What the hell happened to Venus? It's about 80 percent of the earth's mass. Why on Venus wouldn't it have a plate tectonics? Just because you can't see it happen doesn't mean it's not there.
Putting aside the question of what is or isn't God's work, I think it would be more effective to establish and fund a nonprofit foundation to develop technology for solving the problems of the world's poor (and problems that potentially affect everybody like climate change and antibiotic resistance).
Running a little bit of charity work out of a for-profit corporation creates a conflict of interest between the need to generate profit for the owners/shareholders and the needs of those who are served. And if you can work full-time on the pro-bono technology, you'll get it done faster and better than if you are diverting time from your "real job."
'Darth Vader doing some charity work as he completes the Death Star',
Slashdot editors need to stop posting what is clearly rebel rhetoric. The first Death Star was used on Alderaan to save lives. The planet was partly hollow and heavily fortified; A great many imperial lives would have been sacrificed to end the war in a conventional ground-based attack. By destroying Alderann with the Death Star instead, billions of lives were saved. After that, the galaxy enjoyed its longest period of peace and prosperity in centuries.
Besides, calling the Deployable Advanced Theatre Defense Station Armament a "Death Star" is highly inflammatory. Only the rebels call it that.
I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.
No, when the government is elected in open elections, citizens can get what they want without revolution. In the USA, we used to have an assault weapons ban (a measure many Americans found sensible). But it was allowed to expire because the National Rife Association heavily lobbied Congress to make sure it sunsetted. This is not about spying, but it is about removal of a restriction that was removed because many Americans wanted it removed. If you can get enough people interested, you can enact practically anything. Arguably, those in favor of repealing the ban were not even a majority. They were well-organized and well-financed, though.
That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.
Because most devices don't and many can't run Internet Explorer these days, the standard app that runs on an open standard will win. Microsoft will end up supporting the Google/Mozilla solution because their users will want to be interoperable with video chat on Chrome and Firefox (and Safari and Opera and others). They won't risk driving users off their platform by ONLY providing a Microsoft solution.
By the same logic, Google/Mozilla won't be able to push their solution, because there are still many users who run IE, and don't care for (or rather don't even know) about other browsers.
Don't forget Apple, either. They still rule the mobile space, so any solution that won't work there - no matter who offers it - will be crippled from the get go. Of course one can write an app for iOS, but so far Google hasn't been good at that, and I'm not aware of any from Mozilla...
Google/Mozilla probably won't have to force anything. Apple typically supports open standards and does it early. They'll write their own implementation to avoid liscensing issues, or use a BSD version since they freely cadge BSD code, but your non-Apple browser on the other end won't see any difference. You might not see support for it on phones. I can imagine phone companies objecting to putting a competing (better) service on phones designed to run on their networks and not collecting their usual charges for phone time.
That's exactly the kind of info you don't want on your car. That should be on a bracelet on your person. Putting only info useful for tax and tolls means it never had to be rewritten and it's restricted yo stuff that's already publicly viewable. You have to reference the registration database to come up with private information about the owners.
I have bad news for you, Iran is a modern country, regardless to what you're shown on TV. Their government may be oppressive and backwards, but the country itself is very modern.
How is that be news, other than the part where they're governed by power hungry theocrats who are hostile to freedom?
By any reasonable definition Brazil is western. European language, Christian major religions, colonized from the east by people from Europe. IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE. Western does not mean "wealthy."
IE has absolutely nothing to do with. Nor does any other particular browser or company.
What matters is the product, which in this case is a web-based implementation of voice/video chat. Out of the two proposed standards, the one that can actually be used to implement the product that users want, will win. Indirectly, the browsers supporting that standard will also win by being slightly more useful.
And note that there are already examples of browsers being used to push standard proposals after 2005. For example, part of the reason why I switched to Chrome is because it implemented the desktop notification HTML5 API (which originated as a Google proposal) early on, and Google added support for those notifications in GMail. So, for a while, Chrome was the only browser where you'd get popups for new mail when using GMail web interface. Eventually it became an HTML5 standard and other browsers picked it up.
Same thing here. Whoever does it right (or rather good enough), gets to promote it to an actual HTML5 standard. I don't much care if it's Google or MS or Apple or whoever, so long as the result is actually useful and not crippled. But if the existing thing that Google pushes for is crippled, it won't take off, and thankfully so.
