You may be right, now I realize I was thinking of WebObjects, different, other, much older thing (STUPID BRAIN!! Doh!).
However, Phoenix and WebKit were born within weeks of each other... its certainly not clear Firefox had pushed WebKit back then (or visa versa), and not clear now. Funny that Konquerer is hardly popular when so much came from it (I use Konquerer... well, not this instant, but probably daily).
The salient detail is that aquatic life is sensitive to changes in pH, and if I didn't make it clear, alkaline is just as sanitizing as acidity. While sea life may tolerate the slow rise in acidity since the 1900's, the same change in pH, up or down, over a short period would probably be devistating.
Thankyou for posting. They have a point about IE7, but a very weak line to Safari3. WebKit deserves its due... Apple was innovating with WebKit long before Firefox, or even Safari, existed.
When the pH of freshwater lake is increased, it becomes crystal clear... and everything in it dies. I think messing with the pH of the Oceans, which is probably much more acidic than it was prior to the industrial revolution, is an extrordinarily bad idea. Sure, we may stop global warming... but if we kill the Oceans we're just as doomed.
I agree, however... high profile case, prosecutor (arguably much more powerful than a judge) wants to win with glory, so keep the suspect incarcerated to make him look guilty, makes an exaggerated case for flight risk, and pulls from his tool bag his only tool, his personal fly-swatter (which is actually an over-sized sledgehammer), and with absolutely zero finesse, smashed that fly with an absurd display of force. This is normal operating proceedure.
I would think, from an engineering perspective, it should be quite possible to create containers for the waste which contain the radioactivity, and could physically survive even a bad train accident
I would think, from an pragmatic perspective, that is possible to have a train accident that no super-safe container could survive. I've seen a few bad train wreck firey explosions (on TV) that looked like the apocolyse... emergency response could do nothing but keep people away and let it burn. And once nuclear waste is burned into the atmosphere... that's the ballgame, folks.
The argument against Yucca Mountain storage has less to do with storage as it has to do with the insane risks of transporting dangerous material from all over to Yucca Mountain (there's something like 3000 train accidents PER YEAR).
If half the resources that are poured into nuclear development were put into solar technology, we'd all have cheap cheap clean clean energy within a decade.
NPH, Nathan Fillon, and Felicia Day? Well, NPH because geeks watched Doogie growing up. Fillon for Firefly. Felecia for... her internet stardom? She's not really an actor... or is she? I thought she was a vblogger or something. I mean, her little skits are funny, but there isn't much range to the humor, and after watching a few I realized I wasn't watching because her antics were entertaining me, but because she's cute, with her cute face and her cute little funny nervous geek girl expressions, and I almost think "hey, she's got an email address... maybe I could dialogue her," but then I remember Rule 30, and you should do well to remember that rule too.
I don't believe BSD would have ever become Linux had the Linux movement not existed.
This is weird. Linux, at times, has borrowed from BSD, and vise versa, but I don't think thats what you mean. You mean that whatever space Linux fills would not have been filled by the next closest contender, presumably BSD.
But I think that's like saying if Porche never existed, VW never would have become Porche.
...That's what gives Linux its feel- it's a 386 unix, not a unix for 386. In other words, it's not about unix, it's about the PC- and the PC begins with Microsoft.
...if you have the evidence and the law on your side it's an extremely small chance.
Yes, an extremely small 50% chance of losing.
I'm sorry, but I'll need to see something to back that figure up.
No problem. 2 parties, 1 winner, 50% chance. The tally of the total of all cases heard in the court system will bear that out, also, the talley of any subgroup of all the cases heard in the court system will bear that out... such as all the cases in the last year, or between 1960-1970, or March-September of 1988, etc. etc.
The problem is, that I stated above, is that everyone who wants to take someone to court thinks they will win because they know all the facts and its obvious to them that they will. But going to court is an unknown. You never know what evidence will be thrown out, or worse, you get to present it and the court doesn't think its as important as you do, and completely ignores it. My point is, and this is getting ridiculous... you just don't know, and you never know until the verdict is read.
You obviously have very little experience in the court system. Some lawyers in civil court have a 90%+ success rate.
