Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
Not to mention that a do-not-track cookie and a do-not-track HTTP header member essentially have the same effect from a practical perspective (in that they both modify the HTTP header). However, an HTTP header would work across all domains, not just the domain that set it which might be a disadvantage to those who want to pick and choose who can and cannot track them.
I think they are acknowledging that enterprise is comprised of people. So they are not focusing on business as such, but the people involved therein (although how that's different from a practical stand-point is not apparently clear to me).
SpaceX is working with different parameters than the Apollo program did, namely that space flight is now established and has been proven which wasn't the case in the 1950s and 1960s. Besides, SpaceX could not exist without NASA, name me one private company who has a business interest in putting a satellite into orbit around an asteroid (companies that supply the rockets don't count, their goal is simply to be a transportation provider).
To say that research can be driven solely by market forces is over simplifying the dynamics of progress and ignores the reality that you occasionally have to go down the wrong path before you find the right one. To characterize research as the process which leads up to a Eureka moment is a gross misunderstanding of how research actually works. Private enterprise is in no better position to determine "lost cause" funding than publicly funded ones, it's impossible to predict the realization of a project until that project is realized (one can only estimate). Although I will grant that private enterprise is likely to give up funding projects more quickly, this doesn't mean that said project is a lost cause. Going back to the CMOS image sensor example, from the time the first one was developed to the time it became available as a commercial product was approximately 30 years. Tell me a private enterprise, unless they were a huge monopoly, would not have either cut the project or gone out of business before then.
... a research group at the JPL which was spun-off as a commercial entity and became eMagin which now produces image sensors for digital still and video camera devices.
Correction, I meant Aptina (formerly Micron) not eMagin (maker of OLEDs). For some reason, I always get those two confused. Mea culpa.
Government doesn't ever realize a black hole of research because the researcher will always say "A break through is immanent", just to get the next grant for the next ten years, until he can retire. Private enterprise, as much as the left wing hates it, knows when and how to cut research that is a dead end.
Industry would probably never have invested in the Apollo program. There's no apparent commercial value to it and the cost vs. benefit ratio is very high. However, this investment eventually led to the invention of the CMOS sensor by a research group at the JPL which was spun-off as a commercial entity and became eMagin which now produces image sensors for digital still and video camera devices. This is a huge market that would likely not exist if we relied only on private enterprise to fund research.
So, how does this relate to Android? Simple, CHECK the market place vs Ubuntu package manager and see just how much installing applications costs you. Remember that story about the Apple app store netting developers 2.5 billion and Apple itself 1 billion? Where do you think that money came from? That's right, you. Add a billion or so for the credit card companies and that is a lot of money. And for what? Apps that are available on Linux for free and INFINITELY more powerful.
I think you are conflating free as in beer with free as in freedom. There's nothing in the GPL that says that you cannot charge money for free software as long as it fulfills the four essential freedoms. In fact, in the early days, the Free Software Foundation charged money for their software (mostly to cover the cost of the media and the operational expenses of the FSF). The fact that the apps in the App store are not free has nothing to do with the fact that money is being exchanged for them but everything to do with the fact that they don't respect these four essential freedoms (although there may be apps that do, I don't actually own and Android device so I haven't checked).
Oops, that's not a micron, it's only one one-thousandth. Still it's a whole lot more area in near-contact than a hard drive, and I might still worry about a heatsink crash. It might be safer to at least put a wire cage around this whole thing, so that at the very least some cable or wire doesn't come loose and brush against it.
Actually it would 0.0254mm since it's 0.001 of an inch. Didn't NASA make a similar mistake once?
This works because different groups have differing opinions on what the optimal ratio is. For example, people seeking men will go to a bar with a higher male-female ratio causing the ratio to shift, therefore causing people to leave seeking a better ratio. Conversely, people seeking women, upon noticing the high male-female ratio (I'm assuming not everyone has the application so they may not know a priori what the ratio is), they will begin defecting to different bars. This will cause those with access to the app to start leaving as well as they see the ratio start to skew even more dramatically until eventually every bar in town has the same split. The simulated annealing involves the high "entropy" of bar patron movements at the beginning of the night toward a more stable system at the end.
