Do you know what would really happen if you tried to cross a pair of proton streams? Nothing, because protons have a positive charge, and like charges repel each other. There's no way you could make them cross, no matter how hard you tried. Of course, what chance does Real World Physics have when it comes against a Hollywood Screenwriter?
Who ever said "64 K is enough for anybody" obviously didn't play that game.
That was Bill Gates, and if he ever played that game he probably understood what a Boss key was for before he started playing.
BTW, I remember hearing, once, of a game with a Boss key that brought up a working word processor. You could work on a business letter while your boss was looking, then save your work and go back to your game when he was gone. Neat!
That's only half the problem. Most slashdotters stay away from those sites just in case their mom comes down to the basement at the wrong time and gets a good look at what's on the screen.
They are rich enough to pay the bills, so they don't really care about those.
If I were a judge and one of those arrogant gits came before me, they'd be given jail time, not a fine, and that's something they would care about! Not only that, I'd pull their license if possible and that would really rain on their parade. Alas, I don't know how much leeway the judges have.
No, jury nullification was not the cause of repeal of Prohibition. Popular pressure by social expectation was. Congress didn't get together and say "gee, we're having trouble getting juries to play along." They got direct, public pressure.
You don't understand what I meant: nullification wasn't so much the cause of Repeal, it was one of the symptoms of the public dislike of Prohibition that lead to Repeal. Prohibition got so unpopular that up to 60% of the people tried under the Volstand act were acquitted regardless of the evidence. This sent a great big message to lawmakers that the public didn't like Prohibition and didn't want it. That was one of the factors leading to Repeal.
Jury nullification isn't always used compassionately. There was a time when it was regularly used in the Old South to acquit whites accused of murdering "colored folk."
No one, single case of jury nullification is, or can be a referendum on whether or not a law is enforced. However, if enough juries refuse to convict similar cases, that's the effect. Prosecutors get very reluctant to press charges when there's a good chance that the jury will refuse to convict. It doesn't happen often, but laws have changed because of repeated nullification. The best case, of course, was how repeated refusals to convict violations of the Volstad Act helped bring about the end of Prohibition.
I've actually been a juror in a civil case, and know how such tings go. You're not supposed to assume that the points in question are true (or false) without evidence. Alas, if what that juror said is true, that's exactly what the jury was ready to do.
Yes, having those songs on the shared part of her hard drive is evidence that she was willing to have people download them, but not proof that anybody actually did so. If I were on that jury, and the judges instructions were that I should only find for the plaintiff if I believed that the songs had been downloaded, I'd have had to find for the defendant. Granted they might have been, but I'm not going to vote on a might have, only a probably. YMMV, and that jury's clearly did.
Yes, you're right. It's called "preponderance of evidence." Still, the juror seemed (to me) to be saying that he'd have believed that people had downloaded the files even without proof. Doesn't sound that impartial to me, but YMMV.
I know that, historically, some juries have refused to find a defendant guilty when they thought the punishment excessive for the crime or didn't agree with the law.
That's called "jury nullification" and judges hate it because there's not a damned thing they can do about it. In fact, attorneys are forbidden to mention the concept in their arguments. If the jury in this case had decided to do that, the RIAA would have had no grounds for appeal, because the jury is the *only* arbiter of fact. You can appeal decisions of the judge, but not the actual jury decision. IANAL and all that, but that's how I understand it.
In TFA, the juror says that they'd still have come to the same verdict if the RIAA had had to prove that somebody'd downloaded the files. TFA also says that the jury was shown that 3,000,000 people were on Kazaa while her hard drive was shared, but there's no mention of their showing that anybody actually took advantage of the offer. I'm sure that if there had been any proof the files were downloaded, it would have been produced in court, so that means that they have no such proof. And yet, the jury would have come to the same conclusion. Fair? Impartial? I don't think so.
Many of Saturn's moons are probably captured asteroids, and have highly eccentric orbits. For various reasons, it's a lot easier for a body to be captured into a retrograde orbit, going "the wrong way."
It's hard to believe that a non-subscriber gets first post, but there's nothing up yet. Oh Well...
