"Does anyone know if these "ipod ready" cars just have standard line inputs (it would be about time) or if they're some sort of bastard proprietary jack?"
They use a dock connector so that you can use the normal stereo controls and wheel controls to controll the iPod. This is so that they don't call their car "iPod-ready" when all they did is add a glorified cassette adapter.
If her argument had not been based on logic, she would have been a terrible lawyer. All legal arguments are exercises in logic, especially on a motion.
You really should learn more about contract law before you go about spouting off as if you are writing an informed opinion. EULA have been found to be enforcable in many jurisdictions, as long as the End User is required to demonstrate assent. You do have a recourse in EULAs, you can manifest your non-assent to the terms of the contract by returning the software. But as soon as you say, "Yes, I agree to the terms and conditions of the EULA," you are legally bound. And for all the fucking times I read RTFA, you should be ashamed for not RTFC.
Your strawman arguments about terms that are unconscionable would never be enforced, they would simply be stricken from the contract. But that doesn't mean that the portions of the contract that are reasonable, e.g. only being allowed to use one copy, no reverse engineering, would be enforced.
(IANAL, but I took contracts last year, where we covered Click-Wrap Licenses and their enforcability)
I mean come on. It seems like this is a classic troll, but this one made it all the way through the editors. I feel like telling the submitter and the editor to RTFEULA.
So a laptop is no longer a PC? Macromedia isn't that stupid. Give me a Break.
We have the same thing in the states around other big events. If you listen, people who aren't sponsors of the superbowl can't refer to the superbowl. So your local electronics store cannot tell you that you might wanna pick up a new big screen for the superbowl, they have to tell you to pick one up for "the big game". Your local grocery store cannot tell you to pick up extra bags of chips and beer for your superbowl party, it has to be your "bowl party".
Just saw a bunch of these sitting on the counter at a White Hen in Chicago just today. Didn't know what it was but remember seeing wolfgang puck on the side and thinking he had done some of those campbell's drinkable soups. Guess I know now.
I wasn't just being pedantic, it actually undercuts his argument. He says games should get an AO only when it features "X rated content". He then states the game rightly got an M rating because it featured NC-17 level content. If NC-17 replaced X, then NC-17 is X-rated content. But hey, if expecting a person's argument to be logical is being pedantic, I apologize.
1) the ESRB gave this game the highest age rating possible aside from "Adults only" which I think should be reserved only for X rated type stuff anyway, which GTA (although some may disagree) falls short from this. If anything it would qualify for an NC-17 in film ratings standards, so M for Mature is more than acceptable.
NC-17 is the new X. MPAA replaced it like 10 years ago.
Nice try, but if a State Supreme Court, which is the highest power in interpreting the State Constitution, determines that the local election law (with its hard date cut-off) is an unconstitutional deprivation of a citizen's right to vote, they have the duty to prevent the enforcement of the law. In fact, a court cannot change the law unless there is an injury that can be redressed. So, they cannot change the law before the election, because there is no injury. They also cannot change the law after the results have been certified and the winner has been declared, because the injury cannot be redressed.
I read your post, you say that secession is a layer above the constitution. The parent stated that refusing to recognize secession was unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional to not recognize secession, there must be a constitutional method to recognize secession. There is no such text in the constitution.
Where in the Constitution is this right to secede? I got a copy here, and I really can't find anything in it about "right of self government" but I do find things about individual states not being able to enter into a CONFEDERATION along with alot of other things the confederate states did. (Art. I sec 10) http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l So if the secession of the confederate states was unconstitutional, where does your argument go from there?
Anti-trust laws really only affect collusion among supposed competitors or aquisition of competitors. If your competition drops out of the game or goes bankrupt, you can't be held for violating anti-trust law.
Whether the brain has any "pain receptors" is not the issue. There is no pain unless the brain interprets the signal coming from the neuron as such. Just like there is no sight unless the brain interprets the signal from the optic nerve properly.
