IANAL, but I understand, at least in Australia and perhaps the UK also, you *cannot* sign away your common-law right to sue. That means that all those so-called waivers people are supposed to sign before they can hop into a go-kart, play soccer, or whatever, are legally void. You might argue that the person signing should have been aware of the risks because they were spelled out in the waiver, but that doesn't stop the injured party from suing. All that stuff about "you can't sue us, even if we're negligent" is almost pure BS. Perhaps the same goes for Sony/MS EULA terms.
If there are serious failures, an Airbus pretty much starts to behave like the controls of a Boeing.
That's reassuring - "if the shit hits the fan, this aircraft will act like a Boeing" - so why not fly an actual Boeing in the first place? What actually makes an Airbus a better option outside of extreme conditions?
Hardly the worst advice. Point-and-shoot cameras have many good points, and are good for an introduction to photography. BUT - their limitations will be quickly reached and the OP will probably want to upgrade sooner rather than later. If the OP is happy to own a P&S for a year, then upgrade to a dSLR, well and good. The best lenses, image sensors, RAW processing, and the rest of the technology will count for little unless the photographer has or manages to develop a sense of composition, lighting, timing, etc. And Nikkor lenses have long enjoyed a reputation for consistent high quality. The premium price is what you pay for high-quality lenses and rugged construction, as well as things like secondary accessories. I've seen 2nd-tier brands give up at the sort of treatment given to Nikons.
Testify, brother. It's all in the glass. I'd be happy with better lenses on a lower-model body. My wife bought a Canon kit with body, 50mm, 18-55, and a 75-200 (IIRC). My kodak DX6490 - at 4MP and a Zeiss lens - takes sharper pictures than the Canon 18-55 (which crapped out recently - autofocus she no work no more - and not worth fixing). The latency is a PITA though. I wish digital cameras had a "just take the damn picture" mode, using the last settings and don't-worry-about-the-focus. I'll rely on depth of field when I need to get the shot NOW.
My thoughts exactly - I don't have air-conditioning, but my last energy survey (required to get subsidies for solar PV) was ~8kWh/day. And I have 4 computers, TV, washing machine, etc.
Yes, I was only joking. I've never thought "life + 70 years" or "mickey mouse perpetual" was fair, but there should be a reasonable time allowed for an author/songwriter/filmmaker to exploit their works. As I said, I'd be happy with 28 years.
There are ongoing costs with my last film - its cost eventually exceeded my budget, and it still hasn't been paid for. I'm not complaining, but authorship of any creative work isn't as simple as you think, financially speaking - excepting, of course Hollywood accounting, where no film ever makes a profit!
Some might stretch that path of logic to this conclusion: your employer stops paying you once you've earned enough to pay off 200% of your student loan/s.
Hmmm. Copyright. I have the right to control (sell, license, assign, transfer, etc) copies of my work.
When, in your opinion, does that right expire? Personally, as was suggested above, 28 years is OK by me. Should I not be permitted to sell as many copies as I can? Should I only be permitted income from one screening, or selling one copy?
I, too, go to work every week. I accumulate enough money to make a short film every few years. What is it about that that makes my works somehow not entitled to copyright protection?
And, income for life? Is there something about songs or films or books that means their value is automatically reduced as they age? I think their value is demonstrated by continuing sales. If "Casablanca" keeps selling, then it has a value.
That's probably true to some extent in all works of authorship, but it's not justification for dismissing income protection via copyright for someone who creates (for example) a new interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays - let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?
I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "hero's journey" in the story, but I wrote the screenplay - all 9 minutes of it:) - funded and produced the film, all the way to a screening at a local film festival, where I also sold some copies. Am I justified in seeking redress for anyone who makes their own copy of this film and distributes that copy?
Action to cut someone's internet access for a single violation is excessive, but deliberate, repeated, warnings-ignored violations - that's different.
I helped to dress a serious re-enactor once (in Brisbane - he's not with the SCA, though) - he had me put my foot on his waist while I pulled the war belt as tight as I could. The lower half of his chain-mail suit was then supported by the belt around his waist/hips, so the whole thing (approx 10kg) wasn't solely taken on his shoulders.
There's a lot of sense in what you say about Telstra/bigpond, and a lot of nonsense. Fortunately I live in an area where the alternatives are viable - westnet/iinet, for example. Not everyone is lucky to have that - Optus is lamentable, and I never recommend them to my customers.
If the choice is telstra/bigpond vs. optus, then optus miss out. If I can steer people towards westnet, iinet, or even harboursat, I will.
