!. The terms of service DO NOT block AdMob. It blocks AdMob from having apps on the client gather analytics for it.
2. The type of AdMob gathers aren't required for advertising. If they were, AdMob's parent google would be out of business, or trying to get us to install spyware all the time.
3. AdMob could even still use a 3rd party analytics form to gather Analytics for it. Apple doesn't want it's phone competitors to be able to use their advertising businesses to harvest information about Apple's devices (especially those under development), without at least Apple having a chance at that same information.
4. AdMob could even change their client/server model so that without having the device send the information, the server could collect all the extra information that it's reasonable for them to get anyway.
5. With out App Eula's that give them permission some of the Analytics gathering that is sacred may even be illegal in jurisdiction that have anti-monitoring laws.
Apple's move was not a move to give iAd an advantage. It was a move to try to keep analytics from being spyware.
First of all, I think google will be ok without analytics. I mean they don't get analytics for their web ads, and they still manage to sell those.
And they didn't retroactively do anything with deals made with google. the deals weren't made with google. They are just not letting google retroactively let themselves in.
Apple is not locking out advertising competition. They are locking out industrial espionage under the guise of advertising. So they are not locking out google. Apple is just limiting the scope of information about it's devices that an App can get, and then more specifically that ti can get and then directly send to a direct iOS competitor. Web Ads, are still a go. Embedded Ads from a direct competitor, still a go. Embedded ads from a direct competitor that uses 3rd party analytics, still fine. The only thing their direct iOS developers can't do is harvest advanced information about iOS users are doing?
I Don't think there is a DOJ case here, but if there is, it should be about how google is internally using the analytics admob gets. Not what Apple has done to protect itself from it's direct competitors.
Apple isn't in mobile advertising, they are in iOS advertising. There isn't an iAD API for android forthcoming. And they allow independent analytics. This move isn't about the advertising business.
Apple found out the hard way, that analytics leak trade secrets. If apple's competitors got exclusive/early access to those trade secrets, Apple won't know what their competitors know and when they know it. So they decided that no Apple iOS competitor should have special access to information about what iOS devices are being developed or even what people are doing on their iOS devices. No doubt that data will still eventually be sold, but when it is Everyone will have the potential for the same access to it.
"foaming at the mouth hatred"? where did you pull that one from?
Google is a competitor in a few areas, and in other areas apple has no desire to compete. If allowing google to be the default, but allow for other choices is "foaming at the mouth hatred", then he must really loathe Yahoo for not letting them even be the default.
Apple discovered that analytics data was being used against them, and they were pissed and banned analytics. Then when they re-allowed them, they said that it can be with a direct competitor. Which makes sense. A competitor's phone division if they have analytics, probably has first crack, and might have more access to that data then the rest of the world ever gets a chance too. So they want the analytics forms to be independent so that if data is made available everyone can get the same data, and they can get it at the same time. That makes sense.
And while Apple may not be as generous with the data they collect, they are not collecting data from their competitors handsets. Unless of course I missed the announcement about the iAd API for android?
But... it requires iTunes, which means I have to run my noisy and power-hungry computer.
Well, not actually. An AppleTv can play to Airport Express speakers and and is controllable from the ipod touch/iphone, you just need to make sure it has a copy of your music. It's also great if you are running iTunes to add an additional point of control to such a system and keep synchronized libraries.
Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.
Business isn't about successfully running a business. It's about creating an environment where the major inner circle investors can make boat loads of money, if my nothing else, destroying the company.
how less time in some countries lead to higher scores
I find it interesting that you see, a longer school year as being less time. You are working under the premise that learning stops outside of the instructional hours so fewer instructional hours spread over a longer school year is less time. I don't think that is a fair assessment. There are only so many hours in a day so if you shortened the school year and lengthen the school day, there is less time for homework. And the teachers also have less time per material covered to recognize problems and start to address them, and less time to be thorough in evaluating the process of their students.
TechCrunch claimed that apple's claims were untrue. They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service. So while they are correct that the google voice app does not rip out and replace these features, using google voice logically supplants them. If your phone identity is not your google identity and not your provider identity then the apple apps might as well be removed.
It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that it's not vehicular manslaughter because you struck a pedestrian, after all they could have not been in the way, so really they just used you as an agent of suicide.
