Because the **AA says it's not.
Note that format shifting from a digital format to an analog one (CD => Tape), or analog to analog (record => tape) was considered to be fair use. Same with making a backup tape for the car (tape=>tape). The rule used to be it was fair use as long as only 1 copy could be in use at a time - IE one tape in the car, another in the house - you can't be using both at the same time - it was fair use.
Now, anything but putting the CD/DVD in the player and sitting on the big spike is a violation of either their liscense or their 'copyright'.
To be honest, given Copy 123's product, it seems as if DVD copying for backup is legal (otherwise I don't see office max selling it). So if it's legal to make a copy, how can it not be legal to download a copy instead? - This issue would obviously be on the retransmition (UPLOADING) of the file.
I love these guys, there almost as cool as SCO.
When you get around the 'it's not copywrite, it's a liscense' issue, they turn around and go back to quoting it's a copywrite violation.
Hello... [tap][tap]... pay attention, you can get protection under copywrite - you are selling the data on the disc as a collective work, or you can be selling a liscense for the work on the disk. You don't get to play both games - if for no other reason, the IRS demands it be one or the other.
Hmm, guess that's one way for us to be certain whether we buy a copywriten work or the liscence to view it. We can check the IRS filings of the companies that are members of the **AA. The sales have to be listed as goods or liscenses, and we know you never, ever, ever lie to the IRS.
Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.
As far as I can tell, as long as the page that has barbie on it also has the word 'sex' or 'porn' on it you are safe in that you are by definition not misleading.
Actually there is a large amount of case law that deals with 'state secrets'. Essentially, if forcing the govt/it's agent (AT&T) to admit to acting in a certain way exposes a 'state secret' then the court needs to dismiss the case. It dates back to the war of 1812 IIRC. Someones family tried to enforce a contract a spy had signed with the US govt, the court said that forcing the govt to acknowledge hiring the spy would endager the govt intelligence efforts.
Wether I agree or not, this case is almost exactly on point, the difference being internal vs external intelligence gathering. I still think that the issue is going to end up at the SCotUS before it dies.
Actually yes that is the one, and the $2.7M award was what I was commenting on - note that the judge thought it was excessive & reduced it.
I am iffy on the actuall case itself. If I spill any cup of coffee on myself, I expect to get burned - so how McD's can be 80% responsible for the burns I don't understand. I also don't understand why they didn't settle for the $20K she initially asked for. I do understand that McD's provides coffee at a higher temp than most places, so I can see them having some responsibility for the burns, but not 80%. It's not like an employee spilled it on her.
It's another lack of personal responsibility like these people who have been reading the warning label on cigarettes since they started 30 years ago, suing the mfg for their lung problems. Duh, you've been reading the warning for 30 years and NOW you want compensated because you didn't believe them?
Oh yes:) that's why you get coffee spill suits that result in multi million dollar settlements, and judges reducing the rewards all the time. Juries like to give money to 'the little guy' when it's a big bad corperation going after them.
The only evidence they seem to have is that they have screenshots of P2P software showing a time and an IP address, and the word of the ISP that at that time/date the IP address was assigned to my account.
I suppose that's nice, but it would take me 10 minutes to make a screenshot showing the whitehouse.gov web server sharing kiddy porn.
The other issue is that they don't just have to convince a Judge that it's a preponderance of evidence, they have to convince a jury. Given some of the behaviours of RIAA & MPAA, they might have a hard time convincing a jury that pissing into the wind is a bad idea. Add in the hysteria over bots/virii/trojans etc, showing that even pros like the military can't keep their systems clean may be enough there to point a jury to the conclusion that if I say I didn't do it, and **AA can't show anything else but that 'perhaps' my PC was involved, then they really don't have a preponderance.
Think of all the time users can save by including thier ever-so-helpfull smiley clickies, special cursors, and Bonzai-Buddy right into the install disk.
Actually, I don't think that any of their suits have actually been through the court system. Right now, it seems that they get up to the point of walking through the door & then drop the suit.
