As can HP Superdomes. (I know for a fact there's a 1Tb one not far from me, 2Tb is possibly out there [the machine can do it, I just don't know personally if there's one extant.. surprise me if there isn't (see http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/cache/342370-0-0-0-121.html) ]). It wouldn't at all shock me that IBM has machines in this class.
This whole discussion is so PC-centric it is hilarious. Oracle will find a way to make their SGA take 1Tb if you let them.
Cut'n'pasting Amendments 9 and 10 [which are as clear as you can get, really -- someone should beat Congress with a rolled up copy of 10 every time they get some other bizarre way to stretch what "Interstate commerce" allows...] from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html :
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That page strongly implies OEM customers are out of luck if their vendor didn't provide the 64-bit version, as it states that you can get the 64-bit media DVD if "you bought as a retail, packaged product".
Amusingly enough -- no, it really isn't these days. And one of the big reasons for that is Amazon either carrying itself or the multitudinous small "New and Used" bookstores you used to have to try to find which now have partnered with Amazon. [Yes, I'm sure there are issues with that partnership and this implies Amazon can cut them out of the market when it wishes, but in general we're back to: "The Internet. More than just fun and games. It has become the global source of practical uses!" http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825 ]
(... is it not nifty?)
This really goes to the heart of the free market argument to some extent -- as it shows that if a market exists (rare / eclectic books), businesses that can figure out ways to meet that market and make a profit will do just that -- without the need for government intervention. The small bookstores dramatically expanded their customer base by moving on-line and their marketing dollars by partnering with a known search engine (Amazon).
I simply choose to believe that Lucas didn't bother showing or telling us that as Anakin slipped further towards the dark side he started drawing life from his wife instead of there being a true bond between them (a perversion of the whole marriage being unifying two souls into one.... it is still a unification, but now one soul sucks the other one dry). Hence, Padme died because Anakin used her to stay alive long enough to be put in the suit by the Emperor. His whole tantrum at the end is one more sign of his self-denial at his true evil -- all of it is his own doing, and it is foreshadowed by his overt intention to keep her alive via the Force.
This is the same type of choice that firmly believes there's a DC Comics universe out there where Identity Crisis and the subsequent drek never happened, of course... Denial -- it isn't just a river in Egypt.
The whole myth of German quality in World War II came about because of pissed off Sherman tank drivers going up against Tiger tanks, which, were better armoured tanks. Seriously, as much as everyone prattles on about the quality of German Steel, those fans can find 50k tons of German Steel in the Bizmarck at the bottom of the Atlantic, but American face hardened Bethlehem Steel is still sitting pretty in the USS New Jersey (BB-62). That's got to be the strangest comment I've ever heard, even for/. . Are you seriously suggesting that the Iowa class is just so great that USS New Jersey would have survived by herself against several battle cruisers, battleships and at least one [Ark Royal], (don't remember if the Brits had another on station at the time), aircraft carrier? It wasn't steel quality that doomed Bismarck it was sending her out as a commerce raider practically solo with few ports to use in case of damage/emergencies. (And the Royal Navy quickly got between her and France anyway). She was tough -- but had to evade the Royal Navy to survive.. and didn't manage it.
USS New Jersey saw service as part of fully functional task forces, with a wide array of support vessels. You simply can not seriously compare the scenarios.
And more on-topic -- a big reason the Germans didn't invest in a lot of carriers and battleships is that it was rather pointless to do so. Doing so would have taken a lot of resources away from the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffle -- and the only real point to a German blue water Navy in a European conflict would be commerce disruption. You don't need aircraft carriers for anti-shipping missions for coastal defense when you control the North Sea (and later the French Channel coast), you can use land aircraft (with less weight due to less stress tolerances, hence greater range or increased payloads) from land bases. You don't need battleships or battle cruisers to do commerce raiding -- especially when you're up against a historically Naval power anyway, you're much better off in investing in Wolfpack submarine tactics, avoiding the patrol grids the Royal Navy operated to slip out into the Atlantic shipping lanes [exactly what Bismarck failed to do and what kept Tirpitz tied up in the North Sea]. They had to either out build the Royal Navy entirely (leaving far less for the land forces) or effectively flank them by avoiding the surface battle and trying to simply make the U-boats cost the enemy more than the inevitable loss to antisubmarines patrols would cost Germany.
