Clearly, any potential merger makes for a damn good reason to keep Flash off the iPhone, and support HTML 5. Platform neutrality is rather important here.
Nobody's too old to want to learn new tricks. Nobody's too young for an introduction to computers (provided they have the motor skills to use one). Plenty of people get discouraged from learning things about their computers---like how to fix them---precisely because of that attitude. So they call up their nephews and brother-in-laws and don't ever bother with it: many are perfectly capable and intelligent people, but they never learn because they assume they'll screw it up. Which they will, if they never learn...
Your attitude is counterproductive and asinine. There are a lot of people I would like to send to a class like this.
An amicus brief isn't simply a piece of paper that says "we think these guys should win." It's an exposition of a party's legal reasoning. In this instance, the EFF certainly has an interest in the precedent set by this case---assuming cert is granted. The justices read those things. So assuming they take the case, it's important that the EFF's position be articulated.
As another poster said, there's virtually no chance that SCOTUS will take the position that the standard of proof should be raised. Even if they do rule against Microsoft, they will likely do so on such narrow grounds that future cases will have some wiggle room. What I can say positively about SCOTUS is that I think that pretty much every justice on the Court---even the ones I disagree with---takes the time to sincerely wonder, "What could possibly go wrong?" about their decision before it's handed down.
You'd think that if Israel were behind the attack, they would realize they'd be the prime suspect, but I can't fathom why they would want to advertise it. A blackhat hobbyist might, because they're looking for some sort of "look at how smart I am" personal credit, whereas that seems less likely for a government to do.
The embedded references could just as easily have been planted by someone unaffiliated with Israel, who also knew that Israel would be the prime suspect, and wanted to lead some trail to them. Meaning, if you didn't think the culprit was Israel beforehand, you shouldn't think so now. (Mind you, it probably *was* Israel, but that was already the prevailing theory.)
A word of explanation, hopefully without arguing about semantics.
Yesterday, I was studying for an exam on digital circuits. I'm not an EE guy, this stuff is new to me. I skimmed most of a chapter, until I got to a curious sentence that said something to the effect that, "You can't implement an AND function in a single CMOS gate."
Well, that seemed strange to me, so I looked back over the textbook's diagram for a NOR gate. I thought, "Surely this can't be correct. If you switch the pMOS transistors and the nMOS transistors, then you've got a logical AND gate. It's simple logic."
And of course, it is. So I spent some time combing through the section I'd skimmed to try to find a reason why this wasn't done. And, of course, I'm sure any electrical engineers reading this could pop in to tell me all about how pMOS transistors should be connected to the voltage and nMOS should be connected to the ground, and that's why it's not a good idea to try building that gate. It's all the messy physical stuff that I thought I'd be able to avoid by majoring in CS.
The point being, you don't have all the information, you *never* have *all* the information, there's always that "except for" clause, and when you take things out of the comfortable realm of abstraction, don't be shocked when logic---especially the simple kind---takes a hike.
I've gotta tell you, there's a lot of "empty" space out there.
Take the world. Subtract the oceans. Subtract the areas without any human settlements. Subtract the areas without any features to distinguish them from surrounding areas. (Big, endless plains, random points in large forests, maybe even suburban rooftops)
You've gotten rid of most of the world.
Now, find the user's IP address. Search for interesting features locally. There aren't that many of them. Sure, you *could* try writing an advanced image-processing system to do this, but it's easier just to use Google Earth metadata. If you don't find it, search for interesting features regionally/nationally. Then, internationally. You can be less specific the more you spread your search out. I'm an American, I might choose Westminster Abbey as my password, but I'm not going to select a random flat in London.
Chances are, you're going to find it.
This rivals one of the worst-ever schemes security schemes I've seen. A credit union I used to use would let you select a "secret question" from a drop-down list. One of the questions was, "What is your favorite sports team?" This was a credit union that only did business in Dallas. So after you've guessed "Cowboys", "The Cowboys", "Dallas Cowboys", "The Dallas Cowboys"....you've probably gotten it right.
This is the paragraph where I invoke Godwin's Law, even if the subject in question actually is Nazis. While contributing nothing to the discussion, I have proved my superiority to all other posters, and have therefore won an argument I did not actually participate in.
In this paragraph, I allude to a popular saying about arguing on the Internet, and the Special Olympics. I have once again justified my superior intellect by using a tired old Internet meme.
After that, I decide that merely poking fun at the previous poster is not fully satisfactory, and decide to argue with him anyway about Nazis.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. How cool is shit?
That's one hell of a field trip.
Clearly, any potential merger makes for a damn good reason to keep Flash off the iPhone, and support HTML 5. Platform neutrality is rather important here.
Why?
Nobody's too old to want to learn new tricks. Nobody's too young for an introduction to computers (provided they have the motor skills to use one). Plenty of people get discouraged from learning things about their computers---like how to fix them---precisely because of that attitude. So they call up their nephews and brother-in-laws and don't ever bother with it: many are perfectly capable and intelligent people, but they never learn because they assume they'll screw it up. Which they will, if they never learn...
Your attitude is counterproductive and asinine. There are a lot of people I would like to send to a class like this.
Submitter seems to have "Apache" confused with "GPLv3." It's a common mistake; Richard Stallman has been known to collect scalps.
