The United States was not at war until December. From the perspective of the United States, the war was "looming".
Looming does not necessarily mean something doesn't exist yet. It just means it is on the horizon. Forgive me for not using the OED, but they don't seem to have an ad-supported online presence, and it'd be silly for everyone reading this to have to subscribe.
How many British do you suppose would have said the threat of war was "looming" in 1937 and 1938? Well, Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Germany had already sponsored the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Japan invaded China in 1937. Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in 1938. So the conventional, "the war started in 1939" might sound a little Poland-centric to those countries.
So when, exactly, do you propose that the war definitively was not "looming" for any particular country? 1931?
BTW, the US, despite trying in vain to remain neutral, was doing swift business with those countries resisting Axis advances before it entered the war.
And I suppose not being able to use MS Office, Crystal Reports, and Corel Draw on the same computer reliably unless you install them in the right order and then restore some of the previous DLL files is simple? It's been a few years (about 6 or 7 I guess), but that was exactly the issue several Windows users were having at one client I did work for.
You wanna know how I updated Firefox on my Mandriva system the other day? I clicked on 'check for updates' just like I do on Windows. How's that for complicated?
IANAL, but I could've sworn that diligent defense was for trademarks. I don't believe you lose your exclusive rights for failing to defend either patents or copyrights vigilantly.
OTOH, you generally can't say you're aware of an infringement, wait years to do anything about it, and argue that those additional years while you failed to notify the alleged infringing party specifically what they are supposedly infringing upon count for additional damages. An attorney friend of mine tells me the damaged party must notify the infringing party of the infringement and order that they stop infringing. Any damages up to that point or after the infringing party is notified and continues to infringe can be considered. The damaged party does not have the right to purposefully prolong the infringement and ask for extra damages, as it is their responsibility to limit their own damages as much as possible. A vague, "You are infringing on my property in some unspecified way" is not notification enough.
AC, according to that article to which you just linked:
One of the requirements for proving dilution under the new federal act is that the mark must be famous. In order to determine whether a mark is famous, the new law lists eight factors, none of which are determinative, to guide the inquiry. These factors include the duration and extent of use of the mark; the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; and whether the mark is federally registered or not.
So I guess you're saying that the Linux mark was famous before the Linux kernel? On which and how many of these grounds? Also, note that:
There are several statutorily recognized defenses to trademark dilution. First, ownership of a valid federal trademark registration is a complete bar to a dilution action brought under common law and state dilution statutes.
So Linus Torvalds holding a valid Federal trademark on the word "Linux" in connection with his product bars an action seeking to declare him to be diluting the trademark of another through two avenues. I'm not certain, but it seems attacking the validity of his trademark directly or filing an action based on the anti-dilution federal statute are the only avenues left.
You're right, I Am Not A Lawyer. If _you_ are a lawyer, _you_ should realize that your argument holds about as much water as a plastic knife. You also should be responsible enough to sign your posts and to make your point without resorting to calling people "dumb ass" and "fucktard".
Also note that the "Linux" soap trademark (serial number 75735641, registration number 2410190, filed June 23, 1999, registered December 5, 2000) that is being claimed to be infringed upon by Linus Torvalds was both filed after and registered after the one for the operating system (serial number 74560867, registration number 1916230, filed August 15, 1994, registered September 5, 1995) in the U.S., and that you are referencing a U.S. statute.
It's both. "The Mafia" as a single organization of oath-bound criminals does not exist, and is a myth and a legend. The people upon which the myth and legend are based exist, but are not a single organization of oath-bound criminals.
"The Mafia" does not exist, and is a Hollywood fairy tale. "Organized crime" is real (although not necessarily as organized as the name implies). There is no "The Mafia" member card and secret handshake. Yet there are multiple independent organizations which do commit crimes of racketeering, protection, murder, general extortion, and the other types of crimes which movies and television have so romanticized. There are syndicates of criminals working together, but not all of those syndicates work together and not all of them are even aware of one another.
The Mafia is a myth and legend, for one. It's a bunch of otherwise independent crime organizations that sometimes scratch each other's backs and other times claw at each other's eyes. The most cooperation one can usually expect is that it's mutually beneficial for both sides in a dispute to avoid the ire of the authorities and that it's sometimes convenient for two crime lords to split rackets on geographical or crime-type boundaries.
