Which climate-change deniers are those? The ones who deny that the climate is changing, the ones who deny that it has always been changing or the ones who deny that the current change is mostly caused by human activity?
They haven't just named the star. Mira was named near the middle of the 17th century because its brightness varies so much. It and Algol are probably the first two variable stars discovered.
The prosecutor piles on 5-15 charges, so that if convicted, you'd fact 25-50 years in prison, but offers you a "deal" of 1 year in prison to "plead guilty."
This would be true if the sentences were to be served consecutively, but that almost never happens in the Real World. Multiple sentences are normally served concurrently, so that if you're found guilty of 25 different crimes, each with a 2 year term, you serve 2 years.
Oh,I knew what the poster was on about, I just wanted to point out that he was wrong about compounding a felony.
As far as plea bargaining goes, you're right in part; it does work like a dutch auction. How else would you expect it to go?
Remember, though, that unless the defendant is stupid enough to do without counsel, there's a lawyer present during negotiations to protect his interests and get him the best deal possible. It's not always a case of somebody cracking, often the lawyer doesn't expect to win in court and ends up persuading his client that this is the best deal he's ever going to get.
Innocent people don't agree to a plea bargain just because they can't afford a lawyer. They do so because lazy "public defenders" push them into it because it's easier than mounting a proper defense. From what I understand, the most common outcome when the defendant isn't guilty but doesn't think they can prove it is "No Contest." That is, they're accepting the punishment without actually admitting guilt. The plea is always negotiated, and has the advantage (for the defendant) that it can't be used against them in any civil case. Of course, IANAL, and my understanding could very easily be wrong.
Compounding a crime has nothing to do with plea bargaining. In almost all cases, the defendant could be considered to have committed several different crimes, with different penalties. A plea bargain is just a negotiation between the two sides as to which crime the defendant will plead guilty to and how great a penalty will be imposed.
Immunity from prosecution in return for testimony comes closer, of course, but in that case, the benefit is to the public, not to the prosecutor personally.
Only large companies with "market share" or a "brand name" are afforded the protection of software patents.
That's not how I read tis. A small software company has a brand name and a market share, just like the big boys, and that's just as entitled to protection. What this decision seems to say is that if you're not making use of a patent, you're not entitled to protect it. The US patent system is almost out of control and this might be a sign the courts are starting to do what's needed to get it back under control. If you can't enforce a patent that you're not even trying to use, patent trolling will come to an end. I suspect that without trolling there will be far, far fewer patent applications, because there won't be a reason to patent everything you can think of just on the off chance that somebody, sometime might infringe it.
Most of them wouldn't even know what you're talking about, because they don't know what a protocol is, and they don't care. Why should the? As long as it works they have no more need to know how their IM or email works than they know about how Windows works. (or doesn't, as the case may be)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Truman had the idea first. Also, please not that I don't claim that Reagan came up with the idea. He just recognized its merits when it was suggested to him.
Yes, it would be ironic, except for one thing: most of SDI was never built, so that money was never spent. I also seem to remember that we were running a surplus in those days, although I'll be the first to admit my memory might be wrong.
At the time, it wasn't obvious to people with open minds that it couldn't work. It was crafted to be within the bounds of possibility, even if unlikely. The idea was that the Soviets would say to themselves, "I don't think they can do that, but I'm not sure. All I know is that if they pull it off, they're safe and we're not." At that point, they had little choice but to try to copy it, even though there was no way they could have funded it.
You need to remember that no army ever limits its plans to what it thinks an enemy will do, they have to consider everything that enemy can do, even if it's unlikely. It's rather like in a trial, where the defense doesn't need to prove that the accused is innocent, just create a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Maybe we felt the need to "psych" the USSR with Star Wars (by wasting billions of dollars) because we fell for their ploy of appearing to be a worthy adversary, when in fact their economy was already circling the bowl.
Possible, of course, but I doubt it. The signs were there to be read, and my impression is that the citzen's advisory committee knew it. If nothing else, the regular crop failures that strangely stopped right at the boarder showed that their managed economy was being run into the ground by micromanagement.
The whole point of "wasting billions of dollars" was that by doing so we'd force the Soviets to do the same. We could afford to throw that money away, but they couldn't. And, as much of those funds went into research, were they really wasted?
You're entitled to your view of the process, and I'd never try to persuade you that you were wrong, or that I'm right. However, SDI was intended to break the USSR's economy and was sold to the president that way.
