Wait just a minute bubba. Take the southern out of that. Having lived in the South, the North and the West, I can tell you from experience that racists are everywhere, but they are LEAST present in the South. A visit to Washington State left me cringing from the racist hate that people felt I wanted to hear when they heard my southern accent. Also while working for many years in New York for two major companies (whose names you would recognize) I ate in corporate cafeterias essentially devoid of any blacks. Blacks always seemed to be located in the EEO and fairness departments though. That little self-delusion allows the executives to rationailze they do not discriminate in hiring (what a joke). The two most racist areas I have seen in this country are the Pacific Northwest (an overt, mean, hateful racisim) and New York City (corporate, slick and self-defined as non-racist because they are New Yorkers - but they still don't hire blacks).
And me? I'm just middle-aged white southern trash who, like most southerners, knows from experience that we have to be vigilant to overcome the fear of the different and the willingness to rationalize the racism that is in us all. And that goes for your denegration of your demographic of "poor middle aged southern white racist men". Look inward bubba - you ain't so lily white.
Not disagreeing with you, but accurately counting votes and having an audit trail shouldn't be viewed as a liberal bias. That it is just shows how far to the left the thinking has moved in this country. Scary.
Mybe its the [never was] Dilbert episode where Dogbert changes all the SCSI drives for IDE drives to save money and then has to spend twice as much as was saved in recovering the data lost by failing IDE drives.
This is anecdotal information, but when I used to buy SCSI drives exclusively for personal use I had 4 PCs and 5 drives and never had a drive failure. Since I changed to IDE to save money I have had three drives fail in half the time. If nothing else this slashdot discussion has reminded my why I need to go back to SCSI.
Those IDE drives are cheap, sure. But they sure are expensive.
You have certainly given a lot of opinion here, but not much in the way of fact to support your arguments.
Comparing a physical import (one that may kill or maim people) to an intangible Internet service such as a search engine is ridiculous on the face of it.
I disagree. A service is a service whether it be providing a car or a web page. No difference except that one is a tangable object and the other is information. Both are subject to the laws and regulations of the host country. Child pornography is perfectly legal in some countries. Are you saying that the US does not have the right to keep companies from distributing child porn in the US via the internet?
Manufacturers that export vehicles and other potentially dangerous products to the U.S. know precisely, in advance, the standards and specifications they have to meet
True, but what is your point and how does it relate to the topic at hand? I presume the French law spells out clearly what is not acceptable for Google to do.
...because it would be logistically impossible for any individual or corporation to adapt its sites to suit the laws of each individual nation or region on the planet, and to be forced to change that content on the whim of that foreign power
It is far from logistically impossible. This is exactly what happens when Ebay is not allowed to sell Nazi memorabilia in France or Germany. They seem to have no trouble complying with those country-specific laws. Also, Ebay and Google seem very capable of providing their product in specific languages, and in Ebay's case local currency, which seems to be the ultimate country-specific adaptation. It is actually very common for jurisdictions to impose laws on services provided within their borders from organizations outside their borders. For example, some states have anti-spam laws that place fines on spammers who merely spam citizens of the state - the spammers don't have to live there and their servers don't live there either. Another example is the US government attempting to shut down Canadian online pharmacies - it is perfectly legal in Canada, but that isn't stopping the US government.
If I create a Web page or site that is perfectly legal in Illinois, where I live, that happens to be illegal in France, should they have the right to tell me to alter my presentation?
Simply put, yes - if you do busines in France and that page is part of doing business in France, as as the case with Google. However, you miss the point - Google, France IS A FRENCH COMPANY. They are a subsidiary of a US company, but they operate under French law. Don't believe me - go to http://www.google.fr/jobs/index.html where you can apply for a job at Google, France.
Certainly they can attempt to dictate how Google presents its Web pages in France, and Google may cheerfully ignore them if it chooses and pull its French division until the French see reason. [...] if nothing else Google's management isn't stupid.
Well, yeah, but that's not the point is it? Google DOES do business in France and presumably wants to continue to do so. It is precisly because Google management is not stupid that they will comply with French law concerning the product their subsidiary provides in France. And rightly so.
Com'on - think about this before you write. Suppose Jaguar Cars claimed it did not have to comply with US safety regulations because even though the cars were ordered in the US and delivered to a US customer they were assembled in Great Britain where airbags are not required or they didn't have to put the steering wheel on the left for the same reason (I'm making this up). They would be laughed out of court and rightly so. It is exactly the same with Google - it makes no difference where the servers are located. If you do business in France you fall under French law.