What's funny (not ha ha), is MOST lawyers have that kind of success rate, because when they're losing, they know that, and settle, so they neither win nor lose, and it doesn't affect their success rate. I can't believe you didn't know that.
You're missing the point; there's always some uncertainty,
THAT IS MY POINT, there is always uncertainty.
but an experienced lawyer with the right evidence
First of all, its not 'the right evidence' until its presented in court... prior to court there is no way to be sure if the evidence will even ever get to be presented, and if it doesn't get presented then its not affecting the outcome.
is far more likely to win his or her case than lose. Your claim that it's basically a coin toss is just ridiculous, and you can ask any judge or lawyer.
Prior to entering court, chances of success are 50%. You obviously have very little experience with possibilities, combinations, or permutations. My claim that its a coin toss is spot on, just ask any mathematician.
There's always a chance you'll lose, but if you have the evidence and the law on your side it's an extremely small chance.
Yes, an extremely small 50% chance of losing. You may have a slightly better chance with a jury, but in a case involving a stolen laptop, you won't get a jury. If you work in the field you'll know judges are tough... Unless you admit to yourself 'you never know,' regardless of evidence or strength of arguement, I don't see your career lasting too long. Its always the unexpected, esp. in civil cases, that bites you in the ass just when you think you've won. My personal opinion, I'd never mess with court unless an injury was involved, and someone I can sue is negligent. Trying a criminal case in civil court is possibly something to consider AFTER they are nailed in criminal court. But going guns blazing into court because you think you already won is patently stupid.
If you have the evidence on your side, and the defendant doesn't really have much of a defense, you're probably going to win. Chance doesn't have too much to do with it.
A fairy tale. Regardless of evidence or how you feel about the strength of your case, once you enter a court room you will have no idea what the outcome will be. Justice is blind, and depending on any number of things you will have no control over, you can lose your shirt just trying to get your shirt back. The court system is not perfect and its not science and no one can guarantee a verdict ever. In fact, it'd be more correct statistically to say you will always lose in court. Court is the last place anyone wants to be, and any lawyer worth his salt will spend more time keeping out of court than assuming he's going to win in court just because he thinks his evidence is strong. Many times a plaintiffs position is much stronger before he ever enters court, and settlements are far more lucritive than the speculation of winning a case.
Go to court when its your last hope, not as your first plan of action.
And what happens when you lose (which is about half the time)? Will my lawyer waive his fee? Will I get back the money I had to pay to even file? Will this help prevent the thief from stealing again? A lawyer would never make the mistake of going to court unless he absolutely has to. Most thieves are poor. If a lawyer is going to sue someone, they sue a rich individual, or their insurance company, because at least if, by chance, they win they'll be paid. You see, most of them know you can't get blood from a stone.
People always assume bringing a lawsuit against someone will be beneficial. Again, it costs significant money with zero guarantee of any reimbursment for court costs and lawyers fees, let alone recovering stolen property. Staying away from court unless you have no choice is wise. Flipping a coin is as good an indicator as anything of whether you'll win in court under any circumstances, no matter how strong you think your case is.
As far as I know, you can sue anyone for any reason, but lawsuits aren't free. Why anyone would wish to pursue this before or instead of a (free or state funded) criminal prosecution I have no idea.
As with any civil case, the police are not going to be a driving force to pursue a theft
FYI Theft is criminal, not civil, how serious depends on the dollar amount. Most thefts under $1000 are misdemeanors, over that is felony theft and these crimes are certainly under the pervue of your local and state police (unless its interstate, in which cases the FBI has jurisdiction).
It might go a log way to preventing them from producing undesirable harmonics.
Anyone know of any studies which looked at the waveforms to find unique qualities?
I can't site anything, but I heard a folky explaination for their value... their age and the amount of time they are played. The idea is the atoms in the wood have been alignied by the vibrations in the strings, and each part of the instrument gets tuned, so when played extra subtle harmonics sweeten the sound. Its always the old instruments that sound best.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right, now I realize I was thinking of WebObjects, different, other, much older thing (STUPID BRAIN!! Doh!).
