The season didn't suddenly become good after the show was cancelled. These stories had already been written and on the board and sent off to the typesetters.
Season 4 is a complete turn around, and for one reason only. Manny Coto. Only he was brave enough to do something no one at Paramount ever had the cajonnes to do, and that was get writers who actually knew the subject matter and could write good stories.
But never fear, as evident in this thread, as well anything remotely sci-fi, Slashdot is full of arm-chair directors, producers, and writers for both silver screen and television.
I know I am probably feeding a troll on this one, but...
1) at best only half of Monty Python is slap-stick, and even then not completely slap-stick, but very well thought out slap-stick (think Ministry of Silly Walks). Perhaps you should actually look up what slap-stick really means.
2) You mean, France, right?
3) David Hasselhoff (sp?) is popular in Germany, all anyone else cares about in that show are the bouncing boobies. That's practically universal.
What you say is true for most TV series that are seriel in nature, However they don't have to be. 24 is pretty good example of this. The first couple minutes of every show gives a quick run down of what important events have brought you to the current point in the show. I have introduced several friends into watching 24 becuase of this. They don't have to worry about what they missed, becuase the lead in brings them where they need to be for the current show.
It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than having to tell someone, oh yeah, you should watch show XYZ, but I'll have to let you know when a good starting episode will be on, other wise you won't know where you are at.
I use Gaim when using a Linux-based computer - with over 512mb RAM on my Windows machine, I have no problems in running MSN, Aol Messenger, and IRC with no noticable performance drop - and therefore Gaim (the Windows version) would be a poor alternative in my eyes.
For the record, I have no problems in using a Jabber-based IM, or one which supports all protocols - but the implementation must be better and accessible to the entire internet population than Gaim currently is.
Not to start a war here or anything, but you must be using an old version on Gaim for windows. Current version, unless I misunderstand your intention, does every thing you want.
I use the linux version of Gaim at home, but always install the windows version on any windows PC I have to do work on. Other than slight differences, to me they are now exactly the same from either linux or windows.
Oh, and I'm only unofficially with Gaim.;)
Quote: Ah, yes, the 'Not having to worry about browser-specific issues" notion. You haven't exactly been a web-dev long enough, have you? (:P)
HTML 3.2 was a poor bastardization in an attempt to create a working standard between the two big boys of the time, IE and Netscape.
I am hoping your were being sarcastic. But just in case you weren't. HTML 3.2 is such a limited set of standards, it no suprise that we saw large percentage of IE and Netscape only sites.
HTML 4.0 should have brought things back together. But by that time, IE had managed to saturate enough of the market, that their ideas of standards became the way to do things, not W3C.
So if I follow this right. Basically 1 out of every 3 people that showed up to vote for legalizing Marijuana entered the voting booth, thought they were in a shower and began to masterbate. Just making sure I got all my math worked out.:)
Quote: Who can still find his or her old Windows 98se or ME disc? And who can find one that isn't scratched so bad it's unreadable?
I can. I know exactly where my win 98, 98se, 98me, NT4 Workstation, 2000 Pro, and 2000 Server disks are. And all are perfectly readable. Taking care of the CDs you want to keep should be a high priority. If you have a burner, you should copy the originals and only use the cd-r media to install and pass around to your friends, or leave out in the open so that anyone can use them.
Quote: Free speech is a double-edged sword - I may have the right to state my opinion, but I also have the right to refuse to support yours.
I'm going to play devil's advocate on a few things here so bear with me. Also, I expect no one will ever see this, other than the poster I am replying to, so I expect all this is in vain.
You are absolutely correct. You do have the right to refuse to support my view. That does not mean the view should not be supported. In otherwords. You can publically disagree all you want. But the moment you start saying someone can't express their views, even if you disagree with them, and would never support them in your life, you become a censor, and the whole freedom of speech can be thrown out the window.
So you don't want to be involved with something that can be used for illegal activites. Fine, don't use it. That is most certainly your right. But to start to dictate what others can and can not do is not. That is big brother mentallity. What would be the best option would be to start your own version of the same thing. For example, take the freenet code, modify it so you can examine content, and feel safe assured that there is no questionable content in your network of associates that agree to sign on with you. But trying to tell freenet that they should change to conform with your views and ideals is just as wrong as the RIAA trying to tell me that I can only playing their music in devices they approve.
