You can certainly work legally to change the situation regarding your ability to transfer and reuse the first license you bought, but if you don't like the current situation, your best current choice is to not participate (i.e., if you don't give Nintendo your money, they won't have your money).
I don't think it matters very much. There are certain apps that are great to have (say, a mapping application). Those come with the phone, or are made available for any 'significant' platform by the entity providing the data or service.
Then there is a tier of apps that are 'gee-whiz', high end games, task specific apps, but not stuff that tons of people are going to pay much more than $10 for.
After that, it is only going to get harder to be $5 better (or $1 better) than the free equivalent to your app.
Now explain how locking all their devices to depend on iTunes has anything to do with them being the best possible.
Would the effort required to make them function in a sane way (and then have iTunes use that functionality) be so much greater than the effort expended on trying to tie things to iTunes?
I asked the anthropomorphism question because it seemed like maybe he was taking the device a little too literally, treating the community as a monolithic block. It was a device of my own.
The core Python dev team is probably mostly agnostic towards changes that benefit scientists, especially if there are no costs to programmers, or huge amounts of maintenance.
Another group of people is working hard to make tools for doing science in Python.
Switching over to doing float division by default isn't that huge a change, and it is aimed at beginners, not scientists. If number literals had been converted over to being interpreted as rationals, maybe you'd have an argument there (scientists probably don't necessarily care if there are some inaccuracies introduced due to representational problems with various number types, but rationals are least likely to violate expectations).
Even without laws, the underlying assumption that there is actually a genetic underclass that is worth discriminating against is sort of silly. Companies discriminating on productivity are likely to be far more successful than companies discriminating on statistical likelihood of future sick days.
Insurance is different, but perhaps genetic testing will force us (as a society) to confront the difference between health coverage and insurance.
They were selling the batteries long before Chevron sold their stake.
The point is, if Chevron were trying to suppress the technology, they would not have sold the company.
Electric cars have not succeeded because the number of people that want $40,000 vehicles with 250 mile daily range is not that big (Especially compared to the market for combustion engine cars costing that much or less).
The WSJ number is from one guy at Florida State (Or maybe Florida).
Industry folks with no motivation to lie (it ain't their problem) apparently say he is way out there (but maybe it is leaking lots more than BP says, just not 5x).
It seems pretty clear that they still have no idea why this happened, so it is a bit premature to assume that a government regulator (no matter how powerful) would have been able to foresee the problem.
If prevention is simply a matter of installing a few million dollars of hardware, you can rest assured that they will do so next time. At a minimum, their insurance company will require it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's also well explained by them trying to get electricity as cheaply as possible.
Prehistoric tech had the advantage of being rather infrastructure free.
Must? 0.
You can certainly work legally to change the situation regarding your ability to transfer and reuse the first license you bought, but if you don't like the current situation, your best current choice is to not participate (i.e., if you don't give Nintendo your money, they won't have your money).
Yeah, "Piracy" has only been used to describe copyright infringement for hundreds of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
I don't think it matters very much. There are certain apps that are great to have (say, a mapping application). Those come with the phone, or are made available for any 'significant' platform by the entity providing the data or service.
Then there is a tier of apps that are 'gee-whiz', high end games, task specific apps, but not stuff that tons of people are going to pay much more than $10 for.
After that, it is only going to get harder to be $5 better (or $1 better) than the free equivalent to your app.
This is a 5,000 pound satellite with ~0 velocity relative to earth. A similar sized payload could easily boost it any which way.
An asteroid might weigh a few million ton and have a velocity (relative to earth) of several miles per second.
A thing that could throw Galaxy 15 to the moon could do little more than land on a big asteroid.
Now explain how locking all their devices to depend on iTunes has anything to do with them being the best possible.
Would the effort required to make them function in a sane way (and then have iTunes use that functionality) be so much greater than the effort expended on trying to tie things to iTunes?
By some measures...
I get a lot of living out of going and doing stuff on a whim.
Please do walk us through this "Big Band" theory of yours.
I asked the anthropomorphism question because it seemed like maybe he was taking the device a little too literally, treating the community as a monolithic block. It was a device of my own.
That would still be a real rocket...
Why are you anthropomorphizing?
The core Python dev team is probably mostly agnostic towards changes that benefit scientists, especially if there are no costs to programmers, or huge amounts of maintenance.
Another group of people is working hard to make tools for doing science in Python.
Switching over to doing float division by default isn't that huge a change, and it is aimed at beginners, not scientists. If number literals had been converted over to being interpreted as rationals, maybe you'd have an argument there (scientists probably don't necessarily care if there are some inaccuracies introduced due to representational problems with various number types, but rationals are least likely to violate expectations).
Even without laws, the underlying assumption that there is actually a genetic underclass that is worth discriminating against is sort of silly. Companies discriminating on productivity are likely to be far more successful than companies discriminating on statistical likelihood of future sick days.
Insurance is different, but perhaps genetic testing will force us (as a society) to confront the difference between health coverage and insurance.
You have a very low opinion of the feds.
Sooooo, vasectomies are relatively permanent, effective and proven.
This is temporary and unproven.
I think, if there is an authoritarian move to start massages balls with ultrasound, it will be because they have run out of bullets and bombs.
It's not like I soaked him in gasoline and lit him on fire!
All I did was infest him with parasites.
You've made a cogent argument as to the amount of conventional explosives required to match a nuclear blast.
It is now time for someone to stumble in and suggest that they use a fuel-air bomb under 5,000 feet of water.
Hurricanes release energy equivalent to a large nuke every few minutes.
That comparison hand-waves away the shape and concentration of the energy, but it starts to narrow down the scope of the situation.
Also, I'm sure there is data from previous underwater blasts (so they should have some idea if it will be an additional catastrophe, or a ripple).
They don't make physical stuff. Cuts way down on their revenues, but also cuts way down on their costs.
They were selling the batteries long before Chevron sold their stake.
The point is, if Chevron were trying to suppress the technology, they would not have sold the company.
Electric cars have not succeeded because the number of people that want $40,000 vehicles with 250 mile daily range is not that big (Especially compared to the market for combustion engine cars costing that much or less).
The WSJ number is from one guy at Florida State (Or maybe Florida).
Industry folks with no motivation to lie (it ain't their problem) apparently say he is way out there (but maybe it is leaking lots more than BP says, just not 5x).
Cobasys is no longer controlled by Chevron (it is jointly owned by Samsung and Bosch):
http://www.cobasys.com/investors/
They will sell you nimh battery packs:
http://www.cobasys.com/products/transportation.shtml
It seems pretty clear that they still have no idea why this happened, so it is a bit premature to assume that a government regulator (no matter how powerful) would have been able to foresee the problem.
If prevention is simply a matter of installing a few million dollars of hardware, you can rest assured that they will do so next time. At a minimum, their insurance company will require it.
Step 1: Use your diesel tractor to plow a field and plant some hay.
Depth, pressure.