Over the years, creative people have said, "I won't make movies or provide entertainment for the world at large unless I can make a really good living doing it." When we've called their bluffs, we've found that they weren't bluffing -- the creative urge is not so overpowering that they will give it away for free to any but a small audience. We've made a deal to retain our access to the products creative people make: we allowed them to set a price to participate in the expreiences they create, and, as a result, we've gotten things we otherwise wouldn't have had.
In order to reason about what the terms of that deal are, we've created a set of artificial classes of ownership. Those classes are really just tools for reasoning about what a creator's powers need to be to enforce that deal across a large set of creators, subject to the restriction that every creator needs to be fundamentally granted the same rights as any other.
The thing to understand is that those classes is that they're not particularly special. They really are nothing more than any other charge for a service: in this case, the service of allowing a certain sequence of images to be shown to you in a particular order.
Don't want to pay to see those images? Fine -- don't watch them.
You start with a fundamental error. The terms "socialize" and "privatize" are terms of art. One socializes a cost or benefit by spreading it out across the entire community. On privatizes a cost of benefit by concentrating it within a subset of the community. Copyright privatizes the ownership of creative works.
But to get to the meat of your post: I did answer his question. "Why should he have to pay at all?" He doesn't have to pay. He can simply not see the movie. That's really quite straightforward.
I don't care whether George Lucas has enough money or not. It's no concern of mine. I chose to not spend the $9, at the cost of not watching the movie yet. You can, too. Given that choice, to refuse to pay and watch the movie anyway is nothing more than theft, not of the movie, but of the entrance price.
Yeah, I loved working with those 10000m long carrier landing decks. Man, when the deck pitched down fifteen degrees, the landing zone would descend 1-2 km below the surface.
Man, it sucked when the prez tried to land that 747 on the carrier west of San Diego. Mission accomplished.
You were being sarcastic? Gosh, I missed that entirely.
Watch films in the original - no translator can capture the true essence of a language in mere words scrolling underneath the cinematography.
I'm reminded of a time I went with a date to see some Truffaut film in subtitle. I speak both French and English, so I had the dubious pleasure of reading the English subtitles while I listened to the dialog.
You are stealing something from them: the admission price and the per-sea copay.
Freedom is about maximizing choice for everyone, not just for you. You can defend socializing a necessity, such as food or modical care. You can't make the same defense of a luxury like a movie.
Why should you have to? You don't have to; you are not going to be harmed by not seeing Jar Jar again. You may choose not to -- but there are consequences of the choice.
Because I'm not up for spending another $9 per person to watch it again.
Ok, don't spend another $9. That's fine.
Don't watch it again. Movies are not a necessity. You don't need to see them to live. The MPAA has the right to set a price; you have the right to choose to pay it or not. If you choose not to pay the price, then duplicting the content without paying for it is theft.
Another thought: go watch a different great movie. Go to the library, and check out something fifty years old that you've never seen before. If you want mindless brilliance, get a speghetti western. Want lust? Get a Fellini. Watch a Truffaut. Hell, be pretentious, and go check out The Seven Samurai. Or go watch _Das Boot_ in subtitles.
But if you want to watch Revenge again...pay the $9.
I failed to see where it was said that it was a Linux PDA
Look at the title on the front page. See those five letters, "LINUX" in the colored bar? That's where it says "Editors don't actually read the articles, and that's why I block their ads...err, I mean, Linux"
It really depends on what you mean by "real" work.
Word Mobile is not primarily designed to provide much support for editing -- as the GP said, trying to edit much of anything on a handheld device is not a compelling user experience. The primary use the team optimized for was high-fidelity viewing of documents along with occasional small deltas with minimal feature loss. WordMobile supports lossless editing during roundtrip (to the extent possible: it doesn't support revision marks). The product team focused on two things: getting the display story right for the main text, and writing.doc correctly.
(And don't tell me about OO.o -- Writer can't even create a correctly formatted empty.doc file, at least not as of 1.9.100.)
