Sounds like they bought a lemon. A rebooting, bluescreening, page swapping, farting, Microsoft LEMON !!! A system that needs to be "downed" regularly and switches itself off to avoid "data overload"
They may have bought a bad system, but downing a system regularly under controlled circumstances to force the backup to come up is a common procedure to test that the backup system still works. In fact, it's foolish to not do this on any system important enough to have a backup.
Actually, making antimatter *can* be a net plus in energy. Synthesizing the antimatter out of thin air takes MC^2 energy, but reacting it with matter releases 2*MC^2 -- you don't need to synthesize the regular matter, but you still get the energy from reacting it!
To my knowledge, it is theorectically impossible to synthesize antimatter without creating an equal amount of matter.
Not really. The bills were put into a microwave oven in a stack, meaning that when one bill in the center of the stack ignites, they all ignite in exactly the same spot. If you look at the picture of all the bills, you'll notice that the burning is hardly uniform, and that it's pretty obvious which bills were in the middle and which on the top or bottom of the stack, based on the amount of burning.
What this really shows is that putting a large wad of cloth (which is what paper money is really made of) in the microwave is a great way to start a fire.
The top of the line should cost around 200-300, and the midranges should be in the 100-150 range, and budgets below 100. This is plain ridiculous...
As Abe Simpson said: Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.
Face it, things cost more than they used to. It doesn't cost a nickel to take the ferry, and top-of-the-line graphics cards cost more than $300.
I wonder what the RIAA/MPAA will have to say about this...will they require that the streams be encrypted?
I haven't been keeping up with wireless security. Does 802.11g have a better security standard than WEP, which turned out to be trival to crack? If not, will the RIAA or MPAA mandate security without realizing that standard wireless security is a joke?
No, I do remember the article, and the peer-to-peer nature of Grokster is one of the key reasons it won where Napster lost. Spoofing Caller-Id through a central web site is much closer to the Napster model. Besides, being an accessory to wire fraud used to be a much more serious charge than accessory to copyright infringement.
I get really suspicious when I read "Proprietary engineering creates a temperature drop proven to reduce the I.C. Can's(TM) contents by a minimum of 30 Fahrenheit", because this is an extremely convoluted (and grammatically incorrect) way of saying "The I.C. Can will cool your drink by at least 30 degrees F".
The next sentence ("When activated, the all natural desiccant contained within a vacuum draws the heat from the beverage through the evaporator into an insulated heat-sink container") is meaningless technobabble. Desiccants are used to absorb moisture, not heat transfer, and the rest of the sentence makes even less sense.
This isn't to say that the can won't work, it's just that the technical details of this press release are meaningless technical-sounding words strung together, which is the kind of thing I generally see from pseudo-science scam artists and deluded perpertual-motion peddlers.
There are morce choice than just two parties. The problem is that most people don't vote for 3rd party candidates, thus we have "I'm voting for Bush because I'm a conservative" and "I'm voting for Kerry because he's not Bush" groups. I don't really blame the government for it, I blame the voters for putting the same usual people into the offices no matter what.
Tell ya what. As soon as a voting system is implimented that doesn't punish me for voting third party, I'll consider it. But as long as I only get one vote, I have to be very selective about who I vote for. If I really dislike one of the two major candidates, my only rational choice is to vote for the other candidate, so long as he is marginally better.
That all said, a sandbox environment allows the developer to make sloppy mistakes, not program better.
The point isn't to allow anyone to program better, but to protect the user from the sloppy mistakes that already happen regardless of the programming environment.
But I seriously doubt this case has any merit from the POV of a judge (yes, I did RTFA). Free speech simply does not apply to using someone else's copyrighted work, and the U.S. Congress has the Constitutional authority to make copyright laws. The laws may be burdensome and unfair, but that's Congress's responsibilty, not the courts, and if you've studied the recent history of the Supreme Court, you know that they're not going to interfere with something that is indisputably within Congress's authority under the Constitution, regardless of its burden on society, because the court does not make laws, it simply interprets them.
The resources spent on this would be far better spent on other courses of action, like lobbying or a public education campaign. This is just expensive windmill-tilting.
The results are troubling, with ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time."
What is troubling about the ISP's acting as private investigators? That would indicate that they are informing themselves of the facts before making a decision. It's only troubling when they don't act as private investigators.
We're not giving up anything now. We gave up our freedoms when we decided that it was not treason of the highest order, and certainly worthy of kicking someone out of office next election, to make law in the US via treaty.
Yes, we did give up our freedoms when we ratified the US Consitution. That document has given us nothing but trouble.
And this is to say what? That corporate human resources "professionals" know anything about software development? I suppose the next thing they'll believe is that programmers who learned to program in school know anything about programming.
RTFA. And, while you're at it, look up the word sarcasm.
What a complete load of crap.
If you can afford to lease a car, you can afford to buy a car. You may not be able to afford the $40-60K SUV of your dreams, but you can certainly afford to buy decent transportation.
