If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies.
But you *are* moving. It just happens that your movement is cancelled out by the floor. So things like head bob will still happen, but it's because your head is really bobbing as you walk.
Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states.
MA has a law that says a couple can't get married if their marriage would not be legal in the state they reside in or do not plan on moving to MA. Thus, a gay couple from Texas not moving to MA could not come here, get married, move back to TX, and demand their marriage be recognized. Their marriage in MA would be illegal to begin with.
Had a 21" monitor go bad, so I called Sony to get a repair. They said the warranty was 3 years, and the back of the monitor says "Mfg. August 2001" (this was mid-March 2004). So I should be set, yes?
No. That would be easy.
Apparently, Sony's system says that monitor was manufactured in February 2001 and thus is out of warranty. The only way I could prove the age of the monitor was to send in the original paperwork when we purchased it. Knowing my purchasing department, it's hidden in a box somewhere and it would be worth more to buy a new montior than spend the time looking for the paperwork.
Lousy jerks wouldn't even accept a picture of the back of the monitor clearly showing the serial number and manufacture date.
Re: Eat Food (MoveOn ads)
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 1
I was under the impression that moveon.org had pushed the hitler ad a little more than they might have
s/moveon/RNC/
That clears it up.
Moveon deleted the ad as soon as they found out about it, but a helpful RNC clerk or intern downloaded it and they nicely mirrored it for a while.
The FCC thing is a little tricky... it's a federal organization, which means that Congress ought to have some oversight into what goes on... but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," not "no federal organization shall make any rules" about free speech.
Congress had to pass a law to create the FCC and give it the authority it does. There's your link.
Obviously you could choose to break the rule, get penalized, sue, and hope the court agrees with you; all it takes is money. But isn't that how most of our rights are these days?
Yea, how much money do you think PBS will have if the FCC pulls the broadcast permits for all its stations? The same thing happened with Viacom/Howard Stern. If Viacom (or Clear Channel for that matter) fights, the FCC has the right to pull their license and effectively shut the companies down. How long do you think you can pay lawyers if you're not bringing in any money?
Many towers on the ground. Cell phone in air above many of them. How, exactly, can that possibly be solved?
Don't towers use some form of arbitration to figure out passing off a call from one tower to another? The same should apply here. BTW, the web site you gave only says that cell phone use is prohibited (we knew that already), but not why.
I heard (from a pilot, but it was 1995 when he told me this) that you can't use cell phones because you would be in range of a number of cell towers at the same time, which would mess up either your cell phone or the towers. My guess is that problem has been solved by now.
I also remember at the time having a cell phone sitting next to a pair of powered speakers. A 1/2 second before the phone would ring, the speakers would shut off. I'm not sure what kind of EM emission would cause it, but I don't think I'd want that happening in a plane. Again, I think newer cell phones aren't quite as bad, but Mythbusters did have an episode where they measured the EM of a cell phone before/during a call and it was higher just before the phone rang.
The blame starts with Reno and the people that were assigned to the case.
Wha...? The lawyers she had on the case knocked it out of the park. It's now out bobbing in the ocean somewhere. Every time David Boies brought up a MSFT witness, he was able to discredit them and show that MSFT was indeed using its monopoly power to limit competition.
Reno has nothing to do with what judge is assigned to a particular case (would you want the DA to be able to choose what judge hears every case? I didn't think so either). What Judge Jackson did was pretty bad and he should have known better.
But Ashcroft pretty much rolled over as soon as he was AG. He settled and tried to get everyone else to settle as well. Why is a different debate, but he certainly had enough evidence to win in a new trial.
What's really funny about that is when (then VP candidate) Dick Cheney said his success during the 90s had nothing to do with the government. While taking in millions from Halliburton.
Comcast will route for your domain - I've been doing it for 9 months.
Incoming still comes direct to my machine, but I route through them. I figure if it's important enough that Comcast not see what I'm sending, I can use GPG.
If that is the case, there is plenty of that to go around on both sides.
Waitaminute. I give like 10 crackpot theories that have absolutely no basis in fact or have since been disproven, while you say that one 'crackpot' idea (which has somebasis in fact) balances it out?
Hmm...I dunno about Dennis. He just keeps switching sides to whoever will pay him more. Jon is mostly balanced (mnore than the other two), but probably leans liberal. Hmm..who's more slightly right?
Just FYI: Republican != "the right", and the personal shots at Pres. Clinton by some Republicans does not mean all Republicans are like that.
You are, of course, correct. But what I listed were some of the more popular attacks on Clinton during his time in office that is accepted as fact by many and are still repeated as fact today.
