As has already been explained elsewhere, any piece of currency, paper or coin, ever printed or minted by the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America is legal tender for all debts, public or private.
If it's genuine and it was actually issued by the Federal government (that means after 1862), then it's legal. That even goes for the unbelievably rare $10,000 bill featuring the portrait of Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase. No, I did not make that up. If you have a $10,000 bill in your pocket, you can trade it in for 10,000 singles and have yourself a grand old time at the titty bar.
The government lacks the power, under statute, to just declare perfectly good money to be no longer legal tender.
The reasons for this should be obvious, if you stop and think about them for a second. The power to unmake money is not a power you want your government to have.
(The Europeans are obviously a lot more relaxed about what they do and don't allow their governments to do. Never understood that for a second. They, of all people, should comprehend the need to put limits on the extent to which the state can shit on the people.)
Maybe I'm just tired, but your post makes basically no sense to me. You seem to be bemoaning the fact that, despite that digital television is everywhere and equipment is widely available, you don't know enough people personally who've bought new gear. Which, you know, means nothing to anybody. Personally, I don't know anybody who still watches analog television. So obviously your experience is not the way to judge.
Then your comment is just filled to the brim with nonsense statements. You say that nobody is buying digital televisions, but ignore the fact that they are in fact selling like hotcakes. You say that the first season of Battlestar Galactica was broadcast over the air; it wasn't. It was on a network with no over-the-air affiliates. You say that "there used to be close to 50 minutes of program in an hour." That's completely untrue. The 42:30 content window has been carved in stone ever since the 1960s.
If the FCC wants the john Q public to get Digital Television
You sound kind of like those guys who come along every once in a while and say things like "the Internet will never be successful until" and then something silly.
According to the latest report from the FCC, something like 97% of American homes receive all four major broadcast networks in HD already, and something like 92% of cable subscribers have the option of buying additional HD channels. All satellite subscribers have that option, of course.
Digital television is already here. I don't know where this "if the FCC wants us to have it" stuff is coming from.
You mean the same Wikipedia that declared authoritatively that Marburg was "very contagious?" That little factoid, unchecked, made it into the New York Times last week. They had to issue a correction. Marburg, like all blood-borne viruses, is not very contagious.
Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia. It's wrong as often as it's right.
I don't understand that comment at all. I mean, everything is multitasked under Mac OS X. Each thread is scheduled and run separately on the first CPU available. And threads are executing all the time, from checking mail to doing disk I/O to whatever. Your computer is never just sitting there totally, 100% idle, unless you're in single-user mode, I guess. No matter what you're doing, adding another CPU will always cut down on context switches and shorten the run queue.
What stops you? The fact that that's a massively stupid thing to have to do to a computer.
Look, I understand your point. "Just do it this way, it's simple." But I would never, ever recommend something like that to a Mac user. The fact that it's possible doesn't mean it's something to brag about. If you're happy with an answer like that, you're probably not a Mac user. You're probably happy with something like Linux already. And frankly, if that's the case, you wouldn't be asking. You would already know how to do it because, like, you have to know how to do those things in order to make Linux work on a network. So bottom line, if you're asking the question, that answer will just make you mad.
It used to be a fine program. It never quiet got up to speed with Panther. It doesn't work at all with Tiger. And in order to do incremental copies, it requires a piece of totally unsupported third-party software that has to be installed via the command line.
I can no longer recommend Carbon Copy Cloner, unfortunately.
Wow. Easily one of the most uninformed comments I've ever seen. Setting aside for a minute the fact that "the GUI is slow" is not a meaningful comment, the phrase "expand Cocoa APIs to cover things like Quicktime and Web Objects" doesn't even make sense. Do you know what WebObjects is?
Re:Sharing internet to Bluetooth still does not wo
on
10.4 on Display at FOSE
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Have you gotten a good answer on this yet? From skimming it looks like you haven't. Let me help.
Internet sharing on the Mac works through DHCP. When you turn on Internet sharing on a given interface, an instance of the DHCP server is launched bound to that interface and the kernel is configured to route packets from that interface to the default route.
Bluetooth doesn't work like that. There's no IP-over-Bluetooth. Instead, Bluetooth works like a serial port. While yes, you can certainly shuttle IP over serial using PPP, that's not how the Mac's Internet sharing works.
Why not? Because exactly zero people have submitted feature requests. At this point, the feature list for Mac OS X is so deep, a feature has to be requested by tens of thousands of people before it bubbles up to the top.
So if you get together with 19,999 of your closest friends and submit requests to Radar, I'm sure we'll get right on it.