Re:Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?
on
Where Is Firefox OS?
·
· Score: 1
Well, screen real estate, colour, resolution, and memory abstraction weren't issues when OS400 was designed - it was 5250 text terminals - mostly green-screen, but some were colour. You're right, though - those are all issues to be considered. My point was that IBM considered and solved these types of problems way back before 1988 (when the first AS400 was announced) - how to manage portability of application code between different hardware platforms - and the hardware in an entry-level AS400 was sufficiently different from the higher-end models to be considered a different platform, even though the user interface was the same - but that's what you get when a proprietary system is designed from the ground up by a competent team - OS400 was designed first, then they designed a range of hardware to run it. I may sound like an IBM fanboy, but the AS400/iSeries has many features that others would do well to incorporate, patent issues aside for the moment.
For instance, the "PC Support" feature took application binaries that were originally designed for 5250 text terminals, and presented them in a GUI-based 5250 emulator. All the end user required was the emulator, and this was presented as an icon on their screen. Yes, it was a text-mode terminal in a make-believe GUI - primitive by today's standards, but it still proves the point that it can be done. No code had to be ported or re-compiled with various architecture options for this to work.
It's also one of the differences between an operating system that costs $1000 or less, and one that costs considerably more.
I recommend a visit to an iSeries shop sometime - or read of some of the design documents and history of the AS400.
Re:Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?
on
Where Is Firefox OS?
·
· Score: 1
Well, IBM did it with the AS400 (iSeries). Double abstraction meant that application binaries compiled on the smallest box in the range could be copied to the largest box in the range, and the operating system would automatically re-compile those binaries to work with the different microcode. That's not ported, not re-written - literally copied to tape and restored on the larger box.
It meant that hardware upgrades (as your wildly successful company expanded) weren't accompanied by the cost of re-writing or porting your application code for the new hardware.
IIRC the latest standards require them to have water-soluble plugs in them, that take ~3 days to dissolve, i.e. you've got 3 days to locate and retrieve your "lost" container, otherwise it will fill and sink to reduce the shipping hazard.
Combofix FTW. Although it wouldn't remove a "Windows Risks Prevention" I encountered last week. It took rkill, a registry patch, and MBAM to remove it for good.
Hot air balloons don't generate lift using aerofoils, they float using a large bag of hot lighter-than-the-surrounding air, and they use large propane burners to keep that bag's contents warm - so they do use fuel. They also only have gross control - up and down. Their direction of travel is largely subject to prevailing winds.
If you're not going to take advantage of the ability to customise EITHER system, then you're going to push sh!t uphill. You accuse me of failing to understand - yet I managed to understand how to customise a pre-ribbon environment to meet my needs, where all my frequently-used features were within one click (they were buttons I'd dragged onto the toolbar, or buttons assigned to my own macros). This worked for a variety of document types - standard correspondence, multi-chapter procedure manuals and system documentation, annual reports, scripts and screenplays, etc.
It's simple, really - the pre-ribbon environment met my needs and didn't hinder my productivity. Despite using the ribbon for >2 months, and attempting to customise it, it doesn't meet my needs, it's hindering my productivity, and it's large and intrusive - so I went back to the 2003 version. The ribbon works for you? Great, I wish you well.
And as for actually using it, I'm one of those weird people who read the "What's new" files, and who seeks advice at places like mvps.org. I weathered changes from Wordstar to Wordperfect (anyone remember that pos WP6 for DOS and Windows?), to Word 6, Office 97, 2000, and 2003 - none of those gave my brain a BSOD
Serious? What was hard about customising the pre-ribbon toolbars? View, toolbars, customise, drag off the buttons you never or rarely use, drag on (or leave in place) the buttons you use frequently. You could even assign a new button and a keyboard shortcut to your own macros. Can't remember where that 1% feature is? Press F1 and type a keyword.
Once I had the toolbar customised for my needs, it was fine. Features I only use rarely, well, I don't mind spending a little time in a hunt-and-click exercise, it doesn't affect my productivity all that much.
Hiding the ribbon makes it all look better but it has to be unhidden to use features, or you have to assign frequently-used features to the quick access toolbar. Everyone's different, of course, but I want maximum workspace and minimum intrusion by toolbars and pallettes - the ribbon looks ugly and clumsy to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Channeling Spike Milligan, there.
