So long as your trademark doesn't prevent people from making apps and then selling them in an App Store, I'd be fine with that trademark. But that's just my opinion.
You can still use the UI elements called Windows. You can still call them Windows. You can't call your operating system Windows. That's wildly different.
Corporations should be beholden primarily to the taxpayers, the shareholders get a cut and say after that. Corporate officers should answer to the taxpayers. Attorney-client privilege for corporate lawyers should extend to the taxpayers, not the officers or shareholders.
Remember: Incorporation is a legal fiction given by the Government. The power of the government derives from the will of the people. Corporations should always act in the best interest of the people, and like the Secret Service, they should be willing to take a bullet for us. If a group of people don't want to take this responsibility, no one is forcing them to incorporate.
I'd hate to live in your dystopian future, friend. Government's powers derive from the people, but buisnesses don't. Incorporation is a recognition that people acting in a group with each other don't give up their individual rights.
the ones that are around don't have the capability to hide terrorist masterminds...
Really? I wasn't aware that we had found Osama Bin Laden recently.
OK, but the Taliban isn't hiding him in Afghanistan. He apparently fled to Pakistan, which we aren't sending troops into for other, political, reasons.
If the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, then the FBI asks the military nicely to get this guy for them and we invade Afghanistan. FBI agents would have traveled with the military to handle prisoners and ensure that we brought those murderous bastards to justice in American Courts.
For the record, we tried this. We offered them the opportunity to hand him over. The FBI doesn't get to "ask nicely for invasions." The President, as Commander in Chief, asks Congress nicely for an Authorization for Use of Force. (That happened.)
The terrorists declared war on us as early as 1998. They put out a literal declaration of war. They see it as a war, and have attacked military targets. Yeah, they're not following the Geneva Conventions, while we mostly are. There's rules in the Geneva Conventions that cover what you're supposed to do with "Unlawful Enemy Combatants." (I bet you thought Bush made that term up.) We've mostly been more generous by holding people in POW conditions where we should be holding them as UECs, and we can argue about whether that will help. But we're being attacked by people who think they're at war with us. The way to deal with that is the military.
That rationalization might hold if you didn't have to pay for the netflix subscription on top of it. But you do. And your ISP. And you've already paid for the 360 too, so there's really no good justification that you should have to pay XBL, too.
Why stop there? You also have to pay for the electricity. And your house. And taxes. You pay taxes, right? Compared to those things, Live is cheap. How about we make Xbox Live the one thing that we have to pay for and make all those other things free?
The reason you have to pay Microsoft for XBox Live is that it is an ongoing service that Microsoft provides to its customers. Your ISP provides you with a different, but similar, service. (They don't provide you with matchmaking services or a standardized friends list that persists across games.) Netflix provides you with a different service. (Netflix doesn't provide you with the ability to watch a Netflix movie with other people who aren't in the room with you. Microsoft built that service on top of Netflix, and then provides you with the matchmaking service so you can.) If you want a service from Microsoft, you have to pay Microsoft for it.
It's not fine print. To do anything on Xbox Live, you need to pay for it. If it's not an individual purchase (i.e. I pay 1200 points for DLC or 80 points for a stupid avatar upgrade.) If it's not an individual piece of content at a fixed price, it's part of your $60 dollars a year subscription. The ONLY reason their free accounts exist is so you can make individual purchases from their store.
the way that ESPN content currently depends on whether you're already a cable subscriber in certain areas
For ESPN on Xbox live, you need to get internet from an affiliated ISP. Your ISP is not necessarily your cable/TV company, especially if you're using this service to cancel your TV subscription.
Yes, of course - if in doubt, amend it. I just get pissed off by people carrying "The Constitution" in front of them like their version of scripture. It can and should be reviewed occasionally.
What good is reviewing it if you don't act on what it says?
Neither. There are FEWER Taliban now than there were 10 years ago though, and the ones that are around don't have the capability to hide terrorist masterminds, which is what our main beef with them was.
Clue: We're not saying you should do nothing. We're saying you're doing it very wrong.
Fitt's Law roughly states that the things that get the most use should be the most available, the biggest, and the closest to an anchor (usually the sides/corners of a window.)
Ribbon interfaces are designed around Fitt's Law and the idea that the menus should taking up less screen space.
Sony also knows that turning gamers against Anonymous is a strong tactical advantage in the war against Anonymous. It's probably the only card they have to play.
We cannot put it past Sony to deliberately shut down the network and pin the blame on Anonymous.
There's the problem? Is Sony "at war" with 4chan? What would Sony value more? Money (that they would make by having gamers play their games online) or killing Anonymous? Having their network operational is worth more to them than killing 4chan.