I know this sounds elitist, but the bottom line is that we only have so many programmers. They can't scratch every user's every itch. If we tried... well, frankly, we'd be shipping a product with tons of bugs, no documentation and zero user experience. There are already products like that out there. Lots of people like them. Maybe one would be better for you.
Your comment is pretty far removed from reality. Apple has a long history of putting late-prerelease builds on demo machines. Both Jaguar and Panther late-prerelease builds were distributed to Apple retail stores a few weeks in advance of the release of those products. It helps give the customer base an idea of what's to come, and encourages people to buy the new release.
That's a good idea. You're basically asking for sync-to-file. You should submit it as a feature request. I'll check Radar in a couple of days (making myself an iCal to-do as we speak) and if it's not in there, I'll add it myself.
A suggestion: Buy a second hard drive. Make it exactly the same as your main hard drive, if possible, or if not, make it bigger. Then buy a little program called Super Duper which exists solely for the purpose of creating incremental clones of your system disk. Run it every day or so.
That way you always have a working backup drive.
So OS updates are easy. Just blast one of the two drives and install the new release on it. Copy files from the old backup drive as necessary. Worst case, just reboot from the old disk.
And yes, to answer the unasked question, this is vastly superior to mirroring the drives at the OS level. Mirroring protects you only from hardware failures. It doesn't protect you from dragging an important folder to the trash and then going "oops."
I've seen the sentiment expressed before. It's like name-that-tune: "I could rewrite the law in one page!" To put it bluntly, no, you couldn't, not in a way that would be useful. If you tried, the results would be like the Ten Commandments: succinct, elegant, endlessly debated and utterly unenforceable.
Re:Tiger timeline and iSync supported devices
on
10.4 on Display at FOSE
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's not "10.4 (aka 'Tiger')." Tiger isn't a nickname or a code name. The actual name of the product is "Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger."
It's a branding thing. People respond more and more quickly to names than they do to numbers.
Thus ends my utterly irrelevant trivia post for the day.
No, nobody makes a distinction between broadcast television (which is redundant anyway) and cable television (which is one medium on which television programs are broadcast).
NTSC is both an analog and a digital format. Actually, it's a lot more than that. But to wildly oversimplify, yes, there's an analog format and a digital format.
And I think you need to go back and look again at your television. Those "RGB" (actually, YUV, or luminance/chroma) inputs are, in fact, analog.
It's the fourth estate, and your utopian rhetoric rings hollow. You know what the difference is between yourself and a journalist? Trick question. There is none.
Our society was founded upon the principle that all people are equal under the law. To suggest that some people should be exempt from personal responsibility runs contrary to everything we believe in.
Tax law is indeed complicated, to the tune of 88,000 pages of legislation.
Copyright law, on the other hand, is very simple. The entire text of Circ 92, comprising all of Title 17, the Berne Convention and all other relevant national and international laws governing copyright is only 289 pages long. That's the entire body of law, everything.
Some US people live in areas that don't receive broadcast TV, so 100% is not possible.
Um. You're not understanding my point. All of the TV broadcast in the US except ATSC TV is broadcast in the NTSC format. That covers over-the-air broadcasts, satellite broadcasts and cable broadcasts.
You're referring to cable and broadcast like they're two different things. That's not right. Cable is one type of broadcast, using signals over wires either strung on poles or buried in ground. There are other types of broadcasts, like line-of-sight and over-the-horizon VHF and direct-broadcast satellite.
A digital cable signal decoded by a box or TV never has to be converted to NTSC
That sentence made no sense at all. NTSC is a signaling format. It defines luminance and chroma samples and a scanning pattern as displayed by your TV. Everything that shows up on your TV (assuming you live in an NTSC country) is in the NTSC format, unless you've got a TV that can display ATSC formats.
But nobody gets ATSC who doesn't get NTSC, so everybody who gets TV in the US gets NTSC. Get it?
The jury system is part of our many safeguards against tyranny. Juries are picked from the populace at large; they're not staffed by professionals who were appointed or elected.
Think of the jury as the last line of common sense before a prison sentence.
Bloggers do not wish to be afforded special privileges or protections. But they don't think journalists should be, either. See, bloggers as a group believe in personal responsibility, and that everybody should be treated equally under the law.
It's the journalists who think they should be entitled to special privileges and protections, and that bloggers shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
As has already been explained elsewhere, any piece of currency, paper or coin, ever printed or minted by the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America is legal tender for all debts, public or private.
