Unfortunately the peak inverse voltage of some LEDs isn't much higher than the forward voltage drop. So if you put them in series with a dropping resistor it doesn't take much of a spike on the reverse cycle to blow your expensive light bulb. Also, its' more friendly to the power company to conduct on both halves of the cycle. I'd use a full wave bridge, capacitor and a MOV or zener.
Amazingly enough, there are a bunch of us. Tivo Inc. is supporting using a Series 2 with a converter box that is controlled by the IR blaster.
Anyway, it was just a joke. Anyone with Tivo is aware enough to have switched already. The quality of the signal where I am, (Northwestern Virginia) is so much better with DTV. I'm hoping it'll be even better after the transition.
The biggest reason for a delay should have been thought out years ago. You don't want people up on their rooftops in mid-February adjusting their antennas after the switchover.
Even if you do have a converter box, or and HDTV with an antenna, you still don't know what you will be able to receive until after the transition, because some stations will move their broadcast frequency. Also, once the analog broadcasts stop, you'll be able to receive some fringe signals that were overwhelmed by them.
Nobody wants to talk about just how stupid it is to make a company with a net capitalization somewhere above $160 billion dollars based entirely on one persona.
Ok, the next time I have a chance to invest in a company that's going to go from a garage to $160 billion, I'm going to say, "No Thank You", because the personality in charge is too strong.
There are other people with RDFs. My late grandmother had an RDF such that anything she ignored, went away. She had trouble with the IRS and ignored it and it just went *poof*. Unfortunately she got Alzheimers and ignored herself into non-reality.
I've known several people who lived in their own reality.
The problem is that someone like that wouldn't want Steve's job. People who live in their own universe usually have no need to change where they are, because everything is already ok.
(There was one lady I knew who would regularly leave her purse in her unlocked car. If you or I had done that, it would have been stolen, but in her reality, it wouldn't be stolen, so it wasn't. She lived in a nice place. We'd like to live there too, but it wasn't our reality)
The law of freedom of speech applies to the people providing it; not necessarily accessing it.
SCOTUS rulings say otherwise, specifically school systems cannot censor libraries for non obscene materials.
So all they have to do is declare something obscene, and they can censor it. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it .."
Under this standard, a school principle just has to say "I saw it", for it to be obscene.
I never said there was a problem with the use of the tool, just that people weren't clear what the tool was to be used for.
My wife's uncle had a series of misdignosed TIA's. He was sent home by the hospital even though he couldn't even walk straight. When he got home, he shot himself.
Did he have the right to kill himself? Yes. Was he "himself" when he did? No-one can tell, but since he had just had a series of mini-strokes, it's unlikely he was of sound mind. Unfortunately, my sister-in law, the executor of his estate, didn't see fit to sue the hospital, and we live too far away to handle a case like that.
This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Grandpa can kill someone else, it's so that Grandpa can kill himself.
I know far more elderly that used a handgun for suicide that has used a handgun in self defense. Why else is it a "medical device" if it's not for the person to use on themselves?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Ack, everyone here seems to be missing the point. This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Granpa can kill someone else, it's so that Grandpa can kill himself.
I know far more elderly that used a handgun for suicide that has used a handgun in self defense. Why else is it a "medical device" if it's not for the person to use on themselves?
Sometimes the bankers need software that they can't write themselves. So they hire another company to write it for them.
They could hire the company, then keep the code in their little cabal, or they could release the code, so that any software company could be hired to support it. Those companies would be open source companies, and might not own any code themselves.
While Stallman would make an excellent adviser to the National CTO, he's too much of a "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. While I agree with RMS most of the time, that kind of personality doesn't last long in US politics.
This comment is so boneheaded that's it's hard to know even where to begin. We'll just start at the beginning.
That's Mr. Bonehead. Accent on the first syllable.
Too often people lose sight of the fact that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to make and to authorize reproductions and distributions of his work. That means selling copies of whatever portions of his work he chooses, under whatever terms he chooses, to whomever he chooses, subject only to the specific limitations of sections 107-122.
