Things have changed a -bit- since then. I've heard one of the major problems was that interstate commerce was crippled by the conversion. Today, I can use my credit card in nearly any other country, if my debit card was paying out in florida dollars instead of montanas or whatever, I'd have to keep an eye on it, but it wouldn't be the huge hassle it was back then. I wouldn't have to take a horse and ride to the nearest town to change my currency.
Which is not to say it wouldn't be a disaster for -different- reasons. At a minimum, I'm sure banks would love it if you couldn't use cash and they got to put a surcharge for converting between competing currencies. Plus I'm not a member of the "Free market forces improve EVERYTHING" religion.
That's simplistic. The president is not an all-powerful deity. Voting in one guy to the presidency isn't going to clean this up, no matter how different you think he is. There are enough congressmen bought by chambers of commerce and banks to keep the gravy train going.
Common sense goes out the window when there's money to be lost in a lawsuit.
Fixed that for you. Parents aren't to blame, they're universally overprotective. In the US where we let our lawyers run wild, you have "no running" recesses.
Think back to your own childhood. I remember my mother fretting about some things that -still- seem absolutely absurd now. She wasn't alone. Yet the playground equipment was reasonably risky. I remember being afraid of some playground equipment, not because I was forbidden from playing on it, but because I had been injured numerous times on it.
All of those medeval torture device playground equipment seem to have been gradually replaced when people realized if a kid got a chipped tooth in a public park, they might be sued. That's also the reason many schools have done away with recesses, much to the frustration of teachers who have to deal with all that youthful energy coming out during math class instead of on the playground. Parents often want recess back too. They're more worried about childhood obesity than broken bones.
Is it safe to assume that MS's lawyers would try to clamp down on this? On the one hand, it doesn't seem like this will be causing MS to lose revenue. Maybe there's a use I'm not thinking of here, but this seems more like a novelty thing than a way to get a valuable product for cheap, I can't see many people buying a computer free of windows, installing linux, and installing this just to run an obsolete OS for free.
On the other hand, all companies these days seem to think that someone using one of their products without giving them a cut = war crime and billions of dollars in losses.
I assume this is for those times where you want your Core i7 machine to run like a 486?
No, it's for when you want to run your core i3 like your roomate's PC in college. You know that roomate. The one who never met a popup he didn't like. The one who thought "internet browser" was the street word for "internet explorer." The one who somehow found a way to stop those pesky updates. The one who thought antivirus software was a condom. The one who from 1 pm to 3am browsed porn in a 3 inch tall window, the only real estate on his screen not taken up by various search helper bars.
Alternatively, if they are just anarchists who just like watching large organizations in trouble, the court case would be far more damaging than an e-mail leak.
There's a major difference between being "photographed" and "Citizen! Stand still, hold your eyelids open, let us photograph it, then wait while we find your identity!" Whether that major difference will be recognized by the courts is another matter.
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
What does perjury or court have to do with it? This was an unreleased document, I didn't see anything about this being used in court. If you're going to use legal terms that don't apply, why not say this would be treason (if music piracy, it's effects, and this report were a matter of national security.)
To play devil's advocate, they didn't exactly lie here. This "GfK" just didn't publish a report that came to the opposite conclusions they were paid to reach. That's not quite "lying" and it's not quite the MPAA/RIAA. It's scummy, yeah, but at this point that much is a given when the RIAA/MPAA is involved.
They probably justified burying this report as "It doesn't prove that piracy is good. Think of how much MORE they'd pay back into the economy if they didn't pirate ANYTHING!!!" If they justified it at all beyond "I WANT MORE MONEY!!!!" that is.
And that's about all the devil-advocacy I'm going to do for the RIAA/MPAA for the rest of the year. Fuck those guys with a poisoned broom handle.
Maybe interest level. "Volunteers wanted for research, wear armor and run on a treadmill!" got no takers at the local McDonalds, wheras they got all the volunteers they needed in 2 mins at a rennisance festival.
Also it probably helps to have people who have worn armor before are familiar with how they're supposed to fit, how they can move in them, how they put it on.
At the -very- least, it's an important methods note. You wouldn't publish a drug trial study and leave out the fact that you used mice.
When a COD game can sell millions just on it's name alone, something's wrong.
It may not be your cup of tea or very original, but the games aren't bad. I know there's a tendency to see lots of people going nuts over something and have high expectations for it, and then be disappointed when it's not God's gift to the earth, but the games are well suited to their target audience.
And to be fair the PC versions sounded like abominations...
Yes, HL2(and ep 2) had those annoying boat and car scenes,
Do you understand how the development process works?
No, you're right, I realize I was speculating about what was going on when I don't even know how the industry works, let alone what was going on with that specific instance. Having said that, I'm skeptical that every feature that was left out and added back later was purely due to the development process and deadlines. I think some non-essential but standard features were saved for a later time so that apple could offer them later for more publicity.
Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.
Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?
They could use it through safari, but certain features were lacking. Photo uploading from the iphone, and the chat feature "huddle" didn't work before.
Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?
For their own mysterious/nefarious purposes. Why would they initially not allow users to change the background on the iphone? Apple likes control.
Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?
Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.
That part you quoted was balanced. And I mean -actually- balanced, not Fox news balanced. Conservatives favor tax cuts for the rich, liberals favor health care spending. No bias.
Reading most of the research that's generated by people like me, you realize it's just PhDs trying their darnedest to ++publicationCount, which is a pretty stupid thing for taxpayer dollars to fund... On the other hand, lots of the fundamental knowledge necessary for the "major work" mentioned earlier comes from the incremental work that isn't sexy in its own right, but very necessary nonetheless. No simple answer here.
It's punctuated equilibrium. Most published research is average of course, and does not advance us very far. Those few "major works" that advance us in leaps rely on those lesser published results. You cannot have the major advances without the minor advances.
Is there a better way to do things? I'm skeptical. Publication count is going to remain important for as long as research grants and research positions are limited, which is going to be always. Every system is going to have flaws.
As a researcher, I think giving to the most elite is a moderately good idea.
Really? Because it seems to me that most of the established elite become very conservative with their research once they've "made it" doing research that basically builds off their previous research and is rarely fundamentally groundbreaking. Their lab workers do have the motivation to take real risks, as they need to establish themselves, but I'm of the opinion that giving more research funds to new programs and new heads of labs might advance us more. A good balance would probably be best.
1. Life isn't "fair," (though it's closer to fair for the rich)
2. That's a simplistic way of putting it
3. That's the way it has to work
Yes the rich should pay more back to society, having gotten more. I see no evidence that the American dream is reality: hard work and self-sustenance are illusions that conservatives pretend are real. The rich owe more back to the public than the poor, since they earned their wealth either by being born into wealth, getting a lot of help from the public, or most often, both.
Slashdot Mirror
Things have changed a -bit- since then. I've heard one of the major problems was that interstate commerce was crippled by the conversion. Today, I can use my credit card in nearly any other country, if my debit card was paying out in florida dollars instead of montanas or whatever, I'd have to keep an eye on it, but it wouldn't be the huge hassle it was back then. I wouldn't have to take a horse and ride to the nearest town to change my currency.
Which is not to say it wouldn't be a disaster for -different- reasons. At a minimum, I'm sure banks would love it if you couldn't use cash and they got to put a surcharge for converting between competing currencies. Plus I'm not a member of the "Free market forces improve EVERYTHING" religion.
That's simplistic. The president is not an all-powerful deity. Voting in one guy to the presidency isn't going to clean this up, no matter how different you think he is. There are enough congressmen bought by chambers of commerce and banks to keep the gravy train going.
Common sense goes out the window when there's money to be lost in a lawsuit.
Fixed that for you. Parents aren't to blame, they're universally overprotective. In the US where we let our lawyers run wild, you have "no running" recesses.
Think back to your own childhood. I remember my mother fretting about some things that -still- seem absolutely absurd now. She wasn't alone. Yet the playground equipment was reasonably risky. I remember being afraid of some playground equipment, not because I was forbidden from playing on it, but because I had been injured numerous times on it.
All of those medeval torture device playground equipment seem to have been gradually replaced when people realized if a kid got a chipped tooth in a public park, they might be sued. That's also the reason many schools have done away with recesses, much to the frustration of teachers who have to deal with all that youthful energy coming out during math class instead of on the playground. Parents often want recess back too. They're more worried about childhood obesity than broken bones.
Is it safe to assume that MS's lawyers would try to clamp down on this? On the one hand, it doesn't seem like this will be causing MS to lose revenue. Maybe there's a use I'm not thinking of here, but this seems more like a novelty thing than a way to get a valuable product for cheap, I can't see many people buying a computer free of windows, installing linux, and installing this just to run an obsolete OS for free.
On the other hand, all companies these days seem to think that someone using one of their products without giving them a cut = war crime and billions of dollars in losses.
I assume this is for those times where you want your Core i7 machine to run like a 486?
No, it's for when you want to run your core i3 like your roomate's PC in college. You know that roomate. The one who never met a popup he didn't like. The one who thought "internet browser" was the street word for "internet explorer." The one who somehow found a way to stop those pesky updates. The one who thought antivirus software was a condom. The one who from 1 pm to 3am browsed porn in a 3 inch tall window, the only real estate on his screen not taken up by various search helper bars.
Alternatively, if they are just anarchists who just like watching large organizations in trouble, the court case would be far more damaging than an e-mail leak.
