"Piracy" as used by music executives is becoming a buzzword with no meaning other than "people deciding to listen to music without buying it."
Correction: "people deciding to listen to music without buying it separately for each device they own, and preferably, each time they listen to the song."
How is this not fair? We have limited resources, so the way we value things determines what we use the resources to operate. Would it be fair to force everyone to use resources based on the age of people? Maybe so, but we'd be in a much poorer world that was far less efficient than it is now.
I guess I was too subtle. Yes, I was commenting on the redundancy of intentionally malicious. Maybe that guy thinks that malicious simply means harmful. The great watering down of language continues...:(
The FAA shall have 180 days to draft suitable exemptions under which microphone equipped blimps, zeppelins, and gliders may be able to freely patrol our skies and hunt down illicit "jam sessions" and recording operations.
Just the other day as I walked down a neighborhood street I heard the sounds of one of these operations. Sounded like the walls were going to fall off due to all the racket. It's awful the state of things today, with these evil operations right in neighborhoods.
You have to think outside the box on this one. More crashes (due to problems with the self-driving system) = fewer people = reduced carbon emissions.
But yeah, self-driving cars means you can get work done while in transport, thus you don't mind taking more trips. Besides, we already have "self"-driving vehicles: buses. They even have WiFi on them.
any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.
Clearly, He just doesn't want us to be overcrowded. Well, at least galaxy-wise. (In other words, the only way to win is to not play, as there's always a non-explanation explanation.)
So I guess the announcement was particularly carefully timed, not only falling on a US public holiday, but coming just before an earnings report that will presumably be positive and help to mitigate the damage when the US market re-opens.
They're still waiting for a good time to announce the real news: there is no Steve Jobs, just a mass delusion.
With the discovery of vast amounts of water on the Moon, some frozen in the shadows of craters at the Lunar poles and some chemically bonded with the regolith, interest in lunar mining has arisen among commercial space entrepreneurs.
I can see it now, bottled water that's fresh from a lunar spring, only $1K/bottle. I'm writing a business plan now.
Yes, and I think the confusion comes when we talk of using an idea. It's not like using a physical object, where it prevents others (like the owner) from using it at the same time, or there is a limit to how many people can use an idea. Even calling it an idea is somewhat incorrect, since the moment someone else knows about it, there are "two" ideas. When I build something, I'm using my idea of that thing, what's in my head. When someone else does, they're using their idea, what's in their head. Whoever first had the idea these are based on still has the idea and his idea isn't even being used. Even if the above aren't able to cause some questioning, the notion that one must get permission to craft his own physical matter into certain patterns is absurd (a list of restricted patterns that grows every day), and an encroachment on real physical property rights.
There is something much more satisfactory about an object tracing a parabolic ballistic trajectory through space towards its target than either following a straight line or propelling itself.
Seems obvious to me: hitting your target is more challenging, and thus it's more of an accomplishment, which is what games are all about. Imagine Scorched Earth where there were no obstacles and you could just shoot straight at the enemy.
No disagreement there; I find it sad when for example someone is put down simply because he doesn't know how a particular OS or GUI works, even though he is teaching himself. But is a journalist who is ignorant about the topic his article is about merely ignorant, or is there also some lack of something (not necessarily intelligence) that caused him to not research the topic better first?
A while back I posted a defense here of jurors not knowing all the details of their powers as jurors simply because they aren't taught, rather than a lack of intelligence, but someone here pointed out that someone called on to spend several days deciding the fate of another man is more than simply ignorant if he doesn't spend some time reading about his powers as a juror at some point in the process.
Who doesn't know that the A4 contains an A8 and that the A8 (the new A8, not the other A8 in the A4) will contain an A9?
For one, a writer of an article who didn't research it before writing it.
Shit, I learned that in pre-school.
So that's all we can expect of writers these days, pre-school education? If it's something taught after that, then we're asking too much for them to research it before writing about it?
And even then, you know, actual measured variables than someone's self-assessment.
Furthering your point, here they are asking someone what their self-assessment is, so their answer isn't necessarily even their actual self-assessment anyway. Sort of like when you read of a survey result that x% of people are/do this, you have to mentally insert a "answered that they" before the claim.
People here aren't saying that someone who does activity X every waking hour and is unable to do anything else doesn't have a problem; they're saying that it's not necessarily activity X that caused this person to develop this problem, rather that doing activity X all the time is a symptom of the problem. Another point made is that this also doesn't mean that anyone doing activity X has this problem. Even something like drinking water could be carried to this extreme, but this doesn't mean that anyone drinking water has this problem.
