The US has quite a history of double standards - protecting its own citizens (even when they break other countries' laws), while aggressively pursuing extradition and punishment for foreign citizens.
"a heavy sport-utility vehicle driven by a US marine, who heads the embassy security detail in Bucharest, smashed early Saturday into a taxi cab carrying 50-year-old Romanian rock musician and producer Teo Peter [...] [The marine] refused to allow Romanian authorities to take a blood test, and the embassy immediately spirited him out of the country to one of the US military bases in Europe"
As opposed to an earlier (and quite similar) case, this time involving an US victim:
"a 1997 fatal car crash in downtown Washington, in which a drunk Georgian diplomat, Gueogui Makharadze, rear-ended another car waiting at an intersection, killing a 16-year-old girl.
At that time, the State Department applied heavy pressure on then Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, forcing him to reverse an earlier decision to move Makharadze out of the country and persuading him to lift the diplomat's immunity. As a result, Makharadze was compelled to stand trial and serve jail time in the United States."
from badly taken photos that "make me look fat" to photos of bank statements and legal documents for which we wanted to store a non-paper copy.
Why do I get the feeling that's not the kind of pictures you are actually worried about?
get their hands on copies and try to use some embarrassing photos to pressure me
Ah, that's why! I've never seen somebody pressured by photos that make that person look fat - at least not if he's actually wearing clothes in the photo. >:)
By demonstrating the undeniable similiarities between "Good Morning to All" and "Happy Birthday to You" in court, Jessica was able to secure the copyright of "Happy Birthday to You" for her sisters in 1934.
Which means that the copyright was actually established based on the tune and not the lyrics.
From what I've heard, Vista will disable some of its features if it considers itself a pirated version. Considering the track record of its predecessor (the many cases where XP flagged down legal versions as being pirated), you may just come to the point where that happens. I wish you lots of luck going to court with that...
And I really mean it - if enough people do that (and manage to actually win the case), maybe MS will reconsider its policy of "stop the pirates, no matter how many legitimate users get caught in the middle".
Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).
So... if there's anyone else around when you're singing it (at a restaurant, maybe?), prepare to pay up! ("rarely" != "never" prosecuted, right?)
but not directly caused by ovulation itself. The underlying reason is progestogen.
Who said it was caused by the ovulation itself? The article was just saying that women tend to dress more attractively when they are fertile. Whether that is caused by the ovulation itself, by progesterone, or random firings of the synapses is something that we still don't know.
progesterone is used in the final stages of ovulation
1) Please stop mixing up progesterone (the natural hormone) with progestogen (class of hormones) and progestin (synthetic hormone).
2) Take a look here. You will see the evolution of hormone concentrations over the course of the menstrual cycle. If what you are saying was true (and the effect mentioned in the paper really was caused by the progesterone), you would expect to see an increased effect when progesterone levels hit their peak - somewhere in the middle of the luteal phase. (and no, that is not "in the final stages of ovulation")
But let's look at the article again:
[the photos were taken] one on a high fertility day of the cycle (follicular phase) and one on a low fertility day of the cycle (luteal phase).
What do you know? Those days in the luteal phase are actually low fertility days. Days in which women don't care as much how they look. Precisely the opposite of what you were saying...
Also, I don't understand what the second paragraph (the one about DHT) has to do with anything. It's not related to the article, it's not related to the other paragraphs in your post, and it's also wrong. Have a look here - mesterolone (the active ingredient in Proviron) is not hydrogenated - so it is a relative of testosterone, rather than DHT (compare it with the images found here).
The conclusion? You don't know what you are talking about, but you go around criticizing other people's research. The fact that your post got a "+5, informative" modifier only proves that people will believe anything that sounds technical, even if it's pure garbage...
Why do I get the feeling that nobody around here ever reads TFA???
"But if you're not on a call, and you hear a continuing rapid buzz-buzz-buzz in nearby speakers that lasts more than a few seconds and gets louder as you approach with your phone, well, the odds are that your phone is busily transmitting, and bugging is a definite possibility. Note that this particular test is much less reliable with non-GSM phones that use CDMA (e.g. Sprint/Verizon phones), since CDMA's technology is less prone to producing easily audible local interference."
