the leading vehicle reduces the density of the air in front, normally, no drafting (as nature abhors a vaccuum) that air would then come in behind the vehicle, and give it a pressure returning push as it fills in from behind.
now when drafting the lead vehicle is only pushing air out of the way with no rush of air filling in behind the vehicle to apply pressure to the rear.
I'm serious.. the same manipulations and motiviations used by an individual to encourage members of the opposite sex to participate in carnal activity are the same skill set you use to encourage employee performance increases.
If these embryos are not implanted in a womb within a certain amount of time, even frozen, they stop being viable.
why? at the temperature at which they are kept, aren't they stateless? why should a week, year, decade, century matter? so long as the temp is a constant and allows no change? this is fact?
I am reading it, and it says on 6th page of the pdf "The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product. We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. "
Italics/bold mine- this seems a rather narrow application- it specifies the circumstance ~ ONLY when x is distributing a product~ be held responsible for Y's infringement.. it says nothing about all other permutations of relationship between X & Y except earlier, where it does read in part " Although "[t]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for [another's] infringement," Sony, 464 U. S., at 434, these secondary liability doctrines emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law, e.g., id., at 486. Pp. 10-13. "
again italics mine, and would seem to indicate there are circumstances other than covered here where parties are cross responsible.
Slashdot says, don't moderate down when you don't agree, post.- in the past I have truly enjoyed, in the same vein as groklaw, the things you have introduced the / membership to know...
Your post and reply I wanted most of all. I wasn't even necassarily disagreeing with you- just asking for a clarification.
you say parents are NOT liable, and I had- even before this slashdot post, a back of my head factoid floating around that NY has statutes concerning liability for parents & children and that is a kinda common knowledge thing that in NY it is greater than the norm in the US. I went resarching based on my recollections and then found evidence of it. I'm willing to accept your knowledge is greater in this area than my own- I just wanted you to expand on your original assertion as my citation would seem to diasgree with you- But I was hoping there wouldl be another layer or element I am missing.
Parents or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor shall be civilly liable for said minor who commits larceny against the property of a mercantile establishment to the operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:
a. the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed $1,500.00; plus
b. a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price of the merchandise or $75.00; provided, however, that in no event shall such penalty exceed $500.00.
I'd often heard NY parents have liability over the action of their offspring, and you claim that is not the case, so I did a minimum of research and turned up the following example http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/clahm/clahm-childr en.htm#Parental%20Liability%20for%20a%20Child's%20 Actions Parents or legal guardians (other than foster parents) can be liable for up to $5,000 in damages for the willful and malicious damage, destruction, concealment, or theft of property (whether publicly or privately owned) by their child, if between 10 and 18 years old. This also includes the actual monetary damages suffered by a school or other public or private victim in responding to the false reporting of an "incident" or placing a "false bomb" by a minor. If damages awarded by the court exceed $500, the parent can ask to have damages limited to that amount they can actually afford to pay, up to $5000, but not less than $500, because of financial hardship.
this would seem to indicate, parents CAN in fact be liable for child actions.. can you resolve please, this difference of opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
the leading vehicle reduces the density of the air in front,
normally, no drafting (as nature abhors a vaccuum) that air would then come in behind the vehicle,
and give it a pressure returning push as it fills in from behind.
now when drafting the lead vehicle is only pushing air out of the way with no rush of air filling in behind the vehicle to apply pressure to the rear.
http://www.hoowoosearch.com/infantilism/1/1.jpg
child or adult?
just huge strobes-- don't get on the overpass-- and the underpass...
*** HALT MFKR ***
or enter chasm
15 seconds enough to keep you from becoming a autobutter sandwich or a car contained base jumper?
It's not saving any greenhouse gasses.. maybe from YOUR tailpipe.. but more are coming out of the tailpipe in front of you.
ps- that vehichles fuel bill has gone up as well..
they could adjust focus of the display from near to far on a cycle, and get rid of the need to take a break visually...
I know of more than a few people due to fly out of JFK/EWR that weekend, who made it all the way to the toll tunnels into NYC and be returned...
never worked together? and winamp has an animal logo of? TADA!
it's exactly what I was looking for in the comments..
