"I normally don't take the time to write to anyone on the internet because they are so rude and closed minded..." and let me guess, they're all prejudiced too???
What I'm really curious to see, and I can only assume it will be there, is if they also include the ability to LOCK-OUT the InPrivate feature. Many corporate (and especially government) IT/legal departments excplicitly WANT your browsing to be tracked. Sure I can go in and delete stuff manually (except when I am not given permissions to access that folder... which I'm not) but right now all of our standard desktop configurations prevent you from clicking the "clear private data" button.
So not only are the advertisers (as I've read elsewhere) possibly not going to like this feature, but many corp/gov types won't install it until/unless they can excplicitly prevent its use.
Well then that professor needs to consider that everyone learns differently. Like the OP I too hated classes that forced me to take notes to get a copy of the material because at the end of the day I was left with a bunch of gibberish that meant nothing to me. I spent all my time copying and none of it LEARNING. I do understand that it helps some people, but not all.
Hmmm and yet at Al Udeid, a decidedly non-forward deployed location, you must be 21 to drink. Of course as someone else said, In the AF and you're out of luck.
A lot of the newish contemporary fancy shmasy chairs have it anyway but it bears mentioning that a Knee Tilt chair is, IMO, highly desirable. It sets the pivot point for the chair closer to the sitter's knees vice under their butt. This allows them to have their knees under their desk, recline fully back, and not smack their knees against the desk because your knees stay about where they are (vertically) while the rest of you tilts back.
Tricker versions include geometries that actually recline the backrest relative to the seat while the seat still tilts a bit (at the knees). Those are really nice so long as the chair can also be locked / restricted in its tilt range at many / infinite points.
Arm rest height and width adjustment is very nice indeed and something I will insist on for my next chair. This time around an inexpensive knee tilt was my only criteria and so far I'm happy.
Perhaps you didn't actually read my entire post. Since I clearly pointed out that I was not able to switch because Comcast was the only game in town until my impending move where I have already ordered my FIOS service and told Comcast why I don't want their service.
Beyond THAT, I completely agree with your comment re: subsidies, rent, and regulation.
and took this as an opportunity to make the move to FIOS. Now granted the OTHER reason this is when I'm changing is because CUNTCAST was the ONLY available broadband at my current residence. Now that DSL and FIOS are available I made sure to tell COMCAST exactly why I was cancelling my service. Doubt they are smart enough to keep statistics that might clue them in, but I voted with my wallet and made sure they knew about it.
No not all plastics are the same however a LOT of plastics are made out of polyethylene. Fortunately not many structurally important ones. Many are made from polycarbonate now.
As for unintended consequences, all I could think of was the Andromeda Strain as I read this topic:)
A very good point. I believe the reason is because it is actually not true. That is to say, the military, in my first hand anecdotal experience, has a very vocal evangelical group who generally assume that everyone around them feels the same way. I have called MANY a person on their off-handed "jokes" about liberals, democrats, gays, etc with the retort, "what makes you assume I agree with you, no less find that funny?" The conversation usually ends there.
But I will also admit that you are right, there is certainly a type of personality that lends itself to volunteering for military service that also tends to lean in the conservative/republican direction. I am not a sociologist so I will not pretent to know the answer to that question. Much like I will not pretend to know why so many poor, but religious, seem to support the conservative/republican agenda. That is to say, I know why, I just don't know WHY!!!
But again, not as many people in the US military are conservative republicans as the conservative republicans would have you believe. But I will say that at least one factor is that in general the conservative republicans are seen as "supporting" the miiltary more than the liberal democrats. Add to that the strong religious vain running through the military and it is not hard to see why so many vote the way they do.
Frankly there is not a single answer to your question, because it is so complex, other than to say you are working from a generalization (and I do not mean that as a stick in the eye, really I don't) which really is just not true. I would be an example of that.
No, but some people don't LEARN to abhor it until they've lived through it. And even then, they are all scared but bravado and shear mental self-preservation makes them delude themselves into that bravado.
For the record, I have NOT been in combat, or anything close to it while deployed. But I don't need to inorder to know I don't WANT to, which is a whole different comment than my willingness to.
Because wars aren't started by soldiers. Wars (in the classical geo-political sense) are started by the State. I'm ignoring here where the military and the State are one, and even in that case those "Generals" are about as far from the military as our own president and know they will NEVER be at risk.
To claim that without soldiers there would be no war is just silly. Unless you classify a "soldier" any person who decides to take up arms against his neighbor.
