The difference between current atomic clocks and a perfect atomic clock would only result in a fraction of a millimeter in positioning difference, tops.
There may be no law against it, but how does it comply with PCI security requirements? Shouldn't those companies be losing their permission to accept credit cards?
Go to the library or bookstore and get several books written in the language you want to learn.
Also get several books in some other language you do not know.
Study all those books, noting patterns in the languages, and trying to figure out as much as you can.
When you finally get stuck, take out the manual for your television or microwave over or some other device. Pick a device whose manual has multiple languages, including these from items 1 and 2.
This manual is your Rosetta Stone. Use it like scholars used the real Rosetta Stone.
If I were riding a spacecraft to the moon (or riding any vehicle that could easily kill me), I'd want it designed with the best tools for getting the job done. If that's a closed source tool, buy the closed source tool.
She knew she was sharing thousands of songs. Hence, when they offer to settle instead of sue for a few thousand dollars, she could do the calculation herself, using an actual song count, and see that it came out to around $1/song--the price so many people here say is a fair price.
I thought they had only proven 24 songs. At least that's what the article says
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
As they did in all their lawsuits, they initially offered to settle for a few thousand dollars. The huge numbers only came up after she started losing trials.
To save 8.7 million lives by vaccination, you have to inject a lot more than 8.7 million people. Failing to take that into account has completely invalidated your calculations.
Nobody said it wasn't a profoundly generous act, it's just misguided. He could make a greater impact by funding education and awareness. There really are millions of people who have no clue they can spread HIV by having unprotected sex... why spend billions of dollars on research to kill the weed when it would be more effective to kill the root?
Uhm...the Gates Foundation does give billions to those kind of things. Maybe you should actually look into what they do sometime.
You've overlooked a couple things. First, the $10 billion isn't all for vaccinating people. Much it is for research to develop the vaccines.
Second, when you do vaccinate people, you don't just vaccinate the people who would die if they didn't get the vaccine. Generally, we have no way of telling who those people are. So, you might have to vaccinate a million people to save a few thousand lives.
The "way to a better future for the world" is birth control and education
The Gates Foundation grants a large amount to family planning groups.
Also, when things like child mortality go down, population growth actually tends to slow down. When people can be reasonably sure that their kids have a good chance of making it through childhood, they don't need to make as many of them--the overpopulation to a significant extent comes from people having to breed like rabbits just to get some kids to make it to adulthood.
If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
Under Mozilla's approach, what happens when someone develops a new, free, codec that is better than Theora? If they aren't going to support using the codecs that are on the host system, just how do the early adopters start using the new codec?
Are we supposed to hold off on using the new codec until Mozilla determines it to be Firefox-worthy and builds it into the browser?
Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks
Nonsense. Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system. It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.
Libraries are zero sum lending. If a library has bought N copies of a book, only N people can have it checked out at once. Person N+1 has to wait until one of the N finishes reading it and returns it.
Online "lending" is not zero sum. If N people have torrented a book, N+1 does not have to wait for one of them to finish reading.
This is a huge difference, and makes any comparison between online distribution of digital material with offline distribution of physical items completely useless.
In the city there are many things that are not in your immediate proximity that could be very quickly
Case in point: a friend of mine in college was killed crossing the street in downtown Pasadena, CA, on a Friday afternoon. The car that hit him was traveling something like 70 miles per hour down Colorado Blvd (quite a feat with Friday afternoon traffic). When my friend entered the cross walk, that car would have been several hundred feet away. My friend was in top physical shape and had excellent reaction time (he was a black belt in karate trained directly under Master Ohshima, so would not have needed much warning to get out of the way.
It's kind of frightening to realize that when you cross the street, you might have to worry about a car hundreds of feet away.
Part of that $99 was the assurance that they will keep the same part available, with the exact same specifications and characteristics, for some ridiculously long time.
From the tests I've run, it looks like Bing is actually more useful than Google right now. The main reason seems to be that the search engine optimization people seem to have figured out Google, and so the top results on Google searches have a lot of sites that are trying to sell you stuff related (barely) to your search. They either haven't figured out, or haven't turned their attention to, Bing yet, so the Bing search tends to be more useful.
No doubt that will change as Bing grows, but search is one of those things where now is all that matters, which is an argument for using Bing at the moment.
That said, 95% of the time I use Google, out of habit.
