I've been using java for three years or so now. Trust me, you'll love the Java API. With it, before you write anything check whether it's already a part of the API. As far as I know, C# doesn't have anything like it. Plus with java, you get much more open source code and examples. Especially useful for things like MySQL / ODBC / JDBC connectivity open source.
And if you need native code for speed, you can usually compile it with visual J#.
I personally believe that sort of condition in a EULA is unenforcable (even assuming the EULA proper is enforcable - which I don't believe either), as it is anticompetitive. Either way, the test was done by an Australian company, and that could lend a legal hand by setting up international roadblocks to EULA enforcement.
a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
This doesn't say anything about the president needing a 3rd-grade education or understanding the law. They just can't be the "random" person after they're president.
I am just as supportive of free speech as any of you, perhaps even more. But this isn't about free speech, it's about libel (Libel - n. 1.(a)A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.). Sure, the Constitution might technically allow the publication of libel (debatable), but it definitely allows suing for libel. In the end, if the posters can show that what they posted was true, they will (should) not have to pay a cent. But, if they lied about what Juniper did, knowing that it would likely damage their reputation, they will (and should) be punished for it.
Congress has passed laws more sketchily supported by the "Interstate Commerce" clause (from which they forcibly take most of their power). This is relevant because the FCC was created by congress, so it can only extend its power as far as congress has power.
Since the US controls the root-level DNS servers, all it would take is a law prohibiting resolution of certain sites, and they would be inaccessible to the average user (who has no idea what an IP address is). Instant censorship for the entire non-geek world.
I think it would be best to keep to borrowing from friends(at least until the RI/MPAA hires the FBI to track down that kind of thing). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be very surprised if the MPAA didn't make money off of blockbuster/netflix/etc. either on a per-rental basis or a monthly/quarterly/annual fee. If they didn't, then it must be legal to rent videos, or else the MPAA would have taken them to court for their money, which means it would be legal to lend videos to a friend, which I'm pretty sure it's technically not.
p.s. If anyone can find the part of the copyright law which would prove me wrong, it would be good to link to it.
The reason bullets are so dangerous is that they apply enough pressure to break skin (and keep going). If the armor can spread the impact over a reasonable area (the size of a quarter would probably be enough), I think the wearer would survive. Any injuries would be similar to what you see in paintball (primarily bruises).
more muzzle velocity, yes. better armor piercing ability, not likely.
As a physics major, let me explain my understanding of firearms:
I believe the bullets would (all else being equal) receive the same kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2), so if the bullet was half the mass, it would go sqrt(2) times as fast. At least at the end of the muzzle. After that (and to a lesser extent, before) air resistance affects the bullet proportional to v^2. Since v^2 is twice as large for the smaller bullett, the force would be twice as large, and due to the lower mass, the lighter bullet would decelerate much quicker (starting at 4x). This is a rather complex differential equation (because of the square), but what's likely to happen is that at any large distance, the lighter bullett will probably hit the target moving slower.
Now, when the bullet impacts the target I believe it's the pressure that actually does the damage. Pressure is force per unit area, and the areas would be the same (although here the analysis could possibly fail, if the lighter bullet held a pointier shape for longer). At point-blank range (or ignoring air resistance) and treating the force the target exerts as spring-like (probably good approximation for armor), the force needed to stop the bullets would be the same on each bullet (because the energy is the same so they would deform the target the same amount). Factoring air resistance back in, the lighter bullet will reach the target with less energy, and so exert less pressure. If the lighter bullet doesn't deform, it's possible that the pressure would be greater, dealing more damage.
Conclusions:
1. A lighter bullet will hit the target at a slower velocity.
2. Assuming the same deformation upon impact, the lighter bullet will deal less damage.
3. If the heavy bullet deforms and the light doesn't, the light one *might* do more damage.
This is my best guess, but it's possible I made a mistake somewhere.
what's the big deal with them stopping by to see who was reading the book, and why?
