The 'looking cool' part of my post was just a joke, of course.
But NJ (also where I am) requires a vision test for your first license (or did, when I got mine). For renewals, they just keep the same status, unless you document with them that it has changed (like if you have Lasik or other corrective surgery).
There's a 'restrictions' section on the face of the license where it's supposed to be noted. If the DMV forgot to test you when you first went, well, they made a mistake -- or the law changed, which is quite possible.
Hmm, if I hadn't sold it to a collecter 6 years ago, I would try it (who knew a PET would sell for $8k in '99?). Although, I think my efforts as an 8-yo weren't half bad:)
"I was able to drop my driving restriction and I pass every eye test I've taken for the past few years -- without my glasses on. Anyone else have similar problems with glasses?"
Very similar here. Except that my vision didn't improve; my ability to compensate, say, by guessing the letters on the chart improved. This means that though my vision is still crappy, I can legally drive without corrective lenses.
The funny thing is, I am very aware of how bad my eyesight is -- so I drive with my glasses on. Until I pull up next to a hot chick in a convertible, then the glasses are off and I light a cigarette, you know, to look cool.
So what? They are B-movies. Of course they are terrible. Furthermore, they are cheap to make and are tax shelters for their investors.
Let's face it, most video games don't translate well to movies; the same is true in reverse. I ofter see people complaining that video games are largely unoriginal, either they are sequels or movie tie-ins...
How is this any different?
Just like video games based on movies (with occasional exceptions), most of the time movies based on games will suck. That doesn't mean there won't be an occasional winner, which is what we should all hope for.
Of course, if it has Uwe Boll in the credits, I think we all know where it will fall.
Hmm, sounds like rampant bacterial and fungal growth to me. You though a hard-core gamer's BO was bad, wait until you check out the smells coming from his case...
OTOH, a clear-modded case would be kinda neat... like an ant farm, except fewer ants and more slime molds.
First, the president would be more accountable for the acts he/she signs into law. There is no excuse for the crap that gets through.
Second, the Congress does not lose any power. The President still can't pass a law without Congress passing it first.
All line-item veto does is force sweeping legislation to be broken down into its component parts. This is a Good Thing, since it allows debate and resolution of separate items... we wouldn't have to take the bathwater with the baby.
Please explain how line-item veto would grant the president the ability to make unlimited, unconstitutional laws. Also please explain how Congress loses the power to pass laws.
I would say that the ability of the president to issue law-like exective orders needs to be curtailed -- that's the presidential power that is abused.
"Damit! OK, so which star do I point my sextant at then if I'm trying to find my latitude? Modern science complicates things so much!"
Modern science? This is, once again, proof that the Bible is truly the word of the Lord, the Intelligent Designer, and all you heretics are condemned to burn in the fires of hell.
You think He did not Design to have the Balthazr, Melchior, and Gaspar (the Three Wise Men) follow three stars?
Bah, karma to burn today... go ahead and mod this to oblivion.
"There isn't much in TFA except a nice point about how we should be able to "browse" video games in the way we browse through books or newspapers"
I've seen plenty of stores with demo systems set up so you can "browse" a game. Sure, not all stores have it set up, or always operable, but that's because there is expensive (relatively) hardware needed to be able to browse games -- unlike books or magazines.
"Namely, I'm talking about the embedding of other mostly unrelated things into a bill."
Which is one reason why we need a line-item veto, and completely separate appropriations bills.
Line-item veto would force the executive branch to stop the buck, or face the consequences. In turn, ideally (and likely, IMHO), the executive would force the legislative to write bills that make more sense.
Appropriations Bills need to be limited to only providing funding for existant budget items already authorized by law. No other fun stuff like this rider.
Re:My C64 floppy could do that!
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, I thought the 803 typically ran off magnetic tapes, modified 35mm film stock?
The V&A Museum has a working 401 & 803 at the Blythe House, I might check it out next time I'm in London...
Did you work with the 803 professionally, or just tinker with it?
Re:My C64 floppy could do that!
