I never did understand why the concept of "cloud computing" was attractive to anyone. I wish someone would explain it to me.
You mean you couldn't understand why all of the big players in software and computer services thought that "cloud computing" was great? You couldn't understand why they wanted people to migrate to a system where they get to charge people a recurring fee to provide services people were getting for a one time fee? What is so hard to understand about why people find "cloud computing " attractive? They get to make more money.
Oh, you couldn't understand why the people who were being asked to pay that money found "cloud computing" attractive? Oh that's easy, it was the latest fad and all the "cool kids" were going to be doing it. If you weren't into "cloud computing", you just weren't with it.
You are right that pirating copyrighted material weakens organizations like the RIAA, the problem is that it does not promote the growth of alternatives. As a matter of fact, it inhibits the growth of alternatives. As long as the RIAA model is the strongest model for the distribution of copyrighted material they will maintain their control of the music industry.
A more effective way to combat the "anti-priacy" forces of the RIAA and its counterparts around the world is to avoid their products all together. If people would spend the effort they expend to obtain music (whether that is money or time and effort) on obtaining solely non-RIAA music, a successful alternative to the RIAA distribution model would arise.
There have been several studies suggesting that pirating RIAA music inhibits the development of alternative business models. The idea being that by pirating RIAA music one is helping the RIAA maintain its mindshare as "the good music".
He's afraid to make that innovation available to others.
Which is the exact problem patents are intended to fix. Although it is the fear of the idea being stolen rather than the fear of being bankrupted because someone else thought of some part of your idea first.
The idea that hate speech is somehow subjective or requires knowledge of inaccessible mental states simply marks you as ignorant of the meaning of the term.
No it makes me knowledgeable about the way that every "hate speech" law has been used.
"This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
If the author means complaints against claims of hate speech, I'd say "and may have" is more appropriate. If that's not what the author means, the logic baffles.
I believe you have parsed the sentence you quoted incorrectly. While an additional "may" would have clarified I believe most people are capable of reading that sentence to understand that the "may" applies to both verbs following it in the sentence: "...may have....serve...".
I understood who you were replying to, I interpreted his statement to mean that the $2000 was "like" roaming charges, i.e. in the base contract instead of being applied when one actually roams instead of charging actual roaming charges.
Re-reading his post, I see that that was probably incorrect. However, if U.S. contracts were constructed like European ones with similar rates(roaming charges when you travel from one political unit of the federation to another), roaming charges would rapidly raise the amount a U.S. Iphone owner spent from the base that a European one pays to the amount that a current U.S. owner pays.
Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
And all of their customers. You know there is a reason that the people in these industries have the power that they do. See, if you force the oil industry to take some action that costs them money, the price of fuel goes up. When the price of fuel goes up, the cost of producing things (such as food) goes up. The cost of getting things (such as food) to people goes up. People get upset and yell at the politicians, possibly vote them out of office in democracies, riot in the streets, etc.. Similar things happen in the coal and beef industries.
You missed option 3
"We're f3cked and our only hope is to give the government the power to run every aspect of our lives while giving all of our money to Al Gore and his friends."
You misunderstood the OP you are replying to. The OP said that roaming charges for going to another country in the EU (similar to going to another state in the U.S.) would eat up most (or all) of the difference between the two year contract costs in the U.S. vs Europe. Are you saying that most Iphone users in the U.S. don't cross state lines often enough for roaming charges (if they applied, which they don't in the U.S., but do in the E.U.) to eat up the difference between the E.U.rate of approximately $1550 per two years and the U.S. rate of approximately $2000 per two years?
The people I know with Iphones would all use more than that in roaming fees if such applied in the U.S.
The first product that Microsoft sold as DOS was PC-DOS, which shipped on the IBM PC. The acronym DOS was first used in QDOS which stood for Quick and Dirty Operating System. Microsoft changed it to Disk Operating System (DOS) after they acquired it. Disk Basic was never known as DOS.
What you are missing is that the web host did not reply and say, "Do X, Y, and Z in order to confirm that this is a legitimate claim." X, Y and Z could have included asking for a court order. The webhost merely ignored the communication.
In order to shut down a business on the Internet you would have to comply with the appropriate policies of the hosting company that they use. In this case, the hosting company didn't have any policies for Louis Vuitton to follow.
I don't know. If it were only Louis Vuitton contacting me, I'd be tempted to tell them "Talk to the police first and get a court order. Then I will promptly comply.".
That was covered under the "refused to implement a policy to remove the offending sites". What you suggest is implementing a policy to remove the offending sites. The evidence suggests that if the web hosts in question had offered Louis Vuitton an avenue to pursue to have the offending sites removed, Louis Vuitton would have been willing to follow it (assuming that it was reasonable).
