...sometimes absolutely necessary.
I once had to replace the motherboard in my sole (at the time) computer. Apart from a very brief, very abridged installation guide, all the docs for the board were in PDF files on a CD.
What I would have called the company up to say if it hadn't been based in Taiwan: Hello? I DON'T HAVE A DAMN COMPUTER! HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THIS MANUAL?!?
It's just a good thing that I had no trouble whatsoever installing the board. (It was a Shuttle 555A, still going after 5 or 6 years. It's now my wife's, who uses it for nothing but word processing and websurfing.)
And for the text editor itself, may I recommend NEdit? It's got a bunch of nifty customizable syntax-highlighting features, and LaTeX is among the built-in syntaxes. I use it for programming too, on VMS no less, where it works just fine.
...she probably has a claim under workman's comp...
She in fact filed and settled a claim under workman's comp. From the opinion:
In light of these restrictions, for the next two years petitioner assigned respondent to various modified duty jobs. Nonetheless, respondent missed some work for medical leave, and eventually filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 342.0011 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 2000). The parties settled this claim, and respondent returned to work.
One wonders if the cosmic soup had simmered a little more or a little less if Jupiter wouldn't be a binary star. How would it affect sleep patterns? What the hell would our watches look like?
Would we even be here?
Considering the climactic history of Earth, it's clear that even small perturbations in its orbit and small changes in the brightness of the Sun have large effects on the climate. In a binary star system, its not at all clear that any planetary climates would ever be steady enough to allow higher life forms to develop. Neither the orbit nor the energy received from the suns would likely be stable enough.
It's one of many available commercially-produced mods for DN3D. Some of them are very entertaining, and humorous in the same way DN3D itself is, only moreso. I have one based on a Carribbean resort setting -- all the aliens are in swimwear, and the weapons have all been replaced by squirt guns and such. (And of course, roughly 10x the bikini babes...)
1) You obviously haven't tried Thief if you dismiss it so off-handedly. The other game built on the same engine, System Shock 2, was no more cookie cutter than Thief was.
2) This is Slashdot. You can say "ass" if you want.
I wouldn't. Not that I don't recommend the movie; it's absolutely wonderful. But it is, I believe, almost sui generis. Other than the artistic conventions governing the way the characters are drawn, it has little in common with other anime, from other directors.
So watch the movie, and enjoy is as you almost surely will. (The American dub is a bit bumpy in places, with some translations not as well done as they might be, but that's just a quibble.) But do not regard it as an introduction to anime. It's just too unique.
It's precisely for this reason, I think, that the "fair use" doctrine on copyrighted materials was devised: to balance out the interests of copyright holders against the guaranteed rights of anyone who wanted to discuss the copyrighted material. This balance has worked remarkably well in the past, and it seems that it must have been devised satisfactorily. Now that legislation such as the Bono act and the DMCA are upsetting that balance, free speech is becoming circumscribed. But this is happening precisely in the context of creating works in the "useful arts", which means that current copyright law does not even fulfil the purpose of copyrights as defined by the Constitution.
But I'd prefer an informed opinion on the matter by an actual scholar in Constitutional law.
And as there is no pro-speech benefit for this speech-supressing regulation, it should be struck under the First Amendment.
As a non-lawyer and someone who is not an expert in Constitutional law, it seems odd to me to hear copyrights discussed in a First Amendment context. The First Amendment did not exist when Article 1 Section 8 was drawn up, and its inconceivable to me that the authors of the Bill of Rights would have considered that any part of it contradicted what had been so recently ratified. Wouldn't the Constitutional foundation of copyrights suffice to strike down the Bono act?
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
I'd have thought that in those rare instances where the intent of a clause is made explicit, then a law purportedly enforcing the clause but acting contrary to the stated purpose would be unconstitutional. Since the effect of the act plainly inhibits, rather then promotes, the progress of the "useful arts" as your example illustrated, that's surely the case here.
