Aspects of privacy, yes. Probably the specific aspects (search & seizure) the OP was referring to, so maybe my nit was invalid.
The 4th clearly refers to privacy in the sense of property rights. The 9th is kind of a catchall that privacy does indeed fall under. I would not say that the 9th explicitly guarantees the right.
I've heard stories about people from New Mexico being continuously re-routed to the international ticket sales department when they were trying to get tickets for the Olympics in Atlanta (96?).
CDs were able to do things that cassettes weren't. Maybe there will be things that a new format might allow that isn't possible on a CD now, but I can't think of any overly compelling ones (and yes, I had been able to think of the most obvious advantages of CDs before they came out).
Re:AO and M should be combined.
on
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They are kind of in line.
AO == NC-17 M == R
And the AO vs. NC-17 has roughly similar effects on the actual distribution that a title will get in its respective industries.
The complaint raised is similar to saying that not enough movies are given the NC-17 rating. The reason more aren't is the exact same reason as the one the ESRB gives: content toned down to allow for greater distribution channels.
Good guess. The article is actually a spoof on the frames debate of 97. He offers a link to a very similarly worded article from that debate that he used as his template and mostly swapped out "frames" for AJAX.
I have a daughter who falls into this category... what you might not realize is that these traits apply ALL THE TIME and they are a bit more severe than you're probably giving credit for.
For example, "lack of appreciation of social cues" does not mean that you were oblivious to how turned off your date got as you quoted Monty Python nonstop. My daughter often has trouble telling whether someone is laughing or crying, and has NO ability to figure it out from the context or any surrounding behavior.
Similarly "repetative adherence to a narrow interest" sounds like a hobby or something you might like doing a little bit more than other people consider normal. That's not even close. My daughter will watch a movie over and over and over again so many times until she can pause it before every line, recite the line, and then listen to it play on the movie.
Much of this needs to be seen in action to appreciate the actual description of the symptoms. Keep in mind that if it seems to apply to a large group of people, then the behavior that it's trying to describe is more excessive than how you've understood it.
I was with you when you said this: TFA in fact has little to do with linux and even less to do with the RIAA. It contains many mentions of Microsoft and the BSA. It mentions linux once and hollywood once.
But not so much so when you said this: However, the article IS very interesting. It makes some interesting comparisons between the effectiveness of the DMCA and prohibition.
Problem is, you just don't know why they are there. If it happens to be that one in whatever (hundred? thousand? doesn't really matter, some percentage are NOT just thieves) who really is a rapist/pedophile/random sicko. Sympathy for ordinary thieves should not take precendence over your family's safety.
My grandmother occaisionally turns off her cable box without turning off her TV. She never seems to understand how I can tell from another room that her TV is still on.
Not always. Sometimes you need to do something that looks really ass-backwards, and that may take a bit of commenting.
The database we use has an extremely poor query planner. It gets tripped on the weirdest things. In particular, we have a table that has indices on 3 different fields. On a table of approx 1.2 million records, one of those fields has a very low variation, one has moderate variation, and one of them has high variation.
So search by field 1, and you'll need to scan 200K records. Search by field 2, and you'll need to scan 30K records. Search by field 3, and you'll need to scan 100 or fewer records.
The database ALWAYS searches by the second one, no matter how we rephrase the query. We can't change the indices (for reasons not worth getting into here), so we had to work around it some other way.
I eventually wrote some code that used the database to query ONLY by the 3rd field, then manually scanned the result set to filter out the records that didn't meet the conditions for the other two fields.
The code I wrote was clear in what it did, but without knowing the background, someone would probably look at it and wonder what the hell was wrong with me and why didn't I just use SQL, since that's the exact thing it's designed to do.
I put in a comment block describing the case above, along with some references to performance research (it cut down execution time from over 9 hours to about 5 minutes).
The important thing is in knowing what actually needs a comment.
I was wondering how much existing knowledge/language would influence the outcome. Would people from similar backgrounds be more able to invent useful language than people from different backgrounds? Would certain groups of people, or matches of people end up working together better than others? Male/female differences?
I also got the impression you could probably do morse code with the device though.
I have heard OEM license numbers as low as $30 for XP Home. It retails for $99 - so the total spread is $70. I know margins are tight, but will $70 (assuming the mfg ends up paying retail, which is unlikely) really make that much difference?
$70 makes no difference whatsoever. Consumers are always happy to pay an extra $70. They often complain that prices are too low.
I lived on S. Broadway and worked for a while in downtown Manhattan. About 1/2 mile walk to the train station and I think I passed 4 bars on the way, all of them on Hoffman.
I think the basic problem with that is what if you got two tables, let's say, logins and projects.
logins had an id and a name
projects has, among other things, submit by and coded by, both of which reference the logins table.
So if you do default joining, which field should it join by? If you limit the default join to when there's one and only one reference to a given table, then existing code may break once you add a new reference. And lastly, what if you really want a cartesian join? Granted I've needed this about twice out of a very large number of queries I've written, but it my usage doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
Aspects of privacy, yes. Probably the specific aspects (search & seizure) the OP was referring to, so maybe my nit was invalid.
The 4th clearly refers to privacy in the sense of property rights.
The 9th is kind of a catchall that privacy does indeed fall under. I would not say that the 9th explicitly guarantees the right.
What do the 5th and 14th have to do with privacy?
Nitpick: Privacy is considered a right by common law precedent, but it is not constitutionally protected.
I've heard stories about people from New Mexico being continuously re-routed to the international ticket sales department when they were trying to get tickets for the Olympics in Atlanta (96?).
CDs were able to do things that cassettes weren't. Maybe there will be things that a new format might allow that isn't possible on a CD now, but I can't think of any overly compelling ones (and yes, I had been able to think of the most obvious advantages of CDs before they came out).
