Or what if the tattoo artist doesn't understand the subject enough to get it right? My favorite tattoo ever is Hayden Panettiere's, which is in Italian but misspelled. "To live without regrets," indeed.
Here is my rule for tattoos: Select the exact design and location you want to have. If you still want that exact design and location in ten years, then get it. Otherwise, or if you change the tattoo or its location even in some minute point within those ten years, the clock starts over.
102m x 78m = 7956 m^2, which is just under 2 acres. That seems like hyperbole to me. Also, STFU. This topic was beaten to death within an hour of Jobs first using the word 'retinal.' At least put it on Idle where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere.
The time slot was bad enough that, in the DVD commentary for later episodes of the show, jokes are exchanged about the commentary being postponed for an NFL DVD commentary.
But I'm not sure that you have cause and effect entirely right. The method that Fox used to destroy Futurama was slotting it at 7:30 p.m. on Sundays. The reason why they did this may or may not be an exception to Hanlon's Razor.
WordPerfect for Mac? I don't know that it exists, much less is poised to defeat Word on that platform. I'd love to get it, though, as I am stuck using WordPerfect 12 at work and can't readily open and edit files at home because I'm all-Mac there.
The impressive part seems to me to be that this pattern in Conway's Game of Life makes a copy of itself within the rules of the game. A robot designed to build a copy of itself does so within the much more flexible rules of real-world physics.
Then again, maybe the impressive thing is that there are people out there with enough time on their hands to run 34 million iterations of the Game of Life with enough different patterns to find this one.
I don't know about you, but my cat is already shrouded in enough tinfoil to solve that case. That said, I'm thinking about taking off the foil suit, since an undigested RFID tag means increased likelihood of cat vomit on the carpet. It's a difficult judgment call more than it is a technical issue.
More or less, yep. The only thing about this story that's really interesting is that the judge insisted on reducing the amount of the (apparently) default judgment.
American jurisprudence is basically that there are different degrees to which personal jurisdiction can exist, based on the level of contact the defendant has with the state or district asserting jurisdiction. Generally speaking, part of the rule is that, if a person or company in a foreign jurisdiction (whether a neighboring state or a distant kingdom) has taken an act within the forum state's borders that gives rise to the lawsuit, then there is personal jurisdiction for the purposes of that lawsuit but not necessarily for other cases. If I mail a bomb to your house in another state, you can sue me in your state for the damages it causes but that doesn't mean your neighbor can sue me for what I said about him in a pamphlet that I distributed in my state. But if I mail a billion pamphlets a week to subscribers in your state, it's possible that the courts in your state could have general jurisdiction over me even for punching you in a bar in my state.
That's a vastly simplified version of the whole mess of rules about personal jurisdiction, but the key is that you are right about a lawyer (not even necessarily a clever one) being able to argue that the British company's acts taken in Illinois were sufficient to grant the Illinois courts jurisdiction over claims arising from those very acts. The clever lawyer is more important when you're trying to avoid jurisdiction being asserted in a case like this.
Correct. If you get served with process, show up in court. And if you have already appeared in court, don't just drop off the scene and hope for the best. A more interesting issue is whether Spamhaus is judgment-proof in the USA, with no assets that an American court could levy on. If so, then it doesn't really matter so much to them.
I don't think you understand. Many of the people who voted for Obama in fact do expect him not only to be capable of solving this problem but to wiggle his nose while doing it. Most American politics revolve around the question of whether (a) the government should be entrusted and charged with solving all the world's problems or (b) the government should be run by people who know that that's a bad idea but are beholden to big business. You just can't get elected if you don't believe (a) or owe your soul to (b).
Those rules are basically just part of "tort reform," which is the politically salable term for sheltering major corporations and insurance companies from having to be held accountable for their own or their insureds' wrongful acts. They make it just that much more difficult for the little guy to have his day in court, which is precisely the goal of all tort reform legislation, whether the legislators or voters understand that or not.
Coincidentally enough, lawyers who take contingency fees do so on particular types of cases in which they can safely bet that, in the long run, they will come out ahead, just as a casino operates. By handling, for instance, 50 car-accident injury cases in a year, you can afford to win some, lose some, and settle most of them for where you and the other side think the odds line up.