The way I see it, good copyright law enhances the First Amendment by promoting free speech, and I can't really disagree that bad copyright law limits it. (And vice versa; free speech can only advance the "useful arts," never retard them. (Well, OK, maybe not considering some of the art that's being produced these days. But that's just a question of quality, not expression as such, and there's lots of gold amongst the dross.)) But I think the first violence here was against Article 1 Section 8, not the First Amendment.
Admittedly, Arwen's role is greatly expanded in the film (seemingly subsuming the role of Glorfindle at the ford near Rivendell, at least from what I can tell from the previews)
She also subsumes some of the roles of Aragorn (who in the film does nothing for Frodo's injury until it's almost too late) and Elrond (when it is she instead of he who summons the flood at the Ford of Bruinen) and Gandalf (who does not add his little contribution to the flood but which seem to be there anyway). She is also given a line that belongs at the end of the story in a different context (giving Frodo her place on the ship sailing West rather than sustaining him until Elrond can operate) and evinces an emotional attachment to Frodo that's quite inexplicable in terms of their relationship as it had developed at that point. IMO the additional role of Arwen was the most poorly-written part of the script, and it needed a better actor than Liv Tyler to pull it off.
Without coming right out and saying so at that point, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn feels somewhat guilty about finding Eowyn attractive when his heart already belongs to Arwen.
No he doesn't. There's not a hint of guilt in anything Aragorn does or says, nor is it apparent that he finds Eowyn attractive in the sense you mean here. It's Eowyn who finds Aragorn attractive, and when he puts off her subtle advances by not responding to them she falls into a depression. Aragorn is sorrowful that he must do this out of his love and commitment to Arwen because he admires and respects Eowyn, and even loves her in strictly Platonic terms, and does not want to cause her any grief. Unfortunately, she sets up a situation where he has no other choice.
You're right. For pretty much any FPS game out there, where the main purpose of your soundcard is to generate the sound of gunfire and explosions, pretty much any noisy old piece of crap will do. For other games, such as, say Thief: The Dark Project, where sound is absolutely essential to gameplay, it would have been wonderful to have the features Slothy enumerated available in hardware. As it was, the sound engine had to compute all these things in software, which made it much more bloated and less efficient than it might have been otherwise. (To be fair, it may not have been possible to eliminate most of the sound-related code. This is the only game I know of where the NPCs react primarily to the sounds the nearly invisible player makes, and this is achieved by using the actual audio geometry to decide NPC reactions.)
Bull pucky. While OE is obviously closer to Modern English than Greek is, it's very opaque if you're not taking a course in it, and it's not reasonable to ask everyone who wants to appreciate Beowulf in some form to do that.
For the general reader, here's the first 11 lines of Beowulf in the original. Somehow I don't think most English-speaking readers will find the meaning immediately obvious.
Hwæt! We Gardenain geardagum,
eodcyninga,rym gefrunon,
hu ða æelingasellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefingsceaena reatum,
monegum mægum,meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,he æs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,weorðmyndum ah,
oðæt him æghwylcara ymbsittendra
ofer hronradehyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.æt wæs god cyning!
Mind you, you're not actually wrong. It takes a very competent translator working very hard to make a translation of a poem that reflects both the structure and mood of the original. But it's not really easier on the reader.
If you insist on your point, I expect to hear that you've learned Old Norse before tackling the Icelandic sagas.
No, do go on, please. There are even more ways this story's screwed up.
Not only does the Lion & Lamb Project plainly state its mission on the website's front page, but the name ought to have been a clue that this is an organization with Christian affiliations. Their peculiar biases ("peculiar" as in characteristic of them, not strange) should not have been surprising to anyone.
What on earth does this have to do with "Your Rights Online"? Are they denying anyone their rights? Are they walking into toy stores and physically restraining people from buying these toys? Aren't they in fact doing nothing but making recommendations for parents of like mind with the organization about toy purchases that the parents may not have time to fully educate themselves about? And isn't anyone free to ignore these recommendations?
