In Australia we have a shield law for good samaritans. There are three caveats required to invoke the shield law:
1. You must be acting reasonably (although this is to be interpreted in the favor of the good samaritan if in doubt).
2. You must not act without permission, although you may assume you have permission if the victim is unable to give it.
3. You must not be performing something for which you are professionally trained and the act you are seeking shielding from is something for which you could be held liable for under that training (eg. doctor committing mal-practice).
The first test came when a good samaritan ripped a lady's top off to be able to perform CPR (she had had a heart attack and collapsed on the street, and her bra was impeding his effort). She sued him for exposing her in public, and the shield law meant the case couldn't even be heard. IANAL but I understand from my first aid instructor that you are legally shielded against all possible consequences; criminal, civil, procedural, and anything else you can think of.
I understand we also have specific crimes along the lines of "Indifference" and "Aggravated Indifference" which mean you can be held criminally liable for not helping, but a paramedic I know tells me that this is based on your level of training: an average person is expected to call 000 (our 911 equivalent), while a doctor is expected to stop and lend full medical assistance, and a soldier would be expected to intervene physically if the odds meant his own safety wouldn't be compromised. He (the paramedic) said that he was unofficially instructed to GTFO if he ever witnesses an accident, because legally he MUST stop and render medical assistance, but he could be held liable for screwing up first aid and his professional indemnity insurance wouldn't cover him (as the incident wasn't "on the job"). IOW it's better if he was just "never there".
Point of order: It would be a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to not provide public education to at least some reasonable level. That said, the US hasn't ratified that particular treaty anyway.
My understanding from the intro subjects I took while avoiding doing my advanced engineering electives is that while the speed of light in a given medium can change, the speed of light in a vacuum is the c we're talking about when we say you can't go faster than it.
From wikipedia:
"It is important to note that, at a microscopic level, the speed at which the photons travel is always the same. That is, the speed of light, commonly designated as c, does not change. The light appears to travel more slowly while traversing a medium due to the frequent interactions of the photons with matter. This is similar to a train that, while moving, travels at a constant velocity. If such a train were to travel on a set of tracks with many stops it would appear to be moving more slowly overall; i.e., have a lower average velocity, despite having a constant higher velocity while moving."
So the speed of light isn't actually changing in the medium; only the aggregate observed speed at a macroscopic level. Microscopically, light always travels at the same constant c, and the refractive index is reflective of the property of the material which tends to make the light take a longer path. The longer path results in the group velocity being slower than the individual velocity.
Wikipedia's information on negative-index lightspeed is much more opaque (pardon the pun):
"However, group velocity can become negative, and exceed the velocity of light c, in the particular case of anomalous dispersion. As a result, a burst of a laser's pulse will appear to exit the rear side of the negative index metamaterial before the laser pulse appears to enter the material. However the speed of transmitting information is always limited to c."
This result, as described, seems as though you ARE transmitting information faster than c, and I suspect the author of the wikipedia text realized this and just added the assertion that it doesn't, rather than re-working the example so it's correct. Alternatively, the 'observation' of the beam leaving the material before it entered it is an artifact of the observation process.
I would suggest that, based on the mechanism for the apparent slowing of light in a standard material, nothing about a negative-index material should be able to actually SPEED photons, as nothing in a normal material actually SLOWS photons, but I feel like I'm using wikipedia to falsify itself, and you could argue about the reliability of my source.
To sum up:
There are three 'velocities' of interest wrt light: phase velocity, group velocity, and photon velocity. Any of the former two can, in exotic setups, exceed c (and I do NOT grok the consequences); the latter is always precisely c.
The speed of propogation of information seems to be limited to the lesser of: 1. The photon velocity, and 2. The greater of the phase and group velocity.
Don't ask me to back this up; I've already exceeded the limit of MY speed of propagation of information (from wikipedia to brain).
Firefox... Web Developer... Edit HTML. Insert nasty message into page. Select, Copy. I assume they're reading the copy operations on their own site: after all, they're keen for web masters to realize how useful it is, so they must believe it, right?
Which is why open-source should work well. Test it slow-and-crappy, polish, and get to the point your risk is much lower in getting something printed. I'm not saying you can do anything on a breadboard, just that you can do lots of interesting stuff on them, and you can definitely do a lot of your preliminary debugging for all sorts of projects. This massively reduces the risk that you'll end up shelling out $100 bucks a few times over for buggy PCBs. Iteratively design and 'release'-early-and-often, iron out all the wrinkles, and then (hopefully) you'll have a community starting around your design and can get together to buy a whole panel of the things.
