I have noticed too, that Acrobat 6.x is a bad player. Good thing I still have a copy of 5.x, which I don't recall ever having these types of serious problems, although it too had some issues. However, generally, I can just shut down acrobat's process, and mozilla 1.6 will actually reload it just fine. (Of course, I'm only running 2-4 windows with no more than 16 tabs total, on a 1GB machine, if that makes a difference.)
BTW, when acrobat appears to lock the system, don't do anything other than kill the process (the system isn't actually locked, acrobat is just hogging resources). Then everything is good again (minus most likely, a potential acrobat memory leak which I've not yet really witnessed, avoiding PDFs as much as possible to begin with).
MS works by defacto standards, since they're a monopoly, anything they say is a standard generally is, or at least appears to be. As for them "complying" with their own standards, perhaps you're missing the point. They most likely don't want to "comply", as they're pushing the next version of whatever at $100+ a copy. It doesn't make business sense for them to "comply".
Why would I pay for something I don't even download for free? The abysmal quality of the generally shared (legal or illegal) music files only takes one or two listens before you'd rather go listen to a Mariah Cary CD.
Even the MP3s/OGGs I've created myself at the highest quality levels possible are still noticably shy of true CD quality in many cases, and that level of quality is rarely available via downloads. The only reason to have them is to carry large amounts around with you, to play on largely sub-standard audio equipment (even my car audio shows the shortcomings of some of these files, but the lure of 100+ songs on a CD for a 4 hour trip and the high background noise of freeway travel make this choice acceptable). Now if they only made a car DVD player that played WAVs....
Interesting things some people get paid to do. However, the entire question becomes one of initial conditions. If the initial conditions are the same, then the answer should be statistically pre-determined. However, bread falling off the counter encounters many different initial conditions in practice, and I'd have to do the calculations for that, for which I do not have sufficient time. (The calculations would allow for rapid determination of what initial conditions will more likely lead to which outcome.)
I would have to see the actual study before commenting on its accurracy.
it may initially hit on edge, but then it'll flip over one way or another. If the assumption is that it slid off the counter slowly enough that part was suspended by the counter, the rotational inertia will cause the butter side to hit the floor.
when the first round of this tech is widely adopted and hacked. Something about it sounds just too good to be true... and you know that adage - it generally is. It'll definitely be too good for the first hacker to figure it out.
Actually, there's a better answer to the butter side down issue, but I'd like a grant to study it please.
The possible correct answer appears obvious once you think about it. The butter side is heavier, and hence, drag will inevitably send your toast butter side down onto the floor. This is how darts, paper planes, etc work. The heavier, less drag resistant portion of the structure leads the rest. FYI, parachutes work on the same principal - heavy less drag resistant object (usually a human) leads the parachute (light, big drag resistance) downward.
With coins, statistics will dictate that at any point, one side or the other will be more common than the other, the exact equilibrium (50-50) is actually going to be a more rare occurrance.
(The obligatory IANAL) I believe the ruling listed that while you could yell it, your "right to free speech" did not free you from the consequences of your action, including those resulting from govermental action (ie, punishment from enforcement of a law stating you could not yell it). There was a whole lot of additional issues associated witht hat decision, including the main issues of whether the free speech was a false statement intend to incite harm (I'm too busy to look up the exact quote, sorry). I did discover today already that the corporate free speech case in CA was settled out of court, so the issue of corporate free speech falls back to the Edison Consolidated case, which claims corporate speech as equivalent to individual speech, and hence covered. However, that also leaves them vulnerable to the same laws regulating individual free speech, so.... see point #1. (Links provided in other posting.)
Actually, I don't believe there is a guaranteed free speech right for companies in the US either. The Constitution guarantees it for individuals, specifically. There was much ado about this very topic just a few years ago, whether companies have "free speech" rights as well. So far, it is undecided although heading into a negatively impacting direction from what I recall about these cases (sorry, no links, just memory).
How about that for a movie? Magician itself could be a 1 or 2 parter, and the remaining 2 books in the trilogy could also be done as a set, since Magician pretty much stands on its own. And, then there are additional sequels that could be done...
Wait - a money making fantasy series....And you could have a whole new slew of special effects, as I recall there were some serious battle scenes in that story as well, which much more concentrated magic (ie, big splashy fireball type effects, morhping, etc).
