I was thinking pretty much the same thing. Endless rumors of DNF were a staple of Slashdot stories for years. And now that it will never happen, it appears endless rehashes of the story will be staples for the foreseeable future.
On top of which, despite the allusions to 'insider information' in the opening paragraphs... There really wasn't anything new or interesting in the article.
I suspect he's a blowhard - because he claims two different things; first he claims that "the story is missing facts", then he switches gears and claims "the story is based on false facts and unsupported assumptions". He tried to get some cred, and when his bluff got called he blew it.
I've scoured the web for free/open source legal templates for hiring contractors, issuing W-2s, keeping shareholder minute meetings, etc, but haven't been able to find any decent sources. It seems like this should be a priority of the open source community since reducing the cost of entry into small business could drive open source development.
I agree that this could only be a good thing. However, most of the Open Source community consists of developers, sysadmins, and other technically-minded folks. By contrast, this is more of a legal issue.
Not only that, but it's documentation - something else the FOSS community is decidedly unfond of doing. But the real problem is that not only does much of this stuff vary state-by-state, it also varies year-by-year as federal and state laws change. It's a great deal of work to keep accurate and current, usually under a relentless deadline gun as Wisconsin is going to be implementing this rule on Dec 01, and North Dakota that rule on Dec 05, etc... etc...
No do I see how this type of activity would significantly reduce the cost of entry into small business (the real costs of this kind of thing are in the doing, and that is invariant regardless of the source of the template).
In other words, Google is not only stealing, they are seeking to change the law ex post facto to legitimize their stealing. (The latter, in and of itself, is illegal under US law.) Then you fail to mention that Google is also trying to rig the game such that not only will they be the are only people with the right to steal, but also so that in the future they won't have to steal because the rights will automatically be awarded to them regardless of the will of the actual owner.
In short, you *are* a Google fanboy because you parrot their sugar coated version. Including the nonsense terms 'legal limbo' and 'orphan' - the legal status of the works in question is quite clear, the rights belong to the owner. Just because you can't find him, doesn't mean his rights evaporate. If he died without leaving a will, then we have laws that describe who gets what in that instance. You also repeat the bullshit notion that if someone dies without inheritance of his rights being clear his works will somehow evaporate and disappear and that only the 'lucky' will be able to find a copy. (As opposed to reality, in which anyone can purchase a book from a used book store.)
Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?
Had that been what happened, you'd have a point.
What happened was Google was caught selling my house. When some random guy in New York objected, Google negotiated with him to purchase my house from him. Then Google negotiated a contract with that same random guy to purchase every house that comes up for sale in the US, with the money going to the random guy and the deed being transferred automatically to Google without the owner, the Realtor, or the bank being notified and requiring a cumbersome procedure for said owner, Realtor, or bank to get the deed back.
Or, in other words, the Authors Guild doesn't own the rights they sold to Google. The subsequent court decision then awards to Google further rights that it is not in the jurisdiction of the court to award.
he whole point is that Google is trying something no one else has bothered to do
The reason no one else has bothered to do it is because it is illegal to make available copies of works still under copyright without express permission from the author.
I really wish people would get this through their heads. Google is breaking the law, and is attempting to get a courts blessing not only to continue breaking the law, but to award them the sole and unlimited right to break the law.
The librarians and the Author's guild and essentially everybody in this fight except Google are the Good Guys this time. The grandparent has the issue right, but the party to be concerned about wrong - this is about control, Google's control and their legally questionable and ethically objectionable attempts to be awarded a permanent legal monopoly on maintaining an electronic archive of out of print books.
Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.
Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.
I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class. I'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.
While you can't switch 'on the fly', UO has allowed you to choose your own array of skills, abilities, and attributes for something like a decade now. (And prior to AoS, you could swap out armor and accessories to swap between being fast and light, or a slow brick.)
While, again, you can't swap 'on the fly' (there are limits to how often you can swap between them), CoX allows you two builds within the same powerset.
For example: - Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).
City of Heroes/Villains has had something like that for years now. UO never has had the Trinity. (Niether does Puzzle Pirates.)
- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.
Combat in City of Heroes/Villains is 3D - you can fly during combat. The advantages that accrue from flying/hovering in combat, while pinning enemies to the ground, are a widely taken advantage of by savvy players.
I think you, and TFA's author need to get out and play something other than WoW/EQ.
I think you are very, very, confused. Or have the reading comprehension of the average lump of used chewing gum. Someone with more intelligence than said lump would have quoted the *full* sentence I quoted, and comprehended my point. Equally, they would have quoted what I wrote without mangling it, and even possibly read it, and again... comprehended my point.
most people in prison for crimes like assault, murder, or theft believe that what they did is wrong in the general case but rationalise it in their specific case.
