Why don't you RTFA? Your question is only answered in the first freakin' paragraph:
Take a pot of scalding water, remove all the oxygen, mix in a bit of poisonous carbon monoxide, and add a pinch of hydrogen gas. It sounds like a recipe for a witch's brew. It may be, but it is also the preferred environment for a microbe known as Carboxydothermus hydrogenoformans.
Cue the "you must be new here" remarks in 3... 2... 1...
If I remember correctly, to enforce copyright you are required to pursue all known violations in order to maintain the copyright.
You do not remember correctly. You can enforce copyright as selectively as you wish, and not lose any rights. You are thinking of that other pillar of "intellectual property" known as trademarks.
The only holdover I know of that it still has is that an officer facing a court martial can choose for his jury to only be fellow commissioned officers and not enlisted personnel or warrant officers.
That isn't quite right. Anyone facing court martial is by default a) tried by officers, and b) tried by people senior to him/herself. Enlisted members may request that 1/3 of the jury be composed of enlisted members, but if they don't so request, they get all officers.
... I've given up. The Pandora player insists on using Flash local storage, which I had disabled. Now, no matter what I do with the local storage settings, Pandora just keeps telling me I need to enable Flash local storage. Following their instructions doesn't help.
Can that be right? One acre is barely enough for a horse. Either I slipped a decimal point or horses are really inefficient.
Horses ARE really inefficient, compared to cars (depending on what you mean by efficiency). Horses must maintain a high body temperature 24/7, while cars need only maintain a temperature while being driven. Horses (at least mares) have high energy needs for reproduction, while new car construction is handled offboard. Horses need to digest their food, whereas cars get fuel delivered ready-to-use. Horses must repair their own tissue, while car repairs are handled with offboard energy resources.
At my house, the cats are afraid to even go outside when little mockingbirds are getting ready to leave the nest. The parents dive bomb them (the cats) over and over again, until the cats are reduced to cowering under bushes. Once, though, my younger cat reared up and grabbed one of the mockingbirds (I forced her to let it go, though).
I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself. But in the case of decaf beans, "green" is a misnomer - they come out of the decaffination process brown already. And when you roast them, they turn out darker than regular beans, even if you roast them to the same degree.
Last time I checked you were not allowed to burn the US Flag, though.
You did a piss-poor job of checking. Although several attempts have been made to ban flag-burning, all of these have been shot down in the courts. Burning the US flag is legal in every state in the Union.
While there are a few sorts of orders that are reserved to the President, the SecDef can, in fact, order the military to just about anything, without having to so much as notify the President after the fact. If you doubt this, I can send you about a million DoD Instructions signed by... not even Rumsfeld. Subcabinet officials sign them pretty routinely.
I'm a commander in the Naval Reserve, and hence, a lot lower on the totem pole than any of the bigwigs mentioned here. And yet, when I was assigned to a ship (not so many years ago), I had weapons release authority - meaning I could shoot at any targets I felt were a threat to the ship. Didn't even have to ask the captain.
The idea that no one but the President can order the military to do anything is ridiculous. He'd never sleep. The SecDef is part of the National Command Authority, and can (and does) direct the military to do things all the time.
... for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States...
No reasonable person could conclude that an article in the Onion was "for the purpose of conveying... a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States". The Onion has NOT violated the law.
Of course there's an article on Pat Robertson - like him or not, he's an important public figure. And to include a discussion of Pat Robertson without going into some of his controversial remarks/beliefs would be a waste of time.
Were you trying to suggest that the mere fact that Wikipedia has an entry for Pat Robertson means that the encyclopedia is somehow unworthy of use? How do you feel about Who's Who in America? Or Encarta?
I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that because Wikipedia has an article on "Flat Earth", it must be representing all sides of the question of Earth's geography (as discussed further up the thread). If you read the article, it discusses this history of the idea that the earth is flat, from ancient times through the present, and makes it pretty clear that modern "Flat Earthers" are a tiny minority.
I like classic country - Hank Williams, Lefty Frizell, etc... they're dead. Why should I continue to pay a huge tax to the RIAA, when I can legally get this stuff from allofmp3?
As an iPod owner, I really don't care if iTunes remains the best, most integrated, etc... because the premise here is false. I have about 1500 songs on my iPod, and I bought about 3 of them from iTunes. The rest I got from CDs I already owned, allofmp3.com, etc. "Stuck with iTunes"? Hardly.
This is one of the more worthless articles to appear on/. lately. Not only is it very shallow treatment of the subject (no mention of allofmp3.com?), they apparently didn't bother to even run a spell-check. "Napspter"? "Micrsoft"?
Try again when someone writes a real review of online music stores.
The Navy, at least, has many weapon systems that are capable of automatically detecting and engaging targets. Someone else in this thread mentioned PHALANX, which is an automatic air defense gun. Turn it on, set it to AAW AUTO, and it shoots anything it deems to be a threat to the ship (to be a threat, a target has to be airborne, closing the ship at a certain rate, and no further than about a mile away).
