To that, I agree wholeheartedly. The original sneer was unhelpful (and so I don't argue its flamebait mod). That the original note was ad hominem doesn't mean it was wrong, just illogical, i.e., the conclusion does not follow from the predicates. My only point was that calling it ad hominem was just as unhelpful and illogical.
Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having a car behind a painting. You don't notice that there is anything being kept away from you. Well, other than that big-assed painting.
No? How about this...
Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having the locks of the car behind paintings. You don't notice the keyholes. Well, other than those out-of-place paintings hanging off the door handles.
No? How about this...
Plain cryptography is something like driving your car across the border while trying to keep from having to show your passport to the border patrol (by showing them fake ID). This is like doing the same while having the trunk full of cocaine when you do so.
What you're doing is ad latinum - the fallacy of throwing out a fancy latin term and thinking that it refutes a point. What the GP is doing is no different from watching a few episodes of Mythbusters, noting its decided lack of a love story (well, other than a love for blowing things up), and deciding not to watch the rest of the series. The fact that the GP used an ad hominem attack against the article does not make the article right. (Just like this post doesn't make you wrong.)
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If you don't like a magazine due to its political slant (left, right, lack there-of, or any other slant for that matter), why should you continue reading new articles? If you see a large number of articles with which you find fault, why would you expect the next one to be better? That's not to say that the next one won't be better, just that there's no expectation of it from you and you probably shouldn't waste your time reading it.
If a colleague continually spouted conspiracy theories to your face, you'd be much less likely to listen to him on another conspiracy-sounding thoery that may actually raise legitimate issues. And that's really all the GP is doing. So relax. It's natural, it's normal, and it's the mind's defense against going crazy by listening to things that are a waste of mental energies.
By this logic, any "perforamnce" by the London Symphony Orchestra of a work written by Mozart or Bach would not be protectable, because Mozart and Bach own the copyright (which is obviously long expired).
That's not how it works. The LSO owns their performance though not the original score it was based on. Similarly, Prince owns the performance he gave, including the ability to control its distribution, as well as any consequences if the performance was illegal, i.e., if Radiohead did not authorise the performance of material that they wrote for commercial gain (which a cash-ticketed concert no doubt would be).
So, if someone took Prince's performance, and then performed it again themselves, it would be Radiohead's problem. But filming Prince is basically Prince's problem to pursue (though one may argue that Radiohead has an interest in it, I kind of doubt that any court would permit that unless it was proven that Prince didn't have a license to perform the music in the first place in which case Radiohead may come to be legal owners of the performance, too, as well as monetary fines). Of course, if Radiohead doesn't like the way that Prince is dealing with this, assuming it was legally licensed in the first place, Radiohead may decide not to license songs to Prince to perform again in the future. While that probably won't hurt Prince, perhaps other artists will similarly shun Prince. Though, again, it's unlikely to have any effect on Prince. I get the impression Prince has an attitude:-)
Apparently you did that wrong. What I've been told is that I should never talk to the service people at a cell phone company. Instead, always ask to be put straight through to their cancellation department. For whatever reason, they're MUCH more willing to negotiate than the regular service folk.
Personally, I haven't done that. I just can't be bothered. If your front line isn't authorised to make the customer happy, this customer will take his business elsewhere. I don't play games with my business, so if you want to screw me over, well, screw you.
To each his own, I guess. However, do you not think it says a lot about you that you care more about the superficiality of the name of the software you are evaluating than the actual usefulness and productiveness of it? Not saying you would be productive with it, just that you're evaluating it on something superficial instead of something significant.
Personally, I find it useful to tell whether something targets kde vs gnome vs being agnostic. The leading 'g' in an app won't stop me from trying it, though the leading 'k' often piques my interest first as it's more likely to mesh with the rest of my system.
I dunno... I'm running kde 4.0.4 right now, and I have to say that while there are apps that are prone to crashing (darned open-source imperative to release early and release often, but, hey, I knew that before electing to install it), I do love what they've done with many things. A few things stick out in my mind: konqueror - VASTLY improved, okular - replaces kpdf and can read MS's "compiled html" (.chm) format (which is helpful for me), the composite effects are not all just eye candy - things like dimming background windows help me focus on the foreground application and pushing my mouse into a corner of the screen (default: top-left) to show all the windows on the desktop (or on all desktops) is HUGELY helpful.
That's just some of the KDE3 apps that are already ported to KDE4. Even extras like ktorrent have already been ported to KDE4, which is nice.
I really miss the PIM stuff (kmail, knode, kalarm, kaddressbook, etc), so I'm really looking forward to seeing KDE 4.1 in the main Gentoo portage tree, even masked, as soon as possible.
