I haven't really tried Flash on my Nexus one since it first became available as a beta, but the things I tried with it worked relatively well. The main issue being that the touch screen didn't really translate very well to the flash games I was trying. And they took a bit to load. I suspect though that a lot of the complaints about load time are simply a matter of slow processors and slow cell connection to the web. It's certainly not insurmountable, and most of it is because Flash sucks in general.
Attorney General, they're the highest public attorney in the state, they represent the state in all matters, as well as being the one that wades in against industry that violates state law when it's a matter of general state interest.
AMD can stop making them and not license other people to make them. That would stop that right there. Personally, I don't think the stickers are the problem so much as the fact that the stickers are so hard to remove cleanly. That's the main reason why mine stay on, not because I want them, but because they're a pain to get off cleanly.
To be honest that's probably the thing about my one time on jury duty that I'm the most proud of. Finishing deliberations, the results were nothing like what I would've expected going into it. Perhaps the fact that it was a civil trial rather than criminal and that we just had to go with the preponderance of evidence and didn't need unanimous consent to reach an agreement.
I don't recall the plaintiff, defendant or either counsel ever knowing the name of myself or my fellow jurors. Which is what puzzles me a bit, perhaps my memory isn't complete, but I don't recall them knowing enough information to be able to see whether or not I had a facebook or any online presence at all at the time.
That's not true. Generally you're expected to disclose that, assuming the attorneys and judge are not aware, but it's not justification for being automatically excluded. For instance in criminal proceedings, the fact that one of the potential jurors is a copyright attorney isn't the kiss of death. However if it's relevant to the subject of the trial, then they may very well be. But in practice attorneys generally hate have attorneys on the jury and will have them removed as a part of the process.
The way things are set up, prior to deliberations jurors are instructed to not discuss the case with anybody, fellow jurors included, and during deliberations, the judge gives the jurors all the law that they're allowed to use. Knowing more law than that isn't going to help, and you're generally required to keep your mouth shut about it.
In my experience, it's not necessarily that jurors don't take it seriously, it's that we allow attorneys to have access to focus groups and deliberately misrepresent facts and previous testimony on the basis that the jury is presumed to be able to see through it. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that most jurors are not able to see through it and as a result you end up with verdicts which are really unpredictable.
That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.
Trust me, there's enough dumb asses out there to believe such things that it probably would fly. I mean considering that 1/5 of Americans believe the President to be Muslim and a considerable portion believe that he's ineligible to be President because he wasn't born in the US, despite documentation that he was born where and when he claims to have been.
It's not surprising that somebody would mod that up in spite of it being completely wrong. Libel applies to journalists and news organizations otherwise it's slander. I seriously doubt that a comment on a message board is going to be covered as libel rather than slander.
Then I'll be notifying them that I want my money back. And complaining to the local AG that their engaging in questionable business practices by damaging hardware that they've already sold me on the basis of having features that they're now removing. Given enough complaints to enough AGs, you better believe that somebody's going to put the smack down on their illegal trade practices.
I doubt that they'll reconsider. They were stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be a backlash when they removed hardware from later releases of the PS3 without properly stating it on the packaging and then they removed features from previous versions which had them. Only an extremely arrogant and or delusional individual would think that there wouldn't be some sort of comeuppance coming at some point.
There's also the problem of feeding such a monster processor and keeping it synced up with the rest of the machine. On top of that servers for instance tend to cope better with many cores than faster ones after a certain point, which is presumably well before 5ghz. Since servers typically are more concerned with large numbers of connections, chances are that a quad core running at 2ghz would have better performance than a single core 5ghz would, scale that up as needed to the number of cores. Of course frequency is a terrible comparison, but for this purpose it's probably fine.
It's different, and definitely not easy, but it's just a different market. Up until the last decade or so, console programming was very different than programming for a computer. Which was why you could do so much more with the hardware, you'd have registers to handle game specific functions, the things you'd commonly need to do probably had a specific bit of hardware to handle, and you were able to use single bits of storage space on the media. I'm not familiar with the old Macs, or Apples, but I doubt very much that they were designed in that fashion.