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
Well, my age betrays me... since I was a kid, I wasn't in charge of household purchasing decisions... so I was still using the PET we got several years earlier. It was only when the older kids went to college that I was allowed free reign with the PET, even.
Re:My C64 floppy could do that!
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
Not possible AFAIK with the PET2001 with internal tape drive. Besides, why would you need music to go with your TRS-80? You had color! And non-ASCII graphics!
FTA: "He added. 'That's just the way of the beast, particularly when you are ramping up factories from ground zero all the way up to full capacity.'" (Peter Moore)
Well, I guess building XBoxes at the site of nuclear detonations might have something to do with their supply chain getting all messed up.
Re:My C64 floppy could do that!
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"I could do that on my Commodore 1541 Floppy Drive."
You had a floppy drive? Upstart newbie. I had a tape drive on my PET2001, and the only way we could make music with it would be to record a BASIC program, then play the cassette in an audio tape player.
Of course, this meant that any music we made had only two tones. Which wasn't so bad, considering the #1 album at the time was "Thriller."
You're right, a total fuel comparison would be necessary... but in terms of fuel efficiency, we could leave out the manufacturing process... unless we pro-rated it according to the expected life of the vehicle.
I was going to go into that in my OP, but thought that brevity was the better tack for a Monday morning.
On a more serious note, FTA: "Our focus turns now towards Sundance and some other strategies for the film. We have some exciting things in the works, but can't discuss yet. So, we've been advised to keep the promotional stuff to a minimum."
Advised by whom? The law team of the company that will be promoting the movie for Sundance etc? Or perhaps the marketing team, to keep from stealing the thunder of a theatrical release?
You're right, of course, that MS is pursuing profit. No problem, that's what they are supposed to do, and that's what everyone expects them to do. The problem is that China has created a situation where not censoring is unprofitable.
If a government establishes a profit incentive for corporations to 'voluntarily' censor content, then that government has, in effect, censored that content themselves.
"What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?"
Exactly what we are doing now, peer review. You think he's going to get a good research job anywhere, now? It's hurt him in his wallet/pride/etc, and that is an incentive for self-interested scientists not to game the system with fraudulent results.
That, and to take everything with a grain of salt. Science news didn't used to be widely publicized until it was at least partly vetted, so people tend to have faith in widely-publicized findings. We just have to relearn healthy scepticism, and maybe do a little better vetting before publication in journals.
Besides, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of research scientists truly do want to find the answer(s).
"MSFT did not need to comply with this law immediately -- they could have: ...
3) Sought the backing of the US State Department"
And why would the US State Department help MS take a stand against the Chinese government? The US economy is being propped up by the Chinese government (who are the primary financiers of our operating deficits) and the US CANNOT afford to piss off China much. We're already having problems because China is no longer buying as agressively as they were. Plus, China did us a solid by unpegging their currency from the dollar... not that it's not pegged anymore, just not solely to the dollar. We still owe them for that.
Considering that we have issuess with N. Korea, certain ex-Soviet states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc... the US needs very stable relations with China. Picking a fight over a blog isn't exactly working to maintain the status quo.
Not only that, but it would look silly in the international arena. With all the international publicity of our trampling of human rights, what country wouldn't laugh at the US if we tried to take the moral high ground in re: censorship?
FTS/A: "[McDonalds sells] other things for the Japanese pallet"
The Japanese pallet? Stuff for Japanese straw beds? Huh. I knew the Japanese have some strange boudoir practices (to my sensibilities, anyway), but McD's?
Slashdot Mirror
The 'looking cool' part of my post was just a joke, of course.
But NJ (also where I am) requires a vision test for your first license (or did, when I got mine). For renewals, they just keep the same status, unless you document with them that it has changed (like if you have Lasik or other corrective surgery).
There's a 'restrictions' section on the face of the license where it's supposed to be noted. If the DMV forgot to test you when you first went, well, they made a mistake -- or the law changed, which is quite possible.
