No, they were offered the choice of A. $80k in debt or B. work for low wage, possibly starve, and probably die young. It's not a very good choice. That was four years ago. Current option B is "become a bum trying to get work and possibly starve".
There's a paragraph which most people will miss which states that if you give them notice in writing to a specific address within 30 days of agreeing to the contract, you can opt out of arbitration and retain your right to class action:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
That would only be true if the atrocities being mentioned were happening where there was slavery. For the most part examples of corruption and poor labor practices in the gilded age are from states that were free before the war. New York specifically became free in 1799, New Jersey in 1804. Illinois was created as a free state, as was California.
Yes, but does the Level 4 Citadel allow you to warp the planet in order to do massive amounts of trading without using turns, all for the price of some fuel?
This has to be geographic, prior to reading this, I've never heard of anybody ever using MSN messenger. I've known people to use ICQ (but I absolutely hated it), I've known a bunch to use AIM (which from about 1998-2003 was the least bug-ridden communication option for Windows), and about 2002 Yahoo messenger came on the scene, and I know people that still use that one (although the actual client is horribly buggy and has a habit of introducing viruses to windows machines).
Wisconsin, Graduated HS 1999, College 2003.
As far as other technologies, I started with multiline BBSes in the late eighties/early nineties. They had internal chat rooms (and multiuser games which were also giant chat rooms). They eventually got access to the internet at large, which allowed downstream access to USENET and IRC.
That almost makes me want to get one of these to hook it up to the old TV I have with just the antenna leads (and a converter box that accepts RCA in).
And HDMI port weirds me out. HDMI is a very recent interface, requiring a TV set made in a last three years or so.
If you're going to make a TV-connectable portable pc for poor kids, put in a standard analogue TV output. Poor families don't buy modern TV sets all that often.
So, this is slashdot, and I don't expect people to read the links, but:
* 700MHz ARM11
* 128MB of SDRAM
* OpenGL ES 2.0
* 1080p30 H.264 high-profile decode
* Composite and HDMI video output
* USB 2.0
* SD/MMC/SDIO memory card slot
* General-purpose I/O
* Open software (Ubuntu, Iceweasel, KOffice, Python)
Composite is just an analog RCA plug. The HDMI is for modern TVs without that type of input.
I don't get analog signals in my market, but my market does have 23 channels in what the phone company is trying to claim. All of them digital. If you think there's room in the other slot, the market's pushing 20 channels there. Not only would a large amount of channels need to go away, but different companies would have to share in order to accommodate them all.
At the risk of being pedantic, it is not the "US", and it is not the "US Government" as the Article claims, it is the Executive branch.
Fair enough, but in court, the executive branch is allowed to call itself the U.S., as it has done so here. The title of the brief filed was: "BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS".
There's also a second argument in the amicus brief. Microsoft was saying that because they have new evidence that the examiner didn't consider, the standard should drop. The U.S. says that in the past this has not been the case, and furthermore, there is a procedure called reexamination which is the preferred method for turning over a patent if given new evidence.
From the amicus brief:
2. Rather than altering the evidentiary standard
that governs validity challenges raised in infringement
suits, Congress has created and expanded PTO reexamination
procedures, which address validity concerns
based on published prior art while minimizing the impact
on patent holders’ reliance interests. The potential
for the expert agency to reconsider its own decision may
diminish to some degree the value of an issued patent by
increasing the likelihood that the patent will later be
found invalid, but it does not create the same uncertainty
as would the potential for a lay jury’s invalidation
based on a bare preponderance of the evidence. In addition,
reexamination gives the patent holder an opportunity
to respond to new evidence of invalidity by amending
his claims. Unlike an invalidity challenge in litigation,
which may completely and permanently extinguish
a patent’s value, reexamination provides a more nuanced
mechanism that takes reliance interests into account.
When the defendant in an infringement suit asserts
invalidity based on evidence that was not before the examiner
who issued the patent, but that could have been
made the basis for a reexamination proceeding, the
clear-and-convincing evidence standard furthers Congress’s
intent to channel such challenges to the expert
agency. Where it is available, use of the reexamination
procedure is consistent with the principle that an agency
should have the opportunity to reconsider its prior decisions
in light of new evidence. See, e.g., INS v. Orlando
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam); Florida
Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).