Which is different from druggies how? They still believe themselves innocent or at least unfairly imprisoned.
Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.
Lots of criminals believe themselves unfairly imprisoned if not outright innocent. I bet if we polled the murderers, they'd believe a change in the law was needed too.
This makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.
Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget. Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.
The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.
Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases... sure. But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.
The problem with this theory is that McDonald's isn't a corporate monolith - there is no central Corporate office filled with brain bugs which everyone must obey. McDonald's is a weird hybrid with elements of corporate, franchise, associate, and cooperative business models. Individual franchisees have surprising amounts of latitude in their actions. (Which, among other things, is why the adverts carry the disclaimer "at participating locations".)
The Titan II ICBM had the distinction of carrying the largest nuclear warhead by a missile...ever! Later the one big warhead were replaced by several smaller mirv warheads.
No, the Titan II was never MIRVed. It was a single warhead missile over it's entire service life.
"You've just launched a motherfukin nuclear missile and started World War III and doomed mankind...It's Miller Time!"
T shirts we had while I was serving as a Navy missile fire control tech back in the 80's:
"Sixteen empty tubes, sixteen mushroom clouds, Miller Time!"
"UGM-96A, when you care enough to send the very best"
"Trident-I Backfit - when it absolutely has to be there overnight"
Having been stationed on a USAF missle base (mumble) years ago, and having toured such a missle site, I remember it being just as weird to me that these guys in the missle crews had to spend days or weeks in the middle of nowhere at these missle sites.
Pfft, they had it easy. Even in the middle of nowhere they had TV, and phones, and saw the daylight and the horizon.
Try babysitting missiles while being [mumble] feet under the North Atlantic for ninety days at a time.
The authors discusses PALs and wonders about their absence. ICBM warheads were (and are) not equipped with PALs, because they are only required on weapons that may be exposed to capture or loss.
The authors mentions the security seems to "have a hard shell and a soft interior". That's because he discusses the veru visible security measures (meant to protect against external threats) but only briefly discusses the surety procedures (meant to protect against internal threats and unauthorized launches) and doesn't realize the full import of the latter. (The full details of the surety procedures are classified and are much more extensive than detailed in the article or in any public source.) I don't think he even realizes there is a difference between the two. I suspect, like the computer geeks I've seen here on Slashdot, that he's a little fuzzy on the difference between electronic (computer and network) security and security in the physical world.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a former ICBM crewman - though I wore Navy blue rather than chair force blue.
You'd think getting off this rock would be humanity's first priority.
We can get off this rock, but the technology to get off this rock and survive without continued support from this rock simply doesn't exist and won't for the foreseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. Endless rumors of DNF were a staple of Slashdot stories for years. And now that it will never happen, it appears endless rehashes of the story will be staples for the foreseeable future.
On top of which, despite the allusions to 'insider information' in the opening paragraphs... There really wasn't anything new or interesting in the article.
I suspect he's a blowhard - because he claims two different things; first he claims that "the story is missing facts", then he switches gears and claims "the story is based on false facts and unsupported assumptions". He tried to get some cred, and when his bluff got called he blew it.
Just because the algorithms are simple, doesn't mean the real world of doing is simple.
If compact powerful computers were a noticeable barrier, you'd have a point.
Not only that, but it's documentation - something else the FOSS community is decidedly unfond of doing. But the real problem is that not only does much of this stuff vary state-by-state, it also varies year-by-year as federal and state laws change. It's a great deal of work to keep accurate and current, usually under a relentless deadline gun as Wisconsin is going to be implementing this rule on Dec 01, and North Dakota that rule on Dec 05, etc... etc...
No do I see how this type of activity would significantly reduce the cost of entry into small business (the real costs of this kind of thing are in the doing, and that is invariant regardless of the source of the template).
In other words, Google is not only stealing, they are seeking to change the law ex post facto to legitimize their stealing. (The latter, in and of itself, is illegal under US law.) Then you fail to mention that Google is also trying to rig the game such that not only will they be the are only people with the right to steal, but also so that in the future they won't have to steal because the rights will automatically be awarded to them regardless of the will of the actual owner.
In short, you *are* a Google fanboy because you parrot their sugar coated version. Including the nonsense terms 'legal limbo' and 'orphan' - the legal status of the works in question is quite clear, the rights belong to the owner. Just because you can't find him, doesn't mean his rights evaporate. If he died without leaving a will, then we have laws that describe who gets what in that instance. You also repeat the bullshit notion that if someone dies without inheritance of his rights being clear his works will somehow evaporate and disappear and that only the 'lucky' will be able to find a copy. (As opposed to reality, in which anyone can purchase a book from a used book store.)
