I suppose, if you overlook all the work he has done producing other people's stuff (David Bowie, U2, Talking Heads, Devo , Depeche Mode, etc.). I think he gets more props as a producer than as a musician.
I second this. I do like Here Come the Warm Jets and Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy, but his last (non-ambient)album and those awful Coldplay and U2 albums he helped produce really just make me want to listen to old 801 stuff.... As a matter of fact, I am going to put on TKN from 801 Live right now...
The problem is proving that you were protecting your life sometimes. Of course the person still alive is going to say their life was in danger. It isn't exactly a black and white situation, especially when there are only two witnesses, and one has been killed by the other. Kind of hard to get anything close to an unbiased version of what happened in that case. And only in a few states (Texas and New Orleans come to mind) is it legal to use deadly force to protect your possessions.
And again I am not saying you can't do ANYTHING to protect your home/car/self whatever, just that you can't legally kill except under certain circumstances. I am not a tree-hugging pacifist by any means - I keep a handgun, 6 cell maglight, and baseball bat all within easy reach of where I sleep. I would just be very hesitant to leave my house and go out into my yard/garage and think I can just open up on anyone I find there. It seems much easier to call the cops, and wait inside my bedroom with my gun aimed at the door. If someone comes through the door, it would be a different situation then, becasue then I would be threatened and may feel I have no other choices.
No, this "loophole" prevents someone from killing someone who isn't threatening their life. I never claimed being robbed wouldn't "cost you" anything, just that I wasn't willing to risk my own freedom to negate the small cost to me. I have my entire life to replace money or things that can be bought with money. If you are honestly considering killing someone to save your $500 insurance deductible, that seems a little over the top to me. (And I am known for my non-conventional views.) And the law doesn't stop you from using force, just from using deadly force. Tasers, fists, baseball bats, dogs, mace, etc. are all perfectly legal alternatives. You just can't kill somebody without a good reason. Why is this so difficult to understand? Think about it - if that stipulation wasn't in place, I could invite anybody I didn't like over to my house, shoot them dead, and then claim they were "robbing" me and the only person who could refute my story would be dead and unable to do so.
Not even close, but nice try. If someone comes into my house and is unarmed and doesn't threaten me, I can't kill him legally. That was all I said, the rest is just conjecture and distortion on your part.
Or to put it in terms you may possibly understand "If some beefmonkey comes into your house and is only robbing you of material possessions, you being as dumb as a brick, would kill him and risk the rest of your life in jail because you can't figure out how to obtain insurance?"
I know. Shame on us for thinking rationally instead of having a knee-jerk, tough-guy hypothetical reaction that reality would no doubt quash in a heartbeat.
If your hardware is out of your sight even for a few moments it should be treated as though it was compromised.
Apparently you have never had the joy of taking apart one of the old iBooks. (It takes about 35 minutes and removing about 17 screws just to get to the hard drive.)
Congratulations, you have found a few exceptions to the rule. What does that prove? I still stand by all my statements. I have talked to a few acquaintances that are in law enforcement and they suggest NEVER taking a shot at someone in your house unless your life is truly threatened. They said they have seen cases where they would have thought it was justified, but the home owner is the one who ended up going to jail. Sorry, but a the value of a car or any other possession that can be replaced is not worth me risking my own freedom.
If an unarmed person is trying to steal your car, how exactly are you "protecting yourself" by killing them, unless you were in said car? (Or you live in a garage.) Unless you live in Texas, it is generally illegal to use deadly force to protect possessions. You usually have to be in fear for your own life to use deadly force justifiably.
That being said if someone was in my house (not garage) and I did feel threatened, I would rather take my chance in court rather than a dark room with a stranger. But carving someone up in your garage is probably going to end up with you being charged with a crime, or at the very least sued by the thief's relatives.
I never claimed to be grammatically perfect, just that I wasn't going to repeat the mistakes I pointed out. I notice you didn't give me any credit for the completely unnecessary "since" I omitted. Sorry, but I am not going to go through your post and point out your errors (and there are some) because I have better things to do with my time. Hire an editor if you really care.
Seeing you claim, it is hard, to be, incorrect, with the use of the, comma, I would invite, you, to read this sentence, and say it is, grammatically, correct. A comma does indicate a pause, but that is not it's only function in regards to grammar, nor is it too difficult to use it incorrectly. Just don't get me started on incorrect use of apostrophes.
Considering they are renting them for $2300 a month and are being produced in numbers now, maybe these are not considered "failures" like the other ones were. And I would think that a person could adjust to moving with a 125 millisecond lag with some training. If they were actually more taxing than walking without the exoskeleton, I doubt that anybody would be forking over $2300 a month to rent them. And think of the applications for the paralyzed/handicapped - I doubt they would think these are more "taxing" than there normal inability to move at all.