Infringement cases may often arise in which some of the evidence
relevant to an assessment of the patent’s validity was before the PTO
examiner, while other evidence bearing on validity was not. If the
heightened evidentiary standard were treated as a sort of “bursting
bubble” that converts to a preponderance standard if the defendant
introduces any new evidence of invalidity, the exception would swallow
the rule, since the party who asserts that the patent is invalid will
almost always be able to identify some arguably relevant prior art that
was not presented to the PTO examiner. Alternatively, any regime under
which the jury attempts to apply different standards of proof to different
evidence bearing on the same ultimate question would likely
prove unworkable in practice. And even if the defendant in an infringement
suit relied exclusively on materials that were not before the PTO
examiner, difficult questions might arise as to whether those materials
differed substantively from information that the examiner did consider.
Any regime in which the standard of proof turns on whether particular
evidence was before the PTO could also hinder the examination process
by encouraging applicants to indiscriminately submit prior art references
to the PTO, without regard to relevance.
Permitting an alleged infringer to invoke the PTO’s
prior inability to consider the new evidence as a justification
for lowering the standard of proof even though he
has forgone an opportunity to initiate the reexamination
process would lessen the incentive to use the reexamination
procedure, thereby undermining the system that
Congress has created.
Of course, I think that's complete bull, since it means that a small outfit being challenged by a large one is unduly burdened, since they have to pay the fine, pay the fee for reexamination (which is $3-$10 thousand), and then try and get the fine back after the patent has been declared invalid (which might not be possible).
I've never found trackpads to be a problem, the only thing I have to do is disable the click via tap feature. Trackpoints on the other hand, get in the way of my typing (since their always annoyingly embedded in the keyboard), and tend to cause whatever digit I'm using to hurt after a few minutes of use. I say good riddance.
Only if you did an upgrade. Windows 3.0 typically ran on DOS 4.0, Windows 3.1 ran on DOS 5.0, but was also seen on DOS 6.0 and 6.2, Windows 3.11 typically ran on DOS 6.2 or DOS 6.22.
It may be that DOS 5.0 was chosen because the DOS files that remain in NT are all based on DOS 5.0 (with the exception of the files used to make DOS boot disks in XP, those are DOS 8.0)
Keep in mind though, most text books are tertiary, not secondary, sources. If the text book has a citation, try and find that, and use that as the secondary source.
This sounds funny, but I know that my gamer friends living in bad neighborhoods either pack swords or guns depending on whether they are into the SCA or not. Well, except for the one guy that has the metal Maglite with the extended battery case.
If your kid was to take a bunch of cash from home and spend it at the resturant/ movies,etc. do you have a right to ask for it back from the business owners?? Or would you discipline the child?
It depends on the etc. If whatever was bought was consumable, then you don't have a right to get it back (in this case, a concert/movie is consumable, a souvenir of such is not). However, if it was not consumable (I would put electronic purchase in this category), then you should be able to get a refund. Especially in the case of a high-end purchase by a minor (say an amount that would bump from misdemeanor to felony). However, this would depend on whether there was any wear/tear on the product (which should not be possible for electronic purchases).
Which, while very good, was a televised miniseries. So there was no issue of watching it in one sitting, and it wasn't out as a 7 hour (417 minute) theatrical release (at least in anywhere I've heard of). I wouldn't mind doing something like that, but there are people that would. Although, I normally need two sittings for the 10th Kingdom.
I must be more paranoid than you are, because I agree with the parent, the words don't sound innocuous.
'Security-checked'
Checked (tackled) by security, alternately severe violation of privacy ala Big Brother
'Contra-Survival'
Insuring the target does not survive, i.e. killing them (or possibly black-balling them).
'Suppressive Persons'
Again, a police state type of image, someone working for Big Brother.
However, I've never before seen the words used in context. Maybe in-context they sound innocuous.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they were offered the choice of A. $80k in debt or B. work for low wage, possibly starve, and probably die young. It's not a very good choice. That was four years ago. Current option B is "become a bum trying to get work and possibly starve".
This analogy isn't quite true, but it seems to me that pixel:texel::voxel:hogel.
Because he also said illegals, which typically implies racism.
