There's an invisible swf that plays the annoying bgm. Since its invisible you can't click-to-play it, and if you do get it running, you can't click to turn the noise off.
No, you were modded down. Anyone who wants to read at 0 or -1 can see it.
You'd need proof to convince me that your post was deleted. I've even bookmarked links that I've used the new flag feature to flag as spam, and checked on them (yep, still there).
But the market for that genre still exists, and after about 10 years, a new generation is available to exploit. If the original concept was strong enough, the fans are probably hungry enough that a new iteration should be successful
I think this is what Kickstarter is showing it excels at. When the public is ready, the project will succeed, and that readiness will be demonstrated by the strength of cash on hand rather than the begging and ranting of some crazy fan.
Before I ever bought a CFL bulb, I had to clean up a broken one.
Before CFL bulbs ever existed, I had to clean up a broken one. When I was 9 my mom asked me to help her change one of the fluorescent tubes in the kitchen. I dropped it and had to sweep up the pieces. It didn't affect me much but I guess the mercury vapor must have gotten out of the house since it made everyone else too retarded to remember that the non-compact fluorescent bulbs have been using mercury for decades without anyone running screaming to the EPA!
But dammit, now that the bulbs use less electricity to produce the same amount of light and therefore less heat, how the hell am I supposed to heat the ceiling above my lamp?!
would need to stand in a booth with you to watch you vote
In the era of social engineering, backorifice and other more-legitimate desktop viewing software, why would anyone need to employ tens of thousands of people to stand in peoples' houses and watch them vote online when they could watch them vote from the comfort of their own homes?
Of course, anyone actually distributing software to watch you vote and make sure you voted the right way so you can claim your $20 would get caught pretty quick since the first person who figures out they can get more than $20 by reporting the scheme, wins. It remains to be seen whether the SuperPAC arrangement yakovlev thought up could pull it off though.
That's DISproving it. Not the same thing. If you tell me there are no black swans, I can produce a black swan and DISprove your statement by contradiction. If you tell me there are no invisible pink unicorns, to PROVE it we'd have to locate every single organism, get them to line up, and catalog every last one of them to ensure that none of them are invisible pink unicorns.
enable getting the UI part of an application done quicker/better?
As with all things, the answer is "it depends". I can't count on my appendages the number of UIs I have used that truncated "unexpectedly long" strings, or didn't fit in a small window, or, or, or...
I think that's why web programming is so popular. HTML makes UI someone else's problem, and Sir Lord Johnathan Victor Fraskin Humpledingbart III can have his entire name displayed in the name field, even if it makes the rest of the form look like shit when the rendering engine rearranges it to fit.
It's also beatable if you find a way to store information non-physically.
I think this is what throws everyone when they think about the physics of knowledge. The vast majority of people don't realize that the physical embodiment of information must obey the laws of physics, and even many who do seem to believe knowledge ought to have some form of "soul" not shackled by physical constraints.
Where I work, we sometimes bid a job for 4x what other firms bid it out for. But many companies still hire us. Why?
Because they give a damn about something other than the quarterly report. The other companies that won't hire you? They don't give a damn if it will cost more in the long run, they'll be gone by then.
I'm guessing the majority of your clients are small businesses that aren't beholden to shareholders and their "maximize profits at all costs" outlook.
I just interviewed a guy with 15 years of experience that couldn't tell me how a hash table works
Yes, that guy is an idiot.
The guy who asked? He's programmed database frontends for 20 years and you're berating him because he can't solve a simple multibody gravitational acceleration problem?
Come back when you want to rant about how you had a Physics PhD who had 20 years of experience but couldn't explain orbital dynamics.
Youre saying businesses WANTED a meltdown and the issues that come with it?
Is that equivalent to "did not want to spend tens of millions of dollars to prevent the meltdown since if it ever happened, it would happen long after the executive retired with a tens of millions of dollars bonus for saving the company money"?
No idea who modded the parent down. Of course, maybe his problem was that he posted some long ago, far away scenario that could "never" happen in the US, right? Right?
better not have the same SHIT DRM that the last game had
A team of developers at Ubisoft reportedly dedicated a full three-year development cycle to re-examining every element in the franchise to improve the game - although it could've taken even longer
I'm sure those three years were well spent. It would've taken longer but they abandoned the requirement that your computer be plugged directly into their server using one of their miles-long cables.
