I'm one of those coulda-been techies. I did all the requisitely nerdy things in high school -- captain of my chess team, played M:TG, built my own computer, taught myself HTML, completely socially inept.....
... And that was it. Never actually took a computer programming class. I think the only conscious choice involved was deciding that the girls in the English Lit department were better looking then.... well, then the guys in the Comp Sci department. I did end up getting a BS, so I wasn't math-phobic or anything, just never happened.
... And then I went to law school. Hah. That's what fascinated me so much about this discussion. The rules for lawyers are completely different. No so much where you went to college, but where you went to law school is the single most deciding factor for many firms. Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but as a general principle -- I think I'm right-on. (Just FYI -- I went to a school consistently ranked in the high teens, low 20's..... Good, but not great.) And most of the people in the really good law schools went to really good undergraduate institutions.
Unlike programming, practical experience is not particularly valued (with the exception of court house lawyers, for whom experience and bringing home the bacon is the only goal.) If you want to work for an established law firm, a good school with top grades is a necessity. Of course, luck plays a role, and there isn't come cabal sitting in judgment over the 2nd tier / B / C students.... But I think this is true, especially when starting out. (Again, FYI -- I went into government myself. Much less emphasis on schools.... There's just a lot less asshol-ism among government attorneys then among many (especially the larger) law firms.)
The comparisons are striking. Only one state today even allows people without a legal degree from a certified school to even sit for the bar exam. Historical examples notwithstanding (for instance, many Supreme Court justices -- in addition to Abraham Lincoln were self taught), the idea of a lawyer not having at least an undergraduate and graduate degree is laughable. And the very fact that whether going to a big-name institution is even seriously debatable made my jaw drop. (Of course, there's also the possibility that all the big name comp sci grads are doing something other then reading/., but I digress.)
So, yes, this post does have a point. And it's this: our young friend here may -- shocking, I know -- decide he wants to do something else with his life other then program or design software. Maybe he'll find his great passion playing the violin or studying history or -- god forbid -- as a member of the bar. He needs to think not only about the profession that he -- as a sophomore -- envisions for himself, but also what other doors may be opened for him at other schools. All in all -- the very fact he asked the question indicates he's doing his homework. I'm sure someone this thorough and seemingly conscientious will thrive in a variety of academic settings. But not every field has the same laid back attitude towards educational background. Should he want to pursue an advanced degree in the humanities, or go into academia, or any number of other fields that don't share the laudable emphasis on merit that CS has, he may want to consider other educational options.
And one last little tidbit -- as much as I joke -- I love the legal profession. Law school was one of the best and most challenging times of my life and my job now is rewarding and fun. Sure, there may be more asshol-ism among the legal community then the community at large, but eh, I just don't hang out with those types. And the breadth of jobs I'd be considered for (outside the traditional legal roles) is astounding. Unlike a comp sci grad, lawyers are presumed to have the competence to practice in any legal field -- and usual
Contrary to the subject line, IAAL -- but not a particularly good one, so don't take any of what I say to court or anything.
(Ha! Get it? "Take it to court"? Gotta love a little lawyer humor!)
Actually, dismissed with prejudice is merely a term of art. It means that the court has ruled on the merits of the argument and will not (generally) entertain any further arguments on the matter.
Usually, if a case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that there was a procedural or jurisdictional defect in the case. The case is still dismissed, but you are free fix whatever procedural or jurisdictional problem and then re-file the case. If a case is dismissed without prejudice then the court has not ruled on the merits.
If you think about it in terms of judicial economy (a fancy term for not making judges do more work then absolutely necessary), this makes perfect sense -- the court does not want to have to listen to 10 people make the same argument. They heard the case, they deliberated, and they decided the merits of the case. They don't want to have to do all that work over again!
The one thing I'll add to the previous commenter is that the parties can apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of cert (basically the Supreme Court's permission to appeal to them) for either a decision on the merits (a dismissal with prejudice) or sometimes, even a case dismissed without prejudice on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. The specifics get a little complicated.
But the key to understand is you need a final decision in order to seek an appeal. Here -- first you'll have to seek en banc review from the full 9th Circuit -- then they can apply to the Supreme Court..... blah blah blah....
Stare decisis (actually, the full latin phrase is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points") only applies to actual court decisions -- the decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case does not mean that the issue is decided. It simply means that the Supreme Court didn't want to hear this case at this time. While people often analogize this to mean that the Supreme Court is leaning one way or the other, that's just a guess. It can mean any number of different things and predicting Supreme Court vote counts is always a risky business.
In the meantime, the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case means that the DC Circuit court case stands. It would constitute binding precedent (meaning stare decisis would apply) within the DC Circuit. However, it would only be persuasive authority in other circuits. (Here's a quick run down on the different circuits: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html. Even though the DC Circuit is tiny -- it is given jurisdiction over many of the most important cases and is considered (by some) to be the most influential of the Circuits.)
But. And here's the kicker -- the disappointed litigant (in this case the RIAA) now will travel throughout the country and raise this same issue in other circuits, hoping to find a panel of judges (these things are heard by 3-judge panels at the first appeal level) that will disagree with the reasoning of the DC Circuit. Then they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court again. A split between the circuits (ie., two circuits saying the law means two different things) is the surest way to get the Supreme Court to review your case. While still not a guarantee, it's likely the Supreme Court will revisit this issue once the RIAA finds a sympathetic circuit to agree with it.
Again, the parent didn't do a bad job explaining, just not entirely accurate. With due respect, the difference between binding precedent and persuasive authority is a subtle, but huge, point. Stare decisis applies to binding precedent, not persuasive precedent.
I'm coming clean. I have a wireless network and I haven't bothered to secure it.
Honestly, a big part of it is just laziness.
But it's laziness tinged with a bit of Robinhood-ism. I'm perfectly happy to have someone piggy back on my connection. I don't use it 90% of the time. I'm paying the same amount whether others use it or not. The slight loss in bandwidth is negligible for my purposes.
Now comes the real sinful part -- I am ignorant. Is this a bad idea? Why?
I don't think any of neighbors are spam kings. If I got a cease & desist for illegal downloading or something -- well, honestly, I think it'd probably be pretty cool to play lawyer for a while (okay, I am lawyer... but it'd be fun to play on my own behalf for once... And yes, everything they say about the quality of a lawyer representing himself is true....) Worst case scenario -- they'd kill my connection and I have to fight to get it back. Fine.
I'm one of those "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" techies -- is these some part of the picture I'm missing?
On a slightly different note -- my confusion is a great barometer of public sentiment. I read Slashdot on a regular basis. I built my own computer (even if it never has worked quite right). I'm about as tech-savvy a lay person as you're going to find. And at no point during the 15 minutes or so I read through this thread did anyone present a clear argument of what the problem is.
How are you going to explain the issues involved to brain dead simpletons if you can't make it plain to a brain dead lawyer?
Yeah, I'd love a jpeg signature block floating around... that sounds like a great idea. Listen, I realize PDF isn't any more secure than html, but it gives the illusion of increased security. (Much like the Bush war on terror gives the illusion of security.)