And to answer your question about why they join up: For a volunteer professional military, they (yes We) join because DESPITE he fact that we aren't itching to go into harms way we are WILLING to do it to defend our country. Again this speaks to the difference between the implement, and the one who weilds it. The military does not have the luxary, nor should they, of decided which battle to fight. It sounds all well and good to say that they should bow out of this war because they disagree with it, but what happens when it is a conflict YOU agree with and they don't? Would you be glad to see them not go? No... there is a good reason why the military is not part of the process of deciding when and where to go to war and only the CIVILIAN politicians (and elected at that) are allowed to make that decision (ni countries where that is true of course).
You are correct but that is not what was being stated. The implication was that the military somehow chooses where and when it is used and that in fact the military (and by your implications the actual individuals) have somehow been looking for ways to keep on killing after the cold war.
Oh and lets not forget about your little problem with the people who joined before all the abuses you mentioned.
I agree with your last statement to a point. To a point because unfrotunatly life is not that simple. But we each have our opinions on that matter and neither will change the others. But concerning the post I replied to the FACT remains that it is civilian authority that authorizes and orders the US military into action. Not the other way around.
Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier. If you want to judge someone for wanting to "kill people after the Cold War finished" I suggest you look at the people who decide when and where to send the military. I'll give you a hint, they don't wear uniforms.
The "story" here isn't that they've ID'ed something everyone has "known" it is that they claim to be able to model it; I presume with some degree of accuracy of course. After all, ALL models are WRONG, SOME are USEFUL. The point being that with an accurate useful model they can now seek changes which minimize the backup. As the article says in this case, a model for an "electronic device" which could cut down on over-braking. Seems like the counter-part to what could also be used in a predictive braking system to get cars to slow down sooner, but at a slower rate. Or maybe even change the road sign annunciators to warn people about an impending slow-down which might "trick them" to start slowing down on their own and give a large gap which would have the same result as the "electronic device". [shrug]
I would agree with this in some cases but in others you're missing an important factor:
If you are going to be the first person in line at that light, and that light (like MANY do now) has a road sensor, then the sooner you get there the sooner it will turn green. So no amount of slowing down as you approach the light will change the fact that the light will not turn green until X seconds after the sensor senses your car's presence.
Obviously this means nothing if you are the second in line, but the point is, it does matter how fast you get to the light. And as someone else mentioned in reply: sometimes you're also trying to race away from the green to make the next green vice getting caught at the next red.
That is not how I read it and I believe you are being fooled by their deliberate word play. Lets break it down:
"they [the mp3s] are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs"
Don't be fooled by the usage of distributed here. They are not talking about the defendant distributing yet... that is why the last word is Plaintiffs not Defendants. They are only talking about the copies which he possesses, that happen to be in his shared folder, and claiming that those copies are no longer authorized copies provided by the Plaintiff. In short the only copies authorized are therefore the ones on the CD, and not the ones converted into the compressed.mp3 format.
Now looking at the SECOND part they say:
"Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder."
The key here is first the usage of "Moreover" which is additive as in, 'A'=bad AND 'B'=bad. Not, as you assert, 'A' + 'B' = bad but 'A'bad.
The trick here, IMO is that they crafted this very specifically so as to introduce the idea that the mere production of mp3s is the production of an unauthorized copy. Distribution is also unauthorized. Notice how they didn't say distribution of THOSE mp3s was unauthorized. That is implied from their larger statement that he wasn't allowed to distribute copyrighted recordings regardless of the "authenticity" of the recording. So they have set up two arguments which I will reorder to make it clearer that they are separate:
1) The defendant isn't authorized to distribute copyrighted recordings 2) The defendant was in possession of unauthorized copies of those copyrighted recordings which are unauthorized by the mere fact that they are compressed mp3 copies; regardless of the fact that he owned the CD those copies were generated from.
The end result of this being, the only authorized way to procure and possess "compressed mp3s" would be for them to be distributed by the Plaintiff. That is the implication of the words "they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs." Because if you buy into that statement it begs the question: how do you get an authorized compressed mp3 version of their copyrighted works.
Who cares? Yes I'm not a parent but you know what, the problem is not that the child told the teach to FUCK off. The problem THAT the child told the teach to fuck off. Who cares what words were used, it is the INTENT and the LACK OF RESPECT behind it that should worry you. Or would it be more pallatable if the child told them to FRACK off, or to INTERCOURSE off.
