Except my AMD 1700+ plays MP3s just fine. Granted, someone with an XT ought to expect an upgrade, but my machine doesn't actually need upgrading to play music. The only thing I lack is all the BS DRM crap and a chunk of Apple's proprietary hardware.
Ahh... you must have been thinking of that Farscape episode where Zhaan is arrested on Litigara, a planet with a population of 90% lawyers, and 10% "utilities".
I quit Emusic when they began requiring the use of their own DL manager. Mind you, this wasn't just about a software preference, their DL manager didn't even work in Linux at first. I was ticked and many people chided me for being a bit over-reactive. Recently I had been considering swallowing my pride and signing back up. Appears that won't be happening now.
Someone must be "smoking crack" if they think massive amounts of people will pay $50 per month for muscic downloads.
If everyone starts ignoring 1x1 images, what is to prevent anyone from using an image that looks like it belongs on the page? There is nothing about the image itself that is special, it's all about the scripts and logging of the server that hosts the image. Anyway, these images don't have to be tiny or invisible to remain stealthy, at least from a display perspective.
There is value in a cert. denied case because the SC looked at it and decided it wasn't worth their time to get into it. While this is not as valuable as an actual affirmance, it does carry some value.
"The pundits... are looking at number of cases selected by the Supreme Court, not percentages"
This is a very good point but maybe I think it ought to be said more bluntly.
The 75% overturn rate is NOT 75% of the cases decided by 9th circuit cases. It is 75% of those cases the Supreme Court decides to review.
If you lose in the 9th, you get to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. If the SC refuses, it is a silent affirmation. In fact, it is even used in citations - if you see "cert. denied" after a cite, it means it was appealed to the SC and rejected (implying that the case was decided just fine at the circuit level).
Now, the SC is busy - it isn't going to spend its time patting the circuits on the back and saying "nice job". Instead, when a case is accepted for review by the SC, it is going to be a case in which the Court has some serious questions/doubts. It should therefor being pretty unsurprising that the cases accepted for review (which is far below the number appealed), stand a good chance of being overturned.
According the SC, they receive 7000 cases per year. They only write 80-90 opinions, and decide an additional 50-60 cases. At most, 150 cases are actually decided. This is 2.1% of the appeals to the court. Assuming 100% are overturned, the Circuits get it right 98 times in a hundred. If only 50% of a circuits decisions were overturned, they would get it right 99 times in a hundred. I personally doubt that the difference is significant. So you see, this "most overturned court" thing, aside from being wrong, is one of those statistics/damn lies things.
As the present administration demonstrates, we need more alcoholic womanizers in office - hell, I can respect a womanizer. It's coke heads who fail to womanize who are dangerous to America.
I suppose all people involved with computers are also no better than the worst of them.
Anyway, if you must make a dig at lawyers - be funny. For example, "why do lawyers wear neckties... it keeps the foreskin from crawling up their necks."
Simply saying all lawyers are evil is neither amusing, nor inciteful. It just makes you look bitter.
"What's the difference between a porquipine and two lawyers in Porsche?"...
Having passed through the law school experience, I am positive it has general value. The dusty cases and statutes are not really that important - they merely provide background and material for instruction/practice on thinking. Law school is not about being given answers and memorizing them - the Socratic method, in which an instructor teaches by asking questions of students until the students stumble on the answers themselves, is both intense and effective. And very painful/humiliating at times.
For the most part, law students don't learn much that is directly useful, but in truth, the most useless thing we could do is memorize the law as we would the names of capitol cities. We are taught instead, a set of analytical skills that we can use to analyze potential outcomes of current situations, based on current law. Of course, along the way we pick bits of the law here and there, but really, it is about learning a way to think and analyze. It isn't fun - ask just about anyone who did it, and chances are, they wouldn't want to go through it again. It is a sort of boot camp for the mind.
I'm not saying that one can't think unless without going to law school, it is but one method to teach people how to evaluate situations. I would wager that other disciplines, especially the hard sciences, put people through and even more rigorous boot camp than law school.
