Are you sure it's their own brand? Maybe they're still in negotiations with the manufacturers? I seriously doubt Ikea has a consumer electronics engineering team.
I would have to disagree. In my experience, it's the opposite. About 5% is poorly built. My advice, don't buy the cheap stuff. Ikea has a lot of it on display, but it doesn't make a large proportion of the assortment. I furnished a whole apartment from IKEA and 7 years on and 3rd renter (yes, I rent it) and it's still fine. The Kitchen, the closets, the chairs. Honestly, just because you have to put it together it gets a bad rep. I used to collect money to get IKEA stuff. When I finally got it, putting it together was something my wife and I REALLY looked forward to. It was like playing Legos all over again. And my wife likes it! It's genius. They're the Apple of furniture. Complain all you want about your pet insignificant peeve about it, but it sells like hotcakes and the customers absolutely love it.
Mod up. If this is correct, it's probably the most lucid explanation I have seen. Statements that "the theorem says so" amount to a faith argument, which doesn't convince me. But I'm no expert.
The predominant bias is to avoid details, backround information or anything that could consitute basis for an informed opinion based on presented "facts". While local media and stations may be biased toward one manufacturer or another, they are all biased against providing news in context.
A rating of 15+ or 18+ is not prohibition, kids. It just means you should take your parents to the shop to buy you that 15+ or 18+ game. If they buy it for you, no government is going to stop you from blowing some virtual guy's head off.
Yes and no. The unions are absurdly greedy and bureaucratic, which is a good excuse to go somewhere else. The other motivation is that top brass get paid based on stock price. Stock price is a reflection of hype and short term profit pumping. This is a problem that has two jet engines propelling it to hell: unions and the stock market. One would think they're opposites, but both are the problem because of win/lose profit seeking instead of win/win. It's a complex problem and I'm not sure it will unwrap itself any time soon.
This is a fine and solid theory, except you assume that the cheap stuff is still the pure stuff, and not some chalk dust from some hole in the ground on the other hemisphere.
They have done better and are doing better than Android in their non WP phones. The real question is why they didn't stick with Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo?
Say this is not true... please. Do you have proof? This is the worst news I heard about Nokia in a long time. Up until now, I thought they still had it in them to do the Apple grassroots comeback (iMac in 1995ish?). But now?:(
Linguistically, he seems to be a good few laps ahead of you.
As to his intelligence, he seems to have a lot more social commons sense than most here. It takes a lot of imagination and good judgement to be seen as a fair leader. And judging by what I found on Youtube about him as head of the Harvard Law Review, I would say he has something most folks don't. The ability to control his bias. Of course, his upbringing probably contributed, but fighting ones own bias requires some pretty hefty reflection functionality in the brain.
I know noone's going to read this, but you might kalpaha:
You seem to be knowledgeable about Nokia (and a bit frustrated). Im a Nokia fan myself, but lately it's very difficult to remain one and it is difficult not to blame bad management for it. Here are my reasons:
1. Can the lack of a decent camera on the E7 be explained by anything other than management failure? A business phone is sometimes used as a crude document scanner. This is not a nice to have these days, as everyone snaps pictures of offers, contracts, notes, etc. Someone should get fired over it.
2. Who the hell officially "scrapped" Symbian when it isn't being scrapped? Have you seen the quality improvement of that platform lately? It's actually finally good! Why isn't Nokia fighting the "Symbian is outdated" idiocy? There are 2 ways to do this: A. Call the next Symbian release something else that isn't Symbian and be done with that brand, or B. Have PR address the FUD.
3. How can you officially scrap two fantastic platforms on which the N-series phones run (newer Symbian and Maemo) and based on which the Nokia premium phone buying crowd pride their superior taste? It's like a slap in the face to your most valueable sales guys. Yes, those guys spending tons of cash on new gadgets and then running around showing their friends how fantastic Nokia is. If you want to retire a platform, retire it with the new and *better* replacement already in stores. Otherwise, STFU, or you risk making your track and field sales and marketing team (i.e. me or my wife) look like weirdos. While I may not care, my wife is much more sensitive to that kind of backstab.