"They" do not disavow knowledge of the attack, as stated in the OP, they are just claiming to be not responsible (which proves they do have knowledge of the attack). If you had read the statement is that they say some Anons might be behind it, but it's not AnonOps.
I have knowledge of the attack too, because I read a Slashdot story about it. Of course they have knowledge of the attacks. But if the entire group that committed the attack is 4chan, (let's say), does that make it an attack by 4chan? It's not like they have a leader who can disavow people who do things they disagree with.
In Canada - I'm from - we have a leading political party that is as much at home with the eugenics ideals as the Tea Party is in the US.
The Tea Party isn't at home with eugenics ideals at all. Most Tea Partiers are pro-life. For a good example of this, see Sarah Palin, whose child has Down Syndrome, and, rather than aborting him, she had her child.
They can have all the money in the world, but that doesn't prevent MS from releasing a crappy product.
What? This is a story about something MS will NOT release. They're not releasing a tablet over the timeframe that this guy is talking about because they're not releasing a tablet.
I wish Richard Stallman could turn up and defend my corner on this one...
You probably have a rounded corner. If he showed up, you could be both be sued for violating Apple's design patents. Try using a perfect, 90 degree corner.
Then say "Linux" three times and he'll show up to correct you that it should be "GNU/Linux." That's how you summon him, right?
TFA actually only talks about a tablet device. The Fine Headline talks about a tablet OS, but there's nothing about that in the story (beyond the guy "not confirming" that MS is working on one. Fun fact: MS doesn't comment on rumors.)
But even so, MS has loads of money. They've got enough money that they can avoid releasing a crappy product just to have a product out there.
Seems like a good idea to me: They're a software company. If they're going to introduce a piece of hardware, it should be a winner. If it's not a sure winner, they shouldn't release it.
I know the news pages are like this, the day after the first change many sites dropped off of the right side bar only to return within weeks.
The right side bar in google is paid advertisements. That's different from google's organic search results.
Also, the Huffington Post is not an "unfiltered news site." They're a commentary site. Their writers provide opinion and not objective fact. Now there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you're honest about it. (They are.) A real newspaper can have an editorial page; the Huffington Post is just a bunch of little editorial pages.
The line you quote comes at the end of the paragraph you quote directly below which was in response to charges that all global warming scientists destroy their original data and only release intentionally manipulated results
Not quite. I never said that "all global warming scientists weren't scientists" as you put originally. I never claimed anyone wasn't a scientist. I changed the of what you said to make two distinct points clearer. The first was that when I referred to an "attack on science," I meant "defending research which has been proven to be false," which the OP was doing. It looked (and I'm still not sure) like you were saying that I was attacking science, and if you were, I still fail to see how. The second point was problems with global warming research, which I addressed below.
In the same way we should "take another look" at basically all source code because programmers often refer to code they write as a "hack".
I debated putting a line in my original reply about how I know that he called it a trick because someone hacked into his e-mail, and how that is an example of "hacking" not necessarily meaning bad, and in doing so comparing it, facetiously, to his usage of "trick." The problem isn't that he called it a trick. The problem is how many people his actions (remember, it wasn't just the "trick") deceived.
Having said that, yes effort should be taken to look at all evidence that is used as a basis for legislation. That doesn't mean "another look". It means a decent first look. The general issue with legislation is not the lack of enough second looks but the lack of enough first looks. The latter would seem to be of a much higher priority if one cares about such things.
I would love it if we could take a better first look at this guy's 2005 report about 50 million climate refugees. I'll print out this article, you fire up the time machine
"Granted, ID, GW, etc are all separate subjects and poking fun at ID and trying to conflate science as one monolithic block is stupid.
I wrote my post because the falseness of intelligent design (which has nothing to do with the topic) should not be conflated with truth/falseness of "Global warming isn't a manmade phenomenon. There's serious questions about global warming, which can and should be answered by science. (Of course, there's serious questions about EVERYTHING science studies.)
I have no idea what the last block you wrote means. Global Warming and Intelligent Design could both theoretically* be true. Or neither of them could be true. Or either one could be true and the other could be false. Is that what your saying? Anyway the quotes above are you and I both saying, in essence, that the correct response to a global warming theory being proved wrong isn't to go "OH YEAH? WELL CREATIONISTS ARE STUPID!" I'm glad we agree on what I was trying to say. Have a nice afternoon.
*Intelligent Design isn't technically a theory, but I couldn't come up with a better word.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as your trademark doesn't prevent people from making apps and then selling them in an App Store, I'd be fine with that trademark. But that's just my opinion.
You can still use the UI elements called Windows. You can still call them Windows. You can't call your operating system Windows. That's wildly different.