And don't forget SCO's duty to mitigate damages. If SCO did somehow win this thing, no court is going to reward them for being coy about identifying where the problems lie.
In a civil case it is the preponderance of the evidence that is considered. In other words does the jury think it's more likely the defendant is "guilty" (liable actually) than not.
In follow up, think of the "more probable than not" term on a percentage basis. In order to win, the RIIA need only prove that their assertion is more than 50% likely (defendant wins at the 50/50 point). So, 50.000...01% beats 49.999...99%
In the infamous Boston Grandmother situation, the chances of a jury tipping that partial percent in her favor is much higher than for some college kid who "knows about computers". Throw in a pierced tounge/tatoo... well, bring a checkbook.
I recently set up a wireless network at home. I was shocked to discover that everything worked immediately - I just plugged stuff in, turned it on, and there I was, live on the net. 10 minutes later when I tried to SSH into the other computer, well, my router had no entry for it on the network. Many hours later (due to a web interface that wouldn't work, and only a windows install app alternative), I finally got my wireless bridge to talk to my router. Sure was tempting to quit Comcast then and there!
You just know someone is going to get nabbed this way.
Fair taxes would include the idea that society as a whole should not suffer because of the personal choices individuals make. I personally would like to see no exemptions for dependent children.
Why should I pay more simply because other people are breeders/too horney to slap on a rubber. It's like paying for sex but not getting any - a perverted type of prositution.
I also don't want to see married people get some sort of break just because they got they got hitched. So, I think a better a way would be individual tax returns for everyone. A married couple would still get $20k each, but if one decided he/she only had to work part-time, the remainder of the exemption would not apply to other's income. This would treat all individuals equally, unlike our present system, which provides financial incentives for questionably useful goals.
Six centuries ago, a mighty armada of Chinese ships crossed the China Sea, then ventured west to Ceylon, Arabia, and East Africa. The fleet consisted of giant nine-masted junks, escorted by dozens of supply ships, water tankers, transports for cavalry horses, and patrol boats. The armada's crew totaled more than 27,000 sailors and soldiers. The largest of the junks were said to be over 400 feet long and 150 feet wide. (The Santa Maria, Columbus's largest ship, was a mere 90 by 30 feet and his crew numbered only 90.)
I'm no physicist but, seems to me, 6cm would be 0.06m, so more like 3 x 10^7 per solid Girardehli testing.
Anyway, the measured distance between the melted points from my sample was 6cm.
As my microwave didn't have a frequency reading on the back, I will use the 2.5GHz "typical" value I found after a brief web search.
Thus: the wavelength is.6m x 2 = 0.12m
Then the speed is 0.12m x 2.5 x 10^9/s = 3 x 10^8 m/s, which is a pretty good estimate! If you want to do better, you can try repeating the measurement many times (and making very accurate measurements) and applying statistics to get an average, and an estimate of how much uncertainty you have.
The NYTimes is supposed to represent quality reporting, but with the made up stories and inept reporters, I'd put more faith in a random AC posting here. Why would the NYTimes send a person without adequate background to do this story?
If the news is to be reliable at all, then the only way to get accurate reporting is to have knowledgeable people asking the questions - otherwise, as the above poster mentioned, the person being interviewed controls the interview and turns it into a personal advertisement. Besides that, how can we know the rest of the story is accurate given the reporter's obvious deficiencies?
The 'Software Program' ('Teamspeak Server') is a full freeware to everyone
using it in a completely non-commercial way. Commercial users need to purchase a license to run the "Software Program".
The expression 'commercial use' is defined by the two following points:
[snip]
Commercial users have to purchase licenses, more detailed information about
buying licenses can be acquired by sending an email to sales@teamspeak.org
For me, this same issue is a feature. It allows me to have two things ready to paste - one by [ctrl-v], one by [middle-click].