I expect to see MANY kde3 apps moved to KDE4 this year.
Heck, I was running the KDE4 version of ktorrent on KDE 3.5.8 earlier this year (yes, I know, 3.5.9 is out), so it's not like it's entirely a problem to have these apps coexist. This provides apps the opportunity to port to KDE4 without needing their users to actually use KDE4 as their desktop.
Re:Time for Railroads to make a comeback
on
Big Rigs Go High Tech
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Transporting 250lbs of flesh and 50lbs of luggage doesn't really show a train's ability to pull cargo cheaply since that 300lbs of cargo needs to be in a multi-ton box car with many niceties (food, water, sleeping area, toilet, possibly shower).
Try comparing costs of carrying 100s of tons of cargo (such as grain, oil, furniture, vehicles) where the overhead of the train is a smaller percentage.
Try even comparing the cost to the environment: both the air (burned fuel) and, for comparing with "Big Rigs" (to stay loosely on topic) the damage caused to the roadways (vs damage caused to railways) for the same load.
No, it's not the job of a judge to determine if an agency is secure enough. Any more than it is the job of a judge to determine if a bank is secure enough.
The job of a judge is to preside over, and sometimes find guilt or non-guilt, if criminal, or responsibility or lack thereof if civil, a case according to the law. I doubt there is any law that says a bank needs to be so secure. Instead, the law states responsibility after the fact. So, if nothing has gone missing, there is no case, dismissed.
In this scenario, there was damages originally. That should have resulted in fines and/or jail time. (Unfortunately, this is a government institution rendering them almost immune to either.) And maybe a court-ordered security overhaul from an independent (non-governmental) third party. (I hear IBM has security teams that they send to places to help with IT security, for example.) With a reasonable time limit (6 years is stupid). That's the scope of a judge.
The absolute most that this judge should have done was mandate a security audit, and, if passed, vacate the disconnect order, while, if failed, mandate that a security company (not necessarily the auditors) be hired to bring the security up to modern standards, which aren't perfect, pass the audit, within a specific amount of time, say 6 months, and failure to do so would result in piercing government veils to hold individuals in contempt (read: jail time and/or personal fines).
Instead, the judge has basically claimed this is going on far too long. Which is true. Though, as I type this (as a right-wing puke myself), I'm starting to think that dealing with the problem directly yet without judicial involvement (trust the experts) might have been more wise.
Not that I can attribute all of the gas prices to the far left (something tells me that China/India and US involvement in Iraq probably have something to do with it, too), but just because they do one thing right doesn't mean they don't do something else wrong.
Blocking first-world countries from building refineries impacts the cost of oil. Blocking nuclear power plants impacts the cost of oil. Just like encouraging bio-fuels impacts not only the cost of oil (should lower demand, though I can't imagine it's significant), but the cost of food (much increased demand).
Just like encouraging organic foods impacts the cost of food, and can push the price of fresh fruits and veggies out of the budget of many low-income people, which will be much surer and faster ways to kill them than the pesticides in non-organic farming ever could (we know that fresh fruits and veggies help stave off all sorts of diseases, not to mention cancer, but the levels of pesticides in use haven't been proven to have any effect on humans).
Just like pushing recycling costs more than dumping in landfills. Not that I have a problem with the costs, actually, I just wish they'd be honest with us. You know what, we might actually feel that we are getting value for our extra taxes (or however your locality pays for waste and recycling programs). Just tell us the truth. I was always told that recycling would save money, yet I've not seen any place where recycling costs less per ton than landfill, even when the "profits" from selling the recycled material is returned to the tax base.
Pushing for better fuel economy in cars is great. But that doesn't excuse all the rest of their stupidity.
Apparently,/.ers are of two minds here. The first group says criminal charges should be laid due to responsibility from the actions alleged. The second group gives entertaining strawman arguments that try to compare intentional infliction of emotional harm (if she had been able to pull off this charade in person, telling the girl to go kill herself would at least have gotten child protective services involved, and likely charges for child abuse, assuming the girl didn't kill herself) to a bunch of similar scenarios of causing death unintentionally, including, as above, children saying mean things to one another (there's a reason why most countries have varying ages of criminal responsibility - e.g., 12 and under can't face criminal charges, 13-17 get glorified slaps on the wrist, 18+ get full responsiblity under the law - because their understanding of the consequences of their actions change - a 13-year-old saying this to another 13-year-old could be reasonably assumed not to get the consequences of).
It's all about intent, folks. That's what makes crime. (Well, there are a few crimes that don't need intent, but all the "causing death" ones do.)
