Here's another person expecting teachers to do a parent's job. What is it with you looney lefties?
Parents cannot teach what they have never learned. If the mass of the population is ignorant, and ignorance breeds ignorance, then it is up to the educated few to enlighten.
No, even more important would be for slashdot et al. to stop using slanderous sensationalism to incite its readers. The world would be a much better place if we all kept a cool head about things and approached dillemmas cooly and rationally.
Perhaps they should teach a temperment class in school...
If you wrote it down, you WOULD be bound to it. The EULA is written down.
Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. Promises, written, verbal, or otherwise, that are not also a consideration in a contract (of which there are other criteria involved) are not binding.
They are, at the very least, a promise by the company...
Promises are not legally binding. I can promise you to give you $20 for helping me wash my car last week (after the fact), but not be legally required to give you the $20 ever.
...I didn't feel punished for not having seen previous episodes.
Plus, this type of show is ideal for release to DVD. I usually don't watch my favorite shows when they are butchered and molested by commercials, but I'll gladly fork out a reasonable sum of money to watch them all sequentially on commercial free DVD. Although, I think that $120 MSRP for each season of Star Trek is a bit steep, but eBay and borrowing from friends has cured me of that;-).
I don't trust journalism any longer. Not sure I ever did but it's certainly less than ever before. But it's pretty obvious that the press isn't the check or balance to those who are in political power.
I don't trust commercial press anymore. But, I do hold non-profit organizations such as NPR in a much higher regard. Perhaps it is still possible for the people to have access to trustworthy news. It doesn't have to be fair and balanced, but it does have to be honest. It would be nice if there were some news portal whose function was to point us in the direction of such sources.
On the other hand, it may not have been a matter of retalliation at all. It may be that Microsoft was concerned that they would not own the intellectual property developed by Navision if those remained in Europe. There may be legitimate business reasons to develop intellectual property in those places where it is better protected.
True enough. I would be quite surprised if someone as acquainted with the business world and its laws as Bill Gates would turn to such recklessly illegal tactics as extortion or blackmail. My first reactions was what blackmail? But giving the editor the benefit of the doubt, I assumed that what occured was actually extortion. I doubt even that much is likely. I hope someone mods you up.
Is there a difference between blackmail and extortion?
According to dictionary.com, blackmail is defined as the extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Whereas extortion is defined as the Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
You're definitely correct. And Microsoft agrees with you. Last year I decided to sell my copy of Office 2000 on eBay. It is a retail-box version, which is not tied by an OEM license to any hardware.
Unfortunately, I have misplaced a few bits and pieces of the box it came in. I was ordered by the eBay authorities to delist my copy of Office. Owning the CD, with the jewel box, the CD Key, even the user's manual, does not 'license' me to that copy of Office.
Yes, but your inability to sell your copy of office on eBay is an eBay policy, not a legal issue. If you stood on the street corner and held up a sign that said "Office $10", then you would be within your rights (zoning restrictions, tax law, and all other business regulations not withstanding) to sell your copy of Office for $10.
It does not necessarily follow from that, however, that another user is entitled to execute the bits that are on the CD, if it is in violation of the click-through EULA that he must agree to to continue using it. But EULA's are another story, and quite seperate from the issue of whether music CD's are licensed.
I agree. Of course, I would like to see copright law reformed for the better. That is, i think that it is already far too unbalanced in favor of corporate America. But, yes, that government is best which governs the least.
Sorry, but a physical disc is not a license. Does anyone here know what types of things can actually be licensed? Can Mars Incorporated license me a Snicker's bar under the conditions that I won't share it with my friend?
Certain types of things do seem to be licensable. As far as I can tell, it seems that intellectual property and other things that a person has exclusive rights to can be licensed. That is, they can extend those rights to someone under the terms of a license. However, there are also first sale rights that come with the purchase of a product, such as a CD. I have the right to burn it, destroy it, or do whatever else I want with it as the owner. That includes shining a laser onto it and reading off the reflected beam.
I don't think anyone would argue that I have the right to read what's on the disc, license or not. It doesn't seem like the type of thing that is licensable.