However, Phoenix and WebKit were born within weeks of each other... its certainly not clear Firefox had pushed WebKit back then (or visa versa), and not clear now. Funny that Konquerer is hardly popular when so much came from it (I use Konquerer... well, not this instant, but probably daily).
The salient detail is that aquatic life is sensitive to changes in pH, and if I didn't make it clear, alkaline is just as sanitizing as acidity. While sea life may tolerate the slow rise in acidity since the 1900's, the same change in pH, up or down, over a short period would probably be devistating.
Thankyou for posting. They have a point about IE7, but a very weak line to Safari3. WebKit deserves its due... Apple was innovating with WebKit long before Firefox, or even Safari, existed.
ah, so lowering the acidity isn't changing the delicate balance of its pH??... Well full speed ahead Doktor!
When the pH of freshwater lake is increased, it becomes crystal clear... and everything in it dies. I think messing with the pH of the Oceans, which is probably much more acidic than it was prior to the industrial revolution, is an extrordinarily bad idea. Sure, we may stop global warming... but if we kill the Oceans we're just as doomed.
you can set this behavior once in your slashdot user preferences
I agree, however... high profile case, prosecutor (arguably much more powerful than a judge) wants to win with glory, so keep the suspect incarcerated to make him look guilty, makes an exaggerated case for flight risk, and pulls from his tool bag his only tool, his personal fly-swatter (which is actually an over-sized sledgehammer), and with absolutely zero finesse, smashed that fly with an absurd display of force. This is normal operating proceedure.
I would think, from an engineering perspective, it should be quite possible to create containers for the waste which contain the radioactivity, and could physically survive even a bad train accident
I would think, from an pragmatic perspective, that is possible to have a train accident that no super-safe container could survive. I've seen a few bad train wreck firey explosions (on TV) that looked like the apocolyse... emergency response could do nothing but keep people away and let it burn. And once nuclear waste is burned into the atmosphere... that's the ballgame, folks.
The argument against Yucca Mountain storage has less to do with storage as it has to do with the insane risks of transporting dangerous material from all over to Yucca Mountain (there's something like 3000 train accidents PER YEAR).
If half the resources that are poured into nuclear development were put into solar technology, we'd all have cheap cheap clean clean energy within a decade.
We live in great times... imagine, a Windows Server that is actually good for SOMETHING.
Bad analogy... because Coke is undeniably great.
NPH, Nathan Fillon, and Felicia Day? Well, NPH because geeks watched Doogie growing up. Fillon for Firefly. Felecia for... her internet stardom? She's not really an actor... or is she? I thought she was a vblogger or something. I mean, her little skits are funny, but there isn't much range to the humor, and after watching a few I realized I wasn't watching because her antics were entertaining me, but because she's cute, with her cute face and her cute little funny nervous geek girl expressions, and I almost think "hey, she's got an email address... maybe I could dialogue her," but then I remember Rule 30, and you should do well to remember that rule too.
Pure adolescent fiction.
I don't believe BSD would have ever become Linux had the Linux movement not existed.
This is weird. Linux, at times, has borrowed from BSD, and vise versa, but I don't think thats what you mean. You mean that whatever space Linux fills would not have been filled by the next closest contender, presumably BSD.
But I think that's like saying if Porche never existed, VW never would have become Porche.
...That's what gives Linux its feel- it's a 386 unix, not a unix for 386. In other words, it's not about unix, it's about the PC- and the PC begins with Microsoft.
I'm sorry, but I'll need to see something to back that figure up.
No problem. 2 parties, 1 winner, 50% chance. The tally of the total of all cases heard in the court system will bear that out, also, the talley of any subgroup of all the cases heard in the court system will bear that out... such as all the cases in the last year, or between 1960-1970, or March-September of 1988, etc. etc.
The problem is, that I stated above, is that everyone who wants to take someone to court thinks they will win because they know all the facts and its obvious to them that they will. But going to court is an unknown. You never know what evidence will be thrown out, or worse, you get to present it and the court doesn't think its as important as you do, and completely ignores it. My point is, and this is getting ridiculous... you just don't know, and you never know until the verdict is read.
