Mod it flamebait if you wish, but does anyone actually believe a multi-billion dollar publicly traded corporation is not going to protect it's interests, even if it does occassionally mean doing evil? To me this is unfortunate but not unexpected. People treat Google as if the entity itself was open source. It's not. If it suits them they will restrict usage, pull products etc. as it suits them. PR is just that. PR.
"This ultra-intense laser blast creates true 'black metal' from copper, gold or zinc by forming nanostructures at the surface of the metal."
Since when were there only 3 metals known to mankind? The summary blows.
Then you look at the articles.
"The key to creating black metal is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second. To get a grasp of that kind of speed--a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years."
And:
"Currently, the process is slow. To alter a strip of metal the size of your little finger easily takes 30 minutes or more, but Guo is looking at how different burst lengths, different wavelengths, and different intensities affect metal's properties. Fortunately, despite the incredible intensity involved, the femtosecond laser can be powered by a simple wall outlet, meaning that when the process is refined, implementing it should be relatively simple."
I'm guessing this has to do with etching an intricate structure. Perhaps also that the laser can only be fired at a given rate. None of this is explained at all well.
What horse shit is this? The number of times I've submitted an article and had it rejected only to see it on the front page a few days later is mind boggling. My wording is often similar or superior. While I don't take it personally suggesting that the editors don't favour particular bloggers when chosing to accept or reject a story is naive.
Privatisation is always a bad way to go because you attract entities that want to make money and couldn't care less about actually providing a service so long as the money is made. This seems to happen to every government organisation that's sold off tot he highest bidder.
How about we separate the teaching from the assessment and kids aren't permitted to proceed to the next level without actually meeting some basic standards. I'm not talking about standardised testing for admission into another institution, or standardised testing that's just plain ignored. I'm also not talking about some sort of trial by fire for the kids - just an opportunity for them to demonstrate basic competence in the curriculum. I'm talking about kids progressing based on merit. If the parents want to scream, let them. If their kid can't demonstrate they know the material that's just plain tough. Also assess the teacher on their performance so that if they consistently take a class that's been doing well and turn them into a class that can't progress to the next level, they're forced to re-train or get out.
While we're at it go back to telling the parents and the kids how well they're doing instead of just giving them all A's to shut the parents up. Making them believe they're capable of something they're not is much more destructive than having them learn to handle failure without it blowing their self esteem out of the water.
Honestly, you don't sound like a dumb bloke. Why the hell would you continue to choose to live in a slum, or let your wife teach there? My fiancee is a primary school teacher. She has a shoulder that before her 4th reconstruction could easily dislocate (usually requiring a hospital visit to put back in) every 2-3 weeks. She taught at a school where the kids learnt that an easy way to get rid of her for a few days was to dislocate her arm (particularly if she tried to break up a physical fight). These kids were violent but not to the point of bringing weapons - the worst they would do is throw a chair. Mind you they were in primary school and I'm very grateful she didn't teach highschool. In any case she was a casual and we both agreed that she wouldn't take any more work from that school. She's since worked in numerous schools and this 4th reconstruction seems to be holding. (Only dislocation since that reconstruction about a year ago as been at the hands of an idiotic physiotherapist).
My point is that unless you consider what you're doing some bizarre sort of charity work, get the hell out.
As for her ex-colleague tell your wife she's the sane one if she is scared, not the moron who thinks it's brave to work in a shooting gallery as the target.
Let me start this with a thesis statement: I go to school to learn, not to do work.
You're clueless! Well at least it's pretty damned clear to me that you haven't learnt that if you don't prove to those around you that you've done work, done the learning etc. you can't expect any kind of reward. If you want the grade you don't just have to learn, you have to prove you've learnt. Just as in the real world when you get a job very few places are going to pay you to do your own thing. If you can't prove you're worth the cost of having you do the work in some very tangible way you don't get paid.
Part of what you're suppose to be learning in school is how to be a useful productive member of society. You don't think the governments of the world support what education they do out of some altruistic feeling do you? Tax payers help support you. Part of the bargain is that you have to show that you're doing better than an uneducated bum that can't read or write.
