I had one for the longest time (got mine around 1988 too) but had the battery door problem.
This seems to be not too uncommon on this model - the springs inside were a bit too strong and the area around the battery door eventually broke. I used it taped up for a few years but got tired of that and eventually broke down and got a 48gx. I like the 28S better though (since I used it for so long, and to me it seems more responsive and I like the clamshell design even with the battery door problem), but I'll need to try to find a used one again (tried before on ebay but got tired of snipers outbidding me at the last second).
or find out a major chains coding scheme for one of their sets from buying things there and see if you can aquire a duplicate lot of a few thousand then drop a handful or two through their doorway or include them in small items people may carry with them that you then sell on ebay;>.
The main advantage of a fusion plant is the byproducts can be limited to relatively short lived isotopes (100-1000s of years compared to 1e5-1e6s years for fusion) and there isnt a possibility of a runaway reaction/china syndrome (since its so damn hard to get going in the first place;>)
And all the current laws already on the books which address that issue are working so well reducing that problem that Michigan needs a whole new ineffective and poorly written law.
And what kind of protection do you think you currently get for free?
If you do register and pay a small filing fee you get some additional protection, because it becomes potentially more expensive to violate your copyright. However for 'free' copyright upon creation any violation is much less expensive for the violator which must simply stop using your copyrighted material and are only liable for actual damages (ie your attorney fees are yours and you only can possibly win the infringers profits and your losses if any).
Additionally finding infringement of your copyright can be a difficult proposition unless it's being flagrantly violated in a widely read publication.
So although the small filing fee (not free) provides you with more protection (statutory damages and attorneys fees) there is still the cost of filing and the preparation costs of registering the copyright. Additionally any money you invest in hunting down violators of your copyright. Actively protecting a copyright while not prohibitively expensive does involve some costs even without a small renewal fee.
Finally the fundamental basis for copyright in the US isn't protection of the artist; it's the promotion of new works. So the pertinent question is, would the additional cost of not allowing your photo library to go to the public domain 20 years from its creation cause you not to publish it now?
also with the insurance market the way it is even if the water isnt there for a week you might find you are not able to insure your house after the claim is payed out to fix the (extensive) damage from the water.
Although with a space elevator it would be more cost effective and their plan only is asking for around $10 billion dollars (rather than the $100 billion in this article).
Of course that assumes that their budget is realistic and the engineering is really there (not just something they think will be easy to solve during the construction).
If you had finished reading my post you would have seen I said the point that from an engineering perspecitve there is some validity to this point.
But its much easier to shout and yell about false dichotomies than to try to gain some insight into the issue. Its not just NO REGULATION REGULATION IS BAD, or EVERYTHING MUST REMAIN REGULATED EXACTLY AS IT IS OR THERE WILL BE ANARCHY. As usual theres a vast middle ground where real progress and discussion can occur.
However the question (in the third paragraph, since you apparently posted after reading only the first) is what regulatory measures are needed - a looser regulatory system not based on 1950s era technology requirements or a continuation of those same regulations. The question isnt whether there should be any regulation or not, simply the form of the regulation that results in the most efficient use of the spectrum and methods available.
Right now the usage of the spectrum is extremely limited and controlled by a few (on the order of 100 near major cities, not including corporate owenership of multiple stations) broadcasters in each area, thus the use of that spectrum is, from the regulatory design quite valuable because it limits, arguably in a more restrictive way than is currently necessary, the available frequencies for use creating a very limited supply.
Are there engineering problems inherent to rolling out a new regulatory structure for the RF spectrum, of course. Does that mean that it shouldn't be investigated, no. Does it mean that it can't be done efficiently and allow much greater access to the RF frequency range for many more users for a more diverse range of uses, no.
The author of the article does mention this and suggests a period where the system would be in transition giving some of the spectrum to the new regulatory scheme to allow the transition to new equipment and possibly (though not mentioned specifically) to fine tune any regulatory structure decided upon.
