What I want to know is how the actual players know where the first-down line is.
The line is marked from the sideline using a 10 yard-long chain connecting two orange rods, as well as a few additional measuring tools. See "chain crew."
I already knew in pretty significant detail how all this works, but there was a lot of additional information in the video that never made it to the PR-sanitized behind-the-scenes descriptions of the technology.
Plus, you get to see the ugly UI that appears to have been built as an afterthought - just like the UI of all the other industrial television software I've operated.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
I can't, but I can't think of another company where the CEO plays as influential a role in public perception of the company as Steve Jobs.
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
You're absolutely right that Apple's under no obligation to respond. What I said is that the simplest way to silence the "nutjobs" is a strongly-worded denial.
I believe a very large part of that can be blamed on Apple. When lawyers and the SEC are involved, the lack of a strong denial sounds like a confirmation. To my knowledge, Apple has never said "Steve is not sick--" they've only flirted with the question ("Steve's BP is 120/80") or avoided it ("We're not here to talk about Steve's health.")
A simply-worded denial could dramatically tone down the questions, if that's their goal.
Google is the only legitimate company I've seen that auto-updates desktop software silently. Arguably, Google's implementation qualifies as badware for these reasons:
The fact that it auto-updates is disclosed only in the EULA, not separately from the EULA, as required by Method of Disclosure and Consent.
In violation of Software Which Installs Deceptively, the auto-updater makes substantive changes to the application, silently downloads, and does not clearly disclose the auto-updates during the initial install.
Would you idiots PLEASE for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, stop justifying the use of flash for videos when there is a perfectly good embed tag used for embedding *gasp* videos!
There's no such thing as an embed tag in HTML. If you believe differently, please reply with a link to the appropriate part of the HTML/XHTML spec.
Please show me where I implied that and I'll happily apologize. Actually, when I was writing my earlier reply I was thinking, "it's a shame that there aren't more people like the parent, because important debates could finally get somewhere."
Do you honestly feel people can't avoid being dicks without the threat of fire and brimstone?
I believe what I originally said--that laws cannot exist without morality, because morality defines what is right and wrong. Your morality can be based on Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Atheism or any number of other attempts to define reality, but something has to dictate what one sees as right and wrong. "Right" and "wrong" don't just spring into being. They require a worldview.
Some people just aren't tools, you know.
What am I a tool of? If there's no divine being(s), then I clearly can't be a tool of him/her/it/them. Am I a tool of organized religion? I have disagreements with my spiritual leaders all the time. The government? I don't think it's representing my interests any more than anybody else does. The central tenet of my faith is self-determination. If you think I'm being overly influenced by something, please tell me.
At what point do you consider a pregnancy to be composed of two people?
This is really the question, isn't it? For me, the answer seems logical. If a person is defined by his or her DNA, then the moment when a person begins existing has to be at conception. (Actually, at the instant when the parents' DNA fuses completely. I think that happens between conception and implantation, if I understand the terms correctly.) Prior to conception, you have only half the DNA; after conception, there's really no clear moment where the DNA changes in a way that re-defines the person. Birth can happen early or late--does this mean that fetuses take different amounts of time before they become people?
When does she no longer have authority over that part of her body?
Many pro-life supporters believe that there is a supernatural power. When you accept the existence of the supernatural, you can take further logical steps and conclude that perhaps women (and men) don't have authority over their body.
Well there's sperm too, so don't go spanking your monkey unless you're prepared to stand tall before the man.
Sperm and ova have only half the number of chromosomes required to define a person. The world's too big to say that nobody believes that a sperm is a person, but I think the number would be infinitesimally small.
And since this is now a legal life that a mother is responsible for, should we have funerals for fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterus?
A funeral is not a legal process. You can choose to have funerals or not for anything, just as you can choose to be interred or cremated.