Corporations should be beholden primarily to the taxpayers, the shareholders get a cut and say after that. Corporate officers should answer to the taxpayers. Attorney-client privilege for corporate lawyers should extend to the taxpayers, not the officers or shareholders.
Remember: Incorporation is a legal fiction given by the Government. The power of the government derives from the will of the people. Corporations should always act in the best interest of the people, and like the Secret Service, they should be willing to take a bullet for us. If a group of people don't want to take this responsibility, no one is forcing them to incorporate.
I'd hate to live in your dystopian future, friend. Government's powers derive from the people, but buisnesses don't. Incorporation is a recognition that people acting in a group with each other don't give up their individual rights.
This is a textbook? So are we sure it was a mistake?
Let's write two Slashdot articles, better even three, proving that violent video games _demote_ violence.
Better still: Write the same article, and then publish it three times.
If it needs to be changed because it holds you back, then you should amend it. If you're not going to amend it, you should do what it says.
the ones that are around don't have the capability to hide terrorist masterminds...
Really? I wasn't aware that we had found Osama Bin Laden recently.
OK, but the Taliban isn't hiding him in Afghanistan. He apparently fled to Pakistan, which we aren't sending troops into for other, political, reasons.
If the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, then the FBI asks the military nicely to get this guy for them and we invade Afghanistan. FBI agents would have traveled with the military to handle prisoners and ensure that we brought those murderous bastards to justice in American Courts.
For the record, we tried this. We offered them the opportunity to hand him over. The FBI doesn't get to "ask nicely for invasions." The President, as Commander in Chief, asks Congress nicely for an Authorization for Use of Force. (That happened.)
The terrorists declared war on us as early as 1998. They put out a literal declaration of war. They see it as a war, and have attacked military targets. Yeah, they're not following the Geneva Conventions, while we mostly are. There's rules in the Geneva Conventions that cover what you're supposed to do with "Unlawful Enemy Combatants." (I bet you thought Bush made that term up.) We've mostly been more generous by holding people in POW conditions where we should be holding them as UECs, and we can argue about whether that will help. But we're being attacked by people who think they're at war with us. The way to deal with that is the military.
That rationalization might hold if you didn't have to pay for the netflix subscription on top of it. But you do. And your ISP. And you've already paid for the 360 too, so there's really no good justification that you should have to pay XBL, too.
Why stop there? You also have to pay for the electricity. And your house. And taxes. You pay taxes, right? Compared to those things, Live is cheap. How about we make Xbox Live the one thing that we have to pay for and make all those other things free?
The reason you have to pay Microsoft for XBox Live is that it is an ongoing service that Microsoft provides to its customers. Your ISP provides you with a different, but similar, service. (They don't provide you with matchmaking services or a standardized friends list that persists across games.) Netflix provides you with a different service. (Netflix doesn't provide you with the ability to watch a Netflix movie with other people who aren't in the room with you. Microsoft built that service on top of Netflix, and then provides you with the matchmaking service so you can.) If you want a service from Microsoft, you have to pay Microsoft for it.
None of those things are broadcast TV, which is what this article is about.
It's not fine print. To do anything on Xbox Live, you need to pay for it. If it's not an individual purchase (i.e. I pay 1200 points for DLC or 80 points for a stupid avatar upgrade.) If it's not an individual piece of content at a fixed price, it's part of your $60 dollars a year subscription. The ONLY reason their free accounts exist is so you can make individual purchases from their store.
the way that ESPN content currently depends on whether you're already a cable subscriber in certain areas
For ESPN on Xbox live, you need to get internet from an affiliated ISP. Your ISP is not necessarily your cable/TV company, especially if you're using this service to cancel your TV subscription.
Yes, of course - if in doubt, amend it. I just get pissed off by people carrying "The Constitution" in front of them like their version of scripture. It can and should be reviewed occasionally.
What good is reviewing it if you don't act on what it says?
Are there more or less Taliban now than in 2001?
Neither. There are FEWER Taliban now than there were 10 years ago though, and the ones that are around don't have the capability to hide terrorist masterminds, which is what our main beef with them was.
Clue: We're not saying you should do nothing. We're saying you're doing it very wrong.
What should we have done, then?
Fitt's Law roughly states that the things that get the most use should be the most available, the biggest, and the closest to an anchor (usually the sides/corners of a window.)
Ribbon interfaces are designed around Fitt's Law and the idea that the menus should taking up less screen space.
Sony also knows that turning gamers against Anonymous is a strong tactical advantage in the war against Anonymous. It's probably the only card they have to play.
We cannot put it past Sony to deliberately shut down the network and pin the blame on Anonymous.
