The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If all phones running Android are locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
Fixed that for you!;-)
That fix is not necessary. This phone is trying to compete with the Iphone. If it is locked I may as well get an Iphone as this phone.
Actually, the fact that toxins that don't dissolve in water get soaked up by the plastic would make this plastic "island" a good thing for the environment if (and only if) we can find an economically feasible way to harvest the plastic back out of the ocean.
In reality, the main appeal of Android operating systems is that they give phone manufacturers a serious competitor to Apple and they don't have to pay Microsoft. Not to mention, they probably don't care for Windows Mobile.
The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If a phone running Android is locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
I have two things to say about your post. The first is that part of what got GM in trouble was that they sold off GMAC (their division that wrote car loans) and GMAC as a separate company was no longer obligated to write car loans only for GM. Then when other car companies (I know that Ford did this, but I believe other car companies did it as well) found it profitable to write car loans to riskier buyers thus moving more cars and making more on the initial sales than their finance division lost on the defaults, GM did not have a finance division and GMAC was not willing to take the loss for GM to make a profit. The second is that the idea that GM became a "finance company" comes from the fact that they were spending more for benefits and pensions for retired workers than they were for current employees.
That being said, your point that when a company has more of its resources tied up in something besides its main business (GM being a benefits manager rather than a car manufacturer, SCO being a patent troll rather than a software company, Record companies pursuing copyright infringers rather than selling music) it is time to disinvest in that company is right on the money.
In most courts, at this point it becomes the obligation of those claiming you did this to present evidence that you actually did. The other side will have evidence that also could have been tampered with, they do not need to provide evidence that it hasn't been tampered with, you do. The same goes for your evidence, you do not have to prove it was not tampered with, they do. In both cases that holds true as long as tampering with the evidence is not trivialy easy. Steaming open an envelope without leaving visible evidence suggesting that it was done to someone suspicious is not trivial (note, it requires the one opening the envelope to be suspicious enough to take note of the tell tale signs, which are not conclusive in and of themselves as there are many other things that could cause them).
The reasons you would be less likely to have it in a manual are twofold. First, people who drive a manual transmission (especially those who do so as they get older) tend to pay more attention to all of the actions they take as they drive. Second, with a manual transmission if this starts to happen you press the clutch and the car immediately stops accelerating.
pretending that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government.
Sorry, I don't know anybody who believes that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government. However, I do know a lot of people who believe that you shouldn't be able to kill someone just because they can't speak for themselves and are inconvenient for you unlike most Democrats.
You appear to make the mistake of lumping classic liberalism in with progressivism. Obama is a progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. he is not (nor were they) a liberal in the classic sense. but he is clearly a progressive in one of the two classic senses. Obama is a believer in "experts" running the country according to "scientific" principles. Progessives of this type are big believers in central planning. All of Obama's "reforms" are ideological, they all result in more government regulation. When he says things like that he believes the private sector is the driving force behind the economy and that he wants to empower it, he really means it. He believes that the way to empower the private sector is to come up with the proper government regulations for the private sector, not reduce the amount of government regulation of the private sector. Or take the health care bill, "experts" will determine the best method of treatment for every major malady (for some value of best) and any doctor who does not follow that treatment method will be penalized. Never mind that what is best will vary from patient to patient depending on that patient's specific situation.
Historically there are two groups that have called themselves "Progressives". The first, which is the one you appear to think is what "progressive" means have been people who push for greater democracy and greater control of the government by the will of the people (and actually mean it, as opposed to some from the second group who campaign on similar claims). This group has never been very successful politically. The second group wishes to see the government run more "scientifically". They believe that decisions should be made by experts who study things scientifically and that the government should enforce these decisions. So, for example, an expert will study and determine what the ideal price for milk is and that will be the price of milk. Depending on who that price is considered the ideal for will determine if it is a minimum or maximum price. Most Progressives of this second group have a warm spot in their heart for totalitarianism although they always decry the abuses it inevitably brings. Historically, many progressives from this second group campaigned as members of the first group. You cannot be a believer in "scientific" government regulations and a beleiver in unfettered democracy at the same time.
Section 1 only requires that redistribution rights be granted to people when made a part of an aggregate work from multiple sources.
This means you are not guaranteed the right to just copy the code out to anyone and everyone... without created an aggregate work.
