That won't work for them. If the unknown performers give Apple permission to play 30 sec clips for free, that will be a major advantage to the unknown performers. It's not smart to put barriers in the way of people who want to investigate your product, especially if the competition can easily remove them for their product.
My contract, with Optus, says nothing about tethering. They wish to charge $10 per month for the ability to tether, but seeing I've been able to do so freely for a few months, I'm not inclined to start paying. My contract is specifically limited (500MB) and costs 35c per MB above that. So it's bandwidth I've already bought and wish to use as I see fit.
I complained to Apple, said I wouldn't be upgrading from 3.0 to 3.1 until I can return to being able to tether at no cost. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I asked my professor and they really danced around and didn't give a straight answer (it was a community college).
Oh, the merits of living in a society where the word 'professor' is used for a person who holds a chair at a proper university, and indicates a senior content expert. A title awarded on the basis of academic excellence---I've known two people who were paid at the level of professors but did not receive their chair until the university decided to honour them in that way.
Doesn't stop them dancing around and giving bendy answers, of course, but it helps identify some content experts. Like 'engineer' or 'doctor'.
Um. I grant that the US produces some excellent cooks, and that Southern US 'home cooking' might be very nice. But I don't believe that it is so much better than the rest of the world that it would drag your flipping life expectancy down so far!
In other words, I think the French, Germans, Italians, New Zealanders have discovered butter, and occasionally get bombed. They don't all die young. Some of them can even cook OK.
You're half right. If a publicist wants a photo to use on wikipedia, they get a photographer to take one. That should be the normal relationship, photographers should be paid similarly to how musicians and actors are, for their time, for expert performance.
But what if you take one great photo, on your own time? Well, life isn't a lottery, you can't expect to get rich from one photo.
(15x base cost, minimum since I can never use those pics in a portfolio)
You can use them however you like. But if you can't stand earning less than three weeks' wages for a days' work, you have unrealistic expectations.
I guarantee that most slashdotters aren't paid like kings for anything. They do a day's work, and if they're skilled, they get paid for it. They do not expect to get paid for their hobbies. They certainly do not charge "15x base cost" for anything---at least, none that I've ever known do.
The only time it loses this status is when it is used to directly incite violence, such as getting people to riot, hurt others, etc..... but I will fight to the death to defend their right to free speech.
The best home backup strategy is "now, securely, and with understanding". Get 99% of the benefit by doing it now.
The best way to improve "now" is "secure". Secure your backup by tying it down, and taking a copy to a remote location.
If you do it "now" you will have a chance of recovery when disaster strikes. If you do it "securely" then you will have a chance of recovery when a bigger disaster strikes. If you understand how the backup process works and what you are backing up, you have a good chance of being able to do the recovery yourself.
drmemnoch... a creator of something I actually want, and therefore someone whose opinion I care about? Or are you just some self-important writer of doggerel who wants to restrict my rights, without benefiting either you or me?
I'm a content creator too. I do it because I enjoy it and it makes me good money. My content is paid for by government and commercial contract (mostly commercial). I have absolutely no pretension to creating content for your entertainment.
The key difference between you and me is this: you want to restrict my rights, I don't want to restrict yours. I can enjoy my own life without asking you to do or refraining from doing anything. Unless I ask you to create something for me, in which case I will be expecting to pay you for it.
If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.
Come now. You know the **AA are a bunch of jerks, but you don't want to see them taken down? What the **AA needs is a serious challenge to their existence. Society needs to declare that their abuse of copyright law is so serious that those institutions deserve not to exist, regardless of the merits of the laws they purport to maintain.
A good solid kick in the balls will wake them up. Hopefully it will destroy their careers (they deserve it) and have them replaced with another institution that is forced to behave properly because of the public outcry.
The reasons that smallpox could be eradicated are that there were only a few types, no animal host, and it was a frigging nasty disease, so everyone wanted to eradicated it.
