Like he said, it doesn't have a viable feature-comparable alternative.
For me, Flash has never provided anything of value -- just ads and badly written web sites is my opinion of it. I think Flash is crap.
Cool story. Meanwhile, even here in 2013, our company started in 1996 is still selling new Flash-based learning courses to companies and government agencies worldwide, and they're still ordering new ones. It's easy for the artists to work in, the code to run the courses hasn't need to be patched or updated in several years, and the major time expense is still having people write the actual instructional content.
Of course you dummy. China is in the east and the Sun rises in the east. They get it before anyone else.
My god, the problem is worse than we thought. Not only does Germany get more sun, but by the time the sun gets all the way around to us it's already been used up by the Chinese. They took our sun!
That's an awful comparison. You're comparing a retail store to an online store that lets people submit their own products to sell. Toys R Us does not accept or reject anything, they decide which products they want to stock based on their business model and that's the end of it.
apple's allowed to set whatever rules they'd like for the app store, and rejecting apps that don't meet them is not censorship.
Actually, arbitrarily changing your rules to exclude the apps you specifically want to exclude is exactly what censorship is. Sort of like how they rejected Google Voice, offered no explanation why, and eventually let it through. It was a threat to their business deals, so they censored it. Or like them rejecting Nine Inch Nails' app for "objectionable content" because of the song "The Downward Spiral". Who the fuck is Apple to decide which songs are objectionable? That's not censorship? What about South Park? Apple is fine to sell South Park episodes on iTunes, but an app is all of a sudden deemed "offensive"?
Here's a hint, in case you still don't get the idea: when someone says that they are allowed to reject things with are "offensive", or "objectionable", but they don't define what constitutes being offensive or objectionable, then what you are seeing is censorship.
but by the GPs definition it didn't have a keyboard, so it wasn't a computer either.
I don't know where you're getting that from, he didn't even use the word "computer". He said PC. No one except you is arguing about the definition of a computer, the argument is the definition of the term "PC", or personal computer if you prefer. "Personal" is not an optional adjective, it's part of the term. The article is not about the top computer maker, it is the top PC vendor, and the question is what exactly defines a "PC". The person you responded to said that his definition of PC starts at supporting a keyboard.
1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.
They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.
Hopefully these links work, I'll provide the serial numbers in case.
The trademark for "SPACE MARINE", serial number 74186534, issued in 1993, covers: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith. Another trademark for "SPACE MARINES", SN 75014487, filed in 1995 by someone else, but abandoned in 1997, did cover "series of science fiction books". It was abandoned in July 1997, then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.
So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
For young Earth creationists in particular, I think that accepting scientific conclusions actually does require rejecting their faith. You can't believe that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago and also accept that a rock that you're holding is millions of years old. The entire Neanderthal species was extinct for tens of thousands of years before the Earth was supposedly created. The beliefs and evidence are basically mutually-exclusive.
The conflict you speak of is a media fabrication, because controversy sells, and all intelligent people recognize this.
The conflict between science and religion stops being a fabrication when people start trying to make laws that require teaching religious beliefs in science classes.
Mars had liquid water at some point and is outside the habitable zone, for some definitions of habitable zone. So it is entirely possible that planets with liquid water can exist outside the habitable zone.
Am I correct in assuming that the liquid which must have flowed on Mars doesn't necessarily have to be water, or has there been proof that the liquid was specifically water? That's a real question by the way, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate an answer.
The earth has been hit by countless enormous hunks of rock during its creation, each with power in the multitudes of times greater than our arsenal, and they didn't manage to move the world.
That's patently false. If any mass hits the earth, we move. How much? Depends on how much mass hit us, but we certainly move. There isn't a threshold where we start moving over a certain amount of mass, the question is how much we move based on the force that was exerted on the planet and the mass of the planet. If anything at all hits us, that number is never exactly 0.
I haven't looked at the code to verify why it is that sites don't work, but I see a lot of news sites in particular where the videos don't play if I have plugins on click-to-play in Opera. The CNN video page is one example, the videos just don't start. I suspect that there is some Javascript that is injecting the Flash movie in a way that I don't even see it to click on it to enable it, but like I said I haven't looked at the code for the sites that don't work. I go to Chrome when I come across a site like that instead of whitelisting it in Opera.
That's the justification that EA uses to explain why they need the DRM. In other words, that's them explaining why the DRM is actually a feature instead of a hindrance. There's no technical reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to play offline and not be part of the online community.