Upon thinking about this a bit more, the real winners in this system will probably be the hot dog vendors on the street. Bar patrons will be so busy shuttling from one bar to another to find the one with the optimal gender ratio that they'll spend more time in transit than actually in the bar. Possible outcome: alcohol sales drop, hot dog sales skyrocket. On the other hand, less intoxicated people may be less inclined to want to buy street meat.
Tranny night at the local watering hole: someone may wind up choosing a bar to go to based on ratio and show up with the wrong expectations.
On a more serious note, if enough people know about and use this system, wouldn't this approximately model simulated annealing as people leave the bars with unfavorable ratios and go to bars with more favorable ratios? By the end of the night, all bars in a geographic area will probably exactly represent the ratio of all bar patrons that night divided according to gender preference. Thus defending the system against itself.
I'd be willing to be that, considering the disclaimer that the autopilot must be monitored by the driver, the human operator is still liable. It's a reasonable constraint but also unfortunate, it'd be nice to be able to catch up on reading in traffic. I guess I'll have to continue relying on the old-school version of this technology: the bus driver.
Maybe that's the intention. By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.
Seems to me that the threat of phishing can be mitigated my requiring the entity registering the domain name to show proof that the name in the *.brand is in fact a registered trademark. Of course, I could just be taking an over simplified look at the problem.
The problem with this issue is not necessarily due to the use of generic words as a trademark, but rather that the application of these trademarks is not sufficiently narrowly defined. As was mentioned in other posts, this could be a case of Best Buy deciding that, accusing the competition of violating their trademark is easier than actually competing with them, so they chose to do this rather than improve their service. The question is, are they legitimately losing business because customers are confounding a competing service for their own, or are they losing business due to an inferior product or service? I'm no jurist, but it seems to me that this is a nuance of trademarks which may not be adequately addressed by trademark law and provides much more possibility for abuse than the ability to register generic words.
Technically, it's a hypothesis. A theory is supported by some observable evidence (i.e. data). As a scientist, your job is to support your hypothesis with evidence using a method that is repeatable by others. When enough people can repeat your experiment and get similar results, the hypothesis can become a theory. A theory never becomes fact, it only becomes accepted by a consensus of peers.
It doesn't make a difference what history you're referring to, I provided temperature data that is available. Do you have temperature data from earth's history that you're referring to? If not, then it's nothing more than speculation.
I know this is probably going to go down in flames, but exactly how do creationists deal with this sort of finding? Answers from actual creationists preferred...
It's the evolution of intelligent design: iterative design. The X-Men might actually exist had God opted for an Agile design process.
Then there are other programs, like TurboTax, that have no Linux equivalent.
As a kubuntu user, though, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
TurboTax in Canada is a web-app that works with Linux. However, the security/privacy implications of compiling your tax return in the cloud are not to be overlooked.
Maybe they mean its the people, not the number that is picked at random.
In which case the poster should have written "a number of random people", however, wouldn't this have the same problem? How can you prove that the people were selected randomly rather than deterministically? It's difficult for external observers to infer intent.
"Distributing tax funds to authors based on their popularity" - Isn't that what Canada already does with singers? Well it has not worked. Only the 'approved' singers that are members of RIAA get the tax handouts, while independent non-corporate-owned singers get the shaft.
I don't think Canadian artists can be answerable to the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America), I believe you're thinking about SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada).
I fully-expect the same price pressure will drive down the cost of E-books to around 2 or 3 dollars. i.e. Half the paperback cost, since there are no resources wasted on paper, printing, or shipping.
Unfortunately, consumers are like sheep. They will pay what Amazon tells them to pay. It will be justified by substituting the cost of ink/paper to the cost of data warehouses and IT staff to support and enforce DRM.
This reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin asks his dad how they determine the maximum load of a bridge. His dad responds by saying something like: "They keep driving heavier and heavier trucks across it until it collapses then rebuild it"...
Slashdot Mirror
Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
Not to mention that a do-not-track cookie and a do-not-track HTTP header member essentially have the same effect from a practical perspective (in that they both modify the HTTP header). However, an HTTP header would work across all domains, not just the domain that set it which might be a disadvantage to those who want to pick and choose who can and cannot track them.
I think they are acknowledging that enterprise is comprised of people. So they are not focusing on business as such, but the people involved therein (although how that's different from a practical stand-point is not apparently clear to me).
