The entire idea of giving entire regions over to one or two companies -- in exchange for "stricter" regulation -- was a disaster. It is as if somebody wanted Capitalism to fail, so they crippled it with government-assured mono- or, at best, duopoly. Why am I stuck choosing between Verizon and Comcast?
?
It's quite funny to me how you answered the unspoken "who" in your second sentence with the question you pose in your third sentence, yet still don't seem to be able to connect the two occurrences, and that the answer to both is the same, and actually stated quite plainly by you, yourself.
So, I guess you consider any offer made by the 'rich' partner that is, say 1% greater than, what the 'poor' partner can afford to pay is "fair"?
Hmm. I don't think that seems quite right. My only option in that situation is to basically hock my stake in the business to another partner to come up with the additional monies.
Unless there is something else going on, it does indeed seem that one party being rich and the other poor does make a difference, even with this type of arrangement.
I think this would be copyright violoation on Amazon's part.
They are making unauthorized derivative works. They may (and probably do) have authorization to distribute copies of the original work, but that in no way includes the right to create a derivative work and sell that. Such minimal substitution as they do in no way would constitute a new work, at all.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps this is incorrect, but it seems accurate at first glance to me.
I mean, really, why upgrade at all if you are an average user?
If you are on Windows using XP, what is the real motivation? Anything that came out in the last 5 years, hell probably 10 years is plenty beefy to do just about anything you do - surf the web, email, docs, spreadsheets, etc.
Computers have gotten to the point of appliances for many people. If your dryer is still working, do you go out and get a new one? Oh yeah, that new lint filter came out, better "upgrade"!
The only remaining reason would have to be lack of sceurity patches for older OS versions. But then again one might have to ask how secure the current crop really is.
If you use STL, then std::vector will also allocate its backing store array on heap.
Hmm. Almost.
In C++ You can write your own allocator to take memory from wherever you can get it, and pass that as an optional parameter to std::vector. Used along with placement new and you're golden.
Of course, most people haven't done this type of thing...
Additionally, moving to another CAD platform becomes a challenge because of all the backlog of work that wouldn't transfer over. While that could probably work well enough with MS Office to OpenOffice or similar, CAD formats are even less cross-title compatible than.doc files are.
Correct me if I am wrong, but...
What you are saying is that there is a real market for translation tools? Not like in the.doc sense where no one will spend money on it (but bitch that it isn't good enough to use), but in the sense that some people spend some serious cash on this stuff, and therefore a some $$ or $$$ for an importer/exporter would not be out of the question?
I mean, sure, there proabaly aren't equivalencies in one proggie to everything in another, but for CAD work it would seem likely that any functionality needed by an architect, designer, or engineer would be in both?
While you are correct in your assessment, everyone born in the last, what forty years knows at least intuitively that watching any type of advertising is more like a cage match battle for control of your mind (or portions thereof) than anything else.
While it's quite a benefit to point out the actual techniques involved, only people who haven't yet developed immunity to every marketer using the same tech needs to consciously realize this.
We are quite adaptable creatures, and our deep conscious realizes when something hurts us, even if we do not. Eventually the house of cards that is manipulation and deception will fall. Unlike actual mind control tech, there is no wearing down of the Will with sleep dep, chemicals, circles of fight club like interpersonal scenarios, etc. There is only the constant small jabs. Ouch! Eventually they will have pushed every button that there is to push, repeatedly, so much that the stimulus-response will no longer work. And we all will be the better for it.
Until they actually start either directly stimulating brain activity (magnetically or electrically) or forcing chemicals in into the body. Perhaps it won't get that far to push unnecessary consumption.
I don't know personally if it is necessary for Everyone to know how this tech works. Sometimes you can get so caught up in that. Certainly it is interesting and useful. But I *do* know that habituation will cause it to lose it's magick, and that is one path to freedom.
Of course, it would be better if we did not have people trying to Control others at all, but i don't quite believe we are there yet.
They've intentionally made the worst ad they could (while still making it somehow realistic enough for people to buy it) in order to get people to talk about windows 7.
Oh, right. Like how Pepsi aired the ad about "brown and bubbly" at the super bowl. I went, WTF?? I'm supposed to drink what?!?
This is on topic, because it seems like both companies are talking about the same thing...
This is not at all an oversell (though admittedly bad journalism).
"A time lens is essentially like an optical lens," says Foster. An optical lens can deflect a light beam into a much smaller area of space; a time lens deflects..."
