Technically, it's "Duck". It's duck, because it was first used to keep ammo dry by sealing the ammo boxes with this tape (WWII). Since then, it's been useful for sealing Air Ducts, but really - it's Duck Tape, as in, Water off a Duck's back.
Interesting, but even Phantom, while powerful, was still remarkably upbeat. I suggest Circle of Life simply because that was the only comparative I have of a collaboration between the two artists.
Hey, nothing against either one of them, but the choice seems wrong.
First of all, John Williams has to have musical credit if they use
ANY of the original Star Wars music, so that shouldn't be surprising.
Which is to say, there's a chance that Williams didn't actually work on
this piece, specifically.
However, Elton John and Andrew Lloyd Webber doesn't bode well for
this production. We're talking the folks who brought us "Circle of Life",
from Disney's "The Lion King".
I'm not sure all that feel-good music will work with Storm Troopers, and rebel star systems trying to escape Imperial rule.
I never suggested that the CRT that I'm comparing "other stuff" to wasn't a Mitusbishi Diamondtron. As, yes, in fact, it is.
Nor was I suggesting that it was taking candy from a baby. I was merely mentioning that Sony was in the lead, and lost it. You seem to re-date that loss, so I'll concede that you are probably right.
For the record. Patents and Software are the "evil mix". That still doesn't mean there are not rip-off programs.
The best example I can think of would probably get this post labelled as a troll, though, so I'll just leave it at that.
---
The point I was trying to make is that even after all those years, Sony's Trinitron technology was an immediate improvement to what they could already offer. It would seem though, that after 17 years, someone would of come out with something better that didn't require visible cross-wires. In other words, Sony was indeed that far ahead.
When it comes to CRTs, Sony was the best only three years ago. When Mitsubishi started pushing their "DiamondTron" flat-CRTs, totally ripped off from Sony's Trinitron technology.
LCD/DLP/Plasma are still not bright enough for well lit spaces (IMHO). I don't always want to use the basement for my Television viewing.
The reason why I chose that example is that Ben, himself, was the anonymous source of opinions that were unpopular with the government (England). At the time, he had to write the opinion in a way that would guarantee his own anonymity (which is still available for opinions in any case).
At the time, he was working for a publisher which skews the meaning I was trying to make. However, he should have been free to directly write editorials. Interestingly,James Franklin (Ben's older brother) whom was the publisher, was the first to serve a jail sentance for publishing libel (which only meant - opinions unpopular with the government).
Excellent point. It is similar to a point I answered above, but much better worded.
Though, if Frank the drug dealer does set up a blog, and reports on occurances within the drug underworld - within his connection to that blog, he is engaging in journalistic activities. If he, himself, is indicted for a crime, his protections as a journalist should be dropped (being a journalist implies... hands off).
Obviously, the blog itself would be written in the third person, and not reveal Frank the Drug Dealer's own involvement in the happenings. In any case, the blog alone would not be enough to convict him (regardless of other protections), and for the police to show up, and ruffle him for names - based on the blog entry, and Frank the Drug Dealer's named association with that blog alone - would be entirely improper. Just like a "real" reporter though, this doesn't stop the cops from being right in observing Frank in public places, to find out who he associates with.
That's the point. He's not. If journalist is set to any single definition, a slew of "technically correct" situations will arise, that are obviously not correct. Just as a whole group of those that should be protected a journalist, will not be.
I think it's better to simply not define, and let the courts deal with it, one cast at a time.
Yet most "editors" require that their reporters divulge their sources to THEM, but also will protect the sources from outside peering eyes. I believe the intent is to cover editors from divulging this information as well.
I'm writing to a Slashdot posting. Many slashdotters, maybe not you, but many of us use the "WikiPedia" and even use the "Journal" feature of SlashDot.
If someone gives me a picture to post to my blog of this guy smoking something with a woman, "Post this, it's funny. But you didn't get it from me". It's a funny picture, so I post it as-a humor piece. Can't tell at first, but this guy turns out to be the Mayor of my city, who is otherwise unmarried, and the girl turns out to be a crack-whore.
Great. So, then - we come to find that the something is probably drugs and the Crack-Whore ended up dead, and heavily doped up on Meth. The police get involved and investigate. Next, they talk to me, "Where did you get the photo?"
See, what I posted turns out to be news-worthy, but I didn't post it in a journalistic way. However, at no point did I expect someone would ask me about this guy who gave me the photo, but didn't want a photo-credit.
So, I'm screwed - and this guy will probably get nabbed as an accessory to drug distribution. Is that right? I'm fairly sure that's the intended outcome.
But if I were employed by Knight-Ridder, then I don't have to say a word, and my buddy keeps sending me funny photos. Is that right? Is that the intended outcome?
Slashdot Mirror
I've used Navit for phone routing, but it has no way to submit corrections. And the official osm app doesn't do offline routing.