What I understand when I read your thesis statement is that you're an arrogant lazy child who thinks the world owes him an education and considers themself above proving what they have learnt. The world owes you nothing. Proving you're worth hiring and keeping on is important. Never mind. You'll learn after a few years at any job knocks you around a bit. The sooner you lose the attitude, the further you'll go and the less trouble you'll have with the world not meeting your silly expectations.
I'd argue that your parents failed you in this situation as well. If I had a child and that happened to them (and they were credible - not just the sort of kid that made that sort of thing up), I'd have them removed from the school, and I'd take the matter up with the superiors of that officer starting with the school principal and ending with my local politician and/or the media. I'd also consider suing the school. If you couldn't prove having been beaten, they'd certainly have trouble denying you requested medical assistance and that they didn't comply. Even forgetting a criminal prosecution, a civil suit against the individuals would be a good way to go.
Paying $6/hr to an American is going to drop their standard of living. They're going to begrudgingly take the job when they can get nothing else. There's no incentive.
Paying $6/hr to a Mexican immigrant is going to improve their standard of living. Compared to nothing anything is good. It'll take them a while to work out they can barely afford to sustain themselves (much less a family) and even so they'll prefer it to literally starving. Short term there's lots of incentive.
So what you're essentially saying is that you want to be part of a solution that lowers the standard of living in your country, and then abuse those who resist it or aren't grateful to help you do so. Basically you're not part of the problem, you sir are the problem. Everyone who works hard shouldn't be sitting just above the poverty line you arrogant fool.
The IAU had a great draft which basically said if it orbited a star, and was roughly spherical under its own gravity, and wasn't itself undergoing nuclear fusion it was a planet. Nothing at all wrong with this definition. I couldn't give a shit if Pluto was called a planet or an Oreo. THAT definition was self consistent and just plain made sense.
However a definition that makes a "Dwarf Planet" not a planet, and anything not orbiting our sun not a planet (despite the scientific community having talked and of extrasolar planets for decades now) is just inane BS. It's just confusing, unintuitive bad classification and therefore bad science.
Physical touch is very important and is missing in your little equation. I'm not just talking about sex. Human beings have evolved in an environment where physical touch is plentiful, meaningful and useful. Take them out of that environment and they cannot and will not be happy. Argue all you like but you'll need many generations of evolution before that changes.
For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there.
So what you're saying is that the average person is happy to have their computer, for no reason suddenly refuse to work and deny them access to their own files. They'll be happy that this is fixed either by waiting for people barely able to speak English to fix it, or to pay for another copy.
Normally I don't go for personal attacks but with such a blatant load of BS coming across my screen I have to ask: Are you on the payroll or are you just plain stupid?
Most "non geeks" couldn't care less if their money goes to Microsoft or not, so long as their stuff works and they don't have to spend more money or go to prison. This activation crap has nothing to do with guranteeing anything for the user. It has to do with having a wonderful way to turn off old operating systems at end of life and making people pay for their software many times over.
I'd be much more likely to believe he'd managed to burn some hydrogen in a ball of gas and that his little vacuum chamber is less than perfect. Sounds like pseudo scientific horse shit (still steaming) to me.
If so, the speed limits are pretty plainly marked for several kilometres before the cameras at the top of the hill.
Yes F3 cameras. I went up there on Thursday - it was overcast and had been raining but wasn't at the time. It was threatening to though. The first time I saw an actual speed (not 90/100 with an explanation you had to read) was right near the camera. Now for someone such as I familiar with the camera, you just have to be cautious. However if you've never heard of such a thing, you'd have to actually read and digest every word all while not going over whichever limit was in force.
Also, your point about being 1km/h over the limit is true, but not accurate. Only on a very very bad day will a police officer book you for speeding by such a small margin - you'd need to be doing something more serious for them to even worry about pulling you over.
So it's fine to have a law like that so long as it's not enforced? Honestly what planet are you from??? What's to stop a cop having a bad day from throwing the book at you??? Also do fixed cameras (that no longer have to be marked by the way) take into consideration what's reasonable.