I'm serious.. the same manipulations and motiviations used by an individual to encourage members of the opposite sex to participate in carnal activity are the same skill set you use to encourage employee performance increases.
this is why I'm always begging..
every try to get a salaried someone to work a few more hours???
yeah, getting laid is very helpful for later in life, when you want to f-ck your employees over.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=dollar%20coin& ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
there are a new series of dollar coins on the way...
this has been out for two(?) years
http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/
http://www.popandco.com/archive/moab/
i love this animation set.
binary..
now divide that by the number of colors you can discern later
let's say you have 152,292 colors
now only need one dot.
they do, and it is
jumpin jammerz.com
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=cute+kitten
cute kittensPage 1 of 1,631,025 results
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,120,000 for cute kittens
that means google is about 25% more cute kittens.
why? at the temperature at which they are kept, aren't they stateless? why should a week, year, decade, century matter? so long as the temp is a constant and allows no change? this is fact?
isn't Active X and all the threats it pose the same kind of thing that an 'application' browser threatens?
think about it- right now, just looking at web pages with IE can cause all kinds of evil computer problems.
imagine running random net apps in your 'application' browser..
apparently that video followed a ten mile 'chase' where the woman had refused to pull over..
if so, (ten miles?) their actions seem more reasonable doesn't it?
at the end of ten miles, with police lights flashing, I would not expect any outcome other than being under arrest.
I am reading it, and it says on 6th page of the pdf
"The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product. We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. "
Italics/bold mine-
this seems a rather narrow application- it specifies the circumstance ~ ONLY when x is distributing a product~ be held responsible for Y's infringement.. it says nothing about all other permutations of relationship between X & Y except earlier, where it does read in part
" Although "[t]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for [another's] infringement," Sony, 464 U. S., at 434, these secondary liability doctrines emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law, e.g., id., at 486. Pp. 10-13. "
again italics mine, and would seem to indicate there are circumstances other than covered here where parties are cross responsible.
Slashdot says, don't moderate down when you don't agree, post.- in the past I have truly enjoyed, in the same vein as groklaw, the things you have introduced the / membership to know...
Your post and reply I wanted most of all. I wasn't even necassarily disagreeing with you- just asking for a clarification.
you say parents are NOT liable, and I had- even before this slashdot post, a back of my head factoid floating around that NY has statutes concerning liability for parents & children and that is a kinda common knowledge thing that in NY it is greater than the norm in the US. I went resarching based on my recollections and then found evidence of it. I'm willing to accept your knowledge is greater in this area than my own- I just wanted you to expand on your original assertion as my citation would seem to diasgree with you- But I was hoping there wouldl be another layer or element I am missing.
http://www.eccpasa.info/safehomes%20legal_conseque nces.htm
General Obligations Law 11-105
Parents or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor shall be civilly liable for said minor who commits larceny against the property of a mercantile establishment to the operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:
a. the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed $1,500.00; plus
b. a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price of the merchandise or $75.00; provided, however, that in no event shall such penalty exceed $500.00.
so such civil responsibility does exist,
so if the kid steals a CD the parents can be forced to pay, but sharing a song means the parents are not liable?
I'm sure a great many individuals (including lawmaker types) consider both to be theft...
I'm trying but failing to visualize a situation where parents would be financially responsible for theft, and it's not a civil matter.
http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/clahm/clahm-child
Parents or legal guardians (other than foster parents) can be liable for up to $5,000 in damages for the willful and malicious damage, destruction, concealment, or theft of property (whether publicly or privately owned) by their child, if between 10 and 18 years old. This also includes the actual monetary damages suffered by a school or other public or private victim in responding to the false reporting of an "incident" or placing a "false bomb" by a minor. If damages awarded by the court exceed $500, the parent can ask to have damages limited to that amount they can actually afford to pay, up to $5000, but not less than $500, because of financial hardship.
this would seem to indicate, parents CAN in fact be liable for child actions.. can you resolve please, this difference of opinion?
go to link in wesnerm post/ symbolic_links__1.html [blogs.com]
http://wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2006/10
4 lines directly under +ABOUT