The AP referred to it as "open source." Many other articles have picked up the phrase as well, so you need to look a little harder. (The Seattle Times, for one.)
I did find an article which stated that the software will make use an open standard, so that it may be used with any number of different applications that may be in use at law enforcement agencies. So perhaps that's where the "open source" confusing came from.
Microsoft Press Release refers to the open standard used. My guess is that the AP made the mistake and it's since propogated to the other news outlets.
So long as you're pumping the heat that you're drawing off of the servers outside that makes sense. But otherwise, the room will get very warm, because all the heat from the servers is just being pumped out into the air. Thus the servers will have to work harder to keep cooler and be fighting against each other in a way. You need to get the heat out of the server room at some point in time.
It's like taking a window air conditioner and setting it on the floor and keeping all your windows closed. The area right in front of the air conditioner might be cool, but you're going to end up heating the room up overall.
Actually the city limits for Dayton are not all that large. For whatever reason, Dayton hasn't been able to, or hasn't tried to annex every block in their reach. Just a few blocks south of Downtown and you're in the town of Oakwood. 1-2 miles east of downtown and you're in Riverside (near WPAFB).
I would imagine this is really just intended to cover downtown Dayton anyway. Most of the actual city of Dayton is low income enough that they probably don't have much of a use for WiFi anyway.
The problem isn't so much the redundant comments like this, it's that some people think that they are appropriate to tell us what the function does. Perhaps more importantly, "i" should have a name that tells you what it's function is, and the comment could tell you perhaps WHY we're incrementing it. If it is blatantly obvious so that even the least intelligent programmer can figure out the how, what and why of the function, no comment is needed.
So if you have:
i++;// increment by one
perhaps a better function would be:
i++;// increase number of days since slashdot posted a meaningful article because the time is now 24:00 GMT.
Your ID # is high enough that you've been here more than a year and should know that this is some what of a tradition on Slashdot. Nothing newsworthy will show up until after midnight.
That said, it's too bad this wasn't Saturday and we'd only have to deal with 23 hours of it.
It wasn't judicial activism, they gave deference to the decisions of the elected legislature.
Anyway, while I haven't read the actual opinion released today, I did review the lower court's opinion and it appears to have similar logic to the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Oh, and the lower court does cite considerable authority there and provide some sound reasons for their decision. Just because an angry dissent accused them of doing otherwise, doesn't make it so.
The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer that the reward the injured. Without the class-action system, such actions would go entirely unpunished, because no one is going to bring suit for $1. However, when 10 million people bring suit for $1, then the company can be appropriate punished.
i guess one of the biggest concerns i have about copyright is still that after the death of the artist, i don't feel like i should be paying any cost beyond the actual plastic or paper that it takes to get that content to me.
30 year old musician creates some work, dies the next week. Millions of copies sell, however, under you rule, his or her family will get nothing.
I think that 70 years after death is a big long; and perhaps something more appropriate would be simply time of creation + 70 years, or 35 years after death, whichever comes first. (simply a crude example).
You're mixing your patents and copyrights, when they serve two very different purposes.
If I create an original work of art, literature, music, whatever, I can copyright it and therefore the copyright would exist for the duration of my lifetime plus seventy years (with a few exceptions.)
The purpose of copyright is to make sure than an author is able to profit from their creation during their life and (their estate) somewhat beyond their life. The only purpose it serves is to reward and protect the creator. Once the time is up, the work becomes public domain. Copyrights don't really exist to encourage artistic development, since for most artists and authors, there isn't much money to be made anyway.
Patents are different. You can only patent a novel invention, idea, whatever. They generally expire 20 years from the date of filing. Their purpose is not so much reward as it is a means to encourage development of new ideas through that reward. They are shorter in time, because there is more public benefit to be had by restricting the monopoly on the idea to only 20 years. When a patent expires, suddenly the technology is freely available to all who might use it for profit. The company or person that made it is probably still alive, but in 20 years they had the chance to reap great profits from it.
Copyrights stifle innovation a lot less so than do patents. You can get access to millions of copyrighted materials for (free) through your local library.
Patents intentionally stifle innovation but in doing so they also encourage it by guaranteeing a 20 year monopoly on the creator.
Now, there is something to be said about the duration of copyrights, and the significant jump they made. However, it should be noted that effectively the copyright duration is (in many cases) about the same as the length of time you can have control over your assets after you die, so it is not entirely unconscionable.
The duration of patents is appropriate for some types of inventions and not for others. With prescription drugs and the amount of time it takes to go from patent filing to market, the 20 year mark is pretty appropriate. For computer related patents, 20 years is much too long.