Also, AEGIS, the combat system installed in cruisers and guided missile destroyers, can be placed in an AUTO SPECIAL mode, which does somewhat the same thing, except it launches surface to air missiles. This is rarely done, but the capability is there.
Sure the Commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers [defenselink.mil] says funding levels were fine, but what does he know? He's just some engineer, uneducated in the overriding requirement to hate Smirchimply McHitlerBurton and all of his actions.
And you really think an active duty Army general is going to publicly criticize the commander-in-chief regarding his budgetary decisions, particularly in a politically charged scenario like the Katrina aftermath? The answer, by the way, is no: he's going to get onboard with the party line like a good soldier, regardless of what he really thinks. And if he didn't, he'd be fired.
the Sierra club prohibitting old growth clearing, which led to the destruction of thousands of Yellowstone forest..
So what you're saying is that we should have destroyed the forest in order to save it? Prohibiting logging of old growth forests doesn't lead to giant fires. The practice of extinguishing all small fires does that. Old growth forests don't need to be "thinned" - all that would accomplish is creating openings in the canopy, which lets in lots of sunlight, which in turn causes lots of underbrush to spring up - thereby INCREASING the danger of fire.
Umm, no. I realize the situation quoted above is exaggerated, but if you allow customers to abuse your employees, a) you'll start losing employees and b) your remaining employees will sue you. The point is that anything does NOT go, legally speaking, in the name of making money.
I do agree that it would be ridiculous for a business site to refuse to accept connections from IE, though.
Well, you're right about one thing. There are certainly lots of legitimate complaints to be made about the Bush administration.
I will openly admit that I would rather see terrorists go to Iraq to take on the US military, than come to the US to take on the citizens.
Oh, please. The so-called "flypaper" theory is so discredited I can't believe even Bush supporters are still spouting it. First of all, is it really "supporting our troops" to cynically use them to bait a gigantic terrorist trap? It is moral (not to mention legal) to invade a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism just to serve as a venue for said trap? And most important, do you really think that there's some finite number of terrorists out there, and if we just kill them all in Iraq, we'll be done? We're creating and training vast numbers of new terrorists there!
On the WMD issue, Bush WAS wrong. So was every other country in the world and UN. Lets be intellectually honest about this. France, Germany, UK, US, Russia, EVERYONE thought he had WMDs, and Saddam ACTED like he did.
Every country in the world thought that because we told them we had evidence that that was true. We now know that the evidence for WMD's in Iraq was very weak, and that the Bush administration suppressed evidence that didn't support the preferred story (see the "Downing Street Memo"). Yes, Saddam was evil. He did a lot of things that weren't in his own best interest in the run up to the war. But as long as we're being intellectually honest, let's acknowledge that if we propose to invade another country, it's our responsibility to ensure that doing so is justified - not the target country's responsibility to prove that it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you RTFA? Your question is only answered in the first freakin' paragraph:
Cue the "you must be new here" remarks in 3... 2... 1...
Sean
That isn't quite right. Anyone facing court martial is by default a) tried by officers, and b) tried by people senior to him/herself. Enlisted members may request that 1/3 of the jury be composed of enlisted members, but if they don't so request, they get all officers.
Here are some links
Sean
So, does your teenager repel herself?
Sean
apt-get install global-thermonuclear-war
Sean
... I've given up. The Pandora player insists on using Flash local storage, which I had disabled. Now, no matter what I do with the local storage settings, Pandora just keeps telling me I need to enable Flash local storage. Following their instructions doesn't help.
Too bad.
Sean
Horses ARE really inefficient, compared to cars (depending on what you mean by efficiency). Horses must maintain a high body temperature 24/7, while cars need only maintain a temperature while being driven. Horses (at least mares) have high energy needs for reproduction, while new car construction is handled offboard. Horses need to digest their food, whereas cars get fuel delivered ready-to-use. Horses must repair their own tissue, while car repairs are handled with offboard energy resources.
No doubt you can think of other differences.
Sean
At my house, the cats are afraid to even go outside when little mockingbirds are getting ready to leave the nest. The parents dive bomb them (the cats) over and over again, until the cats are reduced to cowering under bushes. Once, though, my younger cat reared up and grabbed one of the mockingbirds (I forced her to let it go, though).
Sean
I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself. But in the case of decaf beans, "green" is a misnomer - they come out of the decaffination process brown already. And when you roast them, they turn out darker than regular beans, even if you roast them to the same degree.
Sean
You did a piss-poor job of checking. Although several attempts have been made to ban flag-burning, all of these have been shot down in the courts. Burning the US flag is legal in every state in the Union.
Sean
While there are a few sorts of orders that are reserved to the President, the SecDef can, in fact, order the military to just about anything, without having to so much as notify the President after the fact. If you doubt this, I can send you about a million DoD Instructions signed by... not even Rumsfeld. Subcabinet officials sign them pretty routinely.