Remember also that Germany didn't think it would need a massive navy to support a cross Channel invasion (unlike in World War I) because the Luftwaffe had the range and (supposedly) the power to both keep the Royal Navy and Air Force occupied or disabled while the transports made the hop.
Not to be nitpicky (but since I spent some time on Wikipedia to be sure of the timeline when I contemplated answering this as well) -- but Beauregard didn't fire on Sumter (April 1860) until after Lincoln's inauguration (March 1860). Buchanan kept Sumter and 2 other forts in the South under Federal control after secession, with negotiations attempted several times on the subject until the matter was forced by the South before a Northern relief/supply force could arrive.
You're entirely correct that South Carolina (and the core of the Confederacy) seceded as soon as the Electoral College results were final, making the contention that Lincoln's acts caused the Civil War rather spurious on their face. I think the only way Southerners can claim Northern Aggression would be to go before Lincoln to the very obvious "Wither on the vine" mentality the North was using to limit slavery to the states it already had roots in, with the hopes that it would eventually die off. Not that they'd be right, but they'd have a stronger argument.
I blame the Founding Fathers for the 3/5th Compromise in the first place more than anything else. Interesting how their high ideals on the inherent rights of men didn't extend very far south... but they were human and products of their time.
Being shot in the head made that a little tricky, you know.
(I know that was likely a joke -- but given the vast differences in political ability between Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, the South really should spit on the grave of Booth every chance they get. Reconstruction would have been VASTLY different if Lincoln had been around to rein in the Radical Republicans.)
No, no, no.... the proper word for referral then becomes "Sheheit". Proper pronunciation puts the accent on the "he" and the word should be drawled in your best Southern United States accent. (Sound it out, folks...)
Apologies to Peter David, who used this joke already in his Star Trek: New Frontier novels for the Federation diplomats breaking down in laughter when the Hermat race actually proposed this.
No, I'm simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
If you're discussing moving the Senate power structure to a proportional representation scheme (states with more population get the equivalent of 2.5 senators, smaller states get stuck with 1.5 and the like) -- then it is ridiculous to stop at the state boundaries and claim that the senator represents everyone within their district. Obviously in the current model, I'm stuck with Feinstein for however long the voters around here can ignore her blatant corruption and general idiocy... so right now she represents me for better or worse.
If we moved to having representatives be proportionate to the population, I do think that it wouldn't be as imbalanced as you believe. Note the 2006 CA Senate race results at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 (which may not be the most representative of years, given the way the Republicans ticked off their base, but might as well look there) Feinstein won with 59.4% of the vote, around 4.7 million folks. Dick Mountjoy managed a respectable second, however, at 35.2% (2.8 million). New York (the other big blue state that comes right to mind) is more imbalanced -- Clinton at 3 million vs. Spencer at 1.3.. But in the first case, it isn't reasonable to say "Feinstein represents 8 million folks" in a Senate balancing.. that's too many folks lumped under a single banner [and what the House is for in the first place]. If you go proportionate in the Senate, you'd be better off with smaller districts, more senators... and a greatly increased chance of nothing getting done due to the sheer mess it would make. That last point actually sounds like a good idea, though.
Final point -- the raw popular vote nation wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_senate_election) was 33 million (D) [53.9%], 26 million (R) [42.4%]. So technically, you should give the Dems a seat from the Independants and a couple from the Republicans at most... not 30% or so as you postulate.
Bull. Diane Feinstein in NO way represents me. I just have the misfortune to live near the Bay Area.
If you want to start playing population games, you're going to have to literally look at every single vote tallied -- you can't go "all blue" or "all red" in each senate seat.