Don't do this many times in a row, though, because the pattern on your resume says much more than length of time.
That was a really fun article to read. Thanks so much for sharing it.
It worked so well with the Metric system conversion.
.wap is even better.
*927 - depending on your phone
Many posts before mine listed links to more informative articles. I remembered my info from an NPR story from a few years back.
Technically, it's "Duck". It's duck, because it was first used to keep ammo dry by sealing the ammo boxes with this tape (WWII). Since then, it's been useful for sealing Air Ducts, but really - it's Duck Tape, as in, Water off a Duck's back.
O.K., Good tip. But... I already saw SpaceBalls.
Hey, nothing against either one of them, but the choice seems wrong.
Some of their marching in the original movies came close to tapdancing anyway, so - it may not be "as" out of place.
Fully agreed.
Especially being, as you note, MIT has a tendancy of making their stuff freely available in their time.
First of all, John Williams has to have musical credit if they use ANY of the original Star Wars music, so that shouldn't be surprising. Which is to say, there's a chance that Williams didn't actually work on this piece, specifically.
However, Elton John and Andrew Lloyd Webber doesn't bode well for this production. We're talking the folks who brought us "Circle of Life", from Disney's "The Lion King".
I'm not sure all that feel-good music will work with Storm Troopers, and rebel star systems trying to escape Imperial rule.
Nor was I suggesting that it was taking candy from a baby. I was merely mentioning that Sony was in the lead, and lost it. You seem to re-date that loss, so I'll concede that you are probably right.
I note that you said "in a dark room", you should also add "directly in front of, and no more than 20 degrees off center".
Certainly, DLP is still clearly visible (in that dark room) up to 60 degrees off center, but that rightness degrades quickly.
The best example I can think of would probably get this post labelled as a troll, though, so I'll just leave it at that.
---
The point I was trying to make is that even after all those years, Sony's Trinitron technology was an immediate improvement to what they could already offer. It would seem though, that after 17 years, someone would of come out with something better that didn't require visible cross-wires. In other words, Sony was indeed that far ahead.
There are a few "super-bright" LCD / Backlights available, but they still are not as bright as my CRT. They may be "less sharp" though.
LCD/DLP/Plasma are still not bright enough for well lit spaces (IMHO). I don't always want to use the basement for my Television viewing.
Great. The whole world with a major water shortage in 50 short years. But, boy, we'll have cheap power!
At the time, he was working for a publisher which skews the meaning I was trying to make. However, he should have been free to directly write editorials. Interestingly,James Franklin (Ben's older brother) whom was the publisher, was the first to serve a jail sentance for publishing libel (which only meant - opinions unpopular with the government).
This is a decent site, with a lot of information:
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/courant/
Though, if Frank the drug dealer does set up a blog, and reports on occurances within the drug underworld - within his connection to that blog, he is engaging in journalistic activities. If he, himself, is indicted for a crime, his protections as a journalist should be dropped (being a journalist implies ... hands off).
Obviously, the blog itself would be written in the third person, and not reveal Frank the Drug Dealer's own involvement in the happenings. In any case, the blog alone would not be enough to convict him (regardless of other protections), and for the police to show up, and ruffle him for names - based on the blog entry, and Frank the Drug Dealer's named association with that blog alone - would be entirely improper. Just like a "real" reporter though, this doesn't stop the cops from being right in observing Frank in public places, to find out who he associates with.
I think it's better to simply not define, and let the courts deal with it, one cast at a time.
That's where a judgement call might be required.
Yet most "editors" require that their reporters divulge their sources to THEM, but also will protect the sources from outside peering eyes. I believe the intent is to cover editors from divulging this information as well.
I'm writing to a Slashdot posting. Many slashdotters, maybe not you, but many of us use the "WikiPedia" and even use the "Journal" feature of SlashDot.
If someone gives me a picture to post to my blog of this guy smoking something with a woman, "Post this, it's funny. But you didn't get it from me". It's a funny picture, so I post it as-a humor piece. Can't tell at first, but this guy turns out to be the Mayor of my city, who is otherwise unmarried, and the girl turns out to be a crack-whore.
Great. So, then - we come to find that the something is probably drugs and the Crack-Whore ended up dead, and heavily doped up on Meth. The police get involved and investigate. Next, they talk to me, "Where did you get the photo?"
See, what I posted turns out to be news-worthy, but I didn't post it in a journalistic way. However, at no point did I expect someone would ask me about this guy who gave me the photo, but didn't want a photo-credit.
So, I'm screwed - and this guy will probably get nabbed as an accessory to drug distribution. Is that right? I'm fairly sure that's the intended outcome.
But if I were employed by Knight-Ridder, then I don't have to say a word, and my buddy keeps sending me funny photos. Is that right? Is that the intended outcome?