4... I'm not going to start on WP7 and its qualities. I'll just say that taking $1B for its marketing... I have no words... have they seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY
So.. they first say that they're finding lots of issues, and then go on to conclude that conditions are great? In addition, they say the first thing BEFORE a presentation of preliminary findings to Foxconn management and the conclusion comes AFTER?
With the amount of money at stake for the FC management, draw your own conclusions.
Good point. In order for US to redeem these bonds, they would have to use them to pay back some sucker holding the real bonds and convince him/her that he/she doesn't need to redeem the new bona fide 1934 $1B ones, since they're now collector's items and will be worth far more in 30 years.
Screw my modpoints. No interesting comments here anyway.
Sausages are usually not made of what you would consider edible; and I'm not alluding to freshness. Most folks would get sick looking at the stuff that goes into sausages, and that's what Churchill had in mind. However note how people who personally kill animals for sustinence and not for fun (like natives in South America) have a ritual that involves an apology to the animal being killed. Knowledge of the reality of a fact of life does not preclude acceptance and respect.
If you showed most people what goes into a quality hot-dog, they would swear they'd never touch one again. However, if this was a common sight, I'm sure many would learn to accept it and either choose to eat the hot dogs... or not (think vegans and such).
So Churchill rightly said that the response to the law-making process will initially be one of disgust, but he was wrong to suggest that this is a reason to hide it. After exposure of the legislative process, the making of the laws would remain mostly disgusting, but it could be accepted and controlled (i.e. no rotten elements).
While I respect Churchill, I think he did democracy some harm with one of his most famous quotes about law and sausages. It's a sophism, and that has to be said and understood.
Actually, Steve Mann's aremac displays images onto the retina via a display that is insanely close to the eye. The same principle could be used for a contact lens. In essence, the screen is a transparent LCD near the eye, while the image is projected via laser shone at a convex lens that is sitting directly on top of the LCD. The image quality isn't spectacular, but you get infinite field of focus, and that makes it just about the coolest invention of the last millennium.
While it's true that copyright seems long to the point that works on which copyright is expiring have lost 99.99% of their value and are useless as constituents of other works. That doesn't make piracy right though. Check what people usually pirate: it's the shiny new stuff that has been out for days. How many 20 year old movies do you find on TPB? How many 10 year old? How many 10 day old? Get my drift?
I'll reply to both above posts here. As to whoosh.. What I was trying to say is that although the "stealing" analogy is a simplification, it's not entirely wrong as it does cause loss to the owner of the car.
As for copying: you aren't the owner of the game. You are just paying for the privilege of playing (license). It's a little like renting or timesharing the said car. You don't exactly own the game, just like you don't exactly own a timeshared car even though you do get to drive it around and you can tell your friends it's yours. This is not an exact analogy, but I think you get the idea. Now if you let your friend have a copy of the game, the person losing the value is the owner of the work, i.e. the author. In the case of the timeshared car, if you let your friend joyride the car off the record you are putting the other co-owners in a losing situation that is probably against the agreement you have with them about using the car.
So, in both of the above situations, you yourself aren't losing value, you're absolutely right about that! But when the MPAA puts its "you wouldn't steal.." motto, they don't mean stealing from an owner of a copy of the tape. They mean themselves, of course. They are basically saying that by copying you are robbing them of the opportunity to charge you. Although that is not stealing literally, if someone robs you of your right to make a buck (note that you do have that right), you can sue for damages in the amount that you justifiably argue that you would have earned, if you weren't robbed of the opportunity.
Now, the amount of damages that the MafiAAs are asking for is usually ludicrous, since all the pirates would NOT buy their music. Quite often these associations just multiply the number of downloads by the price. While this is obviously wrong, you can still argue that someone putting up an operation like The Pirate Bay is actually providing the product for free to a significant number of folks who would otherwise buy, if they couldn't get it for free. How significant? The Swedish court seems to think this to be about $7M, which equals "only" about 350-700k CDs. Now, you and I know that The Pirate Bay probably facilitates for people the download of a fair bit more CDs than that in a week. The court (thankfully) seems to recognise that not all the downloaders are potential buyers. This is why the actual damages are "just" $7M and not some ludicrous number in the billions that the propaganda folks would like the public to believe. Still, I'd hate to owe 7 mil, as I'm finding a $300k mortgage to be plenty.