How much do you actually think you spend for the stuff you disable? If you think about it, you'll realize that the marginal cost of that stuff on the board must really be quite small: OEMs care about differences of a few cents, plus or minus. In some cases, in fact, it would cost money to take the functionality off the board: if the "net card" is part of a multifunction gate array chip, then it will be cheaper per unit, overall to make twice as many with the extra funtionality than it would be to make one unit of each, one with the functionality and the other without.
(If you think I just implied that the system is cheaper with the net functionality than it would be if it would be without it, you're right. The wonders of mass production, eh?)
You aren't going to get very much for the few scraps of extra silicon.
And the first Intel Celery's? I do. Cyrix and it's ilk won every perf/price war, and the early Celerons were a complete joke. Scroll forward a few years...Cyrix is gone, and Intel rules the low cost microprocessor roost. Remember Via and Transmeta, and the 1W processor war? I do. Via and Transmeta were handing Intel its head -- blades, this, that, the other; low power was king. Errr...oops. The Mobile Pentium chip (and the associated platform strategy Intel used) won the day. Again.
So now we've got AMD and the Athl/opteron. AMD has done better than any other competitor, so far, and has managed to maintain a narrow performance gap for several years. On a couple of occasions, they've opened a wide performance gap for a short time, but Intel has always closed it to a narrow one.
Neither great technical merit for a short time nor slight technical merit over a long time is enough to establish a market. The competition can always work around that by starting a skunk-works project, as Intel did to Cyrix, and Transmeta, and, more recently, with their implementation of x86-64. To catch up with AMD now, all Intel needs to do is build a dual-core x86-64 chip with a smaller power envelope.
Didn't I hear that x86-64 and dual cores were coming to the Mobile Pentium class soon? Hmm...I wonder why?
What he said. A phobia is defined as an irrational fear of an object or situation. The irrationality is key.
As the GP said, a fear of heights is adaptive. Acrophobia is not -- I've known acrophobes who couldn't cross bridges, or sit in meetings within ten feet of a window (except in ground-floor meeting rooms). I stood beside one as he tried to approach a window in a tenth-floor office -- he literally turned grey and almost fainted, despite the fact that the glass in the window was so thick that he probably couldn't have broken it without taking a chair to it. Oh, and the fact he knew how thick that glass was.
"But that's crazy!", you say? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it is -- that's why phobias are listed as mental illnesses.
Both of you are correct. The only safe way to declassify a document is to take the original, replace all redacted text runs with a fixed expression (typically "[REDACTED]" or the like), and print out the resulting text. Any lesser form of obfuscation is prone to a variey of subtle attacks. (Even the length of the blacked-out regions in the text of a document is informative, so the classic "black magic marker" technique is not sufficient any more.)
(BTW: the original document was an Adobe PDF, not a Microsoft Office file. Office doesn't even try to provide a black-out function, as there's really no use for it.)
Didn't read the article, did you? Go find the paragraph about flouridation.
Let me lay this out in short sentences. Herbicide resistant crops need less herbicide. That's not good for the chemical companies, but bad. Simultaneously, it has a net positive impact on farmers, food, and the environment.
Let me explain by analogy. I'm not a farmer -- but I do raise roses as a hobby. As you no doubt know, rose bushes are fundamentally unhealthy organisms which only thrive with massive doses of fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide, so those of us who raise them know all about this.
Except for one thing: what you think you know isn't true. Older roses do require lots of support to thrive. More modern roses, with their huge flowers and bizarre growth patterns...don't. They've been selectively modified to resist the blights and infestations that killed older plants. They use the calcium in the soil more efficiently, and so don't need as much. They're stunningly healthy plants, designed to be raised in low maintenance gardens by amateurs.
As a result, if I'd grew the modern frankenplants, I'd spend more on the plants to start with, but far less on chemicals.