And that will change precisely when it starts hurting conservative politicians. For them it's been working out brilliantly. It gives them a guaranteed source of future threats to scare the crap out of the populace with. Go on a pointless war somewhere else to get people to rally around the flag and use this as subterfuge to take away more of the people's stuff and give it to the rich. I'm not really seeing a downside for the morons that do it.
But, if one doesn't have the ability to read it ahead of time, have it explained to oneself and have the ability to negotiate it, then it's probably not legally binding anyways. The fact that the courts have a habit of finding otherwise is extremely troubling. In my view any contract which requires an attorney to interpret had damn well be dealing with enough money to make it worthwhile for both parties. Buying a $50 piece of software and requiring the customer to spend $200 in attorneys fees to understand because you felt the urge to obfuscate and hide things in the contract is not what anybody of sound mind would consider acceptable behavior.
That's not factually correct. Buddhism doesn't believe in any god, the Buddha is just considered ones revered teacher shown the same respect that one would show any teacher of standing. Which is why the Buddha always gets the highest seat in a room and will typically be given gifts for his teachings on a daily basis.
In general the answer would be no. You're supposed to file suit against a party in their home jurisdiction. In this case, I don't think that's what happened, the Judge in the case noted that in neither of the two relevant states does the local law allow the limitations on gross negligence claims to be limited in advance and as such can't be considered valid. Which is common sense, it can get dicey when the laws disagree, but it's silly in cases where both jurisdictions are actually in agreement to go with something else completely.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't really tried Flash on my Nexus one since it first became available as a beta, but the things I tried with it worked relatively well. The main issue being that the touch screen didn't really translate very well to the flash games I was trying. And they took a bit to load. I suspect though that a lot of the complaints about load time are simply a matter of slow processors and slow cell connection to the web. It's certainly not insurmountable, and most of it is because Flash sucks in general.
Attorney General, they're the highest public attorney in the state, they represent the state in all matters, as well as being the one that wades in against industry that violates state law when it's a matter of general state interest.
AMD can stop making them and not license other people to make them. That would stop that right there. Personally, I don't think the stickers are the problem so much as the fact that the stickers are so hard to remove cleanly. That's the main reason why mine stay on, not because I want them, but because they're a pain to get off cleanly.
It makes a certain black man get confused and think that there's a kid in trouble.
An easy way to get dismissed if one is that opposed to it is to bring up "jury nullification" during voire dire and refuse to promise not to do it.
To be honest that's probably the thing about my one time on jury duty that I'm the most proud of. Finishing deliberations, the results were nothing like what I would've expected going into it. Perhaps the fact that it was a civil trial rather than criminal and that we just had to go with the preponderance of evidence and didn't need unanimous consent to reach an agreement.
I don't recall the plaintiff, defendant or either counsel ever knowing the name of myself or my fellow jurors. Which is what puzzles me a bit, perhaps my memory isn't complete, but I don't recall them knowing enough information to be able to see whether or not I had a facebook or any online presence at all at the time.
That's not true. Generally you're expected to disclose that, assuming the attorneys and judge are not aware, but it's not justification for being automatically excluded. For instance in criminal proceedings, the fact that one of the potential jurors is a copyright attorney isn't the kiss of death. However if it's relevant to the subject of the trial, then they may very well be. But in practice attorneys generally hate have attorneys on the jury and will have them removed as a part of the process.
The way things are set up, prior to deliberations jurors are instructed to not discuss the case with anybody, fellow jurors included, and during deliberations, the judge gives the jurors all the law that they're allowed to use. Knowing more law than that isn't going to help, and you're generally required to keep your mouth shut about it.
