Golf is a fun game. There's not much more satisfying than watching a well hit drive fly through the air in a graceful arc. Then there's that beautiful approach shot that goes 50 yards and bounces once on the green. It's as satisfying as a well caught football or a perfectly hit baseball.
But then you've got to wait 10 minutes while the morons in front of you lay down on the green, pull out their levels and plumb bobs and walk around the hole six times, and finally putt 3 feet past the hole, and do it all again. There are two golf games -- The long game and the putting game and the putting game sucks. It's the putting game that makes golf tedious. It's the putting game that makes a round take 4 to 5 hours.
One might say the solution is just to go to the driving range and blast a bucket of balls. Well, that's the same as a batting cage. It's fun, but there's no concept of "Game" involved.
What we need is speed golf courses. Get rid of the greens and replace them with a 20 foot bowl. Drop par by one. Now drop your ball in the bowl. You should be able to start a foursome every 5 minutes this way, and everyone finishes a long course in 3 hours or less. Leaving me enough time to get home and spend an afternoon with my kids.
I'm not sure how the use of cameras leads to:
-Infringements of my freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government (1st)
-forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime
- unreasonable searches and seizures
- Removal of indictment, imposition of self incrimination, seizure of private property or the imposition of double jeopardy.
You might have a case based on illegal search, but as the person is in public space and not being inhibited in any way, I doubt it.
By definition, what you do in public space is public.
You have no expectation of privacy in a public place.
What is it that we do in -- say Times Square -- that we wish to keep private? Besides adjusting our packages, picking our noses or cheating on our partners (which the police don't care about) we're buying drugs or sex, getting in a fight or blowing stuff up. If you want to do private things, do them on private property.
Voice commands work pretty well on my Windows phone.
"Call xxx Home" never fails.
Well, actually it did fail when I first set up the phone for English UK, (I want my U in colour) but it was expecting an English accent, and wouldn't respond to my Canadian.
I'm wondering how it works in the Southern US. "Y'all Call Home"
And the rest of Europe serves them in centilitres, which really sucks.
Unless you're buying by the barrel or keg, in which case it's hectolitres. Yes, conversion is easy enough, but it's not SI.
The are not based on the metric system. They have been, in recent times, defined as metric equivalents, but no one ever said. "Hey! I've got this great new measurement, which I'll call an 'Inch'. It's 25.4 mm." If I recall correctly, an inch was originally defined as 3 barleycorns in length.
Ok, but who drives 60? In Canada, where the highway limit is 100 km/h, the actual speed is closer to 120, or 2 km/min, which is easy enough. You try figuring it out at 75 mph.
Let us suppose we are an image hosting site, that has in the past been used to host child porn (Think Flickr or ImageHost).
By the same logic, it would then be appropriate for us to maintain copies of child porn in order to filter new uploads against it.
In my opinion, the only organizations that should be allowed to retain copies of c.p. are those government organizations actively involved in policing it -- regardless of motive.
So when our company gets v&, do you think they'll accept our filtering excuse?
Notwithstanding that the IP laws are screwed up, It was still an illegal copy, and I feel the author's case has merit.
Now, this is not absolute. If I have to carry the pager once a month and it rarely rings, then I don't really care.
But, my general attitude is: When I leave work, I should be able to drink myself into oblivion while shooting heroin, in a plane over the Pacific. If I can't do that because of work, then you need to pay me for my time.
I've actually solved the sock problem.
When I take out a load of laundry and fold it, I put any single socks right back into the dirty laundry queue.
Since I flush the laundry queue at least once a week, eventually the socks will be matched up.
If a sock sticks around in the queue for a few weeks, eventually the pair will be declared corrupted, and I'll throw it in the rag pile, where it can be used as a shoe or silver polisher. I have yet to recover a pair from the rag pile.
I want to be able to simply copy my kids' copies of Baby Einstein and Thomas the Tank Engine.
I want to be able to modify the content so that:
Production and Distributor promos are gone.
FBI warning is gone.
Menu is gone.
Essentially, I want my kids to be able to stick the damn thing in the player and have it play and have it stop playing when it is over.
Essentially, I want to turn the DVD into a VHS tape. -- Stick it in and forget about it.
Take a look at the table descriptions which provide a bit of a schema. Sounds like the Sharepoint database to me.
