so the theory is that these pages, which contain things spoken in public like transcripts and stuff, are published on the web (not only by the white house I'd imagine, probably by a lot of groups) - but really the pages are hidden because, you know, they're in the robots.txt
That's the theory? or did I miss something?
"publish this stuff on the web site, but uh, make sure people can't find it" "in that case, how about if I just don't publish it?" "no no, we want people to find it." "so why hide it?" "my god man, do you know what would happen if people find this?"
the issue of relevancy all depends on how it's phrased. If you just say "please let us see who paid the 50mil. We'd just really like to know" then yeah, I think the judge will say that's irrelevant. But what if they did it this way:
your honor, as we've shown with this other evidence, plaintiff's claims are clearly frivolous. There is one further piece of evidence that would absolutely prove the claims are frivolous - if we could show that a large corporation who has stated that Linux is its only real competitor was a major financial backer of SCO, then SCO's motivations would be obvious and I think you could just through the suit out.
These event handlers and interpretations of parameters were programmed in specifically, they are not an artifact of some grander scheme or natural phenomena. Clearly, the designers had the idea of a window opening up behind it in mind at the time the language specification was designed.
Yep. you just nailed it. These guys patented the use of a javascript function that some other programmer actually wrote. I'm shocked that the X-10 lawyers couldn't win this case. All they had to do was print that function on a large board and set it up in front of the court.
X10 lawyer: "can you tell the court when you invented this function?" Lawsuit Guy: uh, well I didn't invent it, it's just part of javascript, but... X10 lawyer: I see. Well, then you have used it in an inovative way? You've used it for something that no one else has? Lawsuit Guy: I used it to make a window go behind another window X10 lawyer: What's the purpose of the function? Lawsuit Guy: To make a window go behind another window X10 lawyer: So you used a function that someone else wrote - and you used it for the exact purpose it was written for? Lawsuit Guy: uh, yeah. X10 lawyer: and then you got a patent for that? Lawsuit Guy: uh, yeah.
typical slashdot sarcastic response. Try actually thinking about what he said. The fact is that the concorde had an excellent safety record. Only one ever crashed and that was because of a flat tire. In spite of that, they grounded the whole fleet for several months. You can't say that wasn't an overreaction. I think it was very similar to the Hindenburg or the Titanic.
I was going to say the same thing. What games benifit from multiple monitors? Flight sims are the only thing I can think of and I can tell you from experience there that your frame rates will drop dramatically (unless maybe your second card is a top of the line - mine is an old PCI card and it's unusable for flight sims)
At work though, it's amazing how useful it is to have a reference document open in another monitor. I can glance at database schema or class hierarchies without having to alt-tab or whatever.
But, I dual boot into debian and I've never managed to get the second monitor working in X. sigh.
And considering the how much electronics have shrunk in the past 40 years, they won't need to put so much weight into orbit, or they could use that weight for more passengers or supplies.
What percentage of the mass of a spaceship is tied up in computers? Not much I imagine. If the Apollo computers were 10 kilos (I have no idea, this is just an example) and you can shrink that to 3 kilos it's not such a big deal considering you still need the same amount of fuel and supplies.
Now advances in materials science might make a big difference.
"National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations."
Basically, each country defines it however they want to. So, if you say "any person who does not own a private jet is poor" you will get a much higher percentage than 17%, but what does that mean? When compared to the rest of the world, even people that we in the West call "poor" are doing very well.
I have been to more than a dozen countries on four continents and my personal opinion is that there are no poor people in Europe or the US. Really. People do not die of starvation in Europe or the US. People are not left to bleed to death or die of simple infections here. I've seen people literally living in shit. I'm not exaggerating. They fertilize rice patties with human feces in places like China. My wife was born in a small village in Hubei. They literally live in shit. In the USA on the other hand, there are people with two TVs, a car, an education, and all the food that they can eat, who we call poor.