I also always remember that what ever I do on a network is never private. That if I want privacy, I talk face to face, I write a physical letter, or I keep to myself my actions. Never trust the internet with privacy, nor Google potentially.
I keep that in mind too, knowing that even if I ditched chrome, google would still know what I was doing through their ad networks.
Still, it's a bit disconcerting to log into gmail and get a helpful notice that it can import all my email from foo@someotheraccount for me.
Executive Assistant Chief Dirden, who is over the Internal Affairs division (“IAD”), admitted in an interview that none of the officers on the accident scene, including Capt. Manzo, had reported any information from which IAD could open an investigation.
We know that Capt. Robert Manzo and a number of the officers on the accident scene were, in fact, aware at the time that there was alcohol in Sgt. Trejo’s truck based on pictures that were taken of the truck and accident scene.
We also now know that Sgt. Trejo arrived at the hospital with a blood-alcohol content of.205 – nearly three times the legal limit. We know that Sgt. Trejo was only minutes from climbing behind the wheel of an HPD vehicle where he was to supervise an entire shift. We know that Sgt. Trejo was not placed under arrest at the time of the accident or at the hospital. And finally, we know that Capt. Robert Manzo, the supervisor and ranking officer on the accident scene failed in his duty to report any of this to his supervisors.
Each and every decision Capt. Manzo made on April 13th was a violation of the public trust. His efforts to cover up Trejo’s crimes began as soon as he arrived at the accident scene. He used his rank and position to direct the actions of the officers under his command to assist with this cover up insuring the omission of particular information in their reports and eventually falsifying his own report.
Sorry, but the pictures of Cap'n Manzo's men covering up beer bottles and telling everyone for two weeks that the cop's breath was minty fresh and he was clean as a whistle just aren't serious enough to get IA's attention. Can't open an investigation on Cap'n Manzo's coverup, unless Cap'n Manzo says so.
Bonus points: because of Cap'n Manzo's coverup, the guy was not immediately arrested. Because he was not immediately arrested, the hospital's.205 reading isn't admissible evidence, so the cop can't be charged with DWI. It's not clear whether the poor lady driving the bus had her ticket (which probably got her fired) expunged, or if the cops even bothered to pull her back out after she was "thrown under the bus" by Cap'n Manzo's men as part of the coverup.
the officer who gave the order can then be charged with
Except that the article suggests they are not charged with anything. We have case-after-case of cops harassing and/or arresting people for filming them, many of which are resolved in the photographer's favor, and yet the taxpayers, not the cops, are the ones who pay for it.
Consider, for instance, the case of Sean and Erik Ibarra who we had to pay $1.7 million for the cops' assault and destruction of evidence and the Ibarra's subsequent arrest for "evading arrest".
Charges for the cops? None. And do you know what happened when the Ibarras asked why? The DA deleted his emails. Then we got to pay for his contempt defense. Of course, it's just contempt of court, not an actual destruction of evidence charge, so he was given a dinky little fine, which of course he appealed at our expense.
Or take the cops that harassed people who were photographing a drunk cop who slammed into a schoolbus. The cops were seen covering up beer bottles and the hospital found the cop to be over.200 (out of.08) yet internal affairs stood by the cops who "investigated" the wreck and insisted that the cop wasn't drunk for weeks.
my only concern comes from the police attempting to delete imagery from the camera
So you have no concern whatsoever with your tax dollars spent to deal with it, or with the company's money being spent on lawyers to deal with it? Lost wages and productivity while sitting in jail and/or court dealing with it?
These too are consequences, yet much of it is incurred before a court decides whether or not the cop's order was lawful.
The key is recognizing that the event can have consequences.
But only for the little people. Cops have their union to protect them, and prosecutors are immune from so much as a pay cut, even if they violate the Constitutional protections of innocent people by hiding exculpatory evidence.
I vote libertarian in the hopes they win once and manage to turn this train around. 4 years later I'll vote for someone else in the hopes that the libertarians lose before the train gets to crazytown.
The problem with software pattents is it is only comparing the end result or goal being similar.
Bingo. There are a million ways to achieve a result on a computer, but software patent holders routinely insist that their patent covers every possible way of doing something. That's not patenting an invention, that's patenting an idea and it should be completely invalid.
Amazon's social networking patent was filed in 2011 but
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/506,115, filed Jul. 20, 2009 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,041,595, which is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/127,495, filed May 27, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,739,139, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/022,089, filed Dec. 22, 2004 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,464, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/780,486, filed Feb. 17, 2004 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,194,419), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/348,355, filed Jul. 7, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,916), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/962,997, filed Nov. 2, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,269,369).