The point I think the author is making is that there is a (theoreticallly) infinately divisible analog space contained between any two wavelengths of EM spectrum. For example the green at 510nm and the green at 520nm are both 'green' but with sufficient technological enhancement can be distinguished from one another.
Your point is also a good one, in that from an engineering point of view as the signals get closer together in the spectrum the ability to distinguish one signal from another is reduced.
However his answer to this is that the current method of spectrum allocation does a terrible job at utilizing the available spectrum partly because the transceviers we use for radio and television broadcast for example are relatively stupid and inefficient compared to what we could be doing, partly because of how the historical licensing stucture grew to be fixed ownership of particular frequencies and the space around them to allow dumb recievers to utilise them.
His idea is to try to promote the reduction of frequency requirements to the least restrictive set of rules to allow a reciever to recieve a broadcast from a broadcaster. One example given is through the use of smarter SDRs (software defined radios) to make more efficient use of the available spectrum.
That's because the last was posted to the Science section only. Unless you have Collapse sections (show stories from all sections, unless specifically excluded) selected on your homepage options you will not see this story on the main page, only if you go to the science section.
And in addition, custom-designing and custom-manufacturing of probes is very expensive. Let's just make more, general purpose probes and send have them start from a low gravity place! Let's go to space using a collection of standardized off-the-shelf components! Why not?
Because even though the cost of the probes is high, much of the costs are in the launch and the people manning the uplink to the probe make up the lions share of the costs (just launching can be more than half the entire budget). Since the launches are so expensive any probe launched which doesn't perform is a waste of the money spent to get it into orbit.
I don't think simply making numerous cheap probes and spending many millions of dollars to throw them into an orbit to often fail would be better on the budget than the current method.
One way to overcome this is to have NASA focus on reducing the cost/kg of launch systems by pursuing alternate launch methods. Doing this could have a significant effect on both scientific and commercial use of LEO and beyond.
Unfortunately trying cases is not the same as an effective lobby. By the time a case has to be tried that means the law you didn't want has already been passed and you are using the least effective means of fighting it.
Their San Fransisco address spells this out, all effective lobbiests are in DC since to lobby effectively they have to be there.
This isn't to say that the EFF isn't a well intentioned organization, only that its effectveness is limited by its methodology, not that I know of any other organization with similar goals but organized as a lobby/PAC.
I bought a boxed version around 7.0 partly because of limited bandwidth at the time. I ended up returning it to the store because it didn't come close to including what was on the freely downloadable version (yes it was the 'desktop' version, and it would have been fine if it didn't install by default a lot of the development tools but not having them at all was a mistake).
So I ended up returning it to the store and buying a cheap CD-R burned version which had the full distribution on it instead and didn't feel bad about it.
This is much much more common in the west and plains than the east coast where they hadnt perfected the scam before people took ownership of the land. Similar with water rights.
until very very recently the patent process in the US was completely closed until the patent was granted so fighting it out in court was the only way to invalidate it as far as I know.
However, I'm not sure if now there's a way to submit prior art now that patent applications are open for examination or if it just reduces submarine patents.
Its not even in the bio linked. I guess the poster saw Laureate of the Business Hall of Fame and figured any laureate must be a nobel laureate or something.
Of course funding for the military and intelligence collection is going up even with the tax cut. So it isn't restricting what the government can do to us but does seem to be reducing the saftey net for our weakest or most unfortunate citizen that our tax dollars had created.
I think the obvious answer in the States is what we're already beginning to see sprinkled around here and there which is broadband as a community utility like the highways or the water or the power. There are those who say that this is somehow a danger to freedoms of speech, but I don't quite follow the logic there when we have Verizon ratting out their users as it is.
Actually even with some of the new laws allowing more government surveillance, government entities are much more restricted in surveillance and other activities by laws than private entities.
This is one reason I find things like the total information awareness and other private to government information transfers disturbing and a run around of the 4th amendment, allowing the govenment to have private companies collect data which the government wouldn't be allowed to collect itself.
