As a gay American who wishes pot would be legal (not because I smoke it a lot, but anyways), I sympathize with your "libertarian" grievances. However, most of your problems stem from interaction with the public. For example, you have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
For one, I don't know why you can't own a ferret, because I'm pretty sure that's legal where I live. But you can't walk around drunk because you could possibly be a menace to others, and time has shown that drunk people in public places can cause damage to other people's life and property (but you CAN walk with a beer on your own private property). You can be discriminated for your sexual orientation, but you shouldn't be, and I believe that eventually in America you won't because that's a privacy issue. (This isn't a cop out, I'm sorta agreeing with you, but I think that the way America is supposed to work is eventually going to win out) Finally, you can't fly without your papers being inspected because you're not on your own private property; you're boarding a vessel where you can cause mass destruction if you weren't properly inspected. No part of the American government is making you board an airplane with hundreds of other passengers; if you choose to do so, you have to sacrifice some of your liberty for your safety. And it's theoretical bullshit to say you shouldn't sacrifice your liberty for your safety. If someone would rather "die free", then let them make that decision for themselves, not me.
I truly sympathize with your libertarian qualms, and I have real life circumstances which make this type of conversation very personal and real (such as paying approximately three and a half thousand dollars via medical expenses and taxes for having a gay partner when if I had a female partner I wouldn't have had to; I'm only 29 and this number is likely to rise to tens of thousands by the time he or I die). That being said, I don't want someone else's personal wants which can really hurt me (really = not emotionally, but physically) trump my wants/needs for personal freedoms. I don't want drunk people attacking my person and/or property (I'm not anti-drinking; I'm a little buzzed right now!), and I want people inspected for weapons before entering an airplane.
Finally, as a general statement, when you say "Meh" to freedom, you are an American who has no idea what the lack of American personal freedoms really means. You are quite jaded when you complain of not having freedoms because you can't own a ferret. I suppose I'm getting so in to this because two weekends ago I went to a funeral of a 90 year old Auschwitz survivor in New York. And I'm gay, but I make that work.
Regardless of the controversy about using the Bing toolbar to monitor Google search results, I use Bing separately from Google for hard to find searches. They often give VERY different results. Sometimes I find what I need higher in Bing's results than Google's. Granted, this would be less than 5% of my searches, which seems to fit the statistics.
I thought this was a joke when I first saw the title. The King's Quest III remake has been out for about 3 years now. Did they just re-release it for publicity?
So I am dumbfounded that these developers worked so hard and for so long for so many years on doing something that's already been done. I can't imagine there is much difference between the first remake and this new second remake.
Ummm. Then why are all the roads and bridges crumbling? Why are many national parks threatened with closure?
Although I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your main point, I have to point out that if "all" of the roads and bridges are crumbling, that in no way proves against the OP's point that "Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation."
This article uses 4G to refer to IMT-Advanced (International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced), as defined by ITU-R.
It turns out that U.S. carriers do not use the IMT-Advanced as a definition of 4G. I suspect that Americans will come to know such technologies as 5G. I also understand that there is somewhat of a battle going on between some consumer advocates who want the wireless companies to stop using the term 4G because it doesn't fit the IMT-Advanced protocol. That is a losing battle. For one, consumers don't know or need to know the technology behind it, but they do know (and it is true) that what Americans know as 4G is faster than what Americans know as 3G. Second, the ITU shouldn't be (and isn't) in the business of making marketing terms, which is exactly what 4G is. Let the IMT-Advanced protocol be defined, and let whomever wants to implement it call it whatever they want.
I hope that the Wikipedia article is updated soon to clarify the difference between what 4G means in America (a term which includes HSPA+), and what the term means elsewhere. (I cannot speak on what 4G means in Europe, Asia, etc.)
The spectrum is owned by the PEOPLE Mr. President, not you, not the government, and certainly not those you license it to.
Patently incorrect. The spectrum is not owned by either the citizens of the United States nor the president. I don't think ownership is even appropriate term here; can you own light? That's part of the spectrum.
In a related matter, the allocation of who uses which parts of the spectrum has to be regulated by a government body, otherwise anyone could start hijack any part of the spectrum. For example, one could start broadcasting porn over another FM station's programs with a stronger signal.
Finally, I don't think the purpose of the President's initiative is to define what is viable in 2025 or 2050, nor would it prevent the technology from continuing. It is simply an initiative to get people a certain minimum level of wireless access.
FLATOW: And is there a common definition for what 4G means?
Mr. ZIEGLER: You know, it's interesting. There actually is. There is a technical definition that's controlled by the ITU, which is a body that's run by the U.N. And people might be amazed to discover that no current network advertising itself as 4G actually meets those requirements.
