It encourages innovation by, in a legal sense, forcing developers to come up with new ways to accomplish given tasks.
Granted, this theory, while good, falls short of the goal. There may be a thousand different routes you can take to get to Disneyland from your house, but only one of them will be the fastest, and most of them will be ridiculous. If lawyers and law makers understood this sort of logic, then we'd be in a much better place, now.
After the Irish raise their corporate tax rates, and all of those large, international businesses pull their facilities out, how many jobs will be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How many businesses besides Google, Microsoft, HP, Bank of America, Merril Lynch and Intel will leave? How many businesses will close their doors, because much of their income was based on the spending and consumption of those businesses, and their employees?
A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue. Higher taxes cause a decrease in in the rate of taxable transactions. At a certain point, the ratio of tax rate to taxable transactions produces a maximum possible tax revenue. Any attempt to increase tax revenues beyond that limit, is futile.
Because "original IP" is technically correct, where as, if "original setting" were to be used, then to obtain the same scope of statement, one would also have to include a great deal of other concepts, such as, characters, monsters, plot devices, powers and items. You could create a long sentence just naming the things you're referring to, or you can just use a term which accurately identifies the entire logical group, i.e., "original IP". It also contrasts to the development of games identifying with first party IP, such as Final Fantasy or Sonic the Hedgehog, as opposed to development of games with 3rd party IP, such as Epic Mickey or games based on movies.
More likely, it was an individual malware designer with no important national or political affiliations, who bears strong ethical convictions against nuclear weapons.
I wish I had more to say on this, but I really wonder if the religion is responsible for the attitude, or if the religion is merely a vehicle to justify an attitude that would prominently exist in that region, regardless of what set of religious beliefs may be popular. After all, historically, Christianity has been corrupted in such a way as to justify atrocity, as well.
Your metaphor is valid, but your argument is not. You and your power company have an agreement in place, to the effect that they will supply you with electricity, and you will pay them according to your usage. If the power company's equipment cannot provide you with power adequate for your demands, then it is the power company's responsibility to upgrade their equipment to meet your demands. If your demands are unreasonable, then the power company is well within its rights to deny you service, on the premise that they apparently are not an appropriate supplier for your needs.
You can replace "power company" with "ISP", and "power" and "electricity" with "network bandwidth". The resulting statement remains valid.
Simply enough, if an ISP is unable to provide you with the full bandwidth that they are selling to you, then they need to either upgrade their equipment, or work out an agreement with you, which more accurately reflects what they're capable of providing.
Yes, I imagine you are stupid enough to not bother testing on the target machine.
Lack of ownership does not preclude availability of access, and lack of payment to Apple does not preclude second-hand ownership of a Macintosh. I would imagine that there are a great deal more scenarios which involve an individual having adequate testing facilities for developing on a device, Apple or otherwise, without ever owning the device in question. Consider that some of the most prolific software development in the world is done for game consoles and handheld games, which, by design, do not lend themselves to testing at all. Testing software on that sort of unit requires special hardware or emulation to accomplish.
I really don't see Microsoft going with this sort of route. Microsoft wants people to develop for their operating system. It's the precise reason why they offer Visual Studio Express editions for free. It's this precise difference in thinking that gave Microsoft the larger market share over Apple, and Microsoft knows it all too well. What baffles me, is that Apple hasn't yet figured it out.
The rich get in excess of 50% of their personal income (not to be mistaken for business income, which is owned by a business, not a person) taken in taxes. How much would that annoy you? There are also some ownership arrangements for small businesses, which make the business income appear on paper, to be the owner's income. This often results in a person having a real personal income below $50,000 a year, but being taxed for an income in excess of $250,000 a year. Sometimes the apparently rich, only appear rich on paper.
Large corporations use these loopholes to retain more of their money, which they have earned through lawful exchange of goods or services. They use these savings to pay employees, purchase supplies from suppliers who also have employees, pay for their facilities where their employees earn their wages, and expand, so they can hire more employees. They do all of this, while producing some good or service that someone wants or needs, which they will, in turn, exchange at a carefully considered rate, and start this whole process over again. By using these loopholes, they have more means available to them to give those involved the things which they are looking for. If the tax rates in this country were more reasonable, corporations wouldn't be so quick to seek tax shelters, and more of the aforementioned people involved would be in our own country.
