And what pay service could possibly be as convenient as BitTorrent? If you have to log in and provide payment information, it's already not as convenient.
The time spent on filling that information in once, is nothing compared to the time needed to connect to seeds, and after two hours, to find out that that the seed has disconnected, and you're stuck at 99.8%
How is ordering RFID-backed ID card blanks putting federal cash to work on "shovel-ready" projects?
Because all you have to do is buy the readers. There's probably already RFID in the existing cards. That's how it's "shovel ready", as opposed to having to wait four years before installation.
The stimulus is about creating demand in the economy. You can't create demand, if people don't have money to buy.
Uh-oh... Do we see a growing resentment of "stimulus"? Perhaps, allowing the government to spend billions of our dollars is not, after all, a better idea, than to simply return it to us (the taxpayers)?
Where it would be used to pay down debts instead of spur demand in the economy, thus lengthening the the duration and depth of the downturn. If anything, the stimulus package was much too small.
In college, I've been in exactly one class that took attendance. It was Art and Design 101, a 200+ lecture that fulfilled a humanity requirement. The only reason, the prof even said, why she took attendance. No one would show up otherwise.
Compare this to CS 101, where by the end of the semester 15 people would regularly attend lecture, and 150 would attend the exams.
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
Oh come now. Since when has an empty gradebook stopped being sufficient evidence of non-attendence in any grade dispute?
Also, since when has anyone, anywhere demanded tuition refund?
How does social security benefit the rich at all? They don't use the money. Heck, I don't think many of them can get the money they just pay it and it goes into oblivion. The rich have better plans than crappy government sponsorships.
First, everyone gets a social security check, because those that don't need the money refuse to allow means testing so that the limited benefit can be directed towards those that need it most. Second, due to increasing lifespans, the vast majority of those receiving social security benefits receive much more than they ever paid in.
Infrastructure - pooling resources on infrastructure so those with property (the rich) can make more money.
No, infrastructure helps the poor far more often than the rich. The rich can afford their own infrastructure and generally do.
This has simply NEVER been the case. 'Lest we forget the days of rampant laissez faire in the 19th century, where the the rugged self-relliant individualist had the government round up the natives, and then give them subsidies so that they could make a profit on a railroad.
Even today, the rich receive their subsidies to exploit public land for private gain.
Our current education helps no one and harms everyone.
You've failed to support either statement. Furthermore, you seem to be lamenting the fact that the world is much more complicated than it was 50 years ago. Before that, an elementary education was enough for most people to earn a living. Before that, no formal education was required. Today's world is no different.
Come back when the rich aren't dictating the government agenda and while getting huge for tax breaks both personally, and for their private interests.
You have no understanding of the causes of poverty. The single biggest predictor of whether you'll die in poverty is if you were born into poverty. That's just the sad truth. By your logic, the "bad choice" was being born.
And yes, sometimes they decided to stay within the law, and other times they didn't. Frankly, they should have always kept a big bold line between the work and personal.
Wow, that's a slippery slope. So the police can "encourage" third parties to obtain evidence illegally, then use that evidence. For various definitions of "encourage" which will include pay, bribe, threaten, trade, plea-bargain, extort, harass, intimidate, and some I probably haven't thought of.
And if the police did any of those things, the third party would automatically become an agent of the state. Just like an employee.
My parents live 2000 miles away. If there's something wrong I just say "Buddies | Ask to Share Remote Screen" and walla, everything works. Best part? My parents already run iChat.
While not perfect for every case, it's perfect when you're the family IT guy.
Perhaps the reason why people aren't getting that "fact through their skulls," is because the phone wasn't for sale. It was a test unit, unit issued to an employee. It was not a gift. Not only that, it was known to be a test unit, meaning it known to be Apple property.
Oh, he knows its an environmental negative. But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.
You know, I've seen this tossed around on/. and other places for years now. And I'm going to call bullshit on it. The argument is that unless the CEO and the Board of Directors don't with Terminator like focus, do anything and everything to "maximize shareholder value" that they're going to have a shareholder revolt and lawsuit on their hands.
That simply isn't true. Let me point out something. Many large publicly traded companies have philanthropic arms. They donate money to the Red Cross, the United Way, all that stuff. That's a cost sink. Oh sure, there's someone that's going to say that these donations are not only tax write offs, but also double as advertising, but I don't know anyone that said, "Hey, Dairy Queen is raising money for the March of Dimes. Let's eat there." Direct advertising is much more effective.
