Plenty of Cisco hardware handles IPv6 in hardware. The 12000 and 10000 both do, the 7600/6500 does, the 3750 and 3560 switches do, etc. I don't know why you think Cisco stuff doesn't handle IPv6, since it has for years.
While that's an irritating way to do dates, it doesn't really make it that much harder. I'm actually an experienced DBA (among other things) so that probably helps a lot, but I can definitely see how you could construct such a query. It also might depend on what version of DB2 you are using, but I'd think something like this (I'm maybe not using db2 syntax, because I'm more familiar with MySQL and PostgreSQL, but it would be similar) :
SELECT somerecord.* FROM somerecord, states, codes WHERE somerecord.state_id = states.id AND states.name = 'mystate' AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND code.type = 'mycode' AND date IN (SELECT MAX(date) FROM somerecord where somerecord.state_id = states.id AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND date 'mydate');
It may also be that some "group by" statement would also help. Looking at that, I've thought of another way to do the same query:
SELECT somerecord.* FROM somerecord, states, codes WHERE somerecord.state_id = states.id AND states.name = 'mystate' AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND code.type = 'mycode' AND date 'mydate' ORDER BY date DESC FETCH FIRST 1 ROWS ONLY;
In that case, we get the max date because were in descending order and selecting only 1 row.
Again, I don't know your schema, so I don't know how close or far that might be, but db2 supports subselects and row limits (in pgsql and mysql you'd say "limit 10" but in db2 it is "fetch first 10 rows only") so that means you can ask it for just about anything. It might require the joins to be written out (mysql and postgresql do implicit inner joins, I don't know if db2 wants them to be explicit) but either way you can still get the data.
If you wanted to get the most recent entry for each state/code combination (and get NULLs if there aren't any records), that isn't much harder (and I think this is correct db2 syntax here) :
SELECT states.name, codes.type, somerecord.* FROM (somerecord RIGHT OUTER JOIN states ON somerecord.state_id = states.id) RIGHT OUTER JOIN codes ON somerecord.code_id = code.id GROUP BY states.name, codes.type HAVING date = (SELECT MAX(date) FROM somerecord where somerecord.state_id = states.id AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND date 'mydate') ;
The above should rerun the subselect once for each state/code to find the max dated entry. Depending on the schema, you also might end up using subselects with record ids, or using nested queries, or whatever, but SQL should be flexible enough to do almost anything you can imagine.
In the worst case, maybe you should think about hiring an experienced DBA you know as a consultant to help you with this. I'd at least need access to the schema, some sample data, and the expected output to match the sample data.;)
We would need to know more about your database schema, but there is almost certainly a way. Things like:
SELECT SUM(saletotal), store_id FROM allsales WHERE date >= 'Jan 1 2000' AND date = 'Jan 1 2000' AND allsales.date = 'Jan 1 2000' AND allsales.date each year in each region.
SELECT COUNT(allsales.saletotal), region.name, YEAR(allsales.date) FROM (allsales LEFT OUTER JOIN storeinfo ON allsales.store_id = storeinfo.id) LEFT OUTER JOIN region ON storeinfo.region_id = region.id WHERE allsales.model = 'Volt' GROUP BY region.name, YEAR(allsales.date) ORDER BY region.name;
If you can't do aggregate in DB2 with a YEAR function (I certainly didn't test it... and I know that at least in PostgreSQL it would actually be EXTRACT(YEAR FROM date) instead, or maybe TRUNCATE('month', date) depending on if you wanted year/month or just year) you could potentially use a temporary table to store all the years you are querying first, and then do a join with that instead. Something like SELECT tempyears.year... LEFT OUTER JOIN tempyears ON tempyears.year = YEAR(allsales.date) or whatever.
I didn't test those queries or anything, but those are the sort of things you can do with SQL that would probably make your life easier, and SQL is very good at this sort of data processing. Your DBA ought to be able to tell you what actual syntax to use.
It isn't so simple as this. Even a fault in the construction or materials wouldn't cause this to go into meltdown. It is a completely different type of system compared with light water reactors.