The MafIAA is much more organized. This is partly because they haven't yet been proven to be doing things illegally, which allows them to communicate and plot as openly as they do. Many of the tactics do seem like racketeering, and there's chatter in the courtrooms and the press that some counter-suits are trying to make a point of that.
More directly to you question, though, protection payments, strong-arm tactics, threats, trying to bar outsiders from competing, and divvying up markets among member organizations are all time-tested mob tactics. If "The Mafia" is upset about anything involving the comparison, it's probably that the MPAA and RIAA are less romantic of a notion.
Are you talking about the rock that washed onto the bank in the last big storm, or (let's say) the monolithic tombstone of my ancestor who farmed the land, cut that very stone from a mountain, carted it a thousand miles back to the river, carved it into a beautiful statue, and had it placed over the final resting place of his bones? Would you have as much entitlement to that rock as I?
At the rate MS puts out "new" OSes, there's not going to be any 32-bit processors outside the embedded device realm. Hell, there may not be many 64-bit ones left, either.
...which should be, if it isn't, illegal in itself. To disparage someone's reputation by saying they are willfully infringing, then refusing to file court documents to stop the infringement (not even a cease and desist letter to Linus from what I've read in the press) sure smells like defamation and slander.
It may not be, but that's what it smells like, and I think that smell test is closer to the mark than Ballmer's assessment of how much this whole parade of SCOmanship will help Microsoft's bottom line.
It's just barely an analogy at all. It's a facetious statement that a certain level of information is good, and too little is bad.
It's one thing to say that the indicators need to be rethought so that they are more useful and less annoying. It's quite another to whine that since they can be annoying and this one guy wouldn't miss them that everyone else should have no options for up-front information displays on their equipment.
How arrogant is this puke that he thinks others should have to void their warranties to wire indicators into equipment instead of him cutting wires to his or just putting tape or play-dough over them? Pretty damn arrogant, I'd say. And even more arrogant if he just never considered that other people may actually think differently about the topic.
As for your PowerBook, I'd say there's probably a case for it, a hand towel that would cover the light while you sleep, or an option to turn the system all the way off. Crawling around on the floor with your notebook really shouldn't be necessary.
But wouldn't they have to notify the offending party with a cease and desist? They're partly responsible for future damages themselves if they don't notify the offenders and allow them the chance to ameliorate the situation. You can't quite go into court saying, "Your Honor, I told them a year ago they were doing _something_non-specific_ wrong, and they willfully continued to do it."
You can't quite willfully infringe on a patent if you don't know you're doing it. Which means there can be no treble damages. Microsoft's patents would be better protected if they notified people, told them to stop violating, and only sued for the past infringement. To sue for extra damages because you refused to notify the offending party shows a lack of diligence and bad faith.
IANAL, but a case that shows a lack of diligence and bad faith I believe is usually a pretty weak case. Perhaps it's still winnable, but judges aren't likely to be happy with the plaintiff when the suit is brought in bad faith.
Let's get rid of all those pesky indicators on car dashboards, too. I mean, really, all that junk that nobody ever looks at just serves to clutter up the dash and raise the price of cars. Why, they try to make it look like they are indicators of something. Like you're operating a piece of equipment and want to know its status. While we're at it, let's get rid of the speedometer and fuel gauge, too. I mean, if there's no fuel, you'll know because the car will stop. If you're going too fast, Mr. Police Officer will kindly let you know sooner or later.
Ever wonder why Microsoft helped fund SCO's suits? It's the same reason Coca Cola released Tab before they released Diet Coke.
Let's see how many ways I can say this succinctly in a minute:
Microsoft wanted to test the waters before it took the plunge, and McBride and Co. served as their big toe. That was the cartoon, and this is the feature. SCO was the minor leagues, and out of suing end users, harassing end users in the press, bad-mouthing the competition, and suing the competition some of the players are getting called up to the majors. SCO was the Craftsman series, and Microsoft is the Nextel Cup. SCO was the sideshow, and Microsoft's the center ring. SCO was a motorcycle jump over water, and Microsoft's bringing in the flaming school buses.