The battle will be won, almost certainly. As for the war, it's anyone's guess.
She may have lost in court, but if you search for "Beverly Stayart" now, the first result is actually her.
Be careful what you wish for.
An amicus brief isn't simply a piece of paper that says "we think these guys should win." It's an exposition of a party's legal reasoning. In this instance, the EFF certainly has an interest in the precedent set by this case---assuming cert is granted. The justices read those things. So assuming they take the case, it's important that the EFF's position be articulated.
As another poster said, there's virtually no chance that SCOTUS will take the position that the standard of proof should be raised. Even if they do rule against Microsoft, they will likely do so on such narrow grounds that future cases will have some wiggle room. What I can say positively about SCOTUS is that I think that pretty much every justice on the Court---even the ones I disagree with---takes the time to sincerely wonder, "What could possibly go wrong?" about their decision before it's handed down.
You'd think that if Israel were behind the attack, they would realize they'd be the prime suspect, but I can't fathom why they would want to advertise it. A blackhat hobbyist might, because they're looking for some sort of "look at how smart I am" personal credit, whereas that seems less likely for a government to do.
The embedded references could just as easily have been planted by someone unaffiliated with Israel, who also knew that Israel would be the prime suspect, and wanted to lead some trail to them. Meaning, if you didn't think the culprit was Israel beforehand, you shouldn't think so now. (Mind you, it probably *was* Israel, but that was already the prevailing theory.)
It's sort of like this.
This? This isn't a fully-loaded semi-automatic assault rifle.
It's a bullet marker.
Google would help. It's pooping into a sock so you don't have to take a break from gaming.
I hope it's meant to be metaphorical.
See, I knew I could get someone to help me with my homework!
A word of explanation, hopefully without arguing about semantics.
Yesterday, I was studying for an exam on digital circuits. I'm not an EE guy, this stuff is new to me. I skimmed most of a chapter, until I got to a curious sentence that said something to the effect that, "You can't implement an AND function in a single CMOS gate."
Well, that seemed strange to me, so I looked back over the textbook's diagram for a NOR gate. I thought, "Surely this can't be correct. If you switch the pMOS transistors and the nMOS transistors, then you've got a logical AND gate. It's simple logic."
And of course, it is. So I spent some time combing through the section I'd skimmed to try to find a reason why this wasn't done. And, of course, I'm sure any electrical engineers reading this could pop in to tell me all about how pMOS transistors should be connected to the voltage and nMOS should be connected to the ground, and that's why it's not a good idea to try building that gate. It's all the messy physical stuff that I thought I'd be able to avoid by majoring in CS.
The point being, you don't have all the information, you *never* have *all* the information, there's always that "except for" clause, and when you take things out of the comfortable realm of abstraction, don't be shocked when logic---especially the simple kind---takes a hike.
I'm wondering if your mind is for rent. For instance, by a god, or a government.
Also, I think your company is pretty fucked up.
I saw what you did there!
Simple logic says a lot of things, some of which it turns out are not true.
String Theory says there is.
I've gotta tell you, there's a lot of "empty" space out there.
Take the world.
Subtract the oceans.
Subtract the areas without any human settlements.
Subtract the areas without any features to distinguish them from surrounding areas. (Big, endless plains, random points in large forests, maybe even suburban rooftops)
You've gotten rid of most of the world.
Now, find the user's IP address.
Search for interesting features locally. There aren't that many of them. Sure, you *could* try writing an advanced image-processing system to do this, but it's easier just to use Google Earth metadata.
If you don't find it, search for interesting features regionally/nationally.
Then, internationally.
You can be less specific the more you spread your search out. I'm an American, I might choose Westminster Abbey as my password, but I'm not going to select a random flat in London.
Chances are, you're going to find it.
This rivals one of the worst-ever schemes security schemes I've seen. A credit union I used to use would let you select a "secret question" from a drop-down list. One of the questions was, "What is your favorite sports team?" This was a credit union that only did business in Dallas. So after you've guessed "Cowboys", "The Cowboys", "Dallas Cowboys", "The Dallas Cowboys"....you've probably gotten it right.
Too bad the panhandle is actually a misclassified region of Oklahoma.
He won't make Han shoot first, but maybe he can make Han shoot Jar-Jar.
This is the paragraph where I invoke Godwin's Law, even if the subject in question actually is Nazis. While contributing nothing to the discussion, I have proved my superiority to all other posters, and have therefore won an argument I did not actually participate in.
In this paragraph, I allude to a popular saying about arguing on the Internet, and the Special Olympics. I have once again justified my superior intellect by using a tired old Internet meme.
After that, I decide that merely poking fun at the previous poster is not fully satisfactory, and decide to argue with him anyway about Nazis.
Flamebait? Really?
You could run the ISS on a flip-flop and a popsicle stick, and it would still constitute "high tech."
When did "high-tech" become synonymous with "has a lot of transistors"?
If the iPod had instead been called a "Chazzwazzer," we'd be downloading "Windows Mobile Media Player Live Broadcasts" now.
Do they also get Phone, Tunes, Photo, Sight, Movie, Book, Life, Chat, DVD, Web, Work, and Pad?
I'll give them Mac, but what does that mean for Shakespeare's Macbeth? Or MacLisp? Or Emacs?