There are 3 ways to achieve pain inhibition 1. Stop hitting yourself with the tack hammer, good first step. 2. Inhibit the pain signals from being generated at the nerve ending. 3. Inhibit the brain from properly interpreting the nerve signals as pain.
So, in theory, if the brain does not want to feel pain (interpret signals from sensory neurons as pain) it does not have to. The conscious brain ignores a tremendous percentage of the sensory input it recieves.
Therefore, it is easy to understand how you can run for your life from a battlefield and only later find out you broke your foot, Your brain did a risk assessment, knew getting shot in the head was worse than walking with a limp, so it ignored the damage to the foot for a while.
On a final note, why wasn't Darwin's black box on there? Oh wait that's right, to rationally thinking, intelligent people, evolution makes perfect sense.
I think the big deal is that there is a huge amount of time wasted sifting through irrelevant results that simply include irrelevant but common keywords.
One can see how this would be a discouraging event for a non-sophisticated web user. Would this cause people to shift to another search engine?
Yeah, it could. I can remember switching search engines several times in the last 10 years or so because one got me my results faster.
So what does this mean for google? It means they might need to change their methods to keep this from corrupting results or they could lose their marketshare. Yes, I know this is Google and all, but the ones at the top can still fall, and when they fall, they tend to fall hard.
When U.S. Attorneys clamed that one, quite a few judges asked the very important question, if not U.S. jurisdiction, whose is it?
Judges weren't going to let them pull that shit, it isn't cuban jurisdiction, it is a U.S. facility, so pretty much it has to be U.S. jurisdiction. There has to be rule of law at the facility. The courts were not going to allow the military to create its own little countries where there is no law.
This type of idea, i.e. little pieces of U.S. soil outside of the U.S. is well established in embassies, so why not here.
Normally with a proof of concept you don't actually hack/infect normal people, you do it to your own shit. e.g. you hack into your own server, or the server of a willing victim, not a bank. You infect a computer in a controlled environment so that it does not go out into the wild etc. These guys really opened themselves up to trouble by messing around with real people, not a bunch of their friends in a field.
True the airwaves are free and many times the courts have supported the rights of individuals to intercept open, unencrypted broadcasts. But the key is the unencrypted and the broadcast. Look at the old satelite dishes, you could latch on to most signals, but if they tried to scramble it then it was stealing.
If it is encrypted, you cannot decrypt it, because it is obviously not yours. If it is not broadcast, i.e. you use RF to gain access to a system and gather information that is not being broadcast, in this case anything other than basic ID info, it is illegal.
On the other hand, courts are also starting recognize leeching WiFi as theft as well, so who knows where this is gonna end up.
They made the think look like a rifle with collapsing stock etc... A kid almost got killed outside detroit about a year ago for hanging around on a roof with a paintball gun.
So let me get this straight, if you have your device always on and discoverable you are vulnerable? Jesus, I would never expect that. Next thing you know it will be dangerous to be connected to the web without a firewall installed.
Bluetooth is nice, but the security measure do seem pretty weak, no minimum pin length etc.
But anecdotal data are data nonetheless. You should maybe look up data in the dictionary (Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions), it does not have to be statistically analyzed to be data.
Statistically analyzed data is much more informative, true, but anecdotal data has actually been used to justify medical decisions since the beginning. Only recently has evidence based medicine taken hold so that we evaluate the anecdotal data and see if the shit we have been doing has any effect whatsoever.
Actually if you really wanna get old school, take a look at your skin. Evaporative cooling is how humans have been cooled for at least 100,000 years.
Or even better, look at your cooler full of beer, once again that is some old school phase change cooling. Yep, solid ice to liquid water is a phase change.
Slashdot Mirror
"Does anyone know if these "ipod ready" cars just have standard line inputs (it would be about time) or if they're some sort of bastard proprietary jack?"
