Free will is an illusion and the 'ability to choose' is a legal and social construct. You are wrong.
>Hmm, does SWOTL run OK and find the joystick in DOSbox or some other VM?
DOSBOX does a bang-up job of running SWOTL with sound and music, and it lets me use my old CH flight yoke and stick with a 15-pin to USB adapter (every USB game controller works, no configuration necessary).
For the record, I never cheated in SWOTL, I didn't even back up my pilot files...so losing a pilot who'd been promoted to Oberst was a heart-stopping event.
SWOTL was top shelf, the last and best 2.5D flight simulator by Totally Games/Lucasfilm Games. The manual alone was worth the price of the box.
It's true, you only had 60 rounds of 30mm ammo, but with the Mk.103 cannon and careful aim you could easily knock every opponent out of the sky before running out. The P-51s usually only took two or three rounds to destroy utterly. Always fun to fly a tour of duty in the 229, although to tell the truth, the Do.335 from an expansion pack was my most favourite. It was a little slower and less maneuverable, but still faster than any Allied fighter (well, except the P-80, another expansion pack fighter) and probably the most durable plane in the entire game.
You're breaking my heart here, and although I'm sure you mean well and it's nice that you are a fan of music from earlier periods, you're way off-base.
I've performed many of the works of Bach, Mozart, and their contemporaries and successors and hardly anything tops Bach in any of those categories. High harmonic tempo, rhythmic complexity in and between parts (Classical-era music is largely homophonic), extended chords via appoggiatura and other passing tones, four, five, and eight-part fugues with multiple subjects and counter-subjects.
Off the top of my head, here are a few Bach works that I think best exemplify his genius:
Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor (BWV 582)
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (BWV 225)
Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 903)
Mozart, however, is elegant but very straightforward, even simple. Perhaps it's a personal experience bias as I've mostly only performed his liturgical works (Masses etc.) and arias from his operas, but there is hardly a comparison to be made between the two.
With old enough drives, their head actuators being powered by stepper motors, there are actually gaps between the tracks that the bits "leak" onto, making recovery of overwritten data feasible. So, don't store sensitive data on 20-year-old drives.
You can get data recovered from surprisingly borked disk drives, including overwritten data
This is not actually true. It may have been true for certain early stepper-motor drives, but certainly not any modern hard disk drive.
That whole "reading between the tracks" thing hasn't been true since hard drive head actuators were powered by stepper motors (over 20 years ago). Voice coil head actuators are precise enough to eliminate this concern entirely.
- Congress Should Not Prevent Minors from Using Blogs and Social Networking Sites
- Congress Should Enact Strong Data Breach Legislation
- Congress Should Establish Strong Privacy Protections for Information Sharing for Counter-terrorism Purposes
- Congress Should Monitor Developments in the Broadband Market
- Congress Should Adopt Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Reports
"Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing up to 40 years in prison for exposing her seventh grade class to a cascade of pornographic imagery. Amero maintains that she is a victim of a malicious software infestation that caused her computer to spawn porn uncontrollably."
I think that this is one of the best written articles that I have read about Second Life. Not only does it talk about why so many companies, such as IBM, are investing heavily in it, but also it gives a good description and history of it and its goals and technology. It praises it where it's due and doesn't pull any punches in discussing its flaws either."
This appears to be an extraordinarily spectacular attempt in suicide, lest the apperent new domain holder, a Mr. Martin Rusteberg of Germany, happens to hold prior rights in the string "google". A quick search revealed that there are no trade marks registered in Germany (https://dpinfo.dpma.de/protect/mar.html), with OAMI with respect to European trade marks (http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/) nor with the WIPO with respect to so-called international trade marks that might have been extended to cover Germany (http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/madrid/search
This might be different though, should the current domain holder turn out to have any other kind of rights in the string "google" himself, e.g. using it as a company identifier prior to Goolge Inc.'s market entry in Germany.
Unlike other TLDs, the German registrar DENIC e.G. (http://www.denic.de)does not provide a dispute resolution procedure. That means that the possible kidnapping of the domain will be subject to German jurisdiction. That means that while, for example, the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (http://www.icann.org/udrp/) allows for "soft arguments" to be brought forward and domains to be transferred directly if there is no response by the defendant, arbitration in front of a German court could turn out to be more difficult that one might, at first sight, expect.
Whilst there can be little doubt that google would eventually succeed in regaining the domain due to it's overwhelming fame, the path to victory could turn out stony.
There is juristdiction by Germany's Federal Court of Justice that accepts that in a conflict of prior rights, the rights of a party that has what has been described as "an absolute reputation", prevail (BGH, Urt. v. 22.11.01, I ZR 138/99 — shell.de, http://netlaw.de/urteile/bgh_13.htm).
Still, it is rather unlikely that this concept would be sufficient to allow Google Inc. to achieve an injunction under German law. This is due to the requirement that no injunction must anticipate the final decision — which would be the case if the current domain holder was forced to cancel the domain.
By the way: under German law, no right holder can ask for a domain to be transferred. It has to be cancelled and can then be re-registered by the rights holder. Google Inc. will have to ask for a so called dispute entry by the registrar Denic e.G., which will bar the domain from any further transactions, and then go to court really, really quickly.
Depending on whether or not the current registrant has any prior rights, this might turn out as a finacial suicide or the easiest way to earn real money without any effort at all — if, which is not unlikely, Google Inc. decides to cut things short and buy the new registrant out. Which, I have a tinkle, may have been the idea in the first place.
Still, this is high rolling: from both a legal and a financial point of view, it would have been less risky just to rob a bank. It's probably just that geeks aren't any good at this sort of thing, in contrast to the fine detail of domain registration policies...
For further information on German internet law, visit http://www.netlaw.de/ or just ask: email@example.com.
Christian Franz, LL.M.
(Attorney at Law)