Right, it just means that if I want to distribute the software as part of a collection of software (say Sugar and Linux) I may do so, or the software is not "open source" according to OSI.
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Most of the sources I have seen did not "tell us that first G.W. did not exist, then that it wasn't caused by human activity, then that even if it were caused by humans, it won't hurt anything." rather they said: "We don't believe that G.W. exists, if it does, we doubt it was caused by humans, and even so, we don't think a degree or two warmer would cause any problems more expensive to deal with than what they want us to spend to stop it." It was not changing arguments as time went on, all of those were made from the beginning.
I had read an earlier article on this study. Now that I have read the actual study, the conclusion that I reached after reading that article was confirmed. Many of the "facts" that they used in the study are a matter of interpretation (for example whether or not the Bush tax cuts increased federal government revenue, they compared the actual revenue to CBO projections from before the tax cuts, however many people are aware that CBO projections are notoriously inaccurate--as are most government budget projections).
One early article I read suggested that a significant factor involved in these accidents is that as people age at some point their sense of where their limbs (arms and legs) are without looking becomes less precise. This happens rather abruptly. He pointed out that most of the people in these types of accidents were right in the age range of about when this happens, so it would be quite likely that they were unaware of the change and had not yet compensated.
Too bad for Toyota that their brand has been permanently damaged in the US. (Just ask Audi how well it went for them the years after the accusations).
Yes, but at the time Audi already had a reputation for requiring a lot of maintenance and some other quality/engineering problems (among other things they stayed with an old design that was hard to work on that most other manufacturers had moved away from).
In another post, I mentioned an article I had read by someone involved in investigating the Audi problem who claimed that the demographics from the Toyota cases was very similar to those from the Audi cases.
Actually, the very first article I saw that suggested the "driver error" explanation gave a demographic of the drivers involved in these cases. The author of that article had done a similar investigation for a different car company (I forget now if he was hired by the car company--Audi, I beleive--or if he was hired by an outside agency) that had had reports of a similar problem except with cars using mechanical throttles and brakes rather than computer controlled. He discovered that the demographics of those with the problem with the Toyotas was the same as in the previous case, overwhelmingly people in their 60s and/or teens. The other thing he discovered about the Toyota cases is that the overwhelming majority happened when the car was starting out from a complete stop (parked, traffic light) which was also the same as in the previous case he had studied.
Basically, in the previous case that involved mechanical linkages they were able to determine that there were no possible mechanical expalnations for the sudden acceleration when the driver stepped on the brake. He was able to find medical explanations that would acount for otherwise experienced safe drivers suddenly starting to hit the accelerator when they meant to hit the brakes, this accounted for a large number of the cases, most of the other cases involved young, inexperienced drivers or drivers who were driving the vehicle for the first time,
Absolutely, many introverts are socially inept. However, it is the social ineptness that is the problem, not the fact of being an introvert.
Social skills are important. As an introvert who struggled with the very thing you are talking about I understand this very well.
The problem is that the U.S. legislative system isn't insane. They write the bills the way they do in order to hide stuff. The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.
I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
"other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables."
These are not mutually exclusive.
They are saying that for all practical purposes they are. There is only so much money that a company can afford to invest in building the data center. If I spend $10,000 on generating electricity from renewable sources and that electricity would only have cost me $5000 over the life time of the data center, that is $10,000 I don't have to spend on more energy efficient equipment in the data center. (I am using an example which shows a tradeoff that would make renewable energy a bad decision, not one that I have any idea if it is realistic).
I'm still displeased by how universities lose money on their football teams
Very few universities lose money on their football teams. A few do, most of those that have a football program that is losing money do so in the hopes of turning it into the type of cash cow that it is for the major universities. The major football powers (Big 10, PAC10, etc) pay for their entire sports programs out of maney made by the football program (except those that are also making a killing with their basketball programs) and still have money left over from it to pay for non-sports stuff as well.
Some acts become so big during their first contract, that when it is time to sign a new one they have leverage (and ifthey are smart, thier own lawyer). These acts tell the record company, "If we don't like your terms, we'll go to the competiton." But that is only the really big acts with staying power. There really aren't that many of them when you consider that there are 6 billion people on this planet.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If all phones running Android are locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
Fixed that for you! ;-)
That fix is not necessary. This phone is trying to compete with the Iphone. If it is locked I may as well get an Iphone as this phone.