And >8 bits? I hate wiring up busses, and even I don't start complaining until we hit at least 16 bits, and a few devices hanging off them. Spring-loaded sockets and good single-core wire just makes it so easy. Admittedly, if you start hanging >~5 devices off them, even 8-bitters can start to suck.
Oh, on the off-chance anyone reading is still shelling out $$$ for packs of breadboard wire: go buy a couple of meters of single-core CAT5 from somewhere that sells it that way. Give your little sister a set of wire strippers and like $5, and you can have ten times what you get in those little packs that cost like $10 for pretty much the same price.
I agree on the 2nd point. There wont be liability for a *design*. Its the people that build it that are responsible.
And maybe not even then. Working in finance, I had it drummed into me to do two things with every decision:
Risk Analysis
MORE Risk Analysis
As it was explained to me, if I (representing my employer, not personally) chose to buy a linux 'widget' that we dropped into our product, off a company which specialized in selling linux widgets, and it failed, costing our customers millions, the liability would pretty much go like this:
Did the vendor specifically warrant the widget to be suitable for processing millions in financial transactions in our precise environment, and I checked it out with a quick rule-of-price ($50 bad, $50,000 good)? --> I made a good choice, the vendor screwed up. They're liable.
Was the widget just a widget, which we shelled out $X for and got our $X worth out of it, but it turned out to be unsuitable in some specific way for our use, though probably good enough for 99% of the people who do buy it? --> I screwed up, and should have realised that I really should have spent 100*$X on something much more enterprisey, which would still not be warranted for what we did with it, but at least I could point to how much we spent and have some argument that it should have been better.
While this doesn't excuse overt lack of safety or total unsuitability for the purpose it's being sold for, I can imagine examples like this:
Widgets Inc builds cheap crappy carputers from an open-source design. SomeDude Pty Ltd on-sells and installs them. Jim gets SomeDude to install it in his new Ferrari, and SomeDude tries to tell him it's not designed for that. Jim crashes because the carputer isn't designed for Ferraris. SomeDude still has copies of correspondence where he tried to talk Jim into buying a much more expensive alternative which is safe in Ferraris, but eventually agreed to do the install to avoid Jim just trying to do it himself anyway.
At the very least, the manufacturer is definitely not liable, and there's a good chance the installer isn't either. IANAL, but this is roughly the example I got in my training when I got into financial software.
Basically, the up-shot was 'you get what you pay for' - not quality-wise, but liability-wise. More money = vendor implicitly accepts more liability. This is why big government agencies and massive corporates pay silly amounts of money for simple stuff: when it fails, they want to say "We paid $3,000 each for these toilet seats! We had a good solid expectation that even though they appear to any scientific test to be identical to $300 ones, that they should be much safer, and the embarrassing injury caused to our esteemed VIP client is certainly not our fault. We spent every penny we could to ensure his behind was perfectly safe!"
Cisco does prototype rounds. Backyard electronics uses breadboards. The applypower-debug-applypower cycle is pretty fast too, and debugging involves probing with a multimeter (try your local electronics store: crappy ones which are good enough for most projects are <$30) and moving some connections around.
Manufactured prototypes are the equivalent of doing a full installer-build, burning to CD, and installing on a fresh machine, not compile-debug-compile.
Working with prototypes is 'nicer', but there are plenty of quick and cheap options available to the hobbyist electronics designer. There are also plenty of free design tools for electronics, once you get to the point you need one. Cross-compilers are everywhere, and the free PCB layout stuff isn't terrible anymore. There are PCB manufacturers who don't even have Protel these days.
I designed a bit of control hardware which I sold to a national coin machine manufacturer a few years back. I spent months wiring prototypes up, and I even had a working model running across several breadboards. I re-used the breadboards and most of the components building other bits (half the components are now in a vero-board car alarm in my mazda.) The total cost for link wire, breadboards, a good stock of components (hint: $2 'random bags' from your local component store), a multimeter, and a DIY programmer kit from a Chinese drop-shipper cost me maybe $200 all up. Component manufacturers will often send you free samples of anything you can't afford if you say you're working on a new product. And when you're done and bored with the project, you can pull it all to pieces and go build something else.
