"Gosh. You suffered from problems caused by 'EVIL HACKERS!!!'. Well, I'm sure if you work in collaboration with us, we can protect you from 'EVIL HACKERS!!!' and this sort of thing isn't going to slow you down any more."
It's both. There's the flat sydharb (sometimes referred to as the tall sybhard), which is area, and there's the tall sydharb (sometimes referred to as the short sybhard) which is volume.
Of course they would! Everyone was marketing the home computer for all sorts of everyday tasks since the 1980's. If Microsoft didn't nab the home computer market someone else would have done. It's an obvious application.
Steve Wozniak and Clive Sinclair did a lot more to get computers into the home.
The greatest thing Bill Gates did wasn't to donate several million dollars. It's great that he did but what is much more improtant is that he applied a more business like method to measuring the success of a charity. The simple calculation of dollars per life saved rather than how low overheads are.
If a charity has low overheads but spends twice as much as it needs to on medicine, then it makes sense to hire a negotiator. That actually increases overheads but also increses efficiency.
Any harm Bill Gates has done has been mostly to other businesses, and people who aren't gong to suffer unduly as a result. His charitable endeavours have very likely saved thousands of lives, and improved the quality of life of more than enough people to more than make up for any of the harm MS has done. He is inoffensive and doesn't poublicly judge others. All in all, whether he believes in God or not, he has many of the attributes a good Christian should admire.
Pope Benedict has actively campaigned against measures to reduce AIDS in Africa. He's helped cover up hideous sexual offences. He's highly judgemental, and regularly blames those not of his faith for the problems of the world. All in all, he has few of the attributes a good Christian should admire.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised Bill Gates didn't rank higher.
I was under the impression that Righthaven licences the articles after someone copies them. Also that Righthaven was an independent company, however I'm even less certain abou tthat one.
Seems he lives 45 minutes from his job of choice, and considers this an acceptable compromise between travel time and his home. The commuting overhead is minimised by his decision to take a car.
Troll seems odd. I was aiming for satire. The key difference being I assume people realised I wasn't representing my own opinions but a parody of someone else's.
Have you never met anyone who doesn't think that their success is entirely down to their own skill?
Do you know nobody who thinks they pay too much in taxes, yet thinks that the rich should pay more, even though by the standards of many people they are very wealthy?
My point and the GP's point is simply that people consider themselves fairly average, and can't conceive that some people would categorise them as rich.
Well, I agree, but it's also a little hard siding with Righthaven, who simply buy the rights to articles after infringement, purely in order to sue others for copyright infringement. It seems a little extreme to take such punitive legal measures against an article that is no longer generating revenue.
Just because it took the west 50 years to get somewhere, doesn't mean it would take China the same amount of time. They can get a modern engine and have a good model of what does work. The original designers had to go through a lot of incremental improvements to get one of them.
Maybe. But maybe China will catch up anyway. They can see the patents, buy an engine and reverse engineer it, or just put a lot of resources into developing the technology themselves. They will catch up eventually. Perhaps this does make it faster, but GE will make some money from this and improve their technology at the same time.
Why not let people charge for GPL (and other free) apps as well? It's permitted by the GPL. The FSF is quite clear that you can do this with their blessing.
LOL! I love that the same people who are shocked to suggest violent games might cause violence are still quite happy to apply the logic to violent political rhetoric. Do you realy not see the hypocrisy there?
How about the lady that put the McDonalds hot coffee (law requires it be a minimum temp, at least in my state) in her lap between her legs while driving?
I only heard about a lady who put it between her legs whilst sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car, and then got burned by coffee that was so hot it required hospitalisation. Other establishments seem to manage to serve coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause third degree burns when spilled.
That's fine. Ms Flight Sim is not designed for doing that, and any reasonable person should realise this. It is designed to give a reasonable approximation of flying a plane. If it crashed after 5 minutes of use, and MS buried the claim that Ms was not responsible for reliability then they would lose because any reasonable person would expect a piece of commercial software to be more reliable than that.
Expecting a firewall would be reasonable. Designing it with absolutely no security whatsoever and claiming that any security issue were the responsibility of the user would be seen as a much less reasonable disclaimer.
Why do people always assume that just because it's in the EULA, it's legally binding. It's a factor, certainly, but generally courts take a dim view of companies trying to weasel out of their legal obligations with this sort of thing. There's still an expectation that the software is fit for purpose.
I get that these are quirky designs. Why would we be interested in the bottom one as opposed to say a very long aircraft, possible with a different wing configuration. The middle one appears to be a biplane, effectively. Is this a good idea? Presumably, yes, but why?
Anything you can say is speech. I could go recite the key on street corners if I like.
That would clearly be speech. There's a speech element to it. But then it would also become copyrightable. I'm not quite sure that simply posting the keys on a webpage really counts as speech. Is it actually "saying" something?
Would revealing your credit card number be speech? I don't think so, or if it is, it's not protected speech.
Not common? I can think of a few patented games of the top of my head:
Well, it is relative. The graphics chip that you use to run the game will have dozens, possibly hundreds of patents that apply. And for every game you mention that does have a patented mechanic I can come up with dozens that don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless broadband on PAYG. You can get a much cheaper rate if you agree to a lock-in period, or go for ADSL.
This works out to £6 per month over three months. Anbd that suggests there's n lock-in period.
There's an element of diplomacy to this.
"Gosh. You suffered from problems caused by 'EVIL HACKERS!!!'. Well, I'm sure if you work in collaboration with us, we can protect you from 'EVIL HACKERS!!!' and this sort of thing isn't going to slow you down any more."