I'm a commander in the Naval Reserve, and hence, a lot lower on the totem pole than any of the bigwigs mentioned here. And yet, when I was assigned to a ship (not so many years ago), I had weapons release authority - meaning I could shoot at any targets I felt were a threat to the ship. Didn't even have to ask the captain.
The idea that no one but the President can order the military to do anything is ridiculous. He'd never sleep. The SecDef is part of the National Command Authority, and can (and does) direct the military to do things all the time.
Sean
Here's the operative line:
No reasonable person could conclude that an article in the Onion was "for the purpose of conveying... a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States". The Onion has NOT violated the law.
Sean
Of course there's an article on Pat Robertson - like him or not, he's an important public figure. And to include a discussion of Pat Robertson without going into some of his controversial remarks/beliefs would be a waste of time.
Were you trying to suggest that the mere fact that Wikipedia has an entry for Pat Robertson means that the encyclopedia is somehow unworthy of use? How do you feel about Who's Who in America? Or Encarta?
I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that because Wikipedia has an article on "Flat Earth", it must be representing all sides of the question of Earth's geography (as discussed further up the thread). If you read the article, it discusses this history of the idea that the earth is flat, from ancient times through the present, and makes it pretty clear that modern "Flat Earthers" are a tiny minority.
Sean
Must... not..
All your internets are belong to UN!
Damn. Couldn't stop myself.
I like classic country - Hank Williams, Lefty Frizell, etc... they're dead. Why should I continue to pay a huge tax to the RIAA, when I can legally get this stuff from allofmp3?
Sean
Reference.
I like to listen to classic country. The artists involved are dead. Cry me a river over the money the poor RIAA is losing.
Sean
As an iPod owner, I really don't care if iTunes remains the best, most integrated, etc... because the premise here is false. I have about 1500 songs on my iPod, and I bought about 3 of them from iTunes. The rest I got from CDs I already owned, allofmp3.com, etc. "Stuck with iTunes"? Hardly.
/. lately. Not only is it very shallow treatment of the subject (no mention of allofmp3.com?), they apparently didn't bother to even run a spell-check. "Napspter"? "Micrsoft"?
This is one of the more worthless articles to appear on
Try again when someone writes a real review of online music stores.
Sean
The Navy, at least, has many weapon systems that are capable of automatically detecting and engaging targets. Someone else in this thread mentioned PHALANX, which is an automatic air defense gun. Turn it on, set it to AAW AUTO, and it shoots anything it deems to be a threat to the ship (to be a threat, a target has to be airborne, closing the ship at a certain rate, and no further than about a mile away).
Also, AEGIS, the combat system installed in cruisers and guided missile destroyers, can be placed in an AUTO SPECIAL mode, which does somewhat the same thing, except it launches surface to air missiles. This is rarely done, but the capability is there.
Sean
Mars is, what a hundred million miles from here? Your definition of "easily accessible" is different from mine.
Sean
And you really think an active duty Army general is going to publicly criticize the commander-in-chief regarding his budgetary decisions, particularly in a politically charged scenario like the Katrina aftermath? The answer, by the way, is no: he's going to get onboard with the party line like a good soldier, regardless of what he really thinks. And if he didn't, he'd be fired.
Sean
So what you're saying is that we should have destroyed the forest in order to save it? Prohibiting logging of old growth forests doesn't lead to giant fires. The practice of extinguishing all small fires does that. Old growth forests don't need to be "thinned" - all that would accomplish is creating openings in the canopy, which lets in lots of sunlight, which in turn causes lots of underbrush to spring up - thereby INCREASING the danger of fire.
Sean
For those of us who aren't on IM all day... what's "wb" and "ty"?
Sean
Umm, no. I realize the situation quoted above is exaggerated, but if you allow customers to abuse your employees, a) you'll start losing employees and b) your remaining employees will sue you. The point is that anything does NOT go, legally speaking, in the name of making money.
I do agree that it would be ridiculous for a business site to refuse to accept connections from IE, though.
Sean
Well, you're right about one thing. There are certainly lots of legitimate complaints to be made about the Bush administration.
Oh, please. The so-called "flypaper" theory is so discredited I can't believe even Bush supporters are still spouting it. First of all, is it really "supporting our troops" to cynically use them to bait a gigantic terrorist trap? It is moral (not to mention legal) to invade a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism just to serve as a venue for said trap? And most important, do you really think that there's some finite number of terrorists out there, and if we just kill them all in Iraq, we'll be done? We're creating and training vast numbers of new terrorists there!
Every country in the world thought that because we told them we had evidence that that was true. We now know that the evidence for WMD's in Iraq was very weak, and that the Bush administration suppressed evidence that didn't support the preferred story (see the "Downing Street Memo"). Yes, Saddam was evil. He did a lot of things that weren't in his own best interest in the run up to the war. But as long as we're being intellectually honest, let's acknowledge that if we propose to invade another country, it's our responsibility to ensure that doing so is justified - not the target country's responsibility to prove that it's not.
Sean