Or is it that/. feels these people ought not have the right to say what they want online? In that case, the discussion has a completely opposite slant to that which such discussions are wonted to have around here. Should/. be advocating the censorship of anyone online who disagrees with a consensus of/. readers?
Shouldn't the discusion be about Lion & Lamb's claims about the effects of violent entertainment on children and whether or not they're justified? Because if they are, their mission is eminently sensible. This has even less to do with online rights, of course.
...Which is kind of too bad, but I suppose they couldn't just auction off all their original props. The Stormtrooper's helmet was used in the filming of Eps 5 and 6, and Darth Maul's lightsabre was the prop Ray Park actually used in the fight scenes. The Darth Vader helmet was cast "from an original used in the filming of The Empire Strikes Back," which seems to be saying that the original molds were lost and a new one was made from an old hemlet. Not quite the same as an original by a long shot, but Lucas has autographed the thing, so I suppose it has more cachet than some of the other items.
Everything else seems to be a professionally-built kit model. They all come with certificates of authenticity, but what they authentically are doesn't seem to be to be all that unique.
It should be remembered that for the newer movies, authentic models will be rare indeed since they're using a great deal fewer of them in favor of CG.
Norton could easily blame someone else. The newest part of the system was put into place in 1999, and the personnel responsible for the more egregious security breaches (such as blank passwords) are civil servants who have likely been in their jobs for some time. If she wanted, she could easily point the finger at the Clinton administration which arguably is indeed responsible for the mess having procured the system, hired the people, and established the policies. That she is not doing this can be seen as admirable restraint. If only it didn't involve screwing over the people she's supposed to be serving.
None of which changes the fact that her lawyer is apparently a total weenie.
(I think it highly unlikely that it's slashdotted. Government servers designed for worldwide access are generally well able to handle this kind of load.)
OK, so I found it at the alt.talk.royalty FAQ. In the UK, she's called "United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". In her other realms and territories, she's styled slightly differently. The full list is rather lengthy, so check the FAQ to see it. Although "Queen of England" isn't found in there, it's certainly not incorrect to call her that.
Uh, no, that's OK, I'm fine. No, really. Please, don't trouble yourself. HEY, LOOK, JUST BACK OFF MAN!!!!
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
However, if it's controlled by shifting weight, would a cerebral palsy patient be able to control it well enough to stay on the sidewalk, let alone be safe in a crowd?
Well, not at that speed anyway. But each person has different needs, and anyone that tries to sell you a solution that fits all disabled people is selling you snake oil. Clearly IT would not be the best thing for absolutely everyone. Occupational therapists can teach some of the most severly disabled people enough to function in society; teaching how to use IT to those for whom it would be suitable is just the sort of thing they do.
Re:What are you thinking?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
It was an example. I certainly wouldn't want him in control of a vehicle with a top speed of 17 mph, the device in principle could be very useful to anyone with limited mobility.
Slashdot Mirror
What I would have called the company up to say if it hadn't been based in Taiwan: Hello? I DON'T HAVE A DAMN COMPUTER! HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THIS MANUAL?!?
It's just a good thing that I had no trouble whatsoever installing the board. (It was a Shuttle 555A, still going after 5 or 6 years. It's now my wife's, who uses it for nothing but word processing and websurfing.)
And for the text editor itself, may I recommend NEdit? It's got a bunch of nifty customizable syntax-highlighting features, and LaTeX is among the built-in syntaxes. I use it for programming too, on VMS no less, where it works just fine.
It's by Terry Bisson. He's aware that it's circulating the Internet unattrubuted, but fortunately it seems he doesn't have a problem with it.
She in fact filed and settled a claim under workman's comp. From the opinion:
Would we even be here?
