True enough, but the atheist folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.
Just look at the Atheist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!!!!1111oneoneonewonwonwon
Speaking of Creation myths, let me tell you how it happened. Billions upon billions of years ago, there was this amazing amount of stuff crammed into a tiny space, due to gravity. But then, a huge explosion occurred, sending matter all over the vast empty space that was sitting there. Then all the dust and crap gathered (due to gravity) into various chunks and started to form galaxies, solar systems, etc.
In our particular area of scattered stuff, a sphere was created at a particular distance from a local star, and revolved around it. It was pretty hot back then, but eventually it cooled and then various chemicals that were present formed a sort of soup which then formed a reaction which spawned some single-celled organisms. These organisms then were sorted out by which could survive in various environments and which could not, sometimes by chance events. Mutations that occurred were at times beneficial and led to multi celled organisms, while still leaving huge amounts of single celled organisms around, of course. Atmosphere and H20 were all over, as well as jutting rocks, and some organisms ended up forming all sorts of plant life, and animals. Dinosaurs were some of these animals, and they were there without any human interaction for quite some time, until a major world event, possibly an asteroid strike, mostly wiped them out. In this gap, various mammals that may have been around in rudimentary form or may have been fish ("we still have gills, you know" - actual quote) but then mutated again and again, or perhaps evolved by some other means of adaptation, to become skulking bipeds, whose population grew due to abnormally high intelligence and opposable thumbs. At some point, these self-aware creatures started to wonder about their origins, and some very clever person or persons decided to tell everyone that they were created by God. Due to lack of science education funding, many people were deceived, and the myth became self-propagating, with various parties adding details over the generations, while others added new material to explain current events in the context of their belief system, whether by design or delusion as a result of mental instability/hallucinogens.
Luckily, within the last few hundred years, noble scientists have begun to unravel the real mysteries behind the origin of our little planet and the creatures dwelling upon it. Persecuted horribly for their attempts to reveal the truth, this band of hardy companions were able to build upon an ever expanding base of knowledge to give people a better picture of what really happened in history. Other scientists of course donated helpful knowledge in other areas such as medicine, botany, and engineering. But none of these professions could have done their jobs without the firm understanding of the origins of the universe and the principles of evolution. Because of this, we have now reached the point where it is not an option to let people have faith in a Creator known to them as God. They must be taught at an early age that the teachings they received from parents and possibly community regarding creation are in fact myths. They must be made to understand how the various physical and chemical properties of the universe precipitated life on this planet. If they don't, not only will they not be able to further scientific knowledge and pursuits when they mature, but they will also start various wars of religion and take a pro-life stance, which will discourage young men and women from enjoying a free-wheeling lifestyle based on lots of sex and no children, which only get in the way and create overpopulation and poverty and take up room that could be used by other woodland creatures.
Oh, and profits should also be regulated by a central committee, but that's a different issue.
It's so much clearer now. Now wait for it, some self-described scientist will try to correct various "errors" in my timeline or presentation, because if I had just described it with more accuracy, it would be more convincing, and then I or anyone sane could believe in it.
Um, System 7 had virtual memory. I used to use it, before getting RamDoubler by Connectix. Great program on the Mac, horrible program on the PC (very buggy). Speaking of, the other great part of RamDoubler was the CopyDoubler, which sped up copy and empty trash functions by a huge margin. Once I got used to that, any workstation that didn't have it seemed like a sluggard.
Never encountered too many problems with RamDoubler, and maybe a couple of applications had trouble with Virtual Memory on System 7. The only real problems I had with System 7 is that on my home machine Beyond Dark Castle couldn't run, and neither could Dungeons of Doom (rogue-like with graphics).
How many shops did you support that used Windows when Pagemaker was the only game in town? Quark was released in 1987, about a year and a half after Pagemaker. Pagemaker on Windows was not really a "solution" until 1990, and the entire world was already entrenched in the Mac platform for years after that. Also, in 1990, Quark put out Xpress 3 and basically ate Aldus' lunch.
Now, in the late 80's I can't think of a PC you could have used that was more capable with Pagemaker in Quark than a IIci, and in 1990 the IIfx, which was really freaking fast. Heck, I had customers loving the IIfx in 1994, though many had moved to Quadras by then. A IIcx with 8mb was totally capable of running Pagemaker with aplomb.
Having worked in a brokerage, I have never seen this happen. We had customers plunking down 100k and more in a single transaction. Price says 18, you buy, you might get 50k at 18.01, 25k at 17.99, and 25k at 18.01 again. There are so many different people buying and selling at any moment, it's a fantasy to think that individual trades are monitored like that. Now, if you are talking about a sell off triggering an automated reaction, you are right. But those are customers, too, and they have every right to buy and sell their stock as they see fit if they can find buyers/sellers.
Now, naked short selling, and in fact short selling? Scummy practice, and certainly naked short selling should never have been allowed. Short selling I don't like, but I'm not sure if I think it should be illegal.