I happen to know several people who were on the citizen's committee that came up with the idea. The whole point was for it to look like something we just might be able to pull off so that the Soviet Union would have no choice but to try to copy it and bankrupt themselves in the process. You see, we could afford to build all that stuff, provided we could get it to work, but they couldn't. When they tried, it brought their creaky economy crashing down, and their government soon followed. Believe or not, I don't care, but the people I know who were involved in the planning all tell the same story.
But if they were slaves they would have done all the menial chores one expects a slave to do.
That would be true if they were common slaves, but the Tanach makes it clear that they were owned by the state and were put to work strictly on public works, specifically on building treasure cities, specifically Pithom and Raamses as you'll find in Exodus 1:11.
Unless the noise level is very high, hearing loss is gradual. Mine was probably caused by my ship's 5" gun in '72, but didn't show up enough to be a problem until last year. This isn't that unusual because the damage is gradual and cumulative. You've probably lost a little high frequency sensitivity already, but not enough to notice. Yet. Some day, you may find yourself wondering why everybody's mumbling and realize that you're now paying the price for those rock concerts.
I understand your reasoning, but don't agree with it. I expect the percentage of Americans with hearing loss to increase, for the reasons I gave. Having more programs to watch isn't going to change this, because the same percentage of the audience for each show will need captioning or other assistance.
As for remembering the ratings of the '60s and '70s, I'm a Nam vet; that means I remember what ratings were like in the '50s as well. Among other things, I was watching the night Lucy had her baby, the show with the highest percentage of all sets tuned in for any regular broadcast. Not bragging, mind you, just showing you a bit of my perspective.
There are two basic types of hearing loss. If the problem's mechanical (wax buildup, punctured ear drum, problems with auditory bones) it affects all frequencies the same, and a simple amplifier is all that's needed. The other type is nerve damage, and that affects different frequencies in different amounts. Generally, you find high pitches harder to hear than low ones, and most of what makes language understandable is the high parts. You need an amplifier that passes the low tones as is, and boosts the high ones. With my high-frequency loss, and my hearing aids out, I can often hear people speaking but can't make out the words.
Imagine listening to a talk-radio show with the woofer turned high, the tweeter low. You'll hear all the words, but you'll be surprised to find how hard it is to follow what's going on. Try it some time, and you'll see what I mean.
Most really don't care about the small segment of the marketplace.
It's getting bigger every year, and as time goes on, it's probably going to become an important minority. I've just recently developed high-frequency hearing loss, and my audiogram shows a typical "artilleryman's notch." Not surprising, considering the time I spent on the Gun Line back in '72. More and more 'Nam vets, Gulf War vets, and Iraq vets are going to be needing hearing aids as time goes by, and it's a good thing that the VA provides them! (FYI, the VA is the biggest purchaser of hearing aids in the US.)
But we're not the only ones who's hearing is being ruined by noise exposure, there's a lot of you out there who are doing it to yourselves. What do you think all those rock concerts are doing to your ears, and your boom-boxes set to 10? Your hearing might be fine now, but give it time and you'll be wanting closed captions just like the rest of us. I think having them on video clips (as an option) is a great idea, but I'd rather see it done voluntarily than by government fiat.
Slashdot Mirror
Which climate-change deniers are those? The ones who deny that the climate is changing, the ones who deny that it has always been changing or the ones who deny that the current change is mostly caused by human activity?
They haven't just named the star. Mira was named near the middle of the 17th century because its brightness varies so much. It and Algol are probably the first two variable stars discovered.
This would be true if the sentences were to be served consecutively, but that almost never happens in the Real World. Multiple sentences are normally served concurrently, so that if you're found guilty of 25 different crimes, each with a 2 year term, you serve 2 years.
As far as plea bargaining goes, you're right in part; it does work like a dutch auction. How else would you expect it to go?
Remember, though, that unless the defendant is stupid enough to do without counsel, there's a lawyer present during negotiations to protect his interests and get him the best deal possible. It's not always a case of somebody cracking, often the lawyer doesn't expect to win in court and ends up persuading his client that this is the best deal he's ever going to get.
Innocent people don't agree to a plea bargain just because they can't afford a lawyer. They do so because lazy "public defenders" push them into it because it's easier than mounting a proper defense. From what I understand, the most common outcome when the defendant isn't guilty but doesn't think they can prove it is "No Contest." That is, they're accepting the punishment without actually admitting guilt. The plea is always negotiated, and has the advantage (for the defendant) that it can't be used against them in any civil case. Of course, IANAL, and my understanding could very easily be wrong.
Immunity from prosecution in return for testimony comes closer, of course, but in that case, the benefit is to the public, not to the prosecutor personally.