Secondly, this only effects Google searches in France - not in the US. It makes it more complicated for Google, but what did they expect in doing business internationally - simplification?
What do you expect the US Embassy in France to do? They don't make trade policy and they don't advise the French government on the formulation if its internal laws. To have at least a ghost of a chance of making a difference you should contact the French, but good luck on that one. It will help a bit if you write them in French.
There are enough stupid laws in the US without trying to take on the rest of the world's stupid laws.
Believe it or not, you are right - the act of conducting research on rats increases the likelyhood they will develop cancer. It is common knowledge that stress increases the risk for cancer. Strains of lab rats and mice used for cancer research are bred to be cancer-prone anyway, and the stress of being studied increases the cancer rate of the study-group. One study in the 60's learned that just the act of picking mice out of their cages daily for weighing (by the tail) caused a measurable increase in the cancer rate. As a control, good studies now pick up all mice and treat them all identically in this and other ways.
So, the answer to your question is - yes, the researchers probably controlled for the other variables in the height study. These sorts of controls are de rigeur these days in any study outside of junior-high science class.
Incidently, this height/success relationship has been known for years. Not sure why this is being treated as news.
Insider trading stats are easy to get. It looks as though there has been almost no insider trading over the past 24 months for SCOX executives. This guy is a Senior VP so 10,000 shares for him is probably nothing - he probably needed a new Farrari.
From/To Date Insider & [Relationship] Shares Stock Transaction
25-JUN-03 25-JUN-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. [SREXVP] 5,000 COM Automtic Sell
20-JUN-03 20-JUN-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. [SR VP] 5,000 COM Sell
I saw Matrix Reloaded in IMAX and IMHO the movie does not translate well to IMAX format. First, who wants to look at giant pores on Fishborne's face in those extreme close-ups, not me. Second, they cropped the cimemax screen format to a more 4:3 television-like aspect ratio. Third, there is often so much action and movement on the screen that you don't glance from event to event - you actually have to turn you head and LOOK from event to event. There were several times I had to close my eyes until the nausea went away. I missed 5% of the movie:-).
On the other hand, I saw Apollo XIII on IMAX and it was absolutely superb. I couldn't stop raving about it for a week and recomended it to everyone I know. I hope IMAX converts more feature films to their format, but they need to make better choices. The Matrix films were clearly shown for mass appeal and not for their suitability for the format.
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
"effectively" in this case doesn't mean "works well", but "works to protect copyrighted material whether or not copy protection is its main purpose". This means if you had a product that compressed files to improve download speed, AND it also happened to copy protect the work, then it is covered under the DMCA even though its main purpose is to compress, not protect. \ But I agree nevertheless - the work does not appear to violate the DMCA since pointing out that a Windows feature disables their copy protection is not a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part". Futhermore, it was neither "designed" nor "produced".
It seems like no one ever learns any lessons. It wasn't technology that won or lost that war, it was the North Vietnamese' will to win. Saying that the simplicity of the Kalishikov "allowed" the NVA to win the war is absurd. What allowed them to win was their tenacity and willingness to fight a 20 year war against what appeared to be overwhelming odds. For example, they were willing to carry ammunition on their backs 300 miles, at night, while being bombed. We (the Americans) were able to airlift unlimited ammunition and supplies at will to farflung outposts (a technological coup) but still couldn't win the war. If the VC and NVA had M-16s and the Americans had AK-47s, the Vietnamese STILL would have won the war. (And before I get flamed as a commie pinko traitor - there is no dishonor in respecting your enemy's willingness to fight.)
And please, I've heard that "We weren't allowed to bomb factories, or Russian ships in Haiphong Harbor, or use nukes - our hands were tied" argument far too long. The fact is that we couldn't do those things - it would have brought Russia and/or China into the fight and could very well have started a thermonuclear world war. Even if it stayed conventional we would have had hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties rather than the tens of thousands we had. It was a lot like someone saying "I could have had that parking space at the mall if I had pulled out my 45 and shot the SOB that got there first!". The consequences would far outweigh the benefits.
It rankles me to hear someone simple-mindedly say we lost that war because of a gun. There really would be no honor in that and what a shame it would have been if true. Tens of thousands of my peers died in that war, and they fought a determined, dedicated, and motivated enemy. And there was honor in that.
No one seems to have considered that what Verisign did was theft of thousands of unassigned domain names. These domains are a valuable commodity that Verisign was entrusted to administer, not the property of Verisign. For them to post their own revenue-producing messages every time an unassigned domain was typed was illegal co-opting of these domains without paying a dime for them. I can't get free domains, you can't get free domains - so why does Verisign think they should get free domains?
