How many scribes is one printer worth?
I don't have any idea what the exact number could be, but I'm pretty sure this comparison wasn't included in CNet's article because there's no way you can get the scribes to win.
Agreed, I had the motivation to learn HTML because I was able to have it hosted online for free with services such as Geocities and Angelfire when I was starting highschool back then.
Why would we need to place both hands on such a pad? I can easily imagine myself using a single hand on such a pad while still having my other hand on the mouse for finer control. I think the idea is to have the choice between the keyboard and the pad in order to better adapt to various situations.
In order to prevent having to switch from keyboard to pad as we already do with the mouse, we could even make a keyboard that has touch-sensitive keys. When you just drag your hand over the keys without pressing them, you could use the keyboard just as one would use the pad, and when you press the keys you get normal keyboard usage.
Granted there are no warning when you try to access it via the GUI, in fact there is no accessing the file system using the GUI. OS X provides you with a sand box for you to play in and hides the rest, at least Windows gives you the benefit of the doubt and asks if you know what you are doing. The same goes for hidden files/folders as well.
Yes I know you can access it via the command line, but should I have to?
Mod parent down.
How could you know about the level of customisability of a Mac when you are unable to use the finder's "Go to folder" menu option? I don't get a single warning when I access/bin or/etc using the GUI.
If Microsoft really offers the ribbon functionality freely to applications which aren't competing with Office, it could very well become a Bait & Switch trap that would require Firefox to rollback the changes or reimplement the ribbon functionality themselves. They should be prepared for this kind of scenario if they really are about to convert the Windows UI.
By the way, sorry for the disgusting layout of my post... Here's more readable...
Shoplifting = stealing from a shop
Songlifting = copying a song without paying for that copy
Weightlifting = stealing weights from a gym
Facelifting = stealing someone's look/style
Lambdalifting = stealing variables from a function
etc.
You still don't understand.
My first post is sarcasm to put the ridiculously oversimplified statement of DaveV1.0 under the spotlight.
Of course in the real world quoting someone is fair use. But according to his original definition it wouldn't be.
Okay so your first post is wrong by not allowing a fair use defense to anything that has been copied without authorization. Thank you for clearing things up!
Read again. His first post says that once there are n > 1 copies in the hands of m > 1 people, all of this without permission, then there is no fair use defense. So once again, either that statement was wrong, or the fair use defense he has claimed is wrong.
Shoplifting = stealing from a shop
Songlifting = copying a song without paying for that copy
Weightlifting = stealing weights from a gym
Facelifting = stealing someone's look/style
Lambdalifting = stealing variables from a function
etc.
If you start with one copy of a copyrighted work and end up with n copies of a work, where n is greater than 1, in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1, without the permission of the copyright holder, then unauthorized copies have been made. There is no fair use defense, because there is no fair use for that situation.
In this case, I have posted a comment. You have quoted it, and it resulted in n > 1 copies being made in every browser's cache in the hands of m > 1 people, and all of this without my permission. Either your description of an unauthorized copy is wrong, or your fair use defense is wrong. One has to be.
Wrong.
They put in any kind of kids in the battle royale (the good ones and the bad ones). And fighting to the death doesn't leave much space for learning and making something good out of it.
Here's a summary of the article "Russia considers Skype a thread" for those who can't be bothered to read it:
Owners of telecom companies of Russia say Skype threatens their companies as well as national security.
Skype offering the possibility to make international calls a lot cheaper is one of those threats.
Skype threatens national security because it is foreign and thus it needs to be controlled.
Telecom companies ask to stop VoIP services otherwise it'd cause an uncontrolled fall in profits for them.
Another way Skype threatens national security is because police can't spy on skype calls.
The solution the telecom companies offer is to make VoIP services of their own, which would make it secure.
Thus they need regulations to stop skype, not because they want to limit competition, but because they want the market to be "civilised".
Basically, it's a whole lot of crap... I guess lobbying over here must be pretty much the same as what we can see here... or even worse.
With DRM, the media companies tried to prevent people from sharing their music. But cracking the DRM led to the same problem as before.
With DPP, the media companies are offering an easier dishonest way to get music: instead of cracking the DRM, just steal other consumer's songs...
