Unless you let the gospel of RMS into your heart, you will burn in the fires of Hades!
He who hath heard the Good News and let it fill his soul will have taken their first steps to redemption. Every time you say "GNU/Linux", you take another step upon that path (but, watch out... if you say Linux, without the "GNU", you will fall off the path, into the waiting hands of the Ballmer Devil!)
[quote]You can use deadly force to protect people and property from imminent danger. Someone poking a hand under your bumper is not that.[/quote]
Your Honor, I saw the guy putting something that looked like it might be a bomb underneath my car.
[quote]And there's generally going to be no way you'll prove self-defense against a cop, since you have to presume a cop is assaulting you legally unless you know specifically otherwise. you might have a chance if he's assaulting you without telling you he's a cop, but that won't work if he's under cover, since "I didn't know he was a cop" is the whole point of that. And killing a cop isn't just murder or manslaughter, it's a cop-killing, and for that you get special treatment.[/quote]
I doubt there'll be uniformed police officers doing this. So, fall back to the undercover portion of your comment. Does the law in Texas say you have to give someone time to identify themselves? "I saw him putting his hand into his jacket. I thought he was going to pull a gun on me. How was I supposed to know he was getting out a badge?"
The whole "break the law" portion of this (having to commit trespassing, at the least) really makes it sketchy. I'm glad I don't live in 9th district land.
Are there people who work, for free, in a "probation period", where those people are not interns?
Seriously... If any job I was applying for said "Well, Mr Polydwarf, we like you and all.. but we're going to need you to sit at a desk and pound some code out, just to see if we *really* like you.. Oh yeah, no paycheck, either. But, you do get to bask in the glow of your monitor and congratulate yourself on a job well done."
Benefits are a different story (a lot of places, they won't kick in until some amount of time in, like 90 days)... But paycheck?
I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.
I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.
What's next... having to sit through an advertisement on my smartphone to make a call? Or is that too unlikely and contrived, given that the article mentions this can be used on smartphones, with no further qualification?
If YouTube truly thinks this is best long-term for its success, I'm afraid we'll watch a slow death as competitors nibble away market-share, one obscure platform at a time that lacks a flash player but was created to use open standards out of the box.
I don't think they do... Witness the various points in the article (Which I'm sure you read, right?) where they said "And we're helping to fix xyz problem"
But, what they point out is that HTML 5 video is untenable for even their short term success. If they went to purely HTML 5, they would lose market share rapidly to people who weren't pure OSS. What does that say, from a business standpoint?
The possibilities are enormous, especially for the billion plus people around the world who live more than a few hours' walk or drive from the nearest doctor."
And yet... they'll have smartphones?
I know, a lot of countries skip land lines and go to cell phones... but all those people who live hours away from the nearest doctor will have smartphones (as opposed to normal cell phones)?
...I'm sure in a case like this that something can be worked out. Instead of actual reporting and checking up on the situation, we instead get people using words like "impossible"...
So... They reported what the situation *is*.. And that's not actual reporting? The fact of the matter, it *is* impossible to go buy a new PS3 with OtherOS. It *may* not be impossible in the future, however that's conjecture, not reporting.
Something I never understood about the "This could be great for the third world" items..
Why wouldn't it be great for the first and second worlds too?
I would assume scale and speed aren't up to par with more focused medical devices... But, for the price of one of those, you can buy a bunch of 35 dollar ones.
How does this blurb towards the end of the article:
ACTA doesn't export all of US law in this area, though; the world doesn't get huge principles like fair use (which many countries don't have) and key judicial decisions (like the Sony Betamax case which found that a device with "substantial non-infringing uses" could be sold so long as the manufacturer was not inducing infringement). Countries could adopt these, but they aren't requirements.
square with this blurb towards the beginning of the article:
ACTA would ban "the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure." It also bans circumvention devices, even those with a "limited commercially significant purpose." Countries can set limits to the ban, but only insofar as they do not "impair the adequacy of legal protection of those measures." This is ambiguous, but allowing circumvention in cases where the final use is fair would appear to be outlawed.
To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"
While I agree with your sentiment, it kind of depends on how "the market" is defined, as to whether apple has a monopoly.
If it's "Computing Devices" or "PC" or something like that, I agree.
What if the market is defined as "Phones with one button and a touch screen interface"?
I'm also not sure whether the contracts 95% or more of people sign come into the mix or not (I was told one time by an AT&T monkey that I couldn't buy a non-contract iphone).
So... Things like "paying the bill" is screwing poor people?
