Actually, if I'm not mistaken, that sort of boilerplate is exactly what won't get you into the PSLRA safe harbor. The forward looking statements need to be qualified with specificity as to why they're subject to change.
Agreed. I was an economics major. The whole dept shunned any form of computerized education, and I think I learned a lot more than in my core business courses where everything was ppt. The most advanced technology we saw was an overhead projector, because it's easy to overlay graphs upon one another. If I ever go into teaching, and I want to, I'm adopting that method even if it is 2025 by that time!
Huh? Not that we know each other, but those that do would be quick to point out that I'm not too arrogant to admit when something kicks my ass. For the most part, the science and math courses I took didn't present much of a challenge and I had the A's to show for it. Calc II was the one course I found really difficult, moreso than Calc I or Calc III, which I found to be not so difficult. To be honest, the most difficult course I took was in advanced econometrics, which was technically a business course.
Also, the point I did make was that the business degree gets you in the door, even if they really want you for your math, comp sci, or engineering skills. A lot of firms want you to be able to relate that stuff back to the overarching business goal and also be able to communicate with management, who often is focused on the business.
If you'd read my post, you would've realized that my career has very little to do with the subject matter of my degree at this point.
From my perspective as a mid-twentysomething, I agree with this entirely. I went away to college and quickly lost interest in pursuing CS or CE, Math, Physics, or any of the hard sciences, really. The kicker for me was the lack of a solid career path, and the way the folks that studied these subjects were treated in terms of on-campus recruiting, job fairs, etc. Meanwhile, business majors had no problems finding work, especially those who had some technical skills on the side. So I joined them, sort of, and ended up with a business degree in economics.
Coming out and looking for work, I was basically doing applied statistics, writing code for models and such, but would not even have been interviewed without the business degree. The bottom line is that someone with a stats degree could've done the work as specified, but they wanted to hire people who could write the models based on the business problem at hand (interpret it into a regression model basically, find out how to source the data to run it, write it, interpret the findings for management, etc). And I've done this for two different companies, so there's a chance it's not a unique hiring thing.
So I wonder, are people of my generation rejecting the idea of CS and other sciences, but using the concepts they learned from a few courses they took in that department in a business setting? If that's the case, like myself, I'd argue that the change is an emphasis on the application of these skills to business, not an abandonment in their education.
I'm really happy doing what I do, and while I probably lack the theoretical knowledge that a PhD in Statistics would have, my analysis in the business context is what's really being sought -- and I'm strong in that. I'm finishing up a law degree at night now, so I really can't wait to see how the technical skills apply in that profession. Lawyers are largely so tech/scientifically averse that they don't even consider the application of those skills in hiring, I've found. But the lawyers I've worked with here who have the tech or science background are tons better at their job. So what's it gonna be?
That's not the end-all, though. The judge still has his own discretion in issuing a jnov if the jury is unreasonable. That is, if the facts obviously do not lead to the verdict rendered. It's not to say it stands a chance at the appellate stage because of the deference given to the finders of fact (jury), but it's there.
Well AC, you made the right decision. This teacher certainly didn't strike me as someone who loved to teach or help people focus the direction of their independent learning. He just liked having a captive audience who had to do what they were told. If you ran into one of them, they'd ruin it for you too.
Heh, I have a similar experience, but it was in 11th or 12th grade, I forget. I was in AP Computer Science and the teacher, who I'd had for two years prior for programming classes absolutely couldn't stand me. I'm not the first to admit that I didn't have a little bit of an attitude, especially with respect to the things I was really good at, but at the same time I was genuinely good at what I was doing and was not one of those kids that got in any sort of trouble. To put it another way, I probably wasn't the worst "smart kid" in terms of attitude. The teacher was great with theory and algorithms (the backbone of writing code, imho), and I took a lot from that class. But I think he was struggling to learn object oriented programming in general, and was sort of learning as he went, since this was the first year of AP CS in the school.
