Yeah, but I'm still waiting for Valve to release a version of HL2 that supports 64 bits. IIRC UT2k3 was released with 64bit support over a year ago, what is taking these guys so long.
It is a marker that, more than any other evidence, can correctly pick out the guilty from the innocent.
That is not true. Perhaps you were there before the perpetrator. You took off your hat and lost some hairs and dandruff then went about your business. The crimal comes along, does the crime keeping his hat on. The only DNA there is yours and the victims. Guess who's getting their door knocked down by the cops....
Backyard? Why don't we go ahead and just start putting them in the houses. They could be integrated into some sort of plasma display, then we could require that everyone have one in each of their rooms. It could be used for surveillance and propaganda at the same time!!
[I]If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about.[/I]
Try coming to Wyandotte County, Kansas. Where poor, intelligent, harmless (and innocent) college students can lose thousands of dollars (in bond and legal fees) plus a weekend in County lockup for answering the door and being polite to a detective, not to mention being honest about said college student's ignorance to the felony crime.
Just because someone didn't go to Yale, Harvard or Stanford doesn't make them any less qualified than someone who did. Those names are just something to put on a resume. They literally mean, "My parent's had a lot of money to send me away to school with," NOT "I am smarter than the guy in the next office who went to another school." Now if your talking about someone who handles the cases for the MPAA, RIAA, or some organization like that, I'm sure they can get $5000 an hour. But not because they're worth it, rather because they can get that from those organizations. They may get that job because they went to Yale, but that still makes them no more qualified than anyone else.
The fact is, it doesn't even take someone who specializes in IP to look over this contract. Any second year Law student should be able to give you valid advice. I would suggest checking if your Uni offers a free legal service. I know mine does (and they have real Lawyers on the payroll), and I pay for it, I just haven't had occasion to use it yet.
Not necessarily. What about the computer you use at work? It's not yours anyways. If the company wanted to buy a new "Google Desktop" server and put it in tbe building then they would be responsible for the data, just as they are today. All the employees would be running thin-clients and the CFO would be much happier.
But what if this server is running in the basement of a company, and every employee has a thin client??
Makes total sense when it's implemented on an Intranet.
You've got it to a certain extent. I think that this will not only apply to the Third world, but any company in the US. They can put Word Processing, E-Mail, Web browsing, and everything else into a central server. The server would be running an OS developed by Google. Then they could have a very simple "thin client" running on each person's desk. This would save the company a LOT of money, plus it would be easy to backup all the data because it would all be on one machine.
Of course it is. But, Lucas allows others to write books and comics set in the Star Wars universe. He (his office) has to approve the story and make sure it doesn't conflict with someone else's work.
So, in short it is trademarked and Lucas does stil own the rights, but you could write a Star Wars book if you really wanted.
With the amount of goods we buy from China and their enormous population and the lack of decent pollution controls, I would be surprised to learn that we produce less pollution than them.
One of the biggest reasons that PC games have so many bugs is the wide range of hardware and software that they must run with. There is no way to test every possible combinations. This is eliminated in the console world
"He's the top dog Republican. The house and the senate are controlled by Republicans."
That doesn't change the fact that he can only sign what they put on his desk.
I do understand how Social Security was MEANT to work. Furthermore, I DO believe it should be abolished. Older people have been finding ways to support themselves for thousands of years. If they want to save money, they should save it. If they don't, they should not be forced to (social security). By forcing people to save money in a government account, the governement is telling us that we don't know what is good for ourselves, and I (being amoung the minority of intelligent people) resent that.
"They do not pay a disproportionate amount of taxes."
It's called a progressive tax system. Not only do they pay more taxes in terms of $$, they also pay a higher percentage [both per capita]. Would you say the services they receive [per capita] is higher than that of a $20,000 income family who pays no [income] taxes due to deductions??
"Suggesting that the rich support everyone else is incredibly arrogant."
Maybe you should look up the word arrogant*, because that statement implies that I am rich. The fact is, I am a poor college student, my father's income is BELOW THE POVERTY LINE for our household size, and you have the gall to say that my opinions are biased by my situation?
I did not say that the rich support everyone, or that I support anyone. What I said is that they pay disproportionate income taxes, which is true.
My father would be one of the one's benefitting by the money put in by rich people, if he chose to go on disability. But he refuses because he believes in earning one's living no matter how hard it is.
So, I should support the rich paying higher taxes, afterall it would make my life easier? Maybe I would support it, if I didn't have moral values to teach me otherwise.
"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." I'll let you guess who that's from.
