He is absolutely right, Android is much more likely to be successful in the "the overwhelming majority of cell phones use it" sense than in the "holy shit this is awesome" sense. Of course, Google is aiming for the former not the latter.
It is pretty obvious from the some of the things mentioned in the earlier article that Liskula Cohen thought the blogger was someone else (perhaps someone who has an ongoing feud with her). When she discovered that the blogger was not who she thought it was, she dropped the suit. It is even possible that her case for defamation was partly based on other behavior of the person she thought was the blogger.
Heh, I used to do that (in Auckland, NZ) from my work mobile, whenever I visited the head office about once a month. Tremendously convenient, well worth the extra 50 cents. One day it didn't work, instead a TXT came back saying my mobile couldn't do that anymore.
Turns out the Accounts department didn't like me doing that, and cancelled it without telling me. Apparently they'd rather I fill out an expense claim, get it signed by my manager, than fax it to accounts, at which stage they'd credit it to me again. For two dollars, every month (man of principle, etc.)
Corporate Accountants FTW - without them two dollars each month would be incorrectly classified as Telecomms rather than Travel - thank god they caught me out at my terrible little game.
They may have claimed it was because it would be incorrectly classified, but I would bet they did it hoping you wouldn't bother with the expense claim for $2 a month. Of course, someone should have pointed out that the cost of processing that expense claim exceeded the $2 of the claim.
That's great for the people who do it all the time. What about the people who only go into that municipality less than once a month? I don't use toll roads often enough to use ezpass, if I had to use ezpass to use the toll roads, I could not use the toll roads.
That's because only a small number of individuals/families get involved. If you were to get involved it would be easier to take control away from that "local aristocracy", than it would be to disrupt the control of a larger political area (such as state or federal).
You think because you know who controls local politics, but don't know who controls state politics that local politics is more of a closed "shop" than state politics. It isn't.
Changing things is not easy, or quick. If you want to change things, you need to be willing to spend however long it takes to do it, the people who are currently running things have a lot invested in the current setup. You are only going to change it by investing as much of yourself into it.
It's a little known fact that prosecutors cannot be sued for anything they do in court to a defendant. Prosecutors are truly the worst part of the system since they are unaccountable to the public and are rewarded for getting convictions, not enforcing the law wisely. As a profession, they are so corrupt that they make civil lawyers look sympathetic since civil lawyers are at least limiting themselves to cases where you can kinda sorta see how their client was genuinely harmed.
Most prosecutors answer to the District Attorney, and can be fired by the DA almost at will. The District Attorney is an elected official. In those cases where the prosecutor doesn't answer to the elected District Attorney (or essentially the same office with a different title), they answer to the elected head of the of the executive branch of whatever level of government they represent (Mayor, Governor, President, etc). If your local prosecutors are loose cannons, campaign against their boss.
The only reason that prosecutors appear to be unaccountable to the public is because the public doesn't pay enough attention to local politics/civics
;
The guy getting his degree from Drexel has never been involved with meth (the guy who was involved with meth is a former friend of the father of the Drexel student).
As far as you know- and yet.
And yet you want to not allow people who will end up involved with meth to graduate from high school. If the kid I know who is entering Drexel this fall is involved with meth without me knowing it, there is no way a high school teacher/administrator is going to be able to separate the kids who should be allowed to graduate from the kids who shouldn't.
I do agree that a large part of the failure of our schools is because of the lack of a moral code. The problem with public schools teaching a moral code is; whose moral code? We do not have a moral code that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of our population.
That, in and of itself, is a failure of the American System at assimilation.
So, who did the system fail to properly assimilate, those who think that abortion should be illegal, or those who think it should be readily available to everybody? How about between those who think that assisted suicide should be legal and those who think it is murder?
Ya, and the inability of people to actually say what they mean frustrates me. There's a difference between "it doesn't cost me anything" and "it doesn't cost me as much." The former is false, the latter is true.
You would rather I just assume what the OP meant, even though its not what he said. Why can't people just say what they ACTUALLY mean? And how do you know he DOES know about the credit card processing fees? You don't, and that could be why he didn't respond correcting himself.