Re:(Godfather Voice) Don't forget about the family
on
DIY HVAC
·
· Score: 1
If remote issues are you problem, get the (ahem) Sony programmable remote. The interface is fully programmable, so you don't have to teach anyone anything. Of course, this is a $300 or so remote....
I too find it amazing that the third RotK did not get nominated for cinematography.
As for the actor nominations, that does not surprise me all that much. You have a sweeping epic story with a humongous cast. Just, exactly, which character carries the story? None. They're really almost all supporting actors, and each one has a smaller part of the whole. (with the exception of Frodo, who it could be argued resembles a lead character, at least in relation to Sam...). Or, I suppose, you could argue there are something like 12 lead actors/actresses. Either way, I don't see how you could select just one when all were so good.
The only thing that bugs me is that it didn't beat out Titanic in total wins or noms. While I liked Titanic (I'll admit it, I thought it very well done) I believe that movie pales significantly compared to the incredible trilogy Peter Jackson produced. (Actually, most do). And something should be said about Ben-Hur's achievement here as well, it won at a time when there were significantly fewer categories, which is something that should not be forgotten.
There's always the counter example to unbridled free speech in the form of the "falsely yelling fire in the theatre" rule.
Free speech rules come with some common sense restrictions, which are that it can be restricted in cases where it is shown to be both false and solely intended to harm others. SCO appears to meet both criteria.
JFC everyone knows about. I wonder if open sourcing it would either give us the performance of SWT within JFC, or give us JFCII, with even better performance and RAD tools than for either of the current solutions. If so, this could be a huge boon for java, and pretty much nip any "advantage" currently touted by MS.
Umm, that would only hold true in the industrialized world, and then only portions of it. Other portions of the world would be slammed hard, especially those more overcrowded in the third world, where sanitation and overcrowding would cause a 1918 type plague to sweep through the population with extreme rapidity.
I am afraid for the whole Human Race. How do we prepare for this or prevent this?
By moving onto other worlds? Seriously, plagues have only been common worldwide when travel times became less than incubation times. Plagues were much easier to control, or were much more limitted in scope when the incubation times were significantly less than travel time. (Obvious in retrospect) So spreading the human race out might be a good idea...
While I agree, I think it would be better if judges (or special panels of judges or a system like a grand jury) were allowed to summarily dismiss a case with prejudice if the initial paperwork was seriously hokey or the suit was just plain against common sense. With such a system, you could still file your suit, but then it would be under loser pays, as the plaintiff already has strike one against him. This would discourage bad or hokey suits, and wouldn't cost the defendents near as much.
Personally, while the story concentrated on the victims, it had the opposite effect on me. I sided with IBM even while reading this story, despite the 1 or 2 lightly vieled attempts to paint IBM guilty by blatant assertions. (namely, IBM knew their workers had higher rates of cancer and other diseases). Just when, exactly, was IBM aware of this? It couldn't have been during the time in question, because they were just exposing their workers to these chemicals, so there was no history to make judgements by regarding safety.
Basically, this is just bad luck for the employees. If they'd won, you'd next be hearing about dead bungee jumpers' families suing bungee cord makers, because the victim misjudged the height vs length of the cord. (I'm sure this has already been attempted in our litiguous society that wants to blame anyone with deep pockets for their own stupidity)
If I, as a company, in good faith comply with all known legal requirements, and take as many steps as possible for worker safety, should I be held liable years later when something turns out to have been bad for my workers?
Take micro waves. They weren't known to cause problems, and initially micro wave ovens showed up everywhere in convenience stores. Then, low and behold, pace makers were found to be affected. Now, before that finding, should anyone injured by this mechanism be able to sue and hold liable whomever was involved, no matter how tenuously, for an unknown side-effect? I say no. This case's verdict confirms this concept, and to me is a just verdict.
A counter example is the tabacco industry, which withheld information on the extent of the damaging properties of its products from the general populace while continuing to strongly market its products. This is malicious negligence (IANAL FYI) and to my sense of justice should carry a penalty. And look, they were penalized, and this is another example of justice being served.
Lastly, I don't think these verdicts are necessarily pro-business, or anti-business, but merely necessary verdicts to enable people and companies to do business in this country. If every injured party was able to reap big verdicts over every little "injustice" or injury, then our business climate would be so terrible that no company would stay in the US for fear of being sued out of existance for something they could not have foreseen.