Light water reactors function using the water as a moderator to slow down the neutrons enough to sustain the reaction. This means that it is fairly difficult for a light water reactor to melt down, since loss of coolant will result in slower reactions, but it is possible if somehow pressure were maintained in the coolant system and the graphite control rods got stuck etc. Then there were the RBMK style reactors like Chernobyl which used graphite as the moderator. Those were extremely dangerous, since loss of coolant resulted in the reaction accelerating. Fast reactors don't use any moderator at all, and as their temperature increases the neutrons leave the fissile material, resulting in slower reaction rates, which brings the temperature down. So they end up at a low power steady state unless they are actively cooled. Also, the IFRs don't need to run their coolant at a high pressure like light water reactors do, so there isn't concern with the pipes to bursting.
Check out Integral Fast Reactors. They are passively safe (they can't go into meltdown, even if the entire system fails, because the reaction slows down as the temperature increases), they use several orders of magnitude less fuel, and work perfectly well getting fuel as un-enriched uranium or thorium or even depleted uranium and normal nuclear waste (which means that they easily have more than 3000 times as much fuel available as the light water reactors that are currently most common), and they produce orders of magnitude less nuclear waste (on the order of 200 times less) which also has a half life in the range of 200 years (instead of thousands of years). Oh, and did I mention that waste is treated on site, rather than being shipped to some distant storage facility? They are still considered experimental because the only one to operate in the US was canceled because of pressure by John Kerry (thanks a lot) after operating for 30 of the planned 35 years. The only reason that IFRs weren't considered competitive with light water reactors is because waste disposal is essentially free for utilities. (The cost of operations outweighs the improvement in fuel efficiency, but not the real cost of waste disposal.)
We should be building some of those, not more of the current (ancient) reactor designs.
I use readerware - http://www.readerware.com/ - for my thousands of books - I used a bar code scanner to scan them in. Readerware lets you put in the location of the books - to make the process easier I scanned a bookcase at a time, setting an easy-to-remember name for each bookcase as the default location for that set of books. The process took a few hours, but I've never had to waste time searching for a book since then.
Not at all. The point of the article is, Microsoft, because of past abuses, currently (until 2007) has more restrictions against them than most companies. Something like this:
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
is a violation of their punishment - much like if a person on parole can't hang out w/ convicted felons, but a regular person can
And in my studied opinion, THAT is the most prevalent misconception in the field. Knowing their is a biological component to their illness helps patients realize it's not just them, they aren't just crazy or imagining it, and helps them work on it from a much stronger position.
Basically, she's honest about childhood and puberty and that gets the fundies crazy. I read all her books when I was a confused 10 - 13 year old girl and they made me feel that I wasn't alone or crazy. I'm now a confused 27 year old woman and a couple of her books are still on my shelf.
Here are some examples of why insane reactionaries don't like her:
"Are you there God, its me Margaret" - 13 year old girl worries that her breasts aren't big enough and wants to get her period so she'll feel like a "grown up" "Then again, maybe I won't" - 13ish boy has wet dreams (which make him feel guilty and dirty) and watches a neighbor girl get undressed in front of her window "Flubber" - young teenagers pick on a girl and call her names "Deenie" - 14 year old girl masturbates, which makes her feel guilty and dirty, until she is told in a sex ed class that it's normal and will not make her blind or a cripple. (The masturbation scene is NOT explicit and goes something like, "I rub myself with a washcloth until I get a special feeling").
The main difference (afaik without viewing the original jpeg agreements) was that in jpeg, the patent holder said "don't worry, we don't care about that patent" and in jpeg2000 the patent holders specifically agree to "royalty and license-fee free." In the former case, the buyer can say "well, there isn't any place that they actually agreed not to sue, they just said they didn't care." Probably laches holds anyway, but it looks to me like there is a difference in between jpeg and jpeg2000 patent policy.
See converium.com's Doctrine of Laches and Patent Infringement for specific details of laches and patents. (short version: yes, it applies to patents) In this case, I'd say the "infringement" in question (JPEG) was "open and notorious" for more than six years prior to now, which allows for the presumption of laches, which means that the patent holder has to try and prove that laches shouldn't apply instead of requiring that the defendant prove that it does apply.
Actually, that isn't quite true. If you check the Doctrine of Laches you'll see that if a defendant knows or should have reasonably known about patent infringment (possibly also copyright, not sure about that) they can't wait a long time and then file suit. See Wanlass vs GE for an example of this.