The same kind of thing applies in frankenfood. If I raise glycophosphate-resistant wheat, then I can apply a glycophosphate-based herbicide to the fields in quantities sufficient to kill the weeds without affecting the wheat. Guess what? That's less than ten percent of the amount I used to apply to the fields. Traditional preemergence applications had to persist in the soil long enough to affect the broad-leaf weeds, which meant applying enough to resist washing away. Applying postemergence means applying only enough to kill the weeds that are there right now. Monsanto will sell me less herbicide than they used to...not more.
No, they do not -- and marriage is very much a workplace issue.
First, Washington is an employment-at-will state, in which an employment contract can be terminated for almost any reason. People are regularly fired for being gay. HB 1515 would have made that illegal by adding sexual orientation to the list of reasons which are not valid.
Secaond, and more importantly, you should also understand the tax benefits of being married. My wife and children get access to the extraordinarily good benefits my employer provides to all employees. My gay colleagues' domestic partners get access to their benefits, too. The difference, though, is that I don't pay taxes for those benefits, which saves me tousands of dollars a year. My gay colleagues are required to pay taxes on the benefits which accrue to their domastic partners. Antidiscrimination law has a world to do with the workplace.
Because landing the shuttle is hard. We can't even reliably auto-land a passenger plane, and they're incredibly forgiving airframces. The shuttle is an incredibly unforgiving airframe -- it comes in along a 1:1 glide path. Unpowered. At about twice the speed of sound.
Did I mention that the shuttle has no maneuverability beyond that provided by its control surfaces? Once committed, it's going to land; there's no second chance.
If we tried to bring it down on autopilot, it would only make a really big crater.
True, but irrelevant. The latency from the periphery to the cortex is typically on the order of 100ms, which is a far longer interval than most speech gestures actually take to complete. Speech is basically half-duplex.
When the North has come And they're threatening Seoul And the States are the ony hope we see No, I won't be afraid Oh, I won't be afraid Standing here, on my side of the D-M-Z, so
* Robot, robot D-M-Z By the D-M-Z Oh D, D-M-Z, D-M-Z
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, and there's the rub.
Over the years, creative people have said, "I won't make movies or provide entertainment for the world at large unless I can make a really good living doing it." When we've called their bluffs, we've found that they weren't bluffing -- the creative urge is not so overpowering that they will give it away for free to any but a small audience. We've made a deal to retain our access to the products creative people make: we allowed them to set a price to participate in the expreiences they create, and, as a result, we've gotten things we otherwise wouldn't have had.
In order to reason about what the terms of that deal are, we've created a set of artificial classes of ownership. Those classes are really just tools for reasoning about what a creator's powers need to be to enforce that deal across a large set of creators, subject to the restriction that every creator needs to be fundamentally granted the same rights as any other.
The thing to understand is that those classes is that they're not particularly special. They really are nothing more than any other charge for a service: in this case, the service of allowing a certain sequence of images to be shown to you in a particular order.
Don't want to pay to see those images? Fine -- don't watch them.
You start with a fundamental error. The terms "socialize" and "privatize" are terms of art. One socializes a cost or benefit by spreading it out across the entire community. On privatizes a cost of benefit by concentrating it within a subset of the community. Copyright privatizes the ownership of creative works.
But to get to the meat of your post: I did answer his question. "Why should he have to pay at all?" He doesn't have to pay. He can simply not see the movie. That's really quite straightforward.
I don't care whether George Lucas has enough money or not. It's no concern of mine. I chose to not spend the $9, at the cost of not watching the movie yet. You can, too. Given that choice, to refuse to pay and watch the movie anyway is nothing more than theft, not of the movie, but of the entrance price.
Yeah, I loved working with those 10000m long carrier landing decks. Man, when the deck pitched down fifteen degrees, the landing zone would descend 1-2 km below the surface.
Man, it sucked when the prez tried to land that 747 on the carrier west of San Diego. Mission accomplished.
I'm reminded of a time I went with a date to see some Truffaut film in subtitle. I speak both French and English, so I had the dubious pleasure of reading the English subtitles while I listened to the dialog.
The punch line? The English script was better.
You are stealing something from them: the admission price and the per-sea copay.