My comment applies doubly in Walmart. Kids WILL learn curse words if they are on TV or not, try being a parent and teaching them that they are crude, rude, and only to be reserved for appropriate situations (never if that is your bent).
Stop associating the word with the meaning/intent/lack of social restraint behind it.
That is a great thought. Too bad it IS my home internet since I can't get cable or dsl at my house (despite a cable line that was run down my street 6 months ago) and dial-up never got me more than 18kbs. Even EVDO was a stretch and I had to get an external antenna to make it work.
What I mean is: the Gov could actually come out and say, "Companies are allowed to research, develop, and market applications that foster simple methods for end-users to ensure cross-platform compatibility of digital media."
The point being, even if it isn't illegal via a DMCA-like law in a given country, I am assume that in most EU countries there would be reprecussions (civil at least) for the active marketing and sale of software that lets you strip the DRM from an iTunes file. By actually saying "you can do it' companies won't be worried about being sued / criminally charged. More important it sends a clear msgs and motivating force to the media companies.
Without getting into the "correctness" of the EU's position ("just don't buy it" speaks loudly to me) I fail to see the issue here.
Instead of forcing Apple/et al to open up their standards, simply make it legal to break that very DRM if it isn't open. You will very quickly see applications for sale to do it (come out from the shadows) and the Apples of the world will be motivated to change to an open standard.
Same here. If a movie seems to be collecting dust, I rip it for later viewing through the HTPC connected to the projector, and then send it back. It is REALLY nice when we are waiting for a batch of DVDs to arrive and want something to watch. Our own little "backup" queue. Once watched they just get deleted because if we REALLY want it again we'll just put it back in the queue or buy it.
I think someone needs to learn the concept of Sunk Costs... of course I have to admit before I got netflix it was hard for me to walk out of the video store without a movie, but my wife and I have such broad tastes and enjoy watching movies so much it has been a VERY rare case that we were done watching a movie and felt like we deserved the last 2 hours of our life back.
We are now HEAVY netflix users users and amazingly rarely notice slow downs... of course as I said our tastes are broad so we tend to rent some obscure stuff that probably has a pretty short waiting list to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
"I normally don't take the time to write to anyone on the internet because they are so rude and closed minded ..." and let me guess, they're all prejudiced too???
What I'm really curious to see, and I can only assume it will be there, is if they also include the ability to LOCK-OUT the InPrivate feature. Many corporate (and especially government) IT/legal departments excplicitly WANT your browsing to be tracked. Sure I can go in and delete stuff manually (except when I am not given permissions to access that folder ... which I'm not) but right now all of our standard desktop configurations prevent you from clicking the "clear private data" button.
So not only are the advertisers (as I've read elsewhere) possibly not going to like this feature, but many corp/gov types won't install it until/unless they can excplicitly prevent its use.
Well then that professor needs to consider that everyone learns differently. Like the OP I too hated classes that forced me to take notes to get a copy of the material because at the end of the day I was left with a bunch of gibberish that meant nothing to me. I spent all my time copying and none of it LEARNING. I do understand that it helps some people, but not all.
Hmmm and yet at Al Udeid, a decidedly non-forward deployed location, you must be 21 to drink. Of course as someone else said, In the AF and you're out of luck.
A lot of the newish contemporary fancy shmasy chairs have it anyway but it bears mentioning that a Knee Tilt chair is, IMO, highly desirable. It sets the pivot point for the chair closer to the sitter's knees vice under their butt. This allows them to have their knees under their desk, recline fully back, and not smack their knees against the desk because your knees stay about where they are (vertically) while the rest of you tilts back.
Tricker versions include geometries that actually recline the backrest relative to the seat while the seat still tilts a bit (at the knees). Those are really nice so long as the chair can also be locked / restricted in its tilt range at many / infinite points.
Arm rest height and width adjustment is very nice indeed and something I will insist on for my next chair. This time around an inexpensive knee tilt was my only criteria and so far I'm happy.
Perhaps you didn't actually read my entire post. Since I clearly pointed out that I was not able to switch because Comcast was the only game in town until my impending move where I have already ordered my FIOS service and told Comcast why I don't want their service.
Beyond THAT, I completely agree with your comment re: subsidies, rent, and regulation.
In short we are in violent agreement.
and took this as an opportunity to make the move to FIOS. Now granted the OTHER reason this is when I'm changing is because CUNTCAST was the ONLY available broadband at my current residence. Now that DSL and FIOS are available I made sure to tell COMCAST exactly why I was cancelling my service. Doubt they are smart enough to keep statistics that might clue them in, but I voted with my wallet and made sure they knew about it.