The courts can't rule on if their suits are viable/legal until one actually makes it through the door. If it goes to discovery & the courts uphold that they can't use the name/IP due to improper search/seasure then they're screwed.
Failing that, they have the preponderance of evidence - I think I would pass out the latest figures on botnets, along with reports of Govt/military/police 'puters being botted. "Latest reports indicate 20% of computers connected to the internet are vulnerable to remote control via malware, can **AA show mine wasn't controlled at the time of the alleged violation?"
Have the **AA bothered to track MAC addresses to show if there was an instance of IP spoofing, or simple IP overriding?
Yeah, but they are the ones who decide what cases to proscecute.
This was a situation where Bob & Alice were involved in a fight, Alice turns to Ann and says "I'm going to use your phone to call the police."
Ann responds "Use your damned cellphone you arn't using my phone."
A week later Ann get's a summons stating she is being charged with 'Intimidating a witness.'
Retailers not 17 year olds, retailers won't stock it on the shelves if it's AO. Why?, because in some twisted marketing mindspace things nasty enough for mature teenagers only (graphic violence and aluded to sex) is credible, where-as adult only items (boobs) are the kiss of death to your credibility as a store.
My wife sometimes wonders if she's a bad parent because she would prefer her son to be surfing porn than sites like this. Personally, I think seeing sex is a whole lot heathier than violence. Hmm, in that light, the 'Hot Coffee' is the most acceptable part of that game...
Interesting example-- I agree with this woman regarding pro-life as the trump card!
I guess that's it in the nutshell - 1 issue 1 vote - the problem is that life and politics arn't about 1 issue. They are about everything.
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:
Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.
A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.
Spending cuts on health care & social services - most effecting poor single parents.
Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.
So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.
I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.
There are currently 2 kinds of conservatives in politics
Conservatives in a classical sense are concerned with minimal government interfierance in the publics lives, small government, and fiscal responsabilities. In a sense they attempt to preserve the governmental structure with minimal changes - allowing society to grow & evolve around the existing structure.
Neo Conservatives are concerned with a 'conservative' social agenda - which is neither conservative nor social in nature. They attempt to preserve a non-existant social order through increasingly restrictive government interfierance.
The problem is not with the issues, it's with the people in power, and the people who put them there. The last presidential election only about 60% of the people elligable voted - that's 40% of US citizens were too damn lazy to get out of their chair and flip a lever in a voting booth. If you know there is this huge untapped pool of people - how do you get them to vote? - You create a polarizing issue - one in which the status quo supports the other person and change supports you. Why? because people who are happy - or indifferent with how things are - will stay too lazy to vote - so you gain votes, and the other guy doesn't.
Can you create polarization on the real issues of how do we spend tax dollars responsibly? It's accounting for gods sake - even accountants hate it!
But, if I tie spending billions on something wastefull, to spending a couple of million with a polarizing issue - stem cell research - I can polarize the whole issue, get enough votes, and get my billions to waste.
Face it, the only people who are really left without parties nowdays are the centrists like you & me. You can't make a platform based on ballanced fiscal responsibility, social equity, and personal responsibility. Only by creating a coalition of special interest groups can you get into office, and only by apeasing them can you stay there. I know one person who voted for Bush last time - why ? He was pro life --- she hated his spending policy, his military policy, and his general social policies, but he was pro life so she voted for him.
Polarize and win - if you can get enough people to vote for you for 1 issue and ignore all the others, you win. If you try to be ballanced and effective, you loose. It's really become that simple in American Politics.
That's the real trick - we aren't comparing a handful of pebbles to one rock. We are comparing a.45 to the chest to a OO buckshot shotgun blast to the chest. The kinetic energy of the two is (roughly) on the same order - and despite the visual differences in damage, both are going to leave you in a deep world of hurt.
Hmm, if I have the choice, please shoot me in the chest with the shotgun. That way the impact is distributed over the surface of my bullet proof vest (atmosphere) and causes significantly less damage to me (earth's crust). Either way, it's going to hurt like a mother, but I'm much more likely to walk away from the shotgun with a few bruises than the.45 and it's broken ribs.
