If you haven't seen FireFly, then I wouldn't expect you to think much of Serenity, because you don't have the correct context in which to place the film.
I guess I'll have to be the exception that proves the rule... I saw Serenity first and completely enjoyed it. I got enough from the dialogue and how everyone played off each other to figure enough to not be confused.
Did I understand everything? Probably not. But even after seeing Firefly I still don't, but on the other hand, I found the verse crafted well enough that I figure even if I don't know an exact reason for something, one exists that makes sense.
Truth is eyewitness testimony from the viewpoint of the witness. Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable because of memory and their own personal skew on events, yet for them, it's true.
Fact is what really happened.
Check out Rashomon some day.
It's probably a personal definition of sorts, but I consider truths to be personal, and facts to be universal. Probably along definition eight in your list.
(On a personal note, I fear you're going to be modded down inappropriately... You're articulate in your point and state it very clearly. While I'll admit to not being fully aware of your past history, at least in this case it doesn't seem bad. It's the people who kneejerk a -1 that are just as bad as the raving nutters that trumpet this from on high...)
I have no problem with people believing in one or more deities. Some feel the need to have a higher power looking over them. I, personally, am confused by this necessity yet I see some reasoning behind Voltaire's statement that if there was no god, we would invent him.
Yet to be willfully ignorant of the scientific process and instead believe solely in a god is to inadvertantly question him. If you believe that the world is only 10,000 years (or 6,000, or whatever the going age is), then how do you explain the dating processes scientists use that result in objects older than that? The most common argument I hear about this is that "It's the way He wants it to be," yet that throws into question the believability of a benevolent deity since why would a benevolent deity purposefully mislead his creation?
I shudder what would happen if fundamentalists in Europe back in the 1500s and 1600s had been able to fully supress what was discovered. Would we still believe that Earth is flat and the solar system was geocentric?
If you do not believe in evolution, how can you understand how penicillin has become ineffective and how superbugs are being uncovered; strains of bacteria and virii that, while exhibiting all the characteristics of previous ones, are immune to the same attack styles?
Truth and fact are two seperate ideas. They can very well be mutually exclusive.
I agree with his views on this, I think the EFF is wrong. The DMCA belongs to an old business model, one that Mark and others are moving away from.
Whether or not the DMCA belongs to an old business model is irrelivant (1998 is outdated?) The media companies pushed for it, got it, and now have to deal with the simple fact that Sec 202, Title 512(c)(1) is US Law. That gives YouTube safe harbour provisions.
If the media companies want to change the DMCA, they should take it up with their friends in Congress, not hope Viacom wins this lawsuit. (Well...ideally...)
I don't think there's any regulation stating 911 has to arrive as fast as other calls, only that it's illegal not to provide 911 service.
Apparently, this is all the FCC requires VOIP providers do: ( http://www.voip911.gov/ ) * Deliver all 911 calls to the local emergency call center; * Deliver the customer's call back number and location information where the emergency call center is capable of receiving it; and * Inform their customers of the capabilities and limitations of their VoIP 911 service.
In fact, one thing the FCC stresses that VOIP providers inform their customers of is that "VoIP service may not work during a power outage, or when the Internet connection fails or becomes overloaded." ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html ) There are no guarentees of QOS of any sort on 911 calls apparently, down to 'reaching the call center.'
And if Vonage is put on the slow lanes, Verizon could argue that the lines are simply overloaded and Verizon has the superiour infrastructure.
Apples and oranges. Botted systems represent a security risk to the ISP and to other customers and are not providing a commercial service. (Incidentally, it's also probably against their Terms of Serivce to run a botted system, but TOS is only pulled out when it benefits them...) Net neutrality is ISPs charging companies to use the faster lanes which ends up getting passed to the consumer and is nothing more than a money grab.
Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues?
Oddly, if you QOS port 25 the spam goes through just as fast as the legit email. Incidentally, this is an argument for quarantining systems, not net neutrality.
Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP....like ISPs do anything about spam and viruses now to begin with. They'd claim common carrier and do nothing like usual.