Just to keep getting modded off-topic, I'd like to point out that blocking all access to Wikipedia is a tad heavy-handed. Forbidding them to edit entries on the job should have been enough.
Type II diabetes can be caused by many things. Mine was possibly caused by Agent Orange. It's controlled by diet, blood sugar monitoring and oral medicines, such as Glypizide and Metformin. Part of Type II is insulin resistance, meaning that your cells don't react as well as they should to whatever insulin is present and causing your body to make more isn't the only, or even best answer. Better is something that increases your body's reaction to the insulin they have, and drugs such as Metformin already do that.
Do you work for the government or are you just a long-term union employee?
Neither. And, I'm not a lawyer or paralegal either. I do, however, understand how the law works and that trying to limit the carpool lane to cars with two or more licensed drivers would create a horrible enforcement problem. (See the other responses to my post for a better explanation of this issue.)
That's not how the law is written, it just says that you must have two or more people in the car. Now, if you want to change it to "two or more licensed drivers," that's another issue, and opens up a nasty can of worms about enforcement.
I don't know about anybody else, but I first saw the headline as reading that drivers were being scammed by IR cameras, not scanned. Then, of course, when I read the summary, I found out that for all practical purposes, I was right.
In Los Angeles, at least, carpool lanes don't mean less lanes for everybody else. They've widened the freeways so that there are as many open lanes as before, plus carpool lanes in the middle. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but LA, at least, did it right.
Here in Los Angeles, the fine for driving alone in a carpool lane is about $270. If you're in enough hurry during the morning/evening commute, putting a dummy in the car with you might seem like a good investment.
I take it that neither you nor the moderator who modded you Insightful bothered to RTFM. If either of you had, you'd know that you're being asked to look at one, specific constellation and find out how much of it you can see. You're not being asked to enter an exact count of stars, but a rating of darkness.
To be a little more clear, if you can only find one or two stars of the constellation, you give it a 1; if you can find the main stars, a 2, and so on, up to the highest rating, which represents "too many stars to count." This might not sound accurate, but it's enough for what they're trying to do, which is get a good idea of how dark the night sky is in various parts of the world.
That may not be what yo meant, but it's how I read it. And, I might add, it's not that old people "refuse to give up" the old tongue, it's that even if they mostly use a new language, they still remember the old one even though nobody else is interested in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what would really happen if you tried to cross a pair of proton streams? Nothing, because protons have a positive charge, and like charges repel each other. There's no way you could make them cross, no matter how hard you tried. Of course, what chance does Real World Physics have when it comes against a Hollywood Screenwriter?
That was Bill Gates, and if he ever played that game he probably understood what a Boss key was for before he started playing.
BTW, I remember hearing, once, of a game with a Boss key that brought up a working word processor. You could work on a business letter while your boss was looking, then save your work and go back to your game when he was gone. Neat!
That's only half the problem. Most slashdotters stay away from those sites just in case their mom comes down to the basement at the wrong time and gets a good look at what's on the screen.
In Soviet Russia, memes don't find Slashdot regulars funny.
Why bother? Just save the page to a file and read the file. Let's see them stop that with Javascript!
If I were a judge and one of those arrogant gits came before me, they'd be given jail time, not a fine, and that's something they would care about! Not only that, I'd pull their license if possible and that would really rain on their parade. Alas, I don't know how much leeway the judges have.
You don't understand what I meant: nullification wasn't so much the cause of Repeal, it was one of the symptoms of the public dislike of Prohibition that lead to Repeal. Prohibition got so unpopular that up to 60% of the people tried under the Volstand act were acquitted regardless of the evidence. This sent a great big message to lawmakers that the public didn't like Prohibition and didn't want it. That was one of the factors leading to Repeal.
Jury nullification isn't always used compassionately. There was a time when it was regularly used in the Old South to acquit whites accused of murdering "colored folk."