* "Arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance" from American Heritage
"He's the top dog Republican. The house and the senate are controlled by Republicans."
That doesn't change the fact that he can only sign what they put on his desk.
I do understand how Social Security was MEANT to work. Furthermore, I DO believe it should be abolished.
Older people have been finding ways to support themselves for thousands of years. If they want to save money, they should save it. If they don't, they should not be forced to (social security). By forcing people to save money in a government account, the governement is telling us that we don't know what is good for ourselves, and I (being amoung the minority of intelligent people) resent that.
"They do not pay a disproportionate amount of taxes."
It's called a progressive tax system. Not only do they pay more taxes in terms of $$, they also pay a higher percentage [both per capita]. Would you say the services they receive [per capita] is higher than that of a $20,000 income family who pays no [income] taxes due to deductions??
"Suggesting that the rich support everyone else is incredibly arrogant."
Maybe you should look up the word arrogant*, because that statement implies that I am rich. The fact is, I am a poor college student, my father's income is BELOW THE POVERTY LINE for our household size, and you have the gall to say that my opinions are biased by my situation?
I did not say that the rich support everyone, or that I support anyone. What I said is that they pay disproportionate income taxes, which is true.
My father would be one of the one's benifitting by the money put in by rich people, if he chose to go on disability. But he refuses because he believes in earning one's living no matter how hard it is.
So, I should support the rich paying higher taxes, afterall it would make my life easier? Maybe that would be true, if I didn't have moral values that teach me otherwise.
"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."
I'll let you guess who that's from.
* "Arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance" from American Heritage
"not raising the minimum wage keeps many people below the poverty line"
He doesn't even have the authority to change the minimum wage, that is set by..... Congress. Let's blame him anyways.
"His plan for Social Security will take retirement money away from people who were depending on it"
His plan does not decrease current social security, but rather supplemnents it on a VOLUNTARY BASIS. But, how will we ever achieve a true communist state if we allow people to choose for themselves?
"gave rich people a big tax break"
Rich people are people just like you and me. Why should they pay such a disproportionate amount of the tax revenue? They have more, and owe it to the rest of us, right?
"He'll make it nearly impossible for those injured by big business to hold them accountable."
You mean like the people who were shot by a killer trained by Wal-Mart (through the sale of a video game)?
"He has made a mockery of our justice system with the Unpatriot Act."
Once again, passed by the congress, would've been signed by Gore anyways.
"Bush is not a public servant, he's a power broker as is the rest of his family and his administration."
This is true of ANY politician (even your beloved Stalin), stop acting like it's exclusive to Bush and therefore makes him somehow worse than the others.
but at least he wasn't going to restructure the US into a country where those of us who make meager earnings are going to suffer. Bush is making this a country where you ned to have at least a six figure salary to just get by since you're going to eventually have to pay for everything out of pocket.
Those who make "meager earnings" already suffer. They can't blame that on any politician. They will suffer under any regime run by anyone in any country. Bush does not set your salery or mine, our employers do.
Have to pay everything out of pocket? What do you mean? Food, rent, utilities, taxes? You already have to pay those out of pocket (assuming you're not leeching off the government and having the support your entire life). How can you blame something like having to pay your own bills and earn your own living on Bush? People have been doing that for thousands of years, but now it's suddenly Bush's fault that you have to work?
It's time to stop blaming everything on Bush. These things have NOTHING to do with him. Why don't you post with a valid arguement next time?
Have you ever actually tried reading something from 500 years ago? Here's a little sample from around 1485:
Pray you all gyue your audyence
And here this mater with reuerence
By fygure a morall playe
The somonynge of euery man called it is
That of our lyues and endynge shewes
How transytory we be all daye
This mater is wonders precyous
But the entent of it is more gracyous
And swete to bere awaye
The story sayth man in the begynnynge
Loke well and take good heed to the endynge
Be you neuer so gay
Ye thynke synne in the begynnynge full swete
Whiche in the ende causeth the soule to wepe
Whan the body lyeth in claye
Here shall you se how felawshyp and Iolyte
Bothe strengthe pleasure and beaute
Wyll fade from the as floure in maye
For ye shall here how our heuen kynge
Calleth euery man to a generall rekenynge
Gyue audyence and here what he doth saye.
Slashdot Mirror
More specific? Okay, happened to me.
Yeah, but I'm still waiting for Valve to release a version of HL2 that supports 64 bits. IIRC UT2k3 was released with 64bit support over a year ago, what is taking these guys so long.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." --Sir William Blackstone (i believe)
It is a marker that, more than any other evidence, can correctly pick out the guilty from the innocent.