Your points have merit, but what about average Joe that just needs some simple program or script and doesn't want to spend a few hours figuring out the syntax for it?
Everyone here seems to be quick to assume that the goal of a natural language like this is to be able to take the place of complex programs and what not. I see it more as a way for the average user to make on-the-fly programs for certain specific functions. The life and death stuff can come later, but for now, assuming this natural language stuff works out decently, if Joe is sitting in front of his computer and he wants to quickly do some calculations or compare some data, he won't have to search through hundreds of shareware or freeware sites, he can simply tell his computer "Create a program which does x y and x" and it will do it for him. It doesn't need to be 100% perfect; it doesn't need to be foolproof, it just needs to work well enough to get the job done for him.
Everyone here just seems drawn to the extreme examples where the applicability of such a system seems outrageous, but for everyday applications, it could be a very useful tool.
You shouldn't critique other people's grammar when you don't know how to use commas or quotation marks properly.
rhyme with "merrible".
Should read: rhyme with "merrible."
Enough voters, and things change.
"Things change" could be a sentence on its own, the rest of the sentence fails miserably. Unless you meant "Enough voters" and "things" to be the subjects of your sentence, but that makes even less sense. "Enough voters" doesn't stand on its own, so the ", and" is out of place.
It's using the system as it's set up.
The point isn't that people are misusing the system; the point is that the system is flawed.
Not enough people seem to know about this, but unless you have severely complicated taxes, you can pretty much do your federal ones online for free by going through that IRS web page.
You'll usually still end up paying to file state taxes through them; or you can do them manually, but the federal one is free for almost everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
The information was taken from Seisint, which LexisNexis recently acquired.
Former Seisint customer's data may have been revealed; LexisNexis' regular customers are not part of this group.
The AP referred to it as "open source." Many other articles have picked up the phrase as well, so you need to look a little harder. (The Seattle Times, for one.)
I did find an article which stated that the software will make use an open standard, so that it may be used with any number of different applications that may be in use at law enforcement agencies. So perhaps that's where the "open source" confusing came from.
Microsoft Press Release refers to the open standard used. My guess is that the AP made the mistake and it's since propogated to the other news outlets.
Cool the servers, then the room won't get hot
So long as you're pumping the heat that you're drawing off of the servers outside that makes sense. But otherwise, the room will get very warm, because all the heat from the servers is just being pumped out into the air. Thus the servers will have to work harder to keep cooler and be fighting against each other in a way. You need to get the heat out of the server room at some point in time.
It's like taking a window air conditioner and setting it on the floor and keeping all your windows closed. The area right in front of the air conditioner might be cool, but you're going to end up heating the room up overall.
Like I said "hasn't been able to" or "hasn't tried." I wasn't sure which it was.
Actually the city limits for Dayton are not all that large. For whatever reason, Dayton hasn't been able to, or hasn't tried to annex every block in their reach. Just a few blocks south of Downtown and you're in the town of Oakwood. 1-2 miles east of downtown and you're in Riverside (near WPAFB).
I would imagine this is really just intended to cover downtown Dayton anyway. Most of the actual city of Dayton is low income enough that they probably don't have much of a use for WiFi anyway.
Flash was once a rather nice delivery system for animated content
Never was. Never will be.
i++; // increment i by one
// increment by one
// increase number of days since slashdot posted a meaningful article because the time is now 24:00 GMT.
The problem isn't so much the redundant comments like this, it's that some people think that they are appropriate to tell us what the function does. Perhaps more importantly, "i" should have a name that tells you what it's function is, and the comment could tell you perhaps WHY we're incrementing it. If it is blatantly obvious so that even the least intelligent programmer can figure out the how, what and why of the function, no comment is needed.
So if you have:
i++;
perhaps a better function would be:
i++;
Jokes are supposed to be funny, April Fool's jokes are not.
No. It's April 1st. It's Slashdot. This has been a regular occurence since the beginning of Slashdot.
Don't worry, you can just repost this comment in every story today and have Excellent Karma by sunset.
Your ID # is high enough that you've been here more than a year and should know that this is some what of a tradition on Slashdot. Nothing newsworthy will show up until after midnight.
That said, it's too bad this wasn't Saturday and we'd only have to deal with 23 hours of it.
It wasn't judicial activism, they gave deference to the decisions of the elected legislature.
Anyway, while I haven't read the actual opinion released today, I did review the lower court's opinion and it appears to have similar logic to the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Oh, and the lower court does cite considerable authority there and provide some sound reasons for their decision. Just because an angry dissent accused them of doing otherwise, doesn't make it so.