I'd really like to see a decent pic too.
Find a picture of the middle of the ocean. That's what it looks like.
Actually, the fact that toxins that don't dissolve in water get soaked up by the plastic would make this plastic "island" a good thing for the environment if (and only if) we can find an economically feasible way to harvest the plastic back out of the ocean.
In reality, the main appeal of Android operating systems is that they give phone manufacturers a serious competitor to Apple and they don't have to pay Microsoft. Not to mention, they probably don't care for Windows Mobile.
The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If a phone running Android is locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
I have two things to say about your post. The first is that part of what got GM in trouble was that they sold off GMAC (their division that wrote car loans) and GMAC as a separate company was no longer obligated to write car loans only for GM. Then when other car companies (I know that Ford did this, but I believe other car companies did it as well) found it profitable to write car loans to riskier buyers thus moving more cars and making more on the initial sales than their finance division lost on the defaults, GM did not have a finance division and GMAC was not willing to take the loss for GM to make a profit. The second is that the idea that GM became a "finance company" comes from the fact that they were spending more for benefits and pensions for retired workers than they were for current employees.
That being said, your point that when a company has more of its resources tied up in something besides its main business (GM being a benefits manager rather than a car manufacturer, SCO being a patent troll rather than a software company, Record companies pursuing copyright infringers rather than selling music) it is time to disinvest in that company is right on the money.
Ever steamed open an envelope?
In most courts, at this point it becomes the obligation of those claiming you did this to present evidence that you actually did. The other side will have evidence that also could have been tampered with, they do not need to provide evidence that it hasn't been tampered with, you do. The same goes for your evidence, you do not have to prove it was not tampered with, they do. In both cases that holds true as long as tampering with the evidence is not trivialy easy. Steaming open an envelope without leaving visible evidence suggesting that it was done to someone suspicious is not trivial (note, it requires the one opening the envelope to be suspicious enough to take note of the tell tale signs, which are not conclusive in and of themselves as there are many other things that could cause them).
The reasons you would be less likely to have it in a manual are twofold. First, people who drive a manual transmission (especially those who do so as they get older) tend to pay more attention to all of the actions they take as they drive. Second, with a manual transmission if this starts to happen you press the clutch and the car immediately stops accelerating.
NO,I don't anybody who thinks it is ok to kill someone because they are poor.
pretending that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government.
Sorry, I don't know anybody who believes that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government. However, I do know a lot of people who believe that you shouldn't be able to kill someone just because they can't speak for themselves and are inconvenient for you unlike most Democrats.
You appear to make the mistake of lumping classic liberalism in with progressivism. Obama is a progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. he is not (nor were they) a liberal in the classic sense. but he is clearly a progressive in one of the two classic senses. Obama is a believer in "experts" running the country according to "scientific" principles. Progessives of this type are big believers in central planning. All of Obama's "reforms" are ideological, they all result in more government regulation. When he says things like that he believes the private sector is the driving force behind the economy and that he wants to empower it, he really means it. He believes that the way to empower the private sector is to come up with the proper government regulations for the private sector, not reduce the amount of government regulation of the private sector. Or take the health care bill, "experts" will determine the best method of treatment for every major malady (for some value of best) and any doctor who does not follow that treatment method will be penalized. Never mind that what is best will vary from patient to patient depending on that patient's specific situation.
Historically there are two groups that have called themselves "Progressives". The first, which is the one you appear to think is what "progressive" means have been people who push for greater democracy and greater control of the government by the will of the people (and actually mean it, as opposed to some from the second group who campaign on similar claims). This group has never been very successful politically. The second group wishes to see the government run more "scientifically". They believe that decisions should be made by experts who study things scientifically and that the government should enforce these decisions. So, for example, an expert will study and determine what the ideal price for milk is and that will be the price of milk. Depending on who that price is considered the ideal for will determine if it is a minimum or maximum price. Most Progressives of this second group have a warm spot in their heart for totalitarianism although they always decry the abuses it inevitably brings. Historically, many progressives from this second group campaigned as members of the first group. You cannot be a believer in "scientific" government regulations and a beleiver in unfettered democracy at the same time.
Section 1 only requires that redistribution rights be granted to people when made a part of an aggregate work from multiple sources.
This means you are not guaranteed the right to just copy the code out to anyone and everyone... without created an aggregate work.