Yes, it is an oversell. They are not deflecting time at all or compressing time at all.
I don't care that is is not chirped pusle amp or whatever. The fact is that the team itself is describing this as a 'time lens'; and that is blatantly false.
Or maybe the mailbox holder was simply on vacation? Is there a legal obligation to check your inbox on a regular basis? (There's a reason legal papers aren't sent by e-mail.)
That really depends on the legal papers, and the intents of both parties.
Contracts are sent (even electronically signed), by email all the time.
Is it okay to use the vendor ID to work with your software to the exclusion of others?
I would say yes. In fact, your software should be required to check to make sure it is talking to a compatible device. If you plugged your Android phone into your PC's USB port and the PC merrily overwrote its firmware with iPhone OS 3.1, I doubt you'd be impressed.
You miss the point and the nature of the spec. The USB spec already has a way to ensure that the device you are talking to is a compatible device (hardware wise) - it's called the Device Id, and in general THAT is what should be checked to ensure the device is able to interoperate with your software.
This allows multiple hardware vendors to create hardware that interoperate.
Apple, on the other hand, decided that the vendor ID would be what they looked at to determine hardware compatability. It seems they did that because the spec does not allow other vendors to spoof vendor ID's, while the spec specifically encourages interoperation through the device ID field.
They are attempting to cut competition off at the knees by mangling the spirit of the spec (and possibly the letter) by using the one bit under their 'control' to make sure that other devices cannot act as an Ipod clone (even when they can very easily do so). In my book that's just wrong.
Not really. To state that Vista has this and the latest and greatest from Apple doesn't implies that it is a new technology, and vista is really great.
If they would have said that this $old_technology (since it's in XP, by defnintion it's OLD!) is *still* missing from 10.6 implies something else.
Both let the user know that 10.6 is (possibly) missing some security features, but the former implies that Vista is *all that* and a bag of chips, when really the tech has been around since XP.
No, it couldn't have been that the whole thing was a pyramid scheme, designed to rake money out of the unsuspecting.
It certainly wasn't the fact that the leverage on the underlying monies (you know, the *actual things that had value*) was past ludicrous and well into plaid.
It must have been the fact that people "panicked" when they realized they were standing on thin air, like the coyote in road runner cartoons.
[quote]There is damn little that isn't available legally.
It's just that not everything is available for free.[/quote]
Oh really?
Coudl you please tell me how I might go about making a short film with Mickey Mouse? You know, like a simple cartoon. Perhaps set in a Grimm Fairy Tale.
Most of the time, however, it is not used in such a way as to trigger these effects.
If one would want to enter an hallucinogenic state using THC, here's what I would recommend:
1) Go to Amsterdam 2) Buy 1-5g of good hashish, probably an 'ice' variety (as with many drugs, a higher dosage means a 'heavier' journey) 3) Go back to a secure location with a sitter (no, seriously, ground control should always be present) 4) Eat it 5) Wait 23) P0rTiF!
To just do so vicariously, there are really excellent accounts, some quite rigorous, especially those by doctors of the time. It's just a matter of finding them.
As far as physically addictive, there is no evidence of that. This would require the cells themselves to crave it and the studies have shown they do not (unlike, say cocaine).
It can by psychologically addictive, but so can shoes, or just about anything else.
I think that where DARE and the like do their greatest harm is when they lie about drugs.
Not so much because they demonize the drug they are lying about but because people are then apt to disbelieve it when they tell the truth about the potential horrors of some (other) drugs.
Luckily, these days, places like http://www.erowid.org/ exist to present full spectrum viewpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire idea of giving entire regions over to one or two companies -- in exchange for "stricter" regulation -- was a disaster. It is as if somebody wanted Capitalism to fail, so they crippled it with government-assured mono- or, at best, duopoly. Why am I stuck choosing between Verizon and Comcast?
?
It's quite funny to me how you answered the unspoken "who" in your second sentence with the question you pose in your third sentence, yet still don't seem to be able to connect the two occurrences, and that the answer to both is the same, and actually stated quite plainly by you, yourself.
Regards.
So, I guess you consider any offer made by the 'rich' partner that is, say 1% greater than, what the 'poor' partner can afford to pay is "fair"?
Hmm. I don't think that seems quite right. My only option in that situation is to basically hock my stake in the business to another partner to come up with the additional monies.
Unless there is something else going on, it does indeed seem that one party being rich and the other poor does make a difference, even with this type of arrangement.
Regards.
So, no one goes target shooting then? Hmm. Perhaps you are mistaken.