My domain is coming up for renewal as well - I think I will switch my registration from Verisign AND WRITE THEM A LETTER TELLING THEM WHY.
I/'m not sure the University owns the bandwidth. The Univ of Florida is a government institution, not a corporation that WOULD own the bandwidth. The UF bandwidth is paid for by tax dollars.
More significantly, being a governmental organization UF is held to a higher standard as far as wiretapping, spying, breaking and entering, trespass, and intrusion on citizens privacy (e.g., students and their PCs) than a corporation or private university would be.
Tight quarters definately raise the quality of the trash. It is pretty common to see some really nice things thrown out on the curb in Manhattan. You could easily furnish your apartment from it. The problem is - can you get it in the trunk of a taxi to get it home?
About two years ago a guy picked up a painting in the trash on the street that he liked the looks of. when a friend said "That looks like a (insert name of obscure artist]" he had it appraised and it turned out to be worth about $15,000. Made the news.
Then of course there is the story this summer of the art appraiser who accidentally left a Picasso drawing on the subway. He got it back a few days later. But that wasn't actually trash, just lost.
I don't think we can blame the stock market crash on W and his minions, but we CAN blame him for the non-recovery, the lack of universal healthcare, the unwillingness of the administration to help anyone but the rich, the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment, the squandering of our tax dollars on trumped up wars, and the cancellation of our constitutional rights.
For the hundreds of billions Bush and Company have spent (and will spend) re-building Iraq we could have had a self-sustaining universal healthcare program for every man, woman and child in this country. Now THAT would have helped the unemployed and middle class. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Mr. Bush and Company already have the best of the best in health insurance so do not see the need to spend that money. I can guarantee that Iraq will have universal healthcare for its citizens long before Americans get it. How ironic.
I agree with you about the strange voting patterns in the country. It makes my head hurt to try and understand why so many blue-collar working people across the country support a political party that is dedicated to giving them less and less. I can understand the rich supporting Bush, but the rank and file!?
How in the world have the Republicans managed to convince so many people into believing that patriotism means supporting the Republican party and anyone who doesn't agree wth them is not patriotic - or worse, a traitor?
All I want at age 65 is a front porch and a rocking chair. Retirement is only for the super-rich - do not kid yourself. I sure want be mountain climbing or kayaking the rapids at retirement age
Sorry to inform you, but a front porch and a rocking chair are what you get if you DO save for retirement!
I had a 41C until it was stolen about 11 years ago AND I STILL MISS IT! The best calculator I ever had - it was wonderful. I've had varius HPs since, but I still regret losing that 41C.
Yes, your TI CAN do anything an RPN calculator can do. Chickens can fly, too. In reality, your TI interface ISN'T simpler, it's more complex! And TI-notation certainly isn't intuitive at all - you're just more familiar with it. After learning RPN, the TI-type notation is obtuse, complicated, and incredibly frustrating - to solve an equation the TI way the user has to jump through so many hoops that simply aren't necessary with RPN.
Using RPN one never has to store anything - what needs to be stored is stored and recalled from the memory stack automatically as the equation is entered. Parentheses track themselves. RPN users never have to "recall M3" or remember where those sub-totals are located. RPN calculators don't even have memory buttons - they would be useless.
Memory locations in TI-notation are static values that have to be manually filled, remembered, and recalled by the user, while the RPN memory stack remains a dynamic part of the equation, re-integrating into the solution as needed - automatically. And this takes LESS work from the user, not more. You tell me which is simpler.
"You could even start at the right and work to the left I think."
As I thought about this I realized that it is not possible to work from right to left in RPN without thinking about the equation and tracking the parentheses. Sorry.
Thanks so much for your valuable input on RPN, a technique you don't even know. Not surprisingly, you are completely wrong. RPN users still use algebraic notation (what else would we use), and one does not think of equations in the "normal" way and translate them into RPN. The great part about RPN is that one seldom has to think about the mechanics of entering the equation into the calculator at all, no matter how complicated it is.
That is the part non-RPN users don't get - one can simply start at the left side of the equation and work to the right. You could even start at the right and work to the left I think. That is the wonderful part about RPN - you DON'T have to think about the mechanics of the entering the equation into the calculator. So what if your equation has 15 pairs of nested parentheses with powers? No sweat for RPN, but "normal" calculator users would go nuts.
The only problem with RPN I have discovered is that I can now barely add 2+2 on a "normal" calculator. That makes it difficult to borrow a non-RPN calculator for a quick calc - you have to dig out your HP. Even that can be a benefit in disguise - when there are calculations to do you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, I can't use a normal calculator, soory. You'll have to do them".
