I have undergone a similar ordeal, only
with KDS monitors. The original monitor I purchased failed within a few
months, and each of the three replacement monitors I was provided with
died within a day of receipt. After repeated verbal requests for a refund
followed by several demand letters, I have now initiated a lawsuit against
KDS and its business associates for failure to provide warranty service.
I am doing this through my jurisdiction's small claims court; the
procedure, while lengthy, is not so complicated that I require a
lawyer. If you decide to opt for the same route, I would be pleased to
provide you with a copy of my claim. You might want to examine it and
adapt it for your own purposes and jurisdictional requirements.
Has anyone thought about the trademark agreement? Doesn't Panasonic own the "COMPACT-DISC" trademark? I think I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the way you are able to use this trademark is by insuring that everything with the label is playable in all players with the "COMPACT-DISC" trademark on it.
What makes you think the owner of the CD logo trademark won't simply alter their licence agreement so that it covers these copy-protected discs? Panasonic (or whoever owns it) would be missing out on lucrative licencing profits otherwise. Heck, maybe they own a few record labels themselves; then it would certainly be in their best interests to allow use of the logo on protected CDs.
Mmmhmm. Real good idea, asking an intelligence agency for an informed opinion on the judicial branch. The CIA is not what I would consider an authority on what the United States legal system is.
Why, yes, of course. How silly of me -- everyone knows that intelligence agencies pull their facts out of thin air.
The Federal judge I had dinner with two nights ago, on the other hand, is an authority.
Well, too bad you didn't ask him about our little discussion, or you might actually have learned something. Luckily, this federal judge has already written extensively on the topic.
Similarity does not mean ``based on''.
So your argument is, what? That the Americans developed their legal system, which is remarkably similar on a high level to the British system of common law, completely independently?
Linux is similar to SysV and BSD. Does that mean it's ``based on'' either?
That's a terrible analogy and you know it. SysV and BSD are variants of Unix, which was invented decades ago (and has been in a continuous process of revision ever since). Linux, meaning the operating system and not the mere kernel, is a relatively modern invention and is based on Unix. Despite his trollish appearance, Richard Stallman did not live in a hole in the ground, sheltered from the rest of the universe, and magically create a near-complete operating system that just happened to resemble Unix. Sure, there are some parts of Linux which are not wholly Unix-based, such as Torvalds's kernel (which is instead derived basically from MINIX). But the vast majority of the basic OS was written by looking at existing Unices and copying their functionality, adding new features or removing others as need required. If you don't believe me, go read the literature on the FSF web page. They are quite upfront in admitting that the GNU programs comprising what is known as the Linux OS are based on their Unix counterparts.
Just because Federal judges rarely invoke their right to conduct interrogations doesn't mean they
lack that power.
I wasn't talking about interrogations; I was talking about the inquisitional judiciary system. Yes, American judges have the right to question witnesses who are already on the witness stand. So do Canadian judges, and (I would assume) British judges. It is not their prerogative, however, to conduct an independent investigation to gather physical evidence, subpoena witnesses, etc. as it is under Finnish and Soviet law.
Again, you are arguing minor details here, but my point of contention has always been fundamental differences. If you were to draw up a taxonomy of legal systems, the American legal system is going to be placed in or near the "common law" category because that it whence it derives most of its procedures, particularly those relating to the gathering and presentation of evidence in a trial. Also in the common law area will be found the British system, since common law arguably began there. Many of its developments, such as were effected by the Magna Carta, are still in evidence in American jurisprudence.
While there's an awful lot of shared history there, the United States Judiciary is not based upon an English model--it is its own separate entity.
Well, the Americans didn't exactly pull their legal system out of a hat. While it has a number of innovations, its creators could not simply ignore two hundred years of colonial legal precedent.
Some of the contrasts you cite are details and not fundamental differences. For instance, the difference between the judges' roles in the two systems is negligible compared to that with the judge's role under Soviet-style law, where he is an inquisitor charged with gathering evidence. IIRC even in civil law, the judge has inquisitional powers which he may choose to invoke if he feels the prosecution or defence has failed to gather sufficient evidence. For that matter, some legal systems do not even use the adversarial system.