Compared to the laptop I bought to play Red Alert on during boring engineering classes, the total investment in gear to work on hardware designs was very low.
Now you won't want to go building a bunch of the things on breadboards, or even vero, but we're talking about open-source design, right?
Finally, open-source software doesn't usually make the author money by selling the software. Most of the mates I have who do lots of open-source work do it either because they're interested in the project and want to improve it for their own use, or else they like having lines like "Commit privilege to the linux kernel source" on their resume.
I always envisaged open-source hardware to work by the design being published and expecting users to take the manufacturing effort away from the people doing the designing. It's an upside, not a downside, unless...
You're not really that into open-source principles, you're into money-source principles. You want a bunch of (almost-)free labor to improve your crappy hardware designs, but you still want to lock people into buying trashy over-priced hardware from you. Don't "Ask Slashdot", ask "MadeInChina.com". The labor is slightly more expensive but not much, and they'll really and truly promise not to nick your IP, and pretend to let you have world-wide exclusive rights to selling the widget they designed for you.
Your line of logic basically says, "You're only responsible for one mistake and not responsible for anything after that," which is absolutely wrong. If someone slams their car into a pedestrian and then drives away, their mistake doesn't stop with just hitting someone. It's now a Hit & Run. Each decision that Tiger made led to other decisions. He just kept making bad ones. Repeatedly.
I think the intended point was more along the lines of 'had you not made the mistake of slamming your car into the pedestrian, nobody would give a damn that you were driving away'. The driving away was only a mistake in context of the previous mistake. Had Tiger avoided the mistake of getting married, he could go on driving away at whomever he liked without repercussions.
Well, without repercussions that can't be treated with medication, anyway.
I worked for a spin-off of a US company in another country, so I never met the founder. I do know the US company used a 3-letter acronym from a name indicating they may well have been the first.
There was also a 3rd-party software house involved who used a four-letter acronym.
Let's pick and choose some quotes from the video. Are we talking about the launch of an OS here, or kinky new toys for a swingers' party?
Look at the activities you and your guests can try at your party, and choose the ones that seem to you to be the most fun. There's a video of each activity from one of our parties, and we have tried them all, right?
Some of the host notes, they list bonus activities... But you may wanna try them, but you have to make sure you have the right devices at hand.
I mean, it's a good way to get things going, right? Whatever your party is, you got four separate videos of each of us doing bits and pieces of this kind of thing at our own parties...
You figure out what your guests want, and maybe just play it by ear! In any event, we each did an activity or two.
I mean, bottom line, guests love it when the activity is about them. Hey another thing, I found that it really helped to name the person to be first with the hands-on activity, and have them pick the next person, and so on and so on.
Some activies have a... modest setup, you know, they require certain things for you to have at the house.
In any case, none of the setup is too hard, right? You need to make sure that you're ready to go when your guests arrive and, there are bonus activities in some cases and, you wanna go deeper perhaps into it then you have to have the equipment to do that.
I think the biggest thing is to be totally creative with the party and the activities. I mean, this is your party!
The solution is simple. The second someone from border control looks at you funny, rip the SD card from your device and swallow it. They'll be SO confused when they finally recover an SD card with a dozen pictures of scenery.
The up-side is that after a few dozen "recoveries" of memory cards with nothing even remotely bad on them, they'll decide the policy isn't worth all the poop and ditch it!
Having come from a business in the financial industry who spent years angsting over Linux, I've got a different perspective.
We weren't just out to convince consumers; our potential customers weren't the ones we needed to ultimately keep happy. Our 'Do or Die' audience were the major banks, MasterCard, VISA, First Data International... And these are very risk-driven places. Not risky - if anything, risk averse - but mostly just risk-focused.
In these risk-focused organisations, relative newbies like Solaris are only treated as acceptable because they come from the SunOS heritage. Their risk is somewhat well understood.
Oracle makes database software. Other people just shuffle bits around somewhat haphazardly and hope the information stays put. They understand the risks of Oracle. Moreover, they all speak the common language of Oracle Risk - they can talk between themselves with that as a baseline, and not waste tremendous time justifying.
We were looking at slashing our software budgets by hundreds of thousands of dollars (which represented well over 90% of our total OTS software budget!) by going to RHEL and MySQL. All the feasibility studies said they would still exceed our requirements, just as Solaris and Oracle did.
