No. You simply don't understand what the survey was for, that's all.
They care about the sales of new units, only. When you're trying to project things like, how many units to make to be available to the channel, how many a store like (say) Best Buy will be able to sell in the next quarter (and thus order), and so forth, you need to have some idea of the sales opportunity. Even if there were a trillion happy iPod owners, their opinion would be irrelevant if they're not going to buy a unit in the next time period.
This isn't about, "will the Zune be a crappy player." It's about, "how many of these things will be sold in the next period of time."
(I posted this as a follow-up to a child of this topic, but am now appalled that the people crying, "Get informed!" are not helping show people how that actually can get informed.)
Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.
It's too late in the East to use this, but they publish it every election year. Remember it.
Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.
Great URL - I'm in absolute agreement with you, I read about it first in The Frank Zappa Book.
It's particularly important to note (beyond it itself being copyrighted) that he managed to propose it without creating a new sense of entitlement to other people's work.
Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.
Every time I hear this, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the stupidity. Pop quiz: how much time passed between the September 11th attacks and the previous militant Muslim attack on US soil?
Al Qaeda takes their time in planning and executing attacks.
Scalia, on the other hand, follows the Constitutional principle that the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce ("commerce among the states," as is in the Constitution). Using that principle, it would be Unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit the growing of Marijuana on private property. States could still outlaw it, of course, but the feds couldn't do a thing. Does that sound "conservative" to you? Nope, but it is what the Constitution says.
I wish you weren't really wrong about this.
Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich that he believes that because growing marijuana on your private property has indirect consequences for inerstate commerce, no matter how diffuse, the US Federal government can restrict it. Only William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented from this view.
A car holds, what? 600 CDs in the cases (assuming room for the driver)?
I don't think many people moving that many CDs around keeps the jewel cases. I've done this - if you use "binder sheet" style containers in file boxes, you can fit about 1000 CDs into a file box.
You can fit at least 20 file boxes into a medium sized car with one driver. So 20,000 CDs.
Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.
Unfortunately, Stallman only gets a say in the legalese as it's generated - he doesn't get a say in how the legal language of the GPLv3 is interpreted after it's finished. If attorneys say that this is a concern, then Linus has to worry about it - no matter what Stallman says.
Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?
...was the laser in Real Genius popping popcorn. It (and some other questionable but less egregious errors) completely ruined the movie for me - a movie for and about ubergeeks should really get the science right. It's not like they didn't have plenty of historical MIT / CalTech hacks to draw from...
[Star Trek geek alert]
A little bit of trivia:
Chekov (and Walter Koenig) didn't appear on the screen until the second season, but the character was on board. We know this because Khan recognized Chekov in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - and "Star Seed" (TOS episode Khan appeared in) was a first season episode.
Especially retarded readers might object that the above doesn't directly contradict the OP since it only says that governmental agencies must be authorized to use the SSNs and provide a provacy notice. Some of the uses specifically authorized by federal law are provide by the CPSR on their pages:
Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that EO9397 be revoked after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. It hasn't been revoked, but no one seems to have made new uses of the SSN recently and cited EO9397 as their sole authority, either.
Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist. According to the terms of the Privacy Act, any that have a space for it on the application forms should have a disclosure notice. Many don't, and until someone takes them to court, they aren't likely to change.
Actually, Federal law restricts the use of the SSN to the Social Security program.
Actually, it doesn't. The law only covers government agencies. From the SSN FAQ:
The Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, in section 7), which is the primary law affecting the use of SSNs, requires that any federal, state, or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell you four things:
1: The authority (whether granted by statute, or by executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
2: The principal purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
3: The routine uses which may be made of the information, as published annually in the Federal Register, and
4: The effects on you, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.
The Act requires state and local agencies which request the SSN to inform the individual of only three things:
1: Whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, 2: By what statutory or other authority the SSN is solicited, and 3: What uses will be made of the number.
In addition, that section makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute. (The other exception is if the disclosure is for use in a record system which required the SSN before 1975. (5 USC 552a note). So anytime you're dealing with a government institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, look for a Privacy Act Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your number. If the statement is present, read it. Once you've read the explanation of whether the number is optional or required, and what will be done with your number if you provide it, you'll be able to decide for yourself whether to fill in the number.
