I stopped reading when they cited "Control-C" for closing running applications. Had he done a little research, he would have found that Alt-F4 serves that purpose. Small gripe, I know, but if someone is going to take the time to write an article, it shouldn't be "the old hot key doesn't work and I don't know the new one".
Are they patenting them or trademarking them? Any copyrights?
All three, probably. I know that doesn't make any sense, but did these systems ever really?
Sort of.
A patent applies to a formula, process, or invention. So, the process of sticking up your middle finger might be patented.
A copyright applies to an expression of an idea. So, the notion of lifting your finger to convey your dissatisfaction might be copyrighted.
A trademark is a symbol to represent you or your company. So, if you are known as "that guy who keeps sticking his middle finger out" then it might be your trademark.
I guess you must have done some antics that he didn't like.
Some years ago I was blocked in traffic by an idiot and when he eventually moved, I mouthed "thank you" at him. He proceeded to follow me home, knocked on my door, and screamed at me that I had called him a "wanker". Well, I might have thought it...a universal gesture for "thank you" is surely needed.
I always just wave and nod at the person. I don't know if he knows what I'm trying to convey, thinks I'm coming on to him, or spend the rest of the day muttering to himself "do I know that guy", but it makes sense to me.
....why I don't want a URL bar? How the hell am I supposed to type in the places I want to go. What are they thinking? I don't get it. I also tend not to change my habits. Is typing in URLs passe now? Am I supposed to rely on my browser to take me where I want to go? What's the deal?
Not trolling here. I'm serious, I don't get this 'feature' at all. I open a blank page and search on google and hope my search term works the next time?
I think this is really more about "autohiding" the URL bar. In chrome, you can bring up the supposedly non-existent URL bar by double-clicking the browser tab. As for Mozilla Labs, they're just tossing the idea around, so it's too premature to really know if and how they would do it.
civil society means free speech (not "speach" you fucks)
free speech means NIGGER JOKES are funny.
No. It means you can't get arrested for them. Free speech does not require others to laugh at your jokes, seriously consider your propositions, or respect your opinions.
Tax brackets don't work like that. If, for instance, the tax brackets are 0% up to $20000 income, 20% up to $50000 income, 30% up to $100000 income (I don't know what the individual brackets are, so this is just a hypothetical example), and you earn $50001, then you have to pay 0% of $20000, plus 20% of $30000 (the amount of income you have in the second bracket), plus 30% of $1 (the amount of income you have in the third bracket); tax is calculated on the amount of income you had so far that year at the instant you earned the money, rather than being applied retroactively. So if you go just above a tax bracket, you still end up with more net income than you had before.
That's the reform I was referring to. Now, it is possible that they never worked the way people said they did in the 80s, but people used to claim that a tax increase would lead to a loss of revenue. Of course, this was during Reagan, and before Bush I and Bush II.
I always thought that the problem was that people want "tax fairness" when it removes taxes they have to pay, and "tax simplification" when it shifts the tax burden to other people. For example, when I was in grade school, I always heard about how unfair it was that, if you were on the cusp of a higher tax bracket, then a small pay raise could result in less net income, because your taxes increase. Then, we got reform. Instead of saying "you are in the 20% tax bracket. Subtract your deductions and pay 20% of what remains", we complicated the tax code. We divided up the tax brackets so that high-income people calculate as if a fraction of their income exists in each tax bracket. We gave out an incredible number of new credits and breaks for parents, first-time homeowners, etc.
We aren't really worried about the complexity of the tax code. We're worried about cleaning out the parts that don't help us. Now, I can't blame someone for saying "hey, simplifying this tax will cost me $300, let me do a little extra math on this one", but I think the reason we don't already have a simpler tax code is because that isn't really a priority.
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Not true. I'm sure you've read things that are much more stupid than that. Although I will concede that it's likely in the high end of the stupid spectrum.
In his defense, when you get much dumber, literary ability starts to decline. I'm sure he's not counting dumb pictographs, gestures, or of course "dictated but not read" (also known as the "Trump Du Jure").