Result? No go. It was mentioned at the corporate level, and we got our mandate. The big banks don't rely on Linux or MySQL, and nor will we. How can they sit in the corporate box at the racing and meet the other bankers' eyes, knowing that they're on the well-known, stable Oracle, and we're just on MySQL?
The concession I eventually got was if I can find three reputable banks owning to using both Linux and MySQL, we could look at switching, and it would go from "cheap and risky" to "cutting edge". I moved on before that happened.
If all of the banks follow similar rules, it'll never happen.
I'd be interested to know your source. Wikipedia, at least, begs to differ.
It tells us that the single inverted comma can be used interchangably with the double for indicating a quote. It does mention that some style guides suggest single quotes be used for irony and double for verbatim quoting; however, this is a matter of style, not correctness, and style guides are not authoritative.
Another distinction which is occasionally used is in meta-mentions of words or concepts; the single quote refers to the concept, while the double refers to the word itself. The example given is:
When discussing "use", use 'use'.
Ultimately, double inverted commas are most certainly not reserved for quotes.
If you have a source which disagrees, please share it.
Oh, "that's what my primary school teacher always taught me" does not count. Nor, for that matter, does "my english professor insisted we use that style if we wanted good marks."
They're also called "inverted commas" and have a variety of uses beyond indicating a quote, such as that one right there (indicating that use of a term refers to the term itself, not the thing it describes). I think it's fairly clear that he was attributing some paraphrased (based on his own interpretation) text to the author, and I think that's a valid usage.
Slashdot Mirror
In Australia we have a shield law for good samaritans. There are three caveats required to invoke the shield law:
1. You must be acting reasonably (although this is to be interpreted in the favor of the good samaritan if in doubt).
2. You must not act without permission, although you may assume you have permission if the victim is unable to give it.
3. You must not be performing something for which you are professionally trained and the act you are seeking shielding from is something for which you could be held liable for under that training (eg. doctor committing mal-practice).
The first test came when a good samaritan ripped a lady's top off to be able to perform CPR (she had had a heart attack and collapsed on the street, and her bra was impeding his effort). She sued him for exposing her in public, and the shield law meant the case couldn't even be heard. IANAL but I understand from my first aid instructor that you are legally shielded against all possible consequences; criminal, civil, procedural, and anything else you can think of.
I understand we also have specific crimes along the lines of "Indifference" and "Aggravated Indifference" which mean you can be held criminally liable for not helping, but a paramedic I know tells me that this is based on your level of training: an average person is expected to call 000 (our 911 equivalent), while a doctor is expected to stop and lend full medical assistance, and a soldier would be expected to intervene physically if the odds meant his own safety wouldn't be compromised. He (the paramedic) said that he was unofficially instructed to GTFO if he ever witnesses an accident, because legally he MUST stop and render medical assistance, but he could be held liable for screwing up first aid and his professional indemnity insurance wouldn't cover him (as the incident wasn't "on the job"). IOW it's better if he was just "never there".
I believe they're going for item 1 with this one.
Point of order: It would be a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to not provide public education to at least some reasonable level. That said, the US hasn't ratified that particular treaty anyway.
My understanding from the intro subjects I took while avoiding doing my advanced engineering electives is that while the speed of light in a given medium can change, the speed of light in a vacuum is the c we're talking about when we say you can't go faster than it.
From wikipedia:
"It is important to note that, at a microscopic level, the speed at which the photons travel is always the same. That is, the speed of light, commonly designated as c, does not change. The light appears to travel more slowly while traversing a medium due to the frequent interactions of the photons with matter. This is similar to a train that, while moving, travels at a constant velocity. If such a train were to travel on a set of tracks with many stops it would appear to be moving more slowly overall; i.e., have a lower average velocity, despite having a constant higher velocity while moving."
So the speed of light isn't actually changing in the medium; only the aggregate observed speed at a macroscopic level. Microscopically, light always travels at the same constant c, and the refractive index is reflective of the property of the material which tends to make the light take a longer path. The longer path results in the group velocity being slower than the individual velocity.
Wikipedia's information on negative-index lightspeed is much more opaque (pardon the pun):
"However, group velocity can become negative, and exceed the velocity of light c, in the particular case of anomalous dispersion. As a result, a burst of a laser's pulse will appear to exit the rear side of the negative index metamaterial before the laser pulse appears to enter the material. However the speed of transmitting information is always limited to c."