The important one is how fast we can /. the web site :)
No not all plastics are the same however a LOT of plastics are made out of polyethylene. Fortunately not many structurally important ones. Many are made from polycarbonate now.
:)
As for unintended consequences, all I could think of was the Andromeda Strain as I read this topic
Actually balancing chemical reactions is JUST like arithmetic; only you have to actually know all the things you're supposed to be adding up :p
A very good point. I believe the reason is because it is actually not true. That is to say, the military, in my first hand anecdotal experience, has a very vocal evangelical group who generally assume that everyone around them feels the same way. I have called MANY a person on their off-handed "jokes" about liberals, democrats, gays, etc with the retort, "what makes you assume I agree with you, no less find that funny?" The conversation usually ends there.
But I will also admit that you are right, there is certainly a type of personality that lends itself to volunteering for military service that also tends to lean in the conservative/republican direction. I am not a sociologist so I will not pretent to know the answer to that question. Much like I will not pretend to know why so many poor, but religious, seem to support the conservative/republican agenda. That is to say, I know why, I just don't know WHY!!!
But again, not as many people in the US military are conservative republicans as the conservative republicans would have you believe. But I will say that at least one factor is that in general the conservative republicans are seen as "supporting" the miiltary more than the liberal democrats. Add to that the strong religious vain running through the military and it is not hard to see why so many vote the way they do.
Frankly there is not a single answer to your question, because it is so complex, other than to say you are working from a generalization (and I do not mean that as a stick in the eye, really I don't) which really is just not true. I would be an example of that.
No, but some people don't LEARN to abhor it until they've lived through it. And even then, they are all scared but bravado and shear mental self-preservation makes them delude themselves into that bravado.
For the record, I have NOT been in combat, or anything close to it while deployed. But I don't need to inorder to know I don't WANT to, which is a whole different comment than my willingness to.
Because wars aren't started by soldiers. Wars (in the classical geo-political sense) are started by the State. I'm ignoring here where the military and the State are one, and even in that case those "Generals" are about as far from the military as our own president and know they will NEVER be at risk.
... there is a good reason why the military is not part of the process of deciding when and where to go to war and only the CIVILIAN politicians (and elected at that) are allowed to make that decision (ni countries where that is true of course).
To claim that without soldiers there would be no war is just silly. Unless you classify a "soldier" any person who decides to take up arms against his neighbor.
And to answer your question about why they join up: For a volunteer professional military, they (yes We) join because DESPITE he fact that we aren't itching to go into harms way we are WILLING to do it to defend our country. Again this speaks to the difference between the implement, and the one who weilds it. The military does not have the luxary, nor should they, of decided which battle to fight. It sounds all well and good to say that they should bow out of this war because they disagree with it, but what happens when it is a conflict YOU agree with and they don't? Would you be glad to see them not go? No
You are correct but that is not what was being stated. The implication was that the military somehow chooses where and when it is used and that in fact the military (and by your implications the actual individuals) have somehow been looking for ways to keep on killing after the cold war.
Oh and lets not forget about your little problem with the people who joined before all the abuses you mentioned.
I agree with your last statement to a point. To a point because unfrotunatly life is not that simple. But we each have our opinions on that matter and neither will change the others. But concerning the post I replied to the FACT remains that it is civilian authority that authorizes and orders the US military into action. Not the other way around.
Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier. If you want to judge someone for wanting to "kill people after the Cold War finished" I suggest you look at the people who decide when and where to send the military. I'll give you a hint, they don't wear uniforms.
and the world shall end not with a bang but with a wimper.
The "story" here isn't that they've ID'ed something everyone has "known" it is that they claim to be able to model it; I presume with some degree of accuracy of course. After all, ALL models are WRONG, SOME are USEFUL. The point being that with an accurate useful model they can now seek changes which minimize the backup. As the article says in this case, a model for an "electronic device" which could cut down on over-braking. Seems like the counter-part to what could also be used in a predictive braking system to get cars to slow down sooner, but at a slower rate. Or maybe even change the road sign annunciators to warn people about an impending slow-down which might "trick them" to start slowing down on their own and give a large gap which would have the same result as the "electronic device". [shrug]
I would agree with this in some cases but in others you're missing an important factor:
If you are going to be the first person in line at that light, and that light (like MANY do now) has a road sensor, then the sooner you get there the sooner it will turn green. So no amount of slowing down as you approach the light will change the fact that the light will not turn green until X seconds after the sensor senses your car's presence.