Wanlass patented a motor for an airconditioner in 1977, and tried to sell it to several large companies, including GE. GE told him to buzz off and they didn't care and would use that motor without his approval. Wanlass sued GE in 1995, and the courts ruled that since he knew they intended to use it (and indeed had tested some GE airconditioners in 1985) he wasn't intitled to anything from their infringement. At the same time, the courts held that he WAS entitled to compensation in Wanlass vs Fedders, because although Fedders had refused to license the patent, he didn't actually find out that Fedders was infringing until shortly before filing the suit.
You are assuming that google is so stupid they would be unable to determine what is a joe job and what is a legitimate link. I see no reason to suppose that. They already do a very good job with their automated search engine. I expect that their spam filter would be designed to detect joe jobs, just as their search engine is designed to do the reverse for web pages. (ie detect page spammers) All they have to do is check the number of independant non-spam references both in email and on websites. For example, slashdot.org shows up in many verifiably non spam sources, therefore it is not spam.
The only trouble would be if regular (non spam) people started sending eachother spam links. I don't expect that to be a major problem, and even if it was, I suspect that google would find a way to fix that using other criteria. They might cross reference people who like to send spam links and ignore them for spam ranking purposes.
The point is, Google actually are experts in ranking information based on content and links. Since spam generally has to include both content and links (through which to buy things), I think it is fair to assume they will do a good job of it. At least until someone finds some real evidence to the contrary.
Why would anyone want a police state? I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. Why,f or example, would a Republic represnetative in congress want a police state? Philosophical belief that the masses are too dumb to govern themselves? Greed? Intimidated to do so by others?
Well, basically so they can do whatever they want - give themselves and their friends tons of money and power - without anyone questioning them.
For example, when Cheney decided to allow Haliburton to overcharge U.S. taxpayers many millions on contract work in Iraq, the U.S. citizens raised hell about it, and Cheney and Co. backed down and is paying back the money. I'm sure Cheney is furious that we dared question his actions and is looking longingly at a police state where he can steal from citizens with impunity.
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
Why would you assume that? Just 'cause you've heard it sung your whole life?
Did you think that song "just happened"? (SportsNight Reference)
It IS copyright protected - it is NOT in the public domain and now never will be (since Disney has ensured that copyrights will now never expire so they don't lose control over Mickey Mouse). "Happy Birthday" is owned by the estate of Mildred and Patty Hill.
This is also discussed this on the DVD commentary of Futurama - they make up a birthday song to sing at Nibbler's birthday so they don't have to pay to use "Happy Birthday"
If you sing "Happy Birthday", royalties are due (for commercial uses of the song) This is rarely enforced, but that doesn't make it not true.
see http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm fo r more info
Goody, so you can waste 22 hours of your life watching EVEN MORE TV!! Yay, what a great invention. Don't get me wrong, I catch the occasional show, but I'd much rather go to the park with my girlfriend, go horseback riding, play frisbee, or even study for my law school classes. The last thing I need to do, or anybody needs to do is watch almost 2 full days of OLD TV shows.
absolutely!! I agree 100% - that's why TiVos are so great!! I go to the park with my girlfriend, go horseback riding, play frisbee, or work on indepedent projects, etc... when I'm done, when I'm tired, or when the daylight is gone, I get to watch those few, great shows that are on during the day/evening. There IS material on TV that is worth watching - it's REALLY not *all* a dead wasteland the way some people like to imagine. I actually enjoy TV now - I watch what I want, when I want, no commercials.
It's a godsend for my girlfriend - she has almost total insomina. When she's up at 4 AM, too tired to do anything "constructive" (as she puts it) she doesn't have to flip randomly watching infomercials. The documentaries and independent films she loves are avaliable to her whenever she wants. It's hard to explain how great this is - when we tell friends about it, they usually make some comment like "there is nothing on TV worth paying for a TiVo" - but the point is, TiVo suddenly makes TV worth it!!
So? There's still no problem with GM, just with the our (refering to the US, canada, and Europe at least) stupid patent laws. We should all be protesting stupid patent laws rather than protesting GM.