He gave me a really hard time and knocked my grades down when I was doing things that we hadn't yet covered in class. Sort of took an attitude whenever I tried to participate or help other people learn, debug their code, clean up their algorithms, etc. I didn't really understand it then, and I really haven't cared to try to understand it since, but even though we as a class were all friendly with each other and wanted to help each other out, I especially was discouraged from doing it. My reward that year was not being invited to join our team at the state (I think it was state level) high school programming contest. Didn't talk to me about it, didn't even mention it, since this sort of thing happens without the knowledge of the rest of the class every year. I only knew because the prior year (as a junior) my team won first overall at the first competition and I won first individual at the second.
At this point I was in college mode and sort of let it go. In retrospect, this probably should have been confronted. This is what a bad teacher can do when he gets spiteful. His behavior definitely factored into my decision to avoid comp sci in general. I finished up with a business degree and did statistical modeling after college (SAS programming involved, does that count?). Now I'm in law school. I'm definitely happy with the path, and maybe it was a blessing in retrospect, but there are awful teachers out there and they can singlehandedly steer people away from things they really like and are really good at.
Which is it:
1) Does the seller have the "burden of proof" to prove that he uninstalled his copy and is not violating his license or
2) Is the seller to be given the "benefit of the doubt" and assumed to have uninstalled his copy, unless information is found to indicate otherwise?
note: I am probably using legal terms like "burden of proof" incorrectly. but you get my question.
I think you're tangling two legal issues. The issue here should be whether or not the original owner can resell his software as second hand. Whether or not he still has it installed is a separate legal issue. He is trying to sell his software and license, and Autodesk does not want him to. Whether or not, after transferring that license, he is now infringing copyright by using an unlicensed copy (presuming he sold his license) is the second issue. So the seller probably shouldn't have to even touch on the issue of whether or not he uninstalled it, or if he does, it's a separate claim that Autodesk could bring against him. Right now, he's suing because he wants to sell under the first sale doctrine.
Get a bucket, a pole, and some cement. Cement pole into bucket. Mount dish on pole. Place on roof, near a window, whatever. It doesn't do any permanent damage, so if you're not a jerk to the landlord, they just might let you do it. You'll have to find a clean way to run the wire in, best bet is to do it where wires (like cable) already go into the place, or through a window.
Thanks for the tip on reserving. I'll have to figure out when I can go, then try and reserve it:)
I've been to Jaleo (in Bethesda, though), and I completely agree. There are a couple things we tend to order as standard and then a few plates of whatever's new or seasonal. Never a bad meal there. Might have to do that pre-theatre menu at Atlantico then too.
Barbecue is very similar, but the method I think we're talking about is sous vide. Basically, the meat is sealed up in a vacuum bag and cooked at even a lower temp than bbq generally is done, usually at the "done" temperature of whatever it is you're cooking. So for a medium rare piece of beef, you put the pouch in 130 degree water for sometimes days until its done.
Barbecue uses slightly higher temperatures and smoke as its dry heat source. Also, the meat is not sealed up with its juices. So you get something similar (and delicious), but not quite the same. If you ever come across it, give it a shot.
If anyone's interested in this and is in the DC area, you can taste it affordably. Central Michel Richard, I think on 12th and Pennsylvania, has short ribs on the menu cooked sous vide. And it'll only set you back like $25. I had 'em, definitely the best thing on the menu.
I do agree with you. See my response above, I was really commenting more on the sensationalist wording of the submission than anything.
As a student, I've definitely been accused of being too idealistic in the justice system, mostly ignoring the fact that gobs of money are burnt even on an open-and-shut case. Especially so, given that it's common knowledge among my friends that I have little interest in pursuing public interest law, but I do have my set of issues that I hope to devote some time to in the future (mostly working with the Italian community on mundane legal issues that aren't serviced well due to the language barrier), but I digress.