That is not true. Perhaps you were there before the perpetrator. You took off your hat and lost some hairs and dandruff then went about your business. The crimal comes along, does the crime keeping his hat on.
The only DNA there is yours and the victims. Guess who's getting their door knocked down by the cops....
Backyard? Why don't we go ahead and just start putting them in the houses. They could be integrated into some sort of plasma display, then we could require that everyone have one in each of their rooms. It could be used for surveillance and propaganda at the same time!!
To keep innocent people innocent.
The police having your DNA doesn't keep you from commiting a crime. If you are innocent, you are innocent; no amount of data can change that.
I think that prior to about 1920 they would have. With the right motivation and organization, of course.
[I]If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about.[/I]
Try coming to Wyandotte County, Kansas. Where poor, intelligent, harmless (and innocent) college students can lose thousands of dollars (in bond and legal fees) plus a weekend in County lockup for answering the door and being polite to a detective, not to mention being honest about said college student's ignorance to the felony crime.
Since when is JarJar a wookie??
Just because someone didn't go to Yale, Harvard or Stanford doesn't make them any less qualified than someone who did. Those names are just something to put on a resume. They literally mean, "My parent's had a lot of money to send me away to school with," NOT "I am smarter than the guy in the next office who went to another school." Now if your talking about someone who handles the cases for the MPAA, RIAA, or some organization like that, I'm sure they can get $5000 an hour. But not because they're worth it, rather because they can get that from those organizations. They may get that job because they went to Yale, but that still makes them no more qualified than anyone else.
The fact is, it doesn't even take someone who specializes in IP to look over this contract. Any second year Law student should be able to give you valid advice. I would suggest checking if your Uni offers a free legal service. I know mine does (and they have real Lawyers on the payroll), and I pay for it, I just haven't had occasion to use it yet.
Not necessarily. What about the computer you use at work? It's not yours anyways. If the company wanted to buy a new "Google Desktop" server and put it in tbe building then they would be responsible for the data, just as they are today. All the employees would be running thin-clients and the CFO would be much happier.
But what if this server is running in the basement of a company, and every employee has a thin client?? Makes total sense when it's implemented on an Intranet.
You've got it to a certain extent. I think that this will not only apply to the Third world, but any company in the US. They can put Word Processing, E-Mail, Web browsing, and everything else into a central server. The server would be running an OS developed by Google. Then they could have a very simple "thin client" running on each person's desk. This would save the company a LOT of money, plus it would be easy to backup all the data because it would all be on one machine.
Of course it is. But, Lucas allows others to write books and comics set in the Star Wars universe. He (his office) has to approve the story and make sure it doesn't conflict with someone else's work.
So, in short it is trademarked and Lucas does stil own the rights, but you could write a Star Wars book if you really wanted.
With the amount of goods we buy from China and their enormous population and the lack of decent pollution controls, I would be surprised to learn that we produce less pollution than them.
One of the biggest reasons that PC games have so many bugs is the wide range of hardware and software that they must run with. There is no way to test every possible combinations. This is eliminated in the console world
Yes, it was.
"He's the top dog Republican. The house and the senate are controlled by Republicans."
That doesn't change the fact that he can only sign what they put on his desk.
I do understand how Social Security was MEANT to work. Furthermore, I DO believe it should be abolished.
Older people have been finding ways to support themselves for thousands of years. If they want to save money, they should save it. If they don't, they should not be forced to (social security). By forcing people to save money in a government account, the governement is telling us that we don't know what is good for ourselves, and I (being amoung the minority of intelligent people) resent that.
"They do not pay a disproportionate amount of taxes."
It's called a progressive tax system. Not only do they pay more taxes in terms of $$, they also pay a higher percentage [both per capita]. Would you say the services they receive [per capita] is higher than that of a $20,000 income family who pays no [income] taxes due to deductions??
"Suggesting that the rich support everyone else is incredibly arrogant."
Maybe you should look up the word arrogant*, because that statement implies that I am rich. The fact is, I am a poor college student, my father's income is BELOW THE POVERTY LINE for our household size, and you have the gall to say that my opinions are biased by my situation?
I did not say that the rich support everyone, or that I support anyone. What I said is that they pay disproportionate income taxes, which is true.
My father would be one of the one's benefitting by the money put in by rich people, if he chose to go on disability. But he refuses because he believes in earning one's living no matter how hard it is.