Ah, but that is the beauty of working with living things. If they are weaker, they'll simply die out. Since only the stronger ones will survive, we don't really have to worry about that. In the worst case, if they all die out, we can just re-introduce the originals again.
Lower down, a poster mentioned some GM seeds (patented, btw) blowing in to a farmers yard. He was then sued by the company which owned the patent, and lost his farm. It is this sort of thing that we cannot predict.
That's hardly the fault of Genetic Modification, and entirely the fault of our stupid patent litigation laws. If you want to argue that companies shouldn't be able to own species or modifications, I'm right there with you. And it probably would reduce GM research a little. Banning GM because of patents just makes no sense at all.
I really wish the so-called "environmentalists" would stick to actually doing something to help the environment, like supporting lumbering (since they will replant the trees) rather than strip farming (who don't care about the trees at all). Or maybe protecting species from becoming extinct rather than worrying about us introducing more species. Mutation is a normal process, and if we're speeding it up a little that's fine. If anything, we probably should be doing this to replace the species that are otherwise dying out.
I know this is hard to imagine, but eating something doesn't somehow confer its genetic structure to you. For a long time people seem to have developed the belief that "you are what you eat" but that simply isn't true. Eating one of these fish isn't any more likely to make you glow in the dark than it is to make fins pop out of your body. Better not eat any cows unless you want 4 stomachs! Or any plants unless you want to start turning green and getting energy from the sun through your skin! or maybe you'd just start throwing down roots!
Just to clarify: you are not what you eat. Remember those nutrigrain commercials, where the guy looks at the hot woman and then realizes that her "buns" are the "sticky" variety? So instead they say "you should eat nutrigrain".... which leaves me wondering how thrilled that guy is going to be when she starts growing nutrigrain bars instead of breasts. I hardly see how that is an improvement, except possibly for cleaning. (nutrigrain is probably less messy that stickybuns) In case they had confused you, I'll let you in on the secret. It doesn't really happen. OK? So all you FUDsters can just drop this particularly silly topic.
Yeah, that's the worst part about it. Speed limits aren't always too slow. Only sometimes. They'd be a lot safer if they were at least consistantly too slow. As it is, it would probably be safer if there weren't any speed limits at all, because people get used to them being stupidly slow when sometimes they are actually right. I know a few places near me where the roads are poorly built/graded and you can probably shoot right off if you aren't paying attention. The rest of the road is straight and flat, but (without warning) there are some hilly turns that really shouldn't be taken above the speed limit. Since they think you are already going that speed, they don't change the signs, but most people are actually going much faster.
1) There are lots of ways of determining speed, include skid marks and relative vehicle positions. It is unlikely they would use a single piece of evidence. They didn't in this case, as was indicated in the article.
2) Your tires and engine have inertia. You could find (if you don't mind doing something horribly dangerous for you and bad for your car) that even if your car that is completely suspended (only friction is air on the tires), your car's tires can't actually instantly accelerate from 55 MPH equiv to 95 MPH equiv. It takes some real time. You can even test the engine thing. Just leave the car in neutral, and see how long it takes to rev from (eg) 2500 RPM to 5000 RPM. Even with your foot pressed down completely, it will take some time.
3) I would advise that you not drive your car around with your foot planted to the floorboard. Especially not in the rain. Maybe you were thinking, "Gee I wonder if my tires will spin while I drive 55 MPH down a rainy road and floor it." In that case you are a dangerous asshole and should be locked up. You shouldn't have to press very hard just to go 55 MPH. If your foot isn't pressed to the floor, it will probably take a long time for the car to rev from 55 MPH to 95 MPH. At least long enough for you to take your foot of the damn gas pedal.
Now, I don't like this EDR thing, because I'm sure that "if it can be abused, it will be." I haven't thought of how yet, but it certainly won't be from your tires spinning freely while your car flies through the air after hitting a speedbump (as mentioned in another post) or while you are hydroplaning. The worst thing I've thought of so far is that your insurance company would raise your rates if they found out you were going 56 in a 55 zone. Technically speeding, but since we all know that demented geezers set the speed limits rediculously low because the cars couldn't go fast back in the 1930s or whenever, that seems a bit abusive to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of Cisco hardware handles IPv6 in hardware. The 12000 and 10000 both do, the 7600/6500 does, the 3750 and 3560 switches do, etc. I don't know why you think Cisco stuff doesn't handle IPv6, since it has for years.