It's people like you who are a threat to our civil liberties. I don't want to check in with my friendly local FBI agent every time I want to check a book out of the library.
Of course, Bush would put Benjamin Franklin on a terrorist watch list.
The way Bush has been treating the Constitution, most of the founding fathers would have just disappeared by now (probably to a secret CIA prison overseas).
The problem is, the idea behind the patent system was to make it open and accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford to hire million-dollar-a-year lawyers.
NASA is investigating the possibility of a gaseous oxygen leak,
If it's leaking into the atmosphere it's going to become gaseous very quickly anyway.
posing a serious fire risk... evidence of high concentrations of the gas
High concentrations of oxygen won't combust, it's the lower-middle concentrations (especially mixed with certain other chemicals) you have to watch for.
Well, at least NASA's engineers are finding the space shuttle's flaws, even if they're not FIXING them.
I seem to remember seeing years ago that if you asked a telemarketer not to call you and they called again, then you could sue them for harassment. The FTC site seems to imply that they'll just be fined, and I won't see any of the money. Does anyone know whether I could still sue telemarketers for harassment and get the money, or if the FTC fines supercedes the old lawsuits?
What can you expect from massive corporations?
Clearly they know their products aren't good enough to spread by word of mouth, so they must inundate everybody in the hopes that consumers will be indoctrinated with the product.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using java for three years or so now. Trust me, you'll love the Java API. With it, before you write anything check whether it's already a part of the API. As far as I know, C# doesn't have anything like it. Plus with java, you get much more open source code and examples. Especially useful for things like MySQL / ODBC / JDBC connectivity open source.
And if you need native code for speed, you can usually compile it with visual J#.
I personally believe that sort of condition in a EULA is unenforcable (even assuming the EULA proper is enforcable - which I don't believe either), as it is anticompetitive. Either way, the test was done by an Australian company, and that could lend a legal hand by setting up international roadblocks to EULA enforcement.
He may be ill-educated but he's not so random; just ask the corporations that put him in office.
That's right. It's much easier to control the uneducated. Just ask the government why the public education is so bad here.
a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
This doesn't say anything about the president needing a 3rd-grade education or understanding the law. They just can't be the "random" person after they're president.
I am just as supportive of free speech as any of you, perhaps even more. But this isn't about free speech, it's about libel (Libel - n. 1.(a)A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.). Sure, the Constitution might technically allow the publication of libel (debatable), but it definitely allows suing for libel. In the end, if the posters can show that what they posted was true, they will (should) not have to pay a cent. But, if they lied about what Juniper did, knowing that it would likely damage their reputation, they will (and should) be punished for it.
Congress has passed laws more sketchily supported by the "Interstate Commerce" clause (from which they forcibly take most of their power). This is relevant because the FCC was created by congress, so it can only extend its power as far as congress has power.
Since the US controls the root-level DNS servers, all it would take is a law prohibiting resolution of certain sites, and they would be inaccessible to the average user (who has no idea what an IP address is). Instant censorship for the entire non-geek world.
Remind anyone of a certain Bush speech?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the last statistics I saw still showed something like 80+% of email is spam.
The "Sonic Hedgehog gene" is much less degrading than the "Pokémon Cancer-Causing gene".
In short, it's not a carcinogene! (sorry, I had to)
the government arranged 9/11 It's much more likely they just let it happen.
"Give me LIBERTY or give me death!"
I will fight Bush and his Miniluv to the end.
So it wasn't the aliens...
I try to rent or borrow stuff as much as possible
I think it would be best to keep to borrowing from friends(at least until the RI/MPAA hires the FBI to track down that kind of thing). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be very surprised if the MPAA didn't make money off of blockbuster/netflix/etc. either on a per-rental basis or a monthly/quarterly/annual fee. If they didn't, then it must be legal to rent videos, or else the MPAA would have taken them to court for their money, which means it would be legal to lend videos to a friend, which I'm pretty sure it's technically not.
p.s. If anyone can find the part of the copyright law which would prove me wrong, it would be good to link to it.
