Mod Parent Informative! Sure, it's funny, but for those of us that may have forgotten to be paranoid today, it's good to know someone else read the fine print and told us about it!
If everyone took the time to find and vote for someone they honestly believed in, we might actually start to get some candidates that people could support.
I agree wholeheartedly, but a vote for Bill Richardson won't do much at this point, will it?
I disagree with each of the remaining candidates on at least one, if not many, of the issues being discussed. For me, in this election, I will have to be voting for the candidate that I disagree with the least.
While I find your joke to be in poor taste, I'm worried that there's some truth there. There are far too many people in this country, in this world even, who judge people by the color of their skin, and who, in all likelyhood, will find the election of a black man to the presidency to be too large of an offense to be ignored and will at least attempt to take matters into their own hands.
This is no reason not to vote for him, though.
Personally, I'm disappointed that none of the candidates, on either side of the fence, agree with my personal politics to the degree that I feel comfortable voting for them. Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.
Intriguingly, Lake Cheko does not appear on any maps before 1929, though the researchers admit the region was poorly charted before this time.
So its almost certainly not a crater,
You can't make that claim yet, as it is still under debate.
is in the wrong place,
Huh? Who says that, other than yourself? It does seem to be roughly in line with the supposed trajectory...
and no-one seems to be expecting a crater (from an air-burst)?
"No one" is obviously false, as at least one team of Italian researchers is expecting one.... although it is true that there is some doubt as to whether or not there would be any remnants from the object large enough to cause any crater at all.
As far as the other issues, such as the lack of a debris rim, trees still standing, the shape of the crater... In my mind these can be explained by a lower-speed object landing at an oblique angle into soft wet ground.
As to the lake preexisting.... what if the lake was there, but the object (or remnant) landed in the lake, substantially changing it's bottom profile, possibly shoreline, etc. This would satisfy both sides of the argument as to whether the lake preexisted the event.
For the record, I'm not convinced it IS a crater, but I'm also not convinced that it's not.
Who said the comet/meteor/spaceship impacted anything? All that is being said is that it exploded. This could have happened for any number of reasons.
For example, suppose there was a pocket of frozen liquid hydrogen (or some other highly explosive liquid) in the interior of the object. As the object travels through the atmosphere, friction causes heat and ablation (material being eroded from the leading edge). The ablation exposes a small amount of the explosive substance, at which point the heat from the friction ignites the substance. BOOM.
Addressed in the article. To summarize, the portion of the projectile that landed had been slowed significantly, and landed in wet and/or soft ground. As such, no raised lip or central spire.
The Lake was known about and recorded before the event, is much older than the event, and is not an impact crater!
References, please? Also, did you read the article? It addresses the aging study performed by the initial investigators that indicated that the lake was much older than the event...
Something to remember about that "witness account":
L. V. Dzhenkoul was born in 1904, so his personal memories of the 1908 Tunguska Event are minimal. Here he is recounting what he was told by his father V[asilii?] I[l'ich] Dzhenkoul and uncle I[van] I[l'ich] Dzhenkoul (both long dead by the time of Kolobkova's 1960 interview.
It seems highly likely to me that this individual is using "the mouth of the Cheko" as a landmark that is known to him, and is not necessarily indicating that this feature was present prior to the incident.
I have a PSC 1350 also, and it has more than paid for itself over the 2 years I've had it, even counting the 2 refills I've had to buy (We've had to use it to do a lot of printing... my wife uses it to print holiday cards, birthday cards, etc, we print photos, used it to print legal documents, etc).
As the previous poster noted, it's also quite compact, a nice neat rectangle. You can put things on top of its flat surface, although this does hamper the scanning utility somewhat.
The scanner works quite well for image scanning and for copying (b&w and color copies), and the multiple card readers are a nice feature although I've only used them twice.