Corporations aren't evil. Bad government policies are evil.
Do you remember, back in 1990 or so, when a 1GB hard drive was unfathomably big, and how would we ever fill it, then just 10 years later, in 2000, 1GB was hardly enough to contain a popular operating system?
I would still include support for NAT, private addressing, and other address-saving features developed for IPv4. 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 seems like an apparently inexhaustible number of addresses, but who knows what else we'll find to add connectivity to? How quickly would those addresses disappear, if swarms of nano-machines become common personal appliances? If we've already worked out functioning methods to stretch out the supply, then it's probably good if we go ahead and keep them handy, if only to save us some work, further down the road.
It's the opposite of a black hole. Whereas light and matter can enter a black hole, but cannot escape, light and matter cannot enter a white hole, but can escape. The entire concept is specific to certain physical theories.
This is the music industry convincing a government to give them money that, by all sanity, they shouldn't have.
It may very well result in a decrease of music piracy, though, and it'll be interesting to see if it works. Yet, if the French record labels are anything like what we have here in the US, I suspect that the increase in sales won't be nearly as dramatic as they hope.
Having grown up in the countryside, in a house bordered on three sides by a crop field, horses across the street, two dairies within a mile and a large chicken ranch down the street, I really can't say that I can confirm what you're talking about, here. I've never heard of a fertilizer-poisoned well. The only issue with water quality I've seen, was from one well which wasn't drilled deep enough, and thus the water had a great deal of sand and calcium in it. It was always safe to drink, straight from the tap.
The point is to think like business people, and not like someone who has a real-world concept of how things work. Executives tend to be a bit detached-- most of their waking hours are spent on their business, and their leisure time is spent making business connections. Anything from outside their world is alien. If they are accustomed to doing business with the Ferengi, then they would rather continue doing business with the Ferengi, than take a chance on a deal with the Caldonians.
I challenge you to define a constitutionally valid law which will force all drivers to concern themselves primarily with the lives of others, which is then possible to enforce.
Rules need to always be designed to compensate for what will happen, and not what you prefer to happen. A rule based on what "should" be rather than what "is", is inherently useless.
The solution is to allow texting, but increase severity of penalties when the driver is texting while committing another offense.
Microsoft got into their current position by not charging a licensing fee to develop for their system, early on. They've retained their position by giving business users what they want. That's really the key, right there-- Whenever someone goes to work, they generally end up using a Windows-based machine. There are notable exceptions to this, such as some multimedia-oriented jobs which tend toward Mac and scientific research which tends toward *NIX, but the vast majority of the business world uses Microsoft's products. The result of this, is that when these people go to buy their own computers for their homes, they buy one with software that they're familiar with. This means that they aren't buying Macs, and they sure as hell aren't buying bare machines with a couple of Red Hat discs.
I'd also like to point out that Apple isn't really excelling in the desktop market, at this point. Microsoft has that area pretty well dominated, even if they are starting to lose a little ground. Apple's recent success has been related to the iPod and the iPhone. Not their desktop machines. Meanwhile, Microsoft isn't really doing much in the way of competing with the iPod and iPhone; while there is the Zune and Windows 7 Mobile, it's evident that they just aren't devoting a lot of their resources to these things. To me, they seem more like a, "me, too!" effort.
That's pretty much the lay of things. Until Apple starts convincing businesses to switch over to their software, we're not going to see Apple overtake Microsoft. At all. Not in the desktop market, anyway.
In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.
Seems like Canadian freedom of speech doesn't really cover the important part. Polite speech, almost by definition, doesn't need protection. Sort of misses the point, to protect the unoffensive.
Slashdot Mirror
It encourages innovation by, in a legal sense, forcing developers to come up with new ways to accomplish given tasks.
Granted, this theory, while good, falls short of the goal. There may be a thousand different routes you can take to get to Disneyland from your house, but only one of them will be the fastest, and most of them will be ridiculous. If lawyers and law makers understood this sort of logic, then we'd be in a much better place, now.