In my experience, it's not necessarily that jurors don't take it seriously, it's that we allow attorneys to have access to focus groups and deliberately misrepresent facts and previous testimony on the basis that the jury is presumed to be able to see through it. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that most jurors are not able to see through it and as a result you end up with verdicts which are really unpredictable.
That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.
Trust me, there's enough dumb asses out there to believe such things that it probably would fly. I mean considering that 1/5 of Americans believe the President to be Muslim and a considerable portion believe that he's ineligible to be President because he wasn't born in the US, despite documentation that he was born where and when he claims to have been.
It's not surprising that somebody would mod that up in spite of it being completely wrong. Libel applies to journalists and news organizations otherwise it's slander. I seriously doubt that a comment on a message board is going to be covered as libel rather than slander.
Then I'll be notifying them that I want my money back. And complaining to the local AG that their engaging in questionable business practices by damaging hardware that they've already sold me on the basis of having features that they're now removing. Given enough complaints to enough AGs, you better believe that somebody's going to put the smack down on their illegal trade practices.
I doubt that they'll reconsider. They were stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be a backlash when they removed hardware from later releases of the PS3 without properly stating it on the packaging and then they removed features from previous versions which had them. Only an extremely arrogant and or delusional individual would think that there wouldn't be some sort of comeuppance coming at some point.
Eh, the only thing saving your ass there, is that she likely won't see it. Otherwise, you're definitely liable for slander.
Actually, you do, although I think it probably assumes that the papers were served to the correct party and that they had the opportunity to respond.
Perhaps not, but it's what you need if you want to put the graphics settings on high.
There's also the problem of feeding such a monster processor and keeping it synced up with the rest of the machine. On top of that servers for instance tend to cope better with many cores than faster ones after a certain point, which is presumably well before 5ghz. Since servers typically are more concerned with large numbers of connections, chances are that a quad core running at 2ghz would have better performance than a single core 5ghz would, scale that up as needed to the number of cores. Of course frequency is a terrible comparison, but for this purpose it's probably fine.
It's different, and definitely not easy, but it's just a different market. Up until the last decade or so, console programming was very different than programming for a computer. Which was why you could do so much more with the hardware, you'd have registers to handle game specific functions, the things you'd commonly need to do probably had a specific bit of hardware to handle, and you were able to use single bits of storage space on the media. I'm not familiar with the old Macs, or Apples, but I doubt very much that they were designed in that fashion.
And that will change precisely when it starts hurting conservative politicians. For them it's been working out brilliantly. It gives them a guaranteed source of future threats to scare the crap out of the populace with. Go on a pointless war somewhere else to get people to rally around the flag and use this as subterfuge to take away more of the people's stuff and give it to the rich. I'm not really seeing a downside for the morons that do it.
But, if one doesn't have the ability to read it ahead of time, have it explained to oneself and have the ability to negotiate it, then it's probably not legally binding anyways. The fact that the courts have a habit of finding otherwise is extremely troubling. In my view any contract which requires an attorney to interpret had damn well be dealing with enough money to make it worthwhile for both parties. Buying a $50 piece of software and requiring the customer to spend $200 in attorneys fees to understand because you felt the urge to obfuscate and hide things in the contract is not what anybody of sound mind would consider acceptable behavior.
That's not factually correct. Buddhism doesn't believe in any god, the Buddha is just considered ones revered teacher shown the same respect that one would show any teacher of standing. Which is why the Buddha always gets the highest seat in a room and will typically be given gifts for his teachings on a daily basis.
In general the answer would be no. You're supposed to file suit against a party in their home jurisdiction. In this case, I don't think that's what happened, the Judge in the case noted that in neither of the two relevant states does the local law allow the limitations on gross negligence claims to be limited in advance and as such can't be considered valid. Which is common sense, it can get dicey when the laws disagree, but it's silly in cases where both jurisdictions are actually in agreement to go with something else completely.
I thought that was the "prize" for worst entry.
DOS Capital? Isn't that somewhere in Redmond?