My point wasn't that this was some stroke of brilliance on the part of the negotiators, only that it's common practice in the legal industry. PDF has achieved a currency that html or word do not come close to.
Plus, should there need to be a forensic examination of the documents (say, compare a copy to the original), a scanned PDF document is far easier to authenticate. Or, at least mildly harder to forge.
Sound far fetched? It's not. I've seen in done in open court before -- very dramatic.
Actually, it's pretty standard to use Courier New font in legal documents -- so they don't *actually* use a typewriter.
As to the PDF format, they are putting up the signed ("executed") agreement -- so they can't just put up a Word Doc or HTML or whatever. Again, very common in the boring/staid world of big time corporate law.
I purchase an adult DVD on ebay (and they are certainly there!) - can I not pay for it with Paypal? Seems odd to me that anything purchased on ebay couldn't be paid for with Paypal, which is, of course, owned by ebay.
I visit an established and "reputable" adult content site (think Playboy or Hustler), can I no longer use Paypal to pay for my subscription?
I donate $50 to the Bush campaign - which, of course, is an obscene thing to do. Can I no longer use Paypal?
I purchase drugs from Canada - are they an "uncertified seller"? Can I not use Paypal to purchase those drugs?
I ask myself why ebay wants to get into the morality business - and I don't have much of an answer. Western Union certainly does not. My bank doesn't dictate who I can and cannot write a check to. My credit card company doesn't decline to process memberships to porn site (um, at least that's what I've heard.) Clearly there is something going on here that has Paypal/ebay concerned - and methinks it's got to be fear of regulatory intrusion of some sort or another. If Paypal all of a sudden becomes the arbiter of what's allowable on the web, then we're all in trouble.
But they've only grown in popularity and I find it surprising that so many slashdotters seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon. There was an odd dichotomy the other day with a story article about outsourcing alongside one about a new anime which made me uneasy, and I tried to reason out why. Do you guys not realise that there are fantastic American cartoons out there, that you could spend your money on as well?
Well, frankly, no.
The American animation I've seen is obnoxious. It is 'poorly' drawn. It does not draw on universal themes. The stories are 'boring'. They are self-contained episodes. They rely largely on Three Stooges-style physical humor.
Now of course, everything I wrote in the prior paragraph is subjective, and I have no doubt that there are exceptions to each of those (see, e.g., The Simpsons). However, painting with a broad brush, these comments are true.
While Pixar and Disney do quality work, the themes they deal with tend to be PG-13 at worst. Frankly, given the choice between watching Ogres/Clown Fish/Toys, or robots fighting in space, my own bias is to the later. I am a geek. I like mechanical creatures and space travel. And sword wielding maniacs are cool. These themes generally just aren't there in American animation.
But what really gets me is the typical American animation style. (Again, the Simpsons are special. Why, I don't know. They just are.) For all I know, PowerPuff Girls or Samurai Jack or any of the other distinctly American style animated series are great. But I can't watch them. I don't like minimalist art either. I understand the argument that elaborate drawings aren't necessary to tell a good story (witness Pinky & the Brain), but -- by gosh, they certainly make it more entertaining.
Okay, so setting aside the visual aspects -- I have never ever gotten confused as to what was happening while watching an American cartoon. But watching even the poorly animated Gundum Wing series on CN baffles me -- despite my best efforts to work out the tangled web of relationships and treachery -- I like a challenge. As entertaining as Pinky & the Brain might be.... well, there's really no challenge there. Could be this is simply because (a) we're talking about a different culture here or (b) I watch only the 'best' Anime and am I'm comparing that to strictly 'average' American stuff. Hardly fair.
Lastly, the "cutting edge" American animation I've seen is largely grotesque and shocking - disgusting in fact. In some sense, people seem to think that to be an 'artist' in America seems to require shock value. Sure, this is present in Anime too, but somehow it doesn't seem as prevalent (Hentai, of course, is a different genre - and if it's rarely subtle. It's hard not to know what you're getting).
Obviously, none of this is fair. But it is true. And I think it largely accounts for why/.s are so fascinated by the genre.
Well, frankly, no.
The American animation I've seen is obnoxious. It is 'poorly' drawn. It does not draw on universal themes. The stories are 'boring'. They are self-contained episodes. They rely largely on Three Stooges-style physical humor.
Now of course, everything I wrote in the prior paragraph is subjective, and I have no doubt that there are exceptions to each of those (see, e.g., The Simpsons). However, painting with a broad brush, these comments are true.
While Pixar and Disney do quality work, the themes they deal with tend to be PG-13 at worst. Frankly, given the choice between watching Ogres and Clown Fish or robots fighting in space, my own bias is to the later. I am a geek. I like mechanical creatures and space travel.
But what really gets me is the typical American animation style. (Again, the Simpsons are special. Why, I don't know. They just are.) For all I know, PowerPuff Girls or Samurai Jack or any of the other distinctly American style animated series are great. Bu
Okay, so IAAL, not an engineer/science person. But why was the velocity at impact so low? If something falls from space, isn't it going to crash at a speed faster than I can drive? 100 mph is fast.... but not *really* fast.
I've had my Treo 600 for about 8 months now... and I love it.
My two complaints: the low resolution screen is fine, but doesn't give that "wow" factor I want in a $500 toy. The second complaint is that the camera (which I use far more than I ever imagined I would), quite frankly, sucks.
Other really minor complaint - there's no real backlighting or Bluetooth.
During the same time period I've also had access to an Audiovox PPC4100 and a very similar phone from Erikson (I think it was - really, it's the same as the PPC4100, just slightly older). The Treo 600 blows both of them away at every level.
A number of people mentioned battery length - I think the battery length of the 600 is awesome. I often take three day weekends and use the phone extensively - both for games, appointment tracking and phone calling - I charge it up at work on Friday and it holds a charge until I get back to work on Tuesday just fine. Another day would be pushing it, but heavy use over a long 3 day weekend? That's fine for me. I can't imagine Palm1 would release a phone with a shorter battery length - even with the new features.
So, they are taking a phone I love, fixing my two 'major' issues (in quotes because I consider those problems really minor), and fixing my two 'minor' issues as well..... Where do I sign up? Will it truly be worth the $$$ to upgrade? Well, honestly, probably not. But then, how do you put a price on love?
PS - for the record, I have no financial or other stake in Palm1 - I just like the product.
"but the argument you're bringing up is a dead argument used by many : But sir, I WAS ONLY A LITTLE BIT AT FAULT, AND HIM THERE WAS WAY OVER IT... Who's going to draw that line?
Um, actually, the jury is.
Most states (in the USA - don't know about the rest of the world) are what we call "comparative negligence" states. That means that the jury first considers if the various parties are negligent. If one is and one isn't, then the non-negligent party wins and collects $$$.
If the jury determines that neither party is negligent, then neither party pays.
If both parties are negligent, then the next question the judge asks the jury is what percentage of the damages are attributable to each party's negligence. So the speeder going 5 over is 1% responsible for the accident, and the red-light-runner is 99% responsible, then the speeder would collect 99% of the total damages.
Sure it's a bit of a crap shoot, but it's the system we've been using for quite a while now.