Take asbestos for instance, there was a product that no one knew would cause the problems it did later. In my opinion, I think the verdicts have been too far reaching, even hitting companies that bought bankrupt companies for their equipment (wish I still had a link to that story, was on cnn about 4 or 5 months ago). That's too far imo.
They claim they "frequently had hard drive coating chemicals soak through her bunny suit and stain her skin and was forced to hold her breath to avoid inhaling strong odors emitted by chemicals she used daily"
Umm, I don't know about you, but if I was effectively swimming in chemicals, I do believe I might have a few stronger words to my company than "oh, I'm ok, let's go back to swimming in chemicals". Especially considering all the news 30+ years ago about the effects of chemicals on people and the environment in general (DDT, Agent Orange, that morning sickness drug thiamolide(sp?)).
That's sort of like oil field workers or railroad workers suing because they lost a finger, hand, or limb because the company "didn't tell them" that the work was dangerous.
Evidently the could not prove the company was malicious in its actions towards them, which to me is the only criteria in this case that could have convinced me that IBM should have lost. Let's hear it for a just verdict, for once, even if it seems the "little folks" got the short end of the stick (they didn't, they just didn't get to soak the company imho).
Wow, nice bit of model making and 15 minutes.
on
Borg Cube Case
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's a true bit of artistry. Kudos. As for a waste of time, what constructive thing have those stating it's a waste of time done with their last spare 250 hours? This guy at least has created something he likes, and gotten a good number of people to view and speak about.
He might even get more than his 15 minutes of pseudo fame out of it. Not shabby for a spare 250 hours of effort.
Technology doesn't cause me stress, directly. Computers are great, networks make life fun, DBs make finding things easier, etc.
Stress causing things are a computer that dies right in the middle of a task someone else demands I get done yesterday, networks going down when someone requires an electronic submission, DBs failing to have the information I know exists which is required by someone for some reason, etc
Things such as technology enabling world-wide cheap communication do not cause me stress. Executives determining that gee, world-wide cheap communication allows me to get someone in some artificially lowered salary country to do my job causes me stress.
Basically, it's what's done with technology that causes stress, not the technology itself. Even nuclear weapons are not a reason for stress, but rather the unstable individuals that might be able to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
I have noticed too, that Acrobat 6.x is a bad player. Good thing I still have a copy of 5.x, which I don't recall ever having these types of serious problems, although it too had some issues. However, generally, I can just shut down acrobat's process, and mozilla 1.6 will actually reload it just fine. (Of course, I'm only running 2-4 windows with no more than 16 tabs total, on a 1GB machine, if that makes a difference.)
BTW, when acrobat appears to lock the system, don't do anything other than kill the process (the system isn't actually locked, acrobat is just hogging resources). Then everything is good again (minus most likely, a potential acrobat memory leak which I've not yet really witnessed, avoiding PDFs as much as possible to begin with).
MS works by defacto standards, since they're a monopoly, anything they say is a standard generally is, or at least appears to be. As for them "complying" with their own standards, perhaps you're missing the point. They most likely don't want to "comply", as they're pushing the next version of whatever at $100+ a copy. It doesn't make business sense for them to "comply".
Why would I pay for something I don't even download for free? The abysmal quality of the generally shared (legal or illegal) music files only takes one or two listens before you'd rather go listen to a Mariah Cary CD.
Even the MP3s/OGGs I've created myself at the highest quality levels possible are still noticably shy of true CD quality in many cases, and that level of quality is rarely available via downloads. The only reason to have them is to carry large amounts around with you, to play on largely sub-standard audio equipment (even my car audio shows the shortcomings of some of these files, but the lure of 100+ songs on a CD for a 4 hour trip and the high background noise of freeway travel make this choice acceptable). Now if they only made a car DVD player that played WAVs....
Interesting things some people get paid to do. However, the entire question becomes one of initial conditions. If the initial conditions are the same, then the answer should be statistically pre-determined. However, bread falling off the counter encounters many different initial conditions in practice, and I'd have to do the calculations for that, for which I do not have sufficient time. (The calculations would allow for rapid determination of what initial conditions will more likely lead to which outcome.)
