Those fees are insane though; the highest I've seen in the UK is around 1.85 GBP, or about 3 USD. No bank that I'm aware of charges for 1 or 2, leaving only 3.
To brute-force it, yes, but in a case like this you'd expect those trying to crack it to be rather more intelligent about it (while most likely *also* setting off a brute-force attempt in parallel).
Likewise, books are language. Can books be copyrighted? No one owns language.
You're right, comparing software to books is like comparing maths to language, and so I agree, software should be afforded all the same protections that books are.
You're just arguing for the sake of it now, aren't you?
No, most physical contact would not be pornographic by any reasonable standard.
No, most parents that I know would not have a problem with children being able to access breast exam how-to videos (and as the father of a young girl, I'd rather she *did* know about that sort of thing).
Why can you not just admit that the existence of a grey area does not make it impossible to define useful extremes? As it happens I don't agree with the creation of this TLD, but my reasoning has nothing to do with how hard it is to define exactly what is and is not pornographic.
That really depends on what you mean by "much, much" - the pressure difference isn't going to be significantly larger that 14 psi no matter how fast the plane is going.
While that's true, you do realise that batteries and processors are designed/made by different groups (often in different companies), and so both can be worked on (and are being worked on) at the same time, right? This isn't an either/or situation.
It's not about programming against a given release, it's about verifying against releases - in fact, we do exactly what you say and programme against the spec (then add in the inevitable tweaks to get it working right cross browser and browser version). That doesn't change the fact that if a client wants it supported in "all versions of IE from 6 up, all versions of Firefox from 3 up" etc, then releasing what would normally be Firefox 4.1 (or even 4.0.1) as Firefox 5 adds another round of browser compatibility testing that would not otherwise be there.
The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US.
You think the average consumer even knows about Wikileaks in any detail (especially in regards to your complaint against Amazon), let alone cares?
I explain that these programs are really free as in freedom, respecting you as a person and not calling you a criminal for not paying arbitrarily high prices
Most people, in a professional setting at least, don't really care about that (especially as it's not their money that's paying for it)...
offer most of the functionality you need for most projects
...but that they do care about. If I have a choice between two pieces of software, one that does everything I need and one that doesn't, I am not going to want to be at work longer because I have the latter rather than the former.
Congress passed a provision in the 80's to allow companies to patent genetically modified crops so someone couldn't simply steal some seeds and resell them.
I appreciate that you've almost certainly presented a vastly simplified account of what happened, but how was that not already sufficiently covered by existing laws?
"Acceleration experienced by people in the vehicle for a given test drive" would seem to be an adequate measure of the quality of a ride - more bumps, more accelerations, worse ride.
It's not about censorship. It's about the fact that Google is doing more than just presenting the top X most common searches that include the word or phrase you're currently typing - they are already actively removing searches from that list of suggestions. That puts them on dodgy ground in a case like this.
If you want to do business in an area (or even just have a presence there), you have to abide by that area's laws. It's nothing to do with extortion; Italian companies doing business in the US are similarly subject to US laws.
That's exactly what I was thinking. No one I know is obsessed with Facebook; we use it, yes, but it's just one of a great many things we do with our time.
Slashdot on the other hand does seem to post an inordinate number of stories about it...
Google has the problem of telling you all of the things an app will access, but not telling you why.
I also find that annoying at times, but realistically what can Google do? Demand to see the source code and implement a scheme to ensure that what they see is what is actually compiled in to the app? Or change the API to require a message that is displayed at permission request time, and trust the developers not to lie?
I'm not really sure how that would help - surely untrustworthy apps (or those that legitimately need the refused permission) will simply fail, thus gaining you nothing? Either way you're not going to be using the app.
Slashdot Mirror
The ATM network predates the web here.
As it does here I believe.
Those fees are insane though; the highest I've seen in the UK is around 1.85 GBP, or about 3 USD. No bank that I'm aware of charges for 1 or 2, leaving only 3.
To brute-force it, yes, but in a case like this you'd expect those trying to crack it to be rather more intelligent about it (while most likely *also* setting off a brute-force attempt in parallel).
"In the wrong" has a particular meaning.
Slashdot it not your middle school, it is your college where EVERY SOURCE must be cited
Now it's been a long time since I did my physics degree, but I don't remember ever seeing The Principia in a list of sources.
