How do you solve the issue? Laws should be a matter of public record and should be freely accessible. However the people creating the codes need to be compensated. I suppose the Government could have its own engineers write building codes, I'm not sure thats a good idea though.
It's the same as the company doing it, minus charging the public per copy, and minus profits for that company. Instead, more of the public pays a lesser amount (in the form of taxes).
Pro-privatization people would say the government is so inefficient that a company, even tacking on a profit, will do a better job for less money than the government could have. I think that's a junk argument, but there you have it. The government should have bough the rights to the book from the company, then made it available free electronically, and in printed format for a small fee.
You'd need to account for the time it would take to copy all that content from hard drive(s), onto the blu-ray discs, then again copy them to the target computer on the other side of the country.
Blu ray disc holds 25 billion bytes That's 200 billion bits, and let's say you can read/write at 72 million bits per second (blueray@2x):
200,000,000,000 bits (bytes * 8) / 72,000,000 bits per second 2777 seconds per disc. 46 minutes per disc. By 1000 discs 46,000 minutes to write all the discs. Or 766 hours, or 32 days. Assuming you have a 2x speed burner, and you have no downtime between discs. And then another 32 days to read them all into the target computer:)
And I can't even calculate how many days it'd take to verify the data was written and copied correctly.
My understanding is that Commander Taco wants slashdot to remain the sort of late-nineties small internet discussion board, and the appropriate level of editing. The reality has sort of outpaced Taco's vision; slashdot has become one of the most influential sounding boards on the internet.
I expect CmdrTaco would argue that without retaining the spirit of the former, you'd never have ended up with the latter.
I think the real reason is that there was no significant competition. People didn't choose to purchase Windows or Office (MS's cash crops) because they liked Internet Explorer. They probably wrote up a cost-benefit analysis, and found they'd get very little if any return on their money for an IE upgrade.
But now that Firefox is popular and makes IE6 look old, MS has to upgrade IE7 to save face. Also, IE7 seems to coincide with Vista, which is important because Vista wouldn't seem like a huge upgrade without a new-looking web browser to go with it.
A CEO authorizes spying and she gets charged with a felony and a full blown investigation.
A CEO President is spying on innocent Americans as long as he says he thinks they're terrorists, and what happens? His sheep in congress pass a law to make it legal for him.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning as much as anyone. But come on, congress, senate, show some damn backbone like your colleagues did when they stood up to Nixon.
"But saying all romantic comedies are alike because they are romantic comedies is wrongheaded."
It all depends on how dedicated to the genre you are. If you liked everything from Event Horizon, to Evil Dead, to Bram Stoker's Dracula, then there probably aren't too many horror movies wouldn't at least mildly enjoy.
But if you only ever rent Action movies if they star Tom Cruise, then your high War of the Worlds rating wouldn't necessarily imply you'd also enjoy Armageddon.
Fry also sounds a lot like Stimpy to me. And you can hear a tad bit of Fry in Brannigan's voice.
So I'm guessing all that is actually a bit of Billy's natural voice shining through. It's fun to notice things like this and then really listen to different character voices, trying to guess which VO does them. (before you go look them up on IMDB:) )
Like listening to The Joker's voice in Batman cartoons and trying to hear Luke Skywalker (it's REALLY subtle).
Interracial. Polygamy. Child brides. Your late brother's widow. Do you see the pattern? Male + Female. Not to say that all of those are good, or that some sort of homosexual union is bad, just don't call it marriage, because it isn't, by definition.
I'm not anti-homosexual. I'm anti-misusing-words.
Personally, I'm anti governments-recognizing-religious-ceremonies. They don't recognize that a jewish boy becomes a man at 13 - to the gov't he's still legally a child until 18. So why do they recognize a religion's marriage?
Marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions allow a man to marry more than one woman, some religions allow two people of the same sex to be married. Just like prayer and god(s) and sin is defined by each particular religion, so is marriage. Our government has chosen one (admittedly popular) religious definition of marriage, but is now denying other religions' modern definition of marriage.
Speaking of misuse of words, I don't think the government should even use the word marriage, it has too many religious connotations. The gov't should only grant "civil unions" or some similar term. That way the government can make whatever rules it wants regarding those unions, even if it's that a civil union is between one man and one woman, and the secular definition will not be influenced by any religion.
The "sanctity of marriage" has already been compromised by the gov't getting involved. If they stop calling it marriage, it can once again be restored.
In the US they pretty much were. Maybe not in Europe.
Same sex "marriages" do not fit the definition of marriage, unless somebody made up a new one recently.
Same sex marriages do not fit YOUR definition of marriage. There may be many other people who agree with your definition, but don't go thinking yours is the first definition, or the only one.
And if we're talking 50 years ago, why not two thousand years ago, where multiple teenage or younger wives was the norm? And all that biblical stuff about marrying your late brother's widow? Or in parts of Africa today, where a man can have as many wives as he can afford to support?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same as the company doing it, minus charging the public per copy, and minus profits for that company. Instead, more of the public pays a lesser amount (in the form of taxes).
Pro-privatization people would say the government is so inefficient that a company, even tacking on a profit, will do a better job for less money than the government could have. I think that's a junk argument, but there you have it. The government should have bough the rights to the book from the company, then made it available free electronically, and in printed format for a small fee.