This result, as described, seems as though you ARE transmitting information faster than c, and I suspect the author of the wikipedia text realized this and just added the assertion that it doesn't, rather than re-working the example so it's correct. Alternatively, the 'observation' of the beam leaving the material before it entered it is an artifact of the observation process.
I would suggest that, based on the mechanism for the apparent slowing of light in a standard material, nothing about a negative-index material should be able to actually SPEED photons, as nothing in a normal material actually SLOWS photons, but I feel like I'm using wikipedia to falsify itself, and you could argue about the reliability of my source.
To sum up:
There are three 'velocities' of interest wrt light: phase velocity, group velocity, and photon velocity. Any of the former two can, in exotic setups, exceed c (and I do NOT grok the consequences); the latter is always precisely c.
The speed of propogation of information seems to be limited to the lesser of: 1. The photon velocity, and 2. The greater of the phase and group velocity.
Don't ask me to back this up; I've already exceeded the limit of MY speed of propagation of information (from wikipedia to brain).
Firefox... Web Developer... Edit HTML. Insert nasty message into page. Select, Copy. I assume they're reading the copy operations on their own site: after all, they're keen for web masters to realize how useful it is, so they must believe it, right?
DIAF delivered.
Slashdot, start your browsers!
Which is why open-source should work well. Test it slow-and-crappy, polish, and get to the point your risk is much lower in getting something printed. I'm not saying you can do anything on a breadboard, just that you can do lots of interesting stuff on them, and you can definitely do a lot of your preliminary debugging for all sorts of projects. This massively reduces the risk that you'll end up shelling out $100 bucks a few times over for buggy PCBs. Iteratively design and 'release'-early-and-often, iron out all the wrinkles, and then (hopefully) you'll have a community starting around your design and can get together to buy a whole panel of the things.
And >8 bits? I hate wiring up busses, and even I don't start complaining until we hit at least 16 bits, and a few devices hanging off them. Spring-loaded sockets and good single-core wire just makes it so easy. Admittedly, if you start hanging >~5 devices off them, even 8-bitters can start to suck.
Oh, on the off-chance anyone reading is still shelling out $$$ for packs of breadboard wire: go buy a couple of meters of single-core CAT5 from somewhere that sells it that way. Give your little sister a set of wire strippers and like $5, and you can have ten times what you get in those little packs that cost like $10 for pretty much the same price.
I agree on the 2nd point. There wont be liability for a *design*. Its the people that build it that are responsible.
And maybe not even then. Working in finance, I had it drummed into me to do two things with every decision:
As it was explained to me, if I (representing my employer, not personally) chose to buy a linux 'widget' that we dropped into our product, off a company which specialized in selling linux widgets, and it failed, costing our customers millions, the liability would pretty much go like this:
Did the vendor specifically warrant the widget to be suitable for processing millions in financial transactions in our precise environment, and I checked it out with a quick rule-of-price ($50 bad, $50,000 good)? --> I made a good choice, the vendor screwed up. They're liable.
Was the widget just a widget, which we shelled out $X for and got our $X worth out of it, but it turned out to be unsuitable in some specific way for our use, though probably good enough for 99% of the people who do buy it? --> I screwed up, and should have realised that I really should have spent 100*$X on something much more enterprisey, which would still not be warranted for what we did with it, but at least I could point to how much we spent and have some argument that it should have been better.
While this doesn't excuse overt lack of safety or total unsuitability for the purpose it's being sold for, I can imagine examples like this:
Widgets Inc builds cheap crappy carputers from an open-source design. SomeDude Pty Ltd on-sells and installs them. Jim gets SomeDude to install it in his new Ferrari, and SomeDude tries to tell him it's not designed for that. Jim crashes because the carputer isn't designed for Ferraris. SomeDude still has copies of correspondence where he tried to talk Jim into buying a much more expensive alternative which is safe in Ferraris, but eventually agreed to do the install to avoid Jim just trying to do it himself anyway.
At the very least, the manufacturer is definitely not liable, and there's a good chance the installer isn't either. IANAL, but this is roughly the example I got in my training when I got into financial software.