Take a look at inResonance's "Generations". It's an open database system which compares very favorably to The Raiser's Edge. The company that produces it is also much nicer to work with than Blackbaud (the company that tried to blame a bug of theirs on a user's mouse, I kid you not).
When Blackbaud was acquiring the admissions product used at an institution I worked for, I found inResonance's admission product, which was not only nicer, but much, much cheaper, with excellent support and training. They also handled the data import from soup to nuts. At the time, they were just developing Generations (this was 11 years ago). The founder made it a practice to know how the various aspects of admissions/fundraising/etc., worked when developing these products, so they feel very natural to the departments that use them.
Luckily, having now been in the "for profit" business for quite some time for myself, I no longer have need of these things:).
According to Byron White in US vs. Wade, the prosecution has an obligation to make sure they are not going after the wrong guy. It's the defense that has to do everything in it's power to avoid conviction, even if the defense believes the allegations are true:
"Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. 5 To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must [388 U.S. 218, 257] be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. 6 Our interest in not convicting [388 U.S. 218, 258] the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe 7 but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."
Yeah, unless it's really important. Like Apollo. Then you'd better use U.S. Customary Units.
Seriously, though, the "metric is so much better for science" argument is old and tired. We had no problems getting to the moon and back using our "Standard" measurement system. The only reason we are using metric now is that the newer NASA folks who went to school more recently were all indoctrinated into believing that Metric units had some sort of scientific advantage. They don't. They are just arbitrary units of measurement (albeit slightly less useful in the real world).
A more logical approach, instead of "always use metric" would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". AKA just use Standard and quit your crying.
Jesse Schell, known mostly to his friends and colleagues as a game designer, spoke at "DICE", where maybe a few hundred people heard him, and said the iPad, which has not yet been released, will not succeed. He then went on to explain his theories regarding what makes a successful product, based on his experience in designing things that have unit sales measured in millions.
Then, some guy on Slashdot quoted him, which sent Apple's stock into a nose dive as everyone who read it decided not to buy an iPad because *the* Jesse Schell said they won't want to.
Reminds me of my old mechanic's best acronym. I was having a braking issue related to ABS activating due to improper tire inflation. He said "You know what ABS stands for?" I said, "Antilock braking system?" He said, "No, it's 'Oh Shit I Can't Stop!'"
He obviously isn't saying that every thing they print is untrue. He's correctly pointing out that the NY Times editorializes on every page, and prints ridiculously biased stories that push their political agenda. Those who agree with that political agenda think that the paper is the penultimate in journalism, since it's an echo chamber for their worldview. In fact, having done so many times, I can spot someone of the liberal persuasion by their fastidious reading of the Times. Talking with them for 10 minutes will confirm it.
There are those who read the occasional story, and that gives no guidance. But those who are always toting a copy or have the site as their home page are 99% liberal.
Disclaimer: I get most of my news from BBC, though they are heavily biased as well. Knowing the bias helps to nullify it, I just get more info more quickly from BBC News. However, what they *choose* to report on creates a bias that is not so easily nullified. Take for example the lack of balanced coverage on CRU.
The other respondent makes some good points, but I also want to reiterate, since you seem to have missed it, is that there was no mention of other companies licensing *this* patent. Only that they license digital photography technology. If they do license this patent, I would like to see that in writing, and also see how much it cost them.
Kodak's "preview" patent says that you see all of the digital processing and sensor data? How do they manage that one on a tiny LCD? It's simply not the case that you get this with a digital preview. You see an approximation of what you will get. In fact, you see less than what you might using a viewfinder, especially if you are looking through a Minolta Alpha/Maxxum with Depth of Field preview.
Viewfinders, including ones that have a screen you view from a distance, have been around for a long time. In fact, maybe these people would like a few words with Kodak over their apparent patent:
That's called a "Waist-level" viewfinder, and they've been around for a long time (the first Rolleiflex DLR I can find reference to is from 1931). In short, I would like to see the full Patent application, and how Kodak represented the prior art and prior implementations of representing an image on a screen. The other thing I would like to see are the licensing agreements with the other companies. The article only mentions that the companies license patents regarding digital photography, and say nothing of licensing this particular patent. An unusual omission, in my opinion.
Do you care to name a company who has a better reputation? If you weren't so busy worrying about how Apple doesn't make *you* happy, you might be able to see that Apple makes others happy who don't feel the need to have 100 different ways to accomplish the same task.
This came about as a direct result of people falsely claiming against the warranty when there was known water exposure. All modern cell phones and their batteries have this feature as well, and there are absolutely times when the sensors (really just a system by which a striped ink pattern bleeds to stain the material when wet enough) have been triggered by humid weather, or condensation.
As for you not "buying any more Apple products", likely you weren't a customer before this. I have heard this same tired old statement again and again. Yet Apple sells more and more every year, and maintains their reputation as the most customer friendly consumer electronics company. That's not to say they are perfect, and there are plenty of things they do that annoy me. Comparing them with the competition, though, they are the best to work with, and give the most discretion to their employees to override policy of any of the major firms.