But now here's where I change the subject, sort of, since you brought it up. I don't happen to think Miller is a great decision, and it did lead to a chain of events that have probably run over a lot of folks' rights. So what do you think about DC's Mayor Fenty wanting to challenge the recent overturning of DC's handgun ban by the DC circuit? I'm certainly a proponent of affirming that decision, and I'm really hoping that the supremes grant cert and hear it. I bet the mayors of NY, Detroit, Chicago, and all of CA are asking him to leave it be. But to answer your question, you're absolutely right, it took 3 decades to get a solid class of plaintiffs willing to pursue the DC gun ban. 30 years of not being able to protect one's home is a long time, especially when the ban was in obvious violation of the second amendment.
What part of whether the executive order is valid or invalid do you think will impact the executive branch's decision to enforce it?
I reread my post, and my wording's a bit ambiguous, but I was at work and had to type it out quickly:) I was really only commenting on the sensationalist "5th amendment overturned by executive order" style commentary. I read through the order yesterday, but I've forgotten most of it. I'll go through it again today and see if I can comment a bit more.
An executive order has absolutely no precedence over established law. I'm pretty sure it was in Youngstown Sheet & Tube (343 U.S. 579 if anyone wants to read it), it was Justice Frankfurter who said it in his concurrence that the executive, when issuing an order, operates in one of three potential spheres of power.
The first is when the order is complimentary to legislative intent, that is, Congress has already passed law(s) that further an objective and the executive order is in agreement with that. The executive order is in good standing here.
The second is an executive order upon an issue which Congress is silent. Absent congressional intent for or against, the executive order is valid law. This remainds until the order is rescinded or overruled.
The last is an executive order that is contrary to the law as passed by Congress. In this case, the executive order is not valid law.
So the headline here is quite misleading. The President can issue any executive order he or she wishes, but that does not make it valid.
Anyway, my screen resolution is 1920x something I forget. On a 24" wide format screen. The icon is still larger than it needs to be.
I am not using Beryl although it seemed to work well and never crashed, because I thought it might be the culprit behind my missing panels and workspaces and the like. I removed it and tried Desktop Effects, same problems. Turned off Desktop Effects, same problems.
What video card are you using? I seem to remember some Intel cards having issues with wide aspect ratios. Not sure it it would cause any of your problems though. What video card are you using? I seem to remember some Intel cards having issues with wide aspect ratios. Not sure it it would cause any of your problems though.
Actually, I've noticed this too. I have a 24" monitor at 1920x1200, nvidia 7900gt, and the available screen area just seems smaller on Ubuntu + Gnome than with Windows. The icons are a lot bigger, the system fonts are bigger. Not to mention, the fonts just aren't as smooth. If I make them smaller, no amount of antialiasing or "cleartype" fiddling in Gnome (I forget what it's actually called, sub-pixel rendering I think), will fix it. As it is, I'm stuck with fonts with a slight rainbow halo that are too big.
2160 is $91, x2 3600 is $64 (both Newegg prices). That Core2Duo costs 40% more than the x2, so while it's a step in the right direction, its not there yet. Plus, factor in that you can get a good AM2 board for ~70, whereas you have to spend north of 100 to get comparable features for Core2 (ie, Nforce 550 vs 965P chipsets).
Since they both take DDR2 memory, you can quickly add up the cost of moving from one platform to the next (assuming one already has a PCI-E card, just for the sake of argument). Figure $70 for 2 gigs of DDR2, and we're at 205ish for the 3600 system vs 280ish for the 2160 system (figuring a gigabyte 965p board). Definitely not a trivial difference to overcome.
That said, as consumers, we're really benefitting from this. I hope that it can continue, we're getting great CPU's out at a fast pace, and the bottom offerings like the 3600 and 2160 are still VERY good processors. Back in the day, the bottom of the barrel truly sucked.
I live in a jurisdiction that has a car tax, and that's pretty much how it is. We pay a base of like $25 for our tax sticker, plus a tax based on the value. The first $3k is exempt, the first $20k is subsidized at like 70%, and above that is full rate. Last year was 4.4% of the NADA value. My burden was $0.50 plus the sticker:) Some dude I work with, my age but likes to pretend like he's loaded, leased a new car and paid over $1000 and bitched for a couple weeks. That has nothing to do with the tax, but it was funny at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, that sort of boilerplate is exactly what won't get you into the PSLRA safe harbor. The forward looking statements need to be qualified with specificity as to why they're subject to change.