This is WRONG! The United Nations does not control the marketing term "4G". 4G is just a marketing term that means better than the previous technologies in 3G. The ITU can make standards all it wants, but it doesn't have any basis on marketing terms used by American wireless carriers. BTW, the fuss is about how the ITU created a new standard of technologies, which is what some would call 4G, but the ITU never called it 4G once in their documents. (I forget what the official name is)
You are absolutely right. I'm not exactly a Windows fanboy, but I think it's immature and small minded to frame Microsoft, Internet Explorer, etc. as "stupid" and/or "evil". The reason there is so much viruses and malware on Windows is because it's the dominant OS. If Linux becomes dominant, you can be damn sure that there will be lots more malware focused on Linux.
First of all, I think you meant to cast the Author into a Troll, not the return value of Feed into a Troll.
((Troll*)(&comment.GetAuthor()))->Feed( false );
Second of all, that is an unnecessarily complicated way to cast it by dereferencing the item, and then using pointers. It probably would have made more sense if GetAuthor() returned a pointer (then it could possibly be null sometimes), but that is not the case. The easiest syntax, then, would be as follows:
Does anyone remember the Columbine shootings, and that the news reported that the killers were known to play violent video games such as Final Fantasy 7?
HA! For the 5% of you who don't know what that is, FF7 is a fantasy game and it's laughable to be described as violent.
So even if there is some study testing relationship between violent video games and violent behavior, how are we to know how to describe the "violent" in a violent video game?
I clicked on Options, and changed the posting style to Plain Old Text. It inserts newlines for me. Which is somewhat of a misnomer, because I can still do bold and other styles. Oh wait I can't do italics? Or underline?
Testing the damn paragraph issue.
Testing the damn paragraph issue.
Dammit!!! Okay, in all seriousness, how to all of my fellow slashdotters usually create paragraphs in their responses? Do you guys use <p> or do you use <br/><br/>?
It's oft said but the fact that it's closed source means that there's probably all sorts of bad stuff in it. FOSS code wouldn't get away with it.
I mean no offense, sir or madam, but this is a very immature statement. First of all, some of the brightest engineers and developers in the world created and upgraded Windows. They work very hard on making it good. I don't know why people think that they would create "all sorts of bad stuff", they do their best to create the best. I'm not saying this because I work for, or know anybody that works for, Microsoft. I'm saying this because I'm a paid software developer who works on software, and I think that this attitude is disrespectful of software developers in general. It's also laughable that FOSS software wouldn't get away with it. It's likely the same caliber of people who work on both. We don't have empirical evidence to prove this one way or the other. What I do know is that there is no valid evidence to say that the developers who work on Microsoft software make "bad stuff" as compared to FOSS.
Just so you know, my experience with Spring comes from 4 years ago. Sorry for making everyone go up in arms:)
Re:Web.xml is the reason I hate Spring
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
LOL! How did you take that above comment, written in 2 seconds late at night, so personally? And how do you assume that I was telling you you've never done a large application in the real world? And how do you assume that I wasn't doing the real thing myself?
In any case, the web.xml file was thousands of lines long and I remember hating it. I'm sure there have been major improvements since then (about 4 or 5 years).
Re:Web.xml is the reason I hate Spring
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
4 years I think. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I should have left a disclaimer and a long-winded explanation so my fellow./ers wouldn't have gone up in arms about me complaining about it.
Web.xml is the reason I hate Spring
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Large centralized files suck. At least they do when you have to deal with a real website with real, complex functionality.
I am not saying that what happened in the article you posted wasn't a great injustice. However, the article is very misleading. The article FALSELY claims that there was a "...researcher punished for finding bugs." The guy was sued because he published source code which he had while working for the company.
I probably shouldn't have said with NO luck/randomness. There is always randomness. The other poster (another anonymous coward) made a great point about the type of people who get more out of "life" than those who don't. There is definitely a non-random statistical probability that those who are more of will be more successful. Fill in the blank with smartness, prowess, drive, whatever you want.
Of course, we could go down the metaphysical question of the randomness of your unique existence was completely random, created by your parents or God or whatever. In any case, abilities, however random they are, do indeed increase your statistical probability at succeeding in life.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to add that MySpace has been making more than Facebook in net profits for years. In fact, it's made billions in profits through advertising. MySpace has been very successful, even if none of us./ers us it anymore.
