Is that a bit of editorializing? Surely someone's title & name aren't really, legally, "Lord Justice Laws." If so, I'd be genuinely worried that such an individual has gone off on a serious power trip.
My brother's girlfriend got adventurous one christmas and purchased NFL jerseys from some shady chinese website. Reportedly, she got them for about $20 each, plus shipping. We gushed over them--and scrutinzed them carefully--as we couldn't believe the quality at the price she paid. After that experience, I'm 100% convinced they're not "counterfeit" in the manufacturing sense, but instead they're pulled straight from the line on which the same "$200" jerseys are made, and sold on the side.
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
wtf. Slasdot doesn't like "open parenthesis" followed by "less than". Anyhow:
The EPA's "global warming potential" equivalency factors include a value for residence time in the atmosphere. The IR spectrum for water vapor is irrelevant as its residence time (less than 10 days) is three orders of magnitude lower than CO2 (36,500 days, or 100 yrs).
The EPA's "global warming potential" equivalency factors include a value for residence time in the atmosphere. The IR spectrum for water vapor is irrelevant as its residence time is (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ali1/ Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
They should assume that hostile agencies (foreign *and* domestic) have tapped every last network link they own.
I am sure they knew all along. They were fine with it
Everyone is making noise now, because it became public and there is some concern over backlash from the users.
Let's be honest here. "They" in these cases are companies staffed by 1,000's of people. It seems highly implausible that all of those people, or even just all of the 100's that matter with respect to IT & infrastructure security, would have "known it all along," even less so been "fine with it." I find it more likely that the outrage is 99+% genuine, with 1% reserved for the dozen or fewer people who would have actually (or theoretically, if it's just a conspiracy theory) been in the know on something this big.
...and modern coal doesn't even pollute. Modern coal burning process in new power plants alone removes most of the nasties like NOx and SO2 emissions and modern filters can eliminate particle exhaust by turning it into ash which can be kept out of atmosphere..
I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's totally wrong. It sounds like some sound byte, smacks of broad generalizations and seriously lacks technical understanding. Reduction of NOx and SO2, as well as particulate matter, is all technically possible, but to suggest it's "clean" is totally incorrect. Also, there is no "turning particle exhaust to ash", as combustion particulate is already (either fly or bottom) ash, except where it's "consensable" particulate matter (after it's already left the stack). This latter version is also usually the smallest particulate and therefore most injurious to human health & the environment.
The US EPA keeps records on control technology and related emissions for most coal units permitted in the US: http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/
A quick search shows one unit, with proposed industry-accepted best available control for NOx, emitting (after control) up to 1,100 lbs of NOx per hour. A second unit may emit NOx up to 1,800 lbs/hr. The same search shows emissions potentials of 30-70+ lbs/hr, and that's after industry-best controls at 99.9%; the higher number is for the smaller, more injurious particulate, as it's obviously more difficult to capture. Moreover, NOX and SO2 are among the pre-cursors to the formation of aforementioned smallest particulate matter (see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_web_docket.nsf/Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/CD5F1D01895E1B6585257719006E71BC/$File/Exhibit%2027%20Damberg...3.11.pdf [PDF Warning]).
Since when does the majority of the actions of the US Government make "financial sense"? This is about what is required, not what is saving money. I've heard from various news sources that the shutdown, itself, *costs* millions per day. By that logic, "financial sense" would have been to not shutdown in the first place.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
This is mostly incorrect. Sure, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but its residence time is nothing. Moreover, greenhouse gases are regulated on an equivalency basis, as "CO2e", where each is given a weighted impact. So, methane has a factor of 310 applied to its emissions. The same is true for N2O as well as HFCs / CFCs; those factors are in the ten-to-hundreds of thousands. These actually persist in the atmosphere, hence the reason for their high factors.
Troll harder next time. All of this is available on Wikipedia if you bothered 10 seconds to look.
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
This has got to be sarcasm. Read what you just wrote and pretend it's the US Government making that statement.
Amazon is currently host to an enormous variety of goods, even after you eliminate everything that isn't sold directly by them. I don't understand how Amazon is going to work out the logistics so that you can host multiples of each of these goods within 12 hours driving distance of all major US cities, let alone within an even shorter travel distance of 99% of the US population? It doesn't seem to work out.