No, you are full of crap, you fucking idiot coward. Very few people have the $15k in disposable funds necessary to buy a new car outright. Most people rely on loans when buying new cars. And, in terms of monthly payments, car loans cost more than leases for the same down payment.
I'm constantly amazed by how popular auto leasing is in this country, and how many people are thereby effectively carrying car payments in perpetuity. With that in mind, I think your prognosis is iffy at best.
People don't actually like to lease cars. They do it because almost nobody can afford to buy a new car outright, and the lease can be a lot cheaper in the short-term than a car loan, and either way they end up carrying car payments in perpetuity.
Would you give up all your civil liberties for one day--if it meant that no one would ever get raped or murdered again?
How about for one year? How about the rest of your life?
First of all, you're not asking me to give up only my civil liberties, you're asking me to give up everyone else's civil liberties as well.
More to the point, I would not give up my civil liberties for the rest of my life if it meant that no one would ever get raped or murdered again, so I'm definitely not going to ask society in general for the same thing.
Actually, if you read the article that you just linked, it does a very good job of explaining why the Hindenburg fire was not a hydrogen explosion (especially on page 3).
Under different circumstances, this could have worked really well for Microsoft. Specifically, had "windows" not been a generic computer interface term in 1985, this ruling would have been disasterous for Lindows (and all non-Microsoft GUI makers who use the term "window"). This ruling basically stated that the jury could not have considered any trademark damage caused by the "genericizing" of the term since MS Windows was first released. This ruling was as pro-Microsoft as logically possible within the framework of Trademark law. (yeah, I know, law and logic just don't mix).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The bills were put into a microwave oven in a stack, meaning that when one bill in the center of the stack ignites, they all ignite in exactly the same spot. If you look at the picture of all the bills, you'll notice that the burning is hardly uniform, and that it's pretty obvious which bills were in the middle and which on the top or bottom of the stack, based on the amount of burning.
What this really shows is that putting a large wad of cloth (which is what paper money is really made of) in the microwave is a great way to start a fire.
As Abe Simpson said: Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.
Face it, things cost more than they used to. It doesn't cost a nickel to take the ferry, and top-of-the-line graphics cards cost more than $300.
No odder than a self-proclaimed mother posting to /. in the first place.
All we need to do is block emails from anyone using SPF or SID.
No, I do remember the article, and the peer-to-peer nature of Grokster is one of the key reasons it won where Napster lost. Spoofing Caller-Id through a central web site is much closer to the Napster model. Besides, being an accessory to wire fraud used to be a much more serious charge than accessory to copyright infringement.
I get really suspicious when I read "Proprietary engineering creates a temperature drop proven to reduce the I.C. Can's(TM) contents by a minimum of 30 Fahrenheit", because this is an extremely convoluted (and grammatically incorrect) way of saying "The I.C. Can will cool your drink by at least 30 degrees F".
The next sentence ("When activated, the all natural desiccant contained within a vacuum draws the heat from the beverage through the evaporator into an insulated heat-sink container") is meaningless technobabble. Desiccants are used to absorb moisture, not heat transfer, and the rest of the sentence makes even less sense.
This isn't to say that the can won't work, it's just that the technical details of this press release are meaningless technical-sounding words strung together, which is the kind of thing I generally see from pseudo-science scam artists and deluded perpertual-motion peddlers.
Is finally being listed in the cast. I've always thought Book was one of the more interesting characters of the show.
But I seriously doubt this case has any merit from the POV of a judge (yes, I did RTFA). Free speech simply does not apply to using someone else's copyrighted work, and the U.S. Congress has the Constitutional authority to make copyright laws. The laws may be burdensome and unfair, but that's Congress's responsibilty, not the courts, and if you've studied the recent history of the Supreme Court, you know that they're not going to interfere with something that is indisputably within Congress's authority under the Constitution, regardless of its burden on society, because the court does not make laws, it simply interprets them.
The resources spent on this would be far better spent on other courses of action, like lobbying or a public education campaign. This is just expensive windmill-tilting.
But Alex Lifeson is a member of Rush!
Oh, wait....
People don't actually like to lease cars. They do it because almost nobody can afford to buy a new car outright, and the lease can be a lot cheaper in the short-term than a car loan, and either way they end up carrying car payments in perpetuity.
First of all, you're not asking me to give up only my civil liberties, you're asking me to give up everyone else's civil liberties as well.
More to the point, I would not give up my civil liberties for the rest of my life if it meant that no one would ever get raped or murdered again, so I'm definitely not going to ask society in general for the same thing.
Actually, if you read the article that you just linked, it does a very good job of explaining why the Hindenburg fire was not a hydrogen explosion (especially on page 3).
Under different circumstances, this could have worked really well for Microsoft. Specifically, had "windows" not been a generic computer interface term in 1985, this ruling would have been disasterous for Lindows (and all non-Microsoft GUI makers who use the term "window"). This ruling basically stated that the jury could not have considered any trademark damage caused by the "genericizing" of the term since MS Windows was first released. This ruling was as pro-Microsoft as logically possible within the framework of Trademark law. (yeah, I know, law and logic just don't mix).