Regarding cigarette smoke and OSHA, I would say they definitely took the wrong angle and are likely technically incorrect. At the same time, while I approve of people being able to smoke if they want, smoking near computers shortens their life significantly, due to the gummy deposits that form on the components, heatsinks and fans, and vents. I have cleaned off many computers in this condition, replaced fans if needed, etc. I charge for the time. I also stink like a couple of thousand stale old cigarettes until I shower. When you have an employee working an 8 hour shift, it would be abusive to force them to clean a computer in this condition and suffer for the rest of the day.
The submitter to Consumerist is an ass who knows exactly how nasty his computer is, can see the gummy deposits, etc. which occurred due to very close proximity smoking at the computer's location. His screen is probably nasty, too. And it's not like this is new information. Smoking near computers has long been known as a really bad idea.
Clearly, you weren't aware that people who die from influenza usually have other contributing factors. If those people feel vaccination may help them, have at it. But to force a completely healthy individual to risk various reactions up to and including death is not acceptable when dealing with a disease of this little effect. 30,000 people (I will pretend you are right, instead of acting the wiki-fascist, as you do) is a small percentage of the people who actually contract the flu or become carriers without exhibiting traditional symptoms.
Clearly, you need to use a buzzer function again to impress everyone with your childish antics.
You say this as if you want to be able to bootleg various products without someone trying to stop you by appealing to your governmental and justice systems. So, again, his original point stands that you and others are whining about how you are entitled to the work of Americans.
Note that I do not have any great love for our Media companies, as I think there are market solutions to their problems that they overlook. But that does not justify people pirating their products.
I fail to see how some people being guilty makes an abusive process less abusive. Isn't it possible that unlike your apparently "valid" ticket, others have issues with broken meters, meter maids waiting by your meter because it's only got 2 minutes left, and writing the ticket literally as you arrive (documented) and other such ridiculous actions?
You are basically trying to condense my points down to someone trying to contest a "validly" given ticket. How then do you approach the widespread problem of ghost ticketing, non-ticketing of VIP vehicles, city inspectors who demand the use of private parking from a building owner who is to be inspected, the tax on private parking, and the fact that the residents and business owners are the ones who in reality pay for the big mess of a system?
What's really sad is that they are nothing like a real museum, in that apparently they can not even afford to pay for shipping of computers to them. I was in possession of something of a classic piece of computer history. But spending my money to ship it to them after taking so much time to preserve it over the years did not appeal to me. Housing this thing had not exactly been a popular proposition. Also, they only wanted the computer itself, and not the display or keyboard. This told me they never intended for it to be a functioning unit, as it did not use common parts for these. Note that this was not a huge unit, it was about the size of a late 1980's or early 1990's workstation.
Sad, really. The place must just be an old junkpile of computers, which is not really a museum.
If parking issues were alleviated by meters, you might have a point. They're not. In Manhattan, there will always be the same amount of cars parked whether or not the meters exist. Save for people going other places during the day, parking is almost always near full (again, people move about during the day, creating spaces, which are then filled). The City government wants money. This is why there is an 18.375% tax on PRIVATE parking lot spaces. They want their cut. If you park for a day at $30 in a privately owned garage, you will pay about 35.50 after tax (an extra $3 over the normal sales tax).
The parking tickets are gravy funds for city bureaucrats. Don't even get me started about the days when you can't park on one side of the street at all. The end result is that the true owners of the city, the residents and businesses, pad the pockets of city bureaucrats, who by the way don't have to worry about being ticketed. This just blew up in Albany when it was uncovered that government employees and their buddies were given "ghost tickets"
These parking meters are there to pay meter maids, administrators, a sub-class of "judges" who are corrupt and have no regard for law or due-process, and who often do not even have the creds to practice law in NYS, never mind being a "Judge". You only see one of those if you *appeal* your almost certain conviction. Hint, it doesn't matter what you say. You always lose the first stage, where they automatically offer you a slight discount if you pay the ticket and go away. They will not dismiss the ticket. To discourage you from going further, you discover that you are not really afforded any rights at this stage, and if you want to go before a real judge, they send you to real court on another date. The reason for this is that they know that most people will spend more money going to court twice than they will in paying the ticket. City Wins!
I like your point about rethinking the way to accomplish the task of parking. Cars are part of our transportation system.
With regards to the "whole point of meters", I disagree. I agree that you've nailed the ostensible reason, but it's not the real reason, which differs depending on the supporter:
1. The City/Municipality wants the money. This is why many will argue that it doesn't matter that the meter is broken, you get a ticket anyway. 2. Car-haters think it will discourage traffic and all of a sudden, people will decide to walk or take a bus or the subway ("Oh. the subway is so convenient") 3. 2 or 3 people who are actually worried about people using parking spaces as a personal garage.