Should a bastula be registered with social security as soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive? Shouldn't someone claim it as a dependent on their taxes? And get more welfare for it? And now lets say the pregnancy fails, should there be an autopsy and criminal hearings to see if the pregnant mother was criminally negligent with her diet and exercise routine? And if the mother terminates the pregnancy because of health risk, should she be put on trial?
I agree with you that in each of those cases, we should be looking for consistency. If the U.S. decides that people begin existence at birth, I'd disagree. However, if that were to be decided, it would be hypocritical to try and charge people for double homicides. We need to pick one. The problem is that the two sides are so fundamentally opposed that I can't see a middle ground happening anytime soon.
The law has it about as close as it can, in my opinion.
There have been a number of cases that have essentially said that "when a woman has an abortion, that's okay; when a baby dies from an outside force without the mother's permission, that's murder." That is a logical inconsistency that must be corrected.
The law of a secular society has to end at some point and let morality hold its own turf.
Here's the problem: I don't believe a "secular society" is even possible in logical terms. What defines a crime, if not morality? Anytime you describe laws in terms of "right" and "wrong," you are entering the realm of morality.
I don't dispute the 16th Amemdnment gives the Federal Government the right to take my hard earned money. What gives them the right to give it to somebody who didn't earn it?
The Constitution talks about promoting the general Welfare in at least two places--the Preamble, and Article 1, Section 8. One can argue about whether a handout is promoting the general Welfare, but you can at least make a plausible argument for it.
Also, the Constitution doesn't make any attempt to define "earning." The intent was to put people on a level playing field, not to implement a class system.
The EULA has been present since the first 1.0 release of Firefox, and people complained just as bitterly then. Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
There are alternatives that are similar. Some advocate making the use of DRM an implicit waiver of copyright protections. One could arrange for a de-DRM patch by requiring the game manufacturer to place it in escrow with the Library of Congress as part of the registration. There's room for creative ideas.
How, then, can they use the management functions of the equipment if they can't get to it?
Terry Childs provided the passwords to the mayor on July 22. The city "...[was] able to regain complete control of the network," according to the deputy director of the Department of Technology Information Services.
But this comment thread is not talking about the professional exemption; it's talking about the executive exemption (PDF), which applies to managers. Here's the original comment again:
Is there an actual codified definition of what constitutes a "manager"? If not, what would stop them from defining whoever they want (or everyone for that matter) as a "manager"?
CNN and AOL are both owned by Time Warner, and AOL has tracked down and successfully prosecuted a number of spammers before. The size and level of publicity behind this spam attack might make it worth CNN's while to pursue.
The best issue tracker we've seen for Subversion, by far, is Trac. We're not crazy that it's written in Python (not that anything is wrong with Python - it's just proven difficult for us to hire people with language familiarity beyond PHP). However, the integration between Subversion and Trac appears to be very good.
It's supposed to be pronounced "maki-maki," Hawaiian-style as he calls it.
That is definitely not Hawaiian style. (This rant is directed at him, not you.)
In Hawaiian, and many other languages in the Polynesian family, vowels have one main pronunciation. Es are pronounced with an "ay" sound, so the correct "Hawaiian-style" pronunciation would be closer to maKAY-maKAY. In fact, vowels are generally pronounced longer than English, so an even better transcription might be muhKEH-muhKEH.
Also, Hawaiian and Rapanui have common roots, but like all languages, they evolved. "Make" means death or defeat in Hawaiian; "makemake" can mean defeat or desire or wish.
For such a staunch FSF idealist, I find it ironic that you infringed on their copyright by failing to include the requirednotice in your copy and paste job.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is how the actual players know where the first-down line is.
The line is marked from the sideline using a 10 yard-long chain connecting two orange rods, as well as a few additional measuring tools. See "chain crew."
I already knew in pretty significant detail how all this works, but there was a lot of additional information in the video that never made it to the PR-sanitized behind-the-scenes descriptions of the technology.
Plus, you get to see the ugly UI that appears to have been built as an afterthought - just like the UI of all the other industrial television software I've operated.