If you're in the US it's AltGR-5
Most people in the US don't have "AltGR" keys...
No! Do or do not. There is no try.
You'd need to account for the time it would take to copy all that content from hard drive(s), onto the blu-ray discs, then again copy them to the target computer on the other side of the country.
:)
Blu ray disc holds 25 billion bytes
That's 200 billion bits, and let's say you can read/write at 72 million bits per second (blueray@2x):
200,000,000,000 bits (bytes * 8)
/ 72,000,000 bits per second
2777 seconds per disc.
46 minutes per disc.
By 1000 discs
46,000 minutes to write all the discs. Or 766 hours, or 32 days. Assuming you have a 2x speed burner, and you have no downtime between discs.
And then another 32 days to read them all into the target computer
And I can't even calculate how many days it'd take to verify the data was written and copied correctly.
My understanding is that Commander Taco wants slashdot to remain the sort of late-nineties small internet discussion board, and the appropriate level of editing. The reality has sort of outpaced Taco's vision; slashdot has become one of the most influential sounding boards on the internet.
I expect CmdrTaco would argue that without retaining the spirit of the former, you'd never have ended up with the latter.
I think the real reason is that there was no significant competition. People didn't choose to purchase Windows or Office (MS's cash crops) because they liked Internet Explorer. They probably wrote up a cost-benefit analysis, and found they'd get very little if any return on their money for an IE upgrade.
But now that Firefox is popular and makes IE6 look old, MS has to upgrade IE7 to save face. Also, IE7 seems to coincide with Vista, which is important because Vista wouldn't seem like a huge upgrade without a new-looking web browser to go with it.
I don't buy much software, but I did buy AnyDVD (and CloneDVD). It's one of the most useful applications on my computer.
Jack Thompson's ridiculous lawsuits incite me to near violence... can get get him banned too?
See? Wii graphics will be just fine. If that wasn't the most realisticly rendered white sheet hanging in the background, I don't know what is.
We need to coin a phrase for the corporate/financial equivalent of WMD's.
Any ideas?
A CEO authorizes spying and she gets charged with a felony and a full blown investigation.
A CEO President is spying on innocent Americans as long as he says he thinks they're terrorists, and what happens? His sheep in congress pass a law to make it legal for him.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning as much as anyone. But come on, congress, senate, show some damn backbone like your colleagues did when they stood up to Nixon.
"But saying all romantic comedies are alike because they are romantic comedies is wrongheaded."
It all depends on how dedicated to the genre you are. If you liked everything from Event Horizon, to Evil Dead, to Bram Stoker's Dracula, then there probably aren't too many horror movies wouldn't at least mildly enjoy.
But if you only ever rent Action movies if they star Tom Cruise, then your high War of the Worlds rating wouldn't necessarily imply you'd also enjoy Armageddon.
Frogs are easier to catch.
I had to look it up to tell if it was a joke...
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ESPC_v_Ebert/
No joke.
I would pay good money to hear WIlliam Shatner cover Weird Al songs.
It takes a heartless recording corporation to believe that the only incentive for creating music is money.
"but nothing beats a self-submitted story which is basically just a link to your own advert-covered blog with a few extra words arranged around a link
Seriously! What is this, Digg.com?
I can't wait for March 13th, 2007. ... or 13-3-7 :)
Or a Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB for $79 ($69 after MIR).
Fry also sounds a lot like Stimpy to me. And you can hear a tad bit of Fry in Brannigan's voice.
:) )
So I'm guessing all that is actually a bit of Billy's natural voice shining through. It's fun to notice things like this and then really listen to different character voices, trying to guess which VO does them. (before you go look them up on IMDB
Like listening to The Joker's voice in Batman cartoons and trying to hear Luke Skywalker (it's REALLY subtle).
Mr. West...
:)
Loved your slashdot reel.
Please answer our questions in an MP3 using your favorite character voices
...fewer articles about "Supercomputer Models Sun's Corona Dynamics"
and more articles about "Dynamic Super Models Drinking Coronas"
Marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions allow a man to marry more than one woman, some religions allow two people of the same sex to be married. Just like prayer and god(s) and sin is defined by each particular religion, so is marriage. Our government has chosen one (admittedly popular) religious definition of marriage, but is now denying other religions' modern definition of marriage.
Speaking of misuse of words, I don't think the government should even use the word marriage, it has too many religious connotations. The gov't should only grant "civil unions" or some similar term. That way the government can make whatever rules it wants regarding those unions, even if it's that a civil union is between one man and one woman, and the secular definition will not be influenced by any religion.
The "sanctity of marriage" has already been compromised by the gov't getting involved. If they stop calling it marriage, it can once again be restored.
Interracial marriages were not new 50 years ago.
In the US they pretty much were. Maybe not in Europe.
Same sex "marriages" do not fit the definition of marriage, unless somebody made up a new one recently.
Same sex marriages do not fit YOUR definition of marriage. There may be many other people who agree with your definition, but don't go thinking yours is the first definition, or the only one.
And if we're talking 50 years ago, why not two thousand years ago, where multiple teenage or younger wives was the norm? And all that biblical stuff about marrying your late brother's widow? Or in parts of Africa today, where a man can have as many wives as he can afford to support?
I'm guessing she used it because the Toll Lanes analogy helps non-techies to understand this technical issue.