Their detectors aren't 100% accurate, and neither is your speedo. You can easily claim that your speedo indicated that you were doing the speed limit, and that you can't be held liable if it's inaccurate
Do you seriously believe what you're writing? I've never been up before a judge but from everything I've read MOST judges would throw the book at you for wasting the court's time if you're admitting to breaking the law but contesting it. They'll leave it to the cop to make the call as to whether or not you were speeding. I have read about cases where the defendant produced GPS data stating they'd done 1km/hr over the limit in defence. How well do you think it went down?
Before she met me, my fiancee received 2 fines within a 2 week period because her speedo was defective (something to do with the size of tire they used when they serviced her car). It's YOUR responsibility to ensure your speedo is accurate. If you want to rely on Proudman v. Dayman which is what you're alluding to, I'd suggest you turn up with a very recent test of your speedo. In any case she decided not to try it on and go to court. Aside from having to take time off your job to defend the thing your costs end up a lot higher if you lose, and you still lose your points. At best you lose a half day's pay and don't lose your points. Lousy defence. No practical way to take the matter any further either.
By the way I've never been done for speeding by a fixed camera. (Four years ago I did get caught rushing to the station by an unmarked, and that's the only time I've been caught speeding). Add a second infringement notice 6 months later for not seeing a stop sign in a different state, and I was down to half my license for 2 and a half years. So yeah I did the limit, and avoided the good old double demerit long weekends when I had a choice (and been very cautious not to speed when I didn't). As a result I've copped a lot of abuse and been run off the road twice by large trucks doing about 120 in a 40 zone. That's sitting ON the limit, using an over speed alert. Do you really think it's a good idea to have laws that are broken more often than they are obeyed? Why are you defending such crud? The law my friend is an ass. If you can't see that there's something wrong.
/*Web 1.0
Gotta love CGI */ printf("WEB 1.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");//Web 2.0//Insert about 600 lines of Java in about 12 classes using 6 patterns to finally execute.//Oh and don't refresh the whole screen. Use JSP as a shell. System.out.println("WEB 2.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");//Web 3.0//Finally move web 2.0 into JSP and don't refresh the whole screen. System.out.println("WEB 3.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");//Web 4.0//Bugger this. Too complicated. Lets go back to web 1.0 printf("WEB 4.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
That won't give the Tech Czar _cheap_ skilled labour, which is what he really wants. His real gripe isn't a lack of skilled labour. His gripe is he's not willing to pay what it's worth in the US.
This is the equivalent of having a weight problem and letting yourself go completely in the hope that it will all work out eventually. A very very bad idea.
What you need is simple and clear rules.
Here in NSW, Australia you have to travel at 40km/hr in a school zone but only during certain times. Our main highways even have school zones. It's a joke. If you're doing 41km/hr at 3:29pm you're speeding and can lose a quarter of your license, but at 3:31pm you're fine. (We have a demerit system. You have 12 points. Points you lose are lost for 3 years. If you reach zero you lose your licence. Speeding, even 1km/hr over the limit loses you 3 points). It's getting even more ridiculous. We have one speed zone being trialed that's 90km/hr in the wet and 100km/hr in the dry. There's a speed camera and the variable limit is posted only where the camera can nab you. Talk about a bunch of revenue raising horse shit. So now the driver has to know exactly what time of day it is (to the minute) and judge the weather before they know what their speed limit is. What's worse is that everyone speeds - except at the known speed cameras - and if you stick to the limit you make everyone around you angry (which isn't safe!!!)
You do realise you come across as a redneck loser envious of anyone who can pull together the cash to buy a show they like more than once don't you? If you married someone that threatens to set your stuff on fire when she gets annoyed or frustrated with you I'm neither surprised you can't appreciate a B5, nor that you've got the time on your hands to digitise so many hours of video. (I am surprised you have the equipment to do it, but perhaps your standards are lower given VHS deteriorates so much in 5 years anyway). Twin Peaks didn't interest me at all. I'd rather watch paint dry and I thought it literally lost the plot towards the end but I'm not going to criticise you for watching it.
Is that last sentence suppose to be mysterious or cryptic? It just comes across as drivel.
That's a twisted point of view and the reason free software is treated with disdain in the business world despite the cost saving.If you're going to spend the time coding, even for fun, and if you're going to release it, make sure it's decent code. Right or wrong people will come to rely on it. If you want to start from scratch the very least you can do is call it something new. Realise you're going to lose a lot of fans by leaving them out in the cold.