Sounds like there might be something missing there in the facts the tour guide was saying. If we take that fact that it increased 400% over 85 years, then the money wouldn't be worth shit if it was actually worth something 85 years ago. $100 in 1925 is now worth $1213, so it technically would have shrinked if it were only worth $400 now. Increasing 4x might mean many other things, and it might have included inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
As a gay American who wishes pot would be legal (not because I smoke it a lot, but anyways), I sympathize with your "libertarian" grievances. However, most of your problems stem from interaction with the public. For example, you have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
For one, I don't know why you can't own a ferret, because I'm pretty sure that's legal where I live. But you can't walk around drunk because you could possibly be a menace to others, and time has shown that drunk people in public places can cause damage to other people's life and property (but you CAN walk with a beer on your own private property). You can be discriminated for your sexual orientation, but you shouldn't be, and I believe that eventually in America you won't because that's a privacy issue. (This isn't a cop out, I'm sorta agreeing with you, but I think that the way America is supposed to work is eventually going to win out) Finally, you can't fly without your papers being inspected because you're not on your own private property; you're boarding a vessel where you can cause mass destruction if you weren't properly inspected. No part of the American government is making you board an airplane with hundreds of other passengers; if you choose to do so, you have to sacrifice some of your liberty for your safety. And it's theoretical bullshit to say you shouldn't sacrifice your liberty for your safety. If someone would rather "die free", then let them make that decision for themselves, not me.
I truly sympathize with your libertarian qualms, and I have real life circumstances which make this type of conversation very personal and real (such as paying approximately three and a half thousand dollars via medical expenses and taxes for having a gay partner when if I had a female partner I wouldn't have had to; I'm only 29 and this number is likely to rise to tens of thousands by the time he or I die). That being said, I don't want someone else's personal wants which can really hurt me (really = not emotionally, but physically) trump my wants/needs for personal freedoms. I don't want drunk people attacking my person and/or property (I'm not anti-drinking; I'm a little buzzed right now!), and I want people inspected for weapons before entering an airplane.
Finally, as a general statement, when you say "Meh" to freedom, you are an American who has no idea what the lack of American personal freedoms really means. You are quite jaded when you complain of not having freedoms because you can't own a ferret. I suppose I'm getting so in to this because two weekends ago I went to a funeral of a 90 year old Auschwitz survivor in New York. And I'm gay, but I make that work.
I have a signature about this very subject...
Wow... your number is less than one hundred thousand, and your name has no numbers in it. Are you one of the Progenitors the legends speak of?
Regardless of the controversy about using the Bing toolbar to monitor Google search results, I use Bing separately from Google for hard to find searches. They often give VERY different results. Sometimes I find what I need higher in Bing's results than Google's. Granted, this would be less than 5% of my searches, which seems to fit the statistics.
I thought this was a joke when I first saw the title. The King's Quest III remake has been out for about 3 years now. Did they just re-release it for publicity?
Then I realize that the people who have been making this game are separate. The first KQ3 remix is here:
http://www.infamous-adventures.com/kq3/index.php?page=screens
So I am dumbfounded that these developers worked so hard and for so long for so many years on doing something that's already been done. I can't imagine there is much difference between the first remake and this new second remake.
Thank you. +1
Ummm. Then why are all the roads and bridges crumbling? Why are many national parks threatened with closure?
Although I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your main point, I have to point out that if "all" of the roads and bridges are crumbling, that in no way proves against the OP's point that "Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation."
No, from the article:
This article uses 4G to refer to IMT-Advanced (International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced), as defined by ITU-R.
It turns out that U.S. carriers do not use the IMT-Advanced as a definition of 4G. I suspect that Americans will come to know such technologies as 5G. I also understand that there is somewhat of a battle going on between some consumer advocates who want the wireless companies to stop using the term 4G because it doesn't fit the IMT-Advanced protocol. That is a losing battle. For one, consumers don't know or need to know the technology behind it, but they do know (and it is true) that what Americans know as 4G is faster than what Americans know as 3G. Second, the ITU shouldn't be (and isn't) in the business of making marketing terms, which is exactly what 4G is. Let the IMT-Advanced protocol be defined, and let whomever wants to implement it call it whatever they want.
I hope that the Wikipedia article is updated soon to clarify the difference between what 4G means in America (a term which includes HSPA+), and what the term means elsewhere. (I cannot speak on what 4G means in Europe, Asia, etc.)
The spectrum is owned by the PEOPLE Mr. President, not you, not the government, and certainly not those you license it to.
Patently incorrect. The spectrum is not owned by either the citizens of the United States nor the president. I don't think ownership is even appropriate term here; can you own light? That's part of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation
In a related matter, the allocation of who uses which parts of the spectrum has to be regulated by a government body, otherwise anyone could start hijack any part of the spectrum. For example, one could start broadcasting porn over another FM station's programs with a stronger signal.
Finally, I don't think the purpose of the President's initiative is to define what is viable in 2025 or 2050, nor would it prevent the technology from continuing. It is simply an initiative to get people a certain minimum level of wireless access.
FLATOW: And is there a common definition for what 4G means?
Mr. ZIEGLER: You know, it's interesting. There actually is. There is a technical definition that's controlled by the ITU, which is a body that's run by the U.N. And people might be amazed to discover that no current network advertising itself as 4G actually meets those requirements.