New graduates from Ivy League schools hired at firms with national practices can earn $70,000 - $85,000 in their first year, but the majority of new hires earn in the $40,000 - $60,000 range. Starting salaries are somewhat lower in the corporate and public sectors. Eighth-year associates can earn between $85,000-$113,500 per year.
The average salary for Class of 2001 graduates was over $75,000.
Of course this is for recent grads 1-2 years as were the statistics you quoted. One of the benefits of a specialized degree is that the upper bounds on individual salary is much higher, and one of the reasons the recent grads are working thier asses off at 90k per year is that if/when they make partner they'll be rolling in the cash (maybe working just as hard, but at a substantial boost in earnings)
We can also check salary reports for an estimate of what you should be looking for as a more experienced attorney,
Associate General Counsel working in US - National now earns an average salary of 310,054. Half of those in this position would earn between 230,122 and 332,812.
Position Description: Conduct criminal and civil lawsuits, draw up legal documents, advise clients as to legal rights, and practice other phases of law. May represent client in court or before quasi-judicial or administrative agencies of government. May specialize in a single area of law, such as patent law, corporate law, or criminal law.
(although general counsel probably work for the side that lost this case, but hey they still got paid, actually by CD sales;>)
Area - All United States Occupation - Lawyers Level - Overall DataSource - Published Year/Period - 2000/Jul Hourly Rate - $38.70
Of course this data includes public lawyers which are paid significantly less than corporate/private practice lawyers in general, and includes all levels of experience.
Slashdot Mirror
or you get a visit from the FBI when they are ground into a whitish powedery substance ;>
Unfortunately not quite a tank.
I had one for the longest time (got mine around 1988 too) but had the battery door problem.
This seems to be not too uncommon on this model - the springs inside were a bit too strong and the area around the battery door eventually broke. I used it taped up for a few years but got tired of that and eventually broke down and got a 48gx. I like the 28S better though (since I used it for so long, and to me it seems more responsive and I like the clamshell design even with the battery door problem), but I'll need to try to find a used one again (tried before on ebay but got tired of snipers outbidding me at the last second).
or find out a major chains coding scheme for one of their sets from buying things there and see if you can aquire a duplicate lot of a few thousand then drop a handful or two through their doorway or include them in small items people may carry with them that you then sell on ebay ;>.
The main advantage of a fusion plant is the byproducts can be limited to relatively short lived isotopes (100-1000s of years compared to 1e5-1e6s years for fusion) and there isnt a possibility of a runaway reaction/china syndrome (since its so damn hard to get going in the first place ;>)
And all the current laws already on the books which address that issue are working so well reducing that problem that Michigan needs a whole new ineffective and poorly written law.
And what kind of protection do you think you currently get for free?
If you do register and pay a small filing fee you get some additional protection, because it becomes potentially more expensive to violate your copyright. However for 'free' copyright upon creation any violation is much less expensive for the violator which must simply stop using your copyrighted material and are only liable for actual damages (ie your attorney fees are yours and you only can possibly win the infringers profits and your losses if any).
Additionally finding infringement of your copyright can be a difficult proposition unless it's being flagrantly violated in a widely read publication.
So although the small filing fee (not free) provides you with more protection (statutory damages and attorneys fees) there is still the cost of filing and the preparation costs of registering the copyright. Additionally any money you invest in hunting down violators of your copyright. Actively protecting a copyright while not prohibitively expensive does involve some costs even without a small renewal fee.
Finally the fundamental basis for copyright in the US isn't protection of the artist; it's the promotion of new works. So the pertinent question is, would the additional cost of not allowing your photo library to go to the public domain 20 years from its creation cause you not to publish it now?
also with the insurance market the way it is even if the water isnt there for a week you might find you are not able to insure your house after the claim is payed out to fix the (extensive) damage from the water.
Although with a space elevator it would be more cost effective and their plan only is asking for around $10 billion dollars (rather than the $100 billion in this article).
Of course that assumes that their budget is realistic and the engineering is really there (not just something they think will be easy to solve during the construction).
