Nothing stops anybody from wearing an iron ring, but the original intention was for it to be exclusively Canadian but it's a cool custom so others have copied it to some extent.
FWIW, the various US versions' rings, obligations, and rituals are all different from the original (the ritual is semi-secret).
Mine is made of iron. I have two iron rings and a steel ring: I inherited rings from my grandpa and earned on on my own. I prefer wearing my grandpa's iron ring because it's the most comfortable.
Hmm, looks like it's Windows 7 (and presumably later) only, which I didn't realize. Let me amend that by saying that it's not unreasonable to speculate that Microsoft might release a plugin that lets Chrome do H.264 on Windows 7.
But I'm sticking to my guns here, because XP users also don't get IE9, so Google isn't writing any WebM plugins for XP. The only video-tag codec plugin on XP AFAIK will be Safari, and, well, Safari on XP? Seems uncommon and likely to shrink as XP marketshare shrinks in general. The relevant difference here is that IE9 does support Vista but the Firefox H.264 plugin does not.
Microsoft already released a plugin for Firefox that gives it H.264. It's not unreasonable to speculate that they could do the same for Chrome. Its usage isn't that rare, really.
What's a little weird about this is it's my understanding that IE9 won't need a plugin to run WebM anyway. It just needs the WebM codec installed, which is not installed by default. So either way it requires some software distribution, but "plugin" is inaccurate.
a) What he said is true -- a certificate of live birth from Hawaii was produced. b) "Race baiting" -- do you honestly suggest there aren't a significant number of racists who cling to this? Because there are. c) The debate in so many places IS about his nationality. d) Where the debate is not about his nationality, it's still completely stupid, whether or not there's any legal justification. Why does it matter what his parents did before he was even born? It's like you saw your political opponent play dominoes on a Sunday in Alabama and seriously tried to make a fuss over it.
Less than 2 months intermediate? I'd be surprised if beginning testers cost Google less than $84k/year when you include bonus, stock, benefits, office space, etc..
Then again, I'd also expect an intermediate tester to get more done than just 13 random bugs being found (1 every 3 work days). But maybe the quality of these 13 bugs is higher than you'd expect out of two months with a tester.
Then again...again, I expect even without a bounty some of these bugs would have been reported. I wonder to what extent people's behaviour is actually changed by this.
Honestly, I don't see how that argument is either weak or disingenuous. I mean, you can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it deceitful. I don't -- I disable the status bar on all my browsers to recover those pixels because...I don't use that. Except for prospective URLs, which browsers do in a different way now anyway.
Sued him into the ground? He used his name plus Soft, specifically in order to sound like Microsoft, on purpose. Microsoft offered to pay the $10 it cost him to register the domain name. He asked for $10000, which was fairly preposterous. The settlement was Microsoft paying the $10, plus giving him some software, an xbox, and a vacation.
Meanwhile, Apple is using the most obvious generic term for a store that sells apps, App Store, as a trademark. The only defense (IANAL; I'm talking about common sense defense) I can see is whether App was in popular use for application/program/software/etc. before Apple started using it. It kind of was in popular use (especially in the portmanteau "webapp") but perhaps not to the degree it was post-iPhone app store. That's really more of an argument for trademarking App itself, though.
No, he's comparing extremely out of date jabs to an extremely out of date jab. Maybe you want to complain about the Apple III not having sufficient cooling in an article about Dell desktops.
You could drop a couple of these (eg. Sept. 11 wasn't an army) but hostile foreign armies have been in the US after it seceded from the British Empire.
Surely the hard copy costs substantially less than £125 or so per box for Aperture or even £19 per box for iLife. People turn a profit selling things off the shelf for less than that total with higher marginal costs and lower volume.
Seems to me they should cost only slightly less than hard copies, if anything.
Greater than $0 / unit0 isn't enough. They have to make more money than they would just buying t-bills or whatever other guaranteed-return investments with the cash that goes into manufacturing. Otherwise the opportunity cost exceeds the profit and the technically "profitable" business is still a money sink.
I don't pretend to know when the turning point is but I don't think they have margins substantially higher than a conservative investment's expected return. Of course, there would be huge costs in ramping up a PS4 line.
That's not what omnipotent means. It is what omniscient means, but you're becoming sidetracked down an irrelevant semantic detail. Because everybody else is talking about the full decision-tree god when they say omniscient.
That argument only works when you catch somebody saying something that only works with the "we translated Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English over thousands of years and decided to take a an absurdly pedantic stance on the results" god. I am well aware that there are such people.
If they decide they didn't want anybody to have sex with them when they were asleep, then yes, it's rape. Otherwise, it's not. When asleep, you cannot communicate consent so assuming consent is risky.
Don't want to get accused of rape? Then don't have sex with people who are sleeping, or else get permission beforehand.