Basically, DPP means: Don't steal from me, steal from my customers instead!
Car analogy would be a manufacturer making cars with great anti-theft systems that are to be removed when the car is first sold in order to discourage thieves from stealing a product before it was sold the first time.
Advertisers don't pay the bill for you.
In fact, you are paying indirectly for the ads by using your wallet.
Whenever you buy a coke or a pepsi, a fraction of the price you paid ends up being invested in a publicity somewhere.
People have already accepted that the organizers of events can restrict their right to bring food and drinks because they are selling some on the spot.
I wouldn't be surprised that they eventually ban your cameras and anything that can take quality photographs from there.
ï
Eventually, they'll end up making sure the internet is unavailable by any means (even satellite connections) just so they can sell contracts to companies who wish to buy a monopoly on the coverage of these events. In the end, you won't be allowed to breathe any air except that which is sold on the spot... y'know, when air will have become a luxury.
I am ignorant and I do not know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Although I know that your assailling of my intelligence because I do not posess this bit of knowledge makes you stupid!
The only reason the TV still exists and it hasn't been replaced completely by computers already is that this way, cable companies can bill you for both, cable access for TV and cable access for the internet. There is no reason you couldn't get access to streamed tv programs with only an internet access other than profit.
"to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability"
Rupert Murdoch really is an ignorant fool.
How is making the industry "as profitable as it was before" related to the quality of information?
According to what he says himself, they are still profitable, just not as much as they were before.
So what should we expect from a more profitable industry? A better product? Or better revenue for the shareholders?
So if he says he's going to improve the profitability, either he plans on keeping the quality the same as it is right now while increasing the price to access this content, or he's planning to cut on the quality while maintaining the prices. The fact he's saying he'll improve on the quality of the content by restoring the old profitability level is either A) A lie B) An inacceptable mistake in public communications C) A proof that we can't expect quality content from a company who can't produce quality propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
How many scribes is one printer worth? I don't have any idea what the exact number could be, but I'm pretty sure this comparison wasn't included in CNet's article because there's no way you can get the scribes to win.
Agreed, I had the motivation to learn HTML because I was able to have it hosted online for free with services such as Geocities and Angelfire when I was starting highschool back then.
Why would we need to place both hands on such a pad? I can easily imagine myself using a single hand on such a pad while still having my other hand on the mouse for finer control. I think the idea is to have the choice between the keyboard and the pad in order to better adapt to various situations.
In order to prevent having to switch from keyboard to pad as we already do with the mouse, we could even make a keyboard that has touch-sensitive keys. When you just drag your hand over the keys without pressing them, you could use the keyboard just as one would use the pad, and when you press the keys you get normal keyboard usage.
Granted there are no warning when you try to access it via the GUI, in fact there is no accessing the file system using the GUI. OS X provides you with a sand box for you to play in and hides the rest, at least Windows gives you the benefit of the doubt and asks if you know what you are doing. The same goes for hidden files/folders as well. Yes I know you can access it via the command line, but should I have to?
Mod parent down. /bin or /etc using the GUI.
How could you know about the level of customisability of a Mac when you are unable to use the finder's "Go to folder" menu option? I don't get a single warning when I access
If Microsoft really offers the ribbon functionality freely to applications which aren't competing with Office, it could very well become a Bait & Switch trap that would require Firefox to rollback the changes or reimplement the ribbon functionality themselves. They should be prepared for this kind of scenario if they really are about to convert the Windows UI.
Mod parent up
By the way, sorry for the disgusting layout of my post... Here's more readable...
Shoplifting = stealing from a shop
Songlifting = copying a song without paying for that copy
Weightlifting = stealing weights from a gym
Facelifting = stealing someone's look/style
Lambdalifting = stealing variables from a function
etc.
You still don't understand.
My first post is sarcasm to put the ridiculously oversimplified statement of DaveV1.0 under the spotlight.
Of course in the real world quoting someone is fair use. But according to his original definition it wouldn't be.
Okay so your first post is wrong by not allowing a fair use defense to anything that has been copied without authorization. Thank you for clearing things up!
