On the flip side, they did pretty much everything they could to deny that there were problems with the Thomson DVD drives in the original Xboxes. After having gotten nowhere with their support people, it took a strongly worded snail mail letter to corporate before they'd even talk to me about picking up the tab for the repair under warranty, and even then it still took some wrangling to get the repair done.
I wasn't speaking as to the quality/condition of the cable itself (about which your statements are of course correct), but rather to the statement that " you pretty much either have a signal or you don't" regarding digital transmission over copper, which is a provably false statement.
That doesn't change the fact that what he said is 100% correct, and that how well the cable is shielded, how much impedance the cable exhibits, etc. can affect how well it work. A broken shield can screw up a "digital" cable in a variety of ways, and result in blocky video, noise in the audio, etc. without causing the picture/sound to drop out entirely.
Rather than spend $350 on a case containing a PC motherboard with no memory, no CPU, and no disk, I feel I'd get a much better "Amiga experience" by buying an Amiga Forever CD for $30 or so and running it on my existing machine.
which gave it true sound back when the Apple and IBM offerings only offered pathetic beep noises
Except that you mentioned the Macintosh, which had a full 8-bit audio DAC and could generate any sound you might care to (although limited to around 11 kHz and at a relatively low S/N ratio), and the 68000 was fast enough to generate polyphonic composite waveforms in memory.
you can't have a good one unless you're rich enough to pay the staggering taxes
$200 isn't exactly a "staggering" tax, and the required tax stamp isn't why you don't see more automatic weapons in civilian hands. The real reason is that it's illegal for an average member of the public to buy or own an automatic weapon manufactured since May 19, 1986, courtesy of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and specifically owing to William J. Hughes and Charles Rangel. Consequently, the 30 year old full-auto MP5 that should only cost $2,000 or so now can't be had for less than $20,000.
The police should be allowed to have a few things like this that could allow them to be proactive and stop something before it happens.
Sure, if they acknowledge and are legally charged with a duty to prevent crime, and can be held legally responsible when they fail to do so, instead of the current situation where Warren v. D.C. absolved them of pretty much any responsibility to do anything. Good luck getting that to happen.
My experience on a DUI jury a couple of years ago matches yours. Everyone was genuinely concerned about arriving at a just verdict, and I frankly was shocked that both the prosecution and defense made no attempt to exclude those capable of critical thought during voir dire. Ultimately our verdict was "not guilty", even though we all believed the defendant had likely been at least impaired at the time. The state just dropped the ball too many times. They weren't able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (No breath or blood test? No video of the stop? C'mon guys, help us out!) and none of us were willing to send a man to jail on almost no evidence.
DA has shown remarkably little interest in further investigation
Like you, I wasn't there either so I can't make any kind of definitive statement either, and I don't presume to know the minds of anyone involved in the case. Having said that, I don't think "racism" is the reason the DA hasn't done anything - I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done. No DA is going to prosecute a case he doesn't feel he has a good chance of winning, and none of them wants to be Mike Nifong again.
I did qualify my statement with "a truck and heavy-duty appliance dolly", and I did say that bolting it to the floor was an option. Just like any other kind of security, there's no such thing as being totally foolproof, but a half-ton or heavier safe (preferably not located in the garage) will likely deter thieves that are there for quick and easy pickings, which describes those who commit most home burglaries.
Whether you own any firearms or not, a good gun safe is likely to be useful as an addition to your security system. It's too heavy to just make off with unless the thief is coming with a truck and heavy-duty appliance dolly (for the lighter safes, anyway), and they're bulky enough where they're not particularly quick to manuever out of your house. On top of that, you can always still bolt it to the floor or wall. Most offer pretty decent fire protection as well, offering protection against 1200-1500 degree temps for anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours depending on what you get. They're roomy enough where you can put all kinds of stuff in them too.
but had the cops shown up there would have been no question.
