The actual saying is "Omnis vulnerat et ultima necat" and is, obviously, latin. "Chacune blesse, la derniere tue", or "Chaque heure blesse, la derniere tue" are but adaptations.
Not really sure why they didn't go with the latin, at least *somewhere* on the sundial - I think the saying has been put on sundials since the Antiquity...
Aren't speedy trials a criminal courts thing? And well, as far as I know, speedy trials are merely a preliminary trial within 24h of being caught and only determines your conditions for detention while you wait for the actual trial.
Quite interesting though is the News search result Google gives when looking for "search engine": Amazon invades Google's turf with search engine - Times of India - 20 hours ago
The simply created a PowerPoint presentation and converted it to "HTML". Actually, it doesn't even appear to *try* to be HTML - I have no idea what this crap is. Through their laziness, those morons managed to make their very simple page inacessible to any browser but Internet Explorer (well, neither Opera 7 nor Moz 1.4 render the page, from what I can see, maybe it works in KHTML-based browsers, but I doubt it). Oh well, Search Engines won't be able to index the content, and that'll be their loss
Really? Please explain. What do I need to know, besides Content-type, Location and cookies, which are the only headers a web developper is ever likely to have to work with - and, as the review mentions, most languages used for web development already have librairies to handle anyway.
Perhaps the part about HTTPS could be of some interest - I'm quite curious about the whole certificate thing - but the review didn't say anything about it.
Coming to think of it, the review is a complete piece of crap and doesn't say anything of interest about either the protocol or the book. So, could you please enlighten me on the use of knowing HTTP, since the reviewer forgot to do so?
I know One isn't a Beatles album - it's a Beatles chart-toppers album. But hey, those are the songs that people loved most - those are the songs that made the Beatles popular. They are representative of how little credentials can be given to their fans.
Most people only know their shittiest songs, too, since those get a lot of air time on soft rock radios. So I can perfectly understand someone saying the Beatles sucked - they did create a lot of suck. In fact, their better, more experimental stuff gets very little airtime.
Frankly, the only thing that impresses me about the Beatles is how they went from shitty pop to some great psychedelic. Usually, bands start out good then sell out. The Beatles went the other way around.
As for their influence on the musical world - I think the most important influence on rock and its progenies is probably Bob Dylan. I think every time I hear some rock person talk about their influences, they mention mr Dylan. In fact, I think even the Beatles cited him as their chief influence at some point.
Bah. Cellphones companies are subsidizing cell phone costs, or at least Bell Mobility (Canada's larget cellular service provider, for whom I work customer support) does. After subsidies and mail in rebates, the phone is likely to come off around the same price as a GBA.
Here's some fun thing to try: listen to the album "One". The first 10 songs or so (up until Yesterday, IIRC) are the *exact* *same* *thing*
I love the stuff the Beatles did later on, but overall, the Beatles were much better as a cultural event than as a musical group. They were just another pop band for most of their career. My mother tells me "you had to be there", "you weren't there" whenever I criticize the Beatles' music. Well shit, I love tons of bands that made music in the seventies, and I wasn't "there" either. Why should the Beatles get some special privilege because a bunch of baby boomers had nothing better to do than worship them? Heck, those baby boomers were all on LSD anyway, what kind of reference is that;)
But humans are egoists who donate because it makes them feel good. The kind of people who donate to Amnesty International do it for themselves, and care little what happens with their money once their "good deed" is done. People who really care donate *time*, not money.
I wouldn't donate to Amnesty International. But, if some good comes out of people's donation, no matter how much of the donations are squandered on bloated administration, I think we're better off than if no good had been done at all.
I was going to reply to the whole thing, but decided against it: I think we agree on the fundamental part and you're nitpicking on semantics (or my bad communication skills). However, this part I must reply to:
I'd imagine he's more interested in giving a first chance to the innocent women who this guy might go after (Somebody's wife, mother, sister, daughter) then a second chance to a serial killer/rapist. I'll bet his death is far less painfull than any of his victims.