IANAL, but I understand, at least in Australia and perhaps the UK also, you *cannot* sign away your common-law right to sue. That means that all those so-called waivers people are supposed to sign before they can hop into a go-kart, play soccer, or whatever, are legally void. You might argue that the person signing should have been aware of the risks because they were spelled out in the waiver, but that doesn't stop the injured party from suing. All that stuff about "you can't sue us, even if we're negligent" is almost pure BS. Perhaps the same goes for Sony/MS EULA terms.
If there are serious failures, an Airbus pretty much starts to behave like the controls of a Boeing.
That's reassuring - "if the shit hits the fan, this aircraft will act like a Boeing" - so why not fly an actual Boeing in the first place? What actually makes an Airbus a better option outside of extreme conditions?
Hardly the worst advice. Point-and-shoot cameras have many good points, and are good for an introduction to photography. BUT - their limitations will be quickly reached and the OP will probably want to upgrade sooner rather than later. If the OP is happy to own a P&S for a year, then upgrade to a dSLR, well and good. The best lenses, image sensors, RAW processing, and the rest of the technology will count for little unless the photographer has or manages to develop a sense of composition, lighting, timing, etc. And Nikkor lenses have long enjoyed a reputation for consistent high quality. The premium price is what you pay for high-quality lenses and rugged construction, as well as things like secondary accessories. I've seen 2nd-tier brands give up at the sort of treatment given to Nikons.
Testify, brother. It's all in the glass. I'd be happy with better lenses on a lower-model body. My wife bought a Canon kit with body, 50mm, 18-55, and a 75-200 (IIRC). My kodak DX6490 - at 4MP and a Zeiss lens - takes sharper pictures than the Canon 18-55 (which crapped out recently - autofocus she no work no more - and not worth fixing). The latency is a PITA though. I wish digital cameras had a "just take the damn picture" mode, using the last settings and don't-worry-about-the-focus. I'll rely on depth of field when I need to get the shot NOW.
Hang on - was that meant to be "giving shit to taswegians and giving shit to kiwis", or "giving shit and kiwis to taswegians"?
These things are important.
My thoughts exactly - I don't have air-conditioning, but my last energy survey (required to get subsidies for solar PV) was ~8kWh/day. And I have 4 computers, TV, washing machine, etc.
Yes, I was only joking. I've never thought "life + 70 years" or "mickey mouse perpetual" was fair, but there should be a reasonable time allowed for an author/songwriter/filmmaker to exploit their works. As I said, I'd be happy with 28 years.
There are ongoing costs with my last film - its cost eventually exceeded my budget, and it still hasn't been paid for. I'm not complaining, but authorship of any creative work isn't as simple as you think, financially speaking - excepting, of course Hollywood accounting, where no film ever makes a profit!
Some might stretch that path of logic to this conclusion: your employer stops paying you once you've earned enough to pay off 200% of your student loan/s.
Hmmm. Copyright. I have the right to control (sell, license, assign, transfer, etc) copies of my work.
When, in your opinion, does that right expire? Personally, as was suggested above, 28 years is OK by me. Should I not be permitted to sell as many copies as I can? Should I only be permitted income from one screening, or selling one copy?
I, too, go to work every week. I accumulate enough money to make a short film every few years. What is it about that that makes my works somehow not entitled to copyright protection?
And, income for life? Is there something about songs or films or books that means their value is automatically reduced as they age? I think their value is demonstrated by continuing sales. If "Casablanca" keeps selling, then it has a value.
That's probably true to some extent in all works of authorship, but it's not justification for dismissing income protection via copyright for someone who creates (for example) a new interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays - let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?
I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "hero's journey" in the story, but I wrote the screenplay - all 9 minutes of it:) - funded and produced the film, all the way to a screening at a local film festival, where I also sold some copies. Am I justified in seeking redress for anyone who makes their own copy of this film and distributes that copy?
Action to cut someone's internet access for a single violation is excessive, but deliberate, repeated, warnings-ignored violations - that's different.
He also solved the energy supply problem - all we have to do is start with a ringworld, then move on to Dyson's sphere.
If we get cracking, we might have it done a few thousand years.
I helped to dress a serious re-enactor once (in Brisbane - he's not with the SCA, though) - he had me put my foot on his waist while I pulled the war belt as tight as I could. The lower half of his chain-mail suit was then supported by the belt around his waist/hips, so the whole thing (approx 10kg) wasn't solely taken on his shoulders.
There's a lot of sense in what you say about Telstra/bigpond, and a lot of nonsense. Fortunately I live in an area where the alternatives are viable - westnet/iinet, for example. Not everyone is lucky to have that - Optus is lamentable, and I never recommend them to my customers.
