GP mentioned "gun culture" and linking that directly to rampages and random crazy people shootouts is presumptuous. I would say it is you who is confused.
I'm obviously just guessing, but I think the house had more than just a break in the wires. A very hard to diagnose electrical fault I was tryign to trace once resolved to it being basically a short circuit. The phase and ground wires in one of the switchboard were connected, effectively making the ground positive, and every single metal cased grounded electrical appliance was shocking the hell out of everyone who would touch it. Your description suggests something similar, but with a DC setup, i dont actually see what it could be:)
India has had vision-impaired friendly currency for a few years now.
For each of the notes listed here, you can see the symbol at your mid-left when viewing the front side, which is embossed and the security thread also has unique tactile feedback. I don't know how secure this is but its very helpful to the blind.
Was the doctor not a qualified/certified physician? There is no regulation over 'GP' medicine in India so long as the practitioner is qualified/certified by a govt. recognized university.
From my experience having lived in India all my life, having spent almost a full year in a hospital 1 year ago, I can say this with certainty.
Government run hospitals and clinics are essentially only used by the poor who cannot afford private clinics.
Overabundance of certified medical practitioners and heavily subsidized medicine means there are a lot of (reasonably) cheap, well run private clinics and hospitals in the country. Very few are 'black market', though.
The only kind that I'd label black market would be those run by quacks.
the BenQ will only stretch the image if driven by an HD device directly. Using software to drive the display should allow the user to letterbox the output and get 1:1 pixel mapping, I guess.
You would not be able to file a case against "CSI" in general without stating specific incidents as evidence or at least as examples.
As I understand it (and as your parent post puts it, in different words), Thompson made specific accusations about the game, the Judge reviewed the game *with those accusations in mind* and decided that Thompson had no valid case.
While Thompson is free to file another case with different specific complaints, the case was filed by him to prevent the game for shipping. He has failed to achieve that.
P.S. It would cost the game publishers and developers a *lot* more if he filed a case after the game was widely distributed, and got the court to rule against the game and force the pubs/devs to recall it. I guess Thompson doesnt think the same way as I do. Maybe now he will!
I am posting the parent a second time (parent not my post) with easier to understand labels.
The examples may be poor but they only serve an illustrative purpose.
Parent post follows:
I don't quite think you understand the issue.
There are four parties involved.
A. The content provider [e.g. YouTube]
B. The content provider's ISP / Hosting provider, whatever [e.g. Comcast]
C. The consumer [e.g. You]
D. The consumer's ISP (in this case NextGenTel) [e.g. AOL]
Note - [YouTube] is _NOT_ a customer of [AOL].
If [YouTube] wants to serve more content at higher speeds, no problem, they pay [Comcast] more money.
If [You] wants to get more content at higher speeds, again no problem, they pay [AOL] more money.
No one has any problem with that concept.
The problem is when [AOL] decides that they can extort money out of [YouTube], by throttling the traffic between [You] and [YouTube] unless [YouTube] pays them some money - regardless of the fact that [AOL] doesn't actually provide any service to [YouTube]. They try to use the justification that with there being so much high bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_ paying: [You], the customer that actually requested the content from [YouTube] in the first place.
If [You]'s internet habits are really costing [AOL] money, then they should be charging [You] directly, not charging the sites they visit - that's just insane.
I don't know how any of these companies think they can possibly justify it - they already have the means to cover their costs, it's not the content providers' fault that the ISPs are greedy enough to try to charge coming and going.
Slashdot Mirror
They can just read the production firmware using a laptop in a van parked outside the walmart and then email it to china using free wifi
Apparently you can buy this here: http://www.ultracellpower.com/sp.php?xx25
GP mentioned "gun culture" and linking that directly to rampages and random crazy people shootouts is presumptuous. I would say it is you who is confused.