I'm rather undecided on the death penalty thing. Part of me is an humanist and wants to believe in redemption. Most of me is a cynical bastard who believes in natural selection and personal responsibility. See, I think if you can't avoid (or at least make the best of) the bad situations you are faced with, then you deserve whatever happens to you. You knew the odds, played against them or decided not to play, then paid the price.
A man has an idea. The idea attracts others like-minded. The idea expands. The idea becomes an institution. What was the idea?
Because you've had some bad experience with a (perhaps) misguided person who is part of the institution does not make the institution as a whole worthless. Nor does it make the ideas behind that institution bad. Because you disagree with their ideas that killing murderers is barbaric doesn't make either viewpoint invalid. See, there's this fun thing about philosophy, where two completely opposed opinions can be right at the same time! Life isn't boolean, true or false, black or white.
The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race. The success and steps to make that happen, you can disagree with, but to discredit the whole thing based on one bad experience with a teacher (hey, I got news for you: 90% of Humanities teachers are fucking assholes who'll flunk you if you don't act like a good brainwashed idiot) isn't very nice of you.
But then again, I guess forgiveness and giving second chances aren't your strong points, seeing as how you're pro death penalty and all.
Actually, I read your post well enough the first time around, and the " unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale." part hinted at contract law; however, the "include a 'you may not resell this' clause in the (printed) novels" part made it unclear whether you were expecting it to be a copyright or contract law issue.
Wouldn't you have to write the "you may not resell this book" clause *outside* the book? Because looks to me like it has nothing to do with copyright - more like contract law actually.
So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.
It matters little how convincing the arguments are, as long as the arguing is convincing. If Boies manages to get so many high-profile cases, he certainly has some power of persuasion, at least over PHBs...
I thought the DMCA protected against reverse-engineering and copyright-violation devices? Taking some images from someone else is simply copyright violation, why would the DMCA have anything to do with it?
Because Linux has more commercial support than BSD. I personally like FreeBSD better because I'm a hobbyist and as such the only support I want is from the documentation, and I find FreeBSD's documentation to be much more complete and friendly than Linux. But for someone who is looking for an enterprise solution, backing from a well known company like Red Hat or SuSe is more attractive than a well written user handbook.
First time I hear about that movement. I'm a bit uncertain how serious the site is (I'll admit I haven't exactly the time to read it entirely right now, I'll do that a bit later), but I certainly hope it's facetious, because it appears to me the only people who would be willing to join the movement are also those people who should not actually join it.
It's like, someone is trashing your house, and instead of stopping it, you just leave. Not exactly a responsible attitude, and very unlikely to save your house.
Err... I said that Opera 7's JavaScript rendering speed was slow at times, but it was going to be fixed in 7.20. Hello? Why do you tell me Opera 7.20 beta7 breezes through the page as though it was proving me wrong?
BTW, to really check the rendering speed, you have to click on one of the thumbnails, and then drag an drop the image that "pops up" around. I think it's the combination of PNG transparency and javascript that causes the excruciating slowness. There are other examples of JS being slow, but this one is especially obvious
I should mention: currently, some heavy JavaScript runs pretty slowly on Opera as compared to Moz (note: last I checked, you need to have Opera identify as Moz in order for the site to entreat you to that heavy JavaScript - browser detection means Opera gets lumped with Internet Explorer). Anyway, that slowness is purportedly getting fixed in the upcoming 7.20 release
And the last time I used Konqueror, it sucked major ass and couldn't render basic CSS correctly. Ooooh! What does that say about Konq now? NOTHING!
Opera's Javascript implementation has been good for years. The problem is more with doing actual scripting in JavaScript. Internet Explorer and Mozilla both have very different "API"s for DOM scripting. Opera 6 was pretty poor in that regard - didn't render much. Opera 7 renders about 90%, maybe more, of either Mozilla or Internet Explorer's JavaScript, depending on which browser string you send (identify as Internet Explorer and pretty much every IE-specific pages render perfectly)
When identifying as Opera, usually only the most IE-centric pages won't render.