While that's an irritating way to do dates, it doesn't really make it that much harder. I'm actually an experienced DBA (among other things) so that probably helps a lot, but I can definitely see how you could construct such a query. It also might depend on what version of DB2 you are using, but I'd think something like this (I'm maybe not using db2 syntax, because I'm more familiar with MySQL and PostgreSQL, but it would be similar) :
;)
SELECT somerecord.* FROM somerecord, states, codes WHERE somerecord.state_id = states.id AND states.name = 'mystate' AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND code.type = 'mycode' AND date IN (SELECT MAX(date) FROM somerecord where somerecord.state_id = states.id AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND date 'mydate');
It may also be that some "group by" statement would also help. Looking at that, I've thought of another way to do the same query:
SELECT somerecord.* FROM somerecord, states, codes WHERE somerecord.state_id = states.id AND states.name = 'mystate' AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND code.type = 'mycode' AND date 'mydate' ORDER BY date DESC FETCH FIRST 1 ROWS ONLY;
In that case, we get the max date because were in descending order and selecting only 1 row.
Again, I don't know your schema, so I don't know how close or far that might be, but db2 supports subselects and row limits (in pgsql and mysql you'd say "limit 10" but in db2 it is "fetch first 10 rows only") so that means you can ask it for just about anything. It might require the joins to be written out (mysql and postgresql do implicit inner joins, I don't know if db2 wants them to be explicit) but either way you can still get the data.
If you wanted to get the most recent entry for each state/code combination (and get NULLs if there aren't any records), that isn't much harder (and I think this is correct db2 syntax here) :
SELECT states.name, codes.type, somerecord.* FROM (somerecord RIGHT OUTER JOIN states ON somerecord.state_id = states.id) RIGHT OUTER JOIN codes ON somerecord.code_id = code.id GROUP BY states.name, codes.type HAVING date = (SELECT MAX(date) FROM somerecord where somerecord.state_id = states.id AND somerecord.code_id = code.id AND date 'mydate') ;
The above should rerun the subselect once for each state/code to find the max dated entry. Depending on the schema, you also might end up using subselects with record ids, or using nested queries, or whatever, but SQL should be flexible enough to do almost anything you can imagine.
In the worst case, maybe you should think about hiring an experienced DBA you know as a consultant to help you with this. I'd at least need access to the schema, some sample data, and the expected output to match the sample data.
We would need to know more about your database schema, but there is almost certainly a way. Things like:
... LEFT OUTER JOIN tempyears ON tempyears.year = YEAR(allsales.date) or whatever.
SELECT SUM(saletotal), store_id FROM allsales WHERE date >= 'Jan 1 2000' AND date = 'Jan 1 2000' AND allsales.date = 'Jan 1 2000' AND allsales.date each year in each region.
SELECT COUNT(allsales.saletotal), region.name, YEAR(allsales.date) FROM (allsales LEFT OUTER JOIN storeinfo ON allsales.store_id = storeinfo.id) LEFT OUTER JOIN region ON storeinfo.region_id = region.id WHERE allsales.model = 'Volt' GROUP BY region.name, YEAR(allsales.date) ORDER BY region.name;
If you can't do aggregate in DB2 with a YEAR function (I certainly didn't test it... and I know that at least in PostgreSQL it would actually be EXTRACT(YEAR FROM date) instead, or maybe TRUNCATE('month', date) depending on if you wanted year/month or just year) you could potentially use a temporary table to store all the years you are querying first, and then do a join with that instead. Something like SELECT tempyears.year
I didn't test those queries or anything, but those are the sort of things you can do with SQL that would probably make your life easier, and SQL is very good at this sort of data processing. Your DBA ought to be able to tell you what actual syntax to use.
The answer that has recently emerged to this question is, "yes and no."
:)
It isn't so simple as this. Even a fault in the construction or materials wouldn't cause this to go into meltdown. It is a completely different type of system compared with light water reactors.