I wouldn't be surprised if she was under a non-compete preventing exactly that.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
I can't, but I can't think of another company where the CEO plays as influential a role in public perception of the company as Steve Jobs.
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
You're absolutely right that Apple's under no obligation to respond. What I said is that the simplest way to silence the "nutjobs" is a strongly-worded denial.
I believe a very large part of that can be blamed on Apple. When lawyers and the SEC are involved, the lack of a strong denial sounds like a confirmation. To my knowledge, Apple has never said "Steve is not sick--" they've only flirted with the question ("Steve's BP is 120/80") or avoided it ("We're not here to talk about Steve's health.")
A simply-worded denial could dramatically tone down the questions, if that's their goal.
Google is the only legitimate company I've seen that auto-updates desktop software silently. Arguably, Google's implementation qualifies as badware for these reasons:
Microsoft gets a lot of things wrong, but at least it lets you reject a patch you know is going to break something that you need.
Worf does. That's good enough for me.
Would you idiots PLEASE for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, stop justifying the use of flash for videos when there is a perfectly good embed tag used for embedding *gasp* videos!
There's no such thing as an embed tag in HTML. If you believe differently, please reply with a link to the appropriate part of the HTML/XHTML spec.
So atheists are immoral jackasses. Good to know.
Please show me where I implied that and I'll happily apologize. Actually, when I was writing my earlier reply I was thinking, "it's a shame that there aren't more people like the parent, because important debates could finally get somewhere."
Do you honestly feel people can't avoid being dicks without the threat of fire and brimstone?
I believe what I originally said--that laws cannot exist without morality, because morality defines what is right and wrong. Your morality can be based on Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Atheism or any number of other attempts to define reality, but something has to dictate what one sees as right and wrong. "Right" and "wrong" don't just spring into being. They require a worldview.
Some people just aren't tools, you know.
What am I a tool of? If there's no divine being(s), then I clearly can't be a tool of him/her/it/them. Am I a tool of organized religion? I have disagreements with my spiritual leaders all the time. The government? I don't think it's representing my interests any more than anybody else does. The central tenet of my faith is self-determination. If you think I'm being overly influenced by something, please tell me.
At what point do you consider a pregnancy to be composed of two people?
This is really the question, isn't it? For me, the answer seems logical. If a person is defined by his or her DNA, then the moment when a person begins existing has to be at conception. (Actually, at the instant when the parents' DNA fuses completely. I think that happens between conception and implantation, if I understand the terms correctly.) Prior to conception, you have only half the DNA; after conception, there's really no clear moment where the DNA changes in a way that re-defines the person. Birth can happen early or late--does this mean that fetuses take different amounts of time before they become people?
When does she no longer have authority over that part of her body?
Many pro-life supporters believe that there is a supernatural power. When you accept the existence of the supernatural, you can take further logical steps and conclude that perhaps women (and men) don't have authority over their body.
Well there's sperm too, so don't go spanking your monkey unless you're prepared to stand tall before the man.
Sperm and ova have only half the number of chromosomes required to define a person. The world's too big to say that nobody believes that a sperm is a person, but I think the number would be infinitesimally small.
And since this is now a legal life that a mother is responsible for, should we have funerals for fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterus?
A funeral is not a legal process. You can choose to have funerals or not for anything, just as you can choose to be interred or cremated.
Should a bastula be registered with social security as soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive? Shouldn't someone claim it as a dependent on their taxes? And get more welfare for it? And now lets say the pregnancy fails, should there be an autopsy and criminal hearings to see if the pregnant mother was criminally negligent with her diet and exercise routine? And if the mother terminates the pregnancy because of health risk, should she be put on trial?
I agree with you that in each of those cases, we should be looking for consistency. If the U.S. decides that people begin existence at birth, I'd disagree. However, if that were to be decided, it would be hypocritical to try and charge people for double homicides. We need to pick one. The problem is that the two sides are so fundamentally opposed that I can't see a middle ground happening anytime soon.