If you want to play the car analogy, it can't be about stealing the car. Pirating software diminishes the value of the work to the author, so to do a proper car analogy, you would need to do something to the car that diminishes its value to its owner, while not actually taking anything physical away.
One example is keying the car. I can be an ass by taking a key, pressing it against the side of the car and walking along, minding my own business. After I'm done, the car is still driveable, it gets the owner from point A to point B just fine, none of the performance characteristics are diminished and I'm all the happier for having revelled in the screeching noise I got to make. Did I physically steal the car or any piece of it? No. Was I within my rights then?
A second example is taking the car for a joyride, but taking care not to demolish it. After the joyride I respectfully return it to the place I stole it from before the driver gets back. Now, the driver still has his/her car, there are just a few miles on it... I'm all the happier for having driven it without having to buy. Was I within my rights? I didn't *steal* it after all, did I?
So no, pirating isn't stealing in the common sense, but it is taking something of value from the owner. How do you quantify that? Well, if the owner gets a lawyer after you, they'll try to make it into the most horrendous theft of property and argue that the car is almost worthless after your escapade. That's what lawyers do, they try to extract the maximum that the law allows for their client. I will be the first to argue that the owner cannot argue any more damages and loss of revenue than the car's resale value (actually, just a fraction of it), but I will not stand up for you if the court decides you need to do some time and neither should anyone else.
That's the question that came to my mind (and one the other replies do not address). How do you know you are dealing with interstellar dust? It's not the oxygen to neon density, that's just a clue. It might mean you're flying though a differently concentrated part of the solar system. TFA does not seem to say this. I'm inferring that it might be because the probe is able to catch dust coming from a specific direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure it's their own brand? Maybe they're still in negotiations with the manufacturers?
I seriously doubt Ikea has a consumer electronics engineering team.
And the iPhone is a poor idea for a product, because it's locked down. Next straw man, please.
I would have to disagree. In my experience, it's the opposite. About 5% is poorly built. My advice, don't buy the cheap stuff. Ikea has a lot of it on display, but it doesn't make a large proportion of the assortment.
I furnished a whole apartment from IKEA and 7 years on and 3rd renter (yes, I rent it) and it's still fine. The Kitchen, the closets, the chairs. Honestly, just because you have to put it together it gets a bad rep. I used to collect money to get IKEA stuff. When I finally got it, putting it together was something my wife and I REALLY looked forward to. It was like playing Legos all over again. And my wife likes it! It's genius. They're the Apple of furniture. Complain all you want about your pet insignificant peeve about it, but it sells like hotcakes and the customers absolutely love it.
No, I'm sure they use the alternative Nitrogen or something like that. Nothing dangerous.
Mod up. If this is correct, it's probably the most lucid explanation I have seen. Statements that "the theorem says so" amount to a faith argument, which doesn't convince me. But I'm no expert.
The predominant bias is to avoid details, backround information or anything that could consitute basis for an informed opinion based on presented "facts". While local media and stations may be biased toward one manufacturer or another, they are all biased against providing news in context.
I knew it, God reads Slashdot!
A rating of 15+ or 18+ is not prohibition, kids. It just means you should take your parents to the shop to buy you that 15+ or 18+ game. If they buy it for you, no government is going to stop you from blowing some virtual guy's head off.
IOW. Move along.
Yes and no. The unions are absurdly greedy and bureaucratic, which is a good excuse to go somewhere else. The other motivation is that top brass get paid based on stock price. Stock price is a reflection of hype and short term profit pumping. This is a problem that has two jet engines propelling it to hell: unions and the stock market. One would think they're opposites, but both are the problem because of win/lose profit seeking instead of win/win.
It's a complex problem and I'm not sure it will unwrap itself any time soon.
This is a fine and solid theory, except you assume that the cheap stuff is still the pure stuff, and not some chalk dust from some hole in the ground on the other hemisphere.
My thought exactly... the wording is similar too. eerie.
They have done better and are doing better than Android in their non WP phones.
The real question is why they didn't stick with Symbian and MeeGo/Maemo?
