Even though some Republicans are taking that tack, the party could still move in the right direction. You can't expect improvements, unless you honestly expect them.
I also wonder about things like this. His speech reads well, but I'll never really know if Ted was trying to save her life, or his own. *sigh*
It's easy to lay blame - it's harder to lay asside your own vices, and become a better person, or a better group.
I guess Democrats could start by admitting that Clinton was kind of an over-sexed dink, who worked against Democratic goals on plenty of occasions, and lied to the American people.
If by "hilarious" you mean "painful beyond all belief, because our system of Democracy has been so perverted and sidelined that our leaders spend all of their time backstabbing each other, and complaining about all of the backstabbing, instead of addressing the massive problems that our country and the world face," then yeah, I'd agree with that.
The Dems did think of it first - Filegate. They asked for FBI files, and the FBI handed them over. But wait, the GOP thought of it first - Watergate. But wait...
Asking the FBI for files seems pretty bad. But if you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, the FBI says "no," and then they open a file on you.
Hacking the email of the private communications of one of the two most powerful political parties in the world seems pretty bad. If you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, they put you in jail, and then throw away the key.
*shrug*
I'd rather have someone who I believed honestly wanted to do good - but had a hard time of it, because they got distracted by power, and used it wrong... than someone who can't even convince me that they honestly want to do good.
Anonymous free speech is sometimes very productive. It can lead to investigations that prove out the facts. If you're not interested in investigating, then stop pretending that you're interested in free speech at all. The burden of proof rests on the concerned public, not on one person who feels wronged.
I don't care how freaking anonymous Deep Throat was; his tips to the press resulted in the resignation of the President of the United States - who had broken the law.
If two planets are 20 light-years apart, and they have a 300 baud connection between them - it'd take 1077 years to transmit the data on one of these, right?
How fast would a ship have to travel to make hand-delivering one of these FASTER?
Nope. He was wrong. They were identical except one was a 40G and one was a 60G, or something like that. He was telling me that it's faster BECAUSE it's bigger.
Annonymous Coward: Sorry, but the networks have no inherent RIGHT to make money.
div_2n: If you are viewing their network programming they do. They provide you with programming for the low price of watching commercials.
That is saying that "they [have] a right to force you to watch commercials." There is no price for the consumer associated with watching broadcast television. The television station is providing something for free - that means with no price. Not a low price as you indicate, but with no price.
"Expect" is a dangerous phrase when you start talking about law, div_2n. There's the conversational usage, which means something akin to, "I believe," and there's the legal definition which is much closer to "I am entitled to." They may believe that they can make money from giving away a free product, but they have no entitlement to that money. They have done nothing which guarantees (or entitles) them to profit. They have chosen to give away something for free, and can have no expectations beyond the protection of their rights, which are limited almost exclusively to those of being copyright holders over the material that they broadcasted.
Don't get so defensive about your rights.
Don't post stupid comments. Like this one. If you didn't want to engage in a conversation, then you shouldn't have posted. When you attack personal rights, people get defensive.
I don't have a right to free TV, you are correct. But if free TV is made available to me, then I am WELL within my rights to use it within the bounds of the law. For instance, not watching the freaking commercials. Or buying a product that helps me not watch the commercials.
They could expect revenue (different from profit), if I had agreed to terms, including providing something (like watching commercials), in return for that service being provided. I HAVE NOT AGREED TO ANY TERMS. I am making use of a free product. They cannot expect any revenue from that. They have no rights in this conversation, other than as granted them by copyright law.
Don't get so defensive of the profit motive of multi-billion-dollar corporations. My rights are far more important than their profits.
It's a broadcast signal. Broadcast. That means that anyone can do with it what they please, as long as they obey copyright law. Copyright law prohibits me from distributing copies, or making unlicensed derivative works.
I can change channels when a show jumps to commercials, I can mute the sound when a show jumps to commercials, I can even video tape a show and watch it at a later time - as many times as I like to. Because presentation is different from copyright. I can re-present a copyrighted work to myself, if I have an authorized copy of it. I am not licensed to watch a copyrighted broadcast work - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
Read that again - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
I am under no obligation to buy all of the advertised products. I am under no obligation to give due consideration to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to pay attention to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to watch the products be advertised. Even though, if I were to do all of those things, it would make the broadcast business more successful, and those reasons are in fact the only reason why the business is providing a broadcast television signal.