Also keep in mind that the rules governing which side has the burden of proof are very similar under both common and American law, but not under civil or Soviet law. This is not a historical accident, nor is it a necessity of construction as with your automobile example. Almost every car ever made has had four wheels, an engine, and a steering column.
American law is not based upon British law. We incorporated the whole body of English common law into American common law after we won our independence, but our legal traditions are not British in origin. In Louisiana, much of the law owes more to the Napoleonic Code than to English courts.
But Louisiana is not the federal government. You could just as well argue that Canadian law is based on civil law and not common law because of Quebec. Civil law is not practiced in Canada anywhere outside Quebec.
Historically speaking, US law is basically British, as opposed to the civil (Roman) law prevalent in most of Western Europe. I am not saying that the legal systems of America and Britain are identical, but rather that there is a strong ancestral relation between the two.
[T]he instant that a judge finds a law to be in conflict with the Constitution--i.e., there's a formal finding by a court that a law is inconsistent with the nation's highest law--then the law in question is not merely voided. If it were voided, that would mean at one point it was enforceable. Laws which are held to be unconstitutional are retroactively erased; they are invalid ab initio, from the very beginning. Is the law unconstitutional? If so, then that law doesn't exist and, more to the point, never existed in the eyes of the court.
I find it hard to believe that it's that simple. Do you have a cite? How do the courts deal with issues of jurisdiction? Can a state court find a federal law unconstitutional? If so, is the law erased everywhere, or just in that state?
I know that under Canadian law (which, like American law, is based on British law), when a provincial court finds a law unconstitutional, it is not stricken from the Criminal Code, but is merely made unenforceable in that province. Such is the case with the federal law against sodomy. An Ontario court ruled it unconstitutional, but it's still on the books, and you can still be prosecuted for it in the other provinces and territories. (While your lawyer will argue that Ontario has set a precedent, the judge is under no obligation to follow it.)
I think you'll need to back up your claim that the DMCA will simply vanish if Skylarov is acquitted on the basis of unconstitutionality. Things are rarely that simple in the legal system.
To those who were criticizing the not-guilty plea and saying he is guilty, this needs to be said. Had he went ahead and pleaded guilty, there would be no legal examination of the DMCA.
Unfortunately, a plea of not guilty will not lead to a legal examination of the DMCA either, at least not directly. The court's duty is to enforce the existing law, not to ratify or amend it. As I understand American law, the judge is not at liberty to simply say, "Well, this law is clearly unfair. Therefore we'll just have to release Mr. Skylarov." His only duty is to determine whether or not Skylarov violated the DMCA, and issue an appropriate sentence.
So a sword which
was taken out of such a mould would be ex caliber ( out of a caliber ), hence the name of
King Arthur's famous sword excaliber and why it was so much more powerful than all the
other swords of the time.
Rubbish. Excalibur has nothing to do with caliber. The name of the sword was, in its earliest English manifestation, Caliburn. Note the absence of the "ex". The Caliburn name is thought to come from some Celtic language -- probably the Irish Gaelic Caladbolg, which was the name of another famous sword in Irish folklore. The English rendering of the word is given as "voracious" by the OED, which, as you can plainly see, has nothing to do with steel casting.
To this day, I still can't believe that none of the online "music labels" (for lack of a better word) tried to go legit. That is, why didn't anyone try to sign some big names - example, Hole, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. and get the ball rolling with some music that DIDN'T come from the big 5 music companies?
Um, gee, maybe it was because all the big names are already under contract with the "big 5" music companies. Did you ever think of that? Do you even know how the music industry works? Nearly all the major recording artists had to start as "independent artists" you seem to dislike so much. Talent spotters from the major labels then offer contracts to these artists, giving them money up front if the artist agrees to release a certain number of albums on that label. The contracts are usually worded in such a way that the artist is prohibited from recording under any other label, or from prematurely terminating the contract. Ergo your narrow-minded rant is completely inapplicable in most cases.
Erm, no. The GPL's basis is copyright law as defined by the Berne Convention. Almost every advanced country is a signator. Without the author's consent, no one is allowed to distribute or modify copyrighted software. The GPL simply tells you the terms under which the author is willing to waive his rights.
For an example of this idea taken to its logical extreme, look at the Middle Ages. During this time it was considered a "sin" to expose the body -- even to one's self. The result? Bathing and basic hygiene were virtually nonexistant.