I thought it was for more of a snopes.com type site. But, they would be an interesting site to study, as the problem is not with the outright lies, but with the half-truths, and the statements that are technically true, but misleading. Having a site that can address these, without making it look partisan would be an interesting problem.
If you pretend to be a journalist and claim some statistics and it's not out of a peer-reviewed _published_ paper, you get an automatic fine.
I think the problem is the "non journalists" covering the news. Didn't you hear? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are comedians. Bill O'Reilly is a commentator and Sean Hannity is an analyst. The bimbo who reads that 60 second news cast at the beginning of every hour? She's the reporter, and the biggest lie there is the lie of omission. Nobody on FoxNews says "Obama wasn't born in America". They don't report rumors. They report on the existence of rumors and then rhetorically ask "why would that rumor exist if it weren't true?"
That's my problem with the fairness doctrine. There is no metric that cannot be gamed, and there is no shortage of "half-truths" that are misleading, but not exactly lies.
It sounds like he is trying to create an publicly funded snopes.com, and put some thought into what safeguards would be needed to prevent it from becoming a tool of either corporations or politicians.
I'm seriously thinking about taking James Randi's $1,000,000 Challenge. I'd use the money to take on the Big Pharma pushers and educate people about the value of alternative (REAL) medicine.
Go ahead. I don't see why that is such a big threat. Some incredible secret about the universe gets revealed and it only costs a million dollars to do it? Not only that, but it isn't even tax dollars? It's being paid by some guy who spent most of his life making fun of you for believing something that turned out to be true! If your side were true, then taking the challenge would be win-win.
Even if you have been prohibited from benefiting from your gift (a common line among others...I don't know what chiropractors say), you could still take the challenge under a condition of anonymity and request that the money be donated to some charity, or better yet, to a school that teaches others how to put this new revelation to good use.
Good point, but you don't watch porn for the dudes. It's always either Ron Jeremy or some knuckle-dragging simian who you just hope they won't show during the good parts...
But, yeah, I couldn't imagine "Newt" keeping his comically over-sized head off the camera, so just pretend I didn't say anything.
"Comcast Helps Fix Pirate Bay Connection Problems"
Will now be available on Google searches thanks to Slashdot. I am sure happy-go-lucky suing individuals won't notice... It's all irony man, all irony.
The law has a special exemption protecting ISPs from being sued for doing their job. I'm too lazy to look up the exact law, but there is a reason the RIAA isn't suing them for all the filesharing that takes place on their networks.
If you're not working for a company of any appreciable size, the amount of work you'd have to do is pretty small anyway.
Yet far too many home users don't want to do even that much work. How much work is it to avoid installing fake antivirus?
That is an indicator of the real problem. People are so unfamiliar with their PCs, that when "Antivirus 2011" pops up, they think that's normal. They either don't know which antivirus software they have installed, or they have so much crap installed (either from the manufacturer, or via random clicking) that this doesn't raise any flags.
This is the number one reason for doing it imho. The psychology part is a nice, but the 20million users who all paid, say, an extra $5 more than they would if they could buy things for the dollar price, is far more interesting to shareholders.
There is also the saving they can make on microtransactions. Most CC transactions (for smaller businesses) incur a cost similar to 35 cents plus 10% of the purchase (this isn't an exact quote, btw). If you are planning to sell $5 games, it makes more sense to have the customer make a few large transactions with the CC companies and several small "impulse buys" made with their own transaction-cost-free funny money.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped reading when they cited "Control-C" for closing running applications. Had he done a little research, he would have found that Alt-F4 serves that purpose. Small gripe, I know, but if someone is going to take the time to write an article, it shouldn't be "the old hot key doesn't work and I don't know the new one".
Are they patenting them or trademarking them? Any copyrights?
All three, probably.
I know that doesn't make any sense, but did these systems ever really?
Sort of.
A patent applies to a formula, process, or invention. So, the process of sticking up your middle finger might be patented.
A copyright applies to an expression of an idea. So, the notion of lifting your finger to convey your dissatisfaction might be copyrighted.
A trademark is a symbol to represent you or your company. So, if you are known as "that guy who keeps sticking his middle finger out" then it might be your trademark.
I guess you must have done some antics that he didn't like.