Using a credit card doesn't cost me anything if I pay it off by the end of the month. I don't pay any more for a product if I use a credit card than if I use cash.
So, while businesses charge more to make up for the expense of accepting credit cards, at most stores, the buyer pays that price whether they use credit cards or not.
The reason I know that the OP knows about credit card processing fees is because I AM THE OP. You still don't seem able to actually follow a thread, since you couldn't figure out that I am the OP.
. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.
I'm sorry, science is in the business of proving theories wrong. All current scientific theories are merely those that have yet to be proved wrong. They are extremely valuable in that they can be used to predict future behavior of the universe to a significant degree of confidence. However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.
The great weakness of science is that people have a tendency to view theories that have been around for a long time and not proven false to be true. All it really means is that they are reliable predictors of the behavior of the universe insofar as our technology allows us to observer the behavior of the universe. Sometimes this means that they are good theories that are very useful (say General Relativity), other times it merely means that our technology has not yet reached the point where we can reliably test any of the theory's predictions (say the various String Theories).
They shouldn't be granted a degree automatically with the rest of their class- AND they should be required to stay in school until they get that degree. Work should not be an option.
So, you are saying that people should be required to stay in school until they meet some standard of acceptable behavior? Even after they reach 18? or 21?
Likely then, it doesn't matter if they get degrees from Drexel, they'll just use their knowledge to find new ways to manufacture meth. Once schools stopped teaching morality, or at least enough morality to match the value system of "every man needs to earn a living without breaking the law or negatively affecting his neighbors", then education just becomes a tool for criminal behavior.
The guy getting his degree from Drexel has never been involved with meth (the guy who was involved with meth is a former friend of the father of the Drexel student).
I do agree that a large part of the failure of our schools is because of the lack of a moral code. The problem with public schools teaching a moral code is; whose moral code? We do not have a moral code that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of our population.
The Government can't copyright its work. Unless New York wishes to claim it's not really part of the government, in which case good luck collecting local taxes. The MTA's so-called public servants who dreamed this timetable skirmish up really should be sacked for wasting taxpayers money in the pursuit of inferior service.
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
The intent of the section is to place in the public domain all work of the United States Government, which is defined in 17 U.S.C. 101 as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. In most cases, contractors are not employees.
The government of the State of New York and the government of the City of New York are not in anyway a part of the United States Government. They never have been.
Ancient history, they did not have cheap recording technology we have now. So any valuable copyrighted work stored on disk today is unlikely to disapper in 50 to 100 years. It would probably go on some RAID server backed website the minute its copyrights expire.
What if it isn't valuable today? What if it is something that people 50 years from now think is valuable? There are a lot of copyrighted recordings from the 30s and 40s that would be valuable today, but they weren't in the 60s and 70s, so they are gone.
I disagree about copyrighting software. Current law on copyrighting software is perfectly fine (except for the length of the term, but that's true of all copyright). The biggest problem with Intellectual Property law when it comes to software, is patent law. Software should not be patentable (except possibly in certain very special cases where the software is an inherent part of a particular physical machine).
if you had a patent on a cure for something it would be in your best interests to produce it and make money while the patent is still active. if you had a cure and held it as a trade secret, your best interests (financially at least) are to sit on it. this can, and commonly does, happen in labs all the time. according to my sister, who's in that line of research, there's a cure for the herpes simplex virus out there sitting on a shelf that will never see the light of day because treating the symptoms of herpes is far more lucrative than curing it.
That would be plausible except for two things. One, if you had a patent on the cure, there would be a public record of it. If there is a public record of it, word will get out. Once word gets out the level of public outcry would be such that Congress (or the courts) would grant someone a license to make it (there is precedent for this).
Two, the problem with keeping it as a trade secret is this, you are making lots of money from treating the symptoms, so are your competitors. All of you are getting some money from the people who are suffering from Herpes. The first one of you to patent and sell a cure for Herpes will get all the money and the other guys will stop getting money for just treating the symptoms.
