What Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn't work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn't work today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.
Jesus.
This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown. Cringely is such a tool.
Not only is it bad science fiction, but Microsoft's customers would scream bloody murder. Additionally, to what degree is it possible for MS to write a "patch" that makes the Google search engine the ONLY web functionality not work on Windows computers. I'm pretty confident that any "patch" that made Google search not work would break lots of web sites.
I love it when conservatives talk about race. It's so... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.
Keep on going.
I always love it when Democrats talk about Republican racists. There are so many to talk about, like the Klu Klux Klan member in the Senate...Oops, my bad, he's a Democrat (Robert Byrd).
You might want to check the history of the two parties. If it wasn't for a Democrat (Woodrow Wilson), the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's (and the Civil Rights Act) would probably have not been necessary.
I have generally understood the "three strikes" rule to mean that any user who tries to access their account three times with an incorrect password is locked out. It doesn't matter what IP address they are using, so no a botnet of 50,000 nodes is not allowed 150,000 guesses.
One of the reasons that the MSM is dying is because of things like the story about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She recently did an interview published in the NYT. In the interview she said that she thought the Roe vs Wade decision was partially based on limiting "populations that we don't want have too many of." None of the MSM thought that quote was worth special note, not even the NYT that published the interview. Here is the exact quote: "Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we donâ(TM)t want to have too many of."
Whatever she meant by that statement it is fairly interesting that a Supreme Court Justice felt that Roe vs Wade was about limiting "growth in populations we don't want to have too many of."
I see two posts that talk about "serious deficiencies" in Sharepoint. Yet neither of them suggests a superior alternative. Please recommend what software package you would use in place of Sharepoint.
My question is, why did you need a class specifically on critical thinking? Shouldn't your science teachers, social studies/history teachers have taught you critical thinking?
If these teachers don't already teach critical thinking, what makes you think that they would teach it in a class on critical thinking?
But it is still official Christian dogma that all the pagans and heathens, not matter how well they lived their lives, ARE going to hell.
That is because it is also Christian doctrine that to be in Heaven is to be with God. The corollary being that being separated from God is Hell. If you spent your life choosing to be separated from God, why should God force you to be with Him after your death?
The fact that Christians believe that being separated from God is a terrible fate, does not change the fact that they believe that God will respect individual's right to choose it.
Critical thinking should be a required course in every high school in the land, and if you fail you don't get a diploma. But the churches would scream bloody murder. The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
The last thing the Teachers' Unions want is children thinking for themselves. An important thing to remember is that the only way to teach critical thinking is for the TEACHER to teach it. A course in critical thinking would accomplish nothing if the teacher teaching it did not actually teach critical thinking. A teacher who is capable of and willing to teach critical thinking does not need a class specifically on critical thinking in order to teach it. As a matter of fact, IMO it is much easier to teach critical thinking in a class on some other subject matter than in a class on critical thinking.
Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
Should we be surprised that the longer someone is in the Education Establishment the more indoctrinated in its beliefs they become? During the Vietnam War, there was a correlation between the level of one's education and one's support of the war effort: the greater the level of education the more likely a U.S. citizen was to support the U.S. military actions in Vietnam. The exception to this being those who had family members serving in the military, those individuals were more likely to support the war effort than others of their demographic.
The fact of the matter is the more formal education one has the more thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideas promoted by the Education Establishment one becomes and thus the less likely one is to think critically.
Right. The fact that you classify 55% as 'more than half' shows exactly what a stupid moron you are.
Mart
I read your post three times, what is your point?
Let's do some math. One half of something is 50% of that something. 55 is greater than 50. So 55% is more than half of something.
Thank you. While there are many things about any given Open Source software project that could be improved, the real reason for the low adoption rate of Open Source software is marketing.
Another problem with stories like this (and with Open Source marketing in general), is the idea that "Open Source software" can be lumped together and compared to "Apple software" or "Microsoft software". Open Source software is to Apple (or Microsoft) software like Creative Commons music is to U2 music.
The difference between Eclipse 3.4 and 3.2 is night and day when you actually use it.
Just because it looks the same....
How can the difference be night and day when it looks the same? One of the main differences between night and day is that they LOOK different (you know day has light and night doesn't--or at least not much when compared to day).