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
whether or not, Apple's position has any validity is not is something that can and should be legitimately argued. But it should be argued at face value, not skirted around with logical fallacies.
I wasn't explicitly talking about colonies, I was talking about things, such as single celled organisms many of which don't for colonies, that divide through division, such that neither of the resulting genetically identical resulting organisms can be distinguished as the parent. (as opposed to things that reproduce with genetically identical off spring, but a clear parent and child relationship)
I guess what I am saying is that when an amoeba divides, you don't say that the amoeba died and had two off spring, you say that the amoeba divided, and as such both are still that original amoeba unless maybe one of them also underwent some genetic change. Single celled organisms are the easy example, but there are some more complicated ones.
He wasn't blaming slashdot for mp3/aac he was blaming them for the fact he adopted ogg. The analogous quote would be, "Any chance we can blame slashdot for adopting Betamax too?
The Vichy government was also useful in some ways--the presence of Frenchmen running the trainyards and civil government, for example, allowed the resistance to mire a train in red tape long enough to let the allies get to Paris, where the train contained the cultural history of France in paintings.
Good thing too, cause with Germany never having been defeated, we would never have been able to get them back, and it's especially good because as we all know, the cultural history of France is THE most important cultural history in the world. You've won me over, now when asked about the best governments of all time, The Vichy government will be at the top of my list.
I wasn't so much thinking about the car industry, I believe the way that most of the safety standards for cars are setup, all new cars have to adhere to them regardless of where they are made. Additionally that Toyota may have largely been built in the US anyway.
I was thinking more things like toy manufacturing and the production of things like baby formula.
If everyone in the world has access to the information then why bother paying for the degree?
As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?
By that reasoning most certification programs should be a thing of the past.
To the best of my knowledge the rest of the world's ethnicities are represented in the USA. So "Buy American" is not racist. It's nationalist.
Personally I see nothing wrong with the ethics of "Buy American". I do see something wrong with enforcing quality standards on an industry and then forsaking that industry for foreign competitors that have not adhered to those standards. I see something ethically wrong with passing laws the effect how companies interact with their employees but then forsaking those companies to buy from others that don't provide those protections.
Dude, even the frickin Zune plays itunes AAC tracks.
Not 100% DRM free, or even close
Please go find me some DRM music on itunes. Apple has claimed that the entire music catalog is now all available sans DRM. This claim if true should be easy enough to back up, so I'm going to need you to provide some examples.
A post like yours, just makes you look like a zealot. Enable some serious discourse.
That being the case, I find it hard to believe that high-profile, high-traffic sites like the Beeb really get more benefit from occasional search hits via Google than a news aggregator would get from scraping all of the headlines from the originating site, and I find Google's argument here to be wishful thinking rather than based on any real merit.
Cause the "Beeb" and all the big news papers are full of gems, and nothing but gems, AND are so well designed that a person can find most of what they care most about easily..... Oh wait, that's not the case at all. For many people the navigation on a lot of news sites is so frustrating and terrible that using aggregators as alternate indexes is better. As well as covering more.
Some news sites are designed to fit some people exactly, but most fail and cover a way broader selection of topics then any individual reader cares about and don't cover everything that any individual reader cares about. They are designed to be good enough to a wide audience to be the one source they chose. This model is tailored to the idea that a bundle of news costs money and that as such people only want to buy one or two bundles. This is an outdated model and needs to be scrapped. News outlets need to scrap what they are bad at, and concentrate at being really good at what they are good at. And letting people find them through the aggregators. You may not, but I know a lot of people who look at the article choices on any given topic and pick one of the top ones from a source that people like. And then for people who visit the outlet's portal, just refer them to aggregators for stuff you don't cover. This shouldn't be such a foreign concept in the sphere of news, since a lot of outlets use the AP.
He said of the operating system that has been certified as UNIX.
In honor of this guy, here's a list of super developer assumptions.
1. My user space software MUST be installed in directories that normally require system level access to add anything too.
2. No one would ever need multiple versions of my software installed at the same time so it's okay if I make them impossible to co-exist
3. People always install software locally and not in a shared directory.
4. People always just randomly spew files anywhere they want in/usr/local so that's what my installer should do
5. People always have have dedicated home directories for each machine that they might be simultaneously logged into so it's ok for my software to only allow one instance per home directory to be running at a time.