Indeed. The most licensed OS would have to be Linux. Or maybe BSD. But that's another debate.
I might just write a new license, the General Organism License, and license my own OS under it. By Microsoft's mechanism for counting "use", mine will be the most used OS of all time! Until someone writes a license that rocks can use, I suppose. Hmmm...
So he shouldn't be punished. But society might well be justified in protecting itself from such a person. If so, 'something needs to be done' though certainly not through criminal law.
This guy hasn't done anything that should be defined as a crime. He should not be punished. I strongly believe that the current political climate has guaranteed that "child molesting" is the modern equivalent of witchcraft.
But genuinely acts harmful towards children are among the worst criminal acts. That includes sexual abuse, pornography, etc. I like to see my laws properly codified, and also prosecuted with a good dose of common sense. I.e. don't prosecute kids for experimenting, do prosecute adults for molesting.
But. Even though there is something about this 'virtual pornography' that makes it difficult to define as a crime, I find it creepy, offensive, repugnant, and I think this is the sort of behaviour that suggests that society should protect itself from such a person. I don't think we have a mechanism for such protection: criminal law is not the appropriate paradigm, nor should it necessarily be artificially 'medicalised'.
My hunch is that there is a strong evidence base (sufficient to convince experts and a properly constituted court) that such a person presents a risk to society. If so, then he needs to be in some sense treated or confined---hopefully voluntarily. But he should be treated well, in no way punished.
How very 1984. It is only our morals and good judgement that will stop us from abusing such a system, though I suppose this is the case in pretty well all areas of life.
This is one of those things that a nerd can't ask normal people and get an answer worth two cents.
Nope. If you are interested in intimate relations with females, the answer is the same for geeks and non-geeks alike. The analogies are different.
You have all the hardware you need. You just need to reprogram it a bit. You need to develop a script for socialising. Learn to talk to women without trying to hit on them. If anything, concentrate on not falling for them. Certainly don't ask for dates, initially don't even try to make friends with them.
The rude bit will follow naturally enough in its own good time.
Should a black man be required to pay health insurance for someone who is a member of the Klan? Should a member of PETA be required to pay health insurance for a hunter of baby seals? You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
Absolutely, certainly yes, unless they are morally bankrupt themselves. If the said black man or PETA member cannot value another person's humanity despite disagreeing with them or hating them, then they are subhuman themselves.
You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
And the enlightened world is amazed at how easily you justify the inhumane decision to make care anything less than a public issue.
5 year cancer survival rates aren't by themselves a good measure of anything. The US has more screening, so they will tend to detect stuff earlier, including cancer that would have been eliminated by the immune system. Unnecessary screening + treatment might make for better survival stats for whose who are "diagnosed" without actually conferring any benefit to them or anyone else.
Simple example: prostate cancer. We're all blokes here, so we'll all get it if we live long enough. We'll mostly die with it rather than of it, so 5 year survival rates will basically only reflect the time at which we were diagnosed, not how good our health care is. The same is true (to a lesser extent) of breast and cervical cancer.
It is true that the US system has some advantages (some quite spectacular) over other Western systems (e.g. innovative surgery) but the odds of you actually needing that in a lifetime are quite low. Everyone has his own preferences, but IMHO it is not worth setting up a system that allows for you to have a miracle cure once every hundred lifetimes, at the cost of having a crappy life for twenty of the others.
Slashdot Mirror
That won't work for them. If the unknown performers give Apple permission to play 30 sec clips for free, that will be a major advantage to the unknown performers. It's not smart to put barriers in the way of people who want to investigate your product, especially if the competition can easily remove them for their product.
My contract, with Optus, says nothing about tethering. They wish to charge $10 per month for the ability to tether, but seeing I've been able to do so freely for a few months, I'm not inclined to start paying. My contract is specifically limited (500MB) and costs 35c per MB above that. So it's bandwidth I've already bought and wish to use as I see fit.