Slashdot Mirror
The actual saying is "Omnis vulnerat et ultima necat" and is, obviously, latin. "Chacune blesse, la derniere tue", or "Chaque heure blesse, la derniere tue" are but adaptations.
Not really sure why they didn't go with the latin, at least *somewhere* on the sundial - I think the saying has been put on sundials since the Antiquity...
Aren't speedy trials a criminal courts thing? And well, as far as I know, speedy trials are merely a preliminary trial within 24h of being caught and only determines your conditions for detention while you wait for the actual trial.
Google *is* impartial
Quite interesting though is the News search result Google gives when looking for "search engine": Amazon invades Google's turf with search engine - Times of India - 20 hours ago
Pick one of: "Because they could", "Why not?", or "It seemed like a good idea at the time".
... or just look at that photo and notice that there are fans at the top. Either that or the guy is walking on the ceiling
The simply created a PowerPoint presentation and converted it to "HTML". Actually, it doesn't even appear to *try* to be HTML - I have no idea what this crap is. Through their laziness, those morons managed to make their very simple page inacessible to any browser but Internet Explorer (well, neither Opera 7 nor Moz 1.4 render the page, from what I can see, maybe it works in KHTML-based browsers, but I doubt it). Oh well, Search Engines won't be able to index the content, and that'll be their loss
Really? Please explain. What do I need to know, besides Content-type, Location and cookies, which are the only headers a web developper is ever likely to have to work with - and, as the review mentions, most languages used for web development already have librairies to handle anyway.
Perhaps the part about HTTPS could be of some interest - I'm quite curious about the whole certificate thing - but the review didn't say anything about it.
Coming to think of it, the review is a complete piece of crap and doesn't say anything of interest about either the protocol or the book. So, could you please enlighten me on the use of knowing HTTP, since the reviewer forgot to do so?
I know One isn't a Beatles album - it's a Beatles chart-toppers album. But hey, those are the songs that people loved most - those are the songs that made the Beatles popular. They are representative of how little credentials can be given to their fans.
Most people only know their shittiest songs, too, since those get a lot of air time on soft rock radios. So I can perfectly understand someone saying the Beatles sucked - they did create a lot of suck. In fact, their better, more experimental stuff gets very little airtime.
Frankly, the only thing that impresses me about the Beatles is how they went from shitty pop to some great psychedelic. Usually, bands start out good then sell out. The Beatles went the other way around.
As for their influence on the musical world - I think the most important influence on rock and its progenies is probably Bob Dylan. I think every time I hear some rock person talk about their influences, they mention mr Dylan. In fact, I think even the Beatles cited him as their chief influence at some point.
Bah. Cellphones companies are subsidizing cell phone costs, or at least Bell Mobility (Canada's larget cellular service provider, for whom I work customer support) does. After subsidies and mail in rebates, the phone is likely to come off around the same price as a GBA.
Here's some fun thing to try: listen to the album "One". The first 10 songs or so (up until Yesterday, IIRC) are the *exact* *same* *thing*
I love the stuff the Beatles did later on, but overall, the Beatles were much better as a cultural event than as a musical group. They were just another pop band for most of their career. My mother tells me "you had to be there", "you weren't there" whenever I criticize the Beatles' music. Well shit, I love tons of bands that made music in the seventies, and I wasn't "there" either. Why should the Beatles get some special privilege because a bunch of baby boomers had nothing better to do than worship them? Heck, those baby boomers were all on LSD anyway, what kind of reference is that ;)
But humans are egoists who donate because it makes them feel good. The kind of people who donate to Amnesty International do it for themselves, and care little what happens with their money once their "good deed" is done. People who really care donate *time*, not money.
I wouldn't donate to Amnesty International. But, if some good comes out of people's donation, no matter how much of the donations are squandered on bloated administration, I think we're better off than if no good had been done at all.
I was going to reply to the whole thing, but decided against it: I think we agree on the fundamental part and you're nitpicking on semantics (or my bad communication skills). However, this part I must reply to:
I'm rather undecided on the death penalty thing. Part of me is an humanist and wants to believe in redemption. Most of me is a cynical bastard who believes in natural selection and personal responsibility. See, I think if you can't avoid (or at least make the best of) the bad situations you are faced with, then you deserve whatever happens to you. You knew the odds, played against them or decided not to play, then paid the price.