Your computer can make as many copies into RAM as needed to run. If parts are paged out to disk or flash, that's ok too.
You may make a backup copy.
You may make fair use copies, like a screenshot for a magazine review.
Once you buy a copyrighted work off the shelf, you are pretty much free to read it, use it, or burn it as you see fit.
This is a common, but uncommonly stupid, notion. Such a statement is an oversimplification regarding the purchase of a work to which no other terms are attached. No court has ever held that paying money is itself tantamount to owning a copy. The question you and so many others avoid is, "what did you buy?" If it's a book, a CD, or a software title with no additional terms, then you are correct. If it is a book, a CD, or a software title in the context of specific transaction terms, you are utterly incorrect.
I picked up 4 Dell GX110's at a yard sale. Each had a valid COA and installation of Win2000. I plan to reinstall a different OS, but do I have to hunt down the original EULA and make sure I abide by its conditions? No, the orginal EULA isn't worth the paper it's (not) printed on. The doctrine of first sale applies.
The big scary ELUAs haven't been tested in court.
Sure they have. Wishful thinking and willful blindness doesn't change that. What you mean to say is that no license agreement model has been categorically rejected by any court. They've certainly been tested--hundreds of them. There are dozens that have been ruled unenforceable in part. None has been ruled categorically unenforceable. Ever.
Of course they haven't been categorically rejected, because all EULAs reiterate rights the companies already have under copyright law, so some parts of it are always reasonable and valid. I'd like to see any court case against a person that bought software at a retail store and didn't sign anything specific. (As long as the consumer has followed copyright law)
Even Blockbuster makes you sign a specific agreement before you can rent any of their videos.
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it.
No. If you are presented with an offer to contract, you can negotiate changes. An authorized officer may enter into such an agreement. If you are presented with a form contract, you can take it, leave it, or demand an individual negotiation. There is no "company agent" to give valid assent.
Many times the EULA has two click boxes, titled accept and decline. That's the agent, since it will quit the installation if you decline. There's no way for an indiviual consumer to know how much intelligence the company has put into the system.
You'd have to check individual state law to determine who in a company is authorized to sign contracts. In some states, anyone with the title "Manager", can sign binding contracts.
If you modify a EULA, and the program accepts it, is it still valid?
The original EULA is still valid. Your modifications are meaningless. This is the Twenty-first Century rendition o
Most children can't enter contracts (licenses) without their parents consent, so a true license scheme can't sell to children. (a major market for movies and music)
Now, to some parents, this would be a major selling point. Buy your kid our products, and you don't have to worry about them acquiring any unauthorized content. But from the kid's view, it'd be major uncool to have a Marlin(tm) player vs. an iPod.
Back to my point. Once you buy a copyrighted work off the shelf, you are pretty much free to read it, use it, or burn it as you see fit. The big scary ELUAs haven't been tested in court.
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it. (subject to vagaries of contract law)
If you modify a EULA, and the program accepts it, is it still valid?
One way to make Jello glow is to embed glow sticks or glow bracelets into to. You do have to be careful that drunk party goers don't eat the glowing part though...
I've been on a hunt for fluorescent food for several years now. So far, beer is the only edible substance that I've found that even weakly glows. There are dyes that are listed as fluorescent and non-toxic, but it's a stretch from non-toxic to edible.
B.T.W. I theorized the it was the Vitamin B in beer that made it glow, but I tried several brands of vitamin B (multi and single versions like B12) and non of them glowed under UV.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the peak inverse voltage of some LEDs isn't much higher than the forward voltage drop. So if you put them in series with a dropping resistor it doesn't take much of a spike on the reverse cycle to blow your expensive light bulb. Also, its' more friendly to the power company to conduct on both halves of the cycle. I'd use a full wave bridge, capacitor and a MOV or zener.
The ex-Soviets would have shot at it. If there's anything really there, it's most likely a spy plane from whatever enemy you happen to have right now.
