Alternatively, I hear you can pray in python now, though its significantly less responsive.
That tends to happen when you attempt to use a snake as your intermediary with God. Just be happy he doesn't get pissed off enough to toss your ass out on the street and foreclose on your home... assuming he hasn't.
Broadcast TV isn't free, it's just the currency isn't one you are trained to recognize as such, advertising. Why do you think broadcasters fight so hard to prevent PVR's from cutting out commercials, why even the companies that formed Hulu fought to keep it off Boxee. Because these things hurt their ad revenue. If you aren't willing to pay for broadcasting with your time and eyeballs in 'ad dollars' then eventually it'll either not be produced or it'll be paid for some other way. For instance, by the government, and by extension, under the government's watchful eye that nothing 'offensive' is produced. Or by you directly.
The real question is, what will the "real cost" when our current model of subsidizing unpopular channels under the guise of bundling them up with more popular ones, is replaced with an ala carte model.
No one, with realistic expectations, expects this to be free.
I do beleive the iron lung requires an actual living body to work. This simply requires living lungs. Hence, you know, the very first sentence in the summary "A new system that keeps lungs breathing outside the body"...
The question is however, is AmTrak failing because it's rail transport, or is it failing because it's Amtrak?
And more importantly, if we are subsidizing it, why not update it to where people might actually find it a valuable service and start using it.
Remember, for decades the main compeditor to the rail for passenger transport was the plane. Given the amount of hoopla going on these days in the airports, it truely unthinkable that folk needing to travel the country might choose a different carrier if it were avaliable and met their needs?
Ever live in a college dorm? Compatibility is not the main criteria in determining where you get assigned. You might be lucky and have the option to swap rooms with someone, but if you have a dipshit as a roommate and everyone knows it, it's hard to convince anyone to trade with you (unless they are of the opinion that they aren't going to ever be in the room).
And given the dorm room seemed to have been assigned to four people, if you get along with two and the third is a dipshit, do you move or do you try to make them move?
Yes it looks as if he might have pulled a prank on the roommate. Looks. That however is a far step from proving that was a crime, as the EFF's lawyer's motion explains.
You are missing the point. SP2 is secure because no one can hack it. No one can hack it, because it hasn't been released. Microsoft has finially discovered how to ensure their products are invunerable to hackers, simply never release anything.
I pray they will only roll this technology forward to all future product lines...
God, Chuck Norris, and Vin Diesel are kicking back in a bar when suddenly God exclaims: "Look!"
God snaps his fingers and immediately a completely new universe is formed, spinning, before them.
Chuck Norris, not wanting to be out done, says "So what! Watch this!" and delivers a devastating round house kick that completely annihilates the new universe.
The two go back and forth for a good ten minutes, each repeating their trick, attempting to outdo the other, when Vin Diesel abruptly grows tired of it all and exclaims: "Will the two of you fuck nuts cut it out?"
"Damn, I'm beginning to wish I never created either of you."
The actual quote and 'other evidence' are courtesy of the student's roommate, with whom he apparently doesn't get along with and had attempted to turn him in previously as having a stolen college laptop.
IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN, Mr. Gershengorn frequently represents clients in appellate matters at the Supreme Court of the United States and at the federal Courts of Appeals. He has represented numerous parties in Supreme Court merits cases, including the motion picture and recording industries in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster; NextWave Telecom Inc. in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc.; Kevin Wiggins in Wiggins v. Smith; Clarence Hill in Hill v. McDonough; Jeffrey Landrigan in Schriro v. Landrigan; and MCI in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC and AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board. He has also served as counsel of record in numerous amicus briefs before the Court, including a brief on behalf of the defense industry addressing government contracting practices, and a brief in connection with litigation over the Ten Commandments.
Mr. Gershengorn has an active Indian law practice, with particular emphasis on Supreme Court and appellate litigation. He was counsel of record in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, which he argued in October 2005. And he successfully argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Carcieri v. Norton, a case challenging the authority of the United States to take land into trust for Tribes. He has filed amicus briefs supporting the Tribes and tribal interests at the Supreme Court, including Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt; City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York; and Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony. He also successfully opposed certiorari in South Dakota v. Cummings, a case involving the authority of state officials in hot pursuit to arrest a tribal member on the reservation for a misdemeanor committed off the reservation.
Mr. Gershengorn has also represented an array of clients in litigation at the courts of appeals, including MCI, Inc. (formerly WorldCom, Inc.); the Association of American Railroads; the Recording Industry Association of America; NextWave Telecom Inc.; CTIA -- the Wireless Association; and the National Association of Broadcasters. He has argued numerous cases in the United States Courts of Appeals.
Mr. Gershengorn has also represented clients in a range of non-appellate litigation matters. Mr. Gershengorn represents, for example, Fannie Mae in its suit against its former auditor in connection with Fannie Mae's restatements of its financial statements. He also represented copyright holders in their copyright infringement litigation against Grokster, Ltd. Mr. Gershengorn also represented WorldCom Inc., in congressional investigations, in investigations by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, in merger filings at the Department of Justice, and in commercial litigation. He has also represented the National Association of Broadcasters before the Federal Communications Commission in issues including the constitutionality of mandatory cable carriage for the signals of broadcasters, and has represented NextWave Telecom Inc. in a variety of regulatory proceedings before the FCC.
Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.
Mr. Gershengorn is the author of "Lingering Uncertainty," National Law Journal (Aug. 3, 2005) (re
Linux doesn't want anything. It's not a being. In the immortal words of Newton Crosby:
It's a machine, Schroeder. It doesn't get pissed off, it doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes......IT JUST RUNS PROGRAMS!
Someone who does want something is the Linux Foundation. What do they want? World domination? A fat vendor contract?
How about, name recognition? I think this ad would work well enough to help with that, don't you?
And honestly, as good as I find the Red Hat and IBM ads, they were the same thing. They didn't "sell me" Linux and wouldn't have if I wasn't already sold. They simply raised the question, "What is Linux" in the minds of the people I knew who weren't already aware of it.
Agreed, And not being a Java developer I have no way of knowing the truth of whether Google did it the 'right' way or not other than asking. However, the only complainer I've actually seen is someone from Sun, a company who has a vested interest in making whatever Google did look bad and not a stellar rep with me for saying things 100% on the up and up all the time.
Additionally, I don't see anywhere in the 'official' statements indicating that Google actually removed anything in the breaking sense. Google's specs could be read by me to indicate they did the 'right way' or the 'wrong way'. And our 'complainee' simply said:
The JRE Class White List - Google App Engine Whether you agree with Sun policing it or not, Java compatibility has served us all very well for over a decade. That includes being sure as a developer that all core classes are present on all platforms. Creating sub-sets of the core classes in the Java platform was forbidden for a really good reason, and it's wanton and irresponsible to casually flaunt the rules.
on his blog.
That tells me diddly shit. So, the question is, given Google actually employs some fairly smart fellas, what are the chances that they actually did it the right way and Phipps is just bitching for bitching's sake? Or perhaps doesn't believe the security manager is a 'right way' either.
And given the SDK they point you to is Sun's and this is Google, how unlikely is it that the things being complained about are actually being managed by a security manager and not actually missing. I.E. Communication error.
Ides, a day in the Roman calendar that marked the approximate middle of the month. Specifically, this may refer to the Ides of March, the date of Julius Caesar's assassination. However, every month had its ides: the 15th day of March, May, July or October, or the 13th day of any other month. Ides may also mean this day and the seven days preceding it, counting backward toward the nones.
Ain't it wonderful that none of my blockbuster movies ever made a red cent? Like my new mansion? It's owned by my studio. Sadly, they took a loss on it as well. Well, like you said, lets all pay a portion of our income. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have made any money this year, everything I have is owned by various companies simply loaning it to me. Well, yes, technically those companies are also owned by me. But not one turns a profit. Not one!
BTW, I forgot to mention, Uwe Boll is coming over tomorrow. He has a wonderful idea for a new movie...
If you are developing for the App Engine, does it matter the flavor of the error? If you aren't developing for the App Engine and you are just looking to port something you've already written over, shouldn't you be reading the documentation concerning it first?
Developer-wise, this should be a non-issue. Unless you were expecting things to just plug in directly, coding to match how the App Engine works was a given anyway.
I agree with the others who opine that this is simply sour grapes from someone too late to the race to have a chance at first place.
Microsoft goes out and deliberately tries to subvert standards by creating implementations that are slightly off, thus preventing anything written for them from being easily portable to another implementation.
Google has gone and created an implementation that works exactly according to spec, except leaving out items which don't make sense in the app model they use. It would be extremely trivial to port something written for Google's implementation to anything else standard compliant.
This is about as similar to Microsoft as a blizzard in the Alps is to a sunny day in Cuba.
Slashdot Mirror
That tends to happen when you attempt to use a snake as your intermediary with God. Just be happy he doesn't get pissed off enough to toss your ass out on the street and foreclose on your home... assuming he hasn't.
Broadcast TV isn't free, it's just the currency isn't one you are trained to recognize as such, advertising. Why do you think broadcasters fight so hard to prevent PVR's from cutting out commercials, why even the companies that formed Hulu fought to keep it off Boxee. Because these things hurt their ad revenue. If you aren't willing to pay for broadcasting with your time and eyeballs in 'ad dollars' then eventually it'll either not be produced or it'll be paid for some other way. For instance, by the government, and by extension, under the government's watchful eye that nothing 'offensive' is produced. Or by you directly.
The real question is, what will the "real cost" when our current model of subsidizing unpopular channels under the guise of bundling them up with more popular ones, is replaced with an ala carte model.
No one, with realistic expectations, expects this to be free.
Tell me about it.
Follow Hollywood accounting practices much?
I do beleive the iron lung requires an actual living body to work. This simply requires living lungs. Hence, you know, the very first sentence in the summary "A new system that keeps lungs breathing outside the body"...
The question is however, is AmTrak failing because it's rail transport, or is it failing because it's Amtrak?
And more importantly, if we are subsidizing it, why not update it to where people might actually find it a valuable service and start using it.