There, I think you get the idea. The isn't another SCO show at all. It just means that practice is over and the legal battles made the main stage in front of the big audience.
The filling of the container will constrict the space for air in the container. While the water may release enough oxygen, that oxygen would have to compete with the ever-thickening carbon dioxide from his own exhalations. I haven't run the math, and I honestly am not sure I could. I don't have the background in chemistry and medicine to figure all the rates properly from my head, and I refuse to work all weekend doing research for this post. I do know there's oxygen release of the water (unless it's depleted), carbon dioxide uptake of the water (unless it's saturated), rate of oxygen intake through respiration, and rate of carbon dioxide release through respiration. Then there's the increasing pressure of the water forcing the gases into the lungs, the mixture of oxygen to carbon dioxide that the body can stand, and the fact that if the water's colder, oxygen reliance actually drops a bit.:-)
Intuitively, I'd think that at some point the air space left at the top of the container would be primarily carbon dioxide, unless the water takes up enough of that at the same time. Still, drowning at a slow trickle seems an impossibility in this case whether the actual death be by hypothermia, crushing asphyxiation (which should happen well before structural damage to the organs, right?), or asphyxiation from poor gas mixture.
Gee, this is fun, but I'm out of my league on this one. Still, drowning seems unlikely. Hell, stroke or heart attack from the stress of knowing what was coming seems more likely than actual drowning at that kind of rate.
Thanks for playing along with my thought experiment.
At the very least if you're going to disbar people, there should be a merely 'frivolous' and a 'flagrantly frivolous'. A merely frivolous suit should automatically have awards to the defendant and a fine from the court. The flagrantly frivolous ones should be the ones that get people disbarred. There's a matter of degree to everything, including how silly a silly court case is.
He probably won't drown at all. Given a sealed container of roughly human size, he'll suffocate far before drowning. If it's much larger than human size, like a pond, it wouldn't need to be sealed as he'd only need to be tied in place. If this is similar to how you would design experiments for global warming, then please don't publish any papers on the topic just yet.
OTOH, your point about rates of carbon uptake is a good one. What evidence do you have to support your implied hypothesis that the system has less than 0.1% slop in it? Do you have evidence from your research suggesting that 0.1% additional carbon dioxide will not simply result in more plants and microbes rather than significant warming?
Nah, we know where their priorities are. Stock price, profit, and market share are their priorities. The order is not necessarily right, but I think it probably is.
The reason stock price is so important at MS is that so many of the employees hold large numbers of shares. The best way to motivate employees to look after shareholder interests is to get loads of shares into their hands. That way, shareholder interests benefit from the self interest of the people inside the company. It great news to the top shareholder (Gates, with over 900 million shares according to Yahoo Finance) when the employees all want to make him richer.
My company had just recently bought a smaller ISP in another town. It took us a while to integrate everything since we were also integrating another smaller ISP we'd just bought. In the meantime, we made a few changes at a time, but we had some server machines unmanned in their old NOC some 40 miles or so away from ours.
I added a network card to a mail server and added another box to the same rack one day at the remote office. The plan was to make the software changes from back at my desk when I got some time.
Well, I got some time around two weeks later. Everything was going smoothly as planned at first. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% accurate at typing like some slashdotters claim to be. I mistyped the interface name in one of the virtual adapters I was creating for the new card. In fact, it exactly matched the name of an interface on the primary network adapter.
Yes, I checked to make sure everything looked alright, but for some reason I didn't catch my typo. I guess my eyes glossed over from working such long hours back in the day when small ISPs were still the rage. I saved the network config files, and restarted the network. All I said to my boss on my way out the door to my car was, "Made a typo. Going to Jacksonville."
Once I drove all the way there, fixed the typo, got the network restarted (successfully this time since there weren't conflicting interface names), and drove all the way back I explained what I had done. Thank goodness we had MX and outgoing SMTP separate from the mailbox storage and POP toasters. People were unable to check their mail for about 45 minutes, but at least none got dropped.
Yeah, I was getting all excited about a magic box that gaps divides between over-schooled, under-experienced weenies and under-aged, over-caffeinated workers in the trenches being on sale real cheap from midnight until sell-out!