This woman intentionally caused emotional harm (to which she initially admitted to, and has apparently backpedaled), which any reasonable adult should realise would have a reasonable chance of causing death. That would at the very least be gross negligence causing death. At the least, child abuse (as far as I know, it doesn't have to be *your* child to get this charge) and fraudulent representation (perhaps that's a civil case, not sure).
If the woman pled guilty, she'd likely not serve much, if any, time. Because she's denying it now, she'll be facing near-maximums on her sentence if found guilty.
It's really no different than how any death caused as a result of a felonious action can be automatically bumped up to Murder in the First Degree, even if there was no premeditated intent to cause death. The idea is that you intended to commit the original felony (assuming you're found guilty), and it can be reasonably assumed that there is a mortal danger there, as a natural outcome of your actions. This woman committed grave child abuse, which most adults who have dealt with 12-15 year old girls would reasonably assume could cause such emotional distress as to be fatal to the girl.
And the whole case would be entirely different if this 40-year-old woman were preying on a 23-year-old woman. We would reasonably assume that a 23-year-old woman could be distressed by this type of rejection from a 23-year-old "man" on the internet, but not generally to the point of suicide. We're just talking about reasonable foresight of the consequences of one's intended actions.
That was along my line of thought when seeing the title, except in reverse. I was thinking this was going to be a great way to store long-term backups.
I have four boxes running Gentoo (some were switched from RH, others have always had Gentoo). Yet that doesn't prevent me from seeing value in synchronising releases among other distros.
What it does give is:
Provide incentive for major components (KDE, Gnome, OOo, Xorg, firefox, etc.) to release a month prior to that point to be sure their first set of fixes can make it to "most" distros to provide out-of-the-box benefits to users. This incentive is there for smaller components (e.g., bash, vi, emacs), too, but not as strongly, nor do they affect the OotB experience as much. This even helps Gentoo users in getting a more predictable update. It also hurts us in that we'll be upgrading many major pieces of our systems all around the same time.
Provide a broader base for testing all of these components: when you get the Ubuntu testers, the Fedora/RH testers, the SuSE/SLE[CS] testers, and Debian testers all testing basically the same code base, you should uncover more bugs faster. Sure, there are some people who test multiple distros who won't have the time to do it this way, but I don't imagine that's a huge percentage. This, too, helps Gentoo users, in that we're not the only ones testing the latest versions... yet between these cycles, we are among the few testing them.
More advertising. Imagine a united push for Linux from all the major distributions! Even if they weren't united, there'd be more buzz around linux from all quarters - Ubuntu fans, RH fans, SuSE fans, Debian fans, etc. - about the "upcoming release" of their Linux distribution. Non-Linux users would merely here "upcoming Linux release" - from more people at a time. And RH and Novell likely would still take out their standard advertising in papers, online, wherever, which people will see more of (some from RH, some from Novell), and it feeds off each other. This obviously helps those willing to pay for advertising more, but it also helps all distributions as we end up with more Linux users (thus more bug reports, thus better quality; more numbers means more incentive for Linux drivers from our favourite hardware vendors, which will help all distros). This helps us Gentoo users like any increase in Linux numbers: quality and drivers. This gets even better if all these distros worked together for common advertising, but that's probably a bit much to hope for.
What it costs us is diversity. As has been pointed out, there will be more homogeneity in the Linux world, which is always bad for exposing attack vectors. And that affects us on Gentoo, too - there will be a period of time where Gentoo will be at about the same level as everyone else (right near after the release - new ebuilds won't be marked stable for a while after that as I'm sure everyone will be taking a break after the harried development cycle), which means that any security issues that everyone else has will also affect us on Gentoo. Until they're discovered, then we gain the advantage again.
The question is: is the value in this great enough to offset the risk? Microsoft has always opted for marketing bells and whistles over security, and it has generally worked for them - do we want to start down that road just to gain a bigger marketshare today? That doesn't mean there is *no* value in synchronising, we just have to weigh it carefully.
Yes. I bought a 1TB "drive" (it's actually two drives in a RAID configuration) with an ARM processor running Linux from CostCo, and connect to it via samba and nfs, all for $320. They're now selling a 2TB unit for about $430.
I've also ordered a new machine with a 1TB drive from a nearby small computer store - that one is about $340 for a single SATA drive.
I still remember spending $1800 for my first 1.2GB drive that was SCSI-based... back in 1993.
I doubt this sets any precedent. This is not new or novel or even unexpected. The only news for nerds here is the judge explicitly calling out search advertising. Otherwise, it's entirely predictable (the way laws and courts should be).