If the choice is telstra/bigpond vs. optus, then optus miss out. If I can steer people towards westnet, iinet, or even harboursat, I will.
Well, screen real estate, colour, resolution, and memory abstraction weren't issues when OS400 was designed - it was 5250 text terminals - mostly green-screen, but some were colour. You're right, though - those are all issues to be considered. My point was that IBM considered and solved these types of problems way back before 1988 (when the first AS400 was announced) - how to manage portability of application code between different hardware platforms - and the hardware in an entry-level AS400 was sufficiently different from the higher-end models to be considered a different platform, even though the user interface was the same - but that's what you get when a proprietary system is designed from the ground up by a competent team - OS400 was designed first, then they designed a range of hardware to run it. I may sound like an IBM fanboy, but the AS400/iSeries has many features that others would do well to incorporate, patent issues aside for the moment.
For instance, the "PC Support" feature took application binaries that were originally designed for 5250 text terminals, and presented them in a GUI-based 5250 emulator. All the end user required was the emulator, and this was presented as an icon on their screen. Yes, it was a text-mode terminal in a make-believe GUI - primitive by today's standards, but it still proves the point that it can be done. No code had to be ported or re-compiled with various architecture options for this to work.
It's also one of the differences between an operating system that costs $1000 or less, and one that costs considerably more.
I recommend a visit to an iSeries shop sometime - or read of some of the design documents and history of the AS400.
Well, IBM did it with the AS400 (iSeries). Double abstraction meant that application binaries compiled on the smallest box in the range could be copied to the largest box in the range, and the operating system would automatically re-compile those binaries to work with the different microcode. That's not ported, not re-written - literally copied to tape and restored on the larger box.
It meant that hardware upgrades (as your wildly successful company expanded) weren't accompanied by the cost of re-writing or porting your application code for the new hardware.
IIRC the latest standards require them to have water-soluble plugs in them, that take ~3 days to dissolve, i.e. you've got 3 days to locate and retrieve your "lost" container, otherwise it will fill and sink to reduce the shipping hazard.
They, too, belong in the "special hell".
Combofix FTW. Although it wouldn't remove a "Windows Risks Prevention" I encountered last week. It took rkill, a registry patch, and MBAM to remove it for good.
This was a machine "protected" by Bullguard.
Aaaaand, we have a winner!
Hot air balloons don't generate lift using aerofoils, they float using a large bag of hot lighter-than-the-surrounding air, and they use large propane burners to keep that bag's contents warm - so they do use fuel. They also only have gross control - up and down. Their direction of travel is largely subject to prevailing winds.
If you're not going to take advantage of the ability to customise EITHER system, then you're going to push sh!t uphill. You accuse me of failing to understand - yet I managed to understand how to customise a pre-ribbon environment to meet my needs, where all my frequently-used features were within one click (they were buttons I'd dragged onto the toolbar, or buttons assigned to my own macros). This worked for a variety of document types - standard correspondence, multi-chapter procedure manuals and system documentation, annual reports, scripts and screenplays, etc.
It's simple, really - the pre-ribbon environment met my needs and didn't hinder my productivity. Despite using the ribbon for >2 months, and attempting to customise it, it doesn't meet my needs, it's hindering my productivity, and it's large and intrusive - so I went back to the 2003 version. The ribbon works for you? Great, I wish you well.
And as for actually using it, I'm one of those weird people who read the "What's new" files, and who seeks advice at places like mvps.org. I weathered changes from Wordstar to Wordperfect (anyone remember that pos WP6 for DOS and Windows?), to Word 6, Office 97, 2000, and 2003 - none of those gave my brain a BSOD
Serious? What was hard about customising the pre-ribbon toolbars? View, toolbars, customise, drag off the buttons you never or rarely use, drag on (or leave in place) the buttons you use frequently. You could even assign a new button and a keyboard shortcut to your own macros. Can't remember where that 1% feature is? Press F1 and type a keyword.
Once I had the toolbar customised for my needs, it was fine. Features I only use rarely, well, I don't mind spending a little time in a hunt-and-click exercise, it doesn't affect my productivity all that much.
Hiding the ribbon makes it all look better but it has to be unhidden to use features, or you have to assign frequently-used features to the quick access toolbar. Everyone's different, of course, but I want maximum workspace and minimum intrusion by toolbars and pallettes - the ribbon looks ugly and clumsy to me.
Son, humour is a complicated thing - and it's not funny at all when you have to explain it.
Didn't the easter bunny bring you any eggs?
Whoosh!