Either you're purchasing 20 of "HDTV model #123456" so that you can be well-positioned to sell one of them to the person within a few hours driving distance, and have 19 leftovers... AND/or you're sending orders-of-magniture more vehicles, sparsely loaded, with goods out for delivery as soon as the order is made. This seems pretty grossly inefficient.
The alternative is that Amazon only ever offers this same-day delivery service for an infinitesimally small fraction of the goods it sells, which doesn't seem like a particularly good business plan to add additional expectations & subsequent confusion for the consumer.
No, dropbox is going in the wrong direction. The direction is going to be smaller, faster, portable HDDs. Thumbdrives are already common at 64gb, and SSDs at 256gb. People already carry around a lot of data on their phones and, more to the point, they already carry around a device as large as a phone. Current gen SSDs are about that big. It won't be much to get people to either carry around a second, similarly sized device, or for the technology to just adapt to allow your phone to store terabytes.
Those are already happening; when finally mature, why would you use the cloud? With increasing proliferation of per-byte charges for data, and with the ENORMOUS gulf in access speeds between SATA and the most common internet plans--a gulf that's unlikely to shrink for years, perhaps decades, as both technologies make their own, separate, speed advancements--people aren't going to spend more money for slower access to their own data that they don't even control.
most people use windows because every program works on windows. if every program worked on linux, a lot more ppl would use linux.
Most people who could/would use linux use windows because hardware support is a royal PITA in linux. Not only graphics cards, which have been historically bad, or onboard wifi/ethernet, which is also spotty--but simple things like mice. Configuring mouse speed, acceleration, and general responsiveness is/was awful in linux the last time I really tried; most information I found online was sympathetic, and hoped for a possible fix in the future. I doubt it ever came.
Cost? I won't buy "upgrade only" discs, and it costs $130 for an OEM pro disc. If I could have unlimited personal-use-only installs for my household, that would be great.
Electric car technology is not competitive, period. Unless you artificially tax gasoline
Full stop. If you're going to discuss economic feasibility due to artificial taxes, you should first discuss how the artificially LOW state at which the gas tax currently resides acts as a detriment to such investment.
I don't like Touchwiz either, but you can install a replacement launcher from the market. Apex Launcher is based on the stock android launcher. Works fine for me.
Touchwiz is not solely the launcher; it's the ROM. It's the Samsung experience.
Say what you will about Apple & the iPhone, but I appreciate the tight integration of OS & hardware and their desire to provide a consistent & reliable user experience. I own and use a (Sprint) Samsung Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, and it was a series of broken promises on ever getting ICS. When finally rolled out, it wasn't the true android experience, but some half-baked Samsung-proprietary interface aka "Touchwiz." Great, that wasn't what I was sold when I purchased the device. I want android, not Samsung's half-baked, bug-filled, garbage-software-filled version of it.
Eventually, I rooted and installed JB, because Samsung sure as heck wasn't going to do that. And then, as you venture deeper into the rooting environment, you find out a bunch of hardware/software issues directly caused by Samsung, including but not limited the EMMC super-brick bug. These security issues in TFA are just more of the same. For me, their handling of their android phones and my experience with them has tarnished their image across their entire product fleet. Will I buy a Samsung brand washer/dryer? There's a lot of digital tech in even washing/drying machines nowadays. Before this, their name wasn't an issue. Now, maybe I consider some other brand.
well instead of developing the green tech to compete we must artificially increase the cost of the dirty fuel! we cant use plain old light bulbs anymore, that use more power (and give off heat, thus meaning one could in theory keep their heater lower) and now we are stuck with CFLs that are worse for the environment than the old bulbs!
You should have stopped before this sentence.
Insofar as "cheap" "dirty" vs "expensive" "clean" environmentalism is concerned, the problem is that it is difficult to capture (i.e., within a product's price) the cost of all the externalities ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ). Therefore, we have "cheap" "dirty" fuels, which are actually more expensive than the clean fuels, but the costs of all of their negative externalities have not been included, and therefore only perceived as cheap by the average individual. For example, super-fine particulate matter (i.e., 2.5 microns in diameter), most commonly generated as a fuel combustion byproduct, is a serious contributor to adverse health effects and mortality rates; these health & life effects do translate into costs, though they aren't currently well-reflected in the prices of the products and/or energy choices you can select.
Therefore, we raise the cost of these "dirty" energy sources through artificial means in an attempt to better account for the non-artificial (but hard to encapsulate) externalities.