Light water reactors function using the water as a moderator to slow down the neutrons enough to sustain the reaction. This means that it is fairly difficult for a light water reactor to melt down, since loss of coolant will result in slower reactions, but it is possible if somehow pressure were maintained in the coolant system and the graphite control rods got stuck etc. Then there were the RBMK style reactors like Chernobyl which used graphite as the moderator. Those were extremely dangerous, since loss of coolant resulted in the reaction accelerating. Fast reactors don't use any moderator at all, and as their temperature increases the neutrons leave the fissile material, resulting in slower reaction rates, which brings the temperature down. So they end up at a low power steady state unless they are actively cooled. Also, the IFRs don't need to run their coolant at a high pressure like light water reactors do, so there isn't concern with the pipes to bursting.
Check out Integral Fast Reactors. They are passively safe (they can't go into meltdown, even if the entire system fails, because the reaction slows down as the temperature increases), they use several orders of magnitude less fuel, and work perfectly well getting fuel as un-enriched uranium or thorium or even depleted uranium and normal nuclear waste (which means that they easily have more than 3000 times as much fuel available as the light water reactors that are currently most common), and they produce orders of magnitude less nuclear waste (on the order of 200 times less) which also has a half life in the range of 200 years (instead of thousands of years). Oh, and did I mention that waste is treated on site, rather than being shipped to some distant storage facility? They are still considered experimental because the only one to operate in the US was canceled because of pressure by John Kerry (thanks a lot) after operating for 30 of the planned 35 years. The only reason that IFRs weren't considered competitive with light water reactors is because waste disposal is essentially free for utilities. (The cost of operations outweighs the improvement in fuel efficiency, but not the real cost of waste disposal.)
We should be building some of those, not more of the current (ancient) reactor designs.
I use readerware - http://www.readerware.com/ - for my thousands of books - I used a bar code scanner to scan them in. Readerware lets you put in the location of the books - to make the process easier I scanned a bookcase at a time, setting an easy-to-remember name for each bookcase as the default location for that set of books. The process took a few hours, but I've never had to waste time searching for a book since then.
Not at all. The point of the article is, Microsoft, because of past abuses, currently (until 2007) has more restrictions against them than most companies. Something like this:
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
is a violation of their punishment - much like if a person on parole can't hang out w/ convicted felons, but a regular person can
And in my studied opinion, THAT is the most prevalent misconception in the field. Knowing their is a biological component to their illness helps patients realize it's not just them, they aren't just crazy or imagining it, and helps them work on it from a much stronger position.
Not true! My rabbit, Nibbler, http://www.nibblerbunny.com/ watches TV all the time!
Basically, she's honest about childhood and puberty and that gets the fundies crazy. I read all her books when I was a confused 10 - 13 year old girl and they made me feel that I wasn't alone or crazy. I'm now a confused 27 year old woman and a couple of her books are still on my shelf.
Here are some examples of why insane reactionaries don't like her:
"Are you there God, its me Margaret" - 13 year old girl worries that her breasts aren't big enough and wants to get her period so she'll feel like a "grown up"
"Then again, maybe I won't" - 13ish boy has wet dreams (which make him feel guilty and dirty) and watches a neighbor girl get undressed in front of her window
"Flubber" - young teenagers pick on a girl and call her names
"Deenie" - 14 year old girl masturbates, which makes her feel guilty and dirty, until she is told in a sex ed class that it's normal and will not make her blind or a cripple. (The masturbation scene is NOT explicit and goes something like, "I rub myself with a washcloth until I get a special feeling").
The main difference (afaik without viewing the original jpeg agreements) was that in jpeg, the patent holder said "don't worry, we don't care about that patent" and in jpeg2000 the patent holders specifically agree to "royalty and license-fee free." In the former case, the buyer can say "well, there isn't any place that they actually agreed not to sue, they just said they didn't care." Probably laches holds anyway, but it looks to me like there is a difference in between jpeg and jpeg2000 patent policy.
See converium.com's Doctrine of Laches and Patent Infringement for specific details of laches and patents. (short version: yes, it applies to patents) In this case, I'd say the "infringement" in question (JPEG) was "open and notorious" for more than six years prior to now, which allows for the presumption of laches, which means that the patent holder has to try and prove that laches shouldn't apply instead of requiring that the defendant prove that it does apply.