Am I suggesting that all is rosy and there are no problems? No. We can always do better to help people, but I am saying that we do a pretty good job already. That's just my opinion.
Re:Imagine RFID type tags in bullets TAGGANTS!
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
but how long does walmart keep the video on file? That's an awful lot of data. There are a dozen or more checkout lanes in a super walmart and the video from each lane over a 24-hour period had got to be several hundred gig. Multiply that by the number of wal-marts in the country and you're looking at multiple terrabytes per day. I just find it hard to believe that they keep all that data let alone transmit it all to a central location.
I'm sure they keep the reciepts, but the video too? Come on.
3. They know that being rich is pretty meaningless if you don't have anyone to buy from -- IOW, they appreciate the hard work that many people do to make their lives comfortable, and are willing to pay a portion of their wealth to help those people out.
I don't suppose that ever occurred to you?
I did consider that actually but I disregarded it because there is no corroborating proof of it. I'll help you to understand why if you like.
The hypothesis is: Rich Democrats use rhetoric like "we will make the rich pay their fair share" because they are willing to pay a portion of their wealth to help poor people.
How can we test this hypothesis? One way is to see if the laws they pass actually do what they claim - take money away from the rich.
The fact is, we have no wealth tax in the United States. We have an income tax. Rich people are wealthy. They do not need further income to continue being wealthy. The fact is, we do not tax the rich. We do not make them "pay their fair share." Instead, we tax high income earners. In essence, we punish them. We punish people for making money.
This seems to contradict the hypothesis. And I could provide other tests as well if you like. We could look at the way rich democratic lawmakers (who claim to care so much about the poor and disadvantaged) actually treat them. We could look at what sacrifices rich democratic lawmakers are willing to make in their personal lives to accommodate their purported world view.
In all of these cases, I think you're going to find that the rich democratic lawmakers who you think care so much are actually quite disingenuous. I think you'll find that real concern for poor people is not their primary motivation.
So, I stand by my accretion that their motivation is the acquisition of power and the preservation of their status as rich people.
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc),"
And consider this: almost without exception the people making these laws and proposing to "make the rich pay thier fair share" are in fact, rich. Hillary Clinton is rich. Ted Kennedy is rich. etc. etc. So, why would rich people support legislation they claim will harm people like them?
There are two reasons I can think of: 1. As you mention, it's really a lie. They aren't really taxing the rich they are taxing high earners. The result of this is that they make it harder to become rich. So, in effect they are protecting their elite little club of rich people, and making common people like them at the same time.
2. What's the only thing better than money (at least to these people)? The answer is power. By using rhetoric like "making the rich pay" they seduce the people to give them power.
So in the end, they have both wealth and power. It's a pretty good scam isn't it.
the 'shoot-it-if-it-moves' mechanic of games like Quake [is] a fundamentally empty experience
This is a discription of a deathmatch. Does anyone actually play deathmatch anymore? It gets boring very quickly.
Quake 3 really shines when you play a team-based game like freezetag or CTF. There's a lot more to it than just killing. Hell, even a 1v1 game is deeper than just "kill it if it moves" because you've got to learn to work the map and time powerups. Anyone who just comes after me with no thought to strategy in a FPS is going to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
so the theory is that these pages, which contain things spoken in public like transcripts and stuff, are published on the web (not only by the white house I'd imagine, probably by a lot of groups) - but really the pages are hidden because, you know, they're in the robots.txt
That's the theory? or did I miss something?
"publish this stuff on the web site, but uh, make sure people can't find it"
"in that case, how about if I just don't publish it?"
"no no, we want people to find it."
"so why hide it?"
"my god man, do you know what would happen if people find this?"
the issue of relevancy all depends on how it's phrased. If you just say "please let us see who paid the 50mil. We'd just really like to know" then yeah, I think the judge will say that's irrelevant. But what if they did it this way:
your honor, as we've shown with this other evidence, plaintiff's claims are clearly frivolous. There is one further piece of evidence that would absolutely prove the claims are frivolous - if we could show that a large corporation who has stated that Linux is its only real competitor was a major financial backer of SCO, then SCO's motivations would be obvious and I think you could just through the suit out.
