The submitter did not bother to look at the atricle (or rather the presentation).
The main idea is that you embed the watermark into the code and then obfuscate it. The resulting code is unreadable, otherwise watermark would be trivial to remove, which makes it absolutely useless as far as open source is concerned.
What do you mean, response to color? The subjects are just _told_ that something is Coke and it causes a measurable and specific change in their brain activity. It certainly seems interesting from the scientific point of view. Whether it is helpful for marketing, etc., I have no idea.
These things are not parallel at all - the landscape can be appreciated at a higher level then s splotch of red, since there is a lot more complexity to a landscape. You don't need to be told that the painting is a landscape to appreciate it.
On the other hand Pepsi tastes better in a blind setting but worse when you know that the other liquit is Coke. The higher cognitive functions clearly override the basic perceptions.
The situation could perhaps be compared to a piece of modern art, which you do not perceive as art, until you are told that it's art.
irony (def 3b), Merriam-Webster:
incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
To say that Google should give up a market the size of France over some trademark dispute is analogous to suggesting that McDonalds should withdraw from the US
after being sucessfully sued for selling hot coffee.
The ads mentioned are the ads Google itself places on its page. They are the not-so-little text links you see above the search results.
The idea is that Google should not allow other interested parties to use copyrighted expressions. E.g., Ford Motors can by a text link for Toyota Corolla and direct them to Ford Focus.
Whether it makes sense, I am not quite sure, but it is not a clearly ridiculous idea
This is the tallest office building without an spear both the Taipei and the Petronas towers have their tallest floor way under the tallest floor of the Sears building in Chicago.
True about the Petronas towers, not true about the Shanghai 101. When finished, its top floor will be around 5 meters above the roof of the Sears tower.
They most likely think of the Empire State or the (now disassembled) Twin Towers as the largest. Nitpick all you want. If it made it, it made it. At the first to break a half km, it deserves some respect.
What are you talking about?
The Sears tower in Chicago is far taller than either. It is only a few meters shorter than the Shanghai building if you disregard the spire and count the height of the top floor.
If you want to count the spires, however, the the CN tower in Toronto was and still is the tallest building in the world. The Ostankino tower in Moscow is only a bit shorter and is still much taller than Taipei 101.
Let's see... AMD missed the original launch date of their Barton core CPU's by at least 3 months, missed the launch date of the Opteron by over 6 months, and the original launch date of the Athlon 64 by almost a year.
Ah, that's nothing compared to the Itanium.
1998-->2001 if I remember correctly
We asked the question: "Microsoft users are getting fed up. They're battered by worms, viruses, security patches and increasing enterprise licensing costs. Aggravation has users talking about switching from Microsoft software to something else. We're trying to figure out how much of that talk is just talk, and how much is serious action. Do you seriously plan to dump Microsoft software?"
That's one loaded question. Why would anyne who disagrees with the premise even bother to answer this?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, seems like a strange obsession.
There is plenty of energy to go around, just look at the sun!
The main idea is that you embed the watermark into the code and then obfuscate it. The resulting code is unreadable, otherwise watermark would be trivial to remove, which makes it absolutely useless as far as open source is concerned.
Market economy?! I thought those programs were supposed to be free.
What do you mean, response to color? The subjects are just _told_ that something is Coke and it causes a measurable and specific change in their brain activity. It certainly seems interesting from the scientific point of view. Whether it is helpful for marketing, etc., I have no idea.
On the other hand Pepsi tastes better in a blind setting but worse when you know that the other liquit is Coke. The higher cognitive functions clearly override the basic perceptions.
The situation could perhaps be compared to a piece of modern art, which you do not perceive as art, until you are told that it's art.
I don't want to know about that.
Suggestions? I am curious.
How is it a theft if the owner is not deprived of what you had allegedly stolen?
Are you a communist or something? You have to encourage private enterprise.
Ah, but they will be prevented from entering
by a large "No Terrorists Past This Point" sign.
They would have to cut your hand too, since the card will be linked to fingerprint scanners according to the article.
Can be done.
irony (def 3b), Merriam-Webster:
incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
To say that Google should give up a market the size of France over some trademark dispute is analogous to suggesting that McDonalds should withdraw from the US after being sucessfully sued for selling hot coffee.
Exactly. And you have to pull the ads if someone makes a complaint until the dispute is settled.
I stand corrected. The right word to use was "trademark", of course.
The idea is that Google should not allow other interested parties to use copyrighted expressions. E.g., Ford Motors can by a text link for Toyota Corolla and direct them to Ford Focus.
Whether it makes sense, I am not quite sure, but it is not a clearly ridiculous idea
True about the Petronas towers, not true about the Shanghai 101. When finished, its top floor will be around 5 meters above the roof of the Sears tower.
What are you talking about?
The Sears tower in Chicago is far taller than either. It is only a few meters shorter than the Shanghai building if you disregard the spire and count the height of the top floor.
If you want to count the spires, however, the the CN tower in Toronto was and still is the tallest building in the world. The Ostankino tower in Moscow is only a bit shorter and is still much taller than Taipei 101.
You forget that War is Peace.
Ah, that's nothing compared to the Itanium.
1998-->2001 if I remember correctly
It is amusing that the submitter apparently had not bothered to read the article.
An impressive refutation of a rather weak position.
Way to go!
Why is the pledge necessary in the first place and why do the young kids have to repeat it every day?
Little more than brainwashing, it seems.
Ah, the New York Times will be eternally grateful to you for saving them.
That's one loaded question. Why would anyne who disagrees with the premise even bother to answer this?