Wow, you sure have a nose for a bad deal. A froogle search shows that just about every other company besides the one you're linking to sells them for at least $150 less.
Something sitting still does not accelerate at 1g.
It has a force acting on it that would cause it to accelerate at 1g downward if it didn't have an equal and opposite force acting on it from the table it's resting on.
I suggest you and the moderators try paying attention in physics class next time instead of pretending you know what you're talking about.
And then others of us are annoyed at the laziness of people who don't bother to read the article summary, let alone the article, but still take the time to comment.
The issue is with the indexing of other sites that have infringed the plaintiff's copyright. I don't think they have a legitimate case against google, but your "solutions" address a problem that doesn't exist, ehich you'd know if you'd take the time to read. Maybe you should sue yourself for wasting everyone's time, since we can't sue you for it.
If the technology gets so good that offering blackjack is no longer profitable for the casinos, you can bet they'll just get rid of the blackjack tables altogether.
Do you really think Apple would lower their prices because demand for their products increased? Sure they'd be making more profit, but, umm, that's the whole point of running a business.
Another horrible analogy. Anyone can write code (the only skill required is typing, after all), just like anyone could cut someone open with a scalpel and fiddle with their organs.
It takes real skill to do either well. Granted, learning to practice medicine takes a lot more study and effort than learning to program well, and maybe even more innate talent. But to suggest that any random person could write a useful application is just dumb.
Yes, but software is a product. There's no real reason for coders not to produce a product and sell it when they can, except the philosophical reasons put for by FOSS advocates.
Besides, the scientific knowledge behind medical practice isn't really analagous to source code. Programmers don't keep language reference manuals, etc. secret, in the same way doctors don't keep medical knowledge secret. Some doctors choose to work for pharmaceutical companies that sell proprietary drugs, and some choose to perform a service for patients and charge the patients. The analogy to software breaks down here; selling proprietary software might be like selling proprietary drugs in some sense, but selling the service of writing software to one person and then giving away the product you produced for them to everyone else for free is nothing like selling the service of healing an individual. There's no leftover healing to give away. If there was, you can bet the doctors would sell it for as much as the market would bear.
That's what I meant. They all do have a screen to power, and it should be powered about as often as the screen on the point and shoot. i.e., the p&s screen isn't really intended to be used for composing your picture, either.
I've never heard of a DSLR that didn't have a screen on it. Someone might make one, but it seems unlikely.
The screens on digital cameras (both point and shoot and SLR) are best used for reviewing the pictures you've already taken, not as a viewfinder (which is a huge waste of battery power).
I did not notice the affiliate link until someone else pointed it out and you flamed them for it.
It seems sneaky and underhanded to me. How do I know they're not some huge spamhost that's going to get my site blacklisted, if I can assume that the only reason he'd recommend it is to get paid?
A disclosure would be nice, since they're recommending something they're going to personally profit from. Why should someone believe them that it's the best way to go?
What if the intruders are armed and a reasonable person would feel there was a threat they were going to be killed? I'm not exactly a European Law expert, but if there's no exception for self-defense then there's a serious problem with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you sure have a nose for a bad deal. A froogle search shows that just about every other company besides the one you're linking to sells them for at least $150 less.
It has a force acting on it that would cause it to accelerate at 1g downward if it didn't have an equal and opposite force acting on it from the table it's resting on.
I suggest you and the moderators try paying attention in physics class next time instead of pretending you know what you're talking about.
The issue is with the indexing of other sites that have infringed the plaintiff's copyright. I don't think they have a legitimate case against google, but your "solutions" address a problem that doesn't exist, ehich you'd know if you'd take the time to read. Maybe you should sue yourself for wasting everyone's time, since we can't sue you for it.
If the technology gets so good that offering blackjack is no longer profitable for the casinos, you can bet they'll just get rid of the blackjack tables altogether.
What did he do, type in random URLs and see if anyone of them mentioned RSS 3?
Troll or idiot, take your pick. Me, I'm working on RSS 4.0
"of any sort" might not be the phrase you're looking for.
Ever heard of Darwin?
The sad thing is, even Slashdot's editors apparently now think the Web and the Internet are the same thing.
Ooh, will you pay my legal bills when I release Microsoft Windows Longhorns and claim that trademark law is unconstitutional?
Do you also "keep forgetting" a bunch of other stuff you don't know about law, such as how defendants in a civil suit aren't indicted?
I've never come across a carpenter who could drive nails, cut boards, and turn table legs with a hammer.
They haven't made a single retail sale of an Intel-based Mac, and already you're announcing that the transition went "smoothly"?
Do you really think Apple would lower their prices because demand for their products increased? Sure they'd be making more profit, but, umm, that's the whole point of running a business.
"back during the gas crisis"? It's people driving their SUVs at 80 MPH that's causing the next gas crisis.
It takes real skill to do either well. Granted, learning to practice medicine takes a lot more study and effort than learning to program well, and maybe even more innate talent. But to suggest that any random person could write a useful application is just dumb.
Besides, the scientific knowledge behind medical practice isn't really analagous to source code. Programmers don't keep language reference manuals, etc. secret, in the same way doctors don't keep medical knowledge secret. Some doctors choose to work for pharmaceutical companies that sell proprietary drugs, and some choose to perform a service for patients and charge the patients. The analogy to software breaks down here; selling proprietary software might be like selling proprietary drugs in some sense, but selling the service of writing software to one person and then giving away the product you produced for them to everyone else for free is nothing like selling the service of healing an individual. There's no leftover healing to give away. If there was, you can bet the doctors would sell it for as much as the market would bear.
That's not really a very good analogy, unless you can download a free appendectomy.
Who gets to decide if someone should be allowed to better themselves through education, or whether anyone who wants to try should have an opportunity?
So I'll just use their Sendmail book as the textbook for my calculus course and fail horribly? Sounds useful. Thanks!
That's what I meant. They all do have a screen to power, and it should be powered about as often as the screen on the point and shoot. i.e., the p&s screen isn't really intended to be used for composing your picture, either.
ALthough I guess if no one would care if they died, no one would care if they changed their name, either.
The screens on digital cameras (both point and shoot and SLR) are best used for reviewing the pictures you've already taken, not as a viewfinder (which is a huge waste of battery power).
It seems sneaky and underhanded to me. How do I know they're not some huge spamhost that's going to get my site blacklisted, if I can assume that the only reason he'd recommend it is to get paid?
A disclosure would be nice, since they're recommending something they're going to personally profit from. Why should someone believe them that it's the best way to go?
What if the intruders are armed and a reasonable person would feel there was a threat they were going to be killed? I'm not exactly a European Law expert, but if there's no exception for self-defense then there's a serious problem with the law.