Obviously this means nothing if you are the second in line, but the point is, it does matter how fast you get to the light. And as someone else mentioned in reply: sometimes you're also trying to race away from the green to make the next green vice getting caught at the next red.
That is not how I read it and I believe you are being fooled by their deliberate word play. Lets break it down:
... that is why the last word is Plaintiffs not Defendants. They are only talking about the copies which he possesses, that happen to be in his shared folder, and claiming that those copies are no longer authorized copies provided by the Plaintiff. In short the only copies authorized are therefore the ones on the CD, and not the ones converted into the compressed .mp3 format.
"they [the mp3s] are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs"
Don't be fooled by the usage of distributed here. They are not talking about the defendant distributing yet
Now looking at the SECOND part they say:
"Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder."
The key here is first the usage of "Moreover" which is additive as in, 'A'=bad AND 'B'=bad. Not, as you assert, 'A' + 'B' = bad but 'A'bad.
The trick here, IMO is that they crafted this very specifically so as to introduce the idea that the mere production of mp3s is the production of an unauthorized copy. Distribution is also unauthorized. Notice how they didn't say distribution of THOSE mp3s was unauthorized. That is implied from their larger statement that he wasn't allowed to distribute copyrighted recordings regardless of the "authenticity" of the recording. So they have set up two arguments which I will reorder to make it clearer that they are separate:
1) The defendant isn't authorized to distribute copyrighted recordings
2) The defendant was in possession of unauthorized copies of those copyrighted recordings which are unauthorized by the mere fact that they are compressed mp3 copies; regardless of the fact that he owned the CD those copies were generated from.
The end result of this being, the only authorized way to procure and possess "compressed mp3s" would be for them to be distributed by the Plaintiff. That is the implication of the words "they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs." Because if you buy into that statement it begs the question: how do you get an authorized compressed mp3 version of their copyrighted works.
Who cares? Yes I'm not a parent but you know what, the problem is not that the child told the teach to FUCK off. The problem THAT the child told the teach to fuck off. Who cares what words were used, it is the INTENT and the LACK OF RESPECT behind it that should worry you. Or would it be more pallatable if the child told them to FRACK off, or to INTERCOURSE off.
My comment applies doubly in Walmart. Kids WILL learn curse words if they are on TV or not, try being a parent and teaching them that they are crude, rude, and only to be reserved for appropriate situations (never if that is your bent).
Stop associating the word with the meaning/intent/lack of social restraint behind it.
That is a great thought. Too bad it IS my home internet since I can't get cable or dsl at my house (despite a cable line that was run down my street 6 months ago) and dial-up never got me more than 18kbs. Even EVDO was a stretch and I had to get an external antenna to make it work.
What I mean is: the Gov could actually come out and say, "Companies are allowed to research, develop, and market applications that foster simple methods for end-users to ensure cross-platform compatibility of digital media."
The point being, even if it isn't illegal via a DMCA-like law in a given country, I am assume that in most EU countries there would be reprecussions (civil at least) for the active marketing and sale of software that lets you strip the DRM from an iTunes file. By actually saying "you can do it' companies won't be worried about being sued / criminally charged. More important it sends a clear msgs and motivating force to the media companies.
Without getting into the "correctness" of the EU's position ("just don't buy it" speaks loudly to me) I fail to see the issue here.
Instead of forcing Apple/et al to open up their standards, simply make it legal to break that very DRM if it isn't open. You will very quickly see applications for sale to do it (come out from the shadows) and the Apples of the world will be motivated to change to an open standard.
Same here. If a movie seems to be collecting dust, I rip it for later viewing through the HTPC connected to the projector, and then send it back. It is REALLY nice when we are waiting for a batch of DVDs to arrive and want something to watch. Our own little "backup" queue. Once watched they just get deleted because if we REALLY want it again we'll just put it back in the queue or buy it.
I think someone needs to learn the concept of Sunk Costs ... of course I have to admit before I got netflix it was hard for me to walk out of the video store without a movie, but my wife and I have such broad tastes and enjoy watching movies so much it has been a VERY rare case that we were done watching a movie and felt like we deserved the last 2 hours of our life back.
... of course as I said our tastes are broad so we tend to rent some obscure stuff that probably has a pretty short waiting list to begin with.
We are now HEAVY netflix users users and amazingly rarely notice slow downs