Maybe this is all a ploy to get Microsoft!
This is my favourite snippet that demonstrates the java bloat:
String xmlSystemId = new File(xmlFileName).toURL().toExternalForm( );
String xsltSystemId = new File(xsltFileName).toURL().toExternalForm( );
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTProcessor processor =
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTProcessorFactory.getProcessor( );
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource xmlInputSource =
new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource(xmlSystemId);
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource xsltInputSource =
new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource(xsltSystemId);
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTResultTarget resultTree =
new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTResultTarget(System.out);
processor.process(xmlInputSource, xsltInputSource, resultTree);
When what I need is:
XMLTransformer.transform(xmlfile, xsltFile, outputStream)
which should be a static method.
However, you're dealing with a broker who you have previously authorized to trade on your behalf. Brokers and Agents don't need your signature, as there is presumably a relationship of trust between you.
Not quite -- It's not a reverse onus on the charge itself per se, its a reverse onus on the evidence. If it's not readily apparent that the images are fake, then they will be assumed to be real, and the onus goes on the defendant to demonstrate they are fake.
There needs to be some standard applied to the preliminary determination of the image status. But the point is that the current situation as mentioned by the GGP means that the defendant just has to say "They're fakes. Prove they're not." in order to walk.
The evidence is certainly not circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is "The defendant was seen leaving the victims building shortly after the murder." -- It certainly helps in placing the defendant at the scene, but it does not prove anything.
"Pictures of --insert grossness here-- were found on the defendant's computer, to which only he had access, and they appear based on all standard rules of determination to be genuine." is not circumstantial. It is direct evidence as the defendant was found in possession of the images.
There are two direct ways to fight the evidence in this case: 1) Submit a plausible theory that someone else put the images there. (The Pwnd Box defense) 2) Submit a plausible theory that the images are fakes.
However, at this stage the onus is on the defendant to demonstrate the plausibility of the theory. For the second theory, one could demonstrate the plausibility by creating a new, similar image in front of the judge. However, just saying that they are fake isn't enough. You've got to support the theory.
You could make a reverse onus on that particular defence.
That is, if you claim it's fake, and that fact is not readily discernible by a reasonably competent individual (It's a shop! I can tell by the pixels.) the it's up to the defendant to provide proof of the fakery.
This isn't a true full reverse onus, as the (allegedly) offending images would have to be prima facie genuine.
I believe this could pass a constitutional test.
The difference is: Prove to me that the $100 you gave to that guy wasn't for drugs. (Bad Reverse Onus -- You could be paying him back for last night's drinks) Prove to me that the pictures of you diddling a 4 year old I found on your computer are fakes. (Good Reverse Onus -- Won't someone think of the children!)
This argument is entirely predicated on the GP's claim that real pictures are being successfully claimed as fakes.
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept everything you've said.
Would not the sociological issues (upbringing, social circle, nation of residence etc. ad infinitum) have a much more significant effect on any outcome than a weak gravitational pull from the planets? If gravitational pull is at all significant, I would be better off to look at the loads of trucks going down the highway than anything the planets are doing.
As to the meteorology argument, I have two replies.
1) First, planetary motion has highly accurate and predictable models. We can predict the positions of all planets to an observable certainty over long periods of time. So don't beg lack of empirical data on that note.
2) A butterfly flaps his wings in China and New Orleans gets flooded. This is the classic statement of Chaos Theory from Jurassic Park (Where I get all my scientific information). So why aren't we in China studying butterflies? Because we do a much better job of prediction by studying ocean currents and wind patterns. Studying the planets for effects on the human condition is like studying butterflies. It would be much better to read the newspaper to make predictions on humanity.
So even if we accept your premise of planetary influence, the planetary signals will be lost in the noise of human existence and be useless.
I disagree. Most people that I have met that call themselves atheists BELIEVE that there's no god. Even if he were to come down from the heavens and carve another ten commandments on their chest, they would still deny his existence.