I would definitely buy another of these if (when?) this one breaks.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of it, but I believe that a court-martial is the appropriate response to his refusal. It is only in the court that he can present his arguments as to the legality of the conflict and thus the legality of his orders. One of the possible outcomes of the court-martial is confirmation that the orders were indeed illegal, and that he was justified in refusing to comply. Court-martial is not a punishment - it is a legal proceding that determines whether or not punishment is necessary.
especially since it was already clear that they wouldn't have his goodwill no matter the settlement amount
Where does this statement come from? Nothing I have read indicates that he wasn't happy with accepting a one-time payment.
He stonewalled Again - where does this come from? then made an unreasonable offer unreasonable is a judgement call - $44,000 for 160,000 supporters seems reasonable to me - the value of what he's offering -- which is very small, considering the campaign could get it anyway for nearly nothing Very small? Seems clear that it had substantial value, otherwise they would not have spent so much time and effort getting control of it - and "nearly nothing"? How are they going to collect 160,000 supporters for nearly nothing?
Note that I have absolutely no problem with the campaign wishing to have complete control of the profile - my problem is with how they went about getting that control.
But he did pull the erroneous information (I say erroneous because false implies intent, and I haven't seen anything yet that indicated he intentionally put false information up) quickly and without complaint (as far as I can tell). That said, I have absolutely no problem with the campaign wishing to have complete control over the site. But again, this isn't the argument.
The issue I have is how they went about getting complete control over the site. He asked to be made a paid member of the staff. They said no, and offered (offered!) to instead pay him a one-time fee to compensate him for his work on the site. They asked him to propose a number, and he did so, implicitly accepting the one-time fee and agreeing to hand over complete control once that fee was paid. When the number was not to their liking, they should have negotiated, but they chose to use the MySpace ToS to take control from him without having to pay him the fee that they had offered.
Disclaimer: I can't access MySpace from work and so I can't tell what the content of the site(s) is/are
I think your argument with respect to how MySpace handles ownership of profile names is 100% valid. I don't think, however, that the ownership of the name is what Joe Anthony was asking for money for.
Anthony built a page providing information about his favorite candidate. He put significant time and effort, as well as his own personal funds, into maintaining, administering, and expanding the page. He developed a product.
The Obama campaign wanted control over the product. They asked him to quote a price. He did. The price was to high for them. Rather than negotiate the price, they took the low road and stole the product.
I never saw Anthony's site before the takeover, and I can't see the new site now. MySpace has offered to transfer the 160,000 contacts to Anthony's new profile. What about the other content? Does Anthony's new profile retain ownership of that content, or does the original profile retain that content? If the original content is attached to Anthony's new profile, then I think this story needs to be over. However, if the content is retained by the original profile name, then Obama's group has misused the MySpace ToS to illegimately obtain control over content that does not belong to them.
You're ignoring the fact that he produced a product that had value. He was not quoting a price for services already performed, he was quoting a price for the product he had produced.
You're also ignoring the fact that Obama's campaign told him to quote a price for the product. He complied. The fact that the price was too high in their minds is not in dispute. What they should have done is negotiated. What they did instead is hijack the name using a legal loophole (one that I'm not even sure has any validity except for the fact that MySpace honored it). Obama's campaign has acted dishonorably, and deserves the negative attention they are getting.
A volunteer dog walker is not handing over a sizeable, valuable asset. Joe Anthony is - he spent many man hours developing, maintaining, and administering the page. He also spent a lot of his own money in the process.
A better analogy for you would be if that dog walker had spent 2.5 years of his own time and money developing a leash that allows one person to walk 160,000 dogs at once, and is now being asked to turn over control of that leash to the shelter. I don't know about you, but I'd think that dog walker deserves some compensation.
Also keep in mind that Joe Anthony did not make a demand for cash "or else" as others have said - Obama's campaign asked him to propose a number, and he did. If they found that number unacceptable, they should have negotiated rather than hijacking the url.
I spent 3 hours on the phone with Dell trying to get them to replace my battery that had died prematurely (this was before the recall). At the beginning of the call, I told the support person that I had pressed the self-test button and I told her the code that it returned. I also told her that I had done research on the internet and knew that that specific code meant that the battery was dead. She took me through 3 hours of flowchart tests that were all useless. We ended up getting disconnected for some reason, and when I called back I was connected to a different person. I told her the battery self test results, and within 5 minutes she had arranged for a replacement battery to be sent out.