6. No one will ever try to X Forward my app.
7. My software will always be on a host by way of it's packaging system so it's okay for me to require that system to be in a good state with regard to my software's packages before running my software.
8. No one else would ever pick the same names as me for my project's library files. So I don't have to giver people ways to resolve collisions.
9. My user-space program should use a privileged network port.
10. My program can use a hard-wired network port because nothing else could ever want that port and the end-user could never have a need to run it on an alternate port
11. All connections from a given IP are going to be from the same instance of my program.
12. My program needs to have it's own user with a specific username.
13. My program needs to have it's own user with a specific UID.
14. My program's installer can add it's own user by just writing to/etc/passwd and/etc/shadow.
15. My program needs to have it's own group with a specific group name
16. My program needs to have it's own group with a specific GID.
17. My program's installer can add it's own group by just writing to/etc/group.
If you think that something that has been certified as UNIX isn't UNIX in all the important ways, those important ways are probably your assumptions, which may have even been on my list. And many of those assumptions might work in the case of a single machine with only one user who is also it's administrator, but will eventually break down. I suggest that if you find OS X, not to be UNIX in the right ways that you take some time, and consider how you opperate and ways to make it more robust.
As the International Authority on which self declared authority is actually valid, I regret to tell the whole slashdot community that the IAU didn't have the authority to reclassify pluto anyway./joke
The authority of academia is a joke. Almost all academic pedigrees can be traced back to either a self declaration of authority-ship, a grant by a monarch, or a grant from a religious institution. And of course because they were such good academics back in the day they didn't come up with jargon in place of common words and then when they decide the need to tweak their jargon, rather then recognizing that it is perhaps time for their jargon and the common language to part, they try to redefine parts of the language.
I hate to say this but we need to recognize the silliness and fence it in. We need to give experts a place to do what they need to do without upsetting people and we need to keep academics from getting in the way of the changes in our communication that are happening because of globalization, and when someone says something as an expert we need to have a scope for what they are an expert on and if it's something that is debatable allow room for differing schools of thought to grow and prosper. And for some of the scopes central authorities should be established so that when people in one scope want to change or influence something in another there is a way to do that.
Have you ever used mac Hardware? Their laptops have been amazing for ever. Apple has long been a major innovator on the laptop front. And many of the things you expect in a laptop were made a standard feature first on the Mac. Things like target mode, gig ethernet, auto-crossover, built-in wifi, built-in bluetooth, Ac adapter standardization, integrated mic, integrated camera, external battery indicator, backlit keys (or any way to view the keys in the dark), DVD burners, and there are probably more that I just can't think of. Macs have great hardware.
Yes, they may not have every possible feature, but they have lots of good ones and really versatile. Computer snobs who turn up their noses at macs remind me of car snobs, except that a lot of the cars those people like aren't that useful, and break down a lot. I don't get that mentality and I probably never will.
When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.
No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.
Um no. The members of the federal legislation have always had a long leash relative to their constituency, with the exception that they had to do enough to get re-elected. The leash that changed with the civil war, if any, was the leash that the Federal Government had as a whole with regard to the states. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. And there is a long history of legislators voting counter to the will of their constituency going back to before the civil war.
Also the civil war was not about states' rights. Saying that the civil war was about states rights is to say that the result of the civil war was that states were stripped of rights. The civil war was about the nature of the union, and the whether the federal government should be a government of the people or of the states, which had been a matter of contention in even forming the initial federal government, and as the population disparity grew it came to an eventual tipping point, which led to the war.
Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.
You're right, Texas really does need to get with the times:-)
Seriously, as a response that is logical nonsense. roughly I said "we should enable legislators to carry out their congressional duties from within their constituency" to which you replied roughly "originally legislators had non-congressional responsibilities, often in their constituency, that impacted the amount of congressional duties they could engage in.", which inherently has nothing to do with what you are using it to respond to. there are lots of ways you could try to connect the two maybe you think that telecommuting would be great because it would enable us to return to our roots and make our legislators do something else for a living rather then just be professionally legislators, or you might think that the early legislators by having external responsibilities that might take them back to their constituency did effectively the same thing as letting them telecommute would, so that maybe that's not actually that novel of an idea, or maybe you were thinking something else completely.