So despite your poor logic, it is not in the drug companies' interest to sit on cures, because if they don't get to market first, someone else will. If someone else starts selling a cure for Herpes, you stop making money off of just selling something that just treats the symptoms.
Oh, yeah, BTW, considering the numbers of tests that a potential treatment for a medical condition has to go through on the way to anyone knowing whether it is a cure or not, by the time, the company knows they have a cure rather than just a new treatment, lots of other people in the business know what they are working on. If the original company stops working on it, someone else would pick it up and start developing a cure.
I hear there are some pretty good Star Wars books that weren't written by George Lucas. I also hear there are some good Star Trek books which weren't written by Gene Roddenberry. Go to any bookstore, and you will find a whole shelf full of Forgotten Realms books, by a cadre of different authors, and they seems to be, for the most part, well received by fans of Forgotten Realms.
There weren't any good Star Wars books written by George Lucas, nor Star Trek books by Gene Roddenberry. As for Forgotten Realms, as novels they were conceived as a sort of shared world. I'm not a Douglas Adams fan, but none of the Star Wars, Star Trek or Forgotten Realms books are in the same class as The Hitchhikers' Guide series.
So, are you saying that students who don't meet your definition of competent citizen should be locked up until they do? Or are you saying that they should not be granted a degree?
In the second case then the guy under discussion wouldn't have had a degree. Of course neither would another friend of mine whose eldest son is entering his third year of college on a full ride scholarship and whose second son is about to enter Drexel on a full ride academic scholarship in their Biomedical engineering program. I can't think of any method that a school teacher/administrator could have used to tell the difference between the two based on their behavior in school.
So the best way to immediately increase everyone's health and economic performance is easier access to birth control for teenagers. Funny how the religious right screams against it because it would lift people out of poverty, and the poorer you are, the more heavily you lean on some sort of religious belief to make your sodded life more tolerable.
Of course, those who were born into poverty who have some sort of religious belief are significantly less likely to stay in poverty.
Oh yeah, there have been studies that show that many teenagers who become pregnant had access to birth control.
So, when should he have been locked up? Before or after he was involved in a meth ring? If you say after, we agree.
As to teaching him the value of work and showing him that his problems are his own fault, how do you propose to do that? One of my other friends and I tried to show him that, but he wouldn't listen.
Perhaps you think he should have been institutionalized (jailed) sooner?
I'm no psychiatrist but I believe even that kind of mentality can be altered with enough training but the first step is the desire for change.
And that is the key, what do you do about the people who have no desire to change? Also, if you minimize the consequences of the actions that result from that mentality, how likely is the individual to desire to change?
No, see, I know lots of conservatives who want the military to stay the size it is (the parts that do the things they want) and other parts of government to shrink (the parts they don't want. I don't know any liberals that want parts of the government to stay the size they are, they either want the part to grow (social programs, the part they want), or they want it to shrink (the military, the part they don't want).
I suppose you don't see the difference between wanting to keep the parts you like the size they are and wanting to make the parts you like bigger?
As I said, most conservatives think the parts of government they like are big enough, most liberals think the parts of government they like need to get bigger.
To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money. They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money.
So someone who's born into a poor family made a poor lifestyle decision? Gee, I guess people should choose better parents.
>
As a general rule in the U.S., if someone who was born into a poor family does not have children out of wedlock, their children will not be born into a poor family. I don't have the reference currently, but there are several studies that show that Americans rarely stay in the socio-economic level they were born at.
So, the friend I had several years ago who was every bit as mentally intelligent as I and gifted with greater mechanical aptitude than I, who got arrested a couple months back as a minor part of a big meth bust and who couldn't hold a job as long as I knew him because he would decide to not show up for work, should be given a free ride because he had "mental" problems?
He always had an excuse why it was someone else's fault that he wasn't better off. It was never because he was lazy and irresponsible. What kind of therapy do you think is going to help someone like that?
Slashdot Mirror
, but that I donâ(TM)t expect it to be successful in the âoeholy shit is this awesome!â sense that the iPhone is. http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/the_android_opportunity
He is absolutely right, Android is much more likely to be successful in the "the overwhelming majority of cell phones use it" sense than in the "holy shit this is awesome" sense. Of course, Google is aiming for the former not the latter.