Re:MS Office mewlers and shills, queue here!
on
LibreOffice 4 Released
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
= LibreOffice doesn't read or write the constantly mutating, rubbish file formats of MS Office the way only MS Office can.
While I recognize it's perhaps not a fair judge of LibreOffice, life isn't fair. I use LibreOffice and like it, and can handle the quirks when using non-native documents. But when even faced with "it's free vs. it costs you money", even ridiculously frugal people like my father WILL NOT SWITCH. His primary concern is his clients are able to read & use the documents he provides--and that conversely, he's able to read & use the documents his clients provide--without any hassle whatsoever. Let's face it, perfect interoperability with zero hassle is a big seller these days; look at Apple.
Only some people will comprise on price vs functionality. But nearly EVERYONE will switch to Libreoffice when they can save big on price without any compromise on functionality.
No, this is wrong. There was a very good story on NPR just 1-2 days ago about Apple the bind it's in re: emerging middle class in China. The numbers were staggering, on the order of 200 MILLION people expected to get a smartphone in the next 1-2 years (and because Apple sells a premium, very-expensive product out of the price range of 99% of those 200 million, is likely to miss out huge unless they radically diverge from their current sales & marketing plan... but I digress).
If Blackberry can rebound and sell an inexpensive, desirable smartphone in China, they could totally recover.
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
So, read the actual article.
The article's arguments, for the "TLDR" crowd, amount to this: 1. Like the candy cigarettes before them, the depiction of realistic guns--especially with the real names attached--amounts to advertisement towards a target population of young individuals, to influence them to purchase the real thing. They provide some anecdotal evidence that it works. As a personal anecdote, I know that it's worked on me (I own a BB gun that's a model of the USP.50; it was my favorite gun & skin from Counter-strike 1).
2. The "shady" part is that the game companies would, seemingly universally, prefer not to talk publicly about any of this (i.e., that there's any ongoing collaboration, licensing, or even two-way discussion between them and gun manufacturers). This is likely a socially-perceived "negative" topic, and therefore discussing it would likely negatively impact sales by casting their companies in a negative light.
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
Rule #4 of the Applicant Rules for your prize reads:
In all cases, the Applicant will be required to perform a Preliminary Test in a location where a properly authorized representative of the JREF can attend. This Preliminary Test is intended to determine if the Applicant is likely to perform as promised during the Formal Test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the Preliminary Test, and therefore no Formal Test has yet been conducted. At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test. After an agreement is reached on the protocol, no part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without an amended agreement, signed by all parties concerned.
Couldn't this be construed as an attempt to prevent any potentially legitimate applicants from being considered for the prize?
Is there any way you can prove that your organization is not falsely debunking claims during the "Preliminary Tests," in order to prevent the prize from being claimed?
And as a corollary, how to you justify that a "supernatural" phenomena--should it exist--be expected to follow natural laws and therefore suitable for reproduction? It would seem that, by definition, it is going to be unexplainable by natural law and may be, by extension, "supernaturally" unsuitable for reproduction.
Driving into work this morning, I heard this same quote on NPR:
"Airline safety inspectors have found no faults with the battery used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, Japan's transport ministry has said."
Worded as such, I think most people would get the wrong impression. They're defining the battery as if it's sitting in someone's pocket, detached from any relevant system & unable to charge or discharge; I didn't think of it that way, and I'd suspect most others didn't either. Most news outlets could use the clarity (albeit, only eventually) provided by the BBC article. The battery *itself* is not the culprit, but investigators essentially *do* still suspect the battery *system,* including the batteries themselves.
The MFR simply makes the product. The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse. Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
Nonsense. Any manufacturer is (or should be) liable for making an inherently unsafe or poor product, and should be aware of--and engineer against--reasonable & likely misuse cases. Moreover, if solutions to implement increased product safety are reasonable and will result in a significant end-user benefit, companies should be implementing them. This should apply to guns as it does to everything else.
For example: Lawnmower decks were lowered decades ago to reduce the likelihood of having your foot be errantly beneath, and guards & other implements were added to lawn mowers to greatly reduce the likelihood of dangerous projectiles. Handle grips were added to stop the motor and/or blade when released. We're not now going to take those off and say "buyer beware." If you should still disagree, claiming the owner is responsible for all "proper use," let's point out the "You're holding it wrong" poor reception debacle attributed to Steve Jobs and the iPhone.