They use a dock connector so that you can use the normal stereo controls and wheel controls to controll the iPod. This is so that they don't call their car "iPod-ready" when all they did is add a glorified cassette adapter.
If her argument had not been based on logic, she would have been a terrible lawyer. All legal arguments are exercises in logic, especially on a motion.
You really should learn more about contract law before you go about spouting off as if you are writing an informed opinion. EULA have been found to be enforcable in many jurisdictions, as long as the End User is required to demonstrate assent. You do have a recourse in EULAs, you can manifest your non-assent to the terms of the contract by returning the software. But as soon as you say, "Yes, I agree to the terms and conditions of the EULA," you are legally bound. And for all the fucking times I read RTFA, you should be ashamed for not RTFC.
Your strawman arguments about terms that are unconscionable would never be enforced, they would simply be stricken from the contract. But that doesn't mean that the portions of the contract that are reasonable, e.g. only being allowed to use one copy, no reverse engineering, would be enforced.
(IANAL, but I took contracts last year, where we covered Click-Wrap Licenses and their enforcability)
I mean come on. It seems like this is a classic troll, but this one made it all the way through the editors. I feel like telling the submitter and the editor to RTFEULA.
So a laptop is no longer a PC? Macromedia isn't that stupid. Give me a Break.
We have the same thing in the states around other big events. If you listen, people who aren't sponsors of the superbowl can't refer to the superbowl. So your local electronics store cannot tell you that you might wanna pick up a new big screen for the superbowl, they have to tell you to pick one up for "the big game". Your local grocery store cannot tell you to pick up extra bags of chips and beer for your superbowl party, it has to be your "bowl party".
Just saw a bunch of these sitting on the counter at a White Hen in Chicago just today. Didn't know what it was but remember seeing wolfgang puck on the side and thinking he had done some of those campbell's drinkable soups. Guess I know now.
I wasn't just being pedantic, it actually undercuts his argument. He says games should get an AO only when it features "X rated content". He then states the game rightly got an M rating because it featured NC-17 level content. If NC-17 replaced X, then NC-17 is X-rated content. But hey, if expecting a person's argument to be logical is being pedantic, I apologize.
1) the ESRB gave this game the highest age rating possible aside from "Adults only" which I think should be reserved only for X rated type stuff anyway, which GTA (although some may disagree) falls short from this. If anything it would qualify for an NC-17 in film ratings standards, so M for Mature is more than acceptable.
NC-17 is the new X. MPAA replaced it like 10 years ago.
Nice try, but if a State Supreme Court, which is the highest power in interpreting the State Constitution, determines that the local election law (with its hard date cut-off) is an unconstitutional deprivation of a citizen's right to vote, they have the duty to prevent the enforcement of the law.
In fact, a court cannot change the law unless there is an injury that can be redressed. So, they cannot change the law before the election, because there is no injury. They also cannot change the law after the results have been certified and the winner has been declared, because the injury cannot be redressed.
How do you have a table reading with no script? Seems like you would need to have something to read.
I read your post, you say that secession is a layer above the constitution. The parent stated that refusing to recognize secession was unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional to not recognize secession, there must be a constitutional method to recognize secession. There is no such text in the constitution.
Where in the Constitution is this right to secede? I got a copy here, and I really can't find anything in it about "right of self government" but I do find things about individual states not being able to enter into a CONFEDERATION along with alot of other things the confederate states did. (Art. I sec 10) http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l
So if the secession of the confederate states was unconstitutional, where does your argument go from there?
Demolition Man, Stalone and Snipes, Bullock
The 5400rpm drive in my Tivo can record 2 separate live streams at once with no problem at all.
Made specially for DVRs. Maxtor makes them. This site sells them.
http://www.weaknees.com/
Anti-trust laws really only affect collusion among supposed competitors or aquisition of competitors. If your competition drops out of the game or goes bankrupt, you can't be held for violating anti-trust law.
Whether the brain has any "pain receptors" is not the issue. There is no pain unless the brain interprets the signal coming from the neuron as such. Just like there is no sight unless the brain interprets the signal from the optic nerve properly.