Further more, and this gets a bit off topic, and also where I start playing devils advocate heavily, what about using this questionable content for educational purposes. Or even better yet, law enforcement issues. Which brings up an even more interesting proposition. Why is it okay for law enforcement officials to view "kiddie porn" as evidence? Who decides which detectives are "normal" enough to be assigned to such work? And then when pedofiles are run through cort, doesn't said evidence need to be reviewed? That's a whole lot of people viewing illegal material. Just because they work/are sanctioned within the law. Sounds more above the law if you ask me, but that's my opinion.
A final thought. If you are so concerned with what can and is potentialy illegal on what you associate with, then I would suggest you stop using the internet altogether. Yes this is an extremist view, but the bottom line is, there s illegal material on the internet. Whether it be, copywrigted music, pirated software, or kiddie porn, it's all out there. You risk being exposed to it every time you surf the web. Yes, you can take steps to make sure you never see the illegal material, but there's no perfect way to 100% prevent being exposed to it accidently. Should you be held accountable for that as well?
Just food for though. I'm gonna go smoke my still legal cigarette now.;)
Accounts Payable 1.2B - This is the amount of money that they owe people, CD manufacturers, contractors, etc. Anyone who they have received a service for, but haven't payed out yet... Basically this is the amount on their credit card, they will pay it when it is due, but no need to pay it today
So, even though they don't need to pay it, as most business accounts usually get at least NET 30 for billing and I am sure no one would ever tell Microsoft that they must pay in full on any order, it still exists as money owed to someone else. Far as I know that is the very basic definition of debt. By why take my word for it.
Something owed, such as money, goods, or services.
An obligation or liability to pay or render something to someone else.
The condition of owing: a young family always in debt.
An offense requiring forgiveness or reparation; a trespass.
I know we are basically arguing semantics here, but most people I know would think you are out of your mind for saying Microsoft is a debt free company. Just becuase they have enough money to pay off all their debts (or do they?;) ) does not equate to being actually debt free.
Short term unearned revenue 5.9 B Other 2.5 B - Don't know what these are, but they aren't debt.
This is where the business receives a cash payment for services or goods before the goods or services are provided to the customer. The payment is shown as a liability until the goods or services are provided to the customer. Once they have been provided they are transferred from the Unearned Revenue account to the normal Revenue account for the business. The Revenue account credited depends on what was provided to the client. If a service was provided, then it would be called Service Revenue. But you could also have accounts titled Rent Revenue, Subscriptions Revenue, Tuition Revenue (as in the case of this college), etc..
So unearned revenue is not a debt of cash but of product and/or service, which it is why it shows up as a liability rather than in revenue
2.5 B in other is just darn scary. I wish I had that much lying arround that I could just call other expense. Think about it. That's almost half their unearned revenue, and double their accounts payable. Weird.
But that's just my opinion. I may be wrong. (stolen from Dennis Miller)
Director Terry Gilliam, formerly linked with the project, is no longer involved with the Watchmen film.
October 26, 2001... In both of today's issues of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, an announcement was made that Universal Pictures is optioning the film rights for Watchmen, for David Hayter to write the screenplay and to possible direct the film. According to Variety Hayter is getting at least $1 million dollars to adapt the 12-issue comic book into a feature length screenplay. [Sources: The Hollywood Reporter, Variety.]
Quote:
You can't sue somebody for being stupid (which is what this case boils down to - his boss was stupid).
Darn shame, but then I guess most people would be sued for one thing or another. Oh wait....;)
I would agree that right now he hasn't really suffered any damages. Unless it shows up on his record. True the chances of that are very unlikely to happen.
non minimus lex - Does that refer ot the new baby Lexx or the old dead one.;)
Re:Ok the questions we are all holding back!
on
Robotic Surgery
·
· Score: 1
Nope. What I meant was that it's legal in most jurisdictions to threraten legal action.
I had to re-read this several times. But if I understnad now what you are saying, just the process of threatening action is mostly legal, provided it is not a form of intimidation.
But isn't that what a threat is? Or rather are you saying it is up to the courts to determine if a threat was intimidation? I am having a hard time trying to come up with an example of a threat that could not be considered intimidation. But that's just me and no one put me in charge of righting laws, or interpitting them for that matter.