So, I should support the rich paying higher taxes, afterall it would make my life easier? Maybe I would support it, if I didn't have moral values to teach me otherwise.
"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."
I'll let you guess who that's from.
* "Arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance" from American Heritage
"He's the top dog Republican. The house and the senate are controlled by Republicans." That doesn't change the fact that he can only sign what they put on his desk. I do understand how Social Security was MEANT to work. Furthermore, I DO believe it should be abolished. Older people have been finding ways to support themselves for thousands of years. If they want to save money, they should save it. If they don't, they should not be forced to (social security). By forcing people to save money in a government account, the governement is telling us that we don't know what is good for ourselves, and I (being amoung the minority of intelligent people) resent that. "They do not pay a disproportionate amount of taxes." It's called a progressive tax system. Not only do they pay more taxes in terms of $$, they also pay a higher percentage [both per capita]. Would you say the services they receive [per capita] is higher than that of a $20,000 income family who pays no [income] taxes due to deductions?? "Suggesting that the rich support everyone else is incredibly arrogant." Maybe you should look up the word arrogant*, because that statement implies that I am rich. The fact is, I am a poor college student, my father's income is BELOW THE POVERTY LINE for our household size, and you have the gall to say that my opinions are biased by my situation? I did not say that the rich support everyone, or that I support anyone. What I said is that they pay disproportionate income taxes, which is true. My father would be one of the one's benifitting by the money put in by rich people, if he chose to go on disability. But he refuses because he believes in earning one's living no matter how hard it is. So, I should support the rich paying higher taxes, afterall it would make my life easier? Maybe that would be true, if I didn't have moral values that teach me otherwise. "Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." I'll let you guess who that's from. * "Arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance" from American Heritage
"not raising the minimum wage keeps many people below the poverty line"
..... Congress. Let's blame him anyways.
He doesn't even have the authority to change the minimum wage, that is set by
"His plan for Social Security will take retirement money away from people who were depending on it"
His plan does not decrease current social security, but rather supplemnents it on a VOLUNTARY BASIS. But, how will we ever achieve a true communist state if we allow people to choose for themselves?
"gave rich people a big tax break"
Rich people are people just like you and me. Why should they pay such a disproportionate amount of the tax revenue? They have more, and owe it to the rest of us, right?
"He'll make it nearly impossible for those injured by big business to hold them accountable."
You mean like the people who were shot by a killer trained by Wal-Mart (through the sale of a video game)?
"He has made a mockery of our justice system with the Unpatriot Act."
Once again, passed by the congress, would've been signed by Gore anyways.
"Bush is not a public servant, he's a power broker as is the rest of his family and his administration."
This is true of ANY politician (even your beloved Stalin), stop acting like it's exclusive to Bush and therefore makes him somehow worse than the others.
but at least he wasn't going to restructure the US into a country where those of us who make meager earnings are going to suffer. Bush is making this a country where you ned to have at least a six figure salary to just get by since you're going to eventually have to pay for everything out of pocket.
Those who make "meager earnings" already suffer. They can't blame that on any politician. They will suffer under any regime run by anyone in any country. Bush does not set your salery or mine, our employers do.
Have to pay everything out of pocket? What do you mean? Food, rent, utilities, taxes? You already have to pay those out of pocket (assuming you're not leeching off the government and having the support your entire life). How can you blame something like having to pay your own bills and earn your own living on Bush? People have been doing that for thousands of years, but now it's suddenly Bush's fault that you have to work?
It's time to stop blaming everything on Bush. These things have NOTHING to do with him. Why don't you post with a valid arguement next time?
Never heard of Dreamcast, huh?
Never heard him say "successful console," huh?
I've been saying that for years. Someone finally agrees!!
"Clinton never did anything bad enough to get convicted of anything."
What about killing Vince Foster?
Have you ever actually tried reading something from 500 years ago? Here's a little sample from around 1485:
Pray you all gyue your audyence And here this mater with reuerence By fygure a morall playe The somonynge of euery man called it is That of our lyues and endynge shewes How transytory we be all daye This mater is wonders precyous But the entent of it is more gracyous And swete to bere awaye The story sayth man in the begynnynge Loke well and take good heed to the endynge Be you neuer so gay Ye thynke synne in the begynnynge full swete Whiche in the ende causeth the soule to wepe Whan the body lyeth in claye Here shall you se how felawshyp and Iolyte Bothe strengthe pleasure and beaute Wyll fade from the as floure in maye For ye shall here how our heuen kynge Calleth euery man to a generall rekenynge Gyue audyence and here what he doth saye.