Considering the climactic history of Earth, it's clear that even small perturbations in its orbit and small changes in the brightness of the Sun have large effects on the climate. In a binary star system, its not at all clear that any planetary climates would ever be steady enough to allow higher life forms to develop. Neither the orbit nor the energy received from the suns would likely be stable enough.
It's one of many available commercially-produced mods for DN3D. Some of them are very entertaining, and humorous in the same way DN3D itself is, only moreso. I have one based on a Carribbean resort setting -- all the aliens are in swimwear, and the weapons have all been replaced by squirt guns and such. (And of course, roughly 10x the bikini babes...)
2) This is Slashdot. You can say "ass" if you want.
So watch the movie, and enjoy is as you almost surely will. (The American dub is a bit bumpy in places, with some translations not as well done as they might be, but that's just a quibble.) But do not regard it as an introduction to anime. It's just too unique.
But I'd prefer an informed opinion on the matter by an actual scholar in Constitutional law.
And as there is no pro-speech benefit for this speech-supressing regulation, it should be struck under the First Amendment.
As a non-lawyer and someone who is not an expert in Constitutional law, it seems odd to me to hear copyrights discussed in a First Amendment context. The First Amendment did not exist when Article 1 Section 8 was drawn up, and its inconceivable to me that the authors of the Bill of Rights would have considered that any part of it contradicted what had been so recently ratified. Wouldn't the Constitutional foundation of copyrights suffice to strike down the Bono act?
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
I'd have thought that in those rare instances where the intent of a clause is made explicit, then a law purportedly enforcing the clause but acting contrary to the stated purpose would be unconstitutional. Since the effect of the act plainly inhibits, rather then promotes, the progress of the "useful arts" as your example illustrated, that's surely the case here.
The way I see it, good copyright law enhances the First Amendment by promoting free speech, and I can't really disagree that bad copyright law limits it. (And vice versa; free speech can only advance the "useful arts," never retard them. (Well, OK, maybe not considering some of the art that's being produced these days. But that's just a question of quality, not expression as such, and there's lots of gold amongst the dross.)) But I think the first violence here was against Article 1 Section 8, not the First Amendment.
She also subsumes some of the roles of Aragorn (who in the film does nothing for Frodo's injury until it's almost too late) and Elrond (when it is she instead of he who summons the flood at the Ford of Bruinen) and Gandalf (who does not add his little contribution to the flood but which seem to be there anyway). She is also given a line that belongs at the end of the story in a different context (giving Frodo her place on the ship sailing West rather than sustaining him until Elrond can operate) and evinces an emotional attachment to Frodo that's quite inexplicable in terms of their relationship as it had developed at that point. IMO the additional role of Arwen was the most poorly-written part of the script, and it needed a better actor than Liv Tyler to pull it off.
Without coming right out and saying so at that point, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn feels somewhat guilty about finding Eowyn attractive when his heart already belongs to Arwen.
No he doesn't. There's not a hint of guilt in anything Aragorn does or says, nor is it apparent that he finds Eowyn attractive in the sense you mean here. It's Eowyn who finds Aragorn attractive, and when he puts off her subtle advances by not responding to them she falls into a depression. Aragorn is sorrowful that he must do this out of his love and commitment to Arwen because he admires and respects Eowyn, and even loves her in strictly Platonic terms, and does not want to cause her any grief. Unfortunately, she sets up a situation where he has no other choice.
You're right. For pretty much any FPS game out there, where the main purpose of your soundcard is to generate the sound of gunfire and explosions, pretty much any noisy old piece of crap will do. For other games, such as, say Thief: The Dark Project, where sound is absolutely essential to gameplay, it would have been wonderful to have the features Slothy enumerated available in hardware. As it was, the sound engine had to compute all these things in software, which made it much more bloated and less efficient than it might have been otherwise. (To be fair, it may not have been possible to eliminate most of the sound-related code. This is the only game I know of where the NPCs react primarily to the sounds the nearly invisible player makes, and this is achieved by using the actual audio geometry to decide NPC reactions.)