Remember, for decades the main compeditor to the rail for passenger transport was the plane. Given the amount of hoopla going on these days in the airports, it truely unthinkable that folk needing to travel the country might choose a different carrier if it were avaliable and met their needs?
Yes, but it's only wishful thinking that makes you say that, as Quantum Mechanics has predicted.
Rocks fall.
Everyone dies.
EVERYONE
Ever live in a college dorm? Compatibility is not the main criteria in determining where you get assigned. You might be lucky and have the option to swap rooms with someone, but if you have a dipshit as a roommate and everyone knows it, it's hard to convince anyone to trade with you (unless they are of the opinion that they aren't going to ever be in the room).
And given the dorm room seemed to have been assigned to four people, if you get along with two and the third is a dipshit, do you move or do you try to make them move?
Yes it looks as if he might have pulled a prank on the roommate. Looks. That however is a far step from proving that was a crime, as the EFF's lawyer's motion explains.
Drug running. That part I can actually understand.
You are missing the point. SP2 is secure because no one can hack it. No one can hack it, because it hasn't been released. Microsoft has finially discovered how to ensure their products are invunerable to hackers, simply never release anything.
I pray they will only roll this technology forward to all future product lines...
God, Chuck Norris, and Vin Diesel are kicking back in a bar when suddenly God exclaims: "Look!"
God snaps his fingers and immediately a completely new universe is formed, spinning, before them.
Chuck Norris, not wanting to be out done, says "So what! Watch this!" and delivers a devastating round house kick that completely annihilates the new universe.
The two go back and forth for a good ten minutes, each repeating their trick, attempting to outdo the other, when Vin Diesel abruptly grows tired of it all and exclaims: "Will the two of you fuck nuts cut it out?"
"Damn, I'm beginning to wish I never created either of you."
Then Jack Bauer walks in.
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
Actually it is. Remember, the RIAA actually is an umbrella organization. The folk who sue are the actual music companies who hold the rights:
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster
The actual quote and 'other evidence' are courtesy of the student's roommate, with whom he apparently doesn't get along with and had attempted to turn him in previously as having a stolen college laptop.
Reading the actual warrent request is a hoot.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
Lets look and find out!
http://www.jenner.com/people/bio.asp?id=222
Linux doesn't want anything. It's not a being. In the immortal words of Newton Crosby:
Someone who does want something is the Linux Foundation. What do they want? World domination? A fat vendor contract?
How about, name recognition? I think this ad would work well enough to help with that, don't you?
And honestly, as good as I find the Red Hat and IBM ads, they were the same thing. They didn't "sell me" Linux and wouldn't have if I wasn't already sold. They simply raised the question, "What is Linux" in the minds of the people I knew who weren't already aware of it.
You didn't get picked, did you?
That's ok. Here's a participation ribbon.
Agreed, And not being a Java developer I have no way of knowing the truth of whether Google did it the 'right' way or not other than asking. However, the only complainer I've actually seen is someone from Sun, a company who has a vested interest in making whatever Google did look bad and not a stellar rep with me for saying things 100% on the up and up all the time.
Additionally, I don't see anywhere in the 'official' statements indicating that Google actually removed anything in the breaking sense. Google's specs could be read by me to indicate they did the 'right way' or the 'wrong way'. And our 'complainee' simply said:
on his blog.
That tells me diddly shit. So, the question is, given Google actually employs some fairly smart fellas, what are the chances that they actually did it the right way and Phipps is just bitching for bitching's sake? Or perhaps doesn't believe the security manager is a 'right way' either.
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/gettingstarted/installing.html
And given the SDK they point you to is Sun's and this is Google, how unlikely is it that the things being complained about are actually being managed by a security manager and not actually missing. I.E. Communication error.
I know, I know. *woosh*. Sigh.
Ain't it wonderful that none of my blockbuster movies ever made a red cent? Like my new mansion? It's owned by my studio. Sadly, they took a loss on it as well. Well, like you said, lets all pay a portion of our income. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have made any money this year, everything I have is owned by various companies simply loaning it to me. Well, yes, technically those companies are also owned by me. But not one turns a profit. Not one!
BTW, I forgot to mention, Uwe Boll is coming over tomorrow. He has a wonderful idea for a new movie...
If you are developing for the App Engine, does it matter the flavor of the error? If you aren't developing for the App Engine and you are just looking to port something you've already written over, shouldn't you be reading the documentation concerning it first?
Developer-wise, this should be a non-issue. Unless you were expecting things to just plug in directly, coding to match how the App Engine works was a given anyway.
I agree with the others who opine that this is simply sour grapes from someone too late to the race to have a chance at first place.
No. Point blank, no.
Go to the end of the line.
Microsoft goes out and deliberately tries to subvert standards by creating implementations that are slightly off, thus preventing anything written for them from being easily portable to another implementation.
Google has gone and created an implementation that works exactly according to spec, except leaving out items which don't make sense in the app model they use. It would be extremely trivial to port something written for Google's implementation to anything else standard compliant.
This is about as similar to Microsoft as a blizzard in the Alps is to a sunny day in Cuba.