That would not have helped in this case, the police looked at text messages he had sent/received. The case was initially from 2007 before smartphones were big. Also, I suspect that if your phone is password protected, there may be greater legal burden on the police. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-usa-police-textmessages-idUSTRE7923T120111003
There's a paragraph which most people will miss which states that if you give them notice in writing to a specific address within 30 days of agreeing to the contract, you can opt out of arbitration and retain your right to class action:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
That would only be true if the atrocities being mentioned were happening where there was slavery. For the most part examples of corruption and poor labor practices in the gilded age are from states that were free before the war. New York specifically became free in 1799, New Jersey in 1804. Illinois was created as a free state, as was California.
Yes, but does the Level 4 Citadel allow you to warp the planet in order to do massive amounts of trading without using turns, all for the price of some fuel?
But that too is unsustainable. We are just accelerating the heat death of the universe!
So you think we live in a closed universe, do you?
However in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, "it's" was possessive. The contraction was "'tis". http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html
This has to be geographic, prior to reading this, I've never heard of anybody ever using MSN messenger. I've known people to use ICQ (but I absolutely hated it), I've known a bunch to use AIM (which from about 1998-2003 was the least bug-ridden communication option for Windows), and about 2002 Yahoo messenger came on the scene, and I know people that still use that one (although the actual client is horribly buggy and has a habit of introducing viruses to windows machines).
Wisconsin, Graduated HS 1999, College 2003.
As far as other technologies, I started with multiline BBSes in the late eighties/early nineties. They had internal chat rooms (and multiuser games which were also giant chat rooms). They eventually got access to the internet at large, which allowed downstream access to USENET and IRC.
That almost makes me want to get one of these to hook it up to the old TV I have with just the antenna leads (and a converter box that accepts RCA in).
And HDMI port weirds me out. HDMI is a very recent interface, requiring a TV set made in a last three years or so.
If you're going to make a TV-connectable portable pc for poor kids, put in a standard analogue TV output. Poor families don't buy modern TV sets all that often.
So, this is slashdot, and I don't expect people to read the links, but:
Composite is just an analog RCA plug. The HDMI is for modern TVs without that type of input.
I don't get analog signals in my market, but my market does have 23 channels in what the phone company is trying to claim. All of them digital. If you think there's room in the other slot, the market's pushing 20 channels there. Not only would a large amount of channels need to go away, but different companies would have to share in order to accommodate them all.
At the risk of being pedantic, it is not the "US", and it is not the "US Government" as the Article claims, it is the Executive branch.
Fair enough, but in court, the executive branch is allowed to call itself the U.S., as it has done so here. The title of the brief filed was: "BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS".
There's also a second argument in the amicus brief. Microsoft was saying that because they have new evidence that the examiner didn't consider, the standard should drop. The U.S. says that in the past this has not been the case, and furthermore, there is a procedure called reexamination which is the preferred method for turning over a patent if given new evidence.
From the amicus brief:
2. Rather than altering the evidentiary standard that governs validity challenges raised in infringement suits, Congress has created and expanded PTO reexamination procedures, which address validity concerns based on published prior art while minimizing the impact on patent holders’ reliance interests. The potential for the expert agency to reconsider its own decision may diminish to some degree the value of an issued patent by increasing the likelihood that the patent will later be found invalid, but it does not create the same uncertainty as would the potential for a lay jury’s invalidation based on a bare preponderance of the evidence. In addition, reexamination gives the patent holder an opportunity to respond to new evidence of invalidity by amending his claims. Unlike an invalidity challenge in litigation, which may completely and permanently extinguish a patent’s value, reexamination provides a more nuanced mechanism that takes reliance interests into account.