It is pretty obvious from the some of the things mentioned in the earlier article that Liskula Cohen thought the blogger was someone else (perhaps someone who has an ongoing feud with her). When she discovered that the blogger was not who she thought it was, she dropped the suit. It is even possible that her case for defamation was partly based on other behavior of the person she thought was the blogger.
Heh, I used to do that (in Auckland, NZ) from my work mobile, whenever I visited the head office about once a month. Tremendously convenient, well worth the extra 50 cents. One day it didn't work, instead a TXT came back saying my mobile couldn't do that anymore.
Turns out the Accounts department didn't like me doing that, and cancelled it without telling me. Apparently they'd rather I fill out an expense claim, get it signed by my manager, than fax it to accounts, at which stage they'd credit it to me again. For two dollars, every month (man of principle, etc.)
Corporate Accountants FTW - without them two dollars each month would be incorrectly classified as Telecomms rather than Travel - thank god they caught me out at my terrible little game.
They may have claimed it was because it would be incorrectly classified, but I would bet they did it hoping you wouldn't bother with the expense claim for $2 a month. Of course, someone should have pointed out that the cost of processing that expense claim exceeded the $2 of the claim.
That's great for the people who do it all the time. What about the people who only go into that municipality less than once a month? I don't use toll roads often enough to use ezpass, if I had to use ezpass to use the toll roads, I could not use the toll roads.
That's because only a small number of individuals/families get involved. If you were to get involved it would be easier to take control away from that "local aristocracy", than it would be to disrupt the control of a larger political area (such as state or federal).
You think because you know who controls local politics, but don't know who controls state politics that local politics is more of a closed "shop" than state politics. It isn't.
Changing things is not easy, or quick. If you want to change things, you need to be willing to spend however long it takes to do it, the people who are currently running things have a lot invested in the current setup. You are only going to change it by investing as much of yourself into it.
It's a little known fact that prosecutors cannot be sued for anything they do in court to a defendant. Prosecutors are truly the worst part of the system since they are unaccountable to the public and are rewarded for getting convictions, not enforcing the law wisely. As a profession, they are so corrupt that they make civil lawyers look sympathetic since civil lawyers are at least limiting themselves to cases where you can kinda sorta see how their client was genuinely harmed.
Most prosecutors answer to the District Attorney, and can be fired by the DA almost at will. The District Attorney is an elected official. In those cases where the prosecutor doesn't answer to the elected District Attorney (or essentially the same office with a different title), they answer to the elected head of the of the executive branch of whatever level of government they represent (Mayor, Governor, President, etc). If your local prosecutors are loose cannons, campaign against their boss.
The only reason that prosecutors appear to be unaccountable to the public is because the public doesn't pay enough attention to local politics/civics
Hey, Coke tried shipping Pepsi inside their bottles. They called it New Coke.
; The guy getting his degree from Drexel has never been involved with meth (the guy who was involved with meth is a former friend of the father of the Drexel student). As far as you know- and yet.
And yet you want to not allow people who will end up involved with meth to graduate from high school. If the kid I know who is entering Drexel this fall is involved with meth without me knowing it, there is no way a high school teacher/administrator is going to be able to separate the kids who should be allowed to graduate from the kids who shouldn't.
I do agree that a large part of the failure of our schools is because of the lack of a moral code. The problem with public schools teaching a moral code is; whose moral code? We do not have a moral code that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of our population.
That, in and of itself, is a failure of the American System at assimilation.
So, who did the system fail to properly assimilate, those who think that abortion should be illegal, or those who think it should be readily available to everybody? How about between those who think that assisted suicide should be legal and those who think it is murder?
Ya, and the inability of people to actually say what they mean frustrates me. There's a difference between "it doesn't cost me anything" and "it doesn't cost me as much." The former is false, the latter is true.
You would rather I just assume what the OP meant, even though its not what he said. Why can't people just say what they ACTUALLY mean? And how do you know he DOES know about the credit card processing fees? You don't, and that could be why he didn't respond correcting himself.