Who buys beverages from a movie rental store? Do you like paying more than twice regular price for such items?
The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer that the reward the injured. Without the class-action system, such actions would go entirely unpunished, because no one is going to bring suit for $1. However, when 10 million people bring suit for $1, then the company can be appropriate punished.
i guess one of the biggest concerns i have about copyright is still that after the death of the artist, i don't feel like i should be paying any cost beyond the actual plastic or paper that it takes to get that content to me.
30 year old musician creates some work, dies the next week. Millions of copies sell, however, under you rule, his or her family will get nothing.
I think that 70 years after death is a big long; and perhaps something more appropriate would be simply time of creation + 70 years, or 35 years after death, whichever comes first. (simply a crude example).
You're mixing your patents and copyrights, when they serve two very different purposes.
If I create an original work of art, literature, music, whatever, I can copyright it and therefore the copyright would exist for the duration of my lifetime plus seventy years (with a few exceptions.)
The purpose of copyright is to make sure than an author is able to profit from their creation during their life and (their estate) somewhat beyond their life. The only purpose it serves is to reward and protect the creator. Once the time is up, the work becomes public domain. Copyrights don't really exist to encourage artistic development, since for most artists and authors, there isn't much money to be made anyway.
Patents are different. You can only patent a novel invention, idea, whatever. They generally expire 20 years from the date of filing. Their purpose is not so much reward as it is a means to encourage development of new ideas through that reward. They are shorter in time, because there is more public benefit to be had by restricting the monopoly on the idea to only 20 years. When a patent expires, suddenly the technology is freely available to all who might use it for profit. The company or person that made it is probably still alive, but in 20 years they had the chance to reap great profits from it.
Copyrights stifle innovation a lot less so than do patents. You can get access to millions of copyrighted materials for (free) through your local library.
Patents intentionally stifle innovation but in doing so they also encourage it by guaranteeing a 20 year monopoly on the creator.
Now, there is something to be said about the duration of copyrights, and the significant jump they made. However, it should be noted that effectively the copyright duration is (in many cases) about the same as the length of time you can have control over your assets after you die, so it is not entirely unconscionable.
The duration of patents is appropriate for some types of inventions and not for others. With prescription drugs and the amount of time it takes to go from patent filing to market, the 20 year mark is pretty appropriate. For computer related patents, 20 years is much too long.
Your points have merit, but what about average Joe that just needs some simple program or script and doesn't want to spend a few hours figuring out the syntax for it?
Everyone here seems to be quick to assume that the goal of a natural language like this is to be able to take the place of complex programs and what not. I see it more as a way for the average user to make on-the-fly programs for certain specific functions. The life and death stuff can come later, but for now, assuming this natural language stuff works out decently, if Joe is sitting in front of his computer and he wants to quickly do some calculations or compare some data, he won't have to search through hundreds of shareware or freeware sites, he can simply tell his computer "Create a program which does x y and x" and it will do it for him. It doesn't need to be 100% perfect; it doesn't need to be foolproof, it just needs to work well enough to get the job done for him.
Everyone here just seems drawn to the extreme examples where the applicability of such a system seems outrageous, but for everyday applications, it could be a very useful tool.
"Things change" could be a sentence on its own, the rest of the sentence fails miserably.
Add a "While" to the beginning of that sentence. =]
You shouldn't critique other people's grammar when you don't know how to use commas or quotation marks properly.
rhyme with "merrible".
Should read: rhyme with "merrible."
Enough voters, and things change.
"Things change" could be a sentence on its own, the rest of the sentence fails miserably. Unless you meant "Enough voters" and "things" to be the subjects of your sentence, but that makes even less sense. "Enough voters" doesn't stand on its own, so the ", and" is out of place.
It's using the system as it's set up.
The point isn't that people are misusing the system; the point is that the system is flawed.
Whose job is it to stop this?
hint: you're answer should rhyme with frugal.
Until they change it just enough so that you can't use it without updating it and are then bound by the new terms.
Not enough people seem to know about this, but unless you have severely complicated taxes, you can pretty much do your federal ones online for free by going through that IRS web page.
You'll usually still end up paying to file state taxes through them; or you can do them manually, but the federal one is free for almost everyone.
Smitten is also appropriate.
It's not keyword stuffing if the keywords given are relevant.
Now we are letting inanimate objects raise our kids! When will it end?
What good is an inanimate robot?
Is lemon juice not worthy of the metric system?
And who has metric measuring devices in their kitchen anyway?