But a lot of people do assume (wrongly) that you were married in a religious ceremony leading to questions like "Where did you get married?" and expecting an anwer other than "The registrar's office, of course!" even though ALL people get married there.
Weddings are assumed to be religious in nature, even if marriages are not. I agree with the rest of what you said, but I did not get married in the registrar's (or clerk's) office - I never went there. The religious official who married my wife and I had authority from the state to make the marriage legally binding, and so I got married in a church. Perhaps it's different in your country.
There's no word for the difference, but when you hear someone is married, do you just assume they're religious? I know I don't. And if you get married in a civil ceremony, how is that a religious institution? Because Christians do it too? Marriage is a legal and civil arrangement, and if you choose it can also be a religious one. But it doesn't have to be, and in my experience people don't assume you believe in God and go to church just because you're married.
First, why would it radiate heat so quickly? Second, water vapor cannot freeze, as that phase transition is from a liquid to a solid, and water vapor is not a liquid. It could condense into a liquid, it could deposit into a solid (deposition is the opposite of sublimation), or it could remain a gas. The last seems most likely to me since it's in a vacuum.
At 100,000 feet, water at body temperature doesn't really boil, it sublimates, both boiling and freezing at the same time. Sublimation isn't boiling and freezing at the same time, it's changing state directly from a solid to a gas, a la dry ice. So liquid water cannot sublimate - that phase change doesn't apply to liquids. Boiling is changing phase from liquid to gas, and freezing is changing from liquid to solid, so I don't see how anything could do both of those at the same time.
So who's the bad guy? The legislator that introduced the bill? The one that carried the bill to the other house? The ones who voted for it? The one who signed it into law? Yep. That has nothing to do with any particular law though.;-)
I don't think it would have mattered. The plaintiff's case was not based on the fact that the seller got a better offer, but that a contract had been entered, and the seller breached it. Lying about it wouldn't have improved anything, and at worst would have gotten him perjury or contempt of court of whatever charge applies in Australia if the judge found out about it and was in a bad mood. And if I were a judge and a defendant lied to me, I would probably be in a bad mood.
"We see the cell phone industry continuing to evolve," Kagan said. "We're still going to see traditional handsets, but the Apple iPhone was a brand new category in wireless, and it wasn't from a handset vendor and wasn't from a network." I like the iPhone other than its closed nature, but in what way is it a brand new category in wireless? Because it's pretty? Kagan said it wasn't from a handset vendor but... now Apple is a handset vendor, so it is from a handset vendor. Surely "something from someone who hadn't made cell phones before" isn't a new category of device. And it seems to me the iPhone is "from" AT&T just as much as every other phone they sell. Maybe even more so because you cannot get it from anyone else.
If you're likely to get tortured what you really need is a second password that gives access to extensive but fake data, to throw them off the trail! TrueCrypt does this, but it doesn't strike me as a good idea. It works only if the bad guys don't know it's possible. If they know it's possible to have a cipher within a cipher so to speak, then they will torture you until you're dead, because they won't believe you when you say "I swear, there's no other data in there, please stop!" Cut off another finger and see if he'll give up the second password then. No? How about some electroshock therapy? This is relevant only if you're talking about people who will torture you for your password, but it's specifically designed for that situation. If you're willing to die a painful death to protect your data, great. Otherwise, it just makes the ones who really don't have a second layer of encryption potentially suffer needlessly. I'm not too concerned with this since I've never even heard of anyone being tortured for a password. More likely is getting subpoenaed for one. Then you could say "yep, that's all the data" and there's nothing they could do. There is no way to prove there is more data, and so you cannot even be convicted for perjury. And IMO it would be ethically justifiable to boot if giving up the second password would incriminate you.
Well there are so many addresses, maybe you could have 1000 that you take with you. And maybe you could ditch those for a different 1000 later if it becomes a problem. Another nice thing about this is there are powerful countries interested in the future of the internet who are potentially not as interested in controlling their citizens' lives as the US government is. So that might help.