So what you're saying is that among the Middle School crowd at least, there's a correlation between parents who don't get involved with what their kids are doing and violent video games. There's also a strong correlation between lack of parental involvement and rates of violence.
So perhaps the correlation between violent video games and real-life violence really should be studied more closely. It seems they are probably completely linked, although not so much by causation in either direction. It seems to me the main link would be that they are both symptoms of parental neglect and impulse control disorder. ICD is also known to have higher rates among the neglected (but also those with head injuries).
It seems to me that kids also develop a lack of impulse control when they are incessantly spoiled and allowed to have anything and do anything they want. Crying and tantrums as an effective means of controlling parents is an early form of bullying -- using hostile and aggressive acts to manipulate people. It's good to have happy kids, but it's necessary to set boundaries for them.
So, in short, I'd say lack of parental involvement is most likely a leading cause of both excessive playing of violent video games and of real-world violence. Anything that happens in the real world is likely more involved than a single cause, and there may be reinforcing issues between real aggression and playing violent video games. I still think these are minor compared to the effect of having uninvolved parents.
I am not a counselor, therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist nor a researcher in those fields. These things should be considered, though. The personality and disorders of the perpetrator of an act are always to be considered before their surroundings.
Does it strike anyone odd at all that politicians want to lock down access to information?
People like to break down economies on a national level or a federation of nations level. That's fine and very useful to look at. Another way, though, to look at an economy is by sector.
In many regions, the economy of a certain type of good or service breaks out ahead of the economy as a whole. Other parts of the economy get pegged to that commodity and are traded against it. The economy of that one sector can be said to be healthier than the economies of other sectors. Sometimes a sector itself is dominated by a single good or service.
You get trading blocks and cartels instead of nations. People can be part of a national group and also be participating in the sector-based trading blocks. The politicians in governments like to use their power in the government to ensure their success in the trading blocks in which they have heavily invested.
Lots of ways to deal with issues in a sector arise. Adding to your own access into a sector while diminishing someone else's is the quickest way to build a fortune. It's certainly quicker than making sure you do better work than the competition.
When the strongest economies in the world were agricultural, the people in power made sure they had most of the land rights. When the strongest economies were those of traveling merchants, they made sure to control roads, seaports, and shipbuilding. When the strongest economies were determined by mineral mining, they all invested in mines. When industrial might was the fastest way to wealth, they were all invested in factories. When oil was strongest (and still had a clear future), it was all about oil. As oil gets replaced as a power source, look for big investments in those new technologies by politicians and new laws that protect those assets more stringently.
Now, much of the world has invested in what's called an 'information economy'. So guess where the politicians in regional power want to put their money. Guess what they want to make sure has limited access. Much of the money to be made these days is in information. Buying, selling, trading, encrypting, decrypting, co-mingling, mapping, storing, retrieving, analyzing, abstracting, formatting, presenting, and archiving data is how fortunes are made quickly right now. So politicians will use their power in regional governments to further protect their investments in information-related assets.
It's really no surprise that politicians want to curtail access to information. It's actually surprising to me how much lobbying it takes in the US and the EU to get the people's rights undermined by the information companies. It must be that many of the politicians are indeed interested in what's best for the people. Otherwise, there'd be no debate since self-interest dictates to get in on the cornered market of the day and corner it some more.
IANAL, but I believe it's called sharing the copyright as joint owners. Once both companies jointly own the copyright, either can do anything with the code it wishes except preventing the other from having that same freedom.
Better yet for both the contract developers and the client, the developers could assign the copyright on the complete work to the client but retain copyright on the libraries. This could allow the client who paid for it to do whatever they want with the whole project. They'd have exclusive ownership of the parts that are unique to their business model and to their vision of how the software helps their efficiency. The contract developer could use any wheels-and-cogs type utility libraries for as many other clients as they wish, and continue licensing the libraries as 'do-what-you-will-with-this' to each client.
Slashdot Mirror
The United States was not at war until December. From the perspective of the United States, the war was "looming".
Looming does not necessarily mean something doesn't exist yet. It just means it is on the horizon. Forgive me for not using the OED, but they don't seem to have an ad-supported online presence, and it'd be silly for everyone reading this to have to subscribe.