It's both. There's the flat sydharb (sometimes referred to as the tall sybhard), which is area, and there's the tall sydharb (sometimes referred to as the short sybhard) which is volume.
Indeed. As Martin C Brody said, "We're gonnna need a better joke".
More that if you have something to hide, do a better job of hidinhg it.
It's pretty stupid to rely on the people who you're hiding information from to help you to hide it no matter what they should do.
Uhm... You didn't answer the question. You simply attacked the poster for asking the question. It's a valid question and the question still stands.
So why should The Pope be admired? What has he done that people with different viewpoints from me and the GP might admire?
Of course they would! Everyone was marketing the home computer for all sorts of everyday tasks since the 1980's. If Microsoft didn't nab the home computer market someone else would have done. It's an obvious application.
Steve Wozniak and Clive Sinclair did a lot more to get computers into the home.
The greatest thing Bill Gates did wasn't to donate several million dollars. It's great that he did but what is much more improtant is that he applied a more business like method to measuring the success of a charity. The simple calculation of dollars per life saved rather than how low overheads are.
If a charity has low overheads but spends twice as much as it needs to on medicine, then it makes sense to hire a negotiator. That actually increases overheads but also increses efficiency.
It's a simple innovation but extremely important.
Any harm Bill Gates has done has been mostly to other businesses, and people who aren't gong to suffer unduly as a result. His charitable endeavours have very likely saved thousands of lives, and improved the quality of life of more than enough people to more than make up for any of the harm MS has done. He is inoffensive and doesn't poublicly judge others. All in all, whether he believes in God or not, he has many of the attributes a good Christian should admire.
Pope Benedict has actively campaigned against measures to reduce AIDS in Africa. He's helped cover up hideous sexual offences. He's highly judgemental, and regularly blames those not of his faith for the problems of the world. All in all, he has few of the attributes a good Christian should admire.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised Bill Gates didn't rank higher.
I was under the impression that Righthaven licences the articles after someone copies them. Also that Righthaven was an independent company, however I'm even less certain abou tthat one.
Seems he lives 45 minutes from his job of choice, and considers this an acceptable compromise between travel time and his home. The commuting overhead is minimised by his decision to take a car.
Troll seems odd. I was aiming for satire. The key difference being I assume people realised I wasn't representing my own opinions but a parody of someone else's.
Have you never met anyone who doesn't think that their success is entirely down to their own skill?
Do you know nobody who thinks they pay too much in taxes, yet thinks that the rich should pay more, even though by the standards of many people they are very wealthy?
My point and the GP's point is simply that people consider themselves fairly average, and can't conceive that some people would categorise them as rich.
Well, I agree, but it's also a little hard siding with Righthaven, who simply buy the rights to articles after infringement, purely in order to sue others for copyright infringement. It seems a little extreme to take such punitive legal measures against an article that is no longer generating revenue.
Just because it took the west 50 years to get somewhere, doesn't mean it would take China the same amount of time. They can get a modern engine and have a good model of what does work. The original designers had to go through a lot of incremental improvements to get one of them.
Maybe. But maybe China will catch up anyway. They can see the patents, buy an engine and reverse engineer it, or just put a lot of resources into developing the technology themselves. They will catch up eventually. Perhaps this does make it faster, but GE will make some money from this and improve their technology at the same time.
Why not let people charge for GPL (and other free) apps as well? It's permitted by the GPL. The FSF is quite clear that you can do this with their blessing.
A lot of his supporters, especially on slashdot, also probably think it's a sign of virtue to evade paying your taxes.
It's a sign of virtue for me to not pay taxes. It's disgraceful that anyone richer than me should avoid them. Other people hold similar views.
LOL! I love that the same people who are shocked to suggest violent games might cause violence are still quite happy to apply the logic to violent political rhetoric. Do you realy not see the hypocrisy there?
How about the lady that put the McDonalds hot coffee (law requires it be a minimum temp, at least in my state) in her lap between her legs while driving?
I only heard about a lady who put it between her legs whilst sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car, and then got burned by coffee that was so hot it required hospitalisation. Other establishments seem to manage to serve coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause third degree burns when spilled.
That's fine. Ms Flight Sim is not designed for doing that, and any reasonable person should realise this. It is designed to give a reasonable approximation of flying a plane. If it crashed after 5 minutes of use, and MS buried the claim that Ms was not responsible for reliability then they would lose because any reasonable person would expect a piece of commercial software to be more reliable than that.
Expecting a firewall would be reasonable. Designing it with absolutely no security whatsoever and claiming that any security issue were the responsibility of the user would be seen as a much less reasonable disclaimer.
Why do people always assume that just because it's in the EULA, it's legally binding. It's a factor, certainly, but generally courts take a dim view of companies trying to weasel out of their legal obligations with this sort of thing. There's still an expectation that the software is fit for purpose.
I get that these are quirky designs. Why would we be interested in the bottom one as opposed to say a very long aircraft, possible with a different wing configuration. The middle one appears to be a biplane, effectively. Is this a good idea? Presumably, yes, but why?
Anything you can say is speech. I could go recite the key on street corners if I like. That would clearly be speech. There's a speech element to it. But then it would also become copyrightable. I'm not quite sure that simply posting the keys on a webpage really counts as speech. Is it actually "saying" something?
Would revealing your credit card number be speech? I don't think so, or if it is, it's not protected speech.
Not common? I can think of a few patented games of the top of my head:
Well, it is relative. The graphics chip that you use to run the game will have dozens, possibly hundreds of patents that apply. And for every game you mention that does have a patented mechanic I can come up with dozens that don't.