If you had finished reading my post you would have seen I said the point that from an engineering perspecitve there is some validity to this point.
But its much easier to shout and yell about false dichotomies than to try to gain some insight into the issue. Its not just NO REGULATION REGULATION IS BAD, or EVERYTHING MUST REMAIN REGULATED EXACTLY AS IT IS OR THERE WILL BE ANARCHY. As usual theres a vast middle ground where real progress and discussion can occur.
However the question (in the third paragraph, since you apparently posted after reading only the first) is what regulatory measures are needed - a looser regulatory system not based on 1950s era technology requirements or a continuation of those same regulations. The question isnt whether there should be any regulation or not, simply the form of the regulation that results in the most efficient use of the spectrum and methods available.
Right now the usage of the spectrum is extremely limited and controlled by a few (on the order of 100 near major cities, not including corporate owenership of multiple stations) broadcasters in each area, thus the use of that spectrum is, from the regulatory design quite valuable because it limits, arguably in a more restrictive way than is currently necessary, the available frequencies for use creating a very limited supply.
Are there engineering problems inherent to rolling out a new regulatory structure for the RF spectrum, of course. Does that mean that it shouldn't be investigated, no. Does it mean that it can't be done efficiently and allow much greater access to the RF frequency range for many more users for a more diverse range of uses, no.
The author of the article does mention this and suggests a period where the system would be in transition giving some of the spectrum to the new regulatory scheme to allow the transition to new equipment and possibly (though not mentioned specifically) to fine tune any regulatory structure decided upon.
The point I think the author is making is that there is a (theoreticallly) infinately divisible analog space contained between any two wavelengths of EM spectrum. For example the green at 510nm and the green at 520nm are both 'green' but with sufficient technological enhancement can be distinguished from one another.
Your point is also a good one, in that from an engineering point of view as the signals get closer together in the spectrum the ability to distinguish one signal from another is reduced.
However his answer to this is that the current method of spectrum allocation does a terrible job at utilizing the available spectrum partly because the transceviers we use for radio and television broadcast for example are relatively stupid and inefficient compared to what we could be doing, partly because of how the historical licensing stucture grew to be fixed ownership of particular frequencies and the space around them to allow dumb recievers to utilise them.
His idea is to try to promote the reduction of frequency requirements to the least restrictive set of rules to allow a reciever to recieve a broadcast from a broadcaster. One example given is through the use of smarter SDRs (software defined radios) to make more efficient use of the available spectrum.
That's because the last was posted to the Science section only. Unless you have Collapse sections (show stories from all sections, unless specifically excluded) selected on your homepage options you will not see this story on the main page, only if you go to the science section.
If it was truly a highly risky endevor to be a Phamecutical company they wouldn't be steadily very profitable.
A significant amount of the basic research in Pharmacuticals is funded by tax dollars.
And in addition, custom-designing and custom-manufacturing of probes is very expensive. Let's just make more, general purpose probes and send have them start from a low gravity place! Let's go to space using a collection of standardized off-the-shelf components! Why not?
Because even though the cost of the probes is high, much of the costs are in the launch and the people manning the uplink to the probe make up the lions share of the costs (just launching can be more than half the entire budget). Since the launches are so expensive any probe launched which doesn't perform is a waste of the money spent to get it into orbit.
I don't think simply making numerous cheap probes and spending many millions of dollars to throw them into an orbit to often fail would be better on the budget than the current method.
One way to overcome this is to have NASA focus on reducing the cost/kg of launch systems by pursuing alternate launch methods. Doing this could have a significant effect on both scientific and commercial use of LEO and beyond.
Unfortunately trying cases is not the same as an effective lobby. By the time a case has to be tried that means the law you didn't want has already been passed and you are using the least effective means of fighting it.
Their San Fransisco address spells this out, all effective lobbiests are in DC since to lobby effectively they have to be there.
This isn't to say that the EFF isn't a well intentioned organization, only that its effectveness is limited by its methodology, not that I know of any other organization with similar goals but organized as a lobby/PAC.