The Orions had both overlapping goods/services AND they had overlapping sales regions.
Golden Dragon restaurant in downtown L.A. does not compete with Golden Dragon in Manhattan. There is no confusion arising from the re-use of that name. Now, if there were a Golden Dragon *chain* restaurant, the rules may change. But not much. First come, first serve, as far as that trade mark and the area it is used in. You can't form a chain called "Golden Dragon restaurants" and try to push that Manhattan restaurant out (but you can try to buy it).
Um, that wasn't what Fahrenheit was about at all. Or are you saying that 0 degrees F is the lowest temperature generally experienced in the UK? Or that they get to 100F on a regular basis, surpassing it about as often as they get below 0? I don't think so.
Fahrenheit was actually somewhat scientifically created, though I like to think the endpoints of Celsius make more sense. Fahrenheit's end-points are: at 0, the melting/freezing point of salt water (think: Atlantic ocean), and at 100, the temperature of the human body (methinks the guy was sick that day - it's a mistake).
(The rest of your post seems ok to me, though the definition of Celsius is probably far more precise than that, which is ok since this is a/. post, not a published treatise on the measurement of average heat.)
We are also running headlong into an age of "lifelong punishment," where 50 year old men are denied needed services because of a crime they commited when they were 19 and drunk, and which they would not commit now that they have grown up. This sort of thing is happening *today*, is utterly unjust, and will only get worst if we continue with this sort of personal data tracking.
This is where a pardon is supposed to come in. Pardons aren't just for the wealthy and the connected. They're also for the 30-year-olds who did something stupid at 19 while drunk, paid their dues (fines, revocation of privileges such as driver's license, and/or jail time) and haven't had a criminal charge since. A successful pardon application, which may take a year or two to process, should also automatically (I hope!) remove your name from all criminal registries, including sex offender registries (though I imagine that these would be harder to get pardons for).
The problem with C/C++ is that to do anything "interesting" (at least to management), you need to learn another "language" to write the GUI. X vs Windows API... neither are trivial. More (mini-)languages to learn. That's easy - just pick a cross-platform library - but if you pick the wrong one, you'll have to learn another one for your next job.
Java's not a lot better - Swing still is its own mini-language compared to the rest of Java.
It's not entirely unlike learning HTML when doing PHP or Perl or whatever. Not as drastically different, but still different enough to be distracting from the real problem being solved.
Our team takes it the other direction altogether. Our engine is in C++. Our GUI is in Swing. As long as they're going to be different, may as well really make them different.
IANAL, either, but don't anti-trust laws only apply to monopolies? The gaming industry is too fragmented, IMO, to support such a charge. Sure, WotC are a de facto leader in the industry (not necessarily based on the best games, but likely just in revenue), but owning 40%, 50%, or even 70%, of a market doesn't make you a monopoly.
Microsoft, however, has been convicted of illegal monopoly behaviour, which, among other things, legally proved that they were a monopoly to begin with. That's the difference.
Oh, that and WotC are prohibiting the work on two of THEIR OWN PRODUCTS by the same company, not prohibiting you from writing modules based on both WotC's (4e) work and, say, Green Ronin's (4e-based) work. It does have the side effect of barring you from working with Paizo's 3.75 system, but that's more of a side effect than anything else. This is not anything like Microsoft preventing developers from releasing products based on Windows and Linux at the same time. It's more like preventing you from targeting Win200 and Vista at the same time.
Personally, I'd create a shell corporation and release my 3e works from there, and my 4e works from my main corp. Shutting down the shell when 3e was no longer profitable would likely be trivial.
Opinion is bias if it's in a statement that does not start with "in my opinion"...
Anything else, scientist or not, becomes bias. And it's worse in a scientist who presumes to speak as an authority in a subject matter that s/he merely has an opinion about.
It's really no different than a priest/minister talking to a lay believer and saying "God is..." when s/he should have said "I think God is...". In cases where it's a sound conclusion of the evidence (i.e., backed up by peer review), sure, "I think" or "I believe" or "It's my opinion that" are not required prefixes.
Heck, even if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence, yet the scientist has not performed the experiment directly, nor read the data to be among the peer reviewers, a prefix is still required, though it may be different: "It seems to be the consensus that..." or "the latest studies are reported to say that...". With great authority comes great responsibility to wield that authority responsibly. Anything else is just as misleading as snake-oil conmen of yesteryear.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? I want to know if it will run Duke Nukem Forever!
To that, I agree wholeheartedly. The original sneer was unhelpful (and so I don't argue its flamebait mod). That the original note was ad hominem doesn't mean it was wrong, just illogical, i.e., the conclusion does not follow from the predicates. My only point was that calling it ad hominem was just as unhelpful and illogical.
Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having a car behind a painting. You don't notice that there is anything being kept away from you. Well, other than that big-assed painting.
No? How about this...
Plain cryptography is something like having a locked car sitting in a room. It might not be easy to get into, but you know it when you see it. This is like having the locks of the car behind paintings. You don't notice the keyholes. Well, other than those out-of-place paintings hanging off the door handles.
No? How about this...
Plain cryptography is something like driving your car across the border while trying to keep from having to show your passport to the border patrol (by showing them fake ID). This is like doing the same while having the trunk full of cocaine when you do so.
Bah, nevermind.
What you're doing is ad latinum - the fallacy of throwing out a fancy latin term and thinking that it refutes a point. What the GP is doing is no different from watching a few episodes of Mythbusters, noting its decided lack of a love story (well, other than a love for blowing things up), and deciding not to watch the rest of the series. The fact that the GP used an ad hominem attack against the article does not make the article right. (Just like this post doesn't make you wrong.)
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If you don't like a magazine due to its political slant (left, right, lack there-of, or any other slant for that matter), why should you continue reading new articles? If you see a large number of articles with which you find fault, why would you expect the next one to be better? That's not to say that the next one won't be better, just that there's no expectation of it from you and you probably shouldn't waste your time reading it.
If a colleague continually spouted conspiracy theories to your face, you'd be much less likely to listen to him on another conspiracy-sounding thoery that may actually raise legitimate issues. And that's really all the GP is doing. So relax. It's natural, it's normal, and it's the mind's defense against going crazy by listening to things that are a waste of mental energies.
By this logic, any "perforamnce" by the London Symphony Orchestra of a work written by Mozart or Bach would not be protectable, because Mozart and Bach own the copyright (which is obviously long expired).
That's not how it works. The LSO owns their performance though not the original score it was based on. Similarly, Prince owns the performance he gave, including the ability to control its distribution, as well as any consequences if the performance was illegal, i.e., if Radiohead did not authorise the performance of material that they wrote for commercial gain (which a cash-ticketed concert no doubt would be).
So, if someone took Prince's performance, and then performed it again themselves, it would be Radiohead's problem. But filming Prince is basically Prince's problem to pursue (though one may argue that Radiohead has an interest in it, I kind of doubt that any court would permit that unless it was proven that Prince didn't have a license to perform the music in the first place in which case Radiohead may come to be legal owners of the performance, too, as well as monetary fines). Of course, if Radiohead doesn't like the way that Prince is dealing with this, assuming it was legally licensed in the first place, Radiohead may decide not to license songs to Prince to perform again in the future. While that probably won't hurt Prince, perhaps other artists will similarly shun Prince. Though, again, it's unlikely to have any effect on Prince. I get the impression Prince has an attitude :-)
(IANAL)
Apparently you did that wrong. What I've been told is that I should never talk to the service people at a cell phone company. Instead, always ask to be put straight through to their cancellation department. For whatever reason, they're MUCH more willing to negotiate than the regular service folk.
Personally, I haven't done that. I just can't be bothered. If your front line isn't authorised to make the customer happy, this customer will take his business elsewhere. I don't play games with my business, so if you want to screw me over, well, screw you.
To each his own, I guess. However, do you not think it says a lot about you that you care more about the superficiality of the name of the software you are evaluating than the actual usefulness and productiveness of it? Not saying you would be productive with it, just that you're evaluating it on something superficial instead of something significant.
Personally, I find it useful to tell whether something targets kde vs gnome vs being agnostic. The leading 'g' in an app won't stop me from trying it, though the leading 'k' often piques my interest first as it's more likely to mesh with the rest of my system.
On an AMD Phenom Quad Core 2.5GHz processor with 8GB RAM? The amount of KDE 4.0.4 that I have only took a couple hours. :-P 1:46:53, to be exact.
(No games, no koffice, etc., mostly just the core system.)
I dunno ... I'm running kde 4.0.4 right now, and I have to say that while there are apps that are prone to crashing (darned open-source imperative to release early and release often, but, hey, I knew that before electing to install it), I do love what they've done with many things. A few things stick out in my mind: konqueror - VASTLY improved, okular - replaces kpdf and can read MS's "compiled html" (.chm) format (which is helpful for me), the composite effects are not all just eye candy - things like dimming background windows help me focus on the foreground application and pushing my mouse into a corner of the screen (default: top-left) to show all the windows on the desktop (or on all desktops) is HUGELY helpful.