Freedom is about maximizing choice for everyone, not just for you. You can defend socializing a necessity, such as food or modical care. You can't make the same defense of a luxury like a movie.
Why should you have to? You don't have to; you are not going to be harmed by not seeing Jar Jar again. You may choose not to -- but there are consequences of the choice.
Don't watch it again. Movies are not a necessity. You don't need to see them to live. The MPAA has the right to set a price; you have the right to choose to pay it or not. If you choose not to pay the price, then duplicting the content without paying for it is theft.
Another thought: go watch a different great movie. Go to the library, and check out something fifty years old that you've never seen before. If you want mindless brilliance, get a speghetti western. Want lust? Get a Fellini. Watch a Truffaut. Hell, be pretentious, and go check out The Seven Samurai. Or go watch _Das Boot_ in subtitles.
But if you want to watch Revenge again...pay the $9.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the theatre?
It really depends on what you mean by "real" work.
.doc correctly.
.doc file, at least not as of 1.9.100.)
Word Mobile is not primarily designed to provide much support for editing -- as the GP said, trying to edit much of anything on a handheld device is not a compelling user experience. The primary use the team optimized for was high-fidelity viewing of documents along with occasional small deltas with minimal feature loss. WordMobile supports lossless editing during roundtrip (to the extent possible: it doesn't support revision marks). The product team focused on two things: getting the display story right for the main text, and writing
(And don't tell me about OO.o -- Writer can't even create a correctly formatted empty
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
Hold on there, cowboy...
How much do you actually think you spend for the stuff you disable? If you think about it, you'll realize that the marginal cost of that stuff on the board must really be quite small: OEMs care about differences of a few cents, plus or minus. In some cases, in fact, it would cost money to take the functionality off the board: if the "net card" is part of a multifunction gate array chip, then it will be cheaper per unit, overall to make twice as many with the extra funtionality than it would be to make one unit of each, one with the functionality and the other without.
(If you think I just implied that the system is cheaper with the net functionality than it would be if it would be without it, you're right. The wonders of mass production, eh?)
You aren't going to get very much for the few scraps of extra silicon.
And the first Intel Celery's? I do. Cyrix and it's ilk won every perf/price war, and the early Celerons were a complete joke. Scroll forward a few years...Cyrix is gone, and Intel rules the low cost microprocessor roost. Remember Via and Transmeta, and the 1W processor war? I do. Via and Transmeta were handing Intel its head -- blades, this, that, the other; low power was king. Errr...oops. The Mobile Pentium chip (and the associated platform strategy Intel used) won the day. Again.
So now we've got AMD and the Athl/opteron. AMD has done better than any other competitor, so far, and has managed to maintain a narrow performance gap for several years. On a couple of occasions, they've opened a wide performance gap for a short time, but Intel has always closed it to a narrow one.
Neither great technical merit for a short time nor slight technical merit over a long time is enough to establish a market. The competition can always work around that by starting a skunk-works project, as Intel did to Cyrix, and Transmeta, and, more recently, with their implementation of x86-64. To catch up with AMD now, all Intel needs to do is build a dual-core x86-64 chip with a smaller power envelope.
Didn't I hear that x86-64 and dual cores were coming to the Mobile Pentium class soon? Hmm...I wonder why?
What he said. A phobia is defined as an irrational fear of an object or situation. The irrationality is key.
As the GP said, a fear of heights is adaptive. Acrophobia is not -- I've known acrophobes who couldn't cross bridges, or sit in meetings within ten feet of a window (except in ground-floor meeting rooms). I stood beside one as he tried to approach a window in a tenth-floor office -- he literally turned grey and almost fainted, despite the fact that the glass in the window was so thick that he probably couldn't have broken it without taking a chair to it. Oh, and the fact he knew how thick that glass was.
"But that's crazy!", you say? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it is -- that's why phobias are listed as mental illnesses.
