But they also have the double-standard backward. We, the public are entitled to privacy, while the government should be transparent. It is a double standard, by design, and they have it completely backward.
IIRC, Microsoft's defense was the claim that IE was a component of the OS that couldn't be removed. If this argument holds water, then Google can honestly make that defense, as chrome OS is more like a self-booting web browser, than a fully-functional operating system.
I can't speak for a multinational corporation, but, on the home town newspaper scale, the problem is that revenue from banner ads is nowhere near enough to pay all the reporters, editors, and photographers that often work for a small paper. If you open a web page, and it delivers four ads on the per page, and you visit three pages, then you are viewing 12 ads. A very high paying banner ad may pay $2.00 per 1,000 impressions, which means that you just made the company 2 and a half cents. By contrast, if you buy a paper, they get more revenue from the ads in the paper, plus a higher profit margin from the cost of the paper, itself.
I'm not defending Murdoch's decision. I think print is dying, and the industry is scrambling desperately to find a new business model, but I'm sure that the loss of ad revenue is something he is willing to accept, if he thinks he can bring the subscriber model to a new medium.
It is quite scary actually. This proves many things.
1. Flesh is not a valid software firewall. We need upgrades. 2. The human body can't fight off computer viruses with our immune system. 3. His body didn't alert him of the virus. No fever or any symptom.
I, for one, am quite scared of these recent events. How can you discount him so easily? If I get a pace maker and someone is able to root it - how will I know?
Just don't listen to any music put out by Sony and your pacemaker won't get rooted.
Well, at least he didn't put it on a USB drive and shove it up as anus. It would have been the exact same principal, but would have seemed less scientific.
The problem was never the word, it is the sentiment behind the word. That's how we know which words to ban, when language is always changing. Censorship is an attempt at thought-crime regulation.
In a way, I find that attitude more honest than that of those who say you can't call someone a shithead, but you can call them a poo poo face, or a degenerate, or a louse. It's the exact same thought being expressed, whatever the terminology. My problem is with the repression of the deal. If you're angry, you cannot express it, except in baby talk. Then, when the baby talk becomes taboo, we will need new silly words to express the feelings we would rather sweep under the rug.
"Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."
If he was actually writing that additional content afterwards, he invented Release Early, Release Often.
If the content actually existed and it was a cynical ploy to sell more products, he invented the model Microsoft uses.
In either case, this puts his business acumen over half a century ahead of anyone else. That's genius.
Only if the modern model is better than the one that existed at the time.
Not only this, but there's also an investment of time and effort. How long does it take for an author to add 1/3 to the content of an established book? He or she would have to choose between devoting effort to milking an old cow, or putting that effort toward writing new books.
Any one in the series would be cool. In Donkey Kong, you could swing the wiimote to simulate the hammer, and use both the wii mote and nunchucks to simulate climbing.
Could something like this be done with human waste? If you have an office complex with several bathrooms, it seems like it would be more efficient to either have the plumbing go straight to the processing area (or to have a fan sucking out all the gas), than to hire people to shovel it into a truck and drive it to the center. (Of course there may not be enough employees to power all the servers, but it still seems more efficient than the alternative)
In this case, they presented actual crimes to sample juries, and swapped the actual photos of the defendant with either attractive or unattractive images. So, the "ugly people commit more crimes" angle is not a factor here.
But, it is still fair to question whether "169 Cornell psychology undergraduates" is an accurate reflection of what most juries look like (no pun intended).
That's pretty much how the patent system works right now. One other option that has been thrown about is to require the copyright owner to renew every few years and pay a small fee for renewal. This option would shut Disney up (for the most part), and prevent situations like the "rotting film" scenario.
A history degree may be a bit much for anything other than research or teaching, but the point of learning history is to have some understanding of the world you live in. Sure, it won't build a DVD player, but understanding of how the prohibition movement lead to the rise of organized crime may lead to a better understanding of how to approach the drug war. Understanding how the Roman Empire collapsed because they spread themselves too thin may cause you to rethink whether we need military bases in every nation on earth.
Of course these are just examples, but the point is that someone with no knowledge of history can look up what you tell him to. Someone with an understanding of history knows what to look up.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
is Monty Python's Flying Circus?
But they also have the double-standard backward. We, the public are entitled to privacy, while the government should be transparent. It is a double standard, by design, and they have it completely backward.
IIRC, Microsoft's defense was the claim that IE was a component of the OS that couldn't be removed. If this argument holds water, then Google can honestly make that defense, as chrome OS is more like a self-booting web browser, than a fully-functional operating system.
No, Steve Jobs was able to get something done quickly.