I believe that, at least in part, is why the web hosts in this case lost. They did not respond to the complaint by offering a series of steps to get the offending websites removed. If they had told Louis Vuiton, "If you do X, Y and Z, then we will remove the sites" and Louis Vuitton had sued without doing X, Y or Z, Louis Vuitton would quite possibly have lost.
Yes, and that cost is HIGHER than if the merchant didn't take cards at all. All other things being equal, the same item would cost you LESS in a store that didn't take cards than one that does.
And Paypal still costs more than using a credit card
Punishment prior to conviction has become all too common, it's only one tactic in an unscroupulous prosecutor's bag of tricks.
That's what you get when state prosecutes are chosen at the whim of the vindictive masses instead of by careful selection based on merit and principle.
Who are you suggesting would do this "careful selection based on merit and principle"? And how would you prevent them from doing it on the basis of cronyism and self-interest (and/or outright corruption)?
You guys are ten years too late. Back in the 1970s, when computers ran on 8080 processors, the company Micro-Soft (which is what they were called when they were in Albuquerque before the name change to Microsoft and the move to Washington) had an operating system and a basic interpreter that were widely pirated, reverse engineered, and otherwise ripped-off. At the time, I was running an MITS Altair. This thing started with 256 bytes of RAM, but we eventually upgraded it to, I think, 8k bytes. After loading a few hundred bytes of boot code in using the panel switches, it would suck Micro-Soft's "Disk Basic" boot loader in off the first sector of the 8" floppy drive, then load the OS and BASIC interpreter. It was so nice when we finally burned that first boot loader into a ROM! By 1976, Bill was pissed about people ripping his wares, and he wrote a famous letter about it. This may have happened before you were wearing nappies, but you should still be embarrassed about laughing at the author. I now ROFL at your childish and uninformed antics!
Yes, but that wasn't MS-DOS. MS-DOS did not exist until Microsoft contracted with IBM to supply the OS for IBM's new PC (which Microsoft already had a contract to supply a Basic and a C compiler for). Microsoft bought the rights to what would become MS-DOS off of another company that had developed it as QDOS.
So, what you were using was something completely unrelated (except for the fact that it came from the same company) to what would later be MS-DOS. What Bill Gates was pissed about was people ripping off his (and Paul Allen's) Basic compiler. The original posters were correct and you are incorrect.
Sorry, I missed it in the OP or I would have replied to him. Because of the context of where he used it my eyes passed over it and it registered as "prescribed", when you quoted him in a shorter post it appeared (to me) you were quoting another source and missing what said source was actually saying. Once again, my apologies for overlooking the original error and calling you on merely quoting it.
BTW it would be Definition Nazi, not Grammar Nazi. I was calling you out on misuse of a word, not on incorrect grammar. Of course, the misuse was not yours but the OP's.
The question is what breed of duck have they trademarked the quack of? The idea of soundmarking requires that it be a unique sound. There are many different species of duck, the sounds made by the different species are different, yet most if not all would be identified as quacking. That sums up the problem with this "soundmark", unlike the MGM Lion or the NBC chimes it is not specific, it attempts to soundmark a whole class of sounds.
Per-user installation is a well-documentedfeature of Windows Installer, and is one of the "proscribed methods". It's not a hack or a workaround for anything.
From the Free Dictionary online
Proscribe:
1. to denounce or condemn
2. to prohibit; forbid
From Meriam Webster online
Proscibe:
1. to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2. to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful
So, what definition of "proscribed method" are you using to say that it is not a hack or workaround?
My father also died of cancer. He fought it for close to five years. My father-in-law also died of cancer. I hope I have the strength to face death as bravely as both of them. Like them I won't quit on the people around me who love me. I will fight to the end, not because I fear death, but to remain with my loved ones as long as they need me to/I am able to.
Less than a week before my father's death, he took off work early to go to a doctor's appointment with my Mom. On the way, the car got a flat tire which he changed. At the appointment, the doctor said that the tumor had started growing again and suggested stopping Chemo for a month or two and then deciding what to do. That was a Friday. That Sunday the church I grew up in had a service for my father where many people who had known him came and expressed their love and support for him and my family. That afternoon, he discussed with my brother (an engineer) how to deal with a problem with the equipment at my Dad's work then laid down in his bed for a nap. He never got out of that bed (except with help to go to the bathroom). The following Thursday he talked on the phone with another brother who lived out of state. His last words were "It's OK."
Life is a series of tests, suicide is cheating on the final exam.
If you think there is anyone in the U.S. living in abject poverty, you either don't have any idea what living in the U.S. is like, or you haven't a clue what abject poverty is.
Slashdot Mirror
I never did understand why the concept of "cloud computing" was attractive to anyone. I wish someone would explain it to me.