If you keep the UPS plugged in AND on a solar panel to charge, won't it feed back to the grid if it loses AC coming in?
Windmills do not work that way! Goodnight.
Agreed. I was an economics major. The whole dept shunned any form of computerized education, and I think I learned a lot more than in my core business courses where everything was ppt. The most advanced technology we saw was an overhead projector, because it's easy to overlay graphs upon one another. If I ever go into teaching, and I want to, I'm adopting that method even if it is 2025 by that time!
What about a car driven by William H. Macy, powered by his own sense of self worth?
Huh? Not that we know each other, but those that do would be quick to point out that I'm not too arrogant to admit when something kicks my ass. For the most part, the science and math courses I took didn't present much of a challenge and I had the A's to show for it. Calc II was the one course I found really difficult, moreso than Calc I or Calc III, which I found to be not so difficult. To be honest, the most difficult course I took was in advanced econometrics, which was technically a business course.
Also, the point I did make was that the business degree gets you in the door, even if they really want you for your math, comp sci, or engineering skills. A lot of firms want you to be able to relate that stuff back to the overarching business goal and also be able to communicate with management, who often is focused on the business.
If you'd read my post, you would've realized that my career has very little to do with the subject matter of my degree at this point.
From my perspective as a mid-twentysomething, I agree with this entirely. I went away to college and quickly lost interest in pursuing CS or CE, Math, Physics, or any of the hard sciences, really. The kicker for me was the lack of a solid career path, and the way the folks that studied these subjects were treated in terms of on-campus recruiting, job fairs, etc. Meanwhile, business majors had no problems finding work, especially those who had some technical skills on the side. So I joined them, sort of, and ended up with a business degree in economics.
Coming out and looking for work, I was basically doing applied statistics, writing code for models and such, but would not even have been interviewed without the business degree. The bottom line is that someone with a stats degree could've done the work as specified, but they wanted to hire people who could write the models based on the business problem at hand (interpret it into a regression model basically, find out how to source the data to run it, write it, interpret the findings for management, etc). And I've done this for two different companies, so there's a chance it's not a unique hiring thing.
So I wonder, are people of my generation rejecting the idea of CS and other sciences, but using the concepts they learned from a few courses they took in that department in a business setting? If that's the case, like myself, I'd argue that the change is an emphasis on the application of these skills to business, not an abandonment in their education.
I'm really happy doing what I do, and while I probably lack the theoretical knowledge that a PhD in Statistics would have, my analysis in the business context is what's really being sought -- and I'm strong in that. I'm finishing up a law degree at night now, so I really can't wait to see how the technical skills apply in that profession. Lawyers are largely so tech/scientifically averse that they don't even consider the application of those skills in hiring, I've found. But the lawyers I've worked with here who have the tech or science background are tons better at their job. So what's it gonna be?
That's not the end-all, though. The judge still has his own discretion in issuing a jnov if the jury is unreasonable. That is, if the facts obviously do not lead to the verdict rendered. It's not to say it stands a chance at the appellate stage because of the deference given to the finders of fact (jury), but it's there.
Well AC, you made the right decision. This teacher certainly didn't strike me as someone who loved to teach or help people focus the direction of their independent learning. He just liked having a captive audience who had to do what they were told. If you ran into one of them, they'd ruin it for you too.
Heh, I have a similar experience, but it was in 11th or 12th grade, I forget. I was in AP Computer Science and the teacher, who I'd had for two years prior for programming classes absolutely couldn't stand me. I'm not the first to admit that I didn't have a little bit of an attitude, especially with respect to the things I was really good at, but at the same time I was genuinely good at what I was doing and was not one of those kids that got in any sort of trouble. To put it another way, I probably wasn't the worst "smart kid" in terms of attitude. The teacher was great with theory and algorithms (the backbone of writing code, imho), and I took a lot from that class. But I think he was struggling to learn object oriented programming in general, and was sort of learning as he went, since this was the first year of AP CS in the school.
