So practically speaking, unless you hate MS with a passion, it is in your own interested to get the basically free version of Windows, do a wipe and reinstall, and go on with your life, as pretty much every tech savvy person has been doing for decades.
But the developer licence can apparently be used like normal. Their are consumers who buy it apparently, so they can use the bleeding edge of Apple development.
As far as I can tell Android appears to be FOSS. You might need a version without Googles logos for it to be legal to use without paying them though? I am not sure if they charge for licencing? I am sure someone on/. can enlighten us though.
http://store.apple.com/ca/prod...
You can buy it, so the ruling is directly applicable. But I guess all they have to do is say that it comes free on all their hardware, and they might get away with it. Really they sell a specific product that obviously has to come with their OS to even make sense, if you want some hardware without an OS, that is a PC and it is not Apples fault that MS has prevented an OS free one from being sold.
Now for Android, I actually think that it is freely available.
iOS seems to live in a grey middle area. They sell developer versions, and as far as I am aware it is not freely available in any version, but it is also not given away. So is it free, or is it commercial, who can say.
But in theory, it should also be incredibly easy to test.
You would think sometime in the last few centuries someone would of bothered to get a few people together, control their food intake, adjust salt intake, and see what happened. If we are studying water retention, and its effect it could be a short-term study of around a week.
So how much space does the chechsums take up? How much does all this behind the scenes work slow down the data retrieval/writing?
Is this something that a normal consumer would use for their main storage?
Or in other words, they simply were not smart enough to find the genomes. We know that a large amount of intelligence is dictated by our genes (http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/08/11/1151242/about-half-of-kids-learning-ability-is-in-their-dna), that we are unable to find a few needles in the haystack does not makes us rethink that.
Still, anyone in that position is usually going to be in the top tier of researchers already (one is a Nobel laureate), not the hypothetical junior faculty member worrying about tenure.
Which really seems like a missed opportunity. Get them when they are cheap. You would get 10,000, barely making rent, juniors with their entire careers in front of them for the cost of a noble laureate. It has got to be a better cost to result ration to buy talent before it becomes a hot commodity.
I agree, but I think for a lot of the same reasons if MS is interested Notch would probably sell. He seems to have pretty much checked out of the studio to me; more interested in being a gamer celebrity and doing lone side projects than running a studio. And you are probably right, unless someone has some new big idea most of the money has already been made off of Minecraft, and the studio itself was not some dream team put together over decades
Yes, and a baby ducky takes up even less room, but most people driving on a road littered with baby ducks drive slower. The important aspect is not how big the object is, but if it can keep up with traffic, and if the object is so incredibly fragile in comparison to a car that it makes everyone nervous.
I am a bicyclist. I do not even have a drivers licence. Bicycles belong on the side walk, with the other slow fragile creatures that need to be kept away from cars.
Why change the definition? 4 is more than enough to use the Internet and every single one of its major features. I do not even understand why it would currently be 4? As far as I am concerned, this broad post dial-up technology we use is all broadband, regardless of if you have a 1MB connection or a 1GB connection.
Which requires far more than running a few experiments. They not only need to do good science and get that result, but convince a consensus of people that they were wrong or that common sense is wrong, and that the nearly inconceivable is in fact true. It has been done before, but it took far more than one scientist and far more than one study and it took decades of derision or attacks by the scientists who did not believe the crazy theories of the dissenters.
It is a hell of a lot easier to have theories and conduct experiments that fall within the commonly accepted wisdom of the academic community (as you will need far far less proof to get people to believe you) than it is to convince them of something new. This idea that the rogue scientist who comes up with the unbelievable will be instantly and richly rewarded and acknowledged is just not backed by any history I know of. Nor of common sense. As more evidence or belief is added to an idea, disproving it become harder, as you need more counter evidence, and something that prevents everyone from ignoring you out of turn.
Slashdot Mirror
There are loads of examples, and even real existing buyable guns.
Except it already is a religion. That is not going to change. So why not discuss what type of religion you want it to be?
How does that compare to conventional University/College. Probably a similar order of magnitude.
So if the law allowed users to get a refund, they would have to pay Google money not to use Android, I guess.
So practically speaking, unless you hate MS with a passion, it is in your own interested to get the basically free version of Windows, do a wipe and reinstall, and go on with your life, as pretty much every tech savvy person has been doing for decades.