Bull pucky. While OE is obviously closer to Modern English than Greek is, it's very opaque if you're not taking a course in it, and it's not reasonable to ask everyone who wants to appreciate Beowulf in some form to do that.
For the general reader, here's the first 11 lines of Beowulf in the original. Somehow I don't think most English-speaking readers will find the meaning immediately obvious.
Hwæt! We Gardenain geardagum,
eodcyninga,rym gefrunon,
hu ða æelingasellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefingsceaena reatum,
monegum mægum,meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,he æs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,weorðmyndum ah,
oðæt him æghwylcara ymbsittendra
ofer hronradehyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.æt wæs god cyning!
Mind you, you're not actually wrong. It takes a very competent translator working very hard to make a translation of a poem that reflects both the structure and mood of the original. But it's not really easier on the reader.
If you insist on your point, I expect to hear that you've learned Old Norse before tackling the Icelandic sagas.
No, do go on, please. There are even more ways this story's screwed up.
- Not only does the Lion & Lamb Project plainly state its mission on the website's front page, but the name ought to have been a clue that this is an organization with Christian affiliations. Their peculiar biases ("peculiar" as in characteristic of them, not strange) should not have been surprising to anyone.
- What on earth does this have to do with "Your Rights Online"? Are they denying anyone their rights? Are they walking into toy stores and physically restraining people from buying these toys? Aren't they in fact doing nothing but making recommendations for parents of like mind with the organization about toy purchases that the parents may not have time to fully educate themselves about? And isn't anyone free to ignore these recommendations?
- Or is it that
/. feels these people ought not have the right to say what they want online? In that case, the discussion has a completely opposite slant to that which such discussions are wonted to have around here. Should /. be advocating the censorship of anyone online who disagrees with a consensus of /. readers?
- Shouldn't the discusion be about Lion & Lamb's claims about the effects of violent entertainment on children and whether or not they're justified? Because if they are, their mission is eminently sensible. This has even less to do with online rights, of course.
OK, now I'm done ranting. Next!Oh, well.
What tapes? They're recording on digital media now. One good lightning strike at the wrong time, and you've got to reshoot the whole movie....
Everything else seems to be a professionally-built kit model. They all come with certificates of authenticity, but what they authentically are doesn't seem to be to be all that unique.
It should be remembered that for the newer movies, authentic models will be rare indeed since they're using a great deal fewer of them in favor of CG.
None of which changes the fact that her lawyer is apparently a total weenie.
If God's adressing a crowd of angles, shouldn't they be raising a vertex instead?
Time to get your meds adjusted, is it?
Indeed she does still hold that title. I used to know her full grand gitre but it's slipped out of my mind for some reason. The natural place to look it up is on the Royal Family's website, but, oddly enough since they moved to IIS (another fine Microsoft product) it's down right now. Funny, I never can remember it going down before...
(I think it highly unlikely that it's slashdotted. Government servers designed for worldwide access are generally well able to handle this kind of load.)
OK, so I found it at the alt.talk.royalty FAQ. In the UK, she's called "United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". In her other realms and territories, she's styled slightly differently. The full list is rather lengthy, so check the FAQ to see it. Although "Queen of England" isn't found in there, it's certainly not incorrect to call her that.
Uh, no, that's OK, I'm fine. No, really. Please, don't trouble yourself. HEY, LOOK, JUST BACK OFF MAN!!!!
Well, not at that speed anyway. But each person has different needs, and anyone that tries to sell you a solution that fits all disabled people is selling you snake oil. Clearly IT would not be the best thing for absolutely everyone. Occupational therapists can teach some of the most severly disabled people enough to function in society; teaching how to use IT to those for whom it would be suitable is just the sort of thing they do.
It was an example. I certainly wouldn't want him in control of a vehicle with a top speed of 17 mph, the device in principle could be very useful to anyone with limited mobility.
Oh well. Better luck next year, I suppose.