Being that I hop around in every direction for a living, I have a non-uniquely selfish take on the whole thing. I'm going to drive my car to your place of business. I'm going to fix your problem, then move on to the next customer. I'm not waiting for a subway train, or a cab, or a bus. Whatever I have to pay for parking to accomplish this task, including tickets, gets charged to you. If you can provide parking, great. I know many others who do this as well. Some customers don't like paying for the parking, and they will actually recommend that I take the subway or Metro or some such nonsense. I explain to them that the longer it takes me to be "done" with their issue, the more they are charged. And the fact that if I did that with all customers, some people wouldn't get their problems fixed quickly, and would have to wait a day or two. Once it's about "them", they pay for the parking.
So, in reality, parking meters are a tax on the people who should be taxed for it. The business that has the parking meter in front, the home owner who has it on their street, etc. If I am getting some goodies at a store that has parking meters or fees, that's less money to spend on the goodies.
Now, many people do this already, but everyone who hates parking meters/controls should. Because while some will use a parking space as personal property, most people have many tasks they need to get to in a day, and don't linger any more than they would without the meter. The city wants to take advantage of this (especially if it results in a ticket). I get that ticket, and tell the customer "Congratulations, you just got a ticket". Actually, I'm nicer about it, but the city is charging it's own residents/business owners for it. I don't hide that cost in an hourly fee, so the customer knows exactly who charged them the money. If everybody did this, parking meters, and the officials who push them, would be gone very quickly.
I agree with most of what you are saying, assuming you are being sarcastic about the fiscally conservative part. It's sad that we seem to have no fiscal conservatives serving us, and those who are supposedly fiscally conservative want to keep extending this wasteful program. I myself drive an old car, with many, many miles on it. It actually gets pretty good mileage (about 30mpg), but I'm sure it's considered dirty, because it's not OBDII.
It makes me wonder, with all this "saving" of the environment we are doing, how much are we wasting resources, money and time, and how much pollution is in fact produced when we personally buy a new car rather than fixing an old car or continuing to maintain it. In the time that my car has served me, others would buy as many as 3 cars.
I'm all for that, as long as that's what the market allows them to do. But subsidies are ridiculous and wasteful on many different levels.
Or maybe Communist ideas were popular among intellectuals to begin with, yet your politicians preferred to blame everything on "foreign spies". That is, before starting to promote blatant anti-intellectualism.
"Lenin's war on his intellectual foes, whom he had described in letters as 'lackeys of capital,' gained force on June 1, 1922, when he signed a new penal code into law. It effectively gave the government the right to kill anyone who threatened to destabilize the new power won by Soviet workers and peasants, i.e., the one-party state."
"The lists arrived in Lenin's hands by mid-August - he drew up the list of philosophers himself - and arrests began. An Aug. 31, 1922, article in the government newspaper Pravda informed readers that several groups in the intelligentsia endangered the Soviet regime, and they were 'headquartered' in high schools, universities, and such faculties as philosophy and literature.
The arrested intellectuals had to sign statements promising never to return to the Russian Socialist Federal Socialist Republic (the U.S.S.R.'s precursor). If they did, they acknowledged, Article 71 of the Criminal Code provided for them to be executed immediately. According to the documents, each deportee was allowed to take 'one winter coat and one summer coat, one suit and change of clothes, two shirts, two nightshirts, two pairs of socks, two sets of underwear, and 20 dollars in foreign currency.'"
Actually I hate Stalin and Stalinists -- at the extent that it's possible to hate dead people. However history is about studying facts of the past, not producing creative writing about it. Ex: 300 movie is not history.
No, it's a vaguely autobiographic work of fiction that only American propaganda worker would use as a source for anything but literary criticism.
Right. And the source is so fictional that the KGB tortured people to get their hands on it. And that's also why it's corroborated by Soviet records...
From Wikipedia:
"The sheer volume of firsthand testimony and primary documentation that Solzhenitsyn managed to assemble in The Gulag Archipelago made all subsequent Soviet and KGB attempts to discredit the work useless. Much of the impact of the treatise stems from the closely detailed stories of interrogation routines, prison indignities and (especially in section 3) camp massacres and inhuman practices."
"One of the noteworthy elements of Solzhenitsyn's analysis are the seemingly outlandish claims of Soviet brutality, which subsequently turned out to be true - or which in some cases turned out to be more outrageous than Solzhenitsyn had originally stated. For instance, Solzhenitsyn claimed that the Gulag system was so voracious that between 1930 and 1939, a quarter of the population of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) was shipped to the Gulag. Post-Soviet scholarship has confirmed that the figure was even higher.[5] This one, seemingly unbelievable event, was reported by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, to skepticism in the West."
"The KGB seized one of only three extant copies of the text still on Soviet soil. This was achieved by torturing dissident Elizaveta Voronyanskaya, Solzhenitsyn's typist[8] who knew where the typed copy was hidden; within days of her release by the KGB, she hanged herself on 3 August 1973.[9]"
It seems to me the only reason you may hate Stalin is the negative publicity he gave the Soviet system.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough, but the atheist folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.
