You know, that is the thing that is always so hard to know--DO I trust this brand. Personally I prefer to stick to name brands, and I wasn't sure about LiteOn's quality--and when media is not cheap, you don't want to end up with coasters.
This is why I do 99% of my burning under linux--I generally have had less problems that way (except for with a certain GUI burning prog that deleted some of my data [cdbakeoven2.0]). I know what I did wrong in that case, and won't repeat that mistake, but it is poor design.
The last question--does it play nice with linux? If so, I will make it my next burner.
NO, because, if the GPL is invalid, then they did not have the right to use any code that they did not write. Linux wrote the Linux kernel--I don't konw if he had access to the minix source, but even if he did, he didn't copy it, so while Linux is unix-LIKE, it isn't unix. Therefore SCO does not have claim to the kernel, and therefore if the GPL is invalid, then they never had the right to utilize the kernel for anything whatsoever, and are infringing on Linus' work.
This means that if the GPL is found to be invalid, it is a short step for Linus to say: okay, then you are infringing on my work, pay up. All that would be necessary is to prove that SCO distributed ANY code that was unique to linus.
At the same time, anyone in the world whose software was distributed under SCO's distribution without having a direct contract could also sue SCO if the GPL is invalid.
They are opening a can of worms, but it may just turn out to be full of snakes if they get it open.
This is asinine, though. Think about it. They are essentially a legalized method of stealing cash from people. US fiscal policy can go soak it, because there would be a replacement--maybe people would spend the money elsewhere or invest it themselves.
A prime example of insurance gone amok is malpractice insurance, which essentially encourages lawsuits. Malpractice in some states runs about $100k per year!! This is a ridiculous amount, and results in doctors who have to work 80+ hours a week to be able to pay for it (and maintain the fabled doctor income).
The difference is that this is a used parts dealer attached to a junkyard--quite a common thing. Most of the places I have dealt with offer a breif (30 day) warranty, and claim that all parts have been tested. The place in question particularly makes that claim.
Think about it--it's one thing to say that an old alternator works, but if you are buying a transmission or engine, then you need to know it works. They can't always test these at some junkyards, so they offer the warranty (which essentially gives you enough time to install the sorry thing).
If they can test it, then they should offer the warranty, essentially saying, "yes we tested it, and it works. If we are wrong, we will refund your cash". But to refuse all refunds is an asinine policy--except on parts like fenders, etc.
That's fine, at least you are admitting that you don't like the man, and don't think he's competent. That is completely legit, as long as you realize that this colors your opinion of his plans.
I also agree with your assessment of Clinton--he talked a lot of great ideas, but didn't do much. I just wish people would realize that their previous opinions are a dangerous thing sometimes.
Re:Sad state of affairs...
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, you are absolutely correct, and this is why some doctors will, if asked, allow you to pay directly for your treatment at a much lower rate than what they would bill the HMO.
This is part of the theory behind MSA's (Medical savings accounts). The idea is that you put money into this account monthly--then when you need to go to the doctor you go to one, negotiate a price, then pay from this fund (I know it's a little more complicated than that, but the idea is essentially correct).
This means that you retain control (100%) over the money in the account, and are NOT paying some HMO for unnecessary inflation of costs, AND is cheaper than regular insurance.
The catch is if you are sick more than about every other month on average, at which point you start to lose money.
Personally, I think doing this would allow doctors to compete more directly with each other (thus reducing costs to the consumer), but would deal with the cases you talk about where the HMO steals such a vast amount of the doctor's pay.
In addition to this, I would recommend that the only thing to get insurance for would be for medicines.
To be perfectly honest, I think that auto insurance is similarly inflated due to being mandatory (the insurance companies know this, so they can charge more than they otherwise would).