Considering the American medical system problem has a lot to do with the market-skewing Medicare system of the government (guess what happens when you institute socialization in the price structure so no one has to worry about how much things cost -- suppliers charge more because the government will pay it!), I don't think the libertarians are that far off.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm more of a strict constitutionalist/small-government conservative, so I obviously have empathy towards the libertarians.. I just don't trust total deregulation that much more (perfect world -- get the Federal government out of all the stuff they shouldn't be doing, and restrict corporate licenses to companies of no more than N people (100 sounds good, but that's the round number fallacy, most likely). If you can't have large (especially multi-national) corporations, it will be harder for them to abuse market positions.
But of course they did... the lyric "They got the Mustard out" is Joss Whedon's attempt to reveal that it was, in fact, the CIA that got Colonel Mustard out of this country to cover up their complicity in his war profiteering and the murder of witnesses to it.
Figuring out how to get people out there and back comes to mind quickly.
Just after Mars (and before Jupiter) is the asteroid belt... and asteroid mining has a lot of potential (if you don't want to maintain scarcity of some minerals by watching the mines here on Earth tap out... or don't relish strip mining/whatnot). I wouldn't say that's infeasible to do via automation, but for that length of mission and with the variables involved, having a human (or a few) on the spot would likely make things easier.
Ok, valid point. I should have said that no crime took place on the part of the defendant.
I think it is crucial to the point to know just how this folder was "shared" and the visibility of same. (Anonymous FTP server? P2P share which is advertised as same? Windows/SAMBA share on a dorm network? How those are accessed by the RIAA agent would wildly change the legality of the agent's actions).
Now... that's the logical response. The cynical side of me thinks that there are likely exemptions under some well lobbied law for trespass for the purposes of investigating copyright infringement or something equally lopsided and dumb.
No, they admitted no such thing (and in fact argued strongly the opposite).
What they "admitted" was that the files were in a sharable folder/directory on the network.
They also "admitted" (because it was in the RIAA's subpoena) that an agent of the RIAA copied the files. Said agent of the copyright holder, however, had the permission of the copyright holder (member of the RIAA) to make said copies [otherwise the RIAA would have to sue their agent now].
As such -- no admission of anyone other than the RIAA's agent was made, and if the only copying activity was authorized... no crime took place.
If you believe otherwise, then you'd better be really, really careful about where you leave your audio files. Allow them for even a moment on a machine with those hidden default Windows shares like $C... and you're arguing that you're now guilty of copyright infringement -- even though no copy was ever made. And I'd argue that this is just silly.
It is interesting -- if the judge accepts the argument, it would mean that the RIAA would have to definitely prove its case (that actual infringement occurred, i.e. an unauthorized copy was made... which implies to me that they'd have to either track it using watermarking or packet interception to really prove it) just in order to get a subpoena to identify the defendant. Seems a little strict -- but they have good cites on the requirement being intentionally this way in the legislation to prevent spurious fishing expeditions.
Because I don't have the time or energy to schedule playing time with N other people after I get home from work, I probably don't really want (or care) to hear the rambling chat/text out of some random 'Net denizens while I'm trying to play, and because a story-driven RPG doesn't tend to work well when the actors are random folks on-line at the time, just off the top of my head.
Some of us still want to be able to play (or put down) a game on our own schedule, without coordinating with the world... and still appreciate little things like plot. Please don't think there's no market for single player gaming. Thanks.
If you read the summary and follow the link to the Motion to reconsider (http://www.judgejokes.com/motion-to-reconsider.y3 4566.10-6-2003.doc), it directly references the played version of the recording not including the disclaimer made at the beginning of the call that the call would be monitored/recorded [presumably very similar to the stock recording we've all heard on tech support lines]. As such, and assuming we believe the motion to the Judge made by the submitter to be factual, then there's an opt-in agreement by the second party to recording since they were informed that this would take place.