Right, it just means that if I want to distribute the software as part of a collection of software (say Sugar and Linux) I may do so, or the software is not "open source" according to OSI.
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
What are you doing? Bringing facts to a Slashdot discussion, aren't there rules against that?
Most of the sources I have seen did not "tell us that first G.W. did not exist, then that it wasn't caused by human activity, then that even if it were caused by humans, it won't hurt anything." rather they said: "We don't believe that G.W. exists, if it does, we doubt it was caused by humans, and even so, we don't think a degree or two warmer would cause any problems more expensive to deal with than what they want us to spend to stop it." It was not changing arguments as time went on, all of those were made from the beginning.
I had read an earlier article on this study. Now that I have read the actual study, the conclusion that I reached after reading that article was confirmed. Many of the "facts" that they used in the study are a matter of interpretation (for example whether or not the Bush tax cuts increased federal government revenue, they compared the actual revenue to CBO projections from before the tax cuts, however many people are aware that CBO projections are notoriously inaccurate--as are most government budget projections).
One early article I read suggested that a significant factor involved in these accidents is that as people age at some point their sense of where their limbs (arms and legs) are without looking becomes less precise. This happens rather abruptly. He pointed out that most of the people in these types of accidents were right in the age range of about when this happens, so it would be quite likely that they were unaware of the change and had not yet compensated.
Too bad for Toyota that their brand has been permanently damaged in the US. (Just ask Audi how well it went for them the years after the accusations).
Yes, but at the time Audi already had a reputation for requiring a lot of maintenance and some other quality/engineering problems (among other things they stayed with an old design that was hard to work on that most other manufacturers had moved away from).
In another post, I mentioned an article I had read by someone involved in investigating the Audi problem who claimed that the demographics from the Toyota cases was very similar to those from the Audi cases.
Actually, the very first article I saw that suggested the "driver error" explanation gave a demographic of the drivers involved in these cases. The author of that article had done a similar investigation for a different car company (I forget now if he was hired by the car company--Audi, I beleive--or if he was hired by an outside agency) that had had reports of a similar problem except with cars using mechanical throttles and brakes rather than computer controlled. He discovered that the demographics of those with the problem with the Toyotas was the same as in the previous case, overwhelmingly people in their 60s and/or teens. The other thing he discovered about the Toyota cases is that the overwhelming majority happened when the car was starting out from a complete stop (parked, traffic light) which was also the same as in the previous case he had studied.
Basically, in the previous case that involved mechanical linkages they were able to determine that there were no possible mechanical expalnations for the sudden acceleration when the driver stepped on the brake. He was able to find medical explanations that would acount for otherwise experienced safe drivers suddenly starting to hit the accelerator when they meant to hit the brakes, this accounted for a large number of the cases, most of the other cases involved young, inexperienced drivers or drivers who were driving the vehicle for the first time,
Absolutely, many introverts are socially inept. However, it is the social ineptness that is the problem, not the fact of being an introvert.
Social skills are important. As an introvert who struggled with the very thing you are talking about I understand this very well.
Not insane, corrupt.
The problem is that the U.S. legislative system isn't insane. They write the bills the way they do in order to hide stuff. The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.
I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
"other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables."
These are not mutually exclusive.
They are saying that for all practical purposes they are. There is only so much money that a company can afford to invest in building the data center. If I spend $10,000 on generating electricity from renewable sources and that electricity would only have cost me $5000 over the life time of the data center, that is $10,000 I don't have to spend on more energy efficient equipment in the data center. (I am using an example which shows a tradeoff that would make renewable energy a bad decision, not one that I have any idea if it is realistic).
I'm still displeased by how universities lose money on their football teams
Very few universities lose money on their football teams. A few do, most of those that have a football program that is losing money do so in the hopes of turning it into the type of cash cow that it is for the major universities. The major football powers (Big 10, PAC10, etc) pay for their entire sports programs out of maney made by the football program (except those that are also making a killing with their basketball programs) and still have money left over from it to pay for non-sports stuff as well.
Some acts become so big during their first contract, that when it is time to sign a new one they have leverage (and ifthey are smart, thier own lawyer). These acts tell the record company, "If we don't like your terms, we'll go to the competiton." But that is only the really big acts with staying power. There really aren't that many of them when you consider that there are 6 billion people on this planet.