Back on topic, hidden costs are the reason that certain small stores don't like me--and the reason I won't go back. I bought an alternator (used) from a junk yard salvage store. When I installed this in the car, in didn't work, so I had it tested, and it was a dead part. The company in question refused to give a full refund, and as a result, I will never step foot in that store again. If you sell me a part, and then refuse to refund payment for a defective part (even at a junk yard), then I don't want to do business with you. Ever./end rant
Yes, but I maintain that there are certain people who would approve of this had Clinton made the statement--REGARDLESS of the economic/political landscape and conditions. Can I prove this? No, not really, but I still think that perhaps some people are a little too gung-ho about bashing the president.
Now, the question you didn't ask, and I am surprised is this: would I (user #651985) have supported this under Clinton? I like to think that I would.
Like you, however, I do think that the economic conditions at the moment make this an unwise move, and yes, it can be seen as political only. I can't blame him.
Actually, the situation with Bush is a lot like that of Microsoft (who I don't like). We disagree with their methods, but if we were in their position, most, if not all, would probably do the same things to maintain our power. I like to think that I would be better, but I can't prove it.
Ya know... It seems to me that there are certain people that would hate Bush even if he figured a way to eliminate 100% of poverty. Not that he will, but my point is that some of the posts I have been reading have the tone that "it doesn't matter what he does, I hate Bush".
I have the unprovable itch that some of these same people who are bashing his as-yet unanounced plans for moonbase 1 would have rooted and cheered if certain other presidents had made this same decision.
I have also seen numerous comments regarding Bushing fouling up the economy. I won't argue whether or not his plans to help the economy will work--that remains to be seen. Ask me again in 4 years, which is about how long it takes for a president's policies take to be felt (sometimes longer). If, even for a moment, you think that something Bush does today will affect the economy tommorrow, you are sadly mistaken.
Let me make this clear: I DON'T support everything Bush does. I don't like the Patriot act, and I certainly don't care for the way he has handled Iraq (if he wants to go around removing dictators, be up front about it, and be consistent). I do think Saddam needed to be removed. Yes I am aware that the US helped him gain power, but that was not GWB's decision (altough it may have been his dad's, which is NOT the same thing at all, no matter what anyone thinks).
I AM however, willing to let him try somthing different. So, what the hey, let's go to the moon. Just one thing. Before you blast Bush for this, think about whether or not you would have supported this idea if Clinton had been pushing it. If so, then don't rant and rave about how evil Bush is. Not that I expect everyone will be honest about this, but come on, give it a shot.
Now, having defended Bush, even a little bit, I am ready for the flame war. I expect that I have offended a good number of you, and that's okay--I expect to. But let's make one thing clear--I am not trolling, and this is not flame bait. I want to hear honest and considered opinions.
You know the whole debate is so OT that it isn't funny anymore, but my brother in law, who is NOT the most clueful person (falls squarely in the middle ground), is a raving mac addict (even has stickers for his car!).
To be honest, I think the Mac is perfect for someone on his level. To those who whine about lack of games, may I suggest that they do as he did--get a playstation2 (no not xbox--we are trying to AVOID M$, aren't we?).
As for the latest games being unavailable--most ppl don't care about that either.
Yeah, that's great, but it was not really a text file--one was a OpenOffice Presentation(.sxw?) and the other very important one was an OO.org text (.sxw?). I also lost numerous.pdf files. These were all for a paper and presentation due about 30 minutes after the actual deletion. I was VERY fortunate that I had already printed the paper. Nothing to be done about the presentation.
I used this command: reiserfsck --rebuild-tree -S -l rebuild.log/dev/yourdevice
after taking the disk offline (umount/dev/hdb6 as su(do))
I then (after waiting a long time for it to finish) checked the lost & found dir, and got nothing useful (although it did pick up some stray music files that I don't know where they came from!).
as i said, this right (to be private people) is not specified anywhere, but I do believe that it is a right that we should have.
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I, as much as anyone, am not infallible, nor would I wish that anyone think that I am--it is too much liability.
I am curious, though, what do you see, if my opinion were generally accepted, as some of the consequences thereof?
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that. However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain organizatians, but hey, that's fine with me.
