I mean, didn't they do the same thing with Java, releasing their own crippled JVM included in every copy of windows?
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought it was the opposite: that they extended the JVM to support proprietary, "Windows-only" features. They could try doing the same to PDF, but Adobe clearly has the IP rights to the PDF spec.
Whatever, just make sure you get that sample to the test chamber on time. The Administrator was most insistent that we proceed on schedule. The chance of a resonance cascade scenario is surely remote...
I know it's called a serial hybrid. What I'm wondering is why they aren't available now. The most logical reason I've heard in this thread is that current battery technology is not up to the task. Perhaps upcoming ultracapacitors would be the ultimate solution to this problem.
What I can't figure out is: why not make a straight diesel-electric hybrid? No transmission, just diesel-->generator-->motors + batteries. The diesel wouldn't have to be nearly as powerful as, say, a TDI, because the batteries could handle short peak loads, then recharge during cruising/coasting/braking. The diesel could run continuosly at it's peak efficiency, as long as power was demanded. The cars would cost far less to produce, without the need for a transmission. It seems to me that such a car would be cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, and more reliable.
Iran has expressed a desire for nuclear weapons, yes. The US has actually USED them. In an unbiased world, who do you think should be prevented from having WMDs?
Oh that's right. You're a pathetically biased American.
Doesn't it matter to you at all whether the use of those weapons was justifiable or not? I mean, should we disarm the police because they have used their handguns in the past? Are you really that ignorant and/or fucked in the head that you don't understand this, or are you just trolling?
Actually, it had the opposite effect on me. I distinctly recall sitting in my kitchen, listening to Bach, and reading the book while eating a breakfast of buttered toast, eggs, coffee and orange juice, and when I got to the part about the coffee, I suddenly truly appreciated for the first time how good I had it, and the luxury I was living in, in grand context.
Not your fault, really. The/. summary is 100% wrong, and most commenters find it more cathartic to rail against what they want to believe the bill says, rather than what it actually says.
I'd love to hear a logical argument from anyone that disagrees with Doc's comment.
A logical basis for disagreement might be that he is completely factually incorrect about the content of the bill. In fact, when an AC attempted to point this out, rather than admit he was mistaken, his response was to slur republicans and call the AC a liar. So forgive me if I come to a "logical" conclusion that Mr. Ruby is full of crap.
That would not solve the problem, and doesn't address the real issue. You could ban contributions (they are already severely restricted) - but that money would just be spent independently. It is those independent expenditures that they are now trying to regulate with McCain-Feingold.
Other than those with money and a political agenda complaining loudest, where's the problem?
This is not that far from what we have, which is strict limits on donations, and limits on the candidates personal expenditures if they want to receive federal campaign funds. This of course only shifts all the money that would have gone to the campaign to independent expenditures (so-called "soft money.") This is precisely what has happened, and now they are trying to limit that too. I'd be willing to tolerate the hard money restrictions, but I see the restrictions on independent expenditures (the focus of McCain-Feingold) to be infringements on the First Amendment right to free speech.
FINANCE reform. how does FINANCE mean speech on the internet?
Well, to give an example. Suppose that because of contribution limits, I, an influential blogger, want to donate $100,000, but I can't because of contribution limits. What I can do is donate $100,000 of promotion on my website. In this case, the speech has real financial value.
It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing.
Well, bribery and quid pro quo would still be illegal corrupt activities. On the other hand, if I want to spend my own money to persuade other people that candidate X is the best choice, shouldn't that be my First Amendment right?
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas (i.e it causes infra red radiation to be reflected back to Earth) - agree or disagree?
Assume I agree. I am curious, however. Please explain to me why, if CO2 is reflective in the infrared, an even larger amount of infrared energy is not reflected back into space before ever reaching the surface in the first place. Is it reflective in only one direction? Can it tell whether infrared radiation is coming from above or below? Inquiring minds want to know.
Adding radio would be bad for it since that would detract from Apple's goal to have the iTunes store be the center of all Internet audio traffic - whether that be music, books, podcasts, etc.
Why should consumers care about whether it's good or bad for Apple?
*Cough* Marketing and sales people at the top. Yeah, that'll fix things.
I hate to say it, but it's the right choice. Microsoft succeeds when it gives people what they want. As competition stiffens, its only edge is in providing a better user experience. You don't go about doing this by putting developers in charge.
That is one way of looking at it. But since the "privilege" of making the statute also comes from the constitution, it isn't simply a question of trying to shoehorn statutory copyright around First Amendment protections. There is a tension, of course, but that tension exists in the Constitution itself. Thus, Congress has pretty wide constitutional power to regulate copyrighted speech. Congress has in fact availed itself of that power and under the statutory law, all copying not specifically permitted is prohibited. The "fair use" privileges exist as specific permissions in statute. That's why I say that, as the law exists right now, fair use is a privilege. Subject, of course, to future reinterpretations of the Constitution.
Thanks! Apparently I used all the wrong keywords. I want to keep this for future reference. I agree with your interpretation; it seems unusually poorly drafted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is.
