Acronynms Can be Read Out, so it's Not what You think it Means.
The term "acronym" originally referred ONLY to abbreviations that formed pronounceable words, such as RADAR, LASER, SCUBA, NATO, and even GNU. The term for an abbreviation made up of initials is an "initialism". However, due to common usage, the definition of "acronym" was weakened so that most people understand it to mean the same thing as "initialism".
Sadly, at least one of the major candidates would interpret a vote for a third party that resulted in his victory as a mandate for his own platform rather than a criticism of his opponent's, because that's exactly how he behaved after the previous election.
Hmmm, I realized after posting I should check my facts, and the evidence seems to be ctrongly in favor of "Roving Robot". I distinctly remember "Robot Rover" but my brain must be fried from TV radiation.
Actually, when it's a lesser of two evils situation as it so often is, the only thing that roughly half the people can say is "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him!" More candidates means you're more likely to vote for someone you want, but it also means everyone else is too. Still, in such a situation the winner can't just assume their victory is a mandate to do whatever the hell they want and they are more likely to work to represent everybody than, say, the current president (who I believe was a better choice than the alternative at the time, but I don't want to see him around for another four).
"This contract certainly does not provide SCO with the rights it says it is provided with, this was discussed at the time and all parties were agreed that it was not the case since to do otherwise would be so blatantly silly that no one would ever sign such a contract."
Except of course SCO, who spent millions of dollars purchasing a dying business and left all the real power with the previous owner.
I had that thought myself. Doubtless Google has as well. But they haven't gone with it, probably for some of the reasons below.
One problem is that even in the best case Google's revenue is then dependent on how good the site is at following through and making the sale. They don't want to give people prominent advertising real estate just to louse it up when people click through. This could be mitigated over long term campaigns by giving preference to those who are actually successful in returning profits to them, but for smaller operations in niche markets, that's not going to be so successful.
And how does Google track to make sure that they are getting paid for sales? Once you're off their site, they don't have too much control over what happens. Maybe they could come up with a way of keeping the selling within the Google system, but that's a pretty big can of worms to try to open up.
And what about sites that aren't selling exactly but are paying to advertise ideas? Or their "sales" is a bit more loosely defined than a single payment for a product or service, taken care of at that moment over the web? A restaurant might advertise on Google, but you're not going to order and pay over the web. You go to the restaurant, and Google never gets any credit or money for it.
Anyway, the most likely outcome of going with this idea would be that Google still gets screwed, though this time it's by the advertisers rather than the clickers.
If I've learned anything from the cop shows, it's usually a lot easier to talk voluntarily without your lawyer present than to be arrested and have your lawyer present while they interrogate you. You don't have the right to a lawyer being present until you are actually arrested formally. IAOATVW (only a television watcher) so take this with a grain of salt, but I think even the 60 minute detention that the state law allows to compel identification would not qualify as being formally arrested and charged. Once the 60 minutes are up, he either goes free or he would be charged with the crime of refusing to identify himself. Sounds to me like it didn't even take 60 minutes in this case.
I wonder if this fellow could have explicitly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and gotten away with it? Had he brought it up explicitly it might have been enough to tip the scales in his favor. As the writer for the majority said, they would entertain ruling differently in a case where Fifth Amendment rights were more clearly violated, such as a case where the name proved to be a key link in investigating and prosecuting a crime.
That would just speed our migration towards a cash-less society. 95% of my transactions are done without the slightest hint of green. Not saying this is totally a good thing, but it is happening for certain.
And I myself am more uptight than most about these things so I'm avoiding all scanlations and fansubs. I can't wait until I get my hands on properly licensed Hikaru no Go (manga or anime, either will do) because I've heard so much about it.
The safest sex is no sex at all. Firewalls are condoms that most people are too lazy or uninformed to use, but everybody wants to do it (get on the 'Net). So we end up with a growing epidemic, made worse by the fact that many of these Internet Transmitted Diseases not only destroy the infected and infect others, but they make those infected into pawns of others.
