Meanwhile, and where I live, the police did recover my brother's cheap-ass Nokia. The cop just sent a request for the phone's location to the mobile operator, along with my brother's signed statement on how he had lost his phone, identified a teenage kid who had stolen before, stopped by his house and got the phone back. Then they called my brother to go pick it up.
It's not only about OS crashes. How do you expect the OS to prevent a power outage or the Off button being hold by mistake?
Sure, people should have UPSs, not touch the button, etc, but that stuff will happen and accounting for it is part of "being liberal in what you accept".
The Justice Department on Thursday filed a civil suit against defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., alleging that the firm provided false statements in charging the government for the unauthorized use of private security guards in Iraq.
No. Most (165) countries in the world have signed the Berne Convention, which prohibits them from requiring formal registration of works. Copyright is automatic and applies as soon as the work is made.
A threat is not a property of an individual, but of how someone else views them. In a recent TED talk, the speaker mentioned a 80 year old woman in bed that was tazer'ed by the cops after they judged her a threat.
In any case, current numbers are not nearly as important as future growth, and the feature phone sales have actually declined while smartphones are growing like crazy.
For a community whose members are supposed to be good at dealing with abstract and complex concepts, you suck at it.
It's not that they aren't hypocrites - it's that terms like hypocrisy don't even make sense when applied to Anonymous.
It's like calling you an hypocrite because some fundie said the Internet is evil and you're both part of this group called "US citizens" or "Dial-up users". It doesn't make sense, does it?
This is a "group" that has done completely disparate things, from raiding epileptics forums "for the lulz" to protesting Scientology IRL. It's simply impossible to attribute any claim to every single individual, because there's no organization, structure or membership. They just are!
You inadvertantly validated the point. English works of literature are not patentable!
You inadvertently (?) failed to grasp logic. It's an analogy, it's not supposed to work as a simile in every aspect. I validated nothing.
Corporations, in the interests of preserving their monopolies have worked hard to change the laws of the United States and by treaty, the rest of the world.
I agree and, as I said, I'm against SW patents. Just not for the reasons you gave. Carmack's critique is much better.
Cats are numerable, but that is not the point. Lacking an understanding of and, nand, or, & nor gates, one is tempted to imagine that magic occurs at the hardware level. Really, it is all as simple as turning on and off light switches. Here is an example made of wood if it helps.
I understand perfectly well how it works; I had a course in computational logic and we designed plenty of electronic circuits, including simple CPUs.
But those are implementations details to software. It's not what makes software math.
It is the "particular active substance" that is patented. This does not occur in software, which is written like a book, movie, or song.
And in software patents, it's only an high level algorithm or concept that is patented, not a full program. Nobody patented e.g. QuickTime, but they did patent the concept of encoding video in a certain way.
Why is software considered patentable AND copyrightable? "Intellectual Property" is an illusion created by those who hope to confuse the rest of us into believing that one can own thoughts. Only the United States courts insist on patenting software - against the advice of the USPTO and the software industry. Copyright is sufficient. It seems evident that lawyers either do not understand software, or insist that reality conform to their wallets.
Sure. 'Though I'm not sure copyright is necessary either. Then again, I make my living by writing FLOSS, but not everyone can.
Regular people view computers as complicated, and computer geeks (e.g. the Linux community) as obsessed with that complexity.
No. Mac OS X, Windows and the Linux environments that try to imitate them are complex. The Linux base, as UNIX, is very simple. And the proof is that is hard to learn. Making a "idiot friendly UI" requires an immense amount of complexity.
There are great reasons to dislike software patents. These aren't.
Modern computers are general purpose machines - hence BASIC (Beginners ALL-PURPOSE Symbolic Instructional code). All programs are therefore written within the specifications of the hardware designer. This makes ALL software predictable by those versed in programming and not patentable in the first place.
No more than all English works are 'predictable', since they use the same alphabet.
Just because the building blocks are a limited set doesn't mean the result is in any way predictable. Hell, the halting problem alone shows that unpredictableness.
Since all software runs on hardware that only understands the values of 0 and 1, it is all reducible to math. Anyone who has taken a digital logic class can attest to this.
No. Hardware understands machine code - instructions, addresses, etc - which happen to be encoded in binary, but could just as well be encoded with pictures of cats.
"It's 0s and 1s, therefore it's math!!1" it's an appropriate conclusion for a eight year old.
Software patents typically contain no code. The "Inventor" fails to disclose their invention, which should justify the patent being thrown out for lack of documentation.
And drug patents don't include drug samples. So what?
Patents are not supposed to cover particular implementations, but higher level concepts that can be implemented in many ways, just like a drug patent covers all drugs with a particular active substance and not a specific mixture that is comprised in a tablet.
If you drag the window titlebar to the side, it expands to take that half of the screen (like Windows 7) - video. It's not a tiling wm like Awesome (which I still prefer), but it does the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not really the case here, we're too big for that. It's just routine.
By your standards, it's probably a small town, yes. 85k inhabitants.
Meanwhile, and where I live, the police did recover my brother's cheap-ass Nokia. The cop just sent a request for the phone's location to the mobile operator, along with my brother's signed statement on how he had lost his phone, identified a teenage kid who had stolen before, stopped by his house and got the phone back. Then they called my brother to go pick it up.