Hmm, if I hadn't sold it to a collecter 6 years ago, I would try it (who knew a PET would sell for $8k in '99?). Although, I think my efforts as an 8-yo weren't half bad :)
"I was able to drop my driving restriction and I pass every eye test I've taken for the past few years -- without my glasses on. Anyone else have similar problems with glasses?"
Very similar here. Except that my vision didn't improve; my ability to compensate, say, by guessing the letters on the chart improved. This means that though my vision is still crappy, I can legally drive without corrective lenses.
The funny thing is, I am very aware of how bad my eyesight is -- so I drive with my glasses on. Until I pull up next to a hot chick in a convertible, then the glasses are off and I light a cigarette, you know, to look cool.
So what? They are B-movies. Of course they are terrible. Furthermore, they are cheap to make and are tax shelters for their investors.
Let's face it, most video games don't translate well to movies; the same is true in reverse. I ofter see people complaining that video games are largely unoriginal, either they are sequels or movie tie-ins...
How is this any different?
Just like video games based on movies (with occasional exceptions), most of the time movies based on games will suck. That doesn't mean there won't be an occasional winner, which is what we should all hope for.
Of course, if it has Uwe Boll in the credits, I think we all know where it will fall.
"The oil temperature leveled off at a comfy 104F"
Hmm, sounds like rampant bacterial and fungal growth to me. You though a hard-core gamer's BO was bad, wait until you check out the smells coming from his case...
OTOH, a clear-modded case would be kinda neat... like an ant farm, except fewer ants and more slime molds.
I disagree.
First, the president would be more accountable for the acts he/she signs into law. There is no excuse for the crap that gets through.
Second, the Congress does not lose any power. The President still can't pass a law without Congress passing it first.
All line-item veto does is force sweeping legislation to be broken down into its component parts. This is a Good Thing, since it allows debate and resolution of separate items... we wouldn't have to take the bathwater with the baby.
Please explain how line-item veto would grant the president the ability to make unlimited, unconstitutional laws. Also please explain how Congress loses the power to pass laws.
I would say that the ability of the president to issue law-like exective orders needs to be curtailed -- that's the presidential power that is abused.
"Damit! OK, so which star do I point my sextant at then if I'm trying to find my latitude? Modern science complicates things so much!"
Modern science? This is, once again, proof that the Bible is truly the word of the Lord, the Intelligent Designer, and all you heretics are condemned to burn in the fires of hell.
You think He did not Design to have the Balthazr, Melchior, and Gaspar (the Three Wise Men) follow three stars?
Bah, karma to burn today... go ahead and mod this to oblivion.
"There isn't much in TFA except a nice point about how we should be able to "browse" video games in the way we browse through books or newspapers"
I've seen plenty of stores with demo systems set up so you can "browse" a game. Sure, not all stores have it set up, or always operable, but that's because there is expensive (relatively) hardware needed to be able to browse games -- unlike books or magazines.
This rider, I think, was originally intended to extend harassment laws to VOIP.
Somehow (gee, I wonder) it got kinda screwed up on the way to the bill, and now inludes all internet communication.
"Namely, I'm talking about the embedding of other mostly unrelated things into a bill."
Which is one reason why we need a line-item veto, and completely separate appropriations bills.
Line-item veto would force the executive branch to stop the buck, or face the consequences. In turn, ideally (and likely, IMHO), the executive would force the legislative to write bills that make more sense.
Appropriations Bills need to be limited to only providing funding for existant budget items already authorized by law. No other fun stuff like this rider.
Hmm, I thought the 803 typically ran off magnetic tapes, modified 35mm film stock?
The V&A Museum has a working 401 & 803 at the Blythe House, I might check it out next time I'm in London...
Did you work with the 803 professionally, or just tinker with it?
Well, my age betrays me... since I was a kid, I wasn't in charge of household purchasing decisions... so I was still using the PET we got several years earlier. It was only when the older kids went to college that I was allowed free reign with the PET, even.