Note, please, that I do not wear a tin foil hat. Generally I think most corps and the gov't use data of this nature with fair degree of responsibility--but there are enough exceptions to this to make me nervous, and therefor I believe that an individual should have the control I describe in my OP.
The program, which I now feel safe in naming, was CDBakeOven 2.0 (yeah, I know, beta software and all that-it still shouldn't EVER do this!)
To the user who gave instructions on how to use rebuild tree, those are about the same steps I used (same -S option) on --rebuild-tree, to no avail.
So, the end result is--thanks, but so far the best advice still seems to be to pay the $25 to the folks who made the fs. I may yet do that. In the mean time, I am using my sorry winXP install....
Yes, but it would be a rather younger Bilbo (though I am not sure by how much (somebody tell me--there has to be someone here who knows), and therefore it wouldn't need to be the same actor to be believable.
Isn't Elrond in the hobbit somewhere? Or some of the other elves? Can't remember--been WAY too long.
Re:Who's really looses out here?
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have to agree here, and this is one of the areas that Libertarians have it right-and both of the other parties are so far off base it is frightening. BOTH Dems and Reps are for big brother, and that is what scares me.
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Hey, at the very least they won't have to do any further testing to make sure it works as expected...
In all seriousness, though, WHY would anyone want such a thing. The ONLY reason I would be interested in something like that is if it ALSO came with enough source to compile. After all, that would put a monkey wrench in things.
Imagine if someone who got (however) access to the source, then wrote a paper on what would be necessary to implement compatibility, and then someone else, upon reading it, then wrote a description of that paper (but with enough detail to be useful). Now imagine if someone then implemented the description. What is their level of liability (having never seen the source, or even the paper by the guy who wrote it)?
Even so, it would probably be easier to just do it the way we are--from scratch. Another question though--are the names of certain files copyrighted? That is, if I know program X wants bar.dll, can I make a.dll that does essentially the same thing and call it bar.dll? If the code is different, but it does the same thing, is it still IP infringement?
Just questions, don't flame me because I am asking--I really want to know.
Absolutely--there is little in history that makes me think that any "villain" does know when to stop, and it all goes back to the idea that you express--greed.
I think M$ is NO different in that respect--they are already one of the biggest corporations in history, and they have a LOT of cash, but they want MORE! This is what really annoys me about that company--every thing they do seems to be about getting more money.
I know that that is the idea of any publicly traded company --to generate cash for the stockholders, but there are extremes that I wouldn't want a company to go to.
Now I don't mind them making money, but to continually seek to enlarge themselves at the expense of others is a problem because it stifles competition.
Interesting. I wasn't aware fo this, since I don't use ol very often.
What I AM curious about is IE not reading XHTML. I typically send pages with the DTD claiming XHTML strict. It doesn't seem to have any trouble rendering in IE. I actually run into the most trouble with CSS, which is very annoying.
I see what your link refers to as interesting enough, but think about this: the site he links to (and has ie showing the DOM structure does not do TWO of the things that are typically recommended. 1. They do not use a DTD. (eg, <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtm l1-strict.dtd ">) 2. They do not use the following tag: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>, which is used on this page: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html
This page is rendered correctly by IE, which to my thinking may be because they put more effort into making it work correctly, so I am not sure what is meant by "ie can't read xhtml".
I am not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean something that is not a layout issue, but rather a matter of content, then CSS will not be of much use. It is, first and foremost, about STYLES. As far as an ol starting at something other than 1--such as ten (and possibly counting down), I really don't know--I've never had a need for that, and haven't bothered to research.
However, it would be relatively easy for you to find this information from the w3c.org website for yourself.
Why would you do that? Rounding only one digit seems foolish.
Now to reply to some of the other people who are talking about my inaccurate example of gender, let me quote myself: "A categorical variable is considered discrete--on or the other, NEVER both. The most common example of this is biological gender. You are male or female, NOT both. Although recently it has become possible to change which you are."
What I should have said, was that it is one of the most common examples given to illustrate the idea of categorical variables. I did NOT mean to start a war about biological anomolies that exist in a very small portion of the population (although I will probably get in trouble for that--it may be more common than I think).