All this is well and good, but the fact remains that hs boss went past the point of threaten and actually did report him. Now, admittadly, the legal system is back asswords, but I do beleive that gives him the abillity to sue his boss. But that's just my opinion.
As a matter of fact, while threats in general are grounds for legal action, most jurisdictions specifically exclude threats of legal action as being an actionable act (phew - hope you can parse that ok)
Well, I was able to parse it until you asked if I could.;)
So if I follow what you are saying, he would have had more of a legal case if his boss had only threatened to file the complaint with the FBI, rather than actually doing it? Did I get that right? If so, oddly enough that does make sense. Mainly becuase of the way the legal system seems to work. Obviously not in the way it should work.
It seems to me, however, reporting the actions to the FBI is akin to guilty until proven innocent. Albiet that again seems to be the way the legal system works these days.
IANAL, but if his boss, as he had said, has already filed a complaint with the FBI, that should be enough to file a suit against him. It should therefore put preasure on him (the boss) to prove that his actions were correct, which they obviously are not. The boss's actions could easily be interpited as defamation of character.
I am with going after the boss on this one, if you can find a lawyer to take the case. Shouldn't be too hard.;)
Having recently bought this mouse myself, I can say the charge definetly lasts more than 12 hours. I have had it sitting off the charger for over a day and a half now without charging.
Also, the rechargable batteries are user servicable. It even appears you can swap them out with 2 standard AAs if needed.
In my experience, all versions of Windows since 98 and NT 4 do at one point during post installation ask you to setup a password. For 9x if you leave it blank, it will never ask you again, hence being able to boot up the machine and never have it prompt you for a logon. NT4/2000 will still require a password, however it CAN be blank. Meaning all you have to do is hit enter at the logon screen. XP is the most bizare. I have only installed it once but as I recall, it asks for a userid/password like 2000, only I believe it says the userid must be different from administrator. Which is odd since it went ahead and gave the account I created administrator access anyway, and still made an administrator account. Actually, as I recall now, it made me assign an administraotr password just like 2000, but made me create a new user to login as, but gave it administrator access, without me telling it to.
That was just my experience. Others may vary.
To automatically presume that a higher power must be a diety of some form is highly presumptous. I am going out on a limb, but what if your "high power" is some supreme alien lifeform, and who is to say "God" isn't that as it is.
A higher power can be someone or something of great importance and/or influence. It can even be just the thought or idea or something greater than one's self.
To paraprase Carlin, if there is a God, why should he bothered with all my petty problems. He has enough to do as it is. We are here for him, to one day be his equals. To do this, we must overcome our own problems first.
Yes, XP does do that. So does ME. And 2000 can be configured for that.
However, bearing all that in mind, critical updates form Microsoft 9 out of 10 times require a reboot before the changes go into effect.
Now most NT Admins will not set this to autoupdate simply becuase they need to be around for a reboot.
So, even though XP will auto-download the fixes, you still need to indicate they should be installed, and confirm a reboot if needed, which in the case of a fix for IE is 99% of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we're way off topic already.
The season didn't suddenly become good after the show was cancelled. These stories had already been written and on the board and sent off to the typesetters. Season 4 is a complete turn around, and for one reason only. Manny Coto. Only he was brave enough to do something no one at Paramount ever had the cajonnes to do, and that was get writers who actually knew the subject matter and could write good stories.
But never fear, as evident in this thread, as well anything remotely sci-fi, Slashdot is full of arm-chair directors, producers, and writers for both silver screen and television.
I know I am probably feeding a troll on this one, but...
1) at best only half of Monty Python is slap-stick, and even then not completely slap-stick, but very well thought out slap-stick (think Ministry of Silly Walks). Perhaps you should actually look up what slap-stick really means.
2) You mean, France, right?
3) David Hasselhoff (sp?) is popular in Germany, all anyone else cares about in that show are the bouncing boobies. That's practically universal.
Or you can do what I decided to do, and smart host relay off my ISPs SMTP server.
Yes, that was a bit off topic.
What you say is true for most TV series that are seriel in nature, However they don't have to be. 24 is pretty good example of this. The first couple minutes of every show gives a quick run down of what important events have brought you to the current point in the show. I have introduced several friends into watching 24 becuase of this. They don't have to worry about what they missed, becuase the lead in brings them where they need to be for the current show. It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than having to tell someone, oh yeah, you should watch show XYZ, but I'll have to let you know when a good starting episode will be on, other wise you won't know where you are at.