The judge might go for something like that.
These event handlers and interpretations of parameters were programmed in specifically, they are not an artifact of some grander scheme or natural phenomena. Clearly, the designers had the idea of a window opening up behind it in mind at the time the language specification was designed.
Yep. you just nailed it. These guys patented the use of a javascript function that some other programmer actually wrote. I'm shocked that the X-10 lawyers couldn't win this case. All they had to do was print that function on a large board and set it up in front of the court.
X10 lawyer: "can you tell the court when you invented this function?"
Lawsuit Guy: uh, well I didn't invent it, it's just part of javascript, but...
X10 lawyer: I see. Well, then you have used it in an inovative way? You've used it for something that no one else has?
Lawsuit Guy: I used it to make a window go behind another window
X10 lawyer: What's the purpose of the function?
Lawsuit Guy: To make a window go behind another window
X10 lawyer: So you used a function that someone else wrote - and you used it for the exact purpose it was written for?
Lawsuit Guy: uh, yeah.
X10 lawyer: and then you got a patent for that?
Lawsuit Guy: uh, yeah.
what's the difference between a prime in base 10 and a prime in base 14 when transmitted via radio pulses of base 2?
typical slashdot sarcastic response. Try actually thinking about what he said. The fact is that the concorde had an excellent safety record. Only one ever crashed and that was because of a flat tire. In spite of that, they grounded the whole fleet for several months. You can't say that wasn't an overreaction. I think it was very similar to the Hindenburg or the Titanic.
I don't want to harsh your buzz but if the last few Alien movies are any indication, they'll find some way to ruin the AvP movie too.
And don't call BS on me... I get them all the time, and I have collected over $100,000 from telemarketers and junk faxers
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
it seems like a better option would be to mark the numbers you aren't supposed to call. Otherwise, they might get added back by mistake.
are you a copyright owner? Then I don't think the DMCA applies.
thanks for the link. I'll give it another shot this weekend.
I was going to say the same thing. What games benifit from multiple monitors? Flight sims are the only thing I can think of and I can tell you from experience there that your frame rates will drop dramatically (unless maybe your second card is a top of the line - mine is an old PCI card and it's unusable for flight sims)
At work though, it's amazing how useful it is to have a reference document open in another monitor. I can glance at database schema or class hierarchies without having to alt-tab or whatever.
But, I dual boot into debian and I've never managed to get the second monitor working in X. sigh.
And considering the how much electronics have shrunk in the past 40 years, they won't need to put so much weight into orbit, or they could use that weight for more passengers or supplies.
What percentage of the mass of a spaceship is tied up in computers? Not much I imagine. If the Apollo computers were 10 kilos (I have no idea, this is just an example) and you can shrink that to 3 kilos it's not such a big deal considering you still need the same amount of fuel and supplies.
Now advances in materials science might make a big difference.
you missed my point. But, to be honest, I'm not really surprised.
Here's how do they define poverty?
"National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations."
Basically, each country defines it however they want to. So, if you say "any person who does not own a private jet is poor" you will get a much higher percentage than 17%, but what does that mean? When compared to the rest of the world, even people that we in the West call "poor" are doing very well.
I have been to more than a dozen countries on four continents and my personal opinion is that there are no poor people in Europe or the US. Really. People do not die of starvation in Europe or the US. People are not left to bleed to death or die of simple infections here. I've seen people literally living in shit. I'm not exaggerating. They fertilize rice patties with human feces in places like China. My wife was born in a small village in Hubei. They literally live in shit. In the USA on the other hand, there are people with two TVs, a car, an education, and all the food that they can eat, who we call poor.