Using a credit card doesn't cost me anything if I pay it off by the end of the month. I don't pay any more for a product if I use a credit card than if I use cash.
So, while businesses charge more to make up for the expense of accepting credit cards, at most stores, the buyer pays that price whether they use credit cards or not. The reason I know that the OP knows about credit card processing fees is because I AM THE OP. You still don't seem able to actually follow a thread, since you couldn't figure out that I am the OP.
. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.
I'm sorry, science is in the business of proving theories wrong. All current scientific theories are merely those that have yet to be proved wrong. They are extremely valuable in that they can be used to predict future behavior of the universe to a significant degree of confidence. However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.
The great weakness of science is that people have a tendency to view theories that have been around for a long time and not proven false to be true. All it really means is that they are reliable predictors of the behavior of the universe insofar as our technology allows us to observer the behavior of the universe. Sometimes this means that they are good theories that are very useful (say General Relativity), other times it merely means that our technology has not yet reached the point where we can reliably test any of the theory's predictions (say the various String Theories).
They shouldn't be granted a degree automatically with the rest of their class- AND they should be required to stay in school until they get that degree. Work should not be an option.
So, you are saying that people should be required to stay in school until they meet some standard of acceptable behavior? Even after they reach 18? or 21? Likely then, it doesn't matter if they get degrees from Drexel, they'll just use their knowledge to find new ways to manufacture meth. Once schools stopped teaching morality, or at least enough morality to match the value system of "every man needs to earn a living without breaking the law or negatively affecting his neighbors", then education just becomes a tool for criminal behavior.
The guy getting his degree from Drexel has never been involved with meth (the guy who was involved with meth is a former friend of the father of the Drexel student).
I do agree that a large part of the failure of our schools is because of the lack of a moral code. The problem with public schools teaching a moral code is; whose moral code? We do not have a moral code that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of our population.
The Government can't copyright its work. Unless New York wishes to claim it's not really part of the government, in which case good luck collecting local taxes. The MTA's so-called public servants who dreamed this timetable skirmish up really should be sacked for wasting taxpayers money in the pursuit of inferior service.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law :
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
The intent of the section is to place in the public domain all work of the United States Government, which is defined in 17 U.S.C. 101 as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. In most cases, contractors are not employees.
The government of the State of New York and the government of the City of New York are not in anyway a part of the United States Government. They never have been.
Ancient history, they did not have cheap recording technology we have now. So any valuable copyrighted work stored on disk today is unlikely to disapper in 50 to 100 years. It would probably go on some RAID server backed website the minute its copyrights expire.
What if it isn't valuable today? What if it is something that people 50 years from now think is valuable? There are a lot of copyrighted recordings from the 30s and 40s that would be valuable today, but they weren't in the 60s and 70s, so they are gone.
I disagree about copyrighting software. Current law on copyrighting software is perfectly fine (except for the length of the term, but that's true of all copyright). The biggest problem with Intellectual Property law when it comes to software, is patent law. Software should not be patentable (except possibly in certain very special cases where the software is an inherent part of a particular physical machine).
if you had a patent on a cure for something it would be in your best interests to produce it and make money while the patent is still active. if you had a cure and held it as a trade secret, your best interests (financially at least) are to sit on it. this can, and commonly does, happen in labs all the time. according to my sister, who's in that line of research, there's a cure for the herpes simplex virus out there sitting on a shelf that will never see the light of day because treating the symptoms of herpes is far more lucrative than curing it.
That would be plausible except for two things. One, if you had a patent on the cure, there would be a public record of it. If there is a public record of it, word will get out. Once word gets out the level of public outcry would be such that Congress (or the courts) would grant someone a license to make it (there is precedent for this).
Two, the problem with keeping it as a trade secret is this, you are making lots of money from treating the symptoms, so are your competitors. All of you are getting some money from the people who are suffering from Herpes. The first one of you to patent and sell a cure for Herpes will get all the money and the other guys will stop getting money for just treating the symptoms.