Again, this doesn't provide much in the way of salvation. Take the mass of a big meteor, take its approach speed, figure the kinetic energy. If it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if it stays in one piece and impacts the surface, it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if you pulverize the entire thing down to dust and let it burn up as it enters the atmosphere.
Nobody is disagreeing that the effect wouldn't be catastrophic, however there are degrees of catastrophy. Huricane Andrew was a catastrophy in Florida, but nowhere near as big as Katrina in New Orleans. Atmospheric warming combined with a few (relatively) small craters is preferable to firestorm, earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear winter.
Why not? Before you do whatever it is you do, the rock has a big velocity vector pointing at the earth. Energy that goes into breaking rock isn't going to alter that velocity vector.
A Velocity vector is a vector sum of all of the components in the system. The conservation of momentum implies that the sum of the vectors will remain constant. Assuming the destructive force creates no momentum change in the asteriod [virtually impossible] then that means only the sum of the vectors remains the same. 10% of the mass can be vector deviated 10deg stellar north as long as an equal mass is vector deviated 10 deg stellar south. In effect you change the asteriod from a point mass to a cone vector - some of the cone will hit earth, some of it won't. Additionally, you will also time offset some of the impacts - allowing heat dissepation and geographic change - ensuring that at least a good portion of the small impacts will be in the oceans.
Finally, you also have a phenomenon called atmospheric bounce. Put your hand outside the window of a car moving @ 60MPH. Angle it up @ 20deg & feel how much force is generated. Same thing happens when a rock hits the atmosphere at a glancing angle - a force is created under the rock tossing it back into space, if the rock is small enough to have it's vector affected by the force. For a huge rock, the weight to surface ratio is very high, resulting in a relatively low acceleration out of the atmosphere - not enough to create any significant vector change. For a small rock, the weight to surface ratio changes dramatically - allowing some of the small ones to skip out of the atmosphere with relatively little transfer of energy.
I hope they fix that nasty bug with Rhythmbox where it shipped with no list of internet radio stations whatsoever, as well as no mp3, aac, or wma support. That sort of defeated the whole point of the application. And I couldn't help but notice that the Totem movie player, can't actually play any movies. Oh, and the helix player doesn't actually work either. The workarounds consist of upgrading from unsupported repositories and generally mucking about in your root account.
First, I don't know about the issue with no list of radio stations, that sounds like a missing config file.
As for no MP3, AAC, WMA support - it's not a bug, it's a liscensing issue. You want to get FC for free, RH can't afford to pay per copy liscenses for those codecs. All 3 of those codecs are build on proprietary algorhythms which require a liscense. So, any US vendor - EU doesn't currently acknowledge software patents - has 2 choices:
pay each owner a fee.
not include the codec.
Not entirely surprising, they don't include the codec on the free downloads.
Oh please, one does not buy a legislator. There are simply too many competing interests for each single legislator. Therefore they are more like a timeshare. You get him this week, I get him next - sort of like renting, without the garuntee of him being available when you need him.
Depends on whether a court would find them to have monopolistic control over a vital resource or not.
I doubt that any court could find that. The resource is the data itself - the link crossover frequency, the traffic patterns, etc - which is free for anyone with a spider. You don't need Google to get that information, it's just a crapload easier to use them rather than do it yourself.
In order to show Google as a monopoly, you would have to show that Google's possesion of the data prevents anyone else from obtaining it (telco contract model), or that Google's predominance in the marketplace renders doing business with anyone else irrelivant (MS, US oil model).
The problem is that Google doesn't do business with kinderstart, or for any of the pages they rank. Google does business with advertisers, and the advertising market is thriving.
Also, "These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites)." not sure how long that's been there, but it's part of the guidelines that they post on their site. Sort of says they reserve the right to drop you in the bit bucket if they feel you're trying to game them.
Yes they did delist BMW.de and I believe it was done manually. It was also documented that it was done for attempting to game the system. bmw.de had hired a company to do the the site that engaged in some dubious SRO practices - they listed used cars ~200 times in the meta content headers IIRC.