How many British do you suppose would have said the threat of war was "looming" in 1937 and 1938? Well, Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Germany had already sponsored the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Japan invaded China in 1937. Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in 1938. So the conventional, "the war started in 1939" might sound a little Poland-centric to those countries.
So when, exactly, do you propose that the war definitively was not "looming" for any particular country? 1931?
BTW, the US, despite trying in vain to remain neutral, was doing swift business with those countries resisting Axis advances before it entered the war.
And I suppose not being able to use MS Office, Crystal Reports, and Corel Draw on the same computer reliably unless you install them in the right order and then restore some of the previous DLL files is simple? It's been a few years (about 6 or 7 I guess), but that was exactly the issue several Windows users were having at one client I did work for.
You wanna know how I updated Firefox on my Mandriva system the other day? I clicked on 'check for updates' just like I do on Windows. How's that for complicated?
IANAL, but I could've sworn that diligent defense was for trademarks. I don't believe you lose your exclusive rights for failing to defend either patents or copyrights vigilantly.
OTOH, you generally can't say you're aware of an infringement, wait years to do anything about it, and argue that those additional years while you failed to notify the alleged infringing party specifically what they are supposedly infringing upon count for additional damages. An attorney friend of mine tells me the damaged party must notify the infringing party of the infringement and order that they stop infringing. Any damages up to that point or after the infringing party is notified and continues to infringe can be considered. The damaged party does not have the right to purposefully prolong the infringement and ask for extra damages, as it is their responsibility to limit their own damages as much as possible. A vague, "You are infringing on my property in some unspecified way" is not notification enough.
So I guess you're saying that the Linux mark was famous before the Linux kernel? On which and how many of these grounds? Also, note that:
So Linus Torvalds holding a valid Federal trademark on the word "Linux" in connection with his product bars an action seeking to declare him to be diluting the trademark of another through two avenues. I'm not certain, but it seems attacking the validity of his trademark directly or filing an action based on the anti-dilution federal statute are the only avenues left.
You're right, I Am Not A Lawyer. If _you_ are a lawyer, _you_ should realize that your argument holds about as much water as a plastic knife. You also should be responsible enough to sign your posts and to make your point without resorting to calling people "dumb ass" and "fucktard".
Also note that the "Linux" soap trademark (serial number 75735641, registration number 2410190, filed June 23, 1999, registered December 5, 2000) that is being claimed to be infringed upon by Linus Torvalds was both filed after and registered after the one for the operating system (serial number 74560867, registration number 1916230, filed August 15, 1994, registered September 5, 1995) in the U.S., and that you are referencing a U.S. statute.
It's both. "The Mafia" as a single organization of oath-bound criminals does not exist, and is a myth and a legend. The people upon which the myth and legend are based exist, but are not a single organization of oath-bound criminals.
"The Mafia" does not exist, and is a Hollywood fairy tale. "Organized crime" is real (although not necessarily as organized as the name implies). There is no "The Mafia" member card and secret handshake. Yet there are multiple independent organizations which do commit crimes of racketeering, protection, murder, general extortion, and the other types of crimes which movies and television have so romanticized. There are syndicates of criminals working together, but not all of those syndicates work together and not all of them are even aware of one another.
It's pretty common knowledge that a trademark is only valid within an industry.
Imagine that, an AC who lacks common knowledge, or who pretends to in order to troll, you troll.
The Mafia is a myth and legend, for one. It's a bunch of otherwise independent crime organizations that sometimes scratch each other's backs and other times claw at each other's eyes. The most cooperation one can usually expect is that it's mutually beneficial for both sides in a dispute to avoid the ire of the authorities and that it's sometimes convenient for two crime lords to split rackets on geographical or crime-type boundaries.
The MafIAA is much more organized. This is partly because they haven't yet been proven to be doing things illegally, which allows them to communicate and plot as openly as they do. Many of the tactics do seem like racketeering, and there's chatter in the courtrooms and the press that some counter-suits are trying to make a point of that.
More directly to you question, though, protection payments, strong-arm tactics, threats, trying to bar outsiders from competing, and divvying up markets among member organizations are all time-tested mob tactics. If "The Mafia" is upset about anything involving the comparison, it's probably that the MPAA and RIAA are less romantic of a notion.