"Sex by surprise" is not what he was charged with. That's a slang term that Assange's lawyer slung around for the media to drum up sympathy. He was charged with rape.
For somebody who says "innocent until proven guilty" you're pretty clearly leading us to call the women slanderers. False accusations of rape are very uncommon, though certainly not unheard of (something like ~5.9% of reported rapes).
Don't get me wrong -- innocent until proven guilty is excellent as a legal standard and I don't want to abandon it. I don't have evidence of Assange's guilt. I'm not willing to just dismiss the claims against him, though. I know! Let's have a trial!
And of course you don't see enough evidence to convict him; you clearly haven't even attempted to see if "sex by surprise" was a real thing, even though it should surely have set off your "obvious bullshit" detector.
Regardless of what other cultures do, the only reasons I've seen for gay marriage to not happen here are one of the following, all of which are bad and which are dominated by the religious argument and which are generally none of anybody else's business:
1. Religious. 2. People who think it's gross in the same immature way that 11 year olds are grossed out about heterosexuality in sex ed class. 3. "Tradition" / "why change it", which in the ultimate regress must come back to one of the others. 4. It'll cause other people to turn gay, which is either bad on the face of it for religious reasons, or eventually leads to depopulation. This comes from people who apparently think most men don't like women or most women don't like men. 5. Marriage is for producing children and gay people can't produce children (without either technical assistance or a non-gay side-encounter). If this were common you'd expect mandatory anullments after menopause and in cases of sterility or terminal disease, and couples who remain childless for too long. You'd also expect gay marriage to be allowed in cases of adoption. -- There's a variant of this one where it takes one man and one woman to raise a child. These people are welcome to lobby for taking kids away who have lost a single parent and whose parents are divorced, and redistributing all orphans among married people. Until then I'm not giving it much credence, since two of only one gender has to be at least as good as 1 or 0 of only one gender.
I don't know or particularly care why China doesn't allow gay marriage (I have other things to worry about). When people here tell me they don't support gay marriage because of how they read Leviticus, I believe them.
Corporations are not fixed entities like humans. Stockholders and employees have both shifted over time. The question of how to correct a market injustice is very complicated. In non-trivial cases, there basically are not right answers.
Part of the problem is the nature of antitrust law is that all of Microsoft's actions would have been legal in different circumstances. Even if you think a tonne of stuff they did was ethically wrong, there's no legal wrong in it except that eventually they got too big to keep doing it (it's basically the flip side of the "too big to fail" bailout companies that people complain about). So it's hard to identify any individual or individuals who should bear the consequences. The legal fiction of companies being people is convenient in some ways but doesn't necessarily actually help the marketplace. If it makes sense of Microsoft, does it make sense to do that in all such cases for all companies? If not, what's the relevant difference?
So it's not really like robbing a bank. It's more like opening a big box store in a rural area, displacing all of the small businesses that cannot compete on price with their bulk purchases, distribution networks, operating capital cushion, and sheer volume.
Putting people out of work? Why is it that make-work is considered noble? I'd rather write people a cheque for doing nothing and then automate their jobs away, than pay them to do unnecessary labour. The only jobs that are worth "creating" or "preserving" are jobs that could not otherwise be done.
I can't believe that you're trying to frame "not committing genocide" including, in the GGP's own words, every "day old infant", as "going to do nothing".
We're conserving letters, not syllables. FF is two syllables just like Firefox (depending, I guess, on how exactly you pronounce "fire"), but it's 5 letters shorter.
Still, I'd go with Chrome. I usually type out Safari, which has the same number of letters. On the extreme, though, Internet Explorer is just too unwieldy a name compared to IE.
Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if they wrote the plugin for other OSes. That would point to Microsoft promoting the H.264 codec by putting it on all major browsers on all major OSes. As it is, it looks like Microsoft is promoting Windows 7 by putting all major codecs on all major browsers.
Hotmail and Gmail have the same timeout -- 9 months. Seems reasonable to me. Actually, even four months seems reasonable to me. I'd personally prefer infinity in case I got a coma and medical science advanced and I woke up 3 million years later, but I'll take my chances.
I expect that the standard xbox live privacy policy doesn't let them tell hotmail that they are the "linked" address, even if Microsoft is behind both products (I have not verified this so I could be totally wrong). You wouldn't expect an xbox live account to keep any other email service alive in and of itself (my xbox live account is linked to my gmail account).
The only email account I expect to last forever without my explicit intervention is my university account, because they rely on that lifeline to beg alumni for donations.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing stops anybody from wearing an iron ring, but the original intention was for it to be exclusively Canadian but it's a cool custom so others have copied it to some extent.
FWIW, the various US versions' rings, obligations, and rituals are all different from the original (the ritual is semi-secret).