I think that as long as there is lobbying you have to have some form of corporate lobbying. Otherwise there would be a completely unbalanced system. Corporations aren't just evil they are important to our economy, and if something that is outdated is getting in the way of business then we need to fix it. The problems with corporate lobbying can largely be broken down into two other problems. Problem 1, the lobbying system in general, and Problem 2, Our system for publicly owned corporations, has caused our corporations to grow massively dysfunctional. With reasonable lobbying systems and functional corporations we shouldn't have the problems we do with corporate lobbying
When you talked about making things an act of treason, you kind of went off the deep end. Realistically though, perhaps it is time to to rethink our federal government, When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash. Of course we should avoid taking drastic steps with our government, because any change is an experiment. Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Humans are active, Climate change is happening. Therefore climate change is due to humans.
what sound logic, I guess we're responsible for all the climate change that happened before we were around too.
Back in reality, our understanding is so limited, and our tendency to treat ideas as sacred dogmatic fact, so I'd take odds that it turns out that the people trying to save us are the ones that ultimately doom us.
We need to learn and understand, rather then place blame.
You're combining two different articles in two different contexts.
The article I replied about is about a court ruling and the other one you referred to is about a new law. But it's the courts that get to sort out contradictory laws, So it's good that this precedent is in place prior to the first challenge of that law.
But if that law holds up to the challenge that digital and analog equivalents are not equivalent then that's a ground to challenge this ruling.
Currently we're in a bad way with digital files, communication and the storage of said items because we get a worst of both cases as to whether or not those things are legally equivalent to what we consider to be their analog equivalent. So getting these cases into court is good because then we can play the inconsistencies against each other until they are worked out. Unchallenged inconsistencies are bad because at some point the historical exploitation of an inconsistency starts to outweigh whether it should ever have been allowed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
!. The terms of service DO NOT block AdMob. It blocks AdMob from having apps on the client gather analytics for it.
2. The type of AdMob gathers aren't required for advertising. If they were, AdMob's parent google would be out of business, or trying to get us to install spyware all the time.
3. AdMob could even still use a 3rd party analytics form to gather Analytics for it. Apple doesn't want it's phone competitors to be able to use their advertising businesses to harvest information about Apple's devices (especially those under development), without at least Apple having a chance at that same information.
4. AdMob could even change their client/server model so that without having the device send the information, the server could collect all the extra information that it's reasonable for them to get anyway.
5. With out App Eula's that give them permission some of the Analytics gathering that is sacred may even be illegal in jurisdiction that have anti-monitoring laws.
Apple's move was not a move to give iAd an advantage. It was a move to try to keep analytics from being spyware.
First of all, I think google will be ok without analytics. I mean they don't get analytics for their web ads, and they still manage to sell those.
And they didn't retroactively do anything with deals made with google. the deals weren't made with google. They are just not letting google retroactively let themselves in.
Apple is not locking out advertising competition. They are locking out industrial espionage under the guise of advertising. So they are not locking out google. Apple is just limiting the scope of information about it's devices that an App can get, and then more specifically that ti can get and then directly send to a direct iOS competitor. Web Ads, are still a go. Embedded Ads from a direct competitor, still a go. Embedded ads from a direct competitor that uses 3rd party analytics, still fine. The only thing their direct iOS developers can't do is harvest advanced information about iOS users are doing?
I Don't think there is a DOJ case here, but if there is, it should be about how google is internally using the analytics admob gets. Not what Apple has done to protect itself from it's direct competitors.
Apple isn't in mobile advertising, they are in iOS advertising. There isn't an iAD API for android forthcoming. And they allow independent analytics. This move isn't about the advertising business.
Apple found out the hard way, that analytics leak trade secrets. If apple's competitors got exclusive/early access to those trade secrets, Apple won't know what their competitors know and when they know it. So they decided that no Apple iOS competitor should have special access to information about what iOS devices are being developed or even what people are doing on their iOS devices. No doubt that data will still eventually be sold, but when it is Everyone will have the potential for the same access to it.
Uhhh....
"foaming at the mouth hatred"? where did you pull that one from?