McDonalds could hire a guy to stand in a Hamburgler suit, and hand out $1 bills to everyone that walks into the restaurant. They are legally allowed to give things away for free. They can expect people to notice that they're giving away something for free. They can expect people to buy more of what they're selling, because they've given away something for free. But the people have no legal obligation to notice, or to buy the products!
It's advertising! Even the television program itself is advertisement for the products in the commercials. "Notice me! Buy this!" Certain forms of advertising are illegal - false advertising comes to mind. But as long as consumers obey copyright, they are allowed to do anything they want to with the advertisements! They provide me with a free product, broadcast television, and they hope that I'll watch the commercials. A car company could give away free cars, loaded with 10% off coupons for McDonalds. If I don't sign any contracts, then I am under no license, there are no limits on my use of their free product, and I don't have to drive their car to freaking McDonalds. If they program the car to automatically drive to McDonalds, then I can chose not to use the car - but under the DMCA, I am prohibited from tampering with the device, and I must merely accept what it does - drive me to McDonalds - as long as that causes me no harm. I may not personally like that law, but it is the law.
It doesn't matter that you're correct that if people completely ignored advertising, that "free" publications would go away. They have no legal protection that their business practice of giving away something free will always result in increased sales. They're relying on psychology, that repeated presentation increases the perceived desirability of a product. They're using your mind against you. I can use my remote control against them.
Everything has an associated cost somewhere unless those doing it are not getting paid.
They are giving away something for free, and they hope that you'll be tricked into buying their products. They're chosing the cost of giving away something for free - I am not accepting the responsibility to pay them. If I signed an agreement saying that I would watch commercials in exchange for video programming, then they would have a legal right to force me to watch their commercials - it's a contract, and both parties profit - I get TV, and they get me to do what they want - watch their commercials.
I HAVE SIGNED NO CONTRACT. THEY'RE HANDING OUT FREE GOODS. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE ME WATCH THEIR COMMERCIALS.
Thank God scientists have moved us one step closer to Captain Trips. Oh wait - that marks the END OF THE WORLD.
Why the hell don't scientists who do something like this write a report for the National Security Council, and then destroy their research and all documentation about how they did it?
You can yell about "security through obscurity" applying to germ warfare, but until we get better at actually preventing supergerms from killing us all, I'd just as soon not make any new ones. Let's figure out how to patch exploits in the human genome and in basic human biology, before we go discovering (and publishing) new exploits.
Robert L. Glass, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering, Fact 2:
The best programmers are up to 28 times better than the worst programmers, according to "individual differences" research. Given that their pay is never commensurate, they are the biggest bargains in the software field.
A union whose members vary in performance over such a huge range doesn't really make sense, unless part of the standpoint of the union is that pay needs to be commensurate with the individual ability. Since unions typically seek to homogenize pay and benefits, it's perfectly logical to me why some people are opposed to unionization.
Slashdot Mirror
The threat of a patent is just as good as an actual lawsuit, when it comes to stopping development for most companies.
My recent "shit list" has included:
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Dude, Where's My Country
Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Slander
Slander, I read to get pissed - and it didn't disappoint. I wrote 40 pages of "yelling" in response to 16 pages of Slander.
I might just look into those books you mentioned - they sound interesting.
I wouldn't put 'people' in quotes like that.
Even though some Republicans are taking that tack, the party could still move in the right direction. You can't expect improvements, unless you honestly expect them.
I also wonder about things like this. His speech reads well, but I'll never really know if Ted was trying to save her life, or his own. *sigh*
It's easy to lay blame - it's harder to lay asside your own vices, and become a better person, or a better group.
I guess Democrats could start by admitting that Clinton was kind of an over-sexed dink, who worked against Democratic goals on plenty of occasions, and lied to the American people.
But if there are three parties, and they're large enough, then there has to be some negotiation, in order for majority votes to be reached.
Some negotiation would be better than none.
You know what? This time, Republicans got caught with their shorts down.
As I see it, they have two choices:
1) Blame the Democrats
2) Fix their party
If the Republicans would fix their party - I might, might maybe one day vote for one of them.
And I hope that next time, when it's Democrats who get caught with their shorts down, they'll fix their party, so I can keep voting for them.