Mine is made of iron. I have two iron rings and a steel ring: I inherited rings from my grandpa and earned on on my own. I prefer wearing my grandpa's iron ring because it's the most comfortable.
Hmm, looks like it's Windows 7 (and presumably later) only, which I didn't realize. Let me amend that by saying that it's not unreasonable to speculate that Microsoft might release a plugin that lets Chrome do H.264 on Windows 7.
But I'm sticking to my guns here, because XP users also don't get IE9, so Google isn't writing any WebM plugins for XP. The only video-tag codec plugin on XP AFAIK will be Safari, and, well, Safari on XP? Seems uncommon and likely to shrink as XP marketshare shrinks in general. The relevant difference here is that IE9 does support Vista but the Firefox H.264 plugin does not.
Microsoft already released a plugin for Firefox that gives it H.264. It's not unreasonable to speculate that they could do the same for Chrome. Its usage isn't that rare, really.
What's a little weird about this is it's my understanding that IE9 won't need a plugin to run WebM anyway. It just needs the WebM codec installed, which is not installed by default. So either way it requires some software distribution, but "plugin" is inaccurate.
Except:
a) What he said is true -- a certificate of live birth from Hawaii was produced.
b) "Race baiting" -- do you honestly suggest there aren't a significant number of racists who cling to this? Because there are.
c) The debate in so many places IS about his nationality.
d) Where the debate is not about his nationality, it's still completely stupid, whether or not there's any legal justification. Why does it matter what his parents did before he was even born? It's like you saw your political opponent play dominoes on a Sunday in Alabama and seriously tried to make a fuss over it.
Less than 2 months intermediate? I'd be surprised if beginning testers cost Google less than $84k/year when you include bonus, stock, benefits, office space, etc..
Then again, I'd also expect an intermediate tester to get more done than just 13 random bugs being found (1 every 3 work days). But maybe the quality of these 13 bugs is higher than you'd expect out of two months with a tester.
Then again...again, I expect even without a bounty some of these bugs would have been reported. I wonder to what extent people's behaviour is actually changed by this.
Honestly, I don't see how that argument is either weak or disingenuous. I mean, you can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it deceitful. I don't -- I disable the status bar on all my browsers to recover those pixels because...I don't use that. Except for prospective URLs, which browsers do in a different way now anyway.
Sued him into the ground? He used his name plus Soft, specifically in order to sound like Microsoft, on purpose. Microsoft offered to pay the $10 it cost him to register the domain name. He asked for $10000, which was fairly preposterous. The settlement was Microsoft paying the $10, plus giving him some software, an xbox, and a vacation.
Meanwhile, Apple is using the most obvious generic term for a store that sells apps, App Store, as a trademark. The only defense (IANAL; I'm talking about common sense defense) I can see is whether App was in popular use for application/program/software/etc. before Apple started using it. It kind of was in popular use (especially in the portmanteau "webapp") but perhaps not to the degree it was post-iPhone app store. That's really more of an argument for trademarking App itself, though.
No, he's comparing extremely out of date jabs to an extremely out of date jab. Maybe you want to complain about the Apple III not having sufficient cooling in an article about Dell desktops.
You know, I agree with your main point, but you're just wrong about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_US_mainland
You could drop a couple of these (eg. Sept. 11 wasn't an army) but hostile foreign armies have been in the US after it seceded from the British Empire.
Surely the hard copy costs substantially less than £125 or so per box for Aperture or even £19 per box for iLife. People turn a profit selling things off the shelf for less than that total with higher marginal costs and lower volume.
Seems to me they should cost only slightly less than hard copies, if anything.
Not unless you were browsing online with it. The article and summary both specify "online usage share".
Greater than $0 / unit0 isn't enough. They have to make more money than they would just buying t-bills or whatever other guaranteed-return investments with the cash that goes into manufacturing. Otherwise the opportunity cost exceeds the profit and the technically "profitable" business is still a money sink.
I don't pretend to know when the turning point is but I don't think they have margins substantially higher than a conservative investment's expected return. Of course, there would be huge costs in ramping up a PS4 line.
That's not what omnipotent means. It is what omniscient means, but you're becoming sidetracked down an irrelevant semantic detail. Because everybody else is talking about the full decision-tree god when they say omniscient.
That argument only works when you catch somebody saying something that only works with the "we translated Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English over thousands of years and decided to take a an absurdly pedantic stance on the results" god. I am well aware that there are such people.
If they decide they didn't want anybody to have sex with them when they were asleep, then yes, it's rape. Otherwise, it's not. When asleep, you cannot communicate consent so assuming consent is risky.
Don't want to get accused of rape? Then don't have sex with people who are sleeping, or else get permission beforehand.