It only cripples performance in Btrfs, which for now almost nobody uses.
It's not only about OS crashes. How do you expect the OS to prevent a power outage or the Off button being hold by mistake?
Sure, people should have UPSs, not touch the button, etc, but that stuff will happen and accounting for it is part of "being liberal in what you accept".
Yes, the GNU GPL licensed kernel doesn't have anything to do with GNU.
I'm sure you're wrong:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040103737.html
They aren't. RTFS. This is a paper by some experts laying an hypothesis.
No. Most (165) countries in the world have signed the Berne Convention, which prohibits them from requiring formal registration of works. Copyright is automatic and applies as soon as the work is made.
Why not? If the government contracts with a company and the latter fails to deliver what's been specified, what do you expect the government to do?
As an European, so do I.
Web browsers aren't the only thing that does DNS requests, you know.
A threat is not a property of an individual, but of how someone else views them. In a recent TED talk, the speaker mentioned a 80 year old woman in bed that was tazer'ed by the cops after they judged her a threat.
OpenDNS? Ugh, they hijack NXDOMAINs.
In the UK and other places, they use majority for plurality and "absolute majority" for majority.
Those numbers are outdated (Sep 1, 2011); smartphones surpassed feature phones in the US this year: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012/Findings.aspx
In any case, current numbers are not nearly as important as future growth, and the feature phone sales have actually declined while smartphones are growing like crazy.
For a community whose members are supposed to be good at dealing with abstract and complex concepts, you suck at it.
It's not that they aren't hypocrites - it's that terms like hypocrisy don't even make sense when applied to Anonymous.
It's like calling you an hypocrite because some fundie said the Internet is evil and you're both part of this group called "US citizens" or "Dial-up users". It doesn't make sense, does it?
This is a "group" that has done completely disparate things, from raiding epileptics forums "for the lulz" to protesting Scientology IRL. It's simply impossible to attribute any claim to every single individual, because there's no organization, structure or membership. They just are!
Python + OpenCV can detect a squirrel against a "natury" background in real time: Militarizing your backyard with Python.
You inadvertantly validated the point. English works of literature are not patentable!
You inadvertently (?) failed to grasp logic. It's an analogy, it's not supposed to work as a simile in every aspect. I validated nothing.
Corporations, in the interests of preserving their monopolies have worked hard to change the laws of the United States and by treaty, the rest of the world.
I agree and, as I said, I'm against SW patents. Just not for the reasons you gave. Carmack's critique is much better.
Cats are numerable, but that is not the point. Lacking an understanding of and, nand, or, & nor gates, one is tempted to imagine that magic occurs at the hardware level. Really, it is all as simple as turning on and off light switches. Here is an example made of wood if it helps.
I understand perfectly well how it works; I had a course in computational logic and we designed plenty of electronic circuits, including simple CPUs.
But those are implementations details to software. It's not what makes software math.
It is the "particular active substance" that is patented. This does not occur in software, which is written like a book, movie, or song.
And in software patents, it's only an high level algorithm or concept that is patented, not a full program. Nobody patented e.g. QuickTime, but they did patent the concept of encoding video in a certain way.
Why is software considered patentable AND copyrightable? "Intellectual Property" is an illusion created by those who hope to confuse the rest of us into believing that one can own thoughts. Only the United States courts insist on patenting software - against the advice of the USPTO and the software industry. Copyright is sufficient. It seems evident that lawyers either do not understand software, or insist that reality conform to their wallets.
Sure. 'Though I'm not sure copyright is necessary either. Then again, I make my living by writing FLOSS, but not everyone can.
Regular people view computers as complicated, and computer geeks (e.g. the Linux community) as obsessed with that complexity.
No. Mac OS X, Windows and the Linux environments that try to imitate them are complex. The Linux base, as UNIX, is very simple. And the proof is that is hard to learn. Making a "idiot friendly UI" requires an immense amount of complexity.
I'd quote Dennis Ritchie, but this is /.
There are great reasons to dislike software patents. These aren't.
No more than all English works are 'predictable', since they use the same alphabet.
Just because the building blocks are a limited set doesn't mean the result is in any way predictable. Hell, the halting problem alone shows that unpredictableness.
No. Hardware understands machine code - instructions, addresses, etc - which happen to be encoded in binary, but could just as well be encoded with pictures of cats.
"It's 0s and 1s, therefore it's math!!1" it's an appropriate conclusion for a eight year old.
And drug patents don't include drug samples. So what?
Patents are not supposed to cover particular implementations, but higher level concepts that can be implemented in many ways, just like a drug patent covers all drugs with a particular active substance and not a specific mixture that is comprised in a tablet.
The MPAA's five years of consecutive record profits don't help with the evidence either.
There's a new trend of well-off people being proud in having very little stuff and essentially renting what they need (hotels, restaurants, etc).
He can always get a laptop with a smartcard reader and use it as a key to encrypt his files. Then just take the smartcard with him everywhere.
If you drag the window titlebar to the side, it expands to take that half of the screen (like Windows 7) - video. It's not a tiling wm like Awesome (which I still prefer), but it does the job.