HTML 3.2 was a poor bastardization in an attempt to create a working standard between the two big boys of the time, IE and Netscape.
I am hoping your were being sarcastic. But just in case you weren't. HTML 3.2 is such a limited set of standards, it no suprise that we saw large percentage of IE and Netscape only sites.
HTML 4.0 should have brought things back together. But by that time, IE had managed to saturate enough of the market, that their ideas of standards became the way to do things, not W3C.
So if I follow this right. Basically 1 out of every 3 people that showed up to vote for legalizing Marijuana entered the voting booth, thought they were in a shower and began to masterbate. Just making sure I got all my math worked out. :)
I can. I know exactly where my win 98, 98se, 98me, NT4 Workstation, 2000 Pro, and 2000 Server disks are. And all are perfectly readable. Taking care of the CDs you want to keep should be a high priority. If you have a burner, you should copy the originals and only use the cd-r media to install and pass around to your friends, or leave out in the open so that anyone can use them.
I'm going to play devil's advocate on a few things here so bear with me. Also, I expect no one will ever see this, other than the poster I am replying to, so I expect all this is in vain.
You are absolutely correct. You do have the right to refuse to support my view. That does not mean the view should not be supported. In otherwords. You can publically disagree all you want. But the moment you start saying someone can't express their views, even if you disagree with them, and would never support them in your life, you become a censor, and the whole freedom of speech can be thrown out the window.
So you don't want to be involved with something that can be used for illegal activites. Fine, don't use it. That is most certainly your right. But to start to dictate what others can and can not do is not. That is big brother mentallity. What would be the best option would be to start your own version of the same thing. For example, take the freenet code, modify it so you can examine content, and feel safe assured that there is no questionable content in your network of associates that agree to sign on with you. But trying to tell freenet that they should change to conform with your views and ideals is just as wrong as the RIAA trying to tell me that I can only playing their music in devices they approve.
Further more, and this gets a bit off topic, and also where I start playing devils advocate heavily, what about using this questionable content for educational purposes. Or even better yet, law enforcement issues. Which brings up an even more interesting proposition. Why is it okay for law enforcement officials to view "kiddie porn" as evidence? Who decides which detectives are "normal" enough to be assigned to such work? And then when pedofiles are run through cort, doesn't said evidence need to be reviewed? That's a whole lot of people viewing illegal material. Just because they work/are sanctioned within the law. Sounds more above the law if you ask me, but that's my opinion.
A final thought. If you are so concerned with what can and is potentialy illegal on what you associate with, then I would suggest you stop using the internet altogether. Yes this is an extremist view, but the bottom line is, there s illegal material on the internet. Whether it be, copywrigted music, pirated software, or kiddie porn, it's all out there. You risk being exposed to it every time you surf the web. Yes, you can take steps to make sure you never see the illegal material, but there's no perfect way to 100% prevent being exposed to it accidently. Should you be held accountable for that as well?
Just food for though. I'm gonna go smoke my still legal cigarette now. ;)
So, even though they don't need to pay it, as most business accounts usually get at least NET 30 for billing and I am sure no one would ever tell Microsoft that they must pay in full on any order, it still exists as money owed to someone else. Far as I know that is the very basic definition of debt. By why take my word for it.
Debt
n.
I know we are basically arguing semantics here, but most people I know would think you are out of your mind for saying Microsoft is a debt free company. Just becuase they have enough money to pay off all their debts (or do they? ;) ) does not equate to being actually debt free.
Short term unearned revenue 5.9 B Other 2.5 B - Don't know what these are, but they aren't debt.
From here we learn that...
Unearned Revenue:
This is where the business receives a cash payment for services or goods before the goods or services are provided to the customer. The payment is shown as a liability until the goods or services are provided to the customer. Once they have been provided they are transferred from the Unearned Revenue account to the normal Revenue account for the business. The Revenue account credited depends on what was provided to the client. If a service was provided, then it would be called Service Revenue. But you could also have accounts titled Rent Revenue, Subscriptions Revenue, Tuition Revenue (as in the case of this college), etc..