I appreciate the poster's example of his/her children -- but in the glass breaking example, there were two (or more) independent actions in play. Each action involves a separate case of wrongdoing. In the car accident example, there was only one incident for which responsibility can be apportioned.
There are still a couple of states left who use a "contributory negligence" standard. In those states, a coked up semi-truck driver who crashes into the proverbial little old lady doing three over could both be negligent and neither could recover. (Though juries seem to have a way of righting such wrongs themselves -- which is one reason why states increasingly are using comparative negligence instead of contributory negligence.)
Finally, here's the traditional definition of negligence:
"Negligence" is the failure to exercise the degree of care required of a reasonable and prudent person in any given circumstance resulting in injury or damage to another.
The upshot? I completely agree that this type of thing could easily be used against you if you were ever in an accident. Should you take responsibility for your own actions? I suppose so, but why would I serve myself up on a silver platter just to save a few bucks on my insurance?
It's what my company uses, but I imagine there are countless others that do basically the same thing.
And ya know, I *still* take my laptop everywhere. Basically, the formfactor of a small computer is far more attractive to me than a full size computer. And while I could go to any terminal in the world to do my work, I still prefer to sit on a couch or in some odd-ball coffee shop than at some chair in front of a traditional computer set up.
Perhaps the idea of laptops won't seem to foreign to the future -- but maybe the idea of individual laptop ownership might. I have far less difficulty in imagining a system where laptops are pretty much free and the money is made off of software/internet access.
Imagine just showing up at your favorite *independent* coffee shop where they have a whole rack of laptops to take to your seat. Logon, access your work via the internet, save your work to a network drive, and logoff. Leave.
It's not that the Intel folks are wrong, it's just I think they need to modify their point a little.
This type of settlement is common place in large class action law suits. Which is fine.
But the parties are bound by the settlement they enter into. And is sounds from the article, that RIAA has breached its obligations under the settlement agreement (especially with the notched/promo CDs).
Somewhere in the settlement agreement there should be a clause specifying what happens if one party or the other does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement.
It's time to dust off that clause, and head over to see your local friendly judge (preferably one with a child in the school system). With a little legal wrangling, the children of American regain their right to listen to really, really, crappy music.
One thing that really bothered me was the statement in the article that blind people could just take someone in with them to help cast their ballot.
Sure. This works. And it's what was done in most American polling places until the advent of the electric machine.
We have a large blind community at the polling place where I usually work - and I asked one how the new machines worked. She was practically in tears because she was so excited - she had just cast a vote by herself for the first time in her life (and she wasn't no spring chicken).
I realize in the scheme of creating a fair election system, this may seem like a minor point, but it certainly wasn't to her or anyone who talked with her and cares about the human dimension of democracy. Just a quick thought:)
Regarding Net Metering, you asked "Why do we allow laws that strip us of potential income, and benefit companies like PG&E?"
Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than all that. One of the major problems with building a new generator is getting that generator to play nice with the existing transmission/distribution grid. This business of connecting the generator with the grid is called "interconnection." It's not an easy thing to interconnect a generator, and hooking up new green power technologies is especially troublesome. (Wind is the most difficult, with solar being the easiest.)
The federal government has been working on creating new standardized rules for interconnection of small (read: green) generators, but it's an incredibly complicated process that's taking years to complete and isn't even done yet.
So, what does all this have to do with Net Metering, you ask? Well everything.
Net Metering is a state jurisdictional program (meaning each state has its own rules) that avoids the whole interconnection process. While you are still hooking up with the grid, the power flows involved in a Net Metering program are so small in comparison that the process is much quicker and much, much cheaper.
The deal is however, that you cannot export (meaning feed energy into the grid) more power than you consume over the course of the billing period (usually a month).
Take a photovoltaic system - during the day a well built system (and we're not talking people who are entirely off the grid here) may both supply the energy needs of your house and produce some extra energy. That energy is sent out to the grid. Your electric meter essentially runs backwards for that period of time. Then, at night, you resume taking energy from the grid to run your house. At that point your meter is running forward and your bill is increasing. Say over the course of a month you take 1000 kw of electricity of the grid at 8 cents / kw. Usually your bill would be $80. But, over the course of that same month say you pumped 100 kw of energy back into the grid (for a net consumption of 900 kw) - you would receive an $8 credit off of your bill.
Now take the example of Farmer Brown who wants to turn shit into gold (that's the phrase the brochures use - "shit into gold"). Say he (through whatever means) puts 10,000 kw (or 10 MW) onto the system - all of a sudden he likely no longer qualifies for a net metering program and has to take the trouble of actually entering into an interconnection agreement and conducting studies to make sure he's not going to fry some lineman somewhere further down the grid (or more likely, simply overload the local lines and fry a small portion of the grid). Sure, he'd love to use net metering - the utility is required to buy whatever power he produces, the price is set at the retail price for electricity, the price of interconnection is cheap, but he's no longer eligible. So he has to go through the interconnection process, find buyers to buy his energy at wholesale (either by himself, or more likely through what are called "Aggregators"), and he's basically in the energy business with all the regulations and resonsibilities that entails.
But don't feel too sorry for Farmer Brown -- turns out that one of the major expenses in running a dairy farm (who knew) is electricity! Most spend thousands and thousands of dollars on their electric bill every month - so to the extent they can offset even a portion of that through net metering, that there shit really is golden!
Actually, you misunderstand a little... EPA does not do emissions tests. Your state does!
While they have to meet certain federal guidelines, the testing program is developed and administered at the state level pursuant to a grant of authority from EPA.
And not to burst your bubble, but when you say your car passes emissions test, it just means that it isn't so horrible that they feel the need to pull you off the road.
For instance, between 1981 and today, the amout of NOx allowed to be emitted was cut by two-thirds. CO2 by about 50%. The particulate matter even more so.
So even assuming your 1981 Corolla is in perfect condition, it emits several times more pollutants than a 2004 Corolla.
So what can we take from this? EPA's mileage estimates are extremely flawed and based on 1970's technology. Duh.
But the real problem is that the article is completely ignores the driving habits of the person singled out in the article!!!
Are his tires properly inflated? If not, subtract about 10% from your estimated mileage.
Is he making short trips? If so, subtract about 30% from your estimated mileage. (This is because a hybrid's primary function is not to get the best gas mileage it can -- instead it's goal is to reduce emissions to the maximum extent it can. In order to reduce emissions, the catalytic converter must be hot -- and to get it hot, the engine has to run. So if your trip is less than 10 minutes, you are shutting off the car right when it has warmed up to reach its peak efficiency.)
Is it cold out? For the same reasons explained above, weather has a huge effect on efficiency (never mind the fact that battery efficiency also decreases with lower temperatures.)
To put this all in prespective - I've had my Prius for a couple of years now and have kept ridiculously detailed track of my mileage figures -- and they are all over the map depending how I drive.
When I went with the tires that came with the car, on hot days, with no air conditioning, and drove in a method to maximize efficiency, I could get 60+ miles per gallon. Turn on the air conditioner and drop that to 40.
During the winter, the best I can usually do is 45.
And when I recently switched the tires (for better handling and tread life), my mileage droped by about 10%.