First, you clearly don't know jack about the scientific method or science. First, the greenhouse effect (its not Green House Effect) does exist - it makes life as we know it possible on our planet and impossible on Venus. The question is whether or not humans are modifying its effects on earth to be more Venus-like.
Second, most things simply cannot be "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does not mean that they are Not Scientifically Backed [sic]. In fact, the current scientific method does not allow for the proof of anything except in mathematics. Researchers use observation and statistics to reach conclusions that have a defined probability of being true or not true. The current standards are for probability factors of 0.05 or 0.01. That means that there is less than a 5% or 1% chance of your hypothesis being not true. Your contention that if it is not proved it is not scientifically supported is simply absurd and ignorant.
Although you are probably not aware of it, you are using the vile debating tactic of re-stating your opponent's views in a way favorable to you. The discussion about the greenhouse effect and global warming in this thread is NOT about the latest storm to transit your area, but about long-term climate change and the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on the planet.
But you miss the point anyway. It is a classic risk analysis situation. We can install scrubbers, get serious about energy conservation, and shift to energy sources other than fossil fuel (and by doing so reduce the price of the DOW by a few % for a few years); OR we can take the unknown an irreversable risk of making the planet completely unsuitable for life as we know it. Geez, the choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
Despite politically motivated statements to the contrary by some politically funded researchers with obvious interest in spinning things that way, the evidence suggests instead that human action has little, if any, net affect on the global temperature average. Humans produce greenhouse gasses, yes. Humans also do things with the opposite effect.
This guy's claim of political motivation as a basis for being concerned about global warming is the most alarming component of his arguments. HE is the one claiming spin,how ironic since the administration has been spinning away environmental concerns for years. If this is the new tactic of the neocons - to claim that their opponents are spinning the facts - it is disheartening because calling a spin a spin has been a very effective argument against neocon absurdity for years. We know it has been an effective counter since the spin-masters themselves are now claiming thier opponent's arguements are politically motivated spin.
I would like to remind the original poster that when one hires tame scientists to develop studies supporting a politico-economic agenda while 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees classifies YOU as the spinner, not the community.
...and for most of that time the planet was completely unsuitable for life. So if the human race and most other life on the planet gets wiped out its "so what, change is inevitable"? I asume you will get to live YOUR full lifespan in this scenario.
The vast majority of scientists qualified to hold an opinion have settled this matter as fact. They have no "political advantage" to uphold; as a matter of fact, the present administration of the US has made it abundantly clear than scientists who hold this unpopular-with-industry opinion are no longer welcome to share their opinions, or even to work for the administration.
You are exactly right, Catbeller. The current adminstration, and for that matter most of the Rebublican party, is of the opinion that scientific inquiry and research are no different than any other public relations issue and can simply be spun to any conclusion needed at the time. So what if 99.9% of the evidence points in an inconvenient direction such as global warming - just find a second-rate researcher, pay them to conduct a study that doesn't agree and then claim that the evidence is "inconclusive" and "not proved" and "just a theory" or "normal".
So what if the air samples at ground-zero indicated there could be high levels of toxic materials that presented a clear health risk to rescuers, clean-up workers and residents - just take that information out of the public report by the EPA. The administration screwed up on that one - one can only spin an issue to a political advantage if it can't quickly be proved otherwise, and the health effects are now showing up. I never thought much of Christie Whitman as EPA Admnistrator, but at least she had the character to resign when the political pressure to spin science got to much even for her.
There was a great scientific fiasco in the middle of the century in Soviet Russia propogated by the State Bureau of Science that also tried to bend science to the political agenda of the time. Unfortunately for the Russian people crops would not grow in unsuitable areas simply because it was the will of the state and many people starved. We don't have our own Lysenko or Bureau of Science, but our admnistration has the same belief that facts are fluid and can be changed because they don't fit the current political or economic agenda. Unfortunately we are dealing with a topic - global warming - that is orders of magnitude more serious for the planet than even several million starving russian peasants.
Doesn't have a girlfriend and not married - those restaurant bills are for one person. Bought Domestic Honey. (because it was only $18 I assume this is real bee-honey and not a replacement for missing girlfriend ). Does not cook much - those shopping items were not ingredients to cook with. Has Central American contacts or is planning a trip to the area (bought a map, central American foods). Probably Mexico rather than Carribean given the fajitas, black beans and rice components of his groceries rather than island foods).
The information that can be gleaned and inferred from these few receipts is scarey. Just wait until W and his minions get their hands on everything through TIA - Orwellian in spades.
