yr right - i watched it again and the lights are right there.
i also do not see the light controlling the intersection for the red car.
it's off-screen on the left the entire time.
from the video alone it might be red or green.
but perhaps with special knowledge of the intersection's patterns, the light's color could be deduced.
for example, perhaps the green lights for the left-to-right moving traffic implies that the red car's turn lane had a red.
he surely has some valid points,
and i'm no windows fan,
but this piece is super fluffy.
it seems like about 80% "it's terrible, it's like < analogy >, it's really bad" and 20% actually saying what was bad,
so in the end it's 80% appeal to this dude's authority.
i see a lot of posts on good old slashdot here saying that "the real issue is clearly mental illness" (to quote one of many).
so but,
according to Mother Jones,
of the counted 62 U.S. Mass Murders in the past 20 years,
38 of the 62 (61%) showed signs of mental illness,
while 61 of the 62 (98%) were
which correlation do you think more strongly deserves attention.
Why do we care that she's of tribal descent? Are we now saying tribal American's are exempt from copyright laws? I flatly refuse to redefine native they way the PC crowd does, if you were born in the US you are native. I happen to be of Cherokee linage as well, but that doesn't matter, I'm native because I was born here.
In this case, I personally believe that she was discriminated against by the jury, because she was a Native American. She was tried many many miles from where she lived and worked, and did not have a jury of her peers.
Was she really convicted of "illegal downloading?"
1. She wasn't "convicted" of anything; this wasn't a criminal case. She was found liable for copyright infringement by making copies through downloading, thus violating the record companies' exclusive reproduction rights.
2. She was also sued for "distributing" and "making available for distributing", but the judge threw out the "making available for distributing" claim, and there was no evidence offered of the "distributing" claim.
So yes, the only thing she was found liable for was downloading.
This case is Capitol vs Thomas, not RIAA vs Thomas. Capitol is a music publisher, and this case was about their works.
1. Capitol is but one of the plaintiffs.
2. The RIAA was in fact running the case, with the aid of the record company plaintiffs.
3. Capitol is a record company, not a music publisher.
4. The case was about the recordings of several different companies.
me too.
is there doubt over the figure ?
also today:
the EPA has banned BP from federal contracts.
> Until then, my phone is staying on iOS 5.
i'm considering attempting to install iOS 5 on my iPhone 5 for this reason.
seems like one of the few people in the valley who've managed to retain their techno-weenie spirit despite enormous corporate success.
have not RTFA,
but if you just let the mass become imaginary, the relativistic velocity equations work just fine.
the only singularity comes in when you're going at c.
If all else fails, lower your standards.