Plus it's not giving up on video/audio and VOIP...it's giving up on third party streaming video and audio and VOIP. Why should Verizon allow Vonage's VOIP (yea, i know the patent issues, bear with me) to travel as fast as Verizon's VOIP solution? Without competition, Verizon has no reason to improve their service either.
Net neutrality = competition allowed to exist = better for consumers.
I think, and I could be completely wrong here, but the theory seems sound, that IBM's method is more efficient in the mass market arena, for the people that don't lap their heatsinks to a mirror shine. It's better to be slightly notched than a non-lapped heatsink, but lapped still beats out this style.
In other words, this is for OEM systems, like Dell, or lazy system builders, like me. Lapping would still be the preferred for the hard core clockers who can easily apply that microlayer of paste.
I'd agree with that in this case. They took existing product and made an improvement to it. How long do you think it took them to determine that cross-hatched X pattern was ideal?
It's also relatively novel, compared to the general trend of having the smoothest surface possible. I'd get one of these, mostly because I'm too lazy and inexperienced with the full on lapping and polishing method.
I do. Usually things like DVDs or Wii/DS games and accessories. Books not as much, but still sometimes.
The extra $2 I end up saving ordering online in most cases doesn't make up for the ability to have it right then and not worry about USPS losing it, or waiting a week longer than expected.
Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board.
That's why in any bracket they always put the #1 ranked team against the #16 ranked team. (and #2 against #15...and so on, so the only "real" competition happens in the middle.)
Check out your nearby Final Four bracket and check how they're grouped. I think you'll be pleasently disappointed....Although I'd say Comcast lost fair and square to Sony.
Yep. I go in, browse either the dvd section or nintendo section (or the rare occassion, the computer accessories section), get what I want, pay and leave.
Never bought a big ticket item there though, so that might be different.
I'm also curious if those numbers include flaws in Microsoft OFFICE that are listed as critical and can hose your system...like those five "0-day" (air quotes cause that's what people keep calling them although they're more like 53-day now) Word vulnerabilities that, if memory serves, were not patched two weeks ago tuesday.
The way I read it is counsel tells the RIAA 'X man-hours total' but not 'X man-hours on case A' which counsel is claimed to have and definatly not more granular details like 'discovery on case A, preparing responces on case A.'
You're saying we're supposed to use the tagging system the way select people want us to use it rather than let the masses decide how we want to apply the tagging system?
Face it, your tagging system model is out of date. Time to adapt or die.
Never said the argument made sense, just that the RIAA made it. It's also not a law. There's cases where attorney's fees both have and haven't been paid depending on circumstances.
It's up to the judge to weigh the arguments on each side and decide which one makes more legal sense, so the RIAA's just making every argument they can come up with and hope it sticks to the wall...
Plaintiffs' current counsel invoice Plaintiffs in accordance with alternative billing arrangements that they have negotiated with Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' invoices do not provide any information about the hours spent on any cases. Though counsel track their time for individual cases, that tracking is not part of the invoices.
Sounds to me like this is being funded as a giant fishing expedition. I gather all RIAA's counsel has to do is say "We spent X man-hours today on Y cases." Doesn't matter how many cases or how many hours, just that there's X and Y. Based on what the RIAA is claiming, they don't even have any way of actually verifying their counsel's hours or case volume is accurate even since they're not getting itemized receipts.
I'd figure with all the money problems the RIAA has, they'd want accurate records that someone can be held accountable to. This is like just throwing money to the four winds.
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Two possible ideas I can come up with...(disclaimer, IANAL, so these may not even matter)
1, it's a disgustingly high amount which is now released into the public record, which could bode badly in future cases 2, it's a stall tactic, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
If you haven't seen FireFly, then I wouldn't expect you to think much of Serenity, because you don't have the correct context in which to place the film.
I guess I'll have to be the exception that proves the rule... I saw Serenity first and completely enjoyed it. I got enough from the dialogue and how everyone played off each other to figure enough to not be confused.
Did I understand everything? Probably not. But even after seeing Firefly I still don't, but on the other hand, I found the verse crafted well enough that I figure even if I don't know an exact reason for something, one exists that makes sense.