Why do I mention all this? Because it will only make economic sense to an attorney to handle this type of lawsuit on a contingency fee basis if he is sitting on enough money or other reliable cash flow to dedicate his resources to it long enough to get to an outcome, which with this kind of case could certainly involve multiple appeals before you see a dime. You'd also have to have a source of funds for expert witnesses to review the technical aspects of it and testify about what happened and how it happened. In some states, that source of funds must be the client as lawyers are prohibited from paying the costs of a lawsuit as an ethical matter. In the other states, you still need that money to go forward, though.
It would be a fun case, though, if you were a lawyer in the position to handle it on a contingency fee basis or if the clients had another source of money to pay you. (But, as they spend enough money in casinos to hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine, the safer bet is that their financial management skills leave them unable to pay out of pocket.)
Or, you know, a practical vehicle for moving cargo or tools from place to place and/or getting through adverse conditions including snow and undeveloped terrain. Granted, many people go too far and get a 1-ton truck with dual rear wheels and a heavy-duty diesel engine and matching transmission and then never one pull a trailer or haul a load, but they are the minority of pickup owners. Most people with that mindset just end up with a Hummer H1 or Corvette.
It does take some fuel to maintain an attitude, and using wings to generate lift also increases drag, so that doesn't really work out so well. The ISS's orbit is boosted by its main engines or by a docked spacecraft. Fortunately, it doesn't take much acceleration to maintain the low Earth orbit that these things live in, so a little bit of fuel can go a long way, but it does take some.
Slashdot Mirror
Or what if the tattoo artist doesn't understand the subject enough to get it right? My favorite tattoo ever is Hayden Panettiere's, which is in Italian but misspelled. "To live without regrets," indeed.
By the year 3000, it will be proven that P and NP are disjoint sets.
No, you just have a bigger forehead than TheCarp does.
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is only true in a plane, though. Consider what that means in the context of a tattoo.
Here is my rule for tattoos: Select the exact design and location you want to have. If you still want that exact design and location in ten years, then get it. Otherwise, or if you change the tattoo or its location even in some minute point within those ten years, the clock starts over.
I prefer "HOT DOGS" to HOT "DOGS" - it could be any kind of canine meat used!
102m x 78m = 7956 m^2, which is just under 2 acres. That seems like hyperbole to me. Also, STFU. This topic was beaten to death within an hour of Jobs first using the word 'retinal.' At least put it on Idle where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere.
The time slot was bad enough that, in the DVD commentary for later episodes of the show, jokes are exchanged about the commentary being postponed for an NFL DVD commentary.
But I'm not sure that you have cause and effect entirely right. The method that Fox used to destroy Futurama was slotting it at 7:30 p.m. on Sundays. The reason why they did this may or may not be an exception to Hanlon's Razor.
It's more that anyone bothered to try enough different starting patterns. I didn't mean to imply that anyone was running the simulation by hand. :P
WordPerfect for Mac? I don't know that it exists, much less is poised to defeat Word on that platform. I'd love to get it, though, as I am stuck using WordPerfect 12 at work and can't readily open and edit files at home because I'm all-Mac there.
The impressive part seems to me to be that this pattern in Conway's Game of Life makes a copy of itself within the rules of the game. A robot designed to build a copy of itself does so within the much more flexible rules of real-world physics.
Then again, maybe the impressive thing is that there are people out there with enough time on their hands to run 34 million iterations of the Game of Life with enough different patterns to find this one.
I don't know about you, but my cat is already shrouded in enough tinfoil to solve that case. That said, I'm thinking about taking off the foil suit, since an undigested RFID tag means increased likelihood of cat vomit on the carpet. It's a difficult judgment call more than it is a technical issue.
More or less, yep. The only thing about this story that's really interesting is that the judge insisted on reducing the amount of the (apparently) default judgment.
You embed RFID tags in the mice and then keep the door locked if one is detected.