That's just some of the KDE3 apps that are already ported to KDE4. Even extras like ktorrent have already been ported to KDE4, which is nice.
I really miss the PIM stuff (kmail, knode, kalarm, kaddressbook, etc), so I'm really looking forward to seeing KDE 4.1 in the main Gentoo portage tree, even masked, as soon as possible.
I expect to see MANY kde3 apps moved to KDE4 this year.
Heck, I was running the KDE4 version of ktorrent on KDE 3.5.8 earlier this year (yes, I know, 3.5.9 is out), so it's not like it's entirely a problem to have these apps coexist. This provides apps the opportunity to port to KDE4 without needing their users to actually use KDE4 as their desktop.
Transporting 250lbs of flesh and 50lbs of luggage doesn't really show a train's ability to pull cargo cheaply since that 300lbs of cargo needs to be in a multi-ton box car with many niceties (food, water, sleeping area, toilet, possibly shower).
Try comparing costs of carrying 100s of tons of cargo (such as grain, oil, furniture, vehicles) where the overhead of the train is a smaller percentage.
Try even comparing the cost to the environment: both the air (burned fuel) and, for comparing with "Big Rigs" (to stay loosely on topic) the damage caused to the roadways (vs damage caused to railways) for the same load.
I've been hoping for more railways for years...
No, it's not the job of a judge to determine if an agency is secure enough. Any more than it is the job of a judge to determine if a bank is secure enough.
The job of a judge is to preside over, and sometimes find guilt or non-guilt, if criminal, or responsibility or lack thereof if civil, a case according to the law. I doubt there is any law that says a bank needs to be so secure. Instead, the law states responsibility after the fact. So, if nothing has gone missing, there is no case, dismissed.
In this scenario, there was damages originally. That should have resulted in fines and/or jail time. (Unfortunately, this is a government institution rendering them almost immune to either.) And maybe a court-ordered security overhaul from an independent (non-governmental) third party. (I hear IBM has security teams that they send to places to help with IT security, for example.) With a reasonable time limit (6 years is stupid). That's the scope of a judge.
The absolute most that this judge should have done was mandate a security audit, and, if passed, vacate the disconnect order, while, if failed, mandate that a security company (not necessarily the auditors) be hired to bring the security up to modern standards, which aren't perfect, pass the audit, within a specific amount of time, say 6 months, and failure to do so would result in piercing government veils to hold individuals in contempt (read: jail time and/or personal fines).
Instead, the judge has basically claimed this is going on far too long. Which is true. Though, as I type this (as a right-wing puke myself), I'm starting to think that dealing with the problem directly yet without judicial involvement (trust the experts) might have been more wise.
Not that I can attribute all of the gas prices to the far left (something tells me that China/India and US involvement in Iraq probably have something to do with it, too), but just because they do one thing right doesn't mean they don't do something else wrong.
Blocking first-world countries from building refineries impacts the cost of oil. Blocking nuclear power plants impacts the cost of oil. Just like encouraging bio-fuels impacts not only the cost of oil (should lower demand, though I can't imagine it's significant), but the cost of food (much increased demand).
Just like encouraging organic foods impacts the cost of food, and can push the price of fresh fruits and veggies out of the budget of many low-income people, which will be much surer and faster ways to kill them than the pesticides in non-organic farming ever could (we know that fresh fruits and veggies help stave off all sorts of diseases, not to mention cancer, but the levels of pesticides in use haven't been proven to have any effect on humans).
Just like pushing recycling costs more than dumping in landfills. Not that I have a problem with the costs, actually, I just wish they'd be honest with us. You know what, we might actually feel that we are getting value for our extra taxes (or however your locality pays for waste and recycling programs). Just tell us the truth. I was always told that recycling would save money, yet I've not seen any place where recycling costs less per ton than landfill, even when the "profits" from selling the recycled material is returned to the tax base.
Pushing for better fuel economy in cars is great. But that doesn't excuse all the rest of their stupidity.
Apparently, /.ers are of two minds here. The first group says criminal charges should be laid due to responsibility from the actions alleged. The second group gives entertaining strawman arguments that try to compare intentional infliction of emotional harm (if she had been able to pull off this charade in person, telling the girl to go kill herself would at least have gotten child protective services involved, and likely charges for child abuse, assuming the girl didn't kill herself) to a bunch of similar scenarios of causing death unintentionally, including, as above, children saying mean things to one another (there's a reason why most countries have varying ages of criminal responsibility - e.g., 12 and under can't face criminal charges, 13-17 get glorified slaps on the wrist, 18+ get full responsiblity under the law - because their understanding of the consequences of their actions change - a 13-year-old saying this to another 13-year-old could be reasonably assumed not to get the consequences of).