This is just a random idea, and I'm sure y'all will have plenty of ways to shoot it down, but maybe we need at least some sort of base level of certification so that we can decide whether or not to accept packets or e-mails from a given machine. It sounds dangerously similar to trusted computing, but we do need to ensure that people (switching metaphors mid-post) driving on our information superhighway have a minimally safe vehicle, at least so that they don't go crashing into everyone else.
How could this be done? Maybe my machine runs some quick security checks on your machine whenever you try to connect to mine. Or I trust someone else's word about whether your machine at least meets the minimum safety standards. Let this never let anyone fall into a false sense of security just because that minimum level is met. And that minimum level should change as new threats emerge. But it would reduce the penalty that the whole driving population pays for the mistakes of one subset. That subset would have to at the very least get their license or we could shut them out of driving near us.
Add to that the ability to communicate with the user, maybe by opening a chat session and you have the complete virtual store experience. You could have a virtual clerk that they could meet and talk with. See this article from yesterday for some tech that basically handles that part.
If 92% of all software is pirated in China, and they're making it harder for their OS to be used, they're actually pushing away what (black) market share they have. Even if they didn't get money for the software, the fact that their product is the one being used would help them maintain their dominant position. But they wander closer to the tipping point by actively fighting people who want to use their products but don't want to pay their insane prices. Pretty soon, Windows is no longer the de facto standard and then their prices chase away those who only went with them because it was the only game in town.
"plumb it in price" should be "plummet in price", but the image of a plumb line dropping straight down is quite rich, so you may well communicate more with your incorrect phrase than you would have by using the correct one.
If it's that much cheaper, buy me a plane ticket and I'll buy the computer, then you pay me for it. I get a trip to London, you save even more money (no hotel costs in NY).
After figuring out that they actually gat raped in the deal with Novell, buying much less than they thought, they've learned to do the same thing to others.
My current dream is to develop a non-profit organization whose goal is twofold:
educating folks, especially the disadvantaged, with marketable programming skills in a fun manner by developing open-source game software
providing the gaming industry, including indies, with well-developed open-source software that would hopefully raise the quality and lower the cost of developing games, benefiting both developers and players.
Do you guys think this is feasible, and if so, how should I go about doing this? I'm probably not the most qualified person to head this up, but I do have passion for it, so if I could find more qualified folks, and find the right sort of grants, I think it may be feasible.
Do you think any game companies would be interested in supporting such a venture, one so that we could train people they could hire, and two so they could use our products to speed their development cycles?
Adonai is a more literal word for "Lord", so just as we use "The LORD" when the original says YHWH, the Jews, at least from some point onward, said "Adonai" instead of "Yahweh" or whatever it originally was. Names like Yehoshua do not contain the entirety of the divine name, only an abbreviation thereof, and there are also numerous variants on the vowels which are used in them, so I don't think we can be very conclusive at all about what the pronunciation was like using your line of reasoning.
If it comes down to it, people can take to carrying their RFID-ware in shielded containers, only to un-shield them when necessary. Perhaps readers for these necessities will be in shielded enclosures themselves so that nobody can eavesdrop. I for one wouldn't dare leave an RFID-enabled credit card or ID card unshielded since eventually replication of RFID tags will certainly become standard practice for the shadier folks among us.
If you're anywhere near Cambridge or Somerville, try Hollywood Express. Their 20-rental coupon book costs $55, they have many two for 1 deals, including any movie on Tuesday, so that brings the average rental down to $1.40. And their selection is much better than Blockbuster if you're taste is anything other than standard fare. If I watched more movies per month, I'd go with Netflix, but I'd still always keep my Hollywood Express coupons handy in case there's something Netflix doesn't have, esp. something only on VHS.
I don't think it means what you think it means...
on
XFree86 Alters License
·
· Score: 1
If you read the FSF rant about the "advertising clause" you will see that the problem is with an old clause requiring advertisement of software including said code required a sentence acknowledging its authorship. And if several sources of code had similar clauses, advertisement would become unduly burdensome. Requiring acknowledgement of authorship to be passed on within the source is part of GPL, BSD, CreativeCommons and mostly any copyright license out there.