Yes backward compatibility is import. No it's not always the developer that decides not to include it. Management can decide its too costly, or it may simply actually be too hard to mesh new features into the old design.
Imagine if we all went to dinner and had to pay our own meals. We'd all get what we could afford -- burgers for some, steaks for others, soup for the few. Now imagine if we decided to split the bill equally. At first, we'd still buy what we used to, but some people would realize they could now afford steaks for just a little more cash out of pocket. When other people subsidize your irresponsibility, you become irresponsible. Eventually, everyone's buying steaks -- and all our costs go up. In government-run healthcare, everyone orders steaks, but the added bureacracy means the costs are well over the average steak -- and everyone expects to pay for soup.
What a shockingly terribly horribly bad analogy. It's so bad I'd ask for a refund on my entire education if I were you. Are you even capable of putting together an analogy that makes sense?
1) No one ever died because they didn't eat steak every night. When you need medical care for a debilitating or terminal illness, you either get it or the consequences are dire.
2) Not everyone needs to draw heavily on the health care system through their entire life. (Not everyone needs 'steak') The idea of public health care is taht we should all be able to get buy by contributing moderately throughout our working life and use it if we need it.
3) Demand for healthcare isn't going to suddenly increase (like demand for steak). The demand is already there to begin with. We're just not meeting it. It's not something that's going to be a problem. It's an existing problem. Reducing it requires even more spending on research and preventative programs.
Just because you can use a simile, metaphor or analogy, doesn't mean it's coherent or that you should do so.
Last week I re-bought Babylon 5 - all 5 seasons - on DVD. I have them on VHS tapes which I'll be giving away.
Season 1 must have put off a lot of people. Actors were finding their feet, and the plots weren't nearly as good as later seasons. Some of the acting, as the seasons progressed was awful to the point of being embarrassing (especially when the humour in the writing failed) but some of it was absolutely fantastic. Mira Furlan (as Delen) and Bruce Boxleitner (Sheridan) certainly had their moments, but so did the supporting cast. Peter Jurasik (Londo), Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar) Stephen Furst (Vir) and Walter Koenig (Bester aka Chekov from Star Trek) put in some incredible standout performances. Andrea Thompson (Talia), Claudia Christian (Ivanova) and Patricia Tallman (Lyta) also put in some good performances and were easy on the eyes. Many of the other character were likeable and well acted. The characters were flawed and many faceted.
The story was also incredible. The whole Sheridan down the rabbit hole coming back as Jesus thing was a bit much - and there were certainly other mistakes and deficiencies, but on the whole you couldn't watch 3 consecutive episodes of the show from seasons 2 through 4 and not get a good or even great plot in one.
Oh yeah everyone wants their favourite cult classic on an old beatup copy of the last format. If I did try to sell I reckon I'd get $50 on Ebay (-$15 in charges) if I was very VERY lucky for the lot. Not worth the effort for a possible loss.
I don't want the VHS tapes. I don't have room for them. I think I've found someone I can give them to who wouldn't buy them but will take them for free. He may or may not watch them but its better than having them take up space. The VHS tapes cost me $275 on special. The equivalent DVDs cost $200. I get the time to go through the whole 5 series maybe once every 4-5 years. So that means I might get to go through them twice per format change at the current rate. In fact it'd be more cost effective to rent if not for the factors of convenience or availability.
But hey don't let my legitimate complaints get in the way of you defending the right of large corporations to continually re-charge me to re-buy copies of the same content over and over. An executive might have to go without his new car this month if me and others like me actually get the right to content shift. What's the bet you're not a collector of anything and just watch whatever's on the box. I'm alright thanks Jack, so you must be stupid if you want to do things differently is a pathetic attitude.
Given your sig, thought you might be interested in looking up these ICAO airport codes: LEMO Sioux City Little Rock, Arkansas Rapid City, SD Camana, Peru
In any case since these people like to call anyone who'd back up a cd or movie they'd bought a thief, they're the ones that cast the first stone. They're definitely not above mud slinging and name calling.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod it flamebait if you wish, but does anyone actually believe a multi-billion dollar publicly traded corporation is not going to protect it's interests, even if it does occassionally mean doing evil? To me this is unfortunate but not unexpected. People treat Google as if the entity itself was open source. It's not. If it suits them they will restrict usage, pull products etc. as it suits them. PR is just that. PR.