One definition of press includes: "Commentary or coverage"
Merriam-Webster says "news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters" (7c). But I don't think they were counted in the Pew study. Or the UCLA one (UCLA only compared a few shows IIRC and not the entire regular broadcast).
The press, conservative on tax cuts and social security? Come on now...
Come on now what? They're far wealthier than average. They want tax cuts.
Are you saying that congress is in general conservative?
Given the Republican majority on both houses of Congress, that would be an accurate statement.
Well, there is the whole "Clinton had Vince Foster killed". And he ran drugs into Arkansas with the help of the Arkansas State Police, whom he later had kill Ron Brown with a bullet as his plane went down.
Oh right, and Clinton trashed the White House on his way out, and gave up a chance to capture OBL, but was too busy firing missiles to "Wag the Dog" and disrupt attention from the fact his wife is really a lesbian having an affair with (the now dead) Vince Foster.
Or something. I could go on, but this would get really long really quick.
That's why, according to the Pew Research Group, members of the press are five times more likely to be liberal than conservative. Also in 1992, 7% of the members of the press voted for Bush Sr. as opposed to 37% of the general populace.
Why don't you dig a little deeper into that statement:
1) What is it now? 2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news) 3) Were editors/owners counted? 4) Define 'liberal'. If "Not voting for GHWB"==Liberal, then you don't quite know liberal. Far more accurate studies have shown that members of the press are indeed liberal in some human-interest stories, but far more fiscally conservative than the general population when it comes to things like tax cuts, retirement, social security, etc.
If that UCLA one is the one I'm thinking of, they're comparing members of the press to members of congress to find out if they lean left/right. Doesn't sound right to me.
Slashdot Mirror
If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies.
But you *are* moving. It just happens that your movement is cancelled out by the floor. So things like head bob will still happen, but it's because your head is really bobbing as you walk.
Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states.
MA has a law that says a couple can't get married if their marriage would not be legal in the state they reside in or do not plan on moving to MA. Thus, a gay couple from Texas not moving to MA could not come here, get married, move back to TX, and demand their marriage be recognized. Their marriage in MA would be illegal to begin with.
He may be paying for performing the tune. Remember that writing music and writing lyrics are two different things.
My guess is he pays ASCAP/BMI for performance and recording rights to the tunes he parodies.
I'll never buy another monitor from them again.
Had a 21" monitor go bad, so I called Sony to get a repair. They said the warranty was 3 years, and the back of the monitor says "Mfg. August 2001" (this was mid-March 2004). So I should be set, yes?
No. That would be easy.
Apparently, Sony's system says that monitor was manufactured in February 2001 and thus is out of warranty. The only way I could prove the age of the monitor was to send in the original paperwork when we purchased it. Knowing my purchasing department, it's hidden in a box somewhere and it would be worth more to buy a new montior than spend the time looking for the paperwork.
Lousy jerks wouldn't even accept a picture of the back of the monitor clearly showing the serial number and manufacture date.
I was under the impression that moveon.org had pushed the hitler ad a little more than they might have
s/moveon/RNC/
That clears it up.
Moveon deleted the ad as soon as they found out about it, but a helpful RNC clerk or intern downloaded it and they nicely mirrored it for a while.
Then it's obvious.
Your servers need more cowbell!
The FCC thing is a little tricky... it's a federal organization, which means that Congress ought to have some oversight into what goes on... but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," not "no federal organization shall make any rules" about free speech.
Congress had to pass a law to create the FCC and give it the authority it does. There's your link.
Obviously you could choose to break the rule, get penalized, sue, and hope the court agrees with you; all it takes is money. But isn't that how most of our rights are these days?
Yea, how much money do you think PBS will have if the FCC pulls the broadcast permits for all its stations? The same thing happened with Viacom/Howard Stern. If Viacom (or Clear Channel for that matter) fights, the FCC has the right to pull their license and effectively shut the companies down. How long do you think you can pay lawyers if you're not bringing in any money?
No one watches PBS all that much.
And Howard Stern's not funny, Michael Moore is fat, and you're a moron.
Such comments have nothing to do with the substance of the complaint.
Many towers on the ground. Cell phone in air above many of them. How, exactly, can that possibly be solved?
Don't towers use some form of arbitration to figure out passing off a call from one tower to another? The same should apply here. BTW, the web site you gave only says that cell phone use is prohibited (we knew that already), but not why.
I heard (from a pilot, but it was 1995 when he told me this) that you can't use cell phones because you would be in range of a number of cell towers at the same time, which would mess up either your cell phone or the towers. My guess is that problem has been solved by now.