Slashdot Mirror
poor middle aged southern white racist men
Wait just a minute bubba. Take the southern out of that. Having lived in the South, the North and the West, I can tell you from experience that racists are everywhere, but they are LEAST present in the South. A visit to Washington State left me cringing from the racist hate that people felt I wanted to hear when they heard my southern accent. Also while working for many years in New York for two major companies (whose names you would recognize) I ate in corporate cafeterias essentially devoid of any blacks. Blacks always seemed to be located in the EEO and fairness departments though. That little self-delusion allows the executives to rationailze they do not discriminate in hiring (what a joke). The two most racist areas I have seen in this country are the Pacific Northwest (an overt, mean, hateful racisim) and New York City (corporate, slick and self-defined as non-racist because they are New Yorkers - but they still don't hire blacks).
And me? I'm just middle-aged white southern trash who, like most southerners, knows from experience that we have to be vigilant to overcome the fear of the different and the willingness to rationalize the racism that is in us all. And that goes for your denegration of your demographic of "poor middle aged southern white racist men". Look inward bubba - you ain't so lily white.
Not disagreeing with you, but accurately counting votes and having an audit trail shouldn't be viewed as a liberal bias. That it is just shows how far to the left the thinking has moved in this country. Scary.
Mybe its the [never was] Dilbert episode where Dogbert changes all the SCSI drives for IDE drives to save money and then has to spend twice as much as was saved in recovering the data lost by failing IDE drives.
This is anecdotal information, but when I used to buy SCSI drives exclusively for personal use I had 4 PCs and 5 drives and never had a drive failure. Since I changed to IDE to save money I have had three drives fail in half the time. If nothing else this slashdot discussion has reminded my why I need to go back to SCSI.
Those IDE drives are cheap, sure. But they sure are expensive.
Comparing a physical import (one that may kill or maim people) to an intangible Internet service such as a search engine is ridiculous on the face of it.
I disagree. A service is a service whether it be providing a car or a web page. No difference except that one is a tangable object and the other is information. Both are subject to the laws and regulations of the host country. Child pornography is perfectly legal in some countries. Are you saying that the US does not have the right to keep companies from distributing child porn in the US via the internet?
Manufacturers that export vehicles and other potentially dangerous products to the U.S. know precisely, in advance, the standards and specifications they have to meet
True, but what is your point and how does it relate to the topic at hand? I presume the French law spells out clearly what is not acceptable for Google to do.
It is far from logistically impossible. This is exactly what happens when Ebay is not allowed to sell Nazi memorabilia in France or Germany. They seem to have no trouble complying with those country-specific laws. Also, Ebay and Google seem very capable of providing their product in specific languages, and in Ebay's case local currency, which seems to be the ultimate country-specific adaptation. It is actually very common for jurisdictions to impose laws on services provided within their borders from organizations outside their borders. For example, some states have anti-spam laws that place fines on spammers who merely spam citizens of the state - the spammers don't have to live there and their servers don't live there either. Another example is the US government attempting to shut down Canadian online pharmacies - it is perfectly legal in Canada, but that isn't stopping the US government.
If I create a Web page or site that is perfectly legal in Illinois, where I live, that happens to be illegal in France, should they have the right to tell me to alter my presentation?
Simply put, yes - if you do busines in France and that page is part of doing business in France, as as the case with Google. However, you miss the point - Google, France IS A FRENCH COMPANY. They are a subsidiary of a US company, but they operate under French law. Don't believe me - go to http://www.google.fr/jobs/index.html where you can apply for a job at Google, France.
Certainly they can attempt to dictate how Google presents its Web pages in France, and Google may cheerfully ignore them if it chooses and pull its French division until the French see reason. [...] if nothing else Google's management isn't stupid.
Well, yeah, but that's not the point is it? Google DOES do business in France and presumably wants to continue to do so. It is precisly because Google management is not stupid that they will comply with French law concerning the product their subsidiary provides in France. And rightly so.
Com'on - think about this before you write. Suppose Jaguar Cars claimed it did not have to comply with US safety regulations because even though the cars were ordered in the US and delivered to a US customer they were assembled in Great Britain where airbags are not required or they didn't have to put the steering wheel on the left for the same reason (I'm making this up). They would be laughed out of court and rightly so. It is exactly the same with Google - it makes no difference where the servers are located. If you do business in France you fall under French law.
Secondly, this only effects Google searches in France - not in the US. It makes it more complicated for Google, but what did they expect in doing business internationally - simplification?