Drive over 70 MPH, drop it to 40. Drive over 80? Drop it to about 35? (I've never gotten less than 38 for a whole tank average - and that was only when I abused the car.)
All I am saying is that mileage is highly subjective. This is true for all cars -- but with the hybrids, they keep such careful track of the mileage that it is always on people's minds.
For various reasons, I happen to know a lot about beads -- the jewelry type. And over the years, I've gotten to know many of the "big" names in what is a fascinating, if admittedly somewhat small, subculture.
Now Peter was a somewhat odd character, even in a world populated by odd characters, and people argue all the time about many of his theories -- some of which, I much admit, seem a bit unlikely. But many years ago he was kind to a young kid interested in beads, so he's always had a special place in my heart. And so over the years we've kept in sporadic touch mostly via his web site and the occasional conference where we'd run into each other.
Long story short - he unexpectedly passed away (on a bead collecting trip of course!), and no one quite knew what to do with his site. Still, it is full of detailed information about beads that is available nowhere else in the world. Rather than take it down and allow that information to be lost, his website remains up - as he left it - to serve as an online repository of bead information, as well as a place to solicit donations for causes that he cared about.
I can only imagine that for someone who devoted his life to study and research, this is as fitting a tribute as anything. I would hope that when my time comes, people think my electronic "voice" is worth preserving....
"Not that I'd count on increased turnout, even then. For that, we need more inspiring candidates in the races."
And if we want more inspiring candidates, we need increased voter turnout.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
So what changed regarding backwards readability?
on
The War Of The Word
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So the Word team organized a special dev team that focused entirely on WordPerfect document import, "reverse-engineering" the WordPerfect file format.... but in particular their goal was to have no errors at all on printer.tst. Later the Word sales force used that same file when talking to customers as proof that Word 6.0 could open WordPerfect files flawlessly.
So what changed? Word of today does not open WordPerfect files -- hell, it doesn't even open Microsoft Works files! He seems to understand that this is a huge deal to users, but the modern Word program ignores this basic need.
For instance, I teach a class online. Part of the requirement is that students submit papers throughout the semester. Being an open minded and computer literate kinda guy, my syllabus allowed students to submit papers in any common file format.... Only to find that Word XP garbles anything that's not Word -- even other Microsoft products! Unbelievable. Fortunately, I have access to WP and OfficeStar -- but even then, opening Works files was nigh impossible until I found that one of my old laptops came pre-installed with it.
So I guess I just don't get it -- he understands the issue but ignores the solution. A perfect example of why Word is the choice we live with rather then the choice we desire.
I completely agree about the ice caps (though even that hasn't been generally agreed to for all that long). But as to the other stuff... yes and no.
Hydrogen in the soil is not evidence of water.
And you said it yourself - evidence of sedimentary rocks only gets you part of the way (for those who don't realize it, sedimentary rocks can be deposited by wind as well as water) -- and certainly by themselves do not provide evidence for the existence of liquid water in the past.
What this mission has shown is that there was once flowing water on or below the Martian surface. Last week's images of concretions showed us that. Until this mission, there wasn't convincing evidence of either.
You're right, with today's announcement, we now have evidence of standing water on Mars. Too cool.
What amazes me isn't so much that they discovered evidence of water on Mars, it's that they've discovered so much of it so quickly!
This is really the first fully sucessful mission to Mars whose primary function is to search the geologic record for evidence of water -- and not only did they find it -- they found it twice and quickly at that!
First of all -- kudos to the mission planning team. They picked their landing spots beautifully (and then hit a moving target from a moving target -- this isn't Lawn Darts folks. That alone is impressive.)
Second -- how much like Earth is Mars??? If the entire planet was covered with Oceans at one point, then (obviously) finding water isn't that remarkable. If, however, Mars is geologically similar to Earth, then 3/4 of the "land" would have been covered with water at one point. But I don't see that.
Mars seems to have little/no active tectonics -- and therefore no sea floor spreading. Also, since we can't find magenetically charged banding on the ancient Mars "ocean" floor, it suggests to me that Mars simply does have the characteristics that created large oceans like Earth does.
What I want to know is if the rovers are cabale of taking a thin-section of some of these sedimentary rocks. So much of the ocean floor on our planet is actually microscopic bits of dead diatoms and other creatures -- that would certainly answer the life question!
Which brings me back to point 1 -- if there isn't that much water, those rocket scientists really did their homework.
Not one post so far has discussed the fundamental issue here -- the only thing kids tune out more than their parents are content-advisory labels. Sure, in a perfect world every parent would monitor their 2.3 children 24 hours a day and sit around the dinner table every night and talk about their feelings.
And I'm hardly one to advocate government censorship as an answer to anything. Hell, I loved Mortal Kombat when it first came out, and to this day FPS are some of my favorite ways to blow off steam.
But too many/.s are ignoring our collective responsibility to society and behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment and/or parental and/or personal responsibility. Sure, it's legal to depict violent actions. Sure, Hollywood does it all the time. But let's ask the next question -- okay, it's legal -- but is it good? Is it beneficial to society?
Too many parents work too many hours. Too many children sneak behind the backs of their parents. Too many video game stores sell to minors. ESRB ratings are a joke. (And I certainly remember turning 21 and buying alcohol for my under-aged friends.)
The result? Too many children see far too much violence, both on TV and on video games. This is bad. And I don't care that some looney-tunes wacko goes on a shooting spree after playing some Doom variant -- that's not the "bad" I'd talking about. Instead, I'm worried about the daily toll all this takes -- the desensitization to violence and misery and all the bad things in life that only add to the pressure of being a teen/young adult.
Rather than proudly trumpet the fact that the Constitution allows for these things, I'd challenge the Slashdot community to come up with answers. We're not going to stop children from growing up, and with a war on terrorism and brutality all over the news they can hardly avoid encountering mind-numbing violence on a daily basis. And I certainly wasn't (particularly) harmed by violence on a little screen. But today is different -- look at the way we drive on the streets at rush hour -- there's too much aggression in every facet of our lives. Freedom is a Good Things. But it also comes with responsibility. Sure we have the Right to blow up a bunch of pixels on a screen, but we also have a corresponding Duty not to introduce even more excessive violence into an already scary world.
Yes, and one (very successful) method of selling a product is mass marketing. Sure, the return rate per call may be low, but the number of phone calls is staggering.
Another way of selling a product is to research your target audience, design a sales promotion package that addresses what you believe to be the client's specific needs.
Sure, we all prefer the later - but can anyone honestly say that it's the more efficient method? Cold calls, mass emails, junk mail - they all work because the percentages are in their favor.
Would I want to work for a company that hired me that way? Well, I have. Twice. One turned out to be one of the best jobs of my life, the other indifferent. Both times I needed a job and was getting a little desperate. The 20-30 carefully tailored cover letters got no better response than the 50+ (well written, if somewhat generic) resumes I'd sent out. Of course, now that I'm gainfully employed I have the luxury (when I get around to it) of cherrypicking only the best prospects and selectively sending my resume. But I've also got more experience and am asking for a lot more money.
I guess my point is that different products are best sold through different methods. And I'd hate to see some young job seeker limit him or herself to just one method or the other. Both have their place.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just a fascinating discussion.