Regards.
I think this would be copyright violoation on Amazon's part.
They are making unauthorized derivative works. They may (and probably do) have authorization to distribute copies of the original work, but that in no way includes the right to create a derivative work and sell that. Such minimal substitution as they do in no way would constitute a new work, at all.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps this is incorrect, but it seems accurate at first glance to me.
I mean, really, why upgrade at all if you are an average user?
If you are on Windows using XP, what is the real motivation? Anything that came out in the last 5 years, hell probably 10 years is plenty beefy to do just about anything you do - surf the web, email, docs, spreadsheets, etc.
Computers have gotten to the point of appliances for many people. If your dryer is still working, do you go out and get a new one? Oh yeah, that new lint filter came out, better "upgrade"!
The only remaining reason would have to be lack of sceurity patches for older OS versions. But then again one might have to ask how secure the current crop really is.
I think it's insightful to his mindset when he says "if they had been good, they would have played on the radio".
After that, it's easy to see where he's coming from, not that I agree with this premise.
And ownership last forever, unlike patents that expire after 20 years.
Tell that to the authorities if you stop paying property taxes, or to the people who have had their land siezed due to emminent domain laws.
Ownership lasts as long as you can defend it, even today.
Regards.
If you use STL, then std::vector will also allocate its backing store array on heap.
Hmm. Almost.
In C++ You can write your own allocator to take memory from wherever you can get it, and pass that as an optional parameter to std::vector. Used along with placement new and you're golden.
Of course, most people haven't done this type of thing...
I'm not sure exactly what you point is. Do you object that he was just called 'some guy'?
Fact is, being mentioned on slasdot as a provider of a solution for a problem is generally considered praise, not a condemnation.
Regards.
Additionally, moving to another CAD platform becomes a challenge because of all the backlog of work that wouldn't transfer over. While that could probably work well enough with MS Office to OpenOffice or similar, CAD formats are even less cross-title compatible than .doc files are.
Correct me if I am wrong, but...
What you are saying is that there is a real market for translation tools? Not like in the .doc sense where no one will spend money on it (but bitch that it isn't good enough to use), but in the sense that some people spend some serious cash on this stuff, and therefore a some $$ or $$$ for an importer/exporter would not be out of the question?
I mean, sure, there proabaly aren't equivalencies in one proggie to everything in another, but for CAD work it would seem likely that any functionality needed by an architect, designer, or engineer would be in both?
Regards
"Professor loses $160,000 in legal fees defending a right that should not have been needed to be defended"?
Sorry, but if he is doing what he described in the post, Google won't have a leg to stand on.
There is nothing Google can actually do about it.
You *are* allowed to back up the apps on your phone. You *are* allowed to put those apps back on your phone.
Regards.
While you are correct in your assessment, everyone born in the last, what forty years knows at least intuitively that watching any type of advertising is more like a cage match battle for control of your mind (or portions thereof) than anything else.
While it's quite a benefit to point out the actual techniques involved, only people who haven't yet developed immunity to every marketer using the same tech needs to consciously realize this.
We are quite adaptable creatures, and our deep conscious realizes when something hurts us, even if we do not. Eventually the house of cards that is manipulation and deception will fall. Unlike actual mind control tech, there is no wearing down of the Will with sleep dep, chemicals, circles of fight club like interpersonal scenarios, etc. There is only the constant small jabs. Ouch! Eventually they will have pushed every button that there is to push, repeatedly, so much that the stimulus-response will no longer work. And we all will be the better for it.
Until they actually start either directly stimulating brain activity (magnetically or electrically) or forcing chemicals in into the body. Perhaps it won't get that far to push unnecessary consumption.
I don't know personally if it is necessary for Everyone to know how this tech works. Sometimes you can get so caught up in that. Certainly it is interesting and useful. But I *do* know that habituation will cause it to lose it's magick, and that is one path to freedom.
Of course, it would be better if we did not have people trying to Control others at all, but i don't quite believe we are there yet.
namaste
They've intentionally made the worst ad they could (while still making it somehow realistic enough for people to buy it) in order to get people to talk about windows 7.
Oh, right. Like how Pepsi aired the ad about "brown and bubbly" at the super bowl. I went, WTF?? I'm supposed to drink what?!?
This is on topic, because it seems like both companies are talking about the same thing...
This is not at all an oversell (though admittedly bad journalism).
"A time lens is essentially like an optical lens," says Foster. An optical lens can deflect a light beam into a much smaller area of space; a time lens deflects..."