For this group, they are nothing more than a crappy bunch of static links to other engines that let you do directed searches for early childhood education - oh, and lots of adds (2/3 - 3/4 of the page). I believe they also were engaged in some dubious backlink issues on blogs etc to get the page rank up. So Google tossed them in the hole.
I think that's fair - game the system, take the penalty hit.
Chief Executive Paul Otellini vowed to spend the next 90 days identifying underperforming business groups and cost inefficiencies in an effort to save the company $1 billion a year. He said he planned to make changes as his analysis progressed, rather than waiting until the end of his review.
Now my problem is that I have worked in large multi-division companies, when someone does an 'analysis' they start looking at numbers from either the top down or the bottom up. If he's going to take 90 days to map & evaluate every department in Intel, and make changes as his analysis progresses, what happens when he hits that first 'bad' set of numbers? Chances are, he's going to start making changes right there --- the problem is, he has only discovered a problem, he may or may not have found the cause.
From WebCowboy:
Translation: Responsive, strategic action is always better than "Analysis Paralysis".
From Odin_Tiger:
So...you're on a boat. It's slowly sinking. You begin to analyze the situation, and you discover what appears to be a large hole below the water line, which is taking on water at a pretty high rate. Do you:
A) Plug the hole as fast as you can, or
B) Make note of it, and any other holes you may find, but simply continue your analysis until you are sure you know everything there is (or was, before it sank) to know about the ship?
And from King_TJ:
I'm well aware that some of our management are worthless sponges, sucking up a paycheck while adding zero value to the company. I plan on kicking these people out as soon as I can, while looking at the rest of the bunch to see who else needs to stay, and who needs to go.
For Webbie: Only if your strategic action is, in fact, a correction to a cause of a problem. Removing Bob as manager from the FUD dept for poor results, doesn't solve the problem if Alice insists on telling the truth all the time & Bob is documenting things so he can fire her next week.
More in keeping with Intel, if you examine chip production from the bottom up:
Shipping - organized & ready to go when ship dates come 90%
Packaging - designed & orders placed - waiting on delivery 90%
Production - Achieve production goals 90% & retooling time down 10%
Marketing - Always perfect - ask them
Integration - 30% behind schedule and still working to get NSA Backdoor to work with the Integrated Trust Shafter.
Running through here, you have an obvious problem with the Integration department. From a perspective of raw productivity numbers, something has to change in the Integration dept. Having tweeked Integration we move on and find:
Oops, we just tweeked Integration, but the problem was really the NSA Backdoor and ITS depts.
Intel is moderatly huge w/ 90,000 Employees. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there are at least 450 departments [number chosen for easy numbers w/ 90 days] in the whole company. At that rate - they are going to average 5 depts a day (450/90). At that rate they are going to be looking at numbers and not causal relationships.
For Odin, looking at the production example, it doesn't do me any net gain to patch the hole in the bottom of the boat if I don't pay enough attention to notice that Alice has a shotgun & is trying to kill the minnow in the bottom of the boat with it.
For King, you may be correct, if they have been looking at pruning the management tree for a while, but the wording in the artical pushed me to the understanding that this was a dept based cleanup not an individual one.
No, what I see coming is a vast CYA-fest with chaos to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the **AA says it's not.
Note that format shifting from a digital format to an analog one (CD => Tape), or analog to analog (record => tape) was considered to be fair use. Same with making a backup tape for the car (tape=>tape). The rule used to be it was fair use as long as only 1 copy could be in use at a time - IE one tape in the car, another in the house - you can't be using both at the same time - it was fair use.
Now, anything but putting the CD/DVD in the player and sitting on the big spike is a violation of either their liscense or their 'copyright'.
To be honest, given Copy 123's product, it seems as if DVD copying for backup is legal (otherwise I don't see office max selling it). So if it's legal to make a copy, how can it not be legal to download a copy instead? - This issue would obviously be on the retransmition (UPLOADING) of the file.