In fact, if it were, then there would not be a need for the DMCA, because breaking DRM would have already been illegal. But, it appears that it was not. It required legislation to forbid such behavior.
Sure, just don't legislate DRM making it illegal for me to use the product the way I want. Make it a challenge, but don't put me in jail for coming out on top.
It's funny that the correlation between the machine reading a certain state at time t and some major world event at t* where t* is greater than t is perceived as the event at t* causing the machine state at t, rather than the other way around. Correlation does not indicate causation, and in this case, it would appear more likely that the machine could somehow cause major events, though how that could occur, I have no idea, but it still seems infinitely more plausible than a case of genuine backwards causation, which is what everyone else seems to think is the case.
Never said they were forcing me to do anything. Least of all purchase another computer from them. Why do they offer upgrades to begin with? Answer: customer care and quality assurance.
Apple have provided new hardware that supports a new feature.
If you look at my original statement, it was based on the presumption that the hardware hadn't changed. If this is indeed a new trackpad, then what can I say? I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple makes new superior hardware. I wouldn't expect them to make a sloppy second-rate hack to make my iBook have functionality that was only ever designed to work with a PowerBook. If that is the impression that I gave, I'm sorry that so many have misread me.
Apple are a company, they work on a system of making sure that there is going to be a return on money they invest.
Absolutely, it all boils down to money. And part of higher returns is having returning customers. Customers are more likely to return if they have positive image of a company. Which brings me back to my original claim. If indeed the trackpads are identical or within a certain threshold of similarity (which it appears that they are) then it would be a pre-designed crippling of functionality for the same software (OS X 10.3 in this case) to function differently based upon hardware differences other than the trackpad. In my opinion, this is a sleazy thing to do and all I have claimed is that it will be a factor in my choosing to return to Apple for my future computing needs.
...in the next update. With this proof-of-concept in the open, it would look pretty bad for them to not offer identical functionality with the same software. Or rather, cripple software based upon the hardware that runs it. If it is within my iBook's capability (and it is) to do this, then unless Apple officially supports this in the future, I shall seriously reconsider my future Apple purchases.
Is there a reason that you would prefer this over one finger clicking? You can turn one finger clicking on in the Preferences panel under mouse and keyboard. There is even an option to ignore "accidental" clicks, in case that is why you want two-finger clicking.
Though, it would be nice to have two-finger clicks indicate a CTL-Click, so now that I think about it, that could be a nice feature. Good idea!
Yes you can find them on the international website. But, I can't seem to get mine to work without having it plugged in at boot time, either. If you unplug it afterwards, you need to restart again to get it working again.
Also, Photoshop CS seems to have a problem recognizing the pen. Solution: revert back to Photoshop 7, if you have it.
Is this good or bad for Nintendo? On the one hand, it is good that they seem to have superior hardware, but if cross platform portability is at stake, will this drive away more producers than it attracts?
Labwork is a good way to go. If you get involved in a physics experiment, programming knowledge is often highly desirable for the analysis portion and also during the setup depending on the situation. You can even do this while you are working on your PhD in the same department.
If you feel the burnout starting to set in, you might take the year off and teach private school. They can't get enough physics teachers and you would have very little trouble finding work for a year or so.
If you are looking for something longer term, many financial organizations higher physicists for their problem solving skills as stock market analysts. PhD's are often highly desired for those positions, but not required.
But if all else fails, work is work - suck it up and do what you can until something better comes along. Even if it is programming.
I doubt that very much considering that in the widescreen format of Spaceballs, the princess's nose is cut off at a dramatic moment. I can't imagine them having left that out of the theatrical release - it wouldn't make any sense. But lo! and behold! it is in the full screen version. It really aggrevated me, and I've been wondering if there was a problem with my DVD player, but now it all makes sense.
Dunno about you, but I wouldn't like the thought of my mum (mom?) being sat in front of a Linux machine. Until Linux is ready for my mum to use, it's not ready to replace Windows.