If you follow this logic, you're arguing that corporations are duty bound to break the law, as long as the ill gotten gains outpace the fine. It's simple decision theory. If Prob(success | action-A) * Reward(success, action-A) + Prob(failure | action-A) > Prob(success | action-B) * Reward(success, action-B) + Prob(failure | action-B), then you should do action-A, whether it's save a family from a sinking battleship, or eat the still beating heart of an orphan.
But that's not the world we live in. If it was, you'd being seeing lawsuits every day. "ZOMG! He could have bought this for $5 less at CostCo instead of Sam's Club! LAWSUIT!" "LOL! He cut a business deal that wasn't aggressively priced enough! LAWSUIT!" Why don't you see this? Because you'd have to prove that the executives were acting in bad faith, and that simply isn't the case in vast majority of circumstances. Even in this situation, it's not acting in bad faith, if you refuse to lie. (Let the irony of the reverse the parent is arguing to sink in.)
Think about this too. We live in a country, where shareholder rights are infuriatingly weak. You probably couldn't even get a lawsuit started, and if you did I'm sure the Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would simply say that you waited too long to sue or something equally stupid to ensure the status quo and the tyranny of haves over the have-nots.
Essentially you've described the FriendFeed, which is now part of Facebook. But everything is going to be that.
"Being easy picking for a bot" isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're going to want search, and for that you'll need crawl the social graph and index it.
Super super super early stage, but very interesting is Diaspora. This open source project aims to create a completely decentralized social network. It's inspired by Eben Moglen's call for us to break out of the walled gardens.
While walled gardens aren't going away, I really hope this project is at least partially successful giving people back control of their own data.
But it was equally well known, that ternary logic computers are awkward to build and program, and so not very useful compared to "simple" binary computers.
Slashdot Mirror
And what pay service could possibly be as convenient as BitTorrent? If you have to log in and provide payment information, it's already not as convenient.
The time spent on filling that information in once, is nothing compared to the time needed to connect to seeds, and after two hours, to find out that that the seed has disconnected, and you're stuck at 99.8%
How is ordering RFID-backed ID card blanks putting federal cash to work on "shovel-ready" projects?
Because all you have to do is buy the readers. There's probably already RFID in the existing cards. That's how it's "shovel ready", as opposed to having to wait four years before installation.
The stimulus is about creating demand in the economy. You can't create demand, if people don't have money to buy.
Uh-oh... Do we see a growing resentment of "stimulus"? Perhaps, allowing the government to spend billions of our dollars is not, after all, a better idea, than to simply return it to us (the taxpayers)?
Where it would be used to pay down debts instead of spur demand in the economy, thus lengthening the the duration and depth of the downturn. If anything, the stimulus package was much too small.
In college, I've been in exactly one class that took attendance. It was Art and Design 101, a 200+ lecture that fulfilled a humanity requirement. The only reason, the prof even said, why she took attendance. No one would show up otherwise.
Compare this to CS 101, where by the end of the semester 15 people would regularly attend lecture, and 150 would attend the exams.
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
Oh come now. Since when has an empty gradebook stopped being sufficient evidence of non-attendence in any grade dispute?
Also, since when has anyone, anywhere demanded tuition refund?
How does social security benefit the rich at all? They don't use the money. Heck, I don't think many of them can get the money they just pay it and it goes into oblivion. The rich have better plans than crappy government sponsorships.
First, everyone gets a social security check, because those that don't need the money refuse to allow means testing so that the limited benefit can be directed towards those that need it most. Second, due to increasing lifespans, the vast majority of those receiving social security benefits receive much more than they ever paid in.
Infrastructure - pooling resources on infrastructure so those with property (the rich) can make more money.
No, infrastructure helps the poor far more often than the rich. The rich can afford their own infrastructure and generally do.
This has simply NEVER been the case. 'Lest we forget the days of rampant laissez faire in the 19th century, where the the rugged self-relliant individualist had the government round up the natives, and then give them subsidies so that they could make a profit on a railroad.
Even today, the rich receive their subsidies to exploit public land for private gain.
Our current education helps no one and harms everyone.
You've failed to support either statement. Furthermore, you seem to be lamenting the fact that the world is much more complicated than it was 50 years ago. Before that, an elementary education was enough for most people to earn a living. Before that, no formal education was required. Today's world is no different.
Come back when the rich aren't dictating the government agenda and while getting huge for tax breaks both personally, and for their private interests.