... And that was it. Never actually took a computer programming class. I think the only conscious choice involved was deciding that the girls in the English Lit department were better looking then.... well, then the guys in the Comp Sci department. I did end up getting a BS, so I wasn't math-phobic or anything, just never happened.
... And then I went to law school. Hah. That's what fascinated me so much about this discussion. The rules for lawyers are completely different. No so much where you went to college, but where you went to law school is the single most deciding factor for many firms. Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but as a general principle -- I think I'm right-on. (Just FYI -- I went to a school consistently ranked in the high teens, low 20's..... Good, but not great.) And most of the people in the really good law schools went to really good undergraduate institutions.
/., but I digress.)
I'm one of those coulda-been techies. I did all the requisitely nerdy things in high school -- captain of my chess team, played M:TG, built my own computer, taught myself HTML, completely socially inept.....
Unlike programming, practical experience is not particularly valued (with the exception of court house lawyers, for whom experience and bringing home the bacon is the only goal.) If you want to work for an established law firm, a good school with top grades is a necessity. Of course, luck plays a role, and there isn't come cabal sitting in judgment over the 2nd tier / B / C students.... But I think this is true, especially when starting out. (Again, FYI -- I went into government myself. Much less emphasis on schools.... There's just a lot less asshol-ism among government attorneys then among many (especially the larger) law firms.)
The comparisons are striking. Only one state today even allows people without a legal degree from a certified school to even sit for the bar exam. Historical examples notwithstanding (for instance, many Supreme Court justices -- in addition to Abraham Lincoln were self taught), the idea of a lawyer not having at least an undergraduate and graduate degree is laughable. And the very fact that whether going to a big-name institution is even seriously debatable made my jaw drop. (Of course, there's also the possibility that all the big name comp sci grads are doing something other then reading
So, yes, this post does have a point. And it's this: our young friend here may -- shocking, I know -- decide he wants to do something else with his life other then program or design software. Maybe he'll find his great passion playing the violin or studying history or -- god forbid -- as a member of the bar. He needs to think not only about the profession that he -- as a sophomore -- envisions for himself, but also what other doors may be opened for him at other schools. All in all -- the very fact he asked the question indicates he's doing his homework. I'm sure someone this thorough and seemingly conscientious will thrive in a variety of academic settings. But not every field has the same laid back attitude towards educational background. Should he want to pursue an advanced degree in the humanities, or go into academia, or any number of other fields that don't share the laudable emphasis on merit that CS has, he may want to consider other educational options.
And one last little tidbit -- as much as I joke -- I love the legal profession. Law school was one of the best and most challenging times of my life and my job now is rewarding and fun. Sure, there may be more asshol-ism among the legal community then the community at large, but eh, I just don't hang out with those types. And the breadth of jobs I'd be considered for (outside the traditional legal roles) is astounding. Unlike a comp sci grad, lawyers are presumed to have the competence to practice in any legal field -- and usual
Contrary to the subject line, IAAL -- but not a particularly good one, so don't take any of what I say to court or anything.
(Ha! Get it? "Take it to court"? Gotta love a little lawyer humor!)
Actually, dismissed with prejudice is merely a term of art. It means that the court has ruled on the merits of the argument and will not (generally) entertain any further arguments on the matter.
Usually, if a case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that there was a procedural or jurisdictional defect in the case. The case is still dismissed, but you are free fix whatever procedural or jurisdictional problem and then re-file the case. If a case is dismissed without prejudice then the court has not ruled on the merits.
If you think about it in terms of judicial economy (a fancy term for not making judges do more work then absolutely necessary), this makes perfect sense -- the court does not want to have to listen to 10 people make the same argument. They heard the case, they deliberated, and they decided the merits of the case. They don't want to have to do all that work over again!
The one thing I'll add to the previous commenter is that the parties can apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of cert (basically the Supreme Court's permission to appeal to them) for either a decision on the merits (a dismissal with prejudice) or sometimes, even a case dismissed without prejudice on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. The specifics get a little complicated.
But the key to understand is you need a final decision in order to seek an appeal. Here -- first you'll have to seek en banc review from the full 9th Circuit -- then they can apply to the Supreme Court..... blah blah blah....
Sooooo close. But wrong. Seriously wrong.
Stare decisis (actually, the full latin phrase is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points") only applies to actual court decisions -- the decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case does not mean that the issue is decided. It simply means that the Supreme Court didn't want to hear this case at this time. While people often analogize this to mean that the Supreme Court is leaning one way or the other, that's just a guess. It can mean any number of different things and predicting Supreme Court vote counts is always a risky business.
In the meantime, the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case means that the DC Circuit court case stands. It would constitute binding precedent (meaning stare decisis would apply) within the DC Circuit. However, it would only be persuasive authority in other circuits. (Here's a quick run down on the different circuits: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html. Even though the DC Circuit is tiny -- it is given jurisdiction over many of the most important cases and is considered (by some) to be the most influential of the Circuits.)
But. And here's the kicker -- the disappointed litigant (in this case the RIAA) now will travel throughout the country and raise this same issue in other circuits, hoping to find a panel of judges (these things are heard by 3-judge panels at the first appeal level) that will disagree with the reasoning of the DC Circuit. Then they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court again. A split between the circuits (ie., two circuits saying the law means two different things) is the surest way to get the Supreme Court to review your case. While still not a guarantee, it's likely the Supreme Court will revisit this issue once the RIAA finds a sympathetic circuit to agree with it.
Again, the parent didn't do a bad job explaining, just not entirely accurate. With due respect, the difference between binding precedent and persuasive authority is a subtle, but huge, point. Stare decisis applies to binding precedent, not persuasive precedent.
Okay --
I'm coming clean. I have a wireless network and I haven't bothered to secure it.
Honestly, a big part of it is just laziness.
But it's laziness tinged with a bit of Robinhood-ism. I'm perfectly happy to have someone piggy back on my connection. I don't use it 90% of the time. I'm paying the same amount whether others use it or not. The slight loss in bandwidth is negligible for my purposes.
Now comes the real sinful part -- I am ignorant. Is this a bad idea? Why?
I don't think any of neighbors are spam kings. If I got a cease & desist for illegal downloading or something -- well, honestly, I think it'd probably be pretty cool to play lawyer for a while (okay, I am lawyer... but it'd be fun to play on my own behalf for once... And yes, everything they say about the quality of a lawyer representing himself is true....) Worst case scenario -- they'd kill my connection and I have to fight to get it back. Fine.
I'm one of those "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" techies -- is these some part of the picture I'm missing?
On a slightly different note -- my confusion is a great barometer of public sentiment. I read Slashdot on a regular basis. I built my own computer (even if it never has worked quite right). I'm about as tech-savvy a lay person as you're going to find. And at no point during the 15 minutes or so I read through this thread did anyone present a clear argument of what the problem is.
How are you going to explain the issues involved to brain dead simpletons if you can't make it plain to a brain dead lawyer?
Ready? Aim? Fire!
Yeah, I'd love a jpeg signature block floating around... that sounds like a great idea. Listen, I realize PDF isn't any more secure than html, but it gives the illusion of increased security. (Much like the Bush war on terror gives the illusion of security.)