Different strokes for different folks. I don't see why any single operating system or computer has to be used by everyone for it to have come of age, so to speak. Personally, I use Linux and Mac. I don't see any reason why the vast majority of people shouldn't switch to the beauty of OS X and the quality of Apple Hardware. Having said that, I recognize that some users are heavily into gaming, and Macintosh/Linux is certainly not top-of-the-line in that department.
On the other hand, I know plenty of people who use Linux for scientific/developmental purposes and find it to be quite adequate and preferable to its windows bretheren.
So why should it be that everyone or near everyone should need to use one operating system for it to be considered "of age"? We don't make such statements with other products (cars, clothing, pasta sauces). Different strokes...
Don't see how you can prevent the RIAA from doing searches and downloads like the avg downloader would?
I believe the technique is called "crowding", whereby messages are sent indirectly along a path like the telephone game.
Tell whoever asked for hashkey $foo that its over here (in some vague direction). The response gets passed backward the way it came, and nobody knows who the sender or receiver is.
Encryption gaurantees that the content of the transfer is unknown. This way, there are no "good samaritans" or men in the middle who can censor based on content. All packets, good and "evil" look the same.
At least, that is my understanding of the way that freenet does it.
I saw this article from Wired yesterday and looked at the image that was provided. They said it was given to them by Elonka Dunin. The thing is, if you look very closesly at the letters in an image window under magnification, there are intermittent red pixels occurring on certain letters on what should be a black and white only image. Could this be another code?
If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
The motivation behind patents is not to reward people who innovate for the sake of patting them on the back, but to provide insentive for them to begin innovating in the first place, with the hopes that society will benefit from their creation after a small time period.
The reasoning behind patents is dubious in general - it presupposes that there would be less innovation were they not to exist (or even to exist in a more limited form). If history has taught us anything, it is that greed always finds a way to mask its ugly head and I'm sure that businesses would find a way to profit from their inventions even were patents not to exist. Being the first to market (and the name recognition that goes along with it) can be a very powerful ally indeed.
Secondly, it is not clear that the current time period for software patent expiration is anywhere near reasonable. In the fast-changing world of computers and information technology, even a year can be a long enough time period for software to become obsolete. How long do software patents last? 10 years? 17 years?
Then look at the patents that companies try to secure - one click ordering via amazon.com? If the patent on one-click ordering were even remotely influential on the companies decision to implement that feature, then I could perhaps see that a software patent may be useful in achieving its dubious purpose. But in this case, it is the ease of ordering - the desire to improve the customer's experience - from which the implementation gains its lure.
The above question strikes me as no more grounded than when a five year old gets into a fight with his sibling and says "stop copying me!". One person's being the first to have a particular idea does not in anyway entail his or her posession of that idea. So with this in mind, the question is: "If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *SHOULD* you be able to get a patent on it?"
Slashdot Mirror
Parents cannot teach what they have never learned. If the mass of the population is ignorant, and ignorance breeds ignorance, then it is up to the educated few to enlighten.
No, even more important would be for slashdot et al. to stop using slanderous sensationalism to incite its readers. The world would be a much better place if we all kept a cool head about things and approached dillemmas cooly and rationally.
Perhaps they should teach a temperment class in school...
Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. Promises, written, verbal, or otherwise, that are not also a consideration in a contract (of which there are other criteria involved) are not binding.
Promises are not legally binding. I can promise you to give you $20 for helping me wash my car last week (after the fact), but not be legally required to give you the $20 ever.
Plus, this type of show is ideal for release to DVD. I usually don't watch my favorite shows when they are butchered and molested by commercials, but I'll gladly fork out a reasonable sum of money to watch them all sequentially on commercial free DVD. Although, I think that $120 MSRP for each season of Star Trek is a bit steep, but eBay and borrowing from friends has cured me of that ;-).
I don't trust commercial press anymore. But, I do hold non-profit organizations such as NPR in a much higher regard. Perhaps it is still possible for the people to have access to trustworthy news. It doesn't have to be fair and balanced, but it does have to be honest. It would be nice if there were some news portal whose function was to point us in the direction of such sources.