Some years ago I was blocked in traffic by an idiot and when he eventually moved, I mouthed "thank you" at him. He proceeded to follow me home, knocked on my door, and screamed at me that I had called him a "wanker". Well, I might have thought it...a universal gesture for "thank you" is surely needed.
I always just wave and nod at the person. I don't know if he knows what I'm trying to convey, thinks I'm coming on to him, or spend the rest of the day muttering to himself "do I know that guy", but it makes sense to me.
....why I don't want a URL bar? How the hell am I supposed to type in the places I want to go. What are they thinking? I don't get it. I also tend not to change my habits. Is typing in URLs passe now? Am I supposed to rely on my browser to take me where I want to go? What's the deal?
Not trolling here. I'm serious, I don't get this 'feature' at all. I open a blank page and search on google and hope my search term works the next time?
I think this is really more about "autohiding" the URL bar. In chrome, you can bring up the supposedly non-existent URL bar by double-clicking the browser tab. As for Mozilla Labs, they're just tossing the idea around, so it's too premature to really know if and how they would do it.
civil society means free speech (not "speach" you fucks)
free speech means NIGGER JOKES are funny.
No. It means you can't get arrested for them. Free speech does not require others to laugh at your jokes, seriously consider your propositions, or respect your opinions.
Now I won't be able to figure out my credit card without tech support! Argh ;=p hehe
Have you ever read those agreements they send you? I'd rather deal with tech-support!
Why wait? It should already be happening in Asia right now; I imagine it has already made the news.
Why would it be an Asian time? God isn't from Asia. When Jesus died for our sins, he didn't come back an hour later. /ducks
I think it's hyperbole rather than bad research. Deaths in video games are more dramatic and often more bloody that they would be in real-life.
And apparently video game reporting is more dramatic and often more bloody than in real life...
Ok. maybe I am wrong about that. It is hard to verify tax laws from 30 years ago.
Tax brackets don't work like that. If, for instance, the tax brackets are 0% up to $20000 income, 20% up to $50000 income, 30% up to $100000 income (I don't know what the individual brackets are, so this is just a hypothetical example), and you earn $50001, then you have to pay 0% of $20000, plus 20% of $30000 (the amount of income you have in the second bracket), plus 30% of $1 (the amount of income you have in the third bracket); tax is calculated on the amount of income you had so far that year at the instant you earned the money, rather than being applied retroactively. So if you go just above a tax bracket, you still end up with more net income than you had before.
That's the reform I was referring to. Now, it is possible that they never worked the way people said they did in the 80s, but people used to claim that a tax increase would lead to a loss of revenue. Of course, this was during Reagan, and before Bush I and Bush II.
I always thought that the problem was that people want "tax fairness" when it removes taxes they have to pay, and "tax simplification" when it shifts the tax burden to other people. For example, when I was in grade school, I always heard about how unfair it was that, if you were on the cusp of a higher tax bracket, then a small pay raise could result in less net income, because your taxes increase. Then, we got reform. Instead of saying "you are in the 20% tax bracket. Subtract your deductions and pay 20% of what remains", we complicated the tax code. We divided up the tax brackets so that high-income people calculate as if a fraction of their income exists in each tax bracket. We gave out an incredible number of new credits and breaks for parents, first-time homeowners, etc.
We aren't really worried about the complexity of the tax code. We're worried about cleaning out the parts that don't help us. Now, I can't blame someone for saying "hey, simplifying this tax will cost me $300, let me do a little extra math on this one", but I think the reason we don't already have a simpler tax code is because that isn't really a priority.
I'm not a fan of our current tax system, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Not true. I'm sure you've read things that are much more stupid than that. Although I will concede that it's likely in the high end of the stupid spectrum.
In his defense, when you get much dumber, literary ability starts to decline. I'm sure he's not counting dumb pictographs, gestures, or of course "dictated but not read" (also known as the "Trump Du Jure").
I thought it was for more of a snopes.com type site. But, they would be an interesting site to study, as the problem is not with the outright lies, but with the half-truths, and the statements that are technically true, but misleading. Having a site that can address these, without making it look partisan would be an interesting problem.
