My cat spends certainly less than an hour per day eating. Going to the litter box takes less than 10 minutes a day. It drinks quite frequently, but it actually sleeps most of the remaining hours.
It's diet consists of Royal Canin.
It certainly doesn't seem to be using the extra time to evolve. In fact, it's a little overweight.
I spend about 2 to 3 hours a day eating. Work about 8 hours a day. Sleep another 8 hours a day. Remaining hours are spent with some sport activity (about 1-2 hours) then idle amusement.
My diet is pretty much like anybody else's in what consists of cooked food.
Since everybody knows that anecdote == fact and that everything I say is logically sound, I'm now declaring the TFA bull crap.
This comment is free of charge, but donations are welcome.
Nevertheless, adding a few references here and there that corroborate the journalist's claims wouldn't hurt. I wonder if the libel law isn't about that.
Some people like Internet Explorer or Visual Studio because they can do their jobs in it.
Some people (me included) prefer Firefox and Eclipse because they can customize it with a few half-dozen extensions or plug-ins and make their jobs something extremely pleasant to be done afterward. Some people can even create those extensions with little hassle!
So since the world is mainly populated with people from the first group, Microsoft makes lots of money : )
It's not that I don't agree with your point, but I don't think that your examples fit.
iPhone and iPod were clear tide changers. Leaders on their segment. Every single competitor fumbled to come up with something *at least* similar. MS's Zune, for example, caught up with the first iPod interface (the wheel) when the iPod went touchscreen. I saw an MS employee show me the "new" Zune which according to him would make Apple cry. A few weeks later I saw the new iPod and I couldn't help but smirk.
This is therefore another facet of the issue: I download because I can. Rightholders need to wake up to this fact and adjust their business models accordingly.
But they *are* adjusting! They are suing people like you and finally winning : )
Summary: I don't think that the bad estimations are due to old or new technologies regarding the batteries. I do think that remaining charge estimation is very difficult due to the nature of the chemical reaction involved in rechargeable batteries.
Anecdotal facts: When I was a kid about 25 years ago and got my first RC vehicle, dad also bought a set of Ni-Cd AA batteries and a recharger so that I wouldn't spend his salary with regular batteries.
One thing that I noticed was that Ni-Cd batteries would seem to maintain their voltage during their charge, then all of a sudden drop to "zero" (read unusable voltage).
Same thing observed with those nifty rechargeable lamps you'd keep plugged to your outlet during the 80's in case power went off.
I've never seen, since then, a home-use rechargeable battery that would behave differently. It does seem that car batteries behave like you say.
In the other hand, *regular* batteries do behave like you say, dropping their voltage as their chemical reaction wears off.
My guess would be that:
- Regular batteries rely on a chemical reaction that, as the two plates involved in the reaction wear off, they gradually provide poorer contact with their catalyst, hence producing less voltage. - Home-use rechargeable batteries require a fairly slow current output compared to their voltage, so their components are designed to provide optimal voltage, not current. - Car batteries are required to support an extremely high current output (when you turn on your engine), so their components are designed to support such high current and as a side effect have the voltage decline less dramatically when the charge is not so extreme (way smaller currents).
So, my conclusion is that since home-use batteries have such a behavior (sudden drop of voltage), it becomes very difficult for the computers to have a fair estimation of the remaining charge. This effect gets worse as the battery ages.
Here's what I think: emotional harassment may be more difficult to legislate upon, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's impossible.
And here's a fictitious example to try to turn it into something more tangible:
- Person A wants to pursuit Person B for emotional abuse over the statement: "f*ck you, your mother and your sister" - Persons K, L, M, N are willing to testify that they were in listening distance when such statement was issued, that it sounded like it was meant (not a bad joke), and that Person A seemed to be trying to discuss a valid professional subject. - Persons X, Y and Z are willing to testify that similar situations occurred between them and Person B. - Some recordings exist and can be presented to corroborate some of the testimonies.
In your opinion, would that still be outside the scope of the law?
Slashdot Mirror
My cat spends certainly less than an hour per day eating. Going to the litter box takes less than 10 minutes a day. It drinks quite frequently, but it actually sleeps most of the remaining hours.
It's diet consists of Royal Canin.
It certainly doesn't seem to be using the extra time to evolve. In fact, it's a little overweight.
I spend about 2 to 3 hours a day eating. Work about 8 hours a day. Sleep another 8 hours a day. Remaining hours are spent with some sport activity (about 1-2 hours) then idle amusement.
My diet is pretty much like anybody else's in what consists of cooked food.
Since everybody knows that anecdote == fact and that everything I say is logically sound, I'm now declaring the TFA bull crap.
This comment is free of charge, but donations are welcome.
Nonsense, they already ignore the signs anyway!
You missed the part where Corporations have the same rights and responsibilities as actual people. Let's see:
As I said, Wikipedia (or Google) is your friend.
Wikipedia is your friend.
The name says it all:
The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people".
Then:
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people.