Say this is not true... please. Do you have proof? This is the worst news I heard about Nokia in a long time. Up until now, I thought they still had it in them to do the Apple grassroots comeback (iMac in 1995ish?). But now? :(
Whoa. Multiplayer capability is a serious improvement on the classic Tetris. It's pretty much the only way I play it these days.
Linguistically, he seems to be a good few laps ahead of you.
As to his intelligence, he seems to have a lot more social commons sense than most here. It takes a lot of imagination and good judgement to be seen as a fair leader. And judging by what I found on Youtube about him as head of the Harvard Law Review, I would say he has something most folks don't. The ability to control his bias. Of course, his upbringing probably contributed, but fighting ones own bias requires some pretty hefty reflection functionality in the brain.
I know noone's going to read this, but you might kalpaha:
You seem to be knowledgeable about Nokia (and a bit frustrated). Im a Nokia fan myself, but lately it's very difficult to remain one and it is difficult not to blame bad management for it. Here are my reasons:
1. Can the lack of a decent camera on the E7 be explained by anything other than management failure? A business phone is sometimes used as a crude document scanner. This is not a nice to have these days, as everyone snaps pictures of offers, contracts, notes, etc. Someone should get fired over it.
2. Who the hell officially "scrapped" Symbian when it isn't being scrapped? Have you seen the quality improvement of that platform lately? It's actually finally good! Why isn't Nokia fighting the "Symbian is outdated" idiocy? There are 2 ways to do this: A. Call the next Symbian release something else that isn't Symbian and be done with that brand, or B. Have PR address the FUD.
3. How can you officially scrap two fantastic platforms on which the N-series phones run (newer Symbian and Maemo) and based on which the Nokia premium phone buying crowd pride their superior taste? It's like a slap in the face to your most valueable sales guys. Yes, those guys spending tons of cash on new gadgets and then running around showing their friends how fantastic Nokia is. If you want to retire a platform, retire it with the new and *better* replacement already in stores. Otherwise, STFU, or you risk making your track and field sales and marketing team (i.e. me or my wife) look like weirdos. While I may not care, my wife is much more sensitive to that kind of backstab.
4... I'm not going to start on WP7 and its qualities. I'll just say that taking $1B for its marketing... I have no words... have they seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY
So.. they first say that they're finding lots of issues, and then go on to conclude that conditions are great? In addition, they say the first thing BEFORE a presentation of preliminary findings to Foxconn management and the conclusion comes AFTER?
With the amount of money at stake for the FC management, draw your own conclusions.
Good point. In order for US to redeem these bonds, they would have to use them to pay back some sucker holding the real bonds and convince him/her that he/she doesn't need to redeem the new bona fide 1934 $1B ones, since they're now collector's items and will be worth far more in 30 years.
Yep, just hand it over to the Chinese.
Screw my modpoints. No interesting comments here anyway.
Sausages are usually not made of what you would consider edible; and I'm not alluding to freshness. Most folks would get sick looking at the stuff that goes into sausages, and that's what Churchill had in mind. However note how people who personally kill animals for sustinence and not for fun (like natives in South America) have a ritual that involves an apology to the animal being killed. Knowledge of the reality of a fact of life does not preclude acceptance and respect.
If you showed most people what goes into a quality hot-dog, they would swear they'd never touch one again. However, if this was a common sight, I'm sure many would learn to accept it and either choose to eat the hot dogs... or not (think vegans and such).
So Churchill rightly said that the response to the law-making process will initially be one of disgust, but he was wrong to suggest that this is a reason to hide it. After exposure of the legislative process, the making of the laws would remain mostly disgusting, but it could be accepted and controlled (i.e. no rotten elements).
While I respect Churchill, I think he did democracy some harm with one of his most famous quotes about law and sausages. It's a sophism, and that has to be said and understood.