It's all about intent, folks. That's what makes crime. (Well, there are a few crimes that don't need intent, but all the "causing death" ones do.)
This woman intentionally caused emotional harm (to which she initially admitted to, and has apparently backpedaled), which any reasonable adult should realise would have a reasonable chance of causing death. That would at the very least be gross negligence causing death. At the least, child abuse (as far as I know, it doesn't have to be *your* child to get this charge) and fraudulent representation (perhaps that's a civil case, not sure).
If the woman pled guilty, she'd likely not serve much, if any, time. Because she's denying it now, she'll be facing near-maximums on her sentence if found guilty.
It's really no different than how any death caused as a result of a felonious action can be automatically bumped up to Murder in the First Degree, even if there was no premeditated intent to cause death. The idea is that you intended to commit the original felony (assuming you're found guilty), and it can be reasonably assumed that there is a mortal danger there, as a natural outcome of your actions. This woman committed grave child abuse, which most adults who have dealt with 12-15 year old girls would reasonably assume could cause such emotional distress as to be fatal to the girl.
And the whole case would be entirely different if this 40-year-old woman were preying on a 23-year-old woman. We would reasonably assume that a 23-year-old woman could be distressed by this type of rejection from a 23-year-old "man" on the internet, but not generally to the point of suicide. We're just talking about reasonable foresight of the consequences of one's intended actions.
That was along my line of thought when seeing the title, except in reverse. I was thinking this was going to be a great way to store long-term backups.
BLACK on black. For us paranoid security guys.
I clicked those all the time when I was 17. After a year of doing this, I started actually believe I was 18. Even fooled my parents into thinking so!
I have four boxes running Gentoo (some were switched from RH, others have always had Gentoo). Yet that doesn't prevent me from seeing value in synchronising releases among other distros.
What it does give is:
- Provide incentive for major components (KDE, Gnome, OOo, Xorg, firefox, etc.) to release a month prior to that point to be sure their first set of fixes can make it to "most" distros to provide out-of-the-box benefits to users. This incentive is there for smaller components (e.g., bash, vi, emacs), too, but not as strongly, nor do they affect the OotB experience as much. This even helps Gentoo users in getting a more predictable update. It also hurts us in that we'll be upgrading many major pieces of our systems all around the same time.
- Provide a broader base for testing all of these components: when you get the Ubuntu testers, the Fedora/RH testers, the SuSE/SLE[CS] testers, and Debian testers all testing basically the same code base, you should uncover more bugs faster. Sure, there are some people who test multiple distros who won't have the time to do it this way, but I don't imagine that's a huge percentage. This, too, helps Gentoo users, in that we're not the only ones testing the latest versions... yet between these cycles, we are among the few testing them.
- More advertising. Imagine a united push for Linux from all the major distributions! Even if they weren't united, there'd be more buzz around linux from all quarters - Ubuntu fans, RH fans, SuSE fans, Debian fans, etc. - about the "upcoming release" of their Linux distribution. Non-Linux users would merely here "upcoming Linux release" - from more people at a time. And RH and Novell likely would still take out their standard advertising in papers, online, wherever, which people will see more of (some from RH, some from Novell), and it feeds off each other. This obviously helps those willing to pay for advertising more, but it also helps all distributions as we end up with more Linux users (thus more bug reports, thus better quality; more numbers means more incentive for Linux drivers from our favourite hardware vendors, which will help all distros). This helps us Gentoo users like any increase in Linux numbers: quality and drivers. This gets even better if all these distros worked together for common advertising, but that's probably a bit much to hope for.
What it costs us is diversity. As has been pointed out, there will be more homogeneity in the Linux world, which is always bad for exposing attack vectors. And that affects us on Gentoo, too - there will be a period of time where Gentoo will be at about the same level as everyone else (right near after the release - new ebuilds won't be marked stable for a while after that as I'm sure everyone will be taking a break after the harried development cycle), which means that any security issues that everyone else has will also affect us on Gentoo. Until they're discovered, then we gain the advantage again.The question is: is the value in this great enough to offset the risk? Microsoft has always opted for marketing bells and whistles over security, and it has generally worked for them - do we want to start down that road just to gain a bigger marketshare today? That doesn't mean there is *no* value in synchronising, we just have to weigh it carefully.
Yes. I bought a 1TB "drive" (it's actually two drives in a RAID configuration) with an ARM processor running Linux from CostCo, and connect to it via samba and nfs, all for $320. They're now selling a 2TB unit for about $430.