I would have to see the actual study before commenting on its accurracy.
it may initially hit on edge, but then it'll flip over one way or another. If the assumption is that it slid off the counter slowly enough that part was suspended by the counter, the rotational inertia will cause the butter side to hit the floor.
when the first round of this tech is widely adopted and hacked. Something about it sounds just too good to be true... and you know that adage - it generally is. It'll definitely be too good for the first hacker to figure it out.
Actually, there's a better answer to the butter side down issue, but I'd like a grant to study it please.
The possible correct answer appears obvious once you think about it. The butter side is heavier, and hence, drag will inevitably send your toast butter side down onto the floor. This is how darts, paper planes, etc work. The heavier, less drag resistant portion of the structure leads the rest. FYI, parachutes work on the same principal - heavy less drag resistant object (usually a human) leads the parachute (light, big drag resistance) downward.
With coins, statistics will dictate that at any point, one side or the other will be more common than the other, the exact equilibrium (50-50) is actually going to be a more rare occurrance.
Yes, I had too much time this morning!(The obligatory IANAL) I believe the ruling listed that while you could yell it, your "right to free speech" did not free you from the consequences of your action, including those resulting from govermental action (ie, punishment from enforcement of a law stating you could not yell it). There was a whole lot of additional issues associated witht hat decision, including the main issues of whether the free speech was a false statement intend to incite harm (I'm too busy to look up the exact quote, sorry). I did discover today already that the corporate free speech case in CA was settled out of court, so the issue of corporate free speech falls back to the Edison Consolidated case, which claims corporate speech as equivalent to individual speech, and hence covered. However, that also leaves them vulnerable to the same laws regulating individual free speech, so.... see point #1. (Links provided in other posting.)
Case I recall, which was settled out of court, so it didn't go anywhere potentially biased site
This appears to be the only applying case law I could find: Consolidated Edison
Thanks for the info, I'm looking for a new remote to work with my new AV receiver (the included remote is rather humungous and unwieldy).
Actually, I don't believe there is a guaranteed free speech right for companies in the US either. The Constitution guarantees it for individuals, specifically. There was much ado about this very topic just a few years ago, whether companies have "free speech" rights as well. So far, it is undecided although heading into a negatively impacting direction from what I recall about these cases (sorry, no links, just memory).
How about that for a movie? Magician itself could be a 1 or 2 parter, and the remaining 2 books in the trilogy could also be done as a set, since Magician pretty much stands on its own. And, then there are additional sequels that could be done...
Wait - a money making fantasy series....And you could have a whole new slew of special effects, as I recall there were some serious battle scenes in that story as well, which much more concentrated magic (ie, big splashy fireball type effects, morhping, etc).
If remote issues are you problem, get the (ahem) Sony programmable remote. The interface is fully programmable, so you don't have to teach anyone anything. Of course, this is a $300 or so remote....
I too find it amazing that the third RotK did not get nominated for cinematography.
As for the actor nominations, that does not surprise me all that much. You have a sweeping epic story with a humongous cast. Just, exactly, which character carries the story? None. They're really almost all supporting actors, and each one has a smaller part of the whole. (with the exception of Frodo, who it could be argued resembles a lead character, at least in relation to Sam...). Or, I suppose, you could argue there are something like 12 lead actors/actresses. Either way, I don't see how you could select just one when all were so good.
The only thing that bugs me is that it didn't beat out Titanic in total wins or noms. While I liked Titanic (I'll admit it, I thought it very well done) I believe that movie pales significantly compared to the incredible trilogy Peter Jackson produced. (Actually, most do). And something should be said about Ben-Hur's achievement here as well, it won at a time when there were significantly fewer categories, which is something that should not be forgotten.
There's always the counter example to unbridled free speech in the form of the "falsely yelling fire in the theatre" rule.
Free speech rules come with some common sense restrictions, which are that it can be restricted in cases where it is shown to be both false and solely intended to harm others. SCO appears to meet both criteria.
JFC everyone knows about. I wonder if open sourcing it would either give us the performance of SWT within JFC, or give us JFCII, with even better performance and RAD tools than for either of the current solutions. If so, this could be a huge boon for java, and pretty much nip any "advantage" currently touted by MS.
Umm, that would only hold true in the industrialized world, and then only portions of it. Other portions of the world would be slammed hard, especially those more overcrowded in the third world, where sanitation and overcrowding would cause a 1918 type plague to sweep through the population with extreme rapidity.