Basically, the up-shot was 'you get what you pay for' - not quality-wise, but liability-wise. More money = vendor implicitly accepts more liability. This is why big government agencies and massive corporates pay silly amounts of money for simple stuff: when it fails, they want to say "We paid $3,000 each for these toilet seats! We had a good solid expectation that even though they appear to any scientific test to be identical to $300 ones, that they should be much safer, and the embarrassing injury caused to our esteemed VIP client is certainly not our fault. We spent every penny we could to ensure his behind was perfectly safe!"
Cisco does prototype rounds. Backyard electronics uses breadboards. The applypower-debug-applypower cycle is pretty fast too, and debugging involves probing with a multimeter (try your local electronics store: crappy ones which are good enough for most projects are <$30) and moving some connections around.
Manufactured prototypes are the equivalent of doing a full installer-build, burning to CD, and installing on a fresh machine, not compile-debug-compile.
Working with prototypes is 'nicer', but there are plenty of quick and cheap options available to the hobbyist electronics designer. There are also plenty of free design tools for electronics, once you get to the point you need one. Cross-compilers are everywhere, and the free PCB layout stuff isn't terrible anymore. There are PCB manufacturers who don't even have Protel these days.
I designed a bit of control hardware which I sold to a national coin machine manufacturer a few years back. I spent months wiring prototypes up, and I even had a working model running across several breadboards. I re-used the breadboards and most of the components building other bits (half the components are now in a vero-board car alarm in my mazda.) The total cost for link wire, breadboards, a good stock of components (hint: $2 'random bags' from your local component store), a multimeter, and a DIY programmer kit from a Chinese drop-shipper cost me maybe $200 all up. Component manufacturers will often send you free samples of anything you can't afford if you say you're working on a new product. And when you're done and bored with the project, you can pull it all to pieces and go build something else.
Compared to the laptop I bought to play Red Alert on during boring engineering classes, the total investment in gear to work on hardware designs was very low.
Now you won't want to go building a bunch of the things on breadboards, or even vero, but we're talking about open-source design, right?
Finally, open-source software doesn't usually make the author money by selling the software. Most of the mates I have who do lots of open-source work do it either because they're interested in the project and want to improve it for their own use, or else they like having lines like "Commit privilege to the linux kernel source" on their resume.
I always envisaged open-source hardware to work by the design being published and expecting users to take the manufacturing effort away from the people doing the designing. It's an upside, not a downside, unless...
You're not really that into open-source principles, you're into money-source principles. You want a bunch of (almost-)free labor to improve your crappy hardware designs, but you still want to lock people into buying trashy over-priced hardware from you. Don't "Ask Slashdot", ask "MadeInChina.com". The labor is slightly more expensive but not much, and they'll really and truly promise not to nick your IP, and pretend to let you have world-wide exclusive rights to selling the widget they designed for you.
Your line of logic basically says, "You're only responsible for one mistake and not responsible for anything after that," which is absolutely wrong. If someone slams their car into a pedestrian and then drives away, their mistake doesn't stop with just hitting someone. It's now a Hit & Run. Each decision that Tiger made led to other decisions. He just kept making bad ones. Repeatedly.
I think the intended point was more along the lines of 'had you not made the mistake of slamming your car into the pedestrian, nobody would give a damn that you were driving away'. The driving away was only a mistake in context of the previous mistake. Had Tiger avoided the mistake of getting married, he could go on driving away at whomever he liked without repercussions.
Well, without repercussions that can't be treated with medication, anyway.
'one year' is not the most meaningful metric when talking about the life of an ink cartridge refill. In fairness, I suppose it's useful to you.
I worked for a spin-off of a US company in another country, so I never met the founder. I do know the US company used a 3-letter acronym from a name indicating they may well have been the first.
There was also a 3rd-party software house involved who used a four-letter acronym.
Sounding familiar?
Of course it does. Otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.
These cards are also probably a handy to pay illegal aliens who can't get bank accounts (just speculating).
I used to write software for one of these companies. They practically marketed it that way.
You're still riding the wrong kind of motorcycle.
I can't find the mod option for tl;dr.
Ah, Slashdot. Where the moderations are funnier than the comments themselves.
No. Motorcycles are boring. A thoroughbred.
You're riding the wrong kinda motorcycle.
Let's pick and choose some quotes from the video. Are we talking about the launch of an OS here, or kinky new toys for a swingers' party?