Unfortunately, there are not enough Russian hackers breaking into our systems that we can all become crime drama writers. (:-)
Amazingly enough, there are a bunch of us. Tivo Inc. is supporting using a Series 2 with a converter box that is controlled by the IR blaster.
Anyway, it was just a joke. Anyone with Tivo is aware enough to have switched already. The quality of the signal where I am, (Northwestern Virginia) is so much better with DTV. I'm hoping it'll be even better after the transition.
We Tivo everything, so those ads get skipped over. (:-)
The biggest reason for a delay should have been thought out years ago. You don't want people up on their rooftops in mid-February adjusting their antennas after the switchover.
Even if you do have a converter box, or and HDTV with an antenna, you still don't know what you will be able to receive until after the transition, because some stations will move their broadcast frequency. Also, once the analog broadcasts stop, you'll be able to receive some fringe signals that were overwhelmed by them.
Walmart. When Sam Walton died, Walmart did take a big hit in quality, but profits continued to rise.
Nobody wants to talk about just how stupid it is to make a company with a net capitalization somewhere above $160 billion dollars based entirely on one persona.
Ok, the next time I have a chance to invest in a company that's going to go from a garage to $160 billion, I'm going to say, "No Thank You", because the personality in charge is too strong.
There are other people with RDFs. My late grandmother had an RDF such that anything she ignored, went away. She had trouble with the IRS and ignored it and it just went *poof*. Unfortunately she got Alzheimers and ignored herself into non-reality.
I've known several people who lived in their own reality. The problem is that someone like that wouldn't want Steve's job. People who live in their own universe usually have no need to change where they are, because everything is already ok.
(There was one lady I knew who would regularly leave her purse in her unlocked car. If you or I had done that, it would have been stolen, but in her reality, it wouldn't be stolen, so it wasn't. She lived in a nice place. We'd like to live there too, but it wasn't our reality)
How many errors are introduced during normal human reproduction? The dogs they've cloned so far are less than 99.999% identical.
The law of freedom of speech applies to the people providing it; not necessarily accessing it.
SCOTUS rulings say otherwise, specifically school systems cannot censor libraries for non obscene materials.
So all they have to do is declare something obscene, and they can censor it. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . ."
Under this standard, a school principle just has to say "I saw it", for it to be obscene.
I never said there was a problem with the use of the tool, just that people weren't clear what the tool was to be used for.
My wife's uncle had a series of misdignosed TIA's. He was sent home by the hospital even though he couldn't even walk straight. When he got home, he shot himself.
Did he have the right to kill himself? Yes. Was he "himself" when he did? No-one can tell, but since he had just had a series of mini-strokes, it's unlikely he was of sound mind. Unfortunately, my sister-in law, the executor of his estate, didn't see fit to sue the hospital, and we live too far away to handle a case like that.
Because the state the Dr. is in won't let him prescribe an overdose of barbiturates. This is a suicide device.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point.
This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Grandpa can kill someone else, it's so that Grandpa can kill himself.
I know far more elderly that used a handgun for suicide that has used a handgun in self defense. Why else is it a "medical device" if it's not for the person to use on themselves?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Ack, everyone here seems to be missing the point. This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Granpa can kill someone else, it's so that Grandpa can kill himself.
I know far more elderly that used a handgun for suicide that has used a handgun in self defense. Why else is it a "medical device" if it's not for the person to use on themselves?
Sometimes the bankers need software that they can't write themselves. So they hire another company to write it for them.
They could hire the company, then keep the code in their little cabal, or they could release the code, so that any software company could be hired to support it. Those companies would be open source companies, and might not own any code themselves.
But the government itself uses a lot of technology. A technical seeing-eye dog is useful for any politician to have.
While Stallman would make an excellent adviser to the National CTO, he's too much of a "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. While I agree with RMS most of the time, that kind of personality doesn't last long in US politics.
Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!
This comment is so boneheaded that's it's hard to know even where to begin. We'll just start at the beginning.
That's Mr. Bonehead. Accent on the first syllable.