A sin to expose the body? I think you are confusing the Middle Ages with the Victorian Era. People in the Middle Ages "exposed" themselves all the time -- until very recently, in fact, most people slept in the nude. It wasn't until the rise of capitalism that some clever fashion designer invented pajamas and convinced the western world that they were mandatory somnambulic attire.
As for bathing, it's quite true that it didn't catch on until relatively modern times. But keep in mind that knowledge of indoor plumbing was very poor at that time. (Yes, ancient civilizations such as the Romans and Babylonians had indoor plumbing, but interest in ancient manuscripts was not renewed until the Renaissance.) For most people, having a bath was not as convenient as turning on the hot water tap.
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold
copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep
the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the
copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
They seem to be missing an important point here. If everyone's contribution is placed in the public domain, then the GPL licence cannot be enforced. Anybody who wanted to could take the public domain code and incorporate it into their proprietary system without legal repercussions. What they are suggesting works only for relatively tiny public-domain contributions to a relatively large GPLed project.
I take it by this you are referring to the moth found jammed in a relay of a Harvard Mark II machine in 1947. Contrary to what many believe, this is not the first usage of the word "bug" to denote a problem with a machine. The term was around long before the first computer was ever built -- it's recorded as far back as 1896, and was probably in oral use long before then. The fact that "bug" was already common in 1947 is evidenced by the Mark II's conspicuously-worded logbook entry: "First actual case of bug being found" (emphasis mine).
The problem with really great supporting characters is that they're really great supporting
characters -- you usually just can't give 'em enough to do on their own. Think of all those
spin-offs that failed horribly; the only ones I can think of which succeed are complete
departures from the original premise (for example Fraiser is technically spun off from Cheers,
but is in all important respects completely unrecognizable as a derivative).
What you say may be true in the general case, but spinoffs work enough of the time to make trying them profitable. Sure, some spinoffs are doomed failures. (Does anyone remember The Ropers from Three's Company, or Golden Palace from The Golden Girls? I didn't think so.) But how about Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which was spun off from Law & Order? I'd hardly call SVU a "complete departure" from Law & Order. Likewise with the hugely popular Star Trek: The Next Generation and, to a lesser extent, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, which were spun off from Star Trek. Also let's not forget the countless successful children's cartoon series spun off from movies, such as Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters.
And in related news, showing (paper) birthday cards to your friends and family after you
recieve them is ruled an offense, as well as telling anyone about an email you recieved, or
reading your email in a public place, or... or....
Damn right.
---
This message is for the named person's use only. It
may contain confidential, proprietary or legally
privileged information. No confidentiality or
privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
you receive this message in error, please
immediately delete it and all copies of it from your
system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use,
disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this
message if you are not the intended recipient. [Huge
MultiNational Company] and each of its
subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all
e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the message states
otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them
to be the views of any such entity. Unless otherwise
stated, any pricing information given in this message
is indicative only, is subject to change and does not
constitute an offer to deal at any price quoted. Any
reference to the terms of executed transactions
should be treated as preliminary only and subject to
our formal written confirmation.
Personally, I think the GPL could
never be called "free" because of how restrictive it is.
Oh, come on. The only real restriction imposed by the GPL is that you disclose the source. The GPL effectively says, "You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you let others do the same with the result and you keep the source code available." And you are calling this more restrictive than a standard closed-source EULA, which won't let you even use the program until you've signed your rights away?
All right. So I'm supposed to read this "LICENSE" file that came with the program. But I'm an experienced
Linux/BSD/Solaris/whatever user. So I just type "./configure" followed by "make install". I haven't read the
license for this program at all.
You are missing the point. If the code is not licenced to you, under current copyright law, you have to right to modify, copy, or distribute it, or to integrate it into one of your programs. The GPL gives you the right to modify, copy, distribute, and integrate the code, subject to certain restrictions, just the same as the Microsoft EULA gives the user the right to copy the code (onto a hard disk for use), subject to several restrictions. If you honestly think that the GPL cannot be held up in court, than neither can Microsoft's EULA, or any other EULA.
Breaking into a market like that is simply not possible, especially with the price of admission. Last I heard,
most of those 3-6 minute videos cost between $100K and $1M. I don't care how many PCs you have, that
ain't gonna get you a spot on MTVs top ten list.