What I would like to see is a way to have more things ready for pasting. It would be neat if you could, for example, hold down L+R mouse buttons, select, then paste in by clicking L+R. Hold down middle, select, the paste by clicking middle (this would cure the issue of new highlight erasing the one you want). And of course, keep the method: Select (no button), [ctrl-c], paste by [ctrl-v]. Then I could cue up three things for pasting! That would be cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Except my AMD 1700+ plays MP3s just fine. Granted, someone with an XT ought to expect an upgrade, but my machine doesn't actually need upgrading to play music. The only thing I lack is all the BS DRM crap and a chunk of Apple's proprietary hardware.
If I don't have a mc, windows, or an ipod, am I left out in the cold?
Ahh
I quit Emusic when they began requiring the use of their own DL manager. Mind you, this wasn't just about a software preference, their DL manager didn't even work in Linux at first. I was ticked and many people chided me for being a bit over-reactive. Recently I had been considering swallowing my pride and signing back up. Appears that won't be happening now.
Someone must be "smoking crack" if they think massive amounts of people will pay $50 per month for muscic downloads.
If everyone starts ignoring 1x1 images, what is to prevent anyone from using an image that looks like it belongs on the page? There is nothing about the image itself that is special, it's all about the scripts and logging of the server that hosts the image. Anyway, these images don't have to be tiny or invisible to remain stealthy, at least from a display perspective.
I said "cert. denied" implies that the lower court got it right. In terms of the precedential value of a case, it would go like this:
1. Supreme Ct. decision
2. Circuit court, cert. denied
3. Circuit court decision (not appealed).
There is value in a cert. denied case because the SC looked at it and decided it wasn't worth their time to get into it. While this is not as valuable as an actual affirmance, it does carry some value.
"The pundits
This is a very good point but maybe I think it ought to be said more bluntly.
The 75% overturn rate is NOT 75% of the cases decided by 9th circuit cases. It is 75% of those cases the Supreme Court decides to review.
If you lose in the 9th, you get to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. If the SC refuses, it is a silent affirmation. In fact, it is even used in citations - if you see "cert. denied" after a cite, it means it was appealed to the SC and rejected (implying that the case was decided just fine at the circuit level).
Now, the SC is busy - it isn't going to spend its time patting the circuits on the back and saying "nice job". Instead, when a case is accepted for review by the SC, it is going to be a case in which the Court has some serious questions/doubts. It should therefor being pretty unsurprising that the cases accepted for review (which is far below the number appealed), stand a good chance of being overturned.
According the SC, they receive 7000 cases per year. They only write 80-90 opinions, and decide an additional 50-60 cases. At most, 150 cases are actually decided. This is 2.1% of the appeals to the court. Assuming 100% are overturned, the Circuits get it right 98 times in a hundred. If only 50% of a circuits decisions were overturned, they would get it right 99 times in a hundred. I personally doubt that the difference is significant. So you see, this "most overturned court" thing, aside from being wrong, is one of those statistics/damn lies things.
You should get a medal for this - truly brilliant!
As the present administration demonstrates, we need more alcoholic womanizers in office - hell, I can respect a womanizer. It's coke heads who fail to womanize who are dangerous to America.
Bush needs an intern
Are you saying that Eben Moglen, who defends the GPL, is the lowest form of life?
I suppose all people involved with computers are also no better than the worst of them.
Anyway, if you must make a dig at lawyers - be funny. For example, "why do lawyers wear neckties
Simply saying all lawyers are evil is neither amusing, nor inciteful. It just makes you look bitter.
"What's the difference between a porquipine and two lawyers in Porsche?"
Having passed through the law school experience, I am positive it has general value. The dusty cases and statutes are not really that important - they merely provide background and material for instruction/practice on thinking. Law school is not about being given answers and memorizing them - the Socratic method, in which an instructor teaches by asking questions of students until the students stumble on the answers themselves, is both intense and effective. And very painful/humiliating at times.
For the most part, law students don't learn much that is directly useful, but in truth, the most useless thing we could do is memorize the law as we would the names of capitol cities. We are taught instead, a set of analytical skills that we can use to analyze potential outcomes of current situations, based on current law. Of course, along the way we pick bits of the law here and there, but really, it is about learning a way to think and analyze. It isn't fun - ask just about anyone who did it, and chances are, they wouldn't want to go through it again. It is a sort of boot camp for the mind.