As for categorical variables being rather rare, I agree--it is generally a continuum of some sort, and I have seen many people argue against the use of categorical vars to the point of refusing to use the ANOVA, and always doing linear regression. But there are cases (at least in psychology), when categoricals make a lot of sense-say repitions of an activity or test. Typically if you don't finish the second or third test (which would be trial #2.5 or sum such) that data is eliminated from the test, and you are left with discrete numbers.
This IS a useful expiremental method, even if the trials are as identical in as many ways as possible (say to test the effects of some type of learning, or having caffiene).
Other times categorical variables are used would be if caffiene is given to a subject. If all subjects are given the same amount of caffiene before a driving test (or none at all), it becomes extremely convenient to make your categories "CAFFIENE" or "NO CAFFIENE". This is a discrete, dichotomous variable.
Does it always make sense to do this? No. I recently read a study where someone did this quite carelessly, making two categories of "burnout" and "no burnout" after giving subjects a test to measure levels of burnout. This a problem because the test does yield a continuous score (actually 3 continuous scores). This is a case where categorization is inappropriate, but I do believe that there are cases where it is useful and appropriate, even if there are more than two categories.
As for gender, yes there are anomolies, and some wierdness. There are also different ways of looking at things (mental/social/sexual gender), but when you are filling out a form at most any gov't office, they will only give you TWO boxes--male/female. I haven't ever seen an exception to this. Maybe there should be, but it woun't happen in most institutions until there is a lawsuit.
(WHen they do, will there then be an "Other" bathroom for those who check "Other"? (for the humor impaired, its a joke!!!))
Pardon the rant, but I find it odd that I was jumped on for choosing one of the most commonly given examples in pretty much every text book on the subject I have seen.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, that is the thing that is always so hard to know--DO I trust this brand. Personally I prefer to stick to name brands, and I wasn't sure about LiteOn's quality--and when media is not cheap, you don't want to end up with coasters.
This is why I do 99% of my burning under linux--I generally have had less problems that way (except for with a certain GUI burning prog that deleted some of my data [cdbakeoven2.0]). I know what I did wrong in that case, and won't repeat that mistake, but it is poor design.
The last question--does it play nice with linux? If so, I will make it my next burner.
NO, because, if the GPL is invalid, then they did not have the right to use any code that they did not write. Linux wrote the Linux kernel--I don't konw if he had access to the minix source, but even if he did, he didn't copy it, so while Linux is unix-LIKE, it isn't unix. Therefore SCO does not have claim to the kernel, and therefore if the GPL is invalid, then they never had the right to utilize the kernel for anything whatsoever, and are infringing on Linus' work.
This means that if the GPL is found to be invalid, it is a short step for Linus to say: okay, then you are infringing on my work, pay up. All that would be necessary is to prove that SCO distributed ANY code that was unique to linus.
At the same time, anyone in the world whose software was distributed under SCO's distribution without having a direct contract could also sue SCO if the GPL is invalid.
They are opening a can of worms, but it may just turn out to be full of snakes if they get it open.
This is asinine, though. Think about it. They are essentially a legalized method of stealing cash from people. US fiscal policy can go soak it, because there would be a replacement--maybe people would spend the money elsewhere or invest it themselves.
A prime example of insurance gone amok is malpractice insurance, which essentially encourages lawsuits. Malpractice in some states runs about $100k per year!! This is a ridiculous amount, and results in doctors who have to work 80+ hours a week to be able to pay for it (and maintain the fabled doctor income).
Um, no.
The difference is that this is a used parts dealer attached to a junkyard--quite a common thing. Most of the places I have dealt with offer a breif (30 day) warranty, and claim that all parts have been tested. The place in question particularly makes that claim.
Think about it--it's one thing to say that an old alternator works, but if you are buying a transmission or engine, then you need to know it works. They can't always test these at some junkyards, so they offer the warranty (which essentially gives you enough time to install the sorry thing).