Sorry, folks. If you can't afford the power bill on your own, you need roommates/housemates/whatever. Or you need to move to a cheaper cost-of-living area, because the cost-of-living in your area is too high for you to afford. I can't afford to live in a penthouse in New York City, so I don't.
All that being said, I don't like some of the functionality these things enable. But, I also don't like the inference that because something, even what is lawfully a basic necessity, costs money, it's inherently screwing the poor. If the minimum level of electricity is enough for heating/cooling as necessary (no, your house does not need to be 74 degrees in Phoenix in the summer time), a fridge, and some lights, good. If it doesn't allow someone to play a ps3 on their 52" tv, or fire up their quad core computer with sli gpu's to play WoW, good.
And, check cashing stores don't take advantage of the poor. They take advantage of the stupid. Big difference, unless you're trying to imply there isn't a big difference?
Uhh.. Hey, Mr. Scientist... Ever hear of deflector shields? GOSH!
Going out on a (geeky) limb... Don't warp drives (again, geek-out time, so just accept they exist a la Star Trek) make a bubble that the ship moves through that goes faster than light, instead of accelerating the ship up to and beyond light speed? I believe I've read that Einstein's theories technically allow for something moving faster than light, if that something can manage to alter their local space-time?
I've been hearing about this for the past few days, but I have yet to see what kind of nuclear plant they're talking about building.
I'm really hoping we take a cue from France (yeah yeah, cheese eating surrender monkeys and all that... Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us), and standardize a reactor design or three to hopefully avoid some of that red tape.
Slashdot Mirror
*gasp*
Unless you let the gospel of RMS into your heart, you will burn in the fires of Hades!
He who hath heard the Good News and let it fill his soul will have taken their first steps to redemption. Every time you say "GNU/Linux", you take another step upon that path (but, watch out... if you say Linux, without the "GNU", you will fall off the path, into the waiting hands of the Ballmer Devil!)
[quote]Blaming file sharers wont fix a marketing mistake[/quote]
True.. However, suing file sharers will fix a revenue mistake.
[quote]... prove ...[/quote]
hahahahahahaha
Ugh.. Dontcha hate it when you use bbcode on /. and don't bother previewing? I know I do. :|
[quote]You can use deadly force to protect people and property from imminent danger. Someone poking a hand under your bumper is not that.[/quote]
Your Honor, I saw the guy putting something that looked like it might be a bomb underneath my car.
[quote]And there's generally going to be no way you'll prove self-defense against a cop, since you have to presume a cop is assaulting you legally unless you know specifically otherwise. you might have a chance if he's assaulting you without telling you he's a cop, but that won't work if he's under cover, since "I didn't know he was a cop" is the whole point of that. And killing a cop isn't just murder or manslaughter, it's a cop-killing, and for that you get special treatment.[/quote]
I doubt there'll be uniformed police officers doing this. So, fall back to the undercover portion of your comment. Does the law in Texas say you have to give someone time to identify themselves? "I saw him putting his hand into his jacket. I thought he was going to pull a gun on me. How was I supposed to know he was getting out a badge?"
The whole "break the law" portion of this (having to commit trespassing, at the least) really makes it sketchy. I'm glad I don't live in 9th district land.
Are there people who work, for free, in a "probation period", where those people are not interns?
Seriously... If any job I was applying for said "Well, Mr Polydwarf, we like you and all.. but we're going to need you to sit at a desk and pound some code out, just to see if we *really* like you.. Oh yeah, no paycheck, either. But, you do get to bask in the glow of your monitor and congratulate yourself on a job well done."
Benefits are a different story (a lot of places, they won't kick in until some amount of time in, like 90 days)... But paycheck?
I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.
I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.
What's next... having to sit through an advertisement on my smartphone to make a call? Or is that too unlikely and contrived, given that the article mentions this can be used on smartphones, with no further qualification?
If YouTube truly thinks this is best long-term for its success, I'm afraid we'll watch a slow death as competitors nibble away market-share, one obscure platform at a time that lacks a flash player but was created to use open standards out of the box.
I don't think they do... Witness the various points in the article (Which I'm sure you read, right?) where they said "And we're helping to fix xyz problem"
But, what they point out is that HTML 5 video is untenable for even their short term success. If they went to purely HTML 5, they would lose market share rapidly to people who weren't pure OSS. What does that say, from a business standpoint?
The possibilities are enormous, especially for the billion plus people around the world who live more than a few hours' walk or drive from the nearest doctor."