I'm not saying that one can't think unless without going to law school, it is but one method to teach people how to evaluate situations. I would wager that other disciplines, especially the hard sciences, put people through and even more rigorous boot camp than law school.
A thousand sounds is worth a picture.
And don't forget SCO's duty to mitigate damages. If SCO did somehow win this thing, no court is going to reward them for being coy about identifying where the problems lie.
- In a civil case it is the preponderance of the evidence that is considered. In other words does the jury think it's more likely the defendant is "guilty" (liable actually) than not.
In follow up, think of the "more probable than not" term on a percentage basis. In order to win, the RIIA need only prove that their assertion is more than 50% likely (defendant wins at the 50/50 point). So, 50.000...01% beats 49.999...99%In the infamous Boston Grandmother situation, the chances of a jury tipping that partial percent in her favor is much higher than for some college kid who "knows about computers". Throw in a pierced tounge/tatoo
I recently set up a wireless network at home. I was shocked to discover that everything worked immediately - I just plugged stuff in, turned it on, and there I was, live on the net. 10 minutes later when I tried to SSH into the other computer, well, my router had no entry for it on the network. Many hours later (due to a web interface that wouldn't work, and only a windows install app alternative), I finally got my wireless bridge to talk to my router. Sure was tempting to quit Comcast then and there!
You just know someone is going to get nabbed this way.
New use for CueCat? Case mod on an infrared mouse?
Fair taxes would include the idea that society as a whole should not suffer because of the personal choices individuals make. I personally would like to see no exemptions for dependent children.
Why should I pay more simply because other people are breeders/too horney to slap on a rubber. It's like paying for sex but not getting any - a perverted type of prositution.
I also don't want to see married people get some sort of break just because they got they got hitched. So, I think a better a way would be individual tax returns for everyone. A married couple would still get $20k each, but if one decided he/she only had to work part-time, the remainder of the exemption would not apply to other's income. This would treat all individuals equally, unlike our present system, which provides financial incentives for questionably useful goals.
It isn't a troll, it's history. Let me suggest this Nova story about Zheng He. Here is an excerpt:
I'm no physicist but, seems to me, 6cm would be 0.06m, so more like 3 x 10^7 per solid Girardehli testing.
As my microwave didn't have a frequency reading on the back, I will use the 2.5GHz "typical" value I found after a brief web search.
Thus: the wavelength is
Then the speed is 0.12m x 2.5 x 10^9
The NYTimes is supposed to represent quality reporting, but with the made up stories and inept reporters, I'd put more faith in a random AC posting here. Why would the NYTimes send a person without adequate background to do this story?
If the news is to be reliable at all, then the only way to get accurate reporting is to have knowledgeable people asking the questions - otherwise, as the above poster mentioned, the person being interviewed controls the interview and turns it into a personal advertisement. Besides that, how can we know the rest of the story is accurate given the reporter's obvious deficiencies?
Reference? I'm really interested in this - not just being a pain and asking for a reference.
If you read the article you will see it was filed by Frank Chetum of the law firm:
Dewey, Chetum & Howe, PLLC
It sure isn't free - Server license:
The 'Software Program' ('Teamspeak Server') is a full freeware to everyone using it in a completely non-commercial way. Commercial users need to purchase a license to run the "Software Program". The expression 'commercial use' is defined by the two following points:
[snip]
Commercial users have to purchase licenses, more detailed information about buying licenses can be acquired by sending an email to sales@teamspeak.org
For me, this same issue is a feature. It allows me to have two things ready to paste - one by [ctrl-v], one by [middle-click].
What I would like to see is a way to have more things ready for pasting. It would be neat if you could, for example, hold down L+R mouse buttons, select, then paste in by clicking L+R. Hold down middle, select, the paste by clicking middle (this would cure the issue of new highlight erasing the one you want). And of course, keep the method: Select (no button), [ctrl-c], paste by [ctrl-v]. Then I could cue up three things for pasting! That would be cool.
Well, I used to smoke a lot of pot in College. Now I'm a lawyer.
Funny? Serious? Both?