If they can test it, then they should offer the warranty, essentially saying, "yes we tested it, and it works. If we are wrong, we will refund your cash". But to refuse all refunds is an asinine policy--except on parts like fenders, etc.
That's fine, at least you are admitting that you don't like the man, and don't think he's competent. That is completely legit, as long as you realize that this colors your opinion of his plans.
I also agree with your assessment of Clinton--he talked a lot of great ideas, but didn't do much. I just wish people would realize that their previous opinions are a dangerous thing sometimes.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, and this is why some doctors will, if asked, allow you to pay directly for your treatment at a much lower rate than what they would bill the HMO.
/end rant
This is part of the theory behind MSA's (Medical savings accounts). The idea is that you put money into this account monthly--then when you need to go to the doctor you go to one, negotiate a price, then pay from this fund (I know it's a little more complicated than that, but the idea is essentially correct).
This means that you retain control (100%) over the money in the account, and are NOT paying some HMO for unnecessary inflation of costs, AND is cheaper than regular insurance.
The catch is if you are sick more than about every other month on average, at which point you start to lose money.
Personally, I think doing this would allow doctors to compete more directly with each other (thus reducing costs to the consumer), but would deal with the cases you talk about where the HMO steals such a vast amount of the doctor's pay.
In addition to this, I would recommend that the only thing to get insurance for would be for medicines.
To be perfectly honest, I think that auto insurance is similarly inflated due to being mandatory (the insurance companies know this, so they can charge more than they otherwise would).
Back on topic, hidden costs are the reason that certain small stores don't like me--and the reason I won't go back. I bought an alternator (used) from a junk yard salvage store. When I installed this in the car, in didn't work, so I had it tested, and it was a dead part. The company in question refused to give a full refund, and as a result, I will never step foot in that store again. If you sell me a part, and then refuse to refund payment for a defective part (even at a junk yard), then I don't want to do business with you. Ever.
Yes, but I maintain that there are certain people who would approve of this had Clinton made the statement--REGARDLESS of the economic/political landscape and conditions. Can I prove this? No, not really, but I still think that perhaps some people are a little too gung-ho about bashing the president.
Now, the question you didn't ask, and I am surprised is this: would I (user #651985) have supported this under Clinton? I like to think that I would.
Like you, however, I do think that the economic conditions at the moment make this an unwise move, and yes, it can be seen as political only. I can't blame him.
Actually, the situation with Bush is a lot like that of Microsoft (who I don't like). We disagree with their methods, but if we were in their position, most, if not all, would probably do the same things to maintain our power. I like to think that I would be better, but I can't prove it.
Ya know...
It seems to me that there are certain people that would hate Bush even if he figured a way to eliminate 100% of poverty. Not that he will, but my point is that some of the posts I have been reading have the tone that "it doesn't matter what he does, I hate Bush".
I have the unprovable itch that some of these same people who are bashing his as-yet unanounced plans for moonbase 1 would have rooted and cheered if certain other presidents had made this same decision.
I have also seen numerous comments regarding Bushing fouling up the economy. I won't argue whether or not his plans to help the economy will work--that remains to be seen. Ask me again in 4 years, which is about how long it takes for a president's policies take to be felt (sometimes longer). If, even for a moment, you think that something Bush does today will affect the economy tommorrow, you are sadly mistaken.
Let me make this clear: I DON'T support everything Bush does. I don't like the Patriot act, and I certainly don't care for the way he has handled Iraq (if he wants to go around removing dictators, be up front about it, and be consistent). I do think Saddam needed to be removed. Yes I am aware that the US helped him gain power, but that was not GWB's decision (altough it may have been his dad's, which is NOT the same thing at all, no matter what anyone thinks).
I AM however, willing to let him try somthing different. So, what the hey, let's go to the moon. Just one thing. Before you blast Bush for this, think about whether or not you would have supported this idea if Clinton had been pushing it. If so, then don't rant and rave about how evil Bush is. Not that I expect everyone will be honest about this, but come on, give it a shot.