So unearned revenue is not a debt of cash but of product and/or service, which it is why it shows up as a liability rather than in revenue
2.5 B in other is just darn scary. I wish I had that much lying arround that I could just call other expense. Think about it. That's almost half their unearned revenue, and double their accounts payable. Weird.
But that's just my opinion. I may be wrong. (stolen from Dennis Miller)
I still have a job. I consider that my IT bonus. ;)
Really? That's the first I've ever heard that. I find it odd that SEC Filings show that Total current liabilities is over 12 Billion.
Now I am not an ecconomics guru but last time I checked with my accountant, liability is about the same as debt.
Replying to myself, but Here's more info.
Director Terry Gilliam, formerly linked with the project, is no longer involved with the Watchmen film.
October 26, 2001... In both of today's issues of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, an announcement was made that Universal Pictures is optioning the film rights for Watchmen, for David Hayter to write the screenplay and to possible direct the film. According to Variety Hayter is getting at least $1 million dollars to adapt the 12-issue comic book into a feature length screenplay. [Sources: The Hollywood Reporter, Variety.]
More info here.
Darn shame, but then I guess most people would be sued for one thing or another. Oh wait.... ;)
I would agree that right now he hasn't really suffered any damages. Unless it shows up on his record. True the chances of that are very unlikely to happen.
non minimus lex - Does that refer ot the new baby Lexx or the old dead one. ;)
now imagine a beowolf cluster of these.
I had to re-read this several times. But if I understnad now what you are saying, just the process of threatening action is mostly legal, provided it is not a form of intimidation.
But isn't that what a threat is? Or rather are you saying it is up to the courts to determine if a threat was intimidation? I am having a hard time trying to come up with an example of a threat that could not be considered intimidation. But that's just me and no one put me in charge of righting laws, or interpitting them for that matter.
All this is well and good, but the fact remains that hs boss went past the point of threaten and actually did report him. Now, admittadly, the legal system is back asswords, but I do beleive that gives him the abillity to sue his boss. But that's just my opinion.
Well, I was able to parse it until you asked if I could. ;)
So if I follow what you are saying, he would have had more of a legal case if his boss had only threatened to file the complaint with the FBI, rather than actually doing it? Did I get that right? If so, oddly enough that does make sense. Mainly becuase of the way the legal system seems to work. Obviously not in the way it should work.
It seems to me, however, reporting the actions to the FBI is akin to guilty until proven innocent. Albiet that again seems to be the way the legal system works these days.
IANAL, but if his boss, as he had said, has already filed a complaint with the FBI, that should be enough to file a suit against him. It should therefore put preasure on him (the boss) to prove that his actions were correct, which they obviously are not. The boss's actions could easily be interpited as defamation of character. I am with going after the boss on this one, if you can find a lawyer to take the case. Shouldn't be too hard. ;)
Having recently bought this mouse myself, I can say the charge definetly lasts more than 12 hours. I have had it sitting off the charger for over a day and a half now without charging. Also, the rechargable batteries are user servicable. It even appears you can swap them out with 2 standard AAs if needed.
In my experience, all versions of Windows since 98 and NT 4 do at one point during post installation ask you to setup a password. For 9x if you leave it blank, it will never ask you again, hence being able to boot up the machine and never have it prompt you for a logon. NT4/2000 will still require a password, however it CAN be blank. Meaning all you have to do is hit enter at the logon screen. XP is the most bizare. I have only installed it once but as I recall, it asks for a userid/password like 2000, only I believe it says the userid must be different from administrator. Which is odd since it went ahead and gave the account I created administrator access anyway, and still made an administrator account. Actually, as I recall now, it made me assign an administraotr password just like 2000, but made me create a new user to login as, but gave it administrator access, without me telling it to. That was just my experience. Others may vary.
Would you care if you were a sys-admin and had to come to work in a tu-tu?
Yes, XP does do that. So does ME. And 2000 can be configured for that. However, bearing all that in mind, critical updates form Microsoft 9 out of 10 times require a reboot before the changes go into effect. Now most NT Admins will not set this to autoupdate simply becuase they need to be around for a reboot. So, even though XP will auto-download the fixes, you still need to indicate they should be installed, and confirm a reboot if needed, which in the case of a fix for IE is 99% of the time.
It must be Friday. Don't we like the RIAA on Friday?