He is referring to reports of incidents where the police have attempted to confiscate cameras that were used to take pictures of them making an arrest. There was a case a year or so ago where the police arrested someone for videoing them making an arrest. There was actually a law in that state making it illegal to video a police officer. Fortunately, the state courts ruled the law unconstitutional.
I want to know what it is about cities named Lancaster that leads them to think that monitoring everyone's activities is a good idea? A couple of weeks ago we had a story about Lancaster, Pa having the most cameras per capita monitoring for crime and now we have Lancaster, Ca putting an eye in the sky.
The legal ruling saying that says that it must work with a "specific machine" is more recent than the ruling that says that processes can be patented. Said ruling appears to be intentionally limiting the ruling that allowed processes to be patented. Additionally, there is reason to believe that the judges in that case felt that the ruling allowing processes to be patented should be reversed, but made a more limited ruling partially because of the nature of the case before them and partially in order to allow for courts to gradually correct the abuses that resulted from the previous ruling. IANAL, but I play one in my head, so this is just my interpretation of the various writings I have seen on this subject.
IANAPT (I am not a patent-troll), but I am interested in your take on this: If fifty years ago I came up with a way to manufacture ball bearings - independently of an existing, patented method - would I not be sued by the patent holder of the bearing production process if I brought a product to market using my bearings?
.
My understanding is, quite likely, but the patent holder would have lost, unless they held a patent on ball bearings.
Let's take what I think is a better analogy to the current state (or maybe the just overturned state) of patent law (as interpreted by the courts). If the current interpretation had been in existence in the 1800's, the guy who developed the steam engine for trains could have written a patent for a device that moves under the power of combustion. This would have forced the developers of automobiles to pay him licensing fees. Under the patent law of 50 years ago, the fact that an automobile uses an internal combustion engine and is not limited to tracks would have invalidated the application of the railroad patents to the automobile.
All the Compulsory Licensing means is that you cannot refuse to license your work to someone who pays SoundExchange. It doesn't mean that you can't provide them with a license that allows them to play/broadcast your work without paying SoundExchange.
Exactly, unemployment is way up, the economy is down with no improvement in sight and sales of a product that is not a necessity are way down. Those sales must be down because of smart phones./s
IIRC, they were just trying to save themselves from getting annihilated by these preposterous fees... and now we're giving them a hard time because they didn't save every other tiny internet radio station all at once?
Seems to me that we won the battle, but not the war (yet). So let's celebrate that instead of flagellating those fighting on our side, yeah?
People are not so much blaming Pandora, as pointing out that this is not really a victory. The whole point of the outrageous fees was to limit the number of broadcasters. The music industry has maintained control because they control most people's exposure to new music (payola to radio stations). Because of the limited nature of radio waves there were a limited number of radio stations. This allowed music companies to enter into agreements with them that determined what was broadcast.
The Internet has no such physical limitation, there was a possibility of an ever expanding number of broadcasters. In such a scenario, some broadcaster might arise who became popular before the music industry was aware of them and who broadcast music not under the music industry's control. From the music industry's perspective, this is a win. It limits the broadcasters to those who can afford this initial high licensing fee.
I believe that it will fail to accomplish the lock in the music industry is counting on. It will actually harm the music industry in the long run because the only practical work around is to broadcast music that is CC'd or otherwise licensed to be freely broadcast.
The courts are much less receptive to delaying tactics when a large company is suing an individual. If you can show that the song was licensed under CC at some point, it is unlikely that the appellate courts would accept appeals.
The only problem with this approach is the necessity of keeping careful records of CC (or other free) licensing for every version of every song that you play.
It actually presents an interesting idea, can a songwriter license a song so that all recordings of it are also CC'd?
Actually that is not entirely true. Artists are free to enter into an agreement with a "broadcaster" independent of SoundExchange. The law only prevents artists from suing for copyright infringement those "broadcasters" who have paid the SoundExchange license fee.
Slashdot Mirror
" It also begs the question as to all the negative press about a yet to be delivered platform and the total silence regarding Apples offerings.
When did Apple release an OS I could install on my computer? I thought you had to buy an Apple computer to use the Apple OS (legally).
Jesus.