This is WRONG! The United Nations does not control the marketing term "4G". 4G is just a marketing term that means better than the previous technologies in 3G. The ITU can make standards all it wants, but it doesn't have any basis on marketing terms used by American wireless carriers. BTW, the fuss is about how the ITU created a new standard of technologies, which is what some would call 4G, but the ITU never called it 4G once in their documents. (I forget what the official name is)
You are absolutely right. I'm not exactly a Windows fanboy, but I think it's immature and small minded to frame Microsoft, Internet Explorer, etc. as "stupid" and/or "evil". The reason there is so much viruses and malware on Windows is because it's the dominant OS. If Linux becomes dominant, you can be damn sure that there will be lots more malware focused on Linux.
The T-Mobile cap is 5GB. You get throttled at 5GB.
First of all, I think you meant to cast the Author into a Troll, not the return value of Feed into a Troll.
((Troll*)(&comment.GetAuthor()))->Feed( false );
Second of all, that is an unnecessarily complicated way to cast it by dereferencing the item, and then using pointers. It probably would have made more sense if GetAuthor() returned a pointer (then it could possibly be null sometimes), but that is not the case. The easiest syntax, then, would be as follows:
((Troll)comment.GetAuthor()).Feed(false);
Does anyone remember the Columbine shootings, and that the news reported that the killers were known to play violent video games such as Final Fantasy 7?
HA! For the 5% of you who don't know what that is, FF7 is a fantasy game and it's laughable to be described as violent.
So even if there is some study testing relationship between violent video games and violent behavior, how are we to know how to describe the "violent" in a violent video game?
Hmm, it appears I found my solution.
I clicked on Options, and changed the posting style to Plain Old Text. It inserts newlines for me. Which is somewhat of a misnomer, because I can still do bold and other styles. Oh wait I can't do italics? Or underline?
Testing the damn paragraph issue. Testing the damn paragraph issue.
Dammit!!! Okay, in all seriousness, how to all of my fellow slashdotters usually create paragraphs in their responses? Do you guys use <p> or do you use <br/><br/>?
It's oft said but the fact that it's closed source means that there's probably all sorts of bad stuff in it. FOSS code wouldn't get away with it.
I mean no offense, sir or madam, but this is a very immature statement. First of all, some of the brightest engineers and developers in the world created and upgraded Windows. They work very hard on making it good. I don't know why people think that they would create "all sorts of bad stuff", they do their best to create the best. I'm not saying this because I work for, or know anybody that works for, Microsoft. I'm saying this because I'm a paid software developer who works on software, and I think that this attitude is disrespectful of software developers in general. It's also laughable that FOSS software wouldn't get away with it. It's likely the same caliber of people who work on both. We don't have empirical evidence to prove this one way or the other. What I do know is that there is no valid evidence to say that the developers who work on Microsoft software make "bad stuff" as compared to FOSS.
Just so you know, my experience with Spring comes from 4 years ago. Sorry for making everyone go up in arms :)
LOL! How did you take that above comment, written in 2 seconds late at night, so personally? And how do you assume that I was telling you you've never done a large application in the real world? And how do you assume that I wasn't doing the real thing myself?
In any case, the web.xml file was thousands of lines long and I remember hating it. I'm sure there have been major improvements since then (about 4 or 5 years).
4 years I think. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I should have left a disclaimer and a long-winded explanation so my fellow ./ers wouldn't have gone up in arms about me complaining about it.
Large centralized files suck. At least they do when you have to deal with a real website with real, complex functionality.
I am not saying that what happened in the article you posted wasn't a great injustice. However, the article is very misleading. The article FALSELY claims that there was a "...researcher punished for finding bugs." The guy was sued because he published source code which he had while working for the company.
I probably shouldn't have said with NO luck/randomness. There is always randomness. The other poster (another anonymous coward) made a great point about the type of people who get more out of "life" than those who don't. There is definitely a non-random statistical probability that those who are more of will be more successful. Fill in the blank with smartness, prowess, drive, whatever you want.
Of course, we could go down the metaphysical question of the randomness of your unique existence was completely random, created by your parents or God or whatever. In any case, abilities, however random they are, do indeed increase your statistical probability at succeeding in life.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to add that MySpace has been making more than Facebook in net profits for years. In fact, it's made billions in profits through advertising. MySpace has been very successful, even if none of us ./ers us it anymore.
Sounds like there might be something missing there in the facts the tour guide was saying. If we take that fact that it increased 400% over 85 years, then the money wouldn't be worth shit if it was actually worth something 85 years ago. $100 in 1925 is now worth $1213, so it technically would have shrinked if it were only worth $400 now. Increasing 4x might mean many other things, and it might have included inflation.