What do you expect the US Embassy in France to do? They don't make trade policy and they don't advise the French government on the formulation if its internal laws. To have at least a ghost of a chance of making a difference you should contact the French, but good luck on that one. It will help a bit if you write them in French.
There are enough stupid laws in the US without trying to take on the rest of the world's stupid laws.
Believe it or not, you are right - the act of conducting research on rats increases the likelyhood they will develop cancer. It is common knowledge that stress increases the risk for cancer. Strains of lab rats and mice used for cancer research are bred to be cancer-prone anyway, and the stress of being studied increases the cancer rate of the study-group. One study in the 60's learned that just the act of picking mice out of their cages daily for weighing (by the tail) caused a measurable increase in the cancer rate. As a control, good studies now pick up all mice and treat them all identically in this and other ways.
So, the answer to your question is - yes, the researchers probably controlled for the other variables in the height study. These sorts of controls are de rigeur these days in any study outside of junior-high science class.
Incidently, this height/success relationship has been known for years. Not sure why this is being treated as news.
Insider trading stats are easy to get. It looks as though there has been almost no insider trading over the past 24 months for SCOX executives. This guy is a Senior VP so 10,000 shares for him is probably nothing - he probably needed a new Farrari.
From/To Date Insider & [Relationship]
Shares
Stock
Transaction
25-JUN-03
25-JUN-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. [SREXVP]
5,000
COM
Automtic Sell
20-JUN-03
20-JUN-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. [SR VP]
5,000
COM
Sell
I saw Matrix Reloaded in IMAX and IMHO the movie does not translate well to IMAX format. First, who wants to look at giant pores on Fishborne's face in those extreme close-ups, not me. Second, they cropped the cimemax screen format to a more 4:3 television-like aspect ratio. Third, there is often so much action and movement on the screen that you don't glance from event to event - you actually have to turn you head and LOOK from event to event. There were several times I had to close my eyes until the nausea went away. I missed 5% of the movie :-).
On the other hand, I saw Apollo XIII on IMAX and it was absolutely superb. I couldn't stop raving about it for a week and recomended it to everyone I know. I hope IMAX converts more feature films to their format, but they need to make better choices. The Matrix films were clearly shown for mass appeal and not for their suitability for the format.
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
"effectively" in this case doesn't mean "works well", but "works to protect copyrighted material whether or not copy protection is its main purpose". This means if you had a product that compressed files to improve download speed, AND it also happened to copy protect the work, then it is covered under the DMCA even though its main purpose is to compress, not protect.
\
But I agree nevertheless - the work does not appear to violate the DMCA since pointing out that a Windows feature disables their copy protection is not a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part". Futhermore, it was neither "designed" nor "produced".
It seems like no one ever learns any lessons. It wasn't technology that won or lost that war, it was the North Vietnamese' will to win. Saying that the simplicity of the Kalishikov "allowed" the NVA to win the war is absurd. What allowed them to win was their tenacity and willingness to fight a 20 year war against what appeared to be overwhelming odds. For example, they were willing to carry ammunition on their backs 300 miles, at night, while being bombed. We (the Americans) were able to airlift unlimited ammunition and supplies at will to farflung outposts (a technological coup) but still couldn't win the war. If the VC and NVA had M-16s and the Americans had AK-47s, the Vietnamese STILL would have won the war. (And before I get flamed as a commie pinko traitor - there is no dishonor in respecting your enemy's willingness to fight.)
And please, I've heard that "We weren't allowed to bomb factories, or Russian ships in Haiphong Harbor, or use nukes - our hands were tied" argument far too long. The fact is that we couldn't do those things - it would have brought Russia and/or China into the fight and could very well have started a thermonuclear world war. Even if it stayed conventional we would have had hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties rather than the tens of thousands we had. It was a lot like someone saying "I could have had that parking space at the mall if I had pulled out my 45 and shot the SOB that got there first!". The consequences would far outweigh the benefits.
It rankles me to hear someone simple-mindedly say we lost that war because of a gun. There really would be no honor in that and what a shame it would have been if true. Tens of thousands of my peers died in that war, and they fought a determined, dedicated, and motivated enemy. And there was honor in that.
No one seems to have considered that what Verisign did was theft of thousands of unassigned domain names. These domains are a valuable commodity that Verisign was entrusted to administer, not the property of Verisign. For them to post their own revenue-producing messages every time an unassigned domain was typed was illegal co-opting of these domains without paying a dime for them. I can't get free domains, you can't get free domains - so why does Verisign think they should get free domains?
My domain is coming up for renewal as well - I think I will switch my registration from Verisign AND WRITE THEM A LETTER TELLING THEM WHY.