That's not how I read tis. A small software company has a brand name and a market share, just like the big boys, and that's just as entitled to protection. What this decision seems to say is that if you're not making use of a patent, you're not entitled to protect it. The US patent system is almost out of control and this might be a sign the courts are starting to do what's needed to get it back under control. If you can't enforce a patent that you're not even trying to use, patent trolling will come to an end. I suspect that without trolling there will be far, far fewer patent applications, because there won't be a reason to patent everything you can think of just on the off chance that somebody, sometime might infringe it.
Oh, I doubt that. From what I understand, the one thing you don't do with a prostitute is sleep.
I'd have been willing to settle for Podkayne.
They were already using that in Shakespeare's time: "The Cat, the Rat and Lovel the Dog, rule all England under the Hog."
Most of them wouldn't even know what you're talking about, because they don't know what a protocol is, and they don't care. Why should the? As long as it works they have no more need to know how their IM or email works than they know about how Windows works. (or doesn't, as the case may be)
Of course not, because they've paid for their copies. Makes a difference, doncha know?
I think I speak for geeks everywhere when I say that I'd rather have the beautiful girl wooing me!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Truman had the idea first. Also, please not that I don't claim that Reagan came up with the idea. He just recognized its merits when it was suggested to him.
Yes, it would be ironic, except for one thing: most of SDI was never built, so that money was never spent. I also seem to remember that we were running a surplus in those days, although I'll be the first to admit my memory might be wrong.
You need to remember that no army ever limits its plans to what it thinks an enemy will do, they have to consider everything that enemy can do, even if it's unlikely. It's rather like in a trial, where the defense doesn't need to prove that the accused is innocent, just create a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Possible, of course, but I doubt it. The signs were there to be read, and my impression is that the citzen's advisory committee knew it. If nothing else, the regular crop failures that strangely stopped right at the boarder showed that their managed economy was being run into the ground by micromanagement.
The whole point of "wasting billions of dollars" was that by doing so we'd force the Soviets to do the same. We could afford to throw that money away, but they couldn't. And, as much of those funds went into research, were they really wasted?
You're entitled to your view of the process, and I'd never try to persuade you that you were wrong, or that I'm right. However, SDI was intended to break the USSR's economy and was sold to the president that way.
I happen to know several people who were on the citizen's committee that came up with the idea. The whole point was for it to look like something we just might be able to pull off so that the Soviet Union would have no choice but to try to copy it and bankrupt themselves in the process. You see, we could afford to build all that stuff, provided we could get it to work, but they couldn't. When they tried, it brought their creaky economy crashing down, and their government soon followed. Believe or not, I don't care, but the people I know who were involved in the planning all tell the same story.
That would be true if they were common slaves, but the Tanach makes it clear that they were owned by the state and were put to work strictly on public works, specifically on building treasure cities, specifically Pithom and Raamses as you'll find in Exodus 1:11.
If you're getting money orders, buy them at the Post Office. It's the lowest rate you'll find, often less than half of what a bank would charge.
Unless the noise level is very high, hearing loss is gradual. Mine was probably caused by my ship's 5" gun in '72, but didn't show up enough to be a problem until last year. This isn't that unusual because the damage is gradual and cumulative. You've probably lost a little high frequency sensitivity already, but not enough to notice. Yet. Some day, you may find yourself wondering why everybody's mumbling and realize that you're now paying the price for those rock concerts.
As for remembering the ratings of the '60s and '70s, I'm a Nam vet; that means I remember what ratings were like in the '50s as well. Among other things, I was watching the night Lucy had her baby, the show with the highest percentage of all sets tuned in for any regular broadcast. Not bragging, mind you, just showing you a bit of my perspective.
Imagine listening to a talk-radio show with the woofer turned high, the tweeter low. You'll hear all the words, but you'll be surprised to find how hard it is to follow what's going on. Try it some time, and you'll see what I mean.
It's getting bigger every year, and as time goes on, it's probably going to become an important minority. I've just recently developed high-frequency hearing loss, and my audiogram shows a typical "artilleryman's notch." Not surprising, considering the time I spent on the Gun Line back in '72. More and more 'Nam vets, Gulf War vets, and Iraq vets are going to be needing hearing aids as time goes by, and it's a good thing that the VA provides them! (FYI, the VA is the biggest purchaser of hearing aids in the US.)
But we're not the only ones who's hearing is being ruined by noise exposure, there's a lot of you out there who are doing it to yourselves. What do you think all those rock concerts are doing to your ears, and your boom-boxes set to 10? Your hearing might be fine now, but give it time and you'll be wanting closed captions just like the rest of us. I think having them on video clips (as an option) is a great idea, but I'd rather see it done voluntarily than by government fiat.