I love these guys, there almost as cool as SCO. ... [tap][tap]... pay attention, you can get protection under copywrite - you are selling the data on the disc as a collective work, or you can be selling a liscense for the work on the disk. You don't get to play both games - if for no other reason, the IRS demands it be one or the other.
When you get around the 'it's not copywrite, it's a liscense' issue, they turn around and go back to quoting it's a copywrite violation.
Hello
Hmm, guess that's one way for us to be certain whether we buy a copywriten work or the liscence to view it. We can check the IRS filings of the companies that are members of the **AA. The sales have to be listed as goods or liscenses, and we know you never, ever, ever lie to the IRS.
I told you no text
Actually there is a large amount of case law that deals with 'state secrets'. Essentially, if forcing the govt/it's agent (AT&T) to admit to acting in a certain way exposes a 'state secret' then the court needs to dismiss the case. It dates back to the war of 1812 IIRC. Someones family tried to enforce a contract a spy had signed with the US govt, the court said that forcing the govt to acknowledge hiring the spy would endager the govt intelligence efforts.
Wether I agree or not, this case is almost exactly on point, the difference being internal vs external intelligence gathering. I still think that the issue is going to end up at the SCotUS before it dies.
Actually yes that is the one, and the $2.7M award was what I was commenting on - note that the judge thought it was excessive & reduced it.
I am iffy on the actuall case itself. If I spill any cup of coffee on myself, I expect to get burned - so how McD's can be 80% responsible for the burns I don't understand. I also don't understand why they didn't settle for the $20K she initially asked for. I do understand that McD's provides coffee at a higher temp than most places, so I can see them having some responsibility for the burns, but not 80%. It's not like an employee spilled it on her.
It's another lack of personal responsibility like these people who have been reading the warning label on cigarettes since they started 30 years ago, suing the mfg for their lung problems. Duh, you've been reading the warning for 30 years and NOW you want compensated because you didn't believe them?
Oh yes :) that's why you get coffee spill suits that result in multi million dollar settlements, and judges reducing the rewards all the time. Juries like to give money to 'the little guy' when it's a big bad corperation going after them.
The only evidence they seem to have is that they have screenshots of P2P software showing a time and an IP address, and the word of the ISP that at that time/date the IP address was assigned to my account.
I suppose that's nice, but it would take me 10 minutes to make a screenshot showing the whitehouse.gov web server sharing kiddy porn.
The other issue is that they don't just have to convince a Judge that it's a preponderance of evidence, they have to convince a jury. Given some of the behaviours of RIAA & MPAA, they might have a hard time convincing a jury that pissing into the wind is a bad idea. Add in the hysteria over bots/virii/trojans etc, showing that even pros like the military can't keep their systems clean may be enough there to point a jury to the conclusion that if I say I didn't do it, and **AA can't show anything else but that 'perhaps' my PC was involved, then they really don't have a preponderance.
Think of all the time users can save by including thier ever-so-helpfull smiley clickies, special cursors, and Bonzai-Buddy right into the install disk.
Actually, I don't think that any of their suits have actually been through the court system. Right now, it seems that they get up to the point of walking through the door & then drop the suit.
The courts can't rule on if their suits are viable/legal until one actually makes it through the door. If it goes to discovery & the courts uphold that they can't use the name/IP due to improper search/seasure then they're screwed.
Failing that, they have the preponderance of evidence - I think I would pass out the latest figures on botnets, along with reports of Govt/military/police 'puters being botted. "Latest reports indicate 20% of computers connected to the internet are vulnerable to remote control via malware, can **AA show mine wasn't controlled at the time of the alleged violation?"
Have the **AA bothered to track MAC addresses to show if there was an instance of IP spoofing, or simple IP overriding?
[sarcasm]
Oh sure, and next you're going to tell us that you want to be a person and not a human resource.
[/sarcasm]
Yeah, but they are the ones who decide what cases to proscecute.
This was a situation where Bob & Alice were involved in a fight, Alice turns to Ann and says "I'm going to use your phone to call the police."
Ann responds "Use your damned cellphone you arn't using my phone."
A week later Ann get's a summons stating she is being charged with 'Intimidating a witness.'