Had the first person known how to interpret the symptoms I reported, I would not have had 3 hours of my time wasted.
Good information, even if contradictory to my own experience and to the info in the article, but I didn't turn off the interface for performance reasons - I turned it off for familiarity and thus productivity reasons.
Previous versions of windows built upon a familiar interface model, each adding something to the version that came before. The new version was thus easy to learn, and productivity increased.
The chief complaint of the original article and of my post is that not only does the latest version of windows break this familiarity, thus hurting productivity in the short term, the interface seems to be less responsive and more error-prone, thus hurting productivity in the long term.
Your post is a bit offtopic, but it leads to an interesting point. FYI, I also set my XP interface to Classic Windows.
I recently downloaded Media Player 11, which shows off a bit of the Vista/Aero interface. Specifically, the minimize/maximize/close buttons in the upper left corner are done Vista-style. What I've noticed through use is that even though these buttons are physically bigger, they very frequently don't recognize my clicks, requiring me to go back and click it again, sometimes 3 or more times. Also, when I hit Alt, F, X (the sequence to exit using the menus in Media Player 10) about 4 times out of 5 the menu refuses to respond to my keystrokes, requiring me to stop, find the mouse, and click the appropriate action.
Obviously, because this is running on XP, I can't make claims as to the overall usability of Vista. However, if my experience is any indication of the way Vista behaves, I'm not suprised that such an article has been written, and I'd expect many more complaints as time goes on.
That is a good explanation - simple, to the point, completely explains the observations.
If song fingerprinting had been the explanation used in the article, CDDB would not have been involved, I think. It's possible that iTunes is doing this, but it seems that that would take significant CPU time and would be annoying to users. Besides, changing encodings, sampling rates, etc changes the fingerprint anyway.
I'm the original poster, BTW - turns out posting anon still cancels your earlier moderations. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
My kingdom for a mod point... +1 Funny :)
Mod Parent Informative! Sure, it's funny, but for those of us that may have forgotten to be paranoid today, it's good to know someone else read the fine print and told us about it!
I agree wholeheartedly, but a vote for Bill Richardson won't do much at this point, will it?
I disagree with each of the remaining candidates on at least one, if not many, of the issues being discussed. For me, in this election, I will have to be voting for the candidate that I disagree with the least.
While I find your joke to be in poor taste, I'm worried that there's some truth there. There are far too many people in this country, in this world even, who judge people by the color of their skin, and who, in all likelyhood, will find the election of a black man to the presidency to be too large of an offense to be ignored and will at least attempt to take matters into their own hands. This is no reason not to vote for him, though. Personally, I'm disappointed that none of the candidates, on either side of the fence, agree with my personal politics to the degree that I feel comfortable voting for them. Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.
Parent: All apparent iteration is just syntactic sugar around recursion
so, wait... does Scheme have syntax or not? I'm confused...
From your second link:
Intriguingly, Lake Cheko does not appear on any maps before 1929, though the researchers admit the region was poorly charted before this time.
So its almost certainly not a crater,
You can't make that claim yet, as it is still under debate.
is in the wrong place,
Huh? Who says that, other than yourself? It does seem to be roughly in line with the supposed trajectory...
and no-one seems to be expecting a crater (from an air-burst)?
"No one" is obviously false, as at least one team of Italian researchers is expecting one.... although it is true that there is some doubt as to whether or not there would be any remnants from the object large enough to cause any crater at all.
As far as the other issues, such as the lack of a debris rim, trees still standing, the shape of the crater... In my mind these can be explained by a lower-speed object landing at an oblique angle into soft wet ground.
As to the lake preexisting.... what if the lake was there, but the object (or remnant) landed in the lake, substantially changing it's bottom profile, possibly shoreline, etc. This would satisfy both sides of the argument as to whether the lake preexisted the event.