Why don't you tell that to Beck? His 1994 debut album Mellow Gold was recorded at home on a four-track. He was a complete unknown at the time and certainly could not have afforded studio time, let alone a proper home studio. The video for the hit single Loser, as well as those for Pay No Mind and Beercan, were shot on a very low budget -- probably without direct support of any record label (certainly not $100,000 worth). I'd be surprised if the total actual expenses for recording the album and all three videos exceeded $1000. (Keep in mind that Nirvana's first album, Bleach, was recorded professionally in a studio for $600.)
The "long long" hack in C99 is just plain stupid. How is C/C++ going to be patched *cough hacked
cough* to support 128-bit integers? "long long long"?
You obviously didn't read much about the new standard. C99 now mandates typedefs for datatypes which specify the type's size. If it's important for you that you have an unsigned integer which is EXACTLY 64 bits, you can use the type UINT64_C. This is all contained in <inttypes.h>; we now have typedefs specifying integer types of exactly n bits and at least n bits. If all your code is type-size dependent, simply use the new macros and you'll never have to change your code when 128-bit types become available.
But the original example erred simply in using Japanese as a major source language.
Not really. The original point of this thread was to dispute the original poster's claim that there are 40,000 Japanese loan words in English. This figure is clearly off by many orders of magnitude. When someone stepped in with a list of Japanese loan words, I simply noted that the vast majority of them were words that we do not, as you say, "take for granted". The list comprised mostly of words tied exclusively to Japanese culture. No one is disputing that there are many borrowings from other languages that have been so completely integrated into English that they have lost their foreign connotations.
one could argue that English is
a creole of Anglo-Saxon and French.
One could more properly argue that English is a creole of Old English and French. If the Anglo-Saxons ever had a language by that name, it certainly wasn't being used at the time of the Norman invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
I have undergone a similar ordeal, only with KDS monitors. The original monitor I purchased failed within a few months, and each of the three replacement monitors I was provided with died within a day of receipt. After repeated verbal requests for a refund followed by several demand letters, I have now initiated a lawsuit against KDS and its business associates for failure to provide warranty service.
I am doing this through my jurisdiction's small claims court; the procedure, while lengthy, is not so complicated that I require a lawyer. If you decide to opt for the same route, I would be pleased to provide you with a copy of my claim. You might want to examine it and adapt it for your own purposes and jurisdictional requirements.
What makes you think the owner of the CD logo trademark won't simply alter their licence agreement so that it covers these copy-protected discs? Panasonic (or whoever owns it) would be missing out on lucrative licencing profits otherwise. Heck, maybe they own a few record labels themselves; then it would certainly be in their best interests to allow use of the logo on protected CDs.
Why, yes, of course. How silly of me -- everyone knows that intelligence agencies pull their facts out of thin air.
Well, too bad you didn't ask him about our little discussion, or you might actually have learned something. Luckily, this federal judge has already written extensively on the topic.So your argument is, what? That the Americans developed their legal system, which is remarkably similar on a high level to the British system of common law, completely independently?
That's a terrible analogy and you know it. SysV and BSD are variants of Unix, which was invented decades ago (and has been in a continuous process of revision ever since). Linux, meaning the operating system and not the mere kernel, is a relatively modern invention and is based on Unix. Despite his trollish appearance, Richard Stallman did not live in a hole in the ground, sheltered from the rest of the universe, and magically create a near-complete operating system that just happened to resemble Unix. Sure, there are some parts of Linux which are not wholly Unix-based, such as Torvalds's kernel (which is instead derived basically from MINIX). But the vast majority of the basic OS was written by looking at existing Unices and copying their functionality, adding new features or removing others as need required. If you don't believe me, go read the literature on the FSF web page. They are quite upfront in admitting that the GNU programs comprising what is known as the Linux OS are based on their Unix counterparts.Look, buddy. Your own friggin' government disagrees with you:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html
Scroll down to the section on government.
I wasn't talking about interrogations; I was talking about the inquisitional judiciary system. Yes, American judges have the right to question witnesses who are already on the witness stand. So do Canadian judges, and (I would assume) British judges. It is not their prerogative, however, to conduct an independent investigation to gather physical evidence, subpoena witnesses, etc. as it is under Finnish and Soviet law.