Norton Antivirus V 50.3
I'm obviously just guessing, but I think the house had more than just a break in the wires. A very hard to diagnose electrical fault I was tryign to trace once resolved to it being basically a short circuit. The phase and ground wires in one of the switchboard were connected, effectively making the ground positive, and every single metal cased grounded electrical appliance was shocking the hell out of everyone who would touch it. Your description suggests something similar, but with a DC setup, i dont actually see what it could be :)
It also says "Ignored if MD5_CRYPT_ENAB set to "yes"." And the last line of the quoted file sets MD5_CRYPT_ENAB to "yes"
deleted? it's still here
dude, which Indian firm pays their "Skilled IT workers and engineers" 100000/mo? can we have some empirical data backing this claim?
redundant? give me a break. TFA is slashdotted. mod parent up.
India has had vision-impaired friendly currency for a few years now.
For each of the notes listed here, you can see the symbol at your mid-left when viewing the front side, which is embossed and the security thread also has unique tactile feedback. I don't know how secure this is but its very helpful to the blind.
PC Quest had distributed RH5 with their mag way back when it was current. Surely it must have been popular to justify late 90s CD production costs.
Black market? are you sure?
Was the doctor not a qualified/certified physician? There is no regulation over 'GP' medicine in India so long as the practitioner is qualified/certified by a govt. recognized university.
From my experience having lived in India all my life, having spent almost a full year in a hospital 1 year ago, I can say this with certainty.
Government run hospitals and clinics are essentially only used by the poor who cannot afford private clinics.
Overabundance of certified medical practitioners and heavily subsidized medicine means there are a lot of (reasonably) cheap, well run private clinics and hospitals in the country. Very few are 'black market', though.
The only kind that I'd label black market would be those run by quacks.
the BenQ will only stretch the image if driven by an HD device directly. Using software to drive the display should allow the user to letterbox the output and get 1:1 pixel mapping, I guess.
You would not be able to file a case against "CSI" in general without stating specific incidents as evidence or at least as examples.
As I understand it (and as your parent post puts it, in different words), Thompson made specific accusations about the game, the Judge reviewed the game *with those accusations in mind* and decided that Thompson had no valid case.
While Thompson is free to file another case with different specific complaints, the case was filed by him to prevent the game for shipping. He has failed to achieve that.
P.S. It would cost the game publishers and developers a *lot* more if he filed a case after the game was widely distributed, and got the court to rule against the game and force the pubs/devs to recall it. I guess Thompson doesnt think the same way as I do. Maybe now he will!
I agree, mentioning children is not wrong when the children are already in the core picture
I am posting the parent a second time (parent not my post) with easier to understand labels.
The examples may be poor but they only serve an illustrative purpose.
Parent post follows:
I don't quite think you understand the issue.
There are four parties involved.
A. The content provider [e.g. YouTube]
B. The content provider's ISP / Hosting provider, whatever [e.g. Comcast]
C. The consumer [e.g. You]
D. The consumer's ISP (in this case NextGenTel) [e.g. AOL]
Note - [YouTube] is _NOT_ a customer of [AOL].
If [YouTube] wants to serve more content at higher speeds, no problem, they pay [Comcast] more money.
If [You] wants to get more content at higher speeds, again no problem, they pay [AOL] more money.
No one has any problem with that concept.
The problem is when [AOL] decides that they can extort money out of [YouTube], by throttling the traffic between [You] and [YouTube] unless [YouTube] pays them some money - regardless of the fact that [AOL] doesn't actually provide any service to [YouTube]. They try to use the justification that with there being so much high bandwidth content around that they can't handle the load anymore, so someone has to pay. But they gloss over the fact that someone _IS_ paying: [You], the customer that actually requested the content from [YouTube] in the first place.
If [You]'s internet habits are really costing [AOL] money, then they should be charging [You] directly, not charging the sites they visit - that's just insane.
I don't know how any of these companies think they can possibly justify it - they already have the means to cover their costs, it's not the content providers' fault that the ISPs are greedy enough to try to charge coming and going.
assimilate
either
seriously
not mentioning 'realy' and 'happned' which seem to be typos but who knows!