No one, single case of jury nullification is, or can be a referendum on whether or not a law is enforced. However, if enough juries refuse to convict similar cases, that's the effect. Prosecutors get very reluctant to press charges when there's a good chance that the jury will refuse to convict. It doesn't happen often, but laws have changed because of repeated nullification. The best case, of course, was how repeated refusals to convict violations of the Volstad Act helped bring about the end of Prohibition.
Yes, having those songs on the shared part of her hard drive is evidence that she was willing to have people download them, but not proof that anybody actually did so. If I were on that jury, and the judges instructions were that I should only find for the plaintiff if I believed that the songs had been downloaded, I'd have had to find for the defendant. Granted they might have been, but I'm not going to vote on a might have, only a probably. YMMV, and that jury's clearly did.
Yes, you're right. It's called "preponderance of evidence." Still, the juror seemed (to me) to be saying that he'd have believed that people had downloaded the files even without proof. Doesn't sound that impartial to me, but YMMV.
That's called "jury nullification" and judges hate it because there's not a damned thing they can do about it. In fact, attorneys are forbidden to mention the concept in their arguments. If the jury in this case had decided to do that, the RIAA would have had no grounds for appeal, because the jury is the *only* arbiter of fact. You can appeal decisions of the judge, but not the actual jury decision. IANAL and all that, but that's how I understand it.
In TFA, the juror says that they'd still have come to the same verdict if the RIAA had had to prove that somebody'd downloaded the files. TFA also says that the jury was shown that 3,000,000 people were on Kazaa while her hard drive was shared, but there's no mention of their showing that anybody actually took advantage of the offer. I'm sure that if there had been any proof the files were downloaded, it would have been produced in court, so that means that they have no such proof. And yet, the jury would have come to the same conclusion. Fair? Impartial? I don't think so.
Many of Saturn's moons are probably captured asteroids, and have highly eccentric orbits. For various reasons, it's a lot easier for a body to be captured into a retrograde orbit, going "the wrong way."
Just to keep getting modded off-topic, I'd like to point out that blocking all access to Wikipedia is a tad heavy-handed. Forbidding them to edit entries on the job should have been enough.
When I first saw this, by first thought was, "Yes, Pinkie, but who would want it?"
As is Win98SE. That's what I use when I'm not using a real OS.
Type II diabetes can be caused by many things. Mine was possibly caused by Agent Orange. It's controlled by diet, blood sugar monitoring and oral medicines, such as Glypizide and Metformin. Part of Type II is insulin resistance, meaning that your cells don't react as well as they should to whatever insulin is present and causing your body to make more isn't the only, or even best answer. Better is something that increases your body's reaction to the insulin they have, and drugs such as Metformin already do that.
Neither. And, I'm not a lawyer or paralegal either. I do, however, understand how the law works and that trying to limit the carpool lane to cars with two or more licensed drivers would create a horrible enforcement problem. (See the other responses to my post for a better explanation of this issue.)
That's not how the law is written, it just says that you must have two or more people in the car. Now, if you want to change it to "two or more licensed drivers," that's another issue, and opens up a nasty can of worms about enforcement.
I don't know about anybody else, but I first saw the headline as reading that drivers were being scammed by IR cameras, not scanned. Then, of course, when I read the summary, I found out that for all practical purposes, I was right.
In Los Angeles, at least, carpool lanes don't mean less lanes for everybody else. They've widened the freeways so that there are as many open lanes as before, plus carpool lanes in the middle. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but LA, at least, did it right.
Here in Los Angeles, the fine for driving alone in a carpool lane is about $270. If you're in enough hurry during the morning/evening commute, putting a dummy in the car with you might seem like a good investment.
Are you saying, then, that a parent and child don't qualify for "two or more people" in the car? When did minors stop being people?
To be a little more clear, if you can only find one or two stars of the constellation, you give it a 1; if you can find the main stars, a 2, and so on, up to the highest rating, which represents "too many stars to count." This might not sound accurate, but it's enough for what they're trying to do, which is get a good idea of how dark the night sky is in various parts of the world.
That may not be what yo meant, but it's how I read it. And, I might add, it's not that old people "refuse to give up" the old tongue, it's that even if they mostly use a new language, they still remember the old one even though nobody else is interested in it.