The law has it about as close as it can, in my opinion.
There have been a number of cases that have essentially said that "when a woman has an abortion, that's okay; when a baby dies from an outside force without the mother's permission, that's murder." That is a logical inconsistency that must be corrected.
The law of a secular society has to end at some point and let morality hold its own turf.
Here's the problem: I don't believe a "secular society" is even possible in logical terms. What defines a crime, if not morality? Anytime you describe laws in terms of "right" and "wrong," you are entering the realm of morality.
I don't dispute the 16th Amemdnment gives the Federal Government the right to take my hard earned money. What gives them the right to give it to somebody who didn't earn it?
The Constitution talks about promoting the general Welfare in at least two places--the Preamble, and Article 1, Section 8. One can argue about whether a handout is promoting the general Welfare, but you can at least make a plausible argument for it.
Also, the Constitution doesn't make any attempt to define "earning." The intent was to put people on a level playing field, not to implement a class system.
What company insists that you can't use the new version of Google until it has been vetted by IT?
The only thing saving me is that my IT can't see the version numbers.
Macbooks use the intel on board chips which while sucky for gaming, have now proven themselves to not be mini-USS Enterprises.
There have been five Federation ships with that name. Please specify by registry number.
The EULA has been present since the first 1.0 release of Firefox, and people complained just as bitterly then. Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
Nope, that's only true when you're linking in from Google. They do cloaking.
I just clicked on your link and am certain I did not see any answers.
There are alternatives that are similar. Some advocate making the use of DRM an implicit waiver of copyright protections. One could arrange for a de-DRM patch by requiring the game manufacturer to place it in escrow with the Library of Congress as part of the registration. There's room for creative ideas.
How, then, can they use the management functions of the equipment if they can't get to it?
Terry Childs provided the passwords to the mayor on July 22. The city "...[was] able to regain complete control of the network," according to the deputy director of the Department of Technology Information Services.
But this comment thread is not talking about the professional exemption; it's talking about the executive exemption (PDF), which applies to managers. Here's the original comment again:
Is there an actual codified definition of what constitutes a "manager"? If not, what would stop them from defining whoever they want (or everyone for that matter) as a "manager"?
Is there an actual codified definition of what constitutes a "manager"?
Yes. It'd be better if you RTFA, but since you didn't, all of the following must be true:
The quote at the bottom of Slashdot's page right now is especially appropriate:
You will be dead within a year.
CNN and AOL are both owned by Time Warner, and AOL has tracked down and successfully prosecuted a number of spammers before. The size and level of publicity behind this spam attack might make it worth CNN's while to pursue.
The best issue tracker we've seen for Subversion, by far, is Trac. We're not crazy that it's written in Python (not that anything is wrong with Python - it's just proven difficult for us to hire people with language familiarity beyond PHP). However, the integration between Subversion and Trac appears to be very good.
IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke...Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.
Perhaps Windows ME was New Coke and Vista is just Pepsi.
Maybe Windows is like Star Trek movies... only every other release is good.
Would it be more accurate to say, "every other release is less bad?"
Arch Deluxe
Now you've crossed the line. The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever. It made Big Macs look like they came out of a vending machine.
It's supposed to be pronounced "maki-maki," Hawaiian-style as he calls it.
That is definitely not Hawaiian style. (This rant is directed at him, not you.)
In Hawaiian, and many other languages in the Polynesian family, vowels have one main pronunciation. Es are pronounced with an "ay" sound, so the correct "Hawaiian-style" pronunciation would be closer to maKAY-maKAY. In fact, vowels are generally pronounced longer than English, so an even better transcription might be muhKEH-muhKEH.
Also, Hawaiian and Rapanui have common roots, but like all languages, they evolved. "Make" means death or defeat in Hawaiian; "makemake" can mean defeat or desire or wish.
For such a staunch FSF idealist, I find it ironic that you infringed on their copyright by failing to include the required notice in your copy and paste job.