Just look at the Atheist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!!!!1111oneoneonewonwonwon
Speaking of Creation myths, let me tell you how it happened. Billions upon billions of years ago, there was this amazing amount of stuff crammed into a tiny space, due to gravity. But then, a huge explosion occurred, sending matter all over the vast empty space that was sitting there. Then all the dust and crap gathered (due to gravity) into various chunks and started to form galaxies, solar systems, etc.
In our particular area of scattered stuff, a sphere was created at a particular distance from a local star, and revolved around it. It was pretty hot back then, but eventually it cooled and then various chemicals that were present formed a sort of soup which then formed a reaction which spawned some single-celled organisms. These organisms then were sorted out by which could survive in various environments and which could not, sometimes by chance events. Mutations that occurred were at times beneficial and led to multi celled organisms, while still leaving huge amounts of single celled organisms around, of course. Atmosphere and H20 were all over, as well as jutting rocks, and some organisms ended up forming all sorts of plant life, and animals. Dinosaurs were some of these animals, and they were there without any human interaction for quite some time, until a major world event, possibly an asteroid strike, mostly wiped them out. In this gap, various mammals that may have been around in rudimentary form or may have been fish ("we still have gills, you know" - actual quote) but then mutated again and again, or perhaps evolved by some other means of adaptation, to become skulking bipeds, whose population grew due to abnormally high intelligence and opposable thumbs. At some point, these self-aware creatures started to wonder about their origins, and some very clever person or persons decided to tell everyone that they were created by God. Due to lack of science education funding, many people were deceived, and the myth became self-propagating, with various parties adding details over the generations, while others added new material to explain current events in the context of their belief system, whether by design or delusion as a result of mental instability/hallucinogens.
Luckily, within the last few hundred years, noble scientists have begun to unravel the real mysteries behind the origin of our little planet and the creatures dwelling upon it. Persecuted horribly for their attempts to reveal the truth, this band of hardy companions were able to build upon an ever expanding base of knowledge to give people a better picture of what really happened in history. Other scientists of course donated helpful knowledge in other areas such as medicine, botany, and engineering. But none of these professions could have done their jobs without the firm understanding of the origins of the universe and the principles of evolution. Because of this, we have now reached the point where it is not an option to let people have faith in a Creator known to them as God. They must be taught at an early age that the teachings they received from parents and possibly community regarding creation are in fact myths. They must be made to understand how the various physical and chemical properties of the universe precipitated life on this planet. If they don't, not only will they not be able to further scientific knowledge and pursuits when they mature, but they will also start various wars of religion and take a pro-life stance, which will discourage young men and women from enjoying a free-wheeling lifestyle based on lots of sex and no children, which only get in the way and create overpopulation and poverty and take up room that could be used by other woodland creatures.
Oh, and profits should also be regulated by a central committee, but that's a different issue.
It's so much clearer now. Now wait for it, some self-described scientist will try to correct various "errors" in my timeline or presentation, because if I had just described it with more accuracy, it would be more convincing, and then I or anyone sane could believe in it.
Um, System 7 had virtual memory. I used to use it, before getting RamDoubler by Connectix. Great program on the Mac, horrible program on the PC (very buggy). Speaking of, the other great part of RamDoubler was the CopyDoubler, which sped up copy and empty trash functions by a huge margin. Once I got used to that, any workstation that didn't have it seemed like a sluggard.
Never encountered too many problems with RamDoubler, and maybe a couple of applications had trouble with Virtual Memory on System 7. The only real problems I had with System 7 is that on my home machine Beyond Dark Castle couldn't run, and neither could Dungeons of Doom (rogue-like with graphics).
How many shops did you support that used Windows when Pagemaker was the only game in town? Quark was released in 1987, about a year and a half after Pagemaker. Pagemaker on Windows was not really a "solution" until 1990, and the entire world was already entrenched in the Mac platform for years after that. Also, in 1990, Quark put out Xpress 3 and basically ate Aldus' lunch.
Now, in the late 80's I can't think of a PC you could have used that was more capable with Pagemaker in Quark than a IIci, and in 1990 the IIfx, which was really freaking fast. Heck, I had customers loving the IIfx in 1994, though many had moved to Quadras by then. A IIcx with 8mb was totally capable of running Pagemaker with aplomb.
Having worked in a brokerage, I have never seen this happen. We had customers plunking down 100k and more in a single transaction. Price says 18, you buy, you might get 50k at 18.01, 25k at 17.99, and 25k at 18.01 again. There are so many different people buying and selling at any moment, it's a fantasy to think that individual trades are monitored like that. Now, if you are talking about a sell off triggering an automated reaction, you are right. But those are customers, too, and they have every right to buy and sell their stock as they see fit if they can find buyers/sellers.
Now, naked short selling, and in fact short selling? Scummy practice, and certainly naked short selling should never have been allowed. Short selling I don't like, but I'm not sure if I think it should be illegal.
Forgot to add the link:
http://www.inresonance.com/GN
Take a look at inResonance's "Generations". It's an open database system which compares very favorably to The Raiser's Edge. The company that produces it is also much nicer to work with than Blackbaud (the company that tried to blame a bug of theirs on a user's mouse, I kid you not).