Google is a competitor in a few areas, and in other areas apple has no desire to compete. If allowing google to be the default, but allow for other choices is "foaming at the mouth hatred", then he must really loathe Yahoo for not letting them even be the default.
Apple discovered that analytics data was being used against them, and they were pissed and banned analytics. Then when they re-allowed them, they said that it can be with a direct competitor. Which makes sense. A competitor's phone division if they have analytics, probably has first crack, and might have more access to that data then the rest of the world ever gets a chance too. So they want the analytics forms to be independent so that if data is made available everyone can get the same data, and they can get it at the same time. That makes sense.
And while Apple may not be as generous with the data they collect, they are not collecting data from their competitors handsets. Unless of course I missed the announcement about the iAd API for android?
But... it requires iTunes, which means I have to run my noisy and power-hungry computer.
Well, not actually. An AppleTv can play to Airport Express speakers and and is controllable from the ipod touch/iphone, you just need to make sure it has a copy of your music. It's also great if you are running iTunes to add an additional point of control to such a system and keep synchronized libraries.
Not if you want to stay in business for the long haul.
Business isn't about successfully running a business. It's about creating an environment where the major inner circle investors can make boat loads of money, if my nothing else, destroying the company.
how less time in some countries lead to higher scores
I find it interesting that you see, a longer school year as being less time. You are working under the premise that learning stops outside of the instructional hours so fewer instructional hours spread over a longer school year is less time. I don't think that is a fair assessment. There are only so many hours in a day so if you shortened the school year and lengthen the school day, there is less time for homework. And the teachers also have less time per material covered to recognize problems and start to address them, and less time to be thorough in evaluating the process of their students.
TechCrunch claimed that apple's claims were untrue. They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service. So while they are correct that the google voice app does not rip out and replace these features, using google voice logically supplants them. If your phone identity is not your google identity and not your provider identity then the apple apps might as well be removed.
It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that it's not vehicular manslaughter because you struck a pedestrian, after all they could have not been in the way, so really they just used you as an agent of suicide.
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
whether or not, Apple's position has any validity is not is something that can and should be legitimately argued. But it should be argued at face value, not skirted around with logical fallacies.
I wasn't explicitly talking about colonies, I was talking about things, such as single celled organisms many of which don't for colonies, that divide through division, such that neither of the resulting genetically identical resulting organisms can be distinguished as the parent. (as opposed to things that reproduce with genetically identical off spring, but a clear parent and child relationship) I guess what I am saying is that when an amoeba divides, you don't say that the amoeba died and had two off spring, you say that the amoeba divided, and as such both are still that original amoeba unless maybe one of them also underwent some genetic change. Single celled organisms are the easy example, but there are some more complicated ones.
All living things don't age. There are lots of organisms that don't have distinct progeny, and that have in effect been alive for a long long time.
Any chance we can blame Slashdot for VHS too?
He wasn't blaming slashdot for mp3/aac he was blaming them for the fact he adopted ogg. The analogous quote would be, "Any chance we can blame slashdot for adopting Betamax too?
The Vichy government was also useful in some ways--the presence of Frenchmen running the trainyards and civil government, for example, allowed the resistance to mire a train in red tape long enough to let the allies get to Paris, where the train contained the cultural history of France in paintings.
Good thing too, cause with Germany never having been defeated, we would never have been able to get them back, and it's especially good because as we all know, the cultural history of France is THE most important cultural history in the world. You've won me over, now when asked about the best governments of all time, The Vichy government will be at the top of my list.
I wasn't so much thinking about the car industry, I believe the way that most of the safety standards for cars are setup, all new cars have to adhere to them regardless of where they are made. Additionally that Toyota may have largely been built in the US anyway.
I was thinking more things like toy manufacturing and the production of things like baby formula.
If everyone in the world has access to the information then why bother paying for the degree? As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?
By that reasoning most certification programs should be a thing of the past.
"Buy American" is essentially a racist statement.
To the best of my knowledge the rest of the world's ethnicities are represented in the USA. So "Buy American" is not racist. It's nationalist.
Personally I see nothing wrong with the ethics of "Buy American". I do see something wrong with enforcing quality standards on an industry and then forsaking that industry for foreign competitors that have not adhered to those standards. I see something ethically wrong with passing laws the effect how companies interact with their employees but then forsaking those companies to buy from others that don't provide those protections.