Ah yes, the good old days of debate - when people were civilized and settled disagreements with swords and pistols.
I think that predates the fairness doctrine by about a century. You'd might as well have said:
Ah yes, the good old days of debate - when people were civilized and settled disagreements by calling the other a witch and setting him on fire.
If you pretend to be a journalist and claim some statistics and it's not out of a peer-reviewed _published_ paper, you get an automatic fine.
I think the problem is the "non journalists" covering the news. Didn't you hear? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are comedians. Bill O'Reilly is a commentator and Sean Hannity is an analyst. The bimbo who reads that 60 second news cast at the beginning of every hour? She's the reporter, and the biggest lie there is the lie of omission. Nobody on FoxNews says "Obama wasn't born in America". They don't report rumors. They report on the existence of rumors and then rhetorically ask "why would that rumor exist if it weren't true?"
That's my problem with the fairness doctrine. There is no metric that cannot be gamed, and there is no shortage of "half-truths" that are misleading, but not exactly lies.
It sounds like he is trying to create an publicly funded snopes.com, and put some thought into what safeguards would be needed to prevent it from becoming a tool of either corporations or politicians.
I'm seriously thinking about taking James Randi's $1,000,000 Challenge. I'd use the money to take on the Big Pharma pushers and educate people about the value of alternative (REAL) medicine.
Go ahead. I don't see why that is such a big threat. Some incredible secret about the universe gets revealed and it only costs a million dollars to do it? Not only that, but it isn't even tax dollars? It's being paid by some guy who spent most of his life making fun of you for believing something that turned out to be true! If your side were true, then taking the challenge would be win-win.
Even if you have been prohibited from benefiting from your gift (a common line among others...I don't know what chiropractors say), you could still take the challenge under a condition of anonymity and request that the money be donated to some charity, or better yet, to a school that teaches others how to put this new revelation to good use.
So, why keep it hidden?
Good point, but you don't watch porn for the dudes. It's always either Ron Jeremy or some knuckle-dragging simian who you just hope they won't show during the good parts...
But, yeah, I couldn't imagine "Newt" keeping his comically over-sized head off the camera, so just pretend I didn't say anything.
Or a Gingrich/Giuliani 2012 ticket.
I'm pretty sure the bumper sticker will read "Gingrich/Giuliani 911"
Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?
If he were really doing all four at the same time, I would probably start watching Fox News.
Speaking of business models...
"Comcast Helps Fix Pirate Bay Connection Problems"
Will now be available on Google searches thanks to Slashdot. I am sure happy-go-lucky suing individuals won't notice...
It's all irony man, all irony.
The law has a special exemption protecting ISPs from being sued for doing their job. I'm too lazy to look up the exact law, but there is a reason the RIAA isn't suing them for all the filesharing that takes place on their networks.
If you're not working for a company of any appreciable size, the amount of work you'd have to do is pretty small anyway.
Yet far too many home users don't want to do even that much work. How much work is it to avoid installing fake antivirus?
That is an indicator of the real problem. People are so unfamiliar with their PCs, that when "Antivirus 2011" pops up, they think that's normal. They either don't know which antivirus software they have installed, or they have so much crap installed (either from the manufacturer, or via random clicking) that this doesn't raise any flags.
This is the number one reason for doing it imho. The psychology part is a nice, but the 20million users who all paid, say, an extra $5 more than they would if they could buy things for the dollar price, is far more interesting to shareholders.
There is also the saving they can make on microtransactions. Most CC transactions (for smaller businesses) incur a cost similar to 35 cents plus 10% of the purchase (this isn't an exact quote, btw). If you are planning to sell $5 games, it makes more sense to have the customer make a few large transactions with the CC companies and several small "impulse buys" made with their own transaction-cost-free funny money.
My god, so millions of people will die in third world countries and we wont be able to tweet about it!?!?!
I'm pretty sure we will still get several tweets along the lines of "iPad no work. No wifi. Hv 2 yoose big pc. Sucks!"
Well, the Left is always bitching about over population. Whatys your problem then?
The left likes to bitch about overpopulation, but only the right has the balls to do something about it...