Now, having defended Bush, even a little bit, I am ready for the flame war. I expect that I have offended a good number of you, and that's okay--I expect to. But let's make one thing clear--I am not trolling, and this is not flame bait. I want to hear honest and considered opinions.
mod this one up...wish I'd thought of it..
You know the whole debate is so OT that it isn't funny anymore, but my brother in law, who is NOT the most clueful person (falls squarely in the middle ground), is a raving mac addict (even has stickers for his car!).
To be honest, I think the Mac is perfect for someone on his level. To those who whine about lack of games, may I suggest that they do as he did--get a playstation2 (no not xbox--we are trying to AVOID M$, aren't we?).
As for the latest games being unavailable--most ppl don't care about that either.
Yeah, that's great, but it was not really a text file--one was a OpenOffice Presentation(.sxw?) and the other very important one was an OO.org text (.sxw?). I also lost numerous .pdf files. These were all for a paper and presentation due about 30 minutes after the actual deletion. I was VERY fortunate that I had already printed the paper. Nothing to be done about the presentation.
Like I said, these were important files.
I used this command: /dev/yourdevice
/dev/hdb6 as su(do))
reiserfsck --rebuild-tree -S -l rebuild.log
after taking the disk offline (umount
I then (after waiting a long time for it to finish) checked the lost & found dir, and got nothing useful (although it did pick up some stray music files that I don't know where they came from!).
Nope--I checked. I will double check, but I wasn't running KDE at the time--maybe it did anyway. I will check again.
as i said, this right (to be private people) is not specified anywhere, but I do believe that it is a right that we should have.
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I, as much as anyone, am not infallible, nor would I wish that anyone think that I am--it is too much liability.
I am curious, though, what do you see, if my opinion were generally accepted, as some of the consequences thereof?
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that.
However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain organizatians, but hey, that's fine with me.
Note, please, that I do not wear a tin foil hat. Generally I think most corps and the gov't use data of this nature with fair degree of responsibility--but there are enough exceptions to this to make me nervous, and therefor I believe that an individual should have the control I describe in my OP.
The program, which I now feel safe in naming, was CDBakeOven 2.0 (yeah, I know, beta software and all that-it still shouldn't EVER do this!)
To the user who gave instructions on how to use rebuild tree, those are about the same steps
I used (same -S option) on --rebuild-tree, to no avail.
So, the end result is--thanks, but so far the best advice still seems to be to pay the $25 to the folks who made the fs. I may yet do that. In the mean time, I am using my sorry winXP install....
blech
Yes, but it would be a rather younger Bilbo (though I am not sure by how much (somebody tell me--there has to be someone here who knows), and therefore it wouldn't need to be the same actor to be believable.
Isn't Elrond in the hobbit somewhere? Or some of the other elves? Can't remember--been WAY too long.
I have to agree here, and this is one of the areas that Libertarians have it right-and both of the other parties are so far off base it is frightening. BOTH Dems and Reps are for big brother, and that is what scares me.
/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Hey, at the very least they won't have to do any further testing to make sure it works as expected...
.dll that does essentially the same thing and call it bar.dll? If the code is different, but it does the same thing, is it still IP infringement?
In all seriousness, though, WHY would anyone want such a thing. The ONLY reason I would be interested in something like that is if it ALSO came with enough source to compile. After all, that would put a monkey wrench in things.
Imagine if someone who got (however) access to the source, then wrote a paper on what would be necessary to implement compatibility, and then someone else, upon reading it, then wrote a description of that paper (but with enough detail to be useful). Now imagine if someone then implemented the description. What is their level of liability (having never seen the source, or even the paper by the guy who wrote it)?
Even so, it would probably be easier to just do it the way we are--from scratch. Another question though--are the names of certain files copyrighted? That is, if I know program X wants bar.dll, can I make a
Just questions, don't flame me because I am asking--I really want to know.
Absolutely--there is little in history that makes me think that any "villain" does know when to stop, and it all goes back to the idea that you express--greed.