Slashdot Mirror
No, breeder reactors (or high burnup fuel) not literal combustion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnup .
Probably not that easily if you're a zombie, though.
As can HP Superdomes. (I know for a fact there's a 1Tb one not far from me, 2Tb is possibly out there [the machine can do it, I just don't know personally if there's one extant.. surprise me if there isn't (see http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/cache/342370-0-0-0-121.html) ]). It wouldn't at all shock me that IBM has machines in this class.
This whole discussion is so PC-centric it is hilarious. Oracle will find a way to make their SGA take 1Tb if you let them.
Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_Order_of_Battle
This was well before the extensive refit for the WMG is all, but she was there. (tongue firmly in cheek here, obviously)
It isn't like you'd have to look hard.
Cut'n'pasting Amendments 9 and 10 [which are as clear as you can get, really -- someone should beat Congress with a rolled up copy of 10 every time they get some other bizarre way to stretch what "Interstate commerce" allows...] from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html :
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Google probably would be just as fast... but since I like Newegg anyway:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116215
I'm sure you'll find many other sources -- but in short, yes it is.
Link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx
That page strongly implies OEM customers are out of luck if their vendor didn't provide the 64-bit version, as it states that you can get the 64-bit media DVD if "you bought as a retail, packaged product".
Amusingly enough -- no, it really isn't these days. And one of the big reasons for that is Amazon either carrying itself or the multitudinous small "New and Used" bookstores you used to have to try to find which now have partnered with Amazon. [Yes, I'm sure there are issues with that partnership and this implies Amazon can cut them out of the market when it wishes, but
in general we're back to: "The Internet. More than just fun and games. It has become the global source of practical uses!" http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825 ]
(... is it not nifty?)
This really goes to the heart of the free market argument to some extent -- as it shows that if a market exists (rare / eclectic books), businesses that can figure out ways to meet
that market and make a profit will do just that -- without the need for government intervention. The small bookstores dramatically expanded their customer base by moving on-line and
their marketing dollars by partnering with a known search engine (Amazon).
Little bit of googling got me to http://www.g4tv.com/cheat/features/51903/Secrets_of_the_Jade_Empire.html and -- Sir Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom, The Magnificent Bastard.
BluRay either doesn't have the requirement, or Disney at least ignores it. (Ratatouille was an interesting skip fest to get to the movie).
I simply choose to believe that Lucas didn't bother showing or telling us that as Anakin slipped further towards the dark side he started drawing life from his wife instead of there being a true bond between them (a perversion of the whole marriage being unifying two souls into one.... it is still a unification, but now one soul sucks the other one dry). Hence, Padme died because Anakin used her to stay alive long enough to be put in the suit by the Emperor. His whole tantrum at the end is one more sign of his self-denial at his true evil -- all of it is his own doing, and it is foreshadowed by his overt intention to keep her alive via the Force.
This is the same type of choice that firmly believes there's a DC Comics universe out there where Identity Crisis and the subsequent drek never happened, of course... Denial -- it isn't just a river in Egypt.
USS New Jersey saw service as part of fully functional task forces, with a wide array of support vessels. You simply can not seriously compare the scenarios.
And more on-topic -- a big reason the Germans didn't invest in a lot of carriers and battleships is that it was rather pointless to do so. Doing so would have taken a lot of resources away from the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffle -- and the only real point to a German blue water Navy in a European conflict would be commerce disruption. You don't need aircraft carriers for anti-shipping missions for coastal defense when you control the North Sea (and later the French Channel coast), you can use land aircraft (with less weight due to less stress tolerances, hence greater range or increased payloads) from land bases. You don't need battleships or battle cruisers to do commerce raiding -- especially when you're up against a historically Naval power anyway, you're much better off in investing in Wolfpack submarine tactics, avoiding the patrol grids the Royal Navy operated to slip out into the Atlantic shipping lanes [exactly what Bismarck failed to do and what kept Tirpitz tied up in the North Sea]. They had to either out build the Royal Navy entirely (leaving far less for the land forces) or effectively flank them by avoiding the surface battle and trying to simply make the U-boats cost the enemy more than the inevitable loss to antisubmarines patrols would cost Germany.