Hey, it worked! Who would've known it would be that easy?:))
I can just see the sigs popping up all over the place: "I want +5, Funny!"; "Gimme +5, Interesting!"...
The figure is somewhat... misleading. It's "42% of the people complaining are running genuine Windows", not "42% of the people tagged by WGA as running counterfeit software".
Actually, I would have expected a much higher percentage (as in "only people who actually bought Windows would complain about WGA") - if you were running a pirated copy of Windows and got the WGA notification, would you actually go to the forums?
"the epic struggle of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) against the Empire of Microsoft"
Let's see... iTunes? Netware? iPod? MacOS X? Google Maps/Earth? HP UX? IRIX? J2EE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK these aren't part of the "FOSS" camp. Most of them aren't open-source, some of them aren't free, and one of them isn't even a program (iPod).
The drawing is OK (with the open-source software to the right of the map), but not the description. How about "FOSS and its allies in the war against the empire"?
I don't know about that... At the moment, you have this: "for your convenience, if you do not cancel before the FREE trial is over, we will extend your membership (and, of course, bill your credit card)".
I can just see it now: "...and if you happen to die, we will bill the credit cards of your next-of-kin. For your convenience, of course!"
Suppose the risk of getting lung cancer is very small. So small, in fact, that you are much more likely to die of a heart attack or in a traffic accident than to get lung cancer. Then a study finds that smoking TRIPLES your risk of this cancer. So all the smokers out there now have a 3*(very small) == small risk. You are still more likely to die in a traffic accident.
You seem to think that this very small risk is something that can be overlooked. However, I could point a few million people who believe otherwise.
I think you see where I'm heading - while it's true that there are higher risks than the one mentioned here (or in the article), the whole point is that these are risks that we can easily avoid. And the increase in relative risk has nothing to do with the actual incidence of the disease in the studied population.
Incidentally, this "there are worse things to die of" argument was -and still is- used by a lot of smokers. Not that I would compare using cell phones to smoking (there is still too little data concerning the risks -or lack of them- associated with cellphones), but it is interesting to see how the human mind tends to follow certain patterns...
For example, to say something is associate with a 240% increase in risk can be technically accurate, but horribly misleading to most readers. If one in a billion people get a disease, a 240% increase makes your chance of getting it 2.4/1000000000. That is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Actually, saying that something doubles your risk is a lot more accurate than stating the incidence of that particular condition ("1 in a billion" doesn't mean anything - it could be a very high incidence, or a very low one).
Speaking of which - no matter how low the incidence in the normal population, cancer is always something to worry about. And a (more than) two-fold increase in risk is significant.
I don't know if the study results are correct or not - I have no way of knowing. All I'm saying here is that if they are, the risk increase is significant.
Has anyone ever been able to give a rat cancer by blasting it with amplified cellphone-type radiation? That would convince me of the possibility of cell phone risk much more than digging backward through statistical inormation does.
That's funny - a couple of years ago, there were some studies showing that lab animals exposed to amplified EM radiation (in the frequency band used by mobile phones) exhibited an increase incidence of malignant tumors. Those studies were dismissed on the grounds that one cannot compare the effects of short exposure to high-power radiation (as in the lab study) to the effects of long-term exposure to lower doses (as in humans using cell phones)!
Actually, a study of the American Association of Ophthalmology found no correlation between hand-eye dominance and baseball performance. I would guess that this holds true for other sports formerly thought to be affected by mixed dominance.
Yes, I spent many a afternoon playing decent in stereoscopic 3d.
I don't know how you managed it. If I had access to that kind of technology back then, I'm sure most of the games I would have played would have been pretty indecent...
The wikipedia gibibit link tells me that "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
However, allow me to quote from the article on Giga: In computing, giga- can sometimes mean 1 073 741 824 (2^30) for information units, eg gigabit or gigabyte, but can also denote 1 000 000 000 of other quantities, e.g. transfer rates: 1 gigabit/s = 1 000 000 000 bit/s. The binary prefix gibi- has been suggested for 2^30, to resolve this ambiguity, but has yet to achieve widespread usage.
So until "gibi" becomes a standard, the ambiguity remains.