The milk comes in bags, too. Wrap your head around that one.
After the Irish raise their corporate tax rates, and all of those large, international businesses pull their facilities out, how many jobs will be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How many businesses besides Google, Microsoft, HP, Bank of America, Merril Lynch and Intel will leave? How many businesses will close their doors, because much of their income was based on the spending and consumption of those businesses, and their employees?
A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue. Higher taxes cause a decrease in in the rate of taxable transactions. At a certain point, the ratio of tax rate to taxable transactions produces a maximum possible tax revenue. Any attempt to increase tax revenues beyond that limit, is futile.
Because "original IP" is technically correct, where as, if "original setting" were to be used, then to obtain the same scope of statement, one would also have to include a great deal of other concepts, such as, characters, monsters, plot devices, powers and items. You could create a long sentence just naming the things you're referring to, or you can just use a term which accurately identifies the entire logical group, i.e., "original IP". It also contrasts to the development of games identifying with first party IP, such as Final Fantasy or Sonic the Hedgehog, as opposed to development of games with 3rd party IP, such as Epic Mickey or games based on movies.
More likely, it was an individual malware designer with no important national or political affiliations, who bears strong ethical convictions against nuclear weapons.
I wish I had more to say on this, but I really wonder if the religion is responsible for the attitude, or if the religion is merely a vehicle to justify an attitude that would prominently exist in that region, regardless of what set of religious beliefs may be popular. After all, historically, Christianity has been corrupted in such a way as to justify atrocity, as well.
Next time, don't order the fly soup. Try the grub sandwich, instead.
Your metaphor is valid, but your argument is not. You and your power company have an agreement in place, to the effect that they will supply you with electricity, and you will pay them according to your usage. If the power company's equipment cannot provide you with power adequate for your demands, then it is the power company's responsibility to upgrade their equipment to meet your demands. If your demands are unreasonable, then the power company is well within its rights to deny you service, on the premise that they apparently are not an appropriate supplier for your needs.
You can replace "power company" with "ISP", and "power" and "electricity" with "network bandwidth". The resulting statement remains valid.
Simply enough, if an ISP is unable to provide you with the full bandwidth that they are selling to you, then they need to either upgrade their equipment, or work out an agreement with you, which more accurately reflects what they're capable of providing.
This person has a goddamned time machine, and you automatically assume that her cellphone also requires a tower to get a signal?
Yes, I imagine you are stupid enough to not bother testing on the target machine.
Lack of ownership does not preclude availability of access, and lack of payment to Apple does not preclude second-hand ownership of a Macintosh. I would imagine that there are a great deal more scenarios which involve an individual having adequate testing facilities for developing on a device, Apple or otherwise, without ever owning the device in question. Consider that some of the most prolific software development in the world is done for game consoles and handheld games, which, by design, do not lend themselves to testing at all. Testing software on that sort of unit requires special hardware or emulation to accomplish.
I really don't see Microsoft going with this sort of route. Microsoft wants people to develop for their operating system. It's the precise reason why they offer Visual Studio Express editions for free. It's this precise difference in thinking that gave Microsoft the larger market share over Apple, and Microsoft knows it all too well. What baffles me, is that Apple hasn't yet figured it out.
The rich get in excess of 50% of their personal income (not to be mistaken for business income, which is owned by a business, not a person) taken in taxes. How much would that annoy you? There are also some ownership arrangements for small businesses, which make the business income appear on paper, to be the owner's income. This often results in a person having a real personal income below $50,000 a year, but being taxed for an income in excess of $250,000 a year. Sometimes the apparently rich, only appear rich on paper.
Large corporations use these loopholes to retain more of their money, which they have earned through lawful exchange of goods or services. They use these savings to pay employees, purchase supplies from suppliers who also have employees, pay for their facilities where their employees earn their wages, and expand, so they can hire more employees. They do all of this, while producing some good or service that someone wants or needs, which they will, in turn, exchange at a carefully considered rate, and start this whole process over again. By using these loopholes, they have more means available to them to give those involved the things which they are looking for. If the tax rates in this country were more reasonable, corporations wouldn't be so quick to seek tax shelters, and more of the aforementioned people involved would be in our own country.