If it's genuine and it was actually issued by the Federal government (that means after 1862), then it's legal. That even goes for the unbelievably rare $10,000 bill featuring the portrait of Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase. No, I did not make that up. If you have a $10,000 bill in your pocket, you can trade it in for 10,000 singles and have yourself a grand old time at the titty bar.
The government lacks the power, under statute, to just declare perfectly good money to be no longer legal tender.
The reasons for this should be obvious, if you stop and think about them for a second. The power to unmake money is not a power you want your government to have.
(The Europeans are obviously a lot more relaxed about what they do and don't allow their governments to do. Never understood that for a second. They, of all people, should comprehend the need to put limits on the extent to which the state can shit on the people.)
Maybe I'm just tired, but your post makes basically no sense to me. You seem to be bemoaning the fact that, despite that digital television is everywhere and equipment is widely available, you don't know enough people personally who've bought new gear. Which, you know, means nothing to anybody. Personally, I don't know anybody who still watches analog television. So obviously your experience is not the way to judge.
Then your comment is just filled to the brim with nonsense statements. You say that nobody is buying digital televisions, but ignore the fact that they are in fact selling like hotcakes. You say that the first season of Battlestar Galactica was broadcast over the air; it wasn't. It was on a network with no over-the-air affiliates. You say that "there used to be close to 50 minutes of program in an hour." That's completely untrue. The 42:30 content window has been carved in stone ever since the 1960s.
Are you just rambling incoherently here, or what?
The West Wing went to Super 16 this season. Nobody noticed. The new Kodak stock is amazing.
But this is not relevant because, as already pointed out, Galactica was shot in HD.
If the FCC wants the john Q public to get Digital Television
You sound kind of like those guys who come along every once in a while and say things like "the Internet will never be successful until" and then something silly.
According to the latest report from the FCC, something like 97% of American homes receive all four major broadcast networks in HD already, and something like 92% of cable subscribers have the option of buying additional HD channels. All satellite subscribers have that option, of course.
Digital television is already here. I don't know where this "if the FCC wants us to have it" stuff is coming from.
You mean the same Wikipedia that declared authoritatively that Marburg was "very contagious?" That little factoid, unchecked, made it into the New York Times last week. They had to issue a correction. Marburg, like all blood-borne viruses, is not very contagious.
Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia. It's wrong as often as it's right.
I don't understand that comment at all. I mean, everything is multitasked under Mac OS X. Each thread is scheduled and run separately on the first CPU available. And threads are executing all the time, from checking mail to doing disk I/O to whatever. Your computer is never just sitting there totally, 100% idle, unless you're in single-user mode, I guess. No matter what you're doing, adding another CPU will always cut down on context switches and shorten the run queue.
Is it really that different under Windows?
What stops you? The fact that that's a massively stupid thing to have to do to a computer.
Look, I understand your point. "Just do it this way, it's simple." But I would never, ever recommend something like that to a Mac user. The fact that it's possible doesn't mean it's something to brag about. If you're happy with an answer like that, you're probably not a Mac user. You're probably happy with something like Linux already. And frankly, if that's the case, you wouldn't be asking. You would already know how to do it because, like, you have to know how to do those things in order to make Linux work on a network. So bottom line, if you're asking the question, that answer will just make you mad.
It used to be a fine program. It never quiet got up to speed with Panther. It doesn't work at all with Tiger. And in order to do incremental copies, it requires a piece of totally unsupported third-party software that has to be installed via the command line.
I can no longer recommend Carbon Copy Cloner, unfortunately.
Wow. Easily one of the most uninformed comments I've ever seen. Setting aside for a minute the fact that "the GUI is slow" is not a meaningful comment, the phrase "expand Cocoa APIs to cover things like Quicktime and Web Objects" doesn't even make sense. Do you know what WebObjects is?
Have you gotten a good answer on this yet? From skimming it looks like you haven't. Let me help.
... well, frankly, we'd be shipping a product with tons of bugs, no documentation and zero user experience. There are already products like that out there. Lots of people like them. Maybe one would be better for you.
Internet sharing on the Mac works through DHCP. When you turn on Internet sharing on a given interface, an instance of the DHCP server is launched bound to that interface and the kernel is configured to route packets from that interface to the default route.
Bluetooth doesn't work like that. There's no IP-over-Bluetooth. Instead, Bluetooth works like a serial port. While yes, you can certainly shuttle IP over serial using PPP, that's not how the Mac's Internet sharing works.
Why not? Because exactly zero people have submitted feature requests. At this point, the feature list for Mac OS X is so deep, a feature has to be requested by tens of thousands of people before it bubbles up to the top.