They are playing so nice that it is almost annoying to those of us that do manage to keep paying our mortgage.
Is that playing nice to be nice, or is that playing nice until they find all that damn paperwork they shoved into MERS so they wouldn't have to pay the goverment to keep track of who owns the property in the event that someone had to prove to the government that they have the right to evict the occupant?
Slashdot Mirror
There's an invisible swf that plays the annoying bgm. Since its invisible you can't click-to-play it, and if you do get it running, you can't click to turn the noise off.
I was censored here too.
No, you were modded down. Anyone who wants to read at 0 or -1 can see it.
You'd need proof to convince me that your post was deleted. I've even bookmarked links that I've used the new flag feature to flag as spam, and checked on them (yep, still there).
But the market for that genre still exists, and after about 10 years, a new generation is available to exploit. If the original concept was strong enough, the fans are probably hungry enough that a new iteration should be successful
I think this is what Kickstarter is showing it excels at. When the public is ready, the project will succeed, and that readiness will be demonstrated by the strength of cash on hand rather than the begging and ranting of some crazy fan.
Damn, I better change my contact list, mine says "Parents" since sometimes I like to talk to Dad too.
Before I ever bought a CFL bulb, I had to clean up a broken one.
Before CFL bulbs ever existed, I had to clean up a broken one. When I was 9 my mom asked me to help her change one of the fluorescent tubes in the kitchen. I dropped it and had to sweep up the pieces. It didn't affect me much but I guess the mercury vapor must have gotten out of the house since it made everyone else too retarded to remember that the non-compact fluorescent bulbs have been using mercury for decades without anyone running screaming to the EPA!
But dammit, now that the bulbs use less electricity to produce the same amount of light and therefore less heat, how the hell am I supposed to heat the ceiling above my lamp?!
would need to stand in a booth with you to watch you vote
In the era of social engineering, backorifice and other more-legitimate desktop viewing software, why would anyone need to employ tens of thousands of people to stand in peoples' houses and watch them vote online when they could watch them vote from the comfort of their own homes?
Of course, anyone actually distributing software to watch you vote and make sure you voted the right way so you can claim your $20 would get caught pretty quick since the first person who figures out they can get more than $20 by reporting the scheme, wins. It remains to be seen whether the SuperPAC arrangement yakovlev thought up could pull it off though.
If it happened 5m years ago (their time) in a galaxy 5.1m lightyears away then it's still 100,000 years in our future.
If I leave now, I can get "future weapons" before everyone else!
proof by contradiction
That's DISproving it. Not the same thing. If you tell me there are no black swans, I can produce a black swan and DISprove your statement by contradiction. If you tell me there are no invisible pink unicorns, to PROVE it we'd have to locate every single organism, get them to line up, and catalog every last one of them to ensure that none of them are invisible pink unicorns.
enable getting the UI part of an application done quicker/better?
As with all things, the answer is "it depends". I can't count on my appendages the number of UIs I have used that truncated "unexpectedly long" strings, or didn't fit in a small window, or, or, or...
I think that's why web programming is so popular. HTML makes UI someone else's problem, and Sir Lord Johnathan Victor Fraskin Humpledingbart III can have his entire name displayed in the name field, even if it makes the rest of the form look like shit when the rendering engine rearranges it to fit.
It's also beatable if you find a way to store information non-physically.
I think this is what throws everyone when they think about the physics of knowledge. The vast majority of people don't realize that the physical embodiment of information must obey the laws of physics, and even many who do seem to believe knowledge ought to have some form of "soul" not shackled by physical constraints.
Where I work, we sometimes bid a job for 4x what other firms bid it out for. But many companies still hire us. Why?
Because they give a damn about something other than the quarterly report. The other companies that won't hire you? They don't give a damn if it will cost more in the long run, they'll be gone by then.
I'm guessing the majority of your clients are small businesses that aren't beholden to shareholders and their "maximize profits at all costs" outlook.
I just interviewed a guy with 15 years of experience that couldn't tell me how a hash table works
Yes, that guy is an idiot.
The guy who asked? He's programmed database frontends for 20 years and you're berating him because he can't solve a simple multibody gravitational acceleration problem?
Come back when you want to rant about how you had a Physics PhD who had 20 years of experience but couldn't explain orbital dynamics.