Are you really pulling him up on in to versus into, but failing on your versus you're? (Not to mention capital letters)
Likewise, books are language. Can books be copyrighted? No one owns language.
You're right, comparing software to books is like comparing maths to language, and so I agree, software should be afforded all the same protections that books are.
Books are not patentable.
"But he did it first!" didn't wash in the playground, it certainly doesn't wash when you're talking about killing thousands of civilians.
You're just arguing for the sake of it now, aren't you?
No, most physical contact would not be pornographic by any reasonable standard.
No, most parents that I know would not have a problem with children being able to access breast exam how-to videos (and as the father of a young girl, I'd rather she *did* know about that sort of thing).
Why can you not just admit that the existence of a grey area does not make it impossible to define useful extremes? As it happens I don't agree with the creation of this TLD, but my reasoning has nothing to do with how hard it is to define exactly what is and is not pornographic.
Yes, but what do you expect from slashdot? Rigorous scientific accuracy?
Another incident involved a pilot being SUCKED out through the window in front of him
If you're going to call for rigorous scientific accuracy, you might want to think about your use of the word sucked there.
That really depends on what you mean by "much, much" - the pressure difference isn't going to be significantly larger that 14 psi no matter how fast the plane is going.
While that's true, you do realise that batteries and processors are designed/made by different groups (often in different companies), and so both can be worked on (and are being worked on) at the same time, right? This isn't an either/or situation.
It's not about programming against a given release, it's about verifying against releases - in fact, we do exactly what you say and programme against the spec (then add in the inevitable tweaks to get it working right cross browser and browser version). That doesn't change the fact that if a client wants it supported in "all versions of IE from 6 up, all versions of Firefox from 3 up" etc, then releasing what would normally be Firefox 4.1 (or even 4.0.1) as Firefox 5 adds another round of browser compatibility testing that would not otherwise be there.
From TFA:
The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US.
You think the average consumer even knows about Wikileaks in any detail (especially in regards to your complaint against Amazon), let alone cares?
I explain that these programs are really free as in freedom, respecting you as a person and not calling you a criminal for not paying arbitrarily high prices
Most people, in a professional setting at least, don't really care about that (especially as it's not their money that's paying for it)...
offer most of the functionality you need for most projects
...but that they do care about. If I have a choice between two pieces of software, one that does everything I need and one that doesn't, I am not going to want to be at work longer because I have the latter rather than the former.
Oh well, might as well just give up then if it's hard, eh?
Congress passed a provision in the 80's to allow companies to patent genetically modified crops so someone couldn't simply steal some seeds and resell them.
I appreciate that you've almost certainly presented a vastly simplified account of what happened, but how was that not already sufficiently covered by existing laws?
"Acceleration experienced by people in the vehicle for a given test drive" would seem to be an adequate measure of the quality of a ride - more bumps, more accelerations, worse ride.
It's not about censorship. It's about the fact that Google is doing more than just presenting the top X most common searches that include the word or phrase you're currently typing - they are already actively removing searches from that list of suggestions. That puts them on dodgy ground in a case like this.
If you want to do business in an area (or even just have a presence there), you have to abide by that area's laws. It's nothing to do with extortion; Italian companies doing business in the US are similarly subject to US laws.
The fact is that Google doesn't create those search suggestions. It merely presents a list of other people's queries based on frequency.
But it does filter those queries for potentially offensive ones. That right there puts them on dodgy ground in this case.
That's exactly what I was thinking. No one I know is obsessed with Facebook; we use it, yes, but it's just one of a great many things we do with our time.
Slashdot on the other hand does seem to post an inordinate number of stories about it...
Google has the problem of telling you all of the things an app will access, but not telling you why.
I also find that annoying at times, but realistically what can Google do? Demand to see the source code and implement a scheme to ensure that what they see is what is actually compiled in to the app? Or change the API to require a message that is displayed at permission request time, and trust the developers not to lie?
And didn't uninstall it, especially when I realized I could get free, high quality music I actually enjoyed..
Anywhere.
Anywhere in the US. That's great for you, but sucks for the rest of us.
I'm not really sure how that would help - surely untrustworthy apps (or those that legitimately need the refused permission) will simply fail, thus gaining you nothing? Either way you're not going to be using the app.