This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown. Cringely is such a tool.
Not only is it bad science fiction, but Microsoft's customers would scream bloody murder. Additionally, to what degree is it possible for MS to write a "patch" that makes the Google search engine the ONLY web functionality not work on Windows computers. I'm pretty confident that any "patch" that made Google search not work would break lots of web sites.
I love it when conservatives talk about race. It's so ... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.
Keep on going.
I always love it when Democrats talk about Republican racists. There are so many to talk about, like the Klu Klux Klan member in the Senate...Oops, my bad, he's a Democrat (Robert Byrd).
You might want to check the history of the two parties. If it wasn't for a Democrat (Woodrow Wilson), the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's (and the Civil Rights Act) would probably have not been necessary.
I have generally understood the "three strikes" rule to mean that any user who tries to access their account three times with an incorrect password is locked out. It doesn't matter what IP address they are using, so no a botnet of 50,000 nodes is not allowed 150,000 guesses.
One of the reasons that the MSM is dying is because of things like the story about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She recently did an interview published in the NYT. In the interview she said that she thought the Roe vs Wade decision was partially based on limiting "populations that we don't want have too many of." None of the MSM thought that quote was worth special note, not even the NYT that published the interview. Here is the exact quote:
"Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we donâ(TM)t want to have too many of."
Whatever she meant by that statement it is fairly interesting that a Supreme Court Justice felt that Roe vs Wade was about limiting "growth in populations we don't want to have too many of."
I see two posts that talk about "serious deficiencies" in Sharepoint. Yet neither of them suggests a superior alternative. Please recommend what software package you would use in place of Sharepoint.
Now we get to a point of agreement, the problem of people not learning critical thinking is "state-sponsored public education".
My question is, why did you need a class specifically on critical thinking? Shouldn't your science teachers, social studies/history teachers have taught you critical thinking?
If these teachers don't already teach critical thinking, what makes you think that they would teach it in a class on critical thinking?
But it is still official Christian dogma that all the pagans and heathens, not matter how well they lived their lives, ARE going to hell.
That is because it is also Christian doctrine that to be in Heaven is to be with God. The corollary being that being separated from God is Hell. If you spent your life choosing to be separated from God, why should God force you to be with Him after your death?
The fact that Christians believe that being separated from God is a terrible fate, does not change the fact that they believe that God will respect individual's right to choose it.
Critical thinking should be a required course in every high school in the land, and if you fail you don't get a diploma. But the churches would scream bloody murder. The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
The last thing the Teachers' Unions want is children thinking for themselves. An important thing to remember is that the only way to teach critical thinking is for the TEACHER to teach it. A course in critical thinking would accomplish nothing if the teacher teaching it did not actually teach critical thinking. A teacher who is capable of and willing to teach critical thinking does not need a class specifically on critical thinking in order to teach it. As a matter of fact, IMO it is much easier to teach critical thinking in a class on some other subject matter than in a class on critical thinking.
So what is the minimum percentage of 100% that is more than half?
Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
Should we be surprised that the longer someone is in the Education Establishment the more indoctrinated in its beliefs they become? During the Vietnam War, there was a correlation between the level of one's education and one's support of the war effort: the greater the level of education the more likely a U.S. citizen was to support the U.S. military actions in Vietnam. The exception to this being those who had family members serving in the military, those individuals were more likely to support the war effort than others of their demographic. The fact of the matter is the more formal education one has the more thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideas promoted by the Education Establishment one becomes and thus the less likely one is to think critically.
Right. The fact that you classify 55% as 'more than half' shows exactly what a stupid moron you are.
Mart
I read your post three times, what is your point?
Let's do some math. One half of something is 50% of that something. 55 is greater than 50. So 55% is more than half of something.
Thank you. While there are many things about any given Open Source software project that could be improved, the real reason for the low adoption rate of Open Source software is marketing.
Another problem with stories like this (and with Open Source marketing in general), is the idea that "Open Source software" can be lumped together and compared to "Apple software" or "Microsoft software". Open Source software is to Apple (or Microsoft) software like Creative Commons music is to U2 music.
The difference between Eclipse 3.4 and 3.2 is night and day when you actually use it.
Just because it looks the same....