For the record, I'm not convinced it IS a crater, but I'm also not convinced that it's not.
Who said the comet/meteor/spaceship impacted anything? All that is being said is that it exploded. This could have happened for any number of reasons.
For example, suppose there was a pocket of frozen liquid hydrogen (or some other highly explosive liquid) in the interior of the object. As the object travels through the atmosphere, friction causes heat and ablation (material being eroded from the leading edge). The ablation exposes a small amount of the explosive substance, at which point the heat from the friction ignites the substance. BOOM.
Keep in mind that that is an artificial rendering with a lowered water surface, generated from 3D scans of the area.
Forgot to include, the projectile impacted at an oblique angle, contributing to the lack of spire and raised lip.
Addressed in the article. To summarize, the portion of the projectile that landed had been slowed significantly, and landed in wet and/or soft ground. As such, no raised lip or central spire.
References, please? Also, did you read the article? It addresses the aging study performed by the initial investigators that indicated that the lake was much older than the event...
L. V. Dzhenkoul was born in 1904, so his personal memories of the 1908 Tunguska Event are minimal. Here he is recounting what he was told by his father V[asilii?] I[l'ich] Dzhenkoul and uncle I[van] I[l'ich] Dzhenkoul (both long dead by the time of Kolobkova's 1960 interview.
It seems highly likely to me that this individual is using "the mouth of the Cheko" as a landmark that is known to him, and is not necessarily indicating that this feature was present prior to the incident.
As the previous poster noted, it's also quite compact, a nice neat rectangle. You can put things on top of its flat surface, although this does hamper the scanning utility somewhat.
The scanner works quite well for image scanning and for copying (b&w and color copies), and the multiple card readers are a nice feature although I've only used them twice.
I would definitely buy another of these if (when?) this one breaks.
Not quite the same...
From the published game: Your pedal motion precisely controls your character motion in the game
in the GP, pedal motion controls available power. power is then distributed between weapons, shields, and propulsion.
To the GP: Seems like an interesting idea, and one that might sell. Go for it!
I may be wrong in my interpretation of it, but I believe that a court-martial is the appropriate response to his refusal. It is only in the court that he can present his arguments as to the legality of the conflict and thus the legality of his orders. One of the possible outcomes of the court-martial is confirmation that the orders were indeed illegal, and that he was justified in refusing to comply. Court-martial is not a punishment - it is a legal proceding that determines whether or not punishment is necessary.
especially since it was already clear that they wouldn't have his goodwill no matter the settlement amount
Where does this statement come from? Nothing I have read indicates that he wasn't happy with accepting a one-time payment.
He stonewalled Again - where does this come from? then made an unreasonable offer unreasonable is a judgement call - $44,000 for 160,000 supporters seems reasonable to me - the value of what he's offering -- which is very small, considering the campaign could get it anyway for nearly nothing Very small? Seems clear that it had substantial value, otherwise they would not have spent so much time and effort getting control of it - and "nearly nothing"? How are they going to collect 160,000 supporters for nearly nothing?
Note that I have absolutely no problem with the campaign wishing to have complete control of the profile - my problem is with how they went about getting that control.
But he did pull the erroneous information (I say erroneous because false implies intent, and I haven't seen anything yet that indicated he intentionally put false information up) quickly and without complaint (as far as I can tell). That said, I have absolutely no problem with the campaign wishing to have complete control over the site. But again, this isn't the argument.
The issue I have is how they went about getting complete control over the site. He asked to be made a paid member of the staff. They said no, and offered (offered!) to instead pay him a one-time fee to compensate him for his work on the site. They asked him to propose a number, and he did so, implicitly accepting the one-time fee and agreeing to hand over complete control once that fee was paid. When the number was not to their liking, they should have negotiated, but they chose to use the MySpace ToS to take control from him without having to pay him the fee that they had offered.
Disclaimer: I can't access MySpace from work and so I can't tell what the content of the site(s) is/are
I think your argument with respect to how MySpace handles ownership of profile names is 100% valid. I don't think, however, that the ownership of the name is what Joe Anthony was asking for money for.