"This ultra-intense laser blast creates true 'black metal' from copper, gold or zinc by forming nanostructures at the surface of the metal."
Since when were there only 3 metals known to mankind? The summary blows.
Then you look at the articles.
"The key to creating black metal is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second. To get a grasp of that kind of speed--a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years."
And:
"Currently, the process is slow. To alter a strip of metal the size of your little finger easily takes 30 minutes or more, but Guo is looking at how different burst lengths, different wavelengths, and different intensities affect metal's properties. Fortunately, despite the incredible intensity involved, the femtosecond laser can be powered by a simple wall outlet, meaning that when the process is refined, implementing it should be relatively simple."
I'm guessing this has to do with etching an intricate structure. Perhaps also that the laser can only be fired at a given rate. None of this is explained at all well.
What horse shit is this? The number of times I've submitted an article and had it rejected only to see it on the front page a few days later is mind boggling. My wording is often similar or superior. While I don't take it personally suggesting that the editors don't favour particular bloggers when chosing to accept or reject a story is naive.
It also won't work on sites that force you to enter your password using buttons (randomly arranged or static). Many banks do this now.
Privatisation is always a bad way to go because you attract entities that want to make money and couldn't care less about actually providing a service so long as the money is made. This seems to happen to every government organisation that's sold off tot he highest bidder.
How about we separate the teaching from the assessment and kids aren't permitted to proceed to the next level without actually meeting some basic standards. I'm not talking about standardised testing for admission into another institution, or standardised testing that's just plain ignored. I'm also not talking about some sort of trial by fire for the kids - just an opportunity for them to demonstrate basic competence in the curriculum. I'm talking about kids progressing based on merit. If the parents want to scream, let them. If their kid can't demonstrate they know the material that's just plain tough. Also assess the teacher on their performance so that if they consistently take a class that's been doing well and turn them into a class that can't progress to the next level, they're forced to re-train or get out.
While we're at it go back to telling the parents and the kids how well they're doing instead of just giving them all A's to shut the parents up. Making them believe they're capable of something they're not is much more destructive than having them learn to handle failure without it blowing their self esteem out of the water.
Just a thought.
Honestly, you don't sound like a dumb bloke. Why the hell would you continue to choose to live in a slum, or let your wife teach there? My fiancee is a primary school teacher. She has a shoulder that before her 4th reconstruction could easily dislocate (usually requiring a hospital visit to put back in) every 2-3 weeks. She taught at a school where the kids learnt that an easy way to get rid of her for a few days was to dislocate her arm (particularly if she tried to break up a physical fight). These kids were violent but not to the point of bringing weapons - the worst they would do is throw a chair. Mind you they were in primary school and I'm very grateful she didn't teach highschool. In any case she was a casual and we both agreed that she wouldn't take any more work from that school. She's since worked in numerous schools and this 4th reconstruction seems to be holding. (Only dislocation since that reconstruction about a year ago as been at the hands of an idiotic physiotherapist).
My point is that unless you consider what you're doing some bizarre sort of charity work, get the hell out.
As for her ex-colleague tell your wife she's the sane one if she is scared, not the moron who thinks it's brave to work in a shooting gallery as the target.
Let me start this with a thesis statement: I go to school to learn, not to do work.
You're clueless! Well at least it's pretty damned clear to me that you haven't learnt that if you don't prove to those around you that you've done work, done the learning etc. you can't expect any kind of reward. If you want the grade you don't just have to learn, you have to prove you've learnt. Just as in the real world when you get a job very few places are going to pay you to do your own thing. If you can't prove you're worth the cost of having you do the work in some very tangible way you don't get paid.
Part of what you're suppose to be learning in school is how to be a useful productive member of society. You don't think the governments of the world support what education they do out of some altruistic feeling do you? Tax payers help support you. Part of the bargain is that you have to show that you're doing better than an uneducated bum that can't read or write.
