at the same time diminishing the perceived problem.
I'm sure you'll see some of this, but if you are going to write laws, why not write in that ISPs CANNOT provide a general filter, but that they can filter this port out for customers who ask for it. That way, the ISP can decide how they want to deal with this for dynamic IP addresses, or provide instructions for consumers to do it on their own.
I really have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I realize some of the difficulties with blocking unwanted porn (particularly from other countries), but outside of that, it really does help to isolate content that is likely generate high levels of objection to a section of cyberspace that is relatively easy to filter. This means that people who WANT to filter it can do it easily, and those who DON'T want to filter it will no longer have to worry about their ISP doing it against their will. The porn sites will not even have to give up existing functionality (as in moving to a .xxx domain) because they can just perform a redirect from their port 80 web site to port whatever, which won't work for people who don't want to see this kind of traffic. Look at it this way: every couple of years, there's another big legal push by activist groups to eliminate the porn or in some way subdue it. All of this would stop (or at least decrease significantly) if most porn were successfully channeled into a segment of the 'net that could easily be blocked by consumers who don't want it.
And you'll also notice that their "web site" is still under construction. It doesn't sound much like a well-established business that you can trust. If you're giong to pay off a periodical to advertise for you, you might as well spend a few extra hundred dollars to have a convincing web site ready....
Just to generate converstion... how would you feel about setting up .xxx as a domain name and REQUIRING all pornographic material to be confined to this domain? How do you think the porn industry would feel?
Dude, the 80s have been over for more than 10 years. While the average American car is not quite up to the standards of their Japanese counterparts, they don't typically start imploding at 60 thousand miles anymore, either. This is only anecdotal, but I have a 1989 Buick LeSabre with about 215,000 miles on it that I'm getting rid of this week. It still runs great, but didn't pass emissions inspection this year. We tried a few things, but it isn't worth the cost of comprehensive diagnostics to really find out what's wrong. During the life of the car, I spent less than $2000 for things other than normal maintenance. We also have a Ford with about 75,000 miles on it, and we haven't spent anything other than for normal maintenance. In fact, it has had less problems in 75,000 miles than my new Toyota with less than 15,000 miles.
Other than that, your argument is mostly valid, but the 7K pricetag is still a little high. $3500 or $4000 would be more palatable.
It's not a secret, but you really ought to examine the situation in Germany. It is in far worse shape, but not as highly publicized.
Actually, the only way scams will stop is when the government stops "protecting" the scam artists. A couple high profile cases of citizens taking law into their own hands on a scammer and the government looking the other way would probably take care of most of the problem. Not that I advocate that sort of thing....
Except that the study compared both groups (H1B and non-H1B) with positions that seemed to be in the programmer role, not a management role. In fact, they compared all of the H1Bs that were either programmers or analysts as though they were merely programmers, to be as fair as possible. Or did I misunderstand the article??
Sorry for the late reply. I see that I appeared to be implying that MySQL is supported by SAP. It is not. However, the company MySQL AB is now responsible for MaxDB (which used to be ADABAS and was owned by SAP). SAP supports development in both MaxDB and MySQL. To the best of my knowledge, neither MySQL nor Postgres are officially supported by SAP at the moment. However, based on a MySQL press release, efforts are being made to develop a "next-generation" version of MySQL that I assume will be officially supported by SAP. As of today, MaxDB is the officially supported product for low-end installations, and for big enterprise installations, the cost of even Oracle is only a small fraction of the total costs involved. To be honest, the actual database used doesn't really matter that much (except in some very specific performance-oriented situations), as SAP has its own layer built on top of the database. It is extremely rare that you would access the database outside of SAP's compatibility layer.
The explanation that makes the most sense is that bad things happen to everyone, regardless of what they believe or how good they are. Based on the Bible, if God really wants to eliminate the wicked, He does a pretty thorough job of it. Examples: Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the flood (Genesis 6-8), Jericho (Joshua 6). When God is punishing sinners, He general sends a warning first, so that there's no doubt about why things are happening (see pretty much everything that happened to Israel in the Old Testament). Therefore, anybody who wants to speculate about the nature of those who are suffering the hardships of hurricanes and tornados needs to take a closer look at the Bible. Although the people living in New Orleans, Texas and Mississipi may have done many things wrong, the hurricanes were not natural consequences (except possibly of pollution), and I doubt that they were the vengeance of God.
This is most likely the primary reason that Oracle made their move. SAP actively supports MySQL development, and promotes it (and naturally MaxDB) for use by customers who don't need huge enterprise-scale databases. Oracle and SAP are in fierce competition, and Oracle will most likely do anything they can to get in the way.