They no longer are a link to the site you want - they are a link to something at Google that then redirects to your chosen site. Since I have no idea how long those links will work, they were useless to me (I wanted to right-click and copy shortcut / copy link and paste it into my documentation as further reading - but some link to Google that may work fine for today and maybe not work fine next year isn't all that handy)
Try a Webkit-based browser. The Google search link has the direct link in the href, but uses an onclick Javascript function to make clicking go somewhere else. In Firefox, when you copy/paste the link, it runs the Javascript and gives you the computed link. In Safari, when you copy/paste the link, it does not do the Javascript, so you get what's in the href. I haven't tested to see if that's how all Webkit-based browsers work, but it's worth a shot.
How did you determine where the links go? I did a search for "Slashdot". Here's the HTML for the first result link:
<a> href="http://slashdot.org/" class="l" onmousedown="return clk(this.href,'','','res','1','&sig2=7vr0Oj3UWg6ORsH6rhf_7w','0CAkQFjAA')"><em>Slashdot</em> - News for nerds, stuff that matters</a>
If you have Javascript disabled, that goes straight to http://slashdot.org./ If you have Javascript enabled, it goes to the clk function. Here is the clk function:
That appears to be constructing and sending the browser to the kind of link that was shown a couple posts up in this thread.
What happens when you right-click on a link in Google search results and copy it depends on the browser. In Safari on my Mac, you get what is in the href attribute, not what is computed by the Javascript. In Firefox on my Mac, you get the result of the Javascript. I'm not sure which one is doing the right thing here.
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$
First, there was no loan. Microsoft bought $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.
Second, Apple had around $4 billion in cash or cash-equivalents at the time. They didn't need the money from selling that stock to Microsoft.
The purpose of the transaction was not to give money to Apple, but rather to show that Microsoft was serious about supporting Apple (particularly by continuing to develop and sell Office Mac) for the next few years.
They have to be very careful in a close environment such as the shuttle or the space station to keep the air healthy. Using mailx like you do would give off too much smug for their filters and cleaners to handle.
Slashdot Mirror
So by your theory, I can dry a cat safely in the microwave oven, because the ~2.5 GHz photons won't cause chemical changes? Good to know.
The difference between current atomic clocks and a perfect atomic clock would only result in a fraction of a millimeter in positioning difference, tops.
There may be no law against it, but how does it comply with PCI security requirements? Shouldn't those companies be losing their permission to accept credit cards?
If I were riding a spacecraft to the moon (or riding any vehicle that could easily kill me), I'd want it designed with the best tools for getting the job done. If that's a closed source tool, buy the closed source tool.
She knew she was sharing thousands of songs. Hence, when they offer to settle instead of sue for a few thousand dollars, she could do the calculation herself, using an actual song count, and see that it came out to around $1/song--the price so many people here say is a fair price.
I thought they had only proven 24 songs. At least that's what the article says
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
As they did in all their lawsuits, they initially offered to settle for a few thousand dollars. The huge numbers only came up after she started losing trials.
To save 8.7 million lives by vaccination, you have to inject a lot more than 8.7 million people. Failing to take that into account has completely invalidated your calculations.
Nobody said it wasn't a profoundly generous act, it's just misguided. He could make a greater impact by funding education and awareness. There really are millions of people who have no clue they can spread HIV by having unprotected sex... why spend billions of dollars on research to kill the weed when it would be more effective to kill the root?
Uhm...the Gates Foundation does give billions to those kind of things. Maybe you should actually look into what they do sometime.
You've overlooked a couple things. First, the $10 billion isn't all for vaccinating people. Much it is for research to develop the vaccines.
Second, when you do vaccinate people, you don't just vaccinate the people who would die if they didn't get the vaccine. Generally, we have no way of telling who those people are. So, you might have to vaccinate a million people to save a few thousand lives.
The "way to a better future for the world" is birth control and education
The Gates Foundation grants a large amount to family planning groups.
Also, when things like child mortality go down, population growth actually tends to slow down. When people can be reasonably sure that their kids have a good chance of making it through childhood, they don't need to make as many of them--the overpopulation to a significant extent comes from people having to breed like rabbits just to get some kids to make it to adulthood.
If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
God BLESS this woman
Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
Under Mozilla's approach, what happens when someone develops a new, free, codec that is better than Theora? If they aren't going to support using the codecs that are on the host system, just how do the early adopters start using the new codec?
Are we supposed to hold off on using the new codec until Mozilla determines it to be Firefox-worthy and builds it into the browser?
Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks
Nonsense. Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system. It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.