Both of you are correct. The only safe way to declassify a document is to take the original, replace all redacted text runs with a fixed expression (typically "[REDACTED]" or the like), and print out the resulting text. Any lesser form of obfuscation is prone to a variey of subtle attacks. (Even the length of the blacked-out regions in the text of a document is informative, so the classic "black magic marker" technique is not sufficient any more.)
(BTW: the original document was an Adobe PDF, not a Microsoft Office file. Office doesn't even try to provide a black-out function, as there's really no use for it.)
Actually, the R&D blow out the year before was due to the stock option buyout the Microsoft had done in the quarter.
Unfortunately, you didn't notice two things:
(1) That was the register report on the results from the second quarter, released three months ago
(2) The alleged $1b cut in R&D expense was actually due to a $1b increase in R&D expense in the year before quarter.
How is this different from su?
Oh, wait. It isn't. Never mind.
The classic glycophosphate herbicide is Monsanto Coroporation's "Roundup". Using them has nothing to do with newer and more deadly herbicides.
Didn't read the article, did you? Go find the paragraph about flouridation.
Let me lay this out in short sentences. Herbicide resistant crops need less herbicide. That's not good for the chemical companies, but bad. Simultaneously, it has a net positive impact on farmers, food, and the environment.
Let me explain by analogy. I'm not a farmer -- but I do raise roses as a hobby. As you no doubt know, rose bushes are fundamentally unhealthy organisms which only thrive with massive doses of fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide, so those of us who raise them know all about this.
Except for one thing: what you think you know isn't true. Older roses do require lots of support to thrive. More modern roses, with their huge flowers and bizarre growth patterns...don't. They've been selectively modified to resist the blights and infestations that killed older plants. They use the calcium in the soil more efficiently, and so don't need as much. They're stunningly healthy plants, designed to be raised in low maintenance gardens by amateurs.
As a result, if I'd grew the modern frankenplants, I'd spend more on the plants to start with, but far less on chemicals.
The same kind of thing applies in frankenfood. If I raise glycophosphate-resistant wheat, then I can apply a glycophosphate-based herbicide to the fields in quantities sufficient to kill the weeds without affecting the wheat. Guess what? That's less than ten percent of the amount I used to apply to the fields. Traditional preemergence applications had to persist in the soil long enough to affect the broad-leaf weeds, which meant applying enough to resist washing away. Applying postemergence means applying only enough to kill the weeds that are there right now. Monsanto will sell me less herbicide than they used to...not more.
No, they do not -- and marriage is very much a workplace issue.
First, Washington is an employment-at-will state, in which an employment contract can be terminated for almost any reason. People are regularly fired for being gay. HB 1515 would have made that illegal by adding sexual orientation to the list of reasons which are not valid.
Secaond, and more importantly, you should also understand the tax benefits of being married. My wife and children get access to the extraordinarily good benefits my employer provides to all employees. My gay colleagues' domestic partners get access to their benefits, too. The difference, though, is that I don't pay taxes for those benefits, which saves me tousands of dollars a year. My gay colleagues are required to pay taxes on the benefits which accrue to their domastic partners. Antidiscrimination law has a world to do with the workplace.
Because landing the shuttle is hard. We can't even reliably auto-land a passenger plane, and they're incredibly forgiving airframces. The shuttle is an incredibly unforgiving airframe -- it comes in along a 1:1 glide path. Unpowered. At about twice the speed of sound.
Did I mention that the shuttle has no maneuverability beyond that provided by its control surfaces? Once committed, it's going to land; there's no second chance.
If we tried to bring it down on autopilot, it would only make a really big crater.
Not exactly. At that scale, half-duplex would mean people listen without interrupting.
True, but irrelevant. The latency from the periphery to the cortex is typically on the order of 100ms, which is a far longer interval than most speech gestures actually take to complete. Speech is basically half-duplex.
When the North has come
And they're threatening Seoul
And the States are the ony hope we see
No, I won't be afraid
Oh, I won't be afraid
Standing here, on my side of the
D-M-Z, so
* Robot, robot D-M-Z
By the D-M-Z
Oh D, D-M-Z, D-M-Z