- Tied to one portable media player
Dude, even the frickin Zune plays itunes AAC tracks.
Not 100% DRM free, or even close
Please go find me some DRM music on itunes. Apple has claimed that the entire music catalog is now all available sans DRM. This claim if true should be easy enough to back up, so I'm going to need you to provide some examples.
A post like yours, just makes you look like a zealot. Enable some serious discourse.
That being the case, I find it hard to believe that high-profile, high-traffic sites like the Beeb really get more benefit from occasional search hits via Google than a news aggregator would get from scraping all of the headlines from the originating site, and I find Google's argument here to be wishful thinking rather than based on any real merit.
Cause the "Beeb" and all the big news papers are full of gems, and nothing but gems, AND are so well designed that a person can find most of what they care most about easily..... Oh wait, that's not the case at all. For many people the navigation on a lot of news sites is so frustrating and terrible that using aggregators as alternate indexes is better. As well as covering more.
Some news sites are designed to fit some people exactly, but most fail and cover a way broader selection of topics then any individual reader cares about and don't cover everything that any individual reader cares about. They are designed to be good enough to a wide audience to be the one source they chose. This model is tailored to the idea that a bundle of news costs money and that as such people only want to buy one or two bundles. This is an outdated model and needs to be scrapped. News outlets need to scrap what they are bad at, and concentrate at being really good at what they are good at. And letting people find them through the aggregators. You may not, but I know a lot of people who look at the article choices on any given topic and pick one of the top ones from a source that people like. And then for people who visit the outlet's portal, just refer them to aggregators for stuff you don't cover. This shouldn't be such a foreign concept in the sphere of news, since a lot of outlets use the AP.
it looks like UN*X but it isn't UN*X
He said of the operating system that has been certified as UNIX.
/usr/local so that's what my installer should do /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. /etc/group.
In honor of this guy, here's a list of super developer assumptions.
1. My user space software MUST be installed in directories that normally require system level access to add anything too.
2. No one would ever need multiple versions of my software installed at the same time so it's okay if I make them impossible to co-exist
3. People always install software locally and not in a shared directory.
4. People always just randomly spew files anywhere they want in
5. People always have have dedicated home directories for each machine that they might be simultaneously logged into so it's ok for my software to only allow one instance per home directory to be running at a time.
6. No one will ever try to X Forward my app.
7. My software will always be on a host by way of it's packaging system so it's okay for me to require that system to be in a good state with regard to my software's packages before running my software.
8. No one else would ever pick the same names as me for my project's library files. So I don't have to giver people ways to resolve collisions.
9. My user-space program should use a privileged network port.
10. My program can use a hard-wired network port because nothing else could ever want that port and the end-user could never have a need to run it on an alternate port
11. All connections from a given IP are going to be from the same instance of my program.
12. My program needs to have it's own user with a specific username.
13. My program needs to have it's own user with a specific UID.
14. My program's installer can add it's own user by just writing to
15. My program needs to have it's own group with a specific group name
16. My program needs to have it's own group with a specific GID.
17. My program's installer can add it's own group by just writing to
If you think that something that has been certified as UNIX isn't UNIX in all the important ways, those important ways are probably your assumptions, which may have even been on my list. And many of those assumptions might work in the case of a single machine with only one user who is also it's administrator, but will eventually break down. I suggest that if you find OS X, not to be UNIX in the right ways that you take some time, and consider how you opperate and ways to make it more robust.
As the International Authority on which self declared authority is actually valid, I regret to tell the whole slashdot community that the IAU didn't have the authority to reclassify pluto anyway. /joke
The authority of academia is a joke. Almost all academic pedigrees can be traced back to either a self declaration of authority-ship, a grant by a monarch, or a grant from a religious institution. And of course because they were such good academics back in the day they didn't come up with jargon in place of common words and then when they decide the need to tweak their jargon, rather then recognizing that it is perhaps time for their jargon and the common language to part, they try to redefine parts of the language.