In short, the manufacturer does not "simply make the product." Their responsibility extends well beyond that.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a bit of editorializing? Surely someone's title & name aren't really, legally, "Lord Justice Laws." If so, I'd be genuinely worried that such an individual has gone off on a serious power trip.
My brother's girlfriend got adventurous one christmas and purchased NFL jerseys from some shady chinese website. Reportedly, she got them for about $20 each, plus shipping. We gushed over them--and scrutinzed them carefully--as we couldn't believe the quality at the price she paid. After that experience, I'm 100% convinced they're not "counterfeit" in the manufacturing sense, but instead they're pulled straight from the line on which the same "$200" jerseys are made, and sold on the side.
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
wtf. Slasdot doesn't like "open parenthesis" followed by "less than". Anyhow:
The EPA's "global warming potential" equivalency factors include a value for residence time in the atmosphere. The IR spectrum for water vapor is irrelevant as its residence time (less than 10 days) is three orders of magnitude lower than CO2 (36,500 days, or 100 yrs).
See: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ali1/
Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential [wikipedia.org]
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor [wikipedia.org]
The EPA's "global warming potential" equivalency factors include a value for residence time in the atmosphere. The IR spectrum for water vapor is irrelevant as its residence time is (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ali1/
Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
They should assume that hostile agencies (foreign *and* domestic) have tapped every last network link they own.
I am sure they knew all along. They were fine with it
Everyone is making noise now, because it became public and there is some concern over backlash from the users.
Let's be honest here. "They" in these cases are companies staffed by 1,000's of people. It seems highly implausible that all of those people, or even just all of the 100's that matter with respect to IT & infrastructure security, would have "known it all along," even less so been "fine with it." I find it more likely that the outrage is 99+% genuine, with 1% reserved for the dozen or fewer people who would have actually (or theoretically, if it's just a conspiracy theory) been in the know on something this big.
...and modern coal doesn't even pollute. Modern coal burning process in new power plants alone removes most of the nasties like NOx and SO2 emissions and modern filters can eliminate particle exhaust by turning it into ash which can be kept out of atmosphere..
I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's totally wrong. It sounds like some sound byte, smacks of broad generalizations and seriously lacks technical understanding. Reduction of NOx and SO2, as well as particulate matter, is all technically possible, but to suggest it's "clean" is totally incorrect. Also, there is no "turning particle exhaust to ash", as combustion particulate is already (either fly or bottom) ash, except where it's "consensable" particulate matter (after it's already left the stack). This latter version is also usually the smallest particulate and therefore most injurious to human health & the environment.
The US EPA keeps records on control technology and related emissions for most coal units permitted in the US: http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/
A quick search shows one unit, with proposed industry-accepted best available control for NOx, emitting (after control) up to 1,100 lbs of NOx per hour. A second unit may emit NOx up to 1,800 lbs/hr. The same search shows emissions potentials of 30-70+ lbs/hr, and that's after industry-best controls at 99.9%; the higher number is for the smaller, more injurious particulate, as it's obviously more difficult to capture. Moreover, NOX and SO2 are among the pre-cursors to the formation of aforementioned smallest particulate matter (see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_web_docket.nsf/Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/CD5F1D01895E1B6585257719006E71BC/$File/Exhibit%2027%20Damberg...3.11.pdf [PDF Warning]).
Since when does the majority of the actions of the US Government make "financial sense"? This is about what is required, not what is saving money. I've heard from various news sources that the shutdown, itself, *costs* millions per day. By that logic, "financial sense" would have been to not shutdown in the first place.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
This is mostly incorrect. Sure, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but its residence time is nothing. Moreover, greenhouse gases are regulated on an equivalency basis, as "CO2e", where each is given a weighted impact. So, methane has a factor of 310 applied to its emissions. The same is true for N2O as well as HFCs / CFCs; those factors are in the ten-to-hundreds of thousands. These actually persist in the atmosphere, hence the reason for their high factors.
Troll harder next time. All of this is available on Wikipedia if you bothered 10 seconds to look.
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
This has got to be sarcasm. Read what you just wrote and pretend it's the US Government making that statement.
Amazon is currently host to an enormous variety of goods, even after you eliminate everything that isn't sold directly by them. I don't understand how Amazon is going to work out the logistics so that you can host multiples of each of these goods within 12 hours driving distance of all major US cities, let alone within an even shorter travel distance of 99% of the US population? It doesn't seem to work out.