Yes, it is an oversell. They are not deflecting time at all or compressing time at all.
I don't care that is is not chirped pusle amp or whatever. The fact is that the team itself is describing this as a 'time lens'; and that is blatantly false.
Regards.
Or maybe the mailbox holder was simply on vacation? Is there a legal obligation to check your inbox on a regular basis? (There's a reason legal papers aren't sent by e-mail.)
That really depends on the legal papers, and the intents of both parties.
Contracts are sent (even electronically signed), by email all the time.
I'm doing that myself.
Regards.
Is it okay to use the vendor ID to work with your software to the exclusion of others?
I would say yes. In fact, your software should be required to check to make sure it is talking to a compatible device. If you plugged your Android phone into your PC's USB port and the PC merrily overwrote its firmware with iPhone OS 3.1, I doubt you'd be impressed.
You miss the point and the nature of the spec. The USB spec already has a way to ensure that the device you are talking to is a compatible device (hardware wise) - it's called the Device Id, and in general THAT is what should be checked to ensure the device is able to interoperate with your software.
This allows multiple hardware vendors to create hardware that interoperate.
Apple, on the other hand, decided that the vendor ID would be what they looked at to determine hardware compatability. It seems they did that because the spec does not allow other vendors to spoof vendor ID's, while the spec specifically encourages interoperation through the device ID field.
They are attempting to cut competition off at the knees by mangling the spirit of the spec (and possibly the letter) by using the one bit under their 'control' to make sure that other devices cannot act as an Ipod clone (even when they can very easily do so). In my book that's just wrong.
Hope this helps.
So how would you deal with share holders of mutual funds?
How about the index funds?
What about people who put their money in a bank that then lends to these companies?
Or what about...?
Perhaps it is not as simple as you make it appear.
regards.
One size fits all doesn't work unless everything goes on a network.
Well, how about that! In spite of all your objections, you actually came up with a solution!
SO, what were you saying again about how it couldn't be done?
Not really. To state that Vista has this and the latest and greatest from Apple doesn't implies that it is a new technology, and vista is really great.
If they would have said that this $old_technology (since it's in XP, by defnintion it's OLD!) is *still* missing from 10.6 implies something else.
Both let the user know that 10.6 is (possibly) missing some security features, but the former implies that Vista is *all that* and a bag of chips, when really the tech has been around since XP.
No, it couldn't have been that the whole thing was a pyramid scheme, designed to rake money out of the unsuspecting.
It certainly wasn't the fact that the leverage on the underlying monies (you know, the *actual things that had value*) was past ludicrous and well into plaid.
It must have been the fact that people "panicked" when they realized they were standing on thin air, like the coyote in road runner cartoons.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
[quote]There is damn little that isn't available legally.
It's just that not everything is available for free.[/quote]
Oh really?
Coudl you please tell me how I might go about making a short film with Mickey Mouse? You know, like a simple cartoon. Perhaps set in a Grimm Fairy Tale.
Thanks.
If the Earth can't support intelligent life, it might as well be a lump of rock orbiting a nuclear reaction.
I don't understand.
Are you saying that with intelligent life aboard the Earth is *not* a lump of rock orbiting a nuclear reaction?
What does it turn in to then?
THC can definitely be a hallucinogen.
Most of the time, however, it is not used in such a way as to trigger these effects.
If one would want to enter an hallucinogenic state using THC, here's what I would recommend:
1) Go to Amsterdam
2) Buy 1-5g of good hashish, probably an 'ice' variety (as with many drugs, a higher dosage means a 'heavier' journey)
3) Go back to a secure location with a sitter (no, seriously, ground control should always be present)
4) Eat it
5) Wait
23) P0rTiF!
To just do so vicariously, there are really excellent accounts, some quite rigorous, especially those by doctors of the time. It's just a matter of finding them.
As far as physically addictive, there is no evidence of that. This would require the cells themselves to crave it and the studies have shown they do not (unlike, say cocaine).
It can by psychologically addictive, but so can shoes, or just about anything else.
I think that where DARE and the like do their greatest harm is when they lie about drugs.
Not so much because they demonize the drug they are lying about but because people are then apt to disbelieve it when they tell the truth about the potential horrors of some (other) drugs.
Luckily, these days, places like http://www.erowid.org/ exist to present full spectrum viewpoints.
Regards
No, he's being a prime example of why it isn't true.
6+ billion and able to survive anywhere, including vacuum, but we still have comments like the GP.