Because most devices don't and many can't run Internet Explorer these days, the standard app that runs on an open standard will win. Microsoft will end up supporting the Google/Mozilla solution because their users will want to be interoperable with video chat on Chrome and Firefox (and Safari and Opera and others). They won't risk driving users off their platform by ONLY providing a Microsoft solution.
Read for comprehension. This won't appeal to rich people who like to drive agressively. It will appeal to rich people who would rather pay somebody (a person or a machine) to drive for them. The kind of people who hire drivers now.
That only works if you're a small time investor that doesn't affect prices significantly. Once you offer and accept trades in the real world the market starts to react to what you're doing in a chaotic fashion.
It doesn't matter how much testing you do if your system doesn't have an absolute failsafe condition that simply stops trading when things start looking dicey. You can never model what other HFT programs are going to do to the market because they keep changing and they are the only thing you're playing with on the HFT bandwidth. Real investors are too slow to respond to make a difference to your program.
Assess actual damages to other investors on the exchange caused by high frequency trader actions to the high frequency traders that caused the meltdown. Since nobody can absorb a loss of that size without being destroyed, traders will exercise reasonable caution or other investors will wind up owning all of their assets.
It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.
There's no shame in being involved in an accident if it's not your fault.
We trust others all around us every day to avoid smashing into us. Even the best drivers get hit.
The best drivers DO NOT trust others around them to avoid smashing into us. If we did, we'd be the not-at-fault person in a lot more accidents.
I believe it to be incorrect to compare the GoogeDrive cars to average drivers. They should be compared to professional drivers for two reasons:
GoogleDrive is an expert system: a computer system designed from the ground up to do only one thing and do it extremely well. One does not expect such expertise of people whose driving is incidental to what they do.
GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers. So it has to be better than expert drivers to make the case compelling to people who might actually be able to afford it.
HOW THINGS WORK is the subject of Utility Patents, not copyright. And in order for an API to be covered by a Utility Patent, it would have to be both novel, which the API is not, and non-obvious, which it also is not. And a Patent would have to have been issued, which it has not.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell happened to Venus? It's about 80 percent of the earth's mass. Why on Venus wouldn't it have a plate tectonics? Just because you can't see it happen doesn't mean it's not there.
Putting aside the question of what is or isn't God's work, I think it would be more effective to establish and fund a nonprofit foundation to develop technology for solving the problems of the world's poor (and problems that potentially affect everybody like climate change and antibiotic resistance).
Running a little bit of charity work out of a for-profit corporation creates a conflict of interest between the need to generate profit for the owners/shareholders and the needs of those who are served. And if you can work full-time on the pro-bono technology, you'll get it done faster and better than if you are diverting time from your "real job."
'Darth Vader doing some charity work as he completes the Death Star',
Slashdot editors need to stop posting what is clearly rebel rhetoric. The first Death Star was used on Alderaan to save lives. The planet was partly hollow and heavily fortified; A great many imperial lives would have been sacrificed to end the war in a conventional ground-based attack. By destroying Alderann with the Death Star instead, billions of lives were saved. After that, the galaxy enjoyed its longest period of peace and prosperity in centuries.
Besides, calling the Deployable Advanced Theatre Defense Station Armament a "Death Star" is highly inflammatory. Only the rebels call it that.
I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.
No, when the government is elected in open elections, citizens can get what they want without revolution. In the USA, we used to have an assault weapons ban (a measure many Americans found sensible). But it was allowed to expire because the National Rife Association heavily lobbied Congress to make sure it sunsetted. This is not about spying, but it is about removal of a restriction that was removed because many Americans wanted it removed. If you can get enough people interested, you can enact practically anything. Arguably, those in favor of repealing the ban were not even a majority. They were well-organized and well-financed, though.
That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.
Because most devices don't and many can't run Internet Explorer these days, the standard app that runs on an open standard will win. Microsoft will end up supporting the Google/Mozilla solution because their users will want to be interoperable with video chat on Chrome and Firefox (and Safari and Opera and others). They won't risk driving users off their platform by ONLY providing a Microsoft solution.
By the same logic, Google/Mozilla won't be able to push their solution, because there are still many users who run IE, and don't care for (or rather don't even know) about other browsers.
Don't forget Apple, either. They still rule the mobile space, so any solution that won't work there - no matter who offers it - will be crippled from the get go. Of course one can write an app for iOS, but so far Google hasn't been good at that, and I'm not aware of any from Mozilla...