Are you talking about the rock that washed onto the bank in the last big storm, or (let's say) the monolithic tombstone of my ancestor who farmed the land, cut that very stone from a mountain, carted it a thousand miles back to the river, carved it into a beautiful statue, and had it placed over the final resting place of his bones? Would you have as much entitlement to that rock as I?
At the rate MS puts out "new" OSes, there's not going to be any 32-bit processors outside the embedded device realm. Hell, there may not be many 64-bit ones left, either.
...which should be, if it isn't, illegal in itself. To disparage someone's reputation by saying they are willfully infringing, then refusing to file court documents to stop the infringement (not even a cease and desist letter to Linus from what I've read in the press) sure smells like defamation and slander.
It may not be, but that's what it smells like, and I think that smell test is closer to the mark than Ballmer's assessment of how much this whole parade of SCOmanship will help Microsoft's bottom line.
It's just barely an analogy at all. It's a facetious statement that a certain level of information is good, and too little is bad.
It's one thing to say that the indicators need to be rethought so that they are more useful and less annoying. It's quite another to whine that since they can be annoying and this one guy wouldn't miss them that everyone else should have no options for up-front information displays on their equipment.
How arrogant is this puke that he thinks others should have to void their warranties to wire indicators into equipment instead of him cutting wires to his or just putting tape or play-dough over them? Pretty damn arrogant, I'd say. And even more arrogant if he just never considered that other people may actually think differently about the topic.
As for your PowerBook, I'd say there's probably a case for it, a hand towel that would cover the light while you sleep, or an option to turn the system all the way off. Crawling around on the floor with your notebook really shouldn't be necessary.
But wouldn't they have to notify the offending party with a cease and desist? They're partly responsible for future damages themselves if they don't notify the offenders and allow them the chance to ameliorate the situation. You can't quite go into court saying, "Your Honor, I told them a year ago they were doing _something_non-specific_ wrong, and they willfully continued to do it."
You can't quite willfully infringe on a patent if you don't know you're doing it. Which means there can be no treble damages. Microsoft's patents would be better protected if they notified people, told them to stop violating, and only sued for the past infringement. To sue for extra damages because you refused to notify the offending party shows a lack of diligence and bad faith.
IANAL, but a case that shows a lack of diligence and bad faith I believe is usually a pretty weak case. Perhaps it's still winnable, but judges aren't likely to be happy with the plaintiff when the suit is brought in bad faith.
Let's get rid of all those pesky indicators on car dashboards, too. I mean, really, all that junk that nobody ever looks at just serves to clutter up the dash and raise the price of cars. Why, they try to make it look like they are indicators of something. Like you're operating a piece of equipment and want to know its status. While we're at it, let's get rid of the speedometer and fuel gauge, too. I mean, if there's no fuel, you'll know because the car will stop. If you're going too fast, Mr. Police Officer will kindly let you know sooner or later.
Ever wonder why Microsoft helped fund SCO's suits? It's the same reason Coca Cola released Tab before they released Diet Coke.
Let's see how many ways I can say this succinctly in a minute:
Microsoft wanted to test the waters before it took the plunge, and McBride and Co. served as their big toe. That was the cartoon, and this is the feature. SCO was the minor leagues, and out of suing end users, harassing end users in the press, bad-mouthing the competition, and suing the competition some of the players are getting called up to the majors. SCO was the Craftsman series, and Microsoft is the Nextel Cup. SCO was the sideshow, and Microsoft's the center ring. SCO was a motorcycle jump over water, and Microsoft's bringing in the flaming school buses.
There, I think you get the idea. The isn't another SCO show at all. It just means that practice is over and the legal battles made the main stage in front of the big audience.