What does the login odds have to do with an unlocked machine running an overnight test then?
Good thing you're not in the UK
I'm assuming it would have to be done in an oxygen free environment at least.
Didn't the article mention something about vacuum?
Why reinvent the wheel? He's already on /. : )
Nevertheless, adding a few references here and there that corroborate the journalist's claims wouldn't hurt. I wonder if the libel law isn't about that.
Wow, you're clearly misinformed. Most netbooks come with Windows XP OEM preinstalled or Linux. There's no downgrade trick. Here...
Dell
Asus
Acer
Samsung
Toshiba
Sony
Here's something else to help with your day. Mitsubishi does offer 10-year limited warranty on their cars
Ok, I got your point.
Some people like Internet Explorer or Visual Studio because they can do their jobs in it.
Some people (me included) prefer Firefox and Eclipse because they can customize it with a few half-dozen extensions or plug-ins and make their jobs something extremely pleasant to be done afterward. Some people can even create those extensions with little hassle!
So since the world is mainly populated with people from the first group, Microsoft makes lots of money : )
I used to stand Visual Studio, then I was presented to Eclipse. Now developing in Visual Studio is an endless torture.
Ignoring the "Preview", I see ; )
Oop, there's no consensus about "MSX-DOS" and MSX in general. Officially, Microsoft denies any involvement. MSX's dad came with some different meanings himself (see "The exact meaning of the 'MSX' abbreviation remains a matter of debate", also here). Special notes to "starting from zero" in http://www.faq.msxnet.org/kay-nishi.html
Other than that, thanks for the interesting history lesson!
Now, *that's* a good example. And so is Vista.
They did try ; )
It's not that I don't agree with your point, but I don't think that your examples fit.
iPhone and iPod were clear tide changers. Leaders on their segment. Every single competitor fumbled to come up with something *at least* similar. MS's Zune, for example, caught up with the first iPod interface (the wheel) when the iPod went touchscreen. I saw an MS employee show me the "new" Zune which according to him would make Apple cry. A few weeks later I saw the new iPod and I couldn't help but smirk.
SharePoint is... an interesting proprietary Wiki.
X-Box is... innovative how, exactly?
It's amusing to see it stated like that, but it was pretty obvious from the start. I'm surprised he was modded insightful and not flamebait.
This is therefore another facet of the issue: I download because I can. Rightholders need to wake up to this fact and adjust their business models accordingly.
But they *are* adjusting! They are suing people like you and finally winning : )
MUTTLEY!!!!! DO SOMETHING!!!!
[truecrypt -d]
Yeah, crazy people...
Haha!.. wait.. what?
Damn... And I thought that only on-board video had to steal from the RAM...
Well, good thing I haven't bought any video cards since my old Diamond with VESA bus!
Hmm... strange.
Summary: I don't think that the bad estimations are due to old or new technologies regarding the batteries. I do think that remaining charge estimation is very difficult due to the nature of the chemical reaction involved in rechargeable batteries.
Anecdotal facts:
When I was a kid about 25 years ago and got my first RC vehicle, dad also bought a set of Ni-Cd AA batteries and a recharger so that I wouldn't spend his salary with regular batteries.
One thing that I noticed was that Ni-Cd batteries would seem to maintain their voltage during their charge, then all of a sudden drop to "zero" (read unusable voltage).
Same thing observed with those nifty rechargeable lamps you'd keep plugged to your outlet during the 80's in case power went off.
I've never seen, since then, a home-use rechargeable battery that would behave differently. It does seem that car batteries behave like you say.
In the other hand, *regular* batteries do behave like you say, dropping their voltage as their chemical reaction wears off.
My guess would be that:
- Regular batteries rely on a chemical reaction that, as the two plates involved in the reaction wear off, they gradually provide poorer contact with their catalyst, hence producing less voltage.
- Home-use rechargeable batteries require a fairly slow current output compared to their voltage, so their components are designed to provide optimal voltage, not current.
- Car batteries are required to support an extremely high current output (when you turn on your engine), so their components are designed to support such high current and as a side effect have the voltage decline less dramatically when the charge is not so extreme (way smaller currents).
So, my conclusion is that since home-use batteries have such a behavior (sudden drop of voltage), it becomes very difficult for the computers to have a fair estimation of the remaining charge. This effect gets worse as the battery ages.
Very good point.
Here's what I think: emotional harassment may be more difficult to legislate upon, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's impossible.
And here's a fictitious example to try to turn it into something more tangible:
- Person A wants to pursuit Person B for emotional abuse over the statement: "f*ck you, your mother and your sister"
- Persons K, L, M, N are willing to testify that they were in listening distance when such statement was issued, that it sounded like it was meant (not a bad joke), and that Person A seemed to be trying to discuss a valid professional subject.
- Persons X, Y and Z are willing to testify that similar situations occurred between them and Person B.
- Some recordings exist and can be presented to corroborate some of the testimonies.
In your opinion, would that still be outside the scope of the law?