Again, you are arguing minor details here, but my point of contention has always been fundamental differences. If you were to draw up a taxonomy of legal systems, the American legal system is going to be placed in or near the "common law" category because that it whence it derives most of its procedures, particularly those relating to the gathering and presentation of evidence in a trial. Also in the common law area will be found the British system, since common law arguably began there. Many of its developments, such as were effected by the Magna Carta, are still in evidence in American jurisprudence.
Well, the Americans didn't exactly pull their legal system out of a hat. While it has a number of innovations, its creators could not simply ignore two hundred years of colonial legal precedent.
Some of the contrasts you cite are details and not fundamental differences. For instance, the difference between the judges' roles in the two systems is negligible compared to that with the judge's role under Soviet-style law, where he is an inquisitor charged with gathering evidence. IIRC even in civil law, the judge has inquisitional powers which he may choose to invoke if he feels the prosecution or defence has failed to gather sufficient evidence. For that matter, some legal systems do not even use the adversarial system.
Also keep in mind that the rules governing which side has the burden of proof are very similar under both common and American law, but not under civil or Soviet law. This is not a historical accident, nor is it a necessity of construction as with your automobile example. Almost every car ever made has had four wheels, an engine, and a steering column.
But Louisiana is not the federal government. You could just as well argue that Canadian law is based on civil law and not common law because of Quebec. Civil law is not practiced in Canada anywhere outside Quebec.
Historically speaking, US law is basically British, as opposed to the civil (Roman) law prevalent in most of Western Europe. I am not saying that the legal systems of America and Britain are identical, but rather that there is a strong ancestral relation between the two.
I find it hard to believe that it's that simple. Do you have a cite? How do the courts deal with issues of jurisdiction? Can a state court find a federal law unconstitutional? If so, is the law erased everywhere, or just in that state?
I know that under Canadian law (which, like American law, is based on British law), when a provincial court finds a law unconstitutional, it is not stricken from the Criminal Code, but is merely made unenforceable in that province. Such is the case with the federal law against sodomy. An Ontario court ruled it unconstitutional, but it's still on the books, and you can still be prosecuted for it in the other provinces and territories. (While your lawyer will argue that Ontario has set a precedent, the judge is under no obligation to follow it.)
I think you'll need to back up your claim that the DMCA will simply vanish if Skylarov is acquitted on the basis of unconstitutionality. Things are rarely that simple in the legal system.
Unfortunately, a plea of not guilty will not lead to a legal examination of the DMCA either, at least not directly. The court's duty is to enforce the existing law, not to ratify or amend it. As I understand American law, the judge is not at liberty to simply say, "Well, this law is clearly unfair. Therefore we'll just have to release Mr. Skylarov." His only duty is to determine whether or not Skylarov violated the DMCA, and issue an appropriate sentence.
It seems you have neglected to read the message to which I was responding. Looks like your rant is equally misdirected.
Regards,
Um, gee, maybe it was because all the big names are already under contract with the "big 5" music companies. Did you ever think of that? Do you even know how the music industry works? Nearly all the major recording artists had to start as "independent artists" you seem to dislike so much. Talent spotters from the major labels then offer contracts to these artists, giving them money up front if the artist agrees to release a certain number of albums on that label. The contracts are usually worded in such a way that the artist is prohibited from recording under any other label, or from prematurely terminating the contract. Ergo your narrow-minded rant is completely inapplicable in most cases.
Regards,
Erm, no. The GPL's basis is copyright law as defined by the Berne Convention. Almost every advanced country is a signator. Without the author's consent, no one is allowed to distribute or modify copyrighted software. The GPL simply tells you the terms under which the author is willing to waive his rights.
Regards,
A sin to expose the body? I think you are confusing the Middle Ages with the Victorian Era. People in the Middle Ages "exposed" themselves all the time -- until very recently, in fact, most people slept in the nude. It wasn't until the rise of capitalism that some clever fashion designer invented pajamas and convinced the western world that they were mandatory somnambulic attire.
As for bathing, it's quite true that it didn't catch on until relatively modern times. But keep in mind that knowledge of indoor plumbing was very poor at that time. (Yes, ancient civilizations such as the Romans and Babylonians had indoor plumbing, but interest in ancient manuscripts was not renewed until the Renaissance.) For most people, having a bath was not as convenient as turning on the hot water tap.