Look at the activities you and your guests can try at your party, and choose the ones that seem to you to be the most fun. There's a video of each activity from one of our parties, and we have tried them all, right?
Some of the host notes, they list bonus activities... But you may wanna try them, but you have to make sure you have the right devices at hand.
I mean, it's a good way to get things going, right? Whatever your party is, you got four separate videos of each of us doing bits and pieces of this kind of thing at our own parties...
You figure out what your guests want, and maybe just play it by ear! In any event, we each did an activity or two.
I mean, bottom line, guests love it when the activity is about them. Hey another thing, I found that it really helped to name the person to be first with the hands-on activity, and have them pick the next person, and so on and so on.
Some activies have a ... modest setup, you know, they require certain things for you to have at the house.
In any case, none of the setup is too hard, right? You need to make sure that you're ready to go when your guests arrive and, there are bonus activities in some cases and, you wanna go deeper perhaps into it then you have to have the equipment to do that.
I think the biggest thing is to be totally creative with the party and the activities. I mean, this is your party!
Have fun out there!
"'tain't [it ain't] the pussy, 'tain't the asshole". This is a modern slang usage.
Next time, check your references before you promulgate such tripe.
Oh I wasn't going to take one for the team. I was kinda hoping someone else would.
A: I want my rights!
B: No. Have some laws.
A: Civil disobedience! HA!
B: Eh. Torture and illegal imprisonment. Whatever.
A: Uh.
Oh, America. Land of the free.
The solution is simple. The second someone from border control looks at you funny, rip the SD card from your device and swallow it. They'll be SO confused when they finally recover an SD card with a dozen pictures of scenery.
The up-side is that after a few dozen "recoveries" of memory cards with nothing even remotely bad on them, they'll decide the policy isn't worth all the poop and ditch it!
Now THAT'S taking one for the team.
Having come from a business in the financial industry who spent years angsting over Linux, I've got a different perspective. We weren't just out to convince consumers; our potential customers weren't the ones we needed to ultimately keep happy. Our 'Do or Die' audience were the major banks, MasterCard, VISA, First Data International... And these are very risk-driven places. Not risky - if anything, risk averse - but mostly just risk-focused. In these risk-focused organisations, relative newbies like Solaris are only treated as acceptable because they come from the SunOS heritage. Their risk is somewhat well understood.
Oracle makes database software. Other people just shuffle bits around somewhat haphazardly and hope the information stays put. They understand the risks of Oracle. Moreover, they all speak the common language of Oracle Risk - they can talk between themselves with that as a baseline, and not waste tremendous time justifying.
We were looking at slashing our software budgets by hundreds of thousands of dollars (which represented well over 90% of our total OTS software budget!) by going to RHEL and MySQL. All the feasibility studies said they would still exceed our requirements, just as Solaris and Oracle did.
Result? No go. It was mentioned at the corporate level, and we got our mandate. The big banks don't rely on Linux or MySQL, and nor will we. How can they sit in the corporate box at the racing and meet the other bankers' eyes, knowing that they're on the well-known, stable Oracle, and we're just on MySQL?
The concession I eventually got was if I can find three reputable banks owning to using both Linux and MySQL, we could look at switching, and it would go from "cheap and risky" to "cutting edge". I moved on before that happened.
If all of the banks follow similar rules, it'll never happen.
I'd be interested to know your source. Wikipedia, at least, begs to differ.
It tells us that the single inverted comma can be used interchangably with the double for indicating a quote. It does mention that some style guides suggest single quotes be used for irony and double for verbatim quoting; however, this is a matter of style, not correctness, and style guides are not authoritative.
Another distinction which is occasionally used is in meta-mentions of words or concepts; the single quote refers to the concept, while the double refers to the word itself. The example given is: When discussing "use", use 'use'.
Ultimately, double inverted commas are most certainly not reserved for quotes.
If you have a source which disagrees, please share it.
Oh, "that's what my primary school teacher always taught me" does not count. Nor, for that matter, does "my english professor insisted we use that style if we wanted good marks."
They're also called "inverted commas" and have a variety of uses beyond indicating a quote, such as that one right there (indicating that use of a term refers to the term itself, not the thing it describes). I think it's fairly clear that he was attributing some paraphrased (based on his own interpretation) text to the author, and I think that's a valid usage.
That's odd, I thought we were practicing sustainable agriculture and conservation as well? Wait, who's 'we' in your case?