Youre saying businesses WANTED a meltdown and the issues that come with it?
Is that equivalent to "did not want to spend tens of millions of dollars to prevent the meltdown since if it ever happened, it would happen long after the executive retired with a tens of millions of dollars bonus for saving the company money"?
No idea who modded the parent down. Of course, maybe his problem was that he posted some long ago, far away scenario that could "never" happen in the US, right? Right?
Unless you're in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Youth_Commission#Child_sexual_abuse_scandal
Who would be insane enough to write OO code in assembly?
better not have the same SHIT DRM that the last game had
I'm sure those three years were well spent. It would've taken longer but they abandoned the requirement that your computer be plugged directly into their server using one of their miles-long cables.
I also always remember that what ever I do on a network is never private. That if I want privacy, I talk face to face, I write a physical letter, or I keep to myself my actions. Never trust the internet with privacy, nor Google potentially.
I keep that in mind too, knowing that even if I ditched chrome, google would still know what I was doing through their ad networks.
Still, it's a bit disconcerting to log into gmail and get a helpful notice that it can import all my email from foo@someotheraccount for me.
Thank goodness someone's browsing through the thread with a citation to show that it has, in fact, happened, eh comrade?
http://www.pixiq.com/article/Houston%20Police%20Threaten%20To%20Arrest%20Photographers%20To%20Protect%20Own
Sorry, but the pictures of Cap'n Manzo's men covering up beer bottles and telling everyone for two weeks that the cop's breath was minty fresh and he was clean as a whistle just aren't serious enough to get IA's attention. Can't open an investigation on Cap'n Manzo's coverup, unless Cap'n Manzo says so.
Bonus points: because of Cap'n Manzo's coverup, the guy was not immediately arrested. Because he was not immediately arrested, the hospital's .205 reading isn't admissible evidence, so the cop can't be charged with DWI. It's not clear whether the poor lady driving the bus had her ticket (which probably got her fired) expunged, or if the cops even bothered to pull her back out after she was "thrown under the bus" by Cap'n Manzo's men as part of the coverup.
the officer who gave the order can then be charged with
Except that the article suggests they are not charged with anything. We have case-after-case of cops harassing and/or arresting people for filming them, many of which are resolved in the photographer's favor, and yet the taxpayers, not the cops, are the ones who pay for it.
Consider, for instance, the case of Sean and Erik Ibarra who we had to pay $1.7 million for the cops' assault and destruction of evidence and the Ibarra's subsequent arrest for "evading arrest".
Charges for the cops? None. And do you know what happened when the Ibarras asked why? The DA deleted his emails. Then we got to pay for his contempt defense. Of course, it's just contempt of court, not an actual destruction of evidence charge, so he was given a dinky little fine, which of course he appealed at our expense.
Or take the cops that harassed people who were photographing a drunk cop who slammed into a schoolbus. The cops were seen covering up beer bottles and the hospital found the cop to be over .200 (out of .08) yet internal affairs stood by the cops who "investigated" the wreck and insisted that the cop wasn't drunk for weeks.
my only concern comes from the police attempting to delete imagery from the camera
So you have no concern whatsoever with your tax dollars spent to deal with it, or with the company's money being spent on lawyers to deal with it? Lost wages and productivity while sitting in jail and/or court dealing with it?
These too are consequences, yet much of it is incurred before a court decides whether or not the cop's order was lawful.
The key is recognizing that the event can have consequences.
But only for the little people. Cops have their union to protect them, and prosecutors are immune from so much as a pay cut, even if they violate the Constitutional protections of innocent people by hiding exculpatory evidence.
I vote libertarian in the hopes they win once and manage to turn this train around. 4 years later I'll vote for someone else in the hopes that the libertarians lose before the train gets to crazytown.
The problem with software pattents is it is only comparing the end result or goal being similar.
Bingo. There are a million ways to achieve a result on a computer, but software patent holders routinely insist that their patent covers every possible way of doing something. That's not patenting an invention, that's patenting an idea and it should be completely invalid.
Amazon's social networking patent was filed in 2011 but
That patent filed back in 1997 was for a networked personal contact manager. Good luck finding prior art!
They are playing so nice that it is almost annoying to those of us that do manage to keep paying our mortgage.
Is that playing nice to be nice, or is that playing nice until they find all that damn paperwork they shoved into MERS so they wouldn't have to pay the goverment to keep track of who owns the property in the event that someone had to prove to the government that they have the right to evict the occupant?