So if you get together with 19,999 of your closest friends and submit requests to Radar, I'm sure we'll get right on it.
I know this sounds elitist, but the bottom line is that we only have so many programmers. They can't scratch every user's every itch. If we tried
Your comment is pretty far removed from reality. Apple has a long history of putting late-prerelease builds on demo machines. Both Jaguar and Panther late-prerelease builds were distributed to Apple retail stores a few weeks in advance of the release of those products. It helps give the customer base an idea of what's to come, and encourages people to buy the new release.
You mean some people, when faced with the opportunity to carve their words into the side of an electronic cliff for all eternity, pass?
The world is full of crazy people.
I don't know what "n/t" means, but if you go to the ever-elusive bugreport.apple.com, you'll find everything you need.
That's a good idea. You're basically asking for sync-to-file. You should submit it as a feature request. I'll check Radar in a couple of days (making myself an iCal to-do as we speak) and if it's not in there, I'll add it myself.
A suggestion: Buy a second hard drive. Make it exactly the same as your main hard drive, if possible, or if not, make it bigger. Then buy a little program called Super Duper which exists solely for the purpose of creating incremental clones of your system disk. Run it every day or so.
That way you always have a working backup drive.
So OS updates are easy. Just blast one of the two drives and install the new release on it. Copy files from the old backup drive as necessary. Worst case, just reboot from the old disk.
And yes, to answer the unasked question, this is vastly superior to mirroring the drives at the OS level. Mirroring protects you only from hardware failures. It doesn't protect you from dragging an important folder to the trash and then going "oops."
I've seen the sentiment expressed before. It's like name-that-tune: "I could rewrite the law in one page!" To put it bluntly, no, you couldn't, not in a way that would be useful. If you tried, the results would be like the Ten Commandments: succinct, elegant, endlessly debated and utterly unenforceable.
It's not "10.4 (aka 'Tiger')." Tiger isn't a nickname or a code name. The actual name of the product is "Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger."
It's a branding thing. People respond more and more quickly to names than they do to numbers.
Thus ends my utterly irrelevant trivia post for the day.
No, nobody makes a distinction between broadcast television (which is redundant anyway) and cable television (which is one medium on which television programs are broadcast).
NTSC is both an analog and a digital format. Actually, it's a lot more than that. But to wildly oversimplify, yes, there's an analog format and a digital format.
And I think you need to go back and look again at your television. Those "RGB" (actually, YUV, or luminance/chroma) inputs are, in fact, analog.
It's the fourth estate, and your utopian rhetoric rings hollow. You know what the difference is between yourself and a journalist? Trick question. There is none.
Our society was founded upon the principle that all people are equal under the law. To suggest that some people should be exempt from personal responsibility runs contrary to everything we believe in.
Tax law is indeed complicated, to the tune of 88,000 pages of legislation.
Copyright law, on the other hand, is very simple. The entire text of Circ 92, comprising all of Title 17, the Berne Convention and all other relevant national and international laws governing copyright is only 289 pages long. That's the entire body of law, everything.
That's very easy to understand in relative terms.
On this, one of the worst days of my life, your post made me laugh. Thanks.
Some US people live in areas that don't receive broadcast TV, so 100% is not possible.
Um. You're not understanding my point. All of the TV broadcast in the US except ATSC TV is broadcast in the NTSC format. That covers over-the-air broadcasts, satellite broadcasts and cable broadcasts.
You're referring to cable and broadcast like they're two different things. That's not right. Cable is one type of broadcast, using signals over wires either strung on poles or buried in ground. There are other types of broadcasts, like line-of-sight and over-the-horizon VHF and direct-broadcast satellite.
A digital cable signal decoded by a box or TV never has to be converted to NTSC
That sentence made no sense at all. NTSC is a signaling format. It defines luminance and chroma samples and a scanning pattern as displayed by your TV. Everything that shows up on your TV (assuming you live in an NTSC country) is in the NTSC format, unless you've got a TV that can display ATSC formats.
But nobody gets ATSC who doesn't get NTSC, so everybody who gets TV in the US gets NTSC. Get it?
The jury system is part of our many safeguards against tyranny. Juries are picked from the populace at large; they're not staffed by professionals who were appointed or elected.
Think of the jury as the last line of common sense before a prison sentence.
Bloggers do not wish to be afforded special privileges or protections. But they don't think journalists should be, either. See, bloggers as a group believe in personal responsibility, and that everybody should be treated equally under the law.
It's the journalists who think they should be entitled to special privileges and protections, and that bloggers shouldn't.