Considering that 1 Gb is (at least sometimes) equal to 1,024 Mb = 1,048,576 Kb = 1,073,741,824 bits , I wouldn't say that it's that obvious. Thanks to the wonders of the binary system:P
He mentioned using USB Hubs whenever possible so i'm gussing he is a usb hub(s) for I/O, and thats enough for 8 keyboards + 8 mouses.
True. But that still leaves the matter of OS (and 3rd-party) support. With today's software, can you imagine 8 mice (in separate rooms) competing over the same cursor?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is another example.. Allow me to quote:
"a heavy sport-utility vehicle driven by a US marine, who heads the embassy security detail in Bucharest, smashed early Saturday into a taxi cab carrying 50-year-old Romanian rock musician and producer Teo Peter [...] [The marine] refused to allow Romanian authorities to take a blood test, and the embassy immediately spirited him out of the country to one of the US military bases in Europe"
As opposed to an earlier (and quite similar) case, this time involving an US victim:
"a 1997 fatal car crash in downtown Washington, in which a drunk Georgian diplomat, Gueogui Makharadze, rear-ended another car waiting at an intersection, killing a 16-year-old girl. At that time, the State Department applied heavy pressure on then Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, forcing him to reverse an earlier decision to move Makharadze out of the country and persuading him to lift the diplomat's immunity. As a result, Makharadze was compelled to stand trial and serve jail time in the United States."
I take it you've never used Windows before?
Why do I get the feeling that's not the kind of pictures you are actually worried about?
get their hands on copies and try to use some embarrassing photos to pressure me
Ah, that's why! I've never seen somebody pressured by photos that make that person look fat - at least not if he's actually wearing clothes in the photo. >:)
I somehow doubt it. From the article:
By demonstrating the undeniable similiarities between "Good Morning to All" and "Happy Birthday to You" in court, Jessica was able to secure the copyright of "Happy Birthday to You" for her sisters in 1934.
Which means that the copyright was actually established based on the tune and not the lyrics.
And I really mean it - if enough people do that (and manage to actually win the case), maybe MS will reconsider its policy of "stop the pirates, no matter how many legitimate users get caught in the middle".
Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).
So... if there's anyone else around when you're singing it (at a restaurant, maybe?), prepare to pay up! ("rarely" != "never" prosecuted, right?)
Who said it was caused by the ovulation itself? The article was just saying that women tend to dress more attractively when they are fertile. Whether that is caused by the ovulation itself, by progesterone, or random firings of the synapses is something that we still don't know. progesterone is used in the final stages of ovulation
1) Please stop mixing up progesterone (the natural hormone) with progestogen (class of hormones) and progestin (synthetic hormone).
2) Take a look here. You will see the evolution of hormone concentrations over the course of the menstrual cycle. If what you are saying was true (and the effect mentioned in the paper really was caused by the progesterone), you would expect to see an increased effect when progesterone levels hit their peak - somewhere in the middle of the luteal phase. (and no, that is not "in the final stages of ovulation")
But let's look at the article again:
[the photos were taken] one on a high fertility day of the cycle (follicular phase) and one on a low fertility day of the cycle (luteal phase).
What do you know? Those days in the luteal phase are actually low fertility days. Days in which women don't care as much how they look. Precisely the opposite of what you were saying...
Also, I don't understand what the second paragraph (the one about DHT) has to do with anything. It's not related to the article, it's not related to the other paragraphs in your post, and it's also wrong. Have a look here - mesterolone (the active ingredient in Proviron) is not hydrogenated - so it is a relative of testosterone, rather than DHT (compare it with the images found here).
The conclusion? You don't know what you are talking about, but you go around criticizing other people's research. The fact that your post got a "+5, informative" modifier only proves that people will believe anything that sounds technical, even if it's pure garbage...
Sounds very similar to "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM". Or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Be very careful what you predict. And IT in particular is one field where you should never say never...
"But if you're not on a call, and you hear a continuing rapid buzz-buzz-buzz in nearby speakers that lasts more than a few seconds and gets louder as you approach with your phone, well, the odds are that your phone is busily transmitting, and bugging is a definite possibility. Note that this particular test is much less reliable with non-GSM phones that use CDMA (e.g. Sprint/Verizon phones), since CDMA's technology is less prone to producing easily audible local interference."