My point wasn't that this was some stroke of brilliance on the part of the negotiators, only that it's common practice in the legal industry. PDF has achieved a currency that html or word do not come close to.
Plus, should there need to be a forensic examination of the documents (say, compare a copy to the original), a scanned PDF document is far easier to authenticate. Or, at least mildly harder to forge.
Sound far fetched? It's not. I've seen in done in open court before -- very dramatic.
Actually, it's pretty standard to use Courier New font in legal documents -- so they don't *actually* use a typewriter.
As to the PDF format, they are putting up the signed ("executed") agreement -- so they can't just put up a Word Doc or HTML or whatever. Again, very common in the boring/staid world of big time corporate law.
This is just silly.
Some quick examples:
I purchase an adult DVD on ebay (and they are certainly there!) - can I not pay for it with Paypal? Seems odd to me that anything purchased on ebay couldn't be paid for with Paypal, which is, of course, owned by ebay.
I visit an established and "reputable" adult content site (think Playboy or Hustler), can I no longer use Paypal to pay for my subscription?
I donate $50 to the Bush campaign - which, of course, is an obscene thing to do. Can I no longer use Paypal?
I purchase drugs from Canada - are they an "uncertified seller"? Can I not use Paypal to purchase those drugs?
I ask myself why ebay wants to get into the morality business - and I don't have much of an answer. Western Union certainly does not. My bank doesn't dictate who I can and cannot write a check to. My credit card company doesn't decline to process memberships to porn site (um, at least that's what I've heard.) Clearly there is something going on here that has Paypal/ebay concerned - and methinks it's got to be fear of regulatory intrusion of some sort or another. If Paypal all of a sudden becomes the arbiter of what's allowable on the web, then we're all in trouble.
Well, frankly, no.
/.s are so fascinated by the genre.
Well, frankly, no.
The American animation I've seen is obnoxious. It is 'poorly' drawn. It does not draw on universal themes. The stories are 'boring'. They are self-contained episodes. They rely largely on Three Stooges-style physical humor.
Now of course, everything I wrote in the prior paragraph is subjective, and I have no doubt that there are exceptions to each of those (see, e.g., The Simpsons). However, painting with a broad brush, these comments are true.
While Pixar and Disney do quality work, the themes they deal with tend to be PG-13 at worst. Frankly, given the choice between watching Ogres/Clown Fish/Toys, or robots fighting in space, my own bias is to the later. I am a geek. I like mechanical creatures and space travel. And sword wielding maniacs are cool. These themes generally just aren't there in American animation.
But what really gets me is the typical American animation style. (Again, the Simpsons are special. Why, I don't know. They just are.) For all I know, PowerPuff Girls or Samurai Jack or any of the other distinctly American style animated series are great. But I can't watch them. I don't like minimalist art either. I understand the argument that elaborate drawings aren't necessary to tell a good story (witness Pinky & the Brain), but -- by gosh, they certainly make it more entertaining.
Okay, so setting aside the visual aspects -- I have never ever gotten confused as to what was happening while watching an American cartoon. But watching even the poorly animated Gundum Wing series on CN baffles me -- despite my best efforts to work out the tangled web of relationships and treachery -- I like a challenge. As entertaining as Pinky & the Brain might be.... well, there's really no challenge there. Could be this is simply because (a) we're talking about a different culture here or (b) I watch only the 'best' Anime and am I'm comparing that to strictly 'average' American stuff. Hardly fair.
Lastly, the "cutting edge" American animation I've seen is largely grotesque and shocking - disgusting in fact. In some sense, people seem to think that to be an 'artist' in America seems to require shock value. Sure, this is present in Anime too, but somehow it doesn't seem as prevalent (Hentai, of course, is a different genre - and if it's rarely subtle. It's hard not to know what you're getting).
Obviously, none of this is fair. But it is true. And I think it largely accounts for why
The American animation I've seen is obnoxious. It is 'poorly' drawn. It does not draw on universal themes. The stories are 'boring'. They are self-contained episodes. They rely largely on Three Stooges-style physical humor.
Now of course, everything I wrote in the prior paragraph is subjective, and I have no doubt that there are exceptions to each of those (see, e.g., The Simpsons). However, painting with a broad brush, these comments are true.
While Pixar and Disney do quality work, the themes they deal with tend to be PG-13 at worst. Frankly, given the choice between watching Ogres and Clown Fish or robots fighting in space, my own bias is to the later. I am a geek. I like mechanical creatures and space travel.
But what really gets me is the typical American animation style. (Again, the Simpsons are special. Why, I don't know. They just are.) For all I know, PowerPuff Girls or Samurai Jack or any of the other distinctly American style animated series are great. Bu
Okay, so IAAL, not an engineer/science person. But why was the velocity at impact so low? If something falls from space, isn't it going to crash at a speed faster than I can drive? 100 mph is fast.... but not *really* fast.
I've had my Treo 600 for about 8 months now... and I love it.
My two complaints: the low resolution screen is fine, but doesn't give that "wow" factor I want in a $500 toy. The second complaint is that the camera (which I use far more than I ever imagined I would), quite frankly, sucks.
Other really minor complaint - there's no real backlighting or Bluetooth.
During the same time period I've also had access to an Audiovox PPC4100 and a very similar phone from Erikson (I think it was - really, it's the same as the PPC4100, just slightly older). The Treo 600 blows both of them away at every level.
A number of people mentioned battery length - I think the battery length of the 600 is awesome. I often take three day weekends and use the phone extensively - both for games, appointment tracking and phone calling - I charge it up at work on Friday and it holds a charge until I get back to work on Tuesday just fine. Another day would be pushing it, but heavy use over a long 3 day weekend? That's fine for me. I can't imagine Palm1 would release a phone with a shorter battery length - even with the new features.
So, they are taking a phone I love, fixing my two 'major' issues (in quotes because I consider those problems really minor), and fixing my two 'minor' issues as well..... Where do I sign up? Will it truly be worth the $$$ to upgrade? Well, honestly, probably not. But then, how do you put a price on love?
PS - for the record, I have no financial or other stake in Palm1 - I just like the product.
Um, actually, the jury is.
Most states (in the USA - don't know about the rest of the world) are what we call "comparative negligence" states. That means that the jury first considers if the various parties are negligent. If one is and one isn't, then the non-negligent party wins and collects $$$.
If the jury determines that neither party is negligent, then neither party pays.
If both parties are negligent, then the next question the judge asks the jury is what percentage of the damages are attributable to each party's negligence. So the speeder going 5 over is 1% responsible for the accident, and the red-light-runner is 99% responsible, then the speeder would collect 99% of the total damages.
Sure it's a bit of a crap shoot, but it's the system we've been using for quite a while now.
I appreciate the poster's example of his/her children -- but in the glass breaking example, there were two (or more) independent actions in play. Each action involves a separate case of wrongdoing. In the car accident example, there was only one incident for which responsibility can be apportioned.
There are still a couple of states left who use a "contributory negligence" standard. In those states, a coked up semi-truck driver who crashes into the proverbial little old lady doing three over could both be negligent and neither could recover. (Though juries seem to have a way of righting such wrongs themselves -- which is one reason why states increasingly are using comparative negligence instead of contributory negligence.)