The only intellectually honest answer on the existence of God is "I'm not sure." Refusing to believe in God is just another faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Golf is a fun game. There's not much more satisfying than watching a well hit drive fly through the air in a graceful arc. Then there's that beautiful approach shot that goes 50 yards and bounces once on the green. It's as satisfying as a well caught football or a perfectly hit baseball. But then you've got to wait 10 minutes while the morons in front of you lay down on the green, pull out their levels and plumb bobs and walk around the hole six times, and finally putt 3 feet past the hole, and do it all again. There are two golf games -- The long game and the putting game and the putting game sucks. It's the putting game that makes golf tedious. It's the putting game that makes a round take 4 to 5 hours. One might say the solution is just to go to the driving range and blast a bucket of balls. Well, that's the same as a batting cage. It's fun, but there's no concept of "Game" involved. What we need is speed golf courses. Get rid of the greens and replace them with a 20 foot bowl. Drop par by one. Now drop your ball in the bowl. You should be able to start a foursome every 5 minutes this way, and everyone finishes a long course in 3 hours or less. Leaving me enough time to get home and spend an afternoon with my kids.
I don't see that cameras necessarily imply "search". It is possible that such a case could be made, but it's not obviously so.
I'm not sure how the use of cameras leads to: -Infringements of my freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government (1st) -forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime - unreasonable searches and seizures - Removal of indictment, imposition of self incrimination, seizure of private property or the imposition of double jeopardy. You might have a case based on illegal search, but as the person is in public space and not being inhibited in any way, I doubt it.
By definition, what you do in public space is public. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. What is it that we do in -- say Times Square -- that we wish to keep private? Besides adjusting our packages, picking our noses or cheating on our partners (which the police don't care about) we're buying drugs or sex, getting in a fight or blowing stuff up. If you want to do private things, do them on private property.
higher, higher, a tad higher. No, Lower. just a smidge higher. There! Thats it! Now pull back, more, more, a little less good. Ok Shoot.
Voice commands work pretty well on my Windows phone. "Call xxx Home" never fails. Well, actually it did fail when I first set up the phone for English UK, (I want my U in colour) but it was expecting an English accent, and wouldn't respond to my Canadian. I'm wondering how it works in the Southern US. "Y'all Call Home"
And the rest of Europe serves them in centilitres, which really sucks. Unless you're buying by the barrel or keg, in which case it's hectolitres. Yes, conversion is easy enough, but it's not SI.
The are not based on the metric system. They have been, in recent times, defined as metric equivalents, but no one ever said. "Hey! I've got this great new measurement, which I'll call an 'Inch'. It's 25.4 mm." If I recall correctly, an inch was originally defined as 3 barleycorns in length.
Ok, but who drives 60? In Canada, where the highway limit is 100 km/h, the actual speed is closer to 120, or 2 km/min, which is easy enough. You try figuring it out at 75 mph.
It happened before last Thursday, so they are equally old.
Let us suppose we are an image hosting site, that has in the past been used to host child porn (Think Flickr or ImageHost). By the same logic, it would then be appropriate for us to maintain copies of child porn in order to filter new uploads against it. In my opinion, the only organizations that should be allowed to retain copies of c.p. are those government organizations actively involved in policing it -- regardless of motive. So when our company gets v&, do you think they'll accept our filtering excuse? Notwithstanding that the IP laws are screwed up, It was still an illegal copy, and I feel the author's case has merit.
Now, this is not absolute. If I have to carry the pager once a month and it rarely rings, then I don't really care. But, my general attitude is: When I leave work, I should be able to drink myself into oblivion while shooting heroin, in a plane over the Pacific. If I can't do that because of work, then you need to pay me for my time.
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.
I've actually solved the sock problem. When I take out a load of laundry and fold it, I put any single socks right back into the dirty laundry queue. Since I flush the laundry queue at least once a week, eventually the socks will be matched up. If a sock sticks around in the queue for a few weeks, eventually the pair will be declared corrupted, and I'll throw it in the rag pile, where it can be used as a shoe or silver polisher. I have yet to recover a pair from the rag pile.
I want to be able to simply copy my kids' copies of Baby Einstein and Thomas the Tank Engine. I want to be able to modify the content so that: Production and Distributor promos are gone. FBI warning is gone. Menu is gone. Essentially, I want my kids to be able to stick the damn thing in the player and have it play and have it stop playing when it is over. Essentially, I want to turn the DVD into a VHS tape. -- Stick it in and forget about it.
Take a look at the table descriptions which provide a bit of a schema. Sounds like the Sharepoint database to me. Maybe this is all a ploy to get Microsoft!