When Blackbaud was acquiring the admissions product used at an institution I worked for, I found inResonance's admission product, which was not only nicer, but much, much cheaper, with excellent support and training. They also handled the data import from soup to nuts. At the time, they were just developing Generations (this was 11 years ago). The founder made it a practice to know how the various aspects of admissions/fundraising/etc., worked when developing these products, so they feel very natural to the departments that use them.
Luckily, having now been in the "for profit" business for quite some time for myself, I no longer have need of these things :).
According to Byron White in US vs. Wade, the prosecution has an obligation to make sure they are not going after the wrong guy. It's the defense that has to do everything in it's power to avoid conviction, even if the defense believes the allegations are true:
"Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. 5 To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must [388 U.S. 218, 257] be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. 6 Our interest in not convicting [388 U.S. 218, 258] the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe 7 but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."
Yeah, unless it's really important. Like Apollo. Then you'd better use U.S. Customary Units.
Seriously, though, the "metric is so much better for science" argument is old and tired. We had no problems getting to the moon and back using our "Standard" measurement system. The only reason we are using metric now is that the newer NASA folks who went to school more recently were all indoctrinated into believing that Metric units had some sort of scientific advantage. They don't. They are just arbitrary units of measurement (albeit slightly less useful in the real world).
A more logical approach, instead of "always use metric" would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". AKA just use Standard and quit your crying.
Jesse Schell, known mostly to his friends and colleagues as a game designer, spoke at "DICE", where maybe a few hundred people heard him, and said the iPad, which has not yet been released, will not succeed. He then went on to explain his theories regarding what makes a successful product, based on his experience in designing things that have unit sales measured in millions.
Then, some guy on Slashdot quoted him, which sent Apple's stock into a nose dive as everyone who read it decided not to buy an iPad because *the* Jesse Schell said they won't want to.
Reminds me of my old mechanic's best acronym. I was having a braking issue related to ABS activating due to improper tire inflation. He said "You know what ABS stands for?" I said, "Antilock braking system?" He said, "No, it's 'Oh Shit I Can't Stop!'"
Well, I think it's hilarious.
He obviously isn't saying that every thing they print is untrue. He's correctly pointing out that the NY Times editorializes on every page, and prints ridiculously biased stories that push their political agenda. Those who agree with that political agenda think that the paper is the penultimate in journalism, since it's an echo chamber for their worldview. In fact, having done so many times, I can spot someone of the liberal persuasion by their fastidious reading of the Times. Talking with them for 10 minutes will confirm it.
There are those who read the occasional story, and that gives no guidance. But those who are always toting a copy or have the site as their home page are 99% liberal.
Disclaimer: I get most of my news from BBC, though they are heavily biased as well. Knowing the bias helps to nullify it, I just get more info more quickly from BBC News. However, what they *choose* to report on creates a bias that is not so easily nullified. Take for example the lack of balanced coverage on CRU.
The other respondent makes some good points, but I also want to reiterate, since you seem to have missed it, is that there was no mention of other companies licensing *this* patent. Only that they license digital photography technology. If they do license this patent, I would like to see that in writing, and also see how much it cost them.
Kodak's "preview" patent says that you see all of the digital processing and sensor data? How do they manage that one on a tiny LCD? It's simply not the case that you get this with a digital preview. You see an approximation of what you will get. In fact, you see less than what you might using a viewfinder, especially if you are looking through a Minolta Alpha/Maxxum with Depth of Field preview.
Viewfinders, including ones that have a screen you view from a distance, have been around for a long time. In fact, maybe these people would like a few words with Kodak over their apparent patent:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/634635-USA/Rollei_66031_Hy6_Medium_Format_SLR.html
That's called a "Waist-level" viewfinder, and they've been around for a long time (the first Rolleiflex DLR I can find reference to is from 1931). In short, I would like to see the full Patent application, and how Kodak represented the prior art and prior implementations of representing an image on a screen. The other thing I would like to see are the licensing agreements with the other companies. The article only mentions that the companies license patents regarding digital photography, and say nothing of licensing this particular patent. An unusual omission, in my opinion.
Do you care to name a company who has a better reputation? If you weren't so busy worrying about how Apple doesn't make *you* happy, you might be able to see that Apple makes others happy who don't feel the need to have 100 different ways to accomplish the same task.
This came about as a direct result of people falsely claiming against the warranty when there was known water exposure. All modern cell phones and their batteries have this feature as well, and there are absolutely times when the sensors (really just a system by which a striped ink pattern bleeds to stain the material when wet enough) have been triggered by humid weather, or condensation.
As for you not "buying any more Apple products", likely you weren't a customer before this. I have heard this same tired old statement again and again. Yet Apple sells more and more every year, and maintains their reputation as the most customer friendly consumer electronics company. That's not to say they are perfect, and there are plenty of things they do that annoy me. Comparing them with the competition, though, they are the best to work with, and give the most discretion to their employees to override policy of any of the major firms.