There are several kinds of governmental organizations that usually have authority to request your number, but they are all required to provide the Privacy Act Statement described above. (see the list in the "Short History" section of the website http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN- History.html#history) The only time you should be willing to give your number without reading that notice is when the organization you are dealing with is not a part of the government.
I'll grant the premise that overgenerous patent grants slow technology growth (I would argue that it's because of a long term indirect cash transfer from consumers to attorneys). However, that doesn't excuse distorting reality.
You've just explained why technology is moving so slowly nowadays.
"Nowadays" implies a better previous period. Compared to exactly when? Every published expert on the advance of technology, and every study using any metric you can name, says that technology is moving faster now than ever before!
Technology seems to be doing just fine. Unfortunately, the technology attorneys are doing even better.
Slashdot Mirror
At your nearest airport.
No. You simply don't understand what the survey was for, that's all.
They care about the sales of new units, only. When you're trying to project things like, how many units to make to be available to the channel, how many a store like (say) Best Buy will be able to sell in the next quarter (and thus order), and so forth, you need to have some idea of the sales opportunity. Even if there were a trillion happy iPod owners, their opinion would be irrelevant if they're not going to buy a unit in the next time period.
This isn't about, "will the Zune be a crappy player." It's about, "how many of these things will be sold in the next period of time."
(I posted this as a follow-up to a child of this topic, but am now appalled that the people crying, "Get informed!" are not helping show people how that actually can get informed.)
The League of Woman Voters publishes a very well respected election guide, known for its even-handedness.
Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.
It's too late in the East to use this, but they publish it every election year. Remember it.
Horseshit.
The League of Woman Voters publishes a very well respected election guide, known for its even-handedness.
Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.
Why are you people always so tough on Eve?
Paraphrased: "Some people have been wrong at some things, so nobody can ever be right!"
Great URL - I'm in absolute agreement with you, I read about it first in The Frank Zappa Book.
It's particularly important to note (beyond it itself being copyrighted) that he managed to propose it without creating a new sense of entitlement to other people's work.
"Freedom is when you don't have to do nothing or pay for nothing,
I want to be free!" - Frank Zappa, "Teenage Wind"
Al Qaeda takes their time in planning and executing attacks.
Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich that he believes that because growing marijuana on your private property has indirect consequences for inerstate commerce, no matter how diffuse, the US Federal government can restrict it. Only William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented from this view.
Scalia's a fucking hypocrite.
You can fit at least 20 file boxes into a medium sized car with one driver. So 20,000 CDs.
Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?
Ah, no.
Ed is the standard text editor
WIth a low powered laser, sure, why not?
This was a missile defense laser.
...was the laser in Real Genius popping popcorn. It (and some other questionable but less egregious errors) completely ruined the movie for me - a movie for and about ubergeeks should really get the science right. It's not like they didn't have plenty of historical MIT / CalTech hacks to draw from...
"As soon as?" I bought two 4GB SD cards for $90 with a $30 rebote at Fry's about a month ago.
Er, yeah, right. Try checking out some college rhetoric courses instead of junior high school grammar.
So have you stopped beating your wife?
Good job, bigot boy!
Frank Zappa had a great view of what constitutes art.
Art is anything that somebody intentionally makes and then points at and says, "that's art."
That's it.
Oy. You're right, of course.
In my defense, I googled "'Star Seed' Khan" first because it didn't ring quite right and got a couple hundred hits.
OK, I'll bite: what was his response?
[Star Trek geek alert] A little bit of trivia: Chekov (and Walter Koenig) didn't appear on the screen until the second season, but the character was on board. We know this because Khan recognized Chekov in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - and "Star Seed" (TOS episode Khan appeared in) was a first season episode.
"Nowadays" implies a better previous period. Compared to exactly when? Every published expert on the advance of technology, and every study using any metric you can name, says that technology is moving faster now than ever before!
Technology seems to be doing just fine. Unfortunately, the technology attorneys are doing even better.