You mean you couldn't understand why all of the big players in software and computer services thought that "cloud computing" was great? You couldn't understand why they wanted people to migrate to a system where they get to charge people a recurring fee to provide services people were getting for a one time fee? What is so hard to understand about why people find "cloud computing " attractive? They get to make more money.
Oh, you couldn't understand why the people who were being asked to pay that money found "cloud computing" attractive? Oh that's easy, it was the latest fad and all the "cool kids" were going to be doing it. If you weren't into "cloud computing", you just weren't with it.
You are right that pirating copyrighted material weakens organizations like the RIAA, the problem is that it does not promote the growth of alternatives. As a matter of fact, it inhibits the growth of alternatives. As long as the RIAA model is the strongest model for the distribution of copyrighted material they will maintain their control of the music industry.
A more effective way to combat the "anti-priacy" forces of the RIAA and its counterparts around the world is to avoid their products all together. If people would spend the effort they expend to obtain music (whether that is money or time and effort) on obtaining solely non-RIAA music, a successful alternative to the RIAA distribution model would arise.
There have been several studies suggesting that pirating RIAA music inhibits the development of alternative business models. The idea being that by pirating RIAA music one is helping the RIAA maintain its mindshare as "the good music".
He's afraid to make that innovation available to others.
Which is the exact problem patents are intended to fix. Although it is the fear of the idea being stolen rather than the fear of being bankrupted because someone else thought of some part of your idea first.
The idea that hate speech is somehow subjective or requires knowledge of inaccessible mental states simply marks you as ignorant of the meaning of the term.
No it makes me knowledgeable about the way that every "hate speech" law has been used.
This is a problem because it makes any attempt to rally opposition to an oppressive government "hate speech".
Speech that a reasonable person would consider to be advocating or inciting unlawful conduct directed at a person or identifiable group of people.
As someone else pointed out, that definition would have applied to much of the Civil Rights Movement.
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
"This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
If the author means complaints against claims of hate speech, I'd say "and may have" is more appropriate. If that's not what the author means, the logic baffles.
I believe you have parsed the sentence you quoted incorrectly. While an additional "may" would have clarified I believe most people are capable of reading that sentence to understand that the "may" applies to both verbs following it in the sentence: "...may have....serve...".
I understood who you were replying to, I interpreted his statement to mean that the $2000 was "like" roaming charges, i.e. in the base contract instead of being applied when one actually roams instead of charging actual roaming charges.
Re-reading his post, I see that that was probably incorrect. However, if U.S. contracts were constructed like European ones with similar rates(roaming charges when you travel from one political unit of the federation to another), roaming charges would rapidly raise the amount a U.S. Iphone owner spent from the base that a European one pays to the amount that a current U.S. owner pays.
Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
And all of their customers. You know there is a reason that the people in these industries have the power that they do. See, if you force the oil industry to take some action that costs them money, the price of fuel goes up. When the price of fuel goes up, the cost of producing things (such as food) goes up. The cost of getting things (such as food) to people goes up. People get upset and yell at the politicians, possibly vote them out of office in democracies, riot in the streets, etc.. Similar things happen in the coal and beef industries.
You missed option 3
"We're f3cked and our only hope is to give the government the power to run every aspect of our lives while giving all of our money to Al Gore and his friends."
You misunderstood the OP you are replying to. The OP said that roaming charges for going to another country in the EU (similar to going to another state in the U.S.) would eat up most (or all) of the difference between the two year contract costs in the U.S. vs Europe. Are you saying that most Iphone users in the U.S. don't cross state lines often enough for roaming charges (if they applied, which they don't in the U.S., but do in the E.U.) to eat up the difference between the E.U.rate of approximately $1550 per two years and the U.S. rate of approximately $2000 per two years?
The people I know with Iphones would all use more than that in roaming fees if such applied in the U.S.
The first product that Microsoft sold as DOS was PC-DOS, which shipped on the IBM PC. The acronym DOS was first used in QDOS which stood for Quick and Dirty Operating System. Microsoft changed it to Disk Operating System (DOS) after they acquired it. Disk Basic was never known as DOS.
What you are missing is that the web host did not reply and say, "Do X, Y, and Z in order to confirm that this is a legitimate claim." X, Y and Z could have included asking for a court order. The webhost merely ignored the communication.
In order to shut down a business on the Internet you would have to comply with the appropriate policies of the hosting company that they use. In this case, the hosting company didn't have any policies for Louis Vuitton to follow.
I don't know. If it were only Louis Vuitton contacting me, I'd be tempted to tell them "Talk to the police first and get a court order. Then I will promptly comply." .
That was covered under the "refused to implement a policy to remove the offending sites". What you suggest is implementing a policy to remove the offending sites. The evidence suggests that if the web hosts in question had offered Louis Vuitton an avenue to pursue to have the offending sites removed, Louis Vuitton would have been willing to follow it (assuming that it was reasonable).