How can the difference be night and day when it looks the same? One of the main differences between night and day is that they LOOK different (you know day has light and night doesn't--or at least not much when compared to day).
Yes, New York, New Jersey, those were both named by the British, so it wasn't stealing. Additionally there is Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, etc.
He is referring to reports of incidents where the police have attempted to confiscate cameras that were used to take pictures of them making an arrest. There was a case a year or so ago where the police arrested someone for videoing them making an arrest. There was actually a law in that state making it illegal to video a police officer. Fortunately, the state courts ruled the law unconstitutional.
I want to know what it is about cities named Lancaster that leads them to think that monitoring everyone's activities is a good idea? A couple of weeks ago we had a story about Lancaster, Pa having the most cameras per capita monitoring for crime and now we have Lancaster, Ca putting an eye in the sky.
The legal ruling saying that says that it must work with a "specific machine" is more recent than the ruling that says that processes can be patented. Said ruling appears to be intentionally limiting the ruling that allowed processes to be patented. Additionally, there is reason to believe that the judges in that case felt that the ruling allowing processes to be patented should be reversed, but made a more limited ruling partially because of the nature of the case before them and partially in order to allow for courts to gradually correct the abuses that resulted from the previous ruling. IANAL, but I play one in my head, so this is just my interpretation of the various writings I have seen on this subject.
IANAPT (I am not a patent-troll), but I am interested in your take on this: If fifty years ago I came up with a way to manufacture ball bearings - independently of an existing, patented method - would I not be sued by the patent holder of the bearing production process if I brought a product to market using my bearings?
.
My understanding is, quite likely, but the patent holder would have lost, unless they held a patent on ball bearings.
Let's take what I think is a better analogy to the current state (or maybe the just overturned state) of patent law (as interpreted by the courts). If the current interpretation had been in existence in the 1800's, the guy who developed the steam engine for trains could have written a patent for a device that moves under the power of combustion. This would have forced the developers of automobiles to pay him licensing fees. Under the patent law of 50 years ago, the fact that an automobile uses an internal combustion engine and is not limited to tracks would have invalidated the application of the railroad patents to the automobile.
All the Compulsory Licensing means is that you cannot refuse to license your work to someone who pays SoundExchange. It doesn't mean that you can't provide them with a license that allows them to play/broadcast your work without paying SoundExchange.
Exactly, unemployment is way up, the economy is down with no improvement in sight and sales of a product that is not a necessity are way down. Those sales must be down because of smart phones. /s
Why are we all so busy blaming Pandora for this?
IIRC, they were just trying to save themselves from getting annihilated by these preposterous fees... and now we're giving them a hard time because they didn't save every other tiny internet radio station all at once?
Seems to me that we won the battle, but not the war (yet). So let's celebrate that instead of flagellating those fighting on our side, yeah?
People are not so much blaming Pandora, as pointing out that this is not really a victory. The whole point of the outrageous fees was to limit the number of broadcasters. The music industry has maintained control because they control most people's exposure to new music (payola to radio stations). Because of the limited nature of radio waves there were a limited number of radio stations. This allowed music companies to enter into agreements with them that determined what was broadcast.
The Internet has no such physical limitation, there was a possibility of an ever expanding number of broadcasters. In such a scenario, some broadcaster might arise who became popular before the music industry was aware of them and who broadcast music not under the music industry's control. From the music industry's perspective, this is a win. It limits the broadcasters to those who can afford this initial high licensing fee.
I believe that it will fail to accomplish the lock in the music industry is counting on. It will actually harm the music industry in the long run because the only practical work around is to broadcast music that is CC'd or otherwise licensed to be freely broadcast.
The courts are much less receptive to delaying tactics when a large company is suing an individual. If you can show that the song was licensed under CC at some point, it is unlikely that the appellate courts would accept appeals.
The only problem with this approach is the necessity of keeping careful records of CC (or other free) licensing for every version of every song that you play.
It actually presents an interesting idea, can a songwriter license a song so that all recordings of it are also CC'd?
Actually that is not entirely true. Artists are free to enter into an agreement with a "broadcaster" independent of SoundExchange. The law only prevents artists from suing for copyright infringement those "broadcasters" who have paid the SoundExchange license fee.