So despite your poor logic, it is not in the drug companies' interest to sit on cures, because if they don't get to market first, someone else will. If someone else starts selling a cure for Herpes, you stop making money off of just selling something that just treats the symptoms.
Oh, yeah, BTW, considering the numbers of tests that a potential treatment for a medical condition has to go through on the way to anyone knowing whether it is a cure or not, by the time, the company knows they have a cure rather than just a new treatment, lots of other people in the business know what they are working on. If the original company stops working on it, someone else would pick it up and start developing a cure.
I hear there are some pretty good Star Wars books that weren't written by George Lucas. I also hear there are some good Star Trek books which weren't written by Gene Roddenberry. Go to any bookstore, and you will find a whole shelf full of Forgotten Realms books, by a cadre of different authors, and they seems to be, for the most part, well received by fans of Forgotten Realms.
There weren't any good Star Wars books written by George Lucas, nor Star Trek books by Gene Roddenberry. As for Forgotten Realms, as novels they were conceived as a sort of shared world. I'm not a Douglas Adams fan, but none of the Star Wars, Star Trek or Forgotten Realms books are in the same class as The Hitchhikers' Guide series.
So, are you saying that students who don't meet your definition of competent citizen should be locked up until they do? Or are you saying that they should not be granted a degree?
In the second case then the guy under discussion wouldn't have had a degree. Of course neither would another friend of mine whose eldest son is entering his third year of college on a full ride scholarship and whose second son is about to enter Drexel on a full ride academic scholarship in their Biomedical engineering program. I can't think of any method that a school teacher/administrator could have used to tell the difference between the two based on their behavior in school.
It did, what was the school supposed to do? Lock him up for being a bad student?
I'm pretty sure that people who were in the bottom quarter of wealth ten years ago, who are in prison today are still in the bottom quarter of wealth.
So the best way to immediately increase everyone's health and economic performance is easier access to birth control for teenagers. Funny how the religious right screams against it because it would lift people out of poverty, and the poorer you are, the more heavily you lean on some sort of religious belief to make your sodded life more tolerable.
Of course, those who were born into poverty who have some sort of religious belief are significantly less likely to stay in poverty.
Oh yeah, there have been studies that show that many teenagers who become pregnant had access to birth control.
So, when should he have been locked up? Before or after he was involved in a meth ring? If you say after, we agree.
As to teaching him the value of work and showing him that his problems are his own fault, how do you propose to do that? One of my other friends and I tried to show him that, but he wouldn't listen.
Perhaps you think he should have been institutionalized (jailed) sooner?
I'm no psychiatrist but I believe even that kind of mentality can be altered with enough training but the first step is the desire for change.
And that is the key, what do you do about the people who have no desire to change? Also, if you minimize the consequences of the actions that result from that mentality, how likely is the individual to desire to change?
No, see, I know lots of conservatives who want the military to stay the size it is (the parts that do the things they want) and other parts of government to shrink (the parts they don't want. I don't know any liberals that want parts of the government to stay the size they are, they either want the part to grow (social programs, the part they want), or they want it to shrink (the military, the part they don't want).
I suppose you don't see the difference between wanting to keep the parts you like the size they are and wanting to make the parts you like bigger?
As I said, most conservatives think the parts of government they like are big enough, most liberals think the parts of government they like need to get bigger.
Idiot!
So someone who's born into a poor family made a poor lifestyle decision? Gee, I guess people should choose better parents.
>
As a general rule in the U.S., if someone who was born into a poor family does not have children out of wedlock, their children will not be born into a poor family. I don't have the reference currently, but there are several studies that show that Americans rarely stay in the socio-economic level they were born at.
So, the friend I had several years ago who was every bit as mentally intelligent as I and gifted with greater mechanical aptitude than I, who got arrested a couple months back as a minor part of a big meth bust and who couldn't hold a job as long as I knew him because he would decide to not show up for work, should be given a free ride because he had "mental" problems?
He always had an excuse why it was someone else's fault that he wasn't better off. It was never because he was lazy and irresponsible. What kind of therapy do you think is going to help someone like that?