True enough. I would be quite surprised if someone as acquainted with the business world and its laws as Bill Gates would turn to such recklessly illegal tactics as extortion or blackmail. My first reactions was what blackmail? But giving the editor the benefit of the doubt, I assumed that what occured was actually extortion. I doubt even that much is likely. I hope someone mods you up.
According to dictionary.com, blackmail is defined as the extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Whereas extortion is defined as the Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
Is it not extortion that has occured here?
You're definitely correct. And Microsoft agrees with you. Last year I decided to sell my copy of Office 2000 on eBay. It is a retail-box version, which is not tied by an OEM license to any hardware.
Unfortunately, I have misplaced a few bits and pieces of the box it came in. I was ordered by the eBay authorities to delist my copy of Office. Owning the CD, with the jewel box, the CD Key, even the user's manual, does not 'license' me to that copy of Office.
Yes, but your inability to sell your copy of office on eBay is an eBay policy, not a legal issue. If you stood on the street corner and held up a sign that said "Office $10", then you would be within your rights (zoning restrictions, tax law, and all other business regulations not withstanding) to sell your copy of Office for $10.
It does not necessarily follow from that, however, that another user is entitled to execute the bits that are on the CD, if it is in violation of the click-through EULA that he must agree to to continue using it. But EULA's are another story, and quite seperate from the issue of whether music CD's are licensed.
I agree. Of course, I would like to see copright law reformed for the better. That is, i think that it is already far too unbalanced in favor of corporate America. But, yes, that government is best which governs the least.
Sorry, but a physical disc is not a license. Does anyone here know what types of things can actually be licensed? Can Mars Incorporated license me a Snicker's bar under the conditions that I won't share it with my friend?
Certain types of things do seem to be licensable. As far as I can tell, it seems that intellectual property and other things that a person has exclusive rights to can be licensed. That is, they can extend those rights to someone under the terms of a license. However, there are also first sale rights that come with the purchase of a product, such as a CD. I have the right to burn it, destroy it, or do whatever else I want with it as the owner. That includes shining a laser onto it and reading off the reflected beam.I don't think anyone would argue that I have the right to read what's on the disc, license or not. It doesn't seem like the type of thing that is licensable.
In fact, if it were, then there would not be a need for the DMCA, because breaking DRM would have already been illegal. But, it appears that it was not. It required legislation to forbid such behavior.
Sure, just don't legislate DRM making it illegal for me to use the product the way I want. Make it a challenge, but don't put me in jail for coming out on top.
It's funny that the correlation between the machine reading a certain state at time t and some major world event at t* where t* is greater than t is perceived as the event at t* causing the machine state at t, rather than the other way around. Correlation does not indicate causation, and in this case, it would appear more likely that the machine could somehow cause major events, though how that could occur, I have no idea, but it still seems infinitely more plausible than a case of genuine backwards causation, which is what everyone else seems to think is the case.
Never said they were forcing me to do anything. Least of all purchase another computer from them. Why do they offer upgrades to begin with? Answer: customer care and quality assurance.
Apple have provided new hardware that supports a new feature.If you look at my original statement, it was based on the presumption that the hardware hadn't changed. If this is indeed a new trackpad, then what can I say? I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple makes new superior hardware. I wouldn't expect them to make a sloppy second-rate hack to make my iBook have functionality that was only ever designed to work with a PowerBook. If that is the impression that I gave, I'm sorry that so many have misread me.
Apple are a company, they work on a system of making sure that there is going to be a return on money they invest.Absolutely, it all boils down to money. And part of higher returns is having returning customers. Customers are more likely to return if they have positive image of a company. Which brings me back to my original claim. If indeed the trackpads are identical or within a certain threshold of similarity (which it appears that they are) then it would be a pre-designed crippling of functionality for the same software (OS X 10.3 in this case) to function differently based upon hardware differences other than the trackpad. In my opinion, this is a sleazy thing to do and all I have claimed is that it will be a factor in my choosing to return to Apple for my future computing needs.