And yet... they'll have smartphones?
I know, a lot of countries skip land lines and go to cell phones... but all those people who live hours away from the nearest doctor will have smartphones (as opposed to normal cell phones)?
I think he was more asking about a parameterized-SP vs parameterized-TSQL, not a SP vs LINQ debate (which is what you linked)
...I'm sure in a case like this that something can be worked out. Instead of actual reporting and checking up on the situation, we instead get people using words like "impossible"...
So... They reported what the situation *is*.. And that's not actual reporting? The fact of the matter, it *is* impossible to go buy a new PS3 with OtherOS. It *may* not be impossible in the future, however that's conjecture, not reporting.
And that's one reason why there's a ballot measure in place, so we-the-people decide, not the lawmakers.
Something I never understood about the "This could be great for the third world" items..
Why wouldn't it be great for the first and second worlds too?
I would assume scale and speed aren't up to par with more focused medical devices... But, for the price of one of those, you can buy a bunch of 35 dollar ones.
Settlers 7 is still.. an issue, for now.
When no one can play your game due to drm servers being down?
(come on, you know it's going to be said many times in this thread.. Might as well get it going early :))
Easy peasy..
The scenario is, there was no (decent) QA.
I know about decss.. I read the blurbs more as a way to end-run an outlawing the Betamax decision.
How does this blurb towards the end of the article:
ACTA doesn't export all of US law in this area, though; the world doesn't get huge principles like fair use (which many countries don't have) and key judicial decisions (like the Sony Betamax case which found that a device with "substantial non-infringing uses" could be sold so long as the manufacturer was not inducing infringement). Countries could adopt these, but they aren't requirements.
square with this blurb towards the beginning of the article:
ACTA would ban "the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure." It also bans circumvention devices, even those with a "limited commercially significant purpose." Countries can set limits to the ban, but only insofar as they do not "impair the adequacy of legal protection of those measures." This is ambiguous, but allowing circumvention in cases where the final use is fair would appear to be outlawed.
To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"
I thought you weren't supposed to exercise the meat you eat, because un-exercised meat tasted better (see Kobe beef).
While I agree with your sentiment, it kind of depends on how "the market" is defined, as to whether apple has a monopoly.
If it's "Computing Devices" or "PC" or something like that, I agree.
What if the market is defined as "Phones with one button and a touch screen interface"?
I'm also not sure whether the contracts 95% or more of people sign come into the mix or not (I was told one time by an AT&T monkey that I couldn't buy a non-contract iphone).
"proper multitasking" and what Apple is doing don't belong in the same sentence.
If it *was* proper multi-tasking (and the cross-compile didn't do stupid things, of course), there wouldn't be a problem.
So... Things like "paying the bill" is screwing poor people?
Sorry, folks. If you can't afford the power bill on your own, you need roommates/housemates/whatever. Or you need to move to a cheaper cost-of-living area, because the cost-of-living in your area is too high for you to afford. I can't afford to live in a penthouse in New York City, so I don't.
All that being said, I don't like some of the functionality these things enable. But, I also don't like the inference that because something, even what is lawfully a basic necessity, costs money, it's inherently screwing the poor. If the minimum level of electricity is enough for heating/cooling as necessary (no, your house does not need to be 74 degrees in Phoenix in the summer time), a fridge, and some lights, good. If it doesn't allow someone to play a ps3 on their 52" tv, or fire up their quad core computer with sli gpu's to play WoW, good.
And, check cashing stores don't take advantage of the poor. They take advantage of the stupid. Big difference, unless you're trying to imply there isn't a big difference?
I'm hacking the Gibson. Your argument is invalid.
"Hydrogen atoms are unavoidable space mines."
Uhh.. Hey, Mr. Scientist... Ever hear of deflector shields? GOSH!
Going out on a (geeky) limb... Don't warp drives (again, geek-out time, so just accept they exist a la Star Trek) make a bubble that the ship moves through that goes faster than light, instead of accelerating the ship up to and beyond light speed? I believe I've read that Einstein's theories technically allow for something moving faster than light, if that something can manage to alter their local space-time?
I've been hearing about this for the past few days, but I have yet to see what kind of nuclear plant they're talking about building.
I'm really hoping we take a cue from France (yeah yeah, cheese eating surrender monkeys and all that... Fact is, they've been doing nuclear power a lot, and doing it much more recently than us), and standardize a reactor design or three to hopefully avoid some of that red tape.
nuclear wessels?
(come on, it had to be said)