I can't speak for a multinational corporation, but, on the home town newspaper scale, the problem is that revenue from banner ads is nowhere near enough to pay all the reporters, editors, and photographers that often work for a small paper. If you open a web page, and it delivers four ads on the per page, and you visit three pages, then you are viewing 12 ads. A very high paying banner ad may pay $2.00 per 1,000 impressions, which means that you just made the company 2 and a half cents. By contrast, if you buy a paper, they get more revenue from the ads in the paper, plus a higher profit margin from the cost of the paper, itself.
I'm not defending Murdoch's decision. I think print is dying, and the industry is scrambling desperately to find a new business model, but I'm sure that the loss of ad revenue is something he is willing to accept, if he thinks he can bring the subscriber model to a new medium.
The problem is that we're dealing with an 18th century approach to the internet, now. So the 19th century would be a step up.
It is quite scary actually. This proves many things.
1. Flesh is not a valid software firewall. We need upgrades.
2. The human body can't fight off computer viruses with our immune system.
3. His body didn't alert him of the virus. No fever or any symptom.
I, for one, am quite scared of these recent events. How can you discount him so easily? If I get a pace maker and someone is able to root it - how will I know?
Just don't listen to any music put out by Sony and your pacemaker won't get rooted.
Well, at least he didn't put it on a USB drive and shove it up as anus. It would have been the exact same principal, but would have seemed less scientific.
The problem was never the word, it is the sentiment behind the word. That's how we know which words to ban, when language is always changing. Censorship is an attempt at thought-crime regulation.
In a way, I find that attitude more honest than that of those who say you can't call someone a shithead, but you can call them a poo poo face, or a degenerate, or a louse. It's the exact same thought being expressed, whatever the terminology. My problem is with the repression of the deal. If you're angry, you cannot express it, except in baby talk. Then, when the baby talk becomes taboo, we will need new silly words to express the feelings we would rather sweep under the rug.
What makes you happy? Chances are, unless it involves harming others, the free market will let you do it.
The free market doesn't care who you harm. It's government regulation that prohibits that.
Way to go, Einstein </sarcasm>
So are you suggesting that the infinite probability drive is improbable? Maybe it can run off of it's own improbability.
"Twain planned to republish every one of his works the moment it went out of copyright with one-third more content, hoping that availability of such 'premium' version will make prints based on the out-of-copyright version less desirable on the market."
If he was actually writing that additional content afterwards, he invented Release Early, Release Often.
If the content actually existed and it was a cynical ploy to sell more products, he invented the model Microsoft uses.
In either case, this puts his business acumen over half a century ahead of anyone else. That's genius.
Only if the modern model is better than the one that existed at the time.
Not only this, but there's also an investment of time and effort. How long does it take for an author to add 1/3 to the content of an established book? He or she would have to choose between devoting effort to milking an old cow, or putting that effort toward writing new books.
Any one in the series would be cool. In Donkey Kong, you could swing the wiimote to simulate the hammer, and use both the wii mote and nunchucks to simulate climbing.
If you've ever types "srs bizness", you probably need a little more serious business.
Could something like this be done with human waste? If you have an office complex with several bathrooms, it seems like it would be more efficient to either have the plumbing go straight to the processing area (or to have a fan sucking out all the gas), than to hire people to shovel it into a truck and drive it to the center. (Of course there may not be enough employees to power all the servers, but it still seems more efficient than the alternative)
In this case, they presented actual crimes to sample juries, and swapped the actual photos of the defendant with either attractive or unattractive images. So, the "ugly people commit more crimes" angle is not a factor here.
But, it is still fair to question whether "169 Cornell psychology undergraduates" is an accurate reflection of what most juries look like (no pun intended).
Big fan of the obstacle course. I'm just wondering how long before Nintendo decides to expand it into a full game.
If you can't laugh at yourself...
We'll do it for you.
That's pretty much how the patent system works right now. One other option that has been thrown about is to require the copyright owner to renew every few years and pay a small fee for renewal. This option would shut Disney up (for the most part), and prevent situations like the "rotting film" scenario.
I always find that philosophy amusing. It is the unwanted love-child of social Darwinism and religious lunacy.
I'm sure it will be great, until she has to leave the country to find a healthy job market.
This guy is forgetting that we live in a (sort of) democracy. How would a democracy where the people aren't educated work?
Ask Sarah Palin.
A history degree may be a bit much for anything other than research or teaching, but the point of learning history is to have some understanding of the world you live in. Sure, it won't build a DVD player, but understanding of how the prohibition movement lead to the rise of organized crime may lead to a better understanding of how to approach the drug war. Understanding how the Roman Empire collapsed because they spread themselves too thin may cause you to rethink whether we need military bases in every nation on earth.
Of course these are just examples, but the point is that someone with no knowledge of history can look up what you tell him to. Someone with an understanding of history knows what to look up.