As only one other poster I saw pointed out, and that buried deep in the hierarchy, Chaucer wrote in Middle English. Old English is circa Beowulf, and would appear to us more akin to German or something Scandinavian than it does to English.
This could only fly if there is sufficient organization to produce a body which: a) can gather enough resources to apply and pay for patents, and when necessary defend them, b) could be judicious enough with their resources to know when not to waste their time patenting something, and c) would be stable enough to sit on the patents instead of dissolving and disseminating the IP to the highest bidder.
Slashdot Mirror
Acronynms Can be Read Out, so it's Not what You think it Means.
The term "acronym" originally referred ONLY to abbreviations that formed pronounceable words, such as RADAR, LASER, SCUBA, NATO, and even GNU. The term for an abbreviation made up of initials is an "initialism". However, due to common usage, the definition of "acronym" was weakened so that most people understand it to mean the same thing as "initialism".
Sadly, at least one of the major candidates would interpret a vote for a third party that resulted in his victory as a mandate for his own platform rather than a criticism of his opponent's, because that's exactly how he behaved after the previous election.
Hmmm, I realized after posting I should check my facts, and the evidence seems to be ctrongly in favor of "Roving Robot". I distinctly remember "Robot Rover" but my brain must be fried from TV radiation.
s/Roving Robot/Robot Rover/
:-)
I watched more.
Actually, when it's a lesser of two evils situation as it so often is, the only thing that roughly half the people can say is "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him!" More candidates means you're more likely to vote for someone you want, but it also means everyone else is too. Still, in such a situation the winner can't just assume their victory is a mandate to do whatever the hell they want and they are more likely to work to represent everybody than, say, the current president (who I believe was a better choice than the alternative at the time, but I don't want to see him around for another four).
Also, Slashdot's 10 millionth post today! Perhaps in this story even! WOW!
Nope it's here!
"This contract certainly does not provide SCO with the rights it says it is provided with, this was discussed at the time and all parties were agreed that it was not the case since to do otherwise would be so blatantly silly that no one would ever sign such a contract."
Except of course SCO, who spent millions of dollars purchasing a dying business and left all the real power with the previous owner.
I had that thought myself. Doubtless Google has as well. But they haven't gone with it, probably for some of the reasons below.
One problem is that even in the best case Google's revenue is then dependent on how good the site is at following through and making the sale. They don't want to give people prominent advertising real estate just to louse it up when people click through. This could be mitigated over long term campaigns by giving preference to those who are actually successful in returning profits to them, but for smaller operations in niche markets, that's not going to be so successful.
And how does Google track to make sure that they are getting paid for sales? Once you're off their site, they don't have too much control over what happens. Maybe they could come up with a way of keeping the selling within the Google system, but that's a pretty big can of worms to try to open up.
And what about sites that aren't selling exactly but are paying to advertise ideas? Or their "sales" is a bit more loosely defined than a single payment for a product or service, taken care of at that moment over the web? A restaurant might advertise on Google, but you're not going to order and pay over the web. You go to the restaurant, and Google never gets any credit or money for it.
Anyway, the most likely outcome of going with this idea would be that Google still gets screwed, though this time it's by the advertisers rather than the clickers.
I wonder if this fellow could have explicitly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and gotten away with it? Had he brought it up explicitly it might have been enough to tip the scales in his favor. As the writer for the majority said, they would entertain ruling differently in a case where Fifth Amendment rights were more clearly violated, such as a case where the name proved to be a key link in investigating and prosecuting a crime.
That would just speed our migration towards a cash-less society. 95% of my transactions are done without the slightest hint of green. Not saying this is totally a good thing, but it is happening for certain.
And I myself am more uptight than most about these things so I'm avoiding all scanlations and fansubs. I can't wait until I get my hands on properly licensed Hikaru no Go (manga or anime, either will do) because I've heard so much about it.
This is just a random idea, and I'm sure y'all will have plenty of ways to shoot it down, but maybe we need at least some sort of base level of certification so that we can decide whether or not to accept packets or e-mails from a given machine. It sounds dangerously similar to trusted computing, but we do need to ensure that people (switching metaphors mid-post) driving on our information superhighway have a minimally safe vehicle, at least so that they don't go crashing into everyone else.