I complained to Apple, said I wouldn't be upgrading from 3.0 to 3.1 until I can return to being able to tether at no cost. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
The 'camera' being the HST, you can rule out focus, depth of field, and lens effects. It's a reflecting telescope, and everything is at infinity.
I asked my professor and they really danced around and didn't give a straight answer (it was a community college).
Oh, the merits of living in a society where the word 'professor' is used for a person who holds a chair at a proper university, and indicates a senior content expert. A title awarded on the basis of academic excellence---I've known two people who were paid at the level of professors but did not receive their chair until the university decided to honour them in that way.
Doesn't stop them dancing around and giving bendy answers, of course, but it helps identify some content experts. Like 'engineer' or 'doctor'.
Um. I grant that the US produces some excellent cooks, and that Southern US 'home cooking' might be very nice. But I don't believe that it is so much better than the rest of the world that it would drag your flipping life expectancy down so far!
In other words, I think the French, Germans, Italians, New Zealanders have discovered butter, and occasionally get bombed. They don't all die young. Some of them can even cook OK.
Don't worry, I was never going to eat the lettuce in my fridge. It's symbolic---keeps my wife happy.
You're half right. If a publicist wants a photo to use on wikipedia, they get a photographer to take one. That should be the normal relationship, photographers should be paid similarly to how musicians and actors are, for their time, for expert performance.
But what if you take one great photo, on your own time? Well, life isn't a lottery, you can't expect to get rich from one photo.
(15x base cost, minimum since I can never use those pics in a portfolio)
You can use them however you like. But if you can't stand earning less than three weeks' wages for a days' work, you have unrealistic expectations.
I guarantee that most slashdotters aren't paid like kings for anything. They do a day's work, and if they're skilled, they get paid for it. They do not expect to get paid for their hobbies. They certainly do not charge "15x base cost" for anything---at least, none that I've ever known do.
The only time it loses this status is when it is used to directly incite violence, such as getting people to riot, hurt others, etc. .... but I will fight to the death to defend their right to free speech.
You inciting violence there?
The best home backup strategy is "now, securely, and with understanding". Get 99% of the benefit by doing it now.
The best way to improve "now" is "secure". Secure your backup by tying it down, and taking a copy to a remote location.
If you do it "now" you will have a chance of recovery when disaster strikes. If you do it "securely" then you will have a chance of recovery when a bigger disaster strikes. If you understand how the backup process works and what you are backing up, you have a good chance of being able to do the recovery yourself.
Dude. It's your son. Take a real risk, go hiking with him!
I find that I have a much more positive view of the Catholic Church as an agnostic than I did as a protestant.
Funny that, given the meaning of the word 'protestant'.
to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom
I suspect that a systematic deconstruction of our freedom would actually be quite boring.
drmemnoch... a creator of something I actually want, and therefore someone whose opinion I care about? Or are you just some self-important writer of doggerel who wants to restrict my rights, without benefiting either you or me?
I'm a content creator too. I do it because I enjoy it and it makes me good money. My content is paid for by government and commercial contract (mostly commercial). I have absolutely no pretension to creating content for your entertainment.
The key difference between you and me is this: you want to restrict my rights, I don't want to restrict yours. I can enjoy my own life without asking you to do or refraining from doing anything. Unless I ask you to create something for me, in which case I will be expecting to pay you for it.
It really sucks for us left-leaning social libertarians
That's because libertarians suck.
--proud left-leaning socialist. Oh wait, we have no-one to represent us either.
If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.
Come now. You know the **AA are a bunch of jerks, but you don't want to see them taken down? What the **AA needs is a serious challenge to their existence. Society needs to declare that their abuse of copyright law is so serious that those institutions deserve not to exist, regardless of the merits of the laws they purport to maintain.
A good solid kick in the balls will wake them up. Hopefully it will destroy their careers (they deserve it) and have them replaced with another institution that is forced to behave properly because of the public outcry.