American jurisprudence is basically that there are different degrees to which personal jurisdiction can exist, based on the level of contact the defendant has with the state or district asserting jurisdiction. Generally speaking, part of the rule is that, if a person or company in a foreign jurisdiction (whether a neighboring state or a distant kingdom) has taken an act within the forum state's borders that gives rise to the lawsuit, then there is personal jurisdiction for the purposes of that lawsuit but not necessarily for other cases. If I mail a bomb to your house in another state, you can sue me in your state for the damages it causes but that doesn't mean your neighbor can sue me for what I said about him in a pamphlet that I distributed in my state. But if I mail a billion pamphlets a week to subscribers in your state, it's possible that the courts in your state could have general jurisdiction over me even for punching you in a bar in my state.
That's a vastly simplified version of the whole mess of rules about personal jurisdiction, but the key is that you are right about a lawyer (not even necessarily a clever one) being able to argue that the British company's acts taken in Illinois were sufficient to grant the Illinois courts jurisdiction over claims arising from those very acts. The clever lawyer is more important when you're trying to avoid jurisdiction being asserted in a case like this.
Correct. If you get served with process, show up in court. And if you have already appeared in court, don't just drop off the scene and hope for the best. A more interesting issue is whether Spamhaus is judgment-proof in the USA, with no assets that an American court could levy on. If so, then it doesn't really matter so much to them.
I don't think you understand. Many of the people who voted for Obama in fact do expect him not only to be capable of solving this problem but to wiggle his nose while doing it. Most American politics revolve around the question of whether (a) the government should be entrusted and charged with solving all the world's problems or (b) the government should be run by people who know that that's a bad idea but are beholden to big business. You just can't get elected if you don't believe (a) or owe your soul to (b).
Those rules are basically just part of "tort reform," which is the politically salable term for sheltering major corporations and insurance companies from having to be held accountable for their own or their insureds' wrongful acts. They make it just that much more difficult for the little guy to have his day in court, which is precisely the goal of all tort reform legislation, whether the legislators or voters understand that or not.
Coincidentally enough, lawyers who take contingency fees do so on particular types of cases in which they can safely bet that, in the long run, they will come out ahead, just as a casino operates. By handling, for instance, 50 car-accident injury cases in a year, you can afford to win some, lose some, and settle most of them for where you and the other side think the odds line up.
Why do I mention all this? Because it will only make economic sense to an attorney to handle this type of lawsuit on a contingency fee basis if he is sitting on enough money or other reliable cash flow to dedicate his resources to it long enough to get to an outcome, which with this kind of case could certainly involve multiple appeals before you see a dime. You'd also have to have a source of funds for expert witnesses to review the technical aspects of it and testify about what happened and how it happened. In some states, that source of funds must be the client as lawyers are prohibited from paying the costs of a lawsuit as an ethical matter. In the other states, you still need that money to go forward, though.
It would be a fun case, though, if you were a lawyer in the position to handle it on a contingency fee basis or if the clients had another source of money to pay you. (But, as they spend enough money in casinos to hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine, the safer bet is that their financial management skills leave them unable to pay out of pocket.)
I agree (with essentially all of the people who've responded to me). I also get a hell of a kick out of people with uselessly-modified pickups.
Or, you know, a practical vehicle for moving cargo or tools from place to place and/or getting through adverse conditions including snow and undeveloped terrain. Granted, many people go too far and get a 1-ton truck with dual rear wheels and a heavy-duty diesel engine and matching transmission and then never one pull a trailer or haul a load, but they are the minority of pickup owners. Most people with that mindset just end up with a Hummer H1 or Corvette.
It does take some fuel to maintain an attitude, and using wings to generate lift also increases drag, so that doesn't really work out so well. The ISS's orbit is boosted by its main engines or by a docked spacecraft. Fortunately, it doesn't take much acceleration to maintain the low Earth orbit that these things live in, so a little bit of fuel can go a long way, but it does take some.
It could easily turn into the most worst environmental disaster in US history. It is already affecting basic grammar skills.
We thought speed was cyclical.
I've addressed that response elsewhere in this thread. Cars do not generally vent exhaust into the passenger compartment - that's a bad design.