SpaceX is working with different parameters than the Apollo program did, namely that space flight is now established and has been proven which wasn't the case in the 1950s and 1960s. Besides, SpaceX could not exist without NASA, name me one private company who has a business interest in putting a satellite into orbit around an asteroid (companies that supply the rockets don't count, their goal is simply to be a transportation provider).
To say that research can be driven solely by market forces is over simplifying the dynamics of progress and ignores the reality that you occasionally have to go down the wrong path before you find the right one. To characterize research as the process which leads up to a Eureka moment is a gross misunderstanding of how research actually works. Private enterprise is in no better position to determine "lost cause" funding than publicly funded ones, it's impossible to predict the realization of a project until that project is realized (one can only estimate). Although I will grant that private enterprise is likely to give up funding projects more quickly, this doesn't mean that said project is a lost cause. Going back to the CMOS image sensor example, from the time the first one was developed to the time it became available as a commercial product was approximately 30 years. Tell me a private enterprise, unless they were a huge monopoly, would not have either cut the project or gone out of business before then.
... a research group at the JPL which was spun-off as a commercial entity and became eMagin which now produces image sensors for digital still and video camera devices.
Correction, I meant Aptina (formerly Micron) not eMagin (maker of OLEDs). For some reason, I always get those two confused. Mea culpa.
Government doesn't ever realize a black hole of research because the researcher will always say "A break through is immanent", just to get the next grant for the next ten years, until he can retire. Private enterprise, as much as the left wing hates it, knows when and how to cut research that is a dead end.
Industry would probably never have invested in the Apollo program. There's no apparent commercial value to it and the cost vs. benefit ratio is very high. However, this investment eventually led to the invention of the CMOS sensor by a research group at the JPL which was spun-off as a commercial entity and became eMagin which now produces image sensors for digital still and video camera devices. This is a huge market that would likely not exist if we relied only on private enterprise to fund research.
So, how does this relate to Android? Simple, CHECK the market place vs Ubuntu package manager and see just how much installing applications costs you. Remember that story about the Apple app store netting developers 2.5 billion and Apple itself 1 billion? Where do you think that money came from? That's right, you. Add a billion or so for the credit card companies and that is a lot of money. And for what? Apps that are available on Linux for free and INFINITELY more powerful.
I think you are conflating free as in beer with free as in freedom. There's nothing in the GPL that says that you cannot charge money for free software as long as it fulfills the four essential freedoms. In fact, in the early days, the Free Software Foundation charged money for their software (mostly to cover the cost of the media and the operational expenses of the FSF). The fact that the apps in the App store are not free has nothing to do with the fact that money is being exchanged for them but everything to do with the fact that they don't respect these four essential freedoms (although there may be apps that do, I don't actually own and Android device so I haven't checked).
Oops, that's not a micron, it's only one one-thousandth. Still it's a whole lot more area in near-contact than a hard drive, and I might still worry about a heatsink crash. It might be safer to at least put a wire cage around this whole thing, so that at the very least some cable or wire doesn't come loose and brush against it.
Actually it would 0.0254mm since it's 0.001 of an inch. Didn't NASA make a similar mistake once?
This works because different groups have differing opinions on what the optimal ratio is. For example, people seeking men will go to a bar with a higher male-female ratio causing the ratio to shift, therefore causing people to leave seeking a better ratio. Conversely, people seeking women, upon noticing the high male-female ratio (I'm assuming not everyone has the application so they may not know a priori what the ratio is), they will begin defecting to different bars. This will cause those with access to the app to start leaving as well as they see the ratio start to skew even more dramatically until eventually every bar in town has the same split. The simulated annealing involves the high "entropy" of bar patron movements at the beginning of the night toward a more stable system at the end.
Upon thinking about this a bit more, the real winners in this system will probably be the hot dog vendors on the street. Bar patrons will be so busy shuttling from one bar to another to find the one with the optimal gender ratio that they'll spend more time in transit than actually in the bar. Possible outcome: alcohol sales drop, hot dog sales skyrocket. On the other hand, less intoxicated people may be less inclined to want to buy street meat.
Tranny night at the local watering hole: someone may wind up choosing a bar to go to based on ratio and show up with the wrong expectations. On a more serious note, if enough people know about and use this system, wouldn't this approximately model simulated annealing as people leave the bars with unfavorable ratios and go to bars with more favorable ratios? By the end of the night, all bars in a geographic area will probably exactly represent the ratio of all bar patrons that night divided according to gender preference. Thus defending the system against itself.