Yes, because this model has really worked well for both auto and medical malpractice insurance. Let's be realistic. If this actually worked well, people with long established safe driving records would have to pay almost nothing for liability insurance, and doctors would see their malpractice rates drop for every year they went without a malpractice suit. Obviously, that isn't happening.
The important distinction here is that you don't have a powerful organization trying to convince the public that "raping" the English language is equivalent to raping a human being, and as such should be prosecuted with similar penalties. As long as the RIAA continues to push for tougher punishment for copyright infringement and as long as they continue to refer to it as theft, it is critical that the rest of us be adamant about destroying the illusion that would equate infringement of copyright with stealing. If for no reason other than matter of principle, nobody who feels the RIAA has overstepped all reasonable boundries should ever, under any circumstances, refer to copyright infringement as theft, or even accept such a definition from any other party. It is the duty of all who are opposed to the actions of the RIAA to literally sound like a broken record (pun intended) by repeating "It's not theft" over and over.
Has anybody noticed the cute little "advertisement-like" warnings against copyright infringement that are at the beginning of DVDs that you rent? They specifically refer to such violations as "theft." It would be interesting to see if the short clip they include could actually be considered an advertisement. If so, they could actually be sued for being untruthful in their advertising....
You are implying that her argument was dishonest. That isn't true. You might be able to argue "unethical," but not dishonesty.
That would be like arguing that not everyone who has potentially defective silicone-gel breast implants should have them removed - you've got to wait until they burst and you get all sorts of auto-immune diseases
Nice try. And what about the children? There's a HUGE difference. Silicone breast implants have known HEALTH risks. We're talking serious illness and death here. People with the implants were walking around with a time bomb in their chest that was just waiting for the right circumstances (which were never very clear) to go off. Those who were running DOS 6.0 could easily avoid injury by avoiding the compression feature. For those who never planned to use the compression feature, this was a non-issue.
Now, let me give you my full perspective. Microsoft SHOULD have provided the upgrade free of charge to anybody who wanted it. That's called good customer service. In a non-monopoly situation, they wouldn't have hesitated to provide the update. They probably balked most at the distribution costs. The fact that $10 is roughly what it would have cost them to develop the customer list and package and mail the update seems to provide evidence for this. The plaintiff's attorney was going for a money grab. He/she hoped for an easy case. Had they anticipated a more difficult case, they would have practiced due dilligence and actually established a class consisting of individuals or businesses who had truly suffered some damage (lost data or unable to use features they depended on). They probably knew that weeding through all potential parties wasn't going to be easy, and for only $10 each, most people weren't even going to bother responding.
Bear in mind that Harriet Miers was working for a law firm that was representing Microsoft. It was HER JOB to defend Microsoft. You can argue that she should have declined (assuming she really had the choice) if she felt it was unethical to do so. My guess is that she fully understood what the plaintiff's attorney was after (money), and so didn't see any conflicts with her own value system.
If you want to discredit Harriet, you're going to have a hard time. Even those who hate her most agree that she has done almost nothing that would prove her to be a poor choice, and in fact, that's the biggest thing she has going against her. She hasn't done much that would prove her to be a good choice, either. There is not really much information available to determine what kind of decisions she would make as a Supreme Court Justice.
And more importantly, if you read through other news articles about her, you'll see that many of her arguments are highly based on logic. In the mentioned Microsoft case, her argument was against the "class" that was chosen for the lawsuit. The plaintiffs chose everyone who bought DOS 6.0 as for the class, arguing that they had been harmed and shouldn't have to pay $10 for an upgrade. However, not everybody who bought the product was using, or intended to use the compression features, so it was difficult to justify including all of them in the class. Therefore, the class was decertified. The suit was dismissed and dropped because the lawyer representing the plaintiffs didn't want to bother with actually getting a more reasonable class determined for the suit.
Effective this week, the Universe will be officially renamed to "Googleverse". This is not just an effort to pay homage to Google, our new ruling class, but also to distinguish the Googleverse that we live in from other parallel universes.
Just curious... do you really think the resolution is bad? 800x600 in a 6" screen doesn't sound very bad to me, especially for new technology.
I think this epaper hooked up to phone concept has serious potential...
Agreed. The low power requirements for e-book type applications alone should make it ultimately very attractive.
Perfect summary. The only thing I would add is that I agree with the assessment on the communication abilities of Teaching Assistants. If they can't speak and understand English very very well, the university has no business providing them with an assistantship at the expense of those who are actually paying for their education. When I was in college, I dropped my class on semiconductor materials because the information was almost completely new to me and the TA who was teaching the class could barely speak any English at all.