The reason bullets are so dangerous is that they apply enough pressure to break skin (and keep going). If the armor can spread the impact over a reasonable area (the size of a quarter would probably be enough), I think the wearer would survive. Any injuries would be similar to what you see in paintball (primarily bruises).
Can we find OTHER uses for this technology
It doesn't matter what other uses it has, if it can be used for war or oppression, it will be.
If a medic has to save someone's ass, chances are they won't be ready to fight again for a while (if ever).
more muzzle velocity, yes. better armor piercing ability, not likely.
As a physics major, let me explain my understanding of firearms:
I believe the bullets would (all else being equal) receive the same kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2), so if the bullet was half the mass, it would go sqrt(2) times as fast. At least at the end of the muzzle. After that (and to a lesser extent, before) air resistance affects the bullet proportional to v^2. Since v^2 is twice as large for the smaller bullett, the force would be twice as large, and due to the lower mass, the lighter bullet would decelerate much quicker (starting at 4x). This is a rather complex differential equation (because of the square), but what's likely to happen is that at any large distance, the lighter bullett will probably hit the target moving slower.
Now, when the bullet impacts the target I believe it's the pressure that actually does the damage. Pressure is force per unit area, and the areas would be the same (although here the analysis could possibly fail, if the lighter bullet held a pointier shape for longer). At point-blank range (or ignoring air resistance) and treating the force the target exerts as spring-like (probably good approximation for armor), the force needed to stop the bullets would be the same on each bullet (because the energy is the same so they would deform the target the same amount). Factoring air resistance back in, the lighter bullet will reach the target with less energy, and so exert less pressure. If the lighter bullet doesn't deform, it's possible that the pressure would be greater, dealing more damage.
Conclusions:
1. A lighter bullet will hit the target at a slower velocity.
2. Assuming the same deformation upon impact, the lighter bullet will deal less damage.
3. If the heavy bullet deforms and the light doesn't, the light one *might* do more damage.
This is my best guess, but it's possible I made a mistake somewhere.
How far is the step from feds showing up, asking questions and leaving, to feds showing up, asking questions, and leaving with you?
what's the big deal with them stopping by to see who was reading the book, and why?
It's people like you who are a threat to our civil liberties. I don't want to check in with my friendly local FBI agent every time I want to check a book out of the library.
Of course, Bush would put Benjamin Franklin on a terrorist watch list.
The way Bush has been treating the Constitution, most of the founding fathers would have just disappeared by now (probably to a secret CIA prison overseas).
The NTP patents (as I understand) don't cover the exchange server extras, just the fact that email is being sent wirelessly.
Hire an expert or expect problems
The problem is, the idea behind the patent system was to make it open and accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford to hire million-dollar-a-year lawyers.
NASA is investigating the possibility of a gaseous oxygen leak,
If it's leaking into the atmosphere it's going to become gaseous very quickly anyway.
posing a serious fire risk... evidence of high concentrations of the gas
High concentrations of oxygen won't combust, it's the lower-middle concentrations (especially mixed with certain other chemicals) you have to watch for.
Well, at least NASA's engineers are finding the space shuttle's flaws, even if they're not FIXING them.
I'm pretty sure it's not the prices below 99 cents the music industry is concerned about.
I seem to remember seeing years ago that if you asked a telemarketer not to call you and they called again, then you could sue them for harassment. The FTC site seems to imply that they'll just be fined, and I won't see any of the money. Does anyone know whether I could still sue telemarketers for harassment and get the money, or if the FTC fines supercedes the old lawsuits?
What can you expect from massive corporations?
Clearly they know their products aren't good enough to spread by word of mouth, so they must inundate everybody in the hopes that consumers will be indoctrinated with the product.