Actually, that isn't quite true. If you check the Doctrine of Laches you'll see that if a defendant knows or should have reasonably known about patent infringment (possibly also copyright, not sure about that) they can't wait a long time and then file suit. See Wanlass vs GE for an example of this.
Wanlass patented a motor for an airconditioner in 1977, and tried to sell it to several large companies, including GE. GE told him to buzz off and they didn't care and would use that motor without his approval. Wanlass sued GE in 1995, and the courts ruled that since he knew they intended to use it (and indeed had tested some GE airconditioners in 1985) he wasn't intitled to anything from their infringement. At the same time, the courts held that he WAS entitled to compensation in Wanlass vs Fedders, because although Fedders had refused to license the patent, he didn't actually find out that Fedders was infringing until shortly before filing the suit.
You are assuming that google is so stupid they would be unable to determine what is a joe job and what is a legitimate link. I see no reason to suppose that. They already do a very good job with their automated search engine. I expect that their spam filter would be designed to detect joe jobs, just as their search engine is designed to do the reverse for web pages. (ie detect page spammers) All they have to do is check the number of independant non-spam references both in email and on websites. For example, slashdot.org shows up in many verifiably non spam sources, therefore it is not spam.
The only trouble would be if regular (non spam) people started sending eachother spam links. I don't expect that to be a major problem, and even if it was, I suspect that google would find a way to fix that using other criteria. They might cross reference people who like to send spam links and ignore them for spam ranking purposes.
The point is, Google actually are experts in ranking information based on content and links. Since spam generally has to include both content and links (through which to buy things), I think it is fair to assume they will do a good job of it. At least until someone finds some real evidence to the contrary.
Why would anyone want a police state? I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. Why,f or example, would a Republic represnetative in congress want a police state? Philosophical belief that the masses are too dumb to govern themselves? Greed? Intimidated to do so by others?
Well, basically so they can do whatever they want - give themselves and their friends tons of money and power - without anyone questioning them.
For example, when Cheney decided to allow Haliburton to overcharge U.S. taxpayers many millions on contract work in Iraq, the U.S. citizens raised hell about it, and Cheney and Co. backed down and is paying back the money. I'm sure Cheney is furious that we dared question his actions and is looking longingly at a police state where he can steal from citizens with impunity.
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
Nobody owns "Happy Birthday." It's public domain.
o r more info
Why would you assume that? Just 'cause you've heard it sung your whole life?
Did you think that song "just happened"? (SportsNight Reference)
It IS copyright protected - it is NOT in the public domain and now never will be (since Disney has ensured that copyrights will now never expire so they don't lose control over Mickey Mouse). "Happy Birthday" is owned by the estate of Mildred and Patty Hill.
This is also discussed this on the DVD commentary of Futurama - they make up a birthday song to sing at Nibbler's birthday so they don't have to pay to use "Happy Birthday"
If you sing "Happy Birthday", royalties are due (for commercial uses of the song) This is rarely enforced, but that doesn't make it not true.
see http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm
f
Goody, so you can waste 22 hours of your life watching EVEN MORE TV!! Yay, what a great invention. Don't get me wrong, I catch the occasional show, but I'd much rather go to the park with my girlfriend, go horseback riding, play frisbee, or even study for my law school classes. The last thing I need to do, or anybody needs to do is watch almost 2 full days of OLD TV shows.
absolutely!! I agree 100% - that's why TiVos are so great!! I go to the park with my girlfriend, go horseback riding, play frisbee, or work on indepedent projects, etc... when I'm done, when I'm tired, or when the daylight is gone, I get to watch those few, great shows that are on during the day/evening. There IS material on TV that is worth watching - it's REALLY not *all* a dead wasteland the way some people like to imagine. I actually enjoy TV now - I watch what I want, when I want, no commercials.
It's a godsend for my girlfriend - she has almost total insomina. When she's up at 4 AM, too tired to do anything "constructive" (as she puts it) she doesn't have to flip randomly watching infomercials. The documentaries and independent films she loves are avaliable to her whenever she wants. It's hard to explain how great this is - when we tell friends about it, they usually make some comment like "there is nothing on TV worth paying for a TiVo" - but the point is, TiVo suddenly makes TV worth it!!
So? There's still no problem with GM, just with the our (refering to the US, canada, and Europe at least) stupid patent laws. We should all be protesting stupid patent laws rather than protesting GM.