Yes, I would much rather trust the random Wikipedia users than a random Slashdot user, because of course* we can fully trust Wikipedia users to check their facts before posting. And to not have any bias of any sort.
*Sorry, not going to duplicate the grammatical errors of the unnecessary comma, or the word "since".
He was talking about the Android being as successful as the iPhone. Which will never happen by simply changing the hardware alone. The iPhone isn't the most powerful nor the most pretty phone on the market, but it is the best seller. (hint best selling phone = successful) Want to know why? Marketing.
I know he didn't mention marketing, but it would be near impossible to have a real discussion about the iPhone's success without mentioning Apple's marketing campaign.
It isn't about the hardware, it's about the marketing. Apple has been selling hardware that costs more than the other brands do for a long time - because of clever marketing.
Which is fine unless you want a specific product. Generally I am going to buy it either way, it is just nice to get some money back. And I have also gotten $100+ rebates before, and I know there was nothing even close to the same price without the rebates at those times. I guess I just don't think filling out a form that takes less than 5 minutes and making a photocopy that takes less than a minute is reason enough not to buy something. It just isn't a big deal to me. People also think coupons are a waste of time but I routinely save 15-20% off my grocery trips by using them. It isn't that I consider my time valueless, but sometimes I have more time than money...
Why? Only like 15% of people actually redeem the rebate, and if you happen to be one of those 15% (and I am) all it means is that you are getting your products at a slightly reduced overall price. If I buy something with a rebate, as soon as I get home I fill out all the stuff, make photocopies, and send it off the same day. So far I am yet to not receive a rebate for anything I have ever sent in. The "hassle" of losing 5 minutes of my time to gain 10%-50% off the price of something I was going to buy anyway is not enough to dissuade me to buy something else without a rebate.
I would imagine that if it was a great drop in cost compared to performance that they would already be making them. If we are having this discussion now, engineers have had it years before and decided to pass.
If the blind people are melted, they tend to complain about it a lot less.
But seriously, this probably wouldn't be as effective against personnel as it would against large vehicles or buildings. Individuals are too small and mobile for a weapon like this to have any great effect. There are already TONS of anti-personnel weapons in existence now anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should just label the 8 things left that DON'T cause cancer and we can assume on everything else that isn't labeled.
Well don't just leave us in suspense - what is the answer? I don't have a calculator with me today...
Or persuade the country they reside in to go after them. (Sweden - I am looking at you.)
I suppose, if you overlook all the work he has done producing other people's stuff (David Bowie, U2, Talking Heads, Devo , Depeche Mode, etc.). I think he gets more props as a producer than as a musician.
I second this. I do like Here Come the Warm Jets and Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy, but his last (non-ambient)album and those awful Coldplay and U2 albums he helped produce really just make me want to listen to old 801 stuff.... As a matter of fact, I am going to put on TKN from 801 Live right now...
every time anyone has said "woosh" it's been non-funny and every other time it was just as deserving of its own "woosh"
whoosh
The problem is proving that you were protecting your life sometimes. Of course the person still alive is going to say their life was in danger. It isn't exactly a black and white situation, especially when there are only two witnesses, and one has been killed by the other. Kind of hard to get anything close to an unbiased version of what happened in that case. And only in a few states (Texas and New Orleans come to mind) is it legal to use deadly force to protect your possessions.
And again I am not saying you can't do ANYTHING to protect your home/car/self whatever, just that you can't legally kill except under certain circumstances. I am not a tree-hugging pacifist by any means - I keep a handgun, 6 cell maglight, and baseball bat all within easy reach of where I sleep. I would just be very hesitant to leave my house and go out into my yard/garage and think I can just open up on anyone I find there. It seems much easier to call the cops, and wait inside my bedroom with my gun aimed at the door. If someone comes through the door, it would be a different situation then, becasue then I would be threatened and may feel I have no other choices.
No, this "loophole" prevents someone from killing someone who isn't threatening their life. I never claimed being robbed wouldn't "cost you" anything, just that I wasn't willing to risk my own freedom to negate the small cost to me. I have my entire life to replace money or things that can be bought with money. If you are honestly considering killing someone to save your $500 insurance deductible, that seems a little over the top to me. (And I am known for my non-conventional views.) And the law doesn't stop you from using force, just from using deadly force. Tasers, fists, baseball bats, dogs, mace, etc. are all perfectly legal alternatives. You just can't kill somebody without a good reason. Why is this so difficult to understand? Think about it - if that stipulation wasn't in place, I could invite anybody I didn't like over to my house, shoot them dead, and then claim they were "robbing" me and the only person who could refute my story would be dead and unable to do so.
Not even close, but nice try. If someone comes into my house and is unarmed and doesn't threaten me, I can't kill him legally. That was all I said, the rest is just conjecture and distortion on your part.