Patents aren't supposed to protect ideas either, only specific implementations of an idea.
I bought a boxed version around 7.0 partly because of limited bandwidth at the time. I ended up returning it to the store because it didn't come close to including what was on the freely downloadable version (yes it was the 'desktop' version, and it would have been fine if it didn't install by default a lot of the development tools but not having them at all was a mistake).
So I ended up returning it to the store and buying a cheap CD-R burned version which had the full distribution on it instead and didn't feel bad about it.
This is much much more common in the west and plains than the east coast where they hadnt perfected the scam before people took ownership of the land. Similar with water rights.
Or if you want to hear the same story from long ago in a musical version you can listen to The Money-go-round by The Kinks.
until very very recently the patent process in the US was completely closed until the patent was granted so fighting it out in court was the only way to invalidate it as far as I know.
However, I'm not sure if now there's a way to submit prior art now that patent applications are open for examination or if it just reduces submarine patents.
Its not even in the bio linked. I guess the poster saw Laureate of the Business Hall of Fame and figured any laureate must be a nobel laureate or something.
Of course funding for the military and intelligence collection is going up even with the tax cut. So it isn't restricting what the government can do to us but does seem to be reducing the saftey net for our weakest or most unfortunate citizen that our tax dollars had created.
I think the obvious answer in the States is what we're already beginning to see sprinkled around here and there which is broadband as a community utility like the highways or the water or the power. There are those who say that this is somehow a danger to freedoms of speech, but I don't quite follow the logic there when we have Verizon ratting out their users as it is.
Actually even with some of the new laws allowing more government surveillance, government entities are much more restricted in surveillance and other activities by laws than private entities.
This is one reason I find things like the total information awareness and other private to government information transfers disturbing and a run around of the 4th amendment, allowing the govenment to have private companies collect data which the government wouldn't be allowed to collect itself.
Independently owned is streching it a bit, they aren't owned by the same media conglomerate, but they aren't owned as an independent entity either,
TNN is owned by Viacom - Other Viacom interests
Scifi is owned by Vivendi (USA Networks) - Other Vivendi interests
Of course that's only one law school for another example -
;>)
Columbia Law:
The median starting salary for all graduates is $94,000
Stanford
New graduates from Ivy League schools hired at firms with national practices can earn $70,000 - $85,000 in their first year, but the majority of new hires earn in the $40,000 - $60,000 range. Starting salaries are somewhat lower in the corporate and public sectors. Eighth-year associates can earn between $85,000-$113,500 per year.
less well known law schools,
Case Western Reserve
The average salary for Class of 2001 graduates was over $75,000.
Of course this is for recent grads 1-2 years as were the statistics you quoted. One of the benefits of a specialized degree is that the upper bounds on individual salary is much higher, and one of the reasons the recent grads are working thier asses off at 90k per year is that if/when they make partner they'll be rolling in the cash (maybe working just as hard, but at a substantial boost in earnings)
We can also check salary reports for an estimate of what you should be looking for as a more experienced attorney,
Career Journal
Associate General Counsel working in US - National now earns an average salary of 310,054. Half of those in this position would earn between 230,122 and 332,812.
Position Description:
Conduct criminal and civil lawsuits, draw up legal documents, advise clients as to legal rights, and practice other phases of law. May represent client in court or before quasi-judicial or administrative agencies of government. May specialize in a single area of law, such as patent law, corporate law, or criminal law.
(although general counsel probably work for the side that lost this case, but hey they still got paid, actually by CD sales
Department of Labor statistics for all lawyers
Area - All United States
Occupation - Lawyers
Level - Overall
DataSource - Published
Year/Period - 2000/Jul
Hourly Rate - $38.70
Of course this data includes public lawyers which are paid significantly less than corporate/private practice lawyers in general, and includes all levels of experience.
And this survey of law firm compensation:
Law Department Compensation Benchmarking survey - Total cash compensation
Attorney - 2001 - $120,252
Just go to a /.'ed site with the nostalgia browser to get the full effect.