I don't see how any of that would lead to a burst bubble. The "eyeballs" as the advertisers like to call us, will be online somewhere, and they will follow us. If that money is going to the SuperWeb or whatever comes next, that's fine - no economic disaster. Again, I didn't say nothing will change - I'm sure things will change and probably in a big way. I'm just not convinced we'll see a major crash and burn.
I think we're likely to see a huge change in that case. Disruptive, yes, but disastrous? As I said, there are just too many millions (maybe soon billions) of people on the web for advertisers to "pull out". They must find a way to reach the audience. When their businesses depend upon it, they will do so.
OK, I see your point. But is there some reason to think that companies will stop advertising on the web? In other words, you're right that if the ad revenue goes away there will be a lot of web sites in trouble, but that doesn't mean much without an evaluation of the likelihood of the ad revenue going away. I think it's more likely the advertising market will change. Perhaps the first big change was Google ads - text-only unobtrusive ads that appear in relevant places. My impression is these are more cost-effective than nasty blinking flash ads for stuff that has nothing particularly to do with the page you're viewing. There will probably be other changes too, but it seems there are too many people using the web - and more and more people using it for more and more purposes and spending more and more time on it - for advertisers to leave it alone. So long story short, the ad revenue may move and change and go up or down, and some players will suffer and collapse and others will boom, but it looks to me like it's healthy for a while.
That may all be true, but you're not equating one overvalued company with a market-wide "bubble" are you? Or are you saying Google is typical of IT companies right now? That would seem to be an unusual and strong claim that needs to be backed up with something.
Your original statement seemed to indicate that all rap is stupid/lousy/bad. Now it seems you're saying most of it is garbage, with the possibility of some good stuff at the top? Or maybe you're still saying it all sucks, I'm not sure anymore. In any event, the statement of "most rap is ", which is probably true, doesn't exclude the possibility of some really good performers. And IMO PE is one of those. And you still haven't said whether you've ever listened to them.:-)
So you're saying you have concluded that for his organization it is not worth having the best platform in various areas of the business because of the increased support cost? Or are you just saying that maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong but he isn't the one that should make the decision? If the latter, who other than the CIO should make it? Front-line support technicians? A mid-level manager who is in charge of just a portion of the company's IT?
What would you suggest he called it if he knew it was in an African language, but didn't know which one? Or do you think this CIO should have spent his time researching the matter so that he could be more specific (but no more correct)?
IANAL, but I think I remember reading that in a case like this the court assumes the patent is valid and the defendant cannot even challenge the patent itself as part of the lawsuit. The case is about whether the defendant infringed the patent and how. I hope that I am wrong, though.
Try looking at the big picture. Laser printers, except for the controller circuitry and print interface, use the exact same technology of common Xerographic copy machines (first invented around 1938, almost 70 years ago). Other than the control parts and the printing parts they're exactly the same? So in other words they're completely different? Or are you saying they use the same kind of toner? Even if that's true, it doesn't imply they pose the same health hazard, if everything else about them is different.
Play Starcraft campaign mode on a level with Artanis, and keep clicking him. I may not have the order right, but something like this (after he goes through the normal acknowledgment messages).
"Stop poking me!"
"What do I look like, an orc?"
"This isn't Warcraft in space, you know."
"It's much more sophisticated."
"I know it's not 3D!"
So warcraftinspace is a perfectly legitimate tag. Well, assuming the tags have no purpose whatsoever, which so far seems to be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no word for the difference, but when you hear someone is married, do you just assume they're religious? I know I don't. And if you get married in a civil ceremony, how is that a religious institution? Because Christians do it too? Marriage is a legal and civil arrangement, and if you choose it can also be a religious one. But it doesn't have to be, and in my experience people don't assume you believe in God and go to church just because you're married.
First, why would it radiate heat so quickly? Second, water vapor cannot freeze, as that phase transition is from a liquid to a solid, and water vapor is not a liquid. It could condense into a liquid, it could deposit into a solid (deposition is the opposite of sublimation), or it could remain a gas. The last seems most likely to me since it's in a vacuum.
How much of that is because some versions on some platforms only report 497 days uptime before resetting to zero?