The filling of the container will constrict the space for air in the container. While the water may release enough oxygen, that oxygen would have to compete with the ever-thickening carbon dioxide from his own exhalations. I haven't run the math, and I honestly am not sure I could. I don't have the background in chemistry and medicine to figure all the rates properly from my head, and I refuse to work all weekend doing research for this post. I do know there's oxygen release of the water (unless it's depleted), carbon dioxide uptake of the water (unless it's saturated), rate of oxygen intake through respiration, and rate of carbon dioxide release through respiration. Then there's the increasing pressure of the water forcing the gases into the lungs, the mixture of oxygen to carbon dioxide that the body can stand, and the fact that if the water's colder, oxygen reliance actually drops a bit. :-)
Intuitively, I'd think that at some point the air space left at the top of the container would be primarily carbon dioxide, unless the water takes up enough of that at the same time. Still, drowning at a slow trickle seems an impossibility in this case whether the actual death be by hypothermia, crushing asphyxiation (which should happen well before structural damage to the organs, right?), or asphyxiation from poor gas mixture.
Gee, this is fun, but I'm out of my league on this one. Still, drowning seems unlikely. Hell, stroke or heart attack from the stress of knowing what was coming seems more likely than actual drowning at that kind of rate.
Thanks for playing along with my thought experiment.
At the very least if you're going to disbar people, there should be a merely 'frivolous' and a 'flagrantly frivolous'. A merely frivolous suit should automatically have awards to the defendant and a fine from the court. The flagrantly frivolous ones should be the ones that get people disbarred. There's a matter of degree to everything, including how silly a silly court case is.
He probably won't drown at all. Given a sealed container of roughly human size, he'll suffocate far before drowning. If it's much larger than human size, like a pond, it wouldn't need to be sealed as he'd only need to be tied in place. If this is similar to how you would design experiments for global warming, then please don't publish any papers on the topic just yet.
OTOH, your point about rates of carbon uptake is a good one. What evidence do you have to support your implied hypothesis that the system has less than 0.1% slop in it? Do you have evidence from your research suggesting that 0.1% additional carbon dioxide will not simply result in more plants and microbes rather than significant warming?
Nah, we know where their priorities are. Stock price, profit, and market share are their priorities. The order is not necessarily right, but I think it probably is.
The reason stock price is so important at MS is that so many of the employees hold large numbers of shares. The best way to motivate employees to look after shareholder interests is to get loads of shares into their hands. That way, shareholder interests benefit from the self interest of the people inside the company. It great news to the top shareholder (Gates, with over 900 million shares according to Yahoo Finance) when the employees all want to make him richer.
My company had just recently bought a smaller ISP in another town. It took us a while to integrate everything since we were also integrating another smaller ISP we'd just bought. In the meantime, we made a few changes at a time, but we had some server machines unmanned in their old NOC some 40 miles or so away from ours.
I added a network card to a mail server and added another box to the same rack one day at the remote office. The plan was to make the software changes from back at my desk when I got some time.
Well, I got some time around two weeks later. Everything was going smoothly as planned at first. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% accurate at typing like some slashdotters claim to be. I mistyped the interface name in one of the virtual adapters I was creating for the new card. In fact, it exactly matched the name of an interface on the primary network adapter.
Yes, I checked to make sure everything looked alright, but for some reason I didn't catch my typo. I guess my eyes glossed over from working such long hours back in the day when small ISPs were still the rage. I saved the network config files, and restarted the network. All I said to my boss on my way out the door to my car was, "Made a typo. Going to Jacksonville."
Once I drove all the way there, fixed the typo, got the network restarted (successfully this time since there weren't conflicting interface names), and drove all the way back I explained what I had done. Thank goodness we had MX and outgoing SMTP separate from the mailbox storage and POP toasters. People were unable to check their mail for about 45 minutes, but at least none got dropped.
Yeah, I was getting all excited about a magic box that gaps divides between over-schooled, under-experienced weenies and under-aged, over-caffeinated workers in the trenches being on sale real cheap from midnight until sell-out!
;-)
Then I found out they just $t013 t3h nam3!
Mr. Ballmer, you forgot to sign in again.
Of course, there was also the shrine to Apollo at Clarus.
Don't forget that the Oracle at Delphi was a shrine to Apollo, who killed the Python.
Also, Apollo helped the Trojans during their war with Greece. He aided the killing of Achilles, who was a student of Phoenix.
Appollo was born in part due to a necklace of amber.
Apollo was known as the god of the sun which is a star, and he also was known as the one who brought the mice to the people.