I think M$ is NO different in that respect--they are already one of the biggest corporations in history, and they have a LOT of cash, but they want MORE! This is what really annoys me about that company--every thing they do seems to be about getting more money.
I know that that is the idea of any publicly traded company --to generate cash for the stockholders, but there are extremes that I wouldn't want a company to go to.
Now I don't mind them making money, but to continually seek to enlarge themselves at the expense of others is a problem because it stifles competition.
hmmm
its odd though, cause I though Redhat was going to abandon desktop linux...
That is one of the biggest desks that I have heard of(for personal use). Most are only ~1m long and 0.5m front to back. 2m is pretty darn big.
Interesting. I wasn't aware fo this, since I don't use ol very often.
m l1-strict.dtd ">)
What I AM curious about is IE not reading XHTML. I typically send pages with the DTD claiming XHTML strict. It doesn't seem to have any trouble rendering in IE. I actually run into the most trouble with CSS, which is very annoying.
I see what your link refers to as interesting enough, but think about this: the site he links to (and has ie showing the DOM structure does not do TWO of the things that are typically recommended.
1. They do not use a DTD. (eg, <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xht
2. They do not use the following tag: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>, which is used on this page: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html
This page is rendered correctly by IE, which to my thinking may be because they put more effort into making it work correctly, so I am not sure what is meant by "ie can't read xhtml".
Please elucidate.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean something that is not a layout issue, but rather a matter of content, then CSS will not be of much use. It is, first and foremost, about STYLES. As far as an ol starting at something other than 1--such as ten (and possibly counting down), I really don't know--I've never had a need for that, and haven't bothered to research.
However, it would be relatively easy for you to find this information from the w3c.org website for yourself.
Why would you do that? Rounding only one digit seems foolish.
Now to reply to some of the other people who are talking about my inaccurate example of gender, let me quote myself: "A categorical variable is considered discrete--on or the other, NEVER both. The most common example of this is biological gender. You are male or female, NOT both. Although recently it has become possible to change which you are."
What I should have said, was that it is one of the most common examples given to illustrate the idea of categorical variables. I did NOT mean to start a war about biological anomolies that exist in a very small portion of the population (although I will probably get in trouble for that--it may be more common than I think).
As for categorical variables being rather rare, I agree--it is generally a continuum of some sort, and I have seen many people argue against the use of categorical vars to the point of refusing to use the ANOVA, and always doing linear regression. But there are cases (at least in psychology), when categoricals make a lot of sense-say repitions of an activity or test. Typically if you don't finish the second or third test (which would be trial #2.5 or sum such) that data is eliminated from the test, and you are left with discrete numbers.
This IS a useful expiremental method, even if the trials are as identical in as many ways as possible (say to test the effects of some type of learning, or having caffiene).
Other times categorical variables are used would be if caffiene is given to a subject. If all subjects are given the same amount of caffiene before a driving test (or none at all), it becomes extremely convenient to make your categories "CAFFIENE" or "NO CAFFIENE". This is a discrete, dichotomous variable.
Does it always make sense to do this? No. I recently read a study where someone did this quite carelessly, making two categories of "burnout" and "no burnout" after giving subjects a test to measure levels of burnout. This a problem because the test does yield a continuous score (actually 3 continuous scores). This is a case where categorization is inappropriate, but I do believe that there are cases where it is useful and appropriate, even if there are more than two categories.
As for gender, yes there are anomolies, and some wierdness. There are also different ways of looking at things (mental/social/sexual gender), but when you are filling out a form at most any gov't office, they will only give you TWO boxes--male/female. I haven't ever seen an exception to this. Maybe there should be, but it woun't happen in most institutions until there is a lawsuit.
(WHen they do, will there then be an "Other" bathroom for those who check "Other"? (for the humor impaired, its a joke!!!))
Pardon the rant, but I find it odd that I was jumped on for choosing one of the most commonly given examples in pretty much every text book on the subject I have seen.