There's the problem? Is Sony "at war" with 4chan? What would Sony value more? Money (that they would make by having gamers play their games online) or killing Anonymous? Having their network operational is worth more to them than killing 4chan.
"They" do not disavow knowledge of the attack, as stated in the OP, they are just claiming to be not responsible (which proves they do have knowledge of the attack). If you had read the statement is that they say some Anons might be behind it, but it's not AnonOps.
I have knowledge of the attack too, because I read a Slashdot story about it. Of course they have knowledge of the attacks. But if the entire group that committed the attack is 4chan, (let's say), does that make it an attack by 4chan? It's not like they have a leader who can disavow people who do things they disagree with.
"Meanwhile, others are asking whether Sony should compensate users..."
Right, and while we're there I'd like some world peace too.
Microsoft usually gives out a free game or something for extended (non-scheduled) outages. Of course, you're explicitly paying them for Live.
In Canada - I'm from - we have a leading political party that is as much at home with the eugenics ideals as the Tea Party is in the US.
The Tea Party isn't at home with eugenics ideals at all. Most Tea Partiers are pro-life. For a good example of this, see Sarah Palin, whose child has Down Syndrome, and, rather than aborting him, she had her child.
They can have all the money in the world, but that doesn't prevent MS from releasing a crappy product.
What? This is a story about something MS will NOT release. They're not releasing a tablet over the timeframe that this guy is talking about because they're not releasing a tablet.
I wish Richard Stallman could turn up and defend my corner on this one...
You probably have a rounded corner. If he showed up, you could be both be sued for violating Apple's design patents. Try using a perfect, 90 degree corner.
Then say "Linux" three times and he'll show up to correct you that it should be "GNU/Linux." That's how you summon him, right?
But even so, MS has loads of money. They've got enough money that they can avoid releasing a crappy product just to have a product out there.
Seems like a good idea to me: They're a software company. If they're going to introduce a piece of hardware, it should be a winner. If it's not a sure winner, they shouldn't release it.
I find the comments on slashdot to be at least as informational as the news sources themselves,
I always find the comments more informative. Of course, I never read the articles.
I know the news pages are like this, the day after the first change many sites dropped off of the right side bar only to return within weeks.
The right side bar in google is paid advertisements. That's different from google's organic search results.
Also, the Huffington Post is not an "unfiltered news site." They're a commentary site. Their writers provide opinion and not objective fact. Now there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you're honest about it. (They are.) A real newspaper can have an editorial page; the Huffington Post is just a bunch of little editorial pages.
The line you quote comes at the end of the paragraph you quote directly below which was in response to charges that all global warming scientists destroy their original data and only release intentionally manipulated results
Not quite. I never said that "all global warming scientists weren't scientists" as you put originally. I never claimed anyone wasn't a scientist. I changed the of what you said to make two distinct points clearer. The first was that when I referred to an "attack on science," I meant "defending research which has been proven to be false," which the OP was doing. It looked (and I'm still not sure) like you were saying that I was attacking science, and if you were, I still fail to see how. The second point was problems with global warming research, which I addressed below.
In the same way we should "take another look" at basically all source code because programmers often refer to code they write as a "hack".
I debated putting a line in my original reply about how I know that he called it a trick because someone hacked into his e-mail, and how that is an example of "hacking" not necessarily meaning bad, and in doing so comparing it, facetiously, to his usage of "trick." The problem isn't that he called it a trick. The problem is how many people his actions (remember, it wasn't just the "trick") deceived.
Having said that, yes effort should be taken to look at all evidence that is used as a basis for legislation. That doesn't mean "another look". It means a decent first look. The general issue with legislation is not the lack of enough second looks but the lack of enough first looks. The latter would seem to be of a much higher priority if one cares about such things.
I would love it if we could take a better first look at this guy's 2005 report about 50 million climate refugees. I'll print out this article, you fire up the time machine
"Granted, ID, GW, etc are all separate subjects and poking fun at ID and trying to conflate science as one monolithic block is stupid.
I wrote my post because the falseness of intelligent design (which has nothing to do with the topic) should not be conflated with truth/falseness of "Global warming isn't a manmade phenomenon. There's serious questions about global warming, which can and should be answered by science. (Of course, there's serious questions about EVERYTHING science studies.)
I have no idea what the last block you wrote means. Global Warming and Intelligent Design could both theoretically* be true. Or neither of them could be true. Or either one could be true and the other could be false. Is that what your saying? Anyway the quotes above are you and I both saying, in essence, that the correct response to a global warming theory being proved wrong isn't to go "OH YEAH? WELL CREATIONISTS ARE STUPID!" I'm glad we agree on what I was trying to say. Have a nice afternoon.
*Intelligent Design isn't technically a theory, but I couldn't come up with a better word.