According to a DA here in MA "Use your own damn phone to call the police you arn't using mine!" is witness tampering.
- How dare you impune my credibility by pointing out the obvious fact that I'm wrong?
- Can't you see that I'm doing this for the children?
- Goodness, if you won't let me go after Take-Two for this, how can I possibly go after the boobie mods for all the other games out there?!
- It's not like parents should have to take any responsibility for what their children are doing on a computer. That's downright unAmerican.
Choose one & run with it.Retailers not 17 year olds, retailers won't stock it on the shelves if it's AO. Why?, because in some twisted marketing mindspace things nasty enough for mature teenagers only (graphic violence and aluded to sex) is credible, where-as adult only items (boobs) are the kiss of death to your credibility as a store. ...
My wife sometimes wonders if she's a bad parent because she would prefer her son to be surfing porn than sites like this. Personally, I think seeing sex is a whole lot heathier than violence. Hmm, in that light, the 'Hot Coffee' is the most acceptable part of that game
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:
- Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.
- A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.
- Spending cuts on health care & social services - most effecting poor single parents.
- Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.
So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.
- Conservatives in a classical sense are concerned with minimal government interfierance in the publics lives, small government, and fiscal responsabilities. In a sense they attempt to preserve the governmental structure with minimal changes - allowing society to grow & evolve around the existing structure.
- Neo Conservatives are concerned with a 'conservative' social agenda - which is neither conservative nor social in nature. They attempt to preserve a non-existant social order through increasingly restrictive government interfierance.
The problem is not with the issues, it's with the people in power, and the people who put them there. The last presidential election only about 60% of the people elligable voted - that's 40% of US citizens were too damn lazy to get out of their chair and flip a lever in a voting booth. If you know there is this huge untapped pool of people - how do you get them to vote? - You create a polarizing issue - one in which the status quo supports the other person and change supports you. Why? because people who are happy - or indifferent with how things are - will stay too lazy to vote - so you gain votes, and the other guy doesn't.Can you create polarization on the real issues of how do we spend tax dollars responsibly? It's accounting for gods sake - even accountants hate it!
But, if I tie spending billions on something wastefull, to spending a couple of million with a polarizing issue - stem cell research - I can polarize the whole issue, get enough votes, and get my billions to waste.
Face it, the only people who are really left without parties nowdays are the centrists like you & me. You can't make a platform based on ballanced fiscal responsibility, social equity, and personal responsibility. Only by creating a coalition of special interest groups can you get into office, and only by apeasing them can you stay there. I know one person who voted for Bush last time - why ? He was pro life --- she hated his spending policy, his military policy, and his general social policies, but he was pro life so she voted for him.
Polarize and win - if you can get enough people to vote for you for 1 issue and ignore all the others, you win. If you try to be ballanced and effective, you loose. It's really become that simple in American Politics.
A Velocity vector is a vector sum of all of the components in the system. The conservation of momentum implies that the sum of the vectors will remain constant. Assuming the destructive force creates no momentum change in the asteriod [virtually impossible] then that means only the sum of the vectors remains the same. 10% of the mass can be vector deviated 10deg stellar north as long as an equal mass is vector deviated 10 deg stellar south. In effect you change the asteriod from a point mass to a cone vector - some of the cone will hit earth, some of it won't. Additionally, you will also time offset some of the impacts - allowing heat dissepation and geographic change - ensuring that at least a good portion of the small impacts will be in the oceans.
Finally, you also have a phenomenon called atmospheric bounce. Put your hand outside the window of a car moving @ 60MPH. Angle it up @ 20deg & feel how much force is generated. Same thing happens when a rock hits the atmosphere at a glancing angle - a force is created under the rock tossing it back into space, if the rock is small enough to have it's vector affected by the force. For a huge rock, the weight to surface ratio is very high, resulting in a relatively low acceleration out of the atmosphere - not enough to create any significant vector change. For a small rock, the weight to surface ratio changes dramatically - allowing some of the small ones to skip out of the atmosphere with relatively little transfer of energy.