Not possible AFAIK with the PET2001 with internal tape drive. Besides, why would you need music to go with your TRS-80? You had color! And non-ASCII graphics!
FTA: "He added. 'That's just the way of the beast, particularly when you are ramping up factories from ground zero all the way up to full capacity.'" (Peter Moore)
Ground zero?
Well, I guess building XBoxes at the site of nuclear detonations might have something to do with their supply chain getting all messed up.
"I could do that on my Commodore 1541 Floppy Drive."
You had a floppy drive? Upstart newbie. I had a tape drive on my PET2001, and the only way we could make music with it would be to record a BASIC program, then play the cassette in an audio tape player.
Of course, this meant that any music we made had only two tones. Which wasn't so bad, considering the #1 album at the time was "Thriller."
You're right, a total fuel comparison would be necessary... but in terms of fuel efficiency, we could leave out the manufacturing process... unless we pro-rated it according to the expected life of the vehicle.
I was going to go into that in my OP, but thought that brevity was the better tack for a Monday morning.
"Perhaps the Segway vs. a bicycle vs. an efficient motorcycle vs a hybrid car"
I guarantee you that the bicycle uses the least oil of these four, unless of course the bicyclist subsists on a diet of oil.
Hope they kept it away from the White House, I heard Segways aren't too welcome there.
On a more serious note, FTA:
"Our focus turns now towards Sundance and some other strategies for the film. We have some exciting things in the works, but can't discuss yet. So, we've been advised to keep the promotional stuff to a minimum."
Advised by whom? The law team of the company that will be promoting the movie for Sundance etc? Or perhaps the marketing team, to keep from stealing the thunder of a theatrical release?
You're right, of course, that MS is pursuing profit. No problem, that's what they are supposed to do, and that's what everyone expects them to do. The problem is that China has created a situation where not censoring is unprofitable.
If a government establishes a profit incentive for corporations to 'voluntarily' censor content, then that government has, in effect, censored that content themselves.
Hey, take it over-easy, at least he didn't poach anyone else's research.
"What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?"
Exactly what we are doing now, peer review. You think he's going to get a good research job anywhere, now? It's hurt him in his wallet/pride/etc, and that is an incentive for self-interested scientists not to game the system with fraudulent results.
That, and to take everything with a grain of salt. Science news didn't used to be widely publicized until it was at least partly vetted, so people tend to have faith in widely-publicized findings. We just have to relearn healthy scepticism, and maybe do a little better vetting before publication in journals.
Besides, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of research scientists truly do want to find the answer(s).
"MSFT did not need to comply with this law immediately -- they could have:
...
3) Sought the backing of the US State Department"
And why would the US State Department help MS take a stand against the Chinese government? The US economy is being propped up by the Chinese government (who are the primary financiers of our operating deficits) and the US CANNOT afford to piss off China much. We're already having problems because China is no longer buying as agressively as they were. Plus, China did us a solid by unpegging their currency from the dollar... not that it's not pegged anymore, just not solely to the dollar. We still owe them for that.
Considering that we have issuess with N. Korea, certain ex-Soviet states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc... the US needs very stable relations with China. Picking a fight over a blog isn't exactly working to maintain the status quo.
Not only that, but it would look silly in the international arena. With all the international publicity of our trampling of human rights, what country wouldn't laugh at the US if we tried to take the moral high ground in re: censorship?
FTS/A: "[McDonalds sells] other things for the Japanese pallet"
The Japanese pallet? Stuff for Japanese straw beds? Huh. I knew the Japanese have some strange boudoir practices (to my sensibilities, anyway), but McD's?
Oh, wait... palate misspelled... I see.
" I guess I will have to get ready for those hard core porn commercials during "The Apprentice"
... not sure how my wife will react it...."
;)
Hopefully with a trip to the "Boardroom" where you will be "fired."
Are your customers aware that you are exposing their calls to you to outside companies?
Do your contracts include a confidentiality clause that this violates?
" is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?"
No. Not if you have information you want kept secret. No transmitted communication is entirely safe, and some are less safe than others.