While I agree, I think it would be better if judges (or special panels of judges or a system like a grand jury) were allowed to summarily dismiss a case with prejudice if the initial paperwork was seriously hokey or the suit was just plain against common sense. With such a system, you could still file your suit, but then it would be under loser pays, as the plaintiff already has strike one against him. This would discourage bad or hokey suits, and wouldn't cost the defendents near as much.
Personally, while the story concentrated on the victims, it had the opposite effect on me. I sided with IBM even while reading this story, despite the 1 or 2 lightly vieled attempts to paint IBM guilty by blatant assertions. (namely, IBM knew their workers had higher rates of cancer and other diseases). Just when, exactly, was IBM aware of this? It couldn't have been during the time in question, because they were just exposing their workers to these chemicals, so there was no history to make judgements by regarding safety.
Basically, this is just bad luck for the employees. If they'd won, you'd next be hearing about dead bungee jumpers' families suing bungee cord makers, because the victim misjudged the height vs length of the cord. (I'm sure this has already been attempted in our litiguous society that wants to blame anyone with deep pockets for their own stupidity)
If I, as a company, in good faith comply with all known legal requirements, and take as many steps as possible for worker safety, should I be held liable years later when something turns out to have been bad for my workers?
Take micro waves. They weren't known to cause problems, and initially micro wave ovens showed up everywhere in convenience stores. Then, low and behold, pace makers were found to be affected. Now, before that finding, should anyone injured by this mechanism be able to sue and hold liable whomever was involved, no matter how tenuously, for an unknown side-effect? I say no. This case's verdict confirms this concept, and to me is a just verdict.
A counter example is the tabacco industry, which withheld information on the extent of the damaging properties of its products from the general populace while continuing to strongly market its products. This is malicious negligence (IANAL FYI) and to my sense of justice should carry a penalty. And look, they were penalized, and this is another example of justice being served.
Lastly, I don't think these verdicts are necessarily pro-business, or anti-business, but merely necessary verdicts to enable people and companies to do business in this country. If every injured party was able to reap big verdicts over every little "injustice" or injury, then our business climate would be so terrible that no company would stay in the US for fear of being sued out of existance for something they could not have foreseen.
Take asbestos for instance, there was a product that no one knew would cause the problems it did later. In my opinion, I think the verdicts have been too far reaching, even hitting companies that bought bankrupt companies for their equipment (wish I still had a link to that story, was on cnn about 4 or 5 months ago). That's too far imo.
The main folks in the suit are 60+ years old....
They claim they "frequently had hard drive coating chemicals soak through her bunny suit and stain her skin and was forced to hold her breath to avoid inhaling strong odors emitted by chemicals she used daily"
Umm, I don't know about you, but if I was effectively swimming in chemicals, I do believe I might have a few stronger words to my company than "oh, I'm ok, let's go back to swimming in chemicals". Especially considering all the news 30+ years ago about the effects of chemicals on people and the environment in general (DDT, Agent Orange, that morning sickness drug thiamolide(sp?)).
That's sort of like oil field workers or railroad workers suing because they lost a finger, hand, or limb because the company "didn't tell them" that the work was dangerous.
Evidently the could not prove the company was malicious in its actions towards them, which to me is the only criteria in this case that could have convinced me that IBM should have lost. Let's hear it for a just verdict, for once, even if it seems the "little folks" got the short end of the stick (they didn't, they just didn't get to soak the company imho).
That's a true bit of artistry. Kudos. As for a waste of time, what constructive thing have those stating it's a waste of time done with their last spare 250 hours? This guy at least has created something he likes, and gotten a good number of people to view and speak about.
He might even get more than his 15 minutes of pseudo fame out of it. Not shabby for a spare 250 hours of effort.
Technology doesn't cause me stress, directly. Computers are great, networks make life fun, DBs make finding things easier, etc.
Stress causing things are a computer that dies right in the middle of a task someone else demands I get done yesterday, networks going down when someone requires an electronic submission, DBs failing to have the information I know exists which is required by someone for some reason, etc
Things such as technology enabling world-wide cheap communication do not cause me stress. Executives determining that gee, world-wide cheap communication allows me to get someone in some artificially lowered salary country to do my job causes me stress.
Basically, it's what's done with technology that causes stress, not the technology itself. Even nuclear weapons are not a reason for stress, but rather the unstable individuals that might be able to use them.