You deserve what you get
To quote Top Dollar:
Because you've had some bad experience with a (perhaps) misguided person who is part of the institution does not make the institution as a whole worthless. Nor does it make the ideas behind that institution bad. Because you disagree with their ideas that killing murderers is barbaric doesn't make either viewpoint invalid. See, there's this fun thing about philosophy, where two completely opposed opinions can be right at the same time! Life isn't boolean, true or false, black or white.
The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race. The success and steps to make that happen, you can disagree with, but to discredit the whole thing based on one bad experience with a teacher (hey, I got news for you: 90% of Humanities teachers are fucking assholes who'll flunk you if you don't act like a good brainwashed idiot) isn't very nice of you.
But then again, I guess forgiveness and giving second chances aren't your strong points, seeing as how you're pro death penalty and all.
Actually, I read your post well enough the first time around, and the " unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale." part hinted at contract law; however, the "include a 'you may not resell this' clause in the (printed) novels" part made it unclear whether you were expecting it to be a copyright or contract law issue.
Just wanted to clarify the matter, is all.
Wouldn't you have to write the "you may not resell this book" clause *outside* the book? Because looks to me like it has nothing to do with copyright - more like contract law actually.
So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.
Shrinkwrap licenses can go fuck themselves.
It matters little how convincing the arguments are, as long as the arguing is convincing. If Boies manages to get so many high-profile cases, he certainly has some power of persuasion, at least over PHBs...
I thought the DMCA protected against reverse-engineering and copyright-violation devices? Taking some images from someone else is simply copyright violation, why would the DMCA have anything to do with it?
Because Linux has more commercial support than BSD. I personally like FreeBSD better because I'm a hobbyist and as such the only support I want is from the documentation, and I find FreeBSD's documentation to be much more complete and friendly than Linux. But for someone who is looking for an enterprise solution, backing from a well known company like Red Hat or SuSe is more attractive than a well written user handbook.
No. But the fact that you can find instructions on how to do something is hardly indicative of the need for said instructions.
My shampoo comes with instructions.
First time I hear about that movement. I'm a bit uncertain how serious the site is (I'll admit I haven't exactly the time to read it entirely right now, I'll do that a bit later), but I certainly hope it's facetious, because it appears to me the only people who would be willing to join the movement are also those people who should not actually join it.
It's like, someone is trashing your house, and instead of stopping it, you just leave. Not exactly a responsible attitude, and very unlikely to save your house.
Err... I said that Opera 7's JavaScript rendering speed was slow at times, but it was going to be fixed in 7.20. Hello? Why do you tell me Opera 7.20 beta7 breezes through the page as though it was proving me wrong?
BTW, to really check the rendering speed, you have to click on one of the thumbnails, and then drag an drop the image that "pops up" around. I think it's the combination of PNG transparency and javascript that causes the excruciating slowness. There are other examples of JS being slow, but this one is especially obvious
I should mention: currently, some heavy JavaScript runs pretty slowly on Opera as compared to Moz (note: last I checked, you need to have Opera identify as Moz in order for the site to entreat you to that heavy JavaScript - browser detection means Opera gets lumped with Internet Explorer). Anyway, that slowness is purportedly getting fixed in the upcoming 7.20 release
And the last time I used Konqueror, it sucked major ass and couldn't render basic CSS correctly. Ooooh! What does that say about Konq now? NOTHING!
Opera's Javascript implementation has been good for years. The problem is more with doing actual scripting in JavaScript. Internet Explorer and Mozilla both have very different "API"s for DOM scripting. Opera 6 was pretty poor in that regard - didn't render much. Opera 7 renders about 90%, maybe more, of either Mozilla or Internet Explorer's JavaScript, depending on which browser string you send (identify as Internet Explorer and pretty much every IE-specific pages render perfectly)
When identifying as Opera, usually only the most IE-centric pages won't render.
In a bit of a hurry there, but there you go