I'd be willing to be that, considering the disclaimer that the autopilot must be monitored by the driver, the human operator is still liable. It's a reasonable constraint but also unfortunate, it'd be nice to be able to catch up on reading in traffic. I guess I'll have to continue relying on the old-school version of this technology: the bus driver.
Maybe that's the intention. By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.
I should also add, that they have to also prove that they own said trademark (just in case that wasn't clear). My bad for omitting that detail.
Seems to me that the threat of phishing can be mitigated my requiring the entity registering the domain name to show proof that the name in the *.brand is in fact a registered trademark. Of course, I could just be taking an over simplified look at the problem.
The problem with this issue is not necessarily due to the use of generic words as a trademark, but rather that the application of these trademarks is not sufficiently narrowly defined. As was mentioned in other posts, this could be a case of Best Buy deciding that, accusing the competition of violating their trademark is easier than actually competing with them, so they chose to do this rather than improve their service. The question is, are they legitimately losing business because customers are confounding a competing service for their own, or are they losing business due to an inferior product or service? I'm no jurist, but it seems to me that this is a nuance of trademarks which may not be adequately addressed by trademark law and provides much more possibility for abuse than the ability to register generic words.
Technically, it's a hypothesis. A theory is supported by some observable evidence (i.e. data). As a scientist, your job is to support your hypothesis with evidence using a method that is repeatable by others. When enough people can repeat your experiment and get similar results, the hypothesis can become a theory. A theory never becomes fact, it only becomes accepted by a consensus of peers.
It doesn't make a difference what history you're referring to, I provided temperature data that is available. Do you have temperature data from earth's history that you're referring to? If not, then it's nothing more than speculation.
It would be useful to provide support for your assertion that there have been times in earth's history when it was much hotter than it is now. According to instrumental temperature records The years 2001-2010 feature among the warmest on record. Before 1880, we have to rely on temperature reconstruction by proxy measurements. The main takeaway from this data is that the "global mean surface temperatures over the last 25 years have been higher than any comparable period since AD 1600, and probably since AD 900"(Originally sourced from Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years). Just randomly asserting that there have been warmer years in history does not make it so. Personally I think haphazard invention of facts is more annoying than any zealous supporter of any philosophy.
I know this is probably going to go down in flames, but exactly how do creationists deal with this sort of finding? Answers from actual creationists preferred...
It's the evolution of intelligent design: iterative design. The X-Men might actually exist had God opted for an Agile design process.
Then there are other programs, like TurboTax, that have no Linux equivalent.
As a kubuntu user, though, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
TurboTax in Canada is a web-app that works with Linux. However, the security/privacy implications of compiling your tax return in the cloud are not to be overlooked.
Maybe they mean its the people, not the number that is picked at random.
In which case the poster should have written "a number of random people", however, wouldn't this have the same problem? How can you prove that the people were selected randomly rather than deterministically? It's difficult for external observers to infer intent.
I don't agree.
"Distributing tax funds to authors based on their popularity" - Isn't that what Canada already does with singers? Well it has not worked. Only the 'approved' singers that are members of RIAA get the tax handouts, while independent non-corporate-owned singers get the shaft.
I don't think Canadian artists can be answerable to the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America), I believe you're thinking about SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada).
I fully-expect the same price pressure will drive down the cost of E-books to around 2 or 3 dollars. i.e. Half the paperback cost, since there are no resources wasted on paper, printing, or shipping.
Unfortunately, consumers are like sheep. They will pay what Amazon tells them to pay. It will be justified by substituting the cost of ink/paper to the cost of data warehouses and IT staff to support and enforce DRM.
This reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin asks his dad how they determine the maximum load of a bridge. His dad responds by saying something like: "They keep driving heavier and heavier trucks across it until it collapses then rebuild it"...
you mean they cant tell all that by you know.. the fact that you payed for a ticket for train X for Y time on Z day?
That only tells you which train station you entered, not which train you boarded or transferred to.
I am guessing from your rightfully condensending tone that you are a graduate of some Ivory league university someplace in the Northeast.
I believe you meant "Ivy" league, unless you were trying to be condescending.