The damages are based on uploading, not downloading.
The damages theory isn't the RIAA's. It's what is built into the copyright statute.
Libraries are zero sum lending. If a library has bought N copies of a book, only N people can have it checked out at once. Person N+1 has to wait until one of the N finishes reading it and returns it.
Online "lending" is not zero sum. If N people have torrented a book, N+1 does not have to wait for one of them to finish reading.
This is a huge difference, and makes any comparison between online distribution of digital material with offline distribution of physical items completely useless.
In the city there are many things that are not in your immediate proximity that could be very quickly
Case in point: a friend of mine in college was killed crossing the street in downtown Pasadena, CA, on a Friday afternoon. The car that hit him was traveling something like 70 miles per hour down Colorado Blvd (quite a feat with Friday afternoon traffic). When my friend entered the cross walk, that car would have been several hundred feet away. My friend was in top physical shape and had excellent reaction time (he was a black belt in karate trained directly under Master Ohshima, so would not have needed much warning to get out of the way.
It's kind of frightening to realize that when you cross the street, you might have to worry about a car hundreds of feet away.
Part of that $99 was the assurance that they will keep the same part available, with the exact same specifications and characteristics, for some ridiculously long time.
From the tests I've run, it looks like Bing is actually more useful than Google right now. The main reason seems to be that the search engine optimization people seem to have figured out Google, and so the top results on Google searches have a lot of sites that are trying to sell you stuff related (barely) to your search. They either haven't figured out, or haven't turned their attention to, Bing yet, so the Bing search tends to be more useful.
No doubt that will change as Bing grows, but search is one of those things where now is all that matters, which is an argument for using Bing at the moment.
That said, 95% of the time I use Google, out of habit.
They no longer are a link to the site you want - they are a link to something at Google that then redirects to your chosen site. Since I have no idea how long those links will work, they were useless to me (I wanted to right-click and copy shortcut / copy link and paste it into my documentation as further reading - but some link to Google that may work fine for today and maybe not work fine next year isn't all that handy)
Try a Webkit-based browser. The Google search link has the direct link in the href, but uses an onclick Javascript function to make clicking go somewhere else. In Firefox, when you copy/paste the link, it runs the Javascript and gives you the computed link. In Safari, when you copy/paste the link, it does not do the Javascript, so you get what's in the href. I haven't tested to see if that's how all Webkit-based browsers work, but it's worth a shot.
How did you determine where the links go? I did a search for "Slashdot". Here's the HTML for the first result link:
<a> href="http://slashdot.org/" class="l" onmousedown="return clk(this.href,'','','res','1','&sig2=7vr0Oj3UWg6ORsH6rhf_7w','0CAkQFjAA')"><em>Slashdot</em> - News for nerds, stuff that matters</a>
If you have Javascript disabled, that goes straight to http://slashdot.org./ If you have Javascript enabled, it goes to the clk function. Here is the clk function:
window.clk=function(d,e,f,j,k,l,m) {if(document.images){var a=encodeURIComponent||escape,b=new Image,g=window.google.cri++;window.google.crm[g]=b;b.onerror=(b.onload=(b.onabort=function(){delete window.google.crm[g]}));b.src=["/url?sa=T","\x26source\x3dweb",e?"&oi="+a(e):"",f?"&cad="+a(f):"","&ct=",a(j||"res"),"&cd=",a(k),"&ved=",a(m),d?"&url="+a(d.replace(/#.*/,"")).replace(/\+/g,"%2B"):"","&ei=","eWhTS6j2IJXCNfCJ9ZoG",l].join("")} return true};
That appears to be constructing and sending the browser to the kind of link that was shown a couple posts up in this thread.
What happens when you right-click on a link in Google search results and copy it depends on the browser. In Safari on my Mac, you get what is in the href attribute, not what is computed by the Javascript. In Firefox on my Mac, you get the result of the Javascript. I'm not sure which one is doing the right thing here.
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$
First, there was no loan. Microsoft bought $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.
Second, Apple had around $4 billion in cash or cash-equivalents at the time. They didn't need the money from selling that stock to Microsoft.
The purpose of the transaction was not to give money to Apple, but rather to show that Microsoft was serious about supporting Apple (particularly by continuing to develop and sell Office Mac) for the next few years.
They have to be very careful in a close environment such as the shuttle or the space station to keep the air healthy. Using mailx like you do would give off too much smug for their filters and cleaners to handle.