But the developer licence can apparently be used like normal. Their are consumers who buy it apparently, so they can use the bleeding edge of Apple development.
But do they make their money back though ads and forcing users to use Google Search and Google email, etc.. Or do they make money licencing their OS?
What does MS sell their OEM OS for anyway? Probably not that much. No one will likely bother.
As far as I can tell Android appears to be FOSS. You might need a version without Googles logos for it to be legal to use without paying them though? I am not sure if they charge for licencing? I am sure someone on /. can enlighten us though.
http://store.apple.com/ca/prod...
You can buy it, so the ruling is directly applicable. But I guess all they have to do is say that it comes free on all their hardware, and they might get away with it. Really they sell a specific product that obviously has to come with their OS to even make sense, if you want some hardware without an OS, that is a PC and it is not Apples fault that MS has prevented an OS free one from being sold.
Now for Android, I actually think that it is freely available.
iOS seems to live in a grey middle area. They sell developer versions, and as far as I am aware it is not freely available in any version, but it is also not given away. So is it free, or is it commercial, who can say.
I hear he can bully someone by whistling into a phone.
But in theory, it should also be incredibly easy to test.
You would think sometime in the last few centuries someone would of bothered to get a few people together, control their food intake, adjust salt intake, and see what happened. If we are studying water retention, and its effect it could be a short-term study of around a week.
But it does help with water retention, right? And you would imagine that as the body retained more water it would become generally more pressurised?
So how much space does the chechsums take up? How much does all this behind the scenes work slow down the data retrieval/writing?
Is this something that a normal consumer would use for their main storage?
Or in other words, they simply were not smart enough to find the genomes. We know that a large amount of intelligence is dictated by our genes (http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/08/11/1151242/about-half-of-kids-learning-ability-is-in-their-dna), that we are unable to find a few needles in the haystack does not makes us rethink that.
All of which would probably be illegal now, some one reason or another.
Still, anyone in that position is usually going to be in the top tier of researchers already (one is a Nobel laureate), not the hypothetical junior faculty member worrying about tenure.
Which really seems like a missed opportunity. Get them when they are cheap. You would get 10,000, barely making rent, juniors with their entire careers in front of them for the cost of a noble laureate. It has got to be a better cost to result ration to buy talent before it becomes a hot commodity.
I agree, but I think for a lot of the same reasons if MS is interested Notch would probably sell. He seems to have pretty much checked out of the studio to me; more interested in being a gamer celebrity and doing lone side projects than running a studio. And you are probably right, unless someone has some new big idea most of the money has already been made off of Minecraft, and the studio itself was not some dream team put together over decades
Yes, and a baby ducky takes up even less room, but most people driving on a road littered with baby ducks drive slower. The important aspect is not how big the object is, but if it can keep up with traffic, and if the object is so incredibly fragile in comparison to a car that it makes everyone nervous.
I am a bicyclist. I do not even have a drivers licence. Bicycles belong on the side walk, with the other slow fragile creatures that need to be kept away from cars.
But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.
Maybe you need that to maintain your lifestyle, that does not make anything less not broadband.
Why change the definition? 4 is more than enough to use the Internet and every single one of its major features. I do not even understand why it would currently be 4? As far as I am concerned, this broad post dial-up technology we use is all broadband, regardless of if you have a 1MB connection or a 1GB connection.
Which requires far more than running a few experiments. They not only need to do good science and get that result, but convince a consensus of people that they were wrong or that common sense is wrong, and that the nearly inconceivable is in fact true. It has been done before, but it took far more than one scientist and far more than one study and it took decades of derision or attacks by the scientists who did not believe the crazy theories of the dissenters.
It is a hell of a lot easier to have theories and conduct experiments that fall within the commonly accepted wisdom of the academic community (as you will need far far less proof to get people to believe you) than it is to convince them of something new. This idea that the rogue scientist who comes up with the unbelievable will be instantly and richly rewarded and acknowledged is just not backed by any history I know of. Nor of common sense. As more evidence or belief is added to an idea, disproving it become harder, as you need more counter evidence, and something that prevents everyone from ignoring you out of turn.
I just read somewhere that the DNA evidence so far points to some unnamed woman, who is thought to have masqueraded as a midwife.