This is my favourite snippet that demonstrates the java bloat:
String xmlSystemId = new File(xmlFileName).toURL().toExternalForm( );
String xsltSystemId = new File(xsltFileName).toURL().toExternalForm( );
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTProcessor processor = org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTProcessorFactory.getProcessor( );
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource xmlInputSource = new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource(xmlSystemId);
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource xsltInputSource = new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTInputSource(xsltSystemId);
org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTResultTarget resultTree = new org.apache.xalan.xslt.XSLTResultTarget(System.out);
processor.process(xmlInputSource, xsltInputSource, resultTree);
When what I need is:
XMLTransformer.transform(xmlfile, xsltFile, outputStream)
which should be a static method.
However, you're dealing with a broker who you have previously authorized to trade on your behalf.
Brokers and Agents don't need your signature, as there is presumably a relationship of trust between you.
Not quite -- It's not a reverse onus on the charge itself per se, its a reverse onus on the evidence.
If it's not readily apparent that the images are fake, then they will be assumed to be real, and the onus goes on the defendant to demonstrate they are fake.
There needs to be some standard applied to the preliminary determination of the image status.
But the point is that the current situation as mentioned by the GGP means that the defendant just has to say "They're fakes. Prove they're not." in order to walk.
The evidence is certainly not circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is "The defendant was seen leaving the victims building shortly after the murder." -- It certainly helps in placing the defendant at the scene, but it does not prove anything.
"Pictures of --insert grossness here-- were found on the defendant's computer, to which only he had access, and they appear based on all standard rules of determination to be genuine." is not circumstantial. It is direct evidence as the defendant was found in possession of the images.
There are two direct ways to fight the evidence in this case:
1) Submit a plausible theory that someone else put the images there. (The Pwnd Box defense)
2) Submit a plausible theory that the images are fakes.
However, at this stage the onus is on the defendant to demonstrate the plausibility of the theory. For the second theory, one could demonstrate the plausibility by creating a new, similar image in front of the judge. However, just saying that they are fake isn't enough. You've got to support the theory.
You could make a reverse onus on that particular defence.
That is, if you claim it's fake, and that fact is not readily discernible by a reasonably competent individual (It's a shop! I can tell by the pixels.) the it's up to the defendant to provide proof of the fakery.
This isn't a true full reverse onus, as the (allegedly) offending images would have to be prima facie genuine.
I believe this could pass a constitutional test.
The difference is:
Prove to me that the $100 you gave to that guy wasn't for drugs. (Bad Reverse Onus -- You could be paying him back for last night's drinks)
Prove to me that the pictures of you diddling a 4 year old I found on your computer are fakes. (Good Reverse Onus -- Won't someone think of the children!)
This argument is entirely predicated on the GP's claim that real pictures are being successfully claimed as fakes.
Turning off Symantec Endpoint Protection solved the upgrade hassles for us. But it was really ugly until we thought of that trick.
YMMV.
Emmanuel Lewis and Gary Coleman are going on a booty call!
This thread has been farked.
We should link back, thus crossing the streams and see what happens.
fark
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept everything you've said. Would not the sociological issues (upbringing, social circle, nation of residence etc. ad infinitum) have a much more significant effect on any outcome than a weak gravitational pull from the planets? If gravitational pull is at all significant, I would be better off to look at the loads of trucks going down the highway than anything the planets are doing. As to the meteorology argument, I have two replies. 1) First, planetary motion has highly accurate and predictable models. We can predict the positions of all planets to an observable certainty over long periods of time. So don't beg lack of empirical data on that note. 2) A butterfly flaps his wings in China and New Orleans gets flooded. This is the classic statement of Chaos Theory from Jurassic Park (Where I get all my scientific information). So why aren't we in China studying butterflies? Because we do a much better job of prediction by studying ocean currents and wind patterns. Studying the planets for effects on the human condition is like studying butterflies. It would be much better to read the newspaper to make predictions on humanity. So even if we accept your premise of planetary influence, the planetary signals will be lost in the noise of human existence and be useless.
I disagree. Most people that I have met that call themselves atheists BELIEVE that there's no god. Even if he were to come down from the heavens and carve another ten commandments on their chest, they would still deny his existence. The only intellectually honest answer on the existence of God is "I'm not sure." Refusing to believe in God is just another faith.