When the defendant in an infringement suit asserts invalidity based on evidence that was not before the examiner who issued the patent, but that could have been made the basis for a reexamination proceeding, the clear-and-convincing evidence standard furthers Congress’s intent to channel such challenges to the expert agency. Where it is available, use of the reexamination procedure is consistent with the principle that an agency should have the opportunity to reconsider its prior decisions in light of new evidence. See, e.g., INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985). Infringement cases may often arise in which some of the evidence relevant to an assessment of the patent’s validity was before the PTO examiner, while other evidence bearing on validity was not. If the heightened evidentiary standard were treated as a sort of “bursting bubble” that converts to a preponderance standard if the defendant introduces any new evidence of invalidity, the exception would swallow the rule, since the party who asserts that the patent is invalid will almost always be able to identify some arguably relevant prior art that was not presented to the PTO examiner. Alternatively, any regime under which the jury attempts to apply different standards of proof to different evidence bearing on the same ultimate question would likely prove unworkable in practice. And even if the defendant in an infringement suit relied exclusively on materials that were not before the PTO examiner, difficult questions might arise as to whether those materials differed substantively from information that the examiner did consider. Any regime in which the standard of proof turns on whether particular evidence was before the PTO could also hinder the examination process by encouraging applicants to indiscriminately submit prior art references to the PTO, without regard to relevance. Permitting an alleged infringer to invoke the PTO’s prior inability to consider the new evidence as a justification for lowering the standard of proof even though he has forgone an opportunity to initiate the reexamination process would lessen the incentive to use the reexamination procedure, thereby undermining the system that Congress has created.
Of course, I think that's complete bull, since it means that a small outfit being challenged by a large one is unduly burdened, since they have to pay the fine, pay the fee for reexamination (which is $3-$10 thousand), and then try and get the fine back after the patent has been declared invalid (which might not be possible).
I've never found trackpads to be a problem, the only thing I have to do is disable the click via tap feature. Trackpoints on the other hand, get in the way of my typing (since their always annoyingly embedded in the keyboard), and tend to cause whatever digit I'm using to hurt after a few minutes of use. I say good riddance.
Only if you did an upgrade. Windows 3.0 typically ran on DOS 4.0, Windows 3.1 ran on DOS 5.0, but was also seen on DOS 6.0 and 6.2, Windows 3.11 typically ran on DOS 6.2 or DOS 6.22. It may be that DOS 5.0 was chosen because the DOS files that remain in NT are all based on DOS 5.0 (with the exception of the files used to make DOS boot disks in XP, those are DOS 8.0)
Keep in mind though, most text books are tertiary, not secondary, sources. If the text book has a citation, try and find that, and use that as the secondary source.
But there isn't enough about Inspector Lestrade, in the article, there are two real secondary sources (enough to establish he exists), but everything else in the article is pretty much unsubstantiated (two cites for a video game, two blog posts). This is the type of thing the GP was talking about: an important, but minor, character doesn't get sufficient news coverage to warrant information.
This sounds funny, but I know that my gamer friends living in bad neighborhoods either pack swords or guns depending on whether they are into the SCA or not. Well, except for the one guy that has the metal Maglite with the extended battery case.
If your kid was to take a bunch of cash from home and spend it at the resturant/ movies,etc. do you have a right to ask for it back from the business owners?? Or would you discipline the child?
It depends on the etc.
If whatever was bought was consumable, then you don't have a right to get it back (in this case, a concert/movie is consumable, a souvenir of such is not). However, if it was not consumable (I would put electronic purchase in this category), then you should be able to get a refund. Especially in the case of a high-end purchase by a minor (say an amount that would bump from misdemeanor to felony).
However, this would depend on whether there was any wear/tear on the product (which should not be possible for electronic purchases).
Also, false dilemma.
Loans from the U.S. Federal government during the great depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_electrification#United_States
Like The Tenth Kingdom?
Which, while very good, was a televised miniseries. So there was no issue of watching it in one sitting, and it wasn't out as a 7 hour (417 minute) theatrical release (at least in anywhere I've heard of). I wouldn't mind doing something like that, but there are people that would. Although, I normally need two sittings for the 10th Kingdom.
Anonymous is mentione in TFA, apparently some of the people arrested for the Assange stuff pleaded guilty to messing with CoS
I must be more paranoid than you are, because I agree with the parent, the words don't sound innocuous.
'Security-checked'
Checked (tackled) by security, alternately severe violation of privacy ala Big Brother
'Contra-Survival'
Insuring the target does not survive, i.e. killing them (or possibly black-balling them).
'Suppressive Persons'
Again, a police state type of image, someone working for Big Brother.
However, I've never before seen the words used in context. Maybe in-context they sound innocuous.