I wouldn't go that far. They have a bug in their system that causes people who opted out of email communication to instead get banned. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that EA knows what they're doing. Regardless of whether the ban was intentional, it's reasons like this that they have such a shitty reputation.
I've looked on Kaspersky's site for any source for it, the only places I see it are on third party sites which state it but don't provide a link. I'd like to see a source for it also, the last I heard was that Java was responsible for 37% of infections, and Acrobat 32%. Now Kaspersky says (according to others) that Java is at 50%, and Acrobat at 28%.
I would guess that something like WebEx is the single biggest use on the public internet. I'm not sure how many people use it. The Java installer doesn't even give you a choice about what to install, there are no options at all during installation the last time I ran through it (last July).
The only thing broken here is the Java browser plugin made by Oracle, which has no use whatsoever outside of museums.
It sounds like there are quite a few people getting very good use out of the plugin, actually. Not Oracle's "customers", per se, but nonetheless they obviously appear to enjoy it.
Java is fine, it's the barely-used-these-days plugin that's the problem.
That's right, the problem is the plugin that virtually no one uses which, according to Kaspersky, is responsible for at least 50% of infections on Windows (and also gave the Mac world their first widespread trojan, Flashback). It's just a good thing so few people use it. It's not like it ships with some new computers or anything.
I'm not suggesting that the major problems with the Java platform are anywhere other than relating to the plugin, but it's pretty disingenuous to say that no one has it. This time next year though, you might be more accurate.
Now if you mean that there are barely any applets written to use the plugin, then you might be right. But the fact is that a lot of people do have it installed, and it's the malicious applets that people actually are writing that are the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to install it except on work machines where I periodically have to use it for something I can't avoid.
Which Flash-only websites do you use for work?
Can you tell us what that is?
Like he said, it doesn't have a viable feature-comparable alternative.
For me, Flash has never provided anything of value -- just ads and badly written web sites is my opinion of it. I think Flash is crap.
Cool story. Meanwhile, even here in 2013, our company started in 1996 is still selling new Flash-based learning courses to companies and government agencies worldwide, and they're still ordering new ones. It's easy for the artists to work in, the code to run the courses hasn't need to be patched or updated in several years, and the major time expense is still having people write the actual instructional content.
Of course you dummy. China is in the east and the Sun rises in the east.
They get it before anyone else.
My god, the problem is worse than we thought. Not only does Germany get more sun, but by the time the sun gets all the way around to us it's already been used up by the Chinese. They took our sun!
That's an awful comparison. You're comparing a retail store to an online store that lets people submit their own products to sell. Toys R Us does not accept or reject anything, they decide which products they want to stock based on their business model and that's the end of it.
apple's allowed to set whatever rules they'd like for the app store, and rejecting apps that don't meet them is not censorship.
Actually, arbitrarily changing your rules to exclude the apps you specifically want to exclude is exactly what censorship is. Sort of like how they rejected Google Voice, offered no explanation why, and eventually let it through. It was a threat to their business deals, so they censored it. Or like them rejecting Nine Inch Nails' app for "objectionable content" because of the song "The Downward Spiral". Who the fuck is Apple to decide which songs are objectionable? That's not censorship? What about South Park? Apple is fine to sell South Park episodes on iTunes, but an app is all of a sudden deemed "offensive"?
Here's a hint, in case you still don't get the idea: when someone says that they are allowed to reject things with are "offensive", or "objectionable", but they don't define what constitutes being offensive or objectionable, then what you are seeing is censorship.
but by the GPs definition it didn't have a keyboard, so it wasn't a computer either.
I don't know where you're getting that from, he didn't even use the word "computer". He said PC. No one except you is arguing about the definition of a computer, the argument is the definition of the term "PC", or personal computer if you prefer. "Personal" is not an optional adjective, it's part of the term. The article is not about the top computer maker, it is the top PC vendor, and the question is what exactly defines a "PC". The person you responded to said that his definition of PC starts at supporting a keyboard.
It sounds like they registered it as a trademark for use in video games or other game-related software, not a feature in the software.
The problem here being that what was taken down was an eBook, which is considered to be software
I don't see how that's relevant for a trademark that covers software for playing games.
1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.
They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.
Hopefully these links work, I'll provide the serial numbers in case.
The trademark for "SPACE MARINE", serial number 74186534, issued in 1993, covers: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith. Another trademark for "SPACE MARINES", SN 75014487, filed in 1995 by someone else, but abandoned in 1997, did cover "series of science fiction books". It was abandoned in July 1997, then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.