Much about Apollo is known from the record of him in the Odyssey and the Illiad. In the Odyssey, the sun god was known as Helios.
So what you're saying is that among the Middle School crowd at least, there's a correlation between parents who don't get involved with what their kids are doing and violent video games. There's also a strong correlation between lack of parental involvement and rates of violence.
Kids with uninvolved parents often feel alienated and lack the level of impulse control typical of their peers. They are more greedy, more self-centered, and less empathic. They tend to use hostility and aggressive acts as means to get what they want more than other kids their age.
So perhaps the correlation between violent video games and real-life violence really should be studied more closely. It seems they are probably completely linked, although not so much by causation in either direction. It seems to me the main link would be that they are both symptoms of parental neglect and impulse control disorder. ICD is also known to have higher rates among the neglected (but also those with head injuries).
It seems to me that kids also develop a lack of impulse control when they are incessantly spoiled and allowed to have anything and do anything they want. Crying and tantrums as an effective means of controlling parents is an early form of bullying -- using hostile and aggressive acts to manipulate people. It's good to have happy kids, but it's necessary to set boundaries for them.
So, in short, I'd say lack of parental involvement is most likely a leading cause of both excessive playing of violent video games and of real-world violence. Anything that happens in the real world is likely more involved than a single cause, and there may be reinforcing issues between real aggression and playing violent video games. I still think these are minor compared to the effect of having uninvolved parents.
I am not a counselor, therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist nor a researcher in those fields. These things should be considered, though. The personality and disorders of the perpetrator of an act are always to be considered before their surroundings.
Does it strike anyone odd at all that politicians want to lock down access to information?
People like to break down economies on a national level or a federation of nations level. That's fine and very useful to look at. Another way, though, to look at an economy is by sector.
In many regions, the economy of a certain type of good or service breaks out ahead of the economy as a whole. Other parts of the economy get pegged to that commodity and are traded against it. The economy of that one sector can be said to be healthier than the economies of other sectors. Sometimes a sector itself is dominated by a single good or service.
You get trading blocks and cartels instead of nations. People can be part of a national group and also be participating in the sector-based trading blocks. The politicians in governments like to use their power in the government to ensure their success in the trading blocks in which they have heavily invested.
Lots of ways to deal with issues in a sector arise. Adding to your own access into a sector while diminishing someone else's is the quickest way to build a fortune. It's certainly quicker than making sure you do better work than the competition.
When the strongest economies in the world were agricultural, the people in power made sure they had most of the land rights. When the strongest economies were those of traveling merchants, they made sure to control roads, seaports, and shipbuilding. When the strongest economies were determined by mineral mining, they all invested in mines. When industrial might was the fastest way to wealth, they were all invested in factories. When oil was strongest (and still had a clear future), it was all about oil. As oil gets replaced as a power source, look for big investments in those new technologies by politicians and new laws that protect those assets more stringently.
Now, much of the world has invested in what's called an 'information economy'. So guess where the politicians in regional power want to put their money. Guess what they want to make sure has limited access. Much of the money to be made these days is in information. Buying, selling, trading, encrypting, decrypting, co-mingling, mapping, storing, retrieving, analyzing, abstracting, formatting, presenting, and archiving data is how fortunes are made quickly right now. So politicians will use their power in regional governments to further protect their investments in information-related assets.
It's really no surprise that politicians want to curtail access to information. It's actually surprising to me how much lobbying it takes in the US and the EU to get the people's rights undermined by the information companies. It must be that many of the politicians are indeed interested in what's best for the people. Otherwise, there'd be no debate since self-interest dictates to get in on the cornered market of the day and corner it some more.
IANAL, but I believe it's called sharing the copyright as joint owners. Once both companies jointly own the copyright, either can do anything with the code it wishes except preventing the other from having that same freedom.
Better yet for both the contract developers and the client, the developers could assign the copyright on the complete work to the client but retain copyright on the libraries. This could allow the client who paid for it to do whatever they want with the whole project. They'd have exclusive ownership of the parts that are unique to their business model and to their vision of how the software helps their efficiency. The contract developer could use any wheels-and-cogs type utility libraries for as many other clients as they wish, and continue licensing the libraries as 'do-what-you-will-with-this' to each client.