...in the next update. With this proof-of-concept in the open, it would look pretty bad for them to not offer identical functionality with the same software. Or rather, cripple software based upon the hardware that runs it. If it is within my iBook's capability (and it is) to do this, then unless Apple officially supports this in the future, I shall seriously reconsider my future Apple purchases.
Is there a reason that you would prefer this over one finger clicking? You can turn one finger clicking on in the Preferences panel under mouse and keyboard. There is even an option to ignore "accidental" clicks, in case that is why you want two-finger clicking.
Though, it would be nice to have two-finger clicks indicate a CTL-Click, so now that I think about it, that could be a nice feature. Good idea!
How does one force a bus reenumeration?
Also, Photoshop CS seems to have a problem recognizing the pen. Solution: revert back to Photoshop 7, if you have it.
Is this good or bad for Nintendo? On the one hand, it is good that they seem to have superior hardware, but if cross platform portability is at stake, will this drive away more producers than it attracts?
If you feel the burnout starting to set in, you might take the year off and teach private school. They can't get enough physics teachers and you would have very little trouble finding work for a year or so.
If you are looking for something longer term, many financial organizations higher physicists for their problem solving skills as stock market analysts. PhD's are often highly desired for those positions, but not required.
But if all else fails, work is work - suck it up and do what you can until something better comes along. Even if it is programming.
I doubt that very much considering that in the widescreen format of Spaceballs, the princess's nose is cut off at a dramatic moment. I can't imagine them having left that out of the theatrical release - it wouldn't make any sense. But lo! and behold! it is in the full screen version. It really aggrevated me, and I've been wondering if there was a problem with my DVD player, but now it all makes sense.
Different strokes for different folks. I don't see why any single operating system or computer has to be used by everyone for it to have come of age, so to speak. Personally, I use Linux and Mac. I don't see any reason why the vast majority of people shouldn't switch to the beauty of OS X and the quality of Apple Hardware. Having said that, I recognize that some users are heavily into gaming, and Macintosh/Linux is certainly not top-of-the-line in that department.
On the other hand, I know plenty of people who use Linux for scientific/developmental purposes and find it to be quite adequate and preferable to its windows bretheren.
So why should it be that everyone or near everyone should need to use one operating system for it to be considered "of age"? We don't make such statements with other products (cars, clothing, pasta sauces). Different strokes...
I believe the technique is called "crowding", whereby messages are sent indirectly along a path like the telephone game.
Tell whoever asked for hashkey $foo that its over here (in some vague direction). The response gets passed backward the way it came, and nobody knows who the sender or receiver is.
Encryption gaurantees that the content of the transfer is unknown. This way, there are no "good samaritans" or men in the middle who can censor based on content. All packets, good and "evil" look the same.
At least, that is my understanding of the way that freenet does it.
Here is the image
The motivation behind patents is not to reward people who innovate for the sake of patting them on the back, but to provide insentive for them to begin innovating in the first place, with the hopes that society will benefit from their creation after a small time period.
The reasoning behind patents is dubious in general - it presupposes that there would be less innovation were they not to exist (or even to exist in a more limited form). If history has taught us anything, it is that greed always finds a way to mask its ugly head and I'm sure that businesses would find a way to profit from their inventions even were patents not to exist. Being the first to market (and the name recognition that goes along with it) can be a very powerful ally indeed.
Secondly, it is not clear that the current time period for software patent expiration is anywhere near reasonable. In the fast-changing world of computers and information technology, even a year can be a long enough time period for software to become obsolete. How long do software patents last? 10 years? 17 years?
Then look at the patents that companies try to secure - one click ordering via amazon.com? If the patent on one-click ordering were even remotely influential on the companies decision to implement that feature, then I could perhaps see that a software patent may be useful in achieving its dubious purpose. But in this case, it is the ease of ordering - the desire to improve the customer's experience - from which the implementation gains its lure.
The above question strikes me as no more grounded than when a five year old gets into a fight with his sibling and says "stop copying me!". One person's being the first to have a particular idea does not in anyway entail his or her posession of that idea. So with this in mind, the question is: "If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *SHOULD* you be able to get a patent on it?"