Remember though, Kay Jewelers sells only Created gemstones not synthetic ones.
Yes I was actually told this looking for a Vday present.
As for no MP3, AAC, WMA support - it's not a bug, it's a liscensing issue. You want to get FC for free, RH can't afford to pay per copy liscenses for those codecs. All 3 of those codecs are build on proprietary algorhythms which require a liscense. So, any US vendor - EU doesn't currently acknowledge software patents - has 2 choices:
- pay each owner a fee.
- not include the codec.
Not entirely surprising, they don't include the codec on the free downloads.Oh please, one does not buy a legislator.
There are simply too many competing interests for each single legislator. Therefore they are more like a timeshare. You get him this week, I get him next - sort of like renting, without the garuntee of him being available when you need him.
In order to show Google as a monopoly, you would have to show that Google's possesion of the data prevents anyone else from obtaining it (telco contract model), or that Google's predominance in the marketplace renders doing business with anyone else irrelivant (MS, US oil model).
The problem is that Google doesn't do business with kinderstart, or for any of the pages they rank. Google does business with advertisers, and the advertising market is thriving.
Also, "These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites)." not sure how long that's been there, but it's part of the guidelines that they post on their site. Sort of says they reserve the right to drop you in the bit bucket if they feel you're trying to game them.
Yes they did delist BMW.de and I believe it was done manually. It was also documented that it was done for attempting to game the system. bmw.de had hired a company to do the the site that engaged in some dubious SRO practices - they listed used cars ~200 times in the meta content headers IIRC. For this group, they are nothing more than a crappy bunch of static links to other engines that let you do directed searches for early childhood education - oh, and lots of adds (2/3 - 3/4 of the page). I believe they also were engaged in some dubious backlink issues on blogs etc to get the page rank up. So Google tossed them in the hole. I think that's fair - game the system, take the penalty hit.
Now my problem is that I have worked in large multi-division companies, when someone does an 'analysis' they start looking at numbers from either the top down or the bottom up. If he's going to take 90 days to map & evaluate every department in Intel, and make changes as his analysis progresses, what happens when he hits that first 'bad' set of numbers? Chances are, he's going to start making changes right there --- the problem is, he has only discovered a problem, he may or may not have found the cause.
From Odin_Tiger: And from King_TJ:From WebCowboy:
For Webbie: Only if your strategic action is, in fact, a correction to a cause of a problem. Removing Bob as manager from the FUD dept for poor results, doesn't solve the problem if Alice insists on telling the truth all the time & Bob is documenting things so he can fire her next week.
More in keeping with Intel, if you examine chip production from the bottom up:
- Shipping - organized & ready to go when ship dates come 90%
- Packaging - designed & orders placed - waiting on delivery 90%
- Production - Achieve production goals 90% & retooling time down 10%
- Marketing - Always perfect - ask them
- Integration - 30% behind schedule and still working to get NSA Backdoor to work with the Integrated Trust Shafter.
Running through here, you have an obvious problem with the Integration department. From a perspective of raw productivity numbers, something has to change in the Integration dept. Having tweeked Integration we move on and find:- NSA Backdoor - finished design specifications 20% behind, Interface specs 30% behind, and prototype 40% behind.
- Integrated Trust Shafter - delivered Interface Specs 15% ahead, but prototype 30% behind.
Oops, we just tweeked Integration, but the problem was really the NSA Backdoor and ITS depts.Intel is moderatly huge w/ 90,000 Employees. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there are at least 450 departments [number chosen for easy numbers w/ 90 days] in the whole company. At that rate - they are going to average 5 depts a day (450/90). At that rate they are going to be looking at numbers and not causal relationships.
For Odin, looking at the production example, it doesn't do me any net gain to patch the hole in the bottom of the boat if I don't pay enough attention to notice that Alice has a shotgun & is trying to kill the minnow in the bottom of the boat with it.
For King, you may be correct, if they have been looking at pruning the management tree for a while, but the wording in the artical pushed me to the understanding that this was a dept based cleanup not an individual one.
No, what I see coming is a vast CYA-fest with chaos to follow.