So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
For young Earth creationists in particular, I think that accepting scientific conclusions actually does require rejecting their faith. You can't believe that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago and also accept that a rock that you're holding is millions of years old. The entire Neanderthal species was extinct for tens of thousands of years before the Earth was supposedly created. The beliefs and evidence are basically mutually-exclusive.
The conflict you speak of is a media fabrication, because controversy sells, and all intelligent people recognize this.
The conflict between science and religion stops being a fabrication when people start trying to make laws that require teaching religious beliefs in science classes.
Hey, has anyone told you that your post is wrong yet?
Mars had liquid water at some point and is outside the habitable zone, for some definitions of habitable zone. So it is entirely possible that planets with liquid water can exist outside the habitable zone.
Am I correct in assuming that the liquid which must have flowed on Mars doesn't necessarily have to be water, or has there been proof that the liquid was specifically water? That's a real question by the way, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate an answer.
The earth has been hit by countless enormous hunks of rock during its creation, each with power in the multitudes of times greater than our arsenal, and they didn't manage to move the world.
That's patently false. If any mass hits the earth, we move. How much? Depends on how much mass hit us, but we certainly move. There isn't a threshold where we start moving over a certain amount of mass, the question is how much we move based on the force that was exerted on the planet and the mass of the planet. If anything at all hits us, that number is never exactly 0.
I don't think he was able to run away, it wasn't an option. It probably takes the ship a while to get ready for a jump.
You're saying a guy had $25,000 locked up in virtual stuff and lost it in this battle?
Not one guy, that number is the total for everyone.
I haven't looked at the code to verify why it is that sites don't work, but I see a lot of news sites in particular where the videos don't play if I have plugins on click-to-play in Opera. The CNN video page is one example, the videos just don't start. I suspect that there is some Javascript that is injecting the Flash movie in a way that I don't even see it to click on it to enable it, but like I said I haven't looked at the code for the sites that don't work. I go to Chrome when I come across a site like that instead of whitelisting it in Opera.
That's the justification that EA uses to explain why they need the DRM. In other words, that's them explaining why the DRM is actually a feature instead of a hindrance. There's no technical reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to play offline and not be part of the online community.
I.E. Nothing to see here, move along.
I wouldn't go that far. They have a bug in their system that causes people who opted out of email communication to instead get banned. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that EA knows what they're doing. Regardless of whether the ban was intentional, it's reasons like this that they have such a shitty reputation.
What's your problem w/ the review?
The grammar and typos. Things like this:
Scientology has long called anyone who has written against them as having a vendetta.
How about this instead:
Scientology has long accused anyone who has written against them of having a vendetta.
Several typos like these:
The book places Church President David Miscavige is a negative light
While Scientologist's may think that
He refers to the author as "Wrights" a few times:
As to the manipulation of facts, in the final pages of the book, Wrights notes some of
Wrights notes that Scientology orients itself toward celebrities
Also, I don't think this is the way you use "anathema":
and Hubbard had an anathema of psychiatry and psychology until his dying day.
It just seems like he didn't bother to proofread the review.
Windows 9 or 8.1 / 8SE may hear sooner then you think and adding the back the old desktop and go a long way and be done easy.
That's right, all of those things may be true, like North Korea may open itself up to the internet.
I've looked on Kaspersky's site for any source for it, the only places I see it are on third party sites which state it but don't provide a link. I'd like to see a source for it also, the last I heard was that Java was responsible for 37% of infections, and Acrobat 32%. Now Kaspersky says (according to others) that Java is at 50%, and Acrobat at 28%.
I would guess that something like WebEx is the single biggest use on the public internet. I'm not sure how many people use it. The Java installer doesn't even give you a choice about what to install, there are no options at all during installation the last time I ran through it (last July).
The only thing broken here is the Java browser plugin made by Oracle, which has no use whatsoever outside of museums.
It sounds like there are quite a few people getting very good use out of the plugin, actually. Not Oracle's "customers", per se, but nonetheless they obviously appear to enjoy it.
Java is fine, it's the barely-used-these-days plugin that's the problem.
That's right, the problem is the plugin that virtually no one uses which, according to Kaspersky, is responsible for at least 50% of infections on Windows (and also gave the Mac world their first widespread trojan, Flashback). It's just a good thing so few people use it. It's not like it ships with some new computers or anything.
I'm not suggesting that the major problems with the Java platform are anywhere other than relating to the plugin, but it's pretty disingenuous to say that no one has it. This time next year though, you might be more accurate.
Now if you mean that there are barely any applets written to use the plugin, then you might be right. But the fact is that a lot of people do have it installed, and it's the malicious applets that people actually are writing that are the issue.