I've also ordered a new machine with a 1TB drive from a nearby small computer store - that one is about $340 for a single SATA drive.
I still remember spending $1800 for my first 1.2GB drive that was SCSI-based ... back in 1993.
I doubt this sets any precedent. This is not new or novel or even unexpected. The only news for nerds here is the judge explicitly calling out search advertising. Otherwise, it's entirely predictable (the way laws and courts should be).
The Orions had both overlapping goods/services AND they had overlapping sales regions.
Golden Dragon restaurant in downtown L.A. does not compete with Golden Dragon in Manhattan. There is no confusion arising from the re-use of that name. Now, if there were a Golden Dragon *chain* restaurant, the rules may change. But not much. First come, first serve, as far as that trade mark and the area it is used in. You can't form a chain called "Golden Dragon restaurants" and try to push that Manhattan restaurant out (but you can try to buy it).
Um, that wasn't what Fahrenheit was about at all. Or are you saying that 0 degrees F is the lowest temperature generally experienced in the UK? Or that they get to 100F on a regular basis, surpassing it about as often as they get below 0? I don't think so.
Fahrenheit was actually somewhat scientifically created, though I like to think the endpoints of Celsius make more sense. Fahrenheit's end-points are: at 0, the melting/freezing point of salt water (think: Atlantic ocean), and at 100, the temperature of the human body (methinks the guy was sick that day - it's a mistake).
(The rest of your post seems ok to me, though the definition of Celsius is probably far more precise than that, which is ok since this is a /. post, not a published treatise on the measurement of average heat.)
This is where a pardon is supposed to come in. Pardons aren't just for the wealthy and the connected. They're also for the 30-year-olds who did something stupid at 19 while drunk, paid their dues (fines, revocation of privileges such as driver's license, and/or jail time) and haven't had a criminal charge since. A successful pardon application, which may take a year or two to process, should also automatically (I hope!) remove your name from all criminal registries, including sex offender registries (though I imagine that these would be harder to get pardons for).
Ok, maybe I'm dreaming...
The problem with C/C++ is that to do anything "interesting" (at least to management), you need to learn another "language" to write the GUI. X vs Windows API ... neither are trivial. More (mini-)languages to learn. That's easy - just pick a cross-platform library - but if you pick the wrong one, you'll have to learn another one for your next job.
Java's not a lot better - Swing still is its own mini-language compared to the rest of Java.
It's not entirely unlike learning HTML when doing PHP or Perl or whatever. Not as drastically different, but still different enough to be distracting from the real problem being solved.
Our team takes it the other direction altogether. Our engine is in C++. Our GUI is in Swing. As long as they're going to be different, may as well really make them different.
It's amazing what a bit of prayer and a miracle will do for someone...
<DUCK!>
:-)))))
IANAL, either, but don't anti-trust laws only apply to monopolies? The gaming industry is too fragmented, IMO, to support such a charge. Sure, WotC are a de facto leader in the industry (not necessarily based on the best games, but likely just in revenue), but owning 40%, 50%, or even 70%, of a market doesn't make you a monopoly.
Microsoft, however, has been convicted of illegal monopoly behaviour, which, among other things, legally proved that they were a monopoly to begin with. That's the difference.
Oh, that and WotC are prohibiting the work on two of THEIR OWN PRODUCTS by the same company, not prohibiting you from writing modules based on both WotC's (4e) work and, say, Green Ronin's (4e-based) work. It does have the side effect of barring you from working with Paizo's 3.75 system, but that's more of a side effect than anything else. This is not anything like Microsoft preventing developers from releasing products based on Windows and Linux at the same time. It's more like preventing you from targeting Win200 and Vista at the same time.
Personally, I'd create a shell corporation and release my 3e works from there, and my 4e works from my main corp. Shutting down the shell when 3e was no longer profitable would likely be trivial.
Opinion is bias if it's in a statement that does not start with "in my opinion" ...
Anything else, scientist or not, becomes bias. And it's worse in a scientist who presumes to speak as an authority in a subject matter that s/he merely has an opinion about.
It's really no different than a priest/minister talking to a lay believer and saying "God is ..." when s/he should have said "I think God is ...". In cases where it's a sound conclusion of the evidence (i.e., backed up by peer review), sure, "I think" or "I believe" or "It's my opinion that" are not required prefixes.
Heck, even if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence, yet the scientist has not performed the experiment directly, nor read the data to be among the peer reviewers, a prefix is still required, though it may be different: "It seems to be the consensus that ..." or "the latest studies are reported to say that ...". With great authority comes great responsibility to wield that authority responsibly. Anything else is just as misleading as snake-oil conmen of yesteryear.