Remember also that Germany didn't think it would need a massive navy to support a cross Channel invasion (unlike in World War I) because the Luftwaffe had the range and (supposedly) the power to both keep the Royal Navy and Air Force occupied or disabled while the transports made the hop.
Not to be nitpicky (but since I spent some time on Wikipedia to be sure of the timeline when I contemplated answering this as well) -- but Beauregard didn't fire on Sumter (April 1860) until after Lincoln's inauguration (March 1860). Buchanan kept Sumter and 2 other forts in the South under Federal control after secession, with negotiations attempted several times on the subject until the matter was forced by the South before a Northern relief/supply force could arrive.
You're entirely correct that South Carolina (and the core of the Confederacy) seceded as soon as the Electoral College results were final, making the contention that Lincoln's acts caused the Civil War rather spurious on their face. I think the only way Southerners can claim Northern Aggression would be to go before Lincoln to the very obvious "Wither on the vine" mentality the North was using to limit slavery to the states it already had roots in, with the hopes that it would eventually die off. Not that they'd be right, but they'd have a stronger argument.
I blame the Founding Fathers for the 3/5th Compromise in the first place more than anything else. Interesting how their high ideals on the inherent rights of men didn't extend very far south... but they were human and products of their time.
Being shot in the head made that a little tricky, you know.
(I know that was likely a joke -- but given the vast differences in political ability between Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, the South really should spit on the grave of Booth every chance they get. Reconstruction would have been VASTLY different if Lincoln had been around to rein in the Radical Republicans.)
No, no, no.... the proper word for referral then becomes "Sheheit". Proper pronunciation puts the accent on the "he" and the word should be drawled in your best Southern United States accent. (Sound it out, folks...)
Apologies to Peter David, who used this joke already in his Star Trek: New Frontier novels for the Federation diplomats breaking down in laughter when the Hermat race actually proposed this.
No, I'm simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
If you're discussing moving the Senate power structure to a proportional representation scheme (states with more population get the equivalent of 2.5 senators, smaller
states get stuck with 1.5 and the like) -- then it is ridiculous to stop at the state boundaries and claim that the senator represents everyone within their
district. Obviously in the current model, I'm stuck with Feinstein for however long the voters around here can ignore her blatant corruption and general idiocy... so
right now she represents me for better or worse.
If we moved to having representatives be proportionate to the population, I do think that it wouldn't be as imbalanced as you believe. Note the 2006 CA Senate race
results at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 (which may not be the most representative of years, given the way
the Republicans ticked off their base, but might as well look there) Feinstein won with 59.4% of the vote, around 4.7 million folks. Dick
Mountjoy managed a respectable second, however, at 35.2% (2.8 million). New York (the other big blue state that comes right to mind) is more imbalanced -- Clinton at
3 million vs. Spencer at 1.3.. But in the first case, it isn't reasonable to say "Feinstein represents 8 million folks" in a Senate balancing.. that's too many
folks lumped under a single banner [and what the House is for in the first place]. If you go proportionate in the Senate, you'd be better off with smaller
districts, more senators... and a greatly increased chance of nothing getting done due to the sheer mess it would make. That last point actually sounds like
a good idea, though.
Final point -- the raw popular vote nation wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_senate_election) was 33 million (D) [53.9%], 26 million (R) [42.4%].
So technically, you should give the Dems a seat from the Independants and a couple from the Republicans at most... not 30% or so as you postulate.
Bull. Diane Feinstein in NO way represents me. I just have the misfortune to live near the Bay Area.
If you want to start playing population games, you're going to have to literally look at every single vote tallied -- you can't go "all blue" or "all red" in each senate seat.