If by "hilarious" you mean "painful beyond all belief, because our system of Democracy has been so perverted and sidelined that our leaders spend all of their time backstabbing each other, and complaining about all of the backstabbing, instead of addressing the massive problems that our country and the world face," then yeah, I'd agree with that.
The Dems did think of it first - Filegate. They asked for FBI files, and the FBI handed them over. But wait, the GOP thought of it first - Watergate. But wait...
Asking the FBI for files seems pretty bad. But if you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, the FBI says "no," and then they open a file on you.
Hacking the email of the private communications of one of the two most powerful political parties in the world seems pretty bad. If you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, they put you in jail, and then throw away the key.
*shrug*
I'd rather have someone who I believed honestly wanted to do good - but had a hard time of it, because they got distracted by power, and used it wrong... than someone who can't even convince me that they honestly want to do good.
Typical anonymous coward horseshit.
How bout you post some evidence?
I've read "Slander", have you read "The Best Money Democracy Can Buy"?
You're right that yelling "HYPOCRITE!" when you yourself are a proven hypocrite is less than moving.
But the point is that there is no moral highground in D.C.
Time for a third party, if you ask me.
Anonymous free speech is sometimes very productive. It can lead to investigations that prove out the facts. If you're not interested in investigating, then stop pretending that you're interested in free speech at all. The burden of proof rests on the concerned public, not on one person who feels wronged.
I don't care how freaking anonymous Deep Throat was; his tips to the press resulted in the resignation of the President of the United States - who had broken the law.
The system works, don't knock it.
"Mankind" is one word. You wouldn't say "mank" or "ind," would you?
But part of our space program was to scare the Soviets into thinking that we could drop nukes on their heads.
Can you claim to estimate the monetary benefit of ending the Soviet regime?
Well, Christmas came a little late this year - but thanks, Darl! This was one of the nicest gifts you could give me!
How exactly do you short a stock, again?
Okay, figure this one out:
If two planets are 20 light-years apart, and they have a 300 baud connection between them - it'd take 1077 years to transmit the data on one of these, right?
How fast would a ship have to travel to make hand-delivering one of these FASTER?
12,453,419 miles per hour?
I, for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords.
OKAY, YES, WE GET IT. I fat-fingered it. Okay, damn, those commas really give me away, don't they? =) I screwed up.
I appreciate the 0.00008 lakh replies from people pointing out that I'm an idiot, though. Thanks. =)
What the hell is a lakh?
Ah, a lakh is a compltely obscure number - it means "hundred thousand."
What's wrong with saying "1,500,000 engineers?"
Don't be such a doghwI'.
Nope. He was wrong. They were identical except one was a 40G and one was a 60G, or something like that. He was telling me that it's faster BECAUSE it's bigger.
As a former BestBuy associate, I'm insulted.
...oh, you had more to say?
As a former BestBuy associate, you should be insulted...
I once had a "BestBuy associate" tell me "You should buy the bigger hard drive because it's faster."
Annonymous Coward: Sorry, but the networks have no inherent RIGHT to make money.
div_2n: If you are viewing their network programming they do. They provide you with programming for the low price of watching commercials.
That is saying that "they [have] a right to force you to watch commercials." There is no price for the consumer associated with watching broadcast television. The television station is providing something for free - that means with no price. Not a low price as you indicate, but with no price.
"Expect" is a dangerous phrase when you start talking about law, div_2n. There's the conversational usage, which means something akin to, "I believe," and there's the legal definition which is much closer to "I am entitled to." They may believe that they can make money from giving away a free product, but they have no entitlement to that money. They have done nothing which guarantees (or entitles) them to profit. They have chosen to give away something for free, and can have no expectations beyond the protection of their rights, which are limited almost exclusively to those of being copyright holders over the material that they broadcasted.
Don't get so defensive about your rights.
Don't post stupid comments. Like this one. If you didn't want to engage in a conversation, then you shouldn't have posted. When you attack personal rights, people get defensive.
I don't have a right to free TV, you are correct. But if free TV is made available to me, then I am WELL within my rights to use it within the bounds of the law. For instance, not watching the freaking commercials. Or buying a product that helps me not watch the commercials.
They could expect revenue (different from profit), if I had agreed to terms, including providing something (like watching commercials), in return for that service being provided. I HAVE NOT AGREED TO ANY TERMS. I am making use of a free product. They cannot expect any revenue from that. They have no rights in this conversation, other than as granted them by copyright law.