He gave me a really hard time and knocked my grades down when I was doing things that we hadn't yet covered in class. Sort of took an attitude whenever I tried to participate or help other people learn, debug their code, clean up their algorithms, etc. I didn't really understand it then, and I really haven't cared to try to understand it since, but even though we as a class were all friendly with each other and wanted to help each other out, I especially was discouraged from doing it. My reward that year was not being invited to join our team at the state (I think it was state level) high school programming contest. Didn't talk to me about it, didn't even mention it, since this sort of thing happens without the knowledge of the rest of the class every year. I only knew because the prior year (as a junior) my team won first overall at the first competition and I won first individual at the second.
At this point I was in college mode and sort of let it go. In retrospect, this probably should have been confronted. This is what a bad teacher can do when he gets spiteful. His behavior definitely factored into my decision to avoid comp sci in general. I finished up with a business degree and did statistical modeling after college (SAS programming involved, does that count?). Now I'm in law school. I'm definitely happy with the path, and maybe it was a blessing in retrospect, but there are awful teachers out there and they can singlehandedly steer people away from things they really like and are really good at.
Hey look, I found this book of cliches...
I think you're tangling two legal issues. The issue here should be whether or not the original owner can resell his software as second hand. Whether or not he still has it installed is a separate legal issue. He is trying to sell his software and license, and Autodesk does not want him to. Whether or not, after transferring that license, he is now infringing copyright by using an unlicensed copy (presuming he sold his license) is the second issue. So the seller probably shouldn't have to even touch on the issue of whether or not he uninstalled it, or if he does, it's a separate claim that Autodesk could bring against him. Right now, he's suing because he wants to sell under the first sale doctrine.
Get a bucket, a pole, and some cement. Cement pole into bucket. Mount dish on pole. Place on roof, near a window, whatever. It doesn't do any permanent damage, so if you're not a jerk to the landlord, they just might let you do it. You'll have to find a clean way to run the wire in, best bet is to do it where wires (like cable) already go into the place, or through a window.
Thanks for the tip on reserving. I'll have to figure out when I can go, then try and reserve it :)
I've been to Jaleo (in Bethesda, though), and I completely agree. There are a couple things we tend to order as standard and then a few plates of whatever's new or seasonal. Never a bad meal there. Might have to do that pre-theatre menu at Atlantico then too.
I hear minibar is great. Gotta reserve months out for it, too. I'm hoping I get to go sometime this year.
I had to cancel a reservation at Cafe Atlantico for this past Sat, but I'll try the mojito next time I'm there. Thanks for the tip!
Barbecue is very similar, but the method I think we're talking about is sous vide. Basically, the meat is sealed up in a vacuum bag and cooked at even a lower temp than bbq generally is done, usually at the "done" temperature of whatever it is you're cooking. So for a medium rare piece of beef, you put the pouch in 130 degree water for sometimes days until its done.
Barbecue uses slightly higher temperatures and smoke as its dry heat source. Also, the meat is not sealed up with its juices. So you get something similar (and delicious), but not quite the same. If you ever come across it, give it a shot.
If anyone's interested in this and is in the DC area, you can taste it affordably. Central Michel Richard, I think on 12th and Pennsylvania, has short ribs on the menu cooked sous vide. And it'll only set you back like $25. I had 'em, definitely the best thing on the menu.
Wow. I'm a law student, so I like to think I understand that people can and will sue over anything. But Wow. This is shameful.
I do agree with you. See my response above, I was really commenting more on the sensationalist wording of the submission than anything.
As a student, I've definitely been accused of being too idealistic in the justice system, mostly ignoring the fact that gobs of money are burnt even on an open-and-shut case. Especially so, given that it's common knowledge among my friends that I have little interest in pursuing public interest law, but I do have my set of issues that I hope to devote some time to in the future (mostly working with the Italian community on mundane legal issues that aren't serviced well due to the language barrier), but I digress.