I believe that, at least in part, is why the web hosts in this case lost. They did not respond to the complaint by offering a series of steps to get the offending websites removed. If they had told Louis Vuiton, "If you do X, Y and Z, then we will remove the sites" and Louis Vuitton had sued without doing X, Y or Z, Louis Vuitton would quite possibly have lost.
Yes, and that cost is HIGHER than if the merchant didn't take cards at all. All other things being equal, the same item would cost you LESS in a store that didn't take cards than one that does.
And Paypal still costs more than using a credit card
That's what you get when state prosecutes are chosen at the whim of the vindictive masses instead of by careful selection based on merit and principle.
Who are you suggesting would do this "careful selection based on merit and principle"? And how would you prevent them from doing it on the basis of cronyism and self-interest (and/or outright corruption)?
You guys are ten years too late. Back in the 1970s, when computers ran on 8080 processors, the company Micro-Soft (which is what they were called when they were in Albuquerque before the name change to Microsoft and the move to Washington) had an operating system and a basic interpreter that were widely pirated, reverse engineered, and otherwise ripped-off. At the time, I was running an MITS Altair. This thing started with 256 bytes of RAM, but we eventually upgraded it to, I think, 8k bytes. After loading a few hundred bytes of boot code in using the panel switches, it would suck Micro-Soft's "Disk Basic" boot loader in off the first sector of the 8" floppy drive, then load the OS and BASIC interpreter. It was so nice when we finally burned that first boot loader into a ROM! By 1976, Bill was pissed about people ripping his wares, and he wrote a famous letter about it. This may have happened before you were wearing nappies, but you should still be embarrassed about laughing at the author. I now ROFL at your childish and uninformed antics!
Yes, but that wasn't MS-DOS. MS-DOS did not exist until Microsoft contracted with IBM to supply the OS for IBM's new PC (which Microsoft already had a contract to supply a Basic and a C compiler for). Microsoft bought the rights to what would become MS-DOS off of another company that had developed it as QDOS.
So, what you were using was something completely unrelated (except for the fact that it came from the same company) to what would later be MS-DOS. What Bill Gates was pissed about was people ripping off his (and Paul Allen's) Basic compiler. The original posters were correct and you are incorrect.
Sorry, I missed it in the OP or I would have replied to him. Because of the context of where he used it my eyes passed over it and it registered as "prescribed", when you quoted him in a shorter post it appeared (to me) you were quoting another source and missing what said source was actually saying. Once again, my apologies for overlooking the original error and calling you on merely quoting it.
BTW it would be Definition Nazi, not Grammar Nazi. I was calling you out on misuse of a word, not on incorrect grammar. Of course, the misuse was not yours but the OP's.
The question is what breed of duck have they trademarked the quack of? The idea of soundmarking requires that it be a unique sound. There are many different species of duck, the sounds made by the different species are different, yet most if not all would be identified as quacking. That sums up the problem with this "soundmark", unlike the MGM Lion or the NBC chimes it is not specific, it attempts to soundmark a whole class of sounds.
Per-user installation is a well-documented feature of Windows Installer, and is one of the "proscribed methods". It's not a hack or a workaround for anything.
From the Free Dictionary online
Proscribe:
1. to denounce or condemn
2. to prohibit; forbid
From Meriam Webster online
Proscibe:
1. to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2. to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful
So, what definition of "proscribed method" are you using to say that it is not a hack or workaround?
There's suicide, and there's euthanasia. They are _not_ synonymous.
You are right, euthanasia is murder.
My father also died of cancer. He fought it for close to five years. My father-in-law also died of cancer. I hope I have the strength to face death as bravely as both of them. Like them I won't quit on the people around me who love me. I will fight to the end, not because I fear death, but to remain with my loved ones as long as they need me to/I am able to.
Less than a week before my father's death, he took off work early to go to a doctor's appointment with my Mom. On the way, the car got a flat tire which he changed. At the appointment, the doctor said that the tumor had started growing again and suggested stopping Chemo for a month or two and then deciding what to do. That was a Friday. That Sunday the church I grew up in had a service for my father where many people who had known him came and expressed their love and support for him and my family. That afternoon, he discussed with my brother (an engineer) how to deal with a problem with the equipment at my Dad's work then laid down in his bed for a nap. He never got out of that bed (except with help to go to the bathroom). The following Thursday he talked on the phone with another brother who lived out of state. His last words were "It's OK."
Life is a series of tests, suicide is cheating on the final exam.
If you think there is anyone in the U.S. living in abject poverty, you either don't have any idea what living in the U.S. is like, or you haven't a clue what abject poverty is.