Don't be so sure. If the accident happens on a public road/street/etc., you're probably good (in the US, anyway). However, in every locality I've lived in, if the accident takes place on private property the police don't have any authority to issue a ticket. They'll provide you both with an information exchange form, but that's about the extent of it. In my own state, the private property owner has to have contracted with a law enforcement agency to provide police services on his property before the cops (from that specific agency, of course) will officially give a damn.
So you didn't actually research the products, you researched the market?
Yes, I actually researched the products themselves, including a fair bit of pharmacological data regarding them. Reading comprehension is important - you should probably look into learning how to do it sometime, because you made a lot of baseless (and incorrect) assumptions. Also, ad-homs are the mark of someone unable to prove their argument, as you so clearly illustrated.
In which case the drug companies are effectively subsidizing health care for those that can't afford it. You'd think they'd make more of that in their marketing literature.
If you are capable of such research, you ARE a doctor.
No, not really. You're assuming that the doctors are really researching every new thing the drug companies push on them, and that you have to have an M.D. to read and understand the available information. I recently had the doctor prescribe two rather expensive (and new) medications that also weren't covered under my insurance. I did a bit of research, found a couple of much less expensive alternatives, and spoke to him about it. He agreed that there likely would be no problem with the substitutions and wrote some new scripts, and after having been on the different meds for a little while, he says that the cheaper meds have done just as well as he would have expected the others to do. So, a little research by this non-M.D. is saving me a little over $250/month.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the First Amendment *does* apply here, because it's been incorporated and thus applies to the states as well.
All consultants are employees by definition of employee [wiktionary.org]
The IRS would beg to differ, and a Wiktionary entry won't hold up too well in court against them.
On the flip side, they did pretty much everything they could to deny that there were problems with the Thomson DVD drives in the original Xboxes. After having gotten nowhere with their support people, it took a strongly worded snail mail letter to corporate before they'd even talk to me about picking up the tab for the repair under warranty, and even then it still took some wrangling to get the repair done.
I wasn't speaking as to the quality/condition of the cable itself (about which your statements are of course correct), but rather to the statement that " you pretty much either have a signal or you don't" regarding digital transmission over copper, which is a provably false statement.
That doesn't change the fact that what he said is 100% correct, and that how well the cable is shielded, how much impedance the cable exhibits, etc. can affect how well it work. A broken shield can screw up a "digital" cable in a variety of ways, and result in blocky video, noise in the audio, etc. without causing the picture/sound to drop out entirely.
Rather than spend $350 on a case containing a PC motherboard with no memory, no CPU, and no disk, I feel I'd get a much better "Amiga experience" by buying an Amiga Forever CD for $30 or so and running it on my existing machine.
which gave it true sound back when the Apple and IBM offerings only offered pathetic beep noises
Except that you mentioned the Macintosh, which had a full 8-bit audio DAC and could generate any sound you might care to (although limited to around 11 kHz and at a relatively low S/N ratio), and the 68000 was fast enough to generate polyphonic composite waveforms in memory.
And the turtleneck sweater.
you can't have a good one unless you're rich enough to pay the staggering taxes
$200 isn't exactly a "staggering" tax, and the required tax stamp isn't why you don't see more automatic weapons in civilian hands. The real reason is that it's illegal for an average member of the public to buy or own an automatic weapon manufactured since May 19, 1986, courtesy of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and specifically owing to William J. Hughes and Charles Rangel. Consequently, the 30 year old full-auto MP5 that should only cost $2,000 or so now can't be had for less than $20,000.
The police should be allowed to have a few things like this that could allow them to be proactive and stop something before it happens.
Sure, if they acknowledge and are legally charged with a duty to prevent crime, and can be held legally responsible when they fail to do so, instead of the current situation where Warren v. D.C. absolved them of pretty much any responsibility to do anything. Good luck getting that to happen.
Sorry, but I don't really give a damn.
Could very well be.