Had that been what happened, you'd have a point.
What happened was Google was caught selling my house. When some random guy in New York objected, Google negotiated with him to purchase my house from him. Then Google negotiated a contract with that same random guy to purchase every house that comes up for sale in the US, with the money going to the random guy and the deed being transferred automatically to Google without the owner, the Realtor, or the bank being notified and requiring a cumbersome procedure for said owner, Realtor, or bank to get the deed back.
Or, in other words, the Authors Guild doesn't own the rights they sold to Google. The subsequent court decision then awards to Google further rights that it is not in the jurisdiction of the court to award.
The reason no one else has bothered to do it is because it is illegal to make available copies of works still under copyright without express permission from the author.
I really wish people would get this through their heads. Google is breaking the law, and is attempting to get a courts blessing not only to continue breaking the law, but to award them the sole and unlimited right to break the law.
The librarians and the Author's guild and essentially everybody in this fight except Google are the Good Guys this time. The grandparent has the issue right, but the party to be concerned about wrong - this is about control, Google's control and their legally questionable and ethically objectionable attempts to be awarded a permanent legal monopoly on maintaining an electronic archive of out of print books.
While you can't switch 'on the fly', UO has allowed you to choose your own array of skills, abilities, and attributes for something like a decade now. (And prior to AoS, you could swap out armor and accessories to swap between being fast and light, or a slow brick.)
While, again, you can't swap 'on the fly' (there are limits to how often you can swap between them), CoX allows you two builds within the same powerset.
City of Heroes/Villains has had something like that for years now. UO never has had the Trinity. (Niether does Puzzle Pirates.)
Combat in City of Heroes/Villains is 3D - you can fly during combat. The advantages that accrue from flying/hovering in combat, while pinning enemies to the ground, are a widely taken advantage of by savvy players.
I think you, and TFA's author need to get out and play something other than WoW/EQ.
I think you are very, very, confused. Or have the reading comprehension of the average lump of used chewing gum. Someone with more intelligence than said lump would have quoted the *full* sentence I quoted, and comprehended my point. Equally, they would have quoted what I wrote without mangling it, and even possibly read it, and again... comprehended my point.
Which is different from druggies how? They still believe themselves innocent or at least unfairly imprisoned.
Lots of criminals believe themselves unfairly imprisoned if not outright innocent. I bet if we polled the murderers, they'd believe a change in the law was needed too.
All being registered as a 501c means is that you are a non profit/not for profit, it has nothing to do with whether or not you are a charity.
Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget. Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.
Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases... sure. But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.
The problem with this theory is that McDonald's isn't a corporate monolith - there is no central Corporate office filled with brain bugs which everyone must obey. McDonald's is a weird hybrid with elements of corporate, franchise, associate, and cooperative business models. Individual franchisees have surprising amounts of latitude in their actions. (Which, among other things, is why the adverts carry the disclaimer "at participating locations".)
All too often the IT guy reaches for the geek flash solution without considering whether it's the right solution.
No, the Titan II was never MIRVed. It was a single warhead missile over it's entire service life.
T shirts we had while I was serving as a Navy missile fire control tech back in the 80's:
Pfft, they had it easy. Even in the middle of nowhere they had TV, and phones, and saw the daylight and the horizon.
Try babysitting missiles while being [mumble] feet under the North Atlantic for ninety days at a time.
The authors discusses PALs and wonders about their absence. ICBM warheads were (and are) not equipped with PALs, because they are only required on weapons that may be exposed to capture or loss.
The authors mentions the security seems to "have a hard shell and a soft interior". That's because he discusses the veru visible security measures (meant to protect against external threats) but only briefly discusses the surety procedures (meant to protect against internal threats and unauthorized launches) and doesn't realize the full import of the latter. (The full details of the surety procedures are classified and are much more extensive than detailed in the article or in any public source.) I don't think he even realizes there is a difference between the two. I suspect, like the computer geeks I've seen here on Slashdot, that he's a little fuzzy on the difference between electronic (computer and network) security and security in the physical world.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am a former ICBM crewman - though I wore Navy blue rather than chair force blue.
Try GTD. (You can also google for "GTD" and "Getting Things Done".)
But the real trick is to keep your system lean and simple - you won't use it if it's complex.
If they assemble planes using assembly line techniques, then by definition they aren't too large to assemble by assembly line techniques.
Actually, yeah it does.
So long as we repeal the laws of economics, sure. Otherwise, no.
We can get off this rock, but the technology to get off this rock and survive without continued support from this rock simply doesn't exist and won't for the foreseeable future.