Read again. His first post says that once there are n > 1 copies in the hands of m > 1 people, all of this without permission, then there is no fair use defense. So once again, either that statement was wrong, or the fair use defense he has claimed is wrong.
Shoplifting = stealing from a shop Songlifting = copying a song without paying for that copy Weightlifting = stealing weights from a gym Facelifting = stealing someone's look/style Lambdalifting = stealing variables from a function etc.
If you start with one copy of a copyrighted work and end up with n copies of a work, where n is greater than 1, in the hands of m people, where m is greater than 1, without the permission of the copyright holder, then unauthorized copies have been made. There is no fair use defense, because there is no fair use for that situation.
In this case, I have posted a comment. You have quoted it, and it resulted in n > 1 copies being made in every browser's cache in the hands of m > 1 people, and all of this without my permission. Either your description of an unauthorized copy is wrong, or your fair use defense is wrong. One has to be.
Then you sir, aren't allowed to quote me if you reply to me on this thread. Otherwise I'll sue you.
Don't provide them with another unique hit!
Wrong. They put in any kind of kids in the battle royale (the good ones and the bad ones). And fighting to the death doesn't leave much space for learning and making something good out of it.
Owners of telecom companies of Russia say Skype threatens their companies as well as national security.
Skype offering the possibility to make international calls a lot cheaper is one of those threats.
Skype threatens national security because it is foreign and thus it needs to be controlled.
Telecom companies ask to stop VoIP services otherwise it'd cause an uncontrolled fall in profits for them.
Another way Skype threatens national security is because police can't spy on skype calls.
The solution the telecom companies offer is to make VoIP services of their own, which would make it secure.
Thus they need regulations to stop skype, not because they want to limit competition, but because they want the market to be "civilised".
Basically, it's a whole lot of crap... I guess lobbying over here must be pretty much the same as what we can see here... or even worse.
With DRM, the media companies tried to prevent people from sharing their music. But cracking the DRM led to the same problem as before.
With DPP, the media companies are offering an easier dishonest way to get music: instead of cracking the DRM, just steal other consumer's songs...
Basically, DPP means: Don't steal from me, steal from my customers instead!
Car analogy would be a manufacturer making cars with great anti-theft systems that are to be removed when the car is first sold in order to discourage thieves from stealing a product before it was sold the first time.
Advertisers don't pay the bill for you. In fact, you are paying indirectly for the ads by using your wallet. Whenever you buy a coke or a pepsi, a fraction of the price you paid ends up being invested in a publicity somewhere.
Duke Nukem Forever has always been an upcoming title they have looked forward to.
People have already accepted that the organizers of events can restrict their right to bring food and drinks because they are selling some on the spot. I wouldn't be surprised that they eventually ban your cameras and anything that can take quality photographs from there. ï Eventually, they'll end up making sure the internet is unavailable by any means (even satellite connections) just so they can sell contracts to companies who wish to buy a monopoly on the coverage of these events. In the end, you won't be allowed to breathe any air except that which is sold on the spot... y'know, when air will have become a luxury.
True! Keep up the good work.
I am ignorant and I do not know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Although I know that your assailling of my intelligence because I do not posess this bit of knowledge makes you stupid!
The only reason the TV still exists and it hasn't been replaced completely by computers already is that this way, cable companies can bill you for both, cable access for TV and cable access for the internet. There is no reason you couldn't get access to streamed tv programs with only an internet access other than profit.
"to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability" Rupert Murdoch really is an ignorant fool. How is making the industry "as profitable as it was before" related to the quality of information? According to what he says himself, they are still profitable, just not as much as they were before. So what should we expect from a more profitable industry? A better product? Or better revenue for the shareholders? So if he says he's going to improve the profitability, either he plans on keeping the quality the same as it is right now while increasing the price to access this content, or he's planning to cut on the quality while maintaining the prices. The fact he's saying he'll improve on the quality of the content by restoring the old profitability level is either A) A lie B) An inacceptable mistake in public communications C) A proof that we can't expect quality content from a company who can't produce quality propaganda.
He asked "Better?" not "Perfect?". So the answer is "Yep", not "Nope".