Ah, but that is the beauty of working with living things. If they are weaker, they'll simply die out. Since only the stronger ones will survive, we don't really have to worry about that. In the worst case, if they all die out, we can just re-introduce the originals again.
Lower down, a poster mentioned some GM seeds (patented, btw) blowing in to a farmers yard. He was then sued by the company which owned the patent, and lost his farm. It is this sort of thing that we cannot predict.
That's hardly the fault of Genetic Modification, and entirely the fault of our stupid patent litigation laws. If you want to argue that companies shouldn't be able to own species or modifications, I'm right there with you. And it probably would reduce GM research a little. Banning GM because of patents just makes no sense at all.
I really wish the so-called "environmentalists" would stick to actually doing something to help the environment, like supporting lumbering (since they will replant the trees) rather than strip farming (who don't care about the trees at all). Or maybe protecting species from becoming extinct rather than worrying about us introducing more species. Mutation is a normal process, and if we're speeding it up a little that's fine. If anything, we probably should be doing this to replace the species that are otherwise dying out.
I know this is hard to imagine, but eating something doesn't somehow confer its genetic structure to you. For a long time people seem to have developed the belief that "you are what you eat" but that simply isn't true. Eating one of these fish isn't any more likely to make you glow in the dark than it is to make fins pop out of your body. Better not eat any cows unless you want 4 stomachs! Or any plants unless you want to start turning green and getting energy from the sun through your skin! or maybe you'd just start throwing down roots!
Just to clarify: you are not what you eat. Remember those nutrigrain commercials, where the guy looks at the hot woman and then realizes that her "buns" are the "sticky" variety? So instead they say "you should eat nutrigrain".... which leaves me wondering how thrilled that guy is going to be when she starts growing nutrigrain bars instead of breasts. I hardly see how that is an improvement, except possibly for cleaning. (nutrigrain is probably less messy that stickybuns) In case they had confused you, I'll let you in on the secret. It doesn't really happen. OK? So all you FUDsters can just drop this particularly silly topic.
Yeah, that's the worst part about it. Speed limits aren't always too slow. Only sometimes. They'd be a lot safer if they were at least consistantly too slow. As it is, it would probably be safer if there weren't any speed limits at all, because people get used to them being stupidly slow when sometimes they are actually right. I know a few places near me where the roads are poorly built/graded and you can probably shoot right off if you aren't paying attention. The rest of the road is straight and flat, but (without warning) there are some hilly turns that really shouldn't be taken above the speed limit. Since they think you are already going that speed, they don't change the signs, but most people are actually going much faster.
1) There are lots of ways of determining speed, include skid marks and relative vehicle positions. It is unlikely they would use a single piece of evidence. They didn't in this case, as was indicated in the article.
2) Your tires and engine have inertia. You could find (if you don't mind doing something horribly dangerous for you and bad for your car) that even if your car that is completely suspended (only friction is air on the tires), your car's tires can't actually instantly accelerate from 55 MPH equiv to 95 MPH equiv. It takes some real time. You can even test the engine thing. Just leave the car in neutral, and see how long it takes to rev from (eg) 2500 RPM to 5000 RPM. Even with your foot pressed down completely, it will take some time.
3) I would advise that you not drive your car around with your foot planted to the floorboard. Especially not in the rain. Maybe you were thinking, "Gee I wonder if my tires will spin while I drive 55 MPH down a rainy road and floor it." In that case you are a dangerous asshole and should be locked up. You shouldn't have to press very hard just to go 55 MPH. If your foot isn't pressed to the floor, it will probably take a long time for the car to rev from 55 MPH to 95 MPH. At least long enough for you to take your foot of the damn gas pedal.
Now, I don't like this EDR thing, because I'm sure that "if it can be abused, it will be." I haven't thought of how yet, but it certainly won't be from your tires spinning freely while your car flies through the air after hitting a speedbump (as mentioned in another post) or while you are hydroplaning. The worst thing I've thought of so far is that your insurance company would raise your rates if they found out you were going 56 in a 55 zone. Technically speeding, but since we all know that demented geezers set the speed limits rediculously low because the cars couldn't go fast back in the 1930s or whenever, that seems a bit abusive to me.