Is there anything that happens in Washington that isn't political cock waving/cock measuring?
The refractory period. Both the actual one and for the one of about the same length after an election.
There's a major difference between being "photographed" and "Citizen! Stand still, hold your eyelids open, let us photograph it, then wait while we find your identity!" Whether that major difference will be recognized by the courts is another matter.
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
What does perjury or court have to do with it? This was an unreleased document, I didn't see anything about this being used in court. If you're going to use legal terms that don't apply, why not say this would be treason (if music piracy, it's effects, and this report were a matter of national security.)
To play devil's advocate, they didn't exactly lie here. This "GfK" just didn't publish a report that came to the opposite conclusions they were paid to reach. That's not quite "lying" and it's not quite the MPAA/RIAA. It's scummy, yeah, but at this point that much is a given when the RIAA/MPAA is involved.
They probably justified burying this report as "It doesn't prove that piracy is good. Think of how much MORE they'd pay back into the economy if they didn't pirate ANYTHING!!!" If they justified it at all beyond "I WANT MORE MONEY!!!!" that is.
And that's about all the devil-advocacy I'm going to do for the RIAA/MPAA for the rest of the year. Fuck those guys with a poisoned broom handle.
Nor did they help the other Black Knight. I suspect casting was more of a problem there though.
Maybe interest level. "Volunteers wanted for research, wear armor and run on a treadmill!" got no takers at the local McDonalds, wheras they got all the volunteers they needed in 2 mins at a rennisance festival.
Also it probably helps to have people who have worn armor before are familiar with how they're supposed to fit, how they can move in them, how they put it on.
At the -very- least, it's an important methods note. You wouldn't publish a drug trial study and leave out the fact that you used mice.
Maybe the inverse? 1/1000= 1 millimeter?
When a COD game can sell millions just on it's name alone, something's wrong.
It may not be your cup of tea or very original, but the games aren't bad. I know there's a tendency to see lots of people going nuts over something and have high expectations for it, and then be disappointed when it's not God's gift to the earth, but the games are well suited to their target audience.
And to be fair the PC versions sounded like abominations...
Yes, HL2(and ep 2) had those annoying boat and car scenes,
I actually really liked those parts too.
Do you understand how the development process works?
No, you're right, I realize I was speculating about what was going on when I don't even know how the industry works, let alone what was going on with that specific instance. Having said that, I'm skeptical that every feature that was left out and added back later was purely due to the development process and deadlines. I think some non-essential but standard features were saved for a later time so that apple could offer them later for more publicity.
Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage?
Not actually what I said, was it?
Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.
It -is- still in beta. Real question is why has facebook still not put out an ipad app? The iphone app scaled up is just plain ugly.
Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.
They've never had that standard before with the app store, not sure why they would start all of a sudden.
Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?
They could use it through safari, but certain features were lacking. Photo uploading from the iphone, and the chat feature "huddle" didn't work before.
Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?
For their own mysterious/nefarious purposes. Why would they initially not allow users to change the background on the iphone? Apple likes control.
Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?
Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.
That part you quoted was balanced. And I mean -actually- balanced, not Fox news balanced. Conservatives favor tax cuts for the rich, liberals favor health care spending. No bias.
Reading most of the research that's generated by people like me, you realize it's just PhDs trying their darnedest to ++publicationCount, which is a pretty stupid thing for taxpayer dollars to fund... On the other hand, lots of the fundamental knowledge necessary for the "major work" mentioned earlier comes from the incremental work that isn't sexy in its own right, but very necessary nonetheless. No simple answer here.
It's punctuated equilibrium. Most published research is average of course, and does not advance us very far. Those few "major works" that advance us in leaps rely on those lesser published results. You cannot have the major advances without the minor advances.
Is there a better way to do things? I'm skeptical. Publication count is going to remain important for as long as research grants and research positions are limited, which is going to be always. Every system is going to have flaws.
As a researcher, I think giving to the most elite is a moderately good idea.
Really? Because it seems to me that most of the established elite become very conservative with their research once they've "made it" doing research that basically builds off their previous research and is rarely fundamentally groundbreaking. Their lab workers do have the motivation to take real risks, as they need to establish themselves, but I'm of the opinion that giving more research funds to new programs and new heads of labs might advance us more. A good balance would probably be best.
1. Life isn't "fair," (though it's closer to fair for the rich)
2. That's a simplistic way of putting it
3. That's the way it has to work
Yes the rich should pay more back to society, having gotten more. I see no evidence that the American dream is reality: hard work and self-sustenance are illusions that conservatives pretend are real. The rich owe more back to the public than the poor, since they earned their wealth either by being born into wealth, getting a lot of help from the public, or most often, both.
"Dr. Bob," a strong argument as to why subscriptions should only get early access to articles if they have positive karma...