My experience on a DUI jury a couple of years ago matches yours. Everyone was genuinely concerned about arriving at a just verdict, and I frankly was shocked that both the prosecution and defense made no attempt to exclude those capable of critical thought during voir dire. Ultimately our verdict was "not guilty", even though we all believed the defendant had likely been at least impaired at the time. The state just dropped the ball too many times. They weren't able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (No breath or blood test? No video of the stop? C'mon guys, help us out!) and none of us were willing to send a man to jail on almost no evidence.
DA has shown remarkably little interest in further investigation
Like you, I wasn't there either so I can't make any kind of definitive statement either, and I don't presume to know the minds of anyone involved in the case. Having said that, I don't think "racism" is the reason the DA hasn't done anything - I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done. No DA is going to prosecute a case he doesn't feel he has a good chance of winning, and none of them wants to be Mike Nifong again.
I don't know if Florida laws qualify harassment in a similar way, but I doubt that.
:-)
You're right, they don't. Florida law allows for the use of deadly force if:
"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
with a "forcible felony" defined as
"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual"
I'm sure the FL Legislature's web site has just been getting *hammered* over the last few weeks.
I did qualify my statement with "a truck and heavy-duty appliance dolly", and I did say that bolting it to the floor was an option. Just like any other kind of security, there's no such thing as being totally foolproof, but a half-ton or heavier safe (preferably not located in the garage) will likely deter thieves that are there for quick and easy pickings, which describes those who commit most home burglaries.
Whether you own any firearms or not, a good gun safe is likely to be useful as an addition to your security system. It's too heavy to just make off with unless the thief is coming with a truck and heavy-duty appliance dolly (for the lighter safes, anyway), and they're bulky enough where they're not particularly quick to manuever out of your house. On top of that, you can always still bolt it to the floor or wall. Most offer pretty decent fire protection as well, offering protection against 1200-1500 degree temps for anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours depending on what you get. They're roomy enough where you can put all kinds of stuff in them too.
You can't always work within the law against terrorists who in no way respect the law.
Especially when said terrorists are wearing government insignias and often enjoy the legal means of suppressing evidence you may have against them.
Perhaps, but I'd still like to thank you for the entertainment you provided for the rest of us today. :-)
It's called a "court-appointed attorney", and it's generally the quality of legal care that you would get by going to a free clinic.
In most places in the US, if you have assets of any kind (car, etc.) or even just have a job, you're likely to be denied a court-appointed attorney.
but had the cops shown up there would have been no question.
Don't be so sure. If the accident happens on a public road/street/etc., you're probably good (in the US, anyway). However, in every locality I've lived in, if the accident takes place on private property the police don't have any authority to issue a ticket. They'll provide you both with an information exchange form, but that's about the extent of it. In my own state, the private property owner has to have contracted with a law enforcement agency to provide police services on his property before the cops (from that specific agency, of course) will officially give a damn.
So you didn't actually research the products, you researched the market?
Yes, I actually researched the products themselves, including a fair bit of pharmacological data regarding them. Reading comprehension is important - you should probably look into learning how to do it sometime, because you made a lot of baseless (and incorrect) assumptions. Also, ad-homs are the mark of someone unable to prove their argument, as you so clearly illustrated.
In which case the drug companies are effectively subsidizing health care for those that can't afford it. You'd think they'd make more of that in their marketing literature.
If you are capable of such research, you ARE a doctor.
No, not really. You're assuming that the doctors are really researching every new thing the drug companies push on them, and that you have to have an M.D. to read and understand the available information. I recently had the doctor prescribe two rather expensive (and new) medications that also weren't covered under my insurance. I did a bit of research, found a couple of much less expensive alternatives, and spoke to him about it. He agreed that there likely would be no problem with the substitutions and wrote some new scripts, and after having been on the different meds for a little while, he says that the cheaper meds have done just as well as he would have expected the others to do. So, a little research by this non-M.D. is saving me a little over $250/month.
ex: a pulse of light is shot from the Earth to the moon. The pulse takes ~12 seconds to arrive.
Closer to 1.3 seconds...