You have no understanding of the causes of poverty. The single biggest predictor of whether you'll die in poverty is if you were born into poverty. That's just the sad truth. By your logic, the "bad choice" was being born.
The real world is far more complicated than your simple preconceptions. I suggest you break out of your epistemic closure.
...that Palin will ask the judge and the prosecutor to not give the guy any jail time, but maybe a few years probation and some community service.
I'll take that bet.
Most first time offenders do go to prison.
You need a citation? How about, the purloined emails themselves.
And yes, sometimes they decided to stay within the law, and other times they didn't. Frankly, they should have always kept a big bold line between the work and personal.
Wow, that's a slippery slope. So the police can "encourage" third parties to obtain evidence illegally, then use that evidence. For various definitions of "encourage" which will include pay, bribe, threaten, trade, plea-bargain, extort, harass, intimidate, and some I probably haven't thought of.
And if the police did any of those things, the third party would automatically become an agent of the state. Just like an employee.
It appears the main culprit concerning playback issues with Avatar is, ironically, the disc's DRM
I fail to find the irony in this. DRM always interferes with playback.
My parents live 2000 miles away. If there's something wrong I just say "Buddies | Ask to Share Remote Screen" and walla, everything works. Best part? My parents already run iChat.
While not perfect for every case, it's perfect when you're the family IT guy.
And yet, they the guy who found it quickly realized that it wasn't actually a 3GS, but rather a prototype.
You don't try to sell a normal phone for $5000 to a bunch of tech websites.
Perhaps the reason why people aren't getting that "fact through their skulls," is because the phone wasn't for sale. It was a test unit, unit issued to an employee. It was not a gift. Not only that, it was known to be a test unit, meaning it known to be Apple property.
Oh, he knows its an environmental negative. But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.
You know, I've seen this tossed around on /. and other places for years now. And I'm going to call bullshit on it. The argument is that unless the CEO and the Board of Directors don't with Terminator like focus, do anything and everything to "maximize shareholder value" that they're going to have a shareholder revolt and lawsuit on their hands.
That simply isn't true. Let me point out something. Many large publicly traded companies have philanthropic arms. They donate money to the Red Cross, the United Way, all that stuff. That's a cost sink. Oh sure, there's someone that's going to say that these donations are not only tax write offs, but also double as advertising, but I don't know anyone that said, "Hey, Dairy Queen is raising money for the March of Dimes. Let's eat there." Direct advertising is much more effective.
If you follow this logic, you're arguing that corporations are duty bound to break the law, as long as the ill gotten gains outpace the fine. It's simple decision theory. If Prob(success | action-A) * Reward(success, action-A) + Prob(failure | action-A) > Prob(success | action-B) * Reward(success, action-B) + Prob(failure | action-B), then you should do action-A, whether it's save a family from a sinking battleship, or eat the still beating heart of an orphan.
But that's not the world we live in. If it was, you'd being seeing lawsuits every day. "ZOMG! He could have bought this for $5 less at CostCo instead of Sam's Club! LAWSUIT!" "LOL! He cut a business deal that wasn't aggressively priced enough! LAWSUIT!" Why don't you see this? Because you'd have to prove that the executives were acting in bad faith, and that simply isn't the case in vast majority of circumstances. Even in this situation, it's not acting in bad faith, if you refuse to lie. (Let the irony of the reverse the parent is arguing to sink in.)
Think about this too. We live in a country, where shareholder rights are infuriatingly weak. You probably couldn't even get a lawsuit started, and if you did I'm sure the Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would simply say that you waited too long to sue or something equally stupid to ensure the status quo and the tyranny of haves over the have-nots.
FOAF support?
Using XMPP (Jabber) as a base for some kind of distributed social network seems to me like a better idea to me...
You mean like Google Wave?
Essentially you've described the FriendFeed, which is now part of Facebook. But everything is going to be that.
"Being easy picking for a bot" isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're going to want search, and for that you'll need crawl the social graph and index it.
how redundant
;)
Super super super early stage, but very interesting is Diaspora. This open source project aims to create a completely decentralized social network. It's inspired by Eben Moglen's call for us to break out of the walled gardens.
While walled gardens aren't going away, I really hope this project is at least partially successful giving people back control of their own data.
Apparently, he had spent years working on DEC VAX clones in the old Soviet Union.
That wouldn't happen to be Kremvax would it?
But it was equally well known, that ternary logic computers are awkward to build and program, and so not very useful compared to "simple" binary computers.
Never propose a simple solution when exotic, impractical sounding one will do instead.
That's the military-industrual complex for you.