I/'m not sure the University owns the bandwidth. The Univ of Florida is a government institution, not a corporation that WOULD own the bandwidth. The UF bandwidth is paid for by tax dollars.
More significantly, being a governmental organization UF is held to a higher standard as far as wiretapping, spying, breaking and entering, trespass, and intrusion on citizens privacy (e.g., students and their PCs) than a corporation or private university would be.
Tight quarters definately raise the quality of the trash. It is pretty common to see some really nice things thrown out on the curb in Manhattan. You could easily furnish your apartment from it. The problem is - can you get it in the trunk of a taxi to get it home?
About two years ago a guy picked up a painting in the trash on the street that he liked the looks of. when a friend said "That looks like a (insert name of obscure artist]" he had it appraised and it turned out to be worth about $15,000. Made the news.
Then of course there is the story this summer of the art appraiser who accidentally left a Picasso drawing on the subway. He got it back a few days later. But that wasn't actually trash, just lost.
I don't think we can blame the stock market crash on W and his minions, but we CAN blame him for the non-recovery, the lack of universal healthcare, the unwillingness of the administration to help anyone but the rich, the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment, the squandering of our tax dollars on trumped up wars, and the cancellation of our constitutional rights.
For the hundreds of billions Bush and Company have spent (and will spend) re-building Iraq we could have had a self-sustaining universal healthcare program for every man, woman and child in this country. Now THAT would have helped the unemployed and middle class. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Mr. Bush and Company already have the best of the best in health insurance so do not see the need to spend that money. I can guarantee that Iraq will have universal healthcare for its citizens long before Americans get it. How ironic.
I agree with you about the strange voting patterns in the country. It makes my head hurt to try and understand why so many blue-collar working people across the country support a political party that is dedicated to giving them less and less. I can understand the rich supporting Bush, but the rank and file!?
How in the world have the Republicans managed to convince so many people into believing that patriotism means supporting the Republican party and anyone who doesn't agree wth them is not patriotic - or worse, a traitor?
All I want at age 65 is a front porch and a rocking chair. Retirement is only for the super-rich - do not kid yourself. I sure want be mountain climbing or kayaking the rapids at retirement age
Sorry to inform you, but a front porch and a rocking chair are what you get if you DO save for retirement!
I had a 41C until it was stolen about 11 years ago AND I STILL MISS IT! The best calculator I ever had - it was wonderful. I've had varius HPs since, but I still regret losing that 41C.
Yes, your TI CAN do anything an RPN calculator can do. Chickens can fly, too. In reality, your TI interface ISN'T simpler, it's more complex! And TI-notation certainly isn't intuitive at all - you're just more familiar with it. After learning RPN, the TI-type notation is obtuse, complicated, and incredibly frustrating - to solve an equation the TI way the user has to jump through so many hoops that simply aren't necessary with RPN.
Using RPN one never has to store anything - what needs to be stored is stored and recalled from the memory stack automatically as the equation is entered. Parentheses track themselves. RPN users never have to "recall M3" or remember where those sub-totals are located. RPN calculators don't even have memory buttons - they would be useless.
Memory locations in TI-notation are static values that have to be manually filled, remembered, and recalled by the user, while the RPN memory stack remains a dynamic part of the equation, re-integrating into the solution as needed - automatically. And this takes LESS work from the user, not more. You tell me which is simpler.
"You could even start at the right and work to the left I think."
As I thought about this I realized that it is not possible to work from right to left in RPN without thinking about the equation and tracking the parentheses. Sorry.
Thanks so much for your valuable input on RPN, a technique you don't even know. Not surprisingly, you are completely wrong. RPN users still use algebraic notation (what else would we use), and one does not think of equations in the "normal" way and translate them into RPN. The great part about RPN is that one seldom has to think about the mechanics of entering the equation into the calculator at all, no matter how complicated it is.
That is the part non-RPN users don't get - one can simply start at the left side of the equation and work to the right. You could even start at the right and work to the left I think. That is the wonderful part about RPN - you DON'T have to think about the mechanics of the entering the equation into the calculator. So what if your equation has 15 pairs of nested parentheses with powers? No sweat for RPN, but "normal" calculator users would go nuts.
The only problem with RPN I have discovered is that I can now barely add 2+2 on a "normal" calculator. That makes it difficult to borrow a non-RPN calculator for a quick calc - you have to dig out your HP. Even that can be a benefit in disguise - when there are calculations to do you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, I can't use a normal calculator, soory. You'll have to do them".
Anonymous Coward was created by slashdot to be humorous, but in your case it fits like a glove.