...so I guess the spaceport in New Mexico that Virgin Galactic is going to rent out constitutes nothing?
I thought it was Slashrated E for everyone...
Well, for example...
Truth is eyewitness testimony from the viewpoint of the witness. Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable because of memory and their own personal skew on events, yet for them, it's true.
Fact is what really happened.
Check out Rashomon some day.
It's probably a personal definition of sorts, but I consider truths to be personal, and facts to be universal. Probably along definition eight in your list.
(On a personal note, I fear you're going to be modded down inappropriately... You're articulate in your point and state it very clearly. While I'll admit to not being fully aware of your past history, at least in this case it doesn't seem bad. It's the people who kneejerk a -1 that are just as bad as the raving nutters that trumpet this from on high...)
I have no problem with people believing in one or more deities. Some feel the need to have a higher power looking over them. I, personally, am confused by this necessity yet I see some reasoning behind Voltaire's statement that if there was no god, we would invent him.
Yet to be willfully ignorant of the scientific process and instead believe solely in a god is to inadvertantly question him. If you believe that the world is only 10,000 years (or 6,000, or whatever the going age is), then how do you explain the dating processes scientists use that result in objects older than that? The most common argument I hear about this is that "It's the way He wants it to be," yet that throws into question the believability of a benevolent deity since why would a benevolent deity purposefully mislead his creation?
I shudder what would happen if fundamentalists in Europe back in the 1500s and 1600s had been able to fully supress what was discovered. Would we still believe that Earth is flat and the solar system was geocentric?
If you do not believe in evolution, how can you understand how penicillin has become ineffective and how superbugs are being uncovered; strains of bacteria and virii that, while exhibiting all the characteristics of previous ones, are immune to the same attack styles?
Truth and fact are two seperate ideas. They can very well be mutually exclusive.
http://wiitracker.com/ would disagree with you. Even the bundles rarely last for long.
I agree with his views on this, I think the EFF is wrong. The DMCA belongs to an old business model, one that Mark and others are moving away from.
Whether or not the DMCA belongs to an old business model is irrelivant (1998 is outdated?) The media companies pushed for it, got it, and now have to deal with the simple fact that Sec 202, Title 512(c)(1) is US Law. That gives YouTube safe harbour provisions.
If the media companies want to change the DMCA, they should take it up with their friends in Congress, not hope Viacom wins this lawsuit. (Well...ideally...)
Minor quibble, PC means Paper Cartridge in that context, not user.
I don't think there's any regulation stating 911 has to arrive as fast as other calls, only that it's illegal not to provide 911 service.
Apparently, this is all the FCC requires VOIP providers do: ( http://www.voip911.gov/ )
* Deliver all 911 calls to the local emergency call center;
* Deliver the customer's call back number and location information where the emergency call center is capable of receiving it; and
* Inform their customers of the capabilities and limitations of their VoIP 911 service.
In fact, one thing the FCC stresses that VOIP providers inform their customers of is that "VoIP service may not work during a power outage, or when the Internet connection fails or becomes overloaded." ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html ) There are no guarentees of QOS of any sort on 911 calls apparently, down to 'reaching the call center.'
And if Vonage is put on the slow lanes, Verizon could argue that the lines are simply overloaded and Verizon has the superiour infrastructure.
My take on it at least.
Apples and oranges. Botted systems represent a security risk to the ISP and to other customers and are not providing a commercial service. (Incidentally, it's also probably against their Terms of Serivce to run a botted system, but TOS is only pulled out when it benefits them...) Net neutrality is ISPs charging companies to use the faster lanes which ends up getting passed to the consumer and is nothing more than a money grab.
...like ISPs do anything about spam and viruses now to begin with. They'd claim common carrier and do nothing like usual.
Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues?
Oddly, if you QOS port 25 the spam goes through just as fast as the legit email. Incidentally, this is an argument for quarantining systems, not net neutrality.
Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP.