Regarding cigarette smoke and OSHA, I would say they definitely took the wrong angle and are likely technically incorrect. At the same time, while I approve of people being able to smoke if they want, smoking near computers shortens their life significantly, due to the gummy deposits that form on the components, heatsinks and fans, and vents. I have cleaned off many computers in this condition, replaced fans if needed, etc. I charge for the time. I also stink like a couple of thousand stale old cigarettes until I shower. When you have an employee working an 8 hour shift, it would be abusive to force them to clean a computer in this condition and suffer for the rest of the day.
The submitter to Consumerist is an ass who knows exactly how nasty his computer is, can see the gummy deposits, etc. which occurred due to very close proximity smoking at the computer's location. His screen is probably nasty, too. And it's not like this is new information. Smoking near computers has long been known as a really bad idea.
Clearly, you weren't aware that people who die from influenza usually have other contributing factors. If those people feel vaccination may help them, have at it. But to force a completely healthy individual to risk various reactions up to and including death is not acceptable when dealing with a disease of this little effect. 30,000 people (I will pretend you are right, instead of acting the wiki-fascist, as you do) is a small percentage of the people who actually contract the flu or become carriers without exhibiting traditional symptoms.
Clearly, you need to use a buzzer function again to impress everyone with your childish antics.
You say this as if you want to be able to bootleg various products without someone trying to stop you by appealing to your governmental and justice systems. So, again, his original point stands that you and others are whining about how you are entitled to the work of Americans.
Note that I do not have any great love for our Media companies, as I think there are market solutions to their problems that they overlook. But that does not justify people pirating their products.
He makes an excellent point.
I fail to see how some people being guilty makes an abusive process less abusive. Isn't it possible that unlike your apparently "valid" ticket, others have issues with broken meters, meter maids waiting by your meter because it's only got 2 minutes left, and writing the ticket literally as you arrive (documented) and other such ridiculous actions?
You are basically trying to condense my points down to someone trying to contest a "validly" given ticket. How then do you approach the widespread problem of ghost ticketing, non-ticketing of VIP vehicles, city inspectors who demand the use of private parking from a building owner who is to be inspected, the tax on private parking, and the fact that the residents and business owners are the ones who in reality pay for the big mess of a system?
What's really sad is that they are nothing like a real museum, in that apparently they can not even afford to pay for shipping of computers to them. I was in possession of something of a classic piece of computer history. But spending my money to ship it to them after taking so much time to preserve it over the years did not appeal to me. Housing this thing had not exactly been a popular proposition. Also, they only wanted the computer itself, and not the display or keyboard. This told me they never intended for it to be a functioning unit, as it did not use common parts for these. Note that this was not a huge unit, it was about the size of a late 1980's or early 1990's workstation.
Sad, really. The place must just be an old junkpile of computers, which is not really a museum.
If parking issues were alleviated by meters, you might have a point. They're not. In Manhattan, there will always be the same amount of cars parked whether or not the meters exist. Save for people going other places during the day, parking is almost always near full (again, people move about during the day, creating spaces, which are then filled). The City government wants money. This is why there is an 18.375% tax on PRIVATE parking lot spaces. They want their cut. If you park for a day at $30 in a privately owned garage, you will pay about 35.50 after tax (an extra $3 over the normal sales tax).
The parking tickets are gravy funds for city bureaucrats. Don't even get me started about the days when you can't park on one side of the street at all. The end result is that the true owners of the city, the residents and businesses, pad the pockets of city bureaucrats, who by the way don't have to worry about being ticketed. This just blew up in Albany when it was uncovered that government employees and their buddies were given "ghost tickets"
http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=10866751
These parking meters are there to pay meter maids, administrators, a sub-class of "judges" who are corrupt and have no regard for law or due-process, and who often do not even have the creds to practice law in NYS, never mind being a "Judge". You only see one of those if you *appeal* your almost certain conviction. Hint, it doesn't matter what you say. You always lose the first stage, where they automatically offer you a slight discount if you pay the ticket and go away. They will not dismiss the ticket. To discourage you from going further, you discover that you are not really afforded any rights at this stage, and if you want to go before a real judge, they send you to real court on another date. The reason for this is that they know that most people will spend more money going to court twice than they will in paying the ticket. City Wins!
I like your point about rethinking the way to accomplish the task of parking. Cars are part of our transportation system.
With regards to the "whole point of meters", I disagree. I agree that you've nailed the ostensible reason, but it's not the real reason, which differs depending on the supporter:
1. The City/Municipality wants the money. This is why many will argue that it doesn't matter that the meter is broken, you get a ticket anyway.
2. Car-haters think it will discourage traffic and all of a sudden, people will decide to walk or take a bus or the subway ("Oh. the subway is so convenient")
3. 2 or 3 people who are actually worried about people using parking spaces as a personal garage.