I also remember at the time having a cell phone sitting next to a pair of powered speakers. A 1/2 second before the phone would ring, the speakers would shut off. I'm not sure what kind of EM emission would cause it, but I don't think I'd want that happening in a plane. Again, I think newer cell phones aren't quite as bad, but Mythbusters did have an episode where they measured the EM of a cell phone before/during a call and it was higher just before the phone rang.
Oops. Guess it does work. Thanks for the correct link (the one on prefbar's site didn't install at first).
From the prefbar web site:
It does not work with Mozilla Firefox
Project Gutenberg is your friend (search on Burroughs).
It's not print, but there are HTML and ASCII versions plus a few in computer-read-audiobook.
Yea, and somehow, Vincent Cerf and Newt Gingrich keep giving Gore credit for it.
The blame starts with Reno and the people that were assigned to the case.
Wha...? The lawyers she had on the case knocked it out of the park. It's now out bobbing in the ocean somewhere. Every time David Boies brought up a MSFT witness, he was able to discredit them and show that MSFT was indeed using its monopoly power to limit competition.
Reno has nothing to do with what judge is assigned to a particular case (would you want the DA to be able to choose what judge hears every case? I didn't think so either). What Judge Jackson did was pretty bad and he should have known better.
But Ashcroft pretty much rolled over as soon as he was AG. He settled and tried to get everyone else to settle as well. Why is a different debate, but he certainly had enough evidence to win in a new trial.
What's really funny about that is when (then VP candidate) Dick Cheney said his success during the 90s had nothing to do with the government. While taking in millions from Halliburton.
Comcast will route for your domain - I've been doing it for 9 months.
Incoming still comes direct to my machine, but I route through them. I figure if it's important enough that Comcast not see what I'm sending, I can use GPG.
If that is the case, there is plenty of that to go around on both sides.
Waitaminute. I give like 10 crackpot theories that have absolutely no basis in fact or have since been disproven, while you say that one 'crackpot' idea (which has some basis in fact) balances it out?
Hmm...I dunno about Dennis. He just keeps switching sides to whoever will pay him more. Jon is mostly balanced (mnore than the other two), but probably leans liberal. Hmm..who's more slightly right?
'd have to give the edge to Dennis Miller...I think he's a bit quicker on his feet....
Miller would come up with useless analogies and references. Which would stun Maher.
Hell, let the two of them host the debates!!
Jon Stewart, Al Franken, and Bill O'Reilly
Now *that* would be fun (and fair and balanced).
You're not implying that there are lots of right wing pundits and few left wing ones, are you?
Go read "What Liberal Media?". Pundits are not considered part of the press for purposes of the 1992 study.
Most of the folks on NPR don't consider themselves part of the press.
Wha...? How would that follow?
I suppose some of them are pundits. Al Franken, Genene Garofalo, Bill Maher and numerous other pundits are on the left.
Of course, they only started in the past few months. Maher is an entertainer, much like Dennis Miller.
Just FYI: Republican != "the right", and the personal shots at Pres. Clinton by some Republicans does not mean all Republicans are like that.
You are, of course, correct. But what I listed were some of the more popular attacks on Clinton during his time in office that is accepted as fact by many and are still repeated as fact today.
One definition of press includes: "Commentary or coverage"
Merriam-Webster says "news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters" (7c). But I don't think they were counted in the Pew study. Or the UCLA one (UCLA only compared a few shows IIRC and not the entire regular broadcast).
The press, conservative on tax cuts and social security? Come on now...
Come on now what? They're far wealthier than average. They want tax cuts.
Are you saying that congress is in general conservative?
Given the Republican majority on both houses of Congress, that would be an accurate statement.
Well, there is the whole "Clinton had Vince Foster killed". And he ran drugs into Arkansas with the help of the Arkansas State Police, whom he later had kill Ron Brown with a bullet as his plane went down.
Oh right, and Clinton trashed the White House on his way out, and gave up a chance to capture OBL, but was too busy firing missiles to "Wag the Dog" and disrupt attention from the fact his wife is really a lesbian having an affair with (the now dead) Vince Foster.
Or something. I could go on, but this would get really long really quick.
That's why, according to the Pew Research Group, members of the press are five times more likely to be liberal than conservative. Also in 1992, 7% of the members of the press voted for Bush Sr. as opposed to 37% of the general populace.
Why don't you dig a little deeper into that statement:
1) What is it now?
2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news)
3) Were editors/owners counted?
4) Define 'liberal'. If "Not voting for GHWB"==Liberal, then you don't quite know liberal. Far more accurate studies have shown that members of the press are indeed liberal in some human-interest stories, but far more fiscally conservative than the general population when it comes to things like tax cuts, retirement, social security, etc.
If that UCLA one is the one I'm thinking of, they're comparing members of the press to members of congress to find out if they lean left/right. Doesn't sound right to me.