Considering the American medical system problem has a lot to do with the market-skewing Medicare system of the government (guess what happens when you institute socialization in the price structure so no one has to worry about how much things cost -- suppliers charge more because the government will pay it!), I don't think the libertarians are that far off.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm more of a strict constitutionalist/small-government conservative, so I obviously have empathy towards the libertarians.. I just don't trust total deregulation that much more (perfect world -- get the Federal government out of all the stuff they shouldn't be doing, and restrict corporate licenses to companies of no more than N people (100 sounds good, but that's the round number fallacy, most likely). If you can't have large (especially multi-national) corporations, it will be harder for them to abuse market positions.
But of course they did... the lyric "They got the Mustard out" is Joss Whedon's attempt to reveal that it was, in fact, the CIA that got Colonel Mustard out of this country to cover up their complicity in his war profiteering and the murder of witnesses to it.
Communism was just a red herring.
Figuring out how to get people out there and back comes to mind quickly.
Just after Mars (and before Jupiter) is the asteroid belt... and asteroid mining has a lot of potential (if you don't want to maintain scarcity of some minerals by watching the mines here on Earth tap out... or don't relish strip mining/whatnot). I wouldn't say that's infeasible to do via automation, but for that length of mission and with the variables involved, having a human (or a few) on the spot would likely make things easier.
Ok, valid point. I should have said that no crime took place on the part of the defendant.
I think it is crucial to the point to know just how this folder was "shared" and the visibility of same. (Anonymous FTP server? P2P share which is advertised as same? Windows/SAMBA share on a dorm network? How those are accessed by the RIAA agent would wildly change the legality of the agent's actions).
Now... that's the logical response. The cynical side of me thinks that there are likely exemptions under some well lobbied law for trespass for the purposes of investigating copyright infringement or something equally lopsided and dumb.
Thanks.
No, they admitted no such thing (and in fact argued strongly the opposite).
What they "admitted" was that the files were in a sharable folder/directory on the network.
They also "admitted" (because it was in the RIAA's subpoena) that an agent of the RIAA copied the files. Said agent of the copyright holder, however,
had the permission of the copyright holder (member of the RIAA) to make said copies [otherwise the RIAA would have to sue their agent now].
As such -- no admission of anyone other than the RIAA's agent was made, and if the only copying activity was authorized... no crime took place.
If you believe otherwise, then you'd better be really, really careful about where you leave your audio files. Allow them for even a moment on a
machine with those hidden default Windows shares like $C... and you're arguing that you're now guilty of copyright infringement -- even though
no copy was ever made. And I'd argue that this is just silly.
It is interesting -- if the judge accepts the argument, it would mean that the RIAA would have to definitely prove its case (that actual
infringement occurred, i.e. an unauthorized copy was made... which implies to me that they'd have to either track it using watermarking or
packet interception to really prove it) just in order to get a subpoena to identify the defendant. Seems a little strict -- but they have
good cites on the requirement being intentionally this way in the legislation to prevent spurious fishing expeditions.
That's what happens when you attend a "collage" for several years, it seems. Just imagine the effects of the glue fumes alone...
Because I don't have the time or energy to schedule playing time with N other people after I get home from work, I probably don't really want (or care) to hear the rambling chat/text out of some random 'Net denizens while I'm trying to play, and because a story-driven RPG doesn't tend to work well when the actors are random folks on-line at the time, just off the top of my head.
Some of us still want to be able to play (or put down) a game on our own schedule, without coordinating with the world... and still appreciate little things like plot. Please don't think there's no market for single player gaming. Thanks.
If you read the summary and follow the link to the Motion to reconsider (http://www.judgejokes.com/motion-to-reconsider.y3 4566.10-6-2003.doc), it directly references the played version of the recording not including the disclaimer made at the beginning of the call that the call would be monitored/recorded [presumably very similar to the stock recording we've all heard on tech support lines]. As such, and assuming we believe the motion to the Judge made by the submitter to be factual, then there's an opt-in agreement by the second party to recording since they were informed that this would take place.