Being that I hop around in every direction for a living, I have a non-uniquely selfish take on the whole thing. I'm going to drive my car to your place of business. I'm going to fix your problem, then move on to the next customer. I'm not waiting for a subway train, or a cab, or a bus. Whatever I have to pay for parking to accomplish this task, including tickets, gets charged to you. If you can provide parking, great. I know many others who do this as well. Some customers don't like paying for the parking, and they will actually recommend that I take the subway or Metro or some such nonsense. I explain to them that the longer it takes me to be "done" with their issue, the more they are charged. And the fact that if I did that with all customers, some people wouldn't get their problems fixed quickly, and would have to wait a day or two. Once it's about "them", they pay for the parking.
So, in reality, parking meters are a tax on the people who should be taxed for it. The business that has the parking meter in front, the home owner who has it on their street, etc. If I am getting some goodies at a store that has parking meters or fees, that's less money to spend on the goodies.
Now, many people do this already, but everyone who hates parking meters/controls should. Because while some will use a parking space as personal property, most people have many tasks they need to get to in a day, and don't linger any more than they would without the meter. The city wants to take advantage of this (especially if it results in a ticket). I get that ticket, and tell the customer "Congratulations, you just got a ticket". Actually, I'm nicer about it, but the city is charging it's own residents/business owners for it. I don't hide that cost in an hourly fee, so the customer knows exactly who charged them the money. If everybody did this, parking meters, and the officials who push them, would be gone very quickly.
I agree with most of what you are saying, assuming you are being sarcastic about the fiscally conservative part. It's sad that we seem to have no fiscal conservatives serving us, and those who are supposedly fiscally conservative want to keep extending this wasteful program. I myself drive an old car, with many, many miles on it. It actually gets pretty good mileage (about 30mpg), but I'm sure it's considered dirty, because it's not OBDII.
It makes me wonder, with all this "saving" of the environment we are doing, how much are we wasting resources, money and time, and how much pollution is in fact produced when we personally buy a new car rather than fixing an old car or continuing to maintain it. In the time that my car has served me, others would buy as many as 3 cars.
I'm all for that, as long as that's what the market allows them to do. But subsidies are ridiculous and wasteful on many different levels.
Or maybe Communist ideas were popular among intellectuals to begin with, yet your politicians preferred to blame everything on "foreign spies". That is, before starting to promote blatant anti-intellectualism.
"Lenin's war on his intellectual foes, whom he had described in letters as 'lackeys of capital,' gained force on June 1, 1922, when he signed a new penal code into law. It effectively gave the government the right to kill anyone who threatened to destabilize the new power won by Soviet workers and peasants, i.e., the one-party state."
"The lists arrived in Lenin's hands by mid-August - he drew up the list of philosophers himself - and arrests began. An Aug. 31, 1922, article in the government newspaper Pravda informed readers that several groups in the intelligentsia endangered the Soviet regime, and they were 'headquartered' in high schools, universities, and such faculties as philosophy and literature.
The arrested intellectuals had to sign statements promising never to return to the Russian Socialist Federal Socialist Republic (the U.S.S.R.'s precursor). If they did, they acknowledged, Article 71 of the Criminal Code provided for them to be executed immediately. According to the documents, each deportee was allowed to take 'one winter coat and one summer coat, one suit and change of clothes, two shirts, two nightshirts, two pairs of socks, two sets of underwear, and 20 dollars in foreign currency.'"
You were saying?
Actually I hate Stalin and Stalinists -- at the extent that it's possible to hate dead people. However history is about studying facts of the past, not producing creative writing about it. Ex: 300 movie is not history.
No, it's a vaguely autobiographic work of fiction that only American propaganda worker would use as a source for anything but literary criticism.
Right. And the source is so fictional that the KGB tortured people to get their hands on it. And that's also why it's corroborated by Soviet records...
From Wikipedia:
"The sheer volume of firsthand testimony and primary documentation that Solzhenitsyn managed to assemble in The Gulag Archipelago made all subsequent Soviet and KGB attempts to discredit the work useless. Much of the impact of the treatise stems from the closely detailed stories of interrogation routines, prison indignities and (especially in section 3) camp massacres and inhuman practices."
"One of the noteworthy elements of Solzhenitsyn's analysis are the seemingly outlandish claims of Soviet brutality, which subsequently turned out to be true - or which in some cases turned out to be more outrageous than Solzhenitsyn had originally stated. For instance, Solzhenitsyn claimed that the Gulag system was so voracious that between 1930 and 1939, a quarter of the population of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) was shipped to the Gulag. Post-Soviet scholarship has confirmed that the figure was even higher.[5] This one, seemingly unbelievable event, was reported by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, to skepticism in the West."
"The KGB seized one of only three extant copies of the text still on Soviet soil. This was achieved by torturing dissident Elizaveta Voronyanskaya, Solzhenitsyn's typist[8] who knew where the typed copy was hidden; within days of her release by the KGB, she hanged herself on 3 August 1973.[9]"
It seems to me the only reason you may hate Stalin is the negative publicity he gave the Soviet system.