Don't get so defensive of the profit motive of multi-billion-dollar corporations. My rights are far more important than their profits.
A company could decide to give away free cars. That's their choice. And you have every right to accept free products.
It's a broadcast signal. Broadcast. That means that anyone can do with it what they please, as long as they obey copyright law. Copyright law prohibits me from distributing copies, or making unlicensed derivative works.
I can change channels when a show jumps to commercials, I can mute the sound when a show jumps to commercials, I can even video tape a show and watch it at a later time - as many times as I like to. Because presentation is different from copyright. I can re-present a copyrighted work to myself, if I have an authorized copy of it. I am not licensed to watch a copyrighted broadcast work - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
Read that again - there are no limits on how I may use it, as long as I don't break copyright law.
I am under no obligation to buy all of the advertised products. I am under no obligation to give due consideration to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to pay attention to the advertised products. I am under no obligation to watch the products be advertised. Even though, if I were to do all of those things, it would make the broadcast business more successful, and those reasons are in fact the only reason why the business is providing a broadcast television signal.
McDonalds could hire a guy to stand in a Hamburgler suit, and hand out $1 bills to everyone that walks into the restaurant. They are legally allowed to give things away for free. They can expect people to notice that they're giving away something for free. They can expect people to buy more of what they're selling, because they've given away something for free. But the people have no legal obligation to notice, or to buy the products!
It's advertising! Even the television program itself is advertisement for the products in the commercials. "Notice me! Buy this!" Certain forms of advertising are illegal - false advertising comes to mind. But as long as consumers obey copyright, they are allowed to do anything they want to with the advertisements! They provide me with a free product, broadcast television, and they hope that I'll watch the commercials. A car company could give away free cars, loaded with 10% off coupons for McDonalds. If I don't sign any contracts, then I am under no license, there are no limits on my use of their free product, and I don't have to drive their car to freaking McDonalds. If they program the car to automatically drive to McDonalds, then I can chose not to use the car - but under the DMCA, I am prohibited from tampering with the device, and I must merely accept what it does - drive me to McDonalds - as long as that causes me no harm. I may not personally like that law, but it is the law.
It doesn't matter that you're correct that if people completely ignored advertising, that "free" publications would go away. They have no legal protection that their business practice of giving away something free will always result in increased sales. They're relying on psychology, that repeated presentation increases the perceived desirability of a product. They're using your mind against you. I can use my remote control against them.
Everything has an associated cost somewhere unless those doing it are not getting paid.
They are giving away something for free, and they hope that you'll be tricked into buying their products. They're chosing the cost of giving away something for free - I am not accepting the responsibility to pay them. If I signed an agreement saying that I would watch commercials in exchange for video programming, then they would have a legal right to force me to watch their commercials - it's a contract, and both parties profit - I get TV, and they get me to do what they want - watch their commercials.
I HAVE SIGNED NO CONTRACT. THEY'RE HANDING OUT FREE GOODS. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE ME WATCH THEIR COMMERCIALS.
Thank God scientists have moved us one step closer to Captain Trips. Oh wait - that marks the END OF THE WORLD.
Why the hell don't scientists who do something like this write a report for the National Security Council, and then destroy their research and all documentation about how they did it?
You can yell about "security through obscurity" applying to germ warfare, but until we get better at actually preventing supergerms from killing us all, I'd just as soon not make any new ones. Let's figure out how to patch exploits in the human genome and in basic human biology, before we go discovering (and publishing) new exploits.
Nope.
Those are 4-component (RGBA) types, with 32, 16, and 24 bits per component, respectively.
None of them are enough for double floats, and none of them are good enough for 80-bit reals that x87 uses.
Robert L. Glass, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering, Fact 2:
The best programmers are up to 28 times better than the worst programmers, according to "individual differences" research. Given that their pay is never commensurate, they are the biggest bargains in the software field.
A union whose members vary in performance over such a huge range doesn't really make sense, unless part of the standpoint of the union is that pay needs to be commensurate with the individual ability. Since unions typically seek to homogenize pay and benefits, it's perfectly logical to me why some people are opposed to unionization.
Fifty bucks for Saddam Hussein's location?
Okay - you got a deal. I'll give you $50, and I'll keep the other $24,999,950 for myself.