Hey, I just read another story about something else really interesting. Sorry, I can't be bothered to name the specifics, so you should look them up yourself. Try googling this and you'll see that it's really interesting!
But imagine if everyone gave links to the print version; they'd eliminate it since it allows the reader to actually read the article, rather than wade through crap. Better if it's kept as a "secret" and only used by a few people.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh, aren't tabs something your browser supplies? At least in mine, I can open multiple GMail tabs with separate emails just fine.
If it were a real iPad, you wouldn't need to clean it up anyway, especially if it were the super-absorbent kind.
Correction: "people deciding to listen to music without buying it separately for each device they own, and preferably, each time they listen to the song."
Just a suggestion, but use fewer paragraphs. It'll make your post easier to read.
You took the cheap bait in the baited summary. Don't do that; you encourage more of it.
How is this not fair? We have limited resources, so the way we value things determines what we use the resources to operate. Would it be fair to force everyone to use resources based on the age of people? Maybe so, but we'd be in a much poorer world that was far less efficient than it is now.
What do you do when you're tired of a game you bought online? Can you sell it?
I guess I was too subtle. Yes, I was commenting on the redundancy of intentionally malicious. Maybe that guy thinks that malicious simply means harmful. The great watering down of language continues... :(
Just the other day as I walked down a neighborhood street I heard the sounds of one of these operations. Sounded like the walls were going to fall off due to all the racket. It's awful the state of things today, with these evil operations right in neighborhoods.
...so later when its price falls, you can buy it back up and make a profit?
But will they catch unintentionally malicious behavior that gets un-reviewed code in?
But yeah, self-driving cars means you can get work done while in transport, thus you don't mind taking more trips. Besides, we already have "self"-driving vehicles: buses. They even have WiFi on them.
Clearly, He just doesn't want us to be overcrowded. Well, at least galaxy-wise. (In other words, the only way to win is to not play, as there's always a non-explanation explanation.)
They're still waiting for a good time to announce the real news: there is no Steve Jobs, just a mass delusion.
I can see it now, bottled water that's fresh from a lunar spring, only $1K/bottle. I'm writing a business plan now.
Yes, and I think the confusion comes when we talk of using an idea. It's not like using a physical object, where it prevents others (like the owner) from using it at the same time, or there is a limit to how many people can use an idea. Even calling it an idea is somewhat incorrect, since the moment someone else knows about it, there are "two" ideas. When I build something, I'm using my idea of that thing, what's in my head. When someone else does, they're using their idea, what's in their head. Whoever first had the idea these are based on still has the idea and his idea isn't even being used. Even if the above aren't able to cause some questioning, the notion that one must get permission to craft his own physical matter into certain patterns is absurd (a list of restricted patterns that grows every day), and an encroachment on real physical property rights.
Seems obvious to me: hitting your target is more challenging, and thus it's more of an accomplishment, which is what games are all about. Imagine Scorched Earth where there were no obstacles and you could just shoot straight at the enemy.
A while back I posted a defense here of jurors not knowing all the details of their powers as jurors simply because they aren't taught, rather than a lack of intelligence, but someone here pointed out that someone called on to spend several days deciding the fate of another man is more than simply ignorant if he doesn't spend some time reading about his powers as a juror at some point in the process.
For one, a writer of an article who didn't research it before writing it.
So that's all we can expect of writers these days, pre-school education? If it's something taught after that, then we're asking too much for them to research it before writing about it?
Furthering your point, here they are asking someone what their self-assessment is, so their answer isn't necessarily even their actual self-assessment anyway. Sort of like when you read of a survey result that x% of people are/do this, you have to mentally insert a "answered that they" before the claim.
People here aren't saying that someone who does activity X every waking hour and is unable to do anything else doesn't have a problem; they're saying that it's not necessarily activity X that caused this person to develop this problem, rather that doing activity X all the time is a symptom of the problem. Another point made is that this also doesn't mean that anyone doing activity X has this problem. Even something like drinking water could be carried to this extreme, but this doesn't mean that anyone drinking water has this problem.
Hey, I just read another story about something else really interesting. Sorry, I can't be bothered to name the specifics, so you should look them up yourself. Try googling this and you'll see that it's really interesting!
But imagine if everyone gave links to the print version; they'd eliminate it since it allows the reader to actually read the article, rather than wade through crap. Better if it's kept as a "secret" and only used by a few people.
A 70% reduction in performance doesn't sound like a good thing.
Most schools have policies against inciting violence.