I suspect that it both encourages and retards innovation, like almost everything that tries to affect innovation. The question is which is dominant "when run intelligently". And that is not an easy question to answer. There's some very intuitive ways that it seems like it should (patents can help guarantee higher profits from innovation, and then encourage disclosure of the methods, both of which foster innovation), but economics is complicated and a lot of slashdotters have come to the conclusion that it does not when run as today (patents seems to lead to bullshit lawsuits against people trying to innovate who really aren't "cheating", thus retarding innovation). But there's also a fair argument that today is not "run intelligently" so the follow-up is how to get there from here.
I think it's a good question whether warranties are unequal.
I think it's a bad assumption that they are slanted to SSDs (for instance, the demand seems more likely to be there for SSD warranties given the reputation). It might be true but it's not obviously true.
You cause so much harm to a good cause by being a crazy motherfucker who is stuck on cold turkey rather than solutions that eliminate all the external problems and most of the internal ones.
Once the second hand smoke is gone (whether or not it causes cancer, it causes side-effects), it's no longer any of your business what people do to themselves. And once the carcinogens like tar are gone, e-cigs are really much better health-wise for the smoker than cigarettes.
It's like a fat person said they stopped eating only straight-up butter and switched to eating salad with a reasonable amount of light dressing, and you castigating them for not switching to a raw lettuce and water diet.
Consider that the resale value of the physical book in mint condition is almost as much as its original cost, and the market of people who still want physical media is still pretty overwhelming, it probably costs a bit more than 10 cents just to make the pattern of purchasing the bundle, then immediately reselling the physical media only, unprofitable enough to guarantee that others will pay their share of the fixed costs.
Of course ultimately price isn't that directly tied to cost-to-produce, it's tied to maximum profitability.
It sounds like the story you are imagining is a boardroom full of executives trying to think of K-word snacks better-known than Key Lime Pie for hours because of a naming emergency. I agree that's unlikely.
I expect the "whole story" is something like somebody emailing the naming group with "We have KitKat in our fridge (???) but no Key Lime Pie. I don't even know what Key Lime Pie tastes like. Maybe we should call the next version KitKat instead", some replies that were "+1", followed by "okay, we'll call Nestle and if they don't raise a fuss, it's done. Else, Key Lime Pie."
That might not be it exactly, but I don't think for a moment that the story is particularly more interesting than that, nor that the healthiness of the option is directly relevant to Android versioning schemes.
The first time I bit into a US KitKat I was shocked and appalled. I wondered what was wrong with it. I had just assumed it would taste the same as it did elsewhere.
You can't even call that trail blazing other than showing it could be done at all.
So...you can't call it trailblazing except for the trail that was blazed?
Also, the GP didn't necessarily state that the data was necessary. But you're a fool if you think it wasn't used. Commercial satellites therefore aren't good proof of private trailblazing in space absent government support.
I'm also sure that for business, they use @microsoft.com accounts which link with Exchange and they access it with Outlook -- no gmail in there at all.
IM is still geeky and doesn't generally apply to the voice and/or image, but I do use that (sometimes when I'm not thinking I still call it "MSNing" rathing than "IMing"). "Call" is still reserved for telephones, not computers, in my experience.
For a very long time people "MSN'd" other people for Instant Messenger. I understand that was less common in the US because of compeition from AOL or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger or something, but it was so common elsewhere it was there's to lose in many markets. And they did. To Skype. Then they bought Skype and it came back to the fold.
It depends, case-by-case, and school-by-school. Often considering a resume like a job applicant. If they come from the United States, for instance, then they may actually take the SAT into consideration for some courses. There is a system in place for evaluating applicants from virtually every country/education system you can name.
For mature students / adult applicants, it'll again be case by ase, but some programs will take a hard line and ask you to repeat high school courses if you didn't graduate sufficiently recently (I expect there are ways to achieve credit on a "fast-track", but I've never looked into that).
The system is optimized for the common case of Ontario students going to Ontario Universities straight out of Ontario high schools.
Ctrl-Z is already used if you're typing into an input field. Say you're typing an email, then you close background tabs for whatever reason. Then you realize you accidentally moved a paragraph. Should you have to reload those tabs to undo the operation?
You could validly say yes to that based on user expectation, even though reloading tabs is expensive (hits the network and CPU and everything). But then what if you switch tabs? Now your undo stack corresponds to a different tab's actions (try it! Try typing in two tabs and see that ctrl-z is local to each tab). Where do you "insert" the close tab undo?
Further consider: what if the previously-active tab was closed. Do you insert the undo operation into the new foreground tab arbitrarily? Into every tab's undo stack?
One option is if keyboard focus is in one place (like on the tabs themselves), then undo behaves differently. But then it's not really any easier to use, is it?
Ctrl Z works best if you literally never type into any field, or perhaps if you only type usernames and passwords. Which is valid but not universal.
It's really easiest to use a separate command. It's a very different action and it exists in a different scope.