They are kind of in line.
AO == NC-17
M == R
And the AO vs. NC-17 has roughly similar effects on the actual distribution that a title will get in its respective industries.
The complaint raised is similar to saying that not enough movies are given the NC-17 rating. The reason more aren't is the exact same reason as the one the ESRB gives: content toned down to allow for greater distribution channels.
Good guess. The article is actually a spoof on the frames debate of 97. He offers a link to a very similarly worded article from that debate that he used as his template and mostly swapped out "frames" for AJAX.
I have a daughter who falls into this category... what you might not realize is that these traits apply ALL THE TIME and they are a bit more severe than you're probably giving credit for.
For example, "lack of appreciation of social cues" does not mean that you were oblivious to how turned off your date got as you quoted Monty Python nonstop. My daughter often has trouble telling whether someone is laughing or crying, and has NO ability to figure it out from the context or any surrounding behavior.
Similarly "repetative adherence to a narrow interest" sounds like a hobby or something you might like doing a little bit more than other people consider normal. That's not even close. My daughter will watch a movie over and over and over again so many times until she can pause it before every line, recite the line, and then listen to it play on the movie.
Much of this needs to be seen in action to appreciate the actual description of the symptoms. Keep in mind that if it seems to apply to a large group of people, then the behavior that it's trying to describe is more excessive than how you've understood it.
The direct quote is entirely irrelevant, as it refers to potential long term effects.
The key phrase in my prior post is 'imminent', as in something that is going to happen more or less immediately.
The ruling wasn't that there was eminent violence. The ruling said even if there was eminent violence it does not justify banning certain media
Actually, the ruling said very much the opposite:
This quote "there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence" is taken directly from the ruling.
Though any scenario where the sale of a video game leads to imminent violence would have to be contrived.
I was going to reply with the same quote and then something or other about Reality TV but I like the way you did it better.
I was with you when you said this:
TFA in fact has little to do with linux and even less to do with the RIAA. It contains many mentions of Microsoft and the BSA. It mentions linux once and hollywood once.
But not so much so when you said this:
However, the article IS very interesting. It makes some interesting comparisons between the effectiveness of the DMCA and prohibition.
There aren't really any comparisons in there.
Companies that do that buy a license where one key is allowed for anywhere up to X installs.
Problem is, you just don't know why they are there. If it happens to be that one in whatever (hundred? thousand? doesn't really matter, some percentage are NOT just thieves) who really is a rapist/pedophile/random sicko. Sympathy for ordinary thieves should not take precendence over your family's safety.
And no, I don't own a gun.
My grandmother occaisionally turns off her cable box without turning off her TV. She never seems to understand how I can tell from another room that her TV is still on.
Just... just.... just.... GROAN. That's all. GROAN.
It's dynamic because of the way slashdot renders it.
If you change your sig right now, and then look at the comment I'm responding to, it will have your new sig at the bottom.
When I first read the headline, I thought "That has much less of a ring to it than 'Eat shit and die'".
But think for a minute to the size gap between yourself and a molecule. It's pretty impressive!
I think that would really read better as "It's pretty impressive, gosh darn it!"
Not always. Sometimes you need to do something that looks really ass-backwards, and that may take a bit of commenting.
The database we use has an extremely poor query planner. It gets tripped on the weirdest things. In particular, we have a table that has indices on 3 different fields. On a table of approx 1.2 million records, one of those fields has a very low variation, one has moderate variation, and one of them has high variation.
So search by field 1, and you'll need to scan 200K records.
Search by field 2, and you'll need to scan 30K records.
Search by field 3, and you'll need to scan 100 or fewer records.
The database ALWAYS searches by the second one, no matter how we rephrase the query. We can't change the indices (for reasons not worth getting into here), so we had to work around it some other way.
I eventually wrote some code that used the database to query ONLY by the 3rd field, then manually scanned the result set to filter out the records that didn't meet the conditions for the other two fields.
The code I wrote was clear in what it did, but without knowing the background, someone would probably look at it and wonder what the hell was wrong with me and why didn't I just use SQL, since that's the exact thing it's designed to do.
I put in a comment block describing the case above, along with some references to performance research (it cut down execution time from over 9 hours to about 5 minutes).
The important thing is in knowing what actually needs a comment.
I was wondering how much existing knowledge/language would influence the outcome. Would people from similar backgrounds be more able to invent useful language than people from different backgrounds? Would certain groups of people, or matches of people end up working together better than others? Male/female differences?
I also got the impression you could probably do morse code with the device though.
I have heard OEM license numbers as low as $30 for XP Home. It retails for $99 - so the total spread is $70. I know margins are tight, but will $70 (assuming the mfg ends up paying retail, which is unlikely) really make that much difference?
$70 makes no difference whatsoever. Consumers are always happy to pay an extra $70. They often complain that prices are too low.
Not only that, but there's synergistic potential to leverage the product into a monetizing opportunity.
I lived on S. Broadway and worked for a while in downtown Manhattan. About 1/2 mile walk to the train station and I think I passed 4 bars on the way, all of them on Hoffman.
I think the basic problem with that is what if you got two tables, let's say, logins and projects.
logins had an id and a name
projects has, among other things, submit by and coded by, both of which reference the logins table.
So if you do default joining, which field should it join by?
If you limit the default join to when there's one and only one reference to a given table, then existing code may break once you add a new reference.
And lastly, what if you really want a cartesian join? Granted I've needed this about twice out of a very large number of queries I've written, but it my usage doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's.
Well this sounds like fun...
Hows about
Decoupled Agile Web Networking
Wow that doesn't make any sense.