Corporations aren't evil. Bad government policies are evil.
Do you remember, back in 1990 or so, when a 1GB hard drive was unfathomably big, and how would we ever fill it, then just 10 years later, in 2000, 1GB was hardly enough to contain a popular operating system?
I would still include support for NAT, private addressing, and other address-saving features developed for IPv4. 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 seems like an apparently inexhaustible number of addresses, but who knows what else we'll find to add connectivity to? How quickly would those addresses disappear, if swarms of nano-machines become common personal appliances? If we've already worked out functioning methods to stretch out the supply, then it's probably good if we go ahead and keep them handy, if only to save us some work, further down the road.
It's the opposite of a black hole. Whereas light and matter can enter a black hole, but cannot escape, light and matter cannot enter a white hole, but can escape. The entire concept is specific to certain physical theories.
Read it again. The article is not talking about black holes. It's talking about white holes.
This is the music industry convincing a government to give them money that, by all sanity, they shouldn't have.
It may very well result in a decrease of music piracy, though, and it'll be interesting to see if it works. Yet, if the French record labels are anything like what we have here in the US, I suspect that the increase in sales won't be nearly as dramatic as they hope.
Having grown up in the countryside, in a house bordered on three sides by a crop field, horses across the street, two dairies within a mile and a large chicken ranch down the street, I really can't say that I can confirm what you're talking about, here. I've never heard of a fertilizer-poisoned well. The only issue with water quality I've seen, was from one well which wasn't drilled deep enough, and thus the water had a great deal of sand and calcium in it. It was always safe to drink, straight from the tap.
The point is to think like business people, and not like someone who has a real-world concept of how things work. Executives tend to be a bit detached-- most of their waking hours are spent on their business, and their leisure time is spent making business connections. Anything from outside their world is alien. If they are accustomed to doing business with the Ferengi, then they would rather continue doing business with the Ferengi, than take a chance on a deal with the Caldonians.
Buddhism wouldn't do the job there, though. Choosing from existing religions, they'd need some form of Christianity or Islam.
...years from now the technology could supplement or even replace traditional ultrasounds for baby imaging...
Ultrasound is for listening to sounds inside the body, such as the faint heartbeat of an unborn human. Imaging is accomplished by Sonogram.
In that case, we are in complete concurrence.
I challenge you to define a constitutionally valid law which will force all drivers to concern themselves primarily with the lives of others, which is then possible to enforce.
Rules need to always be designed to compensate for what will happen, and not what you prefer to happen. A rule based on what "should" be rather than what "is", is inherently useless.
The solution is to allow texting, but increase severity of penalties when the driver is texting while committing another offense.
Microsoft got into their current position by not charging a licensing fee to develop for their system, early on. They've retained their position by giving business users what they want. That's really the key, right there-- Whenever someone goes to work, they generally end up using a Windows-based machine. There are notable exceptions to this, such as some multimedia-oriented jobs which tend toward Mac and scientific research which tends toward *NIX, but the vast majority of the business world uses Microsoft's products. The result of this, is that when these people go to buy their own computers for their homes, they buy one with software that they're familiar with. This means that they aren't buying Macs, and they sure as hell aren't buying bare machines with a couple of Red Hat discs.
I'd also like to point out that Apple isn't really excelling in the desktop market, at this point. Microsoft has that area pretty well dominated, even if they are starting to lose a little ground. Apple's recent success has been related to the iPod and the iPhone. Not their desktop machines. Meanwhile, Microsoft isn't really doing much in the way of competing with the iPod and iPhone; while there is the Zune and Windows 7 Mobile, it's evident that they just aren't devoting a lot of their resources to these things. To me, they seem more like a, "me, too!" effort.
That's pretty much the lay of things. Until Apple starts convincing businesses to switch over to their software, we're not going to see Apple overtake Microsoft. At all. Not in the desktop market, anyway.
In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.
Seems like Canadian freedom of speech doesn't really cover the important part. Polite speech, almost by definition, doesn't need protection. Sort of misses the point, to protect the unoffensive.