Am I suggesting that all is rosy and there are no problems? No. We can always do better to help people, but I am saying that we do a pretty good job already. That's just my opinion.
but how long does walmart keep the video on file? That's an awful lot of data. There are a dozen or more checkout lanes in a super walmart and the video from each lane over a 24-hour period had got to be several hundred gig. Multiply that by the number of wal-marts in the country and you're looking at multiple terrabytes per day. I just find it hard to believe that they keep all that data let alone transmit it all to a central location.
I'm sure they keep the reciepts, but the video too? Come on.
Do you hear that Mr. McBride? That is the sound of inevitability.
Which would make that pretentious French guy what? Maybe Visual Basic?
Oracle voiceover: "He is trapped in a place between this world and the machine world."
Are you sure that's the oracle? It didn't sound like her to me. I couldn't recognize the voice but I don't think it was the oracle.
i wonder how many people will actually get that?
Your theory needs to make some mention of the fact that Persephone is drop-dead gorgeous.
They seem to say two different things:
1. SCO-owned code was directly copied.
2. Even if no code was copied Linux is a dirivative work.
They switch these statements around. Sometimes they say 1 and sometimes they say 2. It's like a shell game or something.
3. They know that being rich is pretty meaningless if you don't have anyone to buy from -- IOW, they appreciate the hard work that many people do to make their lives comfortable, and are willing to pay a portion of their wealth to help those people out.
I don't suppose that ever occurred to you?
I did consider that actually but I disregarded it because there is no corroborating proof of it. I'll help you to understand why if you like.
The hypothesis is: Rich Democrats use rhetoric like "we will make the rich pay their fair share" because they are willing to pay a portion of their wealth to help poor people.
How can we test this hypothesis? One way is to see if the laws they pass actually do what they claim - take money away from the rich.
The fact is, we have no wealth tax in the United States. We have an income tax. Rich people are wealthy. They do not need further income to continue being wealthy. The fact is, we do not tax the rich. We do not make them "pay their fair share." Instead, we tax high income earners. In essence, we punish them. We punish people for making money.
This seems to contradict the hypothesis. And I could provide other tests as well if you like. We could look at the way rich democratic lawmakers (who claim to care so much about the poor and disadvantaged) actually treat them. We could look at what sacrifices rich democratic lawmakers are willing to make in their personal lives to accommodate their purported world view.
In all of these cases, I think you're going to find that the rich democratic lawmakers who you think care so much are actually quite disingenuous. I think you'll find that real concern for poor people is not their primary motivation.
So, I stand by my accretion that their motivation is the acquisition of power and the preservation of their status as rich people.
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc),"
And consider this: almost without exception the people making these laws and proposing to "make the rich pay thier fair share" are in fact, rich. Hillary Clinton is rich. Ted Kennedy is rich. etc. etc. So, why would rich people support legislation they claim will harm people like them?
There are two reasons I can think of:
1. As you mention, it's really a lie. They aren't really taxing the rich they are taxing high earners. The result of this is that they make it harder to become rich. So, in effect they are protecting their elite little club of rich people, and making common people like them at the same time.
2. What's the only thing better than money (at least to these people)? The answer is power. By using rhetoric like "making the rich pay" they seduce the people to give them power.
So in the end, they have both wealth and power. It's a pretty good scam isn't it.
the 'shoot-it-if-it-moves' mechanic of games like Quake [is] a fundamentally empty experience
This is a discription of a deathmatch. Does anyone actually play deathmatch anymore? It gets boring very quickly.
Quake 3 really shines when you play a team-based game like freezetag or CTF. There's a lot more to it than just killing. Hell, even a 1v1 game is deeper than just "kill it if it moves" because you've got to learn to work the map and time powerups. Anyone who just comes after me with no thought to strategy in a FPS is going to lose.
Sorry, I just love quake.
CCNA stands for Cisco Certified Network Associate not Administrator. There's a big difference.