It seems like a functional definition is that a drone has either a mounted camera, or some means of operating outside of a line-of-sight controller (eg. simple AI autonomy, or a remote control that hooks into GPS or non-mounted cameras for control, etc.).
The article doesn't quite say that. It says 99.7% of bittorrent *files* could not be confirmed to be legal. It didn't make any similar claims about traffic, though I strongly suspect traffic is similar.
Also, to quibble, it was between 89% and 99.7%, since and there were 11% of files unverified, but it's reasonable to lean on the latter rather than assume the files they couldn't verify were more likely legal. If we assume they had the same distribution as the verified cases, and then round off, that's still 99.7% that are not legal. One could make the case that unverifiable files might have a different distribution of legal/illegal, but from the nature of the ambiguity (eg. according to the article it was mostly porn dubiously labelled "amateur") I'm doubtful it's all that different.
6 years ago I was right out of school with an undergraduate degree. My starting salary was almost 80k for a software development job, and it wasn't even at one of the high cost-of-living areas. Not a cheap area either, but certainly not Silicon Valley or New York. People start with around 90k there now, partly because of inflation but mostly because of across-the-board raises to keep ahead of the market.
I might understand the bullshit call if that was claimed to be an average starting salary, but it's not a wildly unusual starting salary.
Why is that guy the armchair general troll but the guy he responded to is not an armchair general troll? The first guy, as far as I know, made up this story. The second guy asked for a source and provided a little data to counter it.
Now, if there's something to back it up -- some source for the "supposedly" -- then maybe. Currently the second guy seems more credible to me, though not nearly credible enough that I'd believe him without doing my own research if I really cared.
"If there is a mouse/keyboard" is the wrong pivot.
If the user is using the mouse/keyboard to access the "start menu" is a better one. I think the usage people will converge on has 3 input devices, but if you use touch, you can give a touch-friendly UI.
That means bifurcating the UI, yes. Because one input device has vastly different advantages and limitations than the others which requires a different form of UI.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's unlikely that their home was made after 1986 dude.
That's what they did. They put it away and told them they couldn't play with it.
This is pissing people off partly because the duration was a year, but mostly because it wasn't limited to the iPad.
I suspect that it both encourages and retards innovation, like almost everything that tries to affect innovation. The question is which is dominant "when run intelligently". And that is not an easy question to answer. There's some very intuitive ways that it seems like it should (patents can help guarantee higher profits from innovation, and then encourage disclosure of the methods, both of which foster innovation), but economics is complicated and a lot of slashdotters have come to the conclusion that it does not when run as today (patents seems to lead to bullshit lawsuits against people trying to innovate who really aren't "cheating", thus retarding innovation). But there's also a fair argument that today is not "run intelligently" so the follow-up is how to get there from here.
I think it's a good question whether warranties are unequal.
I think it's a bad assumption that they are slanted to SSDs (for instance, the demand seems more likely to be there for SSD warranties given the reputation). It might be true but it's not obviously true.
Bill Gates owns less than 10% of voting stock.
Furthermore, preferred shares are *non* voting stock (with rare exceptions). The "bullshit common-stock" is the type that gets you a vote.
Are you seriously arguing that a flaw in e-cigs is they don't solve motor exhaust?
(also are you seriously assuming he lives in a city when a very large portion of the population does not?)
How about we work on solving both problems, alright?
You cause so much harm to a good cause by being a crazy motherfucker who is stuck on cold turkey rather than solutions that eliminate all the external problems and most of the internal ones.
Once the second hand smoke is gone (whether or not it causes cancer, it causes side-effects), it's no longer any of your business what people do to themselves. And once the carcinogens like tar are gone, e-cigs are really much better health-wise for the smoker than cigarettes.
It's like a fat person said they stopped eating only straight-up butter and switched to eating salad with a reasonable amount of light dressing, and you castigating them for not switching to a raw lettuce and water diet.
Consider that the resale value of the physical book in mint condition is almost as much as its original cost, and the market of people who still want physical media is still pretty overwhelming, it probably costs a bit more than 10 cents just to make the pattern of purchasing the bundle, then immediately reselling the physical media only, unprofitable enough to guarantee that others will pay their share of the fixed costs.
Of course ultimately price isn't that directly tied to cost-to-produce, it's tied to maximum profitability.
It sounds like the story you are imagining is a boardroom full of executives trying to think of K-word snacks better-known than Key Lime Pie for hours because of a naming emergency. I agree that's unlikely.
I expect the "whole story" is something like somebody emailing the naming group with "We have KitKat in our fridge (???) but no Key Lime Pie. I don't even know what Key Lime Pie tastes like. Maybe we should call the next version KitKat instead", some replies that were "+1", followed by "okay, we'll call Nestle and if they don't raise a fuss, it's done. Else, Key Lime Pie."
That might not be it exactly, but I don't think for a moment that the story is particularly more interesting than that, nor that the healthiness of the option is directly relevant to Android versioning schemes.
The first time I bit into a US KitKat I was shocked and appalled. I wondered what was wrong with it. I had just assumed it would taste the same as it did elsewhere.
You can't even call that trail blazing other than showing it could be done at all.