Or to put it in terms you may possibly understand "If some beefmonkey comes into your house and is only robbing you of material possessions, you being as dumb as a brick, would kill him and risk the rest of your life in jail because you can't figure out how to obtain insurance?"
I know. Shame on us for thinking rationally instead of having a knee-jerk, tough-guy hypothetical reaction that reality would no doubt quash in a heartbeat.
If your hardware is out of your sight even for a few moments it should be treated as though it was compromised.
Apparently you have never had the joy of taking apart one of the old iBooks. (It takes about 35 minutes and removing about 17 screws just to get to the hard drive.)
I don't know, but I hear the software keyloggers weigh much less...
Congratulations, you have found a few exceptions to the rule. What does that prove? I still stand by all my statements. I have talked to a few acquaintances that are in law enforcement and they suggest NEVER taking a shot at someone in your house unless your life is truly threatened. They said they have seen cases where they would have thought it was justified, but the home owner is the one who ended up going to jail. Sorry, but a the value of a car or any other possession that can be replaced is not worth me risking my own freedom.
If an unarmed person is trying to steal your car, how exactly are you "protecting yourself" by killing them, unless you were in said car? (Or you live in a garage.) Unless you live in Texas, it is generally illegal to use deadly force to protect possessions. You usually have to be in fear for your own life to use deadly force justifiably.
That being said if someone was in my house (not garage) and I did feel threatened, I would rather take my chance in court rather than a dark room with a stranger. But carving someone up in your garage is probably going to end up with you being charged with a crime, or at the very least sued by the thief's relatives.
I never claimed to be grammatically perfect, just that I wasn't going to repeat the mistakes I pointed out. I notice you didn't give me any credit for the completely unnecessary "since" I omitted. Sorry, but I am not going to go through your post and point out your errors (and there are some) because I have better things to do with my time. Hire an editor if you really care.
Seeing you claim, it is hard, to be, incorrect, with the use of the, comma, I would invite, you, to read this sentence, and say it is, grammatically, correct. A comma does indicate a pause, but that is not it's only function in regards to grammar, nor is it too difficult to use it incorrectly. Just don't get me started on incorrect use of apostrophes.
Considering they are renting them for $2300 a month and are being produced in numbers now, maybe these are not considered "failures" like the other ones were. And I would think that a person could adjust to moving with a 125 millisecond lag with some training. If they were actually more taxing than walking without the exoskeleton, I doubt that anybody would be forking over $2300 a month to rent them. And think of the applications for the paralyzed/handicapped - I doubt they would think these are more "taxing" than there normal inability to move at all.
Yes, I would much rather trust the random Wikipedia users than a random Slashdot user, because of course* we can fully trust Wikipedia users to check their facts before posting. And to not have any bias of any sort.
*Sorry, not going to duplicate the grammatical errors of the unnecessary comma, or the word "since".
For the Android to be successful as the iPhone
He was talking about the Android being as successful as the iPhone. Which will never happen by simply changing the hardware alone. The iPhone isn't the most powerful nor the most pretty phone on the market, but it is the best seller. (hint best selling phone = successful) Want to know why? Marketing.
I know he didn't mention marketing, but it would be near impossible to have a real discussion about the iPhone's success without mentioning Apple's marketing campaign.
It isn't about the hardware, it's about the marketing. Apple has been selling hardware that costs more than the other brands do for a long time - because of clever marketing.
Which is fine unless you want a specific product. Generally I am going to buy it either way, it is just nice to get some money back. And I have also gotten $100+ rebates before, and I know there was nothing even close to the same price without the rebates at those times. I guess I just don't think filling out a form that takes less than 5 minutes and making a photocopy that takes less than a minute is reason enough not to buy something. It just isn't a big deal to me. People also think coupons are a waste of time but I routinely save 15-20% off my grocery trips by using them. It isn't that I consider my time valueless, but sometimes I have more time than money...
Why? Only like 15% of people actually redeem the rebate, and if you happen to be one of those 15% (and I am) all it means is that you are getting your products at a slightly reduced overall price. If I buy something with a rebate, as soon as I get home I fill out all the stuff, make photocopies, and send it off the same day. So far I am yet to not receive a rebate for anything I have ever sent in. The "hassle" of losing 5 minutes of my time to gain 10%-50% off the price of something I was going to buy anyway is not enough to dissuade me to buy something else without a rebate.
Can I raise a practical question at this point? Will your processor be able to run Stonehenge v1.8 tonight?
I would imagine that if it was a great drop in cost compared to performance that they would already be making them. If we are having this discussion now, engineers have had it years before and decided to pass.
If the blind people are melted, they tend to complain about it a lot less.
But seriously, this probably wouldn't be as effective against personnel as it would against large vehicles or buildings. Individuals are too small and mobile for a weapon like this to have any great effect. There are already TONS of anti-personnel weapons in existence now anyway.
A girl has to have standards.