I hate to say this but we need to recognize the silliness and fence it in. We need to give experts a place to do what they need to do without upsetting people and we need to keep academics from getting in the way of the changes in our communication that are happening because of globalization, and when someone says something as an expert we need to have a scope for what they are an expert on and if it's something that is debatable allow room for differing schools of thought to grow and prosper. And for some of the scopes central authorities should be established so that when people in one scope want to change or influence something in another there is a way to do that.
but Mac hardware is crap
Have you ever used mac Hardware? Their laptops have been amazing for ever. Apple has long been a major innovator on the laptop front. And many of the things you expect in a laptop were made a standard feature first on the Mac. Things like target mode, gig ethernet, auto-crossover, built-in wifi, built-in bluetooth, Ac adapter standardization, integrated mic, integrated camera, external battery indicator, backlit keys (or any way to view the keys in the dark), DVD burners, and there are probably more that I just can't think of. Macs have great hardware.
Yes, they may not have every possible feature, but they have lots of good ones and really versatile. Computer snobs who turn up their noses at macs remind me of car snobs, except that a lot of the cars those people like aren't that useful, and break down a lot. I don't get that mentality and I probably never will.
When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.
No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.
Um no. The members of the federal legislation have always had a long leash relative to their constituency, with the exception that they had to do enough to get re-elected. The leash that changed with the civil war, if any, was the leash that the Federal Government had as a whole with regard to the states. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. And there is a long history of legislators voting counter to the will of their constituency going back to before the civil war.
Also the civil war was not about states' rights. Saying that the civil war was about states rights is to say that the result of the civil war was that states were stripped of rights. The civil war was about the nature of the union, and the whether the federal government should be a government of the people or of the states, which had been a matter of contention in even forming the initial federal government, and as the population disparity grew it came to an eventual tipping point, which led to the war.
Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.
You're right, Texas really does need to get with the times :-)
Seriously, as a response that is logical nonsense. roughly I said "we should enable legislators to carry out their congressional duties from within their constituency" to which you replied roughly "originally legislators had non-congressional responsibilities, often in their constituency, that impacted the amount of congressional duties they could engage in.", which inherently has nothing to do with what you are using it to respond to. there are lots of ways you could try to connect the two maybe you think that telecommuting would be great because it would enable us to return to our roots and make our legislators do something else for a living rather then just be professionally legislators, or you might think that the early legislators by having external responsibilities that might take them back to their constituency did effectively the same thing as letting them telecommute would, so that maybe that's not actually that novel of an idea, or maybe you were thinking something else completely.
I think that as long as there is lobbying you have to have some form of corporate lobbying. Otherwise there would be a completely unbalanced system. Corporations aren't just evil they are important to our economy, and if something that is outdated is getting in the way of business then we need to fix it. The problems with corporate lobbying can largely be broken down into two other problems. Problem 1, the lobbying system in general, and Problem 2, Our system for publicly owned corporations, has caused our corporations to grow massively dysfunctional. With reasonable lobbying systems and functional corporations we shouldn't have the problems we do with corporate lobbying
When you talked about making things an act of treason, you kind of went off the deep end. Realistically though, perhaps it is time to to rethink our federal government, When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash. Of course we should avoid taking drastic steps with our government, because any change is an experiment. Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Humans are active, Climate change is happening. Therefore climate change is due to humans.
what sound logic, I guess we're responsible for all the climate change that happened before we were around too.
Back in reality, our understanding is so limited, and our tendency to treat ideas as sacred dogmatic fact, so I'd take odds that it turns out that the people trying to save us are the ones that ultimately doom us.
We need to learn and understand, rather then place blame.
The graph of -(x - 3)^2 + 5 peaks at 3 but rapidly declines bellow by 6
. You are assuming that the numbers were the range of the observations not the domain. that's why is said at 650 GeV not to 650 GeV.
You're combining two different articles in two different contexts.
The article I replied about is about a court ruling and the other one you referred to is about a new law. But it's the courts that get to sort out contradictory laws, So it's good that this precedent is in place prior to the first challenge of that law.
But if that law holds up to the challenge that digital and analog equivalents are not equivalent then that's a ground to challenge this ruling.
Currently we're in a bad way with digital files, communication and the storage of said items because we get a worst of both cases as to whether or not those things are legally equivalent to what we consider to be their analog equivalent. So getting these cases into court is good because then we can play the inconsistencies against each other until they are worked out. Unchallenged inconsistencies are bad because at some point the historical exploitation of an inconsistency starts to outweigh whether it should ever have been allowed at all.