Google/Mozilla probably won't have to force anything. Apple typically supports open standards and does it early. They'll write their own implementation to avoid liscensing issues, or use a BSD version since they freely cadge BSD code, but your non-Apple browser on the other end won't see any difference. You might not see support for it on phones. I can imagine phone companies objecting to putting a competing (better) service on phones designed to run on their networks and not collecting their usual charges for phone time.
Why should they have batteries? Passive transponders fill the bill.
That's exactly the kind of info you don't want on your car. That should be on a bracelet on your person. Putting only info useful for tax and tolls means it never had to be rewritten and it's restricted yo stuff that's already publicly viewable. You have to reference the registration database to come up with private information about the owners.
Name a time in American history when the Mississippi gulf coast was not ignored.
I have bad news for you, Iran is a modern country, regardless to what you're shown on TV. Their government may be oppressive and backwards, but the country itself is very modern.
How is that be news, other than the part where they're governed by power hungry theocrats who are hostile to freedom?
By any reasonable definition Brazil is western. European language, Christian major religions, colonized from the east by people from Europe. IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE. Western does not mean "wealthy."
Do you live in a slum?
IE has absolutely nothing to do with. Nor does any other particular browser or company.
What matters is the product, which in this case is a web-based implementation of voice/video chat. Out of the two proposed standards, the one that can actually be used to implement the product that users want, will win. Indirectly, the browsers supporting that standard will also win by being slightly more useful.
And note that there are already examples of browsers being used to push standard proposals after 2005. For example, part of the reason why I switched to Chrome is because it implemented the desktop notification HTML5 API (which originated as a Google proposal) early on, and Google added support for those notifications in GMail. So, for a while, Chrome was the only browser where you'd get popups for new mail when using GMail web interface. Eventually it became an HTML5 standard and other browsers picked it up.
Same thing here. Whoever does it right (or rather good enough), gets to promote it to an actual HTML5 standard. I don't much care if it's Google or MS or Apple or whoever, so long as the result is actually useful and not crippled. But if the existing thing that Google pushes for is crippled, it won't take off, and thankfully so.
Because most devices don't and many can't run Internet Explorer these days, the standard app that runs on an open standard will win. Microsoft will end up supporting the Google/Mozilla solution because their users will want to be interoperable with video chat on Chrome and Firefox (and Safari and Opera and others). They won't risk driving users off their platform by ONLY providing a Microsoft solution.
But this was a criminal case.
Read for comprehension. This won't appeal to rich people who like to drive agressively. It will appeal to rich people who would rather pay somebody (a person or a machine) to drive for them. The kind of people who hire drivers now.
That only works if you're a small time investor that doesn't affect prices significantly. Once you offer and accept trades in the real world the market starts to react to what you're doing in a chaotic fashion.
They long ago decided that the middle class was obsolete.
That would make being a large broker unprofitable.
It doesn't matter how much testing you do if your system doesn't have an absolute failsafe condition that simply stops trading when things start looking dicey. You can never model what other HFT programs are going to do to the market because they keep changing and they are the only thing you're playing with on the HFT bandwidth. Real investors are too slow to respond to make a difference to your program.
Assess actual damages to other investors on the exchange caused by high frequency trader actions to the high frequency traders that caused the meltdown. Since nobody can absorb a loss of that size without being destroyed, traders will exercise reasonable caution or other investors will wind up owning all of their assets.
And I counter that this means epistemology is not a legitimate field of study. It's a field of opinion.
It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.
There's no shame in being involved in an accident if it's not your fault.
We trust others all around us every day to avoid smashing into us. Even the best drivers get hit.
The best drivers DO NOT trust others around them to avoid smashing into us. If we did, we'd be the not-at-fault person in a lot more accidents.
I believe it to be incorrect to compare the GoogeDrive cars to average drivers. They should be compared to professional drivers for two reasons:
HOW THINGS WORK is the subject of Utility Patents, not copyright. And in order for an API to be covered by a Utility Patent, it would have to be both novel, which the API is not, and non-obvious, which it also is not. And a Patent would have to have been issued, which it has not.
They're all corporations so they will all do whatever maximizes profit whether or not it's legal or moral.
Because the Google fine was just announced. That means it's news today.
Not in a game-theoretic analysis.