Actually, Steve Mann's aremac displays images onto the retina via a display that is insanely close to the eye. The same principle could be used for a contact lens. In essence, the screen is a transparent LCD near the eye, while the image is projected via laser shone at a convex lens that is sitting directly on top of the LCD. The image quality isn't spectacular, but you get infinite field of focus, and that makes it just about the coolest invention of the last millennium.
http://www.google.com/patents/about/9_987_768_Aremac_based_means_and_apparat.html?id=1bGTAAAAEBAJ
While it's true that copyright seems long to the point that works on which copyright is expiring have lost 99.99% of their value and are useless as constituents of other works. That doesn't make piracy right though. Check what people usually pirate: it's the shiny new stuff that has been out for days. How many 20 year old movies do you find on TPB? How many 10 year old? How many 10 day old? Get my drift?
I'll reply to both above posts here. As to whoosh.. What I was trying to say is that although the "stealing" analogy is a simplification, it's not entirely wrong as it does cause loss to the owner of the car.
As for copying: you aren't the owner of the game. You are just paying for the privilege of playing (license). It's a little like renting or timesharing the said car. You don't exactly own the game, just like you don't exactly own a timeshared car even though you do get to drive it around and you can tell your friends it's yours. This is not an exact analogy, but I think you get the idea. Now if you let your friend have a copy of the game, the person losing the value is the owner of the work, i.e. the author. In the case of the timeshared car, if you let your friend joyride the car off the record you are putting the other co-owners in a losing situation that is probably against the agreement you have with them about using the car.
So, in both of the above situations, you yourself aren't losing value, you're absolutely right about that! But when the MPAA puts its "you wouldn't steal.." motto, they don't mean stealing from an owner of a copy of the tape. They mean themselves, of course. They are basically saying that by copying you are robbing them of the opportunity to charge you. Although that is not stealing literally, if someone robs you of your right to make a buck (note that you do have that right), you can sue for damages in the amount that you justifiably argue that you would have earned, if you weren't robbed of the opportunity.
Now, the amount of damages that the MafiAAs are asking for is usually ludicrous, since all the pirates would NOT buy their music. Quite often these associations just multiply the number of downloads by the price. While this is obviously wrong, you can still argue that someone putting up an operation like The Pirate Bay is actually providing the product for free to a significant number of folks who would otherwise buy, if they couldn't get it for free. How significant? The Swedish court seems to think this to be about $7M, which equals "only" about 350-700k CDs. Now, you and I know that The Pirate Bay probably facilitates for people the download of a fair bit more CDs than that in a week. The court (thankfully) seems to recognise that not all the downloaders are potential buyers. This is why the actual damages are "just" $7M and not some ludicrous number in the billions that the propaganda folks would like the public to believe. Still, I'd hate to owe 7 mil, as I'm finding a $300k mortgage to be plenty.
I'll bite.
If you want to play the car analogy, it can't be about stealing the car. Pirating software diminishes the value of the work to the author, so to do a proper car analogy, you would need to do something to the car that diminishes its value to its owner, while not actually taking anything physical away.
One example is keying the car. I can be an ass by taking a key, pressing it against the side of the car and walking along, minding my own business. After I'm done, the car is still driveable, it gets the owner from point A to point B just fine, none of the performance characteristics are diminished and I'm all the happier for having revelled in the screeching noise I got to make. Did I physically steal the car or any piece of it? No. Was I within my rights then?
A second example is taking the car for a joyride, but taking care not to demolish it. After the joyride I respectfully return it to the place I stole it from before the driver gets back. Now, the driver still has his/her car, there are just a few miles on it... I'm all the happier for having driven it without having to buy. Was I within my rights? I didn't *steal* it after all, did I?
So no, pirating isn't stealing in the common sense, but it is taking something of value from the owner. How do you quantify that? Well, if the owner gets a lawyer after you, they'll try to make it into the most horrendous theft of property and argue that the car is almost worthless after your escapade. That's what lawyers do, they try to extract the maximum that the law allows for their client. I will be the first to argue that the owner cannot argue any more damages and loss of revenue than the car's resale value (actually, just a fraction of it), but I will not stand up for you if the court decides you need to do some time and neither should anyone else.
That's the question that came to my mind (and one the other replies do not address). How do you know you are dealing with interstellar dust? It's not the oxygen to neon density, that's just a clue. It might mean you're flying though a differently concentrated part of the solar system. TFA does not seem to say this. I'm inferring that it might be because the probe is able to catch dust coming from a specific direction.