"Sex by surprise" is not what he was charged with. That's a slang term that Assange's lawyer slung around for the media to drum up sympathy. He was charged with rape.
For somebody who says "innocent until proven guilty" you're pretty clearly leading us to call the women slanderers. False accusations of rape are very uncommon, though certainly not unheard of (something like ~5.9% of reported rapes).
Don't get me wrong -- innocent until proven guilty is excellent as a legal standard and I don't want to abandon it. I don't have evidence of Assange's guilt. I'm not willing to just dismiss the claims against him, though. I know! Let's have a trial!
And of course you don't see enough evidence to convict him; you clearly haven't even attempted to see if "sex by surprise" was a real thing, even though it should surely have set off your "obvious bullshit" detector.
Regardless of what other cultures do, the only reasons I've seen for gay marriage to not happen here are one of the following, all of which are bad and which are dominated by the religious argument and which are generally none of anybody else's business:
1. Religious.
2. People who think it's gross in the same immature way that 11 year olds are grossed out about heterosexuality in sex ed class.
3. "Tradition" / "why change it", which in the ultimate regress must come back to one of the others.
4. It'll cause other people to turn gay, which is either bad on the face of it for religious reasons, or eventually leads to depopulation. This comes from people who apparently think most men don't like women or most women don't like men.
5. Marriage is for producing children and gay people can't produce children (without either technical assistance or a non-gay side-encounter). If this were common you'd expect mandatory anullments after menopause and in cases of sterility or terminal disease, and couples who remain childless for too long. You'd also expect gay marriage to be allowed in cases of adoption.
-- There's a variant of this one where it takes one man and one woman to raise a child. These people are welcome to lobby for taking kids away who have lost a single parent and whose parents are divorced, and redistributing all orphans among married people. Until then I'm not giving it much credence, since two of only one gender has to be at least as good as 1 or 0 of only one gender.
I don't know or particularly care why China doesn't allow gay marriage (I have other things to worry about). When people here tell me they don't support gay marriage because of how they read Leviticus, I believe them.
Corporations are not fixed entities like humans. Stockholders and employees have both shifted over time. The question of how to correct a market injustice is very complicated. In non-trivial cases, there basically are not right answers.
Part of the problem is the nature of antitrust law is that all of Microsoft's actions would have been legal in different circumstances. Even if you think a tonne of stuff they did was ethically wrong, there's no legal wrong in it except that eventually they got too big to keep doing it (it's basically the flip side of the "too big to fail" bailout companies that people complain about). So it's hard to identify any individual or individuals who should bear the consequences. The legal fiction of companies being people is convenient in some ways but doesn't necessarily actually help the marketplace. If it makes sense of Microsoft, does it make sense to do that in all such cases for all companies? If not, what's the relevant difference?
So it's not really like robbing a bank. It's more like opening a big box store in a rural area, displacing all of the small businesses that cannot compete on price with their bulk purchases, distribution networks, operating capital cushion, and sheer volume.
"Supercomputer race" would simply be a race between supercomputers.
Why is that a problem? It seems like a perfectly apt description to me.
Putting people out of work? Why is it that make-work is considered noble? I'd rather write people a cheque for doing nothing and then automate their jobs away, than pay them to do unnecessary labour. The only jobs that are worth "creating" or "preserving" are jobs that could not otherwise be done.
I can't believe that you're trying to frame "not committing genocide" including, in the GGP's own words, every "day old infant", as "going to do nothing".
For fuck's sake.
We're conserving letters, not syllables. FF is two syllables just like Firefox (depending, I guess, on how exactly you pronounce "fire"), but it's 5 letters shorter.
Still, I'd go with Chrome. I usually type out Safari, which has the same number of letters. On the extreme, though, Internet Explorer is just too unwieldy a name compared to IE.
Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if they wrote the plugin for other OSes. That would point to Microsoft promoting the H.264 codec by putting it on all major browsers on all major OSes. As it is, it looks like Microsoft is promoting Windows 7 by putting all major codecs on all major browsers.
You're missing the point. This plugin makes Windows better, in the sense that you can use Firefox and view H.264 content.
Writing a similar plugin for Firefox on the Mac does not make MS Office better.
Hotmail and Gmail have the same timeout -- 9 months. Seems reasonable to me. Actually, even four months seems reasonable to me. I'd personally prefer infinity in case I got a coma and medical science advanced and I woke up 3 million years later, but I'll take my chances.
I expect that the standard xbox live privacy policy doesn't let them tell hotmail that they are the "linked" address, even if Microsoft is behind both products (I have not verified this so I could be totally wrong). You wouldn't expect an xbox live account to keep any other email service alive in and of itself (my xbox live account is linked to my gmail account).
The only email account I expect to last forever without my explicit intervention is my university account, because they rely on that lifeline to beg alumni for donations.