Either you're purchasing 20 of "HDTV model #123456" so that you can be well-positioned to sell one of them to the person within a few hours driving distance, and have 19 leftovers... AND/or you're sending orders-of-magniture more vehicles, sparsely loaded, with goods out for delivery as soon as the order is made. This seems pretty grossly inefficient.
The alternative is that Amazon only ever offers this same-day delivery service for an infinitesimally small fraction of the goods it sells, which doesn't seem like a particularly good business plan to add additional expectations & subsequent confusion for the consumer.
No, dropbox is going in the wrong direction. The direction is going to be smaller, faster, portable HDDs. Thumbdrives are already common at 64gb, and SSDs at 256gb. People already carry around a lot of data on their phones and, more to the point, they already carry around a device as large as a phone. Current gen SSDs are about that big. It won't be much to get people to either carry around a second, similarly sized device, or for the technology to just adapt to allow your phone to store terabytes.
Those are already happening; when finally mature, why would you use the cloud? With increasing proliferation of per-byte charges for data, and with the ENORMOUS gulf in access speeds between SATA and the most common internet plans--a gulf that's unlikely to shrink for years, perhaps decades, as both technologies make their own, separate, speed advancements--people aren't going to spend more money for slower access to their own data that they don't even control.
most people use windows because every program works on windows. if every program worked on linux, a lot more ppl would use linux.
Most people who could/would use linux use windows because hardware support is a royal PITA in linux. Not only graphics cards, which have been historically bad, or onboard wifi/ethernet, which is also spotty--but simple things like mice. Configuring mouse speed, acceleration, and general responsiveness is/was awful in linux the last time I really tried; most information I found online was sympathetic, and hoped for a possible fix in the future. I doubt it ever came.
Then, there's Netflix.
I really don't understand the slow uptake to 7.
Cost? I won't buy "upgrade only" discs, and it costs $130 for an OEM pro disc. If I could have unlimited personal-use-only installs for my household, that would be great.
Electric car technology is not competitive, period. Unless you artificially tax gasoline
Full stop. If you're going to discuss economic feasibility due to artificial taxes, you should first discuss how the artificially LOW state at which the gas tax currently resides acts as a detriment to such investment.
Lesson learned: If you want a full-baked true Android experience, always look for the word "Nexus".
Agreed, that is the lesson I've learned.
I don't like Touchwiz either, but you can install a replacement launcher from the market. Apex Launcher is based on the stock android launcher. Works fine for me.
Touchwiz is not solely the launcher; it's the ROM. It's the Samsung experience.
Say what you will about Apple & the iPhone, but I appreciate the tight integration of OS & hardware and their desire to provide a consistent & reliable user experience. I own and use a (Sprint) Samsung Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, and it was a series of broken promises on ever getting ICS. When finally rolled out, it wasn't the true android experience, but some half-baked Samsung-proprietary interface aka "Touchwiz." Great, that wasn't what I was sold when I purchased the device. I want android, not Samsung's half-baked, bug-filled, garbage-software-filled version of it.
Eventually, I rooted and installed JB, because Samsung sure as heck wasn't going to do that. And then, as you venture deeper into the rooting environment, you find out a bunch of hardware/software issues directly caused by Samsung, including but not limited the EMMC super-brick bug. These security issues in TFA are just more of the same. For me, their handling of their android phones and my experience with them has tarnished their image across their entire product fleet. Will I buy a Samsung brand washer/dryer? There's a lot of digital tech in even washing/drying machines nowadays. Before this, their name wasn't an issue. Now, maybe I consider some other brand.
well instead of developing the green tech to compete we must artificially increase the cost of the dirty fuel! we cant use plain old light bulbs anymore, that use more power (and give off heat, thus meaning one could in theory keep their heater lower) and now we are stuck with CFLs that are worse for the environment than the old bulbs!
You should have stopped before this sentence.
Insofar as "cheap" "dirty" vs "expensive" "clean" environmentalism is concerned, the problem is that it is difficult to capture (i.e., within a product's price) the cost of all the externalities ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ). Therefore, we have "cheap" "dirty" fuels, which are actually more expensive than the clean fuels, but the costs of all of their negative externalities have not been included, and therefore only perceived as cheap by the average individual. For example, super-fine particulate matter (i.e., 2.5 microns in diameter), most commonly generated as a fuel combustion byproduct, is a serious contributor to adverse health effects and mortality rates; these health & life effects do translate into costs, though they aren't currently well-reflected in the prices of the products and/or energy choices you can select.