What I understand when I read your thesis statement is that you're an arrogant lazy child who thinks the world owes him an education and considers themself above proving what they have learnt. The world owes you nothing. Proving you're worth hiring and keeping on is important. Never mind. You'll learn after a few years at any job knocks you around a bit. The sooner you lose the attitude, the further you'll go and the less trouble you'll have with the world not meeting your silly expectations.
I'd argue that your parents failed you in this situation as well. If I had a child and that happened to them (and they were credible - not just the sort of kid that made that sort of thing up), I'd have them removed from the school, and I'd take the matter up with the superiors of that officer starting with the school principal and ending with my local politician and/or the media. I'd also consider suing the school. If you couldn't prove having been beaten, they'd certainly have trouble denying you requested medical assistance and that they didn't comply. Even forgetting a criminal prosecution, a civil suit against the individuals would be a good way to go.
Look it's not hard to work out.
Paying $6/hr to an American is going to drop their standard of living. They're going to begrudgingly take the job when they can get nothing else. There's no incentive.
Paying $6/hr to a Mexican immigrant is going to improve their standard of living. Compared to nothing anything is good. It'll take them a while to work out they can barely afford to sustain themselves (much less a family) and even so they'll prefer it to literally starving. Short term there's lots of incentive.
So what you're essentially saying is that you want to be part of a solution that lowers the standard of living in your country, and then abuse those who resist it or aren't grateful to help you do so. Basically you're not part of the problem, you sir are the problem. Everyone who works hard shouldn't be sitting just above the poverty line you arrogant fool.
The IAU had a great draft which basically said if it orbited a star, and was roughly spherical under its own gravity, and wasn't itself undergoing nuclear fusion it was a planet. Nothing at all wrong with this definition. I couldn't give a shit if Pluto was called a planet or an Oreo. THAT definition was self consistent and just plain made sense.
However a definition that makes a "Dwarf Planet" not a planet, and anything not orbiting our sun not a planet (despite the scientific community having talked and of extrasolar planets for decades now) is just inane BS. It's just confusing, unintuitive bad classification and therefore bad science.
Physical touch is very important and is missing in your little equation. I'm not just talking about sex. Human beings have evolved in an environment where physical touch is plentiful, meaningful and useful. Take them out of that environment and they cannot and will not be happy. Argue all you like but you'll need many generations of evolution before that changes.
For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there.
So what you're saying is that the average person is happy to have their computer, for no reason suddenly refuse to work and deny them access to their own files. They'll be happy that this is fixed either by waiting for people barely able to speak English to fix it, or to pay for another copy.
Normally I don't go for personal attacks but with such a blatant load of BS coming across my screen I have to ask: Are you on the payroll or are you just plain stupid?
Most "non geeks" couldn't care less if their money goes to Microsoft or not, so long as their stuff works and they don't have to spend more money or go to prison. This activation crap has nothing to do with guranteeing anything for the user. It has to do with having a wonderful way to turn off old operating systems at end of life and making people pay for their software many times over.
I'd be much more likely to believe he'd managed to burn some hydrogen in a ball of gas and that his little vacuum chamber is less than perfect. Sounds like pseudo scientific horse shit (still steaming) to me.
If so, the speed limits are pretty plainly marked for several kilometres before the cameras at the top of the hill.
Yes F3 cameras. I went up there on Thursday - it was overcast and had been raining but wasn't at the time. It was threatening to though. The first time I saw an actual speed (not 90/100 with an explanation you had to read) was right near the camera. Now for someone such as I familiar with the camera, you just have to be cautious. However if you've never heard of such a thing, you'd have to actually read and digest every word all while not going over whichever limit was in force.
Also, your point about being 1km/h over the limit is true, but not accurate. Only on a very very bad day will a police officer book you for speeding by such a small margin - you'd need to be doing something more serious for them to even worry about pulling you over.
So it's fine to have a law like that so long as it's not enforced? Honestly what planet are you from??? What's to stop a cop having a bad day from throwing the book at you??? Also do fixed cameras (that no longer have to be marked by the way) take into consideration what's reasonable.