There are 3 ways to achieve pain inhibition
1. Stop hitting yourself with the tack hammer, good first step.
2. Inhibit the pain signals from being generated at the nerve ending.
3. Inhibit the brain from properly interpreting the nerve signals as pain.
So, in theory, if the brain does not want to feel pain (interpret signals from sensory neurons as pain) it does not have to. The conscious brain ignores a tremendous percentage of the sensory input it recieves.
Therefore, it is easy to understand how you can run for your life from a battlefield and only later find out you broke your foot, Your brain did a risk assessment, knew getting shot in the head was worse than walking with a limp, so it ignored the damage to the foot for a while.
On a final note, why wasn't Darwin's black box on there? Oh wait that's right, to rationally thinking, intelligent people, evolution makes perfect sense.
I think the big deal is that there is a huge amount of time wasted sifting through irrelevant results that simply include irrelevant but common keywords.
One can see how this would be a discouraging event for a non-sophisticated web user. Would this cause people to shift to another search engine?
Yeah, it could. I can remember switching search engines several times in the last 10 years or so because one got me my results faster.
So what does this mean for google? It means they might need to change their methods to keep this from corrupting results or they could lose their marketshare. Yes, I know this is Google and all, but the ones at the top can still fall, and when they fall, they tend to fall hard.
When U.S. Attorneys clamed that one, quite a few judges asked the very important question, if not U.S. jurisdiction, whose is it?
Judges weren't going to let them pull that shit, it isn't cuban jurisdiction, it is a U.S. facility, so pretty much it has to be U.S. jurisdiction. There has to be rule of law at the facility. The courts were not going to allow the military to create its own little countries where there is no law.
This type of idea, i.e. little pieces of U.S. soil outside of the U.S. is well established in embassies, so why not here.
Normally with a proof of concept you don't actually hack/infect normal people, you do it to your own shit. e.g. you hack into your own server, or the server of a willing victim, not a bank. You infect a computer in a controlled environment so that it does not go out into the wild etc. These guys really opened themselves up to trouble by messing around with real people, not a bunch of their friends in a field.
True the airwaves are free and many times the courts have supported the rights of individuals to intercept open, unencrypted broadcasts. But the key is the unencrypted and the broadcast. Look at the old satelite dishes, you could latch on to most signals, but if they tried to scramble it then it was stealing.
If it is encrypted, you cannot decrypt it, because it is obviously not yours. If it is not broadcast, i.e. you use RF to gain access to a system and gather information that is not being broadcast, in this case anything other than basic ID info, it is illegal.
On the other hand, courts are also starting recognize leeching WiFi as theft as well, so who knows where this is gonna end up.
They made the think look like a rifle with collapsing stock etc... A kid almost got killed outside detroit about a year ago for hanging around on a roof with a paintball gun.
So let me get this straight, if you have your device always on and discoverable you are vulnerable? Jesus, I would never expect that. Next thing you know it will be dangerous to be connected to the web without a firewall installed.
Bluetooth is nice, but the security measure do seem pretty weak, no minimum pin length etc.
using my powerbook for photoshop in my lap can reduce my fertility?
WooHoo! I am gonna photoshop the hell out of some shit and then go have freaky irresponsible sex!
But anecdotal data are data nonetheless. You should maybe look up data in the dictionary (Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions), it does not have to be statistically analyzed to be data.
Statistically analyzed data is much more informative, true, but anecdotal data has actually been used to justify medical decisions since the beginning. Only recently has evidence based medicine taken hold so that we evaluate the anecdotal data and see if the shit we have been doing has any effect whatsoever.
Actually if you really wanna get old school, take a look at your skin. Evaporative cooling is how humans have been cooled for at least 100,000 years.
Or even better, look at your cooler full of beer, once again that is some old school phase change cooling. Yep, solid ice to liquid water is a phase change.