Too often people lose sight of the fact that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to make and to authorize reproductions and distributions of his work. That means selling copies of whatever portions of his work he chooses, under whatever terms he chooses, to whomever he chooses, subject only to the specific limitations of sections 107-122.
Your computer can make as many copies into RAM as needed to run. If parts are paged out to disk or flash, that's ok too.
You may make a backup copy.
You may make fair use copies, like a screenshot for a magazine review.
Once you buy a copyrighted work off the shelf, you are pretty much free to read it, use it, or burn it as you see fit.
This is a common, but uncommonly stupid, notion. Such a statement is an oversimplification regarding the purchase of a work to which no other terms are attached. No court has ever held that paying money is itself tantamount to owning a copy. The question you and so many others avoid is, "what did you buy?" If it's a book, a CD, or a software title with no additional terms, then you are correct. If it is a book, a CD, or a software title in the context of specific transaction terms, you are utterly incorrect.
I picked up 4 Dell GX110's at a yard sale. Each had a valid COA and installation of Win2000. I plan to reinstall a different OS, but do I have to hunt down the original EULA and make sure I abide by its conditions? No, the orginal EULA isn't worth the paper it's (not) printed on. The doctrine of first sale applies.
The big scary ELUAs haven't been tested in court.
Sure they have. Wishful thinking and willful blindness doesn't change that. What you mean to say is that no license agreement model has been categorically rejected by any court. They've certainly been tested--hundreds of them. There are dozens that have been ruled unenforceable in part. None has been ruled categorically unenforceable. Ever.
Of course they haven't been categorically rejected, because all EULAs reiterate rights the companies already have under copyright law, so some parts of it are always reasonable and valid. I'd like to see any court case against a person that bought software at a retail store and didn't sign anything specific. (As long as the consumer has followed copyright law)
Even Blockbuster makes you sign a specific agreement before you can rent any of their videos.
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it.
No. If you are presented with an offer to contract, you can negotiate changes. An authorized officer may enter into such an agreement. If you are presented with a form contract, you can take it, leave it, or demand an individual negotiation. There is no "company agent" to give valid assent.
Many times the EULA has two click boxes, titled accept and decline. That's the agent, since it will quit the installation if you decline. There's no way for an indiviual consumer to know how much intelligence the company has put into the system.
You'd have to check individual state law to determine who in a company is authorized to sign contracts. In some states, anyone with the title "Manager", can sign binding contracts.
If you modify a EULA, and the program accepts it, is it still valid?
The original EULA is still valid. Your modifications are meaningless. This is the Twenty-first Century rendition o
Your computer can make as many copies into RAM as needed to run. (Think UNIX's fork)
You can make a backup. Normally, you are limited to one, but I don't think any consumer has been challenged for having several backups.
You can make fair use partial copies, like screenshots for a magazine review.
All this whether the EULA allows it or not.
Most children can't enter contracts (licenses) without their parents consent, so a true license scheme can't sell to children. (a major market for movies and music)
Now, to some parents, this would be a major selling point. Buy your kid our products, and you don't have to worry about them acquiring any unauthorized content. But from the kid's view, it'd be major uncool to have a Marlin(tm) player vs. an iPod.
Back to my point. Once you buy a copyrighted work off the shelf, you are pretty much free to read it, use it, or burn it as you see fit. The big scary ELUAs haven't been tested in court.
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it. (subject to vagaries of contract law)
If you modify a EULA, and the program accepts it, is it still valid?
One way to make Jello glow is to embed glow sticks or glow bracelets into to. You do have to be careful that drunk party goers don't eat the glowing part though...
Tried that, nix. So far I haven't found a brand of candy that glows under UV.
I've been on a hunt for fluorescent food for several years now. So far, beer is the only edible substance that I've found that even weakly glows. There are dyes that are listed as fluorescent and non-toxic, but it's a stretch from non-toxic to edible. B.T.W. I theorized the it was the Vitamin B in beer that made it glow, but I tried several brands of vitamin B (multi and single versions like B12) and non of them glowed under UV.