Their detectors aren't 100% accurate, and neither is your speedo. You can easily claim that your speedo indicated that you were doing the speed limit, and that you can't be held liable if it's inaccurate
Do you seriously believe what you're writing? I've never been up before a judge but from everything I've read MOST judges would throw the book at you for wasting the court's time if you're admitting to breaking the law but contesting it. They'll leave it to the cop to make the call as to whether or not you were speeding. I have read about cases where the defendant produced GPS data stating they'd done 1km/hr over the limit in defence. How well do you think it went down?
Before she met me, my fiancee received 2 fines within a 2 week period because her speedo was defective (something to do with the size of tire they used when they serviced her car). It's YOUR responsibility to ensure your speedo is accurate. If you want to rely on Proudman v. Dayman which is what you're alluding to, I'd suggest you turn up with a very recent test of your speedo. In any case she decided not to try it on and go to court. Aside from having to take time off your job to defend the thing your costs end up a lot higher if you lose, and you still lose your points. At best you lose a half day's pay and don't lose your points. Lousy defence. No practical way to take the matter any further either.
By the way I've never been done for speeding by a fixed camera. (Four years ago I did get caught rushing to the station by an unmarked, and that's the only time I've been caught speeding). Add a second infringement notice 6 months later for not seeing a stop sign in a different state, and I was down to half my license for 2 and a half years. So yeah I did the limit, and avoided the good old double demerit long weekends when I had a choice (and been very cautious not to speed when I didn't). As a result I've copped a lot of abuse and been run off the road twice by large trucks doing about 120 in a 40 zone. That's sitting ON the limit, using an over speed alert. Do you really think it's a good idea to have laws that are broken more often than they are obeyed? Why are you defending such crud? The law my friend is an ass. If you can't see that there's something wrong.
Especially when you consider the result is children that don't understand that traffic is dangerous.
/*Web 1.0 //Web 2.0 //Insert about 600 lines of Java in about 12 classes using 6 patterns to finally execute. //Oh and don't refresh the whole screen. Use JSP as a shell. //Web 3.0 //Finally move web 2.0 into JSP and don't refresh the whole screen. //Web 4.0 //Bugger this. Too complicated. Lets go back to web 1.0
Gotta love CGI */
printf("WEB 1.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
System.out.println("WEB 2.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
System.out.println("WEB 3.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
printf("WEB 4.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
That won't give the Tech Czar _cheap_ skilled labour, which is what he really wants. His real gripe isn't a lack of skilled labour. His gripe is he's not willing to pay what it's worth in the US.
This is the equivalent of having a weight problem and letting yourself go completely in the hope that it will all work out eventually. A very very bad idea.
What you need is simple and clear rules.
Here in NSW, Australia you have to travel at 40km/hr in a school zone but only during certain times. Our main highways even have school zones. It's a joke. If you're doing 41km/hr at 3:29pm you're speeding and can lose a quarter of your license, but at 3:31pm you're fine. (We have a demerit system. You have 12 points. Points you lose are lost for 3 years. If you reach zero you lose your licence. Speeding, even 1km/hr over the limit loses you 3 points). It's getting even more ridiculous. We have one speed zone being trialed that's 90km/hr in the wet and 100km/hr in the dry. There's a speed camera and the variable limit is posted only where the camera can nab you. Talk about a bunch of revenue raising horse shit. So now the driver has to know exactly what time of day it is (to the minute) and judge the weather before they know what their speed limit is. What's worse is that everyone speeds - except at the known speed cameras - and if you stick to the limit you make everyone around you angry (which isn't safe!!!)
You do realise you come across as a redneck loser envious of anyone who can pull together the cash to buy a show they like more than once don't you? If you married someone that threatens to set your stuff on fire when she gets annoyed or frustrated with you I'm neither surprised you can't appreciate a B5, nor that you've got the time on your hands to digitise so many hours of video. (I am surprised you have the equipment to do it, but perhaps your standards are lower given VHS deteriorates so much in 5 years anyway). Twin Peaks didn't interest me at all. I'd rather watch paint dry and I thought it literally lost the plot towards the end but I'm not going to criticise you for watching it.
Is that last sentence suppose to be mysterious or cryptic? It just comes across as drivel.
That's a twisted point of view and the reason free software is treated with disdain in the business world despite the cost saving.If you're going to spend the time coding, even for fun, and if you're going to release it, make sure it's decent code. Right or wrong people will come to rely on it. If you want to start from scratch the very least you can do is call it something new. Realise you're going to lose a lot of fans by leaving them out in the cold.