First, you clearly don't know jack about the scientific method or science. First, the greenhouse effect (its not Green House Effect) does exist - it makes life as we know it possible on our planet and impossible on Venus. The question is whether or not humans are modifying its effects on earth to be more Venus-like.
Second, most things simply cannot be "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does not mean that they are Not Scientifically Backed [sic]. In fact, the current scientific method does not allow for the proof of anything except in mathematics. Researchers use observation and statistics to reach conclusions that have a defined probability of being true or not true. The current standards are for probability factors of 0.05 or 0.01. That means that there is less than a 5% or 1% chance of your hypothesis being not true. Your contention that if it is not proved it is not scientifically supported is simply absurd and ignorant.
Although you are probably not aware of it, you are using the vile debating tactic of re-stating your opponent's views in a way favorable to you. The discussion about the greenhouse effect and global warming in this thread is NOT about the latest storm to transit your area, but about long-term climate change and the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on the planet.
But you miss the point anyway. It is a classic risk analysis situation. We can install scrubbers, get serious about energy conservation, and shift to energy sources other than fossil fuel (and by doing so reduce the price of the DOW by a few % for a few years); OR we can take the unknown an irreversable risk of making the planet completely unsuitable for life as we know it. Geez, the choice seems like a no-brainer to me.
Despite politically motivated statements to the contrary by some politically funded researchers with obvious interest in spinning things that way, the evidence suggests instead that human action has little, if any, net affect on the global temperature average. Humans produce greenhouse gasses, yes. Humans also do things with the opposite effect.
This guy's claim of political motivation as a basis for being concerned about global warming is the most alarming component of his arguments. HE is the one claiming spin,how ironic since the administration has been spinning away environmental concerns for years. If this is the new tactic of the neocons - to claim that their opponents are spinning the facts - it is disheartening because calling a spin a spin has been a very effective argument against neocon absurdity for years. We know it has been an effective counter since the spin-masters themselves are now claiming thier opponent's arguements are politically motivated spin.
I would like to remind the original poster that when one hires tame scientists to develop studies supporting a politico-economic agenda while 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees classifies YOU as the spinner, not the community.
...and for most of that time the planet was completely unsuitable for life. So if the human race and most other life on the planet gets wiped out its "so what, change is inevitable"? I asume you will get to live YOUR full lifespan in this scenario.
The vast majority of scientists qualified to hold an opinion have settled this matter as fact. They have no "political advantage" to uphold; as a matter of fact, the present administration of the US has made it abundantly clear than scientists who hold this unpopular-with-industry opinion are no longer welcome to share their opinions, or even to work for the administration.
You are exactly right, Catbeller. The current adminstration, and for that matter most of the Rebublican party, is of the opinion that scientific inquiry and research are no different than any other public relations issue and can simply be spun to any conclusion needed at the time. So what if 99.9% of the evidence points in an inconvenient direction such as global warming - just find a second-rate researcher, pay them to conduct a study that doesn't agree and then claim that the evidence is "inconclusive" and "not proved" and "just a theory" or "normal".
So what if the air samples at ground-zero indicated there could be high levels of toxic materials that presented a clear health risk to rescuers, clean-up workers and residents - just take that information out of the public report by the EPA. The administration screwed up on that one - one can only spin an issue to a political advantage if it can't quickly be proved otherwise, and the health effects are now showing up. I never thought much of Christie Whitman as EPA Admnistrator, but at least she had the character to resign when the political pressure to spin science got to much even for her.
There was a great scientific fiasco in the middle of the century in Soviet Russia propogated by the State Bureau of Science that also tried to bend science to the political agenda of the time. Unfortunately for the Russian people crops would not grow in unsuitable areas simply because it was the will of the state and many people starved. We don't have our own Lysenko or Bureau of Science, but our admnistration has the same belief that facts are fluid and can be changed because they don't fit the current political or economic agenda. Unfortunately we are dealing with a topic - global warming - that is orders of magnitude more serious for the planet than even several million starving russian peasants.
But there is much more...
Doesn't have a girlfriend and not married - those restaurant bills are for one person.
Bought Domestic Honey. (because it was only $18 I assume this is real bee-honey and not a replacement for missing girlfriend ).
Does not cook much - those shopping items were not ingredients to cook with.
Has Central American contacts or is planning a trip to the area (bought a map, central American foods). Probably Mexico rather than Carribean given the fajitas, black beans and rice components of his groceries rather than island foods).
The information that can be gleaned and inferred from these few receipts is scarey. Just wait until W and his minions get their hands on everything through TIA - Orwellian in spades.