Finally, here's the traditional definition of negligence:
For those interested, here's a nice summary of the law geared toward educated lay people.
The upshot? I completely agree that this type of thing could easily be used against you if you were ever in an accident. Should you take responsibility for your own actions? I suppose so, but why would I serve myself up on a silver platter just to save a few bucks on my insurance?
Doesn't Citrix allow this already?
It's what my company uses, but I imagine there are countless others that do basically the same thing.
And ya know, I *still* take my laptop everywhere. Basically, the formfactor of a small computer is far more attractive to me than a full size computer. And while I could go to any terminal in the world to do my work, I still prefer to sit on a couch or in some odd-ball coffee shop than at some chair in front of a traditional computer set up.
Perhaps the idea of laptops won't seem to foreign to the future -- but maybe the idea of individual laptop ownership might. I have far less difficulty in imagining a system where laptops are pretty much free and the money is made off of software/internet access.
Imagine just showing up at your favorite *independent* coffee shop where they have a whole rack of laptops to take to your seat. Logon, access your work via the internet, save your work to a network drive, and logoff. Leave.
It's not that the Intel folks are wrong, it's just I think they need to modify their point a little.
This type of settlement is common place in large class action law suits. Which is fine.
But the parties are bound by the settlement they enter into. And is sounds from the article, that RIAA has breached its obligations under the settlement agreement (especially with the notched/promo CDs).
Somewhere in the settlement agreement there should be a clause specifying what happens if one party or the other does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement.
It's time to dust off that clause, and head over to see your local friendly judge (preferably one with a child in the school system). With a little legal wrangling, the children of American regain their right to listen to really, really, crappy music.
One thing that really bothered me was the statement in the article that blind people could just take someone in with them to help cast their ballot.
:)
Sure. This works. And it's what was done in most American polling places until the advent of the electric machine.
We have a large blind community at the polling place where I usually work - and I asked one how the new machines worked. She was practically in tears because she was so excited - she had just cast a vote by herself for the first time in her life (and she wasn't no spring chicken).
I realize in the scheme of creating a fair election system, this may seem like a minor point, but it certainly wasn't to her or anyone who talked with her and cares about the human dimension of democracy. Just a quick thought
Regarding Net Metering, you asked "Why do we allow laws that strip us of potential income, and benefit companies like PG&E?"
Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than all that. One of the major problems with building a new generator is getting that generator to play nice with the existing transmission/distribution grid. This business of connecting the generator with the grid is called "interconnection." It's not an easy thing to interconnect a generator, and hooking up new green power technologies is especially troublesome. (Wind is the most difficult, with solar being the easiest.)
The federal government has been working on creating new standardized rules for interconnection of small (read: green) generators, but it's an incredibly complicated process that's taking years to complete and isn't even done yet.
So, what does all this have to do with Net Metering, you ask? Well everything.
Net Metering is a state jurisdictional program (meaning each state has its own rules) that avoids the whole interconnection process. While you are still hooking up with the grid, the power flows involved in a Net Metering program are so small in comparison that the process is much quicker and much, much cheaper.
The deal is however, that you cannot export (meaning feed energy into the grid) more power than you consume over the course of the billing period (usually a month).
Take a photovoltaic system - during the day a well built system (and we're not talking people who are entirely off the grid here) may both supply the energy needs of your house and produce some extra energy. That energy is sent out to the grid. Your electric meter essentially runs backwards for that period of time. Then, at night, you resume taking energy from the grid to run your house. At that point your meter is running forward and your bill is increasing. Say over the course of a month you take 1000 kw of electricity of the grid at 8 cents / kw. Usually your bill would be $80. But, over the course of that same month say you pumped 100 kw of energy back into the grid (for a net consumption of 900 kw) - you would receive an $8 credit off of your bill.
Now take the example of Farmer Brown who wants to turn shit into gold (that's the phrase the brochures use - "shit into gold"). Say he (through whatever means) puts 10,000 kw (or 10 MW) onto the system - all of a sudden he likely no longer qualifies for a net metering program and has to take the trouble of actually entering into an interconnection agreement and conducting studies to make sure he's not going to fry some lineman somewhere further down the grid (or more likely, simply overload the local lines and fry a small portion of the grid). Sure, he'd love to use net metering - the utility is required to buy whatever power he produces, the price is set at the retail price for electricity, the price of interconnection is cheap, but he's no longer eligible. So he has to go through the interconnection process, find buyers to buy his energy at wholesale (either by himself, or more likely through what are called "Aggregators"), and he's basically in the energy business with all the regulations and resonsibilities that entails.
But don't feel too sorry for Farmer Brown -- turns out that one of the major expenses in running a dairy farm (who knew) is electricity! Most spend thousands and thousands of dollars on their electric bill every month - so to the extent they can offset even a portion of that through net metering, that there shit really is golden!
Actually, you misunderstand a little... EPA does not do emissions tests. Your state does!
While they have to meet certain federal guidelines, the testing program is developed and administered at the state level pursuant to a grant of authority from EPA.
And not to burst your bubble, but when you say your car passes emissions test, it just means that it isn't so horrible that they feel the need to pull you off the road.
For instance, between 1981 and today, the amout of NOx allowed to be emitted was cut by two-thirds. CO2 by about 50%. The particulate matter even more so.
So even assuming your 1981 Corolla is in perfect condition, it emits several times more pollutants than a 2004 Corolla.
Actually, the Insight was available as both an automatic and a manual - but only towards the end. And the manual got significantly better mileage.
All the other hybrids on the market are available only in automatic (actually, both Honda and Toyota use CVT or Continuously Variable Transmission.)
... Hate the Game.
So what can we take from this? EPA's mileage estimates are extremely flawed and based on 1970's technology. Duh.
But the real problem is that the article is completely ignores the driving habits of the person singled out in the article!!!
Are his tires properly inflated? If not, subtract about 10% from your estimated mileage.
Is he making short trips? If so, subtract about 30% from your estimated mileage. (This is because a hybrid's primary function is not to get the best gas mileage it can -- instead it's goal is to reduce emissions to the maximum extent it can. In order to reduce emissions, the catalytic converter must be hot -- and to get it hot, the engine has to run. So if your trip is less than 10 minutes, you are shutting off the car right when it has warmed up to reach its peak efficiency.)
Is it cold out? For the same reasons explained above, weather has a huge effect on efficiency (never mind the fact that battery efficiency also decreases with lower temperatures.)
To put this all in prespective - I've had my Prius for a couple of years now and have kept ridiculously detailed track of my mileage figures -- and they are all over the map depending how I drive.
When I went with the tires that came with the car, on hot days, with no air conditioning, and drove in a method to maximize efficiency, I could get 60+ miles per gallon. Turn on the air conditioner and drop that to 40.
During the winter, the best I can usually do is 45.
And when I recently switched the tires (for better handling and tread life), my mileage droped by about 10%.
Drive over 70 MPH, drop it to 40. Drive over 80? Drop it to about 35? (I've never gotten less than 38 for a whole tank average - and that was only when I abused the car.)