How could this be done? Maybe my machine runs some quick security checks on your machine whenever you try to connect to mine. Or I trust someone else's word about whether your machine at least meets the minimum safety standards. Let this never let anyone fall into a false sense of security just because that minimum level is met. And that minimum level should change as new threats emerge. But it would reduce the penalty that the whole driving population pays for the mistakes of one subset. That subset would have to at the very least get their license or we could shut them out of driving near us.
Add to that the ability to communicate with the user, maybe by opening a chat session and you have the complete virtual store experience. You could have a virtual clerk that they could meet and talk with.
See this article from yesterday for some tech that basically handles that part.
Warning to patentaholics, this post is prior art!
If 92% of all software is pirated in China, and they're making it harder for their OS to be used, they're actually pushing away what (black) market share they have. Even if they didn't get money for the software, the fact that their product is the one being used would help them maintain their dominant position. But they wander closer to the tipping point by actively fighting people who want to use their products but don't want to pay their insane prices. Pretty soon, Windows is no longer the de facto standard and then their prices chase away those who only went with them because it was the only game in town.
"plumb it in price" should be "plummet in price", but the image of a plumb line dropping straight down is quite rich, so you may well communicate more with your incorrect phrase than you would have by using the correct one.
I just noticed today that Crossover Plugin is nowhere to be found on the Codeweavers site. What gives?
If it's that much cheaper, buy me a plane ticket and I'll buy the computer, then you pay me for it. I get a trip to London, you save even more money (no hotel costs in NY).
After figuring out that they actually gat raped in the deal with Novell, buying much less than they thought, they've learned to do the same thing to others.
Do you guys think this is feasible, and if so, how should I go about doing this? I'm probably not the most qualified person to head this up, but I do have passion for it, so if I could find more qualified folks, and find the right sort of grants, I think it may be feasible.
Do you think any game companies would be interested in supporting such a venture, one so that we could train people they could hire, and two so they could use our products to speed their development cycles?
Adonai is a more literal word for "Lord", so just as we use "The LORD" when the original says YHWH, the Jews, at least from some point onward, said "Adonai" instead of "Yahweh" or whatever it originally was. Names like Yehoshua do not contain the entirety of the divine name, only an abbreviation thereof, and there are also numerous variants on the vowels which are used in them, so I don't think we can be very conclusive at all about what the pronunciation was like using your line of reasoning.
If it comes down to it, people can take to carrying their RFID-ware in shielded containers, only to un-shield them when necessary. Perhaps readers for these necessities will be in shielded enclosures themselves so that nobody can eavesdrop. I for one wouldn't dare leave an RFID-enabled credit card or ID card unshielded since eventually replication of RFID tags will certainly become standard practice for the shadier folks among us.
(pardon the Boston-specific nature of this post)
If you're anywhere near Cambridge or Somerville, try Hollywood Express. Their 20-rental coupon book costs $55, they have many two for 1 deals, including any movie on Tuesday, so that brings the average rental down to $1.40. And their selection is much better than Blockbuster if you're taste is anything other than standard fare. If I watched more movies per month, I'd go with Netflix, but I'd still always keep my Hollywood Express coupons handy in case there's something Netflix doesn't have, esp. something only on VHS.
If you read the FSF rant about the "advertising clause" you will see that the problem is with an old clause requiring advertisement of software including said code required a sentence acknowledging its authorship. And if several sources of code had similar clauses, advertisement would become unduly burdensome. Requiring acknowledgement of authorship to be passed on within the source is part of GPL, BSD, CreativeCommons and mostly any copyright license out there.
As only one other poster I saw pointed out, and that buried deep in the hierarchy, Chaucer wrote in Middle English. Old English is circa Beowulf, and would appear to us more akin to German or something Scandinavian than it does to English.
This could only fly if there is sufficient organization to produce a body which: a) can gather enough resources to apply and pay for patents, and when necessary defend them, b) could be judicious enough with their resources to know when not to waste their time patenting something, and c) would be stable enough to sit on the patents instead of dissolving and disseminating the IP to the highest bidder.