Therefore, we raise the cost of these "dirty" energy sources through artificial means in an attempt to better account for the non-artificial (but hard to encapsulate) externalities.
= LibreOffice doesn't read or write the constantly mutating, rubbish file formats of MS Office the way only MS Office can.
While I recognize it's perhaps not a fair judge of LibreOffice, life isn't fair. I use LibreOffice and like it, and can handle the quirks when using non-native documents. But when even faced with "it's free vs. it costs you money", even ridiculously frugal people like my father WILL NOT SWITCH. His primary concern is his clients are able to read & use the documents he provides--and that conversely, he's able to read & use the documents his clients provide--without any hassle whatsoever. Let's face it, perfect interoperability with zero hassle is a big seller these days; look at Apple.
Only some people will comprise on price vs functionality. But nearly EVERYONE will switch to Libreoffice when they can save big on price without any compromise on functionality.
The market is saturated now.
No, this is wrong. There was a very good story on NPR just 1-2 days ago about Apple the bind it's in re: emerging middle class in China. The numbers were staggering, on the order of 200 MILLION people expected to get a smartphone in the next 1-2 years (and because Apple sells a premium, very-expensive product out of the price range of 99% of those 200 million, is likely to miss out huge unless they radically diverge from their current sales & marketing plan... but I digress).
If Blackberry can rebound and sell an inexpensive, desirable smartphone in China, they could totally recover.
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
So, read the actual article.
The article's arguments, for the "TLDR" crowd, amount to this: .50; it was my favorite gun & skin from Counter-strike 1).
1. Like the candy cigarettes before them, the depiction of realistic guns--especially with the real names attached--amounts to advertisement towards a target population of young individuals, to influence them to purchase the real thing. They provide some anecdotal evidence that it works. As a personal anecdote, I know that it's worked on me (I own a BB gun that's a model of the USP
2. The "shady" part is that the game companies would, seemingly universally, prefer not to talk publicly about any of this (i.e., that there's any ongoing collaboration, licensing, or even two-way discussion between them and gun manufacturers). This is likely a socially-perceived "negative" topic, and therefore discussing it would likely negatively impact sales by casting their companies in a negative light.
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
Rule #4 of the Applicant Rules for your prize reads:
Couldn't this be construed as an attempt to prevent any potentially legitimate applicants from being considered for the prize?
Is there any way you can prove that your organization is not falsely debunking claims during the "Preliminary Tests," in order to prevent the prize from being claimed?
And as a corollary, how to you justify that a "supernatural" phenomena--should it exist--be expected to follow natural laws and therefore suitable for reproduction? It would seem that, by definition, it is going to be unexplainable by natural law and may be, by extension, "supernaturally" unsuitable for reproduction.
Driving into work this morning, I heard this same quote on NPR:
"Airline safety inspectors have found no faults with the battery used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, Japan's transport ministry has said."
Worded as such, I think most people would get the wrong impression. They're defining the battery as if it's sitting in someone's pocket, detached from any relevant system & unable to charge or discharge; I didn't think of it that way, and I'd suspect most others didn't either. Most news outlets could use the clarity (albeit, only eventually) provided by the BBC article. The battery *itself* is not the culprit, but investigators essentially *do* still suspect the battery *system,* including the batteries themselves.
The MFR simply makes the product.
The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse.
Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
Nonsense. Any manufacturer is (or should be) liable for making an inherently unsafe or poor product, and should be aware of--and engineer against--reasonable & likely misuse cases. Moreover, if solutions to implement increased product safety are reasonable and will result in a significant end-user benefit, companies should be implementing them. This should apply to guns as it does to everything else.
For example: Lawnmower decks were lowered decades ago to reduce the likelihood of having your foot be errantly beneath, and guards & other implements were added to lawn mowers to greatly reduce the likelihood of dangerous projectiles. Handle grips were added to stop the motor and/or blade when released. We're not now going to take those off and say "buyer beware." If you should still disagree, claiming the owner is responsible for all "proper use," let's point out the "You're holding it wrong" poor reception debacle attributed to Steve Jobs and the iPhone.
In short, the manufacturer does not "simply make the product." Their responsibility extends well beyond that.