Regards,
From the FAQ:
They seem to be missing an important point here. If everyone's contribution is placed in the public domain, then the GPL licence cannot be enforced. Anybody who wanted to could take the public domain code and incorporate it into their proprietary system without legal repercussions. What they are suggesting works only for relatively tiny public-domain contributions to a relatively large GPLed project.
Regards,
I take it by this you are referring to the moth found jammed in a relay of a Harvard Mark II machine in 1947. Contrary to what many believe, this is not the first usage of the word "bug" to denote a problem with a machine. The term was around long before the first computer was ever built -- it's recorded as far back as 1896, and was probably in oral use long before then. The fact that "bug" was already common in 1947 is evidenced by the Mark II's conspicuously-worded logbook entry: "First actual case of bug being found" (emphasis mine).
Regards,
What you say may be true in the general case, but spinoffs work enough of the time to make trying them profitable. Sure, some spinoffs are doomed failures. (Does anyone remember The Ropers from Three's Company, or Golden Palace from The Golden Girls? I didn't think so.) But how about Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which was spun off from Law & Order? I'd hardly call SVU a "complete departure" from Law & Order. Likewise with the hugely popular Star Trek: The Next Generation and, to a lesser extent, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, which were spun off from Star Trek. Also let's not forget the countless successful children's cartoon series spun off from movies, such as Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters.
Regards,
Damn right.
---
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. [Huge MultiNational Company] and each of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to deal at any price quoted. Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
Regards,
Regards,
Here's the link: http://whoisclaireswire.terrashare.com/readtheemai l.html
It looks like the article Slashdot linked to was misinformed. The e-mail doesn't talk about Brad's sexual prowess at all...
Regards,
Oh, come on. The only real restriction imposed by the GPL is that you disclose the source. The GPL effectively says, "You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you let others do the same with the result and you keep the source code available." And you are calling this more restrictive than a standard closed-source EULA, which won't let you even use the program until you've signed your rights away?
Regards,
You are missing the point. If the code is not licenced to you, under current copyright law, you have to right to modify, copy, or distribute it, or to integrate it into one of your programs. The GPL gives you the right to modify, copy, distribute, and integrate the code, subject to certain restrictions, just the same as the Microsoft EULA gives the user the right to copy the code (onto a hard disk for use), subject to several restrictions. If you honestly think that the GPL cannot be held up in court, than neither can Microsoft's EULA, or any other EULA.
Regards,
Why don't you tell that to Beck? His 1994 debut album Mellow Gold was recorded at home on a four-track. He was a complete unknown at the time and certainly could not have afforded studio time, let alone a proper home studio. The video for the hit single Loser, as well as those for Pay No Mind and Beercan, were shot on a very low budget -- probably without direct support of any record label (certainly not $100,000 worth). I'd be surprised if the total actual expenses for recording the album and all three videos exceeded $1000. (Keep in mind that Nirvana's first album, Bleach, was recorded professionally in a studio for $600.)
Regards,
You obviously didn't read much about the new standard. C99 now mandates typedefs for datatypes which specify the type's size. If it's important for you that you have an unsigned integer which is EXACTLY 64 bits, you can use the type UINT64_C. This is all contained in <inttypes.h>; we now have typedefs specifying integer types of exactly n bits and at least n bits. If all your code is type-size dependent, simply use the new macros and you'll never have to change your code when 128-bit types become available.
You can get more information at http://web.onetelnet.ch/~twolf/tw/c/c9x_changes.ht ml.
Regards,
Not really. The original point of this thread was to dispute the original poster's claim that there are 40,000 Japanese loan words in English. This figure is clearly off by many orders of magnitude. When someone stepped in with a list of Japanese loan words, I simply noted that the vast majority of them were words that we do not, as you say, "take for granted". The list comprised mostly of words tied exclusively to Japanese culture. No one is disputing that there are many borrowings from other languages that have been so completely integrated into English that they have lost their foreign connotations.
One could more properly argue that English is a creole of Old English and French. If the Anglo-Saxons ever had a language by that name, it certainly wasn't being used at the time of the Norman invasion.
Regards,