Yeah, well, who won that legal battle? And Sun got almost everything they asked for out of it, too.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought it was the opposite: that they extended the JVM to support proprietary, "Windows-only" features. They could try doing the same to PDF, but Adobe clearly has the IP rights to the PDF spec.
Whatever, just make sure you get that sample to the test chamber on time. The Administrator was most insistent that we proceed on schedule. The chance of a resonance cascade scenario is surely remote...
I know it's called a serial hybrid. What I'm wondering is why they aren't available now. The most logical reason I've heard in this thread is that current battery technology is not up to the task. Perhaps upcoming ultracapacitors would be the ultimate solution to this problem.
What I can't figure out is: why not make a straight diesel-electric hybrid? No transmission, just diesel-->generator-->motors + batteries. The diesel wouldn't have to be nearly as powerful as, say, a TDI, because the batteries could handle short peak loads, then recharge during cruising/coasting/braking. The diesel could run continuosly at it's peak efficiency, as long as power was demanded. The cars would cost far less to produce, without the need for a transmission. It seems to me that such a car would be cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, and more reliable.
Doesn't it matter to you at all whether the use of those weapons was justifiable or not? I mean, should we disarm the police because they have used their handguns in the past? Are you really that ignorant and/or fucked in the head that you don't understand this, or are you just trolling?
It's European!!
Actually, it had the opposite effect on me. I distinctly recall sitting in my kitchen, listening to Bach, and reading the book while eating a breakfast of buttered toast, eggs, coffee and orange juice, and when I got to the part about the coffee, I suddenly truly appreciated for the first time how good I had it, and the luxury I was living in, in grand context.
No, it would prevent the FEC from regulating speech on the internet.
How Orwellian.
No.
If this law is passed, it will be selectively enforced to stifle the minority party's ability to get out the vote.
No, it won't. It removes "communications over the internet" from the domain of public communications that can be regulated by the FEC.
It is ironic that on another thread they called me a troll for suggesting that freedom of speech was in danger in the U.S.
Maybe they call you a troll because you're ignorant.
Not your fault, really. The /. summary is 100% wrong, and most commenters find it more cathartic to rail against what they want to believe the bill says, rather than what it actually says.
A logical basis for disagreement might be that he is completely factually incorrect about the content of the bill. In fact, when an AC attempted to point this out, rather than admit he was mistaken, his response was to slur republicans and call the AC a liar. So forgive me if I come to a "logical" conclusion that Mr. Ruby is full of crap.
I suggest you don't do this, because in fact the bill is to prevent the FCC from regulating blogs.
It just goes to show: you can give people the right to vote, but you can't force them to use it intelligently.
That would not solve the problem, and doesn't address the real issue. You could ban contributions (they are already severely restricted) - but that money would just be spent independently. It is those independent expenditures that they are now trying to regulate with McCain-Feingold.
This is not that far from what we have, which is strict limits on donations, and limits on the candidates personal expenditures if they want to receive federal campaign funds. This of course only shifts all the money that would have gone to the campaign to independent expenditures (so-called "soft money.") This is precisely what has happened, and now they are trying to limit that too. I'd be willing to tolerate the hard money restrictions, but I see the restrictions on independent expenditures (the focus of McCain-Feingold) to be infringements on the First Amendment right to free speech.
Well, to give an example. Suppose that because of contribution limits, I, an influential blogger, want to donate $100,000, but I can't because of contribution limits. What I can do is donate $100,000 of promotion on my website. In this case, the speech has real financial value.
Well, bribery and quid pro quo would still be illegal corrupt activities. On the other hand, if I want to spend my own money to persuade other people that candidate X is the best choice, shouldn't that be my First Amendment right?
I take it you don't own any nice suits.
Assume I agree. I am curious, however. Please explain to me why, if CO2 is reflective in the infrared, an even larger amount of infrared energy is not reflected back into space before ever reaching the surface in the first place. Is it reflective in only one direction? Can it tell whether infrared radiation is coming from above or below? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why should consumers care about whether it's good or bad for Apple?
I hate to say it, but it's the right choice. Microsoft succeeds when it gives people what they want. As competition stiffens, its only edge is in providing a better user experience. You don't go about doing this by putting developers in charge.
That is one way of looking at it. But since the "privilege" of making the statute also comes from the constitution, it isn't simply a question of trying to shoehorn statutory copyright around First Amendment protections. There is a tension, of course, but that tension exists in the Constitution itself. Thus, Congress has pretty wide constitutional power to regulate copyrighted speech. Congress has in fact availed itself of that power and under the statutory law, all copying not specifically permitted is prohibited. The "fair use" privileges exist as specific permissions in statute. That's why I say that, as the law exists right now, fair use is a privilege. Subject, of course, to future reinterpretations of the Constitution.
Well, yes, but those fair use priveleges exist by statute. (And they are privileges, not "rights".) Hence, the RIAA wants the statutes changed.
Thanks! Apparently I used all the wrong keywords. I want to keep this for future reference. I agree with your interpretation; it seems unusually poorly drafted.
Do you have a reference for this alleged law? I checked out the Ohio state code but couldn't find anything.