(yes, that IS taken from the article...)
And this post gets a "+5, Interesting" mod. I'm sure this says something about the slashdot crowd, but I'm not very sure what... >:)
Hey, it worked! Who would've known it would be that easy? :))
I can just see the sigs popping up all over the place: "I want +5, Funny!"; "Gimme +5, Interesting!"...
Actually, I would have expected a much higher percentage (as in "only people who actually bought Windows would complain about WGA") - if you were running a pirated copy of Windows and got the WGA notification, would you actually go to the forums?
Moderation: (1, Flamebait)
Just a little lower, we have another (similar) comment:
Banner on the site says "Last stable version: 0.43".
Moderation: (5, Funny).
The wonderful world of /. moderators...
Let's see... iTunes? Netware? iPod? MacOS X? Google Maps/Earth? HP UX? IRIX? J2EE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK these aren't part of the "FOSS" camp. Most of them aren't open-source, some of them aren't free, and one of them isn't even a program (iPod).
The drawing is OK (with the open-source software to the right of the map), but not the description. How about "FOSS and its allies in the war against the empire"?
And I'm sure reading (and posting on) slashdot will help you a lot in that endeavour.
You have a long way ahead of you, young padawan...
OK, you made me curious. How exactly is it possible to contact a machine behind a NAT, as long as that machine does not initiate the connection?
I can just see it now: "...and if you happen to die, we will bill the credit cards of your next-of-kin. For your convenience, of course!"
You seem to think that this very small risk is something that can be overlooked. However, I could point a few million people who believe otherwise.
I think you see where I'm heading - while it's true that there are higher risks than the one mentioned here (or in the article), the whole point is that these are risks that we can easily avoid. And the increase in relative risk has nothing to do with the actual incidence of the disease in the studied population.
Incidentally, this "there are worse things to die of" argument was -and still is- used by a lot of smokers. Not that I would compare using cell phones to smoking (there is still too little data concerning the risks -or lack of them- associated with cellphones), but it is interesting to see how the human mind tends to follow certain patterns...
Actually, saying that something doubles your risk is a lot more accurate than stating the incidence of that particular condition ("1 in a billion" doesn't mean anything - it could be a very high incidence, or a very low one).
Speaking of which - no matter how low the incidence in the normal population, cancer is always something to worry about. And a (more than) two-fold increase in risk is significant.
I don't know if the study results are correct or not - I have no way of knowing. All I'm saying here is that if they are, the risk increase is significant.
Has anyone ever been able to give a rat cancer by blasting it with amplified cellphone-type radiation? That would convince me of the possibility of cell phone risk much more than digging backward through statistical inormation does.
That's funny - a couple of years ago, there were some studies showing that lab animals exposed to amplified EM radiation (in the frequency band used by mobile phones) exhibited an increase incidence of malignant tumors. Those studies were dismissed on the grounds that one cannot compare the effects of short exposure to high-power radiation (as in the lab study) to the effects of long-term exposure to lower doses (as in humans using cell phones)!
Something is wrong here... You have a cornea in both eyes (we all do). Did you mean "a defective cornea"?
Actually, a study of the American Association of Ophthalmology found no correlation between hand-eye dominance and baseball performance. I would guess that this holds true for other sports formerly thought to be affected by mixed dominance.
I don't know how you managed it. If I had access to that kind of technology back then, I'm sure most of the games I would have played would have been pretty indecent...
However, allow me to quote from the article on Giga: In computing, giga- can sometimes mean 1 073 741 824 (2^30) for information units, eg gigabit or gigabyte, but can also denote 1 000 000 000 of other quantities, e.g. transfer rates: 1 gigabit/s = 1 000 000 000 bit/s. The binary prefix gibi- has been suggested for 2^30, to resolve this ambiguity, but has yet to achieve widespread usage.
So until "gibi" becomes a standard, the ambiguity remains.
Considering that 1 Gb is (at least sometimes) equal to 1,024 Mb = 1,048,576 Kb = 1,073,741,824 bits , I wouldn't say that it's that obvious. Thanks to the wonders of the binary system :P
True. But that still leaves the matter of OS (and 3rd-party) support. With today's software, can you imagine 8 mice (in separate rooms) competing over the same cursor?