Plus it's not giving up on video/audio and VOIP...it's giving up on third party streaming video and audio and VOIP. Why should Verizon allow Vonage's VOIP (yea, i know the patent issues, bear with me) to travel as fast as Verizon's VOIP solution? Without competition, Verizon has no reason to improve their service either.
Net neutrality = competition allowed to exist = better for consumers.
Seriously! What have the Romans done for us?!
I think, and I could be completely wrong here, but the theory seems sound, that IBM's method is more efficient in the mass market arena, for the people that don't lap their heatsinks to a mirror shine. It's better to be slightly notched than a non-lapped heatsink, but lapped still beats out this style.
In other words, this is for OEM systems, like Dell, or lazy system builders, like me. Lapping would still be the preferred for the hard core clockers who can easily apply that microlayer of paste.
I'd agree with that in this case. They took existing product and made an improvement to it. How long do you think it took them to determine that cross-hatched X pattern was ideal?
It's also relatively novel, compared to the general trend of having the smoothest surface possible. I'd get one of these, mostly because I'm too lazy and inexperienced with the full on lapping and polishing method.
Because you can't be arrested for simply 'lying.'
I do. Usually things like DVDs or Wii/DS games and accessories. Books not as much, but still sometimes.
The extra $2 I end up saving ordering online in most cases doesn't make up for the ability to have it right then and not worry about USPS losing it, or waiting a week longer than expected.
Yep, they'll collect the sales tax for those states at the proper rate: 0%
They just won't bother reporting it.
Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board.
...Although I'd say Comcast lost fair and square to Sony.
That's why in any bracket they always put the #1 ranked team against the #16 ranked team. (and #2 against #15...and so on, so the only "real" competition happens in the middle.)
Check out your nearby Final Four bracket and check how they're grouped. I think you'll be pleasently disappointed.
Yep. I go in, browse either the dvd section or nintendo section (or the rare occassion, the computer accessories section), get what I want, pay and leave.
Never bought a big ticket item there though, so that might be different.
I'm also curious if those numbers include flaws in Microsoft OFFICE that are listed as critical and can hose your system...like those five "0-day" (air quotes cause that's what people keep calling them although they're more like 53-day now) Word vulnerabilities that, if memory serves, were not patched two weeks ago tuesday.
The way I read it is counsel tells the RIAA 'X man-hours total' but not 'X man-hours on case A' which counsel is claimed to have and definatly not more granular details like 'discovery on case A, preparing responces on case A.'
You're saying we're supposed to use the tagging system the way select people want us to use it rather than let the masses decide how we want to apply the tagging system?
Face it, your tagging system model is out of date. Time to adapt or die.
Never said the argument made sense, just that the RIAA made it. It's also not a law. There's cases where attorney's fees both have and haven't been paid depending on circumstances.
It's up to the judge to weigh the arguments on each side and decide which one makes more legal sense, so the RIAA's just making every argument they can come up with and hope it sticks to the wall...
Sounds to me like this is being funded as a giant fishing expedition. I gather all RIAA's counsel has to do is say "We spent X man-hours today on Y cases." Doesn't matter how many cases or how many hours, just that there's X and Y. Based on what the RIAA is claiming, they don't even have any way of actually verifying their counsel's hours or case volume is accurate even since they're not getting itemized receipts.
I'd figure with all the money problems the RIAA has, they'd want accurate records that someone can be held accountable to. This is like just throwing money to the four winds.
a) Why does the defendent care about the plaintiff's billing hours?
i tol_foster_070221MotReconsider , page 4)
The defendent doesn't care, the judge does.
One of the arguments the RIAA is using to say they don't need to pay Foster's legal fees is that the cost of their legal team would have exceeded the amount Foster would have needed to pay them if the RIAA won. ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=cap
The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."
b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?
Two possible ideas I can come up with...(disclaimer, IANAL, so these may not even matter)
1, it's a disgustingly high amount which is now released into the public record, which could bode badly in future cases
2, it's a stall tactic, plain and simple.
a nice case of the system working as it should, but really nothing all that groundbreaking.
I thought the system working as it should IS the groundbreaking part of this case...