Smallpox vaccine is not nearly as effective as you might think. See http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/smallpox.shtml
The reasons that smallpox could be eradicated are that there were only a few types, no animal host, and it was a frigging nasty disease, so everyone wanted to eradicated it.
Indeed. The most licensed OS would have to be Linux. Or maybe BSD. But that's another debate.
I might just write a new license, the General Organism License, and license my own OS under it. By Microsoft's mechanism for counting "use", mine will be the most used OS of all time! Until someone writes a license that rocks can use, I suppose. Hmmm...
So he shouldn't be punished. But society might well be justified in protecting itself from such a person. If so, 'something needs to be done' though certainly not through criminal law.
This guy hasn't done anything that should be defined as a crime. He should not be punished. I strongly believe that the current political climate has guaranteed that "child molesting" is the modern equivalent of witchcraft.
But genuinely acts harmful towards children are among the worst criminal acts. That includes sexual abuse, pornography, etc. I like to see my laws properly codified, and also prosecuted with a good dose of common sense. I.e. don't prosecute kids for experimenting, do prosecute adults for molesting.
But. Even though there is something about this 'virtual pornography' that makes it difficult to define as a crime, I find it creepy, offensive, repugnant, and I think this is the sort of behaviour that suggests that society should protect itself from such a person. I don't think we have a mechanism for such protection: criminal law is not the appropriate paradigm, nor should it necessarily be artificially 'medicalised'.
My hunch is that there is a strong evidence base (sufficient to convince experts and a properly constituted court) that such a person presents a risk to society. If so, then he needs to be in some sense treated or confined---hopefully voluntarily. But he should be treated well, in no way punished.
How very 1984. It is only our morals and good judgement that will stop us from abusing such a system, though I suppose this is the case in pretty well all areas of life.
Um. Do you know what 'double blind' means? [mind wanders...]
Well, I attend church. Just saying.
This is one of those things that a nerd can't ask normal people and get an answer worth two cents.
Nope. If you are interested in intimate relations with females, the answer is the same for geeks and non-geeks alike. The analogies are different.
You have all the hardware you need. You just need to reprogram it a bit. You need to develop a script for socialising. Learn to talk to women without trying to hit on them. If anything, concentrate on not falling for them. Certainly don't ask for dates, initially don't even try to make friends with them.
The rude bit will follow naturally enough in its own good time.
Should a black man be required to pay health insurance for someone who is a member of the Klan? Should a member of PETA be required to pay health insurance for a hunter of baby seals? You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
Absolutely, certainly yes, unless they are morally bankrupt themselves. If the said black man or PETA member cannot value another person's humanity despite disagreeing with them or hating them, then they are subhuman themselves.
You open up quite a can of worms, indeed, when you make health care a public issue.
And the enlightened world is amazed at how easily you justify the inhumane decision to make care anything less than a public issue.
5 year cancer survival rates aren't by themselves a good measure of anything. The US has more screening, so they will tend to detect stuff earlier, including cancer that would have been eliminated by the immune system. Unnecessary screening + treatment might make for better survival stats for whose who are "diagnosed" without actually conferring any benefit to them or anyone else.
Simple example: prostate cancer. We're all blokes here, so we'll all get it if we live long enough. We'll mostly die with it rather than of it, so 5 year survival rates will basically only reflect the time at which we were diagnosed, not how good our health care is. The same is true (to a lesser extent) of breast and cervical cancer.
It is true that the US system has some advantages (some quite spectacular) over other Western systems (e.g. innovative surgery) but the odds of you actually needing that in a lifetime are quite low. Everyone has his own preferences, but IMHO it is not worth setting up a system that allows for you to have a miracle cure once every hundred lifetimes, at the cost of having a crappy life for twenty of the others.
Idiot. Not odd Mersenne primes. Odd perfect numbers which are interesting because they're not related to Mersenne primes.