Yes backward compatibility is import. No it's not always the developer that decides not to include it. Management can decide its too costly, or it may simply actually be too hard to mesh new features into the old design.
Imagine if we all went to dinner and had to pay our own meals. We'd all get what we could afford -- burgers for some, steaks for others, soup for the few. Now imagine if we decided to split the bill equally. At first, we'd still buy what we used to, but some people would realize they could now afford steaks for just a little more cash out of pocket. When other people subsidize your irresponsibility, you become irresponsible. Eventually, everyone's buying steaks -- and all our costs go up. In government-run healthcare, everyone orders steaks, but the added bureacracy means the costs are well over the average steak -- and everyone expects to pay for soup.
What a shockingly terribly horribly bad analogy. It's so bad I'd ask for a refund on my entire education if I were you. Are you even capable of putting together an analogy that makes sense?
1) No one ever died because they didn't eat steak every night. When you need medical care for a debilitating or terminal illness, you either get it or the consequences are dire.
2) Not everyone needs to draw heavily on the health care system through their entire life. (Not everyone needs 'steak') The idea of public health care is taht we should all be able to get buy by contributing moderately throughout our working life and use it if we need it.
3) Demand for healthcare isn't going to suddenly increase (like demand for steak). The demand is already there to begin with. We're just not meeting it. It's not something that's going to be a problem. It's an existing problem. Reducing it requires even more spending on research and preventative programs.
Just because you can use a simile, metaphor or analogy, doesn't mean it's coherent or that you should do so.
Last week I re-bought Babylon 5 - all 5 seasons - on DVD. I have them on VHS tapes which I'll be giving away.
Season 1 must have put off a lot of people. Actors were finding their feet, and the plots weren't nearly as good as later seasons. Some of the acting, as the seasons progressed was awful to the point of being embarrassing (especially when the humour in the writing failed) but some of it was absolutely fantastic. Mira Furlan (as Delen) and Bruce Boxleitner (Sheridan) certainly had their moments, but so did the supporting cast. Peter Jurasik (Londo), Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar) Stephen Furst (Vir) and Walter Koenig (Bester aka Chekov from Star Trek) put in some incredible standout performances. Andrea Thompson (Talia), Claudia Christian (Ivanova) and Patricia Tallman (Lyta) also put in some good performances and were easy on the eyes. Many of the other character were likeable and well acted. The characters were flawed and many faceted.
The story was also incredible. The whole Sheridan down the rabbit hole coming back as Jesus thing was a bit much - and there were certainly other mistakes and deficiencies, but on the whole you couldn't watch 3 consecutive episodes of the show from seasons 2 through 4 and not get a good or even great plot in one.
Oh yeah everyone wants their favourite cult classic on an old beatup copy of the last format. If I did try to sell I reckon I'd get $50 on Ebay (-$15 in charges) if I was very VERY lucky for the lot. Not worth the effort for a possible loss.
I don't want the VHS tapes. I don't have room for them. I think I've found someone I can give them to who wouldn't buy them but will take them for free. He may or may not watch them but its better than having them take up space. The VHS tapes cost me $275 on special. The equivalent DVDs cost $200. I get the time to go through the whole 5 series maybe once every 4-5 years. So that means I might get to go through them twice per format change at the current rate. In fact it'd be more cost effective to rent if not for the factors of convenience or availability.
But hey don't let my legitimate complaints get in the way of you defending the right of large corporations to continually re-charge me to re-buy copies of the same content over and over. An executive might have to go without his new car this month if me and others like me actually get the right to content shift. What's the bet you're not a collector of anything and just watch whatever's on the box. I'm alright thanks Jack, so you must be stupid if you want to do things differently is a pathetic attitude.
Given your sig, thought you might be interested in looking up these ICAO airport codes:
LEMO
Sioux City
Little Rock, Arkansas
Rapid City, SD
Camana, Peru
You really must be new here.
In any case since these people like to call anyone who'd back up a cd or movie they'd bought a thief, they're the ones that cast the first stone. They're definitely not above mud slinging and name calling.