All I am saying is that mileage is highly subjective. This is true for all cars -- but with the hybrids, they keep such careful track of the mileage that it is always on people's minds.
For various reasons, I happen to know a lot about beads -- the jewelry type. And over the years, I've gotten to know many of the "big" names in what is a fascinating, if admittedly somewhat small, subculture.
Whether you were talking about 90,000 year old beads from Africa or ancient Sumarian seal beads, one of the great resources available to us bead collectors was Dr. Peter Francis, Jr. and his website -- The Beadsite.
Now Peter was a somewhat odd character, even in a world populated by odd characters, and people argue all the time about many of his theories -- some of which, I much admit, seem a bit unlikely. But many years ago he was kind to a young kid interested in beads, so he's always had a special place in my heart. And so over the years we've kept in sporadic touch mostly via his web site and the occasional conference where we'd run into each other.
Long story short - he unexpectedly passed away (on a bead collecting trip of course!), and no one quite knew what to do with his site. Still, it is full of detailed information about beads that is available nowhere else in the world. Rather than take it down and allow that information to be lost, his website remains up - as he left it - to serve as an online repository of bead information, as well as a place to solicit donations for causes that he cared about.
I can only imagine that for someone who devoted his life to study and research, this is as fitting a tribute as anything. I would hope that when my time comes, people think my electronic "voice" is worth preserving....
"Not that I'd count on increased turnout, even then. For that, we need more inspiring candidates in the races."
And if we want more inspiring candidates, we need increased voter turnout.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
So the Word team organized a special dev team that focused entirely on WordPerfect document import, "reverse-engineering" the WordPerfect file format .... but in particular their goal was to have no errors at all on printer.tst. Later the Word sales force used that same file when talking to customers as proof that Word 6.0 could open WordPerfect files flawlessly.
So what changed? Word of today does not open WordPerfect files -- hell, it doesn't even open Microsoft Works files! He seems to understand that this is a huge deal to users, but the modern Word program ignores this basic need.
For instance, I teach a class online. Part of the requirement is that students submit papers throughout the semester. Being an open minded and computer literate kinda guy, my syllabus allowed students to submit papers in any common file format.... Only to find that Word XP garbles anything that's not Word -- even other Microsoft products! Unbelievable. Fortunately, I have access to WP and OfficeStar -- but even then, opening Works files was nigh impossible until I found that one of my old laptops came pre-installed with it.
So I guess I just don't get it -- he understands the issue but ignores the solution. A perfect example of why Word is the choice we live with rather then the choice we desire.
I completely agree about the ice caps (though even that hasn't been generally agreed to for all that long). But as to the other stuff... yes and no. Hydrogen in the soil is not evidence of water. And you said it yourself - evidence of sedimentary rocks only gets you part of the way (for those who don't realize it, sedimentary rocks can be deposited by wind as well as water) -- and certainly by themselves do not provide evidence for the existence of liquid water in the past. What this mission has shown is that there was once flowing water on or below the Martian surface. Last week's images of concretions showed us that. Until this mission, there wasn't convincing evidence of either. You're right, with today's announcement, we now have evidence of standing water on Mars. Too cool.
What amazes me isn't so much that they discovered evidence of water on Mars, it's that they've discovered so much of it so quickly!
This is really the first fully sucessful mission to Mars whose primary function is to search the geologic record for evidence of water -- and not only did they find it -- they found it twice and quickly at that!
First of all -- kudos to the mission planning team. They picked their landing spots beautifully (and then hit a moving target from a moving target -- this isn't Lawn Darts folks. That alone is impressive.)
Second -- how much like Earth is Mars??? If the entire planet was covered with Oceans at one point, then (obviously) finding water isn't that remarkable. If, however, Mars is geologically similar to Earth, then 3/4 of the "land" would have been covered with water at one point. But I don't see that.
Mars seems to have little/no active tectonics -- and therefore no sea floor spreading. Also, since we can't find magenetically charged banding on the ancient Mars "ocean" floor, it suggests to me that Mars simply does have the characteristics that created large oceans like Earth does.
What I want to know is if the rovers are cabale of taking a thin-section of some of these sedimentary rocks. So much of the ocean floor on our planet is actually microscopic bits of dead diatoms and other creatures -- that would certainly answer the life question!
Which brings me back to point 1 -- if there isn't that much water, those rocket scientists really did their homework.
Wow. This is some seriously cool sh*t.
Not one post so far has discussed the fundamental issue here -- the only thing kids tune out more than their parents are content-advisory labels. Sure, in a perfect world every parent would monitor their 2.3 children 24 hours a day and sit around the dinner table every night and talk about their feelings.
/.s are ignoring our collective responsibility to society and behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment and/or parental and/or personal responsibility. Sure, it's legal to depict violent actions. Sure, Hollywood does it all the time. But let's ask the next question -- okay, it's legal -- but is it good? Is it beneficial to society?
And I'm hardly one to advocate government censorship as an answer to anything. Hell, I loved Mortal Kombat when it first came out, and to this day FPS are some of my favorite ways to blow off steam.
But too many
Too many parents work too many hours. Too many children sneak behind the backs of their parents. Too many video game stores sell to minors. ESRB ratings are a joke. (And I certainly remember turning 21 and buying alcohol for my under-aged friends.)
The result? Too many children see far too much violence, both on TV and on video games. This is bad. And I don't care that some looney-tunes wacko goes on a shooting spree after playing some Doom variant -- that's not the "bad" I'd talking about. Instead, I'm worried about the daily toll all this takes -- the desensitization to violence and misery and all the bad things in life that only add to the pressure of being a teen/young adult.
Rather than proudly trumpet the fact that the Constitution allows for these things, I'd challenge the Slashdot community to come up with answers. We're not going to stop children from growing up, and with a war on terrorism and brutality all over the news they can hardly avoid encountering mind-numbing violence on a daily basis. And I certainly wasn't (particularly) harmed by violence on a little screen. But today is different -- look at the way we drive on the streets at rush hour -- there's too much aggression in every facet of our lives. Freedom is a Good Things. But it also comes with responsibility. Sure we have the Right to blow up a bunch of pixels on a screen, but we also have a corresponding Duty not to introduce even more excessive violence into an already scary world.
Yes, and one (very successful) method of selling a product is mass marketing. Sure, the return rate per call may be low, but the number of phone calls is staggering.
Another way of selling a product is to research your target audience, design a sales promotion package that addresses what you believe to be the client's specific needs.
Sure, we all prefer the later - but can anyone honestly say that it's the more efficient method? Cold calls, mass emails, junk mail - they all work because the percentages are in their favor.
Would I want to work for a company that hired me that way? Well, I have. Twice. One turned out to be one of the best jobs of my life, the other indifferent. Both times I needed a job and was getting a little desperate. The 20-30 carefully tailored cover letters got no better response than the 50+ (well written, if somewhat generic) resumes I'd sent out. Of course, now that I'm gainfully employed I have the luxury (when I get around to it) of cherrypicking only the best prospects and selectively sending my resume. But I've also got more experience and am asking for a lot more money.
I guess my point is that different products are best sold through different methods. And I'd hate to see some young job seeker limit him or herself to just one method or the other. Both have their place.