Anthony built a page providing information about his favorite candidate. He put significant time and effort, as well as his own personal funds, into maintaining, administering, and expanding the page. He developed a product.
The Obama campaign wanted control over the product. They asked him to quote a price. He did. The price was to high for them. Rather than negotiate the price, they took the low road and stole the product.
I never saw Anthony's site before the takeover, and I can't see the new site now. MySpace has offered to transfer the 160,000 contacts to Anthony's new profile. What about the other content? Does Anthony's new profile retain ownership of that content, or does the original profile retain that content? If the original content is attached to Anthony's new profile, then I think this story needs to be over. However, if the content is retained by the original profile name, then Obama's group has misused the MySpace ToS to illegimately obtain control over content that does not belong to them.
You're ignoring the fact that he produced a product that had value. He was not quoting a price for services already performed, he was quoting a price for the product he had produced.
You're also ignoring the fact that Obama's campaign told him to quote a price for the product. He complied. The fact that the price was too high in their minds is not in dispute. What they should have done is negotiated. What they did instead is hijack the name using a legal loophole (one that I'm not even sure has any validity except for the fact that MySpace honored it). Obama's campaign has acted dishonorably, and deserves the negative attention they are getting.
A volunteer dog walker is not handing over a sizeable, valuable asset. Joe Anthony is - he spent many man hours developing, maintaining, and administering the page. He also spent a lot of his own money in the process.
A better analogy for you would be if that dog walker had spent 2.5 years of his own time and money developing a leash that allows one person to walk 160,000 dogs at once, and is now being asked to turn over control of that leash to the shelter. I don't know about you, but I'd think that dog walker deserves some compensation.
Also keep in mind that Joe Anthony did not make a demand for cash "or else" as others have said - Obama's campaign asked him to propose a number, and he did. If they found that number unacceptable, they should have negotiated rather than hijacking the url.
I spent 3 hours on the phone with Dell trying to get them to replace my battery that had died prematurely (this was before the recall). At the beginning of the call, I told the support person that I had pressed the self-test button and I told her the code that it returned. I also told her that I had done research on the internet and knew that that specific code meant that the battery was dead. She took me through 3 hours of flowchart tests that were all useless. We ended up getting disconnected for some reason, and when I called back I was connected to a different person. I told her the battery self test results, and within 5 minutes she had arranged for a replacement battery to be sent out.
Had the first person known how to interpret the symptoms I reported, I would not have had 3 hours of my time wasted.
Previous versions of windows built upon a familiar interface model, each adding something to the version that came before. The new version was thus easy to learn, and productivity increased.
The chief complaint of the original article and of my post is that not only does the latest version of windows break this familiarity, thus hurting productivity in the short term, the interface seems to be less responsive and more error-prone, thus hurting productivity in the long term.
I recently downloaded Media Player 11, which shows off a bit of the Vista/Aero interface. Specifically, the minimize/maximize/close buttons in the upper left corner are done Vista-style. What I've noticed through use is that even though these buttons are physically bigger, they very frequently don't recognize my clicks, requiring me to go back and click it again, sometimes 3 or more times. Also, when I hit Alt, F, X (the sequence to exit using the menus in Media Player 10) about 4 times out of 5 the menu refuses to respond to my keystrokes, requiring me to stop, find the mouse, and click the appropriate action.
Obviously, because this is running on XP, I can't make claims as to the overall usability of Vista. However, if my experience is any indication of the way Vista behaves, I'm not suprised that such an article has been written, and I'd expect many more complaints as time goes on.
If song fingerprinting had been the explanation used in the article, CDDB would not have been involved, I think. It's possible that iTunes is doing this, but it seems that that would take significant CPU time and would be annoying to users. Besides, changing encodings, sampling rates, etc changes the fingerprint anyway.
I'm the original poster, BTW - turns out posting anon still cancels your earlier moderations. Oh well.
I wish I had mod points left to give you. This is a perfect explanation of why shill bidding is a problem.