So...you can't call it trailblazing except for the trail that was blazed?
Also, the GP didn't necessarily state that the data was necessary. But you're a fool if you think it wasn't used. Commercial satellites therefore aren't good proof of private trailblazing in space absent government support.
I'm sure many MS employees use gmail personally.
I'm also sure that for business, they use @microsoft.com accounts which link with Exchange and they access it with Outlook -- no gmail in there at all.
My mom absolutely uses Skype as a verb.
IM is still geeky and doesn't generally apply to the voice and/or image, but I do use that (sometimes when I'm not thinking I still call it "MSNing" rathing than "IMing"). "Call" is still reserved for telephones, not computers, in my experience.
For a very long time people "MSN'd" other people for Instant Messenger. I understand that was less common in the US because of compeition from AOL or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger or something, but it was so common elsewhere it was there's to lose in many markets. And they did. To Skype. Then they bought Skype and it came back to the fold.
You can have a sequence defined as +2, -1, skipping any repeats.
It depends, case-by-case, and school-by-school. Often considering a resume like a job applicant. If they come from the United States, for instance, then they may actually take the SAT into consideration for some courses. There is a system in place for evaluating applicants from virtually every country/education system you can name.
For mature students / adult applicants, it'll again be case by ase, but some programs will take a hard line and ask you to repeat high school courses if you didn't graduate sufficiently recently (I expect there are ways to achieve credit on a "fast-track", but I've never looked into that).
The system is optimized for the common case of Ontario students going to Ontario Universities straight out of Ontario high schools.
Ctrl-Z is already used if you're typing into an input field. Say you're typing an email, then you close background tabs for whatever reason. Then you realize you accidentally moved a paragraph. Should you have to reload those tabs to undo the operation?
You could validly say yes to that based on user expectation, even though reloading tabs is expensive (hits the network and CPU and everything). But then what if you switch tabs? Now your undo stack corresponds to a different tab's actions (try it! Try typing in two tabs and see that ctrl-z is local to each tab). Where do you "insert" the close tab undo?
Further consider: what if the previously-active tab was closed. Do you insert the undo operation into the new foreground tab arbitrarily? Into every tab's undo stack?
One option is if keyboard focus is in one place (like on the tabs themselves), then undo behaves differently. But then it's not really any easier to use, is it?
Ctrl Z works best if you literally never type into any field, or perhaps if you only type usernames and passwords. Which is valid but not universal.
It's really easiest to use a separate command. It's a very different action and it exists in a different scope.
Well I google'd that for you because I was curious too.
http://www.uav-drone.net/hobby-drones.htm#.UhO-s5LVDL8
It seems like a functional definition is that a drone has either a mounted camera, or some means of operating outside of a line-of-sight controller (eg. simple AI autonomy, or a remote control that hooks into GPS or non-mounted cameras for control, etc.).
The article doesn't quite say that. It says 99.7% of bittorrent *files* could not be confirmed to be legal. It didn't make any similar claims about traffic, though I strongly suspect traffic is similar.
Also, to quibble, it was between 89% and 99.7%, since and there were 11% of files unverified, but it's reasonable to lean on the latter rather than assume the files they couldn't verify were more likely legal. If we assume they had the same distribution as the verified cases, and then round off, that's still 99.7% that are not legal. One could make the case that unverifiable files might have a different distribution of legal/illegal, but from the nature of the ambiguity (eg. according to the article it was mostly porn dubiously labelled "amateur") I'm doubtful it's all that different.
No you couldn't.
You have it backwards. It's more like if 99.7 percent of car usage was for thievery, robbery, or criminal gang business.
The way you said it would be like if 99.7% of copyright infringement used torrents, but what he said was 99.7% of torrents were copyright infringing.
I'm not sure I'd assume that about Fred Phelp's colleagues. They know they are firebrands. They probably consider him *right*, though.
I agree with your overall point though.
6 years ago I was right out of school with an undergraduate degree. My starting salary was almost 80k for a software development job, and it wasn't even at one of the high cost-of-living areas. Not a cheap area either, but certainly not Silicon Valley or New York. People start with around 90k there now, partly because of inflation but mostly because of across-the-board raises to keep ahead of the market.
I might understand the bullshit call if that was claimed to be an average starting salary, but it's not a wildly unusual starting salary.
Why is that guy the armchair general troll but the guy he responded to is not an armchair general troll? The first guy, as far as I know, made up this story. The second guy asked for a source and provided a little data to counter it.
Now, if there's something to back it up -- some source for the "supposedly" -- then maybe. Currently the second guy seems more credible to me, though not nearly credible enough that I'd believe him without doing my own research if I really cared.
"If there is a mouse/keyboard" is the wrong pivot.
If the user is using the mouse/keyboard to access the "start menu" is a better one. I think the usage people will converge on has 3 input devices, but if you use touch, you can give a touch-friendly UI.
That means bifurcating the UI, yes. Because one input device has vastly different advantages and limitations than the others which requires a different form of UI.
Because "The Government" isn't the only boogeyman in the world.