In preemptive reply to anyone explaining parent's reference: whoosh!
I don't think it would have mattered. The plaintiff's case was not based on the fact that the seller got a better offer, but that a contract had been entered, and the seller breached it. Lying about it wouldn't have improved anything, and at worst would have gotten him perjury or contempt of court of whatever charge applies in Australia if the judge found out about it and was in a bad mood. And if I were a judge and a defendant lied to me, I would probably be in a bad mood.
Well there are so many addresses, maybe you could have 1000 that you take with you. And maybe you could ditch those for a different 1000 later if it becomes a problem. Another nice thing about this is there are powerful countries interested in the future of the internet who are potentially not as interested in controlling their citizens' lives as the US government is. So that might help.
I don't see how any of that would lead to a burst bubble. The "eyeballs" as the advertisers like to call us, will be online somewhere, and they will follow us. If that money is going to the SuperWeb or whatever comes next, that's fine - no economic disaster. Again, I didn't say nothing will change - I'm sure things will change and probably in a big way. I'm just not convinced we'll see a major crash and burn.
I think we're likely to see a huge change in that case. Disruptive, yes, but disastrous? As I said, there are just too many millions (maybe soon billions) of people on the web for advertisers to "pull out". They must find a way to reach the audience. When their businesses depend upon it, they will do so.
OK, I see your point. But is there some reason to think that companies will stop advertising on the web? In other words, you're right that if the ad revenue goes away there will be a lot of web sites in trouble, but that doesn't mean much without an evaluation of the likelihood of the ad revenue going away. I think it's more likely the advertising market will change. Perhaps the first big change was Google ads - text-only unobtrusive ads that appear in relevant places. My impression is these are more cost-effective than nasty blinking flash ads for stuff that has nothing particularly to do with the page you're viewing. There will probably be other changes too, but it seems there are too many people using the web - and more and more people using it for more and more purposes and spending more and more time on it - for advertisers to leave it alone. So long story short, the ad revenue may move and change and go up or down, and some players will suffer and collapse and others will boom, but it looks to me like it's healthy for a while.
That may all be true, but you're not equating one overvalued company with a market-wide "bubble" are you? Or are you saying Google is typical of IT companies right now? That would seem to be an unusual and strong claim that needs to be backed up with something.
Hey, what are you saying about Winger?? OK, I've tipped it back the other way. Whew.
Your original statement seemed to indicate that all rap is stupid/lousy/bad. Now it seems you're saying most of it is garbage, with the possibility of some good stuff at the top? Or maybe you're still saying it all sucks, I'm not sure anymore. In any event, the statement of "most rap is ", which is probably true, doesn't exclude the possibility of some really good performers. And IMO PE is one of those. And you still haven't said whether you've ever listened to them. :-)
Spoken like someone who's never listened to Public Enemy. If you have, I apologize.
So you're saying you have concluded that for his organization it is not worth having the best platform in various areas of the business because of the increased support cost? Or are you just saying that maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong but he isn't the one that should make the decision? If the latter, who other than the CIO should make it? Front-line support technicians? A mid-level manager who is in charge of just a portion of the company's IT?
What would you suggest he called it if he knew it was in an African language, but didn't know which one? Or do you think this CIO should have spent his time researching the matter so that he could be more specific (but no more correct)?
I use the IE Tab add-on for that situation and it almost always works fine. Kind of slow, but I prefer it to opening up a whole other browser.
IANAL, but I think I remember reading that in a case like this the court assumes the patent is valid and the defendant cannot even challenge the patent itself as part of the lawsuit. The case is about whether the defendant infringed the patent and how. I hope that I am wrong, though.
Play Starcraft campaign mode on a level with Artanis, and keep clicking him. I may not have the order right, but something like this (after he goes through the normal acknowledgment messages).
"Stop poking me!"
"What do I look like, an orc?"
"This isn't Warcraft in space, you know."
"It's much more sophisticated."
"I know it's not 3D!"
So warcraftinspace is a perfectly legitimate tag. Well, assuming the tags have no purpose whatsoever, which so far seems to be the case.