You obviously have very little experience in the court system. Some lawyers in civil court have a 90%+ success rate.
What's funny (not ha ha), is MOST lawyers have that kind of success rate, because when they're losing, they know that, and settle, so they neither win nor lose, and it doesn't affect their success rate. I can't believe you didn't know that.
You're missing the point; there's always some uncertainty,
THAT IS MY POINT, there is always uncertainty.
but an experienced lawyer with the right evidence
First of all, its not 'the right evidence' until its presented in court... prior to court there is no way to be sure if the evidence will even ever get to be presented, and if it doesn't get presented then its not affecting the outcome.
is far more likely to win his or her case than lose. Your claim that it's basically a coin toss is just ridiculous, and you can ask any judge or lawyer.
Prior to entering court, chances of success are 50%. You obviously have very little experience with possibilities, combinations, or permutations. My claim that its a coin toss is spot on, just ask any mathematician.
There's always a chance you'll lose, but if you have the evidence and the law on your side it's an extremely small chance.
Yes, an extremely small 50% chance of losing. You may have a slightly better chance with a jury, but in a case involving a stolen laptop, you won't get a jury. If you work in the field you'll know judges are tough... Unless you admit to yourself 'you never know,' regardless of evidence or strength of arguement, I don't see your career lasting too long. Its always the unexpected, esp. in civil cases, that bites you in the ass just when you think you've won. My personal opinion, I'd never mess with court unless an injury was involved, and someone I can sue is negligent. Trying a criminal case in civil court is possibly something to consider AFTER they are nailed in criminal court. But going guns blazing into court because you think you already won is patently stupid.
If you have the evidence on your side, and the defendant doesn't really have much of a defense, you're probably going to win. Chance doesn't have too much to do with it.
A fairy tale. Regardless of evidence or how you feel about the strength of your case, once you enter a court room you will have no idea what the outcome will be. Justice is blind, and depending on any number of things you will have no control over, you can lose your shirt just trying to get your shirt back. The court system is not perfect and its not science and no one can guarantee a verdict ever. In fact, it'd be more correct statistically to say you will always lose in court. Court is the last place anyone wants to be, and any lawyer worth his salt will spend more time keeping out of court than assuming he's going to win in court just because he thinks his evidence is strong. Many times a plaintiffs position is much stronger before he ever enters court, and settlements are far more lucritive than the speculation of winning a case.
Go to court when its your last hope, not as your first plan of action.
You can expect this kind of quality detective work from any police department. This is why Justice wields a sword and not a scalpel.
And what happens when you lose (which is about half the time)? Will my lawyer waive his fee? Will I get back the money I had to pay to even file? Will this help prevent the thief from stealing again? A lawyer would never make the mistake of going to court unless he absolutely has to. Most thieves are poor. If a lawyer is going to sue someone, they sue a rich individual, or their insurance company, because at least if, by chance, they win they'll be paid. You see, most of them know you can't get blood from a stone.
People always assume bringing a lawsuit against someone will be beneficial. Again, it costs significant money with zero guarantee of any reimbursment for court costs and lawyers fees, let alone recovering stolen property. Staying away from court unless you have no choice is wise. Flipping a coin is as good an indicator as anything of whether you'll win in court under any circumstances, no matter how strong you think your case is.
As far as I know, you can sue anyone for any reason, but lawsuits aren't free. Why anyone would wish to pursue this before or instead of a (free or state funded) criminal prosecution I have no idea.
As with any civil case, the police are not going to be a driving force to pursue a theft
FYI Theft is criminal, not civil, how serious depends on the dollar amount. Most thefts under $1000 are misdemeanors, over that is felony theft and these crimes are certainly under the pervue of your local and state police (unless its interstate, in which cases the FBI has jurisdiction).
It might go a log way to preventing them from producing undesirable harmonics.
Anyone know of any studies which looked at the waveforms to find unique qualities?
I can't site anything, but I heard a folky explaination for their value... their age and the amount of time they are played. The idea is the atoms in the wood have been alignied by the vibrations in the strings, and each part of the instrument gets tuned, so when played extra subtle harmonics sweeten the sound. Its always the old instruments that sound best.