But now here's where I change the subject, sort of, since you brought it up. I don't happen to think Miller is a great decision, and it did lead to a chain of events that have probably run over a lot of folks' rights. So what do you think about DC's Mayor Fenty wanting to challenge the recent overturning of DC's handgun ban by the DC circuit? I'm certainly a proponent of affirming that decision, and I'm really hoping that the supremes grant cert and hear it. I bet the mayors of NY, Detroit, Chicago, and all of CA are asking him to leave it be. But to answer your question, you're absolutely right, it took 3 decades to get a solid class of plaintiffs willing to pursue the DC gun ban. 30 years of not being able to protect one's home is a long time, especially when the ban was in obvious violation of the second amendment.
What part of whether the executive order is valid or invalid do you think will impact the executive branch's decision to enforce it?
:) I was really only commenting on the sensationalist "5th amendment overturned by executive order" style commentary. I read through the order yesterday, but I've forgotten most of it. I'll go through it again today and see if I can comment a bit more.
I reread my post, and my wording's a bit ambiguous, but I was at work and had to type it out quickly
I feel obligated to reply.
An executive order has absolutely no precedence over established law. I'm pretty sure it was in Youngstown Sheet & Tube (343 U.S. 579 if anyone wants to read it), it was Justice Frankfurter who said it in his concurrence that the executive, when issuing an order, operates in one of three potential spheres of power.
The first is when the order is complimentary to legislative intent, that is, Congress has already passed law(s) that further an objective and the executive order is in agreement with that. The executive order is in good standing here.
The second is an executive order upon an issue which Congress is silent. Absent congressional intent for or against, the executive order is valid law. This remainds until the order is rescinded or overruled.
The last is an executive order that is contrary to the law as passed by Congress. In this case, the executive order is not valid law.
So the headline here is quite misleading. The President can issue any executive order he or she wishes, but that does not make it valid.
Actually, I've noticed this too. I have a 24" monitor at 1920x1200, nvidia 7900gt, and the available screen area just seems smaller on Ubuntu + Gnome than with Windows. The icons are a lot bigger, the system fonts are bigger. Not to mention, the fonts just aren't as smooth. If I make them smaller, no amount of antialiasing or "cleartype" fiddling in Gnome (I forget what it's actually called, sub-pixel rendering I think), will fix it. As it is, I'm stuck with fonts with a slight rainbow halo that are too big.
Anyone have a recommendation?
2160 is $91, x2 3600 is $64 (both Newegg prices). That Core2Duo costs 40% more than the x2, so while it's a step in the right direction, its not there yet. Plus, factor in that you can get a good AM2 board for ~70, whereas you have to spend north of 100 to get comparable features for Core2 (ie, Nforce 550 vs 965P chipsets).
Since they both take DDR2 memory, you can quickly add up the cost of moving from one platform to the next (assuming one already has a PCI-E card, just for the sake of argument). Figure $70 for 2 gigs of DDR2, and we're at 205ish for the 3600 system vs 280ish for the 2160 system (figuring a gigabyte 965p board). Definitely not a trivial difference to overcome.
That said, as consumers, we're really benefitting from this. I hope that it can continue, we're getting great CPU's out at a fast pace, and the bottom offerings like the 3600 and 2160 are still VERY good processors. Back in the day, the bottom of the barrel truly sucked.
You're selling penis mightiers?
I live in a jurisdiction that has a car tax, and that's pretty much how it is. We pay a base of like $25 for our tax sticker, plus a tax based on the value. The first $3k is exempt, the first $20k is subsidized at like 70%, and above that is full rate. Last year was 4.4% of the NADA value. My burden was $0.50 plus the sticker :) Some dude I work with, my age but likes to pretend like he's loaded, leased a new car and paid over $1000 and bitched for a couple weeks. That has nothing to do with the tax, but it was funny at the time.